Saudi religious police to monitor social media?

[rug]

By Eman El-Shenawi | Al Arabiya News
Saturday, 22 February 2014

A Saudi columnist has encouraged the country’s religious police to monitor social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, targeting “evil” accounts that “promote pornography, magic and sorcery.”

In a column published in the Saudi-based al-Madina newspaper on Friday, Lulu al-Hubaishi noted that efforts by the religious police, officially known as the Commission of the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, to target such “vices” should be bolstered.

“The decision of the Haia (religious police) to activate its awareness and to monitor social media violations, which are difficult to control and purify in terms of contents, is extremely important in order to protect society and the youth, especially those who frequently visit social networking websites with good intentions,” wrote Hubaishi.

The writer went on to say that the police force should look beyond popular platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/media/digital/2014/02/22/Saudi-columnist-urges-religious-police-to-monitor-social-media.html

[JimDandy]

1. Religion to the extreme. How does anyone allow this?

I wonder how more people aren't atheists when I read about crap like this.

[rug]

2. I wonder how more people aren't revolutionaries.

[hrmjustin]

3. It is religion at it's worst.

It is allowed because we need their oil so we won't say anything.

[edhopper]

4. But they are following their religious beliefs

Shouldn't we be tolerant of what they say their religion dictates?
Who are we to say God does not want this?

[cbayer]

5. Because this constitutes an invasion of civil liberties, which religious

members of this board (and liberal/progressive people of faith in general) have consistently objected to.

It's not about whether their god wants this or not. It's about using religion as an reason to control and harm others and about issues of theocracy.

I'm not sure how your sarcastic remark really helps fight this kind of thing. I don't see how it does anything at all other than drive a divisive wedge between liberal/progressive people who generally embrace the same causes.

But perhaps that is your goal?

[edhopper]

9. How do you know

that God does not want them to do this. They say he does. You told me I can't know that God is not what someone says he is.
Just because it does not go along with your values, you "know' that god does not task them with this.
What if they say that not preventing these thing makes them as shameful in the eyes of god as the sinners, do you ask them to disobey their God because it doesn't coincide with your ideas?
How do you know anything about what God wants? You have told me repeatedly that i cannot say someone is wrong about God.
If someone says God commanded them to do something, are you now saying we can say they are wrong?

Which is it?

[cbayer]

18. I don't know and I don't care.

It is my position that if religion is used to harm or restrict the civil liberties of others, I oppose it. No one knows whether that information may have come from a god or not, and it makes no difference to me at all.

Sorry if it makes them shameful in the eyes of their god, I am still going to opposed them if they are harming others.

I have held the same position consistently. I don't care and don't think anyone has the right to condemn another simply because they hold theistic beliefs as long as those beliefs do not infringe on the rights of others.

You continue to want to twist that into something else, but I don't know how to make the distinction any clearer for you.

[edhopper]

22. So you ask everyone to follow

your rules of civil liberties, even if it is an affront to everything they believe?
They should accept eternal damnation to go along with your social values?
I don't care what you believe, i am talking about how you view the beliefs of others and how you constantly say we cannot say someone's beliefs are wrong. No matter what they believe.

If you don't want to debate religious beliefs, perhaps you should stay away from threads where they are debated.

[cbayer]

28. I don't ask anyone to do anything. I am not in charge.

But I maintain the right to set my own moral code, set of standards and priorities when it comes how other people are treated.

We all do that. And when someone's beliefs or activities run afoul of our personal codes, we have the right to object.

I don't believe in eternal damnation and it's not my responsibility to protect anyone from it.

I have never said that we can't say someone's beliefs are wrong not matter what they believe. Never. You repeatedly and continually twist my words to say that because that's the corner you wish to place me in.

You are really having a hard time getting this. You have absolutely no authority to tell me what I can or can not discuss or what threads I should participate in or avoid.

Doing so might lead one to believe that you really don't have a good argument here.

[edhopper]

32. I said this

"you won't even admit that believers who contend there is a very active God, with definite attributions of who he is and what he does aren't wrong either. "

you said this:

"If they want to believe in an active god with definite attributions, who am I to say whether they are right or wrong?

And who are you to say it?"

So at what point can I say when someones beliefs are wrong? these religious police are saying this is what their God has told them. Did God not tell them? Are their beliefs wrong?

You live in a world where religious beliefs don't matter unless people act on them, that they are abstract thoughts that are not incredibly real to the believers. The creator of the Universe tells someone to do something and they should disobey?

[cbayer]

39. You are right. I do live in a world where religious beliefs don't matter

unless people act on them. I wish more people had the same live and let live attitude I have. In general, I think the world would be a much more peaceful and happy place.

[edhopper]

40. But they don't

and the deeper held the belief, the more likely they are to act on them.

When an atheist like myself attacks something a religious person says, it often comes with something they want to do about it.

When a RW fundamentalist condemns gay rights, they don't just say their piece and walk away, they want the law to reflect their belief.

[cbayer]

42. OMG! How many times do I have to say this?

If someone is acting on their beliefs (be they religious or not) and, imo, those actions harm others or impinge on their rights, then I object and will say that I think they are wrong.

I don't agree that every belief inevitably leads to action and I particularly don't believe that they will lead to negative actions. In those cases, I see no reason or right to intervene.

When a non-religious person like yourself attacks a religious person, it is often just because they are a religious person. I find that objectionable as well.

When a RW fundamentalist condemns GLBT people and tries to infringe on their rights, I will object and actively fight against them.

Is there some reason you are not understanding my consistently held and stated position on this? Do you think it's because it doesn't fit your narrative?

[edhopper]

46. I understand what you think

I just don't think that is the way it works in the real world.

[cbayer]

48. So, we disagree. No problem.

[cleanhippie]

43. Ed, you are asking for a miracle if you want consistency from her.

[edhopper]

50. I guess it's too bad i don't believe in miracles

[hrmjustin]

6. No. There is a line in the 21st century and this goes over it.

[Fix The Stupid]

7. Does 'exorcism" cross your line? n/t

[hrmjustin]

8. If the person agrees and/or wants an exorcism then that is their business.

My sense is unless they spit up pea soup or levitate then call a doctor.

[edhopper]

12. So if a deeply mentally disturbed person who is devout

is convinced they need an exorcism, it is all jake with you?
Because they are capable of rational judgement?

[hrmjustin]

13. If they are competent to make a decision then it is their right.

I can not stop them from making that choice.

[edhopper]

15. Though the Catholic Church could

join the 19th Century and acknowledge this is bullshit and not endorse the practice anymore.

That might cut down on this barbaric act some.

[hrmjustin]

17. Exorcism while outdated is not barbaric unless it gets into physical abuse.

[edhopper]

25. The idea of demonic possession is ridiculous

the fact that people have died during it makes it barbaric, the fact that people in exorcism are not getting actual help is barbaric.

Amazing people defend this.

[hrmjustin]

26. I am not defending it I just don't think a few prayers being said over soneone is barbaric.

[edhopper]

35. Telling a person with mental problems

that they are possessed by non-existing demons is barbaric.

[cbayer]

44. Again, the RCC has a protocol to prevent this.

The fact that it has been abused and misused by some people does not make the thing itself barbaric.

[edhopper]

45. Bullshit

If they are doing an exorcism, then they are trying to banish a demon.
That means they believe people can be possessed by demonic spirits. That is just a primitive, barbaric concept.
There is nothing benign by replacing medical science with superstition.
And i don't care if some quack shrink agrees that6 the person is possessed.

[cbayer]

47. They have a protocol in place to prevent people with psychiatric or medical

disorders from participation.

They do believe that people can be possessed, though I think what exactly that means could be widely interpreted.

Barbarism implies something cruel, brutal and harmful, while this is not necessarily the case.

What medical science would you suggest be used for someone who does not have a medical or psychiatric condition feels they are possessed.

Wow! Quack shrink? Your prejudices are broader than I thought.

Anyway, the "quack shrink" does not agree that the person is possessed, they rule out an underlying psychiatric disorder.

I don't believe in possession and don't endorse exorcism, but this is one of those cases where I don't think it's any of my business if no harm is done.

[edhopper]

49. So you do not think

someone who is convinced they are possessed by an evil spirit constitutes a mental illness?

[cbayer]

51. You might get something unexpected if you leave your mouth open like that.

I think people sometimes see it metaphorically, but I would defer to a competent professional to determine whether the person suffers from a psychiatric disorder or not. It could be complex or nuanced in a way that requires some expertise.

I believe that I read that most of the people sent for these evaluations were found to have an underlying disorder and the silver lining may be that they were then give the care that they needed.

[edhopper]

52. Does that mean that the RCC actually thought

some were possessed?

[cbayer]

53. I can't honestly answer that question, but I suspect so.

But again, much of this could be considered metaphorically.



We all have "angels" and "demons", don't we.

Sometimes when faced with a decision, we may have conflicting impulses. Sometimes I act in a hateful manner and later wonder what got in to me. I have regrets about the way I behave towards others at times.

I don't believe this represents possession, even though it sometimes seems so unlike who I really am.

I tend to believe that it represents some unconscious process, but if one wanted to use the analogy of "the devil made me do it" and if a ritual of some sort made it more possible to change behavior, I'm not sure I see the harm in that.

The church has and does often provide "therapeutic" services to people that may not have access to those kinds of services otherwise. And there are lots of people whose own prejudices and culture produce large barriers to accessing therapy, but they can talk to a priest or minister.

These people are generally not psychiatrically ill, though they may be conflicted/neurotic/in a bad space.

If no harm is done, I am happy if they get the help they may need.

[edhopper]

54. But the Church doesn't speak iof it as a metaphor

and I don't think it is that benign.

This sounds very irresponsible to me.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1885372,00.html

Again, in this day and age they believe in actual demonic possession, that is simply ludicrous, and yes i am sure there are no demons possessing people and their beliefs are wrong about this.

This doesn't fall under your umbrella of actions based on beliefs that harm people?

[cbayer]

56. The church speak in metaphor all the time.

In fact, for many, it is almost exclusively metaphor.

What did you find in this article that you would consider "irresponsible"? Is there something in there you found to be consistent with your labeling of the ritual as "barbaric"? How exactly to you think this causes harm?

You can be sure of anything you want. I am sure it is reassuring to be so certain.

[edhopper]

57. You think it is possible

that demons possess people?

What other things are you uncertain about, fairies, bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster? How about the hollow earth or Velikovsky?

If you don't want to deny dark age beliefs, why are you so sure creationism is false, are are you, should we leave that one as unknowable as well?

I am done now, I see no need to explain how treating a mentally ill person as if they are possessed is wrong and harmful.

[cbayer]

58. Are you filters so thick that you actually read what I write and hear things like you

then attribute to me.

I have said repeatedly that I don't believe in possession nor do I advocate for exorcism. I'm not sure I could be more clear.

The issue of creationism is completely different than the existence of a god or gods. There is good scientific evidence that is completely inconsistent with literal creationism.

There is not such data when it comes to the existence or lack of existence of a god.

You need not explain anything. Your filters have again caused you to attribute a position to me that I do not hold, specifically that I would endorse treating a mentally ill person as if they are possessed.

You certainly do get frustrated when I don't say what you want me to say.

[cbayer]

21. While I don't believe in it and do not endorse it, what exactly makes it "barbaric"?

There have been some episode that have really been out there, but the Catholic Church does not endorse those and when done by their guidelines, this is a pretty benign and harmless ritual. There is nothing in their guidelines that I can find that would meet the definition of "barbaric".

[cbayer]

20. The RCC code on this requires an evaluation, which includes a psychiatric component,

prior to proceeding.

They recognize that some who feel they need an exorcism are actually suffering from illness and have taken steps to identify and, hopefully, redirect those people.

[edhopper]

10. According to your values

I can say in the 21st Century, believing in myths from an iron age people goes over the line.
Should I condemn you for your antiquated beliefs they way you condemn them.
Can I condemn the Pope for opposing birth control and Gay rights in the 21at Century?
For me anybody who believes in superstition in the 21st century is over the line.
Who is to say what is over the line, what beliefs should we be neutral about?

And I don't want to hear about it being actions and not beliefs, because I have not yet seen anybody that doesn't act on their deeply held beliefs. And as long as they have those beliefs, they will act on them.

Arizona is a prime example.

[hrmjustin]

11. Are you saying my faith goes over the same line as religious police?

[edhopper]

14. I was pointed out that

going over the line is in the eye of the beholder.
And when people say that religious beliefs should all be tolerated, except for certain ones, it becomes a very fuzzy line.

Not meant personally. It was for example, more abstract and not attacking your beliefs. i have discussed and debated them with you, not condemn them in a real sense.

[hrmjustin]

16. Religious police go over my line.

[edhopper]

19. Mine as well

As did the Legislators in Arizona and the Catholic church condemning people to AIDS by forbidding condoms.

I am reacting to be told elsewhere on this board that i cannot say people's beliefs are wrong, and yet see threads like this, where believers are saying other believers are wrong.


So did God tell Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? Was he wrong to attempt it? Should he have told God to fuck off?

What do you say to someone who says unequivocally that God has commanded them to do something you find untenable?

If you or another believer tells me that God wants them to do something I find destructive or morally wrong. Do I say their belief is wrong or that their God is wrong?

[hrmjustin]

24. ok first you have the right to call something wrong no matter what they say.

AZ new law is wrong.

The RCC is very wrong on condoms

The whole Abraham and Issac story is about obedience to God. If the story happened as is told then Abraham was lliterally told by a voice in the sky to do it. He was going to do it but God stopped him after he saw he was obedient. The point of the story is about obedience to God.

If Someone asks me to do something I can't I don't do it no matter whatever the reason.

If someone tells you to do something you can't then don't and tell them why you can not.

[edhopper]

27. But the Bible is saying

to obey God, no matter what.

Are people wrong when they say you should obey God in anything he asks? Even if he talks to you directly?

[hrmjustin]

30. God has never told me with a big booming voice from the sky what to do so I

assume he doesn't do it for others. So if someone asks me to obey God by doing something I will evaluate it and act based on my belief.

What would you do?

[edhopper]

34. God doesn't exist

Last edited Mon Feb 24, 2014, 05:50 PM - Edit history (1)

so he won't talk to me.

What do we say to those who contend that God has talked to them.

How do we evaluate their beliefs. Do we tell them to disobey God, no matter the consequences?

Do we say they are wrong and God has not talked to them.

Which beliefs do we accept and which do we deny?

[hrmjustin]

36. I don't tell them anything. Believe what you want but if your actions are causing a violation

of the civil rights of another then we have a problem.

[edhopper]

38. But the people in Arizona

think forcing businesses to serve gay people is a violation of their civil rights because of their "Christian" beliefs.

Don't you think that belief should be challenged?

People act on their belief and we should challenge them before they act.

[cbayer]

23. So because there may be some grey areas, do you advocate for the elimination of

all religion?

It is the responsibility of people to draw lines that allow for tolerance of beliefs and activities that do no harm and prohibits those that do.

We draw lines all the time and sometimes they are quite arbitrary, like age of consent.

[edhopper]

29. I am saying I can challenge any and all religious beliefs

and present my argument for why they are wrong, and continue to think they are wrong until I am given a counter argument that has merit.

And without a scintilla of evidence, I can say certain beliefs are certainly wrong. And yes I know they are wrong.

[cbayer]

31. Challenge away! Who really cares?

If all you want to do is debate something that has no answer and is always circular, have at it.

It's completely pointless and only leads to divisiveness, but it takes all kinds.

Bottom line is that you will never be right about this, and either will they.

You know they are wrong? Prove it.

What a bunch of hogwash.

[edhopper]

33. No there are answers

you just refuse them because you cannot give up the concept of "nobody can ever know", no matter how many times it has been rebutted.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I am not the one making the extraordinary claim about a Universal God that has an impact on the physical world. Or one that doesn't have an impact for that matter.


My" proof" is there is not one tiny bit of evidence. I await any counter proof.

Do I need to prove there are no unicorns, fairies, bigfoot, ESP etc... No because like God there is no evidence for any of it.

[cbayer]

41. So you are saying that there are people who do know and that you are one of them?

You are correct to an extent. I honestly believe that no one knows whether there is a god or gods and that human are not likely to ever know.

IMHO, your claims are as extraordinary as those who claim to know there is a god. You have nothing to base them on except lack of evidence. It is the same, imo, as saying definitively that there is no other life in the universe. In fact, those might even be equivalent statements.

The old arguments like "I have the upper hand because I don't have to prove a negative" and "Everyone is an atheist, I just believe in one less god" are stale, circular and useless.

Those who want to waste their time continuing to engage in arguments as to whether a god exists or not are becoming increasingly boring.

The real issue is how we treat those that experience the world differently, not that they experience it differently.

[get the red out]

37. Horrible country

I despise the government of Saudi Arabia. They are simply wretched in their treatment of their citizens.

[Dorian Gray]

55. It might take time

but this will backfire.