NationStates Jolt Archive

...
It's offtopic, BTW.

Special status? No. Different status. The difference is there whether you want to see it or not (apparently the latest thing is to pretend to see no difference between religion and anything else). It's ascribed throughout our society, law, speech, politics, culture and in common fucking sense.

If you honestly can't tell the difference between religion and political ideology, then this forum - or any other medium involving both writing and reading - is not for you.
Stop making pointless and oblique insults and address my point, please.

Whether you want to call it "different" status or "special" status is irrelevant.

I made an honest comparison. The first is possible to carry out, and can be considered a threat, and is most likely illegal. The latter, assuming we're still talking about Hell here, is not possible (in the eyes of the law, or common sense) to carry out, and so wouldn't be a threat except in your endeavor to be "honest" you just said "torture" instead of, ya know, the "torture of hell-fire and damnation" which is clearly different from a person torturing someone else.

Terroristic threats are terroristic threats.


Yeah, "honestly" attempting to conflate wishing someone goes to Hell with a torture threat.
Again, it's not simply a torture threat. It's somebody saying that they believe you deserve to be tortured for eternity. That's forever and ever and ever.

Put it another way:

I respect believers enough to take them at their word. True, I don't believe Hell exists, but I believe them when they tell me that they believe I ought to be eternally tortured. And I judge them accordingly. A person who believes I should be tortured forever and ever is a person who is sick enough to do just about anything to me.

Mind your fingers....

I'll bite?

I'd like for people to address my post that was largely skipped.....and notably the BBC source I refernced:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13515860&postcount=208

I'd like for people to address my post that was largely skipped.....and notably the BBC source I refernced:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13515860&postcount=208

The "experiment" failed because the Muslims refused to assimilate. They took the Netherland's multicultural acceptance as weakness.

Like Christianity, Islam is one of those viral ideas that is self-promoting. If you don't take steps to confine it to specific aspects of life, it will expand as far as you allow it.

You have to constantly take these steps - here in the US, if you're not on top of it, the Ten Commandments will end up in your government building. It's a continuous thing.

The Muslims who came to the Netherlands never had any intention of assimilating. While those who praise multiculturalism and are tolerant of other cultures have a good idea, it only works if everyone makes some compromises. So, the original inhabitants of the Netherlands were willing to make accomodations - if this was to work, the Muslim immigrants would have to make some compromises.

It was doomed to failure. They never intended to assimilate. In fact, they are demanding that the original inhabitants of the Netherlands make more accomodations to them. And it won't stop until they get what they want - it is an essential part of Islam that they change the world into the world of Islam.

The man claims to be a defender of free speech, yet also (http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/article451302.ece/Wilders_verbied_de_Koran%2C_ook_in_moskee) calls for banning the Koran.

I don't know what I find worse, his hypocrisy or his bigotry. I'd have to say "both."
Do you Leftists get off everytime you see/hear/use the word bigot/bitotry?

Perhaps he said the Koran, or parts of it, should be banned because he believes it radicalizes people and causes them to create violence in the name of "God" which then makes his society unsafe...and to be honest, he does so by comparing it to the banning of Mein Kampf (except for educational use).

Do I agree with banning the book? No...but I also don't agree with banning Mein Kampf.

Do I agree with his stances on Islam? Yes, but I think "banning the book" is a rather European style attack he is using that I by nature don't agree with.

It all comes back to the "tolerant of intolerance arguement". Do you tolarete the freedom of idea/speech of people who want to kill others and take away their freedoms. People who obviously don't tolerate you? Do you stand valiantly upholding his ideas and values until you are dead or worse, enslaved and you have life, but no reason to live anymore, or do you negotiate with your values at times to that you live for the tomorrow, and maybe lose a night of sleep because you realize that sometimes life gets messy and it's as clear cut as "don't compromise our own values".

The "experiment" failed because the Muslims refused to assimilate. They took the Netherland's multicultural acceptance as weakness.

Like Christianity, Islam is one of those viral ideas that is self-promoting. If you don't take steps to confine it to specific aspects of life, it will expand as far as you allow it.

You have to constantly take these steps - here in the US, if you're not on top of it, the Ten Commandments will end up in your government building. It's a continuous thing.

The Muslims who came to the Netherlands never had any intention of assimilating. While those who praise multiculturalism and are tolerant of other cultures have a good idea, it only works if everyone makes some compromises. So, the original inhabitants of the Netherlands were willing to make accomodations - if this was to work, the Muslim immigrants would have to make some compromises.

It was doomed to failure. They never intended to assimilate. In fact, they are demanding that the original inhabitants of the Netherlands make more accomodations to them. And it won't stop until they get what they want - it is an essential part of Islam that they change the world into the world of Islam.
I couldn't agree more about Holland. You state a very good point and it all comes back to the arguement that Pim Fortuyn made, that Geert makes, that I make, that you make, and that many Dutch people make....notably from areas that are largely effected by the problems of Multiculturalism like Rotterdam, as the BBC article says.

And that basic arguement is:
"Het kan niet zo zijn, dat gasten het huis overnemen."
My Dutch is not fantastic, but I beleive that's right, if I recall correctly.

It means, "it can't be so, that the guests take over the house."

It means that people who come "here" adjust to "our" values, rule of laws, culture and society, and not "we" adjust for "them".:)

It means that people who come "here" adjust to "our" values, rule of laws, culture and society, and not "we" adjust for "them".:)

Well it's a load of crap - if a vegetarian guest comes to my house I respect that and prepare a vegetarian meal - I don't force meat down their throat, I invited them and I extend the same respect for their values that I ask of mine.

This is a bit by the by, the reality of the situation is that foreigners are often rebuffed by host country citizens - I went to a fairly multi-cultural University and there was a fair amount of snubbing of Muslims by everyone else - they were odd, they were strange, they looked wierd - I heard this all the time.

Now, it may not be everyone, it may not be the majority but it doesn't take much to create feelings of resentment.

I used to take customer service calls and even though the company hit targets 98% of the time, I had so many complaints that I felt the company sucked - I didn't place it in the context that what motivated people to call would mostly be complaints and that 30-40 calls a day out of a service provided to 100,000's wasn't that bad.

Yet I noticed them, I certainly noticed the complaints and we should understand that about Muslims in foreign countries - their customs are different enough that they're noticed and even if just 2% of people make them feel isolated about it, then given the other 98% are generally ignoring them, it's not hard to understand that a spiralling circle of resentment builds.

Demanding that they respect our customs and our way of life doesn't help, learning about them, talking to them, accomodating them does and the fact is that most people don't. They may not go so far as to spit on them but it only takes a few to do so to create problems.

The greatest progress in culture comes when cultures mix, isolation has rarely been to anyone's benefit - you only need to see the progress in British food over the last 40 years to understand that.

It all comes back to the "tolerant of intolerance arguement". Do you tolarete the freedom of idea/speech of people who want to kill others and take away their freedoms.
Yes.
People who obviously don't tolerate you?
Yes.
Do you stand valiantly upholding his ideas and values until you are dead or worse, enslaved and you have life, but no reason to live anymore, or do you negotiate with your values at times to that you live for the tomorrow, and maybe lose a night of sleep because you realize that sometimes life gets messy
No, I stand valiantly upholding his right and mine to hold whatever values he wants, for whatever reasons he wants. I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it.
and it's as clear cut as "don't compromise our own values".
I seem to be able to do that without living in fear of 'Islamization'.

I don't care if Islam takes over europe, in fact, I think it would be nice.

PS, the atheists on this forum DO sympathize with muslims! Quit being such a whiner.

You know so little about Atheists it's not funny.

You could consider for a minute that people are defending Muslims because we know one or two who are a hell of a lot saner than any Christian fundie. We don't necessarily "sympathise". More like we want to take the other side because we're sick of bigotry.

Take a look at the muhammed vs jesus thread, almost every page I found atheists defending muslims.

See above. And it's not just Atheists. There could be others who haven't made their faith known, and simply want it to be that way. Too bad you're stuck in a black and white, soundless world.

They can eat pork, you Atheist. Islam is flexible, and it is. Allah said that we may only do the outlawed when we can do nothing else to survive.
Ex: Jailed and only given pork and beer as food and drink. Allah let them eat the pork and drink the beer, as it's the only way to survive.

Do more research before attacking a religion/ culture.

What's the point in calling someone an Atheist in conversation, unless you intend for it to be derogatory, which your tone is making it out to be. It simply reinforces that you haven't done your research on a religion/culture.

Alcohol is permitted for medical reasons, not for general consumption, leading to intoxication. Pork is also prohibited for consumption in Islam, though other sources , ie: fish, may be used for gelatine.

For this reason, I fail to see your point about pork and alcohol being permitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_dietary_laws#Alcohol

Can you back up your claim that those two non-Halal items are permitted in Islam, despite wide-spread knowledge that pork and alcohol are indeed not permitted?

Do you Leftists get off everytime you see/hear/use the word bigot/bitotry?

Perhaps he said the Koran, or parts of it, should be banned because he believes it radicalizes people and causes them to create violence in the name of "God" which then makes his society unsafe...and to be honest, he does so by comparing it to the banning of Mein Kampf (except for educational use).

Do I agree with banning the book? No...but I also don't agree with banning Mein Kampf.

Do I agree with his stances on Islam? Yes, but I think "banning the book" is a rather European style attack he is using that I by nature don't agree with.

It all comes back to the "tolerant of intolerance arguement". Do you tolarete the freedom of idea/speech of people who want to kill others and take away their freedoms. People who obviously don't tolerate you? Do you stand valiantly upholding his ideas and values until you are dead or worse, enslaved and you have life, but no reason to live anymore, or do you negotiate with your values at times to that you live for the tomorrow, and maybe lose a night of sleep because you realize that sometimes life gets messy and it's as clear cut as "don't compromise our own values".

If he's going to ban books on the potential harm and radicalisation they could cause, why doesn't he have the Bible, Das Kapital and Atlas Shrugged on his list as well I wonder?

I think The Atlantian islands does not understand why you would do that for people who

A. despise your reasoning
B. wish to create a world where your "friend of Voltaire" attitude is not allowed
C. might succeed where B is concerned partly thanks to you.

If you can explain that, this thread could move on :)

Supporting the right to allow people to think as they wish isn't the same as turning over the country to them and letting them remove that right or any other.

No, I stand valiantly upholding his right and mine to hold whatever values he wants, for whatever reasons he wants. I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it.

I think The Atlantian islands does not understand why you would do that for people who

A. despise your reasoning
B. wish to create a world where your "friend of Voltaire" attitude is not allowed
C. might succeed where B is concerned partly thanks to you.

If you can explain that, this thread could move on :)

Well it's a load of crap - if a vegetarian guest comes to my house I respect that and prepare a vegetarian meal - I don't force meat down their throat, I invited them and I extend the same respect for their values that I ask of mine.
If a vegetarian guest comes to my house for dinner, I'll serve him what I feel feel is respectful because they are a guest and I cater the dinner to them. However, if he decides to stay a year long or even become an eternal guest, I'll expect him to eventually understand that he is in MY house and maybe, if he wants to stay here (and no one is forcing him), he may want to put some meat into his diet to 1. Make it easier on those hosting him so they feel he doesn't overstay his welcome. 2. Integrate into the household as best as possibly so that I start to forget that he is a guest and start to treat him like family.


The greatest progress in culture comes when cultures mix, isolation has rarely been to anyone's benefit.
Only if you believe that all cultures are equal, which I, and others who do not believe in cultural/moral relativism most certainly do NOT.

I suggest you watch it...you'll find he's quite reasonable.But Pim is not reasonable.

If he's going to ban books on the potential harm and radicalisation they could cause, why doesn't he have the Bible, Das Kapital and Atlas Shrugged on his list as well I wonder?
Well I'm sure if these ideas threatend to overrun Dutch society and destroy everything Holland's liberalism has created, then people would be talking about banning these aswell.

Pim Fortuyn, who I'm sure you know what not religion's best friend, already adressed the issue of the Dutch Christian conservatives. He said that their thought process had undergone the enlightenment and reformation, and whether they want to admit it or not, have modernized in their world view. He also states that these people have helped to build the country and are part of Holland, and it's not-comparable.

It's in his speech here (with English subs)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nC-JEM_3dM
I suggest you watch it...you'll find he's quite reasonable.

Anyway as I've already said I'm not exactly for the idea of banning books as that's very European counterattack and not what I, as an American believe in.

If a vegetarian guest comes to my house for dinner, I'll serve him what I feel feel is respectful because they are a guest and I cater the dinner to them. However, if he decides to stay a year long or even become an eternal guest, I'll expect him to eventually understand that he is in MY house and maybe, if he wants to stay here (and no one is forcing him), he may want to put some meat into his diet to 1. Make it easier on those hosting him so they feel he doesn't overstay his welcome. 2. Integrate into the household as best as possibly so that I start to forget that he is a guest and start to treat him like family.

Well a country is very different to a house and by extending the analogy like this you break it - it was meant for a specific purpose, to counter the idea that one doesn't respect the values of your guest.

People emigrate for a huge variety of reasons and 'staying here' is not always a viable choice, there's little option for them to return home - even for those who can return home, why should we demand that they do because we don't respect their values.

It's not a simple case of people refusing to fit in, there's numerous reasons as to why different cultures clash but the fact is that it's better when they integrate in a mutually respectful way than for one to make demands on the other.

So many immigrants want to be accepted, want to be part of society, they have pride and they want to show their equal worth, they want to contribute and when we deny them that opportunity by snubbing them, by treating them differently, it can cause great resentment. People come with such hope, often escaping from the very restrictive conditions we then place on them when they arrive.

That hope can be crushed.

Only if you believe that all cultures are equal, which I, and others who do not believe in cultural/moral relativism most certainly do NOT.

It's not really a question of equality here, it's the simple fact that sharing ideas, recipes, literature, music, film, philosophy and simple banter with different cultures leads to better thinking that isolation to your own, identical group.

Surely you, someone who has travelled and learned other languages can appreciate that?

But Pim is not reasonable.
Oh just fucking watch it instead of those little drive by comments that are not arguements and have nothing to even counter-attack except "yes he is" which goes nowhere.

Just watch it. It's got subs in English.

Oh just fucking watch it instead of those little drive by comments that are not arguements and have nothing to even counter-attack except "yes he is" which goes nowhere.

Just watch it. It's got subs in English.Can't. I'm on a library computer meaning I can't install the plug-in to let Firefox play it. From my past experiences with Forteyn, I can only say he isn't reasonable.

Well I'm sure if these ideas threatend to overrun Dutch society and destroy everything Holland's liberalism has created, then people would be talking about banning these aswell.

Pim Fortuyn, who I'm sure you know what not religion's best friend, already adressed the issue of the Dutch Christian conservatives. He said that their thought process had undergone the enlightenment and reformation, and whether they want to admit it or not, have modernized in their world view. He also states that these people have helped to build the country and are part of Holland, and it's not-comparable.

It's in his speech here (with English subs)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nC-JEM_3dM
I suggest you watch it...you'll find he's quite reasonable.

Anyway as I've already said I'm not exactly for the idea of banning books as that's very European counterattack and not what I, as an American believe in.

So it's not the books that are the issue after all, then, but rather what people make of them? Why would it be ok to ban the book then? I think you as American certainly can understand "It's not the books that kill people, it's people who kill people"?

And, no, banning books is by no means a "European" way of doing things. If, by that remark, you referred to "Mein Kampf" being banned in Germany and Austria (the only two countries to my knowledge), I think you picked a very poor example indeed, and a much-debatted at that. It was a prohibition that made sense in the immediate aftermath of WW II, but that has outlived its usefulness by a few decades by now.
The ban furthermore only referred to the selling of the book within Germany, mailorder from elsewhere was and still is possible, private ownership is allowed.

It is also banned in the Netherlands. Wilders claims that his reasons for banning the Qu'ran are similar.

Does he even realise that the onset of the internet has made that ban not worth the paper it's written on?
Are the regulations the same as in Germany? Cause if so, banning that book will not remove it from private posession, all it will accomplish will be to make it more difficult for theology students to obtain a copy from their library....

If, by that remark, you referred to "Mein Kampf" being banned in Germany and Austria (the only two countries to my knowledge), I think you picked a very poor example indeed, and a much-debatted at that.

It is also banned in the Netherlands. Wilders claims that his reasons for banning the Qu'ran are similar.

Terroristic threats are terroristic threats.

True enough. Wishing hell on someone is not a terroristic threat though, and I wonder just why you might want to pretend it is. Usually it's less level-headed people who advocate expanding the scope of "terrorism" to include practically everything.

Again, it's not simply a torture threat.

It's not a torture threat AT ALL.

It's somebody saying that they believe you deserve to be tortured for eternity. That's forever and ever and ever.

Yes, but a belief is not a threat.


I respect believers enough to take them at their word. True, I don't believe Hell exists, but I believe them when they tell me that they believe I ought to be eternally tortured. And I judge them accordingly. A person who believes I should be tortured forever and ever is a person who is sick enough to do just about anything to me.

Well, that leap of reasoning - "they wish Hell on me, therefore they are likely to rape/kill/blow up buildings/destroy freedom" - isn't supported by very much. There are far, far more people who might wish Hell on someone than are likely to commit violent acts against anyone.

Stop making pointless and oblique insults and address my point, please.

Can't see it happening, but at least he hasn't accused you of being a Nazi yet.

Quite sad too, that current present day Islam can be compared to the Church of the Middle Ages, which we all know could be awful, repressive, violent and corrupt, but we aren't allowed to say the same thing about Islam.


Christianity is 2000 yeqrs old. Islam is about 1400. Quite honestly, Islam is a damn sight better now than Christianity was back then, and we can only hope that it will mature as a religion, and I think it will. Extremism will become less common and the liberals will come even lore to the fore.


As to Wilders- I think the law scrapping is one of the most moronic ideas anyone has ever had. Laws tend to be put in place for reasons. Not only that, but after a while, the governments would not be able to make new laws unless it became legal to rape or murder.

Actually, I wonder what would happen if it became legal to commit murder.

Christianity is 2000 yeqrs old. Islam is about 1400. Quite honestly, Islam is a damn sight better now than Christianity was back then, and we can only hope that it will mature as a religion, and I think it will. Extremism will become less common and the liberals will come even lore to the fore.


Certainly in many parts of the middle east it seems at least the same to me. However, what the Muslims have as a disadvantage now is the force of the reactionary, which wasn't really present around the middle ages with Christianity. The west is seen as a key example of degeneracy, creating reactionaries throughout the Islamic world not wanting to have their religion and culture spoilt in this way. Back in the middle ages, the Christians had little example of an enlightened continent to react to so the only pressures holding them back were mainly conservative rather than reactionary (no they are not the same thing).

I wasn't intending to reply to this, but I decided to quote the evidence to show that I've been nothing but honest in this exchange, in sharp contrast to Trostia.

Indeed it is, but I didn't call you a Nazi and you won't find a single post in which I make such a claim.

Incidentally, you're complaining that I put words into your mouth, but you're claiming I called you a Nazi. Ironic? Hypocrisy? Idiotic? What's the best word for that?

Is he lying again, or just playing a silly semantics game? He said:

So I guess I take issue with stereotyping and insulting a religion like that. As I'm a Jew, I happen to know that it starts with stereotyping, insulting, generalizing and then proceeds to deportations in leaky boats and happy fun camps with laughing gas. I have a low tolerance for religious intolerance, mainly because I have ethics but also because I don't want to be taking a ride in the cattle cars myself soon - when you Islamophobes get tired of hating Muslims and choose to hate Jews again.

How much more explicit can you get? Not 'the Islamophobes [commiting mass-murder]', 'you Islamophobes [commiting mass-murder]'. Not only does he suggest that I hate Muslims (which is a lie), but he also suggests that I'm the kind of person who would have hated Jews in the past (another lie), that I'll do so in the future (also a lie) and that I'd support genocide (which is a lie of staggering proportions). At the very minimum he's accusing me of being a supporter of ethnic cleansing and a Nazi sympathiser.

As if this evidence wasn't damning enough, when I called him on it the first time he tried to defend his slander, saying:

I suggest that because you "bash," "attack," and are proud of how little "respect" you show one religion, you might "bash," "attack," and show no "respect" to another. This isn't exactly an unreasonable leap. The hate is seeping from your every word.

He replies to a post in which I say he called me a Nazi, not by denying it or by clarifying his position, but by defending his claim.

As if this wasn't obvious enough, he was even stupid enough to continue with the insinuations in this very post:

I never implied that you were a Nazi. I'm sure you're a member of no such party.

I wonder what the second sentence is meant to imply...

Anyone who goes to the start of our exchange will see that, for all his whining about personal attacks and ad hominems, he was the one to initiate the attacks with one of the most vile insults imaginable, responding to:

'Medieval' covers a period from the fifth to the fifteenth century, so Islam is a Medieval religion. It doesn't seem to make much sense either, so I'd be interested to know what part of the phrase 'bashing an idiot, medieval religion' you're taking issue with.

with his Nazi slur.

I think it's clear to everyone what Trostia accused me of being, and I think his lack of integrity is also very clear.

You know so little about Atheists it's not funny.

You could consider for a minute that people are defending Muslims because we know one or two who are a hell of a lot saner than any Christian fundie. We don't necessarily "sympathise". More like we want to take the other side because we're sick of bigotry.



See above. And it's not just Atheists. There could be others who haven't made their faith known, and simply want it to be that way. Too bad you're stuck in a black and white, soundless world.



What's the point in calling someone an Atheist in conversation, unless you intend for it to be derogatory, which your tone is making it out to be. It simply reinforces that you haven't done your research on a religion/culture.

Alcohol is permitted for medical reasons, not for general consumption, leading to intoxication. Pork is also prohibited for consumption in Islam, though other sources , ie: fish, may be used for gelatine.

For this reason, I fail to see your point about pork and alcohol being permitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_dietary_laws#Alcohol

Can you back up your claim that those two non-Halal items are permitted in Islam, despite wide-spread knowledge that pork and alcohol are indeed not permitted?

It is permitted ONLY in SPECIAL situation. Like I address in the post above. It is will not be in wikipedia, I know it because one day my teacher told us a story about one of Rasulullah companion get jailed as PoW in Byzantine. The King give him only pork and alcohol for 40 days. He didn't eat it, which make the King of Byzantine Romans confused "Didn't your God allow you to eat it on such special occasion?" -Continued-

(DISCLAIMER: There are some mistranslation, don't flame if the story doesn't make sense)

So, that's why I know about the Pork and Alcohol allowed in life-or-death situation...

Do you Leftists get off everytime you see/hear/use the word bigot/bitotry?

Look at my signature, and see how ridiculous calling me a "Leftist" is.

How much more explicit can you get? Not 'the Islamophobes [commiting mass-murder]', 'you Islamophobes [commiting mass-murder]'. Not only does he suggest that I hate Muslims (which is a lie), but he also suggests that I'm the kind of person who would have hated Jews in the past (another lie), that I'll do so in the future (also a lie) and that I'd support genocide (which is a lie of staggering proportions). At the very minimum he's accusing me of being a supporter of ethnic cleansing and a Nazi sympathiser.

As if this evidence wasn't damning enough, when I called him on it the first time he tried to defend his slander, saying:Anti-semitism is by no means limited to Nazism. It's been around much longer. The statement "GT said I was a Nazi" is baseless and the statement "GT implied I was a Nazi" isn't provable.

For example, in 2005 Wilders proposed implementing Israel's administrative detention in the Netherlands, a practice heavily criticized by human rights group Amnesty International.

FAIL.

I'll add EPIC to the FAIL sentence, please.

It is permitted ONLY in SPECIAL situation. Like I address in the post above. It is will not be in wikipedia, I know it because one day my teacher told us a story about one of Rasulullah companion get jailed as PoW in Byzantine. The King give him only pork and alcohol for 40 days. He didn't eat it, which make the King of Byzantine Romans confused "Didn't your God allow you to eat it on such special occasion?" -Continued-

(DISCLAIMER: There are some mistranslation, don't flame if the story doesn't make sense)

So, that's why I know about the Pork and Alcohol allowed in life-or-death situation...

And if his god did allow him, wouldn't one of the Rasulullah companions held as a PoW have eaten and drunk if his god has allowed it on a special occasion instead of abstaining, which is sounds like he did. It doesn't compute. If it did, he would have done so but didn't...

Anti-semitism is by no means limited to Nazism. It's been around much longer. The statement "GT said I was a Nazi" is baseless and the statement "GT implied I was a Nazi" isn't provable.

And were pre-Nazi anti-Semites noted for their use of gas-chambers and trains to death camps?

So I guess I take issue with stereotyping and insulting a religion like that. As I'm a Jew, I happen to know that it starts with stereotyping, insulting, generalizing and then proceeds to deportations in leaky boats and happy fun camps with laughing gas. I have a low tolerance for religious intolerance, mainly because I have ethics but also because I don't want to be taking a ride in the cattle cars myself soon - when you Islamophobes get tired of hating Muslims and choose to hate Jews again.

Also bear in mind that he admitted making the link in later posts, even defending it.

Aha....so one must live in that country to speak the truth about an event/issue currently important in that country? Being located outside that country automatically makes you unable to speak the truth about it? Geert is speaking the truth and is in the Netherlands, I'm just trying to bring it up for debate, discussion and give it some more publicity. It has nothing to do with Florida.....

Nice try though.Oh, no, I just find it funny that his most vocal supporters live on the other side of the Atlantic and probably never visited a Dutch institution that deals with immigrants.

Oh, so that's where you got "You called me a Nazi! You claimed I was a Nazi! Wah wah wah, how DARE you Specimen of Sub-Humanity slander my good name!"?

Figures.


So I guess I take issue with stereotyping and insulting a religion like that. As I'm a Jew, I happen to know that it starts with stereotyping, insulting, generalizing and then proceeds to deportations in leaky boats and happy fun camps with laughing gas. I have a low tolerance for religious intolerance, mainly because I have ethics but also because I don't want to be taking a ride in the cattle cars myself soon - when you Islamophobes get tired of hating Muslims and choose to hate Jews again.

And I stand by this. No, you're *not* a Nazi. Congratulations, and I'm awful sorry if you seem to think comparing Jew-hate with Muslim-hate was me calling you a member of the National Socialist Party or a convicted war criminal of any sort.

You're just an Islamophobe, and my point - clearly you missed it in your ranting self-righteous babbling - is that Islamophobia (Muslim-hating) is morally equivalent to Jew-hating, and that either one taken to it's extreme leads to the same end. Because whether YOU support gas chambers and such, your words, your constant religious intolerance (to the point of going to SUCH great lengths just to defend Sanmartin's ADMITTED Islam "bashing") will be the trumpet sounds of any such movement that follows that charming trend to its logical conclusion. It will be an ideological enabler of said movement.

Intolerance leads to intolerance. After all, anti-semitism in Europe lead to a situation in which a few Nazis could get away with much more than just "bashing" on some internet forum. It didn't start on the internet then, of course. The fact is however, that it is no longer "in." It's not common and commonly accepted - that Judaism is dangerous, that Jews have some sort of evil agenda, that they don't fit in with "us," that their beliefs are stupid, cruel, barbaric. What *is*, however, is the same treatment for Islam and Muslims.

Comparing the two groups of haters is not some outrageous slanderous attack on your part. I suggest you deal with it, and stop trying desperately (having made your huffy "I won't respond any more!" post already) to show how superior you are to me and how I, an evil wretch, am wounding your innocent soul to its core. It's kinda lame.

I feel I should point out that there still haven't been presented a good definition of this alleged "Islamization of our culture" that's supposedly taking place, and no good examples of it have been shown either.

I think it will be very interesting to see the Western world in a couple of years when Islam is a major factor in European culture.

I think it will be very interesting to see the Western world in a couple of years when Islam is a major factor in European culture.Define "major factor".

The "experiment" failed because the Muslims refused to assimilate.
Yet the majority apparently did?
While most immigrants had integrated well, it said, there were also growing ghettos of foreigners from countries such as Turkey and Morocco.

They took the Netherland's multicultural acceptance as weakness.
Bull!

or

Back it up.

Like Christianity, Islam is one of those viral ideas that is self-promoting. If you don't take steps to confine it to specific aspects of life, it will expand as far as you allow it.
Is that a bad thing?

The Muslims who came to the Netherlands never had any intention of assimilating.
Prove it.

*Points to BBC article above*

It was doomed to failure. They never intended to assimilate. In fact, they are demanding that the original inhabitants of the Netherlands make more accomodations to them. And it won't stop until they get what they want - it is an essential part of Islam that they change the world into the world of Islam.
What do "they" demand? What accomodations?

Look, this is going nowhere and doing nothing but raising both our blood-pressures. There's no need for all the insults and the back-and-forth (and I admit that some of my insults were overly aggressive, I shouldn't have posted while I was angry and I apologise for the 'specimen of humanity comment'): if I said that I hate Muslims then I swear I'll apologise for it and retract the statement; but if you've got no evidence that I do then you should do the same, deal?

I've already given one example of a post in which I explicitly denounced somebody for hating-Muslims simply for being Muslim and treating them as a homogeneous group, saying that I'd accept a Muslim who supported the foundations of liberal society as easily as I would a liberal Atheist, Christian or Jew.

If I'm the Muslim-hater you've accused me of being then it shouldn't be hard for you, but if you can't find an example of me saying I hate Muslims then you should have the decency to admit that I'm not a 'Muslim-hater' or a 'bigot' (and if you have the honesty to admit this then I'll also retract my accusations of dishonesty and any attacks I made on your character).

EDIT: Oops, I just realised that when I deleted my previous post I also deleted the example I refered to in the second paragraph, my bad. Here it is again:

But why is it necessary to join any dots? It's so much more effective to say "anyone who embraces these liberal values is my friend, anyone who doesn't is my enemy". If somebody supports equality for women, gay-rights, science etc. then I don't particularly care whether they're a Muslim, Christian, Atheist or Satanist (although I might still consider their beliefs to be silly). If you insist on opposing all Muslims rather than just the illiberal ones then you're fighting unnecessary battles against potential allies (not to mention implicitly welcoming illiberal Christians and Atheists as your allies).

The mere fact that BBC even felt the need to publish an article on "The Netherlands' example as a successful, tolerant, multicultural community has taken a dent with the publication of a parliamentary report saying Dutch society is becoming increasingly polarised, with huge ethnic ghettos and subcultures tearing the country apart." just goes to show that there is indeed a problem which totally rips apart the arguement that many people here give saying that there is no problem and attempt to sweep it under the rug. That, or/and they say the problem is Islamophobia.

Ok, just what the fuck does Islamophobia mean. We here stuff against Christianity as a religion all the time, can we not hear the same against Islam? This discussion is not over "Arabs place in Europe", "Albanians place in Europe", "Turks place in Europe", but rather about whether an idea, that is, a religion which composes of a set of cultural, legal and religious values is integratable and even desired in Europe or Western society as a whole. If there is something evil and racist about opposing an idea, then there should be "Christophobes, Capitalophobes, Communophobes, libertarianophobes, socialistophobes, religiousophobes, freedomophobes, liberalophobes, humanismophobes" ect...and on and on and thus, by being one, you should be looked upon as evil and not be allowed a further legit claim in the conversation. See how ridiculous it is? Saying I do not believe Islam in it's form is integratable into Western society is not the same as saying, I hate dark people, no matter how much many stupid Leftists and P.C. police on their anti-racism crusade will it to be.

It's. Getting. Fucking. Old.

That being said, let's get back to that BBC article.

The Netherlands' example as a successful, tolerant, multicultural community has taken a dent with the publication of a parliamentary report saying Dutch society is becoming increasingly polarised, with huge ethnic ghettos and subcultures tearing the country apart.

It is an issue which has been simmering away for years, but only made the headlines two years ago when the radical politician Pim Fortuyn, who was later assassinated, called for an end to immigration.

He said immigration, especially from Muslim countries, was diluting Dutch liberal values.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39766000/jpg/_39766357_1londonap203cred.jpg

The increase in the number of Muslims is raising concerns in some countries
Now the all-party parliamentary report has reached a similar conclusion. It says the attempt to create an integrated multi-ethnic society has failed.

While most immigrants had integrated well, it said, there were also growing ghettos of foreigners from countries such as Turkey and Morocco.

Even Dutch-born "foreigners" tend to marry within their own communities and find spouses in their parents' home countries.

The report blamed successive Dutch governments for what had previously been seen as a positive policy designed to make life easier for immigrants - allowing them to be taught in their native languages at primary school.

This had merely perpetuated their alienation and prevented them from integrating into Dutch society properly, it said.

In what would mark a reversal of a 30-year-old policy, the report recommended that the country's Muslims should henceforth effectively "become Dutch".

Dutch test

The city of Rotterdam, where almost half the population is of non-Dutch origin (and where Mr Fortuyn had his biggest following:)), has already pre-empted the report by bringing in measures to prevent the influx of more immigrants.

At the end of last year it sought to keep out poor immigrants by stipulating that newcomers must earn 20% more than the minimum wage. All applicants for a residence permit would have to demonstrate a good command of Dutch.

And no more political refugees would be accepted for four years.

Although the Dutch report deals broadly with "immigrants" and their effect on Dutch society, there is no doubt that it is Muslim immigrants who are seen as posing the biggest problem.

In this, there are similarities with France, where current moves to ban "religious symbols" in schools and public places are aimed primarily at banning the headscarf worn by many Muslim women.

Opinion surveys all over Europe have detected growing public distrust of Islam in the two years since the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington.

The US-led "war on terror" has been largely aimed at Islamist groups, inadvertently encouraging public perceptions of Muslims as being "incompatible" with Western society.

In the Netherlands (and elsewhere) there is talk of trying to create a "European" form of Islam - basically a secularised version, where private religious beliefs are tolerated but not any manifestations of Islam which undermine European laws and customs.

Integration

There is now a lively debate across Europe over whether assimilation or integration or multiculturalism is the most desirable way forward.

Holland seems to be lurching from the multicultural option - in which immigrants keep their own languages and cultures, at the risk of becoming ghettoised - to a policy of assimilation, by which newcomers lose all trace of their original identity and become indistinguishable from their "host" nation other than by the colour of their skin.

In the middle is the option of integration - practised with some success in the UK - whereby immigrants retain their distinct cultures but are also encouraged to become part of the general community.

With Belgium now also considering a headscarf ban, there appears to be a growing trend towards assimilation. It's a process that's already caused a storm among Islamic communities in Europe and abroad, and may be fraught with as many problems as the "opposite" policy of multiculturalism.

Trevor Phillips, chairman of the UK's Commission for Racial Equality, says the real enemy of integration is inequality: "The more we keep people unequal, the more they are likely to say, 'This society doesn't want us, it discriminates against us,' (and) they fall into the hands of extremists."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3417429.stm

So, now that we now these issues do exist and it's not just me and Geert making it up, I'd like everyone to read that article and try to debunk those points made and tell me it's not an issue with Islam.

The mere fact that BBC even felt the need to publish an article on "The Netherlands' example as a successful, tolerant, multicultural community has taken a dent with the publication of a parliamentary report saying Dutch society is becoming increasingly polarised, with huge ethnic ghettos and subcultures tearing the country apart." just goes to show that there is indeed a problem which totally rips apart the arguement that many people here give saying that there is no problem and attempt to sweep it under the rug. That, or/and they say the problem is Islamophobia.Part of the problem is Islamophobia. A lot of the ghettoing happens because Joe Average wants nothing to do with the muslims.
Ok, just what the fuck does Islamophobia mean. We here stuff against Christianity as a religion all the time, can we not hear the same against Islam?Islamophobia is an irrational aversion to everything to do with Islam. The reason why we don't rile against Islam as much as Christianity is because we still celebrate Christianity Day once every week in Europe.

Part of the problem is Islamophobia. A lot of the ghettoing happens because Joe Average wants nothing to do with the muslims.
Actually, BBC listed other problems. Can you please comment on the article from the post you quoted from.
Islamophobia is an irrational aversion to everything to do with Islam. The reason why we don't rile against Islam as much as Christianity is because we still celebrate Christianity Day once every week in Europe.
It's quite rational and is it evil? In America you'll find a general all around anti-Communist feel about anything to do with the ideology of Communism. So is that evil? Opposing an idea is allowed and there is NOTHING wrong with it. Islam is an idea that is in people's heads. They can change if they want.

"Islamophobia" - Irrational fear of Islam and/or muslims.

Your turn. Still waiting for your definition of the "Islamization of our culture" that's supposedly taking place, and good examples of what it is and how it's happening.

Actually, BBC listed other problems. Can you please comment on the article from the post you quoted from.Don't have time. Library closes in less than five.
It's quite rational and is it evil? In America you'll find a general all around anti-Communist feel about anything to do with the ideology of Communism. So is that evil? Opposing an idea is allowed and there is NOTHING wrong with it. Islam is an idea that is in people's heads. They can change if they want.Islamophobia is not a rational aversion to Islam. Neither is McCarthyism. I'd consider it wrong, although I wouldn't go so far as to call it downright evil. Remember, its an irrational opposition we're talking about here.

"Islamophobia" - Irrational fear of Islam and/or muslims.

Your turn. Still waiting for your definition of the "Islamization of our culture" that's supposedly taking place, and good examples of what it is and how it's happening.

Irrational to whom? To you? No. Islamophobia is a word that the Left and the P.C. police like to throw at those who are critical of Islam, which is an idea and therefore 100% allowed to be criticized.

I've posted this article which clearly shows the problems, so don't ignore it. Current events are on my side, it's your problem if you can't convince me that these current events are a non-issue, but not debating them doesn't work in a debate forum.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13522062&postcount=293

So get to it.

Islamophobia is not a rational aversion to Islam.

Is it possible in your view to have a rational aversion to Islam ?

...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3417429.stm....

Last Updated: Wednesday, 21 January, 2004, 17:48 GMT

I have two questions.

What has the Netherlands done in terms of changing its policy since then?How has it affected Dutch society?

Please provide some sort of source or link rather than trying to give me your opinion, TAI.

Don't have time. Library closes in less than five.
Islamophobia is not a rational aversion to Islam. Neither is McCarthyism. I'd consider it wrong, although I wouldn't go so far as to call it downright evil. Remember, its an irrational opposition we're talking about here.
Well you should get on NSG at home or another place so you can read that article AND watch the video I asked you to watch yesterday (or two days ago) that you also said you couldn't watch because you were at the library.

I don't have a major problem with McCarythyism. There were innocents that got hurt, but this was a war and it was 100% needed to make sure our government was free of Commies. You'd be a fool to think the Commies didn't have spies in our government or people who were sypathetic to them.

Though that's neither here nor there. We can debate McCarthy some other place/time.

It's not Islamophobia to point out that society in general allows much more idiocy from Islam than it does currently for Christianity.

Oh sure. Christmas Day. Well, people do Ramadan here, too, just not as many, eh? And if anyone is smart, they'll have Ramadan Sales Days if they need another reason to get customers.

Even the Japanese are into Christmas - and they aren't even Christian.

I'm all for the commercialization of every sacred holiday of every religion.

But the bombings and killings and other violence - well, it seems that the Christians are easily outnumbered in terms of direct acts of terror in the name of their religion. Christians had their own centuries of terror - the Inquisition was no joke. Neither was the IRA, or some Christian anti-abortion groups - but you'll notice the trend.

This trend was made possible by the Reformation. Which allowed the development of church-independent thought - which brought us better forms of government and a science we could depend on to better our lives.

Islam has not gone through a similar reformation. Additionally, just because our thought processes are not governed by the Church, doesn't mean we make mistakes.

We marginalize Christianity to the extent that most people who claim to be Christians barely attend church. It's Christmas and maybe Easter, and then there's not time for church. We laugh at creationists, and teach their kids evolution. It's not a religion in a position to really fight back anymore. And that's deceptive.

It took hundreds of years of fighting to conclude the Reformation. Wars, civil wars, and revolutions brought us the nations of Europe and the United States.

Religion NEVER takes it laying down, until it's been sufficiently marginalized.

Which is why I think we need to make sure that Islam, as well as other religions, receive no leeway in public discourse. And that we should be prepared to fight to keep the freedoms that took millions of lives over hundreds of years to obtain.

I have two questions.

What has the Netherlands done in terms of changing its policy since then?How has it affected Dutch society?

Please provide some sort of source or link rather than trying to give me your opinion, TAI.
It doesn't matter if that article is old. The exact problems still linger and the ones who try to change things, like Geert...get called Islamophobes, extremist, and bigots...ect

I don't want to provide ANOTHER link right now, I want you to comment/critic/attack/defend THAT one that I already posted.

Do so or leave.

What has the Netherlands done in terms of changing its policy since then?How has it affected Dutch society?

Basicly nothing. And the aversion to Islam and "allochtonen" has increased amongst the general population.

It doesn't matter if that article is old. The exact problems still linger and the ones who try to change things, like Geert...get called Islamophobes, extremist, and bigots...ect

I don't want to provide ANOTHER link right now, I want you to comment/critic/attack/defend THAT one that I already posted.

Well, if the exact problems still linger despite the fact that the Netherlands has completely changed its policy on multiculturalism, then we can safelty assume that these problems were not caused by multiculturalism.

The only logical conclusion is that other factors must be causing these problems of alienation and lack of integration. I would guess that it would be the bigoted and xenophobic environment whipped up by Geert Wilders and people like him. That would definitely cause many of the problems shown in your BBC article.

Do so or leave.:rolleyes:

I don't have a major problem with McCarythyism.

Quelle Suprise.

Quelle Suprise.

You have to admit it has a nicer charm than being executed with a cheap cartridge that used a paper wad for a bullet (saving the Revolution precious resources) for being a member of the bourgeois.

Irrational to whom? To you? No. Islamophobia is a word that the Left and the P.C. police like to throw at those who are critical of Islam, which is an idea and therefore 100% allowed to be criticized.
Irrational, as in, you have no foundation in reason to fear Islam or muslims.

When you can't make a rational argument as to why you fer Islam or muslims, you act islamophobic. When you fear all muslims because they're muslims, or because muslims on another continent have commited acts of violence for political reasons, you act islamophobic.

I've posted this article which clearly shows the problems, so don't ignore it. Current events are on my side, it's your problem if you can't convince me that these current events are a non-issue, but not debating them doesn't work in a debate forum.
First of all, I've been asking you for quite some time about the term you first presented in your OP, and you're still dodging it. So get down of your high horse and live up to your own words, eh?

Secondly:
While most immigrants had integrated well, it said, there were also growing ghettos of foreigners from countries such as Turkey and Morocco.
That's quite telling.

What the article doesn't say is how the country is supposedly torn apart - nor why the failure to create a integrated multi-ethnic society should be a problem. In short, it's not a very in-debt analysis.

So get to it.
Why don't you do the same?


This trend was made possible by the Reformation. Which allowed the development of church-independent thought - which brought us better forms of government and a science we could depend on to better our lives.

Islam has not gone through a similar reformation.
I forget: When was the Catholic church reformed again?

I forget: When was the Catholic church reformed again?

The institution of the Catholic Church has never gone through revolutionary reform. But the European reformation was in the 1500s.

Irrational to whom? To you? No. Islamophobia is a word that the Left and the P.C. police like to throw at those who are critical of Islam, which is an idea and therefore 100% allowed to be criticized.

I'm strongly left-wing (very libertarian socially, welfare-state/reasonably regulated market economically) and I'm pretty vocal in criticising organised religions, including Islam, when I see their dogmas as conflicting with Liberalism. There's no need to generalise.

The institution of the Catholic Church has never gone through revolutionary reform.
Quite.


But the European reformation was in the 1500s.
Thank Peter Sellers that there's not been any horrible acts done in the name of (reformed) Christianity after that time, wot?

Thank Peter Sellers that there's not been any horrible acts done in the name of (reformed) Christianity after that time, wot?

Well that depends on what you mean by reformed. I will add that, although the Catholic Church has never gone through any revolutionary reform, it has evolved throughout the millennium to a much more tolerable (but still stupid) institution.

Irrational to whom? To you? No. Islamophobia is a word that the Left and the P.C. police like to throw at those who are critical of Islam, which is an idea and therefore 100% allowed to be criticized.
Of course beliefs that are dodgy should be criticised; I and many others on this board would join in criticising the practices of some Muslim sects and some Muslims themselves.

But saying, as you do, that all Muslims are dangerous, that all of Islam is terrible and corrupting and harmful, that no Muslim can ever be part of ‘Western society’ is going beyond rational criticism and into the territory of irrational hatred; called by some ‘Islamaphobia’.

If you have valid criticism of some Islamic practice, and there certainly is some that it's perfectly valid to criticise, then by all means go ahead. But when you come on here to make multiple threads attempting to show the complete incompatibility of any Muslim or Islamic practice with 'Western society', prepare to get slated.

I'm strongly left-wing (very libertarian socially, welfare-state/reasonably regulated market economically) and I'm pretty vocal in criticising organised religions, including Islam, when I see their dogmas as conflicting with Liberalism. There's no need to generalise.

Ah, but TAI along with NM and others thrive on generalizing about Islam and Muslims, especially when it comes to portraying them as intolerant and violent insectoid Bin-Laden worshipping hiveminds. Their posting histories are quite telling in that regards.

You have to admit it has a nicer charm than being executed with a cheap cartridge that used a paper wad for a bullet (saving the Revolution precious resources) for being a member of the bourgeois.

...which presumes that scenario is the only viable alternative to Mc Carthyism, and indeed that McCarthyism has some role in preventing such.

Well you should get on NSG at home or another place so you can read that article AND watch the video I asked you to watch yesterday (or two days ago) that you also said you couldn't watch because you were at the library.Send me the money for a new computer and I'll gladly oblige. Maybe then you'd have an argument justifying acting like I'm required to pay minute attention to you.
I don't have a major problem with McCarythyism. There were innocents that got hurt, but this was a war and it was 100% needed to make sure our government was free of Commies. You'd be a fool to think the Commies didn't have spies in our government or people who were sypathetic to them.I never said I consider you a rational person, you know.

And if his god did allow him, wouldn't one of the Rasulullah companions held as a PoW have eaten and drunk if his god has allowed it on a special occasion instead of abstaining, which is sounds like he did. It doesn't compute. If it did, he would have done so but didn't...

It is allowed, but not suggested. So, he didn't eat it, because of his faith to God. Ah, I can't ever be same like those in the Golden Age of Islam...

Is it possible in your view to have a rational aversion to Islam ?Yes. There's rational reasons for not wanting to convert to a religion.

The Majority of voter disagree with him.
All Burn him, shoot him, execute him!! :D:D [Joke]

Anyway, this means most here don't think Netherland will fall, at least more than one decade in the future?

...which presumes that scenario is the only viable alternative to Mc Carthyism, and indeed that McCarthyism has some role in preventing such.

It's not the only alternative - it's just the diametric opposite. Go to the Soviet Union during the purges and see how Communists deal with paranoia.

So, TAI, now that Ive discussed your post, do you think you could answer my post:

Are you going to add anything to the debate?

On topic: One of the interesting things I've always noticed about people who claim that Islamic culture is incompatible with Dutch or some other western European culture, is that they are unable to define three things:


What Dutch culture is.
What Islamic culture is.
How they are incompatible.


Not that I expect you to. As you've never actually answered these questions the last few times I've asked them.

http://davidszondy.com/ephemeral/ephemeral.html

Okay, I've been holding on to this for a while now, and this seems as good a thread as any to share it.

http://davidszondy.com/ephemeral/ephemeral.html

Okay, I've been holding on to this for a while now, and this seems as good a thread as any to share it.
Could have used a bit of commentary...

Yes. There's rational reasons for not wanting to convert to a religion.

No, I meant stronger than that. Considering the morals as prescribed by Islam to be evil for instance.

No, I meant stronger than that. Considering the morals as prescribed by Islam to be evil for instance.Depends. I'm pretty sure a condemnation of all morals prescribed by Islam is irrational, however picking and choosing the really bad ones probably would not be.

Depends. I'm pretty sure a condemnation of all morals prescribed by Islam is irrational, however picking and choosing the really bad ones probably would not be.

And then for step 3:
If in your opinion being a "good muslim" (as in one that follows the rules laid out by the Qu'ran and the surrounding culture) means you are a bad person overall (with only some redeeming qualities) - do you have to be irrational ?

And then for step 3:
If in your opinion being a "good muslim" (as in one that follows the rules laid out by the Qu'ran and the surrounding culture) means you are a bad person overall (with only some redeeming qualities) - do you have to be irrational ?Like most religious books, the Qu'ran is self-contradictory, so such a person would be impossible.

No, I meant stronger than that. Considering the morals as prescribed by Islam to be evil for instance.



Giving to the poor is inherantly evil? Hell, how can you even twist giving to the poor as evil ever?


Read the Koran and then tell me the morals Islam prescribes are all evil. And read the actual Koran. Not those BS websites that "cite" passages from the Koran to prove Islam is teh ebil, when half the time the passages is either not in the Koran but another text or just 100% made up.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/

This is an online version that I use a lot. Simply because I'm already familiar with the search 'engines'.

Giving to the poor is inherantly evil? Hell, how can you even twist giving to the poor as evil ever?

Oh - THAT is easy. Giving to the poor instead of teaching them how to stop being poor is ultimately bad for the people involved. Years of foreign aid following that model has quite conclusively proven that.

Read the Koran and then tell me the morals Islam prescribes are all evil. And read the actual Koran. Not those BS websites that "cite" passages from the Koran to prove Islam is teh ebil, when half the time the passages is either not in the Koran but another text or just 100% made up.

Can you read ?
Yes ?
Then do so. I am not proclaiming the Qu'ran to be evil - I am arguing against the idea that being opposed to Islam as a whole has to mean one is irrational. If I myself think Islam is good/bad/whatever is irrelevant.

Of course beliefs that are dodgy should be criticised; I and many others on this board would join in criticising the practices of some Muslim sects and some Muslims themselves.

But saying, as you do, that all Muslims are dangerous, that all of Islam is terrible and corrupting and harmful, that no Muslim can ever be part of ‘Western society’ is going beyond rational criticism and into the territory of irrational hatred; called by some ‘Islamaphobia’.

If you have valid criticism of some Islamic practice, and there certainly is some that it's perfectly valid to criticise, then by all means go ahead. But when you come on here to make multiple threads attempting to show the complete incompatibility of any Muslim or Islamic practice with 'Western society', prepare to get slated.

*Agrees*

It's not Islamophobia to point out that society in general allows much more idiocy from Islam than it does currently for Christianity.



Which is why people like Pat Robertson get air time, yes? Which is why Jame Dobson's Focus on the Family is considered a legit group? Which is why we spend MILLIONS on abstinance only education because Christians dont want their kids to learn about dirty sex? Which is why we actualy have to FIGHT to teach evolution and not creationism in science class? Which is why gay marriage is not allowed in the US and why the government has tried a few times lately to pass a CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT to define marriage as between a man and a woman? Which is why...


You get the point. The above comment is simply false. When Christians do things, we need to respect their beliefs, when Muslims do it, its "OMG LOOK AT TEH EBIL MOSLAMS TRYING TO TAKE OVER OUR CULTUREZ!!!!111!1!!1!"

*Checks watch*

The Netherlands was such a lovely country when I lived there. Very social, and liberal, and pleasant to live in. I used to be quite proud of my country's poilitics.
Why did they throw that overboard??
Now they are just another narrowminded immature egocentrical xenophobic country. As if there aren't enough of those already.

First Pim Fortuyn, then nutcase Verdonk and now...Geert Wilders?? How cna you take someone with a haircut like that serious anyway?

My Dutchies have lost it.. :(

The Netherlands was such a lovely country when I lived there. Very social, and liberal, and pleasant to live in. I used to be quite proud of my country's poilitics.
Why did they throw that overboard??

They didn't. They very liberally allow a fruitcake to speak.

It's not Islamophobia to point out that society in general allows much more idiocy from Islam than it does currently for Christianity.

No, that would just be stupidity.


But the bombings and killings and other violence - well, it seems that the Christians are easily outnumbered in terms of direct acts of terror in the name of their religion. Christians had their own centuries of terror - the Inquisition was no joke. Neither was the IRA, or some Christian anti-abortion groups - but you'll notice the trend.

This trend was made possible by the Reformation. Which allowed the development of church-independent thought - which brought us better forms of government and a science we could depend on to better our lives.

Islam has not gone through a similar reformation.

Given that Christianity has been around for about 700 years longer than Islam, and given that the Reformation happened about five hundred years ago, I'd say that Islam has another couple of centuries to go before we could even say that they're lagging behind the Christians.


We marginalize Christianity to the extent that most people who claim to be Christians barely attend church. It's Christmas and maybe Easter, and then there's not time for church.

Wait, so it's my fault that Christians choose not to attend Church?

There are three churches within four blocks of my home, and I live dead smack in the middle of the city where real estate is at a premium. Now, granted, I don't want to waste my time going to church either, so I don't blame any Christians who prefer a warm bath and a nice book to sitting in a pew, but come on. Don't bother trying to claim that they're prevented from going.


We laugh at creationists, and teach their kids evolution.

We also laugh at Flat Earthers and teach their kids geography.


It's not a religion in a position to really fight back anymore.

"Fight back" against what? Against reality? Against science? Why would Christianity need to fight back against either of those? I know plenty of Christians on this very forum who have no problem with evolutionary biology, and who still fit church into their busy schedules.

Frankly, if evolutionary biology and a busy schedule are enough to make a Christian abandon their religion, then I'd say that's just evidence that their religion didn't mean all that much to them in the first place.

The majority of Christians across history lived in poverty, with a life expectancy of roughly half what we have today. They watched half of their children die in infancy. They would laugh in your face if you showed them modern life and claimed it's just too hard for people to be Christian these days.


It took hundreds of years of fighting to conclude the Reformation. Wars, civil wars, and revolutions brought us the nations of Europe and the United States.

Religion NEVER takes it laying down, until it's been sufficiently marginalized.

Religion never takes it laying down even when it has been marginalized all to hell. Look at all the cults and fringe sects out there. If anything, religion becomes louder and more obnoxious the less attention you give it. It's like the annoying little brother who would rather get negative attention than no attention at all. Religion is the hair-pulling bratty sibling of human cultures.


Which is why I think we need to make sure that Islam, as well as other religions, receive no leeway in public discourse. And that we should be prepared to fight to keep the freedoms that took millions of lives over hundreds of years to obtain.
Right now, my freedoms are primarily under assault from Christians. Muslims pose approximately zero threat to my rights. I can only spend so many hours out of the day fighting for my rights (gal's gotta eat, you know), so I prioritize.

It would appear that even some Dutch Jewish groups are getting worried about Wilders:

The statements of right-wing Dutch MP Geert Wilders are on the same level as anti-Semitism. That's the thrust of a full-page advertisement that Dutch-Jewish television producer Harry de Winter placed on the front page of Monday's edtion of newspaper de Volkskrant. Dutch Muslims have reacted with surprise.

Link. (http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/080317-wilders-de-winter-mc)

The thrust of the article is that a prominent Jewish liberal from the Netherlands has publicly compared Wilders' stance on Muslims and Islam as equivalent to anti-Semitism. He argues that if Wilders had said the same of Jews, he would long ago have been slapped down by many segments of Dutch society.

It would appear that even some Dutch Jewish groups are getting worried about Wilders:



Link. (http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/080317-wilders-de-winter-mc)

The thrust of the article is that a prominent Jewish liberal from the Netherlands has publicly compared Wilders' stance on Muslims and Islam as equivalent to anti-Semitism. He argues that if Wilders had said the same of Jews, he would long ago have been slapped down by many segments of Dutch society.

I'm glad, maybe now someone will listen. So many people seem to think that hating and fearing Muslims is intrinsically different (and, not as bad!) from hating and fearing Jews. It's the same damn thing.

It's the same damn thing.

..and in some instances, almost word for word.

It would appear that even some Dutch Jewish groups are getting worried about Wilders:



Link. (http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/080317-wilders-de-winter-mc)

The thrust of the article is that a prominent Jewish liberal from the Netherlands has publicly compared Wilders' stance on Muslims and Islam as equivalent to anti-Semitism. He argues that if Wilders had said the same of Jews, he would long ago have been slapped down by many segments of Dutch society.

Interesting.

I hope it has a positive effect.

*Tries to kill thread* *Gasp*....I can't...it's to hard..*gasp*...it just won't die!!

*Tries to kill thread* *Gasp*....I can't...it's to hard..*gasp*...it just won't die!!

It will die when Fitna airs and everybody sees the no doubt pathetic thing Wilders made.

Unless some angry terrorist groups, outraged by the suggestion that muslims are violent, kill and destroy some things. And since most people cannot seperate individuals from a group their actions will make muslims look far worse than a moron like Wilders could ever have done without their help.
Sad, but true.

*Tries to kill thread* *Gasp*....I can't...it's to hard..*gasp*...it just won't die!!

I'll let it die when AI returns to his thread and responds to the questions posed to him in a satisfactory manner. (Or when someone does it for him.)

And now the Dutch government is overtly distancing itself from Wilders:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7304450.stm

Denmark's Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has strongly criticised the Dutch MP Geert Wilders, and his plans to release a film which is critical of Islam.
The film has triggered Muslim outrage, even before it has been released.

“I dissociate myself completely from Geert Wilders' points of view, and I must clearly reject Mr Wilders' attempt at associating his views to those of the Danish government," Mr Rasmussen said.

If TAI ever returns to this thread, I wonder if he could explain why the government would be doing this if he was so popular?

*Checks watch*
Is it Hammertime?
I'll let it die when AI returns to his thread and responds to the questions posed to him in a satisfactory manner. (Or when someone does it for him.)

When you say someone does it for him, do you mean anyone?

And now the Dutch government is overtly distancing itself from Wilders:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7304450.stm


Danish =/= Dutch.

Is it Hammertime?

Ach ja. Hammerzeit!

When you say someone does it for him, do you mean anyone?
Yeah. Anyone who's like to explain and give an example of what the "Islamization of our culture" is is welcome to do so in lieu of AI.

Danish =/= Dutch.
Well, they are both flat countries... :p

Well, they are both flat countries... :pBollocks, our highest point is 322 meters high, whil the Danish only get to 171 meters.:p

I am going to seriously laugh when this blond-headed twat gets shotgunned or decapitated, he will so deserve it, I mean seriously it's far-right crazies killing far-right crazies, get me the popcorn!

I am going to seriously laugh when this blond-headed twat gets shotgunned or decapitated, he will so deserve it, I mean seriously it's far-right crazies killing far-right crazies, get me the popcorn!

What!? I thought a hard core commie like you would hate the Islamics just as much as this nobody politician.

Edit: It's weird, you talk nonchalantly about mass mudering people, and yet insulting sombody hurts your precious sensiblities? I don't understand you at all.

Why is this person important, people can just ignore him like everyone else can't they?

The thrust of the article is that a prominent Jewish liberal from the Netherlands has publicly compared Wilders' stance on Muslims and Islam as equivalent to anti-Semitism. He argues that if Wilders had said the same of Jews, he would long ago have been slapped down by many segments of Dutch society.

And on the other hand we have Sheikh imam Fawaz Jneid - who has declared that muslims should admit that they themselves are partly to blame for their negative image...

http://www.nu.nl/news/1488930/10/%27Moslims_moeten_hand_in_eigen_boezem_steken%27.html

Note that Fawaz is the same Imam that publicly wished a deadly disease on van Gogh and Hirsi Ali a few years ago.
It is like a surreal pingpong match ;)

It would appear that even some Dutch Jewish groups are getting worried about Wilders:



Link. (http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/080317-wilders-de-winter-mc)

The thrust of the article is that a prominent Jewish liberal from the Netherlands has publicly compared Wilders' stance on Muslims and Islam as equivalent to anti-Semitism. He argues that if Wilders had said the same of Jews, he would long ago have been slapped down by many segments of Dutch society.

And did you notice some of the comments on that page? Quite a few Kimchiteers who were pretty much calling de Winter a Nazi Collaborator for not going along with the "ebil moslems" bandwagon.

Danish =/= Dutch.

Okay. Now I feel like a moron.

Bollocks, our highest point is 322 meters high, whil the Danish only get to 171 meters.:p
Pfft! Under 500 meters and you count as "Pancake" :p

And did you notice some of the comments on that page? Quite a few Kimchiteers who were pretty much calling de Winter a Nazi Collaborator for not going along with the "ebil moslems" bandwagon.
Happens all the time. Islamophobia is a modern problem in these kinds of debates.

We do have nice pancakes here.:p

We do have nice pancakes here.:p

Our pancakes are so good the beastie boys sang about them :)

We do have nice pancakes here.:p

I know. I love 'em http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-wub22.gif