51. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236201 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 11:17 am

's okay, Titania. Though could I ask you to comment on my other point? I mean if it's legit to deport those who are members of communist or neo-nazi organizations, why not jihadis and sharia-supremacists?

Fanusi, go fuck yourself.

Reaction against feeling is itself an emotional reaction.

It's not a choice between being a Vulcan, and being a pure reactionary.
Trying to be the former is stupid, and stunted, and no one here is the latter, so stow it with that insult.

Diacanu there are ladies present, so I won't respond as I could. Also, I think you missed my point.

I wasn't talking about being emotionless ("a Vulcan" as you phrase it). I was talking about the fact that 'feelings' mean zip when it comes to finding the truth. Steve 'feels' that it would be wrong to expel goons like Abu Hamza. I 'feel' rather differently. There are those that 'feel' that God exists. There are many, many who 'feel' the Jihad is justified.

You see what I'm driving at?

Emotions are great, they're why life's worth living, but they must be coupled to reason. And the profound thinkers are always profoundly passionate. Read Aristotle. Read Darwin. Read a biography of Einstein. Read Michael Collins, where he describes what it was like to see the continents fly past as he orbited the earth. These men were and are all profoundly passionate - and profoundly rational.

52. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236173 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 10:49 am

The reason some of us right-wingers (incidentally, that applies to me, but I don't know that it applies to, say, twp) start foaming at the mount is statements like this:

I am not a damn hand-wringer. I refuse to give up human rights because some scare-mongering right-wingers want to get us foaming at the mouth!

Where does one begin? "give up human rights" would be less infuriating if I had not explained, ten times at least, why this would not involve giving up human rights, and heard no reply. Nor does this take into account my rather detailed discussion of the way that rights are, in fact, secured for human beings,(which is not, by the way, feeling all day long). "Scare-mongering" implies an untrue threat; the threat of Islam is all too real, and growing daily, as anyone who follows this knows. etc.

I want urgent, positive and strong action from law-enforcers and polititions to deal with real and iminent threats. That action does not require deaths or expulsions. It is actually prosecuting the evil preachers of hate.

And do what with them exactly? Put them in prison where they can recruit a nice little army of mujahideen to their cause? Again, this is something I have brought up a number of times, and each time it has been ignored. Oh, I do recall Steve that you pooh-pooh'd the idea that a religion suffused with violence, theft and rapine would find acceptance amongst hardened criminals. Well, here's some people who think differently:

"From Jail to Jihad"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKOvg1ijZr0


Of course this always happens when you 'feel' rather than think.


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

TWP,

Yes I realise this. In all honestly and at my own fault I'm going to have to admit after having such a long discussion on this thread (it's been about tweleve hours and the majority of those hours being hours in which I should have been sleeping) a post from a newbie that is so long and incredibly detailed in the middle of it all, didn't warrant the full attention it should have prob deserved. I admit I didn't really read all of it, didn't really find it worth my time at this particular point, as wrong as that may be.

'S okay. Trust me, I know about frustrating debates that cause you to climb the wall. :-D

53. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236157 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 10:11 am

CocoCantre,

Fanusi, Thanks, I'm open to legitimate articles and info from anyone here.

*bows* Mine the honour.

-certain people will find the following a trifle repetitive ;-)

A great place to start is with Ibn Warraq, a truly first rate scholar on the subject of Islam. His essay, "Islam, the Middle East and Fascism" is a very good place to start. You can find it here:

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=3766&sec_id=3766

and there's a good compendium of his writings:

http://www.freewebs.com/unoffibnwarraq/index.htm

There are several good sites studying Islam out there. I typically recommend the following:

JihadWatch (www.jihadwatch.org); especially the articles by Hugh FitzGerlald.

thereligionofpeace.com, which keeps a running tally of Islam's atrocities.

faithfreedom.org, the official site of Ali Sina, one of the most brilliant apostate polemecists.

There are many good books on Islam (and even more truly lousy ones - avoid Karen Armstrong and Reza Aslan). Ibn Warraq, Why I Am Not A Muslim is good, so is his Defending The West. Bat Ye'or's work on dhimmitude is pioneering, and Robert Spencer's are also great, if you can ignore the Christian apologetics.

If you want to learn about Islamic theology, there's a Qur'an blog on JihadWatch, which comments each Sura with the relevant bits of hadith, Sira, tafsir (classical commentary) and so on.

Then there are some good histories of Islam. Efraim Karsh's Islamic Imperialism shows how Islam has always functioned. Online, you can find Islam and the Psychology of the Musulman by Andre Servier:

http://musulmanbook.blogspot.com/

And, you may find the following particularly interesting, given your husband is Indian:

The Legacy of Islamic Rule in India:

http://voi.org/books/tlmr/

K.S. Lal estimates that as many as seventy million Hindus were murdered by the Muslim rulers when they overran the subcontinent.

54. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236143 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 9:51 am

CocoCantare,

Case in point, my husband. His last name happens to be Singh and he has brown skin. EVERY time we go to the airport and try to check in, he is held up and I breeze right through. He is asked ridiculous questions and me and my white family and friends never are. Forget the fact that he is a Lt. in the U.S. Navy! It is humiliating and devastating to him, especially since he puts his life on the line for this country just about every day! If we adopt more strict rules/laws, how much more will innocent brown-skinned people be singled out and suffer? I know the point is to single out muslims, but that doesn't always happen here. Any thoughts?

*dryly* If you think it's bad now, wait until al-qaeda perfect those damn underwear bombs. And yes, that's a real story.

Believe me, I'm fully sympathetic. That's another reason I'm so furious at these Shariah-supporting nutbags, not to mention our craven and dhimmified media that keeps talking about 'the Asian community', thus lumping in innocent Hindus and Sikhs with the Mad Lovers Of Mohammed.

Mark Steyn, noones idea of a peacenik, has written very convincingly on the subject of what he calls "new and predictably idiotic FAA regulations" and argues that this bumpf makes us actually less safe.

On a lighter note, my friend and I have a plan for "Islamophobic Airlines", where each passenger must, before boarding, eat a ham sandwhich, deface a qur'an, and make fun of Muhammad.

Hi everyone. I have been reading this entire thread and believe that many have included good ideas and solutions. But I have a personal fear that I thought I'd put out there. I'm a newbie and still doing my own research (like twp), so go easy on me, I'm trying to learn.

If it's not prssumptious, I could suggest a couple of resources to look at. It's alot of primary source data, so you can just read them and come up with your own conclusions.

55. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236136 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 9:38 am

twp, as much as I hate to disagree with you about anything in this discussion, I do disagree about this:

On another note, I really am quite sick and tired of persons consistently falling back on a three hundred year old document as an end all be all of "rights". Inserting the constitution in to a type of discussion that we are having now, is really pointless.

Personally, as something of an Americanophile, I like the US constitution, and think it is morally justified. Also, there are - as Titania mentioned in her post, though I don't think she realised it - grounds for this kind of expulsion (membership of a fascist part; Hizb ut-Tahrir qualifies), not to mention historical precedent.

56. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236130 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 9:33 am

I suggest you learn some biology, and philosophy. Our morality is based on empathy - our abilities to imagine and react to the feelings of others. We then discuss, using reason, if and how to react to those feelings, and whether or not such reactions are appropriate. Science without a feeling of wonder, or morality without feelings of empathy or compassion would be rather pointless.

As regards Biology, I graduated Summa Cum Laude in the subject, and was educated at Oxford. As regards Philosophy, I understand it fine to know that feelings are no use whatsoever in determining the truth of anything. You might want to read a little history. You'd find that he SS felt absolutely righteous about their acts, and that the honour-killing father similarly feels completely justified in killing his own children.

Feelings only mean anything when they are harnessed to reason. They are not tools of cognition. Anyone who asserts something just because they 'feel' it, exempts themselves from a rational discussion just the same way that someone who claims knowledge based on faith.

I think outfits like this should banned, and it is even in many Muslim countries. The goons who run it should be deported if they are non citizens. But I don't see how combating such extremist groups would necessitate the expulsion of citizens, and why do you think anyone would take them?

They're a threat, and removing them from the country is the least harsh option. Given what they'd get up to in our prison system, the alternatives would be solitary confinement, a la the Long Kesh, or death. Exile, permanent, seems the best option.

57. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236121 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 9:17 am

Why, Steve I expected this admission sooner or later, but didn't hope for it:

I find talk of certainties of guilt, of death sentences, of expulsions and of invasions deeply troubling, as they go against my feelings of how a civilized society should act.

Feelings eh? Well, you feel away, while thewhitepearl, Nairb, me and others do the actual thinking. Feelings don't mean anything, not in reason, not in science, not in morality. The only thing that matters are facts and reason.

I was wondering, no matter how often I stated why expelling goons like Hizb ut-Tahrir would not lead to moral degredation of our civilization, it was ignored. Well, now I know the answer: because it's never been about reason, facts, reality, but about your causeless feelings. One of those things you feel bad about was invasion which was discussed either as 1) to take the oil fields and end the money weapon, or 2) to stop genocide and slavery in the Sudan. The second is clearely moral, while the first only is open to discussion, but discussion involves facts and not feelings.

So, please go right ahead and feel, but do it in private, where it belongs.

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

Moving onto someone who is bringing actual facts, and reason and logic to the table, Nairb thanks for the info, they are very encouraging. It's what I've suspected, ever since I read about Iraqis loosing their faith due to the violence, despite them originally cheering 9/11. It's one thing to cheer about the slaughter of innocents far away, it's another thing entirely when they feel the lash on their own backs.

This is really wonderful news, and gives me some hope that this long war may end in my lifetime. Thanks, and I mean that sincerely, Nairb

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

Titania

TWP, there are many good reasons why we have the right to a presumption of innocence in a criminal trial.

There is something really wierd going on here. Noone here has suggested the death penalty without a trial. What I have said - and people should have got that by now - is that if there is uncontroversial evidence, death is the correct punishment. And where do you review evidence about guilt or innocence?

Furthermore, to become a US citizen, a person must swear that he is attached to the principles of the Constitution and that he is well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States and is not a terrorist, totalitarian party member, Nazi, communist, etc. See Section 316 of the Immigration and Nationality Act quoted below. If a person lies about any of these issues during the permanent resident of naturalization (process to be come a US citizen), that person can be denaturalized and subsequently deported.

I don't know what you've been reading, but that's exactly what we've been talking about. We are talking about fully-fledged Shariah supremacists like Hizb ut-tahrir, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. etc. Kick. Them. Out.

The extreme solutions you are advocating lead to further alienation of immigrant and Muslim populations and to the erosion of civil liberties for all

Okay, let me make this clear: this is not about you. It doesn't matter what approach you take, you can do no right by Islam. It has, in all times and all places been a disaster for Infidels. If a Muslim honestly wants to live in freedom and in peace, he won't object to seeing Shariah-supporting fascists deported. If not - then he's a problem to begin with.

58. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236109 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 8:37 am

Nairb forchrissakes, I just admitted that I'd made a mistake and thanked you for point that out in the above post. I was referring to Muslim parity.

There is no call for accusations like 'making it up as you go along'. When try to do your research you occasionally get a dud bit of info.

What I am not backing away from is the interview with Brigitte Gabirel, and one thing I do believe is how she contrasts the humanity and decency of the Israelis with the barbarity of the Muslims. And the reason I believe that is that it sounds alot like what I hear from Kenya, where I was born, so I can see the changes, and Tanzania which I visited alot, and also what I've heard from Nigerian friends about what's going on there. And all of that in turn seems to mesh very well with what's been going on in Kosovo, with, if anything, an even worse campaign of ethnic cleansing going on against the Christians. And that in turn seems to coincide with what happened in the Sudan, and in Indonesia, and with the two hundred jihad attacks in twenty-two countries in the month of July alone.

Bill Whittle summarised it brilliantly:

Muslims are angrily at war with Buddhists in East Asia. Muslims are enraged with Animists in Africa. Of course, none of this approaches the sheer hatred that Muslims bear towards Hindus in the South Asia peninsula. And this foaming hatred blanches compared to the white-hot fury Muslims feel for the Christian American Crusaders. And this fury is but a candle to the incandescent, boiling, supernova of murder they feel toward the Jews.

Does anyone beside me detect a pattern here?

Exactly. And believe you me, I could expand that list considerably.

So I disagree with this 'complicated, multi-cause' guff. Muslim jihadists across the face of the earth are committing acts of atrocity motivated by Islam, and they have been doing this for fourteen hundred years, and somehow Lebanon is supposed to be completely, completely different from all of that? As the Eskimo said to the refrigerator salesman: I ain't buyin' it.


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

I do believe that is a wonderful step. Offering similar aid to women and their children of Islam, who want to get out. If we had the more popular wordly feminist group taking a stand against this that would also be of great help, as I believe I have stated before. I know that there are feminist groups set up specifically for the aid of women trapped in Islam, but for more prominient feminist groups to publicly stand out against this issue wish make a difference. Maybe international laws set up specifically with Islam in mind.

That's an excellent point, twp; wish I'd said it. That's another way we could screen for genuine refugees. Women fleeing forced marriages (a la Ayaan Hirsi Ali could be given precedence).


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

There is a difference between political and religious. This much is obvious, don't over simplify in an effort to define.

Al, for crying out loud, you know, and I know, and I know you know, and I know you know I know, that the different schools in Islam aren't schools of theology, but of jurisprudence, i.e. law.


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

quomak, this I gotta hear:

My objection is quite logical. The obvious (and only) defense of these imams against the videos is to claim they have been quoted out of context. Knowing that, why not simply include the context and remove the need for us to read police or ofcom's investigation into the matter? What is the use of watching the documentary if you have to check multiple other sources to make sure the documentary is correct?

Oh, this I definetly have to hear. What concievable context could make statements about crucifying homosexuals, or raping nine-year old girls, or killing jews, or killing Hindus, or any of this seem acceptable?

Herewith I propose a new acronym in dealing with Islamic apologies: OOCMA [oohkma], or "Out Of Context, My Ass"

59. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236091 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 7:49 am

*blinks* Sorry, you're right Nairb I'm currently trying to find my source for that earlier figure.

I am sorry about that. On the subject of who started that war, though wiki says this:

The influx of Palestinian refugees between 1948 and 1970, the 1950s and 1960s reassertion of pan-Arab nationalism as espoused by Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, the founding of the PLO in 1965, the eviction or squashing of all armed Palestinian resistance movements in Syria, Jordan and Egypt, and the escalating assertion of Palestinian nationalism through armed struggle, unsettled the delicate political and demographic balance of the Lebanese communities. After its bloody eviction from Jordan by King Hussein during "Black September" in 1970, the PLO and all its affiliate movements settled in Beirut and the Lebanese north from which they vowed to continue liberating Palestine, in violation of every agreement made with the Lebanese authorities to regulate the activities of the Palestinian organizations. The Muslim community in Lebanon saw Monastir Palestinian movements (Sunni in their vast majority) as an opportunity to renege on the 1943 National Pact by using the Palestinian weapons to pressure their fellow Christian Lebanese into abrogating the National Pact

Also, vis a viz the Palestinian numbers, according to the CIA, there are over four hundred thousand of them, in a country barely over four million in total population.

Thanks for pointing that error out though. I appreciate it.


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

While I think Fanusi exaggerates the role of Islam I do find it disturbing that some people are trying so hard to make excuses for it.

Just on this subject, Bonzai et al, this is a point that I have made many times: in Islam, there is no division at all between the religious and the political. It's pointless to ask which of thse atrocities was 'religious' and which 'political'; they're part and parcel of the same thing.

60. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236075 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 6:45 am

The thing that worries me about Fanusi is there is a definite agenda for him visiting the site to argue for his actions against Islam.

Lazarus you say this as though it's something that I've been trickily concealing. Of course I have an agenda when we discuss Islam: to help disseminate knowledge about it and allow others to know those facts that are not usually known, with the long-term view of preventing our civilization from being destroyed.

I really fear that if Fanusi was able to enforce some of his solutions then he'd kill our hard fought freedoms just as well as any Muslim

I believe that if you read my previous post, you will find that point addressed. Could I also ask something here: Any Muslim? Really any Muslim? Zawahiri? Hassan Nasrallah? Abu Hamza? The average Saudi or Pakistani Imam?

Bear in mind that what I am advocating would be only effective with a campaign help apostates from Islam, embrace fleeing religious minorities, end slavery and so forth. So, I do believe I am entitled to ask: Any Muslim? Really?

61. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236071 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 6:37 am

I was simply asking that maybe you misunderstood all of this because instead of really reading what fanusi was saying you just presumed is was going to be extreme and to your dissatisfaction? Almost as though you skimmed through and picked the most objectionable statement you could find and combat it

That's an understatement, twp. You haven't seen the extremely boring and frustrating 48 hour exchange of posts where Steve stubbornly resisted the idea that those who have said that they want Shariah law in the United Kingdomn are extremely unlikely to vote against it in a referendum (it is worth noticing here that my views on expelling goons like Hizb ut-Tahrir and Abu Hamza is considered extreme, but allowing Muslims to vote us all into slavery is not considered extreme).

Take this nonsense:

I am afraid that for me the expulsion of natives is pretty extreme.

The technical name for this is 'floating abstraction', and the colloquial is 'weasel words'. "Native citizens" is used to mask whom we are actually talking about: a collection of Islamic gangsters who proclaim that they have no loyalty to the state in which they live, but rather have all of their loyalty invested in the Muslim nation, the Ummah.

Which is what is wrong with the following statement:

Unlike you, I assume that we owe moral obligations to all citizens, whether or not they live in Western democracies.

I don't know, how in context, you can read this except as saying that we owe some debt to the citizens of Saudi Arabia in determining our policies. Even if it just means citizens of the West, it has been understood by every civilization in history that citizenship comes with a price tag. With duties as well as rights. And the price tag is a loyalty to the basic cultural values of the nation in question. And just so that this isn't misunderstood, in the case of the West that means: a respect for freedom of speech. For women's rights. For science and reason as the only modes of finding the truth. For equality under the law. It follows that those who don't pledge loyalty to those values - those who want women stuffed into burkas, unable to drive, unable to vote, sold into marriage at age 9 just for example - can legitimately be said to forfeit citizenship, and with it the rights it confers. Punkt Aus Basta.

Regardless of any theoretical objections or platonic objections to this scheme, the fact is it works. Thanks to this model we have achieved a civilization worth having, have ensured an unprecedented level of human rights and human prosperity. Those values were very, very long time in coming, and were extremely difficult to achieve. Unlike Steve, I am not about to see them vanish at the hands of seventh century barbarians.

I already know how this is going to be answered, and it is with this old chestnut:

My view is that if his tactics are used, we would have already lost the supposedly civilized society we are attempting to defend.

There is exactly zero empirical evidence for this. The Second World War involved the incineration by phosphorus of two hundred thousand German civilians (in, I might add, those cities that were the centres of anti-Hitler resistance), the torpedoing of civilian relief vessels, and the nuclear destruction of two japanese cities, not to mention internment of POWs and suspected saboteurs. And you know what? We seem to have avoided total moral decay and collapse. Funny how that works, but the fact is it does.

Nairb on the subject of those statistics, I believe they were referring to Muslim opinions. Why there is that level of support, I'm sorry to say, means nothing. There was a large number of Germans who supported & voted for Hitler not because of festering anti-Semitism, but purely out of outrage at the runaway inflation, the injustice of the Versailles treaty, the huge unemployment etc. This didn't make the Holocaust any more pleasant.

It is also worth noting that Lebanon used to be 80% Christian until they, in a sucidally stupid piece of charity, decided to let in large numbers of Palestinian - Arab Muslim - refugees. Now they have some of the highest birth rates on the planet, and when they reached parity Yasser Arafat combined forces with the local Muslims to wage Jihad against the Christians.

You can listen to an interview with such a survivor here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_Sr5lf2qig

The palestinians practiced such charming tactics as bashing childrens brains out against walls, forcing parents to slit their own infants throats and so on. I am certain that this'll get dismissed as just one testimony, but given that it parallels what's going on in, say, Nigeria, or the new state of Kosovo, I think there's something to that. Now, forgive me if I am being harsh, but I have no wish to see that bloodbath repeated over here.


thewhitepearl, I have never understood why 'extremist' is considered an automatically derogatory term. I would have thought that it depends on what you are being extreme about. As regards these accusations that I'm exagerrating or distorting, well, I submit myself to your rational judgement. I've provided you with my source material, and you can see for yourself whether or not I am rationally correct.

Of course, if you find a point where I've gone wrong, I'd be enormously grateful if you pointed it out.

Back to our exchange of ideas about what can be done: I'd add a few other things, amongst them a fund to support dissidents and Muslim apostates. The Ayaan Hirsi Ali defence charity is a good step in that direction. We can can also play on the racial and ethnic divisions within Islam (as Islam has always been a vesself of Arab Supremacism). Iraqi Kurdistan is a functioning democracy, principally because the inhabitants have been turned off Islam by the hideous oppression they have suffered at the hands of the Arabs. In Iran, persian nationalism is potent counterblow against Islam, with many expatriats appealing to the legacy of Cyrus the great. We can turn to africa, where the Berbers are having their culture and language repressed, and the blacks are being slaughtered. We can make this case very strongly to them.

We can also, if we're not going to - thanks to the UN fetishists and multilateralists - stop things like what's just ended in Darfur, put pressure on the government to at least ammeliorate the slave trade by buying and freeing the slaves being traded, and offering them a trip to any country of their choice, including any Western nation if they renounce Islam (those that are Muslims, who are few, and almost all the rest are forced converts who would happily abandon the system that held them in slavery, and those that were Muslim originally would be easily convinced in such a situation). This would firstly provide us with a healthy influx of apostates and escapees from Islam who have seen its horrors first hand, and secondly help to end or at least cut down a major evil.

A bit harsh, Fanusi - I think Steve's point is fair, considering the propensity of the legal system to fuck up.

*drly* Laurie, with respect, you haven't had to put up with his incredibly frustrating nonsense for some time. I made it perfectly clear that the death penalty should only be applied in cases where the evidence was really uncontrovertible, and the example I gave was catching incitement to mass murder and treason on tape.

I'd also point out that while twp and I have been fruitfully trading ideas, all steve does is whine about what's proposed and offer nothing himself.

62. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236020 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 3:34 am

Mind if I concretise this?

By sending supporters of the regime to that country we are adding to their oppression.

I honestly have trouble seeing how a few more Shariah supporters in the pestilential hell-hole of Saudi Arabia could make it any worse. On the other hand, I have a very clear idea on how they can make the already deteriorating situations here in the West much worse.

But, if we aren't sending them to democracies, we are dumping such people into countries with no knowledge of the will of the citizens there. I think that is certainly morally dodgy.

Well, given that places like Saudi Arabia keep proclaiming their Islamic loyalty only to Muslims, they can stick with them.

It is interesting, however, to note that apparently the wishes of the citizens of Saudi Arabia should be taken into consideration, and that we seem to owe some sort of moral obligation to them, but not to the citizens of the Western democracies. Fascinating.

A worry for me in this whole business is that the extreme right will gain favour among the British electorate with simplistic right wing solutions to these difficult problems.

This is a problem that I have brought up before. The extre-right - the neo-facists - are on the rise because the mainstream has its fingers in its ears, its head in the sand all the while chanting (muffled) 'nyah, nyah, I can't hear you' about this problem. If we don't take measured steps now we'll end up with something much, much nastier later.

In my opinion that makes the approach even less ethical. If you push back at such governments, they will have little hesitation in passing on the burden of whatever sanctions you apply to their citizens

*dryly* I see Steve is demonstrating his firm grasp of logic again. So, if we put pressure on the governments to reform their human rights records and lay off religious minorities and apostates - it will lead to more repression and viciousness. Whereas if we continue to be doormats to Mubarak, the House of Saud &tc. then... er...

Sorry, got lost there.

Well indeed that sheds a whole new light on the "native" issue. But also foreshadows what may very well happen with all of the recent immigrants.

Oh, twp, I am more than happy to send second and third generation trouble makers to SA, as well as converts like the former neo-nazi Ibn Myatt.

Of course I wouldn't deny a human the right to a trial. However, I do want to remind you that while waiting on that trial and conviction you should not be allowed in a public prison. Let's face it, if you are caught in the act of jihad terrorism, you are more than likely going to be found guilty and in the mean time should not be allowed around possible converts.

*nods* Exactly. Or, for that matter, caught on tape inciting murder and committing treason. Abu Hamza's case seems to be fairly open and shut.

I like these ideas. I'm going to note these down. I think we should expand on those ideas. Correct me if I'm wrong but the major hold they have on the rest of the world is oil. It appears everything else they would greatly need the aid of the rest of the world.

Ayup. Though that's changing. Thanks to the skyrocketing price of oil, canada has figured out how to turn tar into oil, and the tar reserves of Canada would provide more oil than Saudi Arabia.

There are all sorts of political options also connected. Even the Putin regime in Russia understands the threat of Islam, so there's a case to be made for arguing for an en-masse embargo of Middle Eastern oil by all non-Muslim states. We could get China on board too, with any luck.

Here are a few other ideas: a la Hitchens's excellent 'equal time' proposition, we can say to the Saudis and the Iranians 'no more mosques in the West until we see churches and Sikh and Hindu and Buddhist temples in Riyadh'. Or we could require every mosque to have a clean bill of social health, with respect to such things as violent literature, preachers etc. and those that failed it would find themselves seized along with all their holdings. This would have the other beneficial effect of encouraging the non-loony strains of Islam, such as the Ahmaddiya, or the heretical scismatics, such as the Bahai, who have a very strong, vested interest in keeping true Islam far, far away.

63. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235978 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 1:29 am

Vermeer was, perhaps, the greatest painter who ever lived.

I have 'The Geographer' up on my wall.

64. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235975 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 1:28 am

Leaning on an Islamic government already pissed off they are pratically banned from inheriting other countries. An automatic issue raised in my mind is they aren't dumbasses. If you really want to boil it down to the best government system (when it comes to control) they have it in the bag. Masters of manipulation and control. They believe Allah is on their side, how can we lean on them in a way that won't ignite a serious war? When push comes to shove I wonder if they can really be pressured to knock anything off that occurs on their side of the fence.

I doubt it. These guys pull the stunts they do because they are convinced that the West has no teeth. However, given cause to think otherwise, things would be different. Qadaffi handed his stockpile of WMDs to the US after Saddam was finished off.

There's other ways. We can inform them that their number-swiss bank accounts will shortly be empty, or that all that prime property they've bought up in Europe or America can suddenly vanish out of their posession, or hat if they need medical or other services, these have just recieved a five-hundred fold markup. Then there's denial of foreign aid and so on and so on.

65. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235973 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 1:23 am

However, maybe I read Fanusi wrong but I am sure he wasn't referring to a "suspected terrorist". The way I read it was an action that already occured or being caught in the act.

*nods* Exactly, twp. Of course I'd never support the death penalty for anything less than damning evidence.

On the other hand if one of these imams is caught on tape saying to his crowd 'burn down the stores of the Hindus' and then violence erupts against the Hindus - well, I have no problem with him dancing the hemp fandango.

66. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235971 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 1:19 am

*chuckles* You do that. Over here I'll just give a glance to my Vermeer-copy.

Ta,

Fanusi

67. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235961 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 1:11 am

Laurie again, you're pushing at an open door with me. But that's something that can be rationally and scientifically investigated.

68. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235958 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 1:06 am

*dryly* Oh, Laurie there is no doubt about what Steve meant - to be an irritating self-righteous pest (look at the asinine 'naughty' comments).

69. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235954 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 1:00 am

Well, because we are talking about a human figure, some of whose words have been recorded, and about whom there is some corroborating evidence. Again, the parallel I'd draw is with Siegfried & Hagen: noone serious believes that Siegfried was almost invulnerable or able to turn invisible; but there is that gold we keep dredging up out of the Rhine. We're talking about human beings who became legendary, rather than legends invented right from the start.

70. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235951 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 12:56 am

Option three I am very weary about because I am against any form of death penalty.

I believe you mean 'wary'. But let's leave that aside for the moment.

Now on to the apostate issue, to sum up I do agree. But after my last post it did dawn on me, that if Islamists were not allowed citizenship into other countries that were not Islam already in nature, they would indeed have border patrol of their own. I'm sure that if they realised an individual was trying to obtain citizenship in another country they would be trying to leave the muslim faith, ergo be put to death.

If that were the case, I'm sure we would be running more "underground railroads" for apostates, rather than sitting at the border questioning them. I'm sure it would be a balancing act. I could be wrong.

It's an interesting point. There are ways - real ways - to lean on these governments. We could make it very clear, just to take one example, that we are willing to embargo a country that doesn't knock that off - or seize it's oil fields, or whatever. Anyway, that's something for discussion. I'd welcome your input.

Bear in mind that this is part of a number of things I'm advocating, including a campaign of ferocious and principled cultural imperialism.

71. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235943 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 12:41 am

What a brilliant idea. It will be bad enough putting to death people who want to be martyrs for a cause, but just imagine what you will stir up if a less-than-perfect legal system wrongly puts to death an innocent.

Oh? And what about when Abu Hamzas new mujahideen converts get out of jail and kill fifty, sixty, a hundred innocents?

72. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235941 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 12:38 am

But seriously...why are any of the people you originally mentioned more truthful and/or historically accurate than Zeus or Thor or Athena or Hathor or Cthulu or Xenu or Ba'al, etc, etc, etc?

Well, because those are explicitly mythological in the way that Jesus or Lao-Tzu isn't. We used to think Troy was a myth, until it was dug up. Siegfried & Hagen from old Germanic lore were considered mythical, until we started dredging up the Niebelungenhord from the Rhine floor, the treasure that Hagen supposedly dumped into it.

Oh, I realise that the format of a forum makes this seem more confrontational than it really is. The main point we're quibbling about is the difference between fully-mythological and quasi-mythological figures.

73. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235939 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 12:34 am

I'll take that in reverse order, if I may:

Right. Let's pretend for a moment that muslims are not granted permission to enter a country that is "non-islamic". How would you then distinguish between a real apostate and a wolf in sheeps clothing?

Well, it's really rather simple. You know how, when you try to get on a plane you have to answer alot of dumb questions? The point about those is that, if something turns out to be up, you can be charged with lying to an official. Same thing with asylum applications.

You can ask about their religious-political affiliation, and if they are apostates they have to claim refuge from religious persecution. Then they either need to keep a very low profile (if they are wolves in sheeps clothing) or face deportation and loss of citizenship when it comes out that they've lied about their application. Simple and straightforward.

Yes, I have agreed with you in the past on that thought. But where do they go? If they break the law at this point there is nowhere for them to go but jail. What to do? Ask what religion they are, if they say muslim, send them to a "terrorist camp"?

Well, when Britain was dealing with the Northern Ireland troubles, there was the Long Kesh for IRA goons, so that's option 1. Option 2 is to expel this lot. Option 3, which I do reserve for incitement to jihad terrorism or being complicit in such acts, is death.

74. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235931 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 12:09 am

twp,
Oh, so am I. Trust me, I completely agree.

The only problem being, what if the "muslims" coming in, didn't really subscribe to Islam and were trying to escape it? Although I'm sure that is a minority.

Well, we have six million apostates every year in Africa. Consider what they risk, I'd say they're more than welcome to come over.

At this point I do believe that people of the muslim faith should be prevented from holding any sort of political office or power of any kind

Again, you're pushing at an open door with me. I'd say that the priority at the moment though is keeping Muslim preachers out of jails.

75. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235929 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 12:01 am

Laurie & Don, you're pushing at an open door with me. I was just making a more general point about quasi-historical/mythological figures. I think that researching who the man from Nazareth really was is very interesting. Same with Gautama Buddha, or Lao-Tzu, or even Muhammad (though that last one carries certain, ah-hem, risks)

76. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235925 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 23, 2008 at 11:52 pm

*nods* Exactly, twp

77. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235920 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 23, 2008 at 11:34 pm

I agree with you Man. Like I have said before I don't care about Islam but I do care about the Muslims. If there is a way that they can integrate effectively and tolerantly into the community this must be encouraged. The same with an interpretation of the Quran that permits cherry picking.

*nods* Which is what I've been saying all along. I mean ex-Muslims tend to be first-rate people: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq etc. The best aid for those Muslims who are not lost to evil is to give these nutcases the boot.

I remember having a conversation with u about Sufism. I have a very dear Sufi friend of mine, who comes across more as a Budhist Hippy Panthiest! If all Muslims could be that way, wouldn't the world just be a better place??

Well, yes, there are those kinds of Sufis - the 'hippies of Islam' - but there are another kind: al-Ghazali, who crushed all scientific inquiry. Tabandeh, who wrote against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There's even a Sufi Jihad army in Iraq.

Sorry, but short of either utterly attenuated faith, or a clean break with it, the problem still remains. Your friend sounds more like a 'Muslim-for-Identification-Purposes-only' Muslim. That's good; that's close to apostasy.

EDIT:

Though these guys seem on the level:

http://www.sufimuslimcouncil.org/extremism.php

78. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235916 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 23, 2008 at 11:14 pm

Agreed. But the historicity of Christ is so difficult to prove for the exact same reason as the historicity of Osiris/Dionysius, or Thor, or Zeus, or any number of laughable dead gods, is!

Everything is fabricated, including all "prophesies", because humans do not have the ability to see into the future via "magic".

Not sure that's quite true. I mean, I think that it's probable that there was a preacher from Nazareth, in the same way that I think that Siddharta was probably a historical figure. But they're so much encrusted with myth and fabrication, that you'd need to figure out a separate category: Jesus, the Buddha, Confucius, Lao-Tzu...


EDIT:

Of course by that point they are on to something else. I get a lot of "Whatever Heather. You are just as evangelical as the christians you complain about"

Dear God, it's frustrating, isn't it? I hate that kind of response.

79. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235912 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 23, 2008 at 11:05 pm

*groans* I really do wish that the Christians would quit making asses of themselves with this nonsense, twp. It's just too excruciating to watch.

80. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235908 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 23, 2008 at 10:50 pm

The problem, felandath is that this isn't just al-Qaeda, it isn't just this gang or that gang - it's the whole damn dar al-Islam, that's the problem.

Even the statistics of that lickspittle Islam sycophant John Esposito put the numbers who supported 9/11 at nearly two hundred million (plus another three hundred who 'kinda' support it). And here's a little factoid that makes it appear it could be even worse:

On the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, a survey conducted by Al-Jazeera asked respondents, "Do you support Osama Bin-Laden?" A whopping 49.9% answered: yes. And the July 2006 global Pew survey found that among Muslims, a quarter of Jordanians, a third of Indonesians, 38% of Pakistanis and 61% of Nigerians all expressed confidence in the mass murderer who founded al-Qaida. In Lebanon six months ago, the Beirut Center for Research and Information found that over 80% of the Lebanese population said they supported Hizbullah.

It's minor details like this that make me extremely skeptical about the ridiculous idea that we can permit the continued settlement of Muslims in our countries. This is a constituency that is far, far larger than anything Adolf Hitler had to draw on.

EDIT: *swears a blue streak* Thanks for the link; I just got to the point where this pretentious windbag from Washington is saying that it's "un-Islamic".


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

What I cannot understand for the life of me: Why are those preachers not prosecuted and kicked out of the country?

Oh, kraut, haven't you heard that such a course of action would be unacceptable, intolerant? Be prepared to be told it by a few self-righteous windbags.

81. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235770 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 23, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Duff, that's the spirit!

There are a boatload more infidels than Moslems and we will win in the end. It's just a question of whether we can do it without regression to total horror.

82. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235740 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 23, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Vin, we are talkng about a documentary that journalist risked his life to make. Did I hear any complaints about what he uncovered? No. Did I hear whines about the presentation? Yes.

Layla the things is that all of that is just plain orthodox Islam. This wasn't cooked up by the Wahabis.

83. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235671 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 23, 2008 at 11:29 am

quomak I find it interensting that you have more problems with the cuts and narration of the clips, than, say, with statements like "Burn down the stores of the Hindus, and as for the Jews, you must kill them physically"

84. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235668 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 23, 2008 at 11:28 am

BORING!

joe, if you have scientific facts, do the work, assemble the data, write a paper, pass peer-review, get it published, hell, get a Nobel prize. This is the way science is done.

Postings from pretentious blowhards, every one of whose arguments routinely get's blown out of the water, means precisely dick. Take this howler:

all Darwinists need to do is to produce "one single proof," rather than issuing demagogic statements many pages long.

Sure: The genetic similarity between all organisms. Now piss off.

85. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #235656 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 23, 2008 at 11:04 am

Saying "the Holocaust" was evil is an odd statement. I can agree superficially but I'd prefer to clarify specific behaviors of people. "The Holocaust" can refer to a period of time or a point in history. A period of time can't be evil, though evil behaviors happened during that time. Anyways I'll leave that point aside for the moment as it can be clear enough that you are referring to those behaviors under the titles of the holocaust and the gulag.

I'd agree that those are/were wrong/evil. But I don't agree that it is a given that those judgements are an absolute fact. Just because many people agree does not make it an objective fact. God's existence is not an objective fact, and it would not be even if everyone believed it.

Noted, but unlike God we can very easily prove the occurrence of the Holocaust (n.b.: I was referring to the events and actions).

What I think we have here is a confusion of terms. In my original post I was showing how you derive an abstract (Evil) from a series of concretes, in terms of human behaviour, in the same way that you derive an abstract (Gravity) from a series of observed concretes (things falling down, the planets moving in elipses etc.).

When I refer to an idea as Evil, what I mean is that, if put into practice, it will cause unbelievable human suffering (hence it is anti-life; we feel pain when we're damaged in some way, it's our biological warning system). So, when I refer to Islam as evil, I am saying that it provably and demonstrably will lead to massive suffering and death. And when I refer to an individuals behaviour or ideas as evil, I mean the same thing, only scaled down to the individual level.

That's what I mean by being able to approach this question scientifically. We can look at the great horrors in our history and look for common denominators. Actually, that is what was being done on this thread when it was said that moral absolutes always cause - hah - evil. Now I disagree with the conclusion, but I applaud the method.

It used to be thought that electricity and magnetism were two completely separate phenomena. Now we know that they're connected. Same way that, contra the religious posturings, their are essential similarities between Communism and various types of theocracy. They all have the same root.

Slave owners long ago did not see slavery as wrong. This is not because they were delusional or evil people. They were not psychopaths, but they lived in a different time and a different environment.

*nods* You're absolutely right. But what they thought is irrellevant; they, demonstrably and provably, caused huge amounts of human suffering. Period.

That's why I talked about moral advance in the same way that science advances. Gravity has always existed, but it took a long time for some very intelligent humans to figure it out.

There's a more interesting and related point. We don't just understand that slavery is evil, we feel it viscerally. Why? Well, the answer is that we've been brought up that way. In an earlier thread I referred to the civilizing process that has to start when you're a child to it to be successfull. Our memetic legacy, in a very real way, codes how we react to alot of things.

Of course - and here you are right - all over the world, not to mention throughout history, human beings have operated according to very different memetic legacies. One of the truly magnificent things about the one we have now is that, in the spirit of the Enlightenment, it allows us to compare and contrast these ones and ask the question: Which of these provably and demonstrably leads to more human happiness, both individual and social? What values should we pursue, and what should we honour, and what should we pass on to our children?

I believe Sam Harris was asking these questions in The End of Faith.

I find this tremendously exciting. We're at last getting to the point where this becomes possible.

86. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235623 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 23, 2008 at 9:54 am

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....

I thought we'd chased this windbag away?

Joe if Islam's so great how come that even the non-Muslim states of Africa are doing better than the total basketcases ruled by Islam? How come the only places in the House of Submission that aren't completely and utterly bolixed are those that have tamed and minimized Islam? Take Tukey: it's the most developed Muslim nation because Attaturk waged war on Islam, to break and tame it and to chase it into a kennel (best place for it).

87. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #235621 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 23, 2008 at 9:35 am

Huh? Sorry, J Mac, I thought that was the implication. If I got it wrong, please correct me. What was the point of calling those cases simplistic then?

And if they're not moral absolutes - well, I'm having trouble seeing how they can't be. It's not hard to recognise that the Holocaust and the Gulag were evil, and that that is an absolute fact. What else could they be?

I really am sorry, but you're going to have to help me out here. If I misread something, please explain further.

88. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #235463 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 23, 2008 at 5:16 am

Roger, with respect, are you brain-shocked? How on earth do you infer from my comments that only theocracies can provide morality?

I honestly have trouble believing that this comment can be honest, because the full quote is as follows:

Now, sans God, can we define a moral code that has a rational standard, that is, purpose? Well, yes.

What I said, clearely, is that without God it is, in fact, possible to define a rational moral code.

Wait a second - I've just thought of something. Could it be you don't know what "sans" means?

89. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #235390 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 23, 2008 at 1:03 am

Morning again,

Oh, first of all, I remember, Steve pooh-pooh'd my point that Jihadists were recruiting from the prison system. I seem to recall that he thought it absurb that Islamic radicals could recruit from the prisons. Yes, how on earth could a religion suffused with violence recruit hardened criminals! Well, here's how:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKOvg1ijZr0

Well, J Mac,

Those are all simplistic examples you give

Simplistic or not, you've conceded that those examples do, in fact, qualify as moral absolutes. The reason I started with what you call simplistic examples is to make that point.

In morality, like in any science, you induce abstract rules from concrete observation, and then verify those rules by further observation. Returning to Justice for example, there is a corollary: any default on Justice invariably leads to evil. If you sacrifice Justice to mercy, it is the innocent who suffer.

A point that I have been - as usual - howled down for is arguing that Jihadists should be tried for treason and put to death if convicted. The alternative is what we have now: a situation where, in the prisons, they can now recruit a small army of Jihadis some of whom will - this is certain - take up Jihad and take the lives on innocents. Thus mercy towards the guilty is going to get innocents killed.

Abortion - to take your example J Mac - is considered a classic 'grey area', for the simple reason that the evidence isn't in. The moral principle is clear: you may not sacrifice an innocent human life to another, but what isn't in is at what stage the foetus qualifies as a human being. There are some very interesting - and worrying - advances in neuroscience about this. However, there are a few things we can already say: first of all, what is euphemistically called 'late term abortion', or 'partial birth abortion', is, in fact, infanticide. And the reason I say this is that in ~25% of the cases, the infant is capable of life outside the womb when it is 'aborted', yet it is still left to die.

The first trimester, however, is all that can be rationally discussed.

There's a broader point here though, and this is where there is some truth to discussions of how things have changed. An absolute standard of morality - that is, the modes of action and thought that are best suited towards human life - has always existed, but only in the same way that the way to build an aeroplane has always existed. It is foolish and ridiculous to expect, say, ancient Babylonia to have uncovered the moral truths we have in the same way that it would be nuts to expect them to have planes.

Human moral development has been slow, but it is there. From Greece and Rome, to those important parts of Christianity, to the Enlightenment, the abolition of slavery, the fight against racism, etc. etc.

90. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #235216 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 22, 2008 at 2:55 pm

*stretches* Shouldn't have waited so long.

Okay, what exactly is a moral code? It's a series of dos and don'ts. That is, it's a code of action. Action - to what purpose? Well, the religious would say, action to the purpose of fulfilling God's will (though He, presumably, could fulfill it whenever he wished).

Now, sans God, can we define a moral code that has a rational standard, that is, purpose? Well, yes. When we take a look at that hideous gallery of events we call 'evil', what is their common factor? A hatred, a destruction of life: misery, murdered, destruction, degradation. And when we look at the spread of those actions we call 'good', what do we see? Life-afirming action: happiness, success, exaltation.

Okay, so the Evil is anti-life and the Good is pro-life. Now, can we define a concept of virtue that is pro-life? That first requires asking the question: what do we mean by 'virtue'? Well, a type or mode of action. And since human action proceeds from the mind, we can define those ideas that motivate an action as either good or evil. Are there those virtues that are universally pro-life?

The answer, clearely, is yes. Take Justice, for example, which may be briefly defined as recognising people for what they are and ascribing honour to their virtues and condemnation to their vice. This is absolutely essential to human existence; I defy you to think of a truly unjust person who isn't a miserable wretch.

That's one example in the realm of personal ethics. Switching to politics - social ethics - we can use a similar line of investigation. Are there thoe political systems that alow human life and happiness to flourish? Again, clearely yes. Liberal democracy and capitalism are far, far superior in this regard compared with the Shariah.

And so on. It's once more getting late, but I hope that this gives you some idea, Sciros of what I mean when I refer to absolute ethical standards. I'll continue tomorrow.

91. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #234582 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 21, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Do you suffer from dyslexia? There is a clear difference between "no absolute morals" and "absolutely no morals". Read them slowly to yourself and think it over.

Claiming that someone who doesn't agree precisely with YOUR moral system does not mean they don't have one of their own.

J Mac I never claimed otherwise. But take a look at these posts:

Roger Stanyard:

"I have the advantage of knowing that there is an absolute moral standard. "

No such thing

Sciros:

We are not "more moral" beings today than humanity was 2000 years ago; the morality of the times has merely changed.

Sorry, but all of this sounds to me like relativism - cultural relativism in the case of Sciros. Help me out if I'm missing something here.

For the record J Mac, I don't think anyone here really is a relativist; they all understand the difference between a culture that brings up little girls in safety, and one that condemns them to rape. I'm just pointing out what's wrong with these statements.

I 'm also unsure of your statement that 'no absolute morality' doesn't translate into 'absolutely no morality'. But doesn morality, by it's very nature, have to be absolute? If murder - taking innocent life - is wrong, then that's an absolute. And if there are situations in which taking innocent life isn't morally evil, then that would be an absolute, too.

Sorry, the point I'm trying to get at is that 'moderation' is meaningless if it isn't anchored to non-moderate absolutes. Sorry if I'm being unclear.

92. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #234575 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 21, 2008 at 3:53 pm

What is this "absolutely correct morality" and how is it determined?

Sciros that is a really excellent question, so, if it's okay, I'll reply in depth tomorrow? I'm about to hit the hay, and I thought I'd take a few well-aimed pot-shots at the more ridiculous comments before I hammer out my rather extensive discussion of the subject of ethics.

No such thing except in the minds of ideological bigots who claim to know the answer to everything.

As I have long said, religious fundamentalists are exactly the same as the fans of Adolf Hitler, Maoism, Pol Pot, Trotsky, et all - all birds of a feather screaching to the same tune.

Oh? Well, if there's no absolute morality - then by what standard do you consider these men evil? Why do you use their names as though it were pejorative?

Incidentally, you are right, though, about the similarities between the theocrats and the totalitarians. See if you can spot why. Here's a hint: both the priests and the totalitarians all marched for three values that are identical and always form the basis of any major horror.

The common denominator is not, btw, total conviction, or fanaticism. Fanaticism is ethically neutral. The suicide bomber is a fanatic; so is the soldier who throws himself over a grenade to save his troop. Adolf Hitler was a fanatic; so was Winston Churchill. The Jihadis are, and always have been, fanatics; so was Charles Martel who prevented Europe from falling to Islam. Which brings me to this:


Steve

Yep.
Edit: 'moderate' evil is not exactly "ok", but should be dealt with moderately...

Here's the problem. Evil is always capable of marshalling tremendous ruthlessness behind it. Unless you are capable of bringing ruthlessness to the fight, better be prepared to loose. And unless you have the strength of profound moral conviction, you'll never stand against it.

When Giordano Bruno decided he would sooner die than recant his beliefs, he wasn't behaving 'moderately'. Nor was Nelson Mandela, when he chose to live like a fugitive and risk death, and eventually gain twenty-seven years in prison for his convictions, he wasn't being particularly moderate either.

In any great struggle, the moderates are worthlees; they are, at best, cannon fodder for one side or another. It is those capable of true dedication that direct the way things go.

93. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #234379 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 21, 2008 at 9:18 am

Really, Sciros? Then how can you say that the rape of nine-year old girls is wrong? How can you say that the Holocaust was wrong - or the Gulag? How can you say that anything - at all - is worthwhile then?

94. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #234368 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 21, 2008 at 9:07 am

Moistly suits you well. 'Moderation in all things', eh? So, if we are faced with evil, it's okay if it's only a 'moderate' evil? Or if we know something to be virtuous, we should only pursue it 'moderately'?

I realize that I am being unfair. I have the advantage of knowing that there is an absolute moral standard. Further, it is this failure - the failure to be able to defend morality consistently - that has lead to religion's persistence.

95. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #234360 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 21, 2008 at 8:52 am

*even more dryly* J Mac I did say 'noone in their right mind', emphasis added.

irate, I have stated my points about this before: yes, that's fine in a private contract. What I have a problem with is this infernal de facto state monopoly (or cartel, perhaps), and this article is one of the reasons why.

96. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #234349 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 21, 2008 at 8:29 am

*dryly* Steve,

Just a minute. This stinks of hypocrisy. You don't want governments to control doctor's ethics, but you are OK with goverments throwing people out of the country if their ethics don't agree with yours (such as regards Sharia).

Whereas you support the rights of goons like Abu Usama, but not of qualified doctors. If the game is who is hypocritical, I think that the judgement falls in my favour, not to mention the judgement about whose political views reflect a saner grasp of reality.

The presence of Abu Usama and Hizb ut-Tahrir and the rest of these goons is a matter of civilizational survival, not something you can claim for your proposition.

Government regulated medicine is to ensure that all people have the same rights to treatment, and that some people aren't denied treatment because of a particular doctor's views. This isn't about controlling a doctor's ethics. A doctor can have whatever ethics they like, just not work in publically funded institutions.

Which is why medicine should be private, not public. That has been my point all along.

The disagreement is more fundamental, though. You assert that you have 'a right' to medical treatment, regardless of whether or not anyone wants to provide it. Well, what are you going to do if they say no? What are you going to do when it's you on the operating table, and the doctor resents the collar you have placed round his neck?

97. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #234311 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 21, 2008 at 7:01 am

Noone in their right mind thinks it should be okay for a twelve year old girl to be engaging in sexual activity. There are names for this, and there are sound reasons why not.

But that, however, was not the issue. The issue is this infernal governmental control over doctor's ethics (because as we all know the average politician's moral standard is so much higher than the average doctors...). The question that I'd like answer is what, exactly, are you going to do when another gang gets into power that has rather different ideas?

In the subject of socialized medicine everyone seems to have their own little plan of how to rule - er, regulate - the business. What makes you so sure it's your plan that's going to get accepted? And even if it is, by what right do you stuff it down everyone else's throat?

98. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #233446 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 20, 2008 at 12:08 am

*yawns and stretches* Sorry about the delay.

No "government" should not have that right. Evidence based medicine and scientific research should have that right. "Government" should not be the dictatorial body you characterize it as. It should be a means of communication; those with the evidence and facts collected before them discussing and debating what treatments are ethical or not and appropriate or not. I DO support such regulation over willy-nilly every doctor for himself.

Sorry J Mac, but as nice as this sounds, it's not what is happening and what always will happen. When the government signs the cheques, it is the entity that has control. Take a look at this thread, and you'll see the argument coming up time and time again that because it is the government that's doing the paying, it gets to dictate. Which is why the NHS is pouring insane - literally insane - amounts down the homeopathy drain.

That's the problem.

secondsoprano

This appears to be a novel reworking of the "Nazis were athiests" theme and its mealy-mouthed cousin "you can't be moral without god", now brought to you in in a new and utterly despicable form. Fanusi, are you suggesting that doctors who do not rely on supernatural support for their clinical decisions are to be compared to the Nazi doctors?

Of course not. But the underlying principle is just as bad. I believe Nairb said he didn't give a damn about his doctor's consciences - on what exactly does he think he's relying? What does he think the source of both conscience and ability is?

Government is elected by us and for us and we can and do evaluate its performance and change it at regular intervals.We use it to take a coordinated approach in building and maintaining society with the aid of science.

Oh dear, oh dear... I remember reading a rightist article where the author was complaining about leftists desire to replace loyalty to God with loyalty to the state - at the time I wondered "what about those of us who tick the neither of the above box?"

The point is this: placing your trust in government requires a truly unacceptable level of faith.

Fanusi, I think you are arguing against yourself here. From an athiest perspective, the bible, the koran, the torah and the holy handbook of the great spaghetti monster are all works of fiction, akin to the Lord of the Rings etc. So logically, we [if I can take the liberty of speak for many of the posters here] think it equally illogical that "a reputable medical school" would pass a doctor who based her medical decisions on such texts.

Not necessarily. There have been, and there are, many excellent religious doctors. As long as their faith does not conflict with the set guidelines of the medical institution in question that grants them membership and accredation.

This, btw, J Mac is the way to have control exercised by science and reason, and not by the whims of government beaurocrats.

For any organization or individual to establish a good reputation requires alot of work, and then that reputation needs to be guarded jealously (especially in todays world of litigation and media presence) . That is the way standards are maintained in private practice, and it works a lot better than these trolls from the bureaurocracy.

And speaking of which, I am indebted to you, Jesus86 for pointing out who exactly will be in charge of this mickey-mouse order: the OHC. This is the same OHC which brought charges against the Canadian Nazi Party despite the problem that the latter does not, in fact, exist. The one that brought suit against a plastic surgeon who refused to perform a labiaplasty on two post-op transsexuals, on the grounds that he had no experience in this kind of thing and didn't know what, as it were, he was getting himself into. The OHC upheld that ridiculous ruling.

I have no like - at all - of religion, but my opposition isn't just to religion but to all forms of unreason. And frankly, I'd sooner take my chances in a Catholic hospice than deal with something run by this gang.

(Thanks for the info Jesus86. Keep fighting the good fight).

I also notice that what is going around seems to be solely the care of the patient, with nothing said about the rights of those who are to provide it. Do you know what it takes to achieve a medical degree? I know a fair few med students, and I am just... unimpressed with this assumption that they are to have no voice and no say.

Of course we "dictate to doctors what they must and must not do". They must study medicine at an accredited college, they must demonstrate an agreed level of clinical competence, they must endeavour to do no harm, they must not undertake medical procedures without informed consent.

ACtually, they don't - you get those without degrees, without any real knowledge - they're called 'homeopaths', 'faith healers' etc. These clowns are free to hawk their wares, and you and I are free to avoid them, and men like James Randi and Richard Dawkins are also free to rake them over hot coals publically.

Ditto the kinds of regulation in a private system. A private, professional body's power stems from its reputation, which is hard won and must be jealously guarded. It isn't, therefore, necessary to research all doctors, anymore than it is necessary to be an aerospace engineer to decide on an airline, or to know which airlines are, not to put too fine a point on it, screamingly dangerous (I'm thinking of Air Nepal that sacrificed a goat to get its engines working again).

I'm sure there's other stuff here, but I have to get to work. Sorry.

99. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #232535 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 18, 2008 at 9:37 am

J Mac

While governments can be pretty screwed up I would rather have a doctors mind "throttled" by a regulatory agency staffed by other medical professionals than by a religious dogma that is not subject to question or review.

Well, you're pushing at an open door with me. That's another reason. Imagine the US employs this kind of socialized fiasco - say, under the Obama administration or whatever - that Morgan's so in favor of, and then the religious right again gets back in power. And they'll say: "Government has the power to override doctors' consciences? Okay, then: no more birth control. No embryonic stem cell research. Maybe even no blood transfusion." What're we going to do once we've dug that pit?

In a private system you can go elsewhere. You can't do that in a socialized one. Here's a hypothetical: say there's a really good Catholic heart surgeon. I'd go to him for heart surgery. However, when I need birth-control, I'd go elsewhere.

EDIT: I trust noone will think less of me if I don't engage with steve's infantile rhetoric, given his track record of reasoned debate with me so far. I will confine myself to saying that I could tell you no end of horror stories about the results of socialized medicine in the NHS, its effects both on doctors and patients. And even that's small potatoes compared with some of the things I've seen in other parts of the world (you can ask South African doctors what they think about socialized medicine).

100. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #232524 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 18, 2008 at 9:10 am

In Ontario, all doctors are employed by the state, so as there are no private doctors, this question is moot.

*nods* And there you have it. This is exactly why socialized medicine is immoral. And impractical. I still have not heard an answer to this question: Are you really willing to trust your medical care to someone willing to work under compulsion, with his mind throttled and abrogated? Are you really willing to entrust your life to that?

That, incidentally, is what's wrong with the following argument:

What if all doctors were privately employed - what if they all - unregulated as they would be in your ideal world - decided not to treat anyone called Fanusi? Or anyone with a father called Fanusi? Would that be OK?

Actually, yes, that would be their right. Now, which is more likely: that I am going to come face to face with a world where all doctors, unaccountably, refuse to treat me? Or that you will meet - in the offices, on the operating table - only those doctors willing to work under compulsion? That isn't safe if they resent it, and still less if they don't.

I'll worry about your hypothetical if it ever comes to that. You'd be better placed to worry about this situation now.

But if they are to be licensed by the state, medical college, or other such association, then they must abide by the rules of that association. Abide by the rules, or resign/relinquish their license.

Scatch 'state' and I agree entirely. That's the point. In the same way that we hope to send our children to the best Universities, because we know that the degrees they get mean something, it is entirely and completely moral for a private organizations of doctors to lay down ground rules and to rescind their certification if someone violates those basic standards. And the individual has the ability to look, and check up on these different groups and see which organization has the best track record.

Oh, just returning to Morgan:

We, in Canada, by-and-large, however, value different things than our neighbours to the South

Such as being able to force other people to work, and to force those on whom your life depends to act against their mind and their conscience. Again, what do you think you are counting on when you go for medical checkup?

Incidentally, I'm not American. But I would observe, that if your citizenry is so educated, how come America keeps running rings around you and the rest of the world in every single field of science and technology?