Well….. let’s be careful not to offend anyone....:rolleyes:

U.S. Web Host Pulls Dutch Lawmaker's Site Promoting Anti-Islam Film

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,340771,00.html

Speech row rocks multi-ethnic Canada
By Henri Astier
BBC News

Canada is often thought of as a land of bland consensus and multicultural harmony - the last place where you would expect to see a religious minority up in arms, and journalists accusing the state of gagging freedom of speech.
Yet in recent months, these have become fixtures of the country's public debate.

The Canadian equivalent of Denmark's cartoonists, or the Netherlands' Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is the outspoken conservative columnist Mark Steyn.

In a 2006 article he used demographics to suggest that the West would succumb to Muslim domination.

The piece, entitled "The future belongs to Islam" and published by the Toronto magazine Maclean's, argued that Europe was "too enfeebled to resist its remorseless transformation into Eurabia".

Mr Steyn summarised the presumed global advantage of militant Islam with a stark equation: "Youth + Will = Disaster for whoever gets in your way."

To some, he had crossed the line between vigorous polemic and Islamophia.

The notion that Muslims should be feared by virtue of their numbers and purported militancy is "quite inflammatory", says Toronto law student Khurrum Awan.

Short shrift

Mr Awan and fellow students marched on Maclean's a year ago to demand a chance to issue a full-length rebuttal in Canada's only nationwide news magazine.

"What we said is that we want an opportunity to participate in the debate when you are talking about the issues that relate directly to us," Mr Awan told the BBC News website.
Maclean's editor gave the students short shrift. He said he had published 27 letters in response to the Steyn article, and would "rather go bankrupt" than let outsiders dictate the content of his magazine.

Late last year the students, supported by the Canadian Islamic Congress, took their demand to the federal Human Rights Commission and similar bodies in British Columbia and Ontario.

The move both publicised the dispute and highlighted a previously little-known aspect of the commissions' remit - the possibility of suppressing speech.

Defiance

The human rights commissions were set up in the 1960s and early 1970s to investigate claims of discrimination in housing and employment.

But section 13 of the 1977 Human Rights Act authorised them to hear complaints about material "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt" by reason of race, age, gender, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

To some groups, this provides a useful remedy. "When people feel insulted they should have recourse," says Khaled Mouammar, president of the Canadian Arab Federation, who argues that the Maclean's article promoted hate against Muslims.
But others are alarmed.

Leading the charge against the commissions is Ezra Levant, an Alberta-based publisher who was targeted by a complaint after reprinting the Danish caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in his (now-defunct) newspaper in early 2006.

His accuser, a Calgary Muslim leader who cited the Koran in his complaint, said the publisher had spread hatred.

In January Mr Levant appeared before an Alberta Human Rights official charged with deciding whether to refer the matter to a special tribunal.

In a videotaped statement later posted on his website, Mr Levant called the commission a "sick joke" and defiantly pleaded guilty.

"I'm not going to try to minimise what I've done and beg for mercy," he told the BBC News website. "I have the right to violate all those Koranic precepts because we follow Queen Elizabeth's law, not Muhammad's law."

Rights, old and new

But by focusing on the legal process, Mr Levant and others added an important new dimension to the dispute. It no longer centred on the familiar "Islam v West" question.

Canada's Human Rights Act is not an Islamic creation; Jewish and other groups have supported complaints under its speech provisions.


The human rights statutes were designed to deal with discriminatory acts, not discriminatory words
Alan Borovoy, Human Rights lawyer

And the complainants against both Maclean's and Mr Levant, in BBC interviews, professed their attachment to free speech and abhorrence of radical Islam.
The core of the dispute is best understood not as a clash of civilisations, but as a conflict within the West itself.

It pits old liberal values that sanctify individuals against a new emphasis on the rights of groups.

Mr Levant regards commission officers as "new-fangled, political crusaders" bent on overturning centuries-old Common Law.

Canada's Human Rights Tribunals, he points out, are quasi-judicial bodies, not regular courts bound by strict standards of procedure to protect defendants.

Every single "section 13" complaint referred to the federal Human Rights Tribunal has been upheld.

And those targeted often incur heavy costs even if a complaint is dropped - as was the case for Mr Levant, who says his legal bills amount to C$100,000 (£49,000).

'Flawed approach'

The commission officials who vet complaints deny acting like rogue inquisitors, and insist they strictly follow the law.

"We have a legal obligation to consider every complaint we receive if it fits one of the grounds for which discrimination cases can be heard," says Carmen Gregoire, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

But according to critics, the fact that commissions are acting within the law offers little comfort.

Alan Borovoy, a veteran lawyer who campaigned to set up the commissions, says their willingness to hear complaints about speech rests on flawed legislation.

He regards the provisions on "hatred or contempt" as departures from the original purpose of the Human Rights Act, and wants them scrapped.

"The human rights statutes were designed to deal with discriminatory acts, not discriminatory words," he says.

Mr Borovoy believes that minorities' push for equality, which he supports, has led to a neglect of traditional freedoms.

"Other interests have for the time being trumped the free-speech values and I'm hoping that with some of these cases we might be able to turn the tide," he says.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...as/7273870.stm

I guess if something is true, but inflammatory it's a bad thing.

Additonally, to be phobic about anything is also apparently wrong.

When did the Koran become the arbiter of what is right?

This is the point exactly, and it's a scary and sad commentary on our times when the legal system in Canada censors it's own citizens for what is effectively free speech. Can the Islamic situation be addressed without imflamantory comments? Probably not.

The main issue of this thread is "are we at war with Islam" and the question can be expanded to ask,"can a free society provide a haven to a religion which by it's own tenents would call for the society to become dramatically altered or changed".

Here in lies the resistance to any move which would give the Islamic movement any leeway in form or substance to changing our way of life, culture or government. If other religions use this arbritration process, then to prevent Islamic abritration, we should prevent all religions from using it.

Finally, if Islamic groups cannot coexist in America without trying to change the very fabric of our culture, then we are indeed are at war with Islam.

I guess the question then becomes, if a religion or popular segments of a religion calls for the dramatic change in our form of government, should it be tolerated. Is it legal or is it by it's nature seditious?

Yes, we are.

We are actually in a global war with Islam - America is, the West is, the World is. It is a war in many dimensions. It's a physical war like World War II; it's a cold war like Vietnam and the many proxy wars around the world from 1950 to 1990.

And, finally, it's a psychological war and even a spiritual war - The world and especially the West has been at war with Islam for 1400 years. We're entering a phase that might be considered the final battle. Like a virus it has infected the West.

Sometimes hatred gets a bum rap. Hating evil is good.

I'm against Islam. I'll fight it.

I love good. I hate evil. I hate Islam.


Three Soldier Dad...Chuck

.

I've read every last one of these books on my shelf yet; I'm still confused about religion especially Islam....

Stay safe.

The books are all good. It's when nutjobs start interpreting them to meet their own political ends that things get screwy...

LOL...ROGER!
 

Someone would quote something and I'll go look it up...

"HEY! I got same damn book...WTF am I reading wrong?"

This I don't agree with. Are there some who use the Quran cynically to bolster their own desires for power? Sure. But I think there are a lot of jihadists who don't have a political agenda, but sincerely believe that God is real, He is watching them, He is going to judge them one day, and He demands that they enforce Sharia at all costs, including violence. There are such things as true believers. Men who would have been perfectly happy to stay at home and live a normal life except they are compelled by their faith.

Theologically speaking, I think the "religion masking a political agenda" thing is kind of a cop out. You can say that about Christian extremism because the Bible makes no statements about government. The Bible addresses personal morality and implicitly assumes that a government of good men will be a good government. This is not the case in Islam. On the contrary, there is no "render unto Caesar" in the Quran. The Quran is, in a lot of ways, an explicitly political blueprint for organizing and operating a community. So there's always going to be a political agenda. The question is what the nature of that agenda is going to be.

Furthermore, the jihadist interpretation of Islam is a perfectly valid and well-reasoned reading of the Quran. Its not the only such interpretation (as I said earlier in the thread, it depends on what verses you believe take priority in what situation), but its not a "perversion" in the sense that its making up something thats not there. The dispute between moderate Islam and jihadist Islam is an honest dispute, thats what makes it so dangerous.

X-Factor,

I admire the fact that you are standing up for the rights of innocent people who are doing no harm. Of course there are Muslims out there who mean no harm. I don't think anyone would agree with a course of action that would purposely hurt innocent people. But to answer the post's question, "Are we at war with Islam?" or maybe "(Should) we be at war with Islam?" I believe the answer is yes (we should).

Religions or beliefs systems of any kind are difficult to judge on the scale of "good" or "bad." Ex. "Christianity is good (or better)" and "Islam is bad (or worse than x/a/b religion)" But I think the question we should ask ourselves when deciding a religions worth in a free society is, "Has belief system
X historically lined up with the basic tenets of our society." I think it's important to note that we should not ask "Can it line up?" Any terrible belief system can be skewed into lining up if you twist it enough. But I think one can make the argument that though belief systems evolve, many stay true to their basic foundational beliefs. We all know what these are in the Quran.

Any belief system historically not lining up with a free society, as in Islam, should definitely be discouraged (at least). Since it's creation, Islam has had little period in history that was peaceful at all. Even taking modern examples. When has there been a time when Islamic societies, or Islamic States, more specifically, been a haven for freedom of speech, individual rights, etc.?

History has taught us that letting small, "unimportant" and "innocent" actions in the name of being "nice and inclusive because many of them are nice people" can lead to extremely dangerous consequences.

I don't disagree with your original statement in its entirety.
That being said, I'm not sure exactly what you meant by this.
I would tend to disagree with this one part of your statement.


-Concerning the Good Book and government, here's a few places to start:
Romans 13:1-7
Proverbs 8:15-16
Matthew 22:15-22
Judges 17:6; 21:25
Psalm 72
I Peter 2:13-16
I Timothy 2:1-2
Titus 3:1

-For the dispensation-minded, let's not forget the beginning of human government:
Genesis 9:5-6

-Much of English Common Law (and, by extension, law in this nation) is based upon Mosaic Law.
(Bad credit only held against you for 7 years, testimony of two witnesses required for treason conviction, etc.)

The men who forged the laws governing this nation apparently inferred that the Bible said something about government.
This particular tangent has been well explored and discussed in this nation for a few centuries (the revisionist history of the public school and university system notwithstanding).


This does again highlight the core issue:
Several nations (the US among them) have governments rooted in English Common Law (rooted in the Bible).
Many groups/nations have their roots in Sharia Law (the Koran).
Due to inherent incompatibilities, and finite space here on the third rock, conflict seems inevitable.

I guess I'm missing the relevance of this statement. I don't believe it's a question of their sincerity or the honest measure of their belief. Whether or not they are politicians in religious clothing or sincere, it makes no difference as to their motivation. The tenants and doctrines of Wahabism are incompatibilty with our value system. Our values are mutually exclusive. That's the danger. How can we be tolerant of something that at it's face value endangers our way of life?

It makes little sense to fight the Wahabi jihadist in Afghanistan and Iraq and at the same time let the same sect flourish or gain a foothold here. I guess we are at war with intolerance which would also extend to any other religion that seeks to usurp the individual freedom and volition of Americans.
I believe this is an important point. Additonally, there's no door keeping folks here. If they desire to be governed by Sharia law, there's a ton of places where they can go. Why would anyone who wants to live under Sharia law want to live in the U.S.? Unless, their purpose is to change our way of life and neutralize us from within.

If that's true, then we truly are at war with Islam, but we just have not as yet defined the rules of engagement.

Normally I would sort of ignore stuff like this...big whoop. But seriously, if the movie created had been critical, lampooning, obscene, defamatory, libellous, unlawful, harassing, abusive...etc...of Christians do you think the plug would have been pulled on the website?

The Dutch probably don't want to deal with another round of violence from the peace-loving folks of the Ummah....


Dutch Islam film website 'shut'

A website that a Dutch right-wing politician was planning to use to release a film expected to be fiercely critical of Islam has been suspended.
The US hosting service, Network Solutions, said it was investigating complaints that it may have breached guidelines on hate language.

Dutch politician Geert Wilders says the 15-minute film describes Islam as "the enemy of freedom".

The planned release has sparked angry protests in many Muslim countries.

The Dutch government has disassociated itself from Mr Wilders' views, but there are fears the film will spark protests similar to those that followed the publication in Denmark two years ago of cartoons seen as offensive to Muslims.

The film has already been condemned by several Muslim countries, including Iran and Pakistan.

Hate messages

Mr Wilders' film is entitled Fitna, an Arabic word used to describe strife or discord, usually religious.

Mr Wilders wrote a commentary in a Dutch newspaper on Saturday.

"The film is not so much about Muslims as about the Koran and Islam. The Islamic ideology has as its utmost goal the destruction of what is most dear to us, our freedom," he wrote in De Volkskrant.


"Fitna is the last warning for the West. The fight for freedom has only just begun," he said.

He had been using Network Solutions to promote the film.

But on Sunday, Network Solutions said it had received a number of complaints that were under investigation.

It said the site was suspended until it was established whether the content of the site violated Network Solutions' terms of acceptable use.

They include "material that is obscene, defamatory, libellous, unlawful, harassing, abusive... hate propaganda" and "profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature".

Mr Wilders has had police protection since Dutch director Theo van Gogh was killed by a radical Islamist in 2004.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...pe/7310439.stm

Were we at war with the German people in 1941-45?

Most of them were not Nazis.

Did the country still present a threat?

How can we justify the bombing of civilian targets and the death of hundreds of thousands of German civilians to remove the bad ones?

TR

It was a bit of a tangent in response to JustinW20's post, which I took to be promoting the idea that jihadists are really just authoritarian ideologues cynically dressed up in religious terminology. I agree with you that their motivation, religious versus political, is irrelevant if they are committing a crime or an act of war.

First, historically speaking I don't think this argument flies. We bombed factory towns producing war material and we bombed them in the daylight at added risk to ourselves in an effort to get the max possible accuracy out of some very limited technology. We never bombed civilian populations without at least some military rationale, even if that rationale was as broad as displacing the labor population away from key production centers. If we'd had laser-guided bombs, etc. in 1941-1945 the strategic bombing campaign would have been far less bloody for Germany. The obvious point of comparison for that is the air wars in Iraq, both in 1991 and 2003, where civilian casualties were tiny compared to the amount of missions flown, targets hit, ordinance dropped, and damage done.

That said, I agree with your general sentiment that in the GWOT we've been a little overly squeamish. There are things we could do, that I believe we should do. But I don't think less discriminate use of fires is on that list. Or more plainly, I don't think carpet-bombing the Hindu Kush into dust amounts to a military necessity for victory and therefore would not consider those civilian casualties acceptable.

If you're making the analogy that its ok to hold law-abiding American Muslims responsible, to some degree, for the threats and actions of jihadists and to injure (legally, physically, or otherwise) them accordingly, because thats the only way to win the war, then I reluctantly have to agree. American Muslims are going to have to put up with a certain amount of suspicion and with a certain amount of wariness (for example, federal surveillance of certain mosques, international money transactions, etc).

Muslim-Americans need to accept this because there's only so much of a balance that can be realistically struck between liberty and security. In the same way white people who shave their heads, live on ranches, and have large gun collections might need to accept that they're going to get an extra long look from the ATFE or whomever because they share certain identifying attributes with neo-fascist militias.

That said, its incumbent on the government to constantly reassess if what its doing is necessary for the common defense or merely easier for the majority defense.

I agree that was unclear. My point is that the Bible is generally concerned about individual morality, not the practicalities of organizing a government.

Lets look at your passages:
Romans 13:1-7 - This basically just says that government is good and necessary. It doesn't prescribe anything specifically.

Proverbs 8:15-16 - Again, this just says that God is not anti-government. It does not say anything about a specific law code or method of governance.

Matthew 22:15-22 - "Render unto Caesar." This supports a separation of Church and State affairs. Again, you find no passage like this in the Quran.

Judges 17:6, 21:25- This just says "anarchy is bad."

Psalm 72 - This one makes my earlier point beautifully. The Psalm simply asks the Lord to support the government in very general terms. It asks that the Lord make him righteous, merciful, etc. It doesn't say "God says that the King should undertake X, Y, and Z" policies.

I Peter 2:13-16 - Again, this just supports the notion of government in general, not in terms of a specific policy. It also adds a bit about ultimate personal morality in at the end, which goes to my point about the Bible being more a religion of individuals.

I Timothy 2:1-2 - Pray that the government is "good", not "pray that the government does X, Y, Z."

Titus 3:1 - One more time, government is good and necessary.

Genesis 9:5-6 - Ok, finally a specific policy. Capital punishment for murder. The fact that its arguably overturned by Jesus in the New Testament, we won't get into.

These verses all make my point. The Bible, more specifically the New Testament, deals with issues of government at a distance and through the lens of personal morality. Even the Ten Commandments (which Christ boiled down to two), are all about person-to-person relations and even then they leave a lot of room for variation in an individual's life.

The Quran is different. Its a full-fledged blueprint for a community. It talks about methods of property division, of divorce, of criminal prosecution, of treaty-making, etc. It goes into legal and policy specifics that you don't see anywhere in Christ's teachings.

I don't dispute this, but Mosaic Law is the practice of the Hebrews, not the Word of God. That the English adopted it was a matter of philosophy and respect for tradition. Thats why we still eat delicious BBQ ribs and don't stone people to death for planting two kinds of crops side-by-side. We saw no sense in those parts of Mosaic law and since they were ancillary to the faith, we just dropped them.

Thats the point I was making to Justin. You can't say "oh, jihadists are using religion to mask a political agenda." The jihadists don't see any difference between the two. To a jihadist there is nothing in the Quran that is "just tradition" or "ancillary to the faith."

(Also much of English Common Law was also based on Roman Law and on pagan tribal law, so its not exactly a direct descendant anyway.)

No, they inferred that the Bible said something about personal character and they established a democratic system where the laws of the nation should and will reflect the character of its people. Therefore, the Christian nature of the nation would come through even without being explicitly established in legal codes and governmental structures. In other words, they inferred that the government didn't need to be Christian because when the people are Christian, they elect Christian lawmakers and those Christian men write Christian laws.