Death to Free Speech in the Netherlands

Remove all ads!

One of the elements of free speech is that it must apply to everyone, even if they don't know what they are talking about or are taking things completely out of context or ignoring the whole text (gee, wonder why I brought that one up )

But the converse is also true -- people must be allowed to point out the logical and / or factual errors in the speech of others. There's a lot of Muslims out there who do not accord others that right -- they classify every single criticism or observation or question as blasphemy and proceed to say that such speech warrants death. Only the truly fanatical actually try to carry out the death threats, but the fact they are making the threats at all is worrisome, and what is even more worrisome is that supposedly moderate Muslims make excuses for their fanatical brethren.

When that fellow wrote "Letter to a Christian Nation", he got death threats. That's worrisome. But you didn't have major religious leaders publicly calling for his death, and the vast majority of Christians (I myself am one) very clearly said that we do not agree one whit with the idea that the author should be killed. Neither I, nor any of my friends, nor the leaders of my church, nor the leaders of any church of which I am aware said he should be murdered. THAT'S the difference here, and until the moderate Muslims start reigning their radical brethren in they are going to feel the mistrust of the rest of Western society.

 

@Taluntain: I wanted to make sure that you didn't imply those generalizations ().

@Hannibal: you've just underlined the importance of context. Taking a single sentence from a text is simply not enough to make a point.

I'd like to point out that there is no monopoly of bigotry and intolerance. I'm old enough to remember back in 1988 when a French Christian fundamentalist group set fire to a movie theater in Paris to protest against Martin Scorsese's film The Last Temptation of Christ. Since then I've been wary of fanatics whatever their creed may be.

That being said I for one find some pieces particularly distateful. I was not favourably impressed by Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" for instance.

 

You're right.
But I still stand to my opinion on Sura 4:24.
Here is an article that explains it at length (It is from a Christian source, so you might disagree):
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/women_slaves.htm

I understand you.
Btw., if it was 'christian' of these Christians to set a building on fire is doubtful .

 

You can only have dialogue with those willing to have it. If you try to engage in dialogue with those who don't want it, who have a claim to truth, you're wasting your time.

An example of such a non-dispute I have in mind is American TV (think of creationism), where I have often seen religious conservatives (or GOPers) stoically re-iterating and repeating their points ad nauseam, and their 'liberal' counterparts try to argue with those points rationally and in a 'civil' way - and after nothing comes out of it then 'agree to disagree' - oblivious to that their tolerance has just been turned against them. 'Equal time' to 'both sides of the stories' doesn't work then. To them there is just one side, theirs, and it it TRUE, period. And you are the antagonist, the enemy. They will not change their mind. They don't engage in dialogue, and they do it at your expense. They simply use the forum you give them to only utter the applause lines for their audience. And that's true for fundamentalists and 'true believers' of various brands and colour.

That's what Anne Coulter does. When she appears on a 'liberal' talk show, she does so not to engage in dialogue, but merely to speak to her audience in front of the TV and to thus insult her host (probably even at their expense - I doubt her gigs are for free).

 

Can't say I disagree with the first part of that sentence, and you linked it quite skillfully to the second part. Hmm, just wait till your country gets a political party representing the interests of pedophiles. See if you're still passionately against censorship and freedom of expression then.

Seriously: It's scary how well organised pedophiles are becoming worldwide. A head of a non-profit organisation, focused on hunting down pedophiles, announced that she was resigning her job. Apparently those monsters had been making legitimate death threats to her and her family, and the police couldn't do enough to protect her.

Well, we have much more problem with dark africans raping women in Holland. Capeverdians appear to have no respect for women atall, and blame the girl for exciting them. Apparently wearing a short skirt is asking for it. Capeverdians are christians, but way more uneducated than you are likely to encounter. I work as a nightwatchman in a home for homeless youths, and I can tell you that the muslims aren't the most troublesome when it comes to disturbing the girls.
This is another example of the media skewing your vision of reality: Capeverdian rapists get a footnote in a local paper, while a story about muslim rape will make national headlines. Try to take news reports with a pinch of salt. The media isn't here to inform us objectively, but to also effect a beneficial response. You are falling for the hype big time.
I agree that the muslim dimwits who commit these rapes are equally despicable, but it can't be attributed to their religion, just a lack of education. And maybe hanging out with the wrong people too often. Much like an isolated group of muslims, misinforming and encouraging eachother, just two Capeverdians in agreement is a recipe for rape.

 

Coin,
can you give evidence, that Wilders is associated witch protectionism towards
pedophiles?
I don't think this is true, but I am not that well informed concerning his party either.

 

Careful, here. Need I point out what the old testament of the Bible has to say about rape?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

In the old testament, if you are caught raping an unmarried woman, you are required to pay her dowry and marry her. The old testament also allows women taken as "spoils of war" to be taken as wives. If you are going to throw all of this on Islam, you must also throw it onto Judaism and, in some cases, Christianityl.

 

Nice text. So If a man rapes a woman she must marry him after he bought her. Thank god that that religion is not lived to the letter of the law.

 

Drew, I disagree.
Actually I answered this already, if you would care to read my posts .

what I wrote earlier:
Deuteronomy 22:28,29 - yep that's about rape.
But look at the context.
Rape here is considered as a bad act.You should have quoted completely:
"...because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."
The man shall not rape her, but if he does (unrightfully),
he has to marry her to be his wife his whole life.The morality of this might be open to discussion, but it is not an approval of rape.

By the way the word 'violate' clearly indicates the rape as a bad act.

Concerning your other proposition: I answered to this already, too
(I guess you mean Deuteronomy 21:10-13).

This is quite another issue.
But it is important to point out, that the act of rape is considered a bad act according to these verses of the bible.

My point is, the bible (nor any other religious scripture I am aware of besides Quran) does not approve of rape.
And, as I view it, the Quran does.
I posted an article going into further detail a bit earlier.

 

We've had NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) for decades here in the states. While they aren't very popular they still have the right to free speech.

 

You misunderstand. Wilders' "party of freedom" (PvdV) is focused on discriminating muslims. But we also have a "party of compassion, freedom and diversity" (PNVD) that seeks to legalize pedophilia, and courts have ruled that we must tolerate them on the same grounds. Fortunately they're both just minority fringe opinions, and can be outvoted by all other normal parties. But with all these weirdo parties forming, and getting substantial seats in parliament, I can see a day coming when one of them must be tolerated to form a majority.

I thought NAMBLA was a South Park joke. Are they actually a political lobby? I think it's time a party was formed that seeks to deny human rights to pedophiles. Why aren't there gangs that scour the internet posing as naieve underaged kids, and then go round to these monsters' houses to beat them up? I'd love to be part of such a gang.

 

/signed

 

Absolutely, but how bad, exactly? When a man rapes another man's daughter, he is punished by paying her dowry and marrying her. If on the other hand, a child is stubborn and rebellious, he will be stoned in the town square.

Apparently, they didn't think rape was all that bad unless the victim was married or betrothed. Go figure.

Really? I can see how you'd think that way when taking the Sura so ridiculously out of context. The problem with your reasoning lies with the fact that Sura 4:24 does not say it is OK to rape women taken as prisoners of war, but to marry them. Here's a little context. Rather than starting at 4:24 (which you didn't even bother to quote in its entirety), we'll start from 4:22, so that the meaning will actually be clear.

The bold was mine. Now that we're viewing the matter in context, your intellectual dishonesty on this issue should be obvious.

 

You admit having cited out of context and say I am intellectual dishonest?
Putting your finger on me without mentioning your fault is none the better.
But,please, let personal attacks out of this debate.

I put my information out of this article:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/women_slaves.htm

it reflects my opinion on this issue.
I'm fine if you or others differ in that, though.

"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21"

And again what does that have to do with rape?

 

I have made no such admission. The meaning behind the passage I quoted was fully intact and required no further clarification. What you did to Sura 4:24 was....butchery.

Regarding your "article", all that needs to be pointed out is that such interpretations are not held by all Imams and that similar things can be (and have been) done to the Torah. I wasn't attacking you personally, by the way, but merely pointing out your intellectual dishonesty on this matter.

 

...in your opinion.
But as I have pointed out already, your point is wrong, because I talked about approval of rape in religious scriptures, though you insisted on putting above bible verses,
which have NOTHING to do with approval of rape.
I talk about that issue (approval of rape) and then you cite verses which have nothing to do with that.What is that about sincerity?

edit:
And now that I see the entire 22:24, I see that this Sura can be open to a different interpretation.
As I said my source was mentioned article.
And I still think it is right if put in context with all other sources it cites.

 

One thing I know is that no sane person uses old religious laws in these times. Times change, people change, reality changes and religion changes as well. The extremists must be dealt whit by the moderate people of the same religion. No hiding behind holy books.

 

How'd this get to be a rape topic? It appears that in the Middle East during the Middle ages and in times long before that, raping a woman was considered not socially acceptable. The laws that were quoted here indicate that. That is, if you did it there was some stigma attached and you had to pay the piper -- that is, you had to go and pay the brideprice (if applicable) to her family and make an honest woman out of her. You would have to then pay for her upkeep just like you would for any of your other wives. If you couldn't do that, then you weren't supposed to rape anyone.

I suppose that for its time it was a progressive law in that you couldn't just go around willy nilly raping women. By today's standards, of course, it's horrific -- I'm sure the woman wasn't really yippee skippy to marry the bastard who raped her , even back then, and today of course such a thought is ludicrous.

However, in practice today I believe that there are some Muslim extremists who use scripture as an excuse to rape infidel women. I would even go so far as to say that the problem is more widespread than many would like to admit. But It certainly isn't in the mindset of all Muslims. I don't see too many Israeli rabbis going around advocating rape today and using Torah passages to defend it. Maybe I'm just not hearing these rabbis, but I sincerely doubt that -- I don't think they exist.

 

What point was wrong, hannibal? Are you saying that I am wrong in asserting that the Torah prescribed paying the dowry and marrying the victim as a punishment for rapists? That is what I said, after all, and it reveals quite a bit about how the early Jews viewed rape.

In my mind, (and, I imagine, your mind, not to mention the minds of most people living in the civilized world), punishing a rapist by making him marry his victim (remember, the 50 shekels was the dowry, not a fine) punishes the victim, not the rapist. To attack Islam based on a butchered misinterpretation of Sura 4:24 when there are passages like Deuteronomy 22:22-29 in the Torah and the old testament which require no such butchery isn't just silly. It's intellectually dishonest.