I think I agree with the ADL here. First you ban Islam, what's next? Judaism? Sects of Christianity? Hinduism? Where does one stop?

It's more than a religion.

When will an imam speak up on behalf of Jews?

Muslima.com ad.

single muslim dot com

As a side note, Pamela has pictures of the event up on her blog, Atlas Shrieks. There are no captions telling who is who in the photographs. Anyone have any idea who the folks in most of the photographs are?

re: #6 Honorary Yooper

As a side note, Pamela has pictures of the event up on her blog, Atlas Shrieks. There are no captions telling who is who in the photographs. Anyone have any idea who the folks in most of the photographs are?

I ain't going over there.

re: #3 MandyManners

When will an imam speak up on behalf of Jews?

I wish one would. However, we must not sink to the imams' level.

Wilders' statements are about as un-American as it's possible to be. I'm finished giving him the benefit of the doubt, and it's beyond hypocritical of him to be touting "freedom of expression" at the same time as he advocates taking away the rights of Muslims. Disgusting.

re: #8 Honorary Yooper

I wish one would. However, we must not sink to the imams' level.

Or, Wilder's.

I wonder where ole Geert got those ideas about Islam?

re: #9 Charles

Wilders' statements are about as un-American as it's possible to be. I'm finished giving him the benefit of the doubt, and it's beyond hypocritical of him to be touting "freedom of expression" at the same time as he advocates taking away the rights of Muslims. Disgusting.

I don't think he understands that all freedoms support each other.

The Anti-Defamation League has issued a condemnation of Geert Wilders, currently on tour in South Florida ostensibly promoting “free expression”—except in the case of Muslims

What is the exact quote where Wilders denies or advocates no freedom of expression for Muslims?

re: #3 MandyManners

When will an imam speak up on behalf of Jews?

Italian Imam. Forget his name.

re: #9 Charles

Wilders' statements are about as un-American as it's possible to be. I'm finished giving him the benefit of the doubt, and it's beyond hypocritical of him to be touting "freedom of expression" at the same time as he advocates taking away the rights of Muslims. Disgusting.

Agreed. As far as I am concerned, Spencer, Bodissey, Dymphna, and Pamela can have him. He is not one of us. He is more interested in banning than in freedom and liberty.

re: #6 Honorary Yooper

Atlas Shrieks

heh!

re: #13 zombie

What is the exact quote where Wilders denies or advocates no freedom of expression for Muslims?

Right here:

“the right to religious freedom should not apply to this totalitarian ideology called Islam.”

The banning stuff is un-American.

Mohammed was a war-lord and had an extremely young wife.

re: #14 Ben Hur

Italian Imam. Forget his name.

For real?

Wilders is selling the view that all Muslims are evil and must be expelled from Western society, the Koran should be banned, and Islam should be outlawed as a religion.

Sorry. I am NOT down with that.

Excellent. I am no fan of the ADL, but they are spot on here.

Of course we can now expect in the future, expressions of condemnation from CAIR of the anti Semitism coming out every day from the Islamic world. /not

The ADL does not impress me at all.

We need to speak out against the militant strains of Islam, and I intend to continue doing that, but this kind of absolutist view that seeks to take away basic rights from human beings is pure fascism.

re: #20 Charles

Don't be sorry.

It is perfectly acceptable to ban calls for violence, whether wrapped in religion (jihad) or not.
But banning Islam itself plays into the hands of the jihadis - "Look, the West is at war with us! They are banning our religion. We must fight back and blow them up!"

There is a reason the US has fewer radical Muslims than many other countries; we let them be part of our society. We do have some jihadis, yes, but far fewer than France, as a proportion of the Muslim population.

I can understand calls to monitor which imams call for violent jihad and which for peaceful inner struggle, but that is different from banning all of them.

All religions have violent wackos; Islam has a much higher proportion, true, but the same argument could be used against others.
Let's not go down that slope. Ban the specific messages, not the whole religion.

/will his tour include a stop in Dearborn?

re: #3 MandyManners

When will an imam speak up on behalf of Jews?

I don't know if they changed it, but after the Mumbai terror attack the first mention I found on CAIR's website deplored the loss of life to Muslims and Christians. And yes, this was after it was known that the Holtzberg's had been killed.

So to answer your question: Not likely.

And certainly not the ADL's "counterpart."

re: #19 MandyManners

For real?

[Link: www.amislam.com...]

Be prepared to wig out.

We heartily support Israel's anti-terror operation
against Hamas in Gaza

Militant Islamists and Die Hard Socialists

Wilders says:

"Islam is not a religion”

and

“the right to religious freedom should not apply to this totalitarian ideology called Islam."

re: #9 Charles

Wilders' statements are about as un-American as it's possible to be.

I agree that Wilders' second statement quoted above is totally un-American. We have complete freedom of religion in this country: You can worship Allah, or God, or Jumbobo the Glow-in-the-Dark Cockatoo, or anything else you want.

However, the first statement is partly true: Islam is not merely a religion. It is also a way of life, a philosophy, a military doctrine, a political structure, a legal system, and so on. It is all-encompassing and goes beyond mere "religion." In fact, as Edward Said might have said, it is "orientalist" of us to apply our western notion of "religion" being a separate category from secular life, and applying that definition to Islam.

re: #20 Charles

Wilders is selling the view that all Muslims are evil and must be expelled from Western society, the Koran should be banned, and Islam should be outlawed as a religion.

Sorry. I am NOT down with that.

One of my former co-workers was a devout Muslim convert. He did the whole prayer 5 times a day and mosque on Fridays. He left the company to go on the Hajj. I was pretty impressed. Despite our vehement disagreement over eating pork, he was a really nice guy and about as mellow as they come. The funny thing is that we talked more about football than about his religion.

The ADL pissed me off when they absolutely refused to concentrate on Islamic or Arab anti-Semitism.

Islam is a religion, probably one of the most pure religions we have on the face of the planet, since it tries very hard to rule among it's followers as a theocracy. At least in the US, they deserve the same considerations that all other religions do. Yes, the Koran contains a lot of passages that are hateful and basically the book is a manual detailing how to bring the world under the control of Islam.

All in all, I would say it's a very vibrant and powerful religion. What can we do about it. Use every law we have available to stop any Muslim that is breaking our laws. Take every possible opportunity to expose Islam's human right violations, include the horrid way they treat woman. Mount effective apologetic campaigns that will educate the public as to the practices of Islam that are at odds with the modern world and basic freedoms.

But to shut them up, that is wrong, and against every principle we stand for in this country.

I'm glad the ADL came out with this statement. Freedom for some but not for all is not freedom. And Geert should know that, fer cryin' out loud!

re: #28 Ben Hur

Wow.

re: #27 dhg4

I don't know if they changed it, but after the Mumbai terror attack the first mention I found on CAIR's website deplored the loss of life to Muslims and Christians. And yes, this was after it was known that the Holtzberg's had been killed.

So to answer your question: Not likely.

And certainly not the ADL's "counterpart."

See Ben's No. 29.

re: #14 Ben Hur

Italian Imam. Forget his name.

Abdel Haj Palazzi

BBIAB

So it's hate speech to tell the truth about Mo? It's hate speech to quote the ugly parts of the Koran? Knock knock. "Hi, we're from the Gestapo and we're here to help." No thanks.

re: #29 zombie

However, the first statement is partly true: Islam is not merely a religion.

The problem is that he didn't say that -- he said it was not a religion at all, as a preface to advocating taking away the right of Muslims to freedom of religion. And the crowd he's talking to knows exactly what he's saying.

re: #17 Charles

It seems Wilders' is advocating the denial of freedom of religion, not denying freedom of expression.

Of course, neither is a good thing to do, I'm just trying to be accurate. Not trying to be nitpicky, just trying to ensure that the haters doen't have any ammunition as far as "inaccuracy" is concerned.

re: #20 Charles

Nothing to apologize for there, Guitarface. That's the difference between them and us.

AMONG
THE
BELIEVERS,
R

re: #2 Ben Hur

It's more than a religion.

I agree on that point. Islam is a religion, but it's much more than that as well.

re: #23 Charles

Wilders, et al, represent the leading edge of mob mentality, whipping their 'followers' into a frenzy.

That's how 'spontaneous' lynchings happen.

re: #36 Alouette

Abdel Haj Palazzi

L'vriut.

re: #14 Ben Hur

re: #3 MandyManners

When will an imam speak up on behalf of Jews?
Italian Imam. Forget his name.

Oh wow, there's one. Yippee. Color me unimpressed. Besides, he's probably not long for this Earth anyway.

re: #23 Charles

We need to speak out against the militant strains of Islam, and I intend to continue doing that, but this kind of absolutist view that seeks to take away basic rights from human beings is pure fascism.

Most excellent comment, and says why we cannot ally ourselves with the VB, BNP, et.al. as Spencer, Geller, et.al. have. They wish to see only in black and white, no shades of gray anywhere.

Keep up the good fight against Hamas, Hizb'allah, the Muslim Brotherhood. Keep exposing CAIR for their nefarious connections. We need also to give a place where more can speak up and speak out about them. If we follow Wilders and declare that all Muslims must be deported, we risk having those who oppose Hamas, et.al. not speak up and speak out against them. We would be forcing them to make a poor choice.

re: #34 MandyManners

Wow.

He's Italian born and bred.

Italians love Jews, normally- yes yes, there is anti-Semitism there, etc, but overall, they appreciate that the Jews were there from the beginning.

sometimes "the enemy of my enemy is not my friend."

I'll give a squat about whether Muslims can practice their religion when I can go to the tip of the Arabian peninsula and celebrate Shabbat. Until then, frankly, they can F off. You what that's called? That's called the First Amendment, and you know what else? It fucking rocks.

Islam is the Sham-Wow of religions.

re: #23 Charles

We need to speak out against the militant strains of Islam, and I intend to continue doing that, but this kind of absolutist view that seeks to take away basic rights from human beings is pure fascism.

Shouldn't it be the peaceful muslims who should speak out against the militant strains of their own religion? Why should we have to point out the obvious to peaceful people?

When I see muslims rioting in the streets to stop the religious violence in their own name, thats when I start to sympathize...till then...not so much.

re: #35 MandyManners

See Ben's No. 29.

That group and Sheikh Palazi are exceptions.

But I was mostly trying to draw a contrast between the ADL and CAIR. I should have been more precise.

CAIR, by the way, has been pretty well marginalized over the past couple of years, and it had NOTHING to do with the activities of people like Geller, and everything to do with the Holy Land Foundation trial that exposed their Hamas roots in a way the media could not ignore any longer.

Muhammad was a warlord and did consummate a marriage with a nine year old girl (Aisha). Whether the fact that the Medina verses of the Qur'an which seem to equate Allah and Muhammad for power and obedience suffice to qualify it as cult rather than a religion is a judgement call.

If the followers consider themselves believers is a religion this should suffice to allow them to benefit from the same rights as other groups who so benefit from such provisions as long as they show the same respect for the laws of the land as do the others. If they insist on a privileged status (Shari'a) or start militant activity in favor of blasphemy laws then resistance should be swift and clear.

re: #23 Charles

We need to speak out against the militant strains of Islam, and I intend to continue doing that, but this kind of absolutist view that seeks to take away basic rights from human beings is pure fascism.

I would like to see the anti-Semitic passages of the Koran expunged, though I probably won't.

A reformation would be nice.

re: #50 Ben Hur

Islam is the Sham-Wow of religions.

I think it's more of a Snuggie or that nut-chopper thing.

well, in the first place, it would be difficult to "ban" islam. as a result of taqiyya amongst muslims, that is lying in the name of the religion, a "group" could "congregate" and do services in members' houses or a place like that. nevertheless, i find it hard to believe that charles johnson and everyone else in this website is so against Geert Wilders. He is standing up for Western civilization, something that no other person or political party in Europe is currently doing. you may not agree with all that he says, but the ultimate message is there: democracy, and fundamental freedoms. this man can't live in a house with his family, as a result of constant death threats from muslims...in the Netherlands...as a result of calling the Qur'an a "fascist" book. Who else do you see doing this in the West, in a dangerous Europe no less? The man is very brave and should be commended by you people rather than scorned. You guys just don't understand, and so I see no purpose in wasting my time here.

re: #51 anchors_aweigh

Shouldn't it be the peaceful muslims who should speak out against the militant strains of their own religion? Why should we have to point out the obvious to peaceful people?

When I see muslims rioting in the streets to stop the religious violence in their own name, thats when I start to sympathize...till then...not so much.

And how do you think you're going to get peaceful Muslims on board with that, if you turn around and tell them their religion should be banned?

re: #46 Honorary Yooper

Most excellent comment, and says why we cannot ally ourselves with the VB, BNP, et.al. as Spencer, Geller, et.al. have. They wish to see only in black and white, no shades of gray anywhere.

Keep up the good fight against Hamas, Hizb'allah, the Muslim Brotherhood. Keep exposing CAIR for their nefarious connections. We need also to give a place where more can speak up and speak out about them. If we follow Wilders and declare that all Muslims must be deported, we risk having those who oppose Hamas, et.al. not speak up and speak out against them. We would be forcing them to make a poor choice.

Are you Bill or Ted?

re: #52 dhg4

That group and Sheikh Palazi are exceptions.

But I was mostly trying to draw a contrast between the ADL and CAIR. I should have been more precise.

Contrast?! One's apples the other is rocks.

re: #49 SFGoth

I'll give a squat about whether Muslims can practice their religion when I can go to the tip of the Arabian peninsula and celebrate Shabbat. Until then, frankly, they can F off. You what that's called? That's called the First Amendment, and you know what else? It fucking rocks.

The problem is, once an exception is made for one religion, it can be made for others. Find some way to make Islam illegal, and Jew-haters will start working on making Judaism illegal.

Stick with banning calls for violence, which are allowed whether tied to a religion or not.

That doesn't mean you have to come out and support Muslims, just that you shouldn't support people like Wilders. Otherwise, they will make a loophole your enemies can shoot through, as well.

re: #57 Amused to Death

Then don't waste your time here. There's plenty of other sites amenable to your fascistic leanings. Piss off.

re: #57 Amused to Death

Buh-bye!

re: #57 Amused to Death

Amused to Death
Registered since: Apr 8, 2007 at 7:43 pm
No. of comments posted: 13
No. of links posted: 0

Bye now!

That's our first Wilders flounce-off.

Gotta' finish up din-din!

re: #57 Amused to Death

What an incredibly fast Stinky today. Cudos.

re: #57 Amused to Death

Go waste it somewhere else then.

I don't always agree with ADL, but they got this exactly right.

This is not anything new in Europe, though. The concept of freedom of expression was born in England in the late 17th century--but achieved full flower here.

In Europe, there has always been a tradition of prior restraint and what is being espoused by Winders is nothing new. I'm not an apologist by no means, but the continental mind-set is very different from ours when it comes to free speech. They view censorship as healthy if it keeps the peace and silences "unacceptable" elements. I'm not condoning it--just making an observation as to how they think on certain issues.

Is there a link to Wilder's entire speech?

re: #57 Amused to Death

I disagree.. I think we understand all too well. Geert crossed a line.

re: #51 anchors_aweigh

Shouldn't it be the peaceful muslims who should speak out against the militant strains of their own religion? Why should we have to point out the obvious to peaceful people?

When I see muslims rioting in the streets to stop the religious violence in their own name, thats when I start to sympathize...till then...not so much.

Islam can't be outlawed practicaly or consitutionaly.
However I still smart from the deafening silence from Muslim groups & individuals after 9/11.
What I do recall is one Muslim leader calling 9/11 a teachable moment, for Americans to learn more about Islam.

re: #29 zombie

Wilders says:

"Islam is not a religion”

and

“the right to religious freedom should not apply to this totalitarian ideology called Islam."

I agree that Wilders' second statement quoted above is totally un-American. We have complete freedom of religion in this country: You can worship Allah, or God, or Jumbobo the Glow-in-the-Dark Cockatoo, or anything else you want.

However, the first statement is partly true: Islam is not merely a religion. It is also a way of life, a philosophy, a military doctrine, a political structure, a legal system, and so on. It is all-encompassing and goes beyond mere "religion." In fact, as Edward Said might have said, it is "orientalist" of us to apply our western notion of "religion" being a separate category from secular life, and applying that definition to Islam.

Thanks Zombie. I was in the middle of trying put my thoughts together about this very aspect of Islam when I saw your post. You have said it better than I probably would.

re: #57 Amused to Death

Amused to Death
This user is blocked.
Karma: 4
Registered since: Apr 8, 2007 at 7:43 pm
No. of comments posted: 13
No. of links posted: 0
Recent comments

An entire 13 comments since 2007. Sounds like a sleeper.

re: #49 SFGoth

I'll give a squat about whether Muslims can practice their religion when I can go to the tip of the Arabian peninsula and celebrate Shabbat. Until then, frankly, they can F off. You what that's called? That's called the First Amendment, and you know what else? It fucking rocks.

and it applies to every citizen in America...but this issue raises all kinds of questions...is a silent Muslim a moderate or is he an extremist that's not saying anything...is an extremist a target for law enforcement or military action?...what exactly is an extremist if he has not broken the law?...how do you deal with extremists undermining a govt?...what about a moderate that funds extremists?....

Was this speech attended by Pam Gellar as well?

what bugs me the most, some ppl use stereotype a lot, btw i heard a lot as an example: all Germans are natzes and all Muslims are terrorists, which i completely disagree.

re: #56 MandyManners

I think it's more of a Snuggie or that nut-chopper thing.

How about that spray-hair that Ron Popeil hawks?

re: #77 Thanos

Was this speech attended by Pam Gellar as well?

Geller is one of the main sponsors and organizers of the Wilders speaking tour.

re: #31 Ben Hur

The ADL pissed me off when they absolutely refused to concentrate on Islamic or Arab anti-Semitism.

The ADL has pissed me off many a time. I'm ashamed that I gave them money once -- that's how I got on their mailing list and ultimately realized how twisted they are. They're basically just an all-Jewish Democratic party propaganda outlet that lies about its mission. But they're frequently right about particular issues, and they're certainly right this time.

re: #57 Amused to Death

Can you say *POOF*

Reciprocity is not a precondition to speaking out.

re: #77 Thanos

Was this speech attended by Pam Gellar as well?

Yes. She has it with photographs on her blog, Atlas Shrieks. I shall not link to that cesspool, but you know where to find it.

In his speeches, he claimed that “Islam is not a religion” and “the right to religious freedom should not apply to this totalitarian ideology called Islam.” Mr. Wilders also stated that the Koran is a book of hatred, and that Mohammed was both “a pedophile and a warlord.”

Well, a few people still understand the threat at least. We're in a period of relative calm, so it's easy for most to fall asleep again.

Until the next time.

re: #55 Ben Hur

I would like to see the anti-Semitic passages of the Koran expunged, though I probably won't.

A reformation would be nice.

You're right. A reformation would be very welcome. But it's not up to anyone other than followers/practioners of Islam to effect that reformation.

re: #32 Walter L. Newton

Islam is a religion, probably one of the most pure religions we have on the face of the planet, since it tries very hard to rule among it's followers as a theocracy. At least in the US, they deserve the same considerations that all other religions do. Yes, the Koran contains a lot of passages that are hateful and basically the book is a manual detailing how to bring the world under the control of Islam.

All in all, I would say it's a very vibrant and powerful religion. What can we do about it. Use every law we have available to stop any Muslim that is breaking our laws. Take every possible opportunity to expose Islam's human right violations, include the horrid way they treat woman. Mount effective apologetic campaigns that will educate the public as to the practices of Islam that are at odds with the modern world and basic freedoms.

But to shut them up, that is wrong, and against every principle we stand for in this country.

We don't even tell the WH press secretary Gibbs to shut up, excepting the fact that he should.

re: #58 Charles

And how do you think you're going to get peaceful Muslims on board with that, if you turn around and tell them their religion should be banned?

I should not have to get peaceful people onboard with denouncing violence. They should do it regardless. That's the root of the problem.

Name one Iman who denounces violence in the name of the Koran.

re: #82 DEZes

Can you say *POOF*

Yeah, KABOOOM !

re: #85 Thom

Well, a few people still understand the threat at least. We're in a period of relative calm, so it's easy for most to fall asleep again.

Until the next time.

Oh, bullshit. Nobody is "asleep" here. I just refuse to be a bigot.

re: #86 Russkilitlover

You're right. A reformation would be very welcome. But it's not up to anyone other than followers/practioners of Islam to effect that reformation.

True.

And it's never going to happen.

Not as long as they hide the talking doll from the masses .

re: #73 opnion

Islam can't be outlawed practicaly or consitutionaly.
However I still smart from the deafening silence from Muslim groups & individuals after 9/11.
What I do recall is one Muslim leader calling 9/11 a teachable moment, for Americans to learn more about Islam.

Well, I did learn a lot about Islam on 9/11. It certainly is a teachable moment, but the right lesson needs to be taught.
Maybe if we were reminded of the lesson, we wouldn't have elected a president who wants to suck up to Muslims who support terrorism, like Ahmadinejad.

re: #89 callahan23

Yeah, KABOOOM !

Where's the Earth-shattering KABOOM? There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering KABOOM.

re: #57 Amused to Death

I see no purpose in wasting my time here

Took you ALL of that to finally get something right?

DLTDHYITAOTWO!

re: #29 zombie

Wilders says:

"Islam is not a religion”

and

“the right to religious freedom should not apply to this totalitarian ideology called Islam."

I agree that Wilders' second statement quoted above is totally un-American. We have complete freedom of religion in this country: You can worship Allah, or God, or Jumbobo the Glow-in-the-Dark Cockatoo, or anything else you want.

However, the first statement is partly true: Islam is not merely a religion. It is also a way of life, a philosophy, a military doctrine, a political structure, a legal system, and so on. It is all-encompassing and goes beyond mere "religion." In fact, as Edward Said might have said, it is "orientalist" of us to apply our western notion of "religion" being a separate category from secular life, and applying that definition to Islam.

This is certainly true. However, one of the problems I always had with Spencer was that he doesn't or can't recognize that the same is true of Orthodox Judaism (except for the military and political part, which it once included but which was abandoned due to historical circumstances). That recognition would put a dent in his overall philosophy (obviously shared by Wilders), so he chooses to ignore it.

re: #94 pre-Boomer Marine brat

DLTDHYITAOTWO!

Ok, I've been on the net for a long long time, and lurking here for many a year, and that my friend, is incomprehensible to me.

You can haz a cheezeburger for that.

re: #88 anchors_aweigh

Your Google broken?

[Link: www.google.com...]

It's not that they're not out there, it's that they don't get nearly as much press.

BLEEDS
LEADS,
R

re: #70 calcajun

Not rocking the boat was one of the main goals of the Congress of Vienna and was a driving force in Continental politics until 1914.

re: #93 Honorary Yooper

Where's the Earth-shattering KABOOM? There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering KABOOM.

For 'Amused to Death' it was hopefully that Earth-shattering KABOOM.

re: #39 Charles

The problem is that he didn't say that -- he said it was not a religion at all, as a preface to advocating taking away the right of Muslims to freedom of religion. And the crowd he's talking to knows exactly what he's saying.

True.

We have freedom of religion in this country, and that includes Islam and any sort of group, such as Scientology, The Branch Davidians, you name it. All religions are legal in the US.

We may not necessarily like these religions, and may have no intention of joining, but according to Constitution, we must allow them, however distasteful we may find some of them.

The difficult part is that some religions advocate -- as part of their religious doctrine -- principles or practices that are in violation of US law. Some Mormon breakaway sects, for example, allow and advocate child marriage and polygamy. Some cults like Scientology deny civil rights to apostates. Etc.

If there are any aspects to Islam which contravene US law, then those aspect must be disallowed on our shores. For example: Sharia is illegal under constitutional principles, because it establishes different legal systems for different citizens, which the Supreme Court has long ago already ruled unconstitutional.

But what do we do when some Islamic scholars say (which they do) that sharia as a legal system is indistinguishable from Islam as a religion? Puts us in a very sticky situation.

We need to allow the practice of a religion, but not allow the violation of US law by members of that religion. Hence, we raid Mormon sect compounds where men are marrying eight 12-year-olds simultaneously; we arrest any Scientologists who are harrassing apostates; and we prevent sharia from being implemented as a separate legal system.

In each instance however, the hardcore members of those religions feel we ARE violating their right to Freedom of Religion.

How do we resolve this dilemma?

On the other hand, I don't know what it's like living in Europe.

re: #96 Mithrax

Ok, I've been on the net for a long long time, and lurking here for many a year, and that my friend, is incomprehensible to me.

You can haz a cheezeburger for that.

Don't Let The Door Hit You In The Ass On The Way Out

re: #96 Mithrax

Ok, I've been on the net for a long long time, and lurking here for many a year, and that my friend, is incomprehensible to me.

You can haz a cheezeburger for that.

It's just th' old ... "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out"

re: #61 Kosh's Shadow

re: #49 SFGoth

I'll give a squat about whether Muslims can practice their religion when I can go to the tip of the Arabian peninsula and celebrate Shabbat. Until then, frankly, they can F off. You what that's called? That's called the First Amendment, and you know what else? It fucking rocks.

The problem is, once an exception is made for one religion, it can be made for others. Find some way to make Islam illegal, and Jew-haters will start working on making Judaism illegal.

Stick with banning calls for violence, which are allowed whether tied to a religion or not.

That doesn't mean you have to come out and support Muslims, just that you shouldn't support people like Wilders. Otherwise, they will make a loophole your enemies can shoot through, as well.

I hadn't realized that Judaism wasn't illegal in Saudi Arabia; thanks for clarifying that. Banning calls for violence by Muslims is akin to banning calls for the raison de etre (pardon my French) of Islam. Its goal is to pacify the world for some pedophiles. No thanks. It's kinda like reforming Nazism. What, to make it safe for democracy? I'm not saying ban Islam - not directly - but I'd certainly ban any part of it that is incompatible with Western Civilization, kinda like how we ban assassination, bombing government facilities, etc. (ooops, there's a few of Obama's spiritual mentors on the loose, but eh).

Other than Wilders wanting to ban Islam, I haven't seen anything that suggests he's a Buchananite or an extremist like the various neo-Nazis Pamela Geller is consorting with. (Oh, and btw, nice rack she has.)

re: #85 Thom

That's a pretty vague statement, why don't you be more specific so we understand what you are trying to say here? Which people are "some people?"

re: #103 pre-Boomer Marine brat

re: #102 reine.de.tout

I am now enlightened. Thank you!

Islam is totalitarian, IMO.

re: #92 Kosh's Shadow

Well, I did learn a lot about Islam on 9/11. It certainly is a teachable moment, but the right lesson needs to be taught.
Maybe if we were reminded of the lesson, we wouldn't have elected a president who wants to suck up to Muslims who support terrorism, like Ahmadinejad.

True, Obama could do a real service if he reached out to Moderate Muslims, as opposed to the Moderate Taliban. The fact is that Moderate Muslims fear the Islamists. There is a Mosque in Bridgeview Illinois, that was founded by rather moderate Muslims. The Muslim Brother hood types came in & took over. The original guys weren't feeling real safe.

re: #93 Honorary Yooper

Where's the Earth-shattering KABOOM? There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering KABOOM.

[KABOOOM! right behind you]
This makes me very angry.

re: #94 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Took you ALL of that to finally get something right?

DLTDHYITAOTWO!

I figured that out! LMAO - good one!

re: #1 Honorary Yooper

I think I agree with the ADL here. First you ban Islam, what's next? Judaism? Sects of Christianity? Hinduism? Where does one stop?

On could start with $cientology.

re: #100 zombie

In each instance however, the hardcore members of those religions feel we ARE violating their right to Freedom of Religion.

Hurt feelings do not a dilemma make.

Freedom has a way of letting loud mouthed fools be just that.
I can never support anyone that would limit another persons freedoms.

re: #104 SFGoth

same goes if you'd have a bible with u and a cross, not allowed

re: #98 ConservatismNow!

I misunderstood you there. Was "what" one of the main goal of the Congress of Vienna?

re: #2 Ben Hur

It's more than a religion.

No it's not. Islam is a religion.
War against religion is unwinnable (look what happened to Darth Vader). War against murdering sons-of-bitches is winnable.

re: #48 _RememberTonyC

sometimes usually "the enemy of my enemy is not my friend."

FTFY for modern day geopolitics...

Geller is shrieking like a lunatic about the ADL's statement, of course.

re: #114 Gella

same goes if you'd have a bible with u and a cross, not allowed

I *am* quite aware that the only religion allowed in S.Arabia is Wahhabi Islam. Mmmmm, wahhabi; goes great with mahi mahi.

How do we resolve this dilemma?

without altering the 1st amendment I don't think it can be solved....just played out til the end....I've asked this same question over and over and never heard an answer

re: #113 DEZes

Freedom has a way of letting loud mouthed fools be just that.
I can never support anyone that would limit another persons freedoms.

Though one could argue that he wants to limit the freedom of those trying to limit freedom in the West.

I wonder, since Pam Geller was at this conference, and of course, Robert Spencer covered it on his web site, and the information is nice and public, I wonder, if anyone out there now wonders anything about what motivates this band of buddies?

Anyone have any question now?

re: #100 zombie

In each instance however, the hardcore members of those religions feel we ARE violating their right to Freedom of Religion.

How do we resolve this dilemma?

IMHO, maintain the focus upon our law (as you laid out), and let the hardcore members own their problem ... and deal with it, or not.

re: #100 zombie

That's an easy one, zombie. The U.S. Constitution is the surpreme law of the land. Period. No law, domestic, international, or religious, can contradict any law laid out in the Constitution. Many Sharia laws violate First Amendment rights (among other things) Your freedom of religion stops at my freedom of religion.

re: #104 SFGoth

I hadn't realized that Judaism wasn't illegal in Saudi Arabia; thanks for clarifying that. Banning calls for violence by Muslims is akin to banning calls for the raison de etre (pardon my French) of Islam. Its goal is to pacify the world for some pedophiles. No thanks. It's kinda like reforming Nazism. What, to make it safe for democracy? I'm not saying ban Islam - not directly - but I'd certainly ban any part of it that is incompatible with Western Civilization, kinda like how we ban assassination, bombing government facilities, etc. (ooops, there's a few of Obama's spiritual mentors on the loose, but eh).

Other than Wilders wanting to ban Islam, I haven't seen anything that suggests he's a Buchananite or an extremist like the various neo-Nazis Pamela Geller is consorting with. (Oh, and btw, nice rack she has.)

I was talking about the US in particular. If we make holes in the First Amendment, those holes also apply to anyone.
Saudi Arabia needs to be reformed, or just left to eat sand once we can get off our dependence on oil.

The message to Islam should not be one of segregation, ostracism and expulsion.

The message should be; we allow liberty, religious freedom and inclusion. We only ask reciprocal consideration.

re: #97 Render

You will note of course, that those Imans are denouncing violence against other muslims...

re: #100 zombie

How do we resolve this dilemma?

You already answered your own question:

We need to allow the practice of a religion, but not allow the violation of US law by members of that religion.

re: #119 SFGoth

I *am* quite aware that the only religion allowed in S.Arabia is Wahhabi Islam. Mmmmm, wahhabi; goes great with mahi mahi.

do u mean wassabi? ;) on the other hand hmm food :)

re: #115 calcajun

Not rocking the boat. Maintaining the status quo.

re: #121 Ben Hur

Though one could argue that he wants to limit the freedom of those trying to limit freedom in the West.

there you have it

re: #108 opnion

True, Obama could do a real service if he reached out to Moderate Muslims, as opposed to the Moderate Taliban. The fact is that Moderate Muslims fear the Islamists. There is a Mosque in Bridgeview Illinois, that was founded by rather moderate Muslims. The Muslim Brother hood types came in & took over. The original guys weren't feeling real safe.

Yes. And I see on the world stage, Obama reaching out to the radicals, like Iran, instead of to, say Jordan. This is the opposite of what needs to be done.

I don't want to ban any ideology. But this PC crap about how you cant criticise Islam has to stop too. Someone can believe all day long that they are superior because of their religion, race, etc, but when you cant fight back in the marketplace of ideas and with free expression as well. things are gonna get ugly. On both sides.
Geert Wilders comes from a country where you cannot speak out about Islam or else you are committing a crime. That is why he speaks like he does about this. Europe has no free speech.

Islam is more than a religion - its a complete cultural, political, religious, socio-economic system. It is totalitarian and it is suppressive/repressive in nature. Also, modern Islam has undeniable historical links to Hitler and the fascism of the mid-20th century. There are two sides to this coin - the fascism of the modern Nazis, and the fascism of Islam (essentially a power struggle much like that between the National Socialists and the Communists of 1930's Germany). If people feel threatened, they will side with the group who will protect them from what they fear the most: the side of the coin that is most alien. Its important to offer an alternative to both sides of that coin. But right now current political powers are bowing down to fascist Islam either out of fear or out of a false sense of political correctness. And that well may will drive the average person into the arms of the Nazis. Just being against the modern Nazi isn't going to cut it. We must offer a strong argument for the Western way of life - and we have to defend it from a position of strength. Either that, or join Bonhoffer on the gallows.

re: #133 TS

I don't want to ban any ideology. But this PC crap about how you cant criticise Islam has to stop too.

Nobody said you can't criticize Islam. At least not at LGF.

But I'm absolutely not going to give any support at all to people who want to take away the rights of other people.

re: #112 wrenchwench

Hurt feelings do not a dilemma make.

Right, assimilation presupposes that all accept basic principals.
As an example a woman should not have less rights in a divorce action than her non Muslim counterparts. Demands for implementation of Sharia law is a demand to get a preferred status ,different than other Americans.

Charles, I honestly don't understand what is happening here. LGF is now dedicated to attacking the Republican party (the party - fundamentalist warts and all - most likely to stand up to the threat of Islam) and individuals like Wilders who dare stand up for Western Civilization against the threat of Islam: a creed that has no respect for freedom of religion, or of expression, or of any other western ideal - as you well know.

I know you're not a Republican, and that you have never claimed to be conservative, as some people have mischaracterized you. But the overall change of focus is baffling. Certainly, no one wants to be thought of as a bigot - that is one of the worst crimes imaginable in this Age of PC, but given a choice between us or them - and that *is* the choice - I'll choose us.

How 'bout changing the immigration quotas.

Changing it after 40 years to give others opportunity isn't racist.

re: #121 Ben Hur

Though one could argue that he wants to limit the freedom of those trying to limit freedom in the West.

I dont need a fascist in my fox hole from either side.

re: #118 Charles

Geller is shrieking like a lunatic about the ADL's statement, of course.

She's Jewish and pissed about something the ADL did? Please tell me when did we slip into this Bizzaro universe.

re: #133 TS

I don't want to ban any ideology. But this PC crap about how you cant criticise Islam has to stop too. Someone can believe all day long that they are superior because of their religion, race, etc, but when you cant fight back in the marketplace of ideas and with free expression as well. things are gonna get ugly. On both sides.
Geert Wilders comes from a country where you cannot speak out about Islam or else you are committing a crime. That is why he speaks like he does about this. Europe has no free speech.

Nobody here is implying that you can't criticize Islam. There's a big diff between criticizing, ridiculing (I'm ok with that, too) on the one hand, and outlawing, persecuting and/or banning on the other. The latter are contrary to everything this country stands for.

Here it comes, we must ally with nazis... what bs

re: #139 DEZes

I dont need a fascist in my fox hole from either side.

What if Nazism was a religion?

re: #118 Charles

Geller is shrieking like a lunatic about the ADL's statement, of course.

She is the Queen of the CAPS LOCK blogs.

re: #141 Lynn B.

And calling for genocide against peaceful Muslims.

Clean up on aisle 137.

re: #25 Kosh's Shadow

I can understand calls to monitor which imams call for violent jihad and which for peaceful inner struggle, but that is different from banning all of them. ... Ban the specific messages, not the whole religion.

Right. Just because a man claims that the Almighty is on his side, you don't take it up with the Almighty when you have to fight him. Likewise, if a wacko says he is acting in the name of his religion, you don't act against the religion when you act against him.

Large groups is a part of this. Numbers are threatening, but it only takes, oh, 4.8 hijackers per plane to do a lot of damage. Gotta separate the crazies from the numbers.

re: #9 Charles

Wilders' statements are about as un-American as it's possible to be. I'm finished giving him the benefit of the doubt, and it's beyond hypocritical of him to be touting "freedom of expression" at the same time as he advocates taking away the rights of Muslims. Disgusting.

I'm in agreement. I'm really disappointed in him.

If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other.
~Carl Shurz

re: #17 Charles

Right here:

“the right to religious freedom should not apply to this totalitarian ideology called Islam.”

I agree Wilders went too far with that statement, but he's also right to say that Islam is a totalitarian ideology; with the Qur'an as its foundation and through sharia law, it controls every aspect of the believer's life, not to mention institutionalizing the near-slavery of women and subordinate, humiliated status for non-Muslims. At times I wonder if it isn't more correct to think of it as a totalitarianism with religious trappings, rather than a genuine religion.

But, yes, Wilders goes too far with that one. The way to deal with Islam is through open discussion and criticism, not the threat of suppression.

re: #140 calcajun

She's Jewish and pissed about something the ADL did? Please tell me when did we slip into this Bizzaro universe.

What does that mean? I'm Jewish, and I'm pissed about at about half of what the ADL does.

The text of Geert Wilders's Florida Speech

I read the speech and the condemnations's quotes in context. I have more problems with the ADL's rhetoric than Geert Wilders's

re: #133 TS

I don't want to ban any ideology. But this PC crap about how you cant criticise Islam has to stop too. Someone can believe all day long that they are superior because of their religion, race, etc, but when you cant fight back in the marketplace of ideas and with free expression as well. things are gonna get ugly. On both sides.
Geert Wilders comes from a country where you cannot speak out about Islam or else you are committing a crime. That is why he speaks like he does about this. Europe has no free speech.

And he doesn't want Islam to have it. Funny how that works.

re: #101 Ben Hur

On the other hand, I don't know what it's like living in Europe.

Very much "class" oriented. That's why socialism has such a hold on much of Europe. Socialism creates a very insidious class boundry that prevents "normal people" from encroaching on the ruling populace. It's the type of model that's being huckstered to us by the present US administation.

It shows a lot of class for the ADL to condemn attacks on Islam. I approve of this.

I am not a proud supporter of the ADL because they really are a pretty ineffective organization.

re: #146 calcajun

Clean up on aisle 137.

You think that's delete worthy?

re: #145 ConservatismNow!

And calling for genocide against peaceful Muslims.

Who is doing that?

re: #134 Barb42

Islam is more than a religion - its a complete cultural, political, religious, socio-economic system. It is totalitarian and it is suppressive/repressive in nature. Also, modern Islam has undeniable historical links to Hitler and the fascism of the mid-20th century. There are two sides to this coin - the fascism of the modern Nazis, and the fascism of Islam (essentially a power struggle much like that between the National Socialists and the Communists of 1930's Germany). If people feel threatened, they will side with the group who will protect them from what they fear the most: the side of the coin that is most alien. Its important to offer an alternative to both sides of that coin. But right now current political powers are bowing down to fascist Islam either out of fear or out of a false sense of political correctness. And that well may will drive the average person into the arms of the Nazis. Just being against the modern Nazi isn't going to cut it. We must offer a strong argument for the Western way of life - and we have to defend it from a position of strength. Either that, or join Bonhoffer on the gallows.

Meaning what, exactly?

re: #118 Charles

Geller is shrieking like a lunatic about the ADL's statement, of course.

I won't even go near that site anymore. There's not enough disinfectant in the world...

re: #137 Thom

If you ever read anything at LGF that led you to believe I'd be in favor of stripping away the right to freedom of religion from Muslims, expelling them from the country, or banning the Koran, you were very seriously mistaken.

re: #143 Ben Hur

What if Nazism was a religion?

good question...I'm a little intimadated to ask these sorts of questions, but Islamofascism and the Nazis don't seem too far apart....one was destroyed for the most part and the other flourishes

re: #137 Thom

You chose to be a bigot? You're crazy. Git.

re: #132 Kosh's Shadow

Yes. And I see on the world stage, Obama reaching out to the radicals, like Iran, instead of to, say Jordan. This is the opposite of what needs to be done.

That's exactly right, he is going the wrong way on this. Whatever moderates that can be identified should be courted & there should be no sucking up to extremists. The thirty's should be the template to avoid here.

re: #100 zombie

In each instance however, the hardcore members of those religions feel we ARE violating their right to Freedom of Religion.

How do we resolve this dilemma?

Since our Constitution forbids the government from establishing a religion and this creates the true meaning of separation of church and state, then the Constitution is the ruling document for America, not any churches tenents. No church law can supercede the Constitution in America.

re: #149 Anthony (Los Angeles)

he's also right to say that Islam is a totalitarian ideology; with the Qur'an as its foundation and through sharia law, it controls every aspect of the believer's life, not to mention institutionalizing the near-slavery of women and subordinate, humiliated status for non-Muslims.

To some Muslims it is all that. To the majority of Muslims, in fact, in many countries. But not to all Muslims.

re: #156 goddessoftheclassroom

Who is doing that?

PIMF. Sorry. Been a long day at work. What I meant was that calling for genocide against peaceful muslims or anyone else is also not called for on this site. I've seen that type of garbage on all kinds of comment sections elsewhere on the internet.

re: #118 Charles

I admit it kinda annoys me that Geller screeches about secular Jews in one breath and then bounces her tits around the next. What, she's not secularised? She names her site after a character in an Ayn Rand book but pretends she's some sort of guardian for Jewish spirituality?

SNnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrlllll lllllllllllllllllll..........................

re: #151 goddessoftheclassroom

How is this "out of context?"

We should also stop pretending that Islam is a religion, sure, it has religious symbols, but it's not a religion. It is a totaltarian ideology and the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam.

We should stop the mass immigration from Muslim countries. We have to stop it, today. No more immigrants from Muslim countries. We have to stop the AlHaya (sp?).

We have to encourage the voluntary repatriation.

He's very clearly saying he wants to take away Muslims' right to practice their religion.

Sorry. Not down with it.

re: #165 ConservatismNow!

PIMF. Sorry. Been a long day at work. What I meant was that calling for genocide against peaceful muslims or anyone else is also not called for on this site. I've seen that type of garbage on all kinds of comment sections elsewhere on the internet.

Whew! Thanks for the clarification.

re: #94 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Took you ALL of that to finally get something right?

DLTDHYITAOTWO!

Huh?

re: #124 ConservatismNow!

That's an easy one, zombie. The U.S. Constitution is the surpreme law of the land. Period. No law, domestic, international, or religious, can contradict any law laid out in the Constitution. Many Sharia laws violate First Amendment rights (among other things) Your freedom of religion stops at my freedom of religion.

Well, there is the nubbin of the dilemma.

If, as you accurately state, "Many Sharia laws violate First Amendment rights," then those sharia laws must necessarily be disallowed.

HOWEVER, many leading Islamic scholars will tell you that sharia is an integral part of islam; that sharia is based on the Quran, which is the incorruptible and perfect and unchanging Word of God; and that if we ban sharia, we are banning Islam, because sharia and Islam are one and the same.

Now, of course, there are a few "liberal" or "reformed" islamic scholars who try to make the argument that it is possible to live as a Muslim in a secular Western nation, and simultaneously abide by its purely secular laws. But the (more respected) fundamentalist scholars dismiss those reformers as "not true Muslims."

What do we do? We're starting to get involved in internal religious doctrinal matters, which is not the role of our government. Who speaks for Islam? Who speaks for any religion?

I don't see how the dilemma is resolved.

re: #165 ConservatismNow!

PIMF. Sorry. Been a long day at work. What I meant was that calling for genocide against peaceful muslims or anyone else is also not called for on this site. I've seen that type of garbage on all kinds of comment sections elsewhere on the internet.

That's what I thought you meant.

re: #100 zombie

In each instance however, the hardcore members of those religions feel we ARE violating their right to Freedom of Religion.

How do we resolve this dilemma?

We keep doing exactly what we're doing: Allow full freedom of religion, under the First Amendment, and prosecuting violations of the law the to fullest extent possible.

re: #101 Ben Hur

On the other hand, I don't know what it's like living in Europe.

I am, go ahead ask. No seriously.
Life here is often good, sometimes dense and rarely unbearable.
The people have a very different understanding of the relation of the populace to the government/state; the civil liberties, freedom, democracy and free market enterprises. Even though the so called 'intelligentsia' is arrogant towards the American culture as being too young, naive and ruffian, the average European is no better educated than the average American.
A lot of people are not interested in history or are 'fed up' of hearing always of the past 'sins' (and they call it that) yet these very same people are often prone to become conspiracy theorist and anti-Semites in the guise of anti-Zionism.
I think I really need to get out of this place.
| Letting my head hang down, starting to feel depressed.

I see Islam as the 7th Century version of Scientology. Anyone not part of Scientology sees it for what it is: a scam and a racket that made a very good living for L. Ron Hubbard, and which continues to do so for his successors. That's obvious to us, because Scientology was first promulgated within the memory of folks currently living, and was in fact well documented, as was Hubbard's boast about being able to make big bucks in the religion game. Likewise, Mohammed made a very good living out of the prophet biz.

Nevertheless in most countries we still grant Scientology the status of a religion, for the simple reason that any attempt by the State to pass judgment on the legitimacy of any religion is fraught with danger.

So if we grant legitimacy to a modern-day scam like Scientology, then by default we have to grant legitimacy to an antique scam like Islam, particularly since most of its practitioners have simply inherited their religion, such as it is, from their parents. For them it is a fact of life, and the question of its fundamental legitimacy never arises.

Let us not try to ban Islam, then, but do let us be vigilant in opposing the excesses and the cruelties practiced by some of the more radical practitioners.

re: #151 goddessoftheclassroom

The text of Geert Wilders's Florida Speech

I read the speech and the condemnations's quotes in context. I have more problems with the ADL's rhetoric than Geert Wilders's

OK.

I agree with most of what he says.

re: #128 Charles

But as I point out in comment #170, we're going to get a lot of whining from the respected scholars of that religion that we are indeed violating their religious rights when all we're doing is enforcing US law.

re: #169 Macker

Huh?

"don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out"

re: #150 Last Mohican

What does that mean? I'm Jewish, and I'm pissed about at about half of what the ADL does.

Begging pardon, but is not the ADL's main goal to stamp out antisemitism--and promote tolerance. They are taking a stand against a form of intolerance. Now, unless it has become a shell and is more akin to the ACLU, then I think Ms. Geller is being a little disingenuous about the ADL taking such a stand. Bigotry and intolerance is execrable no matter who promotes it.

re: #154 blueroom127

I am not a proud supporter of the ADL because they really are a pretty ineffective organization.

They are, in my opinion, basically a fraudulent organization. The last straw for me was when they came out against that congressional proposal to require people to show government-issued photo ID before they could vote. The proposal included providing free photo IDs for people who didn't already have a driver's license or a passport.

ADL also refused to comment on the fact that, during the 2004 election, John Kerry's wife's charitable foundation was funding an organization that did fund-raising for Hezbollah.

re: #175 Ben Hur

OK.

I agree with most of what he says.

Rat poison is 99% nutritious. Just sayin'

re: #100 zombie

To me, it boils down to this - the Constitution. People put their hand on a Bible or Koran or whatever to swear they will uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution to swear they will uphold something that's in the Bible or Koran. People in many religions, though of course not ALL those people in any religion, don't want to face that, but the fact remains that the Constitution is the basis of law. If they do stuff that is illegal, it is illegal whether they're Christian, Muslim, or Satanist. Or whatever.

159 Charles

If you ever read anything at LGF that led you to believe I'd be in favor of stripping away the right to freedom of religion from Muslims, expelling them from the country, or banning the Koran, you were very seriously mistaken.

No, you've never written any such thing here. Nor did I say you had.

re: #167 Charles

How is this "out of context?"

He's very clearly saying he wants to take away Muslims' right to practice their religion.

Sorry. Not down with it.

Perhaps I'm being too generous. I understand him to mean that when Islam crosses from religion to ideology it is no longer a religion in the Western sense of the word.

Zombie's post above expresses the point I mean.

While I may wince at the level of his rhetoric, I am not ready to renounce him.

The prophet, pbuh, was not a pedophile. Aisha had already hit puberty at 9, so she was lawful for him. What was lawful for him changed as new revelations came, making lawful, just for him, what had been unlawful and would remain unlawful for anyone else...say, 12 wives rather than 4.

Plunder, too, was lawful for him. While it would be correct to call another man a warlord and bandit chief if he lead bands of men to overwhelm caravan guards and plunder the caravan, taking his cut, this does not apply to the prophet, pbuh, because by his own report, divine revelation made all that lawful in his case.

Therefore, for this (though not for any other reason), Wilders is wrong to call the prophet a pedophile and a warlord. The rules that apply to other men do not apply to prophets, who can do whatever, by their own report, has been revealed to them as lawful.

And no, there's no /sarc. /sarking the memory of certain highly regarded historical figures is unhealthy and unwise.

re: #135 Charles

I agree Charles. And yes I know I can criticise Islam here, lol. I've done it plenty.
But yeah, the whole damn problem is this pc crap OR fear of being murdered if one criticises Islam that is going on in the world.
I say lets all lay it on the table, out in the open, and slug it out and see whos ideas hold value and ring true. Of course most Muslims are against this as they know they will lose. So they threaten and murder.
And yes Geert Wilders is wrong about banning ANY ideology. I was just saying he comes from a place where they do not have free speech like we do here in the US, so he probably sees it differently. Political correctness drilled into him. So of course he wants to ban Islam. (plus he is under mortal threat, and being banned from visiting other Euro countries, etc)
Europe will head in a bad direction. Its enivatble.
And the left want to lead us in the same direction when these failed ideas lead to things like this in the long run.
A bad fascism will rise against Islam in Europe. Muslims are too ignorant or arrogant as a whole to realise this. (Some wish for it too) I think it is a natural progression of things when you live in a society where you dont have a right to speak out about those who need speaking out about! lol

re: #174 Alberta Oil Peon

I see Islam as the 7th Century version of Scientology. Anyone not part of Scientology sees it for what it is: a scam and a racket that made a very good living for L. Ron Hubbard, and which continues to do so for his successors. That's obvious to us, because Scientology was first promulgated within the memory of folks currently living, and was in fact well documented, as was Hubbard's boast about being able to make big bucks in the religion game. Likewise, Mohammed made a very good living out of the prophet biz.

Nevertheless in most countries we still grant Scientology the status of a religion, for the simple reason that any attempt by the State to pass judgment on the legitimacy of any religion is fraught with danger.

So if we grant legitimacy to a modern-day scam like Scientology, then by default we have to grant legitimacy to an antique scam like Islam, particularly since most of its practitioners have simply inherited their religion, such as it is, from their parents. For them it is a fact of life, and the question of its fundamental legitimacy never arises.

Let us not try to ban Islam, then, but do let us be vigilant in opposing the excesses and the cruelties practiced by some of the more radical practitioners.

That's not a perfect example. Scientology is outlawed in Germany, and a number of other European countries have considered it and are still considering it.

re: #177 pre-Boomer Marine brat

DUHHHHHH!

/smacks forehead

the US is very nearly in a catch-22 situation...we do not profile and we do not really control immigration....as an extremist threat gains momentum, and if Europe is any indicator, we better dust off our treason and sedition laws, along with RICCO and prepare to use them...it's going to take a long time and cost a hell of alot of money....to be fair, it has to be that way

re: #175 Ben Hur

OK.

I agree with most of what he says.

I don't. In fact, I read the speech and it is almost unbelievably hypocritical for this man to be portraying himself as a hero for free speech and free expression, at the same time as he explicitly calls for stripping a whole class of people of those very rights.

This is un-American to its core. It's despicable rabble-rousing populist garbage.

The Royal House of Saud, leader of Islam and steward of Mecca, should publicly reject the canonically obligatory perpetual state of war (jihad) doctrines--when such jihads aren't personal journeys of self-discovery.

Not everyone has the luxury to practice religion freely.

The Sabian Mandaeans - one of the oldest religious groups in the world - are facing extinction, according to its leaders.

re: #166 Hhar

The name of her site annoys me as well. (After the book, not a character btw).

The tit bouncing I can handle.

Crazy Pam is really taking on the ADL.....

What must be understood is their "religion" is their dogma. These are not Jews, they worship at the church of human secularism. They define self-hating Jew (neo-kapo is apt here too)

Pam and Robert seem to be headed for all out confrontations with the ADL and Southern Poverty Law Center. This kind of thing is only going to attract more neo-Nazis to the counter-Jihad cause. They are just digging the hole deeper.

re: #170 zombie

Now, of course, there are a few "liberal" or "reformed" islamic scholars who try to make the argument that it is possible to live as a Muslim in a secular Western nation, and simultaneously abide by its purely secular laws. But the (more respected) fundamentalist scholars dismiss those reformers as "not true Muslims."

What do we do? We're starting to get involved in internal religious doctrinal matters, which is not the role of our government. Who speaks for Islam? Who speaks for any religion?

I don't see how the dilemma is resolved.

I bolded the key point. It's up to Islam - the "moderates" and the purists to figure out how to live in a democracy. Our Constitution pretty darned clearly presents our position. It's not our job or responsibility to meddle in internal church doctrines unless and until those church doctrines run afoul the Constitution.

We have to encourage the voluntary repatriation. We have to expel criminals. We have to expel criminals with dual nationality even if we have to de-naturalize them and send them back to their homelands. I think we need a European First Amendment to strengthen our freedom of speech.

The rest.

re: #176 zombie

But as I point out in comment #170, we're going to get a lot of whining from the respected scholars of that religion that we are indeed violating their religious rights when all we're doing is enforcing US law.

I see it as their problem, and theirs alone. By whining, they are setting their religion above everything else -- our nation, our (other) religions, et cetera. That, per se, violates our founding principles.

re: #128 Charles

But the two are intertwined.

re: #182 Thom

159 Charles

No, you've never written any such thing here. Nor did I say you had.

Well, then you've answered your question. Nothing is changing here. I'm trying to be consistent and stand up for principles that matter to me. People like Geller and Wilders have been getting steadily more extreme and hateful -- they're the ones who are changing.

I am searching for a quote, something about freedom & the rights of those most odious... can't find it anywhere. Anyone?

re: #178 calcajun

Begging pardon, but is not the ADL's main goal to stamp out antisemitism--and promote tolerance.

In my opinion, no. That's only what they say their goals are.

They are taking a stand against a form of intolerance.

I agree, and I agree with that stand.

Now, unless it has become a shell and is more akin to the ACLU,

Yes, that's about what they are: the ACLU with a yarmulke.

re: #143 Ben Hur

What if Nazism was a religion?

We all know that militants exist in Islam, And that they should be hounded into the ground.
But lets assume Nazism was a religion, We have practitioners in this country that treat it as such, to this day.
We let them do it, and as long as they pose no threat.
Should we ban the skinheads?
I know your making parallels from Nazism to Islam.
And if Jihadists are as bad as Nazi's, why would I want either on my side.

A hypothetical:

1. Suppose you were a member of a group.

2. Suppose some members of your group committed mass murder in your groups name.

3. Suppose you said or did nothing in protest of those members of your group who committed mass murder in your name. Indeed, suppose you financially supported the members of your group who were committing the mass murder.

Do you now have the right to complain when others (not of your group) advocate that your group should be banned?

Of the three Great Abramiic religions, only Islam has not had a reformation.
The Koran is viewed by too many as the literal word of God, not metaphors & allegories.
As we all know the Koran has some despicble suras. It is true that moderate Muslims do not bu in, but they may not be very religious.
It seems to me that the issue is , how to moderate the more pious, extreme group.

re: #183 goddessoftheclassroom

Perhaps I'm being too generous. I understand him to mean that when Islam crosses from religion to ideology it is no longer a religion in the Western sense of the word.

Geert has said repeatedly that owning a Quran should be against the law and Muslims should not be covered by rights regarding the freedom of religion. He is very clear about it and says it in almost every speech.

re: #198 Charles

You are a good man Charles with a good heart..

re: #193 Killgore Trout

Crazy Pam is really taking on the ADL.....

Pam and Robert seem to be headed for all out confrontations with the ADL and Southern Poverty Law Center. This kind of thing is only going to attract more neo-Nazis to the counter-Jihad cause. They are just digging the hole deeper.

In all fairness, because I a not a Pam fan, I know a lot of Jews, myself included, who think similar things about the ADL- having NOTHING to do with this issue.

re: #170 zombie

I don't care what those scholars believe. If their proposed laws violate my rights as an American citizen, then they can stick it. This has nothing to do with getting involved with religious doctrinal matters, but with U.S. Law. Sharia law does not supercede the U.S. Constitution. There is no gray area at all.

re: #170 zombie

Well, there is the nubbin of the dilemma.

If, as you accurately state, "Many Sharia laws violate First Amendment rights," then those sharia laws must necessarily be disallowed.

HOWEVER, many leading Islamic scholars will tell you that sharia is an integral part of islam; that sharia is based on the Quran, which is the incorruptible and perfect and unchanging Word of God; and that if we ban sharia, we are banning Islam, because sharia and Islam are one and the same.

Now, of course, there are a few "liberal" or "reformed" islamic scholars who try to make the argument that it is possible to live as a Muslim in a secular Western nation, and simultaneously abide by its purely secular laws. But the (more respected) fundamentalist scholars dismiss those reformers as "not true Muslims."

What do we do? We're starting to get involved in internal religious doctrinal matters, which is not the role of our government. Who speaks for Islam? Who speaks for any religion?

I don't see how the dilemma is resolved.

While I understand the logical dilemma you describe, I'm not so sure it's real.

We don't allow murder if one's religion calls for it.
We don't allow rape if one's religion allows it.
We don't allow incitement to violence if one's religion allows it.
We don't allow slavery if one's religion does.

Individual liberty stops where it impinges on that of another.

re: #204 Killgore Trout

Geert has said repeatedly that owning a Quran should be against the law and Muslims should not be covered by rights regarding the freedom of religion. He is very clear about it and says it in almost every speech.

He's also supported the concept of banning headscarves and mosques at various points.

re: #207 ConservatismNow!

I don't care what those scholars believe. If their proposed laws violate my rights as an American citizen, then they can stick it. This has nothing to do with getting involved with religious doctrinal matters, but with U.S. Law. Sharia law does not supercede the U.S. Constitution. There is no gray area at all.

what happened to the guy arrested for tossing a Koran in a toilet....doesn't he have a right to express himself?

re: #202 anchors_aweigh

A hypothetical:

1. Suppose you were a member of a group.

2. Suppose some members of your group committed mass murder in your groups name.

3. Suppose you said or did nothing in protest of those members of your group who committed mass murder in your name. Indeed, suppose you financially supported the members of your group who were committing the mass murder.

Do you now have the right to complain when others (not of your group) advocate that your group should be banned?

Of course you have the right to complain. But you don't have the right to ban them. No on is saying Wilders doesn't have the right to say what he said.

All we are saying here is he is wrong.

Sez Pammy:

how Jews can be Democrats or leftists. What must be understood is their "religion" is their dogma. These are not Jews, they worship at the church of human secularism. They define self-hating Jew (neo-kapo is apt here too)

So Pammy, what's your Judaism consist of? Bentched any Shabbos candles lately?

re: #176 zombie

But as I point out in comment #170, we're going to get a lot of whining from the respected scholars of that religion that we are indeed violating their religious rights when all we're doing is enforcing US law.

Let them whine. It's our country and our laws. If they are unhappy about that, there are, I believe at last count, 57 countries where they can practice their religion as they see fit.

re: #160 albusteve

good question...I'm a little intimadated to ask these sorts of questions, but Islamofascism and the Nazis don't seem too far apart....one was destroyed for the most part and the other flourishes

And the majority of Muslim nations still look up to Adolf. "Mein Kamf" is, for the most part, a best seller in these countries.

re: #210 albusteve

what happened to the guy arrested for tossing a Koran in a toilet....doesn't he have a right to express himself?

Wasn't that a hoax?

re: #203 opnion

Bingo. A reformation is the ONLY way Islam will survive the 21st Century. If the Muslims who do not espouse the views of the Islamofascists do not speak up, then they will eventually be destroyed, along with all their sites they consider holy.
It will not be pretty if this happens.

re: #192 Eagle

The name of her site annoys me as well. (After the book, not a character btw).

The tit bouncing I can handle.

Sorry, I know its after the book. Read it when I was 16, 'cause my parents bought me 3 of Rand's books (Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and her one other. Can't remember: didn't read it 'cause I didn't think much of her. ) in the hopes that I'd be an objectivist. I have dissappointed them deeply, but what the hey.

re: #176 zombie

But as I point out in comment #170, we're going to get a lot of whining from the respected scholars of that religion that we are indeed violating their religious rights when all we're doing is enforcing US law.

Let 'em whine?

re: #205 HoosierHoops

You are a good man Charles with a good heart..

...we don't know who's heart it is, but it is a good one./ ;)

That's a riff on an old Dean Martin joke about Frank Sinatra; "Frank would give me a kidney if I needed one. I don't know who's it would be, but he'd give me one..."

re: #193 Killgore Trout

This kind of thing is only going to attract more neo-Nazis to the counter-Jihad cause. They are just digging the hole deeper.

These guys?

Your text to link...
Your text to link...
Your text to link...

Your text to link...

re: #212 Alouette

Sez Pammy:

So Pammy, what's your Judaism consist of? Bentched any Shabbos candles lately?

She loses me when she writes that they are not Jews.

They are Jews, but there overall political ideology is what defines them.

re: #198 Charles

Well, then you've answered your question. Nothing is changing here. I'm trying to be consistent and stand up for principles that matter to me. People like Geller and Wilders have been getting steadily more extreme and hateful -- they're the ones who are changing.

I think they're changing because they smell blood in the water. Their more virulent rhetoric is attracting loud howls of approval from people who didn't dare come out of the woodwork before but now think they've found spokesmouths for their most hateful views. The approval of the mob tends to have a loop effect. The louder the crowd, the bolder the act becomes until the whole thing spirals out of control. That's one of the things that scares me the most about these people. They've gotten carried away on a wave of their own popularity with really foul and noxious admirers.

re: #177 pre-Boomer Marine brat

"don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out"

Sort of like DILLIGAF?

Geert says no freedom of religion for Muslims.....

He's very clear about this.

re: #29 zombie

Islam is not merely a religion. It is also a way of life, a philosophy, a military doctrine, a political structure, a legal system, and so on. It is all-encompassing and goes beyond mere "religion." In fact, as Edward Said might have said, it is "orientalist" of us to apply our western notion of "religion" being a separate category from secular life, and applying that definition to Islam.

Disappointing. You are using the same brush with which Americans are tarred by Europeans as Puritanical, and by the Middle-East as Crusaders.
There are "a way of life, a philosophy, a military doctrine, a political structure, a legal system, and so on" available which conform closely to Islam, but these are not the religion itself.
I am in Afghanistan, and I have friends here who are devout Muslims, but who would *of course* not dream of subscribing to the nightmare vision espoused by some.

Are you now so educated that you can no longer see beyond what learned people say? How can you take a basic fact of human nature, that people are infinitely varied in their approaches to life, and allow that to be eclipsed by the shadow of political correctness? You sound like the people who said that Iraq was doomed to failure because "those people" had no tradition of freedom, no desire for freedom, and most offensively, no *ability* to deal with freedom. They thought they were being sensitive--they were being racist or something close to it.

You have a few valid data points--but putting it in a syllogism will show you your (surprising) error.

re: #127 anchors_aweigh

Actually, most of those articles were Imam's denouncing domestic violence. I shouldn't have to point out that the vast majority of Islamic violence is directed against other Moslems.

So I'm going to ask again, is your Google broken?

[Link: www.haaretz.com...]

TIGHTEN
UP,
R

I'm going to repeat myself, and quote myself, because it seems to me that some people are having a problem with understanding the difference between agree with Islam and allowing it to practice in the US, as long as they are not breaking our laws. So, to wit again...

Islam is a religion, probably one of the most pure religions we have on the face of the planet, since it tries very hard to rule among it's followers as a theocracy. At least in the US, they deserve the same considerations that all other religions do. Yes, the Koran contains a lot of passages that are hateful and basically the book is a manual detailing how to bring the world under the control of Islam.

All in all, I would say it's a very vibrant and powerful religion. What can we do about it. Use every law we have available to stop any Muslim that is breaking our laws. Take every possible opportunity to expose Islam's human right violations, include the horrid way they treat woman. Mount effective apologetic campaigns that will educate the public as to the practices of Islam that are at odds with the modern world and basic freedoms.

But to shut them up, that is wrong, and against every principle we stand for in this country.

re: #217 Hhar

Sorry, I know its after the book. Read it when I was 16, 'cause my parents bought me 3 of Rand's books (Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and her one other. Can't remember: didn't read it 'cause I didn't think much of her. ) in the hopes that I'd be an objectivist. I have dissappointed them deeply, but what the hey.

That's objective.

re: #215 ConservatismNow!

Wasn't that a hoax?

don't know...the question I raise is one of fair and even application of the law...I'm not sure we are there yet with Islam...there is too wide of a grey area and too much lattitude with judges....I personally am repulsed with hate speech or hate crimes....we are in for some stormy sailing I think

re: #137 Thom
Whoa. You're drinking bin Laden's Kool-Aid.

re: #225 haakondahl

What Zombie wrote is absolutely true.

Any, left or right, Islam Historian would say the same.

re: #216 Macker

Bingo. A reformation is the ONLY way Islam will survive the 21st Century. If the Muslims who do not espouse the views of the Islamofascists do not speak up, then they will eventually be destroyed, along with all their sites they consider holy.
It will not be pretty if this happens.

A reformation is really the only way. Imams must explain that The Koran only tells a story & has been corrupted or something. As long as that book is taken literally there will remain a huge gulf.
Now the Imams should start tomorrow, I'll wait.

re: #223 Cato the Elder

Sort of like DILLIGAF?

*scratches head*
*rolls eyes*
I just KNEW I shouldn't have started that!

re: #140 calcajun

She's Jewish and pissed about something the ADL did? Please tell me when did we slip into this Bizzaro universe.

Each day it appears that The Onion is taking more control of life.

Shrieks on the ADL:

"These are not Jews, they worship at the church of human secularism."

You can really tell this one has a deep understanding of Ayn Rand.// I wonder if she's related to a certain Otto?

Uch. Must leave.

My kind of thread!

Have a good night!

re: #170 zombie

"I don't see how the dilemma is resolved."

I do. Simply tell all comers that they must live in harmony with the Constitution. If they can't deal with that, they are free to seek a Paradise elsewhere on the planet.

If their religious obligations cause them to commit acts that are punishable as crimes under the Constitution, then throw their ass in jail. Or into Old Sparky, as circumstances dictate.

I'm tired of Europopulists, Eurolobbyists, and extreme right groups with their hair on fire screaming about how bad the situation is in Europe. I'm tired of their scenery chewing ineffectual and counter productive demonstrations against symptoms instead of cause. I'm tired of them grandstanding on a good cause thereby destroying it, and I'm tired of them trampling on constitutional concepts in the name of anti-jihad.

The same people screaming about "FEMA CaMpZ!" are the same people who secretly advocate rounding up muslims. Piss on them all.

re: #236 Ben Hur

Uch. Must leave.

My kind of thread!

Have a good night!

G**d night!

Anyone quote this yet?

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist; and then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; and then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; and then . . . they came for me . . . and by that time there was no one left to speak up.

~Martin Niemöller

re: #203 opnion

Of the three Great Abramiic religions, only Islam has not had a reformation.
The Koran is viewed by too many as the literal word of God, not metaphors & allegories.
As we all know the Koran has some despicble suras. It is true that moderate Muslims do not bu in, but they may not be very religious.
It seems to me that the issue is , how to moderate the more pious, extreme group.

That's what we're doing in Afghanistan. It's the only thing they'll listen to.

re: #173 callahan23

{callahan23}

is it illegal to preach from inside of a mosque to kill Jews?...or kill infidals?

This is perplexing to say the least. I am thinking back now upon the imagery I saw while browsing the pro-Koeln associated site of Manfred Rouhs along side Axel Reitz and his attorney, Markus Beisicht. Perplexed that people can't see through the manure that these groups have propped up in order to mask their neo-Nazi alliances and connections over the years only to gain support from the so called anti-Jihadists. Are people that naive not to realize the inherent anti-semitic nature of these groups?

When Geert Wilders of Vlaams Belang says “the right to religious freedom should not apply to this totalitarian ideology called Islam” he is illustrating his narrow view of religious freedom. Religious practice should be freely allowed as long as it works within the law and respects community standards. Islam in this case is no different than any other religion in that as long as it respects the secular framework they should be free to exist.

Banning never works and is essentially the totalitarianism that he cites as part of the Islamic ideology that he feels should be banned.
Though he is correct in his description of that ideology.
Islam needs a reformation as did the form of Christianity that slaughtered so many in the middle ages and beyond.
That's what he should be arguing, reformation. He'd serve his cause better if he did so.

Islam is a political ideology more than a religion.

If the KKK announced they were now a religion could they then preach how inferior blacks are? Do I hear a 'No'? Then how do you give a pass to a group who preaches how inferior Jews are?

I am not in favor of 'Human Rights Commissions' ala Canada who judge what speech is allowed. But I am also not in favor of ideologies that have hate and racism as a basic tenet.

I don't' care what your excuse is but I do not support groups who like to kill their daughters for dressing in a 'western' way.

Face it. through out the world there are quite a few quiet Muslims leading quiet lives. They do not denounce the many who preach hatred and racism.

Islam is a political movement not a 'religion'. Islam wants you to join or be subservient and pay your jizya. Islam cannot live side by side in peace with people who do not believe in Islam. It is against their tenets and principals.

re: #238 Thanos

...FEMA CaMpZ...

Have you trademarked that yet, you should.

re: #243 albusteve

is it illegal to preach from inside of a mosque to kill Jews?...or kill infidals?

I believe that would fall under the 'incitement to violence' exception to free speech assuming they're serious. Like screaming "fire" in a crowded theater.

re: #130 ConservatismNow!

Ahh. Yes. But, keep in mind that there were numerous revolts and revolutions in Europe through the nineteenth century--which explains their desire to suppress speech.

re: #189 Charles

I don't. In fact, I read the speech and it is almost unbelievably hypocritical for this man to be portraying himself as a hero for free speech and free expression, at the same time as he explicitly calls for stripping a whole class of people of those very rights.

This is un-American to its core. It's despicable rabble-rousing populist garbage.

Sorry.

Didn't see your response.

For me, the "tolerance of intolerance" arguement is very strong.

at the same time as he explicitly calls for stripping a whole class of people of those very rights

That's why I wrote "most" and not "all."

re: #217 Hhar

Sorry, I know its after the book. Read it when I was 16, 'cause my parents bought me 3 of Rand's books (Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and her one other. Can't remember: didn't read it 'cause I didn't think much of her. ) in the hopes that I'd be an objectivist. I have dissappointed them deeply, but what the hey.

Me, I'm a big fan. Love Atlas Shrugged (the book, not the website!)

It really is an odd choice of name on her part. Her site design makes her out to be a rational individualist, but her commentary is anything but.

It'd be like me making a website called Marxian Superheroes or something.

re: #226 Render

Actually, most of those articles were Imam's denouncing domestic violence. I shouldn't have to point out that the vast majority of Islamic violence is directed against other Moslems.

So I'm going to ask again, is your Google broken?

[Link: www.haaretz.com...]

TIGHTEN
UP,
R

Render,

Your killing me here. One article of Imans pledging to fight "terror" is the best you can do? We all know what the Imans mean when they say they are against "terror".

GIVE ME A BREAK,
AA

re: #244 Gus 802

One correction Gus: Geert is not with Vlaams Belang, he's from the Netherlands, not Belgium. He's mighty friendly with VB lately however.

re: #224 Killgore Trout

Geert says no freedom of religion for Muslims.....

[Video]

He's very clear about this.

She did a good job. Too bad she didn't ask him about the terrorists acts committed by the Serbians.

I guess we'll know what he feels soon enough, when they reach 30%.

Night.

re: #208 eschew_obfuscation

While I understand the logical dilemma you describe, I'm not so sure it's real.

We don't allow murder if one's religion calls for it.
We don't allow rape if one's religion allows it.
We don't allow incitement to violence if one's religion allows it.
We don't allow slavery if one's religion does.

Individual liberty stops where it impinges on that of another.