When incidents like this occur in Denmark, the Danish press routinely responds to the attempted intimidation by republishing the Mohammed cartoons in their online and print versions. The American press is just the opposite: almost all major media outlets have steadfastly refused to display any of the Motoons, out of that exquisite sensibility for Muslim feelings that we have all come to know and love.
This time, however, it was possible to see the Turban Bomb on a North American media outlet. The Canadian network CTV broadcast a brief news item about Kurt Westergaard, and Vlad Tepes was kind enough to Youtube it for us:
[Post ends here]
16 comments:
Why was the Somali man in Denmark in the first place? I fail to see why the police just didn't shoot the assailant dead and spare the citizens of Denmark from paying for his imprisonment.
As "Pogo" the American cartoon character once said, "we have met the enemy and it is us."
After spending a bunch of time writing I am disappointed to find that comments on "Season's Greetings for Leftie" have been closed, leaving me unable to respond to things either directed to or obviously pertinent to me. In lieu of that, I'm posting the comment here.
Baron: You're going on about Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, but missing the fact that it applies to logical systems... in other words, ideas. Extrapolating it to the physical universe commits the fallacy of reification. There is also the error of going from knowledge of incomplete knowledge to the assumption that this proves your specific theology; this is special pleading. It doesn't necessarily make you wrong, but think about the cost of using erroneous arguments when your reputation is your main stock in trade. Of course, if the bulk of the population cared about such logical incompleteness and lack of knowledge we would have massive venues built to knowledge rather than professional sports and our star celebrities would be scientists rather than actors and politicians... in other words, religion's arguments are well-suited to humanity as it is. (;
I have read Ilíon's "proof" and found the same sorts of errors refuted by Dawkins and many others before him (in print), and I will only refer readers to that instead of taking time away from more important business to do a worse job.
The naked hostility I see in this forum comes from the likes of Ilíon and Escape Velocity (both of whom seem to have gone well over the 4-comment limit... hint hint). EV in particular ignores the (overwhelmingly Christian in the USA) religious attacks on facts not favorable to certain theologies, such as geology, paleontology and biology. They have created entire parallel fantasy worlds to give themselves a scientific aura while avoiding inconvenient questions; look up "flood geology" and "baraminology" if you don't believe me. The fundamentalist USA is second only to Muslim Turkey in this denial of fact. EV says "I wish we could send the Atheists and Leftwingers to Muslim lands to live." Well, isn't that nice of him. All I'm asking is for my tax money not being used to promote religion and public schools not having their classes warped to fit theological demands. I wouldn't want anyone but a Muslim or sympathizer to be forced to live under Muslim domination; whatever happened to the Golden Rule?
The characterization of e.g. First Amendment claims against the government as "lawfare against Christianity" is another bogus attack. It's also dangerous... for Christianity. Islam folds when it isn't allowed to be the government, and allowing Christians to impose theology via City Hall or the school board just opens the door for the imams to do the same in Dearbornistan. The defenses are going to be against Christian encroachment as long as Christians are the chief perps.
Chechar: "once secular humanists learn that the most fanatic atheist individuals have childhood issues, they’ll stop displacing the hatred toward religion and direct it on the perps themselves."
This is like asking a victim of the Magdalene asylums to blame the sadistic nuns in charge and ignore the Catholic Church's power structure and theology which controlled, condoned and institutionalized their abuse. Good luck with that.
I have noticed a stange and concerning shift in the so-called MSM over the years. I'm old enough to remember the days when the media and the hollywood elites were strongly pro-Israel and always can down on the Jewish side in the Arab-Israli conflicts of the 1950's,'60's, and '70's, but in recent years that position has changed amoung the elites in Hollywood and those in the MSM---a 180 degree turn. Is it just that the Arabs have a stronger lobby than Israel or is something bigger at work? I simply pose the question, because honestly I'm not completely sure of the answer although I do have my suspicions.
You make an excellent point Jorgen. Though, why for that matter should Denmark imprison him at all? We all know the Danish prison system is flawed; a Somali would receive better treatment in a Danish prison then he would as a relatively ‘free’ man in Somalia. In my opinion the Danes should just extradite him back to Somalia. He wouldn’t receive any special acknowledgments from the Muslim community, because the Press hasn’t been able to release his identity (due to Danish privacy laws).
Ron, the answer is actually very simple. The Jewish people refused to be underdogs. The left in Hollywood and all that lot are only interested in people who can't help themselves, because it means they can pose for the cameras, teary-eyed in front of the starving masses, appealing fore everyone to listen to them as they urge us to do the "right thing" on their behalf. It's all about making themselves look good, and the only way to look good is to pretend you have a heart. Standing up for the "oppressed" is a guaranteed way to produce that appearance. And appearance is all it's about. They're actors, after all.
on top of which, Israel betrayed their ideals. It started out as a socialist experiment but it's abandoned much of that in order to maintain its sovereignty and nationality. Nationality is anathema to the internationalist left. It stands as a profound barrier to their goal of world-wide governance and economic control.
SIOE and SIAD are the only two organisations and Anders Gravers the only individual to be sued for allegedly using Kurt Westergaard's Mohammed turban bomb cartoon.
The alleged use was on a demonstration in Denmark in the name of free speech.
So much for "use it or lose it".
Ron Russell,
Some of the top Hollywood elites were on the pro-Israel side during the Second Lebanon War:
Hollywood stars blast Nasrallah
Some 84 movie stars, film industry members sign statement condemning Hizbullah, Hamas activities in Middle East
Engineer-Poet --
Yes, I believe Dymphna closed that thread rather than deal with the people who exceeded the four-comment limit by several hundred percent. I may have been one of them, actually, since I wasted at least two of my comments deleting someone else’s comments and then explaining myself. So we’ll continue here off-topic, at least for a bit.
You're going on about Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, but missing the fact that it applies to logical systems... in other words, ideas. Extrapolating it to the physical universe commits the fallacy of reification.
I did not extrapolate it to physical systems. You are failing to read me closely. Go back and take a more careful look at what I said.
Gödel indeed applies to logical systems, and the body of scientific knowledge that all of us study relies on logical systems to hold it together. Scientific knowledge would not even exist if logic were not applied to observed phenomena, and theory extrapolated from the conclusions thus drawn.
Gödel can be applied very practically to our understanding of the physical universe by demonstrating the limits of what may be logically deduced about it.
I applied Gödel to epistemology, the study of knowledge and what may be known. Logic is just as useful and important in that discipline as it is in determining physical laws.
There is also the error of going from knowledge of incomplete knowledge to the assumption that this proves your specific theology; this is special pleading.
Once again, you failed to read me closely. I did not attempt to prove my theology or any theology; in fact, my sole conclusion is that such theologies cannot be logically proven or disproven.
Neither my theology about God nor the atheist’s theology about not-God can be proven by application of logic to observed data. Gödel demonstrates that such proofs cannot be accomplished. There are limits to what may be known by the mind of man, and this is one.
Discovering this fact was very freeing to me, because it removed any need to prove the validity of my religious experiences. They don’t fall within the realm of logical proof, so there is no point in my arguing about them. Likewise, you are also set free by Gödel. Your set of beliefs requires no more proof than mine does.
It doesn't necessarily make you wrong, but think about the cost of using erroneous arguments when your reputation is your main stock in trade.
I spit on the grave of my reputation.
As I have said before, if I had a nickel for every time someone warned me that I was endangering our blog’s reputation, I’d be a rich man. After a dozen or so iterations, I just learned to laugh at such assertions.
Charles Johnson finished off my reputation for good more than two years ago, yet I somehow managed to survive and even enjoy bloggy prosperity.
Not having to care about my reputation is another condition which is very freeing.
But you’d best watch out for your own reputation: if you continue in this manner, you will gain a reputation for not reading the arguments of your interlocutors closely.
Engineer-Poet: The characterization of e.g. First Amendment claims against the government as "lawfare against Christianity" is another bogus attack. It's also dangerous... for Christianity. Islam folds when it isn't allowed to be the government, and allowing Christians to impose theology via City Hall or the school board just opens the door for the imams to do the same in Dearbornistan. The defenses are going to be against Christian encroachment as long as Christians are the chief perps.
This is an absolutely valid point and one I hope that all GoV Christians will take into consideration before venting further hostility at athiests. I, too, have witnessed this same clinging to residual "theocracy" by Christians.
At a church meeting the pastor railed on about how Christianity was being assailed in the public shool system by the adoption of CE (Common Era) in favor of B.C. (Before Christ). How is it that Buddhists and Hindus living in America are supposed to quietly accept their tax money being used to print textbooks that favor the nomenclature of one particular religion?
That said, I am still hoping that athiests and agnostics alike will continue to realize the tremendous contributions made by Christianity with respect to European and American history. Yes, Christianity went through its own theocratic phase but, to its immense credit, it finally accepted the rule of manmade law over that of scriptural doctrine. Something, I remind you, that Islam will never, ever do.
This may have been made somewhat easier by the fact that Western judicial structures clearly derive more than a little from Mosaic law, but it still must be recognized as an immensely important self-moderation and "reformation" for the church to have abandoned the field despite its strong grip upon the populace.
Absolutely no such thing can be said for Islam and it would behoove us all to steadfastly train an actinic glare upon the unalloyed theocracy that Muslims continue to export around the world.
Theocracy is the single worst governmental abuse of human rights and must be quashed thoroughly before ours can ever be a truly free world.
In this respect, Engineer-Poet's point still stands quite capably in that, "The defenses are going to be against Christian encroachment as long as Christians are the chief perps." Quite clearly, this will begin to change once Americans begin to get a belly-full of Muslim agitation for shari'a law but, historically, the domestic conflict between secularists and Christians is the more entrenched one and therefore merits strong observation.
As I noted in the Leftie thread, one central lesson we had best all carry away from the study of jihad and examination of counter-jihad is the dire need for solidarity in the face of Islam's onslught upon the free world. This will require some mutual respect or, at least, a temporary truce while counter-jihad is implemented in our defense against Muslim theocracy.
If this Blog can help serve that goal of forming such an alliance, then it only doubles its already incalculable worth to all free people. I believe that, in the best light, that is exactly what is happening here, right now, and have nothing but praise for Dymphna and Baron Bodissey regarding this outstanding labor of love they perform for our betterment.
Baron Bodissey: I spit on the grave of my reputation.
Thank you, I really needed a good laugh this evening and that line delivered in spades.
Zenster wrote,
How is it that Buddhists and Hindus living in America are supposed to quietly accept their tax money being used to print textbooks that favor the nomenclature of one particular religion?
Easily. America was not built by Hindus, Buddhists or atheists for that matter but by European Christians. If the Hindus and Buddhists would like to live in countries that were built according to the principles of their fine religions...well, you know the rest.
Frankly, this is an excellent reason why opposition to Islam and Muslim immigration alone is not going to be enough to restore America. Ultimately, we're going to have to challenge the sovereignty of the principle of non-discrimination over our society. Sometimes, Zenster, it's not evil to discriminate. Sometimes, in fact, it's evil and destructive not to.
Yes, I don't know why they didn't blow his head off. And yes, the problem isn't what Somalis do in Europe, but the fact that they're here.
Baron, you realize that you don't have to prove a negative, right? If I claim God doesn't exist, I don't have to prove it, but one that claims that it does exist, he has to prove it. This is called argument to ignorance and it's a logical fallacy.
On the other hand, the situation is simple. Do away with public education and you will have private schools were religion is taught instead of evolution. Obviously, your children won't probably make it to med school, but still it should be the parents choice and the parents should pay for it. For example, I don't want to have children anymore, unless the world will change a lot. I don't see why I should pay for the education of other people's children.
Now, even though I'm an atheist, I have no problems with Christians. As long as they don't preach their thing over and over again, I don't bother with them and I can be really good friends with them. After all, Christianity is part of the European values and I don't mind it. And I will get married in church and respect all the traditions, even though I can't say I really believe in God.
@rebellious vanilla--
and the beat goes on:
Baron, you realize that you don't have to prove a negative, right? If I claim God doesn't exist, I don't have to prove it, but one that claims that it does exist, he has to prove it.
No, my dear, he or she does not have to "prove" a belief that is not based on a hypothesis but an experiential process.
Religious belief is not about science and science is not about religious statements. The logical fallacy here is yours: you have jumped with both feet into the thickets of a categorical error.
Pascal said, "the heart has its reasons that the Reason knows not of..."...darn tootin'...
And,as for what goes on in science classes in religious schools, that's where I learned about Darwin, so you're mistaken.
The theory of evolution was taught in my high school biology class as the best information to date. In fact, Sister Damien pointed to Bishop Berkeley's (a cleric who was Darwin's contemporary) very erroneous defense of religion, where he used much the same kind of categorical error as you have done, but his were far more extended and quite nervous and defensive.
Many people whose lives are guided by religious precepts have no problem with Darwin's ideas. Take a look at the Dominican and Jesuit scientists some time...or how about the Augustinian monk, Gregor Mendel and his peas? A religious scientist. Imagine.
I have no problem with atheists until they start telling me what I was taught, how I think and why I'm so blind and wrong. That's where the conversation gets tedious.
Believe me, you're in a long, long line of commenters who are so sure we've just never heard their arguments before and that if they repeat them slowly and carefully, our little moron brains will finally understand that they are right and we're wrong. Suddenly we'll say, "oh, my gosh, I never thought of that! You've totally changed my thinking. You're absolutely right! How could I have been so blind?"
Ain't gonna happen. I've been contemplating this stuff since long before you were even conceived, so it has a lot of mileage.
And the tone of this thread -- to which your comment contributed -- is exactly why the other one was closed.
There are dozens of atheist blogs out there. I suggest all atheists retire to them, preaching to their choir, because our choir is gonna be singing Gregorian Chant until the day the Gates close, and for the simple reason that we prefer to sing that way. IOW, it's a choice, which you will continue to see as a delusion. Go for it.
Honestly, r.v., it's all been said so many times that there are ruts worn deeply into this conversation. Once you fall into one of those worn tracks, there's no climbing out.
I'm done with this "dialogue" folks. There is nothing new here; I've been listening to these earnest arguments and claims and counter-arguments and counter-claims for a quarter of a century now. It's a bit more shrill than it used to be, but the content hasn't changed.
Someone please change the subject.
You know what Churchill said, right?
"A fanatic is someone who can't shut up and won't change the conversation"...(or maybe it was the other way around).
So everyone has a choice: change the subject or remain silent. Any other course will brand you as a fanatic re the subject or religious belief.
Think of it this way: liberals don't come over here preaching their political beliefs. They know it's useless and they look down on conservatives as Neanderthals, much as atheists look down on believers as examples of the discarded Age of Belief, which atheists think is over.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the Venn diagram representing atheists in one circle and liberal academics in the second circle will show a huge overlap. One reason that neither of us was ever, ever attracted to academia.
So we're Neanderthals. Ain't gonna become a liberal (been there, done that. It was harmful so I came home). Ain't gonna be an atheist in this life again, either (been there, done that, it was sterile and boring. Came home).
Somebody hand me my club. Gotta go get a mastodon for dinner.
bartholomewscross: America was not built by Hindus, Buddhists or atheists for that matter but by European Christians.
For which I already gave them due credit. However, America has evolved into a far more pluralistic nation than it was at its inception. It is also my firm belief that much of America's greatness and its position as the world's sole superpower is a direct result of its freedom of religion. I'll leave the "freedom from religion" argument for another time.
If the Hindus and Buddhists would like to live in countries that were built according to the principles of their fine religions...well, you know the rest.
Except that the First Amendment is widely, and I believe correctly, interpreted to hold that there should be no government encouragement of religion. I'll not begin the hairsplitting over the Ten Commandments being displayed in public buildings, "In God We Trust" appearing on American currency or Christmas and Easter being national holidays. Yet, there is reasonable justification to constrain inappropriate insertion of any religious doctrine in public education and this nation's governmental apparatus.
Engineer-Poet's point still stands that, "The characterization of e.g. First Amendment claims against the government as "lawfare against Christianity" is another bogus attack. It's also dangerous... for Christianity. Islam folds when it isn't allowed to be the government, and allowing Christians to impose theology via City Hall or the school board just opens the door for the imams to do the same in Dearbornistan. [Emphasis added]
Confronted, as we all are, by the specter of Islam's absolutist theocracy, we had best remain particularly scrupulous about these matters lest any over-liberality upon our part is just as quickly weaponized by Muslims, much they have done with every other well-meaning and honorable aspect of Western civilization.
Frankly, this is an excellent reason why opposition to Islam and Muslim immigration alone is not going to be enough to restore America. Ultimately, we're going to have to challenge the sovereignty of the principle of non-discrimination over our society. Sometimes, Zenster, it's not evil to discriminate. Sometimes, in fact, it's evil and destructive not to.
You touch upon one of my own pet peeves and that is criminalization of the word "discrimination". This vital mental faculty has been so thoroughly conflated with the true evil of prejudice, that it is almost impossible to use the word without it evoking perjorative connotations.
American Liberalism has so completely stigmatized discrimination as to lionize indiscriminate behavior. Be it sexual promiscuity, gender bending, colorblind crime statistics, total abberation of the nuclear family or a host of other honorable time-tested institutions, all of them are being assaulted by a purblind and mindless opposition to well established societal norms. While Gramscian infiltration of America's academia plays a distinct role in this process, there is also a disturbing propensity to elevate "feelings" above thought and thereby demote discrimination without due cause or even the slightest justification. The human mind's ability to discriminate is a hallmark of rational consciousness and the demonization of it is an overt attempt to indict reason itself.
I think we can all see where this line of thought is leading.
Dymphna, sure, but in the moment in which you talk to other people about something, you have to do something more than the logical fallacy of appealing to ignorance. Like this I can claim I am God and that I have the ability to fly and turn people into stone if I want to. Obviously, if I make that statement, I have to prove it.
I can believe in that too(me being a living goddess), that doesn't mean I am right. And sure, religion isn't about science as long as it doesn't claim things that are in the area of science - like biology, for example. Also, you don't have to prove a belief that is based on an experiential process as long as it's just that - an experience and it doesn't try to explain anything or be more than that, which would make it a hypothesis.
I never said that the theory of evolution isn't taught in any religious schools. I said that if parents really want their children to be taught intelligent design instead of the theory of evolution, if the education is private, nobody should care. They can choose that with their pocketbooks.
There's nothing new about religious scientists, my mother is one. I don't mean to be offensive with this, but you can be a great scientist and have horrible views on other things. Look at Einstein. Being a scientist means that you're specialized in something, but you stop being one in any choice beyond your area of expertise. The fact that Einstein was a socialist doesn't mean that it's the right economic model to pursue, to use the example mentioned earlier. I don't see why appealing to authority(logical fallacy) is any relevant though.
With the comment about me not minding Christians, I didn't mind to be offensive. The real Christians who actually read the Bible and don't just go to church to compare clothing are fairly interesting to talk to. Before becoming an atheist, I actually took the time to read the Bible from the first page to the last and I wonder how many people who say that they are Christians can say they did it. I also read the Torah and Quran and now I'm reading about Buddhism. I actually have respect for the Christians that actually study the Bible themselves and are able to ask themselves certain things. And even though I'm an atheist, I'd like Christianity to become what it used to in Europe. I didn't really said that you're a bad person or stupid if you're religious and I don't believe that. I like the category of Christians I mentioned more than most atheists, by the way. lol
Zenster, the US wasn't a pluralistic country until up to the Immigration Act of 1965, even though there was no such thing as an American nation. For example, Virginia and Massachusetts had diametrical opposed cultures, one being Cavalier and the other Puritan, even though all of them were White, English Christians and this is why there are the United States and not the United State(go back to the real definition of state too). But America became great, actually due to the fact that was built by European Christians. Actually this plurality doesn't do anything for it. Look at who stands for the values on which the US was founded on - only one group and that is white Christians and to a smaller extent white people. The immigration and importing of different values is actually what will lead to America's demise, sadly. Just look at how immigration was done up until to 1965. Oh, and there's not such thing as pluralistic nation. A nation is a group of people with a common history, culture, language, ethnicity. It's actually more than this, but I'll stop here since this comment will get too long.
Also, if you read the things the founders thought about, they meant a completely different thing by freedom of religion, not really that the US isn't a Christian nation.
bartholomewscross, finally someone else who understands the discrimination thing.
Zenster wrote,
Except that the First Amendment is widely, and I believe correctly, interpreted to hold that there should be no government encouragement of religion...Yet, there is reasonable justification to constrain inappropriate insertion of any religious doctrine in public education and this nation's governmental apparatus.
Interestingly, that is not what the First Amendment means or was intended to mean. It meant quite simply that the federal government should never establish a national church. It allowed each individual state, however, to establish a church. And it expected that communities would informally establish church-based organizations.
Why? Well because everyone has to believe in something. You say we should keep "religious doctrine" out of the public sphere. But I'm sure you've noticed that this hasn't kept any doctrine out of the public sphere. Instead, we've gotten leftist doctrine. Leftism is far less provable, in fact it's downright contradictory, than Christianity and currently it's Leftism that dominates the public sphere. Surely you don't prefer Leftism to Christianity?
But perhaps you prefer neither Leftism nor Christianity. OK, well I assume you're not a fan of Islam, so what value system should inform our public sphere discourse and by what standard do we know your values to be the right ones?
Thanks, by the way, RV. I'm glad to see that both you and Zenster recognize the "discrimination" charade for what it is. Hey, at least we all agree on that much!
Post a Comment