1. Comment #259784 by frankscopia on October 4, 2008 at 12:33 am

excellent(in a monty burns type of way)
lets all flag up the vids on youtube of all those moronic muhamadist preachers who justify the sayings of a thieving, murdering pedophile.

Other Comments by frankscopia

2. Comment #259785 by Invisible Talker on October 4, 2008 at 12:34 am

Justice has been done.

Other Comments by Invisible Talker

3. Comment #259787 by Monosilabbiq on October 4, 2008 at 12:35 am

Some people on this site don't like Pat's "in your face" style. But I do. I agree with using ridicule and disgust to highlight the abuse and irrationality of those afflicted with faith.

Other Comments by Monosilabbiq

4. Comment #259793 by Diacanu on October 4, 2008 at 12:52 am

Nice, Youtube's won back my respect. :)

Other Comments by Diacanu

5. Comment #259795 by Verylee on October 4, 2008 at 1:00 am

Yeah! Don' diss free speech.
Respec' and of course, "peace"!

Other Comments by Verylee

6. Comment #259797 by foolfodder on October 4, 2008 at 1:06 am

I think it is great that YouTube has reinstated this video and the ones by fsmdude.

On the subject of the petition, I found myself unable to sign it. I just don't think that it's fair to single out one type of arbitration when there are many others, and that it would be difficult to achieve both politically and legally.

What i think might work is a prohibition against arbitrators discriminating on the basis of things like gender or race. I expect this could hobble some of the worst bits of sharia.

Other Comments by foolfodder

7. Comment #259798 by Dhamma on October 4, 2008 at 1:07 am

I'm very positively surprised they reinstated it. There is hope after all.

OT: Kermit the frog "promotes" TGD in the video of his version of "Hurt". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57ta7mkgrOU

Really funny!

Other Comments by Dhamma

8. Comment #259799 by Steve Zara on October 4, 2008 at 1:10 am

Pat Condell is hard-hitting, but always quietly reasonable in tone.

I just can't agree with "always" quietly reasonable. Mostly, yes. But sometimes he switches to "Alf Garnett" mode, and is quietly reasonable in the way that Richard Littlejohn is quietly reasonable. His provocativeness is part of his attraction to many.

An example of this is here, where Condell condemns "polite debate":

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/speak_it_brother.php

"To engage dogma in debate is to legitimise it". That isn't just creationism, but any dogma.

Here are more of his comments about his views on debate with the religious:

"Show us all what a clever dick you are".

"You don't have a cause, what you have got is a hobby".

"Save me from the curse of polite and deferential atheists".

(Trying to imagine Christoper Hitchens' reaction to being called a "curse", and a "clever dick" by Condell is quite amusing)

So it appears that a considerable volume of useful (in my view) discussions involving the likes of Shermer, Dennett, Stenger, Hitchens, Miller and Atkins is a self-promoting waste of time according to Condell.

I don't know if Condell's approach helps the cause. I have heard that many young "budding" atheists find encouragement from his videos. But I don't think he can be said to be always quiet and reasonable. If he was, there would not be the sense of anticipation when one starts a new video of his.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

9. Comment #259804 by alfonso on October 4, 2008 at 1:17 am

It burns me that the first reaction was the knee-jerk reaction to remove the video AND THEN review it.

I guess they have their procedures for this and they do what is most efficient for their business, but sounds like they are too quick to remove videos.

Other Comments by alfonso

10. Comment #259811 by Palaeogluttony on October 4, 2008 at 1:25 am

Meanwhile, Extantdodo's account is still suspended.

Other Comments by Palaeogluttony

11. Comment #259818 by Valis667 on October 4, 2008 at 1:43 am

Meanwhile, in South Africa the muslims had an ad for a cellphone ringtone banned:

'Terrorist' ringtone advert banned
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2008/10/01

A TELEVISION advert for an "Ahmed the dead terrorist" ringtone mocked Islam and must be withdrawn, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has ruled.

The ruling followed a complaint against the GloMobile advertisement that shows American stand-up comedian Jeff Durham holding a skeleton puppet named Ahmed with a white cloth around its head, which demands : "Silence! I kill you".

The ASA said this was offensive to Islam and created the impression that all Muslims were terrorists who would kill to get people to be quiet.

The ASA said it appeared the puppet was meant to represent a terrorist, and the name Ahmed appeared to be of Arab origin and was one of the names of the Islamic prophet Mohammed.

"To associate this divine inspiration to a terrorist is offensive to the people who believe in him (Mohammed)."

The ASA ordered GloMobile to withdraw the advert . �" Sapa

I mean really, why do we give in to these people? Where's it all going to end, everybody has to "respect" their insane beliefs?

Other Comments by Valis667

12. Comment #259819 by Palaeogluttony on October 4, 2008 at 1:50 am

'Terrorist' ringtone advert banned'

Good! That ringtone (and especially the stupid advertising for it everywhere on the net) was offensive to me as well.


It's just that in my case it offended my sense of humour.

Other Comments by Palaeogluttony

13. Comment #259821 by Valis667 on October 4, 2008 at 1:55 am

It's just that in my case it offended my sense of humour.

Whahahahahahahaha!

Other Comments by Valis667

14. Comment #259829 by madame_zora on October 4, 2008 at 2:14 am

Shocked and pleasantly surprised at youtube.

I agree with most of what Condell says, and he had a lot of valuable condemnations of that violent belief system known as islam in his video. It needs to be seen, and deserves to be seen. Every other religion accepts criticism and islam is going to have to learn its place in the western world, kicking and screaming if necessary.

Those of us who can prefer to fight with words rather than weapons. I applaud his efforts, as I concede to some extent that arguing with christians is more of a hobby than a cause. Ridicule is much more effective as a course of action- who debates wiccans or astrologers? Having public arguments at least makes the public aware of the arguments, but it's a hobby for many on both sides.

Other Comments by madame_zora

15. Comment #259830 by a non e-moose on October 4, 2008 at 2:19 am

Everyone always thinks they're being specifically targeted by youtube censorship. Youtube automatically takes down anything that gets enough flags. The system sucks, but it's not any kind of horrible youtube conspiracy against atheists. Usually all it takes is an email to youtube. there's no need get all worked up every time it happens. Although getting worked up about it helps get attention for it, i suppose...

Other Comments by a non e-moose

16. Comment #259834 by Matt H. on October 4, 2008 at 2:29 am

Now, if YouTube could leave every other atheist and secularist alone, things would be hunkydory.

Other Comments by Matt H.

17. Comment #259836 by Swordmaiden on October 4, 2008 at 2:34 am

Crazy People -0 Infidels -1
Hopefully those of us who plastered our protests over the YouTube comments linked to the video helped to make them see reason. I love Pat Condell BECAUSE he never lets emotion get in the way of reason and logic; he says what most people of reason think but don't have the balls to say out loud.
This is a real breakthrough and a welcome indicator to Islam that it can't always get it's own way. We need more of this in the mainstream; this is what will make society wake up and we won't have to call ourselves Atheists anymore...just normal people as opposed to the abnormal who believe in fairy tales....as for someone banning the Ahmed ringtone?...words fail me.
Well done YouTube.
I also agree we should lodge our offence to the Evangelical and other rants....just to make the point. This is a good day.

Other Comments by Swordmaiden

18. Comment #259841 by Tzsak on October 4, 2008 at 2:46 am

Hooray! Good job Pat~

Other Comments by Tzsak

19. Comment #259842 by Valis667 on October 4, 2008 at 2:48 am

as for someone banning the Ahmed ringtone?...words fail me.

Yes, and this was done by a government agency. We're supposed to have the most progressive constitution in the world, guaranteed freedom of speech....but they put in a clause banning "hate speech". And they decide what constitutes hate speech.

Other Comments by Valis667

20. Comment #259853 by Swordmaiden on October 4, 2008 at 3:05 am

Comment #259842 by Valis667:

Yeah....and that bloody frog thing was far more offensive !!

Other Comments by Swordmaiden

21. Comment #259855 by the great teapot on October 4, 2008 at 3:08 am

~Oh
So the whole of saudi arabia is mentally ill afterall.

Other Comments by the great teapot

22. Comment #259873 by Styrer- on October 4, 2008 at 3:54 am

Excellent news. Should never have been pulled in the first place, of course, but credit where it is due. It was going to be very hard to boycott YouTube indefinitely...

Welcome back, Pat!

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

23. Comment #259878 by JimmyGiro on October 4, 2008 at 4:14 am

Splendid news.

Pat's work is as the performance artist, and as such wins admiration for style before we even judge his content.

And as those who have commented above, his content is impressive too; not least because of the quality and intensity of his detractors.

Other Comments by JimmyGiro

24. Comment #259888 by brainsys on October 4, 2008 at 5:08 am

It generated more petition sigs (well mine anyway), good free publicity for Pat, Google are shown to be not all bad and the true villains are shown to be a bunch of too intolerant religionists.

Perhaps they will reflect that such actions are counterproductive. Good result all round I say!

Other Comments by brainsys

25. Comment #259893 by JernJane on October 4, 2008 at 5:34 am

Fantastic!!! :D A victory for freedom of speech! Now we can poke them whenever they do the same to anyone else! And welcome back Pat indeed! :D

Other Comments by JernJane

26. Comment #259903 by Enlightenme.. on October 4, 2008 at 6:24 am

21. Comment #259855 by the great teapot on October 4, 2008 at 3:08 am
~Oh
So the whole of saudi arabia is mentally ill afterall.

He's entitled to his opinion! (No further comment)

Petition signed.
Presumably we'll have to go down the Canadian route, and campaign for the end of Jewish arbitration etc, as well.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

27. Comment #259905 by leftbehind123 on October 4, 2008 at 6:28 am

Your country actually has sharia courts? O_O

This guy is damn right! They want everything their way.

Other Comments by leftbehind123

28. Comment #259910 by bobsully on October 4, 2008 at 6:42 am

YouTube is a commercial entity. Its merely "bad business" when they get called on their unbalanced censorship. Those of us familiar with the company before it was swallowed up by Google clearly see the distinction. Its no longer about expression, but about the bottom-line, which is fine as that is what it is, they just shouldn't represent it otherwise. Richard Dawkins is very gracious as well he can be in the individual case, however the reversal of their decision probably has more to do with the exposure it was given, rather than their any grander principle.

Other Comments by bobsully

29. Comment #259911 by Enlightenme.. on October 4, 2008 at 6:44 am

^^ We don't (yet) have full sharia courts of course.
However, as I understand it, we are 'allowing' or alternatively 'turning a blind eye' to arbitration based on sharia principles to be 'agreed' to by both parties, I don't know yet if that means that a woman's testimony is worth half that of the man's. Or how the rulings are to be enforced, maybe it'll be kept 'in the community', like it used to be in Northern Ireland.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

30. Comment #259915 by clustertim on October 4, 2008 at 7:07 am

Now why do you suppose they went and did something like that. Thats was pretty dumb of them to do wasnt it?

Jiff
www.privacy-center.ru.tc

Other Comments by clustertim

31. Comment #259918 by Wosret on October 4, 2008 at 7:27 am

Good.

Other Comments by Wosret

32. Comment #259923 by Mango on October 4, 2008 at 7:48 am

My boycott of YouTube finally ends. I'm coming back to you, Judge Judy, my queen!

Other Comments by Mango

33. Comment #259931 by j.mills on October 4, 2008 at 8:03 am

Heh! :) I'd never caught any of this guy's videos before, he's smart, articulate and funny. I expect he has a down-side, but another useful voice in the mix.

Other Comments by j.mills

34. Comment #259934 by faouloki on October 4, 2008 at 8:16 am

Did anyone else wince at the corner shop comment? I think some of his comments are needless cheap shots to get his point across.

Other Comments by faouloki

35. Comment #259950 by TurkishAtheist on October 4, 2008 at 9:04 am

Why Britain is so scared and terrified by islam?? Why can't they enforce democracy? This would never happened in US, ( I think). They should start to deport in massive numbers these islamic aHoles

Other Comments by TurkishAtheist

36. Comment #259951 by Border Collie on October 4, 2008 at 9:07 am

I don't know if being on YouTube is any sort of honor, but I guess it's a base hit, first down or whatever for free speech. I don't know the crickett (sp?) analogy. GO PAT!!!

Other Comments by Border Collie

37. Comment #259957 by Enlightenme.. on October 4, 2008 at 9:20 am

"Why Britain is so scared and terrified by islam??"

Google: White guilt.

"Why can't they enforce democracy?"
We're not quite Turkey yet. Please don't read more into that statement than it's surface meaning.
Fanusi Khiyal will no doubt assure you that it may well come to that, and I don't think it would be a place and time I'd like to witness.

"They should start to deport in massive numbers these islamic aHoles"

They're British. Google; Lord Ahmed, Sir Iqbal Sacranie and The Archbishop of Canterbury.
The Australians would probably leave the commonwealth if we deported them to the colony!

Edit:
You can now add to that list Shahid Malik, who has just been appointed second-in-command under Jack Straw at the Orwellian sounding Justice Ministry, who, whilst he assures us that Sharia councils (or whatever they're called) will remain secondary to British Law, does not do what he should do, ie; speak out directly against them, rather, he defends their right to remain having the same entitlement as other religions get. (He was asked directly by the BBC news reporter about being a Muslim in his new appointment his attitude to Sharia)

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

38. Comment #259960 by faouloki on October 4, 2008 at 9:31 am

Comment #259944 by Roy_H

Another cheap shot for you :-
Q. What do you call an Asian that does not own a corner shop?
A. Doctor
Still, it is less offensive than most of the Irish jokes I have ever heard.

Ah I see so all Asians are Muslim, all corner shops are owned by Asians, therefore all corner shops are owned by Muslim.
Similarly Muslims are terrorists, all Asians are terrorists.
Stalin was an atheist, all atheists are mass murderers.

Other Comments by faouloki

39. Comment #259961 by Border Collie on October 4, 2008 at 9:38 am

I'm not referring to anyone or taking issue with anyone in particular, but I've seen Pat Condell referred to as a victim, a martyr, a racist, crude, not PC, uneducated, etc., on this site and elsewhere. Maybe so. So what? I say good for him. He seems to speak from his heart and gut and even though he's not a PhD or ScD in whatever, he is no small intellect. And, being a comedian, he has that penetrating, somewhat angry insight and wit that are necessary for what he does. And to the PC whiners ... If he's 'pissing you off', who is that about? Examine yourself. Go Pat!

Other Comments by Border Collie

40. Comment #259962 by Enlightenme.. on October 4, 2008 at 9:46 am

^"Still, it is less offensive than most of the Irish jokes I have ever heard."

Happy to see you exposed by faouloki.
Suggestion, Roy_H; edit quick.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

41. Comment #259963 by Michael_Oudenalder on October 4, 2008 at 9:46 am

What great news! I'm really happy justice is served and that Pat is back on YouTube. It really put a smile on my face =)

Other Comments by Michael_Oudenalder

42. Comment #259964 by Stafford Gordon on October 4, 2008 at 9:48 am

I see the name Diane Tammes on the anti Sharia Law petition; is that the film maker who produced "Women in Islam"?

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

43. Comment #259966 by Peacebeuponme on October 4, 2008 at 9:53 am

Steve

(Trying to imagine Christoper Hitchens' reaction to being called a "curse", and a "clever dick" by Condell is quite amusing)

Excellently put. Hitchens is forthright and direct (not to mention intelligent), without being vitriolic.

And Hitchens is respectful when entering places of worship (taking shoes off before entering a mosque for example). I wonder what Condell would say about that.

Still, I'm glad he is not banned, and a least respect the fact that he has motivated himself to fight about what he sees as wrong, even if I find him unfunny and simplistic.

EDIT: hopefully Condell finds will find this site and discover more sophisicated atheists to listen to and learn from.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

44. Comment #259967 by Hellene on October 4, 2008 at 10:02 am

44. Comment #259966 by Peacebeuponme


"...without being vitriolic."

The missionary position?

"EDIT: hopefully Condell finds will find this site and discover more sophisicated atheists to listen to and learn from. "

EDIT: I think he knows about this site. He was on the home page for some time, and his DVDs are for sale here.

Other Comments by Hellene

45. Comment #259969 by sunbeamforjesus on October 4, 2008 at 10:07 am

Excellent news,Pat Condell is a national treasure.Well Done the twats at youtube

Other Comments by sunbeamforjesus

46. Comment #259972 by Steve Zara on October 4, 2008 at 10:17 am

Comment #259966 by Peacebeuponme

I am also glad his videos aren't now banned. I don't agree with Richard Dawkins' assessment of him, but I think Pat Condell has a point of view that is shared by many, so needs to be presented and discussed.

Comment #259967 by Hellene

I think Hitchens is great in the way he deals with religion. He is vitriolic, but rarely to people's faces unless they are being idiots. He is prepared to debate religious dogma, and usually does so in a way that is memorable and effective, showing that Condell's opposition to such debating is wrong.

I dislike Condell's simplistic analyses. There is a role for challenging religious taboos, and militantly standing up to religious oppression (providing it is targeted at those who oppress), but there is also a role for the well-mannered debater, carefully yet politely dissecting the idiocy of religious belief with such skill and precision.

I have seen Jonathan Miller deal with religious ideas extremely effectively, yet with not a single harsh word. But then he really is a clever dick :)

Other Comments by Steve Zara

47. Comment #259977 by Thanny on October 4, 2008 at 10:31 am

Re: Steve, #8

If you think Hitchens and the rest are what Condell is referring to as "polite and deferential" atheists, then you are not speaking the same English language the rest of us are.

I find your characterization completely off the mark, and am frankly puzzled as to what preconceptions one would need to begin watching any Condell video with to emerge holding the opinion that you profess.

Other Comments by Thanny

48. Comment #259980 by PrimeNumbers on October 4, 2008 at 10:41 am

There is a place for nuanced philosophical argument, and there is a place for plain, simple argument. I like what Pat says because he doesn't get bogged down in nuance, and sophistry.

Religious apologists, given they can't conduct a reasoned argument with words meaning what words normally mean, they use sophistry and word-bending to argue. We should not have to do the same. Pat makes simple, powerful arguments, with a good sense of humour. I wish there were more like him.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

49. Comment #259984 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on October 4, 2008 at 10:50 am

Pat Condell uses "Liberal elite" as a slander whilst Sam Harris declares we should celebrate elitism.

Quick, call the dogma police, one of these two is being a fundamentalist whilst the other is being a "no true atheist" - but which one is which?. How will I be able to have faith in my atheism ever again if I'm not told what to believe!!

/endsarcasm

Other Comments by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy

50. Comment #259988 by Steve Zara on October 4, 2008 at 11:03 am

Comment #259984 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy

I am a Liberal Elitist, so guess who I guess I had better choose Sam Harris' approach as the One True Atheist way.

If Harris ever rants about the non-liberal non-elite like Condell does about the liberal elite, then I guess the Harrisites and Condellites may have to go their separate ways.

And here is me hoping we could all just be friends.

Other Comments by Steve Zara