Geert Wilders: Scumbag or Legend?

[JimC]

“Islam is not a religion, it's an ideology, the ideology of a retarded culture” - G. Wilders.

I agree. Dawkins agrees. Harris agrees. Hitchens agreed.

It's a perfectly legitimate statement.

Criticizing or ridiculing a religion or culture should be no less legal than criticizing or ridiculing a philosophy or a club.

The coloured part is an absurd statement. Of course it's a religion; albeit one with problematic features beyond the obvious delusion about the whole god thing...

Like all religions, it can be thought as having a definite overlap with the set descriptor "ideology", and additionally it has worrying features such as its insistence on being part of the laws and mores of states, its intolerance and its propensity to stimulating violence in some of its adherents.

But a religion it clearly is...

[Brian Peacock]

“Islam is not a religion, it's an ideology, the ideology of a retarded culture” - G. Wilders.

I agree. Dawkins agrees. Harris agrees. Hitchens agreed.

It's a perfectly legitimate statement.

Criticizing or ridiculing a religion or culture should be no less legal than criticizing or ridiculing a philosophy or a club.

OK. Moving on.

I am not here to defend Islam, nor am I suggesting that an offence taken is commensurate with an intent to offend, or that people have some basic right not to be offended.

Wilders' declaration above speaks to the implied superiority of his viewpoint - the superiority of his view of Islam over the views of those who follow it - by invoking a condition (of a double-standard) which, he declares, Islam fails to meet.

He's entitled to stake a claim to the virtues of his own opinions, of course, but disqualifying Islam as a member of the set of all religions is silly and both implies that 'religion' carries some fundamental virtue which Islam does not and that any 'religion' other than Islam is somehow more advanced or development, is more acceptable or worthy of respect, than Islam.

Now, do you think that Wilders respects Muslims but disrespects their, by his lights, retarded culture, or is he communicating the view that the body of Islam, which necessarily comprises the Muslims who follow that creed, itself represents a retarded culture? Would Wilders say that Judaism is the ideology of a retarded culture on the same scant grounds; that Catholicism is the product of a retarded culture? In other words, why do you think Wilders singles out this particular religion for such stiff treatment?

It seems to e that Wilders is far too eager to conflate Islam with Jihadism and thereby confuse Muslims for Jihadists as grounds to justify the superiority of his own ideology - though no doubt, like any good ideologue, he would claim his own views represent an absolute and undeniable truth.

The man is a duplicitous buffoon.

[JimC]

There is plenty of room to criticise Islam without either spuriously removing it from the set of actual religions or gratuitously attacking all its adherents.

I think it is a legitimate criticism to say that Islam, in so far as it clearly generates jihadists without any serious attempt to excise them from its umbrella, is potentially a danger to others.

[pErvinalia]

How is "Islam" going to excise them from under "its" umbrella? There is no central Islamic authority.

[JimC]

How is "Islam" going to excise them from under "its" umbrella? There is no central Islamic authority.

That organisational detail should not be an excuse. The jihadists are real muslims; they insist they are, they follow the Koran (without the cherry picking of the moderates, so perhaps they are truer muslims...). So, their actions are reasonably a base for a general criticism of the religion which launched them, but not a basis for criticising non-violent muslims, other than to say that collectively they should refuse to have anything to do with the fundamentalists who preach jihad.

[pErvinalia]

How do you know that they do or don't already, any more or less than Aussies, yanks and poms etc need to disassociate from our prevaling societies? And should we excise the neocon warmongers from our societies?

[JimC]

How do you know that they do or don't already, any more or less than Aussies, yanks and poms etc need to disassociate from our prevaling societies? And should we excise the neocon warmongers from our societies?

If by "disassociate" you mean slaughter the unbelievers, then I'm perfectly happy to see them slaughtered first...

[pErvinalia]

It's a serious question. How do they "excise" the fundamentalists? How should we excise our own fundamentalists - the neocons, who are responsible for far more deaths than ISIS is?

[JimC]

It's a serious question. How do they "excise" the fundamentalists? How should we excise our own fundamentalists - the neocons, who are responsible for far more deaths than ISIS is?

Compare it to this situation:

A group of fanatically right-wing catholic priests start preaching from the pulpit, urging "true catholics" to gun down doctor who perform abortions.

At least in the current times, with the pope at present, I'm reasonably certain there would be a quick, unambiguous response, and they would be rapidly defrocked and excommunicated.

Whereas, at the moment, jihadist atrocities are met by a wimpy 'they are not true muslims" response by mainstream muslim clerics. But they are the first ones to say that islam is not hierarchical, and no one person or organisation can speak for the whole of islam. In that case, why should the rest of the world accept the claim of the "moderates" that the jihadists are non-islamic, when the jihadists say they are, in fact, perfect muslims, and the moderates are backsliders?

[pErvinalia]

The fact that Islam doesn't have an authority structure means that there is no Pope like figure to tell all the non-thinkers what to think. The moderates can only speak out. And large numbers of them do, we just don't hear about it in the western media.

[JimC]

The fact that Islam doesn't have an authority structure means that there is no Pope like figure to tell all the non-thinkers what to think. The moderates can only speak out. And large numbers of them do, we just don't hear about it in the western media.

There is some truth in that, and I would be fairly certain that most moderate muslims living in the west would be appalled by the violent fundamentalists (even if via mixed motives, in that the actions of violent jihadists inevitably increases the distrust towards them by the rest of the community)

But what I said still stands - the responses are wussy, and the "they aren't real muslims" schtick is a cop-out...

[Forty Two]

Wilders' declaration above speaks to the implied superiority of his viewpoint - the superiority of his view of Islam over the views of those who follow it - by invoking a condition (of a double-standard) which, he declares, Islam fails to meet.

Let's assume that's true? So what? When we discuss things here, many people not only imply but directly state the superiority of their viewpoints. The whole idea of public debate over viewpoints is that each side thinks their viewpoint is right or superior to the other viewpoints, which are wrong or at least not as good.

He's entitled to stake a claim to the virtues of his own opinions, of course, but disqualifying Islam as a member of the set of all religions is silly and both implies that 'religion' carries some fundamental virtue which Islam does not and that any 'religion' other than Islam is somehow more advanced or development, is more acceptable or worthy of respect, than Islam.

Again, so what? Many people refer to different religions as being invalid or carrying more or less virtue than others. Buddhism is more advanced than Christianity is not an uncommon belief.

Now, do you think that Wilders respects Muslims but disrespects their, by his lights, retarded culture,

I don't know. But, of what import is his subjective "respect" for Muslims when evaluating whether what he says ought be merit a fine?

or is he communicating the view that the body of Islam, which necessarily comprises the Muslims who follow that creed, itself represents a retarded culture?

You would have to ask him. From what I've heard, he says he's criticizing ideas, and not people.

Like if we criticize Christianity, are we necessarily communicating the view that Christians who follow Christian creed represent the entirety of the culture? I don't think so.

Would Wilders say that Judaism is the ideology of a retarded culture on the same scant grounds;

I don't know. He might, or he might not. He might find the two cultures materially different in some way. You'd have to ask him. Of course, it would have to be legal for him to answer, or the discussion becomes rather one-sided.

that Catholicism is the product of a retarded culture? In other words, why do you think Wilders singles out this particular religion for such stiff treatment?

Because of the ideas expressed in the Koran and other Islamic materials and espoused by major Muslim clerics, he may view Islam as worse than Catholicism or Judaism. Surely, in public discourse it is not a legal requirement to view all religions as equally good?

It seems to e that Wilders is far too eager to conflate Islam with Jihadism and thereby confuse Muslims for Jihadists as grounds to justify the superiority of his own ideology - though no doubt, like any good ideologue, he would claim his own views represent an absolute and undeniable truth.

Well, if viewing their ideas as absolute and undeniable truth would render speech illegal, then leftist progressives, feminists, SJWs, should start lawyering up.

And of what import, in terms of determining the legality of speech, is your own evaluation of what you think he conflates and confuses?

Yours may be a fine criticism of his ideas, of course. But, the issue here is whether he ought to be fined or imprisoned for it.

The man is a duplicitous buffoon.

So is Hillary Clinton. Being a duplicitous buffoon may well be a good tactic in opposing someone's ideas. But, is it a reason to fine them?

[Forty Two]

There is plenty of room to criticise Islam without either spuriously removing it from the set of actual religions or gratuitously attacking all its adherents.

To each his or her own? Or, no. Arguments must legally be presented in a non-spurious manner?

I think it is a legitimate criticism to say that Islam, in so far as it clearly generates jihadists without any serious attempt to excise them from its umbrella, is potentially a danger to others.

When you say legitimate, what should be done about criticism which you believe to be illegitimate?

[Forty Two]

It's a serious question. How do they "excise" the fundamentalists? How should we excise our own fundamentalists - the neocons, who are responsible for far more deaths than ISIS is?

How about prosecuting them for hate speech, and fining and/or imprisoning them for espousing those ideas?

[Forty Two]

The fact that Islam doesn't have an authority structure means that there is no Pope like figure to tell all the non-thinkers what to think. The moderates can only speak out. And large numbers of them do, we just don't hear about it in the western media.

You mean...speak out AGAINST a religious group? That'd be hate speech. It's be like saying we want fewer fundamentalist Muslims in this country. That's definitely hate speech.