201. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242127 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 3, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Al-rawandi
"Why is their coice my responsibility?"

Because you're one lucky bastard, with a slab of meant-and-lard in your mouth (as in your avatar now) - being born in to your privileged position.

Now give me your money or I'm putting this cap in your ass!

202. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241722 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 3, 2008 at 2:13 am

Awesome! God Rocks!
And I aint paying for no commie abortions!

(Nope. TalkyMeat is right - Poe's Law applies)

203. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241368 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 2, 2008 at 6:49 am

Chewdebarber, it's a good point. Some forms of Islam (most / all?) the woman is a sub-species. The latest Undercover Mosque made it clear that a lot of Imams still preach that Women just aren't intelligent like real humans. You can't trust 'em, so they're best tied to their homely duties, as instructed by Mo. Such stupid thinking must not be tolerated. I can't do proper politics, but I can say "that" is wrong when I see it.

204. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241365 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 2, 2008 at 6:42 am

Epeeist, I can't argue with those credentials, but I have to state my opinion thats it's almost healthy to start off studies in Physics that Quantum Mechanics is a bag-o-shite. It is incomprehensible. Yes it works. Just doing the math gives some comfort, but the lack of "feel" is very disconcerting.

205. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241357 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 2, 2008 at 6:34 am

Epeeist,
Well, to add my considered opinion - isn't Quantum Mechanics just an ol' bag o' shite! ;-)

206. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241321 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 2, 2008 at 5:35 am

(* runs for the hills, but looking back, flicking the Vs *)

207. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241317 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 2, 2008 at 5:32 am

Well, to add my considered opinion - isn't philosophy just an ol' bag o' shite! ;-)

208. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241307 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 2, 2008 at 5:14 am

John Locke

No, I've not heard of Monkey Dust. But I'm sure New Truth fits in well with New Labour.

Still, "the flaws of democracy" sounds like a dangerous discussion. You wondered about what kind of person Fanusi is. Well my impression is that he's really intelligent and knows a lot about the dangers of Islam and worries greatly about the West sleepwalking to disaster. He would seriously consider throwing-out British-born muslims (to where?) and also the death penalty (for the thought-crime of just wanting to introduce Sharia law). I wonder what his take on "the flaws of democracy" will be. Remove voting rights of Muslims thinking about Shari'ah?

209. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241293 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 2, 2008 at 4:50 am

The argument centres around "positive news" and "negative news" and the fact that some MPs are worried about being too vocally supportive of measures that may make them unpopular with their Muslim voters.

So what. That's politics. They have a choice. Take strong action to say how they are going to manipulate / control a culture, and then get voted out. Or they can be a little more careful about how they address the issues.

Steve, did you suggest Fanusi would make a good politician? He wouldn't get very far at all with his direct approach.

Of course politicians should be made to feel the pressure from both sides and move carefully to address these horific, brutal, backward methods. If they are being careful, but still trying to tackle the problem, then I see this as something to cheer.

210. Theocratic Sect Prays for Real Armageddon

Comment #240831 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 1, 2008 at 6:07 am

AnthonyH

Very interesting. Why am I not surprised.

37. Comment #240715 by scottishgeologist on September 1, 2008 at 12:49 am
From where I am, in the south-east of England, it's getting all too common to see the "charismatic" movements getting a foot in the door of Anglican churches. I guess continual movement of people in and out of the area is part of the reason, but I also think that the "falling numbers" mean that desparate measures are needed to bring 'em in. You can't beat a good-old-fashioned magic show for entertaining the masses.

211. A flea we missed?

Comment #240828 by ColdFusionLazarus on September 1, 2008 at 5:45 am

1131. Comment #239742 by David A Robertson on August 30, 2008 at 9:38 am

I think the problem is that you too have a faith, but you also have a blind spot which means that you cannot see it as a faith at all

David

Oh yes, my god of Science. I'm told to "fast" regularly, and avoid sex during her menstrual cycle. It's a difficult path I have chosen.

So, I have a blind-spot (an imperfection - god's perfect design of the perfect eye given to me?). But how about taking the plank out of your own eye first? I keep thinking religious people have blind faith, but they, including you, keep saying that it is far from blind. Modern people of faith are determined to state that they are careful, thinking beings, using god-given intelligence to seek and find the truth - a truth available for all to see. But no-one is willing to put their good evidence in front of me. Come on Dave. What have you got? Tell me the essence of what you have seen? It's your duty to open the eyes of this man of faith.

All I've really heard before are good luck stories. In addition, I'm told to search within my own heart. I keep seeing people doing that, and each different well-meaning person keeps finding something very different.

You say that the "scientific method" isn't the only way to truth. But what would you say to a double-glazing salesperson that comes to your door insisting that they have the best, most valuable glazing anyone could ever have. What if they said it would be a huge investment, taking 50 years to complete, but insisted it would be worth it because it would not only save a huge amount on your bills, it would make your house look great and radically increase your confidence. "What's more, if you don't buy these windows then there's a 90% chance your house will burn down within 5 years." The salesperson would also state that half the people in your street have already bought it, proving how good it is. What would you do? Would you seek within, perhaps even pray? Or would you look for some real scientific evidence?

212. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240489 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 31, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Fanusi

Ok, my assertion is that there are right answers to be found, but you have to ask appropriate questions.

To stay in the land of the vague, perhaps there is no such thing as morality. Perhaps there is no good and bad. So to ask whether incest is good or bad is not a question with a right answer (not in scientific terms)

213. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240484 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 31, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Epeeist, I like you're thinking. Good call.

214. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240479 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 31, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Fanusi

That's the point. I didn't know what the correct answer was going to be, but I knew that there would be a correct answer.

Here's a question. Are moving electron "waves" or "particles"? What's the answer to that scientific question?

Is it that there are no answers to some questions? I suggest not. It's probably because we sometimes ask the wrong questions. Without asserting my own views I could suggest that you're coming to firm conclusions without even asking the right questions.

Whatever, you cannot ask questions like those and always be so sure that there is a correct answer (which is what you said).

215. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240363 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 31, 2008 at 11:45 am

Hold on. Paula is thinking along the same lines as me! She's twisted! Where's kkelly. He's bound to have something to say that will amuse and make me throw up at the same time.

216. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240351 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 31, 2008 at 11:36 am

JMac

So it's not clear? Science just "suggests" incest is bad. Well I'm telling you, buddy, I know it's bad. Have you seen my sister? Yuk! For that matter, have you seen me (*Ugh, she gave me water*)

The good thing is that science says nothing to say about me buggering my brother.

217. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240344 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 31, 2008 at 11:27 am

JMac

Good man. You're now on my list of "purely good" people. Only kidding. We are in agreement though.

218. God Only SEEMS Nonexistent!

Comment #240341 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 31, 2008 at 11:23 am

Maybe "He doesn't exist", but we know that can't be true because of the Bible.

Has David Robertson seen this?

I'll stick to my untestable "faith" of atheism and science.

219. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240335 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 31, 2008 at 11:12 am

MPhil

whose "orders" are humans required to obey unless they violate the first law?

The first law, in essence, is "don't harm humans". If someone (anyone) stated that as the basis of absolute morals then by accepting such absolute morals they would not be violating the first law.

But the answer to "whose orders?" ... why god's orders, surely. I believe that C.S. Lewis says that humanity's search for this absolute morality is evidence of god's existence.

I don't buy it myself, but perhaps some here are willing to go there.

220. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240307 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 31, 2008 at 10:15 am

Still not keeping up with all this. The best that comes to mind as moral absolutes are Asimov's 3 laws of robotics. And they were the hard-coded moral laws put into "Robots" for our own selfish needs.

Anyone for the Ten Commandments?

221. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239945 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 30, 2008 at 3:31 pm

363. Comment #239745 by NMcC on August 30, 2008 at 9:45 am

NMcC

I don't have time this weekend to keep up with this thread. Hope to catch up with it all later. In my rush, my comments must have been so poor that I somehow said the opposite of what I intended. I really didn't think you approved of Churchill. I clearly saw that you were saying he was someone of which you didn't approve. I don't mind that you dislike (detest) Churchill, but I knew that Fanusi was going to use your comments to say that "you liberals don't appreciate the neccessity of a Churchill". I knew Fanusi would argue that we needed more like Churchill. Then Fanusi and Churchill's even-nastier cousins would start building equivalent-concentration-camps to put the evil Jihad-Muslims in.

I just think that the politician Churchill of 1946 would not rush to Fanusi's conclusions. After WWII there would be no rush to violent control. Pre-WWII, Churchill would not want to rush to war with the Nazi's either, because Germany had built up a war machine that you wouldn't want to fight unless all other options had expired. There must have been something more pragmatic and compromising about Churchill when compared with Fanusi, who appears more and more of an unbending idealist.

I'm not totally sure where Fanusi hopes to go with his warnings. In all honesty, history repeats itself, people try to avoid war and try to find compromises. If it's as simple as he says it is then Fanusi's prophecy will come true. It's fate and there is nothing he can do about it. If he still wants to save us from ourselves then he's going to have to find a bigger, better forum to push his warnings and solutions.

Whilst he's here though, I'll hear him out and form my own opinions about his ideas. I know which way I swing right now.

222. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239621 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 30, 2008 at 4:02 am

313. Comment #239617 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 30, 2008 at 3:51 am

Fanusi, just passing through. I'll have to make that list another day (sorry).

I don't think you should apologise. I don't think you should compromise your position. I think you should continue asserting your viewpoint. I just hope that someone can compel you to moderate your solutions. It's a pointless comment, but I bet in 20 years you will see value in compromises and more subtle solutions.

223. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239611 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 30, 2008 at 3:20 am

258. Comment #239434 by MPhil on August 29, 2008 at 2:58 pm

MPhil, I was looking forward to your response. I knew that you would robustly assert your position and explain what you said and why you said it. It wouldn't be the first time on this site that I have said that I do not find useful the terms "Good" and "Evil". I'm sure that they can sometimes be used as shorthand for "something", but simple-absolute-Good-and-Evil isn't useful. So I agree with what you say, and you say it well.

But you were saying it to point out that Fanusi's previous comments were not as valuable as Fanusi thought they were. You were attacking Fanusi's ideas, which is fine. I think that is what the site is for. But Fanusi takes pride in his ideas and is willing to defend them in any way he can. I think you're pointing out that you did not say that Fanusi was responsible for certain atrocities, and that Fanusi directly said that it was you and your kind that were responsible for such atrocities. Yes, you were saying that Fanusi's thinking did make such atrocities possible. I see the distinction, but if I thought you were saying people with ideas like mine allowed terrible things to happen when in fact I truly believed that people like me could stop it, then I might tell you in no uncertain terms what I thought of you. Fanusi didn't do the best job of explaining why he thought you were wrong and he was right. Personally blaming you for making the Nazis did him no favours, but he's not going to back down from his main theme (good and evil and the moral crusade) without a fight.

If he wants to apologise, all well and good, but I wanted to see how his arguments panned out. I'm mostly appauled by what Fanusi says, but in amongst it all there are things I never knew and the odd good idea. I guess, in short, I find him both grotesque and fascinating. I want to argue against him, and a lot of people do an excellent job of putting across a very different opinion (I like Nairb's comments, as well as Steve's and your's, but particularly liked what hawt4dawk said), but I also want to hear him out. Once a group gets too confident on a thread, then it's possible for even a liberal group to start bullying and pushing another viewpoint aside. I thought demanding an apology was going too far. I don't yet see Fanusi being as fundamentalist as Isthatclear, Joe Moreale, or David Robertson. And I'd like to see any one of them given enough rope to hang themselves, or maybe even save themselves (or maybe even blow us all out of the water with a convincing argument)

188. Comment #239345 by NMcC on August 29, 2008 at 1:36 pm

NMcC

I'm sure you're right in that Churchill would have done (did do) some nasty shit, but that point would just play in to Fanusi's hands. He'd say that's the point - in a war you have to do some terrible things to defend the wives and children at home. My point is that we are not yet at war. Churchill was surely a fairly shrewd politician, at least when we were on a war footing. He wouldn't have attacked Germany first. They invaded Poland and that was the excuse he needed, and to let Hitler go any further would be a mistake. After WWII he knew that "peaceful" means were required to manipulate situations in his favour. Fanusi would like some pre-emptive strikes to stop the rot, when all that might be required is to be vigilantly watchful, and not be too respectful of other cultures and other idealogies.
(I see Fanusi's already got in there)

I'm off to celebrate my 10 year old daughter's birthday. Bye for now.

224. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239407 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 29, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Well, I've tried to find the flaw in the logic, but it does indeed seem to be nuclear-missile-proof. And so I'm outta here.

225. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239385 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 29, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Quetz, I love that name, "TheIdiot". Brilliant. It's a pity that he appears that he may be :-(

226. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239374 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 29, 2008 at 1:59 pm

I'm still trying to work out Tez's post:
"190. Comment #239347 by Tezcatlipoca on August 29, 2008 at 1:39 pm"

What's ACLU?

227. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239358 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 29, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Steve, those appear truly awful role models. Very funny at times, but I still find it hard to believe that you aspired to that.

And kkelly takes it down a notch again. I laughed out loud.

228. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239342 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 29, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Rachel, I said earlier. It's the "Minority Report" isn't it? I can't see that working.

229. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239340 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 29, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Oh right. Thanks for letting me know Steve. Bit nosey of me really, but 3 hours ago I'd decided you were hetero, then 15 minutes ago I'd got confirmation that my memory wasn't as bad as I thought it was ... and anyway, I'm less confused now.

Thanks :-)

230. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239328 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 29, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Steve, sorry to interrupt, but I thought you were gay. And then I thought you mentioned something about packing cases at the Mother-in-laws.

How's that work?

231. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239323 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 29, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Fanusi, I've not even read Rachel's question yet, but bloody answer it will you.

And stop talking about fanatacism for the good side and the bad side. This isn't Star Wars (where's Titania when you need her :-) )

[EDIT - actually, I had read Rachel's question, I just couldn't remember it]

232. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239317 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 29, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Steve. I agree that people should make their feelings known. I agree with you on most points, but I don't agree that Fanusi needs to appologise.

I think Fanusi needs to be argued against. Something he'll enjoy. But if you want everyone to have the right to say what they want then you've got to give Fanusi the right to say what he wants - without apology. Better to swear at him than to ask him to bow down to his "betters"

There is no humility that I can see from him. I'd like to see some, but many others don't do it either.

233. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239311 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 29, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Diacanu!

There you go. That's the passion I'm talking about. You may be trying to look relaxed about it, but I can see the glint in your eye. I knew I'd get mine soon.

Yes, actually, I do mean in the Mel Gibson sense. No sarcasm. That "is" what I meant.

234. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239306 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 29, 2008 at 12:34 pm

I don't think Fanusi should appologise. Fanusi is being passionate and I think it's great that people support MPhil and are willing to agree with what MPhil said. But MPhil can stand up for himself.

In a way, what Fanusi said was a great speech. As I read it, I had Churchill saying it all. It was brilliant! Elizabeth I couldn't have done better. The troops were ready to die for what is right after hearing, "there will need to be those who are willing to die to set them free". Glorious!

I applaud such passion. And it was in fact MPhil that started with "This thinking that made the atrocities of Nazi-Germany, of Mao and Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge, the Taliban... and (yes) the Bush Regime possible". So it was MPhil that started down this path. So Fanusi should be allowed to out-Grandstand him.

However, this is where I show which side I come down on. Fanusi mentions the great and the good and "their certainty of righteousness". It does sound good in a speech, but it is exactly this "certainty of righteousnous" that I expect religious people to speak. People do take sides. Steve does, and so do I. We base our opinions and actions on the evidence we can gather. I find it extremely difficult to agree with someone who believes they own absolute correctness. Hitler was passionate about what he thought was right. Churchill too. But I don't think that even Churchill would have attacked first to stop the Evil before they started. That's the "Minority Report" isn't it?

[EDIT - couple of corrections]

235. Manitoba dig uncovers 80-million-year-old sea creature

Comment #238656 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 28, 2008 at 12:50 pm

TWP

Rubbish. Your first point was valid. I knew there was a hole in this theory. Clearly all them animals died 6000 years ago, and the scientists' conspiracy is now revealed.

Diacanu! Now's the time to wade in!

Actually, I've gotta go. Bye for now.

236. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238636 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 28, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Diacanu

Sorry, in my excitement at trying to (poorly) explain NOMA I forgot to acknowledge you. As you can tell, things haven't really heated-up in your absence. Actually, I prefer it that way for the moment (boring - I know)

It shouldn't be long before someone says something contentious. Then you can go in for the kill!

237. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238604 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 28, 2008 at 12:07 pm

"What is NOMA ?"

Wow! Let me get in here before the barrage of better answers!

NOMA stands for Non-Overlapping Magestria. I believe Gould (religious bloke) coined the term. It was roughly something like this. "Religion has real value and worth and shouldn't be sidelined by science. Science has its world of explaining how mechanical stuff works. Religion is really good at explaining emotions and how humanity connects with nature and God. Let's all agree that science has its world, religion has its world and never the twain shall meet. That should stop some of the bickering"

But it just 'aint true. Plus it hasn't stopped the bickering.

[EDIT - I knew someone would get in before me, and I should correct myself that Gould wasn't especially religious]

238. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238434 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 28, 2008 at 6:42 am

Mitchell Gilks (as was, and is, and is to come)

I'd always assumed that you had upper-middle-class intellectual parents, with which you had many a heady debate about things like religion. How wrong I was.

Phew. I never thought it would be so expensive just to be who you are.

Didn't the Ting Tings write a song about you recently?

239. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238424 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 28, 2008 at 6:23 am

Thanks for the comments. I suppose it's fairly obvious that you can admire a spiritual person for reasons other than their spirituality, but I admire Blake because of his poetry, which is about freedom, humanity, and about some form of christianity - with a christ-like person / some idealised "goodness". I don't subscribe to Blake's gnostic beliefs, but his poems are imaginative and compelling. He even draws pictures that are critical of Newton's laws of physics. The written laws of nature can be seen as constrictions to what is possible and it can take great effort to break away from the "impossible" to the "possible" thinking of later technologists and scientists. I support Blakes poetic speech and find it inspiring to think beyond the constraints of religion, or even my science teacher. But this isn't NOMA. I still believe that only a scientific approach will reveal some truth within a problem.

Perhaps half of an excuse for Blake's beliefs is that his work was done before the Theory of Evolution was published.

EDIT - Mitchell, who were you before you were Mitchell Gilks (or is it rude of me to ask)?

240. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238400 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 28, 2008 at 5:25 am

Before all of this I had been opposed to the idea of the Templeton Fund and it's challenge that seems to have brought out all the religious people to bend their faith to try and force it to fit in to the real world. Now that I've read this thread with a summarising quote "Templeton's money corrupts science", I still dislike the Templeton Fund, but am now more interested in what Templeton's unorthodox faith might be. What comes to mind is Blake. I have to say that I really like some of Blake's poetry. His criticism of the Church and organised religion is superb, and yet he himself was a "spiritual" man whom I respect.

Just wondered if it was possible to make sense of admiring such people when spirituality makes it so difficult to to make sense of our universe? Does anyone else admire a spiritual person?

It's a question. Not a statement.

241. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236679 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 25, 2008 at 4:15 am

Ha ha. I cannot defeat that kind of intellect. You win Bonzai. Ha ha!

242. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236676 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 25, 2008 at 4:05 am

Well, I enjoyed yesterday's thread. I'm quite happy to see such heavy words so lightly thrown, as long as there are people with a different opinion willing to put the other side (dark-side / bright-side - I think Titiana decided to dumb-down her arguments, which is good for me). I guess it can be a bit depressing if it's all been said before, but I've only been dipping in to this site for the last 8 months. I was hoping that Steve wouldn't feel so exasperated and would continue to give the occasional post. Oh well, I hope he gets plenty relaxation during his holiday.

I was amused to learn that Diacanu will retract a word, but only if he thinks a very offensive person is telling him to retract. And I actually really enjoy the abusive language most of the time. I always look forward to kkelly's posts.

I've also learnt that there are no untermenschen in this world, nor on this site, but the person who seems to approach such classification is Bonzai. Fanusi has made several comments that I actually agree with, but I've seen very little intellect included in Bonzai's comments on this thread. His authoritarian post was class:

I don't need your lecture about integration and its difficulties. You may have a Chinese wife but it is still you interpreting her experience. I have my own experience and I know many people who have a more difficult time to fit in then myself. With due respect I don't need to see this experience through the lens of some white guy with a Chinese wife. If Mrs. Goldy posts here herself I would be more interested in hearing her out

Apparently I should be able to find the dumbest Chinese person on the planet and their comments on anything China-related will be more highly considered than anything Goldy can say. My tongue is now unbitten. Bonzai can call Bullshit at every moment, but for this one Bonzai, I call "Fucktard!"

243. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236457 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 24, 2008 at 4:03 pm

I think most people here are advocating strong actions against Imams like those in the video.

244. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236417 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 24, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Quetz

Goodnight. Just have to say that I think religion is a huge factor. How else do you recruit your pawns to do such deeds. But generally the pawns are not blowing themselves up just because they are next to an unbeliever. They have been made angry about the immoral West not giving them due respect and invading Islamic territories. The leaders of such action are politically motivated.

245. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236371 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 24, 2008 at 2:40 pm

313. Comment #236360 by Bonzai on August 24, 2008 at 2:32 pm

But what the fuck does a second generation Muslim of Pakistani origin, born and raised in the U.K, have to do with the ME or Afghanistan except Islam? Get your head out of your arse, sheese.

I was going to go with "no comment" to just let others think you foolish here. But now the Diacanu approach is really tempting now (*bites tongue*)

246. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236365 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 24, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Diacanu

"bimbo" is generally regarded as an offensive term for a woman is unintelligent. I accept that you may want to call someone unintelligent, but the fact that TWP is a woman just shouldn't come in to it.

On a personal note, I may not agree too much with some of the recent comments of TWP, but I generally think she is an intelligent contributor to this site.

247. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236355 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 24, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Bonzai

It's not bullshit. It's political. How about a Catholic born in England planting a bomb in England. Is that catholicism or political.

Of course catholicism doesn't require it, and that's what makes Islam a worse problem. But it's political.

248. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236348 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 24, 2008 at 2:19 pm

273. Comment #236298 by Logicel on August 24, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Diacanu, you can do justice describing the shallow opinions of twp without resorting to sexism (bimbo). I trust you can.

I applaud this comment
Diacanu, I've got no problem with your turn of phrase normally. In fact I'm hoping you can do me the honour of a few choice expletives in my direction for my own amusement :-)

But I think it best to retract the "bimbo" statement.

249. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236314 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 24, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Titiana, your first 2 posts were superb and very much appreciated. I was going to say much the same myself, but you beat me to it ... ha ha ;-)

Sorry (again) for the "drive-by" earlier. I had to leave the house. It's now impossible to keep up with this thread!

TWP, I appreciate that everyone here is bouncing around a few ideas, and I applaud, but when a few people start agreeing on a few fairly well-intentioned, not fully thought out, phrases it worries me where their thinking might take them. It is for this reason that I'm pleased to see Steve Z trying to apply the brakes, and why I was really interested in what Titiana had to say. The whole "bouncing ideas" thing in some of the posts reminds me of "Brimstone and Treacle" (play by Dennis Potter, he's mostly responsible for my name here). In that play Tom Bates has a new guest who allows Tom to mention a few of his fears about things like immigration, and before he knows it the guest (someone like the devil) has encouraged him to levels that would embarass Hitler. Even Tom gets uncomfortable with how far they have gone with their comments.

Fanusi, extreme muslims would try to force the whole of society to behave their barbaric backward way. The "any Muslim" phrase was poorly chosen, but the conversation between yourself, TWP and others has produced ideas about revising the law to execute people, but most especially to execute "proven" Islamic killers and to deport Islamic Jihadists (1st, 2nd, 3rd generation, or even homegrown). You also want governments to be able to easily seize the assets of known Islamic Jihadists. To implement these laws, you cannot pinpoint Islam. They have to be applied across the board. Before you know it, a government could easily take the assets of Trade Unions and other organisations that inconvenience them. That's what happens when governments are given such tools.

To make anything like these laws work you have to work out what you're going to do when you hear things like christian organisations that are strongly opposed to legal abortion. What are you going to do with people who are thought to be willing to kill doctors doing their job? Where would you deport them? Please don't come back and say, "Were not talking about the mostly-pleasant christians. Were talking about Islam and it's terrorists" (why do I always end up thinking of Team America). We are talking about carefully framing laws, and they have to apply to everyone.

Also, Fanusi, you may not be hiding your agenda, but the site wasn't set up to especially attack Islam. It's supposed to be about rational debate, promoting modern scientific thinking and criticising those that fog-up rational, scientific thinking - i.e. "Religion". I think to focus on Islam you are allowing other faiths to appear rational, and to allow people to think that other religions don't obstruct rational debate.

Finally, this is the 2nd time I've heard "the nuclear destruction of two japanese cities" as a neccessary action to end the Second World War. It wasn't at all. It may have brought the war to an end earlier, but it was barbaric and unneccessary.

Steve, I don't think it is especially "a difference of culture" problem. I repeat the root-cause is religion. FGM is not discussed because so many people respect christianity and so respect religion in general. If you're happy to allow Jews to circumcise baby boys then it gets uncomfortable to argue against FGM. It's simply the "undeserved respect" mentioned in TGD. Remove the respect and then we can all boldly say that Jewish circumcision is nonsense, prayers being answered by god is nonsense, and FGM is nonsense and offensive.

Bonzai, motivating homegrown Islamic extremists is political. Many of them have said that they wanted to do something about the war in Iraq / Afghanistan. The religious leaders are politically motivated. They'll take any pawns they can find.

I think Steve Z's comment "We need a political campaign to ensure that incitement to violence is not protected by religious or cultural sensitivity" may be unspecific, but for me it's the "money shot". Let's stop walking on egg shells and start hammering these people. But for me you've got to remove religion from the argument. We need to say, "I am not going to be sensitive about your Islamic sky-fairy requirements". To ensure we can do this comfortably we have to not be sensitive about anyone's special invisible friend. You threaten Rushdie with those words, then you're going down, sunshine!

250. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236072 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 24, 2008 at 6:39 am

Sorry I've not really got my hands dirty in this thread until now. Just trying to catch up with it. Welcome back TWP.

I find Fanusi's comments to be fascinating and informative, but I'm still struggling to agree with him. I agree with Steve Zara that Fanusi is excellent at pointing out the problems and real dangers of Islam in action, but his solutions do not seem so well thought out. 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. Perhaps his option-1 "Special prison for all Muslim prisoners" is a possibility? Keeping Muslim preachers out of jails won't neccessarly work because any Muslim can take on the role of preacher and seek converts.

I'm not especially agains the death penalty. I'd happily have had the Moors murders, and the nasty shits we've seen since, hung. Sometimes there is conclusive proof you've got the right bastard, and more so when we have the guy and they know they're not going to be executed. But the minute you introduce the death sentence something does go wrong. It's not easy to create a law that says "Only kill the ones we really know did it, and they're not forced-puppets of the real problem leader"

Laurie says there is an elephant in the room - Politics. The history of our own actions. I say there is another elephant - "Religion". 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. The fact is that Religion (not Islam specifically) is the problem. Putting someone of any faith in any position of power is a mistake (or at least allowing them to espouse their religion whilst they are talking about their decisions). I personally wouldn't ban religion, but it has no place in Government, it has no rights to impose itself on society in general, and prisoners should not have religious rights - they should only be allowed to practice their faith in private.