51. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125869 by HughCaldwell on February 12, 2008 at 7:44 am

"I am not after changes to British culture - I am pretty happy with it the way it is 143. Comment #125864 by Steve Zara on February 12, 2008 at 7:35 am "

It is not 'as it is" except very briefly. It's in constant change.

52. Good people doing evil things

Comment #125865 by HughCaldwell on February 12, 2008 at 7:36 am

"It's good to see people taking up these ideas and applying them to their own situations / problems.15. Comment #125800 by Luthien on February 12, 2008 at 4:42 am"

Absolutely. It's good to see the evil done by the very good Israelis raised.

53. Good people doing evil things

Comment #125786 by HughCaldwell on February 12, 2008 at 4:03 am

"..Israel is trying to protect itself from hordes of Muslim fanatics ... 12. Comment #125769 by Jon_Sociologist on February 12, 2008 at 2:38 am "

Here we have a perfect example of good people, virtuously atheist Israelis, doing evil things by overzealously, even genocidally it might be argued, entrenching themselves in Palestine. The religious element is there, though. The god of the religious is Yahweh, of the others Israel.

54. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125571 by HughCaldwell on February 11, 2008 at 3:50 pm

"would not allow himself to be subjected to laws based on the same philosophy of judirispudence. 100. Comment #125560 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 3:35 pm"

Do you really want to be correctly circumcised?

55. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125548 by HughCaldwell on February 11, 2008 at 3:20 pm

"Then why assume there is any?94. Comment #125532 by Quetzalcoatl on February 11, 2008 at 2:35 pm"

For the same reason that I wouldn't assume you were a complete idiot before you opened your mouth. Out of politeness.

56. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125527 by HughCaldwell on February 11, 2008 at 2:26 pm

"for example? 88. Comment #125495 by clodhopper on February 11, 2008 at 1:05 pm "

They'll have to tell us.

57. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125460 by HughCaldwell on February 11, 2008 at 12:01 pm

"What about Shariah do you like, or what does it do for diversity?76. Comment #125444 by al-rawandi on February 11, 2008 at 11:28 am "

Can't we keep 'Sharia' out of this; it makes reasonable discussion impossible. It's just inconceivable that in all of Jewish and Islamic culture, there is no applicable input to legal proceedings in the UK.

58. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125439 by HughCaldwell on February 11, 2008 at 11:14 am

"It doesn't exclude and doesn't preclude participation in mainstream society. It merely allows an identity in addition to the common citizenship. Nothing is taken away. It allows people to slip in and out of different identities. It is liberating rather than binding." 69. Comment #125418 by oisha on February 11, 2008 at 10:38 am

That seems very reasonable and why I take issue with Johann Hari. I would say that the London Beth Din court could very well be a postive thing for Jews and for the wider community. To the extent that either they, or similar Muslim institutions, are harmful, naturally (leaving aside the definition of harmful for the moment) I wouldn't be in favour. In principle, however, I see useful and beneficial things emerging from cultural diversity.

59. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125434 by HughCaldwell on February 11, 2008 at 11:04 am

"In Ontario, even when incorporating Sharia into family law was only in the discussion stage some Imams already told their congregations that it was apostasy if Muslims chose to go to Canadian courts while the Sharia option was available.68. Comment #125416 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 10:37 am "

In that case the Sharia option wouldn't work, would it?

60. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125430 by HughCaldwell on February 11, 2008 at 10:58 am

"Divorce. One of the ideas was Shariah would reign over divorce and inheritance. 66. Comment #125412 by al-rawandi on February 11, 2008 at 10:28 am "

The Archbishop didn't say that.

61. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125426 by HughCaldwell on February 11, 2008 at 10:54 am

"And how do we determine what is voluntary?65. Comment #125411 by Steve Zara on February 11, 2008 at 10:27 am "

Indeed. Whatever the court before which somebody appears or does not appear.

62. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125410 by HughCaldwell on February 11, 2008 at 10:25 am

"He has been prominent on this thread yet contributed nothing but air59. Comment #125390 by AllanW on February 11, 2008 at 9:59 am "

How about making a contribution to the discussion instead of wittering about 'trolls'.

It might be helpful to give a specific example of a case where it would be inappropriate to invoke Islamic attitudes, which the Archbishop has approved of in his lecture.

63. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125405 by HughCaldwell on February 11, 2008 at 10:19 am

"If the Bishop is saying that only those parts of Sharia that are compatible with British law should be incorporated why bother introducing Sharia in the first place? There is already the real court system. 58. Comment #125388 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 9:57 am "

Why bother having Beth Din Jewish courts? If there is no call for such courts, they'll just fade away. Since, I believe, they are flourishing, there's obviously a demand for them, however pointless you may think they are. A little tolerance, please.

I'll translate the quote from the Archbishop in #57 for you (as I understand it).

Recourse to community courts would be voluntary and national law would take precedence.

Or, to quote Gordon Brown, "The Prime Minister is very clear that British laws must be based on British values and that religious law, while respecting other cultures, should be subservient to British criminal and civil law."

64. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125386 by HughCaldwell on February 11, 2008 at 9:52 am

I hesitate to agree or disagree with the Archbishop, since I really don't know what he's saying and,certainly, not any specific recommendation, if any, that he is making. Therefore, I deplore the Pavlovian reaction to the mention of Sharia.

If any kind of plural jurisdiction is recognised, it would presumably have to be under the rubric that no 'supplementary' jurisdiction could have the power to deny access to the rights granted to other citizens or to punish its members for claiming those rights. http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575

65. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125374 by HughCaldwell on February 11, 2008 at 9:40 am

"Are Beth Din courts presided over exclusively by men?47. Comment #125362 by wednesdayguevara on February 11, 2008 at 9:30 am "

The Wikipedia article on the London Beth Din gives a few clues as to what it's all about.

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

66. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125356 by HughCaldwell on February 11, 2008 at 9:24 am

"You must understand the danger of there being different legal systems for different groups within one country. 43. Comment #125353 by Quetzalcoatl on February 11, 2008 at 9:19 am "

The Archbishop is not suggesting that.

67. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125350 by HughCaldwell on February 11, 2008 at 9:15 am

"Regardless of interpretation, a central idea of Sharia is exactly to slot people based on religion39. Comment #125345 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 9:03 am "

The Archbishop didn't advocate a system of Sharia law, either in parallel to, or as a replacement for, British law.

68. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125343 by HughCaldwell on February 11, 2008 at 9:02 am

"Separate laws for separate communities is a recipe for insular segregation.35. Comment #125336 by Quetzalcoatl on February 11, 2008 at 8:54 am"

I'm having trouble figuring out what we mean by 'laws'. Beth Din (Jewish courts) lay down all sorts of rules which consenting Jews are supposed to obey. I imagine anything Islamic would be the same. This is my idea of multiculturalism.

69. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125332 by HughCaldwell on February 11, 2008 at 8:44 am

"...all must be subject to the overall law of the land, not their own. 31. Comment #125297 by Quetzalcoatl on February 11, 2008 at 7:56 am "

This is a two-way process. The 'law of the land" is ever-changing.

70. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125290 by HughCaldwell on February 11, 2008 at 7:44 am

'"By creating different laws and judicial systems for each ethnic group, we are not fighting racism. In fact, we are institutionalising it." 28. Comment #125284 by Incredulous on February 11, 2008 at 7:29 am '

What, exactly, is wrong with allowing Jewish culture to flourish in Britain?

71. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125289 by HughCaldwell on February 11, 2008 at 7:41 am

Beth Din courts defer to English law in almost everything, would Sharia courts do the same? 27. Comment #125281 by Quetzalcoatl on February 11, 2008 at 7:19 am

I cited Beth Din as examples of cultural diversity, as the article by Johann Hari conspicuously does not.

72. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125278 by HughCaldwell on February 11, 2008 at 7:13 am

"if Williams had been talking about integrating hindu customs into our law it would have passed with far less comment. "

And his comment about respect for the Beth Din passed with no comment at all. As I said, the Archbishop should never have mentioned 'Sharia' since the media have conditioned a Pavlovian response to the word.

73. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125267 by HughCaldwell on February 11, 2008 at 6:46 am

The Archbishop of Canterbury made a tremendous blunder. He mentioned the word 'Sharia'. Pavlovian responses immediately overwhelm all rational debate. Johann Hari heard the trigger as 'multiculturalism' and the result was the same inability to understand the naive but subtle arguments of the Archbishop, The Beth Din (Jewish courts) seek to propagate and enforce senseless rules. There is nothing like senseless rules for promoting group solidarity. Yet, in the spirit of democracy, tolerance and lack of dogmatism, we should welcome this cultural diversity, where it does not, as the Archbishop would agree,go against human rights

74. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124477 by HughCaldwell on February 9, 2008 at 3:28 pm

"I think faith is an inevitable part of life. 73. Comment #124468 by krisking on February 9, 2008 at 3:10 pm "

I suppose you're confusing religious faith with reasonable confidence. Religious faith isn't 'inevitable' and would be much less common if people weren't threatened with death for not professing it.

75. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #124436 by HughCaldwell on February 9, 2008 at 12:40 pm

"Melanie Phillips who is apparently a Roman Catholic 252. Comment #124393 by Sleep of Reason on February 9, 2008 at 10:32 am "

You've got the wrong religion.

76. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124369 by HughCaldwell on February 9, 2008 at 8:46 am

"having taught in entirely secular British schools for a couple of years 32. Comment #123245 by Cartomancer on February 6, 2008 at 5:14 pm"

You're kidding. There aren't any entirely secular schools. Not in the state system, anyway.

77. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124298 by HughCaldwell on February 9, 2008 at 4:00 am

Hitchens, doesn't get called 'shrill', does he? Richard Dawkins explains very nicely why not.

If you are a religious apologist invited to debate with Christopher Hitchens, decline. His witty repartee, his ready-access store of historical quotations, his bookish eloquence, his effortless flow of well-formed words, beautifully spoken in that formidable Richard Burton voice (the whole performance not dulled by other equally formidable Richard Burton habits), would threaten your arguments even if you had good ones to deploy. http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25349-2649121,00.html

78. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #124148 by HughCaldwell on February 8, 2008 at 1:26 pm

"please do this in a way that more is effective. 443. Comment #124093 by Steve Zara on February 8, 2008 at 10:59 am"

It is not 'my case'. It is the murderous support for sanctions and the violation of international law, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, as opposed to a humane, decent and lawful oppostion to this position. If you choose the murderous side of things, you may have a reason why.

79. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #124076 by HughCaldwell on February 8, 2008 at 9:47 am

"I say au revoir 441. Comment #124045 by AllanW on February 8, 2008 at 8:07 am "

I really don't know why murderous lunatics should expect polite responses.

80. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #124027 by HughCaldwell on February 8, 2008 at 7:22 am

"I am trying to think of a good place to review the sanctions. 439. Comment #1"24024 by al-rawandi on February 8, 2008 at 7:15 am

http://www.casi.org.uk/

The sanctions issue is now behind us. Sanctions, insisted on by the United States, did their murderous work. You can revisit their senseless cruelty at the CASI site.

81. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #124006 by HughCaldwell on February 8, 2008 at 6:40 am

"432. Comment #123987 by AllanW on February 8, 2008 at 4:52 am despite a most polite series of requests to delineate why you have arrived at this position "

Terribly polite requests from a malevolent idiot who has chosen to ignore all matters of substance, specifically the criminal destuction of Iraq by the United States. If you have any specific questions, please put them.

82. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123981 by HughCaldwell on February 8, 2008 at 4:27 am

"Galloway's status as a hero as an axiom, and assume anything that may taint that image is flawed.428. Comment #123969 by Steve Zara on February 8, 2008 at 3:34 am"

You may regard the report by the Parliamentary Committee on Standards and Privileges as 'tainting' Galloway's image; that's what it was intended to do. However, the extent of this 'tainting' was that he had breached requirements of Parliametary procedure and was duly punished with a temporary suspension. I am a 'Galloway fan' only insofar as I recognize his moral superiority on the question of Iraq to those who favoured the destruction of Iraq and his courage and eloquence in pursuing justice in this matter. Your efforts to reduce this issue to one of Galloway being impolite to mass murderers and those supporting them and being unco-operative in their efforts to wreck his career, ruin him financially and, with any luck, put him behind bars, may stem from scarcely credible naiveté or lack of common sense and humanity but you should still be capable of acknowledging that Galloway was resoundingly right and you are wrong.

83. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123963 by HughCaldwell on February 8, 2008 at 3:10 am

"I was, at the time, in favour of the war and sanctions, although very, very unsure about this
424. Comment #123914 by Steve Zara on February 8, 2008 at 1:47 am"

That makes you a proponent, however feeble, of unjust collective punishment and a criminal aggression which caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and misery beyond counting and morally unfit to be in the same room as George Galloway. Your attempts to put forward an inept analogy and breaches of Parliamentary privilege, duly purged, as a a cover for your position would be pernicious of they were not so ludicrous.

84. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123901 by HughCaldwell on February 8, 2008 at 12:44 am

"deceptive and unpleasant behaviour in this issue (and others) would not allow me to call him decent.
I am sure you must realise that there are plenty of people who expressed their opposition to Iraq in an entirely respectable and open manner."417. Comment #123791 by Steve Zara on February 7, 2008 at 4:09 pm

To say that there is no connection Galloway's courageous opposition to the destruction of Iraq and the constant attempts by supporters of the war in the media and politics, with enormous resources at their disposal, to ruin Galloway and, if possible, put him in prison is preposterous. I notice you are too slippery to claim you were among the opponents of the war and sanctions and can only conclude that you are making a feeble attempt to hide your support for this despicable cause by evoking a report which clears Galloway, yet again, of benefitting personally from donations to the Mariam Appeal.

85. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123767 by HughCaldwell on February 7, 2008 at 3:42 pm

"people not thinking that highly of you.... that you had betrayed a trust 413. Comment #123759 by Steve Zara on February 7, 2008 at 3:27 pm "

How frighfully prissy of you. Nevertheless, I am unable to overlook Galloways's opposition to the horrors of sanctions and war and the despicable support of others for it, including the House which suspended him, laughably, for 'bringing it into disrepute'. I have got the impression that you are in the despicable camp. I hope I'm wrong.

86. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123757 by HughCaldwell on February 7, 2008 at 3:24 pm

"There are consequences when someone describes you in the following terms:409. Comment #123737 by Steve Zara on February 7, 2008 at 3:08 pm"

Temporary suspension from the House. What do you have in mind?

87. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123734 by HughCaldwell on February 7, 2008 at 3:02 pm

"consequences of his scathing comments about Galloway 407. Comment #123726 by Steve Zara on February 7, 2008 at 2:55 pm "

There are no 'consequences', except the temporary suspension from Parliament.

88. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123722 by HughCaldwell on February 7, 2008 at 2:50 pm

"he did not declare that his charities had received these funds.402. Comment #123675 by Steve Zara on February 7, 2008 at 1:55 pm "

There was only one 'charity', the Mariam Appeal, and it was not a registered charity. Nevertheless, it was investigated by the Charities Commission (twice)and the accounts showed the donors of 'these funds' and how they had been spent. The Commission (twice) found no case for further action. In the various attempts (all unsuccessful) by the British (and American) governments to pin something on Galloway and distract attention from their crimes, the last throw of the dice was the Parliamentary Commission. The best they could do was unearth some irregularities of Parliamentary procedure, for which Galloway was temporarily suspended from the House. Case closed.

Incidentally, I already posted the link to the Parliamentary Commission report in #397.

89. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123652 by HughCaldwell on February 7, 2008 at 12:53 pm

"If he profited illicitly and hid then that was dishonorable.396. Comment #123642 by al-rawandi on February 7, 2008 at 12:32 pm "

He didn't. I quote (again) from the lengthy report by the British Parliamentary Commission which investigated him and suspended from Parliament for 18 days on the grounds of procedural irregularities.

"306. As I have said in paragraph 281, I have not found evidence that Mr Galloway has, directly and personally, unlawfully received moneys from the former Iraqi regime. " http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmstnprv/909/90902.htm

90. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123640 by HughCaldwell on February 7, 2008 at 12:30 pm

"Galloway is no honorable fellow 391. Comment #123587 by al-rawandi on February 7, 2008 at 11:24 am "

Of all the Honourable Members of the British House of Commons, Galloway stands very high, through his opposition to the Iraq sanctions and the war, at great risk to his career, his finances and his liberty, when many others cravenly followed the party line for their own advantage in favour of atrocities that cost the lives, the livelihoods and the wellbeing of millions of Iraqis.

91. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123583 by HughCaldwell on February 7, 2008 at 11:19 am

"Suspension is serious, even if temporary.387. Comment #123569 by Steve Zara on February 7, 2008 at 11:04 am "

Not quite on the same level as the sanctions against Iraq and the invasion, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths. The courageous opposition to these atrocities puts Galloway on level far above those who carried them out and the Members of Parliament who supported them to further their careers or out of culpable gullibility.

92. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123564 by HughCaldwell on February 7, 2008 at 10:59 am

"I am not saying that this is illicit. The issue was that the source of funds was kept hidden374. Comment #123462 by Steve Zara on February 7, 2008 at 8:11 am "

The major donors to the Mariam Appeal were the King of Saudi Arabia, the President of the UAE and Farwaz Zureikat. There is no illicit or illegal further source of these funds. The House of Commons investigation decided that Galloway had made procedural infringements of House of Commons practice and suspended him for 18 days. End of story.

There is no money laundering or 'money laudering'. You are trying to wring out some imaginary wrongdoing from a case which was investigated at length, where a decision was made and a punishment imposed.

93. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123452 by HughCaldwell on February 7, 2008 at 7:52 am

"money laundering" by criminals.367. Comment #123447 by Steve Zara on February 7, 2008 at 7:36 am "

You are claiming that Fawaz Zureikat, a major donor to the Mariam Appeal, was a criminal. You seem to believe that trading with the Iraq Oil Ministry was a criminal offence.

If you are unable to substiantiate these claims, other then making wild allegations which you hope Fawaz Zureikat will not pursue against you, you should withdraw them.

94. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123446 by HughCaldwell on February 7, 2008 at 7:31 am

"This business man had done business with the Iraqi govt. but not necessarily Saddam himself.365. Comment #123441 by al-rawandi on February 7, 2008 at 7:23 am"

It was not illegal to do business with Iraq. If Iraq had been subjected to a total embargo, where it could not sell its oil, Iraqis would have starved to death. The Iraqi businessman acted legally and ethically in dealing in Iraq oil.

I would claim that it is perfectly ethical not to starve Iraqis to death. There is, clearly, no legal case either.

95. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123440 by HughCaldwell on February 7, 2008 at 7:13 am

"seem prepared to fudge things for Galloway
361. Comment #123429 by Steve Zara on February 7, 2008 at 6:27 am "

No 'fudge' whatsoever. Galloway was found guilty of bringing Parliament into disrepute and, accordingly, suspended for 18 days. Case closed.

Tony Blair shares responsiblity for hundreds of thousands of deaths and the devastation of Iraq. No charges have been brought. Case open.

The major donors to the Mariam Appeal are those I have named. Saddam Hussein is not on the list. You are absolutely wrong on this point. The Parliamentary Commission made no such claim. Galloway is not even charged with any illegal or unethical action.

Galloway opposed sanctions on humanitarian grounds at great personal risk and denying that puts you on the side of the toadies of American power, like our friend Tony.

96. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123379 by HughCaldwell on February 7, 2008 at 4:21 am

"People can't use the matter of breaches of international law as an argument if they are then going to attempt to dodge the issue of Galloway and his problems with regulations. 356. Comment #123349 by Steve Zara on February 7, 2008 at 2:41 am "

The Mariam fund did not receive any funding from Saddam Hussein. The main donors were the King of Saudi Arabia, the President of the United Arab Emirates and Farwaz Zureikat, a Jordanian businessman. None of these donors, needless to say in the case of the first two, has been charged with improper dealings with Iraq. George Galloway has not been charged with any breach of national or international law. The Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, Sixth Report, found him guilty of bringing the House of Commons into disrepute for breaches of Parliamentary procedure and duly suspended him from the Commons for 18 days. To equate the failings of Galloway, dealt with at great expense to British and American taxpayers, with the aggression against Iraq by the US/UK and a total absence of any action against those who perpetrated it, is very peculiar.

97. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123216 by HughCaldwell on February 6, 2008 at 4:03 pm

"349. Comment #123208 by Steve Zara on February 6, 2008 at 3:41 pm If you consider the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner to be a "hostile source", I don't think you have much credibility. The Commissioner made clear that Galloway had avoided direct and personal involvement, but at the very least looked the other way when this nasty business was going on."

This 'nasty business' was campaigning against sanctions. If you consider maintaining sanctions to have been 'nice business' I can't agreee. As to a Parliamentary Commission, composed of Galloway's enemies, being able to find the worst charge against him was bringing the House into disrepute, I remind you that this is the illustrious body which voted for the invasion of Iraq. Of course, I'm not disputing their right to suspend him for 18 days. If those responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq could be brought to account they would be facing the rest of their lives in prison.

98. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123205 by HughCaldwell on February 6, 2008 at 3:35 pm

"Galloway does not come out looking good.
346. Comment #123198 by Steve Zara on February 6, 2008 at 3:22 pm "

I draw your attention to the Parliamentary report on Galloway. From a hostile source, I would consider the following to be a vindication. Hitchens, of course, requires no courage and displays no honour in making serpentine insinuations to bolster his damaged ego in being bested by a better man in what he most prides himself on, his debating ability.

"63. We concur with the Commissioner, who makes clear in his memorandum that no evidence emerged from his enquiries that shows whether Mr Galloway has "directly and personally, unlawfully received moneys from the former Iraqi regime"."

99. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123195 by HughCaldwell on February 6, 2008 at 3:11 pm

"The Galloway Papers 344. Comment #123118 by MaxD on February 6, 2008 at 1:22 pm "

Hitchens' problem with Galloway is that he finds himself up against a more courageous, honourable and eloquent man. The eloquence of Galloway is what really rankles. In the ridiculous, Galloway/ Hitchens cockfight, Hitchens was most aggrieved about being called a 'popinjay'. It's just a bit of rhetorical colour but it signified Galloway's superior mastery of the spoken word and drove Hitchens to preposterous lengths to try and show that 'popinjay' was not a powerful and precise insult, as it would be desperate to claim it was.

Incidentally, to put up an opinion piece by Hitchens in opposition to the repeated vindications of Galloway under all sorts of malevolent scrutiny, is truly silly.

100. Blasphemy

Comment #122619 by HughCaldwell on February 5, 2008 at 4:32 pm

"Not to pick an argument its Afganistan (not Pakistan)44. Comment #122611 by pebble on February 5, 2008 at 3:51 pm "

Dennett talked about Muslims, not just about any particular country. There are 1.5 billion Muslims and quite a lot of them live in Pakistan.