"I have to thank Norman Conquest for illustrating so clearly my point: For him the thought of a separation between church and state seems unbearable. (Although it is constitutional in the US I believe.)"

YOU have raised this issue. You're right to say that church and state are two separate things according to the US Constitution. You have not understood my point, of course. Not really surprising with the Left's permanent (intentional?)twist in reality perception.

What I mean to say is that I find it absolutely normal for a politician to be influenced by his/her background and education. If you don't want to have a POTUS who believes in God, then elect someone else, because the guy will most likely make decisions based upon his Christian values. The same can be said about Muslims, Free Masons, Socialists, etc...Exactly why I don't want an Obama-cool in the White House, dear! Do you get it now?     

You've mentioned the Bible Belt. Why is that such a problem? So what about the infantilising socialist social straightjacket forced upon each EU citizen?

I don't believe in evolution BECAUSE it does not make any sense!!! Or would Obama be the Missing Link? I am a creationist BECAUSE I don't think we are here on this planet just by mere coincidence!!! Why do you want to force people into believing this evolution crap? You will of course tell me that religion is irrational. Evolution is one more or less valid (but not validated)theory, which remains full of contradictions. Moreover, what I know for sure is that socialism definitely is and leads nowhere, Peter, BECAUSE it is irrational.

All socialist experiments from the enlightened French Revolution to nazism and communism have ended in shameful disaters (genocides on unprecedented scales, famine, totalitarianism, degradation of human integrity, etc), all this in less than two centuries.

Aren't the opinions of Mr. DD on Israel - and his laughable labeling of Geert Wilders as a Zionist - a mere symptom of the fact that the whole of Belgium's political/cultural establishment for some reason has eagerly swallowed Palestinian propaganda to the full, cork and bottle?

Once again, Wilders hits home with some obvious truths about democracy in the M-E, while avoiding the all too familiar and heavily politicized historiographics of the region.

Can't believe the degree of mindless naïveté as Mr. Dedecker actually seems to think that "liberating the Palestinians" will pacify all Islamists in the region, just because he is told that's what they provide as the "rationale" behind their actions.
What a joke.  

I appreciate your optimism with regard to the fusion of Western and Islamic culture. However, I believe that you are ignoring three issues of concern.

Firstly, Western civilisation is decentralised and diverse, whereas Islam is monolithic and homogenising. Despite the differences between Sunni and Shi'a, Pashtun and Arab, the Ummah is far more unified than the West.

Secondly, the type of Western culture you espouse, namely liberal secularism directly contradicts Islam. Although there are Christian fundamentalists, Christianity also provides much of the intellectual foundations for the Enlightenment and its developments: liberalism and egalitarianism or socialism. Will the Quran or contemporary Islamic thought come to the aid of the Enlightenment? No.

Thirdly, this entire situation is one-sided. The Islamic world will remain Islamic, whereas Western Europe will gradually become Euro-Islamic.

@ Peter Vandenendoftheworld wrote: "Sects coming from the Bible belt are trying to get footage on European soil". Well, my dear, this is interesting. You're deeply anti-American and anti-Christian. Your rancit views stem from the self-righteous EU political correctness we love to hate so much. But ok. You know, there are other much more dangerous sects from the EU Socialist Belt, basically Western Europe, which are trying to get footage and armage and fuckage on US soil and, my dear, THAT is WHAT is absolutely unacceptable, 'coz they want to hijack the White House. America, be careful, the straightjacket is slowly but surely reaching you. Hey do me a favour read Thomas Sowell's three part story: "The Imitators":  

http://www.creators.com/print/opinion/thomas-sowell/the-imitators.html

@Atlanticist911: you're wonderful.

@ Marcfrans: I have always admired your culture and courage on this site.

No, I respect the man NOT the message.

@Atlanticist911 You call what I am reading from Peter "intellect" and you respect "that"?

People like Peter sadly deserve to be under the foot and tyranny of Islam. The man has the thinking and mind of a fool.

The only reason I persist with Peter is because, unlike that spineless hypocrite kappert, I genuinely respect the man's intellect, even while at the same time  profoundly disagreeing with his worldview.

"In the EU we are committed to the separation of church and state, and that's something I will keep on fighting for".

Thanks, Peter. Although you don't realize it, you just have.

@ peter

 Instead of resorting to kappert tactics mark II, try answering my original question, yes or no?

So, for the record let me get this right, you're telling me that, as a resident of Europe, you'd feel equally 'safe' and 'free' under Islamic rule as you would under the current Judeo-Christian model, is that correct?

You wrote: "Christians all over the world did treat Jews as second-class ctizens too".

You also wrote: " People of the Bible belt are as big danger to my values as traditional Muslims are".

As far as your first comment is concerned, perhaps you'd care to read  Ibrahim's article again (see: Comparison # 2)

"While so-called Christian anti Semitism DOES exist, it has absolutely NO DOCTRINAL BACKING in the New Testament... One canNOT say this about Muhammad...".

Do you accept this analysis? If not, kindly present your evidence to the contrary. If you cannot do so (and you can NOT) , kindly add the appropriate qualifier to that accusation, or withdraw it completely.

As far as your second comment is concerned, I would simply make the following observation. Even if what you say is true, the fact that you live in Europe and not in  the "Bible belt" makes that statement redundant.

I more and more discover in you a Belgian Trojan Horse.

You are actually toeing the lines of the Belgian "establishment" by circumventing any serious basic discussion: "Yes, Islam is probably a problem, but than Zionism is also a problem." This type of comments is an excuse and circumvents the discussion about excessive islamic immigration problems with their maffia culture of their uneducated uncultured people.

No wonder you voted the "snel-belg-wet"(quick Belgian naturalisation law.)

I. Neither Mein Kampf nor the Quran should be prohibited reading. And Mr. Wilders' intentions are worrisome in this respect, despite his claims to De Standaard. According to him, his liberal convictions are merely "enough" and he is prepared to prohibit "extreme" things, whatever these may be.

II. Concern over the Islamic presence in Europe is a legitimate reaction on the part of indigenous Europeans. Concern over the degredation and contamination of food stocks, and supplies of water and air is equally so. The emphasis of environmentalism has been on carbon dioxide emissions; however, this folly does not negate collapsing seafood stocks, etc.

III. I disagree with Mr. Dedecker that Eurabia is not a danger. This issue is a 'numbers game' not a contest between opposing value systems. For Muslims and Europeans to co-exist requires a hybrid of each culture, which may not be equal. Given that co-existence with Muslims will entail ethnic and cultural dilution, it is to be avoided. However, it is arrogant to assume that Muslims will become Europeans. Muslims are not looking for Europeans to be Muslims; they want Europeans as second-class citizens at best and slaves at worst. Will the allure of pale skin and blonde hair really dissipate if covered by burqas? Unlikely.

IV. Mr. Wilders' position on Israel clearly states that national self-determination and so-called 'human rights' are secondary concerns to political systems and values. Indeed, he argues that democratic and Western states trump other peoples, especially if the latter are "guilty" of political violence and criminality. Of course, like "extreme cases", the terms "democracy" and "Western values" are vague and open to varying interpretation. Moreover, the Palestinians have never been convicted of a 'collective crime'. This conception of international relations is further muddied if one considers a people's degree of democratisation or Westernisation.

V. Mr. Wilders' also favors the non-voluntary re-settlement of Palestinians to other countries. Given the reluctance of Palestinians to relocate to Jordan and for Jordan to accept them, this re-settlement would be an exercise in ethnic cleansing.

VI. Mr. Dedecker is correct that a significant degree of Islamic violence perpetrated against the West is due to the perceived occupation of Islamic territories by Westerners, namely Israel as well as Coalition and ISAF military bases (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Qatar) and ongoing operations (e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq). However, he is wrong to believe that the clash between the West and Islam will vanish were these 'transgressions' resolved. Muslims exhibit both legitimate nationalism and illegitimate supremacism and it is almost impossible to extricate one from the other.

"We come to discover that, far from being a by-product of Western anti-Semitism or the creation of Israel..."

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/ibrahim062608.html

It should be clear that Dedecker has a distorted view of Israel's founding and history, and also of the nature of Israeli society.  Applying the pc-fashionable label of "apartheid" to Israel, and saying nothing about the nature of the Arab cultures surrounding it, may gain him sympathy in biased Belgium, but it is a very unfair and unrealistic attitude to take.  Also, his repeating of the old canard that islamist violence is largely motivated by the Arab-Israeli conflict, shows that he does not understand where the real problem lies that is facing us all.   If he thinks that muslim men would and will not be committing acts of terror in European cities, after Israel's (hypothetical) destruction, he lives on a phantasy planet in Brussels.

By contrast, Wilders has a much better understanding of the realities of the Middle East, and shows himself to be more independent-minded (relative to the cultural orthodoxy surrounding him).  Dedecker complains further down in the interview about purported Dutch narrowmindedness (and rules-addiction), but in fact it is he (the Belgian) who is more a prisoner of his cultural environment than Wilders (the 'independent' Dutchman) is.