ADL Condemns Remarks by Geert Wilders

US News • Views: 3,519

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: DL Condemns Anti-Islam Remarks Made by Dutch Parliamentarian During Appearances in S. Florida.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) strongly condemns remarks made over the last few days at various appearances throughout South Florida by Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders.� 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.”

Andrew Rosenkranz, ADL Florida Regional Director, issued the following statement:

The ADL strongly condemns Geert Wilders’ message of hate against Islam as inflammatory, divisive and antithetical to American democratic ideals.

This rhetoric is dangerous and incendiary, and wrongly focuses on Islam as a religion, as opposed to the very real threat of extremist, radical Islamists.

Jump to bottom

636 comments

1 Honorary Yooper  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:30:47pm

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

2 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:31:04pm

It's more than a religion.

3 MandyManners  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:31:24pm

When will an imam speak up on behalf of Jews?

4 MandyManners  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:31:48pm

Muslima.com ad.

5 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:32:06pm

single muslim dot com

6 Honorary Yooper  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:32:19pm

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?

7 MandyManners  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:32:54pm

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.

8 Honorary Yooper  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:32:56pm

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.

9 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:33:15pm

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.

10 MandyManners  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:33:43pm

re: #8 Honorary Yooper

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

Or, Wilder's.

11 anchors_aweigh  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:34:05pm

I wonder where ole Geert got those ideas about Islam?

12 MandyManners  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:34:20pm

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.

13 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:34:30pm
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?

14 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:34:33pm

re: #3 MandyManners

When will an imam speak up on behalf of Jews?

Italian Imam. Forget his name.

15 Honorary Yooper  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:34:55pm

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.

16 Eagle  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:35:32pm

re: #6 Honorary Yooper


Atlas Shrieks


heh!

17 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:36:10pm

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.”

18 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:36:53pm

The banning stuff is un-American.

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

19 MandyManners  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:37:11pm

re: #14 Ben Hur

Italian Imam. Forget his name.

For real?

20 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:38:03pm

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.

21 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:38:23pm

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

22 Joel  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:38:49pm

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.

23 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:39:16pm

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.

24 wrenchwench  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:39:37pm

re: #20 Charles

Don't be sorry.

25 Kosh's Shadow  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:39:55pm

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.

26 brookly red  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:40:19pm

/will his tour include a stop in Dearborn?

27 dhg4  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:40:29pm

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."

28 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:40:32pm

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

29 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:41:21pm

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.

30 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:41:28pm

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.

31 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:42:10pm

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

32 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:42:13pm

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.

33 Russkilitlover  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:42:26pm

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!

34 MandyManners  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:42:35pm

re: #28 Ben Hur

Wow.

35 MandyManners  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:42:54pm

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.

36 Sheila Broflovski  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:43:21pm

re: #14 Ben Hur

Italian Imam. Forget his name.

Abdel Haj Palazzi

37 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:43:24pm

BBIAB

38 SFGoth  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:43:47pm

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.

39 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:44:09pm

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.

40 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:44:34pm

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.

41 Render  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:45:10pm

re: #20 Charles

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

AMONG
THE
BELIEVERS,
R

42 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:45:28pm

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.

43 researchok  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:45:35pm

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.

44 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:45:43pm

re: #36 Alouette

Abdel Haj Palazzi

L'vriut.

45 SFGoth  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:45:50pm

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.

46 Honorary Yooper  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:45:55pm

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.

47 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:47:12pm

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.

48 _RememberTonyC  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:47:20pm

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

49 SFGoth  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:48:04pm

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.

50 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:48:05pm

Islam is the Sham-Wow of religions.

51 anchors_aweigh  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:48:13pm

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.

52 dhg4  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:48:15pm

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.

53 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:49:34pm

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.

54 Annar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:49:42pm

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.

55 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:49:47pm

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.

56 MandyManners  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:49:59pm

re: #50 Ben Hur

Islam is the Sham-Wow of religions.

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

57 Amused to Death  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:50:25pm

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.

58 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:50:38pm

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?

59 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:51:14pm

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?

60 MandyManners  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:51:18pm

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.

61 Kosh's Shadow  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:51:18pm

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.

62 Honorary Yooper  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:51:37pm

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.

63 MandyManners  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:51:54pm

re: #57 Amused to Death

Buh-bye!

64 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:52:04pm

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!

65 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:52:27pm

That's our first Wilders flounce-off.

66 MandyManners  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:52:43pm

Gotta' finish up din-din!

67 callahan23  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:52:49pm

re: #57 Amused to Death

What an incredibly fast Stinky today. Cudos.

68 Kragar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:53:01pm

re: #57 Amused to Death

Go waste it somewhere else then.

69 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:53:14pm

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

70 calcajun  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:53:22pm

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.

71 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:53:32pm

Is there a link to Wilder's entire speech?

72 see bs  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:53:34pm

re: #57 Amused to Death

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

73 opnion  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:53:37pm

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.

74 Soona'  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:53:49pm

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.

75 Honorary Yooper  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:53:55pm

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.

76 albusteve  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:54:13pm

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?....

77 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:54:40pm

Was this speech attended by Pam Gellar as well?

78 Gella  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:54:45pm

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.

79 calcajun  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:54:51pm

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?

80 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:55:09pm

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.

81 Last Mohican  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:55:09pm

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.

82 DEZes  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:55:11pm

re: #57 Amused to Death

Can you say *POOF*

83 Baier  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:55:19pm

Reciprocity is not a precondition to speaking out.

84 Honorary Yooper  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:55:34pm

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.

85 Thom  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:55:49pm
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.

86 Russkilitlover  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:56:12pm

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.

87 Soona'  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:56:36pm

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.

88 anchors_aweigh  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:56:37pm

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.

89 callahan23  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:56:45pm

re: #82 DEZes

Can you say *POOF*

Yeah, KABOOOM !

90 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:56:47pm

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.

91 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:57:24pm

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 .

92 Kosh's Shadow  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:57:31pm

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.

93 Honorary Yooper  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:58:08pm

re: #89 callahan23

Yeah, KABOOOM !

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

94 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:58:10pm

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!

95 Lynn B.  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:59:16pm

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.

96 Mithrax  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:59:17pm

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.

97 Render  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:59:34pm

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

98 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:59:34pm

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.

99 callahan23  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:59:45pm

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.

100 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:59:59pm

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?

101 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:00:20pm

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

102 reine.de.tout  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:00:30pm

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

103 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:01:00pm

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"

104 SFGoth  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:01:02pm

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.)

105 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:01:05pm

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?"

106 Mithrax  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:01:26pm

re: #103 pre-Boomer Marine brat

re: #102 reine.de.tout

I am now enlightened. Thank you!

107 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:01:31pm

Islam is totalitarian, IMO.

108 opnion  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:01:37pm

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.

109 Kosh's Shadow  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:01:40pm

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.

110 Russkilitlover  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:01:41pm

re: #94 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Took you ALL of that to finally get something right?

DLTDHYITAOTWO!

I figured that out! LMAO - good one!

111 Cato the Elder  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:01:42pm

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.

112 wrenchwench  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:01:54pm

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.

113 DEZes  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:02:08pm

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

114 Gella  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:02:16pm

re: #104 SFGoth

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

115 calcajun  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:02:28pm

re: #98 ConservatismNow!

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

116 haakondahl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:02:33pm

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.

117 ArchangelMichael  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:03:30pm

re: #48 _RememberTonyC

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

FTFY for modern day geopolitics...

118 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:03:50pm

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

119 SFGoth  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:04:03pm

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.

120 albusteve  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:04:10pm

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

121 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:04:17pm

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.

122 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:04:23pm

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?

123 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:04:31pm

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.

124 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:04:36pm

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.

125 Kosh's Shadow  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:04:36pm

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.

126 jcm  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:04:38pm

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.

127 anchors_aweigh  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:04:43pm

re: #97 Render

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

128 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:04:52pm

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.

129 Gella  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:04:52pm

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 :)

130 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:05:18pm

re: #115 calcajun

Not rocking the boat. Maintaining the status quo.

131 albusteve  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:05:19pm

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

132 Kosh's Shadow  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:06:05pm

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.

133 TS  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:06:22pm

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.

134 Barb42  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:06:34pm

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.

135 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:07:38pm

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.

136 opnion  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:08:07pm

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.

137 Thom  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:08:47pm

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.

138 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:08:59pm

How 'bout changing the immigration quotas.

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

139 DEZes  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:09:03pm

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.

140 calcajun  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:09:05pm

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.

141 Lynn B.  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:09:14pm

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.

142 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:09:20pm

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

143 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:09:51pm

re: #139 DEZes

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

What if Nazism was a religion?

144 Eagle  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:09:55pm

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.

145 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:10:09pm

re: #141 Lynn B.

And calling for genocide against peaceful Muslims.

146 calcajun  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:10:21pm

Clean up on aisle 137.

147 haakondahl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:10:29pm

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.

148 Catttt  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:10:36pm

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

149 Anthony (Los Angeles)  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:10:43pm

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.

150 Last Mohican  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:10:50pm

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.

151 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:10:51pm

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

152 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:11:01pm

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.

153 Soona'  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:11:05pm

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.

154 blueroom127  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:11:15pm

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.

155 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:11:17pm

re: #146 calcajun

Clean up on aisle 137.


You think that's delete worthy?

156 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:11:26pm

re: #145 ConservatismNow!

And calling for genocide against peaceful Muslims.

Who is doing that?

157 Lynn B.  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:11:26pm

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?

158 Cato the Elder  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:11:34pm

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...

159 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:12:12pm

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.

160 albusteve  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:12:13pm

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

161 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:12:17pm

re: #137 Thom

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

162 opnion  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:12:20pm

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.

163 Russkilitlover  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:12:35pm

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.

164 Last Mohican  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:12:53pm

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.

165 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:14:23pm

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.

166 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:15:04pm

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?

SNnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrllllllllllllllllllllllll..........................

167 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:15:06pm

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.

168 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:15:11pm

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.

169 Macker  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:15:23pm

re: #94 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Took you ALL of that to finally get something right?

DLTDHYITAOTWO!

Huh?

170 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:15:34pm

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.

171 Lynn B.  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:15:40pm

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.

172 doppelganglander  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:15:47pm

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.

173 callahan23  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:16:16pm

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.
%P% Letting my head hang down, starting to feel depressed.

174 Alberta Oil Peon  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:16:25pm

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.

175 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:16:32pm

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.

176 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:16:59pm

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.

177 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:16:59pm

re: #169 Macker

Huh?

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

178 calcajun  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:17:08pm

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.

179 Last Mohican  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:17:48pm

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.

180 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:17:51pm

re: #175 Ben Hur

OK.

I agree with most of what he says.


Rat poison is 99% nutritious. Just sayin'

181 Catttt  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:18:18pm

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.

182 Thom  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:18:40pm

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.

183 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:18:48pm

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.

184 lostlakehiker  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:18:51pm

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.

185 TS  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:18:52pm

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

186 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:19:13pm

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.

187 Macker  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:19:32pm

re: #177 pre-Boomer Marine brat

DUHHHHHH!

/smacks forehead

188 albusteve  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:19:47pm

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

189 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:19:48pm

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.

190 alegrias  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:20:03pm

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.

191 Jr Ewing  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:20:05pm
192 Eagle  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:20:38pm

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.

193 Killgore Trout  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:20:40pm

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.

194 Russkilitlover  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:20:50pm

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.

195 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:21:01pm
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.

196 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:21:05pm

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.

197 UberInfidel67  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:21:13pm

re: #128 Charles

But the two are intertwined.

198 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:21:16pm

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.

199 brookly red  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:21:34pm

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

200 Last Mohican  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:21:58pm

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.

201 DEZes  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:22:03pm

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.

202 anchors_aweigh  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:22:08pm

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?

203 opnion  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:22:23pm

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.

204 Killgore Trout  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:22:25pm

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.

205 Digital Display  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:22:42pm

re: #198 Charles

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

206 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:23:11pm

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.

207 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:23:21pm

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.

208 eschew_obfuscation  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:23:42pm

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.

209 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:24:17pm

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.

210 albusteve  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:24:51pm

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?

211 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:25:01pm

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.

212 Sheila Broflovski  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:25:11pm

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?

213 doppelganglander  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:25:12pm

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.

214 Soona'  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:25:25pm

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.

215 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:25:35pm

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?

216 Macker  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:25:48pm

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.

217 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:26:09pm

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.

218 Cato the Elder  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:26:18pm

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?

219 calcajun  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:26:38pm

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..."

220 Jr Ewing  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:26:45pm

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...

221 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:26:47pm

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.

222 Lynn B.  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:27:00pm

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.

223 Cato the Elder  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:27:08pm

re: #177 pre-Boomer Marine brat

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

Sort of like DILLIGAF?

224 Killgore Trout  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:27:13pm

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


He's very clear about this.

225 haakondahl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:27:14pm

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.

226 Render  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:27:54pm

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

227 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:28:15pm

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.

228 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:28:40pm

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.

229 albusteve  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:28:59pm

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

230 haakondahl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:29:09pm

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

231 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:29:09pm

re: #225 haakondahl

What Zombie wrote is absolutely true.

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

232 opnion  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:29:16pm

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.

233 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:29:18pm

re: #223 Cato the Elder

Sort of like DILLIGAF?

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

234 debutaunt  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:29:28pm

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.

235 Aye Pod  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:30:10pm

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?

236 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:30:14pm

Uch. Must leave.

My kind of thread!

Have a good night!

237 Alberta Oil Peon  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:30:30pm

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.

238 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:30:30pm

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.

239 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:31:34pm

re: #236 Ben Hur

Uch. Must leave.

My kind of thread!

Have a good night!

G**d night!

240 Catttt  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:31:53pm

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

241 Soona'  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:32:08pm

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.

242 wrenchwench  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:32:29pm

re: #173 callahan23

{callahan23}

243 albusteve  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:32:38pm

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

244 Gus  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:32:55pm

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.

245 captdiggs  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:33:04pm

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.

246 recklessprocess  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:33:30pm

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.

247 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:33:44pm

re: #238 Thanos

...FEMA CaMpZ...

Have you trademarked that yet, you should.

248 eschew_obfuscation  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:33:49pm

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.

249 calcajun  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:33:54pm

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.

250 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:34:03pm

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."

251 Eagle  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:34:03pm

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.

252 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:34:18pm
253 anchors_aweigh  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:34:21pm

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

254 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:34:29pm

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.

255 Gus  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:34:59pm

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.

256 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:35:01pm

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

Night.

257 Soona'  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:35:05pm

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.

You just desribed a large population of Muslims. Who'da thunk it.

258 Gus  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:35:12pm

re: #254 Thanos

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

OK, thanks. Woops.

259 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:35:19pm

Here they come.

260 haakondahl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:35:31pm

re: #38 SFGoth

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.

Again, a syllogism would help, if you even know what that is. You can cite true facts all day long, but when you combine them in a way which does not prove what you claim they prove, you are wrong. Your straw man is showing, too--It's not hate speech to tell the truth, or to quote source material. The problem is that many folks take such a flying leap into the bullshit, while claiming they never took a step from the facts.

261 callahan23  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:35:36pm

re: #242 wrenchwench

{wrenchwench}

262 Catttt  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:36:04pm

re: #259 Charles

Here they come.

Hey! Hey! We're the Monkees!

Sorry - had a flashback. /

263 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:36:45pm

re: #229 albusteve

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

Ohh you are referring to the hypothetical. Well, legally I can't say whether that would classify as a hate crime or not. Depends on the district court, I guess. Also depends on whether he was an artist. Me personally? Every violent crime is a crime of hate, but throwing a Koran in a toilet is not one of those. It's his opinion and as long as he doesn't call for violence against Muslims, he can continue to clog up his toilet.

264 doppelganglander  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:36:48pm

re: #232 opnion

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.

This statement made me think about the Christian Reformation and do a little mental compare/contrast. The reformers were opposed to the Church and the ways it had become corrupt be deviating from Bible teaching. They wanted more access to the Bible, in modern languages, so people could read it and make their own interpretations. This is almost the exact opposite of what we Westerners would hope for from an Islamic Reformation. I think what we really want is more like Higher Criticism, which viewed the Bible as less historical and more allegorical. I'm not holding my breath for that, either.

265 UberInfidel67  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:36:49pm

re: #232 opnion

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.


But they won't reform. As to discussing the koran, any changes to it would cause mass murder. Remember, that is one reason the Jews and Christians are gonna incur God's wrath......we "corrupted" our holy texts.

266 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:37:19pm

re: #246 recklessprocess

If the KKK announced they were now a religion could they then preach how inferior blacks are?

I have a call on the clue phone:

The KKK are allowed to preach about "how inferior blacks are." It's called the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

267 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:37:39pm

re: #246 recklessprocess

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.

And of course you are wrong. And the reason you are wrong has been pointed out MANY times above. And we also have this little thing called the constitution which it seems you don't give a fucking shit about.

Right?

268 eschew_obfuscation  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:38:05pm

re: #265 UberInfidel67

But they won't reform. As to discussing the koran, any changes to it would cause mass murder. Remember, that is one reason the Jews and Christians are gonna incur God's wrath......we "corrupted" our holy texts.

Well, I'm not expert on Islam, but isn't that what the haditha did?

269 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:38:06pm

re: #246 recklessprocess

Bullshit, if there were only a "few muslims " living in moderation we would have hundreds of reports of terror daily here just in the US.

270 Alberta Oil Peon  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:38:40pm

re: #186 Walter L. Newton

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.

I know it's outlawed in Germany, Walter. I said most countries, not "all". I might be proven wrong on that, but I simply don't think Scientology is sufficiently high on the radar screen in "most" countries for them to have taken official notice of it at all.

Thing is, once a state starts vetting religions for "legitimacy", where does it end? What possible objective standards could you use? The whole idea violates the concept of separation of Church and State.

271 Render  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:38:55pm

re: #170 zombie

There is this...

"My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants. The Qur’an claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen,’ or clear, but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense. Many Muslims will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Qur’anic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Qur’an is not comprehensible, if it can’t even be understood in Arabic, then it’s not translatable into any language. That is why Muslims are afraid. Since the Qur’an claims repeatedly to be clear but is not—there is an obvious and serious contradiction. Something else must be going on."

Gerd R. Puin 1999

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

EXPOSURE,
R

272 albusteve  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:39:56pm

re: #263 ConservatismNow!

Ohh you are referring to the hypothetical. Well, legally I can't say whether that would classify as a hate crime or not. Depends on the district court, I guess. Also depends on whether he was an artist. Me personally? Every violent crime is a crime of hate, but throwing a Koran in a toilet is not one of those. It's his opinion and as long as he doesn't call for violence against Muslims, he can continue to clog up his toilet.

law is largely hypothetical...in terms of motive and degree etc....it's worth pondering imo

273 Aye Pod  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:40:06pm

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.

She comes up against the wider world beyond her little circle of right wing assholes and what she finds is everyone else isn't as blind and stupid as she is. No-one in the world beyond the fringes she inhabits wants anything to do with her 'heroes'. So she responds by declaring those people as the enemy. On this occasion, she's managed to become a Jew hater on top of everything else (oh but they aren't real Jews so it's different/).

274 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:40:22pm

The really sick thing about Wilders preaching this un-American garbage here in the US is that American Muslims are far more peaceful and far more assimilated into US society than they are in his country, the Netherlands. He's trying to bring the extremism over here, and he's being aided by people who make friends with European fascist groups.

The whole thing is just nauseating.

275 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:40:37pm

re: #29 zombie


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.

Same could be said for Judaism. Same has been said for Judaism, both to its praise and its denigration.

276 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:40:58pm

re: #271 Render

*grin*
Nice that you brought Puin into this!

/tip of an iceberg

277 LGoPs  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:41:31pm

re: #175 Ben Hur

OK.

I agree with most of what he says.

As do I.

278 debutaunt  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:41:35pm

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.

Thank you for your heroic stand against reading books!

279 doppelganglander  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:41:42pm

re: #271 Render

Excellent quote. I don't expect any Muslim scholar who values his life to ever take this approach, but it seems possible for Western scholars who are not bamboozled by The Other to translate the text and pick apart all of the contradictions and general nonsense that it contains. Historical and literary context -- what a concept!

280 haakondahl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:41:48pm

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.

So you feel that the standards of religious freedom in the United States are irrelevant, and that until Saudi Arabia changes their mind, the U.S. Constitution is nothing to you.

The First Amendment does rock. "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..." This applies to laws made by Congress, not to decisions made by the proprietors of blogs. And if you should suddenly stop posting here--that would rock too.

281 DEZes  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:42:00pm

re: #274 Charles

The really sick thing about Wilders preaching this un-American garbage here in the US is that American Muslims are far more peaceful and far more assimilated into US society than they are in his country, the Netherlands. He's trying to bring the extremism over here, and he's being aided by people who make friends with European fascist groups.

The whole thing is just nauseating.

I had not considered that, Something new to ponder.

282 UberInfidel67  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:42:06pm

re: #268 eschew_obfuscation
They can't even agree on that issue. There are too many schools of thought and too many brands of islam.

283 wrenchwench  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:42:28pm
American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) was formed in March of 2003 by a group of Muslim professionals in the Phoenix Valley of Arizona. The group's founder is M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D.

He felt that AIFD could formally articulate the fact that in commentary and scholarship that many Muslims believe that they are able to practice their faith more freely and more Islamically (in a personal and secular fashion which is most suited to preserve one's faith) in America than in any other place in the world.

AIFD seeks to make a small contribution to the body of thought which articulates an understanding of Islam which separates religion and state and is in complete harmony with the U.S. Constitution and our citizenship pledge.

They exist.

284 Render  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:42:33pm

re: #253 anchors_aweigh

No breaks. I picked one article out of over 500,000 from that search. You do your own searching from now on.

Just because you can't find what your looking for doesn't mean it isn't there. It means you aren't looking hard enough.

===

Stealing my sign off style in order to mock me is epic fail around here.

TIMETABLES
OF
HISTORY,
R

285 Soona'  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:42:33pm

re: #266 Charles

I have a call on the clue phone:

The KKK are allowed to preach about "how inferior blacks are." It's called the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

And sometimes they get police protection while they do it. That's how important free speech is in the US.

286 Lynn B.  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:42:34pm

Actually, I agree with a fair amount of what Wilders says about Islam in that speech. What I don't agree with is (most of) what he proposes should be done about it.

I propose that all the hate speech laws in Europe are to be repealed.

Probably a good idea.

Get rid of the misconception that all cultures are equal. They are not. Our culture based on Christianity, on Judeaism and Humanism is far better than the Islamic culture.

Ok with that too, I guess, but I'm biased and I realize that.

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.

Uh, no. Wrong. Idiotic.

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?).

Stop the mass immigration? Good idea. No more immigrants from Muslim countries? Wrong idea.

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.

Slippery slope.

I think we have to have a contract, in any Western Country, a contract, a binding contract signed by everybody there, of Assimiluation. We need a Pledge of Allegiance in all Western countries for people to adhere to our values as well.

Whoa. Pretty scary.

We have to stop the building of new Mosques. We have to close the Mosques where incitement of violence is taking place.

Crap. No.

We have to close down Islamic schools, for they are fascist institutions, where young people are brought up with an ideology of violence.

Close down, no. There's got to be a better way.

And, last but not least, we have to get rid of the weak leaders that we have.

Yes, I do agree with that. Most definitely.

287 Opinionated  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:42:37pm

Considering that I even see vicious anti Semitism in comments where just innocuous movies are being reviewed, I would think the ADL would have its hands full already without lending unreciprocated assistance to those who hate us.

Especially when Muslims have shown over and over again -as they did with the cartoons and at many many other occasions -that they can riot at the drop of a Koran to address being aggrieved.

I love my fellow Jews, some always have to show how purer then pure they are. Times are too perilous for Jews to put on that particular show- especially against a supporter.

288 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:42:49pm

re: #274 Charles

The really sick thing about Wilders preaching this un-American garbage here in the US is that American Muslims are far more peaceful and far more assimilated into US society than they are in his country, the Netherlands. He's trying to bring the extremism over here, and he's being aided by people who make friends with European fascist groups.

The whole thing is just nauseating.

I need the ability to write a Basic script which will sit on a comment like that and hammer the up-ding button ... over and over.

289 calcajun  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:43:28pm

re: #274 Charles

Again--there is a radical difference in the way Muslim immigrants are treated in Europe and here in the US--and that is due to the different mindsets of Europeans and Americans--it has nothing to do with the Muslims.

290 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:43:39pm

re: #251 Eagle


The thing about her site is that she is neither fish nor fowl. She pretends to be a rationalist, but she's an hysterical freak. She pretends to be some sort of guardian of the Jewish people Jew, but is immodest both about herself (which makes here definiately not a guardian that some of us would want to be around) and slags off any Jew who doesn't hold her opinions (and she manages to reconcile all that with objectivism....how?).

No insight, that one.

291 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:43:44pm

re: #172 doppelganglander

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: #196 pre-Boomer Marine brat

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.

Assume for the sake of argument that a new religion was founded in America: Rapeology. It has priests and temples and rituals and a holy book. It is only open to men.

Because we have the First Amendment, we must allow Rapeology to exist.

But the first and only commandment in Rapeology's holy book is, "Rape every woman you see."

So, every member of Rapeology who goes oiut and rapes a woman is arrested and thrown in jail for rape. As well they should be.

But not all of them get caught. And because the religion starts to get a lot of publicity, it starts to attract more adherents, and to the great frustration of everyone, Rapaeology gains millions of adherents. And there is a overwhelming crime wave of rape in the US.

Now, we catch as many individual Rapeologists as we can, but most go uncaptured because the police are overwhelmed.

Now, according to our constitution, all religions are legal and allowed, so we MUST not ban Rapeology. But every Rapegology sermon is basicaly a call for everyone to go out on a raping spree.

What would you do in such a situation, if you were the Chief Justice of Supreme Court, or the President, or someone with the ability to affect policy? Would you try to ban Rapeology? Try to re-define it as not being a "real" religion" Or just let the country become a non-stop crime scene of rape after rape?

292 haakondahl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:44:06pm

re: #57 Amused to Death

I see no purpose in wasting my time here.

I agree with you.

293 albusteve  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:44:08pm

re: #283 wrenchwench

They exist.

good...they need to be nurtured and protected from their radical counterparts, if posible

294 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:44:08pm

re: #44 Ben Hur

L'vriut.

Abdul Hadi Palazzi, I think. And yes.

295 Catttt  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:44:21pm

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.

Nobody move! I dropped me brain.

296 CyanSnowHawk  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:44:27pm

re: #111 Cato the Elder

On could start with $cientology.

I'm rather proud of the fact that my Father faced down the Scientologists and they refunded all of my Sister's money.

297 Render  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:44:44pm

re: #276 pre-Boomer Marine brat

re: #279 doppelganglander

It does kinda ruin that whole "word of God" meme, doesn't it?

WRITTEN
ON
BONES,
R

298 Cato the Elder  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:44:53pm

Thomas Mann summed it up:

"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil."

Wilders would have us believe that Islam is evil in its essence.

I do not believe that.

When people of any religion do evil things, they must be opposed and brought to justice. Not tolerated.

But banning books and expelling/prohibiting whole groups of people is the solution of the weak. The West is stronger than that.

299 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:45:20pm

Hey how do you look up a poster's account?

300 DEZes  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:45:24pm

re: #291 zombie

Assume for the sake of argument that a new religion was founded in America: Rapeology. It has priests and temples and rituals and a holy book. It is only open to men.

Because we have the First Amendment, we must allow Rapeology to exist.

But the first and only commandment in Rapeology's holy book is, "Rape every woman you see."

So, every member of Rapeology who goes oiut and rapes a woman is arrested and thrown in jail for rape. As well they should be.

But not all of them get caught. And because the religion starts to get a lot of publicity, it starts to attract more adherents, and to the great frustration of everyone, Rapaeology gains millions of adherents. And there is a overwhelming crime wave of rape in the US.

Now, we catch as many individual Rapeologists as we can, but most go uncaptured because the police are overwhelmed.

Now, according to our constitution, all religions are legal and allowed, so we MUST not ban Rapeology. But every Rapegology sermon is basicaly a call for everyone to go out on a raping spree.

What would you do in such a situation, if you were the Chief Justice of Supreme Court, or the President, or someone with the ability to affect policy? Would you try to ban Rapeology? Try to re-define it as not being a "real" religion" Or just let the country become a non-stop crime scene of rape after rape?

Arm the women to the teeth.

301 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:45:32pm

re: #45 SFGoth

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

If that's true, at least be impressed with him.

302 Opinionated  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:45:49pm

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.

Some of the religious freedoms they insist on conflicts with a democratic society's norms. How they treat women for example.

Maybe Wilders should be more precise.

303 Macker  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:46:51pm

re: #300 DEZes

Arm the women citizens to the teeth.

There, fixed that for ya!

304 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:46:58pm

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.

See comment #291 above. What would you do?

305 calcajun  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:46:58pm

re: #299 ConservatismNow!

click on the avatar.

306 Cato the Elder  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:47:22pm

re: #233 pre-Boomer Marine brat

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

DILLIGAF: Do I look like I give a fuck.

First seen on the tank of a Harley rider. Somehow, knowing him, I didn't need to ask what it meant. It just came to me.

307 DEZes  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:47:30pm

re: #303 Macker

There, fixed that for ya!

Yeah, that is better, Thanks.

308 albusteve  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:48:07pm

re: #300 DEZes

not far fetched altho a little spooky...I'd like to know the answer...what is a religion and when does it become a criminal enterprise?...I know of no laws that address these issues

309 nyc redneck  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:48:33pm

i don't care abt. the ADL's statement one way or the other.
and gert wilders can say what he wants, too.
i just know that of all the threats to the world now, it is islam that is bringing the danger. look everywhere. soon iran will get nukes. look at pakistan w/ the taliban encroaching, eager to lay claim to lethal weapons. look how we are struggling in afghanistan. the atrocities committed in africa, thailand.
islam is a complete system: religious, legal,political,economic and military.
where is there a true stable islamic democracy in the world today?
i would feel better abt. islam as a religion if i saw evidence of their tolerance
and understanding of other religions. also their silence, in the face of all the savagery committed in the name of islam, is very disconcerting.
not to mention the "honor killings". like the woman who had her head cut off
recently by her moderate moslem husband in N.Y. state.
islam needs to move forward and be pro-active as a peaceful religion.
that is their responsibility.

310 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:48:47pm

re: #291 zombie

Assume for the sake of argument that a new religion was founded in America: Rapeology. It has priests and temples and rituals and a holy book. It is only open to men.

Because we have the First Amendment, we must allow Rapeology to exist.

But the first and only commandment in Rapeology's holy book is, "Rape every woman you see."

So, every member of Rapeology who goes oiut and rapes a woman is arrested and thrown in jail for rape. As well they should be.

But not all of them get caught. And because the religion starts to get a lot of publicity, it starts to attract more adherents, and to the great frustration of everyone, Rapaeology gains millions of adherents. And there is a overwhelming crime wave of rape in the US.

Now, we catch as many individual Rapeologists as we can, but most go uncaptured because the police are overwhelmed.

Now, according to our constitution, all religions are legal and allowed, so we MUST not ban Rapeology. But every Rapegology sermon is basicaly a call for everyone to go out on a raping spree.

What would you do in such a situation, if you were the Chief Justice of Supreme Court, or the President, or someone with the ability to affect policy? Would you try to ban Rapeology? Try to re-define it as not being a "real" religion" Or just let the country become a non-stop crime scene of rape after rape?

In such an extreme case, banning would be justified. My own point is more regarding the extreme case. IMHO, it's too extreme to be relevant to this situation re: Islam.

311 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:49:19pm

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.

But what if those Islamic scholars sue and claim that you are violating their freedom of religion by banning the practice of their religion?

This happened in real life with the the peyote-taking Native American shaman religion. Went all the way to Supreme Court, because their central religious practice violated US drugs laws.

Problem is, I have no idea how the Supreme Court ruled! Anybody know?

312 albusteve  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:49:41pm

re: #310 pre-Boomer Marine brat

is the Koran extreme?

313 albusteve  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:50:30pm

re: #311 zombie

But what if those Islamic scholars sue and claim that you are violating their freedom of religion by banning the practice of their religion?

This happened in real life with the the peyote-taking Native American shaman religion. Went all the way to Supreme Court, because their central religious practice violated US drugs laws.

Problem is, I have no idea how the Supreme Court ruled! Anybody know?

they have their peyote...by law

314 eschew_obfuscation  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:50:37pm

re: #291 zombie

Assume for the sake of argument that a new religion was founded in America: Rapeology. It has priests and temples and rituals and a holy book. It is only open to men.

Because we have the First Amendment, we must allow Rapeology to exist.

But the first and only commandment in Rapeology's holy book is, "Rape every woman you see."

So, every member of Rapeology who goes oiut and rapes a woman is arrested and thrown in jail for rape. As well they should be.

But not all of them get caught. And because the religion starts to get a lot of publicity, it starts to attract more adherents, and to the great frustration of everyone, Rapaeology gains millions of adherents. And there is a overwhelming crime wave of rape in the US.

Now, we catch as many individual Rapeologists as we can, but most go uncaptured because the police are overwhelmed.

Now, according to our constitution, all religions are legal and allowed, so we MUST not ban Rapeology. But every Rapegology sermon is basicaly a call for everyone to go out on a raping spree.

What would you do in such a situation, if you were the Chief Justice of Supreme Court, or the President, or someone with the ability to affect policy? Would you try to ban Rapeology? Try to re-define it as not being a "real" religion" Or just let the country become a non-stop crime scene of rape after rape?

You would charge all priests that preach rape with incitement to violence and throw them in prison. Continue arresting and charging the remaining adherents with rape and punishing them. Publicly warn people that rape is preached in the 'churches' and offer counseling to those who are non-practicing adherents.

This doesn't seem to me to be a lot different from the KKK or Black Panthers and their meetings and subsequent violent acts based on what's preached there.

315 Russkilitlover  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:50:53pm

re: #291 zombie


What would you do in such a situation,

Arm myself to the teeth and shoot every man who even glanced at me?
///

Your scenario demonstrates a group's calling out for actual violence, as opposed to the KKK or whoever, hurling insults. I think if you had an Imam witnessed by authorities calling for the express killing of Americans, you'd see him arrested for incitement pretty quick.

316 countrygurl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:50:55pm

re: #55 Ben Hur

A reformation would be nice.


Absolutely correct. That would solve a helluva lot of problems!

317 doppelganglander  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:50:56pm

re: #291 zombie

That's an interesting analogy because it's so extreme and impossible. Actually, there's a group of white supremacists in Idaho who have incorporated as a church.

Coeur d’Alene Police Department Sgt. Christie Wood said no investigation would be conducted because distribution of fliers is public speech, protected under the First Amendment. She said, however, that targeting people for harassment based on race is a crime and should be reported.

Stewart said hate speech is protected, but hate crimes are not. He encouraged any member of the public with concerns about racial harassment to contact the task force at [phone number redacted].

Break the law? You get arrested, no one cares if you call yourself a church.

318 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:51:06pm

re: #213 doppelganglander

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.

So, you're saying they should leave the US because we want to forbid the practice of Islam as they themselves define it?

But isn't that what Gilders is recommending?

319 screaming_eagle  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:51:33pm

re: #291 zombie

Alright, now we're getting into incrediblly dumb hypotheticals.

320 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:51:40pm

re: #305 calcajun

click on the avatar.

Oh I found what I was looking for. I should have clarified. I meant someone who had not posted.

Apprentice

(Logged in)
Registered since: Jan 15, 2005 at 2:11 pm
No. of comments posted: 109
No. of links posted: 0


Hit me with a downding for some reason on my #30

321 haakondahl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:51:41pm

re: #104 SFGoth

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.


You idiot. We already do this. "Laws". They apply to everybody.

322 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:51:43pm

You cannot defend the principles of the enlightenment by dragging the world back into the dark ages.

/Remember that? When people were burned for being the wrong religion, scientific inquiry was proscribed, and women were called witches for weighing the same as a duck?

323 eschew_obfuscation  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:52:09pm

re: #314 eschew_obfuscation

Oh....and provide self defense training to women and teach them to carry and use defensive weaponry safely.

324 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:52:13pm

re: #218 Cato the Elder

Let 'em whine?

What if they whine you into court over every signal instance of perceived banning of sharia?

325 DEZes  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:52:23pm

re: #308 albusteve

not far fetched altho a little spooky...I'd like to know the answer...what is a religion and when does it become a criminal enterprise?...I know of no laws that address these issues

It is a moral dilemma, Maybe thats what Ben Hur was trying to point out.
When it leads to a crime spree of that magnitude, it has to be hit hard, preaching hate is a foul thing.
Preaching murder or rape is tantamount to incitement.

326 calcajun  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:52:31pm

re: #316 countrygurl

Absolutely correct. That would solve a helluva lot of problems!

Depends on which way they reform. They might become more radical.

327 albusteve  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:53:24pm

re: #325 DEZes

It is a moral dilemma, Maybe thats what Ben Hur was trying to point out.
When it leads to a crime spree of that magnitude, it has to be hit hard, preaching hate is a foul thing.
Preaching murder or rape is tantamount to incitement.

does the Koran preach murder and rape?

328 LGoPs  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:53:30pm

re: #321 haakondahl

You idiot. We already do this. "Laws". They apply to everybody.

What about that case in Florida, I believe where a woman getting a driver's license insited on wearing her burka? I honestly don't remember how it turned out. If she got her way, I would be very concerned.

329 calcajun  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:53:36pm

re: #325 DEZes

Like yelling "movie" in a crowded firehouse...wait, that came out wrong.//

330 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:53:40pm

re: #313 albusteve

they have their peyote...by law

And exceptions are made for Amish, Indian, and others in various state laws. Nobodies dieing from it, our society isn't falling apart. When particular groups go over the line into extremism they get dealt with, Branch Davidians treatment was harsh, and nobody likes the fact that babies were burnt in Waco, but on the other hand you can use it as an illustration of how no single religious group will ever get too far out of hand in the US.

331 callahan23  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:54:03pm

re: #298 Cato the Elder

Thomas Mann summed it up:

"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil."


Wilders would have us believe that Islam is evil in its essence.

I do not believe that.

When people of any religion do evil things, they must be opposed and brought to justice. Not tolerated.

But banning books and expelling/prohibiting whole groups of people is the solution of the weak. The West is stronger than that.

Excellent point.
For this quote: "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." look no further than: Click on my avatar and you'll see the exact same quote. :-)

332 Lynn B.  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:55:01pm

re: #291 zombie

Assume for the sake of argument that a new religion was founded in America: Rapeology. It has priests and temples and rituals and a holy book. It is only open to men.

Because we have the First Amendment, we must allow Rapeology to exist.

But the first and only commandment in Rapeology's holy book is, "Rape every woman you see."

So, every member of Rapeology who goes oiut and rapes a woman is arrested and thrown in jail for rape. As well they should be.

But not all of them get caught. And because the religion starts to get a lot of publicity, it starts to attract more adherents, and to the great frustration of everyone, Rapaeology gains millions of adherents. And there is a overwhelming crime wave of rape in the US.

Now, we catch as many individual Rapeologists as we can, but most go uncaptured because the police are overwhelmed.

Now, according to our constitution, all religions are legal and allowed, so we MUST not ban Rapeology. But every Rapegology sermon is basicaly a call for everyone to go out on a raping spree.

What would you do in such a situation, if you were the Chief Justice of Supreme Court, or the President, or someone with the ability to affect policy? Would you try to ban Rapeology? Try to re-define it as not being a "real" religion" Or just let the country become a non-stop crime scene of rape after rape?

WTF? Those are false choices. And neither the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court nor the President has the power to ban any religion or re-define it as not being a "real" religion.

"Rapeology" already exists and it has plenty of adherents. They're called "rapists." Some get caught and go to jail, others are still out there raping. The same for murder, burglary and shop lifting. There are organizations all over the country that preach tax evasion. Their freedom of speech stops at incitement to break the law and there are plenty of laws on the books that allow them to be shut down. The same is true for religious organizations.

333 Soona'  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:55:28pm

re: #298 Cato the Elder

Thomas Mann summed it up:


Wilders would have us believe that Islam is evil in its essence.

I do not believe that.

To be honest. I'm not sure anymore.

334 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:55:29pm

re: #297 Render

re: #279 doppelganglander

It does kinda ruin that whole "word of God" meme, doesn't it?

WRITTEN
ON
BONES,
R

Oh yes, it does. I've got links laying around here somewhere to articles on the "historical" aspect of Islam. One which really tickles my fancy is the Atlantic Monthly article on the Sana'a manuscripts.

Ooooo! I'd positively LOVE to know what-all was in there! Especially the original writing on the parchment/papyri which had been erased and re-used.

335 LGoPs  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:55:35pm

re: #325 DEZes

It is a moral dilemma, Maybe thats what Ben Hur was trying to point out.
When it leads to a crime spree of that magnitude, it has to be hit hard, preaching hate is a foul thing.
Preaching murder or rape is tantamount to incitement.

There are madrassas that teach that sort of hatred. They should be stopped immediately.

336 eschew_obfuscation  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:55:41pm

Sorry, Zombie....gotta run for dinner.

I'll check back here later .... Have a good evening all!

337 onepistoffyid  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:55:48pm

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.

Islam is the problem today, but in the middle of the last century, it was The Muslim Sultan that welcomed with open arms the persecuted jews of spain.

The Spanish inquisition and the Holocaust show that Islam does not have a monopoly on religious fascism.

338 haakondahl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:56:31pm

re: #291 zombie

Assume for the sake of argument that a new religion was founded in America: Rapeology. It has priests and temples and rituals and a holy book. It is only open to men.

Because we have the First Amendment, we must allow Rapeology to exist.

I hope you're not paying very much for your education. Nevermind your intellectually dishonest button-pushing masquerading as debate, you have comletely ignored the methods by which conflicting rights are adjudicated, nicely summed up in the aphorism that "Your right to swing your fist expires at the end of my nose".
There is no right mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights which has an automatic right-of-way roughshod across the rights of others.

I could swear that somebody has jacked your password.

339 Russkilitlover  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:56:58pm

re: #311 zombie


This happened in real life with the the peyote-taking Native American shaman religion. Went all the way to Supreme Court, because their central religious practice violated US drugs laws.

Problem is, I have no idea how the Supreme Court ruled! Anybody know?

I tried asking a shaman, but he seemed pretty out of it....

340 UberInfidel67  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:57:34pm

re: #327 albusteve

does the Koran preach murder and rape?

O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou has paid their cowers; and those whom they right hand possesses out of the captives of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated with thee; and any believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her - this only for thee, and not for the believers [at large]; We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess - in order that there should be no diff~culty for thee. And Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful (Surat Al-Ahzab 33:50).

341 countrygurl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:57:50pm

re: #326 calcajun

Depends on which way they reform. They might become more radical.


Hmmm, I hadn't considered THAT! A reminder, I suppose, that it can always get worse.

342 Nevergiveup  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:57:53pm

01:53 N.Y. Knicks to host Maccabi Tel Aviv in basketball exhibition game on Oct. 18 (AP

The Knicks? The Knicks? Shit why not play a good team like the Celtics or Bulls?

343 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:58:08pm

re: #166 Hhar

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..........................

I've found that a lot of people are willing to allow for a great deal of secular and assimilated behavior as long as you agree with them politically on Israel issues. Loving Israel (in the prescribed manner, and with the same political conclusions) allows you leeway to wear untznius clothes, eat clam chowder, and break Shabbos, because you 'get it'. If you don't 'get it', and still eat clam chowder, then you're bad. I think Ms. Geller is probably applying the same concept to her extended political views.

344 DEZes  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:58:32pm

re: #327 albusteve

does the Koran preach murder and rape?

We both know it preaches murder, and at the very least, statutory rape,
To many of its followers practice it too closely..
But banning, I just cant go there.

345 Gus  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:58:36pm

re: #246 recklessprocess

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?

SNIP

That's counter to my experience. We had a bunch of Moroccan Muslims living in my building and in the long run they were just another bunch of odd young guys living together. In fact it turned out that they were gay but I also used to see them praying from time to time out on their balcony.

We have another family here and they're hard working people that keep to themselves and are rather cordial. There was a bunch of Muslim women that used to work at a Mervyn's here and I always thought they were nice and sometimes even cool people.

There a national bookstore that I go to once in a while that seems to attract a lot of Muslim professionals and students at the neighboring Starbucks. Again, they are quiet and cordial people that don't display anything other than peacefulness.

There are many more and they live side by side in peace with the rest of us. You cannot judge them and persecute because of the acts of Jihadists and other extremist in their midst anymore than you can judge or persecute other religious groups because of their extremist elements. The same illogical reasoning is also used against atheists when they are compared with former atheistic Communist regimes.

346 haakondahl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:58:59pm

re: #311 zombie

But what if those Islamic scholars sue and claim that you are violating their freedom of religion by banning the practice of their religion?

This happened in real life with the the peyote-taking Native American shaman religion. Went all the way to Supreme Court, because their central religious practice violated US drugs laws.

Problem is, I have no idea how the Supreme Court ruled! Anybody know?

It's fucking irrelevant. We know how every single court froom top to bottom, yes even the 9th Circuit, would rule in your silly example.

347 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:59:38pm

re: #312 albusteve

is the Koran extreme?

Parts of it are, especially the Medina "Revelations" (my use of quotes is meant to imply a level of sarc.)

I'm absolutely no scholar, but I have a hunch that something changed (inside Mohammed) after his first wife died, about the time he left Mecca.

348 doppelganglander  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:59:47pm

re: #318 zombie

So, you're saying they should leave the US because we want to forbid the practice of Islam as they themselves define it?

But isn't that what Gilders is recommending?

Not at all. We are not forbidding any practices; we are prosecuting acts that violate U.S. law. Those acts are forbidden by law, not because they are part of a religion, and they are prosecuted no matter who commits them. To take your hypothetical, rape is against the law and is prosecuted no matter who does it or why they do it. Fraud is against the law whether you are Bernie Madoff or Jim Bakker.

If someone wants to engage in a behavior that is against the law in the country where they live, one option is to move to a country where it's not against the law. If I were a dedicated pot smoker, for example, I could move to the Netherlands, where it is tolerated. If I were gay and wanted to marry, I could move to Canada (or Iowa, etc.). I am certainly not advocating expelling anyone from the country based on their religious beliefs.

349 calcajun  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:59:49pm

re: #320 ConservatismNow!

There are real putzes out there.

350 Nevergiveup  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:59:58pm

Netanyahu aides fear Obama will spring 'surprise' demands

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

Be afraid, be very Afraid!

351 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:00:08pm

re: #225 haakondahl

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.

So say you. But what authority do you have within Islam? Your laissez-faire Western-style opinion goes in complete contradiction to the leading scholars of Islam in Egypt and Saudi Arabia who insist that Islam is inseparable from sharia.

Who gets to determine the true nature of Islam? The most respected leading Islamic scholars in the world, or Western Christians like Karen Armstrong who want to emphasize the touchy-feelie aspect of Islam and paper over the inconvenient parts?

It seems to me the any religion's leading scholars must necessarily be the ones who define the religion. Not some outsiders who want to shape the religion to match their wishes for it.

352 Soona'  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:00:51pm

re: #311 zombie

But what if those Islamic scholars sue and claim that you are violating their freedom of religion by banning the practice of their religion?

This happened in real life with the the peyote-taking Native American shaman religion. Went all the way to Supreme Court, because their central religious practice violated US drugs laws.

Problem is, I have no idea how the Supreme Court ruled! Anybody know?

The only thing I heard was a SCOTUS justice say: "I can see what they mean, man. I mean, like, this is some really good shit".

353 Totally Berserk  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:01:14pm

OK so the gist of the issue here is that people who want to follow a religion are free to do so. We may not take away their right to the free practice of their religion...

Fine so far. But, what happens when that religion begins to try to take away our rights of free speech? What happens when they, through legalistic contrivances combined with raw physical intimidation, start telling us how it's going to be?

It's one thing to say we'll defend their rights and start prosecuting them when they step across a certain line. This presupposes are in the position of strength. What happens when we are not, as is the case in increasing amounts of territory in Europe? Shall we just be intimidated into giving up more neighborhoods to 'no-go zones' and self-censorship, as in refraining from criticizing Islam because they scare us?

What happens then?

354 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:01:19pm

re: #237 Alberta Oil Peon

"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.

Again, you sort of seem to be partly agreeing with Wilders, then.

355 Lynn B.  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:01:48pm

re: #347 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Parts of it are, especially the Medina "Revelations" (my use of quotes is meant to imply a level of sarc.)

I'm absolutely no scholar, but I have a hunch that something changed (inside Mohammed) after his first wife died, about the time he left Mecca.

Probably not a good idea to get into this here, but what changed was that he started winning ... and began to attract a larger, more vocal and apparently more bloodthirsty following.

356 albusteve  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:02:07pm

re: #344 DEZes

We both know it preaches murder, and at the very least, statutory rape,
To many of its followers practice it too closely..
But banning, I just cant go there.

I just look at it in terms of the 1st amendment...I have faith in law enforcement but less in the written law at this point...not regarding murder and rape tho

357 Russkilitlover  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:02:07pm

re: #342 Nevergiveup

01:53 N.Y. Knicks to host Maccabi Tel Aviv in basketball exhibition game on Oct. 18 (AP

The Knicks? The Knicks? Shit why not play a good team like the Celtics or Bulls?

They're busy in post season play. The Knicks? Not so much.

358 rawmuse  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:02:21pm

Freedom and Liberty are a tough sell. They always were.
People want to put restrictions on them to suit their particular whims.
No deal.

359 nyc redneck  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:02:28pm

re: #327 albusteve

does the Koran preach murder and rape?

mohammed "married" the 6 yr. old aishia and consummated the marriage
(raped her) when she was 9.
moslem men see mohammed as the most perfect man, next to allah, and
seek to emulate him in all things. this is why you have 50 yr. old bastards
happy and willing to commit such hideous acts on little girls.

360 n2stox  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:02:30pm

Islam is in the process of conquering Europe. From a mere birthrate + immigraiton standpoint, many countries there will have 30+% of their voting age as Muslim. It is a simple question of demographics. Steyn writes about it all the time. At least he did until he was sued for politically incorrect speech.

We see that in some places like England and Canada, sharia is being implemented at the community level. For a while, Muslim cab drivers would not pick up certain passengers if they looked like they were afoul of the Islam religion. And these are supposed to be the "moderates!"

This wasn't in Iran or The Kingdom. This was in N America.

Read the speech, it doesn't come across to me as all that bad.

361 onepistoffyid  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:03:04pm

re: #345 Gus 802

That's counter to my experience. We had a bunch of Moroccan Muslims living in my building and in the long run they were just another bunch of odd young guys living together. In fact it turned out that they were gay but I also used to see them praying from time to time out on their balcony.

We have another family here and they're hard working people that keep to themselves and are rather cordial. There was a bunch of Muslim women that used to work at a Mervyn's here and I always thought they were nice and sometimes even cool people.

There a national bookstore that I go to once in a while that seems to attract a lot of Muslim professionals and students at the neighboring Starbucks. Again, they are quiet and cordial people that don't display anything other than peacefulness.

There are many more and they live side by side in peace with the rest of us. You cannot judge them and persecute because of the acts of Jihadists and other extremist in their midst anymore than you can judge or persecute other religious groups because of their extremist elements. The same illogical reasoning is also used against atheists when they are compared with former atheistic Communist regimes.


I'll take a gay Moroccan over "Christian" Pat Buchanan any day.....and I use the word take in the non carnal vein (not that there is anything wrong with that).

362 DEZes  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:03:13pm

re: #356 albusteve

I just look at it in terms of the 1st amendment...I have faith in law enforcement but less in the written law at this point...not regarding murder and rape tho

I have to agree.

363 doppelganglander  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:04:07pm

There are other options for dealing with religions that preach violence. From the same article I mentioned previously:

The Aryan Nations was effectively bankrupted on Sept. 7, 2000, when a Kootenai County jury returned a $6.3 million verdict against the organization, its founder, Richard Butler, and three former members. The verdict in the civil trial found that Butler and his organization were guilty of gross negligence in appointing security guards who carried out an assault against two people driving by their property.
364 Chip Designer  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:04:08pm

re: #291 zombie

According to Roman legend (Livy), a problem arose when a number of people joined the worship of Bacchus. The religion was based on taking an oath to do all things that were forbidden. People joined for the sex and wine, which still sounds good today.

But murder is also forbidden. And the Romans felt that an oath to a God was unbreakable. So an oath to commit murder was treated the same as actually committing murder.

The solution was to use torture to determine who all of the members were, and then to put them to death.

Many Bacchus worshipers were the children of the rich and famous. And many pleas were made for their release. "They are just children, and did not know what they were doing." But the judges decided that an oath was binding, and so all were killed.

365 Gus  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:04:15pm

re: #361 onepistoffyid

I'll take a gay Moroccan over "Christian" Pat Buchanan any day.....and I use the word take in the non carnal vein (not that there is anything wrong with that).

Roger that!

366 spudly  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:04:19pm

The one thing that might mitigate his (totally un-American) statement, is that he's not American. The Netherlands does not have a 1st Amendment as I understand it. Instead, they have "positive" rights given to selected religions.

So in Holland, if your religion gets the State nod, then you get State sponsored religious schools, for example. Islam has been approved I believe (there is some mention of this in Infidel by Hirsi Ali).

In that particular context, such a statement might be a domestic (to him at home) argument in favor of removing Islam's protected, government-paid status.

Obviously within the US, abridgment of religious rights is unconstitutional, and flat out wrong. So as policy in the US, I clearly find his statements unamerican. For Holland... I'm not sure for the reasons above (giving him the benefit of the doubt for the moment based on my total ignorance of Dutch law).

367 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:05:19pm

re: #353 Totally Berserk

OK so the gist of the issue here is that people who want to follow a religion are free to do so. We may not take away their right to the free practice of their religion...

Fine so far. But, what happens when that religion begins to try to take away our rights of free speech? What happens when they, through legalistic contrivances combined with raw physical intimidation, start telling us how it's going to be?

It's one thing to say we'll defend their rights and start prosecuting them when they step across a certain line. This presupposes are in the position of strength. What happens when we are not, as is the case in increasing amounts of territory in Europe? Shall we just be intimidated into giving up more neighborhoods to 'no-go zones' and self-censorship, as in refraining from criticizing Islam because they scare us?

What happens then?

Then we fight back. But not by telling them they are not free to practice their religion.

Hell, we have many groups in this country that hate black, jews, catholics, conservatives etc. and talk smack about those groups every day.

In publications, in meetings, in tracts and handouts, in radio shows and TV shows and on the internet.

We even have groups that regularly meet to discuss and plan armed insurrection and civil war in this country.

Where have any of these groups managed to become bigger than our freedoms?

They haven't. And Islam will not take over this country any more so. And if you think so, then your faith in this country is weak and damaged.

368 Nevergiveup  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:05:51pm

re: #357 Russkilitlover

They're busy in post season play. The Knicks? Not so much.

In Oct?

369 Jr ewing  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:06:15pm

At least the Dutch will block all dialogue with Hamas.

The Dutch parliament on Tuesday approved a motion seeking to block any dialogue between government officials and Hamas, Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom announced.

Bet those euro socialists are fuming with anger at wilders and Holland.

370 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:06:29pm

re: #358 rawmuse

Freedom and Liberty are a tough sell. They always were.
People want to put restrictions on them to suit their particular whims.
No deal.

Yeah. Sometimes it's a gradual slide into restriction and sometimes it's an outright drop. The former comes about from trying to balance feelings/emotions with rational sober judgement. The latter is just an outright coup de etat which is easier to fight and discern who the enemy is.

371 rawmuse  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:06:31pm

re: #366 spudly

The Netherlands have none of the civic freedoms we take for granted in the USA.
Police can knock your door down, haul you off and lock you up for as long as they please with no warrant.

The Queen just has to say so.

372 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:07:08pm

re: #351 zombie

Well I don't see how we should take the word of the Melkites either if that's your example.

There are many moderate muslim scholars, they are non controversial and of course you therefor don't hear about them. What gets me is that there aren't many groups saying "there's no such thing as moderate islam" if you trace them back to their genesis and roots. Some of them are MB, Al Qaeda, and the like from the Shia side. Others of them are the extreme right lobbies of Europe, and the nodern re-genesis is in the Serbian lobby. This started in the 90's with the Jatras' and ilk, as well as Trifkovic and others. Besides the fact that they are also putting out blood libels like tales of Kosovars harvesting Serbian organs etc. do you think it strategically sound to further the talking points of Zawahiri in Al Qaeda?

373 DEZes  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:07:55pm

The lizards came out strong on this thread.
I hate to leave it, but things must be done.
Have a good one all.

374 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:07:56pm

re: #355 Lynn B.

Probably not a good idea to get into this here, but what changed was that he started winning ... and began to attract a larger, more vocal and apparently more bloodthirsty following.

(agreed, "not a good idea" ... but with that said)

Later, yes, after he became a successful warlord. But it's a chicken-and-egg thing. What led him to bail out of Mecca? What led him to turn to military measures. All that happened after Khadijah died, and as the nature of the Revelations began to change.

She was a strong woman, and exerted a great influence over him. What happened after her influence was gone?

*biting tongue*

375 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:07:59pm

re: #366 spudly

The one thing that might mitigate his (totally un-American) statement, is that he's not American. The Netherlands does not have a 1st Amendment as I understand it. Instead, they have "positive" rights given to selected religions.

So in Holland, if your religion gets the State nod, then you get State sponsored religious schools, for example. Islam has been approved I believe (there is some mention of this in Infidel by Hirsi Ali).

In that particular context, such a statement might be a domestic (to him at home) argument in favor of removing Islam's protected, government-paid status.

Obviously within the US, abridgment of religious rights is unconstitutional, and flat out wrong. So as policy in the US, I clearly find his statements unamerican. For Holland... I'm not sure for the reasons above (giving him the benefit of the doubt for the moment based on my total ignorance of Dutch law).

It doesn't matter. He has been spurting this stuff all around Europe, it's not like what he said was a surprise, and the people who put on this event did so with the foreknowledge of Wilders point of views, positions and past statements.

That's what's wrong. There is no benefit of a doubt. It was all know before hand.

376 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:08:09pm

re: #353 Totally Berserk

Got an example of Free Speech being trampled in the US, or just paranoid speculation?

377 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:09:12pm

Well, I can understand some of that: Israel is about national survival to many Jews, and that is an important priority. Tolerance for secular behavior I have a lot of, but defining Judaism by a political position, no, that I don't sympathise with. For instance, I don't really object to (some) antiZionist haredim as Jews: I may object to many of the things they do, as antiZionists, but they aren't less Jewish for it. Many of them are taking what they think is a principled stance on an important theological point. If anything, their stubborn (insert unflattering adjectives here) contrarianism makes them more Jewish in some ways.......but I digress. I don't object to secular Jews telling me that I should be secular. It's their opinion. I DO object to someone being BOTH secular AND telling everybody else they aren't really Jewish. I mean, walk the walk, Geller. Bet she hasn't been to a mikveh lately.

378 countrygurl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:09:23pm

re: #367 Walter L. Newton

then your faith in this country is weak and damaged.

Unforftunately, this is a true statment for many people who do not like the direction our country is taking.

379 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:09:43pm

re: #271 Render

There is this...

"My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants. The Qur’an claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen,’ or clear, but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense. Many Muslims will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Qur’anic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Qur’an is not comprehensible, if it can’t even be understood in Arabic, then it’s not translatable into any language. That is why Muslims are afraid. Since the Qur’an claims repeatedly to be clear but is not—there is an obvious and serious contradiction. Something else must be going on."

Gerd R. Puin 1999

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

EXPOSURE,
R

PRECISELY.

But remember this: "True" Muslims consider themselves to be completely Quran-observant, and furthermore, one of the fundamental tenets of Islam is that the Quran is the pure unadulterated and unchangeable word of God.

And yet, as you point out, from an impartial scholar's perspective, it's a big mess.

Now, of course, much the same could be said of the Bible. It has contradictory parts, other parts make little sense, some parts reflect pre-monotheistic traditions, etc. But tell any of that to a Biblical literalist, and get ready for a punch in the nose.

The difference, however, is that the New Testament specifically advises people to separate secular worldly affairs from inner spiritual life. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's..." etc. And because of this crucial concept, Christianity can theoretically function in a secular society.

But no such disclaimers exist in the Quran. So the fundamentalist followers feel they must meddle in secular laws. And, as mentioned above, if these people feel that the Quran is 100% true and 100% unalterable, then how can they validly practice Islam in a secular society with laws that violate Islamic doctrine?

380 albusteve  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:09:45pm

re: #367 Walter L. Newton

I sure hope your'e right ....I'm prickly about this subject and I want it to all go down like it's supposed to...in other words I don't want anybody fucking around with the Constitution....Muslims or otherwise...we shall see eh?

381 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:09:56pm

re: #340 UberInfidel67

O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou has paid their cowers; and those whom they right hand possesses out of the captives of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated with thee; and any believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her - this only for thee, and not for the believers [at large]; We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess - in order that there should be no diff~culty for thee. And Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful (Surat Al-Ahzab 33:50).

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."

But ya know, neither my uncle Morty, nor the Pakistani guy who fixes my copier seems to have taken this up as a general practice.

382 ConservatismNow!  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:10:07pm

Alright I'm out, guys. Going to see the OU percussion orchestra tonight! DRUM LINE!

383 haakondahl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:10:15pm

re: #328 LGoPs

What about that case in Florida, I believe where a woman getting a driver's license insited on wearing her burka? I honestly don't remember how it turned out. If she got her way, I would be very concerned.

I don't recall either, but even if she won, it won't set any great trend. Can't get distracted (except when it's fun) by the little crap. The way this country works, the more that little cases like this are decided wrongly, the more sick of it people will get, and they will bring even more pressure to bear on setting things right.
There are some things that scare the crap out of me about the future and this shape-shifting conflict--but the bush-league court cases I think will be resolved (if it becomes a real problem) through the beauty of Federalism.

384 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:10:23pm

re: #378 countrygurl

Unforftunately, this is a true statment for many people who do not like the direction our country is taking.

And I say that are laws and constitution is the best in the world. If something is wrong, it's because we are not using and putting to use the freedoms we have.

385 Cato the Elder  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:11:03pm

re: #297 Render

re: #279 doppelganglander

It does kinda ruin that whole "word of God" meme, doesn't it?

WRITTEN
ON
BONES,
R

What Puin, Luxenberg are doing is potentially the most explosive and positive development in Koranic studies of all time.

It has the power to shake things to their core. Of course the Islamists are terrified. They are not in a position of strength but one of weakness. Their violence is directly proportional to their fear of what the light of reason will do to their version of the faith. When that happens, an entire superstructure will crumble, to be replaced by - what?

A reformed, spiritualized, moderate Islam is one possibility. One thing to hope for.

386 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:11:10pm

Sorry: I posted this but didn't say who I was replying to:

re: #343 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, I can understand some of that: Israel is about national survival to many Jews, and that is an important priority. Tolerance for secular behavior I have a lot of, but defining Judaism by a political position, no, that I don't sympathise with. For instance, I don't really object to (some) antiZionist haredim as Jews: I may object to many of the things they do, as antiZionists, but they aren't less Jewish for it. Many of them are taking what they think is a principled stance on an important theological point. If anything, their stubborn (insert unflattering adjectives here) contrarianism makes them more Jewish in some ways.......but I digress. I don't object to secular Jews telling me that I should be secular. It's their opinion. I DO object to someone being BOTH secular AND telling everybody else they aren't really Jewish. I mean, walk the walk, Geller. Bet she hasn't been to a mikveh lately.

387 calcajun  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:11:19pm

re: #360 n2stox

The point you are missing is that the very laws that Wilders wants to apply-in fact the very tradition of prior restraint in Europe can easily be turned against Wilders in the not too distant future--due to the demographics you cited. The burgeoning Muslim populations will use the vote and those precedents against the secular minorities.

While here, we still have the first amendment--and our speech will be protected. That is unless it's undermined by well-meaning but reactionary folks like the ID'ers and Creationists who get theology taught in public schools in the form of a dubious science.

388 haakondahl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:11:33pm

re: #383 haakondahl

...will be resolved (if it becomes a real problem) through the beauty of Federalism.


Unless of course, a lot more States pass laws ceding their sovereignty to the Evening News on election day.

389 Mad Mullah  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:11:50pm

Nazis aren't banned, so I don't think that Islam should be banned either. I do however believe that virtually all Muslim immigration especially to Europe should immediately be halted. I've travelled to Europe plenty and seen firsthand the deterioration of certain countries and the problems that they will continue to face in the future as the Muslim population explodes. The US doesn't face the same problems at the moment, there is more integration. Just wait and see what happens when a European country becomes majority Muslim. What good is laws or a constitution if they can simply be changed? I do not believe that I am a bigot if I say that I would never, ever want to live in such a country. I also believe that their core values are totally incompatible with my core values.

I didn't know much about Islam pre 9/11, I could have cared less about it prior to that. But afterwards I have only become more and more skeptical towards that religion. I think that it's a truly terrible and violence prone totalitarian religion and I am tired of hearing about it. I don't advocate deportation, but I do believe that Muslims who dislike the west should find an Islamic country to live in, there's enough of them to choose among unfortunately. And soon there will probably be more after they get through with Europe. I actually agree with what Muammar al-Qaddafi said about Muslims in Europe, that soon it will turn into a Muslim continent, and they don't even need terrorism to achieve that goal. I also believe that concepts such as democracy and free speech have a totally different meaning for many in the Islamic world. They use those concepts against naive westerners to further their fascist and religious goals.

390 Nevergiveup  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:12:05pm

re: #377 Hhar

Except many of the "anti Zionists" take STATE money for things like education and then also live under the umbrella of the Defense and Security that the very same STATE provides. That I object to!

391 rawmuse  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:12:11pm

The laws that he would have us create here would be used against us in the future. Count on it.

392 albusteve  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:12:25pm

re: #384 Walter L. Newton

And I say that are laws and constitution is the best in the world. If something is wrong, it's because we are not using and putting to use the freedoms we have.

that's a profound understatement....I won't deny I have lost some faith in my American brothers and sisters....and it disturbs me

393 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:12:51pm

re: #275 SanFranciscoZionist

Same could be said for Judaism. Same has been said for Judaism, both to its praise and its denigration.

But it's not nearly as invasive and all-encompassing in Judaism. (We should clarify that: Orthodox Judaism.) Orthodox Judaism may be a way of life, but it is it not a military doctrine and make no claim to represent a complete alternate legal system, and sets up no political structure.

More to the point, Orthodox Jews comprise a tiny percentage of the population, and are not even trying to alter all of American society to be Torah-observant.

394 calcajun  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:13:19pm

re: #371 rawmuse

But you can shtupp like bunnies and stone yourself on legal drugs-just watch your tongue.

395 Russkilitlover  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:13:28pm

re: #368 Nevergiveup

In Oct?

Oh. Didn't see that part. }:~P

396 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:13:33pm

re: #387 calcajun

The point you are missing is that the very laws that Wilders wants to apply-in fact the very tradition of prior restraint in Europe can easily be turned against Wilders in the not too distant future--due to the demographics you cited. The burgeoning Muslim populations will use the vote and those precedents against the secular minorities.

While here, we still have the first amendment--and our speech will be protected. That is unless it's undermined by well-meaning but reactionary folks like the ID'ers and Creationists who get theology taught in public schools in the form of a dubious science.

Don't you think it's ironic that after being invited to the House of Lords for a screening of his film Fitna he was then "disinvited" because a Muslim Lord objected? He has ALREADY had the tradition turned against him.

397 callahan23  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:14:14pm

re: #371 rawmuse

The Netherlands have none of the civic freedoms we take for granted in the USA.
Police can knock your door down, haul you off and lock you up for as long as they please with no warrant.

The Queen just has to say so.

Same with Germany. The incidence where the police knocked in a door of an apartment in order to take away an Israeli flag that was hanging in the window of said apartment.
A pro-hamas demonstration was passing by that house and the RoP followers felt insulted and started to throw things at that window.
Now the police department wants apologies of the politicians who took offense in the police action after the police got a law verdict that their action was alright.

398 calcajun  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:14:41pm

re: #391 rawmuse

See mine at #387-- you said it more succinctly, though.

399 haakondahl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:14:46pm

re: #337 onepistoffyid

Islam is the problem today, but in the middle of the last century, it was The Muslim Sultan that welcomed with open arms the persecuted jews of spain.

The Spanish inquisition and the Holocaust show that Islam does not have a monopoly on religious fascism.

A year or two ago, I would have argued with you about "then and now". However, that was then. This is now. Upding.

400 Cato the Elder  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:14:50pm

re: #385 Cato the Elder

PIMF: Puin, Luxenberg and others...

401 Anthony (Los Angeles)  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:14:58pm

re: #164 Last Mohican

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

True, but I would argue that last group is heretical and not even regarded as Muslim by the others. See the treatment of the Ahmadiyya sect, for example. The orthodox schools of Islamic thought closed the doors to new interpretation centuries ago. What I described in my original comment is mainstream Islamic thought. The only difference is whether the believer feels they must act on it.

402 jcm  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:15:04pm

CIA's $1,000 a Day Waterboarding Specialists

New focus on 'architects' of technique: The CIA's secret waterboarding program was designed and assured to be safe by two well-paid psychologists now working out of an unmarked office building in Spokane, Wa.

Outing them with names and pictures.

Spokane, WA? Might be that SERE/JPRA School is located at Fairchild AFB, Spokane, WA.

403 Gus  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:15:06pm

re: #353 Totally Berserk

OK so the gist of the issue here is that people who want to follow a religion are free to do so. We may not take away their right to the free practice of their religion...

Fine so far. But, what happens when that religion begins to try to take away our rights of free speech? What happens when they, through legalistic contrivances combined with raw physical intimidation, start telling us how it's going to be?

It's one thing to say we'll defend their rights and start prosecuting them when they step across a certain line. This presupposes are in the position of strength. What happens when we are not, as is the case in increasing amounts of territory in Europe? Shall we just be intimidated into giving up more neighborhoods to 'no-go zones' and self-censorship, as in refraining from criticizing Islam because they scare us?

What happens then?

You counter that within the framework of the law. We have experience with this in the United States with the like of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts and others all of which have attempted to inject their theological tyranny in the United States -- some of which found successful inroads into the political mainstream that exist today.

Other cases might include State v. Scopes which was essentially a trial against religious dogma. Many states have law that disallow the hiring of "non-believers" in their books. Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District. Blue laws.

404 spudly  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:15:26pm

re: #375 Walter L. Newton

I haven't honestly been following him, other than reading that he was barred entry to the UK, etc. From a free-speech POV, he has a right to say what he pleases, clearly (as does anyone else, regardless of my feelings about what they have to say). If he means it in the generic sense as we'd apply it here in the US (or however they might in the EU) then I agree with you. As a tactic within Holland... .

Not knowing more than the quote shown above, I made my 1st comment.

I find the whole "multicultural" take on such things awful, I'm more of a "melting pot" man, myself, as well as being rather fond of our 1st Amendment (atheist that I am).

405 LGoPs  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:15:55pm

I had an eye opening experience with Islam while living in Saudi Arabia back in the 90's. To make the story short, a couple of them tried to convert me. I wasn't worried about converting, but the incident was touchy since the subject of religion is extremely sensitive there and the wrong word would have led at the very least, to losing my job.
I tried to steer the conversation towards geopolitics, touching on the events going on in Bosnia, thinking that was a more neutral subject but they kept drilling in on me, telling me that Christianity was a gutter religion. Ultimately I asked them what happens if a person is strong in their faith and refuses to convert. Their answer was "then they must be killed". The matter of fact way they said it is what chilled me the most. I didn't take it as a personal threat but I closed my mind to Islam that day. Any religion with that message at its root is not one that I will ever recognize as being anything other than twisted, wrong and evil.
Clearly not everyone practices it that way but nevertheless, that experience changed my view forever.

406 countrygurl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:16:06pm

re: #384 Walter L. Newton

laws and constitution is the best in the world.


Of course I won't argue with that statement and it is not the idea I set forth. We have over 300 million people in our country and we are going down a certain path that many of us disagree with. That's all I said.

407 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:16:06pm

re: #313 albusteve

they have their peyote...by law

So then, by the same token, we must allow sharia to be practiced in the US, because according to the highest Islamic scholars, sharia is an inseperable part of Islam. Right?

408 spudly  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:18:05pm

re: #389 Mad Mullah

Actually, isn't Nazism banned in Europe, or at least Germany? As I understand it that can't even use Nazi emblems in video games or models (airplanes, etc) in Germany.

Clearly anyone in the US has the Right to follow any idiotic ideology they choose (which is a better system, even if we have to hear kooks now and again).

409 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:18:36pm

re: #393 zombie

But it's not nearly as invasive and all-encompassing in Judaism. (We should clarify that: Orthodox Judaism.) Orthodox Judaism may be a way of life, but it is it not a military doctrine and make no claim to represent a complete alternate legal system, and sets up no political structure.

More to the point, Orthodox Jews comprise a tiny percentage of the population, and are not even trying to alter all of American society to be Torah-observant.

True, but that's an issue of threat, not philosophy.

A military doctrine exists, and the extent to which the halacha of warfare applies is an ongoing issue for the Orthodox rabbinate in Israel.

I would say that halacha is in fact a complete legal system, and many people consider it their only one. The fact that 'dina malchut dina' (the law of the country in which you live is law) became an established principal made it easier for two systems to coexist. I suspect that most American Muslims subscribe to that basic idea, even if they can't say it in Hebrew.

;)

This is supercool conversation, but I gotta go. See folks later.

410 albusteve  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:18:48pm

re: #407 zombie

So then, by the same token, we must allow sharia to be practiced in the US, because according to the highest Islamic scholars, sharia is an inseperable part of Islam. Right?

according to posters here....no, the USSC will not make that allowance....opinion is that it is a case by case situation, but I'm not so sure

411 lightspeed  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:18:53pm

re: #291 zombie

Assume for the sake of argument that a new religion was founded in America: Rapeology...

Interesting scenario. However, the logic doesn't hold up. Organizations like this DO exist. Ever heard of NAMBLA? Hell, you can find hundreds of websites devoted exclusively to rape. The first ammendment protects the freedom to associate with those of like mind. But...

If the Church of Rapeology is seen to be actively encouraging its members to commit crimes, there are plenty of laws on the books that could be used to shut them down. In your scenario, that is the case, so they could be shut down. But if the teachings were more along the lines of "Rape is good," "A rapist is blessed in the eyes of the lord," etc., then they could probably get away with it. It's how the Klan get away with it. It's how NAMBLA get's away with it.

There's a lot of stuff in the Bible that will get you locked up today if you tried it. And if a pastor started preaching to his flock that Christians should rise up and murder the enemies of the Lord, that church should be shut down.

So, yeah, if an Imam is inciting his followers to violence and mayhem, shut him down. The First Ammendment is not an absolute.

412 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:19:17pm

re: #314 eschew_obfuscation

You would charge all priests that preach rape with incitement to violence and throw them in prison. Continue arresting and charging the remaining adherents with rape and punishing them. Publicly warn people that rape is preached in the 'churches' and offer counseling to those who are non-practicing adherents.

This doesn't seem to me to be a lot different from the KKK or Black Panthers and their meetings and subsequent violent acts based on what's preached there.

How is your solution any different from what Wilders is advocating? It's simply a matter of degree. If you came to the conclusion that Imams in their sermons are advocating violating US law by promoting sharia, would you recommend arresting them for doing so?

413 LGoPs  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:19:18pm

re: #383 haakondahl

I don't recall either, but even if she won, it won't set any great trend. Can't get distracted (except when it's fun) by the little crap. The way this country works, the more that little cases like this are decided wrongly, the more sick of it people will get, and they will bring even more pressure to bear on setting things right.
There are some things that scare the crap out of me about the future and this shape-shifting conflict--but the bush-league court cases I think will be resolved (if it becomes a real problem) through the beauty of Federalism.

I found out that she lost her case, appealed and lost the appeal as well. bottom line is she's got to take the veil off when getting the license. Hurrah.

414 albusteve  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:20:27pm

re: #412 zombie

How is your solution any different from what Wilders is advocating? It's simply a matter of degree. If you came to the conclusion that Imams in their sermons are advocating violating US law by promoting sharia, would you recommend arresting them for doing so?

thereby effectively dismantling the religion....catch-22

415 countrygurl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:20:39pm

re: #389 Mad Mullah

I do however believe that virtually all Muslim immigration especially to Europe should immediately be halted. I've travelled to Europe plenty and seen firsthand the deterioration of certain countries and the problems that they will continue to face in the future as the Muslim population explodes.

I agree with you. My husband is German and we have traveled extensively throughout Europe for 30 years. To see our future w/o the changes you suggest simply look at the streets of Italy, Austria, London. I set forth this idea on LGF a while back and got downed-dinged real bad! It will be interesting to see if this happens again on your post.

416 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:21:21pm

re: #393 zombie

But it's not nearly as invasive and all-encompassing in Judaism. (We should clarify that: Orthodox Judaism.) Orthodox Judaism may be a way of life, but it is it not a military doctrine and make no claim to represent a complete alternate legal system, and sets up no political structure.

More to the point, Orthodox Jews comprise a tiny percentage of the population, and are not even trying to alter all of American society to be Torah-observant.

Whoa there. Orthodox Judaism does have a complete alternate legal structure. You have no idea. Also, there is Orthodoxy, and then there is Orthodoxy: "orthodox" ranges from modern Orthodox to the Satmar haredim. Military doctrine, well, Judaism puts limits on that. Political structure? That's a bit tricky, but in its traditional form in the MidEast diaspora, yes, Jews set up semi-autonomous societies regulated by custom and law. Halakha and tradition are as encompassing as anything Islam puts out. They got that bit from us, in my opinion.

417 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:22:04pm

re: #407 zombie

So then, by the same token, we must allow sharia to be practiced in the US, because according to the highest Islamic scholars, sharia is an inseperable part of Islam. Right?

Wrong, see my comment above. Exceptions to the general rule are made for many religions in the US, but those which become extreme in their law breaking do get dealt with.

418 Lynn B.  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:22:09pm

re: #374 pre-Boomer Marine brat

(agreed, "not a good idea" ... but with that said)

Later, yes, after he became a successful warlord. But it's a chicken-and-egg thing. What led him to bail out of Mecca? What led him to turn to military measures. All that happened after Khadijah died, and as the nature of the Revelations began to change.

She was a strong woman, and exerted a great influence over him. What happened after her influence was gone?

*biting tongue*

Without looking it up, as I recall it was a relatively gradual shift that began after he was kicked out of Mecca ... or left to escape persecution ... the point being that he was starting to piss people off, which didn't exactly improve his mood. Don't mean to be flip about this but since way back in college (Stone Age) I have always seen Mo's spiritual journey as a series of reactions to snubs by people he felt should have embraced and followed him, the crowning insult being the failure of the Jewish tribes to recognize his revelations as Truth.

It's unclear to me what specifically Khadijah's influence was, so hard to say where the loss of it might have lead. Maybe she helped him keep his temper in check? But I do get the impression that his dishonor in Mecca was the catalyst. Honor is and always has been an extremely important value in Arab culture, both before Mohammed and certainly after. The influence of women ... not so much.

419 callahan23  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:22:50pm

re: #405 LGoPs

I had an eye opening experience with Islam while living in Saudi Arabia back in the 90's. ....
... Their answer was "then they must be killed". The matter of fact way they said it is what chilled me the most. I didn't take it as a personal threat but I closed my mind to Islam that day. Any religion with that message at its root is not one that I will ever recognize as being anything other than twisted, wrong and evil.
Clearly not everyone practices it that way but nevertheless, that experience changed my view forever.

My experience that changed my view forever was to be living next door to muslims in Ethiopia and hearing the cries of their baby girl being FGmutilated.

420 Totally Berserk  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:23:06pm

re: #367 Walter L. Newton

Then we fight back. But not by telling them they are not free to practice their religion.

Hell, we have many groups in this country that hate black, jews, catholics, conservatives etc. and talk smack about those groups every day.

In publications, in meetings, in tracts and handouts, in radio shows and TV shows and on the internet.

We even have groups that regularly meet to discuss and plan armed insurrection and civil war in this country.

Where have any of these groups managed to become bigger than our freedoms?

They haven't. And Islam will not take over this country any more so. And if you think so, then your faith in this country is weak and damaged.

You'll note that they are not fighting in Europe, they are not in any position to, and their position is getting weaker and weaker. How many years down the road are we from that same predicament?

And a key part of this religion is that law is only God's to make. It is not man's place to make laws. Growing up in a country steeped in the separation of church and state has left us incapable of grasping this simple reality. Why should we allow the practice of a faith that has the clear intention of replacing our law with theirs?

And yes, my faith in this country has been taking a lot of hits, seeing how cluelessness and willful blindness are seen as virtues. Islam seems almost designed to turn our values into weapons that they can use against us.

421 Mad Mullah  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:23:07pm

re: #408 spudly

Actually, isn't Nazism banned in Europe, or at least Germany? As I understand it that can't even use Nazi emblems in video games or models (airplanes, etc) in Germany.

Europe is far more restrictive in terms of freedom than the USA is. I don't know a whole lot about European laws, I'm American, but I believe that France also has a ban on Nazi memorabilia.

422 MittDoesNotCompute  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:23:40pm

re: #137 Thom

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.

Hate to break it to you, but Wilders never was the proverbial white knight riding in on his steed to save us from the encroaching Caliphate. He may have made some interesting points with Fitna, but it seems to me that Geert is in this primarily for Geert.

423 spudly  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:23:59pm

Clearly, in the context of the Netherlands (I don't know about the EU at large), he should be advocating removing religious privileges (proactive, State sponsorship) for ALL religions.

In effect, he should instead advocate for an American style 1st Amendment with the freedom to privately practice your religion, and the explicit removal of ALL State support. That would at least rid them of State-bankrolled Madrasas that suborn the overthrow of their way of life.

424 countrygurl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:24:10pm

re: #419 callahan23

My experience that changed my view forever was to be living next door to muslims in Ethiopia and hearing the cries of their baby girl being FGmutilated.


Have your read INFIDEL by the Somali woman, Ayyan Hirsi Ali?

425 haakondahl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:24:18pm

re: #351 zombie

So say you. But what authority do you have within Islam? Your laissez-faire Western-style opinion goes in complete contradiction to the leading scholars of Islam in Egypt and Saudi Arabia who insist that Islam is inseparable from sharia.

Who gets to determine the true nature of Islam? The most respected leading Islamic scholars in the world, or Western Christians like Karen Armstrong who want to emphasize the touchy-feelie aspect of Islam and paper over the inconvenient parts?

It seems to me the any religion's leading scholars must necessarily be the ones who define the religion. Not some outsiders who want to shape the religion to match their wishes for it.

Could you be any more sycophantic in your pleading for "leading scholars" (once in each paragraph!) to arbitrate the terms of our lives, and possibly deaths?

Do you know any Muslims? One?

You're usually a clear thinker, but it looks to me as though recently, School has gotten in a few good blows for the unchallengable authority of, School, of course.

What authority do I have in Islam? Do you prefer to argue ad verecundiam?

426 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:24:37pm

re: #332 Lynn B.

WTF? Those are false choices. And neither the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court nor the President has the power to ban any religion or re-define it as not being a "real" religion.

"Rapeology" already exists and it has plenty of adherents. They're called "rapists." Some get caught and go to jail, others are still out there raping. The same for murder, burglary and shop lifting. There are organizations all over the country that preach tax evasion. Their freedom of speech stops at incitement to break the law and there are plenty of laws on the books that allow them to be shut down. The same is true for religious organizations.

But yet again, you seem to be saying that it is in fact OK to "shut down" religions if they advocate violating US law.

But since the Supreme Court has ruled that it is illegal to have to unequal legal systems, and if some fundamentalist Islamic preachers do in fact preach and advocate for the practice of sharia (which is a separate and unequal legal system), then aren't they breaking the law according to your definition. And thus, are you saying they should be "shut down"?

427 LGoPs  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:25:02pm

re: #419 callahan23

My experience that changed my view forever was to be living next door to muslims in Ethiopia and hearing the cries of their baby girl being FGmutilated.

Wow.
*shudders*

428 Soona'  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:25:11pm

re: #378 countrygurl

Unforftunately, this is a true statment for many people who do not like the direction our country is taking.

So you agree with what the zero, his administration, and the democat congress is doing?

429 UberInfidel67  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:25:40pm

re: #423 spudly

He HAS mentioned that Europe needs a First Amendment "like America has".

430 callahan23  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:26:33pm

re: #424 countrygurl

Have your read INFIDEL by the Somali woman, Ayyan Hirsi Ali?

No never read it. But read essays of her and reports about her.
I admire Ayyan Hirsi Ali greatly.

431 Lynn B.  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:27:25pm

re: #416 Hhar

Whoa there. Orthodox Judaism does have a complete alternate legal structure. You have no idea. Also, there is Orthodoxy, and then there is Orthodoxy: "orthodox" ranges from modern Orthodox to the Satmar haredim. Military doctrine, well, Judaism puts limits on that. Political structure? That's a bit tricky, but in its traditional form in the MidEast diaspora, yes, Jews set up semi-autonomous societies regulated by custom and law. Halakha and tradition are as encompassing as anything Islam puts out. They got that bit from us, in my opinion.

I agree completely. And the military part was once also an integral part but the main body of the interpretive halacha (i.e., the Talmud) developed after that aspect was no longer a tenable part of the culture and so it atrophied. You can read the last four books of the Torah as, in part, a guide to successful military conquest (and defense), but for Jews that was considered ancient history until about 61 years ago. The lessons, nevertheless, were not lost.

432 countrygurl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:27:44pm

re: #428 Soona'

So you agree with what the zero, his administration, and the democat congress is doing?


Am I really that bad at communicating? NO NO NO! NOT AT ALL!

433 haakondahl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:30:17pm

re: #354 zombie

Again, you sort of seem to be partly agreeing with Wilders, then.

Zombie, I think you stepped in a big pile of sh1t back in your #29, and you've been trying to scrape it off without anybody noticing since then, by splitting differences enough to cover what you said.

I'd like to see you just wipe it off in the yard out there, and come in again.

434 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:30:32pm

re: #390 Nevergiveup

I object to that too, but not because they are antiZionist per se, but because they seem like hypocritical parasites. But you are right.

435 Render  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:31:39pm

re: #379 zombie

re: #385 Cato the Elder

The seeds of the Islamic Reformation are there, and if Charles will pardon this link, they have sprouted.

[Link: www.submission.org...]

"It has been part of the Muslim’s belief, based on traditions, that Prophet Muhammad was illiterate. God says in verse 29:51 that the Quran itself is the only miracle of the prophet. By alleging illiteracy for him, traditional Muslims were trying to make the claim even "more miraculous," for a book of such literary quality was sent down through an illiterate man."

Muhammad was a merchant before he became a caravan raider. Tough to be a merchant if you cannot read or write...

Those seeds of reformation need nurturing, care, sunlight, and water if they are to flourish. One hundred million Moslem's just got an eight year lesson in American style freedom and civil rights that is continuing. Whatever his faults, W provided the water.

The Geller-Spencer Final Solution seeks only to lay waste to those newly born seedlings and to salt the fields where they grow. This will not do...

RETURN
TO
SERENITY,
R

436 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:31:43pm

re: #418 Lynn B.

Without looking it up, as I recall it was a relatively gradual shift that began after he was kicked out of Mecca ... or left to escape persecution ... the point being that he was starting to piss people off, which didn't exactly improve his mood. Don't mean to be flip about this but since way back in college (Stone Age) I have always seen Mo's spiritual journey as a series of reactions to snubs by people he felt should have embraced and followed him, the crowning insult being the failure of the Jewish tribes to recognize his revelations as Truth.

It's unclear to me what specifically Khadijah's influence was, so hard to say where the loss of it might have lead. Maybe she helped him keep his temper in check? But I do get the impression that his dishonor in Mecca was the catalyst. Honor is and always has been an extremely important value in Arab culture, both before Mohammed and certainly after. The influence of women ... not so much.

Good points ... all.

I have NOT found a history which adequate goes into her role, however she was extraordinary for her day.

/just sayin' ... and wonderin'

437 Lynn B.  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:32:31pm

re: #426 zombie

But yet again, you seem to be saying that it is in fact OK to "shut down" religions if they advocate violating US law.

But since the Supreme Court has ruled that it is illegal to have to unequal legal systems, and if some fundamentalist Islamic preachers do in fact preach and advocate for the practice of sharia (which is a separate and unequal legal system), then aren't they breaking the law according to your definition. And thus, are you saying they should be "shut down"?

If some fundamentalist preachers, of any faith, do in fact incite unlawful behavior then they are breaking the law and they can be shut down. Not the religion of Islam as a whole but those who use it to undermine the rule of law in this country and/or promote violence, yes, certainly.

438 haakondahl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:32:44pm

re: #360 n2stox

Read the speech, it doesn't come across to me as all that bad.

I've read enough. Some dogs won't be walked back.

439 Lynn B.  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:34:14pm

This is a completely fascinating thread and I can't even hope to keep up with it.

Anyway, it is now time for wine. And steak. Which will require my undivided attention for a while.

440 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:34:57pm

re: #438 haakondahl

I've read enough. Some dogs won't be walked back.

Yes, everyone should make up their minds based on part of one speech.

441 Totally Berserk  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:35:46pm

re: #376 Thanos

Got an example of Free Speech being trampled in the US, or just paranoid speculation?

And you're sure they wouldn't try that when they are in a stronger position because...?

I tend to look at it with a broader view. Which includes Europe as part of the West. You didn't see the riots over the Danish Mohammed cartoons? You didn't see Salman Rushdie have to go into police protection over a book that he wrote? In fact the subject of this thread is also there.

442 haakondahl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:36:02pm

re: #364 Chip Designer

But the judges decided that an oath was binding, and so all were killed.

Fascinating. Point?

443 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:36:05pm

re: #439 Lynn B.

This is a completely fascinating thread and I can't even hope to keep up with it.

Anyway, it is now time for wine. And steak. Which will require my undivided attention for a while.

Same here, but with a Marie Calendar's frozen dinner.

... BTW, could you spare some of that wine and steak?

444 Totally Berserk  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:37:51pm

re: #424 countrygurl

Have your read INFIDEL by the Somali woman, Ayyan Hirsi Ali?

YES! It should be required reading for everyone.

445 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:38:54pm

bbl

446 doppelganglander  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:40:52pm

re: #443 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Same here, but with a Marie Calendar's frozen dinner.

... BTW, could you spare some of that wine and steak?

That just made me so sad. I wish you were close enough to come over for dinner. It's only tacos, but still. Oh, and we have plenty of beer!

447 countrygurl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:41:24pm

I'm still at work -- think I'll get in my car and drive home to finish this thread. We can debate this forever, but the bottom line is we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech. We have a right to control immigration. We have laws that must be applied equally to all inhabitants of our country -- no Sharia for some, old testament rules for the orthodox Jews -- the SAME laws for everyone and they must be enforced in order to protect everyone's rights.

448 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:42:28pm

re: #372 Thanos

do you think it strategically sound to further the talking points of Zawahiri in Al Qaeda?

All I'm asking is: Who gets to determine the true nature of Islam?

There are fundamentalist scholars who say sharia is inseperable from the practice of Islam.

There are reformist "moderate" scholars who say, let's bend the rules a little and live at peace in secular societies.

There are non-Muslim commentators who want to make Islam look rosy.

There are non-Muslim commentators who want to make Islam look evil.

So: Who do we believe? And should the US government be in the business of ruling on doctrinal issues of a religion?

This remains a very sticky wicket to me. There is a major strain of Islam which preaches that sharia (social laws) is an inseparable and intregal part of Islam (the religion). And we would be taking sides in the doctrinal debate if we pooh-poohed all those fundamentalist Imams and Muslims as not being "true" Muslims. By what rights do we not accept them at their word?

It seems to me, from pondering the comments on this thread, that there might in fact be two different religions: an extremist fundamentalist sharia-promoting Islam, and a less-observant secular-friendly moderate Islam. And that they're not really the same religion after all.

The Christian Church has gone through many major fractures over smaller differences than this. It's surprising the Sunni Islam (in particular) has stayed unified in the face of such extreme internal variations.

449 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:43:43pm

re: #441 Totally Berserk

So you basically got nothing. I speak out against specific sects of Islam, and call out specific terrorists and their tactics all the time. I don't have any police protection. If Europe refuses to get rid of their radicals and terrorists but would rather spend their time attacking a whole religion instead of specific individuals and problems, that's not my lookout.

450 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:46:26pm

re: #431 Lynn B.

There is a lot about warfare in Torah, and as Francisco Zionist points out, Jewish law specifically discusses the conduct of war, especially since 1949. If you are interested, a recent history of such discussions is outlined in S. Cohen. 2007 The Quest for a Corpus of Jewish Military Ethics in Modern Israel Journal of Israeli History, 26:1 35-66

451 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:46:50pm

re: #448 zombie

All I'm asking is: Who gets to determine the true nature of Islam?

There are fundamentalist scholars who say sharia is inseperable from the practice of Islam.

There are reformist "moderate" scholars who say, let's bend the rules a little and live at peace in secular societies.

There are non-Muslim commentators who want to make Islam look rosy.

There are non-Muslim commentators who want to make Islam look evil.

So: Who do we believe? And should the US government be in the business of ruling on doctrinal issues of a religion?

This remains a very sticky wicket to me. There is a major strain of Islam which preaches that sharia (social laws) is an inseparable and intregal part of Islam (the religion). And we would be taking sides in the doctrinal debate if we pooh-poohed all those fundamentalist Imams and Muslims as not being "true" Muslims. By what rights do we not accept them at their word?

It seems to me, from pondering the comments on this thread, that there might in fact be two different religions: an extremist fundamentalist sharia-promoting Islam, and a less-observant secular-friendly moderate Islam. And that they're not really the same religion after all.

The Christian Church has gone through many major fractures over smaller differences than this. It's surprising the Sunni Islam (in particular) has stayed unified in the face of such extreme internal variations.

It doesn't matter who we believe - it matters who the Muslims believe. We should therefor always be specific in our criticisms. Furthering the insane notions that there aren't moderate muslims furthers the cause of Al Qaeda, the Serbian lobby, the extreme right of Europe, and the Christian dominionists here. I'd rather side with the moderates than that.

452 Render  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:48:34pm

re: #448 zombie

The Sunni glue is the Moslem Brotherhood, founded in 1928, four years after the fall of the Last Caliph (Otoman).

Almost all of the violence related to these matters can be laid directly at their doorsteps. Reapers, not sowers.

ORGASMATRON,
R

453 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:51:20pm

re: #411 lightspeed

Interesting scenario. However, the logic doesn't hold up. Organizations like this DO exist. Ever heard of NAMBLA? Hell, you can find hundreds of websites devoted exclusively to rape. The first ammendment protects the freedom to associate with those of like mind. But...

If the Church of Rapeology is seen to be actively encouraging its members to commit crimes, there are plenty of laws on the books that could be used to shut them down. In your scenario, that is the case, so they could be shut down. But if the teachings were more along the lines of "Rape is good," "A rapist is blessed in the eyes of the lord," etc., then they could probably get away with it. It's how the Klan get away with it. It's how NAMBLA get's away with it.

There's a lot of stuff in the Bible that will get you locked up today if you tried it. And if a pastor started preaching to his flock that Christians should rise up and murder the enemies of the Lord, that church should be shut down.

So, yeah, if an Imam is inciting his followers to violence and mayhem, shut him down. The First Ammendment is not an absolute.

That's the most reasonable answer so far.

Wilders is way way way off-base in calling for Islam to be banned in toto in the United States, but on the other hand (as some undercover investigations have revealed) individual imams and individual mosques do seem to be so extreme that what's they're calling for is illegal. Problem is, those imams and those mosques could legitimately claim they are following the religious dictates and traditions of real Islamic practices in the Middle East. And that by persecuting them, we are denying them their religious rights.

Again, it seems like there may in fact be two different religions we're talking about, and that the Islamic extremists are flirting with an illegality which is not protected by the First Amendment.

454 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:58:05pm

re: #417 Thanos

Wrong, see my comment above. Exceptions to the general rule are made for many religions in the US, but those which become extreme in their law breaking do get dealt with.

So, it seems to be a case-by-case basis.

But that was my point. If we decide on any religion's legality on a case-by-case basis, then the possibility exists that some "extreme" religions could be effectively banned -- if the courts decide they are sufficiently breaking the law.

By the principle you outline, it would not be unconstitutional to ban certain forms of Islam if the courts decided that their advocacy of sharia or calls for jihad crossed the line.

Agree? Disagree?

455 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:59:26pm

re: #448 zombie

All I'm asking is: Who gets to determine the true nature of Islam?

There are fundamentalist scholars who say sharia is inseperable from the practice of Islam.

There are reformist "moderate" scholars who say, let's bend the rules a little and live at peace in secular societies.

There are non-Muslim commentators who want to make Islam look rosy.

There are non-Muslim commentators who want to make Islam look evil.

So: Who do we believe? And should the US government be in the business of ruling on doctrinal issues of a religion?

This remains a very sticky wicket to me. There is a major strain of Islam which preaches that sharia (social laws) is an inseparable and intregal part of Islam (the religion). And we would be taking sides in the doctrinal debate if we pooh-poohed all those fundamentalist Imams and Muslims as not being "true" Muslims. By what rights do we not accept them at their word?

It seems to me, from pondering the comments on this thread, that there might in fact be two different religions: an extremist fundamentalist sharia-promoting Islam, and a less-observant secular-friendly moderate Islam. And that they're not really the same religion after all.

The Christian Church has gone through many major fractures over smaller differences than this. It's surprising the Sunni Islam (in particular) has stayed unified in the face of such extreme internal variations.


Welllll...there IS no true, objective nature of Islam. Islam IS a social construct, both on the part of Muslims and non-Muslims, so in a sense, Islam is whatever a Muslim says it is, and as a consequence there are a million flavors of Islam . There ARE objective behaviors of Muslims, there ARE objectively discernible normative traits and beleifs and there ARE objectively discrenible consequences of such things. So if someone says "true Islam is a religion of peace" you cn say "Bullshit!". If someone says "True Islam wants to conquer you and make you slaves!" you can say "Bullshit!". If someone says 'traditional Islam is awfully opprssive." or "Women are treated badly in normative Islam" or "Jihad is the duty of every Muslim according to traditional sources." well, THOSE are not bullshit, but readily supportable opinion.

I'm very wary of any religionist who wants to tell me the TRUE nature of another person's religion. AntiSemites use that tactic all the time.

456 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:01:03pm

re: #454 zombie

So, it seems to be a case-by-case basis.

But that was my point. If we decide on any religion's legality on a case-by-case basis, then the possibility exists that some "extreme" religions could be effectively banned -- if the courts decide they are sufficiently breaking the law.

By the principle you outline, it would not be unconstitutional to ban certain forms of Islam if the courts decided that their advocacy of sharia or calls for jihad crossed the line.

Agree? Disagree?

Disagree. Religions can't be banned, practicing extreme acts can be. If the Aztec religion were suddenly reformed, we couldn't do a darned thing. The first time they tore out a heart we could ban that practice, we could prosecute the perps, etc. The whole pyramid or church could be rounded up and prosecuted for aiding and abetting murder. Do you see the difference?

457 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:02:21pm

Another case in point, not hypothetical but real. There are still Branch Davidians. Think on that.

458 Aye Pod  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:02:42pm

Just as Jews and Christians have learned to justify ignoring parts of their scriptures that call for terrible things, so can muslims. And they are doing so, there is little doubt about that. At the same time of course there are moderate muslims who are being radicalized, new converts etc. It all depends on how it balances out of course, but I think that as time goes on, the west is influencing muslims more than Islam is influencing the west. I certainly hope so anyway. In any case I have no doubt that closing the door on the idea of a moderate Islam would be a massively counterproductive move in the fight against jihadism.

459 nyc redneck  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:03:43pm

the problem is the sharia aspect of islam begins to make demands in the name of religion and western countries bend over backwards trying to accommodate them
w/ special privileges and amenities that would not be granted to others.

they squall for foot baths, toilets refitted to face the right way so as to not
offend allah. they refuse to handle pork or alcohol in supermarkets and taxi
cabs. and they demand time off during their work day to pray. throw down
rugs and bang their heads in the floor.
if we say no to them we are bigots. they need to adapt to our system.
to assimilate like all other immigrants who have come to america.
it would be nice to see them appreciate the opportunities afforded them.
rights and privileges they do not get in the counties from which they flee.

460 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:04:16pm

re: #425 haakondahl

Not sure what I've done to anger you so on this thread. I'm just speculating. If you think my commentary is idiotic or beneath contempt, feel free to scroll past and/or to ding me down. I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings. Sorry if I did so.

461 Lightspeed  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:09:38pm

re: #453 zombie

Problem is, those imams and those mosques could legitimately claim they are following the religious dictates and traditions of real Islamic practices in the Middle East. And that by persecuting them, we are denying them their religious rights.

Sure, they could. And I suppose Catholics could start killing them and claim they are only following the traditions and dictates of the Catholic Church, ala the Crusades. Neither argument is persuasive. Freedom of religion does not trump all other rights. When it runs afoul of other rights and of the standards and morals of a reasonable society it must be abridged.

A big problem, though, is determining when that line is crossed. An Imam preaching that Jews and Infidels are dogs, apes, whatever, certainly would not cross the line. Preaching that they should be wiped off the face of the Earth probably wouldn't either. Telling your flock to go out and make it happen certainly would. But how do you know what is going on behind closed mosque doors unless you are surveilling them 24-7? It's tough to get a handle on it all.

462 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:11:27pm

re: #433 haakondahl

Zombie, I think you stepped in a big pile of sh1t back in your #29, and you've been trying to scrape it off without anybody noticing since then, by splitting differences enough to cover what you said.

I'd like to see you just wipe it off in the yard out there, and come in again.

As of this writing, my comment #29 has 13 updings and 0 downdings. Not that that is indicative of its wonderfulness or accuracy, but only that the majority of commenters seems to agree with it rather than disagree with it.

What about my comment #29 did you find so horrible? My statement that Wilders' was indeed being un-American when he wrongheadedly called for Islam to be banned? Or my statement that Islam is many things in addition to being a religion?

What is so controversial about either statement?

463 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:13:59pm

re: #437 Lynn B.

If some fundamentalist preachers, of any faith, do in fact incite unlawful behavior then they are breaking the law and they can be shut down. Not the religion of Islam as a whole but those who use it to undermine the rule of law in this country and/or promote violence, yes, certainly.

Good answer. But I fear that puts us back in the "case by case" scenario, which will lead to a lot of lawsuits and interminable screeching from CAIR.

464 nyc redneck  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:18:16pm

re: #462 zombie

As of this writing, my comment #29 has 13 updings and 0 downdings. Not that that is indicative of its wonderfulness or accuracy, but only that the majority of commenters seems to agree with it rather than disagree with it.

What about my comment #29 did you find so horrible? My statement that Wilders' was indeed being un-American when he wrongheadedly called for Islam to be banned? Or my statement that Islam is many things in addition to being a religion?

What is so controversial about either statement?

nothing.
and i up dinged #29.
you have 14 up dings now.

465 Thom  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:19:11pm

198 Charles

I know that Wilders and Spencer haven't changed. Atlas seems not to have changed although admittedly I do not follow her very closely. But LGF has most definitely changed - in the direction of 9/10 sadly. With the benefit of relatively long absences, I can see it very clearly. Maybe the change has happened too gradually to register, maybe it is the commenters that have changed, maybe both; I don't know. What is unclear to me is, why?

Anyway, I'm just one voice, and not even a significant one at that. But having spent a good chunk of time here in the past, I hope you know that I don't question you lightly or in a hurtful spirit.

466 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:23:07pm

re: #465 Thom

198 Charles

I know that Wilders and Spencer haven't changed. Atlas seems not to have changed although admittedly I do not follow her very closely. But LGF has most definitely changed - in the direction of 9/10 sadly. With the benefit of relatively long absences, I can see it very clearly. Maybe the change has happened too gradually to register, maybe it is the commenters that have changed, maybe both; I don't know. What is unclear to me is, why?

Anyway, I'm just one voice, and not even a significant one at that. But having spent a good chunk of time here in the past, I hope you know that I don't question you lightly or in a hurtful spirit.

I disagree. Apparently, you were reading an LGF that existed only in your mind. I have never been in favor of any kind of mass deportations or restrictions on free speech -- never. And I've never been a simple political puppet, parroting right wing or left wing talking points, and I'm not going to start now.

And yes, Spencer and Geller have definitely changed. They're getting more extreme all the time, as they become increasingly marginalized by decent people who see what they're really standing for.

467 Lightspeed  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:23:47pm

re: #463 zombie

Good answer. But I fear that puts us back in the "case by case" scenario, which will lead to a lot of lawsuits and interminable screeching from CAIR.

That gives me an idea. Sue them. Sue the living bejesus out of them. Sue the hierarchy of Islam in America. If someone is beaten up by radical Muslim thugs, sue the mosque. Sue them all the way up the chain. Prove in a court of law that Islam is promoting violence, etc. Damage their reputations and pocketbooks. Then maybe they will do a better job of policing their own.

What pisses me off most about everyday Muslims is not their religion, but their silence in the face of evil in their own ranks.

468 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:24:51pm

zombie: I'm a longtime fan of yours.

I think the problem with post 29 is that Islam is indeed a religion, its just a religion with more aspects to it than North American secularists are used to seeing. I cited my own religion to demonstrate its similarity, but consider catholicism, with its canon law, military enterprises, systems of taxation, etc. Also not a religion? The fact is that Islam like many religions in exactly the way you said it is not a religion. Sikhism: is that a religion? Of course. Those guys sure know about military and civil law, as far as I can tell. It goes on. There is nothing exceptional about Islam as a religion in what you outlined.

Pluralism is a difficult course. I can't speak for haakondahl, but it looks to me like you just told him his freingds didn't really have a religion. In a way, you told me I didn't really have a religion either. I just didn't take it personally.

469 Totally Berserk  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:27:55pm

re: #465 Thom

198 Charles

I know that Wilders and Spencer haven't changed. Atlas seems not to have changed although admittedly I do not follow her very closely. But LGF has most definitely changed - in the direction of 9/10 sadly. With the benefit of relatively long absences, I can see it very clearly. Maybe the change has happened too gradually to register, maybe it is the commenters that have changed, maybe both; I don't know. What is unclear to me is, why?

Anyway, I'm just one voice, and not even a significant one at that. But having spent a good chunk of time here in the past, I hope you know that I don't question you lightly or in a hurtful spirit.

One word: ROPMA. You don't see much of it around here anymore.

470 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:28:11pm

In one way, I have changed, I'll grant this -- I'm seeing the true agenda of some of the so-called 'anti-jihadists' much more clearly, and that process began in 2007 when many of them decided it was time to start hooking up with fascist groups and far right lunatics.

I want absolutely nothing to do with this. If you think that means I'm changing "in the direction of 9/10," that would have to be a problem -- yours. Because it's a core principle for me, and always has been.

471 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:29:01pm

re: #456 Thanos

Disagree. Religions can't be banned, practicing extreme acts can be. If the Aztec religion were suddenly reformed, we couldn't do a darned thing. The first time they tore out a heart we could ban that practice, we could prosecute the perps, etc. The whole pyramid or church could be rounded up and prosecuted for aiding and abetting murder. Do you see the difference?

re: #457 Thanos

Another case in point, not hypothetical but real. There are still Branch Davidians. Think on that.

I do see the difference. But it becomes a matter of semantics.

If we don't "ban" a religion, hut instead arrest most of its adherents and seize its assets, then we are effectively "shutting it down" in a fashion that sidesteps the First Amendment.

What if the Aztec religion was fundamentally based on the ritual of cutting out people's still-beating hearts? Would we not in essence be "banning the entire religion" if we forbade the practice that defined the religion and arrested anyone who did it?

Yes, the Aztec religion would "still exist," but it would be impossible to practice it in its original true form.

I'm really not trying to be reflexively counter-intuitive, just trying to wrap my brain around this whole thing.

472 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:31:24pm
473 the_thermonuclear_pickle  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:31:32pm

re: #3 MandyManners

Maybe not an Imam, but will this fella do?

Gems like this guy are few and far between though.

Orthodox Muslims in general really have to learn to realise that their religion is not God's gift to Earth and murder in its name doesn't endear it to anyone.

474 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:32:30pm

re: #471 zombie

Well your "semantics" is my "law"...

While much of law is about semantics in the end & over time justice is generally served. Extremist religions, sects, cults, political movements all weather away in the greater tide of liberty that we sail upon. Yeah, occasionally we will hit rocks, but those get charted quickly.

475 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:32:32pm

Sorry Zombie, I realise that I misspoke. You aren't saying that it isn't a religion, but by saying Wilders is partially right, and that it is wrong to apply our notions of what a religion is to Islam, you appear to be saying that the legal and social approach to Islam must be different from that to any other religion. I'm trying to point out that the legal and social approach to Islam should be like any other religion, because many, if not most, traditional religions are very similar to Islam in ther ways that you suggested. Sorry, got confused.

476 Render  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:34:32pm

omg...

Did Icarus just call me "decent people?"

I'm 20 minutes out from a digital mass murder killing spree that's going to result in an average of around 300 kills tonight...

I must cast that thought aside for the moment.

===

Zombie! I have a slight disagreement with that second paragraph in your #29 regarding religion as politics. Remind me later this evening if you can, I'd like to continue this.

$13 BILLION
AMPHIBIOUS
TANK,
R

477 Lightspeed  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:37:59pm

re: #471 zombie

I do see the difference. But it becomes a matter of semantics.

If we don't "ban" a religion, hut instead arrest most of its adherents and seize its assets, then we are effectively "shutting it down" in a fashion that sidesteps the First Amendment.

What if the Aztec religion was fundamentally based on the ritual of cutting out people's still-beating hearts? Would we not in essence be "banning the entire religion" if we forbade the practice that defined the religion and arrested anyone who did it?

Yes, the Aztec religion would "still exist," but it would be impossible to practice it in its original true form.

I'm really not trying to be reflexively counter-intuitive, just trying to wrap my brain around this whole thing.

Exactly right. Any religion in violation of societal standards (i.e. one that actively promotes murder, rape, slavery, pedophilia, bestiality, etc.) would have to change or go underground. A nation of laws cannot have a loophole for religion that allows practices that are otherwise outlawed. Well, you can ingest Peyote if you belong to certain Indian tribes.

478 Ezekiel2517  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:38:44pm

What other religion prescribes death as the penalty for apostasy? Blasphemy too. Sounds a wee bit cultish.

479 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:39:31pm

re: #468 Hhar

zombie: I'm a longtime fan of yours.

I think the problem with post 29 is that Islam is indeed a religion, its just a religion with more aspects to it than North American secularists are used to seeing. I cited my own religion to demonstrate its similarity, but consider catholicism, with its canon law, military enterprises, systems of taxation, etc. Also not a religion? The fact is that Islam like many religions in exactly the way you said it is not a religion. Sikhism: is that a religion? Of course. Those guys sure know about military and civil law, as far as I can tell. It goes on. There is nothing exceptional about Islam as a religion in what you outlined.

Pluralism is a difficult course. I can't speak for haakondahl, but it looks to me like you just told him his freingds didn't really have a religion. In a way, you told me I didn't really have a religion either. I just didn't take it personally.

I never said that Islam wasn't a religion. I said it wasn't merely a religion. Which means: It is a religion, and it is other things besides.

I didn't concoct this point of view myself. It is the point of view promoted by The Muslim Brotherhood, the Wahhabists, Al-Azhar University (the "Vatican of Islam") and many Islamic scholars. I'm only describing Islam in the manner in which its most traditionalist adherents describe it. They would be insulted if some non-Muslim described Islam as "just" a religion.

480 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:42:20pm

One more point on this before I drop it and move on to more productive things.

No healthy person can -- or should -- maintain the kind of rage most of us felt after 9/11 for an entire lifespan. Now that many (but not all) of the threats have been neutralized, there appears to be no danger of a mass Islamic terrorism campaign in the US, and globally the number of terror attacks has decreased dramatically since that time.

These changes are the result of the US military, and the policies put into place by the Bush administration -- not the ranting and screaming of Pamela Geller and her neo-Nazi pals.

Is radical Islam still a threat? Yes, absolutely, and we still need to be vigilant. But for way too many "anti-jihadists" this has become a sort of monomaniacal obsession, leading them to make alliances with really bad people, make bad judgments about the causes they support, and see Muslims with swords around every corner. And for some, it's turned into pure insane bigotry.

I'm not down with it.

481 the_thermonuclear_pickle  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:42:38pm

re: #472 Iron Fist

The Mythical Moderate Muslim doesn't exist in any real capacity out there in the Mohammedan world. To the Mohammedans, there is no difference between the two.

What? A religious doctrine saying two things are the same and suddenly they are?

Check this out - I'm culturally Jewish but am an atheist. Nonetheless, according to the Jewish religion I'm as Jewish as Shmuli the Rabbi. But if Shmuli goes out to the middle of the West Bank and decapitates some poor Palestinian kid... am I tarred with that action too, just because I'm Jewish? Because the Jewish religion fails to distinguish between Moderates and Radicals?

This kind of fallacy is the same kind of thing that leads to the breeding of hate. Right here, I'm sitting with an Iranian Muslim fellow. He's a Zionist despite praying a few times a day and outrightly rejecting jihad - the dude even forwards me articles of Islamic religious excess. He's a moderate. Don't tell me that he doesn't exist.

Plus your whitewashing of Christianity at Islam's expense ain't exactly logical either. If you think Christianity doesn't attract violent men, explain to me then how the Klan is run? How the Army of God is run?

What about Concerned Christians? Christian Identity? Christian Patriots? Aryan Nations? The Lambs of Christ?

None of those organisations practices the peaceful brand of Christianity that you do, yet they exist and they are Christians who use God/Jesus to recruit people to their cause. And they murder, rape and pillage in the name of Jesus sometimes and in the name of self-interest at other times.

No religion is pure. All have their problems, but declaring that a religion that does not admit to having moderates within it, actually has no moderates within it is an act of utter folly.

482 Chip Designer  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:43:21pm

re: #442 haakondahl

Fascinating. Point?

Two points.

1. It is informative to see how others handled similar problems in the past.

2. It is interesting to see how the concept of honesty has degraded over time. A good deal of this thread is over whether to take Islamic doctrine at face value. "They don't really mean it" is frequently used in defense of Islam.

483 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:44:18pm

re: #479 zombie

I never said that Islam wasn't a religion. I said it wasn't merely a religion. Which means: It is a religion, and it is other things besides.

I didn't concoct this point of view myself. It is the point of view promoted by The Muslim Brotherhood, the Wahhabists, Al-Azhar University (the "Vatican of Islam") and many Islamic scholars. I'm only describing Islam in the manner in which its most traditionalist adherents describe it. They would be insulted if some non-Muslim described Islam as "just" a religion.

See my subsequent post (#475). I misspoke. I'd be annoyed if someone referred to my religion as "just" my religion, and I know Christians who would feel similar. You can expect people to be attached to their particular cultures.

484 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:44:48pm

re: #475 Hhar

Sorry Zombie, I realise that I misspoke. You aren't saying that it isn't a religion, but by saying Wilders is partially right, and that it is wrong to apply our notions of what a religion is to Islam, you appear to be saying that the legal and social approach to Islam must be different from that to any other religion. I'm trying to point out that the legal and social approach to Islam should be like any other religion, because many, if not most, traditional religions are very similar to Islam in ther ways that you suggested. Sorry, got confused.

Ohhhh, I see. Sorry, I hadn't read your comment #475 when I wrote my comment #479.

I understand. I guess the way I wrote that comment #29 implied too much "approval" on my part of Wilders' statement "Islam is not a religion." I didn't mean to say he is "accurate" in this characterization, only that if one were to add the word "merely" to his statement then it would be more close to being true.

485 haakondahl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:47:02pm

re: #448 zombie

It seems to me, from pondering the comments on this thread, that there might in fact be two different religions: an extremist fundamentalist sharia-promoting Islam, and a less-observant secular-friendly moderate Islam. And that they're not really the same religion after all.

How much simpler is it then, to allow that Islam wherever you find it is probably the same religion, but that some people insist that it comes with a lot of fascist garbage stuck to it. And that really, it's those people, not the religion, providing the garbage?

When you look back at ancient texts and plays and such, you realize that human beings have been remarkably unchanged for thousands of years. I live in Japan, and now I work in Afghanistan. I have some familiarity with the things that change and the things that don't change, although I confess I would be clueless to try to list them. It's just a feeling I have that it's no more chauvinistic to claim a difference in people across time than it would be to claim the same difference across space.
I don't have much patience for learned folks who lecture in ponderous tones about how different cultures experience time differently (often backing this hogwash up with incredibly demeaning explanations about how "they are an agricultural people, so to them, time is of a circular nature, like the seasons"...), and so forth. As if we don't have more farmland in America than most countries have land, period.
It all just strikes me as "Sudden Expert Syndrome", wherein whatever probably true fact lying close by is pressed into service to explain an otherwise ludicrous claim. And it always seems to rest upon the audience having no direct experience with the topic at hand.

486 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:48:38pm
487 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:49:42pm

re: #483 Hhar

See my subsequent post (#475). I misspoke. I'd be annoyed if someone referred to my religion as "just" my religion, and I know Christians who would feel similar. You can expect people to be attached to their particular cultures.

I understand. No problem. Carry on!

488 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:55:59pm

re: #481 the_thermonuclear_pickle

Heh. How long have you been here?

Charles hasn't changed much, in my opinion. But the board culture has. Back when I first came here, (I dunno...2002? 2003?) I forget. I would say something similar to what you just said and people would simply tell me that the Muslim in question was lying, full stop. If they had karma points back then, mine would be somewhere around -56,493,301 by now, instead of my mere -160 or whatever it is.

Heh. Despite the complaints, Charles is quite tolerant of what people post on his site. I guess some people thought that because he let them post it, that Charles somehow endorsed it. Well, he's always said that doesn't follow, and now a whole bunch of people are learning that it really is true.

iId have banned some people from here a long time ago.

But then again, I would probably have banned me a long time ago too.

489 hazzyday  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:57:33pm

re: #486 Iron Fist

Nothing wrong with starting up a reformed Islam in the US with a central authority and declaring it to be the only true form of Islam. Have it declare it's tax exempt status by eschewing violence, sharia, child abuse, and recognizing the rights of gays and of women in the religion. have it set the standard for Islam in a democracy. Actually make sharia one of the modern sins against humankind.

490 kirk  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:05:57pm

I'd call a movement whose "prophet" is a mass-murdering, illiterate pedophile, whose examples inspire the contemporary acts of fitna and hudna regularly and rightfully criticized on this site, a cult, not a religion.

Anyone who thinks islam can be reformed is delusional.

491 haakondahl  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:06:37pm

re: #460 zombie

Not sure what I've done to anger you so on this thread. I'm just speculating. If you think my commentary is idiotic or beneath contempt, feel free to scroll past and/or to ding me down. I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings. Sorry if I did so.

Please have a look here.
Let me abuse an analogy. You cannot win a race when there is a life-or-death struggle for the steering wheel, and I am not willing to go where the fascists would take us. Therefore, the way I see it, the anti-Islam crazies are a greater threat to the Republic than the terrorists are. After all, the whole point of terrorism is that they cannot win through simple force of arms, and instead will try to change our minds by scaring us. So they don't get to change my mind.
The left-wing crazies who would remove our ability to do battle are one threat, and the right-wing crazies who would remove our ability to select targets are another threat. Not many left-wing crazies at LGF. So I'm goiong off on right-wing crazies.
And I never expected, after Wilders or Spencer or Geller said something stupid, to see you over there dragging one foot over the other trying to make up your mind.
And then what aggravated the heck out of me was to see you using such lame forms. Your arguments were all words, no structure, and hot-gratuitous hot-buttons at that. It was sloppy liberral tactics, and I don't want to think that your brain is finally melting under the Berkeley haze.
You were using dubious facts in poorly-formed arguments to arrive at unacceptable conclusions.
I think you're better than all of that.
So yeah, I'm steamed. But I'm not going to ignore you today, and probably not tomorrow.
Other than that, how's it going?

492 hazzyday  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:09:22pm

re: #485 haakondahl

The world is less tribal then it was 2000 years ago. Strangers can walk around safely in more of the world then they used to be able to.

Hygiene is vastly improved. Leading to massive health improvements across civilization.

Information flow has shown exponential increasing if not greater.

The average poor person in the US lives better than a lot of royalty 100 years ago.

Time is experienced differently by every person in the world. It's a matter of perspective and culture and what you dream about.

Primitive societies are often physically more robust in that they have none of the shallow artificialities in them that handicap modern societies. Modern societies have their benefits like greater hygiene, immunity to famine. But they also have less family coherence, less tradition, weaker food in the food chain.

Change is constant across time and space. How people adapt is not constant. That people do adapt is constant. Islam is being pulled into the 21st century. It's not leading the way at all.

Intellectual arguments don't always appeal to agrarian backgrounds unless bedtime work is involved.

493 Totally Berserk  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:10:06pm

re: #489 hazzyday

Nothing wrong with starting up a reformed Islam in the US with a central authority and declaring it to be the only true form of Islam. Have it declare it's tax exempt status by eschewing violence, sharia, child abuse, and recognizing the rights of gays and of women in the religion. have it set the standard for Islam in a democracy. Actually make sharia one of the modern sins against humankind.

How could one do that? The Muslims I talk to get pretty agitated at even hinting about such.

I don't see how Shariah and Islam could be separated. The Most High [Allah] said, "And now have We set thee (O Muhammad) on a clear road of (Our) commandment; so follow it, and follow not the whims of those who know not. " (45:18)

Shariah means 'the straight path" or the clear road of this verse. And 'following the whims of those who know not' would mean taking advice from a non-Muslim, disobeying Allah, apostasy, and the Book is full of dire warnings what will happen to them if they do!

Good luck with that.

494 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:10:10pm

re: #490 kirk

You should have been banned when you posted this:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

So I'm rectifying that oversight now. Bye!

495 Frank N Stein  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:12:58pm

re: #3 MandyManners

When will an imam speak up on behalf of Jews?

They are rare, but they do exist.

One of the problems is the lack of free speech in Arab dictatorships and Muslim theocracies. The voices of dissidents with sympathetic views on Jews or reformist inclinations or who support peace with Israel were and are suppressed, thus preventing these voices from having a wider exposure and subsequently the potential of having a wider following or influence or provoking discussion that might lead some others to change their minds, so they remain fringe.

The idea of Arabs and Muslims and particularly imams actually supporting the right of Israel to exist (and generally seeing Jews positively) - and not seeing it as a concession for peace on their part, as a contradiction to their beliefs or wishes and a source of grievance, but actually supporting it - seems like an anathema, but such people do exist.

496 Shai  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:20:47pm

*Awaits Muslim organizations to condemn antisemites*

497 Totally Berserk  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:21:14pm

re: #480 Charles

One more point on this before I drop it and move on to more productive things.

No healthy person can -- or should -- maintain the kind of rage most of us felt after 9/11 for an entire lifespan. Now that many (but not all) of the threats have been neutralized, there appears to be no danger of a mass Islamic terrorism campaign in the US, and globally the number of terror attacks has decreased dramatically ....

Ah, so that's what the creationist stuff is about. Now I'm starting to put two and two together.

OK, then. See ya next time.

498 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:23:27pm

re: #495 Frank N Stein

They are rare, but they do exist.

One of the problems is the lack of free speech in Arab dictatorships and Muslim theocracies. The voices of dissidents with sympathetic views on Jews or reformist inclinations or who support peace with Israel were and are suppressed, thus preventing these voices from having a wider exposure and subsequently the potential of having a wider following or influence or provoking discussion that might lead some others to change their minds, so they remain fringe.

They're not just suppressed -- they're murdered, sometimes en masse. But increasingly, Muslims are speaking out against the hatred, in countries where it's very dangerous to do so.

It's not going to change overnight, but it is changing. And in today's mass communication world, it's getting much more difficult to stop these people from having an effect.

499 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:24:10pm

re: #497 Totally Berserk

Bye now! See ya. Toodles.

Another one I should have banned as soon as it started posting.

500 the_thermonuclear_pickle  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:25:10pm

re: #490 kirk

There was once a dude called Josh and he was the leader of a nomadic people that were yearning to find a home.

He led them to a valley inhabited by a great civilisation, surrounded their largest city with his warriors, and attacked it for 7 days. On the seventh day they breached the walls and murdered every single man, woman, child and animal living there.

Josh is the hero of the Jewish people and the nation of Israel. His name is Yeshua and he was the leader who laid siege to Yerichon 3000 years ago if the Old Testament is to be believed.

Just sayin'...

501 meeshlr  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:29:40pm

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.

I understand the sentiment but that's not how it works in America. There are no exceptions to our constitutional rights based on country of origin. What we should demand is that everyone in America has the same rights. So, just as a Muslim can criticize Christianity, Christians should be able to criticize Islam. Banning any religious books is wrong. Banning any religion is wrong.

502 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:30:25pm
503 Ben Hur  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:31:32pm

Wow.

Do threads ever die?

504 Syrah  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:31:46pm

re: #502 Iron Fist

Ethnicity and religion are not the same thing.

505 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:32:11pm
506 kamala  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:32:38pm

re: #448 zombie


It seems to me, from pondering the comments on this thread, that there might in fact be two different religions: an extremist fundamentalist sharia-promoting Islam, and a less-observant secular-friendly moderate Islam. And that they're not really the same religion after all.

Zombie, if this is your hypothesis, it should be quite easy to verify: identify the books and/or leaders and/or organizations that clearly and truthfully articulate and advocate the tenets/rules/doctrines/views of Islam I ("secular-friendly moderate Islam,") and then identify the books and/or organizations that clearly and truthfully articulate and advocate the tenets/rules/doctrines/views of Islam II ("fundamentalist sharia-promoting Islam.") Then compare your two buckets. How many are in each? How popular is each?

I can point you to dozens if not hundreds of books and organizations and leaders that fall into Islam II. I can name about 2 or 3 that fall into Islam I. Jeffrey Lang is a Muslim author who has clearly articulated Islam I in his books (e.g., "Even Angels Ask"). And he himself readily admits his views are very much minority ones.

507 Wilderstad  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:33:38pm
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.

He's correct. It is not just a religion, it is an ideology. Even Muslims themselves boast Islam is a complete "system". Everything in life covered by Koranic lessons and Hadith.
The Koran is a book of Hatred, aimed at anyone not Muslim. Witness the persecution of the B'ahai in Iran. The Juden Hass inherent in it. The methods of forcing one to comply or convert to Islamic orders.
Mohammed was a warlord, thief , slaver, rapist and he did marry a six year old girl. The Hadith and Koran tell you this. Mohammed is considered the best of men, one to model oneself on.

So how is Geert Wilders inaccurate?

There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate.
I'm sure there are cafeteria Muslims just as there are cafeteria Catholics, who take the best of their belief and dump the other stuff. However, their brothers who adhere to Wahhabist and Salafist interpretations of Islam want them dead.

508 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:35:32pm

re: #486 Iron Fist

I dinged you up, because that is kind of saying what I want to say, but then again it isn't exactly what I have in mind either. We don't really have the position of arguing what is true Mohammedanism, but when you have as large an outspoken marjority as you have that say themselves that these people aren't "true" Mohammedans (the non-violent ones) then one has to ask what is the nature of Mohammedanism? Who decides for themselves what constitutionates Mohammedanism other than the Mohammedans themselves? How many Mohammedans are really arguing that Osama and his band of merry men aren't Mohammedans? You hear a patina of "no true Mohammedan" would commit terrorism, but then you see them define terrorism as being "Unmuslim" in the sense that no violence advocated or perpetrated in the name of Islam can, by definition, be considered "terrorism". Not that there is no violence, but rather that there is no "terrorism" where you have the violence.

Again, I'm not at my most articulate this evening.

I hear you IF, and again you have to remember that I read the muslim's papers almost nightly, and I am seeing a reversal in the tide. It's not huge at the moment, but the wave of backlash is coming.
The important thing during these times is not to lose sight of goal. We must stay focused on terrorists and their political wings, and take the fight to where they live. Everyone can criticize Bush all that they want, but his efforts have outright killed more terrorists than Geert or Pam can count. Every one of the Eurofascist orgs backing the ersatz anti jihad movement (I prefer to think of it as "anti jihad opportunism") are mostly against the war, for isolationism, and would have us defeated in the end.
I like the way things are going... the terrorists are now confined to home turf, where they must shit their own beds continuously. That's not going to last for very much longer before they or their in-country opponents burn their shithouse down.

In the end Wahabbism and the other extremes will have to reform, or be exterminated by muslims. Either there will be a reform, or there will be another fitna because make no mistake -- no matter what the posturings of the groups, this is all about temporal power within Islamic lands.

509 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:39:26pm

re: #507 Wilderstad

Keep on pimping Ayman Al Zawahiri and the Muslim brotherhood's line, they love it...

510 bungie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:40:17pm

The answer to the dilemma is simply, LIBERTY.

The problem with Germany, the UK and Europe in general is that they have surrendered liberty in the name of political correctness today and therefore, are endangered by the growing numbers of Muslim who may someday be in the majority and could vote in their own version of political correctness and eventually sharia law.

If LIBERTY was the ultimate value, both in their constitution and in the values of the public, it wouldn't matter as much if the majority were Muslim.

In my own experience with Muslims at work, I find that they come in all levels of commitment to their religion, understanding of their religion and peacefulness, just as adherents to other religions (obviously excluding wacko cults like Scientology, etc.).

Are people forgetting that Iraq was about helping the Muslims there? Bosnia, too.

511 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:40:30pm

re: #507 Wilderstad

So how is Geert Wilders inaccurate?

"How is Geert Wilders inaccurate?"

He's advocating measures that are un-American to their core. We don't ban books. We don't ban religions. We don't deport masses of people.

If you have so little respect for the freedoms and liberties you've inherited in this country, and want to take them away from others, you'd probably be happier in the Netherlands where you can hook up with people like Geert Wilders.

512 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:42:54pm

re: #502 Iron Fist

How cabn you really be Jewish and not believe in God?

(shrug) happens all the time.

Piece of cake. If your Mom is Jewish you are Jewish.

If you are a Reform Jew, then if your father is Jewish, that suffices. Now, different Jews will disagree on who is Hjewish, but at the end of the day, if you say you belong to a religion, and you can get enough peope to agree with you, well, in common usage, you will be identified with that religion.

This isn't a neat theoretical scheme, and leads to all kinds of contradictions (ie Jews saying that other Jews aren't Jews, etc. Who decides? ) but it is the way the world works. It is simply a fact. For some things, there are no cut and dried deefinitions, and there never have been, and never will be, because really it isn't a matter of the label itself. Its a matter that people form groups, and stick labels on themselves, and there is no criterion that is simultaneously useful and objective that will allow anyone to say who really owns any particular label. If you are going to be objective, all you can do is state the facts about the sect in question, and note what other people think about it.

513 medaura18586  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:48:36pm

re: #61 Kosh's Shadow

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.

Say, for a moment, you could somehow have a guarantee that the practice of Judaism would never be threatened. Would you then be on board with banning Islam?

WTF kind of argument is that? Is it all about protecting Judaism in the end, or about standing up for basic individual freedoms which should be universal across the board? These self-serving utilitarian arguments make me sick!

514 the_thermonuclear_pickle  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:49:04pm

re: #502 Iron Fist

How can you really be Jewish and not believe in God?

Very easily

No "God"

I do not say there is no God - I'm an atheist - not Richard Dawkins. I simply believe that there is no God, just like I believe that the tribes of Israel are merely a split along classes rather than any distinct racial/ethnic profiles.

What would distinguish European Jews as Jewish per se from simply being another white ethnic minority?

Genetics. Because being Jewish was such a "responsibility" most of the European Jews bred between themselves with few additions to the gene pool - this led to problems such as Tae-Sachs which disease is very common in Ashkenazi Jews. However it ensured that Jewish genes passed themselves on almost uninterrupted.

This is why Judaism is an ethnicity, rather than just a religion. Furthermore, since being Jewish at one stage meant being Israeli, the cultural traditions carried on - even in Europe. Traditions that had no standing in religious dogma.

So anyone claiming to be a Christian is a Christian, no matter what their definition might be? How is that particularly different than what I am saying about Mohammedanism.

Read what I said very carefully - I said that these groups were doing abd things in the name of Christianity. I'm not about to get into an argument on what constitutes a Christian.

The same goes for Muslims. The vast majority of Muslims will never do anything wrong to you. I wore my Star of David in prominent view in Cairo, Luxor, Alexandria, Petra, Amman and Akkaba and was not touched by anyone despite not having any protection. Nobody harassed me, nobody spit on me. Yes there were curious stares, but nothing I hadn't experienced before when being a white guy in the middle of Asia.

Osama Bin Laden may kill in the name of Islam but that doesn't mean that good Muslims - the vast majority - think highly of him.

Mohammedanism claims on sixth of the world population. I'm sure that some of them aren't malevolent, but I also suspect that you'll go a far piece before you will find one that will condemn unreservidely Mohammedan terrorism.

I am friends with half a dozen Arabian Muslims who have no interest in being malevolent.

I've had dinner at their place with their parents. I've been to a mosque. Yes, radicalism is a cancer, but the majority of people will never get it.

you have to know that he is the rarest of the rare.

No they aren't. If you take off your rose-coloured glasses you'll see that the majority of Muslims aren't publicly speaking out simply because they don't want to deal with this shit - it's beyond their interest.

It is not the responsibility of the innocent to stand up for their innocence.

515 meeshlr  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:51:51pm

re: #407 zombie

So then, by the same token, we must allow sharia to be practiced in the US, because according to the highest Islamic scholars, sharia is an inseperable part of Islam. Right?

No. We don't have to allow Sharia Law because to do so would violate the Constitution. Freedom to practice a religion is within the confines of the supreme law of the land. The choice for those Muslims is then to live within our laws or to move to a country with a Sharia-based government. That's the balance.

Do what you want as long as you don't hurt others and don't violate the Constitution. No need to ban a religion.

516 ratherdashing  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:54:56pm

re: #511 Charles

Wilderstad doesn't live in the U.S.

She's making the point that Geert Wilders doesn't believe that Islam is a "religion" by using the words of Muslims themselves. They will tell us that it's not a religion but a way of life. The MSA at the University of Southern California had this in their description of Islam on their website. So, since it is not a "religion" then it isn't protected as simply a "religion."

I dunno. But, that's what GW is saying here.

517 Wilderstad  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:58:34pm

re: #511 Charles

"How is Geert Wilders inaccurate?"

He's advocating measures that are un-American to their core. We don't ban books. We don't ban religions. We don't deport masses of people.

If you have so little respect for the freedoms and liberties you've inherited in this country, and want to take them away from others, you'd probably be happier in the Netherlands where you can hook up with people like Geert Wilders.

1) Geert Wilders is not American. He lives with constant protection, and sees daily what Islam is doing to his country, its traditions and it's non-Muslim citizens.

2) I'm not American either. Not all of your readers are. I respect your traditions, but I inherited none of them. and my freedoms; particularly to speak my mind are under attack where I reside. The truth is not particularly politically correct or polite sometimes.

3) I am grateful for Geert Wilders perspective on things. Your invitation to me to move of course is not acceptable, the Netherlands is no longer what it was, and I would not wish to live there.

4) You 've not addressed at all how what he stated in your selected portion of what he said is inaccurate.

518 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:58:59pm

re: #514 the_thermonuclear_pickle

I dunno, Thermonuclear Pickle. My personal experience with people from the gulf states has been mixed. I would agree with you about "majority" of Muslims being non radical. I would not agree about that majority being vast. And above all, I would note that there is both intimidation by radicalism and tolerance for it amoung non-radicals.

519 meeshlr  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:02:38pm

re: #517 Wilderstad


2) I'm not American either. Not all of your readers are. I respect your traditions, but I inherited none of them. and my freedoms; particularly to speak my mind are under attack where I reside. The truth is not particularly politically correct or polite sometimes.

Banning a religion or a religious text is an act contrary to freedom of speech no matter where you live.

520 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:08:59pm

re: #195 Ben Hur

From mr wilders, I assume?

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.

I don't think mr wilders understands the First Amendment. It's not applied selectively- it means muslims have free speech and free exercise just as much as Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Why do I get the feeling his idea of a european fist amendment would be more like a european first first amendment?

521 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:09:39pm

Let me take it ore: #517 Wilderstad

4) You 've not addressed at all how what he stated in your selected portion of what he said is inaccurate.

If Islam is not a religion, then neither was Medeival catholic Christianity, nor japanese Shinto, nor traditional, Orthodox Judaism. Its that simple. saying Islam isn't a religion is nonsense. It is nonsense when a Muslim says it, and it is nonsense when Wilders says it.

Fundamentally Wilders is speaking of social structures, so go to the law. Under the law of your country, is Islam a religion or is it not? If it is, Wilders is wrong. If it is not, Wilders is right. I'm willing to lay money on Wilders being wrong. He's a demagogue.

522 the_thermonuclear_pickle  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:09:47pm

re: #518 Hhar

Off course there is. A lot of people subscribe to the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" theory. This is why I started posting on this site - Charles does not subscribe to it.

A few weeks back Charles posted a story about right wing extremism. What did the right-wingers do? They jumped up and down, defending people they would normally attack if they were left-wing extremists.

Remember, a freedom fighter is a terrorist who is on your side.

I morally force myself to never ever defend an act of cold-blooded murder or support cold-blooded murderers if they are of my people.

The majority of people are not like that I guess - that's why you find support in Muslim circles of some excess.

523 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:13:12pm
524 the_thermonuclear_pickle  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:21:43pm

re: #523 Iron Fist

This is, IMHO, why we are already seeing some factions of the "anti-jihad" deciding that if they are going to have to sleep with a bastard, at least they get the choice of the bastard they have to sleep with.

Before Saddam Hussein solidified his power, he drew support from Iraqi socialists and Communists because they figured it was better to give him support than to deal with the alternative.

Once his aims were achieved, he took all the ones he had given cushy ministry jobs to, to a place called Qasr al-Nehayat and they were killed en-masse.

Then Saddam commissioned a youth force not unlike the Hitler Youth that eventually had 1 in 20 young adults in Iraq as members. They would denounce Communists and Socialists who would be tortured or serve as Saddam's wake up call (reports indicate that he liked to be woken up in the morning with an alarm clock consisting of a firing squad executing prisoners against his palace walls).

The point of this is that sleeping with bastards of any kind has unintended consequences. If you disagree on a fundamental tenet of ethical morality but combine forces for something you see eye-to-eye on, there will eventually be a break - and you'll end up being thrown under a bus.

525 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:23:36pm
526 medaura18586  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:31:39pm

re: #100 zombie

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?

I don't see any dilemma. Freedom of religion is guaranteed in the context of freedom of conscience and expression, all embedded in the First Amendment. They represent negative rights, the fulfillment of which requires no active involvement by the government or society at large -- merely a commitment to non-interference with the expression or practice, be it religious, artistic, literary, etc.

Someone's negative rights end where someone else's begin. We need not study cohorts of Muslims in order to determine the percentage of hard-liners among them, so we may monitor them or analyze the dictates of their fundamentalist beliefs. They are free to believe and express anything they want -- whether it flies in the face of the Constitution or not. They are not, however, free to act on their radical prescriptions without immunity from the law. That's why the KKK is not banned in the U.S., neither is Holocaust Denial, or the promulgation of any other hateful and disgusting ideology. So long as people don't act on ideas that violate others' rights, they can spew hot air all they want.

Banned trolls on LGF can and do rant about Charles suppressing their freedom of speech, but he is under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to accommodate them on his virtual property. There is no dilemma to be resolved. They remain banned, and they are free to bitch about it -- a freedom they are keen on exercising. Charles remains the owner and proprietor of LGF, with sole authority over what happens at his site.

Let Islamist hardliners who would want Sharia to rule this country bitch about their freedom of religion being trampled on. But that freedom legally ended the moment it sought to restrict others' freedoms (of fair trial, of their religion, of gender equality in front of the law, etc.). No controversy there...

527 the_thermonuclear_pickle  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:31:43pm

re: #525 Iron Fist

Ultimately, the problem will have to be dealt with. If they don't want to be dealt with as part of the problem, they had better get out of the way. To a large degree that is exactly what we have had happening in Iraq. We've gone in and cauterised the wound, removed the abscess, and reattached the limb, but it is the Mohammedans who are going to have to learn to walk again.

I will agree to most of that, but understand this - demonizing the silent majority based on the actions of a radical few will always backfire.

Always.

America hasn't won in Iraq because they called all Iraqis "terrorist-supporting [bigoted word]s". America has won because the troops destroyed the terrorist organisations by aiding Iraqis to do the same. America helped the silent majority to become the active majority, That's how America won.

It didn't win by side-lining them which is what your previous posts were all bout with regard to stating that there are no Muslim moderates.

528 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:31:44pm
529 nyc redneck  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:32:56pm

i love america.
geert can speak his mind. the ADL can jump on him w/ both feet.
and we can discuss it freely as we watch and wait to see if islam can leave it's blood thirsty directives behind and enter the modern world.
i'm not holding my breath, tho.
lol, look around the world .

530 medaura18586  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:35:28pm

re: #526 medaura18586

PIMF:

They are not, however, free to act on their radical prescriptions without immunity from the law.

should be

They are not, however, free to act on their radical prescriptions with impunity from the law.

531 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:38:46pm

re: #291 zombie

Are you out of your ever lovin' mind?!

532 the_thermonuclear_pickle  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:40:02pm

re: #528 Iron Fist

What are the Republican core principles? Name them.

I'll tell you right now that as I understand them, demonizing people based on their religion or culture or ethnicity is not one of them.

This is why McCain was so appealing to me - a man who was a tortured Nam vet speaking out against torture and willing to face the Vietnamese again in a political debate with no problem.

That's a man I can respect.

I would suggest that core Republican principles need to be changed if they follow the type of drivel that comes out of O'Reilly's, Beck's, Coulter's mouths.

533 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:41:56pm
534 Alberta Oil Peon  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:41:59pm

re: #354 zombie

Again, you sort of seem to be partly agreeing with Wilders, then.

Oh, I'm not suggesting that they be driven out. Simply that the ground rules should be set such that those who wish to import sharia law and abusive practices towards women would find North America to be an unrewarding place to live.

I wouldn't care to live in Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe, because life there would be practically untenable for me. I want radical jihadists to feel the same way about Canada or the USA.

535 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:43:36pm

re: #318 zombie

So, you're saying they should leave the US because we want to forbid the practice of Islam as they themselves define it?

But isn't that what Gilders is recommending?

No- it's not what Wilders is saying. Dopps is saying they can accept it or leave of their own volition. Wilders is calling for islam to be banned and people forcibly expelled. I'm stunned you don't see the difference.

536 KansasMom  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:47:29pm

re: #507 Wilderstad

I know plenty of Christians for whom their religion is also their way of life. It defines the dynamic of their marriage, how they raise their children, what they do on Sundays and Wednesday evenings, what they are allowed to eat and drink, etc. And I'm not even talking about Anabaptists.....
Geert doesn't get America. I guess that's OK, he is just a guest passing through. This country is a refuge for those who want to escape the oppression of their native countries. I know more than one Muslim family who came to America because they wanted their daughters to have opportunities that weren't available in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Not just education, but a childhood full of swimming lessons, girl scouts (there's a troop based at the local mosque), sports, and coed schools.
There is a legitimate fight against the brand of Islam that teaches cab drivers to turn away people with guide dogs, tells women to cover their faces and become subhuman blobs, and praises the glory of bombing innocents. But we need to remember that there are plenty of Muslims here because they wish to escape extremism too.

537 seagreenroom  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:50:26pm

I have a lot of respect for Wilders. He lives in constant fear for his life. And why does he do it? Because he refuses to be silenced by political correctness. He'd rather die than submit. Islam is destroying europe and I for one am glad somebody has the courage to stand up and say so.

538 the_thermonuclear_pickle  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:51:06pm

re: #533 Iron Fist

I'm wondering whether you've ever been to a Muslim country - they can't actually speak up. In all of Arabia the only nation that doesn't execute Arabs for protesting the government is Israel.

All the Arab nations have a civil liberty value that you would gasp in horror at. And the governments have too little power against the religious extremists who are a significant minority. Look at Saudi as an example - the rulers are Western-educated men who gamble, drink, and do plenty of other un-Muslim things. Every time they try to modernise the country a bit the Wahhabis cause them serious damage.

This is not their failure - it is the failure of a radical minority to moderate themselves. And that why we need to help them (the majority), not marginalise them by tarring them with the same brush we use on the radicals.

539 Frank N Stein  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:51:42pm

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.

That's not true. Wilders believes that Islam itself is an evil ideology, but in almost every speech and interview he makes the distinction between the people and the ideology - he says most Muslims aren't terrorists or extremists, but he says that those who call themselves moderate Muslims are not really Muslim although they think of themselves as Muslims, because there is no moderate doctrine of Islam, so they don't really follow what the Quran or Hadith preach or what is the "true" Islam. In a sense he's right - Muslim reformists (who are not anti-Islam or anti-Muslim) also think that Islam is in dire need for reforms.

This is often compared to Jews not following all the biblical laws, but the difference is that in the evolution of the Jewish religion the reasons for not following these laws as they're literally expressed in the bible were well established within authoritative interpretations that are part of the mainstream Jewish tradition - that's why even the most ultra-orthodox Jews don't stone adulterers to death and such other practices found in the bible (not to mention Reform Jews that are one of the most liberal communities in existence).

But the thing is his understanding of "true Islam" is the same as the fundamentalists' understanding of "true Islam".

Also he never said that all Muslims should be expelled from Western societies. He has some other controversial policy suggestions, but don't make it worse than what it is.

As for free speech - his suggestion to ban the Quran (which I think - not sure - is not a part of his formal policy, but was rather a provocation he made in a newspaper article) was based on the Dutch law prohibiting incitement to violence, the basis on which Mein Kampf is banned in the Netherlands. His view on free speech has become sharper later following his own experience and then he started suggesting adopting the American first amendment (which is more absolutist than the Dutch law).

What I find the most problematic in his views is that he sees Muslim immigration as part of a stealth Jihad to islamize the West. I personally think that mass Muslim immigration year after year without a time limit plus higher birthrate will eventually result in a Muslim majority which is very likely to turn European countries into non-democratic Islamic countries, which is one of the reasons I think mass immigration should stop at some point - I don't think it's racism, but just common sense. I also think radical Muslims, when allowed to act and preach as freely as they do, do try to use the local Muslim communities, particularly the youth, to promote both terrorism and favoring sharia law. But there's a difference between that and seeing Muslim immigration as part of a "conspiracy" to take over the West. Radical Muslims do want that, but most Muslims come to Europe for financial reasons, asylum and so on.

540 Jr ewing  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:52:23pm

re: #535 Sharmuta

No- it's not what Wilders is saying. Dopps is saying they can accept it or leave of their own volition. Wilders is calling for islam to be banned and people forcibly expelled. I'm stunned you don't see the difference.


Forcibly expelled? when did he say that?¿

541 NamDoc67  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:54:19pm

#511 - Charles

You are mixing up apples and oranges. The question was about Wilders diagnosis. Your answer is about Wilder's prescription.

The un-American measures you mention were in fact undertaken in the USA, in some form, during past wars. One thinks of the "deportation" (albeit internal) of the Japanese in the 40's, and the supression of the Bund (who could say that outfit did not have religious overtones); Lincoln's suspension of habeas, Wilson's crackdown on the newspapers during the "Great War", etc.

If you grant freedoms to existential enemies that enable them to destroy your political system, what freedoms have you preserved? This is the bind Islam has us in. This is the real question. If Islam overtakes Europe, as it will do demographically if no other way, we then face a worse nuclear threat than a Talibainized Pakistan, which is also evetually coming, and sooner than Europe will fall.

If things do not change in our approach to this whole subject, we or our children face a war in which tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, may die. If most of those dead are Muslims, Islam will then reform. If most of those dead are not Muslims, then Isalm will effectively dominate the world and our cherished freedoms will not be even a permissible memory.

As it now stands, few will openly or publicly oppose those aspects of Islam, the religion, which are completely antithetical to our Constitution and way of life. In fact, the political elites, espercially on the Left, actively enable the religious practices and demands of only one faith - Islam.

So it depends really on how you are willing to define the problem.

Wilders has the courage to see a greater and more fundamentally based threat to our way of life than most people are willing to face up to. It may be because he personally has been subjected to its lash.

IF you agree Wilders diagnosis is correct, then what is your prescription?

542 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:57:12pm

re: #541 NamDoc67

IF you agree Wilders diagnosis is correct, then what is your prescription?

I don't agree with Wilders' apocalyptic diagnosis.

543 Lynn B.  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:57:23pm

Tonight's wines (for anyone who may be interested):

2007 Matua Valley Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc (NZ)

2003 Two Hands Brave Faces Shiraz/Grenache (AU)

Guess it was a down under night. Both delicious.

544 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:58:04pm
545 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:58:07pm

re: #379 zombie

You sound like spencer.

546 Lynn B.  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:00:04pm

re: #443 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Same here, but with a Marie Calendar's frozen dinner.

... BTW, could you spare some of that wine and steak?

Any time. You are more than welcome.

/you anywhere near the western suburbs of Philadelphia?

547 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:01:41pm

re: #539 Frank N Stein

But the thing is his understanding of "true Islam" is the same as the fundamentalists' understanding of "true Islam".

Don't you think that this is the problematic part in and of itself? It leads straight to the assertion that the only thing to do is get rid of all the Muslims. (I hate saying "fundamentalist" Islam. Fundamentalism started, and should remain, as an adjective applied to some North american Protestants groups, none of whom have a history of detonating themselves to get to heaven. Why not say Wahabist, or Muslim Brotherhood or something. But I digress, pointlessly.) why should you let the most objectionable elements define the whole? Who said we have to?

548 meeshlr  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:02:29pm

re: #528 Iron Fist

This is much the same as I argue viz a Leftward movement by the Republicans to gain market share. If we break with our core principles, we will be the ones thrown under the bus when we've become probablematical. Which will be about thirty seconds after the Leftists win outright what they want.

Wow. That explains how I've been feeling since the election. The social conservative Republicans only included non-social conservatives like me while it looked like my vote might help. After Obama and the Democrats were elected, it was obvious that didn't work so me and my ilk have been jettisoned in favor of the extreme religious right Republicans.

The bus hurts.

549 meeshlr  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:03:22pm

re: #531 Sharmuta

Are you out of your ever lovin' mind?!

My thought exactly.

550 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:04:40pm

re: #543 Lynn B.

Try Golani wines. If you can get 'em. Up here in Toronto a whole bunch of "Not in My Name" folks decided to picket the wine stores just before Pesach to protest the gaza 'genocide", telling people niot to buy Israeli wines.

Which, of course, had predictable consequences: Sold out!

551 Lynn B.  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:05:56pm

re: #545 Sharmuta

You sound like spencer.

What's a little creepy is ... I'm now trying to sort out what I "learned" from Spencer from what I've learned elsewhere in my studies of Islam for the past 35 years. My computer may have folders in which I can compartmentalize this sort of thing but my brain doesn't. I no longer trust the information I've gotten from sources I previously trusted but now know to be questionable. But how do I separate that out and quarantine it for further examination?

It's a dilemma.

552 Wilderstad  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:12:42pm

re: #536 KansasMom

I know plenty of Christians for whom their religion is also their way of life. It defines the dynamic of their marriage, how they raise their children, what they do on Sundays and Wednesday evenings, what they are allowed to eat and drink, etc. And I'm not even talking about Anabaptists.....
Geert doesn't get America. I guess that's OK, he is just a guest passing through. This country is a refuge for those who want to escape the oppression of their native countries. I know more than one Muslim family who came to America because they wanted their daughters to have opportunities that weren't available in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Not just education, but a childhood full of swimming lessons, girl scouts (there's a troop based at the local mosque), sports, and coed schools.
There is a legitimate fight against the brand of Islam that teaches cab drivers to turn away people with guide dogs, tells women to cover their faces and become subhuman blobs, and praises the glory of bombing innocents. But we need to remember that there are plenty of Muslims here because they wish to escape extremism too.


1) Your Christian religion nor its books explicitly exhort you to kill apostates, infidels, Jews, or non-Muslims in the name of God. Although in the reasonably distant past various clergy have. As to a complete way of life; I sincerely doubt that the Christian religion delves into hygienic practices, toileting practice, sexual practice, or other personal practices in obsessive detail.
2) Geert Wilders is from a different background, a different country with different challenges than yours. He's most definitely NOT American or born within a legal system, with expectations of certain freedoms or ideals you have.
3) Agreed. Many Muslims are in the West to escape a totalitarian system based upon belief, while keeping elements of their faith based traditions. The difficulty likes in identifying those Muslims that have a live and let live attitude.

553 Lynn B.  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:13:49pm

re: #550 Hhar

Try Golani wines. If you can get 'em. Up here in Toronto a whole bunch of "Not in My Name" folks decided to picket the wine stores just before Pesach to protest the gaza 'genocide", telling people niot to buy Israeli wines.

Which, of course, had predictable consequences: Sold out!

Not familiar with Golani. Or are you referring to wines from the Golan?

There aren't a lot of good Israeli wines available in Pennsylvania. A few years ago, Orna Chillag's kosher cabernet sauvignon was available here (see my current avatar) and it was quite good. I stocked up but am now running out.

The Golan is an excellent site for growing wine grapes with its volcanic soils and is producing some quite amazing wines, despite the young age of the vines. Just one more reason NOT to hand it over to the Syrians who would rip out the grape vines and use the vineyards to fire shells down on villagers below.

554 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:18:35pm

re: #552 Wilderstad

Geert Wilders is from a different background, a different country with different challenges than yours. He's most definitely NOT American or born within a legal system, with expectations of certain freedoms or ideals you have.

So maybe he should keep his backwards European anti-freedom opinions to himself, instead of spreading them in America among people who already have serious problems with appreciating their own constitution.

555 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:18:40pm

re: #551 Lynn B.

I now tend to lean on personal experience. There is a muslim owned shop I frequent where one clerk really gave me the creeps. He went out of his way to make sure we didn't touch when he'd give me my change, and could barely stand to look at me. He's no longer at that store. The remaining muslims working there come from a variety of countries, and are all very warm and friendly with me- one has asked me for advice. They've allowed me to leave the store with products when I've forgotten my wallet, knowing I will return to pay for my purchase (which I've done). I continue to go back there because they treat me with respect as a customer.

There is another muslim run shop I no longer go to because of the opposite. Some of the clerks were very nice to me, but the owner insulted me one day. I don't care what faith you are, or race or whatever- I'm not shopping at a place where my business is not respected.

Do I wonder about certain things with them? Of course. Such as- would these gentleman allow their daughters to marry a non-muslim? I have no idea- I do not ask. They are polite and abiding by the law so far as I can tell. If I thought otherwise, I wouldn't associate with them even on a transaction of goods basis. BTW- I have seen some of these men with their little daughters- they seem very loving dads.

556 Macker  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:21:10pm

re: #555 Sharmuta

Perhaps those dads are SANE Muslims.

557 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:23:07pm

Yes, I'm referring to wines from the Golan. There are a couple good lables I've had. "Golan" is one, "Yarden" another. Luscious, fruity and dry red wines. Some of the Suavignon blanc and Emeralfd Riesling I've had have been very pleasant as well, from Mount Carmel winery, of all places. I tried them with trepidation because I really don't like the sweet stuff Carmel makes, but was very happily surprised. Quality has been consistent over the last couple years, after a rocky start.

558 the_thermonuclear_pickle  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:26:26pm

re: #544 Iron Fist

Republicans (according to you):
- Small, limited (minimal) government
- broad individual rights tempered by "societal" values and morays.
- Equality of a certain level of basic dignity.
- A fundamental right to life that isn't contingent on convenience.

In that case, what do you think of GWB's massive expansion of government, the removal of some individual rights to privacy?

I'd say it's a long long time since the core values of the Republican Party were expressed in moderate terms - Ronald Reagan would have been the last. And I remind you that not only did most Republicans like him, but independent voters and conservative Democrats too - he won California, an unheard of achievement for a Republican ever since.

Get back to the days of Ronald Reagan's conservatism and you'll have a party worth fighting for. What it is at present is a shambles of its former self.

559 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:28:05pm

seems we have a spencer lover in the house.

560 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:29:28pm
561 Frank N Stein  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:35:35pm

re: #29 zombie

Wilders says:

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.

I completely agree with that, although I won't necessarily call it "orientalist" with all the judgment this term is charged with. There is a misunderstanding here between what the West considers a religion, based mainly on Christianity and the general evolution of the West, and some other religions that do not fit this concept. Islam IS a religion, but it's very different from how a regular Westerner perceives a religion as limited only or mostly to the personal spiritual sphere.

There are a lot of other projections of Western concepts which cause many misunderstandings (such as perceiving Middle East history even during the Muslim caliphate in terms of nation states).

562 NamDoc67  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:35:36pm

re: #542 Charles

I don't agree with Wilders' apocalyptic diagnosis.

Not to put too fine a point on it, you are now not addressing Wilder's "diagnosis" but his "prognosis."

You seem to think that the disease is bad, but won't end in death; and, in any case, radical surgery is not indicated. Sort of like the "watchful waiting" that is recommended in many early stage prostate cancers. I was not willing to live my life on that basis either.

I read this entire comment section (which is why I post late and rarely). The real issue is simply how bad one thinks the threat is. That is what defines the strategy to deal with it - not any idealistic framework; not even our Constitution. Echoes of the torture "debate."

So Wilders is pigeonholed as either Cassandra or a bigot.

For me he serves the useful purpose of the canary in the mine. He's not dead yet, but the poison wants him badly, doesn't it? We are all for freedom of speech, but he's the one whose life is actually on the line. That tells me all I need to know about the players in this game.

563 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:37:33pm
564 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:39:26pm

re: #562 NamDoc67

So Wilders is pigeonholed as either Cassandra or a bigot.

No, at this point I'd say he's pigeonholed himself as a simple bigot. No "Cassandra" about it.

565 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:41:24pm

re: #563 dry_heavz_4_alla

And frankly, these creepy character assassinations (e.g. Sharmatu to Zombie: "You sound like Spencer") are making me uncomfortable just being here. Too many seem to relish in their power to create fear.

So I'll make things easier for you by blocking your account. Maybe you can find another blog that might be more comfortable for someone who chooses the name "dry_heavz_4_alla".

566 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:42:46pm
567 [deleted]  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:44:08pm
568 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:45:26pm

re: #566 Wilderstad

Well, if nothing else, tonight I'm getting rid of some people who should have been banned long ago.

569 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:49:20pm

re: #470 Charles

In one way, I have changed, I'll grant this -- I'm seeing the true agenda of some of the so-called 'anti-jihadists' much more clearly, and that process began in 2007 when many of them decided it was time to start hooking up with fascist groups and far right lunatics.

I want absolutely nothing to do with this. If you think that means I'm changing "in the direction of 9/10," that would have to be a problem -- yours. Because it's a core principle for me, and always has been.

I agree, Charles. The entire pro-fascist wing of the so-called counter-jihad has caused me to re-examine a number of things, including what it is I thought I learned from them. I'm not interested in becoming a western version of that which I oppose- never have been. At one point, I was very angry, but once I realized my anger was being inflamed by those with an agenda- I backed away. I certainly hope others will re-examine what it is they thought they learned based on the fact they're being "taught" by charlatans.

570 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:52:07pm

re: #562 NamDoc67

Not to put too fine a point on it, you are now not addressing Wilder's "diagnosis" but his "prognosis."

Not to put too dull a point on it, but you are the one who said:

IF you agree Wilders diagnosis is correct, then what is your prescription?

I do NOT agree with the diagnosis.

571 Lynn B.  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:52:40pm

re: #555 Sharmuta

I would never rely on Spencer or anyone else to determine my perceptions of other people. And I've read enough of your comments here to be reasonably certain you wouldn't either. I had enough contact with Arab Muslims, some friends, some not so much, during the few years I lived in Israel, not to mention American Muslims I've encountered back here, to know better than to make blanket assessments. I really do try to take each person on his or her own merit.

What I was referring to was Spencer's scholarship on Islam. I think I know enough to recognize when a scholar of Islamic theology knows what he's talking and I believe Spencer does. I now have reason to believe, however, that his scholarship may be more tainted by his personal agenda than I had previously suspected. So the questions I have now center around how much of what I've absorbed is from him and how much of that might be open to question. IOW, I find myself wondering how much of what I think I know is wrong. Which naturally is a bit of a crimp in my ability to argue these points against Islamist apologists. Not good.

572 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:55:29pm

re: #478 Ezekiel2517

What other religion prescribes death as the penalty for apostasy? Blasphemy too. Sounds a wee bit cultish.

Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism call for the death penalty for blasphemy.

573 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:57:31pm

re: #571 Lynn B.

IOW, I find myself wondering how much of what I think I know is wrong. Which naturally is a bit of a crimp in my ability to argue these points against Islamist apologists. Not good.

I agree completely.

574 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:02:04pm

OT to Lynn- When Charles gets the new email system coded and installed, I would very much like to be in more direct contact with you concerning a couple of topics we deal with here at LGF. I hope you're open to that.

575 medaura18586  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:06:02pm

re: #571 Lynn B.

Been there, doing that... No easy way to build your worldview from the vacuum left when everything you thought you knew crumbled... Truth is so complicated and nuanced we can approach it only through approximations. Not falling under the spell of blanket statements and collective judgments is a first healthy step toward regaining solid footing.

576 Lynn B.  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:07:36pm

re: #574 Sharmuta

Absolutely. In the meantime, my email address is on my (long term temporary) website (blue nic).

577 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:09:47pm

re: #572 Sharmuta

Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism call for the death penalty for blasphemy.

Influential Christian Reconstructionist Gary North wants the death penalty for homosexuals, blasphemers, and women who have abortions.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

578 J.S.  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:10:17pm

re: #571 Lynn B.

(just parenthetically here)...I recall certain Muslim responses to Spencer's "analysis" of a passage from the Koran...and they were absolutely livid (they argued that Spencer's "take" was completely off the mark and twisted...) (In hind sight -- I've read certain ignorant claims made by people who will have read some part of "scripture" -- typically Jewish -- and they have a bias against Judaism, and they will completely misinterpret the passage -- I don't know if it's done deliberately? -- but, after a while, I must say, I have sympathy for those Muslims who feel their scripture is being given a deliberate "short shrift" by those (outside the religion of Islam) who claim to be its "interpreters"...

579 swamprat  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:12:34pm

All these little racists;
what's all the furor about?

They aren't really racists, but people they hang with just happen to agree with david dook.(spelled like turd on purpose)

We are being unreasonable because we won't associate with these pro-aryans (who happen to be anti-everyone else).

It never ends. The apologies for bigotry masked as patriotism go on and on.

580 Cato the Elder  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:14:19pm

re: #480 Charles

One more point on this before I drop it and move on to more productive things.

No healthy person can -- or should -- maintain the kind of rage most of us felt after 9/11 for an entire lifespan. Now that many (but not all) of the threats have been neutralized, there appears to be no danger of a mass Islamic terrorism campaign in the US, and globally the number of terror attacks has decreased dramatically since that time.

These changes are the result of the US military, and the policies put into place by the Bush administration -- not the ranting and screaming of Pamela Geller and her neo-Nazi pals.

Is radical Islam still a threat? Yes, absolutely, and we still need to be vigilant. But for way too many "anti-jihadists" this has become a sort of monomaniacal obsession, leading them to make alliances with really bad people, make bad judgments about the causes they support, and see Muslims with swords around every corner. And for some, it's turned into pure insane bigotry.

I'm not down with it.

Thank you, and thank you, and thank you again.

Eternal vigilance, justice for all, intervention when needed, reason, sanity and optimism in the face of mankind's eternal death wish.

Fiat veritas, ruat caelum!

581 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:15:56pm

I'd like to state that my comment to zombie wasn't intended as a smear to him/her but rather an observation. There are a number of things on this thread zombie has said with which I disagree, but considering him/her in the same light as spencer is something I wouldn't do.

582 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:16:54pm

re: #576 Lynn B.

Absolutely. In the meantime, my email address is on my (long term temporary) website (blue nic).

Cool- I'll shoot you an emil tomorrow. :)

583 Cato the Elder  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:18:45pm

re: #577 Charles

Influential Christian Reconstructionist Gary North wants the death penalty for homosexuals, blasphemers, and women who have abortions.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Don't get me started.

I have intimate knowledge of the company that put out North's Y2K newsletter before that particular apocolyptogasmic fantasy went belly-up.

The nexus between North, the Vince Foster neth-certifikit paranoids and certain wealthy crooks behind NewsMax etc. does not bear scrutiny.

Maybe someday I'll be at liberty to say more. That is all.

584 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:24:47pm

re: #577 Charles

Influential Christian Reconstructionist Gary North wants the death penalty for homosexuals, blasphemers, and women who have abortions.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Kind of like right-wing extremists, I have to wonder if anyone wants to hear about that.

585 Promethea  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:25:54pm

re: #480 Charles

One more point on this before I drop it and move on to more productive things.

No healthy person can -- or should -- maintain the kind of rage most of us felt after 9/11 for an entire lifespan. Now that many (but not all) of the threats have been neutralized, there appears to be no danger of a mass Islamic terrorism campaign in the US, and globally the number of terror attacks has decreased dramatically since that time.

These changes are the result of the US military, and the policies put into place by the Bush administration -- not the ranting and screaming of Pamela Geller and her neo-Nazi pals.

Is radical Islam still a threat? Yes, absolutely, and we still need to be vigilant. But for way too many "anti-jihadists" this has become a sort of monomaniacal obsession, leading them to make alliances with really bad people, make bad judgments about the causes they support, and see Muslims with swords around every corner. And for some, it's turned into pure insane bigotry.

I'm not down with it.

So . . . what you're saying is . . . we should use . . . common sense?

What a concept ! ! !

586 Liberal Classic  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:26:41pm

Charles, I don't know if you're still reading this thread. Unlike some of those other posters, I'm not calling you out, nor am I stomping off, or daring you to ban me, or anything like that. In fact, I kind of owe you something of an apology.

I came here trying to figure out what the source of the heat was between your blog and some of these other blogs. I was asking myself why would you be saying these things about these other guys, when they seemed to be supporting free speech and opposing creeping fascism in Europe. But I think I get it now. They're opposing one kind of fascism while turning a blind eye to another. Free speech for me, but not for thee. It really makes them out to be hypocrites.

I don't know if I really have anything to apologize for. I never insulted you publicly or privately, or anything like that. I don't think I was out of line to come to your blog and make some posts and to try to figure out what was going on. But all that having been said, I have to stand corrected. I think that my perceptions were wrong about Spencer, and I think you may be right after all. I've long been uncomfortable with what I perceived as his Christian dominionism, but I didn't really think he would get in bed with fascists. Now, I'm not so sure. I'm beginning to understand that he may be willing to do so, if those guys are the right kind -- the "right kind" here meaning guys who are religiously acceptable to him.

I'm going to leave it at that, without further speculation about those other guys. I hope you take this post in the spirit it was intended. Thanks.

587 medaura18586  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:28:04pm

Zombie,

I've long considered you one of the smartest commenters on this site, and that's saying a lot, as LGF gets many bright contributors. But I must regretfully break it to you that in this thread you're making no goddamn sense. The quality of your arguments is so degraded compared to your consistent norm, that I am left pondering (and hoping) whether you are merely playing devil's advocate here to be a contrarian. This is a serious topic though, and your points merit dead serious rebuttals.

re: #379 zombie

PRECISELY.

But remember this: "True" Muslims consider themselves to be completely Quran-observant, and furthermore, one of the fundamental tenets of Islam is that the Quran is the pure unadulterated and unchangeable word of God.

And yet, as you point out, from an impartial scholar's perspective, it's a big mess.

Now, of course, much the same could be said of the Bible. It has contradictory parts, other parts make little sense, some parts reflect pre-monotheistic traditions, etc. But tell any of that to a Biblical literalist, and get ready for a punch in the nose.

The difference, however, is that the New Testament specifically advises people to separate secular worldly affairs from inner spiritual life. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's..." etc. And because of this crucial concept, Christianity can theoretically function in a secular society.

But no such disclaimers exist in the Quran. So the fundamentalist followers feel they must meddle in secular laws. And, as mentioned above, if these people feel that the Quran is 100% true and 100% unalterable, then how can they validly practice Islam in a secular society with laws that violate Islamic doctrine?

Judaism is conspicuous by its absence in your treatment. If anything, Judaism represents a much more comprehensive mode of life than Islam, with a rich legal and Rabbinic tradition, very strict dietary, ceremonial, and sartorial norms. Its dictates encompass all aspects of life and have not been abrogated by the New Testament. Yet Jews have lived as reasonably-integrated minorities all over the world and even when they founded their own state, despite the Zionists' insistence that it be a Jewish state, its laws and institutions are not the product of Rabbinic theocratic fiat, but largely a replica of parliamentary/democratic organs. How does that fit with your theory?

588 Cato the Elder  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:36:22pm

re: #575 medaura18586

Been there, doing that... No easy way to build your worldview from the vacuum left when everything you thought you knew crumbled... Truth is so complicated and nuanced we can approach it only through approximations. Not falling under the spell of blanket statements and collective judgments is a first healthy step toward regaining solid footing.

Or, you can cling to your fantasized image of the enemy - the next clan over, the tribe beyond the forest, the anthropophagi over the sea, the devils from the nether realm - and lump everybody who looks like that into your mental concentration camp. Encircle your threatened ego/tribe/race/religion/Volk with razor-wire hate, ideological antipersonnel mines, festering moats of prejudice. Gather up allies among all the other diseased hate-freaks who happen to detest the same main focus of your paranoia, even if they really hate you too, just a little bit less than they hate your scary bugbear. Design a flag, make a motto, build a fort, set the guards, enlist foot soldiers, draft a manifesto. Lastly, scream "traitor" when someone suggests that there might be more to life than nightmares of imminent doom and dreams of yourself as the superhuman rescuer. Make sure you never stop looking at the snuff videos and angst porn that keeps you hyped on negative hormones.

And then wonder why all your new friends seem to disappear when the battle shifts to another ground.

Oh, and yell a lot. That eases the tension, for a minute or two. Then yell some more. Or blog.

Don't forget the CAPS LOCK key!

Talkin' 'bout you, PG...

589 medaura18586  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:45:15pm

re: #351 zombie

So say you. But what authority do you have within Islam? Your laissez-faire Western-style opinion goes in complete contradiction to the leading scholars of Islam in Egypt and Saudi Arabia who insist that Islam is inseparable from sharia.

Who gets to determine the true nature of Islam? The most respected leading Islamic scholars in the world, or Western Christians like Karen Armstrong who want to emphasize the touchy-feelie aspect of Islam and paper over the inconvenient parts?

It seems to me the any religion's leading scholars must necessarily be the ones who define the religion. Not some outsiders who want to shape the religion to match their wishes for it.

My husband's family is Catholic (French Quebecois from his mother's side). Yet they, take a load of this, strongly believe in abortion rights and contraception. Nearly all of my husband's Quebecois relatives of his age-group, have children out of wedlock. They are long-term couples that just never get married (very typical in Quebec, no idea why). Yet they are self-declared Catholics. This, despite there being an official head to their religion -- the Pope -- who has issued unambiguous statements condemning all these practices. Who should define what a Catholic is? The Pope? Or self-identifying Catholics?

There is no such thing as Catholicism or Islam floating around as perfect and complete notions in an ethereal, Platonic world of ideas. Those are just abstractions, which exist nowhere but in people's heads. So they're not homogeneous universal abstractions at that either. I am more concerned with how each Muslim's conception of his/her religion than with Robert Spencer's, Karen Armstrong's, or that of any self-declared theological authority. Ultimately, it is how Muslims themselves see their faith and its relation to their lives and their countries that matters. In that regard, I take them all as they come, and they do come in all flavors, just as Christians, Jews, and people in general, do.

I couldn't care less about the mental gymnastics they employ to make the dictate of their archaic and authoritarian holy book compatible with modernity, but I know very many do. I come from a country where such hard-to-fathom reconciliation between the Islamic religion and secular practices, freedoms, and tolerance for "the Other" is the norm.

So focusing on the deliberations of "experts," be they Islamist theologists from Saudi Arabia or "scholars of Islam" like Spencer and Trifkovic, is useless. What matters is how the practitioners of the faith relate to the West, statistically, demographically, trend-wise, by geographic breakdown, and whatnot. They determine what Islam is. And their efforts to get integrated in mainstream liberal society should be facilitated in any way possible. They should not be alienated. Insisting that their religion is incorrigibly violent or advocating that it be banned do not help. They do the exact opposite.

590 Lynn B.  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:46:54pm

re: #578 J.S.

(just parenthetically here)...I recall certain Muslim responses to Spencer's "analysis" of a passage from the Koran...and they were absolutely livid (they argued that Spencer's "take" was completely off the mark and twisted...) (In hind sight -- I've read certain ignorant claims made by people who will have read some part of "scripture" -- typically Jewish -- and they have a bias against Judaism, and they will completely misinterpret the passage -- I don't know if it's done deliberately? -- but, after a while, I must say, I have sympathy for those Muslims who feel their scripture is being given a deliberate "short shrift" by those (outside the religion of Islam) who claim to be its "interpreters"...

Yes, that's all too true. And, again, although I do agree with a lot of the things Wilders says about Islam (let's not forget that Charles first exposed MEMRI's and PMW's transcripts of Friday mosque sermons quoting many of these same verses to a lot of people who previously had no idea), I feel a little queasy reading interpretations of any scripture written by someone who despises it.

OTOH, although I do not read Arabic and recognize that therefore I cannot read the true Koran, my translation of it (Dawood), acquired back in college, was first published in 1956 and certainly doesn't appear to have an anti-Islam agenda. And the professor who assigned it as required reading was hardly anti-Islam and encouraged his students to view Islam in the most positive light. I've read it, several times, highlighted and paperclipped with penciled in comments. And I do find most of the characterizations of Wilders, Spencer et. al to be accurate or at least consistent with what I've concluded on my own while I find the complaints of the apologists and offense-takers to be largely lame.

If these guys were simply off the wall, they never would have gained the credibility they have. Strike that. I personally don't believe these guys are simply off the wall, but that doesn't mean there isn't some degree of embellishment, misdirection and/or omission in their interpretations. Finding such poison needles (if they exist) in the haystacks of accurate information is the trick. I do so resent being put to the task of searching ...

591 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:57:52pm

re: #571 Lynn B.

I would never rely on Spencer or anyone else to determine my perceptions of other people. And I've read enough of your comments here to be reasonably certain you wouldn't either. I had enough contact with Arab Muslims, some friends, some not so much, during the few years I lived in Israel, not to mention American Muslims I've encountered back here, to know better than to make blanket assessments. I really do try to take each person on his or her own merit.

I'd like to add something about my Lebanese Muslim friend, who was nearly deported a number of years back. I've not seen such fear often in someone as he was at the thought of being returned into the hands of those seeking to kill him because he didn't agree with their islamic fundamentalism. This was all before 9/11, BTW. It was he that caused me to reflect long and hard about the freedoms we take for granted in this country when he told me during the course of a political conversation that such a chat was virtually unheard of in Lebanon because for all he knew, it would be his brother who turned him in to the authorities. He's not practicing, although he still abides by not consuming alcohol. Some people might consider him not a "true" muslim, but I simply regard him as my friend.

592 zombie  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:15:21pm

re: #587 medaura18586

Well, I'm no expert on Orthodox Judaism, but the key difference I think is that Judaism is not evangelical -- i.e. it makes no (or none that I know of) attempt to spread itself through conversion of non-Jews. Both Christianity and Islam are evangelical -- i.e. it is permitted/encouraged to try to convert non-believers.

Another key difference is that Judaism has never promoted itself as the one true faith which has a destiny to become dominant over all other faiths. Historically, both Christianity and Islam have done so. And some current practitioners of those religions continue to believe that the entire world one day will/should accept the faith of Christianity or Islam.

As a result, Judaism, no matter how orthodox or all-encompassing for its own adherents, is not now and has never been aggressive in its attempt to influence or gain control of secular society. Outside of the singular exception of Israel, where it is to be expected that very-observant and less-observant Jews compete for social influence, in no country on earth are there Jews trying to convert everyone to Judaism, nor alter the nation's laws to be in accordance with orthodox Jewish laws.

Orthodox Jewish laws and customs are for orthodox Jews to observe -- and no one else. Groups like Chabad may try to encourage less-observant Jews to become more observant, but to my knowledge neither they nor any other Jewish group is running around trying to impose Jewish laws on non-Jews.

This is the key difference, at least to me. I don't mind if any religion has an all-encompassing life system, such as fundamentalist Islam or orthodox Judaism, just so long as they don't try to impose that system on me. Since orthodox Judaism is non-aggressive and non-invasive and non-threatening to the secular world, I have absolutely no negative feelings about it. But since fundamentalist Muslims do state themselves that they would like to impose their moral code and religious customs on me, that's when I start getting my guard up. And the same goes for extremist Christians who want to impose their belief system (creationism, Ten Commandments in classrooms, etc.) on me: I resist it.

That's why I left Judaism out of the equation. Yes, it is the original member of the three great monotheistic religions, but it is also the only one that does not not and has never posed a threat to anyone else.

If fundamentalist Muslims in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia or wherever practiced their religion how they see fit in total isolation and self-contentment -- fine by me. I wouldn't give them a second thought. The only thing that bothers me is when they bring their laws/customs to our secular system and try to undermine our secularism.

I don't agree with Wilders that we should ban Islam or any religion in America, nor do I agree with Spencer that Islam is inherently evil at its core. And I fully acknowledge that the majority of Muslims in the US are law-abiding and non-extremist -- "moderate," if you will. But I also know that Wahhabist doctrine, funded by petro-dollars, is trying to make inroads into the U.S., so I feel we as a society ought to keep tabs on that influence, as well as other forms of creeping Islamic extremism. Because these forms of Islam, as practiced, are (or at least would be if we gave them half a chance) a threat to our Constitutional society.

I greatly appreciate that what Charles is trying to do -- to not go overboard in siding with bigots, nor to lay back awaiting our own self-deserved doom along with the moonbats, but to take the middle road of reasoned moderation -- is the hardest route of all. It is so easy to slip into extremist thinking at either end of the spectrum, and Charles is to be commended for holding the line in the center.

593 the_thermonuclear_pickle  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:20:13pm

re: #567 Iron Fist

I was appalled by Bush's expansion of Federal power. It was something for war time, though.

So was Russia's War Communism. Something I and my family know first hand. There is no excuse, ever, to expand Federal power to the stage that people can be wire-tapped without a warrant or at least some judicial oversight. A government that gets too powerful ends up a government that you do not want to be in government.

The "loss of privacy" talking point doesn't apply to me. I'm never going to be calling someone on a cell phone in Karachi, Pakistan.

You mightn't, but Karachi is full of Pakistani Hindus and lots of their family live in America. They must have the right to call someone in Karachi in the knowledge that their conversation remains private.

This whole assumption of guilt before innocence cannot be allowed to continue in a liberal democracy.

Someone who is a known terrorist or terrorist supporter. I don't see that you have a reasonable expection of privacy for such a transaction.

For that I will never justify privacy, however Bush authorised it against everyone, irrespective of suspicion.

594 medaura18586  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:23:45pm

Zombie, it's getting very late for me and I must go to bed. But please check back on this thread tomorrow as I have a reply in store.

Thanks,

--Kejda

595 kamala  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:31:14pm

re: #592 zombie

nor do I agree with Spencer that Islam is inherently evil at its core.

Spencer doesn't believe that and has never said or written anything like that.

596 Zimriel  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:37:41pm

re: #595 kamala

re[ Spencer that Islam is inherently evil at its core.] Spencer doesn't believe that and has never said or written anything like that.

Er, Spencer wrote a whole book on "The Truth About Muhammad" which portrayed the Muhammad of the Muslim consensus sira as a cynical warlord. He wrote another book called "Religion of Peace" about how Islam was not a religion of peace. If you're a peace-loving secularist, the Islam described in Spencer's books is "inherently evil at its core". You can't get around that.

Unless, like me, you propose an "Islam" which rejects certain suras of the Qur'an and practically all the hadith. But that leaves open the question of whether what is left can be called "Islam" at all anymore.

(Look at the flack I get for suggesting that Christians eject certain misogynistic letters of "Paul" as forgeries, the way almost all serious Biblical scholars have done for the last century and half. No one wants to hear it!)

597 Cato the Elder  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:43:45pm

re: #592 zombie

Yes.

Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

Look to the left, look to the right, scrutinize the moral absolutists and not-so-crypto-fascists of Bible and Koran - and root out the violent extremists wherever you find them.

I actually think we've been doing a pretty good job of that, lately.

598 Zimriel  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:51:44pm

re: #561 Frank N Stein

I completely agree with that, although I won't necessarily call it "orientalist" with all the judgment this term is charged with. There is a misunderstanding here between what the West considers a religion, based mainly on Christianity and the general evolution of the West, and some other religions that do not fit this concept. Islam IS a religion, but it's very different from how a regular Westerner perceives a religion as limited only or mostly to the personal spiritual sphere.

The American West does have the experience of Mormonism, which recreated a Near Eastern religion right here. Mind you the Americans didn't quite deal with that one with magnanimity either, at first.

599 hellosnackbar  Fri, May 1, 2009 3:35:10am

I wonder if the ever present threat of being murdered is affecting Geert's
mind?
The claustrophobia of not being able to walk down the street in one's own country and being surrounded by "minders"is not a situation I would be happy with.
However,things could change radically in the near future;since it appears
that Geert's party leads the polls for the forthcoming elections in Holland.
Geert Wilders as Dutch prime minister is an interesting prospect.
I don't think that Islam will be banned in Holland if this comes to pass;but
I believe that the cultural privileges which muslims have unjustly gained
will be rolled back and possibly the Koran banned;in the same way Mein Kampf is.
I believe Wilders'policy will be along the lines of FIFO (fit in or fuck off);
but he may not transgress the edicts of the european court of human rights.
Another interesting event will be Wilders' forthcoming trial(for inciteing
rcial/religious hatred).
The way I (and some educated Dutch friends) see it is:That Wilders is in
a no lose situation; insofar as if his defense is properly conducted(and be assured it will be) Wilders will be exhonerated and receive all the publicity
that at present he can't afford.
On the other hand should he be convicted;then it will be seen as a politically manouvered verdict that will invite the anger of the real Dutch populace.
Whatever happens there will be "fireworks".
Perhaps a comment by any informed Dutch lizard might enlighten us further.

600 Irish Rose  Fri, May 1, 2009 5:22:53am

Geert has great hair, and I thought that his mini-film "Fitna" was well done.

But now that we're seeing and hearing more of Geert, it's becoming rather apparent that the man has some really nasty ideas.

601 blangwort  Fri, May 1, 2009 5:53:35am

The problem with treating Islam is "just another religion" is that it does not recognize the separation of religion and government. Many sects seek to impose their views on others using force if they feel it is right. They respect no authority other than their own.

This goes above and beyond mere evangelical behavior.

So the first thing we need to state when discussing Islam is that for it to be respected, it must respect Western notions of personal freedoms. This is a terrible conflict for the way Islam is practiced in many parts of the world. For example, there are clear indications of severe penalties for Apostasy in the Koran.

The reconciliation between Western Values and Islamic values is not trivial. I'm not suggesting that Islam be banned, but I do recommend we monitor it very closely, just as we would with a far right wing or far left wing religion/cult. There is no shortage of MEMRI videos of Islamic religious authorities advocating genocidal behavior, violence against women, and even imposing tax on non-islamic religions. Were a priest or a rabbi to have tried such things, he'd be condemned and denounced. Look what happened to Meir Kahane (and he deserved it too). And yet the silence when an Imam says these sorts of thing is deafening.

Geert Wilders has stepped over the line here. I'll grant you that much. But if anyone here thinks that Islam is just another happy fluffy religion, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...

602 maryatexitzero  Fri, May 1, 2009 5:57:44am

Wilders does seem to genuinely believe that Islam is not a religion. We may or may not agree with that - Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. may or may not believe that, but, based on the speeches I've read, Wilders does.

If we base our understanding of what Wilders is saying on the concept that Islam is an ideology, then it would make sense to compare Islam to other ideologies, like Communism, Fascism, Democracy and Monarchies. If we treat Islam as an ideology, then forbidding the Koran would be the equivalent of forbidding Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, the Wealth of Nations or Atlas Shruged.

To make this concept work, though, Wilders would have to convince a fair number of people to believe that Islam is not a religion. And even if we agreed with the idea that Islam is an ideology, if we agreed with the idea that sharia laws are ideologically based laws that violate human rights, banning books and condemning/deporting people based on their 'commitment' to an ideology whose laws consider apostasy punishable by death would still be violation of human rights.

603 Irish Rose  Fri, May 1, 2009 5:58:02am

re: #588 Cato the Elder

Or, you can cling to your fantasized image of the enemy - the next clan over, the tribe beyond the forest, the anthropophagi over the sea, the devils from the nether realm - and lump everybody who looks like that into your mental concentration camp. Encircle your threatened ego/tribe/race/religion/Volk with razor-wire hate, ideological antipersonnel mines, festering moats of prejudice. Gather up allies among all the other diseased hate-freaks who happen to detest the same main focus of your paranoia, even if they really hate you too, just a little bit less than they hate your scary bugbear. Design a flag, make a motto, build a fort, set the guards, enlist foot soldiers, draft a manifesto. Lastly, scream "traitor" when someone suggests that there might be more to life than nightmares of imminent doom and dreams of yourself as the superhuman rescuer. Make sure you never stop looking at the snuff videos and angst porn that keeps you hyped on negative hormones.

And then wonder why all your new friends seem to disappear when the battle shifts to another ground.

Oh, and yell a lot. That eases the tension, for a minute or two. Then yell some more. Or blog.

Don't forget the CAPS LOCK key!

Talkin' 'bout you, PG...

She won't get it, Cato, because she can't.
She's gone over the cliff, and she ain't coming back.

604 Render  Fri, May 1, 2009 6:30:07am

254,000 soldiers in the new Iraqi Army.

80,000 soldiers in the Afghan National Army, with plans to expand to 260,000 over the next five years.

There are your "moderate" Moslem's. There is your "enemy of my enemy is my friend."

I'll take 80,000 dope smoking ANA soldiers over all of the neo-nazis on the planet.

===

The decidedly one-sided "alliance" with Stalin, (who until Operation Barbarossa commenced had been allied with the nazis), lasted just three years and ended with almost fifty years of Cold War.

So to recap once again; We're being asked to side with groups that have nothing to contribute to this war except ethnic cleansing plans. Plans that those groups ideological predecessors have already attempted once, with a different group of victims (who would be the recent ancestors of a lot of us). Those same ideological predecessors who were at that time allied with the predecessor of almost all of todays (Sunni) Islamic terrorist groups - The Moslem Brotherhood.

The answer is, as always and forever where nazis are concerned, no.

Not just no, fuck no and fuck you for asking.

===

...And the Jewish woman who sides with those same neo-nazis is calling other Jews kapos? Geller, you ignorant slut, you've signed on with the neo-nazis, the cast off former allies of the Moslem Brotherhood.

Your "growing" blog hits are coming from people who hate you, but aren't honest enough to say it to your face while they're using you against us.

ANOTHER
PERFECT
DAY,
R

605 Fritz_Katz  Fri, May 1, 2009 6:31:26am

Here's the actual "Islam is not a religion" quote in full context of Geert Wilders speech:

Let me tell you first, that Islam is not a religion. Islam is a totalitarian political ideology. Islam hearts lies at the Koran and the Koran is a book that calls for hatred, that calls for violence, for murder, for terrorism, for war and submission.

The Koran calls upon Muslims to kill Kuffars, non-Muslims. The Koran describes Jews as monkeys and pigs, and Churchill, and I agree with him, Churchill compared the Koran, the book in the 50's, to Adolf Hitlers book Mein Kampf.

Ladies and Gentleman the core of the problem with Islam is twofold, First, the commands of the Koran are not limited by place or time, they apply for all time, to all Muslims of the World.

Second, the Koran is Allah's personal words that leaves no room for interpretation, therefore, there is not such a thing as a moderate Islam. Of course, there are many moderate Muslims, but a moderate Islam does not exist.

As the Turkish Prime Minister Mr. Erdogan once rightfully said, he said: "There is no moderate Islam, Islam is Islam"

606 Hhar  Fri, May 1, 2009 7:03:33am

re: #602 maryatexitzero

The problem is one of objective fact. Islam IS a religion. People who say it isn't are simply wrong, objectively, and it doesn't really matter who they are. They can be Muslims, Christians, Jews, the Pope, my parrot, whatever. They are objectively wrong. Saying that Islam isn't a religion is like saying the Pope isn't Christian: it is only true if you adhere to a definition of Christian that hinges solely on your personal beleifs, and dismisses the opinions of others out of hand. It is fine as a purely theological statement, but it is objectively wrong, because no single social group gets to define English usage.

This is more than a semantic issue, because it reaches into the heart of Wilder's argument: if Islam is not a religion, we are not obliged to respect itaccording to the basic principles we use respecting other religions. Once you admit that, a lot of what he says follows as defensible opinion. But it is objectively wrong, and you cannot let up on that point.

607 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 7:26:37am

re: #540 Jr ewing

Forcibly expelled? when did he say that?¿

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]

Likening the Islamic sacred text to Hitler's Mein Kampf, he wants the 'fascist Koran' outlawed in Holland, the constitution rewritten to make that possible, all immigration from Muslim countries halted, Muslim immigrants paid to leave and all Muslim 'criminals' stripped of Dutch citizenship and deported 'back where they came from'.

Additionally- if the koran was banned, most muslims would be criminals worthy of having their citizenship stripped and deported.

608 maryatexitzero  Fri, May 1, 2009 8:23:00am

The problem is one of objective fact. Islam IS a religion.

Islam is also a system of (shariah) laws and a health/lifestyle guide. It's also a warrior's code. One engineer I know pointed out that mosques are constructed like armories.

The Japanese samurai code, Bushido, is considered by some to be a religion. Confucianism can also be considered to be a religion. If they are, these lifestyle/legal codes are probably more comparable to Islam than Christianity.

Since Muslim laws are based on the idea that Muslims (especially Muslim men) are superior to all other human beings, and since that unprovable thesis is (according to Muslims) "God's word", it's not surprising that even the most moderate Muslim will assert their belief that Islam (and all laws based on it) is unquestionably God's word.

I don't think the argument that Islam is an ideology, not a religion, has any political or strategic value in the war against terrorism. As I said, this argument won't work unless Wilders can convince many people that it's true. He can't, because it's not.

But looking at Islam as an ideology, a legal system, and a warrior's code could be an interesting exercise. Is something defined as a religion because the followers say it is? Does a religion have to have God/Gods or a holy book? Unitarian Universalists don't have a holy book, but they're a religion.

If communists unanimously declared that their ideology was a religion, would we have to respect that?

609 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 1, 2009 8:29:13am

re: #599 hellosnackbar

[...] I believe that the cultural privileges which muslims have unjustly gainedwill be rolled back [...]

Forgetting for a moment about the insane book-banning project (Mein Kampf should not be banned either) - would you care to tell us what those unjustly gained privileges consist in? Be specific.

610 Hhar  Fri, May 1, 2009 8:30:39am

re: #592 zombie

Some quibbles, on an FYI basis alone.

Well, I'm no expert on Orthodox Judaism, but the key difference I think is that Judaism is not evangelical -- i.e. it makes no (or none that I know of) attempt to spread itself through conversion of non-Jews. Both Christianity and Islam are evangelical -- i.e. it is permitted/encouraged to try to convert non-believers.

That isn't quite true. In the Roman era, Judaism was a proselytising faith. The current lack of proselytisation is a complicated issue, albeit an old one.

Another key difference is that Judaism has never promoted itself as the one true faith which has a destiny to become dominant over all other faiths. Historically, both Christianity and Islam have done so. And some current practitioners of those religions continue to believe that the entire world one day will/should accept the faith of Christianity or Islam.

Again, that isn't quite true. Jews have always held that in the Messianic era the world will recieve Torah from Jerusalem, and all the world will acknowlege the One G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Prior to the middle ages there was not a widespread acceptance amoung Jews that Islam or Christianity worshipped our G-d. Quite the contrary. When exactly the idea that Christianity (for instance) was not intentional idolatry became widespread I am not a deep enough student of history to say, and it is a complicated issue. Islam has never been viewed as idolatry, so far as I know.

As a result, Judaism, no matter how orthodox or all-encompassing for its own adherents, is not now and has never been aggressive in its attempt to influence or gain control of secular society. Outside of the singular exception of Israel, where it is to be expected that very-observant and less-observant Jews compete for social influence, in no country on earth are there Jews trying to convert everyone to Judaism, nor alter the nation's laws to be in accordance with orthodox Jewish laws.

I think that relates to the peculiar relationship of Jews to Eretz Yisrael. Outside of Eretz Yisrael, the law of the land is the law, but that is because of the particular role that land plays in our religion. I'm not an expert on my religion either, BTW. Just what I've picked up over the years.

611 Hhar  Fri, May 1, 2009 8:37:02am

re: #608 maryatexitzero

The problem is one of objective fact. Islam IS a religion.

Islam is also a system of (shariah) laws and a health/lifestyle guide. It's also a warrior's code. One engineer I know pointed out that mosques are constructed like armories.

The Japanese samurai code, Bushido, is considered by some to be a religion. Confucianism can also be considered to be a religion. If they are, these lifestyle/legal codes are probably more comparable to Islam than Christianity.

Since Muslim laws are based on the idea that Muslims (especially Muslim men) are superior to all other human beings, and since that unprovable thesis is (according to Muslims) "God's word", it's not surprising that even the most moderate Muslim will assert their belief that Islam (and all laws based on it) is unquestionably God's word.

I don't think the argument that Islam is an ideology, not a religion, has any political or strategic value in the war against terrorism. As I said, this argument won't work unless Wilders can convince many people that it's true. He can't, because it's not.

But looking at Islam as an ideology, a legal system, and a warrior's code could be an interesting exercise. Is something defined as a religion because the followers say it is? Does a religion have to have God/Gods or a holy book? Unitarian Universalists don't have a holy book, but they're a religion.

If communists unanimously declared that their ideology was a religion, would we have to respect that?

I agree with you. It is always useful to examine non-ritual aspects of a religion, in order to figure out how it participates in or shapes a society, and Islam is no exception. Taking your hypothetical seriously "If communists unanimously declared that their ideology was a religion, would we have to respect that." the answer is: if there is compelling evidence that a group of people hold sincerely to what they call a religion, then you respect it as a religion. That's the way we work. If communists started saying communism was a religion, we could point to their doctrines, which declare that religion is obsolete, and present that as compelling evidence that they were NOT sincere.

612 mph  Fri, May 1, 2009 8:43:35am

re: #608 maryatexitzero

The problem is one of objective fact. Islam IS a religion.

Islam is also a system of (shariah) laws and a health/lifestyle guide. It's also a warrior's code. One engineer I know pointed out that mosques are constructed like armories.

Many, if not most versions of Christianity are technically "health/lifestyle guides."

613 Fritz_Katz  Fri, May 1, 2009 8:44:19am

re: #607 Sharmuta

Additionally- if the koran was banned, most muslims would be criminals worthy of having their citizenship stripped and deported.

Geert sez:

"I want the fascist Koran banned".

Maybe if the Muslims could produce a non-fascist version (one with all the anti-semitic hatred and calls for mass-murder removed) then it wouldn't have to be banned. Europeans have laws against hate-speech.

614 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 8:48:22am

re: #613 Fritz_Katz

Maybe if the Muslims could produce a non-fascist version (one with all the anti-semitic hatred and calls for mass-murder removed) then it wouldn't have to be banned. Europeans have laws against hate-speech.

"It wouldn't have to be banned?" What planet are you living on?

It's not going to be banned. This idea is an exceedingly stupid pipe dream, dreamed by bigots.

615 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:00:15am

re: #605 Fritz_Katz

Here's the actual "Islam is not a religion" quote in full context of Geert Wilders speech:

That is NOT the full quote in context. This is:

We should also stop pretending that Islam is a religion, sure, it has religious symbols, but it's not a religion. It is a totalitarian 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.

Interesting that you somehow missed the part in bold.

616 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:02:33am

And by the way, when Wilders says that he wants to deport Muslim "criminals," please note that if he gets his way, Islam is outlawed, and the right to freedom of religion is taken away from Muslims, ALL Muslims will be criminals.

This is just disgusting. And I'm appalled that anyone who calls themselves "American" could even consider it for one freaking second.

617 maryatexitzero  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:44:04am

re: 611 Hhar

If communists started saying communism was a religion, we could point to their doctrines, which declare that religion is obsolete, and present that as compelling evidence that they were NOT sincere.

For what it's worth, there are some Christian Communists:

Christian communism can be seen as a radical form of Christian socialism. It is a theological and political theory based upon the view that the teachings of Jesus Christ compel Christians to support communism as the ideal social system. Although there is no universal agreement on the exact date when Christian communism was founded, many Christian communists assert that evidence from the Bible suggests that the first Christians, including the Apostles, created their own small communist society in the years following Jesus' death and resurrection. As such, many advocates of Christian communism argue that it was taught by Jesus and practiced by the Apostles themselves.

re: 612 mph

Many, if not most versions of Christianity are technically "health/lifestyle guides.

True, most religions are (partly) health/lifestyle guides

618 hellosnackbar  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:50:12am

re 609 cato the elder,
1 halal meat in schools 2restricted use of public amenities eg swimming baths
3non reporting of violent outrages committed by muslims 4immunity from prosecution after delivering hate speeches in public 5using school time to teach children about Islam and by extension creationism 6sacking teaching
staff for not being sufficiently islamophilic 6intimidation of public sector workers who oppose islamic mores in the work place.
Cultural alterations to accomodate muslim sensitivities(changing Christmas to winterval)
In short the suppression of free opinion by anyone who exercises a substantiated distaste for Islamic influence with threatened prosecution.
There is in the UK a leftist cultural equivalence ideology which seeks to
accomodate muslim ideology and allow antisemitism.
This ideology is more obvious in Holland since muslims make up a greater percentage of the population and where population density is greater.
They demand respect but rarely give it.
No other immigrant group is so raspingly impertinent.
The knock on effect is that fascists like the BNP gain more sympathy and power as they play up the hubris and contempt of the more zealous muslims.

619 Hhar  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:50:41am

re: #617 maryatexitzero

Good point. You can be confused and still sincere. Or just sincerely confused.

620 medaura18586  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:19:25am

re: #602 maryatexitzero


If we base our understanding of what Wilders is saying on the concept that Islam is an ideology, then it would make sense to compare Islam to other ideologies, like Communism, Fascism, Democracy and Monarchies. If we treat Islam as an ideology, then forbidding the Koran would be the equivalent of forbidding Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, the Wealth of Nations or Atlas Shruged.

To make this concept work, though, Wilders would have to convince a fair number of people to believe that Islam is not a religion. And even if we agreed with the idea that Islam is an ideology, if we agreed with the idea that sharia laws are ideologically based laws that violate human rights, banning books and condemning/deporting people based on their 'commitment' to an ideology whose laws consider apostasy punishable by death would still be violation of human rights.

I think the rigor over semantics (Is Islam a religion, an ideology, a health/life-style guide, or all of the above?) is only relevant to those who are wrongfully under the impression that freedom of religion is inherently worthier of legal protection than other forms of expression, such as mere apolitical speech, or artistic output. But no such distinction actually exists. Printing, reading, selling, and distributing Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, the Wealth of Nations, and Atlas Shruged are just as protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as are any religious beliefs and the practice or expression thereof. Religion is no more sacred than other forms of speech or expression in the eyes of the Constitution.

So even if Wilders succeeded in convincing everyone that Islam is not a religion, he would not be any closer to finding legal grounds for banning it, not in the U.S., at least. Religion, life-style guides, philosophy, and ideology, are all abstract categories, and the various aspects of the human characteristics they describe may in fact overlap in many ways. They are often different angles from which to look at the same thing, and which aspect one chooses to focus on has no bearing on the legal protections afforded to all categories by the U.S. Constitution.

621 Fritz_Katz  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:37:42am

re: #615 Charles

re: #605 Fritz_Katz
Here's the actual "Islam is not a religion" quote in full context of Geert Wilders speech:

That is NOT the full quote in context. This is:

We should also stop pretending that Islam is a religion, sure, it has religious symbols, but it's not a religion. It is a totalitarian 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.

Interesting that you somehow missed the part in bold.

I didn't miss that part in bold. The statement that "the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam" occurs much latter in the same article. If I wanted to include that part, I'd have to cut-n-paste the entire article.

622 bungie  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:26:49am

re: #551 Lynn B.

What's a little creepy is ... I'm now trying to sort out what I "learned" from Spencer from what I've learned elsewhere in my studies of Islam for the past 35 years. My computer may have folders in which I can compartmentalize this sort of thing but my brain doesn't. I no longer trust the information I've gotten from sources I previously trusted but now know to be questionable. But how do I separate that out and quarantine it for further examination?

It's a dilemma.

Why not go to original sources instead of relying so much on secondary sources?

On September 12, 2001 or thereabouts, I went to the public library and took out about 10 Islamic books including the Koran and various "How to be a Muslim" tracts written to proselytize. I then read them (and admittedly in some cases skimmed them). The point is if you always rely on secondary sources, you are dependent on others with their own agendas and you are suspending your own critical thinking skills.

623 medaura18586  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:56:43am

re: #592 zombie

Well, I'm no expert on Orthodox Judaism, but the key difference I think is that Judaism is not evangelical -- i.e. it makes no (or none that I know of) attempt to spread itself through conversion of non-Jews. Both Christianity and Islam are evangelical -- i.e. it is permitted/encouraged to try to convert non-believers.

True. But Christianity, as generally practiced, has come around. Why is the door of that possibility closed to Islam?

Another key difference is that Judaism has never promoted itself as the one true faith which has a destiny to become dominant over all other faiths. Historically, both Christianity and Islam have done so. And some current practitioners of those religions continue to believe that the entire world one day will/should accept the faith of Christianity or Islam.

Actually, theologically, Jews consider themselves as "a light unto the nations," with debate still raging on whether they should see themselves ahead of everyone else, or above everyone else, with the most Orthodox adherents of Judaism leaning toward the latter position. See this article for more context.

As a result, Judaism, no matter how orthodox or all-encompassing for its own adherents, is not now and has never been aggressive in its attempt to influence or gain control of secular society. Outside of the singular exception of Israel, where it is to be expected that very-observant and less-observant Jews compete for social influence, in no country on earth are there Jews trying to convert everyone to Judaism, nor alter the nation's laws to be in accordance with orthodox Jewish laws.

Actually, I think the reason behind the Jews' historic harmlessness is not so much grounded in the exclusivity of their religion, as much as in history curbing their theological ambitions early on. There are many chauvinistic passages in the Torah which could be taken as forward-looking prescriptions to the Jews in handling their pagan neighbors. A command to convert them may be out of the question, but a command to ethnically/religiously cleanse them, could conceivably be implied in certain passages. Would/could it be a regional tendency; how would it scale globally? We will never know, because Jews were subjugated by the Romans long ago, and have had to radically scale down any theological ambitions, to the point that their identity has been dovish ever since. The lesson is that historical circumstances can dramatically contextualize Holy Scriptures.

Orthodox Jewish laws and customs are for orthodox Jews to observe -- and no one else. Groups like Chabad may try to encourage less-observant Jews to become more observant, but to my knowledge neither they nor any other Jewish group is running around trying to impose Jewish laws on non-Jews.

Putting aside Orthodox Jews' influence on the outside world for a minute, it's worth noting that Orthodox Jews have grown less and less Orthodox with time. Reform movements have sprung up within Judaism, converting the faithful out of the ranks of the Orthodox and into their increasingly more moderate and secular movements. Modernity serves as an acid, to dissolve, in time, the fundamentalism of any religion.

624 medaura18586  Fri, May 1, 2009 12:16:50pm

re: #592 zombie


I don't agree with Wilders that we should ban Islam or any religion in America, nor do I agree with Spencer that Islam is inherently evil at its core. And I fully acknowledge that the majority of Muslims in the US are law-abiding and non-extremist -- "moderate," if you will. But I also know that Wahhabist doctrine, funded by petro-dollars, is trying to make inroads into the U.S., so I feel we as a society ought to keep tabs on that influence, as well as other forms of creeping Islamic extremism. Because these forms of Islam, as practiced, are (or at least would be if we gave them half a chance) a threat to our Constitutional society.

No quibbles there. LGF has brought together people from all walks of life who agreed on, if anything, that radical Islam is a (often underplayed, by the Left) threat to the civilized world. Vigilance is the least common denominator of any measures proposed to counter it. But that's not what you were arguing up-thread. You were talking about Rapeology, far-fetched thought experiments, nonexistent dilemmas on the constitutional channels for treating the Muslim faith, or the inherent essential nature of Islam.

I greatly appreciate that what Charles is trying to do -- to not go overboard in siding with bigots, nor to lay back awaiting our own self-deserved doom along with the moonbats, but to take the middle road of reasoned moderation -- is the hardest route of all. It is so easy to slip into extremist thinking at either end of the spectrum, and Charles is to be commended for holding the line in the center.

Charles may or may not second me on this, and I don't mean to speak on his behalf, but personally, I detest the word "moderate," and in this case I suggest using the term "rational" instead. "Moderate" carries with it a whiff of lilly-liver-ness, a lack of confidence in one's convictions, and an approximation to the right course as an arithmetic average of other people's extreme ideas. Aristotle was the first proponent of "moderation," "the golden middle," as a proxy for sanity. But the moderate position has evolved over time, and different across societies. The rational position, on the other hand, holds more promise toward objectivity and universal applicability. We don't need to oscillate between opposing radical opinions or average them out in order to reach our own conclusions.

625 maryatexitzero  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:20:56pm

So even if Wilders succeeded in convincing everyone that Islam is not a religion, he would not be any closer to finding legal grounds for banning it, not in the U.S., at least.

Not in the U.S., but in Europe it's possible. European laws are - different. They forbid certain ideologies, symbols, books, etc. In some countries immigrants are 'guest workers', and I don't know if they are capable of becoming full citizens. Britain doesn't even have a constitution, and their libel laws are a joke. It's not clear how this message would be received there -

626 MPH  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:35:23pm

re: #623 medaura18586

Modernity serves as an acid, to dissolve, in time, the fundamentalism of any religion.

And that right there is what the radical islamists (and radical religionists of every stripe) are afraid of. Robert Spencer and his ilk make for convenient boogey men...but they are not the radicals' enemy -- Spencer is a indeed a crutch for the likes of CAIR.

627 Fritz_Katz  Fri, May 1, 2009 4:44:15pm

re: #616 Charles

And by the way, when Wilders says that he wants to deport Muslim "criminals," please note that if he gets his way, Islam is outlawed, and the right to freedom of religion is taken away from Muslims, ALL Muslims will be criminals.

This is just disgusting. And I'm appalled that anyone who calls themselves "American" could even consider it for one freaking second.

Why the "quotes" around "criminals"? They are criminals. Europe's prisons are filled with violent criminals from Muslim countries -- there are daily reports of honor killings, rapes, anti-semitic harassment, drug-dealing, ... all over Europe.

Why the quotes around "American"? Good "Americans" such as Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Lou Dobbs, Michelle Malkin,.... all think it's a good idea to deport illegal alien criminals and so do I.

US prisons are filled with illegal aliens (estimated at 33%). California could save billions in it's bloated budget by 'outsourcing' it's prison population to Latin American countries.

Wilders did not say to close ALL the mosques and deport ALL the Muslims -- he made three recommendations in the article:

1. "stop the building of new mosques. As long as no churches or synagogues are allowed to be build in countries like Saudi-Arabia we will not allow one more new mosque in our western countries." -- that sounds like reciprocity to me.

2. "Close all mosques where incitement to violence is taking place."

3. "Close all Islamic schools, for they are fascist institutions and young children should not be educated an ideology of hate and violence."

There are thousands of instances where this has been documented. You used to report on them here at LGF before you changed the direction of the site leftward.

628 Aye Pod  Fri, May 1, 2009 5:02:05pm

Fritz Katz, you have remarkably similar views to a certain Moe Katz that was banned from here last year.

629 Aye Pod  Fri, May 1, 2009 5:06:51pm

re: #627 Fritz_Katz

From Wilders speech:

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. 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.

I think we have to have a contract, in any Western Country, a contract, a binding contract signed by everybody there, of Assimiluation. We need a Pledge of Allegiance in all Western countries for people to adhere to our values as well.

We have to stop the building of new Mosques. We have to close the Mosques where incitement of violence is taking place.

We have to close down Islamic schools, for they are fascist institutions, where young people are brought up with an ideology of violence. And, last but not least, we have to get rid of the weak leaders that we have.

This is as much of his extremism that he dares to show, and it's bad enough at that. Beyond that, I'm pretty sure Wilders is smart enough to be able to figure out where the attempt to implement such policies would quickly lead.

630 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 5:10:48pm

re: #627 Fritz_Katz

Why the "quotes" around "criminals"? They are criminals. Europe's prisons are filled with violent criminals from Muslim countries -- there are daily reports of honor killings, rapes, anti-semitic harassment, drug-dealing, ... all over Europe.

I notice that you completely ignored my point that by criminalizing Islam itself, you make ALL Muslims criminals.

Why the quotes around "American"?

Because I wrote "people who call themselves 'American'." The quotes are appropriate.

1. "stop the building of new mosques. As long as no churches or synagogues are allowed to be build in countries like Saudi-Arabia we will not allow one more new mosque in our western countries." -- that sounds like reciprocity to me.

2. "Close all mosques where incitement to violence is taking place."

3. "Close all Islamic schools, for they are fascist institutions and young children should not be educated an ideology of hate and violence."

You have never seen me write that we should ban the building of mosques or close all Islamic schools. That's a bigoted and stupid thing to advocate.

The direction of LGF has not changed "leftward." I refuse to climb on board the fascist train with Geert Wilders and Pamela Geller. That's not "leftward." It's being sane and responsible, instead of giving in to bigotry and idiocy.

631 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 5:12:29pm

re: #629 Jimmah

From Wilders speech:

This is as much of his extremism that he dares to show, and it's bad enough at that. Beyond that, I'm pretty sure Wilders is smart enough to be able to figure out where the attempt to implement such policies would quickly lead.

It would lead to mass violence against Muslims, very obviously. Anyone who says it's possible to carry out mass deportations without mass violence is either 1) deluded, or 2) lying.

632 Aye Pod  Fri, May 1, 2009 5:17:47pm

re: #631 Charles

Yep, and the remaining muslims - allowed to stay but only as a marked 'unwanted' group. The vibes from this are seriously unpleasant.

633 Aye Pod  Fri, May 1, 2009 5:20:18pm

I can certainly understand what fans of ethnic cleansing see in Wilder's policies. The chaos they would create would give them all kinds of opportunities.

634 [deleted]  Fri, May 1, 2009 8:22:28pm
635 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:32:47pm

re: #634 Fritz_Katz

"Leftward" is refusing to report, obfuscate, or distort the truth in order to push an agenda. It's what "leftward" publications like Newsweak or the NYT do.

Bye now! Take care.

636 Øyvind Strømmen  Mon, May 4, 2009 5:26:59am

re: #133 TS

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.

Rubbish. And rubbish yet again. Wilders comes from the Netherlands. He constantly spreads his nonsense in the media there, and as a politician in parliament. Every year dozens of books that are highly critical of Islam are published, and a number of pundits have gained attention and won success with a similar focus.

This remains the case and will remain the case in spite of the Dutch hate speech laws. While it is true that Wilders will be prosecuted for violating the Dutch legislation on hate speech, an acquittal is likely. Wilders is not a martyr for free speech. He is against free speech.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Square Cash Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Inside a Secret 2014 List of Hundreds of L.A. Deputies With Histories of Misconduct Evidence went missing, so a Deputy made some up. With taco sauce. Yet our police are protected behind a barrier of secrecy that is directly interfering with justice. He picked out a similar shirt, doused it with taco sauce ...
Unshaken Defiance
3 hours, 13 minutes ago
Views: 62 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Russia’s Putin Visits Syria Airbase and Orders Start of Pullout Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered the partial withdrawal of Russian troops from Syria, during an unannounced visit there on Monday. Mr Putin was met by Syrian President Bashar Assad as he arrived at the Russian Hmeimim air base, ...
Thanos
5 hours, 31 minutes ago
Views: 79 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Orkestra Obsolete Play Blue Monday Using 1930s Instruments - BBC Arts More information: bbc.in New Order's Blue Monday was released on 7 March 1983, and its cutting-edge electronic groove changed pop music forever. But what would it have sounded like if it had been made 50 years earlier? In a ...
Thanos
1 day, 2 hours ago
Views: 120 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Tune-Yards - ABC 123 (Official Video) 'ABC 123' by Tune-Yards. New album 'I can feel you creep into my private life' is released January 19th 2018: smarturl.it Director: Dear Mr QuistgaardProducer: Abi Atkinson, LS ProductionsCommissioner: Gabe Spierer, Beggars GroupExec Producer: Saskia Whinney, SomesuchDOP: Deepa KeshvalaEditor: ...
Thanos
1 day, 2 hours ago
Views: 98 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Funding Restrictions Have Made Gun Violence Researchers Get Creative A study published Thursday concludes that a subsequent increase in gun exposure led to more accidental firearm deaths than otherwise would have occurred in the months after the school shooting. "It was the spike [in sales] itself that sort ...
Thanos
1 day, 4 hours ago
Views: 119 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Recycling Chaos in U.S. As China Bans ‘Foreign Waste’ Like many Portland residents, Satish and Arlene Palshikar are serious recyclers. Their house is coated with recycled bluish-white paint. They recycle their rainwater, compost their food waste and carefully separate the paper and plastic they toss out. But recently, ...
Thanos
1 day, 5 hours ago
Views: 187 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 2 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Trump Jerusalem Move: Tear Gas at Lebanon US Embassy Protest There have been violent clashes near the US embassy in Lebanon, in the latest protest against President Donald Trump's decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Security forces fired tear gas and water cannon to force back ...
Thanos
1 day, 5 hours ago
Views: 142 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 3 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Trump Says He and Trudeau Disagree on Trade Deficit. U.S. Stats Seem to Be on the PM’s SideHair Furor just can't seem to catch a break these days....Despite Trump's insistence the U.S. has a trade deficit with Canada, statistics from the website of the office of the U.S. Trade Representative -- the office handling NAFTA negotiations -- ...
The Major
1 day, 11 hours ago
Views: 177 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Blondie - Doom or Destiny (Official Video)Blondie performing "Doom or Destiny" from the new album "Pollinator".Out Now: blondie.lnk.to Follow Blondiefacebook.cominstagram.com@BlondieOfficial vevo.ly
Thanos
2 days, 13 hours ago
Views: 260 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 2
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Beth Hart & Joe Bonamassa - Black Coffee (Official Music Video) Official video for Black Coffee from the new Beth Hart & Joe Bonamassa album Black Coffee. Pre-order: smarturl.it BLACK COFFEE is available to pre-order on CD and vinyl. The limited CD box includes 2 coasters, a postcard and an ...
Thanos
2 days, 14 hours ago
Views: 1,283 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0