Comments on UNI Freethinkers and Inquirers: Blasphemy Friday: Trial of Geert Wilders

I do apologize for the typing errors and length in...

2010-02-15T07:18:21.802-06:00

I do apologize for the typing errors and length in my comment, it was quite late when I types that rant up. (excuses!!!!)

@ Tort:

Very well said. I have recently been thinking a lot on the meaning (and fallacy) of freedom and how people will abuse it to force feed them bigotry and hatred in historical and current context. Iraq war, Wilders, etc. as examples.

Since this is so close to home for me, it is a very interesting case to investigate from my secular and humanist perspective and it's heart breaking to see it misunderstood or misinterpreted outside of our borders.

You have mentioned the best talking points to get this across, I will repeat them:

Wilders wants:

- To ban books
- To deny Muslims a place to live
- To supress freedom of thought
- To tax Muslims
- To invade Muslim privacy
- To set up special laws to control Muslims

Now substitute Muslims with Jews, and Wilders with Hitler and you will see the obvious dangers.

Well said Mirik, the man is a bigot, he's not ...

2010-02-14T18:22:10.361-06:00

Well said Mirik, the man is a bigot, he's not in this for freedom of speech, or to stop the atrocities committed by Islam he's just a plain old fashioned racist and it's sad that the humanists, secularists and atheists keep supporting him uncritically. Yes Islam should not silence free speech but Wilders does not support free speech, he has attempted to have the koran banned and wants immigration halted from non-western countries and to have non-western immigrants voting rights revoked. When that holocaust denier Irving was arrested we objected to the arrest and the viewpoints of the man being arrested, we need the same here.

... I am passionate about this not because I have...

2010-02-14T14:06:13.999-06:00

...

I am passionate about this not because I have a love for Islam. But I have a love for justice, and it seems INJUST to support an obvious extremist (with more political skill then your average Neo-Nazi, granted), but rally against another extremist, be it a blatantly religious one. Both are believers in their doctrine and both are decidedly wrong from a humanistic and secular perspective.

I hope, therefore, that you will investigate this matter more and look at this a second time somewhat more objective, from a humanist and secularist perspective.

it is NOT humanist to consider one people LESS then another. And this is what Geert Wilders propesses. We treat a part of our inhabitants, the Muslims, as second hand citizens, denying them the rights that the non-Muslims have.

That is definitely not humanist throught.

It is not secular in the way that his dogmatic conviction that all of Islam and Muslims are despicable and unwanted, constitutes a de facto religion, which is obviously conflicting with secularism.

The most obvious examples are the Irony that the man is proposing less rights for Muslims (they wouldnt be allowed immigrating, they wouldnt be allowed wearing their religious outfits, they wouldnt be allowed building their Mosques, they are not to profess Islamic ideals) and defending himself through his 'Freedom'?

So Muslims will not be free, is he gets his way, they will be severely restricted and monitored, but he DARES call his party the 'Party of Freedom'. It is such sublime irony that a fascist, who will limit your freedoms at a whim of the state, would claim to be a proponent of 'Freedom'.

Not to mention that he sued people (rapper) for making a sing in which he was mentioned to be killed. As if that does not constitute 'freedom of speech', etc.

Now he is sued for doing the same, claiming that one segment of population should not have as much rights as the rest, seems only just.

I hope you can appreciate the irony, and not call proponents of true 'freedom', also freedom from religion I might add, as being 'elitist' at trying to keep our country free. I think it's understandable that people that truly appreciate freedom would want to get justice.

Chance is, of course, that like Hitler, the man will go to prison and come out the better for it. Like a Pariah. Time will tell if he can gave the 'timing' (like another killing in the Netherlands by a Muslim extremist, or world event) to seize power.

I can't say I am a proponent of the actual case against him, I think a raising of awareness on what fascist plans he is trying to get done would be better. But I sure understand it.

There are more issues and arguments here, I'm sure. We could debate democracy and how it got Hitler elected by sheer hysterical populism.

Hi Freethinkers, I came upon this blogpost throug...

2010-02-14T14:05:50.567-06:00

Hi Freethinkers,

I came upon this blogpost through the linking of PZ Meyer's blog. I am a Dutch Atheist and offended by not just religious dogma towards unbelievers, but even more offended by general dogma that supresses free thought and the gathering or pursuit of knowledge.

However, I feel I must nuance the general impression that Geert Wilders is a proponent of freedom of speech or Atheistic, secular, humanitarian principles.

He is most certainly not. It is true that he is opposed to multi-culturalism and it is true that he is afraid that Dutch 'Judeo-Christian' values are eroded by the inclusion of more and more Muslim immigrants in our society.

However, it is decidedly NOT true that he is some kind of warrior for reason. Quite the opposite.

His critisism and intolerance are solely restricted to Islamic thought and culture. He has isolated a part of our inhabitants that are being stigmatized over the ideas of a few extremists.

He has offended not just extremists, but general benign populations of muslims with his outrageous claims that, for example, we should levy tax on 'head-rags'. Clearly picking out solely the representative icons of Islamic culture.

He may find passages of the Koran offensive, like I and you do, but he will never mention passeges from the Bible and the 'Judeo-Christian' culture of which he is a proponent and wants to return to.

I am slightly offended by the non-Dutch press and secular societies somehow picking up on this as some kind of fight for secularism, while it is not. It is a fight for nationalism and idealism, and a particular brand that has nothing to do with secular or humanist thought.

So your article above, seems to me, highly uninformed. This man is not using his free speech for debate (he refuses ALL debate and talks in GOP talking points), he uses it solely to stigmatize and entire section of our population, delegating them to second hand citizens, in a way ironically similar to which happened to his own people in Nazi Germany (He is a devout proponent and apolagist for the rights of Israel, not surprising).

On Fitna; It is not a 'documentary' on Islam, it is a compilation of excesses of Fundamentalist Muslims (like the Taliban). They are NOT related to the "Muslimification' of Europe whatsoever, out rule of law has NOT changed favorably to Muslims or anyone except for the ruling Christians, which have state funded family and 'abortion' programs.

It was solely aimed at igniting indignation in a part of the population in which the xenophobia was readily apperant, and some times, rightfully so, as mentioned with the troublesome Moroccan boys that cause so much trouble. Which is NOT a problem from Islam, but a problem of Mediterarnian temperament and macho-ism (the Italian kind of macho-ism and maternal cognitive dissonance of bad behavior).

There surely is SOME extremism a live today, you will never be able to root it out and somehow would seem rather hypocrite.

How can we allow Geert Wilders to stigmatize muslims in general and forbid extremist Muslims to spew hartred on wester society? Seems either BOTH are allowed, or BOTH are forbidden, since BOTH are idealistic 'religious' doctrines of dogma.

Continued...