Dutch MP denied entry to the UK - his presence on British soil might offend Islam

[Great Librarian]

That's just it. They don't all believe the same thing any more than all atheists do. Your assumptions about their religion are simply wrong just as Wilders are.

I havn't assumed anything about Islam. I mentioned they all read the Quran, is that a poor assumption?

 

[Dachs]

But let me guess Dachs, you suspect that overtime Islam will ease itself out across the world, become a much kinder and tolerant religion within the Middle East.

I have no reason to suspect that. I think that the current wave of fundamentalism and religiously driven violence in many Muslim countries - which already shows a few signs of moderating to some extent - is due to aggressive secularization in many societies, the most obvious examples being the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the revolution in Iran. Within human history, you can discern cycles of this sort of activity. I don't think that the most recent episodes of religious fundamentalism driving violence are the last such instances of this sort of thing, even within Islam, much less within Christianity or any other religion.

Well, sorry to bring you the bad news but so long as religion itself exist expect religious fanatics to continue killing human beings.

As long as humans themselves exist, expect people to continue killing other human beings. What's your point?

 

[Great Librarian]

As long as humans themselves exist, expect people to continue killing other human beings. What's your point?

I guess I am foolish to believe the world would be a slightly less terrible place to live in if religion didn't exist.

 

[Yeekim]

I guess I am foolish to believe the world would be a slightly less terrible place to live in if religion didn't exist.

Probably. God did not create Man in His image, but vice versa.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I havn't assumed anything about Islam. I mentioned they all read the Quran, is that a poor assumption?

No, your poor assumption is that by doing so it turns them into "stupid" people who are unwittingly supporting a tiny handful of extremely dangerous fanatics.

Your poor assumption is that there is nothing wrong with bigoted idiots like Wilders, and that they are peforming a vital service by spewing their hatemongering.

Your poor assumption is believing that his 'documentary' isn't racist propaganda in its most vile form.

Your poor assumption is completely misunderstanding a religion which has over 1 billion peace-loving followers, most of whom just want to be left alone to pursue their own dreams in their own way.

Your poor assumption is that you are somehow superior to all of them merely because you are an atheist.

 

[El_Machinae]

Large numbers are tough to deal with. There are a billion followers, which is a large number. But the people who violently protested the Danish cartoons number in the hundreds of thousands, no? So, while that's a very small percentage, it's still a really big number.

 

[Kerozine]

I'm not sure how hostility to religion and/or its adherents is going to help your cause..

 

[Great Librarian]

No, your poor assumption is that by doing so it turns them into "stupid" people who are unwittingly supporting a handful of fanatics.

Well, they are stupid. Believing in magic is stupid. There's no way around it as far as I'm concerned. Santa doesn't exist. Allah doesn't exist. Miracles don't happen. There are no messengers of a god character from a shepherd's book of fairy tales to whom the truth of Islam was revealed. It's a stupid thing to believe in and Muslims are stupid for believing it... stupid.

Your poor assumption is that there is nothing wrong with bigoted idiots like Wilders, and that he is peforming a vital service.

Ugh... there's problems with bigots. Can you quote where it was that I wrote I believe he is performing a vital service? No? That's unsurprising since I didn't. What he is doing is exercising his freedom of expression. Apparently, it's problematic to do so in Britain.

Your poor assumption is believing that his 'documentary' isn't racist propaganda in its most vile form.

Interesting that you would call that 17 minute film 'racist propaganda in its most vile form.' I have a hard time believing it. Mostly, it's difficult to believe because 'Islam' is not a race of people.

Your poor assumption is completely misunderstanding a religion which has over 1 billion peace-loving followers.

Not sure I misunderstand the religion. The tenets of Islam are actually very easy to understand - I can read.

most of whom just want to be left alone to pursue their own dreams and in their own way.

Which would be something I would have no problem with. Problematic, however, is that these people want to legislate their ability to pursue their own dreams their way and that this seriously infringes on the rights and freedoms of other people. If they wanted to be left alone, they'd happily live in Western society where all manner of people have lived quite happily with the established laws. Which is not to say that there isn't room for improvement with the laws.

Also problematic is that the moderates of Islam (or any religion) lend legitimacy to extremists. After all, how can someone who believes in magic gainsay the magical beliefs of another? Where is the line drawn between how what's written in a book of fairy tales gets interpreted and practised in what ways?

But, really, we're here arguing about a man who was denied access to a democratic country with freedom of expression laws essentially because his being in the country provoked the indignation of someone. Sure, you might not agree with what he has to say and you might think he's a bigot. You might be right, but he should be heard. Ahmadinejad was allowed to speak in the US, despite indignation and perceived offence. If there is a line to be drawn regarding how much offence can be taken before someone is silenced (or in this case denied access to a country he was going to speak in), what is that line? Wilders never threatened anyone with death or incited hatred with the intent to have violence committed. Is Wilders where we're drawing the line? Are people not to be heard because they're offencive? That's a dangerous line to draw. Far more dangerous than admitting Wilders into Britain.

Your poor assumption is that you are somehow superior to all of them merely because you are an atheist.

Good thing I checked to see what else had been added! *whew*

So, was that assumption implied by me anywhere or are you making things up again? I don't believe I'm superior merely because I'm an atheist. It would certainly be nice. No, I'm superior because I believe in things like constitutions and freedoms.

 

[Sharwood]

Dude, you're lumping all atheist together. I think thats a huge mistake. The very premise of atheism is a belief in no God. There are no other shared values or beliefs beyond that one point of agreement.

God, this is so good I don't know whether to point out its awesomeness, or just sit back and laugh.

But I really think they're stupid for believing in a God. I think its such a stupid idea. C'mon, you're getting carried away trying to lump me in with Geert now.

Not stupid, just unreasonable, as it cannot be proven. Kind of like your belief that there is no God, despite no evidence at all in favour of your belief.

 

[Great Librarian]

Not stupid, just unreasonable, as it cannot be proven. Kind of like your belief that there is no God, despite no evidence at all in favour of your belief.

Sharwood, practically anything is more believable as an explanation for our existence than what is written in the Quran.

I might lack an absolute answer but at least my theories don't involve fairy tales.

 

[Dachs]

Sharwood, practically anything is more believable as an explanation for our existence than what is written in the Quran.

I might lack an absolute answer but at least my theories don't involve fairy tales.

That's a normative statement, you know.

 

[warpus]

Warpus chiming in to remind everyone that not all atheists believe that there is no God.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Large numbers are tough to deal with. There are a billion followers, which is a large number. But the people who violently protested the Danish cartoons number in the hundreds of thousands, no? So, while that's a very small percentage, it's still a really big number.

Out of 1 billion people, lets say 100,000 protested. That's one in 10,000. And perhaps there are 1,000 that may be incited to violence over it. That's one in 1 million. I don't think you should start condemning an entire religion on the basis of a few nuts, especially since there are just as many, if not more, fundamentalist Christians who would do exactly the same thing if the roles are reversed.

 

[Kerozine]

Warpus chiming in to remind everyone that not all atheists believe that there is no God.

That doesn't make sense.

 

[Sharwood]

Sharwood, practically anything is more believable as an explanation for our existence than what is written in the Quran.

I might lack an absolute answer but at least my theories don't involve fairy tales.

No, but they do involve a similar leap towards a conclusion based on not one bit of evidence.

 

[Dachs]

That doesn't make sense.

Agnostics are "weak" atheists, lumped together in the same group.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Well, they are stupid.

Well, that's your opinion. And guess what? Many of them think you are 'stupid' too.

Ugh... there's problems with bigots. Can you quote where it was that I wrote I believe he is performing a vital service?

He thinks they are stupid. You think they are stupid. You think Fitna is "factually accurate" and don't think it is propaganda. You won't come right out and say it, but it's obvious that you both have a lot more in common than you are claiming.

Interesting that you would call that 17 minute film 'racist propaganda in its most vile form.' I have a hard time believing it. Mostly, it's difficult to believe because 'Islam' is not a race of people..

That's exactly my point. Like Wilders, you simply don't get it and you likely never will. You both think you are superior to people who obviously have a lot higher morals and sense of right and wrong than you apparently do.

And we have already been through this "yes it's racism" stuff before. Read the thread for details.

Not sure I misunderstand the religion. The tenets of Islam are actually very easy to understand - I can read..

Um, nope. You continue to fail in that regard.

Problematic, however, is that these people want to legislate their ability to pursue their own dreams their way and that this seriously infringes on the rights and freedoms of other people.

That's just it. The vast majority of them don't.

Also problematic is that the moderates of Islam (or any religion) lend legitimacy to extremists..

No, they don't. And continuing to claim it like a broken record isn't going to change anything.

So, was that assumption implied by me anywhere or are you making things up again? I don't believe I'm superior merely because I'm an atheist. It would certainly be nice. No, I'm superior because I believe in things like constitutions and freedoms.

You aren't superior at all. You are just another human being just like they are. And guess what? Many of them also "believe" in constitutions and freedoms as well.

To understand free speech means freedom to speak what others do not like and even cannot stand to hear? ... Tolerating what you like is hardly a major achievement. Hitler tolerated what he liked. So did Stalin. Idi Amin did too. So did Genghis Khan, the Shah, and Henry Kissinger. Free speech only becomes an issue when someone says what others don't want to hear. Michael Albert

 

[Sharwood]

Agnostics are "weak" atheists, lumped together in the same group.

How does someone like me, a super-strong agnostic with abs of steel fit in?

 

[plarq]

To understand free speech means freedom to speak what others do not like and even cannot stand to hear? ... Tolerating what you like is hardly a major achievement. Hitler tolerated what he liked. So did Stalin. Idi Amin did too. So did Genghis Khan, the Shah, and Henry Kissinger. Free speech only becomes an issue when someone says what others don't want to hear. Michael Albert

Now figure out the difference between Stalin and Kissinger, then come back to the table and talk.

Also reformat your quote that way:

"I testify that Henry Kissinger is a genocidal dictator's apple in their eyes."--Formaldehyde

 

[HannibalBarka]

Indeed. However, discrimination based on religion/ideology can theoretically be justified, since unlike with race, people can choose their religion/ideology. For instance, Nazis are pretty much discriminated against in Germany.

No it can't, discrimination based on religion/ideology can't be justified in any way. Well at least not in the Western world. I am surprised you consider that discriminating against Catholics, Jews or Muslims to be sometime justified

I believe I said "militant" or "aggressive". Perhaps we could agree upon "expansive"?

You said "Now, Islam in its earliest and original form was clearly extremely militant. Pretty much like Jazzmail wrote in post #112 (well thought out and sensible post, though I am not sure I agree with his conclusions): peace turned inwards, war turned outwards. That is Islam in its core. Just take the look at maps and read how quickly and through which means it spread. Read about Muslim conquest of India, for example. "

You are basically saying Islam is not peaceful and is more warlike and it spreads by the swords, no? you are retracting your words?

It doesn't. However, as long as Britain and Netherlands remain part of NATO and NATO continues to be involved in Middle East or support Israel, then Muslim populations in UK and Holland are potential trouble. Not even because they could be "more violent", but because a number of them will inevitably perceive West as "enemy".

So now in a given country if you do not support your GOVERNMENT foreign policies you are a source of trouble and you are no more part of the West and you perceive it as the enemy ???? If you do not condone the UK support to Israel you are anti-UK ???!!!! Many PM do not support the UK foreign policies, are they now a source of trouble and enemy of the West?? It is ironic to support wilders in name of freedom of speech when you hold a "soviet" kind of thinking concerning people not agreeing with their government

He obviously wants the explosive growth of Muslim population in Netherlands to be stopped. If the current demographic and immigration trends continue, I believe you could easily calculate, how long until the Dutch would be minority nation in their country themselves.

Dutch will always be the majority in the Netherlands. Those muslims in the Netherlands are Dutch as much as Wilders himself. Unless you have a racialist vision on nationhood, do you? do you consider russian-estonians in your country as much estonians as you or no?

I see nothing wrong with wanting to stop this. A country has a right to choose, if it wants to allow immigration at all, and if yes, whom they want to let in. As long as he does not call for violence or burning of mosques, I can't blame him of anything. Whether this idea is smart/useful to Holland or not, is another thing and for their own voters to decide.

Well in that case the UK has every right to let Wilders get in or not than

Now more seriously, It is no more right for the Netherlands to discrimante againt Muslims in terms of immigration than it is for Saudi Arabia to do the same against Jews!!! would you considers it OK if Saudi Arabia for example banned ever american jew to visit the country when allowing other american in??? again you "tolerance" with religion-based discrimnitaion is disturbing to say the least