On The Media

A conference (I do not have the date) in memory of Edward Said was moved to Europe because so many of the scholars invited were barred from entry to the United States. Not surprisingly, those barred were Arab or Muslim. So Americans should stop kidding themselves. The US is virulently anti-Arab and racist.

The US is routinely barring Arabs from the US. Arabs have been victims of physical attacks in the US, not to mention the many many acts of hate speech, including ones from prominent figures like Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and some members of Congress.

Finally, of course, there was the anti-Arab racism that played a role in the kneejerk determination to go to war in Iraq. One million Iraqis have died.

So, again America, stop kidding yourself.

Your questions on insults hurled by Muslim extremists might just as well be applied to Americans and Israelis. So the obvious question is: Why don't you? Israeli racism directed at Palestinians -- and of course the decades long, bloody occupation -- don't exactly speak to Israeli tolerance and open-mindedness. It takes no time at all to find hateful speech in American outlets, including prominent ones like The Wall Street Journal. So where is your examination of that? And where is the examination of US and Israeli and British acts killing tens of thousands of Arabs?

Contrast the response in New York to the Post's publication of a cartoon representing Obama as a chimpanzee and widely and rightly condemned as racist. The Post has apologized. Will there be a nationwide campaign to defend the Post's right to free speech, with a reprint on the 'anniversary'?

Wow! Excellent segment, well-balanced and well done! I especially liked to hear the "fish out of water analogy," about how difficult Muslims are finding assimilation and the historical and social obstacles they must overcome... I agree that patience and understanding is what will be needed to allow this huge portion of the world's population to modernize culturally. I'm not saying that they should ever become Americans or even Europeans in their sensibilities, but if one observes the youth in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia, one realizes that a fair degree of assimilation with modern western culture is inevitable. Unless, of course, we take a completely antogonistic approach to Islam, such as that pursued by the neo-cons and the Bush administration.

In the context of the recent NY Post racist cartoon, the Pope's reinstatement of the holocaust denier Bishop, and the Catholic Church's return to the traditional liturgy that blames the Jews for the death of Christ, I found your segment woefully inadequate and the theory of assimilation solving it all, a bit naive.

Wonder how many Muslim fundamentalist outlets would dare replay or link to otm's piece? always easier to just call americans and israelis and whoever else is on the hate list that century infidels and hypocrites, then keep on keepin on, yawn.

thanks otm for once again reminding us what cohones it sometimes takes to look in the mirror.

Whether the theory of assimilation presented is naive or not and regardless of whether the West is as tolerant as it could be or claims to be, Hugh's & Sabrina's remarks are simply not germane to the discussion.

At the risk of characterizing Islam and Islamic cultures as immature, I think the closest analog to Islamic sensitivity to collective insult commensurate to a Western perspective is adolescent male paranoia about being characterized as weak or effeminate. Clearly, this sensitivity regards an insult as more criminal than violent crime, and tends to regard proscriptions against public humiliation as more fundamental to a good society than civil order. That is, they would rather be guarded against insult than live in peace and justice. We in the West use the liberty to insult as a relief-valve against violence. The difference should inform our policies.

Assimilation of muslims is a ruse!! The comments made in this program are juvenile and shallow. Since when have muslims been ready to assimilate or be peaceful? Just read the koran. Muslims have been conquering, enslaving, murdering, threatening, destroying, and lying for nearly 1500 years. Despite what the fools say on this program, nothing has changed for muslims or will change for them as long as they follow the koran!! Show us ONE country that is populated by muslims who have assimilated. Muslims do not respect any religions or laws other than their laws. Once they are in control, they destroy civilization. The lax logic and fawning of this program needs some truth for balance.

This was an interesting but flawed piece. Bob Garfield used the word 'Islamophobia' uncritically, which is a mistake. That is a highly misleading word which is generally used to mean 'hatred of Muslims' when its literal meaning is 'hatred of Islam' - this poisons the debate from the outset, by implying that criticism of Islam is racist and illegitimate.

Garfield also said that the Danish cartoons were 'hideous' caricatures of Mohammed, when few if any of them are really hideous.

But the worst failure was to mention the Danish imam who traveled to Egypt and the Middle East to arouse protest there without mentioning the fact that the dossier the imam showed around contained three added cartoons one of which was not a cartoon at all: it was a photograph of a man in a pig mask taken at a pig-squealing contest at an agricultural fair in France. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Mohammed or Islam or the Danish cartoons, yet the protesting imams included it with the others as if it did. That fake cartoon was *by far* the most 'offensive' item in the dossier; it's highly irresponsible to blame the Danish cartoonists for the outrage over the cartoons when they had nothing to do with the most inflammatory item in the dossier. It was, of course, after the imam's trip that the riots and arson and violence got going.

Nrb,

Maybe during 1500 years as a great world religion, incidences of Islam "conquering, enslaving, murdering, threatening, destroying, and lying" have occurred.

Well, in THEIR history, how much have Christians "been conquering, enslaving, murdering, threatening, destroying, and lying," even in Muslim lands? (and as the 5 year old said, "they started it!")

In America, it took white europeans no time at all to begin "conquering, enslaving, murdering, threatening, destroying, and lying."

So what's your point?

MY point is that you don't know what you're talking about.

You must live smack in the middle of Kansas and have never known, talked to, or even seen a Muslim personally, if you don't think they can assimmilate just as easily as any immigrant.

And if you're looking for long scale, relatively peaceful, and mutually beneficial co-existence of Muslims assimilating with other cultures, it's happened all over the world, especially in Africa and southern Asia.

They even assimmilated well with europeans in Iberia. Some 80% of the iberian population lived willingly as islamic converts for 700 years, until christian kings brutally forced them to convert to catholicism or forced them off the iberian peninsula.

As further proof of assimmilation in Iberia, Spanish and Portuguese are infused with a fair percentage of arabic words, not to mention the architectural, musical, technological, etc, etc, influences.

Ophelia,

Literally, "islamophobia" means fear of Islam, not hatred of Islam... fear too often is confused with hatred, and mostly the hatred of Islam in the west is based on the fear of what many westerners don't understand.

Hey Petey, I guess blowing up trains in Iberia and murdering Iberians is a "peaceful assimilation" and matches the nice architectural influences the muslims bring. Also, you speak like the usual muslim fool apologist by your ad hominem arguments about Kansas, Catholicism, and white Europeans. History is filled with bad things done by all peoples. But, the koran is filled with instructions to muslims to continue doing bad things to all non muslims for as long as they follow the koran. The muslims have been a murderous, enslaving, destroying people for 1500 years and continue to be. They need to convert to one of the peaceful religions or rewrite the koran.

Ophelia

BTW (if you are the Ophelia I think you are), I too am atheist and highly disdain what religion has done to our world.

However, since humans obviously seem to cling to religion for some primordial purpose that thwarts even their reason, the best thing is perhaps to try and foster tolerance while the inevitability of change progresses.

No doubt, we are probably a thousand years or more away from meaningful reconciliation between culture gaps in the world, and we may not even survive that long as a species.

One should realize that many still live in the middle east who were born under colonial occupations. As a result, they are very defensive and nationalistic about their identities, as any human population would be and has been in the past under similar circumstances.

That is why I think the generational shift observed in Iran and Saudi Arabia should be heeded as a hopeful sign. I know we modern westerners abhor what we perceive as the injustices of ancient dogma and habit, but we were allowed the natural course of time in our societies to change the same types of behavior and thinking. Islamic countries deserve the same chance to overcome the repression of leadership and nationalistic fervor they are left with as a direct result of a recent colonial legacy (a legacy that exists even today, as evidenced by unwanted U.S. and european intervention in oil rich Islamic countries).

"Literally, "islamophobia" means fear of Islam, not hatred of Islam"

No; phobia is more than simple fear; the Concise Oxford defines it as '(morbid) fear or aversion'; the word 'homophobia' certainly means more than simple fear, and 'Islamophobia' was coined on the same principle.

Of course 'Islamic countries deserve the same chance to overcome the repression of leadership' but that doesn't entail refusing to criticize Islam. On the contrary: open free criticism is one very useful tool for overcoming the repression of leadership.

I probably am the one you're thinking of; at least, I am the one who does Butterflies and Wheels.

Wow Petey, no rebuttal but more apologies for the muslims under colonialism in islamic territories. These newly freed muslims are the same who pirated and enslaved more millions than any other peoples ever enslaved. I guess the muslims of Iran and Saudi Arabia deserve more than the 1500 years to gain a civilized attitude. Come on Petey, stop being a coward and explain to us why the koran encourages murder, slavery, and forced conversion to islam and why modern muslims follow these savage rules. You know that mohammed was a thief and tyrant so I guess his trash book should be the same.

First of all, it is ridiculous to take the behavior of Muslims and Christians from hundreds of years ago and use it to justify or condemn what is happening today. The world is a very different place in more ways than one can go into here, but in a world where, in theory, we are supposed to be striving for an ideal outlined by the UN charter, there is no justifying what these terrorists do. Of course they are a small percentage of the 1.2 billion Muslims out there, but there is also no doubt that as compared to the number of Timothy McVeighs (sp?) out there, there are a lot more and a lot more willing to commit mass murder because of their religion, because of perceived slights, because of real greivances, etc.

(cont.)

However, my main point is this "fish out of water" red herring (heh heh). Knowing that Petey liked it, I knew it was wrong. OK, so if that hypothesis were true, if what the guy said about Muslims not being used to having free speech were right, then how come there are so many UK born, Spanish born, German born, even American born (admittedly fewer of these) Muslims becoming terrorists? They know perfectly well they have free speech, yet they turn to violence. There are reasons for this, sure. But thinking that they only have violence as a weapon and no access to free speech is not one of them.

Yes, you can argue they really don't have free speech, like black Americans didn't before the 60's, 70's etc. That wasn't the argument made, though. It was that they don't even know it exists, essentially. And in this day and age, there are few western newspapers and other outlets that have been unwilling to present the Muslim side of issues. The real issue is that when Westerners by and large don't agree with them after hearing the views, they turn to violence. They, in this case, being the small radical minority. But then, that is who this is about.

Nrb,

I get the feeling you think your post was so brilliant, that you can't fathom how it didn't illicit a response.

I'll tell you what... you or the "perennially infatuated with himself" David post something worthy of a response, and I'll respond to it. That's a promise.

Ophelia,

I take your point that being critical can be constructive and I agree.

Criticism of Islam, Israel, Christianity, and much else can indeed be constructive, and labeling such criticism as "racist and illegitimate" should never be allowed to stifle debate.

I also agree with your take on the danish Imam and the absurd ethnocentric reaction to western depictions of Mohammed, flattering or not. Muslims should indeed try to measure perceived disrespect of their beliefs through an understanding of cultural norms, and temper their reaction accordingly.

I suppose I was mostly reacting to your interpretation of the word "Islamophobia," and upon further reflection, I don't really disagree with your take, and in fact agreed immediately with the gist of your first point in post #10.

I would still argue that most phobics who believe they hate a group of people can never really define why, but instead conjure up abstractions and generalities.

This type of hatred, I believe, really originates with fear of the unfamiliar, or more pointedly, the unfamiliar "other."

Homophobia is perhaps a special case, in which often people find it impossible to come to terms with their own tendencies, or are compensating for something. Of course sometimes homophobia is also simply a fear of the unfamiliar, and these type of people may well get past some of their fear by simply getting to know someone gay, or finding that they have long been close to someone gay.

(cont.)

I believe NRB's comments above illustrate what I mean about someone believing they hate a whole people, and yet can conjure up only a few generalities and abstractions that can, in truth, apply to almost any established civilization in history. He almost certainly is very christian, and yet cannot reconcile the fact that the bible espouses and attempts to inspire as much intolerance as the Koran:

Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

How's that for tolerance from the mouth of Jesus?

Holy Petey, you just cannot face the terrorism, horrors and inhumanity of the koran, but you give me one quote from the bible to counter the entire text of the koran and 1500 years of islamic violence. Petey, you are a consummate lier and hippocrite. You have called me everything from a Kansan, ignorant of muslims, hating all muslims, conjuring up a few generalities and abstractions; but you have not answered ONE question or explained the violence dictated by the koran. You try to paint Jesus and the Christians with one quote from Luke. Petey, I do not hate muslims but I sorrow for them because they follow the teachings of the violent lunatic and dishonest mohammed. You try to equate the Bible to the koran which shows your ignorance. The Bible is a book of historical stories framing the concepts of Judeo-Christianity. The koran is a book of instructions from mohammed to his followers on how to promulgate and force islam on all of mankind. The koran is a book from hell. Now Petey, go back and respond to some of the substantive items I have stated without the ad hominem drivel you do so poorly.

Oh Petey - Please, that is ridiculously pathetic even for you. Why don't you say that it is not Jesus speaking as himself, but telling the parable of the talents? Granted, it is one of the most difficult, misunderstood parables in the Bible. You did your usual sloppy, self-serving research. Talk about out of context! That was just a horrible citation on your part, intellectually dishonest and incredibly misleading.

What is the point, anyway? That Christians had a period in history when they behaved very badly, killed a lot of people, and were generally despicable? That was hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Muslims already had their turn at that also, it was called the Ottoman Empire. The real point is that in today's world there should be no room for the kind of behavior by Muslims described in the story, and no amount of psychobabble (you really sound like a fool, btw) can excuse it. But you are typical of the apologist wimps that would rather see their own society crumble rather than offend mass murderers. Ah, I forgot: you are the judge of all that is worthy and unworthy, so you won't respond. But then, every time I have proven you wrong you don't.

During Bush's crusade in Iraq, US Marines christened their tanks as "New Testament." One wonders who is the fundamentalist!

In Luke 19:27, Jesus Christ describes Himself only to His disciples. This parable reads that if you do not accept this (un-named) parable character as your King, you are to be brought before Him and slain. This parallels the dogma of salvation whereby if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your savior, you will suffer "Eternal-Torment" in Hell.

Luke 19:27 best expresses the murderous attitude and the evil, blackmail threat of Jesus Christ and His God.

Luke 19:27 explains that if you don't obey Jesus Christ and make Him your authority / King, you are to be slain. Luke 19:27 documents Jesus Christ as being a tyrannical terrorist to human beings and that the New Testament continues to qualify as a terrorist handbook.

Many debates have taken issue with Luke 19:27.

If there is an error or a lack of homework concerning Luke 19:27 - let’s examine it.

Upon request of His disciples in Matthew 13:36, Jesus spoke in parables.

What is a "parable" according to the dictionary?

Parable: A short, simple story from which a moral lesson can be drawn. It is usually an allegory. To represent, by fiction, a fable. To compare.

Luke 19:27 Jesus Christ said to His disciples: "But those, mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. KJV

What happened to Jesus' teaching to: "Love thy enemy?"

Luke 19:27 Jesus said: "And, as for those who would not have Me be King over them, bring them before Me and slay them."

Cont.

Who is speaking to His disciples in Luke 19:27? It is Jesus Christ - is it not? Yes.

If not, who, by name, do you say is speaking?

Jesus, to explain Himself, uses a parable of a "noble-man", who is expanding his kingdom. Wasn't Jesus expanding His kingdom? If that is not the case, what is the purpose of Jesus' parable? What other individual, by name, does the New Testament promote to be expanding his kingdom within the context of this specific parable?

If these C&Vs confuse truth-seekers, what grade does Jesus get as a teacher?

Review: Did Jesus Christ speak in parables? Yes.

Why did Jesus use parables?

A myth is a human attempt to explain our world by means of a fictional story. Jesus used myths to teach and describe Himself to His disciples as to who He was and what He and His agenda was about. Jesus used fictitious stories, myths, parables, and allegories to explain Himself to the World. Jesus also used these fictitious stories to explain what He required from His disciples and from all mankind.

What moral lesson did Jesus teach in Luke 19:27?

Voltaire wrote: "Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world."

Voltaire, Sir - that took balls!

cont.

Jesus' moral parable explains to you that if you don't allow Jesus Christ to be your King, authority, ruler, over you, you are to be slain.

Jesus' parallel lesson in Luke 19:27 is: If you don't accept Jesus Christ as your savior, you will suffer eternal torment. What moral lessons! What an evil tyrant! What a monster!

Redundantly, Luke 19:27 parallels what eternal-salvation or eternal-damnation is about. If you don't obey and serve God and accept Jesus Christ as your savior - instead of being slain - you will suffer eternal-damnation.

What was Jesus’ specific moral point of the parable? It was to teach you that if you do not follow, serve and obey Jesus / God, you would suffer eternal-damnation. That’s even more disgusting and cruel than just slaying you.

What Christian would say that Jesus is not God? If you claim that Jesus Christ is NOT God - are you sure you are a true, believing Christian?

Then Jesus states His "evil" agenda to His disciples in:

Mark 4:11-12 Jesus said: ... But, to those outside everything comes in parables so that they look and see but not perceive and hear and listen but do not understand, in order that thy may not be converted and be forgotten.

Knowing that Jesus Christ said this, and that Jesus did not want many people saved, do you feel more like you do now than you did before?

Judgment day is when God judges if you have served Him on His terms during your life on Earth. God's judgment determines if you will be "saved" to then serve, grovel, worship and praise at the feet of God and Jesus 24/7 for eternity.

Those who are not "saved" will suffer eternal-torment according to the book of Revelation. However, Ezekiel 25 indicates that after Jesus comes back at the "end-time" and slaughters all humanity and then after the thousand year "millennium" followed by "Judgment-Day", if not selected by God, you will expire, as Satan expires, by turning into ashes from within.

cont

God is documented to kill millions of human beings in the Old Testament because they did not obey and act as if God was King over them. (See: "The God Murders" on this website) If Jesus is God, the statement fits. The unnamed nobleman / king is Jesus Christ, Himself. God was angry when the Israelites choose a human king over them - as God wanted to be King over them.

If you don’t convert to Christianity and, in essence, make Jesus Christ king over you, you will go to Hell. The parable fits Jesus being the unnamed nobleman / King. What other known king could it be? Every C&V points to Jesus Christ and no one else.

Christianity demands one God, one Savior and a new Christian "One World Order".

I’ve debated these factors before and welcome anyone to refute each and every point by C&V documentation.

What is Jesus Christ's point - if He is not describing Himself and what He expects?

I view that Jesus Christ stated this parable about Himself. It dramatically displays the cruelty that He, as God, projects for those God sends to Hell-Fire / Eternal-Damnation or expiration. That is the parallel agenda that makes it a documented parable.

Who else would you want the king to be - and why? If the king described is unknown or not important - than the parable is wasted - and Jesus proves to be a confusing and poor teacher. It has to be describing Jesus Christ to have contextual meaning.

The above all excerpted from "The Bible According To DeVaney."

Do some homework, David... and then pee on this site with your brilliance.

Petey Petey Petey - It just gets worse every time you try. Gary DeVaney is an atheistic Christian hater, which he freely admits. He calls himself a "humanist", and is very upfront about it. He is famous for twisting the Bible to match his predetermined outlook on religion in general and Christianity in particular. His website is even called "thegodmurders". What else would you expect from such a biased source.

What you have presented is even more intellectually dishonest than before. You are the one that needs to do some homework and look at more than one Googled page. Thousands of bible scholars, some of them agnostics, have interpreted this Parable (more correctly called the Parable of the Minas, very similar to the Parable of the Talents in Matthew) to mean that those that are given much ability to help the world must do so to fulfill their duty to God, and those that squander it are the "enemy" and will face damnation. No one of ANY credibility thinks it is Jesus calling on his followers to kill the non-believers.

I haven't just peed on you Petey, I have totally dumped on you. I can cite dozens and dozens of university references to back up what I just said. You have only a God hating hack. You are completely discredited now.

And your point? Devaney's argument is there in black and white and I fully agree with it... other readers can examine his argument and judge it's merit themselves.

There you have it. Petey agrees with one Christian hating hack that starts with the false premise that Jesus is the King in the parable that wants his enemies slain, because it agrees with his own Christian hating views. While on the other hand there are hundreds and hundreds of explanations of the parable that come up on the same search that interpret the parable as I outlined. I think that says all that can be said about how open minded Petey is.

For anyone else that really wants to judge what DeVaney has to say in FULL context, be sure to look at his entire web site so you can see where he is coming from. As you will see, it is like taking Hitler's view of the Jews as the authoritative source.

By the way Petey, it is "its", not "it's". Another example of your wonderful education.

Do a search of Luke 19:27 and you're as likely to find people who take DeVaney's view as the ever self-appeasing christian view.

Yeah, the world wasn't really created in 6 days, that's just a metaphor.

Yeah, the snake didn't really talk, that's just a metaphor.

Yeah, the flood didn't really cover the earth, that's just a metaphor.

Whatever it takes to defend your view agaonst all logic... just make it up.

I'm well aware of the conventions of grammer and punctuation, but you can expect many more lapses as I hardly care about careless typing mistakes while I'm arguing with morons on line.

how about David? Any spelling errors to criticize?

Oh no! I just cant stop making typing errers... God has abandoned me1

That's fine Petey, I think it is great that you buttress your side with citations like DeVaney. I am happy to let people judge that. And no, the number of people that take Devaney's view pales in comparison to a modern, rational interpretation of the passage. I will admit I don't understand your references to the snake, the flood, the creation. I don't defend it "agaonst" all logic, it has nothing to do with the discussion. Bizarre. FYI, I think the Old Testament is largely symbolism. Again, not sure what that has to do with anything.

Yes Petey, everyone else is a moron, you are completely right. Always.

Something like jsut instead of just is a typing mistake. It's vs. its hardly is the same.

I learned the difference between its and it's in the 3rd grade, and I can still care less when I'm dishing out typing for an on line post.

LOL

I'm sure that the millions of reputable scholars that spend their time defending the fantasy in the bible are the most reliable sources of definitive interpretation available.

As to the gospels and the teachings of Jesus, christians just pick and choose those that are less problematic for one reason or another. The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Secret Gospel of Mark...Judas, Mary, anyone?

Plenty of examples of where I typed in "its" correctly when we argued about Bush's wire-tapping last week, BTW... maybe you should check past incidences before choosing to be a pompous ass.

Pardon, not last week, but the week of the 7th.

Petey. as a proud Muslim apostate let me tell just say that you are more often wrong than right.

David, Ophelia, and NRB are more to the point and have a better understanding of the dynamics than you do.

They don't suffer from ideological myopia trying to impose their understanding and extending their own culture onto the Muslims, and therby romsnticizing it.

I lived there and grew up there. I have first hand knowledge. Islam is a primitive set of discourses. Only be defaming Islam you will be able to free the Muslim (or rather their children).

Judaeo-christians seem to be able to gloss over the fact that their OT god was a blood-thirsty sort of a bastard, always bellowing for blood, fire, and brimstone mostly; followers of the prophet (we don't actually know what the one said - he is remarkably silent) have not yet learned the trick of reinterpretation (relativism?), mostly. Both, however, seem perfectly happy when in herds to dissemble, lie cheat & kill. Humanism/atheism does not have a tradition of anything other than living/letting live.

Gosh, and I thought this program was about muslim terrorism, assimilation into Western countries, the future of free speech in the face of islamic fundamentalist terror, the predjudice against Geert Wilders, etc; NOT about Judaeo-Christianity or the Bible. Petey hijacked the real subject with his babble. Best to all.

Franklin - Actually, few Judeo-Christians gloss over that fact. Fundamentalists embrace it, the vast majority take it as story telling to lead a relatively unsophisticated populace, and somewhat irrelavent in any case since once Jesus came with the New Covenant, it all changed. Your statement about the herd mentality, at least as it relates to modern times, is an unfortunate gross generalization that lumps the peaceful vast majority of both religions with the fanatical minority. Despite Petey's ranting about Luke, I haven't noticed in my lifetime even the most strident fundamentalists using that as an excuse to fly airplanes into mosques, behead Muslims live on the internet, etc. etc. There are always nuts commiting isolated acts of perversion and violence, but I am unaware of anything on the scale of what we are currently seeing with fanatical Muslims, as depicted in this story.

Humanism/atheism may have a "tradition" of living/letting live (although Petey's vitriolic anti-Christian rants say otherwise), but as far as I know there has never been a country or society where this philosophy truly dominates, or is even anything other than a tiny minority. Things change once a group has power based on a central tenet. Modern Europe is getting there, but they are so steeped in Christian heritage that it is still a fundamentally Christian society. I guess China, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, North Korea are/were all officially atheistic. You are right, no violence there.

No, they just use it as an excuse to kill doctors they don't agree with.

Sure "Hamid," I'm certain you're really Muslim and agree with NRB.

I suppose when you say you "lived there," you mean you lived in "muslim?" Nice try NRB.

LOL, I predicted Petey would claim Hamid was lying about being a Muslim. You really are pathetic, Petey. We all know there are a few nut jobs out there. Let's compare the number of abortion doctors that have been killed by Christian fundamentalists to the number of people killed by Muslim extremists. There is always a fringe element to every movement. This has been said over and over. The difference is that the Muslim extremists are causing havoc all over the world on a large scale. Are you defending that? Are you saying there is no difference in the two, that quantity and impact doesn't matter? Oh well, no one listening to you any more anyway, since you proved yourself to be completely non-intellectual. I just like to see how much you will keep making an idiot out of yourself.

With that brilliant retort, David can have the last word and Muslims are horrible and should all die.

Petey - I guess the words fringe element mean nothing to you. I know the English language is a challenge for you, you have proved that to be the case consistently.

you complain about people who drove the plane into the temple of greed and glutony. but what about those who killed american on board the USS Liberty.

what about sabra, shittila, deir yessian? why have the holocaustees of dachu turned into holocaustor of gaza!

you complain about people who drove the plane into the temple of greed and glutony. but what about those who killed american on board the USS Liberty.

what about sabra, shittila, deir yessian? why have the holocaustees of dachu turned into holocaustor of gaza!

What a well made point!

As much as I very much appreciated this great feature, I was disappointed that the comparison between Islamic cultural sensitivity and our disinclination to use the N-word in the U.S. was not further explored.

As a white man, I intentionally avoid using the N-word in deference to its historical connection to the legacy of racial oppression. I think there's something beyond white guilt that keeps progressive's attentive to this word. We avoid it not simply to avoid causing psychological pain in those for whom it calls up traumatic cultural memories. We omit it to signal an attentiveness to history, as a part of an attitude where we hope to rebuild trust across racial tension.

Why not view Jackie Smith's dis-invitation as something parallel? With an enormous, marginalized Muslim population, why can't we view her dis-invitation of Wilders as a rejection of his provocations and a kind of gesture of deference to the disempowered voice of an under-served community?

Surely marginalization breeds mistrust, but I think it is up to the majority to take a proportionately greater responsibility in rebuilding that trust. This includes being attentive to, and feeling responsible for the terms of the public discourse. And in this light, I applaud Jackie Smith.

Keep up the good work!

Suppression of the truth will allow the fanatical muslims to continue their conquest of the world in the name of mohammed. This comparison of vocabulary to "disempowered voice of an UNDER-SERVED community is lunacy.

"And the truth shall set you free"

FRom Wikipedia:

His father had fled from the Nazis to the Netherlands, and was so traumatized by the experience that he refused to physically enter Germany even forty years later.[9] Wilders speculates that his father may have had some Jewish ancestry.[9] Wilders' considered seeing the world his lifetime goal after he graduated college.[9] In Israel, he volunteered in a moshav and worked for several firms, becoming in his own words "a true friend of Israel".[10] Wilders initially worked in the health insurance industry.[4][9] His interest in the subject led him into politics as a speech-writer for the Netherlands Party for Freedom and Democracy VVD.[4][9] He started his formal political career as a parliamentary assistant to Minister Frits Bolkestein from 1990 to 1998, during which time Geert Wilders travelled extensively.[7] He travelled all across the Middle East in the 1990s, including Iran, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Israel.[9

So clearly he is a Zionist with Jewish root, what else can he say or do besides demonising islam and promoting israel. We all know Zionist control not only the world media but also world order by proxy of USA.

His view on israel:

Views on Israel In the past twenty five years Geert Wilders has visited Israel on numerous occasions,[36] where he says he has met Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert personally. [36]

At one point, Wilders wanted to move to the State of Israel because he believed one could, as opposed to the Netherlands, 'work for your own money'.

His View on Islam:

Wilders is best known for his criticism of Islam, summing up his views as being that "I don't hate Muslims. I hate Islam."[3] Although identifying Islamic extremists as a small 5-15% minority of Muslims,[15] he argues that "there is no such thing as 'moderate Islam'" and that the "Koran also states that Muslims who believe in only part of the Koran are in fact apostates".[37] He suggests that Muslims should “tear out half of the Koran if they wished to stay in the Netherlands” because it contains 'terrible things' and that Muhammad would “in these days be hunted down as a terrorist”[38]. On 8 August 2007, Wilders opined in a open letter[39] to the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant that the Koran, which he called a "fascist book", should be outlawed in the Netherlands, like Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.[40] He has stated that "The book incites hatred and killing and therefore has no place in our legal order."[41] He has also referred to Mohammed as "the devil".[10]

Seriously A, you might have had some good points in there backed up with research. I can't comment on how vallid those "facts" are because I have not looked into this guy AT ALL. But it is a shame when you totally distract from, and potentially invalidate your point with asinine statements like I quoted above. You will be much more effective without the hyperbole.

Hi Petey and David. This is Gary DeVaney. Great exchange between you two! Petey, you show courage and thought. You boldly address the issues and you do not focus on attacking your opponent. David, I view that you express your feelings well, but you're stretching things when you take a fact like - I am an Atheist - and wrongly add the outright lie that I hate Christians. I was once a licensed, ordained Christian minister. What made me a knowledgeable Atheist is: I read the Bible cover to cover and highlighted the Bible’s controversial C&Vs. Since 1982, my 10,000+ hour study and debate produced “The God Murders”.

http://www.thegodmurders.com/id91.html

To know the controversial C&Vs of the Bible is the greatest “Atheist Maker” on Earth. I hate no one but, I do - like Petey - tend to stand up against faith-based nonsense. A question, David. How do I distort the Bible if each issue I take is with a Bible, C&V?

For your efforts, David, please let me offer a link as to: “Why Christians Try To Save Souls”.

http://www.thegodmurders.com/id114.html

Good job to both of you. Regards, Gary DeVaney

garydevaney@embarqmail.com