2701. It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud

Comment #239289 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 11:59 am

Comment #238866 by Diacanu

I never went to college, because I was poor, my grades were bad, and I felt like the moron I was.

No, Sir! I will not let that stand! You are many things:

Sparky, witty, mischevious, poetic, emotional, fiery, incisive, artistic, talented...

But never moronic.

2702. It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud

Comment #239286 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 11:43 am

Comment #239163 by Hektor

That is a great letter, but I have to quibble about just one point:

There is not an atheist alive who, in the face of reasonable evidence, would not become an instant believer.

I am sorry to have to contradict you, but I wouldn't. Or, perhaps I am not really contradicting you, and I don't believe there can be reasonable evidence for the supernatural. Saying something is supernatural means that you are sure it can never be explained by any possible natural law. That, to me, is an unreasonable claim.

But other than that, an excellent letter.

2703. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239283 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 11:28 am

Comment #239279 by Nephite

I'm basically okay with politicians pandering to people of faith, but they shouldn't be allowed to get away with ignoring nonbelievers. That makes me very angry.

There is a problem with pandering to faith in politics, in that it does not protect minorities. Good democracies don't just protect the individual against the state, but also individuals against majorities. If you pander to faith, you are allowing people to put forward a political viewpoint simply because they are in a majority, and for no other reason. They don't have to justify that viewpoint other than to say "I believe!".

The reason why policy has to be based on reason, and not on religious belief (something Obama has stated in the past, and I hope he sticks to when he becomes President), is because that is the only fair way to make policy. It attempts to deal with what is objective and true, and not on people's supposed conversations with invisible friends. Such conversations seem to result in opinions such as that there should be no stem cell research, or that gay marriage is wicked.

Of course, even as I type those words, the cynic in me is chuckling ("policy dealing with what is objective and true?"), but one can hope.

2704. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239252 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 10:08 am

Comment #239245 by al-rawandi

Al - I have been looking back, and may have missed something, but I don't believe Fanusi has been talking about punishment outside the law.

What I have serious problems with is the idea of prosecution for thought crime - for supporting the introduction of Shariah for example.

Would you support defining that as an offense? I feel it has just the same problems. We could see extra clauses added to allow any view to be considered an equal offense.

2705. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239242 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 9:52 am

Comment #239239 by Fanusi Khiyal

Hmmmm.... Okay, so what about the following? For 'someone you don't like' read 'gangsters' and for 'bully' read 'the police'...

No, you still don't get it! Gangsters aren't just people you don't like - they have caused physical harm to others.

Let's try something else.

If you say it is OK for the bully to beat someone else up because you think what they are saying is offensive, then you can't complain if someone else gets the bully to beat you up simply because they don't like what you are saying.

Now do you see?

We can't cut some people out of the democratic process because of their beliefs, and then complain if people say that atheists should be denied rights.

And you think to lecture me on integrity?

You were the one justifiably praising MPhil only a few days ago. Now you don't just disagree with his points, you call him "small". So yes, I am lecturing you on integrity.

2706. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239237 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 9:32 am

Comment #239234 by Fanusi Khiyal

Explain to me why it's 'unacceptable' and why it's undemocratic, and I'll answer that.

How many times do I have to explain?

Please read posts 119 and 125 again.

EDIT: Actually, I'll try and make it simpler.

If you say it is OK for the school bully to beat up someone you don't like, you can't complain if the bully beats you up.

For school bully, read "government" (I suspect you will like the analogy). For "someone you don't like" read "Shariah supporters".

EDIT2:

Actually, your proposal is democratic, providing you allow anyone to pick on anyone else and say "expel them because of their beliefs".

And talking about bullies, how about showing you have at least some integrity, and apologising for your vicious attack on MPhil?

2707. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239232 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 9:25 am

Comment #239230 by Fanusi Khiyal

I am referring to those that advocate replacing the constitution with Shariah.

I know. That is a political belief based on religion. You are still trying to prosecute based on beliefs. As we have been trying to tell you, that is unacceptable. It is undemocratic. If you propose that you are suggesting wrecking decades of rights that have been set up for the protection of individuals. As I posted, it opens up the possibility of prosecuting me if I suggest that I want to change the law to improve gay rights. Many consider that unacceptable. I will defend those Shariah supporters against people like you to protect my own rights.

2708. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239226 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 9:17 am

Comment #239219 by al-rawandi

Except for the lying part, this is well said. Stripping rights and handing them to the government and saying "here are our rights, just make sure you only persecute the bad guys" is a ridiculous proposition. No government, ever, has demonstrated to me that they can handle such a massive increase in power of a populace.

That is precisely my fear. This relates to the topic. If the government gets to define "bad guys" as "those who have a religious belief", that is mixing religion with politics. That is another reason why you can't, in a democracy, prosecute for belief. One should no more remove rights on the basis of belief than give extra rights on the basis of belief.

2709. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239206 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 8:40 am

Comment #239196 by Fanusi Khiyal

and you insist on trying to make it sound as though I were speaking of an entire population

Lying as usual. Rights are about individuals. If you change the law to expel even only one native citizen for their beliefs, you have corrupted democracy.

It's only you who like to put people into convenient groups.

I'm not rising to that here, and it is not the subject under debate.

It is the subject under debate. If we make anyone a political outcast, then we can't complain if atheists are cast out.

Your refusal to apologise is expected, but sad. As far as I am concerned, you have lost all credibility, and clearly demonstrated that loss to others. Your hypocritical praise for someone one day, followed by the most vicious attack reveals your lack of integrity. You should be ashamed.

2710. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239177 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 7:54 am

Comment #239081 by Fanusi Khiyal

There I was, reading away, the day before I go up North to drop the dog off at the mother-in-law's before we head off for Spain, and I come across this post... a vicious attack on MPhil. I have been moved to respond...

What a worrying and confusing world you must live in. My sad impression is that you don't seem to trust or like people very much. Their intellectual worth seems to be related to whether or not they challenge your feelings about the potential end of the world.

While MPhil didn't do that, you praised his clear thinking, but as soon as he did...

I was initially very angry when I read your attack on someone who is one of the great intellects of this site, and who I am lucky to be able to call a friend. But thinking about it more, I don't think anger is appropriate. No-one with any decency will take your post seriously. Instead, I actually feel honestly sorry for you. Such an attack on MPhil has made me realise that I need not take offense at your tone - I was mistaken to do so, as I think it is more a sign of your fear than any real attack.

You also seem terrified of thoughts, not just people. People need to be sent away from the country because of their ideas - their mere thoughts will spread like bird flu and wipe out millions.

And as for your views on expulsion... Unlike others here, I don't think we are all on the same team, as some of us (me at least) won't tolerate breaches of fundamental human rights being casually discussed as if they were just another possibility.

As others have posted, those rights have been hard won, at the cost of millions of lives. I have reacted intellectually and, yes, emotionally to talk of their removal on this site in the same way as if I read someone talking about "tossing around the idea of racism as an option while I learn more about things". The only explanations I can think of for such statements are thoughtlessness, naivety, or a far right-wing attitude that is willing to sacrifice democratic principles and rights. To be honest, I have been disappointed that there has not been a bigger response to such statements.

There are perfectly rational justifications for not accepting breaches of human rights: give authorities such power, and you have no guarantee that a future government won't use that power against you. If you say it is allowed to expel people for their wish to impose their own belief - Shariah for example - about how society operates, then that same power could be used by a future government to expel those who campaign for gay rights - we wish to impose our beliefs on others too. Prosecution has to be for harm or those who directly incite or provoke harm (although having read some of Russell Blackford's thoughtful writings on free speech, I have doubts even about the latter). In a democracy, people have the right to campaign for whatever changes they wish. If we think those changes are wrong and harmful, then we have to work to point them out. Throwing native citizen campaigners out of the country makes us look rather weak and pathetic. It is intellectual cowardice.

I am willing to campaign for the rights of people to say they want Shariah. Why? Because it protects me. It ensures I have the right to say that same-sex couples should have equality. Democracies are about rights, not who is right. By protecting rights, we allow people who consider each other to be wrong to live together in peace.

Meanwhile, anyone who calls MPhil's writings "fatuous" or "simpering" is quite simply an idiot. I suggest you make yourself look less like an idiot and immediately apologise.

2711. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236372 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 2:42 pm

This thread has certainly lifted some metaphorical rocks and found some horrors crawling underneath.

I don't recall feeling so down about a site for quite some time. There I go with those damned feelings again!

I love a good argument, even when it gets intense, but I am not going to hang around and be patronised by people like Fanusi and TWP. It may be foolish to have self-respect, but I deserve better than that, and don't have to put up with it.

So, I'll shut up for a while. I'm off on holiday soon anyway, and am going to try and resist the temptation to take a laptop... I will be contactable by PM or e-mail if anyone feels the need....

As they say, if you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen...

2712. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236352 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Fanusi-

Steve this may be hard for you to understand, but I judge just by what's written and who makes the best case. And this may hurt you, but I find MPhil far more reasonable and articulate, and he/she seems to have a far better grasp of the facts than you.

Actually, I agree. Quite why you seem to think that I would find it hard to recognise a finer mind than mine is baffling.

Reason is axiomatic - it is impossible to form any sort of counterargument to it because every time you try, you have to invoke it to make your arguments in the first place. That is what an axiom is.

Of course. What you seem to refuse to do is to say why the hell you chose particular axioms.

I merely took you at your word when you said that your moral convictions were the product of feelings and not reason - especially since you have been unable to justify them rationally.

Nope. Never said that. I have rational reasons for supporting fundamental human rights. Those reasons have been expressed very well by others on this thread. They include self-protection: if I deny rights to others, I have no right to demand them for myself. They include suspicion of power. If we give the powers you want to a government, there is no guarantee they won't be used against us someday.

But in the end, you have to choose which axioms feel right. That is what we all do.

2713. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236327 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Comment #236323 by Fanusi Khiyal

Ah, but how is one form of conviction then to be differentiated from another? How are you going to do that with only feelings? No, it is reason that provides that guide.

Why do you use reason? Where does your conviction that you should use reason come from? Why do you assuming that I am using only feelings? Why do you constantly reduce complex arguments to simple black-and-white choices?

MPhil thank you for pointing out that reason is not the same thing as just feeling something.

You don't get away with that. MPhil and I have started a discussion about this matter. I am specifically interested in the role of qualia in this. You don't get away with assuming that our discussion has finished and you know the result.

2714. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236311 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Comment #236305 by MPhil

Hi Mike!

Do you mind if I reply by PM? You make excellent points, but it will take time to reply to them!

2715. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236290 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Comment #236288 by Hellene

Unedited, they look illegal to me. I have to admit that I am not that knowledgable about English laws in this area either.

2716. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236287 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Comment #236281 by thewhitepearl

Besides, I wasn't referring to him, you know good and well what I was referring to.

Sorry, but I honestly don't know. I took "Topic nazi" to mean an insistence of staying on topic (equivalent to "grammar nazi")

2717. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236280 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Don't mean to nag, but it is probably a good idea to find out who is advising we keep things on topic before using that kind of language :)

Check this thread:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,3015,Kamikaze-bacteria-illustrate-evolution-of-co-operation,Nature

2718. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236259 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 12:12 pm

The difference between recongnition and 'feeling' is something I've been stressing. It was you, not me, who said your views were based on feeling.

You are wrong. Recognition IS a feeling. We know it is because people can lose some abilities to recognise if emotional pathways in the brain are damaged.

Or are you - sorry it's sometimes hard to figure this out - saying that feeling is the justification for mathematical proofs? So if I feel two and two make five, that's right?

No, because we have to learn what is correct (through a succession of feelings of having the truth demonstrated). In the end, one has to be convinced that something is correct, step by step. That involves feelings of recognition of truth.

There are those I'm willing to devote years of work to acquiring. And finally there are those that I am willing to die for, because I value them more than my life itself.

I have highlighted the feelings.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Not in the slightest. You have discussed how we can measure feelings, and that is all. That is no indication of what we should do when we have the measurement.

Also, If you really think you can make ethical decisions without emotions, then you have solved the is-ought problem, which would be quite an achievement.

2719. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236239 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 11:52 am

Comment #236229 by Fanusi Khiyal

I've explained this - at length - elsewhere. I place immense value on Justice, which is rationally definable, and as a result of thinking, my emotions have towed the line. Reinforced my conscious, reasoned convictions.

Value? Please present either the spreadsheet with the calculations of that value, or actually be honest and admit that you have a "sensation" of value.

You seem to be deliberately confusing "feeling" with "emotion". Just about everything is based on "feeling" - the recognition of a correct mathematical proof for example. The proof can be demonstrated, but we have to recognise that it is correct, and that is a sensation.

You can try and screw around to make yourself seem like the great rationalist, but in the end you have to choose a set of ethical principles.

You can't do this with mathematical equations or logical proofs. These can simply show what is available In the end you have to choose.

I choose to reject your attempts to turn us into monsters.

2720. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236211 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 11:31 am

Comment #236201 by Fanusi Khiyal

Steve 'feels' that it would be wrong to expel goons like Abu Hamza. I 'feel' rather differently. There are those that 'feel' that God exists. There are many, many who 'feel' the Jihad is justified.

I have had enough of this crap. Equating my reasoning (or lack of it) to that of a jihadist is just moronic. I can't stand back and let that kind of insult stand.

I feel that expulsion is wrong because it is against well-established principles of human rights, and because I have reasoned that it will cause problems. Titania has discussed those human rights issues.

You can squirm and try and hand-wave away these serious concerns about your facist attitudes by calling them "feelings", but I suspect you knew exactly what I meant. Those attitudes have a "feeling" of wrongness because they run counter to principles of human rights. Why don't you continually break the law, Fanusi? Do you sit down each day and calculate the rational odds that you will be caught, or do you have some moral "feelings" that this would be wrong? If you do the former, then I accept your status as Vulcan. If not, then you are in no position to criticise others if they have feelings - a moral sense - about you wanting to trash rationally devised standards of human behavior.

Sorry to everyone for the rant, but I am fed up with this kind of poisonous nonsense.

2721. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236181 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 11:00 am

Comment #236179 by Diacanu

PM for you.

2722. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236163 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 10:25 am

Just one to show I can accept criticism:

#102 (Steve) Sorry, but you sound like a real hand-wringer to me. Sometimes it's necessary to bend a principle for the sake of survival: it isn't a black and white world out there.

I am not a damn hand-wringer. I refuse to give up human rights because some scare-mongering right-wingers want to get us foaming at the mouth! I am positively and, yes, emotionally militant about that. I see not the slightest reason for their obnoxious solutions. I want urgent, positive and strong action from law-enforcers and polititions to deal with real and iminent threats. That action does not require deaths or expulsions. It is actually prosecuting the evil preachers of hate.

(Was that better, Logicel? :)

2723. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236154 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 10:00 am

Logicel-

Though you are suffocatingly polite (for me that is) and you can be a stickler for detail to the point that sometimes you appear to missing the bigger picture,

I think those are fair criticisms. I am not quite sure how to adjust my styles to deal with them :)

EDIT: I have just realised I'm being bloody polite again!

2724. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236147 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 9:56 am

Comment #236146 by Bonzai

I am happy to continue this discussion by PM if you like...

2725. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236139 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 9:44 am

Comment #236133 by Bonzai

I have a fear of heights. It is stupid, and irrational. I but I would still consider it a form of torture to make me stand even at a safe distance close to a cliff, or at the top of a high building.

This has been a truly depressing thread. Perhaps it is my fault for even attempting to discuss politics, as my soft wet euro-liberal sensibilities are too easily upset. I just don't want to end up as close to a police state because of right-wing rabble-rousing.

Ah well. Titania has said what needs to be said. I'll shut up and concern my tiny mind with other matters.

2726. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236127 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 9:28 am

Comment #236122 by Bonzai

Now if what motivate their terrorist acts are a ticket to heaven and the 72 virgins, there is nothing more devastating than the threat to take that ticket away. I would think it has a much more powerful deterrent effect than execution.

You may be right, but it sounds a bit too close to torture to me.

2727. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236124 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 9:25 am

Comment #236121 by Fanusi Khiyal

Well, you feel away, while thewhitepearl, Nairb, me and others do the actual thinking.

I have explained clearly why I object to your solutions. Others have expanded and added to those objections. I suggest you read and respond to Titania's excellent post.

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

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

2728. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236119 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 9:12 am

Comment #236118 by Bonzai

As far as I know prisons are not obliged to provide meals compliant to inmates' religious requirements.

In the UK it seems to be considered "good practise":
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/05-06/0506939es.htm

2729. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236111 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 8:48 am

TWP-

Perhaps instead of people coming along and highlighting certain comments claiming irrationality and getting so flustered, they could be involved in the decision with soultions of their own.

Alternative solutions have been discussed. I am sorry if you included me in the "flustered" category, but I think it is fair to comment quite strongly when supposed solutions which run counter to fundamental human rights (deportation of citizens) and include breaches of international law (seizing of oil fields) are put forward in an apparently casual manner.

Fanusi has considerable and useful knowledge about the problems with Islam, but what I think he then does is combine this superb knowledge with what is for me a troubling far-right agenda that involves a combination of magnification and generalisation of the problem, not taking into account, as Bonzai and Mark Till have pointed out, that we are dealing with people with all their usual ranges of motivations and strengths of belief.

I find talk of certainties of guilt, of death sentences, of expulsions and of invasions deeply troubling, as they go against my feelings of how a civilized society should act. You may think my discussion of such matters can be playing with semantics, but these things are really important to me - they are matters of principle.

My view is that we have to start discussions at a calmer level, and not pander to the panic-mongers by accepting their frightening solutions as reasonable.

I am sorry if you think I am being unreasonable. But I am really not that moderate in all ways - I feel strongly about defending liberal democratic standards in a way that does not turn us into monsters.

2730. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236080 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 6:54 am

Comment #236072 by ColdFusionLazarus

The fact is that Religion (not Islam specifically) is the problem.

I think it is even more than that. It is fear of giving offense to other cultures as well. There are issues like FGM that are sometimes not discussed because it is "a difference of culture".

2731. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236077 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 6:48 am

Fanusi-

I made it perfectly clear that the death penalty should only be applied in cases where the evidence was really uncontrovertible, and the example I gave was catching incitement to mass murder and treason on tape.

Hey - if it is really uncontrovertible, why bother with a trial? Why require that the authenticity of such tapes need to be checked?

Steve stubbornly resisted the idea that those who have said that they want Shariah law in the United Kingdomn are extremely unlikely to vote against it in a referendum.

No, I did not say that. You asked me for a way in which people who only supported milder forms of Shariah (such as those involved in business or financial disputes) could counteract stronger forms of Shariah.

As usual (to use a nice metaphor I recently heard here) you have cut the bits off of what I say in order to make it fit your jigsaw-puzzle of what you need to imagine what others are saying to justify your position.

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

You need to keep up with the thread. I have proposed alternatives.

I would also suggest that it is quite acceptable to simply rubbish a solution to a supposed problem if you consider the solution on a par with the problem. If we follow your solutions, my feeling is that we will have changed our society into the kind of place we should be fighting to avoid, and in some ways we will be in a worse situation because we will have done it to ourselves. Islam would have said "boo"! and we will have self-destructed.

2732. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #236055 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 5:21 am

Comment #236054 by SPS

I think it is probably good manners to respect Richard's wishes in post 122. I say this as someone guilty of the wandering off topic about which he is complaining!

2733. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236053 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 5:14 am

Comment #236050 by thewhitepearl

Sure, but that is what we have prisons for.

2734. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236049 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 5:00 am

TWP-

I don't really see anything he has said so far on this thread as being extreme or a degradation of civilised society.

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

2735. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236043 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 4:37 am

Comment #236038 by thewhitepearl

You obviously don't agree with some of Fanusis tactics.

That is an understatement :)

I disagree with his whole stance. He seems to want to talk up a problem (which I agree exists) to a level at which his extreme (in my view) tactics may be considered acceptable by some. My view is that if his tactics are used, we would have already lost the supposedly civilized society we are attempting to defend.

Nairb continues to do an excellent job of showing how Fanusi exaggerates things.

So why not slap up some suggestions of your own?

We need a political campaign to ensure that incitement to violence is not protected by religious or cultural sensitivity.

2736. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236041 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 4:34 am

Comment #236036 by Vaal

The worry to me Steve, is that these are not being acted upon

I agree.

I wrote a letter some time ago to the home secretary, which he actually replied to (amazingly), about Abu Izzadeen calling for British Muslim soldiers to be killed on national TV, with what seemed like impunity. He was arrested shortly after I wrote the letter and Gordon Brown used one of my phrases on TV shortly afterwards :)

This shows what can be done.

2737. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236034 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 4:14 am

Comment #236028 by Vaal

What would be your solution to Islamic fundamentalism in this country, and what measures do you think should be taken against these "preachers of hate" and their ilk?

Exposure, as in these documentaries is a very good start.

If there is incitement to violence, that is a criminal offence. It has to be dealt with through the appropriate legal systems.

2738. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236032 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 4:10 am

Comment #236029 by thewhitepearl

Yes that is all I know. You're playing on semantics and that's pretty lousy.

I am not playing on semantics. I consider this to be of the utmost importance. Certainties are dangerous. Certainty about guilt is very dangerous to assume.

This could be because instead of paying attention to the entire message you are instead giving more attention to the messenger?

No, it is because this has been part of a longer, on-going discussion.

I have tried to be polite to you. I would have hoped you could have returned the favour.

2739. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236023 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 3:40 am

Fanusi-

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

Eh?

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

2740. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236021 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 3:36 am

Comment #236018 by thewhitepearl

If you are caught with a ticking time bomb set for two minutes on a five minute one way bus ride by the bus driver, the people on the bus, the law enforcement-where is the doubt that you were about to blow up the bus and commit a terroist attack?

All you know is that someone was caught what what someone else reported was a bomb.

There is always uncertainty.

You are just reacting to one casual suggestion. What about the idea as a whole? Why do you feel that pushing back on the islamic government as a way to save apostates is not (less) ethical?

Perhaps I was reacting to something you weren't actually saying. I was assuming some sort of pressure being applied to those governments to accept those who were being expelled.

In more general terms, I have less problem. What troubles me is a conversation in which ideas like seizing oil fields are thrown out casually.

2741. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236014 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 3:14 am

Comment #236012 by thewhitepearl

If you are caught with a ticking time bomb set for two minutes on a five minute one way bus ride-where is the doubt?

Let's start again. Caught by who?

All of this, in the end, comes down to "I knew someone who said that they caught that person in the act".

How?

If we (as has been suggested) seize oil fields, who do you think will suffer most - the rich rulers or the typical citizen?

2742. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236007 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 2:58 am

Comment #236004 by thewhitepearl

And as Fanusi and I were discussing, finding an effective way to push back at the Islamic governments if they decide to get in the way.

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

Of course I wouldn't deny a human the right to a trial.

If there is a need for a trial (and there always is), then there is uncertainty, and a death penalty is even less appropriate (which was the point I was trying to make).

2743. Black holes 'dodge middle ground'

Comment #236005 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 2:53 am

Comment #236003 by ridelo

Spacecraft get energy when they pass by planets by slowing the planets down in their orbits a little. Effectively the probes are "bouncing off" the planets.

2744. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236000 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 2:39 am

Comment #235997 by bugaboo

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

I agree.

2745. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235999 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 2:38 am

Comment #235995 by thewhitepearl

We are sending them to their "home" land if you will. If you are an islamic leader/beliver/follower than go to an established islamic government system/country.

Once again I profess, I don't understand how that is morally dodgy.

We usually consider Islamic regimes to be oppressive. Because of that, it isn't reasonable to say that the people within those countries don't mind about their regimes. Usually a significant number of people within those regimes suffer a lack of rights (women, homosexuals). By sending supporters of the regime to that country we are adding to their oppression.

Well, law enforcement to begin with.

Exactly. But we don't assume immediate guilt because someone was caught by law enforcement. We still expect a trial, where the process by which the person was caught, and the associated evidence is examined. There is always an element of doubt.

2746. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235992 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 2:20 am

TWP-

I think I made a brief comment earlierhow I wish we could expell all of the muslims. Although I don't believe I was referring to muslims that were born on our land.

If you weren't, then my comment does not apply.

To use other countries as dumping grounds? You mean the countries that are a-ok with Islamic Government systems? I don't exactly see how deporting an Islamic leader to an Islamic ran country is a "dumping ground". And if that's what it is, I certainly don't see the problem or how that is morally dodgy.

Do you consider Islamic government compatible with human rights? Do you think a democratic nation would want to take people we consider to be dangerous? But, if we aren't sending them to democracies, we are dumping such people into countries with no knowledge of the will of the citizens there. I think that is certainly morally dodgy.

Ummm well if you are on a bus and you have a ticking bomb, and you get caught...What other conclusion can you come up with other than that individual was about to blow the bus and all of the inhabitants to pieces?

Caught by who?

2747. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235979 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 1:32 am

Comment #235976 by thewhitepearl

I guess I am just sceptical of the idea that any evidence can be 100% reliable. For example, what does "caught in the act" mean? Who "caught" the individual? I think that irreversible punishments are to be avoided anyway, but particularly when there is always uncertainty.

2748. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235972 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 1:21 am

Comment #235969 by thewhitepearl

I think you need to research how frequently people have been wrongly accused of terrorism here in the UK.

2749. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235968 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 1:18 am

Comment #235964 by thewhitepearl

Apart from the issue of expelling native citizens, I think it is morally dodgy to use other countries as dumping grounds for our problems. The countries may be ruled by unpleasant regimes, but we aren't respecting the rights of the citizens if we use their society as a form of waste disposal.

2750. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235963 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 1:13 am

Comment #235951 by Fanusi Khiyal

We could make it very clear, just to take one example, that we are willing to embargo a country that doesn't knock that off - or seize it's oil fields, or whatever.

Sometimes one does not need to argue - just quote.