Politici zien niet met lede ogen nar de huidige crisis van vluchtelingen en religieus tumult, maar hopen er handig gebruik van te maken om hun agenda door te voeren om religie naar de achtergrond of zelfs verdomhoekje te brengen.
Zogezegd horen wij te leven in een rechtsstaat waar er vrijheden van uiting en godsdienstbeleving zijn en de burger zijn rechten en vrijheden kan doen gelden waardoor hij geen
speelbal meer is van onnoembare krachten. De paradox is dat de politici
en beleidsmensen die gezorgd hebben voor een evenwichtig leefkader voor
iedere burger nu enigszins teruggefloten worden en kiezers blijkbaar
liever opteren voor rechtse veelbelovers en harde roepers.
In meerdere landen zien wij meer dan één politieker handig gebruik maken van het populisme en van de angst die bij veel mensen is opgekomen door het extreem moslim fundamentalisme.
Patrick Dewael als fractieleider van Open VLD en als vrijzinnige pleit om
expliciet geloof en staat te scheiden waardoor iedere geloofsbeleving
verbannen wordt naar de privésfeer. Uiteraard zullen velen dit idee
steunen om de beweerde druk van de islam te verminderen. Maar blijkbaar
wil men ook het christendom en de joden verzoeken om hun inspiratie
enkel thuis te beleven. Trouwens wat voor de een geldt moet ook voor de ander gelden.
Advocaat
Paul Quirynen, goed thuis in de katholieke wereld, vreest dat sommige
vrijzinnigen de strijd tegen moslimextremisme handig gebruiken om het
publieke gedrag van andere gelovigen, zoals christenen of joden, in te perken.
In het boek van Bart Somers ‘Samen leven, een hoopvolle strategie tegen
IS’ lezen we met genoegen dat zonder levensbeschouwelijke tolerantie
een open samenleving niet kan functioneren, dat vrijheid onbestaande is
en diversiteit onmogelijk. Door meer in te zetten op vrijheid en tolerantie, mensenrechten en democratie …behouden we de ziel van onze samenleving.
Dat Patrick Dewael alle religies in de privésfeer wil duwen heeft als
resultaat dat enkel de atheïstische religie recht op spreken heeft. Dat
is in onze democratische samenleving niet wenselijk.
Het wordt hoog tijd dat de politici er aan werken om veralgemening tegen te gaan en om de mensen duidelijk te laten zien dat bepaalde fundamentalistische groepen niets te maken hebben met het geloof van vele anderen die de naam van hun geloof wel waardig dragen.
Ook wij als burgers, gelovigen en niet gelovigen, moeten er op toe zien dat de rechten van iedereen gevrijwaard worden en dat er door generaliseren geen verkeerd beeld de overhand krijgt. Er moet duidelijk gemaakt worden dat niet alle moslims extremisten zijn, maar dat integendeel diegenen die zogenaamd vechten voor Allah en de Jihad, mensen zijn die niet volgens de Koran handelen en zich helemaal niet gedragen naar de leerstellingen van hun profeet en hun God.
Elke waardige burger van een vrij democratisch land moet er op toe zien dat er ruimte wordt gegeven aan niet gelovigen zowel als aan gelovigen, aan alle religies en dat eigen geloofsextremisme
wordt bestreden.
Door alle moslims uit te bannen gaan we ook andere
waardevolle religies in de privésfeer duwen.
At Islam is Nazism with a God I gave an answer to the question on what I thought of her concern for freedom of speech.
A video is presented on that site and like on may sites we can find several remarks and find lots of sayings of which we can agree with or not. On the internet is a lot to find by which we can or do not want to interact with people face to face. In most instances people get to see and react to texts of people we don’t see and in most cases even don’t know them.
The danger of such encounters is that such visits to different websites as well as message boards may give the visitor not the feeling they really are talking with other human beings who have their feelings like we do have ours.
N.S. Palmer who has degrees in mathematics, economics, philosophy, and
biology and is currently affiliated with Hebrew College, blogs for The Jerusalem Post and The Jewish Journal as well as his own blog where he writes
the people we encounter on the Internet seem less real to us than those
we meet in person. As a result, we tend to take them less seriously as
human beings. We are less inclined to worry about hurting their feelings
or treating them unjustly. Quite realistically, we are also less likely
to worry about arguments leading to physical confrontation or
retribution.
Perhaps it is that knowledge of not having to face that person and of being sure that we shall not encounter that person in real life, that gives for some the permission to do impermissible acts.
Often it is that anonymity which lets forget many that they should be talking decently and act politely to the other on the other end of the line.
It is like the professor says, that we
We are sitting in our homes where
nobody can see us. We are less inclined to feel shame if we do something
hurtful.{Why Are People So Mean on the Internet?}
It is that non-seen other, which makes so many chatters or internet users, to forget all decency and respect for the other.
Occasional anger and frustration make take on appropriate forms. Bottled up rage many let their steam go off when they get on the computer.
When we had the MSN Groups it started already to go the wrong way, people forgetting any decency, norm and values. Today it did not change for the better. The opposite, it became even worse, and many seem to take certain words or language for normal.
We seem to find more and more people who resort to insults, name-calling, and other kinds of online
vitriol. In a way they sometimes go so far we feel pity with them because they can not control their feelings nor their anger, which shows us how frustrated they are. Luckily we know they are either venting anger that has nothing to do with us, or
they are deliberately trying to goad us into a screaming match.
When we look at what is said on the internet, and see how many lies are told or how many are raging about, without any blush on the cheeks, we could wonder how much we should allow and how far Free speech may go.
Brooke Godlstein looks at those people who shout they are Hamas.
Their actions may have us wonder how far Free Speech goes. Can we allow
negation of the Holocaust? Can we allow people to cry for hatred against
one or another nation or race? the same could be asked about the
allowance of money entering a coutnry for funding of certain
organisations, be it right wing (Nazi, extreme Jewish/Christian or
Muslim fundamentalism) or extreme left wing (extreme Marxism or
Communism).
How far wants one to go to allow free speech when it is known that
those speakers are funded by terrorist organisations and also steer to
terrorist acts?
I think when a organisation wants to dominate and not allow an other
to have the right to speak it should be counter acted. They should be
able to have their say but others should have the right to react to them
as well. But here the State or Government has a duty to fulfil to have
everything under control and to watch those who want to dominate others
and could endanger our society. As soon as the secret intelligence
encounters dangerous elements they should make them public and show all
in the nation who those ‘preachers’ or ‘speakers’ are and what they do
plus what the danger of them for the nation is.
Pamella Geller is right to say we need to talk about this. Everything
should be considered and spoken off. It would be wrong to allow only
one party a voice and to censure an other.
A State have to assure all its citizens that they all have the right to
look at something, to study something, but also to criticise something.
As such Judaism, Christianity but also Islam should be able to judged
and criticised by the citizens of the nation, being them atheists, Jews,
Christians, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhists or from other religions. all
sorts of religions and nor religious group should be able to be put
under the magnifying glasses.
Though we do have to be careful not to call all religious people or
non-religious people savages. At the moment there is a tendency to
declare all religions awful and the cause of evil. In Europe, and
probably also in many parts of America, many think religion is the cause
of evil, and everything has to be done to stop religious awareness. In
North America the many Christians would cry high from their tower, but
by their heavy actions against other religions they could cause the same
reactions as we now have to undergo in Europe.
The interviewer of Geller shows she understood the Quran and the
meaning of Jihad = struggle. Geller her perspective of that Jihad or her
view of holy war is not the view of the bible nor the quaran wich both
speak about the holy war which has already gone on for ages (spoken of
in the Torah, Prophets, Hebrew Writings, Greek Writings, Quranic
verses).
Geller telling that christians would not behead others in the name of
Christ does not seem to know her history nor the present Asian
situation where still such things happen today. Even in the States of
America we can find people like the Westboro Baptist Church who shout
hate and hurt other people a lot. In the States there have been also
Christians who said they were against killing the unborn but did not
mind killing doctors who worked at abortion clinics. That are also
Christians who bring damage to others in the name of their religion. The
same we can find fundamentalist Jews who kill others, so called in the
name of their religion. Look at what happens in Israel and how certain
fundamentalists take in the land of others and protect their settlements
with violence.
But please do not forget that politician violence and non-religious
related violence is still the most common violence. The majority of
terrorist acts have nothing to do with religion. The majority of
believers in the different religions, pagan or not pagan, preach for
self-development in a peaceful atmosphere.
We do not have to abridge or stop our free speech for not offending
any body, be it savages or even civilised human beings who think
differently. When not having the same idea it will always be possible to
have a conflict of ideas and can there be the possibility to offend
some one. That is part of the consequences of free speech, we have to
endure or to allow.
When Geller talks about savages and savagery would she consider the
native American as savages, like her ancestors did or would she
recognise that many Europeans who came to conquer the country of those
natives behaved as savages? Did she ever thought of the fact that
certain Muslims may consider those white people who live there in the
North American halfround, who fornicate and have no good morals, could
also be considered savages today by other nations or peoples?
The indigenous people of America had also their own civilised rules
of conduct and way of life, which came disturbed by the colonial
intruders. the same for the white Europeans who conquered spaces in the
Southern halfround of this globe. In the name of Christ they also
oppressed many peoples and pushed their own believes and faith into
their throat. Many so called Christians even did not mind to take people
captive and rape and sell them, not even interested if they would die
in bad circumstances or not.
Perhaps it would not be bad to reflect on the similarity of the early
crusades and collonialisation with the present crusade of certain
Muslims or Arabic peoples.
It is true that we have a problem today which many try to avoid or to
go out of the way, thinking it would go away by not talking about it.
Not talking about it is wrong. We just should do everything to have it
possible to talk about those issues and to have clear voices showing all
the issues and how certain people could be a danger for the community.
Though each person who wants to bring something in debate and wants
to talk against something, like being against a book or movie, should
have knowledge of that book or move. Not like Geller not having seen the
trailer nor the movie. And a trailer can not even say it all. When one
wants to be against something the person has to know what he or she is
against, and as such should have had contact with it, read or seen it.
today we do find too many christians who are against the Quran because
they think certain things are standing in that book, because they only
heard the false preachers misusing that book and twisting verses. The
same about several Christians who do not know their own Scriptures,
often never having read the full Bible, from A to Z, but in the ban of
false teachers who only present verses taken out of context and looked
at from human doctrine.
the interviewer has good reason to say that when Geller wants to take
on this issue we would expect to have her taken interest in that issue
and having studied it. She telling it does not mater and she did not
need to know … proofs she only wants to take her own idea and wants
others to go for her restricted ideas only, not needing to have the real
truth of what is all behind it or how it really is and who is really
spoken about.
She is right to say we do not have to like what is said, because that
is freedom of speech, but than she too should allow others the same
right to have that freedom, to talk like she does about things they seem
not to know so well. It is for others then to come in to the circle of
debate and show both parties that they might have it at the wrong end of
the stick.
Personally I thing, and certainly for politicians, those who have a
higher position in society or have a special role in a community,
should take up their responsibility and to look at things in a
honourable and humble way, trying to stay correct to the matter, having
looked at it seriously, in honour and conscience. It is the task of a
politician to know the subject, to have studied it before speaking about
it. She has to take care that she or he is honest to both parties
involved and try to enlighten all, with showing what can be known and
trying to uncover what is hidden for the public.
Geller considers herself as the messenger, but she forgets or does not
want to see she herself is excluding the freedom of speech for those
who do not agree with her or have an other view. She also seems not
willing to see that the media have an important role to play in show
both sides of the medal. The media also has to bring the voices of all
parties involved. That is also part of the freedom of speech, and giving
the public the right to come to their own conclusions, without imposing
their own views (hopefully – though all media stations are naturally
influenced in a certain way or have a certain starting view).
Nobody may be couched in silencing the voice of freedom of speech.
You would imagine that state television tries to bring up the next generation in good order, and would like them to have good contacts with their neighbours. You would not expect the little box in the house-room to bring messages to throw stones at others.
