Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Limiting Free Speech in Holland
A muddled piece from Ian Buruma in today's The New York Times, arguing, as far as I can make out, that anti-Islam Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, recently charged with incitement after comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf, should not be defended because he is a boorish racist who doesn't himself believe in free speech. And while Buruma, a Dutch citizen, rightfully criticizes the hypocrisies of Wilders (as I did here and here), he spends little time debating the morality and efficacy of the statutes under which he is being charged. As Buruma points out, Dutch law forbids speech that "deliberately insults people on the grounds of their race, religion, beliefs or sexual orientation." (The race, religion, and sexual orientation stuff is pretty standard in European hate crime law, but I was unaware that in the Netherlands it's apparently against the law to "insult" someone's "beliefs.")
Comparing a book that billions hold sacred to Hitler's murderous tract is more than an exercise in literary criticism; it suggests that those who believe in the Koran are like Nazis, and an all-out war against them would be justified. This kind of thinking, presumably, is what the Dutch law court is seeking to check.
One of the misconceptions that muddle the West's debate over Islam and free speech is the idea that people should be totally free to insult. Free speech is never that absolute. Even - or perhaps especially - in America, where citizens are protected by the First Amendment, there are certain words and opinions that no civilized person would utter, and others that open the speaker to civil charges.
This does not mean that religious beliefs should be above criticism. And sometimes criticism will be taken as an insult where none is intended. In that case the critic should get the benefit of the doubt. Likening the Koran to "Mein Kampf" would not seem to fall into that category.
If Mr. Wilders were to confine his remarks to those Muslims who do harm freedom of speech by using violence against critics and apostates, he would have a valid point.
So it is a "misconception" that "people should be totally free to insult?" Well why not, in a few brief sentences, explain just how a democratic country should establish limits on free expression? But instead, Buruma ends his piece with a typically mealy-mouthed declaration that he's "not so sure" that the charges against Wilders strike a blow for democracy, though he is clearly less concerned with the European compulsion to prosecute thought criminals than he is with the potential elevation of Wilders to martyr status.
Buruma, who last year called Ayaan Hirsi Ali an "enlightenment fundamentalist," wants us to know that he believes in freedom, largely disagrees with the prosecution of Wilders (though he doesn't register any objection to the Dutch hate crimes law), and thinks that the "boundaries" to free expression are trespassed when a minority group is judged to have been offended. In other words, it's unclear just what he believes (other than his reading of Wilders as an Islamophobic troglodyte).
If Buruma agrees with Dutch ideas of free speech "boundaries," he should come out and say it. Instead, he offers a robust denunciation of Wilders' reductive view of Islam (how brave!) and entirely avoids the question that matters: Where does a democratic country get off dragging controversial politicians before the court?
Bonus quote: Gerard Spong, the lawyer who filed the charges, said that managing to successfully instigate court proceedings against Wilders is his "finest hour." "The American President Barack Obama said 'we are free in diversity' but you can't have diversity if you brand one group as extremists," he told reporters.
Unbeliever|1.30.09 @ 7:12PM|#
" I too have little patience for Robert Spencer-type arguments
that Islam is possessed with a preternatural desire to force
unbelievers into a state of "dhimmitude,""
History seems to bear this out however.
Elemenope|1.30.09 @ 7:20PM|#
Not that I agree with the larger point, but I can understand why
folk are a little more sensitive about Mein Kampf being
tossed about in the Netherlands than we generally are.
It's a proximity thing.
What is LGF????
Lithe GOP Fornicators.
Or Little Green Footballs. I can never remember.
Lesbian Until Graduation|1.30.09 @ 7:21PM|#
"Comparing a book that billions hold sacred to Hitler's
murderous tract is more than an exercise in literary criticism; it
suggests that those who believe in the Koran are like Nazis, and an
all-out war against them would be justified."
Not really, presumably a relgion that thought Hitler was a prophet
would, after a time, have sectarian divisions and reinterpretations
of their sacred text. There would be people who would argue that
his words should not be taken litterally. There would be many, many
"interpretations" of this sacred text. But the original words would
always be there.
Brian Sorgatz|1.30.09 @ 7:27PM|#
Buruma, who last year called Ayaan Hirsi Ali an
"enlightenment fundamentalist,"...
How dare you reality fundamentalists threaten my
fantasy world with your belief system!
|1.30.09 @ 7:27PM|#
Hat tip to Sparky, bitchez!!111!!!1
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/131365.html#1198456
MNG|1.30.09 @ 7:28PM|#
""deliberately insults people on the grounds of their race,
religion, beliefs or sexual orientation.""
What a wrong and stupid law. Someone should be able to liken the
Koran (or the Bible or a book by Madeliene O'Haire) to Mein Kampf.
I imagine their point would be that the book, like Mein Kampf, is a
book full of wicked stupid things. Whatever anyone thinks about
that, it's certainly something that rises above a mere "insult"
(and why should mere insults be illegal anyway? wtf?).
Anne Frank|1.30.09 @ 7:29PM|#
I don't agree with what Germany did. But I don't live in Germany, so...yeah.
BDB|1.30.09 @ 7:29PM|#
"Anne Frank | January 30, 2009, 7:29pm | #
I don't agree with what Germany did. But I don't live in Germany,
so...yeah."
Yes because this is totally the same as frying people in
ovens.
Real crack analysis, d00d.
|1.30.09 @ 7:31PM|#
Even - or perhaps especially - in America, where citizens
are protected by the First Amendment, there are certain words and
opinions that no civilized person would utter, and others that open
the speaker to civil charges.
Let's go googlin' to look for some of those words that no civilized
person would utter, things that speaking or putting in writing will
bring civil charges.
about 6,290,000 for nigger
about 131,000 for sand nigger
about 187,000 for Raghead
about 146 for "Martin Luther King was a communist"
about 4,280 for "Mohammed was a pedophile".
about 1,610 for "Jesus was a fag"
about 1,130,000 for spik
about 4,920,000 for wop
about 3,960,000 for kike
about 965,000 for gook
He's full of shit.
but you can't have diversity if you brand one group as
extremists
Not Aryan Nation, al Queda, or the Khmer Rouge? Does Gerard Spong
even think before he speaks?
Anne Frank|1.30.09 @ 7:32PM|#
My point is that proximity is not a basis for judging the morality or immorality of an action.
BDB|1.30.09 @ 7:35PM|#
My point is, fake name guy, is that short of genocide or military attack we should mind our own business.
Travis|1.30.09 @ 7:36PM|#
"The American President Barack Obama said 'we are free in
diversity' but you can't have diversity if you brand one group as
extremists,"
That statement could apply to everyone involved here. Wilders is
claiming that muslims are extreme & muslims are claiming that
Wilders is extreme.
Anne Frank|1.30.09 @ 7:37PM|#
Your remark seemed more dismissive than that. I'm all for nonintervensionism. You just seemed to dismiss this as unimportant.
BDB|1.30.09 @ 7:39PM|#
"You just seemed to dismiss this as unimportant."
That's because it is. It seems especially unimportant when people
have to use fake screen names to defend it.
Anne Frank|1.30.09 @ 7:41PM|#
"That's because it is. It seems especially unimportant when
people have to use fake screen names to defend it."
What do you think I am defending? And you aparently consider civil
liberties unimportant?
Lesbian Until Graduation|1.30.09 @ 7:42PM|#
"The word "civilized" is a loophole you could fly a jet plane
through."
I agree. I do not consider the United States Congress to be
civilized.
|1.30.09 @ 7:43PM|#
BDB:It seems especially unimportant when
people have to use fake screen names to defend it.
Ummm....Dude? Initials? Come now.
Anyway, just because something is happening in another country
doesn't mean we can't point and laugh.
Fluffy|1.30.09 @ 7:44PM|#
Comparing a book that billions hold sacred to Hitler's
murderous tract is more than an exercise in literary criticism; it
suggests that those who believe in the Koran are like Nazis, and an
all-out war against them would be justified.
This is retarded.
An all-out war is only justified even against Nazis if
those Nazis are in possession of a state. I would not be justified
in the least in launching an all-out war against a bunch of amateur
Nazis sitting in a bar in Des Moines [or in Amsterdam], talkin'
about Nazi shit and eating chicken wings.
"The American President Barack Obama said 'we are free in
diversity' but you can't have diversity if you brand one group as
extremists," he told reporters.
This is even more retarded. If this is true, then I demand the
right to imprison every last person in the world who considers a
libertarian an extremist.
What a cunt.
BDB|1.30.09 @ 7:47PM|#
"Anyway, just because something is happening in another country
doesn't mean we can't point and laugh."
Yeah, I suppose so. But I'm not going to get terribly upset about
it since I don't have a say on who is in the Dutch
Parliament.
"Ummm....Dude? Initials? Come now."
Not in the same league as naming yourself after a holocaust victim,
instantly Godwining the thread.
Elemenope|1.30.09 @ 7:47PM|#
An all-out war is only justified even against Nazis if those
Nazis are in possession of a state. I would not be justified in the
least in launching an all-out war against a bunch of amateur Nazis
sitting in a bar in Des Moines [or in Amsterdam], talkin' about
Nazi shit and eating chicken wings.
But! But what if it were tofu instead?
What then?
Elemenope|1.30.09 @ 7:49PM|#
Ummm....Dude? Initials? Come now.
On teh Internetz, a person's "real name" is the name they use
consistently online, such that the same name is associated with the
same person's comments.
Easily distinguishable, such as it is, from someone picking a
historical handle purely for topical value.
|1.30.09 @ 7:51PM|#
Elemenope, I suppose you're right, but it still struck me as funny. And tofu is grounds for attack pretty much anytime.
|1.30.09 @ 7:52PM|#
Not in the same league as naming yourself after a holocaust
victim, instantly Godwining the thread.
I thought it was Godwinned in the source article.
BDB|1.30.09 @ 7:53PM|#
"Jammer | January 30, 2009, 7:52pm | #
I thought it was Godwinned in the source article."
Touche!
BDB|1.30.09 @ 7:54PM|#
"Elemenope | January 30, 2009, 7:49pm | #
Ummm....Dude? Initials? Come now.
On teh Internetz, a person's "real name" is the name they use
consistently online, such that the same name is associated with the
same person's comments.
Easily distinguishable, such as it is, from someone picking a
historical handle purely for topical value."
Thank you, Elemenope. Have the balls to post under an at least
semi-consistent handle.
|1.30.09 @ 7:57PM|#
BDB | January 30, 2009, 7:39pm | #
"You just seemed to dismiss this as unimportant."
That's because it is. It seems especially unimportant when people have to use fake screen names to defend it.
You're parents named you BDB? WOW! :-)
I'm concerned about freedom all over the planet. I give a shit when
women are raped in the Congo, men are denied freedom of religion in
Afghanistan, children are starving in Somalia and freedom of speech
is denied in China or Holland. I discuss it as well. I even condemn
it. It's that damned empathy gene.
BDB|1.30.09 @ 8:00PM|#
J Sub, I think complaining about Holland's silly uber-PC speech
code is on the level of the Europeans bitching about our health
care system.
Holland != China.
|1.30.09 @ 8:02PM|#
My First Amendment right to blaspheme outweighs anothers "right"
not to be offended.
Its the ultimate check and balance.
Where would Western literature be without it?
Fuck those assholes.
MNG|1.30.09 @ 8:18PM|#
"I give a shit when women are raped in the Congo, men are denied
freedom of religion in Afghanistan, children are starving in
Somalia and freedom of speech is denied in China or Holland."
If you add Israel's subjection and slaughter of the Gazans, then I
totally agree ;).
BDB
I don't think non-intervetionism as a policy requires one not to
care what goes on in other nations. And if the idea is that I
cannot effect Hollands laws, well shit I can't effect my own
federal government's or state's laws much either...I think these
hate crime/speech code laws are egregious, perhaps because they
seem acceptable to people who otherwise seem to respect a great
deal of civil liberties...
MNG|1.30.09 @ 8:19PM|#
I of course don't mean you by that last line BDB, I mean
Hollanders or whatever.
And Germans and Canadians. You know.
Yet another miserable coward(e|1.30.09 @ 8:19PM|#
Holland != China.
Nor was China always the China you !=. (You don't have to be a
slope to be slippery.)
Dan|1.30.09 @ 8:20PM|#
I don't know to much about Geert Wilders' beliefs concerning
Islam, other than the fact he is not particularly fond of it. I
find his call to ban the Qur'an to be as equally authoritarian as
his current prosecution for "hate speech". This seems to be a move
by the Dutch government to appease its growing Moroccan population.
I imagine if we had similar legislation in the US they'd be putting
Tom Tancredo and Pat Buchanan on trial for "hate speech" against
Mexicans.
Europe is notorious for the prosecution of those who violate the
sacred doctrines of political correctness: fringe "historians" (i.e
Holocaust deniers) like David Irving and Ernst Zündel were recently
imprisoned in Europe for their junk history. While I find the views
of Wilders, Irving, and Zündel to be quite odious and disagreeable,
charging them for their speech or beliefs is even worse.
Erm|1.30.09 @ 8:41PM|#
Whoa whoa whoa, there, cowboy. The slaughter of the Gazans?
Let's see -- Gazans launched rockets into Israel. Israel invaded.
Now, Gazans claim that X number of innocent people have been
killed.
A) (West Bank) Palestinians demonstrated a willingness to fake a
massacre at Jenin. Any number given is almost certainly
fictitious.
B) The Gazans were under an arms embargo, but were being supplied
humanitarian aid through checkpoints. Until they attacked the
checkpoints, at which point humanitarian aid could not
continue.
C) The Gazans use human shields. They purposefully put their own
innocent civilians in harm's way so as to inflate civilian
fatalities and cause the Israelis to second guess themselves.
|1.30.09 @ 8:46PM|#
Pat Condell brilliantly rants about The Netherlands.
http://www.patcondell.net/index.html
Jerry|1.30.09 @ 9:20PM|#
Just to point out that the prosecution office did not initially seek charges against Wilders. Now a court ordered them to lay on charges, because the court already thinks the prosecution office has a case. Weird huh?
Douglas Gray|1.30.09 @ 9:38PM|#
In one part of the OLD TESTAMENT, "God" directs a Jewish leader
to wipe out a heathen village to the last man, woman and child. The
Koran contains similar words in various places.
If I compare these particular sections of those texts to some
sections of MEIN KAMPF, why is that so objectionable and offensive?
I am merely stating a fact that both appear to promote and condone
genocide and mass murder in certain situations.
If this man is in favor of banning The Koran, then how about the
OLD TESTAMENT?
Some extremist Islamic scholars still condone the killing of
non-Muslims, but some extremist Jewish Rabbis also claim that
killing non-Jews is perfectly all right.
The problem with this sort of prosecution under these so called
"hate" laws is that they are so selective. Some people get pounced
on, others do the same thing, and they are free to ssay what they
please. So, a deeper principle, equal application of the law is
violated.
Robert|1.30.09 @ 9:41PM|#
Shoot the hostages first, because it's such a mindfuck to do so. In fact, if you can get sharpshooters to somehow shoot nothing but hostages, that'll confuse 'em so much they might stop.
Jerry|1.30.09 @ 9:44PM|#
Douglas, I don't think Wilders was really serious about banning the Koran. He has only 10 (out of 150) seats in parliament, so what he says can be quite radical, because he doesn't have to deliver on it.
|1.30.09 @ 10:26PM|#
I lived in holland for a year, they're scared so shitless of
muslims they give them whatever they want... and these muslims
still make movies like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJu0vvfQ5m0
where they want something else? What is it they want? no one knows.
they get welfare and everything they want.
MNG|1.30.09 @ 10:27PM|#
Erm
I was just making a joke for the frequent posters here who would
"get" that I'm, er, really passionate about that issue.
But you're post is pretty funny, like the "faking of the Jenin
massacre" claim, the equivocating use of the term "Gazans" (most
[in fact a large majority] of those Gazans killed by the IDF were
certainly not members of the group that shot rockets into Israel),
the ritualistic straight-from-the-IDF-but-often-discredited claim
that all IDF civilian casualties were because of Hamas human sheild
use, and your patently false claim that Israel was letting
humanitarian aid pour in before the border crossings were attacked
(I assume you mean the Egypt border crossing).
Anne Frank|1.30.09 @ 10:36PM|#
"where they want something else? What is it they want? no one
knows. they get welfare and everything they want."
The sane ones just want to be treated fairly. The insane ones want
everyone else on Earth to be Muslim and will not stop complaining
until that goal is met.
Mohammed Atta|1.30.09 @ 10:57PM|#
The word "civilized" is a loophole you could fly a jet plane
through.
Um...
...ah fuck it.
Stephen Colbert|1.30.09 @ 11:02PM|#
a bunch of amateur Nazis sitting in a bar in Des Moines [or
in Amsterdam], talkin' about Nazi shit and eating chicken
wings.
I said yesterday there's a chicken wing shortage, so this weekend
at least, those Iowan Nazis must be met with great justice. Even if
they're not Illinois nazis.
|1.31.09 @ 2:48AM|#
Travis: "That statement could apply to everyone involved here. Wilders is claiming that muslims are extreme & muslims are claiming that Wilders is extreme."
By Jove, it seems they are both right.
MNG|1.31.09 @ 7:37AM|#
""deliberately insults people on the grounds of their race,
religion, beliefs or sexual orientation." "
What if an Iman says "blessed Islam teaches us that gays are an
abomination" and a gay person responds "that's an uncivilized,
stupid thing your religion says."
Are they both now guilty of breaking this law?
What a stupid law!
Ska|1.31.09 @ 9:23AM|#
Even - or perhaps especially - in America, where citizens
are protected by the First Amendment, there are certain words and
opinions that no civilized person would utter, and others that open
the speaker to civil charges.
Let's go googlin' to look for some of those words that no civilized
person would utter, things that speaking or putting in writing will
bring civil charges.
I'm glad someone pointed this bullshit out. This was run in the
NYT? Fuck them all. God damn zipperhead nigger kyke cracker
faggots.
|1.31.09 @ 9:49AM|#
I live in the Netherlands now and the notion that they are so
afraid of their Muslim population that they give them anything they
want, is a bit ridiculous. But that's another story.
When I first heard of the prosecution against Wilders, I thought it
was ridiculous. The idea that one cannot legally be insulting,
offensive, and hateful is odd it me. My Dutch friends explained
that Wilders made a call for discrimination, which is not allowed
under Dutch law. They do not see it is insulting, but
discriminatory.
The fact is that the Netherlands is a small country where speech
has a much greater effect on action than in the US, where speech
can be absorbed into a much more spacious landscape. Because we
Americans do not have proportional representation or a system in
which one voice represents the views of every member of a party,
fringe voices are just that: fringe. Wilders represents the views
of his party: Party of Freedom.
The fact is, this part of the world had a very real example of what
hate speech combined with action does. While I may not agree with
prosecuting people for speech, I am not quite prepared to see it as
the end of democracy as we know it.
BTW, the Dutch use the same law that they are using against Wilders
to prosecute amateur Nazis as well.
QUESTION: Does anyone else get "This site may damage your computer
warnings" on every single response to a google search on Geert
Wilders?
Lesbian Until Graduation|1.31.09 @ 10:21AM|#
"This site may damage your computer warnings" on every single
response to a google search on Geert Wilders?
Odd you should mention that. I got that warning when I did a search
for "Gorillaz Mahjong" earlier this morning. I play that game quite
often and this is the first time I got that warning.
Xeones|1.31.09 @ 10:33AM|#
Yo, fuck Ian Buruma. Fuck Gerard Spong all to hell too. Goddamn
wooden-shoed dike-fingering tulipfuckers.
Geert Wilders is a grade A asshole, yeah, but "civilized" countries
don't prosecute people for hurting feelings.
|1.31.09 @ 11:09AM|#
The fact is, this part of the world had a very real example
of what hate speech combined with action does. While I may not
agree with prosecuting people for speech, I am not quite prepared
to see it as the end of democracy as we know it.
The "combined with action" part is important.
The right way to combat bigotry is not to prohibit bigoted speech
or expression. The right way to do it is:
1 - Have a system of government and constitution that protects
individual rights (and is difficult to amend in a way that abridges
those rights).
2 - Discredit the bigoted ideas being expressed through
argument.
3 - Prosecute bigoted actions that violate
individual rights.
|1.31.09 @ 11:26AM|#
Buruma on Wilders: He is now world-famous, mainly for
wanting the Koran to be banned in his country, "like Mein Kampf is
banned"
Apparently both of them agree that Mein Kampf should be
banned; so far only Wilders has slid down the slippery slope
created when you allow book banning, but Buruma shouldn't be so
sure of his own footing. Given that Wilders is the representative
of a political party, isn't insulting him likely to constitute an
insult based on someone's beliefs?
anarch|1.31.09 @ 11:31AM|#
I was told that when Ataturk, in his quest to modernize Turkey,
met resistance to abolishing the veil, he made it optional but
mandatory for prostitutes. Next day, no more veils.
Something like that.
Anne Frank|1.31.09 @ 11:38AM|#
"I was told that when Ataturk, in his quest to modernize Turkey,
met resistance to abolishing the veil, he made it optional but
mandatory for prostitutes. Next day, no more veils."
Perhaps it should become mandatory for prostitutes - even male ones
- to have a copy of the Koran.
|1.31.09 @ 12:52PM|#
BDB -
J Sub, I think complaining about Holland's silly uber-PC speech
code is on the level of the Europeans bitching about our health
care system.
Holland != China.
Both make it illegal to condemn a philosophy, don't they?
I guess I place the importance of free expression higher than
you.
MNG -
If you add Israel's subjection and slaughter of the Gazans,
then I totally agree ;).
Isn't that non sequitur axe sharp enough yet? I condemn both sides
in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and no longer discuss it at
H&R due to peoples historical ignorance and inability to be
reasonable about a very complex issue.
|1.31.09 @ 3:31PM|#
The whole censorship and religion thing is a bit tricky
eh?
the limit to free speech is incitement
The Koran specifically states that
homosexuality is a capital offense.
Therefore the Koran should actually be banned.
Interestingly the Koran is the only major religious text that
actually condones slavery
Ma malakat aymanukum
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_malakat_aymanukum
That actually makes me nearly piss myself laughing everytime I see
one of the many African Americans who converted to Islam for
political reasons.
I´ll exercise my right to free speech to say
Anyone who think's that tribal laws written by people barely
evolved from cavemen have any place in the running of a modern
society
is a f@king cock
and Geert Wilders is probably a cock too
|1.31.09 @ 6:18PM|#
Let me know Michael when the US stops jailing people for distributing Al Manar broadcasts. Then and only then you can start lecturing people about free speech (or is it free speech only when it is anti-Islam?).
|1.31.09 @ 7:26PM|#
Let me know Michael when the US stops jailing people for distributing Al Manar broadcasts. Then and only then you can start lecturing people about free speech (or is it free speech only when it is anti-Islam?).
Thanks for the info. I wasn't outraged enough today. More recent news on the
case.
Javed Iqbal operated a satellite television business out of his home in Staten Island, New York, and out of a storefront in Brooklyn. In August 2006, Iqbal's home was raided by the FBI after it was alleged that he provided satellite broadcasts from a television station controlled by Hezbollah. Iqbal's satellite company, HDTV Corp., was registered with the Federal Communications Commission.1 The case was prosecuted under the Patriot Act.2
On December 23, 2008, Iqbal pleaded guilty and agreed to serve up to six and a half years in prison. He will be sentenced on March 24, 2009.
Albert Howard|2.1.09 @ 2:26AM|#
Financier Albert Howard is the creator of Operation "King of Islam" which seeks to ban the Quran and all mosques in North America, Europe and Canada.
|2.1.09 @ 10:25PM|#
Instead of dancing around the question, I suggest it be looked
at. I think most know what "Mein Kampf" expouses. But what about
the Koran?
What about non-muslims and their rights? What about women - are
they equals to men? What about a fair non-religious judical system?
Are any other religions valid?
Where is truth and justice?
|2.1.09 @ 10:32PM|#
Interestingly the Koran is the only major religious text
that actually condones slavery
Yes in the Koranic surahs or books of Leviticus and Ephesians
(written by Moses Muhammand and Paul Mohammed respectively) these
appear:
Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from
the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also
buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of
their clans born in your country, and they will become your
property."
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with
sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. .. Serve
wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men."
muhammad was a pedophile|2.2.09 @ 10:08AM|#
I'm sorry, what was this article about? I was too busy wiping my ass with the Koran and drawing and then subsequently defacing pictures of Muhammad.
muhammed was a pedophile|2.2.09 @ 10:10AM|#
"Let me know Michael when the US stops jailing people for
distributing Al Manar broadcasts"
Yeah, because aiding Hezbollah and getting in trouble for it is the
same as throwing a guy in jail for insulting Islam. Do you have any
other silly and false equivalencies to draw while you are at
it?
muhammed was a pedophile and j|2.2.09 @ 10:13AM|#
"But you're post is pretty funny, like the "faking of the Jenin
massacre" claim"
Claim my ass. It has been established beyond a shadow of a doubt
the whole thing was a total fake. I suppose next you will tell us
that the death of Muhammad al-Dura was not staged either. I think
they have a term for jackasses like you. Useful idiots I believe it
is called.
Tantor|2.2.09 @ 10:19AM|#
Yes, isn't it ridiculous for Geert Wilders to compare the Koran
to Mein Kampf? I mean it's not like Muslims from the religion of
peace were indoctrinated to attack all their neighbors and
subjugate them, right? Or like Muslims considered themselves a
master race like the Nazi supremacists who should rule the world,
right? Or if they were commanded by the Koran to kill all the Jews,
like, you know, Nazis.
Right?
Mike T|2.2.09 @ 10:35AM|#
"Comparing a book that billions hold sacred to Hitler's murderous tract is more than an exercise in literary criticism; it suggests that those who believe in the Koran are like Nazis, and an all-out war against them would be justified."
Why should anyone feel uncomfortable with the followers of a
religion who idolize a murderous, back-stabbing,
sex-slaving, pedophilic
armed robber?
Mike T|2.2.09 @ 10:44AM|#
Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property."
Leviticus also established
the Jubilee year in which all slaves are to be freed.
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. .. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men."
Paul's advice to them was pragmatic: if you rebel, you will die. He
also warned slave owners that while God may
tolerate slavery, God does not see slaves as
property or inferior to slave owners:
9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
|2.2.09 @ 10:45AM|#
In defense of Mein Kampf:(OK bear with me please) I've tried to
get it from the local library, but it is always gone - stolen
repeatedly. Truth is truth no matter where it comes from.
If the title is to be believed, it is about struggle. And don't
forget the movie sequel 'Triumph of the Will'. I do believe
Westerners no longer have the will to survive a truly pernicious
and long term threat to their survival. They are too weak and
comfortable...too quick to rationalize away hard, necessary
measures in order to feel good. Too many wimped out in Vietnam.
Bush dragged us kicking and screaming through Iraq - next time?
Obama? Don't even ask.
The stronger Will will triumph - But... blessed are the
peacemakers, for they shall inherit the kingdom of heaven - rather
soon and it won't be pretty. IMHO, that is.
|2.2.09 @ 11:02AM|#
whats the issue? Mein Kampf and the Koran have a lot in common. As in Mein Kampf, everything the islamo fanatics want to do is laid out in explicit instructions. The things done in India, The balkans and elsewhere in the name of islam make the Spanish Inquisition look like an episode of laugh in.
muhammed was a pedophile|2.2.09 @ 1:21PM|#
"Jeeze, is this H&R or LGF?"
Exactly which point are you trying to make here? Are you asking if
defense of unpopular anti-islamofascist politicians is purely
within the realm of LGF and not H&R?
"I don't agree with what Holland did. But I don't live in Holland,
so...yeah."
Wow, what a rousing defense of free speech. Thomas Jefferson, is
that you?
muhammed was a pedophile|2.2.09 @ 1:25PM|#
"My point is, fake name guy..."
Your parents named you BDB? Damn, were they smoking crack at the
time or something?
muhammed was a pedophile|2.2.09 @ 1:29PM|#
"I don't agree with what Holland did. But I don't live in
Holland, so...yeah.
The list of nominees was long and the decision was a tough one, but
this years "Moral Retard of the Year" goes to...drum roll
please...BDB.
Congratulations jackass, you win.
|2.2.09 @ 5:58PM|#
I think "This does not mean that religious beliefs should be above criticism," is meant to read "I am still free to criticise Christianity."
jtuf|2.2.09 @ 9:41PM|#
Comparing a book that billions hold sacred to Hitler's murderous tract is more than an exercise in literary criticism; it suggests that those who believe in the Koran are like Nazis, and an all-out war against them would be justified. This kind of thinking, presumably, is what the Dutch law court is seeking to check.
So comparing someone to a Nazi is hate speach that justifies having
charges pressed. If that's true, then there are hundreds of
protestors that should be dragged into court. Let's be real. The
hate speach charges only come up when someone criticizes Islam.
Hate speach advocates are oddly silent when Muslims make Nazi
comparisons.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245