Any one else notice the uncanny hand writing in all of those sings we see in the Snopes link?

Each sign is written by the same hand.

They are all written on cardboard with a material wrapped around the board itself.


This has an visceral similarity to the Nazi sweep, very similar indeed. Religion will be the undoing of man kind.

*comedy *talks

Adding video to channels (Comedy, Talks) - requested by xxovercastxx.

Comedy? You find this humorous? Really? Freedom is on the decline, and somebody brave enough to talk about it gets the * comedy tag?

It's called Pat Condell's Godless Comedy. He used to be a stand-up comedian. There's no insult here.

I'm trying to understand this situation as someone who lives in the USA. Let me know if I have this right.

The government is fine with denouncing violent religious extremism, but they do not approve of someone pointing out that certain verses in the Quran promote such behavior.

They allow people to promote violent discrimination on the basis of religious expression, but they do not approve of people criticizing those religious ideas.


As I said, I do not live in the area so I can only see it from a distance. What else is going on here, because that seems a bit unrealistic.

>> ^Psychologic:
I'm trying to understand this situation as someone who lives in the USA. Let me know if I have this right.
The government is fine with denouncing violent religious extremism, but they do not approve of someone pointing out that certain verses in the Quran promote such behavior.
They allow people to promote violent discrimination on the basis of religious expression, but they do not approve of people criticizing those religious ideas.

As I said, I do not live in the area so I can only see it from a distance. What else is going on here, because that seems a bit unrealistic.



You've got it in a nutshell!

For instance, they keep giving this guy benefits every month and refuse to deport him even after all the hate he has spewed, however a member of European Parliament is denied entry because his movie shows the Koran in a bad light.

Imagine, Psychologic, that the Brits are so utterly confused in their interminable maze of fear of "offending others" and "respecting cultural differences" that they now call Muslim terrorism "anti-Islamic activity".

It's a tragic state of affairs that the civilization that has inspired much of the world in the realms of law, philosophy, mathematics, engineering, economics and politics is now bending over backwards to "respect" imported religious fundamentalists that refuse to admit that a book written 1,400 years ago may not be 100% relevant in this era.

from the "PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION IN SUPPORT OF GEERT WILDERS" link:

"IT IS RESOLVED that, in the event that the Dutch government attempts, in any way, to punish or prosecute Geert Wilders, civilly or criminally, for exercising his freedom of expression, the undersigned will initiate a boycott of any and all Dutch goods. "

ha ha ha.
dont forget to ban other dutch things like gay marriage, liberal marihuana laws, liberal abortian laws, maybe even boycott a dutch politician from entering your country....

oh wait, i guess some governments already boycotted that...

also: it's not the dutch government trying to prosecute Wilders, they can't and they won't.

(downvoting because the 32789 (!) people who signed the petition and want to boycott the netherlands are pathetic)

>> ^Pprt:
It's a tragic state of affairs that the civilization that has inspired much of the world in the realms of law, philosophy, mathematics, engineering, economics and politics is now bending over backwards to "respect" imported religious fundamentalists that refuse to admit that a book written 1,400 years ago may not be 100% relevant in this era.


I assume this "civilisation" you speak of is Brittan, or the west? Most of the foundations of the studies you mentioned were laid down many years before the rise of the west, much of that coming from the ancestors of this so called imported religion.

Let me also remind you that most western countries still hold some form of christianity as the states official religion. A religion who's book is just as rubbish.

The rest of you outraged by this, get the fuck over it.

It's a media beat up. It's what the tabloids love. It's a chance for the haters to hate and feel justified. It's classic "Troll" behaviour, don't feed it.

You want to be outraged by something? Start with, say, Darfur. Then you can work your way around the rest of the world where thousands of people are actually dying.

Adopting the use of "anti-Islamic activity" for Islamic terrorism actually seems uncharacteristically intelligent to me.

The terminology shift heightens their society's ability to take a hard stance against Islamic extremism while still being regarded as welcoming by moderate Muslims, who are an increasingly relevant demographic within their society.

>> ^Maze:


Maze seems too busy trolling while calling others trolls to be able to tell the difference between a science-loving, mostly atheistic Christian society in Europe and a culture that simply desires Sharia Law.

>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^Maze:

Maze seems too busy trolling while calling others trolls to be able to tell the difference between a science-loving, mostly atheistic Christian society in Europe and a culture that simply desires Sharia Law.


"Hey I know, let's claim that our culture is better than theirs, that's always helpful." Yeah right.

I don't consider it trolling, mate.

As for telling the difference between the two cultures, I have no idea how you've gleaned that from my previous post.

You want to be outraged by something? Start with, say, Darfur. Then you can work your way around the rest of the world where thousands of people are actually dying.


And I suppose that you, sir, are so potently outraged that you are presently in Sudan, presumable feeding little infants?

Let's take a look your stance... tribal killings in Africa that have and will forever exist, or the erosion of Western society which has laid the foundation for the most equitable and enlightened era in human history.

Yes, you're right. We should all focus our attention on the tribal squabbling of the Janjaweed and the Sudanese army.

>> ^Pprt:
You want to be outraged by something? Start with, say, Darfur. Then you can work your way around the rest of the world where thousands of people are actually dying.

And I suppose that you, sir, are so potently outraged that you are presently in Sudan, presumable feeding little infants?

Don't even try, you've totally missed the point on that one.

Let's take a look your stance... tribal killings in Africa that have and will forever exist, or the erosion of Western society which has laid the foundation for the most equitable and enlightened era in human history.
Yes, you're right. We should all focus our attention on the tribal squabbling of the Janjaweed and the Sudanese army.


Wars, big and small have and will forever exist. Should we try to stop them? Viruses have and will forever exist. Forget about a cure? Who cares? They'll always be around.

You want to stay scared, buddy, go for it. I don't believe the hype. As the quote goes, the biggest thing we have to fear, is fear itself. I'm not one for flailing my arms about at the "erosion of western society". That's generally the rallying call of the far right pollies.

Yes, we should all focus on situations such as Darfur. Death estimates range from the 10's to 100's of thousands, with well over 2 million displaced. A mere tribal squabble to some.

Oh god would you get over yourselves, just because a bunch of idiots are out there asking for Sharia law you somehow extrapolate it to mean that all people of that faith are the same, they are just as stupid as evangelical Christians. You take the stances of extremists of the religion, broadcast them as being representative of them all and then bitch about how no moderate voices make themselves heard even though they are there everyone from Tariq Ramadan, Imam Qazwini, Hamza Yusuf and Zarqa Nawaz .

Do you people even know what Geert Wilders stands for? He doesn't really have any beef towards Islam, he simply uses it as a political platform to attack the real elephant in the room no one mentions which is IMMIGRATION.

In the US its about Mexicans stealing jobs and weighing down the tax system because they also mostly happen to be Christians, in the Europe the debate is that they are all Muslims and are trying to steal our freedoms. Wilder's own claim is that Europeans will be 'diluted' culturally, wording that is not far from early imposition of segregation in World War 2. Only then Jews stole your money and polluted your minds.

Which is frankly stupid give that European birth rates are so low then need labor injections in the form of immigration to allow for continued Economic growth in the long run.

Netherlands is full of Moroccans, Algerians and Turks, who Wilders wants to be expelled, since alot of them are Muslim it fits in with his political stance.

Fitna was not created to create dialog or public debate, it is simply made to instigate violent confrontations between both parties, that is not public debate, that is simply creation of tension between parties. This is the same argument behind why books like Mein Kampf and the Elder Protocols of Zion are banned around Europe. Wilders himself has stated countless times that the Qu'ran needs to be ripped up, how would Christians feel about those kinds of allegations brought on by any Arab or Asian nation?

If what Fitna presents is factual, the clear logical conclusion is that all believers of Islam are thus extremist, but this flies in the face of large non violent Islamic denominations in the US, greater Europe, countries in the GCC and South East Asia.

As for the claims of Europe being a "Western society which has laid the foundation for the most equitable and enlightened era in human history." I think you need to read about colonialism, World War 2, Falkland Islands, Bosnian War and the involvement in Iraq.

The fact is the commentators fall into two parts here, those who are stringently atheist like Chilaxe and BicycleRepairMan and people like Pprt who just hate anything Islamic given their cheer leading of Israel's war on Palestine.

I think both positions are simply incompatible with the reality on the ground, this is a political situation and needs to be treated as such, so say we allow Wilders his screening, what kind of repercussions does that incur and what kind of view does that create? If this is allowed to be screened then why not a screening of Fahrenheit 9/11, The Truth about AIPAC, Palestine and Israel, An Inconvenient Truth or even something good like Taxi to the Dark Side? Have you ever heard of that? Of course not, and am sure the same people who support this screening would not support the ones I mentioned.

Wilders knew the British Parliament would reject it, that's why he went to the UK in the first place given the lukewarm reception the film itself generated in his homeland of Netherlands. He is glad it got rejected because now he can claim uncle and call the UK a appeasing society that suppresses freedom of speech. They rejected it because its politically stupid with no real pay off in votes or public opinion.

Farhad - the logical conclusion of your arguments here and on the Fitna post would seem to be that some things should be censored, because most people aren't smart enough to get past the demagoguery. I can't accept that. I agree that Fitna is little more than xenophobic hate-mongering (and I'm the one that sifted it), but we can't go around suppressing ideas just because we find them abhorrent. Isn't that the whole point of freedom of speech - the marketplace of ideas? You have to trust people to see such comments for what they are, or failing that, present more compelling ideas yourself.

>> ^Farhad2000:
reflexive straw-man construction as a psychological defense mechanism


He never said all muslims are the same, or anything remotely like that. But the moderate or liberal muslims do contradict some of the more hard-line parts of the Koran. Jihadists contradict some of the more liberal parts of the Koran as well. There's no denying the fact that the Koran is as bloody and misogynistic as the Bible. Mohammad was just another conqueror who rewrote mythology to his advantage like the Roman emperors often did.

As Thomas Jefferson said, picking out the genuine and good teachings of Jesus from the bible is like "diamonds in a dunghill".

>> ^Maze:
>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^Maze:

"Hey I know, let's claim that our culture is better than theirs, that's always helpful." Yeah right.

Your claim here appears to be that a scientifically and economically modern culture and a culture of Sharia law are equal. That's a fringe position, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it.

The people who emigrated to Britain apparently disagree with you, or they wouldn't have emigrated in the first place.

You might say 'science is just another religion' or something like that, but the difference is that science is a method of knowing that's based on evidence instead of on unreliable personal claims, etc. etc.


As for telling the difference between the two cultures, I have no idea how you've gleaned that from my previous post.

You just wrote a sentence before that said it's impossible to state that one culture is preferable to the other. A Fox News-style denial doesn't work when you're communicating via the written word.

The debate of freedom of speech and censorship is on going, am not parroting one line or the other. I believe in freedom of speech myself and have disagreed with the inane protests that occurred during the publishing cartoons, but the question has to be raised when you have a film that is negative of an entire religion while any similar criticism is labeled as anti-semetic when applied to the Jewish community. The hypocrisy is there.

Furthermore society censors ideas because it finds them offensive and detrimental to social cohesion, I don't think you would find many defending the freedom of speech of people burning crosses, wearing KKKs masks and calling black people the n word, using Nazi symbols in German or denying the holocaust.

I mean look at what happened when one Catholic priest said that he denies the existence of the holocaust. He was made to 'reform', this also falls under the freedom of speech argument. The debate is thorny as it is. Ultimately you realize that the creation of censorship occurs to maintain social cohesion or relations between nations. I might not necessarily agree with it but I understand its existence, likewise here in this case as well, I understand its screening online and in Netherlands but I draw a line when he tries to use it as a political vehicle.

Jwray, of course he doesn't Pat Condell is at the end against all religion and is against the seeming loss of Liberty in this case, but he takes one side of the religion and it becomes a cohesive attack on all aspects of it. Have you seen his other videos?

People wouldn't differentiate between that, and would simply use this as another tool to further their own ideas, most of all what I have seen the idea of the clash of civilizations. I have seen this debate reach fever peak after 9/11 with the emergence of Little Green Footballs, Jihad Watch and Fjordsmann. I think that is a destructive and nonconstructive path to take. I refuse to simple stand by and not present counter arguments.

The claim that making such statements doesn't result in problems down the line look no further then the US military cultural training of 2003, where troops were essentially told that all Arabs are deceitful jihadists that would like nothing other then to kill themselves to reach heaven. Where a entire political power claimed that Islamic fascism reaches from Morocco to Indonesia. It seems that in the Western world declarations like these have a finite life time this is not the case in the Eastern world.

Given the last 8 years, I believe the Western world needs to engage the Arab world in dialog but it must respect the cultural background of the region and not just think that it can westernize ideas through brute force and seemingly endless criticism of it's religion.

just because a bunch of idiots are out there asking for Sharia law you somehow extrapolate it to mean that all people of that faith are the same, they are just as stupid as evangelical Christians. You take the stances of extremists of the religion, broadcast them as being representative of them all and then bitch about how no moderate voices make themselves heard

No, "we" do NOT do that. this is something you just pull out of your ass to use against us. Nobody claims "muslims are all the same" nobody claims "islam always lead to violence" nobody says "keep all muslims out of Europe" (well, some probably do, but not me, and not Condell) These are things you seem to hear even though nobody actually says them. We are fully aware that the religious nutters who wants to end democracy or start a new Holocaust are in the minority, I am perhaps more wooried about the size of that minority, but I still agree that it is a minority, and it certainly does NOT apply to all muslims.

This video and discussion is about bending over backwards to this minority of muslims who really are fascist bullies. It is not a call to label all muslims "the same" or "extremist", its about letting the British and Dutch authorities know that they should get on with their business and hard-fought secular tradition of treating us ALL as EQUALS. By not giving in to threats and terror and insane people. By allowing ALL views, ideologies and religions to be both expressed freely and critizised freely. And that IF EVER there should be an exception to this principle, it should be reserved for those who shamelessly call upon their followers to kill and massacre the people who's views they dislike, and not for those who might intentionally or unintentionally "offend" certain people with their views.

I think both positions are simply incompatible with the reality on the ground, this is a political situation and needs to be treated as such, so say we allow Wilders his screening, what kind of repercussions does that incur and what kind of view does that create? If this is allowed to be screened then why not a screening of Fahrenheit 9/11, The Truth about AIPAC, Palestine and Israel, An Inconvenient Truth or even something good like Taxi to the Dark Side? Have you ever heard of that? Of course not, and am sure the same people who support this screening would not support the ones I mentioned.

This is not about screening the film. Wilders was refused entry to the UK because of his views on islam. If britain refuses Michael Moore entry to the UK over Farenheit 9/11 because it "offended republicans" then we might be on equal grounds here. The House of Lords invited him to show it, I do not know their exact motivation, and I do not know if screenings of this kind are common in the House, (perhaps someone of British background could shed some light on this?) but I can see your argument if it was about giving Wilders a big platform, but again, he was expelled from the COUNTRY, not just the House of Lords or the screening.


Also worth noting is the REASONING for his expulsion: Basically the British government caved from threats from fascist terrorist loonies, and refused a law-abiding EU citizen entry because of his views.

The UK government banned the entry of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, for his extremist views yet I don't see you complaining about his freedom of speech being infringed do I? I mean his views should also be allowed in the market place of ideas. What about Holocaust deniers in Germany, France and Netherlands. The double standard of censorship is there so spare me the freedom of speech arguments.

Furthermore the UK is already a police state. This has been proven time and time again since 9/11 and the countless anti-terrorism decrees pushed forward by labor.

What you are saying makes it seem like the minority of Islamic extremists have some kind of sway over the actions of the British and Netherlands government, they don't. Muslims support Palestine and are against Israel, has this policy been influenced in either nation, e.g. the BBC screening of Gaza aid ads?

The idea that there is a differentiation between the minority and the whole is simplistic given that that is not the thrust of media coverage developed in the Western world that is transmitted to the East. You forget Islamaphobia fever of the last 7 years. Look no further then the comment histories of QM, Pprt and mharvey42 for more information. I still contend that the West suffers from an amnesia of political events that the East recalls. Most people in the US don't even know of the collusion between the US and Saddam, the CIA and the installion of the Shah in Iran and so on.

Both governments clearly are focused on the maintenance of public order and cohesion, the air ring of Wilders ideas on the higher profile is not productive, something I would be against also if a Muslim person would create film meant to explain why its okay to kill Christians. Would the same response occur? Of course not.

But since his arguments are something that are on the mind of many due to fear and misunderstanding we have a huge public clusterfuck over it. Will it lead to more peace and understanding and eventual aculturilisation of Muslims in the west? Or simply create more divisions because there is an inherent hypocrisy?

>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^Maze:
>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^Maze:

"Hey I know, let's claim that our culture is better than theirs, that's always helpful." Yeah right.

Your claim here appears to be that a scientifically and economically modern culture and a culture of Sharia law are equal. That's a fringe position, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it.
The people who emigrated to Britain apparently disagree with you, or they wouldn't have emigrated in the first place.
You might say 'science is just another religion' or something like that, but the difference is that science is a method of knowing that's based on evidence instead of on unreliable personal claims, etc. etc.

As for telling the difference between the two cultures, I have no idea how you've gleaned that from my previous post.

You just wrote a sentence before that that it's impossible to state that one culture is preferable to the other. A Fox News-style denial doesn't work when you're communicating via the written word.


No, chilaxe, that is not my claim at all. I am clearly suggesting that claiming my culture is better than your culture is not helpful.

Let's make something clear. You refer to the so called muslim culture as "culture that simply desires Sharia Law". I have no interest in discussing that with you, as it's a whole other topic. That particular blanketing statement of yours, I'm sure you'll agree, would require much burden of proof.

I still have not stated that I see no difference between the two cultures, or that I don't understand the differences. If you think I have, post the relevant sentence and we'll go from there.

What I am typing and what you are reading seem to be two different things.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
...but I can see your argument if it was about giving Wilders a big platform, but again, he was expelled from the COUNTRY, not just the House of Lords or the screening.

Perhaps someone can clarify this? Having just delt with a lot of traveling myself, this came to mind... perhaps because Wilders screening was cancelled there was no reason for him to be in the country, thus the reason for his visa would be void, in which case he was turned away?

It seems unlikely though. Knowing how crazy politics gets.

>> ^Farhad2000:
The debate of freedom of speech and censorship is on going, am not parroting one line or the other. I believe in freedom of speech myself and have disagreed with the inane protests that occurred during the publishing cartoons, but the question has to be raised when you have a film that is negative of an entire religion while any similar criticism is labeled as anti-semetic when applied to the Jewish community. The hypocrisy is there.

Of course it's hypocritical. And I decry the suppression of Mein Kampf just as much as Fitna. That's my point. It's absurd to outlaw stupid or unpleasant ideas, because usually the arguments for them are so pathetic that they should be easy to dismiss. That they cause diviseness is an even worse reason for censorship. Imposed homogeneity is far worse - and terribly boring. When unpleasant ideas are not so easily dismissed, it is even more important to guard their right to be expressed. It was certainly more socially cohesive for the Vatican to outlaw the ideas of Copernicus and Galileo, but obviously very wrong for it to do so.


Furthermore society censors ideas because it finds them offensive and detrimental to social cohesion, I don't think you would find many defending the freedom of speech of people burning crosses, wearing KKKs masks and calling black people the n word, using Nazi symbols in German or denying the holocaust.

Cross burning is not an act of free speech - it is an act of violent intimidation (not to mention arson). Wearing KKK gear isn't outlawed in the U.S., and it may surprise you to learn that the ACLU itself has fought for the rights of even those loonies to be able to assemble or march in various towns. Saying nigger is clearly not illegal - ever listen to gangsta rap?

Obviously there are limits to free speech. Directly inciting violence/riots, causing dangerous panic ("Fire!" in a theater) and libelous speech are all outlawed, but not because the ideas contained in such speech are "bad". They are outlawed because they can directly cause damage to people and property. I agree that stuff like Fitna falls somewhere in that grey area in that it could cause people to commit violent acts, but it does not itself call for violence upon Muslims.

>> ^Farhad2000:
The UK government banned the entry of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, for his extremist views yet I don't see you complaining about his freedom of speech being infringed do I? I mean his views should also be allowed in the market place of ideas. What about Holocaust deniers in Germany, France and Netherlands. The double standard of censorship is there so spare me the freedom of speech arguments.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sheik Yusuf has explicitly called for the murder of specific individuals and groups of people. As I noted above, that does not fall under the protections of free speech. As for things such as holocaust denial, you're absolutely right. It would be hypocritical to disallow one and not the other. But wouldn't the more sensible tack be to condemn both instances of censorship, instead of supporting one because of the existence of the other?

>> ^jonny:
I agree that stuff like Fitna falls somewhere in that grey area in that it could cause people to commit violent acts, but it does not itself call for violence upon Muslims.


I think this is a pretty important point to make, and I agree with most of what you're saying, jonny.

With Sheik Yusuf the situation is very clear. In this situation it's a little more murky. It's these grey areas we need to watch out for. How do we judge? Where do we draw the line?

I'm not sure I agree with the decision to turn the guy away. I would have preferred him to come and go, mostly ignored. Now he's got the press he wants. My beef is how the situation has been reacted to, as evidenced in the comments here.

The media loves this kind of thing, and so do a lot of people. It gives them something to tut over at the breakfast table, something to talk loudly about at the pub with their mates.

But it in no way helps the situation.

Farhad is exactly right, it's politics at work here, pure politics.

>> ^Maze:
>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^Maze:
>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^Maze:


Your stated criticism of Condell equates the two cultures he's discussing. My argument discusses Sharia Law because the part of Muslim culture that Condell is discussing is extremist Muslim culture, from which the title of the video is derived ("Freedom go to hell.") As well, the problems we associate with Sharia law can also be a problem with people who represent moderate Islam.

Here is your argument in which you equate the two cultures that Condell is discussing:

I assume this "civilisation" you speak of is Brittan, or the west? Most of the foundations of the studies you mentioned were laid down many years before the rise of the west, much of that coming from the ancestors of this so called imported religion.

Let me also remind you that most western countries still hold some form of christianity as the states official religion. A religion who's book is just as rubbish.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Furthermore society censors ideas because it finds them offensive and detrimental to social cohesion, I don't think you would find many defending the freedom of speech of people burning crosses, wearing KKKs masks and calling black people the n word, using Nazi symbols in German or denying the holocaust.


Oddly enough, we do defend their freedom of speech.

The UK government has already sanctioned the recognition of Sharia courts, this was not a submission to Sharia law as claimed by people by Pat Condell and other sensationalists, but rather "applied to situations where both sides in a legal dispute freely choose a Sharia court as a binding arbitrator rather than taking a matter before the official courts."

"The decision does not break new ground. The decisions of similar Jewish Beth Din court arbitations have been recognized in England for over 100 years. Neither party can be forced into arbitration by a Sharia or a Jewish court."

The imposition of Sharia Law is mistaken in most corners of discussion, Sharia law is simply a religious law system that should be followed by Muslims, that deals with politics, economics, banking, business, contracts, family, sexuality, hygiene, social issues and other everyday issues.

Most do not specifically call for the imposition of these laws directly unto other denominations or people, but rather the creation of separate Islamic courts when dealing with issues relating to Muslims. Which is what the UK has done, in the modern Islamic world dual court systems are maintained specifically to deal with issues depending on the demands of the parties, and further depended on the school of Islamic law being followed.

The issue becomes confused when Western observers extrapolate the practices of states like Saudi Arabia and Taliban Afghanistan and individual incidents as being representative of Sharia Law, when in fact they are usually backward cultural practices. The Pashtun practices seeped into Taliban controlled Afghanistan and has seen the imposition of many inhumane and truly vile practices.

>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^Maze:
>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^Maze:
>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^Maze:

Your stated criticism of Condell equates the two cultures he's discussing. My argument discusses Sharia Law because the part of Muslim culture that Condell is discussing is extremist Muslim culture, from which the title of the video is derived ("Freedom go to hell.") As well, the problems we associate with Sharia law can also be a problem with people who represent moderate Islam.
Here is your argument in which you equate the two cultures that Condell is discussing:

I assume this "civilisation" you speak of is Brittan, or the west? Most of the foundations of the studies you mentioned were laid down many years before the rise of the west, much of that coming from the ancestors of this so called imported religion.
Let me also remind you that most western countries still hold some form of christianity as the states official religion. A religion who's book is just as rubbish.

>> ^Farhad2000:
The UK government banned the entry of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, for his extremist views yet I don't see you complaining about his freedom of speech being infringed do I? I mean his views should also be allowed in the market place of ideas. What about Holocaust deniers in Germany, France and Netherlands. The double standard of censorship is there so spare me the freedom of speech arguments.

I disagree with any ban or restriction on freedom of speech, like i have expressed before. However , there is a difference of degree on these matters:
“Allah imposed Hitler upon the Jews to punish them — and Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers.”

This is a recent quote from al-Qaradawi, Can you find a quote by Wilders displaying the same hope of a repetition of mass murder? is it really reasonable to compare Wilders views to such statements? is it fair to compare Fitna to them? "Fitna" is linking Islamic verses to violence committed by islamic extremists, and it shows examples of the kind of blatant fascism as the above quote. it never comes even CLOSE to suggesting any form of violence against anyone. Perhaps it is not particulary diplomatic or dampening of existing tensions, But you must concede that Wilders does not actively encourage violence or mass murder based on peoples ethnic background? It is a strongly onesided and honest opnion piece, yes, and you are certainly free to disagree with its theme, but please spare me the lie that it encourages violence or that making "a film meant to explain why its okay to kill Christians." is comparable to the contents of Fitna. It doesnt explain much at all, and certainly not why its ok to kill people.

The strife and conflict multiculturalism has wrought is truly dreadful.

To examplify my point, heres a movie idea:

Show witch burnings, cut to bible verse used as basis for the crime, tell people about the crusades, cut to bible verse, show the thousands dead of HIV/AIDS in africa, cut to pope damning condom use, show the Westmoro baptist church and their "God Hates Fags" signs, cut to appropriate bible verse, show abortion clinic bombings, cut to bible verse, etc etc.... end the film with "stop Christianity and all its insanity."

Have I just outlined the plot for a movie claiming it is acceptable to kill all Christians?, does it encourage violence against Christians?, does it throw every single Christian in the Westmoro Baptist Church camp?

Of course not. it is a criticism of Christianity and its completely appropriate, in all the above examples, Christian doctrine was either the main cause of, or main justification for the various crimes and insanity expressed. Fitna does nothing more then my hypothetical movie.

And dont think Christians and Muslims are the only ones that has to endure films like this, look at "Expelled", it (wrongly, this time) links us Darwinists to Neo-darwinism, Communism, Nazism, Nihilism and who knows what. Perhaps it may even convince a fundie or two to go on a Darwinist killing rampage, who knows?

Fitna is no different. It links Islam to various acts of violence committed in the name of islam, it shows the verses that are used to justify these crimes, it shows powerful clerics with insanely fascist ideas, and links it to islam in general, etc. It is, like the movies described above, one-sided and rhetorical in its combination of text and images, but thats it. In no way does it group all muslims into one, in no way does it encourage violence or murder of muslims or anyone else.

Footage of witch burnings and of the crusades...?

Oh yes, please let us know when men organized themselves to blow themselves up or kill commuters in the name of Christ.

BRM, please take a moment and read about how Mohamed lived his life and contrast with with Jesus and Abraham. He was a military general, thief, executioner, politician, pedophile, hijacker and ethnic cleanser.

>> ^Pprt:
Footage of witch burnings and of the crusades...?
Oh yes, please let us know when men organized themselves to blow themselves up or kill commuters in the name of Christ.
BRM, please take a moment and read about how Mohamed lived his life and contrast with with Jesus and Abraham. He was a military general, thief, executioner, politician, pedophile, hijacker and ethnic cleanser.


You know what I mean, not footage, obviously. However, If you travel inside Africa, you might be able to get some still, where children who's parents have died from AIDS are sometimes accused of sorcery and lynched by angry mobs.

I was not trying to start an Islam vs Christianity contest, In general, however, as I have said before, I think islam is the worse of the two, partly because of Jesus' emphasis on forgiveness over bloodshed, and partly because the bible does not claim to be the final revelation. However, believing that you know the mind and will of Gods is a bad idea whether you think its written in the bible or the Qu'ran or any other fantasy book you care to mention.

It is amazing the arrogance and fervor people show when they think they have God on their side, and it is surprising and annoying to me how much respect we are expected to give them, despite their lack of evidence that their claims of divine knowledge have any merit whatsoever.

how irresponsible! of all of the videos that I've seen for this man, he continues to preach hate and violence against muslims. he should be banned!

You know the whole problem with not saying anything because you might offend the liberal and/or peace loving Muslims who aren't extremists?

The extremists win.

The peace loving types don't want to force their beliefs on others (be they Muslim, Christian, Jewish or any of the other myriad religions), the extremists do. If no one stands up to the extremists, they win...

Shouting down criticism of extremists as overgeneralising etc is not productive in the slightest. Relgion is not a free pass to not be criticised. Religions have been attempting just that sort of control (making even the practice of other religions a crime in some cases) since time began. It's fucking ridiculous and it should be called out.

Our planet is infested with pseudo-atheists


http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/05/our-planet-is-infested-with-pseudo.html

Wait, but I thought only Americans were ignorant. Internet how dare you mislead me!

>> ^MaxWilder:
Comedy? You find this humorous? Really? Freedom is on the decline, and somebody brave enough to talk about it gets the comedy tag?


It's not a comical topic but Pat's videos are always filled with funny, sarcastic remarks. He is a comedian and this is his act. Just because it's a serious topic doesn't mean it can't be laughed at and laughing at it doesn't mean I don't take it seriously.