
Last week a pathetic group of dweebs attempted to protest the opening of Superhero Movie in order to make their anger over Harvey Weinstein’s handling of Fanboys known. The protests were a hilarious disaster, as you can expect.
But where were these fanboys when the short film Fitna was being removed from the internet left and right for fear of reprisal by radical Muslims? I find myself much more concerned that YouTube and Liveleak won’t allow the film on their servers* because they think their staff might get killed than that Harvey Scissorhands might change the intentions of a movie about Star Wars geeks with cancer. Yet looking at most of the movie nerd sites you wouldn’t know any such thing as Fitna even existed, and you might think there was an actual audience for Fanboys and that it won’t eventually top out at 2 million dollars.
I have not seen Fitna. The short film was made by Dutch politician Geert Wilders, a man whose politics feel repugnant to me: a self-proclaimed free speech advocate, he wants to ban the Koran in his country. He wants to suspend the Dutch constitution and the European Convention on Civil Rights in the face of what he views as growing threats from extremist Muslims. He wants to end immigration to the Netherlands. After the savage assassination of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by a fundamentalist Muslim, Wilders began working on Fitna, which apparently is about the way passages from the Koran are used to justify violence by radicals.
I can’t judge the contents of Fitna. It could be hate speech. It could be political hay making. It could be absolutely correct. But it should be seen by those who want to see it. I often wonder about radical Muslims who threaten violence when someone portrays Islam as violent – are these people utterly without a sense of irony? I mean, take a look at what you’re doing, guys. It’s sort of baffling.
What’s even more baffling is how I, as a liberal, am supposed to take this. I think I’m supposed to ignore this. I know that I was supposed to ignore the murder of Van Gogh, who was killed because his short film Submission examined Islamic violence against women. When Steve Buscemi remade Van Gogh’s Interview I had a chance to chat with him, and the political aspects of the killing never came up; Buscemi simply wanted to honor the guy with his remake (which I think he did. It’s a good movie).
If there’s one thing I’ve never kept quiet it’s my feelings on religion: I think it’s stupid. I feel bad for people who have to adhere to some kind of doctrine to make themselves feel more secure in their lives, to give themselves some meaning. But I don’t feel bad for the Christian assholes who hate democracy just as much as the Islamic extremists do and want to impose their moronic, medieval beliefs on my country with opposition to stem cell research, abortion, evolution and gay marriage, among other things. Fuck those people.
Fuck these people, too. Fuck the people who are reacting with violence to opposing viewpoints, no matter how offensive or insensitive those viewpoints may be. Fuck the people who have created such a chill on discussion that not only are people afraid to show Fitna, it feels like people just don’t want to talk about it**. Fuck these lunatics and savages for proving their critics right at every turn. Fuck their barbaric, medieval religion too. And while we’re at it, fuck the rest of the religions – isn’t it obvious that it’s these superstitious belief systems, more than almost anything else, that’s holding us back as a race? Humanity is trapped under the weight of semi-prehistoric fantasy bullshit.
It’s obvious that the violent lunatics are a minority of all Muslims alive today, just like the abortion clinic bombing Christians are a minority of all Christians alive today. But there’s a level of tolerance that’s been reached, as far as I’m concerned, with any religious group who is trying to make everybody else think the way they do. The Christians evolved past violence a couple of hundred years ago, although I’m sure they’d go right back to it in a heart beat (isn’t that what is really happening in Iraq today – a crusade? Doesn’t George Bush think his God is just as much on his side as every suicide bombing Al Qaeda member thinks Allah is on his side?), but they’ll never evolve past trying to make everyone else conform to their fucked up belief system. I remember how outraged I was when Christians issued death threats for films like Dogma and The Last Temptation of Christ, but they were just squawking. There are Muslims out there actually killing people because of their art and their political views.
The answer to all of this isn’t to bomb Muslim countries. That’s making it worse. What needs to happen is that an Age of Enlightment must come to the Middle East. Maybe that’s part of what we’re seeing now, the violent spasms of an outdated, horrible old belief system that is trying to protect itself by any means necessary. I know that every time a Christian in America gets outraged about something in the movies or TV that is seen as being anti-Christian we’re a little bit closer to being rid of these people and their beliefs, that they’re getting pissed off because they know they can’t win the argument with rationality so they have to do it with hate and censorship.
The answer is to see Fitna. The answer is to stand up against the assholes who want to kill people who disagree with them. This is always the answer when it comes to controversial political art: whenever someone wants to suppress a viewpoint you should go out of your way to find out exactly what’s being suppressed. It doesn’t matter how horrible you find the viewpoint to be, it’s our duties as thinking human beings to make sure that it can be expressed. I may see Fitna and think that Geert Wilders is a total cocksucker, but I want to be able to make that decision for myself. I don’t want that decision handed down to me by your self serving holy man or your dumbass holy book. I don’t want it dictated to me by the keepers of public morality or the defenders of the feelings of minority groups. I don’t want to live in a world where nobody offends anybody else, especially because some people desperately need offending.
We live in dangerous and strange times. It’s tough being caught in the middle – on the one hand I think that these Islamic extremists are among the worst people alive, and I think they’re about as close to evil as you can get. On the other hand I think most of the self-styled enemies of these Islamic extremists are among the worst people alive, and I think they’re about as close to evil as you can get. It’s like a colossal war of the assholes out there, and those of us in the middle need to fight hard to make sure that we’re not drowning in either side’s shit.
*While doing research for this I have read that Liveleak will allow the film to be shown, but that Wilders has removed it to make some minor edits to get around copyright violations. Liveleak only decided to allow Fitna after a ‘security upgrade’ was put in place to protect employees.
** Here’s an interesting fact: There were more films with Islamic extremists as the villains in the 90s than there were after 9/11.





36 comments
Preach on, brother.
Seriously, though, this was good. Refreshing to see someone being so straightforward.
Pfft, I only care about things after South Park does an episode about them.
I totally agree with what you've said here. But I have to point out a small factual error: Fitna was removed because the politician used the infamous Dutch "Mohammed" comic strips without permission. Seeing as it was containing copyrighted material, the video was taken down by the hosts. If what you say is true about the edits, then the video will be shown no matter what.
And I totally agree with your arguments on censorship being the attack of the man who's already lost the argument to begin with. Only the weaker debater would say "he has no right to say that" unless he was pointing out a hypocrisy in the opposing viewpoint. Anyway, well written post.
Devin just got some respect from me. and you know how much iv hated Devins commentry in the past and even and iv taken it out on him. now i know i was wrong im sorry. Devin is ok in my book. he's still a rapist though.
Hell yes. I agree with every damn word.
Wow there sure does seem to be a lot of anti-religious sentiment on this site. I love it how in the process of decrying the intolerance of religious people, the author manages to expose more about his intolerance for religion than anything else. If he was talking about just the extremists then that would be one thing, but he has to put down the concept of religion in general, and by extension, everyone who calls themselves a follower of any religion. Meaning……the vast majority of humanity throughout history. Everyone has the right to their opinions, just don't be a self-righteous douche about it.
It's been pointed out by more than one person that any Christian who isn't trying to force his views on you isn't doing his full duty as a Christian–he's tolerant only insofar as he fails to be observant. No doubt the same could fairly be said about most other religions, which all seem to require some degree of proselytizing
Hey Cooper, "the vast majority of humanity throughout history" has been WRONG. We need to evolve. Cheers, Devin — great piece.
Cooper T — Hating hate is not hateful. FYI.
Well written again Devin. Good food for thought.
I, too, consider myself a liberal and always had a problem with understanding how a country I always deemed fairly progressive – Holland – could have an openly anti-Islamic movement within its borders that gathered steam on a national front. Then I read a rather fascinating book – "Murder in Amsterdam: Liberal Europe, Islam and the Limit of Tolerance" by Ian Buruma which goes in-depth into the murders of Van Gogh, but also the flamboyant and outspoken right-wing politician Pim Fortuyn who was similarly outspoken about his views on Islamofascism. I had never understood Fortuyn as he seemed a contradiction – a flamboyantly gay right-winger who appeared segregationist.
But then there was something he said in an interview, quoted in the Buruma book, about how after so many decades of fighting for civil rights as a homosexual, the fact that – for example – an openly gay teacher in Holland suddenly had to go back into the closet because very religious Muslim students began systematically harassing him because of his orientation, well, that led to Fortuyn's political awakening.
It's an interesting book and I don't imagine you'll agree with everything asserted by Fortuyn or Van Gogh's words in the text, but it is nevertheless a great primer on what has led to "Fitna."
It's a little silly to claim Christians have "evolved" beyond violence. Just like it silly to claim it of Jews, Muslims or Hindus. There are factions of all these religions that continue to justify violent actions with religious text. Certainly Muslims are absolutely the most vocal but they are by no means the only violent subsect of a potentially non-violent religion. Also note, Islam is perhaps one of the youngest faiths with such a wide following. Sure they borrowed heavily from the Judeo-Christians texts and beliefs, but they're still technically the youngest major faith out there (Wiccans and Mormons can never ever ever count).
Really there is only one faith that has not been steeped in violence. That's Buddhism.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The problem with these extremists is their complete lack of faith and confidence in the religions they so (for lack of a better word) deify. I mean if a teddy bear or a comic or a movie by the who wrote Clerks can so ROCK you beliefs, then you've got bigger problems then the aforementioned bear, comic, or movie.
I have to agree with Cooper on this. I totally agree with Devin's sentiments on censorship in this respect, and think every voice should has a place in a democracy. If the ideas are vapid, close-minded or hateful, they should be heard and called out as such.
But that goes for atheists or non-religious individuals who piss all over religion because they're only experience of it has been idiots like those trying to ban Fitna. You absolutely have every right to that opinion, but it weakens your credibility. There are plenty of Christians–and, I'm sure, Muslims–who would agree with the sentiments of this column, and actually don't believe in proselytizing or forcing their opinions down your throat. I'm sorry if those are the only religious people you've met, but know there's plenty out there content to keep their spiritual beliefs to themselves.
Regardless of that, thanks for bringing the situation with Fitna to light. I wouldn't have known about it otherwise. The breadth of cinema you cover in CHUD's articles and columns sets you a league apart from other "movie nerd websites."
Amen, Devin!
I don't know where to start with what Devin has said in this article. Ok, on the one hand you say that "radical Muslims" and "violent lunatics" represent "a minority of all Muslims alive today". In the same breath you say "Fuck their barbaric, medieval religion too". Does that mean that the (violent) minority and the (non-violent) majority have the same fucked up belief system? You go on to say that "What needs to happen is that an Age of Enlightment must come to the Middle East". I have never heard such a stupid and ignorant statement like that before. These comments highlight that you, Devin, have never been to the middle east, and maybe never even really talked to someone or been friends with someone who is arab or iranian or pakistani. If you ever get the chance to travel to those parts of the world you would realise that that the HUMAN BEINGS that live in those countries are not barbaric, backward or medieval. You would realise that they often have more humanity and insight into the things that the western world often holds so dear. If people joke about, make fun of, slander or denigrate muslims, christians, jews or anybody else, then that's fine; it's acceptable today. But despite what people think, muslims are not asking people to be polite and sensitive toward them as people or their beliefs; the vast majority of them are just trying to live their lives, be it in their homelands or as ethnic minorities in the west. But it is politically correct idiots who get scared and try to be sensitive on behalf of people who don't really care what others say about them. Expressing or enacting violence against people for what they say is wrong. End of story. BUT humans are emotional beings, and defending people like Geert Wilders, or Theo Van Gogh, or Pim Fortuyn is also wrong, because from their actions and from their words any person can honestly accept that deep in their human heart they make no distinction between "radical" or "moderate" muslim other than to appease the media. To such people something like Islam itself, and muslims themselves are abhorent and unacceptable. It's a very emotional thing, but it's true. It kind of reminds me of when a self-publicising journalist (Julie Burchill, in the UK) once wrote an article about the muslim men and women who were massacred and raped (or both) in srebrenica during the Bosnian war. She basically argued that they had deserved it because they must have done something wrong. Muslims didn't run into the streets of England asking for her head, but non-muslims didn't call her up for it either. BUT ANYWAY, what I have been trying to say in a rather long-winded way is that the people whose freedom of speach you are defending are not more legitimate because the are expressing their beliefs in the free west against a (so-called) oppresssed islamic east. So many of the people on this board, even from the few words they have written supporting this article (and I'm not attacking it wholesale) have highlighted to me how uneducated they are about other cultures/countries and beliefs. Just because you don't watch FOX news, doesn't mean that the other channels are are giving you a balanced view of life on the other side of the globe. Peace out
All religions are medieval – believing in invisible beings controlling the world is shit that should have been left behind when we entered the Age of Reason. But any religion that treats women with contempt and makes them second class citizens who must cover up is barbaric.
A simplistic response which regurgitates ignorant and uneducated viewpoints. Ask my mum or my sister if they have been treated with contempt or made second class citizens, in the west or the east. There nice educated women. Sometimes your sad Devin. Bye.
And seriously most religious people are just taking up the same line of crap their parents fed them. When someone tries to point out how illogical and backward their belief system is they feel as though their parents are being called retarded – which they are. You and your bible-torah-koran thumping parents are retarded. Amen, shalom, akbar
Amen, Mohammad. Interesting article Devin. Well written and thoughtful as always. However, your assault on the religious people of the world is a seemingly continuous personal crusade; a by now long tired CHUD tradition. Why are you unable to seperate the truly spiritual, rightous people of faith with the minority of bad apples/evil doers? (And you talk about enlightenment-I'll put up the Higher Power believing artists against the non. Sure you got John Lennon, we got George Harrison, Elvis, & Johnny Cash!)
Devin,
Your outrage over the cowardice displayed by YouTube, et.al., regarding Fitna is ironic in light of your equally militant opposition to the allowance of ID theory in academia.
Repression of speech and restriction of a true exchange of ideas are hallmarks of the evolution Pharisees.
Having seen Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and having read your columns for years – in at least this respect you seem to be very similar in temperament and purpose to the gentlemen waving the signs in the photo above.
To put a finer point on it: You are adamantly opposed to censorship, except for the ideas which you personally think are ridiculous.
Now I know you think this issue is beyond debate (which is more irony – that kind of absolutism is supposed to be reserved for us "people of faith") but there are a lot of really smart people – smarter than you and me combined, Devin – who have taken evolution's measure and found it lacking.
Why can't you allow that an open exchange of ideas is ALWAYS a good thing, regardless of your opinion of some of those ideas?
Weren't Darwin's ideas considered radical when Origin was published?
I get that you're against religion, Devin. I guess I'm wondering whether your hatred of religion has eclipsed your love of freedom.
He is able to separate them, TMTTR, and did so.
But the "truly spiritual, righteous people of faith" believe the same ludicrous nonsense as the "bad apples/evildoers." Yes, it's great that most religious people aren't murderous assholes, but it doesn't make the concept of God (or the supernatural in general) any less poisonous.
Superb.
Why are there still apologists for religion?
@billw
ID should not be taught in science classrooms because it isn't science. It offers no testable theories, which are the fundamental basis of the scientific method, in which theories are developed verified or disproven via testing. Full stop, end of story.
Rather than offering -testable- theories, ID offers mystical theories that are fundamentally NOT testable. Therefore, it is theology and philosophy (and is appropriate to be taught in such courses). Those who confuse ID with science are at best deeply mistaken – and some are demonstrably lying.
Therefore, teaching ID in a science classroom is tantamount to lying to the students of that class. It is lying to teach acoustic guitar in an auto-repair class while pretending that the students are learning about fixing transmissions. The mistaken teacher should be called out as such, and, if necessary, fired for incompetence.
Regarding free speech, I agree that it allows ID proponents to agitate for ID in the classroom. This does not in any way make what they say right or correct.
Furthermore, free speech equally allows everyone else to call out the ID proponents as fools and liars.
Free speech cuts both ways, thinking otherwise is a foolish mistake (at best).
Awesomeness. I totally agree, but now I'm afraid Devin will get a fatwa placed on him lol Remember Salman Rushdie. That dude still has a fatwa against him.
Good form. Well done, Devin!
Brian,
The gist of life origins via evolution theory is as follows:
A long, long time ago, in a galaxy not so far away, there was nothing. Until there was something. We're not sure what this something was, or how it came to be, but it was. And it somehow produced a Big Bang, which in turn produced a chemical reaction (although we're not sure where the chemicals came from) which randomly assimilated into, among countless other planets and celestial entities, earth. Further random processes brought about (can't say "created") the specific, perfect environment to sustain life on this unassuming little planet.
Life in the form of a single-celled organism, which through yet more random mutation, or macro-evolution to be exact, developed against all odds into the ants, aardvarks, apple trees and atheists we have today.
Help me out a little, Brian. Exactly what part of the preceeding is testable?
Gravity is testable. Entropy is testable. We can perform repeated experiments in the present which verify those respective theories. Life origins theory, by definition, requires some assumptions about the distant past. Evolutionists start with the assumption that there could have been no impetus from a creator/designer/whatever to set things in motion.
ID/creation proponents assume there must have been a literal "higher power" involved.
The majority of ID/creation apologists are neither liars nor fools. We simply look at the same evidence evolutionists look at and draw different conclusions.
Bravo! That was actually quite stirring, like a call to arms! I now need to see every movie available with a controversial point of view.
I heard of Fitna but I had no trouble letting a pro right wing, pure bias movie not be shown. Fuck the cunt. If he's being objective or even slightly objective in criticism like Salomon Rushdie then ok, but this guy hates skin then the religion.
Mohammed said: "A simplistic response which regurgitates ignorant and uneducated viewpoints. Ask my mum or my sister if they have been treated with contempt or made second class citizens, in the west or the east. <b><i>There</i></b> nice educated women. Sometimes <b><i>your</i></b> sad Devin. Bye."
Fine Billw, we'll teach ID in science classes just as we teach evolution, which in fact does not purport to teach the very beginnings but instead hypothesises, based on evidence in fossils and actual testable theories, that we evolved from various organisms. We see evolution every day in disease and germs, so it's not far fetched to see it in the past. But it is just a theory.
The teaching of ID you want so much will take roughly 30 seconds. "Just as every academic mind worth their degree agrees that evolution is incredibly likely, there are some that believe in the intelligent design theory. There is a higher power of which there is no evidence of, nothing we can test or see, who somehow formed the entire world and universe, once again without any evidence. This formless being shaped all the creatures in existance, and then was largely forgotten in favor of other Gods and followings throughout tens of thousands of years of Human history, until appearing in 'visions' which prompted new followers to begin a religion. In time, the religion absorbed parts of other religions, such as pagan rituals that have become major events so huge that the entire world celebrates them, and things as central to the religion as when their savior was born (It's not december), and it's holy book has been watered down over the course of two thousand years so that it's original purpose of a book of fables and cautionary stories, an 'Aesop's Fables' of it's day, has eventually 'evolved' into a book that nobody has read, and it's once-thought wisdom has devolved into hate-mongers pulling out outdated and out-of-context quotes to use against people that they say are 'sinning'."
And so ends the lesson on ID. Now lets look at the mountains of tests and theories and proof on Evolution. This will take the rest of the quarter.
Great post, Devin. I've been rallying behind this film over at my site, The Amateur Scientist for a while now. For those who want to see it, I've posted a version of it here: http://amateurscientistblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/liveleakcom-cowards.html
And assuming you've received my email, Devin, hows about you come on The Amateur Scientist Podcast for an interview?
Devin, if you think Religion is the root of all evils in society, just watch (or rewatch) the Buck Rogers South Park Episodes. The root of all evil in Society are humans. Even if there was no religion in the world, humans would find some other excuse to be nasty to each other, whether it be science or agnosticism ("My Science is the only true Science!).
Islam use to be the most tolerant, scientificaly progressed Religion in the world. What happened? The people fucked it up.
But we can't tolerate intimidation from fundamentalist, whether they be Christian or Muslim.
Religion is just a crutch for the weak minded and stupid.
Hilarious as always Devin, keep it up!
Ah, the "ID vs. Evolution" debate… I believe that there is a fundamental difference between Religion's and Science's take on "where we come from?" here. Whereas Science’s tenets or theories can always be refuted by its proponents (one might say that it’s even one of the basic premises of the scientific method : you should always question what is presented to you as fact), Religion’s tenets or theories cannot be as easily dismissed. Maybe “easily” is not the right adjective to use here… For sure, it’s a hard and ballsy move for a scientist to question a well-established theory, one that can surely end in personal ruin and international scorn… But my point is that it still is possible for that scientist to go ahead and try anyways. To me, it seems that Religion does not afford the same leisure to its proponents; when one of those proponents tries to question Religion’s theories, his reasoning will inexorably be stopped by the “Blind Faith” clause. Such proponent’s line of questioning will invariably be made to come down to the “Do you believe in God’s existence?” question. If he answers “Yes”, then his whole line of questioning will fall apart; how can you intellectually call into question a system based on blind faith? If you believe in God, then you have to accept that faith is blind; that “ultimate surrender of your inquisitive mind” is part and parcel of the whole system. On the other hand, if he answers “No”, can he still be considered as one of Religion’s proponents?
So, while it is true (as History as shown repeatedly…) that both Science and Religion can be used for inhumane purposes, I do believe that Religion, by its very nature, has a much greater potential for it and that such an inhumane purpose is then harder to stop from within. Whenever a limit is placed upon what you can challenge (be it by a scientific or a religious figure of authority), there is always a risk of slipping into the realm of abuse of power and mind control. And (to me, at least…), it seems that such a limit is at the very heart of Religion…
Is it just me or are the only people that read this blog bad spellers who are addicted to watching south park?
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.