1. Rushdie condemns cancellation of Muhammad novel

Comment #231741 by spoo on August 17, 2008 at 1:25 am

"The novel's Japanese translator was murdered, the Italian translator stabbed."

They missed out on the Norwegian publisher almost being killed by a gunman:

From elsewhere:

The Norwegian publisher of Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses" was shot and wounded outside his home near Oslo today, marking the third attack on professionals who have had a hand in publishing the book. William Nygaard, 50, was in serious but stable condition after being shot three times from behind as he left his home in an Oslo suburb. Nygaard heads the publishing firm Aschehoug Forlag, which brought out the controversial book in Norway.

2. Defend the Individual and So the West

Comment #229196 by spoo on August 13, 2008 at 8:08 am

When it comes to individualism, that is also a key difference versus Islam, where the collective society and the will of Allah plays a bigger role.

In the west, individuals' values are sacred, and self-realization and working towards your own goals are important. The individual has the right to say and do what he or she means.

In Islam (and probably other religious societies) the individual is reduced to someone who submits to Allah, and their individual rights and goals plays a small role, especially any rights or goals deviating from the "accepted" ones.

This then goes wrong when we westerners are trying to integrate muslims, and do not realize the difference in value sets, and we apply our own individualistic rights to their collective mindset, and give them respect and listen to their demands as if they were speaking as individuals.

Therefore, introducing the concept of individual rights and liberating people from the collective, limiting mindset is important. Getting women out of the kitchens (and burkas) and into jobs and the rest of society will be an important factor here.

3. Vicar supports Life of Brian ban

Comment #228598 by spoo on August 12, 2008 at 8:56 am

I am offended by the fact that they're offended by this.


:P

4. Breeding for God

Comment #224568 by spoo on August 5, 2008 at 6:44 am

al-rawandi:

it only calls for this if there is insurrection against the Muslims state...

Isn't typically the problem here that some people go to great lengths to interpret that there is a such a conflict situation at all times?

This is at least my understanding of how Al-Qaida etc operates, by listening to some of Al-Zawahiri's speeches etc. This legitimizes all their actions.

People can then say "any action against islam" (e.g. apostasy) satisifies the criteria for conflict.

Then they're still "honoring" the fatwa, yeah?

5. Breeding for God

Comment #223672 by spoo on August 3, 2008 at 5:37 am

Even if these 40% or whatever were not chanting for diehard heads-off Shariah, but let's say they got their way.

Why would we want parts of the population to have a separate court that decides on conflict situations? How do you know the same level of justice is applied in a Shariah court and a regular court? How do you know that these systems will not rule differently than in a regular court? How do you then resolve cases where there are conflicts between muslims and non-muslims? How do you oversee that it is not used increasingly as a replacement for regular courts, and for more serious crimes? How do you control that the diehard heads-off Shariah people don't use it?

Doesn't this become a system inside/above/outside the system?

Isn't this taking integration processes in reverse? (I know some would argue that this does the opposite)

BBC had a 2007 program on This World called "Inside A Shariah Court", where they cover how a Shariah court is run in Nigeria, parallell to the british laws from colonial times. This program was a response to that muslims in the UK want Shariah law there.

It's up on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtBEg3PL4kc

It largely focuses on family disputes, divorce, inheritance and some other crimes (stealing, etc). It doesn't really touch any "hot topics" which would result in beheadings and that kind of stuff. It also attempts to make a point out of that if muslims get a ruling based on Shariah, they are more likely to follow that, since it's a religious ruling, instead of a secular court's ruling.

6. Breeding for God

Comment #223201 by spoo on August 1, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Goldy, yeah - sure. Here in Norway we are getting increased opportunities for fathers, not just mothers, to take time off and spend with their kids after birth. This of course reduces the amount of time women need to be away from work etc, and the parental responsibility is evened out.

This also decreases some of the "negative impact" that is associated with pregnancies and women in job situations. E.g. it's not uncommon for managers to think "uh-oh, there she goes off again for several months" and the impact this has on the place of work.

I think this helps combining opportunities for women to have a successful career and having kids, and not being stuck in traditional "stay at home mom" positions.

EDIT: I know the reference to Idiocracy was briefly dropped initially (now with electrolytes!), but the intro to that movie really says it all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1sE1E3z7jU

7. Breeding for God

Comment #223199 by spoo on August 1, 2008 at 6:58 pm

Goldy:

These are demographic rates as of now, not the future, I take it. They descibe the current situation. Shall we see what the results are, say, 50-100 years hence? Actual results, without extrapolation from current data and under doom and gloom assumptions?

The statistics DOES have predictions for 2005 (it's old, I guess), 2015 and some other year.

Some things can be deduced from it though, that is related to some parts of the original article:

* Which countries have a negative trend
* Which countries are under the 2.1 FTR
* Which countries with respect to world area, religion, secularism, level of industrialization, etc are on the top and bottom of the statistics

The latter has to be derived from extra knowledge, though. It isn't indicated in the stats.

8. Breeding for God

Comment #223197 by spoo on August 1, 2008 at 6:54 pm

This has been an interesting discussion to read, and I must admit I've even had some of own views and beliefs on this whole subject shifted a bit. But, I'm not going to dive into it at this late a stage.

I'd rather want to address one of the questions that has been raised here, regarding the differences in 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc generation of immigrants.

FIRST GENERATION:

1) First generation immigrants typically fled or emigrated from somewhere because of unstable situations, e.g. war, totalitarian regimes or persecution for some reason or another.

They have actual "hands-on experience" with these systems, which some times demonstrate the very bad practices of their own religions.

2) When they arrived in the country (assuming this happened some time ago, if they are to have produced offspring by now), they had to adapt to the new environment largely on their own.

2a) It is probably fair to assume that there were less "fellow countrymen" from wherever they came from there. So, they had to actively seek out and "explore" the country themselves. This makes it more important to integrate; They had, to a lesser degree, the opportunity to isolate themselves in ghetto-like areas. This might also enforce you to "let go" of some of the more conflicting traditions and cultural differences.

2b) They were met with skepticism by a maybe largely homogenous population, that had what usually is more "primitive" human reactions to people that talk, look and act different - skepticism, mystery and a bit of prejudice. I guess this could be a remnant of ancient natural instincts; whenever a stranger approaches your tribe or group, this could mean it's a threat. "Caution is advised."

2c) However, the prejudice at that time was probably more based on being different and stereotypes through stories etc, than large amounts of empirical "evidence" of misadaoption to the society through countless bad examples of news stories, etc.

2d) And to use Islam as an example; compare Muhammed's strategy and how it changed from Mecca to Medina. When you are a small minority, you do yourself a favor in not making big demands and causing a lot of stir. You're just not in the position to do so. When you grow in numbers, you usually grow in powers and can make more legitimate sounding demands. (This is however where relativism comes into play. Quantity isn't, as always, neccessarily equal to quality.)

SECOND GENERATION:

Come the second generation, and a few things change:

3) Contrary to #1, these people do not have any direct hands-on experience the same way their parents had. They might hear stories, but this is not the same as actually having gone through something yourself. This might not leave them in with the same views on the religion or regimes of their parents' coutry of origin.

4) There is suddenly a question of IDENTITY -- E.g. are they British, or are they Pakistani? Are they British-Pakistani? Are they Pakistani-British? What does that mean? Which cultural values should they choose between and which should they adopt?

With the basis of this, there are different types of input that may lead to primarily two types of outcomes:

Chosing either:

A) more of the values and life style from their "new country" (e.g. British)

B) more of the values and life style from their "parent's country" / ethnical origin (e.g. Pakistani), even more so than their parents themselves

(I guess there's option C) a mixture of both, also.)

(I use British and Pakistani here just as two examples. These were chosen a bit at random, just to illustrate an example)

In which group (A or B) you end up with could depend on:

5) Various aspects of the society you live in:

5a) Is there a lot of discrimination or outright racism in the society?

5b) What are the possibilities for you to get a good education?

5c) What are your job options? Is it harder getting a job if you're of "foreign decent"?

5d) What is the general situation in the rest of the country, for the rest of the people? Hard times or good times? Does this differ significantly based on which population group you are from?

6) Various other factors, e.g. international politics, wars, etc..

7) How well integrated are you?

7a) Do you grow up in a more or less isolated group, e.g. in a small suburb largely populated by minority groups? What about the schools you went to? Were they largely minority groups?

7) Your parents / Your parents' views:

7a) How strong bonds to your parents' "home country", culture, religion, customs, etc are your parents trying to influence you with?

7b) How well integrated are your parents? Their experience with the integration process?

7c) Do you live in a household where you largely communicate in your parents' language?

7d) Are you watching traditional "home-country" television channels via satellite TV etc, or are you watching regional programming?

And probably many, many more factors.

If you feel like an outsider in the society you're living in, see a lot of bad stuff happening around the world (empathy with the ummah, etc), and your parents and social group is largely feeding you with "country of origin" thoughts, life style, etc, chances are you will be more likely to:

8) Find examples of how society lacks good values and morals - a corrupt society.

9) Be open to the influence of fire-breathing imams, cults, and/or other charismatic, well-spoken people that are looking for young minds to affect.

10) Find comfort in religion and maybe even more fundamental/radical interpretations or versions of the religion that your parents hold.

This obviously leads to outcome B, and is not going to be helpful to society.

(I have a feeling that the more amount of detail control over people's lives that a country imposes might also affect people seeking religion to make a stand against these things. E.g. women start wearing the hijab to show their identity etc, or just to feel more "virtuous" than the "slutty, promiscuous, immoral" rest of society.)

On the other hand, if your family is well integrated, the role of your "coutry of origin" does not play such a central role, you are offered good educational and job opportunities, and feel welcome and part of the country, then you're more likely to end up in group A.

And this, I think will not clash that much with society. The more people think alike, the less chances for disagreements, and better chances for "harmony".

But from group A you can also end up in difficult situations. You could suddenly end up being accused of being TOO WELL integrated:

11) You've "let your cultural heritage/country down". "You have lost your identity!". Well what identity? (Again; are you British or are you Pakistani?)

12a) In cultures with traditions of arranged marriages, you suddenly find that your parents want to you go marry some cousin or member from your same caste. What then if you're found a girl/boy-friend on your own? What then if these are not of the same caste or - God forbid - of another ethnic group? Oh think of the shame this will cause on your family!

12b) In some cases of arranged marriages, you may also find that your parents want to go fetch someone from their home country. A well integrated, more-British-than-Pakistani person might not want to be married off to someone from another country, with another mind-set, another culture, other values, less educated, etc.

13) General clash of values/morals/etc with your parents'.

This may then lead to confrontations and discussions with the parents, and "family honor" might be at stake, and you may be threatened to be shunned etc, although this is probably more of a scare tactic. Some might cave in, others will try to rebel and act out.

In my country there was some time ago even news stories about 2nd generation immigrants doing drugs and other stuff as a way to rebel against their parents.

And I guess the list goes on, and on, and on and on.

By the time you get to the third generation, original values and morals become difficult to predict, because it varies so much on what happened in the second generation...

I guess if a society actively tries to work against immigration, this leads to more cases of people sticking to their original cultural heritage than adopting the new ones from the country the live in now.

This is why I don't really believe in solutions of deporting etc, as it will only feed the monster/troll and make it grow a few new heads at a rate faster than you can chop them off.

I therefore believe in acting civilized and respectfully disagreeing, but not accepting or caving in to to unrational claims and demands.

9. Breeding for God

Comment #223195 by spoo on August 1, 2008 at 6:52 pm

Comment #221817 by al-rawandi:

That isn't true. Muslims were some of the first to make the mathematical calculations to determine the earth was round. This was one among many things.

When it comes to which parts of the western culture the muslims helped preserve/translate during the "dark ages" of Europe, and which new inventions and advances were made, there's also some criticism of what was actually arab and/or muslims about that..

E.g. http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm "What Arab Civilization?" argues the case for Assyrian christians.

Excerpt:

By the sixth century A.D., Assyrians had begun exporting back to Byzantia their own works on science, philosophy and medicine. In the field of medicine, the Bakhteesho Assyrian family produced nine generations of physicians, and founded the great medical school at Gundeshapur (Iran). Also in the area of medicine, (the Assyrian) Hunayn ibn-Ishaq's textbook on ophthalmology, written in 950 A.D., remained the authoritative source on the subject until 1800 A.D.

In the area of philosophy, the Assyrian philosopher Job of Edessa developed a physical theory of the universe, in the Assyrian language, that rivaled Aristotle's theory, and that sought to replace matter with forces (a theory that anticipated some ideas in quantum mechanics, such as the spontaneous creation and destruction of matter that occurs in the quantum vacuum).

One of the greatest Assyrian achievements of the fourth century was the founding of the first university in the world, the School of Nisibis, which had three departments, theology, philosophy and medicine, and which became a magnet and center of intellectual development in the Middle East. The statutes of the School of Nisibis, which have been preserved, later became the model upon which the first Italian university was based (see The Statutes of the School of Nisibis, by Arthur Voobus).

When Arabs and Islam swept through the Middle East in 630 A.D., they encountered 600 years of Assyrian Christian civilization, with a rich heritage, a highly developed culture, and advanced learning institutions. It is this civilization that became the foundation of the Arab civilization.

10. Breeding for God

Comment #223192 by spoo on August 1, 2008 at 6:41 pm

Well the christians are doing other types of population craze propaganda also:

http://www.demographicwinter.com/

Other than that, have a look at this good listing of fertility ratings from across the world:

http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator.cfm?IndicatorID=138

11. Researchers Discover Remnant of an Ancient 'RNA World'

Comment #214758 by spoo on July 20, 2008 at 9:39 pm

Articles like these really need some figures/images to try to visualise all these things that can be hard to understand by just reading text :P

On that whole topic, be sure to check out all the video recordings of the HHMI holiday lectures etc!

http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/hl/index.html

I've made the habit of watching bits of them each day on the train to/from work :) (Yay for portable video devices!)

12. Harper says new mosque shows 'the true and benevolent face of Islam'

Comment #205676 by spoo on July 7, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Well there's many ways to look at this:

It's probably better to support something like Ahmadiyyas or a "less fundamentalist" version of Islam than your regular, raving mad cartoon demonstrators.

On the other hand, they're still religious and disillusioned wackos in some way of another, that sooner or later will want to impose their beliefs and influence laws and regulations to control your life in some way or another.

However, then again, the things they would suggest might not be as annoying/problematic as the things other nuts would come up with.

When fundamentalists come in and demand crazy stuff, they will usually be stopped at the door just because their views are, well, extreme. (Well, unless your state leaders are cowards and throw in the towel when extremists cry out about "discrimination", "hate speech" and "racism" to silence criticism and force their ways in.)

By allowing "moderates" to have influence or power (which they get by being accepted), there's also "death by a thousand cuts" scenario; it may over time lead to an accumulated amount of this and that's they want changed.

And, by accepting and recognizing moderates, you will probably also open the doors for more fundamentalist views and groups, as it's harder to differentiate between them and their views. However, again, this may lead to a progessive "watering out" of the regular fundamentalist kind.

Also, everyone knows about how political and military strategies of empowering your enemy's enemy sooner or later may backfire... (This is why I think the idea some people have about supporting Christians to fight the influence of Islam is really, REALLY wrong.)

At any rate; you won't be able to go from religion to atheism over night no matter how much you wish for it. So, it's a hard nut to crack. BUT - I don't think blind intolerance and cold shoulders is the way to go either, as that in the end may lead to radicalisation of those who once were more moderated in their views. It will also legitimate the views of the fundies, as they will get the excuse to say: "look, you don't even accept moderate Santaclausism!!".

I seriously don't see how multiculturalism can lead to much good unless all of the parties agree to let go of some principals, truths, rights and freedoms.

If you let go of secular values in favor of religious ones, we all know where it's heading.. (unless, of course, everyone converts to the same religion and we live happily ever after :P)

13. Evolutionarily Preserved Signature Found In The Primate Brain

Comment #199201 by spoo on June 25, 2008 at 10:13 am

If homosexuality had any genetic link, regardless of the alturistic benifits it would be too severely selected against by selection pressures to survive.

I didn't really consider this side of it - thanks for the input.

But are you saying something else than genes would explain it?

I find it hard to explain why genes that ultimately lead to their own end of line would survive...

It could of course be an effect or byproduct of a shared gene/set of genes that is/are also responsible for other generic human traits, that are so important that it/they survive by means of selection. Maybe even, and a horrible analogy here; some kind of "parasitic gene"?

Another possibility could be an extraordinary high chance for mutations in this part of the genome, causing this trait to resurface even after selection did it's work.

Clearly, there are also "shades of gray" between heterosexuality and homosexuality -- bisexuality. Maybe we're just all bisexual to varying degrees, heterosexuality and homosexuality just representing the extremes of the scale?

Since heterosexuality seems to be the more common one, and the one with the best chance of reproduction, maybe it's a case of some dominant/recessive-y business going on here.

Or is the assumption that the "gay gene" wouldn't survive once you let selection play out it's role a false one? Maybe evolution just has been busy sorting out other, more noisy parts of the genome, and will get there eventually...?

These are merely thoughts and questions.. Feel free to dismiss or shoot them down :)

All of this aside, I'm also in the "if it harms no one, who cares" club. The problem here, of course, is people's varying interpretation of "harm"... :P

I don't see homosexuals as the cause for hurricanes, earthquakes, drought etc, like certain other groups believe.

Neither do I see them trying to restrict how I live my life and what I can do, based on old fairy tales, like certain other people try to.

Neither do I see them trying to limit what type of potentially revolutionary science and research can be done, based on the belief that cells have "souls", like certain other people try to.

There's the occasional annoyingly socialistic and political correctness noise coming from the movement, but I guess we'll have to tolerate some amount of that if the end result is less discrimination based on nonsense.

14. Evolutionarily Preserved Signature Found In The Primate Brain

Comment #198641 by spoo on June 24, 2008 at 10:39 am

I guess if you wanted to make a long shot, you could argue that homosexuality among certain individuals may enhance other individuals' chance of reproduction.

Or, it might in a general sense provide a more stable/secure environment in some odd ways that is positive for the collective set of genes in society. I have no idea. Just thoughts.

However, that sort of sounds like martyrdom genes, or goes into "group selection" territory.

15. Richard Dawkins Public Lecture - Liverpool 08

Comment #198409 by spoo on June 23, 2008 at 7:44 pm

"What are the chances of a download link?"

Just use http://www.keepvid.com and type in the Google vids url there and you should be able to save it locally.