Thursday, 8 April 2010

Buddhists, Dawkins and Gays worried by Islam in Europe

Stop the Warsaw Megamosque

The rapidly accelerating growth of Islam in Europe has produced a few unexpected alliances: Buddhists have joined Polish Nationalists in protesting the construction of a Mosque in Warsaw; atheist Richard Dawkins is having second thoughts about the collapse of Christianity in Britain, and the English Defence League - vilified by the Islamists as a bunch of football hooligans - has formed a gay division.

Islam is programmed to destroy Buddhism and exterminate gays.

Posters in Warsaw

Buddhists join Polish crusade against Megamosque in Warsaw
The Polish activist group Europe of the Future held a protest on 27th March against the proposal to build a new Saudi-financed mosque in Warsaw. The predominantly Catholic Poles objected to the fact that the Saudis could build triumphalist mosques in European capitals, but Christians were not allowed to build churches or even possess Bibles in Saudi Arabia.

Interestingly, a Buddhist organisation played a leading role in the protest. The organisation is called Diamond Way and is headed by a Dane named Ole Nydahl. Members of the Diamond Way organisation were prominent in TV coverage of the demonstration against the mosque.

Ole Nydahl is quite forthright about the Islamic menace to all other religions. In a 2008 interview he was asked: "In your view, is there a redeeming value within the Abrahamic religions?" To which he replied:

"The Abrahamic religions, the ones that follow our constitution, treat women well, don't blow up people ... Judaism and Christianity are fine. Islam, I warn against. I know the Koran, I know the life story of Mohammad and I think we cannot use that in our society today. "

Buddhists don't normally criticise other spiritual paths, but it's OK to tell the truth about Islam because Islam isn't a spiritual path, it's a contagious mental disease like rabies. Islam has destroyed Buddhism wherever it has had the power.

Islam has destroyed entire Buddhist civilisations. And of course the Poles have also suffered from Islamic attacks, but unlike the Buddhists they have always beaten them back, most notably at the siege of Vienna where a Polish army under Jan III Sobieski saved Christendom from annihilation

Why the Czechs have a better understanding of Islam than Western Europeans

Richard Dawkins views Christianity as a bulwark against Islam
Christianity is in decline in Europe as a whole, and has collapsed in Britain in particular, leaving even the most committed atheists wondering what is going to fill the spiritual vacuum.

From The Times:
"Even among the world’s most famous atheists, the crisis of faith among Christians in Europe has been met with concern.

Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, said: “There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.”

Peter Tatchell, the human rights campaigner and one of the organisers of the Protest the Pope demonstration at Westminster Cathedral last weekend, came to the defence of a Christian street preacher who was fined £1,000 in Glasgow for saying that homosexuality was a sin.

Shawn Holes, a Baptist from America, was charged with “uttering homophobic remarks” in a breach of the peace that prosecutors said was “aggravated by religious prejudice”.

Mr Tatchell said: “The price of freedom of speech is that we sometimes have to put up with opinions that are objectionable and offensive. Just as people should have the right to criticise religion, people of faith should have the right to criticise homosexuality.”

It is a sign of how bad things have become that the faith’s enemies seem now to be defending it."
More at

Gays respond to Islamic attacks by joining EDL
British LGBT have responded to the vicious anti-gay jihad being waged in London and other Islamified cities by joining the English Defence League, which in its early days had something of a macho redneck image. But it now has a Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgendered Division campaigning against increasingly violent homophobic attacks by Muslims.

The EDL is also attracting growing numbers of Sikhs and Jews who are also coming under attack as the Muslim population rises. The only safe place to wear a yarmulke or fly an Israeli flag in Britain now is at an EDL demonstration.

The ever-increasing influence of the Ummah in Europe

To the Ummah, we are all 'najis kafirs'
European infidels are beginning to realise that if we don't hang together, we will all hang separately. First they'll come for the Jews, then the Gays, and eventually the Buddhists, Christians, secularists and everybody else.

A Predatory Warrior Cult
Coercion, intimidation, thuggery
and outright terrorism are 
intrinsic and essential features 
of Islam. 

Islam is so intellectually moribund

and ethically repulsive 
that it cannot compete for followers
in a free marketplace of ideas, 
but must eliminate its competitors 
by whatever means may be necessary.

Sexual humiliation, pedophilia and gang rape of infidels
Humiliation of 'Kafirs', especially by sexual humiliation and gang-rape of their women and children, is extremely important to Jihadists, with Islamic child abductions and gang-rapes being a feature of jihad in such widely different locations as Iraq, Russia, Nigeria, Britain, Switzerland, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Russia, Burma and Bangladesh. 

In fact, these attacks seem inevitable wherever packs of sexually aggressive predatory Muslim males are able to get access to vulnerable kafir women and children. [a b c d e f g h, i, j , k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r s t, u, v, w x y z, a1, b1, c1, d1, e1, f1, g1, h1, i1, j1, k1, l1, m1, n1, o1, p1, q1, r1, s1, t1, u1, v1, w1, x1, y1, z1, a2, b2, c2 , d2, e2, f2, g2, h2, i2, j2, h2, i2, j2, k2, l2, m2, n2 , o2, p2 ,q2, r2, s2, t2, u2, v2, w2, x2, y2]

Of course there are pedophiles, rapists and sex pests in all communities, but they normally operate as despised and isolated loners. Only in Islam is there widespread community approval for such activities as a form of jihad against the hated kafirs, and so only in Islamic areas are organised pedophilia and gang-rape unchallenged threats to kafir women and children.   This is the new normal in once civilized areas of Europe.

Islam is a brutal, hyper-masculine, barbarian, tribal warrior cult that glories in machismo, murder, mutilation, gang-rape, genocide, terrorism, destruction and anarchy.

Islam is as ruthless as the rabies virus in ensuring is own propagation. It appeals to the lowest motives in human nature, with its divine approval for murder, sadism, extortion and rape in this life, and the promise of an afterlife spent in Allah's brothel in the sky with 72 subservient virgins.

Women, girls and all the feminine aspects of human nature are chattelised and subjugated. Weakness is despised and seen as ripe for predation. Women and children are gang-raped, and kuffar captives and defenseless minorities tortured and slaughtered.

With its institutionalized misogyny, Koran-sanctioned wife-beating and prophet-inspired pedophilia, Islam is a predatory, bullying, domineering, gang-raping despoiler and destroyer of all that is beautiful, spiritual, gentle, peaceful, innocent and vulnerable.

In the face of this militant all-conquering savagery, Buddhism doesn't stand a chance!

Update July 2017  Dawkins banned from radio for Islamophobia 

See Also

Islam will Destroy Buddhism

Islam will Dominate - The Islamic Threat to Buddhism


Anonymous said...

Christians and Jews also kill without remorse. Both these religons are monotheistic as is Islam. Monotheists live there lives with a very limited view of compassion. Most monotheists believe after they die they will never experience suffering again. Because of this belief they are a rule onto themselves, as they beleve they will never see there enemies again.

Anonymous said...

What caste do you belong to, anon above? Must be high enough to justify contempt for lower orders.

Angie said...

"Christians and Jews also kill without remorse."

Not true. Christianity and Juadaism have the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' whereas Islam has the commandment 'Thou SHALT kill' ('Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them'). Islam isn't similar to the other monotheistic religions, it's opposite in many ways.

Anonymous said...

Western society has been formed by christians. These first clonizers took what was not theres and killed many beings in the process. Not to mention for a Christian or Jew or any monotheist for that matter to experience heaven there must also be beings experiencing hell or suffering.

The Cat said...

Christianity might have been responsible for a lot of suffering in the distant past, but it isn't responsible for the 15,000 plus Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11

Phil said...

As a gay man who is also a Buddhist I never thought I'd vote for the BNP. But having friends attacked by packs of Muslim youths simply for being gay I'm changing my opinion and will be voting for the BNP since nobody else will protect us. The BNP may not be exactly pro-gay but unlike the Muslims they don't want to kill us.

Anonymous said...

@pentagramz, it is true that the taliban (a muslim organization) is probebly behind the attacks. But the taliban claim they do these attacks because Jews are in Isreal. The British (a christian country) gave this land to the Jews after WWII. Also it infuriates the taliban that America (a christian country) has its troops in Muslim countries. So from this perspective it could be seen that christians are a cause. From a Buddhist perspestive all things are interdependent without a start or end so from this view we are all part of the problem. What is needed is for monotheists (christians,muslims,jews) to start cognizing that they may meet there enemies after they die. Monthiesm is the problem as very few monotheists really think they will ever see suffering again after they die and hence do what they want when they want.

Anonymous said...

Secular Humanism has killed far more than Christianity or Judiasm. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Obama...

Rob Crawford said...

"Monthiesm is the problem as very few monotheists really think they will ever see suffering again after they die and hence do what they want when they want."


J-Vo said...

It's too late fools, you let the serpents into your house and they are eating your apples.

Support Geert Wilders if you care about your tattered society.

Marginalized Action Dinosaur said...

"Most monotheists believe after they die they will never experience suffering again."

Yeah Christians have probably never heard of a place called hell.

And how do secular types suffer? They think if they die they immediately become compost.

Maybe they are suffering compost.

Theres a reason secular types like Stalin and Mao are willing to kill tens of millions for their religion.

Kaffir_Kanuck said...

To Anon above,

Christianity, ya know with the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, is a polytheist religion. Get it right you maroon.

'cause we keep hearing about all those exploding christians who scream out the trinity before getting closer to God.

Relativistic buffoonery is what that is.

Anonymous said...

Kaffir_Kanuck said "Christianity, ya know with the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, is a polytheist religion."

For a kaffir, that's such a muslim thing to say

Michael Vitsek said...

"As a gay man who is also a Buddhist I never thought I'd vote for the BNP. But having friends attacked by packs of Muslim youths simply for being gay I'm changing my opinion and will be voting for the BNP since nobody else will protect us."

Phil, I think what the UK needs is the following. Not only can gays protect themselves without having to cozy up to "protectors" who may not be sympathetic (like the useless UK police), overall crime rates are likely to drop as well.

Of course, if criminals are already running the show, will they want crime to drop? Or be sympathetic to people wanting to protect themselves (other than themselves and their cronies of course) ? Doubtful.

Anonymous said...

Yes, monotheists and physicalists are truly a law ubto themselves.

Anonymous said...

From EBurke (American):
I wish that there were still good examples of true Christianity in the UK. Perhaps if there were, fewer of you would be so ignorant of the real beliefs of Christians. We are monotheistic, not polytheistic, and our religion requires us to not murder (defense is OK), care for the poor and oppressed (name a more generous country than the USA), have faith that God is good and loving (not cruel and punishing - that's Old Testament, and superceede by Christ's gospel), and confess our sins, and repent from them. Islam has little or nothing of this, except alms to the poor.
BTW, any of you Brits who wish to escape from your collapsing civilization, please come to the US - we welcome our cousins! And, yes, I do visit the UK, as well as the Continent.

Anonymous said...

@EBurke,For there to be a defender there needs to be an enemy. Christians need there be the poor, opressed, eneiemes etc so there can be there reality (monotheism). In monotheists could cognize interdependent origination this place and the next would be much more enjoyable. Also EBourke, the foundations of your American society are killing and stealing.

Anonymous said...

Nope. EBurke has a point. Christianity has been misrepresented in the strangest ways in this series of comments. His is the most accurate description. Most of these are nonsensical, written by folks who very clearly have little understanding of Christian tenets.

Islam isn't the opposite of Christianity, but it is very different. Islam itself isn't what causes violence, but particular ways of teaching it. However, if one reads Christian and Muslim scriptures, it is evident that the Koran contains writing that could more easily be taken as a call to violence and to the murder of non-muslims. (Alot of folks cite Old Testament passages when they level these accusations at Christianity, forgetting that Christians privilege the New Testament over the Hebrew Scriptures.)

I recommend to you all the following two books (in addition to a thorough reading of Scripture, Christian and Muslim):

Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
America Alone by Mark Steyn

Anonymous said...

@anonymous above, Are you serious. It would be very hard to find a US marine or a taliban solider fighting in Afganistan who belives that they will ever see one of there kills again. Montheism is truly simplistic. As i said earlier you guys (monotheists) need beings to be poor, injuried, week, vunrable,aggresive, violent etc so you can sustain yout view of reality. All things are interdependent we make our own reality.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous immediately above - What you're getting on with is complete and utter balderdash.

There's nothing in any Monotheistic belief system that requires people to be poor, injured, weak, vulnerable, aggressive, violent, etc...

I'm a Christian, and I have no desire for people to be poor, injured, weak, vulnerable, aggressive, violent, etc...

I generally like seeing people happy and healthy, not poor, injured, or weak. I like to see people strong and able to defend themselves (which is why I think Britain's anti-gun and anti-knife laws are a complete sad joke), and hence not vulnerable. I like to see people be careful in their words and deeds, not overly aggressive and violent.

All of my above sentiments are perfectly compatible with my Christian beliefs; indeed, most of them are strengthened by my Christian beliefs.

Oh, and "simplistic" does not necessarily equal "wrong".

2 + 2 = 4 is quite simplistic. But it's also quite correct.

to onoma mou said...

To the anonymous poster who asked "Are you serious.": First off, it is difficult to follow your poor grammar and spelling. (After all, "Are you serious" ought to be a question, right?) If you really hope to communicate clearly, I encourage you write intelligibly. Unless, of course, you have no interest in communication or discussion.


If it helps for me to offer any credentials, I've got two degrees in religion; I studied it from a secular perspective. I've never encountered any scholar making the claims you make. Throwing around catch phrases isn't really sufficient for an actual conversation. If you were able to provide clear analysis with your claims, we could talk.

You contradict yourself at several points. You state that montheism is simplistic, yet contend that it is an independently constructed ("we make our own reality" implies agency) subjective reality which is nonetheless part of an interdependent system (which lessens agency), and that it somehow requires the existence of both weak people and agressive people, along with many other categories of people. That sounds awfully complex to me.

Importantly, at no point have you tied this claim that "monotheists need beings to be poor" to any actual part of any definition of monotheism. What does the claim that there is only one God have to do with the claim that there must be poor people? There is no logical connection between those two statements.

Let's talk a bit about what monotheism actually is:

Monotheism is a doctrine of God which states that there is only one God, or, put another way, that God is one. That subtle difference in phrasing is meant to highlight the idea that if there is only one God, that being, since it is absolute, cannot be a predicate. Or put another way, there isn't a man-made definition of "God" and we've only found one being which fits that definition, but rather God precedes any descriptions, being God first and described second. As my favorite professor of Medieval Theology puts it, "We know there is a type of thing which we call a dodo, and at some point in history there was only the last dodo left. One dodo. monododoism? But, there isn't a type of thing which we call God, of which there is only one." Rather, the singularity of God is a predicate to God's existence.

Monotheism is not simplistic. It is philosophically rather complex. I recommend that you read some of Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. Try 1.3.7 for starters. He offers that God is a simple being (an infinitely simple, perfect being) and that people, being imperfect, must understand God complexly. We've got human brains which employ reason and analysis. That's how we understand things. But analysis is complex and messy.

So monotheism states that the God behind the doctrine is simple. But the doctrine is complex.

(I think this would hold across Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and even some of the more theological lines of thinking in Hinduism about the nature of Brahman.)

to be continued...

to onoma mou said...


That's monotheism. One God. Now, what do we really mean when we talk about "monotheistic religions"?

When we call these religions "monotheistic," we are saying that monotheism is one of their characteristics, and a helpful way of differentiating them from other types of religions, BUT only with regard to their ideas about the nature of God. Monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, panentheism. Within each of these categories are bunches of religions that are all quite different from one another.

Here is an illustration. It's a poor illustration; forgive me. Think for a moment about sandwiches: a sandwich has two pieces of bread with something in between. This distinguishes it from pizza, which has a layer of bread and some stuff on top. But it doesn't tell you much more. A sandwich filled with meat will taste wholly different from one filled with jam.

So whatever it is that makes you associate a need for poor people with monotheism arises not from the doctrine of monotheism (or the fact that a sandwich has two pieces of bread) but from some other aspect of religiosity. Therefore, if you really want to make that claim, you will need to argue from specific tenets of a specific religion. You will need to demonstrate that "need for poor, weak, violent, and aggressive people" explicitly in a majority of monotheistic religions and demonstrate that the same need is not present in any polytheistic or pantheistic religions. Then you can speak, at best, about a correlation between this "need" and monotheism, though you will have yet to develop a causative relationship in either direction.

Good luck. If you can make your case, I'd be happy to respond.

Anonymous said...

2The problem is, you are unable to cognize that there is no inherent existence (nothing exists from its own side). All is interdependent Origination. There is no inherent good or bad. For there to be good there needs to be bad, there is no other way to make a cognition of good or bad as both are dependent on each other or interconnected. So there for, when there is an urge from you for beings to be happy they first must be unhappy (which your urge is causing). This is why wanting beings to be happy is the problem, as you need them to be unhappy so you can exist in your reality (pleasing your god by being good). Monotheists just channel god realms and and claim that as enlightenment. The reality (no reality) of a Buddha is way beyond your god or gods. Nothing exists from its own side.

Anonymous said...

I thought i should mention that this ignorance (not understang that nothing exists from its own side) has been going on since beginningless time and acccording to the Buddhas and is the reason why sentient beings are in such a mess.

Historyscoper said...

While Christians and Jews have their dirty laundry of killing for God, the difference with Islam is that its "promised land" is the whole world, and Allah told them to wage ceaseless war to gain it and set up horrible Sharia, which makes Muslims superior to non-Muslims of all brands. Only People of the Books, Christians and Jews are exempt from the "convert or die" choice, which means atheists, so no wonder Dawkins is worried, but then should most Westerners who are post-Christian. Hence it's time for Westerners to wake up to the need to unite against its incursions, and go on the offensive against Islam by spreading education and knowledge.

Study Islam's history free online with the Historyscoper and master all the key facts and see how deep the rabbit hole goes at

Anonymous said...

you stupid europeans are make me sick to my stomach

Anonymous said...

Hey am Muslim who doesnt hate gays but hate buddas cause they live with monkies and eat human waste and worship cows, snakes and of course rats. hate me hinddus and buddah i am going to kikk u out of our beautiful dubi u slaves

Alice said...

A Christian strives to be like Christ.

A Buddhist strives to be like Buddha.

And a Mohammedan strives to be like Mohammed - the Perfect Man.

I prefer the term 'Mohammedan' to 'Muslim' because it far more accurately describes the resultant behavior patterns. Why this is so is explained in this excellent video.

Anonymous said...

Epidemic of vicious attacks on gays by Muslims in Amsterdam -

Anonymous said...

The best thing about Muslims is the same as the worst thing: they are none-too-bright. Islam discourages debate, critical thinking, reason and creativity. A Muslim has the Koran and the ummah (the Muslim community acting as one herd: ready to stampede at any moment.) Remember the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, and the Jihadi Joker who tried to set off a car full of explosives in Times Square. It wouldn't be difficult to send them back to the Stone Age. Everybody just needs to find their balls (or ovaries), stand firm and push them back harder every time they push us. Christians, atheists, Buddhists, gays, right and left wingers unite!

Anonymous said...

The brilliance of the Muslim mind (yep, this is sarcasm) is well illustrated by the Muslim posting on May 14, 2010, 17:00 hours. He claims to be ok with gays, but "hates buddas cause they live with monkies and eat human waste and worship cows, snakes and rats." I probably shouldn't even have to comment on this shining piece of idiocy, but of course, none of this is true. He also says he will "kikk (the buddas) you out of my beautiful dubi ( my best guess is he means "Dubai", a city in Arabia which probably has no Buddhists, anyway!) and finally describes Buddhists as "u slaves." The most amusing thing about all of this is that Muslims describe THEMSELVES proudly as "slaves" of Allah. (Could someone please tell me why hardly any Muslims are able to read or write English or make sense in any language?)

BartAtTheRanch said...

This is an old post, but it is coming back from the grave.

The comments attributed to Dawkins in the post are making the rounds on the internet. The authenticity of the statements are being questioned. This post is being referenced as a source. I am trying to find where the information about Dawkins is coming from.

The link to the Times article in the post is dead. Trying to determine if Dawkins really said all of this.

seanrobsville said...

If you google "There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.", you'll find a number of reference to an interview with Ruth Gledhill circa 2010. This was reported at the time in the now dead Times link, and on a number of other sites.

BartAtTheRanch said...

Thanks for the reference. I found what looks like the right article on a live page at the Times. But I don't have a subscription. But at least I am finding sites that confirm the source being Gledhill.

seanrobsville said...

Dawkins is reported as pondering similar sentiments at
"Given that Islam is such an unmitigated evil, and looking at the map supplied by this Christian site, should we be supporting Christian missions in Africa? My answer is still no, but I thought it was worth raising the question. Given that atheism hasn’t any chance in Africa for the foreseeable future, could our enemy’s enemy be our friend?"

Unfortunately again the original post is unavailable.

BartAtTheRanch said...

Here is what seems to be a reprint of the article from an Australian site;

Maybe the original Times article resurrected;
I don't have a subscription to read the whole article.

BartAtTheRanch said...

Your other link goes to site run by Dawkins' foundation. It only has article up for the last two years. But maybe a reprint of it can be found elsewhere.

kevin said...

Here's the article taken from internet archive: