Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jun8 | Hacker News Reader

I don't think this piece goes anywhere near "well-stated", to me it read more like a hysterical outburst. Look, I don't know who Douthat is, he's not one of the NYT writers I read (I'd rather read Dowd for her dazzling word games). And I don't care. All I care is the column he's written and that's the way it should be, I think.

Now, the Salon essay's main point seems to be to argue that "threat-induced censorship" is not "a uniquely Islamic practice". I totally agree with that, other groups also dabble in such threats (and sometimes carry them out, too, e.g. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence). However, carrying-out a unified agenda of world-wide censorship through political influence (http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cf...) or down-right intimidation when that doesn't work, is quite unique to Islamic countries.

I know, because I'm a Muslim and I come from such a country.

View on HN

This particular brand of 'worldwide censorship' is not unique in this day and age - Scientology practices something very similar, using the threat of copyright to discourage talking about their practices.

In any event, it's only recent globalization has made this approach a possibility. Go back two decades, and the Soviet Union practiced similar censorship within their own territories. Go back a few hundred years, and the catholic church threatened excommunication if you didn't toe the party line.

It's the same idea - just the techniques have gotten more refined.

"the catholic church threatened excommunication"

How dare they threaten to remove someone from their own organization!

Except that excommunication simply let you know you had removed yourself from the Church, and was a call to repentance. (Same today, though it's rarely used.)

No physical threats, no violence, just a formal reminder from the Church that by your actions you're essentially cutting yourself off. If that didn't bother you, so be it.

You must be joking.

The church's excommunication back in the day went far beyond that.

For example, when the Catholic church excommunicated Martin Luther, "It also made it a crime for anyone in Germany to give Luther food or shelter. It permitted anyone to kill Luther without legal consequence." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther)

Many excommunications were of the form "vitandus", where the excommunicated was to be shunned by fellow Catholics. That's a pretty severe penalty when _everyone_ was Catholic.

No, the Church didn't do that--the state (Emperor) sentenced him thusly. Read the article more carefully.

"carrying-out a unified agenda of world-wide censorship through political influence or down-right intimidation when that doesn't work, is quite unique to Islamic countries."

What about the war on drugs? What about the millions of people we killed because they preferred communism?

Millions? Citation needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

It's interesting to note that both wars were actually started by the communists. I'm all for killing people if they try to forcibly invade otherwise peaceful countries to convert them to communism. It may have been imprudent or wasteful for the US to get involved in Asian wars, but it wasn't a simple matter of killing people over their preferred political system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com