There's nothing confrontational and I also said that this guy doesn't deserve to be jailed.
Yes, I appreciate that you personally exhort moderation.
He could have phrased things better.
In one sense, that's true. One of the elements of Western liberty, however, is to protect the form of expression. You are permiitted here to phrase
things poorly without reprisal.
My question was
Who, in your view, is currently in jail in Europe for holding "certain opinions regarding the Holocaust?"
So your answer is Wolfgang Frolich in Austria? There is no link to the case, and there is a notation that this was his "third offense." It doesn't
say anything at all about what the other two offenses were.
As your articles points out, Austria lost World War II, by the unconditional surrender of the Axis Powers. A continuing effect of that war is
denazification, prohibition of political activity on behalf of the Nazi party in the former Axis countries. The only Austrian laws your article cites
are denazification laws, which prohibit Holocaust denial along with other Nazi political advocacy. So Frolich appears to have been a persistent Nazi
activist, not just somebody who holds an opinion about the Holocaust.
I advocate that such opinions, speech and political activity should, by now, be lawful. However, the loss of freedoms is a frequent consequence of
losing a war. It is regrettable.
just stating why the West (in its current godless form) and Islam will never see eye to eye. Also, I don't know what Kruschev has to do with
any of this.
With respect to "eye to eye," then of course two groups that don't see eye to eye now won't ever do so unless one or both change. This is
Kruschev was offered as a recent example of a failed prediction that the West would abandon its commitment to liberty. Past performance is not a
guarantee of future results, but it does provide some perspective when evaluating statements about the prospects for future events, and the terms on
which co-existence will occur.
"Godless" in context means that few in the West care what you or anybody else believes about God. That's at least half-way to a deal. The other
half is reciprocity, including the tolerance of former Muslims living in the West who renounce their faith or innovate within Islam, like Baha'i.
Wasn't talking about Kashgiri in that last paragraph... and never said he was "western".
No, you didn't. You and I are, however, communicating on an open discussion board, and I have the prerogative to foresee possible confusion on the
part of those reading our exchanges, and to provide information which prevents or corrects confusion. I did so in this case. Further, the purpose of
the thread is to increase awareness of Hamza Kashgari. My remarks were consistent with that purpose.
I was talking about how the West has abandoned religion and has laws that make room for the mocking of God and His prophets
The "West" certainly hasn't abandoned religion. I can assure you that it's very popular in the United States. There has never been a national law
regulating religious speech in the United States, and since shortly after the Civil War, there ought not to have been such a law at any level of
government in the United States. Some religion-related laws did linger on, however, as recently as 50 years ago, and there are some dead-letter
vestiges still "on the books."
The matter is treated as not the business of an American government. If you believe that somebody has spoken incorrectly about a religious subject,
then your remedy is to speak yourself, point out the error, and state what you believe the correct information to be. An American state, then, is
neither godless nor godly, but leaves this within each person's sphere of private concerns.
Other Western countries have different arrangements that reflect their histories and popular consensuses about the nature of liberty. That may include
restrictions on expression thought to be dangerous (such as denazification in the case of former Axis powers, or shouting "fire" in a crowded
theater) or to exceed an expression of opinion (inciting to violence, for example).