France Closes 4 Mosques for Promoting 'Radical Ideology'

joG said:

Well, there are crimes we should decriminalise. Putting people in jail that take or sell hashish is quite counterproductive.
As to debating when violence should and should not be accepted? Yes, absolutely. That must fall under free speech. And forbidding one half the opinions will deny society the strength of persuasion.

Click to expand...

I am all for debates, bot not for public calls to murder innocents.

What those imams are professing are calls to Jihad, to kill non-Muslims, to kill Jews, to kill gays, to kill apostates, to get a car and run over pedestrians, to grab guns and shoot our children.

PeteEU said:

Has been happening the last 10+ years.. just not much coverage of it. Imans have been kicked out and so on. Nothing new.

Does it work.. not really, I suspect it just drives the radicals more underground.

Click to expand...

Six feet underground would seem to be ideal.

shanners said:

Interesting that that article comes from Israel, a nation where you'd be hard pushed to find a more radical ideology than the one which claims that the souls of non-Jews are a "different species."

What's the interior minister gonna do about that? Order the closure of several synagogues?

Click to expand...

And Stormfront is heard from.

Auvergnat said:

I am all for debates, bot not for public calls to murder innocents.

What those imams are professing are calls to Jihad, to kill non-Muslims, to kill Jews, to kill gays, to kill apostates, to get a car and run over pedestrians, to grab guns and shoot our children.

Click to expand...

It is a narrow line. We can probably agree that saying we will pay you $ 10.000, if you kill Sam, should be illegal. But saying that it is good to kill old white men is not something I would probably want to be forbidden und normal circumstances. And as yet we are living under normal circumstances.

joG said:

But saying that it is good to kill old white men is not something I would probably want to be forbidden und normal circumstances.

Click to expand...

Would you also tolerate white preachers calling their protégés to kill all black men?

joG said:

It is a narrow line. We can probably agree that saying we will pay you $ 10.000, if you kill Sam, should be illegal. But saying that it is good to kill old white men is not something I would probably want to be forbidden und normal circumstances. And as yet we are living under normal circumstances.

Click to expand...

The problem with your position is that it refuses to recognize the existence of incitement, even as a concept.
Civilized societies do recognize the problems that incitement cause and thus address it using laws.
Free speech is not a right without any limitations, it never held the definition you're assigning to it, what you're cherishing is thus not "free speech" and should be given a different name.

Auvergnat said:

Would you also tolerate white preachers calling their protégés to kill all black men?

Click to expand...

I think it is a question of how direct the call is. Debating euthanasia like in the 1920s and arguing that different catagories of humans should be killed was iffy, but should be protected by the rules of democratic engagement. it is up to those of different opinion to contradict not forbid. To ask of the congregation to kill malformed individuals in the specific neighbourhood might and I say might be something you should restrict. That would depend on the specifics of the revolting admonitions.

Apocalypse said:

The problem with your position is that it refuses to recognize the existence of incitement, even as a concept.
Civilized societies do recognize the problems that incitement cause and thus address it using laws.
Free speech is not a right without any limitations, it never held the definition you're assigning to it, what you're cherishing is thus not "free speech" and should be given a different name.

Click to expand...

The concept is clear enough as are the potential dangers of freedom. it is just that the limit to free expression is a very slippery slope. In Europe and other places we are seeing the way this works. I live part of the time in a country that is developing a massive problem out of the limits put on free speech in the past. Of course, in populations with infirm grasps of the fundamentals of governance the dangers are larger. But forbidding it is a declaration of societal bankruptcy.

Free expression stops at incitement to hate and crime potentially resulting there from.

A basic tenet that won't find invalidation by anybody (here a poster) by wanting to argue over it just simply for the sake of arguing. :roll:

joG said:

The concept is clear enough as are the potential dangers of freedom. it is just that the limit to free expression is a very slippery slope. In Europe and other places we are seeing the way this works. I live part of the time in a country that is developing a massive problem out of the limits put on free speech in the past. Of course, in populations with infirm grasps of the fundamentals of governance the dangers are larger. But forbidding it is a declaration of societal bankruptcy.

Click to expand...

You need to really pay attention to what you're being told if you want to get anywhere in discussion, what you just did was to simply repeat your position while ignoring everything that was said about it and that's very counterproductive.

What I said in my previous post in a nutshell is that the freedom of speech in Western societies was always limited and incitement was never allowed. It's not something new that incitement is against the law in any Western nation. Your assertion that forbidding incitement will lead to societal bankruptcy is thus ridiculous, incitement always was banned and this is the society the people of the Western world consider to be a moral society.

What you're advocating, again, is not something that exists, it's not "free expression" and not "freedom of speech", it's "joG's new & made up right". IMO it's highly immoral to allow incitement by law and I'm thankful that Western society never considered that option.

Apocalypse said:

You need to really pay attention to what you're being told if you want to get anywhere in discussion, what you just did was to simply repeat your position while ignoring everything that was said about it and that's very counterproductive.......................~

Click to expand...

I guess that, having already said enough at the cut off point, you could haves stopped right there.

But what you added is hopefully of educational value to others that are not solely interested in just getting their (however ridiculous) view point posted.

What country s/he refers to as living in part of the time is certainly not in Europe, but more a figment of imagination.

Apocalypse said:

You need to really pay attention to what you're being told if you want to get anywhere in discussion, what you just did was to simply repeat your position while ignoring everything that was said about it and that's very counterproductive.

What I said in my previous post in a nutshell is that the freedom of speech in Western societies was always limited and incitement was never allowed. It's not something new that incitement is against the law in any Western nation. Your assertion that forbidding incitement will lead to societal bankruptcy is thus ridiculous, incitement always was banned and this is the society the people of the Western world consider to be a moral society.

What you're advocating, again, is not something that exists, it's not "free expression" and not "freedom of speech", it's "joG's new & made up right". IMO it's highly immoral to allow incitement by law and I'm thankful that Western society never considered that option.

Click to expand...

It would be cool, if you would follow your own advice.
There is no question that in our society you have never been allowed to say you would pay someone, if they killed a particular citizen. Did I say that? No, I don't think I did.
What I would say is that you are being obnoxiously indefinite about what incitement means and seem to be arguing the position of autocratic tradition. That is not to say that immature societies and ones at war do not have to control the populations more rigorously than mature ones. But your proposition is dangerous in any but in a state of existential war.

joG said:

It would be cool, if you would follow your own advice.
There is no question that in our society you have never been allowed to say you would pay someone, if they killed a particular citizen. Did I say that? No, I don't think I did.
What I would say is that you are being obnoxiously indefinite about what incitement means and seem to be arguing the position of autocratic tradition. That is not to say that immature societies and ones at war do not have to control the populations more rigorously than mature ones. But your proposition is dangerous in any but in a state of existential war.

Click to expand...

"My proposition"?
The fact that I refer you to how things really work in Western society (and always did) and you refer to it as "my proposition" shows you're merely not willing to accept reality for what it is.
I don't propose to change anything. You on the other hand do, you're saying that the way things work in Democracy is wrong and you wish for something else that is not Democratic and something else that is not the freedom of speech, and in that something else you wish to allow things like that in the OP that are not allowed in any Western society and never were allowed.

Opposing your position and supporting Democracy is no more 'autocratic' than an opposition to war is 'warmongering'.

Calling for the closure of all mosques is not hate speech?

ecofarm said:

Calling for the closure of all mosques is not hate speech?

Click to expand...

We are talking about a religion whose scriptures order to kill half of Frenchmen, and it is undergoing a global mass radicalization wave since the 80's (90's in the west). In my opinion this would be no different from closing all of the Nazi party's offices.

That being said I actually advocate for more subtlety, such as creating a new status of religion under surveillance through which we would ban the construction of new Mosques and close most of existing ones over fifteen years under various pretenses, thanks to discretionary administrative procedures.

The most important challenge is that France must not become a Franco-Islamic culture, as it is currently becoming. Preventing such a horror and civilizational setback is vastly more important than their freedom of religion, and necessary to preserve our own freedom.

Apocalypse said:

Your assertion that forbidding incitement will lead to societal bankruptcy is thus ridiculous, incitement always was banned and this is the society the people of the Western world consider to be a moral society.

Click to expand...

This allegedly "moral society" is tolerating intolerable things, such as:
* hundreds of thousands of women forced to wear the veil.
* the general pressure exerted by radical Muslims (half of them) over all brown people, who do not enjoy freedom of non-religion.
* the spread of a retrograde and intolerant ideology that oppresses women, gays, Jews and many others.
* the resurgence of antisemitism and the departure of many Jews who feel safer in a country at war because in France they suffer assaults and live in fear.
* the widespread anti-white racism, millions of acts every year, tens of thousands of complaints, and not a single judiciary decision.
* the public discriminations (the countless job offers for "brothers" and "sisters" on Facebook), and not a single judiciary decision.
* the public law violations (illegal street occupation for public prayers, civil agents wearing religious signs), and not a single judiciary decision.
* the high frequency of rapes near Muslims suburbs, mostly targeting white women, or to a lesser extent brown women wearing "indecent" clothes.
* the forever increase of ethnic diversity despite the high negative costs in social, societal and economic terms, that will leave our countries defiant, unhappy, bitter, divided, conflicted and poorer for centuries.

The deplorable situation we now face has a lot to do with the fact that Muslims think they can do whatever they want because most of white people are too scared to criticize them because of ostracism and social pressures, with the fact that measuring and discussing reality is prohibited, with the fact that medias and politicians do not dare to discuss those problems because of judiciary repression and career terminations.

We live under a political repression and because of this we have let a small problem become enormous, with an Islam more important and more radical than twenty years ago, and one third of high-schoolers in Paris' region now being Muslims, which many people ignore (the national average is only 7% but they are mostly young and in urban areas).

Amazing developments in the (historical) interpretation of the Muslim religion indeed.

Not only do its scriptures demand the killing of French men and women (amazing considering how not even the term "Franks" came to Muslim attention until well after the prophet's death), they also show the required percentage to be killed.

As somebody said already, you just can't make this stuff up.

Chagos said:

Amazing developments in the (historical) interpretation of the Muslim religion indeed.

Not only do its scriptures demand the killing of French men and women (amazing considering how not even the term "Franks" came to Muslim attention until well after the prophet's death), they also show the required percentage to be killed.

As somebody said already, you just can't make this stuff up.

Click to expand...

The Koran orders the murder of atheists and a third of us are atheists, and another third agnostic.

So the remaining third is half. Unless the previous two thirds is (are) half.

Looks like limited capacity of data interpretation even extends to maths.

Chagos said:

So the remaining third is half. Unless the previous two thirds is (are) half.

Looks like limited capacity of data interpretation even extends to maths.

Click to expand...

But that is not important. It is what the religion preaches. Minimizing it with off topic bull**** does not work.

Now would you like to discuss a solution, besides ignoring, the very serious problem of Islam? Get back to us when you have something to say.

truthatallcost said:

They choose to isolate themselves by not embracing French culture and history. They can go isolate themselves back to their motherlands, as they contribute nothing to France that you can name.

Click to expand...

I have fourth generation Muslim friends who have never seen their "motherland" and know nothing about the place.

zyzygy said:

I have fourth generation Muslim friends who have never seen their "motherland" and know nothing about the place.

Click to expand...

So were some second generation Muslims, whose majority proved to be even more radical than their parents.
So were some third generation Muslims, whose majority proved to be even more radical than their parents.

After decades of seeing problems worsen, I cannot believe any longer that time will solve them. Pursuing the same failed policies will not eventually succeed. There is a problem with Islam, in all countries.

Auvergnat said:

So were some second generation Muslims, whose majority proved to be even more radical than their parents.
So were some third generation Muslims, whose majority proved to be even more radical than their parents.

After decades of seeing problems worsen, I cannot believe any longer that time will solve them. Pursuing the same failed policies will not eventually succeed. There is a problem with Islam, in all countries.

Click to expand...

They are not radical where I live. The majority are not more radical than their parents. Stop making things up.

zyzygy said:

They are not radical where I live. The majority are not more radical than their parents. Stop making things up.

Click to expand...

Islamism is a global movement.

It is not happening here or there, it is happening everywhere, on all continents, in all countries. Two good reads from academics:
* The history and rise of Islamism
* Islam is an identity: the rise of Global Islam

As for where YOU live, where is it? USA?
* Most of American Muslims want to ban blasphemy. source
* Most of American Muslims want Sharia courts to be mandatory or optional, instead of US courts. source
* American Muslims feel Muslim more often than American, and reject assimilation more often than they want it. source

Auvergnat said:

Islamism is a global movement.

It is not happening here or there, it is happening everywhere, on all continents, in all countries. Two good reads from academics:
* The history and rise of Islamism
* Islam is an identity: the rise of Global Islam

As for where YOU live, where is it? USA?
* Most of American Muslims want to ban blasphemy. source
* Most of American Muslims want Sharia courts to be mandatory or optional, instead of US courts. source
* American Muslims feel Muslim more often than American, and reject assimilation more often than they want it. source

Click to expand...

There is a clue as to where I live next to my posts, on the left hand side.