>>>If I burn copies of Mein Kampf for it's ideologies, am I really better than those who burn Harry Potter for being anti-christian? Personally, I don't think so.
>>
>>YES, I think so. Here is Holland Mein Kampf is simply unavailable, in normal bookstores. Forbidden. Now you'll gonna tell me that this makes us Dutch people bad people??
>
>No, of course not bad. It just says to me that you are burying your heads in the sand and hoping these ideologies will go away if you pretend they don't exist. They won't, you know.

The main problem with the internet is that almost everybody can find peers who share the same vision on the internet. Together they can quite easily stand almost every debate. It is a major factor of current terrorism.
About Mein Kampf. I think it was a wise decision to keep this book away from normal people. It is written in a populistic style and too many not-so-well-informed people might have gotten influenced by it, in the late-fourties and fifties esp.
It is not a matter of burying the head in the sand. Rather, it is applying one more tactic against evil.


>>>I would like an ideal world as much as the next person. I think they are nice ideas, but power corrupts and I'm afraid I'm currently stuck in the real world. So, the best way I can see to make
>>
>>'Power corrupts' is what has been stated here several times today. Maybe in North America, but Dutch politicians have power for some time, but they are not corrupt.
>
>I'd say then that they are a unique sort of people.

Hope not. :)

>>>If Pat Roberston gains traction, it's because others have not done their duty in countering him. As Edmund Burke said "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
>>
>>An important thing that 'good men' must do, is (ask to) apply the rules that must prevent abuse of the freedom of speech.
>
>The rules are not that vague. They don't disallow 'abuse of freedom of speech', whatever on earth that means. Ok, ok, I know; it means people saying things of which you don't approve.

No. I does not mean people saying things of which I don't approve. My personal opinion is, of course, not important here. Actually, I tolerate (no, I appreciate and stimulate) much more opinion of others than most people. But I do recognize the need for limiting laws.


>Well, I don't approve either, but the idea of banning whatever I don't like is just not something with which I feel comfortable. I'm neither that important nor that omnipotent.

Agree, of course.