Why my website was banned in India

[Guest guest]

hinducivilization, EagleSM23 <eaglesm23

wrote:

"India may have turned its back on us, but we should

not be so petty as to completely turn our backs on

her." Rusty Shackleford

 

 

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51177

Why my website was banned in India

By Rusty Shackleford

 

Two days after the Mumbai bombings last week that

killed more than 180, the government of India issued a

directive banning 17 websites. These websites were

singled out because, according to the Indian

government, they might incite religious violence. The

nine American websites banned by India are all

critical of the Islamist movement. Not a single

website of Islamic extremists justifying and even

celebrating the Mumbai bombings has been banned.

Why did India ban these websites? And what is the

larger meaning of this action? As proprietor of one of

the banned websites, I am in a unique position to

answer those questions.

 

The short answer to the first question is that we

offended Islamists, and India is afraid of its own

Muslim citizens. The short answer to the second

question is that liberty may not be able to exist

where there are large populations of Muslims.

 

Some time ago, a false story began to be circulated in

the mainstream press that a detainee's Quran had been

put in a toilet at Guantanamo Bay. Some Muslims

reacted by protesting, some rioted, and some were

killed as a result.

 

This reaction was a clarifying moment for many of us.

Islam, as understood by many Muslims, is not a

tolerant religion.

 

The very definition of tolerance is to allow that

which we do not agree with. The moment Muslims demand

that their governments punish those who say, write or

depict things they find offensive, they reveal their

intolerance.

 

So, the reaction of our websites was to make fun of

this overreaction. Oddly, mocking the intolerant is

now considered a form of intolerance by many in the

world.

 

The specific reason for India's ban was that our

reactions to the Quran-flushing story could cause

religious violence. Since it was only websites deemed

offensive to Muslims that were banned, we know

precisely who it is that India fears.

 

India's banning of our websites is completely

rational. It is based on the real fear of real people

who do real violence.

 

I understand India's reason for banning our websites,

but certainly don't condone it.

 

Giving in to violent threats is not, in my book, a

winning strategy for defeating the very people who are

threatening you. Appeasement only works if your goal

is appeasement.

 

Further, banning religiously offensive speech kills

two freedoms at once. A nation cannot truly have

freedom of religion if that religion is immune from

public criticism. A nation cannot truly have freedom

of speech if blasphemy becomes a criminal act.

 

India's actions lead us to suspect that it will not

just be Islamic states where religious oppression is

the norm, but that any country with a sizeable and

vocal Muslim minority might also be forced, for the

sake of domestic tranquility, to ban blasphemy. And we

believe that our fears are founded on more than this

one case.

 

While many Muslim countries in the post-Bush Doctrine

era are moving toward more liberalization, many

non-Muslim countries are moving the wrong way. Some

criminalize religiously offensive speech, and nearly

all of their leaders bend over backwards to never say

anything that could possible be construed as critical

of Islam.

 

If India and other countries hope that condemning

speech critical of Islam will appease their Muslim

populations, they have greatly miscalculated. What

offends Islamists is not what we or others say, it is

that they are not in power to stop us from saying it.

 

Their ultimate goal is the creation of a state based

on Islamic law. It is only then, when it is Muslims

who decide what needs banning, that they will be

happy. The real gripe Muslims have in non-Muslim

countries is about power.

 

India, of all countries, should understand this. Both

Pakistan and Bangladesh were states founded because

Muslims refused to be part of the secular Indian

state. India has fought wars over this. That war

continues today in Kashmir and on the streets of

Mumbai.

 

India is said to be a secular state with aspirations

of greatness. Its recent actions show that it is

neither completely secular nor ready for its proper

place on the world stage. This is all doubly sad

because India is also a natural ally against the

cancer of Islamic fundamentalism.

 

It is India, not the U.S., which has bloody borders

with Islam. Mumbai should be a reminder to India who

its real friends are and who are its enemies.

 

The move towards religious censorship by India is a

mistake. A nation does not cement its alliances by

adopting the values of its enemies and rejecting those

of its allies.

 

Despite this slap in the face by India, I will

continue to wish her continued progress and

prosperity. A wealthy India is an India better able to

stave off the attacks of the barbarians who are our

common enemies at her gates.

 

India may have turned its back on us, but we should

not be so petty as to completely turn our backs on

her.

 

Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad @

http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=897

 

 

 

___________________

_______________

Have a burning question?

Go to www.Answers. and get answers from real people who

know.

 

--- End forwarded message ---