Dutch Parliament Member: We Must Close All Mosques & Ban Islam

Like every religion, when in power the radicals take hold of it.

Look at Christianity/Catholicism, when it had total control of America..it did atrocious acts as it did in other countries.

originally posted by: lucifershiningone
Like every religion, when in power the radicals take hold of it.

Look at Christianity/Catholicism, when it had total control of America..it did atrocious acts as it did in other countries.

U mean *Europe, right?

For the record, im an atheist, or if would like
a TRUE NON BELIVER....
But this must be the most stupid thing ive ever Heard.
Everyone is entitled to their belief or belive in what they want.
NO QUESTIONS ASKED. But!!

Their belief can NOT be allowed to affect or in other ways
have consequenses on secondary person.

Banning a whole religion is not the answer. Enforcing the LAWS
is.. And the laws should have NOTHING what so ever to do with
religious beliefs. If you dont like the laws, then move!!!

Simple as that

a reply to: lucifershiningone

Oh...atrocious acts AS it did in other countries...I didn't see that AS and thought you'd said Christianity, or even more oddly, Catholicism since it never had its place in America, led America to do atrocious acts in other countries...as if the US had sent a traveling inquisition to nations abroad. The AS, again, changes that whole statement around boy howdy. I just can't read.

originally posted by: AlexandrosTheGreat
a reply to: lucifershiningone

Oh...atrocious acts AS it did in other countries...I didn't see that AS and thought you'd said Christianity, or even more oddly, Catholicism since it never had its place in America, led America to do atrocious acts in other countries...as if the US had sent a traveling inquisition to nations abroad. The AS, again, changes that whole statement around boy howdy. I just can't read.

Yes when Christianity had total control over America, they did barbaric acts to it's citizens. When Christianity had control in Europe, they did the same over there.

As for Catholicism, the acts it did to native people in Canada was disgusting. So when a religion has total control over it a country, it does horrible things because the radicals took control of it.

If a country is too ever progress, it must stop religion from dictating it's laws. The Republicans have this warped idea that if religion was once again allowed to take over North America that everything would be alright when the past says different.

Religion is OK when it is has little control but when it does, watch out. Christianity/ Catholicism isn't and never will be better than Islam and for anybody to say it is, is lying to themselves and everyone. They are all equally bad and good.

Ask the supposed "Salem witch's" what happened when Christianity had control. Ask First Nations people what happened when Catholics had control in Canada. Tell them that those religions are much better than Islam.

Islam seems bad over there because of the control these countries have given that religion and with great power, it is the radicals who take over.

originally posted by: Justoneman
I agree about not banning religion but i don't see how we can ignore the wolves in sheep's clothing who use the verses in the Koran like a KKK Lunatic attempts to use the old Testement? We sure don't give the KKK a pass if they violate peoples freedoms and even their right to LIFE just like ISIS eh?

No, the KKK has to conform to the same laws as the rest of our society, and when they break those laws they are arrested and charged.

You are comparing an entire religious group within our societies to a hate organization. The two are not the same and your comparison is fundamentally flawed.

If we were to discover that 60% of bank robbers collected stamps as a hobby, should we then start labeling all stamp collectors as criminals needing to be dealt with in some way? This is the ridiculousness of what is being suggested here.

The KKK has the freedom to have their opinions, their views, and live their lives in ignorance.
The Christians are allowed to do the same, and even do so as politicians!
The Muslim population actually expresses LESS ignorance than your Christian population (where are all the protests and rants against LGBT protections in the US from Muslims?) and yet you believe that the actions of a minority of violent psychopaths means everyone who shares one aspect of what those people distort should all be dealt with differently.

Dylann Roof, along with plenty of other gun-wielding killers, was a church-going Christian.
If you asked most right-wing radicals with violent opinions in the US I can guarantee 90% of them would identify as Christian too.
So where are all the calls to ban Christianity and segregate all Christians from society?

This selective picking and choosing who to hate and fear, and who to attack in "revenge", based on one tenuous link of a religious label (and one that millions upon millions of Muslims would also reject entirely) is fascism.

I know that this is mostly ignorant knee-jerk response from people who don't know better, but this is still a fascist view. It would be desirable if people actually thought logically about the millions of peaceful Muslims who have no desire to hate anyone, rather than instantly reach for someone to blame and attack in some misguided desire for revenge.

Religion will forever divide us and will ultimately kill most of us. From the ashes of this civilisation another may arise. One that learns the lessons of the past 2000 years and bans any doctrine such as the OT, Torah or Koran.

Islam is worse than Christianity. If you don't realise that you are simply ignorant. The Koran is like the Old Testament on steroids. But Christians generally follow the teachings in the New Testament and you can't tell me that the Koran is on par with the New Testament. The OT is part of the old covenant and Jesus made a new covenant with God on Mt Sinai (Sermon of the Mount). Christians just use the OT to reinforce a few conservative views like denying gays human rights, denying science and enforcing the ban on eating prawns . But only the idiot Christians (Creationists) take the Old Testament literally and I have a few intelligent Christian friends that have schooled me on this topic.

In an ideal world there would be multiculturalism but it can't exist when the barriers to it exist - religion.

BTW, I live in a small rural Japanese city and there are two Muslim girls that live near me. I see them on their bikes sometimes.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

OP. IS the dutch politician trying to treat Islam like Nazi ism is treated in germany? WHy dont anyone get upset about that?

As to the Japanese. they have a small muslim population and know very well the consequences of mis behaviour under japanese rule. Japanese may seem overly polite but do not let that fool you. Theres knives in those smiles if you are not a conformist.

I am always lead to conclusion that the world would be better off if religion - no, not religion, faith - did not exist. Sad, but true. However, the reality we live in is one where religions do in fact exist, and this would not be the way to deal with it.

Something I would like to see would be a world where it was illegal for parents to involve children in religion, or alternatively mandatory to expose them to all religions, but alas, people enjoy brainwashing their kids too much. If you are religious but keep the exposure of it to your children at a minimum until they are old enough to think rationally, you have my utmost effect.

The truth is it is like a disease, it spreads and propagates over time, usually harmless but full of deadly potential if the right triggering condition is met. It may even offer positive effects some time - happiness? Comfort. Solidarity. But all too easily that happiness turns to anger, that comfort turns to fanaticism, that solidarity to "other"-phobia. "All too easily" in this case, "At all."

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: DeathSlayer

What the Dutch do or don't do is up to them. The US constitution states freedom of religion here.

To remove any doubt on the matter, the Dutch Constitution also clearly states freedom of religion, as described in article 6 of it.

Ieder heeft het recht zijn godsdienst of levensovertuiging, individueel of in gemeenschap met anderen, vrij te belijden, behoudens ieders verantwoordelijkheid volgens de wet.

For Geert Wilders to ban Islam or mosque's, he would have to change the Dutch constitution by getting a 2/3 approval in parliament, first in the lower house (Tweede Kamer) and secondly in the upper house (Eerste Kamer).
Good luck on that... I'll never see this happening, nor do I want to.

a reply to: earthling42

There is some history to this, since the immigration wave during the nineties the Netherlands changed quite a bit.
It had led to a political shift and a new political sound by Pim Fortuyn who had no difficulty with bringing and expressing the voice of the people in the Hague.
From a fairly unknown professor who now and than appeared on tv, especially with Theo van Gogh, he would have become our PM with a new political party that grew from 0 to be the largest party within a few months, this shows how much trust we all had in Pim and how loved he was.
Being one of us (not of the elite) and determined to tackle the problem we were facing because of mass immigration, (poverty, violence and criminality) he had many voters.

If I remember correctly, a large portion of Pim Fortuyn's supporters and his LPF party were out of protest of the established political parties at that time, not because they necessarily agreed with him and all his political views.
This was especially the case since the LPF gained alot of votes during elections, only months after his assasination, out of sympathy for the murder of Pim.
I agree, that Pim Fortuyn did cause a big stir in politics, even up to this day, by is unusual stance and critisism both towards journalists and politicians alike.
Not to be confused currently with Geert Wilders, who is only a mere shadow of what Pim stood fore back then and should not even be compared to each other.

For the record, I did not agree on most of Pim's views back then, however I admired his charisma and lack of political courtesy nonetheless.

As for Geert Wilders, I cannot take that man seriously, the only thing I agree on, is his anti-EU stance.
The rest of his infamous and discriminating statements are not a reflection of the opinions of the majority of Dutch people here and I consider them very dangerous, because it only feeds more hatred towards radical Islamists and those who seek to profit by that.
Then again, he has been known to socialise within Israelic circles politically and I have been wary of his hidden agenda for a long time now.

originally posted by: DaExpletive
a reply to: Sremmos80

Is it a large portion of Dutch people that support this?

Geert Wilders' PVV is currently the biggest party in the polls.

Polls are hardly reliable as evidence to back up an argument.
Speak again after elections and you might have a point.

a reply to: Tyrion79

To add a quote.

To react to the OP, this is simply an idealistic view and short sighted.
As if all the problems that we face are due to islam, this is not so!
While we certainly have our problems with muslim extremists who segregate themselves from our society, the most of the islamic population in the Netherlands lives together with the dutch people.

I think we share the same view.

Although i can understand why Geert remains quite radical in his stance against islam because it is this ideology out of which extremism comes forth.
That is not islam? then act accordingly and put an end to this violent behaviour and segregation within and outside our borders.
Our politicians do not seem to grasp that, they like to point to moderate muslims within our society, but the moderate muslims are not the ideology and above all, they are not acting against the extremist views.

The answer must come from muslims, not from politicians nor from the dutch citizens, it will only be seen as an assault if non muslims interfere with their religion.
Than the whole mumbo jumbo of islamophobia, nazi, far right extremist is thrown around again.
If we divide muslims into moderate and extremists, we are actively creating ground for more segregation and violence because we force muslims to take a stance, in my opinion Geert Wilders is quite aware of that, hence that is why he refrains from what other politicians like to do.
The ball lies with the muslims as a whole, if hating jews, if hating gays, if hating the west, its culture and its laws, if hating freedom is not islam, then they should teach that to their children and give them a better understanding of what islam is.
That is precicely what the message was in Fitna.

There will never be a political party with which we can agree on every subject, hence i think it is good that we have a bowl of soup in The Hague.
Although i don't agree with views of VVD, at the next elections my vote will go to them again.

Don't know if you already have seen the following.

This week, Thierry Baudet, founder of the Forum for Democracy and journalists Jort Kelder and Arno Wellens presented to Parliament the citizen’s initiative “Peuro” demanding an extensive parliamentary enquiry into the euro, its introduction and its future. (English subtitles).

I think discussing religion or practicing religion in public should be banned. This country is getting overly politically correct, so afraid to step on somebodies toes, that it has turned into a nation of crybabies getting offended at the drop of the hat. Christians offended by Muslims, Catholics offended by Non-Catholics, Islamist offended by Christians. It's all a big game of whose god is bigger.

a reply to: earthling42
Thank you for your reply and the link to the video, interesting points discussed there.
I don't think the answer should come from Muslims as in the entire community.
I think fundamental radicalism should be addressed as a whole by everyone and not just by Muslims.
We probably have similar thoughts on this, although I can't agree with you on your vote on VVD.
VVD in my opinion serves to ensure better conditions for the (upper) middle class and definately not the lower class, which unfortunately is still the majority.
It's your choice of course and I don't want fall into discussion about political colour or preference.
To clarify, I would like to see the evergrowing gap between the rich and poor decrease and not increase as can be seen statistically currently, not just in Holland, but everywhere else.
That's just my opinion though, always keep an open mind and never fall for the hate traps of certain people or the media.

a reply to: Tyrion79

Yassin Elforkani is one of the people who takes a stance against extremism and let's not forget Ahmed Aboutaleb.
There is a group of imams, Belgian and Dutch who have joined forces and work together in order to bring about change in the islamic community.
This is a good sign and they can use all the help they can get form the local governments.
It won't be easy, Yassin Elforkani is seen as an apostate, they will not listen to him, nor to every other imam who is considered as an apostate.
Yassin even had to stop with his work for CMO due to threats from extremists within the islamic community and had to be protected, he resigned last June.
The answer lies with the islamic population, the parents who hopefully can reason with their children, if they don't even listen to their parents than it will be difficult to solve this problem.

I understand what you mean about the VVD, but in my view Mark is doing quite a good job and to be honest, i have no trust in the other parties.
I certainly agree with you on the growing gap, but financially we're out of the woods, AAA rating again, so i think that the lower class will benefit from that in the coming years.

a reply to: earthling42
Please elaborate more on Yassin Elforkani, because that name doesn't ring any bells at the moment.
I know Ahmed Aboutaleb as he is the major of Rotterdam at the moment (where I've lived and live near atm), and I have mixed feelings toward him, as in that man has multiple agenda's, some of which are not obvious right now and I can't support it. He's trying very hard to ensure better opportunities career wise, other than being honest in his approaches in my opinion.
As for the Belgian and Dutch imams bringing in change, I'd like to put forth an example of Muslim parents, in particular the fathers, that were on the streets in Rotterdam a few years ago, that were quite succesful in preventing crime and approaching Morrocan youth for instance by confronting them with their bad behaviour if needed.
This was not only succesful, but also an example of how the Muslim community can solve problems by themselves accordingly. (I agree in your former post on this, regarding how Muslims could solve certain problems within our community)
I still disagree with you on the VVD, especially Mark Rutte, however I'll refrain from further comments on this to keep it civil..

originally posted by: MystikMushroom


And there are all kinds of violent passages in the Old Testament:

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Here's one of my personal favorites:

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

More...

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

This one is about killing people from other religions:

1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

I could go on and on.

Now, before you tell me that "well that's the Old Testement... why is it still being used by Christians? Why do Christians pick and choose what they like and don't like out of it? Why is it included in the Bible if so much if it doesn't fit with "modern, civilized Christianity"?

LOL!! LOL!!!



And in which centuary was any of that last practised by a 'Christian'??

Or in a country considered Christian??

I could pick up a copy of the Bible, scan the first half of it and justify my own little cult of extreme Christians killing non-believers and a whole host of other people. If it wasn't for the US justice and legal system, I have a feeling someone probably would.

Precisely we are *as a race* now in the 21st centuary and not the middle

ages .... We have LAWS for the people to follow and religion is a private

issue.