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.