The film will breed violence. And you cheeky Westerners thought spontaneous generation was a dead theory. "Iran: Dutch anti-Quran film to 'breed violence'," from the Associated Press:
Iran warned on Tuesday that an anti-Quran film by a right-wing Dutch lawmaker would "beed violence" and said the Dutch government could ban it based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
So... stonings are okay, child marriage is okay, death for apostates and homosexuals is okay, but a controversial film is right out.
Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party, has said he plans to air the film this month, though no date has been set. The government says it is powerless to ban the film before seeing its contents and is wary of breaching Wilders' right to freedom of expression.
Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Mehdi Safari cited the 1948 Human Rights declaration's 29th article that individual rights may be limited in the interest of respecting other people's freedoms and "meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."
'Nobody can say what's going to happen'
Wilders says the film will depict the Quran as a "fascist book" that can be used by extremists to incite violence and which preaches the oppression of women and homosexuals.
"Freedom of speech is not unlimited," Tehran's ambassador to the Netherlands, Bozorgmehr Ziaran told a small group of reporters at the Iranian Embassy. The film, he added, "would just breed violence." Wilders, Ziaran said, "is not a peacemaker, Mr. Wilders is a warmonger."
Hey, Bozorgmehr Ziaran ... I got your freedom of speech right here.
And it's made by Smith & Wesson!
You get to tell me how to talk when you get my S&W out of my cold, dead hands.
'Till then you'll have to satisfy your temper by beating your wife.
The Universal declaration of Human rights does not do what the Iranians think it does. They should have invoked the Cairo declaration instead (although I wonder whether the Cairo declaration is supported by Shia as well as Sunni).
Iran warned on Tuesday that an anti-Quran film by a right-wing Dutch lawmaker would "beed violence" and said the Dutch government could ban it based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Ha, ha, ha, ha! When did Iran accept and practice the International Declaration of Human Rights?! How convenient for them to support it now when it might be to their advantage. What about the poor little girls they hang and stone for "moral" crimes? What about the torture, rape, and brutality that they subject their own citizens to for petty offenses like violations of the dress code? These people are truly demented and just think, Obama wants to sit down with them and make amends for our bully tactics and for meddling in their affairs. The world has gone crazy, truly crazy, and it gets worse every day.
The idiot McCain believes that NAFTA is more important than American jobs, especially if we can maintain our military with foreign software, aircraft, equipment, and machinery with cheaper foreign products. He wants the most bang for the buck and to hell with the trade deficit and declining value of the dollar. Despite the continuing horror stories emerging about Canadian and European government health care, the Democrats are hell bent and determined to destroy the one thing left in this country that is unsurpassed anywhere in the world---medicine and drug research and production.
Our brain dead politicians can't take the time to study islam and understand our enemy; they just want muslim votes. George Bush has done some really stupid things but four more years of him would be preferable to any candidate running for President. God help us if Hillary or Obama should win. I can't stand either of them but Obama terrifies me. If he is elected and keeps his campaign promises, we're screwed.
The Iranians are confusing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with that other, pretend-equivalent document that the Muslim states quickly came up, and signed, in order to pretend to the world that they recognized the same rights. It would take nothing at all to put the two documents side by side, and then in a synoptic study to show exactly how, in the most important ways, they differ, with the Muslim version -- the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights -- not protecting free exercise of religion, or freedom of conscience, or freedom of speech.
Those people making this claim in Iran are ignorant and semi-demented, and do not inhabit the same intellectual, or for that matter moral, universe that we in the advanced, and non-Muslim, world inhabit.
"When did Iran accept and practice the International Declaration of Human Rights.."
-- from a poster above
Actually, the Shah of Iran did sign the International Declaration of Human Rights. It was part of his effort to make Iran less backward, and to limit the power of Islam. But of course, it was never fully observed under the Shah, and certainly, under Khomeini and his successors in the Islamic Republic of Iran Iran's adherence to that treaty has effectively ended.
Not a single Arab state, unsurprisingly, has signed the International Declaration of Human Rights.
"Not a single Arab state, unsurprisingly, has signed the International Declaration of Human Rights."
Exactly! And they are trying to use this part of the democratic system to slap it in our own faces. Don't you think that to have the right to use it, you need to be a part of the system and no arabic country gives a damn about it otherwise.
I really hope that the film will create upset and violence. When that happens, the muslims and islam has lost everything and the mullas knows that. When new laws start to work that banns the practice of this violent and dangerous ideology, not religion, we will start to clean up our countries and send them to their real homes.
Multiculture has never worked and never will!
Screw them!
I am tired of hearing about how this 15 minute film is going to come out somtime this month. Release it already! Put it out and quit speculating. I am ready to see the muslims go crazy. Full length movies do not take this long to release.
NAFTA has increased US exports to Mexico and Canada by about twice what we used to do. Imports from Canada and Mexico have increased by about 1.3. That is an obvious net economic benefit to us in the US. Some people lost jobs, others gained on our side of the border. That is what free trade does. Those cosseted by tariff and non-tariff trade protection lose; the rest of us gain. Sorry about that Susanp.
Otherwise, I totally agree with your post.
Meanwhile, saddle up Geert, get the damn film out, either in public or at least on the web.
The declaration:
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
and Iran (from wikipedia)
Today apostasy is punishable by death in the countries of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan and Mauritania. In Pakistan blasphemy is also punishable by death.
a case of murder in the name of Islam vs free speech in the name of Judeo-Christian values
Translation: Give up your own civil liberties in your own countries, or I will provoke violent riots. And the results will be your own fault for displeasing me and my rabble rousers.....
Doesnt rioting over a film violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Actually, for reasons that I detail in a my blog (http://zenofzero.blogspot.com/), I think that Wilders made a mistake by producing the film and would make another mistake by releasing it. Of course I agree that Wilders has the freedom to offend Islamic ideas and agree with him that the Koran is "a fascist book inciting hatred and violence", but (as Thoreau would say), Wilders is "hacking at the branches of evil" rather than "striking at the root."
To strike at the root (and more), I think that the ideas of C.W. Walton, Jefferson, and H.L. Mencken are crucial. Respectively they are:
"Believers are interested in fulfilling emotional and spiritual needs, not intellectual needs. In some cases, one might as well try to use reason on a dog. For many people God is primarily a warm feeling. How can one argue with a warm feeling? Arguing with someone who places reason below faith... is blowing against the wind." (C.W. Walton)
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them…" (Thomas Jefferson)
"The liberation of the human mind has never been furthered by dunderheads; it has been furthered by gay fellows who heaved dead cats into sanctuaries and then went roistering down the highways of the world, proving to all men that doubt, after all, was safe – that the god in the sanctuary was finite in his power and hence a fraud. One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more intelligent." (H.L. Mencken)
I then concluded:
Therefore, my recommendation to Wilders would be that, if he wants to help both his homeland and humanity, then he shouldn’t release his film criticizing the Koran. Not that the criticism isn’t correct, but it’ll just harden the Muslims’ bunker mentality. Instead, he should (for example) hire some competent comedians whose wisecracks would ridicule all religions, excoriate all clerics, and most importantly, get all who bought into their clerics' con games rolling in the aisles -- not in some religious trance but laughing at themselves for paying fortunes, forfeiting their freedoms, for permission to live within fairy tales.
Free Persia!
1,000 years of islamic occupation is enough.
Allah is not God
Mohammed was not a good man
Islam is not a religion
Muslims are not citizens
" 'Freedom of speech is not unlimited,' Tehran's ambassador to the Netherlands, Bozorgmehr Ziaran"
Uh Huh. Tell that to ImANut Re: wiping Israel off the map etc. etc. etc.
Ya gotta' just love it.
" Tehran's ambassador to the Netherlands, Bozorgmehr Ziaran told a small group of reporters at the Iranian Embassy. The film, he added, "would just breed violence."
So the concern here is for all those westerners who will see this film and rush into the streets and start protests, burn effigies, ransack, burn and loot buildings and possibly assault and murder Muslims. Is this the violence Ziaran is referring to?
Or is the concern for all those Muslims who will not see the film, rush into the streets protesting, burning and murdering. You can bet your bottom dollar his concern is not for the westerners who might become victims of Mo-rage.
To me it smacks of intimidation. Iran's ambassador to the Netherlands is threatening the Dutch with violence if they don't play this Islam's way. Sure would be nice if the Dutch government grew a pair and expelled his butt. Send him home with a copy of the DVD of his own. I'm sure Wilders would donate one.
Shalom,
Theosebes
Sorry, that parenthesis at the tail shouldn't have been there! The blog of Wilders is at http://zenofzero.blogspot.com/ .
Are they so upset about the non-existing movie because they know they will not be able to actually suppress it and its truth?
"Freedom of speech is not unlimited," Tehran's ambassador to the Netherlands, Bozorgmehr Ziaran told a small group of reporters......
Whoa, Nelly!
Just checked the Bill of Rights, Bozorgmehr (why not Boz for short?) and, sorry, freedom of speech is unlimited. In your country, of course, there is NO freedom of speech. So, it's like comparing apples to rotten bananas.
When the Islamic Thug-o-cracy of Iran is no more and Iranians have replaced it with a modern, democratic state, then you can talk about freedom of speech. Until then you are simply a modern day Goebbels.
Breed or ensure?
I think Geert should run the film, nick222. I think it should be shown 24/7 on those little TVs at gas station pump islands, the TVs at grocery check-out lines ~ I think it should be the default 'Welcome/Intro ...' anytime anyone turns on a computer or a cell phone ... un so weiter.
Edmund Burke:
No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Sir Winston Churchill:
When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber.
Breed or ensure?
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at March 12, 2008 10:18 AM
Excellent query!
"Freedom of speech is not unlimited," Tehran's ambassador to the Netherlands, Bozorgmehr Ziaran told a small group of reporters at the Iranian Embassy. The film, he added, "would just breed violence."
Hey, Mister Ziaran, I've got an easy solution for you: Why don't you start telling the Muslim Mafia to quit being so violent? They're the ones threatening violence. Mr. Wilders is simply exercizing his right to free speech, something a barbarian like yourself would have a clue about.
(What's that you said? I couldn't hear you; I was too busy helping my wife zip up her body bag that I make her wear all day, anytime she leaves the house.)
In my last post, I meant to say that Mister Ziaran wouldn't have a clue about free speech.
Muslims must ensure that they limit criticism of the Koran and Islam, since this is their supreme leverage against any criticism of themselves. We see time and again where they use the "we've been insulted" to justify barbaric violence and oppression of others.
My answer, "If you're insulted by someone elses free speech, use more speech or seek out a hug."
If Muslims get special treatment and protection for their religion, we are all dead. It is as simple as that.
The religion of threat and intimidation.The evil and ugliness of islam.
No doubt the West will reach the point that when one of these crazies is discovered off the reservation it must be shot.
Wait, are you saying that they are off the reservation ?
undaunted
I agree with the goal of purging the Netherlands (and the West!) of Islamic stupidity. The question is: what are the best strategies and tactics to reach that goal?
I think that problems with Wilders' strategies (and your tactics) can be seen in what Wafa Sultan stated well on Al-Jazeera:
"The Muslim is an irrational creature ruled by instincts. Those teachings have deprived him of his mind, incited his emotions, and reduced him to the level of an inferior creature that cannot control himself or react to events rationally…"
As still another strategy, she suggested [to Muslims]:
"If you want to change the course of events, you must reexamine your terrorist teachings, you must recognize and respect the right of the other to live, you must teach your children love, peace, coexistence, and productive work."
I certainly agree, also, with the goal behind that strategy, but again I question if her strategy can be implemented.
I don't think that Wilders film, your suggestions for promoting his film, or Sultan's idea will accomplish the goal of freeing the Muslims from their clerical chains.
At one time, Mencken recommended something similar to Wilders' plan:
"The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame."
But in suggesting that, I think that Mencken didn't give adequate thought to the obvious question: but would they (hide… their heads in shame)? Meanwhile, as I already quoted, he hit upon what seems to me to be the best strategy:
"The liberation of the human mind has never been furthered by dunderheads; it has been furthered by gay fellows who heaved dead cats into sanctuaries and then went roistering down the highways of the world, proving to all men that doubt, after all, was safe – that the god in the sanctuary was finite in his power and hence a fraud. One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more intelligent."
On such an emotional issue as religion, tactics that lead to people getting more "up tight" are usually futile. More fruitful, I expect, would be to get people to start laughing at themselves for having been so silly. Here, too, though, there's the obvious question: is it possible to get them to start laughing at themselves? Of course I don't know, and certainly it depends on the capabilities of the comedians, but I think that the strategy should be tested.
How do Islamic countries (such as Iran) stack up against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Qur’an 9:28 “Believers, truly the pagan disbelievers are unclean.”
Qur’an 5:51 “Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.”
Qur'an 9:61 “Gabriel came to Muhammad and said, ‘If a black man comes to you his heart is more gross than a donkey’s.’”
Qur’an 4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death [by starvation] claims them.”
Qur’an 70:28 “Preserve their chastity except with their wives and the slave girls they possess—for which there is no blame.”
Bukhari:V1B1N6 “Just issue orders to kill every Jew in the country.”
Qur'an 7:97 "Did the people of the towns feel secure against the coming of Our wrath by night while they were asleep? Or else did they feel secure against its coming in broad daylight while they played about (carefree)? Did they then feel secure against the Plan of Allah? But no one can feel secure from the Plan of Allah, except those (doomed) to ruin!"
Bukhari:V3B46N726 "The Prophet said, 'If a slave serves his Saiyid (i.e. master) sincerely and worships his Lord (Allah) perfectly, he will get a double reward.'"
Bukhari:V3B46N732 "The Prophet said, 'When your servant brings your meals to you then if he does not let him sit and share the meals, then he should at least give him a mouthful or two mouthfuls of that meal or a meal or two meals, as he has prepared it.'"
Qur’an 9:5 “When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
Tabari VIII:96 “A raiding party led by Zayd set out against Umm in Ramadan. During it, Umm suffered a cruel death. Zyad tied her legs with rope and then tied her between two camels until they split her in two. She was a very old woman. Then they brought Umm’s daughter and Abdallah to the Messenger. Umm’s daughter belonged to Salamah who had captured her. Muhammad asked Salamah for her, and Salamah gave her to him.”
Tabari VIII:122/Ishaq:515 “The Prophet gave orders concerning Kinanah to Zubayr, saying, ‘Torture him until you root out and extract what he has. So Zubayr kindled a fire on Kinanah’s chest, twirling it with his firestick until Kinanah was near death. Then the Messenger gave him to Maslamah, who beheaded him.”
And so on and so on. Who are Muslims going to follow: the word of the United Nations, or the word of the Almighty Allah and his trusty sidekick, the Perfect Man For All Time, Mohammad?
The Iranian representative to the UN, Said Rajaie Khorassani, said that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition, which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law".
They (Muslims, or more specifically in this case, Iranians) will renounce the UDHR, break almost every single clause of the UDHR, but then invoke the UDHR to censor a film made in another country that they do not like.
I'm not interested in tactics that atttempt to dissuade Muslims of their delusions, true believers are true believers.
My suggestion viz Geert's film was proffered not to piss of Muslims but to wake up non-Muslims, and I wouldn't refer to it as 'promotion' but as a wake-up call or a reminder.
The more Westerners see Geert's work, and I'm not just talking about his film, and recognize it as truth the more will decide they need to take action rather than sit around on their butts all day and muse and write about the 'strategy' of others.
For those of you who didn't peek, here is a prominent headline at nick222's blog.
"Replace Belief in God with Confidence in the Scientific Method..."
I'll make this brief.
Nick; your conclusions vis Islam problems seem to me to be problematic at best, and counterfeit perhaps, inasmuch as the 'logic' you used to reach them leaves out an Entity who does exist in time and space.
He's called 'the Light' for a reason.
Cheers.
Undaunted:
As Bill Cosby would say, "Riiiiiight."
What you might want to do is have a look at the ideas in the Chapter "Reason vs. Reality" in my book at http://zenofzero.net (entitled "Love Letters from Grampa"). It's so easy to make errors in reasoning (as your post illustrates); therefore, all reasoned conclusions should be tested against reality.
And as for "sitt[ing] around on their butts all day...", when you get to be my age, you've earned the right.
Riiiiiiiiiight.
The more Westerners see Geert's work, and I'm not just talking about his film, and recognize it as truth the more will decide they need to take action rather than sit around on their butts all day and muse and write about the 'strategy' of others.
Posted by: undaunted
Right on target.
We need to educate EVERYONE about the facts of Islam, the apathetic Western populace is ONE very important audience. Without edifying this group we cannot hope to win this battle. Another important group is the casual Muslim, the ones on the very fringes of Islam.
Geert’s film will do much to reach both of these critical groups. It will also create a lively discussion among many who do not now think about Islam, because they are ignorant of what is in the Qur’an. This would be great progress.
nick222,
Ridicule should ALSO be employed to combat Islam but this in no way negates the necessity and effectiveness of Geert’s approach.
When you stray into the area of advocating the ridicule of ALL religion, you begin to get counterproductive. We need all the allies we can get to defeat this monster and that would include all men of goodwill regardless of their religion or lack of it.
When someone advocates ridiculing all religion, I begin to suspect that an unpleasant and coercive agenda is behind it.
A reasonable man of goodwill will allow another to worship as he wishes, if that worship harms no one.
Yea, what he said.
Not that the criticism isn’t correct, but it’ll just harden the Muslims’ bunker mentality.
nick222,
I disagree. They're already in their bunker. Wilders' film isn't aimed at Muslims. It's not for them. They're not interested in what he says, except as a means of protest. It's really required viewing for the secularists and those who still believe Islam is a religion of "peace".
You lost me with the idea that we can't criticize the Koran unless we also laugh at all other religions. That should not be a requirement, any more than it was when people criticized the Catholic Church. Our arguments are with Islam and the Koran and what they choose to do to us.
If you're an atheist, fine. Theists everywhere should be free to discuss what this book legitimizes in the here and now. A Muslim's personal relationship with Allah is not the question. What he does in his mosque is his business. What he chooses to do to me after coming out of the mosque is definitely mine.
It's been many years since I went to church, but I never came out of Sunday Mass determined to kill or even subdue an enemy of God.
Davegreybeard, you're right. I also questioned nick's motives when he said we can't laugh at the koran without demeaning all other religions and ministers at the same time. His beef is with religion itself.
Those people making this claim in Iran are ignorant and semi-demented, and do not inhabit the same intellectual, or for that matter moral, universe that we in the advanced, and non-Muslim, world inhabit.
Posted by: Hugh
Semi-demented, definitely.
Ignorant? Maybe not. They seem more wily than ignorant. They know enough to push the right buttons to reach a Western audience. They know very well how to yank our chain. People who have become accustomed to the very idea of "hate crimes" can be swayed by the arguments Iran makes. We have already shown ourselves ready and willing to limit our own freedom of speech in order to avoid hurting someone's feelings. We are even willing to bring someone up on charges for saying the wrong thing. Where brute force won't accomplish their aims, Islamophiles have begun forcing our unilateral disarmament, all in the name of "human rights".
Well said, PMK.
Dave:
1. I agree with the goal "to educate EVERYONE about the facts of Islam" and that "the apathetic Western populace is ONE... audience." Wilders' film (and even "undaunted's" tactics for how to promote it) probably would lead to educating "apathetic" westerners. But I think that 9/11 (and atrocities overseas) already stimulated most westerners to learn about Islam and substantially diminished their apathy; therefore, the "great progress" that you hope for may not materialize -- and instead, things may become worse. Thus, re. the "casual Muslims", my year-long experiences with them at an Islamic forum suggest to me that criticizing the Koran is not the way to go: they react similar to how "undaunted" reacted when he (or she) concludes that his religion and his "holy book" are being criticized.
2. You state "Ridicule should ALSO be employed to combat Islam, but this in no way negates the necessity and effectiveness of Geert's approach." It's unfortunately true that both yours and mine are theories that haven't been put to experimental tests (save, e.g., for the effectiveness of Voltaire's method of helping to purge Europe of Christianity). It's a pity that some "focus groups" weren't created to test the theories before proceeding with a large scale test!
3. You also claim "when you stray into the area of advocating the ridicule of ALL religions, you begin to get counterproductive." Again that's your view, and as you might expect, I see things differently (as do many others, including Mencken, whom I quoted). In fact, in contrast to your opinion, I've expressed the opinion (e.g., on my blog, already referenced) that it's people such as Robert Spencer (whose intelligence and industriousness I admire) who are being counterproductive: when Muslims gain the impression (as they do) that the thrust of "the Western" argument is "Our religion is better than yours", then their reaction is obvious.
4. And I agree with your "we need all the allies we can get to defeat this monster and that would include all men of goodwill regardless of their religion or lack of it." But if just Islam is ridiculed, then we're back to square one: Muslims will interpret it (rightly so) as an attack on their religion. Therefore, if ridicule is to be the weapon of choice (as Jefferson recommended), then all religions should be ridiculed.
5. I also totally agree with you that "a reasonable man of goodwill will allow another to worship as he wishes, if that worship harms no one."
PMK:
1. You state: "Wilders' film isn't aimed at Muslims. It's not for them." You might be right, but I'm not sure. If his prime goal is (as I think it is) to try to stop the Islamization of the Netherlands, then I'd question: Is the best strategy for him to show a film that says (in effect) that the Koran is "a fascist book inciting hatred and violence"? I expect that the reaction from most Dutch people would be close to: "Duh, what else is new; I already knew that; tell me what you plan to do to stop them."
2. You state: "It [the film] is really required viewing for the secularists [atheists?] and those who still believe Islam is a religion of peace." I don't go along with that: on the one hand, we atheists [better, scientific humanists] don't need it (we already know the evils of all organized religions), and on the other hand, a film that cherry picks evil parts of the Koran is disingenuous: similar horrible stuff can be cherry picked from the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Book of Mormon. The result will be just more animosity from Muslims.
3. You state: "I never came out of Sunday Mass determined to kill or even subdue an enemy of God". My response: and isn't it then great how much progress humanists have made taming the Christian beast -- which was done in part by ridiculing Christianity (e.g., by Voltaire).
4. Re. my motives, there's no need to question them! Absolutely my "beef is with religion itself"! The theme of my book is that "belief in god (any god) is bad science and even worse policy."
But for now, the question is: what's the best way to "humanize" Islam? I don't think Wilders way is the best way (or even a good way); I think that a better way is to ridicule Islam -- and all religions. Some how we've got to get it through people's heads that all evidence points to the obvious: there ain't no gods and there never were! It was all make believe, promoted by clerics for their own profit. As Voltaire said: "The first priest was the first rogue who met the first fool."
Davegreybeard, I was going to respond, but there's nothing even to add. Very nicely said.
I also agree with undaunted's line:
We need to focus on educating the infidels, and let the Muslims save themselves, either by reforming Islam into something less violent and more tolerant, or by leaving Islam. It's their choice and their problem to solve, up to the moment they start planning attacks on Dar al-Harb, and then we will solve it for them.
Bingo.
I love you guys ...
No, really.
I. Love. You. Guys.
Now I'm gettin' all misty.
Ditto.
About nick222 quotes:
Mencken actually endorses the release of the movie.Look at the Wilders film symbolically as the thrown dead cat initiating the effective and intelligent horse-laugh.Heh.
The fact of the matter is, the Qur'an is breeding Islamic violence against non-muslims, not unseen films rumored to point out this truth.The total belief system of Islam deserves no special religious consideration or curtailment of non-muslim free speech.Threats of violence by some Islamists who may become uptight over a depiction of the Qur'an only personify their refusal to join the modern world of tolerance.
By using the Declaration as a vehicle of deception, the Iranian Islamics draw attention away from the examination of their book.We urgently need to get the Qur'an back on the Congressional floor for scrutiny in the manner that another person nick222 quoted did, Thomas Jefferson, when advocating war against certain Islamics.
Why are so many people like nick222 afraid to challenge this book?Does he not know what the Qur'an endorses for him as a non-believer?Read it all, nick222.No other major religion holds these views on you.Don't behave like a weakling, resist.
The poking and prodding nature of Wilders film and other similar in-your-face efforts to challenge radical Islam are absolutely necessary to advance this battle into the mainstream, and I wish those who reason like nick222 would get educated, stand up, and join us.
nick222,
While you congratulate yourself on being “reasonable” many of us see a very unreasonable man who is so blinded by HIS RELIGION of “reason” that he feels it incumbent upon himself to denigrate all other religions as inferior to his, oh so very reasonable, religion of “reason”.
You seem to feel that if humankind could just “get over” the God thing there would be sooo much less strife in the world – so as a faithful believer in the great god of “reason” you are doing your damndest to convert the rest of us so there will be “peace” in the world. Well, as Stalin so aptly proved, the absence of a deity in no way hinders murder on a massive scale – and I have no doubt that he felt he was being very “reasonable”.
Belief in God does not lead to “bad policy” anymore than belief in government leads to mass murder – Allah and Hitler not withstanding.
The point is that there is ONLY ONE religion that commands the faithful “Verily, of the faithful hath God bought their persons and their substance, on condition of Paradise for them in return: on the path of God shall they fight, and slay, and be slain: a Promise for this is pledged in the Law, and in the Evangel, and in the Koran - …” (Qur’an 9:111). There is ONLY ONE religion today that commands subjugation or killing of unbelievers. ONLY ONE religion that is a threat to our physical safety.
Anyone who claims that “all religions are equally bad” is either willfully ignorant, or deceitful or both.
Davegreybeard,
Recently I submitted a question about Qur'an 9:111 at one of these online Ask the Imam type sites. "Where is this in the Gospel?" I asked.
Some guy named Masjid Tucson replied, "The verse here is of a general lesson and need not point to a specific verse in the Gospel. God is telling us that all true believers strive in the cause of God and are willing to give up their material possessions and lives for Him. Since the Quran supersedes and confirms the previous scriptures, what is relevant is that God confirms making such a pledge with followers of previous scriptures. God wiling, you will be aware that much of the previous scriptures are lost or severely distorted. So you may not get the specific verse reference, but you have God's confirmation that such passages existed.(emphasis mine)
I replied, "NOWHERE in the Gospel is the instruction given that Christians should be "willing to kill and get killed." Rather, that bloody imperative is the Islamic perversion of the Gospel message, c/o Mohammad, who was only too happy to attack unsuspecting caravans in his lust for power, sex and booty, and to order the execution of his critics and opponents. It follows that Mohammad would have you believe that "much of the previous scriptures are lost or severely distorted," as you write, because the Gospel teaching and example of Jesus, as written, exposes Mohammad as a monstrous fraud, not a prophet at all!
The Quran "supersedes and confirms the previous scriptures?" HAH! Your Qur'an rejected everything in the previous scriptures that didn't pass muster with Mohammad, including, from the Christian perspective, the Incarnation of the Word of God, the Vicarious Atonement of the Lamb of God, and the Resurrection of the God/Man Jesus Christ from the grave, so you should rather argue that the Qur'an rejects the ENTIRE New Testament as blasphemous nonsense. THAT, at least, would be more honest than what Mohammad tried to pull off by likening himself to a prophet of God and successor to Jesus!! What chutzpah!!!"
Needless to say, this ended my correspondence with Masjid.
Thanks for the follow up, Lex
I sincerely do share the sentiment of HawkWatcher, in that “I wish those who reason like nick222 would get educated, stand up, and join us.” But I doubt he will make the effort.
One of the things that is so aggravating about people like nick is that they SHOULD know better, but in this area, they truly are WILLFULLY ignorant. It is as if nick has declared war on all the fishes in the sea because he found out that there are sharks in the ocean – therefore all fishes must be like sharks.
I would bet that in very few areas of his life, nick would ever make a blanket generalization about something, anything, without first clearly understanding what he was talking about – that is, without thoroughly studying the subject, BEFORE making his conclusions known to the world. But not when the issue is religion.
This is because nick uses the “church of reason” to reach his conclusions on religion. There is no analysis or thought process required here, just the dictum that “if it falls outside of the realm of “reason” AS DICTATED BY THE CHURCH, it must be attacked and banished, exterminated as heresy. There are no benign beliefs outside the church, all are equally bad and must be obliterated “for the good of mankind” and “to bring the poor ignorant savages into the modern world”. These are the "good works" required of the faithful as tribute to the great god "reason"
Using the “church of reason”, all is preordained in religion. There is no need to study the Qur’an or the Hadith or the Sirat Rasul Allah. There is no need to REALLY do the hard work of comparing Islam with other faiths before you sanctimoniously proclaim them “all the same, all equally bad”. No, if you are a believer in the “church of reason”, like the Jihadi with his Qur’an - you already know all you need to know.
NAFTA has increased US exports to Mexico and Canada by about twice what we used to do. Imports from Canada and Mexico have increased by about 1.3. That is an obvious net economic benefit to us in the US. Some people lost jobs, others gained on our side of the border. That is what free trade does. Those cosseted by tariff and non-tariff trade protection lose; the rest of us gain. Sorry about that Susanp.
Otherwise, I totally agree with your post.
Meanwhile, saddle up Geert, get the damn film out, either in public or at least on the web.
Posted by: spinoneone at March 12, 2008 6:39 AM
Millions of American jobs have been lost since NAFTA was passed, mostly manufacturing jobs. We are becoming dependent on foreign countries for practically everything that we used to produce ourselves. I'm not an expert on Economics, far from it, but I fail to see any benefits of NAFTA except to giant corporations, which are taking their factories elsewhere for cheap labor. NAFTA has helped Mexico immensely but the illegals keep coming and coming. How can that be beneficial to our economy when we're losing tax revenues and jobs, plus absorbing millions of Mexicans that go on welfare when the work runs dry, swamping our schools with non-English speaking students, financially ruining many hospitals that cannot afford to provide free health care in emergency rooms, etc., etc., etc.?
When our military buys foreign-made aircraft, software, and other sensitive equipment, don't you think that puts us in a rather precarious situation? I think it is not only dangerous but is also a betrayal to American producers of these commodities. Airbus has become a major competitor and I don't think it has operated in the black yet, has it? America used to be self-sufficient; we produced almost everything we needed, if not everything. McCain gets apoplectic about "protectionism" but I do not think we are protecting our own interests nearly enough. Free trade is fine so long as it does not enrich everyone else and bankrupts us. There is hardly a state that hasn't experienced the trauma of losing a manufacturing plant to Mexico; even Hershey's is moving to Mexico! How does this help our economy? What offsets these losses?
Thanks for the follow up, Lex
I sincerely do share the sentiment of HawkWatcher, in that “I wish those who reason like nick222 would get educated, stand up, and join us.” But I doubt he will make the effort.
One of the things that is so aggravating about people like nick is that they SHOULD know better, but in this area, they truly are WILLFULLY ignorant. It is as if nick has declared war on all the fishes in the sea because he found out that there are sharks in the ocean – therefore all fishes must be like sharks.
I would bet that in very few areas of his life, nick would ever make a blanket generalization about something, anything, without first clearly understanding what he was talking about – that is, without thoroughly studying the subject, BEFORE making his conclusions known to the world. But not when the issue is religion.
This is because nick uses the “church of reason” to reach his conclusions on religion. There is no analysis or thought process here, just the dictum that “if it falls outside of the realm of “reason” AS DICTATED BY THE CHURCH, it must be banished, exterminated as heresy. There are no benign beliefs outside the church, all are equally bad and must be obliterated “for the good of mankind” and “to bring the poor ignorant savages into the modern world”.
Using the “church of reason”, all is preordained in religion. There is no need to study the Qur’an or the Hadith or the Sirat Rasul Allah. There is no need to REALLY do the hard work of comparing Islam with other faiths before you sanctimoniously proclaim them “all the same, all equally bad”.
No, if you are a believer in the “church of reason”, like the Jihadi with his Qur’an - you already know all you need to know.
OH, GOD, I. LOVE. YOU. GUYS.
SUCH STAND-UP WARRIORS.
A CRISP SALUTE TO ALL OF YOU.
KEEP UP THE FIRE.
Sorry everyone, for the double post.
Susanp,
I think "lightly supervised" capitalism will sort things out to our increased prosperity. So we disagree.
But what does this have to do with Jihad?
OH, GOD, I. LOVE. YOU. GUYS.
SUCH STAND-UP WARRIORS.
A CRISP SALUTE TO ALL OF YOU.
KEEP UP THE FIRE.
No more apologies for double posts. It's a function of time and electrons, neither of which we can contol.
Groovin' on Eric Clapton and Steve Winwod at the '07 Crossroads Guitar Festival.
Feel the love. Really.
"I have finally found the way to live ..."
And Derek Trucks. Wow ... can he play the slide.
HawkWatcher:
1. I disagree with your interpretation of Mencken's suggestion: like setting fire to a synagogue or bombing a Black church, Wilders' film targets a specific religion. Compare that with Mencken's criticism of all religions (i.e., all superstitions):
"The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame."
As I already tried to express, my view is that attacking just one set of supernatural silliness is counterproductive.
2. I agree with the text of your post from "The fact of the matter is..." to "war against certain Islamics."
3. I'm not afraid of challenging the Koran! Of course I know that it labels me as a unbeliever. And yes, I've read it all. In my book, I devote four long chapters to criticizing it severely:
http://zenofzero.net/docs/Qx26_Quran_-_Periods_1_&_2.pdf
http://zenofzero.net/docs/Qx27_Quran_-_3rd_Period_-_1.pdf
http://zenofzero.net/docs/Qx28_Quran_-_3rd_Period_-_2.pdf
http://zenofzero.net/docs/Qx29_Quran_-_3rd_Period_-_3.pdf
4. As for the "weakling", "get educated", "stand up", "join us", I'd suggest that you learn more rather than sink to ad hominem attacks.
Davegreybeard:
1. I do not "congratulate" myself "on being reasonable"; I try my best to apply the scientific method in my daily life, and thereby, to hold my beliefs only as strongly as relevant evidence warrants. If you don't understand the difference, then I would suggest that you, too, look at http://zenofzero.net/docs/R_Reason_versus_Reality.pdf . I therefore do not pursue a "religion of reason". Instead, I find substantial wisdom in M.M. Mangasarian's assessment: "Religion is the science of children; science is the religion of adults."
2. But I admit that I do agree that "if humankind could just 'get over' the God thing, there would be sooo much less strife in the world." But re. Stalin (and Mao and Pol Pot and...), you apparently ignore a critical point: it's not just "the absence of a deity" that's desired, it's the absence of all ideologies -- wherein some group tries to force their ideas on others (e.g., Christianity, Fascism, Communism, and Islam). To date, the first three of those beasts have been tamed; I totally agree that the Islam beast must be tamed; the question that I was addressing is how best to accomplish that goal.
3. Re. "belief in God does not lead to bad policy", obviously I disagree. When belief in god is promoted, that promotion sanctifies holding opinions unsupported by evidence, since there's zero evidence that any god exists. Simultaneously, that promotion sanctions following orders (of the clerics), rather than figuring things out for yourself. Although the argument is long, in my book I argue that such is the essence of immorality.
4. I totally agree that Islam is bad news.
5. I don't recall claiming that "all religions are equally bad"; if I did, I withdraw it; I do recall mentioning to you that it's great that humanists have been able to humanize Christianity. Also, I did state "Belief in god (any god) is bad science and even worse policy", and I provided you a reference to where you can find a full explanation of what I mean by that statement.
6. Re. your comment to Lex, "I doubt that he will make the effort", if you will check out www.zenofzero.net , I suspect that you'll recognize the error in your uninformed remark. As for your "willfully ignorant" comment, the inappropriate analogy re. sharks, and your misunderstanding of reason vs. science, I conclude that you, too, have a preference for ad hominem attacks.
I'll end my communications on this subject with some thoughts from Bertrand Russell:
"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted... The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts... The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible... What the world needs is not dogma but an attitude of scientific inquiry combined with a belief that the torture of millions is not desirable, whether inflicted by Stalin or by a Deity imagined in the likeness of the believer... It's undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it's true..."
A poster above calls for ridicule to be employed in the counter jihad. But ridicule already exceeds the permitted, imaginary limits set by the brain police, and falls into the realm of politically correct censorship.
Hate-crime legislation and those perverse 'human rights' tribunals will tie you up just like Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and Sheik Yer'mami, for a long time to come.
All at no cost to the Moooozlims, who are laughing all the way to the sharia...
Slightly OT
nick222 writes, "When belief in god is promoted, that promotion sanctifies holding opinions unsupported by evidence, since there's zero evidence that any god exists."
St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument
[St. Anselm, the Catholic archbishop of Canterbury and a Doctor of the Church, first formulated the Ontological Argument. This philosophical argument is perhaps the strangest and most hotly debated of the proofs. The argument has attracted the attentions of such notable philosophers as Immanuel Kant (who attacked St. Anselm’s proof) and G.W.F Hegel (who defended Anselm’s proof).
The proof is most notable because it alone claims to prove the existence of God by relying independently on human reason without the need for perception or evidence. The proof itself relies on the defined concept of God as a perfect being. St. Anselm’s proof is summarized here:
1. God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.
2. God is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.
3. If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.
4. Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.
5. If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is. (follows from premise #3).
6. This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.
7. This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.
8. Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.
9. Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.
Study the above proof carefully. It is an intriguing proof because it states that God, a perfect being, must exist in all possible circumstances in order to satisfy the definition of his perfection. A God that can exist in only some circumstances, but fails to exist in others is a less than perfect being.]
Lex:
Thank you, but I've already studied it thoroughly: I go through St. Anselm's "proof" (and many more such "proofs") in Chapter Ie of my book at www.zenofzero.net . As so many others have found, they're all nonsense. After looking at those, you might want to have a look at the chapter entitled "Reason vs. Reality". The critical point, valid for all deductions: no deduction (such as Anselm's) can lead to new information; always but always, the information MUST BE contained in the premisses. If you want new information (e.g., about any god), you need data.
Further, ontology (i.e., the theory of existence) is silly: existence can be demonstrated only phenomenologically. If you want to determine if a brick wall "exists", for example, then keep banging your head against it (phenomenologically) until you come to what you consider to be a useful working hypothesis about the wall's existence. I have similarly banged my head against all versions of the god idea and come to the useful working hypothesis that they're all silly speculations started by savages and promoted by con artist clerics and politicians to manipulate the masses.
nick222,
I am reminded of “banging my head against a brick wall”, when conversing with you – but one last time. You will never admit it but you hold to your beliefs just as tenaciously as any religious fanatic – and with as little basis in fact and reason, which you claim to hold so dear.
I would agree with you, on another level, that in my opinion, much in religion is silly foolishness. The night flight of Muhammad? Virgin birth? Kind of on the same level, but also relatively harmless, so I don’t dwell on it to much – why bother? But I also recognize that much in Christianity is good and helpful to society at large, just as I realize that some of Islam is truly murderous and that taken as a whole, it is a disaster for the civilization of men. I think that both of these religions have “silly” beliefs that I obviously do not share – this does not make them the same. All fishes are not sharks, even though both swim in the sea.
The main disagreement I have with you is that you seem unable (and unwilling) to separate the truly viscious and immediately dangerous ideologies from the innocuous. Why must you make it your life’s work to attack beliefs, that others hold dear (and you find “silly”) even though those beliefs are no threat to you?
You refuse to grasp that there is something about ISLAM that is truly unique and dangerous, PROVABLY (using FACT and REASON) different from all other religions.
It is here, in the adamant refusal to separate the murderous from the benign, that you depart from reason.
Davegreybeard:
I can imagine that it can be fun making up your opponent's position as you go along, but you know, in debates it's called the straw man fallacy.
As examples, you might want to give evidence to support your claims 1) "You hold to your beliefs just as tenaciously as any religious fanatic", 2) "you see seem unable (and unwilling) to separate the truly vicious and immediately dangerous ideologies from the innocuous", and 3) "you refuse to grasp there is something about Islam that is truly unique and dangerous."
Perhaps in the future you might want to consider your opponent's position, rather than continue to babble away, apparently pleased with your capability to knock down straw men. Otherwise, you'll likely gain the reputation as being another D'Souza -- although I expect that, before then, you'll find yourself talking to yourself.
nick222,
No “straw man” here nick, just facts that you refuse to acknowledge because they do not fit your "jihad" against all religion.
1.The belief that you hold tenaciously is that all religion is equally bad. This is provably false, but you refuse to embark on the logic trail, using facts, that would invariably lead you to this conclusion. As with any “true believer” you will not acknowledge anything that challenges your preordained beliefs.
2.“you see seem unable (and unwilling) to separate the truly vicious and immediately dangerous ideologies from the innocuous"
Yes and an example of this is that the bible does not command the faithful to kill unbelievers or make war on their neighbors or give explicit permission to rape captives or beat wives. The Qur’an commands the faithful to do all these things - yet you find these books to be “equally bad” some how. This is illogical in the extreme and the ONLY way you get there is to turn your reason OFF.
3.“You refuse to grasp there is something about Islam that is truly unique and dangerous." This speaks for itself. You make NO attempt to justify your unreasonable position; it just “is” because you say so. Many here have provided many examples that Islam is unique and very dangerous yet you stick to your “belief” that this is not so – this is unreasonable.
The truth is nick, as with all fanatics, your “reason” only functions when it advances your pre set agenda. In your case, an extremely unreasonable and mean spirited, war against all religion.
How is this sinking to an attack on nick222?
Ad hominem \Ad hom"i*nem\ [L., to the man.]
A phrase applied to an appeal or argument addressed to the
principles, interests, or passions of a man.
[1913 Webster]
Huh?And what about using "straw man" in another retort?
straw man
n 1: a person used as a cover for some questionable activity
[syn: front man, front, figurehead, nominal head,
strawman]
2: a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted [syn: strawman]
U speekee eengleesh?
Nick222 so smart is he! Our savior, who attacks all religion, relentlessly! When the question’s “God” he claims that yes, that’s it! This, the very devil he will slay, as ‘twill save all mankind, don’t you see!
But when asked of Stalin’s murder spree, our slippery nick shiftily shifts to “ideology”. Yes, that’s exactly what he’s been about, all along (can’t you see!). Our slippery nick, the savior of you and me - just banish ideology and we’ll forever live in peace and harmony!
So where’s the man without a God and the one who has no ideology?
Why you’ll find quite a few, all without a pulse and dwelling in eternity!