755 karma · joined November 3, 2015
The west has successfully defeated the vicious communism [1] to a large extent. The west has successfully defeated the vice regime of Christianity and Church [2]. But we must understand that currently the biggest threat to the western freedom loving society is from the vicious ideology of Islam which is at crossroads with the modern liberal western civilized world and from the pseudo-liberals who are practicing double standards when it comes to the issue of critical study of Islam. These pseudo-liberal Islam apologists (whether bought and paid for or not) are hunting down any thoughtful and legitimate criticism of Islam, its prophet Muhammad and its scriptures. They are using various types of pressure tactics for this. For example, they are labeling any criticism of Islam as racist attacks on Muslims or as Islamophobia or as right wing acts. The freedom lovers, liberals and humanists must understand this threat posed by the vicious ideology of mainstream Islam. These views by Bill Maher and Sam Harris may help understand this point in a better way. [3], [4], [5]
Am I against Muslims? No, I do have many Muslim friends and many of them understand the viciousness of Islam.
In fact, it should be noted that the fight must be with Islam and not with general Muslim population and that the fight must be on the ideological front.
[1] http://victimsofcommunism.org/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_and_state_in_medieval_Europe
[3] https://www.samharris.org/islam
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL8rZTuGfZo
[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46nh8_BK7ok
May be this is lateral thinking to some people but it's actually changing the problem and not solving the original problem.
I can always to pretend to solve the problem by just changing it.
Respectfully submitted.
Mein Kampf is also "just" a book.
Do you have any evidence that reality doesn't conform to this theory?
Not a counter-question just for the sake of counter-questioning; I am sincerely interested in knowing.
The Mayan example given here by someguydave shown some kind of system collapse. Is a similar thing that terrifies you or what?
I have a small doubt about it. On its face, your proposition seems quite attractive (in fact, as a liberal I always try to live by it) but in some circumstances it is outright dangerous.
To elaborate: Yes, we don't know everything, yes, we may not even know everything but still we have to manage our existence and our survival. So we cannot just indefinitely and naively apply the above mentioned principle of "If there is problem of understanding we embrace the opposite as a being of equal value with the capability to contribute and grow". To some extent we may allow the opposition to expand and we (as liberals) will accommodate some of their demands. But there has to be a recoprocating response of accommodation from the other side. We can wait for "certain amount of time" for the opposition to respond to our calls, but if our very survival and our very values are at stake, we cannot keep on waiting and accommodating the opposition indefinitely.
So, I suggest the following, to continue with your suggestion:
>>One technique is Quine's [1] semantic ascent: instead of talking in terms that lead to conflict let's talk about the terms and find some common ground and understanding.
I agree that causing unnecessary conflicts is bad. But raising points regarding doubts about something is not only not bad it is required.
So we must raise at least the following points, w.r.t. Islam, for public discussion: Who is considered as innocent in Islam? Is a kaafir (infidel) an innocent in Islam (i.e. according to Islamic scriptures)? What about abrogated verses in the Quran? [1] What is Islam's view on homosexuals?
We can begin by asking these questions, and let us see if the other side at least allow these issues to be discussed publicly?
I recall this Sam Harris piece [2] in this respect.
[1] most liberals are forcing the natives to tolerate even the intolerances that the immigrants are bringing with themselves due to their cultures
This way, if a relatively highly educated person (e.g. a person with university degree) searches something related to ISIS, gets a chance to read this eye-opening book about the roots of the evil ideology of Islam, which is what ISIS is based on.
More important thing to note here is that with Islam we are facing similar problems as the problems faced by the Europeans during the times of Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo when there was a reign of the church and Bible through kings. Fortunately and due to the enormous sacrifices and efforts made by many humans at that time, the west has successfully defeated the vice regime of Christianity and Church [2].
So we must understand that currently the biggest threat to the western freedom loving society is from the vicious ideology of Islam which is at crossroads with the modern liberal western civilized world. There is a great threat also from the pseudo-liberals who are practicing double standards when it comes to the issue of critical study of Islam. These pseudo-liberal Islam apologists (whether bought and paid for or not) are hunting down any thoughtful and legitimate criticism of Islam, its prophet Muhammad and its scriptures from the public discourses. They are using various types of pressure tactics for this. For example, they are labeling any criticism of Islam as racist attacks on Muslims or as Islamophobia or as right wing acts. The freedom lovers, liberals and humanists must understand this threat posed by the vicious ideology of mainstream Islam. These views by Bill Maher and Sam Harris may help understand this point in a better way. [3], [4], [5]
Should we be against Muslims? No, we must distinguish between Islam as ideology and Muslims as victims of this vicious ideology.
In fact, it should be noted that the fight must be with Islam and not with general Muslim population and that the fight must be on the ideological front.
[1] http://www.faithfreedom.org/understanding-muhammad-free-down...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_and_state_in_medieval_E...
[3] https://www.samharris.org/islam
Still as a liberal, I would start with an open mind (null hypothesis) but I will keep my analysis running and will keep on adjusting the hypothesis accordingly. Also depending on what is at stake, I will cut the analysis shorter and come to conclusion faster (and potentially wrong) so that I can take some action that is needed in time.
Unfortunately, there are enough people in the world who are completely convinced of their superiority or of the superiority of their views/beliefs and if you tell them they are right they just use your statement as a testament to their advantage and if you later even try to tell them they are wrong then they will not hesitate to kill you. Some examples that come to mind are Hitler (blinded by Nazism) [1], prophet Muhammad (blinded by Islamism) [2], Stalin (blinded by communism) [3].
Because with such people it doesn't matter what you tell first or later. Sadly, that's the main reason why we need (have to face) wars.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler [2] http://www.faithfreedom.org/understanding-muhammad-free-down... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
>>But before we stop without reaching a conclusion - I have one more question: What would you need me to say or do for you to believe that my approach is actually worth trying out?
I'd like you to give some details of your approach, as I am not yet very clear about it.
No, I am not predetermining the outcome. Also I have not made up my mind about you. Yes, a person (including you) could be a productive member of society - even with his/her belief in his/her religion - but the person has to be content with just believing things said in his/her religion and must be content with following only those commands that are not illegal in this country and that means such a person should not start acting on the evil commands given in his/her religion. So as long as a Muslim person agrees and adheres to this humane code of conduct, I don't have any problem with him/her believing anything he/she likes and I don't have much problem with him/her following harmless commands (like, uttering the words 'insha allah' sometimes while speaking, or praying to their allah or on certain day slaughtering those animals that this country legally allows to be slaughtered to please their allah because they believe that their prophet muhammad, who claimed that he is the last prophet of their god allah, said that their god allah said that allah will be pleased and will send them to jannaht and will give them 72 virgin girls to enjoy sex-orgy forever in the heaven after their death if Muslims slaughter animals on some festival day and will be displeased and will send them to hell and burn them forever if they don't). See [1] for why this clarification.
I don't have problem with you or anyone believing such things and following such commands if it pleases you.
But if the person's "even with religion" qualification brings some evil elements of his/her religious beliefs like "waging jihad against the non-believers/apostates and killing them because their prophet said that their allah said to him on some hotline that 'hey muhammad my last messenger, tell your follower Muslims that non-believers/apostates are enemies of Islam/allah and hence it is a duty of every muslim to first try to convert them by trying to verbally convince them about the greatness of islam and then if they don't seem to get convinced wage war (jihad) against them in order to kill them and that if they fulfil this duty I (allah) will give them 72 virgin girls to play with forever in the heaven after their death and if they don't then I will rot them in the hell forever" and then if such a religious person acts according to such evil beliefs/commands then I have an objection to it. For the simple reason that this means my own life will be in danger because I am non-believer in Islam and I know I will not get convinced by the 'davaah'(invitation) a believer Muslim will first try with me.
The point is as long as you or any person does not physically attack and harm other people just because they don't take your/his/her religion seriously enough for you/him/her or make fun/ridicule of your/his/her religion or your/his/her prophet or your/his/her gods/allahs then I don't have any problem in accepting your proposition that you can be productive member of society - even with belief in religion.
>>Yes, you personally may have not physically attacked anyone but realizing that individuals are not like a stereotype is difficult, isn't it?
How my ridiculing a scripture turns someone into a stereotype? People in the Europe,US have been ridiculing Bible, prophet jesus and trinity/god for quite a lot of time, has this caused any stereotyping of the Christians here? Hardly.
Similarly, ridiculing Quran, Hadiths, prophet muhammad and allah does not turn someone into a stereotype.
Yet one may ask, but still why ridicule? Because ridicule is a good way to bring out fallacies, inconsistencies and injustices in a system/situation/ideology to the notice of general public. Ridicule and satire have played an important role in engaging meaningful and educative discussions in the world. e.g. George Orwell's Animal Farm, 1984
>>You seem to have at least some kind of issue with that otherwise why would you feel the need to ridicule some world views in the way you did right now?
I believe to the core of my heart (as you have also pointed out) that most Muslim people are good and humanists but many of them are blinded by their faith and by their leaders' incessant efforts to keep them blinded and use them to wage wars.
Will a Islamic society ever allow people to openly claim they are homosexuals and then to live peacefully and to work/travel at public places?
I want the Muslims to take a notice of the fallacies, the inconsistencies and ultimately the evil found in Islam's core. I wish to bring out the evil aspects of Islam, so that Muslims can get rid of those aspects from their religion and reform it.
>>A first and very important step towards that direction would be the acknowledgement that not all religious states are inherently bad or that religion is the problem that we face. I think it's pretty obvious by now that we mainly face the problem of an unfair distribution of wealth and power. Look at the US and what is happening there right now. Or are you there suggesting a connection with religion as well?
I disagree with few points here. I take issue with religions. Religions have known to cause a lot of human suffering essentially because they harbour/encourage a lot of hatred towards the unbelievers/apostates. Another issue I have with religions is that they encourage/coerce people to believe in various superstitions and evil things. Beliefs in themselves are not so much of a problem for a society. The real problems caused by religions are when they encourage/coerce believers to act according to those evil beliefs to force the non-believers to toe the line or to get rid of the non-believers/apostates.
Distribution of wealth and power is an important issue too but not the only issue. Also many religions finally boil down to political-power-games, and hence can be exploitative in this respect too. Christianity was very adept at this game, and was very exploitative and it was only after Christianity was rendered toothless the western world became more just and humane. Islam is also very adept at this power game and unfortunately even today is not rendered as toothless as it should have been.
No doubt the current situation in US bad for some people from a financial viewpoint, but still life in US is much better than that in religious societies. Again I wish you to consider the case of homosexuals.
But I am seeing that the Islamists are making more and ever more demands to accommodate their barbaric/ridiculous Islamic law (sharia) in the western democracies. This is scary. I hope the people realize this and stop succumbing to the demands of Islamists and instead engage in dialogue with those Muslims which are open to dialogues.
[1] http://cheznews.com/2016/09/13/isis-slaughter-prisoners-upsi...
Fine, I don't want them to change; they may continue to believe in whatever (e.g. fairy-tales in Qurans/Bibles, like muhammad flew to heaven on a horse and met allah and came back to tell them his travel story) they choose to believe in. I don't have much problem with what anyone wishes to believe. But the issue doesn't stop there.
>>The human condition prevents us from making certain assertions about reality. I think no rational person living today would deny that. Still, we often feel the need to impose our own world view over others because our own experiences scream: that other person simply can't be right.
What would you say about the believers in Nazism?
Most religions (including Islam) are like Nazism when it comes to their treatment of non-believers/apostates. The real troublesome are those parts in their scriptures where the believers are commanded (ordered) to wage war against the unbelievers (and non-followers). It is here the societies which follow the notion of "separation of religion and state" (modern western democracies) and those which don't follow that notion (religious nations) differ in a crucial manner.
>>So what I wanted to suggest is that I understand the difficulty that religious people/states have with "rational" people. I believe for any meaningful communication and learning to happen (on both sides), we have to create a level playing field by acknowledging the other person as a human being with something to contribute even if they come from a place we don't understand.
What kind of level playing field can we even expect to have if we are forced to tolerate the intolerant religious elements making violent reactions to any thoughts expressed? (e.g. killing the Charlie Hebdo staff just they expressed some thoughts that the religious people found offending) What kind of level playing field would you have offered to Nazis?
>>Moreover, if you really want to convince someone to change some belief there is probably no better way than to demonstrate the benefits of the new belief and show how they follow from the change you are proposing.
Yes, it is very important and I do agree. Unfortunately, the rigid religious nature of these socities make it much harder to even communicate your thoughts. Just imagine trying to convince humanist and rationalist values with the help of verbal discussions to Nazi people.
I think the modern western world with democratic systems is far superior from a humanistic view-point as compared to the barbaric Islamic nations. And with immegration and otherwise, if these people are coming to modern western world, it becomes our duty to tell them unequivocally "what is negotiable and what is not and that some aspects of their religious beliefs can be accommodated but some barbaric aspects cannot be tolerated in our society because in our society we do not allow religions to play any significant role at societal/interpersonal level, that religion can only be a personal matter to them".
So, we must try to have a dialogue with Islamists and other religious people. But if the modern free societies in the western world wish to continue enjoying the freedom they have hard earned by fighting against some of the religions (the Christianity, Judaism), then they must make it clear that these values are NOT negotiable with some new religions (including Islam), just to accommodate their (barbaric) manners/scriptures in our societies.
>>If you talk about foolish or childish claims in scripture it is an attack against their reality and identity.
Yes, I understand that they may perceive such opinions as an attack against their reality/identity but I want you to note that it is a verbal and thought attack and not physical attack.
So, if they cannot tolerate difference of opinions, then we must tell them unequivocally "that they have to learn and abide by these modern, humanistic, democratic values if they wish to live here, that they have to learn that we value the freedom to offend their (or anyone's) sentiments/feelings, that everyone here has the freedom to criticize, ridicule, their religion, their prophet(s), their ways."
I am afraid there is a confusion in the above statement about deeper philosophical considerations (like whether there is god(s) or not?) with the extremely lowly ramblings found in religious scriptures (e.g. there is no other god but allah and that muhammad is his (and not her) last messenger, or that the earth is flat and is at the center of the universe) and that these lowly ramblings are claimed to have been written by omniscient god(s).
Yes, I do agree that there may be some discussion about some deep philosophical questions to be found in the heap of ramblings present in the religious texts. But the philosophical issues are hardly of foundational nature in most mainstream religions including Judaism, Christianity and Islam. We can easily see that their foundations are rather lowly claims like there is no other god but allah and that muhammad is his (and not her) last messenger, or that the earth is flat and is at the center of the universe.
So the very foundations I am talking about, are the almost foolish and childish claims made in religious scriptures and a foundational issue that these foolish/flimsy claims are made by god(s). A religious society will not allow any public information that it considers as having the potential to shake the foundations of their religion to be available to the public for consideration/discussion.
I have no problem with a rational discussion about whether there is god or not or a single god or multiple gods etc.
>>Maybe we could life in a better world if we aimed to disregarded world views from politics ...
Yes, I do agree.
Generally, discussions/debates regarding any inconsistencies or ridiculous statements found in the scriptures is prohibited by the religions.
Consider a scenario of person like Bruno/Galileo ([1], [2]) getting dragged into religious court and getting a guilty verdict from the court and are ordered to be punished.
The religious courts would want the public to know the punishment and hence they will carry out the punishment in broad public view but the religious courts would not want the public to know exactly why the punishment was given. Because, if they allow this public information to become available to the public, then they fear that the very legitimacy of their religion can be questioned and rejected by the public.
Now consider a scenario of someone wishes to publish the court proceedings of the case of Bruno or Galileo in public at that time. Such a publication, if it contains the reason why the person was found guilty, will contain the information about the discoveries that have the potential to shake the very foundations of the religion. Now we must understand that majority of people in the religious based societies (e.g. Islamic societies) are religious (i.e. not-rational and with mostly closed minds about matters concerning their religion) and thus are very sentimental about their religion, their prophets and scriptures and they cannot stand the idea that their religion can be false/wrong/evil.
Hence the religious societies (e.g. Islamic societies) will not want the public information to be made public, if they think that it has the potential to shake the very foundations of the religion.
I know there is some truth to the criticism of current tech-startup scene in SV. Most startups are without much potential or without much creative juice (e.g. "we will fill your car's tank for you" type). But there are some which have very large disruptive and creative potential. Elon Musk comes to my mind, to begin with. Boston Dynamics is another.
This article also reminds me a personality trait that makes some people always complain with "whatever happened to good old days". Seems that people like this article author, want us to prepare our meals the way you see a person is seen doing in this video [1].
(Disclaimer: I have no disrespect to the person in that video [1], I just want to point out that I don't want to live like that and I wish to point out a fallacy in the article.)
Such people always seem to complain: Whatever happened to the good old days and good old ways of doing things? All the while, seemingly unaware of the fact that they themselves have become so much used to the technology.
Of course, it is apparent that she doesn't realize that without the very technology and the very technology creators she is so happy to criticize, she would not have been able to put her photo along with the article she has written/typed.
Since when and why has the ability to publish our photos along with articles become so critical for us? and for such writers? So much for the person criticizing the technology creators from self-assumed higher moral ground.
This. Real heroes seldom get the publicity they deserve. Truly amazing and (a heart rending story for me).
>>That’s something the ABA people don’t necessarily get. A couple of standards, what’s the big deal? No, no, no… this is a fundamental rock-bottom issue on democracy.”
This is what I like so much about the modern western societies (e.g. USA) with free market economy based democracies.
Would you even imagine such a free access to information in any religious based society (e.g. Islamic countries) or in any communist country?
I know, these modern western democracies are not perfect and need to be improved. It's getting improved (in this case regarding public access to public information) thanks to the heroes like Malamud, who are at work.
After reading this, I again realized to a much greater depth that "the issue of public access to public information" is an extremely important aspect of democracy.
I mean, IoT will have a great potential to provide meaningful services with a great deal of convenience only if the things become as inter-operable as plug-pins and sockets.
>>Are dams ever a good idea?
Yes, I guess, without dams the developed nations would not have been so developed either in terms of technology and even sociology. Without dams there won't be cities, without big cities there won't be mixing of different strata/groups of society.
So, when I think of dams I think of the immense value they provide to humans and their progress. It's difficult to get rid of dams. What we need is a lot better technology to ensure their reliability and robustness.
Another reason why we need dams more is: the sheer population increase is putting a hell lot of pressure on natural resources (including water, of course) these days as compared to 19th century. So we must address this issue also.
Also, the increasing consumerism should be restricted/reduced. The mindless consumerism is also adding to this pressure.
The analogy with sports fails miserably and the author seems to not understand this. Math is a brain skill and we do need to apply brain to understand a given situation in a better manner, to abstract away some things and focus on some other things. So, if you expect someone to better understand complex situations, then you need them to have some knowledge of higher math.
One may ask where do you encounter such situations? Insurance, debates of fiscal policies, debates about racial biases and social structures, anything to do with modern finance, language structures, medical decisions. Take your pick.
So, if you have to do anything complicated in such social areas too, you need to have some knowledge of higher math.
Skills in sports are not of such versatile nature, hence the analogy fails.
How about scaling it? Do you wanna carry a lorryful of soap/cigarettes to buy an iPhone or how? One odd person may still choose to do so and one odd seller may accept such a payment. But it is sufficient just to imagine millions of people doing it tens/hundreds of times a day/week to understand how it becomes not only weird but also almost foolish.
e.g. going to on a picnic, carry a truckload of soap/cigarette packs to pay at airport, hotels, restos and so on and hope that there are enough people out there to accept payment using such goods.
Anonymity or not, the other important properties of cash are flexibility, versatility, convenience and unparalleled liquidity. Economics 101.
A brain surgery can result in worse still: like, surgeon performs a surgery, makes some mistake, the patient is alive and gets up and goes home, but due to the surgical damage caused becomes a serial killer.
So, strictly speaking a brain surgery can also result in a body count that is greater than 1.
Respectfully submitted.
If we follow the above definition given on the Wikipedia then some important and interesting issues arise:
Is sensor not a device that behaves in certain manner to some energy stimulus and thus allows us to connect outer energy to the autonomous system (robot) being developed?
Should a sensor always transduce to electronic energy form?
e.g. a gear lever in a bike is not a sensor? it senses (may be pressure) and thus allows the system (the bike) to sense some outside stimulus.
Please feel free to define sensor in a different manner if you disagree with [1].
I wonder, how many years (centuries) might have gone into inventing, discovering and perfecting even this "primitive" technology.
Not to undermine his efforts, but this guy could do all this "so fast" mostly because he is working in a rather comfortable and secure environment of modern and more civilized times, whereas the real primitives had to look out for predators (lions, tigers, etc), for other human attackers and so on.
Kudos to this guy and more kudos to all those anonymous primitive hackers who created such an incredible technology.
Lesson to take: I should stop complaining about those little inconveniences and discomforts I encounter in my modern life.
Sadly, following the (un)guidelines set by the redhat/gnome dictatorship (aka, systemd) and their grand quest to please the desktop users, Debian also seems to have become, more or less, the freaking Ubuntu.
I will be happy if I am wrong.
I wonder, do we call it a city that kept growing?
I am talking about both (for and not-for profit) universities.
Isn't graduation a responsibility of a student too? If a student is not graduating, isn't there a chance that he/she is not sufficiently working for it?
or
If a student is not graduating, isn't there a chance that he/she does not have what it takes to learn a subject?
The students should do a little bit of homework before joining any university: does the university seem suitable for me? do I seem suitable for the university? do I think I am capable of handling the study work? what is the quality of the faculty? what the almuni are saying about this university? what the other academics are saying about this university?
If a student cannot or will not do this little bit of homework, then I guess he/she deserves to be surprised (may get a good surprise if lucky else bad surprise).
The ban on Burqa in France is a knee-jerk reactionary measure taken by the frightened French society which doesn't have a clue that their real fight should be against the evil ideology of Islam and that burqa-forced-on-women is but a small piece of that evil ideology.
Now the Islam apologists will take undue advantage of this ban by citing western ideals like "freedom of choice" and that "burqa is a choice made by Muslim women" and so on.
Hence, the French and western society should realize that they must not only stand fast and firm behind people like Charlie Hebdo editors and the cartoonists who drew Muhammad's cartoons but also encourage them and other people to do so again and again. The western society should tell the Muslims in unequivocal terms that "the Muslims should learn to get offended and also learn the more civilized ways of living in the world. That Allah, Muhammad, Islam and Islamic practices are a proper target of ridicule, criticism and humor. That Quran is not last word here in the west. That Charlie Hebdo and other cartoonists are our people and we can't let their freedom get trampled just because Muslims think their feelings/sentiments get hurt."
So, yes, you are right that the French action is more in line with the religions. But we must remember that this is a start of the (potentially long drawn) fight against the evil ideology of Islam and burqa (and women's clothing) is nonetheless a significant part that helps us bring out certain evil aspects of this vicious ideology in public discourse.
BTW, you should realize that despite this ban, the French society is far from controlling most aspect of human life like the way Islam (or any other religion) does.
Edit: added last para (BTW...).
Islam with its barbaric, medieval, vicious ideology (e.g. kaafirs are against Allah, Muhammad is above any criticism, apostates should be killed, extreme injustice inflicted on Muslim women and so on) is at crossroads with the freedom loving, liberal and secular western world.
The religions should have no place in modern public life. But religions want to control every aspect of human life. Thanks to the fight put up by and sacrifices given by the freedom lovers, liberals and modern free-thinkers from the western world, mainstream religions have been rendered harmless/toothless to a significant extent, except Islam.
The liberals/critical thinkers have attacked earlier and do attack now also various bad and evil aspects in other religions (Christianity/Judaism/Hinduism) and our free society never suppresses their thoughts. Islam should not be an exception and hence Islam should not be given special treatment. Else we may have to lose the hard earned values that we cherish so much.
But we are seeing that some Islam apologists (whether bought and paid for or not) are hunting down any thoughtful and legitimate criticism of Islam, its prophet Muhammad, its scriptures and so on. They are using various types of pressure tactics for this. For example, labeling any criticism of Islam as racist attacks on Muslims or Islamophobia or hate speech or right-wing practice.
e.g. Geert Wilders is labeled as right-wing fanatic by such Islam apologists. Geert Wilders has been a liberal free-thinker (e.g. his support of gays/homosexuals).
The freedom lovers, liberals and humanists must understand this threat posed by the vicious ideology of mainstream Islam.
The west now must invest large amount of efforts and resources to fight this vicious ideology of Islam. We must realize that this is an ideological war and must be fought on the ideological war-front. This can and must be done by supporting liberal minded humanists (like, Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins) who are exposing the viciousness of the ideology of Islam and upholding the modern humanist values like freedom of expression and separation of 'mosque and state'.
edit: added point about Geert Wilders.