951. Dutch lawmaker planning film criticizing the Quran

Comment #91723 by hungarianelephant on November 29, 2007 at 4:55 am

41. Comment #91698 by Bonzai on November 29, 2007 at 1:58 am

I could not agree more.

952. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91710 by hungarianelephant on November 29, 2007 at 3:08 am

Corylus (91578) - Thanks for a thoughtful post, in what has now officially become the apostates' infighting thread (amusing as that may be).

I too worry about unforeseen consequences. However, there's good reason to suppose that circumstances would be different from those in China.

The missing girls in China are largely a consequence of a one-child policy. Given that in agrarian societies males are seen as more economically productive, the policy effectively amounted to a severe financial penalty on couples whose first baby was a girl. Thus the huge number of missing girls, aborted or killed as infants. (Side query: Is this a better or worse fate than a life we would consider miserable?) They are "traded" precisely because they have a perceived negative value.

Why did slavery end?

We can argue about that for the next 200 years, but it's clear that one important factor was that it became economically unfeasible in significant sectors. When it's cheaper to pay someone to do the work than it is to buy them, house them, feed them, clothe them and make sure they don't run away, there's no incentive to enslave. And when the Royal Navy started to put the boot in, the risks priced slaves out of the market in much of the world.

What has this got to do with Muslim girls? Well if the monetary price of a girl goes up, the rational thing for a man to do is to be more attractive in other ways, whether to her or her parents. And her Dad arguably has less clout than now. If he seriously pisses her off, she (hopefully) knows she has other options available to her.
"Dad, I want to go to University."
"You can't. Your role is to be a wife and mother."
"I can leave and you will get nothing for me, or I can go to University, co-operate, and leave open the possibility of a dowry."
"Oh."

Perhaps I'm being unduly optimistic. And I don't disagree that it would be better if women's lives could be seen as an end and an array of possibilities in themselves. But the question is: Is this an improvement on the current situation? I think it is.

I've known women from relatively enlightened Muslim families, who have gone off to University and got into good jobs. The only real expectation is that they don't bring a white boy home. Their lot isn't going to change much.

There will be other families who currently see their girls as an encumbrance and may instead see them as a chattel. It's probably than some of these girls will be mistreated, but it's hard to see how being married off to the highest bidder is significantly worse than being married off to the most "respectable" family who will take you off your father's hands. And I'd argue that with some money value placed on the girl, there's a decent chance of some life-value being placed on her as well.

Just some thoughts.

953. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91366 by hungarianelephant on November 28, 2007 at 6:56 am

FK – Actually it was me. Declaration of haram is certainly a potential problem with it, although that in itself would create a neat culture vs. religion conflict. The bigger problem would likely be a generation of sexually frustrated Muslim men ...

briancoughlan – I think we are perhaps talking past each other. We're agreed that there will be problems, and I certainly agree that a fascist "response" is likely to happen somewhere in Europe before a Muslim "takeover" (my bet is France, but I wouldn't stake the house on it).

Still, the point remains that you do not need to be in control, or in majority, to be in power. Suppose the Muslim Democratic Party holds the balance of power in the Netherlands – hardly an unlikely scenario in a PR system. Then suppose that Rotterdam City Council decides that it wants to ban alcohol advertising, and force pubs to take down their signs. Will they get away with it? Of course they will. Next, it prosecutes someone who "insults the Prophet" for inciting riot. And on it goes by a thousand cuts.

Of course, we don't need Islamists in Britain to take away our liberties. That's NuLab's job. But the extent to which they have got away with it so far is hardly cause for encouragement.

Turkey has held off sharia law through an autocratic secular regime which only developed an interest in human rights when a large bribe from the EU looked a realistic possibility. Even so, its grasp appears to be slipping. I understand the point you were making was related to numbers, but if we find ourselves in anything approaching Turkey's situation, I will not want to stick around.

954. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91342 by hungarianelephant on November 28, 2007 at 5:15 am

39. Comment #91334 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 28, 2007 at 4:25 am

I assume you mean by this that in no EU country will Muslims be in a majority by 2050. That's debatable. If current migration patterns continue, both the Netherlands and Belgium are likely to become majority Muslim states in that timescale. (If Belgium still exists, of course.)

But that's somewhat beside the point. It is entirely likely that London, Birmingham and Leeds will have a majority of Muslims within two generations. Even now, with around 3% of the population, Muslims are treated as a special interest group to be pandered to with obscenities such as laws against "inciting religious hatred". Odious characters such as George Galloway can get themselves elected. It's wishful thinking to imagine that you don't have problems until you get to 45%.

I really don't think Turkey is a shining example for our future. Do you?

955. Golden Compass author hits back

Comment #91335 by hungarianelephant on November 28, 2007 at 4:28 am

octopus, your silence is most eloquent.

956. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91330 by hungarianelephant on November 28, 2007 at 4:06 am

The issue of demographics is real, but there is a fairly simple solution, at least insofar as it consists of Islam treating women as breeding machines.

Science is very close to developing sex-choice drugs. Instead of getting sniffy about this, we could actively encourage it, and make it available cheaply. You can guarantee that the nutters will always assume that it is some other family's job to produce seven daughters for marriage to their seven sons. And within twenty years, supply and demand will ensure that women have become immensely valuable.

In the meantime, it would be nice if the British government would kindly stop allowing families to import unwesternised women from Pakistan for arranged marriages.

957. The absurd world of Martin Amis

Comment #91039 by hungarianelephant on November 27, 2007 at 3:59 am

jamienewman - Compel Israel to return to its 1967 borders, and grant Palestinians in the diaspora a right to return to their property in Israel, or just compensation for that property.

Out of interest, why not its 1922 borders?

And does your compensation plan only apply to "Palestinians", or would you also apply it to anyone else who has been dispossessed since, say, the end of the Second World War?

958. The absurd world of Martin Amis

Comment #90785 by hungarianelephant on November 26, 2007 at 10:45 am

Obviously the religion has elements which don't belong in the modern world but the community choses to be selective about what's good for them and ignore the dark texts.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. We have all seen footage of Abu Hamza spouting hate to a substantial crowd, who have a perfectly good mosque to go to.

959. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90675 by hungarianelephant on November 26, 2007 at 5:29 am

stephenray - the Bar exam is nothing like as exacting in England as in the US. And I'm not sure it even existed when Blair was called to the Bar. You qualified by attaching yourself to a patron and eating enough dinners. There was, however, a firm policy of non-discrimination. Chambers were expected not to distinguish between Oxford- and Cambridge-educated gentlemen.

More seriously, plenty of thickies and/or nutters appear to be able to qualify as attorneys. I understand that our friend Fred Phelps is one of them.

960. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90649 by hungarianelephant on November 26, 2007 at 2:45 am

If this whole episode tells us anything, it's that we're right to be suspicious of godbotherers in office.

Unfortunately, I don't think it will make any difference. It was abundantly clear that Blair was a phoney long before we was first elected. If anyone had missed it, his delivery at Diana's funeral of the reading from 1 Corinthians, as if the words had occurred to him just then, should have resolved the matter. But he won two more elections.

Whatever your ultimate judgment on him is, we're not entitled to complain that we didn't know about his character before we elected him.

961. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #90182 by hungarianelephant on November 23, 2007 at 9:24 am

jeroen - I can't speak for Catholic countries generally, but in Ireland the magic words are "800 years". (And with that in the bank, there's absolutely no need to have any memory whatsoever of the period from 1968 to 1994, except insofar as you were the victim.)

How far this relates to a particular mindset is hard to say. What is clear is that the priests, who were the biggest losers after the Flight of the Earls, did a great deal to stir up nationalism, using Catholicism as a rallying point.

Of course, for a real long-term memory, you have to admire our friends in the Islamic world, who refer to Westerners as "Crusaders" and object to the English flag because it was a symbol of oppression as recently as 1000 years ago. As we know, the Crusades were an entirely spontaneous event. Unprovoked in any way, Christendom decided to go and oppress Muslims thousands of miles from home.

962. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90140 by hungarianelephant on November 23, 2007 at 6:32 am

SRWB - If you don't have faith, you wouldn't understand. It's a divine mystery. Apparently.

963. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #90138 by hungarianelephant on November 23, 2007 at 6:28 am

Numbers 22:28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

22:29 And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.

22:30 And the ass said unto Balaam, [Am] not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since [I was] thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Neigh.

Or it might have been "Nay". I forget.

Revcort entertained us with this on the leprechology thread for a while.

964. Saudi gang-rape victim is jailed

Comment #90126 by hungarianelephant on November 23, 2007 at 5:10 am

Diacanu - Try dinner parties in North London, student union meetings, gatherings of secondary school teachers or local councils. I've heard it at all of the above. I've even heard an openly gay man defend the regime in Tehran, a week after it hung two young men from a crane for the heinous offence of having consensual sex in private.

Hang around bbc.co.uk for a few days and you'll find the assumption, if not the positive argument, there too. These are people who refuse to call the 7/7 bombers "terrorists".

965. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90120 by hungarianelephant on November 23, 2007 at 4:35 am

So, where is the bugger, then?

Well he's a little busy with other things. Such as writing in Arabic inside a tomato, and putting pictures of his Mum on a grilled cheese sandwich.

966. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89977 by hungarianelephant on November 22, 2007 at 9:27 am

Ruht: Only one God is the real one.

Are you sure?

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness" - Genesis 1:26

967. Ofcom backs Channel 4 over mosque probe

Comment #89924 by hungarianelephant on November 22, 2007 at 6:55 am

Comment #89896 by Mat

But on the other hand, I'd say that much of the official pandering to the so-called "Muslim community" is racist.

If a 16 year old white girl was forcibly taken by her male relatives to (say) Sweden, forced into an arranged marriage with her cousin, who then rapes her, we would expect prosecutions for kidnap and conspiracy to rape. If the Swedish government refused to extradite, there would be a major international incident.

But if she has brown skin and the destination is Pakistan, then whoa! We can't interfere with that. Cultural sensitivity, don't you know.

In other words, brown British subjects with the misfortune to be born into one of these families have fewer rights than their white counterparts. And the brown perpetrators aren't dealt with, because they can't be expected to conform to the same standards of decency as the rest of us.

So who's the racist here?

968. The joining of church and state

Comment #89224 by hungarianelephant on November 20, 2007 at 3:29 am

The 14th amendment extends the protections of the Bill of Rights to states. The Supreme Court has already ruled that this means states cannot prefer one religion over another, or religion over non-religion: Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet

This doesn't stop the ID brigade trying to revisit it, of course.

969. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88967 by hungarianelephant on November 19, 2007 at 9:51 am

Shrunk - The simple answer to your question is No.

The Dover decision is one of the District Court. AFAIK that only binds future decisions of the District Court in that circuit. Other circuits, higher courts and state courts don't have to follow it.

The other problem is that stare decisis (precedent) only applies to decisions of law, not facts. There wasn't a whole lot of law in the Dover decision. Judge Jones essentially said that an objective observer would conclude that this particular policy was a creationist strategy, that ID was not science, and that teaching it therefore violated the Establishment Clause. There's probably room to come to a different conclusion with other policies.

What it does do is make it more difficult - if nothing else, because of the embarrassment value of the case. What everyone will remember of Dover is the "breathtaking inanity" of ID.

970. The joining of church and state

Comment #88945 by hungarianelephant on November 19, 2007 at 8:16 am

sidfaiwu - I agree with nearly all of your post, but I don't think it supports the line of reasoning in the original article.

Firstly, I think you are right to treat the founding documents as similar, unlike Gardner's treatment of them. He describes the Declaration of Independence as "shot through with references to God". Er, no.

the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them

they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence

And that's it. But these aren't unequivocally deistic uses. The first and second assume at least the creation of humans with a "correct" and pre-determined set of entitlements. The third is explicitly theistic, though it's probably not a coincidence that Jefferson chose the highly impersonal noun "Providence", suggesting destiny and fortune rather than a god.

Many of the founding fathers were deists, but that's of much less relevance than the fact that they were secularists - including the Christian ones. Religious conflict and oppression were fresh in the minds of many Americans at the time. It was a time closer to the Glorious Revolution than World War I is to us today.

As you point out, the framers realised that the best chance for everyone was religious freedom for all. It was that, not some metaphysical pontification, that drove their political action. It's no coincidence that the very first article of the Bill of Rights deals with both freedom of speech and religious non-establishment.

971. The joining of church and state

Comment #88845 by hungarianelephant on November 19, 2007 at 4:11 am

Well let's start with this:

Formally, that still holds. In reality, it's a dead letter. "Today, we have a religious test for office," says Dershowitz. "It is inconceivable that an atheist, an agnostic or a skeptic could run for office." Polls show half of Americans wouldn't vote for a qualified atheist. Even one-third of self-described liberals feel a lack of religious belief is an automatic disqualification for public office.

Try a bit of substitution and it's more obvious what a weak argument this is:

"It is inconceivable that a white supremacist could run for office." Polls show half of Americans wouldn't vote for a qualified white supremacist. Even one-third of self-described liberals feel a lack of belief in racial equality is an automatic disqualification for public office.

This has nothing to do with the constitutional bar on religious tests and everything to do with the notion of electing public representatives by popular vote.

Then there's a whole lot of nonsense about the supposed influence of deism on the American constitution, which is presented without a shred of evidence (not surprisingly, because it's inaccurate), and the silly assertion that Darwin "devastated" deism, which for good measure throws in a confusing reference to "design without a designer".

I also think a number of countries would be surprised to learn that

American political culture is unique in the reverence it has for the beliefs and intentions of [its founders]

Iran and North Korea spring to mind as possible alternatives - even the French might have a thing or two to say on the subject.

Anyone else?

972. The joining of church and state

Comment #88806 by hungarianelephant on November 19, 2007 at 2:40 am

Isn't anyone going to take this article to task for its inaccuracies and faulty reasoning? Or do we only do that to articles which reach a conclusion we don't agree with?

973. Saudi gang-rape victim is jailed

Comment #88804 by hungarianelephant on November 19, 2007 at 2:36 am

Comments 6 (NormanDoering) and 10 (briancoughlanworldcitizen)

Keep banging this drum.

Oil is the key to draining the Middle East swamp. The Arab League and Iran together have GDP slightly in excess of Italy, and 75% is oil revenue. Take out the oil and the kleptocrats follow.

974. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88366 by hungarianelephant on November 16, 2007 at 8:43 am

Holocaust denial is a poor analogy.

On its face, the concept seems to be binary: the Holocaust either happened, or it didn't. But not even the most trenchant "deniers" actually deny the basic fact of systematic mistreatment, concentration camps and death. Instead, there's a whole range of intermediate questions, such as the number of dead, the manner in which they died, Hitler's involvement etc. And that's before you start on the question of whether it was morally worse than, say, the death march of German conscripts captured at Stalingrad. "Polite society" usually has a hissy fit when anyone suggests that, perhaps, the popular narrative isn't the whole story. It's even a crime in most of Europe, and elsewhere you would want to have your feet firmly under the University table before expressing much of a dissenting view. Except Iran, obviously.

Evolution, by contrast, is a relatively simple proposition. Sure, there's stuff that isn't resolved, such as group selection. But there is a clear basic thesis that's either right or wrong, and the preponderance of evidence is in only one direction.

975. A third of adults believe God watches over them

Comment #88171 by hungarianelephant on November 15, 2007 at 3:14 am

Ty_Webb - use

< blockquote >

and

< /blockquote >

without the spaces.

976. Holy communion

Comment #88038 by hungarianelephant on November 14, 2007 at 8:09 am

Peacebeuponme - I mentioned steve99's view because he's the one objecting to it. If you're saying that something which is offensive to gay people because they are gay is unacceptable to everyone, I'd agree with you, in just the same way that the monkey noises should be regarded as unacceptable to everyone.

It's just that I didn't see that as the target of the (poor, unclear) joke.

977. Holy communion

Comment #88032 by hungarianelephant on November 14, 2007 at 7:40 am

(BaronOchs) That's because it's not a very good cartoon. If it was, we'd all know what point the cartoonist was trying to make.

FWIW, it seemed to me that it was trying to compare the Out campaign with the gay rights movement, and Dawkins and Hitchens as a certain type of gay rights activist. I don't see what's wrong with that, any more than I see anything wrong with - say - Chris Rock mocking certain "black" traits (cf. monkey noises directed at black footballers).

On the other hand, I can see why steve99 sees it another way.

978. Malaysia firm's 'Muslim car' plan

Comment #87826 by hungarianelephant on November 13, 2007 at 9:22 am

V - What can female suicide bombers hope to achieve by their martyrdom and transport to Paradise?

A sense of perspective, perhaps? It always seemed to me that 72 virgins for all eternity is ... well ... not really enough.

979. A third of adults believe God watches over them

Comment #87793 by hungarianelephant on November 13, 2007 at 6:24 am

So let me see if I have this straight.

Two in five people say they pray. But of those, at least one in six doesn't believe that God is watching over them.

On the other hand, of those who do believe God is watching over them, at least two thirds don't pray about "world issues".

Excellent survey, chaps.

980. Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

Comment #84436 by hungarianelephant on November 2, 2007 at 3:38 am

58. Comment #84194 by gr8hands on November 1, 2007 at 12:01 pm

hungarianelephant is ignoring the crimes of trespass (a cemetary is not public -- you cannot merely set up a picnic in a cemetary when or where you like, for instance), harassment, intimidation, perhaps even of laws regarding staging of demonstrations or required permits for such activities, cemetaries are usually in 'quiet zones' where loud activities are not permitted, etc.

Trespass, harassment and intimidation are not crimes at common law. Trespass is a tort (and in any case, the report says they were demonstrating outside the courthouse, not in the cemetery). Harassment probably isn't even a tort, and intimidation is a tort with a specific meaning, related to an attack on economic interests, and is not relevant in cases like this. They may all be made into crimes by a properly enacted law. But there doesn't seem to be one in Maryland, or at least not one for which the DA's office felt able to prosecute the Phelps.

hungarianelephant and others are confused about what a jury judgement means, and how it is decided. It is the jury that decides whether something is illegal or not -- and they have been known to acquit confessed killers, as well as punish the innocent. Yet we don't tend to think of them as making it up as we go. That's just how the jury system works.

Dear me. The jury does not decide whether something is illegal. It decides whether or not certain facts are proved to the required standard. There will inevitably be some mistakes: that's why we have a right of appeal. In civil cases, the jury also decides on the level of damages required to compensate the plaintiff. And I'm sorry, but when it comes up with a figure like $2.9m as "compensation" in this case, then there's no reasonable description other than that it's making it up as it goes along.

As for punitive damages, well the whole basis of them is extremely questionable, and they've more or less been abolished in England. I don't blame the jury for making the award. They were even invited to do it. In effect, they were told "If you don't like what these guys are up to, destroy them financially." If that's considered a sound and principled model, then I'd hate to see what leaving social rules up to the whim of a jury looks like.

981. Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

Comment #84175 by hungarianelephant on November 1, 2007 at 11:23 am

mattpenfold - Society does have a right to require people not to act in anti-social manner in a public place.

I agree. But "society", as expressed through the laws of the State of Maryland, hasn't in fact done so.

Phelps does not appear to have committed any crime in this case. So instead we're treated to a civil suit intended to get an even harsher result by the back door. In fact, the plaintiff's attorney was quite explicit about the intention:

[award the plaintiff an amount] that says don't do this in Maryland again. Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again

I don't think this is an issue of free speech so much as that of the rule of law. A judgment for millions of dollars, based solely on what the jurors consider to be outrageous, is tantamount to making it up as we go along. And yes, if you ask, I do think that the rule of law is more important than any other rights.

982. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77363 by hungarianelephant on October 9, 2007 at 6:11 am

revcort(76690)
All I can do is do my best. However, it is not like I'm all alone. There are many Biblical scholars who have gone before who help me. And of course, I strongly believe in the working of the Holy Spirit to aid me in understanding. (I guess I could explain how that works in my life- which would further freak you guys out) I don't disagree with CHeard and BrotherJohn about the biggest issues of all of course. But there are definitely disagreements on many things. It is unfortunate, and some would argue that we'd be better off presenting a united front. But I'd rather just lay it out there myself. If I disagree because of something I have read in Scripture (especially if it is something that is well established by theologians throughout Christian history), then I must correct it.

OK, so why take one biblical scholar above another? CHeard is a biblical scholar, and obviously knows an awful lot about it. He has access to lots of material that earlier scholars didn't. Why is his interpretation inferior to, say, Calvin's?

I don't think you'll find safety in numbers or authority, either. For 1800 years, the church was perfectly happy with slavery. Paul passed on it. Not a single theologian of note had a bad thing to say about it. Now, AFAIK, that's all changed. I assume the official position of your church is against slavery? If you can overturn the theological consensue on that question, why not others? (And before anyone says it, yes I know much of the work in the US was done by secular humanists. But the initial driving force for the abolition of the slave trade was one William Wilberforce. He was a devout Anglican Christian who had either nevertheless not read his OT, or else had formed his own conclusions about the real meaning of the bible.)

Where I'm going with this, rev, is to suggest that it's possible that there's room for many interpretations of your faith, and that the best fit changes over time. That if one of your congregation says to you, "Y'know, Rev, I'm not too sure about this business with the apple and the talking snake. What's the faith really about?" that "That's what it says in the bible" might perhaps not be the most productive first answer. Any chance you might bite on that?

I don't think you'd freak anyone here out if you described how the "Holy Spirit" worked in you. I'd think most of us have our own ideas about what's going on. Let me take a wild guess. You pray for help, and occasionally you get a sort of warm, peaceful feeling - a contentment that something fits. Am I close? Getting warm at all?

983. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77298 by hungarianelephant on October 9, 2007 at 1:22 am

philos - 'life lessons' of behaviour modification into young adulthood (public schools all but ignore these lessons), giving to the needy, helping the elderly, mission trips, money sent abroad or your neighbourhood soup kitchen

... sexual abuse of kids by priests, an unquestioning congregation that puts them there, Magdalene laundries, beatings from the Christian Brothers, social death of anyone who leaves an abusive marriage, no contraception, no abortion for rape victims, preaching the virtues of poverty ...

Whether most religious people are "truly nice" or not has nothing to do with the damage religion can wreak when it's allowed free rein. Don't you agree?

984. Call for major science campaign

Comment #77285 by hungarianelephant on October 9, 2007 at 12:43 am

"We will also introduce accredited physics, chemistry and maths courses to retrain teachers to become specialists in these disciplines, beginning this month.

"Every teacher who completes the course will receive a financial incentive of £5,000.

"In addition, new bursaries of £200 will be given to schools most in need to encourage them to release teachers for professional development at our science learning centres."

The money will also be used to double the number of school science clubs.

What planet do these people live on?

985. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #76565 by hungarianelephant on October 6, 2007 at 9:44 am

revcort (72673) - thanks for your answer. I must say it's left me even more confused. First, when CHeard said almost exactly the same about interpretation, you said he was on the slippery slope to hell. Is that because his interpretation is, in your view, wrong?

Now, this is where, if I am being intellectually honest, I must ask this question. (and so must you- and you have) How can I know that my interpretation is the correct one? The only answer I can give here is that I must do my best to take into account the entire Word of God so as to avoid errors that can come from isolating one verse or section of verses and making that one thing what my faith is all about, which would be a mistake.

You ask the question, but then don't answer it. At best, what you're saying is that you are doing the best job at interpretation that you can. That's fair enough, but it doesn't make you right. Don't you see that?

I don't know if you answered my question about why the rule against covetousness still applies - maybe it was in your lost post. I'd be interested to hear your view.

986. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #76181 by hungarianelephant on October 5, 2007 at 1:51 am

revcort (75993) - Where to start?

You seem to be acknowledging now that the OT had penalties that would today be regarded as harsh, and that this is partly because of the cultural situation at the time. And yet you think the law of God is unchanging. So ... God persists with laws which were invented for a bronze age tribe and are now too harsh?

Now, old chap, don't try to slip out of this one by claiming that it's only the penalties that are harsh. (I know you are going to do this because of what you said about covetousnes, which I'll get to later.) Modern legal systems do separate crime from penalty to a certain extent, but your holy book doesn't. It's very specific on the point. The penalty for adultery is stoning to death. Not "eternal separation from God" as you like to claim, but an actual, physical, bloody death.

You've been very clear that Jesus didn't change the law. If Jesus didn't change it, and no one else changed it, then it isn't changed. At best, what you've suggested is that the law shouldn't be enforced, even though the adulteress deserves death. I'm not very clear as to whether that's what you are actually saying. Is that really what you are saying? That in certain cases, God's law shouldn't be enforced?

rev, the fact that you can hold two or more contradictory ideas in your head at the same time does not make them consistent.

What we keep coming back to is that you keep insisting that the bible be taken literally, but then doing the opposite. You are interpreting it.

You've previously stated, without an iota of explanation, that Jesus' injunction to "hate your family" was not literal but an analogy for the love he required for himself (and my challenge to you on this was one you ignored, or perhaps didn't see). Sorry, but this does violence to the plain outward meaning of the text. It either means exactly what it says, or it doesn't.

Once we've agreed that it doesn't, the question is as to how you interpret it. You keep coming back to an "orthodox", "standard" Christian position (i.e. Calvinistic), but you never explain where their authority comes from. Come to that, where did Paul's authority come from? If you can't do that, then the interpretations of Calvin, CHeard, brother john or hungarianelephant have no divine status. That, indeed, is the ultimate logic of Luther, who you claim to follow.

As I see it, the difference between you and the other Christians on this thread is that they are all prepared to admit this and you are not. This allows them - forces them in fact - to consider what is the actual core of their faith, and how to apply it in the modern world without necessarily seeing it as increasingly corrupt. As far as anyone can tell from a website, they are decent people, struggling with their consciences to work out the best thing to do. Just like atheists, in fact, but with God inserted into the mix.

rev, once you get past the invective and bible quotation, you don't seem a bad sort. Don't you think it's at all possible that their approach has some validity? Don't you think there might be something worthwhile in looking at the Gospels in the same way that you might look at, say, a Shakespeare play? (What is the overall message here? What can we learn?) I appreciate you have a lot of time and energy invested in one particular interpretation, but don't you think it would be a worthwhile investment in your faith to test it a little?

Btw, you spectacularly missed my point on coveting thy neighbour's ox. The issue is this. A modern-day Moses would not come down Mt Sinai with a commandment that read "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's car, nor thy neighbour's iPod ...". The rule against covetousness has outlived its usefulness, and only survives as a matter of theory in religious minds. If I'm wrong, then you're going to have to tell me why it's ok to acknowledge that penalties might be a result of historical context, but not the rules themselves. Self-referential jurisprudence ("it's wrong because the law says it is") is not allowed.

987. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75948 by hungarianelephant on October 4, 2007 at 6:13 am

1032. Comment #75723 by steveroot on October 3, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Could any sane person actually think that death is an appropriate punishment for this particular transgression [adultery]? I doubt it.

Sane? Well yes. In the context of a Bronze Age group of tribes wandering round the Sinai peninsula, extreme sanctions for adultery make perfect sense. Adultery is usually damaging to a relationship. But where the third party is part of the very group you depend upon for your survival, and where the likely outcome may be to upset the succession in your family (a fundamental concept back then), there's a serious problem. The Ten Commandments also list "coveting thy neighbour's ox", which is the start of the path to economic ruin in a nomadic society, but fundamental to the proper functioning of a modern capitalist society. And of course, the commandment is routinely ignored.

The problem that revcort has - and the problem of any other biblical literalist - is that they are unable to see the contents of the book in their historical context. They take the ideas of 3000 years ago and attempt to fit them into a world which has long since moved on. It's like trying to play rugby on roller skates. Thus brother john (75931):

This is something I intend to tell my coreligionists. Our ancient holy books have one natural built in failing – they are ANCIENT. Put together by minds who thought not the way we think. And we have to separate out those elements that were understandable IN THEIR TIME – but are now no longer so.

I'm not going to address revcort directly since he's ignored my previous questions.

988. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75687 by hungarianelephant on October 3, 2007 at 10:38 am

Why do you smoke>

I know it's a filthy habit, but it's a social thing ...

989. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75679 by hungarianelephant on October 3, 2007 at 9:56 am

John Rutter is an atheist??

That explains a lot. It was the music that kept me going to church for several years. And the realisation that Rutter would be part of every Christmas for evermore that helped me to go cold turkey. Sorry, I know he's well-respected, but IMHO his stuff is what the C of E has instead of Boyzone.

990. A New Debate

Comment #75665 by hungarianelephant on October 3, 2007 at 8:41 am

I tend to agree with you, _J_, and brainsys that the method is the real point. Maybe we could persuade someone like Dara O'Briain, who has a background in theoretical physics, to do a populist, light-hearted documentary on it (with the best will in the world, RD will continue to be Channel 4 material for the foreseeable future). And then let him loose on the politicians.

Sadly my reliable source of Sharks tickets dried up as soon as they started winning games – though nowadays I get to watch the Leinster scrum going backwards. I think you posted on another thread that you worked in Stockport. Quite why Philip knows so much about the County is a perplexing question ...

991. A New Debate

Comment #75609 by hungarianelephant on October 3, 2007 at 6:09 am

Philip

(1) You, sir, are demonstrably not a thicky, complete or otherwise.

(2) I couldn't agree more about the wealth of scientific expertise on this site. I learn loads here, & the best scientific posters are also very approachable and eager to help, rather than concerned with showing off their vastly superior knowledge. It would be great if politicians were forced to spend some time here. Unfortunately, you can bet that is not what would happen in a debate. There'd be a few soundbites on topical issues, and a lot of waffle. Cynical, moi?

(3) Accordingly I have decided to award you second prize in my bet, which is of course two season tickets to Stockport County.

992. A New Debate

Comment #75595 by hungarianelephant on October 3, 2007 at 5:31 am

Sorry, _J_, but I think that's wishful thinking.

I would bet you a season ticket to Stockport County that not one voter in 100 could give you a reasonable explanation of the scientific method. Most wouldn't even notice BS from a candidate. In fact, it might even be counter-productive. Science is generally held in such disdain that a politician might even gain votes by taking on a macho "I'm not going to listen to you" stance.

Sad but true.

993. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75014 by hungarianelephant on October 1, 2007 at 11:10 am

Slightly more seriously, Dr Benway, I think the unspoken meaning is "its leading theological halls are not fit to admit people who have just left secondary school and are thus eligible for government grants covering most of their fees". Pronouncements from the world's greatest university rarely mention anything so vulgar as money, but you can be sure it's in their thinking.

Btw, my college had a theology course much closer to that which Bonzai is describing, and I'm pretty certain that there was at least one atheist taking it.

994. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75013 by hungarianelephant on October 1, 2007 at 11:05 am

No, theology and fanny mean pretty much the same thing here too.

Oh, I see your point..

995. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74367 by hungarianelephant on September 28, 2007 at 9:11 am

Indeed, and the smaller drug companies developing anti-depressants frequently go data-mining in failed studies to see what they can do. If that sounds like a rather "hit and hope" approach, it's because it is. But there isn't the money for any reasonable alternative. (Re your comment on the other thread, it's a pity someone doesn't sit these companies' CEOs down, and not let them leave the room until they get this point.)

Tailored drugs sound great, but since the off-the-shelf variety currently cost around $1bn a throw, and the FDA only approved 16 of them last year, I won't hold my breath!

996. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74348 by hungarianelephant on September 28, 2007 at 7:51 am

oxytocin – Interesting stuff. My experience of research is largely limited to how things work in the pharmaceutical industry. It's interesting to see how concepts translate to other fields.

Yes, my post didn't clearly distinguish between mechanism and effect. The point I was trying to make is that knowing that Drug X has a specific effect in a certain proportion of patients doesn't actually greatly advance the course of "science" or "medicine". In terms of effect, what we know is of a relatively small study group. Most likely, we haven't a notion of why some people responded better than others. (Though in practice, we may have a theory, and designed the study protocol specifically to take advantage of it.) Even the precise effect can be nebulous. Sure, more people taking Vioxx get heart attacks, but is that because Vioxx increases the risk of a heart attack, or because the patient is not taking an anti-inflammatory which reduces the risk? It took a study of a huge number of patients to establish that the answer was "Probably both".

We know even less of mechanism, which leaves us without a sound scientific basis to progress to Drug X2. This isn't a situation that academic scientists are comfortable with, but industry has no choice but to live with it. Or go bust.

That's not to say that drug research isn't worthwhile, of course.

What's interesting is to see how these things are spun. The drug companies go to great pains to communicate clearly what the actual results of the trials were (not least for legal reasons). This is then summarised in a way which will clearly be understood by physicians, the financial markets and journalists as "This Drug Is Great", which of course is what gets reported. And realistically, we couldn't expect a mainstream newspaper to report, "In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study of 3,120 subjects displaying at least 8 of the specified indicia below ..."

997. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74256 by hungarianelephant on September 28, 2007 at 1:32 am

oxytocin - health research does attribute causation, depending on the nature of the study's design

That is true, but it is largely because of the commercial and regulatory background rather than because of the "scientific" nature (or otherwise) of the research.

If you have a new drug, you have to establish that it is safe and effective before you can put it on the market. Safety means that the people in the trial didn't suffer unduly nasty side-effects, and efficiacy means that it has a statistically significant effect compared to placebo. Scientifically speaking, this doesn't actually prove a whole lot. It certainly doesn't prove a mechanism of action, and most drugs are approved with a label saying that "the mechanism of action is unknown". All you know is that taking drug A tends to lead to effects B, C and D. Causation is attributed as a shorthand. As you say, that's not proof. Of course, the scientists involved in discovering the drug will have had their own hypotheses about how and why it will work, and successful studies are some evidence for those hypotheses. But as a practical matter, its correctness or otherwise is irrelevant. It's the utility that counts.

I get the impression that most of the public have at best a hazy understanding of all this. Much of this is down to lazy media presentation - "Drug A Cures X", "Eating Chocolate Is Bad For You", "No Wait, It's Good" - and some of it is marketing. After all, if the FDA approved it, it must work, right? There's close to zero understanding of what science actually is and what scientists actually do (which are not necessarily the same thing). That's probably a discussion for another day.

998. Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

Comment #73983 by hungarianelephant on September 27, 2007 at 2:08 am

lbq (63) raises a point that doesn't get talked about much.

The best comparison is probably between Wahhabism and early Protestantism. As lbq says, both are fundamentalist and violent. And it's important to appreciate that both are fuelled by the breakdown of the prevailing order. By 1500 the mediaeval world had run out of steam. It didn't work socially, it didn't work politically and it didn't work economically. The leaders might have been fundamentalist zealots, but the attraction of the movement was that it offered a radical break with what had gone before.

Similarly, Wahhabism is an explicit rejection of the prevailing Muslim order, as well as of western values. The end of the Caliphate is regarded by most Muslims as a disaster. The Islamic world is now a 20th century carve-up of territory, controlled by local strongmen, with basket-case economies. Together, the Arab League and Iran have a GDP slightly more than that of Italy, and that includes the oil revenue, most of which is pocketed by the thugs in power. The presence of the infidel in holy lands is seen as a humiliation. The Muslim world is not working and needs to be fixed. The Wahhabists offer a fix, and while we might not see it as such, it has the merit of being absolutely clear and certain.

But there are also big differences between the Protestant and Wahhabist "solutions". Early Protestantism didn't, on the whole, endorse random violence against others, though it was intensely paranoid and enjoyed a spot of vandalism. It did offer an alternative economic system which was conducive to increasing wealth (especially Calvinism), and it's no coincidence that the early Protestant countries made rapid economic progress. And perhaps most importantly, it rejected the idea of central church authority: man could only approach God through the Scriptures. Not a very big leap from there to the notion that each individual must act according to his own conscience.

The Islamists / Wahhabists offer nothing of the kind. Their aim is to create an autocratic global theocracy. Far from improving the lot of ordinary people, they specifically endorse the non-value of human life before death, and especially that of the kuffar.

Yasmin Alinhai-Brown's general case, insofar as she states one, seems to be that a de-coarsening of Muslim culture is needed. Frankly, if this is offered as a solution to radicalised Islam (and I'm not sure it is), I don't think it's going to work. There's a good case for arguing that in Europe we need to do more to help Muslims who want to speak out against the self-appointed community leaders. Ultimately, however, the ideology, and most of its funding, is imported from Arabia. That is the swamp that needs to be drained.

999. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73843 by hungarianelephant on September 26, 2007 at 10:22 am

Guys - In the unlikely event of me ever getting into Northern Bright's fridge, you'll be the first to know whether there are any other elephants there ;)

1000. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73723 by hungarianelephant on September 26, 2007 at 1:30 am

BAEOZ (673) I guess it's like Fatima, when the sun plunged to the earth. No one noticed this, except a bunch of marian worshipers who'd been staring at the sun for hours. I find the idea that staring at the sun for hours is considered reasonable and in no way attributable to the consequent "visions" which of course are equally unrelated with the expectations of said visions weird.

... as was also demonstrated by the Moving Statues of Ballinaspittle episode, when most of Ireland went slightly crazy. As a former colleague put it to me, "If you stare at a statue for 3 hours, it will move."

(For those of you that think of Ireland's religious past as a distant memory, I should point out that this was 1985. A great time for 12 year olds. When else can you claim to have seen something physically impossible without being reprimanded for lying?)