His ungraceful Grace
The Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali, bishop of Rochester, has claimed that Islamists have made some parts of Britain ‘no-go’ areas for non-Muslims:
“On the one hand, the British were losing confidence in the Christian vision which underlay most of the achievements and values of the culture and, on the other, they sought to accommodate the newer arrivals on the basis of a novel philosophy of “multiculturalism”.
This required that people should be facilitated in living as separate communities, continuing to communicate in their own languages and having minimum need for building healthy relationships with the majority.
Alongside these developments, there has been a worldwide resurgence of the ideology of Islamic extremism. One of the results of this has been to further alienate the young from the nation in which they were growing up and also to turn already separate communities into “no-go” areas where adherence to this ideology has become a mark of acceptability.
Those of a different faith or race may find it difficult to live or work there because of hostility to them. In many ways, this is but the other side of the coin to far-Right intimidation. Attempts have been made to impose an “Islamic” character on certain areas, for example, by insisting on artificial amplification for the Adhan, the call to prayer.”
Nick Clegg, Inayat Bunglawala and William Hague all condemned his comments. Nazir-Ali, a Pakistani-born convert to Christianity Christian, is rapidly cementing his place as the Sun’s favourite Christian, with the paper even commenting that he could not be racist because he was born in Pakistan. I do not think he is a racist either, but it is unclear what good he was trying to achieve by his comments. Making vague allusions to these ‘no-go’ areas without naming them merely casts suspicion over all Muslims.
We already know that some areas do experience tension, but it is hardly one-sided. Rather than generalise and smear, the solution is to work on the specific problems affecting each area. His Grace should stay away from scaremongering in the future.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: British Identity, Culture, Current affairs
His Grace should stay away from scaremongering in the future.
Are you a member of his flock?
El Cid:
No, but with so many bishops in the Lords it is worth keeping an eye on them. I am now convinced by the Cromwellian stance; kick them out of the Lords. Apart from the Archbishop of York, I cannot think of one bishop who I respect.
But he’s entitled to his opinion, no?
He is entilted to his opinions, and I am entilted to criticise them.
But he’s entitled to his opinion, no?
Yes. But he’s not entitled to tell lies. And that’s what he’s done.
everyone is entitled to an opinion, but as someone in the public eye, with at least some “influence” and media attention, he should back up his “opinion” with real examples, especially when talking about an already emotive subject..
As Dawkins recently said, faiths have more to fear from each other than atheists. Looks like this is a broadside along those lines…
Sunny
You don’t actually say so, but I assume that you mean that there are no such “no-go” areas. If this correct? The reason I ask is that I vaguely remember seeing a TV report on this some years back, the specific allegation of which was that there were indeed such areas.
You say that:”Rather than generalise and smear, the solution is to work on the specific problems affecting each area.”
If it is the case that there are areas which are effectively off-limits to non-moslems then presumably you would be OK with Bishop N-A saying so, because it would be a case of stating the problem as a prelude to dealing with it? As far as I can see, your specific objection (and reasonable IMHO) objection to the Bishop is that he has not identified the areas he is talking about?
Sunny didn’t write this post….
Not that its of great importance but a small correction to your article.
You stated “Nazir-Ali, a Pakistani-born convert to Christianity…….”
It was actually Michael Nazir-Ali’s father who converted to Christianity, whereas he himself was born into the faith.
I’m interested to know where these areas are. In the past few weeks we have had the brutal racially motivated killings of two young Asian men of Muslim backgrounds.
Two teenagers have been charged with the murder of a young Muslim described by his school and family as a perfect pupil and a model son.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3065806.ece
Asaf Mahmood Ahmed, 28, suffered serious head injuries after being assaulted and found at the back of a Labour Club in Bolton, Greater Manchester, on Friday night.
Mr Ahmed had left his house in Broomfield Road, Bolton, and was on his way to shops before being attacked.
“We are treating this a racist incident because of language and comments that were overheard by witnesses at and immediately after the incident which led them to believe this was a racist incident.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=paRacial_Sun_15_victim_named_Nightlead&show_article=1
William Hauge the ex conservative leader came on Sky News to discuss what he said. He agreed the cultural separation is an issue but said that the Bishop was factually wrong about the “areas” and he had seen no such thing.
Sofia, agreed.
Rumbold, my only point was that your tone suggested that he did not have that right.
a, whatever.
Leon, hmmm, I’m not sure. As a convert, his grace’s life would be in danger in some islamic states.
Anyway, one interesting thing I’ve noticed since this broke is the position of the imams. In their responses to the bishop’s criticism over the vocal calling to faith over speakers, they are careful to refer to Britain as a non-denominational state, which is not strictly true. They clearly see Islam and Christianity as being on a par in the UK, hence their references to bell ringing. If they can make some noise, then so can we. And I’m sure many atheists would agree. Let’s call it a short-term marriage of convenience and an extension of the PC/Christmas debate.
However, it would be churlish and false to pretend that the UK doesn’t have a christian heritage.
mk1 .. thanks for the clarification. OK, so he’s the son of a convert. I dunno whether that would be a mitigating factor in an islamic kangaroo court in Waziristan, but it might just be.
And the likelihood of him visiting those Islamic states is…? Either way the guys drastically raised his profile and probably impressed some of this superiors and flock with his comments.
Sure but what about the present? Isn’t this guy voicing a fear of a ‘Christian past, Islamic future’?
Leon, maybe he is.
But most people in this country still describe themselves as Christian. You may well question what that exactly means but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.
I don’t think he’s saying these things to impress his superiors. His views are conservative even for a priest. Most of the ones I’ve heard have always talked about more inter-faith tolerance.
I think Nazir-Ali is deeply concerned about the increasingly less Christian nature of society here and the plight of Christians in Pakistan, letting those fears affect his judgement.
I think he’s entitled to his views but he should back them up with more evidence.
There aren’t that many – 26 out of 736 members – so I don’t think they wield a considerable amount of power.
Funny that Inayat Bunglawala and William Hague are on the same side opposing Nazir-Ali’s views!
It’d be interesting to hear what they really think and say behind closed doors.
You got figures for that? Is the number rising or falling? Stuff feathers up your backside does not make you a chicken (to quote Tyler Durden)…
I liked your borrowed chicken gag, very funny, but…
According to the 2001 census there are 37.3 million people in England and Wales who state their religion as Christian.
As Batman used to say, Ka-powwwwWWWW!!!
I am sorry to say this guy too wants to play the communalist card. Obviously something in South Asian blood.
El Cid,
37.3 out of 60 mill is not a huge majority. Break it down even further, how many of them regularly attend mass? Compare that figure, proportionally, to Muslims attending prayer.
You can then see the fear, much like some political parties they’re losing members and without that they’ve no platform (irrelevant of how much Christian history there may be…).
I reckon it wont be long before it can reasonably argued that the average Imam has more credibility in terms of bums on carpets than the average Priest in terms of bums on pews…
(don’t get me wrong El Cid, I’m just in a provocative mood today, not laying into you or anything
)
what i also don’t like is his apparent tone..where its these young muslim extremists who are allegedly creating the no go areas…again..integration is A TWO WAY STREET
I don’t see why. Monotheist religions have far more in common than with atheism. There is no compromise between people with faith and atheists.
Mk1:
Thanks for the correction.
Bishop Hill:
If there are such areas, why doesn’t the bishop name them, rather than just allude to them? Imagine if a senior Muslim cleric said there were ‘no-go’ areas for Muslims because of extremist Christians. Would it be right for him to just leave it there, and cast the shadow of doubt over all Christians?
That is my main objection, but I would also expect him to provide specific details about each area, such as how widespread the problem is, where did he get his information from, what is the cause of this tension and so forth. Obviously, if such areas exist, they are a problem.
Not sure I understand, but are you saying that Muslim extremists want to integrate, but are not allowed to?
no..i meant that he said that this non integration is because of these so called muslim extremists..who are leading other young men towards non integration…why is it always left to the “other” to integrate, when this is “discussed” in the media..if there is to be any meaningful discussion on integration, uncomfortable issues need to be faced on all sides..
Technically, the good bishop hasn’t told any lies. He’s just failed to produce any evidence of “no-go” Muslim areas caused as a result of religiousity. He’s also failed to address whether “no-go areas” in white areas may also be caused by over-zealous Chuch of Englanders! Of course he won’t be able to produce such evidence because social exclusion is not a factor of religion at all. However, its fashionable to blame all of Britian’s social malaise on muslims, so welcome to the bandwagon, a reactionary bishop bewailing the parlous state of his faith and the near total depletion of church congregations.
As far as I know there aren’t any extremist Christian groups in Britain. If there are they don’t have a high profile. There are racist groups but they are not the same as extremist Christian groups. Politics in this country is very secular, to the extent that in recent times the government has introduced laws that go blatantly against the church (civil partnership for gay couples, etc), so you are unlikely to see the kind of communal mobilisation you see in the sub-continent.
I think history will show Nazir-Ali’s little outburst will be just another little whimper in the long slow decline of Christianity in what used to a staunchly Christian country.
Tut tut Leon. How you describe people is superior to how people describe themselves, as I anticipated in #16. C’mon! Is that really what you want?
It is a slippery Stalinist slope that you are in danger of embarking on.
I’m also disappointed that you seem to be less not equally cynical towards those who might describe themselves as Moslem. You could at least be equally anti-organised religion. After all, a cynic in the current climate might reasonably be expected to see a political angle to this religious calling.
I don’t wish to be mean, but such double standards have no defence and give liberal politics a bad name.
Finally, let’s just look at the maths again:
37 million out of 52 million (England and Wales) is more than 70 percent, or enough to get you a grade A. That is a big majority (and one that may have risen in the last 10 years, given inward European migration).
It’s pointless denying that.
To do so would be like that knight in that Monty Python movie who, having had his arms and legs chopped off, cries out: “Come back and fight. It’s only a flesh wound”
so what?
Morgoth, give it a rest.
You’re lapsing into stupid mode.
yeh well you obviously haven’t heard of context..as for banning all saudi males..totally stereotypical and pathetic..instead of focussing on the discussion you go off on a tangent..
I agree with El Cid.
he has another mode?
And your inability to see beyond large swathes of humanity brushed in one single religious denomination as the synthesis of all your ignorant, boorish, small-town, paranoia is NOT juvenile? Here from us PP regulars, you get exactly what you deserve mate, and then some. If you want your hand held, go elsewhere.
Well, it’s complicated to say the least. I don’t have a seriously structured approach atheism, in fact have been moving away from the term for a good while now (I’m just being lazy with it’s use today).
I do know that a many attacks (both literal and word based) on Muslims are thinly veiled racism dressed up in the usual anti religious or other religions thing. Hence my slight sympathy for their plight despite my godless ways. Ironic really…but in a sense not.
The majority of Muslims in this country aren’t white. The majority of Christians are. That’s something worth keeping in mind while engaging in this debate I find….
Leon, by Martin Amis rules, both you and I are “Muslims” and are worthy of being detained. But then so is the Right Rev Michael Nazir-Ali.
Well this is the problem created by extremists on both sides (Islamists and Neo Cons), you’re drawn into this idiotic us or them situation and the natural complixeties of human life and behaviour are dismissed without much thought.
Notice to both sides: we’re not all unthinking bloody robots!
Leon, thanks for the honesty. NOW I see where you are coming from.
As is perhaps clear, the problem with such an approach is that it risks unintentionally alienating others and can mislead.
Sure, hence the explanation but as I point to above part of the misunderstanding is a result of the conditions (or to be pompous ‘debased intellectual environment’) we express a view or opinion within…
So politically it’s not a very good strategy?
Isn’t it more the case the bishop somewhat naively created a hostage to fortune with his no go remark. I suspect his point was that there may be no go areas for christian evangelists, rather than barricades on the streets etc? Certainly i recently saw news of christian converts having to take extraordinary precautions to worship due to local hostility.
No he wants a he re-affirmation of Britain’s Christian roots:
In other words, Christianity above other religions – the inverse of what’s happening in his motherland. I think that’s a bit extreme.
He wants a Jamaati-Christianity in the UK!
There was a time a few years back when non-muslim religious speakers at speakers corner used to regularly receive threats of violence, or worse. As a result of which the police significantly stepped up their presence in the area.
Ravi #24
‘Monotheist religions have far more in common than with atheism. ‘ Very true, but isn’t it often the case that where similar belief systems differ on details, then the real venom kicks in?
‘There is no compromise between people with faith and atheists.’ Again, very true and a good reason for atheists to be wary of the faithful. All the faithful have to fear from non-theists is the occasional polemical publication or withering remark.
A Church of England bishop “extreme”? That’s absurd.
And the fact he wants a re-affirmation of Britain’s Christian roots — well, what do we expect? I mean really?
OK, so he should back his no-go area claims. We’re all (mostly) agreed on that. Is he guilty of jumping on moslem-bashing bandwagon? Yes, unless he can be more specific.
I suppose in the future there could be ‘no-go’ areas for non-Muslims. Birminham is expected to have a majority non-white population in 20 years time and it also has an increasing number of Saudi sponsored mosques.
Well, at times no but you know things could change…
On the bell-ringing/ Adhan thing I have found both to be soothing and pleasant, as long as one is a good distance from the source. Up close both can be maddening.
At the moment, on a crisp winter’s morning while walking the dog, it is delightful to hear the chimes from the distant village church drift across the air. Living a hundred yards from a church with a team of enthusiastic campanologists is a minority taste at best and has been known to result in outbreaks of rural violence.
Similarly, watching the sun set over the minarets of a small harbour town is greatly enhanced by the distant but insistent call to prayer. Finding that the house you have leased is between two mosques who seem to have decided to compete as to who has the most kick-ass amplifiers is a nightmare.
I think the answer to that one lies in planning permission. I suspect that both new churches and new mosques would meet exactly the same objections to noise, particularly in urban areas.
Rather like faith schools. The one’s we have we are stuck with; sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.
But we don’t need new ones and should object strongly.
punctuation error.
Good post Don.
Personally I was surprised to “hear” that the amplified Muslim call to prayer now competes with church bells, so to speak. Is this true or an urban myth? Also, in other non-Muslim majority countries, like India for example with its 100m-plus Muslims, or France with its 10 per cent, is it miked-up? Do church bells ring in Pakistan or Egypt?
There are housing estates all over Britain that are “no go areas” due to their high crime rate.
Some of these “no go areas” are inhibited by muslims, many more, I suspect are inhabited by chavs.
What these places have in common is that they are all “dumps”.
Fortunately, the income levels of the average Sunday Telegraph reader (the paper in which the bishop made his comments), are such that they need never set foot in any of these areas.
What the bishop SHOULD have done is highlighted the problem of “religious police”. Unfortunately, the RP do not just exist in Saudi Arabia – but also on Britain’s campuses – where girls of Muslim background often get intimidated into wearing Islamic dress.
This would have been a much worthier cause for the bishop to highlight – because he could have provided specific examples – and “named and shamed” institutions which were not doing enough to protect those who wish to exercise freedom to lead a secular life.
Looking at all those depressing comments on the Telegraph blog we have to remember we are talking about the fears of many who can be described as MIDDLE ENGLANDERS. There are many many middle englanders who have genuine fears about islamism and immigration and we would be churlish to ignore that. I spend 2 weekends a month in sussex, as a black londoner many of the people I meet I would tend to describe as socially liberal. Many of these people are pissed off about hunting, the new labour emphasis on urban affairs and immigration. Many are at pains to emphasise their liberal credentials, and one thing that strikes me is their fear of Islamism. The worst thing we as liberal metropolitans is to igonore what I would call the majority
Rumbold
Firstly my apologies for ascribing your posting to Sunny.
I came across this g which supports Bishop N-A’s claim of a drive to create no-go areas.
“The worst thing we as liberal metropolitans is to igonore what I would call the majority”
Heh-heh, well I’m not sure about that – liberal metropolitans have cheerfully ignored the majority view, from immigration to hanging, for the past 50 years.
But in the same way the Gershon “reforms” of the civil service which GB initiated in 1997 are coming to roost – now where did I post that CD? – so too is the complacency of policy makers from 1950 onwards.
Isn’t the truth immigration has been a major success story for the UK? Racial harmony has, comparatively, prevailed and on the whole we have done the British thing – muddled through.
However we are beginning to pay for our complacency: the we’ll all rub along together, erm religion? CofE but i do love a curry, is challenged by a proselytising faith like Islam. Islam is loud and proud and doesn’t tug its forelock to the clear superiority of British values (what they? well you’re not supposed to ask, isn’t it self evident?!). Our leaders were so bloody sure of the clear superiority of British culture, and so bloody ignorant of any other, that they didn’t consider the implications of… competition. Now that was true racism for you.
They also seemed to forget, as many Picklers here do, that this is not a secular society. It is a Christian country, and I mean that literally. Heavens, what other country has a head of state who is also the head of their church other than Iran? Where else does the Prime Minister appoint the bishops? What other country pours so much of (my) tax money in to religious schools? You want a secular country move to FRANCE. The bishop is lambasted in the (liberal) media but I agree with other posters this is not the view of the majority – they may not go to church but neither do they have much time for sophism: by Christianity they mean their culture.
I expect that in the absence of any other ideas (like France, America, or for that matter Iran) the principal policy will be to muddle through in the English manner, although I think this also smacks of complacency: I suspect things could turn quite nasty quite quickly.
Boyo,
I was agreeing with much of your post at 66, but this grated somewhat:
Do you really think so? Church attendance is at an all time low. The Head of State, the Queen, gets her authority from some schism down to Henry the Eighth or summat and the appointment of bishops to the House of Lords is done under advisement. We have the trappings of a religious state, but they seem to me to be historical by-products and not really germane to who we are nowadays.
Boyo & Douglas Clark,
“They also seemed to forget, as many Picklers here do, that this is not a secular society. It is a Christian country, and I mean that literally. Heavens, what other country has a head of state who is also the head of their church other than Iran?”
Is that why Christopher Hitchens skipped off to America?
Well I disagree, as I said – “they may not go to church but neither do they have much time for sophism: by Christianity they mean their culture.”
A number of ideas co-exist. We are a secular society (no, this is the liberal line without any constitutional proof, like I said we’re not France, not even the US). We are under threat from Muslims (no, we are under threat from ourselves, or at least a rudderless, venal elite which can only, seemingly, stir the soup and add salt for taste).
Cash, or consumerism, is the only thing that keeps our society from real crisis – what else could the Labour materialists replace socialism with? But this is not enough.
My concern is, if they don’t come up with a new idea (a new sense of hope for our society – idea as in ideal) then someone else will, and I think it could look an awful lot like fascism. And I’m not talking Islamic.
Boyo or should I call you boyakka (dont worry we were using that one 20 years ago)
Liberal metropolitans have cheerfully ignored the majority view, from immigration to hanging, for the past 50 years.
Damn! I always thought that Britain/England would become a fascist tyranny if we implemented true democracy, the will of the people.
According to the 2001 census there are 37.3 million people in England and Wales who state their religion as Christian.
According to that census, there are also 390,127 who state their religion as Jedi.
They must take their ‘light side’ philosophy really seriously, as you very rarely hear of any drive-by light-saberings.
Soru, that’s an amusing truth under the category “No religion”:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293
‘This category included agnostics, atheists, heathens and those who wrote Jedi Knight.’
My people, the time has come!
Gibs:
“…Britain’s campuses – where girls of Muslim background often get intimidated into wearing Islamic dress.”
Please provide evidence for this if you can, which you wont for it is a a fallaciousness argument.
This is trumped by ignorant people who have no idea of the social dynamics of Muslim communities in Britain, and wish to impose a simplistic, pre-determined narrative upon certain sections of society.
The great irony is that many Muslim’s, both male and female, whilst at University face opposition from friends and family for their greater religious observance in the shape of wearing the hijab or in sporting a beard. This is something i myself witnesses as a youth, along with many, many others. However, in one sense this is inevitable, for people will make different lifestyle choices, through the process of robust debate and a lot of soul searching.
Nazir Ali isn’t worth paying much attention to… he is The Sun and Daily Mail’s favourite tool.
And Morgoth the Stupid is back!
But now sadly deleted…
Sunny:
And Morgoth the Stupid is back!
But now sadly deleted…
Lol! Morgan Freeman playing God did not have that much power, the trolls will strike back…………
Well, I suppose His Rightness was on the rota for this weeks installment of “Muslim Controversy to keep in the media”. I don’t see what ppl are surprised about, honestly.
Today on Cif…this is what Andrew Brown thinks..
“It is certainly true that some Muslims do want to see their areas run as ghettos or enclaves under sharia law – I have been told this by a Leeds MP who was approached by a group of his constituents with exactly that request”
I really love it when journalists don’t name names..and also don’t qualify their use of terminology…what part of sharia? in personal law..civil? criminal? financial?
Again, like the word “jihad” only the narrow, rather misleading definition of sharia is alluded to yet never really explained, forget about what sharia really may encompass…pisses me right off
You are right, of course. But the bottom line is that there is a perception that a lot of Muslims do want separate laws – no matter whether they are benign or only subject to specific parts of the Law – and that is just plain wrong. That pisses me from the start.
But now sadly deleted…
Which sums up Sunny in a nutshell – he deletes anything he disagrees with.
Ravi, marriage ceremonies come under shariah..does that mean if i want a muslim marriage i am in some way being unreasonable. Funerals, banking etc some of which are under personal law are things that I would want done specifically according to my own traditions..they do not infringe upon anyone and can work within existing legal systems. In fact mainstream banks have picked up on this and are providing islamic banking…is this unreasonable? is this fanatical jihadist bankers trying to undermine the Christian British way of life…puhleez…nazir ali needs to focus on the other denominators such as poverty and education that may play a part…instead of being a daily mail mouth piece
Sofia, I understand that there are certain aspects of family law that you would want conducted under Sharia Law – marriage, divorce etc. But what about inheritance of property under Sharia Law? Are you aware that a daughter can inherit only half of the inheritance due to a son, by Sharia decree? Let’s say, for the purposes of illustration, a couple have a son and a daughter. After the death of their parents, they are due the following share:
son – 50% as per his due and 25% of the other half of his sister’s = 75%
daughter – 25% as per her due.
Is that something you think is fair? Would you accept that willingly and unquestioningly?
Because the large proportion of Muslims completely ignore this “sacred” law. And rightly so. So they do their own thing – which is to formally apply secular law, and split everything down the middle to pass on to their children, irrespective of their sex. And they’ve been doing it for so long that they forget the details of Sharia laws of inheritance. And that’s even before we get to the law for the quorum of witnesses required to prosecute rape.
The law for rape..don’t even get me started..has been misinterpreted..
also inheritance law must also take into account traditional muslim societal structures…if it doesn’t then yes it does become unfair.
Eg. TRADITIONALLY – a muslim woman’s earnings/inheritance etc is her own..to spend no even on her children..a muslim man must spend for his family, including any dependent parents/siblings. Many muslim women don’t even know what their husband’s financial and domestic duties are towards them and if I mentioned them, no doubt I’d get some bloke on here saying i’ve made it all up…
Again, if this traditional structure is not adhered to, then what’s the point in adhering to inheritance laws, as the outcome of the latter one is very much dependent on the former.
Again, if this traditional structure is not adhered to, then what’s the point in adhering to inheritance laws, as the outcome of the latter one is very much dependent on the former.
Because even if all traditional laws were applied, the laws of inheritance are unfair and unworkable, as can be seen in their application in muslim-majority societies,
or rather their non-application. Some “sacred” laws should be turfed out at the earliest instance.
and again..my original point was not about inflicting shariah in total on the british muslim masses..rather about some informed debate with some set parameters..not headline making bullshit from the nazir alis of this world. There is no point in having certain aspects of shariah if the population is not willing/ready for it..therefore the debate is a non starter as it is…other aspects have happily co-existed for as long as muslims have been in this country..that includes marriage, death, birth, financial, food, customs..hardly a cause for alarm..
Sid..i disagree with you…they are not unfair if a man has to do all the providing under a traditional structure.
and muslim majority states are hardly bastions of islam…again..this is about ppl being ready for it..not the other way round
I am not sure I understand your point: religious cerimonies are obviously permitted – it does not clash with secular laws whatsoever. And your business with a private company is your own.
So, I guess the noise must be with existing secular laws that clash with shariah law, right? As a citizen you have the right – as a politician or an activist – to work for laws to be changed that you find unfair. But the idea that you want separate laws according to religion sounds too divisive and tribal. Again, most people follow religious rituals for marriage, death, birth – not just Muslims – so if secular laws are good for religious non-muslims, then it should for muslims as well. Right?
I guess my question stems from ignorance: what do Muslims want to do that are not allowed by British Law?
Sofia,
It won’t happen to the extent you want because:
1. Its a slippery slope
2. You will never convince the majority of Brits that Islam isn’t an oppressive mysogynists charter
3. We are not going to introduce a set of laws that makes a section of British female citizens second class in their own country. It just feels like going back 400 + years rather then embracing a new century.
And more to the point, why should British Muslims get special, divisive treatment like that?
Why do you want to Balkanise the Country?
Do you have any idea how actually quite terrifying many Brits find that idea? That Northern Ireland writ large could come to the mainland but with reactionary islam vs the rest…….
Sid..i disagree with you…they are not unfair if a man has to do all the providing under a traditional structure.
The societies in which men provided for everything are shown to developmentally challenged, since they have failed to include women into the workforce. If “sacred” laws are used to keep women out of the workforce, that’s even more reason to avoid Sharia implementation. MOst muslim-majority states haven’t had the stomach to implement full Sharia except Saudi Arabia, and rightly so.
“MOst muslim-majority states haven’t had the stomach to implement full Sharia except Saudi Arabia, and rightly so”
Yes, quite, because its medieval martial judicial opinions and belongs in history books not on the statute books…….
tch..again you didn’t actually read what i wrote..i can’t be arsed with that…
saudi does not have full sharia
tch we already get special treatment..na na na na na na…i got married twice..yippee…and guess wat..i can get an islamic bank account..whoopee doo…ugh this “discussion” once again gets stupid because ppl don’t read properly
You’re adding to my point. No country has found it fit to apply full sharia in the modern world. Even herheaded Muslim-posturing ones like Iran and Pakistan. They turn pragmatic at the last instance and realise that some of the laws, inheritance for instance, are simply inappliable except for a small society of ardent followers living in 7th century Yathrib.
Well looks like Nazir-Ali got what he wanted. Instead of him being put on the spot to justify his ill-founded comments, we are discussing laws of inheritance, and all things Sharia.
For me Nazir-Ali has nothing of substance to say, other than declare that he feels his is a losing battle as everything is loaded against him – right here in a christian land. And he is using communalist tactics to stir the ‘natives’ against muslims. His whole article is ironic. He seems to be careful in NOT making it muslim v. christian; its everyone against the muslims. The man is a coward.
I was much more impressed by his colleagues who clearly are not happy with him.
Ah, missed post 79……..
[wipes egg from face, shuffles feet somewhat uncomfortably]
If you had been making the point I thought you were then my points would have been valid though. But you weren’t.
I am somewhat stunned by this:
“they are not unfair if a man has to do all the providing under a traditional structure”
If we are talking about inheriting from a widows perspective then she faces the same household costs
and is legaly and socially disadvantaged by islamic society from working and inheriting. Not good at all. Witness the absolutely horrifying conditions that widows under the Taliban faced, as an example.
From a daughters perspective it is also rubbish but thats on the basis that men and women are absolutely equal but I appreciate that in 7th century tribal arabia this was not a common position. Now, however, this being the 21st Century can’t we all agree on gender equality throughout the law and just move on?
Isn’t it more a matter of things, currently allowed, they want to forbid themselves from doing?
you lot make me laugh…i’ve made my point and you disagree..end of…i’m not going to repeat my point for the likes of macauliffe…
just for you macauliffe..yes i love the taliban..and i want to be oppressed..not drive a car/bus/rickshaw..(because it’s against islam..)…etc etc etc…
Macaullife @ 93, Saudia Arabia attempts to applies Sharia law on its citizens, while maintaining different standards for the elite of the country. It also violates human rights and Islamic fundamentals in many of its actions as a government. This arguably makes it un-Islamic.
I suspect that most Brits think that Saudi Law = Sharia Law for muslims everywhere. This is not the case.
LOL Sofia, love your comments.
Whilst the example that Macauliffe chooses is far more then what Sofia was suggesting, I think the slippery slope argument applies. It is the end results that deeply trouble many Brits.
Whilst I appreciate you don’t want to engage in the debate regarding our hyperbole ridden examples, can you not see why Non Muslims (and indeed many Muslims) worry and fear such a slope?
Muzumdar, Sufis are orthodox Muslims into love, poetry and tantric sex for the worship of g!d. Don’t anyone tell you otherwise.
tch..yes i can see where ppl would fear it..absolutely and of course it needs to be discussed..but not in some sort of whipped up hysteria…
Sid:
“MOst muslim-majority states haven’t had the stomach to implement full Sharia except Saudi Arabia, and rightly so.”
Not sure what you mean by ‘full’ shariah…throughout the history of Islam, there has been ‘laxity’ with application in certain areas, met with a rediscovery, and then laxity again. You mentioned 7th Century Yathrib, and yes this was the Islamic model set up. However Islam developed organically, where the beliefs and values were adopted, internalized and applied individually by the believers, before being applied at a community level, i.e. sacred law with regards to inheritance, penal law etc.
The current situation in most Muslim countries is one of laxity, brought about through centuries of decline. To impose shariah from top-down has never been the method of any of the Prophets in the Qur’an, hence Muslims work individually to organise their lives within the confines of sacred law, allowing room for different interpretation within the realm of jurisprudence.
With regards to inheritance, I would concur with Sofia that it makes sense, great sense actually when you look at traditional society, where men had to shoulder the financial burden, and that sacred law took this into account. We must bear in mind that the concept of female inheritance did not exist in most of the world…in England, during the Middle Ages, there were even cases of men actually leaving their own wives as inheritance!!!
Actually, this would be a good point to investigate, why did Islam give women the right to inheritance, a good amount of wealth actually, when there was no need to do so, when their was no women’s liberation movement, and actually nothing really to gain politically, for in a tribal, war like society women had little influence. For a believer this demonstrates that Justice comes from the divine and is not subject to carefully considered, political calculations.
The question of whether such laws should be followed now, well at present it is possible for parents to completely omit all their children or some from their inheritance, hence for Muslims to adopt this model, voluntarily should not be a problem, both legally and politically.
I would disagree with Sofia with the point of reinterpreting the laws of inheritance in light of modern society however, for, according to my understanding these are fixed, subject to alteration due to mitigating circumstances perhaps, but not to be changed as an ideal. In fact, a departure from the ‘traditional model’ and I say this in the widest possible sense, will itself cause wider social problems, which, if i go into, would classify me as being right-wing in the political spectrum.
However as i have mentioned, i don’t see a problem with something like this being adopted voluntarily by people. People do, from all persuasion, both religion and non-religious choose to organise their lives in particular ways, that is the inevitable part of living in liberal society.
As for having parallel laws, i don’t believe it will be a slippery slope, for we all have to abide by the law of the land, and if any aspect conflicts with sacred law, then it is agreed, in the main, amongst the major schools of jurisprudence that Muslims’ should obey the law of the land.
As for having parallel laws, i don’t believe it will be a slippery slope, for we all have to abide by the law of the land, and if any aspect conflicts with sacred law, then it is agreed, in the main, amongst the major schools of jurisprudence that Muslims’ should obey the law of the land.
Jumping Jehosophat! In the 21st fecking century, where we’ve been to the moon and back, and where we’re on the verge of curing cancer, and we can build machines that think, are you still arguing over even the slightest permissibility or impermissibility of something written and practisec by a bunch of backwards desert flat-earth illiterates thousands of years ago? Read some Hitchens or Dawkins and grow up!
Sorry if I seem dense, but I share Ravi’s puzzlement over what exactly a moslem might want to do which is not already perfectly legal under the existing system.
Saqib there are many aspects of islamic practice that have been kept on hold (for want of a better phrase) when the situation of a particular society was such that it would be better to do so. I did not say do away with it..just that to practice it in modern muslim societies would be unjust..as the family structure etc is very different and the men no longer “look after” the family. Where this is still the case and inheritance is divided in good faith and used in good faith then that is fine..but each case should be looked at individually…again a complex matter that cannot just be discussed here.
Don…well some rather over sexed men might want to get married more than once…
Ahhh Morgoth, it must sting to know those ‘backwards desert flat-earth illiterates’ were at least twice as smart as you, Dawkins and Hitchens put together…
*sigh*
Don,
I was going to respond to Ravi. But seeing we have been here numerous times felt it not quite worthwhile – not because of Ravi’s question, but because we have strayed from the topic.
The answer is nothing in particular. And I think Saqib alludes to it.
Moron:
“Read some Hitchens or Dawkins and grow up!”
I already have mate!
Thank you. You know if you ever do attain the ability to have a calm, rational discussion with me, you might even convince me the errors of my ways…why don’t you try.
Are you serious?
well they’d have to be seriously rich oversexed men…
I would disagree with Sofia with the point of reinterpreting the laws of inheritance in light of modern society however, for, according to my understanding these are fixed, subject to alteration due to mitigating circumstances perhaps, but not to be changed as an ideal. In fact, a departure from the ‘traditional model’ and I say this in the widest possible sense, will itself cause wider social problems, which, if i go into, would classify me as being right-wing in the political spectrum.
Yes, this is why wholesale rejection of certain sections of Sharia law on family matters (Inheritance, Adoption etc) has been the path of least resistance but also the most sucessful one. As opposed to adoption of Ijtihad to bring these aws up to currency.
Let me make an obvious point here: I am obliged to follow the law of the land, because I reside in this country and second because if I do break the law, there is a penalty.
How does that work for parallel laws? Do I need to follow them because my religion is X? What would be the penalty if I don’t follow them? This is what makes me uneasy to support laws that apply only to some people.
It is far better to have mistresses, sofia… and it is legal.
Sofia:
“I did not say do away with it..just that to practice it in modern muslim societies would be unjust..as the family structure etc is very different and the men no longer “look after” the family.”
I take your point sister, and that is why i did use the phrase on ‘mitigating circumstances’ for, to take your description of ‘put on hold’ and enhancing it with the jurisprudence principles of maslaha (greater benefit) and Mufsida (greater harm)it could be argued rationally that this is a better course of action, under certain, mitigating circumstances. I wouldn’t say it is ‘unjust’ however sister, for to apply it in Muslim societies, it actually does guarantee that females will still get a substantial amount, whereas in secular societies, parents can, and actually do at times exclude some of their children, which i would personally say is morally wrong (not unjust), though some others would dismiss it as personal choice (Still others like Johann Hari would have it most of it taxed, as ‘we haven’t earn’t it http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/johann_hari/article3043766.ece)
I would agree that the premises underpinning this debate are quite sophisticated (Islam sophisticated, nah…get away from it) and it would not be worth going into all the details here. However, what i did want to demonstrate, is that in pushing for something which is ostensibly better, the end result could be worse in a wider context. Well that, and also reading more of “Moron’s” highly urbane, articulate responses.
Thank you. You know if you ever do attain the ability to have a calm, rational discussion with me, you might even convince me the errors of my ways…why don’t you try.
I’m not interested in calm rational discussions with the mentally ill, i.e. religious, especially given the death and destruction wrought by your ilk all in the name of your imaginary friends.
Bishop Hill:
Thanks for that. I don’t think that it does support the bishop’s claims though, as it merely says that in the 1990s some older Muslims in Bradford wanted to recreate South Asian culture and laws there (with only a small mention of the younger generation). As far as I can tell, the bishop is implying something different, which is that Islamists and their followers have created ‘no-go’ areas for non-Muslims.
Ahhh Morgoth, it must sting to know those ‘backwards desert flat-earth illiterates’ were at least twice as smart as you, Dawkins and Hitchens put together…
Twice as smart? They thought the sun hid in a puddle overnight, and that Pi was equal to Three!
valid point Ravi..and if people were able to debate this openly and coherrently then this could be explored. However this is based on the assumption that the muslim communities are organised enough to do so, and also what interpretation they are following..it’s too easy to leave this debate to the intellectuals whoever they are..with no real influence at grass roots which is where the problems usually arise…
“Don…well some rather over sexed men might want to get married more than once…”
Is there anything to stop that now? You could not register the second marriage under British law, but I can’t think what there is to stop a man co-habiting with two or more women and going through a ceremony to make that religiously valid. After all, only CofE ceremonies combine legal marriage with the ceremonial of acknowledging one’s union in the presence of one’s peers.
Any more than there is anything to stop a bunch of wiccan wierdos prancing sky-clad three times around the rowan tree widdershins and declaring a group marriage of any configuration whatever.
As long as there is no coercion or deception I don’t think it would be a matter for the law. I could be wrong, of course, but if the parties concerned did not consider registering under secular law to be a necessary part of marriage, where would the problem lie?
Ravi:
“Do I need to follow them because my religion is X? What would be the penalty if I don’t follow them? This is what makes me uneasy to support laws that apply only to some people.”
There would be no penalty, if my wife, God Forbid committed adultery I wouldn’t be standing outside the Magistrates, gathering stones and pebbles to carry out divine ordinances. Sacred law is between the believer and her Creator.
To be honest, I don’t understand the concept of parallel law myself actually, for there can only be one law of the land that we all abide by. Everything else is custom, which people should have recourse to in personal matters so long as both parties agree, and it does not contravene any laws of the land. This can cover matters such as marriage, divorce disputes, financial matters.
Make it 3 times smarter, then.
Moron:
“I’m not interested in calm rational discussions with the mentally ill….”
Simple solution, stop looking into the mirror! Then you can meet other people who are not so ill.
gosh, y’all love BoreGoth the Moron as much as I do.
Sid:
“tantric sex for the worship of g!d’
Please explain more??? Okay maybe not on this forum as we may digress, may be on your blog.
Thank you Saqib and Sofia for clarifying these points. I do appreciate that.
Don…it is up to ppl to live their lives the way they want as long as they don’t break the law..so technically a muslim man could marry 4 times and not break the law here…however, this is a total abuse of the spirit of Islam..as marriage is as much about contractual obligations as it is about companionship etc etc…therefore there is no honour in being a “wife in hiding”…
‘Twice as smart? They thought the sun hid in a puddle overnight, and that Pi was equal to Three!’
Aren’t you confusing intelligence with access to knowledge provided by generations of others? Just a quibble, as I actually agree that the dead hand of ancient texts must have no power to compel the living.
Laws must be fallible, imperfect and contingent. The alternative of perfect and immutable law is too hideous to contemplate. We’re still evolving and our institutions must be able to develop with us, not lock us into a strait-jacket.
Divine law, like Divine Right, is an idea whose time has passed. Claim, if it makes you happy, that you have special knowledge of the will of your own supernatural being. But that claim gives you no right to compel or constrain others.
Sofia,
Thanks. But (again I’m quibbling) surely the contactual obligations can be met through legal contract (inheritance, property, children etc.) and the marriage would not be ‘hidden’ from those to whom it mattered if a public ceremony were performed.
Would I be right in thinking that a moslem marriage ceremony would mean that the couple were married in every way meaningful to those concerned and that the secular registration of the marriage under UK law would be a mere formality?
We’re still evolving and our institutions must be able to develop with us, not lock us into a strait-jacket.
Very true. It’s difficult to ensure complete political correctness all the time but at least we live in a relatively peaceful and tolerant society.
Nazir-Ali is displaying his tribal sympathies but aren’t we all guilty of the same thing? There were a number of prominent people who stood up and criticised Nazir-Ali. Thank God for civil society. The secular institutions here are quite strong and we should be grateful for that. I wish I could say the same thing for other places around the world but I can’t.
“…well some rather over sexed men might want to get married more than once”
Well…i think they would argue they are actually ‘undersexed’ if anything.
‘the parties concerned did not consider registering under secular law to be a necessary part of marriage, where would the problem lie?’
Who gets custody of the kids following a divorce?
I don’t think you can, as the law stands, handle it by simple contract law, as I don’t think you can set up any legally binding contract on sexual matters without falling foul of anti-prostitution laws.
There’s an ultra-libertarian view that says people should be able to sign any contracts they choose. Down that road lies slavery contracts, televised death-matches, and so on – frankly, give me the Taliban anyday…
Morgoth –
“Twice as smart? They thought the sun hid in a puddle overnight, and that Pi was equal to Three!”
I think you will find these desert dwellers were the first to work out how to navigate by the stars. As for Pi I suspect the vast majority of mankind wouldn’t have known it existed, let alone it was 3 or thereabouts. To be fair the ancient world knew it to be a bit more than 3. The Egyptians and Babylonians knew about it, the question surely is when did your predecessors realise the value of it.
I do think you are now just making things up. I am seriously wondering whether you have any expertise in astrophysics or just pointed to a website and claimed it was all your work. Otherwise you could not possibly be making the sort of claims that you do.
I am afraid I am forced to call you a fraud in addition to fascism and psychopathy.
Correct me where you can.
Refresh:
I am suspicious about that website being Moron’s, for he claimed in a thread (which was unceremoniously closed before i could reply) to me that ‘i speak my mind’ and ‘i call a spade a spade’, if that is the case, why does he hide his identity on PP, and not use his real name?
I always have more respect for people who put themselves up for who they really are, than those who hide behind the ‘burkhas’of deception.
Saqib, what are the implications of Morgoth passing himself off as someone else?
If he was impersonating someone else, would he be breaking any laws? Can you libel someone by expressing views on their behalf – without license?
This could look really interesting.
Saqib:
“I always have more respect for people who put themselves up for who they really are, than those who hide behind the ‘burkhas’ of deception.”
Um, I wear a “burkha of deception” by not using my real name when I blog…
I do think you are now just making things up. I am seriously wondering whether you have any expertise in astrophysics or just pointed to a website and claimed it was all your work. Otherwise you could not possibly be making the sort of claims that you do.
Mohammed thought the Sun hid in a muddy-pool overnight. And the Old Testament is replete with references to Pi being exactly 3.
I am afraid I am forced to call you a fraud in addition to fascism and psychopathy.
You can think what you want, “Refresh”. An anonymous liberal who has displayed all the cognitive power of a rotting avocado calling me a “fraud” and a “fascist”? Oh, how terrifying!
I am happy, for those of good faith, to supply documentary evidence to say, Rumbold, that I am the author of the Supernova Remnants FAQ and that I am indeed a smart motherfucker. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, “Refresh”.
what are the implications of Morgoth passing himself off as someone else?
In my case, it would be schizophrenia.
Pickled Politics, to a certain extent, relies on a degree of trust between its commentators. In this spirit then, I have no reason to doubt that Morgoth is the author of ‘Supernova Remnants FAQ’. Plenty of people, including myself, disagree with him on a number of issues, but that does not make him unintelligent. I think that unless someone has evidence that it was not Morgoth who wrote it, we should move on.
Saqib:
As Desi has pointed out, there are plenty of people who write under assumed names. This only matters if one person writing under an assumed name criticises another for writing under an assumed name.
#112: ‘It is far better to have mistresses, sofia… and it is legal.’
Not under Islamic law:
‘Islamic law prescribe stoning as the punishment for adultery committed by a married person, while the punishment for unmarried adulterer is one hundred lashes or being exiled for 12 months. The source for the punishment of an unmarried adulterer is the Qur’an, while the sources for the punishment of the married adulterer is found in the ahadith. [1]‘
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_%28Arabic%29
#76: ‘The law for rape..don’t even get me started..has been misinterpreted..’
Sofia, could not agree with you more. However, what’s your take on the above, regarding adultery? My sympathies are with the ‘women of the night’. Most religions, I am sure, are just as strict. I think the above only applies to Muslims though, in which case thank god ! Who knows how many lashes and years of exile some of us would have clocked up !
It is very difficult not to acknowledge his intelligence. And there is plenty of evidence for it here on PP. The fact that he is able to return to his PC time and again to pass comments (however unintelligent) is an obvious one. But by now its probably a sign of learnt behaviour.
You see that is the problem, a supposedly intelligent and sentient being that accepts and acknowledges very little beyond himself.
So Morgoth, explain how the desert dwellers developed the art of navigation? Explain also why Pi was even being thought about in ancient times?
You see Morgoth, the $500,000 spent by the taxpayer on educating you is pointless since you have no sense of knowledge how its created, pooled and built on.
As for the Supernova FAQ, please provide the supposed evidence to Rumbold. I do not accept your comments here reflect the ’superior intelligence’ of a SuperNova FAQ trainspotter*. Not any more.
Apologies to genuine trainspotters everywhere.
Rumbold:
“Pickled Politics, to a certain extent, relies on a degree of trust between its commentators. In this spirit then, I have no reason to doubt that Morgoth is the author of ‘Supernova Remnants FAQ’. Plenty of people, including myself, disagree with him on a number of issues, but that does not make him unintelligent. I think that unless someone has evidence that it was not Morgoth who wrote it, we should move on.”
True…but most of us are also aware that there are people, one person in particular, who posts using different pseudonyms, resulting as it did in an entire thread being closed – this was the unfortunate result of such actions.
I am sure most people here want to have a genuine debate and are willing and able to engage in robust debate. Therefore for as long as Morgoth hides, in my view, the less credibility he/she has in my eyes. But that is only my opinion.
Desi Italiana:
Well not quite, as you do have a blog where you do articulate your views.
The substantive point which i was alluding to, about deception, is that the most disruptive people here, who kill debate through having threads closed, hide, as they themselves would not want to be associated with their own outlandish and arrogant views.
But by now its probably a sign of learnt behaviour.
Actually, its because I love winding up pavlovian liberals such as yourself.
So Morgoth, explain how the desert dwellers developed the art of navigation? Explain also why Pi was even being thought about in ancient times?
That’s a strawman and does not address the point in hand – which is that in the 21st century, there are large swathes of people who insist that 7th century mythologies are superior to modern science. I personally have family members who insist that mental illness is caused by….demons.
And if you really want to know about the development of navigation, its touched upon in depth in the excellent Cambridge History Of Astronomy series by Michael Hoskin. Anything by Anthony Aveni is also highly recommended (but stay clear of pseudoscientific gibberish like Hancock or Bauval). And for Rumbold, “An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics” is extremely highly recommended.
Refresh:
“Saqib, what are the implications of Morgoth passing himself off as someone else?
If he was impersonating someone else, would he be breaking any laws? Can you libel someone by expressing views on their behalf – without license?”
Well, I think Jeremy Clarkson has found to his cost what it is alla bout.
It is a very good point, if someone used my work and identity in this way I would definitely consult the authorities, as it would be identity theft.
Saqib:
But Morgoth does not change identities too much (though he did first appear on this site as ‘Bleh’, before revealing himself to be the Morgoth of Harry’s Place).
He is not really hiding- how would it help if you knew his real name? I write under a pseudonym, and I feel that I can have plently of discussions with people with needing to know their details.
Morgoth:
Thanks for the link- I shall read it in full when I have a bit more time.
Are we approaching the end of the CountDown theme that signifies the moment BoreGoth plays the race card and shrilly proves the Godwins Law yet?
Morgoth, then why don’t you say that?
Why don’t you acknowledge that your understanding of Pi is based on their work? That navigation in the desert and the high seas is their work?
And that your understanding of modern science is based on the philosophies and thirst for knoweledge of the desert dwellers?
Why don’t you use your intellect, which presumably knows no bounds, to make the link between modern science and the early work of the desert dwellers?
Given you are so widely read, why don’t you tell us about the differences between the comparative development of science in Europe, the desert dwellers, rest of the world over time.
In fact if you would just get out of your cave, I would happily support you writing a learned piece for us to look at and marvel at your knowledge. Can’t promise I would not then, try to understand what went missing – assuming the article itself is of value.
That would be a fascinating debate.
Parvinder…
Again with adultery you need to have 4 witnesses to the act..I place emphasis on the word “act”…
therefore, sitting in a car with a married man is not adultery..i won’t go into the whole thing about being alone with a man in the first place as it belongs with the whole can women work/shake a man’s hand “debate”..ie one i can’t be arsed to talk about because it’s so boring.
Each case of so called adultery would have to be taken as an individual case..with everything being taken into account. As for stoning..again..different schools of thought on this one, when it comes to implementation…so yes…iran might practise it..although they prefer hanging…again questionable, but I would like to say that society has to fundamentally change for something like this to be enforced…if at all. This is similar to my reasoning of looking at inheritance laws also..I don’t personally agree with stoning ppl to death for adultery…i am a product of my time…and therefore I know that if the hysteria bandwagon wasn’t so far away, reasoned debate within muslim communities would have the chance to look at islamic law in the context of our modern world.
You are making a caricature of religion and science. I have never met in my life a scholar or a scientist that made fun of our ancestors in regards to their scientific (or lack of) skills. So they believed that PI was 3. At least they realised that there was a constant ratio between the circle’s circumference and its diameter. And it would be very hard for our ancestors to compute the number considering it is an irrational one, which means the decimal expansion never ends or repeats.
There is a clear line between religion and science. It seems that people like you who are anti-religious and consider anyone with faith as demented, and the religious nutcases who want to abolish science, do not respect that line. All of you belong to the lunatic fringe, and should never be allowed to be a part of the mainstream.
Take the challenge Morgoth, it’ll help you connect.
You are making a caricature of religion and science. I have never met in my life a scholar or a scientist that made fun of our ancestors in regards to their scientific (or lack of) skills.
Neither am I. Read what I actually wrote. I am objecting to people NOW who insist on taking stuff written thousands of years ago as somehow superior to our current knowledge. Mohammed thought the Earth was flat, yet some 1500 years before, Homer knew that the Earth was round. And yet there are hundreds of millions of people worldwide that somehow view Muhammed as more of a role model NOW than Homer!
And it would be very hard for our ancestors to compute the number considering it is an irrational one, which means the decimal expansion never ends or repeats..
Its not hard at all. By 2000 BC, both the Egyptians and the Babylonians knew it to within 1% of its value. But irrational (no pun intended) idiots NOW are following a holy book which gives the value of 3.
Given you are so widely read, why don’t you tell us about the differences between the comparative development of science in Europe, the desert dwellers, rest of the world over time.
Why should I? Go read up on any number of books which can tell you all about it in great detail. I’d be happy to point you to relevant books in your library or on Amazon.
In fact if you would just get out of your cave, I would happily support you writing a learned piece for us to look at and marvel at your knowledge.
I am currently in the process of writing an addendum to my Supernova Remnants FAQ rebutting new Creationist claims about the age of the Cygnus Loop (the SNR in Cygnus that is commonly known as the Veil Nebula)*. I’d be more than happy to share it with you when its done. I’d even be pleased if you were part of the peer-review process that needs to be done on it before its accepted on talkorigins.org
* To understand the lastest Creationist claims you need to know two things about Supernova Remnants:
1) They are generally partially modelled, through part of their lifetime at least, using the Sedov-Taylor solution for Blast Wave expansion from Fluid Dynamics. Obviously such expansion is dependent upon the background medium in which Supernova Remnents occur (generally ionized hydrogen in most regions of Interstellar space).
2) Various methods have been found to relate the various inherent parameters of Supernova Remnants – such as Age, Diameter, Apparent Surface Brightness and such like. One of these is the so-called “Sigma-D” reationship between diameter and observed Radio Surface Brightness. This is controversial amongst researchers, and only seems to apply to certain sub-categories of Remnants, due to the extreme topological variation (to say the least!) between SNRs.
What the Creationists are now arguing is that is both Sigma-D is applicable to all SNRs, and that the Interstellar Medium is galaxy-wide much more vacuous than we’ve measured, using the Cygnus Loop as a prime example (the distance, and thus the age of the Cygnus Loop was recently recalculated as new measurements from the HST became available), hence somehow (and this is like putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5474374359754397543543) claiming all supernova Remnants are less than 6000 years old (which is utter bollocks of course)
Nice to see you are NOW trying to be a bit clearer.
“Mohammed thought the Earth was flat” – not aware of that. What I am aware of that is he was very clear that ‘ilm’, knowledge was most important and he encouraged everyone to seek it from wherever they could. Hence the big push to capture as much as they could of Greek literature and beyond. And in time passed it on to you – via Latin of course.
‘Peer-Review’ – no I couldn’t possibly. I am already struggling. You are better off with people far more knowledgeable on the subject than me.
You should not shy away – you should do a piece. I would be very interested. I have my own perspective on development of science, you clearly have another. And I am willing to read and try to understand what you have to say.
@morgoth:
normally i quite enjoy your posts, albeit i wish you’d be less self-righteous and insulting, but i really must ask you to justify this statement:
if this is true (which, to my knowledge, it isn’t) then please supply me with at least one of these references and i *promise* you i will go and look it up, investigate and come back and explain what is going on. as it is, i think you’re repeating something someone told you somewhere.
incidentally, i’m a creationist, but i don’t see why that means evolution is wrong – and i’ve read plenty of dawkins and hitchens (who doesn’t check the facts of his canards either). i don’t have a lot of time for so-called “intelligent design” and i *particularly* don’t have any time for idiots who take the Creation part of genesis literally, when it is manifestly obvious that it’s not. how, for example, are there to be three “days” before the sun and moon were created?
b’shalom
bananabrain
Muhammed peace be upon him..did not think the world was flat..doh
First Book of Kings, BB, for example:
(1 Ki 7:23 NIV) He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.
BB, I grew up in a fundamentalist christian household, I experienced these things first hand. Its nothing to do with anything anyone told me. It was a first-hand demonstration of the mental illness that right-hand-path religions bestrow upon their unfortunate victims.
Muhammed peace be upon him..did not think the world was flat..doh
Wrong. See Sura 18:83-86 for where that vile robber baron thought the Sun set in a “muddy pool”.
Quran 79: 30…
morgoth..you really are repulsive..instead of debating properly..you turn to insult ppl and their beliefs in a nasty way..i may not like what you say, but you could have a bit more respect..at least i don’t insult your views..
Sura 88:17-20
Sofia, to quote Stephen Fry: “You’re offended? So fucking what?”
Why should your beliefs be immune from criticism and mocking?
Morgoth:
Nice to see you are actually reading the Qur’an!
morgoth..you’ve used that line before…
and that website you quoted..i don’t go to..since it has a lot of stuff which is wrong..at least check your sources
bananabrain: he’s probably talking about 1 Kings 7:23
And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
Reading that as a statement about PI is one of the few anti-deist arguments that actually manages the tricky feat of being more eye-bleedingly stupid than young earth creationism.
Rumbold:
As you can see…this is my point about Moron, if he really is as ‘hard’ as he proclaims, why does he not put his real name to his posts…because he knows he will look like an imbecile.
I wonder if he speaks to his work colleagues, his family and friends in this manner.
Sofia, you have to understand that like Dawkins, Hitchens et. al Morgoth has an astoundingly huge inferiority complex w.r.t. religion and intelligence. No need to get worked up about it. It is like a stimulus for him. He needs to exercise the typical requirement to insult and be a general [insert whatever you think is appropriate here].
Its always wise to know your enemies, Saqib.
I’ve also read the Bible, most of the Talmud (the latter was like reading the Silmarillion, minus the good bits), the Communist Manifesto, Mao’s Little Red Book, parts of Das Kapital and chunks of The Turner Diaries and Mein Kampf (reading those last two were particularily tough going). All, along with Quran, manuals of genocide, slavery and sheer utter darkness.
Fascinating link Morgoth. Didn’t understand a word it said. As Sofia says, check your sources.
And perhaps ask that site is peer-reviewed as well.
and that website you quoted..i don’t go to..since it has a lot of stuff which is wrong..at least check your sources.
I see Morton’s Demon has another victim.
The simple facts of the matter, Sofia, is that you follow a religion that has no place whatsoever in the future of the human race.
I’m not at all worked up..I just find it sad really…
“Its always wise to know your enemies, Saqib.”
What enemies Morgoth? You are back to the whole human race to be against you.
Reach out man.
Reach out to mentally-ill delusional idiots who have cursed this planet for thousands of years with murderous pissing contents over whose imaginary friend has the biggest penis?
They should all be quarantined and sterilised until they grow up and start accepting reality.
the PI and flat-earth accusations look like desperate cribs straight from the BoreGoth’s gang of mutual masturbators on Little Green Footballs.
Speaking of mentally-ill delusional idiots…
straight outta dorset!
Again, Morgoth, the Bible is a collection of books written a long time ago, which alludes to historic events, law, ethics, science as well as religion. It does contain mistakes. That is why most Christians do not take it literally, and will never use 3 as PI – nice try Morgoth, but again like everything you write, you are just drawing a caricature.
However, the Bible and other religious books cover topics that will never be covered by Science. In that sense, there is no point in saying that one knowledge is superior than the other. They can complement each other as long as you respect the line that exists between the physical and the metaphysical.
Science does not explain everything. It tells us that for every effect there is a cause, and that in nature nothing is lost nor created, but transformed. The idea of God – the creator of everything – complements science. But religion should be kept out science, and science out of religion. Creationism should never ever be part of science.
yada yada yada
that was to morgoth’s little petulant rant
re: pi
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm
Don, that’s Special Pleading to say the very least.
Good one Ravi, but I suspect MongGoth is the mirror-image of the brittle-mined, literalist religous freaks, but without the self-effacing nature the little charmers are endowed with.
Good link Don.
Morgoth:
“’Ive also read the Bible, most of the Talmud (the latter was like reading the Silmarillion, minus the good bits), the Communist Manifesto, Mao’s Little Red Book, parts of Das Kapital and chunks of The Turner Diaries and Mein Kampf (reading those last two were particularily tough going). All, along with Quran, manuals of genocide, slavery and sheer utter darkness.”
A bit like your posts, which are full of such fine wholesome manners and your love and compassion for your fellow human beings(witnessed in full glory here) http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1621).
Why waste effort on those who aren’t worthy, Saqib? Nature doesn’t.
Indeed, why waste the effort?
Indeed.
Morgoth:
“Why waste effort on those who aren’t worthy, Saqib? Nature doesn’t.”
Is that why you are on this forum along with those, who, in your opinion are not worth it. Still I understand, must be difficult to have and maintain loving relationships.
Six years of post-9/11 hysteria, a diet of Little Green Footballs and JihadWatch, a lifetime of bad hygiene, the result of a loss of genetic diversity as a result of inbreeding. What do you expect Saqib?
Is that why you are on this forum along with those, who, in your opinion are not worth it.
Because I like winding liberals up. Its so easy.
And people might learn something about Supernova Remnants.
Still I understand, must be difficult to have and maintain loving relationships.
Not really. I’m in a long term relationship. Have been in many. *shrug*.
*shrug*
Moron:
“Not really. I’m in a long term relationship. Have been in many. *shrug*.”
Well, they obviously can’t be that long if you have had many!!!
Rather proves my point, thank you. lol
btw continue to embarrass yourself, i’m sure we will be very ‘liberal’ with our laughter.
Your link actually shows that you are writing in bad faith, and not responding directly to Don’s link. Why did this happen? Because the Bible never alluded to the calculation of PI, but rather the making of a bowl. And honestly, you could have picked several Bible references that are scientifically wrong, but you had to pick one which is quite popular in anti-Christian sites.
Which just proves that your “knowledge” only comes from websites that lie, distort and demonise a particular group. One such group – that I got familiar recently – are anti-semites who use fabricated and out of context Talmud quotes to demonise Jewish people. According to your pattern, I am sure that your knowledge of the Talmud (#164) comes from those sites.
“Because I like winding liberals up. Its so easy.”
Excellent. I too enjoy the reparte, it would enhance the experience if you also threw in some facts.
As for the Supernova Remants, I think you’ll struggle to get many takers when your grip of the facts (perhaps even reality) in other spheres is patently weak.
Adieu
Upcoming: Your list of Crimes of Passion.
Actually, Don, my link (and the comments therein especially) shows that theists have to resort to ridiculous whataboutery and massive amounts of special pleading. The plain facts of the matter is that the circumference of a circular bowl CANNOT be thirty cubits when the diameter is ten. No amount of justification can change this.
The Talmud is a piece of utter drivel. One reason I have (and still am) more favouribly inclined to Jews than other theists is that they’ve never engaged in murderous rampages based upon their holy books, unlike other theists who have rampaged across the globe murdering hundreds and hundreds of millions in the name of their deities (whither Yahweh, Allah, Stalin, Mao, Hilter or whatever). But they are still utterly wrong and backward, just like the other theists.
And one day, the Talmud, along with the other books I’ve mentioned, will be nothing but long-forgotten historical curiosities.
And Refresh, liberals and religous nuts ain’t particularly au fait with facts. Liberalism is just another religion, after all. Take the SNR stuff as you find it – you might learn something – and if you do, there is hope for you, no matter how small it may be.
Liberalism is just another religion
So is group-sex with a bunch of fat, goateed IT geeks and calling it Satanism.
Refresh:
Yes, I am also waiting for that list. What I also want to know is how did he arrive at the 5% figure. Oh I know, he must have read it in the SUN, right, that’s perhaps is only real connection with astrophysics.
jeez…what is this..the school boy debating society..why don’t we just leave little morgoth alone…till he says something sensible
Mental health woes is the new spectator sport, Sofia.
The world has Britney, PP has Mongy.
i know…is this the blog version?
What I also want to know is how did he arrive at the 5% figure
It was a guestimate, as I said at the time. I’m of the position that people like Sara Thornton and Joseph McGrail weren’t guilty of anything.
Sofia:
Debating, I don’t think he knows of the word, perhaps ‘baiting’ would be more apt. I do feel sorry for poor Morgoth, it’s obvious he has a big chip on his shoulder, and he feels he can’t express himself without being condemned, however he should have more confidence in himself and his views; if he can’t argue back, no worries, no one is going to rob him of his right-wing orientation.
Saqib, I don’t actually care, to be honest what others think. Facts aren’t about a popularity contest. I come here because there are many people who I really enjoy winding up, and who are incredibly easy to wind up. But I always stay relevant to the subject, and I don’t use multiple identities, and I am not disruptive.
I have learned a thing or two from certain posters I do rate quite highly.
I happen to think the responses to me are rather revealing mind you.
And I’m not really right-wing, either. The one political group of people I despise more than liberals are paleocons.
Lets leave off IT Geeks and Britney.
Moron:
“Liberalism is just another religion, after all”
Yes, Locke, Mill, Bentham et al are the Prophets of doom, calling all believers to rigid readings of the holy scriptures of ‘Tolerance’ and ‘Two Treatises of Government’. Must all eschew the evils of this superstitious belief system, and return back to the Enlightenment project, and place the reactionary, imperialist, social Darwinist, right-wing ideology at the zenith of human aspiration.
“I come here because there are many people who I really enjoy winding up”
It seems the list has grown exponentially over the last couple of months.
By the way I do enjoy your pithy little interventions. Excuse my lisp.
Dear Mongo, you haven’t uttered a single fact the whole time you’ve posted on PP. Its mostly been a mix of putridly offensive opinions based on spurious interpretations of second hand bullshit.
Moron:
“Saqib, I don’t actually care, to be honest what others think.”
Well, you clearly do, otherwise you wouldn’t be here. As I am writing this post, there you must be, thinking, pondering how to reply top the other bloggers.
And if we really do believe that you do so, because you enjoy ‘winding up liberals’, well, clearly it shows you have limited outlets to amuse yourself…sad, quite sad.
Saqib, I had more in mind the high priests of Fabianism who have progressively highjacked the word “liberal” since the post-war period.
P.s. Refresh, the ultimate IT Geekery website
you haven’t uttered a single fact the whole time you’ve posted on PP. Its mostly been a mix of putridly offensive opinions based on spurious interpretations of second hand bullshit.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Oh the Irony.
Sid, you are singularily the worst waste of oxygen I’ve ever encountered. There are dust particles in the Oort Cloud that have more worth than you.
Morgoth:
“I have learned a thing or two from certain posters I do rate quite highly.”
Okay, well that is good to hear.
“And I’m not really right-wing, either. The one political group of people I despise more than liberals are paleocons.”
Depends how you define matters, judging by your views on the crime thread I would say your leanings were in that direction. Mind you, I’m not a liberal either, though perhaps some of my ideas may be tinged with the liberal light.
Well, you clearly do, otherwise you wouldn’t be here. As I am writing this post, there you must be, thinking, pondering how to reply to the other bloggers.
I enjoy a good barney. But its primarily boredom.
I think I am getting bored now.
Somebody kill the thread.
Not before we all congratulate ourselves on being such a nice, auti-submissive bunch of appeasing immigrants in dealing with Mongo as representative of the Man.
Depends how you define matters, judging by your views on the crime thread I would say your leanings were in that direction.
Ask me about abortion. Or drug legalisation and rehabilitation. Or free trade. Or education. Or the Environment. Or the homeless. I’m possibly the complete opposite to most Conservative policies on all those subject areas.
On crime, yes, I happen to think the primarily purpose of prison should be about vengance and punishment. and I do indeed support the death penality under certain circumstances.
Morgoth:
“I enjoy a good barney. But its primarily boredom.”
I enjoy a bit of banter myself, every now and then. Do you blog elsewhere?
Consider yourself congratulated.
Now someone please flick the switch.
Morgoth:
“Ask me about abortion. Or drug legalisation and rehabilitation. Or free trade. Or education. Or the Environment. Or the homeless. I’m possibly the complete opposite to most Conservative policies on all those subject areas.”
Okay, where can I access your thoughts on these areas, have you a blog?
On crime, I would agree with you up to a point.
See link in title. I’m sporadic blogger at best, alas.
In the next few weeks I’m hoping to get posts on the literary history of the Necronomicon and then one on Ayn Rand and the cult of Objectivism up.
Morgoth:
Great, look forward to it.
I’m having a look at your blog, interesting stuff, I think i’ll carry some of the discussions forward their.
People, enough already.
More civility please.
TCH
does anyone remember these two? just wondering
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN7y0Sb0s6Y
Nice find El Cid
Morgoth #190
‘… theists have to resort to ridiculous whataboutery and massive amounts of special pleading…’
Couldn’t agree more, as a matter of fact I check Pharyngula most days and comment once in a while. But I like to be reasonably sure that all the available evidence goes into the pot, even when it favours the other side. I’m no mathematician but the chap’s sums do seem to add up. Nor is it special pleading to point out that a description of a bowl is not a mathematical text and that using round figures in such a description is unremarkable.
As Ravi pointed out, it was an odd example to choose to make your point. AFIK, no-one outside of the evidently lunatic fringe is claiming that pi = 3 because the bible says so, so how does this support your claim that believers reject science in favour of antique revelations?
(They frequently do, of course, but the pi question is not an example of that. There were far better and more contemporary examples you could have chosen.)
I hope this thread is not closed down, I’m enjoying it.
B’brain,
Creationist? There must be a definition of the word with which I am unfamiliar, as you are clearly neither a slack-jawed yoke nor a posturing montebank.
I know that many people see no contradiction between evolution and a deity but calling that creationism is rather confusing. ( My own view is that while evolution does not necessarily exclude the concept of a deity, there is no particular reason why it should include it.)
yokel.
mountebank.
Damn typos, I just realised that the last two comments make it look as though I am being randomly insulting.
gosh, that’s interesting. but i’ve never come across anyone who used it for maths! i mean, there are loads of measurements in Tanakh, but what an odd way to approach the Text. ok, i had a quick internet search and, guess what! surprise surprise, there are a number of sites which suggest ways in which both statements could be true without violating the laws of geometry. here’s one for starters (btw, i am not endorsing the site or its creators, who are probably a bunch of literalist christians, but if even they can work out a way to understand this verse i’m sure it’s not beyond the wit of man) which even has a picture!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/pi.asp
and, apparently, rambam (maimonides) came up with the following explanation: “the ratio [we know as pi] cannot be known. since it is impossible to arrive at a perfectly accurate ratio, they assumed a round number…”. so at any rate, he knew you couldn’t work out the number exactly.
i believe there’s a set of clever-dick mathematical proofs based on the hebrew word for “line” which is mentioned in the verse which comes up with a quite close approximation to pi, as well, here:
http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel/bpi/bpi.html
either way, it doesn’t seem to be a problem unless you want it to be.
and, morgoth, you claim to have “read” the talmud. how on earth did you manage that? it’s a) enormous and b) not something you read, but something you study. you might as well say you read the encyclopaedia britannica (albeit the talmud is a lot bigger, 60 volumes to be precise). people spend decades reading this stuff. i am very early on in my studies and i’ve barely got through one tractate. for anyone that is interested, an excellent way to get a handle on the thought of the talmud is abraham cohen’s “everyman’s talmud”
( http://www.amazon.com/Everymans-Talmud-Major-Teachings-Rabbinic/dp/0805210326 ) which is, incidentally, far more readable even than the silmarillion (which i enjoy every so often, incidentally). nonetheless, you seem, on the basis of your vast knowledge, to have concluded that it is “utter drivel”. of course, i must defer to your evident understanding of the text.
it seems to have lasted nearly 1500 years so far and is studied daily by a couple of million people. i’d say it wasn’t going anywhere any time soon, seeing as how the practice of judaism depends on one’s understanding of it.
and, frankly, i couldn’t be bothered to take offence at you, because you haven’t the first clue about how to wind me up. anyone can swear and call someone else names, it doesn’t actually constitute criticism. although i also quote stephen fry on this subject, that doesn’t mean i can’t have a more interesting discussion if i approach it in order to learn something.
b’shalom
bananabrain
“I hope this thread is not closed down, I’m enjoying it.”
You can have too much of a good thing.
*bows* ithenkyow. what i mean is that it all had to start somehow and nobody in science has yet been able to get back further than a couple of nanoseconds into the beginning of the big bang or whatever it was. however, i don’t view the genesis account of Creation, the ma’aseh bereishith as a literal text, but a fiendishly complicated mystical one. so, therefore, G!D Started the ball rolling, as it were, but didn’t, as far as i can tell, feel the need to plant fake dinosaur skeletons, deary me. there’s no possible reason why G!D couldn’t have designed something like the process of evolution if we can come up with a decent model of it ourselves. NB: don’t mistake this for supporting those intelligent design charlatans, G!D Is perfectly able to flip the first domino in the full Knowledge that billions of years later consciousness will show up without any need to actually decide to constantly tweak the Divine Plan in order to include stuff like earlobes. from a Divine PoV, of course, time is meaningless, so this is all simultaneous in any case.
yeah, i know what you mean. evolution certainly doesn’t require a deity as far as i understand it, but clever old G!D to cover up the Divine Footprints, eh? you’re probably right, though, creationism is far too tainted a label for me to wish to be associated with it.
b’shalom
bananabrain
‘… probably a bunch of literalist christians…’
Probably? AIG probably a bunch of literalist christians? Strewth, they are a nest of bug-eyed, slavering moon-bats.
If tackled in good faith there is no reason why religion and science should not converge, asymptotically speaking. Includes so called creationism (and I don’t mean the politically motivated variety experienced by the US fundamentalists).
precisely, refresh.
hur, hur, hur. i thought they probably were. but i liked the picture all the same. and if a nest of bug-eyed, slavering moon-bats can come up with a decent way out of this complete non-issue then i hardly see any reason for *me* to worry.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Ha! I had just started to type “Morgoth, are you by any chance a fan of Ayn Rand?” and I hadn’t even seen what he said about Objectivism at page 215.
Refresh,
Asymptotically?
Don’t bring bloody quarks into this. I’m operating at the outer limits of my maths as it is.
However the problem with NOMA and the general idea of ‘Hey, we can all just get along.’ approach to science and religion is that, as Livia said in the Sopranos, ‘Some people just don’t wanna.’
Gould was a gentleman to his fingertips and may have thought he had devised a mutually acceptable accomodation, but religion (viz. Abrahamic, I suspect Hinduism and Sikhism may differ)has never and will never willingly allow science to go where it will.
I’m with Dawkins on this, as long as religion makes truth claims about the nature of the universe it is necessary to challenge these claims and hold them to scrutiny.
Don
“Asymptotically?”, I threw that in for Morgoth.
“Gould was a gentleman to his fingertips and may have thought he had devised a mutually acceptable accomodation, but religion (viz. Abrahamic, I suspect Hinduism and Sikhism may differ)has never and will never willingly allow science to go where it will.”
I would argue this is an incorrect reading of history. Science came out of religion, in search of God. In search of truth, in attempting to prove the word of God. That used to be the rational element of religion. Science is the search for truth.
This does not necessarily mean religion, Rome in particular (by that you can read ‘organised religion’), did not attempt to suppress findings when it did not suit their political objectives.
“I’m with Dawkins on this, as long as religion makes truth claims about the nature of the universe it is necessary to challenge these claims and hold them to scrutiny.”
When done in good faith. Any other position is fraudulent.
In fact I do wonder what Dawkins is about and who he really speaks for and to.
By that I meant that Dawkins clearly doesn’t seem to be addressing anyone else other than his own.
Don,
First and foremost, mad props to you for finding an excuse to use the word “mountebank”. I’ve been waiting for months to try to find a way to sneak it in somewhere, but you got there first, dammit.
How would that make this thread different to any others where Sid, Morgoth and (usually) Mazumdar are involved ?
Just kidding
Well, sort of. Their mutually-baiting banter is always amusing and entertaining to read; major differences of opinion between them aside, there are some very smart and very funny people here. Everyone concerned is obviously more than capable of giving as good as they get, so kudos to them for that.
Yes.
******************
Incidentally, before Morgoth lends himself to being tarred & feathered any further on PP, it may be worthwhile for him to remember that there are other religious texts in the world which he has not read and didn’t include in his list above. I would suggest that he explores these scriptures (and the lives & actions of the individuals who wrote them) first before engaging in blanket condemnations of “theists” per se being “mentally ill” and generally destructive influences in human society.
Also, there are — and always have been — plenty of devout Christians, Muslims, Jews etc who have been extremely positive and enlightened people, whilst still simultaneously being very religious (according to whatever their interpretations of their respective religions were). Being devout and being a decent, humane person aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive concepts.
Jai
“Being devout and being a decent, humane person aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive concepts.”
I am sure you don’t mean them to come across as exceptional, when in fact they are the majority.
bananabrain in #226.
Nice to see someone post a Duck Soup/Groucho Marx reference. My total and undying respect.
“If tackled in good faith there is no reason why religion and science should not converge, asymptotically speaking. Includes so called creationism”
I usually try very, very hard to be careful of not offending the religiously inclined, but really, WHY should reconciling religious narratives with science be a major focal point? I know that some of you might believe that “God’s word” is something divine and True, but I am sorry, I don’t. I see religions as narratives to help explain things (which science does as well, except with actual evidence)as well as providing socio-cultural mores. I do not see why we should have to try and marry it to science, ie arguing that “evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive). It’s like trying to “scientifically” explain storks bringing babies and making that agreeable with sexual intercourse, fertilization, etc.
Revel in the nice stories about Genesis, Adam and Eve, Brahma and the creation of the world, blah blah blah, but recognize that they are all myths (again, sorry if I offend anyone, but it is my personal belief) and at least with science, we have more to try and piece together explanations, albeit flawed.
(nice thing about scientists vs. priests or whatever else religious figures is that scientists actually tell you– very insistently– that theirs are just THEORIES, we don’t know much yet, but from this that we know, we can somewhat surmise this).
Again, apologies in advance about offending folks, but I had to say what I think. Also, I’m really fucking tired of religious discussions, and I have to admit that it never ceases to amaze me that people still take religions literally, that they are so tied to religion, and that it’s so important to them– especially in this day in age.
“(nice thing about scientists vs. priests or whatever else religious figures is that scientists actually tell you– very insistently– that theirs are just THEORIES, we don’t know much yet, but from this that we know, we can somewhat surmise this).”
I should add that we should ALSO be skeptical of science as well, and especially scientists who are dubious, lying, etc.
Have to be skeptical with everyone and everything, you know?
But from my experience in science and extensive interviews with scientists for all sorts of research, it is a protocol in the science community to be VERY careful about every single minute detail, be extremely diligent with research, and the scientists I’ve dealt with are extremely hesitant to make large claims, or absolute arguments.
Desi, the genesis of this discussion wasn’t really about religion. It was more to do with how easily people dismiss alternative perspectives and do it with dishonest fervour. Worse (or perhaps amusingly), delve freely in halfbakery.
Sid,
bows* ithenkyow
Gotcha,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Askey
“Desi, the genesis of this discussion wasn’t really about religion.”
What is the Genesis, then?
“What is the Genesis, then?”
Morgoth!
I think this is where the thread peters out…?
Lets hope so.
Dammit– I always arrive when the fun starts to fizzle out and people began leaving the party…
I would argue the opposite: that for religious people it is important to reconcile with science so that the narratives do not conflict. The last thing you want is religious fanatics who dismiss science because of their strict interpretation of religious scriptures: their stance against evolution is an example of this. Which is particularly silly considering that evolution could be seen as a tool for creationism.
Questions about after-life, the origin of everything, are topics that science does not answer. So, religion should be about narratives that science cannot explain or does not touch (morals, ethics, good, evil).
That is a pretty good point.
Off topic. There is one story that involves: cricket, Australians, Indians, racism, and a twist… are PP bloggers sleeping?
And the proposal to abolish of the Blasphemy Law, which is a curiosity that makes a mockery of Britain as a secular state.
Ravi @ 247,
That was a pretty good point too. I like the reconciliation bit.
We’d agree on that, I think, what we’d not agree on is religious folk lying….nor scientists. We need to get a grip on that.
there’s also a story that i emailed the management yesterday which i thought had everything: the aspirations of ordinary Indians, the growth of Indian industry, and global green issues. ah well.
Ravi:
“I would argue the opposite: that for religious people it is important to reconcile with science so that the narratives do not conflict. The last thing you want is religious fanatics who dismiss science because of their strict interpretation of religious scriptures: their stance against evolution is an example of this.”
Very very true; out of frustration, I didn’t see this rational point.
But again, my question is why, why, why do religious folks WANT to be religious? Why is religion so very important to them? I know I am being mean when I say this, but I see religion as a crutch which people lean on for various comforts: identity, rationality, guidance, etc. I know this is an unfair characterization to make, but everyone that I have ever known who is religious (for some reason, I tend to attract lots of religious minded people) and/or placed an emphasis on it have always struck me as not really… thinking independently or recognizing universal values that all people share. Like, they need to be told that you do this and that (and often, those restrictions are more unnecessary than not) and it’s not ok for them to know that there are certain things that we don’t have answers for, and that is ok, not everything is black and white, clean cut, good vs. bad, right vs. wrong, etc.
Doesn’t mean non religious folks are any “smarter” so to speak. And when I really think about it, people like me may not follow religions, but follow other ideologies or derive their principles from other sets of beliefs not are not religion based.
And also, despite my own beliefs, how do I know that my own religious upbringing hasn’t influenced me in some way? Like, do I think it’s absolutely wrong to kill people because of sacredness of life my parents instilled in me when they told me that it’s very very wrong to take the life of even a ladybug? [This is a true story]. Or did I arrive on my own to the conclusion that it’s not nice to kill?
Anyway, back to work.
Don
Yes of course, Arthur Askey’s catchphrase. I couldn’t find a video of Groucho doing his “ithenkyow” but this is a slice from Duck Soup.
The last thing you want is religious fanatics who dismiss science because of their strict interpretation of religious scriptures
Nah, that’s the second last thing you want. The actual last thing you want is religious fanatics who paid attention in science and engineering classes, especially the bits where they cover the thermic reactions of certain nitrogen-based organic compounds.
“Nah, that’s the second last thing you want.”
Sorry, not quite. The last last thing you want is a major power using propaganda, money and arms to persuade young men to fight its proxy wars. Then the last thing you want is it washing its hands and walking away.
Better it had done its own dirty work without the middlemen, the first time round.
and, morgoth, you claim to have “read” the talmud. how on earth did you manage that? it’s a) enormous and b) not something you read, but something you study. you might as well say you read the encyclopaedia britannica (albeit the talmud is a lot bigger, 60 volumes to be precise).
BB, I spent a lot of time at a central library reading their rather pristine copy of the Soncino Talmud*.
Incidentally, before Morgoth lends himself to being tarred & feathered any further on PP, it may be worthwhile for him to remember that there are other religious texts in the world which he has not read and didn’t include in his list above
I’m also familiar with the Enuma Elish, the Book of the Dead and many other ancient writings.
would suggest that he explores these scriptures (and the lives & actions of the individuals who wrote them) first before engaging in blanket condemnations of “theists” per se being “mentally ill” and generally destructive influences in human society.
The actions of said people were vastly wholly negative. That’s what happens when you accept the submission of the self to others.
* I used to spend a lot of time when young reading enyclopedias. I managed to read through an entire set of World Books when I was about 14. Took me only a few months as well.
Actually I really enjoyed Ayn Rand’s ‘Foutainhead’ as a novel but then I’ve always been an ardent modern architecture anorak. I read it in the early 90s and saw how it could be misconstrued as a manifesto for Thatcherite meritocracy or, under very unimaginative interpretations, a soft-fascist elitism.
Sid, was Rand’s attitudes a reaction to her family’s loss of their business after the Russian revolution? And with it of course the loss of their status.
It makes me also wonder what some mothers teach their children about their place in the world.
You know Morgoth, it is getting embarrassing. Do you think you impress anyone? Do you think claiming to read the Bible, Koran, or Talmud, or any sacred scriptures makes you an authority on anything? Some people study these works all their lives. You might as well say that you are an authority on the English language for spending a lot of time reading the dictionary.
So far, the knowledge that you have shown in PP amounts to caricatures. Because you don’t have any depth on any subject, you can’t even criticise properly.
Knowledge is supposed to enlighten us and build bridges, but you use your pathetic knowledge for revenge, to humiliate people. Is that what it is all about, little man? Did people make fun of you when you were growing up, that now you feel the need to perpetuate it?
Morgoth,
Any originating in the Indian subcontinent ?
Well, not necessarily, although since I’m not from a proselytising faith, I’m hesitant to name names.
In any case, there were numerous people from multiple religious backgrounds in medieval and ancient Indian history whom I would regard as being very positive indeed, in terms of both their characters and their actions.
I understand what you mean and I agree about the dangers of blind submission to anything or anyone, whether we’re talking about ideologies or deities. However, the impact this has on the person concerned depends on what one’s perception of the “other”’s character and expectations are.
And of course, believing that one’s deity demands your allegiance and submission without question, regardless of whether you believe their expectations for behaviour are right or wrong (if you analysed the subject independently and critically), and would punish you for any deviation from the prescribed path — ie. “ruling you by force” — is of course going to have a different effect on the adherent’s behaviour compared to someone who believes their deity is less autocratic and does not use fear of punishment to enforce obedience.
Looking at human history as a whole — and even the modern day — I’ve often wondered how much a person’s ideas about their deity’s own “character” influences their own behaviour, especially if the person concerned is in some kind of position of power & authority. Perhaps someone who believes they’re subject to the divine “reward vs. extreme punishment” model is more prone to duplicating that attitude themselves towards people they regard as being subordinate to them in some way.
***************
On a totally unrelated note — since you mentioned this in post #164 — coincidentally I’m actually reading The Silmarillion at the moment. I agree with the well-known comparisons with The Bible and other religious texts in terms of its writing style (probably deliberate by Tolkien, since it sets out the mythological/religious framework of Middle-earth for its future inhabitants in LOTR etc); it takes a while to get going but I’m enjoying reading it. I’m currently up to the chapter about Hurin.
I’m finding that the book as a whole is tremendously helpful in placing the LOTR “world” into its wider and more proper context, especially as LOTR (which I’d previously been reading and have temporarily put on-hold) includes multiple references to people, places and events discussed in The Silmarillion, and the significance of all that isn’t necessarily very clear if one reads LOTR in isolation.
By the way, I remember reading on various entertainment sources on the internet last year that a “prequel movie trilogy” to LOTR has also been proposed and is under consideration, and that it will depict some of the “historical” events mentioned in passing in LOTR. I’m assuming this will therefore involve parts of The Silmarillion. Quite an interesting idea; it could be a huge hit if it was handled as well as the (special extended versions of the) LOTR movies.
Do you think you impress anyone?
I don’t care Ravi. People asked me if I had read any religious texts. I answered. They are almost wholly, without exception an unqualified disaster for the human race. I have little regard for what the religious, who use their imaginary sky friends as psychological crutches to the n-th degree, think, because they have left their rationality behind them at the door. I am very well aware, having had several close relatives who engage in this, of people spending decades figuring out the difference between “thou” and “thoust”, and it is an utter shame that they waste their lives in such a fashion, when they could be doing something useful instead, like figuring out a cure for cancer. So much of the intellectual capability of man is wasted in a fruitless search for sky fairies when the true answer is within.
Looking at human history as a whole — and even the modern day — I’ve often wondered how much a person’s ideas about their deity’s own “character” influences their own behaviour, especially if the person concerned is in some kind of position of power & authority. Perhaps someone who believes they’re subject to the divine “reward vs. extreme punishment” model is more prone to duplicating that attitude themselves towards people they regard as being subordinate to them in some way.
That’s a very interesting observation. I tend towards the “man creates the gods” school of thought anyway.
Jai, yep, the Silmarillion is very useful in that context. So is the recent Children of Hurin. Its pretty slow going on occasions however, and pretty damn depressing when you think about it.
Oh, I’ve got a nice hypertext/graphical Rig Veda on the computer somewhere. Maybe the Kama Sutra counts as well?
Refresh – you could be right.
In any case, Rand’s school of thought, Objectivism, became a full blown cult. Or rather, its adherents started showing signs of cult-like behaviour.
Ravi @ 146:
“There is a clear line between religion and science. It seems that people like you who are anti-religious and consider anyone with faith as demented, and the religious nutcases who want to abolish science, do not respect that line. All of you belong to the lunatic fringe, and should never be allowed to be a part of the mainstream”
Thank you for shedding on sense on this whole mess!
Are you suggesting that people who believe in God cannot be good scientists, doctors and scholars?
I am reminded of a scientist who once said that “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”.
Are you suggesting that people who believe in God cannot be good scientists, doctors and scholars?
Yes. Emphatically so.
Rubbish. Einstein believed in Spinoza’s God.
[and so do I]
So Einstein, Newton, Mendel, Kelvin, Planck, Boyle, Faraday and countless others were emphatically bad scientists?
By the way, that was a rhetorical question, Morgoth.
I thought Sid was an atheist
Insofar as Einstein, Spinoza, Shankaracharjya and al-Ghazali were atheists.
“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”
Einstein, 1929
Ravi,
“So Einstein, Newton, Mendel, Kelvin, Planck, Boyle, Faraday and countless others were emphatically bad scientists?”
I guess it would be pointless to list scientists from earlier generations, especially the desert-dweller period.
The certitude of Morgoth’s position makes him both lame and blind.
We’re nearly there guys, the target is 293.
i’d prefer it if they managed to get peter jackson (who else could you trust?) to make “the hobbit”, before buggering about with the quenta silmarillion.
@desi:
to avoid damfool arguments about which one is “true”? look it’s like this. science aims to answer the question: “what happened?” religion aims to answer the question: “how shall we live?” – it is, imo, rather silly to make the whole thing into a futile slanging match.
if you had ever studied a bit of talmud, you’d realise why this applies to my religion at least.
i don’t recognise myself in this picture of yours. granted, my religion is also my ethnic identity, but presumably you’re not calling that a “crutch”. i’m also bang up there on democracy, free speech, etc and i certainly think independently compared to most. and i doubt that people here would call me irrational. what’s wrong with accepting spiritual guidance? it’s about who you can trust. do you understand E=mc2? unless you are an advanced physicist, probably not. do you trust it? why shouldn’t you, if you trust the people who trust it and the person who came up with it? you’ve got to learn from *somewhere*; the trick is to develop *judgement* about what sources of information you can trust.
@morgoth:
well, i personally would find it difficult to make head nor tail of the soncino edition without a teacher or any appreciation of the concepts being discussed – it doesn’t even include the rashi commentary. a literal translation is barely readable, because the style is so laconic and terse. most of it is in a sort of shorthand. the talmud is a hypertextual document which covers law, jurisprudence, legend, anecdote, folk wisdom and a whole lot more. you can spend months on a single page – no wonder you picked up nothing worth picking up! in short, it’s not something you “read” and it certainly isn’t an encyclopaedia – it’s something you study with a teacher or partner.
and, incidentally, i read probably as fast as you do, but it doesn’t help with talmud study, which requires engagement with the subject matter. it’s not something you learn by rote. i actually can’t believe just how dismissive you are of this entire field based on your disillusionment with your relatives, of all things!
and, of course, what ravi said at #264.
on the subject of groucho, much of this thread has brought to me the following lines, which *are* from “duck soup”:
b’shalom
bananabrain
Jai:
There are fundamentalists in every religion – Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc; even in religions where the deity seems more benevolent and forgiving. Don’t just put the blame on the “proselytising” faiths, and mind how you use that term. There are hot-heads in many religions who accuse other religions of proselytising when this is just a ploy to arouse emotions amongst their own co-religionists, create a feeling of insecurity and seek tacit support for attacks and forced re-conversions. There are plenty of extremists who belong to “non-proselytising” religions around world except they rarely make the news, even in their own countries where it’s more of an accepted thing.
Rumbold:
The report is by a former Bradford Race Relations Adviser. The man is probably better qualified than any liberal politician or blog writer to comment on the state of ‘no-go’ Muslim areas. It’s typically leftie to dismiss it and shoot the messenger.
This is what he says:
I’m not suggesting only Muslims create ‘no-go’ areas. There are plenty of areas where if you are not white or black you could get into trouble. It’s just a sign of our increasingly segregated towns and cities.
“You ain’t no astronaut”
- Melvin van Peebles
Jai, yep, the Silmarillion is very useful in that context.
The key lesson of the Silmarillion is that morgoth is evil, and you shouldn’t listen to anything he says.
Soru
“morgoth is evil”
He is not evil. He is a satanist, a member of that eternally persecuted community.
I still smile to myself when I think about all those poor little satanists huddled around their campfire listening out for movement in the shadows. Not quite Al Pacino now is it.
An extremely big campfire of course.
Morgoth,
Just to extrapolate my previous thoughts, perhaps an individual who believes that their deity exhibits — and acts on — righteous anger given an appropropriate moral pretext (the “divine wrath” school of thought) will have a greater tendency to internalise and emulate such behaviour towards other people themselves.
After all, if the deity concerned allegedly doesn’t see anything wrong with going berserk towards humans who have “transgressed” in someway — and indeed doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with “extreme anger” per se, as long as there’s a moral justification for it — then the deity’s adherent may well think that this condones and encourages their own similar conduct under certain circumstances. Add “divine support” for such behaviour to the mix and you have a pretty destructive combination.
Similarly, if the person concerned thinks that their deity demands absolute obedience and submission to their will and their ideas, then maybe they will have similar expectations of other people’s reaction towards their will and ideas, along with their right to impose all this on others. In a nutshell, if you believe your deity is a bully and you have metaphorically placed them on a pedestal, then I wouldn’t be surprised if this increases a person’s tendency towards behaving like a bully themselves.
This is purely a case of amateur psychology on my part, of course, but maybe there is a certain logic to it. Just based on observations of people’s behaviour etc.
It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation, isn’t it ?
Eg, does man create god in his own anthropomorphised image, or does man create god and project/impose all kinds of erroneous assumptions on their fictional deity (which may or may not be anthropomorphised), or does God indeed create man but man has a false/inaccurate notion of what God is actually like…..
I haven’t read the latter yet, but yes I’ve heard it’s pretty downbeat. In some ways The Silmarillion is similarly damning in its view of people’s behaviour, but I guess the underlying theme (which follows through to LOTR, althought that story obviously has a happier ending) is the corrupting effect of power, arrogance and greed on people’s nature and personalities. Which, of course, unfortunately also happens plenty of times out here in the real world as we all know, and always has done throughout human history.
The writing style can indeed be a little heavy-going on places (especially earlier on), and keeping track of the large numbers of characters with confusingly similar names can be a little difficult (to say the least !), but there are also moments of great poignancy and idealism, and some of the writing is beautifully poetic.
Reading translations of other Hindu texts such as the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads would probably be a good idea too, along with the Buddhist scriptures and of course the Sikh scriptures (the “Guru Granth Sahib”).
There is a slight complication with the last one, as a person is supposed to listen to it in musical form — ie. the hymns based on the writings, which are actually also set to music — in order to get the “full message” via the emotional impact this involves, but reading a translation of the scriptures on their own should give you the gist of what it’s basically all about. However, bear in mind that it’s not a “guidebook” as some Abrahamic texts are supposed to be, and you would have to learn about the beliefs and actions of the main writers in order to gain the full picture of their teachings. Nevertheless, the faith does stress that, beyond a certain point, what it terms “intellectual metaphysical gymnastics” is a futile and time-wasting practice, and that the most important thing of all is to just do your best to be a decent, benevolent person and generally try to be a positive, constructive influence on the world during your limited time here on earth — which actually echoes your own point in the very last sentence of the first paragraph of your post #261, in relation to the necessity for humans to maximise their own moral and intellectual potential rather than looking to be “spoon-fed” all the answers to life and the universe.
Controversial question — I expect that’s a matter of opinion !!
Cover Drive,
I haven’t made any reference to specific religions (apart from explaining the Guru Granth Sahib for Morgoth’s benefit in post #279 above). Remember what I said about a person’s interpretation of their deity’s personality being key; I was speaking about religious people per se, not necessarily about any particular faith.
****************
Not true. I come from a rigorously scientific academic background, and so does my father — more than me, actually, because he is a doctor (and a very good one) with a whole string of medical qualifications after his name.
Two points:
1. Not all religions include “scientific” information. Some are primarily based on issues concerning ethics, morality, human behaviour etc, and areas concerning “creation”, “the nature of the universe” etc are kept to a minimum. Correspondingly, some also include the premise that whilst the religion concerned focuses on assisting the adherent’s moral and spiritual development, “hard science” matters are a separate issue (regardless of whether we’re talking about archeology, astronomy, biology, physics etc etc) and there is no “clash” with the adherent simultaneously pursuing the latter in order to maximise their understanding of the universe.
2. Plenty of people who believe in God may ignore the aspects of their religion which contradict “hard science” findings or indeed they have their own interpretation of organised religion per se. So there isn’t necessarily a clash between the person’s scientific understanding and religious beliefs in this matter either.
It’s not necessarily a black & white issue.
Just 2 anecdotal examples, of course — I wasn’t implying that we should be used as the “unequivocal proof” or as the primary reference points. However, there are plenty of other people around in various professions who have a solid scientific background and are very good at their jobs, but still believe in God.
It all depends on what your idea of “God” actually is.
Quite. we’re not short of extremists and fundamentalists, for all that they’re not interesting in converts. although, i do submit that they’re probably less problematic in the long term as long as people leave them alone!
Jai:
The term for what you’re getting at here is a recognised religious methodology known in common parlance as imitatio Dei. in other words, G!D Is Compassionate and Merciful, so i should try to be as well. i’ve actually never come across anyone who was suggesting that you should try and be angry or judgemental as G!D can appear to be, albeit it seems to me that the latter is somewhat more common than the former, unfortunately. or maybe it’s just that it comes easier to humans to be angry and judgemental than it does to be compassionate and merciful.
Oh, precisely – in fact, the sages are clear to point out that when a characteristic is attributed to G!D, this is just how it appears to us and G!D in fact cannot be understood to be “angry” in the way we would understand it, only it is the effect that appears that way.
You forgot technology. tolkien experienced technology as very much a facilitator of people’s worst nature.
As for the whole “good scientists can’t be religious”, that is frankly self-evidently bunkum.
b’shalom
bananabrain
damn the formatting. damn damn damn.
There is a higher power. HE formats the writing of the believers.
Cover Drive:
I am not a leftie and was not criticising the report’s author. What I was saying was that the trends described by the author were not the same as Islamists taking over particular areas.
BB:
I said I knew I was going to offend the religiously inclined folks, so I’m not surprised at the defensiveness of you comment. But I can understand that.
“granted, my religion is also my ethnic identity”
Let’s not get into that.
and why not? after all, anything can be a crutch, even scepticism or cynicism. i’m not offended by what you say, i just don’t think it stacks up. i don’t think it’s defensive to point out the holes in your argument.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Why don’t people say it like it is? A turf war is a turf war whether it’s a band of mad muslims or some drug dealing gang bangers (or both as in the case of some corners of Bradford). Hell, if you’re male and under 25 the whole of inner London is a no-area. Get over it! If some dude don’t like me walking through his manor, I run.
Some belated responses:
I was actually making a neutral statement that someone being religious doesn’t automatically mean that they’re a destructive influence within human society, in response to Morgoth’s assertions to the contrary. Not quite sure how you interpreted that as implying I think such people are “exceptional”, Refresh old bean.
If Cover Drive is basing this on my second comment in post #260 — the only one where I mentioned “proselytisation” — I should clarify that the reason I did not want to mention any historical examples from my own religion whom I felt were extremely positive figures was because I didn’t want to show off or generally grandstand about the subject, and (more to the point, specifically in relation to evangelisation/proselytisation) I didn’t want to promote/sell my religion by deliberately drawing attention to what I regard as being some of its positive points. Therefore, it’s beyond me how that single sentence could be interpreted as some kind of veiled attack on so-called “proselytising faiths”, given the overall context of my discussion with Morgoth.
***********
Bananabrain, thanks for your thoughtful response in #282 — I agree with your comments there.
BB:
“i don’t think it’s defensive to point out the holes in your argument.”
I wasn’t making an “argument,” I was stating my opinion (and I made this clear) and in my later comments, I voiced my doubts about how much do even I know the extent of whether my religious upbringing influenced me (don’t people read comments or do they just go off????)
“after all, anything can be a crutch, even scepticism or cynicism”
That’s not what I was alluding to- I was taking issue with conflating religion with ethnicity. I’ve had this discussion on PP before, and there’s no need to repeat everything I’ve said before.
Refresh
“Not quite sure how you interpreted that as implying I think such people are “exceptional”, Refresh old bean.”
I interpreted it the same as you. I guess because it was so neutral, it could easily suggest they were the exception. I think it was your use of ‘necessarily’ which did it. Nitpicking really.
BB:
In case you missed my actual comments, they are:
#238
#239
#252
It really irritates me when people either don’t read my comments and then go off, because I’m careful about what I write. I made it very clear that I wasn’t making any “argument” but that I stating my feelings, and I acknowledged that I know that it’s more of an emotive response.
Apparently, there are no props for admitting and recognizing the pitfalls in one’s own comments.
Desi, I am afraid a ’stream of consciousness’ does lead to the type of exchange I sense we are about to have.
It was what I learnt when I first commented.:)
Its not always that people don’t read carefully, it can simply be that a specific point in isolation gets addressed.
With regards the ‘crutch’, it was something worth putting down, not for you but in general.
There you go – comment #293.
Jai:
I didn’t interpret it as a veiled attack. I get the feeling you’re taking my comment rather personally. I was just pointing out that proselytisation is one charge, sometimes highly inflated, used by extremists to attack the members of the ‘proselytising faith’. It is often a means for the elite of a majority community to keep the poorest of their flock poor because without the poor there won’t exist a rich class.
It is a fair characterisation. A lot of people take confort that there is an after-life, that their loved ones who died are in a better place. It gives you hope, a meaning of life, and guidance. I see nothing wrong with that.
COMMENT CLASSIFICATION: OPINION
Ravi:
“A lot of people take confort that there is an after-life, that their loved ones who died are in a better place. It gives you hope, a meaning of life, and guidance. I see nothing wrong with that.”
A lot of people also take comfort that whatever happens happens because “God” decided it was to be and not maybe the consequence of their own actions, a lot of people take comfort in “fate” and saying frustrating things like, “This is my naseeb etc because of Bhagwan, Allah, etc” and as such subject yourself to the whims of everyone else rather than practicing individual agency*, a lot of people take comfort in ideologies which to me are wrong like excluding others who are not of your faith, superiority, singularity, etc. I happen to find things wrong with this.
I mean, really, what kind of codes do you need to be taught through a religious medium? Be nice and treat others nicely if you expected to be treated as such? I mean, duh. Act like a jack-ass, and one day, no one’s going to take your shit any longer and he/she will eventually tell you off. It’s a fact of life, one that someone learns simply through human interaction.
And most of all, I strongly dislike how people couch freedoms, liberty, and equality within religion: “As Muslims, we believe in compassion and equality because in Islam…” or “As Hindus, we believe in the sacredness of life,” or “As Christians, we should help people out- the Good Lord said that…” Why can’t you do any of those things as a human being, and why can’t that just be a universal ideal? Does it need to be tied to religion?
These are the kinds of things I was talking about; not comforting myself that my grandfather who passed away in 1986 has gone to a better place (or maybe came back in another reincarnation…)
*Although, obviously there are many, many cases/situations where people do not have individual agency, or that agency hasn’t helped them get out of certain situations.
But I kid you not, I have heard people justify either their own situation and/or someone else’s because “That’s how God wanted it.”
Well said, Desi.
My comment (#296) was in direct response to your initial question: why are people religious, or feel the need to be religious. That, in my view, is the only thing that distinguishes between a person of faith and an atheist. Everything else: ideology, morality, ethics are independent of whether you are religious, agnostic or atheist.
In other words, a Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim or an atheist can be progressive and liberal, or conservative and racist. Hence, pointing out the faults of religious fundamentalists, and those who feel the need to exclude others, should not be used to criticise religious people in general… as much as repressive godless ideologies in the past cannot be used against atheism.
If any of you find it hard to believe, consider this: most picklers here share a common ground of liberal and progressive values, and yet there are atheists, Christians, Jewish, Muslims and Sikhs. If you go to conservative and ultra-conservative sites, I am sure you will find the same types of people.
None, actually. But why does it matter whether anyone thinks that their values come from their parents, from their culture, from their interactions with society, through religion… or all four? You are probably pissed off, because it thus sound arrogant for anyone to say out loud “We belong to culture/religion/parents X, and thus we have values Y, Z”, which is not to say it is false.
Ravi,
Well, obviously it depends on the particular person but as you know there are other reasons for it too, eg. guidance on “big picture” issues, heroic role models, examples of idealistic values and conduct, inspiration that there is more to life and our world in general than the more cynical and negative stuff we may see everywhere, etc. It’s not necessarily just to do with questions regarding the afterlife (sometimes it doesn’t have anything to do with that all).
Having said that, sometimes some people are indeed looking to be “spoonfed” all the answers, including issues concerning how they and others should behave, if they don’t have the desire or the aptitude to try to figure all this out for themselves.
Yes I do realise there’s an overlap with what you’ve said yourself in your subsequent posts ! I was just making the friendly point that some people may not necessarily be religious purely (or predominantly) due to fears, concerns or questions about “what happens after death”.
Also, wasn’t there a scientific study which came out a year or two ago which indicated that, possibly due to evolutionary reasons, the human brain is “hard-wired” to be religiously inclined ?
That’s a very good point; some people may get their values from X but it doesn’t necessarily mean there’s anything wrong with that or (more pertinently) that they believe these values are not simultaneously universal. People get their inspiration from different sources; sometimes from a single source and frequently from multiple sources.
Oh yes, by the way…..
Good point, Ravi. However, our friends over at Sepia Mutiny are currently having a fairly lively debate about this issue, so you should be able to get your “fix” that way
Make sure you read post #330 by “Pingpong” on that thread too — it’s hilarious, and much-needed for a cold, rainy Friday afternoon here in Blighty.
No doubt, but that was the point that Desi was making: that you don’t need religion for those other reasons.
Clearly, one aspect of religion that is unique is the belief of the after-life and of a higher-being. Although religion (more precisely, the interpretation of a religion) provides you a moral conduct, so does the society you live in, your parents, and your culture.
You are describing fundamentalism, but religion does not have a monopoly on that. In general, people can be drowned by a particular ideology, and religion should never be an obstacle for individual and skeptical thinking.
I think religion should be a catalyst towards sceptical thinking..as in many cases it is about belief in the unknown..i get mad when so called religious ppl think that questioning faith is tantamount to turning your back on god..how is this the case? does that mean that human beings are unable to question because the answers might lead them away from god..?
No, because the answers might lead them away from communal and religous leaders, who obviously prefer people who don’t think or question. It is all about power. One thing that is worth looking in History is the golden age of each civilisation: it was not religious-less, but rather a time where governments didn’t repress or imposed a particular thought, providing individual freedoms to its citizens.
No, but it helps in cases where people are looking for guidance from/examples of individuals who had a greater degree of “big picture” awareness and enlightenment, above and beyond “ordinary” mortals who may not have sufficient direct awareness and knowledge of such things. Whether the “enlightened” individuals concerned really were aware of the matters they claimed to be in the genuine sense of the term is of course possibly a different issue and obviously a matter of opinion. I think the key issue here is that people are often looking to others who have “certainty” in these areas (ie. individuals who they feel have genuine authority in such matters), rather than individuals or texts which they deem to be basing their ideas purely on speculation.
But yes, of course there are plenty of other non-religious examples around; I think it risks being narrow-minded, ignorant (and potentially prejudiced) for a person to be unaware or uninterested in drawing inspiration from those sources too, but as we all know sometimes people draw their primary guidance from X (whatever “X” may be, as you said yourself), and if it genuinely works for them, more power to them as far as I’m concerned. To each his (or her) own.
If the conclusions they draw from such an “exclusivist” mindset cause them to develop a superiority complex or dismiss other role models/sources of guidance because they feel the latter has no genuine merit, I think that another person may well justifiably disagree with them but should also have enough conviction in their own beliefs and sources of inspiration to not feel excessively threatened or perturbed by the other party’s stance.
This ties into what I was saying earlier about it depending on a person’s idea of God and his expectations, eg. whether they think God is basically autocratic & tyrannical, demands unquestioning allegiance, would regard someone questioning him as some kind of personal insult or betrayal, etc etc.
it’s beggars belief that certain “religious” types chastise the “non religious” types for not questioning their way of life or the existence of god..only to tell their own “religious” followers to do the exact opposite!!!
You will often find that it is the communal and religious leaders the ones who provide the interpretation of the scriptures and moral conduct. The fundamentalists, who believe they hold the absolute Truth, are the ones who equate “questioning authority” as a betrayal of faith and god, for their own selfish reasons.
People who are allowed and are taught to think by themselves – instead of being taught by fundamentalists, will hardly reach to a god that is repressive, autocratic and tyrannical. That is my opinion.
Agreed, Mr Naik (or, since I believe you’re an academic, is it “Dr” Naik ?
). Hence the dangers involved in having a formalised, institutionalised priesthood in a religion (or people who take up that mantle themselves, even though it may be unofficially).
Of course, the flipside approach includes the danger of a “make it up as you go along” approach to religion and spirituality, with people becoming wildly misguided and in extreme cases creating cults.
I guess a happy medium is what’s really needed.
Ravi:
Jai said:
“Having said that, sometimes some people are indeed looking to be “spoonfed” all the answers, including issues concerning how they and others should behave, if they don’t have the desire or the aptitude to try to figure all this out for themselves.”
You responded:
“You are describing fundamentalism, but religion does not have a monopoly on that. In general, people can be drowned by a particular ideology, and religion should never be an obstacle for individual and skeptical thinking.”
In my opinion, you are wrong about calling people which Jai described as “fundamentalists.”
My own mother, who is a devout and practicing Hindu (of the Swaminarayan and Vaishnavite sects) is far from being a “fundamentalist,” but she does look to religion to derive most of her ideals, ideas, and a manual for daily behavior. Basically, Hinduism for her is manual which she takes uncritically, precisely because it’s “dharam.” The same goes for people who are Sikh, Muslim, and Catholic that I personally know.
People who look to religion as a quick manual on how to interpret the world, people, and the larger scheme of things so that they do not have to bother with the more diligent and painsaking process of understanding the myraid of complexities are not fundamentalists; they average people who are all amongst us.
Of course, there are other ideologies that people look to to quickly frame and guide their thinking. Political ideologies are one example.
““Having said that, sometimes some people are indeed looking to be “spoonfed” all the answers, including issues concerning how they and others should behave, if they don’t have the desire or the aptitude to try to figure all this out for themselves.”
“You are describing fundamentalism,”
I mean, if that’s your definition of “fundamentalism,” that’s a really generous definition. This would include practically the entire globe (ok, I’m exaggerating, but definitely A LOT of people).
People who are spoonfed with the things that Jai described people are not necessarily mean-hearted, nor are they crusaders, jihadists and hindutvavadis; they are just people who don’t/can’t think for themselves or were not even taught how to critically think(in its extreme; of course, there are people who will drink, have pre-marital sex, and totally respect religious differences but still believe in the Bible. Which is a lot of people, too).
Ravi:
“You are probably pissed off, because it thus sound arrogant for anyone to say out loud “We belong to culture/religion/parents X, and thus we have values Y, Z”, which is not to say it is false.”
No, it’s not that it sounds “arrogant” to me,it just does not make any fucking sense. Not too long ago, I had a discussion with someone who fought for “Muslim Civil Rights” in the US. When I took issue with that, saying that coining a term such as “Muslim Civil Rights” is a bit of an oxymoron and I am not sure how condusive and feasible in the long run it is for people to set up special interests civil rights, the guy tried to make the argument, “Well, what about the Blacks Civil Rights Movement in the US? Don’t you agree with that?” My response was that the CRM in the US WAS largely spearheaded by blacks, but they were fundamentally fighting for rights that are accorded to people of ANY race, not just blacks. When I then asked him what he meant by “Muslim Civil Rights,” he was at a loss.
I had a similar convo with someone who feverently believes in “Islamic democracy.” Again, I asked this person to define what exactly that meant, and he too could not respond (to his credit, he admitted that he didn’t really know, it’s all “vague,” he said). When I started to draw out his opinions- that ‘democracy’ is inherent in Islam and that for the “masses’ in Pakistan to accept any kind of change, it has to be stamped with “Islam” and similar claims he was making– and I beat back every point and some more, he then said, “I am not the best person who is qualified to speak about this.” I have been told this over and over again by anyone whom I question; I’m wondering where all these “experts” are on stuff like this.
Basically, “civil rights” does NOT have to be tagged with religion, neither do “democracy,” human rights, freedom of speech, socio-economic justice and equality and so on. All these things can exist without being branded by a particular religion; they do not need to be justified by any religion. And yet people continue to do this.
I am not religious at all, and very much doubt that I ever will be, but I do get a bit tired of it getting blown out of proportion. Religion is just something that people do. People who are fundamentally nice and responsible do religion nicely and responsibly, and people who are aggressive and dogmatic do it aggressively and dogmatically.
Religion has inspired great art, great music and fascinating philosophy and it’s also sparked terrible wars and atrocities. But it’s because it’s a focus for people, not because it’s an intrinsically evil thing. It can neither take the credit for those things nor be held responsible for the other things. It’s what people make of it that counts. Stalin’s Russia was pretty a-religious and yet more people died under his rule than in World War II, or so I believe.
One of the things that Dawkins strongly implies in the God Delusion is that suicide bombers, etc, would not exist if it wasn’t for religion. That’s ridiculously naive. As long as people have different opinions about things they will argue, and some of them will argue aggressively and commit atrocities in the name of whatever cause they’re arguing about.
I suppose what I’m really trying to say is that religion is only as good or as bad as the person who’s practising it. Good religious men don’t hit their wives even if they think their holy book says they can. Bad religious men commit adultery even though the Bible says they can’t.
“Good religious men don’t hit their wives even if they think their holy book says they can”
They are just good people, not good “religious” men!
“One of the things that Dawkins strongly implies in the God Delusion is that suicide bombers, etc, would not exist if it wasn’t for religion. That’s ridiculously naive. As long as people have different opinions about things they will argue, and some of them will argue aggressively and commit atrocities in the name of whatever cause they’re arguing about.”
I disagree with Dawkin’s suggestion not for the reasons you do, but because it’s historically dishonest. Suicide bombings/missions have been carried out by Sri Lankans (most of them Hindu) and the Japanese. The Sri Lankans bombers are not doing it for their religion.
Or good religious men who don’t sacrifice their small sons on top of the nearest mountain even though *the* voice in their head told to.
But that’s my point. People make decisions about their actions because of the sort of person they are, not because of what religion they are. To generalise horribly, good people do good things. If they’re religious, they’re religious in a good way. I’m sorry if I didn’t make myself clear.
But that is my point. If you agree that suicide bombings wouldn’t disappear if everyone turned atheist overnight then we both disagree with Dawkins for the same reason, don’t we?
I don’t believe that religion turns people who wouldn’t do terrible things into people who would. I think it provides them with an excuse, sure. But if everyone turned atheist overnight, the kind of people who commit atrocities would find another excuse to commit them.
@Sid: quite.
Isn’t it great the way Morgoth has digresseed this whole thread into ‘The Heaven and Earth Show’?
Got to give him credit, he is actually quite a smart cookie. For actually, if you read the actual article, te rev. is advancing the argument for reinvigorating British society with Christian values, the Muslim separatism is merely there to show the consequence of the absence of this.
The reverend said, interestingly in another article he said
“…characteristic British values arise out of the Christian faith and its vision of personal and common good. These were clarified by the Enlightenment and became the bed-rock of our modern political arrangements. The Enlightenment, however, by consigning Christianity to the private sphere, also removed the basis and justification for these values in the public sphere.”
This I think in reality is part of a wider debate of how Christianity is to remain the dominant faith in Britain, (under threat from Islam) and importantly for Nazir Ali, how its values are to be made intelligible in public life.
Moreover, if they are intelligible, how does he envision them being turned into coherent policies, which will influence our shared public space.
I think we will hear a lot more from Nazir Ali on these points in the future, as he is trying to spark a debate on these issues.
I stand corrected. However, I think it is irrelevant where your source of ideals and moral conduct comes from – whether it is from a religious book, from society or culture. I mean, the fact your ideals come from religion, does not mean you are incapable of discerning what is right and wrong, or that you are being spoonfed without questioning.
Indeed. Although I think it has little to do with religion itself, but with politics, power and identity. Something I have been quite vocal in the past here in PP.
Well said, Katy (#313).
Ravi:
“I mean, the fact your ideals come from religion, does not mean you are incapable of discerning what is right and wrong, or that you are being spoonfed without questioning.”
This is true too.
Look, I know (and acknowledged in my very first two comments) that mine response was more emotional. It’s because more often than not, I find that discussing things with very religious people can often be an extremely trying experience.
I am trying to be more accepting of people whose thinking and logic do not make sense to me (but might very well make sense to others).
Definitely.
But weren’t we talking about individual thinking and sorting out the answers for ourselves?
I think there are two sorts of folk on this planet. There are those, that, should the Gods – the capricious little shits that they are – choose to reveal themselves, well they would get down on bended knee and worship them.
Personally, I’d be looking for a Kalashnikov, some body armour and a nuclear bomb. And a list of questions. Shower of bastards, the lot of them! Let the real battle commence!
I should probably die, given their abilities for turning water into wine, parting seas, etc. But I’d go down fighting!
They are a shower of adolescent delinquents.
It ought to be incumbent on all of us to be personally responsible. Gods make it externalised. Which is rubbish.
Ravi @ 322.
Sure, but you can do that without having a religious bone in your body. I’m not at all convinced that religion doesn’t take us into a series of dead ends.
Prescriptive stuff, which we are tending to find debateable these days, such as ‘an eye for an eye’, etc. A recipe for vendetta, I’d have thought.
Whether you agree with it or not, it is now open for discussion. Lots of US states have given up on the death penalty, for instance.
Though the God fearing Texans still have it. Which is why I think religious convictions lead to bad governance. Being informed by your God is one thing, the practicalities are quite something else.
Saqib:
I do agree with Nazir-Ali here. Most of the institutions in this country are inherently Christian, and I think it would be pity if we became a completely irreligious state. You just have to look at the former Soviet Union and China to see what kind of situation we could face – totally authoritarian atheist states with no regard for human rights. Without any code to guide our morals, laws and justice system we could even slowly slip back to the days of barbarianism.
What I don’t agree with, which Nazir-Ali also seems to advocate, is the state sponsored supremacy of one religion – when our leaders see it as their right to defend their faith and take actions accordingly. This is going to lead to bloodshed.
Cover Drive,
We are, largely, a completely irreligious state. Have been for quite a while. So far, we have not seen the moral backsliding you seem to think is concomitant on a lack of diety worship. I am fed up with being compared to Russia or China. France can’t find sufficient folk to replace their priesthood. Are they barabaric? No. They probably try to work out their morals in the same way as you or I. From first principles.
I’d argue that the lack of religious certainty has been a positive over the last couple of hundred years. Lest you actually think that a University Degree in Divinity is any more valid than a quack qualification in Astrology. To wrap that up, you’d give moral authority to folk that believe the unbelievable? Well, good on you.
What might lead to bloodshed is religious folk continuing to think that they speak for the majority, when they quite clearly do not. You, god-fearing folk, are quite fortunate that non believers are not an organised group.
douglas
I think it’s fair to say that only in the last few decades there has been a big decline in religious worship in the UK, so we were are only in the early stages of post-Christian Britain. Likewise the same applies for much of Western Europe. The society we are today as well our institutions has been influenced by religion over the years. As we move away from the Christian period society will change again. What direction that takes remains to be seen.
I’m only moderately religious myself, but I would prefer to live in a society that tolerates different religious practices rather than suppressing it. I would also like to live in a society that tolerates agnostics, atheists and religiously sceptical people. We tend to hear the extremes of religious intolerance these days and yes, I agree that religious folk thinking that they speak for the majority could lead to bloodshed, but I like to think religion has also had a lot of positive influences on our lives over the years.
Katy #313,
Very nicely put.
Katy & Sid,
I hate that story about Abraham and Isaac.
Abraham — arguably the most influential man in human history, and one that goes right back to the beginnings of civilisation. The godfather of Arabs and Jews alike. Clearly, he was an immensely charismatic and powerful individual. But he was also either a nutter or a cunt. There, I’ve said it. I’ve always wanted to say that ever since I was taught the Isaac story at Sunday school, before I started bunking off to play pool.
Ravi,
Agreed, but problems arise when the following occur (and this overlaps with some of what Katy said in post #313):
1. “Good” religious person Bob: “My religion teaches X, Y and Z”
Sceptic: “Fine, but what do you personally think ?”
Bob: “It doesn’t matter what I think”.
Sceptic: “Why not ?”
Bob: “Because my faith provides me with all the answers, and who am I to question it ? Indeed, I am not a saint/guru/prophet/etc, and it would therefore be arrogant for me to presume that I am in any position to question these teachings or the religious figures who preached all this.”
Sceptic: “So you have no person opinions on the veracity of those teachings ? You haven’t independently, critically analysed all this, and reached your own independent conclusions ?”
Bob: “No. I completely defer to my religion in these matters. It is of divine origin, infallible, and therefore I believe all of it unquestioningly”.
Sceptic: *thinking* I wonder what would happen if Bob did think all this through for himself…..Maybe he’s afraid of the whole house of cards collapsing if he genuinely begins to doubt some or all of what he believes his religion teaches…..Or maybe he’s just really afraid of being “wrong”, and doesn’t trust his own judgement in these matters…..
OR:
2. Bob: “My religion teaches X, Y and Z”.
Sceptic: “Do you agree with those aspects of your religion ?”
Bob: “Honestly speaking ? Confidentially ? No.”
Sceptic: “So why do you follow these teachings ? You’re a smart guy, and I know from extensive experience that you’re more than capable of thinking for yourself.”
Bob: “Because I believe (or have been taught) that questioning these teachings is a grievous sin and that, if I don’t attempt to follow them to the letter, I’ll be punished in hellfire for a gazillion years after I die”.
Sceptic: *thinking* So it’s basically a severe fear of punishment in the afterlife which is motivating him, not genuine, freely-given conviction. Sounds like a documentary I saw a couple of years ago, which stated that apparently the reason OBL is doing all these nefarious acts is because he’s terrified of being punished by God if he doesn’t do all this.
And so on and so forth.
Also:
Again, that’s right, Ravi. I mean, if a person thinks that (random hypothetical examples) standing on their head on Tuesdays and Thursdays, anonymously bonking a suitable brunette (but not a blonde) they meet in a club every weekend, refusing to wear any fabrics blended with polyester, and listening to as much Amy Winehouse as possible will increase their level of spirituality and take them to heaven in the afterlife, and that eating Peri-Peri fries from Nandos, watching “Scrubs”, or talking to anyone called “Ravi Naik” over the internet are grave mortal sins, then more power to them — we all have to take responsiblity for the consequences of our own actions (either now or, as in this case, in the very long-term)…..
All I can add is:
1. Major problems can arise if they try to “institutionalise” all this by turning it into some kind of formal religion and (most pertinently) forcibly imposing it on other people, and:
2. If this becomes really self-destructive. Which of course leads to a tough question, ie. at what point should external parties intervene in such matters, should they even intervene at all or let the person reap what they’ve sown, etc etc.
Apologies, typo in #329: That should obviously say “….no PERSONAL opinions…..”