Theo van Gogh, Filmmaker: Assassinated Nov 2, 2004
Monday, Nov 2 is the anniversary of the brutal assassination of Theo van Gogh, controversial filmmaker and director of the short film Submission which dealt with the topic of violence against women in some Islamic societies. To honor his courage I would ask that everyone interested in free speech, reason and freedom from religion tweet “RIP #TheoVanGogh“ at 11:00 AM Eastern Standard Time to get on Trending Topics as well as throughout the day.
Theo van Gogh
Van Gogh rejected every form of religion, and in the late 1990s he started to focus on Islam. He felt strongly that political Islam is an increasing threat to liberal western societies.
Short Film: “Submission” – Working from a script written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, van Gogh created the 10-minute movie Submission. The movie deals with the topic of violence against women in some Islamic societies; telling the stories of four abused Muslim women. The title itself, “Submission”, is a translation of the word “Islam” into English. In the film, women’s naked bodies are veiled with semi-transparent shrouds as they kneel in prayer, telling their stories as if they are speaking to Allah. Qur’anic verses unfavourable to women are projected onto their bodies in Arabic. In August 2004, after the movie’s broadcast on Dutch public TV, newspaper De Volkskrant reported on claims of plagiarism against Hirsi Ali and Van Gogh, made by internet journalist Francisco van Jole. Van Jole said the duo had “aped” the ideas of Iranian-American video artist Shirin Neshat, whose work made abundant use of Arabic text projected onto bodies. After the broadcast of Submission, Van Gogh and Hirsi Ali also received death threats. Van Gogh did not take these very seriously and refused any protection, reportedly telling Ayaan Hirsi Ali: “Nobody kills the village idiot”, a term he frequently used to refer to himself.
Death - Mohammed Bouyeri murdered Van Gogh in the early morning of 2 November 2004, in Amsterdam while he was bicycling to work. Bouyeri shot van Gogh eight times with an HS 2000 handgun, and Van Gogh died on the spot. Bouyeri then cut Van Gogh’s throat, nearly decapitating him, and stabbed him in the chest. Two knives were left implanted in his torso, one attaching a five-page note to his body. The note threatened Western governments, Jews and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who went into hiding). The note also contained references to the ideologies of the Egyptian organization Takfir wal-Hijra. Mohammed Bouyeri, a 26-year-old Dutch citizen, was apprehended by the police and has alleged terrorist ties with the Dutch Hofstad Network. He was convicted on July 26, 2005 and sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole.
Aftermath – The day after the murder, Dutch police arrested eight Muslim radicals belonging to a group later referred to as the Hofstad Network. Six detainees were Dutch-Moroccans, one was Dutch-Algerian and one had dual Spanish-Moroccan nationality. Following the murder, the Dutch Complaints Bureau for Discrimination on the Internet (MDI) received many complaints about websites praising the murder and making death threats against other people. At the same time, starting with four attempted arson attacks on mosques in the weekend of 5-7 November, a significant number of apparently retaliatory violent incidents and arson attacks took place. The Dutch Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia recorded a total of 106 violent incidents against Muslim targets in November. The National Dutch Police Services Agency (KLPD) recorded 31 occasions of violence against mosques and Islamic schools between 23 November and 13 March 2005. The case that drew most attention was an arson attack that led to the destruction of a Muslim primary school in Uden in December 2004. By 8 November, Christian churches were in turn targeted in vandalism and arson attacks. A report for the Anne Frank Foundation and the University of Leiden, which counted a total of 174 violent incidents between 2-30 November, specifies that mosques were the target of violence 47 times, and churches 13 times.
Filed under: Atheism, Extremism, Intolerance, Videos
and even after this some stupid people think religion is good. these stupid people need a good wake up call.
It's incredible that individuals are still being murdered for criticizing religion. It's become dangerous to say anything against Islam without fear of violence or death. The more people who take a stand and speak out against idiocy, the better. They can't kill us all.
On the other hand…
The article makes clear that there was a violent (and illegal) political backlash against the muslim community after Van Gogh's death. Start reading at "The National Dutch Police Services Agency (KLPD) recorded 31 occasions of violence against mosques and Islamic schools … " Even outside the context of the reaction to somebody's murder, it's more dangerous to be a muslim in the west than it is to be a westerner living among muslim communities her. Anti-muslim racism is everywhere – swastikas being daubed on a mosque in France, the desecration of muslim gravestones in England and the attack on a muslim charity in Scotland are directly racist attacks. Atheists who think these incidents aren't racist have lost touch with reality.
And not only that but it's extremely dangerous to be a muslim living in the middle east nowadays. The chances of being bombed or shot by western military action are excessive, it's just that we call it fighting for democracy. The resistance often happens to form around religion, so we get another justification for attacking them, their determination becomes stronger, and the cycle of violence, provoked by the west, continues.
Sad about Van Gogh dying though. People who do that should be locked up. And he was: life imprisonment with no possibility of parole is hardly ignoring the issue.
Just to be clear, by definition there is no such thing as 'anti-Muslim racism'. 'Racism' specifically refers to discrimination based on 'race'. 'Muslim' is not a race. And, while anti-Muslim 'sentiment' does exist in the west it's ignorant for anyone to lump either Muslims or 'the west' together with their extremists. However, the issue here is not about discrimination. It's about what the right to criticize religion, including Islam, without fear of being murdered! It's a matter of free speech. Note that Van Gogh's film is actually defending the rights of a huge segment of the Mulsim world: Muslim women!
Just to be clear, there is such a thing as 'anti-Muslim racism'. Painting swastikas on a mosque is racist. If you want to defend it as something else go ahead, you just won't be very convincing.
"And not only that but it's extremely dangerous to be a muslim living in the middle east nowadays. The chances of being bombed or shot by western military action are excessive,"
This is nonsense. While there have been civilian deaths over the past 8 years of war the casualties inflicted by "western military action" are not what makes it "extremely dangerous….nowadays". It's been dangerous to be a muslim in the middle east for quite some time. If you want to ignore all of the atrocities that have been committed over the past century in that part of the world that were not related to "western military action" to satisfy your bleeding heart go ahead but I'm fairly certain you are the one who won't be convincing.
"Muslim" is not a race. Defacing a mosque is an act of religious discrimination, not racial. Pointing this fact out is not defending the alleged action, it's calling it what it is.
I find this website convincing: http://www.iraqbodycount.org . It's a pity there isn't one for Afghanistan. Still, some people can't even admit the truth even when they are faced with the evidence.
What's a bleeding heart, by the way? It sounds like something highly religious. Either that or I need to get myself to a hospital. Please could you explain my symptomology in more detail.
Nobody is arguing that "Muslim" is a race, but that doesn' t mean people can't be racist against muslims. We can all go into denial if we want, but I would have thought it's obvious there's one highly appropriate word for people who paint swastikas on a mosque or destroy muslim gravestones: Racists. Why exactly are you defending them?
What truth? That civilians die? I'm not denying that at all. I'm denying your statement "And not only that but it's extremely dangerous to be a muslim living in the middle east nowadays".
Somehow a list of dead civilians in Iraq (a war zone) is supposed to prove your point that it's dangerous to be a muslim living in the middle east? You imply that western military is the only reason for danger, you point to a single middle eastern country which is the site of a war, and your evidence is a list of dead people including these:
k13856
Christian man shot dead during kidnapping, Shaterlo, south Kirkuk
k13834
Three police by roadside bomb, al-Ikhaa, Mosul
* Arguably not civilian casualties unless you want to count police as civilians
k13884
Body of man in 20s found with throat slit, Al-Khadraa, east Mosul
(slitting throats is straight out of the US Army field operations handbook, right?)
k13791
34-35 by two truck bombs in Shiite Shabak village of Khazna, east of Mosul
And the list goes on…..
You mention that you want a list for Afghanistan but why stop there. I mean the ENTIRE middle east is dangerous for muslims according to you so let's find a list of civilian deaths attributed to western military operations in the following countries as well:
Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Israel, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Palestine, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and Bahrain.
Of course I'm sure throughout the course of your rigid research you'll be certain to weed out honor killings, plain old murder, etc. because you are obviously interested in objective truth.
Painting swastikas on a mosque is repulsive. Those people should be apprehended and punished. However, words matter. And, we need to use the right words. Racism is discrimination against someone due to their race, by definition. You don't choose your race. It's something that you have no control over, which make discrimination based on race even more disturbing. To call religious discrimination 'racism' insults those who have truly been victims of racism (Arabs, Jews, etc.).
Painting swastikas on a mosque is repulsive. Those people should be apprehended and punished. However, words matter. And, we need to use the right words. Racism is discrimination against someone due to their race, by definition. You don't choose your race. It's something that you have no control over, which make discrimination based on race even more disturbing. To call religious discrimination 'racism' insults those who have truly been victims of racism (Arabs, Jews, etc.).
OK, sure, you are right – I'm defending the act by labeling it something other than racism since race is not involved. I must be the one in denial.
Bush was wrong to go into Iraq. I do believe there was a religious motivation to it. It was not, however, a racial motivation.
I'm not defending them. I agree there has been discrimination against Muslims. The point is, use the proper words!
ipversion1 is right. There have been atrocities in the west and middle east. All over the world. We, as atheists, must take stand against such irrational acts. Religion is often the driving force in atrocities.
So why do you think they painted swastikas on a mosque – because they were having a theological dispute?
If you could just round up a few of these Arabs who have felt insulted by people reporting a racist attack against a muslim graveyard perhaps they could say something that might help us out here. A little bit of evidence never goes amiss.
So, the truck bombs, the murders, the sectarian violence were all happening before the US invasion were they? It's as I say, a lot of muslims in the Middle East are at terrible risk as a result of western military action. Thanks for providing the evidence to back my argument up.
If I could make a broader observation while a few of you pull your faces out of the Oxford English Dictionary for a second – there's a lot of narrowing the field of vision here to deny what's really going on and is obvious to everybody. Apparently, a racist attack on a pakistani community is exempt from being called racist if it's damage to a mosque. Similarly Iraqi history doesn't begin until 2009 in your world – an army of 200,000 going into a small country like Iraq is irrelevant to the subsequent social upheaval. Can't we all just acknowledge what we know to be the case? That the 2003 invasion made Iraq more dangerous for all the muslims living there, and that the people who draw swastikas on mosques are racists.
As for honour killings and plain old murder, actually I'm not in favour of them.
I did. Racism.
At http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/special99/graf... there's quite a good article on the way that racist graffiti scrawled on missiles was rooted in American military culture in the first Gulf war. It's touching that you think the racial undercurrents had been rooted out by the 2003.
Granted, as with all wars, the strategic motivation was both economic and geopolitical; but to implement such an invasion policy with calm rational humanity is hardly humanly possible. Racism and religious hatred are so wrapped up with each other in such conflicts, as this article demonstrates, that it's irrational to start pretending that the two things are separate phenomena – unless of course we have an underlying right wing agenda.
Economics is usually the driving force in such atrocities. Geopolitics is the mechanism for analysing them. Race is often a background motivation on the front line, religious hatred is usally inseparably wrapped up with racism.
I can't believe I'm having this discussion with a fellow Atheist! We're debating semantics. Racism has definition: "Hatred or intolerance of another race or other races." ~ Dictionary.com. Muslim is not a race. However, what you're describing is radical religious intolerance resulting in violence, which I think we can both agree is revolting.
You're starting to sound like a Christiod! Are you really an Atheist? You obviously don't believe in the dictionary. Do you believe in science and reason?
Actually, my memory of Iraq begins with the first Gulf war when Sadaam invaded Kuwait.
So your memory doesn't go back as far as the Iran-Iraq war when the US supplied and supported Saddam Hussein? Doesn't surprise me.
Now you're starting to make more sense. Economics is a driving force in a lot of the anger in the middle east. And, one of the primary reasons for the poor economic conditions is the strict adherence to the teachings of Islam in certain countries and societies. The economics would improve immensely if they implemented democratic, free market systems. Religion is at the core of the problem.
Actually, yes I do remember that. One million dead on both sides. The US backed Iran after backing the brutal tactics of the Shaw. The US has made big mistakes in the middle-east. Iran has become corrupted by religion. Iraq was corrupted by Sadaam with plenty of help from the US. And Bush acted irrationally. But, somehow we need to move forward and establish trust. That was difficult with Bush because he had his own religious baggage.
Firstly, if it's semantics then you won't have any trouble backing down, will you? You still haven't explained why it's so important for you to differentiate. Other than saying "it's the right word" as if dictionaries can resolve politics, or pointing to some ficticious Arabs who apparently feel insulted though you haven't produced them yet.
And would you mind showing a bit of courtesy to a fellow atheist: I believe there is no God, so it looks like I meet the definition. Your insults about me sounding like a Christoid are a bit desperate. Stick with the debate.
Thirdly, I have another definition of racism which gets away from all the divide-and-rule get-out clauses that separate something that is obviously racism and tries to downgrade it – enter the British police: there is a common definition of racism which is widely used in UK authorities dealing with racial harassment:
A racist incident is defined as: 'Any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person'.
I'm happy with that. If a UK muslim in Manchester goes into a police station saying that members of his religion's family's gravestones have all been damaged and there's a swastika on his mosque so he's like to report an incident of racial harassment, I'd suggest anyone who tries to argue he hasn't been the victim of an incident of racial harassment is clearly delusional.
In order to communicate it's helpful to agree on definitions. In general, the dictionary serves this purpose. If you define racism as 'Any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person' then yes, what you've described is 'racism' as you've defined it. I could say 'red' is any color with a blue tint. I would simply be confusing, but it would not change the facts.
"I'd suggest anyone who tries to argue he hasn't been the victim of an incident of racial harassment is clearly delusional." ~ These are the kinds of statements I hear from from Christian bloggers.
I totally agree that painting a swastika on a mosque (or anywhere for that matter) is hate crime.
You need to prove your argument with logic, not emotion.
This is hardly a debate. It's a silly, stupid argument about the definition of one word "racism", which actually has an established definition. That definition might be different in the UK. In the US it means discrimination based on race.
"Free Market Systems"? What's this Thatcherites-R-Us?
You've got it all wrong, mate… Capitalism is the core of the problem. Religion is a sideshow. Anyway, I see where you're coming from now. You need to scapegoat religion for the failings of capitalism! That's why it's so important for you to differentiate between racism and religious abuse – nobody can criticise anti-racism but victims of religious intolerance only bring it on themselves. I see, I see…
Dude, chill out! You're all over the map. I know you don't believe in dictionaries. Do you believe in democracy? What do you believe in? Soviet style communism?
It's still a debate actually, and your attempts to derail it by calling me a Christian is a bit sad.
I know as well as you do that racism is based on race. Racists use proxies and religion is one of the first proxies they use. I think the example of a racist incident I gave meets the definitions of racism whether whichever side of the atlantic you're sitting on.
Nobody's suggesting you can't criticise religion. But there is a risk that the criticism of islam is a proxy for criticising people because of their race, and is therefore racism in its own right. As I said earlier, you need a bigger field of vision to understand what is really going on. We can all minimise what is happening by keeping things superficial, but please don't be dismissive of the debate, these things are happening.
I think you're over-egging all this religious stuff. Being an atheist doesn't mean all the world's ills are due to religion. The short term interests of the military-industrial war machine inevitably requires its political class to act irrationally. It's nice to blame indiivduals.
The best way to establish trust in the middle east is for the US to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. You don't need religious baggage to support an irrational war. Atheists can do it just as effectively.
Dictionaries are helpful but they can't resolve a political argument – sorry.
I'm not all over the map. But atheism isn't a neat and tidy little philosophy which makes politics irrelevant, and I was just explaining what how your ideological conservatism interacts with your atheism.
By the way, no I don't believe in soviet style communism, and I don't support plain old murder. Yes I believe in democracy. Laissez faire capitalism isn't democracy. Does that make me a Christian again?
Condescending tone and insults aside, we're actually on the same side here. I'm open to all viewpoints. What I'm not open to is emotional rants! That being said, your last post is fairly calm and composed. You're absolutely right that racists often use religion as a proxy for discrimination and violence. You obviously have strong opinions, probably based on personal experience, regarding racism. And, that is an honorable and good fight. My own passion has more to do with exposing the irrational nature of religion and the consequences and ramifications of not confronting it. Both religion and racism are irrational. Together they can be deadly.
I think you're over-egging the racist stuff. And, I agree, we need to get out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. Our very presence is sustaining the war.
Not sure where you got "Dictionaries are helpful but they can't resolve a political argument". You keep throwing out these wild, nonsensical statements. No one said anything about using dictionaries to resolve political arguments. What I did say is that we should use dictionaries for definitions (which is what they were designed for). And, you have no idea what my politics is. But that doesn't seem to stop you from throwing out more wild statements about my politics. And, yes, the Christian bloggers do that to. But, no, that does not make you a Christian.
Thanks for recognising my strong feelings. Those must come from my not being a logic-driven computer.
It looks like we both agree that that the swastikas on the mosque example meets the definition of racism. Racism allied with anti-religious sentiment can be as deadly as the other deadly things you just mentioned. Atheists should be careful what allies we make with all these wars going on.
By the way you're the one who's invited people to comment. If you're not open to people answering you back then don't provide a comments feature.
Now finally I can agree with you. You are not logic-driven, I concur.
By the way your comments towards DailyAtheist are totally racist. It's also clear that your anti-capitalist stance is simply a front for your racism against Americans.
You're an anti-theistic democrat who opposes soviet-style communism. You support the withdrawal of the US from Iraq and Afghanistan because you think the US presence perpetuates the war. You believe that people can't be racist about Islam, and you think that islam is the core of the problem of economic poverty in the middle east which can only be resolved by the introduction of free market economics. You loathe George Bush.
If I knew much more about your politics we'd be married. Your politics is what we've been discussing since the start of this debate.
Cheers Ipversion1. I think nearly all psychologists would agree that the human mind contains a mixture of emotions and rational thinking – I think your latest post shows that too.
Sorry you think I'm being racist towards Americans. I don't think I am being racist because the British state is also capitalist and I suppose that would have to mean I'm being racist about myself as well. This represents a new level of victimhood for me. Thanks for pointing it out.
Seriously though by all means elaborate if you think that I somehow using anti-capitalism as a proxy for anti-americanism.
We're all atheists here though, but somehow this discussion feels like it's going to become a victim of its own marginalisation. Literally.
I think you just like to argue. And, it doesn't really matter what the topic is and anyone will do.
I think I have an understanding of your politics. You follow a confused mixture of liberal stop the war politics and conservative free market economics. You err towards the right, because you use your atheism to justify your anti-muslim stance, but don't recognise when muslims need to be defended from right-wing attacks on them, either direct military ones or opportunistic political attacks.
The argument may be enjoyable, but the subject matter is essential. Don't be so dismissive.
You are over the map. And I'm starting to think you're just a bit crazy. No one here has said anything remotely anti-Muslim or racist, but you just won't let it go. You believe it because you want to believe (didn't I just post that to a Christian recently?). Trying to communicate with you is like talking to a brick wall with a big speaker that keeps saying "Everyone is a racist toward Muslims. I just know it." We've said nothing of the sort. But, that apparently doesn't fit your apparent prejudice against Americans. I have nothing against Muslims. What do you have against Americans? You're apparently 'racist' toward Americans (using your ridicules definition). And, I like my economics Keynesian (look it up, you might learn something) not laissez faire. So, why are you here? I think you're more more interested in trying to be an ass then you are in discussing or debating anything.
[...] #TheoVanGogh a casualty of religious fanaticism and the intolerance of faith http://www.dailyatheist.net/?p=763 [...]
[...] Theo van Gogh, Filmmaker: Assassinated Nov 2, 2004 Posted on October 31st, 2009 by DailyAtheist [...]
[...] Theo van Gogh, Filmmaker: Assassinated Nov 2, 2004 Posted on October 31st, 2009 by DailyAtheist [...]
[...] Theo van Gogh, Filmmaker: Assassinated Nov 2, 2004 Posted on October 31st, 2009 by DailyAtheist [...]
[...] Theo van Gogh, Filmmaker: Assassinated Nov 2, 2004 Posted on October 31st, 2009 by DailyAtheist [...]
[...] Theo van Gogh, Filmmaker: Assassinated Nov 2, 2004 Posted on October 31st, 2009 by DailyAtheist [...]
[...] Theo van Gogh, Filmmaker: Assassinated Nov 2, 2004 Posted on October 31st, 2009 by DailyAtheist [...]
[...] Theo van Gogh, Filmmaker: Assassinated Nov 2, 2004 Posted on October 31st, 2009 by DailyAtheist [...]
[...] Theo van Gogh, Filmmaker: Assassinated Nov 2, 2004 Posted on October 31st, 2009 by DailyAtheist [...]
[...] Theo van Gogh, Filmmaker: Assassinated Nov 2, 2004 Posted on October 31st, 2009 by DailyAtheist [...]
Hi. The debate about anti-muslim racism, which you were voluntarily contributing to in every answer to my posts, started because of the mention of the anti-muslim backlash in the article you posted at the top of the page. I would happily have left my postings where they were when I answered the adividual but you kept coming back and contradicting my argument that criticising religion and the anti-muslim backlash to Van Gogh's murder could become allied with racism. Inevitably, this led to a mutual exploration of some issues around politics, economics and all the other things that atheists need to debate.
This is a legitimate debate, but rather than calmly debating these huge, and very relevant issues, you call me racist, anti-american and crazy.
Sorry to see you driven into the margin.
[...] Theo van Gogh, Filmmaker: Assassinated Nov 2, 2004 [...]
[...] DailyAtheist.net » Theo van Gogh, Filmmaker: Assassinated Nov 2, 2004 Monday, Nov 2 is the anniversary of the brutal assassination of Theo van Gogh, controversial filmmaker and director of the short film Submission which dealt with the topic of violence against women in some Islamic societies. To honor his courage I would ask that everyone interested in free speech, reason and freedom from religion tweet “RIP #TheoVanGogh“ at 11:00 AM Eastern Standard Time to get on Trending Topics as well as throughout the day. [...]
Religion is an unfortunate vestige of our rise from ignorance. Our psyche certainly has many shortcomings, but religion lingers as one of its more destructive outlets. It is diametrically opposed to progress in almost every sense of the word.
Killing this man for his adherence to reason and expose of one religion's horror is such a travesty. What an incredible example.
Lets face it, religion is for the ignorant, weak minded and short sighted.
IntenseDebate Notification <DIV>Lee,</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Greetings. </DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>I don't use twitter much but I believe it's my name, jeffgoin.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Thanks, I'm enjoying the site immensely. I'm also hoping to do my part more in the future with AdoptReality.com (a shell at the moment) in conjunction with some advertising, probably billboards. We'll see. Lots of irons.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Keep up the great work!</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Jeff Goin
FootFlyer.com – \”If there's air there, it should be flown in.\”
</DIV> <DIV style=\”FONT: 10pt arial\”>
Now THAT’S what I deem an insightful thought on this subject. What I would advise though is speaking to other people actively involved in the scene and bring to light any other points of view and then update your site or create a new article for us to read. I hope you’ll take my advice, I’m looking forward to it! Try to cover off on some graffiti characters as well if you can, they’re everywhere at the moment.
Hey can I use some of the material from this blog if I reference you with a link back to your site?