The trial of the century - the crime of the century? [Archive]

Skybird

02-08-10, 12:11 PM

Trial of the century? Hardly. :nope:

Sounds like another nutter politician yappin his mouth off to further his agenda.

:yawn::zzz:

For being critical on Islam and referring to it's very own scripture, you can get punished at court. Intimidation and threatening with hysteric mass protests and boycots makes sovereign nation's policies bending over in submission. Youth crime statistics that used to prove black on white that Muslim colonists's youngsters are twice as often represented than Germans although there are (still) several times as many Germans than foreign Muslims, get forged and nullified by featuring no longer any differentiation by ethnicity and migration background. A wanted criminal named Muhammad S. in many major newspapers by chief editors gets politcally correctly renamed into Martin K. Heresy becomes a punishable crime, when the heresy is against Islam. The enlightenment gets reinterpreted as an effort to supress civilisational advance and reject the superiority of Islam. Sharia becomes a desirable supplementation of Western law that without it now is considered to be lacking quality, completeness, cultural affection and justice. A family murderer in a wrongly so-called honour-killing is no perpetrator but a victim of a dysfunctional family constellation who needs help and sympathy. Apostates and ex-Muslims get called fundamentalist Islam-haters. Cartoons get called an abuse of free speech. Policing of carnival parades that no Muslim offending shall take place is called an act of cultural balancing that expresses our big respect. Violence and systematic supression and killing of Jews and Christians in Mulsims lands, the discrimination and intimidation of foreign believers and religions, gets ignored, but one critical word on Islam immediately is brandmarked as a serious display of a hate-inciting haughty attitude towards Islam. Calling for reciprocity in behavior makes you a rightwing extremist. Accepting extremist organisaitons spokesmen and Saudi funding of Islamic mosque-building is called a constructive dialogue, while churches and synagogues in all Muslim coutnries gets ripped of rights, legal powers, and discriminated with the goal to end their existence. Being informed about the scriputure of Islam and the content of the Quran, the Hadith, the meaning of Sharia, is called Islamophobia. The erasing of basic human rights and freedoms gets called tolerance. Fear becomes hidden by calling it respect. Pre-advancing obedience and submission gets named as "multi-culturalism".

Pointing at these things going on, gets called an agenda of a nutter politician.

I surely think that many Western people truly deserve to loose the freedoms and rights they foolishly take for granted, and I surely think they deserve to live under the whip of Islam's totalitarian order, that is absolute, uncompromised and complete in it's claim for power. If people have freedom, but do not know what to do with it, and trade it away carelessly in order to evade the need to make a stand in defence of freedom, than they deserve the fate of freedom being taken away from them. They probably even do not care.

Be not mistaken. The rubble of WWII we have cleraned up and put aside. We buiold new. But Islam will bring darness and destruction of knowledge and civilisation for the next thousand years and longer. The damage it does to the cultures of man wherever it reached them, surpasses the Nazis' heritage both in quality and quantity. If Hitler will be remembered in the year 3500 remaisn to be seen. But Muhammad after 1400 years is stronge rthan ever. Not because it is so convincing and shining (it is not, and the backwardedness of the Muhameddan world, it'S supression of human rights and women as well as it's lacking intellectual potence, is telling evidence of that), but because we behave so dumb and so weak and cowardly and give up so willingly what our ancestors have achieved - becasue we have Angst.

The same kind of Angst that made leftist pseudo-intellectuals during the cold war warning of not provoking Soviet communism and offer it a hand and be tolerant towards it in order to avoid it becoming angry.

Back then they embraced the Soviets. The same type of people, the same type of retarded thinking today embraces - Islam.

P.S. At least this is funny, although I think that bastard should have been whipped to the drivers seat and beaten until he continued to do the work he is being payed for.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249335/Bus-delayed-Muslim-driver-pulls-pray-aisle.html

Of course, he is free to quit the job if it collides with his precious superior beliefs (after he has brought the bus back to the station at the end of his current shift). Of course he also should be excluded from getting any social wellfare payments. If that means misery for him, he is always free to pack his things and his many children, pack his damn quran as well, and leave europe and go to a Muslim country where he can happily live and do Muslim stuff as long as we must not take note of it.

Tribesman

02-08-10, 06:44 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ray-aisle.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249335/Bus-delayed-Muslim-driver-pulls-pray-aisle.html)

No wonder sky gets all uptight
Funny story though, the bloke in charge of Tfl is like Wilders a populist with funny hair, strange attitudes and a habit of speaking nonsense.

he is always free to pack his things and his many children
Nice assumption, a typical racist stereotype.:up:

Of course, he is free to quit the job if it collides with his precious superior beliefs
If only the good old superior atheists were not too lazy to drive buses them lowdown Muslims wouldn't be able to steal all the jobs.

Of course he also should be excluded from getting any social wellfare payments.
Errrrr...if he quit his job he wouldn't be entitled to welfare.:har:

BTW anyone notice that the Geert Wilders petition Happy Times posted carries a Muslim dating agency ad?

Snestorm

02-08-10, 09:01 PM

1: Freedom Of Speech was never written into any Constitution to protect Popular Speeech, as Popular Speech requires no such protection.

2: It's time to stop, and reverse, The Colonization Of Europe.
The time has come for The Dutch People to take back THEIR COUNTRY.

(I am not bothered by the left wing extremist's ". . . ist" or ". . . ism" labels that they like to throw out. Get a new line folks, as that one is dull and inneffective.)

CaptainHaplo

02-08-10, 09:55 PM

Ultimately this isn't about free speech, but about how someone with a willingness to fight for the rights of everyone EXCEPT a protected class will be dealt with.

Its also going to be extremely interesting when we see how the average citizen of the area reacts and who they choose to support.

Snestorm

02-08-10, 10:22 PM

Tribesman

02-09-10, 02:42 AM

Freedom Of Speech was never written into any Constitution to protect Popular Speeech as Popular Speech requires no such protection.

So a populist like Wilders doesn't need protection.

It's time to stop, and reverse, The Colonization Of Europe.

William Joyce 1942:har:

The time has come for The Dutch People to take back THEIR COUNTRY.

Do you mean Belgium?
Will the Wallooons have to leave or should the Dutch nationalists (who like to play the victim card) get their way and insist that those nasty Frenchies assimilate into Dutch culture?

Skybird

02-09-10, 04:37 AM

Its also going to be extremely interesting when we see how the average citizen of the area reacts and who they choose to support.

Holland since some time now sees the highest level of Dutch since WWII turning their back on their country and leaving it. The Netherlands lose educated, often specialised, tolerant social middle and high class, and they import uneducated, intolerant often antisocial low class (like it is in many other european countries, too). Good trade, eh!? And mlike in Germany and Britain and Sweden, the third generation of Muslims in Holland with migration background prove to be more orthodox and conservative and radicalised, than their grandparents two generations earlier.

Also, Wilders is leading the polls for presidential elections, his party is in lead, too. Timing of the trial has nothing to do with it, of course. :up:

Of wilders called 18 witnesses, 15 have been rejected. Amongst them are several apostates, and official spokesmen as well as scholars of "radical" Islam, that by that obviously are not the officially wanted Christian-equivalent Euro-Islam that unfortunately does not exist, but nevertheless is taken for real. The court ruled that it does not need to hear confessions by insiders and experts who have not to tell the kind of things that officially are wanted to be taken note of, but would remind of the unpleasant truth.

Edit:

A variation of the Wilders trial:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249393/9-11-bombers-heroes-What-Muslim-children-told-Christian-teacher-forced-job-tolerating-racism.html

And in Germany, since early Decembre, a former leftist, now PC brigade reappeared from the ruins of the cold war and started to turn things upside down, too. In the feuilletons of German papers, which are traditionally very disconnected from reality and left-leaning, a huge, very vitriolic offensive against Islam critics has been launched, often distorting facts and real life events to a degree that it borders open lying. German readers can follow the counterstrikes against this appeasement effort at the webpages of German-languaged Politicially Incorrect News, and Die Achse des Guten. In International Press, it has not gotten much attention, only the Wall Street Journal mentiones it today in two short paragraphs, which are an understatement.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703630404575052881760519078.html

German Cultural Appeasement

The country's art pages consider not Islamists but their critics as the real 'preachers of hate.'

Berlin.

Just when the murderous lessons of political Islam—from the numerous terror attacks to "honor killings" and hate preachers—were thought to be inculcated into Germany's media, a wide swath of journalists and academics suffered a collective relapse into appeasement.

Commentators ranging from the conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) to the left-liberal Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) and the liberal weekly Die Zeit recently identified not radical Islam but its critics as the real problem. They are "our holy warriors," (Claudius Seidl in the FAZ) "our preachers of hate" (Thomas Steinfeld in the SZ) who represent "enlightened fundamentalism" (Thomas Assheuer in Die Zeit).

The Wilders trial is everywhere across Europe.

Tribesman

02-09-10, 05:24 AM

Of wilders called 18 witnesses, 15 have been rejected.
Is that because their testimony has nothing at all to do with the charges.:har:

Mikhayl

02-09-10, 06:02 AM

As salam `alaykom ya akho, ahlan bi Eurabia al muslimyya. But don't worry my friends, there's still some good places to hang around, here: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/

Tribesman

02-09-10, 06:32 AM

But don't worry my friends, there's still some good places to hang around, here:
But why go there, you can simply come here and get the news.
Can you find any news topic about the global Muslim conspiracy sky has started that isn't matched with an identical topic starting on Stormfront?

You can even get the same demographic timebomb nonsense over there.
Actually I find that strange.
If all these Muslims immigrants are flooding Holland and are out breeding europeans then why is there roughly the same amount of western foriegners as non-western and why is there more second generation westerners compared to non-western.
Bat-Yeor....bat-sh** crazy.
Come to think of it if all the clever people are leaving holland does that mean all the europeans going to Holland are really thick and their own countries are going to be a paradise of the tolerant social middle and high classes?

Mikhayl

02-09-10, 06:41 AM

Yeah I know, but I figure I prefer having these people rambling on the internet from their underground bunker than out in the street.
If nobody bothers replying, this kind of thread falls to second page in no time.

CaptainHaplo

02-09-10, 07:49 AM

Schroeder

02-09-10, 08:17 AM

As salam `alaykom ya akho, ahlan bi Eurabia al muslimyya. But don't worry my friends, there's still some good places to hang around, here: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/
Excuse me Mikhayl but that is rubbish. (OK I didn't understand your first sentence so this is only addressing the second).
White pride thinking has nothing to do with it, at least not for me. I'm only against that ONE group of people here is growing in power. I don't care for the colour of the skin and I don't care where you are from all I care for is how you behave over here. And I see bad deficits there at a certain cultural group that has proven to be hostile towards us time and again.

But every time one says so the Nazi card is played. That is one way to shut down criticism, isn't it. Everyone who isn't happy about that a hostile, totalitarian and women hating culture is spreading througout Europe and the rest of the word is a beleiving Nazi of course who is sleeping with a copy of "Mein Kampf" under his pillow (Hitler's book is quiet a success in Turkey btw...).

Sorry but that is simply not true! I hate Nazis and yet I dislike Islam just as much (which isn't surprising given that both ideologies have pretty much the same goals and means of achieving them).

Mikhayl

02-09-10, 08:23 AM

It was a warm welcome to Muslim Eurabia. Don't worry brother, everything will be fine.

Skybird

02-09-10, 08:31 AM

Sky - if Wilders and his party are leading in the polls - the that says alot about what the average person thinks. Too many things are coming together - it won't be long before governments are forced to make the decision to obey their own laws and answer to their citizenry, or declare themselves as elected tyranies.

Its not just in Europe your seeing this my friend. We in the states are seeing moves by the federal government that shows it is positioning itself to repress its people.

http://cryptogon.com/?p=13019

This move for example would open the way for state governors to be bypassed should the federal government want to send in the troops from another state. Its important to note as well that of the 10 governors, 5 each are from each party - but one of the Republican governors is from Puerto Rico - and thus has no binging vote. So a governor from a place that isn't even a state will "SPEAK" for a number of governors.

Europeans are cowardish and always, always very, very very reasonable. when they have finishing wieghing all the sensitive implications, the eventualities and if's and maybe's, nothing is left of their intention to form a decision anymore, and what they actually do, is just meant to make their conscience feeling the love again.

Also, the EU runs a clear policy of islamising europe and form a united european islamic block, becasue like the intellectuals once in Iran, 30 years ago, they think they will be equals in such a lineup, and eventually will tame islam by their own shinign civilisaitonal superiority.

Typical for this dangerously distorted self-perception is what Jürgen Trittin, leading politician of Germany's Greens in parliament, once have said, and more or less I quote him literally: He said

"It is not about working for forming parlamentaric majorities in the Bundestag, but it is about securing Deutungshohheit (= "monopole of interpretation") in public discussion by enforcing the dominance of our minority".

This quote by content is very, very representative for the European left, and the EU's handling of politics as well.

In other words, Trittin wants the minority enforcing decisions against the will of the majority, by making sure the minority yells louder than anyone else, and by manipulating information available to the public (like it is being done by forging statistics and names if they shed a bad light on islamic migrants/colonists). It is dictatorship we are talking of, plain and simple (that by dominating education systems and information polcies and media implements internalised intellectual self-censoring of people's minds). Manipulation and lying gets justified by the goals one wants to acchive: Trittin'S goals. Islam does the same, it is the biggest forger and rewriter of history there ever has been - the esxcuse is to make history falling into line with islamic self-understanding and Islamic claims.

Since longer time now I think, and sometimes aid that in dicussions, that the left have a very strong affinity to totalitarianism as long as that totalitarianism is upholding their political goals.

The EU wants to import another 50 million Muslim workers to europe in the next 25-40 years, plus their wifes and children. Qualification and intellectual compatability with Western constitutions, laws and cultural values and freedoms has been prevented to be made a criterion. Instead the native locals in Europe are now forced by the Lisbon treaty and it's interlinking to the so-called human rights charta to not be critical of both Muslim migration and Islamic content. And do not forget that for the left the growing number of Muslims means: voters voting for the left (at least as long as Muslims still lack the numerical strength to dominate Europe. Once they do, it will be over with the lefts' destructive self-justification, but then the damage already will have been completed).

In the end the demand and call of Islam is global total dominance, whether the eggheads in the EU wants to understand that or not. and it seems to me this is what we will get in Europe. See, right now I am even commiting a crime (incitement speech and offending of a religion) by just typing this post, I could be sued for it if somebody could identify my real world identity. The right, by EU understanding, to think what I say here, I do not have, nor has anyone else in EUrabia. It's just that I do not care. By the end of this century, europe will be politically and economically meaningless and intellectually impotent, because it will be by a 55-60% majority Islamic in population. If America still stands as a power by itself then (questionable), Europe will not be an ally then, but a threat, but the PC disease seems to spread in the US as well. The democracies are defenceless against Islam, by their constitutions and law codes - and Islam knows that, and even says that loud and clear (Eurocrats do not listen to it). The only regimes that can fight back against Islam are the ones willing to use violence even against their own citizens, as well as against other nations, eventually. In the end, Muhammad's major language was that of war, blackmailing and intimidation. And that is even openly admitted by Islamic scholars (lefts and Eurocrats of course gain know it better, like always).

Tribesman

02-09-10, 09:03 AM

But every time one says so the Nazi card is played.
It is a problem , look at poor skybird, anytime he wants to protest or joins a group its either made up of neo-nazis or gets the neo nazis jumping straight on board.

Also, the EU runs a clear policy of islamising europe and form a united european islamic block,
Then again I don't think you will find many on Stormfront who are quite that loopy.
Then again they don't know the non-existant EU law Sky knows:rotfl2:
He mentions the non-existant law again in that post.
You have to look very carefully to find the real law though as its invisible and only special people can see it.

In the end the demand and call of Islam is global total dominance
Yeah, once they can decide which of the dozens of branches of the dozens of sects is the real one

NeonSamurai

02-09-10, 01:47 PM

Since longer time now I think, and sometimes aid that in dicussions, that the left have a very strong affinity to totalitarianism as long as that totalitarianism is upholding their political goals.

Frankly I think this is the trend of all forms of extremism, be it political, religious, ecological, right or left. They all love totalitarianism provided it supports their world view and goals.

This is precisely why I cannot abide any of the forms of extremism, especially extreme forms of tolerance.

Tribesman

02-09-10, 04:07 PM

This is precisely why I cannot abide any of the forms of extremism, especially extreme forms of tolerance.

You have to tolerate the extremes, even those as extreme as Osama B
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L0vZEX1YZc

Skybird

02-10-10, 05:02 AM

New version of the Wilders trial:

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/ap/20100208/twl-eu-sweden-handshake-refusal-c8e2916.html
http://www.shortnews.de/start.cfm?id=814642

STOCKHOLM – Sweden's unemployment agency has been found guilty of discrimination for expelling a Muslim man from a job training program because he refused to shake hands with a woman.
A Stockholm court Monday ordered the Public Employment Service to pay 50,000 kronor ($6,700) in damages to an immigrant from Bosnia who lost his jobless benefits when he was kicked out of the program.
Citing his faith, the man had refused to shake hands with a woman when he was interviewing for an internship. The agency said his behavior was part of the reason he didn't get the position, and decided to exclude him from the program.
The court ruled that the man was discriminated against because of his religion. It wasn't immediately clear whether the ruling would be appealed.

Obviously a Muslim's right to misbehave and discriminate women weighs heavier than the rights of women.

Mikhayl

02-10-10, 05:43 AM

See, right now I am even commiting a crime (incitement speech and offending of a religion) by just typing this post, I could be sued for it if somebody could identify my real world identity. The right, by EU understanding, to think what I say here, I do not have, nor has anyone else in EUrabia. It's just that I do not care.

Ok, where can I report you? Either you're right and you're commiting a crime, and we'll get rid of your postings that alienate members and would-be members of Subsim, or you're lying and you'll be exposed for such.

CaptainHaplo

02-10-10, 07:30 AM

European Commission against Racism and Intolerance

or - because Skybird is from Germany, he also falls under Section 130 of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) IF he publicly incites hatred against parts of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them or to insult, maliciously slur or defame them in a manner violating their (constitutionally protected) human dignity. However, Skybird is simply incorrect in that his post is a crime - because Section 130 requires "the incitement of hatred takes effect within German territory" - and this forum is not hosted within German territory. However, it still is considered to be "insulting" to muslims because it questions their veracity in claiming that Islam is a religion of peace. It is for these very reasons that the trial this thread is about exists - intolerance of anyone not willing to be politically correct - except of course the fundamentalist muslims who demand that society bow to their ways - since they are obviously tolerated.

A little research on your part Mikhayl - would have given you the answer to your question, instead of trying to make Skybird out as a liar just because you have a view that differs from his. Trying to marginalize your opponent with slurs (such as "your either a criminal or a liar" - paraphrased) just because you cannot argue against the facts or view he has, shows an unwillingness to learn and discuss things maturely. I hope you will correct that.

Schroeder

02-10-10, 07:42 AM

New version of the Wilders trial:

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/ap/20100208/twl-eu-sweden-handshake-refusal-c8e2916.html
http://www.shortnews.de/start.cfm?id=814642

Obviously a Muslim's right to misbehave and discriminate women weighs heavier than the rights of women.
I just hope the woman will sue him for discrimination.:dead:

Mikhayl

02-10-10, 07:46 AM

Thanks, I actually researched that after posting, and I think I'll actually report that stuff. We never know, it might prove fruitful.

As for "slurs", there's none, it's Skybird who said himself that he was commiting a crime. Don't mistake "not willing to argue" with "unable to argue", the latter might make you feel like you have a strong point, but you don't.

More generally, I just can't believe that blanket statements about "the muslims and their wives and kids and wellfare" get a free pass on this website. I discovered subsim through the Silent Hunter mods forums and loved the place, the community and all. But when I see that kind of things it really kills it for me.

Schroeder

02-10-10, 08:13 AM

Mikhayl

02-10-10, 08:24 AM

Well then, if his claims are completely wrong why don't you just refute them? I'm no expert on Islam, I can only talk about what I read and see every day here in Germany. I think you aren't dumb so why not arguing about it? If all the stuff he is saying isn't true and if Islam is so friendly and tolerant where are the examples of that? It should be easy then to proof that Skybird's extremists are just a hand full of nutjobs who are scorned by the average Muslim in Europe. Maybe you could change my point of view.

I don't give a **** about your point of view or Skybird's, sorry if that was unclear.

All I care about is contributing (or not) to a website that gives a free pass to blatant expressions of racism. And don't serve me the old "it's a religion, it's not a race". Criticism of a religion is one thing, lumping millions of people into one and resorting to distasteful stereotypes is always racism, plain and simple.

Over here the police has just recently confiscated a bunch of pamphlets in a storeroom of a Mosque which were printed in Saudi Arabia. They were labelled "Women under the protection of Islam". They were confiscated because they contained instructions on how to beat your wife without anyone seeing the results....:nope:

The Imam had already started to recollect these pamphlets from his community when they became forbidden a year or so ago and even lead the police to the storage room, when they searched the Mosque, where he kept them for destroying them later...or so he said. I wonder whether they would have been collected again too if they had not become forbidden and how is it possible that those things are handed out here to begin with? But Islam is a modern peaceful religion that is tolerant and respects the rights of others. So who am I to oppose it?Saudi Arabia isn't Islam. The Saudi king and his clique aren't Islam. These people represent their regime and their caste, and the funny part is that they are largely supported by the right wing politicians who are supposed to defend Europe from the Judeo-Bolshevik, uh sorry, Islamo-Leftist plot.

You don't want radical ideology in your streets? Stop voting for people who befriend and support radical regimes who fund the spreading of their ideology around the world.

France has made efforts to shun Saudi influence, and the French representatives of Islam in the country are lightyears away from Wahhabism.

But according to Skybird and his ilk, Islam has to be radical, or it's not Islam, therefore the French Imams are probably not Muslims and so this example of modern and peaceful religion is invalid. Yawn.

Skybird

02-10-10, 08:43 AM

Typical reflex on display here - if you cannot counter critical questions on Islam's own content by argument, try to discredit or intimidate those asking these unwelcomed questions. Where there is no question being asked, there is no need to answer.

This is the functioning behind this neologism, "Islamophobia": It was brought into discussion by Saudi Arabia, which was the first to push it at the UN in the 90s, first by confronting the general secretary with it, and then by implementing it in public debate via the Human Rights Council of the UN that at that time already was under heavy influence by Muslim lobby states. The poltiical left after 9/11 took it up with great enthusiasm, because it freed them from the need to critically check their own percpetion of Islam by allowing them to bash criticism of Islam without having any argument for that different from labelling critical attitudes towards islam as a phobia, that is: soiething ill, something irrational and unreasonable and unhealthy that by it's own existence proves that it is not in order itself. that way, no critical discussion of the arguments of "Islamophobes" is needed anymore. Discussion ends, period.

And no, I am not committing a crime in the real meaning of the term "crime", I am just breaking a legal implication installed by the EU that makes complete mockery of freedom of opinion and freedom of speech because it puts arguments that are criticism of religion on the same level with hate speech, discrimination and incitement no matter whether that is true or not, and no matter the quality of the argument. It is a gaggle to silence Islam-criticsm. But I do not give a penny for the EUrocrats and their obedient dhimmitude, and I will speak out against Islam on the basis of it'S very own history, it's very own claims, it's very own scripture (all of which neither Tribesman nor Mikhayl ever adress, but ignore). Try to sue me for refering to this - and in principle you sue Islam for being what it is.

NeonSamurai

02-10-10, 08:54 AM

More generally, I just can't believe that blanket statements about "the muslims and their wives and kids and wellfare" get a free pass on this website. I discovered subsim through the Silent Hunter mods forums and loved the place, the community and all. But when I see that kind of things it really kills it for me.

You might notice that there is a lot of stuff here that as you say gets a "free pass" that you may disagree with, or even agree with and others do not. Here at Subsim we generally try not to censor the expression of one's thoughts, provided they are expressed in an adult manner.

That said I have seen plenty of things here that personally offended me. But we try to be tolerant of other views. About the only things we clamp down on is topic spam, overt racism and other forms of blatent hatred, or utterly baseless and easily disproved claims based on hatred.

Do Skybird's posts on Islam fall into that? No not quite, though his statements are certainly offensive to some. But they do not fall into the categories i mentioned, why? Well for one thing he isn't being racist, as a criticism of religion is in of itself not racism. Though Skybird is well know by regulars for having a huge dislike of religion (and yes I am putting it mildly), he bases his dislike on intellectual reasons and argues from that position rather then just spewing bile and hate everywhere. Lastly many of the claims he makes do have at least some basis in reality, and cannot be summarily dismissed. He may stretch the blanket too far, but it generally does cover at least a good segment of the population he is speaking about.

Some of you may disagree with my position on this, that's fine too. Though I would ask, is your position as carefully thought out as mine is, or are you reacting, rather then thinking about it first? I think our society is teaching us to be far to reflexive, rather then reflective. Where we throw valid criticism in with intolerance and hate with out a second thought.

Anyhow this is my take on things. If Neal disagrees with anything that I said then I am sure he will say so :DL

NeonSamurai

02-10-10, 09:05 AM

All I care about is contributing (or not) to a website that gives a free pass to blatant expressions of racism. And don't serve me the old "it's a religion, it's not a race". Criticism of a religion is one thing, lumping millions of people into one and resorting to distasteful stereotypes is always racism, plain and simple.

Actually that does not qualify as racism, as there are believers of Islam from every single 'race' on the planet. Just as stereotyping in of itself is not racism. Lastly, just because something is a stereotype, does not mean it is not true, there are many examples of generally valid stereotypes. And from the other side of the equation, just because a stereotype may be true does not mean it applies to all.

We don't give a free pass to blatant expressions of racism, and Skybird has not crossed that line at this point in time.

Skybird

02-10-10, 09:08 AM

All I care about is contributing (or not) to a website that gives a free pass to blatant expressions of racism.

Criticism of Islam is no racism. Islam is no race, it is an ideology.

And don't serve me the old "it's a religion, it's not a race". Criticism of a religion is one thing, lumping millions of people into one and resorting to distasteful stereotypes is always racism, plain and simple.

I ground on the writings of the Quran, the example set by Muhammad, as well as what I have learned about Sharia and Hadith. These are no races, but means the content of an ideology, a tradition it is. None of my criticsm is new or original. You can find it in many academic books and works by critical authors (some of them Muslims or ex-Muslims themselves), knowing the stuff, and they often get discredited the same way like you try to gag me my calling me a racist. But I am as much a racist like Wilders is a rightwinger (he is libertarian, from what I know about his political orientation), or Condell is driven by mere hate. We poiunt at obvious probeoms with Islam that you want to be ignored, and we ask critical questions aboiut the reasonability and compatabilityof content of that idelogy - questions to which you have no better answer than to ignore them.

Saudi Arabia isn't Islam. The Saudi king and his clique aren't Islam.
No? And a moderate Nazi is something different than a radical Nazi? most Germans before 1939 were peace-loving, and minded their own private business. but this did not help us. The small minority grow into a movement that nevertheless was strong enoguh to spelol desaster - in the name of all Germans. Islamism is another neologism. It is used to create the wrong impression that there is a radical Quran and a moderate quran, two kinds of muhammad, so to speak, and the one is different from the other. That is not true. Where starts islam to become Islamism? To quote a german website: Does it start when refusing swimming lessons at school? Refusing to learn the hosting nation'S language? Attending lessons in radical Quran schools? Offending Wetsern girls as "infidel whores"? Collective murdering of a daughter because she lives like one of these "Western whores"? excusing violence with carricatures being printed in a wetsern paper? Constructing suitcase bombs? Or not before they are exploding?

You don't want radical ideology in your streets? Stop voting for people who befriend and support radical regimes who fund the spreading of their ideology around the world.

Islam is a radical ideolgy, with a totalitarian claim for total control over all the world, and every individual'S life. Shias and Sunnites are killing each other sine over 1000 years. Jews are hated in Islam saince the time of muhammad. Killing infidels to clean the earth from their dirt is demanded in the Quran since it was put together. The systematic discrimination of Christians and Jews as socalled people of the books that should be allowed to live as long as they are submissive and obedient and pay their protection money to Islam, also is deamnded since the quran was ut together in it'S first version.

But according to Skybird and his ilk, Islam has to be radical, or it's not Islam, therefore the French Imams are probably not Muslims and so this example of modern and peaceful religion is invalid. Yawn.

I base on the teaching of Quran, and if you have not understood that the quran is the basis of islam, then you have not understood Islam.

Mikhayl

02-10-10, 09:14 AM

Actually that does not qualify as racism, as there are believers of Islam from every single 'race' on the planet. Just as stereotyping in of itself is not racism. Lastly, just because something is a stereotype, does not mean it is not true, there are many examples of generally valid stereotypes. And from the other side of the equation, just because a stereotype may be true does not mean it applies to all.

We don't give a free pass to blatant expressions of racism, and Skybird has not crossed that line at this point in time.

Is that the "official" position of subsim?

Skybird

02-10-10, 09:24 AM

I hear you, Neon Samurai. This thread got a bit out of hand, nothing new in GT, but when it happens on an issue that potentially is as critical and "loaded" as this one, there is a chance for greater trouble in the future, and then it really becomes nasty, eventually. And though I sometime want to provoke in a constructive understanding, I do not want the latter, at least not in this forum. What I wanted is to give an update on the goings in the Wilders trial, because I really think this is a groundbreaking (in a negative way) event that tries to damage some of our most basic and precious freedoms and rights. Islamic lobbies (Muslim organisations/states as well as Western, mostly left Islam sympathisers) repeatedly have demanded the West to self-censor it's freedom of speech and freedom of opinion in order to make it compatible with Islamic demands to leave it unquestioned and untouched (right the reason why the Muslim world is so very much in stagnation since so long a time), and never before have they come so far, like in this trial. If "blasphemy" becomes a punishable offence, then any and every criticism can be gagged by calling it blasphemous. And then you can forget free speech and free opinion. Islam puts obedience over freedom, it'S ultimate authority is the Quran and Sharia, to which all and evertyhing else (freedom, humanism, human rights, Western constitutions and law codes, etc) must be subordinate. This is no question of tradition or Islamic interpreation - this is the very heart and core and essence of Islam. Muslims may want to have it that way. But we still are no muslim world, and we still must not obey to their global claim just because they raise it.

This is alarming, imo, and worrying, and so I have this thread. I will cut down my contributions to this discussion that has grown into a wider battlegroudn again, and focus on occasonally add an update to it, if something major happened during the Wilders trial.

Schroeder

02-10-10, 09:51 AM

I don't give a **** about your point of view or Skybird's, sorry if that was unclear.

Oh come on, did I use foul language here so far? I do respect your opinion though I don't agree with it. I haven't a patent on being right so I asked you for where the wrong points are but instead of answering me, you just tell me what you think of my opinion.

If you call me a racist then you didn't read my posts as I already told you that I don't care for the color of one's skin but for how one behaves here. Actually why don't I have any problem with other ethnicities? If I'm a blatant racist why don't I dislike all the others too (including ex Muslims, I don't think they change their race when leaving a religion behind)? All my fault I guess.

As I've previously said I don't like Nazis, I haven't ever voted for them and will never vote for them, period!
I'm not preferring one totalitarian dictatorship over another.

Saudi Arabia isn't Islam. The Saudi king and his clique aren't Islam. These people represent their regime and their caste, and the funny part is that they are largely supported by the right wing politicians who are supposed to defend Europe from the Judeo-Bolshevik, uh sorry, Islamo-Leftist plot.
If an Imam hands out pamphlets then I shall think this is not part of Islam?
What is Islam then if not what the people and the clerics make of it?

France has made efforts to shun Saudi influence, and the French representatives of Islam in the country are lightyears away from Wahhabism.

But according to Skybird and his ilk, Islam has to be radical, or it's not Islam, therefore the French Imams are probably not Muslims and so this example of modern and peaceful religion is invalid. Yawn.I don't know how peaceful Muslims are in France (actually I remember burning suburbs...though that was not religiously motivated AFAIK). But if they are as peaceful as you say maybe your Imams should come over here and teach ours how to do that (I'm not mocking you here, if there are really no problems with Islam in France then your Imams are definitely doing a better job than ours).

NeonSamurai

02-10-10, 11:49 AM

Is that the "official" position of subsim?

If you want the official position of Subsim you would have to talk to Neal directly as he is the only one that can express something like that. I am going by how things have been handled in the past.

If you feel I am acting in a biased or improper manner, by all means contact Neal and say so. He will look into it and censure me if I have crossed that line. But so far in my opinion Skybird and other participants have not crossed the line from academic based criticism to overt racism/hate speech.

I believe that all religions are fair game when it comes to criticism of their practices and belief systems that affect others. I would also add that there is a big difference between attacking a religion and attacking the adherents of the religion.

Tribesman

02-10-10, 11:57 AM

You are wasting your time Mikhayl.

Its funny really.
If someone uses the same arguements as the Neo-Nazis you cannot make the comparison.
If someone posts the same articles you find on a Neo-Nazi site you cannot make the comparison.
If someone uses the same quotes as a Neo-Nazi you cannot make the comparison.

All Skybirds arguements are based on fact.
If he finds a fundamentalist nutter with a view he likes then that is a fact.
If he finds a fundamentalist nutter who says there is only one view then that is a fact that reinforces his fact.
Simple isn't it.
It means he is justified in his arguementsand is not basing them on prejudice or hatred...they are based on fact.
Old uncle adolf had lots of experts writing up huge volumes of academic facts to prove he didn't really hate Jews but just had a reational reason to be suspicious of them.
David Duke would be another example, he uses the education results and prison population to show his hatred of blacks is rational, he uses the Torah and media/financial matters to prove that Jews run the world and seek global dominance.

As for the "it ain't racism" nonsense that is more utter bull.
Racism is manifested as racial discrimination, that is clearly defined as including prejudice based on religion.

If you manage to last in a debate without Skybird throwing his dummy out the pram and adding you to his legendary ignore list then press first on his demographic myths , they don't stand even the briefest scrutiny.
If you want to press him on the scriptural angle then there is a French/Jewish scolar who is very good,you will often find him partially quoted on some of Skybirds favourite islamophobic sites as he is very credible....but they will of course only partially quote him as his facts don't agree with what tyhey want their "facts" to say.

Oh and in case you are not familiar with that rag Sky likes to read as "proof" that the media is full everyday of stories that back up his fantasy. A wet dream headline for the Daily Mail would be.....
"Gay, foriegn, communist, immigrant, unemployed, muslim, on welfare, having lots of babies, mugging grannies, stealing jobs and plotting the overthrow of western civilisation"

I must say his comparison with the communist threat was quite good though.
Rather reminiscent of McCarthy and his extremism, defending the free world from the jewish communist conspiracy.:yeah:

NeonSamurai

02-10-10, 12:20 PM

As for the "it ain't racism" nonsense that is more utter bull.
Racism is manifested as racial discrimination, that is clearly defined as including prejudice based on religion.

Racism:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
racial prejudice or discrimination

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=65090&dict=CALD

the belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, or the resulting unfair treatment of members of other races

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/racism

(Sociology) the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
(Sociology) abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief
a belief that human races have distinctive characteristics that determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one’s race is superior and has the right to control others.
a belief in a policy of enforcing the asserted right of control.
a belief that human races have distinctive characteristics that determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one’s race is superior and has the right to control others.
discrimination on the basis of race, especially against blacks and other non-whites.

This is why it doesn't fall under the category of racism, as religion has nothing to do with race what so ever. Prejudice over religion is another entity entirely, and though it may have some similarities to racism (such as the belief in one religion being superior to the other, is similar to the belief that one race is superior to another), they are not the same.

BTW scientifically it is impossible to even categorize humans into distinct "races"

Skybird

02-10-10, 12:43 PM

Ah, this "religious criticism is racism" point of debate again.

http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2007/11/critique-of-pure-islam.html

WHEN SOMEONE says that some of the passages of the Qur'an are violent, and that Islam itself is political, what do you call that? It's an important question. Strangely enough, I've heard it called "racist," which seems very odd. Islam is not a race.

I've also heard it called "Islamophobia," which is also strange, because it is not a phobia.

It is religious criticism. But it's more than that, because Islam is not merely a religion. Islam is also a political system with political goals. So instead of racism or Islamophobia, we could call it religious or political criticism.

But if you call it that, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it. In a free society, it is a perfectly legitimate activity to criticize religious doctrines and political systems. It's perfectly all right, for example, to point out that the Catholic church frowns upon birth control, or that communism and free enterprise are incompatible.

So when someone explains the political ideology (http://citizenwarrior2.blogspot.com/2007/10/dar-al-islam-and-dar-al-harb-house-of.html) contained in the Qur'an (http://citizenwarrior2.blogspot.com/2007/10/quran-book-of-allah_21.html), it is a completely legitimate activity, and anyone who calls it racism or Islamophobia either doesn't understand what they're saying, or, more likely, they are trying to censor the person. That kind of censorship is out of line in a free society.

The fact that exponents of pure Islam (Jihadis (http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2008/09/what-is-jihadi.html)) will not tolerate criticism of Islam is one of the main criticisms of Islam. The fact that the Qur'an itself is adamant about disallowing any criticism of the Qur'an (and calls for a death sentence for doing so) is one of the most legitimate things to criticize about the Qur'an.

If someone doesn't hire a Muslim simply because the applicant is a Muslim, that is discrimination, and that's a different issue. If someone beats up a Muslim because he's a Muslim, that is a hate crime and is illegal, immoral, and should be punished.

But criticism of Islamic doctrine? It can and should be done.

Where it gets tricky is immigration laws. There has to be some selection. If you have a Muslim applying for immigration, what do you do? The person himself may not be in favor of following the violent instructions in the Qur'an, but how do we know? Because he is a Muslim, and because the Qur'an contains political goals and ideas, he is more likely to be subversive and ascribe to doctrines that we would consider treasonous than the average applicant.

What do we do about that?If anybody has some answers, let's hear it (in comments). This is, I believe, one of the most important issues that arises out of the study of the Qur'an (http://citizenwarrior2.blogspot.com/2007/10/quran-book-of-allah_21.html) and the Sunnah (http://citizenwarrior2.blogspot.com/2007/10/sunnah-way-of-prophet-muhammad_21.html).

One possibility, of course, is to allow no Muslims to immigrate into our countries. I don't know about that one.

It is also possible to give an immigration applicant a lie-detector test and ask about their intentions within our country. In the U.S. they have to learn a little about the country and swear an oath of alleigance, but under taqiyya (http://citizenwarrior2.blogspot.com/2007/10/taqiyya-religious-deception.html), a Muslim with the intention of helping to overthrow the government would be allowed by Islamic doctrine to swear the oath without intending to keep it, so that requirement is not enough.

Another possibility is to allow Muslims in, but really crack down on preaching jihad (http://citizenwarrior2.blogspot.com/2007/10/what-does-jihad-mean.html)within the country. Most countries have laws against sedition (http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2008/09/definition-of-sedition.html) or treason, but so far as I know, no country has enforced those laws against Muslims preaching in mosques (http://citizenwarrior2.blogspot.com/2007/11/wahhabi-invasion-of-america.html). But once the precedent was set, it would be a straightforward matter. (Read more about the relationship between sedition and Shari'a (http://citizenwarrior2.blogspot.com/2007/08/fuller-exposition-of-why-islam-vs.html) here.)

Are there better ideas? Let's compile them here in the comments for easy reading by voters and politicians. We need a solution. It would be foolish for democratic countries to keep importing people who want to overthrow their government. Not all Muslims do, of course. But pure Islam, straight from the Qur'an (http://citizenwarrior2.blogspot.com/2007/10/quran-book-of-allah_21.html) and the Sunnah (http://citizenwarrior2.blogspot.com/2007/10/sunnah-way-of-prophet-muhammad_21.html), is very clear about the obligation to wage jihad (http://citizenwarrior2.blogspot.com/2007/10/dar-al-islam-and-dar-al-harb-house-of.html) and establish universal Shari'a law (http://citizenwarrior2.blogspot.com/2007/10/sharia-law.html). That means overthrowing democratic governments.

The longer we ignore this issue, the bigger the problem will have when we finally tackle it.

The immigration issue is open for discussion. But the freedom to openly discuss and criticize Islamic doctrine is not an issue at all. We have the right to freely discuss it. Period. And anyone who tries to shut down the discussion with accusations of racism or Islamophobia is out of line.

http://nirmukta.com/2009/06/24/defamation-of-religion-is-not-racism-says-un-oic-disagrees/ (http://nirmukta.com/2009/06/24/defamation-of-religion-is-not-racism-says-un-oic-disagrees/)

“Defamation of Religion is not Racism” says U.N. - OIC Disagrees. (http://nirmukta.com/2009/06/24/defamation-of-religion-is-not-racism-says-un-oic-disagrees/)

Written by Editor , Posted on 24 June 2009
Tags: defamation of religion (http://nirmukta.com/tag/defamation-of-religion/), OIC (http://nirmukta.com/tag/oic/), racism (http://nirmukta.com/tag/racism/), UN (http://nirmukta.com/tag/un/)

On the April 22nd 2009, secular activists won a major victory (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=1523329) for human rights and free speech when three special investigators representing the U.N. Human Rights Council declared that “defamation of religion” is not racism. The proposal to label religious criticism as racism was put before the U.N. Human Rights Council at the on-going Durban II conference on race and discrimination, by the 57 nations led by Pakistan, all members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The OIC had attempted to include the language in the declaration of the conference but had to back down after condemnation from the West. Past conferences have been controversial, with anti-semitic slogans screamed at times. The U.S., Canada and Israel did not attend this year’s conference because of these reasons.
The issue was on the table again on June 16th, when the Pakistani delegate Muhammad Saeed Sarwar made an appeal to the U.N.H.R.C. claiming that criticism of Islam, which they label as “defamation of religion”, is a new form of racism, intolerance and xenophobia, constituting discrimination. A representative from the International Humanist and Ethical Union, Roy Brown, responded the next day (http://www.iheu.org/iheu-challenges-view-defamation-religion-form-racism) with the following statement.
We were dismayed to hear again in this very debate an attempt to link defamation of religion to racism. Mr President, if I believe that a particular religion has no merit; that it is founded on a pre-scientific worldview, and that the application of many of its tenets is contrary to internationally accepted standards of human rights (http://www.iheu.org/glossary/term/248), then that is my opinion and I have the absolute right to express it. And, Mr President, it has nothing whatsoever to do with racism.

To read the IHEU’s original statement on racism at the conference, go here (http://www.iheu.org/durban-review-conference).
We have chronicled in detail the past attempts that this group of Islamic nations have carried out through their campaign to eliminate much-needed criticism of religion.
Here is an excerpt:
Since the founding of the UN in 1948 till the year 1992, there was no mention of blasphemy in any form under the Declaration of Human Rights. The articles 7, 21, 18 and 19 could have been interpreted to reject the idea that blasphemy is a crime. Jump to half a century later; every year from 1999 to 2006 has seen new resolutions to restrict “Defamation of Religion” introduced through the Human Rights Council (UNHRC) by member nations, mostly Islamic. Since 2005, the UN General Assembly has passed a similar resolution every year.

To view some of the underhanded actions used by the OIC, read the original article (http://nirmukta.com/2009/03/05/religions-silencing-dissent-the-global-resurgence-of-blasphemy-laws/#more-1198). Last year at the U.N. General Assembly in New York the Council passed a non-binding resolution against “defamation of religion”.Just last month the same group of Islamic nations along with political allies successfully pushed through a similar resolution at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Our stalwart allies in this fight against the abuse of basic human rights is the European Union. What is really shocking is that present and former communist nations, Russia, China and Cuba have joined the Islamic countries in pushing for this legislation to go through at the U.N.H.R.C. Free-thought groups all over the world have opposed the OIC’s attempts to classify criticism of religion as racism. We will watch how this issue is tackled at the U.N. over the coming months.

http://pastafarism.canalblog.com/archives/2009/12/30/16332730.html

A conference of THE UNO in Geneva on human rights, session said Durban II takes place at present (in April, 2009) because following upon the previous session on the subject having been held in Durban.
In what is Pastafarisme concerned?
Concerning the certain human rights countries looked unfavourably for a long time that we give them lessons onto the equality man-woman. In particular the Moslem countries, which concerned the debate the ground of the anti-religious racism.

In brief, they managed of the "tour de force" to make it every criticism of pass have a practice to them social for anti-religious racism at the level of human rights. Certain countries as China, Cuba, Burma, and Pastafarians having voted for, too happy to annoy the destroyers of the moral order.
For what, we see well which custom(usage) can be made in an affair(business) of caricature of the prophet, and in Egypt a critic of the religion met in prison for 3 years. . . . . . .

[...]

Tribesman

02-10-10, 12:48 PM

This is why it doesn't fall under the category of racism
:har:
Read what is written samurai.
Note the words used and the position of the comma.

BTW scientifically it is impossible to even categorize humans into distinct "races"
Like if someone said they hated the Swiss.:hmmm:
Which is why the definition of racial discrimination is more specific, to include colour, origin, nationality, ethnicity.
Religion is covered under ethnicity.

Interesting really with the Nazi link being floated around, after all what is a Jew?
Is it a religious or a origin question?
Its both isn't it, if someone hates jews they are a racist , it doesn't matter if the people they hate are Jewish by religion or by descent does it.
So simple:know:

Mikhayl

02-10-10, 12:55 PM

Tribesman

02-10-10, 01:04 PM

I love that link from citzenwarrior, such a change from Jihad watch or Gates of Vienna
Whoda thunkit, it puts up lots of links to itself to show how credible it is:doh:

Skybird

02-10-10, 01:08 PM

The problem is the EU, the EU Charta on Human Rights. The dictate of Lisbon makes a mandatory link to that Charta, by that claiming it to be legally valid and it'S demands suable although the charta by content is not included in the Lisbon dictate.

In Chapter III, Article 21, it reads

Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

I additional paperwork it has been ensured that the EU commission (I think it was the commission?) has called all nations' governments to implement legal tools in their national law codes that allow to enforce that prohibition of discrimination, and make it a punishable crime. The demands of the Eu commission to national parliaments are no negotiating issue, but they are commands - nations must follow them. By current EU procedural rules, states cannot refuse the implementation.

This means that whenever somebody says he feels discriminated because of his religion, he can sue the person he claims to be responsible for it. In Germany, in pre-advancing obeidence, even tougher laws had been tried to be implemented even before the Lisbon dictate and the Charta became effective.

There are no criterions listed for what discrimination is, but we already read examples of some queer understanding of it in this very thread. Where religious criticism is accepted to qualify for racism, that necessarily and causally includes the charge over discrimination, like that Muslim in the linked story above, who misbehaved himself but said that it is his religion to do so - the company was sentenced to pay him compensation. You all can easily find as many examples for distorted legal definitions of "religious decrimination" as you want, if only you want to find them indeed. the stories already are legion. Add to this the many european law cases where european laws got bend and eased on behalf of cultural sensibility for this or that given Muslim's cultural background when he raped his babysitter or had beaten up his wife, and you can see that all this material is far from being a theoretical chance only, but already is practiced law. This is no paranoia. It is real, and already happening every week, every day.

that's why it is so very important to fight back against those in europe claiming that religious criticism is racism. If this becomes commonly accepted, then we all are gagged and nobody can ask a question on religion and especially islam anymore, without needing to fear that he will be sued. Blapshemy will be a punishable crime like in the Medieval, blind tolerance for some claimed doctrine, even if it is hostile to western culture and suicidal, becomes mandatory and a collective duty.

Originally, I read, this part of the charta was planned differently, but the left and the appeasers in the EU insisted on religion becoming included in that paragraph too, so that criticism of Islam in the future can become punishable. Pressure from Muslim countries that Europe should censor it's media to exlcude Islam from critical reflection and cartoons had already become very intense then, and many European politicians already had bend over by then and lifted their lower backs high into the air. The paragraph in question is no flaw or lapsus, but an intentional feature. It is hoped that by forbidding religious criticism, criticism against migration policies and more migrants coming in, can be supressed, too, because that would be discrimination then as well. For this policy of enforcing acceptance of migration policies that a majority does not support, european laws have delivered several illustrative examples already, too, last time in Germany just some days ago.

Schroeder

02-10-10, 01:33 PM

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, like I said I don't give a damn about this or that guy's opinion.

But I don't want to participate on a gaming website that implicitely endorses that kind of discriminatory talk (point taken), and at times outright racist (still stands).
So if I say that I dislike members of the NPD (German Nazi party for all those who have never heard of them) because they want to install a totalitarian regime here, then I'm racist against Germans? Damn it I'm discriminating against myself!:damn:
If I say the Catholic church has lost all of it's moral authority to me because of their past, then I'm racist against Europeans?:o

NeonSamurai

02-10-10, 01:40 PM

:har:
Read what is written samurai.
Note the words used and the position of the comma.

I did. Read the first definition, it covers what racial prejudice and discrimination is, as do the rest.

The key thing about racism is that it involves human traits and capacities (genetic and physical typically). Religion is neither, nor is religion mentioned in any of those definitions. This is fundamentally why defamation of religion is not racism. They are separate independent entities.

Like if someone said they hated the Swiss.:hmmm:
Which is why the definition of racial discrimination is more specific, to include colour, origin, nationality, ethnicity.
Religion is covered under ethnicity.Religion is not covered under ethnicity most of the time (particularly with large religions which tend to have vast collections of different ethnic groups), because religion is often independent of ethnicity and have multi-ethnic sources. But we already debated this one before if you recall (including anti-semitism). Islam for example has members which come from most ethnic groups on the planet.

Its both isn't it, if someone hates jews they are a racist , it doesn't matter if the people they hate are Jewish by religion or by descent does it.
So simple:know:It depends, some groups hate Jews due to "racial" beliefs, some hate them for their religious beliefs (such as rejecting Jesus), and some hate them for both. The first and last are motivated by racial hatred, the second and last are motivated by religious hatred. There is a difference even though hatred is hatred.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, like I said I don't give a damn about this or that guy's opinion.

But I don't want to participate on a gaming website that implicitely endorses that kind of discriminatory talk (point taken), and at times outright racist (still stands). I got my response, so I'll be pulling out my contributions, I'll just leave that one if anyone cares.

Subsim does not implicitly endorse any of this stuff (or you must be suggesting we endorse everything ever written on this forum), we usually have both sides of the arguments going on (and we can't endorse both sides can we?). We generally permit free speech provided it does not stray too far into the realm of hate speech.

If you wish to leave, that is your choice. I have no desire for you to leave, and it is unfortunate that you feel you must, but I do not agree with your assertions of racism, or discrimination in this case. The key reason why, is that Skybird is attacking the religion itself, not specifically the adherents. I don't believe he is calling all Muslims evil, or stupid, or inferior, or whatever (that would be hate speech, and potentially racist). His attack is aimed squarely at the practices and philosophy of the religion itself. If his attack is valid or not is another matter entirely.

DarkFish

02-10-10, 02:24 PM

If I say the Catholic church has lost all of it's moral authority to me because of their past, then I'm racist against Europeans?:onope, but if you say the same things about Islam you are.:yep:

That's something I really hate about racism, the hypocrisy involved.
If someone calls Islam evil, he's a racist.
If someone calls Christianism evil, nobody's a racist.
If someone calls Ásatrú evil, it's the Ásatrúar that are racists.
:dead:

Skybird

02-10-10, 02:41 PM

Furthermore it was the UN that lumped racism and ethnic discrimination together, and yet if Sky's second link is still true, even they are rejecting the claim that defamation of religion = racism.

Western nations reject it, but the Islamic countries bring it on the agenda every year. For them, and the Human Rights commission which they dominate, religious criticism is racism. So, i would be careful to say the UN rejects it. The West - so far - does. most of the others do not. But that does not mean that their claim is nright. By reason and logic, it is not.

It depends, some groups hate Jews due to "racial" beliefs, some hate them for their religious beliefs (such as rejecting Jesus), and some hate them for both. The first and last are motivated by racial hatred, the second and last are motivated by religious hatred. There is a difference even though hatred is hatred.

On this - context of - argument "Muslims today are the victims that the Jews were in the past, I can only say two things:

Jews in the past in Germany were fully integrated in society, and attributed tremendously to the technical, economic and cultural life and the world of arts - in Germany, and thorughout Europe. They lived their Jewish identity in their private and family life, but not in form of isolated sub-cultures and parallel societies that stayed isolated from their "hosting" nation (I would not even say they were hosted, that well integrated they were). Muslims today stay separate and want it like that, and establish parallel socieities, and by overwhelming majority do not contribute valuable contributions to the cultural, scientific liofe of the hosting nations ä- instead they try to erode them, often live at their costs in social milieus where crime is blossoming and the rejection of western culture is total. Jews adapted to thir nations. Muslims try to turn their host into Islam.

In other words, as I read it on a german website so nicely:

Criticism of Islam is a fight for the integration of Muslims. (They have to integrate, or they should leave indeed)

Antisemitism was a fight against the Jews' integration, that had worked very well.

NeonSamurai

02-10-10, 03:10 PM

Western nations reject it, but the Islamic countries bring it on the agenda every year. For them, and the Human Rights commission which they dominate, religious criticism is racism. So, i would be careful to say the UN rejects it. The West - so far - does. most of the others do not. But that does not mean that their claim is nright. By reason and logic, it is not.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=1523329
Well, going by the above article which was linked in one of the articles you quoted, the 3 who spoke out against it are a part of HRC and are special investigators for racism in the HRC, and they come from Kenya, Pakistan, and Guatemala. You are correct though, I overstated in that case with the UN and I shall correct it. But then the article you quoted also overstated it as well with lines like "when three special investigators representing the U.N. Human Rights Council declared that “defamation of religion” is not racism.".

Its interesting that some of the backers for the push to link racism with religious defamation are Russia, Cuba, and China, which are major sources of human rights violations, and the suppression of free speech and thought.

Dan D

02-10-10, 04:11 PM

...

Criticism of Islam is a fight for the integration of Muslims.

You may have a valid point here, but

from what I have observed over the years here at Subsim is that people are stuck at the point where they criticise Islam by reporting evil doings by muslims and claiming that it is Islam that makes people do such things.

Well, this is an opinion, after all. But if you keep repeating yourselves over and over again, it gets repetitive and boring and you lose your reader's attention.

It is essential that you tell your reader's what you think should be done about it, once you have made clear that you got everyones attention.

Once you are into a discussion about what could be done to solve the problem that you have identified and described excessively by now, you may find that other people come up with good ideas of their own of which some of them turn out to be helpful.
Such, you can have a fruitful debate that actually serves a purpose other than criticising for the sake of criticism which is pointless because it leads to no result.

So let me ask you, what are your ideas in the fight for the integration of Muslims? This would interest me.

May be, I have a couple of ideas, too.

Schroeder

02-10-10, 04:33 PM

Skybird

02-10-10, 05:01 PM

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=1523329
Well, going by the above article which was linked in one of the articles you quoted, the 3 who spoke out against it are a part of HRC and are special investigators for racism in the HRC, and they come from Kenya, Pakistan, and Guatemala. You are correct though, I overstated in that case with the UN and I shall correct it. But then the article you quoted also overstated it as well with lines like "when three special investigators representing the U.N. Human Rights Council declared that “defamation of religion” is not racism.".

Its interesting that some of the backers for the push to link racism with religious defamation are Russia, Cuba, and China, which are major sources of human rights violations, and the suppression of free speech and thought.

It is a well-known case of trench warfare between pro-islamic and secular factions the UN, and especially the reputation of the Human Rights Council is very much in shatters, since Muslim countries manipulate it almost at will and have bought in the support of many third world nations as well. That they introduced the five-flame symbol as the council's emblem that is the encryption of the word Allah as their official HRC emblem, was a row some years ago that you maybe remember, a completely naive UN leadership with Kofi Annan at top let it passed unchecked and unopposed back then.

The commission also is under fire for a long history of almost traditional anti-Israeli bias, and it sees Muslim nations protesting and turning down cases when it was asked to deal with female sexual mutilation, death penalty for apostasy, stoning of women, and other religiously motivated crimes. Finally there is criticsm of the reputation of other members as well, since some nations there hold up impressive records of warcrimes and violation of human rights, using their influence in the Council to leave them unadressed. the genocide of the Christian tribes in Sudan by Muslim militias was a case when Sudan successfully prevented the Council to enter a resolution to the UN condmening it. The Us then had to bring it in via the security council.

The support of Russia and China for the censoring of free speech is no surprise, since both nations have kind of agendas to make "offensive" (=critical) talk about the national pride and nationality of their states a criminal offence, too. Also, China traditionally demands other nations not to interfere with what it labels as it's own internal affairs - the same demand that is risen and supported by muslim nations in the council when it is about crimes committed in the name of Islamic religion, like mentioned above.

the UNHCR has no credibility anymore and is under heavy constant fire by america, some of europe, Israel anyway. There are plans to replace it with a new, smaller body. that is ironic a bit since it just had been changed just some years ago, 2007 I thinik, before it was called Human Rights Commission, but the new entity, the Council, soon suffered the same bad reputation. Like the old one, it too is dominated by nations that are members of the OIC, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. They are powerful enough in numbers to call in HRC meetings whenever the OIC wants, and to veto any action the OIC does not want. This makes the HRC the poodle of the OIC. You could also say the HRC is the the appendix of the OIC. and you see that in the numerical relation between anti-Israel proposals, and vetos against action taken against Muslims states. the difference is several factors.

Skybird

02-10-10, 05:11 PM

I'm afraid you can only integrate people who are willing to integrate. It works fine with those who want to, at least I know some cases were it worked pretty well. The problem are those who don't want to integrate but to be honest I don't have an answer for what to do with them. If one doesn't want to belong to our society there is no training and no counsel and no offer that can turn him into an integrated citizen. One could now ask why they are here to begin with if they don't want to be part of our society anyway....

Btw criticising can lead to people waking up and tell our politicians to finally address the problem and stop selling away our culture and basic rights just for the sake of appeasement.

The determination not to integrate oneself is a problem, yes. and the question must be asked why we do not see this attitude with Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, europeans, north Aemricans, non-Muslim Africans, South Americans, Russians, Greeks, Italians, Spanish, Poles... Why is it always and exclusively Muslims from foreign Muslim nations giving us tr49hble and refusing integration, instead raising demands for special treatmeent that nobody else demands?

the answer to that question probably also is the answer to your question why they are still coming here. I have some quotes for you, some of them you may have sene in my sigs of the past weeks:

One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere of this planet to burst into the northern one. But not as friends. Because they will burst in to conquer, and they will conquer by populating it with their children. Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women. - Algerian dictator Boumedienne at the UN 1974

If you are familiar with Europe’s Islam-Diaspora, then you know that not just Islamists dream of an Islamic, Sharia-ruled Europe, but that orthodox Muslims dream of that as well, and that they count Europe as House of Islam/Dar al-Islam due to the demographic Islamisation. - Bassam Tibi, German Palestinian scholar

We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests. The 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades. - Muhamar Ghaddafi, Lybian dictator

"Thanks to your democratic laws we will invade you; thanks to our religious laws we will dominate you." - Imam of Izmir

"What Sultan Suleyman began with the siege of Vienna 1683, we will acchieve with our residents, with our strong men and our healthy women." - Vural Oeger, boss of Oeger Tours and German SPD representative in the EU parliament.

"Democracy is just like a train which you get off when you reach your destination. The mosques are our barracks, the minarets are our bayonets, the domes are our helmets and the faithful are our soldiers." - Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Islamic fundamentalist and Prime Minister of Turkey.

Former Turkish prime minister Demirel to former chancellor Helmut Schmidt: "Until the end of the century we must bring another 15 million Turks to Germany." Schmidt: "That will not happen, we will not allow that." Demirel: "Just wait and see. We will produce the children needed, and you must let them in."

And this is about the Trojan horse of Islam:

http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/libyen_aid_112491.html

Gaddafi, den Washington seit einiger Zeit ausdrücklich nicht mehr wie jahrzehntelang als bösen Buben bezeichnet, spricht beispielweise von der Türkei zunächst durchaus in logischen Zusammenhängen. Das Land sei ein „trojanisches Pferd des Islam“, das nach Europa dränge, heißt es unter anderem. Oder: Ein EU-Mitglied Türkei sei, als würde man das Organ eines Menschen in eine Person mit anderer Blutgruppe verpflanzen. Doch dann verliert sich seine Analyse in wirrem Gerede: Die Türken würden diesmal nicht wie vor einigen 100 Jahren vor den Toren Wiens stoppen, sondern versuchen, den Islam über den Atlantik zu bringen. Da er „Verantwortung für die Stabilität der Welt“ habe, sehe er sich genötigt, dies alles öffentlich mitzuteilen. Europa bleibe ohnehin nichts anderes übrig, den Islam irgendwann zu akzeptieren oder Krieg gegen die Moslems zu führen.

Tribesman

02-10-10, 06:19 PM

Religion is not covered under ethnicity most of the time
But it is some of the time.

Furthermore it was the UN that lumped racism and ethnic discrimination together, and yet if Sky's second link is still true, even they are rejecting the claim that defamation of religion = racism.

You miss the point, it has nothing to do with defamation of religion, neither does it have anything to do with Skys other attempts about blasphemy.
That whole angle is a smokescreen, as are the claims that it is about freedom of speech.
Remind me again what Wilders is charged with and what he said to merit those charges.
Can you think off hand of how many loony islamic fundamentalists who have come under that particular legislation for what they have been saying?
Have other european countries prosecuted fundys under their own versions of hate laws?
Its always a tricky issue as incitement is a hard charge to prove.
The thing is that Wilders with all his populist talk to please the crowd has probably given any proesecutor more than enough.

But then the article you quoted also overstated it as well with lines like "when three special investigators representing the U.N. Human Rights Council declared that “defamation of religion” is not racism.".

You don't say, islamophobes overstating their case.
Whatever next eh:har:
As I said above it has nothing to do with defamation of religion.

Oh yeah islamophobia being rational because its got some reasons.
How many reasons can someone with hydrophobia come up with to explain why they don't like water?

As for his nonsense about Jewish integration.
The zionist movement had many branches, some wanted full integration some didn't , some wanted a sperate homeland some didn't, some wanted ghettos in their host nations some didn't .
Sky is using another false premise.

Skybird

02-10-10, 06:59 PM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7017718.ece

The truth is that Britain has created a breeding ground for religious terrorists. I have a number of Muslim friends in Nigeria who have expressed fears that their sons, who are studying at British universities, might be caught up in Islamic fundamentalism. They are worried about the company they are keeping and by changes in their attitudes.
Their children are becoming intolerant of other religions, developing a kind of holier-than-thou stance even towards their fellow Muslims. Holier, or purer, than thou — that sums up the mental conditioning. It is the beginning of a religious psychopathy that ends in bombs in underpants. One friend with a son at university in the northeast of England has not — yet — pulled his son out but he is certainly keeping a watchful eye on him. He has reason to be worried.

Britain may have taken the lead, but Germany follows the same trend.

The Nigerian author won a Nobel for literature, and served prison time in isolation cells for criticising the Nigerian dictatorship.

NeonSamurai

02-10-10, 09:29 PM

But it is some of the time.

Rarely though, it only begins to apply if the religion is unique to the ethnic group. Even then I still say intellectual criticism is valid and not a form of racism.

You miss the point, it has nothing to do with defamation of religion, neither does it have anything to do with Skys other attempts about blasphemy.
That whole angle is a smokescreen, as are the claims that it is about freedom of speech.
Remind me again what Wilders is charged with and what he said to merit those charges.
Can you think off hand of how many loony islamic fundamentalists who have come under that particular legislation for what they have been saying?
Have other european countries prosecuted fundys under their own versions of hate laws?
Its always a tricky issue as incitement is a hard charge to prove.
The thing is that Wilders with all his populist talk to please the crowd has probably given any proesecutor more than enough.To be honest I have not been following the case, I am only defending what I consider the right to criticize religion and anything else (I believe everything must remain open to honest intellectual criticism). I do not believe that criticism of religion is hate speech or racism in of itself.

I am very much an advocate of all forms of freedom of expression, including the right of religious freedom, but I believe that certain rights trump other rights. As such I believe that certain rights stand above the rights of religion and override those rights, including the rights of free thought, expression, and equality (regardless of race, sex, ethnic background, or religion), and that these rights should not override others rights to the same thing. This is where religion and me can run into problems as there are many examples of religion trying to override the basic rights I believe everyone should possess. In these cases I am very critical of those religions (any religion) who violate those principles.

You don't say, islamophobes overstating their case.
Whatever next eh:har:
As I said above it has nothing to do with defamation of religion.Lots of groups like to do this to push their own agenda. I'm know I could find tones of examples of pro Islam groups doing the exact same thing.

Oh yeah islamophobia being rational because its got some reasons.
How many reasons can someone with hydrophobia come up with to explain why they don't like water?Clinical phobias are almost exclusively based on irrational fears. Such phobics may offer explinations that appear on the surface to be rationally based, but on closer examination are actually irrationally based. Sure racism, and religious hatred are often based in irrational fear. But intellectual criticism usually is based in rational thought (or it would be totally invalid). This is not to say though that criticism cannot, nor does not bridge the gap between it and hatred. Furthermore it is certainly true that hate speech will use valid criticism as a platform to justify and support its hatred. At times it is a very fine line between valid intellectual (or academic) criticism of something, and hatred of something.

I do find it interesting though that terms such as Islamophibia exist and are prominently used, yet Christianophibia, Judeophobia, Atheistophobia, etc do not. I mean, are not many Muslims guilty of the exact same thing as supposed Islamophobists are?

As for his nonsense about Jewish integration.
The zionist movement had many branches, some wanted full integration some didn't , some wanted a sperate homeland some didn't, some wanted ghettos in their host nations some didn't .
Sky is using another false premise.Most Jews in the diaspora did their very best to integrate as much as they could, while still holding on to their Jewish heritage and traditions. In most cases it was not a question of Jewish people not wanting to integrate, but the culture not wanting the Jews to exist and be a part of it due to various reasons. Judaism also in many ways adapted as best as it could to the realities of the host nations, while still endeavoring to maintain itself as a independent religion and not be subverted by Christianity or Islam.

The Zionist movement is separate from this and as you say very diverse in its makeup. There are many Zionists who support the idea of a Jewish homeland, and yet are quite happy in their adopted countries and have no plans to leave. Integration does not mean giving up ones heritage and culture, but keeping the best and unique aspects of that heritage and culture, and adopting and adapting to the new culture.

Tribesman

02-10-10, 11:11 PM

Clinical phobias are almost exclusively based on irrational fears. Such phobics may offer explinations that appear on the surface to be rationally based, but on closer examination are actually irrationally based.
Irrationaly based.....Like skybirds demographics nonsense, non existant laws and global conspiracies.
Look at his last piece , while he spends ages repeating ad nauseum that there is only one Islam and its the nutty fruitcake flavour he then posts a piece about muslims getting pissed at the nutty fruitcakes because the fruitcakes are unislamic so called muslims.
Can you explain how the Bat Yeor eurabia demographics can possibly be rational when they don't make sense?
Can you call it rational to post an article to back up an approach when it contradicts what they insist is true.

Skybird

02-11-10, 04:41 AM

Clinical phobias are almost exclusively based on irrational fears. Such phobics may offer explinations that appear on the surface to be rationally based, but on closer examination are actually irrationally based. Sure racism, and religious hatred are often based in irrational fear. But intellectual criticism usually is based in rational thought (or it would be totally invalid). This is not to say though that criticism cannot, nor does not bridge the gap between it and hatred. Furthermore it is certainly true that hate speech will use valid criticism as a platform to justify and support its hatred. At times it is a very fine line between valid intellectual (or academic) criticism of something, and hatred of something.

I do find it interesting though that terms such as Islamophibia exist and are prominently used, yet Christianophibia, Judeophobia, Atheistophobia, etc do not. I mean, are not many Muslims guilty of the exact same thing as supposed Islamophobists are?

I repeat myself:

"Islamophobia": a neologism that was brought into discussion by Saudi Arabia, which was the first to use and to push it at the UN in the 90s, first by confronting the general secretary with it, and then by implementing it in public debate via the Human Rights Commission/Council of the UN that at that time already was under heavy influence by Muslim lobby states (see my poosting above on the UNHRC). The political left after 9/11 picked it up with great enthusiasm, because it freed them from the need to critically check their own perception of Islam by allowing them to bash criticism of Islam without having any argument for that different from labelling critical attitudes towards islam as a phobia, that is: something ill, something irrational and unreasonable and unhealthy that by it's mere existence proves that it is not in order itself. that way, no critical discussion of the arguments of "Islamophobes" is needed anymore.

Tribesman

02-11-10, 08:27 AM

I repeat myself:

You don't say:har:
Muslims muslims muslims muslims, its a mantra for you.

A neologism...like eurabia.

that way, no critical discussion of the arguments of "Islamophobes" is needed anymore.
The point is Sky refuses critical discussion.
This specific topic isn't about critical discussion .
Wilders isn't getting grief for critical discussion.
He is facing trouble for alledged incitement to hatred.

NeonSamurai

02-11-10, 11:36 AM

Irrationaly based.....Like skybirds demographics nonsense, non existant laws and global conspiracies.
Look at his last piece , while he spends ages repeating ad nauseum that there is only one Islam and its the nutty fruitcake flavour he then posts a piece about muslims getting pissed at the nutty fruitcakes because the fruitcakes are unislamic so called muslims.
Can you explain how the Bat Yeor eurabia demographics can possibly be rational when they don't make sense?
Can you call it rational to post an article to back up an approach when it contradicts what they insist is true.

Let me make this plain, I am not nor have I ever claimed to be an expert in Islam or anything having to do with Islam, I have not read the Koran, and I am only loosely familiar with sharia law as a complete entity. I also have no intention of doing the research necessary to debate what you or Skybird say (do not have the time). It is also not my responsibility to do so. I follow established academic principles, which means if you are going to debate something and wish others to rationally consider your argument, you need to provide the relevant research to back up the claims made, IE support your argument.

This is the difference between how you argue things, and how Skybird, myself, and some others do. I am fully prepared to back up the statements I make and the positions I hold. I never use ridicule or allude to knowledge I (may) have, I systematically present what I have and do my best to dismantle counter arguments presented to me in a logical and rational manner, backed up with supporting empirical evidence as required. This is how it is done in the academic world.

If you want me or anyone else here to seriously consider what you say, you need to do as I suggest, or you statements will be summarily dismissed for lack of content. If you want to challenge what Skybird or others say, that's great, just present it properly so that the rest of us who may not be as informed can critically analyze both positions. If you think his sources are wrong, tear those apart too, but do it properly and back it up with counter sources.

Even blatant racists have valid points to make, and pulling out the racist card does not automatically eliminate the valid points they have (only the associated trash). At least they should not if one is taking a rational approach.

I repeat myself:

"Islamophobia": a neologism that was brought into discussion by Saudi Arabia, which was the first to use and to push it at the UN in the 90s, first by confronting the general secretary with it, and then by implementing it in public debate via the Human Rights Commission/Council of the UN that at that time already was under heavy influence by Muslim lobby states (see my poosting above on the UNHRC). The political left after 9/11 picked it up with great enthusiasm, because it freed them from the need to critically check their own perception of Islam by allowing them to bash criticism of Islam without having any argument for that different from labelling critical attitudes towards islam as a phobia, that is: something ill, something irrational and unreasonable and unhealthy that by it's mere existence proves that it is not in order itself. that way, no critical discussion of the arguments of "Islamophobes" is needed anymore.

No need to repeat it, I am aware of that perspective, and to a degree I agree with it. This is why I reject the use of terms such as racism, and phobias to silence the debate of potentially valid points and issues. I do think though there is some truth to the other side of the equation, that there often is irrational fear mixed in. As a species we tend to be fearful and suspicious of those who are different from ourselves, and it takes effort to avoid that pitfall.

You don't say:har:
Muslims muslims muslims muslims, its a mantra for you.

A neologism...like eurabia.

The point is Sky refuses critical discussion.
This specific topic isn't about critical discussion .
Wilders isn't getting grief for critical discussion.
He is facing trouble for alledged incitement to hatred.

I don't agree with the assertion that Sky refuses critical discussion, I have never known Sky to shy away from genuine (read: academic) critical discussion. He does however have very low tolerance towards ridicule, insult, and/or hollow (content lacking) discussion, and as such is quick to ignore people who engage him in that manner. I am a lot more tolerant towards that kind of behavior it even though I share in his dislike of it, which is why I still try to engage in discussion with you. But if you tried that behavior in an academic setting you and everything you say would not even be considered.

As for Wilders, the question from my limited knowledge of the subject, is what exactly is the dividing line between criticism and inciting hate. It is a very fine line, and varies depending on personal view. Myself I am inclined to give a fairly broad range towards criticism, and a very narrow and specific range for inciting hatred.

Skybird

02-11-10, 11:58 AM

I don't agree with the assertion that Sky refuses critical discussion, I have never known Sky to shy away from genuine (read: academic) critical discussion. He does however have very low tolerance towards ridicule, insult, and/or hollow (content lacking) discussion, and as such is quick to ignore people who engage him in that manner.

Let me be clear on this. Tribesman took half a year, until I decided that I had enough of his attempts to always lead people in circles by provoking claims he never backed up, and showing the typical behavior of a troll very often. I think half a year of attempted disucssion shows quite some tolerance of mine. And I know for sure that quite some people have turned their backs on him in that time. This is not just my hypersensitivity.

On the other hand, Heartc, one and a half years ago, in just his first or second post to me ever, immediately attacked me as a Nazi and said that I must truly regret that I could not send people disagreeing with me into the gas chambers anymore. If I get such a salvo in already the first adress ever to me, then this surely is something that gets my attention, and that I do not forget, and it makes me drawing consequences immediately without letting half a year pass.

Currently there are ten names on my ignore list. None of them is there because the person disagrees with me or gave me a sharp reply once. nobody I ignore for not being of my opinion. The issue bringing people on that list always is the same: not opinion, but behavior.

This must not be. there are many other people with whom I also often disagree, and still we manage to get along in a polite, at least neutral way. Again, the question is not so much differences in opinions, but behavior.

In the end, ignoring people that do not get banned, but with whom you have made bad experiences repeatedly, helps to preserve peace and a good climate on this board. It's the better option than to have a personal flame war every second day.

And that we have had quiteoften in the old days, longtime members will remember.

NeonSamurai

02-11-10, 12:19 PM

I did not mean any offense if you took any Skybird. Personally I have never added anyone to my ignore list on the forum, nor am I likely ever to. Part of this is just my style, I like to see all the arguments, regardless of the person behind it, and I am quite capable of selectively filtering people out as I deem necessary (by not paying much attention to what they write). That is the method I use. Plus anyone who I would be likely to ignore would be banned long before I got around to ignoring them. Then of course I am a moderator and shouldn't ignore anyone.

But by comparison you are far quicker to add someone to the ignore list then I am (half a year vs never), which was my point, not a criticism of who you choose to ignore or why or how long until you do. You can ignore who ever you like (well other then moderators acting in an official capacity of course). I also do not follow the length of time before you choose to ignore someone. I am simply aware that you are ignoring Tribesman and a few others and have a idea why you are (though you sometimes choose to respond to them when you see quotations of their comments).

Tribesman

02-11-10, 01:02 PM

I don't agree with the assertion that Sky refuses critical discussion, I have never known Sky to shy away from genuine (read: academic) critical discussion.
Really ?
Yet the question of demographics is obviously pure nonsense and cannot be supported no matter which countries figures you use so that has no place in a genuine discussion as its simple conspiracy tripe.
Likewise with the free speech and criticism of religion aspect...its a pure red herring, it has nothing to do with the case in hand.
But the clincher is the law....Sky got upset over the law.
.......until I decided that I had enough of his attempts to always lead people in circles by provoking claims he never backed up
Its rather annoying when someone keeps asking what this mythical law is. Its even more annoying when they read your "proof" and find that its non-existant...It gets very annoying when everytime you mention the mythical law in your regular favourite fetish subject someone laughs and says "what law?" as its already known that the law he refers to doesn't exist. outside of skybirds imagination.

When people repeat known obvious falsehoods it isn't conducive to a critical discussion. Its just paranoid bullexcrement.

I am only loosely familiar with sharia law as a complete entity.
BTW Sharia is not and can never be a complete entity, which brings up another question Skybird doesn't like "what is sharia?"
He will talk often about it, but to him sharia means only what the most nutty of the fundy fruitcakes he can find says it means.

Skybird

02-11-10, 01:37 PM

I did not mean any offense if you took any Skybird. .

Oh, I did not take any offense, don't worry. ;) :) I just got occasionally criticised in the past for being "too weak" to handle criticism of my person, or that I am "censoring" opinions not matching my own when ignoring people. I just wanted to make clear that trolling, offending a person, and criticising it, are three different things. And I wonder why I should tolerate behavior that in real life, vis-a-vis, I would not tolerate at all, under no circumstances. I therefore ignore people that in real life - I would kick out.

Of course some people still try to score an occasional stab although they know I ignore them anyway. But as we say in German: was ich nicht weiß, macht mich nicht heiß! ;) As long as I must not take note of somebody else making noise, I do not care that much.

Tribesman

02-11-10, 01:56 PM

As long as I must not take note of somebody else making noise, I do not care that much.
So ignorance is bliss:har:

Though it could go as they say in Ireland . you can stick your nose in the air and pretend you don't smell it, but everyone still notices the stench of your bull****.

NeonSamurai

02-11-10, 04:46 PM

Really ?
Yet the question of demographics is obviously pure nonsense and cannot be supported no matter which countries figures you use so that has no place in a genuine discussion as its simple conspiracy tripe.
Likewise with the free speech and criticism of religion aspect...its a pure red herring, it has nothing to do with the case in hand.
But the clincher is the law....Sky got upset over the law.
.......

I do not know what you are referring to specificly and I don't have the time to dig around for it. So reference and link to it if you want me or others to consider it.

Its rather annoying when someone keeps asking what this mythical law is. Its even more annoying when they read your "proof" and find that its non-existant...It gets very annoying when everytime you mention the mythical law in your regular favourite fetish subject someone laughs and says "what law?" as its already known that the law he refers to doesn't exist. outside of skybirds imagination.

When people repeat known obvious falsehoods it isn't conducive to a critical discussion. Its just paranoid bullexcrement.I generally try to avoid assumptions of the obvious, as what is obvious to one person may not be at all to another. Its generally better to assume those reading may not know the subject very well if at all. Also just because you claim it is a falsehood and obvious, does not in of itself make it so. For all any observer knows, you are the one that is creating falsehoods. This is why I say you must back up your claims if you want others to take those claims seriously. Summarily dismissing the sources used by another doesn't cut it either, you need to offer proof and reason why a source should be dismissed.

BTW Sharia is not and can never be a complete entity, which brings up another question Skybird doesn't like "what is sharia?"
He will talk often about it, but to him sharia means only what the most nutty of the fundy fruitcakes he can find says it means.I am only familiar with some aspects of sharia as a generalized entity. Not its entirety (meaning everything having to do with it, including variations of interpretation, etc.)

Skybird

02-11-10, 06:29 PM

Okay, this only since NeonSamurai quoted you, Tribesman, and since it is the second time, at least, you touch this Sharia thing.

Some time ago you implied in a reply that there are many versions and traditions of Sharia, and which one I actually meant in the context of that thread. It seems you have educated yourself a bit since then, judging by your last question above where now you say it cannot be seen as a complete entity. But by asking that question back then, which of the many traditions of Sharia I meant back then (I never indicated that sharia could be understood as something structural as that it could be imagined to exist in different "versions" or "traditions", but that escaped you, like so much else) you illustrated just your very own lack of understanding - else you never would have asked that question in that formulation that you picked back then.

And now, although needing to assume I would not care anyway, and would not even note it, you again think you must try a kick at me. I wish Samurai would stop quoting you. I wonder why he even cares. He has advised you several times in the past on your behavior. If you still have not gotten the message, you never will get it.

Sharia is not so much a closed canon of Islamic scriptures in itself. It includes descriptions and understandings of deeds and thoughts that are desirable, deeds and thoughts that are not desirable, and deeds that must be punished. In the West, usually only the latter is meant when reference is made to Sharia, the other four "categories" usually are left unknown. But that is wrong, and misleading. For example, Sharia does not include the penalties for pinishable deeds, only the description of punishable deeds. For the penalties, it instead directly refers to the Quran which desribes them and from which the adequate penalty for a punishable crime is taken. for any penalty ever given, not Sharia, or Hadith is the fundament, but the Quran - and only the Quran.

Back then you implied that there are different versions of Sharia itself, and different traditions of interpreting it, which described in these words also is wrong again. Sharia is Sharia, and there is only one Sharia like there is only one Quran. Sharia gets "handled" and "used" by the scholars of islamic law, of which there are maybe around half a dozen major schools that indeed have influence. There are more lineages or schools of law, but we talk about those acutally having any noticable infleunce in the islamci world, and that are not many. On many questions of interpretation, these schools agree, however, on others not, which is misleading anyway, since the Quran does not leave much room for "interpretation", the legal schools' differences only vary in the degree to which they quote references from the Quran in completeness, or opportunistically only that stuff that serves their wanted purpose. The Quran is a very confused and confusing piece of writing, chaotic, since the structure is an offense to thinking mind, a chaos that leaves you in need to really turn pages back and forth like crazy in order to learn all the quotes that allow you to understand the quote of your interest in complete context (one of the biggest problems Western discussion of islam is suffering from: simplifications that ignore the greater context). It is as if you speak out four or five sentences at the same time and switch with each word you speak to a different sentence, shuffling them.

All of them handle one and the same Sharia, and one and the same Quran. There are not different forms of Sharia, therefore. there are no different traiditons of sharia, as you implied back then. there are only different legal traditions that have different habits of quoting relevant references in more or less completeness. sharia itself - is left uneffected from that, as is the Quran.

Even more, Sharia serves as a system of interlinking various parts of Islamic scripture (Quran, Hadith, Sira, Sunnah) and the people's code of behavior rules, which are very total and complete and cover every aspect of life an individual could stumble into, this is to maximise control of the islamic dogma over the individual, the family, and every level of social collectives. This is what makes Islam a totalitarian ideology, and more so than that of fascism, Nazism or Stalinism, because none of these great evils went as far in their demand to control every aspect of life, behavior, thinking. compared to Islam, they all were relatively shallow and superficial, caring only for the functioning of the individual inside the collective. Islam's intended regulation reach much deeper.

Sharia is a system of interlinking all these aspects and parts of scripture, and puts them into relation to each other. It also is understood to be the tool that helps the faithful to stay on the right path (by telling him what to do and letting him know the sanctions he has to suffer when he strays off). for a muslim, Sharia is guidance and assistance. For a psychologist, it is classical conditioning. For Christains, the focus is on beloieving in the right things - in Islam, the focus is on the correct way or process of believing. The first is about the object of belief, the latter prioritizes the process of believing. Without Sharia, the rules of Quran, so it is understood, cannot correctly be followed, which would mean failure in the understanding and following of Allah's will. and that truly is a worst case scenario. So, Sharia is inevitable.

Sharia is like the mortar in the wall that keeps the stones of islamic scripture, rules and dogma together. Take Sharia away, and the wall collapses. That'S why it is said that you cannot imagine an Islam without Sharia, or a "modernised" Sharia. Imagining that you can have a tame Islam by altering Sharia (that is heresy!) is nonsense from minds not knowing what they are talking about. You could as well try to imagine a christian meaning without the content of the sermon on the mount. Some things are so vital to an idea that you cannot take them away or alter them without rendering that idea meaningless and pointless.

You always claim to know things so very well, Tribesman, and when people nail you down and demand you to reveal your sources of "knowledge", you deliver nothing but paroles you have caught up somewhere and repeat them ad nauseum, spiced up with the occasional personal strike, while leading other people in endless circles just for fun by demanding them to give their sources and evidences and arguments - which you ignore almost in total anyway and just carry on to repeat your own paroles, followed by the demand that the other finally, finally should reveal his sources and links and aerguments etc etc.

That is a tape in a machine running on your side, and other people thinking to have a dialogue with you in fact just have a monologue - their own, interupoted only by the monotonous noise from your tape machine. It was like this with you last summer when I and others repeatedly called you to reveal the sources and basis of your claims to know things so much better - and all you answered was that we better should assume that you know it better indeed. Oh the mystery, oh the posturing, oh the pathos of yours! And then over the autumn again, and with me, and several others, time and again the same kind of behavior from you. This kind of trolling behaviour - and a troll you are, nothing else - is what has made you so many friends here that almost every time you now post something almost nobody reacts to you. That is because many people have turned their backs on you, and I know for sure, since people told me or indicated that in a thread, that I am by far not the only one who has put you on "ignore".

Tribesman

02-11-10, 08:05 PM

Okay, this only since NeonSamurai quoted you, Tribesman, and since it is the second time, at least, you touch this Sharia thing.

I touch on it every time sky mentions it:up:
That passage he has written says all that needs to be said, its a chaotic confusing mess which is open to many interpretations.
So while there is only one and one which is one of four there turns out to be hundreds.
Which comes back to the main topic nicely.
Skybird picks out bits and takes from the fundsmentalist view of them and says "this is Islam". thats the same as taking biblical interpretations from the "Church of Jesus Christ(Christian)".... (that last bit always makes me laugh).....and as a rational critique claim "this is christianity"
Wilders in this case took 5 short lines from different parts of a book, linked it to a pile of extremism and said this is islam, ban it and restrict the civil liberties of muslims.
Its the call for action against people simply because of his narrow view of their faith that has left him open to the incitement to hatred line.
As far as I know the last western country in modern times to try what Wilders has suggested was the third reich.
It is the massive generalisations and huge leaps of conjecture that mean Wilders nonsense doesn't count as rational criticism.

CaptainHaplo

02-12-10, 08:39 AM

Sharia is like the mortar in the wall that keeps the stones of islamic scripture, rules and dogma together. Take Sharia away, and the wall collapses. That'S why it is said that you cannot imagine an Islam without Sharia, or a "modernised" Sharia. Imagining that you can have a tame Islam by altering Sharia (that is heresy!) is nonsense from minds not knowing what they are talking about. You could as well try to imagine a christian meaning without the content of the sermon on the mount. Some things are so vital to an idea that you cannot take them away or alter them without rendering that idea meaningless and pointless.

I can't help but note that in modern Judeo-Xtianity you have the same type movement - one to "modernize" - aka water down - the foundations of the theology. I can point to the matter of homosexuality as a perfect example. It is expressly noted as a "sin" - yet today you can find a number of "Xtian" churches that preach on how such behavior should be accepted through same sex partner health benefits, marriage, etc. You have those who claim to believe in Christ, yet flaunt their behavioral choice as if it is to be accepted.

The idea to "modernize (water down)" any religion is not new. However, to do so you have to be willing to ignore certain clearly defined segments of that religion's foundation to get it to be what the modernizer works. Reform like the Protestant Reformation is a RETURN to the foundations, whereas a modernization is the stepping away from the foundations. One works, because it falls onto established and accepted foundations - while the other fails because it attempts to reinterpret - without any historical backing or documentational support, the basis of the theology, and thus fails as the theology cannot exist without its core support.

Skybird

02-12-10, 09:35 AM

I can't help but note that in modern Judeo-Xtianity you have the same type movement - one to "modernize" - aka water down - the foundations of the theology. I can point to the matter of homosexuality as a perfect example. It is expressly noted as a "sin" - yet today you can find a number of "Xtian" churches that preach on how such behavior should be accepted through same sex partner health benefits, marriage, etc. You have those who claim to believe in Christ, yet flaunt their behavioral choice as if it is to be accepted.

The idea to "modernize (water down)" any religion is not new. However, to do so you have to be willing to ignore certain clearly defined segments of that religion's foundation to get it to be what the modernizer works. Reform like the Protestant Reformation is a RETURN to the foundations, whereas a modernization is the stepping away from the foundations. One works, because it falls onto established and accepted foundations - while the other fails because it attempts to reinterpret - without any historical backing or documentational support, the basis of the theology, and thus fails as the theology cannot exist without its core support.
The problem is what a given religion really is. In case of Islam, the thing is relatively easy, and independent from the question in what way Muhammad had stolen his ideas from the Judaic tradition an Christian liturgy and then some more cult's stuff: The authority of the Quran being the fundament of Islam, and in full, is beyond question. but in the christian tradition, you have the massive change, a break, between old and new testament. As I time and again point out, the tradition of teachings in the bible do not follow just one conclusive line. The old, revenging, imperial god-tyrant in the old testament is not the god Jesus's descriptions matches. So what the bible has to say on calls for war and the killing of infidel tribes or the execution of homosexuals, and what Jesus had to say - that often are two totally different things.

So what is being watered down in case of Christianity? and is the teaching of the church and that of Jesus really one and the same thing? I deny that.

I also disagree to see the reform done by Protestantism, really being a focussing on the old, original roots again. Maybe it was like that at the time of Luther, but today the Protestantic church is even more "modernised" and dysfunctional than the Catholic church. But that is just academic hairtsplitting, maybe.In thend, both chuchches are totally screwed up. Two weeks ago, a Jesuit elite school in Berlin was hit by a sex scandal, the report of boys being absued by padres over many years. Firts it were two cases, then it turned into dozens, then it turned into hundreds spread over all of Germany. You see: north america, then Ireland, than Britain, now Germany (again). Puts any statement of mine that the Protestants are more in ruins than the Catholics, into relation, does it.

If you travel Germany, however, you' ll see that from the North to the South the federal states are doing economically better and give you a feeling of social communities being more in order and people being more in order, too. Move north, and you become more protestantic, more social(istic), and you face more poverty, unemployment, and the economy struggling. Move to the south, and you become more catholic, more conservative, and you see lower unemployment rates, wellfare rates and an economy of better hightech qualification.

Goethe and Heine reported about this North-South relation already at their own living times, and linked it to the dominance of Protestantism or Catholicism! I will never support the Catholic church. But I will also never say that the Protestant church is the more humane, more functional, more social environment. It is not - no matter that famous Protestant labour-morale.

NeonSamurai

02-12-10, 09:42 AM

I can't help but note that in modern Judeo-Xtianity you have the same type movement - one to "modernize" - aka water down - the foundations of the theology. I can point to the matter of homosexuality as a perfect example. It is expressly noted as a "sin" - yet today you can find a number of "Xtian" churches that preach on how such behavior should be accepted through same sex partner health benefits, marriage, etc. You have those who claim to believe in Christ, yet flaunt their behavioral choice as if it is to be accepted.

The idea to "modernize (water down)" any religion is not new. However, to do so you have to be willing to ignore certain clearly defined segments of that religion's foundation to get it to be what the modernizer works. Reform like the Protestant Reformation is a RETURN to the foundations, whereas a modernization is the stepping away from the foundations. One works, because it falls onto established and accepted foundations - while the other fails because it attempts to reinterpret - without any historical backing or documentational support, the basis of the theology, and thus fails as the theology cannot exist without its core support.

I don't have much time to comment so I will be brief. Religion normally is an evolving entity. It has to be to stay relevant to the faithful. The Christianity that exists now, bears almost no similarity to the Catholic Church of 500 years ago, or 1000 years ago, which itself has absolutely no similarity to the early christian movement, which was quite different from the Jesus movement before that.

The Protestant Reformation was not a return to the foundations (it is quite different from what came before it too), but a modernization effort of the time (such as dropping Latin and using the local language instead for services) and also an objection to what the Catholic Church had become. It also splintered off into many different evolutions of its own (which further splintered).

The biggest irony to me though, is that most Christians in the world are totally unaware of all the other scriptures that existed (and were systematically eliminated by the fledgling RC Church as heresy), as there were many more gospels other then the 'cannon' ones found in the bible. But religious figureheads of the time were trying to consolidate the power of the church, and choose (and modified) those which best fit their own ends, and eliminated many teachings of the Jesus movement which went against them and what they wanted.

Btw the key difference between the Jesus and Christian movements, Jesus was a wise man and teacher of how to be a better person in life (and possibly a messiah), Christ was a god risen from the dead who performed miracles as proof of his divinity. The shift from Jesus to the Christ figure happened as the Jesus movement became Hellenized, and changed from teachings to a religion of its own.

I could say a lot more on the topic (really just scratching the surface), but no time no time.

Tribesman

02-12-10, 10:25 AM

I can't help but note that in modern Judeo-Xtianity you have the same type movement - one to "modernize" - aka water down - the foundations of the theology.
That examination and development has always existed in the three faiths, the "modern" movement in all three is the arsewise fundamentalist one.

CaptainHaplo

02-13-10, 12:33 PM

Neon - I think we are in total agreement on most points, though I would disagree about the reformation. If you look at the points by Luther, and the arguements as to why local languages were necessary, etc - you will see that it was an attempt to "revert" back - not to the previous ways of teaching - but to the foundations of the doctrines themselves. One reason the chuch insisted on Latin was that most people didn't know latin, so the sermonizer could "interpret" the latin scripture as he chose to do so, imparting it any meaning he felt appropriate, with no theological dissent or discussion from his flock. This imparted great power to the church, as it gave the church unquestionable authority over the spiritual views of the day. By "reforming" the way the scripture was available to the public, as well as questioning the validity of theological tenents put forth by the religious heirarchy, the reform opened the door to the breaking of the monopoly that the Catholic church had over theology. This led to the common person being able to read a version of the "Holy Bible", and thus created a much more widespread debate about the meanings of the scriptural messages, as well as a seperation between the protestant and catholic religions, due to protestantism rejecting the majority of catholic tenants for which there could be found no scriptural foundation.

As to the removed books of scripture, I am very familiar with the Apocrypha and of how the contents of the "Holy Bible" has been significanlty revised and redacted over the centuries. As a ordained minister, it never ceases to astound me when I get "the look" from other pastors (I live in the bible belt) because I make the statement that the "king james version" is exactly that - King James' VERSION! :rotfl2:

CaptainHaplo

02-13-10, 12:49 PM

Skybird - I won't get into the whole social/religous tie in - because I can't speak in an informed manner on the German example you give. When I don't know - I admit it LOL. Give me some time to research that and I may get back to you on it. With that said, I don't think that any one "mainstream" religion is more whacked than the other in its core theology. How that theology is executed however is a different thing entirely.

Note that I think you and I would ultimately agree that Islam is not really a religion - but a complex social dogma that hides behind the cloak of a religion. In many ways, protestantism and catholicism have been or are the same way.

An old saying of mine is that religion is often a crutch that man uses to try to get closer to God, but is one that mankind has always used to contol men.

As far as what is being "watered down" in modern Xtianity, I already put out there a perfect example. The modern xtian view of homosexuality is very much in debate in theological circles, while the scripture the religion is founded on gives no "wiggle room" to how a believer should view the topic. By debating the acceptance of such behavior, those who advocate such acceptance are "watering down" the theology - effectively ignoring the scriptural statements regarding it. In any belief system, when you start taking things away that the foundation states are to be there, or adding things without foundational backing, you weaken the overall system.

I do think that you and Neon both have hit on a very important point regarding the teaching of the "Xtian" church vs the teachings of Jesus himself. I will not argue that the two are not vastly different, because unfortunately they are.

However - your view that there is a huge seperation between the old testament and new testament Deity I have to disagree. If you look at it from the initial perspective, then yes there would appear to be, but taking a "big picture, long term" look at it, there is a clear corollary between the two. If you want to discuss that - we can do so via pm or perhaps in another thread. I would be more than happy to, though don't worry about me trying to "convert" you. I would like to simply inform or clear up any questions on that issue.

NeonSamurai

02-15-10, 01:50 PM

Neon - I think we are in total agreement on most points, though I would disagree about the reformation.

Great :DL, lets get started then.

If you look at the points by Luther, and the arguements as to why local languages were necessary, etc - you will see that it was an attempt to "revert" back - not to the previous ways of teaching - but to the foundations of the doctrines themselves. One reason the chuch insisted on Latin was that most people didn't know latin, so the sermonizer could "interpret" the latin scripture as he chose to do so, imparting it any meaning he felt appropriate, with no theological dissent or discussion from his flock. This imparted great power to the church, as it gave the church unquestionable authority over the spiritual views of the day.I partly agree, though not entirely. An important reason why the Catholic church stuck to Latin imho was due to tradition, one going back to the advent of the church (during the period of the Roman empire). Back then just about everyone spoke or understood Latin, it was the universal language of the empire. With the fall of the western Roman empire, Latin started to fall aside in general use. Now I am sure you will agree with me that tradition(s) is a key component of Christianity (or any religion) and is found everywhere and in everything.

I would also point out that I don't think protestant Christianity really brought any true discussion or debate of scripture, but rather each branch chose its own interpretation of the scriptures, which it force fed onto its members. This is why the protestant sects are so heavily fractured into various sub-incarnations.

I don't argue that the RC church was using its position to exercise power over everyone, but all churches do that to varying degrees, it was just that the RC church had a monopoly over it all in the western world for quite a while.

By "reforming" the way the scripture was available to the public, as well as questioning the validity of theological tenents put forth by the religious heirarchy, the reform opened the door to the breaking of the monopoly that the Catholic church had over theology.Yes they did break the RC monopoly, no argument. The RC church worked hard to eliminate all 'heretics' who did not follow or agree with their very ridged interpretations, including the Cathars (who, evidence indicates, followed a much closer version of Jesus's teachings) and the church formed out of the eastern Roman empire.

The problem though is the new protestant church(es) was in many respects just as bad as the RC church for going after 'heresy' and forcing its own interpretations onto people. Then of course there was all the slaughter and bloodshed that followed as both sides believed they had it right and the other wrong.

This led to the common person being able to read a version of the "Holy Bible", and thus created a much more widespread debate about the meanings of the scriptural messages, as well as a seperation between the protestant and catholic religions, due to protestantism rejecting the majority of catholic tenants for which there could be found no scriptural foundation.A version is certainly a true statement, though that version has its own interpretations built in (which comes partly from translating), as did the Latin bible. What is worse is the Old testament which is based on the Hebrew bible. If you know anything about ancient Hebrew, you will know that it is written without vowels (vowel markings came later on). This caused the huge problem of not being sure which word was meant (which is partly why the Jews have so much fun debating every little meaning in their books over the millennia), that and of course add in all the miss-translation by the Greeks who did the original translation.

Anyhow I think I am drifting off point. My main point though is that I still don't see the reformation as a return to the origin, but as an evolution that split from the RC church. Basically the protestant church got rid or altered of a lot of the structures (power and otherwise), and ritual. It was a streamlining of the religion more then anything else in my view. They still based their religion entirely on the foundation the RC Church had built, and used a modified and translated version of their holy book. In fact the original intent of the reformation was to reform the RC church itself, not splinter off, which explains why much of it did not change. They didn't make any attempt to go beyond the rc church to the origins of Christianity.

As to the removed books of scripture, I am very familiar with the Apocrypha and of how the contents of the "Holy Bible" has been significanlty revised and redacted over the centuries. As a ordained minister, it never ceases to astound me when I get "the look" from other pastors (I live in the bible belt) because I make the statement that the "king james version" is exactly that - King James' VERSION! :rotfl2:I am glad that you are familiar with the 'other' scriptures. I always find it troubling when people take absolute views on things. Only one way, one book, and one belief seems the way most people view their faith. I remember a discussion I had with an ardent believer in his version of Christianity (a protestant faction). He basically told me that it didn't matter what I did, as long as I proclaimed my belief in his version of Christianity, and if I didn't I would burn forever in hell no matter how good a person I was in life. I asked him, so lets say if someone like Hitler were to convert right before death, you are telling me god would welcome him into heaven? He said yes, and I walked away shaking my head.

JackAubrey

02-15-10, 05:40 PM

If you travel Germany, however, you' ll see that from the North to the South the federal states are doing economically better and give you a feeling of social communities being more in order and people being more in order, too. Move north, and you become more protestantic, more social(istic), and you face more poverty, unemployment, and the economy struggling. Move to the south, and you become more catholic, more conservative, and you see lower unemployment rates, wellfare rates and an economy of better hightech qualification.

Also, the more you go south or southeast, the more Xenophobia and Homophobia you encounter.
If your skin is brown or black, your religion requires you to pray on a carpet pointed to Mekka or you are openly gay, parts of Bavaria or eastern germany may be not the best places for you to be. ;)

CaptainHaplo

02-15-10, 06:58 PM

Neon - you are absolutely right that latin by tradition was the language that had been consistently used by the RC church and that it had fallen out of general usage when the reformation happened. I said one reason - not the only reason - that latin was used was because it was in fact - out of general usage. Sticking with tradition gave the church an added lever of power - as tradition often does, over the followers of the theology.

I would also point out that I don't think protestant Christianity really brought any true discussion or debate of scripture, but rather each branch chose its own interpretation of the scriptures, which it force fed onto its members. This is why the protestant sects are so heavily fractured into various sub-incarnations.

Well to be fully forthright, one must define what the "scriptures" in question are. Most people don't realize it, but while the RC recognizes the Old Testament (with Apocrypha) as legitimate, it spurns the writing of most of the new testament as "scripture", since the actual formation and consolidation of the NT did not occur until 367 AD (the council of carthage). So for accuracy sake, when I denote "scripture" here - I mean it in the context of the "complete" OT only. (Its quite funny to note how the RC discounts most of the NT, but still claims its accuracy in the words of Christ that it claims established the RC church.)

With that said, the 95 thesis by Luther was in fact posted as a challenge to debate specific theological questions in which he felt the church had erred. The main issues at the time are considered to be the practice of indulgences and simony by most, but in actuality the arguement was much deeper, delving into the theological foundations of purgatory, punishment after death prior to spiritual absolution, the right to gain by spiritual authority, etc. I cannot help but say that this is definitely a debate and discussion on the scripture vs the theology, and the subsequent fracturing of the RC church is clear proof that such discussion had to occur - or else why did protestant churches cast off the RC church?

Now - did protestant religion create discussion on the scripture, or did it force feed its view on its members. I am aware history shows that the fractured nature of protestanism initially was synonimous with violence, such as between the followers of luther and calvin. The whole catholic/protestant issue in England still festers, and the 30 yr war is directly relateable to the religious issues of the time. There have undeniably been times when protestantism has been as "evil" or wrong in its actions as the RC church has been, but over time both religions have "moderated" in many ways regarding this. Yes, you still get the "believe this way or burn in hell" sermons, but is it force fed? No, simply because you no longer have to attend any specific church if you choose not to. As to the discussion aspect, you would be suprised how many interfaith dialogues about theology occur. I can attest to that personally, as I really enjoy them and go whenever I can to be parts of them (though I think some would rather I didn't attend!). They happen not only at high levels of organized religion - but also at the local community level, and everywhere in between. Now how much good they do is another question entirely! :haha:

Anyhow I think I am drifting off point. My main point though is that I still don't see the reformation as a return to the origin, but as an evolution that split from the RC church. Basically the protestant church got rid or altered of a lot of the structures (power and otherwise), and ritual. It was a streamlining of the religion more then anything else in my view. They still based their religion entirely on the foundation the RC Church had built, and used a modified and translated version of their holy book. In fact the original intent of the reformation was to reform the RC church itself, not splinter off, which explains why much of it did not change. They didn't make any attempt to go beyond the rc church to the origins of Christianity.

Well - what did they think the origins of Xtianity were? You are right that it was an effort to reform the church. They saw the origins of Xtianity as the teachings of Christ - which the RC church holds it has sole and infallible understanding of since it claims it is established by Christ (in ironically part of the "Bible" that they want to discount most of). Thus the effort to reform the church was to return it to the teachings of Christ as the RC church understood them.

Whether the RC church had that understanding "infallibly" right is another discussion entirely!

Once again - I think we agree alot more than we disagree - and indeed may simply be "arguing semantics" on the issue of the reformation since it really goes to the question of the real origins of Xtianity vs what the RC church thought they were.

As to the question of hitler and going to heaven - I have been asked that. Theologically - one must understand the spiritual symbolism of heaven instead of the one that is put forth by modern religion - aka paradise and spiritual reward. My personal view is that "heaven" and "hell" are more spiritual pictures than physical locations - and thus the question cannot be answered without that being understood. I could write a book about the theology of my answer - but I would have to state that in the case of the question as asked - Hitler would indeed be "in heaven" - but he would see it as hell in many ways. In fact, it wouldn't take his "conversion" at the end to make that happen either. If you want an explanation of that - I will start a new thread LOL.

Skybird

02-15-10, 07:05 PM

Also, the more you go south or southeast, the more Xenophobia and Homophobia you encounter.
If your skin is brown or black, your religion requires you to pray on a carpet pointed to Mekka or you are openly gay, parts of Bavaria or eastern germany may be not the best places for you to be. ;)
Phobia? Let's leave clinical psychology out of this. Too many people already use this term and do not know what it is, and what not.

Skybird

02-16-10, 06:09 AM

An impression from German Carnival parade in Duesseldorf, on monday:

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/1647/duessislam.jpg (http://img28.imageshack.us/i/duessislam.jpg/)

Schluß mit lustig:

Western Civilisation on Trial, or:
Why we should be watching Geert Wilders

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MDdkMjM4NjgwYzk2OTRlMDY1NjIwODhiY2YzZjE3OTY=

In response to Wilders’s request to bring in witnesses to establish the veracity of the opinions that got him in trouble with the law, that body issued this statement on January 17: “It is irrelevant whether Wilders’s witnesses might prove Wilders’s observations to be correct, what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal.”

In other words, the prosecutors believe that the truth is not a defense in the Netherlands, nor perhaps elsewhere in Europe — a continent that appears no longer to have the will to defend its values, culture, and civilization. Very sad.
(...)
U.S. media should cover the Wilders proceedings because Wilders’s career has implications beyond one man, one party, or one country. It potentially affects all of Europe as the continent works out its response to the Islamic challenge. The U.S. media does an adequate job of informing its audience about this topic, so the near-silence about Wilders comes as a bit of a surprise.
(...)
In 1989, Iran’s supreme leader issued a blasphemy fatwa against Salman Rushdie in London. It was the opening volley in a new Muslim push — later taken up by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference — to force the West to adopt Islamic-blasphemy strictures within its borders. Intimidated, the West has begun to comply. It does so mostly through self-censorship and by prosecuting those who do speak out under religious-hate-speech laws such as those invoked in the Netherlands against Wilders. These laws are the West’s proxy for blasphemy bans.
(...)
It is a sad day for the freedom of speech when a man can be put on trial for causing another man offense. If offending someone were really a crime warranting prosecution by the civil authorities, the legal system would be opened up to absurdities even greater than the Wilders trial.