Constitutional Law, Free Speech, Religion

Denmark Brings First Blasphemy Case In 46 Years

190px-WLM_-_roel1943_-_Koran150px-national_coat_of_arms_of_denmark-svgFor many years, I have been writing about the threat of an international blasphemy standard and the continuing rollback on free speech in the West. For recent columns, click here and here and here. Now, Denmark has opened up its first blasphemy prosecution in 46 years. It is chilling evidence that the West is yielding to the pressure to curtail free speech in a crackdown on those who criticize or mock religion.  In this case, a 42-year-old man protested what he viewed as the growing influence of Islam by setting a Quran on fire.  The result is now a criminal charge for blasphemy as Denmark joins this worrisome trend.

 

Much of my prior writing has focused on the effort of the Obama Administration to reach an accommodation with allies like Egypt and Pakistan to develop a standard for criminalizing anti-religious speech.  We have been following the rise of anti-blasphemy laws around the world, including the increase in prosecutions in the West and the support of the Obama Administration for the prosecution of some anti-religious speech under the controversial Brandenburg standard.

These cases reflect the true purpose of blasphemy laws: to silence minority sects and religious critics in the name of a “true faith.” Fortunately the effort of Hillary Clinton and others in the Obama Administration to reach a compromise on blasphemy failed, though there continue to be efforts to create an international standard. These efforts were ultimately unsuccessful but countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, and Iran continue to push the West to abandon its free speech protections.

 

In this case, the man posted a clip  entitled “Consider your neighbour: it stinks when it burns” to a group called “YES TO FREEDOM – NO TO ISLAM” in December 2015.  The prosecution office made clear that it is willing to criminally charge anyone who mocks religion.  Spokesperson Jan Reckendorff said: “It is the prosecution’s view that circumstances involving the burning of holy books such as the Bible and the Quran can in some cases be a violation of the blasphemy clause, which covers public scorn or mockery of religion.”

 The man could face anything from a fine to four years in prison under clause 140 of Denmark’s penal code banning any public acts insulting or degrading religious doctrines or worship.  Since critics of religion will often be accused of “insulting” religion, that constitutes a lingering threat to the exercise of free speech on one of the most divisive issues in our society.
Most people had hoped that Denmark was done enforcing speech codes after 1971 when it prosecuted two Denmark Radio producers for airing a song mocking Christianity.  Prosecutors have however rediscovered the power to silence people who want to voice controversial viewpoints on religion.

 

 

160 thoughts on “Denmark Brings First Blasphemy Case In 46 Years”

    1. Ralph, why be so politically correct? Why not just tell it like it is? In other words, refugees are flooding all of Europe is because we killed their children, spouses, and parents and leveled their homes for no good reason.

      1. And so what, one should simply stand by and allow the hornets to sting you to death? Yeah, that’s reasonable.

          1. That’s really deep thinking there anon…for a child. I passed your “definition” along to my accountant whose entire Palestinian-American family are practicing Muslims and live happily in our town. He is amazed at the depth of ignorance of folks like you that refuse to recognize the threat from Muslims that live here or want to live here that refuse to assimilate. He points out this is not a war on religion but a war on recognized law.

          1. “it’s stupidity to attempt to handle a hornet’s nest.”

            Good, so we are in agreement that stupid decisions unleashed a hornet’s nest on western civilization. The argument conservatives are trying to make is you don’t compound that stupidity by picking up that nest and bring it into our home. The counter-argument then is to accept the idea we should abandon the rational fear of the hornet because not every one of them intends to sting you. Show some compassion for the displaced hornet, they say. Well, Europe is proving just how insane that idea is.

            1. Olly, Powell told 43 something like “you invade Iraq; you own it.” In other words, you saddle that horse, you ride it. Well, now we have to take responsibility for leveling the place, and part of that responsibility is caring for those whose lives we’ve destroyed.

              What’s surprising was the support some of the European countries have shown for immigrants when the Iraq War was our doing, yet we’re the ones not taking responsibility. It’s typical for the greed set. There’s no other way to explain it.

              There are repercussions for mistakes, but I’m glad you agree that we made a mistake in going to war there. At least I think that is what you were implying.

              1. Our foreign policy like our domestic policy doesn’t align with our founding principles. We have no more right to try to infect other nations with our culture than other nations have a right to infect ours. Our form of government and our constitution are designed specifically to work within a culture that accepts the principles of the DoI. It’s our nations history preceding the DoI that make that document so profound and our constitution so valuable.

                This is what makes a nation-building foreign policy such an utter failure. These other countries and cultures do not share our experiences and we don’t share theirs. The cultures within the ME have their own history to manage. We cannot be so arrogant as to think cultures that have not experienced the enlightenment era transformations will be or should be receptive to western civilization forms of government. So these countries have oil. That does not mean that western cultures that need THEIR “property” have a right to try and install “friendly” governments so that we can get those resources. And yes, if we violate their “rights”, regardless of how backwards we believe they are, we should expect retaliation.

                So what do we do now? The ME had developed their own means to manage their own cultures. We displaced that means (knocked the hornets down) and nave loosed them beyond their borders. So how do we fix this? One thing you absolutely DO NOT do is invite a pre-enlightenment era culture into post-enlightenment era cultures. If it makes no sense for us to project our 21st century cultures there then it should not make sense to invite their 12th century culture here. We should be open to accepting those people that can be proven to share our fundamental principles and will assimilate into our culture.

      2. Steve, you are spot-on. However, if w. Europe wants to remain free they need to rein in sharia law, child brides, the domination of women by men, etc.

      3. Wow, Steve, thanks for that leftist spin. The wisdom of leftism just suddenly struck me, thanks to your wonderful articulation. Now that I think about it, none of the widespread epidemics of Islamoterrorism throughout the world have anything to do with Islam. Islamoterrorism in all of its forms is simply due to the evil Americans and their Israeli counterparts. If not for the oppression of the Americans and the Israelis, the Muslim populations would be a productive, compassionate, and lovely people. Although many might have trouble justifying Sweden, for example, becoming the rape capital of the world as result of massive Muslim migration, failing to see the connection between raping Swedes and the oppression by the Americans and the Israelis, they do not have the clarity of thought that you do. The answer to world peace, consequently, as you have so eloquently revealed, is to simply ensure that Islam expands, thrives, and grows throughout the world, spreading its inherent joy wherever it is practiced. Thanks again for your thoughts, Steve. I look forward to your further insights.

          1. I agree 100%. The US and Israel need to model themselves after Sweden. They set the standard for magnificence today. You’ve absolutely convinced me. Islamic mass murders and rapes are actually good and healthy things when you look at them in the proper context.

            But I have a suggestion for you. Why not sponsor some young Muslim migrants to live in your house with you? I’m sure your neighbors will appreciate your efforts to make the world a better place.

            1. I’ll do you one better, Ralph. I’ll support getting the flock out of the Middle East. We have no business there. It’s theirs and not ours. The terror attacks will stop when we do.

              1. Yes, you’re absolutely right: the Islamic terrorist attacks are the fault of the U.S. and Israel. Please disregard my previous political cartoon. There is indeed evil in this world, but the Islamic terrorists aren’t it. Those individuals are really Islamic freedom fighters, struggling against mass oppression by the evil American and Israeli interests. You and that poster who goes by the name of “Patriot” are always correct. I don’t know how I failed to previously recognize that. What vision and clarity of thought! I am truly humbled.

                http://comicallyincorrect.com/2014/08/27/evil-in-the-world/

              2. Curious; every time the Muslims invade and conquer a country it’s theirs? The Muslims think so. North Africa wasn’t theirs in the sixth century. Neither was the middle east, or Persia, or what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan. Those parts of the world belonged to Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and Sikhs.

                Since when have you been such a fan of capitulating parts of the world to murderous, genocidal fanatics? Because only by right of conquest and genocide are those parts of the world “Islamic.” In case you haven’t noticed the genocide continues; Christian communities that existed since shortly after the Christ was crucified are being wiped out. If they knew Western leftists like you as I know Western leftists like you they wouldn’t be greatly surprised to find out how cool you are with the idea of genocide because “It belongs to them.” Still, the thought isn’t any great comfort, I’m sure, when they have to suffer the crucifixion or beheading that smug, ill educated, semi-historically literate leftists like you can’t concern themselves with.

                I ask because the Muslims are are still mighty upset over losing Israel and Al Andalus (Spain). How many minutes will you last before you bend over and let the Muslims have those territories. I’m betting three, max.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmgMEu_9n1s

                I’m curious. How do you imagine your cowardly, leftist, safe butt has the acquired the moral high ground simply because you’re able to ignore centuries of slaughter, rape, slavery, and plunder by telling yourself, “It’s none our business, it’s their land not ours?”

                1. “Since when have you been such a fan of capitulating parts of the world to murderous, genocidal fanatics?”

                  Col. Flagg, I became a fan once I grew up and became a decent human being. Now, do I have to turn my head while you exit head first through the plate glass window?

                2. I ask because the Muslims are are still mighty upset over losing Israel and Al Andalus (Spain).

                  Osama bin Laden was. Not sure he’s the most representative figure. Most Arab publics when polled reveal they are deeply addled about Israel, and the Egyptian public is particularly vicious. However, revealed preference shows they’re not willing to do much about it.

              3. What’s it like to be unable to learn from 14 centuries of history? I can’t imagine it. I just can’t do it. So I have to rely on ill-educated, semi-historically literate leftists like you to explain the phenomenon to try to explain it. I look forward to you amusing me with some sophomoric attempt at history, except that would be an insult to sophomores.

              4. My last comment was in response to this mind-boggling comment which I’m sure you think you makes some kind of sense.

                “The terror attacks will stop when we do.”

                14 centuries of history proves you are wrong. I really want to know how you’re able to say things like that and still go out in public.

                1. No Steve57, you are wrong, as I once was. Steve Groen is 100% correct. I now see the light. Islam is the embodiment of excellence and magnificence. Islam is sublime, peaceful, and compassionate.

                  As Steve Groen compellingly elucidates, the only reason there are Islamic terrorist attacks is because of the evil Americans and the evil Israelis which oppress the wonderful, productive, and astonishingly peaceful Muslim people.

                  It is people like you and me who are to blame for the Islamic murders, rapes, and other criminal acts that they are forced to commit by the treacherous and sinister Americans and Israelis.

                  You are thinking bad thoughts about Muslims, and you mustn’t think such things. You must only think good thoughts about Islam and say good things about Islam. We must do what Islam asks of us and obey the Muslim leaders, as they have our best interests at heart.

                  If we do not, very bad things may happen to us, as the following classic Twilight Zone makes clear, using the extraordinary acting skills of then child actor Billy Mumy to portray the essence of Islam.

      2. Yes definitely. Bernieorbust still. Or actually maybe I should just us the Independent moniker since so many Dims claim to be Progressive. Thing is I like living in the West – Enlightenment values, seperation of church and state, freedom of speech, living in a Democratic Republic (if we can keep it!). I am totally opposed to allowing refugees the right to vote in Germany – while I am sympathetic to their plight – esp the women and children and the role our government played in their displacement – I am watching the culture change to accommodate Islamic mores. And that’s not right. They need to realize living in a secular society means that rule of law is valued over religious tenets. And if they can’t / won’t accept that they need to leave. This is getting ridiculous!

        1. Autumn, that was just a poll, and we all know what pollsters are attempting to do. Germans, too, are as good or better than us at propaganda.

  3. Way to go JT, ya threw the red meat out for all the dittoheads and Trumpus Maximus fans that will yell and scream about how this is a christian nation and to hell with what others think or know….Just say the words…….RADICALIZED CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS.

  4. If this goes through Germany will suffer greatly IMO

    “To win the election in Germany, the SPD & Greens want to move to change the law regarding voting rights. Essentially, they want to give the refugees a right to vote. They need not be an EU citizen nor do they need to pay taxes. The mere right to vote is you happen to be there at the time. Meanwhile, the SPD has now taken the lead in polls from Merkel. Martin Schulz, the German Social Democrats’ candidate for federal elections in September, is the very person who in the EU wants to federalize Europe and this scheme is intended to use anyone other than Germans to win the election.”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-22/martin-schultz-wants-give-refugees-right-vote-german-election

      1. By JIMMIE ÅKESSON and MATTIAS KARLSSON
        Feb. 22, 2017 6:43 p.m. ET
        744 COMMENTS
        When President Trump last week raised Sweden’s problematic experience with open-door immigration, skeptics were quick to dismiss his claims. Two days later an immigrant suburb of Stockholm was racked by another riot. No one was seriously injured, though the crowd burned cars and hurled stones at police officers.

        Mr. Trump did not exaggerate Sweden’s current problems. If anything, he understated them. Sweden took in about 275,000 asylum-seekers from 2014-16—more per capita than any other European country. Eighty percent of those who came in 2015 lacked passports and identification, but a majority come from Muslim nations. Islam has become Sweden’s second-largest religion. In Malmö, our third-largest city, Mohamed is the most common name for baby boys.

        The effects are palpable, starting with national security. An estimated 300 Swedish citizens with immigrant backgrounds have traveled to the Middle East to fight for Islamic State. Many are now returning to Sweden and are being welcomed back with open arms by our socialist government. In December 2010 we had our first suicide attack on Swedish soil, when an Islamic terrorist tried to blow up hundreds of civilians in central Stockholm while they were shopping for Christmas presents. Thankfully the bomber killed only himself.

        Riots and social unrest have become a part of everyday life. Police officers, firefighters and ambulance personnel are regularly attacked. Serious riots in 2013, involving many suburbs with large immigrant populations, lasted for almost a week. Gang violence is booming. Despite very strict firearm laws, gun violence is five times as common in Sweden, in total, as in the capital cities of our three Nordic neighbors combined.

        Anti-Semitism has risen. Jews in Malmö are threatened, harassed and assaulted in the streets. Many have left the city, becoming internal refugees in their country of birth.

        The number of sex crimes nearly doubled from 2014-15, according to surveys by the Swedish government body for crime statistics. One-third of Swedish women report that they no longer feel secure in their own neighborhoods, and 12% say they don’t feel safe going out alone after dark. A 1996 report from the same government body found that immigrant men were far likelier to commit rape than Swedish men. Last year our party asked the minister of justice to conduct a new report on crime and immigration, and he replied: “In light of previous studies, I do not see that a further report on recorded crime and individuals’ origins would add knowledge with the potential to improve the Swedish society.”

        Our nation’s culture hasn’t been spared either. Artists accused of insulting Islam live under death threats. Dance performances and art exhibitions have been called off for fear of angering Islamists. Schools have prohibited the singing of traditional Christian hymns because they don’t want to “insult” non-Christian immigrants. Yet reports made with hidden cameras by journalists from Swedish public media show mosques teaching fundamentalist interpretations of Islam.

        Sweden’s government now spends an incredible amount of money caring for newly arrived immigrants each year. The unemployment rate among immigrants is five times as high as that of native Swedes. Among some groups, such as Somalis, in places like Malmö unemployment reaches 80%.

        Our party, the Sweden Democrats, wants to put the security and welfare of Swedish citizens first. We are surging in the opinion polls and seem to have a good chance of becoming the country’s largest party during the elections next year. We will not rest until we have made Sweden safe again.

        For the sake of the American people, with whom we share so many strong historical and cultural ties, we can only hope that the leaders in Washington won’t make the same mistakes that our socialist and liberal politicians did.

        Mr. Åkesson is party chairman of the Sweden Democrats. Mr. Karlsson is the party’s group leader in Parliament.

        2. Olly – I just want to make sure I get it right. So in the interest of that, I see that these guys are part of the Swedish Democratic party and I am trying to determine whether they are in any way equivalent to our alt right as in white separatist. I have been reading everything I can from both sides with regard to the Swedish crime stats. On the one hand, it appears that the country is trying to suppress the uptick in crime, but on the other hand perhaps anti-immigration groups are exaggerating or twisting the statistics to their own ends. What do you think?

          1. kathy,
            I think if the political class from each extreme are not trying to manipulate the data to fit their agenda then they are not trying. Depending on the media outlet it’s difficult to know what information to trust. It’s hard to fake the video of riots and news crews attacked though. Ultimately, I believe there is truth underlying all of this that does not shine a positive light on the immigration/refugee policies in Sweden and throughout Europe.

            1. ”Ultimately, I believe there is truth underlying all of this that does not shine a positive light on the immigration/refugee policies in Sweden and throughout Europe.”

              I can second what Olly says… following the rape murder and mayhem for several years now, and in the instance of several countries in particular Sweden and Germany then followed by Germany, a YUUUGE effort to cover up and minimally report on egregious violent crimes committed by this new immigrant/refugee class – and in some cases the first generation born in that country but hardly assimilated, just part of the criminal class despite usually several interventions… Sweden reacted to the beheading of a mother and son (Swedes) shopping at, where else? Ikea in August of 2015 by trying to suppress details of the killings. There are so many examples.

              I was disgusted and horrified as of several years ago… and it just goes on and on. One of the most common suppressions is to over and over report that an attack with a machete or large knife was a “slit throat”, they did that with the priest in Rouvray in France. Oh no, that elderly priest was beheaded. And in that town, the Catholic church had donated a nice piece of land adjacent to the church for the mosque. What a waste.

              There are so many examples.

  6. I’m just surprised that anyone in Denmark would have thought this a big deal, at least as a religious matter. Danes are among the least religious people in the world.

    From Wikipedia:

    According to a Eurobarometer Poll conducted in 2010, 28% of Danish citizens responded that “they believe there is a God”, 47% responded that “they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force” and 24% responded that “they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force”. Another poll, carried out in 2008, found that 25% of Danes believe Jesus is the son of God, and 18% believe he is the saviour of the world. A gallup report in 2009 found that only 19% of Danes consider religion to be an important part of their life.

    Less than 20% of the Danish population identifies as atheist. It is speculated[by whom?] that this is because religion is such a non-issue that not believing in it does not require a specific label. Phil Zuckerman, an American professor of sociology, after spending 14 months in Sweden and Denmark talking to hundreds of people about religion, reported that they were “often disinclined or hesitant to talk with [prof. Zuckerman] about religion, and even once they agreed to do so, they usually had very little to say on the matter.”

    Many people define themselves as spiritual but not religious.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Denmark

    1. Frankly I’m not surprised. Non-religious people simply can’t comprehend that some people take their religion extremely seriously. Even the 19% of Danes who do consider religion an important part of their lives will not be able to comprehend just how much of an influence religion has on their Muslim invaders. Back during the days of the Crusades Western Christians could comprehend it, but just like the Muslims they didn’t live in secular societies.

      That inability to comprehend just makes the conquest easier as far as the Muslims are concerned. They’re not stupid; they know what to say to European secularists, particular leftists. Since they simply can’t believe that a core of Muslims are willing to die for their religion they’ll capitulate all the easier. This refusal to believe that these people are killing and are willing to die in the name of Allah is one reason they refuse to connect Islam to terrorism. They won’t even say the words, so unbelievable is it to them.

      1. I think you missed my point. I was surprised that prosecutors in a country that cares very little about religion would bring a case alleging criminal violation of blasphemy laws. (I was actually surprised that there was still such a law on the books.) After all, this is the same country where the Mohamed cartoons were published. Jyllandsposten is a daily newspaper in Aarhus, Denmark. The country was all about defending free speech, then, rather than prosecuting blasphemy.

        1. Dollars to doughnuts the Danish courts do not give a rip about blasphemy. They’re siding with an exotic population against the domestic vernacular population because that’s how they roll. It’s all about suppressing opposition to the elite’s post-national multicultural project

        2. I don’t believe I missed your point, but you be the judge. I agree with desperatelyseekingsusan; these prosecutors and the courts don’t care about blasphemy. Those involved are convinced that the problem has nothing to do with Islam because it’s impossible for them to believe that anyone takes religion seriously. They’re no doubt being advised by the same Islamists who have long been advising our government. And as I said in my earlier comment, those people aren’t stupid. They know full well how to pull the wool over the eyes of the Euroweenie leftist secularists (and the Americaweenie leftist secularists). They’ve got them convinced that the real root cause of all the problems they’re having with the “migrants” and “refugees” is white racism, the legacy of Western imperialism, the “theft” of the Middle East’s natural resources (i.e. oil), and the West’s support of oppressive, dictatorial regimes.

          Since both the American and European left already hate Western civilization, they’re easily fooled into believing there is absolutely nothing in Islam that would cause Muslims to commit violence. In fact, they want to be fooled. When Muslims commit acts of violence or terrorism it’s because we have oppressed them. It’s never their fault. It’s always ours. So Danish prosecutors will use blasphemy laws to meet the “legitimate” grievances of the Muslims and to shut up native Danes (as the Swedes have done to Native Swedes, and the Germans and the Brits as well). Convinced that, since their Muslim Brotherhood advisers tell them so, they’re the problem, not the Muslims. And by addressing the real root cause of the problem which is white European intolerance and greed all the problems will go away.

          And maybe someday those prosecutors will be in for a rude awaking because the root cause is in fact in Islam itself, and all the rest was just a pretense the Islamists fabricated to play on white leftist guilt to bamboozle them into helping Islamize their countries.

          “The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”

          (Source: An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group [Note: their euphemism for the Muslim Brotherhood and their affiliates/front groups] in North America, entered into evidence at the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terror funding trial.)

          But frankly I say maybe they’ll be in for a rude awakening because they’re already so far gone I doubt they’ll every wake up. When a gay Danish prosecutor is being thrown ISIS-style off a building in Copenhagen for being gay, I imagine the last thing that will go through his head (other than the sidewalk when he hits it) will be something along the lines of,”I must not be Islamophobic and blame my killers for doing this to me because I’m white and I deserve it.”

          I’m not exaggerating. There have been several women working with leftist organizations in the refugee camps who have been raped by the refugees. And they either refused to report it, a course of action actively encouraged by members of their organizations, or when they did they falsely described their rapists as native Germans. Because they didn’t want the “refugees” to be stigmatized, and they especially didn’t want to give ammo to the likes of Donald Trump or Geert Wilders or the EDL.

          These fake “refugees” can literally rape these idiots one day, and the next day their rape victims will be holding up banners supporting their “refugee” rapists that say “They’re not dangerous, they’re in danger!.” I believe they call this form of mental illness, appropriately enough, Stockholm Syndrome.

  7. I suspect this prosecution is aimed at preventing rioting by Islamic traditionalists, more than a critical critique of the Burning itself.

    In Islam, there is what is known as ‘the life in the tomb’ and anyone seeking to convert in, needs to be aware of this literal Horror story. I strongly suspect it is the belated recognition of questionable acts in life that precipitates so many Martyrs in death. The 72 virgins appear only in the Hadith (commentary) and not in Koran itself. So one great last act in support of Islam, even suicide, which is not supported generally in Islam.

    Here a Christian God of love is far preferable to an Islamic God of submission.

    1. No, the Houris are described in various verses in the Quran. For instance Surah 37:48 describes them as having large, beautiful eyes while Surah 78:33 describes them as full-breasted. No numbers are mentioned in the Quran, though. According to the hadith 72 is only a minimum. That’s what a Muslim who just barely qualified to get into paradise will get. A really good Muslim could get thousands. Muslims will get eternal erections so they can more easily spend eternity deflowering their perpetually virginal divine sexbots. As far as suicide goes, it’s not considered suicide to die in jihad even if you arrange it so that your death will be a certain result.

      Surah 9:111

      “Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah , so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah ? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.”

      “They kill and are killed.” This is why many jihadis don’t try to run away, such as Michael Adebolajo who along with his co-murderers stuck around after killing Drummer Rigby in London. Adebolajo even made his video manifesto while while waiting for the police to show up. They wanted to force the police to shoot them as they charged the cops with their meat cleavers and knives. This is normally considered “suicide by cop” but Allah promises Muslims paradise if they kill and are killed. Adebolajo succeeded in getting shot but he was only wounded and will either have to provoke his fellow prisoners into killing him or wait for many years to get his versions.

      There is also a hadith about a man who upon hearing one of Muhammad’s companions say that those who kill and are killed are guaranteed heaven asks the companion to assure him one more time that he really heard that. Muhammad’s companion assures him that Muhammad really said that. So the man throws away the sheath to his sword and bids his friends farewell. He is clearly intending not to return from battle. This is widely, although not universally, interpreted by Muslim scholars to justify suicide bombing. Unfortunately I can’t provide the reference.

  8. The book burning is an offensive thing to those of Religious belief same as being compelled to provide services for homosexual weddings. Both being as offensive are both as not to be tolerated . . .

  9. No religion should be above the secular laws of a country. If a country bases its laws on a religion then there is no discussing it, the country is simply backward. However, Denmark is a secular country that allowed a huge number of Muslim refugees in following the problems created primarily by a combination of the hornet’s nest being stoked by the three stooges. Denmark has been criticized for closing its borders to refugees and has taken some DDT like measures to curtail the influx of refugees. Denmark, recently, stood as a model on how to close down the borders, for DDT. This recent prosecutorial action appears to be more an attempt to curtail the potential violence and mayhem that is festering beneath the surface. Reflect upon the a**hole who advertised that he was going to burn a koran in Florida and a few dozen innocent Red Cross workers were slaughtered in response. This is nothing more than legal jerking off using the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, a sort of sacrilege in of itself, Turley.

    Denmark might do better to prosecute this a**hole for inciting this or that. There are times when a match must be stopped before it gets to a powder keg. Perhaps Turley and all the other legal jerkers off on this blog could provide a method. DDT is full of ideas on how to curtail rights. Look in the mirror hypocrites.

    1. ”This is nothing more than legal jerking off using the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, a sort of sacrilege in of itself, Turley.”

      I thought the idiot in FL who burned the Koran was an idiot, however killing ANYONE over it is simply horror and maniacal over reaction. Frankly I was sorry that the (what was left after the mass killing) crew at Charlie Hebdo put Mohammed on their first cover following the Kouachi brothers killing field…. I wish they had put police photos of the massacre. SPEECH is not the equivalency of mass murder. THo it was appalling to see how many on the Left (such as it is) were happy to whine and moan that CH should not have been as inflammatory as they chose to be….

      The killers on the day of the massacres in Paris, at several cafes in the 11th arrond., at the Bataclan and an attempt at the Stade de Paris were offended by the libertine aspects of Paris, miniskirts, drinking, whomever together and out and about in the evening in Paris. How dare they. They KILLED people out living life, in the WEST.

      Coulibaly who joined in on the day by taking over the Charcuterie, which was Halal and Jewish, verbally berated the French citizens (before killing 4 of them) for paying their taxes, EVEN AS he and his wife, in their recently found Islamic fundamentalism lived on the dole. (Barely three years previous they had been cavorting nearly naked on the beaches in Cuba on cheap sun trips.)

      1. There are numerous ahadith that say that anyone who supports a jihadi shares in same reward as the jihadi.

        Sahih Muslim – The Book on Government – (38) Chapter: The virtue of helping the warrior who is fighting in the cause of Allah with mounts etc., and looking after his family in his absence

        “It has been narrated on the authority of Zaid b. Khalid al-Juhani that the Messenger of Allah said:
        Anybody who equips a warrior (going to fight) in the way of Allah (is like one who actually) fights. And anybody who looks well after his family in his absence (is also like one who actually) fights.

        Reference : Sahih Muslim 1895 a
        In-book reference : Book 33, Hadith 198
        USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 20, Hadith 4668
        (deprecated numbering scheme)

        The above tradition has been narrated on the authority of Khalid al- Juhani who said:
        The Prophet of Allah said: He who equips a warrior in the way of Allah (is like one who dctually fights) aud he who looks after the family of a warrior in the way of Allah in fact participated in the battle.

        Reference : Sahih Muslim 1895 b
        In-book reference : Book 33, Hadith 199
        USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 20, Hadith 4669
        (deprecated numbering scheme)”

        But the opposite is also true. Anyone who equips an “infidel” soldier to fight the Muslims, and provides for that soldiers family in his absence, shares in the blame. As far as the Muslims are concerned that would be the taxpayers. This is why the jihadi terrorists don’t think there’s any such thing as an innocent civilian.

        It’s also one reason why Muslim fundamentalists go on the dole. So they don’t pay taxes, and share in the blame. Another reason is that the proper Islamic order of society puts the Muslims at the top. And they’re not supposed to work. Rather, it’s the dhimmis (non-Muslims) duty to support them by paying the jizya or poll tax. It’s what the now-imprisoned hate-preacher Anjem Choudery called the “Jihad seeker’s allowance.”

        People need to get it through their heads. These fundamentalist Muslims are not going to be grateful to the Western countries they invade for supporting them. It’s what you owe them as their natural right as your Muslim overlord.

        1. Yes I gather a few, at least, have picked up on aspects of Muslim emigrating ot the West, which they expect to change. It is not just the fanatics, either. It is the religion. AND what I call the apartheid aspects…. the believer against all others AND their internal apartheid of men and women.

          A salutary read, and I did read it at the time of publication, I believe 1981, is VS Naipaul’s “Among the Believers”. He clearly documented the research, even at that time before personal computers much less cell phones, in places like Karachi and elsewhere into founding documents and social benefits in Western countries.

          I went to school in Europe and lived there in the 60s (and later) and at that time, who came from these Muslim countries was self-selecting and, in almost all cases, THRILLED to escape the religion, and often their families. Not so now. NOW we get the chief imam in Paris demanding thousands of mosques to accommodate the endless praying.

          And the chief imam of Scotland declaring that a Muslim on Muslim killing in, iirc, 2015, of a shopkeeper who DARED to send his customers a Christmas email and an Easter email,a “righteous killing”. He was happy to be in Scotland, happy with his neighborhood shop and happy wiht his customers. A killer came from (iirc) Doha following the Easter email to carry out the fatwa.

          I am so done with this shit.

  10. I expect the US to step into a global leadership role in defining the limits of “religious freedom” in a secular-legal country. Obama shrunk from that challenge, too timid about offending Muslims. Trump’s Youngstown OH campaign speech of Aug 15 2016 outlines a much more proactive stance, whereby as official policy, the US will begin to differentiate between Political Islam and Secular Islam, and customize policy depending upon which flavor of Islam is involved. An epochal Court case will work its way to SCOTUS, in which the WH SG argues to establish as fact that Islam is not a single cohesive religion, but is undergoing a 94-year-old schism (begun by Ataturk) into two distinguisable sub-religions. If the Court accepts this fact, then the case will drill down into whether Political Islam deserves 1st Amendment protections, the question of Secular Islam deserving it being uncontested. I hope I’m around to see this case come to a conclusion.

  11. Religion is the opiate of the people. Those who believe in it should be rounded up and sent to opiate Gitmo. It is hard to cleanse retards of dumb things like religion or oxycotton but we need to get working on this right now. Jesus, Mohammed, and all the other donkeys need to be put in the corral and put to death by firing squad. One shot is good for the whole day.

    1. Jack Ruby: Your first sentence has support from me. The rest are inappropriate and won’t persuade anyone offended by them, so they’re counterproductive. That’s why I won’t ever be caught even in jest making comments to that degree. In terms of an offense to the non-PC crowd, however, I guess they get what they deserve.

        1. Paul, then it must follow that you find the following offensive:

          “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”

        2. Paul,

          I don’t understand why he would quote Karl Marx. Maybe he hasn’t been keeping up, but Marxism has been thoroughly debunked.

    3. No, actually spectator sports are the opiate of the people. It was the same way in ancient Rome; as long as the prols had their bread and circuses they were numb to everything else happening around them. They couldn’t be bothered to pay attention.
      ;
      It’s been this way for over two thousand years. Your irrational hatred is misdirected.

      Typical atheist. “Ready! Fire! Aim!” When something threatens your religious convictions you lose the ability to think.

      The story of one of those “retards” you’re talking about is a case in point. A Roman Catholic priest and Cambridge, Harvard and MIT trained physicist named Georges Lemaître challenged the belief, accepted since Aristotle, that the universe had always existed and was in a steady state. According to Lemaitre’s research, though, the universe was in fact expanding. And according to his calculations based upon the rate of expansion we could trace the beginning of the universe back to a single point; it started with a quantum explosion approximately 15 billion years ago. He called his theory the “hypothesis of the primeval atom.”

      Naturally atheist scientists went off their collective nut. After all, they had ridiculed those religious “retards” for centuries because they believed in a Bible that started with the words “In the beginning” in Genesis 1. Every rational scientist or just every rational person, they held, knew the universe had always existed. And here comes a priest, with impeccable credentials as a physicist but still a priest, who had theorized that there was a beginning. And they realized a creation event implied a creator. They accused Lemaitre of having ulterior religious motivations. At first his work was obstinately rejected. After all, a conviction that there is not God is just as much a religious conviction that there is one. But as Lemaitre’s work continued to pass the peer review process the atheists continued to reject it. One atheist scientist, Fred Hoyle, actually came up with the moniker “Big Bang theory” in an effort to denigrate it. And like Ahab in Moby Dick he wasted years of his life on his obsession to prove Lemaitre wrong.

      As it turns out the atheists were acting irrationally while the priest was acting rationally. It was atheists who were acting on their religious conviction that there must not be a God. I know atheists have been indoctrinated to believe that religion and science are incompatible but actually the opposite is often the case. Atheists presuppose a materialistic worldview; that the only thing that can be proven is matter. So one of the criticisms of atheism is that atheists often suppress scientific knowledge. Western scientists attempted to do so but weren’t successful in the face of mounting evidence that Lemaitre was right. (Observation of the Cosmic Microwave Background in the 1960s discovered it contains an artifact of the creation event and essentially removed all doubt Lemaitre’s theory is correct) The Soviet Union/Soviet bloc was successful in suppressing this scientific knowledge, as one might expect in a dictatorship. They rejected Lemaitre’s “hypothesis of the primeval atom” simply because it conflicted with their state atheism, which could only accommodate a materialistic world view.

      Even atheist scientists have been forced to acknowledge that their atheism often forces them to act irrationally. They haven’t arrived at their materialistic worldview after cool analysis of the facts. It’s simply because they are atheists first they have an a priori, emotional commitment to materialism. That conditions their approach to science. They have to have an investigative method and a set of concepts that produces materialistic explanations no matter how nonsensical the result. And as the atheist Harvard biologist Dr. Richard Lewontin admitted when reviewing a book by Carl Sagan for the New York Review of Books in 1997, “Moreover, that Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

      Monsignor Lemaitre, being devoutly religious as well as a man of science had no such emotional impulses. He was free to follow the evidence where it led him while the atheists could not.

  12. Trump should be prosecuted . . . . after impeachment for his blasphemous EO against Muslims. Speaking of, I love the newest bathroom EO, which is doomed as well.

    1. You continue to deny me any reason at all to respect any opinion you’ve ever expressed.

    2. Steve G – I think you need to commit a serious offense to be impeached. If that happens, by all means impeach him. The bathroom EO was initially something that should have been decided by lawmakers and courts not something Obama unilaterally decided was “right” for the rest of the country. but that is the good thing about EOs, they are not laws and can be removed when the guard changes. If you want to make a bathroom law, allow it to be a debate in which all peoples rights are weighed. Or take it to court. Simply making it so because you believe in your own righteousness is not they way our country works. I can already hear you saying that Donald Trump has made it so because of his own righteousness, but that is not the case. He is doing exactly what he was elected to do. I am a democrat by the way. but I am fed up with the utterly irrational left yelling about the rule of law. I don’t think they know the meaning of the rule of law or there would have been more criticism during Obama’s reign.

      2. Trump pretended to be an ally of the lbgqt community in the campaign. Nothing could be further from the truth. Guess you can throw them in with the Muslims and the Mexicans.

      3. Kathy: “Steve G – I think you need to commit a serious offense to be impeached.”

        I was going to give you a lot more detail about impeachment and the acts of recent presidents which might be impeachable, but when I went back a page to cut and paste your quote, I found on my return to the reply dialogue box that my post had been completely erased into wordpress hell.

        Andrew Johnson was impeached and one vote shy of conviction in the Senate for opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment in 1868. Apparently, even a veto was “a serious offense” back then.

        As for Trump:

        1) Before he took his oath, he had Michael Flynn contact the Russian Ambassador obviously to adhere to and aid and comfort Putin over Obama’s sanction regime. If not treason, it’s close to it.

        2) Nine days after he took office and on his authority, a Navy counterterrorism operation in Yemen with localized bombing killed an estimated 59 innocent people, including an eight-year old American girl (pictured below, if you need a face and an American victim) and her mother. When do our President’s actions move from collateral damage to murder?

        http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_05/1885196/170130-nora-anwar-al-awlaki-rhk-1815p_2fad892cf7e12631663586f25fe8602d.nbcnews-ux-600-700.jpg

        When merely taking a political position resulted in Andrew Johnson’s impeachment and nearly having him sent home to Tennessee, I think we have two clear fact patterns that could give rise to impeachment proceedings, let alone giving refugee preference to Syrian minorities (read Christians) after leveling that country in an attempt to overthrow Bashar al-Assad for no good reason.

        1. I disagree. Neither of those things are impeachable offenses in the eyes of the law. If there is evidence in the case of Michael Flynn aiding and comforting Russia then it will be uncovered. Given the level of leaks that are occurring, it shouldn’t be too hard to get that information. From what I have read no crime was committed, but if it has, as I said earlier, by all means impeach him. In the case of collateral damage, I don’t think that is grounds for impeachment either. This was a plan that had already been set in motion when Trump took office. If Obama had been in office and the same thing had occurred, should he have been impeached? If you can honestly say yes to that question. Great. But you can’t have it both ways. the other thing I can’t seem to figure out is if people think that by impeaching Trump, somehow Hillary will magically be able to be President. The Republicans have control of the government. If I don’t like that I should figure out how to change peoples minds. To do that I have to understand them and be able to empathize with them. turning the dial all the way up on ever single issue is going to backfire. mark my words.

          2. Ah but you don’t have the information that Comey disclosed to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

        2. “When do our President’s actions move from collateral damage to murder?”

          When a President deliberately orders US forces to target children, that’s when.

          We’ve tangled over the LOAC (Law Of Armed Conflict) before and I understand why you insist on remaining utterly ignorant of even it’s basic tenets. That would get in the way of your imagineering of war crimes for partisan political purposes.

          But it doesn’t make what you hallucinate passes for an argument at all persuasive. Quite the opposite. Your refusal to grasp even basic concepts puts you on a lower plane, intellectually, than a 17 year old with a GED who joins the Army.

          1. I’ll play along for the moment. The “basic tenets” of armed conflict in the Middle East are based on a flawed foundation: imperialism. If you think paying Cortez, Pizarro, Alvarado, and the rest of the Conquistadores to ransack civilized (by any measure but Spain’s) foreign sovereigns for its own interests is proper, there’s really no need to have this discussion.

            Here’s a dream you apparently haven’t had yet, but many of us have:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moKeXu7wKlc

            So, have at it, Colonel Flagg.

  13. If he’d burned a copy of the Augsburg Confession, it’s a reasonable wager no one would have given a damn. This has little to do with blasphemy and a great deal to do with accommodating Muslims, which the Danish elite have imported for no defensible reason (other than providing them with tools to abuse and marginalize the Danish working class). An aversion to Muslim culture is low class in the mind of the fancy people who govern Denmark and not something one of their own would indulge in (they being post-national rather than Danish). Whose responsible for this, Prof. Turley? People like you living in Copenhagen. Your colleagues are malignant. Are you one of them or not?

    1. Not a whole lot different than the American “hate crime” laws which are only applied to whites. Never to blacks. Or the American “discrimination” laws which are used to penalize old lady Christians who don’t want to bake a cake for a gay wedding. It’s just a way for the government to favor and promote certain groups and ideologies above others. The Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Norway and Denmark) in their effort to tout their self-righteous liberalism, admitted hoards of Muslims which turned out to be a disaster. Instead of admitting their mistake, they’re changing their laws and culture to accommodate Sharia law and Islamic prejudices, of which there are many. Neighboring Finland, which technically is not a Scandinavian country, also admitted some Muslims who returned the favor by committing crimes against women. The Finns took them to the border and shoved them into Sweden. But the Finns are a plucky little nation which fought the mighty Russian army and won. Their Scandinavian neighbors, by contrast, won’t even eject some semi-civilized “refugees” who abuse the generous welfare system and have turned Stockholm into the rape capitol of the world.

  15. Religion should not be elevated above any other way of thinking about anything. Maybe a better law would be to require respect for those who think differently than one’s self. Showing gross disrespect for the beliefs of others would be punishable, for example showing gross disrespect for immigrants, dark-skinned folks, women, gays, should all be punishable. Trump would have been imprisoned for life a long time ago.

    1. I have every intention of treating you with the respect you’ve earned and deserve.

    2. You would respect this?

      https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/02/21/texas-pre-school-teacher-removed-from-classroom-after-twitter-calls-to-kill-some-jews-come-to-light/

      “A pre-school teacher in Texas has been suspended from the classroom pending an investigation into her encouraging social media followers to “kill some Jews,” The Algemeiner has learned.

      Nancy Salem, who teaches at The Children’s Courtyard in Arlington, as The Algemeiner first reported, was among 24 anti-Israel activists exposed by covert campus watchdog group Canary Mission for expressing racist and violent thoughts online.

      Salem — an activist associated with the University of Texas at Arlington chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine and a supporter of the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement — used her now-disabled Twitter account to post such remarks as: “How many Jews died in the Holocaust? Not enough…HAHAHAHA.”…”

      What is widely known in the Dallas Metroplex is that these “activists” are actually Muslims, members of the oldest Muslim Brotherhood front organization in North America, the Muslim Student Association, and are practicing their religion to the letter. Islam preaches that there must be “animosity and hatred forever” between Muslims and non-Muslims. And that is an exact quote.

      Surah 60:4

      “There has already been for you an excellent pattern in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people, “Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from whatever you worship other than Allah . We have denied you, and there has appeared between us and you animosity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone” except for the saying of Abraham to his father, “I will surely ask forgiveness for you, but I have not [power to do] for you anything against Allah . Our Lord, upon You we have relied, and to You we have returned, and to You is the destination.”

      This is one religion that needs to be disrespected. In fact, it’s not a religion but a subversive, authoritarian ideology. Subversive because its goal is to replace all man made laws with Sharia. Which is precisely what is going on with this prosecution in Denmark. Western laws protecting freedom of speech are being replaced by Sharia blasphemy and slander laws. Only non-Muslims will be prosecuted; under Sharia non-Muslims are not allowed to say anything critical of Islam. Note that the Danes could lock up every single Imam in the country simply for reciting the Quran on any given Friday. But they won’t because these laws while facially neutral actually are an abject surrender to their Muslim invaders and new overlords.

      I do not respect subversive, authoritarian ideologies. That would include yours, Doglover, as you are a typical intolerant fascist leftist who hides behind words like tolerance to practice intolerance and inclusion to practice exclusion.

      “Maybe a better law would be to require respect for those who think differently than one’s self. ”

      Tolerance for me, but not for thee, eh, Doglover? You fascists really mean Donald Trump and anyone else who thinks differently than you should show respect for ways of thinking you agree with, but you should be able to imprison Donald Trump and anyone not belonging to your designated protected classes who thinks and says things you don’t want to hear.

      Your cognitive dissonance is normal for a leftist.

    3. I can’t imagine how you would think that that would be a good idea. Laws are there to protect people, not to coerce them into being kinder or more moral (according to some arbitrary standard that the law maker is setting). Laws are meant to protect people from actual harm, not from ideas or insults. I would much rather live in a society where people say what they think even if it is unpopular, racist or immoral, than in a society that tried to control speech. I am free to associate with them or not. Who decides what constitutes “disrespect” for another’s beliefs? Silencing people and controlling what they can and can’t say is unlikely to result in a more moral, just society any more than yelling insults at people with different ideas about how to run the country is likely to change their mind. Who decides what is disrespect for another’s beliefs? Some very religious folks, Christians and Muslims alike, may think that gay men kissing in public is disrespectful to their religion. If those people are in power, would you like them to punish gays for that? I think it is far more effective to model tolerance by being tolerant to all people even those who believe things that you might find abhorrent as long as their actions are lawful and they do not try to limit other peoples rights.

    4. A law “requiring respect”? LOL! One of the advantages blogs provide is time to reason through one’s thoughts before committing them to the page. Did you not stop to think how your entire post and even your name could be considered grossly disrespectful to any number of people? Wow, just wow!

  16. Denmark is the country liberals in the US lecture us about, saying they are who we should be.

    1. That was Sweden, ca. 1976. Characters like Hendrick Hertzberg were not wont to acknowledge that they practiced eugenic sterilization in Sweden throughout most of the 20th century.

      See Lynette Burrows on the activities of the family courts in Sweden and the rate of child seizure in that country of wall-to-wall welfare. Swedish law criminalizing spanking was a wedge to allow social workers to take control of family life. The child seizure rate exceeds that in the United States by a factor of 22 per Burrows.

  18. I read a few months ago the chief imam in Lille wants the French to change their constitution, as the concept of the primacy of Laicite, the laity, is offensive to Islam. We in no way should amend our free speech bedrock to suit these religious, well, frankly, crazies. Bizaare fundamentalists…

    Give them an inch, they take a continent.

    And trust the likes of Obama and Hillary to want to accommodate religious zealots. Why on earth, WE, in the West, should accommodate THEM ….

    1. They don’t take the continent unless you let them. The local Muslims are a nuisance. Your more pressing problem is the Danish elite.

  19. Ironical that the Pinkos in Europe yowl about the incipient dictator Trump (and get lots of airtime in the U.S. media), while they abridge civil rights in their own countries.

    Europe is not the bright, shining city on the hill – it is a socialist paradise decaying into irrelevance.

Comments are closed.