“The religion says ‘conquest and domination.’”
The incomparable Pat Condell on what he calls Islamic cultural terrorism:
Hat tip: Vlad Tepes.
“The religion says ‘conquest and domination.’”
The incomparable Pat Condell on what he calls Islamic cultural terrorism:
Pat Condell is proof that there’s a God… and boy is he going to hate me for saying so.
@ Pierre_Picaud, LOL!
I remember at one point Pat didn’t mind handing over Jerusalem to the Islamo-nazi baboons, after all, Pat didn’t give a flying French F*#k that it’s the religious centre of the Jewish faith or that the only reason the mad Muzzies want it is because it IS the religious centre of the Jewish faith because their goddamn Quran doesn’t mention Jerusalem AT ALL.
Pat is amazingly articulate about islam. Sadly, he also hates Christianity. I haven’t heard him say so, but I bet he also despises buddhism and hinduism too.
Gregory, if you listen to Pat’s harangues from the beginning, you’d notice that he’s toned down some of the anti-christian/jewish rhetoric and ramped up the islamic stuff.
He’s no fool, and he sees which way the wind blows.
I know a few atheists who think that living in a christian world might be a bit more of a positive experience than living under islam or other totalitarian regimes like communism.
Pat doesn’t care about factual history..
That’s my problem with his ‘beliefs’, or lack thereof..
dude, if you are reading this, at least defend against revisionism..
your ass wouldn’t be here without the lived faiths believed by so many.. it’s only because you can’t delineate between truth and falsehood that you hate all faiths..
at least you are BEGINNING to understand the gravity of the situation..
but your cute little English accent won’t save you from my criticism forever..
You don’t understand islam if you don’t understand WHY it’s not an Abrahamic religion..
without that understanding, revisionism is still possible..
just to clarify my ‘base’ understanding of islam’s core revisionism..
I noted the votes were 407 yeas and 2 nays. Two is not a big number compared to 407, but I wondered, who were the two Congressman who went on record as being against the resolution? So I went to this page which gave me the breakdown. I noted that there were 23 Congressmen who were listed as “not voting.” The two who voted against were Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Ron Paul of Texas. Although I am curious as to what the reasoning of the two was, I am deeply grateful that the other 407 who saw fit to vote for this resolution. That human rights are God-given rights is my belief. We all have a right to our opinion. -gw
Oh, look what I found Here..
Baron.. can you supply an explanation?
This kind of insane divergence without explanation points a big fat giant target.. x and y mark the spot..
I love analogies..
Every time I go beyond islam I hear..
that’s right, crickets..
where are those hundreds of monitors?
why don’t I get any response to cold hard facts?
oh, excuse me for being presumptuous..
Van, we all know about your concerns over Baha’i. But that’s off-topic here, so give it a rest.
no it’s not offtopic when ‘atheists’ spew..
Let people Learn Facts..
Universalism is the diametrically opposite of Atheism..
so, Relevance is Natural..
you know, like Jesus and Satan..
I just happen to be able to see the ‘other’ Cardinal Points..
yet again, silence..
The problem I have with Pat is that whereas he hates Islam he also hates the political parties that openly oppose it if they are on the “far right”.
However it is only these “far right parties who offer any meaningful solution or opposition to Islam.
His solution to the problems created by Islam and I agree with virtually every word he says is………… what exactly ?
So he can complain and rant all he wants but refuses to support those who openly oppose islam as he defines them as racists and xenophobes etc.
There is a logical inconsistency at the base of his position as it has been proved over and over again that the established parties are incapable or unwilling to confront Islam.
So I am afraid it is upto what he quaintly labels as the “far right” to do so.
And we will.
personally, i’d vote for pat.
Pat just gets better & better. And he did sort of defend the right, this time…he said if the far right behaved this way, the authorities would be all over them, but the Muslims get a pass…but they are the far right.
So whatever Pat said in the past, in this vid, he is calling attention to the double standard of how nationalist parties are treated, so that really should be enough for the time being, as the BNP & EDL aren’t the subject here.
If Islam restricted itself to being a mere religion, it wouldn’t be the problem it is today.
Would someone please define the phrase “far right”.
Not by prejudicial opinions but by looking at their policies.
I think a lot of people would be shocked by just how ordinary and commonsensical their policies are.
There have been quite a few anti-Christian atheists/agnostics over the years who have weighed heavily against Islam.
They serve a limited pragmatic function; and that function is magnified to the extent that the West remains retarded (in both the strict sense of that term and its vulgar connotation) about Islam.
Pat Condell, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Pim Fortuyn, Theo Van Gogh…
If we plotted them on a scale, we could put, say, Bill Maher on one extreme end (he has said harsh things against Islam but he can’t control his twitch to lambaste Christians & Christianity more so); and Hugh Fitzgerald on the other end (he’s atheist, but he is on record expressing his respect for Christianity and of course spending the bulk of his time condemning Islam).
About your list of anti-Christian atheists/agnostics, what particular reason compelled you to include Pim Fortuyn?
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
I was including a list of famous people who
1) have been more or less anti-Islam
2) are atheists/agnostics
3) have been more or less anti-Christian (and/or anti-“religion”)
Was Fortuyn pro-Christian? If so, he still fits on the list, somewhere near Fitzgerald.
“Was Fortuyn pro-Christian?”
No, he was a Christian himself, a Roman-Catholic becoming even more devout during the last ten years of his life.
Would you like me to quote Fortuyn himself on this issue?
The Catholicism of Fortuyn is common knowledge in Holland, so naturally I wondered where you got your information on Fortuyn’s religiousity. Still like to know.
I’ve not known of any other famous male Catholics who publicly flaunt their sexual preference for young Caribbean men; I assumed he was a “free thinker”.
I can’t imagine why a seemingly brazen homosexual would want to be a Catholic, when the Catechism states things like:
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity [Cf. Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10], tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”[Cf. Persona Humana] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Lest you go off on a wild red herring chase, I’m not debating the merits or demerits of homosexuality or of the Catholic position on homosexuality; nor am I trying to argue that Fortuyn cannot be called a Catholic because of his brazen seemingly unapologetic gay lifestyle. I am only pointing out that my assumption that he was an agnostic or atheist liberal (like Ayaan Hirsi Ali) was a fairly reasonable guess, based on his brazen and seemingly unapologetic gay lifestyle. (Also factoring in that in Europe, it’s a little more acceptable for politicians to be publicly agnostic/atheist than it seems to be in the U.S.A.)
In this particular case and on this specific issue, you’ve clearly assumed too much, while displaying a profound lack of factual information on Fortuyn’s religiosity.
But seriously, would you like me to enlighten you about the Roman Catholicism of Pim Fortuyn and what he himself had to say about it?
In short: yes, Fortuyn would still fit your list, but only as the “odd one out”. 😉
I didn’t assume too much. I assumed one specific thing, and the assumption was fairly reasonable.
For a publicly brazen and seemingly unapologetic gay to be simultaneously a pious Catholic (where the piety in question is defined by the Church, not by individual opinion and eccentricity, a la Mel Gibson, et al.) would be odd: When one makes guesses, one reasonably and naturally tends to opt for the less odd, not the odd.
I forgot to mention another factor: the prevalent Western fact of the phenomenon of “recovering Catholics” — i.e., of Catholics who are functionally anti-Catholic in the way they routinely condemn their own Church, its institutions, its “regressive” and “authoritarian” and “dogmatic” stances about this, that and the other PC social issue; etc.
Beyond the Catholics, there also exist in the West minions of functionally anti-Christian Christians: that’s the modern West for you: full of paradoxes like that.
So if Fortuyn was one of those (and it seems likely, given his brazen and seemingly unapologetic gay lifestyle), then I fit him (and other anti-Christian Christians) in with those precious few agnostic or atheist anti-Christians who also happen to condemn Islam now and then (some more than others).
However, an uncontroversially and consistently pro-Christian Christian who also condemns Islam now and then would not fit into my list, which had its clearly demarcated limits on inclusion.
It’s fairly simple Hesperado –
You are guessing and assuming from an outsider perspective. I can’t blame you for your lack of factual knowledge here.
I’m offering to fill this gap with the facts, provided you are willing to learn what they are.
Naturally, I’ll refrain from wasting your valuable time when actual knowledge about Fortuyn’s Catholic faith is not really your object of interest.
In your words Hesperado, Fortuyn actually was a consistently pro-Christian Christian, a Roman Catholic to be precise. Common knowledge in Holland, uncommon in the US if your comments are anything to go by.
I repeat my offer to provide you with the facts, in case you’re interested. Your call.
Hi Hesperado, If you act authoritative when you are simply making guesses, then you undercut your credibility because your readers then have to guess what else you are guessing about.
Best to just concede defeat if warranted. 🙂
Anyway, Sagunto, please enlighten us so we can do justice to the memory of a martyr for the cause and remember Pim Fortuyn as he would have wanted. 🙂
Glad someone asked, and of course it had to be you 😉
Here is a documentary on Fortuyn’s lifelong Catholicism. It is in Dutch so I’ll give you the part that matter most, with timestamps and description of the person uttering the remarks.
Here’s the doc
Let’s start with Pim Fortuyn first (and after him, in chronological order):
PF: Ieder mens heeft een opdracht in zijn leven; ik denk dat je die van God krijgt, ja.
“Every man has a mission in life; I think it is given by God, yes.”
[sounding like an atheist or anti-Christian Christian already?]
– U vooronderstelt ook God, dus.
“So you presuppose God, right?”
PF: Ja, absoluut. En ook dat-ie een plan met de wereld heeft, overigens een plan dat ik niet kan kennen.
“Yes, absolutely. And also that he has a plan with the world, albeit a plan that I can not decypher”
– Ook een plan met uw leven?
“A plan with your life also?”
PF: Ja, dat denk ik ja.
“Yes, that’s what I think, yes.”
– Dat zijn heftige uitspraken.
“Those are firm statements”
PF: Ja, dat is.. ja zo voel ik het wel.
“Yes, that’s.. yes that’s how I feel though.”
* * *
On with his confessor [12:46]
Hij vond het vreselijk jammer dat die hele liturgie zo versobert is [..].
“He deeply deplored the whole cutting down of the liturgy..”
– Hij was een voorstander van de oude Latijnse Mis?
“He was a proponent of the old Latin Mass?”
“But of course”
* * *
Let’s hear his brother [17:25]
Een gelovig mens is hij zijn hele leven geweest. Hij ging zeker de laatste jaren voor zijn dood nog regelmatig te biecht. En wat Pim ook was – dat zie je hier ook nog wel – een echte Maria-vereerder.
“He kept his faith throughout his life. The last years before his death especially he regularly went to confession. And Pim also was – as you can see over here – an ardent Mary-devotee.”
* * *
Now look at the last scenes of this doc, showing the funeral mass of Pim Fortuyn, held in a Roman-Catholic cathedral. Would this be the proper place for an atheist of sorts? Ave Maria the hymn of an anti-Christian?
Don’t think so either.. 😉
* * *
Here’s another docu
At the [04:46] mark, pay special attention [Hesp.] when Fortuyn says:
PF: Wat je wel kunt, is zoals wij katholieken zeggen [..]
“What one can do, is as we say as Catholics [..]”
* * *
A few considerations for Hesperado in concluding:
Wouldn’t it strike you as a bit odd for a supposed atheist/agnostic to regularly visit a personal father confessor?
Wouldn’t you feel inclined to reconsider your atheist/agnostic label if you learned that he openly spoke of himself as a Catholic?
Wouldn’t you think it somewhat strange for an atheist to receive a Roman Catholic funeral mass, complete with a traditional “Ave Maria” hymn?
You think any other person on your list would be mourned over in a Roman Catholic cathedral in such a funeral mass? Hirsi Ali, Theo van Gogh? No, of course not.
Fortuyn is the odd one out. With due respect.
I never said I don’t want to know the facts about Fortuyn’s Catholicism; I was merely clarifying what I had done — namely, I made an educated guess that was fairly reasonable, given Fortuyn’s “extra-curricular”, so to say, activities. As the context was a little extemporaneous list I drew up in 10 seconds and deposited as a little comment in a little tucked-away comments thread to a little article among many others on a blog, and as Fortuyn was, in addition, just one tiny tiny tiny cog in that list, I didn’t deem it necessary to determine rigorously whether my assumption (that Fortuyn belongs in a list of agnostic/atheists who are also more or less anti-Islam) was factual or not. Had the context been, say, a more concerted post in which I was mounting a counter-argument against an Islam Apologist; or, say, an actual essay I was drafting for my blog, I would have taken the time to get that fact, and any others about which I might have had doubts, straight.
All I said was, “let’s stick to the facts”. So now you – and others – have them.
At your service,
Just a small clarification of a misunderstanding. You wrote:
“In your words Hesperado, Fortuyn actually was a consistently pro-Christian Christian…”
Actually, I said the opposite; but again, that was another educated and reasonable guess on my part at that particular (and unremarkably casual) juncture in our present exchange. Refuting me on this one, however, may be a little more difficult than merely informing me of the facts that establish Fortuyn’s formal Christian credentials; as determinations of what constitutes a “pro-Christian Christian” vis-a-vis an “anti-Christian Christian” — and then whether a given Christian fits one or the other — are more complex and considerably more liable to nebulous disagreements of interpretation of which absolute certitude cannot, alas, come to either side’s rescue (in this life).
I never would have resisted the fact that Fortuyn is a Catholic. Now I know. It still strikes me as odd that he apparently found no dissonance between his flagrantly brazen gay lifestyle and his apparently traditionalist Catholicism. There certainly exists dissonance in his Church’s Catechism. Did he ever express existential angst at the inner self-contradiction? Or did he just blithely talk out of one side of his mouth about how sexy his latest Caribbean boyfriend is, while out of the other side about how much he reveres the Old Latin Mass, without any indication of awareness of the paradox here?
If not, now that I find quite odd.
Pat is the classic Neo-Con or perhaps more correctly a Decent Leftist that is a small portion of the Left and is despised by the vast majority of the Left. A Leftwinger that has been mugged by reality.
That being said, he stills clings to his Leftism….but clearly is the type of Leftwinger that is actually beneficial to society and not a menace.
He expressed support for the UKIP and loathing for what the Left has become, and especially the Labour Party, and not the sneering that other Leftists do at Labour, but classic criticism from the Right.
I do hold out hope for him as a Classically Liberal Neo-Con. He is still hostile to Christianity, but like Dawkins has woken up to the reality that Christianity isnt the evil that most Atheists and Leftists make it out to be…and beyond that, Islam is everything that they have incorrectly been haranguing Christianity about for decades. There worst fears materialized.
Apologists for Evil – Pat Condell
Hi Sagunto: Many thanks for the information and translations!
Hi Hesperado: You are projecting your own criticism of Catholicism onto Pim Fortuyn and his free will embrace of Catholicism while still living openly as a gay man.
As far as I know, Catholicism is A-OK OKEY-DOKEY (I like to teach Sagunto American slang….) with gays, indeed going so far as to accept gay priests as long as gay priests agree to practice celibacy in the same way that heterosexual priests agree to practice celibacy. See, equal rights for all! Ahem. 🙂
My personal belief is that dead people undergo life reviews in heaven where they re-live and re-experience important parts of their lives in order to learn spiritual lessons.
I also believe that dead people communicate in a wide variety of mysterious ways with living people to send important messages to the land of the living.
It is my intuition that Pim Fortuyn’s spirit desires earthly recognition and affirmation of his past – and present – faith in God, Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and Catholicism.
God bless Pim Fortuyn – STILL working for us from heaven! 🙂
As for the the little kerfluffle in this thread. Hesperado has interesting and well informed things to say. Sagunto (FWIU) is a Nederlander, and so has more detailed knowledge of Pim Fortyn, and corrected Hesperado, and corrected him. Sagunto also has well informed interesting things to say.
No big deal. The key is that we are all trying to understand more fully and deeply, and spread the broader message which we all broadly agree on with regards to Islam and the West. And both of those folks do a good job at it, with deep and broad knowledge, but not everyone can know everything. And Hesperado (and I) just learned something courtesy of Sanguto. That is what its all about.
Now break it up, and cool off.
For the record, I consider Fortuyn a martyr for the AIM. After all, he was assassinated by a Leftist animal rights nut who in his own words was “protecting Muslims”… (I guess he was protecting animals, after all.).
For the record, I consider AIM to be a GREAT name for the Anti-Islam Movement! Thanks for thinking it up, Hesperado! 🙂
Unfortunately, the AIM name would have to be retired as hate speech laws are implemented from state to state. Tennessee is today’s example. 🙁
“For the record, I consider AIM to be a GREAT name for the Anti-Islam Movement!”
Thanks Sagunto and Egghead.
I thought of another acronym, even less “correct”:
A.M.M.O. (the Anti-Muslim-and-Mohammed Organization)
(Even if redundant, it always helps to have extra bullets, so to speak)