Video: “Islam in Europe”

posted at 3:17 pm on August 18, 2007 by Allahpundit

It’s Pat Condell, known to the blogosphere for his pointed YouTube criticisms of Islam — one of which left Berkeley’s Peace and Justice Commission in need of smelling salts — and less known for his pointed YouTube criticisms of Christianity. Here’s his YT page; “United States of Jesus” looks like a humdinger.

The occasion for this rant is the almost unbelievable ban imposed by the mayor of Brussels on an anti-shari’a demonstration scheduled for 9/11 of this year. Not banned: a Truther demonstration scheduled for 9/9. Condell’s had about enough. Haven’t we all.

Here’s his video response to Berkeley from a few months back, in case you missed it at the time.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Sadly they cannot grasp the idea that ban Islam does not mean murder all Muslims or even drive all Muslims out of the country. All it means is to make it illegal to practice a religion/political ideology whose unequivocally stated goal is the destruction of the United States Constitution and the subjugation of the American people.

And how would this be achieved without destroying the very constitution you wish to save? The fight against Islamofascism is vital to the survival of our culture and our way of life; but banning Islam is insane, and will have no serious effects on eliminating Islamic terrorists. If anything, it’s playing into their hands: eradicating Islam is exactly what they are claiming we aim to do.

Unfortunately, what we seem to be seeing is the return of Bircher rhetoric, just with communism replaced by Islam. Just as the marginalising of the John Birch Society was vital to the revival of the Republican party and the winning of the Cold War, so is the curbing of eliminationist rhetoric to the winning of the war against Islamofascism.

jic on August 18, 2007 at 11:47 PM

Congress could write a statute tomorrow that stated “Islam is not recognized as a “religion” for the purposes of the First Amendment. That would simply mean Islam would have to pay taxes just like the Democratic Party or the Republican Party or the Christian Broadcasting Network for that matter. It would be reduced to the status of a political party, but not banned, unless they got out of hand.

Now… whether the courts would uphold such a law or not is another matter. But let one of our cities be evaporated in a nuclear cloud and I think the political will we lack now will suddenly appear. I hope we wake up long before that.

Your comments about the John Birch Society do not apply here. The Bircher’s rhetoric is racist and that is their undoing, but Islam is not a race.

Maxx on August 19, 2007 at 12:33 AM

The Birchers gained their ‘racist’ label due to their opposition to civil rights legislation, which was largely based on states rights grounds, and their perception that communism was behind the civil rights movement. While there were plenty of racist Birchers, they weren’t a ‘racist’ organization as we would understand the term. And anyway, their paranoia and conspiracy-mindedness hurt them as much as the racist image.

jic on August 19, 2007 at 12:51 AM

Now… whether the courts would uphold such a law or not is another matter.

Of course they wouldn’t. It’s blatantly unconstitutional.

jic on August 19, 2007 at 12:54 AM

jic on August 19, 2007 at 12:54 AM

No need to harm the Constitution at all, just enforce the Smith Act.

The Alien Registration Act or Smith Act (18 U.S.C. § 2385) of 1940 is a United States federal statute that made it a criminal offense for anyone to

knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association.

doriangrey on August 19, 2007 at 11:15 AM

Of course they wouldn’t. It’s blatantly unconstitutional.

jic on August 19, 2007 at 12:54 AM

I think its pretty clear that the Constitution does not defend that which seeks to destroy it. It’s not a suicide pact.

Maxx on August 19, 2007 at 1:42 PM

jic on August 19, 2007 at 12:51 AM

If you want to rail against the Birchers, that’s fine, I suggest you do it on their website.

Maxx on August 19, 2007 at 1:45 PM

If you want to rail against the Birchers, that’s fine, I suggest you do it on their website.

I’m not railing against the Birchers, they are yesterdays problem. Instead, I’m railing against those who are reviving the Birchers rhetoric, but just replacing communism with Islam. I made that clear in my previous comment.

jic on August 19, 2007 at 2:15 PM

jic on August 19, 2007 at 2:15 PM

I made that clear in my previous comment.

No all you made clear is that you don’t seem to think the US has any moral or ethical right to protect itself from ideologies that actively seek to destroy it. There is nothing within the US Constitution or the underlying ideology that it is predicated upon that mandates that the US allow antithetical ideologies flourish within the United States.

Contrary to misconceptions of many the first amendment concept of free speech does not nor was it ever intended to be to be a all encompassing absolute, were it so intended our Constitution would have no references to such concepts as Sedition libel or slander.

doriangrey on August 19, 2007 at 2:31 PM

I’m not railing against the Birchers, they are yesterdays problem. Instead, I’m railing against those who are reviving the Birchers rhetoric, but just replacing communism with Islam. I made that clear in my previous comment.

jic on August 19, 2007 at 2:15 PM

I can understand criticism of the Birchers for racist attitudes, but I can’t understand criticism of any group or anyone for denouncing communism. If you have a defense of communism I’d like to hear it.

Maxx on August 19, 2007 at 2:32 PM

John Wesley (1703-91) wrote,

“Ever since the religion of Islam appeared in the world, the espousers of it…have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron teeth; that numberless cities are raised from the foundation, and only their name remaining; that many countries, which were once as the garden of God, are now a desolate wilderness; and that so many once numerous and powerful nations are vanished from the earth! Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of human kind”.

John Quincy Adams wrote in 1829:

“The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force”.

and

In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Adams’s capital letters)… Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant… While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and goodwill towards men.”

Theodore Roosevelt wrote:

“The Greeks who triumphed at Marathon and Salamis did a work without which the world would have been deprived of the social value of Plato and Aristotle, of Aeschylus, Herodotus, and Thucydides. The civilization of Europe, America, and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization, because the victories stretching through the centuries from the days of Miltiades and Themistocles to those of Charles Martel in the eighth century and those of John Sobieski in the seventeenth century.”

“During the thousand years that included the careers of the Frankish soldier and the Polish king, the Christians of Asia and Africa proved unable to wage successful war with the Moslem conquerors; and in consequence Christianity practically vanished from the two continents; and today nobody can find in them any “social values” whatever, in the sense in which we use the words, so far as the sphere of Mohammedan influence. There are such “social values” today in Europe, America, and Australia only because during those thousand years the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do – that is, to beat back the Moslem invader.”

VinceP1974 on August 19, 2007 at 3:00 PM

VinceP1974 on August 19, 2007 at 3:00 PM

Nice post !

Maxx on August 19, 2007 at 3:14 PM

VinceP1974 on August 19, 2007 at 3:00 PM

How dare you quote such vile Islamophobic racist madmen……How dare you sir… /snark

doriangrey on August 19, 2007 at 3:20 PM

Hm funny I had a long conversation with my better half just two hours ago on the weeds in our garden and the overgrowth of the grass. The weeds are growing up through cracks in the tarmac. Also have to plant grass seeds in the back garden and spray with lawn feed.

Eh just to stay on topic I agree the Smith Act should be enforced. No need to ban Islam or deport Muslims, just prosecute accordingly those who practice literally the aspects of their religion that are irreconcilable with American liberty. Oh and fix the INS, hire more border patrol guards and set tougher restrictions on Saudi immigration.

aengus on August 19, 2007 at 3:24 PM

If you have a defense of communism I’d like to hear it.

Of course I don’t have a defense of communism. Communism is indefensible. That doesn’t mean that the Birchers were useful in the fight against communism. If anything, the opposite was true. These were the people who called Eisenhower an agent of communism. Their modern-day counterparts are just as much of a liability in the fight against islamofascism.

Lets say that we outlaw Islam in the US. We’ve just handed a huge propaganda victory to the terrorists. And by pissing off those Muslims that don’t support terrorism, we have just made sure that the FBI tip line dries up overnight, and that a large part of the pool of qualified interpreters have no interest in helping us. We have also made a mockery of freedom of religion while claiming that we are trying to protect it. And that’s how we’re supposed to win?

jic on August 19, 2007 at 7:23 PM

Are people seriously talking about banning an entire religion?

Nonfactor on August 18, 2007 at 4:44 PM

For 1400 years, the Qur’an has taught that believers in every other religion are to be converted, killed, or drained by taxes. Are you just now taking offense?

Kralizec on August 19, 2007 at 8:16 PM

Kralizec on August 19, 2007 at 8:16 PM

Are you just now taking offense?

NF is only taking offense at the notion that he and his ilk might be deprived of another tool with which they might bring about the destruction of the evil American hegemony. NF would much rather be subjected to Islamic submission until such a time as he and his socialist/communist brethren can overthrow their new Islamic masters than to suffer under the oppression of a vile evil American capitalist representative Democracy.

doriangrey on August 19, 2007 at 8:32 PM

Lets say that we outlaw Islam in the US. We’ve just handed a huge propaganda victory to the terrorists. And by pissing off those Muslims that don’t support terrorism, we have just made sure that the FBI tip line dries up overnight, and that a large part of the pool of qualified interpreters have no interest in helping us.

jic on August 19, 2007 at 7:23 PM

For the reasons you’ve given, I wouldn’t support the Americans’ attempting to outlaw Islam in the U.S. except as part of a comprehensive strategy to destroy it globally.

We have also made a mockery of freedom of religion while claiming that we are trying to protect it. And that’s how we’re supposed to win?

jic on August 19, 2007 at 7:23 PM

Accepting for the sake of discussion that the two really are inconsistent, I respond that consistency between words and deeds in warfare is repulsive, except in those beautiful cases in which it seems conducive to victory.

Kralizec on August 19, 2007 at 8:38 PM

NF is only taking offense at the notion that he and his ilk might be deprived of another tool with which they might bring about the destruction of the evil American hegemony. NF would much rather be subjected to Islamic submission until such a time as he and his socialist/communist brethren can overthrow their new Islamic masters than to suffer under the oppression of a vile evil American capitalist representative Democracy.

doriangrey on August 19, 2007 at 8:32 PM

I disagree. I think what makes the millions of people like Nonfactor dangerous is precisely their sincere, simplistic notions of moral goodness.

Kralizec on August 19, 2007 at 8:42 PM

jic on August 19, 2007 at 7:23 PM

Lets say that we outlaw Islam in the US. We’ve just handed a huge propaganda victory to the terrorists. And by pissing off those Muslims that don’t support terrorism, we have just made sure that the FBI tip line dries up overnight, and that a large part of the pool of qualified interpreters have no interest in helping us.

Seriously…put the crack pipe down and back slowly away from it.

We have also made a mockery of freedom of religion while claiming that we are trying to protect it. And that’s how we’re supposed to win?

You have had this explained to you at least a dozen times so one can only conclude that you either suffer from a willful self-inflected stupidity or are intentionally attempting to add and abet a group attempting to subvert and destroy America.

Islam is not simply a religion, it is a political ideology whose primary purpose is world conquest. But you just go ahead and continue to make moral equivalences as if somehow America taking the actions necessary for its survival would somehow make a mockery of the freedoms protected by representative democracy.

Just remember this, there is not and never has been a single nation in the 1600 years of Islams existence that having fallen to Islam has ever regained its freedom from Islam. And of all the nations to fall to Islam only Israel Pakistan and Turkey have anything that could even remotely be described as democratic, both Pakistan and Turkey are subject to Sharia, while Israel fights a daily bloody battle against militant Islam.

doriangrey on August 19, 2007 at 9:00 PM

You have had this explained to you at least a dozen times so one can only conclude that you either suffer from a willful self-inflected stupidity or are intentionally attempting to add and abet a group attempting to subvert and destroy America.

The appropriate response to that would get me banned here, and with good reason. So I’ll just settle for:

Bite me.

jic on August 19, 2007 at 9:31 PM

Just remember this, there is not and never has been a single nation in the 1600 years of Islams existence that having fallen to Islam has ever regained its freedom from Islam.

Off the top of my head, Spain and India. That’s two, by the way.

jic on August 19, 2007 at 9:36 PM

jic on August 19, 2007 at 7:23 PM

So your argument is basically that we shouldn’t even consider the banning of Islam in America because that would REALLY make them mad at us. Well… we have already invaded not one… but two Islamic countries, we’ve killed or jailed dozens of their Islamic leaders and we are contemplating going to war with a third Islamic country which is Iran. If that’s not enough to cause the average peaceful Moslem to become a jihadi then I don’t think we need to worry about an Islamic ban in America putting them over the top.

Besides, you don’t win wars by worrying about how upset your enemy is going to become because of your actions.

As far as making a mockery of freedom of religion, doriangrey already pointed to a solution with the Smith Act. I personally take a dimmer view, my opinion is that Islam is a “death cult” and NOT a religion, thus there is no First Amendment disparity.

Maxx on August 19, 2007 at 9:36 PM

Oh, yeah, Greece too.

jic on August 19, 2007 at 9:39 PM

So your argument is basically that we shouldn’t even consider the banning of Islam in America because that would REALLY make them mad at us.

No, it’s that we should not treat Islam as our enemy, just those Muslims who are. Or do you think that American Muslim troops and FBI agents are all (or even mostly) traitors?

jic on August 19, 2007 at 9:45 PM

You have had this explained to you at least a dozen times so one can only conclude that you either suffer from a willful self-inflected stupidity or are intentionally attempting to add and abet a group attempting to subvert and destroy America.

Indeed , his type of dumbassery is why I tire of Islamic sycophants.

VinceP1974 on August 19, 2007 at 9:45 PM

Indeed , his type of dumbassery is why I tire of Islamic sycophants.

And your kind of “dumbassery” is why I am done on this thread.

jic on August 19, 2007 at 9:56 PM

jic on August 19, 2007 at 9:36 PM

Off the top of my head, Spain and India. That’s two, by the way.

jic on August 19, 2007 at 9:39 PM

Oh, yeah, Greece too.

haven’t really paid much attention to any of those countries have you….Free of the oppression that is Islam…not by a long shot.

jic on August 19, 2007 at 9:56 PM

No you were actually done in this thread a long time ago, now unable to support the lame rhetoric you have spouted you are just running off.

doriangrey on August 19, 2007 at 10:14 PM

Here is the deal boys, It is either ban it or become it. Islam never settles for simple half measures. It is all or nothing with those head chopping nuts. They wont be happy till they can stone your daughters with impunity.

It must be blissful to be able to delude oneself into thinking they want us to simply tolerate them.

Islam is not a religion it is a form of government. The poor bastages in North Korea have a better since of personal freedom and happiness than the poor wretches dominated by Mohamed’s brand of tyranny

TheSitRep on August 19, 2007 at 10:56 PM

Islam is not simply a religion, it is a political ideology whose primary purpose is world conquest.

Right, so constrain the political aspects of Islam through enforcement of the Smith Act and allow non-supremacist Muslims to worship in peace.

haven’t really paid much attention to any of those countries have you….Free of the oppression that is Islam…not by a long shot.

They haven’t been a part of the Dar al-Islam for centuries. Spain has only been targeted by immigration and al-Qaeda in the last few years.

aengus on August 19, 2007 at 11:19 PM

….we should not treat Islam as our enemy, just those Muslims who are. Or do you think that American Muslim troops and FBI agents are all (or even mostly) traitors?

jic on August 19, 2007 at 9:45 PM

There is a difference between treating Islam as the enemy and treating every Islamic as the enemy. Islam itself MUST be recognized as the enemy because it IS. Not to realize this fact is a grave mistake. We are not fighting “terrorism”…. terrorism is a tactic and not an enemy, we are in fact fighting Islam and we very desperately need to wake up to that fact.

Maxx on August 19, 2007 at 11:55 PM

We are not fighting “terrorism”…. terrorism is a tactic and not an enemy, we are in fact fighting Islam and we very desperately need to wake up to that fact.

Maxx on August 19, 2007 at 11:55 PM

Truer words have never been spoken Maxx.

you are sage, indeed!

TheSitRep on August 20, 2007 at 12:26 AM

Nazi-ism was another secular religion which was successfully banned.
Islam is a secular (unholy-man made) religion which has nothing to do with God.
Here-I’ll keep it simple for the ignorant trolls:

Eradicate Christianity: world is Hell. Everyone suffers, our entire civilization crashes.

Eradicate Islam: world is better. Peoples are free, all have the same human rights, women are equal to men, no one is oppressed. Look back through history and you will see that most of the troubles the world has faced have come from megalomaniac tyrants, with Mohammed heading the list due to his continued influence through Islam. Hitler lasted a few years, Napoleon a few decades; if either had thought to create a false religion, we’d still be knee deep in troubles from them.

Doug on August 20, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Pat Condell rules!

The Inquisition was just as bad, but that’s ancient history.

ALL religions are man-made and rely on brainwashing. Christianity is no different in this respect, but Islam is a lot more medieval.

Peace!

Gaijin51 on August 22, 2007 at 9:55 AM

Comment pages: 1 2