Shame on the Netherlands (politicians)

[RealmofOpeth]

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EJKRF2uB8xU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>



Sorry haven't been around much. I knew there were some Dutch people here who might enjoy this.
Apparently Sweden is on the next-to-bend-over list?

[chainsnuser]

Actually, believe it or not, the Qur'an talks rather friendly about Christians. We are just seen as people who got the words of Jesus Christ slightly wrong. Yes, despite of all the propaganda, the Islam is based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus Christ (as Muhammad understood them, of course). Under different circumstances, the Islam would have become another Christian church with a slightly different statement of faith, not an own religion.

If the Qur'an talks about killing Christians, it's always about killing aggressors, crusaders, or imperialists (so to say), not about killing people who only have a different belief.

I'm no expert BTW and the situation in Germany is very relaxed, the Christian churches and the Islamic authorities have a treaty not to evangelize the others - and it simply works. I have more often been tried to be evangelized by some esoteric freaks or Christian sects than by Muslims. They always try to convince one by saying that Muhammad lived 600 years later than Jesus and if Muhammad spoke the words of God then they are newer than anything that Jesus said and newer than the doctrine of the Christian churches (seems like the "Muhammad is newer than the pope"-doctrine is part of the Islamic education, I don't know). I always respond that I have no problem with Muhammad being a prophet of God, but Martin Luther lived 1000 years later than Muhammad. They mostly stop arguing when they hear that.

This is not to make fun of our Catholic members BTW, who certainly have more problems to argue against Muslims.

Back to topic: My own family is half Protestant and half Catholic (which is quite normal here in the Ruhrgebiet region, which is the German melting pot of nations), we often make fun about each other with no problems. There indeed shouldn't be a law that forbids to make fun about or to critisize people, who have a different belief - as long as this happens with mutual respect. And even if it's not totally respectful, there is no reason that our justice should bend over to some fundamentalist Islamic freaks, as well as I don't see a reason why an Islamic country should enact laws that protect the points of view of Christian fundamentalists.

Cheers!

[jamesstew]

General Zod will put an end to lots of needless suffering when he disbands all religions and all the beings on planet Houston pay tithe to him and him alone.

[RealmofOpeth]

Well actually the guy in this video, is an atheist. Being specifically christian has little to do with it. I'm also an atheist. So we get shit on from every theistic religion.
It's not about specifically being against Islam either, but moreso religion getting grasp of state power to protect itself and Islam seems to be the most aggressive and getting headway so it gets talked about.
But if I was Jewish, then what? Christians might not hate me, but the muslims certainly would, regardless of whether it specifically says to in the Qu'ran or not. Hell, a lot of christians are taught to hate muslims as well.
Regardless of what peaceful conclusions you might interpret from the bible, the qur'an or whatever, there's always going to be some other major section of assholes who will take it to some other level, largely based on a lot of different areas of each of the holy books. They're rarely thoroughly consistent with their words of peace and love.
The point is no religion should ever gain a legal foothold to not be criticized for anything.

[sychodelix]

Yeah, whether you're religious or not...I think reasonable people can say that religion has no business being sponsored by governments. It always has and always will caused major problems.

As for religions by themselves, in all of them, there's always groups of people that take things to the extremes.

[holnrew]

Well actually the guy in this video, is an atheist. Being specifically christian has little to do with it. I'm also an atheist. So we get shit on from every theistic religion.
It's not about specifically being against Islam either, but moreso religion getting grasp of state power to protect itself and Islam seems to be the most aggressive and getting headway so it gets talked about.
But if I was Jewish, then what? Christians might not hate me, but the muslims certainly would, regardless of whether it specifically says to in the Qu'ran or not. Hell, a lot of christians are taught to hate muslims as well.
Regardless of what peaceful conclusions you might interpret from the bible, the qur'an or whatever, there's always going to be some other major section of assholes who will take it to some other level, largely based on a lot of different areas of each of the holy books. They're rarely thoroughly consistent with their words of peace and love.
The point is no religion should ever gain a legal foothold to not be criticized for anything.

Nicely put.

[chainsnuser]

Well actually the guy in this video, is an atheist.

Did he say that? If so then I missed it and I won't watch the video again. It's terribly boring. Actually the guy sounds much like a Christian hate-preacher.

I have no problem with atheists (it's a totally personal thing being an atheist or not), but I also don't think that organized atheism is any different from (other) religions, theistic or not.

I get the point of religious hatred leading to injustice, terrorism, and sometimes even to full scale wars, no doubt, it would be dumb to deny that, it's an historical fact. But the real motives behind conflicts are mostly political, sometimes disguised by religious preachings, and I have serious doubts that an atheist world would be better. A war for oil always is a war for oil, such wars also would take place in an atheist world. And a conflict for land and equal chances, also for water-ressources, like in Palestine, has hardly anything to do with religion. What we see in the media is always filtered, but I don't get the impression that there is much religious hatred involved in the Palestine-conflict, rather that the conflict is calmed down by shared (religious) values.

BTW, I'm no expert for any of the addressed topics, and I'm especially very unfamiliar with the philosophical concepts of atheism, so that's all just my personal opinion.

Cheers!

[RealmofOpeth]

Actually he's quite a funny guy in his other vids...I guess if you're an atheist...or sick of fundamentalists in general.

There's no doubt that there's always problems regardless of religion being involved, and atheists aren't inherently better people. But I'm of the belief that as an irreligious folk, I'm less likely to base my choices/arguments/perceptions on supernatural inclinations of my convenient choosing than simply a misunderstanding of the facts or other simple human inclinations besides it. I figure I don't need any more chances to misunderstand a situation than necessary.

As far as philosophical concepts of atheism...it's quite simple. No belief in a god. That's it, nothing more nothing less. The stuff often tacked onto it, such as the arguments against theism in general, picking apart particular religions flukes, refuting anti-atheism claims, science, logic, how to live fine without belief in god, morals exist on their own, how to understand besides religion you still are who you are - That's where it gets complicated. Though most informed atheists would consider those to be inherited with being an atheist who wants to defend atheism, and therefore one's identity, from being wiped out..as it certainly will without any understanding beyond no belief in a god. Than simply being raised without ever having religion taught to you, or as every baby ever born, without any understanding of religion are 'technically' atheists - upon where any religion can therefore be easily programmed in due to ignorance of anything that might interrupt it.
There's no one lifestyle though, it's just one less god from the thousands of others the religious/moderates also disbelieve. Once I figured out atheism made the most sense to me, I sort of had this burgeoning identity crisis of feeling esoteric and special, trying to meet other atheists as though they're automatically going to be cool, that wears off when you realize what atheism really is. People will still be very different, and also be assholes/clannish regardless. With religion it just adds another layer of chance to be quite troublesome.

[chainsnuser]

That's very comprehensible.

My own philosophy is to leave God out of all the shit that happens on earth, which is to a large extent based on the 2nd commandment: "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name."

As a whole it's certainly too complicated to discuss here. I practically do not differentiate between atheists (which I think are the majority anyways - I don't exactly know how it is in the U.S., but atheism is pretty normal in Northern Europe) and believers, but I must admit, that I feel slightly more comfortable among persons, who believe in God, also if they belong to another confession.

Back to topic: aside from the need to prevent sedition, I also don't see why there should be a need by law to prevent a critical discussion of Islam.

Cheers!

[RealmofOpeth]

well you Europe folks, who I think have largely more culture and historical understanding....seem to have gotten over the whole religious bit for the most part. we Americans however are probably the most religious industrialized nation there is. which may go hand in hand with our education scores... low cultural understanding and general short history. 'non believers' which make a mix of atheists, agnostics etc., according to polls make about 15% of the nation. something like that. while that does sound small, that's a higher percentage than the black and jew population who generally get a lot more respect than known atheists. yet atheists commit less crime per capita than people of religion.
i would say most of the country is made up of moderates.. good people who generally act no different atheists but when it comes to the nitty gritty still believe and may get all hot and bothered when the debate of religion comes up..and probably more often than not unknowingly provide an insulation/motivation for the fundamentalists to spawn.

[Jason]

This is why I'm agnostic....the lazy man's "religion". You want me to believe? Show me tangible proof. :wink:

[RealmofOpeth]

that reminds me...the term agnostic doesn't necessarily mean not religious.
agnosticism is a knowledge based classification and atheism is a belief based one.
in these two terms which are not exclusive of each other there are four loose classifications: gnostic theist, agnostic theist. gnostic atheist, agnostic atheist.

gnostic theist: basically a fundamentalist
agnostic theist: basically a moderate or a deist
agnostic atheist: obviously doesn't believe but doesn't claim dominion over any knowledge beyond what we're able to perceive..which depends upon the bounds upon which they consider knowledge.
gnostic atheist: takes the agnostic atheist a step further and basically considers anything beyond what we're able to percieve or unable to objectively conclude as being considered a god is synonymous with god simply not existing objectively as the concept of god is inherently an enigma. also doesn't claim knowledge dominion over anything beyond what we can perceive because it is contradictory.

theres an unnecessary dividing line often chosen between atheists and self-proclaimed agnostics alike...when they're largely the same. a lot of times in some way to distinguish from the popular ideas that atheists are arrogant and following a 'religion' of 'knowing' there's no god when in fact they can be just as agnostic as anyone else (relative to what standard knowledge and certainty are agreed upon), but not believe...or that agnostics are cowardly afraid of the word when they don't believe like any atheist, but don't claim certainty (relative to what standard knowledge and certainty are agreed upon) upon which calling oneself agnostic is justified. also there's quite a fine line between the agnostic atheist and gnostic atheist and in what terms they define knowledge and certainty...but the bottom line is they're both irreligious in terms of theism. including deists who do believe and can get along perfectly fine without the need to have identity wars of which inherently exist on a much greater chance between the irreligious and religious (theism).
theists who say they believe and don't have certainty will rarely say they're agnostic when in reality they are. it doesn't change their holding onto the belief. it's just a label for a concept of understanding...and they can be glad they're not gnostic theists whom are the the most volatile and likely to cause the most problems.

[snusjus]

I'm an Atheist and feel pretty scared that fundamentalist Muslims have hijacked (no pun intended ) Netherlands' government. Not only am I scared, I'm angered the Dutch government has eroded free speech. Personally, I believe people should be able to say whatever they want, regardless if it offends others. I also heard that a man was arrested for insulting the Pope and Catholicism in Italy. I always had faith (no pun intended as well) there was a place on Earth that allowed more freedoms than America; perhaps I have been proven wrong.

[TexDis]

The situation in Europe and the Anglosphere minus the States is quite dire and approaching a totalitarianism that rivals the Soviet Union in its heyday. Historians are literally in jail in Europe for merely writing and discussing certain events in history and in Canada Christian ministers are being prosecuted by so-called hate crime politburos for preaching against homosexuality. Thank heavens here in the States we still have some semblance of free speech and even more importantly, the right to bear arms. If the latter goes, invariably so will the former.