.....

3) I know that you have not called for persecution of 'nationalists'. You are only partially an apologist for bad laws that are being misused for political persecution of political opponents.   And, as long as those being persecuted are your political opponents as well, you don't seem to care too much.   That is very shortsighted, which I will illustrate further.

You said earlier that you "totally agree with the comments of the Kapitein".  But you know full well that the Kapitein refuses to make a proper distinction between culture and race/ethnicity, and that he - together with a couple of others here - frequently 'predicts' a coming civil war in (parts of) Europe between 'pure' Europeans and other races.  I won't go as far as saying that he 'advocates' such 'cleansing', but he/they certainly present(s) it as an 'inevitability'.  Whichever way one wants to interpret the meaning of his/their words, the point is that you agree with the Kapitein that it is OK to violate constitutional free-political-speech rights.  That is because you are both products of a culture imbued with extreme moral relativism. Which essentially means that 'principle' is not to be lived by, but rather to be used if it's convenient and to be ignored when it isn't. You are both willing to treat the constitutional protection of free speech as a 'dead letter', but for very different (opposing) purposes.  If that doesn't show the shortsightedness of your position, I don't know what ever will ?  It is probably not going to happen until the day when 'they' will send you to jail for expressing an unorthodox opinion, under a different ruling orthodoxy, of course! Perhaps, the coming one of the Kapitein. Shakespeare would have said: "A pox on both of your (unprincipled) houses!!".

@ pvdh

1) In the current context of ongoing terrorism, I would agree with you that Hamzi DIRECTLY "preaching violence" can reasonably be construed as "an act" (in the sense of being part of ongoing violence being committed by a distinct group).  I said "can be", and I have no strong view on this particular conviction either way.   Moreover, there is no question that Hamzi is not a 'democrat', and has no adherence to a democratic society and to constitutional protections for individuals.  On the contrary, he clearly advocates the imposition of a typical islamic tyranny, and would certainly not respect free-speech rights of others. I am not even sure whether he has British nationality.  So, I am not unduly concerned that his constitutional 'rights' might not have been fully protected to the fullest extent of the 'letter of the law' (in a constitutional sense).

But, I also think that this is not a proper comparison with the ongoing violations of constitutional free- speech rights in the 'normal' legislation of several European countries today.  Under these laws (so-called negationism, anti-racism and anti-discrimination laws) a number of people have been convicted in Belgium, France, Germany, Austria, etc....NOT for "preaching violence", but rather MERELY for expressing opinions on certain historic events or on contemporary political issues and manifest problems.   These laws are clearly being used and abused in a very selective way, to shut up political opponents and to preserve a particular cultural 'orthodoxy of opinion'.   This is not democracy, but rather indicative of authoritarianism, i.e. where a ruling class or political current tries to suffocate critical thought in order to preserve its power.  In several countries these illiberal (and unconstitutional) laws are also directly being used to selectively ban political parties, just like they used to do in 'banana republics'.   The best indication that the rubbish justification of 'fear of violence' is a lie, can be seen from the fact that these laws are not even being used against the empirically-observable sources of most violence in these countries, but rather against political opponents of regime policies.   

2)  I suspect that you mean to say that my statement was an argument FOR (not "against") pre-emptive actions.  Pre-emption is often common sense itself.  Also, you do not have to witness actual killing before you could determine whether someone is a "fundamentalist" or not. Often the content of merely speech can make that very clear.    But, all of this can not be a justification for dishonesty of interpretation.   My point was not to make an argument for pre-emption, but rather for emphasizing that you had no grounds for declaring me a "fundamentalist" merely on the basis of my advocacy for respect of freedom-of-political speech.   We have come a long way down in Europe's decadence when those who insist on respect for constitutional freedoms can be labelled "fundamentalists", while the ruling classes (who do the labelling) are manifestly appeasing real 'fundamentalists' in a variety of ways. 

......

@ pvdh

How do you know if someone holds a belief-with-certainty (without the requisite hope and doubt from which derives humility and tolerance of the 'other') ?   Because he or she says so, or because he or she says the opposite?  Let's get real! It's not because someone claims something that it is so, or is true.

How do you make a distinction between a "moderate" muslim and a "fundamentalist" one, or between a moderate socialist and a fundamentalist one, or a moderate christian and a fundamentalist one, etc...?   I want you to seriously think about this question!   I submit to you that the only way on which you can base such judgement is on their ACTIONS, i.e. on the basis of what they are willing to do to others in furtherance of their 'opinions'.  You and I may have a common 'socialist' goal of equality among people, but if you are the one willing to put 'opponents' in a gulag (like Stalin, Castro, or the CCP do) simply for being opponents, then you are the "fundamentalist", i.e. the one that is absolutely certain about his interpretation of 'equality', not me.        

You have no way of knowing a priori the degree of 'certainty' with which I hold a belief in the necessity of freedom-of-speech for democracy to survive in any society.   The only way in which you could possibly judge that is by my actions.  For instance, if I show or 'prove' a willingness to die for that belief, or if I were to be willing to put you in jail for expressing a contrary opinion, etc... then you would have something to go by.     

I asked you before: if 'nationalists' can be persecuted on the basis of some claimed fear of nazism, then why couldn't ANYBODY be persecuted on the basis of ANY claimed fear?   Why shouldn't socialists then not be persecuted on the basis of a fear of communism?   After all, as I said before, nazism can be found in museums, whereas communism and islamism are very much alive today.  Are the people committing 'violence' today in Germany (because G-8 governmernt leaders are meeting) more likely to identify with communism or with nazism?  Are the people committing violence today in Lebanon and Irak, for instance, are they nazis or islamists? Etc..

I have presented you with two very clear questions, and I expect a serious answer, before you come back with the same mantra of empty claims about me being a 'fundamentalist'. Actions speak louder than words!   

@ pvdh

It is remarkable that you can claim that arguing for respect of everybody's freedom of political speech would be a form of "belief-with-certainty".  It illustrates that you live in a cultural environment that devalues empirical (factual) observation and that wallows in ideology. 

If you would care to make empirical observations, around the world and in history, then you would notice that fundamentalists always try to suppress contrary opinions.  And what characterises "fundamentalists" is precisely belief-with-certainty, irrespective of whether these beliefs are religious or secular in nature. 

The believer-with-certainty can only justify (to himself!) his violations of other people's freedom of belief or expression, precisely because he is so CERTAIN of his own righteousnes.   To those whose human rights are being violated he cannot justify anything, of course, and appears as a hypocrite. 

The fact that I would NEVER think of restricting your freedom of speech, or anyone else's for that matter, does NOT mean that I hold any beliefs-with-certainty.  It simply means that I respect your right to belief what you want to belief.  It is quite obvious that people can not count on you doing the same.  To me that means that you are in a sense a 'fundamentalist', since you are certain that you can deny someone else what you do not want them to deny you.

If anybody is "laughing violence away", it is you, not me.  It is remarkable that people who use the violence of the state to shut up contrary opinions assign themselves the mantle of 'nonviolence'.  How hypocritical can one get?    All you are doing is assigning to your self (like every other fundamentalist does)  an absurd 'right' to decide who may be "insulted" and who may not, and which opinions may be heard and which not.

MarcFrans: "The extreme relativism of secularism is a dead-end street. It leads to extreme selfishness, unwillingness to sacrifice for the common good, and to 'decadence', i.e. to family-breakdown, social pathologies, and ultimately to defeat by foreign enemies."

Firstly, I would caution that moral relativism in the public sphere does not necessarily lead to these problems you mention, nor does it necessarily reduce moral conviction in the private sphere. Secondly, I would counter that complete moral relativism is completely impossible on either an individual or social level. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality; indeed moral value systems are integral to ideologies such as fascism, communism and national socialism e.g. patriotism, collectivization, etc.

MarcFrans: "People do need values and 'belief', but without (an intolerant) certainty."

If people "need" value systems, then these are therefore not naturally inherent and are thus socially constructed, no?

 
 
MarcFrans: "Before 'secular' Europeans get on their high horse, they better recognise that extreme secularism in Europe is not much better than muslim fundamentalism in Malaysia. The violations of freedom of (political) speech embodied in a number of 'European' laws prove equally that constitutional protections there can be 'dead letters' as well. It shows that also extreme secularists can hold beliefs-with-certainty (and without the required humility and tolerance of others)."

It is ridiculous to compare Western European and Malaysian in terms of political freedom. Furthermore, your concern primarily is freedom of speech. However, this is but one of many freedoms a person can claim as 'positive.' While one can wear a Swastika armband in the United States without fear of official prosecution (though mob violence is a distinct possibility), American laws regarding cannabis, public nudity (incl. in the media and arts), prostitution, alcohol age-limits, etc., are stricter than similar legislation in Western Europe and even Turkiye (i.e. nude beaches). There are freedoms I cherish more than the freedom to goose-step down the main drag while toting a sub-machine gun. Americans can be as 'fundamentalist' about their secularism as Western Europeans, and this is evidenced by varying opinions on liberalism and democracy itself.

MarcFrans: "The solution in the islamic world does reside in "a synthesis between islamic values and modernity".  Such a synthesis must begin with a public - and frequent - recognition by islamic religious (and other) authorities that no one can have a monopoly on "islamic values" and that freedom of speech must reign supreme."

This would not be a synthesis; rather it would be the demise of Islam. Though Christianity is a major part of the foundation of Western cultures, Christianity as a religion and direct influence has been fading away for decades.

@ pvdh

It is unlikely that your lust for "evidence" on such a major and complicated subject can be satisfied here in a few paragraphs.  As a minimum you could try to reread the article by 'Marc Huybrechts' on this website (a few months ago) under the title "Intra-Cultural Conflict"), which discussed the views of a great contemporary sociologist of religion, Peter L Berger, on relativism and fundamentalism.  All I intend to do here is to give you pointers to help you better 'question' some of your deeply-held beliefs.

-- One should not point to individual cases as 'evidence' when making judgments about group behaviors relating to matters as "selfishness, willingness to sacrifice for the common good, social pathologies, etc...".  It is posssible, even quite likely, that you, pvdh, are all the things that you claim to be.  If so, it would only 'prove' that you are an 'outlier', an exception that confirms the rule.  There is overwhelming sociological evidence that growing trends of relativism and secularism accompany growing trends of social pathologies and unwillingness to sacrifice.     

--  Your statements about the "prison population" and about "divorces" are ridiculous.   Anybody can declare himself or herself to be secular or religious, usually by force of 'habit' or 'background', it doesn't mean that they actually are.   Even if one were to accept such declarations as 'true' (highly questionable), then your two assertions would still be manifestly false.  

--  I did not say that violations of the individual's fundamental right to freedom of speech are exclusively "linked to secularism".  After all, religious fundamentalists are just as capable of disrespecting others' individual rights as secular fundamentalists are.  This is a problem of fundamentalism, not of religion nor of secularism. 

--  You cannot seriously believe that violations of individuals' constitutional rights TODAY in Europe are "based" on fears of "nazism" (an historic and very time- and culture-specific phenomenon).  That is like giving credence to the words of 'fundamentalists', or like infantile naivete about the motivations of power-seekers and power-holders.   If one could reasonably persecute 'nationalists' by playing on an irrational fear of "nazism", one could then certainly more reasonably persecute 'socialists' on a much more rational fear of "communism".  After all, intolerant nazism belongs in museums, whereas intolerant communism - and islam - is very much alive in the world today!   I refuse to believe that any intelligent person over 30 could believe such rubbish 'justification'.  

And if it were true that the Catholic church is "a main driver" behind such laws in Europe today, that would only prove that that church often does not live up to its own 'creed'.  Do you need any historical proof of that?  But the notion that the catholic church can be a "main driver" behind law in present-day Western-Europe is laughable on its face.  It's a smokescreen from fundamentalist secularists!    

Why can't politicians say what MarcFrans has?  When the cartoon Jihad was going on, why could no one speak the truth to Muslims?  If a world leader would just say clearly "you need to accept criticism" and "free speech includes offensive and even blasphemous speech", it would have made such a difference.  Islam is weaker then it appears.  They keep stating their stupid ideas, we should do the same with our great ones, and let the best ideas win.  

My kingdom for a president with a spine.
 

When the christian "democrats" link up with their true idiological allies muslim "democrats" the freedoms we currently enjoy will not live long.

The disconcerting thing about Turkey in general is that the secularists, from Ataturk's time to the present, have felt they must undermine and in many cases outlaw from the public sphere not some wacky extremist distortion of Islam, but garden-variety Islam.  What is it about this religion that the best (only?) example moderate Muslims can cite of an Islamic nation capable of modernizing and adopting Englightenment values has had to do so in such a bullying manner (and, still, often failed at it)?  Did the Japanese have to step on Shintuism and Buddhism in this way just to industralize and adopt democracy?  What is it about Islam that makes democracy and freedom of expression such a threat, which it is not in so much of the Christian world?  I'm tired of seeing this very basic and important question avoided in polite society, and hearing that stupid mantra about how extremists are giving the world a distorted view of Islam.  Obviously, Ataturk knew something about Islam that Western academics and journalists are in denial about.

...between relativism and fundamentalism is difficult to gain and to retain.  Yet, only there can 'progress' be made.  

The extreme relativism of secularism is a dead-end street.   It leads to extreme selfishness, unwillingness to sacrifice for the common good, and to 'decadence', i.e. to family-breakdown, social pathologies, and ultimately to defeat by foreign enemies.    

The belief-with-certainty of fundamentalism is a dead-end street as well.  It leads to, or maintains, unfreedom.   People do need values and 'belief', but without (an intolerant) certainty.   Values must be held in a spirit of hope and of doubt, which feeds humility and tolerance. 

Ayoob is right in telling 'moderate' muslims that their success requires " a willingness to transform themselves".  However, they must convince others of their sincerity by stressing genuine adherence to freedom of speech and of religion for all individuals (including muslims).   The most recent decision by the Supreme Court of Malaysia to deny a muslim women's freedom of religion (by reaffirming that she remains subject to sharia law and cannot convert to christianity) proves that there is no freedom of religion in that country.  It also shows that the Malaysian Constitution is not the 'supreme' law of that country, and that its 'guarantee' of individual freedom of religion is a 'dead letter'.  

Before 'secular' Europeans get on their high horse, they better recognise that extreme secularism in Europe is not much better than muslim fundamentalism in Malaysia.  The violations of freedom of (political) speech embodied in a number of 'European' laws prove equally that constitutional protections there can be 'dead letters' as well.  It shows that also extreme secularists can hold beliefs-with-certainty (and without the required humility and tolerance of others).

Akyol is right on paper.  The solution in the islamic world does reside in "a synthesis between islamic values and modernity".  Such a synthesis must begin with a public - and frequent - recognition by islamic religious (and other) authorities that no one can have a monopoly on "islamic values" and that freedom of speech must reign supreme. 

As long as you do not hear "moderate muslims" and the AKP adhere to this view publicly and frequently, it would be foolhardy to believe in their "willingness to transform themselves".    

And who says the AKP wouldn't return to its foundation if it made the needed constitutional changes? To deceive the enemy is an acceptable tactic if you're willing to fight.