Secularist Europe Silences Pro-Lifers and Creationists

Last week, a German court sentenced a 55-year old Lutheran pastor to one year in jail for “Volksverhetzung” (incitement of the people) because he compared the killing of the unborn in contemporary Germany to the holocaust. Next week, the Council of Europe is going to vote on a resolution imposing Darwinism as Europe’s official ideology. The European governments are asked to fight the expression of creationist opinions, such as young earth and intelligent design theories. According to the Council of Europe these theories are “undemocratic” and “a threat to human rights.”

Without legalized abortion the number of German children would increase annually by at least 150,000 – which is the number of legal abortions in birth dearth Germany. Pastor Johannes Lerle compared the killing of the unborn to the killing of the Jews in Auschwitz during the Second World War. On 14 June, a court in Erlangen ruled that, in doing so, the pastor had “incited the people” because his statement was a denial of the holocaust of the Jews in Nazi-Germany. Hence, Herr Lerle was sentenced to one year in jail. Earlier, he had already spent eight months in jail for calling abortionists “professional killers” – an allegation which the court ruled to be slanderous because, according to the court, the unborn are not humans.

Other German courts convicted pro-lifers for saying that “in abortion clinics, life unworthy of living is being killed,” because this terminology evoked Hitler’s euthanasia program, which used the same language. In 2005, a German pro-lifer, Günter Annen, was sentenced to 50 days in jail for saying “Stop unjust [rechtswidrige] abortions in [medical] practice,” because, according to the court, the expression “unjust” is understood by laymen as meaning illegal, which abortions are not.

Volksverhetzung is a crime which the Nazis often invoked against their enemies and which contemporary Germany also uses to intimidate homeschoolers. Soon, the German authorities will be able to use the same charge against people who question Darwin’s evolution theory.

Indeed, next Tuesday, the Council of Europe (CoE), Europe’s main human-rights body, will vote on a proposal which advocates the fight against creationism, “young earth” and “intelligent design” in its 47 member states.

According to a report of the CoE’s Parliamentary Assembly, creationists are dangerous “religious fundamentalists” who propagate “forms of religious extremism” and “could become a threat to human rights.” The report adds that the acceptance of the science of evolutionism “is crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies.”

“Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon,” the report says.

“Today creationist theories are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states. […] [T]his is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism, synonymous with attacks of utmost virulence on human rights. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights. […] The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that the advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy. [...] If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists.”

According to the CoE report, America and Australia are already on their way towards becoming such undemocratic theocracies where human and civic rights are endangered. Creationism is “well-developed in the English-speaking countries, especially the United States and Australia,” the report states.

“While most curricula in Europe today unashamedly teach evolution as a recognised scientific theory, the same does not apply to the United States. In July 2005, the Pew Research Center conducted a poll that showed that 64% of Americans favoured the teaching of intelligent design alongside the theory of evolution and that 38% would support the total abandonment of the teaching of evolution in publicly owned schools. The American President George W. Bush supports the principle of teaching both intelligent design and the theory of evolution. At the moment, 20 of the 50 American states are facing potential adjustments of their school curricula in favour of intelligent design. Many people think that this phenomenon only affects the United States and that, even if it is not possible to be indifferent to what is happening on the other side of the Atlantic, it is not the Council of Europe’s role to deal with this issue. That, however, is not the case. On the contrary, it would seem crucial for us to take the appropriate precautions in our 47 member states.”

 

 
Though one may disagree with people who take the Book of Genesis literally (believing that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh), surely secularist political organizations telling people what they may or may not believe, constitute a far greater threat to human rights than religious institutions telling their faithful how to vote. In the voting booth people are free to do what they like, whilst in contemporary Europe people are no longer free to publicly voice their own, deeply felt opinions in public.

In Germany, believing abortion to be as murderous as the holocaust is a crime, and educating your own children is a crime too. In France, saying that “homosexual behaviour endangers the survival of humanity” is a crime, and so is the distribution of pork soup to the poor. In Belgium, speaking out against immigration is a crime.

In the latest issue of the Dutch conservative magazine Bitter Lemon the Dutch author Erik van Goor writes that European courts are silencing conservative and orthodox citizens. Freedom of speech no longer exist, says van Goor.

 “While many in the West still idolize the second-hand fighters for free speech, such as [Ayaan] Hirsi Ali and Theo van Gogh, the true victims of curtailment are deliberately kept under wraps. Hirsi Ali, [Pim] Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh were not curtailed by the state or by court, Johannes Lerle is. The former voiced mere opinions – expressions of a public opinion which one may or may not value or believe. The latter – Dr Lerle – shows that what is at stake is not merely opinions, but a moral order which is being questioned; a reality of life and death which is at risk.”

Hirsi Ali, Fortuyn and van Gogh did not defend Europe’s traditional Christian moral order. People such as Johannes Lerle and Christian Vanneste, the French parliamentarian who was convicted for “homophobia,” do. The latter are being persecuted by Western Europe’s political regimes – a phenomenon which is ignored completely by the Western mainstream media, who participate in the persecution.

 

Update
A quote from Reuters, 25 June 2007:
Europe’s main human rights body on Monday cancelled a scheduled vote on banning creationist and intelligent design views from school science classes, saying the proposed resolution was one-sided. […] Guy Lengagne, the French Socialist member of the Assembly who drew up the report, protested after the Parliamentary Assembly voted to call off the debate and vote, and [approved a proposal of the Flemish Christian-Democrat Luc Van den Brande] to send the report back to committee for further study. […] Deputies said the motion by the Christian Democratic group of parliamentarians also won support from east European deputies, who recalled that Darwinian evolution was a favorite theory of their former communist rulers.

Marxists using the power of

Marxists using the power of the government to destroy lives that do not speak the government approved dogma in the name of human rights. I bet this article is an inspiration to "Presidential Hopeful" Klinton, imagine the possibilities government control can have to protect us from those that do not speak government approved speech.
vergeturi

@George2

"I don't see any objection why Pro-Life-ism or Creationism can be added to the list."

Because we are talking here about science class. In science class teatchers are supposed to teach science, not rubbish. (See point 18 of the report: "The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities, to (...) firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline ...").

"And yes, we would still get illegal theft, like we do now. So Belien is not lying about this."

Yes he is, because he says that "without legalized abortion" (150,000 abortions a year), "the number of German children would increase annually by at least 150,000". This implies that without legalized abortion there would be zero abortions, which is a blatant lie.

Politics & Reporting

Just about every writer in journalism will add their own twist to their reporting.  The ideal of a completely objective press is a fantasy that would assume we are not human, but robots.

 

No talented writer (and I include Paul Belien in that list) is able to write about a subject they care about without trying to convey to their readers the angle they see the topic from.

 

While I do not have time to verify the statistics provided in his report, any suggestion made that Europe is abandoning her Christian roots for a completely secular society even to the point of pentalizing people for taking a stance on Faith is quite accurate.  Worse, governments are denying free speach to those who try to voice ideas contrary to these liberal policies.

 

Paul Belien has not lied in this article, but has expressed points that he believes are supported by data as interpreted by him.  He is not alone in these thoughts and many intelligent, forward thinkers would agree with what he has presented.

 

You may not agree with him, but to attack his integrity because you differ with his views is hardly worthy of a good debate.  One thing I've noticed in blogland is that Conservatives tend to allow the Liberals a chance to leave their thoughts behind, but most of the Liberals tend to delete Conservative comments.  Seems the fact your accusations are still on this page would give Mr. Belien a point for continuing the spirit of fair play.  You could return the favour by being more civil with your "tongue" (keyboard).

 

Lord, grant me the strength to change the things I can;

the serenity to deal with the things I cannot change;

and the wisdom to know the difference.

@ Flemish American

I agree with you that journalists (like eyewitnesses or historians) are unable to be strictly objective. I also agree with you that Belien is a talented writer and that in most cases his analysis is correct and accurate. But nobody is perfect and sometimes, for reasons of their own, they take a ride with reality. Not just by lying but also by omission, exaggerating and distorting the facts. It is therefore necessary that others are pinpointing this but without guarantee to be objective themselves.

@Paul Belien: lying is a sin.

In the "About" section of this weblog The Brussels Journal quotes H.L. Mencken: "I believe in being free, acquiring knowledge, and telling the truth."

Unfortunately, as soon as Christianity is involved, Paul Belien cannot live up to Mencken's standards and seems to refrain from being free, acquiring knowledge and telling the truth.

In the title of article above there are already two lies. Europe doesn't silence Pro-Lifers, nor does it silence Creationists.

Belien continues: "Next week, the Council of Europe is going to vote on a resolution imposing Darwinism as Europe’s official ideology."

As roughdoggo already explained, "the Council of Europe merely proposes that the politically correct "equal time" principle should not be applied to the promulgation in classrooms of rubbish posing as science." Conclusion: Belien lies when he uses the word "imposes". He also calls Darwinism an "ideology" but maybe this is not lying but only plain ignorance. H.L. Mencken was at the Scopes trial. He knew what "imposing ideologies" really means.

Belien's next item is abortion. He writes: "Without legalized abortion the number of German children would increase annually by at least 150,000 – which is the number of legal abortions in birth dearth Germany."
This is a blatant lie. Everybody knows that without legalized abortion, we get illegal abortion or abortion abroad. Why does Belien lie about this?

Considering all this lying and cheating, wouldn't it be better to remove Mencken's quote in the "About" section and replace it by the real objective of The Brussels Journal?

@ Johan B

"As roughdoggo already explained, "the Council of Europe merely proposes that the politically correct "equal time" principle should not be applied to the promulgation in classrooms of rubbish posing as science."

Let me point you out that right now many different systems of believe have to be explained by law in many European schools (including Catholic, Protestant, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shamanism etc). I don't see any objection why Pro-Life-ism or Creationism can be added to the list.

"Belien's next item is abortion. He writes: "Without legalized abortion the number of German children would increase annually by at least 150,000 – which is the number of legal abortions in birth dearth Germany."
This is a blatant lie. Everybody knows that without legalized abortion, we get illegal abortion or abortion abroad. Why does Belien lie about this?"

If theft would be legalized, theft would increase annually too. If consequently theft would become illegal again like it is now, theft would decrease dramatically. And yes, we would still get illegal theft, like we do now. So Belien is not lying about this.

As Schaveiger writes: I agree with you that journalists (like eyewitnesses or historians) are unable to be strictly objective. I also agree with you that Belien is a talented writer and that in most cases his analysis is correct and accurate. But nobody is perfect and sometimes, for reasons of their own, they take a ride with reality. Not just by lying but also by omission, exaggerating and distorting the facts. It is therefore necessary that others are pinpointing this but without guarantee to be objective themselves.

I agree with this too.

Not a sin but a tool !

@ Johan B
Populists not telling the truth is not a sin but a tool to motivate their hang-arounds. They know damn well that their sympathizers are rarely classified in the "mothers smartest" category.

Moral bankruptcy #2

@ Harbison

When people are no longer capable of separating facts from opinions, they can no longer make HONEST judgements.  And if, furthermore, they are unwilling to apply principles in a consistent way, and instead apply them SELECTIVELY (i.e. only when it suits their purposes) then democracy will become a pipedream.  Hence, we have here the spectacle of modern 'westerners', like yourself and Schaveiger, pretending to be 'democrats' and yet advocating the selective banning of opinions, i.e. the freedom of (political) speech of opponents. 

It does not matter what Mr Lerle thinks and says.  What matters is that today he can be convicted in a German court for SAYING what he thinks, and not for any illegal DEEDS.    You may think he is a "bigot", and maybe he is.  So what?  I think you are a "bigot" too, but I would never condone a court punishing you for your 'speech' or opinions.   

A "bigot" is a label, and anyone can SUBJECTIVELY hang such a label on anyone else.  That is precisely why in genuine democracies there is freedom of (political) speech, because - unlike in autocracy - the law should never be implemented in an ARBITRARY way.   If one can lock up people simply for expressing opinions (on which one can hang labels like "racism", "insult" etc...), how is that different from islamic regimes hanging labels like "anti-islamic" or "blasphemous" on political opponents' necks, or from the old communist regimes sending "enemies of the people" (read "enemies of the party") to gulags? 

Whether Mr Belien is "propagating a falsehood", or not, is absolutely insignificant compared to you (and Schaveiger) helping to further undermine the very 'tenuous' remnants of 'democracy' in Europe today. There can be no genuine democracy without freedom of political speech. Belien MAY be propagating an insignificant falsehood, but you ARE propagating intolerance and nondemocracy (where a ruling orthodoxy perpetuates its rule by 'silencing' unorthodox opinions).

Inaccuracies in this story

This report is false. Lerle wasn't convicted for comparing abortion to the Holocaust. He was convicted for Holocaust denial. He said that Auschwitz was a deception, and that the gas chambers could not have killed the number of Jews they're claimed to have killed. The documents describing his conviction are on his own website, at http://www.johannes-lerle.de/

If you read further Lerle's own writings, you will discover that he is a vicious antisemite who claims that the "Jew-controlled propaganda media" tricked the US into war with Germany in 1941, that Jews convinced the Romans to throw Christians to the lions, started the Iran-Iraq war, and all sorts of other vile nonsense.

This false story has been widely disseminated in the United States. Mr. Belien is threfore responsible for propagating a very nasty falsehood and for giving comfort and support to a bigot. Shame on him!

Key word: straferschwerend

Gerard, Paul's report with regard to abortion is not incorrect. It is however incomplete, because:

'Das Gericht wertete es als straferschwerend, dass Lerle bereits sechsmal wegen Beleidigung namentlich genannter Abtreibungsärzte verurteilt wurde. Er hatte die Mediziner auf Flugblättern „Berufskiller“ genannt. Deshalb verbrachte Lerle bereits achteinhalb Monaten im Gefängnis.'

And because Paul has proven to be a fierce opponent of abortion, this might as well be the only reason to refer to the verdict of mr. Lerle.

… which does not mean I agree with Paul Belien

A human is a member of the Homo Sapiens.

A human 'being' is a (sub)conscious human.

The value of a human (being) equals it's understanding.

Humans that become a plague distort the human value.

Therefore: abortion does not equal the killing of a human being, and may even improve the human value.

Definition of human?

"Not humans, eh? Then what species are they?"

 

This got me thinking.  I don't think there is an agreed definition of human.  Is 23 pairs of human chromosomes the definition of human?  Are Down's or Turner's children human then?  Does it have to be alive?  Are frozen embryos human then?  Not so simple really.

What's the "real" value of humans life ?

Near to nothing because you get them free which means much too many, it costs huge money and efforts to keep it alive and it's never self-sufficient.
In fact, the only value they have is purely sentimental.

Re: Schaveiger

"What's the "real" value of humans life? Near to nothing ..."

Indeed, humans have sentimental value. Most new borns also have a future value. In many societies, people have many children 'as security for old age'.

Some of the new borns will produce, others will create great inventions. There will be even new borns who have a negative future value.

@ George2

New borns are usually not victims of abortion but still.

With new borns with a negative future value you had not marcfrans in mind did'nt you ;)

But enough about Lerle...

Let's get on to the main course! Very succinctly, why is it wrong to ask for a ban on creationist and "intelligent design" myths (I'm not gonna dignify this tosh with the name of "science") in school science courses in Europe?

In spite of the spin given by the lead-in to this thread, the report under discussion does not tell people what to believe. It merely proposes that the politically correct "equal time" principle should not be applied to the promulgation in classrooms of rubbish posing as science.

Too bad that the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly waffled on this one. (Amusingly, it was a Muslim creationist's antics that got this ball rolling in the first place.)

By the way, the expression " in contemporary Europe people are no longer free to publicly voice their own, deeply felt opinions in public" is tautological.

wandering....

@ Jari

I appreciate your desire "to discuss Paul Belien's opinions".  I, for one, am certainly not "preventing" any such thing, and will now get out of the way.  But, I do retain the 'right' to call a "fundamentalist" (someone willing to 'silence' the opinions of others, either through personal violence or through judicial and legislative abuse of power) when I see one.

@ Schaveiger

1)...

2) You are doing it again: you are misrepresenting what can factually be verified!   In my original contribution there is nowhere any mention of "Christian churches are imposing etc....".  The words "christian" and "churches" do NOT appear at all.  And yet, you STILL claim that I "linked this" to my purported freedom-of-speech "syndrome".  Either you are a flat-out liar or you are incapable of making accurate empirical observations (i.e. read what is in front of you, rather than what you IMAGINE to be there).  

3) In response to your question: yes, when a court convicts someone for expressing an opinion, that is an ACTION which prevents or harms the freedom of speech of all other citizens.  It is a warning which tells them that they too could get punished CONCRETELY for expressing opinions that are not in agreement with those of the ruling orthodoxy.  It is the most fundamental negation of genuine 'democracy'.

And yes, there should be limits on the ACTION of certain 'speech', but not on the CONTENT of speech. Is that really too difficult for you to understand, or don't you want to understand it because you like to see your political opponents persecuted? How often does this have to be repeated on this or any other forum?  Let's illustrate this.

If you shout "fire" in a crowded cinema (when there is no fire) you are not conveying any opinion or information, but you are simply trying to create an accident or incident.  That is not free political speech, but a forbidden DEED.  Or, if I stand everyday in front of Verhofstadt's house and call him insulting 'names', I am simply harassing the poor man through actions, and this has nothing to do with expressing my opinions on him in proper venues (like newspapers, internet fora, or meetings etc...). 

Freedom of (political) speech simply means that people should be able to express their opinions about anything in 'proper' venues.  And laws which explicitly forbid the holding and/or propagating of certain opinions (on whatever) are the most characteristic feature of intolerant authoritarianism, totalitarianism and tyranny.   They are designed to maintain a ruling orthodoxy and are antithetical to democracy and freedom.

3) Lerle is not my "icon".  I know nothing about the man, and I probably disagree with him on most things.  I simply say that he is entitled to express whatever opinion he holds on abortion or anything else.

By contrast, your dismissive attitude is short-sighted and reminds me of the Middle Ages when 'unpopular' people were also often 'feathered and tarred' for holding unorthodox and/or unpopular opinions.  You are simply no different from the "Arab Street" in your lack of concern for judicial or legislative abuse of 'different' people.  Nothing is easier than running with the popular 'crowd', which is what you and the Belgian parliament are doing. You certainly have forgotten Voltaire!

4) I am neither a simplistic intelligent design supporter, nor a simplistic evolution supporter.  Those are labels that can mean different things to different people.  It is even absurd to juxtapose them as such, since they ask different questions.

Scientific theories about evolution deal with PHYSICAL processes of observable change around us over time.  They simply cannot deal with the question of ultimate SOURCE and MEANING of human life and of the physical world around us.  They are limited to the world of so-called 'positive' sciences. 

"Intelligent design" theories can mean different things.  To the extent they question and perhaps refute certain 'evolutionary' views about the observable changes in the fysical world, they could be considered as having positive science aspects.  But, questions about ultimate source  or origin of life properly belong to the discipline of filosophy, which is more 'speculative' in nature and which tends to rely more heavily on deductive reasoning and less on empirical observation.  Yet, man can never escape the need to rely on both deductive reasoning and empirical observation.      

@ marcfrans

2) I was commenting on the posting of Belien and the arguments of Lerle where he stated that legalized abortion kills 150.000/year. I further commented on the Creationist/Evolutionist arguments in the same post and again you had to turn it down because it had nothing to do with your "freedom of speech" obsession. I wonder who of us is not reading what is in front and who's imagination is at stake. Calling me a liar is again one of your individual freedoms, but if you are a bit fair (which I doubt) you should explain in what I'm lying.

3) You brought the "freedom of speech" back to the political speech only. Your VB (among some others) have been sued for racial comments. If this comes out of a political party do you call it a "political speech" ?. If yes, insulting people on their colour and/or origin and yelling "own people first" is freedom of speech or action ?.

Humans are unable to cope with freedom, that's why red lines have to be traced. It's like driving on a 50 meters broad driveway without traced lanes.

I'm highly suspicious on people who needs long explanations using sophisticated words to explain simple things because often they do so to hide their real intentions.

You're welcome, Mr Belien!

I assume the Reuters update to this thread came to your attention via the first link I provided below? In which case ... I'll forego the thanks - this time. But why not add on the other bits, the ones from the two links I gave, that suggest the darker side of Johannes Lerle? His sentencing was for other reasons, it seems, than the ones proposed in your first sentence here.

In the egalitarian world

In the egalitarian world, the condemnation of Islamic fundamentalism inevitably helps the boomerang turn to every individual with supposedly extremist opinions. We ought to find other casting devices..

Foot-in-mouth outbreak!

The Sprouts strike again! Maybe youze guys should take a good look at these sites before you shove your feet in so deep that no hydraulic jack will get them outta there! (I ain't saying where "there" is.)

Hint: It appears that not all the relevant information regarding the Lerle affair has been provided to us by this website, or the ones hypertexted here. But judge for yourselves ...

forum.darwincentral.org/viewtopic.php?p=151298&sid=59d5669bd4f9a8d9cc6da228d01ef93b

homepage.mac.com/gerardharbison/blog/RWP_blog.html#bcw204497756

Where are all the German

Where are all the German Christians?  And where is the Pope, or is he too busy issuing Commandments for drivers?

When a law and/or a court decision are this morally WRONG, it is time for peaceful civil disobedience!

Otherwise, quoting the eloquent Pastor Martin Niemöller:

“First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Mrs. Merkel  TEAR DOWN THIS COURT DECISION !

A Reagan American

I guess what is bothering me

I guess what is bothering me is the rampant attempts to censor views. From this somewhat biased observer it sure seems as if the state is especially concerned with censorship. Freedom of speech doesn't seem to be very well understood in Europe.

Whenever there are differing opinions, individuals and groups are "persecuted" either officially, unofficially, or both. I do not believe that ardent 'creationists' would allow for the evolutionary take on human origins were they "in charge." Of course, any true Christian would naturally combat all attempts at secularism and any true atheist would do the opposite. This is the nature of things. Agnostics, weak Christians and weak atheists are the only ones capable of sustainable compromise, but suffer because of their ideological "weakness."

 

Pierre Legrand

The Pink Flamingo Bar

moral wandering, indeed!

@ Schaveiger

 

1) Indeed, I have difficulty - and I am quoting you now directly - "to distinguish statements out of opinions".  I suspect every reasonable person would have difficulty with that, because I have no idea what that sentence of yours could possibly mean.  It's a meaningless sentence or, if you want, it could mean almost anything at the same time.  Perhaps, the problem here is your limited knowledge of English, but I suspect it is worse, i.e. a reflection of a poor capacity to think complex issues through.

2) Another problem of yours is the constant refusal to make empirical observations, i.e. in this particular case to read what is in front of you, NOT what you IMAGINE is in front you.   Nowhere did I say anything about "Christian churches wanting to impose etc...".  How then can you claim that I would equate such an aim as part of "freedom of speech or opinion"?   A discussion with you is like fighting Don Quichote' s windmills, i.e. you are unable to address an issue and prefer to pursue imaginary 'strawmen'.

3) Actually, "imposition" of certain theories in school curricula, and "banning" of other theories, would have nothing to do with "freedom of speech or opinion".   Imposition and banning anything are ACTIONS - not speech - and they belong properly in the political and judicial domains.  They have nothing directly to do with freedom of speech and/or opinion of the individual.  

The issue was that an individual, Johannes Lerle, was convicted in a German court for expressing an OPINION on the subject of abortion.   As an individual he certainly could not IMPOSE, nor BAN, anything in school curricula of the society at large.    In fact, you are the one who is clearly for "banning" an opinion, since you refuse to even address the issue of the violation of Mr Lerle's freedom of speech by a German court (and implicitly by contemporary German law). 

What you seem unable (but really unwilling) to grasp is the following.  A society needs to tolerate freedom of speech and opinion in order for the public, or the 'polity' at large, to be able to make informed decisions.  That was the great achievement of the 'European' Enlightenment and the scientific revolutions that came out of the 18th and 19th centuries.  That achievement was essentially the realisation that no 'orthodoxy' can have a monopoly on knowledge and 'truth' and, in order to safeguard that realisation constitutonal free speech rights were 'cemented' in liberal western constitutions.   Clearly that realisation is no longer there among Europe's elites today, which means that "democracy" is on the way out there, to be replaced by a new autocratic orthodoxy.  

4) Indeed, my commentaries tend to be "lengthy" because we are dealing here with serious and complex issues.   Your shallow simplifications and 'strawmen' do not clarify anything really, except perhaps your unfounded 'belief' of you possessing the whole truth. 

Perhaps our views on contemporary theories of Creationism and of  Evolution may not be very different.  We will never know, for I am only inclined to engage in discussions with people who have a reasonably open mind.  The fact that you are willing to condone the 'silencing' of certain opinions (by legislative and/or judicial 'fiat' in Germany and elsewhere) tells me that you are essentially an intolerant "fundamentalist".   Discussions with such people are usually a waste of time.  Such people are usually not interested in gaining a deeper understanding of the 'truth', but rather tend to seek only confirmation (or re-affirmation) of their own existing opinions and 'beliefs'.    

Wandering further with marcfrans

1) I know that my English is poor, the only thing I know in speaking and writing is "Globish" and we will have to stick to this, if you like it or not.

2) My observations are solely based on what I see and experience. I never wrote that YOU said that Christian churches are imposing etc…What I mentioned was that you linked this to your "freedom of speech" syndrome. I don't really know if Don Quichotte was fighting windmills or pseudo-philosophers since both are mostly alike, especially when the latter qualifies themselves as the oracle. Generally realists and pragmatists are not their best friends.

3) If you state that imposing or banning other theories are actions and have nothing to do with freedom of speech and opinion of the individual then I think, in my Globish, that you miss something important. Can you explain if it's an action or not that forbids you from having freedom of speech ?. Can you explain at the same time whether there should or not be limits on that freedom ?.

Your icon Lerle is also an Holocaust denier and has faced more trials for his so-called "freedom of speech and opinion" (see the links provided by roughdoggo). The way you qualify freedom is like a car without brakes.

4) Of course you've to be lengthy because you just act like the Intelligent Design supporters, making it as much complicated as possible. I've not the truth, don't worry about that. Despite your extended knowledge of the English vocabulary and your pseudo in-depth understanding, you don't have it neither.

Last but not least, I did not ask for your comments in the first place. You wanted to reply on it in your usual discriminatory way in regards to my skills and beliefs. That’s your freedom. This place is a forum where all opinions should be expressed. If you get one like me who is holding you from turning loose, so be it.

No diving please..?

Marc, although I appreciate your idea on the freedom of expression: aren't you preventing a debate on Paul Belien's opinions, by using your framework of thought as a flotation device?

Demise of free speech

"Earlier, he had already spent eight months in jail for calling abortionists “professional killers” – an allegation which the court ruled to be slanderous because, according to the court, the unborn are not humans."

Not humans, eh? Then what species are they?

@ Ransom

"Not humans, eh? Then what species are they?"

It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, but for sake of not having to take up responsibility we call it an elephant.

Maybe if we link the rise in global temperature to an increase of abortions ...

In Reply to Paul Belien

Paul Belien: "Though one may disagree with people who take the Book of Genesis literally (believing that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh) surely secularist political organizations telling people what they may or may not believe, constitute a far greater threat to human rights than religious institutions telling their faithful how to vote."

 

If religious institutions, Christian churches in particular, believe in the truth of creationism and intelligent design, and are morally opposed to both homosexuality and abortion, then it would seem natural for them to instruct their members to vote for politicians and parties that "fit" their perspective.

 

With regards to public education, curricula cannot be a "free market" where students are taught to select which facts they believe are true and which they disagree with and therefore consider untrue. Students attend school to learn from others, not to cherry-pick ideas, which if not presented as facts, will result in confusion, although critical thinking (questioning) and self-motivated learning are essential components to any individual's "education." Unfortunately, the debate between evolution and creationism/intelligent design cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of either party. There is a struggle here, but neither side is particularly more accommodating than the other. Why should an atheist, agnostic or Hindu have to put up with a narrow Abrahamic perspective of human origins?

Paul Belien: "Hirsi Ali, Fortuyn and van Gogh did not defend Europe’s traditional Christian moral order. People such as Johannes Lerle and Christian Vanneste, the French parliamentarian who was convicted for “homophobia,” do. The latter are being persecuted by Western Europe’s political regimes – a phenomenon which is ignored completely by the Western mainstream media, who participate in the persecution."

 

Whenever there are differing opinions, individuals and groups are "persecuted" either officially, unofficially, or both. I do not believe that ardent 'creationists' would allow for the evolutionary take on human origins were they "in charge." Of course, any true Christian would naturally combat all attempts at secularism and any true atheist would do the opposite. This is the nature of things. Agnostics, weak Christians and weak atheists are the only ones capable of sustainable compromise, but suffer because of their ideological "weakness."

Irony of Secular Faith

The irony is that the socialist mind-set that has taken over the Western elite blocks out acceptance its blatant self-contradictions. It is against creationism for its assault on rationalism, yet 1) rescinds freedom of thought to squelch all debate 2) gleefully embraces a constellation of irrational ideas.  What rational mind can explain its mystical faith in the disinterested philanthropy of politicians and the legion of central planners has improved the lot of humanity? Is the source of this belief found in seeing them as a race of supermen? Why when the evidence after so many decades is so massive as to reveal to anyone with the most simple intellect that the greatest violator of all socialist moral claims are socialist policies?

If this Western elite claims to root out all defects of humanity, as socialist desire,

1. Why the 60 year silence on the horrors of communism and the perpetrators of it? Why allow Pol Pot to die of old age in the comfort of his own bed?

2. Why support for decades the genocidal death cult of islamism in Palestine, and elsewhere, and look the other way its legion of followers in the West?

3. Why coddle the likes of Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Castro of Cuba? Why the absence of indignation when Arafat walked casually away from potential peace in 2000, and then celebrate him afterwards?

4. Why support the UN with barely a reproach to that international body so riven with venality and mocks all values of human decency?    

Do these individuals truly expect liberals like myself to buy in to their claims of moral superiority and sense of moral purpose? Or view their true motives stemming from a blind religious quest for moral atonement to hide the cowardice of its rotten, vacuous core?

so if Darwinism is now the accepted Groupthink

where does that leave eugenics?  Darwinism is not necessarily eugenics, there is some distinction, but in a culture that already approves of put-grandma-to-sleep, the sledgehammer of state reasoning is not likely to distinguish the difference.

The only policy we should have with the EU is accepting refugees. 

Leftist judges

Marcfrans's fourth point, about how the U.S. Supreme Court will have to reverse an idiotic decision from a lower court dominated by lefties, reminds me of why I nearly always end up voting for Republican candidates.  My fellow academics are stunned by my voting Republic, of course, especially because I am gay.  They think "progressive jurists" are precisely what I should most want.  The fight for freedom of expression is an uphill battle when our academic elites are the worst bullies in this regard.

Moral bankruptcy

1) The subject under discussion here is the fact that today one can again get convicted in Germany (but also in Belgium, France, etc...) SIMPLY for expressing an opinion.  Just like this was the case in Germany under Hitler, or as is the case in today's totalitarian societies (China, Cuba, etc...).   If the authorities want to make an example of you, they will single you out and put you in jail.  That will keep the rest well 'in line', all in furtherance of their 'pensee unique'.

2) George2 points out correctly that such power in the hands of rulers will inevitably be SELECTIVELY used against political opponents.  His rethorical question cannot be answered, for there is no real difference between selective abuse of legislative and judicial power by nazis or by the current German ruling 'elite' to impose their respective dogmatic beliefs.

3) In response, Schaveiger puts his head in the sand and ignores the issue at hand.  He starts off with a meaningless opening sentence about abortion being subject to "medical and psychic" conditions".  What is the relevance of this sentence?  The issue or subject under discussion is NOT under what conditions the law 'regulates' abortion, but the issue is that there is no tolerance for freedom of speech in contemporary Germany!    He then goes on making all sorts of assertions, which suggest that he is convinced of his own monopoly of 'the truth'.  He seems to think that only "clerics" can have "dogmatic beliefs".  I suggest that he looks closer to home to discern "dogmas".  He also clearly does not know what "fundamentalism" means.  Fundamentalism can best be described as holding beliefs-with-certainty, i.e. with an unquestioning attitude, as opposed to holding beliefs with an open mind, i.e. a mind that is open to new or additional evidence, and that tolerates apparently contradictory observations and/or evidence.  Anybody can claim himself to be whatever he wants to be.  So we cannot judge people solely by their words, but we must look at their actions too.   Perhaps the surest way to be able to distinguish between a  "fundamentalist" and a tolerant person, is to see whether the person in question can tolerate other opinions than his own being expressed.  "Fundamentalists" surely do not tolerate the freedom of speech of people with opinions contrary to their own.  So we have here the ridiculous spectacle of a fundamentalist, i.e. Schaveiger, calling some one else (Johannes Lerle) a "Fundamentalist".   But, there is NO EVIDENCE that Lerle would be prepared to deny Shaveiger his freedom to express his opinions.  By contrast, the commentaries of Schaveiger clearly demonstrate that he is quite prepared to deny others the freedom to express opinions of which he disapproves.     Can anybody be surprised that actual fundamentalists would not hesitate to apply that 'slur' word to possibly-tolerant people?

4) One of America's best truly-conservative commentators, George Will, said it best in an op-ed piece for the Washington Post today.

"...it was predictable that the right of free speech would increasingly be sacrificed to various social objectives that free speech 'supposedly' impedes. And it was predictable that speech suppression would become an instrument of cultural combat, used to settle ideological scores and advance political agendas by silencing adversaries."

His comment was made in the context of the most recent outrageous decision by the 9th Circuit Court (with jurisdiction for the US West Coast states, and which is controlled by radical lefties) to uphold some speech suppression by some local authority in the San Francisco area. Luckily, the US Supreme Court will undoubtedly overrule this latest outrage of the 9th Circuit Court, and provide the necessary checks and balances. In the US, the radical intolerant CULTURAL (not limited to political) left may rule certain levers of power and control some barns, but in Europe today they seem to run the whole farm (with no checks and balances).

Moral wandering

The relevance of my sentence concerning "medical and psychic conditions" are clear, except for marcfrans of course. Your "freedom of speech" obsession is such that you are unable to distinguish statements out of opinions.
My comments were clearly on the differences between the pros- and contras on abortion and the Creationists and Evolutionist. Your lengthy comments are completely out of purpose and just ridiculous. I perfectly know what a fundamentalist is, we have daily images and comments enough coming from them. If you call the aim of Christian churches to impose the teaching of Creationism and ban the Evolution out of schools as "freedom of speech or opinion", then you should review in depth your knowledge about fundamentalism.

Volksverhetzung, Beleidigung, Verleumdung

"Volksverhetzung is a crime which the Nazis often invoked against their enemies and which contemporary Germany also uses to intimidate homeschoolers. Soon, the German authorities will be able to use the same charge against people who question Darwin’s evolution theory."

It should be noted that also "Beleidigung" (insult) is a crime which the Nazis often invoked against their enemies. Catholic clerics like Father Johann Maria Lenz and Father Rupert Mayer were arrested, some even murdered, because of alleged "insults" against the Reich.

While "Verleumdung" (slander) means "spreading false accusations", "insult" is not specified by anything (nulla poena sine lege). In reality - like in Nazi Germany - the irrational accusation of "insult" is used to protect the crimes of politicians, judges, murderers etc., while anybody is criminalized who spreads the truth about politicians, judges, murderers etc.

See also:
http://www.presseanzeiger.de/meldungen/recht-gesetz/233306.php

Germany is not free

"a German court sentenced a 55-year old Lutheran pastor to one year in jail for “Volksverhetzung” (incitement of the people) because he compared the killing of the unborn in contemporary Germany to the holocaust."

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Oh my G-d!  I think with the unificiation they are likely to be even less democratic. 

 

Without freedom of economy, property ownership, free speech and taxation WITH representation you are not living in a free society.  I don't care what the lefty international groups say about Germany and Sweden and Norway but they are NOT free.

 

Dan "The only reason for jailing creationists and intelligent design adherents is because at some level they believe they can’t win the argument."

I think this comes under "Holocaust mitigation" and really has nothing to do with the basic arguments of yours that I disagree with but would fight for the right for you to express them.

"Hirsi Ali, Fortuyn and van Gogh did not defend Europe’s traditional Christian moral order."

No they defended the current Dutch Moral Order which is why they are all heros here. I find it odd that right wingers like to quote them.

Clerics, scientists and human beings.

Is abortion not subject to strict medical and/or psychic conditions anymore ?. Clerics have always been against abortion because of the dogmas of their beliefs. But clerics have never experienced unwanted pregnancy caused by f.e. rapes. Therefore comparing abortion to the holocaust is a step too far and tends to a fundamentalist attitude.

Concerning the struggle between Creationists and Evolutionists, we find again the same players i.e. clerics/believers and the others. Darwinists are often wrong and they recognize it, because they're scientists. One can't say that from the Creationists, who stick to their belief but are unable to give a single scientific proof of what they believe in. What happens lately in the USA is that the Creationists and the ID-passionates are trying to squeeze out the Evolution teaching. Not because they believe that they're right but because they know that the scientific evidence comes closer and closer proving that they're definitely wrong . And this will be the end of the Faith-business, for which they're scared to death.

selective use of 'incitement of the people'

It is a crime to say that the total of the German abortions equals or corresponds to the holocaust. This is 'incitement of the people' because the unborn are not humans.

So what happens when you say that living people should be killed if they hamper the way of a particular religion to become the dominant religion, a religion that says what people can eat, what body parts should be cut off, what sexual preference one should have (and you are executed if you don't act on it)?

The Nazis were very selective in the use of the accusation of 'incitement of the people'. People who oppossed the political correct view of that time, incited the people. These people were threatened or ended in a jail or an extermination camp. People telling that Jews, Gipsies, homosexuals should be killed because they did not fit in the idea of Aryan dominant culture, these people were true followers of the faith and did not incite the people.

Can someone please explain me what the difference is between the selective use of the term 'incitement of the people' by the Nazis and by the current leftist political correct elite?

The only reason...

The only reason for jailing creationists and intelligent design adherents is because at some level they believe they can’t win the argument.

 

 

Of course the abortion debate is inextricably linked to the creationist debate; though not the only grounds to oppose the practice, there are purely secular ones as well.

 

To think is now a crime in EU?

The evolution vs creation debate has been going on for a long time in USA but no one (except maybe that teacher in the evolution/creation trial in a location I don't remember the name for now) was convicted of a crime for believing one way or another, but now EU makes law against creationist expressions?????  Why not make laws against fairy tales too.

 

Now creationists' young earth belief is beyond me, but evolutionists can't establish cause-effect relationships in their theories, which they keep on changing anyway.  Yet they call that a science!  It takes more faith to believe in chance as origin of all living things than to believe in creation.  Are all the "laws" of physics results of randomness too?  Many scientists believe in existence of extraterrestre intelligence, yet our solar system is located in a section of the universe that is much less occupied by stars and constellations than the rest of the universe.  Is that a coincidence or by design?