951. Islam's Silent Moderates

Comment #96165 by hungarianelephant on December 10, 2007 at 5:14 am

44. Comment #96061 by Eric Blair on December 9, 2007 at 10:49 pm
I agree with all of this. Unfortunately, we have been conditioned when we hear this language to assume that everything is the fault of the imperialist Westerner, and if we could only adapt ourselves, everything might get better. This is palpably not the case.

To wit:

• Muslims in the West are not forced to live in communities together, but most choose to do so


• Even in relatively enlightened Western Muslim families, it is often expected that a daughter will not bring a "white boy" home - not my words, but those of several different Muslim women I have known


• Brides are regularly shipped into the UK from Pakistan for an arranged marriage


• In 2006, more books were translated into Spanish than have been translated into Arabic in the whole of history

At some point we have to ask who is failing to engage with whom. Not that I want to suggest that "we" score a perfect 10, but that "we" are at most only half of the problem.

952. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96142 by hungarianelephant on December 10, 2007 at 3:59 am

PJG - Actually I was concerned about the vulgarity of quoting a former girlfriend, rather than what she had to say. It seemed perfectly reasonable to me.

But you are right - the whole thing says a lot about Catholic upbringing. It's always been something of a mystery why God would care that people masturbate. Doesn't he have more important things to worry about?

953. Colouring book warns kids of pedophile priests

Comment #96140 by hungarianelephant on December 10, 2007 at 3:53 am

Nails, the Ferns enquiry into paedophile priests in part of Wexford, Ireland, concluded that a number of people did indeed join the priesthood because of the opportunities it afforded for trusted contact with children.

I'd take issue with doodinthemood's view that it is not necessarily the Church's fault. Where there are isolated incidents, that may be true. But the Church created the conditions where priests were likely to get away with abuse. Then when it found out, instead of putting its house in order, it moved the priests to another parish and tried to cover it up.

954. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96112 by hungarianelephant on December 10, 2007 at 2:42 am

PJG - So far a suggesting that the clitoris has no anatomical and functional importance, I suggest that most women would disagree rather vehemently and, personally, given the choice, would rather lose an arm or leg!

If I may be so vulgar as to quote a former girlfriend:

"People say how great an Irish Catholic education is. It's rubbish. I was 17 before anyone told me I had a clitoris."

955. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96106 by hungarianelephant on December 10, 2007 at 2:28 am

I hope Kirsten Patrick is being misrepresented, because she appears not to understand the point being made at all.

Whether or not there are potential complications with male circumcision is a medical question.

Whether or not it is right to mutilate a child who cannot possibly consent to it is a moral question.

You cannot answer the second question simply by getting the right answer to the first.

On a not entirely unrelated point, every so often the BMA demands that boxing be banned. Why? Because the participants may suffer a brain injury. So, why don't they call for the banning of motor racing and rugby, which can also result in brain and other serious injuries? Because - and I quote - it is not the aim of the latter to inflict damage. The medical relevance of that point was not apparent.

956. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #93482 by hungarianelephant on December 3, 2007 at 8:16 am

Quetz - So the Catholics reckon she ascended bodily into Heaven? Very strange.

Well I suppose that depends. If you don't believe that, you're a heretic. On the other hand, if you've never heard of the concept, that doesn't stop you from being a good Catholic. (Nor, apparently, does not believing in God.)

I'm always amused at the manner in which Catholics can simply bolt on beliefs without a moment's thought, like an Electric Monk. Being Pope would be great fun, I reckon. You could make up a whole load of new beliefs, getting ever more ridiculous to see how far you could push it before you got rumbled.

Plus, you get to wear a silly hat and no one is allowed to laugh at you.

957. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #93467 by hungarianelephant on December 3, 2007 at 7:38 am

As I understand it, Papal infallibility only extends to certain pronouncements of the Pope ex cathedra, and they're very rare. The last one was the Assumption of Mary, which is clearly a tremendously important idea. That's why they can do this "Oh Yes It Does" "Oh No It Doesn't" pantomime over the existence of limbo.

The theory is that the Holy Spirit helps the cardinals to choose the next Pope, so we know that it's God's will being done.

This isn't without its dissenters. One cardinal last time round told a reporter that the Holy Spirit does not always choose the pontiff. And who was he? Step forward ... Cardinal Ratzinger.

Edit: I see black wolf beat me to it. Teach me to have a cup of tea before posting.

958. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #93461 by hungarianelephant on December 3, 2007 at 7:26 am

Cartomancer, mate, I'm not sure if it's sadder that you are posting jokes in Latin or that I'm enjoying them.

959. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #92309 by hungarianelephant on November 30, 2007 at 9:05 am

Marxism, the Pope wrote, had left behind "a trail of appalling destruction" because it failed to realize that man could not be "merely the product of economic conditions".

Wonder why he singled out Marxism ahead of Nazism?

Oh yes, I remember.

960. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92295 by hungarianelephant on November 30, 2007 at 8:47 am

George Bush said that the "jury was out on evolution". Apparently that is the same jury that acquitted O.J. Simpson.

I'd have been on the latter jury too. It's a matter of evidence.

961. 'Teddy' teacher jailed in Sudan

Comment #92272 by hungarianelephant on November 30, 2007 at 7:26 am

26. Comment #92236 by epeeist on November 30, 2007 at 5:45 am

Hopefully it might be more on the lines "These Brits are our second biggest aid donors and the chairman of the Anglo-Sudan working party in the House of Commons has just said they would be looking at the topic of aid again. We stand to lose money for our Swiss bank accounts, so sort it out."

That's a nice thing to hope, but it doesn't make it true. Remember Gaza?

27. Comment #92237 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 30, 2007 at 5:47 am

Really? As an Irishman I take the view that restraint has delivered a rich and stable neighbour, with almost the highest per capita earnings in the EU, buying British (and other EU) stuff hand over fist.

C'mon now, Brian, you don't really believe that. Ireland got its arse in gear quite independently of any actions of Britain, or indeed the IRA. In fact, the change in the 26 counties has been one of the main driving forces to peace in the North.

Do you think if the UK had been "doing something effective" we'd be were we are now?

Not exactly, no. I think Robert McCartney would probably still be alive, or at least that his killers would have been brought to justice. I think the Northern Bank would be £26m better off and I think that there wouldn't be as many shootings with former IRA guns in Dublin. But I am being facetious - your question is presumably whether we would now have the current settlement in the North, which we can probably agree is a Good Thing. To my mind, if the British government had not been so pathetically weak, we might have had one 7 years ago, and it would be dominated by genuinely constitutional politicians rather than semi-housetrained polecats such as Paisley and McGuinness.

To be clear, I am not one of those advocating the bombing of Khartoum. All I'm saying is that if you consistently reward bad behaviour with concessions and peace-and-blessings-be-upon-his-head platitudes, you can expect only one result.

962. 'Teddy' teacher jailed in Sudan

Comment #92231 by hungarianelephant on November 30, 2007 at 5:30 am

Do you all really think the Sudanese haven't been on to their ambassador in London? And what would he say? My guess is that it would be along the lines of: "These Brits will make a fuss but they don't have the cojones for action. Convict her, give her a 'moderate' sentence, and we'll have some bargaining chips, as well as getting brownie points with the Arabs." That's certainly the lesson I'd have learnt from HMG's dealings with the IRA these last 15 years.

This is about us, not them. The sooner we get that, the sooner we can do something effective.

963. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92193 by hungarianelephant on November 30, 2007 at 3:16 am

It may be worth pointing out that infidelity - in the absence of a more neutral word - is extremely common. Around three quarters of men and 60% of women will have sex with someone else during the course of a marriage, and a substantial proportion of that number do so regularly. (I don't know the situation for unmarried couples but would not expect to see a very different pattern.)

I always thought the conventional approach of treating adultery as a disaster, a betrayal and an automatic end to a marriage was stupid if it's going to be that common. As was the hypocrisy of pretending it wasn't happening.

Whether Mrs elephant is fully persuaded of that view is another matter.

964. In the name of God: the Saudi rape victim's tale

Comment #91782 by hungarianelephant on November 29, 2007 at 9:05 am

Just to be clear, the lawyer is not threatened with being disbarred for defending the girl. It's for what he's done by trying to use the media to influence the case. That's contempt of court - same as in the UK (Harriet Harman, are you listening?) and the US, though you'll get away with a lot more.

Not saying I blame the gentleman, who sounds like the kind of Saudi I'd enjoy a cup of tea with, but before anyone starts firing off letters, please get this straight.

That is the last word you will ever hear from me in defence of the disgusting Saudi regime, I promise.

965. In the name of God: the Saudi rape victim's tale

Comment #91772 by hungarianelephant on November 29, 2007 at 8:02 am

AdrianB - Except that to fund their lavish lifestyles, the likes of the House of Saud would have to tax citizens instead of relying on the black stuff coming out of the ground. There's nothing like tax to forment a rebellion. Isn't that right, American cousins?

966. In the name of God: the Saudi rape victim's tale

Comment #91760 by hungarianelephant on November 29, 2007 at 7:10 am

Douglas Adams once pointed out that we actually do already have a standard DC outlet - the in-car cigar lighter. Admittedly this was in the context of his quest to do away with "little dongly things", but I feel we should let that pass.

967. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91748 by hungarianelephant on November 29, 2007 at 6:16 am

I'm inclined to think the reason America chooses the "bombing to rubble" option is because it's utterly useless at anything else - witness the Iranian hostage fiasco in Jimmy Carter's regime.

Whatever happens
We have got
The Maxim gun
And they do not.

Frankly I'd prefer an airstrike to a marauding band of the Janajaweed bearing machetes. But maybe that's just me.

I don't think I did blame the UN, & will watch your YT series when I get a chance. The point I was making is that it's pointless if it doesn't follow through. If you look in the right places, you can see that this was the source of much of the frustration leading up to the Iraq war. Saddam had ignored 17 separate resolutions and was simply taking the piss. Early in the build-up, some of the neocons actually gave this as the reason for military action.

Neither the public nor the diplomats were going to buy into this, so instead we were fed a load of BS about weapons of mass destruction.

968. Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book

Comment #91733 by hungarianelephant on November 29, 2007 at 5:30 am

Concerning Turkey and the EU:

The British government supports Turkey's membership. The argument appears to be that it's easier to deal with troublemakers inside the tent than outside.

This is also known as the "Surrey Bowls Club Gambit". If there is a club member who insists on creating havoc, you put him on the committee in the hope that he'll calm down.

One day they'll work out that the EU isn't the Surrey Bowls Club and that Islam isn't just a series of complaints about the fixture lists. Won't they?

969. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91727 by hungarianelephant on November 29, 2007 at 5:13 am

brian - (Sorry not to comment on the other dozen excellent posts of yours I've just read on this & other threads, but ...)

There already is such a body. It's called the United Nations. And its success in dealing with Sudan on the question of Darfur has been somewhat less than resounding.

Diplomacy used to be the art of letting the other guy give you what you wanted all along. Now it's become an end in itself. All we do is talk, and if the problem gets really bad, we eventually persuade the Security Council to pass a strongish resolution suggesting to the Sudanese that they might want to lighten up a little. By the time we get round to taking any real action, everyone is dead and the problem is moot.

If you want the Rule of Law, you have to be prepared to back it up with violence as an early resort. If an individual murders another individual, you don't go and reason with him. You arrest him (i.e. use limited violence), put him on trial and if convicted lock him up. That's how the Rule of Law works. Why should it be any different at a supranational level?

970. Dutch lawmaker planning film criticizing the Quran

Comment #91723 by hungarianelephant on November 29, 2007 at 4:55 am

41. Comment #91698 by Bonzai on November 29, 2007 at 1:58 am

I could not agree more.

971. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91710 by hungarianelephant on November 29, 2007 at 3:08 am

Corylus (91578) - Thanks for a thoughtful post, in what has now officially become the apostates' infighting thread (amusing as that may be).

I too worry about unforeseen consequences. However, there's good reason to suppose that circumstances would be different from those in China.

The missing girls in China are largely a consequence of a one-child policy. Given that in agrarian societies males are seen as more economically productive, the policy effectively amounted to a severe financial penalty on couples whose first baby was a girl. Thus the huge number of missing girls, aborted or killed as infants. (Side query: Is this a better or worse fate than a life we would consider miserable?) They are "traded" precisely because they have a perceived negative value.

Why did slavery end?

We can argue about that for the next 200 years, but it's clear that one important factor was that it became economically unfeasible in significant sectors. When it's cheaper to pay someone to do the work than it is to buy them, house them, feed them, clothe them and make sure they don't run away, there's no incentive to enslave. And when the Royal Navy started to put the boot in, the risks priced slaves out of the market in much of the world.

What has this got to do with Muslim girls? Well if the monetary price of a girl goes up, the rational thing for a man to do is to be more attractive in other ways, whether to her or her parents. And her Dad arguably has less clout than now. If he seriously pisses her off, she (hopefully) knows she has other options available to her.
"Dad, I want to go to University."
"You can't. Your role is to be a wife and mother."
"I can leave and you will get nothing for me, or I can go to University, co-operate, and leave open the possibility of a dowry."
"Oh."

Perhaps I'm being unduly optimistic. And I don't disagree that it would be better if women's lives could be seen as an end and an array of possibilities in themselves. But the question is: Is this an improvement on the current situation? I think it is.

I've known women from relatively enlightened Muslim families, who have gone off to University and got into good jobs. The only real expectation is that they don't bring a white boy home. Their lot isn't going to change much.

There will be other families who currently see their girls as an encumbrance and may instead see them as a chattel. It's probably than some of these girls will be mistreated, but it's hard to see how being married off to the highest bidder is significantly worse than being married off to the most "respectable" family who will take you off your father's hands. And I'd argue that with some money value placed on the girl, there's a decent chance of some life-value being placed on her as well.

Just some thoughts.

972. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91366 by hungarianelephant on November 28, 2007 at 6:56 am

FK – Actually it was me. Declaration of haram is certainly a potential problem with it, although that in itself would create a neat culture vs. religion conflict. The bigger problem would likely be a generation of sexually frustrated Muslim men ...

briancoughlan – I think we are perhaps talking past each other. We're agreed that there will be problems, and I certainly agree that a fascist "response" is likely to happen somewhere in Europe before a Muslim "takeover" (my bet is France, but I wouldn't stake the house on it).

Still, the point remains that you do not need to be in control, or in majority, to be in power. Suppose the Muslim Democratic Party holds the balance of power in the Netherlands – hardly an unlikely scenario in a PR system. Then suppose that Rotterdam City Council decides that it wants to ban alcohol advertising, and force pubs to take down their signs. Will they get away with it? Of course they will. Next, it prosecutes someone who "insults the Prophet" for inciting riot. And on it goes by a thousand cuts.

Of course, we don't need Islamists in Britain to take away our liberties. That's NuLab's job. But the extent to which they have got away with it so far is hardly cause for encouragement.

Turkey has held off sharia law through an autocratic secular regime which only developed an interest in human rights when a large bribe from the EU looked a realistic possibility. Even so, its grasp appears to be slipping. I understand the point you were making was related to numbers, but if we find ourselves in anything approaching Turkey's situation, I will not want to stick around.

973. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91342 by hungarianelephant on November 28, 2007 at 5:15 am

39. Comment #91334 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 28, 2007 at 4:25 am

I assume you mean by this that in no EU country will Muslims be in a majority by 2050. That's debatable. If current migration patterns continue, both the Netherlands and Belgium are likely to become majority Muslim states in that timescale. (If Belgium still exists, of course.)

But that's somewhat beside the point. It is entirely likely that London, Birmingham and Leeds will have a majority of Muslims within two generations. Even now, with around 3% of the population, Muslims are treated as a special interest group to be pandered to with obscenities such as laws against "inciting religious hatred". Odious characters such as George Galloway can get themselves elected. It's wishful thinking to imagine that you don't have problems until you get to 45%.

I really don't think Turkey is a shining example for our future. Do you?

974. Golden Compass author hits back

Comment #91335 by hungarianelephant on November 28, 2007 at 4:28 am

octopus, your silence is most eloquent.

975. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91330 by hungarianelephant on November 28, 2007 at 4:06 am

The issue of demographics is real, but there is a fairly simple solution, at least insofar as it consists of Islam treating women as breeding machines.

Science is very close to developing sex-choice drugs. Instead of getting sniffy about this, we could actively encourage it, and make it available cheaply. You can guarantee that the nutters will always assume that it is some other family's job to produce seven daughters for marriage to their seven sons. And within twenty years, supply and demand will ensure that women have become immensely valuable.

In the meantime, it would be nice if the British government would kindly stop allowing families to import unwesternised women from Pakistan for arranged marriages.

976. The absurd world of Martin Amis

Comment #91039 by hungarianelephant on November 27, 2007 at 3:59 am

jamienewman - Compel Israel to return to its 1967 borders, and grant Palestinians in the diaspora a right to return to their property in Israel, or just compensation for that property.

Out of interest, why not its 1922 borders?

And does your compensation plan only apply to "Palestinians", or would you also apply it to anyone else who has been dispossessed since, say, the end of the Second World War?

977. The absurd world of Martin Amis

Comment #90785 by hungarianelephant on November 26, 2007 at 10:45 am

Obviously the religion has elements which don't belong in the modern world but the community choses to be selective about what's good for them and ignore the dark texts.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. We have all seen footage of Abu Hamza spouting hate to a substantial crowd, who have a perfectly good mosque to go to.

978. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90675 by hungarianelephant on November 26, 2007 at 5:29 am

stephenray - the Bar exam is nothing like as exacting in England as in the US. And I'm not sure it even existed when Blair was called to the Bar. You qualified by attaching yourself to a patron and eating enough dinners. There was, however, a firm policy of non-discrimination. Chambers were expected not to distinguish between Oxford- and Cambridge-educated gentlemen.

More seriously, plenty of thickies and/or nutters appear to be able to qualify as attorneys. I understand that our friend Fred Phelps is one of them.

979. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90649 by hungarianelephant on November 26, 2007 at 2:45 am

If this whole episode tells us anything, it's that we're right to be suspicious of godbotherers in office.

Unfortunately, I don't think it will make any difference. It was abundantly clear that Blair was a phoney long before we was first elected. If anyone had missed it, his delivery at Diana's funeral of the reading from 1 Corinthians, as if the words had occurred to him just then, should have resolved the matter. But he won two more elections.

Whatever your ultimate judgment on him is, we're not entitled to complain that we didn't know about his character before we elected him.

980. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #90182 by hungarianelephant on November 23, 2007 at 9:24 am

jeroen - I can't speak for Catholic countries generally, but in Ireland the magic words are "800 years". (And with that in the bank, there's absolutely no need to have any memory whatsoever of the period from 1968 to 1994, except insofar as you were the victim.)

How far this relates to a particular mindset is hard to say. What is clear is that the priests, who were the biggest losers after the Flight of the Earls, did a great deal to stir up nationalism, using Catholicism as a rallying point.

Of course, for a real long-term memory, you have to admire our friends in the Islamic world, who refer to Westerners as "Crusaders" and object to the English flag because it was a symbol of oppression as recently as 1000 years ago. As we know, the Crusades were an entirely spontaneous event. Unprovoked in any way, Christendom decided to go and oppress Muslims thousands of miles from home.

981. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90140 by hungarianelephant on November 23, 2007 at 6:32 am

SRWB - If you don't have faith, you wouldn't understand. It's a divine mystery. Apparently.

982. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #90138 by hungarianelephant on November 23, 2007 at 6:28 am

Numbers 22:28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

22:29 And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.

22:30 And the ass said unto Balaam, [Am] not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since [I was] thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Neigh.

Or it might have been "Nay". I forget.

Revcort entertained us with this on the leprechology thread for a while.

983. Saudi gang-rape victim is jailed

Comment #90126 by hungarianelephant on November 23, 2007 at 5:10 am

Diacanu - Try dinner parties in North London, student union meetings, gatherings of secondary school teachers or local councils. I've heard it at all of the above. I've even heard an openly gay man defend the regime in Tehran, a week after it hung two young men from a crane for the heinous offence of having consensual sex in private.

Hang around bbc.co.uk for a few days and you'll find the assumption, if not the positive argument, there too. These are people who refuse to call the 7/7 bombers "terrorists".

984. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90120 by hungarianelephant on November 23, 2007 at 4:35 am

So, where is the bugger, then?

Well he's a little busy with other things. Such as writing in Arabic inside a tomato, and putting pictures of his Mum on a grilled cheese sandwich.

985. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89977 by hungarianelephant on November 22, 2007 at 9:27 am

Ruht: Only one God is the real one.

Are you sure?

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness" - Genesis 1:26

986. Ofcom backs Channel 4 over mosque probe

Comment #89924 by hungarianelephant on November 22, 2007 at 6:55 am

Comment #89896 by Mat

But on the other hand, I'd say that much of the official pandering to the so-called "Muslim community" is racist.

If a 16 year old white girl was forcibly taken by her male relatives to (say) Sweden, forced into an arranged marriage with her cousin, who then rapes her, we would expect prosecutions for kidnap and conspiracy to rape. If the Swedish government refused to extradite, there would be a major international incident.

But if she has brown skin and the destination is Pakistan, then whoa! We can't interfere with that. Cultural sensitivity, don't you know.

In other words, brown British subjects with the misfortune to be born into one of these families have fewer rights than their white counterparts. And the brown perpetrators aren't dealt with, because they can't be expected to conform to the same standards of decency as the rest of us.

So who's the racist here?

987. The joining of church and state

Comment #89224 by hungarianelephant on November 20, 2007 at 3:29 am

The 14th amendment extends the protections of the Bill of Rights to states. The Supreme Court has already ruled that this means states cannot prefer one religion over another, or religion over non-religion: Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet

This doesn't stop the ID brigade trying to revisit it, of course.

988. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88967 by hungarianelephant on November 19, 2007 at 9:51 am

Shrunk - The simple answer to your question is No.

The Dover decision is one of the District Court. AFAIK that only binds future decisions of the District Court in that circuit. Other circuits, higher courts and state courts don't have to follow it.

The other problem is that stare decisis (precedent) only applies to decisions of law, not facts. There wasn't a whole lot of law in the Dover decision. Judge Jones essentially said that an objective observer would conclude that this particular policy was a creationist strategy, that ID was not science, and that teaching it therefore violated the Establishment Clause. There's probably room to come to a different conclusion with other policies.

What it does do is make it more difficult - if nothing else, because of the embarrassment value of the case. What everyone will remember of Dover is the "breathtaking inanity" of ID.

989. The joining of church and state

Comment #88945 by hungarianelephant on November 19, 2007 at 8:16 am

sidfaiwu - I agree with nearly all of your post, but I don't think it supports the line of reasoning in the original article.

Firstly, I think you are right to treat the founding documents as similar, unlike Gardner's treatment of them. He describes the Declaration of Independence as "shot through with references to God". Er, no.

the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them

they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence

And that's it. But these aren't unequivocally deistic uses. The first and second assume at least the creation of humans with a "correct" and pre-determined set of entitlements. The third is explicitly theistic, though it's probably not a coincidence that Jefferson chose the highly impersonal noun "Providence", suggesting destiny and fortune rather than a god.

Many of the founding fathers were deists, but that's of much less relevance than the fact that they were secularists - including the Christian ones. Religious conflict and oppression were fresh in the minds of many Americans at the time. It was a time closer to the Glorious Revolution than World War I is to us today.

As you point out, the framers realised that the best chance for everyone was religious freedom for all. It was that, not some metaphysical pontification, that drove their political action. It's no coincidence that the very first article of the Bill of Rights deals with both freedom of speech and religious non-establishment.

990. The joining of church and state

Comment #88845 by hungarianelephant on November 19, 2007 at 4:11 am

Well let's start with this:

Formally, that still holds. In reality, it's a dead letter. "Today, we have a religious test for office," says Dershowitz. "It is inconceivable that an atheist, an agnostic or a skeptic could run for office." Polls show half of Americans wouldn't vote for a qualified atheist. Even one-third of self-described liberals feel a lack of religious belief is an automatic disqualification for public office.

Try a bit of substitution and it's more obvious what a weak argument this is:

"It is inconceivable that a white supremacist could run for office." Polls show half of Americans wouldn't vote for a qualified white supremacist. Even one-third of self-described liberals feel a lack of belief in racial equality is an automatic disqualification for public office.

This has nothing to do with the constitutional bar on religious tests and everything to do with the notion of electing public representatives by popular vote.

Then there's a whole lot of nonsense about the supposed influence of deism on the American constitution, which is presented without a shred of evidence (not surprisingly, because it's inaccurate), and the silly assertion that Darwin "devastated" deism, which for good measure throws in a confusing reference to "design without a designer".

I also think a number of countries would be surprised to learn that

American political culture is unique in the reverence it has for the beliefs and intentions of [its founders]

Iran and North Korea spring to mind as possible alternatives - even the French might have a thing or two to say on the subject.

Anyone else?

991. The joining of church and state

Comment #88806 by hungarianelephant on November 19, 2007 at 2:40 am

Isn't anyone going to take this article to task for its inaccuracies and faulty reasoning? Or do we only do that to articles which reach a conclusion we don't agree with?

992. Saudi gang-rape victim is jailed

Comment #88804 by hungarianelephant on November 19, 2007 at 2:36 am

Comments 6 (NormanDoering) and 10 (briancoughlanworldcitizen)

Keep banging this drum.

Oil is the key to draining the Middle East swamp. The Arab League and Iran together have GDP slightly in excess of Italy, and 75% is oil revenue. Take out the oil and the kleptocrats follow.

993. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88366 by hungarianelephant on November 16, 2007 at 8:43 am

Holocaust denial is a poor analogy.

On its face, the concept seems to be binary: the Holocaust either happened, or it didn't. But not even the most trenchant "deniers" actually deny the basic fact of systematic mistreatment, concentration camps and death. Instead, there's a whole range of intermediate questions, such as the number of dead, the manner in which they died, Hitler's involvement etc. And that's before you start on the question of whether it was morally worse than, say, the death march of German conscripts captured at Stalingrad. "Polite society" usually has a hissy fit when anyone suggests that, perhaps, the popular narrative isn't the whole story. It's even a crime in most of Europe, and elsewhere you would want to have your feet firmly under the University table before expressing much of a dissenting view. Except Iran, obviously.

Evolution, by contrast, is a relatively simple proposition. Sure, there's stuff that isn't resolved, such as group selection. But there is a clear basic thesis that's either right or wrong, and the preponderance of evidence is in only one direction.

994. A third of adults believe God watches over them

Comment #88171 by hungarianelephant on November 15, 2007 at 3:14 am

Ty_Webb - use

< blockquote >

and

< /blockquote >

without the spaces.

995. Holy communion

Comment #88038 by hungarianelephant on November 14, 2007 at 8:09 am

Peacebeuponme - I mentioned steve99's view because he's the one objecting to it. If you're saying that something which is offensive to gay people because they are gay is unacceptable to everyone, I'd agree with you, in just the same way that the monkey noises should be regarded as unacceptable to everyone.

It's just that I didn't see that as the target of the (poor, unclear) joke.

996. Holy communion

Comment #88032 by hungarianelephant on November 14, 2007 at 7:40 am

(BaronOchs) That's because it's not a very good cartoon. If it was, we'd all know what point the cartoonist was trying to make.

FWIW, it seemed to me that it was trying to compare the Out campaign with the gay rights movement, and Dawkins and Hitchens as a certain type of gay rights activist. I don't see what's wrong with that, any more than I see anything wrong with - say - Chris Rock mocking certain "black" traits (cf. monkey noises directed at black footballers).

On the other hand, I can see why steve99 sees it another way.

997. Malaysia firm's 'Muslim car' plan

Comment #87826 by hungarianelephant on November 13, 2007 at 9:22 am

V - What can female suicide bombers hope to achieve by their martyrdom and transport to Paradise?

A sense of perspective, perhaps? It always seemed to me that 72 virgins for all eternity is ... well ... not really enough.

998. A third of adults believe God watches over them

Comment #87793 by hungarianelephant on November 13, 2007 at 6:24 am

So let me see if I have this straight.

Two in five people say they pray. But of those, at least one in six doesn't believe that God is watching over them.

On the other hand, of those who do believe God is watching over them, at least two thirds don't pray about "world issues".

Excellent survey, chaps.

999. Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

Comment #84436 by hungarianelephant on November 2, 2007 at 3:38 am

58. Comment #84194 by gr8hands on November 1, 2007 at 12:01 pm

hungarianelephant is ignoring the crimes of trespass (a cemetary is not public -- you cannot merely set up a picnic in a cemetary when or where you like, for instance), harassment, intimidation, perhaps even of laws regarding staging of demonstrations or required permits for such activities, cemetaries are usually in 'quiet zones' where loud activities are not permitted, etc.

Trespass, harassment and intimidation are not crimes at common law. Trespass is a tort (and in any case, the report says they were demonstrating outside the courthouse, not in the cemetery). Harassment probably isn't even a tort, and intimidation is a tort with a specific meaning, related to an attack on economic interests, and is not relevant in cases like this. They may all be made into crimes by a properly enacted law. But there doesn't seem to be one in Maryland, or at least not one for which the DA's office felt able to prosecute the Phelps.

hungarianelephant and others are confused about what a jury judgement means, and how it is decided. It is the jury that decides whether something is illegal or not -- and they have been known to acquit confessed killers, as well as punish the innocent. Yet we don't tend to think of them as making it up as we go. That's just how the jury system works.

Dear me. The jury does not decide whether something is illegal. It decides whether or not certain facts are proved to the required standard. There will inevitably be some mistakes: that's why we have a right of appeal. In civil cases, the jury also decides on the level of damages required to compensate the plaintiff. And I'm sorry, but when it comes up with a figure like $2.9m as "compensation" in this case, then there's no reasonable description other than that it's making it up as it goes along.

As for punitive damages, well the whole basis of them is extremely questionable, and they've more or less been abolished in England. I don't blame the jury for making the award. They were even invited to do it. In effect, they were told "If you don't like what these guys are up to, destroy them financially." If that's considered a sound and principled model, then I'd hate to see what leaving social rules up to the whim of a jury looks like.

1000. Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

Comment #84175 by hungarianelephant on November 1, 2007 at 11:23 am

mattpenfold - Society does have a right to require people not to act in anti-social manner in a public place.

I agree. But "society", as expressed through the laws of the State of Maryland, hasn't in fact done so.

Phelps does not appear to have committed any crime in this case. So instead we're treated to a civil suit intended to get an even harsher result by the back door. In fact, the plaintiff's attorney was quite explicit about the intention:

[award the plaintiff an amount] that says don't do this in Maryland again. Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again

I don't think this is an issue of free speech so much as that of the rule of law. A judgment for millions of dollars, based solely on what the jurors consider to be outrageous, is tantamount to making it up as we go along. And yes, if you ask, I do think that the rule of law is more important than any other rights.