Not a bad roundup of British political thought at the moment. It really does get depressing - why do religions deserve special treatment? The law applys to everybody.
That part about the British government condoning Muslim plural-marriages got to me. Yay, collect women as property. I wonder if they would recognize this marriage too.
Well, there are two blatant lies in the couple of minutes (about polygamy and hate speech), so I stopped there. There are a lot of right-wing racist nutters frothing at the mouth about "Islamics" these days, and this is just another one (though he may not realise it himself). Why not just point us to what the Daily Mail (the paper that supported Hitler) is saying about it?
When I read the bible and observe "modern" muslims, it strikes me that there's really not that much of a difference between them and the jews of the old testament. They need to modernize a bit more - by about two thousand years.
"Well, there are two blatant lies in the couple of minutes (about polygamy and hate speech"
Polygamy is illegal but its been confirmed that immigrants who have more than one wife who they married abroad are okay and can claim benefits.
Channel 4 did a documentary in which they filmed Immans preaching hate. The police threatened to prosecute the film makers for inciting religious hatred.
Not the Daily Mail which I abhor - all sourced from the BBC and elsewhere.
"Well, there are two blatant lies in the couple of minutes (about polygamy and hate speech), so I stopped there. There are a lot of right-wing racist nutters frothing at the mouth about "Islamics" these days, and this is just another one (though he may not realise it himself). Why not just point us to what the Daily Mail (the paper that supported Hitler) is saying about it?"
Call, perhaps you haven't been reading the papers. The British government did, in fact, approve of giving extra social benefits to men with multiple wives. From the International Herald Tribune:
"LONDON: British men who marry several women in a country where polygamy is allowed can legally claim welfare benefits for all of them, a government review has concluded.
Polygamy is illegal in Britain, but the Department for Work and Pensions said Saturday that its yearlong review of welfare regulations dating back to 1987 found that men who marry several women legally in other countries can maintain those relationships here and claim welfare benefits for each one.
The ministry estimates that up to 1,000 polygamous relationships exist in Britain, and the ruling is expected to primarily benefit members of the Muslim minority who married elsewhere under Islamic law."
Call, Madam or Sir, are you going to acknowledge that this is a fact, and not a "blatant lie?"
Condemning the societal tolerance for oppressive, unfair religious practices that degrade the idea of universal civil rights is not right wing racist nuttery. It's the purest expression of liberal values that value human beings as human beings, not as pawns in a politico-religious game. I am God-damned sick of my fellow liberals abandoning these values and having the stupidity and gall to hector the rest of us and call us racist right wingers for defending the values of human rights that YOU ought to be defending too.
Why do commentors like you want to bend over backwards to disbelieve that some very serious breaches of liberal, democratic values really, really are happening? Whence comes this desperate emotional need to defend the indefensible, and to accuse those who stand up for fairness of being bigots? I cannot understand this.
Only thing that didn't sit well with me was his comments when it comes to hate speech. From an American perspective, all speech, no matter how idiotic or inciting of hatred, should be allowed. The flaw in the system over there is that non-Muslims aren't allowed to practice in. He sees the flaw as being that Muslims are allowed to express it. Other than that, though, pretty decent rant.
Well said. I would emphasize: where are the 'religious moderates'in this debate? I have not heard a so-called moderate condemn the actions of Islamic extremeists or the beliefs supposedly behind those actions. Nor, in America,have I heard moderates condemn the actions of religious fundamentalists and their open bigotry. In the modern world, religions are like hookworms- make you slow, make you stupid, addle your judgement, shorten your lifespan and feeds (without return) on your labors. The world needs a good de-wormer.
"Other than the xenophobia near the beginning, really good video."
What xenophobia? Do you understand that xenophobia is an irrational fear of another culture, as another culture per se ? Disapproving of outside cultural practices are inimical to civilized democracy and human rights is not irrational xenophobia . Is there anyone left who's capable of not having a knee-jerk guilt reaction every time some Bad Western Person actually points out that stone age social structures actually hurt people?
Polygamy; Pats point was that existing laws are changed to accommodate immigrants' differing cultures. You agree that this has been done; and I confirm that it has. Where is the lie here?
Hate speech; you mention the C4 documentary filming hate-speeches in mosques and that the police threatened to prosecute the filmmakers. Pats point here again was that the law is bent to accommodate immigrants cultures; you confirm it again. The imams were not prosecuted under the law. Where is the lie here?
BTW the only action taken by the police force (West Midland police) was to refer it to the ombudsman; the ombudsmans ruling was a spectacular indictment of the polices actions and a wholehearted vindication of the film and its contents; forgot to mention did you?
I agree with Pat, but we shouldn't restrict it to just Muslims. Christians should also lose their protection against being offended. The "virgin" Mary and god weren't wed. So that makes Jesus a bastard. If I said that on the public airwaves, not only would I be censored but the government would probably condemn me and there would be legislation to counter what I said. Plus a few death threats in the mail as well by "loving" christians.
Most of that was pretty good, the only part that had me scratching my head was the bit about the foot washing stations.
Nothing really wrong with that. It's not hurting anyone, and it's the sort of thing i would expect to see as islamic culture is integrated into another.
Ah well, i bet there was some weird aspect that i don't know to the story.
How does one become a respected imam authority? One has to be dumber and/or more ignorant than the other imams.
Imams are Pigs(my apologies to pigs who are eminently more respectable), besides the fact they they think they know something by studying basically one book of superstition. Oh sure, they add some subsequent texts that are supposed to interpret the first text. A Total waste of time.
Nothing in Islamic texts has anything to do with the real world. BTW, I tell this to Muslim believers too.
The part about allowing polygamy in the UK is strange.
The British should find a backbone somewhere.
So far it hasn't happened here. Immigrants to the USA agree to obey the laws of the land.
Immigration is a voluntary activity. We don't go overseas and kidnap people at gunpoint and put them on ships for labor or anything. Anymore. If they want to live here, they have to obey our laws and they agree to do so.
So wife beating, female genital mutilation, marrying underage daughters off to older uncles, polygamy, and so on are simply not tolerated in theory.
In California, when all the SE refugees came in, there was a problem with the men beating up their wives. Supposedly part of SE Asian culture. The cops got sick of it and started hauling the men in and booking them for jail. Cops. "We don't give a rat's ass what your culture allows. If you beat up on your family you are going to jail." It isn't any more of a problem now in Asian neighborhoods than anywhere else.
You are entirely correct; we need to find a backbone. As I posted on the other thread about the Archbish, I hope this current spate of lunacy finally crystalizes the pent-up frustration many of us brits have been feeling at the spineless pandering to the false god of multiculturalism that our authorities have displayed for twenty years or more. Needless to say, I hope it does not descend into anything close to racism as most of us find that just as abhorrent.
Good old Pat, I'm studying in England and I can relate to his frustration. Some despicable fucktard (sorry but that's what he gets on my scale) defended Sharia law by saying that in some countries Sharia law was ordinary stuff and in some others it is a human rights violation, so hey, be tolerant! I was literally shaking with anger at the implications.
Doctors and nurses in Scotland should refrain from eating in front of their Muslim patients and colleagues during the month of Ramadan according to the Scottish NHS.
Staff in hospitals north of the border were advised by the Scottish Executive and the Scottish NHS to avoid "working lunches" and to move food trolleys away from Muslim colleagues in the month when Islam forbids eating and drinking during daylight hours.
Most of that was pretty good, the only part that had me scratching my head was the bit about the foot washing stations.
Nothing really wrong with that. It's not hurting anyone, and it's the sort of thing i would expect to see as islamic culture is integrated into another.
He said "no foot baths in public washrooms," which I assume are paid for with taxpayer's money. If that's the case, it's a reasonable objection.
Either set up special accommodations in public facilities for every religion under the sun (and something for us atheists too... I dunno, maybe issues of Nature or Skeptical Enquirer to read in the toilet stalls), or don't spend money on it at all. No singling out one religion for special treatment with public funds.
OK, Britain, here's your line up for the immediate future...
Goal #1: Resignation of Rowan Williams
Goal #2: Disestablishment of the Anglican faith, removal of the 26 Lords Spiritual from the the House of Lords
Goal #3: Evan Harris MP gets the removal of the British Blasphemy laws
Goal #4: Written constitution detailing seperation of church and state
:sigh: Pat's another one who's missed the point. Legal theory exercises are just that -- legal theory exercises -- and akin to academic discussions and not public policy forums such as a Congress or Parliament. And, having actually read his presentation, it's a over-reaction based on massively tarting up a legal theory exercise on the basis of a xenophobic hatchet job. Which is, on a blog that supports actual academic freedom, is a bit lame. Actually, it's well beyond "a bit lame."
I mean, seriously, the guy was quite clear sharia law has some seriously fucked things about it. Especially the rights of women and children. And that a dual system would tend to make it more difficult for these victims to get redress for their grievances or protection of the law.
Yet, some idiot reporter tarts it up, and BOOOOOM, here we are...
What xenophobia? Do you understand that xenophobia is an irrational fear of another culture, as another culture per se ? Disapproving of outside cultural practices are inimical to civilized democracy and human rights is not irrational xenophobia . Is there anyone left who's capable of not having a knee-jerk guilt reaction every time some Bad Western Person actually points out that stone age social structures actually hurt people?
Dictionary.com gives a similar definition:
Xenophobia: an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.
Josh, can you tell me what you think he is trying to imply at 00:48 through 01:00?
I'm not saying Islam isn't bad, but I am saying that it isn't bad just because it isn't indigenous to the UK. From the perspective of Saudi Arabia, "Western culture" is much better than their Islamic culture (not that Saudi Arabians would necessarily realize that), even though it isn't indigenous. If Saudi Arabia completely lacked racism, sexism, ageism, and all the other negative qualities of "Western culture", then Saudi Arabia would have a much better culture than ours or the UK's, even though it wouldn't be the indigenous culture to our countries.
You and I agree on the definition of xenophobia - we have said exactly the same thing (do check my post above): that xenophobia is an irrational hatred of another culture, simply because it is another culture, not because of the contents of that culture. I agree with everything you've said in your second paragraph.
On listening to Pat's comments again, I think he could have phrased the bit about "alien and foreign" better than he did. I can see why it could be interpreted as xenophobic - thanks for pointing that out. On balance, though, I don't think Pat is xenophobic, poor phrasing aside. Having listened to all of his videos, it could not be clearer that his beef with "Islamic culture" (yes, I know, that phrase is not very good either, let's agree to that and move on) has everything to do with the specific content and practices, not the per se "foreignness."
So, maybe Pat could use an editor once in a while; we all could. But I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that is is xenophobic if you're familiar with his body of work. There's a large difference between American redneck yahoos who hate "furrners" simply because they're foreign, and someone who finds certain foreign practices repugnant to civilized society.
Alex. those are mighty big ifs there. And, yes, I reserve the right to judge other cultures and countries as well as my own. And I will condemn Saudi Arabia simply for the treatment of women. If that makes me xenophobic, I will gladly wear that label for I know, if I had been born there, it would be much worse for me.
There comes a time when excusing beliefs simply because it is part of the culture comes back to bite you in the ass. Simply look at the situation in the very tolerant Netherlands and the problem of radicalized Islam. Or you can look into Germany which has separate courts for the followers of Islam. These questions are not merely academic. People are living them out on continental Europe.
I mean, seriously, the guy was quite clear sharia law has some seriously fucked things about it. Especially the rights of women and children. And that a dual system would tend to make it more difficult for these victims to get redress for their grievances or protection of the law.
All the worse that he advocated a dual system anyway, then. He said:
"Is it not both theoretically and practically mistaken to qualify our commitment to legal monopoly?" Emphasis mine.
I can not believe the tone of some of these posts. I can tell that you are still in denial about Islam.
It is a vicious cult started by a camel stealing, murdering pedophile who is held up as the role model for all mankind. The Qu'ran's stated goal is world domination by any means. It will have to be eradicated or we will have to turn Muslim; take your choice.
Some of us here in England have backbone. Unfortunately, our politicians generally don't. What happened to politicians like Winston Churchill - 'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last'
Some of us here in England have backbone. Unfortunately, our politicians generally don't. What happened to politicians like Winston Churchill - 'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last'
Believe on the Old Ones and they will eat you first.
Can anyone name the middle eastern country starting with I and ending with srael that allows the resolution of disputes under Sharia and has not turned into an Islamic theocracy?
If two people want to have their quarrel settled by some bearded halfwit and his book of medieval aphorisms, why not let them get on with it? No one is suggesting that you have to.
"If two people want to have their quarrel settled by some bearded halfwit and his book of medieval aphorisms, why not let them get on with it? No one is suggesting that you have to."
That is not what was being proposed. Under UK law parties can already agree to binding third party arbitration to settle disputes. What was being suggested goes beyond that, into marriage and divorce and therein lies the source of many objections to what the Archbishop has said. Under Islamic Sharia law men and women are not equal. Under UK law men and women are equal. See the problem ?
It is a vicious cult started by a camel stealing, murdering pedophile who is held up as the role model for all mankind.
That suddenly reminded me of a passage in Terry Pratchett's Pyramids. It's a talk between the young king of a country who looks a lot like Egypt and the mythical founder of his people:
'You were being persecuted,' said Teppic. 'That's why you fled into the desert.'
'Oh, yes. You're right. Damn right. I was being persecuted for my beliefs.'
'That's terrible,' said Teppic.
Khuft spat. 'Damn right. I believed people wouldn't notice I'd sold them camels with plaster teeth until I was well out of town.'
But aren't we as a population responsible for our leaders? After all, we're still supposed to be a democracy.
We should shoulder the burden and demand the leaders we deserve. We can't take the piss out of our American cousins for electing idiots to office if we do it ourselves, now can we? :)
Also, Pat (and more power to you, as I am fully aware you are in no way a bigot), citizens who are muslim should be allowed to present agendas based on their beliefs (however foolish I think they are) and attempt to persuade non-muslims of what they consider to be the potential benefits to the larger community.
(They should also take note if, after working at this for some time, that they have beliefs and goals that will never be shared by non-muslims, and abandon them. They might even reconsider their own belief in such failed ideas.)
[quote]I can not believe the tone of some of these posts. I can tell that you are still in denial about Islam.
It is a vicious cult started by a camel stealing, murdering pedophile who is held up as the role model for all mankind. The Qu'ran's stated goal is world domination by any means. It will have to be eradicated or we will have to turn Muslim; take your choice. [/quote.]
Congratulations, tsg, for actually justifying the Godwin arguments religious people use against atheists.
Yeah, right. He's singing from the BNP hymnbook. Prejudice against Muslims, especially in the UK, is the 21st century equivalent of 1930s antisemitism, even down to the conspiracy theories about plans for global domination (anyone seen a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Mecca yet? It's only a matter of time before one appears) and the thinly veiled threats that the enemy within have to be eliminated.
It seems it would be asking too much to expect you lot to spot the disparity between what Condell says in that clip and the reality of the news stories, because that would require a little careful thought, so I'll just ask one question: where is Abu Hamza now, and why is he there?
It will have to be eradicated or we will have to turn Muslim; take your choice. [/quote.]
Congratulations, tsg, for actually justifying the Godwin arguments religious people use against atheists.
This clown calling for the eradication of 1.4 billion people is much more likely to be a fundie Xian moron than an atheist. The two Abrahamic religions have been serious rivals for 1600 years and both have attempted to eliminate the other several times. Remember when Spain was Moslem and when Jerusalem and Lebanon were Xian?
The wingnuts with the most extreme antiMoslem rhetoric who call for multimega mass murder almost invariably are Xian fundie moron trolls. Not that that isn't a tautology.
Also glad to hear I wasn't the only one a little concerned about the "them's bad cos them is forren" sentiment in the first minute or so.
I interpreted that not as an anti-foreigner but an anti-PC quip, perhaps against some people who would be wary of saying that there exists an "indigenous" British culture and that sharia is something "foreign" to it. Don't know if such a sentiment is justified or not, but not necessarily anti-foreigner as such.
I would suspect that giving welfare to all the wives might have something to do with children and the disruption to their lives.
Oh, I see. I always wondered how some guy could support 3 wives and 10-20 children in today's world. Modern day stuff, houses, electricity, cars, computers, HDTVs, DVDs, medical care, etc. cost a lot more money than a herd of sheep, a tent, the witchdoctor, and a few camels did 1500 years ago.
So simple. You just move to the UK and go on welfare.
Nice to see that the British are so forward looking and generous.
Starting to see why the US doesn't allow polygamy, in law, at least. If you let the Mormons and Moslems do it, you have to let everyone do it. Otherwise it is discrimination and that is illegal.
We don't need any false book to condemn Islam. The Qu'ran does quite well. Have you read it?
Go to some Islamic sites and get advise about how to beat your wife(a small stick and leave no marks). Or whether those women you have "under your right hand" are available for sex.
Have you posted on Islamic forums? Do you know what a hadith is?
I did not set up the us/them dichotomy; mohammed did.
Enjoy your complacency while you may.
Funny I am always being hit with christian "you-to" arguments on Islamic sites and now I'm being accused of being a stealth christian. Do you always have to categorize those who disagree.
AllenW and I both pointed out that you were, in fact, wrong in saying Condell was lying. I even provided you an excerpt from the Independent to back up my position. It's not a matter of opinion, just plain old fact. I realize we may disagree on politics, but an honest person acknowledges when he makes a mistake, he doesn't ignore it and then repeat the same mistake. Please see posts #13 and #18.
Can you at least agree to be honest and not pretend that facts you don't like don't exist? And for goodness' sake, your bit comparing our unease with muslim extremism to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is - I'm sorry - fucking outrageous. I'm not a right wing wacko, I'm not a member of the BNP, and I find them loathsome. But damnit call, just because bigots taint the conversation doesn't mean us reasonable people are crazy.
Don't you realize how offensive and nasty your comments are? Don't you understand most of us here probably share many common values, and that it's probably better to recognize those instead of rhetorically spitting on us? If I'm wrong, or if I'm not considering all sides fairly, I make an effort to accept that. But don't verbally bitch slap people on here and expect them to have a civilized conversation with you.
We don't need any false book to condemn Islam. The Qu'ran does quite well. Have you read it?
No different from the bible. Have you read it? Below are a few quotations from it. The bible mandates the death penalty for many things, disobedient children by stoning, adultery, breaking the sabbath etc..You can sell your daughter into slavery, own slaves, and commit genocide on other tribes with god's help. One group calculated that by applying Xian biblical law, somewhere around 90% of the US population would be executed by the other 10%.
So applying your logic, you want to kill 1.4 billion Moslems and 2.1 billion Xians. Roughly half the world's population. Might as well get the Buddhists and Hindus while you are at it.
Ever get the feeling that you are mentally ill? Someone who thinks murdering the majority of the world's population is a good idea isn't going to be taken seriously by anyone except the police and an unfortunate psychiatrist or 2.
Letter to Bush:
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev.21:20 states that I may ! not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
People like "call" are naive. Pat is neither xenophobic nor bigoted against Muslims and he is not a shill for the right wing agenda.
It is ridiculous that anyone should not be allowed to eat in the workplace because someone else is fasting because of religious beliefs. I can remember when they wouldn't serve meat on Friday's in public school cafeterias because of Catholic beliefs. It was insane then and it is insane now. People should be free to believe in whatever fairy tale nonsense they want but the rest of us should not have to adjust our lives so they are not "offended". If a Muslim is tempted to break a fast because a workmate is eating a ham sandwich, that's his or her problem.
Raven I am an atheist so I could care less what the babble says, did you read the part of my post about "you to" argumets on Islamic sites and then you do it by quoting the OT.
Of course the Old Testament and teh Qu'ran sound alike; where do you think mo stole his revelations from?
Alla sounds a lot like yahweh and daddy looks a lot like him.
If I'm allowed to eat around patients who are NPO (on a medically-required fast), why should I not be allowed to eat around someone on a religious fast. Fair is fair. No medical personnel should be allowed to eat anywhere in a hospital because it is inconsiderate to those required to be fasting. I remember when I was NPO before surgery and those inconsiderate nurses made microwave popcorn. Oh, the agony...
John, #39: I think Pat may dislike Islam both for its crazy tenets and because of a dislike for foreign things. I can't see any other reason why he'd go out of his way to emphasize that Islam is foreign to the UK.
Janine, #40: Feel free to judge other cultures and your own. I'm just saying people, including Pat, shouldn't think their own cultures are in any way superior merely because it is the culture they happen to live in. Those "mighty big 'ifs'" were just hypothetical. Replace Saudi Arabia with any country that you think negatively of as a result of its sexism, like Iran, and what I said should still make sense.
Raven, I think you have totally misread tsig by calling him a mass murderer wanna be. He didn't call for the elimination of muslims, he called for the elimination of Islam, big difference. By the way his thumbnail sketch is pretty damn accurate. Big Mo got his start raiding caravans full of other people's goods and then he moved on to slaughtering prisoners by the hundreds. Later on he married one of his henchman's 6 year old daughter, but sweetheart that he was, the marriage wasn't consummated until she was nine when her mother took her from playing with her dolls and presented her to Mo. Yes the prime directive of Islam is that it is the only allowable religion in the world and muslims must fight until "all is Allah's". Muslims in Europe in general have no desire to become part of the counties they have moved to. They feel no obligation toward their adopted country, but they sure know how to use the welfare system. Over 20 years ago, I worked with Saudis in the States and in Saudi Arabia itself. Let me tell you, they demand that we must respect their beliefs in all places and at all times while they do not respect any of our beliefs in any place or at any time. Someone asked me what Saudi Arabia was like and I said think of a country run by thirteen year old boys, with guns.
funny innit I didn't write a book calling for world domination and then put it into practice but when i point this out I am the genocidal maniac. (a first for me)
See, my only problem with polygamy is how it's practised by Moslems and Mormons. In a society with a fair balance of power between the sexes, there's nothing wrong with polygamy or polyandry. It's not that the idea is fundamentally wrong, but how and where it's practised.
I didn't get the xenophobic vibe at all. I think he was trying to highlight the ridiculousness of making all these concessions to appease Muslims who have chosen to live in the UK. It's more than a bit unreasonable, really, and has nothing to do with fear of the other culture. It shouldn't even be a question that one would agree to follow the laws and tenets of a given country upon moving there. Such accomodations for Western cultural practices are certainly not available to Westerners living or travelling in the Muslim world.
I think Sivi Volk is basically right, in theory at least. If consenting adult threesomes, etc. wish to be married and there is equality and fairness and the children are safe from abuse, what is there to argue against it?
Well, still theoretically, if it were to be so widespread and either polygyny or polyandry was dominant, then there would be a surplus of one gender, then that would cause problems. We see it in the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, who exploit most of their young males for their labour, after giving them a useless education and then excommunicate and shun them to make the numbers work for the favoured men with many wives.
Mostly though, polygamy only survives in cultures where misogyny is enforced by religion and that produces many evils.
Polygamy may be illegal in the US, but there has been only notable prosecution and that only in the past year. Generations of girls and boys have suffered because the FLDS hide behind their religion and the difficulties in getting witnesses to testify.
Right this very minute in the US and Canada, the FLDS are getting welfare payments for all their 'single mothers' and their children. Meanwhile the few dominant men control millions in the cult's funds and assets.
I am not so familiar with the school funding in the US, but the Canadian branch of the FLDS in Bountiful, BC annually gets 100s of thousands of taxpayers' dollars to ready girls for careers in cooking, cleaning, sewing and submission. There's carpentry, and I don't know what else for the boys. Not much.
Silly Brits! If only you folks had had the sense to write all of the axioms concerning your government and its duties into a single coherent document at some time in the past, you would be free of anyone in government overstepping their bounds, as it would violate this. . .let's call it a Constitiution.
No citizen would ever stand for politicians violating the spirit or letter of the Constitution.
Wait. . .crap.
For Western foreigners living in Saudi Arabia, like employees of Aramco or its contractors, the answer is compounds. Gated communities. As I understand it, within the walls women are not abused for baring some of their skin or being with men not their father/brother/husband.
Technically no alcohol enters Saudi Arabia, but there are ways around that. Likewise Western magazines, all most all of which are deemed pornographic because of photographs of beings identifiable by exposed faces and skin as being human females.
Back in the day, some of my colleagues went there on contracts to install microwave communication systems for pipeline control. I remember finding their enthusiasm for subverting rules against taking pictures of burkha clad women a little unsettling.
I think that Pat always makes a lot of good points, and I like the way he always emphasizes that he isn't against people as such, but ideas. However, he does come across as bit over the top at times, which I suppose is a requirement in todays YouTube culture. Still, I dare anyone to watch, without cringing at the contrasts, the one Beyond Belief 2.0 video, in which - I believe it was - Sir Harold Kroto, who shows a clip from one of Pat's videos.
Two things: I don't think Pat was xenophobic. As has been stated above, he was trying to convey to the PC crowd that Brits have indigenous culture as well as immigrants that shouldn't just be done away with to accomodate/appease newcomers. This lacks respect towards the people already living there and it's a clear-cut case of oppressing the majority with minority views.
The second, and more important, is that setting up separate judicial systems amounts to an inherent discrimination of Muslims (or whatever minority) in that the state itself declares these people not worthy of the legal protections of the rest of society. Due to their being born into Muslim families, they can never enjoy the rule of law (remember, under shariah law, once a Muslim, always a Muslim). They become codemned to living out their lives as Muslims, not citizens, and by state decree, too. This is doing Muslims a tremendous disfavor, as e.g. the Muslims girls who do not wish to adhere to misogynist, bronze age nomad 'morals' would have no judicial refuge, since the state has declared all Muslims to be the subject of private, religious courts. It is racist as well as immoral.
Citizens are first and foremost citizens, not followers of some particular creed. If even the state abondons this notion, who will uphold it?
I've always liked Pat's videos, and I do despise religion, and Islam (qua religion) in particular.
But for me, I have some warning signs. If I notice that my atheism is becoming a poorly-concealed excuse to start hating on a whole group of people (and a tiny minority at that), and if I start spouting comments that could have been pulled from any right-wing asshead (e.g. ranting about political correctness), and if I start agreeing with the Guardian, then I start thinking that maybe I've made a mistake somewhere.
Apply the law equally. Don't treat religious beliefs with any special deference. Yes. But Pat here crosses the line into "They're in our goddamn country! Make 'em live our way!" Right at home on Fox. It turns into ugly stuff.
Ah, another feel-good 'atheist' who thinks if we just "let 'em be, they'll let US be!"
Fontor, watch the video again. And again, and again, and again, until it soaks into the soft tissue of your almost empty skull what is being said.
A clue, mush head: islam is NOT a 'tiny minority'. How ignorant can you be? These filthy ativisms are breeding like rats, there are BILLIONS of these deluded freaks all over the planet. And don't give me the cry-baby whine, "but it's the extremists that are the minority..." You sniveling pup, the muslim form of religious insanity gives rise to that form of religious extremism.
Another clue, Pat did NOT say throw out all the muslims (which would be infinitely better, especially along with every other insane freak who believes in any form of any religion) he said throw out the imams.
Learn to listen, fontor, before you cry like a baby in a bathroom stall being butt raped by a good, religious xian like Larry 'wide stance' Craig.
If you truly are stupid enough to question your own beliefs when those you don't 'approve' of agree with you, then you're just too stupid to think for yourself. You would be better listening to Fox. They'll do the hard stuff like thinking for you.
fontor, what's your game? If you've posted as much as you claim, helpful or not, "dissenting" or not, you would know no individual poster represents Pharyngula except PZ Meyers. How new are you to this concept called the internet?
Just because another atheist has greater personal courage than you to fight the disgusting slime of religious belief doesn't mean he's wrong.
If, and that's one BIIIIIG if, you're just as candidly brilliant as you think, you would be aware that granting sniveling, drooling, insane religious freaks ANY ground, at ANY time is a sure death knell to ALL reason, democracy, logic, etc.
Pat is willing to fight to get these scum OUT of his country, away from decent humans. That's not xenophobic, poor fontor, that is just a good idea.
I've just seen too many good commenters get sledged on cue the moment they get out of line. I suppose it's how some members of communities try to promote unanimity. But sledging me is not personal courage, Strakh. It's just being a weiner with an itchy trigger finger.
Back on topic. I'm trying to figure out what's bugging me about the video. I think it's the fear. Fear makes people act loopy, like conservatives. (One of the great lessons of The Village.) I'm seeing a lot of fear in people's comments. Your mental image of getting sodomised by an imam was a choice example, so thanks for that.
I'm unambiguously against religious control of government. I work for secularism. But I don't want to treat people like cartoons. Bomb-tossing Arabs. As you say, "scum".
No, I'll do it without the fear. I'll do it with reason. And I won't be mistaken for the right-wing haters while I'm doing it.
Point taken, fontor.
How nice the world would be if 'reason' worked at the political level. Hell, how nice the world would be if 'reason' worked at the personal level. We could all just have a nice cup of tea and discuss our differences and everyone would have just one peachy little day.
Have you ever ridden a donkey? You can 'reason' with them until you drop off their back and they won't do a thing. You have to GET THEIR ATTENTION first. Do you honestly, really, truly think that 'reasoning' with a fanatic is going to get you ANYWHERE?
Your aversion to being likened to a 'right winger' is no excuse for giving the insanity of ANY religious belief(not just islam) any respect or tolerance ANY where on this planet.
Or perhaps you WANT your children to live in a world where insanity is 'tolerated' to the point it is today?
fontor,
it's not at tiny minority. When the governments of Canada and the UK actively tries to appease the most vocal, extreme minority of Islam they simultaneously deny liberal Muslims the possibility of defining themselves as citizens rather than Muslims. They confirm the extreme position that Muslims should be loyal to their religion before their country. They confirm the clergy's rhetoric that Muslims demand, why need, extra attention, exemptions and consideration. Did you see that other post on female Muslim doctors in Britain not wanting to scrub down, due to their alleged modesty? The Islamic Medical Council of that country declared that women properly should be clothed from the wrists to the ankles. This from what is supposed to be a scientific and (one presumes) moderate religious body. I'm afraid that giving aggressive minorities a veto on societal matters never seems to still their hunger for yet more vetoing opportunities
On another issue, I don't think it's fair to call Pat Condell a xenophobic. In one of his other videos on his youtube channel, he quite forcefully tells the white supremacists who think his videos strengthen their case that they are as much his enemies as aggressive, extremist Islam is; two sides of the same coin.
I completely agree that fear is a bad advisor and that the extreme right wing use it to their ends. But it's possible to have qualms with aggressive, extremist or even violent religion without being a nationalist skinhead. What makes moot comparisons between Nazi anti-semitism and present-day critique of Islam or even islamophobia is that no Jews of the thirties flew planes into skyscrapers. No Jews waged wars dozens of places world-wide. No Jews made whole neighbourhoods no-go areas for gentiles. No Jews issued and carried out death threats against alleged blasphemers. There are genuinely rational reasons to oppose extreme, aggressive Islam, but of course right-wing nutters will latch on to any cause that involves scorning darkies. But don't let extremist Muslims' (often) dark skin or (often) newcomer status exempt them from rational, value-based criticisms. That might be called left-wing nuttery. Racism or islamophobia is the irrational hatred of people due to their ancestry or religious denomination. Pat Condell's criticism is not irrational, it's not based on Muslims' ancestry or formal denomination. It's based on the specific views and attitudes of specific Muslim individuals and their ideology. If that cannot be rightfully criticized, nothing can.
Raven, I'm waiting for your apology for calling me a "dimwit" completely without warrant.
Perhaps an admission that the real dimwits are those who assume that anyone saying something they don't like is a Christian in disguise would also be in order? Seeing as he was an atheist, after all.
"rational, value-based criticisms. "
Torben, I agree entirely. I just think his one bit of ranting about how it's all that foreign muck in the first minute or so wasn't rational at all, and the values it were based on, if any, rather ignorant. The other criticisms were perfectly valid. I have liked his videos in the past but like someone else said, the way he phrased some of it is uncomfortably familiar to Brits like myself who keep a close eye on right wing xenophobes.
"I agree with Pat, but we shouldn't restrict it to just Muslims. Christians should also lose their protection against being offended. The "virgin" Mary and god weren't wed. So that makes Jesus a bastard. "
And it makes Joseph (70+) a pedophile (Mary was 13 when she shacked up with Joseph).
I find it interesting that everyone on this topic is vehemently anti-polygamy. Why? The definition of polygamy is:
any form of marriage in which a person [has] more than one spouse.
What is inherently wrong with that? Speak as someone who is married, I have absolutely NO desire to accrue more wives than my present one. I doubt that if this particular cultural taboo was removed, it would drastically change our world.
I suspect what most people are truly objecting to is the common way polygamy is presented: that of a dominant male lording over a bevy of cowed females, with all the abuse that implies.
Abusive relationships should be addressed at that level, as abusive relationships.
However, if any of you believe, as I do, that gay people should be allowed the same civil rights as heterosexuals in this country (USA), it may serve you well to temper your comments about the evil of polygamy. The gay marriage battle is going to be fought in a court of law on denial of rights principals: i.e., why can't two consenting same-sex adults enter into a contract that two non-same-sex adults can? Logically, this argument could also be made for and extended to three or four person unions as well.
The U.S. announced a few years ago, just after Canada legalized marriage between consenting adults of the same sex, that it would pick and choose which marriages to recognize.
Everyone? You seem to have missed #72 & #75. You basically just agreed with our posts.
Your speculation that polygamy might become legal as an extension of the acceptance of same sex marriage also has merit. In fact some of the Religious Right have already made that point as a consequence to be feared, a slippery slope that they threaten will will come to include interspecies marriage.
Their concern seems to be that legalising same sex marriages will make God angry. We all know that we never want to see Him angry, right?
Oh and it isn't just the wives that suffer, the daughters do as well. As I understand it, young muslim males are allowed to lord it over all their female relatives, so maybe they aren't so badly off. The plight of the FLDS 'lost boys' is another matter entirely.
And in related news, Muslims plotting to kill one of the Danish cartoonists have been detained by police intelligence units. Oh the irony of wanting to kill people who dare call you or your ideology violent.
Just another piece of evidence that religious people are fucking nuts, whatever piece of scummy crap they 'believe.'
This is why intelligent, educated people all over are getting stinking pissed off over ALL religious shit, just like Pat.
"God is love, now convert or we'll disembowel you, infidel!"
Everyone? You seem to have missed #72 & #75. You basically just agreed with our posts.
You're right I missed those two posts when I put up mine. My mistake. They covered my issue.
Oh and it isn't just the wives that suffer, the daughters do as well.
You're correct again here as well, but I didn't specify just wives in my definition of the popular depiction of polygamy (or, more accurately, polygymy).
Yeah, I don't think any religion should be pandered to, either, but any attempt to address islamist extremism & terrorism that doesn't take account of the fact that our foreign policy seems mainly to consist of following the US anywhere it feels like going w/ no regard for international law & killing brown people as we steal their resources is seriously incomplete.
I *hate* religion, but I hate seeing secularism used as an excuse to sweep our own faults under the rug.
Yeah -- Saudia Arabia leads alot of the Muslim world, and yes it is a fascist junta. One supported by our military aid & diplomatic cover.
But Pat here crosses the line into "They're in our goddamn country! Make 'em live our way!"
Based on other things I've seem from Pat, I think this is rhetorical push back against the attitude "We're here. We're aggrieved. Now let us do whatever we want, and abandon your own culture, you fucking racists!" Perhaps it comes off poorly, but when I see Muslims in the UK carrying signs that say "Behead those who insult Islam", I find myself getting kind of smart-assed and un-PC, too.
It is a vicious cult started by a camel stealing, murdering pedophile who is held up as the role model for all mankind.
That suddenly reminded me of a passage in Terry Pratchett's Pyramids. It's a talk between the young king of a country who looks a lot like Egypt and the mythical founder of his people:
'You were being persecuted,' said Teppic. 'That's why you fled into the desert.'
'Oh, yes. You're right. Damn right. I was being persecuted for my beliefs.'
'That's terrible,' said Teppic.
Khuft spat. 'Damn right. I believed people wouldn't notice I'd sold them camels with plaster teeth until I was well out of town.'
"So he flies an airplane into it and blames the jews!"
Go pat!
Blah blah terrorism blah blah sharia law. Ludicrous.
Not a bad roundup of British political thought at the moment. It really does get depressing - why do religions deserve special treatment? The law applys to everybody.
That part about the British government condoning Muslim plural-marriages got to me. Yay, collect women as property. I wonder if they would recognize this marriage too.
Probably. Wouldn't want to actually offend anyone, especially a criminal, or a muslim. I hate political correctness...
That Archbishop is really an old and senile geezer ...
The Anglican Church is a joke anyway.
Well, there are two blatant lies in the couple of minutes (about polygamy and hate speech), so I stopped there. There are a lot of right-wing racist nutters frothing at the mouth about "Islamics" these days, and this is just another one (though he may not realise it himself). Why not just point us to what the Daily Mail (the paper that supported Hitler) is saying about it?
When I read the bible and observe "modern" muslims, it strikes me that there's really not that much of a difference between them and the jews of the old testament. They need to modernize a bit more - by about two thousand years.
Re; comment #7 call
'Well, there are two blatant lies in the couple of minutes (about polygamy and hate speech)'
Care to make them clearer for me, please?
"Well, there are two blatant lies in the couple of minutes (about polygamy and hate speech"
Polygamy is illegal but its been confirmed that immigrants who have more than one wife who they married abroad are okay and can claim benefits.
Channel 4 did a documentary in which they filmed Immans preaching hate. The police threatened to prosecute the film makers for inciting religious hatred.
Not the Daily Mail which I abhor - all sourced from the BBC and elsewhere.
Other than the xenophobia near the beginning, really good video.
I LOVE Pat Condell. He is my hero and dream date.
Call wrote:
"Well, there are two blatant lies in the couple of minutes (about polygamy and hate speech), so I stopped there. There are a lot of right-wing racist nutters frothing at the mouth about "Islamics" these days, and this is just another one (though he may not realise it himself). Why not just point us to what the Daily Mail (the paper that supported Hitler) is saying about it?"
Call, perhaps you haven't been reading the papers. The British government did, in fact, approve of giving extra social benefits to men with multiple wives. From the International Herald Tribune:
"LONDON: British men who marry several women in a country where polygamy is allowed can legally claim welfare benefits for all of them, a government review has concluded.
Polygamy is illegal in Britain, but the Department for Work and Pensions said Saturday that its yearlong review of welfare regulations dating back to 1987 found that men who marry several women legally in other countries can maintain those relationships here and claim welfare benefits for each one.
The ministry estimates that up to 1,000 polygamous relationships exist in Britain, and the ruling is expected to primarily benefit members of the Muslim minority who married elsewhere under Islamic law."
Call, Madam or Sir, are you going to acknowledge that this is a fact, and not a "blatant lie?"
Condemning the societal tolerance for oppressive, unfair religious practices that degrade the idea of universal civil rights is not right wing racist nuttery. It's the purest expression of liberal values that value human beings as human beings, not as pawns in a politico-religious game. I am God-damned sick of my fellow liberals abandoning these values and having the stupidity and gall to hector the rest of us and call us racist right wingers for defending the values of human rights that YOU ought to be defending too.
Why do commentors like you want to bend over backwards to disbelieve that some very serious breaches of liberal, democratic values really, really are happening? Whence comes this desperate emotional need to defend the indefensible, and to accuse those who stand up for fairness of being bigots? I cannot understand this.
Only thing that didn't sit well with me was his comments when it comes to hate speech. From an American perspective, all speech, no matter how idiotic or inciting of hatred, should be allowed. The flaw in the system over there is that non-Muslims aren't allowed to practice in. He sees the flaw as being that Muslims are allowed to express it. Other than that, though, pretty decent rant.
Well said. I would emphasize: where are the 'religious moderates'in this debate? I have not heard a so-called moderate condemn the actions of Islamic extremeists or the beliefs supposedly behind those actions. Nor, in America,have I heard moderates condemn the actions of religious fundamentalists and their open bigotry. In the modern world, religions are like hookworms- make you slow, make you stupid, addle your judgement, shorten your lifespan and feeds (without return) on your labors. The world needs a good de-wormer.
Alex wrote:
"Other than the xenophobia near the beginning, really good video."
What xenophobia? Do you understand that xenophobia is an irrational fear of another culture, as another culture per se ? Disapproving of outside cultural practices are inimical to civilized democracy and human rights is not irrational xenophobia . Is there anyone left who's capable of not having a knee-jerk guilt reaction every time some Bad Western Person actually points out that stone age social structures actually hurt people?
Sorry for forgetting to close the italics tag. So frustrating that you can't edit your mistakes:)
Re; comment #10 call
Thanks for the response.
Polygamy; Pats point was that existing laws are changed to accommodate immigrants' differing cultures. You agree that this has been done; and I confirm that it has. Where is the lie here?
Hate speech; you mention the C4 documentary filming hate-speeches in mosques and that the police threatened to prosecute the filmmakers. Pats point here again was that the law is bent to accommodate immigrants cultures; you confirm it again. The imams were not prosecuted under the law. Where is the lie here?
BTW the only action taken by the police force (West Midland police) was to refer it to the ombudsman; the ombudsmans ruling was a spectacular indictment of the polices actions and a wholehearted vindication of the film and its contents; forgot to mention did you?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/20/npolice…
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb97/
I wish I had his brutal eloquence. It would be nice to be able to call a fucktard a fucktard, and have people nod thier heads in agreement.
I agree with Pat, but we shouldn't restrict it to just Muslims. Christians should also lose their protection against being offended. The "virgin" Mary and god weren't wed. So that makes Jesus a bastard. If I said that on the public airwaves, not only would I be censored but the government would probably condemn me and there would be legislation to counter what I said. Plus a few death threats in the mail as well by "loving" christians.
This is off-topic, but there's an interesting post on the state of science in the Muslim world here:
http://www.kamilpasha.com/2008/02/10/science-in-the-muslim-world/
Most of that was pretty good, the only part that had me scratching my head was the bit about the foot washing stations.
Nothing really wrong with that. It's not hurting anyone, and it's the sort of thing i would expect to see as islamic culture is integrated into another.
Ah well, i bet there was some weird aspect that i don't know to the story.
How does one become a respected imam authority? One has to be dumber and/or more ignorant than the other imams.
Imams are Pigs(my apologies to pigs who are eminently more respectable), besides the fact they they think they know something by studying basically one book of superstition. Oh sure, they add some subsequent texts that are supposed to interpret the first text. A Total waste of time.
Nothing in Islamic texts has anything to do with the real world. BTW, I tell this to Muslim believers too.
The part about allowing polygamy in the UK is strange.
The British should find a backbone somewhere.
So far it hasn't happened here. Immigrants to the USA agree to obey the laws of the land.
Immigration is a voluntary activity. We don't go overseas and kidnap people at gunpoint and put them on ships for labor or anything. Anymore. If they want to live here, they have to obey our laws and they agree to do so.
So wife beating, female genital mutilation, marrying underage daughters off to older uncles, polygamy, and so on are simply not tolerated in theory.
In California, when all the SE refugees came in, there was a problem with the men beating up their wives. Supposedly part of SE Asian culture. The cops got sick of it and started hauling the men in and booking them for jail. Cops. "We don't give a rat's ass what your culture allows. If you beat up on your family you are going to jail." It isn't any more of a problem now in Asian neighborhoods than anywhere else.
"Care to make them clearer for me, please?"
Judging by the flagrant ad hom and Godwin in the two consecutive stentences following the accusation, I wouldn't count on it.
I think I'll have Pat's name tattooed on my ass...
Right next to Molly's...
Re; #24 raven
You are entirely correct; we need to find a backbone. As I posted on the other thread about the Archbish, I hope this current spate of lunacy finally crystalizes the pent-up frustration many of us brits have been feeling at the spineless pandering to the false god of multiculturalism that our authorities have displayed for twenty years or more. Needless to say, I hope it does not descend into anything close to racism as most of us find that just as abhorrent.
Does he EVER hold back? ;-) Glorious...
i've said it before, and i'll say it again:
i'll take a pat condell over a chris hitchens any day.
(and i like hitchens)
go pat!
Good old Pat, I'm studying in England and I can relate to his frustration. Some despicable fucktard (sorry but that's what he gets on my scale) defended Sharia law by saying that in some countries Sharia law was ordinary stuff and in some others it is a human rights violation, so hey, be tolerant! I was literally shaking with anger at the implications.
Pretty bad:
Doctors and nurses in Scotland should refrain from eating in front of their Muslim patients and colleagues during the month of Ramadan according to the Scottish NHS.
Staff in hospitals north of the border were advised by the Scottish Executive and the Scottish NHS to avoid "working lunches" and to move food trolleys away from Muslim colleagues in the month when Islam forbids eating and drinking during daylight hours.
While not eating in front of people is an inconvenience produced by a fairly silly request, this sort of shit puts people's lives at unnecessary risk.
He said "no foot baths in public washrooms," which I assume are paid for with taxpayer's money. If that's the case, it's a reasonable objection.
Either set up special accommodations in public facilities for every religion under the sun (and something for us atheists too... I dunno, maybe issues of Nature or Skeptical Enquirer to read in the toilet stalls), or don't spend money on it at all. No singling out one religion for special treatment with public funds.
OK, Britain, here's your line up for the immediate future...
Goal #1: Resignation of Rowan Williams
Goal #2: Disestablishment of the Anglican faith, removal of the 26 Lords Spiritual from the the House of Lords
Goal #3: Evan Harris MP gets the removal of the British Blasphemy laws
Goal #4: Written constitution detailing seperation of church and state
Go to it!
I've always found him to be quite restrained. And far more articulate than the Archbishop.
Is it just me or do his eyes glow blue with righteous ire???
:sigh: Pat's another one who's missed the point. Legal theory exercises are just that -- legal theory exercises -- and akin to academic discussions and not public policy forums such as a Congress or Parliament. And, having actually read his presentation, it's a over-reaction based on massively tarting up a legal theory exercise on the basis of a xenophobic hatchet job. Which is, on a blog that supports actual academic freedom, is a bit lame. Actually, it's well beyond "a bit lame."
I mean, seriously, the guy was quite clear sharia law has some seriously fucked things about it. Especially the rights of women and children. And that a dual system would tend to make it more difficult for these victims to get redress for their grievances or protection of the law.
Yet, some idiot reporter tarts it up, and BOOOOOM, here we are...
Josh wrote:
Dictionary.com gives a similar definition:
Josh, can you tell me what you think he is trying to imply at 00:48 through 01:00?
I'm not saying Islam isn't bad, but I am saying that it isn't bad just because it isn't indigenous to the UK. From the perspective of Saudi Arabia, "Western culture" is much better than their Islamic culture (not that Saudi Arabians would necessarily realize that), even though it isn't indigenous. If Saudi Arabia completely lacked racism, sexism, ageism, and all the other negative qualities of "Western culture", then Saudi Arabia would have a much better culture than ours or the UK's, even though it wouldn't be the indigenous culture to our countries.
Alex, #38 -
You and I agree on the definition of xenophobia - we have said exactly the same thing (do check my post above): that xenophobia is an irrational hatred of another culture, simply because it is another culture, not because of the contents of that culture. I agree with everything you've said in your second paragraph.
On listening to Pat's comments again, I think he could have phrased the bit about "alien and foreign" better than he did. I can see why it could be interpreted as xenophobic - thanks for pointing that out. On balance, though, I don't think Pat is xenophobic, poor phrasing aside. Having listened to all of his videos, it could not be clearer that his beef with "Islamic culture" (yes, I know, that phrase is not very good either, let's agree to that and move on) has everything to do with the specific content and practices, not the per se "foreignness."
So, maybe Pat could use an editor once in a while; we all could. But I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that is is xenophobic if you're familiar with his body of work. There's a large difference between American redneck yahoos who hate "furrners" simply because they're foreign, and someone who finds certain foreign practices repugnant to civilized society.
Alex. those are mighty big ifs there. And, yes, I reserve the right to judge other cultures and countries as well as my own. And I will condemn Saudi Arabia simply for the treatment of women. If that makes me xenophobic, I will gladly wear that label for I know, if I had been born there, it would be much worse for me.
There comes a time when excusing beliefs simply because it is part of the culture comes back to bite you in the ass. Simply look at the situation in the very tolerant Netherlands and the problem of radicalized Islam. Or you can look into Germany which has separate courts for the followers of Islam. These questions are not merely academic. People are living them out on continental Europe.
Interesting!
All the worse that he advocated a dual system anyway, then. He said:
"Is it not both theoretically and practically mistaken to qualify our commitment to legal monopoly?" Emphasis mine.
I can not believe the tone of some of these posts. I can tell that you are still in denial about Islam.
It is a vicious cult started by a camel stealing, murdering pedophile who is held up as the role model for all mankind. The Qu'ran's stated goal is world domination by any means. It will have to be eradicated or we will have to turn Muslim; take your choice.
That was brilliant. That's the most lolsome Pat Condell video I've seen to date.
Some of us here in England have backbone. Unfortunately, our politicians generally don't. What happened to politicians like Winston Churchill - 'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last'
nick says:
Some of us here in England have backbone. Unfortunately, our politicians generally don't. What happened to politicians like Winston Churchill - 'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last'
Believe on the Old Ones and they will eat you first.
Ray "Atheists are Chickens" Comfort needs to listen to Pat.
http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2008/01/atheists-evolved-from-chicke…
Can anyone name the middle eastern country starting with I and ending with srael that allows the resolution of disputes under Sharia and has not turned into an Islamic theocracy?
If two people want to have their quarrel settled by some bearded halfwit and his book of medieval aphorisms, why not let them get on with it? No one is suggesting that you have to.
"If two people want to have their quarrel settled by some bearded halfwit and his book of medieval aphorisms, why not let them get on with it? No one is suggesting that you have to."
That is not what was being proposed. Under UK law parties can already agree to binding third party arbitration to settle disputes. What was being suggested goes beyond that, into marriage and divorce and therein lies the source of many objections to what the Archbishop has said. Under Islamic Sharia law men and women are not equal. Under UK law men and women are equal. See the problem ?
That suddenly reminded me of a passage in Terry Pratchett's Pyramids. It's a talk between the young king of a country who looks a lot like Egypt and the mythical founder of his people:
'You were being persecuted,' said Teppic. 'That's why you fled into the desert.'
'Oh, yes. You're right. Damn right. I was being persecuted for my beliefs.'
'That's terrible,' said Teppic.
Khuft spat. 'Damn right. I believed people wouldn't notice I'd sold them camels with plaster teeth until I was well out of town.'
Re; #45
But aren't we as a population responsible for our leaders? After all, we're still supposed to be a democracy.
We should shoulder the burden and demand the leaders we deserve. We can't take the piss out of our American cousins for electing idiots to office if we do it ourselves, now can we? :)
Not really. I see no reason for people not to have the right to opt for a system that will be unfair to them.
In practice removing any element of compulsion may be difficult but in theory people should have every right to be stupidly self destructive.
Also, Pat (and more power to you, as I am fully aware you are in no way a bigot), citizens who are muslim should be allowed to present agendas based on their beliefs (however foolish I think they are) and attempt to persuade non-muslims of what they consider to be the potential benefits to the larger community.
(They should also take note if, after working at this for some time, that they have beliefs and goals that will never be shared by non-muslims, and abandon them. They might even reconsider their own belief in such failed ideas.)
[quote]I can not believe the tone of some of these posts. I can tell that you are still in denial about Islam.
It is a vicious cult started by a camel stealing, murdering pedophile who is held up as the role model for all mankind. The Qu'ran's stated goal is world domination by any means. It will have to be eradicated or we will have to turn Muslim; take your choice. [/quote.]
Congratulations, tsg, for actually justifying the Godwin arguments religious people use against atheists.
Also glad to hear I wasn't the only one a little concerned about the "them's bad cos them is forren" sentiment in the first minute or so.
"I am fully aware you are in no way a bigot."
Yeah, right. He's singing from the BNP hymnbook. Prejudice against Muslims, especially in the UK, is the 21st century equivalent of 1930s antisemitism, even down to the conspiracy theories about plans for global domination (anyone seen a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Mecca yet? It's only a matter of time before one appears) and the thinly veiled threats that the enemy within have to be eliminated.
It seems it would be asking too much to expect you lot to spot the disparity between what Condell says in that clip and the reality of the news stories, because that would require a little careful thought, so I'll just ask one question: where is Abu Hamza now, and why is he there?
This clown calling for the eradication of 1.4 billion people is much more likely to be a fundie Xian moron than an atheist. The two Abrahamic religions have been serious rivals for 1600 years and both have attempted to eliminate the other several times. Remember when Spain was Moslem and when Jerusalem and Lebanon were Xian?
The wingnuts with the most extreme antiMoslem rhetoric who call for multimega mass murder almost invariably are Xian fundie moron trolls. Not that that isn't a tautology.
I interpreted that not as an anti-foreigner but an anti-PC quip, perhaps against some people who would be wary of saying that there exists an "indigenous" British culture and that sharia is something "foreign" to it. Don't know if such a sentiment is justified or not, but not necessarily anti-foreigner as such.
I would suspect that giving welfare to all the wives might have something to do with children and the disruption to their lives.
Oh, I see. I always wondered how some guy could support 3 wives and 10-20 children in today's world. Modern day stuff, houses, electricity, cars, computers, HDTVs, DVDs, medical care, etc. cost a lot more money than a herd of sheep, a tent, the witchdoctor, and a few camels did 1500 years ago.
So simple. You just move to the UK and go on welfare.
Nice to see that the British are so forward looking and generous.
Starting to see why the US doesn't allow polygamy, in law, at least. If you let the Mormons and Moslems do it, you have to let everyone do it. Otherwise it is discrimination and that is illegal.
We don't need any false book to condemn Islam. The Qu'ran does quite well. Have you read it?
Go to some Islamic sites and get advise about how to beat your wife(a small stick and leave no marks). Or whether those women you have "under your right hand" are available for sex.
Have you posted on Islamic forums? Do you know what a hadith is?
I did not set up the us/them dichotomy; mohammed did.
Enjoy your complacency while you may.
Funny I am always being hit with christian "you-to" arguments on Islamic sites and now I'm being accused of being a stealth christian. Do you always have to categorize those who disagree.
ATTENTION CALL #55 (sorry for the shouting):
AllenW and I both pointed out that you were, in fact, wrong in saying Condell was lying. I even provided you an excerpt from the Independent to back up my position. It's not a matter of opinion, just plain old fact. I realize we may disagree on politics, but an honest person acknowledges when he makes a mistake, he doesn't ignore it and then repeat the same mistake. Please see posts #13 and #18.
Can you at least agree to be honest and not pretend that facts you don't like don't exist? And for goodness' sake, your bit comparing our unease with muslim extremism to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is - I'm sorry - fucking outrageous. I'm not a right wing wacko, I'm not a member of the BNP, and I find them loathsome. But damnit call, just because bigots taint the conversation doesn't mean us reasonable people are crazy.
Don't you realize how offensive and nasty your comments are? Don't you understand most of us here probably share many common values, and that it's probably better to recognize those instead of rhetorically spitting on us? If I'm wrong, or if I'm not considering all sides fairly, I make an effort to accept that. But don't verbally bitch slap people on here and expect them to have a civilized conversation with you.
No different from the bible. Have you read it? Below are a few quotations from it. The bible mandates the death penalty for many things, disobedient children by stoning, adultery, breaking the sabbath etc..You can sell your daughter into slavery, own slaves, and commit genocide on other tribes with god's help. One group calculated that by applying Xian biblical law, somewhere around 90% of the US population would be executed by the other 10%.
So applying your logic, you want to kill 1.4 billion Moslems and 2.1 billion Xians. Roughly half the world's population. Might as well get the Buddhists and Hindus while you are at it.
Ever get the feeling that you are mentally ill? Someone who thinks murdering the majority of the world's population is a good idea isn't going to be taken seriously by anyone except the police and an unfortunate psychiatrist or 2.
Pat was right on the money.
People like "call" are naive. Pat is neither xenophobic nor bigoted against Muslims and he is not a shill for the right wing agenda.
It is ridiculous that anyone should not be allowed to eat in the workplace because someone else is fasting because of religious beliefs. I can remember when they wouldn't serve meat on Friday's in public school cafeterias because of Catholic beliefs. It was insane then and it is insane now. People should be free to believe in whatever fairy tale nonsense they want but the rest of us should not have to adjust our lives so they are not "offended". If a Muslim is tempted to break a fast because a workmate is eating a ham sandwich, that's his or her problem.
Raven I am an atheist so I could care less what the babble says, did you read the part of my post about "you to" argumets on Islamic sites and then you do it by quoting the OT.
Of course the Old Testament and teh Qu'ran sound alike; where do you think mo stole his revelations from?
Alla sounds a lot like yahweh and daddy looks a lot like him.
BTW Raven:
Calling names to wit:tsig the mass murderer genocidal maniac wannabe:
hardly helps your argument, in fact it makes it look like you lack facts and have only the empty flailing of your tongue left to sustain yourself.
If I'm allowed to eat around patients who are NPO (on a medically-required fast), why should I not be allowed to eat around someone on a religious fast. Fair is fair. No medical personnel should be allowed to eat anywhere in a hospital because it is inconsiderate to those required to be fasting. I remember when I was NPO before surgery and those inconsiderate nurses made microwave popcorn. Oh, the agony...
John, #39: I think Pat may dislike Islam both for its crazy tenets and because of a dislike for foreign things. I can't see any other reason why he'd go out of his way to emphasize that Islam is foreign to the UK.
Janine, #40: Feel free to judge other cultures and your own. I'm just saying people, including Pat, shouldn't think their own cultures are in any way superior merely because it is the culture they happen to live in. Those "mighty big 'ifs'" were just hypothetical. Replace Saudi Arabia with any country that you think negatively of as a result of its sexism, like Iran, and what I said should still make sense.
That guy really needs his own TV show.
Raven, I think you have totally misread tsig by calling him a mass murderer wanna be. He didn't call for the elimination of muslims, he called for the elimination of Islam, big difference. By the way his thumbnail sketch is pretty damn accurate. Big Mo got his start raiding caravans full of other people's goods and then he moved on to slaughtering prisoners by the hundreds. Later on he married one of his henchman's 6 year old daughter, but sweetheart that he was, the marriage wasn't consummated until she was nine when her mother took her from playing with her dolls and presented her to Mo. Yes the prime directive of Islam is that it is the only allowable religion in the world and muslims must fight until "all is Allah's". Muslims in Europe in general have no desire to become part of the counties they have moved to. They feel no obligation toward their adopted country, but they sure know how to use the welfare system. Over 20 years ago, I worked with Saudis in the States and in Saudi Arabia itself. Let me tell you, they demand that we must respect their beliefs in all places and at all times while they do not respect any of our beliefs in any place or at any time. Someone asked me what Saudi Arabia was like and I said think of a country run by thirteen year old boys, with guns.
Thank you RedMann!
funny innit I didn't write a book calling for world domination and then put it into practice but when i point this out I am the genocidal maniac. (a first for me)
Classic case of shoot the messenger.
Or whistling by the graveyard.
Or sticking one's head in the sand.
Or fear.
See, my only problem with polygamy is how it's practised by Moslems and Mormons. In a society with a fair balance of power between the sexes, there's nothing wrong with polygamy or polyandry. It's not that the idea is fundamentally wrong, but how and where it's practised.
I loved that rant! I'm using bits of it the next time sharia law gets mentioned around here.
I didn't get the xenophobic vibe at all. I think he was trying to highlight the ridiculousness of making all these concessions to appease Muslims who have chosen to live in the UK. It's more than a bit unreasonable, really, and has nothing to do with fear of the other culture. It shouldn't even be a question that one would agree to follow the laws and tenets of a given country upon moving there. Such accomodations for Western cultural practices are certainly not available to Westerners living or travelling in the Muslim world.
I think Sivi Volk is basically right, in theory at least. If consenting adult threesomes, etc. wish to be married and there is equality and fairness and the children are safe from abuse, what is there to argue against it?
Well, still theoretically, if it were to be so widespread and either polygyny or polyandry was dominant, then there would be a surplus of one gender, then that would cause problems. We see it in the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, who exploit most of their young males for their labour, after giving them a useless education and then excommunicate and shun them to make the numbers work for the favoured men with many wives.
Mostly though, polygamy only survives in cultures where misogyny is enforced by religion and that produces many evils.
Polygamy may be illegal in the US, but there has been only notable prosecution and that only in the past year. Generations of girls and boys have suffered because the FLDS hide behind their religion and the difficulties in getting witnesses to testify.
Right this very minute in the US and Canada, the FLDS are getting welfare payments for all their 'single mothers' and their children. Meanwhile the few dominant men control millions in the cult's funds and assets.
I am not so familiar with the school funding in the US, but the Canadian branch of the FLDS in Bountiful, BC annually gets 100s of thousands of taxpayers' dollars to ready girls for careers in cooking, cleaning, sewing and submission. There's carpentry, and I don't know what else for the boys. Not much.
ref: http://religiouschildabuse.blogspot.com/search/label/mormons
When are they going to be stopped?
Silly Brits! If only you folks had had the sense to write all of the axioms concerning your government and its duties into a single coherent document at some time in the past, you would be free of anyone in government overstepping their bounds, as it would violate this. . .let's call it a Constitiution.
No citizen would ever stand for politicians violating the spirit or letter of the Constitution.
Wait. . .crap.
Nonsense. Have you ever met any European muslims?
Danio,
For Western foreigners living in Saudi Arabia, like employees of Aramco or its contractors, the answer is compounds. Gated communities. As I understand it, within the walls women are not abused for baring some of their skin or being with men not their father/brother/husband.
Technically no alcohol enters Saudi Arabia, but there are ways around that. Likewise Western magazines, all most all of which are deemed pornographic because of photographs of beings identifiable by exposed faces and skin as being human females.
Back in the day, some of my colleagues went there on contracts to install microwave communication systems for pipeline control. I remember finding their enthusiasm for subverting rules against taking pictures of burkha clad women a little unsettling.
I think that Pat always makes a lot of good points, and I like the way he always emphasizes that he isn't against people as such, but ideas. However, he does come across as bit over the top at times, which I suppose is a requirement in todays YouTube culture. Still, I dare anyone to watch, without cringing at the contrasts, the one Beyond Belief 2.0 video, in which - I believe it was - Sir Harold Kroto, who shows a clip from one of Pat's videos.
Two things: I don't think Pat was xenophobic. As has been stated above, he was trying to convey to the PC crowd that Brits have indigenous culture as well as immigrants that shouldn't just be done away with to accomodate/appease newcomers. This lacks respect towards the people already living there and it's a clear-cut case of oppressing the majority with minority views.
The second, and more important, is that setting up separate judicial systems amounts to an inherent discrimination of Muslims (or whatever minority) in that the state itself declares these people not worthy of the legal protections of the rest of society. Due to their being born into Muslim families, they can never enjoy the rule of law (remember, under shariah law, once a Muslim, always a Muslim). They become codemned to living out their lives as Muslims, not citizens, and by state decree, too. This is doing Muslims a tremendous disfavor, as e.g. the Muslims girls who do not wish to adhere to misogynist, bronze age nomad 'morals' would have no judicial refuge, since the state has declared all Muslims to be the subject of private, religious courts. It is racist as well as immoral.
Citizens are first and foremost citizens, not followers of some particular creed. If even the state abondons this notion, who will uphold it?
For all those who think what the Archbishop said was in anyway reasonable I suggest they read this from Johann Hari in the Independent.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-ha…
May I also suggest they read Yasmin Alibhai-Brown writing in the same paper:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/…
I've always liked Pat's videos, and I do despise religion, and Islam (qua religion) in particular.
But for me, I have some warning signs. If I notice that my atheism is becoming a poorly-concealed excuse to start hating on a whole group of people (and a tiny minority at that), and if I start spouting comments that could have been pulled from any right-wing asshead (e.g. ranting about political correctness), and if I start agreeing with the Guardian, then I start thinking that maybe I've made a mistake somewhere.
Apply the law equally. Don't treat religious beliefs with any special deference. Yes. But Pat here crosses the line into "They're in our goddamn country! Make 'em live our way!" Right at home on Fox. It turns into ugly stuff.
Ah, another feel-good 'atheist' who thinks if we just "let 'em be, they'll let US be!"
Fontor, watch the video again. And again, and again, and again, until it soaks into the soft tissue of your almost empty skull what is being said.
A clue, mush head: islam is NOT a 'tiny minority'. How ignorant can you be? These filthy ativisms are breeding like rats, there are BILLIONS of these deluded freaks all over the planet. And don't give me the cry-baby whine, "but it's the extremists that are the minority..." You sniveling pup, the muslim form of religious insanity gives rise to that form of religious extremism.
Another clue, Pat did NOT say throw out all the muslims (which would be infinitely better, especially along with every other insane freak who believes in any form of any religion) he said throw out the imams.
Learn to listen, fontor, before you cry like a baby in a bathroom stall being butt raped by a good, religious xian like Larry 'wide stance' Craig.
If you truly are stupid enough to question your own beliefs when those you don't 'approve' of agree with you, then you're just too stupid to think for yourself. You would be better listening to Fox. They'll do the hard stuff like thinking for you.
Ah, the Pharyngula Treatment. I knew I'd get it as soon as I posted something dissenting, no matter how many helpful things I'd ever posted.
Listen to yourself. If Tancredo were still running for president, you could do his ads. Shame on you. It's you who have abandoned rationality, not I.
fontor, what's your game? If you've posted as much as you claim, helpful or not, "dissenting" or not, you would know no individual poster represents Pharyngula except PZ Meyers. How new are you to this concept called the internet?
Just because another atheist has greater personal courage than you to fight the disgusting slime of religious belief doesn't mean he's wrong.
If, and that's one BIIIIIG if, you're just as candidly brilliant as you think, you would be aware that granting sniveling, drooling, insane religious freaks ANY ground, at ANY time is a sure death knell to ALL reason, democracy, logic, etc.
Pat is willing to fight to get these scum OUT of his country, away from decent humans. That's not xenophobic, poor fontor, that is just a good idea.
fontor, Get over yourself. You got one response.
You have received no "treatment".
If you can't defend your position then perhaps you should refrain from posting.
Fight back. Don't whine.
I've just seen too many good commenters get sledged on cue the moment they get out of line. I suppose it's how some members of communities try to promote unanimity. But sledging me is not personal courage, Strakh. It's just being a weiner with an itchy trigger finger.
Back on topic. I'm trying to figure out what's bugging me about the video. I think it's the fear. Fear makes people act loopy, like conservatives. (One of the great lessons of The Village.) I'm seeing a lot of fear in people's comments. Your mental image of getting sodomised by an imam was a choice example, so thanks for that.
I'm unambiguously against religious control of government. I work for secularism. But I don't want to treat people like cartoons. Bomb-tossing Arabs. As you say, "scum".
No, I'll do it without the fear. I'll do it with reason. And I won't be mistaken for the right-wing haters while I'm doing it.
You're right, spurge. Thank you.
Point taken, fontor.
How nice the world would be if 'reason' worked at the political level. Hell, how nice the world would be if 'reason' worked at the personal level. We could all just have a nice cup of tea and discuss our differences and everyone would have just one peachy little day.
Have you ever ridden a donkey? You can 'reason' with them until you drop off their back and they won't do a thing. You have to GET THEIR ATTENTION first. Do you honestly, really, truly think that 'reasoning' with a fanatic is going to get you ANYWHERE?
Your aversion to being likened to a 'right winger' is no excuse for giving the insanity of ANY religious belief(not just islam) any respect or tolerance ANY where on this planet.
Or perhaps you WANT your children to live in a world where insanity is 'tolerated' to the point it is today?
Hey fontor,
All the fun seems to be on another thread.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/a_compromise_maybe_they_coul…
fontor,
it's not at tiny minority. When the governments of Canada and the UK actively tries to appease the most vocal, extreme minority of Islam they simultaneously deny liberal Muslims the possibility of defining themselves as citizens rather than Muslims. They confirm the extreme position that Muslims should be loyal to their religion before their country. They confirm the clergy's rhetoric that Muslims demand, why need, extra attention, exemptions and consideration. Did you see that other post on female Muslim doctors in Britain not wanting to scrub down, due to their alleged modesty? The Islamic Medical Council of that country declared that women properly should be clothed from the wrists to the ankles. This from what is supposed to be a scientific and (one presumes) moderate religious body. I'm afraid that giving aggressive minorities a veto on societal matters never seems to still their hunger for yet more vetoing opportunities
On another issue, I don't think it's fair to call Pat Condell a xenophobic. In one of his other videos on his youtube channel, he quite forcefully tells the white supremacists who think his videos strengthen their case that they are as much his enemies as aggressive, extremist Islam is; two sides of the same coin.
I completely agree that fear is a bad advisor and that the extreme right wing use it to their ends. But it's possible to have qualms with aggressive, extremist or even violent religion without being a nationalist skinhead. What makes moot comparisons between Nazi anti-semitism and present-day critique of Islam or even islamophobia is that no Jews of the thirties flew planes into skyscrapers. No Jews waged wars dozens of places world-wide. No Jews made whole neighbourhoods no-go areas for gentiles. No Jews issued and carried out death threats against alleged blasphemers. There are genuinely rational reasons to oppose extreme, aggressive Islam, but of course right-wing nutters will latch on to any cause that involves scorning darkies. But don't let extremist Muslims' (often) dark skin or (often) newcomer status exempt them from rational, value-based criticisms. That might be called left-wing nuttery. Racism or islamophobia is the irrational hatred of people due to their ancestry or religious denomination. Pat Condell's criticism is not irrational, it's not based on Muslims' ancestry or formal denomination. It's based on the specific views and attitudes of specific Muslim individuals and their ideology. If that cannot be rightfully criticized, nothing can.
Spot on Torben.
There have been two articles, both in the Independent, saying exactly that.
The first is by Johann Hari:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-ha…
The second is by Yasmin Alibai-Brown:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/…
Raven, I'm waiting for your apology for calling me a "dimwit" completely without warrant.
Perhaps an admission that the real dimwits are those who assume that anyone saying something they don't like is a Christian in disguise would also be in order? Seeing as he was an atheist, after all.
"rational, value-based criticisms. "
Torben, I agree entirely. I just think his one bit of ranting about how it's all that foreign muck in the first minute or so wasn't rational at all, and the values it were based on, if any, rather ignorant. The other criticisms were perfectly valid. I have liked his videos in the past but like someone else said, the way he phrased some of it is uncomfortably familiar to Brits like myself who keep a close eye on right wing xenophobes.
"I agree with Pat, but we shouldn't restrict it to just Muslims. Christians should also lose their protection against being offended. The "virgin" Mary and god weren't wed. So that makes Jesus a bastard. "
And it makes Joseph (70+) a pedophile (Mary was 13 when she shacked up with Joseph).
Creepy values in the bible if you ask me.
-M
I find it interesting that everyone on this topic is vehemently anti-polygamy. Why? The definition of polygamy is:
What is inherently wrong with that? Speak as someone who is married, I have absolutely NO desire to accrue more wives than my present one. I doubt that if this particular cultural taboo was removed, it would drastically change our world.
I suspect what most people are truly objecting to is the common way polygamy is presented: that of a dominant male lording over a bevy of cowed females, with all the abuse that implies.
Abusive relationships should be addressed at that level, as abusive relationships.
However, if any of you believe, as I do, that gay people should be allowed the same civil rights as heterosexuals in this country (USA), it may serve you well to temper your comments about the evil of polygamy. The gay marriage battle is going to be fought in a court of law on denial of rights principals: i.e., why can't two consenting same-sex adults enter into a contract that two non-same-sex adults can? Logically, this argument could also be made for and extended to three or four person unions as well.
Just a thought.
The U.S. announced a few years ago, just after Canada legalized marriage between consenting adults of the same sex, that it would pick and choose which marriages to recognize.
David @97
Everyone? You seem to have missed #72 & #75. You basically just agreed with our posts.
Your speculation that polygamy might become legal as an extension of the acceptance of same sex marriage also has merit. In fact some of the Religious Right have already made that point as a consequence to be feared, a slippery slope that they threaten will will come to include interspecies marriage.
Their concern seems to be that legalising same sex marriages will make God angry. We all know that we never want to see Him angry, right?
Oh and it isn't just the wives that suffer, the daughters do as well. As I understand it, young muslim males are allowed to lord it over all their female relatives, so maybe they aren't so badly off. The plight of the FLDS 'lost boys' is another matter entirely.
And in related news, Muslims plotting to kill one of the Danish cartoonists have been detained by police intelligence units. Oh the irony of wanting to kill people who dare call you or your ideology violent.
Just another piece of evidence that religious people are fucking nuts, whatever piece of scummy crap they 'believe.'
This is why intelligent, educated people all over are getting stinking pissed off over ALL religious shit, just like Pat.
"God is love, now convert or we'll disembowel you, infidel!"
David@97:
You're right I missed those two posts when I put up mine. My mistake. They covered my issue.
You're correct again here as well, but I didn't specify just wives in my definition of the popular depiction of polygamy (or, more accurately, polygymy).
Yeah, I don't think any religion should be pandered to, either, but any attempt to address islamist extremism & terrorism that doesn't take account of the fact that our foreign policy seems mainly to consist of following the US anywhere it feels like going w/ no regard for international law & killing brown people as we steal their resources is seriously incomplete.
I *hate* religion, but I hate seeing secularism used as an excuse to sweep our own faults under the rug.
Yeah -- Saudia Arabia leads alot of the Muslim world, and yes it is a fascist junta. One supported by our military aid & diplomatic cover.
But Pat here crosses the line into "They're in our goddamn country! Make 'em live our way!"
Based on other things I've seem from Pat, I think this is rhetorical push back against the attitude "We're here. We're aggrieved. Now let us do whatever we want, and abandon your own culture, you fucking racists!" Perhaps it comes off poorly, but when I see Muslims in the UK carrying signs that say "Behead those who insult Islam", I find myself getting kind of smart-assed and un-PC, too.
That suddenly reminded me of a passage in Terry Pratchett's Pyramids. It's a talk between the young king of a country who looks a lot like Egypt and the mythical founder of his people:
'You were being persecuted,' said Teppic. 'That's why you fled into the desert.'
'Oh, yes. You're right. Damn right. I was being persecuted for my beliefs.'
'That's terrible,' said Teppic.
Khuft spat. 'Damn right. I believed people wouldn't notice I'd sold them camels with plaster teeth until I was well out of town.'