Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

Prosecutors were initially reluctant to bring Wilders' case to court, saying his remarks appeared directed toward Islam as an ideology rather than intended to insult Muslims as a group.

Of course, because the definitive characteristic of a group has absolutely nothing to do with that group.

Also, the great shame is that Islamism actually is bound pretty tightly to fascism. Had the dude just added those last three letters the whole thing would have been pretty insignificant.

How do you define "Islamism" though? That's like comparing the Republicans in the US with Conservatives in Europe under the umbrella term "conservative".

And if you bothered to ever read or study the Koran you would know that it is even more violent and oppressive of woman than the Old Testament. According to the Koran the oh so glorious Mohammed wed a six year old and deflowered her at the age of nine.

Except that the Quran said no such thing. Try again.

Anyhoo, this does mean that Wilders is not slandering if he says that Mohammed married a six year old and had sex with her 3 years later, which makes him a Pedophile. It's the inconvenient, uncomfortable truth... So that's a point for him. A lot of other things he says are utter groxgak.

While it may seem strange and reprehensible to our modern eyes, marrying at those ages was normal across the whole world at the time. People only lived to be around 40 years old in those days so by the time you're 18 or 20 you're already middle aged.

Bible and the Koran have positive messages once you get passed the mysogony and kill! kill! kill! the heretic.

I really don't recall any passages in the Quran where I was specifically asked to kill heretics for no reason at all.

burning_phoneix wrote:

While it may seem strange and reprehensible to our modern eyes, marrying at those ages was normal across the whole world at the time. People only lived to be around 40 years old in those days so by the time you're 18 or 20 you're already middle aged.

Actually, I'd say that it was acceptable (generally) for this to occur at 12 or a little earlier. I would assume that at nine even then people would think that was pushing it...maybe? I know they were married at a young age a lot, such as a certain Byzantine Emperor being married to new born princess babe of Hungary (I think), but consumation waited a while.

burning_phoneix wrote:
How do you define "Islamism" though? That's like comparing the Republicans in the US with Conservatives in Europe under the umbrella term "conservative".

In the US parlance 'Islamism' almost always denotes the fusion of Muslim theology with fascist political principles (especially corporatism, and in-group superiority); usually the Muslim Brotherhood is considered to be the prototypical Islamist organization.

There are some other, more liberal definitions that basically amount to "Islam as expressed in an organized political ideology" but I think you would be hard pressed to find examples of organizations that are not consistent with the first definition. As such,while you can argue that its possible for a group to be Islamist without being associated with fascism, it wouldn't be incorrect to state that there is a strog historical connection between the two.

Herohammernostalgia wrote:That means that things like "Jesus was married and had kids with Mary Magdalene" and "Jezus had three brothers and five sisters" got left out (these are examples of things the Roman Episcopals could have editted out if they find these things in the various text available at the time and found inappropriate).

Gentlemen, I give you...
Craig Christ!
(Frazzled note this is one of my favorite comics) (mod note language NSFW)

Criticism / denouncing Islam in the way that Wilders does is often labelled "racist". I've always found this one a little strange as Islam is a religion / ideology / culture, not a race - there are white muslims for instance, and by comparison criticising Christianity is rarely seen as racist, so what's the difference here? (unlike antisemitism, as there is an element of genetic as well as cultural heritage to being Jewish). Am I being a bit naive here?

Doggles wrote:Criticism / denouncing Islam in the way that Wilders does is often labelled "racist". I've always found this one a little strange as Islam is a religion / ideology / culture, not a race - there are white muslims for instance, and by comparison criticising Christianity is rarely seen as racist, so what's the difference here? (unlike antisemitism, as there is an element of genetic as well as cultural heritage to being Jewish). Am I being a bit naive here?

Not really, the term 'racist' is just a catch-all and convenient label for the sort of anti-islamic rhetoric that gets spouted rather than an exact definition. Plus, I think there is an element to do with the fact that racism and being racist (quite rightly) has very negative connotations associated with it and so chucking the racist label at someone is a quick and easy way to smear them.

Herohammernostalgia wrote:
If it weren't for the Roman Catholics, there wouldn't even be a Bible!

The Eastern Orthodox would like to have a word with you...

Ahtman wrote:

Herohammernostalgia wrote:
If it weren't for the Roman Catholics, there wouldn't even be a Bible!

The Eastern Orthodox would like to have a word with you...

Actually he is kind of right. In that the earliest canon was assembled in the 4th century(way before the great schism and eastern othodox Church).

GG

Ahtman wrote:

Herohammernostalgia wrote:
If it weren't for the Roman Catholics, there wouldn't even be a Bible!

The Eastern Orthodox would like to have a word with you...

Well, If I remember what I read about it, up until the 10th century schism, the only European Christian church was named Catholic. This was after much debate and sectarian strife, that "killed" the arianist and monophysite sects who had their own idea's about the religion, but were not supported by the Imperial authorities. Charlemagne became Catholic too and played quite a part in Christianizing Pagan Europe. Around 1000 CE there was a row between the Western European Catholics and the Eastern European Catholics about the day we should celebrate Christmas and about the relation between the Pope and the Roman Emperor (of the Byzantine Empire). The issue could not be resolved, hence a split into a Catholic church of Rome and the Orthodox church of Constantinople occurred.

If he had said just Catholic I would agree, but he specified Roman Catholic. We shouldn't deny the non-Roman, pre-Schism contributions.

Ahtman wrote:If he had said just Catholic I would agree, but he specified Roman Catholic. We shouldn't deny the non-Roman, pre-Schism contributions.

Technically, there weren't any non-Roman contributions, as pretty much the entire Christian world at that point was under the rule of the Roman Empire.

Indeed, was it not the Schism that led to the formation of separate churches?

The western one was based in Rome, the capital of the Western Empire, where the head prelate (I forget his official title of the time) managed to manoeuvre his way into being pope.

Laughing Man wrote:

Ahtman wrote:If he had said just Catholic I would agree, but he specified Roman Catholic. We shouldn't deny the non-Roman, pre-Schism contributions.

Technically, there weren't any non-Roman contributions, as pretty much the entire Christian world at that point was under the rule of the Roman Empire.

Well, I suppose if you want a a numbed down and simplistic approach to history you can go ahead with that, but doesn't really work for me.

generalgrog wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Herohammernostalgia wrote:
If it weren't for the Roman Catholics, there wouldn't even be a Bible!

The Eastern Orthodox would like to have a word with you...

Actually he is kind of right. In that the earliest canon was assembled in the 4th century(way before the great schism and eastern othodox Church).

GG

also before the catholic church as a seperate institution based on the supremacy of the bishop of rome.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Laughing Man wrote:

Ahtman wrote:If he had said just Catholic I would agree, but he specified Roman Catholic. We shouldn't deny the non-Roman, pre-Schism contributions.

Technically, there weren't any non-Roman contributions, as pretty much the entire Christian world at that point was under the rule of the Roman Empire.

mmmmm...... the eastern and roman empires kind of went their own way in the 4th century. by the end of the 5th the western empire no longer exists in any substantive form. saying that it was all about the catholics misses the point that there was a larger christian world at the time that the canon was established, and that the roman catholics are 1 of several inheritors of that tradition. the orthodox and the coptic churches come to mind as two others that have as ancient and as valid a claim on that tradition as the roman catholics. AF

So, alright, there could have possibly been a bible without the Roman Catholics, but the bible being available today is to be attributed to the Catholic church for a major part.
Especially since the Roman Catholic church aced the monastic system and was very, extremely missionary with their ideology.

I know this is the OT forum, but I'm not seeing any relevance between the origin of the Bible, and Dutch hate speech laws.

Kilkrazy wrote:Indeed, was it not the Schism that led to the formation of separate churches?

The western one was based in Rome, the capital of the Western Empire, where the head prelate (I forget his official title of the time) managed to manoeuvre his way into being pope.

he was just the bishop of rome.
yeah the whole conversation has zero relevance to dutch politics.

Herohammernostalgia wrote:So, alright, there could have possibly been a bible without the Roman Catholics, but the bible being available today is to be attributed to the Catholic church for a major part.

Not really, the printed bible, written in local language, not Latin, is almost entirely a protestant concept.

Back on topic then:

Monday Geert Wilders used his right to remain silent.
The Judge said: "It has come to my attention that mr Wilders often avoids debate about his statements*, it appears he does it again now". It is customary for a judge to make a request for the defendant to speak
Wilder's lawyer objected and accused the judge to be partial to the offenders claims and wanted a new judge. This accusation was then, tuesday, reviewed by a commission and the commission said: "The remark of the judge, while a clumsy choice of words, does not point at partiality. The judge thus remains in function, Wilders and his lawyer are unhappy about it, trial continues on the 5th of November


* Geert Wilders has been invited by several organisations (including muslims) and political parties to have debates about his statements. He has always refused any invitations to have a debate about his statements, he just says something and then refuses to further discuss the matter.

Yea that would have been a bad statement to make here and could have gotten knocked off. The judge is clearly biased.

Flee Wilders flee!

It is a bit odd to want to be a politician in a democratic country and not engage in debate.

I suspect, though, that Mr Wilders does not want to be a politician in a democratic country.

Kilkrazy wrote:It is a bit odd to want to be a politician in a democratic country and not engage in debate.

I suspect, though, that Mr Wilders does not want to be a politician in a democratic country.

And you think he should debate in court with a judge

dogma wrote:

burning_phoneix wrote:
How do you define "Islamism" though? That's like comparing the Republicans in the US with Conservatives in Europe under the umbrella term "conservative".

In the US parlance 'Islamism' almost always denotes the fusion of Muslim theology with fascist political principles (especially corporatism, and in-group superiority); usually the Muslim Brotherhood is considered to be the prototypical Islamist organization.

There are some other, more liberal definitions that basically amount to "Islam as expressed in an organized political ideology" but I think you would be hard pressed to find examples of organizations that are not consistent with the first definition. As such,while you can argue that its possible for a group to be Islamist without being associated with fascism, it wouldn't be incorrect to state that there is a strog historical connection between the two.

Except that Islam as a political ideology is still in a very nascent stage. Even the Muslim Brotherhood is ironically amongst the most democratic organizations in the middle east today.

All in all, political Islam has usually been swept aside and repressed under fascist arab-nationalist regimes or autocratic monarchies so it's difficult to gauge their political principles.

burning_phoneix wrote:
Except that Islam as a political ideology is still in a very nascent stage.

I don't think so. Political Islam has been around for a little over 80 years. You can't call something nascent after 80% of a century.

burning_phoneix wrote:
Even the Muslim Brotherhood is ironically amongst the most democratic organizations in the middle east today.

I wouldn't say that the Muslim Brotherhood is democratic. Democracy implies a sort of formalized process of representation through voting. The Muslim Brotherhood has the GOC, but the Shura Council makes most of its decisions autonomously, without electoral approval.

burning_phoneix wrote:
All in all, political Islam has usually been swept aside and repressed under fascist arab-nationalist regimes or autocratic monarchies so it's difficult to gauge their political principles.

Well, it isn't that difficult. The Muslim Brotherhood, just as one example, is pretty clear about what it wants politically; governance according to the Koran and the Sunna, and a reconstructed Caliphate.

Also, while its easy to claim that political Islam has been artificially suppressed, I think the real issue is that it varies an incredible amount from region to region, and state to state. You can really see this in places like Uzbekistan where, despite being almost entirely Muslim, the population oobserves an interpretation of Sharia that bears little resemblance to the sort of thing that exists in Saudi Arabia.

egor71 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:It is a bit odd to want to be a politician in a democratic country and not engage in debate.

I suspect, though, that Mr Wilders does not want to be a politician in a democratic country.

And you think he should debate in court with a judge

No, I think he should debate outside the court.

Kilkrazy wrote:

egor71 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:It is a bit odd to want to be a politician in a democratic country and not engage in debate.

I suspect, though, that Mr Wilders does not want to be a politician in a democratic country.

And you think he should debate in court with a judge

No, I think he should debate outside the court.

Evidently if he debates he'll be arrested...

He wasn't arrested for debating.

Actually he would be more likely to be shot.

Wilders is a very brave man, and i salute him for his efforts.

I agree with much of what he says, sure some of it is far too extreme as i dont think we should villify all the Muslims in Europe, but Islam is a very savage and aggressive Religion, and people need to open their eyes to what is happening.

I just hope they dont kill him in the street like they did poor Theo Van Gogh.
Which was an absolute tragedy by the way. But still the goddamn hippies have everyone in Europe convinced that Islam is all about "peace" despite the fact that they keep on blowing people up and knifing people they disagree with.

mattyrm wrote:Wilders is a very brave man, and i salute him for his efforts.

I agree with much of what he says, sure some of it is far too extreme as i dont think we should villify all the Muslims in Europe, but Islam is a very savage and aggressive Religion, and people need to open their eyes to what is happening.

I just hope they dont kill him in the street like they did poor Theo Van Gogh.
Which was an absolute tragedy by the way. But still the goddamn hippies have everyone in Europe convinced that Islam is all about "peace" despite the fact that they keep on blowing people up and knifing people they disagree with.

But does it really do any good to generalise and pigeon-hole everyone like this? I no more believe that all Muslims wish to blow me up any more than I believe that all Catholics want to kill me. I mean the IRA spent a good few decades attacking targets of interest in the UK, both civilian and military, but that doesn't mean that people classify Catholicism as a hateful religion.

Sure we need to have the debate but it needs to be informed debate not just jingoistic, flag waving nonsense.

You missed the interesting This Week townhall with several prominent Brit types talking about global sharia being a requirement of their faith.

If its informed it really needs to be open and not bound by PC nonesense either. Clearly if Wilders being prosecuted such a debate cannot occur in that country.