More on Sweden

Monday, February 27, AD 2017

 

 

The outrage over Trump telling the truth over Sweden continues to reverberate:

 

 

 

A Swedish detective who has triggered a row by blaming violent crime on migrants has gone one step further and accused politicians of turning a blind eye to the problem because of ‘political correctness’.Earlier this month Peter Springare, who has spent more than 40 years in the police, aired his anger on social media when he was told not to record the ethnicity of violent crime suspects.Springare, 61, who is based in the central city of Orebro, wrote: ‘Countries representing the weekly crimes: Iraq, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Somalia, Syria again, Somalia, unknown, unknown country, Sweden.  ‘Half of the suspects, we can’t be sure because they don’t have any valid papers. Which in itself usually means that they’re lying about your nationality and identity.’  Prosecutors launched an inquiry, suggesting he had incited racial hatred, but later dropped the charges.

 

Now Springare has told The Sunday Times: ‘The highest and most extreme violence – rapes and shooting – is dominated by criminal immigrants.  This is a different criminality that is tougher and rawer. It is not what we would call ordinary Swedish crime. This is a different animal.’  In his Facebook post Springare wrote: ‘I’m so f***ing tired. What I will write here below, is not politically correct. But I don’t care. What I’m going to promote you all taxpayers is prohibited to peddle for us state employees.’  He wrote: ‘Here we go; this I’ve handled Monday-Friday this week: rape, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, rape-assault and rape, extortion, blackmail, off of, assault, violence against police, threats to police, drug crime, drugs, crime, felony, attempted murder, Rape again, extortion again and ill-treatment.  ‘Suspected perpetrators; Ali Mohammed, mahmod, Mohammed, Mohammed Ali, again, again, again Christopher… what is it true. Yes a Swedish name snuck on the outskirts of a drug crime, Mohammed, Mahmod Ali, again and again.’  Springare said he was due to retire soon and therefore no longer feared the disciplinary proceedings which might be brought against a younger officer for disobeying their superiors and raising the issue.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to More on Sweden

  • We would say in The Bronx, “They got nothin’.” Liberals and their lying media propaganda apparatus only have infallible ignorance, lies, lies, lies, and lies. For them, the “truth” is that which advances the revolution. Any act, datum, fact, incident, statistic that does not advance the revolution is omitted or distorted. Keep that in mind, and it all makes sense.

  • Trump for all his bombastic personality told the truth, and the liberals lied.

  • Prog-trash in Sweden and in the United States have a similar modus operandi. They have mascot groups and an implicit or explicit hierarchy of cool administered by the word-merchant sector. Acknowledgement of sociological truth concerning the Anointed’s mascot groups is ‘hate’, whereas any sort of casual insult is permitted contra the Benighted. Muslim immigrants in Sweden are potential clientele to the social work industry and useful instruments in marginalizing Sweden’s vernacular natives. Same deal with Latin immigration in the states. As yet, lawfare artists like Eric Holder and Thomas Perez do not have the legal tools to put the political opposition on trial (see Geert Wilders and Mark Steyn), but they’re academic shyster auxilliary is indubitably working on getting the right specious rubbish in circulation. Right now, civil judgments are being used in this country contra dissidents like Baronelle Stutzman. Lee Kwan Yew was a great one for destroying his opponents through bogus defamation suits. Now, what has the academy in this country to say about Baronelle Stutzman, and what has the establishment bar to say? Nothing. A hallmark of the age is that people who traffick in words and images for a living are intellectual and moral frauds.

  • http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445257/tom-perez-dnc-chief-hardcore-progressive

    Every time you think the Democratic Party has hit bottom and cannot sink any lower, they prove you wrong.

  • This protection of political correctness will eventually blow up in face of these liars. Sharia law should be imposed upon all liberals who would have the public believe that Trump is the problem. To see the fallout of Jihad in West Hollywood, Beverly Hills and Berkeley would be poetic, however the conservative’s would be blamed for it.

    A wake up call for Sweden deniers will come. When it does it will be sobering.
    Bloody sobering.

  • Sweden was the most powerful nation in mid 17th century Europe. The Swedish Army smashed the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. One of my great-grandfather emigrated from Sweden. What has become of that nation?
    Sweden had little history of fighting Islam, but Spain has and they aren’t far from being in Sweden’s situation.
    The Visegard countries are leaving the way in Europe against the Muslim invasion.

  • Sweden was the most powerful nation in mid 17th century Europe.

    No, it was a regional power at the time. Spain and Portugal had a portfolio of overseas dependencies. Britain and the Netherlands were building one, as was France, to a degree. Russia was settling Siberia. Sweden had a population at that time less than that of the Netherlands, perhaps 20% that of Britain, and a small fraction of that of Spain, or of France or the Hapsburg lands.

  • I can count on you to pick an argument, Art. The “regional” power brought Poland to its knees. Poland was no pushover. in 1610 Pol;and occupied Moscow. I’ll bet a dollar you will quote some other historical source to say it never happened.

    Go argue with someone else.

  • I can count on you to pick an argument, Art.

    When you say something bizarre, you should expect it. Sweden is a country of modest dimensions and, in context, always has been. It has never in any era been one of Europe’s leading powers.

  • I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but I thought this Wikipedia quote might
    expand upon what I believe Penguins Fan was getting at, re: Sweden, from its
    biography of Gustavus Adolphus…

    “Gustav II Adolf… was the King of Sweden from 1611 to 1632 and is credited
    as the founder of Sweden as a Great Power (Swedish: Stormaktsiden). He led
    Sweden to military supremacy during the Thirty Year’s War, helping to determine
    the political as well as the religious balance of power in Europe. …
    He is often regarded as one of the greatest military commanders of all time,
    with innovative use of combined arms. … Gustavus was poised to make himself
    a major European leader, but he was killed at the Battle of Lutzen in 1632… In
    an era characterized by almost endless warfare, he led his armies as King from
    1611 (at age 16) until his death in battle… — as Sweden rose from the status
    of a mere regional power to one of the great powers of Europe… Within only a
    few years of his accession, Sweden had become the largest nation in Europe
    after Russia, Spain, and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. …He was known
    by the epithets “The Golden King” and “The Lion of the North” by neighboring
    sovereigns. He made Sweden one of the great powers of Europe in part by
    reforming the administrative structure. … etc., …”.

    Again, I don’t have a dog in this whole “Was Sweden Ever a Great Power?”
    disagreement here, but I do think that Penguins Fan’s assertion has merit,
    and is by no means “bizarre”. Just my 2 cents…

    And back to the point of Mr. McClarey’s post, yes indeed, the Swedish leaders’
    fanatical commitment to PC-uber-alles is driving that nation into the ditch.
    It is my understanding that the government has started to decline to release
    unflattering statistics on rape and violent crime, so bad are the reports.

  • Clinton, you are correct. I recall the Canadian military historian Gwynne Dyer writing that Gustav II Adolf created the first army that Alexander the Great would not have known how to command. In particular he invented the field artillery tactics that with modification are still in use today. Sweden managed to gobble up the entire Baltic including German Pomerania.

  • Sweden was blessed, or cursed, with two kings of military genius: Gustavus Adolphus and Charles XII. Gustavus, who died in 1633 at the battle of Lutzen, was one of the great military innovators in history. Under him Sweden got involved in the Thirty Years War and until his death the Swedes were unbeatable. However, after his death the Swedes would have another 15 years of war with gains from the war not worth the pains they went through in the war. Ironically the great champion of Protestantism would be succeeded by his daughter Cristina who would give up the throne after she converted to Catholicism.

    Charles XII was the best tactician of his day, but his attempt to conquer Russia was purest folly and came to an end at Poltava, which marks the fall of the Swedish Empire and the rise of the Russian Empire. A fitting epitaph for Charles is “Last of the Vikings”.

  • I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but I thought this Wikipedia quote might
    expand upon what I believe Penguins Fan was getting at, re: Sweden, from its
    biography of Gustavus Adolphus…

    You found a quotation by a Swedish chauvinist. They were a participant in the 30 years war. So was Bavaria. We’re talking about a country which had (per Angus Maddison) a productive capacity 1/5th that of Britain, 1/5th that of the United Netherlands and perhaps 2/5 that of the Hapsburg Netherlands and perhaps 1/6th of Spanish output. (Maddison provides no estimates for France). We do not usually refer to Canada or Spain as a ‘great power’ today.

  • Let me wade into the Swedish/Polish controversy…Sweden was certainly a powerful regional military force for the 17th and beginning of the 18th century. The Poles and Swedes tangled in the Baltic region in the early 17th century and Gustavus learned new cavalry tactics from the Polish cavalry, which he put to use in the Thirty Years War.

    The Swedish invasion of the 1650’s and the temporary collapse of Polish resistance was the result of the debilitating impacts of the Cossack revolt and almost 50 years of off and on conflict with the Turks and Russians. It was also abetted by the unfortunate behavior of the Polish nobles to care more about their own interests rather than the country’s.

    By the time Charles XII came along the Poles were ruled by the Saxon Augustus and we’re a mere shell of their previous military might.

Sweden and Trump

Tuesday, February 21, AD 2017

 

Oh this is too hilarious. Just twenty-four hours after Trump was ripped by the left in this country and the Swedish government for clumsily pointing out the problems that mass Islamic immigration has caused to Sweden, this happens:

 

 

As we reported last night, just days after the media mocked Trump for his allegations of major problems with Swedish migrant policies, the president was vindicated after a violent riot broke out in the borough of Rinkeby, also known as “little Mogadishu.” Now that the incident is over, in their “post-mortem” Swedish officials confirm that riots erupted in the “heavily immigrant Stockholm suburb” Monday night, as masked looters set cars ablaze and threw rocks at cops, injuring one police officer, Swedish officials said.

The violence erupted just days after President Trump was ridiculed during a Saturday campaign rally for mentioning Sweden alongside a list of European targets of terror. Trump later said his “You look at what’s happening last night in Sweden” remark was in response to a Fox News report on the country’s refugee crime crisis that aired on Friday evening.

“Sweden. They took in large numbers [of refugees],” Trump added at the Florida rally. “They’re having problems like they never thought possible.”

Sweden’s official Twitter account – which is operated by a different user each week – tweeted at Trump on Monday morning: “Hey Don, this is @Sweden speaking! It’s nice of you to care, really, but don’t fall for the hype. Facts: We’re OK!”

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Sweden and Trump

  • Muslims don’t commit violence so Trump is wrong.

  • The more the left criticizes Trump, the more they look like the donkey’s hind end that they are. It is no coincidence that the symbol of their party is the jackass.

  • As well as this under-reported tid-bit—the “‘refugee’ riots” in Sweden—has anyone noticed this fascinating under-the-radar gem: the “radicalized” US Muslim in North Carolina who intended to go on a shooting rampage with an as-yet-unidentified associate 2/19/2017?

    http://wncn.com/2017/02/21/cary-man-had-ak-47-made-threat-complained-non-muslims-spit-in-our-face-feds-say/


    I also find fascinating he had an actual AK-47 with hundreds of rounds, and in his last post Saturday night (he was planning the attack on Sunday, hmm, Christian day of prayer) he told others on the site Whisper, “We’ll be on CNN tomorrow.”

    How come he could get a real AK-47, and where, is my question? Rather outmatches my puny legally-obtained and licensed 6-ways-to-Sunday-in-CA .38 S&W and 9mm Sig-Sauer.

  • IMHO, everyone should read the daily briefing from Robert Spencer’s jihadwatch.org, and see the total disconnect between the yellow-stream media and the reality he documents there.

  • The media, MSM, is traitorous!
    What is it going to take to flush out the impurities of fake journalism or propaganda journalist out of the center?
    They are criminals.
    Donald Trump has the cojones to call them what they are. Question is, will Americans boycott the advertisers doing business with CNN, MSNBC and so on?
    Until that happens the cesspool of liberalism will be stinking up the public domain.

  • Refugees Welcome Here! Massacres, rapes, murders, national ruination simply are prices we pay for having immigrants and refugees. For Sweden, “Das Dicke Ende Kommt Noch.” With, Thank God, President Donald J. Trump in office not so much for America.

    Can somebody supply us with reasonable rationales for open borders and mass muslim immigration? I only have two: stupidity and hatred for (evil, unjust) America and for the uses Americans make of their freedoms.

  • And this coming in; http://patriotupdate.com/terror-sweden-chemical-attack-strikes-subway/

    Subway….. It’s not just a sub shop ..Fer sure fer sure yeah don’t change know..It’s All Good.wink wink nudge nudge.

  • Cannot remember the source unfortunately: the forecast for Sweden is that by 2030 the Swedes will be a minority in their own country. What has happened to those of Vikings descent?? The situation is insane. Rather than stepping up security for its citizens and jailing the thugs that prey on women, the government tells women and girls just don’t go out at night. The rape and assault happens in the daytime as well.
    Godless liberals with no backbone.

Pink Revolvers Would Work Better

Saturday, July 2, AD 2016

rapes in sweden

 

Reported rapes in Sweden:  1975-2014

 

 

 

 

 

A perfect symbol of the age of pernicious make believe in which we live:

 

 

A recent Swedish press release warns that groping is a crime. In it, the country’s national police chief Dan Eliasson said: “No one should have to accept sexual molestation. So do not grope. And if you are groped, report it to the police.”

Mr. Eliasson mentioned a variety of actions such as “a hand tucked between the legs”, “a hug from behind in the crush at a club or festival”, and “one person holding somebody while another grabs their breasts”, describing them as “situations many young people recognise too well”.

The press release announced that police intend to equip young women with wristbands with the slogan “don’t touch me”. This will happen over the summer, at festivals and other events for young people. “By wearing these wristbands,” Sweden’s police chief said, “young women will be able to make a stand”.

It is unclear how effective the wristbands, which read “don’t touch me” in Swedish, will be in preventing attacks, as the majority of sex attack perpetrators are thought to be recent migrants who are unlikely to be able to read them.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Pink Revolvers Would Work Better

  • We just celebrated St Peter and Paul. I’m forced to wonder what their thoughts would be on gun control, as I am fairly certain they didn’t wander the Empire with body guards in tow, or even the Rosary.
    .

  • Yeah, they sure didn’t believe in sword control:

    “But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword.”

  • Malmo is the rape capital of the world, with the exception of Lesotho. We can see by the charts that rape began its climb when Sweden began its multicultural adventure, 1975. Then they fudge the stats so it can’t be seen who the perpetrators are. The first logical questions are why? Why is this happening. The next is who is doing it. The classification of immigrant men is obfuscated by calling them Swedish men if they are born in Sweden of immigrant parents, or if the are citizens even if foreign born. It is unbelievable to me that they would sit by and let their women be raped. Inexcusable!

Lars Vilks, Gay Muhammad and Freedom of Expression

Sunday, May 16, AD 2010

This past week brings news of yet another fracas involving Swedish cartoon artist Lars Vilks (CNN.com):

When Vilks entered a classroom where he was to deliver a lecture to about 250 people — all of whom had passed through a security checkpoint to gain admission — about five people started protesting loudly, Eronen said.

After Uppsala uniformed and non-uniformed police calmed the protesters, the lecture got under way at about 5:15 p.m. (11:15 a.m. ET), Eronen said.

But as Vilks was showing audiovisual material, 15 to 20 audience members became loud and tried to attack Vilks, he said.

As police stepped in, a commotion started and Vilks was taken to a nearby room; police used pepper spray and batons to fend off the protesters, Eronen said. Vilks did not return to the lecture. [Video footage of the event].

Last March, an American woman who called herself “Jihad Jane,” Colleen LaRose, was indicted in the United States for allegedly conspiring to support terrorists and kill Vilks.

In a 2007 interview with CNN he had drawn the cartoon of Mohammed with a dog’s body in order to take a stand.

“I don’t think it should not be a problem to insult a religion, because it should be possible to insult all religions in a democratic way, “ says Vilks from his home in rural Sweden.

“If you insult one, then you should insult the other ones.”

His crude, sketched caricature shows the head of Prophet Mohammed on the body of a dog. Dogs are considered unclean by conservative Muslims, and any depiction of the prophet is strictly forbidden.

Vilks, who has been a controversial artist for more than three decades in Sweden, says his drawing was a calculated move, and he wanted it to elicit a reaction.

“That’s a way of expressing things. If you don’t like it, don’t look at it. And if you look at it, don’t take it too seriously. No harm done, really,” he says.

When it’s suggested that might prove an arrogant — if not insulting — way to engage Muslims, he is unrelenting, even defiant.

“No one actually loves the truth, but someone has to say it,” he says.

Vilks, a self-described atheist, points out he’s an equal opportunity offender who in the past sketched a depiction of Jesus as a pedophile.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Lars Vilks, Gay Muhammad and Freedom of Expression

  • This “artist” will learn the limits of free speech – the hard way.

  • Why should some peoples belief supercede the beliefs, or lack of belifs, of others?

    Why should I, or anyone else be forced to abide by the rules of THEIR faith?

    What right does religions have to put themselves above everyone else? Is it a godgiven right? Thats what they believe isnt it?

    Religions mock the entire world with their existance alone. Grown men and women believing in old fairytales make a mockery of humanity as a whole.

    Yet we shouldnt be allowed to point out the glaring flaws, the insecurities, and the barbarism their faith entails?

    The very thought is disgusting. The very reason religions are mocked is because they demand respect for their belief, while having no respect at all for those of us who do not believe in any god.

    If one imposed limits on the freedom of expression it would cease to exist.

    Freedom: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.

  • I really am disgusted by the abasement of religion in this manner.

    Showing a gay Mohammed is almost as repugnant to me as it is to a Muslim, and is a deliberate act of provocation.

    Things were bad enough with Comedy Central. But the reason I defended the creators of South Park is that, first of all, they already SHOWED Mohammed in an earlier episode before the Danish cartoon scandal and no one cared.

    It wasn’t a particularly vulgar depiction either. What happened this time around was absurd – they only wanted to “show” Mohammed as they do other religious figures, they’d done it before, and saw the proscription of this time around as arbitrary and irrational, which it was.

    In this case, though, I’d say we’re way outside the scope of the Danish cartoon scandal or South Park. To depict is one thing; to associate a revered prophet with sexual immorality in such a blunt way is another. This isn’t about expression because no one believes Mohammed was gay. It is about pissing off Muslims and doing a thing simply because it can be done.

    Maybe the distinction I’m making is wrong, maybe it doesn’t exist. But I do see a difference.

  • Joe, I’m not aware of the South Park depictions of Muhammad before the Danish cartoon scandal. Do you have a source?

    I think censorship, whether religious or otherwise, should be based on community standards. In America, we’re not sufficiently outraged over irreverent depictions of religion to warrant legal censorship.

    Should material of academic value that offend community standards be protected speech? Would Islamic states be justified in completely censoring (as opposed to hide behind a “spoiler warning”) drawings of Muhammad from Wikipedia?

  • Well that kind of begs the question – what academic value does this really have? That Nathan quote could be re-worded only slightly and it would apply to the artists tehmselves – living off the fruits of Christianity, they can only mock it because they do not have the talent to meet or exceed Christianity’s greatest accomplishments. Where’s our contemporary Sistine Chapel? Our Mona Lisa? Our Pieta? Our art is ugly because our society is ugly.

    Largely we are not outraged because most of this “art” is ignored, at least by the unwashed masses.

  • Art ought to be all about aesthetics and edifying the beholder. Soap boxes/op-ed pages/letters to Congressmen are venues for free speech.

    I’m a charter member (from birth) of the unwashed masses.

    Here’s the reason I ignore art that scandalizes Christ: “Forgive all injuries. Bear wrongs patiently.”

    Our Lord will come again in glory and He probably will foresake those that made fun of His Redemptive Life and Salvific Sacrifice.

    Finally, it’s not my job to bring justice to poor benighted elites.

    Er, I don’t frequently shave, either.

    OTOH, muslims must defend Muhammed. That mass murderer is not getting out of Hell.

  • Couldnt help but notice that my original comment has “Your comment is awaiting moderation” stamped on it and is hidden from view of other visitors to this page.

    Since my post contained no links, no swearwords, no racism etc the only reason I can think of is because I do not agree with the viewpoints in the article.

    The viewpoints in this article must be fragile indeed if only comments of agreement are allowed.

    Here, there is no freedom of expression, there is only the freedom to agree.

  • Couldnt help but notice that my original comment has “Your comment is awaiting moderation” stamped on it and is hidden from view of other visitors to this page.

    Imagine that.

    Since my post contained no links, no swearwords, no racism etc the only reason I can think of is because I do not agree with the viewpoints in the article. The viewpoints in this article must be fragile indeed if only comments of agreement are allowed.

    Or, it could possibly mean I’m currently dealing with a newborn and a two year old, and — operating on about 2-3 hours sleep a night — don’t have time to moderate comments with as much punctuality as you desire.

    In fact I have no idea why it was stuck in moderation, but go ahead and assume the worst of my motives if it suits you. I can understand the guilty pleasure of such conspiracy theorizing. =)

    Why should some peoples belief supercede the beliefs, or lack of belifs, of others?

    Certainly I think nobody ought to be forced to accept the tenants of Islam or Christianity or any other religion, for that matter. Faith born of coercion is no genuine faith at all. I’m actually very much in favor of non-coercion in this respect.

    However, I’d say defining freedom solely in negative terms as “the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action” offers a rather pathetic understanding of freedom. It also poses a challenge to our ability to reside together in some kind of civil community (surely you’re in favor of such?).

    Even as a self-proclaimed atheist, I’d venture that you probably find yourself upholding certain laws or norms of moral conduct — prohibitions against theft, taking the life of another, treating each other with basic respect etc. Are these simply “beliefs imposed” upon you? Do they spring from something deeper?

    John Paul II spoke of “a false notion of individual freedom at work in our culture” —

    “… as if one could be free only when rejecting every objective norm of conduct, refusing to assume responsibility or even refusing to put curbs on instincts and passions! Instead, true freedom implies that we are capable of choosing a good without constraint. This is the truly human way of proceeding in the choices–big and small–which life puts before us. The fact that we are also able to choose not to act as we see we should is a necessary condition of our moral freedom. But in that case we must account for the good that we fail to do and for the evil that we commit. This sense of moral accountability needs to be reawakened if society is to survive as a civilization of justice and solidarity.”

    What do you think about that?

    Religions mock the entire world with their existance alone. Grown men and women believing in old fairytales make a mockery of humanity as a whole.

    Spoken like a true Stalinist. But surely we can progress beyond this kind of intolerance? 😉

    Yet we shouldn’t be allowed to point out the glaring flaws, the insecurities, and the barbarism their faith entails?

    Perhaps. But if your purpose is to enlighten and educate, you might do better than simply lash out and taunt them with the artistic equivalent of a cudgel.

  • First of all, I find it hard to believe that you “had no idea why it was stuck in moderation”. Its your blog after all, even if its an automated process registering on key words, you should have some idea how it works.

    Secondly, how long it takes for you to moderate a post was not an issue at all. I reacted to the fact that it was marked for moderation in the first place.

    I used the definition of freedom together with the term “freedom of expression” spesifically because I suspected that you might try to use the definition of freedom in the way you just did.

    The concept of freedom of expression should be free of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action. Just like the definition.

    I didnt, like you imply, include concepts like “freedom of murdering people”, “freedom to steal” or “freedom to set oneself above the law” when I put down the definition of freedom.

    As for your thoughts about moral conduct:

    Laws and norms of human conduct is a result of the society one lives in.

    If you some day take a good look at the world around you, I think you will realise that in socities in parts of the world that do not have the luxuries and/or traditions of western culture, the defintions of right and wrong are vastly different.

    Surely,if “upholding certain laws or norms of moral conduct” springs from something deeper, as you say, shouldnt people in all corners of the world share the same sense of morality?

    Yet they do not.

    I also note that you are labeling me a “stalinist”.

    Indeed, atheism and stalinism are required to go hand in hand arent they? There is no way that anyone can be opposed to religion without being some sort of communist.

    Labeling any opposition communist or stalinist regardless of which issues are being discussed seem to be popular in america.

    And then you preach about intolerance. Or spesifically “this kind of intolerance”, implying “intolerance against religions”.

    Which is appropriate, since religious groups, including catholics, traditionally have a large number of things they have zero tolerance for.

    It sure is good to know that believers have the right and knowledge to define what kinds of intolerance are acceptable or not.

    The purpose with which lars vilks lash out and taunt the muslim fundementalist is obvious: Its to teach people that they cannot have their way by resorting to violence. Many religious groups, including your own, realised this a long time ago by themselves.

    But before that, catholics and other christians were just as quick to resort to violence as these muslims are now.

    Unfortunatly, with the way things are, its impractical to wait the hundreds of years it could take for muslims to reach the same level of peaceful conduct as the major christian factions.

    Lastly, from a western moral perspective, who do you think have the moral high ground? The guy who is making pictures and drawings, or the people who are trying to beat him up, kill him and burn his house down?

  • I put your comment in moderation Moozorz. If it had been in one of my threads I would have deleted it since you merely regurgitate the “I hate religion” meme and have nothing fresh to offer to the debate. Since it was Christopher’s thread I left the ultimate decision as to what to do with your diatribe up to him when he looked over the thread. He duly approved it since he has much more patience than I do for people who repeat tired cliches as a substitute for substantive argument, and is one of the most fair-minded individuals I have encountered on the internet.

  • First of all, I find it hard to believe that you “had no idea why it was stuck in moderation”. Its your blog after all, even if its an automated process registering on key words, you should have some idea how it works. […]

    See Don’s comment as to why you were in moderation.

    The concept of freedom of expression should be free of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action. Just like the definition. I didnt, like you imply, include concepts like “freedom of murdering people”, “freedom to steal” or “freedom to set oneself above the law” when I put down the definition of freedom.

    Unrestrained freedom, absent force of law, can lead to precisely that.

    I’m curious what you might say with respect to a women’s “freedom” with respect to the life of her unborn child?

    Laws and norms of human conduct is a result of the society one lives in.

    If you some day take a good look at the world around you, I think you will realise that in socities in parts of the world that do not have the luxuries and/or traditions of western culture, the defintions of right and wrong are vastly different. Surely,if “upholding certain laws or norms of moral conduct” springs from something deeper, as you say, shouldnt people in all corners of the world share the same sense of morality? Yet they do not.

    Diverse, but now wholly different. I think if you examine different parts of the world, cultures share remarkably similar moral-cultural norms. Show me a culture that specifically endorsed theft, lying, deception, murder, injustice, etc. in direct inversion to what we think of as morality?

    For example, C.S. Lewis in examining various traditions around the world pointed out how they share similar behaviors with respect to the prohibition of murder; the doing of good towards children, parents, kinfolk and neighbors; prohibitions against adultery, etc. I think history has shown as well what happens when cultures or societies abandon or deliberately ignore such ‘laws’:

    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition4.htm

    I also note that you are labeling me a “stalinist”.Indeed, atheism and stalinism are required to go hand in hand arent they? There is no way that anyone can be opposed to religion without being some sort of communist. Labeling any opposition communist or stalinist regardless of which issues are being discussed seem to be popular in america.

    While atheism and stalinism aren’t necessarily identical, one can point to a number of historical examples (the french revolution, the bolshevik reovlution, national socialism, etc.) where atheism and totalitarian violence have gone hand in hand. And the nature of your comment — “Religions mock the entire world with their existance [sic] alone” — wasn’t far off from that kind of thinking. What do you propose then, since the mere presence of religion itself is an abomination?

    And then you preach about intolerance. Or spesifically “this kind of intolerance”, implying “intolerance against religions”. Which is appropriate, since religious groups, including catholics, traditionally have a large number of things they have zero tolerance for.

    I’m not necessarily opposed to intolerance. I happen to think “tolerance” and “non-judgementalism” are highly overrated. As Chesterton said, “The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”

    It sure is good to know that believers have the right and knowledge to define what kinds of intolerance are acceptable or not.

    But there you go again — having just indicated by your example that we should all be intolerant of religion.

    The purpose with which lars vilks lash out and taunt the muslim fundementalist is obvious: Its to teach people that they cannot have their way by resorting to violence. Many religious groups, including your own, realised this a long time ago by themselves.

    As I’ve said, there is little question that many Muslim’s response to Vilks is disproportionate and extreme — at the same time, Vilks does not help the matter with his direct provocation to violence by taking what Muslims hold dear — the prophet Muhammad — and violating it.

    Unfortunatly, with the way things are, its impractical to wait the hundreds of years it could take for muslims to reach the same level of peaceful conduct as the major christian factions.

    Muslims have a ways to go, yes. But they might get there a lot faster if we didn’t resort to such tactics as Vilks. You teach toleration and respect for others by practicing it. Vilks’s desire to deliberately invoke violence by blaspheming what they hold dear is merely an echo of Muslim intolerance.

    Lastly, from a western moral perspective, who do you think have the moral high ground? The guy who is making pictures and drawings, or the people who are trying to beat him up, kill him and burn his house down?

    In this case, neither — if the guy who is “making pictures and drawings” does so with the specific intent of inciting people to violence. Come now, it’s not as if Vilks was showing photos of the Mona Lisa or Michaelangelo’s David.

  • @Donald R. McClarey

    I dont hate religion, I just oppose it :3

    Especially when some people in the various religions are attempting to put belief in god above all else, not just for themselves but for others as well.

    @Christopher Blosser

    As I was reading through your latest post, I noticed several things.

    You took my paragraph about freedom of expression and somehow try to twist it into a pro-choice/pro-life issue.

    Undoubtedly because you couldnt, at the time, think of a counter-argument that related to the actual issue that was being discussed, i.e. freedom of expression (other than groundless speculation that having freedom of expression will somehow, in a nondescript fashion, lead to a society where one can freely steal, murder, and put oneself above the law.)

    Next, funny you should mention a connection between atheism and national socialism.

    Let me quote from the The National Socialist Party program from 1920, proclaimed by Adolf Hitler, point 24:

    “We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: The good of the state before the good of the individual.¨”

    Restrictive, perhaps, but hardly atheistic.

    Your other examples are more accurate at least.

    Furthermore, in your previous post, you said “But surely we can progress beyond this kind of intolerance?” when I said that religions are old fairytales.

    Yet in your latest post, you say you arent neccesarily opposed to intolerance.

    Thanks, I guess, for demonstrating with such perfect detail that what I said previously about your brand of “tolerance” is absolutely true.

    You have the exact same mindset as the muslim fundamentalists, that your beliefs must be tolerated above all else while the religions themselves should be free to judge and comdemn and generally be intolerant towards anything they wish.

    Be honest: it is because you believe that god is on your side.

    Is it not so? What other reason could you have to justify the difference between religious intolerance against people and peoples intolerance against religion?

    Anyways, your paragraph about Lars Vilks state that he is making pictures and drawings “with spesific intent of inciting people to violence”.

    That something you made up completely on your own.

    You are basically saying he is asking for it, even though nothing has ever indicated that Lars Vilks is trying spesifically to create violence.

    In fact, saying so is an insult to the islamic people, since it implies that we should expect them to react in a violent and barbaric fashion.

    A comparable anology is to say that a woman who wear sexy clothing is asking to be raped, after all, everyone knows that men are primitive and lack the self-control neccesary to stop themselves from assaulting women who arent “properly” dressed.

    While in reality, men do in fact have the potential to control their own behaviour, and many choose to do just that.

    Similarly, I think todays muslims have the potential to control their anger and violent reactions and instead react in a modern and civilized fashion when faced with such displays.

    Unfortunatly, some of them choose not to.

  • Religions should be insulted democratically.

    Why?

    Because if you’re going to insult one, you have to insult them all.

    Oh, OK, very reasonable. Now, run by me why we just, don’t tell really unfunny jokes to “insult” religions again.

    I feel like I’m in that episode of Seinfeld, where he tells a priest that one of his former congregants starts making a lot of anti-semitic jokes, and he asks him if it offends him as a Jew, but he responds, “No, it offends me as a comedian.” That’s just not funny, and therefore, beyond the realm of cartoonists.
    I get that the Jihadists are worse, but come on, are we really going to say, “we’re OK, so long as we’re not terrorists!”?

  • By the way, Moorzorz, you sound so smart. I think you sound so convincing, as though you’re not writing generalized emotional ejaculations (funny word right?); you sound as if you’re not just some pasty white atheist teenager to mid twenty year old, “trolling” (as the “kids” say) on a Conservative Catholic blog saying nothing remotely cerebral, desparately seeking attention, even if it’s only from angry papysts over the internet- that’d be like a neglected child turning form his parents to people he’ll never meet for attention.
    Oh, and also, if you could get me a copy of Dan Brown’s latest work of history, and a t-shirt depicting our hero Che, that’d be great.

    Hipsters 4 Life!

  • You took my paragraph about freedom of expression and somehow try to twist it into a pro-choice/pro-life issue.

    I was basically operating on the assumption that if you define “freedom” as “the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action”, your definition is not merely limited to “self-expression” but freedom of action per se. Hence the question: where does such freedom from coercion begin and end with respect to the unborn?

    Undoubtedly because you couldnt, at the time, think of a counter-argument that related to the actual issue that was being discussed, i.e. freedom of expression (other than groundless speculation that having freedom of expression will somehow, in a nondescript fashion, lead to a society where one can freely steal, murder, and put oneself above the law.)

    Well, I thought we were talking about the nature of freedom per se. If only self expression, then may I assume you would define freedom otherwise — and that there are justifiable limits to freedom when living in society?

    Next, funny you should mention a connection between atheism and national socialism. [Insert quote from the Nazis]. Restrictive, perhaps, but hardly atheistic.

    National socialism was accomodating of religion only insofar as they found it expedient to do so. Ultimately it became a kind of religion of its own, elevating the ‘superman’ (ditto or the Communists). Case in point — Christians who went along with the Third Reich were tolerated; those who didn’t went to the camps along with the gypsies and the Jews. For a firsthand account from one priest, see Priestblock 25487: A Memoir of Dachau. For a broader view, I recommend Michael Burleigh’s The Third Reich: A New History.

    Furthermore, in your previous post, you said “But surely we can progress beyond this kind of intolerance?” when I said that religions are old fairytales. Yet in your latest post, you say you arent neccesarily opposed to intolerance.

    You’re getting the picture. I think it would be difficult indeed to go through life without being discriminating. Moral judgement is as elementary to existence as eating or breathing. And there are things we should quite justifiably be intolerant about.

    On the other hand, when you arrive at a sweeping judgement that religion in toto is an evil and a mockery of human existence, I think such a sweeping condemnation such as your own is a choice example of intolerance born of ignorance. I know of other atheists or agnostics who are quite capable of studying the breadth of human history and discerning positive elements in religion. An attitude that simply mocks and condemns religion strikes me as a rather stunted perspective.

    Anyways, your paragraph about Lars Vilks state that he is making pictures and drawings “with spesific intent of inciting people to violence”. That something you made up completely on your own.

    No need to impute motives here. I need only quote Lars: “It should be possible to insult all religions in a democratic way … If you insult one, then you should insult the other ones.” In the past he depicted Jesus as a paedophile. Don’t tell me he wasn’t hoping to get a reaction. In no way does it justify violence on the part of the protesters, but he certainly wasn’t seeking applause on their part.

    […] Similarly, I think todays muslims have the potential to control their anger and violent reactions and instead react in a modern and civilized fashion when faced with such displays. Unfortunatly, some of them choose not to.

    I think you and I agree on this point — our hope is that Muslims, when they find what they hold most dear insulted in this manner, should be able to restrain themselves from violence.

    That said, I don’t think Lars Vilks necessarily has the right to provocate Muslims in this manner.

  • Lars Vilks has every right to provocate Muslims if that is his wish under Swedish norms as long as he is prepared to pay the price. By what right do the crazed Muslims given residence, asylum and baksheesh in the West under the same suicidal liberal norms, now claim that their Jim Jones is above caricature? The liberal order is unwinding, some honest men Lars Vilks among them, have taken it upon themselves to bring the whole house of lies down.

  • @Clay

    I am dreadfully sorry to come all the way here to this catholic site when I was searching for news about Lars Vilks, I know that people disagreeing with your views must be terribly frightening.

    See? I can use sarcasm to apply attributes to other people too. Thank you for bringing your insight into this discussion.

    In all seriousness though, I am a norwegian, I live in norway, and up here in the north there are no “unwritten rules” that its distasteful internet behaviour to display ones views on a site where people have different views.

    If there is some kind of american unwritten rule about this, please inform me about it and I`ll stop posting.

    Also, if being norwegian somehow invalidates all my views, please inform me and I`ll stop posting.

    @Christoffer Blosser

    I am not just now “getting the picture”, you have read my previous posts, so it should be pretty obvious that I was, unfortunatly, completely right about your views on tolerance from the start.

    I was actually hoping you would disprove my preconceptions on that spesific issue.

    You choose not to address several parts of my paragraph, which is fine, you are free to address the parts you feel neccesary, but I still would like you to tell me how you justify the difference between religious intolerance against people and peoples intolerance against religion, like I asked before.

    I think its because, as I said, you believe your god gives you the right to do so, but I like to think thats not your only reason.

    Furthermore, I have never said religion is evil. Religion is regressive to society, often intolerant and I would even call it irrational.

    But I do not think religious people do what they do and say what they say just for the sake of making other people suffer. If they did, they would be evil.

    By the way, if there is no need to impute motives here, as you say, then perhaps you shouldnt impute motives onto Lars Vilks either?

    Sure, Lars Vilks was hoping to get a reaction. But you said he was spesifically trying to incite a _violent_ reaction.

    Was he trying to incite violence by displaying jesus as a pedophile? Did he except christians to physically attack him and issue death threats when he did?

    I think not.

    Your misconception about Lars Vilks seeking a violent reaction to his displays are only based in your preconcieved judgments against the muslim people.

    You expect them to answer with violence, so to you its obvious that everyone else thinks so too.

    There are several other things I suppose I could, and should, have addressed, but right now I`m out of time, Ì have to head to work.

    I will say this though, Christoffer Blosser, even though we disagree on a great many things, its refreshing to talk with a christian who is willing to argue, rather than the ones who prefer to “answer” only with moderation or bland sarcasm.

  • NOTE: This will be quick, because I think Moozorz and I have discussed this long enough and are conversation is heading into other topics not related to the actual post.

    I still would like you to tell me how you justify the difference between religious intolerance against people and peoples intolerance against religion, like I asked before.

    When speaking of “intolerance”, I think you really need to go into specific detail about what it is you are criticizing. To merely condemn religion in toto as a mockery of humanity — such a sweeping condemnation speaks rather badly and comes across as intolerant. Religions, like anything else, are a mixed bag. If you study Christianity you will find that it, like any other religion, has made positive contributions to society. (Certainly as a Christian I believe it has done more than that; I also recognize that there are many instances where Christians have not behaved in a Christlike manner). At any rate, I think there are positive goods which the religions of the world have to offer which any atheist can recognize if they tried.

    Likewise when you speak of “religion’s intolerance against people”, it may help to be specific.

    I think its because, as I said, you believe your god gives you the right to do so, but I like to think thats not your only reason.

    If you subscribe to a revealed religion, I suppose it’s natural that you will make distinctions between believers and non-believers and to be “intolerant” of certain kinds of actions. But as I’ve pointed out, you don’t have to be religious to make moral distinctions, to condemn certain kinds of behavior, to place limits on human freedom.

    By the way, if there is no need to impute motives here, as you say, then perhaps you shouldnt impute motives onto Lars Vilks either?

    There is no need, because Vilk already gave the reason. He wanted to insult Muslims. He was undoubtedly hoping to get a reaction. A necessarily violent reaction? — Perhaps he wasn’t expecting to get his house firebombed (although in light of past examples, such as the violent reaction of many Muslims to the Pope’s Regensburg address — he might have anticipated such). I do think he would have been sorely disappointed if he didn’t cause offense to Muslims.

    Your misconception about Lars Vilks seeking a violent reaction to his displays are only based in your preconcieved judgments against the muslim people.

    Oh, please. Read what I’ve written about the “Muslim people”, and then decide. (I’m far closer to Muslims than you imagine).

    I certainly don’t think all Muslims respond in the way that Vilks’ critics have done — but let’s face it, there is a subset of Muslims, those who tend to occupy the headlines, who have a propensity to react with threats or actual violence when their religion is mocked. It happens. So I don’t think the possibility of such happening was remote from Vilks’ mind when he decided to ridicule the Prophet Muhammad in the fashion that he did.

    You expect them to answer with violence, so to you its obvious that everyone else thinks so too.

    Actually, no.

    I will say this though, Christoffer Blosser, even though we disagree on a great many things, its refreshing to talk with a christian who is willing to argue, rather than the ones who prefer to “answer” only with moderation or bland sarcasm.

    Feel free to email me if you wish to talk further. blostopher @ gmail.com.