Wilders on Trial

[DogOnPorch]

I would not necessarily ban the Koran. However, incitement speech associated with the Koran should be quite bannable. I think alot of what goes on in the Madreassas comes darn close to the line.

And note, I am against most of the "hate crimes" laws that many Jewish organizations advocate. That being said, I don't believe that the Wests's openness is a suicide pact.

Hate crimes are quite silly. As is banning things like books. As are terrorists. As are alert levels. As is flying aircraft into tall buildings. As are wars against ghosts in faraway lands.

Frankly, I'd like to avoid all if possible. I know you and everybody else in this thread would as well.

There. Common ground...

[Peter F]

Let me put it this way. If you, as an immigrant, are not willing to accept certain basic cultural tenets of the country you're coming to (the rule of law, expansive rights for various groups you may dislike including, but not limited to homosexuals or women) and, in fact, have little intention of interacting with the wider society beyond basic economic activities, why would you want to come here, and more importantly, why would we want you here? It's that simple.

I disagree entirely. I see no reason for morality exams of potential immigrants. They will be subject to the law when they get here (and I would hope the immigration authorities do in fact let immigrants know the basics of what the law is).

Lots of non-immigrant people have little intention of interacting with wider society. We got lots of Italian Cultural centers and china-towns. Its perfectly alright for us non-immigrants to restict our social lives to whatever we are comfortable with.

I see no reason to require anything different from immigrants.

[Bonam]

What I'm saying is if you looked at the sum of his teachings on war, you probably wouldn't put him in the same category as Genghis Khan, for example.

Mind what people say, not only what they do, for actions will betray a lie. His teachings are irrelevant in the face of his actions. His conquest of Arabia is historical fact.

Of course he's not the same as Genghis Khan. Genghis, after all, caused the deaths of more people than any other leader in human history, with death tolls estimates in the range of 40-150 million, outstripping even the wars of the 20th century despite the limited technology of the era. Nor did Genghis found a new religion. But Mohammed was a conquerer nonetheless.

[ToadBrother]

Mind what people say, not only what they do, for actions will betray a lie. His teachings are irrelevant in the face of his actions. His conquest of Arabia is historical fact.

Of course he's not the same as Genghis Khan. Genghis, after all, caused the deaths of more people than any other leader in human history, with death tolls estimates in the range of 40-150 million, outstripping even the wars of the 20th century despite the limited technology of the era. Nor did Genghis found a new religion. But Mohammed was a conquerer nonetheless.

Of rather limited success. The major expansions didn't happen until after his death.

As much as I dislike Richard Dawkins, I have to agree with him. The Abrahamic religions are the most intolerant out there. Christianity, Islam, and, if you buy into the myths, the Hebrews too, were completely intolerant of other faiths. The polytheistic religions had this odd knack of simply adopting or equating foreign gods with their own (look at the Greek and Indian pantheon, a fascinating mix of Indo-European and Middle East/Central Asian deity motifs). But along come the Christians, and within a few centuries, pagan temples are torn down. Along come the Muslims, and while they were until recently relatively tolerant of Jews and Christians, no one else was spared.

The great irony of this is that, by the beginning of the 20th century, Christendom had pretty much expanded as far as it could go, after it had run roughshod over all sorts of faiths. Now suddenly it's bad that another expansionist group has the audacity to have the same stated goals as all those missionaries sent out by the colonial powers to soften the opposition by turning them into good little Christians. As the song goes "same as it ever was". I'm sure the Romans felt the same when the Huns and the Goths were dismantling their empire, feeling that it wasn't fair that such a glorious civilization could be butchered by a bunch of crazy savages, even though, a few centuries before, that's exactly what the Romans had done.

[DogOnPorch]

Mark Steyn's latest re: Wilders.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/18/the-absurd-trial-of-geert-wilders/

Meanwhile, Wilders is back in the UK showing Fitna at the invitation of Baroness Cox and Lord Pearson.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8551220.stm

The EDL seeks to hitch their horse to the Wilders wagon.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/03/defence-league-parliament

[wyly]

Of course he's not the same as Genghis Khan. Genghis, after all, caused the deaths of more people than any other leader in human history, with death tolls estimates in the range of 40-150 million, outstripping even the wars of the 20th century despite the limited technology of the era. Nor did Genghis found a new religion. But Mohammed was a conquerer nonetheless.

40-150 million?..it's historical propaganda, wild exaggerations that have no historical basis...numbers are routinely inflated by past historians to terrify opponents, demonize opponents or glorify their masters..."the enemy had killed tens of millions but our glorious king with only an army of ten thousand slew their multitude of a million"...

[wyly]

I'm sure the Romans felt the same when the Huns and the Goths were dismantling their empire, feeling that it wasn't fair that such a glorious civilization could be butchered by a bunch of crazy savages, even though, a few centuries before, that's exactly what the Romans had done.

Romans were actually extremely tolerant of new religions, the more festivals the better...telling them they could only have one god and one religion didn't go over very well...

[Bonam]

The great irony of this is that, by the beginning of the 20th century, Christendom had pretty much expanded as far as it could go, after it had run roughshod over all sorts of faiths. Now suddenly it's bad that another expansionist group has the audacity to have the same stated goals as all those missionaries sent out by the colonial powers to soften the opposition by turning them into good little Christians. As the song goes "same as it ever was". I'm sure the Romans felt the same when the Huns and the Goths were dismantling their empire, feeling that it wasn't fair that such a glorious civilization could be butchered by a bunch of crazy savages, even though, a few centuries before, that's exactly what the Romans had done.

Except the Romans did what they could to fight off the Barbarian hordes, even though they were ultimately unsuccessful, mostly due to internal economic and societal decay. Of course it is bad that another expansionist group wants to do what Christianity did centuries before. I like our civilization for the most part just the way it is and would not like to see it overrun by a completely different culture. Would you? We are not perfect impartial historical observers for whom it's just "hey, another civilization rose, another civilization fell, another page of the textbook". We are members of these civilizations and for us such upheaval would have severe personal consequences.

40-150 million?..it's historical propaganda, wild exaggerations that have no historical basis...numbers are routinely inflated by past historians to terrify opponents, demonize opponents or glorify their masters..."the enemy had killed tens of millions but our glorious king with only an army of ten thousand slew their multitude of a million"...

Feel free to look up some historical evidence.

[ToadBrother]

Except the Romans did what they could to fight off the Barbarian hordes,

By putting them in their armies and hoping that would be sufficient. With the Huns, in particular, they basically tried to buy them off, and the only thing prevented them from finishing Rome off was Atilla's death.

even though they were ultimately unsuccessful, mostly due to internal economic and societal decay. Of course it is bad that another expansionist group wants to do what Christianity did centuries before. I like our civilization for the most part just the way it is and would not like to see it overrun by a completely different culture. Would you? We are not perfect impartial historical observers for whom it's just "hey, another civilization rose, another civilization fell, another page of the textbook". We are members of these civilizations and for us such upheaval would have severe personal consequences.

Oh, I'm not saying we shouldn't maintain our civilization, I'm saying we need to consider, particularly when we go around calling some expansionist group violent or militaristic or whatever that we didn't get where we were by smelling flowers and performing romantic soliloquies. Christendom was highly expansive, frequently militaristic, at times outright genocidal (how many Carib Indian tribes are left out there, anyone?), and dead set upon wiping out as many pagan religions and heretical groups as possible (the real fun began when Christendom decided to eat itself alive after the Reformation, but anyways...)

Maybe Europe has something to worry about, though I think the demographic issues have been overstated. My point is that we (as in Canada and Europe) need to adopt a more American-style model of immigration. The melting pot has, by and large, worked well. The multicultural model, I think, denies that society, any society, needs to have some concrete common ground. I think most immigrants fit well enough, and want to fit in, but there are clearly some groups, or rather sub-groups, that have little or no desire to adopt any of the ways of the culture, and whether or not they go Toronto 18 on us, seem decidedly hostile. Obviously once they are citizens, they are our problem, but I'm thinking what the Brits are pondering, which is to basically deport violence and anti-Western preaching Imams who are not British subjects out of the UK is what everyone needs to do.

As well, if we want to get serious about domestic terrorism, we need to start charging these guys with the heftiest class of crimes; treason and insurrection. If we can get concrete proof that they're working with foreign groups, then we need to slap them with treason, and we need to update those laws to make prison sentences as lengthy as possible.

Edited March 5, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Bonam]

Oh, I'm not saying we shouldn't maintain our civilization, I'm saying we need to consider, particularly when we go around calling some expansionist group violent or militaristic or whatever that we didn't get where we were by smelling flowers and performing romantic soliloquies. Christendom was highly expansive, frequently militaristic, at times outright genocidal (how many Carib Indian tribes are left out there, anyone?), and dead set upon wiping out as many pagan religions and heretical groups as possible (the real fun began when Christendom decided to eat itself alive after the Reformation, but anyways...)

I am certainly not denying the history of western civilization, it is of course filled with what you say. But that doesn't mean we need to excuse other civilizations for committing the same types of acts now. We need to look out for our own interests rather than wallow in guilt.

Maybe Europe has something to worry about, though I think the demographic issues have been overstated. My point is that we (as in Canada and Europe) need to adopt a more American-style model of immigration. The melting pot has, by and large, worked well. The multicultural model, I think, denies that society, any society, needs to have some concrete common ground. I think most immigrants fit well enough, and want to fit in, but there are clearly some groups, or rather sub-groups, that have little or no desire to adopt any of the ways of the culture, and whether or not they go Toronto 18 on us, seem decidedly hostile. Obviously once they are citizens, they are our problem, but I'm thinking what the Brits are pondering, which is to basically deport violence and anti-Western preaching Imams who are not British subjects out of the UK is what everyone needs to do.

As well, if we want to get serious about domestic terrorism, we need to start charging these guys with the heftiest class of crimes; treason and insurrection. If we can get concrete proof that they're working with foreign groups, then we need to slap them with treason, and we need to update those laws to make prison sentences as lengthy as possible.

Agreed, multiculturalism doesn't work well and the American model is better. Even in the American model, however, excessively high rates of immigration could overwhelm the assimilation rate. I think immigration on the order of 1% per year is not manageable, it means replacement of the majority of the population with immigrants on the order of just three or so generations, if you assume the existing population of the country is at replacement birth rate. That is, at 1% immigration every year, after 60 years, 44% of the population will be of that immigrant group, after 80 years 55%, and after 100 years 63%. That's just some basic arithmetic. Do you really think that our culture and civilization would not be significantly impacted by such changes over just a few generations, even with a melting pot model?

I think from the cultural aspect we could deal with immigration two or three times slower than that, around 0.3-0.5% / year, that would mean majority replacement times on the order of two centuries or so, which I think could be handled more realistically.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Bonam

[ToadBrother]

I am certainly not denying the history of western civilization, it is of course filled with what you say. But that doesn't mean we need to excuse other civilizations for committing the same types of acts now. We need to look out for our own interests rather than wallow in guilt.

It's not so much guilt as the hypocrisy of spending 2,000 years trying to take over the world, only, ultimately to reach a point where it could not handle large chunks of what it had gained, and now, after the retraction going "Oh my, that's so EVIL that they want to take us over." For better and more often for worse history is highly cyclical. Even the Islamic world went through such a fierce retraction in the wake of the Mongol invasions, which ultimately lead to the demise of that great Medieval flowering of thought in the Islamic world, and left us with the roots of modern Islamism and Islamic fundamentalism. No civilization is guaranteed eternity, and Christendom has persisted for a lot longer than most.

[Bonam]

Please do not call our civilization "Christendom", because that is not what it is. Western civilization is not defined by its various religions, but by its relative freedom, its democratic political systems, its adoption of at least partially free market economics, and its willingness to adopt new ideas (including science and technology) rather than sticking with strict religious or ideological dogmas.

This is why our civilization is worth preserving in the face of people, who, as you say, "want to take us over".

[ToadBrother]

Please do not call our civilization "Christendom", because that is not what it is. Western civilization is not defined by its various religions, but by its relative freedom, its democratic political systems, its adoption of at least partially free market economics, and its willingness to adopt new ideas (including science and technology) rather than sticking with strict religious or ideological dogmas.

This is why our civilization is worth preserving in the face of people, who, as you say, "want to take us over".

I call it "Christendom" for the same reason that many Byzantines called their empire "Roman". It's not meant as a religious assessment (though the territories and societies it encompasses are still overwhelmingly Christian). It suggests a continuity of culture, because there was no particular moment when it ceased to be a strictly Christian civilization and become a largely secular one.

[Bonam]

Nevertheless there are many nations that are Christian that would not fit into what is typically considered part of "Western" civilization. Specifically, much of South America and some nations in Africa. Also, many European countries are more atheist/agnostic than they are Christian. For example see this map, which shows that a number of European countries have only 20-40% of people believing in God.

Christendom is just not a good term for Western civilization. The only motivation I see for its use is to more easily relativize it with "Islam", which indeed is a civilization composed of a group of nations quite appropriately defined by their religion, and even then, people don't generally use the word Islam to refer to Islamic civilization as a whole, but rather specifically to the religion.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Bonam

[DogOnPorch]

Christendom is indeed pretty vague a term thses days. It had a more active meaning during the Middle-Ages. Atheism and multi-culturalism in the West has since watered it down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christendom

[Argus]

I disagree entirely. I see no reason for morality exams of potential immigrants. They will be subject to the law when they get here (and I would hope the immigration authorities do in fact let immigrants know the basics of what the law is).

We are, in effect, selecting our neighbours. If you got to select who would live on your street would you choose a bunch of bible-thumping, god-fearing southern baptists who hate Jews and Gays and think womens place is in the home? I'm betting - nope. Yet because Muslims generally have brown skin, the fact their social views are, if anything, about a century behind those bible-thumping baptists causes you to not care at all how many hundreds of thousands of them come in to live among us.

[wyly]

We are, in effect, selecting our neighbours. If you got to select who would live on your street would you choose a bunch of bible-thumping, god-fearing southern baptists who hate Jews and Gays and think womens place is in the home? I'm betting - nope. Yet because Muslims generally have brown skin, the fact their social views are, if anything, about a century behind those bible-thumping baptists causes you to not care at all how many hundreds of thousands of them come in to live among us.

Muslims have brown skin...how is skin tone relevant, are you making a racist observation?

I wouldn't put fundamental Muslim a century behind the southern Baptists you describe, they appear to be equals...

[bush_cheney2004]

Muslims have brown skin...how is skin tone relevant, are you making a racist observation?

No, but I think you have...all Muslims do not have "brown skin".

[bloodyminded]

No, but I think you have...all Muslims do not have "brown skin".

If you read Argus's quote, to which Wyly was responding, all will become clear.

[bush_cheney2004]

If you read Argus's quote, to which Wyly was responding, all will become clear.

Yes...it is clear that both are mistaken. Next....

[bloodyminded]

Yes...it is clear that both are mistaken. Next....

It is clear Argus was mistaken. Wyly was quoting him. That's why it is word-for-word. Next...

[bush_cheney2004]

It is clear Argus was mistaken. Wyly was quoting him. That's why it is word-for-word. Next...

Nope...in fact, he reinforces the idea of "skin tone". Are you his attorney?

[bloodyminded]

Nope...in fact, he reinforces the idea of "skin tone". Are you his attorney?

Quoting someone else does not necessarily reinforce an idea. You and I are quoting each other, you see? And yes, I am his attorney.

[bush_cheney2004]

Quoting someone else does not necessarily reinforce an idea.

..it does when done so poorly.

You and I are quoting each other, you see?

Yes, I see he didn't do that.

And yes, I am his attorney.

...an even bigger mistake.

[bloodyminded]

..it does when done so poorly.

Yes, I see he didn't do that.

Did it "poorly" even as "he didn't do that."

Your confused contradictions are fun for me.