Sign the petition here.
Video thanks to Human Rights for Atheists, Agnostics and Secularists. Remember: you don’t have to be an atheist or agnostic to support their fundamental human rights and oppose blasphemy laws that victimize untold numbers of people in Pakistan and elsewhere. We need a broad coalition of all the victims and potential victims of jihad and Islamic supremacism. Sign the petition and spread it around.
Fitz says
It’s disappointing, Robert, that you even have to say that the petition is worthwhile ‘even though it’s atheists’ who are proposing it. It’s a sad fact that, in the States, atheists are held in greater contempt than even terrorists which is absurd. In truth it will only be a strengthening of our secular institutions in the West that will prevent our being taken over by religious fascists.
awake says
Fitz wrote:
“It’s disappointing, Robert, that you even have to say that the petition is worthwhile ‘even though it’s atheists’ who are proposing it.”
Where did Robert say that? Where did he even imply that? Why are you using Robert in your rabble-rousing?
Jay Boo says
@Fitz
I agree that anti-blasphemy laws should be abolished however,
Your comment that “in the States, atheists are held in greater contempt than even terrorists” seems to be a bit of victimhood hyperbole.
You paraphrase incorrectly what Robert “said” as if you are making a direct quote as you then make your appeal to atheist vanity with your statement.
[It’s disappointing, Robert, that you even have to say that the petition is worthwhile ‘even though it’s atheists’ who are proposing it.]
Guy Macher says
Fitz,not greater contempt but perhaps equal contempt! Joking, but lighten up.
Your contention that secularism will defeat is unfounded and opposite to reality. Secular people generally think their heads will not roll when the Mohameddans take over. That is a delusion. I’m praying you.
Fitz says
What gave you the impression I wasn’t light-hearted? Yes there are deluded and namby-pamby secularists, like our friends Blaine and Jax Tolmen below, but please don’t confuse them with the muscular secularism I espouse. There are moderates in every faith but moderation is no defense against extremism and as much hatred and force as the extremists direct at us must be summoned in opposing them.
voegelinian says
“There are moderates in every faith but moderation is no defense against extremism and as much hatred and force as the extremists direct at us must be summoned in opposing them.”
It seems Fitz has in mind a kind of extremism to counter extremism — all dependent on 1) how he defines non-Muslim “extremists” and 2) what he would like a “muscular secularism” to do about it in terms of laws and their enforcement.
Mo says
@ Fitz
“It’s disappointing, Robert, that you even have to say that the petition is worthwhile ‘even though it’s atheists’ who are proposing it.”
He never said or remotely implied any such thing.
I think an apology to Robert would be warranted here.
“It’s a sad fact that, in the States, atheists are held in greater contempt than even terrorists which is absurd. ”
What’s absurd is that you can sit there and type and post such a boldfaced lie.
“In truth it will only be a strengthening of our secular institutions in the West that will prevent our being taken over by religious fascists.”
Oh, “religious fascists”, eh? Which religion are you talking about? As far as I can see, there’s only ONE that causing all the trouble around the world right now.
David says
Please do not lie. If you lie about such a matter, then what can you be trusted to be truthful about? We do not need division on this issue, but a united front.
Guest says
Fitz, I’m an atheist and I didn’t read it that way. Robert was just reminding people of any religion (and that would include muslims), that blasphemy laws are extremely dangerous and can be used againt all of us by those wielding them.
Blaine says
I don’t know neither the article or the video show you where or how to sign, but I think the petition discussed is at:
http://www.change.org/petitions/abolish-blasphemy-laws
Mirren10 says
”It’s disappointing, Robert, that you even have to say that the petition is worthwhile ‘even though it’s atheists’ who are proposing it.”
Where does Robert say that ?
He doesn’t: He says:
” Remember: you don’t have to be an atheist or agnostic to support their fundamental human rights and oppose blasphemy laws that victimize untold numbers of people in Pakistan and elsewhere. We need a broad coalition of all the victims and potential victims of jihad and Islamic supremacism”
Not at all the same thing as ‘even though it’s atheists’ .
Fitz says
What reason would a person have NOT to petition against blasphemy laws, whether they are believers or not? Surely that’s irrelevant. You either believe in freedom of belief or you’re a fascist.
Fitz says
You god-botherers make me laugh. This isn’t a battle between your god and satan, it’s a fight for human dignity in the face of RELIGIOUS stupidity and barbarity. You believers exist on the same spectrum of unthinking barbarity as the Muslims, just not so far down the line of depravity. I’m sure Robert would agree, he’s far too intelligent to be a Christian despite what he professes. He’s in America though so had a constituency to play too.
Blaine says
Funny that somebody who considers himself so intellectually superior argues that he is more intelligent than all of the billion Catholics now living (1/7 of the world population). Religious choices do not all turn upon intelligence, Einstein. There are brilliantly intelligent Catholics as well as atheists.
It’s offensive to call Robert a phony capitulator based only on sophomoric pseudo-psychology, and as opposed by many years of consistent actions which show Robert to be genuine, honest, and vehemently opposed to deception and opportunism.
Christopher says
No, religious persuasion (or absence of) very much is a question of intelligence, however it is a TYPE of intelligence (metaphysical and epistemological reasoning about the essential nature of the universe, and our ability to comprehend it).
People can be geniuses in one area and idiots in another. For instance, an architect/Jihadist.
But hey, Robert is right that everyone should sign this, and we non-believers will side with you Christians over the muslim issue… but don’t expect us not to make our opinions known very clearly throughout because to us the problem IS religion. Without Christianity there would be no Islam at all.
Ack I feel bad posting this stuff because I do have a lot of admiration for Robert and his work, and also the guy who made CrossMuslims(?) site. It just isn’t admiration for their religious side is all…
Fitz says
A 7th of the world’s population are Catholic are they? On that reasoning the Muslim population, about a quarter of the world’s population, must be more intelligent than you. It’s ok, I don’t expect sound reasoning from believers. Once upon a time I expect near 100% of the population believed the earth was flat. So what does that prove? The the number of supporters a belief has is irrelevant. And Robert’s would only be a white lie which serves a noble cause. Don’t try and make him out to be a perfect human being like Muhammad or something.
Blaine says
Re: Fritz
> A 7th of the world’s population are Catholic are they? On that reasoning the Muslim population, about a quarter of the world’s population, must be more intelligent than you.
My point was that since 1/7 of the world’s population is Catholic that you must be one of smartest people in the world if NONE (not ANY) are smarter than you. Your misunderstanding here manifests that you are clearly not one of the smartest people in the world. By logical analogy, it is also true that I am not starter than ALL of the Muslims in the world. Unlike you, my self-confidence is not hurt by acknowledging that lots of people, including many adversaries, are more intelligent than I am.
General intelligence does not make one “right” on opinions about religion, morality, etc. There are factors like unchallenged assumptions, honesty, internal self-consistency, etc. which in no way correspond to general intelligence . For example, I am pretty certain that Alfred North Whitehead was more intelligent than you or I am, but I still think that he was wrong about religion.
> It’s ok, I don’t expect sound reasoning from believers.
You, not I, have committed the logical fallacies of accident and tu quoque (as described above). You also show an unjustified appreciation for your own insight by wrongly assuming that I am a believer. If your deduction about me is so wrong, try to conceive that your are really not the psychological genius that you think.
> Once upon a time I expect near 100% of the population believed the earth was flat. So what does that prove? The the number of supporters a belief has is irrelevant.
Agreed but irrelevant. I wasn’t arguing about the rightness or wrongness of anybody’s opinions. I was arguing against your allegation that all Catholics are unintelligent (not that Catholics are “right”). The “number of supporters” certain is certainly relevant to the question of whether any of these followers are intelligent, because that is a factual, statistical matter.
> And Robert’s would only be a white lie which serves a noble cause. Don’t try and make him out to be a perfect human being like Muhammad or something.
Great argument against your straw man. I am arguing about specific attributes (those I listed) of Robert, and cite his consistent actions as evidence. Points about Robert’s particular personal theological stances, his worthiness as a leader, his divinity, or anything else are irrelevant. You have no justification other than Freshman psychologizing and your own manifested casual rationalization of dishonesty, to accuse Robert of misleading his friends and associates by being a sham Catholic.
Fitz says
You, my friend, have too much time on your hands. Talk about over-analysing.
voegelinian says
“Once upon a time I expect near 100% of the population believed the earth was flat.”
As my college professor (in the program of History of Ideas) said with a sparkle in his eye one day:
I think the notion that ‘everybody in the Middle Ages thought the world was flat’ is a myth propagated by 5th-grade teachers.
Jax Tolmen says
@’Fitz’ and @ ‘Christopher’
Speak for yourselves. I am an atheist, always have been and always will be; I don’t view atheism as a faith in and of itself with associated beliefs. I am an atheist purely because I don’t believe, it is not to make a point or reject and belittle others for their beliefs.
Not every atheist thinks like you. Not every atheist agrees that it is necessary to put down our Christian/ Catholic/ Jewish/ Hindu/ Pastafarian etc people whilst simultaneously fighting the very clear threat that Islam poses to our way of life.
Your statements are inflammatory, unnecessary, irrelevant and moronic. I do not know why you idiots persist in starting arguments amongst the counter – Jihad movement, but it achieves nothing. There are appropriate forums for you to air such views. This is not the place.
We will not win the fight against Islam if we waste time arguing about trivial matters amongst ourselves. Your contributions are meaningless and counter productive. Make peace with the very large component of Believers among us, or go away. Your childish, petulant attempts at sniping at every person of faith will get you nowhere.
If you cannot offer anything constructive, or at least keep your mouths shut when addressing your peers in this struggle, then I suggest you either join the enemy or go away. You are worse than useless.
Wellington says
From an agnostic to an atheist, well said, Jax Tolmen. I can add nothing to your statement. You said it all.
Fitz says
Touch a nerve did we? You sound like Nick Clegg. I won’t be relying on sops like you then when the time comes to REALLY counter the jihadis.
Champ ✞ says
Thank you, Jax Tolmen! …great comment, and you’re the best 🙂
“Make peace with the very large component of Believers among us, or go away. Your childish, petulant attempts at sniping at every person of faith will get you nowhere.”
Yes; and lets all remember who the real enemy is: islam
Take care!
Foolster says
Well said, Jax.
Jax Tolmen says
@ Fitz
You didn’t strike a nerve. You must have an inflated opinion of yourself if you think your opinion actually matters to me in any way.
I always take issue with idiots like you, making grandiose and sweeping statements that encompass the entirety of Atheists. I also take issue with anyone who seeks to, intentionally or otherwise, divide the multi – faith coalition against Islam.
I take it upon myself to come after people like you. Not because you personally offend me, but simply because I don’t like you or what you have to say. Judging by the other reactions to my comment, I’d say my opinion is very firmly held in higher regard than your moronic input.
You can call me a sop if you like. I don’t care what you think. I don’t think you will be in any position to be ‘relying’ on me, or anyone for that matter, since nobody cares what you think. Get over yourself.
Fitz says
Your venom is slightly misdirected I would suggest, it’s not like I fatwah’d anyone, but whatever floats your boat.
Guest says
” I am an atheist purely because I don’t believe, it is not to make a point or reject and belittle others for their beliefs.”
Agreed. Some religious people don’t seem to understand that one can’t *force oneself* to believe. And that is what opposing blasphemy laws is all about for me: I don’t believe and don’t want to be forced to pretend to go along with someone’s religion.
Wellington says
You were asked to sign, Fitz, not proselytize. And, as awake and Mirren 10 pointed out, you incorrectly stated what Robert Spencer wrote. You also look upon yourself as a victim, as Jay Boo mentioned. Atheists, agnostics and secularists aren’t victims in America unless they have a victim-oriented mentality and are possessed of a fair amount of self-pity, rather like Muslims.
You’re 0-3 so far.
Fitz says
First, I’m not an American, second, I’m the opposite of a victim if that means self-pitying. I’m a joker, getting my laughs at the expense of the religious
RodSerling says
Fitz,
Fellow atheist here. Your comments [e.g., see quoted below] are definitely uncalled for in my opinion:
“You believers exist on the same spectrum of unthinking barbarity as the Muslims, just not so far down the line of depravity.”
If this were correct in the present case re blasphemy, the Christians you’re addressing here would be advocating a milder version of blasphemy law, rather than opposing them. Not on the same spectrum, unless we are talking about opposites.
“I’m sure Robert would agree, he’s far too intelligent to be a Christian despite what he professes. He’s in America though so had a constituency to play too.”
You are implying Robert’s true views are something other than what he professes. That’s a highly cynical accusation, with no basis.
Fitz says
Hello. I’m not sure the Christians here are all opposing the blasphemy laws (check out some of the comments below). Also I cited the basis for my claim that Robert may not be the believer he says he is, namely the constituency he appeals to. When you consider that atheists are less trusted than rapists in America, feigning religiosity is the sensible optionto take when seeking funds for the counter-jihad. Ayaan Hirsi Ali (an atheist) has suggested the same thing regarding the use of Christianity as a bulwark against Islam. The presumption, therefore, is not at all far-fetched.
RodSerling says
Fitz,
While the (indirect) reasons you cite may be grounds for exercising an initial healthy skepticism of any public or well-known figure’s professed piety in the American context, I don’t think it’s even remotely sufficient grounds for assuming that, therefore, Spencer is feigning religiosity, e.g., to facilitate raising funds. You are making strong accusations, but you don’t seem to accept that you’d need relevant and strong empirical evidence, such as quotes from Spencer himself, to support your claim that he is privately or covertly non-religious while presenting a religious facade. If Spencer or anyone else is covertly this or covertly that, you’d need reliable evidence gathered from private or covert contexts and sources, short of a public admission to the alleged scheme by Spencer.
My impression, as someone who’s been reading Robert on JW (and in books) along with other critics of Islam (atheists and ex-Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Jews, etc.) for the past approx 9 years is that he is who he says he is. I have many other reasons to doubt your claims, but it doesn’t seem worth arguing all of this out, considering that you haven’t presented precisely the evidence you’d need to support your case.
RodSerling says
Fitz,
“I’m not sure the Christians here are all opposing the blasphemy laws (check out some of the comments below).”
I said that re the ones you were addressing (at that time). I had addressed Michael below. Let’s see how he responds.
Mo says
@ Fitz
“You believers exist on the same spectrum of unthinking barbarity as the Muslims, just not so far down the line of depravity. ”
What a lying, anti-Christian bigot you are.
Show me the open-ended commands in the Bible for Jews or Christians to commit violence against unbelievers. (Even lying, slanderous, hostile ones like you!)
When you’re done providing those open-ended commands, then show me where Jews or Christians are committing such acts, all over the world, in obedience to those open-ended commands.
Any evidence for your vile lie about what Robert said? Any apology for it?
Or just more lies and vile anti-Christian bigotry?
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Fitz says
Oh, the god of the bible promises the same metaphysical damnation for eternity to those who deny that He is lord as the god of the Quran does. I’m surprised you missed that bit. As for Robert, if I’m certain of anything i’m certain that he doesn’t need you to defend him. All the best.
Mo says
@ Fitz
“Oh, the god of the bible promises the same metaphysical damnation for eternity to those who deny that He is lord as the god of the Quran does. I’m surprised you missed that bit. As for Robert, if I’m certain of anything i’m certain that he doesn’t need you to defend him. All the best.”
You know absolutely nothing about the God of the Bible. That’s why there’s no evidence. Nor do you have any desire to learn.
You’re an unrepentant liar and slanderer and an anti-Christian bigot.
Get lost.
Fitz says
Spoken like a true follower of Christ, your god would be proud of you
Fitz says
Just to clarify, your god himself, never mind Christians and Jews, promises open-ended and indeed eternal violence against unbelievers; that is a barbaric idea and hence places you, as one who believes in it, on that same spectrum of barbarity as our dear Muslims.
voegelinian says
“the god of the bible promises the same metaphysical damnation for eternity to those who deny that He is lord”
A religion that contains that is a harmless religion. Islam, as we know (or should know, by now), has a good deal more, blood-curdling hatred and intolerance in the context of a motivational supremacism that is expansionist and military, and lunatic in its fanaticism — all spelling out a clear and present (and metastasizing) danger, which no other religion on the planet has.
Why Fitz persists in dredging up red herrings with his misplaced dragnet I don’t know: one would be hard put to come up with a third explanation beyond
1) fanatical obtuseness
2) Leftist (or Mohammedan) sabotage.
Fitz says
Actually it is neither 1) or 2). I would suggest the binary opposites we ought to avoid are total capitulation to Islam on the one hand and genocide of all Muslims on the other, assuming that ‘every Muslim is a potential terrorist’, as you seem to imply. That leaves containment or ‘managing the problem’, as Robert has said. Now what does that involve, internment for all the millions of Muslims who live in the West or mass deportations? Discriminatory laws that apply to the practice of Islam only and no other religion? We know, for instance, that the constitutional provision of ‘freedom of religion’ does not allow for that. A just settlement, I would suggest, in terms of any ‘rights’ legislation anywhere is that the law protects freedom of belief (and therefore also disbelief) but not freedom of religion. Just a couple of consequences of this would be to end exemptions from discrimination laws for religions and their charitable status also which only enriches them. As for your bland assertion that Christian doctrines are harmless, the harm need not have to entail flying planes into buildings. Ultimately religion is about control and don’t imagine that were Islam to be neutered in this world that some equally fanatical ‘faith’ wouldn’t then exert itself. The ultimate enemy in all this is the human being’s capacity to inflict harm on others while excusing himself of responsibility on the basis of ‘faith’.
gravenimage says
Fitz wrote:
I’m sure Robert would agree, he’s far too intelligent to be a Christian despite what he professes. He’s in America though so had a constituency to play too.
………………………..
I’n sorry—this is just witless. The idea that the very forthright Robert Spencer is falsely posturing as a Christian to win points is absurd.
Moreover, it he wanted to pander, wouldn’t he have picked a rather better-known faith than Melkite Catholicism—a small denomination in the United States?
And finally, while Robert Spencer works with people of all faiths and none against Jihad, perhaps his closest ally is Pamela Geller, who is quite outspoken about her atheism.
If Spencer wanted to pander to his supposedly myopic Christian “constituents”, one would think that he would avoid principled atheists such as Ms. Geller like the plague.
But this is all ridiculous, in amy case.
Many of Spencer’s “constituents”—really, just people concerned about the threat of Jihad—are agnostic or atheist, in any case. Many of these posters—some of the most respected here—have weighed in on this thread.
The fact is that Spencer’s “constituents” are Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Agnostic, Atheist, Secularist, and Wiccan—and certainly many other beliefs.
Most of us are here to oppose Jihad and Shari’ah—not to flog off-topic beliefs, and *certainly* not to gratuitously insult each other—or our host.
Daniel G. Schaeffer says
There are pictures of Hitch and Dawkins, up there, right? And some of the most incisive writers against Islam — Ayaan, Fallaci, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, aren’t Christians either.
I’ve long held that skeptics and Christians, whatever their politics, should be banding together to de-fang Islam.
I’m signing this mutha.
jewdog says
I signed, stating that I want the freedom to bark at will.
ApostateOfWesternism says
What about the blasphemy laws of America, where you are fired from your job if you so much as whisper your disapproval of Western degeneracy like feminism, consumerism, gay propaganda for children, and so on?
John C. Barile says
Lamentable, but not in keeping with the letter or spirit of American laws, and the inherent, unalienable rights of the American people.
I rather think that you are a Muslim apologist, seeking to enjoin what Allah enjoins and to forbid what Allah forbids, in which case your methods and aims are the mirror image of the leftist liberal Westerners whose values and norms you so hate and despise.
John C. Barile says
You are also trying to scatter and divide Western societies in order to destroy them, “by their own hands and the hand of the Believers”–we here know the playbook of you Islamizing Ikhwanists and ilk.
mark says
‘Human rights’ is what tramples on our freedom to speak out against the gay agenda. I will never side with that. ‘Human rights over human beliefs’ is a slogan that can work for you and against you at the same time. And listen, Sharia Law is already in force in the USA through Obama’s calling terrorism work place violence. It is already in force in Canada when a Muslim murders his daughter and gets sixty days in jail, to be served on weekends so that his life is not disrupted. What is the UN doing about that? Work for us, UN, and then we might have some confidence that you can work for others. I will not sign this petition. This petition will do no good anyway.
Jax Tolmen says
What does the ‘gay agenda’ have to do with blasphemy laws? I’m struggling to see how you’ve drawn that connection.
Enlighten me, what exactly is the ‘gay agenda’? Is it some kind of gay conspiracy?
Guest says
Never mind, so there’s one guy like Mark here, you’ll never convince him. But I’m encouraged to see so many atheists and agnostics who have been following jihadwatch and understand the dangers of islam.
tgbrowning says
TWEET.
I recommend posters read “On Politics and the English Language” by George Orwell, a copy of which can be found at http://www.revisedevilsdictionary.com.
RE: ‘gay agenda’
‘fascists’
A little Orwell cannot hurt the discussion.
Wellington says
Fitz: I didn’t call you an American. You mentioned “the States” and how atheists here are “held in greater contempt than even terrorists which is absurd” in your first post. Well, the absurdity lies with that statement of yours and is dripping with a victimhood mentality. And, by your own admittance, you’re a joker—–well, at least you got that right. BTW, you’re up to 0-5.
Fitz says
I wasn’t keeping score but you carry on. Here’s the survey regarding my absurd claim: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/Atheists-Trusted-Less-Than-Rapists.htm
awake says
Fitz,
You still haven’t answered the charge of misappropriating statements sentiments to Robert. Instead you continue to dig yourself deeper.
If you were a genuine ally, which you are not, you would already know that this is a non-sectarian site. In addition, former JW Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald was a professed atheist, and this site is open to all who genuinely oppose Jihad and Islamic supremacism and basic human rights for all non-Muslims, and even though they are akin to unicorns, also Muslims who openly call for Islam’s reform.
Intelligent atheists like Hugh, could easily differentiate between deists in general and the followers of Islam, which unfortunately is a common flaw that many atheists have failed to grasp and accept. They end up engaging in religious moral equivalence assertions that does nothing but aid Islam.
We are only fighting against Islam here at this site, but that said, we understand that the wholesale abolition of Islam is impractical. What is remarkable is how atheists belittle believers of all stripes, claiming that the only solution to the Islam problem is global disbelief, and somehow they lack the basic sentiency to realize that if the former expectation is impractical, then the latter expectation is wholly illogical as a possibility.
So you can joke all you want, but the joke is on you for committing this routine fallacy.
Fitz says
I have not once here claimed the moral equivalency of Islam and Christianity and I am anti-Islam first, anti-religion second, for the very simple reason that of all the major faiths Islam is the most detestable (hence my subscription to this blog). Your claim that it is impractical to extirpate Islam is somewhat defeatist. I suspect that the reason you claim this is because it would require measures which would apply to the practice of every faith, namely to remove the privileges and exemptions they have in law (for instance their charitable status and exemptions from discrimination laws). To give you one example, it is perfectly legal for mosques AND synagogues to segregate congregations according to gender, but not so in wider society. It is also legal to indoctrinate children with religious dogmas (and lets be honest, this is the ONLY reason institutionalised religious beliefs persist), though illegal for children to be politically indoctrinated in state schools, for instance (according to the principles of one party to the exclusion of all others; though some may question whether this doesn’t already happen with ‘progressive’ ideas). If the law was applied equally (i.e., the outlawing of ‘unreformed’ places of worship and ‘faith’ schools and the removal of charitable status), religions would soon enough wither on the vine.
Wellington says
That’s all you got? One survey of 105 students at the University of British Columbia (btw, in your initial you faulted “the States” and not Canada). Ah, let’s have a pity-party for all those poor non-believers out there.
Get lost, Fitz. You’re an impediment to any grand coalition against Islamic supremacist desgins. Your approach divides this coalition and that is nothing short of stupid. I’d say by now you’re about 0-7.
Fitz says
If I wanted your sympathy I’d ask for it. As it is I’m quite content getting by without your prayers, and even your malice is something of a comfort to me. And just what practical measures have you personally come up with to defeat Islamic supremacism that wouldn’t also apply to other faiths, measures such as I have suggested above? I won’t hold my breath, grand anti-jihadist.
Dale says
Fitz, just sign the bloody petition, or don’t.
Everybody else “don’t feed the trolls”.
Champ says
Thank you, Robert!
I signed the petition.
Concerned says
Hey. Does anyway know how to get in touch with their local mosque?
Ring them up and ask for the iman, get his name and ask what his opinion is of any or all topics on this forum.
Ask if they have open sessions where different faiths can come along and listen and ask questions.
Get active in the real world people, not just online.
RodSerling says
Agreed, but your method is anecdotal. Larger studies, using proper methodology, sampling thousands of Muslims, asking their opinions on all the important aspects of sharia and jihad that are dealt with here at JW, is the way to go.
Concerned says
Hi Rod. fair enough…but I believe the Free peoples of the world have to get out and get active. I would hazard a guess but I don’t think too many muslims read this website or give a toss about it.
It’s in your face activism that works best.
Just look at well it works for muslims!
dumbledoresarmy says
It is not *Muslims* for whom this website – and forum, and most of the comments therein – is intended.
The primary audience for this website and forum is **uninformed NON-MUSLIMS**. Who need to know the truth about the Meaning and Menace of Islam.
Outside of this forum, each of us in our social circle – workplace, family, friends, place of worship if we happen to be religious, place of education – is attempting, as best we can, to educate and warn **our fellow non-Muslims**.
I’m not interested in bearding the imam at the mosque in the next suburb; *my* main aim and object is that my extended family, and my parish priest and my fellow-parishioners at the church I attend, and anybody else in my social circle, find out what the Ummah, or Mohammedan Mob, fully intends to do to us Christians, and to all other non-Muslims in the world. Death, subjugation as near-slave dhimmis, or conversion to the death cult.
Because those who become informed can go on to inform others, and as knowledge and awareness – and rational alarm – spread, and spread faster, and begin to enter the consciousness of politicians and aspiring politicians, then there’s a chance of stepping up societal resistance to Islamisation.
Wellington says
Fitz: What religious people other than Muslims are ready to harm or kill you for disagreeing with them? This is the BIG THING you don’t get. As the non-religious person that I am, I don’t give a damn if some Christian thinks I’m going to burn in Hell in the next life. Christians are not trying to harm me in this life. Muslims are, you nitwit. Really, you are so dense. You can’t even figure out that fighting more than one fight at a time unless you absolutely have to is mired in horrible strategy.
But, by all means, get back to me and prove me wrong when Christian suicide bombers appear, Orthodox rabbis start stoning adultresses, Buddhist monks begin hijacking airplanes, etc.
Man, you are so foolish I mean really, really foolish. Non-religious people like you who make a religion out of not having one deserve nothing but total contempt.
The last laugh is on you. Now get lost, loser. You harm the fight against what Islam, the only totalitarian religion among major religions, as Bertrand Russell and Winston Churchill understood so well, intends for us all IN THIS WORLD. Truly, I have nothing but contempt for self-righteous, limited and harmful persons as yourself. Done here.
Fitz says
I hope, when the time comes, you’re as capable of directing as much anger toward your hated Muslim as you are this anti-religionist. Nice chatting to you.
Wellington says
As I thought, you still don’t get it. I suspect you never will.
Guest says
Fitz, overlooking Wellington’s way of putting it, there is an important question for all of us atheists in his comment: do we see that islam is a heck of a lot more dangerous for all of us than, say, Christianity.
I do see that islam is more dangerous. Do you?
Fitz says
Hello. As I have also said in the comments section, I am anti-Islam first, anti-religion second.
Fitz says
voegelinian – interesting blog you’ve got there. As for your questions I make some tentative suggestions further on in the comments section. I’m not sure why you consider force in the defense of rights and freedom ‘extreme’, however. One can use force either in the defense of rights or in suppressing them. Islam obviously belongs to the latter and one is as justified in opposing that as is a homeowner in deploying force against a violent burglar. It would be silly to suggest the homeowner is ‘no better’ than the burglar.
voegelinian says
I don’t balk at strong measures against Mohammedans; I was only questioning, as I already said once, why you include non-Muslim “extremists”, how you define them, and what you want society to do about them.
No Fear says
I signed.
Kepha says
While I pray for a sea change in Pakistan (and a lot of the rest of the world), I must respectfully decline to sign this petition.
We in the USA have been generous enough to the worshipers of science, state, nature, self, dialectic, historical necessity, sexual license, sensual indulgence, and a host of other little idols, thank you. It’s reached the point where there’s a pervasive superstition that you are not allowed to accurately and fairly present the belief system of any traditional theism (unless it’s too whitewash an aggressive Islam) in the public school, to the end that I, as a history teacher, often feel that my real job is to be a professional swindler of the young and their parents, and be complicit in the general stupefaction of the Western public.
I have further spent enough time in countries where the modern idolatries and know enough modern history to know what these faiths can do when they’re impatient–kill off over 160,000,000 people in the names of nation, social justice, etc. in the 20th century alone. I’m simply not impressed when the “cool kid” posturing of modern “atheism” gets into moral high dudgeon.
Mirren10 says
Your post doesn’t make any sense.
The fact that Communism and Fascism have murdered millions in the name of ideology, shouldn’t prevent any decent person from signing a petition against blasphemy laws, anywhere.
Unless, of course, that person rather *likes* the idea of blasphemy laws.
I sincerely hope that isn’t true of you.
RodSerling says
Mirren10,
Kepha is on record on this website supporting blasphemy laws, including in the United States historically. He says he “understands” the punishment for witchcraft/sorcery. He supports Uganda’s harsh punishments of gays. He claims that 9/11 was allowed by/ or was an act of God. On this website, he uses his comments to oppose mainly atheists, gays, secularists, etc., not Islam, sharia, and jihad.
Despite all of this, he and others like him (see Michael, above), who are actually in favor of blasphemy laws, continue to go unchallenged by almost all of the regular JW readers, many of whom are not shy about challenging anyone who says something that is objectionable to them. I challenged him before re his comments about Uganda’s anti-homosexual laws, for example. No response from him.
Anyways, glad you are challenging him.
Fitz says
Rod, perhaps now you see my frustration here. It’s been an eye-opener to say the least.
Guest says
Yes Fitz, when a ‘Christian’ country like Uganda has a life imprisonment for gays, that is getting close to the sharia cr*p of islamic countries. Agreed.
But here are two differences:
1. Very few Christians would agree with this. But surveys show that many muslims do agree with anti-gay laws.
2. The New Testament says NOTHING about homosexuality. That’s what a Christian should be going on. The koran is not very strong on it either, but the hadiths quite clearly want to murder gays, and that is what sharia laws often follow.
gravenimage says
Kepha—with respect—I don’t see how you can regard sighing a petition against blasphemy laws as a sop to the “worshippers of science”. This is—or should be—a basic human right.
In any case, few Jews or Christians regard the study of science to be inimical to their faith—in fact, the scientific method was largely developed by practicing Jews and Christians.
And certainly, *very few* Christians or Jews would want to see anyone persecuted for “blasphemy”.
Fitz says
Be careful what you say Mirren, Jax in his ecumenical zeal might flip out on you, and he has a lot of acolytes too.
Kepha says
@RodSerling, Mirren, and others:
Abolish laws against blasphemy–do these include blasphemies against the LGBT agenda, Feminism, “Progress”, Socialism, and the favored political clients of the powers-that-be?
Tell me what I may not criticize and I will identify for you the official religion of the land.
Wellington says
Rod Serling above, Kepha, in his 1:11 P.M. post, asserts that you think that 9/11 was an act allowed by God. He also maintains other things, for instance that you are in favor of Uganda’s harsh punishment of gays. I suspect Rod Serling has misstated, though sincerely so, what you really mean. Clarify please on these points.
What I think is that you think that unless one allows virtually any behavior, then such a person (like yourself) will be described as a hater. Put another way, it seems that some people who correctly identify the many problems Islam poses to a free society also want no criticism of alternative life styles or for any traditional Christian perspective on life given any respect. As you know, I am not religious in the least, but I have a regard for Christianity in a way I never will for Islam. What say you, my friend?
RodSerling says
Wellington,
If I misstated or misrepresented his views, I’ll retract and apologize. Though he’s responded, I don’t see him challenging anything I said. Here are examples to support my claims (these were easy to find):
1. Kepha: “…I also congratulate the government of Uganda for re-criminalizing homosexuality.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/02/gambias-president-calls-gays-vermin-says-will-fight-them-like-malaria-causing-mosquitoes/comment-page-1#comment-1012268
2. Robert (in a posted article): “[…] The only people who think that 9/11 was an act of the Supreme Being wreaking desolations on the earth are…Islamic jihadists.[…]”
Kepha (in a comment in response):
“Robert, much as I love Jihad Watch and respect your scholarship and insight, I have to add my voice to those who see the hand of God in all things.
Consider Job:
“Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? Curse God, and die. But he said unto her, Thou speakest as onee of the foolish women speaketh. What? Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.” (Job 2:9-10).
Jesus also said that God clothes the grass and lillies of the field, and not a sparrow can fall from the sky without our Heavenly Father’s will (they’re in Matthew, and I’m too lazy right now).
I do not pretend to know all that God is doing in these “dread providences” as men from Cotton Mather down to Jonathan Edwards and John Witherspoon might have said. But I dare to believe that perhaps He might be disciplining sons whom He loves (viz., the book of Proverbs in the Old Testament and its quotations in Hebrews, in the New). […]”
There is more. How much time do I have? How much time do you have?
RodSerling says
p.s. the link to the 9/11 comment:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/09/obama-reads-biblical-passage-at-911-ceremonies-implying-that-911-was-an-act-of-god/comment-page-0#comment-819683
Wellington says
Thanks for responding, RodSerling. I cannot follow Kepha in these particular regards.
Kepha says
Wellington: Since you have always treated me respectfully, my answer to Rod Serling’s and Mirren’s indcitments is guilty as charged–and not a bit ashamed of it. And since they seem to assume that my adherence to a very traditional Protestant Christianity makes me an accomplice to the Jihad, I press a counter indictment, since they raise Uganda, that they are secret admirers of Kabaka Mwanga II of Buganda. Let them look him up.
As for all sorts of disasters, 9/11 or no, I say with Job, to his wife who urged him to curse God and die, “What? Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and not evil?” (Job 2:10). I may not know why, but no finite mind can pretend to comprehend all that is in the infinite mind of God; for he may simply be proving a point to the Heavenly Host (who have their own limitations) or something I cannot even begin to fathom. But I know what I have read in Scripture. Certainly a God who can use a greedy Assyrian king to chastise Israel and Judah (Isaiah 10) can use the producers of slums surrounded by deserts to chastise a civilization that has received even more blessings from His hand.
And I am unapologetic about my blasphemy against the LGBT religion. I worked long enough as a consular officer to know a thing or two about human trafficking, including in the very vulnerable orphan children of the world. That the District of Columbia has driven the Roman Catholic Church out of the adoption services of the nation’s capital sue to deference to the LGBT lobby is a national disgrace, considering the long history of Catholic care for needy children (and I am not a Roman Catholic). There is a very real danger of very vulnerable children becoming commoditized due to LGBT lobbying, along with the corruption of social services, educational circles, and other groups who must operate under the shadow of LGBT lawfare.
Oh, yes. The court must go by what the two adoptive “daddies” appear to desire now; and that’s luv, luv, luv. Never mind that twenty years down the pike, the boy they adopt may come out of the woodwork with a woeful tale of growing up bu%%ered–and to even insinuate that such is a real possibility makes me a “hater”. Very well. I will wear the “hater” label.
I cannot see Bobby having two “Daddies” as healthy, especially when one of them is the creepy guy who replaced his mommy. I simply refuse to encourage a confused adolescent boy to “explore” his “alternate identity”, when doing so might result in actual physical damage that cannot be undone when he, in good adolescent fashion, changes again.
And I freely admit that men and women are made to be complements to each other, not rivals, as the Feminist religion demands.
If RodSerling, Mirren, Fitz, and others are so offended by me, let them ask Robert to ban me.
As for blasphemy laws, I’m sorry, but I do not like hearing youngsters thinking that “Jesus Christ” is only a swear word, or, worse, that “Jesus f***ing Christ” is something it is acceptable to yell in public. If i am offended by this, I am told to “lighten up”. They are not told to watch their language.
RodSerling says
Kepha,
“Wellington: Since you have always treated me respectfully, my answer to Rod Serling’s and Mirren’s indcitments is guilty as charged–and not a bit ashamed of it. And since they seem to assume that my adherence to a very traditional Protestant Christianity makes me an accomplice to the Jihad,”
That’s nonsense. I’m objecting to specific views you’ve expressed, not that you are, or deem yourself, a traditional protestant Christian. Supporting worldly, legal punishment for blasphemy, for example, is not an essential or necessary element of traditional protestant Christianity. On the contrary, I suspect most people in that category in Western societies do not support punishment for blasphemy.
I believe that your support for legal punishment for blasphemy, legal punishment for homosexuality, etc., does put you in the position of at least passively or unintentionally enabling sharia, and thus enabling the jihad to establish it.
“I press a counter indictment, since they raise Uganda, that they are secret admirers of Kabaka Mwanga II of Buganda. Let them look him up.”
The obvious problem with your counter is that it is ridiculous and false. You are accusing Mirren and me of being “secret admirers” of a murderous, rapist tyrant, whom you believe we’ve never heard of. That’s so obviously absurd and mean-spirited that it says more about you than it says about us.
Unlike you, Kepha, I don’t have to create wild fantasies, or defame others. All I’ve done is state the gist of your views on those issues, object to them, and challenge you on them. You haven’t responded in any substantive or serious way.
“As for all sorts of disasters, 9/11 or no, I say with Job, to his wife who urged him to curse God and die, “What? Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and not evil?” (Job 2:10). I may not know why, but no finite mind can pretend to comprehend all that is in the infinite mind of God; for he may simply be proving a point to the Heavenly Host (who have their own limitations) or something I cannot even begin to fathom. But I know what I have read in Scripture. Certainly a God who can use a greedy Assyrian king to chastise Israel and Judah (Isaiah 10) can use the producers of slums surrounded by deserts to chastise a civilization that has received even more blessings from His hand.”
I’m not going to suggest your interpretation of scripture is incorrect, but I will venture that most Christians would not say 9/11 was allowed by God or an act of God. The few who say that it was are generally regarded as extremists.
“And I am unapologetic about my blasphemy against the LGBT religion.”
I didn’t accuse you of blasphemy, nor did I suggest you be punished or silenced. What I actually said: “I think there shouldn’t be any laws protecting anyone, any group, any entity, from criticism, lampoon, etc.”
“I worked long enough as a consular officer to know a thing or two about human trafficking, including in the very vulnerable orphan children of the world. That the District of Columbia has driven the Roman Catholic Church out of the adoption services of the nation’s capital sue to deference to the LGBT lobby is a national disgrace, considering the long history of Catholic care for needy children (and I am not a Roman Catholic). There is a very real danger of very vulnerable children becoming commoditized due to LGBT lobbying, along with the corruption of social services, educational circles, and other groups who must operate under the shadow of LGBT lawfare.”
As I asked you previously regarding similar claims, where’s the data to back up what you are suggesting, i.e., that homosexuals pose a significantly higher risk to children than do heterosexuals?
“Oh, yes. The court must go by what the two adoptive “daddies” appear to desire now; and that’s luv, luv, luv. Never mind that twenty years down the pike, the boy they adopt may come out of the woodwork with a woeful tale of growing up bu%%ered–and to even insinuate that such is a real possibility makes me a “hater”. Very well. I will wear the “hater” label.”
You seem to be arguing with a strawman here. Either your argument against homosexuals adopting children has justification based on evidence, or it doesn’t.
“I cannot see Bobby having two “Daddies” as healthy, especially when one of them is the creepy guy who replaced his mommy. I simply refuse to encourage a confused adolescent boy to “explore” his “alternate identity”, when doing so might result in actual physical damage that cannot be undone when he, in good adolescent fashion, changes again.”
Again, where’s the evidence for all of these assertions?
“And I freely admit that men and women are made to be complements to each other, not rivals, as the Feminist religion demands.”
Really? You’ve read the Feminist “scripture,” studiously surveyed the empirical evidence on their views, etc., and have come to this conclusion?
“If RodSerling, Mirren, Fitz, and others are so offended by me, let them ask Robert to ban me.”
We didn’t ask that you be banned.
“As for blasphemy laws, I’m sorry, but I do not like hearing youngsters thinking that “Jesus Christ” is only a swear word, or, worse, that “Jesus f***ing Christ” is something it is acceptable to yell in public. If i am offended by this, I am told to “lighten up”. They are not told to watch their language.”
Telling people to hold back on the swearing is addressing speech with speech. Blasphemy laws involve an attempt to forcibly stop speech through far more coercive measures than mere social disapproval. We are talking about jail time, corporal punishment, torture, death, not to mention the vigilante mobs who think they are justified in part because the laws are officially on the books. You have indicated that you support blasphemy laws (except when they are administered by non-Christians to infringe on Christians’ freedom of expression). Such a position requires justifications, which you haven’t provided.
Fitz says
A nice riposte RS.
gravenimage says
Kepha wrote:
And since they seem to assume that my adherence to a very traditional Protestant Christianity makes me an accomplice to the Jihad, I press a counter indictment, since they raise Uganda, that they are secret admirers of Kabaka Mwanga II of Buganda. Let them look him up.
……………………………
Kepha, your implication that anyone who questions your stance perforce wants to see Christians and converts to Christianity tortured and murdered—as Kabaka Mwanga did—is way off base.
You once said that a young woman was much better off in Taliban-era Afghanistan than in Berkeley during the 1970s—as someone who actually did live in Berkeley in the late ’70s and early ’80s, I challenged that assertion.
Despite the frequent silliness of Berkeley—especially during that period—”politically correct” Berkeley was *hardly* the threat to those that didn’t toe the line that the Taliban were; it seems silly to even have to make that point.
It was quite possible to be a devout Christian or political conservative in Berkeley during that period—the worst I ever heard was some ribbing.
Certainly, one could live a moral life there without taking one’s life in one’s hands—you can hardly say that about Taliban-era Afghanistan, with its floggings and stonings and organized violence for such “crimes” as marrying for love or belonging to any faith other than Sunni islam.
Mirren10 says
”Abolish laws against blasphemy–do these include blasphemies against the LGBT agenda, Feminism, “Progress”, Socialism, and the favored political clients of the powers-that-be?”
I pointed out to you, Kepha, that Communists and Fascists who murdered millions of ideology, shouldn’t prevent any decent person from signing a petition against blasphemy laws.
Now you are throwing the ”LGBT agenda, Feminism, “Progress”, Socialism, and the favored political clients of the powers-that-be” into the mix.
If you are saying that ‘hate speech’ laws should also be abolished, I couldn’t agree more, but again, this is no reason for refusing to sign a petition against blasphemy laws. One must start somewhere.
So, Kepha, I shall ask you straight out; are you actually in *favour* of blasphemy laws ?
Mirren10 says
Bother.
”that Communists and Fascists who murdered millions of ideology”
That should, of course, be ”Communists and Fascists who murdered millions *in the name of ideology”.
RodSerling says
Kepha,
“Abolish laws against blasphemy–do these include blasphemies against the LGBT agenda, Feminism, “Progress”, Socialism, and the favored political clients of the powers-that-be?”
Taking your extension of the term “blasphemy,” I think there shouldn’t be any laws protecting anyone, any group, any entity, from criticism, lampoon, etc. Protection of real entities from libel, slander, death threats, violation of privacy, etc.? Yes (e.g., as in the U.S.), but not protection from mere criticism etc.
Yet you don’t agree with that as a broad principle, because you support (religious) blasphemy laws.
RodSerling says
Another way of saying it:
Put a petition in front of me that calls for protecting a person’s right to freely criticize all of those things you mention, and yes, I’ll sign.
Fitz says
@Dale – I won’t be signing the petition and here’s the reason why, messaged to the petitioners:
Hello. I have a question for you: Why must a charter of rights mention ‘religion’ at all? Why not simply ‘freedom of belief’ (and thus also disbelief)? The reason I suggest this is because ‘belief’ is indeed a personal or private matter which need not impinge on public policy. Freedom of religion, however, leads to the public sanctioning of things like circumcision (hard to imagine babies ‘believe’ in this), gender segregation in places of worship (something you couldn’t get away with in the workplace), and so on. If an adult believes his covenant with god is ‘sealed with a snip’, then let him perform it himself when of age. I won’t be signing your petition since it allows the religious to propagate their abusive dogmas and discriminatory practices just as before, and your petition does nothing to rectify this but may in fact give the impression, if adopted, that everything is right with the world. I would suggest back to the drawing board and this time stand up for what you believe in.