601. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130393 by AllanW on February 20, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Guys, indulge yourselves if you want but this jerk is just pulling your wires. So far he has dropped a couple of verbal bombs, side-shifted the topic when pressed, refused to answer any direct question put to him, only contributed one-line ripostes and then eggs you on with specious, bullshit inanities (You are committed to not believing in God, so you do not see.).

Face it, he's a wind-up merchant, or troll in the common vernacular.

602. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130236 by AllanW on February 20, 2008 at 7:30 am

Ah! 'Peacemakers. I thought he said cheesemakers. Blessed are the cheesemakers.'

'Well obviously he's using a metaphor; it plainly refers to all workers of dairy products ..' etc

603. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130107 by AllanW on February 20, 2008 at 5:18 am

'Snowflakes speak for themselves.'

hahahahahahahahaha

604. Fleabytes

Comment #130069 by AllanW on February 20, 2008 at 2:57 am

Very well done, Paula. A great resource to use alongside the flea books to provide perspective. I echo all the congratulations here as well as being dumbfounded that you put yourself through the pain of reading that pile of excrement and then having the willpower to rip it apart; a genuine service to us all. Thanks.

605. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129465 by AllanW on February 19, 2008 at 7:04 am

Call me a cynic if you like but the funding source is significant here. The Templeton Foundation? Don't look for any results that categorically state a belief in God (which one? How many?) is not useful in some way.

Bah.

606. Atheists An Increasingly Outspoken Minority

Comment #129396 by AllanW on February 19, 2008 at 3:58 am

Ah! Thanks for the link; I always thought he was a nice, intelligent man as well as a terrific athlete. I'm glad he's repented of the dark side.

607. Atheists An Increasingly Outspoken Minority

Comment #129386 by AllanW on February 19, 2008 at 3:39 am

Erm Damian; Jonathan Edwards was the world TRIPLE-JUMP champion and world record holder. And I thought he was quite a devout Christian?

608. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #129359 by AllanW on February 19, 2008 at 2:40 am

'You guys are always so keen to prove what you can do physically'

As all the stuff we do metaphysically is not as impressive; see, metaphysically I just created a new universe out of bogies, you just can't see it.

You believe me don't you?

609. Why Darwin matters

Comment #128988 by AllanW on February 18, 2008 at 12:26 pm

WB Dr Benway :)

610. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #128910 by AllanW on February 18, 2008 at 9:32 am

I feel old and grey :)

Shortcake or chocolate digestive?

611. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #128906 by AllanW on February 18, 2008 at 9:21 am

Aw minhuna; don't feel bad.

Enlighten us with your dazzling insights and we'll try to lay off the verbal violence for awhile.

{puts feet up, brings cup of tea and packet of biscuits over to computer then stares at the screen ....}

612. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128845 by AllanW on February 18, 2008 at 4:49 am

I only come on these threads now to read and mark Wooter posts as troll afterwards.

613. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #128125 by AllanW on February 16, 2008 at 9:06 am

Sent this to all 9 of my regional MEP's;

I would like to draw your attention to the following link concerning Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2269,Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali-asks-for-protection,BBC

I am most concerned that she has to live in constant danger of losing her life and therefore urge the European Union to agree some form of protection to provide the kind of 24-hour security that she deserves.

It would also send out a very strong message to all religions that the European community finds the behaviour of her would-be assassins totally unacceptable and contrary to basic human rights.

If you have not already read her book 'Infidel', I would urge you to get a copy immediately. It gives a personal account of growing up as a Muslim woman and the events and experiences that made her decide to turn away from Islam.

We are all spending billions on security against terrorism; I'm sure some funding could be found to protect her.

Yours sincerely

Allan Wort

614. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127274 by AllanW on February 15, 2008 at 5:57 am

AllanW remonstrates with Quetz asserting that the cup of tea was intended for him!

615. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127256 by AllanW on February 15, 2008 at 5:29 am

AllanW also disputes the call of the play; I left in a minute and a huff :0

But agree with PhilG; all just PoMo guff.

616. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127239 by AllanW on February 15, 2008 at 4:52 am

Semantics and sophistry; no substance. Add this to shifting stance, moving goal-posts and you end up with a whirl or words that signify nothing.

617. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127219 by AllanW on February 15, 2008 at 4:07 am

Re; comment #127214

1. Good; so you accept the argument. Let's move on.
2. No; there is a difference between your ideas and you; read more carefully. I have analysed my thoughts; we're analysing yours, remember?
3. As posted, you shifted the goal-posts; use the examples in these posts and prove that the falsity (opposite) of the examples has value. Can't? I didn't think so.
4. 'is it not preferable to uphold the falsity of religion to keep society in order?' QED

Accepted; I will not call you mate again. However, who's descending to ad homs now? Won't your God chastise you for being a naughty boy?

618. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127208 by AllanW on February 15, 2008 at 3:38 am

No, Henri Bergson, you have not won or even retained your points so return to your original post is false.

1. Truth having a value. Read what I wrote as well as the other posters.

2. Ad homs; no contradiction from me, I'm afraid. I called your ideas post-modernist bullshit not you. You I called a fascist.

3. Falsity having a survival value; not accepted. The woefully weak examples you conjure for your argument are insipid. They do not demonstrate falsity just current religious memes. Address the examples I and other posters have raised and demonstrate the opposite is true. Typical attempt to shift here.

4. 'I never implied that order in society is a value.' Yes you did.

We can address any other points as you win the ones you started with, mate.

619. Why Darwin matters

Comment #127194 by AllanW on February 15, 2008 at 3:08 am

Man oh man; this guy has a serious God complex.

'Wooter, number one enemy,', 'He is extremely dangerous. You cannot handle with him alone.'

620. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127191 by AllanW on February 15, 2008 at 3:03 am

Re; comment #127179

Typical. A series of obfuscations and a call for downright tyranny.

I'll leave the more philosophically minded to take you seriously on the 'Can you prove that truth has a value?' question. I'm more mundane; it plainly has survival value to learn about germ theory and vaccination rather than 'it's the midichlorians' or 'spirits' that need exorcism.

'So does this theist-atheist battle simply come down to suppression of those that think differently?'. Not in my opinion; suppression has only ever been in one direction, my god-bothering friend, and reason has not been doing it. However your thought is based on more waffly, post-modern bullshit that all opinions are equally valid; they are not and can be demonstrated as such. In addition, the scientific approach is far more verifiable and concrete so preferable as a guide to living life in a real world.

'is it not preferable to uphold the falsity of religion to keep society in order? Is it not preferable to uphold the falsity of morality for the same purpose? Is it not preferable to uphold the falsity of equality? Of 'human rights' (they have no inherent truth)?

I had no idea you were such a fascist. To 'keep the order in society' has soooooo many false premises contained within it (there is no order, whatever order has been seen has never been universally applied, within any society that exhibits order there are margins at either extreme that disavow that order, the order that must be kept is the one I subscribe to as it's the best and I know more than you do about what's best for you etc etc).

As for the falsity of morality, falsity of equality and human rights; define your terms and demonstrate your views before attempting to bash anyone over the head with your rightfulness and truth.

621. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127108 by AllanW on February 15, 2008 at 12:35 am

Re; comment #127078 Teratornis

I like these comments. They're not without fault but I think they're valuable; they helped me bring into focus an aspect of religious mind-sets that was not clear.

'People only interpret ridicule as ridicule when it reminds them of things they see as flaws in themselves or others. We can ridicule religious people because they agree to feel ridiculed. They agree to feel ridiculed because they all understand on some level that it is ridiculous to believe in their fantastically detailed religious doctrines, while simultaneously disbelieving all the other equally fantastic doctrines of other religions, without one single shred of conclusive evidence to settle the issue.' I would add another factor to this; they feel equally exposed as they also accept many, many aspects of the real, observable, verifiable world as explained by science so this jump or leap to a faith-based idea of truth stands out in marked contrast.

I think these two factors explain a helluva lot of the anger we see generated by rational critics of religious beliefs. The key is that, apart from the extremely ignorant or stupid who can't, most believers can at some level understand the two flaws or pitfalls of their belief highlighted here. When they are brought explicitly to the surface we get the reactions we get.

622. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #126954 by AllanW on February 14, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Interesting conversation.

The obvious flaws in Buntings performance were her tendency to butt in, her inability to listen to thoughts as a whole but just hear odd phrases, her lack of considered response (just an intuitive rather than judged comeback) and her breathy, excited delivery; staccato words tumbling over each other (which betrays a mind running straight through the tongue rather than the frontal cortex).

All of that is aside from her ill-considered position, of course. It was obvious that RD moved her position by argument from a combative adversary to a less confident, more agreeable and essentially docile end-point. She is by no means stupid (she has obviously read something at some time) but I think demonstrates a severe lack of critical thinking; she exhibits the typical non-scientists positivist approach ('oooh! That sound good, I'll believe that is a fact until someone presents something more sexy.') rather than thorough or deeply questioning.

RD was impressive again. Part of that is his willingness to depart from the deferential, academic etiquette of hearing the other person until they have finished on the occasions when he is interrupted; bravo. It's not bad manners to point out when the other person is exhibiting bad manners (to paraphrase :)).

And it was plain which of the contestants had spent far more time thinking and preparing their position for the debate and its implications.

Is this part of a series of debates on different topics or just a one-off; anybody know?

623. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #125820 by AllanW on February 12, 2008 at 5:44 am

Happy Darwin Day everyone.

Love the cards, well done all.

624. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125390 by AllanW on February 11, 2008 at 9:59 am

Re; comment #125386 HughCaldwell

I'm close to calling this guy a troll. He has been prominent on this thread yet contributed nothing but air. Is he just stirring the pot, fence-sitting, stoking the fire or a genuine air-head?

He drops little bomb-messages every now and then but shifts his position at each new wind. He refuses to answer any of the challenges or questions posed him.

As I say, close to trolling for me but I'll hold on awhile.

625. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125346 by AllanW on February 11, 2008 at 9:05 am

'I'm having trouble figuring out what we mean by 'laws'.'

Lame, post-modernistic arse gravy; post your views.

626. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125342 by AllanW on February 11, 2008 at 9:01 am

Re; comment #125332 HughCalgwell
'This is a two-way process. The 'law of the land" is ever-changing.'

Of course; and your point is?

Or is this meant to suggest that you disagree with the good posts above defining and discussing multiculturalism?

Do you accept Quetz's point above?

627. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125262 by AllanW on February 11, 2008 at 6:36 am

As much as I'd love PZ to get some deserved recognition I'd have to back Krauss in that list. I don't know as much as I obviously should about Tyson but he seems to have some fans here.

628. What he wishes on us is an abomination

Comment #125256 by AllanW on February 11, 2008 at 6:31 am

Re; comment #125234

'In Western countries they are not going to be 'hunted down and killed' for doing this; or if they are their murders should be treated as such and their killers prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.'

yeh, Ian; that sounds great from societies point of view but not so good from the individual concerneds.

629. What he wishes on us is an abomination

Comment #125171 by AllanW on February 11, 2008 at 3:26 am

Excellent stuff; thanks.

This really should carry much more weight because it speaks from experience; it's what I have said many times, the oppressed minorities are the people to look towards for a judgement on Islam. It's too easy for white, male commentators to (quite wrongly in most instances) be branded as right-wing, post-colonial thugs so that the message gets diluted or lost. Ayaan Hirsi Ali et al who have experienced what Islam leads to are the ones to carry this debate.

More power to you Ms Alibhai-Brown.

630. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125160 by AllanW on February 11, 2008 at 3:17 am

I like this article; clear, factual, well-argued and points in the right direction.

Whether Williams stays or goes is a toss-up; he has 'pissed on his chips' as we say oop north and will never again be treated with any respect by much of the population.

Two things;

I hope this emboldens the second and third generation Muslim population to take control of their communities: the absence of integrated, westernized Muslims in positions of influence should finally have made them realise that they must clean the stables or be faced with more regrettable and unjust victimization by racists in this country.

And secondly I hope that the main secular lobbies really co-ordinate and press for change on the back of this. Blasphemy laws repealed, Hate laws immasculated, faith schools and academies opened to all or forcibly changed. I think disestablishment is maybe too far away but you never know.

631. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125151 by AllanW on February 11, 2008 at 3:02 am

I'd like to echo the praise for your work so far and express my delight that this retirement from your post will leave you freer to accomplish many more years of progress in the foundations you have established.

For me, the suggestions of Adam Hart-Davis and Bill Bryson fall within one section of the perceptive article we are posting about; they are popularizers not world-renowned experts. No criticism attaches to that only that it's clear they are not the sort of people Simonyi intended for the role.

I also agree that the excellent Steve Jones would not be too long in the role before facing a similar deadline. I was impressed by Dr Hugh Montgomery's presentation of the Christmas lectures this last year so maybe he is heading down this particular path.

I'm sure the committee have a number of excellent candidates in mind and will choose well.

632. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124980 by AllanW on February 10, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Ok we'll play it your way then.

Only idiots with prejudices demonise populations from limited data. Do you think you're going to stop that? Fuck me, are there some particularly stupid posters in here tonight, or what?

I understood your point; I just don't agree with it. You plainly think I'm dense because of that; more fool you.

633. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124974 by AllanW on February 10, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Re; comment #124961 Goldy

Good grief, Goldy!
'they are not really representative of the general Muslim population.'
'Have you not thought that this honour killing has been going on for years'

Man oh man, are you really saying that it's a non-issue because not all muslims are killing and that it's been going on for a long time anyway?

I'm sure you aren't but your point seems to be that it is demonising muslims; no, only in the same way that publishing burglary crime statistics demonises the whole population as in not at all; just the criminals.

634. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124931 by AllanW on February 10, 2008 at 12:38 pm

Come clean and say it plainly, D'Arcy, or not at all. What's your point?

635. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124926 by AllanW on February 10, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Re; comment #124902 scooternyc

Ok, thanks again. I think I get the personal responsibility angle here. To summarize; a person has to take responsibility for all of the consequences of their chosen actions.

And I'm getting the choices idea too; part of assessing which choices to make in life would be based upon the gradually increasing feedback from the rest of society that informs you about the consequences of whatever action you may be contemplating. Right?

So far we've only really pecked at the surface of the three areas we discussed awhile ago and I'm keen to see how it all fits together.

Onto the education ideas; I guess you envisage that formal education would incorporate these ideas but that these pragmatic guidelines would also be enshrined in the rules of society as well? To further clarify them, reinforce them and make them applicable universally? So what areas of law, institutions, etc would need to be adapted or changed wholesale to achieve this?

I hope we're getting closer to being able to understand the final area as well; how this would tie together and produce a better world. Any thoughts you want to share about that yet?

I'm enjoying this :)

636. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124898 by AllanW on February 10, 2008 at 11:59 am

I don't know anywhere near enough to answer in detail BaronOchs but some benefits are claimable as an individual and some as a member of a marriage or family.

Tax allowances, for example, may be claimed for being married. Family allowance has recently been changed but is still claimed, I think, by the wife on behalf of children. Sickness and invalidity benefits are normally claimed by the claimant but may be assessed in conjunction with other benefits that are mutual or tied to marital status.

637. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124871 by AllanW on February 10, 2008 at 11:33 am

Yep, I just had a go at call on pharyngula as well. An example of a situation when one can bend so far backwards that ones head disappears up ones own arse.

638. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124833 by AllanW on February 10, 2008 at 10:49 am

Re; comment #124826 scooternyc

Many thanks for that; exactly what I mean m8 :)

'Natural consequences'; you're going to have to spell it out for me, please. I don't know what you mean here.

Your reponse on the 'how do we deal ..' part is really full, thanks again. I think I see what you mean. But to make it more practical and applicable to real life we need to examine a few choices and assess the consequences using this approach. Can you suggest a few, please? I'll certainly add some when I think of them :)

The 'how do we educate ..' response is a bit clearer but I'm not sure how that would work in practice; any suggestions?

I think I'm making progress in understanding you here but I'll need to try a little harder to get to the gritty detail I guess; let's keep going and see.

639. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124813 by AllanW on February 10, 2008 at 10:10 am

Re; comment #124807 scooternyc

I do care about the sympathetic hearing because I think you have interesting things to say and ATM all you are doing is playing verbal tennis rather than laying-out your thoughts more fully. I'd be interested in hearing them.

Wasting resources or potential; maybe not on this thread but my understanding of your consistent stance needs to be clearer; what happens to those who fail to take ownership of their choices? How do we deal with people who do not realise in the same way that you do that they need to be responsible for their choices? How do we educate these people to realise that they should not impose a 'cost to others & free of limitations'?

640. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124791 by AllanW on February 10, 2008 at 9:03 am

Re; comment #124746 scooternyc

Ok, i'm interested; 'It's like saying if we feed everyone and give away tons of food then poverty ends, we know it's not true.'

Please be as clear as you can in telling me how you define the proportion of the population that in your view is wasting economic resources or their own potential. Also please detail what systems or rules you would apply, given the power and authority to do so, that would affect these people in particular but all people in fact. And if you wouldn't mind (because I am genuinely interested in knowing) please lay out for me why you think this would be a better world as a result.

I know it's asking a lot but I think it would help you to get more of a sympathetic hearing here and may gain you a number of converts rather than antagonists so please consider it.

641. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124709 by AllanW on February 10, 2008 at 5:42 am

Oh guys; don't feed the troll :(

642. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124672 by AllanW on February 10, 2008 at 3:23 am

Thanks for the support gr8hands. But I need to be able to more cogently and convincingly detail those views. I agree though that those views are realistic and explanatory.

I guess what I'm working towards is a convincing viewpoint (which is why Darwin is so important) that the twin motivations that hamper an acceptance of global community and a shared objective of progress as a species into the future are;
- uncritical, unscientific acceptance of supernatural explanations for natural phenomena (Darwins theories as expanded and currently formed are the best antidote to these we have at the moment).
- intra-species competition for economic resources as evidenced by nationalistic, insufficiently moderated capitalism. These produce increasing disparity in the distribution of economic benefits that fragments rather than coheres individuals existence.

The interplay between these factors results in poverty, ignorance, destruction of resources, waste of lives and a failure to achieve our potential.

Bah; I need to put this together in a more coherent manner before spouting here :)

643. Battle of the Chambersburg billboards

Comment #124504 by AllanW on February 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm

"They are a collection of organized, well funded zealots who are insulted by the mere existence of people who DON'T believe in the Almighty. They are determined to drive ATHEISM underground."

There; fixed that for ya.

644. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124489 by AllanW on February 9, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Re; comment #124482 Artful_Dodger

No; I'm not aware of any serious studies showing that religious belief correlates with low levels of literacy in a culture (although I will look). My point was that acceptance of supernatural explanations for observed phenomena does limit the search for any other explanations and tends to be self-fulfilling or positivist in manner. Not scientifically constructed.

I would certainly dispute your view that Christianity was and is the motivating force ('has actually given wings to') behind science. It may have been the background belief system but there are many examples that confirm my view that scientific breakthroughs were made despite Christian orthodoxy, teachings and organised repression of questioning the dogma. And that just covers the Enlightenment era.

In our modern era I would strongly argue not only that organized religion continues to demand acceptance of unquestioning belief (and hence thwarts potential advances) but conflicts between religions drain massive resources from the economy that could have pushed scientific progress far further than we have reached.

It may not be Christianity that is killing culture on its own but I stand by my statement that all forms of superstition directly feed uncritical mindsets and help to produce short-term, gratification-led 'zombies'. Don't try to tell me that the teachings of the Abrahamic religions don't distill down to 'You are a piece of sinful shit in this life but you might just be allowed to sit in heaven for eternity'. That is not conducive to an open, experimental, questioning outlook that just might make discoveries, is it?

645. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124474 by AllanW on February 9, 2008 at 3:21 pm

Re; comment #124466 krisking

I appreciate the honesty :)

In the long run, the atheist position is not anything other than a rejection of supernatural explanations. Many people add to this (mainly driven by experiences they've had in society) a wish to have the influence of organized religion lessened. Some do not.

As Steve says, it tends to lead to a fuller embrace of rational enquiry and science which, IMO, is the best way we humans have developed so far that leads to increasingly fuller explanations of the human condition in this universe (and maybe in time of others). I reckon this will continue to approach full understanding in the long run of centuries not in years but we make that progress in the here and now, in tiny increments, by small numbers of people, in a patchy, inconsistent manner yet still appreciable.

Religious belief is the biggest ball and chain around our legs that hampers the widespread acceptance of this view and in some cases is reversing the gains we as a species have made (American levels of literacy anyone?) so is positively damaging to us at this stage of our development.

But an atheist position is the starting-point for being able to acknowledge this view; without it you don't even begin to see the issues. It's not the end in itself but a necessary precurser to an open, enquiring mind that can begin to get to grips with the longer-term issues.

646. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124462 by AllanW on February 9, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Re; comment #124418 krisking
"Well, we shall see."

On the one hand you could take this as a meaningless, slight, throwaway phrase. And therefore ignore it.

On the other I could see this as a monstrously egotistical revelation of your mindset ("Ho hum, the atheists have posted their opinion about the faith status of their viewpoint but it will NOT be decided until I have pronounced upon it"). And be led to thinking that the writer of that phrase, while seeming to be a polite and thoughtful person is, in fact, so welded to their blinkers that they refuse to meaningfully enter into discussion, knowing that they will let any ideas that confront their belief slip from their backs like water heads for a ducks arse.

So, what'll it be? Fancy staying on one point long enough to listen and exchange or will you be like every other poor deluded fool who stumbles in here thinking they have all the God-inspired answers?

Does your view remain unchanged that atheism is an article of faith?

647. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124351 by AllanW on February 9, 2008 at 6:48 am

Oh dear, krisking. Comment #124342.
"what a leader's followers think he has written"
And here was I thinking you were a balanced, thoughtful person.

Repeating, let alone buying-into, this canard that Dawkins or 'evilutionists' have created some sort of faith cult that mindless followers adhere to is completely false. It demeans you rather than us. It tells us more about the value you place on unquestioning credulity rather than an accurate comment on our penchant for facts. For that I'm sad.

648. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124278 by AllanW on February 9, 2008 at 2:26 am

Re; comment #124261

Nice one, Centurion :)

649. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #124276 by AllanW on February 9, 2008 at 2:24 am

Re; comment #124249
"Since I often talk to myself (in my head), I am a particularly credible witness when I say that this voice was not me.

Fugues are perhaps abstract conversations. This was specific and didactic about my circumstances."

I'm sure you're a nice person; balanced, intelligent, thoughtful. So these phrases must begin to show you that the experiences you have do not originate outside your own brain. They are chemically-driven brain activities.

If I may suggest something? Read the sections on the mind in the book by Derren Brown entitled 'Tricks of the mind' where he simply talks about these phenomena in a non-patronising and layman manner.

I hope they help.

650. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #124275 by AllanW on February 9, 2008 at 2:15 am

Yet another terrific article by Matthew Parris;
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3337984.ece?Submitted=true