UKC

Taking the fight to Islam'

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Jonno 06 Feb 2007
Brilliant article in the Observer this weekend about Hirsi Ali, the Somali born writer and politician who as a woman who has rejected Islam now lives with constant protection from Islamist killers.

Amazing life she has led from poverty in Africa to being named as one of the 100 most influential women on the planet.

The article hammers more nails into the liberal coffin of 'multi-culturalism'. Ali argues for secular humanism and integration.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2005258,00.html
 Andy Say 06 Feb 2007
In reply to Jonno:
You feel Islam is picking on you?
Jonno 06 Feb 2007
In reply to Andy Say:

Just read the article.
 Steve Parker 06 Feb 2007
In reply to Jonno:

It's an impressive and uplifting personal story, but the subtext is bloody depressing and scary. How many people are there out there who believe in blind, homicidal intellectual slavery? She may well be right in thinking that multi-culturalism is a non-starter that has to be superseded by integration.
Jonno 06 Feb 2007
In reply to Steve Parker:
> (In reply to Jonno)
>
> It's an impressive and uplifting personal story, but the subtext is bloody depressing and scary. How many people are there out there who believe in blind, homicidal intellectual slavery? She may well be right in thinking that multi-culturalism is a non-starter that has to be superseded by integration.>

Multi-culturalism could well be seen as apartheid. The sperate development of each community into its own ghettos.
Unfortunately,the Blair government has created more faith schools and pushed this apartheid policy along apace.

The fall out includes one in three young Muslims who want Sharia Law and believe that killing apostates is acceptable.

It's incredibly brave for someone like her to tackle what is superstitious fascism head on.

I'm depressed by the timidity of all strands of so called liberal society to confront to vile anti-life message of Islamic fundementalism.
 nastyned 06 Feb 2007
In reply to Jonno: Horrible though Islam is I'm more concerned about the christian fundamentalism of many powerful americans.
Jonno 06 Feb 2007
In reply to nastyned:
> (In reply to Jonno) Horrible though Islam is I'm more concerned about the christian fundamentalism of many powerful americans.

At least Christian fundementalist don't pass death sentences on people who write books they don't like or make films they don't like.

There wasn't the Christian equivilent of a fatwa on the Monty Python team when they made 'Life of Brian'.

Imagine if an Iranian comedy team made 'The life of Yusif'. They would be dead before the film had hit the screens.
 daveforey 06 Feb 2007
In reply to Jonno:

good article... good enough for me to order the book from amazon so i can read a bit more from her.

dave

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Infidel-Story-My-Enlightenment/dp/074329503X/sr=8-1...
 Paul Bowen 06 Feb 2007
In reply to Jonno:
> (In reply to nastyned)
> [...]
>
> At least Christian fundementalist don't pass death sentences on people who write books they don't like or make films they don't like.

what they do though is get a sympathetic president elected who then invades islamic countries killing many thousands of people in the process like some modern day crusade..

In reply to Jonno:

Good piece and as Steve Parker has noted concerning to say the least...

I particularly like this bit:

She also argues that it's important to address white liberals because they need to overcome the self-censoring effects of post-colonial guilt. 'If you want to feel guilty,' snaps Hirsi Ali, 'feel guilty that you didn't bring John Stuart Mill and left us only with the Koran. It doesn't help to say my forefathers oppressed your forefathers, and remain guilty forever.'"

Jamie
 TobyA 06 Feb 2007
In reply to Lightweight_2005:

> She also argues that it's important to address white liberals because they need to overcome the self-censoring effects of post-colonial guilt. 'If you want to feel guilty,' snaps Hirsi Ali, 'feel guilty that you didn't bring John Stuart Mill and left us only with the Koran. It doesn't help to say my forefathers oppressed your forefathers, and remain guilty forever.'"

Funny, that was the one thing in the article that struck me as a pretty stupid line. And you can bet your life that Ghandi for example would have read Mill, so she's wrong as well.
In reply to TobyA:

Youve lost me mate...
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to Lightweight_2005)
>
> [...]
>
> Funny, that was the one thing in the article that struck me as a pretty stupid line. And you can bet your life that Ghandi for example would have read Mill, so she's wrong as well.

My point was that in this liberal post-colonial realm of political correctness and multiculturalism we seem have gone one step too far in appeasing the minority. And all too often this is used (or should that be abused) as a tactical means of defence (read defiance!) by the minority fundamentalists.

Commonly known as 'playing the race card', the fundamantalist minority can defend their own anti-semitic and anti-democratic views by hiding behind the good nature of the multiculturalist and PC liberal...

Lets not lose sight of the fact that John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty' purported a Utilitarian perspective, which uses the well being of the majority as the underlying argument.

Mill also argues that free discourse is a necessary condition for intellectual and social progress. We can never be sure, he contends, that a silenced opinion does not contain some element of the truth. He also argues that allowing people to air false opinions is productive for two reasons. First, individuals are more likely to abandon erroneous beliefs if they are engaged in an open exchange of ideas. Second, by forcing other individuals to re-examine and re-affirm their beliefs in the process of debate, these beliefs are kept from declining into mere dogma.

I think this is what was being argued...
Jim C 06 Feb 2007
In reply to Andy Say:
> (In reply to Jonno)
> You feel Islam is picking on you?

Nothing new:-

"In the year 637 the armies of Islam lead by the Caliph Omar conquered the city of Jerusalem, the center of the Christian world and a magnet for Christian pilgrims. "

And then came the crusades.....................

 Duncan Bourne 06 Feb 2007
In reply to Jonno:
Good article I heard her on Woman's Hour yesterday and I agree with her stance. I do however think that certain people are using this to demonise ordinary Muslims (ie Horrible as Islam is etc)There are good aspects of Islam as well as bad you know.
Ian Munro 06 Feb 2007
In reply to Jonno:
> At least Christian fundementalist don't pass death sentences on people who write books they don't like or make films they don't like.

No, they just go out and shoot doctors involved with abortion instead..
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
> (In reply to Jonno)
> I do however think that certain people are using this to demonise ordinary Muslims (ie Horrible as Islam is etc)There are good aspects of Islam as well as bad you know.

A lot of this is probably due to the sensationalism of the media IMO.

 MikeTS 06 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to Lightweight_2005)
>
> [...]
>
> Funny, that was the one thing in the article that struck me as a pretty stupid line. And you can bet your life that Ghandi for example would have read Mill, so she's wrong as well.

I read this and couldn't figure out if it was a dumb or clever statement!
It's generally true that British colonialisation tended to depend on exercising control through elites. Their members, like Ghandhi, would have read Mill etc: in fact, would probably have been encouraged in their decolonialisation struggles by it.
But, especially in the Middle East, Britain preferrered to create autocracies like Saudi Arabia. Also, I don't think Mill was much of an influence on French, German and Belgian colonialisation.
So I think it's a part fair and part unfair comment.

 Liam M 06 Feb 2007
In reply to Lightweight_2005:
> (In reply to TobyA)
> [...]
>
> My point was that in this liberal post-colonial realm of political correctness and multiculturalism we seem have gone one step too far in appeasing the minority. And all too often this is used (or should that be abused) as a tactical means of defence (read defiance!) by the minority fundamentalists.
>
> Commonly known as 'playing the race card', the fundamantalist minority can defend their own anti-semitic and anti-democratic views by hiding behind the good nature of the multiculturalist and PC liberal...
>
> Lets not lose sight of the fact that John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty' purported a Utilitarian perspective, which uses the well being of the majority as the underlying argument.
>

That doesn't quite sound right. Isn't it Mill who in 'On Liberty' criticises democracy for it's very principle of pandering to the whim of the majority (the 'Tyrany of the Majority' as he refers to it). Whilst it is true that utilitarianism is about increasing the happiness of as many people as possible, it argues against the idea that this should just be what what is most comfortable for the largest deomgraphic of a community.

It could be argued that the principle would be quite pro some form of multi-culturalism, as long as the whims of any of the parties do not overtly impose on any other party.
 MikeTS 06 Feb 2007
In reply to Ian Munro: Munro:
> (In reply to Jonno)
> [...]
>
> No, they just go out and shoot doctors involved with abortion instead..


The difference is that in Judaeo-Christian societies they are still convicted of murder by the state. Unlike Muslim countries, where the killers of Christians and Jews and Muslim apostates are made heroes.
Jonno 06 Feb 2007
In reply to Ian Munro:
> (In reply to Jonno)
> [...]
>
> No, they just go out and shoot doctors involved with abortion instead..

I think the difference is that Christian nutters are generally reviled and condemned by the majority whereas Islamic brutality is the acceptable norm within most Muslim societies.
 MJH 06 Feb 2007
In reply to Jonno:
> (In reply to Ian Munro)
> [...]
>
> I think the difference is that Christian nutters are generally reviled and condemned by the majority whereas Islamic brutality is the acceptable norm within most Muslim societies.

I don't think that is the case at all on the part of Muslim societies, though the media would have you believe that...even those from stricter Islamic societies (eg Iran) can recognise nutters.
 Y Gribin 06 Feb 2007

>"Lets not lose sight of the fact that John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty' purported a Utilitarian perspective, which uses the well being of the majority as the underlying argument."

I am not sure you're right. Utilitarianism argues that an action should produce the maxiumum possible happiness. It may be that 'maximum happiness' is achieved by appeasing a very unhappy minority, rather than appeasing an only moderately unhappy majority.

So, in the case of multiculturism, it might be argued that the it was more important to satisfy a minority Muslim community who actually wanted (we can assume) to live separately, rather than satisfying the Christian ('white', whatever) majority who didn't care either way about integretionism.

I don't mean to defend multiculturism but which of us, in the 1970s and 80s, were out on the streets arguing that Muslim immigrants should be further integrated. It is only now, with the benefit of hindsight, that we argue against the consequences of multiculturism.....rather than multiculturism itself.

Not sure if that makes sense but I know what I mean!

 Duncan Bourne 06 Feb 2007
In reply to Jonno:
Bit more of a considered reply here after a second reading of the article. Hirsi Ali highlights those things which a lot of folk, Islamic fundamentalists and Liberal multi-culturalists, would prefer to ignore but she makes many a valid point. I believe as she does that a secular humanist society is the prefered option for the 21st century world. Islam is the modern bogey man, last century it was communism, There are plenty of liberal and even secular Muslims in the world but all to often it is used (as are many other religions) to justify bigotry and practices (ie female circumsion) that should have died out in the Middle Ages. America and the West's dealings in the Middle East and support of Israel may have fanned the flames of Islamic fundamentalism resulting in 9/11 but in an increasingly global world a clash of culture was perhaps inevitable.
1. The threat of death for apostates is intolerable in a just society.
2. The inability to discuss religion in a way that may not be favourable is intolerable in a just society
3. Honour killings are wrong
4. the subjigation of women is wrong

Freedom of speech is great but the freedom to cause harm isn't. Multi-culturalism is great, being multi-cultural is what makes our society so interesting and colourful but until multi-culturalists make the distinction between freedoms then it is just a fudge and a danger to itself
 Enty 06 Feb 2007
In reply to Ian Munro:
> (In reply to Jonno)
> [...]
>
> No, they just go out and shoot doctors involved with abortion instead..

Well done, go and get a prize. I have been reading this thread today and waiting for someone to post this in response to Jonno's post.

The Ent

Dirt 06 Feb 2007
In reply to Jonno:

Jonno, forgive me for another challenge to your views, but I guess we are just so far removed from each others views that I feel compelled to argue with you. Nothing personal I hope you'll realise.

But, I have to say having travelled through Pakistan & Iran only a few years ago (post 9/11 and Iraq war), I found no acceptance of brutality by the muslims that I met in these societies. In fact, my impression of muslims in these countries was of a wonderful friendly humility and I had some of my most wonderful travel experiences of my life there - the warmth of welcome was amazing.

What I also found interesting to note, in Iran, was that the average person seemed to recognise that their leaders were spouting rhetoric to drum up fervant support amongst head strong young males in tehran, but those messages rarely reached the average muslim in the rest of the country and was greeted with some skepticism (though not openly due to the nature of the country). I didn't ask about good old rushdie, but I suspect the average iranian wouldn't even know who he is.

All I'm saying is that in my experiences, the majority of muslims both in the UK and in Islamic nations, do not seem to support brutality towards anyone, unfortunately the portrayal of muslims by our media suggests otherwise...

I would be interested to know your direct experiences of muslim societies to support your claim of such widespread brutality...

D
Dirt 06 Feb 2007
In reply to Dirt:

>All I'm saying is that in my experiences, the majority of muslims both in the UK and in Islamic nations, do not seem to support brutality towards anyone, unfortunately the portrayal of muslims by our media suggests otherwise...

What I should have added, is that given the nature of 9/11 and 7/7, that I do not find it surprising how the media portrays muslims. I do understand why there is a climate of fear and of course the media feels it has a duty to play on this. When I learned that 7/7 was an attack by domestic muslims I knew it would result in absolute distrust by the much of british public towards islam in general.

Once again, the actions of a few ruin it for everyone else.

D
Pan Ron 06 Feb 2007
In reply to Dirt:

I'm also going to take my usual slant here. I haven't read this particular article but I've followed her before.

While she does highlight the issues that blight Islam she is coming from a particularly emotive perspective, having suffered the very worst of Islam. In that respect her views seem to border on absolute hatred for Islam, as I guess many Jews rightly(?) feel about Germans.

While she certainly has some very constructive criticisms they seem to get drowned out in her apparent outright anti-Islamic view. Given this, she has become the love-child of the likes of FOX news network and while she is well received in the US I'm guessing any influence she has in the Muslim world has gone out the window as a result.

Bottom line is, she won't be the one who actually drives any change in the more extreme elements of Islam, and if anything she'll just alienate some of the moderates.
Dirt 06 Feb 2007
In reply to David Martin:

Interesting. I've not followed the original links or read these articles. But I'm never going to argue with a terrible personal experience blighting one's view of the world. If someone has such terrible experiences then it's too much for an armchair critic like me to ask them to be more forgiving.

Which is why my reply was more aimed at a specific comment from Jonno, and was not really in response to the OP as it should've been, perhaps.

Cheers David,

D
 Bruce Hooker 06 Feb 2007
In reply to David Martin:

> her views seem to border on absolute hatred for Islam

Are you really surprised that a woman brought up in an islamic society should hate islam? You don't have an inkling why they should have such an extraordinary view?

I see you are still on the same track!

_______________________________

If you really want to find out I suggest you try and read up a few articles about women in Algeria over, say 50 years, from the time they fought against colonialism through the time of hope born after independence and then back down in the dark years of the FIS and till today, the "statute of the women" recently applied and so on. Try to find things written by women journalists... those that have survived.
Dirt 06 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Bruce, not all women hate islam. It's worth remembering that all good religions are screwed up by bad traditions. I'm assuming that there's nothing in the Koran about mistreating women - that particular blight seems to affect men all over the world, including in the UK where domestic abuse is still widespread in some demographics.

Africa & Arabia are classic examples where the mis-treatment of many women has been cultural for a very long time (much older than the presence of islam). The presence of islam has in places improved the lot of many women (though arguably not as much as in the western world), and in other places has done nothing for them at all.

So yes, I personally 'could' be surprised by such outright hatred of a religion that the person would normally have been brought up to love, but upon further consideration I might not be surprised at all.

But on the whole, I wouldn't have wanted to be a woman brought up in many regions of africa or arabia, under any religion or otherwise...

D
 BigBrother 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Dirt:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
>I'm assuming that there's nothing in the Koran about mistreating women -

If you have to assume this then you do not know it ie you have not read the koran. Also the fact that you only mention the Koran, indicating that you think that is the only authority in Islam and hence ignoring the Hadith is significant. As you are ignorant of what Islam actually teaches why do you assume that there is nothing about mistreating women in it? You seem to have very strong opinions about something that you admit no real knowledge of. Have you ever considered how you have come to hold such strong unfounded opinions?

I am sorry to pick on you in particular but it interests me that people who are probably quite intelligent and well educated can hold such strong opinions on issues they have little real knowledge of without ever questioning why and how they have acquired those beliefs.
 wilding 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Dirt:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> Bruce, not all women hate islam. It's worth remembering that all good religions are screwed up by bad traditions. I'm assuming that there's nothing in the Koran about mistreating women - that particular blight seems to affect men all over the world, including in the UK where domestic abuse is still widespread in some demographics.
>
> Africa & Arabia are classic examples where the mis-treatment of many women has been cultural for a very long time (much older than the presence of islam). The presence of islam has in places improved the lot of many women (though arguably not as much as in the western world), and in other places has done nothing for them at all.
>

This made me laugh out loud. I am presuming you haven't read the koran or the old testament. Both religions are monotheistic and the women in both religious texts are treated extremely badly.

I love the line 'It's worth remembering that all good religions are screwed up by bad traditions' - what on earth do you mean? Religions are nothing without their traditions.

And your statement 'Africa & Arabia are classic examples where the mis-treatment of many women has been cultural for a very long time' is offensive on many levels. contrary to what you think most tribes with animist or polytheistic faiths in africa respect women, with women having equal rights to men and a political voice. Monotheism was the worst thing to happen to womens rights in africa - giving people a book that says women are worth less than men doesn't 'improve the lot of many women'.




 Bruce Hooker 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Dirt:

> I'm assuming that there's nothing in the Koran about mistreating women

Why assume this? Wouldn't it be preferable to check it out yourself, as it's quite an important issue at the moment?
 Castleman 07 Feb 2007
In reply to wilding:
> [...]
>
> This made me laugh out loud. I am presuming you haven't read the koran or the old testament. Both religions are monotheistic and the women in both religious texts are treated extremely badly.

Examples please...!

>
> Religions are nothing without their traditions.

Really? What about faith that doesn't follow tradition? I suspect (but feel free to prove me wrong) that you have only encountered a very staid, "traditional" religious experiences (forced to go to chuch as a kid where the next youngest person was 65?)

> contrary to what you think most tribes with animist or polytheistic faiths in africa respect women, with women having equal rights to men and a political voice.

Thats not what I've been told, and doesn't match with stats about when women have had the vote in a lot of African countries. However, I've not worked in Africa - certainly in animist, polytheistic tribes in south america, women would not have the right to vote or make decisions. something that causes huge issues when trying to introduce aid to the area from a donor agency that requires equal representation.
 Castleman 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Dirt:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> I'm assuming that there's nothing in the Koran about mistreating women - that particular blight seems to affect men all over the world, including in the UK where domestic abuse is still widespread in some demographics.
>

Why assume this? Although agreed many men do seem to have the urge to prove their strength over women.
 TobyA 07 Feb 2007
In reply to BigBrother:

> I am sorry to pick on you in particular but it interests me that people who are probably quite intelligent and well educated can hold such strong opinions on issues they have little real knowledge of without ever questioning why and how they have acquired those beliefs.

Read what the guy wrote - he was basing his impression on having spent a lot of time in Iran and Pakistan. You can quote hadiths if you want, but Islam isn't what it says in the Koran, it's what Muslims think the Koran says and how they act that out in their daily lives. Trying to argue the theology of terrorism, or of oppression of women, is next to pointless. It's the same Bible read by the gay episcopalian bishop of New Hampshire as its it Salvadorian (?) Arch-Bishop who refused permission to a 12 year old rape victim to have an abortion, saying she had to carry her attackers child to full term. It's the same Koran read by Tariq Ramadam, as it is by Ayman al-Zawahiri.

If you can't accept this basic sociology, I would say it is your strong opinions that are ill-informed.
 Bruce Hooker 07 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA:

To be clear here, are you saying that there is nothing in the original texts of islam that explains the attitude of many, or most, male muslims towards women?

If this is not your opinion then your last post is just more red herringing and yet another deliberate attempt to confuse what for once is a simple issue... namely that in a great many, and probably the majority (I'm careful here as I haven't the time to provide you with documentary proof with accurate up to date figures!) devout muslim families women occupy an inferior place to men!
 TobyA 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> To be clear here, are you saying that there is nothing in the original texts of islam that explains the attitude of many, or most, male muslims towards women?

No, of course that's not what I'm saying. Read what I said. Women are oppressed in most parts of the world, there is nothing unique to Islam about this. Many Muslims use the Koran to justify that, but why do Sikhs have forced marriages and (no)"honour killings"? Why do Central American and Chinese women face high levels of domestic violence and official indifference to that? Why are female fetuses aborted at such an alarming rate in India that it is distorting the population? Why have women been targetted for horrendous levels of sexual violence in "tribal" conflicts from Bosnia, via Liberia to the Congo? What's any of that got to do with the Koran?
 Bruce Hooker 07 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA:

All this is true enough but bringing it up when the very question of whether there is any reference to women in the basic texts of a religion is being cast in doubt is clearly aimed at justifying this unsavoury side to the religion concerned... a bit like the young bag snatcher who tries to justify his actions before the judge by saying that his acts are no worse than big-business fat cats who rip off the workers! Both techniques are smoke screens, whether true or not.

Obviously if someone had posted on a thread about the glories of hinduism compared to islam then your remarks would have been relevant... it's a question of context.

I always wonder why you appear to feel the need to leap to the defence of such an unpleasant and harmful religion as islam?
 TobyA 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> I always wonder why you appear to feel the need to leap to the defence of such an unpleasant and harmful religion as islam?

Says the UKC's only apologist for Chinese authoritarianism.

It's statistically clear that in England, mugging is crime done disproportionately by young black men. But if someone wants to blame all young black men for the actions of the muggers, I will point out that this is simply racism.

What is it about you that makes you so interested in nasty side of Islam that you continually bang on about it, whilst ignoring the nasty sides of Christianity/Hinduism/Confucianism/Sikhism/Catholicism/whatever-ism?

Social justice is social justice. Regardless of creed or colour.
 Bruce Hooker 07 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA:

> What is it about you that makes you so interested in nasty side of Islam that you continually bang on about it, whilst ignoring the nasty sides of Christianity/Hinduism/Confucianism/Sikhism/Catholicism/whatever-ism?

Your ingenuousness is breaking new frontiers here! When "Christianity/Hinduism/Confucianism/Sikhism/Catholicism/whatever-ism" come close to blowing up my daughter, and succeed in doing the same for many other poor people, who take the bus or tube to work then I will most probably bang on about them too....

This is just one tiny example... the whole history and the daily practice of islam is another... just watching all those men prostrating themselves (five times a day?) in sign of total submission to an imagined deity fills me with horror... the very negation of intelligent humanity. Doesn't it revolt you too?

I know Finland is a bit off the beaten track but I would have thought they had news service there too? If not your work as an expert in a think tank must be rather difficult!
 dek 07 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA:

>
> What is it about you that makes you so interested in nasty side of Islam that you continually bang on about it, whilst ignoring the nasty sides of Christianity/Hinduism/Confucianism/Sikhism/Catholicism/whatever-ism?
>
> Social justice is social justice. Regardless of creed or colour.

I and many others are 'Interested' in the side of Islam where we have a resident representative of islam calling for the beheading of soldiers (muslims) who serve in the British army.Is this not 'Nasty' certainly of interest!
Also interested in why the King Fahad school in london? give the students books preaching how 'superior' the Muslim faith is to Jews, Christians..anyone not Muslim, whilst at the same time nodding compliance of integration..Why should Bruce not question the topic? its in our faces every day,you certainly bang on about it often enough with your 'i am better informed' viewpoint any chance you get?
Dirt 07 Feb 2007
In reply to:

BigBrother, Wilding, Bruce Hooker, Castleman, TobyA :

Phew, glad I went to bed when I did otherwise I'd have been up all night

Okay, my assumptions, as you many of you correctly pointed out are not based on studying the Koran or any other Islamic texts, but are actually from sources other than the Koran. What are these sources? Well, it's from knowing Muslims for all of my adult life, some born & bred in this country but others from Morroco, Pakistan, Iran & Eqypt, where the claim from those men and women are that the Koran does not speak of explicitly mistreating women - at least not in a way that most reasonable muslims would interpret as an 'instruction to treat women' in anything other than a reasonable way (reasonable => with love & affection, not violence).

Now my approach to this thread was weakly written and it's left some gaping holes that have been pounced on, but my view is that if there are millions of dedicated muslims throughout the world who are able to treat women with respect, then it makes me think, in practice, that there must be either a) something wrong with the interpretation of islam in regions which have a terrible record of the treatment of women, b) that traditions older than islam have found their way into modern islamic culture, in some parts of the world - this IS the case - at least according to some of my sources from these regions, hardly an ignorant standpoint to hold I think, or c) that men in general do not treat women particulary well, and even that's not an unreasonable view to accept I think.

One of my examples, S.Arabi, has a documented track record of awful human rights abuses in general and awful treatment of women in particular - no I'm not going to go and dig out the references! And some of the muslims and non-muslims that I know who've lived in this country acknowledge that there's some schools and areas where very little 'good-islam' is taught, where one muslim is a better muslim for being arab instead of african, just some examples.

I believe, again it's a view I hold that is based on not reading the Koran et al, that some regions of Africa follow a similar lead. Maybe the people who I know are not reliable sources, but I'm a fairly trusting person on the whole and I try to see the good in the world and in people. I don't view africa as a hot bed of mistreatment towards women, my point is that Iranian women seem to receive better treatment than arabian women in society and in private, and perhaps the somalian women is representative of somalian women? Or perhaps not. I not trying to drum up anti-islamic fervour!

But, just because there's bad muslims in this world, doesn't make me want to 'take the fight to islam' which is the inflamatory title of the OP and for which I am trying to contend - it seems there's a hell of a lot of anti-islamic fervour on this thread...

BigBrother:
>I am sorry to pick on you in particular but it interests me that people who are probably quite intelligent and well educated can hold such strong opinions on issues they have little real knowledge of without ever questioning why and how they have acquired those beliefs.

No offence taken. I can see that, if we are so distant from islam in general, that you might feel that being schooled in islam is the only source of knowledge. I'd hope you would accept that having anything from a reasonable to a significant amount of experience with muslims from around the world, that it is possible to hold reasonable views of islam? Or do I have to read the texts to be allowed to form & voice any oppinion?

Wilding:
>I love the line 'It's worth remembering that all good religions are screwed up by bad traditions' - what on earth do you mean? Religions are nothing without their traditions

What I mean by this, is that there are traditions that are older than the religion in that area, and that those traditions can remain even in the presence of a religion that instructs muslims to respect women - a trait that a hell of a lot of muslims in the world share.

Furthermore, it's worth remembering that the history of islam, like any religion, was expansionist. Iranians are culturally very different to arabs, just one example. Iranian women seem, from my limited experience, to hold more rights than in many islamic nations, but those women see it a benefit of islam rather than tradition. It's all cloudy stuff. So my bottom line is that in many areas, islam has improved the lot of many women in these regions compared with their treatment pre-islam. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a reverse to this in some places, but on the whole...

I also quote a good friend "the biggest problem with islam are the muslims that study it". He happens to be one of the most humble people I've ever met and is just one of many muslims I know or who I've met that lead me to believe that the western portral of islam & muslims is heavily exaggerated in a very negative way.

Wilding:
>And your statement 'Africa & Arabia are classic examples

I thought I'd written (it was late) that 'There are regions of Africa & Arabia where there are examples of cultural mistreatment of women' or something to that effect... Not, in the harsh light of day a particularly insightful comment either, but wrt to last night, I certainly do not want to tar half of the planet with one brush. So I can see why it can be offensive and it's not intended to be, but in my defence I mean that we have regions that have been documented to have widespread mistreatment of women. I do not mean the whole of Africa or Arabia. Apologies... But, much of the mistreatment is in the name of preserving & protecting virginity and has been around for a long long time! Not because it's written in the Koran...
Dirt 07 Feb 2007
Continued


TobyA:
Cheers for the defence Toby. I'd just like to make it clear though that I've not spent a 'lot' of time in these countries. But enough to know that the media portral of these countries & their people is very unreasonable.

Bruce:
>To be clear here, are you saying that there is nothing in the original texts of islam that explains the attitude of many, or most, male muslims towards women?

I know this was directed at TobyA, but, whether the texts say it or not, most Muslims that I know (standard disclaimer by now I hope) regard their treatment of women as being 'significantly better' than before islam reached those regions. Our interpretation may be otherwise, but I do not regard islam as being any more about mistreatment of women than any other religion. Mistreatment of women seems to be a trait of men, not of religion.

>devout muslim families women occupy an inferior place to men

Wow. So because women are entrusted to stay at home and educate(!) the kids, you hold that to be inferior? Stunning. Have you met muslim kids in any muslim country? My experience is that they can speak multiple languages and seem to be respectful and knowledgable beyond their years? I was literally blown away by kids in pakistan & iran! These were just your average kids. Compare that with kids in this country!

Women in our country have greater individual rights and I celebrate that. But I also believe that there is a price to pay within the structure of our families and I feel that debt is inherited by the kids that loose out from solid home education - blanket statements I know and easily open for attack, but it's just based on a comparison of the kids! I do not want to change our society because of it, but I do feel that either the mother or father in families in this country could spend a hell of lot more time with their kids and giving some element of home education in addition to school.

In summary, my experience of some parts of the islamic world was far more positive than we have portrayed in the UK, my second hand understanding of islamic life is that it has more respect & affection than is given credit by many of us, and I also hold a view that one parent (mother or father) could if time & finances allow, spend much more time with their kids providing a balance to the school education system...

Let the backlash begin
 MJH 07 Feb 2007
In reply to dek: The point is that all the examples given are not representative of Islam as a whole. Within all religions there are deeply unpleasant elements/sects/followings, but Islam really does seem to be the new communism.
 TobyA 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Your ingenuousness is breaking new frontiers here! When "Christianity/Hinduism/Confucianism/Sikhism/Catholicism/whatever-ism" come close to blowing up my daughter...

Have you ever had a friend or relative who was raped? I have, by a white Englishman. Should I feel horror and disgust at all white Englishmen who read a lad-mag or look at page 3 of the Sun and say "nice tits"? Are they not all potential rapists as well? Or would that be ridiculous?

> just watching all those men prostrating themselves (five times a day?) in sign of total submission to an imagined deity fills me with horror... the very negation of intelligent humanity. Doesn't it revolt you too?

This says it all really. Do... I don't know... Christmas carol services, or drinking wine and pretending it's blood fill you with as much horror? Or is just specifically Muslims who fill you with this horror?
 Al Evans 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Dirt: Look,nothing can ever justify the extreme Muslim position on women, even if the brain washed women do. We should not tolerate it in a modern enlightened world. It should be stamped out NOW, I really feel that that is the heart of the muslim problem. chauvanism. How else do you explain such a dirty religion.
 TobyA 07 Feb 2007
In reply to dek: Did you see the Police just released two of the "beheading gang" with no charges and during their week of their interrogation the police never asked them anything about beheading anyone?

Of course everyone should be interested in it. But if people can't separate politics from theology and real security problems from open bigotry, then they are part of the problem.
 dek 07 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA: You must know more than us? i dont recall any 'charges' being made public. I was referring to the 10 30pm news concerning the Islamist extremist being interviewd in London re the Muslim members of the armed forces. I would say that was somebody who cant differentiate between his radical view of Islam, and what the Koran tells him to 'do' to Muslim soldiers?
Dirt 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Al Evans:

No you look, nothing can justify any extreme postion whether it's muslims/women, bush/muslims or anything else extreme for that matter. But your view on how traits of other cultures "should be stamped out NOW" is fairly extreme too.

I'm just trying to offer a counter view to the anti-islamic comments on this thread, that in my real-world-experience(tm) I do not find islam offensive, but of course I do find the extreme examples to be very offensive, including female circumcision in some christian african societies, including some of the brutal treatment of women in hindu society, but I have no desire to take the fight to the societies either. But, I always support efforts to improve the education & individual rights of anyone anywhere in the world, but equally I have no desire to join some self-rightous moral police force and go round stamping out behaviour across the world...

But, the title of the thread is to "take the fight to islam" - something I find offensive given my connections to moderate, friendly, humble & respectful muslims, both men and women in this country and elsewhere who I consider to be representative of islam, and for whom the press do not represent particularly well.

There's a tragic set of extremes in this country and elsewhere, but if we all continue demonstrating ignorance and extreme views towards the other side then we just push further and further apart.

D
 thomasadixon 07 Feb 2007
In reply to dek:

He was actually very careful - he said that the Koran says beheading is the punishment for it, not that he was suggesting it or that he would do it. Pretty bad in my view if that's what the Koran says, but nothing illegal in just saying it. What he is saying is that there is no difference between his "radical" view of Islam and the Koran, he's just telling us what the Koran says.
 Duncan Bourne 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Al Evansand Bruce Hooker:
I feel that your answers highlight that you know nothing about Islam except what you read in the media and choose to accept as fact. Yes there are passages in the Koran that could be construed as chauvanistic and these need to be addressed but there are also many other passages that give women rights that they never possessed before (Islam) Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Pakistan one of the first countries to have a female Prime Minister? Without Islam we would not have had most of our system of mathematics and it gave our science & medicine a big boost forward. I see little difference in your extreme comments and those of the fundamentalists you purport to attack.
 Bruce Hooker 07 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA:

> Have you ever had a friend or relative who was raped? I have, by a white Englishman. Should I feel horror and disgust at all white Englishmen who read a lad-mag or look at page 3 of the Sun and say "nice tits"? Are they not all potential rapists as well? Or would that be ridiculous?

Did the man who raped your friend do it in the name of "white Englishmen" or some such religion? Was he part of a well organised world wide ring of White English rapists trying to impose their centuries old "white rape" religion on Britain, or the world?

I'm wondering if this isn't niggle who has hi-jacked your pseudo as this example is ridiculous even for you!

> This says it all really. Do... I don't know... Christmas carol services, or drinking wine and pretending it's blood fill you with as much horror? Or is just specifically Muslims who fill you with this horror?

Drinking blood even symbolically has always seemed barbaric, of course... that's why I've never done it, even as a child, why no one I know does it either... is this what you get up to in the cold Finnish winters... revolting! As for comparing singing xmas carols once a year to stretching yourself out flat on the ground in a grovelling, humiliating sign of submission five time a day every day of your life.... Toby, (or niggle?) you really have lost all contact with reality here!

And that's just the men... the "master gender" for women it's even worse... but as Dirt has said if they are happy to stay at home it must be ok, mustn't it? The mind boggles... centuries after the renaissance and some of you are scarcely better than neanderthals, and here I'm probably being unfair to the latter!

 TobyA 07 Feb 2007
In reply to dek: I just saw it on the Guardian website via googlenews.
 lummox 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Bruce- oncve and for all. Do you hate Islam more than the other major religions ? No wiggling about.

Just be honest.
 dek 07 Feb 2007
In reply to lummox: What if he does? Plenty on these forums state "hate all religions" What is YOUR point? What if he doesnt 'like' what it stands for? is he not entitled to and have a discussion about it..as he is.......
Dirt 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

>but as Dirt has said if they are happy to stay at home it must be ok, mustn't it?

It'd be nice to not be utterly misquoted there Bruce. I'm *trying* to see reason in the world, personally it's better than being outright dismissive of it. But perhaps you don't agree with that?

First, it's not necessarily about staying at home. Iranian women work, date, socialise pretty much like western women, but then they look after their kids when they have them.

Does a house-husband who puts his children first occupy an inferior role in society according to you or any of the other anti-islamic bigots on this thread?

Every society (including ours) has a conflict between the rights of the individual and that of the society at large - which is why you do not have an individual right to steal or commit harm to others within our society with recourse. Which is why someone like Dawkins feels that vacinnations should be compulsory even though there may be a very small number of individuals who may suffer. NOTE: I'm not subscribing to these views, I'm trying to point out that even in our society, individual rights only extend so far and some people might not like that.

I'm certainly not advocating the extreme aspects of any society, islam or otherwise, so do not misquote me and take my words out of context just because I give those societies some 'consideration'.

>As for comparing singing xmas carols once a year to stretching yourself out flat on the ground in a grovelling, humiliating sign of submission five time a day every day of your life.... Toby, (or niggle?) you really have lost all contact with reality here!

What about rights of passage rituals in other cultures? Self prostration in the philipines? Or tooth filing in guinea (if it is guinea, I'm not sure), or the tribes that subject their 15 year olds to scaring across the body because they practically worship crocs & aligators? Should all these 'horrific acts' be stamped out and replaced by our understanding & evidently so successful culture and belief systems that seem to put material gain above all else?

Come on, tell us what your ideal society is.

D
 TobyA 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Bruce - are you being deliberately thick or is your rage stopping your brain from working? So you are saying that all rapes are totally individual acts of a personal pathology and having nothing to do with the wider social context such as what attitudes to women it is socially acceptable to express? Whilst on the other hand all acts of Jihadi violence everywhere result from the Koran? That all terrorists 'do it' purely because verse 9:5 of the Koran tells them to?

The example is a lot less ridiculous than you accusing the religion of Islam of trying to blow your daughter up.

If people want to get on the floor and do all sorts of things; prostrate themselves in the direction of Mecca; say "our father who art in Heaven..."; shake and speak in tongues; do yoga; as long as they aren't hurting anyone or breaking the law - who are we to stop them? That's called liberalism. Your disgust seems aimed just at Muslims and that's what makes you look like bigot.
 dek 07 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA: As usual this thread has turned into personal attacks on a poster. and hence a load of shite!
 Bruce Hooker 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Dirt:

> I'm *trying* to see reason in the world, personally it's better than being outright dismissive of it.

Did you just wake up from 30 years asleep? It's a bit late not to be just dismissive of the fanatics that blew up the buildings in New York, in Indonesia, attacked tourists in Egypt and murdered commuters in Madrid, London, Paris, not to mention the mayhem in Baghdad... all in the name of their particular interpretation of a few dusty old texts! The point is that it wasn't just that they happened to be muslims, they committed these horrors in the name of their version of this religion.

Being mealy mouthed and trying to understand is finished, over, too, late for that. As you seem to be "searching" for the truth, and just supposing that you really are sincere in your apparent naivety (although I find this very hard to believe) read about Algeria, what they call the second war of Algeria, the first being the war of independence against the French... 100 000 dead, slaughtered in their villages, mostly by throat slitting with knives and beheading with axes, quite often the children obliged to watch the death of the parents before their own and vice versa... again all in the name of allah by thugs, many of them trained in Afghanistan by the friends of Ben Laden... Have you heard of this even?

And before you say this is just the extremists, there is a trial on in Paris this morning against a satirical paper called "Charlie Hebdo" which had the affront to reprint the Danish cartoons out of solidarity with the press there and also in a special to protest about the fate reserved for Rushdie and the Dutch cineast murdered in the name of islam too.

The court action was brought not by some extremist group but by various mainstream, "moderate" muslim bodies including those responsible for Grande Mosque de Paris...the nearest one could come within the islamic faith in France to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Dirt 07 Feb 2007
In reply to dek:
>As usual this thread has turned into personal attacks on a poster. and hence a load of shite!

Are we not just 'working through the issues'?

The OP had this line in it:

>The article hammers more nails into the liberal coffin of 'multi-culturalism'. Ali argues for secular humanism and integration.

We're talking about personal views and hence they are open to challenge. I and some of the others in this thread support multi-culturalism and some don't. And it's degenerated into personal attacks due to some very shady comments that seem very close to outright predujice, certainly no attempt to show some acceptance for a liberal society, as if that was a bad thing ffs!

D

 dek 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Dirt: I find on here, the 'Liberals' are the worst offenders regarding personal insults, and acrimony..Or do you mean YOUR way or the highway?
Regardless, the Pro-islam Pc brigade are the most vocal, and i just see the same old, same old...........
 Bruce Hooker 07 Feb 2007
In reply to lummox:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) Bruce- once and for all. Do you hate Islam more than the other major religions ? No wiggling about.
>
> Just be honest.

There's no need for a "once and for all" or a "be honest", I've never disguised the fact that I rather despise all religions, except in their historical context, but I've made it quite clear on numerous occasions that I think that today, in Europe but also throughout the world, the religion which is the most harmful and dangerous is islam.

Other religions are doubtless responsible for local atrocities for local people, but I haven't noticed them slaughtering people on buses by the dozen totally out of the blue or blowing up skyscrapers and tourist complexes far away from the local battle zone like islamic fascism has been of late.

I'm also convinced that although islam is, like all religions, basically evil it has not always been so actively so and if it is now it is because it is being used and manipulated by people in power to defend their own purely material interests... but this has always been the case for other religions too, from the Inquisition to Belfast.

Is that clear enough? I've said it all dozens of times before though.

Pan Ron 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Al Evans:

Do you think perhaps it is so easy for us to take that line on Islam only because their culture (and it's oppressive elements) are so distinctive to ours - and therefore so much more visible?

What I'm trying to say is, it is harder to be critical of our own Western values simply because we have been brought up with them and no nothing else (or everything else just looks wrong). Something like the frog in boiling water.

If we had been brought up in an Islamic society where these were the norms, then we would find them much less offensive (as indeed the fabric and functioning of our society might be dependent on them), and possibly quite aghast at the decadent Western values.
rich 07 Feb 2007
In reply to dek:
> Regardless, the Pro-islam Pc brigade are the most vocal,

sorry to interrupt but can i just say that we object to your use of the word 'brigade' in this context due to its military overtones

please confine yourself to 'group' in future unless that doesn't accurately reflect the grouping to which you are attempting to refer

thanks
Dirt 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

>Did you just wake up from 30 years asleep?

No, I didn't just wake up, but of my 15 years as an adult I've been out and about in the world and haven't seen course to adopt the predujices that you have. Doesn't make me a bad person does it?

>It's a bit late not to be just dismissive of the fanatics

If I choose ONLY to be dismissive of the fanatics then that is my choice based on my experience of most muslims NOT BEING fanatics.

>that blew up the buildings in New York, in Indonesia, attacked tourists in Egypt and murdered commuters in Madrid, London, Paris, not to mention the mayhem in Baghdad... all in the name of their particular

We've gone to war, and the US still does in the name of it's christian god. Interesting that you do not once mention palestine, why? Because it's not quite a clear cut hate the muslims situation?

>interpretation of a few dusty old texts! The point is

Are you really so bloody stupid to think it's all about interpretation of a few books? Can you so easily scrub history, war, repression out of the equation? You call me naive?!

>Being mealy mouthed and trying to understand is finished, over, too, late for that

I can choose any standpoint I want, and as long as I only voice my oppinions then that is acceptable isn't it? Or would you prefer me not to be able to do so?

>just supposing that you really are sincere in your apparent naivety

I try to be sincere in all I do...

>read about Algeria, what they call the second war of Algeria, the first being the war of independence against the French

Not read that one, but how about the great game itself? or communist invasion of afghanistan? How about this, I don't hate the japanese for nanking and asia during WWII. Is my forgiving manner naive here too? Should I live my life hating?

>many of them trained in Afghanistan by the friends of Ben Laden... Have you heard of this even?

Funnily enough I have heard of this man, no I do not like him or support his ways. And forgive me for DARING to understand why he is the way he is, but our so called wonderous societies had a strong role to play in the history of this man...

>The court action was brought not by some extremist group but by various mainstream, "moderate" muslim bodies including those responsible for Grande Mosque de Paris...the nearest one could come within the islamic faith in France to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Perhaps the past 10 years has seen a decline in relations within our cultures and that this is just one consequence? That moderate groups have given up and become more extreme in their views?

You certainly seem to have extreme views, did you only recently adopt them or have you been this bigoted for all your life?

I seemed to have come under attack, because I do not want to make things worse between our cultures. I wonder what you thought of the Irish 20-30 years ago?

D
 dek 07 Feb 2007
In reply to rich Yes-----Sir!
 Morgan Woods 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
> (In reply to Jonno)
> > 1. The threat of death for apostates is intolerable in a just society.
>
it's a good point....surely any religion worth its salt is happy to let adherents come and go freely....there is a case in point in Malaysia atm...the person in question is not facing death but a prison sentence!!!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1336885.ece
Pan Ron 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Bruce, it could be argued the Protestant work ethic and therefore the religion is the driving force behind nearly every war the US has started since the 1950s.

Must we also remove that faith? Or is Islam still the one target? Have you forgotten that Islam provided a means of law and order where none might have existed (Somalia being a contemporary example) and to simply erase it and provide no applicable alternative is quite unjust (again, Somalia and Iraq being present examples).
 dek 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Dirt: Your 'posts'.....have quickly become Rants
 tony 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> I'm also convinced that although islam is, like all religions, basically evil it has not always been so actively so and if it is now it is because it is being used and manipulated by people in power to defend their own purely material interests.

So what would you like done about it?
 DougG 07 Feb 2007
In reply to dek:

> Your 'posts'.....have quickly become Rants

They seem very well thought-out to me.
 Bruce Hooker 07 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA:

There's no rage, just a slight irritation with you as you must realise that your rapist example is totally flawed but you think it may cloud the issue, and influence some... the rapist may have raped partly because of the image of women presented by society (but reinforced by the very people you are defending in a only slightly different way... women aren't even allowed to enter a mosque by the same door, nor are any of them "mullahs" as far as I know, and more and more they are being forced to accept the most reactionary versions of their "lot") but he never does it as an act of glorification or martyrdom... he's just a dumb, nasty slob who lets his urges get the better of him... he isn't held up as an example by anyone.

Islam isn't a person, it's a religion, but those that planted the 7/7 bombs were part of that religion, were inspired and comforted by it and weren't by any means mindless alientated thugs (or dumb, nasty slobs)... as has been demonstrated time and time again in these very forums.

They were to some extent victims, perhaps, but to have sympathy for them is asking too much before the totally abject and indiscriminate horror that they committed. It is one characeristcic of fascism (black, brown of green), a sort of mythical disregard for human life, including ones own ("Viva la muerte!"), which puts subservience to the "collectivity" and submission to a leader (whether material or a deity) before the individual and is so in contradiction with centuries of human intellectual progress but is part and parcel of even "moderate" islam that is behind such barbaric acts committed by apparently quite ordinary people.
Dirt 07 Feb 2007
In reply to dek:

>Your 'posts'.....have quickly become Rants

I claim it's provocation m'lord.

I'm not very busy, but can't quite type quick enough, so it comes out all wrong.

I also take things a little personally when some of my friends come under the kind of sweeping attack that has been the nature of this thread.

D
 DougG 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> It is one characeristcic of fascism (black, brown of green), a sort of mythical disregard for human life, including ones own ("Viva la muerte!"), which puts subservience to the "collectivity" and submission to a leader (whether material or a deity) before the individual

What happened to red?
 dek 07 Feb 2007
In reply to DougG: You were conspicuous by your absence!
 TobyA 07 Feb 2007
In reply to tony:

> So what would you like done about it?

It's lucky we are all reasonable Brits because if this had been a US website we would have got to "Nuke Mecca" about 60 posts ago.

http://tinyurl.com/2o2zqx
http://lightfromthenorth.blogspot.com/2007/01/casual-references-to-genocide...

 dek 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Dirt: You are new here Dirt, so its only 200 hrs community service...doing Bruces household chores......no backchat or its 300!!
 lummox 07 Feb 2007
In reply to DougG:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> [...]
>
> What happened to red?

Indeed- the kind which allows Chinese guards to mow down unarmed Buddhist monks and nuns - that sort of thing ?

Dirt 07 Feb 2007
In reply to dek:

I don't have to wash his dirty linen do I?
 Bruce Hooker 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Dirt:

> You certainly seem to have extreme views, did you only recently adopt them or have you been this bigoted for all your life?

So, to object to people being murdered by mixed up bombers manipulated by religion is to be bigoted?

I suppose someone who defended islam but hadn't even heard of the years of horror inflicted by islamic extremists on Algeria, a large country just a thousand or so mile from where he lives is in a good position to accuse others of being bigoted!

> Perhaps the past 10 years has seen a decline in relations within our cultures and that this is just one consequence.

So you don't think the massacre of unarmed civilians indiscriminately and outside of war zones can have anything to do with this "decline"?

> We've gone to war, and the US still does in the name of it's christian god.

Apart from your friends no one has gone to war in the name of their religion for centuries... Some may have been christians, and may have prayed and so on but they didn't go to war in the name of christ... Do you really believe they did? Why?


You mention Ireland, so apparently you are familiar with this country.. I would have thought that the example of the troubles there and the role played by religion would have helped you understand how religions are used and manipulated to help in what are basically political and territorial struggles... apparently not though. I would suggest starting a separate thread for a discussion of Ireland as otherwise this thread will become unworkable.
 dek 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Dirt:
> (In reply to dek)
>
> I don't have to wash his dirty linen do I?
Now Now...(only if you cause said 'dirt')..........
 Bruce Hooker 07 Feb 2007
In reply to DougG:
>
> What happened to red?

Red fascism? I haven't heard of that one. Fascism whatever other characteristics it may have is always based around a capitalist economic system, so no red fascism... unless you think China is moving to capitalism... it's got a way to, go though in economic terms and as it's political system seems to be moving away from fascism rather than towards it I don't think it will ever become a fascist state.

In French schoolbooks they don't use the term red fascism, being thoughtful sorts of propagandists they prefer to talk about the "totalitarianism" and teach the little-uns about the convergence of nazi and soviet totalitarianism... equally flawed but more difficult to poke holes in!


PS. A better line of attack (against my green fascism, which seems less used by progressive muslims in Britain than in France) might be to reject the notion of islamic states being capitalist and therefore not being fascist either, especially as islam seems to have a problem with usury, but I think islamic scholars have already found a way round this puzzle.

 Bruce Hooker 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Dirt:
> (In reply to dek)
>
> I don't have to wash his dirty linen do I?

Don't worry, I've already done the house work today, including the washing... I must go shopping though rather than battle with islam here all day

 TobyA 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> I suppose someone who defended islam but hadn't even heard of the years of horror inflicted by islamic extremists on Algeria,

Let move on from the obvious huge questions that remain over the extent of the DRS's infiltration of the of the GIA/GSPC and their involvements in the massacres - but remind us, how many did the French kill in the war of independence? Around half a million was it? And what extremist ideology was behind that? Radical Frenchism?
Dirt 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

>So, to object to people being murdered by mixed up bombers manipulated by religion is to be bigoted?

No, not at all. To ONLY consider the actions of a few and tar everyone else with that view and refuse to consider any other perspective is bigoted, in my view. Please demonstrate any shred of humility and open mindedness that you've voiced on this thread?

> suppose someone who defended islam but hadn't even heard of the years of horror inflicted by islamic extremists on Algeria, a large country just a thousand or so mile from where he lives is in a good position to accuse others of being bigoted!

So you read a book that I haven't and it makes you feel so superior? Wow.

I of course accept that I do not know even a small percentage of the history of this world, but I always try to broaded my understanding through history and contemporary articles.

Are you an authority on the complete history of the people of the world? Is that why you can maintain your views and take offense when it's challenge?

Are you so well educated that not a single inconsistency could be discovered in your oppinions? Oh you're so perfect aren't you Bruce? Please answer these questions, as you do seem only to attack...

>So you don't think the massacre of unarmed civilians indiscriminately and outside of war zones can have anything to do with this "decline"?

Of course I do, but I do not believe it was all motivated by one side as you seem to. That is the nature of tit-for-tat escalations in violence.

>Apart from your friends no one has gone to war in the name of their religion for centuries... Some may have been christians, and may have prayed and so on but they didn't go to war in the name of christ... Do you really believe they did? Why?

I don't believe many people truely go to war in the name of god anymore, all but the most hardline muslims & christians. I believe it has more to do with an obscene desire to cause harm to others. Both our western war-mongers and in the islamic world.

>You mention Ireland, so apparently you are familiar with this country.. I would have thought that the example of the troubles there and the role played by religion would have helped you understand how religions are used and manipulated to help in what are basically political and territorial struggles... apparently not though. I would suggest starting a separate thread for a discussion of Ireland as otherwise this thread will become unworkable.

The reason I mention Ireland, is because relative peace was acheived after both groups recognised that escalation was not the path to follow. My example is valid, because I believe that peace can be achieved, but has to be through dialogue and understanding. If I give up wishing for peace, then where does that leave me?

>Don't worry, I've already done the house work today, including the washing... I must go shopping though rather than battle with islam here all day

You're not battling with Islam here Bruce, you're battling with someone that does not want to see our side of divide escalate it's involvement with the middle-east, to see peace loving muslims (and any other group) in this country become more marginalised. It's the consequences of your views in this country that I'm concerned with, not afghanistan, or algeria, or anywhere else. In addition to the horror that we all felt, I want the horror that was felt by the millions of muslims in this country at 7/7 to be recognised and for them not to be maltreated because of 5 or so very misguided individuals.

That isn't too unreasonable is it? You might think naive or stupid, but it's not actually unreasonable is it? And if it is unreasonable in your oppinion, what course of action do you think we should take? Outright war? Extradite anyone who has a religous influence in their lives? What do you want to see in this country?

D
 MJH 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Duncan Bourne: Duncan you are correct. To moderate muslims the Koran's passages on woman are about respect and protection of women rather than oppression and violence - how people interpret them is obviously very different, but I would suggest that the moderates are the vast majority.
 tony 07 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to tony)
>
> [...]
>
> It's lucky we are all reasonable Brits because if this had been a US website we would have got to "Nuke Mecca" about 60 posts ago.
>
I was in the States at the time of the Oklahoma bombing. Lots of the TV vox pops were calling for armed strikes on Iraq for the first day or so.
 MJH 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Bruce just because I can differentiate between terrorists in Northern Ireland (that used religion partly as their pretext) and normal NI christians and similiarly I can differentiate between terrorists killing in the name of Islam and the vast majority of muslims that don't condone/participate in that terrorism is in no way a bad thing.

To my mind it is equally ridiculous to think that protestantism leads to the UVF as islam leads to al quaeda. Yes at some level they both claim to be acting in the name of their religion and on behalf of "their" people, but it is still a pretty thin pretext for nutters.

Didn't the Balkans start on the grounds of religion and etnic identity (the two being pretty much intertwined ie serbs - orthodox, croats - catholic, bosnians - muslim)?
Jonno 07 Feb 2007

Interesting that a recommendation to read an article about a heroic Somalian woman who has rejected Islam at great risk to herself has produced the usual tit for tat debate about Islam between the usual suspects.

If I might throw my two penneth in.There is a predictable mealy mouthed reaction from the PC liberals who appear to recycle off the peg opinions on every subject, for fear of being accused of racism and bigotry.

Me...I'm bigoted against bigotry and haven't got much time for all dualistic religions because of their negative impact on society. However, I do think Islam takes the biscuit for backwardness and intolerance.
More power to the Hirsi Ali's of this world !
 Bruce Hooker 07 Feb 2007
In reply to MJH:

I don't see how you can deny that al qaeda is inspired by islam... that one of the major interpretations of islam has lead to this movement taking the actions it has taken. Nor that the radical side of islam is imposing itself on muslims throughout the world in the same way previous fascisms have. It is backed by money from oil and has completely reversed the progressive movement within islam that was growing 30 or 40 years ago. In those days you could walk through Teheran and the women were all uncovered, dressed in modern clothes and the same trend existed throughout the islamic world, more or less, of course.

All this has been reversed over the last few decades and the darkness of the middle ages is being drawn across these same people. It seems that many who post here are unaware of the historical facts and find it hard to even imagine that there is a political war going on both within islam and between islam and the modern world in general... not you in particular as I know from previous conversations that you have an insight to all this through your family.

It's not just tit for tat though, in my opinion, although of course the ongoing crime of the occupation of Palestine by the zionists and the struggle for domination of the worlds oil supplies all contribute to innocent people being caught up in things that are beyond them... they are still responsible for what they do or say though, or what is done or said in their name. If they don't speak out we can only assume they agree with those that claim to speak for them and destroy the lives and freedom of countless millions of people.
Dirt 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Jonno:

>Interesting that a recommendation to read an article about a heroic Somalian woman who has rejected Islam at great risk to herself has produced the usual tit for tat debate about Islam between the usual suspects.

Jonno, go back up to the top of the thread and read the third line, actually, perhaps you'll struggle with that, so I'll echo it here:

>The article hammers more nails into the liberal coffin of 'multi-culturalism'. Ali argues for secular humanism and integration.

The first sentance is bascally targetting those of us who either support or can tolerate multi-culteralism, I'm one of them, and I support it because I live my live happily around people from, funnily enough, multiple cultures within our society - and I do take exception to your comment. I'm quite happy to read the article, I'm not so happy with your conclusions riding side-sadle.

If you had just cited the article and called it an interesting read, and had neglected to add you swipe at us multi-culteralists, loony liberals, green pea brained eco-warriors or whatever jargon you like to throw our way, then maybe the thread would not have taken the direction it did. But be rest assured Jonno, this degenerate thread was provoked by you. The evidence is there for all to see.

D
 Bruce Hooker 07 Feb 2007
In reply to MJH:

> Didn't the Balkans start on the grounds of religion and etnic identity (the two being pretty much intertwined ie serbs - orthodox, croats - catholic, bosnians - muslim)?

I'd say the Balkans split up after the death of Tito because western powers wanted it to... a last bitter twist of the cold war. The "ethnic" fighting was not that at all half the time, in Bosnia the "muslims" and the "serbs" were the same people ethnically, the muslims had taken this religion when the country was dominated by Ottoman (muslim) imperialism, probably due to both the pressure of the occupant and the material advantages that it afforded them... but they were, and are, still serbs... something islamic "jihadists" conveniently forgot when they descended there to "help" their brothers!
 MJH 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Jonno: I would say you are being as tiresomely reactionary and ill-thought through as ever.

Those you accuse of being PC liberals dare to try and understand, rather than your (and Bruce et al.'s) broad-brush condemnation of a religion. That condemnation is much simpler than actually trying to understand (not excuse) or differentiate between islam and those that commit horrific acts (not just terrorism) in the name of islam.
 MJH 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to MJH)
>
> I don't see how you can deny that al qaeda is inspired by islam... that one of the major interpretations of islam has lead to this movement taking the actions it has taken.

I don't seek to deny that, but nor am I under any illusion that it is so simplistic.

> Nor that the radical side of islam is imposing itself on muslims throughout the world in the same way previous fascisms have. It is backed by money from oil and has completely reversed the progressive movement within islam that was growing 30 or 40 years ago.

>In those days you could walk through Teheran and the women were all uncovered, dressed in modern clothes and the same trend existed throughout the islamic world, more or less, of course.

Which if you had any knowledge of modern Iran you would know was pretty much still the case. Iran is a terrible place to use as an example of oppressive Islam, because apart from a relative minority in power it isn't that bad...certainly nowhere near as bad as Saudi Arabia.

> All this has been reversed over the last few decades and the darkness of the middle ages is being drawn across these same people. It seems that many who post here are unaware of the historical facts and find it hard to even imagine that there is a political war going on both within islam and between islam and the modern world in general..

You may be right about the ignorance of many posting, but then again painting broad-brush condemnation of all islam is no more helpful.

Jon Hemlock 07 Feb 2007
In reply to MJH:

You have got a point here as people often confuse religion, or the religion that someone is labelled with, with the general beliefs, intentions, and other motivations that person may have. There's been loads of stupid comments on here about religion in this country. Not least about the major religions that are here such as Protestant Christianity and Catholic Christianity. A comment such as: "A Catholic? You must be Irish then." etc.

If people fail to understand the religious beliefs that people within the historically established religions of this country have they stand little chance of understanding the beliefs of people falling under the umbrella of more recent ones.

Labelling people with religions has become tantamount to telling someone else what they believe.
 Bruce Hooker 07 Feb 2007
In reply to MJH:

But you are forgetting that moderate muslims support the radicals more and more and that even those that don't haven't the courage (or the desire, who knows as they say nothing?) to say "Stop! What you do and say is not islam at all!"

I for one am not prepared to say nothing like in the 30s, these people, radical islamists who use terror and intimidation, are fascists just as dangerous as the nazis, and appeasement will not work now any more than it did then. There's a lot of money paying for propaganda the other way which is even more reason not to shut up... and for progressive muslims to speak up too. They have every interest to as they will be amongst the first to suffer if this archaic barbarity is not stopped.

If this is not the case why can't your stepfather (I think it was your stepfather, or maybe father in law?) go back to Teheran?

PS. Ofline for 1/2 hour, must put the dinner on.
 wilding 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Castleman:
> (In reply to wilding)
> [...]
>
> Examples please...!
>
> [...]

Can't be bothered to write these out but here is a website with the highlights at the bottom.

http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/women.php

Deuteronomy 21:11-14 is a good start. I was forced to go to sunday school and have religious education for 14 years. It always amazes me that religious people havent even read the book and don't even know what they are supporting.

In Reply to dirt:

My apologies, you seem like a reasonable guy, I was a little abrupt yesterday. My main problem is you seem to think Islam (or Christianity or Jduaism) has improved the lot of women in Africa, I seriously doubt this is the case. Start by looking up Mbuti, who represent a previous age in africa. I think we are all familiar with how how christian missionaries treated the aboriginals in australia - do you think islam in africa is any different?
Dirt 07 Feb 2007
In reply to wilding:

>Dirt: My apologies, you seem like a reasonable guy, I was a little abrupt yesterday. My main problem is you seem to think Islam (or Christianity or Jduaism) has improved the lot of women in Africa, I seriously doubt this is the case. Start by looking up Mbuti, who represent a previous age in africa. I think we are all familiar with how how christian missionaries treated the aboriginals in australia - do you think islam in africa is any different?

No worries dude. This thread is like any argument for me, if I encounter a view I find unreasonable (Jonno's), then I might fight far harder than I otherwise would care about and make some exaggerated claims. I'm not one to let the truncated views of the likes of Jonno be voiced in public without a challege (if I have the time).

I was a bit unfortunate in that I waded into a discussion that people clearly feel very strongly about and made comments to which I hadn't given as much consideration as I could've or would like to. To me the islam/women discussion is secondary, what scares me is the hardline views expressed on this forum (note to others, that's not an invite to tell me how your views are not hardline compared to a suicide bomber, so take a chill pill, I'm having a chat with Wilding).

I've not taken anything personally that anyone has said, I've just tried to maintain a simple view: that I try to treat individuals as individuals and not pigeon hole them because they share a tag with other people and I've tried to advocate this open and to me reasonable stance.

Unfortunately, as soon as we delve into history, politics, religion, or any other topic, we have too many of us with too much (often also too little) knowledge in different areas and we can all come up with contrary evidence. In this example, I could claim that christianity improved the lot of many europeans and then someone could mention the spanish inquisition in opposition to that view. Does it make me wrong to judge individuals on their own merits? I think not...

My bottom line, is treat individuals as individuals and judge them on their own actions, not the actions of their neighbours or even ancestors, and if we do have real reason to condem someone we should also ask why that person has become the way they are and try to learn lessons - perhaps that's too loony liberal for impatient souls such as Jonno or Bruce maybe they are so unforgiving that they just want to go to war and surround themselves with like minded people?

If I make an errorneous example during a debate (e.g., islam/women), I hardly think that leads to the conclusion that my overall message is wrong or misguided...

But maybe it does? I'm having a bit of fun finding out...

D
 Bruce Hooker 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Dirt:

> impatient souls such as Jonno or Bruce maybe they are so unforgiving that they just want to go to war and surround themselves with like minded people?

Jesus Mr Dirt, who has been blowing up who? Have London or Madrid commuters murdered muslim civilians on their way to work? Who is killing who in Iraq at the moment? Who slit the throats of all those Algerians in their homes or shot that women in the head in the Kabul stadium.. one of many, alas? You appear to be totally brain-washed!

The impatient murderers and the glorifiers of martyrdom for a religion are on the side you are blindly supporting, not those that want the murdering to stop!
 MttSnr 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Dirt)
>
> [...]
>
> Who is killing who in Iraq at the moment?


Discuss .....

<Stands well back>
Jonno 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

What I find funny is the fact that those willing to overlook the fascist tendencies of Islam are only too quick to condemn the white variety.
Skinheads,BNP, Le Pen's of this world...fair game. Ethic minority fascism...look the other way.

Ali certainly doesn't shy away from seeing Islam as a medieval dead hand on enlightenment and progress and she certainly is in a better position to outline the reactionary excesses of Islam than white liberal Rocktalkers !
Jonno 07 Feb 2007
FRom the same edition of the Observer another excellent article on the same theme and in the same vein as Hirsi Ali's piece.....

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2005511,00.html
Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin | Comment | The Observer
 TobyA 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Jonno: So what do you suggest Jonno - re-education camps to beat a bit of Locke and Hume into them? Or just chuck all the rag-heads out of the country and close the door?

Bruce - you never answered my question on Algeria.
Jonno 07 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA:

What do you think of the Henry Porter article ?
violentViolet 07 Feb 2007
In reply to David Martin:
> (In reply to Dirt)
>
When I saw the article I was reminded of a daily column in a German right wing newspaper right after Theo van Gogh's death, written by Dutch author and Hirsi's friend Leon de Winter.

Over weeks he kept quoting her about the evil that is Islam and made connections to the righteous war against terror, and you could virtually see the idiot readership go "Aha! She's black and she's muslim but she thinks Islam is bad, so it's right to bomb the shit out of Iraq", even though these things are only marginally related. In her - understandable - stance against islamist intolerance she falls into the trap of being simply as intolerant herself, which is something I don't like and think is dangerous.



 Bruce Hooker 07 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA:

> Bruce - you never answered my question on Algeria.

What question was that then, there are so many... it's funny how I am always harangued to answer questions but few answer mine... I don't pressure people though myself.. ah, yes, Algeria, how many dead? As usual you quote the lower "fourchette", half a million dead Algerians... the official French figure, others put it at 1 or 1 1/2 million... I even read 2 million once, quite a few out of a population of about 8 or 9 million, a good colonial effort one might say!

> And what extremist ideology was behind that? Radical Frenchism?

I would have thought the answer was obvious, colonialism, the right of the strong to oppress the weak, or "civilize" them if you prefer... remember they were only "natives".... good canon fodder though, many died for France in two world wars... the attitude of the French after WW2 to the same people who thought that fighting for the allies against nazi Germany gave them some rights was what sparked off the war of independence... they were only "indigenes", after all. You may have seen the film of the same name?

The FLN (Front National de Liberation), which lead this fight and its armed wing (ALN) were not radical islamists and were motivated by humanism and socialist ideologies... but these days the pressure of radical islam has forced them to back pedal and the recent family law even permits a husband to vote for his wife... the price they pay for "social peace".

Islamists, and their apologists often speak of the calm peaceful nature of life in devout islamic countries... not like the wicked decadent "free democracies" they so despise, this may be true in a way, the peace of a graveyard undisturbed by music and laughter, like in the Afghanistan of the talibans.
 TobyA 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Jonno: I think he is stating an obvious problem but has no idea how to solve it without acting in a way that goes outside of the values we are supposed to be defending from the reactionaries.

Now stop ducking the question - what would you do? Re-education camps for all Muslims? Throw the lot of them out of the country? Nuke Mecca? Or do you actually have something serious and positive to suggest instead?
 Bruce Hooker 07 Feb 2007
In reply to violentViolet:

So killing Theo van Gogh was ok then?

It's intolerant to think it wasn't?

Perhaps we should rename you ViolentViolet?
violentViolet 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Read my posting properly before you attack me.

Where have I said that killing van Gogh was ok? Just because I find one thing not ok does not mean that I condone the other. Which is exactly what I tried to express in my posting. Radicalism is never good, no matter in which direction, and I find Ms Hirsi's position worrying, especially because it can so easily be used for unsavoury things.

 TobyA 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Colonialism eh? How many died for European ambition and greed? But what do we blame that on? The enlightenment tradition? Judeo-Christian culture? Or would that be over-simplifying it? I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at.

> The FLN (Front National de Liberation), which lead this fight and its armed wing (ALN) were not radical islamists and were motivated by humanism and socialist ideologies...

There was also a influential sector of the FLN that came from the reformist salafi tradition, but they were later purged - imprisoned and even executed - by those followers of 'humanism and socialist ideologies'. People can act like shits and be from all different ideological backgrounds.
 TobyA 07 Feb 2007
In reply to violentViolet: She works at AEI now which rather supports your point.
 Bruce Hooker 07 Feb 2007
In reply to violentViolet:

> especially because it can so easily be used for unsavoury things

Could you be specific? What "unsavoury things"?
 Bruce Hooker 07 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA:

There was also the Messalist movement which was defeated by the FLN... funnily enough I know his grandson, who surprisingly for me, doesn't like talking about his famous ancestor.

> There was also a influential sector of the FLN that came from the reformist salafi tradition, but they were later purged

Not well enough though apparently. It's hard to condemn the FLN for that particular purge... it was a bloody period, torture was in general and official use by the French army and the torture session often ended in a one way trip over the sea in a helicopter. Within the independence movement there was quite a bit of violence too, probably more than one perfectly innocent militant was executed as a French spy.. civil wars are like that, as you may have noticed, although nothing like the level of violence used by the colonial occupiers.

Why do you see colonialism as an "enlightenment tradition"? You really are a very curious political expert!

violentViolet 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to violentViolet)
>
> [...]
>
> Could you be specific? What "unsavoury things"?

attacking muslims for no other reason than that they're muslims for example or justifying attacks against them, for example, no matter whether it's a verbal taunt at the nice green grocer round the corner or dropping bombs in the middle east, for example.



 wilding 07 Feb 2007
In reply to violentViolet:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> Read my posting properly before you attack me.
>
> Where have I said that killing van Gogh was ok? Just because I find one thing not ok does not mean that I condone the other. Which is exactly what I tried to express in my posting. Radicalism is never good, no matter in which direction, and I find Ms Hirsi's position worrying, especially because it can so easily be used for unsavoury things.

I don't think it is possible to be in the middle anymore. I thought muslims in in europe were just another loony religion right up to the bombing on 7/7 and the cartoon protests. Screw 'respect for religious beliefs', why on earth should i have to be careful what i say because of their irrationality? It is a mob-induced erosion of freedom of expression. The cowardice of the british press to publish the cartoons simply enforces the view that our society is pandering to stupidity. Multiculturalism is dead, unless people feel like having peace walls in mainland britain...



Dirt 07 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

>Jesus Mr Dirt, who has been blowing up who?

Jesus yourself... Who has been blowing up who? Well, last time I looked it was less bombers than I can count on my fingers (wrt to the UK), but you've judged and condemed millions of muslims in this country - how do you find that a reasonable stance to take?

Before you attack me on another point, answer that question - justify your outright condemnation, tell me you'd happily defend your stance face to face to even just one peace loving muslim, born and bred in the UK...

And while you're at it, why don't you answer the other question that's been raised, what would you do about this situation? Extradition? What would you do that's going to lead us down a more positive path than we have?

Actually, no need to say - you and Jonno support the abolition of multi-culteralism, that's right, just force people to integrate cos that'll work.

No really, you are after all so righteous & wise & reasonable, so give us a shred of insight how you'd attempt to make the world better?

Just answer the questions Bruce, I'm tired and bored of you simply aligning me to suicide bombers, whereas all I've ever maintained is that I align myself to peaceful individuals irrespect of creed, colour, religion or nationality.

D
 MikeTS 08 Feb 2007
In reply to wilding:
> (In reply to Castleman)
> [...]
>
> Can't be bothered to write these out but here is a website with the highlights at the bottom.
>
> http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/women.php
>
>
It would take days to discuss all the points on this website. Jewish law (of which I know a little) derives often quite opposite results about the status of women from the same texts. Sometimes it's because the Hebrew is badly translated into English. Sometines it's because the context modifies signficantly the moral. Sometimes it's just a story, not an instruction.
There are counter examples not quoted! Like Deborah, chief Judge, Prophet and war leader. Or Miriam, coleader with Aaron and Moses.
Can't speak for the NT though!
 MikeTS 08 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to Jonno) So what do you suggest Jonno - re-education camps to beat a bit of Locke and Hume into them?

THey're called 'universities' aren't they?

Mike
 MikeTS 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Dirt:

, whereas all I've ever maintained is that I align myself to peaceful individuals irrespect of creed, colour, religion or nationality.
>
us all mate. It's easy to align with good people.
The problem here is what you do about the bad guys. Do you shut up/lock up preachers that advocate killing people on the basis of their religion? Or accept it as part of multi culturalism?

 TobyA 08 Feb 2007
In reply to MikeTS:

> THey're called 'universities' aren't they?

Only if you study philosophy or political science! I'm reading Lawrence Wright's excellent "The Looming Tower" See: http://tinyurl.com/2b2bkq and he recounts a conversation from the 70s between an American academic and Ayman al-Zawahiri where Zawahiri points out proudly that is Islamic Group have taken control of the student bodies of the Cairo University's "elite" faculties - medicine and engineering. Zawahiri thought this impressive. Not really Ayman.

 TobyA 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Not well enough though apparently. It's hard to condemn the FLN for that particular purge...

Bruce, would you like a reading list as you clearly don't understand the history of the Salafi movement?
 TobyA 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Jonno: We still await you answer Jonno.
Dirt 08 Feb 2007
In reply to MikeTS:

FFS MikeTS, that quote was a response to being continually accused of supporting suicide bombers, basically because I don't agree with many people on this thread...

What I'd do with the violence loving preachers is roughly what the is UK doing. Establish laws that recognise incitement and then prosecute/extradite etc. What I WOULD NOT DO, is assume all muslims want violence and I WOULD continue to accept the kind of rich culture we've had in the UK for so long.

My question, which so far has been avoided by so many with such forthright views, is what would the likes of Bruce and Jonno do, in practice, to abolish multi-culteralism in this country. I've answered what I'd do, so lets hear it from the other side.

I very much doubt I'll get a response though. I'm sure I've left myself open to be cast off in the suicide bomber camp elsewhere in this thread...

D
 Bruce Hooker 08 Feb 2007
In reply to violentViolet:

> or dropping bombs in the middle east, for example.

Have you any examples of muslims being bombed in the Middle East just because they are muslims?

The Israeli army is the only culprit that could spring to mind but to be fair I don't think they are really bombing people because they are muslims, it's more because they want to steal their land... it's territorial, not religious.
 MikeTS 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to violentViolet)
>
> [...]
>
> Have you any examples of muslims being bombed in the Middle East just because they are muslims?


well I seem to have noticed that in Iraq Sunniis bomb Shites and Shiites bomb Sunnis.
 Bruce Hooker 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Dirt:

> Just answer the questions Bruce, I'm tired and bored of you simply aligning me to suicide bombers

In that case stop defending them and the philosophies that drive them.

I'd be quite happy to debate with a "peace loving muslim", if you could find me one, which seems to becoming harder every day judging by the opinion polls being published... at the moment even moderate muslims are taking legal action against my freedom of speech and as far as I know Salmon Rushdie is still threatened... I haven't seen many "peace loving muslims" demonstrating in his favour... have you?

Someone called Masood posts here quite often and we have often had reasonable discussions with little or no acrimony, although it is true that he is more of an ex-muslim if I understand him correctly... so he may not count for you. According to your moderate muslim pals, as an apostate, he should be executed... do you agree with that or will you go on record as saying it is barbaric?



PS. You are right in saying that I am in favour of integration when you move to another country, both for practical reasons (it will help you and your family lead an easier life) and for moral ones... the people of the country didn't drag you screaming across the border (although you may have been driven by people in your country of origin this is not the fault of your new country) so you should try to fit in; "when in Rome...." is not a modern expression.

I have lived in France for over 30 years, have a French wife, we speak French at home, children are French etc.. I keep well away from the ex-pat set. About my only contact with Britain is this forum and visits for holidays.

It's a question of respect.
 MikeTS 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Dirt:
> (In reply to MikeTS)
>
> FFS MikeTS, that quote was a response to being continually accused of supporting suicide bombers, basically because I don't agree with many people on this thread...
FFS Dirt, I was agreeing with you.

>
> My question, which so far has been avoided by so many with such forthright views, is what would the likes of Bruce and Jonno do, in practice, to abolish multi-culteralism in this country.

You can't relly abolish someting as amorphous as multi culturalism. You just set limits to group autonomy. Like it's OK to study the Koran, but not to incite people to violence. It's OK to wear a veil, so long as it doesn't impair public safety, make the workplace dangerous, or prevent you doing your job. And, if you don't like the rules, go somehere where you do like the rules (if you have the choice), accept them, or try and persuade the majority that your desired behaviors do no harm.
 tony 08 Feb 2007
In reply to MikeTS:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
> well I seem to have noticed that in Iraq Sunniis bomb Shites and Shiites bomb Sunnis.

Isn't the same thing happening in Gaza, or is that just Palestinians bombing fellow Palestinians for being ... erm... Palestinian?
 Bruce Hooker 08 Feb 2007
In reply to MikeTS:

> well I seem to have noticed that in Iraq Sunniis bomb Shites and Shiites bomb Sunnis.

For once I have to agree with you... and they are killing each other because of events that took place over a 1000 years ago!

By the way, I hadn't seen you were posting on the thread when I typed the jibe about the Israeli army... I wasn't having a go at you personally! Doesn't mean I don't mean what I said but as I read down and saw your posts it gave the impression that it was aimed at you.
 tony 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>
> It's a question of respect.

It's a bit of a cliche, but respect works both ways. If you want those with a different set of values to have respect for your values, it probably helps if you don't do rubbish their values at every possible turn. The negative stereotyping of Muslims in Britain is one of the factors in the radicalisation of a small number of young Muslims.
 Bruce Hooker 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Dirt:

> ...and I WOULD continue to accept the kind of rich culture we've had in the UK for so long.


What's "rich" about grovelling on all fours 5 times a day and treating women like shit? You really are too much, the middle ages are finished, muslims were well on the way to modernising their religion a few decades ago and now they are heading backwards and trying to drag the rest of us with them... what you call "moderate" or "peace loving" muslims would have been considered reactionary extremists 30 or 40 years ago in Britain... perhaps you are too young to realise this. The present tension and division has been created by the rise of a particularly backward, reactionary line in islam, basically stimulated by power struggles in the Middle East.

Apparently you are totally unaware of this or you would see the solution yourself: help progressive muslims fight off the sterile archaic extremism and continue bringing their religion, if they really feel they need such a crutch, in line with modern values based on the "universal declaration of the rights of man", for example.

There are also a few simple administrative measure that would help, cutting off the financing of religion by foreign countries, insisting on religious services in the language of the country, insisting on the respect of sexual equality within religions (all religions) etc. and the respect of existing laws by all. This would help muslims who wish to make their permanent home in Britain and become part of the long term culture of the country that they, or their parents, chose to live in, as the solution will come from them, not from outside... although one would hope that over the years they will find the freedom to set up home with people who are not of the same (or any) religion and all will settle down in the proverbial, but sadly somewhat neglected, melting pot.

It's not rocket science!
 Bruce Hooker 08 Feb 2007
In reply to tony:

I was referring to, my respect, as an immigrant myself, for the values of the country I chose to live in... Quite easy for me as British and French cultures are very close, it's true. An immigrant should be prepared to adapt his way of life to fit in with the host country... if not he shouldn't go there... or if he does then he should go mob-handed and take the place over and impose his way of life... but this would be called imperialism and is frowned upon these days, and rightly so.

This brings us back to the fundamental question: is it reasonable to suppose that a Universal system of the Rights of Man can exist on a world level? Are values like sexual equality, individual freedom, the right to live even, universal values or not? I would say they are, or at least we should make this premise and strive to impose them... but by what means, persuasion, force? That's yet another question!
 MJH 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to MJH)
>
> But you are forgetting that moderate muslims support the radicals more and more and that even those that don't haven't the courage (or the desire, who knows as they say nothing?) to say "Stop! What you do and say is not islam at all!"

I think that is what the media wants us to believe, I have yet to be convinced from talking to "normal" people. Without doubt there is a growing hardline section of muslims, but I don't think makes moderate muslims appeasers. What is disappointing and here I agree with you is the seeming lack of moderate muslims speaking out, but again I don't know how much of that is just that the media doesn't report it. Let's face it what is more "news-worthy" a moderate saying how much they condemn terrorism (which I have seen a little of) or an extremist ranting at the Home Secretary!

> I for one am not prepared to say nothing like in the 30s, these people, radical islamists who use terror and intimidation, are fascists just as dangerous as the nazis, and appeasement will not work now any more than it did then.

Again I am pretty much in agreement with you, but don't forget that moderate muslims are as much victims of radical islamists as the non-muslim population.

> If this is not the case why can't your stepfather (I think it was your stepfather, or maybe father in law?) go back to Teheran?

Yep, my stepdad. Slightly complicated that one - family of political dissidents, I don't know the whole story but I have a vague feeling that the family might be rather left wing. So it was more political rather than religious reasons. My stepdad's dad was killed by the secret police, his brother was tortured and lost part of a leg (now lives in France) and my stepdad was tortured and eventually fled the country. In my stepdad's case I believe he was involved in some of the student protests originally, not sure about the others.
 MJH 08 Feb 2007
In reply to MJH: I take it back about the media - in today's Times there is a report of a Muslim Educational centre in Oxford supporting a school's ban on Niqabs (full veil) and offering to help pay for any legal battle.
 Bruce Hooker 08 Feb 2007
In reply to MJH:

> .. don't forget that moderate muslims are as much victims of radical islamists as the non-muslim population.

I totally agree, I've said it a few times... and would go further: ordinary muslims are the ones who suffer the most... not so much in Britain directly but in countries where extremists are active militarily they kill mostly muslim... and this has been going on for several decades.

The real question is a political one, it is in and around islam but if a modern less restrictive form of islam could be revived then most of the problems would disappear concerning integration, respect and so on... unfortunately this is not the present tendency.
 TobyA 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> help progressive muslims fight off the sterile archaic extremism and continue bringing their religion,

And you are going to do this by making statements like this:

> What's "rich" about grovelling on all fours 5 times a day and treating women like shit?

...are you?

Bruce, your rhetoric has a really nasty edge to it. You sound like one of the smarter BNP candidates - they would describe the praying of people they don't like as "groveling". If you say things like that I really don't believe you have any interest at all in supporting "progressive Muslims". That's fine if that's really what you feel, but just come out and say it, otherwise you could try and avoid dehumanising millions of people who have done you no harm and mean you no harm.

 Bruce Hooker 08 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA:

I don't think free human beings, men or women, should be terrorised into prostrating themselves day after day for fear of a tyrannical god. To me this is repugnant and reminds me more of Nuremberg rallies than any spiritual exercise. I don't believe either that we should keep quite about it so as not to offend the bigoted villains who preach such horrors... appeasement won't work, straight talking and defence of human dignity might.

I feel much the same when I see the hordes that crowd around Lourdes, hoping for a cure although at present these seem somewhat less dangerous... I can't recall stories of catholic fanatics with dynamite under their bandages leaving the grotto and committing a suicide wheel-chair attack in the market place.

You have the right to be of whatever faith you wish, or none, and express your opinion about it... but so do I, and for that matter, I would say it is also essential that members of the BNP should have freedom of speech too... within the limits set by laws and civilized behaviour.

Universal values.... or don't you believe in such?
 dek 08 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA: Seems we cant have any discussions about the less acceptable aspects of Islam without you patrolling the forums on your mission to accuse some of the regular posters of racism. Your demands to "come out and say it", the sweeping accusations, are bloody tedious for a 'political 'expert'who only seems to look for posts where you can jump in and abuse the poster.
I dont see where Bruce has "dehumanised millions" ?Your absurd! as was the BNP jibe.
On your daily patrol, do you find and police the Shia and Sunni websites, harranguing them for "dehumanising" each other daily? or is it simpler to do it here to folk you 'know'? Btw, what IS the difference between grovelling and Prostrating (servillity)? Take your own advice, and rather than your usual practise of going off on an obscure tangent, (that few of us can be bothered to follow ) Why do you stifle critics of Islam here?
 MJH 08 Feb 2007
In reply to dek: Except the "discussions" on Islam often descend into either untruths, ignorance or plain bigotry. Condemning millions of Muslims for the actions of a relative minority is bigotry.
 dek 08 Feb 2007
In reply to MJH: Where, on here? hardly the impression i get of hate filled bigots on UK climbing..or did i miss them?
 DougG 08 Feb 2007
In reply to dek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.

So are you or are you not intolerant of muslim's lifestyle - remember that praying (or 'grovelling' as you put it) 5 times a day is one of the basic 'pillars' of Islam?

I have absolutely no desire to pray to Allah or any other God, but I fully support the right of others to do so.

Do you?
 Bruce Hooker 08 Feb 2007
In reply to MJH:
> (In reply to dek) Except the "discussions" on Islam often descend into either untruths, ignorance or plain bigotry. Condemning millions of Muslims for the actions of a relative minority is bigotry.

Last time, I promise! I don't think it is just a minority at present though who are moving towards options that are unreasonable and should be condemned. It has already been pointed out that large fractions of people who recognise themselves under the label "muslim" would like to see sharia law in Britain, large numbers think cartoonists should not have the right to lampoon their religion and old Momo.. the same can be said concerning Rushdie, the Dutch film producer, a French school teacher who is under police protection and cannot work since he posted on newspaper forum against islam... etc etc.

Add to this the imposition of the veil and even the wearing of total covering by women in public, the policewomen who refused to shake her bosses hand for "religious" reasons... These are not minor events due to the large numbers of people who claim to sympathise with the causes concerned... It is clearly far more than a small minority who are now openly demanding the possibility of imposing their beliefs and rules on people outside their religion.

This goes against the very notion of individual freedom and religious freedom and attacks the basic structure of what were thought until recently to be Universal Values.

 DougG 08 Feb 2007
In reply to dek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.

So are you or are you not intolerant of muslim's lifestyles - remember that praying (or 'grovelling' as Bruce puts it, and you seem to agree) 5 times a day is one of the basic 'pillars' of Islam?

I have absolutely no desire to become a Muslim and to pray to Allah or any other God, but I fully support the right of others to do so.

Do you?
 DougG 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> It is clearly far more than a small minority who are now openly demanding the possibility of imposing their beliefs and rules on people outside their religion.

These people are bigots as well, as they are showing their own intolerance of other people's lifestyles.
 Bruce Hooker 08 Feb 2007
In reply to DougG:

> remember that praying (or 'grovelling' as you put it) 5 times a day is one of the basic 'pillars' of Islam?

It wasn't thought to be 30 years ago... If you look at early christian practices you would probably find similar rules: lent, fasting, going to several masses a day, fish on Friday and so on but these are now no longer considered important to many modern christians (a contradiction in terms, some would say but I'm trying to be tolerant)... the same process was taking and still could take place within islam.

If you speak to or read texts by less old-fashioned muslims they will point out that there are even in the old texts possibilities of being pragmatic about what is essential or not... and that this is window dressing... I would say it is more like conditioning and that is why the fanatics who use the religion for their own ends always prefer the most archaic versions... there is absolutely no reason to condemn all those who remain attached to islam to be dragged back to it's violent and manipulative prehistory.
 DougG 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Five_Pillars_of_Islam

These seem fairly fundamental to me, I was under the impression that these have always been part of Islam. Maybe someone (Masood?) can confirm or deny?
 dek 08 Feb 2007
In reply to DougG: Am i a Bigot..NO?are you? (BTw i know what a bigot is) Can you 'tolerate' questions being asked about another faith? (to cultivate understanding)or is this offensive to 'you'? if so why the bigot question, are you also on a mission?
'Grovelling', or Prostating i asked whats the difference? you think i am being 'offensive'?
Intolerant of Muslim's lifestyle?..hardly!

Why don't you quote something i/we don't know?
What is YOUR point?I am Certain you have lurked all through the above posts..after all Bruce is posting, and your regular 'distaste' for his writings seem to offend mainly you and TobyAs sensibilities.
 DougG 08 Feb 2007
In reply to dek:

Well you're entitled to your views, but some of them do appear fairly intolerant, i.e. bigoted, to me.

Decribing praying in a mosque as 'grovelling', well personally it doesn't offend me but I imagine it might just offend muslims to hear it described that way. Is it really necessary to put it in those terms? What does it achieve, other than perhaps making you feel clever?

If by 'lurked' through all the above posts you mean read them, well no, sorry, I can't claim to have read everything, I have other things to do.
 DougG 08 Feb 2007
In reply to dek:

Oh, and my 'point' is this: if someone on here expresses what I consider to be a bigoted opinion then I may decide to challenge it.
 dek 08 Feb 2007
In reply to DougG: Thanks for letting me have a point of view..how tolerant of you...
Read the above, and say where 'I' described' grovelling?
You see, i do find YOU offensive in trying to rush to be a smartarse, by describing me as Bigoted, mentioning a Mosque? and trying to be 'clever'.
I suggest that your previous post history makes you a prime candidate for being 'clever' and offensive not to mention insulting..if you dont read the ongoing posts, do you simply parachute in to give us you twopence worth, and fire off Islamaphobe accusations and make yourself 'clever'
If you want to insult somebody, make sure you read the ongoing, or you are simply seen as an arse.
 DougG 08 Feb 2007
In reply to dek:

Whatever. I'm not going to argue the toss with you, you think I'm a smart-arse, fine, I can live with that.
 dek 08 Feb 2007
In reply to DougG: After reading your dross again..lets just skip the smart bit.
 DougG 08 Feb 2007
In reply to dek:

You can call me whatever you like, I really couldn't give a flying f*ck what you think of me. I'm sure others couldn't either, so if you want to continue the personal abuse maybe you might want to take it to E-mail?

I can't guarantee a response however.
 Bruce Hooker 08 Feb 2007
In reply to DougG:

One could "pray" without the prostrating/grovelling...the method of praying has changed over the years and generally, until the nutty US sects came along, was towards less extrovert methods... if god is really there he doesn't really need you to show everyone you are worshipping. This is clearly related to social issues of the day... religion is (should I soon say "was") a personal, private matter, no longer an imposed outward sign of obedience to the crown, the state and the religion that went with it.

That's true for christianity and for islam too... different branches at different times have there own ways of "praying"... the 5 times a day can be avoided even within traditional islam when practical reasons make this preferable (there's a lot on the BBC site and elsewhere if you google). Muslims who defend their religion are usually keen to point out that islam is not, or should not be, dogmatic. The method of prayer that we see more and more is clearly symbolic of total submission to a greater something or other.. deity, community, mankind, or as a sign of humility? Who knows but the body language is clear, and not compatible with the notion that all human beings are born free and with equal rights.

I don't believe that discussing this aspect of their religion would upset any reasonable muslim... especially in a country which is not ruled by sharia and has a long tradition of civil liberty like Britain. That some find even discussing such things is "offensive" to muslims is a damning bit of evidence of how deep the rot has set into intellectual values... a quite frightening lack of confidence in one's culture. Vigilance is clearly required.

Last point: What makes you think that ordinary muslims are that happy with the way things are headed, how many fled their country of origin to escape this rigid social domination?
 dek 08 Feb 2007
In reply to DougG:Well you did start the abuse/insults! But i dont give a sh*t about you.
 DougG 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I'm not saying that praying shouldn't be discussed, I didn't object to the discussion, it was the terms that were used that struck me as not being the best.

Kneeling towards Mecca 5 times, or even once, per day is one of the last things that it would ever enter my head to do, but if other people want to do it, that's fine by me. Just as long as they don't expect me, or anyone else, to do so against their will. (This applies to all other aspects of their religion.)

You are absolutely right to want to stand firm against those who would extend their religion to others, against their will.

As for your last point, I have no idea.
 dek 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker: The Muslim couple i have just talked to today just laugh whenever i mention how they cope with life in the UK. "we are too busy working" to get involved in all that stuff! My mechanic is Iranian,i trust him more than any other repair shop i have ever come across for price and workmanship, thats saying something in Edinburgh!
 Bruce Hooker 08 Feb 2007
In reply to DougG:

> ...but if other people want to do it, that's fine by me.

So when you see all those people prostrated in the dirt for some ancient superstition it does not hurt your idea of what human existence is all about? Thousands of years of thought and intelligence and struggle, bloodshed and suffering to reach the notion of the individual freedom based on respect for others, but most of all, respect for oneself, to end up lying in the dust, prostrate towards a black cube in Arabia?

Similarly, watching some catholics flagellating themselves with whips and chains till they run with blood, or that sect who all topped themselves after watching a comet go by... does this just leave you cold... is it fine by you too?

At the risk of being pompous (why change now?) there's a poem that dates back to around the 1600s, I think, about "Man is not an island...." then continues about sods but I can't remember the rest... there's also "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee!"

It may not be fashionable but I don't think we should be indifferent to the humiliation of other human beings, their fate humiliates all humanity, and all of us too.
 Bruce Hooker 08 Feb 2007
In reply to dek:

When I was travelling out that way we often broke down as we had an old truck... the mechanics would repair anything and if they didn't have the spare they would just make one up. Can't see me going that way again though the way things are... further North perhaps.
 dek 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Bloody amazing, nothings too much trouble to fix! no sharp intakes, and no rip offs, he sticks to the quoted price as well, refreshing nowadays! But yeah, go north 'young man' although i would love to see the mountains in Iran!
 DougG 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Of course I'm moved... I can't for the life of me understand why people want to spend their lives by devoting themselves to some imaginary God. In an ideal world this wouldn't happen, as far as I'm concerned.

However, back in the real world... a great many people do; it's up to them, they're unlikely to change because I think they should. As long as their religion is a personal matter, I don't see what right I have to object to it, any more than I have the right to people spending their life in any other number of ways... it's their choice.
 MJH 08 Feb 2007
In reply to dek: The hate filled bit is your words not mine...but yes, there are some on here who have little to no understanding of islam or comprehension why someone should follow a different set of beliefs to their own.
 MJH 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to MJH)
> [...]
>
> Last time, I promise! I don't think it is just a minority at present though who are moving towards options that are unreasonable and should be condemned.

Well there we differ - I am absolutely certain that it is still a minority (albeit in some cases a growing minority).

>It has already been pointed out that large fractions of people who recognise themselves under the label "muslim" would like to see sharia law in Britain

The last survey done about a week a go came out with a large proportion of relatively young muslim men IIRC wanted sharia. That is still a minority within the whole community and even then there are degrees of application to sharia law. Sharia law already operates within some islamic communities in the UK (just as ecclesiastical law still operates in the UK) where there is no conflict with criminal law.

> large numbers think cartoonists should not have the right to lampoon their religion and old Momo.. the same can be said concerning Rushdie, the Dutch film producer, a French school teacher who is under police protection and cannot work since he posted on newspaper forum against islam... etc etc.

I am sure you know very well that the portayal of Mohammed is forbidden - I can't remember why. On the lampooning and mocking part you get exactly the same sort of reactions from many religions - remember the fuss about Jerry Springer the Opera? That got Christian groups up in arms and death threats for cast/writers/producers.

> Add to this the imposition of the veil and even the wearing of total covering by women in public, the policewomen who refused to shake her bosses hand for "religious" reasons... These are not minor events due to the large numbers of people who claim to sympathise with the causes concerned... It is clearly far more than a small minority who are now openly demanding the possibility of imposing their beliefs and rules on people outside their religion.

Well I would contend it is still a small, vocal minority. Most muslims (in the UK) that I have met think most of it is laughable.


 niggle 08 Feb 2007
In reply to MJH:

Yes, I've always felt a little sorry for but at the same time quite amused by "sour grapes" atheists like Bruce who seem to have this slightly childish insistence that it's just so unfair that after all these years, people are still following religions.

Richard Dawkins has the same syndrome; the idea that we were all somehow supposed to be atheists by now and how dare 85% of the world hold back everyone's development.

I guess we shouldn't laugh really.



 Coel Hellier 08 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:
>
> Yes, I've always felt a little sorry for but at the same time quite amused by "sour grapes"
> atheists like Bruce who seem to have this slightly childish insistence that it's
> just so unfair that after all these years, people are still following religions.
>
> Richard Dawkins has the same syndrome; the idea that we were all somehow supposed
> to be atheists by now and how dare 85% of the world hold back everyone's development.

Niggle, you really are a supreme master at the construction of strawmen!
 Coel Hellier 08 Feb 2007
In reply to MJH:

> I am sure you know very well that the portayal of Mohammed is forbidden

Yes, forbidden to Muslims. Why should non-Muslims be bound by any such edict?

>> It is clearly far more than a small minority who are [. . .] imposing their [. . .] rules
>> on people outside their religion.

> Well I would contend it is still a small, vocal minority.

According to opinion polls, the _majority_ of British Muslims want the criminal
law to impose the Islamic edict against portrayal of Mohammed on _everyone_.
 niggle 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Come come Coel, we've already had Bruce in this thread boo-hooing over how worship is a waste of "Thousands of years of thought and intelligence and struggle", and how it "humiliates all humanity, and all of us too".

With all fondness, I just find it amusing.
 MJH 08 Feb 2007
In reply to dek: You seem to have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about TobyA and DougG!

Can you tolerate others questioning your motives when you are so aggressive in your own tone? By your own words you want to discuss the less acceptable parts of Islam, well what I and others are saying is that by doing that (ie only focusing on a relatively small area of islam) leaves you open to accusations of bigotry or at least ignorance.

Personally I think there is a difference between grovelling and prostrating (and praying)...degrees of offensiveness to a culture/religion you don't really understand.

Nowt wrong with wanting to learn more, but don't believe everything you see/hear in our media as being representative.
 Coel Hellier 08 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Come come Coel, we've already had Bruce in this thread boo-hooing over how worship
> is a waste of "Thousands of years of thought and intelligence and struggle",
> and how it "humiliates all humanity, and all of us too".

But he applied those descriptions not to worship and religion, per se, but
specifically to prostration, self-flaggelation and topping oneself as a comet passes.
 Bruce Hooker 08 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

It's not unfair, it's sad that after all these years there can still be people trying to turn the wheel back on simple issues like individual rights, sexual equality and so on. But I'm not going to argue with you... you are just a figment of some tormented imagination!
 Timmd 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to DougG)
>
> [...]
>
> So when you see all those people prostrated in the dirt for some ancient superstition it does not hurt your idea of what human existence is all about? Thousands of years of thought and intelligence and struggle, bloodshed and suffering to reach the notion of the individual freedom based on respect for others, but most of all, respect for oneself, to end up lying in the dust, prostrate towards a black cube in Arabia?
>
That's a pretty extreme example Bruce,about lying prostrate in the dirt,it's different from the nice Muslim lady in my computer classes who gave everybody sweets,and asked the tutor if she could go and pray in the corner,and carried on with the course a couple of minutes later.

 niggle 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> But he applied those descriptions not to worship and religion, per se, but specifically to prostration, self-flaggelation and topping oneself as a comet passes.

Oh, I think people should be allowed to think what they like and behave as they will, don't you?

Ha! Ha!

I liked DougG's comment too: "I can't for the life of me understand why people want to spend their lives by devoting themselves to some imaginary God. In an ideal world this wouldn't happen, as far as I'm concerned".

 niggle 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> you are just a figment of some tormented imagination!

You thought me up?

You're sick.
 Timmd 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:She didn't seem oppressed,as far as you can tell from not getting to know somebody much,she didn't seem unhappy,she was very cheerfull.

Cheers
Tim
 Coel Hellier 08 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

And by the way, the reason that your strawmen are so artfully constructed is not
that they have no foundation in an opponents posts, it is that they are sufficiently
distorted as to be strawmen, while having sufficient foundation in an opponent's
posts as to be a plausible likeness.
 Coel Hellier 08 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Oh, I think people should be allowed to think what they like and behave as they will, don't you?

Well yes (with obvious caveats); has anyone suggested otherwise?

Many Muslims, however, wouldn't agree with us. They seem to think that we should
be subject to Islamic prohibitions on portraying Muhammed and on ridiculing Islam.
 niggle 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Many Muslims, however, wouldn't agree with us. They seem to think that we should be subject to Islamic prohibitions on portraying Muhammed and on ridiculing Islam.

Perhaps they have a point?

Is it healthy and normal to abuse people's beliefs or religion for fun? When did hurting people just because you don't like what they believe become okay?
 Bruce Hooker 08 Feb 2007
In reply to MJH:

I can't quantify the minority but it is no longer an insignificant one as mainstream bodies try to get in on the act.

> On the lampooning and mocking part you get exactly the same sort of reactions from many religions - remember the fuss about Jerry Springer the Opera? That got Christian groups up in arms and death threats for cast/writers/producers.

Sorry, but this is simply untrue... the tiny minority of christian extremists are not in any way on the level of the considerable number of muslims who, as you say yourself, hold that the portrayal of Mohamed is forbidden. You seem to accept that these muslims have the right to tell others not to portray Mohamed... that they don't do it for whatever reason themselves is their affair, daft but like not eating pork, their affair... but they have absolutely no right to tell others not to portray someone anymore than to tell them not to eat dead pigs.

Many muslims like to say that their attitude is mirrored by christians but for one this is a lie and for two if it were true it would simply mean that these extremists were in the wrong too: it wouldn't justify muslim wrongs.

On the sharia point even if a handful justified a code that includes stoning adulteresses it would be a handful too many... that a large number of young people, not decrepit old fogies, but young people should favour such a thing is very worrying... and one of the main reasons why I find it so concerning.
 MJH 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to MJH)
>
> [...]
>
> Yes, forbidden to Muslims. Why should non-Muslims be bound by any such edict?

I think it is called respect for another person's beliefs. I can see little reason how not being able to portray Mohammed affect smy life or anyone else's so why go out of the way to offend?

Equally I think the reaction of a small minority was way OTT, but let's not forget although it received a lot of press coverage it was still only a small number of protestors (certainly in the UK).

 Timmd 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to niggle)
>
> [...]
>
> Well yes (with obvious caveats); has anyone suggested otherwise?
>
> Many Muslims, however, wouldn't agree with us. They seem to think that we should
> be subject to Islamic prohibitions on portraying Muhammed and on ridiculing Islam.

Not that it's a competition about who you know or have known or come across,but i don't think my support worker (who is a Muslim )from Halfway who have been helping me with my anxiaty would have gone out and protested or wanted the Danish cartoons to be stopped,i know there are nutters (in all religions),but she seemed like a reasonable sort. The ex head of the UN Cofi Annan(sp) who is a Muslim said something about Muslims having to not react so badly as well.

Cheers
Tim
 niggle 08 Feb 2007
In reply to MJH:

> I think it is called respect for another person's beliefs. I can see little reason how not being able to portray Mohammed affect smy life or anyone else's so why go out of the way to offend?

I agree.

I found it very strange that so many people complained about how offended Muslims were by the cartoons - they were meant to be offensive. Isn't it ridiculous to deliberately offend people then get all hurt when they complain about it?
 MJH 08 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle: Crikey - I may have to lie down given that we agree on something.
 Coel Hellier 08 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Is it healthy and normal to abuse people's beliefs or religion for fun? When did
> hurting people just because you don't like what they believe become okay?

Well, yes, it is normal and healthy in some circumstances. First, substitute "religion"
with "politics" in the above and ask, "is it healthy and normal to allow Spitting
Image, Bremner Bird and Fortune, Have I got News for You, the "Trial of Tony Blair",
etc?". My answer is "yes". Humour and ridicule are legitimate tactics and
their use is a sign of a healthy society with free expression and proper
examination of ideas.

A society where humour and ridicule are censored is an unhealthy one. Their
prohibition is almost always a protection of the powerful by the powerful. If religious
beliefs are put into the public square, and particularly by powerful or potentially
powerful interest groups, then critique involving humour and ridicule are indeed
healthy and normal.

If religious people (and others!) don't want their beliefs ridiculed, then don't
propound ridiculous beliefs! The fact that in our society Christianity is voluntary
is a result of the fact that we are free to ridicule it, and of the courage of those who
ridiculed it and stood up to it in the past, when there were legal penalties for doing so.
 Bruce Hooker 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Timmd:

Muslim apologists like referring to nice muslim ladies... in France too, they never miss the chance! Does her being a nice lady imply any special world insight? How do you know she really is nice... have you asked her what she thinks about stoning, for example?

I saw an islamic bookshop owner waxing poetic on the telly the other day about how non-believers could not understand the beauty of islmam and the sharia law without embracing it in its totality... only then, he smarmed with a beatific smile, could we understand that the stoning of adulteresses was really not shocking at all... He looked like a very nice smiling man too, until you listened to his words.

By the way your nice lady didn't have to take time off for prayer by any islamic ruling while doing her course, the duty could have been waived in such situations... if she did it it was to make a point... I don't think she was as innocent as you seem to think!
 niggle 08 Feb 2007
In reply to MJH:

It's all in your head mate. We'll be kicking each other in the balls by lunchtime tomorrow.

 Coel Hellier 08 Feb 2007
In reply to MJH:

>> Yes, forbidden to Muslims. Why should non-Muslims be bound by any such edict?

> I think it is called respect for another person's beliefs. I can see little reason
> how not being able to portray Mohammed affect smy life or anyone else's so why go
> out of the way to offend?

See my reply to Niggle just above. The right to be disrespectful and offensive is
a _necessary_ freedom, a necessary part of not being subject to someone else's religion.

If they can tell me not to draw Muhammed cartoons they can tell me to wear a veil
in public, or not to work on the Sabbath, etc, etc.
 Bruce Hooker 08 Feb 2007
In reply to DougG:

> As long as their religion is a personal matter, I don't see what right I have to object to it..

Perhaps not, but this doesn't imply liking it nor saying it seems fine, we still have the right to dislike, to criticize and make fun of such things, just as they have the right to make fun of us... freedom of speech and freedom of opinion again. Fundamental values for all of us to respect.

Secondly, and this is the difficult one, it's all in the "As long as their religion is a personal matter"... where we would differ, as it seems to me that the muslim religion is going more and more beyond being just a personal matter. On this we will just have to agree to differ, perhaps.
 Coel Hellier 08 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> they were meant to be offensive.

They were meant to uphold a freedom; namely the right to do so. That newspaper
decided to publish those cartoons because of a report that no illustrators
could be found for a children's book on Muhammed, they were all too afraid to take on
that work. The offense to Muslims was a necessary but incidental consequence.

> Isn't it ridiculous to deliberately offend people then get all hurt when they complain about it?

The point is to uphold freedoms. We can draw a cartoon of Nelson, Napoleon, Alexander
the Great, why not Muhammed? We should not be subject to the dictats of someone else's
religion. And if we need to offend Muslims while making that very, very clear, then
fine, the freedom takes precedence over politeness.
 niggle 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> First, substitute "religion" with "politics" in the above

No, don't bother.

The two are not the same. Religious beliefs are personal, politics is public. Religious beliefs are not selected by common consent, politicians are. religion does not represent those who are not part of it, politicians represent even those who didn't vot for them.

And so on. The list could continue, there's almost no similarity between the two. None of the aspects of politics which make it acceptable to lampoon and mock the people and process apply to religion.

> If religious people (and others!) don't want their beliefs ridiculed, then don't propound ridiculous beliefs!

You were doing well, but then you let your prejudice show.

People who are comfortable with their beliefs don't attack and abuse others for theirs. Nor do they demand to be able to do it with impunity, free from the complaints of those they attack, as happened in the case of Jerry Springer the Opera and the Mohammed cartoons.
 Bruce Hooker 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I didn't realise I was a "sour grapes" atheist... is that good or bad..? I hope it's not a compliment, the thought that niggle was flirting with me in a covert manner would put me off my dinner!
 niggle 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> See my reply to Niggle just above. The right to be disrespectful and offensive is a _necessary_ freedom, a necessary part of not being subject to someone else's religion.

The muslims didn't subject the cartoonists to their beliefs.

It was the other way around.

 Coel Hellier 08 Feb 2007
In reply to MJH:

> Equally I think the reaction of a small minority was way OTT, but let's not forget
> although it received a lot of press coverage it was still only a small number of
> protestors (certainly in the UK).

But the MAJORITY of British Muslims want a CRIMINAL LAW against the publication
of the Danish cartoons.
 niggle 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> The offense to Muslims was a necessary but incidental consequence.

So it's necessary to offend people because they get offended?

That's probably the most absurd thing I've heard all day.

By that rationale you should really be at your mum's house painting "C*NT WHORE" in red paint on the front of her house, because she'd get offended.
 Coel Hellier 08 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> The muslims didn't subject the cartoonists to their beliefs.

They were demanding that the cartoonists indeed be subject to their religious laws.
They asked for the Danish cartoonists to be tried in an Islamic court.

> It was the other way around.

Rubbish. Being exposed to someone's opinion is not being _subject_ to their opinion.
 niggle 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> And if we need to offend Muslims while making that very, very clear, then fine, the freedom takes precedence over politeness.

Are you listening to yourself?

We need to offend people becasue they are offended by it?

I've got a few black friends I'd love for you to meet. I'd enjoy watching you taking the necessary steps to offend them to make sure you're free to offend them again in future.
 niggle 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Rubbish. Being exposed to someone's opinion is not being _subject_ to their opinion.

Oh, but when Muslims are of the opinion that we shouldn't make representations of Mohammed, that is us being subject to their opinion.

One rule for you, another for them.
 Coel Hellier 08 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>> The offense to Muslims was a necessary but incidental consequence.

> So it's necessary to offend people because they get offended?

If they get offended by someone exercising a basic human right to freedom of
speech and ridiculing an idea or religion, then yes, it is necessary to uphold that
freedom even if offense is an unavoidable consequence.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. There is a law that if public footpaths
are not used then they are lost. If we didn't exercise our freedom to insult and
ridicule religion we would lose it.

> By that rationale you should really be at your mum's house painting "C*NT WHORE" in
> red paint on the front of her house, because she'd get offended.

Why don't you try understanding someone's point of view rather than twisting it?
 Coel Hellier 08 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>> Rubbish. Being exposed to someone's opinion is not being _subject_ to their opinion.

> Oh, but when Muslims are of the opinion that we shouldn't make representations of
> Mohammed, that is us being subject to their opinion.

Well, yes, if it were to be a CRIMINAL LAW then we would indeed be subject to it.
Or if we desist for fear of violence then we are, de facto, subject to it.

> One rule for you, another for them.

I repeat: Being exposed to someone's opinion is not being _subject_ to their opinion.

There is a huge difference, which you could see quite easily if your standard mode of
debate was not twisting what an opponent says.

 niggle 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> If they get offended by someone exercising a basic human right to freedom of speech and ridiculing an idea or religion, then yes, it is necessary to uphold that freedom even if offense is an unavoidable consequence.

If you walk down the street and see a group of black youths, so you immediately shout "COON! COON! NIGGER! NIGGER!" at them?

What?

You don't?

They'd be offended all right. And because they'd be offended, it is, by your own logic, necessary to offend them.

Or do you only abuse religious people?
 niggle 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> There is a huge difference, which you could see quite easily if your standard mode of debate was not twisting what an opponent says.

I'm not twisting what you've said at all, I'm just point out how ludicrous it is.

And the fact that you're now resorting to abusing my posting style only shows why you want to preserve the right to be obnoxious: because it's the way you behave and you want to preserve some imagined "right" to behave like a prick.
 Coel Hellier 08 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>> And if we need to offend Muslims while making that very, very clear, then fine, the
>> freedom takes precedence over politeness.
>
> Are you listening to yourself?

Yes. But you are not listening to me.

> We need to offend people becasue they are offended by it?

No. That is NOT what I said. I quite clearly used the word "incidental" about the offence.

I said that even if they are offended by the exercise of freedom, then BECAUSE UPHOLDING
THAT FREEDOM IS IMPORTANT, then it is necessary to uphold that freedom regardless
of any offence caused.
 Bruce Hooker 08 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle and MJH:

Have either of you actually seen the original cartoons? Did you know that a few harder ones were added by muslims to tart up the dossier? I've got the complete set, originals and add ons... they are not particularly funny but apparently they lose in the translation, but are really quite mild. My versions are in a special edition of "Charlie Hebdo"... which was in Court yesterday in Paris following law suits by three French muslim bodies, including the very "moderate" Grande Mosque de Paris (nice cafe by the way).

The result is not yet known but many politicians have lined up to support Chrlie Hebdo, including Holland (PS not surprising), Sarkozy (quite surprising as Charlie Hebdo is not usually appreciated in Gaullist circles), Bayrou etc. The "moderate" face of islam at work, against freedom of the press.
Jonno 08 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to Jonno) We still await you answer Jonno.

I actually replied last night and for some reason my contribution was gone this morning. Haven't had time to get back on the board until now.
So...one more time.

My answer is lets get rid of educational apartheid..or faith schools as they are more commonly known. At the same time RI should be consigned to the academic dustbin of history where it belongs.
Lets see an end to religious dress in schools and lets see the state establishing well funded secular schools based on liberty,fraternity and equality and with democracy and humanism at the core of its values.

Lets see an end to bigots like Paisley,Siddiqi et al getting away with murder and being allowed to stir up cultural hatred.
I blame John Major who allowed muslims to openly call for the death of a liberal UK writer with total immunity from prosecution or even criticism by the then Tory government.
Ditto Paisley who has been allowed to sabotage the democratic institutions in the north of Ireland.

As Henry Porter says. Lets not tolerate intolerance any more. Enough is enough. If young muslims want to live under Sharia law then gently persuade them that perhaps a liberal European state is not the place for them.

There are signs that the UK gov are finally waking up to the vile superstitious fascism which is certainly on the increase with the muslim community...not a moment too soon.

I did hear one of the released Birmingham arrestees state that 'Britain is a police state for Muslims now'. Love to see how he would cope in a real police state !
 Coel Hellier 08 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> And because they'd be offended, it is, by your own logic, necessary to offend them.

No. That is not what I said and I have said several times that that is not what I said.
 niggle 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I said that even if they are offended by the exercise of freedom, then BECAUSE UPHOLDING THAT FREEDOM IS IMPORTANT, then it is necessary to uphold that freedom regardless
of any offence caused.

Quit wrapping yourself in the flag.

You said that we had to offend people because we have to have the right to offend people.

Now, do you shout racial abuse in chinese restaurants? Do you go for a curry and scream "F*CKING PAKI BITCH" at the waitress?

Why not? UPHOLDING THAT FREEDOM IS IMPORTANT, and it is necessary to uphold that freedom regardless of any offence caused.

Your own words.
 Coel Hellier 08 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>> First, substitute "religion" with "politics" in the above

> No, don't bother.

Sorry, I regard the comparison as apt. Both religion and politics are suggestions
as to how we should think, live and behave.

> The list could continue, there's almost no similarity between the two. None of the
> aspects of politics which make it acceptable to lampoon and mock the people and process apply to religion.

I disagree entirely. Your listed differences are not relevant. Ridicule and insult
is a necessary part of the freedom to critically examine any idea system.

> People who are comfortable with their beliefs don't attack and abuse others for theirs.
> Nor do they demand to be able to do it with impunity, free from the complaints of those they attack.

I disgree. Plenty of political cartoonists and lampooners are both comfortable with
their beliefs and ridicule those of others.
Dirt 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Alright Brucey boy, nice to see you're holding the fort there...

>On the sharia point even if a handful justified a code that includes stoning adulteresses it would be a handful too many... that a large number of young people, not decrepit old fogies, but young people should favour such a thing is very worrying... and one of the main reasons why I find it so concerning.

There's quite a few in the UK who want the death penalty back. Certainly more than none want it, and if I apply your logic (here I agree actually with you) is too many. Unfortunately I do not know the precise figures for death penality support (I know, call me ignorant for not reading up on it), but there's certainly too many for my taste.

Personally, I don't want it to return, but actual point is that these types of viewpoints are common across many cultural groups even our modern and enlightened citizens(usually headstrong young males) - you've just chosen to focus on one group and be ultra critical (in my oppinion that is).

Dek:
You mentioned earlier in the thread that you'd love to go to the mountains of Iran? I'd advise 2 things a) go there, it's a beautiful place and the people are wonderfully warm and welcoming (unless you are american or israeli in which case you won't get in) b) go with an open mind, you'll be very surprised by modern day iran compared to it's portrayal over here.

Bruce, btw, I never did see an iranian in iran, nor a pakistani in pakistan praying in public (usually they do it in private or in prayer rooms)

>> Just answer the questions Bruce, I'm tired and bored of you simply aligning me to suicide bombers

>In that case stop defending them and the philosophies that drive them.

Bruce, your answer there was very much what I'd expect of a complete dickhead. Well done...

MikeTS:

>> FFS MikeTS, that quote was a response to being continually accused of supporting suicide bombers, basically because I don't agree with many people on this thread...

>FFS Dirt, I was agreeing with you.

Apologies MikeTS, I was seriously on the defensive at the time and didn't pay any real attention to your comments

Gotta go...

D
 Coel Hellier 08 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> You said that we had to offend people because we have to have the right to offend people.

No, I said ". . . because we have the right to riducle ideas as part of a critical
examination of them".

> Now, do you shout racial abuse in chinese restaurants? Do you go for a curry and
> scream "F*CKING PAKI BITCH" at the waitress?

No I don't. AND WE DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT TO START WITH!

> Why not? UPHOLDING THAT FREEDOM IS IMPORTANT

No it isn't. It isn't even a right, and upholding it is not important. However the right to
ridicule idea systems, such as political and religious ones, is important.

I am NOT talking about the direct abuse of an individual; I am talking about the right
to ridicule ideas and idea systems.
 Simon4 08 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> The two are not the same. Religious beliefs are personal, politics is public.

Wrong, religious beliefs are just what they say - a belief system. There is no reason why they should be protected from ridicule or opposition any more than communist beliefs, liberalism or dedication to capitalism - or for that matter, an excessive devotion to Manchester United Football Club. There is nothing sacred about religious beliefs (sic).

> And so on. The list could continue,

Well it's a list of non-sequiters, so it could probably continue for ever.

> None of the aspects of politics which make it acceptable to lampoon and mock the people and process apply to religion.

"Unacceptable" is just a pompous way of saying "I don't like it". Well you don't have to like people making fun, or being offensive for that matter, about your or other people's religion, but in a free society you just have to lump it.

> People who are comfortable with their beliefs don't attack and abuse others for theirs.

Yes they do (and should) if those others wish to restrict freedom on the strength of those beliefs. Mockery has been one of the most important weapons against tyranny and intolerance for centuries, long may it remain so.

> Nor do they demand to be able to do it with impunity, free from the complaints of those they attack

So who's suggesting that there should be no complaint from the religious? It was the attempt at censorship/murder that was being objected to, not complaint. Ihave the right to mock religion, religious people have the right to complain if I do. That is called freedom of speech. What they don't have the right, either legal or moral, to do, is to hit me over the head with a half-brick if I say or draw something they don't like.


 Coel Hellier 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Simon4:

Very well said.
 MJH 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to MJH)

> See my reply to Niggle just above. The right to be disrespectful and offensive is
> a _necessary_ freedom, a necessary part of not being subject to someone else's religion.

Of course you have a right in this country (now) to be disrespectful and offensive to a point (beyond which you are inciting religious hatred), but I didn't say that you shouldn't. I am just saying why do it when you know it is so disrespectful and offensive?

Sorry I don't buy at all that that is necessary to avoid being part of someone's religion. I quite happily avoid being part of any religion, but I feel no deep need to be offensive to those that are religious.

> If they can tell me not to draw Muhammed cartoons they can tell me to wear a veil
> in public, or not to work on the Sabbath, etc, etc.

Again same point as above. it isn't about whether they can force/tell you not to do something, but it is part of a thing called respect for another's beliefs. Just as it is perfectly correct that you can be offensive (though only to a point), it is also equally correct that they should be allowed to feel offended and protest about it (again to the point the law allows) - the fact that you don't understand why they are so offended does not make things any better.
 MJH 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to MJH)
>
> [...]
>
> But the MAJORITY of British Muslims want a CRIMINAL LAW against the publication
> of the Danish cartoons.

I suspect you mean an opinion poll suggested that, not that the actual Muslim population of the UK has literally expressed that view.

 MJH 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to niggle)
>
> [...]
>
> The offense to Muslims was a necessary but incidental consequence.

Absolute nonsense - there was nothing necessary what so ever.

> The point is to uphold freedoms. We can draw a cartoon of Nelson, Napoleon, Alexander
> the Great, why not Muhammed? We should not be subject to the dictats of someone else's
> religion. And if we need to offend Muslims while making that very, very clear, then
> fine, the freedom takes precedence over politeness.

But to what point? Freedom at any price and for the sake of it, how very mature as a society - we can insult because it happens to fit in with our version of freedom.
 MJH 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker: I saw the original 6 was it?

I saw that Sarko and Chirac were taking opposite stances on the Hebdo thing, well at least that was what the Times was reporting this morning.
Enoch Root 08 Feb 2007
In reply to MJH:

> But to what point?

Satire? Political cartoons as political statement?

The only failing of those cartoons was that they weren't terribly funny and they didn't make any great, incisive point.
 Coel Hellier 08 Feb 2007
In reply to MJH:

> Of course you have a right in this country (now) to be disrespectful and offensive [. . .]
> but I didn't say that you shouldn't. I am just saying why do it when you know it is
> so disrespectful and offensive?

1) Indeed I rarely do it for that reason.
2) If I do do it it is mainly to uphold the right to do so.

> Sorry I don't buy at all that that is necessary to avoid being part of someone's religion.

I disagree. We only have freedom to choose to decline religion because we are
free to offend people. As just one example, children's playgrounds in some parts
of Scotland have signs saying "closed on Sundays". Why?, because some religious
people would be offended by children playing on sunday. We only have freedom to
behave as we wish on a sunday if we have the right to offend religious people.

> it isn't about whether they can force/tell you not to do something, but it is part
> of a thing called respect for another's beliefs.

Respect should be earned, not demanded as of right. I am under no obligation
to respect somebody else's religion. (I do respect their _right_ to their religion.)

> it is also equally correct that they should be allowed to feel offended and protest
> about it (again to the point the law allows)

Indeed so; I entirely agree. Have I said otherwise?

> the fact that you don't understand why they are so offended [. . .]

Oh but I DO understand why they are so offended! But I also think that people
need to grow up and learn to accept encounters with people of differing opinion;
they can't impose Islamic dictats on others just because that would make them
more comfortable.

 Coel Hellier 08 Feb 2007
In reply to MJH:

>> The offense to Muslims was a necessary but incidental consequence.

> Absolute nonsense - there was nothing necessary what so ever.

It was necessary to either (1) publish Muhammed cartoons as a clear demonstration
of freedom to do so; or (2) meekly accept Islamic requests and dictats.

If you start on (2) where do you stop? And self censorship, meekly submitting to
avoid offense and strife, is the road to subservience.
Enoch Root 08 Feb 2007
In reply to MJH:

> it isn't about whether they can force/tell you not to do something, but it is part of a thing called respect for another's beliefs.

I don't think that superstition is inherently worthy of respect.

I DO think I should of course tolerate those superstitious beliefs (and defend to the death the right to hold and express them) up until EXACTLY that point where they purport to have any hold over my own behaviour.
 Coel Hellier 08 Feb 2007
In reply to MJH:

> Absolute nonsense - there was nothing necessary what so ever.

The Danish cartoons were indeed necessary, in exactly the same way that it was
necessary to repeatedly recite in public the "Gay news" poem about a gay centurion
and Jesus; this continued until the Christians stopped objecting, at which point
everyone got bored and went home, and now no-one can be bothered to recite it anymore.
 Doug 08 Feb 2007
For Bruce
Have just read
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/johann_hari/article2248747....

and was reminded of this thread

MJH
Much as I dislike Sarko, I did like his coment, that despite often being their target he prefered too much to no carictures, & that satire was a long French tradition


Not heard anything about Chirac's thoughts on the matter
 Coel Hellier 08 Feb 2007
In reply to ALL:

Those who don't see the necessity in ridicule should consider the countries where it is
a criminal offense to ridicule the government leadership, places like Zimbabwe and
North Korea. Exercise of ridicule is a necessary part of a free society.

And religions are potentially as powerful as any head of state; in many cases
they have been much more so. So ridiculing them is just as necessary as the right
to ridicule politicians. Come on, if religions held any worth they'd be big enough
to take it, wouldn't they?

Ideas such as capitalism come in for their fair share of insult and ridicule; but _good_
ideas are not harmed; good ideas are only improved by the fire of public examination.
Anyone cowering for special protection and blasphemy laws fears public debate.
 TobyA 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> By the way your nice lady didn't have to take time off for prayer by any islamic ruling while doing her course, the duty could have been waived in such situations... if she did it it was to make a point... I don't think she was as innocent as you seem to think!

FFS Bruce, you really are just a bigot aren't you? Change Muslim to Jew and rewind 70 years...
 TobyA 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> The right to be disrespectful and offensive is
> a _necessary_ freedom, a necessary part of not being subject to someone else's religion.

Why don't we have more hardcore porn on telly then Coel?
 Simon4 08 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA:

> Why don't we have more hardcore porn on telly then Coel?

What a damn good idea!
 TobyA 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Simon4: I'd be up for it as well, it's just this damn legacy of Christian virtues and all that blah blah blah. Not wanting to upset people unnecessarily etc.
 Simon4 08 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA: What about NECESSARILY upsetting them?

I know what you mean though, as the old (Catholic) joke used to say, the church may not stop you sinning, but it will stop you enjoying it.
 TobyA 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Jonno:

> I did hear one of the released Birmingham arrestees state that 'Britain is a police state for Muslims now'. Love to see how he would cope in a real police state !

He was rather grumpy wasn't he? Although I'm not sure I'd be any less pissed off if I had my house raided in the middle of the night then held for 7 days and then released with out charge. Its interesting that you call him an "arrestee" but not note that he was released with out charge.

 TobyA 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Simon4:
> (In reply to TobyA) What about NECESSARILY upsetting them?

I think that was Coel's point wasn't it? If all the prudes have to sit through prime time hardcore, then they'll probably loosen up in the end. So my campaign for "The Six O'clock Strip" is actually for their own good!
 alicia 08 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to Simon4)
> [...]
>
> I think that was Coel's point wasn't it? If all the prudes have to sit through prime time hardcore, then they'll probably loosen up in the end. So my campaign for "The Six O'clock Strip" is actually for their own good!

To be fair, you're misstating his point here. I think Coel's argument was for using the offensive material to acheive recognition of the value of open debate rather than to actually change anyone's religious beliefs.

I'm only trying to clarify this point; I'm not saying anything about the substance of any of the arguments.
 Simon4 08 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA: Which means he is innocent.

But we can't really ban the police from arresting people if they think they have good cause. What does need restraining is the tendency to use arrests and raids as a form of punishment, with huge amounts of publicity only just on the right side of being highly prejudicial - often followed weeks or months later when nothing actually happens to the people arrested, because there isn't enough evidence. So the elephants labour away and finally produce a mouse.

Of course its rather ironic when Labour with a capital L bitch like hell about the police feeling the collar of one or two of their own in a very public way about Cash for Honours, becoming all civil-libertarian (but only where they are concerned), when all our last 3 (or is it 4? One loses track of New Labour scoundrels and their various career-stopping scandals), home secretaries have been very vocal about major raids, gloating and talking a very hard line. Not to mention Gordon Brown commenting very prejudicially about a case where the defendant was found innocent in open court, the BNP case.

New Labour do not appear to have heard of the seperation of executive and judiciary.
 Simon4 08 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA:

> I So my campaign for "The Six O'clock Strip" is actually for their own good!

Burn the infidels - we're doing them a favour!

 DougG 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Enoch Root:

> I DO think I should of course tolerate those superstitious beliefs (and defend to the death the right to hold and express them) up until EXACTLY that point where they purport to have any hold over my own behaviour.

Which is precisely my point of view, expressed higher up the thread.

 TobyA 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Simon4:

> But we can't really ban the police from arresting people if they think they have good cause. What does need restraining is the tendency to use arrests and raids as a form of punishment, with huge amounts of publicity only just on the right side of being highly prejudicial - often followed weeks or months later when nothing actually happens to the people arrested, because there isn't enough evidence. So the elephants labour away and finally produce a mouse.

Totally agree. So many arrests so few charges. I don't blame the police because they will get blamed when attacks do happen, but I'm reading an interesting Dutch study of terrorists attacks, failed attacks, and proven plots across Europe 01 - 06. They count I think 36. That's it, for all of the EU.

But thousands of arrests. Similar in the US. They rounded up thousands after 9/11 and most ended up getting busted for visa violations etc. I'm not sure if any terror charges resulted at all.
 Bruce Hooker 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Doug:

Re: Sarko and Chirac - ditto.

I'm not sure Chirac is still quite aware what's going on... he's still pretending he might stand for re-election
 Bruce Hooker 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Simon4:

> Not to mention Gordon Brown commenting.... etc

> New Labour do not appear to have heard of the seperation of executive and judiciary.

What a pity, you post something sensible (your first one of the evening) then spoil it by switching back to your traditional tory party political broadcast!
 Bruce Hooker 08 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA:

> FFS Bruce, you really are just a bigot aren't you? Change Muslim to Jew and rewind 70 years...


Alas, I can't say the same about you, you are getting nastier and less rational day by day.

Check out the BBC site on islam, it explains how the system works... I won't bother offering a reading list as we have all been reminded often enough that you've read every book on the planet "for my work"!

I hope it pays well.
 Simon4 08 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA: Quite.

If there are thousands (or is it tens of thousands, I forget what John Reid told us), of fanatical jihadis ready to give their lives at any moment for virgins, along with 30 active plots for mass-murder in the UK as Stella Rimington told us, then these ruthless, fanatical, crazies must be bloody inefficient. I mean, I'm quite prepared to believe that they are mad, bad and dangerous to you and me, but they just don't seem very good at mass-murder do they?

Or just possibly we have a goverment (or goverments, for all I know similar things go on in other countries) looking for distractions from its own troubles, and a bureaucrat looking for a budget increase. As one of the law-lords put it when they got to throw out one of the many draconian infringements of liberty :

"If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, national security may be the last refuge of a tyrant"
 Simon4 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Nice to confirm your prejudices Bruce.

You don't live here anymore, so probably don't appreciate quite how arrogant, complacent and hubristic NL are. Above all, they seem quite unable to distinguish between the interests of the nation and their own sectarian interest, quite often doing things like commenting on the outcome of particular trials in a highly prejudicial fashion.

Of course this is quite a common phenomena for governments that have been in power far too long, have had too little effective opposition and are far to fond of the sweets of high office for their own sake.

Your reference to the Tories is interesting - I actually find the mood of our government to be quite similar to the last years of the Tory government - tired, out of ideas, clinging to office for its own sake and imagining that they are basically untouchable.
 Rob Exile Ward 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Simon4: Along the same lines, I remember arguing with an ex-SAS member in the early 80s that despite a number of quite effective attrocities I really didn't feel that threatened by the Provos. Yes, he said, but they're not after you - it's the politicians who make the headlines that they're after.

And being surrounded by security staff stressing the dangers day after day would tend to colour your judgement.
 Simon4 08 Feb 2007
In reply to Rob Exile Ward: Yes, the actual numbers of attacks (and deaths) caused by Sinn Fein/IRA was much higher than muslim attacks, albeit without the individual "spectacular" of 7th July, while there were parts of Northern Ireland that were virtually outside the law. To this day, IRA godfathers like Slab Murphy are more or less untouchable, despite having amassed a criminal fortune of millions, while have ordered quite a large number of murders.

To date, muslim extremists are not remotely in the same league as the provos. That's only so far mind you.
 Simon4 08 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA:

> But thousands of arrests. most ended up getting busted for visa violations etc. I'm not sure if any terror charges resulted at all.

IIRC, one of the "most dangerous suspects" in the UK was finally found guilty of .... failing to admit on an application form that he had injured his arm playing tennis! The increasingly irritated magistrate (or circuit judge?), who got ever more reluctant to detain him on flimsy evidence, finally told him he was now free to go - and to be sure to fill in application forms truthfully in the future.

 Timmd 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> Muslim apologists like referring to nice muslim ladies... in France too, they never miss the chance! Does her being a nice lady imply any special world insight? How do you know she really is nice... have you asked her what she thinks about stoning, for example?

It implies nothing at all,she asked me in a concerned way how i broke my wrist which was in plaster,speaking to her face to her she seemed gentle and kind.

> I saw an islamic bookshop owner waxing poetic on the telly the other day about how non-believers could not understand the beauty of islmam and the sharia law without embracing it in its totality... only then, he smarmed with a beatific smile, could we understand that the stoning of adulteresses was really not shocking at all... He looked like a very nice smiling man too, until you listened to his words.

I wouldn't have liked him either.

> By the way your nice lady didn't have to take time off for prayer by any islamic ruling while doing her course, the duty could have been waived in such situations... if she did it it was to make a point... I don't think she was as innocent as you seem to think!

How do you know?? Are you a psychic?

Maybe she was just devout?

Cheers
Tim
Pacific 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Jonno:

The fight isnt against Islam its againts extremists.

If your not happy with our government - go back home.

If you choose to be a soldier fight against soldiers not civillians. Gain some respect for your cause.

Big Love x


 Bruce Hooker 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Simon4:

> To date, muslim extremists are not remotely in the same league as the provos. That's only so far mind you.

You are talking abut the uk here I suppose, as people in the rest of the world, especially muslim countries might not agree with you... Algeria, Somalia, Indonesia, Egypt, Iraq, etc.

It is also somewhat logical that the violence concerning Ireland should take place essentially in the two countries concerned, is it not? It hardly has the same world importance as the conflicts surrounding the Middle East and the muslim world as a whole... a different scale of magnitude to our local Irish affairs.
 Bruce Hooker 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Timmd:

> How do you know?? Are you a psychic?

> Maybe she was just devout?

You've missed the point: standard traditional islam is in fact quite pragmatic about the rules, concerning ramadan and prayer for example, and even devout muslims can take advantage of let out clauses when strict application of the rules is problematic... your nice lady was, like the police cadet who wouldn't shake hands or the young girls who tried to force the issue by wearing headscarves in French state schools, just making a point.

Muslim fanatics are quite happy to use girls as cannon fodder.... it avoids them taking the risks themselves, quite convenient.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> No I don't. AND WE DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT TO START WITH!

Well of course you do. But it's funny that you don't want think it's "necessary" to exercise that particular right in order to avoid losing it.

Could it be that you only abuse religious people? Well, well. So it's not really about rights at all, is it? Come on, let's just say it: it's about you being an anti-religious bigot. If it wasn't, you'd be standing up for the right to abuse everyone, not just people you're afraid of.

> I am NOT talking about the direct abuse of an individual; I am talking about the right to ridicule ideas and idea systems.

Oh ha ha ha.

And religions are made up of what? That's right, individuals. But it's okay to abuse them in your book, right? Funny how selective you are about championing your "rights".

So by your own rationale, you'd be right behind Jade Goody and Jo O'Meara in bullying and abusing Shilpa Shetty. After all they were just protecting their own right to abuse, bully and belittle someone. And you think that's not only important but necessary.

Here's the bottom line: you want to protect an imaginary "right" to behave like an arsehole because you behave like an arsehole.

Admittedly, by your own admission you don't have the guts to do it to people's faces. But hey, what do we expect from someone who's such a spineles, gutless prick that he feels driven to attack people's beliefs in the first place?
 MG 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

That's not what Coel said....oh forget it

Very good troll sustained over weeks if not months but you can stop now. You are rather boring.
OP Anonymous 09 Feb 2007
>
> Admittedly, by your own admission you don't have the guts to do it to people's faces. But hey, what do we expect from someone who's such a spineles, gutless prick that he feels driven to attack people's beliefs in the first place?

no true believer would abuse another person in that way, or conduct themselves in this way in public......you have obviously lost your way.....I shall prey for you.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to MG:

That's exactly what he said; that we have to offend people if we want to retain our right to do so.

So where is he now? Is he shouting racial abuse at black people? Perhaps he's attending a women's group to call them sluts and order them back into the kitchen?

No, of course not. He's dreaming up more abuse to heap on religious people, because he doesn't give a toss about preserving the right to offend whoever we like, he just wants the right to harrass, bully and intimidate religious people because he's a slobbering grunting anti-religious bigot.

I don't know what you're getting on your high horse about. Coel will agree completely with everything that I've written about him, in fact he'll fully endorse it as necessary and join in immediately, because I'm just fighting for my right to offend people.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Anonymous:

> no true believer would abuse another person in that way, or conduct themselves in this way in public......you have obviously lost your way.....I shall prey for you.

Well, that's very sweet of you.

And I'll pray for you too.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA:

>> The right to be disrespectful and offensive is
>> a _necessary_ freedom, a necessary part of not being subject to someone else's religion.

> Why don't we have more hardcore porn on telly then Coel?

The right to critically examine idea systems (religious, political, etc) using
ridicule is essential to a free and healthy society. I am willing to ride roughshod
over peoples' sensibilities to uphold that principle.

Hardcore porn on telly is not necessary for a free and healthy society; and there
can be secular as well as religious reasons for not wanting it.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I am willing to ride roughshod over peoples' sensibilities to uphold that principle.

As long as they're religious people's sensiblities, right? Because you seem remarkably reluctant to champion your dearly-held right to offend black people, women, in fact anyone except religious people.
 Bruce Hooker 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Really you are wasting your time replying to niggle, he is just an alter ego of someone who posts, or posted, here before under another name. As his name indicates he is just here to niggle... he starts off niggling then works himself up into abuse... the other day an interesting thread got pulled because of the nastiness he provoked.

It also hijacks the thread completely as we have to wade through pages of niggly drivel, which is too tiresome for words. Unless you like sparring with porridge, of course, there is no hope of you ever having a useful exchange with this sort of Star Trek cyber creature
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> he is just an alter ego of someone who posts, or posted, here before under another name.

Actually I'm not. I post on other boards under this name too.

> the other day an interesting thread got pulled by the nastiness he provoked.

Really? Which one was that?
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Well of course you do. But it's funny that you don't want think it's "necessary" to
> exercise that particular right in order to avoid losing it.

The right to ridicule and critically examine powerful or potentially powerful idea
systems and interest groups is essential to a free and healthy society.
If that principle is threatened it is necessary to uphold it, regardless of
offence that ridicule might cause.

The "right" to verbally harass or insult an individual going about their business
is not at all necessary, nor even desirable, in a free and healthy society.

> Could it be that you only abuse religious people? Well, well. So it's not really
> about rights at all, is it? Come on, let's just say it: it's about you being an
> anti-religious bigot. If it wasn't, you'd be standing up for the right to abuse
> everyone, not just people you're afraid of.

I am in two minds as to whether you genuinely are misunderstanding me, or
whether you are deliberately resorting to your usual distortion accompanied by sneers.

I have made it very, very clear, to anyone making even a small attempt to understand me,
that my "necessary to give offence" statement was in the context of UPHOLDING A
FREEDOM THAT IS NECESSARY FOR A FREE AND HEALTHY SOCIETY,
namely the right to ridicule, lampoon and insult idea systems.

You are completely distorting that by missing out most crucial bit and claiming I want
to give offense merely for the right to give offense. That is not what I said.

>> I am talking about the right to ridicule ideas and idea systems.

> And religions are made up of what? That's right, individuals.

Wrong. Religions are made up of ideas. The individuals are adherents to the religions.

> So by your own rationale, you'd be right behind Jade Goody and Jo O'Meara in bullying
> and abusing Shilpa Shetty.

If you'd made the slightest attempt to understand me you'd see that that was
not my rationale at all.

> After all they were just protecting their own right to abuse, bully and belittle
> someone. And you think that's not only important but necessary.

No, stupid. Once again you have missed out the ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL
part of what I said, namely the idea that offense is justified if it is
part of upholding the right to ridicule idea systems that is a vital part of a
free and healthy society.

> Admittedly, by your own admission you don't have the guts to do it to people's faces.
> But hey, what do we expect from someone who's such a spineles, gutless prick
> that he feels driven to attack people's beliefs in the first place?

<Yawn> You really have no idea do you? Just think of those "spineless gutless
pricks" like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn who "felt driven" to attack the idea systems
of the Soviet Union. Such people are heros, a thousand times better than anonymous
snivellers such as you. How dare you, an anonymous internet sniveller, call Solzhenitsyn
and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi "spineless gutless pricks" for daring
to make critiques of powerful interest groups.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>> I am willing to ride roughshod over peoples' sensibilities to uphold that principle.

> As long as they're religious people's sensiblities, right? Because you seem remarkably
> reluctant to champion your dearly-held right to offend black people, women, in fact
> anyone except religious people.

"Anyone but religious people"? Have you missed the several times where I have quite
clearly supported the right to ridicule _political_ ideas just as much as religious ones?
If so, could you please try _reading_?

And in what way is the "right" to verbally harass women and blacks, in person, an
essential part of a healthy society? It isn't. Whereas the right to critically examine
ideas, including political and religious ones, and extending to the use of ridicule, is.

 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> That's exactly what he said; that we have to offend people if we want to retain our right to do so.

Once again, you miss out the CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT statement about the context in
which I find it acceptable to give offense in defence of essential freedoms.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Wrong. Religions are made up of ideas. The individuals are adherents to the religions.

No, you said that it's necessary to offend. Ideas don't get offended, people do. Quit trying to backtrack: you were talking about offendng people. Are there some abstract ideas that post here? Please tell me their usernames.

> The "right" to verbally harass or insult an individual going about their business is not at all necessary, nor even desirable, in a free and healthy society.

Then why are you doing it? Again, tell me the username of an abstract idea you have offended recently. Can you? No. You just abuse individuals going about their business, like me and anyone else who yo uthink might be part of a religion.


> Just think of those "spineless gutless pricks" like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn who "felt driven" to attack the idea systems of the Soviet Union.

Wow, so you consider yourself in the same league as Solzhenitsyn? Talk about your self-importance!

Wow!

I'm not calling them gutless, I'm calling you gutless.

> You are completely distorting that by missing out most crucial bit and claiming I want to give offense merely for the right to give offense. That is not what I said.

Oh really?

So you didn't say, "If we didn't exercise our freedom to insult and ridicule religion we would lose it"?

Stop backpedalling you coward. You said it, so either take repsonsibility for it or apologise and shut up.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Once again, you miss out the CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT statement about the context in which I find it acceptable to give offense in defence of essential freedoms.

You said, "If we didn't exercise our freedom to insult and ridicule religion we would lose it"

Clear as day. Now you've decided to tuck tail and run.

 Timmd 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> You've missed the point: standard traditional islam is in fact quite pragmatic about the rules, concerning ramadan and prayer for example, and even devout muslims can take advantage of let out clauses when strict application of the rules is problematic... your nice lady was, like the police cadet who wouldn't shake hands or the young girls who tried to force the issue by wearing headscarves in French state schools, just making a point.

Oh right,you must be a psychic after all if you can tell was making a point.

There's a word for you Bruce,and it's called prejudiced.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> And in what way is the "right" to verbally harass women and blacks, in person, an essential part of a healthy society? It isn't.

But strangely, you think that verbally harassing religious people is not only important, it's necessary.

Bigotry often expresses itself as double standards. Where's your dedication to preserving the right to offend women and blacks? Ah, it's just religious people you want to be allowed to attack.

Surprise surprise.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>> Wrong. Religions are made up of ideas. The individuals are adherents to the religions.

> No, you said that it's necessary to offend. Ideas don't get offended, people do.

Yes, I said that if critically examining, even ridiculing, idea systems gives offense
to people then it is necessary to proceed despite the offense.

> Quit trying to backtrack: you were talking about offendng people.

Indeed. Please read the previous sentence repeatedly until you show signs of
understanding it.

> Wow, so you consider yourself in the same league as Solzhenitsyn?

<Yawn> Did I say that? I don't think I did. Your distortions are tedious.

> I'm not calling them gutless, I'm calling you gutless.

Your statement was "what do we expect from someone who's such a spineles,
gutless prick that he feels driven to attack people's beliefs in the first place?".

Doesn't that imply that anyone who feels driven to attack people's beliefs is a
"spineless, gutless prick"? And didn't Solzhenitsyn feel driven to attack the
beliefs of the communists?

> So you didn't say, "If we didn't exercise our freedom to insult and ridicule
> religion we would lose it"? Stop backpedalling you coward. You said it, so either
> take repsonsibility for it or apologise and shut up.

Yes, I said it. And I stand by it. And I'm not backpedalling at all. The right to
"insult and ridicule religion" (which is an idea system) is indeed essential to
a free and healthy society.

That is not the same as verbally harassing in person someone going about their daily business.
 Timmd 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>
> You've missed the point: standard traditional islam is in fact quite pragmatic about the rules, concerning ramadan and prayer for example, and even devout muslims can take advantage of let out clauses when strict application of the rules is problematic... your nice lady was, like the police cadet who wouldn't shake hands or the young girls who tried to force the issue by wearing headscarves in French state schools, just making a point.


:Prejudice.

An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
A preconceived preference or idea.
The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.


 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> You said, "If we didn't exercise our freedom to insult and ridicule religion we would lose it"

> Clear as day. Now you've decided to tuck tail and run.

Liar. I am standing foresquare behind that statement.
 Bruce Hooker 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Timmd:

> There's a word for you Bruce,and it's called prejudiced.

If I was as impolite as you I would reply "There's a word for you Tim, naïve!". But as I'm not I won't.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>> And in what way is the "right" to verbally harass women and blacks, in person,
>> an essential part of a healthy society? It isn't.

> But strangely, you think that verbally harassing religious people is not only important,
> it's necessary.

Did I say anything about verbally harassing religious people going about their daily
business? For example, shouting at them as they enter church? I didn't, dumbo.
Your distortions are tedious. Have you nothing except distortion?

Can you really not tell the difference between critically examining and ridiculing
an idea system, for example in a book, cartoon, newspaper article, or whatever,
and verbally harassing someone going about their daily business?

 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Yes, I said that if critically examining, even ridiculing, idea systems gives offense to people then it is necessary to proceed despite the offense.

Exactly: you say that we should do something which is intended to cause offence - ridiculing people's beliefs - so that we can maintain the right to cause offence.

> That is not the same as verbally harassing in person someone going about their daily business.

Of course it is. As I said, who are you harrassing exactly? Do you see a lot of abstract ideas walking around? No. You abuse and attack the people who hold the beliefs as they go about their daily business, here on this forum.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Did I say anything about verbally harassing religious people going about their daily business? For example, shouting at them as they enter church? I didn't, dumbo.

Well of course you don't do that. You haven't got the balls. You just snipe at people on the web as they go about posting and surfing.

> Can you really not tell the difference between critically examining and ridiculing an idea system, for example in a book, cartoon, newspaper article, or whatever, and verbally harassing someone going about their daily business?

You still haven't given me the usernames of the abstract ideas who post here. Now you want me to believe that you restrict you verbal abuse to books? They post here too do they?

Balls.

You attack the people who hold the beliefs, with the intent of offending them. You're a coward and a bully who doesn't even have the courage to do his bullying face to face.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Exactly: you say that we should do something which is intended to cause offence
> - ridiculing people's beliefs - so that we can maintain the right to cause offence.

And once again you entriely miss out the crucially important CONTEXT!
Can you really not see that acceptable actions are context dependent? For example
the right to pick up a stick and hit someone with it is very dependent on whether
they are a mugger with a knife coming at you, or a little old lady carrying her shopping.

> You abuse and attack the people who hold the beliefs as they go about their
> daily business, here on this forum.

A ludicrous comparison. People can choose not to read anything I write.
It is very different from verbally abusing someone in the street. The right
to critically examine ideas is essential, and you have no right to be free of
any offense that causes. You do have a right to be free from verbal harassment or
threats as you walk down the street.

 Al Evans 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle: Nobody is as cowardly and bullying as a religious fanatic.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> You still haven't given me the usernames of the abstract ideas who post here.
> Now you want me to believe that you restrict you verbal abuse to books? They post here too do they?

Look, stupid, I asked you to repeatedly read the following sentence until you
showed signs of understanding it. Here it is again: "I said that if critically
examining, even ridiculing, idea systems gives offense to people then it is
necessary to proceed despite the offense."

Note that it is idea systems that are critiqued and ridiculed and people
who are offended. Clear? Or do you need further instruction on the
difference between idea systems and people?

> You attack the people who hold the beliefs, with the intent of offending them.

I attack the _idea_systems_. The intent is to ridicule the idea system.
The offense to people is, as I said way back, incidental to that.

> You're a coward and a bully who doesn't even have the courage to do his
> bullying face to face.

Says an anonymous sniveller.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> And once again you entriely miss out the crucially important CONTEXT!

What CONTEXT?

You've written several times that you believe it's necessary to offend people to avoid losing your right to offend them. You've given no CONTEXT, just that you want the "right" to offend people.

> People can choose not to read anything I write. It is very different from verbally abusing someone in the street.

People in the street can ignore you too, in theory.

> You do have a right to be free from verbal harassment or
threats as you walk down the street.

But not on a web forum? Grow up. You come here to find religious people so you can abuse and belittle them. you seek them out just as you might seek someone in the street, then you intentionally offend them - by your own admission.

You only do it here because you wouldn't dare do it in the street. On this board you imagine yourself the champion of inalienable rights; in the street your demands turn to dust and you keep your mouth shut.

you live on your knees like the snivelling coward you are.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I attack the _idea_systems_.

No you don't.

You attack the people who subscribe to them.

You've been asked a plain question: what are the usernames of the idea systems you attack?

Quit wriggling and just answer the question.

Show us some posts of yours which are not directed at a person, but at an idea system.

You say you only attack idea systems? Prove it.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>> And once again you entriely miss out the crucially important CONTEXT!

> What CONTEXT?
>
> You've written several times that you believe it's necessary to offend people
> to avoid losing your right to offend them. You've given no CONTEXT, just that you
> want the "right" to offend people.

At this point I conclude you are just being deliberatly obnoxious and nasty.
The "context" is the stuff I have made abundantly clear in repeated posts,
sometimes in capital letters. Everyone else will have seen it. I really can't be
bothered typing it out again if you are just going to ignore it again.

> you live on your knees like the snivelling coward you are.

<Yawn>
 seankenny 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> There are also a few simple administrative measure that would help... insisting on religious services in the language of the country.

So should my Buddhist friends and relations be forced to translate "Om Mani Padme Hum" into English? Will the council jobsworths be sent round to temples to makes sure the services are done all in English with not a trace of Pali?

Perhaps if this rule is enacted I should consider hiding all those requiem cd's which happen to be in Latin...
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> At this point I conclude you are just being deliberatly obnoxious and nasty.

And of course you back that to the hilt, believing that I'm a freedom fighter in the mould of Solzhenitsyn, bravely battling for my right to insult you by insulting you?

Yeah, right.

> The "context" is the stuff I have made abundantly clear in repeated posts

And yet you're unable to reproduce it when asked.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>> I attack the _idea_systems_.

> No you don't. You attack the people who subscribe to them.

Yes, I attack the idea systems. For example I started off attacking the idea that
non-Muslims should be subject to the Islamic prohibition on depicting Mohammed.
Do a search on the word "Nelson" for an example.

> You've been asked a plain question: what are the usernames of the idea systems you attack?
>
> Quit wriggling and just answer the question.

They don't have usernames, dumbo.

> Show us some posts of yours which are not directed at a person, but at an idea system.

OK, Thursday 17:30 for example.

 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to seankenny:

> So should my Buddhist friends and relations be forced to translate "Om Mani Padme Hum" into English?

Ha! Ha!

Perhaps christians should be prevented from saying "hallelujah" and "amen" too?

 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> You've given no CONTEXT, just that you want the "right" to offend people.

If you _really_ need a re-hash of the context, re-read my post at 10:55 Friday,
as just one of several examples,

 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> OK, Thursday 17:30 for example.

No, that post was directed at me. It's easy to spot because it says, "In reply to Niggle" at the top of it.

> They don't have usernames, dumbo.

Really? Then how do you direct your posts at them?

Or do you direct your posts at people, just I've said all along?
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>> The "context" is the stuff I have made abundantly clear in repeated posts

> And yet you're unable to reproduce it when asked.

OK, if you _really_ need it again:

"I have made it very, very clear, to anyone making even a small attempt to understand me,
that my "necessary to give offence" statement was in the context of UPHOLDING A
FREEDOM THAT IS NECESSARY FOR A FREE AND HEALTHY SOCIETY,
namely the right to ridicule, lampoon and insult idea systems."

"You are completely distorting that by missing out most crucial bit and claiming I want
to give offense merely for the right to give offense. That is not what I said."

"Once again you have missed out the ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL
part of what I said, namely the idea that offense is justified if it is
part of upholding the right to ridicule idea systems that is a vital part of a
free and healthy society."

 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

There is no context in that post, just a repeated insistence that it's necessary for you to offend people so that you can retain your "right" to offend people.
 Bruce Hooker 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> At this point I conclude you are just being deliberatly obnoxious and nasty. (referring to a bit of nigglespeak)

I admire your tenacity but this has been obvious for some time

On a general level it's amusing to see that all those that support religion, christian, muslim whatever, on these forums nearly always resort to abuse after a bit. They start off all sweetness and light (except niggle!) but when they encounter a bit of resistance the insults start.

If god exists he's not keeping his supporters in line very well.

 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>> OK, Thursday 17:30 for example.

> No, that post was directed at me. It's easy to spot because it says, "In reply to
> Niggle" at the top of it.

Irrelevant. The thrust of the post was to reject the IDEA that non-Muslims
should be subject to an Islamic dictat on depicting Mohammed.

Are you really having trouble with the concept that one can critique and examine
IDEAS in the format of a discussion with PEOPLE?
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

That's exactly what I said: you want the "right" to deliberately offend people by ridiculing their beliefs so that you can retain the freedom to offend people by ridiculing their beliefs.

Anyone can see that it's completely circular.

And is abusing, attacking and offending people so that you can continue to do so necessary for a healthy society?

Is it f*ck.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> There is no context in that post, just a repeated insistence that it's
> necessary for you to offend people so that you can retain your "right" to offend people.

Your willfull overlooking of the entire core of a post, and your subsequent distortion
of it, is dumb, ludicrous and tiresome.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Irrelevant. The thrust of the post was to reject the IDEA that non-Muslims should be subject to an Islamic dictat on depicting Mohammed.

Then why don't you reply to the idea's username instead of mine?

Oh yeah, because ideas don't have usernames.

 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Anyone can see that it's completely circular.

Do you have a blindspot that means you can't even see the words "critically examining ideas,
even to the point of ridicule, is necessary for a free and healthy society"?
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Your willfull overlooking of the entire core of a post, and your subsequent distortion of it, is dumb, ludicrous and tiresome.

Really?

Well do us all a favour and quit posting then.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Then why don't you reply to the idea's username instead of mine?

> Oh yeah, because ideas don't have usernames.

You know, that is probably the first post of yours today that contains any sense.
 Bruce Hooker 09 Feb 2007
In reply to seankenny:

It is the case in many countries... surely if we are really interested in integration and social harmony then the language issue is vital. The question of Mass in Latin or English, the first translations of the bible into English, the common prayer book in English were all important milestones in religious history... in general history even.

In mosques in Britain are the services in foreign language or the language of the country? I assumed they would be in English mostly, like other religions... if not it's not surprising there is so much alienation and racism.
 MJH 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Jonno: Some interesting articles in today's Times:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article1354063.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/mary_ann_sieghart/artic...

Just goes to show that are moderate muslims prepared to put their heads above the parapet.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Do you have a blindspot that means you can't even see the words "critically examining ideas, even to the point of ridicule, is necessary for a free and healthy society"?

Oh no, I can read it alright.

Unfortunately it's joined to the idiotic idea that it's actually necessary to offend people just to maintain the right to offend them.

The offence caused is deliberate and crucial to your argument. You're not satisfied to discuss and share ideas; in fact you're not really interested in it at all. What you're interested in is bullying, abusing and deliberately offending people for their beliefs, and as you've said over and over, that's the right you want to defend.

Change your position. Drop the idea that ridicule is necessary, drop the idea that deliberately casuing offence is a right, and I'll agree with you.

If you won't drop it, all that says about you is that that's the bit you're interested in and are desparate to keep.
 Doug 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier: why don't you just ignore him, he's just trying (& apparently succedding) in winding you up as he's done over several threads. You can't win as s/he'll just keep on misquoting etc
 MJH 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Well the Koran is not the word of allah unless it is in arabic. Partly for the reason that as soon as you translate it then there is too much scope for interpretation.
 Postmanpat 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Coel,as Doug has implied,there are two possibilities here:niggle is a complete idiot unable to understan a simple argument or he is a troll .

Either way, you would do best to declare victory and move on .
 Duncan Bourne 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>
> On a general level it's amusing to see that all those that support religion, christian, muslim whatever, on these forums nearly always resort to abuse after a bit. They start off all sweetness and light (except niggle!) but when they encounter a bit of resistance the insults start.
>
> If god exists he's not keeping his supporters in line very well.

People often reply in kind. I don't think you can infer much from that.
On the language issue. What about the Welsh?

 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Change your position. Drop the idea that ridicule is necessary, drop the idea that
> deliberately casuing offence is a right, and I'll agree with you.

> If you won't drop it, all that says about you is that that's the bit you're
> interested in and are desparate to keep.

Look, if you adopt "examining ideas is legitimate, but not to the point of causing
offense", then all someone has to do to close off an area of debate and protect an
issue from examination is to say "I would be offended".

That is the first thing all totalitarian regimes attempt: to restrict what people can say
and what ideas people can examine.

Thus it is _necessary_ for the critical examination of ideas to proceed _regardless_
of people crying "Stop, I'm offended!". If you allow them to limit your free enquiry
you abandon that free enquiry, and become subservient to their idea systems.

That is why, if someone tries to close down debate, or restrict what you can do,
for example saying you should not draw a cartoon ridiculing Mohammed, then it is
necessary to do exactly that to uphold the principle of free enquiry and of freedom
from the dictats of someone else's religion.

As another example, some Muslims have stated that even asking the question
"Is terrorism inspired by Islam?" is impermissible and should be a criminal
offense. They state that they find the very asking of the question offensive.
I'm sorry, but that is not a sufficient reason to avoid asking the question.

That is why, if important freedoms such as critical enquiry are threatened by
the cry of "I am offended", it is necessary to uphold those freedoms by going
right ahead with the enquiry, despite the offense.

And no, the point is not offense for the sake of offense, it is upholding the right of
freedom and free enquiry. And please don't omit the carefully stated context when
reporting any of what I've just said.

 KeithW 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>
> Unfortunately it's joined to the idiotic idea that it's actually necessary to offend people just to maintain the right to offend them.

Why are you so bothered?

If you're a true believer, you'll only have to put up with it for a few decades before you spend eternity in paradise.
 Timmd 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> [...]
>
> If I was as impolite as you I would reply "There's a word for you Tim, naïve!". But as I'm not I won't.

You plainly are prejudiced if you say the lady in my computer classes was making a point when you've never even spoken to her.
A Muslim person is just another human being untill you know something more about them.

If you say anything else negative about the Muslim lady in my classes it'll only reinforce the fact that you are.

I only brought it up because i believe prejudice to be a bad thing,it's up to you to work out whether you are,what you said about the lady in my class definately is.

I only knew she was praying because i looked over my shoulder instead of looking at my PC from being nosey,she murmered something to the tutor and went somewhere unobtrusive to kneel down. I don't know if anybody else even noticed.

Cheers
Tim
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Doug:

> why don't you just ignore him,

He seems to be doing a decent job of discrediting religion by his actions, which is just fine with me.
hiclimber75 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Timmd:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
> You plainly are prejudiced if you say the lady in my computer classes was making a point when you've never even spoken to her.
> A Muslim person is just another human being untill you know something more about them.

>
> Cheers
> Tim

but some of them put bomb on there bodys and blow people up surely thats prejudice
 TobyA 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> The right to
> "insult and ridicule religion" (which is an idea system) is indeed essential to
> a free and healthy society.
>
> That is not the same as verbally harassing in person someone going about their daily business.

They can be though Coel, as I'm sure you're aware.

BTW, your chopping up lines is a bit weird as it just gets messed up when we reply to you. My eyes move side to side, so I'm not quite sure why you need to put so much effort into it?
 KeithW 09 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA:

> BTW, your chopping up lines is a bit weird

Don't you try and repress Coel!

(Now we see the violence inherent in the system...)

Pan Ron 09 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA:

Folks might find this interesting.

I just checked out the website and Rageh's documentary looks very interesting. At the least it might provide us with a nice picture of a city before we flatten it, or to Bruce's liking - show us just what despots and terrorists these Muslims really are.

From: Rageh Omaar []
Sent: 08 February 2007 21:38
To: ''
Subject: BBC Documentary Film on Iran - BBC 4 February 15th, 9pm


Dear Friends,

I and director Paul Sapin have made a 90 minute documentary film on the people of Tehran. Our aim was to present British and international audiences with a more authentic picture of the city and the lives of its people. Please do pass details of the film onto colleagues and friends you feel would be interested.

To get an idea of the film, you can watch a trailer of it on; http://www.sapinxray.com/

And you can read about it in this week’s Sunday Times

 seankenny 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to seankenny)
>
> The question of Mass in Latin or English, the first translations of the bible into English, the common prayer book in English were all important milestones in religious history... in general history even.

Yes, very important, but that wasn't really my point, which was: you want to make a law saying how people should worship. I pointed out that might have consequences further than you might expect. Should a Buddhist break the law when talking about "buddha, dharma, sangha"? What about Greek or Russian Orthodox?

 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

If your "free enquiries" are causing harm, then yes you should stop what you're doing.

Even if you have no respect whatsoever for any else's rights to live without harassment, you should stop.

Why?

Because you're clearly not gaining anything useful from your "free enquiries". You're not gaining useful information, you're just offending the very person you're supposed to be in dialogue with and thus ending that dialogue.

The accusation that those who are offended are closing the dialogue is spurious: you have already closed it yourself by opting to deliberately offend them.

The idea that it's okay to offend people if you're making "free enquiries" is just a variation on "the end justifies the means". And of course we all know that the end cannot ever justify the means because the end achieved is largely determined by the means employed.

What kind of results is your "free enquiry" going to yield if you go about it by deliberately and intentionally abusing and ridiculing the party of whom you are enquiring?

The ridicule is unneccessary, and in fact sabotages the very "free enquiry" you claim to be carrying out.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> If your "free enquiries" are causing harm, then yes you should stop what you're doing.

I don't accept that people being offended is "harm".

> Even if you have no respect whatsoever for any else's rights to live without harassment, you should stop.

I don't accept that reading an opinion one disagrees with is "harassment".

> Because you're clearly not gaining anything useful from your "free enquiries".

Oh yes I am. We only have religious and political freedom because people have
been willing to critique totalitarian tendancies.

> You're not gaining useful information, you're just offending the very person
> you're supposed to be in dialogue with and thus ending that dialogue.

What makes you think that the person I'm directly talking to is the only one who counts?
For example, 3600 people have looked at this thread.

Suppose I were to discuss here, reasonably and amicably, the question "Does Islam inspire
terrorism?". Would it be OK if a third party required "Stop, I'm offended by you even
discussing the question"? Some Muslims have stated that such a discussion is unacceptable.

 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

In your desire to avoid offense, which if the following would you accept:

1) You may not depict Mohammed; I will be offended if you do.

2) You may not have hair showing in public; please wear a veil.

3) I am offended by the sight of your children playing in the park on Sunday, please
keep them indoors.

4) You may not present an historical account of Mohammed that differs from the
religious hagiography; anything such is offensive.

5) You may not openly read the Bible on a street corner; that is offensive to us.

6) No Muslim may ever renounce Islam; to do so would be deeply offensive.

7) You may doubt the existence of God, but please keep quiet about it, to state
that opinion in public is offensive and counter to public morals.

8) You must attend church; to stay away is offensive.

As I'm sure you know, every one of these requests has been made by religious believers.
Which of them do you accept as legitimate, and how do you deicde where to draw the line?
 Simon4 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> You are talking abut the uk here I suppose, as people in the rest of the world, especially muslim countries might not agree with you... Algeria, Somalia, Indonesia, Egypt, Iraq, etc.

Yes I know about those, particulary Algeria - a virtually ignored conflict, not least by the congenitally indignant. But I was specifically talking about the UK context and the reaction (or over-reaction) to the threat.

> It is also somewhat logical that the violence concerning Ireland should take place essentially in the two countries concerned, is it not?

It had a very significant impact in Britain, particularly in NI obviously.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to TobyA:

>> That is not the same as verbally harassing in person someone going about their daily business.

> They can be though Coel, as I'm sure you're aware.

I agree, they could be the same, and I would presume against verbally harassing
someone going about their daily business. There are better ways of critiquing an idea
system, such as writing a newspaper article or drawing a cartoon.
 MJH 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I have tried to stay out of this one, because I think both sides are being a bit disingenuous.

> I don't accept that reading an opinion one disagrees with is "harassment".

Well it could be if the only intention is to cause offense.

> Oh yes I am. We only have religious and political freedom because people have
> been willing to critique totalitarian tendancies.

One of the most famous parts of the Koran is "there is no compulsion in religion", just strong incentives

I would no more describe islam as totalitarian than pretty much any other religion (or for that matter any belief system) in that yes there are parts of it that could be interpreted as such and there are people who will tell you that islam is the only way etc. None of that makes them right or you right that islam is totalitarian.

> Suppose I were to discuss here, reasonably and amicably, the question "Does Islam inspire
> terrorism?". Would it be OK if a third party required "Stop, I'm offended by you even
> discussing the question"? Some Muslims have stated that such a discussion is unacceptable.

But then put it into proportion - a small vocal minority might say that, but the vast majority of muslims wouldn't.

Actually I think that question is pretty insulting and OTT, in that most religions (or belief political systems) have managed to spawn extremists who think that their message is the only way. Do you ask does Christianity inspire terrorism? Actually don't answer that one.

 MJH 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier: Now we are just back to your favourite topic - religion bashing....
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I don't accept that people being offended is "harm".

Deliberately offending people is by definition deliberate harm.

> I don't accept that reading an opinion one disagrees with is "harassment".

Nobody said anything about "disagreeing", I'm talking about seeking out and deliberately offending people, which is certainly harassment.

> What makes you think that the person I'm directly talking to is the only one who counts?

Nothing, but the fact remains that you're deliberately ending the dialogue by purposely causing offence. Ending the dialogue means that you're preventing any further useful interaction, and thus making sure you learn nothing more.

As I said, the end can never justify the means. If you're genuinely interested in free enquiry into religion, which would yields better results: respectful, objective enquiry? Or abusing and bullying the other party until they withdraw?

> Suppose I were to discuss here, reasonably and amicably, the question "Does Islam inspire terrorism?". Would it be OK if a third party required "Stop, I'm offended by you even discussing the question"?

Yes, perfectly reasonable. If you really wanted to know about islam and terrorism, you'd want to know why the other person was offended. You'd reasonably and amicably discuss that point. What would be the point in bullying and abusing that person? What would you learn from them by doing that?
 Simon4 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> As I'm sure you know, every one of these requests has been made by religious believers.

Not to mention the basic point that niggle (naturally) failed to answer - why should religious beliefs have special priviledges over other belief-systems? Shouldn't everyone have the right to prohibit everything they find offensive (which would of course preclude the expression of any religion, since quite a lot of religions object strenously to other religions and find them offensive, blasphemers, heretics, infidels, etc).

Predicatable translation of the right to free speech/behaviour into "an obligation to offend/abuse". To call it reductio-ad-absurdum is inaccurate - niggle pretty much starts from the absurd, there is distance to travel to get there.

 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Simon4:

> why should religious beliefs have special priviledges over other belief-systems?

I didn't say they should.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to MJH:

> One of the most famous parts of the Koran is "there is no compulsion in religion",
> just strong incentives

I recall that about a year ago a Muslim called "Safe" came along reciting that line,
and saying how Islam was a misunderstood religion of peace.

A bit later s/he stated that it was legitimate to put to death Islamic apostates.
The truely bizarre thing was that s/he couldn't even see the contradiction.

> I would no more describe islam as totalitarian than pretty much any other religion
> (or for that matter any belief system)

The principles of free enquiry that I'm propounding apply equally to other
religions and political systems, etc.

> a small vocal minority might say that, but the vast majority of muslims wouldn't.

Are you so sure? Some of these things would be against the law in, for example,
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

> Do you ask does Christianity inspire terrorism?

Well Christianity was very totalitarian for much of its existence. It only became
less so when people started critiquing it and stopped believing in it, and it lost
its power to impose itself.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>> I don't accept that people being offended is "harm".
>
> Deliberately offending people is by definition deliberate harm.

Only if "offense" = "harm" which I don't accept.

> I'm talking about seeking out and deliberately offending people, which is certainly harassment.

I don't accept that, for example, publishing Mohammed cartoons, is "harassment".

> fact remains that you're deliberately ending the dialogue by purposely causing offence.
> Ending the dialogue means that you're preventing any further useful interaction,
> and thus making sure you learn nothing more.

What makes you think that the person who is being caused offense is the one that
I'm seeking to learn from or persuade?

> If you're genuinely interested in free enquiry into religion, which would yields
> better results: respectful, objective enquiry? Or abusing and bullying the other party until they withdraw?

Ditto last question.

>> Suppose I were to discuss here, reasonably and amicably, the question "Does Islam inspire
>> terrorism?". Would it be OK if a third party required "Stop, I'm offended by you even
>> discussing the question"?
>
> Yes, perfectly reasonable.

??? Amazing!!! You are saying that a third party can dictate what I may and may not
discuss with someone else?

> If you really wanted to know about islam and terrorism, you'd want to know why the
> other person was offended. You'd reasonably and amicably discuss that point.

Suppose I know why they are offended. And suppose I then want them to go away and
leave me to discuss whatever I want to discuss with whoever, without them telling
me that I cannot?

Again, what makes you think that the person who is being caused offense is the one that
I'm seeking to learn from or persuade?

> What would be the point in bullying and abusing that person?

The point is _not_ to bully or abuse that person, it is to do whatever one might do
anyway regardless of whether that person objects.

> What would you learn from them by doing that?

Again, I am not trying to learn anything at all FROM THEM.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>> why should religious beliefs have special priviledges over other belief-systems?

> I didn't say they should.

You did say that they should be protected from the robust critique and ridicule that
is normal and acceptable regarding political belief systems.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Only if "offense" = "harm" which I don't accept.

Well, the law disagrees with you there, as do almost all of western society.

> What makes you think that the person who is being caused offense is the one that I'm seeking to learn from or persuade?

If you're not trying to learn from them, why are you talking to them?

That's very telling.

> ??? Amazing!!! You are saying that a third party can dictate what I may and may not discuss with someone else?

I'm saying that those who respect others and care about their welfare modify their behaviour depending on others' feelings, yeah.

> Again, what makes you think that the person who is being caused offense is the one that I'm seeking to learn from or persuade?

Again, that's telling - your insistence is that you are the most important person, who shouldn't be required to change how he behaves for anyone. In fact you believe that others should have to leave the room whenever you want to discuss something they don't like.

> The point is _not_ to bully or abuse that person, it is to do whatever one might do anyway regardless of whether that person objects.

Uh-huh. That should tell everyone just about everything they need to know about you. You want to be allowed to do whatever you like, no matter whether anyone else objects.

That's pathetic.

> Again, I am not trying to learn anything at all FROM THEM.

And again, then why are you speaking to them? It says a lot about your "free enquiry" that you're not at all interested in discussing a subject with those who know about it.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

Oh and by the way, what's "free" about an enquiry which you require people to absent themselves from at your discretion?

Sounds like you want to be free but don't want other people - religious people that is - to have the same privelege.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>> Only if "offense" = "harm" which I don't accept.

> Well, the law disagrees with you there, as do almost all of western society.

No it doesn't. If I say that your mother was a hamster, and that your father smelt
of elderberry, you have no recourse to the law no matter how offended you are.

>> What makes you think that the person who is being caused offense is the
>> one that I'm seeking to learn from or persuade?

> If you're not trying to learn from them, why are you talking to them? That's very telling.

They can be a foil. Or they can be irrelevant. Again, if I'm discussing with and
trying to learn from an acquaintance, the fact that some third party might be
offended should not prevent me having that discussion.

> I'm saying that those who respect others and care about their welfare modify
> their behaviour depending on others' feelings, yeah.

OK, but I'm under no obligation to respect religious sensibilities. I can
assure you that many of them feel under no obligation to respect mine.

> Again, that's telling - your insistence is that you are the most important person,
> who shouldn't be required to change how he behaves for anyone.

That is distortion <Yawn>.

> In fact you believe that others should have to leave the room whenever you want
> to discuss something they don't like.

Utterly false. I do not require them to leave the room. Why do you distort?
They are welcome to stay in the room and get as offended as they wish to be.
But that should not prevent me critically examining or ridiculing ideas.

> You want to be allowed to do whatever you like, no matter whether anyone else objects.

If it is a basic freedom, such as the right to critically examine ideas, then yes indeed.
Look, if this was about political idea we wouldn't be having this debate; everyone would
agree that what I'm asking for is normal and acceptable.

For example, some people have propounded the "trickle down" theory of ecomonics, or
the "Laffer curve" idea that high tax rates can reduce tax take. Both have been
critiqued and ridiculed. Should that be prevented by one person saying "I would
be offended if you even question those ideas"?

The idea is ludicrous in the political arena, and only an issue in the religious
arena because we give far too much deference to ideas labelled "relgious".

> It says a lot about your "free enquiry" that you're not at all interested in discussing
> a subject with those who know about it.

Well, I might choose to discuss it with them, or I might not. The point is that I
shouldn't be limited in my discussions by someone censoring me because they feel offended.

 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Oh and by the way, what's "free" about an enquiry which you require people to absent
> themselves from at your discretion?

Who said anything about requiring others to absent themselves?
Please quote me on that. Look, you seem intelligent enough to debate
reasonably and without distortion, if you would only try, so why don't you?

> Sounds like you want to be free but don't want other people - religious people
> that is - to have the same privelege.

And of course you cannot back up that falsehood by quotes, can you?
 Simon4 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle: Well if everybody was allowed to prohibit everything they found offensive (now that is a reductio-ad-absurdum, so you might understand it), then absolutely nothing would be possible, maybe not even breathing. Your arcane lack of logic and Jesuitical (the perfect, and perfecly appropriate word!), style of arguing is offensive to quite a few people (not me - I merely find it tedious and blinkered), but none of them seem to want to prohibit you.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Who said anything about requiring others to absent themselves? Please quote me on that.

I expect you're going to quote this: "And suppose I then want them to go away and
leave me to discuss whatever I want to discuss with whoever, without them telling
me that I cannot?"

Can I point out the context that it was in reply to "Suppose I were to discuss here,
reasonably and amicably, the question "Does Islam inspire terrorism?". Would it be
OK if a third party required "Stop, I'm offended by you even discussing the question"?"

In other words the "go away" and stop "telling me that I cannot" was a response
to "Stop, I'm offended by you even discussing the question". If someone tells me
to stop doing something legitimate then "go away" is a reasonable response.

 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

And, I would be quite interested in your reply to the questions in my post of 13:39 Fri.

 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> OK, but I'm under no obligation to respect religious sensibilities. I can assure you that many of them feel under no obligation to respect mine.

Again, that's telling: you accept that normal, respectful people change how they behave depending on the needs of others then immediately qualify it by making a specific exception for religious people.

That's just simple bigotry: that religious people don't deserve the same consideration as everyone else.

> Again, if I'm discussing with and trying to learn from an acquaintance, the fact that some third party might be
offended should not prevent me having that discussion.

Normal people might say, "sorry mate" and leave it till later. But oh no, not you. You think you're so important that you should have the right to go ahead right now no matter what anyone thinks?

As you said yourself, "The point is ..to do whatever one might do anyway regardless of whether that person objects".

> Utterly false. I do not require them to leave the room. Why do you distort?

Now now, you said, "suppose I then want them to go away and leave me to discuss whatever I want". No distortion, your words, which once again you're going back on.

> If it is a basic freedom, such as the right to critically examine ideas, then yes indeed.

Oooops, straw man. Nobody's objecting to you discussing ideas. Unless of course it's your utterly self-centered idea that you should be allowed to offend people whenever you like without any comeback.

There aren't laws about your sort of behaviour because most of us don't need them; we tend to treat others the way we'd like to be treated. If we offend people, we say sorry and carry on at a more appropriate time.

But you? You do unto others whatever you like and if they don't like it they can f*ck off. You don't even have the basic civility and respect that small children are taught.

What a mean, low life you have, bullying and abusing for fun.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> In other words the "go away" and stop "telling me that I cannot" was a response to "Stop, I'm offended by you even discussing the question". If someone tells me to stop doing something legitimate then "go away" is a reasonable response.

And that's how you live your life?

When says, "excuse me, I find that very offensive" you tell them to go away?

You really don't care about anyone except yourself, do you?
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>> If someone tells me to stop doing something legitimate then "go away" is a reasonable response.

> When says, "excuse me, I find that very offensive" you tell them to go away?

As usual you distort. The "go away" was not in reponse to "excuse me, I find that
very offensive", it was in response to "Stop, you may not say that". See the difference?

And yes, if someone tries to impose on me the dictats of someone else's religion
then "go away" is probably somewhat milder than the wording I would use.

> You really don't care about anyone except yourself, do you?

<Yawn> You really don't care about religious freedom, do you?
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> And, I would be quite interested in your reply to the questions in my post of 13:39 Fri.

I bet you would.

Unfortunately, I've already answered that post indirectly, but you don't understand.

If someone is offended by what I do or say, I apologise. Then I talk to them about why they're offended and we find a compromise which avoids it happening again.

I don't tell then to go away.

I don't tell them that I don't care it they're offended.

I don't bully them.

I don't deliberately offend them even more.

I don't insist that my rights trump theirs.

In fact, I don't do any of the things you claim to do. I find a peaceful path that benefits both parties. Now as I say, I don't think you'll understand that, because you think being a prick is not just a right but an essential part of daily life.

 tony 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:
> I find a peaceful path that benefits both parties.

HA! That's a f*cking laugh!
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>> OK, but I'm under no obligation to respect religious sensibilities. I can assure
>> you that many of them feel under no obligation to respect mine.

> Again, that's telling: you accept that normal, respectful people change how they
> behave depending on the needs of others then immediately qualify it by making a
> specific exception for religious people.

No, it is not an exception for religious people. I see no obligation to respect the
sensibilities of any belief system. Respect needs to be earned. I would also be
disrespectful to idea systems such as crystal healing and moon-landings-were-a-hoax.

> That's just simple bigotry: that religious people don't deserve the same
> consideration as everyone else.

That's not what I said.

> Now now, you said, "suppose I then want them to go away and leave me to discuss
> whatever I want". No distortion, your words, which once again you're going back on.

As I said, the "go away" was specifically in response to "Stop, you may not say that".

> If we offend people, we say sorry and carry on at a more appropriate time.

And if the demand is "Stop, you may not say that, and you may not continue at
any other time"?

> But you? You do unto others whatever you like and if they don't like it they can f*ck off.
> You don't even have the basic civility and respect that small children are taught.
> What a mean, low life you have, bullying and abusing for fun.

<Yawn> Look, if religious people don't like the fact that I am not subject to the
dictats of their religion, then they can indeed perform the anatomical act you refered to.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
> As usual you distort. The "go away" was not in reponse to "excuse me, I find that very offensive", it was in response to "Stop, you may not say that". See the difference?

No, here's your own quote: "In other words the "go away" and stop "telling me that I cannot" was a response
to "Stop, I'm offended by you even discussing the question"."

So now you're rewriting your own quotes to take out the stuff that you can't stand by?

> <Yawn> You really don't care about religious freedom, do you?

A great deal. But I care about the people around me more. Their welfare and happiness is infintely more important to me than some pathetic selfish insistence that I should be allowed to do what I want.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>> And, I would be quite interested in your reply to the questions in my post of 13:39 Fri.

> I bet you would. Unfortunately, I've already answered that post indirectly,
> but you don't understand.

Evasion.

> If someone is offended by what I do or say, I apologise. Then I talk to them about
> why they're offended and we find a compromise which avoids it happening again.

Which assumes that compromise is achievable without submitting to someone
else's religion.

> I find a peaceful path that benefits both parties.

OK, tell me the "peaceful path that benefits both parties" in the 8 situations asked
about in my post of 13:39 Fri, the post you have just evaded answering.
 MJH 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to MJH)
>
> [...]
>
> I recall that about a year ago a Muslim called "Safe" came along reciting that line,
> and saying how Islam was a misunderstood religion of peace.

So it is only acceptable to recite lines that support your particular argument???
Yes, Islam is really supposed to be a religion of peace, understanding and respect. Why do you find that so difficult to believe?

> A bit later s/he stated that it was legitimate to put to death Islamic apostates.

I don't want to get embroiled in another pro/anti religion argument, but there are moderate muslims that think the apostasy rules in the koran are just as bonkers as the majority of christians think that some of the unpleasantness of the OT is bonkers.

> The principles of free enquiry that I'm propounding apply equally to other
> religions and political systems, etc.

Enquiry is fine, offense for the sake of offense (wrapped up in freedoms) is just warped.

> Are you so sure? Some of these things would be against the law in, for example,
> Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

But we are primarily talking about Britain or at least I thought we were.

 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> No, it is not an exception for religious people. I see no obligation to respect the sensibilities of any belief system. Respect needs to be earned.

No, respect is given. Quite when and why it is given varies from person to person, but it can't be earned.

> That's not what I said.

Of course it is. You make a specific point of singling out religious sensibilities as ones you won't respect.

> And if the demand is "Stop, you may not say that, and you may not continue at any other time"?

Quit moving the goalposts you coward.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> No, here's your own quote: "In other words the "go away" and stop "telling me that
> I cannot" was a response to "Stop, I'm offended by you even discussing the question"."

So? The essential word in the quote is the imperative "Stop"; the rest is merely explanation.

> So now you're rewriting your own quotes to take out the stuff that you can't stand by?

I'll stand by either wording. See above for why it makes no difference.

> But I care about the people around me more. Their welfare and happiness is infintely
> more important to me than some pathetic selfish insistence that I should be allowed to do what I want.

And welfare and happiness is greatly enhanced by societies in which critical examination
of ideas is allowed rather than censored.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> OK, tell me the "peaceful path that benefits both parties" in the 8 situations asked about in my post of 13:39 Fri, the post you have just evaded answering.

No, I've already answered that. in the 8 situations I would do this, as already posted:

If someone is offended by what I do or say, I apologise. Then I talk to them about why they're offended and we find a compromise which avoids it happening again.

I don't tell then to go away.

I don't tell them that I don't care it they're offended.

I don't bully them.

I don't deliberately offend them even more.

I don't insist that my rights trump theirs.

In fact, I don't do any of the things you claim to do. I find a peaceful path that benefits both parties.

> Which assumes that compromise is achievable without submitting to someone else's religion.

If one party submits then it's not a compromise. Obviously.

I told you you wouldn't understand.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> No, respect is given. Quite when and why it is given varies from person to person,
> but it can't be earned.

Of course it can be earned!

> Of course it is. You make a specific point of singling out religious sensibilities
> as ones you won't respect.

Sure, because religious sensibilities were the topic of conversation, but my
same attitude applies to non-religious sensibilities also, such as crank New Age stuff.

>> And if the demand is "Stop, you may not say that, and you may not continue at any other time"?

> Quit moving the goalposts you coward.

That is not moving the goalposts. The demand I have heard from some Muslims
that merely asking "Does Islam inspire terrorism?" be made a criminal offense
is not a demand merely that the question not be asked in their presence, it is
a demand that the question not be asked.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> And welfare and happiness is greatly enhanced by societies in which critical examination of ideas is allowed rather than censored.

Not where critical examination of ideas takes precedence over welfare and happiness it's not.
 MJH 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> if someone tries to impose on me the dictats of someone else's religion

Do you believe that all religions are trying to impose their dictats on you (most contain some sort of reference to being the only way if not a compulsion on their followers to enforce a particular belief - fortunately most religious people are quite happy to be sensible and not go around trying to convert people)?

Or do you even believe that it is restricted to Islam trying to impose dictats?
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Sure, because religious sensibilities were the topic of conversation, but my same attitude applies to non-religious sensibilities also, such as crank New Age stuff.

And we're back to my previous points: if your attitude applies to non-religious sensibilities, do you shout "CHINK BITCH!" at eth waitress in a cantonese restaurant? DO you scream "COON! NIGGER!" at passing black people?

Of course you don't. Because your hatred and impotent fury is directed at religion.
 MJH 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to niggle)
> That is not moving the goalposts. The demand I have heard from some Muslims
> that merely asking "Does Islam inspire terrorism?" be made a criminal offense

The key point being "some Muslims", not all or even a majority, but I would suggest a tiny minority.

 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>> OK, tell me the "peaceful path that benefits both parties" in the 8 situations asked about
>> in my post of 13:39 Fri, the post you have just evaded answering.

> No, I've already answered that.

You mean you already evaded it. That is revealling.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to MJH:

>> That is not moving the goalposts. The demand I have heard from some Muslims
>> that merely asking "Does Islam inspire terrorism?" be made a criminal offense

> The key point being "some Muslims", not all or even a majority, but I would suggest a tiny minority.

I'd like to see your evidence that it would be only a tiny minority.
I have seen the demand from leaders of fairly "mainstream" Islamic organizations.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Answered it twice now, detailing the process I'd following and what I would and wouldn't do.

But you're going to pretend you can't read all of a sudden. That's one way to avoid answers you don't want.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to MJH:

> Do you believe that all religions are trying to impose their dictats on you

Nope, but it is a tendancy and characteristic of them.

> Or do you even believe that it is restricted to Islam trying to impose dictats?

Hell no, Christianity has a long track record of the same.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Answered it twice now, [. . .]

Saying "I find a peaceful path that benefits both parties." isn't really an
answer unless accompanied by, for instance, examples of satisfactory resolutions.

 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

>> Do you believe that all religions are trying to impose their dictats on you

> Nope, but it is a tendancy and characteristic of them.

In a thread all about how you should be allowed to say what you want when you want, regrdless of who's offended by it?

That's f*cking brilliant!

AHAHAHAHAHAAA!
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Of course you don't. Because your hatred and impotent fury is directed at religion.

<Yawn> I'd apply the same critical analysis to New Age crackpottery as I do to
religions. It is just that nobody questions my right to the former, so it isn't an issue.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Saying "I find a peaceful path that benefits both parties." isn't really an answer unless accompanied by, for instance, examples of satisfactory resolutions.

That wasn't what I said.

I said this:

"If someone is offended by what I do or say, I apologise. Then I talk to them about why they're offended and we find a compromise which avoids it happening again.

I don't tell then to go away.

I don't tell them that I don't care it they're offended.

I don't bully them.

I don't deliberately offend them even more.

I don't insist that my rights trump theirs.

In fact, I don't do any of the things you claim to do. I find a peaceful path that benefits both parties".


That's three times I've posted it now. You still pretending you can't read?
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>>> Do you believe that all religions are trying to impose their dictats on you

>> Nope, but it is a tendancy and characteristic of them.

> In a thread all about how you should be allowed to say what you want when you want,
> regrdless of who's offended by it?

Yes, Niggle, exactly. And encountering a contrary opinion is entirely different to
being subject to somebody else's dictats.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> That's three times I've posted it now. You still pretending you can't read?

Sure, I read it and noted it. And it can be summed up as: "I find a peaceful path that
benefits both parties". And that isn't really an answer unless accompanied by,
for instance, examples of satisfactory resolutions.

You have not given, any of the three times, example resolutions that you
think would satisfy both sides.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I'd apply the same critical analysis to New Age crackpottery as I do to religions. It is just that nobody questions my right to the former, so it isn't an issue.

Answer the question.

Do you shout racial abuse at people in public?

If not, why not? As you said yourself, "The point is ..to do whatever one might do anyway regardless of whether that person objects".

Where's the valiant protector of basic rights now?
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Answer the question. Do you shout racial abuse at people in public?

No I don't. I have already stated a presumption against the "right" to verbally harass
people in public.

I also defended giving offense only in the context of critical examination of
idea systems, not other contexts. I've stated all of that several times.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Yes as I said, I thought you wouldn't understand it.

Any of the straw men you constructed can be answered b this process:

Sit down.

Have a cup of tea.

Talk about exactly what is being done that is offensive.

Talk about whether that thing must be done at all.

If not, then simply stop doing it.

If so, then arrange a way that the offended party doesn't need to have any contact with me or the offending behaviour, even if that means just staying away from one another.

No abuse. No bullying. No attacks. No conflict. Simple, peaceful resolution.

Is this really difficult in some way that I don't understand?
 Mike Stretford 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle: Are you still arguing about Danish cartoons? Surely the reaction and other reaction s to "blaspemy" show the real weakness of these religions. If your God was all powerful, he's hardly going to be concerned by some drawings, or even the words of mortal men. If He was offended He could deal with it at his leisure anyway. So why do religious types get in such a state, shouldn't they just be really smug? What is it they're actually defending?
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I have already stated a presumption against the "right" to verbally harass people in public.

Unless they're religious.

You've made it clear that you "see no obligation to respect the sensibilities of any belief system".

And that "The point is ..to do whatever one might do anyway regardless of whether that person objects".

So since you do what you will regardless of other people's objections, why don't you shout racial abuse?

Face it, you only bully and abuse religious people. Your selective rules about who it's okay to offend only apply to them.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Papillon:

> What is it they're actually defending?

Their right to live without being harassed, bullied and abused.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Yes as I said, I thought you wouldn't understand it.
>
> Any of the straw men you constructed can be answered b this process:

Sure, you give a process but no indication of resolutions acceptable to both.
And they were not strawmen, they were all genuine real-world examples.

Let's take just one. Suppose someone is offended by your children playing in a
public park on a Sunday, and asks that they not be allowed to do so. What, for example,
might be the end resolution of your process?
 Mike Stretford 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:
> (In reply to Papillon)
>
> [...]
>
> Their right to live without being harassed, bullied and abused.


How do cartoons, or a play you're not going to see " harass, bully or abuse"?
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>> I have already stated a presumption against the "right" to verbally harass people in public.

> Unless they're religious.

Nope, including if they are religious.

> You've made it clear that you "see no obligation to respect the sensibilities of
> any belief system".

Indeed, I have. And I exercise that attitude in forums such as this. That is not a
statement about verbally harassing people in public, which, AS I HAVE SAID
SEVERAL TIMES, I presume against.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Let's take just one. Suppose someone is offended by your children playing in a public park on a Sunday, and asks that they not be allowed to do so. What, for example,
might be the end resolution of your process?

Coel, I've answered the question already: "arrange a way that the offended party doesn't need to have any contact with me or the offending behaviour, even if that means just staying away from one another".

What's difficult about that?
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Papillon:

Hmmm. How does broadcasting and printing open personal abuse directed at one group of people, ridiculing and mocking them and their beliefs with the explicit intention of offending them constitute bullying?

You're joking, right?
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Indeed, I have. And I exercise that attitude in forums such as this. That is not a statement about verbally harassing people in public, which, AS I HAVE SAID SEVERAL TIMES, I presume against.

Ah, so you've finally retreated to your chicken shit position: you'll abuse people online but not in real life.

You really are a coward. I can't beieve you've actually come out and admitted it.
 Duncan Bourne 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Deliberately offending people is by definition deliberate harm.
>

There is a world of difference between offence and abuse
If you resort to abuse then you have lost the argument anyway
But you may state something you believe in the full knowledge that it will be offensive. For example if you came across a person who believed that killing a girl for having sex before marrage was morally right would you agree with them so as not to cause offence or would you say that in your opinion you thought that barbaric?
 Bruce Hooker 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

It seems to me that the religious side generally start the insults lately... but I can't say I've analysed all the threads statistically... even so christians and muslims claim to be part of faiths that preach goodness, love of your fellow man (and women for the christians) etc whereas the infidels don't claim such high morals generally

On the language issue: Of course any officially recognised language such as Welsh and Gaelic would be ok... although I'm not sure that even in N Wales services are in Welsh? There are also difficulties with specific diasporas - Armenians for example, much of their services are in Armenian, it's part of the attraction as they wish to keep their culture alive as a memorial to a society that has disappeared in their original territory (except the tiny Armenian Republic).

Obviously the exact wording of the regulations would require care but the situation of a large group of permanent residents in Britain who are having difficulty in integrating (to say the least!) is a little different to a tiny remnant of a massacred nation like the Armenians.

The same debate is going on in France which has the biggest muslim minority in Europe (I think)... perhaps the ritual could remain in Arabic but the sermons in the local language, English generally, apart from Welsh and Scottish mosques if you like

This question has come up in France as here the problem is that many mosques were financed by various Arab countries, often the more conservative ones like Saudi Arabia, and the imams were often not even French, many were simply unable to speak French... this was supposed to change along with various measures to set up representative bodies for muslims with the aim of setting a form of "national islam" as opposed to an "islam of the exterior", which corresponded to a situation of an immigrant male only workforce who's families remained in Algeria, morocco etc and who planned to return "home" later on... as opposed to the present situation of permanent resident muslims who feel more out of place in N Africa than in France, which has become their adopted home.. I don't know how far the changes have gone yet... it was one of Sarkozy's pet projects and he has other things on his mind at present! Although as more and more muslims (or ex-muslims) have French nationality and can vote he may well get the dossier moving again, or not, come to think of it!

Sorry for the length but it's a fascinating subject, and one that is only just starting to be looked at openly... hence the problem, in my opinion. It's not just in the uk either, all over Europe similar debates are taking place.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>> Suppose someone is offended by your children playing in a public park on a Sunday, and
>> asks that they not be allowed to do so. What, for example, might be the end resolution
>> of your process?

> Coel, I've answered the question already: "arrange a way that the offended party
> doesn't need to have any contact with me or the offending behaviour, even if that
> means just staying away from one another".

Yes, you did answer. You also said "Talk about exactly what is being done that is offensive.
Talk about whether that thing must be done at all. If not, then simply stop doing it."

Now, Children playing in a public park on Sunday is clearly not essential. So you would
simply forbid them to do it someone was offended. So children might be deprived of play just
because somebody is offended by them playing. That might satisfy you, but it would not
satisfy me; to me it is a submission to an illegitmate demand, one that unfairly restricts children.
 Duncan Bourne 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
> [...]
>
> Ah, so you've finally retreated to your chicken shit position: you'll abuse people online but not in real life.
>
> You really are a coward. I can't beieve you've actually come out and admitted it.

I think that you'll find that you are being abusive there, which is offensive to me please desist forthwith
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Ah, so you've finally retreated to your chicken shit position:

I stated a presumption against verbally harassing people in public from the beginning.

 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

Having established that in your opinion children should be deprived of playing in a
public park on Sunday, just because someone finds it offensive, let us try
a more difficult one.

Some people feel that a Muslim renouncing the Islamic religion is such an
offensive insult that it cannot be accepted. What is your "peaceful resolution"
of this? Should a Muslim have the right to renounce Islam?
 Mike Stretford 09 Feb 2007


No I'm not joking.

>personal abuse directed at one group of people

If it's at a group of people it's not personal abuse, but I'm just being picky there.

I genuinely don't understand how people can get offended by others 'offending' their God. Surely the whole point is this deity will take care of things and reward the righteous? So why worry?

I have met some Christians who aren't offended by blasphemy on that basis, I may not share their beliefs but I appreciate the consistency of their beliefs.

 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Now, Children playing in a public park on Sunday is clearly not essential. So you would simply forbid them to do it someone was offended.

That's not a compromise.

But then, you're not looking for one, you're looking for people to do what you want.

Here's a compromise: one family plays from two til three, and the other family plays from three til four.

Or here's another: one family uses one park, the other uses another. They alternate weeks.

Or another: the children don't play in a park, but instead go to a rock climbing gym, swimming pool or other fun activity together under the supervision of one set of parents, giving the other set a much-needed rest. The parents alternate responsibility.

There are as many compromises as you like to imagine.

If you want to find them.

And that's dependent on th eidea that one party (that's you) isn't being a complete prick and deliberately blocking any chance of finding a solution that could actually be better than the one that's causing the problem.
 Duncan Bourne 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Duncan Bourne)
>
> . even so christians and muslims claim to be part of faiths that preach goodness, love of your fellow man (and women for the christians) etc whereas the infidels don't claim such high morals generally

Actually the Muslims are as much in praise of women as Christians, not surprising really when you consider that they share quite a lot of the same text. Muslims claim many old testament prophets and Jesus as part of their tradition.
Now that said there is often a discrepance between religious thought and deed but more often than not that is due to human nature rather than specific religious text


> On the language issue:
There are also difficulties with specific diasporas - Armenians for example, much of their services are in Armenian, it's part of the attraction as they wish to keep their culture alive as a memorial to a society that has disappeared in their original territory (except the tiny Armenian Republic).

The same could be said of Muslims.


>
> Obviously the exact wording of the regulations would require care but the situation of a large group of permanent residents in Britain who are having difficulty in integrating (to say the least!) is a little different to a tiny remnant of a massacred nation like the Armenians.

I agree but unless you are very careful we could become as oppressive as those we claim are trying to harm us

> Sorry for the length but it's a fascinating subject, and one that is only just starting to be looked at openly... hence the problem, in my opinion. It's not just in the uk either, all over Europe similar debates are taking place.

It is a fascinating subject and one that will run and run

 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>> Now, Children playing in a public park on Sunday is clearly not essential.
>> So you would simply forbid them to do it someone was offended.

> That's not a compromise.

You said, quite clearly (and you made sure I read it) "Talk about exactly what is
being done that is offensive. Talk about whether that thing must be done at all.
If not, then simply stop doing it."

Since children playing in a park is not essential, your process would lead to
you forbidding your children to do it.

> Here's a compromise: one family plays from two til three, and the other family
> plays from three til four. Or here's another: one family uses one park, the other
> uses another. They alternate weeks.

What the hell has any of that got to do with it?

We are discussing a situtation where an old lady who lives within eyesight and earshot
of a public park doesn't want any children to play in that park on a Sunday because she
finds the concept of children playing on a Sunday offensive.

Your process, very clearly stated, suggests that you would acquiesce with this request
and forbid your children to play in the park on a Sunday in order to avoid offending the
old lady.
 MJH 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to MJH)
> I'd like to see your evidence that it would be only a tiny minority.
> I have seen the demand from leaders of fairly "mainstream" Islamic organizations.

Like who? The Muslim Council of Britain...hardly very representative. Read the Times article I posted earlier today where what I would describe as a normal moderate muslim (or certainly my experience of muslims in the UK) gives her views on the Muslim "leadership" (or lack thereof) in the UK. IMHO anyone who claims to be a muslim leader is in the same boat as people who claim to want to be politicians - they should be automatically disqualified.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to MJH:

> Like who? The Muslim Council of Britain...hardly very representative.

Well yes, Iqbal Sacranie (who was chair of the Muslim Council of Britain and was knighted)
has said that he wanted the proposed Law against Religious Hatred to outlaw, for example,
any "defamation of the character of the prophet Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him)".

Maybe the MCB is not fully representative, but it isn't really a "tiny minority" either.
Perhaps the moderates, for their own good, would benefit from being more vocal
about who is seen as a representative of Islam.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> What the hell has any of that got to do with it?

Thise are possible solutions.

> We are discussing a situtation where an old lady who lives within eyesight and earshot of a public park doesn't want any children to play in that park on a Sunday because she finds the concept of children playing on a Sunday offensive.

Ha! Ha! Ha!

Yeah, make up the rules as you go along. And if you get asnwers you don't like, add more.

> Since children playing in a park is not essential

Actually, exercise for children certainly is essential.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Yeah, make up the rules as you go along. And if you get asnwers you don't like, add more.

Your answers bore no relation to the situation I asked about.

>> Since children playing in a park is not essential

> Actually, exercise for children certainly is essential.

Very, very evasive. Playing in a public park on Sunday is not essential.

Look, this is a real-world situtation. If some religious people don't want your children
to play in a public park on a sunday because they are strict Sabbatarians and find the
concept of children playing on a Sunday offensive, do you forbid your children to play
in the park to avoid giving offense?

The process you have given for deciding ("Talk about exactly what is being done that
is offensive. Talk about whether that thing must be done at all. If not, then simply
stop doing it.") says "yes".
 MG 09 Feb 2007
>
> Yeah, make up the rules as you go along. And if you get asnwers you don't like, add more.

You should have taken my earlier advice and shut up. You have now convinced me you are not a troll but simply ignorant. If you knew anything about religion in Scotland you would realize that Coel's park situation is not made up but that which occurs in parts of the Hebrides where parks are closed on Sundays because of the religous sensitivies of a minority of the residents. None of your comprimises would work as this minority holds a lot of power that they wield in such a way as to restrict the freedom of others. The only solution is to insist that people can act as they wish providing it does not harm others. Offence is NOT harm.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Your answers bore no relation to the situation I asked about.

Actually they did. But then you changed the situation to include an imaginary old lady.

> Look, this is a real-world situtation. If some religious people don't want your children to play in a public park on a sunday because they are strict Sabbatarians and find the concept of children playing on a Sunday offensive, do you forbid your children to play in the park to avoid giving offense?

"I am offended by the sight of your children playing in the park on Sunday, please keep them indoors"

Daily exercise for children is essential.

So, I'd invite your imaginary old lady to attend the Sunday afternoon bible study with my imaginary gran who's always looking to make new friends.

Or perhaps to take an imaginary walk with my imaginary uncle, who's a little lonely since his imaginary wife died.

Either way, the imaginary old lady doesn't have to see the children, so she'd no longer be offended.

Again, it's easy to find a compromise. If you're not point blank determined to avoid it.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to MG:

Wow, so now the imginary park is in the outer hebrides?

Well well, so you're moving the goalposts too.

Oh and I have friends who live in in Tarbert. I visited them many many times as a child and never had any such problem.

Sounds like you're making up imaginary problems.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to MG:

> Coel's park situation is not made up but that which occurs in parts of the Hebrides
> where parks are closed on Sundays because of the religous sensitivies of a minority of the residents.

Indeed. I was on Harris/Lewis last year and was puzzled by the sight of childrens'
swings padlocked to the side on a Sunday. I was then amazed to discover that this was
because some people are offended by the concept that a kid might swing on one on the Sabbath.

Niggle seems to suggest that he would defer to these sensibilities, to avoid
giving offense, even if that deprives large numbers of kids of a park to play in,
for what, in winter term time, would be half of their daylight free time.

My attitude would be to give zero weight to the "offense" of the Sabbatarians
and allow any kid who wanted to swing to do so.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> My attitude would be to give zero weight to the "offense" of the Sabbatarians and allow any kid who wanted to swing to do so.

Funny how you don't seem quite so cool with them giving zero weight to your "offense".

Once again: one rule for you, another for religious people.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Actually they did. But then you changed the situation to include an imaginary old lady.

The old lady was just to help you conceptualize the situation, since you
were misunderstanding it. Wasn't it obvious I was on about Sabbatrian issues rather
than something else?

> Again, it's easy to find a compromise. If you're not point blank determined to avoid it.

You have provided no solution that would satisfy both parties. Both those
who want to padlock the swings in a public park, and the kids who might want to
swing on them.
 MG 09 Feb 2007

> Sounds like you're making up imaginary problems.

Acutally you are proving your ignorance.

http://wikitravel.org/en/Stornoway

I see I am slightly out of date. Swings are no longer chained up. This was cerntainly not achieved through compromise but through people insiting on their right not to be dictated to by people who have differnet opinions to themselves
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Funny how you don't seem quite so cool with them giving zero weight to your "offense".

Where have I ever said that my "offense" should restrict others in legitimate activities?

> Once again: one rule for you, another for religious people.

Once again, a desperate attempt to distort what I said, fooling no-one.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

My solution did satisfy the last version of the problem.

But now you've changed it again to feature imaginary padlocks and an imaginary hostile community.

Is there any point in continuing? Or will you just keep adding extra obstacles every time I demonstrate that a peaceful solution can be found?
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Sounds like you're making up imaginary problems.

No I'm not. All 8 situations in my 13:39 post are real-world examples.
And I saw padlocked swings last summer on Harris.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> But now you've changed it again to feature imaginary padlocks and an imaginary hostile community.

That situation was my intent from the beginning. And it is not imaginary.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to MG:

> I see I am slightly out of date. Swings are no longer chained up.

Well what a surprise, you were talking rubbish.

> This was cerntainly not achieved through compromise but through people insiting on their right blah blah blah

I'd stake my pension that you're talking rubbish about this too.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> And it is not imaginary.

Even your pet chimp has now confirmed that the swings are no longer chained, and I'd lay even money that it came about through a compromise.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> And I saw padlocked swings last summer on Harris.

Of course you did, stop sulking.

But they're not chained now, because a compromise was reached.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>> I see I am slightly out of date. Swings are no longer chained up.

> Well what a surprise, you were talking rubbish.

Niggle, he is not talking rubbish. I saw padlocking of swings on the Sabbath on Harris
last summer, along with big red signs saying "Closed on Sundays". This was in a public park.
 KeithW 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Jonno:

Reading this exasperating thread reminds me of a game of chess :

Coel is constructing a careful Nimzo-Indian defence; while niggle jumps the pawns over his bishops and shouts "checkmate!" at each move.
 MG 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:
>
> Well what a surprise, you were talking rubbish.

No, six months out of date - did you read my link?


> I'd stake my pension that you're talking rubbish about this too.

A cheque will nicely thank you
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/08/19/do190...
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Even your pet chimp has now confirmed that the swings are no longer chained, and I'd
> lay even money that it came about through a compromise.

And your evidence that the Sabbatarians are no longer "offended" would be what exactly?

Assuming that some residents are no longer offended and are now hunky dory, just because
some parks are open, is no more valid than assuming that Muslims are not offended
by Mohammed cartoons, just because some have been published.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to MG:

> No, six months out of date - did you read my link?

More like 3 YEARS out of date:

"The swings in the Stornoway parks are now no longer padlocked from Saturday night to Monday morning."

From the article YOU posted, dated 19/08/2003.
 MG 09 Feb 2007

> (In reply to MG)
>
> Wow, so now the imginary park is in the outer hebrides?

Just noticed you introduced the word "outer" that did not appear in my post.
 MG 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> [...]
>
> More like 3 YEARS out of date:
>

Whatever. I was still not talking rubbish. And Coel suggests the problem has not entirely been elminated
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> And your evidence that the Sabbatarians are no longer "offended" would be what exactly?

Because they allowed it to happen. After all, according to MG, "this minority holds a lot of power that they wield in such a way as to restrict the freedom of others".

 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> "The swings in the Stornoway parks are now no longer padlocked from Saturday night to Monday morning."

OK, but that refers specifically to Stornoway. I saw padlocked swings in Scalpay
in Harris last summer, accompanied, as I said, by big red "closed on sundays" signs.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to MG:

> I was still not talking rubbish.

You lied about the chains and you lied about the date. Dear oh dear.

> And Coel suggests the problem has not entirely been elminated

Coel's talking just as much shit as you.
 MG 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Because they allowed it to happen. After all, according to MG, "this minority holds a lot of power that they wield in such a way as to restrict the freedom of others".

They did not allow it. There were forced in to it by the threat of court action.

 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>> And your evidence that the Sabbatarians are no longer "offended" would be what exactly?

> Because they allowed it to happen.

The same way Muslims "allowed" the Mohammed cartoons to happen?

> After all, according to MG, "this minority holds a lot of power that they wield in
> such a way as to restrict the freedom of others".

"A lot of power" is not necessarily sufficient power.
 Bruce Hooker 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> The same could be said of Muslims.

Not really, not if we are talking about the majority of muslims who have moved to Europe over the past 50 years or so... they come from N Africa, Pakistan, Turkey and a few other places all of which are still reasonably stable, where muslims can live with no particular religious persecution... they are not a diaspora at all.

What language is used in British synagogues, by the way? A mixture or only Hebrew?

Another point is that the classical Arabic of the coran is fairly different to spoken Arabic so it would be possible to find a compromise... if that's what muslims, or those that represent them, want, of course.

Another thought: perhaps it would help push things along a bit if the representative bodies of all religions were required to be made up 50/50 men and women? It could prod the anglicans and catholics too!
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> OK, but that refers specifically to Stornoway. I saw padlocked swings in Scalpay in Harris last summer, accompanied, as I said, by big red "closed on sundays" signs.

Yeah yeah, of course you did, closed just like the stornoway one and all the others you bullshitted about.

Away and think up another imaginary problem, loser.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Away and think up another imaginary problem, loser.

Your pathetic evasion is noted. I gave 8 real world examples (post 13:39 Fri); for none of
them have you suggested peaceful compromises that would remove any offense while
upholding religious liberty.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

This is the best you've got?

Imaginary situations which you have to lie about to turn them into anything other than an easily solved minor problem?

You're so desperate to prove that hurting people's okay that you've stopped even talking about the real world and resorted to an imaginary dream world.

That's pathetic.

AHAHAHAHAHAAA!
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> ur pathetic evasion is noted. I gave 8 real world examples (post 13:39 Fri); for none of them have you suggested peaceful compromises that would remove any offense while upholding religious liberty.

I gave one working compromise, you changed the scenario.

I gave a working compromise for the new version and you changed the scenario again.

Then you told a pack of lies abut seeing parks with chains that have been absnt for years.

What a crock of shit.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Imaginary scenarios backed up with lies.

Well, how convincing.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Imaginary situations which you have to lie about to turn them into anything other
> than an easily solved minor problem?

<Yawn> None of the situations were imaginary. And I told no lies. Your evasion is noted and
pathetic. And I also notice the complete lack of any response to the one about Islamic apostasy.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Then you told a pack of lies abut seeing parks with chains that have been absnt for years.

Your evidence that I saw no padlocks and was lying is what exactly?
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> None of the situations were imaginary.

You invented an imaginary old lady who disapproved of my imaginary children playing in her imaginary park.

Doesn't get much more imaginary than that! Everything about that situation is imaginary!

> And I also notice the complete lack of any response to the one about Islamic apostasy.

Like I said, why bother?

You've already demonstrated that you'll just change the scenario if I solve it, and back it up by lying about your experience of it.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> I gave one working compromise, you changed the scenario.

You completely failed to understand the scenario. I merely clarified it for you.
Why are you in denial about this? Why do you refuse to accept that some Lewis/Harris
residents are offended by children playing on the Sabbath and want to lock public parks?
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>> And I also notice the complete lack of any response to the one about Islamic apostasy.

> You've already demonstrated that you'll just change the scenario if I solve it, and
> back it up by lying about your experience of it.

Your evasion is noted and pathetic. As are your groundless accusations of lying.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Your evidence that I saw no padlocks and was lying is what exactly?

News article saying that the ban ended 3 years ago, posted by your pal. My own experience and that of friends who live on the island.

Oh and the fact that you're dishonest enough to change the question when you get answers you don't like hardly makes me think you have much integrity.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

>> Your evidence that I saw no padlocks and was lying is what exactly?

> News article saying that the ban ended 3 years ago, posted by your pal.

That article was about Stornoway, which is a fairly large town. I say it on Scalpay,
Harris, which is a small hamlet. Can you conceive that a small hamlet might be more
conservative and a few years behind a largeish town?

> Oh and the fact that you're dishonest enough to change the question when you get answers
> you don't like hardly makes me think you have much integrity.

I merely amplified the question. I'm surprised that you didn't get what I was on about
from the start. Indeed, I suspect you did but were deliberately pretending you didn't.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> You completely failed to understand the scenario. I merely clarified it for you.

YEAH RIGHT!!!! HAHAHAHAHAAA!


Version 1:
"I am offended by the sight of your children playing in the park on Sunday, please keep them indoors"

Version 2:
"We are discussing a situtation where an old lady who lives within eyesight and earshot of a public park doesn't want any children to play in that park on a Sunday because she finds the concept of children playing on a Sunday offensive.

Version 3:
"I was on Harris/Lewis last year and was puzzled by the sight of childrens' swings padlocked to the side on a Sunday. I was then amazed to discover that this was because some people are offended by the concept that a kid might swing on one on the Sabbath.

So we go from my children playing in a park offending an unspecified person to an old lady living on the outer hebrides being offended and the swings being chained up.

And that's your idea of "clarifying".

No, you added bits because you didn't like the answers.
 alicia 09 Feb 2007
In reply to KeithW:
> (In reply to Jonno)
>
> Reading this exasperating thread reminds me of a game of chess :
>
> Coel is constructing a careful Nimzo-Indian defence; while niggle jumps the pawns over his bishops and shouts "checkmate!" at each move.

Excellently described!
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I merely amplified the question.

No, you added elements which weren't in the original version.

Look, you've been caught at it, why not just admit it? Do you have that little integrity? This is all just some friday fun, why not just admit you added to it and leave with a little bit of dignity?
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> YEAH RIGHT!!!! HAHAHAHAHAAA!

> And that's your idea of "clarifying".

Er, yes, having just read the three versions I think that was exactly what
I was doing. So you are saying you have personal experience of the island
and friends who live there, and didn't twig what I was on about?
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to alicia:

> Coel is constructing a careful Nimzo-Indian defence; while niggle jumps the pawns over his bishops and shouts "checkmate!" at each move.

And you shout from the sidelines, unable to contribute anything other than slavish arse-licking approval.

Well done, I can see that you have plenty of grounds to criticise.
 Bruce Hooker 09 Feb 2007
In reply to MJH:

I read the two articles earlier on and they seem to confirm what I said, don't you think..? You later seem to suggest (although it's not quite clear) that Gina Khan is a "typical moderate muslim"... it's not quite what she says in the article though, is it? She points out all the difficulties her opinions have lead to... for those that have not read the article here's the start:

"Gina Khan is a very brave woman. Born in Birmingham 38 years ago to Pakistani parents, she has run away from an arranged marriage, dressed herself in jeans and dared to speak out against the increasing radicalisation of her community."

So "wearing jeans" is a dangerous practice in Birmingham these days? Would it be because of extremist christians who want her to put a dress on?

As you give this link without any cautionary remarks I assume you agree (more or less) with what she says... I can't help feeling that if I had said the same, you, or Tim or Tony at least, would be calling me a bigot Her words are at least as strong as mine.

It is distressing that such a person, who is merely asking for her normal human rights to be respected should be considered "brave" and "exceptional".... she clearly is both of these though, and that is something new compared to 40 years ago... and is also why I feel that things have gone too far.
 MG 09 Feb 2007
You inclusion of the word outer in the post I noted earlier shows that you fully understood the situation that Coel presented and deliberately chose to misrepresent it. Dishonest and evasive.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> So you are saying you have personal experience of the island and friends who live there, and didn't twig what I was on about?

Yes, a family friend was the minister in tarbert for many many years. In fact he may still be, I haven't spokem to him in a while.

You didn't say anything about the outer hebrides, old ladies or swings being chained up to begin with. YOu just added that later.
 TobyA 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle and Coel: Can you two get a room if you want to keep this up? We were on multiculturalism but ended up in various Hebredian playgrounds...

<shakes head>
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Look, you've been caught at it, why not just admit it? Do you have that little integrity?

The essential element, a religious objection to children playing on the Sabbath,
was there from the start, by your own admission:

Version 1: "I am offended by the sight of your children playing in the park on
Sunday, please keep them indoors"

What did you think the intent of that "Sunday" was in the context of this thread,
which is all about religion? Are you so unfamiliar with concepts of the Sabbath
and its interpretations, that you didn't realise that I intended an issue about
the Sabbath? The answers you gave had nothing at all to do with the Sabbath.
 Bruce Hooker 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> And you shout from the sidelines, unable to contribute anything other than slavish arse-licking approval..

Is that how you speak to all the girls? You certainly have a way with women! I expect it's your profound respect for others based on your faith that helps you on this one.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to MG:

YOu described, "parts of the Hebrides where parks are closed on Sundays because of the religous sensitivies of a minority of the residents".

I know the hebrides very well, in fact I own a house on Mull. That doesn't happen anywhere on the inner hebrides, so by deduction it had to be the outer.

> Dishonest and evasive

What, like lying about swings being chained up 6 months ago? Hey! Watch that glass house of yours!
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> You didn't say anything about the outer hebrides, old ladies or swings being chained
> up to begin with. YOu just added that later.

Well, sure, but the essential element of a religious objection to play on the Sabbath
was there from the start. I only made it more specific in response to your evasions.
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Is that how you speak to all the girls?

Only when they take the mickey.

Or perhaps you believe that women aren't strong enough to stand up for themselves and need you to defend them?
 MG 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> YOu described, "parts of the Hebrides where parks are closed on Sundays because of the religous sensitivies of a minority of the residents".
>
> I know the hebrides very well, in fact I own a house on Mull. That doesn't happen anywhere on the inner hebrides, so by deduction it had to be the outer.

So you are aware of parks being closed on Sundays

>
> [...]
>
> What, like lying about swings being chained up 6 months ago? Hey! Watch that glass house of yours!

But claim I am a liar when I make the that observation

 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Caught red handed lying through your teeth and changing the question to suit yourself.

You're a selfish, small-minded asshole who thinks that being a prick is a basic human right and doesn't mind lying to back it up.

Cheers, I'm off home! Have a great weekend!
 niggle 09 Feb 2007
In reply to MG:

> So you are aware of parks being closed on Sundays

They're not closed on Sundays. The article you posted yourself confirms that.
 Coel Hellier 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

> Caught red handed lying through your teeth and changing the question to suit yourself.
>
> You're a selfish, small-minded asshole who thinks that being a prick is a basic
> human right and doesn't mind lying to back it up.
>
> Cheers, I'm off home! Have a great weekend!

Hmm, makes a groundless accusation of lying and then runs off . . .
 alicia 09 Feb 2007
In reply to niggle:

It was all too easy to take the mickey!

Do you have ANY concept of what a hypothetical situation is and how one can be used in debate? I'd advise figuring this out before continuing to reply to Coel.
 wilding 09 Feb 2007
In reply to alicia:

S/he is an amazing troll, i can't believe the amount of effort involved. Wonder if they have a job, i can't even waste the time to read all the posts...
 alicia 09 Feb 2007
In reply to wilding:
> (In reply to alicia)
>
> S/he is an amazing troll, i can't believe the amount of effort involved. Wonder if they have a job, i can't even waste the time to read all the posts...

The scary thing is it seems almost too real to be a troll! It's so bad as to be useless--if a person were trolling, surely they'd try to post something of some substance?
 Timmd 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to MJH)
>
> I read the two articles earlier on and they seem to confirm what I said, don't you think..? You later seem to suggest (although it's not quite clear) that Gina Khan is a "typical moderate muslim"... it's not quite what she says in the article though, is it? She points out all the difficulties her opinions have lead to... for those that have not read the article here's the start:
>
> "Gina Khan is a very brave woman. Born in Birmingham 38 years ago to Pakistani parents, she has run away from an arranged marriage, dressed herself in jeans and dared to speak out against the increasing radicalisation of her community."

> So "wearing jeans" is a dangerous practice in Birmingham these days? Would it be because of extremist christians who want her to put a dress on?

It's her being different to her comunity,it's not an indication that it's dangerous in Birmingham,you get a lot of Asians and Muslims on the BBC Asian Network (and other places) saying that parts of England are more backwards than Asia in some ways,because of people trying to hold onto thier traditions and culture,it's not simply a symptom of Muslims or Islam in general becoming more radical,but of one comunity.

(Romany Gypsies also try and hold onto traditions which aren't always good for thier comunities if they feel isolated or prejudiced against by non Romany Gypsies,like a an older man buying a younger bride off her father,it's not something which is only done by Asians or Muslims.)

> As you give this link without any cautionary remarks I assume you agree (more or less) with what she says... I can't help feeling that if I had said the same, you, or Tim or Tony at least, would be calling me a bigot Her words are at least as strong as mine.

You generalise and make assumptions Bruce,which is why i called you prejudiced,you made a negative assumption based on no knowledge of the person in my class other than that she was a Muslim. To do that is to prejudge her because you said she was making a point.

> It is distressing that such a person, who is merely asking for her normal human rights to be respected should be considered "brave" and "exceptional".... she clearly is both of these though,

I agree.

>and that is something new compared to 40 years ago... and is also why I feel that things have gone too far.

I don't think you can generalise and say 'things',you have to focus on one group or comunity in a country and talk about them.

I agree that people should be free to do whatever they like though,and part of that freedom i think is people not prejudging or generalising about them because of thier religion.

Cheers
Tim
 wilding 09 Feb 2007
In reply to alicia:

Although the substance is rubbish their english seems pretty good, which makes me think they are well educated. I agree with Bruce, it is probably someone that used to post on here and now they are trolling. I admire Coel's patience...
 Bruce Hooker 09 Feb 2007
In reply to wilding and alicia:

Niggle is just that, a niggler... he has admitted it several times, which is why I don't bother replying. I think he even admitted he was just having a bit of fun on this thread.

Previously he did a similar act on a religion/creationism thread (I think this was his first major trolling effort) and on an adoption thread he got so wild with Nao, claiming he had personal experience of adoption and emailing the mods and so, while being as insulting as he has been here to Coel that the thread was pulled...

I can't see why Coel bothers unless he like the typing practice.... or.... no it couldn't be?!
 Duncan Bourne 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
re: the language issue.
Now to be fair I haven't been inside a British Mosque so I couldn't really comment on the language spoken there. However I wonder how much it really matters? The use of language in the scriptures is no problem (except for those listening to it) Hence you had the Catholic Mass in Latin and the Torah in Hebrew as well as the Koran in Arabic, the effect of course is to make these "secret" languages spoken only by the priests. There was great controvesy when the Mass changed to English on the pros side they said to made it intelligible to the masses (sic) and the antis claimed it devalued the sacred nature of the text. I wonder what language is spoken in mosques aside from the (archaic) arabic? As you say Muslims come from all over the place. Where I come from the language of the parents is Urdu, as it is a predominantly Pakistani/Bangaldashi population, the language of their Children is Urdu at home, English at work, the language of their kids is a kind of hybrid streetspeak comprising elements of both eventually the language will become part of English.
Curiously in relation to this I have not heard anyone complain about the Chinese who have a very large and long established presence in this country, speak Chinese all the time, celebrate Chinese customs and yet rarely raise and eyebrow with the British public and this despite a long history of confict from the Boxer rebellions to the Communist regieme of Mao. Is this because they are intergrated (I know where most of the Asians live in Stoke but not where any of the Chinese live)or because they are rarely outspoken on the Media front?
 alicia 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to wilding and alicia)
>

>
> I can't see why Coel bothers unless he like the typing practice.... or.... no it couldn't be?!

That's a very evil suggestion! I very much doubt it though; I can't imagine anyone being amused by beating their head against a brick wall.
 alicia 09 Feb 2007
In reply to wilding:
> (In reply to alicia)
>
> Although the substance is rubbish their english seems pretty good, which makes me think they are well educated.


Hmm, good point...
 Doug 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Do you think Coel & Niggle are actually the same person ?
 Bruce Hooker 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Timmd:

> You generalise and make assumptions Bruce, which is why i called you prejudiced, you made a negative assumption based on no knowledge of the person in my class other than that she was a Muslim. To do that is to prejudge her because you said she was making a point.

I had forgotten I owed a reply here. What you say here is inexact, I didn't give an opinion about this "lady" (you have brought her up on at least one other occasion BTW so I'm beginning to get to know her) based on "no knowledge", it was based on the information you had given me... not quite the same thing I hope.

You still don't seem to have got the message though. What I pointed out was that the strict rules of islam are not strict rules. Devout muslims are not required to apply many of the more formal rules when this is inconvenient... as I said before, the fasting rule during ramadan, for example. So if this lady really did as you say then she was going beyond the requirements of islam... as to why... I'l let you work it out, it may have been innocent, it may have been to make a point... believe what you will.

Nothing to do with prejudice though, even on your definition.
 Duncan Bourne 09 Feb 2007
In reply to alicia:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
I can't imagine anyone being amused by beating their head against a brick wall.

Can be fun like standing behind a garden fence and going "woof!" just to make the yappy terrier on the otherside go mental
 Bruce Hooker 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Doug:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) Do you think Coel & Niggle are actually the same person ?

Well, that's what just occurred to me, but I don't really think so! Coel's stamina does seem superhuman though... they would make neat alter-egos though... One is calm and polite, the other wild and insulting, blatantly devious and weird...

I hope I haven't offended Coel now!
 Timmd 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> [...]
>
> I had forgotten I owed a reply here. What you say here is inexact, I didn't give an opinion about this "lady" (you have brought her up on at least one other occasion BTW so I'm beginning to get to know her) based on "no knowledge", it was based on the information you had given me... not quite the same thing I hope.

'Other' Bruce,the word is 'other' than that she was a Muslim,that's why you said she wasy making a point.

> You still don't seem to have got the message though. What I pointed out was that the strict rules of islam are not strict rules. Devout muslims are not required to apply many of the more formal rules when this is inconvenient... as I said before, the fasting rule during ramadan, for example. So if this lady really did as you say then she was going beyond the requirements of islam... as to why... I'l let you work it out, it may have been innocent, it may have been to make a point... believe what you will.

If you think that she was making a point,it's an assumption,and if you think it was for a negative reason,that's a prejudice.

> Nothing to do with prejudice though, even on your definition.

Taken from here.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prejudice

a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.

Cheers
Tim
 Bruce Hooker 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Timmd:

By your definition this particular point of mine does not meet the conditions of your definition... I am basing my opinion on the facts you have given me... assuming the lady really exists and is not just a convenient arguing invention! But you could hardly hold that against me.

It seems to me that your calling me prejudiced fits your definition of prejudice better than the other way around... but this is getting as sterile as niggle's niggling, just a red herring.

A red herring is not a prejudice by the way, it's a fishy technique used by people who wish to defend the indefensible but lack real arguments. It a tecnique that is often used be those that strive to defend archaic religions.
 Timmd 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

(In reply to Timmd)
>
> Muslim apologists like referring to nice muslim ladies... in France too, they never miss the chance! Does her being a nice lady imply any special world insight? How do you know she really is nice... have you asked her what she thinks about stoning, for example?
>
> >
> By the way your nice lady didn't have to take time off for prayer by any islamic ruling while doing her course, the duty could have been waived in such situations... if she did it it was to make a point... I don't think she was as innocent as you seem to think!

Above is your reply to me.

a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.

Above is the dictionary definition of prejudice.


 Timmd 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> By your definition this particular point of mine does not meet the conditions of your definition... I am basing my opinion on the facts you have given me... assuming the lady really exists and is not just a convenient arguing invention! But you could hardly hold that against me.
>
> It seems to me that your calling me prejudiced fits your definition of prejudice better than the other way around... but this is getting as sterile as niggle's niggling, just a red herring.
>
> A red herring is not a prejudice by the way, it's a fishy technique used by people who wish to defend the indefensible but lack real arguments. It a tecnique that is often used be those that strive to defend archaic religions.

I told you a Muslim lady asked the totor if she could go and pray in the corner,and you said that she was doing it to make a point.
 Bruce Hooker 09 Feb 2007
In reply to Timmd:

Are you niggle reincarnated at a higher level of existence?
 Timmd 10 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:You're probably a nice guy over all,i guess you wouldn't get so annoyed by women being stoned or people being killed if you weren't,but you do seem to have a thing about Muslims.

It must be pretty hard to be a peacefull Muslim at the moment,and get abuse from strangers in the street,or have your relative's graves vandalised because they're Muslim,and keep hearing people talking about the threat from Islam when you want to live your life in peace. Try and think about people like them Bruce if you feel like posting about Muslims or Islam (because they definately exist),and if you're making thing worse for them,by adding to any misconceptions or prejudice that people might have.

Cheers
Tim
nks 10 Feb 2007
In reply to Jonno:

Haven't read the 500+ posts on this topic so apologies if I am repeating stuff.

Taslima Narin's site is worth a look :-

http://taslimanasrin.com/index2.html

Ibn Warraq is another secularist see the interview with the German paper regarding the cartoons :-

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,398853,00.html

Also on secular Islam and humanism...

http://www.secularislam.org/blog/SI_Blog.php
http://humaniststudies.org/index.html



 GarethSL 10 Feb 2007
In reply to Jonno: can't we bomb them see how they feel?





(not really my oppinion, just a convo booster, honest!)
 Bruce Hooker 11 Feb 2007
In reply to Timmd:

Try going to the links given on the post after your last one... the first one has a home page which sums things up better than I can.

I find it hard to imagine that you can even imagine anybody who would not get annoyed by people being stoned, and yet this is defended by more and more who follow the religion you defend. I object to all religions, I've made that clear often enough, by pretending that I "have a thing about muslims" you are just using Steve Parker's favorite criticism: the straw dog method.

I have a thing about anybody who encourages, provides motivation for, or deliberately organise a certain number of basic crimes: attacks people for expressing themselves, denies them freedom of though or to change their religion, imposes gender discrimination, tries to tell me or anyone what I am allowed to think and do... etc etc etc... Many people try to do all or some of these things and I am against them all, it is our duty to defend the freedoms that have taken so many centuries to obtain... it is your duty too, although for a reason which you have not explained you prefer not to do this.

Whether it is the catholic church, islam, calvinists, political extremists of any bent it's the same combat. It just happens that at the present moment in time islam seems to be objectively causing the most harm, to represent the greatest danger which is why it is in the news more often. Obviously you will not agree, but then sit down and make a list of the other bodies in Europe but also elsewhere, that have called for the death of authors for their writings, of their film or the cartoons they publish...

It may be hard on your "peaceful muslim" but perhaps he should examine why and look at the beam in his own eye before he moans about the speck of dust in that of the other.
 Bruce Hooker 11 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Should have been "straw man method"... I saw the film Straw Dogs 30 years ago but it's still stuck in my mind!
 Timmd 11 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> Try going to the links given on the post after your last one... the first one has a home page which sums things up better than I can.
>
> I find it hard to imagine that you can even imagine anybody who would not get annoyed by people being stoned, and yet this is defended by more and more who follow the religion you defend.

I'm defending the peacefull people who follow religion.

I object to all religions, I've made that clear often enough, by pretending that I "have a thing about muslims" you are just using Steve Parker's favorite criticism: the straw dog method.

You said something prejudiced.

> I have a thing about anybody who encourages, provides motivation for, or deliberately organise a certain number of basic crimes: attacks people for expressing themselves, denies them freedom of though or to change their religion, imposes gender discrimination, tries to tell me or anyone what I am allowed to think and do... etc etc etc...

Same here.

>Many people try to do all or some of these things and I am against them all, it is our duty to defend the freedoms that have taken so many centuries to obtain... it is your duty too, although for a reason which you have not explained you prefer not to do this.

I do do,that's why i'm against prejudice. Ie you saying the lady in my class was making a point,you couldn't possibly know that,so you were being prejudiced to say it.

> Whether it is the catholic church, islam, calvinists, political extremists of any bent it's the same combat. It just happens that at the present moment in time islam seems to be objectively causing the most harm, to represent the greatest danger which is why it is in the news more often.

>Obviously you will not agree,

Why obviously? I do agree,but not all Muslims are harmfull,like the lady in my classes who you judged to by making a point based on no knowledge other than that she was a Muslim.

>but then sit down and make a list of the other bodies in Europe but also elsewhere, that have called for the death of authors for their writings, of their film or the cartoons they publish...

You've got me there.

> It may be hard on your "peaceful muslim" but perhaps he should examine why and look at the beam in his own eye before he moans about the speck of dust in that of the other.

What on earth does specks of dust and beams of light mean?

Or she,you can get female peacefull Muslims,they're not all oppresive men with beards who restrict women and think homosexuality is a sin. I'm not denying there are Muslim nutters,but you negatively speak about Muslims and Islam in general,which is what i don't agree with,which is why i pointed it out when you said something prejudiced about the Muslim lady in my class. What you said fits the definition of prejudice which is in dictionaries.

I agree people should have freedom of speeh and expression and freedom to live how they choose,and for me that includes freedom from prejudice as well,i'm as against stonings and people being killed as you are,but not all Muslims agree with these things. If you can't understand where i'm coming from i give up,i've tried to put it clearly.

Cheers
Tim

 Bruce Hooker 11 Feb 2007
In reply to Timmd:

Are you sure you are not niggle because you are doing the same as he does... not reading what other type. I have explained about you nice lady, several times, and each time you come back with the same reply...

To repeat for the last time: if she insisted on publicly praying like this it was not required of her by islam... get it? Not required. The word not expresses a negative. So if the information you gave us is true then my remark about her wishing to prove a point, make a statement, is altogether plausible... not based on prejudice but on the facts you presented.

As for the rest, you seem to admit that islam is at present the worst offender so I presume that means you understand why so many people are critical of this religion as practiced today... so as we agree there is no need to pursue the issue.
 Timmd 12 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> Are you sure you are not niggle because you are doing the same as he does... not reading what other type. I have explained about you nice lady, several times, and each time you come back with the same reply...
>
> To repeat for the last time: if she insisted on publicly praying like this it was not required of her by islam... get it? Not required. The word not expresses a negative. So if the information you gave us is true then my remark about her wishing to prove a point, make a statement, is altogether plausible... not based on prejudice but on the facts you presented.

It's nothing personal Bruce,but i can't let it go.

These are your posts about the Muslim lady in my class who unobtrusively prayed.

.......
Muslim apologists like referring to nice muslim ladies... in France too, they never miss the chance! Does her being a nice lady imply any special world insight? How do you know she really is nice... have you asked her what she thinks about stoning, for example?

By the way your nice lady didn't have to take time off for prayer by any islamic ruling while doing her course, the duty could have been waived in such situations... if she did it it was to make a point... I don't think she was as innocent as you seem to think!
......
You've missed the point: standard traditional islam is in fact quite pragmatic about the rules, concerning ramadan and prayer for example, and even devout muslims can take advantage of let out clauses when strict application of the rules is problematic... your nice lady was, like the police cadet who wouldn't shake hands or the young girls who tried to force the issue by wearing headscarves in French state schools, just making a point.
......

And this is the definition of prejudice. Why can't the lady in my class have just been devout,and not making any sort of point?

Prejudice.

An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
A preconceived preference or idea.
The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.


> As for the rest, you seem to admit that islam is at present the worst offender so I presume that means you understand why so many people are critical of this religion as practiced today...

I can understand why people are against women being stoned to death,and people being blown and up freedom of speech being restricted,but i won't say Islam because that included all Muslims,and people believing all Muslims to be a threat can lead to Muslim graves being desecrated and people who are visibly Muslim abused in the street,because people negatively judge them for being Muslim.

I know it's for a good reason that you are critical of Islam,because your daughter was close to being blown up,and you don't want women to be stoned,and believe in freedom of speech,but if you write things which read as prejudiced even if you may not be,i think you can make things worse,if it leads to more distrust of Muslims by non Muslim people,and more feelings of alienation by Muslims,which could increase segregation and the problems which can come from that,and i don't think it's fair on the peacefull Muslims like my support worker at Halfway,who is pretty nice and doesn't even wear a headscarve,she's not in anyway restricted in the ways which people talk about,like covering her hair or face,or not being allowed to work,she's just an everyday person.

Hope you don't take it personally,what i've posted.

Cheers
Tim




 Bruce Hooker 12 Feb 2007
In reply to Timmd:

You seem to need to believe all this... isn't that being somewhat prejudiced too?

No one has to believe in a religion, even if this religion has the official position that the death is the penalty for leaving it, even for people who were born into it and never made any conscious decision to adopt it... the chances of this penalty being applied outside those few very backward countries dominated by the most archaic forms of the religion are very low...

How do you feel about a religion which does not accept that one's faith should be voluntary? That we should all be free to choose and change as we wished? Are you happy with this aspect?

When you say "muslims" do you mean practicing muslims who chose the religion freely or do you include those who were simply born in families who were themselves muslims, perhaps in the same way? I do not believe in any religion, neither did my father but my family has been in England for many generations going as far back as I know so a few generations ago they would have been christian, they wouldn't have had any choice in those less enlightened days. Does that mean you count me as a christian?

If your answers are different in the two cases, why is this so? Does it mean you tacitly accept the muslims have no right to "opt out", or be "apostate" to use the official term? If it does then do you agree that even your relative brief and glancing contact with islam has turned you against the traditions and the moral values of your country, or wider, culture? The notion of respect for the "Rights of Man" has been damaged?

This is just one example, there are numerous others... but perhaps you don't believe in the "Rights of Man" so you will not understand why I, like so many others consider them to be essential.
peterwales 12 Feb 2007
In reply to Dirt:
I, too, have travelled and lived and worked in a Muslim society (Sudan in the early 80's). Yes, most people were incredibly hospitable, and I was impressed by how readily they paid your bus fares, invited you back to their homes for meals and so on. Islam has actually many positive facets to it. But it must also be born in mind (cynically perhaps) that their interpretation of the Koran is that being kind to strangers and travellers would gain them "bonus points" to get to paradise. This was actually blatantly pointed out to me on more than one occassin.
The school in which I taught had a minority of otherwise well-educated Muslim teachers who would refuse to even look at me, never mind shake hands or speak to me because I was an "unbeliever". Biggest schock of all was a friendly discussion with a Muslim activist,(educated and articulate) whose responce to my view that too many people have been killed in the name of this religion, was to say : "not enough have so far been killed."
Once, I was all for "multi-culturalism"; now I'm really not that sure. How do you deal with a culture whose fundementalist version is so oppossed to your own culture and values, but is now embedded in your own society, protected by notions of "phobias" and "discrimination". And am I the only one to notice that the only real "police states" are countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? All Muslim countries.
 Timmd 13 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> You seem to need to believe all this... isn't that being somewhat prejudiced too?

Believe all what,that there are peacefull Muslims who exist?

> No one has to believe in a religion, even if this religion has the official position that the death is the penalty for leaving it, even for people who were born into it and never made any conscious decision to adopt it...

I agree.


> How do you feel about a religion which does not accept that one's faith should be voluntary?

I think that is restrictive and not a good thing.

>That we should all be free to choose and change as we wished? Are you happy with this aspect?

Yes.

> When you say "muslims" do you mean practicing muslims who chose the religion freely or do you include those who were simply born in families who were themselves muslims, perhaps in the same way?

If they're not harming anybody i don't think it matters how they're Muslims,i turned away from Roman Catholicism,so it doesn't always follow that if somebody is born into a religion that they stay with it.


>I do not believe in any religion, neither did my father but my family has been in England for many generations going as far back as I know so a few generations ago they would have been christian, they wouldn't have had any choice in those less enlightened days. Does that mean you count me as a christian?

No. Not at all.

> If your answers are different in the two cases, why is this so? Does it mean you tacitly accept the muslims have no right to "opt out", or be "apostate" to use the official term?

It's no for both,it doesn't mean i accept that.

>If it does then do you agree that even your relative brief and glancing contact with islam has turned you against the traditions and the moral values of your country, or wider, culture?

No,because it doens't mean that i accept they have no right to opt out.

>The notion of respect for the "Rights of Man" has been damaged?

I still respect the rights of men and women.

> This is just one example, there are numerous others... but perhaps you don't believe in the "Rights of Man" so you will not understand why I, like so many others consider them to be essential.

I do see why you consider these rights essential. You might not agree that i do,but i do.

Cheers
Tim
 Bruce Hooker 13 Feb 2007
In reply to Timmd:

> I do see why you consider these rights essential.

That's fine then.
 Timmd 14 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

You've not actually said if you believe that there are peacefull Muslims around,it somehow turned into me proving i believe in human rights.

Cheers
Tim
 Timmd 14 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:Not wanting to be argumentative at all,it's just you've not said if you do.

Cheers
Tim
 Timmd 14 Feb 2007
In reply to Timmd:I seriously am not trying ot be argumentative.

Cheers
Tim

 Bruce Hooker 14 Feb 2007
In reply to Timmd:
> (In reply to Timmd)I seriously am not trying ot be argumentative.
>

Forums are meant for arguments... no problem, really.

I'll leave you to work out if I think there is no such person as a peaceful muslim!
 Timmd 15 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Timmd)
> [...]
>
> Forums are meant for arguments... no problem, really.

I know,but being polite doesn't cost much.

> I'll leave you to work out if I think there is no such person as a peaceful muslim!

I'll probably take that as a no,because you haven't said yes you think is such a thing,which i imagine you would have done if you did.

Cheers
Tim



 Timmd 15 Feb 2007
In reply to Timmd:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)


> I'll probably take that as a no,because you haven't said yes you think is such a thing,which i imagine you would have done if you did.
>
> Cheers
> Tim

Ie,no you don't think there is such a thing.

Tim
 Bruce Hooker 16 Feb 2007
In reply to Timmd:

If that's your conclusion then you have just given us another example that fits in with your definition of a "bigot"!

Keep up the good work, but before you go a level further in your crusade be aware that it was a mistranslation which stated that islamic martyrs would end up with a bunch of virgins in paradise... it should have read a "bunch of grapes". Given the price of grapes in Tesco's nowadays, even in the middle of winter, ask yourself: "Is it really worth it?"
 Timmd 16 Feb 2007
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> If that's your conclusion then you have just given us another example that fits in with your definition of a "bigot"!
>
> Keep up the good work, but before you go a level further in your crusade be aware that it was a mistranslation which stated that islamic martyrs would end up with a bunch of virgins in paradise... it should have read a "bunch of grapes". Given the price of grapes in Tesco's nowadays, even in the middle of winter, ask yourself: "Is it really worth it?"

You only had to say yes Bruce.

Say you do believe in peacefull Muslims if you actually do.

Genuine apologies if i put words in your mouth.

Cheers
Tim
 Bruce Hooker 16 Feb 2007
In reply to Timmd:

I'm afraid you are going to have to think a little to answer this question! Don't worry, it doesn't hurt that much!

While your on the roll you could go a bit further and ask yourself why you even feel the need to ask the question.



Did you notice the trial on in Madrid, started yesterday, 191 dead and 2000 injured... most of them were probably peaceable, some may even have been muslims.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...