A Reply to Power Line’s Paul Mirengoff on Geert Wilders

Opinion • Views: 5,414

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line defends Geert Wilders against accusations that he’s a “fascist:” Who are the fascists in Europe?

Read the whole thing for the context of Mirengoff’s argument (he quotes from an article at Brussels Journal, a Belgian blog connected to the far right Vlaams Belang that has published articles favorable to the BNP and other far right groups), but I’ll take issue with this section of the conclusion:

Wilders takes some positions with which I do not agree; for example, banning the Koran. But his general position with respect to Muslims in Dutch society is reasonable, not extreme. He opposes mass immigration, especially from Muslim countries, and wants Muslims to assimilate into a Dutch society.

Just to be clear, I don’t label Wilders as a “fascist,” myself. However, there are two positions he has expressed publicly that should be noted:

  • Wilders advocates banning the Koran as “hate speech,” treating it like Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
  • Wilders advocates stripping Muslims of constitutional rights to freedom of religion. He wants to redefine Islam as a political ideology and make it illegal.

Wilders essentially wants to criminalize Islam itself. It’s hard to see how this equates to simply wanting “Muslims to assimilate into a Dutch society.” You might be able to argue that those positions aren’t “fascist” by a classical definition, but they certainly have more than a whiff of totalitarianism about them.

Everyone is free to make their own decision about where to draw the line.

But this is where I draw it.

Profoundly anti-democratic positions like those, and his associations with extremists in the US and Europe, are why I cannot support Geert Wilders.

Banning books and religions? Nope, sorry, not down with that.

At Power Line, a reader has replied to Paul’s post, disputing Wilders’ claim that the Netherlands is facing “Islamification:”

My credentials: I live in the NL and have for 40 years now.

This piece is a joke, La Pen -> anti-Semite = BAD, Wilders = anti-Islam = GOOD. Just based on this little trick of logic that makes my head spin disqualifies the “writer” of this piece and shows his credentials. Anything after that is just window dressing.

Wilder make statements that make no sense, and are parroted here. Islamification of NL? You have of course checked these numbers, right? I have (happy to send you the spreadsheet) and even after tweaking the parameters to favour Wilders idiocy to the max the Islamification is successful somewhere around the year 3200. Tweaking the parameters back to normal, the answer is: never.

No, Wilders is a populist that will say and do anything to get to power and preying on peoples prejudices is ALL he has. He is loved by certain parts of the US just because he is anti-Islam, and they agree and love him blindly. Mind you, the same folks just hate holocaust deniers, while supporting Wilders is just that, denying the danger of populists.

Yes, we have all seen this before and know where it leads us. Wilders is a nut case and does not deserve to be treated in any other way.

Jump to bottom

216 comments
1 Yashmak  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:22:51pm
Wilders is a populist that will say and do anything to get to power and preying on peoples prejudices is ALL he has.

That seems to be a common thread amongst folks like the BNP, Velams Belaan, the Glen Becks, etc. etc.

2 [deleted]  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:24:25pm
3 Son of the Black Dog  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:24:47pm

The more I learn about Islam, the more strongly I believe that it IS primarily a political institution, dedicated to social control, but wrapped in a thin veneer of religion. Not that I think we should ban it, but it does need to go through a reformation.

4 Racer X  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:26:20pm
Wilders advocates stripping Muslims of constitutional rights to freedom of religion. He wants to redefine Islam as a political ideology and make it illegal.

I keep trying to wrap my head around this one.

Is Islam truly a "religion"? By what definition?

Islam, to me, appears to be way more than simply a religion. It is a culture; it is a form of government; it is a form of social justice.

Spirituality? Not so much. It seems more about control and power. Kinda like the mafia.

My vote? Not a religion.

5 MrSilverDragon  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:26:31pm

re: #3 Son of the Black Dog

The more I learn about Islam, the more strongly I believe that it IS primarily a political institution, dedicated to social control, but wrapped in a thin veneer of religion. Not that I think we should ban it, but it does need to go through a reformation.

I'm not sure a reformation is enough, a complete overhaul perhaps.

6 apachegunner  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:27:03pm

re: #1 Yashmak

That seems to be a common thread amongst folks like the BNP, Velams Belaan, the Glen Becks, etc. etc.


hahaha, putting Glenn Beck in some extreme company huh?

7 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:27:26pm

The Powerline article relies pretty much exclusively on writings from Brussels Journal. BJ is a BNP supporting blog full of neo-fascists and paleocon freaks.

8 CyanSnowHawk  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:27:36pm

re: #2 taxfreekiller

Well, I see Rorschach has checked in.

/Hrrmm

9 J.S.  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:29:39pm

re: #4 Racer X

WHAT? (have you been reading Hooman Majd? ! ?)

/just joking

10 apachegunner  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:30:06pm

re: #2 taxfreekiller
TFK I think that is 53% of 28% of all voters, of which 72% didn't bother.

11 Yashmak  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:30:36pm

re: #6 apachegunner

hahaha, putting Glenn Beck in some extreme company huh?

I suppose, but he's got some pretty extreme stuff to say too, from time to time. He may not be preying on exactly the same predjudices, but it seems to me that his popularity is largely based on preying on folks predjudices just the same.

12 lawhawk  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:30:55pm

re: #3 Son of the Black Dog

Reformation? Funny you mention that since folks like the Salafists/Wahabists consider themselves the reformists - bringing Islam back in touch with its roots, and weeding out the nonbelievers from the believers.

There is political Islam and there is a spiritual/religious Islam, but Islam has not truly been influenced, or allowed itself to be influenced, by the concept of separation of church and state to the extent that Judaism and Christianity were.

The European concept of free speech is quite different than here in the US, and while I find the banning of certain speech and religious views just wrong, the Europeans clearly do not - using and abusing their WWII experience as a guide. They think that banning such speech is the proper course of action, even though it drives the haters further underground and does little to end the hate. Wilders is playing to a very narrow crowd, and while he should have the right to say what he wants, he also has the right to be ridiculed and exposed for his insidious views such as they are.

13 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:30:58pm

re: #6 apachegunner

hahaha, putting Glenn Beck in some extreme company huh?

I actually think it's a little unfair to the Nazis. Glenn Beck is batshit insane, at least the Euronazis know what they're doing. Beck is just a conspiracy loon.

14 apachegunner  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:31:48pm

re: #11 Yashmak

re: #13 Killgore Trout

but some of his stuff makes sense dontcha think?

15 Eowyn2  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:32:11pm

The Thug followers of Kali waylaid (usually killing) travelers and stealing from them. They considered this a form of worship to their many armed goddess. Thuggery was outlawed in India per Britain.

If the Hindus in any western country decided to start worshipping Kali in the form of Thuggery, it would be outlawed.
I do not see much difference in killing travelers for a god than killing infidels for a god. As long as there are people willing to use the Koran as an excuse to murder innocents, we will be having this discussion.

The Netherlands can fight this by enacting and prosecuting for murder, rape, intimidation, etc. But will the Netherlands (or England) start to fight back with the laws they have on the books and which they can enact to minimize the influence of the jihadi preachers?

16 Yashmak  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:33:23pm

re: #13 Killgore Trout

I actually think it's a little unfair to the Nazis. Glenn Beck is batshit insane, at least the Euronazis know what they're doing. Beck is just a conspiracy loon.

lol, agreed. Actually, I was afraid of spelling Pamela Geller's name incorrectly, and having 50 different Lizards call me on it. . .and I was too lazy to just look it up :)

17 jcm  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:33:23pm

re: #3 Son of the Black Dog

The more I learn about Islam, the more strongly I believe that it IS primarily a political institution, dedicated to social control, but wrapped in a thin veneer of religion. Not that I think we should ban it, but it does need to go through a reformation.

Islam doesn't separate the religion and the politics. The religion demands political control. The are so commingled as to be inseparable. Islam demands "virtue" and that "virtuous" behavior will be imposed by a theocracy.

18 Yashmak  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:34:23pm

re: #14 apachegunner

re: #13 Killgore Trout

but some of his stuff makes sense dontcha think?

Sure, but then again, some of Ron Paul's stuff makes sense too. If only it weren't tainted by THE CRAZY. . . .

19 [deleted]  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:34:54pm
20 CyanSnowHawk  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:35:01pm

re: #17 jcm

The are so commingled as to be inseparable.

Insert joke about dogs and water hoses here.

21 apachegunner  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:35:09pm

re: #18 Yashmak

yeah, with the zero in office Paul is looking better and better

22 J.S.  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:35:42pm

re: #17 jcm

well, no, I don't think so...actually there are a number of nation-states (cultures) which are Islamic and which also have a tradition of separation of mosque/state...

23 [deleted]  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:36:11pm
24 Deseeded  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:37:12pm

You can't argue with that commenter. Geert is doing exactly what our pols do to us...pandering like a mofo. Is it 4pm yet? Time to start the weekend?

25 Ben Hur  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:37:50pm

Wilders is the moral equivalent of Le Pen?

OK.

Medication time.

BBL.

26 CyanSnowHawk  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:39:52pm

re: #18 Yashmak

Sure, but then again, some of Ron Paul's stuff makes sense too. If only it weren't tainted by THE CRAZY. . . .


Ron Paul Kitteh

27 jcm  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:40:37pm

re: #22 J.S.

well, no, I don't think so...actually there are a number of nation-states (cultures) which are Islamic and which also have a tradition of separation of mosque/state...

Turkey, but the Islamists aren't happy. I should clarify, the more radical islamists. The countries that are trying to have more secular governments also have problems with the islamists.

28 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:40:38pm

re: #7 Killgore Trout

The Powerline article relies pretty much exclusively on writings from Brussels Journal. BJ is a BNP supporting blog full of neo-fascists and paleocon freaks.

Right. Just added a note about that.

29 subsailor68  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:40:51pm

re: #10 apachegunner

TFK I think that is 53% of 28% of all voters, of which 72% didn't bother.

Hi apachegunner!! According to Wiki:

If the Voting Eligible Population was 212,720,027 and there were 131,256,905 valid ballots counted (finally tally), then 61.7% of eligible voters voted in the 2008 Election.

So, if we round up to 62 percent, and Obama got 52 percent of the vote, the total percent of "eligible" voters who put him into office is about 32 percent.

Pretty dismal, isn't it? 38 percent didn't even bother to vote, and he came into office by winning just 52 percent of those who did!

30 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:42:36pm

Freedom of Conscience, the right to own your own mind, is a principle I will not abandon. If someone is wrong, we will have to convince them they are wrong, and you cannot do that by oppressing people. Show them a better way; show them the truth.

31 Sharmuta  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:43:02pm
Wilders advocates stripping Muslims of constitutional rights to freedom of religion. He wants to redefine Islam as a political ideology and make it illegal.

More than this- he wants to strip them of their citizenship if they commit a crime and then deport them. Of course- if the koran is banned, that would making owning a koran a crime....

32 [deleted]  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:43:35pm
33 koedo  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:44:44pm

It will always be difficult to deal with Islam in Europe or anywhere else Muslims immigrate en masse. For Islam is a religion not just a religion, it's also a political persuasion by default. When a belief system literally dictates you daily life from the time you rise to the time you go to sleep, the crossover from belief system to political system is unavoidable.

In the case of Islam, the Prophet set an example where by persuasion means ultimatums and the tip of the sword. You have to allow that there's a very high probability that Muslims will employ to the tactics of Mohamed himself if their demands are not addressed in a free society. Contemporary history is full of such examples. It's not racist or bigoted to allow for the lessons of history when considering who and who is not allowed into any given country.

34 Eowyn2  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:44:59pm

re: #19 buzzsawmonkey

OT
MSM artists insanely on board with Obamacare. Mmmmmmmm, Koolaid.

Add the insurance personnel to the unemployment rolls along with bank and auto and, guess who, the UNION personnel. That's right. When there aren't enough employed participants in a union (nurses union, auto workers, steel workers, miners, trash collectors, data entry personnel, housekeeping departments) the unions will have to start laying off as well. Can nobody see past their nose?

35 [deleted]  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:45:25pm
36 subsailor68  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:46:10pm

re: #32 taxfreekiller

the 38% who are just "present" get the results too
see tfk's #23

Absolutely spot on! Part of which (depending on which way they might have voted) makes it so frustrating. The old:

"Hey, I didn't vote...don't blame me." crap isn't working for me.

37 J.S.  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:47:24pm

re: #27 jcm

yes. Historically in many Islamic countries, the clerics and the politicians/rulers were separate...different institutions...(it was the Iranian Revolution of 1979, for example, which brought together the clerics and rulers of Iran into one and the same body...thus ending one of the longest ever monarchies, the Shahs, in human history..)

38 Eowyn2  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:47:42pm

re: #19 buzzsawmonkey

OT
MSM artists insanely on board with Obamacare. Mmmmmmmm, Koolaid.

those commentors sure don't like Montana. Evidently not enough people live here!

39 CommonCents  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:48:10pm

re: #29 subsailor68

Hi apachegunner!! According to Wiki:

If the Voting Eligible Population was 212,720,027 and there were 131,256,905 valid ballots counted (finally tally), then 61.7% of eligible voters voted in the 2008 Election.

So, if we round up to 62 percent, and Obama got 52 percent of the vote, the total percent of "eligible" voters who put him into office is about 32 percent.
blockquote>

Now that's a mandate!
/

40 opnion  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:49:53pm

re: #17 jcm

Islam doesn't separate the religion and the politics. The religion demands political control. The are so commingled as to be inseparable. Islam demands "virtue" and that "virtuous" behavior will be imposed by a theocracy.

Islam is not merely a religion, it is a way of life & ideology.
The problem is that it literally teaches hate for & violence against
Infidels. Somebody mentioned it earlier, Islam badly needs a Reformation,but you can't ban ideas.

41 [deleted]  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:50:35pm
42 Ringo the Gringo  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:52:03pm
Everyone is free to make their own decision about where to draw the line.

But this is where I draw it.

Profoundly anti-democratic positions like those, and his associations with extremists in the US and Europe, are why I cannot support Geert Wilders.

Banning books and religions — nope, sorry, not down with that.

I have to agree with you, Charles.

It's too bad, because Europe could certainly use a political figure with the courage to speak out against multi-culturalism, and the very real effects that large, un-assimilated immigrant populations can have on the host culture...especially if a substantial percentage of the un-assimilated population is actually hostile to the indigenous culture.

Unfortunately, Europe appears to have virtually no reasonable politicians to speak for the legitimate concerns of millions of ordinary citizens.

43 Nevergiveup  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:52:48pm

House Panel to Launch Investigation Into CIA Secret Al Qaeda Plan
Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Tex., chairman of the committee, announced the investigation in a statement Friday, saying the inquiry "will focus on the core issue of how the congressional intelligence committees and Congress are kept fully and currently informed."

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

These assholes are going to get us killed

44 CommonCents  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:53:06pm

re: #42 Ringo the Gringo

Unfortunately, Europe appears to have virtually no reasonable politicians to speak for the legitimate concerns of millions of ordinary citizens.

It's not just in Europe. That crap is all over the place.

45 Eowyn2  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:54:00pm

re: #31 Sharmuta

More than this- he wants to strip them of their citizenship if they commit a crime and then deport them. Of course- if the koran is banned, that would making owning a koran a crime....

Is Wilder's talking about Netherlands citizens or naturalized citizens or those waiting for citizenship?

If a naturalized citizen of the US is found guilty of a crime, can we deport them?

I don't believe owning a Koran should be a crime. Just as I think people should read Mein Kampf and Mao's little red book.

46 [deleted]  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:54:05pm
47 CommonCents  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:54:08pm

re: #43 Nevergiveup

House Panel to Launch Investigation Into CIA Secret Al Qaeda Plan
Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Tex., chairman of the committee, announced the investigation in a statement Friday, saying the inquiry "will focus on the core issue of how the congressional intelligence committees and Congress are kept fully and currently informed."

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

These assholes are going to get us killed

I really can't find the downside to a program of assassinating Al Qaeda leaders. Is it just me?

48 quiet man  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:55:02pm

re: #46 Iron Fist

The intent is to protect Nancy and keep the real moonbats occupied

and who ever gets in the way, so be it

49 Yashmak  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:55:10pm

re: #31 Sharmuta

More than this- he wants to strip them of their citizenship if they commit a crime and then deport them. Of course- if the koran is banned, that would making owning a koran a crime....

Well, wouldn't that be all neat and tidy then? These folks never cease to amaze and confound me.

50 Eowyn2  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:55:12pm

re: #37 J.S.

yes. Historically in many Islamic countries, the clerics and the politicians/rulers were separate...different institutions...(it was the Iranian Revolution of 1979, for example, which brought together the clerics and rulers of Iran into one and the same body...thus ending one of the longest ever monarchies, the Shahs, in human history..)

In more ancient history, the village headman was generally the law and the religion.

51 subsailor68  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:55:17pm

Banning books is just something I've never, ever understood. It makes no sense. If conservatives want to ban some books, and liberals want to ban others - and I'd bet no book would overlap onto both lists - I'm pretty sure that by the end of the day, the libraries would be empty.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no "I'm against banning books in general, but..." argument that holds water.

52 Nevergiveup  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:55:50pm

re: #47 CommonCents

I really can't find the downside to a program of assassinating Al Qaeda leaders. Is it just me?

Kinda like Iran-Contra sounded good to me.

53 jaunte  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:55:55pm

It's curious that so few people can find a way to criticize totalitarian ideas without choosing to use some in their attempts to fix the problem.

54 CyanSnowHawk  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:57:20pm

re: #38 Eowyn2

those commentors sure don't like Montana. Evidently not enough people live here!

I don't think my comment will be approved, but I lobbed it in anyway.

55 jaunte  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:57:51pm

oops, it's meeting time. brb.

56 quiet man  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:57:55pm

re: #53 jaunte That is because if the totaltarian is worth their salt, they are far beyond the "talking them out of it" stage and need force to make them comply.

57 [deleted]  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:57:56pm
58 quiet man  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:58:36pm

re: #57 Iron Fist
Commie

/grin

59 J.S.  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:59:17pm

re: #45 Eowyn2

"If a naturalized citizen of the US is found guilty of a crime, can we deport them?"

No. They are the same as any other American...whether by birth or naturalized, once American -- that's it...all treated alike (unless, of course, an applicant lies on a citizenship form -- if caught, then, I suppose, one's citizenship could be revoked, etc.)

60 [deleted]  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:59:43pm
61 Sharmuta  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 12:59:59pm

I'm glad they received that comment from an actual Dutch citizen. Seems most of the right-wing blogosphere has no idea they're using bad sources on this issue; it's LGF that's ahead of the learning curve. Until the Powerline guys and others start examining their sources on "islamification of europe", we'll continue to see support for the friends of the fascist enablers.

62 Nevergiveup  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:00:05pm

Protection?

63 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:00:14pm

re: #53 jaunte

It's curious that so few people can find a way to criticize totalitarian ideas without choosing to use some in their attempts to fix the problem.

Far too many people are far too quick to either suggest or embrace totalitarian ideas for their percieved problems. We saw it yesterday with Ecoscience, and we see it today with Geert Wilders, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

64 quiet man  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:00:37pm

Also read what Ayn Rand has to say, Sun Tzu, Robert Heinlein, and Chis Muir as well.

65 Yashmak  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:00:41pm

re: #53 jaunte

It's curious that so few people can find a way to criticize totalitarian ideas without choosing to use some in their attempts to fix the problem.

That's because (I suspect), many of the names that keep recurring in Charles' articles as criticizing totalitarian ideas aren't really anti totalitarian at all. . .they just prefer THEIR totalitarianism to that of the folks they criticize.

66 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:01:51pm

re: #45 Eowyn2

Is Wilder's talking about Netherlands citizens or naturalized citizens or those waiting for citizenship?

If a naturalized citizen of the US is found guilty of a crime, can we deport them?

I don't believe owning a Koran should be a crime. Just as I think people should read Mein Kampf and Mao's little red book.

Absolutely. Then they'll recognize those idea when they pop back up like the bad penny they are.

67 quiet man  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:02:17pm

re: #65 Yashmak

We take our totalitarian a fore tiffen in these parts, mistah.
And we take it straight.

68 Nevergiveup  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:02:23pm

House Democrats Use Key Votes to Rally Support to Health Care Plan, Despite Hurdles
White House and Democrats are struggling to bring a complex, controversial bill to remake the U.S. health care system to a vote in both houses of Congress before lawmakers recess. A bill passed two key committees Friday.

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

No point in taking your time and getting one of the most important ( or disastrous in my opinion) pieces of legislation in the past 50 years correct. That would make to much sense?

69 Yashmak  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:03:35pm

re: #57 Iron Fist

I've read Mao's little Red Book. I've read Mao on guerilla Warfare, as well. Read what the enemy has to say.

I'd say the same about Obama. Read what they have to say.

Absolutely. Sun Tzu suggests as much in his simple proverb:
"So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a thousand battles without a single loss.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself. "

70 CommonCents  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:03:44pm

re: #13 Killgore Trout

I actually think it's a little unfair to the Nazis. Glenn Beck is batshit insane, at least the Euronazis know what they're doing. Beck is just a conspiracy loon.

KT, sorry about that violation of rule #5. I just don't understand the visceral hatred of Glenn Beck. Yeah, he's a bit loony, but the constant [insert conservative name here] is worst than the Nazi line is tiresome.

71 Eowyn2  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:04:41pm

re: #54 CyanSnowHawk

I don't think my comment will be approved, but I lobbed it in anyway.

good luck

72 haakondahl  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:04:51pm

re: #3 Son of the Black Dog

The more I learn about Islam, the more strongly I believe that it IS primarily a political institution, dedicated to social control, but wrapped in a thin veneer of religion. Not that I think we should ban it, but it does need to go through a reformation.

re: #4 Racer X

I keep trying to wrap my head around this one.

Is Islam truly a "religion"? By what definition?

Islam, to me, appears to be way more than simply a religion. It is a culture; it is a form of government; it is a form of social justice.

Spirituality? Not so much. It seems more about control and power. Kinda like the mafia.

My vote? Not a religion.

re: #17 jcm

Islam doesn't separate the religion and the politics. The religion demands political control. The are so commingled as to be inseparable. Islam demands "virtue" and that "virtuous" behavior will be imposed by a theocracy.

Be careful in ascribing the motivations of a billion people to a fundamentalist interpretation of the faith. What you say will be true for some and not true for others. The challenge is in discerning the numbers--I know of one sure way to make the numbers turn out the wrong way, and no sure way to make it right.
There have been several liberalizing reformations of Islam attempted, but the chronic, endemic mismanagement of an entire swath of the world has resulted in the failure of all but the most simple, pernicious, ignorant movements. Their Martin Luthers have all been killed by their Torquemadas.

73 CyanSnowHawk  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:05:38pm

re: #68 Nevergiveup

House Democrats Use Key Votes to Rally Support to Health Care Plan, Despite Hurdles
White House and Democrats are struggling to bring a complex, controversial bill to remake the U.S. health care system to a vote in both houses of Congress before lawmakers recess. A bill passed two key committees Friday.

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

No point in taking your time and getting one of the most important ( or disastrous in my opinion) pieces of legislation in the past 50 years correct. That would make to much sense?

It's an 'hourglass' bill. The lower chamber is 'no', the upper 'yes'. Give it too much time and there's no way it will pass. Key question is, how do we delay it?

74 Eowyn2  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:06:27pm

re: #59 J.S.

"If a naturalized citizen of the US is found guilty of a crime, can we deport them?"

No. They are the same as any other American...whether by birth or naturalized, once American -- that's it...all treated alike (unless, of course, an applicant lies on a citizenship form -- if caught, then, I suppose, one's citizenship could be revoked, etc.)

What if they break the oath?

75 Nevergiveup  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:06:28pm

re: #73 CyanSnowHawk

It's an 'hourglass' bill. The lower chamber is 'no', the upper 'yes'. Give it too much time and there's no way it will pass. Key question is, how do we delay it?

Any and every way possible

76 opnion  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:06:30pm

re: #47 CommonCents

I really can't find the downside to a program of assassinating Al Qaeda leaders. Is it just me?

This is great , as I understand it the program was conceptual & never implemented, so let's let Al Queda know what CIA thinking is.
This is really banana republic stuff going after the last administration.

77 jcm  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:06:59pm

re: #57 Iron Fist

I've read Mao's little Red Book. I've read Mao on guerilla Warfare, as well. Read what the enemy has to say.

I'd say the same about Obama. Read what they have to say.

I question your ideology purity by contaminating you mind with those "foreign" ideas.

//////

Seems like we've had a very similar reading list.......

78 JarHeadLifer  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:07:01pm

re: #3 Son of the Black Dog

The more I learn about Islam, the more strongly I believe that it IS primarily a political institution, dedicated to social control, but wrapped in a thin veneer of religion. Not that I think we should ban it, but it does need to go through a reformation.

I think this is exactly right. And, Islam is in good company. Not too many centuries ago, it could be argued that the Roman Catholic Church was primarily a political institution. As far as religions go, Islam is quite young and seems to be acting it's age.

While I'm sympathetic to some of the European concerns about growing Muslim populations not endeavoring to assimilate into their host's culture, I think that they (the European countries) have to approach it in a more open-minded fashion giving greater deference to basic human rights. Until that happens, they won't be in a very strong position to more leverage their goodwill for more substantive change within their respective Muslim immigrant communities.

79 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:07:14pm

re: #76 opnion

This is great , as I understand it the program was conceptual & never implemented, so let's let Al Queda know what CIA thinking is.
This is really banana republic stuff going after the last administration.

It's dumb, too. Someday they'll be "the last administration."

Maybe they're just counting on the conservatives to play by the rules that they themselves ignore.

80 SurferDoc  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:07:29pm

All of this emphasis on the resurgence of fascistic ideas in Europe should not distract us from an important truth. There is a group of people who want all of us to submit to their religion and/or their rule and who are prepared to kill us over it. Which poses the greater danger?

81 Eowyn2  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:08:41pm

re: #64 quiet man

Also read what Ayn Rand has to say, Sun Tzu, Robert Heinlein, and Chis Muir as well.


so quiet and so powerful

82 J.S.  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:08:50pm

re: #74 Eowyn2

Well, as I understand it, the Oath is a formality...(and, I don't believe that all are required to take said oath, etc.)...

83 Sharmuta  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:09:01pm

re: #53 jaunte

It's curious that so few people can find a way to criticize totalitarian ideas without choosing to use some in their attempts to fix the problem.

The europeans have the same issues as many Americans- they don't know the proper role and scope of government. Think it explains europe's frequent political upheavals, frankly.

84 Nevergiveup  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:09:37pm

re: #76 opnion

This is great , as I understand it the program was conceptual & never implemented, so let's let Al Queda know what CIA thinking is.
This is really banana republic stuff going after the last administration.

I think the Congress should investigate the proposed plans of the the "War Department" to invade main land Japan. It was clearly illegal and crazy. Come Democrats investigate that

85 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:10:01pm

re: #70 CommonCents

Sorry, Glenn Beck is a jabbering lunatic. There's really no doubt about it.

86 jcm  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:10:01pm

re: #72 haakondahl

Agreed over broad generalization, I clarified my point to the more radical islamists.

87 poteen  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:10:31pm

re: #57 Iron Fist

I've read Mao's little Red Book. I've read Mao on guerilla Warfare, as well. Read what the enemy has to say.

I'd say the same about Obama. Read what they have to say.

Killing time many years ago I read a little of Herr Hitler's Mein Kampf.
The logic, conclusions and general tone always come to mind when I read a Huffpo comment thread. :)

88 Nevergiveup  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:11:36pm

re: #85 Killgore Trout

Sorry, Glenn Beck is a jabbering lunatic. There's really no doubt about it.

And so are half of the commentators on CNN, MSNBC,CBS, and ABC. But who's counting.

89 Sharmuta  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:11:44pm

re: #80 SurferDoc

All of this emphasis on the resurgence of fascistic ideas in Europe should not distract us from an important truth. There is a group of people who want all of us to submit to their religion and/or their rule and who are prepared to kill us over it. Which poses the greater danger?

They are equal dangers!

90 wahabicorridor  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:12:05pm

re: #43 Nevergiveup

House Panel to Launch Investigation Into CIA Secret Al Qaeda Plan
Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Tex., chairman of the committee, announced the investigation in a statement Friday, saying the inquiry "will focus on the core issue of how the congressional intelligence committees and Congress are kept fully and currently informed."

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

Isn't Reyes the loon who is always trying to get term limits on the Presidency removed?

These assholes are going to get us killed

91 itellu3times  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:12:55pm
Yes, we have all seen this before and know where it leads us. Wilders is a nut case and does not deserve to be treated in any other way.

One can debate this or that public position, but it's when the debatable position is held by a nutcase who famously holds other repugnant positions, that there seems no occassion to actually have the debate. Or at least, that's when the arguments start.

92 subsailor68  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:13:09pm

OT, and not really important in the great scheme of things:

Tiger Woods misses cut at British Open

So, why do I post it? Well, TNT had the first two days' coverage, with Tiger in the field. When Tiger isn't playing, or misses the cut, television ratings usually drop dramatically.

And who picks up the coverage tomorrow? ABC! Ha! Sucks big time, eh guys?

(And yes, for lizard golf fans, it's still going to be a great tournament. Tom Watson, you go for it!)

93 Nevergiveup  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:13:16pm

re: #90 wahabicorridor

I don't think that is him. It is some congressman from the Bronx I think. Soreno or something like that?

94 Nevergiveup  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:13:59pm

re: #92 subsailor68

OT, and not really important in the great scheme of things:

Tiger Woods misses cut at British Open

So, why do I post it? Well, TNT had the first two days' coverage, with Tiger in the field. When Tiger isn't playing, or misses the cut, television ratings usually drop dramatically.

And who picks up the coverage tomorrow? ABC! Ha! Sucks big time, eh guys?

(And yes, for lizard golf fans, it's still going to be a great tournament. Tom Watson, you go for it!)

That is big news. And real bad for the TV ratings.

95 haakondahl  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:14:16pm

re: #14 apachegunner

re: #13 Killgore Trout

but some of his stuff makes sense dontcha think?

In Wahhabism, undue reverence for Mohammed is seen as idol worship, as Allah is God, not Mohammed (their words, not mine). Which makes sense, dontcha think?
Yet Wahhabism is the most pernicious of the doctrines holding that Islam and Democracy are incompatible.

96 opnion  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:14:23pm

re: #68 Nevergiveup

House Democrats Use Key Votes to Rally Support to Health Care Plan, Despite Hurdles
White House and Democrats are struggling to bring a complex, controversial bill to remake the U.S. health care system to a vote in both houses of Congress before lawmakers recess. A bill passed two key committees Friday.

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

No point in taking your time and getting one of the most important ( or disastrous in my opinion) pieces of legislation in the past 50 years correct. That would make to much sense?

BHO is in my opinion among oter things very chidish, he wants what he wants right now. He wants everything at one time & does not like dissent.
This Health Bill can't stand the light of day , so pass it now!
He & other supporters of this bill can't point to anywhere a single payer system is superior to the U.S system, yet they lay the groundwork for it.

97 wahabicorridor  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:14:25pm

re: #93 Nevergiveup

I don't think that is him. It is some congressman from the Bronx I think. Soreno or something like that?

Ah, thanks!

98 CommonCents  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:14:59pm

re: #76 opnion

This is great , as I understand it the program was conceptual & never implemented, so let's let Al Queda know what CIA thinking is.
This is really banana republic stuff going after the last administration.

Perhaps it a rope-a-dope but that's too smart by half for the Dems. At least Al Qaeda knows there are no CIA sniper teams out to get them now. If I were one of the bad guys I would have expected as much up until now.

What's ironic is that we do have special forces hunting their leadership with a forward air controller who can order in a JDAM, but it's some fracture of the government if we only call in a bullet. It's all so stupid.

99 shortshrift  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:15:03pm

On banning religions and books:
Religion qua religion is not immune from being included in proscriptions of hate speech - once one permits such proscriptions (which I would not). But even if Islam were defined as a political ideology equivalent to Nazism, banning it would be as futile as banning Nazism has been, and banning the Koran would be as futile as banning Mein Kampf, or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Several European nations have resorted to legal proscriptions of parties and books (or religious symbols like the veil) in the effort to control thought or promote assimilation. The habits of totalitarianism die hard. It is not extreme in Europe to reach for the criminal statute books as an answer to perceived social ills. After all, the left did it with "hate speech". Ironically, the actual enforcement of criminal laws has been compromised in Britain, France, Norway, The Netherlands and Germany, by tolerating an Islamic exception.

100 opnion  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:16:01pm

re: #79 EmmmieG

It's dumb, too. Someday they'll be "the last administration."

Maybe they're just counting on the conservatives to play by the rules that they themselves ignore.

It is dumb, they are setting the precednt & there will be lots to go after this group of crooks.

101 Nevergiveup  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:16:27pm

re: #97 wahabicorridor

Ah, thanks!

Here it is:

New York's 16th Congressional District Representative, Jose Serrano, sponsored a proposed amendment to the Constitution to repeal the 22nd Amendment which currently limits how many terms a President can be in office.

102 Render  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:16:55pm

re: #43 Nevergiveup

Wait until they figure out that the assassination program was started during the Clinton administration, and they were informed of it at that time.

NOT
NEWS,
R

103 CommonCents  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:17:45pm

re: #85 Killgore Trout

Sorry, Glenn Beck is a jabbering lunatic. There's really no doubt about it.

That's better.

104 yochanan  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:19:28pm

[Link: www.youtube.com...]

send in the clowns.

105 opnion  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:19:48pm

re: #84 Nevergiveup

I think the Congress should investigate the proposed plans of the the "War Department" to invade main land Japan. It was clearly illegal and crazy. Come Democrats investigate that

You have just nailed it. How about D Day? that was nothing but a Democrat invasion of France. An outrage!

106 Nevergiveup  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:20:53pm

Another sports update:

A source close to the situation confirmed to ESPN.com Friday that Army and Notre Dame will play the first football game at the new Yankee Stadium in 2010.

[Link: sports.espn.go.com...]

Interesting

107 opnion  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:21:52pm

re: #101 Nevergiveup

Here it is:

New York's 16th Congressional District Representative, Jose Serrano, sponsored a proposed amendment to the Constitution to repeal the 22nd Amendment which currently limits how many terms a President can be in office.

Then we could have the Dear Leader for life. Why even bother with elections?

108 Nevergiveup  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:22:09pm

re: #105 opnion

You have just nailed it. How about D Day? that was nothing but a Democrat invasion of France. An outrage!

But the plan to invade Japan is more analogous since it was just that, a plan. Just like the CIA assassination PLAN. assholes.

109 Sharmuta  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:23:25pm

re: #99 shortshrift

The issue in Europe is they have an entirely different concept on government then we here in America. The underlying assumptions are completely different, and it gives rise to nasty counter-ideologies like communism and fascism. They don't uphold the rule of law- instead of enforcing their existing laws, they undermine their entire system by creating additional sets of rules. This is why they have "no-go" zones. The police can't enforce the law, thus creating lawless areas and wonder why things are out of control!

110 haakondahl  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:23:48pm

re: #78 JarHeadLifer

I think this is exactly right. And, Islam is in good company. Not too many centuries ago, it could be argued that the Roman Catholic Church was primarily a political institution. As far as religions go, Islam is quite young and seems to be acting it's age.

Agreed, sort of, as Islam is only about three hundred years younger than organized Christianity. And no matter what the reason, some things are unacceptable.

[snip]
I think that they (the European countries) have to approach it in a more open-minded fashion giving greater deference to basic human rights. Until that happens, they won't be in a very strong position to more leverage their goodwill for more substantive change within their respective Muslim immigrant communities.


Disagree. nevermind "leveraging goodwill" and basic human rights. Most European countries are places where human rights are simply not a problem, but pandering and lawlessness are. Enforce the laws on the books, treat everybody as equals, insist that citizens act as citizens *of that country*, and most of these probnlems go away. With assimilation come cultural relevance and upward mobility. Don't want to assimilate? Go away.

111 poteen  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:26:17pm

re: #89 Sharmuta

They are equal dangers!

They are the SAME danger. Warped ideologies to be imposed on free peoples through fear and intimidation. Can't happen if the free peoples see that similarity.

Poteen see them.
Poteen not scared.

112 haakondahl  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:26:22pm

re: #86 jcm

Agreed over broad generalization, I clarified my point to the more radical islamists.

Roger, hadn't seen your #27.

113 subsailor68  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:26:26pm

Well all, must go. There's a cold beer with my name on it at The Cowboy! I hope everyone has a terrific weekend!

114 Dianna  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:26:42pm

I have no idea if this is relevant, but the cult of Cybele/Attis/.... was banned in Rome for a period, probably because the Romans were big on fertility, and the Corybantes (priests of the cult) would castrate themselves.

That always confused me, since the Magna Mater is a fertility goddess.

115 The Other Les  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:27:43pm

I'm presently in the process of writing a science fiction novel where the religion of Islam is referred as extinct.

116 CommonCents  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:27:50pm

re: #109 Sharmuta

In a bizarre sort of way it almost makes sense. Back in the day every country in Europe had a king or some oligarchy. The only rights you had were based on what the monarchy wanted you to have. The only land you could keep is what the monarchy bestowed to you or let you keep. It's almost like a DNA strand to think that everything should come from the government.

117 haakondahl  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:27:55pm

re: #102 Render

Long time no see!

118 Annar  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:29:36pm

Qur'anic verses such as:

5:33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;

and

4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,

(there are many, many more) could be used to argue that the Qur'an is indeed loaded with hate and violence against those who happen not to believe its inane nonsense. This said, neither it nor Mein Kampf should be banned.

Books are regularly banned in some European countries such as the U.K. for politically correct reasons but one can be sure that the Bible will be banned before they touch the Qur'an.

119 Dianna  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:30:01pm

re: #115 The Other Les

I'm presently in the process of writing a science fiction novel where the religion of Islam is referred as extinct.

Query, and not a hostile one at all: is this a novel, or is it a rant?

120 haakondahl  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:31:36pm

re: #99 shortshrift
Zackly!
re: #109 Sharmuta
Zackly!

121 gander  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:32:39pm

We shouldn't have a special protection category for religions. I prefer to call them Belief Systems. Many people who claim to not be religious are more dogmatic than those who ascribe to a religion (Think global warming). Islam or Buddhism shouldn't be afforded certain protections because they are religions, but subject to the same scrutiny as any belief system.
Everybody has a belief system - except young children and sociopaths. Some are formalized and organized and can be called religions. But if that belief system is full of bad ideas or harmful concepts, it should be called to task.
It is people who need protection. Ideas can survive on their own. If you find a belief system abhorrent, say so.

122 spudly  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:33:48pm

WRT the "hate speech" argument, I'd say that having hate speech laws in the first place is wrong. That means thought crime.

If you already have hate crime laws, then the Koran could arguably indeed fit. With the Hadith it certainly suborns the murder of apostates, and it explicitly treats non-coreligionists as 2d class citizens. That said, the old testament likely does as well. Where does it end?

Better to be against the hate crime laws in the first place, as well as any idiotic "anti-defamation" nonsense. Free speech is free speech.

The "freedom of religion" argument is also context dependent. In the US (and hence to my American sensibilities) it's clearly unconstitutional, and wrong due to the clear, negative wording ("Congress shall make no law...").

On the other hand, it is my understanding that in the Netherlands, religious protection is a positively enumerated right, where the very list of religions is decided by statute. You can claim the spaghetti monster is your god, but you have no protections until that is accepted by their government (any Dutch folks can correct me if I'm mistaken). In that case, he might have an argument within their system.

Not saying I agree, I don't, I prefer the US Constitution. But within their governmental context, it might have some traction. To me, banning a political ideology is also wrong—but that is a given in Europe since they ban certain political parties.

So from an American perspective he's wrong for even more basic reasons. You shouldn't have hate crime laws in the first place, hence no loophole for a "hateful" religion to fall into, and you shouldn't ban political parties, eliminating chucking a religion into that dustbin, either.

123 debutaunt  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:34:24pm

OT "Treasury cancels plans to hire cartoonist to cheer employees."

Not from the Onion.

124 haakondahl  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:35:30pm

re: #115 The Other Les

I'm presently in the process of writing a science fiction novel where the religion of Islam is referred as extinct.


What else is extinct?

125 Sharmuta  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:36:01pm

re: #116 CommonCents

I agree- it's their long history of leadership in stark contrast to ours that gave way to the two schools of thought. The French philosophers in the time of the French Revolution didn't understand why the Americans felt the need to place checks and balances on government powers. I think Europeans are still confused as to why we maintain these separations of power. It would help if they'd ditch their anti-Americanism, so they could study our system without prejudice and learn a few things as to help themselves, but I see that as just as likely as the extremists imams in europe moderating themselves.

126 Nevergiveup  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:36:06pm

re: #124 haakondahl

What else is extinct?

This thread?

127 wrenchwench  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:36:26pm

You can't always tell what someone thinks by what they say to your face. There could be many reasons they might want to deceive you. Sometimes it helps to see what they say to somebody else, or who they hang out with and agree with.

I don't want to play "guilt by association," but I do want to perform due diligence.

Paul Mirengoff links to and quotes approvingly of Soren Kern. Soren Kern links to Brussels Journal, Human Events, and The Hudson Institute. At The Hudson Institute one find articles by Robert Spencer, and almost the very same article by A. Millar that Mirengoff linked to at Brussels Journal.

That's enough to raise my hackles.

128 BartB  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:37:33pm

If I say,
"Islam sucks toxic waste" that is IMO not a racist statement.
Islam is not a race, any more than Catholicism, or Protestantism.
You could say that Jews are an ethnic group; Arabs are an ethnic group.
Races, they are not. Nobody knows what the French are.

The Red Queen said,
"When I use a word, it means what I mean it to mean, nothing more and nothing less."
Ordinary mortals must agree to the meanings of words, or communication is very difficult. That is why Webster wrote his Dictionary.

Perhaps LGF needs to publish its own dictionary, so we will all know what we mean when we insult each other. (That, of course, does not mean we know what we are talking about.)

129 haakondahl  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:38:26pm

re: #121 gander

We shouldn't have a special protection category for religions. I prefer to call them Belief Systems. Many people who claim to not be religious are more dogmatic than those who ascribe to a religion (Think global warming). Islam or Buddhism shouldn't be afforded certain protections because they are religions, but subject to the same scrutiny as any belief system.
Everybody has a belief system - except young children and sociopaths. Some are formalized and organized and can be called religions. But if that belief system is full of bad ideas or harmful concepts, it should be called to task.
It is people who need protection. Ideas can survive on their own. If you find a belief system abhorrent, say so.


Have you ever considered that perhaps instead of elevated, religions are shuffled neatly out of government by the First?
Imagine the difficulty of conducting (say) foreign policy if every treaty would have to be shown not to be the result of any particular not-religious belief system.

130 unrealizedviewpoint  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:40:48pm

re: #128 BartB

Good idea. Someone should write a dictionary.
/

131 spudly  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:41:24pm

re: #128 BartB

It's best, IMO, to limit "racism" to mean placing people into groups based upon indelible traits.

Holding a belief system is voluntary, being against the belief system can be bigoted, but it's not racist, for example.

132 wahabicorridor  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:43:59pm

re: #127 wrenchwench

Paul Belian of Brussels Journal was with the Hudson Institute for awhile.

133 haakondahl  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:50:35pm

I'm going to hold out faith in the Powerline guys, based on past performance. Their comments section went kook, and they shut it down.

134 Sharmuta  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:54:43pm

re: #128 BartB

Perhaps LGF needs to publish its own dictionary, so we will all know what we mean when we insult each other. (That, of course, does not mean we know what we are talking about.)

I'm not sure what you're talking about here, unless it's calling someone a "fascist". Well- it's not an insult if it's true, and many folks here have taken the time to study fascism, so they actually do know what they're talking about. If you don't want to get called a fascist, don't espouse their ideas.

135 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:56:13pm

I abhor, absolutely abhor, Nazi scum.

That said, Charles raises an interesting thing to think about in terms of where to draw lines.

I would propose the following as a thought experiment, and then perhaps once we establish the extreme case, try to get to the real world.

What is in tension is on the one hand, personal religious freedom - one of the cornerstones of Democracy and all we hold dear in the Modern West - with on the other hand, the ability of a society to protect it's own members and preserve it's own values.

Think of every argument for religious freedom and tolerance you can. At what point do you say no, sorry, this or that practice is not allowed?

Consider an an admittedly extreme case:

For certain, we would limit the religious freedoms of someone who believed in human sacrifice. I am bringing this because it is not only a no brainer, but it clearly establishes that there are indeed cases where the religious freedom argument does not prevail.

So what standard do we use? Why do we ban human sacrifice?

The strongest argument of course, is that it infringes on the rights (right to live, equal protection under the law etc...) of the sacrifice - even if they want to be sacrificed.

As an objective standard, we could posit that the actions of any religious belief that infringes on the human rights of others - to the extent that such actions would be a crime under the law in a purely secular case - need to be treated exactly as if these actions a secular crime.

As such, any interpretation of Islam (and I said interpretation carefully, because not all Muslims hold to or do these things) that allows for honor killings, female genital mutilation, murder of gay people, suicide bombing , violent protest or attempts to destroy the government - should not, and are not protected freedoms to act on. It is certainly legal to believe that the Koran tells you to do these things, however, if you act or threaten to act on them you are not protected.

But this is a less interesting question. What about the second point of the tension? Do people in a given nation or community have the right to set standards? Do religious practices that infringe on those standards have the right to protection? Here we have a much more thorny question.

I believe that the answer is in parallel to the first case. Practice however you want, provided that you do not infringe on the practice of others. Therefore, as an example, you can dress however you wish, but you have to show your face for the police or at the bank. If you open doors for crimes (by setting up a way for masked people to drive or go into banks) you infringe on the rights of the community at large. If you feel that swimsuits are immodest, don't go to the public pool. If you feel that you need to swim, it is a free country, open your own pool and enforce you own dress/gender code, but you can not force the majority standard to change to you.

But we can go further. What if the majority country truly finds a certain belief or practice to be abhorrent because it is wrong? All of these arguments I have just made about human sacrifice in objective terms pale in comparison to the fact that killing people as worship is just evil - and no, I am not a relativist, my beliefs, which should be valued too, at least as much, call it definitively evil.

I think repressing women (and a score of things that Islamists preach) is definitively evil too.

How do my Western values, which matter to me just as much as the values of an Islamist value to him, come into the equation?

This is easily the most knotty of the possible questions to ask. Because how do I prevent the tyranny of the majority from crushing the rights of the individual if I go too far down that path? Therefore, The bottom line has to be live and let live, while protecting others.

136 The Other Les  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 1:59:17pm

re: #119 Dianna

Query, and not a hostile one at all: is this a novel, or is it a rant?

A novel that will be interpreted by hostile reviewers as a rant.

(Author’s note: The viewpoint character is Lexie Redfield, a female lieutenant in the Ursa Major Confederation Navy. This would be part of Chapter 11 if I follow the current outline.)


Her name was Ayn Rand.

Even under repair in spacedock she was a sight to behold. The repair crews in their color coded EVA suits and work pods were barely perceivable as they moved over and worked on the three hundred meter long black arrowhead that was her hull.

137 BartB  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:00:28pm

re: #134 Sharmuta

I'm not sure what you're talking about here, unless it's calling someone a "fascist". Well- it's not an insult if it's true, and many folks here have taken the time to study fascism, so they actually do know what they're talking about. If you don't want to get called a fascist, don't espouse their ideas.

re: #134 Sharmuta

Facism and Naziism are defined as economic control systems. The examples of which I am aware are also control freaks on the individual level.
They are not governmental systems, per se. For example, neither is incompatible with democracy, or with monarchy. Both tend to be nasty to the underlings.

138 spudly  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:03:37pm

re: #135 LudwigVanQuixote

Interesting post.

Another thought experiment:

What about suborning unacceptable acts? I think we agree that an organization that say, suborns the murder of a doctor is or should be accountable. So if the religion's doctrine suborns murder (and it can be demonstrated that it is acted on often enough to be widely held), does that make it unacceptable?

We allow that idiot to have his "god hates fags" church, but when he starts telling the few inbred church members to start KILLING them, is that over the line, or protected as long as they don't start the killing? None the less, when they DO start the killing, none of us will be surprised, the writing was on the wall, so to peak.

139 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:06:01pm

re: #138 spudly

Interesting post.

Another thought experiment:

What about suborning unacceptable acts? I think we agree that an organization that say, suborns the murder of a doctor is or should be accountable. So if the religion's doctrine suborns murder (and it can be demonstrated that it is acted on often enough to be widely held), does that make it unacceptable?

We allow that idiot to have his "god hates fags" church, but when he starts telling the few inbred church members to start KILLING them, is that over the line, or protected as long as they don't start the killing? None the less, when they DO start the killing, none of us will be surprised, the writing was on the wall, so to peak.

That's why I carefully said that you can believe what you want, but if you act or threaten to act in a way that would be a secular crime, you are not protected.

140 spudly  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:10:12pm

re: #139 LudwigVanQuixote

That's why I carefully said that you can believe what you want, but if you act or threaten to act in a way that would be a secular crime, you are not protected.

No, I saw that. I suppose the question is when you take the threat seriously.

Ie; some guy preaches "kill gays" for decades, then a church member does so one day. Can he say, "look, I've said this to thousands of people over many years, and only ONE gay person has been killed, it's not "commonly held" by my congregation, or you'd have seen many more murders!"

Is preaching violence "threatening to act," in other words? In the US, clearly not, or clearly not illegal. None the less, if you bang the hate into people long enough, someone is liable to act on it at some point.

Just throwing that out there. :)

141 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:10:13pm

re: #138 spudly

Interesting post.

Another thought experiment:

What about suborning unacceptable acts? I think we agree that an organization that say, suborns the murder of a doctor is or should be accountable. So if the religion's doctrine suborns murder (and it can be demonstrated that it is acted on often enough to be widely held), does that make it unacceptable?

We allow that idiot to have his "god hates fags" church, but when he starts telling the few inbred church members to start KILLING them, is that over the line, or protected as long as they don't start the killing? None the less, when they DO start the killing, none of us will be surprised, the writing was on the wall, so to peak.

Also while we are at it, the Phelps crew gives a great example of the tension between religious freedom and expression vs. common community standards. I think a community has the right to set a standard that you don't make an ass of yourself at a funeral. I think that by injecting themselves into the religious and private matters of a grieving family, the Phelps people have clearly crossed the line into unprotected speech and action. If a judge wanted incarcerate them for being a public nuisance, and there is a lot we could get them on in terms of the riot acts, it would be just dandy.

142 Daria Emmons  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:11:31pm

While I am not saying the solution is to ban Islam, the problem is that Islam is not just a religion. Classical Islam is a religion and a political system all in one. And modern day Islam has not reformed.

It is not easy to seperate out the religion from the political system. I believe that, until there is a reform within Islam, it is near impossible to do so.

Now, I generally believe banning bad ideas is the worst idea imaginable. There is no real way to ban a bad idea, and doing so usually ends up driving an idea underground, rather than having it go away.

What is needed is a logical and cohesive defense of Western civilization itself, from both a theoretical and, when needed, military perspective.

143 gander  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:11:42pm

re: #129 haakondahl

I think we agree.

144 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:12:30pm

re: #4 Racer X

I keep trying to wrap my head around this one.

Is Islam truly a "religion"? By what definition?

Islam, to me, appears to be way more than simply a religion. It is a culture; it is a form of government; it is a form of social justice.

Spirituality? Not so much. It seems more about control and power. Kinda like the mafia.

My vote? Not a religion.

Was the pre-Reformation Church a religion? By your definition, no. By your definition, I'm not sure 'religion' existed before the seventeenth century, and then only in a proto-form.

145 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:13:14pm

re: #140 spudly

No, I saw that. I suppose the question is when you take the threat seriously.

Ie; some guy preaches "kill gays" for decades, then a church member does so one day. Can he say, "look, I've said this to thousands of people over many years, and only ONE gay person has been killed, it's not "commonly held" by my congregation, or you'd have seen many more murders!"

Is preaching violence "threatening to act," in other words? In the US, clearly not, or clearly not illegal. None the less, if you bang the hate into people long enough, someone is liable to act on it at some point.

Just throwing that out there. :)

That is an absolutely great question. OBviously it would need to be adressed on a case by case standard. I would throw out though that the violent opinion of some guy expressed at a bar be held to a lesser standard than that of a preacher. The preacher has a following, who believes that he speaks with authority, and therefore he is a much bigger threat. I honestly have no problem with arresting him for inciting violence. This also comes under the notion that something which would be a secular crime in of itself, should be treated exactly the same way you would treat a secular crime.

146 Ojoe  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:14:38pm
Wilders advocates banning the Koran as “hate speech,” treating it like Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

Well Wilders is in good company because Winston Churchill calls Mein Kampf a "Koran" in the book The Gathering Storm.

"These months in the Landsburg fortress were, however, sufficient to enable him to complete in outline Mein Kampf a treatise on his political philosophy... When he eventually he came to power, there was no book which deserved more careful study from the rulers, political and military, of the Allied Powers. All was there— the program of German resurrection; the technique of party propaganda; the plan for combating Marxism; the concept of a National Socialist state; the rightful position of Germany at the summit of the world. Here was the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message.'


P. 55, Most editions.

147 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:15:26pm

re: #15 Eowyn2

The Thug followers of Kali waylaid (usually killing) travelers and stealing from them. They considered this a form of worship to their many armed goddess. Thuggery was outlawed in India per Britain.

If the Hindus in any western country decided to start worshipping Kali in the form of Thuggery, it would be outlawed.

I think this an excellent analogy. The problem is that these folks want to outlaw Hinduism.

148 spudly  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:16:17pm

re: #145 LudwigVanQuixote

Then I suppose the same would apply to a jihadi Imam. There is plenty of violence incited in Mosques.

It's hard to justify on any level in he US, though, given the 1st Amendment's clarity.

149 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:16:51pm

re: #22 J.S.

well, no, I don't think so...actually there are a number of nation-states (cultures) which are Islamic and which also have a tradition of separation of mosque/state...

We shouldn't be too quick to accept what the crazies say is the 'real Islam'. How would they know? They're crazy?

150 Ojoe  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:16:59pm

re: #4 Racer X

It is certainly not a religion as the founding fathers thought of religion, IMHO.

151 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:17:22pm

re: #149 SanFranciscoZionist

We shouldn't be too quick to accept what the crazies say is the 'real Islam'. How would they know? They're crazy?

Sorry, 'they're crazy!'.

152 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:17:27pm

re: #148 spudly

Then I suppose the same would apply to a jihadi Imam. There is plenty of violence incited in Mosques.

It's hard to justify on any level in he US, though, given the 1st Amendment's clarity.

I absolutely agree. Deport him.

153 Daria Emmons  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:19:55pm

re: #144 SanFranciscoZionist

Was the pre-Reformation Church a religion? By your definition, no. By your definition, I'm not sure 'religion' existed before the seventeenth century, and then only in a proto-form.

The question is not whether Islam is a "religion." As most people define religion today, it fits the bill. It contains rituals, belief in God, and a sense of community and greater purpose.

But is it also a political system? The answer is also yes. And therein lies the problem.

I want to clarify: while I believe outright bans are generally bad ideas, I also believe the way the "West" has generally accomodated Islamism has been shocking. In Boston, a mega-mosque affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood was recently approved to be built, having passed city planning boards. This "mega-mosque" is just one example of what the "West" could do, without banning Islam, to protect itself. Instead of accomodating extremism, the "West" should seek to prevent the expansion of extremist ideologies, as is happening every day, by preventing hate mosques from being built.

Yes, not every mosque is a hate mosque, and not all Muslims are extremists or hateful. But we have seen time and time again that the moderates simply do not speak up, and thus their voices are not heard. And so Islam today - rightly or wrongly - is characterized as an extremist religion.

There is a problem here. I disagree with Geert Wilders' solution, but he is not crazy to recognize a problem.

It might well be that it would take hundreds of years for Muslims to reach a majority of the population in the USA, and much of Europe. But it doesn't matter, as if we accept that we are dealing with a mentality, Radical Islamism, which simply is not self-policed within the Islamic community, then we will absolutely see increased terrorism, misogyny, and crimes against Jews, gays, Hindus, and Christians, once there is a critical mass of a population.

Hell, you already see it on the streets of Amsterdam, which already are not as safe as they used to be for gay people. Who do you think is responsible for this? Radical Muslims. (who have not been self-policed by their fellow Muslims)

154 Ojoe  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:21:50pm

re: #135 LudwigVanQuixote

Think of every argument for religious freedom and tolerance you can. At what point do you say no, sorry, this or that practice is not allowed?

We already say this here in the USA with laws already on the books. It is illegal to murder infidels for instance. It is illegal to incite to violence. It is illegal to say the Koran should be followed to the letter then.

We have just been way too slack in our enforcement.

155 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:26:10pm

re: #153 Daria Emmons

Well said...

In general, the underlying principle to apply is the separation of church and state. If you have an organization that wants to impose it's dogma on the secular state, it should have a limited capacity to do so. For the same reason, I despise the Pat Roberts crowd.

But, you can not prevent people from building a house of worship. What you can do however, is arrest Imams who incite violence or do any number of other sorts of preaching that would lead followers to break the law. If the Mosque send money to terrorist groups for instance, this is an up and up, secular federal crime. Jail time is in order.

The answer is not to be reactionary, rather it is to be enforce the laws we have consistently. The answer is to not give someone a pass for their crimes just because they are some sort of clergy.

156 Daria Emmons  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:26:44pm

re: #151 SanFranciscoZionist

Sorry, 'they're crazy!'.

The problem is that we do not see throngs of Muslims rioting against Islamism. The only riots we see are against "the West."

Muslims kill Muslims/nonMuslims = deadly silence

"The West" kills Muslims = human rights abuse!

What we see is that the nonviolent Muslims - with few exceptions - fall into the categories of apologists or remain silent. The few exceptions have numerous fatwas on their heads and have to live in fear of their very lives.

Until this situation changes, then sadly, the extremists will speak for Islam.

157 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:26:54pm

re: #154 Ojoe

We already say this here in the USA with laws already on the books. It is illegal to murder infidels for instance. It is illegal to incite to violence. It is illegal to say the Koran should be followed to the letter then.

We have just been way too slack in our enforcement.

See my 155! I was typing that at the same time you were typing yours.

158 American Sabra  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:27:31pm

re: #150 Ojoe

It is certainly not a religion as the founding fathers thought of religion, IMHO.

Many of the founding fathers were not religious. They were Deists or athiests. For the Deists, they believed in a Creative Being, God, the evolution of the natural world, but not religion.

What Racer X writes in #2 can be applied to Judaism. Should we ban Judaism too? It's also practiced as a culture, a form of social justice, spiritualism and a form of government.

Islam is a religion that needs to reform. Some say that's not possible, but I don't agree with that.

159 spudly  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:27:58pm

re: #154 Ojoe

We already say this here in the USA with laws already on the books. It is illegal to murder infidels for instance. It is illegal to incite to violence. It is illegal to say the Koran should be followed to the letter then.

We have just been way too slack in our enforcement.

Incitement I think is judged far more narrowly. There has to be a sense that it will
be imminently acted upon, I think. Yelling "kill the infidels!" to a crowd of men with torches and pitchforks would likely count, but not a sermon.

160 Daria Emmons  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:28:52pm

re: #155 LudwigVanQuixote

Well said...

In general, the underlying principle to apply is the separation of church and state. If you have an organization that wants to impose it's dogma on the secular state, it should have a limited capacity to do so. For the same reason, I despise the Pat Roberts crowd.

But, you can not prevent people from building a house of worship. What you can do however, is arrest Imams who incite violence or do any number of other sorts of preaching that would lead followers to break the law. If the Mosque send money to terrorist groups for instance, this is an up and up, secular federal crime. Jail time is in order.

The answer is not to be reactionary, rather it is to be enforce the laws we have consistently. The answer is to not give someone a pass for their crimes just because they are some sort of clergy.

Okay, I agree with this. A mosque is just a building, and not anything good or bad per se. It is the people inside who make up the problem. As well as the open support by groups whose goal is worldwide domination, such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

161 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:29:21pm

re: #159 spudly

Incitement I think is judged far more narrowly. There has to be a sense that it will
be imminently acted upon, I think. Yelling "kill the infidels!" to a crowd of men with torches and pitchforks would likely count, but not a sermon.

BUt this is where common sense comes in. If you preach that sermon and some of your followers do it, you have some prima-facia incitement.

162 Ojoe  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:30:06pm

OK lizards, I looked it up:

[CITE: 18USC373]


TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 19--CONSPIRACY

Sec. 373. Solicitation to commit a crime of violence

(a) Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct
constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against property or against the person
of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under
circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands,
induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage
in such conduct, shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum
term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more
than one-half of the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the
crime solicited, or both; or if the crime solicited is punishable by
life imprisonment or death, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty
years.

Now, If a person hands you a Koran, in which it says "Kill Infidels"; and he says or implies that the Koran is the word of G-d, and is to be followed, isn't he violating this US law?

163 Daria Emmons  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:31:06pm

re: #158 American Sabra

Many of the founding fathers were not religious. They were Deists or athiests. For the Deists, they believed in a Creative Being, God, the evolution of the natural world, but not religion.

What Racer X writes in #2 can be applied to Judaism. Should we ban Judaism too? It's also practiced as a culture, a form of social justice, spiritualism and a form of government.

Islam is a religion that needs to reform. Some say that's not possible, but I don't agree with that.

Judaism is not a form of government or justice. While it is true that Judaism contains within it laws for a Jewish state, these laws are not being promulgated anywhere, including in Israel. Judaism had its "reform," so to speak, when the Romans forced a Diaspora in 77 A.D. From that point on, Judaism no longer was a government.

In contradistinction, Islam is also a political system, and it is mainstream Islam to seek to impose this political system upon first Islamic countries, and then the world.

164 poteen  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:32:04pm

re: #162 Ojoe

OK lizards, I looked it up:

[CITE: 18USC373]

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 19--CONSPIRACY

Sec. 373. Solicitation to commit a crime of violence

(a) Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct
constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against property or against the person
of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under
circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands,
induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage
in such conduct, shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum
term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more
than one-half of the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the
crime solicited, or both; or if the crime solicited is punishable by
life imprisonment or death, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty
years.

Now, If a person hands you a Koran, in which it says "Kill Infidels"; and he says or implies that the Koran is the word of G-d, and is to be followed, isn't he violating this US law?

Not if Bill Ayers has the Koran.

165 Ojoe  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:32:16pm

re: #157 LudwigVanQuixote

We lack the political will in this country to enforce some decent standards, and it is because we have let ourselves become afraid.

166 spudly  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:32:40pm

The 1st Amendment contains both protection FROM religion, and protection OF religious practice.

Unfortunately, the FROM protection is pretty narrow, and the OF protection is pretty broad.

Then there are the apparently strange bedfellows of modern politics, lol.

On the left, people gush for despots, or religious extremists that would destroy their progressive lifestyles in a heartbeat, given the chance, and the right, there are people who would disassemble the separation of church and state to their own ends (ID, etc) without a thought to how this plays into the hands of Muslim extremists playing the long game in the west.

167 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:33:23pm

re: #158 American Sabra

Many of the founding fathers were not religious. They were Deists or athiests. For the Deists, they believed in a Creative Being, God, the evolution of the natural world, but not religion.

What Racer X writes in #2 can be applied to Judaism. Should we ban Judaism too? It's also practiced as a culture, a form of social justice, spiritualism and a form of government.

Islam is a religion that needs to reform. Some say that's not possible, but I don't agree with that.

One interesting point is that Judaism explicitly doesn't try to make the world Jewish, or assign others a lower-class citizenship (except for specific religious rituals). In fact, there are specific prohibitions against mistreating others, "because you were strangers in Egypt".

168 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:34:34pm

re: #162 Ojoe

OK lizards, I looked it up:

[CITE: 18USC373]

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 19--CONSPIRACY

Sec. 373. Solicitation to commit a crime of violence

(a) Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct
constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against property or against the person
of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under
circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands,
induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage
in such conduct, shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum
term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more
than one-half of the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the
crime solicited, or both; or if the crime solicited is punishable by
life imprisonment or death, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty
years.

Now, If a person hands you a Koran, in which it says "Kill Infidels"; and he says or implies that the Koran is the word of G-d, and is to be followed, isn't he violating this US law?

Be very very careful. The same Koran also talks about murder being illegal. If you have an individual Imam who is preaching that the Koran justifies killing and mayhem in America, then you indict the Imam and not the Koran.

For the record, I have read the Koran. I do not like the Koran. I find a lot about it to be desperately awful - and it is my right to say that, and feel that way, however, it is not my right to ban someone else's religious text just because I do not like it. This protects me from others who might hate my holy books.

I can however say that the Imam who is preaching mayhem is being a criminal in the secular sense and ignore the entire Koran/religious freedom argument all together.

169 Ojoe  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:37:52pm

re: #168 LudwigVanQuixote

Of course you indict the Imam and not the Koran.

That's what you do. The same book has two different ways to handle it, one legal and one not.

If you wave it about saying "God wants you to do everything in this book", that's illegal in the USA.

If you flush the book down a toilet, that's not illegal, or it shouldn't be.

170 spudly  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:38:10pm

re: #161 LudwigVanQuixote

BUt this is where common sense comes in. If you preach that sermon and some of your followers do it, you have some prima-facia incitement.

This is where religion as a special case comes in (the 1st Amendment). Congress is explicitly disallowed passing laws WRT religious practice.

So if myself and a few other friends who were atheists said "kill all believers!" we'd be inciting, but I bet if a believer said "kill all atheists" he'd be held to a different (protected) standard.

It's been argued here that the Koran inciting (or the Old Testament, for that matter) violence doesn't matter because it is not acted upon in the vast majority of cases. My problem with that is what % of the church needs to become actually violent for people to recognize the violent nature of the base doctrine.

171 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:39:04pm

re: #163 Daria Emmons

Judaism is not a form of government or justice. While it is true that Judaism contains within it laws for a Jewish state, these laws are not being promulgated anywhere, including in Israel. Judaism had its "reform," so to speak, when the Romans forced a Diaspora in 77 A.D. From that point on, Judaism no longer was a government.

In contradistinction, Islam is also a political system, and it is mainstream Islam to seek to impose this political system upon first Islamic countries, and then the world.

That's actually not true.

I assure you that Jewish laws encompass a governmental system. You don't hear about them much because they are rendered moot by the destruction of the Monarchy, Temple and Sanhedrin. However, if we had those things, Jewish law would expect you to obey the King and the rulings of the Sanhedrin. The caveat to that would be if you were a citizen of another nation, then you would be expected to follow the laws of that nation rather than the king in Israel. The religious rulings of the Sanhedrin would still apply to you though.

172 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:43:00pm

re: #170 spudly

This is where religion as a special case comes in (the 1st Amendment). Congress is explicitly disallowed passing laws WRT religious practice.

So if myself and a few other friends who were atheists said "kill all believers!" we'd be inciting, but I bet if a believer said "kill all atheists" he'd be held to a different (protected) standard.

It's been argued here that the Koran inciting (or the Old Testament, for that matter) violence doesn't matter because it is not acted upon in the vast majority of cases. My problem with that is what % of the church needs to become actually violent for people to recognize the violent nature of the base doctrine.

Well be careful. The OT incitements to violence were all one shots, with the exception of Amalek. Each of those wars was directed with it's own parameters at a single point in time with a single target. As an example, there is no current Midian to have a war with, and the specific rules for engaging Midian would not apply to anyone else - like say the Philistines.

As to the commandment to destroy Amalek, it needs to be understood, that Amalek is no longer seen so much as a tribe, but rather a spiritual state of pure evil. Nazis are a good example, and I have no problem with the idea of killing them.

173 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:45:36pm

re: #170 spudly

This is where religion as a special case comes in (the 1st Amendment). Congress is explicitly disallowed passing laws WRT religious practice.

So if myself and a few other friends who were atheists said "kill all believers!" we'd be inciting, but I bet if a believer said "kill all atheists" he'd be held to a different (protected) standard.

It's been argued here that the Koran inciting (or the Old Testament, for that matter) violence doesn't matter because it is not acted upon in the vast majority of cases. My problem with that is what % of the church needs to become actually violent for people to recognize the violent nature of the base doctrine.

This is not so. Congress is forbidden to establish a state religion or to use religion as a standard for appointments or equal application of the law.

There are plenty of laws that have been made WRT religion that limit the ability of religious people from doing everything they might want to do. Consider the rulings about religious material in public schools.

174 spudly  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:47:26pm

re: #173 LudwigVanQuixote

True. OTOH, there are explicitly illegal activities like drug use that are in fact allowed for some religions (native americans).

175 spudly  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:49:55pm

re: #173 LudwigVanQuixote

Are any base doctrines specifically disallowed though? Yes, you cannot practice sacrifice of people, OTOH, can other religions sacrifice animals contrary to humane treatment laws? I simply do not know.

176 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:52:30pm

re: #174 spudly

True. OTOH, there are explicitly illegal activities like drug use that are in fact allowed for some religions (native americans).

And Catholics could still hold Communion and Jews could still sanctify the Shabbos, during Prohibition

177 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 2:56:40pm

re: #175 spudly

Are any base doctrines specifically disallowed though? Yes, you cannot practice sacrifice of people, OTOH, can other religions sacrifice animals contrary to humane treatment laws? I simply do not know.

I do not know either. I think there you are getting into a serious issue of local standards. I personally think that sacrificing animals in the US is not a good thing. However, everyday, I pray for rebuilding the Temple - and a return of the offerings of Israel.

Exactly what those animal sacrifices were, and the fact that the animal was killed humanely and then eaten is a secondary discussion.

So suppose you had a religious sect that did something that seemed a bit out there, but did not obviously violate the rights of others... I would have to say that such activity is something protected under the law.

For instance, in Utah, for a long time, it was permissible to have more than one wife.

178 spudly  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 3:04:12pm

re: #177 LudwigVanQuixote

I was actually thinking of Hindu practice. I saw plenty of sacrifices in Nepal the couple times I was there.

Those are actions, however. It's easy to legislate against actions being carried out, regardless of religion.

I have to say, that the idea of disallowing the subornation of violence is close to the hate-speech nonsense that I am 100% against. It really comes down to a community standard, and not a legal one. The trouble is that if the adherents in question self-segregate, community standards become meaningless.

It certainly is not a simple question.

On-topic, it does put attempts to game another country's legal system into some context. If you have laws that allow messing about with this, the question is if a community standard might impact even preaching some doctrines that are counter to basic community values.

179 spudly  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 3:17:18pm

I guess the "solution" to the problem of Islam—and I intentionally don't narrow it to "radical Islam" as I lump fundamentalists/literalists together—is really an evangelical one.

To be specific, it requires evangelizing Western Civilization to the newcomers. We have to make our culture so attractive, that they dump their medieval ways :)

The trouble is that the Netherlands, for example, is a sort of beacon of Western progressivism in culture. None the less it breed radicals striking out against the very nature of the culture they have chosen to invade. I say invade because those at odds are NOT "melting in."

That's a sort of proof that my idea is wrong I guess. Little is left except to aggressively use whatever law exists to jail extremists.

Still, the idea of debauching the less tolerant culture is appealing :)

180 The Other Les  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 4:27:32pm

re: #124 haakondahl

What else is extinct?

Pretty much the entire population of the Earth as of 2189 AD.

181 Condor  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 4:33:39pm

A culture war can't be a one-way street. Islam can't be allowed freedom to build mosques and establish its own legal systems in the West for followers of Islam; while westerners can't build churches and synagogues in Islamic lands.

Show me a church in Saudi Arabia; or a new church in Egypt, or Iran; and then I'll say we will permit a mosque in Athens or Amsterdam.

As well, Wilders is popular perhaps because he is about the ONLY half-rational non fascist willing to confront the Islamification issue, and the fact that most Islamic immigrants are not assimilating.

This should be a standard issue which all politicians have to address. (Look how much is said about illegal immigration in the USA; yet those immigrants don't threaten the dominant culture nearly as much as Islamic immigrants in Europe.)

Wilders would be marginalized ONLY if the "margins" are moved and the rest of Europe's so-called political leaders willingly take on one of the most pressing problems they have, instead of trying to hide their heads in the sand and hope it goes away.

182 Øyvind Strømmen  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 5:17:45pm

re: #181 Condor

So, because someone else disrespects fundamental human rights, we should disrespect fundamental human rights?

These guys seem to be funding new churches in Egypt, by the way.

183 Roger  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 5:35:43pm

re: #182 oslogin

Ask Nick Berg.

184 Ontheleftcoast  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 6:49:53pm

I may have this wrong but I thought that Wilders
• Opposes hate speech laws
• Thinks that the laws are applied in a fashion that discriminates against
Western values
• Thinks that by the letter of the hate speech laws they should apply to the Koran
• Uses his "Koran = hate speech" meme to make all the above points.

185 Aisha  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 7:15:20pm

Wassallam kufr,

It is indeed true that Islaaam is a complete way of life.

Islam guarantees religious freedom and freedom of speech. You may be acquainted with the Qur'anic saying, (There is no compulsion in religion) (Al-Baqarah 2:256). Those who do not believe this shall be stabbed with swords.

The Muslim believes that Islam is the last religion that came from God and that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was foretold by the preceding prophets; among them Abraham, Moses and Jesus. But their scriptures and writings are corrupted and falsified by the shaitaan and the sons of pigs and monkeys, the Jews, and the Zionists and therefore should be burned.

The Qur'an is an open Book with an open message to all people. Islam never strikes a sort to force itself on others, religion cannot be taken by force. It is something related to the heart and mind. Unless you are convinced from within, no one can force any idea or religion upon you. You have a duty to be convinced however, and if you are not, you must convince yourself with the help of reliable ulema or, if an apostate, take the consequences of death.

Islam appeals to humankind through peaceful means as the Qur'an calls it "da`wah, ", a gentle invitation to think of what Islam offers you. You are gently asked to accept the bauties of Islaam, say the shahada, and shave the hoo-ha. Otherwise you can freely chose the alternatives that Islaam offers to belief. These are well known and range from death for the apostates to protection by the Islamic rulers for the pigs and monkeys and kufr who were born that way.

Concerning the rights of non-Muslims to call for their religions in a Muslim community, some facts should be brought to light:

1. Islam does not allow Muslims to embrace other religions since Islam is the last and the perfect religion.

2. Islam carries out the essential teachings and guidance of other prophets and other religions. They have hence no validity outside of Islam and are therefore worthless in themselves.

3. It is an integral part of a Muslim's faith to believe in all prophets (mentioned in the Qur'an and or any divinely revealed book). So what are the kufr Jews (pigs and monkeys) and Christians worried about? We already follow their teachings correctly as Allah Ta'ala intended them. Their religions are perversions, just as much as the way the Jews reproduce by sex in the rear-private-part.

4. Equally, Muslims believe in the previous divine scriptures. The following are named in the Qur'an: the Scroll of Abraham, the Torah of Moses, the Psalms of David, and the Injil (Gospel) of Jesus. The Jews and Christians have perverted them (see 3). We know the true teachings of the scriptures better than they do, because they are perverts and mockers of the truth.

No Muslim is allowed to attack or degrade any prophet or demean any scripture. Bearing this in mind will give you a clue why Islam does not allow apostasy or change of religion.

Non-Muslims are not to use any means to force Muslims to leave their religion. The means I mean here are giving money, medical aids, or promises of new life with the aim of influencing people toward converting. Their religions are false and superseded by the religion of Allah taala.

So you see, Islam is in fact very tolerant of the gefilte-fish stinking kufr and their indecent clothes and prince-albert piercings and stinking hairy bodies. It is through the indecent Jews and pagans that the world has been kept in the dark as to the mercy and love of Allah Ta'ala, and it is through the mercy of Allah ta'ala and the Muslims that they have not all been wiped out.

Insh'allah one day there will be no more kufr.

186 [deleted]  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 7:44:47pm
187 [deleted]  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 8:01:59pm
188 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 8:19:23pm

I suggest you give yourself a timeout before I do.

189 The Other Les  Fri, Jul 17, 2009 8:26:24pm

re: #188 Charles

I suggest you give yourself a timeout before I do.

I recognize your right to control the contents of your site.

190 [deleted]  Sat, Jul 18, 2009 12:46:41am
191 gegenkritik  Sat, Jul 18, 2009 3:30:35am

re: #12 lawhawk

Reformation? Funny you mention that since folks like the Salafists/Wahabists consider themselves the reformists - bringing Islam back in touch with its roots, and weeding out the nonbelievers from the believers.

There is political Islam and there is a spiritual/religious Islam, but Islam has not truly been influenced, or allowed itself to be influenced, by the concept of separation of church and state to the extent that Judaism and Christianity were.


The spiritual element in the Islamic Religion is poor, but the element of social control - regulating every aspect of the private life of the believer - is very strong. Taking away this social control and secularizing Islam to the same extent as Judaism or Christianity would left little of this religion. So, the efforts of Salafists (but not only theirs) are consequent.

192 gegenkritik  Sat, Jul 18, 2009 3:42:02am
This piece is a joke, La Pen -> anti-Semite = BAD, Wilders = anti-Islam = GOOD.


Dear unknown Dutch reader,
An even worse joke is to compare anti-semitism with the opposing of Islam or even prejudice against muslim people.
No one insisted that Muslims are behind communism and capitalism, no one insisted to mass-murder every single Muslim as this would be the way to salvation.

193 Roger  Sat, Jul 18, 2009 7:28:28am

1) anti-Islam = GOOD
2) anti-Semite = BAD
3) Islam = anti-Semite

Substituting 3 &2 into 1 becomes:
4) anti-Islam = anti-anti-Semite = anti-BAD = GOOD

Check.

Bias disclosure: Since people with the Islamic ideology want me dead I have a bias. According to Islamic writings and direct testimony, they want people like me dead for believing as the disciples of Jesus; that Jesus was/is who he said he is. I've had a devout Muslim leaning over me using the arms of my chair to keep a small distance, screaming against my Jesus and the G-d of Abraham. I looked up his "Scriptures" he was quoting and found out he wasn't radical but was telling the truth about Islam. Do I want this Muslim dead? No. Would I like him to speak with me again? Yes but he won't. I saw the spirit in him through his eyes; it was not good. I ask the Holy Spirit to be strongly with me whenever I enter into such presence. I also thank G-d for the US Marines and armed forces who let the world know that evil-doers better not slit my throat within my own land, thus giving me a space of time and what ever coordinate system suits your fancy to speak for Christ without taking His name in vain.

194 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jul 18, 2009 8:15:23am

It's sad and a little disgusting to see people in this thread who agree with the bigoted, totalitarian idea of "banning" Islam. If you want to advocate for this deeply stupid idea, you're going to have to do it somewhere else, because I'm going to delete any such comments. Try Pamela Geller's site, she's really into that kind of stuff.

195 funky chicken  Sat, Jul 18, 2009 9:11:07am

re: #15 Eowyn2

The Thug followers of Kali waylaid (usually killing) travelers and stealing from them. They considered this a form of worship to their many armed goddess. Thuggery was outlawed in India per Britain.

If the Hindus in any western country decided to start worshipping Kali in the form of Thuggery, it would be outlawed.
I do not see much difference in killing travelers for a god than killing infidels for a god. As long as there are people willing to use the Koran as an excuse to murder innocents, we will be having this discussion.

The Netherlands can fight this by enacting and prosecuting for murder, rape, intimidation, etc. But will the Netherlands (or England) start to fight back with the laws they have on the books and which they can enact to minimize the influence of the jihadi preachers?

Great post. Unfortunately it seems that the authorities in some areas aren't willing to protect the infidel population from islamist immigrant violence, assault, rape, and murder. Unless and until European governments are willing to do that, there will be increasing numbers of people who follow Wilders and worse.

I would think Euro countries (and the US for that matter) could take stronger action against Islamist Imams who incite violence in their services. Incitement to violence isn't free speech or free worship, right?

196 funky chicken  Sat, Jul 18, 2009 9:23:55am

re: #155 LudwigVanQuixote

Well said...

In general, the underlying principle to apply is the separation of church and state. If you have an organization that wants to impose it's dogma on the secular state, it should have a limited capacity to do so. For the same reason, I despise the Pat Roberts crowd.

But, you can not prevent people from building a house of worship. What you can do however, is arrest Imams who incite violence or do any number of other sorts of preaching that would lead followers to break the law. If the Mosque send money to terrorist groups for instance, this is an up and up, secular federal crime. Jail time is in order.

The answer is not to be reactionary, rather it is to be enforce the laws we have consistently. The answer is to not give someone a pass for their crimes just because they are some sort of clergy.

LOLZ shoulda known--Ludwig got there first and said it better.

197 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jul 18, 2009 10:38:52am

re: #195 funky chicken

Great post. Unfortunately it seems that the authorities in some areas aren't willing to protect the infidel population from islamist immigrant violence, assault, rape, and murder. Unless and until European governments are willing to do that, there will be increasing numbers of people who follow Wilders and worse.

There's more to it than that. People like Wilders and DeWinter stoke people's fears, exaggerate threats, and deliberately play on latent (sometimes not so latent) bigotry. That's what populists do -- they build their support base by making people think the threat is imminent and the end is near, and only the populist can save them.

Please see the quote from a Power Line reader above -- Wilders' exaggeration of the demographic data is a perfect example.

198 Roger  Sat, Jul 18, 2009 10:58:08am

Charles? He likens it to holocaust deniers. After seeing that I'm not hearing his equivocations or statistics. It is just wrong to make such equivocations and completely unnecessary. This can be readily discussed without it. One of the reasons the koran should not be banned is for the reason I illustrated in #193. If the koran is banned it can't be legally checked and analyzed to see if a Muslim is telling the truth about it or not.

199 Red Pencil  Sat, Jul 18, 2009 3:03:29pm

I can't resist posting an old rumination of mine, essentially on the Wilders thesis: Islam DOES have a political element, and more, there are fundamental problems in separating church and state in Islam. I would not say, as Wilders does, that Muslims cannot eventually overcome these problems; I simply say that these problems should not be completely overlooked and glossed over.

There's been a lot on the internet in the past few years, on why Islam is worse than all other religions. Or, conversely, why Islam is not worse than all other religions. And it seems to me that both sides obscure Islam's most important practical difference with most religions in the world today.

Lots of people talk about America's separation of church and state like it is a radical concept, for better or for worse; and it is true that in Europe the separation is a little squishier. But I would like to postulate that the separation of church and state is fundamental in human society and psychology, and we post Enlightenment westerners have simply been especially clever in codifying it.

Consider: Any stone age tribe that can afford it, and many that cannot, will have both a shaman and a war chief. The priests and the kings are clearly two different power structures with friction between them in Homeric Greece; I point to Agamemnon's line in the Iliad that priests (who precipitated his dust up with Achilles inter alia) have brought him nothing but trouble. The Pontifex Maximus of ancient Rome was forbidden being anywhere near blood - i. e., he was NOT to be leading any troops anywhere, a clear indication that ancient Rome separated priestly from kingly functions. And of course this dichotomy is all over the Old Testament in the time of King David, before, and after.

Nor was there some kind of magical confluence of Church and State in medieval Europe, as some Christians I have conversed with have wistfully claimed. Church and State in Christian Europe were always independent power structures, with interests that sometimes overlapped and sometimes conflicted violently. Christianity's first three centuries as an ANTI-State religion contributed to this, no doubt, as did the juxtaposition of usually-celibate priests vs male primogeniture in kingdoms. But as I said, some level of separation of religion and state function seems to be very basic in human societies, and it really should not be surprising.
There are probably good social-psychological-survival reasons for religion and executive power being at least somewhat separated in so many human societies. I cite the example of the famous Tecumseh and his brother Tenskwatawa the Prophet. Tecumseh was a good military and political leader; whereas Tenskwatawa had rhetoric that could move great masses of Native Americans of various tribes. Together they were a serious threat to the U.S. army. However, when Tenskwatawa assumed leadership while Tecumseh was off doing good war-chief stuff like gathering allies, the Prophet proved his complete ineptitude at military leadership, provoking the battle of Tippecanoe and the burning of Prophetstown. (Similar, literally pre historic events probably had provoked the rule for the Pontifex Maximus in ancient Rome.) Running a religion and talking to Gods is really a very different enterprise than leading people into war, and requires at the least a different mindset. Priest and King may work in concert, towards common goals, as with Deborah and Barak, or Tecumseh and his brother; but for the good of the Tribes they lead they REALLY should not be the same person.

[continued in next post]

200 Red Pencil  Sat, Jul 18, 2009 3:05:45pm

[continued from previous post]

OK, so what about Mohammad? He was unluckily the exception to what seems to be an almost universal rule here. He was (through fortunate selection of his military subordinate) both a successful prophet and a successful war chief. He never in his lifetime accommodated even whatever modest separation of powers might have held sway at that time in ancient Arabia. He was not only both a very successful prophet and war chief, he was judge, jury and executioner. And this abnormal situation is all very clear in the Koran, crystallized in the words of the Prophet as the proper state of Man.

Obviously that severe interminglement waned in many later Islamic societies. The Ottomans, for example, developed (and adapted from the Byzantines) bureaucracies where there was more of a traditional division of labor; though the Caliph might have theoretical ultimate religious power, in practice he deferred to the clergy for this, and concentrated on collecting taxes and making war and other traditional kingly duties. It's a natural, human tendency to divide tasks among people based on their actual abilities, and Moslems have that tendency too.

There are clearly Muslim secularists out there, who want to see Islam in a more conventionally religious role alongside a state which wields a more conventionally secular power. And probably they will eventually prevail and reform Islam in the process.

In the meantime though, there is a real problem with saying Islam is just a religion like any other. That is, that any Muslim reformer who tries to separate Church and State (other things too, but that's a biggie) can be attacked by a more orthodox Muslim who can, legitimately, claim that the reformer is departing from the ways laid down by the Prophet himself. This has happened repeatedly in the internal politics of Muslim countries.

It's not going to be an easy bar for Muslim reformers to get over, is all I'm saying. Nonetheless it will have to happen eventually. The alternative is essentially Muslim mass suicide. It is just NOT a good survival tactic to permit people who think they talk directly to God to lead you into politicoreligious wars against nations with superior firepower. As a bunch of Shawnees in Prophetstown learned the hard way.

201 Macker  Sat, Jul 18, 2009 4:13:17pm

As far as I'm concerned, Islam IS at war with Us, whether we like it or not. So, it's either going to be them or it's going to be us. I vote for Us.

ISLAM DELENDA EST.

202 sandbox  Sat, Jul 18, 2009 4:25:27pm

This is an important thread and discussion. If the mainstream European political parties are unable to address the threat of radical islam, then other leaders and parties will come forward. I have listened to Wilders presentations. The the part about banning the Koran (and, by extension, Islam) sounds foolish and I expect he will abandon this theme over time and take a more rational position. Which position would be that there is moderate islam and radical islam and the adherents of radical islam ideology must be confronted and deported from western countries. My working definition of radical islamist is those muslims want to institute sharia law for the host countries muslims or who adocate violent jihad as a way to settle international disputes.

203 RalphShort  Sat, Jul 18, 2009 6:58:29pm

Islam in my view has a major issue and that is it's original leader was a killer of people. So, it seems to me there is an inspiration within it's ranks to continue to kill people. I also believe each individual is unique and will arrive at their own conclusions about what is right and wrong regardless of their environment. Within Islam it is difficult to reconcile "this is a peaceful religion" with it's murderous founder as a result of this fact. Yet, I am sure individuals within Islam believe in a "live and let live" philosophy even if they do not verbalize it exactly that way.

So, at then end of the day, we have a dilemma, and that is how to appeal to a muslim individual who is a believer in freedom without threatening them. So, I do not support banning books or religions except as they represent themselves as a threat to others.

Another thing comes to my mind here and that is I have zero confidence in the American secularist/atheist ever coming to the defense of our own values which were of Judeo/Christian origin. They will always, without exception, be willing to compromise and placate the extremist element. Basically, they did it with communist Russia and now they are doing it with North Korea, Iran and ultimately militant Islam in my view. After all, their values are always in a state of flux.

204 kamala  Sat, Jul 18, 2009 9:42:00pm

re: #202 sandbox

Which position would be that there is moderate islam and radical islam and the adherents of radical islam ideology must be confronted and deported from western countries. My working definition of radical islamist is those muslims want to institute sharia law for the host countries muslims or who adocate violent jihad as a way to settle international disputes.

And how do you propose identifying the "radical Islamists" so you can deport them?

Ibrahim Hooper is spokesperson for the Council on American Islamic Relations. He once said, "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future."

Should he be deported?

205 shortshrift  Sat, Jul 18, 2009 11:14:49pm

re: #197 Charles

The Power Line poster who disputes Wilders gives no numbers - just a statement that he has run them. He is answered by a compatriot in the next post on Power Line, who points out the political threat is more imminent than the demographic one.
Walter Laquer, Bat Yeor, and Mark Steyn , like Wilders, see Islamization as a threat to the West, and give pessimistic demographic and political forecasts. It is quite possible to read their arguments without becoming the victim of fear-mongering, or being rabble-roused.
Generally, I believe population forecasting is a dubious enterprise, but in the absence of an argument with greater substance than that of the angry poster from the Netherlands, I do see Islamization as a threat in the Netherlands. Do you?

206 sandbox  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 4:03:12am

re: #204 kamala

Clarification: Radical islamist deportation and denial of entry would apply to visa applicants (worker, student, tourist, etc) and non-citizens residents already here. If one is already a citizen, then I suppose deportation is not feasible, surveillance will have to do.

As to how to identify--answer, you make the effort, it won't be perfect. I regard us as in a state of war with radical islam. Here is a make believe example.: Say during WWII an immigrants enters and has to fill out a form on which the question is asked: Are you sympathetic with the goals of the nazis?: If they check the "yes" box, then entry is denied. Tha's the idea.

207 Vik  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 10:43:55am

It's very easy to say that it's wrong to ban a religion. But what is a religion? Can anything call itself a religion? Many Islamists, and many Muslim imams (see Memri or any number of ROP posts on this site) state plainly that their view of Islam is that it demands that Muslims kill non-Muslims. This isn't a matter of private personal belief, because it calls on Muslims to kill people who are not of their belief. It plainly crosses a line into something that is no longer a matter of private personal belief. If the distinction then is, okay, permit Islam but not the calls for murder, then it is essential for societies to act on this, and criminalize calls by Imams for Muslims to murder in the name of Islam. At this time U.S. law permits such calls in the name of free speech. It is currently very difficult to prove a causal connection between a given such speech and a given act of violence, which is necessary evidence for a charge of incitement to murder.

Current laws to punish murderers are clearly insufficient, if only because, after a suicide bombing, there is nothing left of the offender to punish.

So, if the argument is, anything calling itself a religion must be protected, then I would like to hear what is proposed in answer to the question, "How are we to protect ourselves from Imams who call on Muslims to commit murder in the name of Islam?"

208 Vik  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 12:12:04pm

re: #197, Charles

There's more to it than that. People like Wilders and DeWinter stoke people's fears, exaggerate threats, and deliberately play on latent (sometimes not so latent) bigotry. That's what populists do -- they build their support base by making people think the threat is imminent and the end is near, and only the populist can save them.

Question... this site was founded on your brilliant, heroic work to bring to public attention, the truth about the ROP. Are we now to criticize that work as a "stoking of people's fears"?

209 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 1:10:56pm

re: #208 Vik

re: #197, Charles

Question... this site was founded on your brilliant, heroic work to bring to public attention, the truth about the ROP. Are we now to criticize that work as a "stoking of people's fears"?

Excuse me, Vik, but please point out a post (any post) at LGF that advocates banning the Koran, or banning the religion of Islam.

Hint: you can't. They don't exist. I have NEVER advocated such things, and never will. If you want to ban books and take away the fundamental right of freedom of religion, I suggest you find another blog to do it at -- and that's also something I've been telling people like you for years.

210 Vik  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 2:31:55pm
Excuse me, Vik, but please point out a post (any post) at LGF that advocates banning the Koran, or banning the religion of Islam.

I never said you had.

If you want to ban books and take away the fundamental right of freedom of religion, I suggest you find another blog to do it at

Please read my immediate previous comment, #207.

211 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 2:55:40pm

re: #210 Vik

Please read my immediate previous comment, #207.

Sigh.

So, if the argument is, anything calling itself a religion must be protected, then I would like to hear what is proposed in answer to the question, "How are we to protect ourselves from Imams who call on Muslims to commit murder in the name of Islam?"

At which mosques are the imams preaching murder, Vik? If you have information on this you should communicate to law enforcement about it, so they can protect you. That's their job.

212 Vik  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 3:31:15pm
At which mosques are the imams preaching murder, Vik? If you have information on this you should communicate to law enforcement about it, so they can protect you. That's their job.

Calling the police is insufficient, since as I pointed out in the comment you quote, such preaching by imams is currently viewed as protected free speech.

You have not yet answered the question I raised:

So, if the argument is, anything calling itself a religion must be protected, then I would like to hear what is proposed in answer to the question, "How are we to protect ourselves from Imams who call on Muslims to commit murder in the name of Islam?"

213 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 3:41:28pm

re: #212 Vik

Calling the police is insufficient, since as I pointed out in the comment you quote, such preaching by imams is currently viewed as protected free speech.

Where are all these mosques where they're telling Muslims to go out and murder you, Vik? If you're going to argue that the problem of incitement to murder is such an imminent threat that we need to ban Islam, shouldn't you show some, you know, evidence?

214 Vik  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 4:14:44pm
If you're going to argue that the problem of incitement to murder is such an imminent threat that we need to ban Islam, shouldn't you show some, you know, evidence?

That summary does not accurately represent my argument. If you check my comment #207, you'll note that I'm examining a potential approach that would achieve your goal of protecting Islam, while protecting the public from the dangers it currently presents.

In terms of evidence that Imams are known to preach killing, a quick google search reveals numerous posts on LGF of imams outside the U.S. preaching killing. It seems reasonable to be concerned that such preaching may may come to the U.S., if indeed it is not already here.

So I ask the question - which is not rhetorical:

So, if the argument is, anything calling itself a religion must be protected, then I would like to hear what is proposed in answer to the question, "How are we to protect ourselves from Imams who call on Muslims to commit murder in the name of Islam?"

215 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 5:00:39pm

re: #214 Vik

To answer your question: We surveil mosques and keep an eye out for incitement. If we find any, we move in on the people who are inciting. We don't bother those who have not broken the law.

216 Vik  Sun, Jul 19, 2009 6:32:37pm

#215, Dark_Falcon

If we find any, we move in on the people who are inciting.

As far as I know, an Imam who preaches violence is not breaking any current U.S. laws. Can you provide a link to document your statement that law enforcement officials take action in such cases?


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: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

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 Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 143 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1