* Anti-Quran Film "Fitna" Pulled From Internet Because of Threats

Search the Archives

Contact Information

The Citizen Newspapers
310B. North Glynn Street,
Drawer 1719,
Fayetteville, GA 30214

For Advertising Information
Call 770-719-1880
or Fax 770-719-1976

Email us your news!
Letters to the Editor
Opinion
Sports
Names & Faces
Weekend
Churches
Weddings & Engagements

For technical difficulties
Click here to email the webmaster

Anti-Quran Film "Fitna" Pulled From Internet Because of Threats

I watched the 17 minute Dutch video tonight, although it took me a while to find it on the internet. It seems that the video-hosting site, 'Live Link' pulled the video today due to threats to the staff, of a "serious nature", because of the content of the video, which is highly critical of the Quran and Islam. If ever there was an argument for the Separation of Church and State, this is it, whether it is Islam, Christianity or any religion that strives for a theocratic society. I hope you are able to watch it, before it is pulled from Google, the only site I could find that was hosting the video tonight. And just a warning, it is rather graphic in case you have a weak stomach.

A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE MOVIE

FITNA THE MOVIE, BY GEERT WILDERS

FITNA MOVIE PULLED

OVERCOMING FITNA, MIDDLE EAST STRATEGY AT HARVARD

Main Stream's blog | login to post comments

Main $cream – Christians are NOT terrorists.

Submitted by Denise Conner on Sun, 03/30/2008 - 5:08am.

Christians (99.99%) are not "striv[ing] for a theocratic society." That is your gross misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of the meaning of the word theocracy, which means literally “the rule of God.” The term was invented by the historian Josephus (c. 37-100 A.D.) "to describe the ancient Hebrew constitution and the role of Mosaic law." Christianity as taught by Christ and his disciples and recorded in Holy Scripture does not teach forced conversions or persecution of non-believers. Some distort that message, and some claim the name Christian who God says are not, but they are not the standard to judge all of Christianity by.

There is no "Separation of Church and State" in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson, who used the phrase in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from the DBA written in October 1801, was in France serving as the U.S. minister to France when the U.S. Constitution was written in 1787. Jefferson was not one of the delegates who wrote or ratified the Constitution.

The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, who were concerned that, in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable (unalienable) rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature – as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion, a common practice – only of establishment on the national, or federal, level.

Both the Baptists and Jefferson recognized the Biblical principle of Romans 13:4 that “the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor,” “such acts only as are injurious to others.” Hence, the limits imposed on Congress (the legislative branch of the federal government) to “prohibit the free exercise” of religion or to establish a national religion as was common in Europe (Church of England or Anglican, Lutheran in Germany, Catholicism in Italy and Spain).

[For Jefferson’s view on the “establishment of religion” as legislated by the various states, except Pennsylvania and New York, see “Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 17, 157—61” (1784). “The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God,” not to “fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons.” He did recognize that “the spirit of the times” did not encourage “tyrannical laws”: “I doubt whether the people of this country would suffer an execution for heresy, or a three years imprisonment for not comprehending the mysteries of the Trinity.” Such religious differences should not be given preference by law in order to establish “uniformity.”]

Since Jefferson believed that “the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,” he would not view “hate crimes” legislation as within “the legitimate power of civil government.”

“A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments” by Thomas Jefferson

“Whereas it frequently happens that wicked and dissolute men resigning themselves to the dominion of inordinate passions, commit violations on the lives, liberties and property of others… government would be defective in it's principal purpose were it not to restrain such criminal acts, by inflicting due punishments on those who perpetrate them.”

While Jefferson was concerned about “the reformation of offenders,” he saw the need for capital punishment for certain crimes and for punishments “proportioned to the injury,” such as the Biblical principle of “an eye for an eye” for maiming or disfiguring someone “on purpose and of malice forethought.”

“Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.”

“All attempts to delude the people, or to abuse their understanding by exercise of the pretended arts of witchcraft, conjuration, inchantment, [sic] or sorcery or by pretended prophecies, shall be punished by ducking and whipping at the discretion of a jury, not exceeding 15 stripes.”

From these laws, one can conclude that Jefferson did not advocate separating Biblical standards of morality from government.

Jefferson did propose abolishing “Pardon and Privilege of Clergy” whereby “the clergy [in England] increasing in wealth, power, honour, number and interest, began soon to set up for themselves” [“exemption from criminal process before a secular judge”] and had begun to claim such privilege “their inherent right.” Proving the maxim “Absolute power corrupts absolutely,” the clergy [in England] obtained “a vast extension of these exemptions” so that “not only every little subordinate officer belonging to the church or clergy, but even many that were totally laymen” could claim “Privilege of Clergy.” Such privilege was inconsistent with the prohibition against “an establishment of religion.”

[See chapter 28, Essentials of the Law: A Review of Blackstone's Commentaries by Marshall Davis Ewell, LL.D. (1882, 1915).]

President Jefferson concluded his letter to the DBA by assuring them, “I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.”

Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of American Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" [not the ACLU or activist judges].

Thomas Jefferson (who authored The Life and Morals of Jesus) wrote, "[I consider] ethics, as well as religion, as supplements to law in the government of man" (1824).

(PBS Religion & Ethics) O'BRIEN: The recovered versions reaffirm Jefferson's public position that government officials have no business meddling in religion, although Jefferson himself had no problems attending church at the Capitol.

Judge MCCONNELL: Jefferson, after about 1802 and for the last six years of his presidency, attended church virtually every week at the church services which were conducted by the chaplains of the Congress in the hall of the House of Representatives.

[That does not fit with the present-day “separation of church and state” interpretation that the ACLU uses to bring suit to get the cross on Mt. Soledad removed.]

Importance of Morality and Religion in Government (Historical Writings)

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Third President of the United States

[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. ~ John Adams, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.... Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. ~ John Adams

________________________________

8-week fetus ("young one") – Only 30-32 more weeks to go!

“Women who are experiencing an unplanned pregnancy also deserve unplanned joy." (Feminists for Life)

Abortion stops a beating heart! Sad

AUDIO at 8 weeks LMP

The baby's heart begins to beat during his 3rd week of development (at 22 days after conception, or during week 5 of 40, dated from LMP) and can sometimes be seen as a flickering in the baby's chest on an ultrasound.

"If you're like most parents-to-be, hearing the fetal heartbeat for the first time is an exciting moment. Even if you've already seen the embryo on an ultrasound, there's something about that steady little drumbeat that makes you realize that you really, truly are going to have a baby soon."

Are you that DENSE, denise?

Submitted by Main Stream on Sun, 03/30/2008 - 1:19pm.

One of the reasons I refer to you as 'dense' on this blog, stems from the fact that you fail to understand or comprehend so many posts and comments from other bloggers. This is a perfect example, in this thread, in that you failed to comprehend the significance of the banned Fitna video, and why the action of banning it negatively impacts society on a national and international level. The overriding fear and intimidation free nations are experiencing, due to religious extremist elements, in this case Islamic fundamentalism, must be addressed and discussed.

And I'll restate my position, that any religious extremist group, whether Muslim, Christian, Jew or whatever, must be addressed and eradicated to protect any free society, so it does not erode into a theocracy.

If you want to discuss your Christian historical revisionism theory, as it relates to Jefferson, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, start your own thread.

Dictator Mein $cream: “Eradicate them!”

Submitted by Denise Conner on Mon, 03/31/2008 - 6:22pm.

You call me "dense"…

A) Because you're seething with anger?
B) Because you grew tired of using "retarded"?
C) Because you're childish?
D) Because you have limited vocabulary skills and you're jealous?
E) All of the above!

"Start your own thread." – Bossy, aren’t you? Laughing out loud

You were the one to bring up “separation of church and state” and to equate Christians with terrorists. Now your true self comes out (not that we’ve haven’t seen your “claws” before): Christians (other than the "christiany"-type you associate with) must be “ERADICATED.”

There's little that I "fail to comprehend." Laughing out loud I definitely "comprehend" your "extremist" views and your attempts to cause "fear and intimidation" in all who dare exercise their unalienable rights to life, freedom of speech….

Actually, Jefferson believed "that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion."

Exactly what "Christian historical revisionism" is in my post? Is this an example of "religious extremist elements" that you want "eradicated"? Puzzled

I don’t need your permission to post a comment. Too bad you can't edit my comments like you can $niff’s (or is $niff editing yours?). As snug as two little bed bugs in a rug. Laughing out loud

__________________________

8-week fetus ("young one") -- Only 30-32 more weeks to go!

"Women who are experiencing an unplanned pregnancy also deserve unplanned joy." (Feminists for Life)

Abortion stops a beating heart! Sad

dense... there you go again... (how Reaganesque!)

Submitted by Main Stream on Mon, 03/31/2008 - 10:21pm.

"...equate Christians with terrorists."

uhhh, no. I didn't equate Christians with terrorists, dense. Again, you lose the point of my original post.

You really are dense and referring to you as dense, is merely stating the obvious. You, a dense-minded troll who continues to follow me around on this blog.

Are you in need of that much attention in your life?

Reaganesque --Indeed

Submitted by Paul Perkins on Fri, 04/04/2008 - 12:04pm.

Now wait a minute here...

Reagan could

Quickly counter his opponants with either humor or a convicting quip
He could tell stories from his past that illustrated practicing what he epsoused
He speech was rich in illustrations from American history.
He daily life reflected what he believed

Well...-you're right Main her posts are very Reaganesque

I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born. ~Ronald Reagan, quoted in New York Times, 22 September 1980
This is the way to blog!

Dictator Mein $cream: “Eradicate dense trolls!"

Submitted by Denise Conner on Tue, 04/01/2008 - 2:01am.

Is calling me Laughing out loud "dense" and "troll" Shocked an indication that you're the one "in need of much attention in your life"?

~ As Edmund Burke said, "He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." ~

Explain your own words:

"If ever there was an argument for the Separation of Church and State, this is it, whether it is Islam, Christianity or any religion that strives for a theocratic society."

"Any religious extremist group, whether Muslim, Christian, Jew or whatever, must be addressed and eradicated to protect any free society, so it does not erode into a theocracy."

• Who do you include in a "religious extremist group"?
• What do you consider a theocracy?
• Which Christians are "striv[ing] for a theocratic society"?
• Which Christians (“religious extremist group”) do you want “eradicated”?
• Exactly which public religious expressions should be prohibited?
• Must "one Nation under God" be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance?
• Must our motto “In God We Trust” be removed?
• Must the cross on the Mt. Soledad monument be removed?

The "point" of the Fitna movie is Muslim terrorism: killing those who will not submit. The word Islam means submission, or the total surrender of oneself to Allah. Which Christians are proposing to make forced conversions law, with beheading as the consequence for failing to submit? Which Christians propose flying planes into buildings or bombing public transportation to kill infidels?

By your including Jews and Christians with the Muslim terrorists shown in this film, you are equating them with terrorists.

Would you like for me to list all of my posts where you "continue to follow me around on this blog"? Laughing out loud

__________________________

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. ~ Edmund Burke

__________________________

John Jay, one of the framers of the Constitution and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote: “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

dense...

Submitted by Main Stream on Tue, 04/01/2008 - 6:14am.

Whatever.

(great line, muddle)

Main Stream

Submitted by Git Real on Tue, 04/01/2008 - 6:37pm.

Nice Surrender!

________

The Sissy And The Word Defined

Denise...

Submitted by yardman5508 on Sun, 03/30/2008 - 6:24am.

thank you for you notes on Jefferson {one of my personal figures, btw}. While it was true that Jefferson believed in a Creator and was tolerantof all those who had that or other beliefs, we have to me careful to separate Jefferson, the President, from Jefferson, the citizen. The Establishment clause merely states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Government has not business making laws of religious intent. What we as citizens choose to believe is another matter altogether, Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

Yardman, about Jefferson

Submitted by Denise Conner on Mon, 03/31/2008 - 9:15pm.

Thanks for the polite discussion. Smiling

History is a favorite of mine. Did you see the exhibit on Franklin at the Atlanta History Center? It was interesting seeing his writings (excellent penmanship, as well as unbelievable intelligence). There was one on Washington some time ago.

As far as "separat[ing] Jefferson, the President, from Jefferson, the citizen," that's impossible since his ideas so greatly influenced the founding of this country. Therefore, if one defines "separation of church and state" narrowly by only one comment without contemplating the historical context and his other writings, then one can misunderstand his meaning. Jefferson, as only one of many Founding Fathers, was not the author of the Bill of Rights and, therefore, could not be the definitive source for their interpretation.

As president, he was "sensible of no passion which could seduce [him] knowingly from the path of justice," yet he acknowledged that "the weaknesses of human nature and the limits of [his] own understanding will produce errors of judgment sometimes injurious to [the] interests" of the citizens of the U.S. If he had known how his "wall" phrase would be misused, I can't help but wonder if he would not have elaborated more or worded his response differently.

Jefferson "attended church virtually every week at the church services which were conducted by the chaplains of the Congress in the hall of the House of Representatives." That doesn't sound like the same "wall' that the ACLU and Supreme Court dictate.

"God has formed us moral agents... that we may promote the happiness of those with whom He has placed us in society, by acting honestly towards all, benevolently to those who fall within our way, respecting sacredly their rights, bodily and mental, and cherishing especially their freedom of conscience, as we value our own." (Jefferson)

Jefferson's “A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments” was his attempt to put that philosophy into law.

"The Northwest Ordinance," passed by the same Congress that framed the Bill of Rights, stated the following:

"Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

Don't forget the other half

Submitted by USArmybrat on Mon, 03/31/2008 - 7:20pm.

"Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This very important part seems to be forgotten or ignored by so many in our society. And so this right has been trampled on over and over.

Jefferson and Christianity

Submitted by NUK_1 on Sun, 03/30/2008 - 7:45am.

He couldn't stand it. I'm amazed at how people try to twist what he stated repeatedly about Christianity, the Bible, and government. What Jefferson said in his writings speak loud and clear:
===
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

"If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God"

"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being."

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
================================

Fitna

Submitted by muddle on Sat, 03/29/2008 - 6:56am.

Thanks for this link. I heard an interview on NPR yesterday during which they were discussing the movie (of which I was unaware before that). I would have forgotten to look for it before it was removed completely.

Of course, Muslims resent the suggestion that their religion is not peaceful, and this is why they threatened the filmmaker with death.

The combination of rather explicit Suras in the Quran that mandate the slaughter of the infidels and the excerpts from speeches and acts of the "faithful" today is pretty powerful.

The NPR interview was with someone in the Dutch government, who said the release of the film was unfortunate and that no one has a right to insult people.

The UN even got involved on the film

Submitted by NUK_1 on Sun, 03/30/2008 - 7:55am.

denouncing this film and having a hissy over it. The Dutch are one of the last people out there left that truly believe in concepts like freedom and liberty above all else. Even as tolerant as they are, they reached a point with Muslims coming into the Netherlands and getting militant, so they created a nice video package for every Muslim who wants citizenship. It is designed to let them know what to expect to see and to go elsewhere if it offends them. On this video it shows people openly smoking dope, two guys kissing, prostitutes, etc, things that Muslims have a real problem with. In other words, if you want to be a citizen, this is how the country is you are becoming a citizen of.

I guess the big stink over this beyond the usual lack of tolerance and desire to kill for any slight some Muslims have is the fact that the filmmaker is in the Dutch parliament. Glad to see the UN has no clue as usual to priorities or its mission to where a pretty obscure(though it sure isn't now) film is a large enough issue to hold a press conference and rebuke it.

Search the Archives

Navigation

Contact Information

Anti-Quran Film "Fitna" Pulled From Internet Because of Threats

Comment viewing options

Comment viewing options