It's fairly indulgent stuff (although O'Reilly does challenge him at the beginning by saying you could make a 15-minute film about any religion that makes it look bad), and while Wilders claims that he has "nothing against Muslims", he then goes on to state that he would "halt immigration from Muslim countries".
To me, the most telling line from the interview comes when Wilders tries to justify why his film is a true depiction of the nature of Islam:
"I didn't use actors in the film. I used real images combined with certain verses from certain Suras""Certain verses from certain Suras". Surely no one could accuse him of cherrypicking?
Posts
8 comments:
It's so sad to see New Humanist making silly politically correct posts like this. Get a pair.
"To me, the most telling line "
You're not cherry picking?
And what anon said.
I agree with above commenters. One could also accuse messrs Dawkins and Hitchens of cherrypicking events and religious passages to make their atheistic points, but that doesn't invalidate their points of view.
I've seen Fitna and thought it a hideous film. It is arguably factually correct, but that just makes it one element in a larger argument.
I find it unfortunate that there has not emerged a reasonable religious defence against the film's accusations. It comes across as an anti-Muslim film, and yet it is moderate Muslims who suffer first at the hand of their fanatical brethren.
That missing element means that there's too much focus on the perceived fascism of Wilders' position.
FishNChimps, Fitna Remade by the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain is an interesting response.
It is not exactly a rebuttal of Fitna, more a refinement. Fitna was a rocket fired indiscriminately into a civilian population. Fitna Remade resets the coordinates to target the jihadist combatants and avoid collateral casualties.
Anon and Sgl,
You need to be a little more specific in your complaints.
Are you unhappy that the NH is defending someone's rights (not matter how obnoxious the someone's views are) to visit the UK and be heard?
Are you unhappy that the NH is a tad biased against Fox News and Bill O'Reilly?
Please be more more precise, as Paul has been in his blogs, in your complaints.
FITNA is a straightforward warning about Islamism.
Humanism's greatest enemy, certainly worse on every count than Nazism.
If some person describes it as a "vile" film, the are certainly not a humanist, or anything like one.
Martin
FITNA is a straightforward warning about Islamism.
Humanism's greatest enemy, certainly worse on every count than Nazism.
If some person describes it as a "vile" film, the are certainly not a humanist, or anything like one.
Martin
Straightforward? Wilders makes an uninformed and highly selective use of a complex mythological tradition to nail a political movement. An upsetting movement, sure. But equating Islamism with Islam is a nasty piece of ignorance, and what's worse, it's more rhetoric than it is opinion. So he hasn't just come to a dumb conclusion in his library; he's come to a dumb conclusion and then started stirring other dumb people up.
You're a big fan of generalizations, Martin - Islamism is 'certainly' worse than Nazism, and 'anyone' who thinks FITNA is vile (and it truly, truly is) is 'certainly' not a humanist. You come up with some measurements for suffering, and some qualifications to be a humanist, and we'll have a right old talk.
Post a Comment