Great news! Will he be coming to NYC too?

Just what Stoughton needs, a visit from a European racist.

Slander. He's not a racist.

Wilders must come to Seattle!

Geert Wilders is NOT a racist.

Ron Newman IS a racist.

America is the right place for this sort of movies. vanddam and rambo and goddizilla.

muhammedzilla.

Arabian and Ron Newman's comments are puzzling. Wilders' Fitna merely helps spread greater awareness of the words of the Prophet (pbuh)and the teachings of The Religion of Peace™. Wouldn't you think the jihadi guerillas in our midst would celebrate this outreach? O, my would be lords and masters, how cool is it that a Ductchman is doing Dawa?

Where to begin?

First of all, you do credit to the these filthy terrorists by using their own terminology, calling them by the heroic name "jihadis." If you knew anything about Arabic or Islam, you'd call them by their proper name, "fasadis," meaning those who kill and cause mayhem for evil purposes. Don't play into their hands out of ignorance.

Secondly, pick the right friends. Don't tarnish the good name of Judaism by associating with bigots like Geert Wilders. An advocate of free speech? Ha! He openly declares that he wants to ban the Quran! Some free speech indeed. Nobody should be banning Wilders from going anywhere, or threatening him with prison, since that, too, would be a violation of free speech. But for a Jewish congregation to go out of their way to honor him and associate themselves with him? We Jews need that kind of publicity like we need a hole in our heads.

Wilders makes no mistake that he hates Islam. So if you support him and his cause, you are casting aside all doubt that you really do hate Islam, too, and not just the minority of radicals who have used Islam to murder and terrorize. And you play into their hands when they tell the Islamic masses that the West hates all of Islam.

I've got news for you: The bad guys in the Middle East may be Muslims, but so are the good guys! The Kurds are mostly Muslims, as are the Turks. The Darfuris getting genocided are Muslims, as are the rebel Sudanese who are allied with the Israeli government. Indonesia is Muslim, as are the US allies in Afghanistan. You want to go and tell them all that Islam is evil and that their Quran should be banned? Go to it. But then drop any pretense that you aren't enemies with all of Islam itself, that you distinguish between bad guys and good guys. Declare that all 1.2 billion Muslims are your enemies, and good luck trying to find a way to succeed.

None of you probably know much about the Talmud, or remember much about the Hebrew Bible. But it would be as easy to make a Wilders-like film about either of these holy texts, focusing on their vile, primitive, and barbaric words. All you have to do is go on YouTube to see such movies by flaming antisemites, who are about at the level of Wilders.

Oh, yes, and call me names. I know you're all good at that. But don't dare treat my argument on its merits.

Matt, you're a likeable, lovely, winsome fellow.

Matt,

Nappy confesses to not knowing Arabic -- or a whole lot of Talmud either, for that matter. (The fine points of a halakhic argument often make Nappy's want to explode.)

As for the term "fasadi," it's funny you should mention it. Nappy just learned that term yesterday from Tom Friedman's column No Way, No How, Not Here about the Indian Muslims' refusal to honor the Mumbai terrorists with Islamic burial.

Sorry you didn't appreciate my tongue-in-cheek comment.

Wilders ain't perfect, but one can understand his feeling beleagured when he sees his country and culture being overrun by people who scorn Western liberal values. In a time when Brit dhimmis won't let him off the plane and when Iyyan Hirsi Ali has to live in exile, I'll side with him, not with Theo van Gogh's killer. (He got a life sentence; anyy bets on whether he'll serve it and die in prison or be sprung from jail before too long?) So what if Geert Wilders doesn't like to sit around the campfire singing "Kumbayah." Fitna is timely and does a good job of exposing the reality of Islamism, and it does so in a more accessible form than Andy Bostom's big, fat scholarly books.

The hypothetical movie you propose based on Tanakh is an interesting thought experiment, but there's a huge obvious difference between it and Wilders' movie. Fitna sheds light on what motivates the Islamists, how these teachings are endemic to Islam. In fact, peaceful Muslims whose understanding of Islam is as a religion and not a political program (Ahmadis, Sufis, Dervishes) are persecuted. Moderate Muslims here in the States are often afraid to speak up for fear of what might happen to their families in Muslim countries. Jews don't riot in the streets over political cartoons or practice murder and mayhem all over the world. The analogy you suggest between Jewish teachings and Islamic teachings is bogus; it just doesn't hold.

The problem isn't whether there this or that religion's scripture has problematic texts. The question to ask is what do the adherents of the religion do with those texts.

I appreciate your thoughtful, considered response. Let me respectfully respond to some of your points.

I first read about the term "fasadi" years ago, in an article by an American counterterrorism official who was angry that the West was playing the game of the terrorists on their turf by agreeing to use their own heroic language to describe them, giving them respect that they didn't deserve. So he advocated switching our terminology to one that showed them the appropriate disrespect and shame. I can't think of any reason to disagree with him. If a KKK member wants to be called a "savior", I'd still rather call him a deviant, and so should the rest of us.

Saying that Wilder's "ain't perfect" is an understatement. A better word would be a bigot and a douche bag, because that's what he happens to be. Now don't mince words with me---like any classical liberal, in the words of Voltaire, I may strongly disapprove of what Wilders says, but I strongly defend his right to say it. All of us who have inherited the civilization of Voltaire, and Jefferson, have a duty to defend the freedom of speech of people with whom we disagree, even those who offend us. But that does not mean that we endorse those views, or go out of our way to associate with them, or help give them an undeserved platform. Wilders should be free to rant and make movies as much as he wishes, and deserves full protection for it, but he does not deserve the endorsement of any decent person.

People who hate the values of freedom may well be infiltrating his society. We should all despise those who are doing so. But we should also limit our vituperation to precisely those who are doing so, and not to the larger majorities who are not. Wilders is inflaming and hurting the cause, not helping it. Our Western values are freedom and liberty, not banning books and defaming entire faiths. If he wants to attack Islamism and radicalism, fine. I agree. But he has openly declared himself an enemy of Islam itself. That's not a Western value, and does not project a kind of society that would attract adherents.

You have committed a classic false-choice fallacy when you say that our options are either siding with Wilders or siding with Theo van Gogh's killer. Tell me, do you side with Stalin or with Hitler?

I side with neither Wilders nor van Gogh's killer, and neither should any one else. They're both bigots, van Gogh's killer also being, obviously a murderer, too. But neither of these people are presenting a set of values that would make for a decent society. They're both hateful men. And it is a lie to say that we must choose to endorse one or the other. I support the right of Wilders to speak, I refute the right of van Gogh's killer to kill, but I endorse neither. There's a difference between defending rights and making an endorsement---an important difference. I do not want any leaders of my religion, Judaism, endorsing Wilders. That's taking something away from me, smaller in magnitude but not different in kind from fasadis who damage the Islam of a billion people when they commit terrorism in its name. And you know all of this.

Wilders' film is an attack not on Islamism per se, but on Islam. That's the problem. We may accomplish something when we attack religious literalists and fanatics who try to turn their religion into a political and terroristic force, but we lose ground when we attack the entire religion as a whole by alienating the billion people we need to reach, and giving the extremists the material they need to convince the masses that the West really does hate their religion as a whole. Are you really suggesting that we can accomplish something by making enemies of 1.2 billion people? Any such strategy will never work, putting aside the problem that it's indecent and immoral.

I've never suggested singing Kumbaya. I want a bold and aggressive attack on Islamism and the radicals. But that goal is weakened by misguided and unfocussed attacks on the whole of Islam. If you want to cure a patient's pancreatic cancer, target the cancer cells and not the patients entire pancreas. Playing into the hands of the radicals by turning this into a holy war against all of Islam is nothing but a propaganda victory for the extremists. Again, you know this, too.

The movie I described about the Talmud is not hypothetical. Go on YouTube and look it up. (I forget the name.) There are many videos of this kind. (Although hopefully YouTube has finally responded to complaints, some from me, and got around to removing them.) There's one video I saw in which a guy with a mustache spends half and hour and methodically goes through the Talmud and pulls out statements and arguments that are horrific if they were taken literally and practiced today. The guy is a bigot, of course. The vast majority of Jews don't take those words literally, nor practice them. Just like the vast majority of Muslims do not commit horrific acts that would follow from a literal reading of certain statements in the Quran. Only a bigot would focus on those statements and defame the whole religion, whether Judaism or Islam.

Of course, there are some extremist Jews who take some of this stuff literally, who treat their wives like subhumans, who blame disasters on the lack of observance of other Jews (like the crazies in Shas who blamed a recent earthquake in Israel on unbelieving Jews), and other such nonsense. There are myriad Jews in the Orthodox community who excuse and protect child molesters and other villains because they believe their religion tells them to. (I feel sick whenever I hear Shlomo Carlbach's music being played, but they all insist he was frame!) Don't even dare tell anyone in such communities that you're gay! There are extremist Jews who spray-paint Magen Davids all over innocent peoples' houses for no other reason than they believe that they are entitled to.

Every religion has its 7% of crazies, who take this religious stuff and these religious texts literally. The difference between Jews and Muslims is that for the 14 million Jews, 7% is a negligible number, while for 1.2 billion Muslims, it is not. Rioting Muslims in France or Britain are a danger because there are just so many Muslims there; there are far, far too many Jews to put together a riot.

But you're not going to get anywhere by pissing off the other 93% by attacking their whole religion. That's just stupid. You all know better. But Wilders does not.

One actually shudders to think what Thomas Jefferson---a towering champion of free speech who himself owned and treasured a copy of the Quran even at a time when the Barbary Muslim states were pillaging American ships and enslaving American sailors and presenting a threat to the young American republic---would have thought of Geert Wilders, a bigoted demagogue who is whipping up hatred and who wants to ban the Quran outright. If Wilders is carrying the torch today, then we really have been on a descending slide over these past two centuries...

Really important issue.
Unfortunate some of Wilders broad statements against Islam do seem to undermine isolating the Islamists.

The link on Fitna
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3369102968312745410

Here's another interesting colleague of his who has also been threatened. Born in Somalia she authored Submission. She won a Time Mag. 2005 Top Influentials award.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

Matt, regressive juvenilia, no more. Ill considered, intemperate and poorly conceived throughout. Exciteably unrepresentative of "Fitna" and of Wilders' concerns in general. Which is why you are forced to rely upon your 7% equivocations, etc. Which is why you are forced to rely upon your "douche bag" sneers.

Succinctly put: a piece of guile-laden, stylized, regressive juvenilia dressed up with a facade of respecability. Nothing more.

To your puffed-up, exciteable, blowfish tactics: Boo!

Guys, I have to think that Matt has a point here.

We can't fight bigotry and violence by losing our ability to see when a person's a bigot.

Wilders is no role model IMO. He does make some telling points but he is broadbrushing and as Matt says that harms his argument against extreme and violent factions.

He's talking about banning the entire Koran for pete's sake. It would be different if he were discussing radical interpretations of it or militants who believe in violent means. And, fearing the worst means we react so strongly perhaps we miss the fact that our own value system isn't all that strong and consistent - if we're so terrified we are going to lose it - what does that say about us?

Maybe we need to stand firm on our own hard-won sense of human rights and dignity rather than attacking others?

So I'm a bleeding heart liberal - sue me:) But I'm concerned when I see the hardening of lines lately - the fear - there is such anger, real hate even between American political parties - this doesn't bespeak a strong and vital culture and maybe that's one reason we feel threatened. Perhaps we need to pull back a little, seek a middle ground within our own community even as we pray that Muslims will do the same.

In any case, there is a history of Islamic scholarship and accomplishment that is lost in the hateful atmosphere we see today. But that doesn't mean we should forget about it or pretend it never existed.

I also think we need to try and understand how many cultures and peoples have suffered just since the Industrial Revolution - people feel dislocated and afraid - whole art movements deal with this - change has come so rapidly - industrial warfare is so horrendous and people have lost the ability to fend for themselves in our huge mechanized societies.

The work of the hands and heart - arts and crafts - small farms - gardens - are considered virtually meaningless - everybody's shuffled into cubicles - we have little contact with nature - modernity has wrought wonders but it's also brought people into an alien new landscape and Muslims are hardly the only people who've been shocked by change. However as members of very conservative societies which weren't at the epicenter of these industrial, economic and social revolutions perhaps they feel more alienated than most? More threatened on a fundamental level?

Just think of the contrast between Soviet Hinds and Turkmen with their flocks - in Afghanistan - that conflict has left horrible scars on the psyche of millions and millions of people - not least empathic individuals in the West.

I am sure the radicalization we see is to some degree a reaction - people are clinging to fundamentalist religious precepts because the world is so frightening - look at our atomic weaponry - the stress on the environment - the speed of our cars - the horror of our wars.

In any case - defense of liberal values means we practice what we preach doesn't it?

I think the Brits were in error not to admit Wilders and simultaneously host Death to the Jew parties led by avowed racists.

But we're in error if we can't split the difference here, if we discern no shades of gray.

Hirsi Ali and other creative thinkers are making strong points and we must listen to them and we must be aware that reform in religious movements is often accompanied by reaction in the other direction. Haven't we in the West suffered plenty as we've struggled to become more civilized and more inclusive?

Europe has a history of xenophobia and racism, which exploded against the Jews and the Rom and others who were "different" or "inferior" only a few decades ago. Millions of people were systematically killed - not by Muslims mind you but by Germans - sophisticated, civilized Europeans sent their undesirables to be tortured and killed and stuck their property in civilized Swiss banks.

In fact this is a shameful part of European history - periodically "the other" has been viciously attacked and tortured, dispossessed and expelled - the Holocaust was only the most recent episode. The Jews were - are - frequent targets. Even in America the way people of color have been treated and viewed - Native Americans too - I grew up in the West - the things people say even now, about Mexicans - it's awful, shameful.

So - today - it's important to acknowledge that we feel threatened and why - but don't we have to examine the dark side of European and Western history even as we deplore the violence of terrorists from other cultures?

The urge to destroy people we don't understand is a human failing.

We need to look dispassionately at why we humans fear so much - the desire for members of any one creed or religion to dominate all others is not exclusive to members of Islam - various Christian sects went to war with each other not so long ago - some of America's first colonists were Puritans fleeing Europe. Native Americans were tortured by Catholic priests to save their souls. Even the gentle Hopi rebelled...

Let us never forget this, nor incidents like the Spanish Inquisition, nor the brutal wars between factions of Rome - factions of the Church - should we ban Christianity?

Only a few decades ago the West faced a horrific threat from within in the form of the Nazis. Once again we hear echoes in the streets of Europe. Only very recently did the Vatican decide that present day Jews are not personally responsible for the death of Christ.

So let's not forget what our fathers and mothers and grandparents fought for and what they suffered, and all the centuries it took to arrive at the values of the Enlightenment.

If we flip out and lose our moral compass and become fearful bigots ourselves, what have we gained, what "liberal values" have we thus defended?

Sophia,

Another foray from the left wherein arch, presumptive labels are used in lieu of sound representations and in lieu of any thought whatsoever, beyond those leveraged, presumptive formulations.

If asking searching questions results in being labeled a Sophian "fearful bigot," I'm only too happy to oblige - and to be considered a part of your prescripted manichean operetta.

Michael B., with respect - this isn't a Manichean opera - it's real life and many of us are deeply concerned by the polarizing, OTT anger and fear that seem increasingly to be driving our discourse - even within our own political system.

I agree with Solomonia that Wilders may in part be a provocateur - but ask only that people see that and take what he says with a little salt (a lot of salt maybe?)

But mostly - can we try to see shades of gray instead of black and white?

And also - can we start listening to each more instead of just applying labels like "right wing" (huge crime in some circles) or "left wing" - (equally huge crime, you see what I mean)?

Calling a person "right wing" or "left wing" is mostly an excuse, I have found, to avoid having to make a cogent argument or answer a question or deal with an issue.

Can't we drop the labelling and discuss instead?

Is this possible? If not how are we going to understand people from really different cultures? And vice versa?

Respect, yes, I was characterizing your "cogency," your presentation. The term manichean operetta applies to that presentation, nothing else. Nor was I trivializing the realities.

So, in theory, we could discuss, but I'm not going to submit my views to such stylized characterizations and rhetorical agitprop. That's why I addressed and characterized the meta aspect of your comment; it was a conceptual and substantive consideration from that pov. E.g., I did express my own, more elemental concerns at Z-word recently, at least so from a certain aspect, in a post involving free speech, C. Hitchens and David Irving. My comment therein does serve to reflect the from-the-ground-up approach I deem the subject warrants and needs, as something of a prerequisite.

I had the honor of watching and listeningto Geert Wilders movie and speech in Stoughton this evening--Everything I have heard about him is very true--He is an eloquent and captivating speaker--He was very well received by the audience-The only problem were the time constaints he was under. It was much too short a time as indicated by the over abundance of the audience that wished to participate-It was not covered by any of Bostons large newspapers--I was very surprised that the Herald was not there-Of course the Globe would not cover any thing as sensible as this.

I agree MS, it was disappointing that there were no major media outlets there tonight. But we will soon have video of the entire night and we must broadcast it ourselves.

I saw Geert speak in Stoughton last night---branding him a racist or extremist is pathetically laughable. He's moderately right-of-center, but given the bizarre left-wing transformation of Europe, I guess he IS a far right extremist in comparison.

I think people often don't understand the nature of totalitarian movements and the evil they engender. People think "well, I know many kind, nice, non-radical Muslims, so Islam can't be that bad." But I would suggest that you could visit Nazi Germany in 1935, the Soviet Union in 1925, or the Ku Klux Klan areas of the deep south in 1900, and guess what? You would find many kind-hearted, pleasant, honest people who would not personally be inclined towards extremism nor violence. That, however, says nothing about the nature of the ideologies those people signed on to.

Many of you here seem to be operating under the delusion that Islam has gone through the same reformations and liberal interpretations that Christianity and Judaism have. It simply hasn't happened. For example, the book of Leviticus details the death penalty for all types of immorality. The Catholic church, which represents over half of the world's Christians, has through centuries of theology and exegesis interpreted its faith to be opposed to the death penalty in ALL circumstances. Many protestant denominations are similarly liberal, and although I'm not an expert on Judaism, I believe it also interprets many of the holy texts in a non-literal manner. If Islam is truly comparable, then one should be able to come up with a similarly large sect of Islam that has a similarly non-literal intepretation of its scriptures. I wish someone would point out this liberal sect of Islam for me, as I've never come across it.
And for you liberals, I don't think you understand the path you're going down. In order to maintain your fantasy that Islam itself isn't extreme, you're going to have to betray a lot of people. Danish cartoonists trying to use art to protest religious fundamentalism? "Well, they shouldn't have been threatened, but they should respect Islam." Salman Rushdie being under death threats? "Well, we don't support that but he shouldn't have insulted Islam." Wilders being banned from the UK and brought up on charges for making a movie? "Well, we don't support that, but he's an extremist." Repression of women and gender apartheid? "Well, that's not good, but it's not really reflective of Islam, so we'll ignore Muslim feminists who claim it is." Gays being executed in Muslim countries? "Well, we don't support that, but we have to respect Islam." Muslims who leave Islam threatened with death? "Well, that's not good, but all religions have problems." Repression of religious minorities within Muslim countries? "Well, we don't support that, but that's their culture."

At the end of the day, many of you liberals are going to realize that the only thing you DID stand up for was....Islam.

In all the criticisms of Mr. Wilders and Fitna, here and elsewhere, has anyone cited one misquote from the Koran? Has anyone denied that the visual records of Islamicist terror attacks are real? Can anyone prove that there was one moment of doctored or fabricated footage in the broadcasts of imams and other Islamic leaders calling for the death of Jews, the destruction of the West?

If the film is inaccurate, then document the inaccuracies, don't fling insults simply because revealing the truth may make some people feel bad. It would be even better if all those Islamicists with hurt feelings would care to put together their own film with Koranic quotes calling for kind, humane behavior to all people. Following the formula of Fitna, they could cite the Koran, then show newsreel clips of Muslims performing acts of chessed in the name of their faith. The film should conclude with an interview with a child as adorable as the little girl who says that Jews are dogs and monkeys, but now one who simply giggles and says "that's silly. Jews are people, not dogs and monkeys." If such a film were made, and shown to Muslims world-wide for instruction on how to behave, there might be some hope for all of us.

Be wary, dear souls, the long knives and dirks are at the ready, eager and over-eager to ply their contempt and to sink their blades in any perceived and presumed offender.

Wise as serpents; harmless as doves; brave as monks of war.

Well I admit to being confused by Wilders and his arguments - confused in the sense of having to reassess my opinions of him.

However I'd like to clarify something: we liberals stand accused of "defending Islam" when what I think we're trying to argue is that we are actually defending Muslims, Muslims as individuals, rather than an ideology.

No liberal, no true progressive, would ever defend a totalitarian ideology and that is what is so bizarre about the apparent defense of hardline Islamists or violent militias, some of which are aligned to neoNazi movements, by supposed "progressives".

I would argue they don't deserve the name, they are reactionaries rather than liberals and there's nothing progressive about defending religious or other forms of totalitarianism.

Indeed really serious Leftists have long argued against religious dogma of all kinds and Enlightenment values honor science and the arts, the humanities, and we supposedly value the triumph of reason over superstition here in the West - although recently I'm dismayed by certain American politicians who think that studying volcanos is a waste of time and other examples of rather alarming "thinking" more characteristic of the Middle Ages than the 21st century.

Ben Franklin is rolling in his grave and that's no lie.

But - back to Wilders and Islam: what I am arguing against is broadbrushing.

Stereotyping people, races, ethnic groups OR entire religious sects is indeed a type of bigotry because it is blinding, it creates fear, it blunts reason and makes it impossible for people to see, let alone communicate with one another. All we can see is our own preconceived ideas - for example people who've been saturated with antisemitism can't help but see Jews as evil or inferior and treat us accordingly. For centuries here in America we had preconceptions about Black people and reacted accordingly - we enslaved them and we treated them abominably until quite recently.

I think we have to stand up against this kind of thing and struggle against our own tendencies to view others the way antisemites view Jews.

So, I don't think all Muslims or even most can be presented as extremists regardless of what it says in the Quran.

I do think it's true to a large degree, as pointed out by others in this thread, that the sort of reforms that Judaism and Christianity have undergone over time haven't yet been officially experienced within Islam but there are Muslims and entire Muslim sects which vary widely. The Sufi for example don't seem to espouse the same ideology as the Wahabists or the Salafists or any number of other Muslim sects. In fact the Sufi are outlawed in Turkey. We may want to ask ourselves why? What do we really know about all the various Muslim groups, all the people?

There have been many Muslim scholars who interpret the words of the Quran variously. For example the very term "jihad" can mean "holy war" or it can mean "internal struggle" - the implications obviously are completely different.

I think it's important to realize these facts and also the core of the argument against stereotyping people who happen to belong to a particular social or religious group.

There are Christians to this day who believe contemporary Jews are guilty of the death of Jesus.

Should we ban Christianity on this ground? Or on the ground that Christianity in its day has converted people at the point of a sword, and tortured non-believers - or even other Christians whose families happened to have converted from Judaism?

So - I'm arguing that we have to be careful not to group all members of a group or sect or race or religion together, to see them as people, as individuals, and also to understand that religions and other political or social ideologies almost always have shades of gray and that they evolve. The extreme polarities rarely represent the majority, though there have been notorious exceptions - as in Nazi Germany - where I think unfortunately Hitler had massive popular support.

But - I read an article in der Spiegel recently about the growing conflict in Sarajevo between Bosnian Muslims and the influx of far more extreme Islamists from the Arab world - there is a huge difference in their relative philosophies and worldviews and it would be an enormous mistake to lump them willy-nilly into the same vat. It would be a huge mistake to alienate ourselves from Bosnia and Kosovo because they are primarily Muslim nations.

Michael Totten has written about this, I hope everybody here will read his articles.

Am I making an unreasonable argument? Can we at least agree to look more closely at the people of Kosovo for example, or the Sufi, really make a point of studying Muslim scholarship and history throughout time and across the huge expanse of Earth where Muslims live?

I would bet that we'll find a surprising degree of common ground and in the meantime perhaps - almost certainly - there are people in the Muslim world making the same argument about "infidels" - that we are, after all, highly various and totally human and deserve a chance to show who we are as people. And hopefully they're making arguments for less literal interpretations of Quran, for a modernized, liberalized worldview that truly does embody tolerance and incorporates real respect for others and their beliefs and personalities.

I know such people are out there - I wonder if others in their midst are calling them traitors?

I've been called a kapo for arguing that we should try and be tolerant - lose some of our fear - reach out to others - including Palestinians - imagine if reformers in the Muslim world are similarly treated. We'll never understand each other at that rate!

But - I prefer to hope and assume that we will indeed find each other, before it's too late and our little planet is destroyed.

And meantime lets hope the center holds - for all our sakes.

Sophia,

You are painting with some very broad brush strokes yourself. To indulge some quick considerations and typing, the following:

"No liberal, no true progressive, would ever defend a totalitarian ideology ..."

In formal or semi-formal fields of logic this is known as the No True Atheist (***) appeal.

*** Also known as the No True Scotsman defense, but it's become standard and predictable practice among the new atheists and those sympathetic to them to insist that the Marxist/Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, etc. regimes of the 20th century - all avowedly and militantly atheistic - were not "true" progressives, were not "true" atheists, were not "true" Leftists, were not "true" socialists or communists, etc.

As far as your rhetorical question, in terms of banning Christianity, the more apt question would be: Should we ban ideological religionists? For purposes of condensing this issue:

Number of persons put to death throughout the two-hundred and fifty years of the Spanish Inquisition: ten thousand maximum, likely less than five thousand.

Number of persons variously killed during Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, etc. purges: somewhere between one-hundred million and one-hundred and fifty million over a period of seventy years.

You're also viewing "religion" through an unreconstructed and highly selective, if common, Enlightenment prism, identifying it with superstition, juxtaposing it over against "reason," etc. For example, in terms of governance, Locke and Montesquieu are arguably the two greatest forerunners or germinal thinkers relative to the form of governance that has continued in the west (their emphases upon the social contract, separation of powers and checks and balances, property ownership, etc.) - and Locke was an avowed Christian while Montesquieu was, minimally, highly sympathetic to religion. In both cases they were also critical thinkers, but that fact only further emphasizes the fact that "religion" and "reason" are not so readily juxtaposed against one another. Marx is the most notable post-Enlightenment figure who continued, yet more radically, in the presumptively "secularist" strain, but Locke as proto-Enlightenment figure and Montesquieu were the most germinal Enlightenment figures per se in terms of the social contract and practical forms of governance, and they were both decided "religionists."

(I'm a Christian and am also an anti-religionist, but that gets into far-reaching territory and examinations where terms are much more carefully defined and argued.)

As far as Kosovo is concerned, reading Totten helped my to change my mind, though Saudi funded Wahhabi influences continue in that region (as you suggest), so my own opinion is tentatively changed only, with a continued eye in that geographic and social/political area. Perhaps similarly, the Sufi have never established themselves socially/politically when it comes to a matchup against Shi'a or Sunni regimes.

Wilders? As described by others and according to everything I've read by him and about him, in terms of the sources I place more trust in, he's center-right, not at all as depicted by the attempted traducements of Charles Johnson and others.

Wow! Michael B. Wow! That was great reading.

I read Sophie's comment last night and went to bed thinking about how I wanted to respond. I didn't really come up with anything great. So now, I can just point to your comment and say "Yeah, what he said."

OK, thank you both for your responses.

First, the points about Enlightenment values are well-taken. To clarify I don't think that reason and religion are opposites, reason and faith are not opposites - which I believe I stated. I tried to make the point that faith and science are not opposed, indeed the more one learns about the universe the more awe-struck one becomes -

But superstition and reason, belief in witchcraft - that science is a type of witchcraft and therefore evil - that science challenges God - that had been a problem for several centuries as had governance by religious bodies either directly or via kings who were controlled by religious orders. This was reinforced by violence and also by feudalism and an extreme variance between rich and poor - and illiteracy was rife - this made it even easier to control people.

Therefore a key element of modern Western society is separation of church and state and the corrolary is stressing the value of education and the humanities, including the arts and sciences.

And we should be able to discern between faith and blind faith - banishing ignorance is a key element of the modern West, is it not?

I'm going to respond to some other points below, this is getting way too long:)

Secondly - I stand by what I said about "true progressives".

Movements which murder millions of people, which oppress free expression, which jail people for their thoughts, which supress the arts - try to control the sciences - employ both in the service of the State - these movements are by definition non-progressive.

Are they not? How can anybody argue that control of people by brute force or intimidation, limiting artistic and scientific freedom, is progressive?

Yet - the challenges facing (for example) Russia and postwar China were enormous. The desire to ameliorate class polarities - hunger - the supression of the majority by tiny privileged minorities - to enable more people to live better lives - to bring education to people without books - to ensure decent medical care - to empower workers often laboring in near-slavery - to enable each person to reach his or her potential - these were rational ideas, indeed I find them hard to rebut.

However there has always been a conflict between ways and means - to me, progressive means - peaceful, evolutionary means - are as important as the end however noble that may be. I think the idea that "the end justifies the means" has led to huge excesses and great violence.

Stalin was an example of idealism gone horribly wrong. So was the "Cultural Revolution" in China.

Yet the anti-Left frequently employ Stalin (and similar exemplars of violent excess) as examples of progressive or Leftist ideals and they were in fact the opposite, examples of what can happen when people fail, when ideals fail, when the worst aspects of our nature get the best of us.

Yes, many people who should have known better venerated Stalin - that is a fact.

They also - often unjustly - demonize American capitalists as the worse evil - this may be particularly true in Mexico and Latin America where American business and political policies haven't always represented the best of intentions, where people have been harmed by both revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries - some supported by the Soviets, some by us.

And - there are individuals and groups today in the West - George Galloway and his followers spring to mind - who embarrassingly weep for the Soviet Union and support radical Islamists at the same time - talk about strange political bedfellows!

I submit he and his ilk are no progressives and anybody who can support religious dictatorships or "militias" which bear a Nazi tinge and oppress women and gays and embody religious bigotry isn't much of a Leftist or liberal either!

Maybe the polarization of the WWI-WWII years and the Cold War had much to do with this - we're still feeling the effects. Perhaps the dire circumstances in Russia and China drove revolutionary, rather than evolutionary politics. Regardless the excesses, the violence, were real and they were terrible.

I think the failure of Marxism in practice - at least in the Soviet model - did indeed leave the Left holding our collective hats so to speak and looking for a cause. That's part of the problem too.

So as always seeking an underdog to defend I fear many Leftists have picked the wrong dog. I say this as a person from the Left who doesn't recognize these folks - who would like to disown them - who feels abandoned, even threatened.

In defense of peoples' obvious failure of reason - in the past century alone we've seen extreme violence all over the world and people probably didn't realize all that had gone on, was on-going in the USSR, all that's happened in Africa, in Asia, in Latin America - and the incredible and dramatic effects of change brought by industrialization.

On the subject of the capital "L" Left - which as I stated above has betrayed its own ideals on many occasions - there is simply no comparison between the internal violence within the Soviet Union - or Mao's China - state sponsored suppression of human rights - and even the worst of what happens in modern Western democracies.

I think we've certainly progressed over the last few decades in moving toward "a more perfect union" here in the US, though our own past is fraught with damage - our Civil War, the enslavement of Africans and African Americans - the effects on the Native Americans - but yet.

We have fought racism, sexism, we have a lot of problems with large scale economic disparity but we are trying to work through our problems peacefully, upholding the rule of law.

We Westerners including Israel are all trying to deal with the challenges of multiculturalism, the threat of terror and war - and not least the fallout from our own violent pasts.

For all of us, a great challenge is trying to fashion something good, something whole, from the damage we've inherited. We have ideals that support diversity, yet we are threatened by some of what has entered our shores - or which in some cases lives within, next door.

We are all struggling, aren't we, to understand what multiculturalism means especially if aspects of it threaten the nature of our cultures themselves, the limits of diversity within our nations - and how to defend our own values, the very underpinnings of our society - from defeat - not least from elements within.

How can we accomplish this, defend ourselves, and still uphold human rights, our own ideals, in the face of this challenge from radical Islamists?

After WWII the Cold War saw many conflicts started by both the Soviets and the capitalist West. This has had dire consequences not least within the Muslim world. These are now affecting us here at home.

Certainly some of the Soviet Union's Middle Eastern projects backfired horribly but then so have ours - look at our putative ally, Saddam Hussein. On the other other hand the Soviets supported Libya, PLO, the UAR - Egypt and Syria - many of the present-day conflicts in the Middle East were fomented - one could even say nurtured during this time.

Our fear of the Communists may have indirectly led to the rise of the mullahs in Iran - a leftist government there was toppled in the 1950's and we are still hated for it and for the excesses of the Shah.

And - look at the way we mishandled the aftermath of the Afghan/Soviet war - or even its progress - some suggest we ourselves spread false information during the Carter years and enticed the Soviets to attack Afghanistan.

We armed the mujeheddin - we ourselves opened the door to al Qaeda and the Taliban. Now part of Pakistan is under Shari'a law and the Archbishop of Canterbury has suggested England incorporate Shari'a courts - though many Muslims fled to the West to escape this sort of rule!

I have plenty to say about the Carter Administration, the Reagan Administration and other foreign policy "realists" on that score - sacrificing Afghanistan was a very stupid way to have entrapped the Soviets and over the long run it may prove to be our own undoing.

Does this mean Wilders is entirely wrong about the violent roots of Islam? No it doesn't - but there are other factors.

Finally - on the subject of "broadbrushing" -what if I characterized Hitler as emblematic of the Right? You guys would be appalled of course and rightly so. No pun intended:)

But it's equally offensive for Conservatives to characterize sensible liberals and idealistic progressives, people who believe in human values and education for example, in evolutionary means and the rule of law, in terms of the Soviet Union at its worst!

Also - the fact that the Sufis are not as popular as the Sunni or Shi'a doesn't discount them as an example of variety within Islam. The fact is they are regarded as a threat and are outlawed in parts of the Muslim world. Sadly "tolerance" only goes so far it seems.

So - I apologize if I have ruffled various feathers and also if it appears that I have gone off topic - but in fact there are interrelationships between currect Muslim extremism, actions by the West and the Soviet Union, fallout from WWI and WWII - ongoing internal struggle within Saudi Arabia - the destruction of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent Sykes-Picot agreement - the power of the oil industry - the creation of the Arab League - the influence of the Nazis on the Middle East and in Europe - an influence still felt today.

And what of the challenge presented to conservative cultures by the modern world and their reaction to it and to us? Isn't simple fear of change part of this equation? Doesn't it explain some of the increasingly angry fundamentalism in the Middle East, parts of Africa and Central Asia? We even have people in the West who refuse to look at environmental damage created buy people - just refuse to see it -

Finally - isn't it true that our world will not become more peaceful, educated and humane if we don't look more deeply at all these complexities rather than only one element of them?

Any of you yoyo's actually see his video - its horrifying and accurate - and every american should view it so that we can protect our country from this islamization of these nazi maniacs - this ideology of islam is a clear and present threat to our country, our way of life, our freedoms.

I support the filmaker 100 percent.

Sophia,

To be clear and perhaps to close out here, I do not doubt your own personal intentions, sincerity, motivations, etc. Indeed, at least as sentiments and convictions in general terms, I find them admirable. I accept the fact that individuals per se, on the Left as elsewhere, come to their conclusions sincerely enough. I don't believe they engage in sufficient degrees of self-examination, self-criticism, etc. after a certain point in time, but that too becomes a far reaching examination so I'll stop there, simply noting that caveat in general terms.

My emphasis upon the "No True Atheist" defense however continues to apply, it applies to the real world, the historical/empirical focus.

I'll close by something else that piqued my interest and simply note that Stalin, et al., including back to Marx's founding principles, were not and are not examples of "idealism gone horribly wrong," they are examples of a certain purported "realism" and "materialism" gone horribly wrong, in large part because the founding realist and materialist tenets themselves are ill founded. The reality/ideality dialectic, the nexus and divide of those two broadly conceived regions, is always telling territory. That's essentially the most fundamental reason why Locke's and Montesquieu's classical liberal conception of practical governance has been so successful, achieving a type of quasi-permanence - it essentially succeeds in marrying ideality (establishing certain founding principles, e.g., as represented in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights more specifically) with reality (social/political contentiousness and contingency in general at local, regional and national levels).

Obviously, it's not a "perfect" system, it's not a perfect marrying of ideality and reality, it's not remotely utopian - but of course that reflects the fact that "the perfect" is so often at enmity with the good and the achievable in more practical terms. And of course "the perfect" is placed in irony quotes and scare quotes because utopian dreams are no perfection at all, they are an illusion, they reflect deluded and ungrounded aspirations. That, in turn, is why those espousing them are forced to become totalitarian and dictatorial in terms of praxis or, if they are seeking power in a pre-established democratic republic, will tend to resort to forms of cooptation and usurpation of those democratic forms.

Thank you for the exchange.

Thank you too Michael.

I agree with you about the core problem with Marxism - it puts all the issues confronting humanity into the material realm when in fact we are much for complex than that.

Marxism contains some good ideas but fails utterly to address other issues, as you point out.

I appreciate your insights.

Recondite racism. Behind this hate of Islam, there is racism and anti-Semitism. Don't let us be fooled again!

MartynInEurope - If that's the best defense you have - to sling mud at those who question Islam's evil - you're sunk.

Geert Wilders and people in these comments have laid out clear, well-reasoned arguements against the Islamization of the Western world. There have also been commenters who made well reasoned arguements in Islam's defense.

But you come out here and just cry racism? No sale. You will not get us spooled up with your nonsense and distract us from the real issue. You are hoping we will get all defensive and say "No Martin, we're not bad people......." and list some sort of bona fides about how open minded we are. Don't bother, it won't work here. I am confident in who I am and you can present no real evidence of racism, so I will just laugh at your pathetic effort.

Islamic facism is hatred and evil and there is evidence all around you. You can't defend it, so you attack the messenger.

Martyn, Maggie makes an important distinction as others have in this thread - fascism vs Islam - it doesn't matter whether fascism is Nazi or based on some other theme - religious or philosophical - it is still totalitarian, freqently violent - and indeed is a threat to Jews and Rom and dissidents and reform Muslims and artists and scientists and everybody else who for whatever reason won't "fall in line".

Discussing oppression isn't the same as racism though I clearly understand your concerns about Wilders.

I realize as do others in this comment thread that we're walking a fine line here.

I too am dismayed when people condemn all Muslims and all variations of Islam - paint all 1.5 billion Muslims and all creeds and sects with the same brush - this is indeed stereotyping.

On the other hand I and most of us here are concerned by restrictions on freedom of speech and the press and of course, freedom of religion - and freedom of the state FROM religion.

Again, I don't think there is any such thing as absolute freedom - hate speech laws for example bother some of us here but others think they're important. I understand for example why the Germans have outlawed the Nazi Party and why Israel has outlawed Kach.

However: misuse of anti-hate legislation to prevent any criticism whatsoever of major religions or political ideologies - what if nobody were free to discuss disparities within Christian dogma? What if nobody could question the Republican Party? Or Communism?

People argue within the Christian world all the time, ditto the Jewish world, ditto the Western political world - and nobody is forbidden from doing the same, even from undermining the whole idea of G*d's existence.

In Israel radical Arab factions are permitted to run for the Knesset.

That is the whole point of a free society. It is a deliberate balance of opposition, of diverse and often conflicting opinion.

That is our right as free people. Socratic dialogue is one of the basic pillars of Western culture, of democracy, and of the search for wisdom.

And, simply asking questions, about the existence of dieties for example, isn't hate speech.

It is typical of humans to push the envelope and it's enabled us to learn, revise our opinions about the nature of the world, develope science and the arts - without asking questions, we'd probably still be in the caves sacrificing animals in hope of rain.

Indeed if people hadn't questioned the rightness of owning slaves - or whether the death penalty should be legal - or whether king and pulpit or the army should be able to tell us what to do - well we'd all still be slaves - slaves to other men, slaves to superstition and fear.

Now, what we're seeing with some Muslims, apparently including leaders voicing their opinions at the UN, is an attempt to stifle any discussion whatsoever, even discussion of women's rights is now seen as anathema to Islam.

Does this make sense?

Back in ancient times the Hebrew kings had wives and concubines but throughout time and via questioning such ideas it became clear that this was unfair to women.

What if asking questions and arguing were verbotten?

If we don't ask questions we won't get anywhere, we will not improve as people or as nations.

Is asking questions and challenging authority - any authority - the same thing as "racism"?

MartynInEurope,

If it's "recondite," and you possess the insight or depth to evaluate it as such, then expose your explication to the light of day, allowing others to evaluate your insight for themselves. I.e. in a true Enlightenment spirit.

Otherwise, you're merely one more retrograde moralizer and latter-day preacher, assuming the mantle of PC authority and pointing a finger - and nothing more.

Are you a preacher and inquisitor only, or someone willing to be exposed to the light of day?

Michael B. said:

"I'll close by something else that piqued my interest and simply note that Stalin, et al., including back to Marx's founding principles, were not and are not examples of "idealism gone horribly wrong," they are examples of a certain purported "realism" and "materialism" gone horribly wrong, in large part because the founding realist and materialist tenets themselves are ill founded."

I think this is profoundly astute. And I think this is the key as to why Wilders is banned from the UK and brought up on charges in his home country. It's not necessarily that there's anything inherent in the leftist/multiculturalist ideology that specifically pushes them towards suppression of free speech. It's just that their ideology of cultural relativism, and painting Islam as no more extreme than any other religion, is a worldview so brittle, fragile and disconnected from observation of reality that it truly faces an existential threat from people like Wilders being allowed to speak freely. And so, they see the need to silence Wilders and his like if their ideology is going to predominate.

And I'll try to hammer home this point once more: to point out the reality that Islam is not monolithic, and that most Muslims are non-violent, says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about whether or not Islam is a totalitarian threat to the West. Again, if you had taken a poll of Germans in 1938 and asked them if they support Jewish men, women and children being sent to death camps, what percentage would have supported that? One percent or less is my guess. Most Germans werent' even members of the Nazi party. But we all know that that's exactly what did end up happening, because the tenets of National Socialism directed their society to that end.