On 17/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
geni schrieb:
On 17/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
It wouldn't cost "us" that much, because those who care would do the job. Any yes, there is a benefit for "us", because there would be 1 billion people more likely to help us out.
Perhaps but then they find out about this:
They can enable the "nudity" filter for this one.
Err the lead photo isn't nude. Clearly wearing a hand bra. But yes they are free to develop a browser plug in that blocks images to whatever standards that they like
Or the other elements of Islamic law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
Obviously this is stuff would be problematical under Saudi law:
I don't know or care much about Saudi Arabia (merely 2% of Muslim population),
Saudi Arabia however funds a significant number of Mosques and the like thus we have to consider it's ideology at least when dealing with Sunni Islam.
but the Gospel shouldn't be problematic since it provides "guidance and light" according to the Qur'an (5:46).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/19/ubible119.xm...
I suspect the problem is mostly to do with English translations.