Remember when everyone was naive enough to believe the Internet would extend freedom of speech? Instead, the international nature of the web has extended the tentacles of censors into formerly free places. Lawsuits, death threats, and shutdowns of websites muffle voices that once were free.

Are Islamic terrorists wholly without a sense of irony? Geert Wilders' film Fitna posits that Islam is a religion that inspires violence and intolerance. Within 24 hours of the documentary's posting on the web, Muslims objecting to the movie threatened to kill people associated with LiveLeak, the British company hosting Fitna. In their rebuttal, Muslim extremists confirm the film's message.

Iranian leaders said the film proved that Westerners harbored a "vendetta" against Islam. It actually proves the reverse, that Muslim terrorists harbor so much hatred against non-Muslims that they become savages in acting out that hatred. Muslims kill thousands of innocent Westerners and Westerners respond with calls to protect Muslims living in the West and to insist that Islam is a religion of peace. A Westerner makes a film critical of Islam and Muslims file lawsuits, threaten death, and recall ambassadors. There is a disproportionality in the offenses, and remarkably, a disproportionality in the reactions to them. Do the inhabitants of the Muslim world not see the difference in producing a film and killing thousands of people?

Cowards, naturally, had a field day condeming the film. The president of the European Union said Fitna had "no other purpose than inflaming hatred." Dutch prosecutors are investigating whether the film broke any laws, Holland's president condemned the film, and media groups within the Netherlands plan legal suits based on unauthorized use of video clips. Even the cartoonist who scribbled the famous drawing of Muhammed with the bomb turban vows to sue Wilders. "There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence," United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon said in a statement. "The right of free expression is not at stake here." (It is, and if a man's name suggests he wants to ban the moon, then less intrusive items, such as Internet movies, might not be safe from his prohibition list, either.) In response to the death threats, LiveLeak dropped the film, which can be seen here in bootlegged form off Google (warning: it is gruesome). Free speech is underground. Censors are ascendant. Welcome to 2008.

Many of Fitna's clips come straight from Islamic terrorists, who foolishly advertised their acts of barbarism on the web for all to see. Now they regret that Geert Wilders has posted what they had posted and quoted what they have said. In response to his thesis that Islamists are violent the Islamists threaten to kill Wilders. And in response to this...listen to the crickets. Where is George W. Bush, who naively believed he could democratize the Middle East, when fanatics seek to Islamize the West? Geert Wilders stands alone. In these times, that's a better place to be than standing with the mob.

Gruesome, but revealing. Islam is a grave threat to the Western way of life. But how should it be dealt with? This is the pressing question of the 21st century.

I think the world deserves a place called the Netherlands that has more resemblance to what historically has been the Netherlands than to present-day Saudi Arabia. I think Wilders focus on changing demographics in the West, and the solution of restricting immigration from difficult-to-assimilate locales, is a better way to address the problem than selecting a new Muslim country to bomb every few years. It's strange that the cultural preservation of a place like the Netherlands provokes cries of racism in a way that bombing does not.

Islam is a threat to the West only to the extent that we allow it. If western Europe does not like the presence of so many Muslims, then the solution is quite simple: change the refugee laws. The Islamic threat doesn't originate from Islam, but from European leaders who refuse to protect their nations from the influx. Islam isn't a monolith -- unlike the Soviet Union -- and therefore is too divided, too poor, and too hopeless to seriously threaten the West.

America will probably have the same issue with immigrants from Latin America, but no one thinks that Guatemala, El Salvador, or Mexico pose a threat to this country. Islam is virtually a non-existent threat to this country. We pretend that it is so we can kill Iraqis with a clear conscience.

Head in the sand, as usual, Eric.

"It's strange that the cultural preservation of a place like the Netherlands provokes cries of racism in a way that bombing does not." - Dan Flynn

It's because cries of racism are a proven winner. At least in the U.S.
But the rest of the world is slowly catching on to the weakness of the west: the overwhelming obsession with being liked. We will do almost anything to avoid being called 'racist'. Just ask old Jesse"King of Beers" Jackson. He's built quite a fortune on this hustle.

"We pretend that it is so we can kill Iraqis with a clear conscience."

Thanks for letting us know how you look at it. It certainly is not that simple in my mind.

It sometimes seems that the Iraq War and George Bush,respectively, have only one or two degrees of separation from any subject under the sun.

Like all other aggressors throughout history, when they act up, they need to be hit and hit hard. That would apply to violence or the pushing of a social or political agenda. The only thing they understand and the only thing that will stop them is to be pushed back by either saying "no" or with what comes out of the end of a gun.

When primitives with primitive social or religious philosophies are cajoled and coddled, it emboldens them because they are not smart enough or sophisticated enough to know when they've won some concessions. And concessions typically won't do because they want it all.

This situation will never be right until leaders of the Western free world get the backbone to say no and stop allowing these animals to run amok.

Watching this film made me think of those who claim that these people would leave us alone if we just stayed out of their paths. Pretty funny.

Sadly, Charles Martel died a millenia ago.

Dan, perhaps the President of the EU thinks that by condemning the film, we will have "peace in our time."

Many Muslims ARE peaceful people, but the rest make those Muslims look bad.

There are no solutions, only problems.

Be well,

Sponge

"I think Wilders focus on changing demographics in the West, and the solution of restricting immigration from difficult-to-assimilate locales, is a better way to address the problem than selecting a new Muslim country to bomb every few years".

I guess my question would be: do we take them at their word (based on what the Koran tells them) that they intend to make the World Muslim or do we believe that misdeeds by those of us in the West against Muslim countries has caused upheaval in their lands and forced immigration to non-Muslim countries?

Mikey,

"Thanks for letting us know how you look at it. It certainly is not that simple in my mind."

We need to be precise when we claim that Islam is a "threat." I agree that refugees from Islamic countries do threaten many European nations, but these are refugees, not jihadists, who are coddled by Europe's liberal welfare state. This "threat" is demographic in that it displaces native Europeans, changes the culture, and probably increases the crime rate.

However, Islam isn't a military threat to the West, and any comparisons between it and, say, Soviet Communism and Nazi Germany are ridiculous.

Islam really isn't a threat at all to the United States. When we look out to the future, should Americans really worry about Islam? We have a rapidly growing immigrant population that is not assimilating, shows little patriotism, and will probably become powerful enough to demand a separate country in the next 50 years. We also have a huge fiscal problem with the baby boomers entering retirement, and trillions of unfunded obligations in Social Security and Medicare. Islamic terrorism is simply not a problem that we really need to worry about.

There is no organized entity behind "Islam," or "jihad." In the 1950's it made sense to be concerned about Communism, because there was an actual organizational structure behind the term, Soviet Union, that had client states all across the globe and could exert political influence almost over one hemisphere. There is no organizational structure behind Islam. It's just a band of warring tribes, failed states, and third world backwaters.

Even in countries where Muslims are the majority, how many of those countries actually codify the Sharia? Indonesia doesn't; Turkey doesn't; Iraq didn't; Pakistan doesn't; Jordan doesn't; and I'm sure there are others. This shows that Muslims have no political skills to organize effectively to force countries, even when they are in the majority, to observe Sharia. So anyone who worries about "Muslims taking over the world," is absolutely ridiculous; more ridiculous than those who think global warming is going to end life in the next 100 years.

This emphasizes the reality that it doesn't matter what has historically been perpetrated, real or imagined, against these people. Their aim is clear: to exterminate any who they consider infidels and to dominate the world map.

So, tell me, are we ready for Barack Hussein Obama? Closet Muslim and racist, follower of the Reverend Wright and Louis Farrakhan?

Is anybody paying attention out there?

Closet Muslim or not, we not be ready for Obama.

Good link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344409,00.html

ASDF,

Who is "their?" And what organization do "they" have?

C'mon, Obama can't be a Muslim and an acolyte of Rev. Wright at the same time, can he? Obama's grandfather was a Muslim, his father may have nominally been one for a while, and he went to an Islamic school for a few years in Indonesia, but that doesn't make him a Muslim. Let's not get caught up in foolish spam messages that start rumours and smear people without attribution. Let the Left get down in the muck. There are enough legitimate reasons to oppose Obama. One needn't invent "reasons."

Does the "Reverend” Wright profess Christian values or does he mostly preach the tenets of Islam? From what I’ve heard, it’s not exactly your typical Judeo Christian religious philosophy being put forth, sprinkled with anti-Semitism and anti-(West) Americanism. Hell, Nation of Islam "Pastor" Louis Farrakhan was their man of the year! Trips to Libya with Farrakhan to sooth Kadafi's soul is not a good indication of how Christian Wright is.

Obama listens to and follows it all.

His Grandfather was a Muslim, his Father was a Muslim, his Step Father was a Muslim. When he lived in Indonesia, he attended predominantly Muslim schools.

Romney was a good Mormon and was made out to be the anti-Christ. Forced to speak to his religious beliefs. Why was that such a big deal? Should we not question the background of such a man as Obama who would seek the Presidency and fully scrutinize him?

Who cares if Obama is a Muslim? The Constitution doesn't say a Muslim cannot be President. There are more practical reasons to be concerned about Obama, in particular the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski is his go to guy on foreign policy, and while that may make him less malicious than the Neocons, it's not much of an improvement.

Out of curiosity, has Obama done anything his in political life to show that he's an adherent to the Muslim faith?

"Who cares if Obama is a Muslim?"

I suppose if he were a Satanist or worse (say, a Scientologist), you wouldn't care. What does religion have to do with politics, right? It's certainly doesn't have anything to do with ethics. And as we all know ethics and politics are completely unrelated. The guy I'm backing is a Druid... but he says he'll nominate justices in the mold of Roberts and Alito.

"I suppose if he were a Satanist or worse (say, a Scientologist), you wouldn't care."

It would depend upon his political philosophy and my assessment of his integrity. I couldn't imagine a Satanist even being more evil than this Administration.

Eric,

I'm sure an attempt to persuade you is pointless, but I'll give it a shot anyway. Let me begin with a simple series of related questions: Do you think it's a coincidence that liberal (in the classical sense) regimes have only (naturally) arisen among peoples that are predominantely Christian? Conversely, is it a coincidence that there are no natural liberal regimes in predominantly Muslim or Hindu regions? In other words, do you believe that religious beliefs in themselves are completely neutral when it comes to the political character of a people?

Eric,

I'm sure an attempt to persuade you is pointless, but I'll give it a shot anyway. Let me begin with a simple series of related questions: Do you think it's a coincidence that liberal (in the classical sense) regimes have only (naturally) arisen among peoples that are predominantely Christian? Conversely, is it a coincidence that there are no natural liberal regimes in predominantly Muslim or Hindu regions? In other words, do you believe that religious beliefs in themselves are completely neutral when it comes to the political character of a people?

Yeah. Evil. Like that Devil Spawn Cheney and his wife who gave away 78% of their income (that would be millions) to charities while that kinder gentler harbinger of change and hope Obama and his misguided shrew of an other half donated around 6%.

Ralph,

"Do you think it's a coincidence that liberal (in the classical sense) regimes have only (naturally) arisen among peoples that are predominantely Christian?"

The question is too complex and broad to provide a simple "yes" or "no" to. Classical liberal regimes didn't start arising in the West until about 1500 years after Christianity, and arguably at that point the West began to enter a post-Christian age. The Icelandic Althing is the oldest representative government in the world, and it was established (circa 1000) by Norse pagans. Tentatively, I would say that Christianity is more amenable to liberal regimes, and that there is no inherent antagonisms between Christian precepts and liberal regimes. The same could not be said of Hinduism (caste system) and Islam (theocracy).

"Conversely, is it a coincidence that there are no natural liberal regimes in predominantly Muslim or Hindu regions?"

Since liberal regimes arose in the West and are particular to a specific time and place, it's unreasonable to expect other traditions to adopt the same form of government. Naturally, I don't think all people -- due to history, culture, religion -- are equally capable of adopting liberal ideas. This of course is one of the reasons why the "democratization" of Iraq is absurd because it assumes our form of government -- which is predicated on specific values -- can be easily grafted onto any country. Those who applaud our "nation-building" efforts in Iraq are the ones who believe that religious differences don't matter.

"In other words, do you believe that religious beliefs in themselves are completely neutral when it comes to the political character of a people?"

No. However, the debate is whether Barack Obama may secretly be a Muslim, and if this matters. Regardless of Obama's religious affiliation it isn't going to affect the religious tenor of the American people. Perhaps Thomas Jefferson was secretly an atheist (or agnostic) but that didn't affect the religiosity of the American people.

ASDF,

You're right. War -- which means slaughtering thousands of innocent people -- is a good Christian value. Peace is the work of the devil.

"Classical liberal regimes didn't start arising in the West until about 1500 years after Christianity, and arguably at that point the West began to enter a post-Christian age."

You're missing the point. First, there is a difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Certainly, that a people is Christian is not sufficient for the emergence of liberal regimes. Other conditions must be met as well. But Christianity (or something like it) appears to be necessary for the (eventual) emergence of liberal regimes. Second, even though Europe began to become more secular in the modern era, nevertheless, that secularity is (ironically) founded on the Christian character that it reacted against. The tradition of natural law and the rights that are born of it is the foundation of liberalism. That tradition is firmly rooted in the Christian thought of the Scholastics.

The primary element in the Middle-Eastern and Eastern cultures is religious. Those religious cultures are incompatible with liberalism. Accordingly, to the extent that a person has been shaped by those cultures, they are incompatible with liberalism.

I do not think Obama is secretly a Muslim. I do think that he has been shaped, to some degree, by Islamic culture. To what degree is an open question, but it is a very important one for the man would be President of the greates liberal regime in history. If he were muslim in character (if not in belief), he would be a dangerous leader, not because he might "affect the religious tenor of the American people," but because he might enact policies that adversely affect the freedoms of the American people. He's already a Democrat, so that's expected. But as bad as Democrats are, they aren't Muslims.

Sure, I don't disagree with the idea that Christianity can create certain pre-conditions that allow liberal regimes to develop. However, to some extent Athens was arguably a liberal regime and it wasn't Christian, and neither was Iceland. Perhaps it can be said that of all the religious traditions Christianity is the one most likely to encourage liberal ideas, but even here there are some distinctions to be made within Christianity itself: liberalism seems to be more common among the Protestant than Catholic; and more common among the Catholic than the Orthodox.

Obama may become our next president, but that won't make him a sultan, so he just can take away our freedoms without Congressional approval. I don't think Obama is very religious anyway; he strikes me as a predictable secular humanist.