Ayaan Hirsi Ali...stirs debate on religious freedom

Post Reply New Topic

From the decidedly non-conservative Editor and Publisher.

(source)

The free expression of ideas cannot be allowed to be threatened on the grounds that it's intolerant to a religious group.

Wait a minute. I'm totally pro-freedom of speech and I don't like some muslims being against it. But what Ali does is abusing her freedom of speech and attacking the muslims. That's different. The aim of freedom of speech is to get good constructive criticism. Hers was merely destructive.

It was in a discussionprogram, they're hard to find. It showed her family being shocked by the attacks from Ali.

I'm sure however there are articels on this issue. Might I find it, I will post (and maybe even translate, though maybe you'd not believe the translation to be correct) it.



The biggest christian party, led by the minister-president, tried to illegalize all jokes (persiflage) made on ministers or the queen/princes/etc. Everyone else, especially the queen, was against an illegalization.


There's a difference between a group and a representative of the people. She should've dealt with more than making movies etc against Islam. I can't remember her debating in the Tweede Kamer.


I didn't mean to attack you here, I merely said that because you meant to say something like that on the muslims.

But you're completely missing my point. I don't say it's bad to state something is bad while not stating how it should be dealt with. It is bad to state something a thousand times knowing it angers and offends people. Everybody knew she was against Islam, still every time one saw her, she yet again stated Islam is bad, just to offend.

[qoute="jimservo"]

Pug, let me ask you this? You say that "forbid(ing) half of Islam" is what is being suggested by "right-wing people." I am suggesting something different entirely, that what we need is a moderate interpretation of the Koran that does not allow for executions of converts, violence in the name of religion, compete unification of church and state, ect...I would suggest that it is misguided to think that is a smart policy for Europeans to treat Muslims "special" on the grounds their religion is so extreme as it cannot adapt to pluralism. I also think it is rather inconsistent for a country in which it is normal to argue for the banning of parties on the grounds that they oppose same-sex marriage on the ground it is intolerant.[/quote]
On your last point, say, not true. Let me tell you this: one of the three parties leading our country is against same-sex marriage (and abortion, and drugs, and euthanasia...guess what, they're christians). We don't illegalize those political parties. They're fully allowed.
On the rest, I somewhat agree. I actually never said Islam is good (as I said before) I'm totally against. But there are different ways of showing it, and the point was Ali isn't using the right or useful one.


I already reacted in one of my former posts on the same argument so please react on that. You cleverly cut that piece out...
To remember: it was on that most muslims have nothing but their religion while christians (certainly in america) have a lot more.

I have always viewed freedom of speech as an inherent right ie: each individual has the right to speak to speak his or her mind for the purpose of influencing society. In honesty, we may not disagree here.



Ali has publicly acknoledged her family disowed her. However, I am willing to keep an open mind.



This is not an issue of Christianity, this is an issue of monarchism, and it the later case, if you are referring to immigration and if it is unjustified, nativism. I am aware of (old) connections of Protestism between the church and state. The Roman Catholic removed monarchism from the Concordant at Vatican II.



This could very well be a fair criticism. Did the time she take on her interests on oppression within Islamism distract from her duties as a representive of the people. Score a point for Pug.



That's OK. Maybe my response was too strong.



I agree and disagree.

One should not bite one's tongue because one does not want to offend people who believe unethical things (like female genital mutaliation), however, one very well may wishes to bite one's tongue if ones actions may result in results which are worse rather then better (say, riots that kill dozens or hundreds).

During the Second World War, the Vatican was diplomatic in it's comments about the Axis powers in the knowledge when it made harsh comments many people died, but behind the scenes it was ordering activity that proved far more effective then more words.

With this in mind, I will state that I thought the publishing of the "Mohommed cartoon" was not only foolish but actually unethical (although I believe such printings should be allowed). The response (riots, and murders), which was aggravated by fake cartoons and organized campaign, was far more unethical.



You did comment you earlier you would not object to the banning of a party for opposing same-sex marriage. I am not saying that people of different religions are going to have the same opinions are secularists. Indeed, one finds in the United States that those that more regularly attend services are more likely to vote Republican and are more socially conservative.



...



I wasn't aware I was that clever. I assure you it was unintentional.



They have lots of oil. Sorry.

Um...Yes, America...wait a minute...hang on...I thought I did answer that one....

Wait...OK...



To be honest I can't think of a response to this.

And we do not disagree. Indeed to influence society in a good way. I don't think she did.


I found an article on it. The NOS is our public news-organ.

I'll translate the selected part:
On the flight
She said to be on the flight for family, because she hadn't joined her just-married Somalian husband in Canada.

However, according to her brother, an aunt and her ex-husband, Hirsi Ali had no fear and shouldn't have fear while on her flight to Holland via Germany. Moreover they say she was not married off.
By the way her brother talks with proud on his sister in Zembla (a television program). Her divorced parents didn't want to give comment in the program.
(Of course, feel free to put the text into a translation-machine.)


...I meant to say: the queen didn't care she was persiflaged, while the CDA wanted to put a ban on all persiflage on the queen (and ministers etc)





Hmmm... I didn't think the Muhammed cartoons were not a bad thing, nor unethical. I do believe it was wrong what the Newspapers did after that, like publishing the cartoons just to tease the muslims, or organizing matches like 'who makes the funniest muhammed-cartoon'. That was very bad and unethical.
The muslim-reaction was unethical. However vey, very slow (I believe over a your after the publishing). I think their hard reaction was also because of conservative, muslim-fundamentalistic leaders, that incited the Muslims.


I don't remember me saying that. If I did, the match is tied 1-1




I wasn't aware I was that clever. I assure you it was unintentional.


Do you really believe the people receive even a part of the oil-profits? Because they don't.


neither can I,..,

Last edited by Pug on 24 Apr 2007, 4:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hmm, the debate looks interesting; I'll have to read through it later. I support Hirsi Ali, though. I haven't seen Submission but from what I understand, her part of it wasn't as damned as people make it seem. And keep in mind Theo Van Gogh was murdered for calling Muslisms "goat****ers," but he was sort of a Howard Stern type figure who spat out epithets against all the organized religions.

There was indeed nothing wrong with Van Gogh. He indeed called Muslims Geitenneukers, but he called everything names. He used freedom of speech in a imo harsh yet good way. Ali was very different.


Submission:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXGZBs65qMs[/youtube]