201. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89780 by GoatBoy36 on November 21, 2007 at 5:26 pm

walk,

I can remember maybe 20 years ago, the LDS made a big push in my area (NE Scotland) and quite a few of the local skippers (i.e. wealthy fishermen as opposed to the deckhands) signed up on the dotted line. It all seemed to fade away though. However, I've been working in Aberdeen quite a bit this last year, and couldn't help noticing the big LDS building on North Anderson Drive, just at the junction with Lang Stracht (you can't miss it). I did wonder if it was busy nowadays or what the score was. I did a quick search just now and found that there is another centre in Danestone (a district in Aberdeen), one in Mintlaw and another in Huntly (!!) which is just up the road. (There's another in Elgin, which I've also driven past.)

http://www.lds.org.uk/chapel_locator.php?county=2&keyword=&post_code=&show_text=1&town=&type=MH

http://www.lds.org.uk/chapel_locator.php?type=MH&show_text=1&county=112&town=&post_code=&keyword=&btnPCode=Find

Thinking back now, I remember also when I ended up driving one of the local milk trucks for a while, just covering for one of the lads who was ill. There were a couple of young Mormon fellows living in digs locally and one fine morning I drove the truck round the corner, just making my deliveries, and came upon the pair of them racing about the street. I stood on the brakes. One of them appeared to have lost it altogether and was running about the street in the early morning in his underpants (he didn't take them off, natch) and the other fellow was trying to catch him and calm him down. I wondered what had driven that poor lad's mind to go like that. Years later when I listened to Krakauer's book, I began to understand ..

Anyhow I always kind of wondered what Christians thought about the Mormons and vice versa. Neither group seem to say much about it. As you say, if Mormons think Christians are damned it could be something of a "deal breaker" in the upcoming round of elections in America.

One other strange thing I remember from Krakauer's book was one fellow who had left the Mormons but who still wore his special underpants. He couldn't quite bring himself to take them off. They'd had that much of a hold on him.

Now that would be a beezer of a question for some reporter to ask Mr. Romney: "Are you wearing special underpants? If so, why?"

gb.

202. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89717 by GoatBoy36 on November 21, 2007 at 3:20 pm

If anyone wants a crash course in Mormonism then check out Jon Krakauer's "Under The Banner of Heaven".

I listened to it on tape when it came out and it just blew my mind. Golden tablets, peep stones, magic glasses, man those Mormons believe some crazy stuff!

One of my favourite parts was when the guy who was writing down Joseph Smith's ahem ... translation ... of those (invisible) golden tablets took it all home with him and his wife blew a fuse and said so THIS is what you've been doing is it, and threw the lot in the fire. Great stuff!

But the behaviour of the Laffertys .. not so great.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Banner_of_Heaven:_A_Story_of_Violent_Faith

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595079489,00.html

btw wasn't it interesting that Romney said: I'm a Christian (when asked about his Mormon beliefs?) Didn't Rev. Sharpton or somebody say recently in a debate with Hitchens that Mormons *weren't* Christians at all?

I'd like to see Cavuto (or Bill O'Reilly) get Romney and Sharpton on together and force them to has that issue out!

203. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89710 by GoatBoy36 on November 21, 2007 at 2:58 pm

Rtambree,

Hey, well done getting tickets, that's been worth going to, btw I recall being at an event at the Barbican Centre in London a couple of years ago (sep 05) and Eliza Manningham-Buller, who was at that time the Director General of MI5, was speaking. At the side of the stage were a couple of very large gentlemen indeed, and as soon as she had finished, they whisked her off and away. Those were big boys. I wouldn't like to pay their grocery bill!

204. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89572 by GoatBoy36 on November 21, 2007 at 6:39 am

I just thought I'd add that some people like myself would be familiar with Ayaan Hirsi Ali before coming to this website, or this particular thread. I read "Infidel" a while ago, and went on to pass it around at the hospital I work at, and recommended it at a book club I go to, and so on. I also read a few articles on the web & checked out a good few videos on youtube, downloaded some radio broadcasts & played them on my iPod and so forth. So I suppose I knew a fair bit about her already, and it wasn't a big ask at all - to me - to contribute to a project looking out for her security.

There are probably a good number of people who don't know who Ayaan Hirsi Ali is though, or who have heard of her but haven't read her book, and just wanted to know a bit more before getting out their cheque book.

Nightripper, I agree with Keith in that your original posts were ok, if I had to really nitpick I'd say what Keith said, maybe a little more polite would have worked better, but that's no big deal at all at the end of the day. If you're contributing elsewhere already, then well done is all I can say.

I'm not one for regular contributions to charities or whatever, that's maybe ok for people making more money than me, but I've got more pressing priorities each month. Like eating, putting fuel in my car etc.. And I'm certainly not going to make myself out to be some holier-than-though kind of guy, that's a real laugh to anyone who knows me.

I do tend to do one-offs every now and then though - after watching Ewan McGregor and Charley Boorman, who supported UNICEF during their first trip, I got my credit card out, for example. And now this thing with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, that one pushes my buttons too, having read her book etc, so I'll certainly make a modest payment. I might do so again in the future, as well.

http://www.longwayround.com/html/longwayround.html

Maybe the confrontational tone in some of this thread is at least partly due to the format itself; having used message boards off and on for a few years now it does seem to happen quite a bit - the whole "I have to be right" kind of mentality seeps in, followed by "which means that you have to be wrong" (I blame George Bush and Dick Cheney!) and also the limitations of the English language, sometimes you don't always get across what you mean, lack of body language etc. So let's all give ourselves a bit of a break, and get on with enjoying what is after all an excellent website.

And I really think that is going to be it for me on this subject. It's raining, I'm off work till Saturday, so I'm going to get back to the Sopranos on DVD ...

gb.

Keith, I just had a look on Amazon. The film was called "Water". And it appears you can get the first series of "The Fall and Rise" for £7.97 - a bargain that, and I didn't get where I am today by not recognising a bargain! It's on my wish list, and when I do my next shop on Amazon, it's going into my basket. Fantastic TV.

205. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89565 by GoatBoy36 on November 21, 2007 at 5:40 am

keith,

Thanks for the response; when I started thinking about Ayaan Hirsi Ali living in Holland I thought about how much I'd enjoyed visiting the country myself. I happened to be listening to a blues CD at the time, and that brought me round to thinking about how I would like to fly across to Amsterdam some time when the LBTB are playing. A quick visit to youtube and that was me off on a wee musical interlude. It's such a shame when you see young, talented people dying (did the Dalai Lama not say once that such people are young masters, come to teach us impermanence?) and when I started thinking about what happened to Lester Butler, a musician I always liked, I tried to put together some kind of argument by analogy (in my own sleep-depped brain at least). We can imagine how much people like SRV would have contributed to the world of music, if he hadn't died in his 30s. And what I was trying to get at was that we can try to imagine how much Ayaan Hirsi Ali can contribute to this ever more troubling world of ours in the years to come, and ask ourselves: would she be a big miss? Well, aye I think she would.

www.srvrocks.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeYGC0yHeHg

I tried to say too that there are a lot of people who go abroad to work and live, and no one thinks anything of it. There are lots of offshore workers up in this corner of the UK who work abroad quite often (for example). And you have musicians going off to the States to try and be successful there all the time as well. Why shouldn't Ayaan Hirsi Ali do the same? What I was trying to do there was put together a companions in guilt move, I suppose, and show that many people work abroad, including musicians and writers, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali's doing so isn't such an exceptional event after all.

And we did all have a laugh at the wonderfully entertaining Ted Haggard, did we not? It is pretty funny watching him prance about on stage saying homosexual activities are bad, it says so in the bible so it must be true and it is true, and just check out his "instructional videos" for all the theists out there who need to be told (by him) how to have a good time with the "person of the opposite sex" they're married to. Then seeing him as it all comes crashing down around him, admitting that he is a "deciever and a liar" and saying yes I bought drugs from that male escort on FOX but no I didn't have sex with him, no, no, I just had a ... "massage" .. and I threw those drugs away ... well maybe since I'm a deceiver and a liar, you're not going to believe my denials but .... man, that is some funny stuff from "Pastor Ted"!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uokV7UdGW_s


Now I would hardly say that anyone is as hypocritical as Ted Haggard (Jesus! What an insult!); what I was trying to do was point out that that people pass judgement on others all the time - just as we make ethical choices all the time - and I used Ted Haggard as a big old unmissable and undeniable example of our doing so.

You know, since I saw your avatar/photo I've been trying to remember what the name of that movie was with Leonard Rossiter and Billy Connolly (as a banjo playing guerilla fighter). I saw it years ago, maybe if I can find it on Amazon or somewhere I'll be able to pick it up for a few quid & I'll watch it again. And remember in THE programme, whenever his wife mentioned her mother, we all had a David Attenborough moment ... there are lots of clips on youtube btw ..

gb.

206. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89392 by GoatBoy36 on November 20, 2007 at 1:58 pm

I thought I'd post once more on this thread. To begin with I'll repeat what I have said before, that I believe the choice before each user of this website is an ethical one, and we must each provide our own answer to it, and then act accordingly. Saying this much is a far cry from asserting that it's true to say that, "somewhere, in the past or in the future, in divine revelation or in the mind of an individual thinker, in the pronouncements of history or science, or in the simple heart of an uncorrupted good man, there is a final solution." (Isaiah Berlin, quoted in Warburton, "Arguments for Freedom", OU, pp. 27-28.) Et cetera. So while I take brian's point, which is the very point Berlin made btw, I think that framing what has been said on this thread in such a way is going too far.

If you sit and think about it for a moment, much of what we do in our lives can be seen in the same way as the question before us here. We must each choose whether to contribute to the protection of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. It seems clear to me that this is an ethical matter, one that has potentially far-reaching consequences. Many of the choices we make in our daily life can also be understood in this way. Perhaps in our everyday lives, we don't always realise this & think about it, because we're too busy earning a living and so forth to do so. That's fair enough. But just think about going into the supermarket to buy some coffee and some biscuits. Do I buy the fair trade coffee, or another brand? Do I buy that packet of Breakaways, or another brand? These are ethical questions: you can line the pockets of a multinational corporation, or do your bit to support hardworking farmers in a third world country. You can support the company (Nestle) that promotes the use of artificial milk for breastfeeding with all that that entails, or you can choose some biscuits made by your local baker.

Interestingly, this is one argument that can be made against John Stuart Mill's "harm principle" which stated that so long as someone's actions did not affect the interests of others, they should be free to act however they wanted. Fitzjames Stephen though, said that Mill had simply assumed "that some acts regard the agent only, and that some regard other people. In fact, by far the most important part of our conduct regards both ourselves and others." (Stephen, ibid. p. 68.) That is to say, the area of action protected by the "harm principle" is much smaller than one would think. Anyway, enough of that. The argument I'm making here is that many of the choices we make can be understood to be ethical choices, and choosing whether to contribute to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust is simply one more choice of this kind. That's all.

It does not matter to me if Ayaan Hirsi Ali has made some money from writing "Infidel". Nor does it matter if Sam Harris has made a pound or two from his "Letter to a Christian Nation". The choice before me is exactly the same: Do I contribute, at a modest level, to help keep Ayaan Hirsi Ali safe?

Perhaps some users may be unable to afford even a small contribution, although I notice that everyone here has a PC and can afford a monthly fee to whatever ISP they are using. Given that, a one off contribution of $25 (just over £12) doesn't seem to be a big ask. Still, if you're genuinely broke that's fair enough, I certainly wouldn't criticise anyone for finding themselves in that situation, and giving that as their reason for not contributing to this project.

Given what this website is however - it's richarddawkins dot net, after all - it seems reasonable to assume that people who frequent the site would be against religious tyranny, and would want to live in a world where people are not murdered for standing up and saying what they really think about the religion they were brought up in. Happily, quite a few people on this site have lived up to those ideals, and have chosen to support Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

It seems to me though that anyone who says one thing on this particular website, then does another: that is to say who criticises religion and those people who would commit murder in the name of religion, and then decides not to support Ayaan Hirsi Ali, leaves themselves open to a charge of hypocrisy. We all remember the Rev. Haggard trying to give Richard Dawkins a hard time in the "Root of All Evil" programmes. Reverend Haggard preached at the New Life Church, which is against same-sex marriage (to put it mildly). I must admit that when I was told about his recent fall from grace, I had a good old belly laugh. Perhaps though, I should not have "judged" the good reverend for saying one thing, and doing another? For according to some posters on this website, judging people is out. I have already addressed this issue, and have yet to see any of these posters respond to what was said. So here it is again: if you are in the pub and a member of the group you are with does not put his hand in his pocket to buy a round all night, would you "judge" him? Would you "shame" him into doing so? Probably, yes. My point being that we judge people all the time. (Just as we make moral decisions all the time.) And if we can judge someone over a pint and a few drams, then we can certainly do so when someone's life is at stake. All this greeting about being "judged" by others seems pretty lame to me. I just can't take it seriously. We all had a good laugh at Ted Haggard, let's just admit it. Is anyone here really going to try to say that it's ok to "judge" someone like Haggard, who is after all a theist, but that for some undisclosed reason atheists who use Richard Dawkins' website are exempt? Double standards or what!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C-bsfhPju0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6rSjrBhUIA

One might argue that Ayaan Hirsi Ali could remain in Holland, and make use of the protection which would be available to her there. I did refer earlier to what happened to her when she did that before: her neighbours took legal action to kick her out of her place, because they didn't want to be put at risk themselves. So staying in Holland could prove problematic. Long term, it may even be impossible for her, on a purely practical level. Don't get me wrong, I like Holland and have visited there many times, in fact one of my early tattoos is by Hanky Panky in Amsterdam, and I'd like nothing better than to nip across from Aberdeen some time, and catch the LBTB playing. How cool would that be? Big Pete rules! You have to wonder though, just what kind of a life Ayaan Hirsi Ali would have if she stayed in the Netherlands. She may be a fan of Lester Butler, I don't know. But she sure couldn't go swanning off down to some blues club in Amsterdam some night to catch a good gig. And that, of course, is the least of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4jJJXaUoS4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulfjk7bzcKU&feature=related

Lester Butler was a talented guy, a fantastic blues musician and was very successful in Holland. But no one would have though to criticise him for going to play his music in America. That applies to anyone, in any line of work. Many oil workers end up abroad, for example; I know a lot of people in the NE of Scotland who have done that. (My cousin's working for Transocean in Australia right now.) And good luck to all of them, whatever they're doing.

I just don't get how people can say that Ayaan Hirsi Ali ought to limit her negative freedom (going back to Isaiah Berlin again) by choosing to stay, finally and forever, within the borders of Holland. Come on! Ayaan's life is limited as it is, there's no getting away from that, but she has chosen to defy the people who threaten her by trying to live the life she wants, and by speaking out, to the best of her ability, against the religious forces who want to harm her.

The facts are that Ayaan has chosen to live in America. She's asked for support because apparently the American government won't help her. The choice before each of us is: are you going to help protect her, or not?

Think of Lester Butler, who died and left just a few recordings (check out Red Devils live at King King), or of Stevie Ray Vaughan, whose recording career only lasted for something like seven years. Who knows what kind of music Stevie Ray would be playing nowadays if he was still with us. Maybe he and Lester would have played together somewhere down the line. That would have been a blast! But that's all gone.

If I had ever been in a position to get Lester off drugs, or if I had been at my work and had been in a position to save him from his murderers; or if I had been in a position to somehow persuade Stevie Ray to just wait man, and just take a limo back from Alpine Valley - man, I would have done whatever I could to keep those boys alive and kicking. Wouldn't each of you naysayers here today have done likewise? Well, maybe you wouldn't. But it would have been the right thing to do, all the same.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETYVMP5SfGs


I find myself in a position to help protect Ayaan, and to give her the opportunity to keep talking to people, and to keep writing. And I'm happy to do so. Maybe years from now, those of us who supported her will look back and think to ourselves, well I'm sure glad she kept writing, and kept speaking out. Because you know, as "infidels" ourselves, I have a funny feeling that in the years to come, we're going to need Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

gb.

207. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89112 by GoatBoy36 on November 19, 2007 at 6:16 pm

Excommunicate,

I don't know I thought your suggestion wasn't a bad idea at all. Maybe the nuts and bolts of the scheme could be run as a grant system? My local council (Aberdeenshire) run a scheme to help people who need building work done on their houses. If you qualify Aberdeenshire Council will (in their own good time) send you a cheque for a percentage of the total estimated cost. This scheme to help Ayaan Hirsi Ali seems a good idea to me, but maybe there may be scope for helping as-yet-unknown people who discover at some point in the future that they need financial help for the same reason. It just seems wrong to suggest using Aberdeenshire Council as a model though! (Anyone who's applied for a grant from them will know what I mean.)

ok I'm really off to watch the sopranos this time.

208. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89101 by GoatBoy36 on November 19, 2007 at 5:56 pm

Matt7895,

Regarding the language you mentioned: Vinelectric did originally describe Ayaan Hirsi Ali's film as "disgusting" (earlier on in this thread, in Comment #88720).

I tried to turn that around, and described the actions of Theo van Gogh's killer, and the poem found on him when he was arrested, as being "disgusting" (using quotes to underline the fact that it was Vinelectric's choice of word originally). (Comment #88740)

I used the same word in a later post to contrast Ayaan Hirsi Ali's 11 minute movie which aired once on Dutch TV with "the hatred of female sexuality which is rampant within the Islamic world", "the desire to kill Ayaan Hirsi Ali for speaking her mind" and once more "the Muslim fanatic who killed Theo van Gogh in the street, and then pinned a death threat aimed at Ayaan Hirsi Ali to his victims's body". Vinelectric had, as I said, used the word "disgusting" to describe the former, and I tried to show that it would be far more appropriate to use the word, if one wanted to use it at all, to describe the latter set of actions & conditions. You see what I was driving at, I'm sure. None of that corresponds with what you're saying in your post though.

I had a quick look through the thread and couldn't see where anyone had called someone else "disgusting" or "sickening" in the way that you suggest either. Maybe I missed something, that's possible.

I did read the moderator's post where he said that he himself had been "sickened" by what he had read, but again, that's not what you're saying happened.

So I don't know man. If you've come across someone saying those things, for the reason you give, then imho you're quite right to point it out. It might be a good idea to provide quotes, links etc though.

You know, I think I've said all I feel like saying on this whole topic. I'm off to put the kettle on & watch another episode of the Sopranos.

gb.

209. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89084 by GoatBoy36 on November 19, 2007 at 4:56 pm

Vinelectric,

I believe the matter being discussed on this thread was not the choice facing Ms. Ali: should she continue to live in the Netherlands? Your "framing" of the problem is inaccurate. Rather, we were discussing the ethical choice facing each of the individuals who frequent this website: one can choose to support Ms. Ali financially, and at the same time make something of a statement against those who would like to murder her. Or one can elect to leave the job of protecting Ms. Ali to others.

You have criticised me personally by asserting that I "know nothing" about the efforts made by people other than Ayaan Hirsi Ali to change Islamic societies. I have to tell you though, that it is you who "know nothing" - about me. For all you know I could have done quite a lot of reading on the subject. I could have lived and worked in Islamic countries. It is you who just doesn't know the first thing about me. Your ad hominem comments are based on your own ignorance, and can be disregarded on that basis. What is more, your comments are irrelevant. I may or may not be as familiar as you with the work done by other writers, but either way, that says nothing at all about whether the arguments I have put forward on this thread regarding Ayaan Hirsi Ali's security situation are any good. It just doesn't matter. On that basis too, your comments can be safely disregarded.

I am of course, pleased that there are many people working quietly away, doing their best to convince people currently in thrall to the Islamic religion that there is another, better way of living. That goes without saying. One writer I must mention to you is Ian Buruma, who can hardly be described as an avid fan of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. In his book "Murder in Amsterdam" he quotes Theo van Gogh as saying, "there are a hundred thousand decent Muslims, to whom the Dutch people should reach out." (Buruma, "Murder in Amsterdam", Atlantic, p. 108.) So perhaps the picture you paint of "the healthy smoker" is a bit too one-dimensional? Just a thought ..

In your newest post, you engage in another ad hominem attack when you call me a "shortsighted ultra-Islamophobe". As it happens, the first part of that is correct, in that I am myopic and wear specs. That hardly seems relevant to this discussion though. As to the latter: I'm not even sure I know what the word means. Perhaps you could supply a definition. If it means disagreeing with the beliefs of the people who want to kill Ayaan Hirsi Ali then I hold my hands up to that. So what? That's a good thing.

You say in your newest post that you "never said that you supported" Mohammad Bouyeri. You demand an apology! And yet, I did not say that you had said that you "supported" Mohmmad Bouyeri. What I actually said was that you appeared to be an apologist for that deeply unpleasant fellow, and if you care to quickly check the Cambridge online dictionary, you will see that an apologist is described as one who writes or speaks in defence of an unpopular set of beliefs (or political system). You have certainly written some insulting, perhaps one might even say "dehumanising" comments about Mohammad Bouyeri's victim, and about the person who he named in the death threat he pinned to his victim's body. Now, given that your remarks were made in the context of a discussion about whether Ms. Ali should be protected from people like Mohammad Bouyeri, I hope that you understand that one could legitimately take your remarks to mean that the world is better off without "scum" (your word) like Theo van Gogh, who is apparently guilty of what you call "crimes against humanity" i.e. insulting Muslims. That is how I took your remarks, hence my saying that you appeared to be defending the beliefs, and consequently the actions, of that appalling fellow, Mohammad Bouyeri. So I'm certainly not going to apologise for something which I did not say to you, but I am happy to explain to you why I said what I did in fact say. No problem, man. And of course, the remarks in your own posts, which I refer to here, are up there for all to see.

You do not seem to be a fan of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, which is fair enough. Not everyone's going to be. You seem particularly unhappy about her eleven minute movie, "Submission". It is my understanding that this was shown only once on Dutch TV (ibid., p. 184.) Get over it!

The thing is: one need not agree with what another person says in order to support the idea that they should be free to say it. Voltaire is often quoted on this topic, and although it is my understanding that the words one usually reads came from the pen of Evelyn Beatrice Hall (as she described Voltaire's attitude), Voltaire apparently did say in a letter that although he detested what his correspondent had written, he would give his life to make it possible for him to continue to write. No one here is being asked to go that far though: a couple clicks of a mouse, five minutes of your time, and you'll have to do without the next DVD you were going to buy. Hardly a huge sacrifice. But undoubtedly, a worthwhile cause.

The attempts to argue that "new atheist" authors who have been enjoying a little bit of success should be paying for Ayaan Hirsi Ali's protection detail seem to me to be misguided and irrelevant. For all anybody knows, those authors are already doing so. If that's the case, then it does not follow that no one else should. And if they're not, that has no bearing whatsoever on the moral choice facing anyone reading the original article written by Sam Harris.

I'd probably agree with what Quine has said: if women everywhere stood up and said enough, that would pose a massive problem for Islam. I can't help thinking here of the movie "300" when Xerxes tells Leonidas that he ought to consider the fate of the Spartan women, and Leonidas replies, "Clearly you don't know our women. I might as well have marched them up here, judging by what I've seen." (of your army)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA1GC3T-Ldg


Josh (admin)

I agree that anyone reading this could come away with the image of atheists as a bunch of "heartless grumps" who aren't interested in helping others. I've mentioned a couple of times now the common Christian argument that atheists can't really live moral lives because (in the Christian view) they don't have any "real" morals to live by. Man, that argument will carry more weight with me after this little episode. Maybe one could say to the Christian making the argument that they are only doing what is thought to be "right" because they've been commanded to do so by their imaginary friend in the sky - but at least they'd be doing it!

As wednesdayguevara says, you do a good job here. Having kicked around the internet for a few years now, I'd have to say that being the moderator of a message board can sometimes be a bit of a thankless task. But from me anyway: thanks for doing it. I work for the NHS myself, and it's not for the money (ha ha!) but because I find it's important to do what I can, in my own modest little way, to help other people: as you say, to do something good for the world. We all do what we can. (Well, some of us anyway. Apparently some of us don't.) I admit that I got a little but upset about some of the earlier remarks that were made, and if my language became inappropriately fiery at any point in this thread, then I apologise to you for that. I did try to argue my case at all times though, and I like to think I did ok so far as that goes. Personally, I regard Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book as being one of the most important I've ever come across. Quite stunning. She is, as crazyoldman says, a unique and compelling figure. I for one will be supporting her.

gb.

210. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88978 by GoatBoy36 on November 19, 2007 at 11:10 am

dthuleen,

You're quite right, and I have to say the people you mention in your post are making more money than I am as well! As I mentioned earlier, there are options on the page on Sam Harris' site to donate significant amounts of money to help protect Ms. Ali. If anyone who can afford to do so is doing so, fine. And as you correctly say, if they choose not to that's their affair; it has no bearing whatsoever on the moral choice before each of the users of this website. Your second point is excellent too btw.

And while I say again that it is a moral choice for each individual to consider, what's all this nonsense about not judging people for saying one thing (religion is bad, people who want to kill others in the name of their religion are bad, freedom of speech is good, etc.) and failing to back that up when an opportunity arises? Bollocks to that! If some grippy bastard sings a song all day long about how religion is pants and then won't even put their hand in their pocket and contribute the price of a fish supper to help keep someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali alive then aye, I'll pass judgement on them. The funny thing is, the people who are now saying one should not pass judgment on others are themselves passing judgment on others. I believe that is what's called pragmatic self-refutation! Boom! Argument over!

Just imagine being down the pub, if everyone stood their hand except one gadgie who supped awa all night but refused to put his hand in his pocket, would you "judge" him? Would you "shame" him into doing so? Of course you would. And the life of someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali - or as someone like briancoughlin would say - the life of anyone at all, whatever the colour of their skin and whatever their postcode, is far more significant than a few pints of lager. So to anyone who feels like doing so, judge away and don't feel bad about it, I say!

Having said that: as Fanusi has said, and as kaiserkiss has said too, manipulating someone into doing something they don't want to do has not been the agenda here so far as I can make out, at least not to any great degree ("they have every right not to donate" - Fanusi.) but criticising crappy arguments is on the agenda. And pointing out inconsistencies in what people say and what they do is definitely on the agenda. It's a message board. That's what happens, man.

211. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88948 by GoatBoy36 on November 19, 2007 at 8:45 am

I'm quite surprised by the views expressed by some of the users of this site. Appleby appears to think that Ayaan Hirsi Ali being killed for renouncing Islam and trying to live a free and intellectually fulfilling life would somehow encourage others who want to do the same.

This surprises me because while the notion of martyrdom might form the backbone of an argument that one might expect to appeal to Christians, or perhaps to Muslims, it does not seem likely that such an argument will appeal to non-religious people.

It seems to me that most of the people using this site are non-religious, and as I said, one would expect Appleby's comments on martyrdom to fall on barren ground. But if Appleby is also not a religous person, which seems likely since he (or she) is using this website, it is difficult to see how the idea that Ayaan Hirsi Ali's becoming a martyr would gain any more traction in their mind than it does in say, mine. Nevertheless, Appleby's comments were made.

I can only say that I disagree strongly with what Appleby said. It seems startlingly obvious to me that the best thing people in the West can do in this particular situation is make sure that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is *not* killed. To say that her death at the hands of a Muslim fanatic is desirable, and would have positive consequences for us all, is absurd.

Equally unsavoury were the comments made earlier on by Vinelectric, who said that a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered by a Muslim fanatic in the middle of the street was "the scum of the earth" (after all, he insulted Muslims, oh dearie me) and that Ayaan Hirsi Ali's attempt to speak out about the way many young females are abused by male believers within the Islamic religion was "disgusting". Anyone who has actually read Ms. Ali's book, and tried to imagine what it is like to suffer genital mutilation as a child, as Ms. Ali did, will recognise that it is the hatred of female sexuality which is rampant within the Islamic world that is "disgusting". That the desire to kill Ayaan Hirsi Ali for speaking her mind is "disgusting". That the Muslim fanatic (now *there* is "the scum of the earth") who killed Theo Van Gogh in the street, and then pinned a death threat aimed at Ayaan Hirsi Ali to his victims's body, is the person whose actions are truly "disgusting".

How strange to find an apologist for Mohammad Bouyeri's actions on this website. Or indeed, on any website. As for saying that since Ayaan Hirsi Ali comes from Somalia, she ought to have the "patience" to lie low for a little while - I really don't know where to begin with that: xenophobic, a sign of ignorance, or simply indifference? Only Vinelectric, the author of the original comment knows for sure what was going through their mind when they wrote those words. All I'll say is that laying low for "a little while" is not really an option when you're dealing with Muslim wingnuts who want you dead. Does anyone really think they'll forgive and forget after "a little while"? A year perhaps? (Hasn't happened yet.) Two years? Three? Maybe five years? It seems clear that those people will never forget and that Ayaan Hirsi Ali will be in danger for the rest of her life. That purely practical objection is enough to to show that Vinelectric's position is untenable. I return also to my original point which was that no one should have to kowtow to Muslim fanatics for any length of time for the supposed "crime" of speaking your mind. That too would, by itself, undermine Vinelectric's position.

It may be true to say that our governments are not doing enough to ensure the safety of Ayaan Hirsi Ali but it does not follow that we must all adopt the same mindset, or that as individual citizens, we should do nothing. We are free to act, if we think that to do so is morally correct.

I believe it is. Of course just as we are all free to act, we are free not to. But I must say that I find most of the arguments put forward on this thread in support of inaction in this particular instance to be extremely weak, and the lack of genuine support for someone who is in danger is quite disappointing, to say the least. I can only repeat that Christians have argued quite often, as we all know, that atheists can't really live moral lives, since after all they don't have any "real" moral beliefs - and the inaction of atheists here lends weight to that argument. I just hope Dinesh D'Souza doesn't read this thread ...

(edited for spelling typo)

212. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88835 by GoatBoy36 on November 19, 2007 at 3:49 am

js bach,

You have made an excellent point - one which I touched upon in my earlier post. It seems reasonable to assume that if a Christian person had been threatened then their fellow believers would go that extra mile to support them. But just look at this bunch of greeting faced, greedy bastards on this website! Twisting and turning more than any bible thumper trying to explain their beliefs. It's bloody pathetic. I never accepted the commonly heard Christian argument that atheists don't/won't behave in a sound moral fashion but whenever anyone makes that argument in future I'll think of this extremely poor showing. It's a question of personal morality. Do you - as an individual - believe in helping other people who need help? In this particular instance, do you believe that one should be able to renounce Islam, say what you really think about that barbaric set of beliefs, and live? Then do something about it. It's really a straightforward matter. Someone wondered earlier about the option being there for making quite large donations. Others say people like Christopher Hitchens are well off. Er, two plus two does equal four you know. Meanwhile, for the rest of us we can do without that next DVD we were going to buy, or maybe eat in instead of going down the road for a fish supper this weekend. And make a modest donation.

gb.

213. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88740 by GoatBoy36 on November 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm

"If her security difficulties weren't so well publicized maybe she'd be a bit safer anyway." - Vinelectric.

You appear to be saying that if the Muslims who are so offended by Ayaan Hirsi Ali's work that they want her dead believe that she has armed guards with her at all times then they will be less likely to try to assassinate her. Okay, well I think we'd all agree with that, so far as it goes.

Since there are problems with providing her protection though, I take it you are saying something like: let's keep it quiet and don't let the people who would try to assassinate her know about it - and the belief that she has armed guards with her 24/7 will suffice.

A debatable point, surely. All it would take would be a Muslim who did not care if he survived an attack on his target to make an attempt on her life, and if she had no guards at that particular time, then he could easily succeed.

And it's possible, is it not, for such an assassin to exist? They may be the exception rather than the rule, let's grant that for the sake of argument. But we've seen Muslims carry out attacks on everyday, anonymous civilians (Glasgow airport for example) who did not expect to survive the event. It seems reasonable to assume that a person such as that could, if they had the opportunity, carry out an attack on an apostate, someone who has renounced their religion and criticised their prophet. So I don't really think it's safe to say that the mere belief that she is being guarded is enough to protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali from anyone looking to kill her.

On the other hand, if she actually does have an armed guard and a suicidal Muslim with a chip on his shoulder tries to harm her, then he's not going to get very far. (Hopefully.)

You call Theo Van Gogh "scum of the earth" but I refer you to the argument I believe has been made elsewhere on this website recently (by AC Grayling), which notes that although people such as Mohammad Bouyeri, the killer of Theo van Gogh, are actually taking people's lives in the name of their religion, all that people like Grayling himself, and RD, and Sam Harris, and yes Theo van Gogh, are doing is using words to make people think. Quite a difference.

Talking of the actual scum of the earth, here's the poem which Mohammad Bouyeri had on him when he was arrested (along with a death threat aimed at Ayaan Hirsi Ali):

DRENCHED IN BLOOD
So this is my final word…
Riddled with bullets…
Baptized in blood…
As I had hoped.
I am leaving a message…
For you…the fighter…
The tree of Tawheed is waiting…
Yearning for your blood…
Enter the bargain…
And Allah opens the way…
He gives you the Garden…
Instead of the earthly rubble.
To the enemy I say…
You will surely die…
Wherever in the world you go…
Death is waiting for you…
Chased by the knights of DEATH…
Who paint the streets with Red.
For the hypocrites I have one final word…
Wish DEATH or hold your tongue and …sit.
Dear brothers and sisters, my end is nigh…
But this does not end the story.

Now *that's* disgusting!

214. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88716 by GoatBoy36 on November 18, 2007 at 4:24 pm

It may be the case that the Dutch authorities will finance the protection of Ayaan Hirsi Ali if she remains in the Netherlands. There are two things I would say to that however. If one is familiar with her story one will remember the difficulties posed the last time round: a group of her neighbours took legal action due to the increased danger they believed they were in, and she was pretty much forced to move from where she was living. So staying put in Holland may not be as straightforward as one might think. Secondly, I wonder why on earth should anyone, let alone such a courageous and vibrant personality, be *forced* to remain within the borders of what is after all a relatively small country because religious assassins will find it easier to kill her if she travels anywhere else? Who thinks that's right, or acceptable? I certainly don't.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali may indeed have made some money from her book "Infidel" but why should she have to spend that money just making sure she stays alive? I think that everyone on this website who "talks the talk" and argues against the evil acts committed in the name of religion today, should now take this opportunity to "walk the walk". Help Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and by doing so, let the world know that helping others *is* part of the atheistic worldview. (We've all heard the charge that non-believers see no reason to behave in such a way, since they have no real "morals" etc.)

Fight the forces of religious terrorism in the world today by clicking your mouse a few times. Twenty five dollars American - that's the price of a DVD. It's really not much to ask.

215. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87651 by GoatBoy36 on November 12, 2007 at 5:14 pm

gcdavis,

Exactly! On the one hand it is unacceptable to print a novel which criticises some religious beliefs. On the other hand it is ok to print and distribute literature which encourages treason and murder, in the name of that same religion!

Crazy!

gb.

216. Hello Again, Michael Behe!

Comment #86475 by GoatBoy36 on November 9, 2007 at 11:05 am

John Done,

I took a couple courses in philosophy a few years ago, with the Open University. I was debating with a few Christians on the internet at the time. As the first course description said: The course will teach you to argue effectively. This is a transferrable skill.

Right now I'm listening to the bible on CD while commuting - the NLT version which is ok - and might take a course or two afterwards.

dsainty, I agree that many Christians don't know what's in their holy book & just make it all up as they go along (at least that's been my experience). I've always thought that this alone undermines any argument by learned theists who try to say to the likes of RD that he hasn't studied theology enough to comment on it - does this mean that most of their "flock" don't have any idea what they're doing when they troop in to listen to him speak on Sunday morning? Because sure as anything, most of them haven't even read the one core text never mind anything else!

Still it would be good when debating online to be able to respond to the tired old objection by saying, actually I studied theology at university. That would be pretty cool!

If anyone's interested in taking any courses, do a Google for the university of London, uni of Exeter, the Open University and if you're living up in the frozen north like me, Aberdeen Uni.

gb.

217. Same Flea, Different Name?

Comment #85878 by GoatBoy36 on November 7, 2007 at 11:44 am

That is a horrible book cover, right enough. I wonder what "O.P." stands for. I've never come across that before. Old Person?

218. Same Flea, Different Name?

Comment #85877 by GoatBoy36 on November 7, 2007 at 11:34 am

ksskidude,

I went across to the newspaper's website and read the letters page you mentioned. Unfortunately I couldn't send in a letter, I just got a "404" message and it was a no go.

If I may however: It seems to me that the actions of people like Hitler and those other nasties commonly found in that particular theistic argument pose a greater problem to the theist!

I believe I'm right in saying that CS Lewis argued that humans possess a moral conscience, which can discern an objective morality (which does exist), as is shown by everyone thinking the Nazis were evil. And enough people certainly fought to defeat Hitler, right enough. Mind you, God, being all powerful, could have settled Hitler's hash in the blink of an eye. Why didn't he?

This is the problem of evil. I suggest you turn the comments made by old Charlie and Vera back on them, and ask why their all powerful and wholly good deity did nothing while millions died in WWII.

God could have given Hitler an MI, no problem. But maybe the theistic view is that their God won't actually kill anyone himself. After all, that's murder, and that is wrong. (Which is pretty funny, having read the OT.) God could have made Hitler mute though. Imagine: no Nuremberg rallies, no inspiring speeches, just a funny wee mannie with a hilarious moustache! No one would ever have taken Hitler seriously, it would have been like watching a Spike Milligan programme on TV! Therefore, no holocaust.

But did God do even that? No. And why not ... well you and I know the answer to that question, but perhaps it might be a good idea to ask Vera or Charlie, & see what they have to say for themselves.

good luck, as I say I tried to send that in to the paper myself but it was a non starter.

gb.

219. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85802 by GoatBoy36 on November 7, 2007 at 6:31 am

Well, having checked on youtube, I find that it was in fact Mr. Sapient and Ms. O'Connor who participated in that debate with Kirk Cameron and his pal.

So I'm pretty sure that they are aware of what I was trying to say earlier, namely that some theists, when pretending to debate with you, will try to argue that simply because they do not like your style, the substance of your letter, your speech, or whatever, is lacking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDUBfRSf63w


And can I just say to all those people who have the brass neck to criticise Kelly for putting herself out there, and trying to take on some of the arrogant wingnuts that pollute the media: if you really think that you can do any better - go on then! If you're not prepared to do that, then you know what - shut the f*** up about it!

Or at least give her some encouragement - what she's doing isn't easy, but it needs to be done - and she's doing it.

Just had to get that off my chest. It's been bothering the bejesus out of me. (btw Jesus on a bike? I had a picture in my mind of his robes flapping about and catching in the chain, how annoying would that be, lol ... )

gb.

220. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85534 by GoatBoy36 on November 6, 2007 at 5:19 am

crazyoldman,

Amen brother!

And: I remember writing in to my local paper a couple of years ago to criticise the local reverend's column, and boy did that stir up a hornet's nest! If you do what Kelly's doing, then you're opening yourself up to all kinds of potential trouble, so good luck to her I say! Of course we all use different langauge in different contexts, I'll speak a dialect at home, "style-shift" when I go to work, go even more towards "BBC English" if I'm working with a foreign dr, use a more "academic" style of English if I'm writing in to a newspaper or writing an essay that's going to be marked, and so forth. I don't know the RRS at all, but I'm sure they'll write appropriately, depending on the context. For anyone who's interested, Longman's Student Grammar is a descriptive grammar, and shows in some detail how our language differs according to what we're using it for.

And once again, good luck to Kelly and I hope she has some success. I would just say that it might be a good idea to pick your projects carefully, and score a handful of good hits, rather than try to tackle everything that you'd like to - I found that my little letter had a knock-on effect, and you could end up writing a few times to the same place, on the same topic. So your workload could explode, if you're not careful.

gb.

221. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85518 by GoatBoy36 on November 6, 2007 at 3:54 am

Fanusi,

I can't recommend Ernle Bradford's book "The Great Siege" enough, it's just excellent.

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Siege-Wordsworth-Military-Library/dp/1840222069/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/104-0993109-8164711

(You can "look inside" the book on Amazon there.)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=travel&res=9A0DE5DA1231F93BA1575AC0A960948260

I'm planning to go to Malta next spring, I'll be thinking of the people who fought off the Muslims forces as I stroll around Valetta.

gb.

222. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85512 by GoatBoy36 on November 6, 2007 at 3:35 am

Janus,

Apologies if I was a bit nippy the other night, I was a bit sleep deprived & not exactly at my best: 4 overnight shifts followed by 2 early morning shifts'll do that to you. Well it does it to me anyway.

I take your general point, and agree that if you are going to take on bible thumpers in the media, that you must always be aware of the tactics they employ.

We've all seen the criticism of TGD, the bible thumpers' assertions about the "tone" of RD's writing - as opposed to the content. And I certainly consider Dawkins' writing to be of a pretty bare bones, here are the facts kind of style.

I remember too a recent "debate" which I saw on youtube with that fellow who went on about bananas being designed by god, you know the lad I mean, and two normal people. One of the blokes could hardly bear to look at Mr. Banana Man who used that, & made out that the bloke's inability to listen to Mr. Banana Man's fantastic stories meant somehow that those fabulous tales *were* worthy of serious consideration.

So as I said, I would agree that an approach needs to be used which won't let one's bible thumping opponent criticise one's letters etc on the basis of one's "tone".

You know the're gonna, if you give them half a chance!

Thinking back to reading Robert Pirsig, did he not say at one point that trying to figure out how to write well, one entered a "saragssso sea of stagnated logic" - I think that was in the first book but it's years since I read it, so I could be wrong there. Personally when I was trying to construct decent essays which my lecturers were going to like, I picked up a copy of "Style" by Joseph Williams & found that helpful. If I remember right I couldn't get it in the UK, but that's not a problem nowadays, on to Amazon dot com and away you go.

Anway Janus, as I said I apologise for being a bit nippy, I generally do when I'm sleep-depped, I'm getting far too old to work those night shifts man, I really am.

gb.

223. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85353 by GoatBoy36 on November 5, 2007 at 2:37 pm

I enjoyed the article, and thought it was clearly written. As for the suggestion that one must first provide an argument, and only then state one's conclusion; that is to say the author ought to have suggested that DS is deluded or dishonest only at the end of a paragraph (oh come on!) which contained supporting premises - well what can I say? That's a rather childish suggestion. I was discussing this very point with a doctor at my work yesterday, as it happens. And clearly, one can state one's conclusion wherever one wishes - in one's opening sentence, for example. Then spend the rest of one's essay/article supporting it. I can only say to Janus that your suggestion shows who the real "amateur" is around here. It's not Kelly O'Connor.

There's an excellent article elsewhere on this website by Edmund Standing, who shows that people like the Archbishop of Canterbury spend a lot of time using fancy language to (as he puts it) mask their superstitious beliefs in a fog of pseudo-intellectual garbage. But straight talking effectively counters this: just read Standing's run-through of the bible's basic story .. outstanding!

224. Mother dies after refusing blood

Comment #85340 by GoatBoy36 on November 5, 2007 at 2:10 pm

I was just reading about the Christian author Philip Yancey, and lo and behold look what happened to his father:

http://www3.zondervan.com/features/authors/yanceyp/bio.htm

(His publisher's bio on him. )

Another example of faith v. medicine arriving at the predictable conclusion ..

Anyone remember Christopher Hitchens recently debating a pastor fellow who said that his daughter was seriously ill and after medical treatment didn't work oh lord prayer did save her from death. Apparently. Hitchens gave him a real roasting, & said he ought not to spread such drivel about to a gullible audience (his "flock "). I remember thinking aye right - he might say that to Hitchens just now, but I bet you if he's in an RTA he'll be glad to see the paramedics arrive!

225. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85288 by GoatBoy36 on November 5, 2007 at 12:20 pm

Fanusi,

just thought I'd let you know that I posted again on that "plight of ex-Muslims" thread. As to this article: well written by Sam Harris, as always. He really kicks Dalrymple in the nuts. Great stuff.

gb.

226. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #84811 by GoatBoy36 on November 3, 2007 at 5:08 pm

part 5 ..

When I was in my early twenties I came out of a nightclub and saw my younger brother being attacked. I ran over to help him, and ended up settling the ringleader's hash. I was duly charged with "assault to injury" - a peculiarly Scottish charge which reveals the Scottish mindset I think, after all there's no point in assaulting someone unless you plan to injure them, surely! (See the actions of John Smeaton et al. when Islamic terrorists attacked Glasgow airport recently.) I have had to deal with that charge for twenty years, and it was only eligible to be "weeded out" from the police database last month. It's been a right scunner. But if I didn't act as I did, then my younger brother could have been seriously injured, or worse. So did I do the right thing? Did I act correctly - ethically speaking? Too right I did! I think I understand the "dirty hands" problem fairly well.

I also had to spend a fair bit of time reading Machiavelli and so forth when I was studying political philosophy (bo-ring) with the OU a few years ago, and I have no problem at all seeing the same arguments in print, on this website or any other. Like I said - big deal!

gb.

227. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #84810 by GoatBoy36 on November 3, 2007 at 5:07 pm

part 4 ..

Secondly, the consequences of inaction would have been disastrous. As Elizabeth I (a protestant no less) wrote of the conflict, "If the Turks should prevail against the Isle of Malta, it is uncertain what peril might follow to the rest of Christendom." (ibid., p. 194.) And of his own experience fighting against the Nazis in WWII, Bradford writes, "In 1943 I revisited Malta during the invasion of Sicily. It was then that I saw the island fulfilling the role which Soleyman the Magnificent had envisaged for it in 1565. From Malta, the Allied Forces stormed and captured Sicily and Italy." (ibid., p. 5.)

I challenge anyone - that is to say, anyone who is not a Muslim - today to say that the Chevalier Mesquite should not have taken the action he did!

It's also worth pointing out that the "dirty hands" problem is as old as the hills. Machiavelli laid it out in chapters fifteen and seventeen of "The Prince", for example. (Which was written half a century before the siege of Malta.)

So I have to say that seeing military people like Luttrell and Fraser advance what is a very old argument indeed is hardly surprising, when one considers what they've seen and done. And as I argued earlier, seeing someone like Fanusi posting a watered-down version of the very same argument, along with some basic observations about our military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, on some website or other is hardly controversial. Not when you know the background to the argument, and not when you've read enough history to understand why the argument is made.

228. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #84809 by GoatBoy36 on November 3, 2007 at 5:07 pm

part 3 ..

I have already mentioned "The Great Siege" by Ernle Bradford, which as it happens I am reading right now. At a crucial point in the siege of Malta in 1565, just as the invading Muslim forces were about to overwhelm the garrison of St. Michael on Senglea, Mustapha Pasha ordered his men to withdraw. "The wall, where only a few minutes before the Moslem banners had waved, was deserted. To the stupefaction of the Christians, the enemy began to withdraw at the very moment when they had felt unable to resist any longer. La Valette, who had been on the point of sending a handful of his own troops over from Birgu was as astonished as the rest. What could have caused Mustapha (Pasha) to call off his troops at such a time?" (Bradford, The Great Siege, Hodder & Stoughton, p. 174.)

"What had happened was this. Early that morning, the Chevalier Mesquita, Governor of Mdina, hearing the fury of bombardment, had conjectured that this could only mean another major assault against the two garrisons. Guessing - correctly as it proved - that the Turkish camp would only be lightly guarded, he had despatched his whole cavalry force to the Marsa under the command of the Chevalier de Lugny." (ibid., p. 175.)

The Turkish camp was utterly destroyed, the slaves, sick and wounded, all were killed. As Bradford notes, "It was a massacre." (ibid., p. 176.) When Mustapha Pasha found the remnants of the Muslim camp he swore "that when I take those citadels I will take no man. All, shall I put to the sword. Only their Grand Master will I take alive. Him alone I will lead in chains - to kneel at the feet of the Sultan!" (ibid., p. 176.)

Now some people might argue that the actions of the Christian forces in this instance were unacceptable. However two things need to be remembered here: their enemy was incredibly cruel, and utterly ruthless. When (earlier on) the Muslim forces finally managed to overcome St. Elmo, they showed this clearly. "He (Mustapha Pasha) ordered the bodies of the Knights to be set apart from the common soldiers. He then had the principal Knights identified. The heads of le Mas, Miranda and de Guaras were struck from their bodies. They were fixed on stakes overlooking Grand Harbour, and were turned to face the fortress of St. Angelo.

It was not difficult to identify the Knights. No one else bore such elaborate arms and armour. Mustapha had some of them stripped of their mail. The bodies were decapitated and the headless trunks were nailed to cross-beams of wood in mockery of the crucifixion. (Some commentators say that the sign of the cross was cut in their breasts while they were still alive, and their hearts were ripped from their bodies before their head were cut off.) One thing is certain, a number of these headless trunks were launched on the waters of Grand Harbour on the night after St. Elmo fell.

[…] On the morning of Sunday, the 24th of June, the gentle current which sweeps through the entrance of Grand Harbour in summer, and which washes the shores of the creeks on the south-eastern side, bore with it a sinister cargo. Floating on their wooden crucifixes, the headless bodies of four Knights were washed up to the base of St. Angelo." (ibid., pp. 142-143.)

229. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #84808 by GoatBoy36 on November 3, 2007 at 5:06 pm

part 2 ... (couldn't get the whole post accepted at once)



I don't know if you are familiar with the "Flashman" novels, written by George MacDonald Fraser OBE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_MacDonald_Fraser


In his war memoirs, "Quartered Safe Out Here" Fraser argued in favour of using nuclear weapons against Japan in WWII. He said that if it would have saved just one allied life, then we should have dropped another one too. I'm afraid I can't give you the direct quote or the reference from the book, since I listened to it on tape, which I got from my local library (a while ago). The book is still available on Amazon though, in fact I think a new edition has just been published, should you wish to read it yourself.

It's worth mentioning here that not only did the other members of Luttrell's team lose their lives, a rescue chopper was shot down as well, as you can read here:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/07/03/afghan.casualties/

You've criticised Fanusi for arguing that our troops are limited by their ROE, and for asserting that iff (if and only if) Al Qaeda ever managed to employ a WMD against Western civilians, then our political leaders would be less interested in placing restraints on our troops and prosecuting anyone who violates them. Fanusi also asserts that if that happened and "the gloves came off" then Al Qaeda and their supporters would be defeated by the West.

It is surely an undeniable fact that our armed forces have Rules of Engagement which limit what they are allowed to do on the ground. One can hardly criticise anyone for pointing this out. It also seems uncontroversial for one to assume that if Al Qaeda operatives ever set off a dirty bomb in the middle of London, then our politicians would suddenly adopt a more aggressive approach in their efforts to defeat "the base". And from that position, it is surely not illogical to believe that our armed forces would prevail, and Al Qaeda would ultimately be defeated.

It seems to me that anyone reading what Fanusi actually said in this new post you refer to, without any preconceptions based on your assertions about his moral condition or his emotional state, will acknowledge that far more forceful arguments were put forward by both Marcus Luttrell and George MacDonald Fraser. Personally, I would hesitate to criticise either of those two military men for advancing their own opinions about warfare. After all, they've been there, and know what it is like to be under fire, and they also know what it is like to lose comrades to an enemy that is both ruthless and unnecessarily cruel.

230. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #84807 by GoatBoy36 on November 3, 2007 at 5:05 pm

Brian,

You originally provided a link to a post made by Fanusi on another board, in which he cheered a military victory against hard line Islamic forces in Africa.

I then provided a link to a Sky News article on that event, together with two more links showing how dangerous the Islamic forces out there appear to be. I also mentioned Ayaan Hirsi Ali's childhood in that same area, which she describes in some detail in her autobiography, "Infidel".

I said that I did not see what the problem was with someone saying they were pleased that that military operation had been successful. In response to that, you then tried to support your "anti-Fanusi" position by providing a link to a different post, which Fanusi made over a year ago, in which he said that our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq were fighting with one hand tied behind their backs, and that if Al Qaeda ever hit a Western city with a WMD, then the West would retaliate in a decisive and devastating manner.

When I read that, I was reminded of a book I recently listened to on my iPod: "Lone Survivor", by Marcus Luttrell. This is the story of a team of American Navy SEALs who landed right in the shit during an operation in Afghanistan.

Their mission was compromised, and they had to decide what to do with the locals who had discovered them, and who were in league with the enemy: eliminate them, or let them go and accept the dire consequences of being grassed up in hostile territory. The SEALs chose the latter course in order to avoid being persecuted by people in America who would undoubtedly take the view that a Navy SEAL had no business shooting someone, even to save his own life.

Luttrell was asked recently (on American TV) if he would make the same choice again, and he said that he would rather be in jail, if that meant that his buddies were still alive.

http://www.defenselink.mil/heroes/50heroes/luttrell.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Red_Wing

http://www.armytimes.com/entertainment/books/military_luttrell_qanda_070618w/

231. A House Divided: Hitch at Georgetown

Comment #84806 by GoatBoy36 on November 3, 2007 at 5:03 pm

I enjoyed the review of Hitchens, but (as usual) lost interest when the boy started on about McGrath.

232. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #84234 by GoatBoy36 on November 1, 2007 at 1:15 pm

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gPYVC3gb4fpmhjV9KYRA_AUAS4Gw

"At this point, jihad is all we need. There is no political process we can be involved in unless we get a government practicing Sharia." - Shiekh Mukhtar Robow.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/22/wqaeda122.xml

"The Horn now ranks alongside the Middle East as the area of greatest concern to British counter-terrorism officials, coming second only to Pakistan, where al-Qa'eda's core leaders are ensconced.

Al-Qa'eda operatives based in the Horn, probably in the failed state of Somalia, could choose to target Britain, which has a large Somali community. Of the four men convicted for the failed bomb attacks in London on 21 July 2005, all were from the Horn and two were of Somali origin.

A few young Britons are also known to have travelled to Somalia in order to fight for the country's Islamist extremists. Meanwhile, al-Qa'eda may also strike in Kenya, which is filled with Western targets ranging from tourists to embassies."


I certainly don't know much about Somalian politics; I do remember reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali's account of her childhood, and of her surprise on arriving in the West at how peaceful and prosperous everything was, which kind of tells you what Somalia wasn't.

From what I read on that "doggie" thread, Fanusi was cheering on a military victory against Islamic forces in Africa - big deal.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-13559431,00.html?f=rss

gb.

233. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83837 by GoatBoy36 on October 31, 2007 at 12:39 pm

Brian,

I'm glad you enjoyed reading Mill's "On Liberty". Mill himself was a very interesting fellow, and that particular book of his is one of the classic texts on personal freedom. I don't know if you've ever seen Christopher Hitchens' talk at a university in Toronto (I believe it is) which was floating about the internet for a while, but he mentions "On Liberty" by Mill, just as he's getting warmed up.

You will recall that Mill advances four different arguments for freedom of speech, one of these being "the partly true argument". Mill argues that an "heretical opinion" often confronts "the received opinion" as an enemy, and sets itself up as the whole truth, for "in the human mind, one-sidedness has always been the rule, and many-sidedness the exception". Nevertheless, an opinion which turn out to be largely in error may still contain a portion of the truth, "which the common opinion omits" and which "ought to be considered precious". As Mill puts it: "No sober judge of human affairs will feel bound to be indignant because those who force on our notice truths which we should otherwise have overlooked, overlook some of those which we see."

Although you obviously disagree with what you think F's fundamental position is, or perhaps what you think the consequences of F's fundamental position would be, could one not say here that it would be fruitful to apply's Mill's argument to what has been written? If I may just give one example of what I mean: F's post no. 54 on this thread is quite excellent, and (I think) well worth reading. It also seems to me that if you believe that there will never be a united Islamic threat, and that there will never be enough Muslims in European countries to significantly alter our political power structures, then what you think the consequences of F's position would be will actually never happen. If one believes this to be the case, could one not therefore adopt a relaxed attitude to an "heretical opinion" which says otherwise, and think of Mill's argument?

I have become entangled with individual posters on one or two message boards in the last few years, and I know how seductive the idea of "winning" such tussles can be. (Does anyone remember the Christian who haunted several atheist sites called "Abby Aaron"? I had a running battle with "her" which went on for ages.) But I don't know if this kind of thing does you any good; it can take up far too much of you time; it can even impact on your personal life (late nights, lack of sleep etc.).

I did watch one or two of your videos on you tube, and quite enjoyed them. I really don't think you and I are all that far apart really. My worry is not so much that there will be a whole heap of Muslims coming to live in the NE of Scotland and that a jihadi candidate will be voted in ahead of the SNP! But I do worry about the way our own country is run, and the difficulty we have in discussing religious issues openly. I would like us all to be able to criticise Islam, whenever we want to, and however we want to. And if some Mohammedans do not like it when that happens, that's too bad. As you so eloquently put it in your video: "Lads, you just have to get used to this shit."

You talked in one of your videos about reaching out to help Muslims, and from my own perspective, one of the best things we could do for them is tell them what we think of their religion. We should also support and encourage (as you say) people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the others mentioned at the beginning of this thread who leave Islam - and then try to talk about why they did so. I believe we are more or less in agreement here.

One wonders though, how much good that would do. Again referring to Mill, you'll remember that he limits the scope of his arguments, when he says that societies living in "backward states" where "not the person's own character but the traditions or customs of other people are the rule of conduct" and where "there is wanting one of the principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress" are exempt from what he is trying to say. Mill also notes that "so natural to mankind is intolerance in whatever they really care about that religious freedom has hardly anywhere been practically realised, except where religious indifference, which dislikes to have its peace disturbed by theological quarrels, has added its weight to the scale." And talking again of religious belief: "Wherever the sentiment of the majority is still genuine and intense, it is found to have abated little of its claim to be obeyed." It might be difficult to persuade a follower of the Islamic faith that he or she is in error. But I think we must find a way to let people live up to Mill's ideas here in the West (if I can put it like that) and show that we are indeed "human beings in the maturity of our faculties" and that we are "capable of being improved by free and equal discussion".

I spoke earlier about the way one's capacity to act is linked to the resistance put in front of one by other people. I'll just argue for that a little bit here, by bringing in Berlin's concept of negative freedom: "The extent of a man's negative liberty is, as it were, a function of what doors, and how many are open to him; upon what prospects they open; and how open they are." And again: "The freedom of which I speak is opportunity for action, rather than action itself." If I parked my car across your drive, I would be stopping you from getting to your work. You might be signed off with the flu, and have no intention of going to your work today - but that door is no longer open to you in any event. The government in whatever country you live in at the moment might make striking illegal. You might have no intention of going on strike - but that door is now closed to you. When discussing Berlin, the philosopher Nigel Warburton points out what is obviously the case: "Other people limit our freedom by what they do." The capacity of Islamic terrorists to act is inexorably linked to our own actions. Those who would see Ayaan Hirsi Ali dead find that door closed to them, because the West has taken steps to close it.

Mill argued that only if one's actions violated his "Harm Principle" could a government legitimately use "compulsion and control" - only if "the conduct from which it is desired to deter him [is] calculated to produce evil to someone else". I think there are obvious cases when one is violating the Harm Principle (murdering Theo van Goch for example) but it is a fuzzy concept nevertheless, and there are undoubtedly gray areas. (See thon previous passage, about the crowd outside the corn dealer's house.) While one could argue that there should be limits upon how far any Western government should be allowed to go in acting against people who might present a threat to its citizens, and that there should be limits in how their intelligence services and polices forces conduct themselves, one thing I feel strongly about is that no Western government should ever prevent, or discourage, its own citizens from talking out about the religion of the men who have now carried out several terrorist attacks upon us. Mill also notes that society can "practice a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression" and I think that this too needs to be recognised. Speaking out against Islam may carry no legal penalties as such, but the prevailing social atmosphere may make it tremendously difficult to do so openly. Again one need only read the article at the beginning of this thread to see this is so. So I think that we need to work to develop an atmosphere in our own countries where we ourselves can criticize Islam without being labelled as racist (ridiculous!) or Islamaphobic (what does that even mean?). We also need to work with those people who leave Islam. Again going back to Mill, one could argue that if other Muslims see that it is indeed possible to leave the Islamic religion, and live a prosperous and happy life into the bargain, then they are more likely to do just that - if that's what they want.

They should certainly be free to do so, here in the West at any rate. To use Berlin's terminology, that door should be open to them - here. That, surely, is the point of this thread.

gb.

234. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83459 by GoatBoy36 on October 30, 2007 at 4:57 am

"SUCH being the reasons which make it imperative that human beings should be free to form opinions, and to express their opinions without reserve; and such the baneful consequences to the intellectual, and through that to the moral nature of man, unless this liberty is either conceded, or asserted in spite of prohibition; let us next examine whether the same reasons do not require that men should be free to act upon their opinions--to carry these out in their lives, without hindrance, either physical or moral, from their fellow-men, so long as it is at their own risk and peril. This last proviso is of course indispensable. No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions. On the contrary, even opinions lose their immunity, when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act. An opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard. Acts of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavorable sentiments, and, when needful, by the active interference of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people. But if he refrains from molesting others in what concerns them, and merely acts according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself, the same reasons which show that opinion should be free, prove also that he should be allowed, without molestation, to carry his opinions into practice at his own cost. That mankind are not infallible; that their truths, for the most part, are only half-truths; that unity of opinion, unless resulting from the fullest and freest comparison of opposite opinions, is not desirable, and diversity not an evil, but a good, until mankind are much more capable than at present of recognizing all sides of the truth, are principles applicable to men's modes of action, not less than to their opinions. As it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be different opinions, so is it that there should be different experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties of character, short of injury to others; and that the worth of different modes of life should be proved practically, when any one thinks fit to try them. It is desirable, in short, that in things which do not primarily concern others, individuality should assert itself. Where, not the person's own character, but the traditions of customs of other people are the rule of conduct, there is wanting one of the principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress." - (John Stuart Mill, Ch 3, "On Liberty".)

That's the relevant passage, I'd write something about it but I'm afraid my night shift has finally caught up with me ..

gb.

235. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83458 by GoatBoy36 on October 30, 2007 at 4:45 am

"A last resort which will be precipitated inevitably by your list of draconian first resorts. Summary executions, wholesale deportations ... can you say Dachau?" - brian, post 105.

"Certainly we should be uncompromising in prosecuting apostate killings or honour killings with the full rigour of the law. Sweden is a good example of where this happens, curiously without abrogating anyones human rights. Go figure." - brian, post 112.

You seem to be saying on the one hand that it's ok to prosecute people for breaking the law, and on the other hand you're saying that it shouldn't be done "wholesale". Well, ok. But surely legal deportations would only be "wholesale" if there were a lot of people committing the offence carrying that penalty? And if there weren't, then it wouldn't be.

There have been a few people prosecuted in the UK for shit stirring, not many to the best of my knowledge, but that lad with the hooky hand was done not long ago for example. I think he's in Belmarsh jail. A far cry from Dachau.

I notice that you continually use Nazi references in your posts btw; do you not think that the attitudes of some of the real badboy Muslims, mentioned in that report by the policy exchange for example, all that anti-Semitism, and the continual use of anti-Semitic propoganda in Muslim newspapers etc, is very like the Nazis? I provided a link to that 1hr long movie Obsession earlier - they make that point quite well. As someone said in that film, jihad means struggle - and so does Mein Kampf! See those photos of the octopus though .. quite bad really. And from what I can make out, such cartoons are not uncommon throughout the Muslim world.

Try drawing a picture of their beloved prophet though ... see where that gets you.

gb.

236. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83454 by GoatBoy36 on October 30, 2007 at 4:22 am

"The issue for me is not about harm to individuals, clearly individuals can act as they please .." - brian

That's not exactly clear. You appear to be saying that you're not bothered about terrorists blowing up buses, or about the murder of individuals (like Theo van Goch). That' can't be right. I mean, I don't want to read you "too literally" or anything ..

"I must insist, intent is completely irrelevant unless coupled with capacity." - brian

That says nothing at all to undermine my previous argument, that the capacity of Islamic terrorists to act is inextricably linked to the resistance they meet (resistance put up by their enemies - ie. us). So my original argument stands.

"Certainly we must take robust and sensible steps to minimise the risks we run from fanatics" - brian.

As I said.

"... but as anyone can see the correlation between an increase in terrorism and the Iraq war is pretty inescapable [...] there are no easy outs, and the "hit them with everything we've got" meme is exactly that. An easy deceptive out which will end in millions of deaths. Though you don't seem to be proposing that I hasten to add. Still why even appear to be going to bat on behalf of Fanusi? I find that puzzling I have to say." - brian

brian, I wish you would stick to what has actually been said (by me anyway). I shouldn't have to waste my time pointing out the obvious: I said nothing about the Iraq war, I said nothing about hitting people with everything we've got (and absolutely nowhere did I employ what appears to be your *own* favourite word genocide, and I definitely never used the expression "culling" or anything like it - let's just lay that out here and now), and if you can't take on board the points I'm making for their own sake, without going on and on and on to me about what F said & what he didn't say, well I guess that's going to have to be your problem & not mine.

gb.

ps. just read your last post, I'll get back to you on that, I've been doing a night shift & got to get some shut eye right now ... I'm thinking though of the passage in John Stuart Mill where he talks about the crowd outside a corn dealer's house ... I'll look it up later.

237. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83443 by GoatBoy36 on October 30, 2007 at 3:57 am

Wow, try downloading the full document from that Adobe link earlier on, and go down to page 31 and start reading ...

At the Muslim Cultural Heritage Centre (www.almanaar.org.uk) in London, material was found to be available which was "devoted entirely to the issue of separation and the antipathy between Muslims and western society. Its title is a variant on the concept of loyalty and dissociation, which is a regular feature of this material. According to this text: separation is mandatory; jihad is the struggle against the enemies of Islam (ie all unbelievers); showing favour to non-believers is enough to make a Muslim an apostate - they are to be hated; it is treachery to join the army of a non-Muslim state; it is recommended that a conscripted Muslim should do nothing in battle; and to see anything good in other religions is enough to make a Muslim an apostate and worthy of death; there are grave dangers in loving non-believers. Throughout, there is total contempt for all that is unIslamic. (pages 31, 32)

238. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83435 by GoatBoy36 on October 30, 2007 at 3:19 am

Goldy,

I see in your earlier post that you were "making a shower" yesterday. I take it you're using the correct verb there, although you might mean "taking a shower". Funnily enough I was making a shower yesterday as well, that is to say installing a new shower unit in my mum's house. She's had problems with one she had installed months ago, and the firm tried to give her the brush-off. I wasn't too happy about that, so I wrote off to the firm (Roman Showers) giving them a bit of a dressing down, and to the investigators at the Daily Mirror as well (Penman and Sommerlad) and got them onside, and managed to persuade Roman to cough up a credit note so that a firm I knew could install a new shower at no cost to my dear old mum. Which is what happened yesterday. It's a two man job really, so I put my old engineer's hea