151. Comment #89185 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 20, 2007 at 12:42 am

Logicel as I said, not all of us. Some of us admire Ayaan Hirsi Ali for what she is. For what she has made herself.

Some of us, in other words, actually believe that Justice is real.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

152. Comment #89187 by stephenray on November 20, 2007 at 1:14 am

Here's a thought.

What is to be done if a dozen people in Ayaan's position flee to the USA? Or two dozen?

Other Comments by stephenray

153. Comment #89188 by MelM on November 20, 2007 at 1:21 am

An endless wait for financial data.......
If I were to let my decision await audited (or trustworthy) financial statements, context (goals and needs), and the amount contributed to Ayaan's protection from AEI, her publisher, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett, and Ayaan herself, then I think I could never reach a decision. And, I certainly can't assume that Ayaan and the others are NOT going to make appropriate contributions. We are not going to be told these financial matters and a demand for them will just get one into an endless wait. Besides, the Islamic fanatics are a threat to us all -- not just to Ayaan.

If the U.S. government doesn't help, then I have to do it.
As for the U.S. government footing the bill, if they don't, it just says to me that I must get involved -- and I've already sent a check. It also seems peculiar to me that some people (correctly) assert the right to think things through and decide for themselves, but won't extend the same right to the U.S. taxpayer. (Taxes are based on guns; there's no right to think anything through and decide for oneself.)

Personally, I like the opportunity to defy the jihadis in this way. The more people involved in this mass defiance, the clearer the message we send to the killers.

I think she asked for help
As I pointed out yesterday on page 1, a story about the fund and an address were provided on Ayaan's blog. I'm therefore satisfied that she endorses the project and is a participant in the solicitation of funds (she's asking for help). I also believe that she's not running a scam and that Dawkins and the others have not been suckered into something. (And I can't imagine that this solicitation was put on this blog without the approval of Dawkins.)

Living in the U.S.
She can live where she wants. If she wants to stay here, it would be a surprise but it's fine with me; maybe someone in the U.S will listen to her warnings and she's a breath of spiritual fresh air that's badly needed. She may never inspire a Muslim woman but she's inspired me and others. I think she's a net asset for the U.S. and the West in general. There is also the fact that living here means she gets the benefit of FBI (and perhaps even CIA) activities. There are a lot of resources here that just might smell a plot against her in time to stop it. I suspect small nations wouldn't have as many resources but I really dont't know; just a thought.

Anyway, if you want to wait for any or all of these people to provide financial details and the personal context sufficient for you to decide whether or not they gave enough, I think you're going to wait a very long time.

Other Comments by MelM

154. Comment #89192 by SilentMike on November 20, 2007 at 1:44 am

I'm sorry to interrupt the mixed orgy of adulation and vilification but WHAT THE BLOODY HELL ARE YOU DOING?

Granted some of the people who don't want to pay said some things that are pretty low. But that's no reason for people on "my side" of the debate to be such good christians. Brian has now been refered to as "disgusting" because he's honest. This is beyond ridiculous.

Criticize the people who were nasty, that's fine, and by all means, do try and convince the more reasonable of those who disagree that contributing to this cause is important. But please, let us avoid blanket statements. This whole "put your money where your mouth is or gag it" attitude is just off. None of you are Bill O'reilly so for the love of -WHATEVER- please stop telling people who don't agree with you to shut up.

Other Comments by SilentMike

155. Comment #89194 by nothing on November 20, 2007 at 1:52 am

101. Comment #89005 by Rtambree on November 19, 2007 at 1:11 pm
For those in London who want to see Ayaan Hirsi Ali, she'll be appearing at the Royal Society of the Arts this Wedesday 21st November at 1pm. Tickets are free.

http://www.rsa.org.uk/events/detail.asp?eventID=2440

http://www.rsa.org.uk/events/speakerCloseUp.asp?speakerID=1799

I'll be there supporting her.

"EVENT FULL" It would have been great to hear her in person. Yet another missed opportunity. :-(

Other Comments by nothing

156. Comment #89204 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 20, 2007 at 2:29 am

We seem to be reaching some sort of consensus. Maybe:-)

When I was a theist, and as my perspective widened and became more inclusive, I came to the conclusion that any religious group claiming some kind of absolute certainty about their moral, biblical or ethical claims was suspect.

Now that I am an atheist (a 5.92 on the Dawkins scale), I am even more suspicious of such claims from either religious or secular quarters.

We (chimps minus half a chromosome) are making this stuff up as we go along, anyone who tells you they KNOW is either not thinking clearly, naive or cynically trying to manipulate you.

Schemeing Machavellian appeals to our emotions are not limited to televangelists, and naive credulity is not limited to the religious.

I personally am confident that this particular appeal is above board, worthy and should be supported. I just don't hold with it being presented as a self evident moral imperative, that is (almost certainly:-)) dangerous nonsense.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

157. Comment #89207 by Nighttripper on November 20, 2007 at 2:39 am

Comment #88990 by admin on November 19, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Nighttripper, Appleby, and the like:

I am horribly sickened and ashamed of many of the comments on this thread. I spend nearly every moment of my waking life working on this website (along with the foundation and related responsibilities), in hopes of providing something good for the world.

Admin (or, Josh)
I have never ever said anything about you not doing a good job or not putting in enough hours and I don't see what I have done wrong to make your day so miserable just by stating my opinion.

I am not flaming anyone, or spamming this forum so I don't feel like I am doing anything wrong in here. It is a place for discussions after all. So is there really a problem with letting another sound be heard? A different opinion then the common one? Since this is a discussion board I don't see any problem with me expressing my heartfelt opinion on this matter. But if you feel personally attacked by my posting then I do apologise for it. I had no intention to.

I feel that my posts have been argumented and it might be strong in some of them but I have not disrespected anyone, including Hirsi Ali. I have all the time kept up the opinion that she undoubtably SHOULD be protected and in none of my posts I have said anything about her strategy or methods of getting her point across (except in my very first post in one line and adding that that should be put aside). I am realising very well that her ideology is not the point of the discussion. After all; whichever ideology she has, she still deserves protection when needed.

My point is solely about the people in here who are trying to shame me into donating because I "have to put my money where my mouth is" or else I am a "contemptible hypocrit", "sickening", "lice", "greedy bastard" (not really, I donate 20+ euro every month to good causes, just not this one), "disgusting","respectless" (shall I go on? The list is quite long). Even telling me that it is practically my fault when Hirsi Ali is murdered in the streets tomorrow. Those are some seriously strong words, still I see no reply from you to those posts. You even, in your role as Admin of the forum, pour some more on it by saying that my posts make you feel "horribly sickened and ashamed " and that I am now a "heartless grump" although if you read through the posts one by one, my posts are rather tame compared to the invective words some people are putting up here in response, and they are given thanks for it by you.

It is obvious on what side you are standing and it feels kind of like being in a debate in which the debate leader has already chosen a side (and even actively contributes to the naming and shaming part). It's not that I feel left out or anything, it just doesn't look good.

On the point of making a wrong impression to "new readers". I have used that argument when we were discussing some Christian guy coming into the forum who I felt was getting rediculed even before he could say what his opinion was. But someone else pointed out to me (sorry, can't remember who it was, I think Keith) that new people coming in here can read the posts and make decisions of their own just fine and that is the truth I think.

So all in all, I am sorry I have ruined your day, but I don't feel my posts were out of line or that I have done anything other then putting up my arguments, making my point and doing it without the naming and shaming that some others in here have resorted to. And if that is no longer allowed in a freethinking discussionboard like this one then we are in a sorry state indeed.



Other Comments by Nighttripper

158. Comment #89208 by mr gollo on November 20, 2007 at 2:41 am

Firstly, I would like to thank BrianClough for standing up for free enquiry, free expression and honesty.

Secondly, It seems in this thread that all atheists are moral, but some are more moral than others. I have chosen not to contribute, and am thus instantaneously branded immoral (perhaps even a traitor to the cause?) by some. I eagerly await the new commandments these self-appointed Napoleons choose to paint upon the barn of atheism in the future.

Finally, If Ali wishes to reside in the US, why is the State not going to protect her? Where is the campaign of political pressure to ensure that she is? Despite being immoral I would be willing to do what I can in this area.

Other Comments by mr gollo

159. Comment #89214 by Peacebeuponme on November 20, 2007 at 3:01 am

Wow! Some strong words coming through here.

I'd just like to echo SilentMike's comment

please stop telling people who don't agree with you to shut up.

This site is wonderfully open and unrestricted and I'd hate to see that slide. Regardless of whether or not you agree with Nighttripper, he's right when he says why post the article on a discussion board if you don't want to hear opinions.

If we can allow Bizzaro Dawkins, Wee Flea and Dianelos Georgoudis a run, I'm sure we can deal with a bit of lively debate here.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

160. Comment #89220 by Rtambree on November 20, 2007 at 3:11 am

160. Comment #89214 by Peacebeuponme

>If we can allow Bizzaro Dawkins, Wee Flea and Dianelos Georgoudis a run, I'm sure we can deal with a bit of lively debate here

Actually, the Wee Flea got banned from this site for being a troll. But he did have a good run.

Other Comments by Rtambree

161. Comment #89245 by PJG on November 20, 2007 at 5:16 am

I have read a number of the comments here but not all of them so I want to apologise if this has already been said….

Aren't we missing the point here - along with the most wonderful opportunity to expose theological hypocrisy?

We are constantly told by the "moderate" Muslims that their religion is a peaceful one, that the extremists don't believe what "normal" Muslim's believe and that far from wishing to repress women, they respect them - and THAT is why they don't want them to be seen as sexual objects and want them to cover up etc. (yeah, right!!)

Rather than, or as well as, asking for money from atheists (whether true atheists or just those who are atheists with regard to Allah!) to protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali, could there not be a concerted effort to, very publicly, request that the "moderate" Islamic faithful donate to protect this woman from the dangerous fringe of their religion?

It would be a win-win situation - either the Islamic faith would show that it really did want to separate itself from the fanatics and they would raise money for Ayaan Hirsi Ali's protection (and also send out a strong message to the fundamentalists) or it would refuse to donate and therefore show itself to condone the outrageous behaviour of its violent faith.

I have a great deal of respect for Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins et al and maybe their high profiles could be used to ask the Islamic faith to step up to the plate and put its money where its (supposedly moderate and peace-loving) mouth is.

Other Comments by PJG

162. Comment #89251 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 20, 2007 at 5:42 am

I have a great deal of respect for Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins et al and maybe their high profiles could be used to ask the Islamic faith to step up to the plate and put its money where its (supposedly moderate and peace-loving) mouth is.

That is an inspired idea!!! Suggest it to the admins. I think that is serious runner.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

163. Comment #89263 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 20, 2007 at 6:03 am

I have a great deal of respect for Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins et al and maybe their high profiles could be used to ask the Islamic faith to step up to the plate and put its money where its (supposedly moderate and peace-loving) mouth is.

I will say that, as a ploy, causing exposing Islam for what it is, it is very good, very inspired.

However, there is no way that it will lead to a reform. I've seen how this ends. It's not going to work. Islam can be broken - it can't be reformed. Every plea for reform will be answered with the pat little play of excuses about 'words out of context', 'tiny minority', and 'root causes' - and, of course, death threats. This is always, and invariably, the result.

I wish it were otherwise. But the evil of jihad and shariah is anchored warp through weft in the Islamic core teachings. It can't be removed without destroying the whole.

On another note:

I came to the conclusion that any religious group claiming some kind of absolute certainty about their moral, biblical or ethical claims was suspect.

I submit that it is comments like these that are the reason that atheists are considered unable to ground morality absolutely.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

164. Comment #89267 by wednesdayguevara on November 20, 2007 at 6:10 am

People keep bringing up the issue of the US gov't paying for Hirsi Ali's protection. Never going to happen. As a matter of policy (AFAIK) the US gov't only provides protection to former and current Presidents and their Vices. A private citizen is not entitled to protection in the US unless she is in the witness protection program. What the market will bear, and all that.

Other Comments by wednesdayguevara

165. Comment #89271 by Rtambree on November 20, 2007 at 6:16 am

165. Comment #89267 by wednesdayguevara

>A private citizen is not entitled to protection in the US unless she is in the witness protection program. What the market will bear, and all that.

I can remember seeing Al Pacino performing Salome on Broadway in New York in 2003, and when he left the theatre, he was surrounded by a cordon of NYC policemen, in uniform, to protect him from the masses. I can remember thinking at the time "strange that a Hollywood celebrity gets taxpayer-funded protection from the official city policy force". Perhaps Police Officers can also do work for private security firms? If so, why the official police uniforms? Perhaps some NYC locals can clarify...?

Other Comments by Rtambree

166. Comment #89272 by Nighttripper on November 20, 2007 at 6:17 am

165. Comment #89267 by wednesdayguevara on November 20, 2007 at 6:10 am
People keep bringing up the issue of the US gov't paying for Hirsi Ali's protection. Never going to happen.

Indeed and that once and for all puts down the "shame on the Dutch government" alligations from the side of Rushdie and Harris et al. At least they had the decency to protect Hirsi Ali in her own country. Unlike the US.

Other Comments by Nighttripper

167. Comment #89273 by wednesdayguevara on November 20, 2007 at 6:18 am

166. Comment #89271 by Rtambree on November 20, 2007 at 6:16 am

Good question. I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Police officers can work off-duty for private firms, but I don't know about the uniforms.

This may take some looking into.

Other Comments by wednesdayguevara

168. Comment #89274 by SilentMike on November 20, 2007 at 6:35 am

167. Comment #89272 by Nighttripper

Oh please. The threat to Hirsi Ali's life came due to her activities in the Netherlands as a Dutch citizen and member of parliment. So now after she moved to the US for her own safty it's not their responsibility anymore? Bollocks!

And before I here the inevitable "well if she's safe what's the money for": "Safer" does not mean safe.

That aside it may be in order for the US goernment to pick up the tab after admonishing the Dutch government for their negligence in doing the right thing and protecting a persicuted Dutch citizen.

It is, however, not going to happen as far as I can tell.

Other Comments by SilentMike

169. Comment #89277 by Nighttripper on November 20, 2007 at 6:46 am

And before I here the inevitable "well if she's safe what's the money for": "Safer" does not mean safe.

Haha I wouldn't say that. That's a seriously flawed argument.

I doubt if she is really that much safer in the US though. I mean, she published her books internationally. Wouldn't that mean that she also made some enemies internationally? I don't think the US has less fundamentalist muslims then The Netherlands does. I wouldn't think she is so hated by those Islamist because she lived in holland, or because she made her film in holland. It would seem to me that they hate her for her outspoken opinion about islam. And islam is everywhere (as are fundamental islamists). How do you see that she is safer in the US then in The Netherlands? (that's a serious question).

I have done some poking around and Hirsi Ali has given a press conference in which she gave three reasons for leaving for the US:

Quoted from expatica.com
"In the first instance, she wants a bigger stage from which to present her views. Verdonk's letter about her naturalisation and a court order forcing her of her rented apartment in The Hague caused her to accelerate the move."

I must admit, the court order was a shameful action but the government doesn't have any power to change that.

On the point of who picks up the tab. I think that a government is responsible for the protection of the people living in that country. I'm not sure about the legal situation but it would seem quite logical to me since criminals from another country are also treated and tried by the local laws (and thus the country takes responsibility for putting that person on trial).

Other Comments by Nighttripper

170. Comment #89279 by wednesdayguevara on November 20, 2007 at 7:00 am

Okay, in the US there's the state authorities and the feds. The feds provide protection for federal witnesses and the like, and of course there's the Secret Service, who protect Presidents and diplomats.

The police officers you saw with Pacino, Rtambree, were NYPD, as you know. It is possible that they were on-duty, and that taxpayers were paying for it. However, this would probably be a state/local thing, and only for a very limited time. As you suggested, an NYC resident familiar with their policies would have to explain how that worked.

I did find that in many cases off-duty police officers who are working side jobs will wear their uniforms and carry their badges.

http://www.offdutyofficers.com/index.html

Hirsi Ali would require permanent protection, no matter where she went in the country. This would mean (if the gov't were going to pony up) federal protection. Again, I could be wrong about this, but I have never heard of the feds protecting a private citizen who was not a witness in an ongoing federal investigation.

Other Comments by wednesdayguevara

171. Comment #89284 by Jayday on November 20, 2007 at 7:21 am

I would like to suggest that the Ayaan Hirsi Ali website include a donation figure that says "Other" for those who cannot afford to make the minimum $25 payment. It would enable those who don't have a lot to give what they can if they wish to do so.

With that said, none of us have a "god" who is going to come to her rescue and watch out for her safety. The universe was not "created" for our benefit and isn't going to watch out for any of us....We only have each other. We either stand up and support each other or we don't. What is it going to be?

Other Comments by Jayday

172. Comment #89285 by SilentMike on November 20, 2007 at 7:27 am

I don't think the US has less fundamentalist muslims then The Netherlands does.

You would be mistaken. At least if we're talking percentages of the total population. There are a lot more muslims in western europe then in the US.

Also, she is better known in Holland. She was a member of parliment there and has gathered many enemies. There are muslim crackpots in the US too of course, but they don't feel as free to operate as they do in europe, and they havn't launched the same inflametory campain against her and apostates like her. What she truely has to fear in the US is people who have heard of her from people in the Netherlands.

(If I'm wrong I invite you to correct me, but this is the situation as I understood it)

Other Comments by SilentMike

173. Comment #89288 by Ian on November 20, 2007 at 7:34 am

Like Josh, I've been pretty amazed at some of the things I've read on this thread and it raises the question of why selfishness feels the need to speak.

You'd think it would be easy for the selfish to just pass over this thread - after all no one is counting who is and is not contributing, and no one has even suggested that those who lack the spirit of generosity would ever be excluded, so there is no danger to the selfish.

Instead of silence, we've been treated to a real and genuine self indulgence with one bright spark even suggesting testosterone as a major factor in people (presumably only the men) being so awful as to take a moral stance.

Now I'm sure the self-indulgent will say: "No, no, no. We object to you do-gooders trying to force your morality upon us." But, exactly how can we do that? Seriously, I'd like to know exactly you can even be inconvenienced by us terrible people. Right now, I can't do anything to anyone here, so have no means of forcing anyone to do anything.

So I would like you to indulge in a little introspection and ask yourself: What exactly is the problem?

As for the action of hormones, I'm quite happy to admit my strong initial sexual reaction to seeing Ayan through You Tube. I defy any male to see such an exemplar of grace and dignity, and not feel a frisson of excitement.

BUT to reduce male psychology to erratically veering between fear and lust is just plain disgraceful. There is a place in my heart for many emotions and many motivations, including plain old fashioned compassion: seeing a need, I wanted to meet it. Sometimes, it is that simple and if you can't believe that, then at least keep the disgrace to yourself.

In my first post on this thread, I said that I felt priviledged to be able to help. This is because when the fatwa against Salman Rushdie was announced, I had no opportunity to contribute while the Daily Mail whinged about tax money. There was no place to put my flag then, but thanks to Josh, Sam, Richard and of course Ayan, I have one. Thank you all.

So my flag is placed and as a commitment to free speech it is small to the point of insignificance, but nevertheless it stays; a shameless moral statement.

If you disagree, I can respect that, but don't smeer me because you lack compassion.

Other Comments by Ian

174. Comment #89290 by Nighttripper on November 20, 2007 at 7:41 am

173. Comment #89285 by SilentMike on November 20, 2007 at 7:27 am
What she truely has to fear in the US is people who have heard of her from people in the Netherlands.

(If I'm wrong I invite you to correct me, but this is the situation as I understood it)

I guess we both don't know then. You might have a point on the number of fundamentalists in percentages in europe and the US. But I don't think that americans hearing it from someone in The Netherlands is the only thing she has to fear. She is an international personality and she is constantly publishing and broadcasting her views on islam. Something that I would think has not gone unnoticed in the (muslim)world.

All said and done I can totally understand why she wanted to leave The Netherlands after Theo van Gogh got murdered, almost lost her passport (which was the action of one minister "Iron" Rita Verdonk, the most horrible person in dutch politics). That one was turned over because the rest of the government didn't agree with Verdonk's decision. On top of that she got evicted from her house by courtorder because she should have consulted the neighbours before moving in. Shamefull indeed but not government policy.

But the primary reason was not safety so it seems from the pressconference she gave.

Other Comments by Nighttripper

175. Comment #89292 by keith on November 20, 2007 at 7:47 am

Jayday,

I really don't mean this disparagingly but I think that anyone who can't afford a one-off payment of $25, even though they'd like to give something, shouldn't feel bad about giving nothing and perhaps really shouldn't give anything.

I think donations are only expected from those who feel they can afford it, not from those for whom $25 represents the difference between eating something genuinely edible and eating, say, gruel.

Other Comments by keith

176. Comment #89293 by Nighttripper on November 20, 2007 at 7:47 am

Like Josh, I've been pretty amazed at some of the things I've read on this thread and it raises the question of why selfishness feels the need to speak.

But why put it up on the discussionboard if you do not want the issue to be discussed? It has nothing to do with selfishness. It seems that we can't stop labeling people with a moral judgement for thinking differently and saying so (on a discussion board!). Perhaps I better stop posting here. It is obvious that this particular thread is not intended to be discussed, just acknowledged in elaborate posts or refuted in silence.

In the future, we should put these kind of articles up as an article that has no reply functionality or, preferably, put up a lead-in text making clear that it is not to be criticised, only rejoiced. For I am finding it hard to judge which articles can be criticised and which, quite obviously, cannot.

Other Comments by Nighttripper

177. Comment #89294 by Matt7895 on November 20, 2007 at 8:07 am

After reading what Ian wrote I feel I need to quote SilentMike's sentiments further up this comments thread, which I fully agree with:

"None of you are Bill O'reilly so for the love of -WHATEVER- please stop telling people who don't agree with you to shut up."

Other Comments by Matt7895

178. Comment #89295 by keith on November 20, 2007 at 8:16 am

Ian,

I'm quite happy to admit my strong initial sexual reaction to seeing Ayan through You Tube. I defy any male to see such an exemplar of grace and dignity, and not feel a frisson of excitement.

I would have to doubt that most men get a "strong sexual reaction" simply due to a woman's 'grace and dignity'. It's a nice idea and you're clearly a modern man, but what grace and dignity usually bring forth, at least in me, are first and foremost feelings of respect and admiration. After all, a man can also possess grace and dignity but these don't generally bring on a "strong sexual reaction" in other men. My gran also had both grace and dignity.

Perhaps, in truth, it is these virtues in tandem with some necessary physical attributes that give rise to this 'frisson of excitement'?

Other Comments by keith

179. Comment #89296 by Peacebeuponme on November 20, 2007 at 8:17 am

Matt7895 - we agree on that. Discussions are not very enlightening unless they contain cons as well as pros.

I had quoted SilentMike earlier on as I think it sums my feelings up perfectly.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

180. Comment #89299 by arogop on November 20, 2007 at 8:39 am

Keith comment 179.

I would have to doubt that most men get a "strong sexual reaction" simply due to a woman's 'grace and dignity'

---------------------

Seeing this is a "science" site I will share with you that I for one do get a "strong sexual reaction" from seeing grace, dignity, intelligence and a few other things. But of course I am probably a little different than most. If I were to guess I would think that this is the result of learned behavior and I probably saw a very attractive individual when I was young that I thought had these traits.

I do not have those feelings in this situation though. "Not my type"

How about that for a change of subject.

Other Comments by arogop

181. Comment #89300 by notsobad on November 20, 2007 at 8:40 am

We are either subscribing to the meaning of this site, placing confidence in its speakers, seeking secularisation in place of superstition, hoping sacred turns secular, protecting those in religiously-inspired danger, putting the occasional penny where our mouths are

- or we are not.

1 cent or 20,000 dollars. Just do it.

The rest of you - shut the fuck up and pay something, you whingy gobshites. Pay now, philosophise later.

Best,
Styrer

What a demonstration of religious (totalitarian, absolutist...) behaviour, minus the supernatural.

Other Comments by notsobad

182. Comment #89304 by keith on November 20, 2007 at 9:01 am

Arogop,

Seeing this is a "science" site I will share with you that I for one do get a "strong sexual reaction" from seeing grace, dignity, intelligence and a few other things.

Why would you only share this with me on a science website? For research purposes, perhaps?

I'm sorry arogop but I simply don't believe your claim of sexual arousal when you find yourself in the company of disembodied virtues, though I'm willing to entertain the idea that I am just an unreconstructed male hopelessly out of touch with his more sensitive side in this modern age.

You seem to be suggesting that these characteristics bring forth in you a strong sexual reaction, regardless of who the possessor of these virtues is.

My own contention is that they only become sexually arousing when they issue from someone who we find, well, potentially sexually arousing. Did Bertrand Russell have grace and dignity? Some might say so. Did you find him sexually arousing?

Other Comments by keith

183. Comment #89307 by Matt7895 on November 20, 2007 at 9:17 am

Peacebeupon me, I realise you and a few others have quoted SilentMike too, but I just think that one quotation is so good it needs to be repeated again and again, particularly when there are people here who think people who don't donate are 'sickening', 'disgusting' (to use their language), and have no right to speak on the issue.

Other Comments by Matt7895

184. Comment #89327 by SilentMike on November 20, 2007 at 10:06 am

Being quoted in this way is very flattering to me because it means my transition into the english speaking (or rather: english typing) internet was successful.

Just to streangthen my point. Some of the people who did not pay may be disgusting, but it's not because they don't pay, but rather because they went a too far with their personal attacks on Hirsi Ali. It's fine to disagree in a civil fashion, and I'm more than willing to listen to other views. The way I see it you have to actually say or do something sickening or disgusting to deserve those adjectives. Choosing not to give money simpley does not qualify. It isn't even a moral wrong in my view. This is a matter of personal conscience.

Other Comments by SilentMike

185. Comment #89341 by Nighttripper on November 20, 2007 at 10:46 am

I have to ask...
Does anyone feel I went too far in my posts? (Apart from the obvious posters who have made their point so crystal clear to me, that is...)

Other Comments by Nighttripper

186. Comment #89342 by Pete_C on November 20, 2007 at 10:48 am

For anyone still interested in what's going on in this thread, I recommend reading Philip Tetlock's paper "Thinking the Unthinkable". (Google "tetlock unthinkable" to find it). Daniel Dennett brought his work up at his AAI talk.

The behaviors surrounding sacred/taboo violations are all being interestingly demonstrated here:
-outrage and strong language
-sanctioning not only of taboo-violators, but of those who express insufficient outrage at them (like me, in this post)
-cleansing behavior (the posters who said they donated more after being offended by comments)

It all makes sense if you assume that monetary contribution to the protection of AHA - an extremely important cause, in my opinion - has, to many people here, taken on the status of a sacred value (in Tetlock's sense). There's no reason to think that a group of atheists are any less susceptible to this universal way of human thinking - we have millions of years of history as social primates, but have only tried to be rationalists for a few hundred.

Other Comments by Pete_C

187. Comment #89349 by Peacebeuponme on November 20, 2007 at 11:08 am

Hey, Matt7895. The written word is a wonderful thing - I find the context of my comments misunderstood often, which I have to accept since it takes time to improve my writing style and I am not going to resort to those horrible smiley things.

I wasn't trying to say "Catch up: I've already quoted him". Just wanted to nod that I agreed with you and was glad that others can see problems when we shout down those with opinions other than ours. So apologies if you misread, and thanks for posting!

btw - I started with "We agree on that" just because we'd had a minor disagreement about the monarchy a while back!

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

188. Comment #89357 by Monera Man on November 20, 2007 at 11:32 am

Thanksgiving telethon time for Ali, courtesy of Sam Harris-

Once again, the money and the resources are there, just not for her...

From Wikipedia article about Erik Prince, founder and owner of Blackwater-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Prince

----------------------------------

Philanthropy and political donations

Prince serves as vice president of the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation, which gives money to organizations of the Christian right. Salon reports that "between July 2003 and July 2006, the foundation gave at least $670,000 to the Family Research Council and $531,000 to Focus on the Family"[15] headed by James Dobson. The foundation is also a major donor to Calvin College[16], a conservative Christian institution in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Prince also serves as a board member of Christian Freedom International, a non-profit group with a mission of helping "Christians who are persecuted for their faith in Jesus Christ."

Since 1998, Prince has personally donated over $200,000 to Republican causes.[17][18][19]

Prince had also contributed money to the Green Party of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, though this has been interpreted as an unsuccessful attempt to help Republican candidate Rick Santorum in his race against Democratic challenger Bob Casey.[20]

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has characterized Prince as one of George W. Bush's "political cronies."[21] Prince has denied using family clout to obtain contracts for Blackwater.[22]

------------------------------------

Do you think if she strapped some copies of the "The Book of Virtues" and
"The Bell Curve" to her chest it would serve as a bulletproof vest?

Certaintly her AEI "friends" have some extra copies...

Other Comments by Monera Man

189. Comment #89392 by GoatBoy36 on November 20, 2007 at 1:58 pm

I thought I'd post once more on this thread. To begin with I'll repeat what I have said before, that I believe the choice before each user of this website is an ethical one, and we must each provide our own answer to it, and then act accordingly. Saying this much is a far cry from asserting that it's true to say that, "somewhere, in the past or in the future, in divine revelation or in the mind of an individual thinker, in the pronouncements of history or science, or in the simple heart of an uncorrupted good man, there is a final solution." (Isaiah Berlin, quoted in Warburton, "Arguments for Freedom", OU, pp. 27-28.) Et cetera. So while I take brian's point, which is the very point Berlin made btw, I think that framing what has been said on this thread in such a way is going too far.

If you sit and think about it for a moment, much of what we do in our lives can be seen in the same way as the question before us here. We must each choose whether to contribute to the protection of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. It seems clear to me that this is an ethical matter, one that has potentially far-reaching consequences. Many of the choices we make in our daily life can also be understood in this way. Perhaps in our everyday lives, we don't always realise this & think about it, because we're too busy earning a living and so forth to do so. That's fair enough. But just think about going into the supermarket to buy some coffee and some biscuits. Do I buy the fair trade coffee, or another brand? Do I buy that packet of Breakaways, or another brand? These are ethical questions: you can line the pockets of a multinational corporation, or do your bit to support hardworking farmers in a third world country. You can support the company (Nestle) that promotes the use of artificial milk for breastfeeding with all that that entails, or you can choose some biscuits made by your local baker.

Interestingly, this is one argument that can be made against John Stuart Mill's "harm principle" which stated that so long as someone's actions did not affect the interests of others, they should be free to act however they wanted. Fitzjames Stephen though, said that Mill had simply assumed "that some acts regard the agent only, and that some regard other people. In fact, by far the most important part of our conduct regards both ourselves and others." (Stephen, ibid. p. 68.) That is to say, the area of action protected by the "harm principle" is much smaller than one would think. Anyway, enough of that. The argument I'm making here is that many of the choices we make can be understood to be ethical choices, and choosing whether to contribute to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust is simply one more choice of this kind. That's all.

It does not matter to me if Ayaan Hirsi Ali has made some money from writing "Infidel". Nor does it matter if Sam Harris has made a pound or two from his "Letter to a Christian Nation". The choice before me is exactly the same: Do I contribute, at a modest level, to help keep Ayaan Hirsi Ali safe?

Perhaps some users may be unable to afford even a small contribution, although I notice that everyone here has a PC and can afford a monthly fee to whatever ISP they are using. Given that, a one off contribution of $25 (just over £12) doesn't seem to be a big ask. Still, if you're genuinely broke that's fair enough, I certainly wouldn't criticise anyone for finding themselves in that situation, and giving that as their reason for not contributing to this project.

Given what this website is however - it's richarddawkins dot net, after all - it seems reasonable to assume that people who frequent the site would be against religious tyranny, and would want to live in a world where people are not murdered for standing up and saying what they really think about the religion they were brought up in. Happily, quite a few people on this site have lived up to those ideals, and have chosen to support Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

It seems to me though that anyone who says one thing on this particular website, then does another: that is to say who criticises religion and those people who would commit murder in the name of religion, and then decides not to support Ayaan Hirsi Ali, leaves themselves open to a charge of hypocrisy. We all remember the Rev. Haggard trying to give Richard Dawkins a hard time in the "Root of All Evil" programmes. Reverend Haggard preached at the New Life Church, which is against same-sex marriage (to put it mildly). I must admit that when I was told about his recent fall from grace, I had a good old belly laugh. Perhaps though, I should not have "judged" the good reverend for saying one thing, and doing another? For according to some posters on this website, judging people is out. I have already addressed this issue, and have yet to see any of these posters respond to what was said. So here it is again: if you are in the pub and a member of the group you are with does not put his hand in his pocket to buy a round all night, would you "judge" him? Would you "shame" him into doing so? Probably, yes. My point being that we judge people all the time. (Just as we make moral decisions all the time.) And if we can judge someone over a pint and a few drams, then we can certainly do so when someone's life is at stake. All this greeting about being "judged" by others seems pretty lame to me. I just can't take it seriously. We all had a good laugh at Ted Haggard, let's just admit it. Is anyone here really going to try to say that it's ok to "judge" someone like Haggard, who is after all a theist, but that for some undisclosed reason atheists who use Richard Dawkins' website are exempt? Double standards or what!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C-bsfhPju0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6rSjrBhUIA

One might argue that Ayaan Hirsi Ali could remain in Holland, and make use of the protection which would be available to her there. I did refer earlier to what happened to her when she did that before: her neighbours took legal action to kick her out of her place, because they didn't want to be put at risk themselves. So staying in Holland could prove problematic. Long term, it may even be impossible for her, on a purely practical level. Don't get me wrong, I like Holland and have visited there many times, in fact one of my early tattoos is by Hanky Panky in Amsterdam, and I'd like nothing better than to nip across from Aberdeen some time, and catch the LBTB playing. How cool would that be? Big Pete rules! You have to wonder though, just what kind of a life Ayaan Hirsi Ali would have if she stayed in the Netherlands. She may be a fan of Lester Butler, I don't know. But she sure couldn't go swanning off down to some blues club in Amsterdam some night to catch a good gig. And that, of course, is the least of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4jJJXaUoS4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulfjk7bzcKU&feature=related

Lester Butler was a talented guy, a fantastic blues musician and was very successful in Holland. But no one would have though to criticise him for going to play his music in America. That applies to anyone, in any line of work. Many oil workers end up abroad, for example; I know a lot of people in the NE of Scotland who have done that. (My cousin's working for Transocean in Australia right now.) And good luck to all of them, whatever they're doing.

I just don't get how people can say that Ayaan Hirsi Ali ought to limit her negative freedom (going back to Isaiah Berlin again) by choosing to stay, finally and forever, within the borders of Holland. Come on! Ayaan's life is limited as it is, there's no getting away from that, but she has chosen to defy the people who threaten her by trying to live the life she wants, and by speaking out, to the best of her ability, against the religious forces who want to harm her.

The facts are that Ayaan has chosen to live in America. She's asked for support because apparently the American government won't help her. The choice before each of us is: are you going to help protect her, or not?

Think of Lester Butler, who died and left just a few recordings (check out Red Devils live at King King), or of Stevie Ray Vaughan, whose recording career only lasted for something like seven years. Who knows what kind of music Stevie Ray would be playing nowadays if he was still with us. Maybe he and Lester would have played together somewhere down the line. That would have been a blast! But that's all gone.

If I had ever been in a position to get Lester off drugs, or if I had been at my work and had been in a position to save him from his murderers; or if I had been in a position to somehow persuade Stevie Ray to just wait man, and just take a limo back from Alpine Valley - man, I would have done whatever I could to keep those boys alive and kicking. Wouldn't each of you naysayers here today have done likewise? Well, maybe you wouldn't. But it would have been the right thing to do, all the same.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETYVMP5SfGs


I find myself in a position to help protect Ayaan, and to give her the opportunity to keep talking to people, and to keep writing. And I'm happy to do so. Maybe years from now, those of us who supported her will look back and think to ourselves, well I'm sure glad she kept writing, and kept speaking out. Because you know, as "infidels" ourselves, I have a funny feeling that in the years to come, we're going to need Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

gb.

Other Comments by GoatBoy36

190. Comment #89400 by Richard Dawkins on November 20, 2007 at 2:29 pm

I just used the computer in the lobby of the Embassy Suites Hotel in central Washington DC to log in to our site. I was reading this thread when I was denied access to Page 2. The hotel's computer censor popped up a message telling me that the page contained material that was unfit for young people to see. The offending phrase was specified as "genital mutilation". Interesting that young people are deemed unfit to READ ABOUT something that is actually DONE TO millions of young people in Islamic culture, including the young Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

191. Comment #89415 by Quine on November 20, 2007 at 4:01 pm

Bruce Bawer's book, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within, opens on page one with the death of Theo van Gogh. In order to convey the scope of the danger, the author quotes from the note that was pinned by butcher knife to Theo's chest:

I know definitely that you, O America, will go down. I know definitely that you, O Europe, will go down. I know definitely that you, O Netherlands, will go down. I know definitely that you, O Hirsi Ali, will go down.

Other Comments by Quine

192. Comment #89433 by notsobad on November 20, 2007 at 5:32 pm

Mr. Dawkins,
not just Islamic culture but also in Christian communities in Africa, since the tradition is older than those religions.

Other Comments by notsobad

193. Comment #89437 by Matt7895 on November 20, 2007 at 5:42 pm

Richard, I'm surprised such a phrase was blanked out... surprised, and saddened.

Other Comments by Matt7895

194. Comment #89441 by keith on November 20, 2007 at 6:30 pm

Nighttripper,

Since no one else has answered your question then I will. No, I personally don't think you went too far in your posts. Perhaps in the first couple you could have been a bit more polite but I can see nothing really wrong with what you said.

The truth is that I can see both sides. I can see Josh's point of view. To him we must appear like the People's Liberation Front of Judea in The Life of Brian. We talk a lot about our principles and how we're going to try to combat religious bigotry but when the times comes to act, to save our 'Brian' from crucifiction - we talk some more. For someone very engaged in the whole organisational process it must have seemed as though he was working for a load of wind-bags. I also think he was right in fearing that dissenting voices would put others off from donating. One poster said as much i.e. that he had been ready to donate but after reading the thread he was going to think about it some more. Josh's point was simply that those who were raising doubts were not only disappointing those who would protect AHA with more than just money, it was also lowering the amount of money actually raised by planting the seeds of doubt in the otherwise committed.

However, I can see your point of view and have some sympathy with it. This was indeed a discussion board and since you didn't insult anyone, you should be allowed to post your views.

Also as you pointed out, everyone has a limited amount of money they can give to good causes and I can well understand why giving to the poor in the third world might come higher in your priorities than paying for one person's protection, especially when there are wealthy organisations around her that perhaps might be picking up the tab. I think you should be allowed to say such things.

I do though think you were wrong on one or two things. You say that AHA isn't helping to bridge the gap between west and east. I assume with this you mean the non-Islamic world and the Islamic world. The only way that we could get closer to them at the moment is by giving in to their sexism, their bigotry, their racism, their over-sensitivity and basically their non-stop moaning about their grievances. If you think that east meeting west means that the west must compromise on any of these these points then I think you're wrong. In the same way that taking a head-on stand against Hitler was the only way that Nazism was going to be defeated, soft-talking and appeasing the Islamists will only get us into a bigger hole than we are already in. However, maybe this is not what you meant when you said that she isn't helping to close the gap between east and west.

I can see that you're viewing things in terms of the value of a life and I agree with you that one life shouldn't really be worth more than any others. We could perhaps save a thousand people with the money we raise for AHA's protection. However, let me tell you how my own thought process ran. Whenever I used to watch cowboy films as a boy I was always amazed at the stupidity of the red Indians who always insisted on sending their chief into battle on the first horse in the line, always leading the charge. Of course, the moment the chief was killed by the American soldiers, all the fighting suddenly stopped because the rest of the Indians had lost the will to fight on without their figurehead. I always wondered why the chief didn't hang back a little so as to prolong the fighting and give his tribe more of a chance of winning. (Of course, the real reason was that long fight scenes were not only a bit boring but also costly in terms of injured horses and stuntmen's salaries and the director had to get through the story in 90 minutes!)

I think AHA is, or at least could be, such a figurehead and this prioritizing of a woman who might just be able to change the lives of hundreds, thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of women in the Muslim world for the better, may in the end be worth more than a thousand lives in Africa, as hard-hearted as this may sound. Of course, if anyone can give to both causes, so much the better.

Like you, I would be disappointed if I thought I was subsidzing a luxurious lifestyle of rich dinners at expensive restaurants and chauffeur-driven Mercedes Benz cars (though presumably her car will have to be both bullet-proof and chauffeur-driven and perhaps a VW Polo won't be up to the job). I think you just have to trust Sam Harris et al that this won't be the case. (Incidentally, who protects him?). However, I don't expect her to hide away in some damp hole surviving on bread and cheese all day. For a public figure she will need more than one posh frock. As far as I'm concerned, that she is alive and living a modest lifestyle would be fine.

On a more personal level, I think there would have been deep disappointment on the part of people working close to AHA, someone like Christopher Hitchens, who claimed at the AAI conference that "there isn't a person in this room who wouldn't stand between you and any harm that might come to you" (paraphrase), if we not only failed to protect her with our own lives, but even failed to protect her with $10. The whole movement might deflate a little if Hitchens and friends suddenly felt that they were at the vanguard of a movement consisting solely of the terminally uncommitted. In the same way that I don't like to disappoint friends, I also don't want to let down a group of people that, while not being friends, are people that I think about during my waking hours, almost to the extent of feeling like they are acquaintances. They sort of inhabit my imagination's 'virtual group of friends'. For this reason alone I would be willing to donate something and dare I say it, even keep quiet about any qualms I personally might have for fear of putting others off donating something.

Other Comments by keith

195. Comment #89453 by PeterK on November 20, 2007 at 7:44 pm

This is bullshit.

She's a snooty moron bitch who feels she can use that silver spoon she was born with in her mouth and her high school-level of writing ability to somehow rescue her from any unmanageable situation she decides to put herself into.

Harris, get yer bloody head out of those headlights she's shinin into your pretty blues.

Other Comments by PeterK

196. Comment #89461 by keith on November 20, 2007 at 8:40 pm

Goatboy,

As far as I can tell, what your last long post was saying was this:

1. Donating (or not) to AHA's protection is an ethical matter. (We all agree).

2. If you don't donate you are as hypocritical as Ted Haggard and like a bloke who won't stand his round in the pub. (This bypasses all the reasons given by the people who don't want to donate, some of which were reasonable enough).

3. We shouldn't criticise AHA for wanting to work in America because some musician called Lester Butler and another, different man called Stevie Ray Vaughan went there too and we wouldn't think of criticising them for doing so. There are important parallels to be drawn here because both men ended up dead and this could happen to AHA.

Is this, in a nutshell, it?

Other Comments by keith

197. Comment #89466 by almondo on November 20, 2007 at 9:29 pm

I just stumbled across this news article - it seemed relevant to seriousness of what Hirsi Ali is fighting against:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/11/20/international/i144924S45.DTL

Woo-hoo. Welcome to the middle-ages.

Other Comments by almondo

198. Comment #89469 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 20, 2007 at 9:50 pm

196. Comment #89453 by PeterK on November 20, 2007 at 7:44 pm

She's a snooty moron bitch who feels she can use that silver spoon she was born with in her mouth and her high school-level of writing ability to somehow rescue her from any unmanageable situation she decides to put herself into.

OK, this is just absurd, and everyone on the thread knows why. If you are going to post something, make some sense.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

199. Comment #89474 by Veronique on November 20, 2007 at 10:24 pm

198. Comment #89466 by almondo

I heard this on our news service this morning. What appals me about this is that the judges appear to have no understanding of modern international law and rely, for their verdict, on the fact that this girl was in a car with an unrelated male. This makes the mullahs happy with their verdict.

I am modern, Western, industrialised woman and there is no way I can actually get my head around this. Admittedly, it's not so long ago that raped women were accused of 'asking' for it in our societies. I suppose that still happens in the privacy of some Neanderthals' head space, but the courts are delivering equitable verdicts and more appropriate punishments to the men that perpetrate these crimes.

You may be right, mate. It's back to the middle-ages. Although, I hope that with the instantaneous news being beamed around the world and the public outrage that follows (or should follow), that these Islamic judges will eventually have enough courage to stand up to the mullahs.

Hope rises eternal…:-). 200 lashes with a cane? Shit, how barbaric is that!

She will be scarred for life (physically, mentally and emotionally), no one will marry her, the male members of her family may well stone her to death when she gets out of gaol. Her other alternative is to become a suicide bomber because she will get no support from anyone and, in Andy Thomson's assessment, will feel to be 'burdensome' on her family.

Nice one Islam. Sock it to me. I wonder what Ms Sultan would have to say about this. A lot, I would guess.
V

Other Comments by Veronique

200. Comment #89475 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 20, 2007 at 10:34 pm

I know definitely that you, O America, will go down. I know definitely that you, O Europe, will go down. I know definitely that you, O Netherlands, will go down. I know definitely that you, O Hirsi Ali, will go down.

... and because some religious nutjob says it, we should "definitely" believe it? I thought that was what we were trying to move away from?

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen