• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Victory: UK Court of Appeal gives Spencer and Geller permission to appeal ban

Jun 4, 2014 3:11 pm By Robert Spencer

justicemoses460An an important victory for the freedom of speech, Lord Justice Moses of the British Court of Appeal has granted permission for an appeal on the papers to be heard in the case of the banning of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer from the United Kingdom. Counsel for Geller and Spencer, Arfan Khan, argued in writing that the unacceptable behaviours policy applied by the Secretary of State to exclude Geller and Spencer was unlawful. Lord Justice Moses held that:

“There are important issues to be determined as to the lawfulness of a policy, which arguably permits the SOS to refuse entry to those whose presence may incite violence but who themselves, arguably, may not intend to do so.”

This demonstrates the strength of Geller’s and Spencer’s case, as the grant of permission to appeal on papers (i.e. in writing) is very rare in British law, and frequently oral hearings are listed for that purpose. In this case, the grant of permission to appeal by the Court of Appeal demonstrates the erroneous decision of the Secretary of State as well as the tribunal below and demonstrates the strength of the both Geller’s and Spencer’s appeal. It shows that the Court of Appeal was not prepared to accept the smoke screen created by the Secretary of State in order to obfuscate the truth, namely that the exclusions were lawful because of the prospects of violence if they were to appear.

The decision also runs contrary to the lies of Leftists and Islamic supremacists, who have insisted that the Geller/Spencer appeal was denied. Commented Geller: “They rewrite history and misrepresent the facts knowing that their media lapdogs will run it verbatim.”

In fact, the tribunal that initially ruled on the case failed completely to address the arguments put forward by Geller and Spencer that the policy under which they were excluded was unlawful. The tribunal misapplied the law and the facts. Geller and Spencer were not expecting justice in this initial instance, as the lower court issued a politically motivated decision in order to appease the government.

Indeed, it is not just arguable, but a complete certainty, that Geller and Spencer did not intend to incite violence, have never done so, and never will do so. Consequently they are confident that, while a long road lies ahead, that this ban will eventually be overturned and some semblance of rationality restored to the British legal system.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: United Kingdom Tagged With: featured


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. tpellow says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 3:19 pm

    But Cameron-May-Warsi’s U.K government political instincts are for the continuing application of Sharia law, and the the banning of entry into U.K of critics of Islam, especially in General Election year.

    • John C. Barile says

      Jun 4, 2014 at 3:46 pm

      The world is a marketplace of competing ideas; Spencer and Geller are arguing against the Closing of the British Mind. The UK’s dominant parties are championing the heckler’s veto. They can try to shut down debate by enacting gag orders, exclusion policies and veiled blasphemy laws but freedom to speak the truth shall prevail.

  2. 45charlie says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 3:31 pm

    Great news!

  3. Michael Copeland says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 3:32 pm

    When Theresa May wrote to Spencer and Geller she misquoted her own department’s policy by referring to statements that “may” foster hatred:

    “You have brought yourself within the scope of the list of unacceptable behaviours by making statements that may foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence …”

    The Government’s own Policy Paper, the “Prevent” strategy (a free download), does not have this category. It cites statements that foster hatred, very different from statements that “may” foster hatred.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97976/prevent-strategy-review.pdf
    The statements that matter are those that actually do foster hatred.

    http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/home/root/news-libertygb/5865-the-unacceptable-behaviour-of-robert-spencer
    http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/home/root/news-libertygb/5877-unacceptable-behaviour-and-the-home-office

  4. tpellow says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 3:33 pm

    A reprise from ‘Jihadwatch’, Jan 2014-

    “The Spencer-Geller ban: Truth is hate crime in Cameron’s Britain”

    By Robert Spencer.

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/01/the-spencer-geller-ban-truth-is-hate-crime-in-camerons-britain

  5. mariam rove says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 3:34 pm

    Looks like there sane people out there after all. M

  6. Liam1304 says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 3:36 pm

    Hallelujah!

  7. Salah says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 3:44 pm

    All is not lost after all, I’m sure the UK will end up coming back to its senses.
    In our fight against jihad we must, not only be optimistic, but absolutely certain that victory is ours.

  8. Fitz says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 3:54 pm

    May I just suggest Robert, as a UK resident, that you do not share a platform with the EDL should the ban be lifted and you visit the UK. As unjust as this may seem I’m afraid you would run the risk of having people ignore your message by that mere association and it is important that you are heard by as many people as possible. I would suggest an approach to the Oxford Union Debating Society or maybe even the Quilliam Foundation, a reformist and anti-extremist Muslim organisation. Good luck anyway.

    • Robert Spencer says

      Jun 4, 2014 at 4:04 pm

      Fitz:

      Clearly you have not been keeping up.

      Cordially
      Robert Spencer

      • Fitz says

        Jun 4, 2014 at 4:12 pm

        Tommy has left, a rump remains, they’re not entirely disbanded. Thank you for your reply though and good luck as I said, you and Pamela are sorely needed here.

        • Wellington says

          Jun 4, 2014 at 6:03 pm

          Yes indeed, Fitz, you have not been “keeping up,” and Robert Spencer meant it several times over. For instance, the fact that you would recommend the Quilliam Foundation, which is a total phony, is just one example of how you have not been “keeping up.”

          BTW, Robert Spencer is a devout Catholic. Care to go on another screed about how stupid all religion is?

      • PJG says

        Jun 4, 2014 at 7:39 pm

        A perfect answer, Robert!!

    • gravenimage says

      Jun 5, 2014 at 10:51 pm

      Fitz wrote:

      …or maybe even the Quilliam Foundation, a reformist and anti-extremist Muslim organisation.
      …………………………………………

      If only this were so, Fitz.

      Actually, the Quilliam Foundation’s purpose is to spout Taqiyya and fool any unwary Infidels. Here are a couple of stories:

      “Beheading the EDL”

      http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/10/beheading-the-edl

      and

      “And here’s to you, Tommy Robinson”

      http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/10/and-heres-to-you-tommy-robinson

      You can find much more on the sinister Quilliam Foundation with a search at Jihad Watch—or a general Google search, since sites such as Pamela Geller’s Atlas Shrugs site has also covered a lot of this story. Ugly stuff.

      • Fitz says

        Jun 6, 2014 at 5:29 am

        Thank you for that GI; contrary to first-impressions, I don’t come here as a know-it-all, quite the opposite; I come here to get informed. I had some respect for Maajid Nawaz’s tweeting of the Jesus and Mo cartoon which I thought took guts. I’d be interested to know if you have evidence that this was a bluff to sucker us infidels in. Also whether the fact that Nawaz has drawn the ire of Medhi Hassan (a taqiyya artist of the highest order) was also a ruse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb1LR6887cc. As for the EDL, I had a lot of respect for Tommy but I’m afraid the movement was counter-productive tactically speaking.

  9. John Hartley says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 4:16 pm

    The charge of ‘incitement to violence’ was complete hogwash. Violence is the first resort of those who lack self control when they see their cherished sharia laws, regarding freedom of speech, challenged.

  10. jihad3tracker says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 4:21 pm

    And who says miracle don’t happen nowadays ? ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

  11. No Fear says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 4:24 pm

    Woo hoo!

  12. Burt says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 4:44 pm

    I do hope this positive step prevails and the government does not persist in their Orwellian attempts to deny free speech.

    Of course the twisted British media will most likely completely ensure that Spencer and Geller are not allowed any voice on the main stream news. I hope I am proved wrong and that you guys have the chance to eat our dhimmi reporters for breakfast.

    • Joe says

      Jun 5, 2014 at 6:57 pm

      “I hope … you guys have the chance to eat our dhimmi reporters for breakfast.”

      About 9 months ago, Robert ate an imam from East London Mosque for lunch, live on BBC Radio. The imam sputtered that he didn’t know the koran as well as Robert. The (supposedly unbiased) non-muslim (but asian) presenter then started to berate the imam, saying that he was invited on because he supposedly did know the koran.

      Obviously, the imam knew that what Robert was saying was true, but he preferred to look like a complete lemon, than say that Robert’s account of islam was accurate (and was the one shared by most muslim scholars).

      It really was a laugh. And showed precisely why the UK government showed what a censorious bunch of fascist-enablers they were.

      • Burt says

        Jun 5, 2014 at 7:45 pm

        I remember that interview it was really funny … and very revealing!
        I hope this visit happens for sure.

  13. William says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 4:53 pm

    Counsel for Geller and Spencer, Arfan Khan

    Arfan Khan? I hope they do not have a Mohammedan as counsel. Are things so bad in the not-so-Great Britain that only a Mohammedan counsel could be procured?

    • Tell says

      Jun 4, 2014 at 6:08 pm

      Arfan Khan is a high flying British Barrister. Read his profile before jumping to conclusions on his faith. He is a member of the United Kingdom Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists. He is not a Mohamaden you nut job. are you being paid by the british press?

    • Chuck says

      Jun 4, 2014 at 6:17 pm

      Arfan Khan is not a mohamaden you nut job! He is amongst the best barristers in the country. see hisnwebsite: http://www.arfankhan.co.uk
      who is paying you to write this nonsense? The government?

      • 45charlie says

        Jun 4, 2014 at 6:39 pm

        Yes he is a member of Grays Inn where I studied law.

      • voegelinian says

        Jun 5, 2014 at 2:13 am

        That web page doesn’t say he’s not Muslim.

        • Semeru says

          Jun 5, 2014 at 5:54 am

          As Mr Spencer remarks above

          Clearly you have not been keeping up.

          And this remark can be directed at most of he commenters on this thread

          It took eight months, nearly $16,000 in legal fees, and the perseverance of a Muslim lawyer, but the British government has been overruled in its notorious decision this February to ban Dutch politician Geert Wilders from entering the country.

          http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jlaksin/wilders-wins-–-by-jacob-laksin/

          So what do all the mealy mouthed Jihad watchers have to say that moslems are not too be trusted, when both Geert Wilders and Mr Spencer have put their trust in a moslem.

        • John C. Barile says

          Jun 5, 2014 at 10:11 am

          Semeru,

          Don’t include me among mealy-mouths; I never say that Muslims can never be trusted; I don’t gratuitously insult Muslims as a class of persons; I don’t advocate second-class citizenship for them; nor indiscriminately deporting them or depriving them of civil rights–in spite of my very serious misgivings about Islam of, by, and for Islam.

    • gravenimage says

      Jun 5, 2014 at 11:04 pm

      Arfan Khan also got Geert Wilders’ banning from Britain overturned.

      “Wilders Wins”

      http://www.rightsidenews.com/2009101421141/life-and-science/culture-wars/wilders-wins.html

      Front Page Magazine confirms that Arfan Khan is indeed Muslim. I have no idea what his views are—but from everything I have seen, he is a damn good lawyer, which may be the salient point here.

  14. Henry says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 4:54 pm

    Great news and a great day for besieged freedom lovers here in the UK.

    I’m very much looking forward to being able to see Robert and Pamela speak in person. Happy to help with anything for your future visit(s) if you’re in need.

  15. mortimer says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 5:13 pm

    Justice Moses has made a wise assessment based on the motives and track record of Spencer and Geller, both of whom are not given to blanket condemnations or calls to punish or deny human rights! That cannot be said about their CRITICS!

    Violent jihad and the verbal jihad of taqiyya can destroy the West if this ideology of supremacism is not challenged by factual analysis, debate and discussion. The critics of Geller and Spencer CLAIM them to be ‘haters’ but have no facts to prove it. Their case is a house of cards based on ad hominems alone.

  16. richard Sherman says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 5:34 pm

    A win for the good guy and good woman. A loss for the sociopaths.

  17. Bezelel says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 5:34 pm

    Since the UK is so sensitive to incitement, how did muslims ever get in?
    PS great news!!!

  18. Champ says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 5:37 pm

    Awesome news!

  19. Sudhaman says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 5:40 pm

    I hope you come to the University of Southampton

  20. mikeystav says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 5:53 pm

    Can’t wait for this decision to be repealed and for Geller and Spencer to come to a town near me. The UK needs them! Long live the freedom of speech.

  21. Jeremy says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 6:24 pm

    Arfan Khan is a brilliant barrister has won numerous appeals and a credit to the profession. Look at his profile before making stupid comments William

  22. Fitz says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 6:37 pm

    Wellington: I’ll leave that to the believers themselves.

    • Wellington says

      Jun 4, 2014 at 6:55 pm

      I find most religious Christians andf Jews, even though I myself am not religious in the least, more tolerant by far than those who are not religious but who have made a studious point of hating all religion (far more like devout Muslims than devout Jews or Christians). As a very wise man, Benjamin Franklin, and a skeptic like us, once observed, “If man is bad with religion, imagine what he’d be without it.”

      The history of the past hundred years bitterly proves Franklin’s point. Of course, Islam would be the exception to Frankliin’s rule. But then again, the exception invariably proves the rule.

      • Fitz says

        Jun 4, 2014 at 6:59 pm

        Hate is a strong word. Exasperation mostly. And I have great respect for Jainism.

        • Wellington says

          Jun 4, 2014 at 7:24 pm

          Good luck with Jainism, for which I have no grievance, but have you never considered that of all religions that have ever existed Christianity and Judaism, in their theological blueprint, have placed the greatest emphasis upon the worth and dignity of the individual person, thus working wonderfully well with the democratic tenets first invented by the ancient Greeks?

          Let me put this another way: Though I have a respect for the subtleties of sundry religions (Islam never being one of them), no religions surpass Judaism and Christianity in the particular regard of the worth of the individual human being—–a most important, if not imperative, regard I would argue. When non-religious people (and remember, I am totally non-religious) manifest their contempt or hatred for Christianity and Judaism and desire their extinction, my first thought are almost always the same——be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

          Finally, I leave you with this, from Turgenev. Here it is: “Without God, anything is possible.” This magnificently supports what yet another skeptic, Voltaire, opined some two and a half centuries ago, to wit, “If God doesn’t exist, we’ll have to invent Him.”

          To all of those out there like you, who are not religious like myself, I strongly suggest that while being non-religious is eminently defensible, being anti-religious for society in general is not (again, with Islam being the main exception here). Indeed, it is highly unwise.

        • Champ says

          Jun 4, 2014 at 7:39 pm

          Bravo, Wellington! …so spot on!

        • RodSerling says

          Jun 5, 2014 at 2:24 am

          Wellington,

          “from Turgenev. Here it is: “Without God, anything is possible.” This magnificently supports what yet another skeptic, Voltaire, opined some two and a half centuries ago, to wit, “If God doesn’t exist, we’ll have to invent Him.””

          Again, these quotes miss the mark, as you are using them, since they suggest a belief in God is necessary for morality and human adherence to (presumably good) moral rules. That hypothesis can be tested, most critically, not by looking only at confirming examples, but by looking at its obvious counterexamples: atheists who are moral and law-abiding citizens without following a religion, and theists who kill people or imprison them in defense of or in accordance with their religious beliefs.

          “To all of those out there like you, who are not religious like myself, I strongly suggest that while being non-religious is eminently defensible, being anti-religious for society in general is not (again, with Islam being the main exception here). Indeed, it is highly unwise.”

          If criticizing or opposing elements of a religion (elements of its scripture, its interpretations and applications, etc.) is in the category of anti-religious, I see nothing necessarily wrong with that, and indeed potentially much good in that process of criticism, again depending on the ethical content of what we’re talking about. There would probably still be blasphemy laws in effect if we hadn’t criticized them and opposed them at some point to get rid of them. Indeed, some of this criticism and opposition came from religious people (and not just one sect criticizing another–though there was and is plenty of that), not just from non-religious people. Religious ideas, like any other set of ideas, should be subject to critical scrutiny and expression.

        • RodSerling says

          Jun 5, 2014 at 2:28 am

          Clarification: “and theists who kill people or imprison them in defense of or in accordance with their religious beliefs.”

          I’m talking here about responses to “crimes” such as blasphemy, apostasy, heresy, “sorcery,” and such.

        • gravenimage says

          Jun 5, 2014 at 11:27 pm

          Rod Serling wrote, in reply to Wellington:

          …That hypothesis can be tested, most critically, not by looking only at confirming examples, but by looking at its obvious counterexamples: atheists who are moral and law-abiding citizens without following a religion…
          …………………………..

          Rod, Wellington knows this very well—he is a non-religious person who is highly moral and ethical.

      • RodSerling says

        Jun 5, 2014 at 1:34 am

        Wellington,

        “If man is bad with religion, imagine what he’d be without it”

        I disagree. The issue of the taming and containing of humanity’s nasty side concerns the substance of the ethical system or moral philosophy, not whether it, or the larger package of ideas in which it is embedded, is religious or non-religious (or for that matter theistic or non-theistic). There have been some terrible examples of both.

        “I find most religious Christians andf Jews, even though I myself am not religious in the least, more tolerant by far than those who are not religious but who have made a studious point of hating all religion (far more like devout Muslims than devout Jews or Christians).”

        It looks to me like what you have there is an unfair comparison between moderate religious people, and a subset of atheists who are more aggressive and obnoxious in their proselytizing. But I’m not sure what you mean. Can you give me examples of those kinds of atheists, who make a point of “hating all religion,” that you find more intolerant than most religious Jews and Christians, and more like devout Muslims? What’s your measure of “intolerant”?

        I think of what devout Muslims–hundreds of millions of them–want according to polls:

        Sharia, including some of its most evil elements, such as death for apostasy, blasphemy, adultery;
        use of punishments such as whipping (e.g., for punishing premarital sex) and cutting off of hands (for theft);
        the establishment of a caliphate unifying Muslim countries under a strict application of Islamic law, with the goal of bringing the entire world under Islamic rule;
        marriage and sex with under-aged girls, sexual enslavement of non-Muslim women and girls, immunity from prosecution from rape if the victim violated Islam’s dress and behavioural codes for females;
        a pathological and murderous hatred of Jews and any non-Muslims who oppose Islamization;
        support for at least one terrorist group (e.g., see the high popularity of Hamas, Hizballah, and even of al Qaeda in the years before it started attacking other Muslims);
        deceiving non-Muslims about all of the above…

        …and I look at what they’ve implemented (some of it with our help, mind you)–Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan, etc., terrorist attacks and all the rest of it–and I conclude that this is a very bad state of affairs…

        …and I ask which atheists today who go around “hating all religion” are enough like these devout Muslims to warrant your comparison to them?

        • RodSerling says

          Jun 5, 2014 at 1:37 am

          I judged the existence of widespread Muslim support for these by widespread practices, not polls:
          “marriage and sex with under-aged girls, sexual enslavement of non-Muslim women and girls, immunity from prosecution from rape if the victim violated Islam’s dress and behavioural codes for females;”

        • Fitz says

          Jun 5, 2014 at 4:26 am

          If I may parody Wellington’s response to your as-always well-reasoned rejoinder Rod: ‘I am not the least religious as you know but Sam Harris, that upstart ATHEIST, it is well known eats babies for breakfast. But ah, Gaudi’s La Sagrada Familia – c’est magnifique!’ It’ll be about as subtle as that.

        • Wellington says

          Jun 5, 2014 at 1:09 pm

          Thank you for your comment, RodSerling. Islam, of course, would be the exception to the general rule posited by that shrewdest of men, Benjamin Franklin, to the effect that if man is bad with religion, imagine what he’d be without it.

          If you look at the genocidal regimes of the last hundred years, all without exception were perpetrated by people with a contempt for religion——Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, et al. Now, I am not saying that religious dictators (again minus Muslims here) can’t be killers, but virtually never on the scale of those dictators without religion, or at least without Christianity. Franco knocked off his share of enemies but nowhere near on the scale that Stalin, Hitler or Mao did. He was a devout Catholic and I would argue that his faith restrained his dictatorship. I am not defending Franco and his kind. I am only saying that dictators with faith (again minus Islam) are preferable to dictators without religion, which was part of Franklin’s point all along.

          The other part was just concerning ordinary people. I mean think about it. When you read about someone stealing, killing, raping, etc. in a country like America, Canada, Britain or France, what are the chances that such a person is a devout Christian? As the lawyer that I am, and knowing many other lawyers and their work, it’s quite instructive how in virtually every criminal case, especially the brutal ones, the perpetrator was devoid of religious faith. In fact, time and time again, IF ONLY such a person had been a committed Christian, the chances that they would have committed the crime they did is reduced markedly, agruably quite close to a zero chance.

          Not just Franklin understood the value of religion, even though he was himself a skeptic. So did Voltaire, another skeptic, who sapiently observed that if God doesn’t exist, we’ll have to invent Him. Reconsider RodSerling, though I don’t mind in the least agreeing to disagree about this topic.

          What I do mind are those who make a religion out of not having one and who truly hate religion, especially those who come here to JW, which is devoted to opposing the one religion which wants to dominate us all in this world, and spew their venom towards all religion, thus doing no good for the broad coaltion of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, Sikhs, etc. which is opposed to Islam’s many profoundly disturbing doctrines that are sometimes simply downright lethal. Such people elicit my complete contempt. Besides, I have found those who are not only non-religious but anti-religious devoid of a capacity to appreciate many of the wonders which religious faith inspired, for instance the Sistine Chapel and my favorite music, Gregorian Chant.

        • Fitz says

          Jun 5, 2014 at 3:11 pm

          Wellington: what kind of lawyer are you, a public defender? I got 3 letters to say to you – BTK – look it up if you don’t know, specifically which church he was associated with when apprehended. Also Anders Breivik. You’re like some kind of Christian faghag – not himself a believer but inordinately obsessed with those who are. Wickedness is the preserve neither of belief or non-belief. How on earth have you made a living all these years?

        • Champ says

          Jun 5, 2014 at 3:29 pm

          Fitz wrote:

          You’re like some kind of Christian faghag

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          This is abusive hate speech and I’ve reported it to Marc.

        • Fitz says

          Jun 5, 2014 at 3:42 pm

          You go champ! Personally I consider it no worse than wellington’s ‘complete contempt’ for me. Too much like an echo-chamber here don’t you think?

        • Champ says

          Jun 5, 2014 at 3:39 pm

          And I reported this egregious comment to Robert, as well …

        • Fitz says

          Jun 5, 2014 at 4:24 pm

          Plus I’m not sure you know what’s ‘faghag’ means.

        • gravenimage says

          Jun 5, 2014 at 11:45 pm

          Fitz, Wellington is a highly respected poster here. If you disagree with him on some points, there is no reason to stoop to such petty invective and ad hominem attacks.

          Given how measured and reasonable Wellington is, I’m afraid It just reflects poorly upon yourself.

        • Fitz says

          Jun 6, 2014 at 3:01 am

          If you want to respect stupid that’s your business. And you do agree it is stupid, as RS has amply demonstrated, to imagine that wickedness is the preserve of non-believers only?? As for the sensitivities of certain posters here: these are the same people who would show no hesitation to mock someone as a whinging feminist for expecting contraception to be supplied with their healthcare plan, only to jump up on a stall and hitch their skirts up screaming when a bit of invective comes their way instead. Consider it an exercise in desensitisation for dealing with the worse invective you’ll get when you start preaching the counter-jihad in the real world, assuming you even bother.

        • RodSerling says

          Jun 6, 2014 at 12:39 am

          Wellington,

          Thanks for the friendly disagreement.

          I note that you did not provide any examples of atheists today of the aggressive proselytizing sort who are like devout Muslims. Could it be that your concerns about the proselytizing aggressive atheists are exaggerated?

          Also, it occurred to me to ask, if what you are claiming is true, why were Bush and Blair–both apparently more devout-than-average Christians–such tremendous failures? Why did they cause so many problems, so many needless deaths, in their project to set up two Islamic regimes to be ruled by hard-line sharia? Shouldn’t their religion and belief in God have guided them toward good things, rather than committing evil things? Likewise Obama, a Christian who, like his predecessors, claims to respect Islam. These guys support Islamic rule, and not just in sentiment but in policy. I’m not claiming religion or theism is responsible here, because a religious person need not have done what they’ve done, but in my view Bush, Blair, Obama, Clinton, et al., are again counterexamples to Franklin’s claim, i.e., they have religion, yet they are disastrous idiots on a massive scale.

          Objections:

          1. There’s no justification for excluding Islam as an exception from the hypothesis of Franklin’s superficial quote as you’ve framed it. (Where does that quote come from, btw?). Islam is significantly a theistic religion, with the most murder, rape, slavery, torture, persecution, etc., motivated and approved by it, out of any ideology known in the history of humankind. It is possible that there were more deaths due to Islam, than attributable to all non-religious political ideologies combined.

          Islam is inextricably linked historically and ideologically to Judaism and Christianity. Many of the objectionable ideas in Islam come from, or were appropriated from, Judaism’s scriptures (death for adultery, death for homosexuality, death for blasphemy, death for apostasy, etc.; the idea of God’s chosen people–switched from the Jews to Muslims, etc.), and from Christianity’s scriptures (torturous punishment in the afterlife and on judgement day against the unbelievers–theological constructs, which the authors of Islam took and modified, that have real-world implications in policies)

          However, if you are going to remove Islam from consideration, why couldn’t a defender of atheism here could remove Marxism/Communism as “an exception”?

          2. “If you look at the genocidal regimes of the last hundred years, all without exception were perpetrated by people with a contempt for religion——Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, et al. Now, I am not saying that religious dictators (again minus Muslims here) can’t be killers, but virtually never on the scale of those dictators without religion, or at least without Christianity.”

          There are a number of fallacies and dubious and/or untested assumptions here. First, you are confusing the scale of the atrocities with the alleged badness of the ideology. Lots of people were killed in the 20th century by those dictators because of the large populations and the technological capacity. Let the European Wars of Religion play out not in the 16th and 17th centuries, but with the technology and population sizes of the 20th c., and you’ll probably get similar body counts and atrocities.

          Even so, as the Western societies have become less religious, rates of violence, including deadly violence, have also gone down. This may have nothing to do with religion or irreligion, but it shows that, when comparing rates (which is necessary when comparing populations of different sizes), the 20th c rates of violence overall were not as bad as in previous centuries, in which more people were religious and religion was more politically and legally powerful.

          See this (note: I don’t agree with everything Pinker says, but do agree with his central thesis that the rates of deadly violence has gone down):
          http://stevenpinker.com/pages/frequently-asked-questions-about-better-angels-our-nature-why-violence-has-declined

          Now to the particular megalomaniacal psychopaths who are supposedly the poster boys for atheism run amok:

          (i) Hitler was not an atheist. He consistently presented himself as a Christian and a religious person publicly. His views on religion as quoted privately varied widely, but there’s no evidence to my knowledge that he was an atheist or that the Nazis were promoting atheism. Even the questionable hearsay source Table Talk, which portrays Hitler as quite hostile to “Christianity” (i.e., a Christianity with Jewish origins), indicates that he believed in God and had his own “Aryan” version of Christianity. (There is evidence of this outside of Table Talk also, Even if Christians insist he wasn’t a true Christian–and I think that case has merit*–he still maintained a belief in God according to all of the evidence. Moreover, Hitler and the Nazis in the later years were implementing their version of Christianity as a “German Faith” in schools. Hitler insisted that religious education was necessary. There are quotes from some of the top Nazis expressing admiration for Islam, and there is evidence that Hitler admired it. The vast majority of Germans were Christians before, during, and after the Nazi era.

          *Though probably no more merit than the claim that Mormons aren’t true Christians; or that Islam is not “really” one of the Abrahamic faiths.

          The persecution of the Jews in Germany and other European countries historically was overwhelmingly perpetrated by Christians, not atheists.

          I could go on, but there’s no way you can responsibly use Hitler as an example of a non-religious person or an atheist, unless you present clear evidence to support his atheism.

          Hitler and the Nazis, in stressing the importance of religious education and actually implementing it and opposing atheism, constitute strong counterexamples to your framing of Franklin’s claim.

          Next, I haven’t researched the religious views of the following, but I know enough about them that the claim that they did what they did because of atheism per se, rather than because of their political ideology, is dubious. The religious beliefs of these individuals also seem more complex and uncertain than a simple label would suggest.

          (ii) Lenin – probably a non-believer of some sort, his crimes were no more due to atheism than crimes committed by a leader in the name of a particular religious theistic ideology could be blamed on “theism” or God belief or religion. It all depends on the specifics of the ideology; there is nothing in atheism or theism per se that allows or permits crimes.

          (iii) Stalin – raised as an orthodox Christian, appears to have become a non-believer, but there is contradictory evidence. Attacked some religious groups and supported others, apparently depending on pragmatic political and power-seeking motives.

          (iv) Pol Pot -Buddhist and Catholic schooling.

          (v) Mao – possible Taoist influence, some evidence he believed in God and heaven; I’m not aware of any evidence that he was or considered himself an atheist.

          Please do educate me if you have clear evidence, that is not contradicted by other clear evidence, that the above were (a) atheists, (b) did what they did significantly because of atheism and not significantly because of political and psychological factors, and (c) would not have done what they did if they definitely believed in a god or gods or followed a religion.

          3. “I am only saying that dictators with faith (again minus Islam) are preferable to dictators without religion, which was part of Franklin’s point all along.”

          Dictators? That’s a rather narrow category. Franklin’s comment was sweeping in its implication: man is better off with religion than without it. Islam destroys the argument, so you’ve said Islam is an exception. Hitler destroys the argument, yet you falsely claim he was atheist or non-religious.

          Indeed, I would argue that Franklin himself defeats the argument, because he selected the parts of religion he liked and discarded the parts he didn’t like, in accordance with his own non-religious moral sense which was probably better.

        • Fitz says

          Jun 6, 2014 at 2:48 am

          Rod, I hope, if not already, that you are involved in educating our young about logic and sound reasoning, on the one hand, and just what a crock the claim that religion is necessary for morality on the other (as opposed to its being a hindrance to morality, Islam in particular – the bastard child of Judaism and Christianity). I say this because your insights and research are totally wasted on this blog and you are not shown half the respect you deserve in terms of people actually answering the charges You put to them. Keep up the good work friend.

        • RodSerling says

          Jun 6, 2014 at 1:17 am

          Wellington,

          (continued)

          4. You claim that atheists or non-religious people commit more crimes than religious people. You cite no empirical evidence, such as statistics, to support this sweeping claim.

          “Reconsider RodSerling, though I don’t mind in the least agreeing to disagree about this topic.”

          As I said before, there are good elements to some religion. Many people seem to be able to select elements of it that may help them lead more moral lives. But they don’t need to. They could get those same ethical principles, and better developed in my view, and more of them, from philosophy. In addition, I would argue that we have or develop our ethical senses at a fairly early age, and most of the time human beings turn out well without either religion or philosophy. The very fact that, when free to choose, people select from religion which aspects to follow and which aspects not to follow indicates that they are using a standard from outside the religion itself.

          “What I do mind are those who make a religion out of not having one and who truly hate religion, especially those who come here to JW,”

          These people may be annoying, but they are basically harmless.

          “…which is devoted to opposing the one religion which wants to dominate us all in this world, and spew their venom towards all religion, thus doing no good for the broad coaltion of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, Sikhs, etc. which is opposed to Islam’s many profoundly disturbing doctrines that are sometimes simply downright lethal. Such people elicit my complete contempt.”

          It all depends on how we respond. There are plenty of attacks on atheists here as well, which one could argue does no favors for coalition-building either.

          “Besides, I have found those who are not only non-religious but anti-religious devoid of a capacity to appreciate many of the wonders which religious faith inspired, for instance the Sistine Chapel and my favorite music, Gregorian Chant.”

          Lots of atheists can appreciate these things aesthetically. I do. Dawkins, Harris, et al., do. (Okay, maybe not Hitch. I’m not sure about his view on that).

        • RodSerling says

          Jun 6, 2014 at 1:53 am

          re Wellington’s claim above suggesting atheists commit more crime and violent crime, here are some stats refuting that claim:

          In fact, the percentage of atheists in the prison population is lower than in the general population of the U.S.
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/16/what-percentage-of-prisoners-are-atheists-its-a-lot-smaller-than-we-ever-imagined/

          The rates of violent crime, including murder, tend to be lower in less religious areas than in religious areas:
          http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/misinformation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion

        • RodSerling says

          Jun 6, 2014 at 1:57 am

          Correction of my above comment about Hitchens:
          Hitch addressed the question of whether he appreciated artistic productions inspired by religious beliefs, while not endorsing the religious beliefs themselves. He said yes.

    • John C. Barile says

      Jun 4, 2014 at 8:41 pm

      Fitz,

      Why not just post a link to a pdf of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion and let go of exasperating arguments with us neaderthals and yahoos, given that you’ve already taken the measure of us all

      • John C. Barile says

        Jun 4, 2014 at 8:43 pm

        Question mark [?].

  23. Isabella says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 7:26 pm

    Thank you for your strenght Mr. Spencer and Mrs. Geller! Goodness triumphs!!!

  24. Mirren10 says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 7:32 pm

    ”This demonstrates the strength of Geller’s and Spencer’s case, as the grant of permission to appeal on papers (i.e. in writing) is very rare in British law, and frequently oral hearings are listed for that purpose. In this case, the grant of permission to appeal by the Court of Appeal demonstrates the erroneous decision of the Secretary of State as well as the tribunal below and demonstrates the strength of the both Geller’s and Spencer’s appeal.”

    This is **excellent** news !

    I hope Mr Khan brings out the fact that the monstrous sheik who advocated bloody jihad was allowed into Britain right after Robert and Pamela were denied entry.

    This is a victory against not only May, but that monstrous night crow, Warsi, who sits on camoron’s shoulder, crooning sweet taqqiyah into his ear.

    I do so *hope* I will get the opportunity to hear Robert and Pamela speak, in my own country.

    Hallelujah !

    • RodSerling says

      Jun 5, 2014 at 12:30 am

      Mirren,

      If you haven’t already seen it, here is Kepha’s answer to your question, from a previous thread:
      http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/sign-the-petition-to-abolish-blasphemy-laws/comment-page-1#comment-1072599

      • Mirren10 says

        Jun 5, 2014 at 4:31 am

        Yes, thank you, Rod, I did see it.

        An answer answerless …

    • Semeru says

      Jun 6, 2014 at 1:20 am

      ”This demonstrates the strength of Geller’s and Spencer’s case, as the grant of permission to appeal on papers (i.e. in writing) is very rare in British law, and frequently oral hearings are listed for that purpose. In this case, the grant of permission to appeal by the Court of Appeal demonstrates the erroneous decision of the Secretary of State as well as the tribunal below and demonstrates the strength of the both Geller’s and Spencer’s appeal.”

      This does not demonstrate anything. Also Every-one has the right to appeal when applications for entry are refused.

      It is quite common that permission to appeal on papers (i.e. in writing) is granted as this is the only option for people who have been refused entry.

      The other option, oral hearings, are for those that are already in Britian.

      http://www.newlandchase.com/nc_blog/article/the_uk_immigration_appeal_process_demystified

  25. Fitz says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 7:39 pm

    Wellington: you’re gilding the lily – if that which is worthy of respect in the religions you cite is their humanism – then to what purpose their supernaturalism? If you think the value of human life subsists independently of religion (which I don’t need to tell you means ‘bound to the gods’), then no respect is owed the religious baggage. But if you do believe the latter is necessary for us to find value in life, then you are not a sceptic. Adios.

    • Wellington says

      Jun 4, 2014 at 8:26 pm

      How, pray tell, is the supernaturualism of Christianity and Judaism any major negative? Such supernaturalism may be wrong, it my even be superfluous, but do you not at least comprehend that such supernaturalism is the route by which Judaism and Christianity came to the conclusion that the individual life is precious? If ever the means justify the ends with the means still being questionable, then Judaism and Christianity do so in this regard.

      Really, you will have to do better than you have done to date to even remotely convince me that religions like Judaism and Christianity should be scorned and discarded. Islam scorned and discarded, yes. Christianity and Judaism—–no way.

      Your turn.

      • Fitz says

        Jun 4, 2014 at 8:47 pm

        Makes a change from being told to get lost (though I’m sure someone will oblige still). Your reading of Christian and Judaic doctrine is very limited, specifically to the nice bits. Now what about eschatological beliefs? The end times are fervently desired in many quarters to the point of there being political forces actively seeking to bring this about. We shouldn’t bore everyone with the details but this is a ‘be careful what you wish for’ that concerns me much more than you it seems. After all, you agree that if all religions ceased to be practiced or believed in tomorrow, life would still have its value for those who live it. There is always the not insignificant risk, however, that as long as religion holds sway then disaster may await us.

        • John C. Barile says

          Jun 4, 2014 at 9:17 pm

          I’m amillenialist, I hold Revelation to be canonical scripture–and I fear Muslim eschatology more than anything. Remember the hadith about the stones and the trees? And that’s just for starters in orgiastic satiation of canonical Islamic bloodlust. Very literal, not figurative, slaughter.

        • Wellington says

          Jun 5, 2014 at 12:52 am

          Limited to the nice bits? Please. And to hell with the eschatological stuff. That’s high theory. I’m interested in the here and now (like the past millennium or so. As for political forces “actively seeking to bring this about,” yeah I grieve and fret over this daily while popping a few cold ones.

          You still don’t get any value religion offers. Try Gregorian Chant, Romanesque and Gothic architecture, Dante’s Divine Comedy, Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, Italian Renaissance religious painting and sculpture and Bach’s works for starters. You see, those who find no value in religion, who just dismiss it as you do, who scorn it as you do, miss so much about the human condition. Of course, mankind finally got a major faith which is totalitarian and malevolent. You know, the one that begins with “I,” and even it achieved some things (though they’re greatly exaggerated), but that is another matter.

        • Mirren10 says

          Jun 5, 2014 at 5:06 am

          ”Makes a change from being told to get lost … ”

          I’m not going to tell you to ‘get lost’, but I will ask you what on earth your purpose is.

          Do you really think you are going to convince any committed Christians here, into accepting your rehash of Dawkins and various other atheist writers ? Of course you are not. So what’s the point ? I seriously doubt you would convince anyone else, either, since your ‘arguments’ omit so much.

          Like Wellington, I am an agnostic, and like him, I believe that Christianity and Judaism are immeasurably more moral and decent than islam. The artistic and literary, and architectural achievements of the West, can in great measure be laid at the door of Christian and Judaic values.

          As Wellington also points out, philosophies on the value and worth of the *individual*, are also based in Christianity and Judaism. What does islam have to compare ? Nothing.

          As Wellington has pointed out, several times, Christians (don’t know about Judaism), may well believe I shall go to Hell when I die, but they **are not trying to kill me in this life**, nor are they trying to force me to conform to sharia, stealthily or overtly. Neither are religious Jews.

          Christians don’t demand that I say Grace over my food, and Jews are not demanding that I stop serving pork in my restaurants.

          Christians are not rioting and murdering because of the ‘Piss-Christ’. Jews are not rioting and murdering because ‘Palestinian artists’ have portrayed them as bloody murderers, and portrayed their *own* murderers as ‘heroes’.

          Christians and Jews are not rioting and murdering because Saudi Arabia burns hundreds of Bibles every year.

          I’ve yet to see you write long screeds pointing out the evils of *islam*, why is that ? (if you have, in fact, done so, perhaps you could post a link to those comments).

          ” The end times are fervently desired in many quarters to the point of there being political forces actively seeking to bring this about.”

          The only political forces that *I* know of, that are actively seeking to bring about the ‘end times’, are Islamic. Force the world to submit to islam, and then ‘allah’ and ‘isa’ will break all the crosses, and kill all the Jews and Christians.

          Are there Christians and Jews actively seeking to bring about Armageddon, through forcing the rest of us to accept Christianity or Judaism ? If there are, I have clearly missed this important information, and would appreciate it if you would post a link.

          By the way, if you are so determined to trash Christianity and Judaism, (not, apparently, islam) why not find a site where you can do this to your heart’s content, rather than here ? This is **Jihad Watch**, not Christian Armageddon Watch, or Judaic Watch.

        • 45charlie says

          Jun 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm

          I’m am Atheist & always will be. I respect all religions except Islam. I do not posh Atheism on anyone.

        • Champ says

          Jun 5, 2014 at 5:08 pm

          Mirren10 wrote:

          By the way, if you are so determined to trash Christianity and Judaism, (not, apparently, islam) why not find a site where you can do this to your heart’s content, rather than here ? This is **Jihad Watch**, not Christian Armageddon Watch, or Judaic Watch.

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Precisely, Mirren10! …the real enemy is islam.

  26. RodSerling says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 7:44 pm

    Great news.

  27. Kepha says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 8:41 pm

    This is good news. Perhaps the British judiciary is not so brain-dead and lost as we all had feared.

  28. Fitz says

    Jun 4, 2014 at 9:22 pm

    Yes John C., makes for grim reading; even more grim, the desire to see it fulfilled.

    • John C. Barile says

      Jun 4, 2014 at 9:34 pm

      ROGER THAT

  29. pdxnag says

    Jun 5, 2014 at 2:49 am

    Don’t all infidels in the U.K. invite their own violent subjugation and humiliation merely by being non-Muslim? Muslims will still call this incitement, of violent rage by Muslims. Just as they will a refusal to accept an invitation to become Muslim.

  30. duh_swami says

    Jun 5, 2014 at 4:58 am

    The LORD is one heavy dude…he come de LORD…

    Religion…In the words of the late great Reverend Hensley…’Everyone knows more about it (religion) than you do. Just give them an opportunity and they will tell you all about it’…

  31. Linda Rivera says

    Jun 5, 2014 at 8:33 am

    Wonderful news! Thank God for an ethical patriotic judge, Lord Justice Moses, who has not sold out to Islam!

  32. mortimer says

    Jun 5, 2014 at 9:50 am

    The people of UK should demand the repeal of the Public Order Act which actually gives the government of the day a right to ban any speech they don’t like or find inconvenient to pushing forward their policies without opposition.

    The POA is a great danger to the freedom of expression. UK needs an act or charter that will do for UK what the First Amendment did for free speech in America.

  33. The Aton says

    Jun 5, 2014 at 9:59 am

    .
    It is perverse in the extreme that anyone should be held accountable, for the violent and illegal reaction of others to their presence. such a ruling chips away at the very foundations of freedom of speech, and the accountability of the individual.

    Aton

  34. Yankie007 says

    Jun 5, 2014 at 12:25 pm

    Not All Muslims Are Terrorists But All Terrorists Are Muslims:

    The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
    The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
    The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
    The Underwear Bomber was a Muslim
    The U.S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
    The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
    The Bali Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
    The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
    The Moscow Theater Attackers were Muslims
    The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
    The Pan-am Flight #93 Hijackers were Muslims
    The Iranian Embassy Takeover was by Muslims
    The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack were Muslims
    The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
    The Beirut U.S. Embassy Bombers were Muslims
    The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
    The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
    The Kenyan U.S. Embassy Bombers were Muslims
    The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
    The Beirut Marine Barracks Bombers were Muslims
    The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
    The First World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
    The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
    The Bombay and Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
    The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims
    The Airport Bombers In Southern Thailand were Muslims
    The American Airlines Flight #77 Hijackers were Muslims
    The Nyanya Motor Park Bombers in Nigeria were Muslims
    The Westgate Kenya Shopping Mall Attackers were Muslims
    The Volgograd Train Station & Bus Suicide Bombers were Muslims
    The Failed Car Bomb Plotter In NY Times Square in 2010 was a Muslim
    The Failed Plot To Derail A Via Rail Passenger Train In Toronto, Canada were Muslims
    The Failed Toronto [Canada] 18 Bomb Plotter In 2006 was a Muslim
    The Beheading of The British Soldier In The Street Of Woolwich was a Muslim
    The Bus #405 Suicide Attack was a Muslim
    The Mehola Junction Bombing were Muslims
    The Beit El Car Bombing was a Muslim
    The Afula Bus Suicide Bombing was a Muslim
    The Hadera Bus Station Suicide Bombing was a Muslim
    The Dizengoff Street Bus Bombing was a Muslim
    The Netzarim Junction Bicycle Bombing was a Muslim
    The Jerusalem Binyanei Hauma Suicide Bombing was a Muslim
    The Beit Lid Massacre were Muslims
    The Kfar Darom Bus [Suicide] Attack was a Muslim
    The Ramat Gan Bus #20 [Suicide] Bombing was a Muslim
    The Ramat Eshkol Bus [Suicide] Bombing was a female Muslim
    The Ashkelon Bus Station Bombing was a Muslim
    The First Jerusalem Bus #18 Suicide Bombing was a Muslim
    The Second Jerusalem Bus #18 Suicide Bombing was a Muslim
    The Dizengoff Center Suicide Bombing in Tel Aviv was a Muslim
    The Café Apropo Bombing in Tel Aviv was a Muslim
    The 1st Mahane Yehuda Market Attack in Jerusalem was a Muslim
    The Ben Yehuda Street Bombing in Jerusalem were Muslims
    The 1st Kfar Darom Bombing was a Muslim
    The Jerusalem Double Suicide Bombers in 1998 were Muslims
    The Egged Bus #960 Bombing was a Muslim
    The Haifa Central Bus Station Bombing was a Muslim
    The Gaza Bombing in 2000 was a Muslim
    The 2nd Mahane Yehuda Market Attack was a Muslim
    The 2nd Kfar Darom Bombing in Gaza Strip was a Muslim
    The Hadera Main Street Bombing was a Muslim
    The Mehola Bombing in Northern Jordan Valley was a Muslim
    The Netanya Centre [Car] Bombing were Muslims
    The Tayibe Bridge Bombing was a Muslim
    The Beit Yisrael Bombing was a Muslim
    The Mei Ami Junction Bombing was a Muslim
    The Netanya [Suicide] Bombing was a Muslim
    The Talpiot Industrial Zone Bombing were Muslims
    The Egged Bus #6 [Suicide] Bombing was a Muslim
    The Mifgash Shalom Attack was a Muslim
    The Kfar Saba [Suicide] Bombing was a Muslim
    The Or Yehuda Bombing were Muslims
    The Nablus School Bus Bombing was a Muslim
    The HaSharon Mall Suicide Bombing in Netanya, Israel was a Muslim
    The Hadera Mall Bombing was a Muslim
    The Hadera Bus Station Suicide Bombing was a Muslim
    The Jerusalem Center Bombing were Muslims
    The Jaffa Road Bombing was a Muslim
    The Netanya School Bombing were Muslims
    The Dolphinarium Discotheque Suicide Bombing was a Muslim
    The Dugit Bombing were Muslims
    The Yehud Suburb Bombing in Tel Aviv were Muslims
    The Kissufim [Suicide] Bombing was a Muslim
    The Binyamina Train Station Suicide Bombing was a Muslim
    The Moshav Beka’ot Bombing was a Muslim
    The Sbarro Restaurant Suicide Bombing was a Muslim
    The Wall-Street Restaurant [Suicide] Bombing was a Muslim
    The Russian Compound Bombing was a Muslim
    The Jerusalem Car Bombings were Muslims
    The Hanevi’im Street [Suicide] Bombing was a Muslim
    The Nahariya Train Station Suicide Bombing was a Muslim
    The Beit Lid Junction Bombing were Muslims
    The Talpiot Neighborhood Bombing were Muslims
    The 1st Erez Crossing Attack was a Muslim
    The Kibbutz Shluhot [Suicide] Bombing was a Muslim
    The 2nd Erez Crossing [Suicide] Attack was a Muslim
    The 1st Egged Bus #823 [Suicide] Bombing was a Muslim
    The Ben Yehuda Street [Two Suicide] Bombings were Muslims
    The Haifa Bus #16 Suicide Bombing was a Muslim
    The Hilton Mamilla Bombing was a Muslim
    The Check Post Junction Bombing was a Muslim
    The Neve Dekalim [Two Suicide] Bombings near Gaza Strip were Muslims
    The Tel Aviv Outdoor Mall [Double Suicide] Bombings were Muslims
    The Jaffa Street [Female Suicide] Bombing was a Muslim
    The Tayibe [Bus] Bombing in Tel Aviv were Muslims
    The Karnei Shomron Mall Suicide Bombing was a Muslim
    The Maale Adumim – Jerusalem Road [Suicide] Bombing was a Muslim
    The Efrat Supermarket [Suicide] Bombing Attack was a Muslim
    The Maccabim (Checkpoint) [Female Suicide] Bombing was a Muslim
    The Yeshivat Beit Yisrael Massacre in 2002 was a Muslim
    The 2nd Egged Bus #823 Bombing was a Muslim
    The Ariel Hotel Lobby [Suicide] Bombing in Samaria was a Muslim
    The Café Moment [Suicide] Bombing in Jerusalem was a Muslim
    The Egged Bus #22 [Suicide] Bombing was a Muslim
    The 3rd Egged Bus #823 [Umm al-Fahm] Bombing was a Muslim
    The King George Street [Suicide] Bombing in Jerusalem was a Muslim
    The Passover [Seder] Massacre at the Park Hotel in Netanya, was a Muslim
    The Kiryat HaYovel Supermarket Bombing was a Muslim
    The Allenby Street Coffee Shop Cafe Bombing in Tel Aviv was a Muslim
    The Baqa al-Gharbiyah Bombing was a Muslim
    The Matza Restaurant Suicide Bombing was a Muslim
    The Efrat [Emergency] Medical Center was a Muslim
    The Jerusalem Roadblock Bombing was a Muslim
    The Yagur Junction [Suicide] Bombing was a Muslim
    The 3rd Mahane Yehuda Market Attack was a Muslim
    The Rishon LeZion Bombing was a Muslim
    The Netanya Market [Suicide] Bombing in 2002 was a Muslim
    The Afula Road Bombing was a Muslim
    The Rothschild Street Bombing was a Muslim
    The Pi Glilot [LPG Depot] Bombing in Tel Aviv was a Muslim
    The Studio 49 Disco Bombing was a Muslim
    The Petah Tikva [Suicide] Mall Bombing was a Muslim
    The Megiddo Junction [Suicide] Bus Bombing in Israel was a Muslim
    The Herzliya Shawarma Restaurant [Suicide] Bombing was a Muslim
    The Patt Junction Bus [Suicide] Bombing was a Muslim
    The French Hill Junction [Suicide] Massacre was a Muslim
    The Immanuel Bus No.189 Attack were Muslims
    The Neve Shaanan Street Bombing was a Muslim
    The Nevi’im Street Bombing was a Muslim
    The Hebrew University Massacre was a Muslim
    The Meron Junction Bus #361 Attack was a Muslim
    The 1st Umm al-Fahm [Suicide] Bombing was a Muslim
    The 2nd Umm al-Fahm [Suicide] Bombing was a Muslim
    The Allenby Street Bus Bombing was a Muslim
    The Geha Road Bombing was a Muslim
    The Karkur Junction Suicide Bombings were Muslims
    The Sonol Gas Station Bombing was a Muslim
    The Kfar Saba Shopping Mall [Suicide] Bombing was a Muslim
    The Kiryat Menachem Bus [Suicide] Bombing was a Muslim
    The Tel-Aviv Central Bus Station Massacre were Muslims
    The Haifa Bus #37 Suicide Bombing was a Muslim
    The London Cafe Bombing in Netanya was a Muslim
    The Kfar Saba [Nordeau] Train Station [Suicide] Bombing was a Muslim
    The Mike’s Place Suicide Bombing in Tel Aviv was a Muslim
    The Gross Square [Suicide] Attack was a Muslim
    The Jerusalem Bus #6 [Suicide] Bombing was a Muslim
    The 3rd Kfar Darom [Suicide] Bombing was a Muslim
    The Afula Mall Bombing was a Muslim
    The Netzarim Bus Bombing was a Muslim
    The Davidka Square Bus Bombing was a Muslim
    The Sdei Trumot Bombing was a Muslim
    The Kfar Yavetz Bombing was a Muslim
    The Ariel Bus Station Bombing was a Muslim
    The Rosh HaAyin Bombing was a Muslim
    The Shmuel HaNavi Bus Bombing was a Muslim
    The Tzrifin Bus Stop Attack was a Muslim
    The Café Hillel Bombing was a Muslim
    The Maxim Restaurant Suicide Bombing was a Muslim
    The Tulkarem [Suicide] Bombing was a Muslim
    The Beit Hanoun Junction Bombing was a Muslim
    The Azzoun Bombing was a Muslim
    The Geha Interchange Bus Stop Bombing was a Muslim
    The 3rd Erez Crossing Attack was a Muslim
    The Gaza Street Bus Bombing was a Muslim
    The Liberty Bell Park Bus Bombing was a Muslim
    The 4th Erez Crossing Attack were Muslims
    The Ashdod Port [Double Suicide Bombings] Massacre were Muslims
    The 5th Erez Crossing Attack was a Muslim
    The Deir al-Balah Suicide Attack was a Muslim
    The Beka’ot Checkpoint Bombing was a Muslim
    The Tel Aviv Bus Stop Bombing was a Muslim
    The Kalandia Checkpoint Attack was a Muslim
    The Beersheba Bus Line 6 and 12 [Double Suicide] Bombings were Muslims
    The Baka al-Sharkiyeh Checkpoint Attack was a Muslim
    The Kalandia Gate Suicide Bombing was a Muslim
    The French Hill Junction Bombing was a Muslim
    The Sinai Peninsula Bombings [in Egypt] were Muslims
    The Carmel Market Bombing in Tel Aviv was a Muslim
    The Karni [Border] Crossing Attack were Muslims
    The Morag Attack was a Muslim
    The Karni Border Crossing Attack was a Muslim
    The Gush Katif Checkpoint Attack was a Muslim
    The Stage Club [Suicide] Bombing in Tel Aviv was a Muslim
    The 1st HaSharon Mall Suicide Bombing was a Muslim
    The Beersheba Central Bus Station Bombing was a Muslim
    The Hadera Market Bombing was a Muslim
    The 2nd HaSharon Mall Suicide Bombing was a Muslim
    The Tulkarem Roadblock Bombing were Muslims
    The 1st Rosh Ha’ir [Shawarma] Restaurant Bombing in Tel Aviv was a Muslim
    The Kedumim Bombing [in the West Bank] was a Muslim
    The 2nd Rosh Ha’ir [Shawarma] Restaurant Bombing in Tel Aviv was a Muslim
    The Eilat Bakery [Suicide] Bombing in Israel was a Muslim
    The Dimona [Suicide] Bombings were Muslims
    The Kerem Shalom [3 Palestinian] Suicide Bombings were Muslims

    “ISLAMIC JIHADIST TERRORIST HAS CARRIED OUT MORE 22, 829 TERROR ATTACKS IN THE NAME OF ALLAH SINCE 2001”.

    “In Israel Alone, A Total Of 140 “Suicide Bombing Attacks” Occurred Between 2000 and 2007 Which Killed 542 Individuals.”

    • dumbledoresarmy says

      Jun 5, 2014 at 9:34 pm

      Not “all”.

      But “most” or “nearly all”.

  35. J Hardy says

    Jun 5, 2014 at 12:34 pm

    This judge gave me 2 years probation for perverting the course of justice in 2001. He is a good judge.

  36. logdon says

    Jun 5, 2014 at 1:31 pm

    There’s a huge sea change going on here in Britain.

    The old order is discredited by facts and slowly those facts are seeping into general consciousness.

    Watch this as a masterclass as Farage demolishes the lies which are universal amongst our three main parties.

    Nick Clegg vs Nigel Farage, Europe debate 2 (02Apr14)

  37. Ian Marshall says

    Jun 5, 2014 at 2:27 pm

    Hey, J Hardy – what did ya do – I mean to get hauled up?

  38. Rowlin says

    Jun 5, 2014 at 4:37 pm

    Re: Fitz and Semeru. Arfan Khan is not a Mohamaden and that even if he were a Muslim, a Muslim is not a Mohamaden and being described as Muslim does not show he practices as a Muslim the 5 pillars etc and if he did he would not be a member of the United Kingdom Association of Jewish Lawyers. Wilders himself described him as “brilliant” “I would like to thank my brilliant barrister Mr Arfan Khan for his great workhttp://gatesofvienna.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/tribunal-has-ruled-geert-wilders-may.html

    • Semeru says

      Jun 6, 2014 at 12:35 am

      Why is it so difficult to accept the fact that Arfan Khan is a moslem

      BTW neither Fritz or myself referred to Khan being a mohamedan, in fact it was a commentator by the name of William.

      I am fully aware of the difference between mohamedan and muslim, and the modern context of mohamedan also I prefer to use the word molsem rather than the PC muslim.

      Being a moslem does not stop Khan from being a member of the United Kingdom Association of Jewish Lawyers, as the Association is not exclusively for jews.

      Membership of the Society is open to all persons whose application for membership is approved by the Executive and who are present or former:

      4.7 Persons having an interest in law or in matters related thereto.

      http://www.jewishlawyers.co.uk/constitution.htm

      • Fitz says

        Jun 6, 2014 at 2:30 am

        Thank you Semeru, I didn’t think I was involved in this dispute aswell!

  39. Foolster says

    Jun 5, 2014 at 4:51 pm

    Fritz says “Plus I’m not sure you know what’s ‘faghag’ means.”
    I’m not sure why he thinks this. It’s quite clearly a homophobic slur.

    Also, attacking Wellington’s being a lawyer and making ludicrous tu Quo que arguments. He can name people who claimed to be Christians who did evil, therefore he has a reason to hate Christianity? Of course this misses the obvious connection of what Christianity teaches and the question of did they actually go against the teachings of Christianity.

    He also tries to tie Anders Breivik to Christianity, which is no less ludicrous than tying him to Robert Spencer and Pam Geller.

    • Fitz says

      Jun 5, 2014 at 5:07 pm

      Very presumptuous to assume that I’m not myself gay. The term is lost in translation; look it up on wiki if you’re interested. Finally, and just as we do with Muslims, if a person self-identifies as Christian then that is what we should accept. Anyways, this is a personal matter between myself and the Duke, who specifically elicited my views on Christianity and Judaism.

      • Foolster says

        Jun 5, 2014 at 5:49 pm

        Why is this presumptuous? I did in fact look up the word. I almost linked to the wikipedia article, so it seems Fritz is the one being presumptuous!

        And wikipedia thinks it’s a slur:
        http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:English_sexual_slurs#F

        Whether or not Fritz is gay doesn’t it not make it a slur and obviously intended as an insult.

        “if a person self-identifies as Christian then that is what we should accept. ”
        Fritz is of course talking about identification to paste blame of murders.
        This illogic is staggering. Anyone can CLAIM to be a part of any group. So if a person self-idetifies as democrat and murders people, that’s what we should accept and place the same sort of blame on all democrats the way fritz is doing? Of course not. Fritz is once again being incredibly illopgical and to boot dishonest about his illogic!

        Of course he can’t find Christian teachings that promote violence against non-Christians, so he has to resort to this sort of guilt by claimed assotiation.

        As Champ noted, you started slandering Christians on a public forum on which it is off-topic. I’ll respond as I damn please.

  40. Champ says

    Jun 5, 2014 at 5:20 pm

    Anyways, this is a personal matter between myself and the Duke …

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Oh please. This is a public forum.

    • Fitz says

      Jun 5, 2014 at 5:25 pm

      To which you have sought my exclusion.

      • Mirren10 says

        Jun 5, 2014 at 5:57 pm

        ”To which you have sought my exclusion.”

        Because, instead of responding to Wellington’s comment with anything substantive, you resorted to puerile and childish name-calling.

        If you want to be taken seriously here, you need to come up with something better than ” You’re like some kind of Christian faghag”.

        But that’s the problem, Fitz, isn’t it ? Like so many leftards who make hated of Christianity into a **religion** ( funny you don’t spill some of your bile on islam) you actually **can’t** come up with anything better, so you react with spiteful spleen, instead.

        What Wellington said was this:

        ”What I do mind are those who make a religion out of not having one and who truly hate religion, especially those who come here to JW, which is devoted to opposing the one religion which wants to dominate us all in this world, and spew their venom towards all religion, thus doing no good for the broad coaltion of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, Sikhs, etc. which is opposed to Islam’s many profoundly disturbing doctrines that are sometimes simply downright lethal. Such people elicit my complete contempt.”

        But instead of replying, and presenting a counter-argument, you spit your dummy out, throw your toys out of the pram, and then try to present yourself as a victim.

        Go away. You’re embarrassing yourself.

        • Wellington says

          Jun 5, 2014 at 6:54 pm

          Thanks to you, MIrren10, to Champ, Foolster and others who have replied (“tried to reply” would be more apt) to Fitz. Well, Fitz has issues, no doubt about it. Many issues.

          The bottom line for me, though, as far as JW is concerrned, is that it is simply stupid to come here and rail against religion in general when the coalition against Islam’s designs on the West and all the world is made up of many non-Muslim religious people. It’s just dumb, exceedingly so, and does indeed invite my complete contempt.

          Hope you and yours are doing well, Mirren10. BTW, I enjoy reading your comments here at JW. Take care.

  41. SM ISAC says

    Jun 5, 2014 at 6:05 pm

    Very important victory. Thank you Robert and Pamela for fighting this. You have paved the way for others.

  42. Foolster says

    Jun 6, 2014 at 2:23 am

    Rod Serling said:
    “Even the questionable hearsay source Table Talk, which portrays Hitler as quite hostile to “Christianity” (i.e., a Christianity with Jewish origins), indicates that he believed in God and had his own “Aryan” version of Christianity. (There is evidence of this outside of Table Talk also, Even if Christians insist he wasn’t a true Christian–and I think that case has merit*”

    So either he was a Christian or he was not. If someone holds a version of a belief that is vastly different with additions (anti-semetism, Aryan mythology) then is it the same belief? I agree to your point that it’s perhaps false to say Hitler was an atheist, he likely beleived in a false God that was a combination of a corruption of Christianity with Aryan mythology and occultism mixed in. I’m not sure you’re saying this, but to say he was a Christian would be equally irresponsible.

    …
    “(iv) Pol Pot -Buddhist and Catholic schooling.”

    Yes, but because he had that schooling doesn’t mean he couldn’t later in life turn from the religions and hate them. You are making presumptions, which you accuse Wellington of doing. One needs more evidence either way to prove or disprove he was an atheist.

    …

    “It all depends on how we respond. There are plenty of attacks on atheists here as well, which one could argue does no favors for coalition-building either.”

    Alright, but two wrongs don’t make a right. I’m sure Wellington calls out those who attack atheists, as I would, but I haven’t quite seen it recently, mostly I’ve seen lots of attacks on Christians. Don’t you agree that Fitz (as well as people like “Georgio”,”concerned” and “Daniel Beliek” has gone overboard in their attacks on Christians in the past few days? If not, why not? I can give examples if you need them.

    • RodSerling says

      Jun 7, 2014 at 12:09 am

      Hi Foolster,

      Re: Hitler: “…to say he was a Christian would be equally irresponsible.”

      It would be irresponsible, yes. He was no more a Christian than Muhammad was a Christian, in my view. As to the claim that he was an atheist, though, I’m not aware of any evidence that he was an atheist or non-religious, and there is plenty of evidence from both public and private sources that he was religious and believed in God of some sort, and opposed atheism.

      Re Pol Pot, as I indicated, I don’t know enough about him to peg his views on religion (other than coarsely), but do believe the issue is more complex than many people suggest. I don’t presume anything about Pol Pot. He was probably an atheist, though I doubt that he gave the issue much thought or arrived at the view through study or analysis. He was apparently opposed to anything and everyone that didn’t conform to his vision of a Marxist workers’ paradise.

      Re Fitz, I objected to Fitz already, though I haven’t seen the others. I have no problem with criticisms or defense of Christianity or any other religion here if it is relevant to Islam (sharia and jihad), or any indirectly related intelligent discussion that arises, but yes some do go overboard with this “all religions” business, tu quoque against Christianity, etc.

      • Foolster says

        Jun 7, 2014 at 3:50 am

        Thanks for the reply and clarifications, RodSerling. I agree with what you said.

  43. Mirren10 says

    Jun 6, 2014 at 6:58 am

    @ Rod Serling; (no reply button under your comments, for some reason !)

    Thanks for two interesting and informative replies to Wellington’s comments.

    I don’t go as far as Wellington, with reference to criminals tending to be atheist, rather than religious. I personally think that evil/selfish/wicked people will commit crimes regardless of whether they were brought up in a religious environment, or not. ( that is, any religion other than islam).

    The article you link to from the atheist site is very interesting; however, I would add one other caveat to the ones the author listed, ie: given the fact these people are criminals, in prison for crimes against their fellow men, are they necessarily going to be telling the truth about their religious affiliations ?

    To sum up my own views; People who profess themselves to be Christian, and then perpetrate evil acts towards others, ** are breaking the tenets and commandments of Christianity**. People who profess themselves to be mohammedan, and perpetrate evil acts towards others, are **following the tenets and commandments of islam**. Really, the distinction couldn’t be clearer !

    There are **no** Christian teachings, in the New Testament, or anywhere else, that mandate the subjection, oppression, and murder of those who refuse to accept Christianity. Neither does any other major faith teach this, **except islam**.

    There are **many** Islamic teachings, specifically in the koran, but also the hadiths, and the various schools of islamic jurisprudence, that **do mandate the subjection, oppression, and murder of those who refuse to accept islam**. And we can see the results of those mandates being carried out against non-mohammedans **every day**, here at JW, and when particularly overt and egregious, even in the msm.

    Again, and this is a crucial point, there are **no Christians** today, who want to murder me, or harm me in any way, because I don’t accept Christianity. The same goes for *Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs* et al.

    The **only religion** in the world that seeks to murder, oppress and subjugate, and force people to submit to it , ( and has done ever since the paedophile murderer mohammed invented it in order to sacralise his evil desires) is **islam**. Again, we can see the results of this today, **all over the world**.

    As far as out and out atheists go ( a position I personally think is illogical), Wellington’s complaint, which I totally agree with, is that people like Fitz, and Geordie, and mick, and various others we’ve had over the years, don’t seem to concentrate on the obvious iniquities of islam and many mohammedans; indeed their condemnation of what mohammedans do seems to be pretty sparse.

    Their modus operandi is to start with a perfunctory statement something along the lines of ”yes, I totally agree islam is bad, and so is what mohammedans do, but Christians/Jews/Hindus etc etc, are just as bad ! All religion is bad ! (cue frothing at the mouth, and drumming their heels on the ground).

    This is not only silly, and not borne out by the facts, as I point out above, and as Wellington, and others have pointed out, but actually has a deleterious effect on the counter-jihad, by unneccessarily creating dissension, anger and irritation, where it should not be. Fitz and others like him, seem to think that islam and mohammedans will leave atheists/agnostics alone; no, they won’t. islam is just as inimical to atheists and agnostics as it is to other faiths, and just as deadly. See Iran ! Leftists, atheists helped Khomeini to overthrow the Shah; their reward was imprisonment and death.

    You say:

    “It all depends on how we respond. There are plenty of attacks on atheists here as well, which one could argue does no favors for coalition-building either.”

    Well, I must say I haven’t seen any attacks on atheists, which haven’t come about because the atheists have first attacked and ridiculed not only Christianity, but personally attacked Christian commenters.

    However, I certainly agree, if it is relevant, atheists have a perfect right to explain their atheism, just as religious people, (except mohammedans, because there is no defence there) have a right to declare and defend their religious beliefs, when attacked.

    To sum up: islam is the only religion that wants to see me, and everyone else, either dead, subjugated, or submissive to it. **No other religion wants this**.

    Therefore, it is **islam that is our deadly enemy**, not the religious beliefs, or lack of them, of others.

    By the way, Rod, I seem to remember I was rather rude to you, some time ago, over a post made by Istanbul Chick (?) on which we disagreed. I apologise, not for my disagreement, but for my rudeness !

    • Wellington says

      Jun 6, 2014 at 12:32 pm

      I agree with all that you wrote to Rod Serling, Mirren10, with the lone exception of characterizing, as RodSerling did, the dichotomy I set up as one between religious v. atheist. As I just wrote to RS himself, the comparison I have made is between those who are committed, devout religious people (except Muslims of course) v. those who are devoid of such committment and devotion (this could many times include merely nominally religious people). Of course, as I also explained to RS, one can be schooled in humanistic ethics and imbibe them well and thus behave quite properly too, but this, I think, is not a good prescription for society as a whole. A well functioning society needs a religious base that is enlightened——–and followed.

      I’m dubious about an entire society relying upon an admittedly sound ethical system that is not religiously centered. As I already quoted to RS, Voltaire (himself a skeptic of course) saw this quite well when he said, “If God doesn’t exist, we’ll have to invent Him.” Dostoyevsky’s reputed line (sometimes it’s ascribed to Turgenev) is also replete with wisdom I believe. Perhaps you’ve already come across it. It goes: “Without God anything is possible.”

      Hope you and yours are doing well. Take care.

      • Mirren10 says

        Jun 6, 2014 at 5:37 pm

        Hi, Wellington.

        You said:

        ”I’m dubious about an entire society relying upon an admittedly sound ethical system that is not religiously centered. As I already quoted to RS, Voltaire (himself a skeptic of course) saw this quite well when he said, “If God doesn’t exist, we’ll have to invent Him.” Dostoyevsky’s reputed line (sometimes it’s ascribed to Turgenev) is also replete with wisdom I believe. Perhaps you’ve already come across it. It goes: “Without God anything is possible.”

        On reflection, I agree with you. Dostoyevsky/Turgenev’s comment is indeed thought provoking, and I think SAKOVT made somewhat the same point, when he said; ”If there is no God, then there are no rules, and Hitler’s only “sin” was that he lost the war.” So yes, I think the concept of a higher being, and the ethics that pertain specifically to that concept, are very important. Even though I can’t quite believe in such a higher being. So, where does that concept and ethics come from ? Ah well, another topic of discussion, at another time and place, perhaps !

        Thank you for your kind words, Wellington, and I echo them. I always look for your comments. Even when (sometimes) I might slightly disagree, you always make me think !

        May I echo gravenimage, and Champ, in the wonderful news that your wife is now free from cancer. That must have been such a terrible worry.

        By the way, and totally off topic, on *this* thread; I’ve been watching the D-Day Remembrance services on telly for most of the day. Very moving, except when I saw Obama.

        The sight of that meretricious, arrogant, smug face, and his equally meretricious words, in the light of his actions over Bowe Berghdahl, which I’ve been following at JW, made me want to puke. Mind you, camoron made me want to puke as well.

        Take care, mate.

        • Wellington says

          Jun 6, 2014 at 7:08 pm

          Thank you for your kind words about my wife, Mirren10. Greatly appreciated. I am so elated right now by this recent news, all the more so since my wife is possessed of a great talent (which will continue), a very specific and great talent, that someday I would very much like to communicate to you, Champ, gravenimage and a few others like dda whom I have such a high regard for.

          Agree with your assessment of D-Day celebrations and of how unworthy the current occupant of the Oval Office is to recognize them. Obama is worse than a fool. He is a powerful fool. No way this is a good thing.

          Take care, my friend. Best to you and yours.

        • Champ says

          Jun 6, 2014 at 7:19 pm

          I am so elated right now by this recent news, all the more so since my wife is possessed of a great talent (which will continue), a very specific and great talent, that someday I would very much like to communicate to you, Champ, gravenimage and a few others like dda whom I have such a high regard for.

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Wellington, we look forward with much anticipation to your sharing this wonderful news with us–when the time is right, of course. Thank you for the heads up!

    • RodSerling says

      Jun 7, 2014 at 1:38 am

      Hi Mirren,

      “By the way, Rod, I seem to remember I was rather rude to you, some time ago, over a post made by Istanbul Chick (?) on which we disagreed. I apologise, not for my disagreement, but for my rudeness !”

      No problem, Mirren. I apologize to you as well for being less than friendly in reply.

      “The article you link to from the atheist site is very interesting; however, I would add one other caveat to the ones the author listed, ie: given the fact these people are criminals, in prison for crimes against their fellow men, are they necessarily going to be telling the truth about their religious affiliations ?”

      Perhaps, but how would this lead to proportionately less atheists?

      There’s a lot of research on religiosity (or lack of it) and other variables such as crime. The two pieces I cited were just a couple of examples to challenge Wellington’s assertions. I’m hoping he’ll respond by citing empirical research (because he’s making empirical claims).

      “There are **no** Christian teachings, in the New Testament, or anywhere else, that mandate the subjection, oppression, and murder of those who refuse to accept Christianity. Neither does any other major faith teach this, **except islam**.”

      Agreed. There are no direct commands of that sort in the NT. However, it is a matter of interpretation as to whether the OT rules still apply. As far as I can tell, the NT is inconsistent on that issue. Fortunately, most Christians in the modern West don’t think the OT laws still apply (except the good ones against stealing, murder, etc.). For hundreds of years, Christian authorities applied OT-style laws regarding crimes like adultery, blasphemy, heresy, sodomy, witchcraft, etc. In some areas of the world, OT-style or -inspired laws still apply.

      Anyway, you will get no opposition from me that the biggest threat by far is Islam, and I agree with many of the points you mention. That’s why I’ve been criticizing it and opposing it for so many years.

      “As far as out and out atheists go ( a position I personally think is illogical),”

      What’s illogical about it?

      “…I must say I haven’t seen any attacks on atheists, which haven’t come about because the atheists have first attacked and ridiculed not only Christianity, but personally attacked Christian commenters.”

      I’ve seen plenty of instigation from both, over the years. There are some commenters who hit upon certain topics–e.g., abortion, secularism, atheism, homosexuality–over and over again no matter the topic of the thread.

  44. Wellington says

    Jun 6, 2014 at 11:55 am

    RodSerling: I will answer your objections briefly. First of all, the quote from Franklin, which comes from a letter he wrote to Thomas Paine, criticizing Paine’s The Age of Reason, is exactly this: “If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it?” You can find this quote in biographies of Franklin, like that of Carl van Doren, or even at a site like Wikipedia. It has been a frequently quoted line of Franklin’s.

    Second, there are many “aggressive” atheists out there. For instance Bill Maher and several who have posted here at JW over the years who have manifested a contempt for all religion. I personally have met many over the years and have had disputes with them.

    Third, committed Christians doing foolish, uninformed or stupid things does not negate the wisdom of Franklin’s statement. He (or I) never said that a religious person is less likely to act foolihsly, etc. You’ve misinterpreted what what Franklin meant.

    Fourth, I very much exclude Islam from Franklin’s overall assessment. Hey, the exception proves the rule and all that. Many times here at JW I have said that having no religion for a society is better than having Islam.

    Fifth, even assuming crime rates have declined, this doesn’t negate what I contended and that is that those committing the most heinous kind of crimes are invariably not committed, devout Christians Jews, et al. (again Muslims being excepted). For instance, look at this new “knockout” game whereby several youths attack an unsuspecting person and try to render them unconscious (and actually film themselves doing so). Do you really believe that a devout Christian would be just as likely to do that as someone devoid of religious faith? C’mon.

    Sixth, I never compared religious people v. atheists. What I did compare were committed religious people v. those devoid of devout religious sentiments. The latter are by no means necessarily atheists, just people who have given little thought to life’s more important elements and this is more likely, far more likely I would argue, to be the case with those who are not provided the moral guidlines that enlightened religions instill. I have never denied as well that a humanistic ethics can be just as efficacious as an ethical system found in a sound religion, only that I believe that most folks are constituted in such a way as to not derive as much benefit from the humanistic ethical approach. In short, while a particular individual in society may not have to be guided by religion to be a good person, the society as a whole needs religion. Not a single Founding Father of America, just about the wisest group of men who ever lived and among whom could be found several skeptics (e.g., Franklin, Jefferson and Adams), thought religion unimportant for society as a whole. Not one (unless you consider Thomas Paine a Founding Father).

    Seventh, no way Hitler could be described as a Christian. He had contempt for Christianity. He did in his own warped way sometimes think there was a higher power but it was a perversion (as Allah is) of “the real thing,” assuming, of course, that “the real thing” exists, and being the agnostic that I am I have significant doubts that there is any higher power, though I don’t deny the possibility. Ditto for Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, all of whom could by no stretch of the imagination be descrbied as religious people, even though in their early life they may have had religous instructon (e.g., Stalin). These guys had a hatred for traditional Christianity and for religion in general, though interestingly Hilter did express some admiration for Islam (figures).

    Eighth, please keep in mind what I have already mentioned and that is that there is a difference between being simply non-religious and being anti-religious. The former, of which I count myself one, can still appreciate the religious experience and the best that religion has produced (particularly artistically). Those, however, who despise religion manifest an almost complete inability to properly appreciate the “products” of religion. BTW, for the record, most atheists and agnostics I’ve met are “merely” non-religious, though I have come across my share of the anti-religious element enough, especially during my teaching years with both faculty and students alike.

    Well, I think this is enough for now. Thanks for the conversation so far.

    • RodSerling says

      Jun 7, 2014 at 2:57 am

      Thanks Wellington,

      I will try to trim things down at this stage by abbreviating reference to your points:

      Re Franklin quote, thanks, I did look it up afterwards, because I didn’t find it initially by entering the words from your quote verbatim. Wasn’t doubting the gist at all, just wanted to see the context.

      “Secondly…”

      Okay, many aggressive atheists, but my point was that they’re nowhere near being bad or dangerous enough to to qualify as being like devout Muslims.

      “Third”

      Again, Franklin’s hypothesis is falsified by the existence of people without religion who are harmless and contribute positively, and people with a religion who follow those of its instructions to do bad things. He needs a more complex hypothesis, or perhaps the null hypothesis–in this case that there is no significant difference between religious vs non-religious people overall. (That’s my hypothesis, btw, until evidence sways me one way or the other).

      “Fourth”

      No basis for excluding Islam, which is a religion and one with a God who purports to give laws, values, etc.

      Can I exclude Marxism and its offshoots? (Just kidding. I wouldn’t).

      “Fifth,”

      You still cite no empirical evidence that devoutly religious people are less likely than non-religious people to commit crime including violent crime overall. Maybe we can pick this up another time, as the thread is getting long.

      “Do you really believe that a devout Christian would be just as likely to do that [knockout game] as someone devoid of religious faith? C’mon.”

      Are people devoid of religious faith more likely devoid of empathy, morals, etc.? I don’t think so. Anecdotally, most of the young people I knew who were without religious faith were scientific, philosophical, artistic types, intellectuals, “geeks”–certainly not the kind of people who would engage in deadly violence for fun.

      Anyway, I could see your “knockout game,” and raise you the devoutly religious people, including Christians, in some parts of Africa who kill “witches.” But that would be just cherry-picking. What is needed is an overall assessment of who does more violence, violent crime, etc.

      “Sixth,”

      Well, you discussed both non-religious and (aggressive) atheists, so I was addressing both.

      I agree that religion often plays an important role in society, but I don’t think it’s a necessary element morally. Morality is not what distinguishes religion from other domains (e.g., philosophy, law, politics). A belief in the supernatural is what distinguishes religion. Do we need that?
      When religious people pick and choose from their religions which aspects they follow, this indicates that a non-religious standard is operative (and perhaps unavoidable in any case). Some religions are more beneficial than others (e.g., Christianity vs Islam), but this does not support the general case in favor of religion. Rather, it’s more consistent with my contention that it is the ethical content of the ideology, not whether or not it is religious or theistic, that is the relevant issue.

      I agree with Pinker when he, after having reviewed a massive amount of evidence, writes:

      “When it comes to the history of violence, the significant distinction is not one between theistic and atheistic regimes. It’s the one between regimes that were based on demonizing, utopian ideologies (including Marxism, Nazism, and militant religions) and secular liberal democracies that are based on the ideal of human rights. On pp. 337–338 I present data from Rummel showing that democracies are vastly less murderous than alternatives forms of government.”

      http://stevenpinker.com/pages/frequently-asked-questions-about-better-angels-our-nature-why-violence-has-declined

      “Seventh”

      My point stands, though: Hitler was religious, not non-religious and not an atheist.
      And for the others, as I mentioned, the story is more complex than you are suggesting.

      “Eighth”

      I suspect many (not all) of the anti-religious people you’ve encountered are leftists who focus their attacks on Christianity and the West. In my experience, most of these people recoil when it comes to criticizing Islam; they’re the first to resort to apologetics and polemics, accusations of bigotry, etc.

      • Wellington says

        Jun 8, 2014 at 11:17 am

        Thanks for your reply, RS. I would make only a couple of brief points. One, I don’t deny for a second that there are many non-religious people who are far finer human beings than some non-Muslim religious people. No question about this. As long as one has a sound moral base (and follows it of course), then that person is not a threat to society. Problem is many don’t have a sound moral base (including a lot of nominal or so-so or, worst of all, hypocritical Christians). It’s just that I believe for a society as whole an enlightend religion is the best way to go. Humanistic ethics, however sound, are efficacious and workable only for a minority. That’s why I’ll quote that other skeptic again, Voltaire, who said “If God doesn’t exist, we’ll have to invent Him.”

        Second, Hitler was not religious in any true way. In his own warped way he believed to some extent in Fate, a driving power of some sort, etc., but it bears no resemblance to the Judeo-Christian deity, even the Old Testament majestic and sometimes wrathful version of this deity, let alone the New Testament version of this same deity.

        I can make Islam the exception to major religions in a way Marxism is not an exception. Here’s why: You expect religion to be good or at least innocuous, but there’s no such thing as a good totalitarian ideology. Marxism is just that as is Islam.

        I think you make a good point when you assert that the kind of non-religious person who really hates religion is far more likely to be a leftist than someone on the right. This has certainly been my experience.

        Thanks again for the give and take.

        • RodSerling says

          Jun 8, 2014 at 8:59 pm

          Wellington,

          Thanks. I don’t regard religion as something that must be good by definition. A religion, or anything else, ought to be good, yes. But the inclusion of an ideology in the category of religion depends on attributes like supernatural beliefs, not on moral goodness. Indeed, a religion need not have any explicit moral prescriptions to qualify as a religion. (Likewise, political ideologies ought to be good morally, but they needn’t be to constitute political ideologies).

          That an ideology is totalitarian does not disqualify it as either religious or political.

          Hitler’s religious beliefs may have been bad, twisted, and so on, but they were nonetheless religious.

          While the “all religions are bad” claim is false, the “all religions are good” claim is also false.

          Thanks again for the friendly exchange.

  45. Champ says

    Jun 6, 2014 at 3:39 pm

    Thanks to you, MIrren10, to Champ, Foolster and others who have replied (“tried to reply” would be more apt) to Fitz.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    You’re welcome, Wellington!

    And I would like to echo Gravenimage by stating that you are indeed a highly respected poster here, and did not deserve those nasty remarks, from Fitz, that I took great umbrage with. Fitz initially gave Robert poor advice, and then proceeded to insult you, so hes gotten under the skin of two highly respected individuals here–which is quite an accomplishment on a single thread, lol!

    “Clearly you have not been keeping up.” ..yes, Robert’s response to Fitz remains quite apropos even to the end of this thread, but I think lost on the likes of him.

    Anyway …

    I just wanted you to know how much your contributions are admired and appreciated by many of us here. You’re the best!

    Take care, my dear friend! And all the best to you and your lovely wife, as well.

    • Wellington says

      Jun 6, 2014 at 4:53 pm

      Thank you, dear Champ, for your very kind words. As I think you know by now, I believe Benjamin Franklin to be as shrewd a person who has ever lived. I have visited his grave several times at 5th and Arch Street in Philadelphia, toured Franklin Court between 4th and 3rd Streets, and dined at the City Tavern at 2nd (called “Two Street” in colonial times) and Walnut Street, where Franklin and so many of the Founding Fathers quenched their thirst while talking treason with fearless eloquence.

      The reason I note all this is due to yet another wise saying of Franklin’s, to wit, “We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang separately.” This quote by Franklin is so apropos to what’s going on today with the coalition fighting Islam’s many nefarious, destructive, desultory and freedom-crushing designs. The people who hate religon in general, or those who continue to make stupid tu quoque arguments when Islam is brought up (each of which have a potential divisive effect on the coalition I’ve mentioned), often remind me of this quote by Franklin. You know, my Christian friend, I can tolerate stupidity. What I can’t tolerate is destructive stupidity.

      Hope you and your family are doing well. As always, I wish you the best and will look forward to more of your comments here at this great site which that great American of our time, Robert Spencer, founded. I think Benjamin Franklin, were he still around, would have a very high opinion of Mr. Spencer. Very high. Take care, pal.

      • Champ says

        Jun 6, 2014 at 5:11 pm

        Thank you, Wellington! 🙂

    • Mirren10 says

      Jun 6, 2014 at 5:48 pm

      Hi, Champ !

      Well done for calling out Fitz, who is yet another of the intensely annoying and irritating fanatical atheists who occasionally alight here to derail threads with their illogical and vituperative stupidities.

      I don’t know if Fitz is a Leftist as well as an atheist, but I have noticed that both types employ the same style of ‘argument’; ie: when they can’t actually **answer** an argument, the MO is to first insult in childish, spiteful ways, and then, when called on it, to complain they are victims.

      Goodness, what sort of people does this remind me of … 🙂

      Take care Champ, I hope you and yours are well ! XO

      • Champ ♥ says

        Jun 6, 2014 at 6:09 pm

        Hi Mirren10!

        Thank you, and same to you for pointing out Fitz’s nonsense and victim status …and perhaps you recall that he played the victim on the Sign the Petition thread, too:

        http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/sign-the-petition-to-abolish-blasphemy-laws/comment-page-1#comment-1074286

        And on that other thread he even questioned whether or not Robert Spencer was in fact a Christian. Yes, it’s clear that he’s less than honest and only here to derail the comments section with his thoughtless fits (a fitting moniker).

        All the best to you and yours, my dear friend! XO 🙂

  46. Mr Freedom says

    Jun 6, 2014 at 3:41 pm

    Arfan Khan is not a Muslim. He is not religious. He only cares about freedom and ensuring that the law protects it.

  47. Champ says

    Jun 6, 2014 at 5:49 pm

    Alright, but two wrongs don’t make a right. I’m sure Wellington calls out those who attack atheists, as I would, but I haven’t quite seen it recently, mostly I’ve seen lots of attacks on Christians.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Hi, Foolster …

    Yes, that’s what I observe, as well. More often, than not, attacks are aimed at Christians–not the other way around. And if a Christian does go on the “attack”, then it’s generally in response to being attacked. Rarely do Christians go on the attack willy-nilly. In fact, I don’t observe this behavior at all from Christians; but then again, I don’t read every single comment posted either.

    And I also agree with your first statement, that two wrongs don’t make a right, and Christians are held to a higher standard and expected not to “attack” others at all. That said, Christians are certainly at liberty to defend their faith and themselves against attacks.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • William Garrison on The Fantasy Islam of Rice University’s Craig Considine (Part 3)
  • Vladimir on Islamic Republic of Iran: Turkey’s Erdogan champions Islam only as a tool to further his own interests
  • John on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’
  • Vladimir on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’
  • Linda McGuire on UK: Muslim stabs two women in Marks & Spencer, one in the neck, cops search for motive

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.