Spencer: The Railroading of Geert Wilders

Railroading.jpg

In the lead story in FrontPage this morning I discuss how Geert Wilders is being denied a fair trial — although of course the very fact that he is on trial at all indicates that it is not a fair trial.

The Stalinist-show-trial aspect of the Geert Wilders “hate speech” trial in the Netherlands was thrown into sharp relief last week when the Amsterdam District Court refused to allow Wilders to call fifteen of the eighteen witnesses he had hoped to bring forward in his defense. Wilders in response was characteristically direct: “This Court is not interested in the truth. This Court doesn’t want me to have a fair trial. I can’t have any respect for this. This Court would not be out of place in a dictatorship.”

The three witnesses the court allowed Wilders are the Dutch Islamic scholars Hans Jansen and Simon Admiraal, along with the Wafa Sultan. Hans Jansen’s work on Islam is superb and groundbreaking, and he will be an excellent witness, as will Admiraal and the exemplary freedom fighter Wafa Sultan.

Nonetheless, this decision indicates the hollowness of Dutch justice and the court’s bias against Wilders. For some who would have been Wilders’s most effective witnesses were disallowed. He had wanted to call Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of Theo Van Gogh.

Why Bouyeri? Wilders, in the bizarre inquisition that has replaced justice in the Dutch courts, is accused of offending Muslims by pointing out that Muslims invoke the Qur’an and Muhammad’s example to justify violence. However, Bouyeri quoted the Qur’an in the note threatening Wilders and others that he stabbed into Van Gogh’s body, and invoked the Qur’an repeatedly during his trial as well. “Kill them, and Allah will help you and guide your hand,” he said. “There’s no room there for doubt or interpretation there.”…

Read it all.

Spencer: Geert Wilders and the Death of Free Speech
Spencer: "The Geert Wilders trial ought to be an international media event"
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    The fact that you are not allowed to be called as an expert witness says everything Mr. Spencer.

    Do not give up the fight Mr. Spencer and Mr. Wilders – keep going. Many of us are doing our best to help you.

    To Geert supporters, check out the following and explain why Hitler’s Mein Kampf can be banned, but not the much more vile and deadly Koran.

    Hitler and Nazis look like angelic little old ladies compared to Mohammed and Muslims

    How does ‘ol Mo stand up to Buddha, Moses, Jesus and Confucius?

  2. says

    An excellent piece.

    It is not exaggerating to say that the Geert Wilders trial is a defining moment in the history of Western civilization.

    Unsurprisingly, therefore, it has been pretty much ignored by the BBC.

  3. says

    Geert Wilders needs to be left alone, and this silly trial and its underlying charges must end. Whatever issues there may be with his views, there is no basis for the power of civil authority to be brought down on him.

    By the way, Jew Lover [nice to know somebody here loves me!], do you really want to start scrutinizing Moses?

    “And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.”

    “And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.”

    “And Moses said unto them, Have you saved all the women alive?”

    “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

  4. says

    Fairuzfan, strengthening one’s social group at the expense of those deemed “backwards”, “unfit”, “reactionary”, or whatever is an old established rule. And, if you’d read the Old Testament a little more carefully, you might have noticed that God did not spare Israel and Judah a similar fate when–tempted by the women “that have known man”–they followed the same abominations that the nations around them followed, and ended up in the Babylonian captivity.

    Besides, for those of us who believe that M’shiach has come, we look back on the Old Testament history knowing that our last divine marching orders are “make disciples” (Mt. 28:19), and pray that God does not so see our world that it deserves the kinds of judgements which God meted out to Midian and the Seven Nations of Canaan.

    God was at work preparing a people through whom redemption would come to our fallen, sinful planet by a wide number of means that worked themselves out over millennia (Miriam/Mary the mother of Jesus was NOT the sister of Moses, as the Qu’ran might lead you to believe, but lived about 1400 years later). Why don’t you stop your kicking and railing against the God who made you and accept that He became flesh, made atonement for your sins on the cross, and was raised from the dead as the firstfruits of God’s eternal triumph?

  5. says

    People – we all know that “fairuzfan” is an insult-slinging Mohammedan. An “enfeebled lackey,” as he so enjoys calling others, among other ad hominem insults. He was esp. rude and vile to champ on a previous thread, as well as to myself and others here on JW.

    As for your Moses comment, Mohammedan, I hope that a real Jew here will take you on. Yes, the Old Testament has violence, everyone knows that. However, it’s not *eternal* violence, such as this Jihad verse from the “Mein Korampf”:

    “Kill non-Muslims wherever you find them. Lie in wait and ambush them, seize and capture them using every stratagem of war.” – Qur’an 9:5

    That command is for-all-time, never-ending, as you well know. The Islamic Jihad NEVER ends until:

    “Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it Allah’s.” – Qur’an 8:40

    Your Mohammedan ideology is simply mass-murder until Islam is the only “religion,” and “allah” the only god worshipped. And I do mean “god,” not God. Islam is like Fascism and Nazism, combined. Islam is a plague on humanity. Eventually Islam, like Fascism and Nazism, will be crushed. That will be a day of colossal celebration for all freedom-loving peoples of the world.

  6. says

    Nonetheless, this decision indicates the hollowness of Dutch justice and the court’s bias against Wilders.

    Oh, it’s nothing against Wilders, although they woulda preferred he keep his mouth shut, self-censorhip is the most effective censorship and all that. Give up one for the team.

    *** 5:41 ***

    There’s no more bias against poor Geert than a cabal of shaman priests would have against a goat about to be sacrificed at the altar. The altar this time is the biggest death altar of all: Islam (in all its relentless unreasonable demands).

  7. says

    I try to put myself in the position of those who are intent on prosecuting Geert Wilders. They have said that the truth does not matter. What they care about is results. The results that Mr. Wilders is achieving in catalyzing the once-sleeping Dutch has put them on the defensive. They want him broken. They want Holland to be a country without a national consciousness. This same mindset is pervasive at the BBC and in much of the British ruling class. Hallmarks of this group is a desire for power and a deep rejection of their own national roots. The trial of Geert Wilders is psychodrama of the highest order. He represents all that they despise — imagine, a Dutch man in Holland standing up for himself and his culture! What temerity! He needs to be made an example of lest others think that they too can speak out. Who are these people who are set on this agenda of repression? How did they become this way? What are the psychodynamics of those in the West who are intent on bringing down their own national groups? What is it about western societies at this point in our history that we have produced these people who lust for power and then misuse it so badly? The answers lie doubtless in issues of self-hatred, overcompensation for their own racism towards minorities, reverse racism against whites, and hatred of masculine energy as it rises in its own defense. Because we are dealing here with deep-seated issues of psychopathology it is hard to get through to this elite group. They are well-defended psychologically and highly educated. Their power over others is a compensation for so much that is lacking in their lives, and that is why they cling to it desperately. They know how to work the system, to create new terms when needed, and to define the new rules of the brave new world they hope to birth. However, their Achilles heel is the fact that they are not in the world of reality. The sham society that they have pasted together with all of their repressive laws and regulations is destined to come unglued as a popular revolution sweeps them and their haughty pretensions of moral superiority out into the gutter where the tiresome mess belongs. They have miscalculated in putting Wilders on trial. Perhaps this reveals their unconscious wish to finally get what they deserve.

  8. says

    “Yet despite the fact that he has nothing like their numbers, wealth, or resources, he threatens to topple their entire multicultural house of cards – for he has on his side a weapon that all of their power cannot defeat, the weapon of truth. And so they are desperate to silence him, and end forever his truth-telling about jihad and Islamic supremacism.” – RS

    Why in the world the Dutch give a cr*p about Islam I have no idea.

    Have they all gone insane? Mass insanity?

  9. says

    Among those who cherish freedom, Robert’s warning that “It is not exaggerating to say that the Geert Wilders trial is a defining moment in the history of Western civilization” will be as long and as dolorously remembered as Sir Edward Grey’s lament on the eve of World War I:

    “The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.”

  10. says

    Kepha,

    I’m well-versed on the context and theological contigency regarding the material in Numbers/Bamidbar. That doesn’t change the fact that it is there and that it happened. And theological fulfillment does not apply to Judaism with regard to this as it does with Christianity.

    By the way, I do accept and affirm Christ, contrary to the implication in your post.

  11. says

    Robert is absolutely correct. Under total liberal/progressive control, courts are nothing more than kangaroo courts much like the old Soviet courts many years ago. The old Communist trials became well known as show trials. The trial outcome was decided in advance and the show is mearly to fool the public. Everything in countries like this is at the convience of the elite rulers. It really resembles the medival system of justice and when might they bring back the inquisition…secular style.

    I sincerely hope that Geert will avoid prison and where are the people of the Netherlands. Is this the kind of country that those people really want?

  12. says


    Hans Jansen’s work on Islam is superb and groundbreaking, and he will be an excellent witness, as will Admiraal and the exemplary freedom fighter Wafa Sultan.


    In effect, Islam itself is also on trial. This aspect is the only good aspect of the trial of Geert Wilders. Of course, the lack of media coverage here in the States is preventing the average person from knowing what’s going on.

  13. says

    I haven’t checked, but is the Biblical reference Fairuzfan gives accurate? I do realize that the violence of the Old Testament is not to apply to Christian’s actions today, unlike Islam, therefore making Christianity a vastly superior religion to Islam. However, trying to put such actions as those referenced as being carried out by Moses in a justifiable and positive light through convoluted reasoning (“we cannot understand Gods long-term plan and the reasons for his actions”, or “the innocents would not be punished in the hereafter, only the guilty” etc.) is the same kind of reasoning our enemies the Muslims use. Christianity today is a vastly different moral guide than the old testament of 3000 years ago, and I realize the ways of the Old Testament do not apply to the present age. But slaying “the male little ones” as God’s will, was a vile justification for the murder of innocents 3000 years ago, and it remains a hideous, vile reference today. Reading it made me sick to my stomach.
    And please, let’s not get into another biblical passage quotation contest. The Old Testament is full of violence, which cannot be denied. To make a valid point, we need to stress that it is ISLAM TODAY, unlike Christianity that STILL justifies such evil violence in the name of ALLAH.

  14. says

    A (true) coalition of the (truly)willing has to be assembled comprised of anyone who opposes Islam, without regards to their political or religious affiliation. Whether one is left or right-leaning,Islam seeks to subsume you and eliminate the existence of your beliefs, your freedoms, and ultimately your life. Muslims are taught that they are rewarded for killing infidels. Anyone who considers themselves non-Muslim has to band together and form a cohesive strategy on how to eliminate the threat. It might be a good idea to create Arabic (our Coptic/Maronite/Assyrian brothers and sisters will be instrumental in this!), Persian, Urdu, Turkish, Malay, etc,. websites (ala the “VOA” of times past) educating people in Muslim countries themselves about the repressive nature of the religion…oops…I mean political ideology that is Islam and how it destoyed their ancestors cultures. And “political ideology” is exactly how it should be portrayed, because it is the most accurate description, requiring a proportionate response–an Opposition Party to Islam. Islam and it’s adherents have been, and are on a war-footing with us ever since it’s satanic inception-they are like a hive consciousness whose every exertion is dedicated to the elimination of the “infidel other”-ie, non-Muslims, and eventually art and culture itself, rendering the world into an nightmarish and post-apocalyptic cross between the Taliban and Mad Max…with no hope or renewal, just time to wait for the imaginary “dajjal” to appear and usher in the imaginary end-time of Islamic eschatology.

    I, Kafir.

  15. says

    Various comments have been made comparing the Wilders trial to the Stalinist “show-trials” of the 30’s and 40’s. The prosecutors and judges of the Wilders trial would do well to remember what happened to many of those involved in the show-trials: once they had served their purpose, they in turn were executed or sent to the Gulag. Virtually every head of the KGB and its predecessors ended up killed at Stalin’s orders. The same fate awaits these Dutch tools of the Islamic conquest once they have enabled the Islamic victory.

  16. says

    When all the arguing about scriptures is over, the question remains: when the knife is at your throat, do you want to survive or not? What if we decide that yes, we Christians (or non-Muslims) have a dreadful history and are awful people, are Muslims so much better that they deserve to subjugate us or wipe us out?

    As for the Dutch, I don’t know many but the ones I have met are more embarrassed by Wilders than they are by the results of their multicultural tolerance. Has anyone done some kind of survey about Dutch attitudes? Or would such a survey be impossible to conduct?

  17. says

    OLD TESTAMENT = DESCRIPTIVE

    koran = PROSCRIPTIVE
    ============================================

    The vile, self-hating fairuzfan (who is NO JEW, but an end-of-the-world, self-annointed Catholic) is a complete intellectual poseur.

    His latest effort to produce moral equivalence between the OT and koran is so silly, it has been debunked before so many times, that it simply shows that this nasty little deceiver doesn’t bother reading what anyone else posts.

  18. says

    KipHamilton: The passages are from chapter 31 of the Book of Numbers.

    Yankel: So, howya doing, there? Well it seems I’ve gone up in the world in your estimation, from being a lying Muslim and miserable piece of shit to now an end-of-the-world, self-annointed Catholic. Going soft on me? Is this post from some squishy impostor, or are you sending subtle hints you want to make up with me?

    But hard as it is to take, I am nonetheless a Jew. Sorry Yankel, if that somehow grates on you. But if you’re ever feeling down, or don’t think you’re being nasty, idiotic or stupid enough, here’s some famous dialogue you can practice with:

    Various Peasants: Witch! A witch!
    First Peasant: We have found a witch–may we burn her?
    [Various calls to burn her.]
    Sir Bedivere: How do you know she is a witch?
    Peasants: She looks like one. [Various calls to burn her]
    ….
    Sir Bedivere: What makes you think she’s a witch?
    First Peasant: Oh, she turned me into a newt.
    Sir Bedivere: A newt?
    First Peasant: I got better.
    Second Peasant: Burn her anyway! Burn her!

  19. says

    Wellington, PG, Kiphamilton, Christian Soldier:

    I do not look the other way or exculpate when it comes to the violence in the Old Testament. I stare it straight in the face. Hence, when I tremble for my country because I reflect that God is just, I am not simply spewing 4th of July rhetoric: my reading of the Scriptures, including the “scary stuff” convinces me that this is true.

    PG, God did not tell the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites because the Iraelites were more righteous, for the Israelites were a “stiffnecked people” (Dt. 9:1-7). And, certainly, the Mesopotamian nations that exiled Israel and Judah were not more righteous than Israel and Judah–indeed, Babylon is God’s byword for immorality and idolatry. By the same token, the Muslim ability to challenge a proudly apostate Western world is no proof of Muslim moral superiority.

    On the other hand, Jonah was sent to Nineveh to warn them that they were about to be overthrown. But, as Jonah parked himself outside the city to watch the fireworks, the Ninevites repented, and so were spared. When Jonah, upset that his prophecy did not come to pass and that the gourd plant that shaded him withered, complains to God, God replies:

    “You had pity on a plant for which you have not labored, nor made it grow, which came up in a night and perished in a night. And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty-thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left, and also much livestock?” (Jonah 4:10-11–this, not the great fish, being the true point of the book).

    We are in crisis–a fancy Greek word meaning “judgment”–yet we act more like Israel under Ahab and Omri than like the Ninevites who heard Jonah. We despie the cross of Christ through which redemption came to us no less than the Muslims, who declare that this event did not happen.

    I put my bets on God being merciful, and resist Islamicization, no less than a Jeremiah might resist the cults of Bel and Marduk. But I know full well that God has the right to turn a proudly apostate culture in an empty ruin whenever He likes.

  20. says

    “…the hollowness of Dutch justice and the court’s bias against Wilders.”

    Hollowness is right! …as “Dutch justice” has now aligned itself with the likes of evil islamic justice.

    Justice? What justice?!

  21. says

    Wellington- Glad you agreed with me. I’m always glad when someone does that. However, when I have posted similar comments on Jihad Watch in the past, I have been pummeled, and I mean PUMMELED for them, even though I have NEVER equated modern Christianity with Islam, and have always maintained that Christianity is in every way a vastly superior religion.
    My point has always been that it is not enough simply to quote violent passages from the Koran without giving evidence and arguing that, unlike Christian treachings concerning the Old Testament, in Islam those violent examples are meant to be models for behavior today.Without showing that in Christianity such passages in the Old Testament are no longer used as behavior models today, Muslims and their apologists will come back, every time, with “yes, but what about Moses ordering the killing of “all the male little ones” etc..
    I hope that Geert Wilders,(one of my personal heroes) does quote the Koran during his trial. But he also needs to show the relevance of Koranic violence in todays Islamic teachings. If he doesn’t, I can hear the prosecution clearly “and what about such and such violent passages in the Old Testament- why do you not equally condemn the Bible then”? No. The difference is, in Christianity, unlike Islam, such acts of violence are not acceptable in todays world.

  22. says

    On this OT OT (Off-Topic Old Testament) debate, I agree with kiphamilton and Wellington. However, regardless of the obvious ability of Jews and Christians (unlike Muslims) to evolve past theocratic militancy (which both did practice heavily for centuries), the problem remains that for literalist Jews and Christians, there is no way around the fact that the descriptions fairufzan adduces of God commanding mass slaughters, as well as the punishment of death for adultery and homosexuality, directly point to the God that Jews and Christians believe in — including Jesus Christ Himself, being divinely one with God the Father who was the God directly involved, putatively, in those Old Testament slaughters and punishments.

    At this juncture in the problem, the literalist Jews and Christians must either give up their literalism about the Old Testament and see those descriptions of battles, along with the testaments of divine command for them, as human narratives describing history and imputing divine inspiration to various historical forces and decisions, divine inspiration which is to be understood as figurative with the possibility of human error; or the literalist Jews and Christians must admit that the God they believe in directly ordered those grimly violent things.

    If they do the latter, the question then becomes, why has the same God seen fit to stop doing what he was recounted in the Old Testament as doing so often for a good two millennia? The answer of the New Testament does not imply that the same God changed his mind; and yet the massive and substantive change in behavior that differentiates the first two millennia of God’s covenant with man (approximately 2,000 B.C. to the birth of Christ) from the behavior documented by the last event of revelation (as recounted in the New Testament) logically indicates a change of mind — unless, again, one relaxes the inerrantist literalism that produces this overall problem in the first place.

  23. says

    When I was working in The Netherlands, I had a Dutch colleague whose wife was a lawyer. She was aghast at the concept of a jury, where a bunch of legally untrained laymen would pronounce on a dispute.

    The jury system was set up by the Magna Carta at Runneymead in 1213(?). The idea was and is that if anyone tried to create abusive laws, or carry out malicious prosecutions, a jury would simply find “not guilty”, regardless of the law.

    I bet Geert Wilders wishes Holland had a jury system…it would be “no contest.”

  24. says

    The Netherlands is the country of Casper ten Boom and his courageous children who all watched the lamps go out there in the 1930’s. They stood firm in the truth that God has created all humans and that makes each one of great value. Their resources were small, but their comprehension of what was required was great. They lived with oppression and terror; never-the-less risked their lives to save the lives of those who were hunted down by those in league with evil and cruelty.

    Casper died at the hands of the Nazis as well as one of his daughters, his son and grandson. But he left a legacy which would be well to be heeded by the Dutch people today as Geert Wilders faces judgement. Courage and self-sacrifice is needed desperately and desperately found wanting in Holland, and in my country also.

    Reading “The Hiding Place” by Corrie ten Boom gives me the erie sense of that history beginning to repeat itself over again now. The lamps are going out once more before our very eyes! I would despair, except for knowing Jesus Christ and knowing Him, I cannot despair!

  25. says

    Interesting question, GravenImage.

    I hold my present-day legal views regarding Mr. Wilders’ statements and activity based on the general form of government that prevails in the present-day West.

    If you’re asking me about what I would envision for Geert W. in a theocratic state of my choosing, we have to start with the premise that I am referring to a Catholic confessional state as my ideal form of government. And present, authoritative Catholic teaching would now call for the application of the theological teachings stated in Second Vatican Council’s Dignitatis Humanae to be applied as part of its laws. So we’re not talking about an exact carbon copy of the High Middle Ages.

    Given all that, if Mr. Wilders were a citizen of a Catholic confessional state of my design, based on what I think that would look like and based on my understanding of what Wilders has said, done, advocated etc. I do not see why he would be arrested or otherwise legally penalized for anything, or in anyway legally restrained from continuing to say and do what he has been saying and doing. But if he has been calling for the ‘banning’ of the Quran, whatever that exactly means, I don’t think that proposal would go anywhere.

    Now, if we are setting all government power here aside, and if Mr. Wilders were a Catholic, I think the situation of him and the Church could have its gray areas. I imagine it would be a judgment call by Church authorities, depending upon what Wilders is saying and doing, as to whether there could be any ecclesiastical penalities or admonishments involved.

    Here we’re talking purely about Mr. Wilders personal standing in the Catholic Church [assuming he’s a Catholic], not anything that would involve the Catholic confessional state government itself.

    Although insofar as there may be any special prerogatives that Catholics in good standing have compared to other Catholics and non-Catholics in my Catholic confessional state model [again all of this would be within the context of Dignitatis Humanae], those could, I suppose, be in jeopardy for Mr. Wilders, depending upon the Church’s view of the matter.

  26. says

    KipHamilton, a compelling and important subject you raise. My sympathies. To take a general, very imprecise, but nonetheless useful analogy, no Menshevik should ever think that their common ground with Bolsheviks will win them any consideration or respect when the differences move front and center.

    Never forget, as I pointed out to one poster on another thread some time ago, that it’s not what you’re against that counts, at the end of the day, it’s what you’re for that matters.

  27. says

    LivingEngine,

    So what’s wrong with me donating to Life for Relief and Development? You don’t approve? Do you know anybody who works there or what the organization does? Do you engage in charitable relief efforts and work that are vastly superior to what they do?

    I’m pretty sure they’re doing more for the suffering of Haiti than Jihad Watch is.

    Or is having poor people fend for themselves without any assistance from others the way you enjoy the world and think it ought to be?

    Anyway, if you’re so interested in my charitable giving, then in the interest of open disclosure for you and everyone else, the following are Islamic and Arab charities that I donated to in 2009:

    Life for Relief and DEvelopment
    Islamic Relief USA
    Zakat Foundation of America
    Palestine Children Relief Fund

    In case you think I’m too skewed in my giving, the following are Jewish and Israeli charities I donated to in 2009:

    ORT
    Magen David Adom
    Chazon Yeshaya
    Yad Eliezer
    Colel Chabad

    In addition, I gave to a host of Catholic charitable organizations and religious entities, as well as a few non-Catholic Christian organizations and a number of purely secular ones in the microfinancing field.

    If you ever bother to learn anything about the true nature of true charity, and that doesn’t mean the less than enlightened views of Mr. Fitzgerald, you can come to understand that it entails giving assistance to those in need apart from theological and political differences. And, yes, even apart from potentially serious geo-politically related clashes of life and death.

    The fact that I’m no longer an adherent of Judaism, and have become an anti-Zionist politically, doesn’t mean that Jews and Israelis in material need are not deserving of help, however Zionistic they may be.

    On the glorious day that you’re actually capable of understanding this, perhaps, then, you’re worthy of having a conversation with me.

  28. says

    Fairfuzfan- While on the subject of being on the same side of an issue with those you are uncomfortable with, as an anti-zionist, (Jewish though you may be) you must realize that the term “Zionist” has become a substitute for “Jew” for many anti-Jewish individuals and groups, Islamic and right wing as well. Anti-Zionist, for so many, is really just a substitute for anti-Jewish. If you read some of the European newspapers and blogs, the vitriol aimed at Jews, usually thinly disguised by using the term “Zionist”, is shocking in this day and age.
    My experience with many Muslims I have known, is that even if they are not extremist, or even particularly serious about their religion, the one thing many hang on to is an absolute hatred of Jews- Jews as a people, not just Jews because they support Israel. As you so aptly pointed out, it is not what you’re against that counts, it’s what your for.

  29. says

    Let me also add that it is not just Islamic and right wing groups which use the term “anti-Zionist” as a substitute for anti- “Jewish”, but the left has been doing it as well.

  30. says

    Wellington,

    It’s not just that “the modern West owes a great deal to Christendom” — it’s that the modern West is Christendom: as a butterfly is a caterpillar, as water is ice, as a grown Wellington is the younger Wellington; etc.

  31. says

    KipHamilton,

    Looks like you’re making it through without much of any blasting after all!

    Yes, while I realize that anti-Zionism does get played as a guise for true anti-Semitism, I tend to think that’s the exception and not the rule. I certainly hope so. But even if I should be wrong, it is still out of bounds to always equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, an equation which has plenty of support in the Jewish community. And an equation that all too convienently places a number of morally problematic aspects of the Zionist movement outside of open discussion and examination.

    I think the Arab/Islamic view towards Jews is no less complicated than the relationship between Americans of European background and African Americans, despite Mr. Spencer’s attempted simplifications. While genuine anti-Semitism is certainly there, my experiences in my travels, if we accept that people are being reasonably candid with me, is, again, the exception not the rule.

    To take one current relevant example, Iran is excoriated in Zionist circles as being Nazi-like at this point, and Ahmedinejad as the next Hitler. However deplorable Iranian government conduct may be on a number of issues, the fact is that Iran has thousands of Jewish residents who have not been carted off and exterminated in 31 years of Islamic theocratic rule. Whatever else one may say about Iran, Nazi has no place in the discussion on that basis alone. No, Jews in Iran don’t have all the rights they should, but they are treated no differently than Christians and Zoroastrians, and actually better than Bahais who enjoy no official religious minority status.

    And as bizarre as it may sound, from my exposure to Iranians, even some relatively hard-line political and religious ones, there seems to be a certain paradoxical pride in their having this Jewish community, the largest one now in the Islamic world. It seems to be something to show off regarding Iranian national heritage and pride, as well as defending their Islamic regime as not being anti-Semitic.

    If the country now inhabiting what was the section of Arab Palestine west of the Jordan river were founded and inhabited by Aleuts, Eskimos, Cherokees, or Amish, instead of Jews, I don’t think the Arab/Islamic reaction would be much milder, though it wouldn’t have the features of over 1,000 years of Islamic history, thought, sensibility and psychology to draw upon for invective and hostility.

    And among Western Leftists, I think the opposition is less anti-Jewish and more from a vein of an anti-American or anti-Western-imperialist mindset that they tend to work from. Again, if it were Eskimos or Amish, I don’t think Leftist opposition would be much different or lowered.

  32. says

    Wellington,

    “I’m not sure I’d go quite as far as you and equate Western Civilization with Christendom, though I concede your point is an arguable one. But don’t forget about the classical strain, both Greek and Roman”

    I guess it depends on how one defines Christendom. I define it as necessarily including the Graeco-Roman heritage, which would take care of your objection in that regard. If the modern West isn’t Christendom at a later stage of evolution, then where did it come from? Outer space?

  33. says

    Darcy-We may disagree with him, but it should be recognized when Fairuzfan gets a punch in, rather than dismissing him. It doesn’t do much good to simply call him names. When Jew_Lover asked how Mohammed “stands up” to Jesus, Moses, Buddha and Confucious,Fairuzfan answered the comparison with Moses quite well,witheringly in fact,with the horrific quotation from Numbers concerning Moses’ slaying of the “little ones” and their mothers.Sadly, I will never think of Moses in the same way again, as I had missed that passage somehow.Of course I realize that such actions in the Old Testament have no relation to the practice of Christianity today, as I stated in my posts. There is too much name calling as a substitute for good argument.

  34. says

    The last (I promise) posting on this Old Testament quotation about Moses. I can’t get it out of my mind. Of course it is true that the New Testament replaced the Old, and the Old Testament laws were superceded by the teachings of Jesus, which is why Christianity is a vastly superior religion to Islam. I get that. However, even today’s Chrisianity holds up Moses as one of the greatest and most Godly men in history (along with other bloody examples). It gives me pause that even modern, enlightened Christianity can hold up a man who ordered the execution of many, many children, “the male little ones” and their mothers, as a great, positive role model. Here on Jihad watch, similar passages from the Koran about Mohammed are constantly quoted (and rightly so) to show how horrific he was (and he was horrific, of course). Yes, Christ’s new testament changed everything. But a mass killer of women and children as the Bible itself describes Moses to be held up as a great historical hero?

  35. says

    “The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.”

    Right.

    And, you know the famous “Never Again?” (Holocaust)

    Well, Newsflash – it’s happening again. A sad truth about humanity is that even if we do know history, we’re still doomed to repeat it.

  36. says

    “Of course, the lack of media coverage here in the States is preventing the average person from knowing what’s going on.”

    Right. There is no mainstream media coverage. So much for freedom-loving America. We have become our own worst enemy due to the lies of multiculti and PC’ness.

  37. says

    I agree with your assessment, kiphamilton. I cannot read the Old Testament and look the other way or somehow attempt to exculpate those who committed violence in the name of some deity. But as many others have pointed out, the OT is not a paradigm for action for all time and the Koran is. As an example, I know of no rabbi on earth who still wants to stone an adultress or any Jewish sect today which would condone it and yet one could find many imams across the world and millions of Muslims who still think an adultress should be stoned or treated in some similar horrible manner.

    There’s something deeply dishonest or deeply ignorant in any attempt to equate the OT and the actions in it with the Koran and what is found there. And respecting the New Testament, it is a religious tome arguing for pacifism and thus the problem for Christians through the centuries (e.g., Saint Augustine wrestled with this) has been trying to justify any kind of violence or war, which represents the antithesis of what one finds in the Koran, where the approbation of violence for all time until all the world is Islamic is found in well over one hundred verses.

  38. says

    Well, Kepha, if you wish to stare the violence which is in the Old Testament straight in the face, that’s fine, but I still don’t like it or approve of it or think it deserved or beyond our understanding or… Put another way, just take a moment and look at it from, say, the Caananite point of view. In any case, hopefully we are in agreement that whatever violence exists in the OT is not a model for action for all time while the violence condoned in the Koran, by contrast, most definitely is.

  39. says

    “There is something wrong with fairuzfan.”

    Uh, yeah – he’s a Mohammedan. End of story.

    “I would not trust him at all.”

    Yep. He’s “nasty, idiotic, and stupid.” In short, a Mohammedan.

  40. says

    In reply to your question, I have asked one Dutch person I know what he thinks of Wilders. The person I speak of is one I’m acquainted with through a classic car forum with a small and tight memebership. His opinion was that Wilders is somewhat of a kook and that Muslims are just people, pretty much like anyone else. I didn’t challenge him on his understanding due to his willingness to be frank and on account of it wasn’t the proper venue but I did find him to be poorly informed about both Wilders and the nature of Islamification in general. I guess he’s not politically astute and would guess that there is not a significant concentration of Muslims where he lives.

    I, on the other hand, admire Wilders for both his courage and his stance and will continue to support him with contributions.

  41. says

    “fairuzfan” wrote:

    Geert Wilders needs to be left alone, and this silly trial and its underlying charges must end. Whatever issues there may be with his views, there is no basis for the power of civil authority to be brought down on him.
    …………………….

    Most posters have commented on the latter part of his comments, but I find the first part more concerning. Here, he states that “there is no basis for the power of civil authority” to be brought down on Geert Wilders.

    However, “fairzfan” has in the past stated his fondness for theocracy as a political system. So, my question for “fairuzfan” is this: would you like to see Wilders have the full power of *religious* authority brought down on him under a theocracy?

    This might seem like academic speculation, but it is not”not with the number of Muslims in Europe today calling for full Shari’ah law. The Netherlands’ justice minister, Piet Hein Donner, said this:

    “For me it is clear: If two-thirds of the Dutch population should want to introduce the Sharia tomorrow, then the possibility should exist,” Donner said. “It would be a disgrace to say: ‘That is not allowed!'”

    And don’t forget that one of the central tenets of Shari’ah is to prevent criticism of Islam by Infidels such as Geert Wilders.

  42. says

    I was under the impression that Jesus” “Golden Rule” pretty much ended up having precedence over everything in the bible, you know “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you…

  43. says

    Yankel,

    “OLD TESTAMENT = DESCRIPTIVE

    koran = PROSCRIPTIVE”

    I believe you meant for koran “PREscriptive” (though of course it also contains PROscriptions).

  44. says

    You stated the dilemma for Jews and Christians (particularly the latter) quite reasonably, Hesperado, though I think many devout Christians and Jews would argue that it was never a matter of God changing His mind but rather that He had to act in His infinite wisdom according to how far along man was in his development at a particular moment in his history.

    Well, whatever the case, one thing’s for sure and that is that virtually no Christians or Jews, however they interpret their God and Scripture, are a threat to liberty or a menace to those who disagree with them respecting the ultimate composition of the cosmos. Actually, I have long argued that the two major religions which have most easily comported themselves with democracy and freedom are Christianity and Judaism, in large part because of the emphasis both of these religions have placed upon the worth and dignity of the individual human life. Contrast this with Islam, where the non-believer is accorded under Sharia a status equal to human waste. Damn telling if anything is.

  45. says

    Wellington,

    “I have long argued that the two major religions which have most easily comported themselves with democracy and freedom are Christianity and Judaism, in large part because of the emphasis both of these religions have placed upon the worth and dignity of the individual human life.”

    I would go further — if indeed it is further than your views on this — and say that the civilization of Christendom was directly and massively responsible for the era of modern Western tolerance that to many modern secularists seems to have been antagonistic with its formerly Christian form. I.e., it’s not a case of the modern West evolving out of the blue in repudiation of Judaeo-Christianity, but rather of being the child of a parent to whom it owes its existence and many of its key values and virtues, even if oftentimes all it seems to be cognizant of is its rebellion from those parents.

  46. says

    Fairfuzfan- I will probably get blasted again simply for agreeing with you on this one matter. Recently there was a post on Jihad Watch by a well meaning Christian who included a long list of Biblical quotes and a list of “what God hates”. Among the list, some reasonable I might add, were the regular expected sins, but also “witches and sorcerers”. We need all the allies we can get, but it makes me nervous to be on the same side of an issue with some people, I must admit. If one believes in witches, does one also believe in the validity of “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”?

  47. says

    The two main intellectual building blocks of the West, as I see them, Hesperado, are ancient Greek philoshophical thought and Jewish theological thinking. These were combined early on in Christianity by thinkers like Tertullian, Origen and Augustine. As the centuries rolled on, more sophisticated Christian thinkers came along like Erigena, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas and William of Ockham. But the institutional framework of Christianity became more and more inflexible (and corrupt) and thus we had the Protestant Reformation, which in turn produced good things (e.g., more reliance on a direct relationship with one’s God without all the intermediary elements, beautiful though they were sometimes, that Catholicism had) and bad things (e.g, intolerance of other belief systems).

    It took the rational mind, as best evidenced by the Enlightenment, to shake things up somewhat and also shame many who practiced Christianity for being so narrow-minded. The Christian world eventually responded to this mid-level nudging and by the time the West came into the nineteenth century things were set for Christianitiy (and Judaism) to adapt to modern developments like democracy and what science told us about the universe. This was capable of being done in the Judeo-Christian world, but not in the Islamic world, because Christianity and Judaism had in their theological blueprints the ability to adapt. Islam of course did not. Still doesn’t. Almost certainly never will.

    That’s my take on your take on my take on your take of things. I agree with you that the West owes an immense amount to Christianity and would not be the same West without it. I also applaud the modern Judeo-Christian world, as you do, for being more tolerant by far than many modern Leftists (and a small amount of reactionaries on the Right) are today. I just thought I’d fill things in a bit where you left off. I see compatibility here overwhelmingly respecting our viewpoints. I hope you do too.

  48. says

    Hmmm. Interesting thesis. I’m not sure I’d go quite as far as you and equate Western Civilization with Christendom, though I concede your point is an arguable one. But don’t forget about the classical strain, both Greek and Roman, in Western Civilization down to the present day (e.g., architecturally when one walks through most any European or American city they can find numerous examples of copies of ancient architecture (and even sculpture); there’s also the Greek philosophical tradition and the Roman legal legacy that can be found throughout Western societies; and let’s not forget Common Law, which was developed by the English pretty much without any Christian input). There’s also an independent rational tradition in Western Civilization that I would not entirely attribute to Christianity. Enough for now.

  49. says

    “The lamps are going out once more before our very eyes!”

    Yes, and it’s amazing that there are so many people, such as this “Court” in the Netherlands trying Geert, who are blind to the encroaching darkness of Islam.

    “fairuzafan” – you are an arrogant, pompous, self-aggrandizing, ass. You’re not “worthy” of having a conversation with anyone, “livingengine” in particular. It’s amusing how you really think you’re superior! Thanks for the laughs, troll.

  50. says

    You don’t want to have a conversation with me?

    That’s fine I don’t need it.

    But, that doesn’t change the fact that Muslim charities are widely known to be fronts for terror, and the organizations that you have listed are no exception.

    The LRD has been suspected of funding insurgents in Iraq, and in 2006 a LRD official was caught with shopping bags full of thousands of dollars in his home. It is also believed to be a front for HAMAS.

    On March 26, 2008, federal prosecutors in Michigan unsealed an indictment against Muthanna al-Hanooti, the long-time public relations coordinator for Life for Relief and Development (LRD), a charitable organization based in Southfield, Michigan.

    The Department of Justice alleges that in the late 1990s, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) “targeted LRD and…al-Hanooti to cooperate with and serve the IIS.”

    Further, “between in or about 1999 and 2002…al-Hanooti provided to the IIS a list of members of the United States Congress whom al-Hanooti believed favored lifting of the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations.”
    http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/SpotHanootiLRD.pdf

    From the book, Muslim Mafia

    “Federal agents last year charged the former CAIR regional director with conspiring to work for a foreign government and with making false statements to the FBI.

    Al-Hanooti’s home was raided by FBI agents, who also searched the offices of his front group, Focus on Advocacy and Advancement of International Relations, which Hanooti operates out of Dearborn, Washington DC.

    FAAIR claims to be a consulting firm raising awareness of Sunni Muslim grievances in Iraq, but nvestigators say it’s a front group that supported the Sunni-led insurgency.

    Al-Hanooti, who immigrated to the US from Iraq, formerly helped run a suspected HAMAS terror front called LIFE for Relief and Development. Its Michigan offices also were raided in the investigation.

    In 2004, LIFE’s Baghdad office was raided by US troops, who seized files and computers.

    Al-Hanooti headed CAIR’s Michigan office after working briefly for CAIR National in Washington, and he is related to Sheik Mo9hammed al-Hanooti, whom the Justice Department named an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. ” –Muslim Mafia

    Islamic Relief is founded by a descendent of Hassan Al Banna. Here is more on IRW.

    The aforementioned IRW-USA was incorporated in 1993. In addition to its California headquarters, it also maintains regional offices in Totowa, New Jersey, Washington, D.C. and Plano, Texas. The Registered Agent for its incorporation was Kazbek Soobzokov, the former attorney for terror operative Wajdi Ghunaim, who in 2006 called for violence against Jews, was deported from the United States, and was refused entry into Canada after it was discovered that he was a member of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6625

    Here is some background on Palestine Children’s Relief Fund

    “Considered a “Partner Organization” of Al-Awda, PCRF is headed by Stephen Sosebee, who depicts Israelis as murderous Zionist terrorists who Palestinians must resist by means of “armed struggle” (i.e., suicide bombings). Sosebee charges that the U.S. government, citizenry, and media are manipulated by a “Zionist lobby” and “Zionist influence.” He speaks extensively at universities and other political “solidarity meetings,” where he consistently delivers a virulently anti-Semitic, anti-Israel message; one of his speaking venues was the Zayed International Centre for Coordination and Follow-up.”
    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6382

    Why would anyone give to a Muslim charity if they didn’t have to?

  51. says

    Christendom includes the Greco-Roman heritage? Sorry, Hesperado, I can’t go that far. The Classical world developed wonderful things (e.g. ancient Greek philosophy and democracy, not to mention Roman law) completely independent of Christendom, though Christendom later on, after many internal struggles (understatement here) appropriated the best of classical civilization for its own purposes, which was usually, though not always, enlightened ones.

    As for the later stage of evolution argument you proffered, that proceeds on the assummption that Christianity represented in all respects an ascendancy over classical civilization, an assumption I reject, being the devout agnostic that I am. And know this: Christianity on its own would have NEVER developed democracy, free speech (e.g., Athens in the fifth century B.C.) and philosophy (which constitutes the separation of reason from faith). Seems to me that Christianity owes more to classical civilization than the other way around, though the two combined produced the most advanced civilization in man’s history.

    I write this, of course, as a non-religious man who finds all religions to be fairy tales and one of them, Islam, to be an evil one. Yes, fairy tales are necessary to keep man in line, but wouldn’t it be an even better and more enlightened world if man needed no fairy tales at all?