On 17/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at> wrote:
geni schrieb:
On 17/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann
<raphael(a)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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glamor_photography
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:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible
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.x…
I suspect the problem is mostly to do with English translations.
--
geni