251. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #174953 by Barry Pearson on May 3, 2008 at 11:55 pm

Layla Nasreddin says: I suppose it just goes back to what Barry Pearson says above: the sources of Islam contradict themselves quite a bit, so it is impossible to conform to 100% of the Qur'an and hadith.

Despite the Qur'an's insistence that it is "consistent with itself" (39:23), the fact that it so obviously is not led to the development of the doctrine of abrogation.

Here is my source for the chronology of the Koran, used for abrogation:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08692a.htm

Note that this puts Sura 9 last, giving priority to its crusade-nature over more peaceful earlier parts. (Is there any dispute about this?)

252. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #174746 by Barry Pearson on May 3, 2008 at 11:58 am

Ilovelucy: In the same way that every Godzilla film needs Tokyo to be destroyed, every Chick tract needs someone to be cast into the lake of fire to keep the punters happy.

Ha! Here is a MUCH better godzilla film. (And it stars Richard Dawkins!)

"Answers In Genesis: What about Godzilla?"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pg26_r274BM

253. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #174706 by Barry Pearson on May 3, 2008 at 10:00 am

Vinelectric: You want to know what muslim leaders actually teach their flock about domestic violence? Go listen. Straightforward, really.

My opportunities to interact with muslim leaders are limited. I have had little opportunity to enter a mosque and talk to a range of muslims since last September. (That was a "UK heritage open day", and all the information the Birmingham Central Mosque provided was prepared in advance).

Furthermore, I have been commenting on the nature of Islam in Islamic states, not in non-Islamic states. I am confident that Islamic communities take on a different character when they are heavily constrained by being minorities within enlightened non-Islamic states. That different character is not what the women of this thread are concerned with. It isn't what most muslim women in the world experience.

Vinelectric: Doesn't take any great effort to notice that MEMRI's clips are seriously edited, at times they go for three or four seconds before the speaker is interrupted. Is this responsible reporting? I'm sure you can easily see how ridiculous they are.

If you check my page (see below) you will see that I have linked to the Wikepedia article aboput MEMRI. I don't claim that Wikipedia articles are accurate. But one of their values is that they provide extra references, allowing readers to investigate further. How can any source do other than cherry-pick, given the vast range of muslim experiences in the world?
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEMRI

Vinelectric: You want to re-link and rephrase secondary and tertiary sources. Be my guest. However credibility and the relevance of your conclusions to the real world can be called into question.

You are welcome to supply references to those sources. I will change my links in the light of useful extra references. I will also revise my conclusions if the revised information demands this.

My method for processing information and revising analysis and opinion is shown at the following:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/aeiou/

254. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #174663 by Barry Pearson on May 3, 2008 at 5:46 am

Vinelectric: If you're really interested in analysing a culture make sure you make an effor to get your info first hand. Biased reporting and the MEMRI propaganda project is not a good start.

Is there any such thing as unbiased and comprehensive analysis? I have 61 years worth of first hand information about the UK, but even for the UK I still rely on other people as well to fill in the gaps and do analysis that I can't do!

As I say at the page below: "Cherry-picking Islam - Given the contradictions, it is impossible to conform to 100% of the Koran and the haddith. It is typically possible to identify material to support any viewpoint from "Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance" to "Islam is a movement for jihad that can only be satisfied with a global Islamic state". That page, and my other pages it links to, have scores of references to external sources, and still only touch on a few topics.
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam.htm

It is further complicated, of course, by the fact that the cultures (and languages) of different Islamic states are significantly different from one-another. Some of the MEMRI videos have people expressing views (eg. concerning restrictions on women) that match mainsteam behaviour in (say) Saudi Arabia, while being very different from (say) Pakinstan or Turkey. (I realise that "ME" in MEMRI stands for Middle East).

This scope of this thread is far more than one person can hope to cover by information gained first hand.

255. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #174604 by Barry Pearson on May 2, 2008 at 11:09 pm

Vinelectric: Learn the language, subscribe to any Arabic satellite channel and you're guaranteed to hear a preacher talk about Muhammad helping his wives clean the house, saying "take good care of your wives" in his deathbed etc etc. Unfortunately he never abrogated the verse in the Quran that invites men to flog their wives. Truth is he was never reported to be mean to his many wives

It isn't necessary to learn the language!

Have a look at the MEMRI TV website or view their stuff on YouTube, with subtitles:
http://www.memritv.org/
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=memri

"Beat their wives", not "flog their wives"! (Sura 4 verse 34). It is more of an injunction than an invitation:

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

Here is a useful checklist about the bad bits of the Koran:
http://www.reformislam.org/verses.php

More references, including various reform movements, on this page:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam.htm

256. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #174449 by Barry Pearson on May 2, 2008 at 12:44 pm

I believe this isn't a contest between "Islam" and "Atheism", or "Within Islam" versus "Outside Islam".

It is a contest between "The Unenlightenment" and "The Enlightenment". And so are most discussion about religion versus atheism (etc).

On the one hand, with "The Enlightenment", we have freethinking, rejection of dogma & doctrine, support for human rights, representative rather than authoritarian government, evidence-based reasoning (hence science), and tolerance. (If a religion met these criteria, would we worry about that religion?)

On the other hand, characteristic of "The Unenlightenment", we have both typical religions and also various other "ISMs" such as Naziism, Stalinism, and Maoism. Sometimes religions can be dragged, kicking and screaming, towards the 21st Century. Islam, not being an organised religion, often can't.

Both women are pursuing useful paths. Islam should be reformed internally where possible. But it should also be constrained externally where necessary. Islam (as with all religions) must "stay within its box": "consenting adults in private". Preferably this should be the choice of Muslims themselves, as is often the case where they are integrated in "Western" communities. If necessary, it should be by law or something stronger.

257. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173869 by Barry Pearson on May 1, 2008 at 10:03 am

Off topic:

"What Richard Dawkins doesnt want you to know ..."
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TqcNraF3vP8

258. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173866 by Barry Pearson on May 1, 2008 at 9:58 am

Off topic:

"RICHARD DAWKINS THE MOVIE PART ONE"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=u98INQ_XIDE

259. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170147 by Barry Pearson on April 27, 2008 at 12:45 pm

I've just posted the following comment to that website:

It is seen from what follows that this question demands identification of what sort of God/gods are being discussed, and whether "obsolete" means "non-existent" or "unwanted". Obviously science doesn't alter whether God/gods actually exist, it just enables us to draw more-informed conclusions. And other factors determine whether people want God/gods to exist.

As an explanation for the existence and nature of the universe, the "listening / caring / after-life" God of Christianity and Islam was obsolete from the start. (What aspect of the universe did it ever explain?) There was a plausible case (born of ignorance) for the existence of the sort of god that "lights the blue touch-paper and stands clear", but science is making even that sort of god obsolescent as an explanation.

For purposes of wishful-thinking and/or social control, the God of Christianity and Islam is somewhat immune from science itself. (People sometimes need something other than the truth). This God is vulnerable to other mystical beliefs, and people who need comforting-entities (albeit evidence-free) are adopting other beliefs, such as crystals, the spirit-world, and similar. So, while belief in the Abrahamic-God decreases in Europe, belief in those other mystical elements appears to be increasing. They often feed off "scientific terminology", so it could be argued that science is inadvertently supporting them.

260. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169429 by Barry Pearson on April 26, 2008 at 4:32 am

I once saw a chap walking through the centre of Manchester, turning heads all the way with his T-shirt.... It was baggy and black, and in huge white letters it said (without asterisk!): JESUS WAS A C*NT.

That is an acronym for "Church of Ultimate Naked Truth":
http://mwillett.org/church-of-ultimate-naked-truth.htm

261. Investigating Atheism

Comment #167399 by Barry Pearson on April 24, 2008 at 2:01 am

I too don't like the term "new atheist", but for a different reason. I disagree with "new". Examination of Jack Huberman's "The Quotable Atheist" shows that NEARLY all the themes in the latest set of books were present in earlier works.

I think what we have something like "new platform", or "new media". Here is a thought experiment:

Suppose that Richard Dawkins had an outline of "The God Delusion" in earlier decades - 1996, 1986, 1976, .... Would there have been sufficient incentives for Richard to expand the outline to its current comprehensive version, rather than release it in more limited form? Would there have been sufficient incentives for a publisher to publish it as widely and as well-translated?

For example: 1996. The web existed, but was not widely used. There were no web forums, no video-viewing such as YouTube or video downloads, little or no on-line publication of news articles, etc. There were fewer TV stations available to most people in the UK, and probably less need to find material to fill the air-time, and perhaps less need for controversial material to attract viewers.

Another factor in 1996 was "this was pre-9/11"! That influenced both some of the content and the audience. Given all of this, how far would people have taken such an interest in even the comprehensive version? Surely far fewer people would have been aware of it, and there would have been fewer opportunities to debate it? Would people even have been talking about "new atheism"?

In earlier decades, there might have been times when such a "disrespectful" topic would not get air-time at all.

262. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166542 by Barry Pearson on April 23, 2008 at 9:46 am

nalfeshnee: I can't find the reference but I seem to remember Primo Levi saying something about Auschwitz confirming his belief in no God. He (if it was Levi) also said - interestingly - that it was in fact a *moral* decision he made not to give in and "find God" in Auschwitz, since he recognized "faith" as the mental and emotional crutch it is, and refused to indulge in it to merely make himself feel better in the light of the likelihood of his imminent death.

I've just found a quote like that at the start of "The Portable Atheist", edited by Christopher Hitchens.

From Promo Levi: "The Drowned and the Saved" (1986)

"I too entered the Lager as a nonbeliever, and as a nonbeliever I was liberated. Actually, the experience of the Lager with its frightful iniquity confirmed me in my nonbelief".

He goes on the say that he was tempted, but:

"A prayer under these conditions would have been not only absurd ... but blasphemous, obscene, laden with the greatest inpiety of which a nonbeliever is capable".

263. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166273 by Barry Pearson on April 23, 2008 at 4:29 am

You become an extremist the minute you condemn others for not following your own irrational views. That is, you can decide to eat, drink, wear whatever you want, the moment you expect from me that I do exactly as you, to honor YOUR god, that very moment, you have become an extremist.

I think that is mis-using the word "extremist". Within their own group, they may actually be moderate!

I think it is better to describe this by words such as "intolerant", since that is what it really is, and perhaps (with caution!) "totalitarian", if they want their views enforced.

264. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166263 by Barry Pearson on April 23, 2008 at 4:20 am

AdrianB: Remember, all the different gods seem quite specific on the evils of worshipping other gods. They all seem to get quite pissed about that.

irate_atheis: I suppose the problem could arise if they all gang up on you as a collective.

See: "I've Converted To EVERY Religion (Just In Case)"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PqJpZOljjG8

265. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165541 by Barry Pearson on April 21, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Quine: Another particularly ignorant piece of crap mentions Prof. Dawkins by name.

The article you cite says:

The Evolutionists have lost a great deal of ground in the past few decades and feel the sand slipping away from beneath their feet. No wonder they are frightened, angry and vengeful.

I wonder if everyone is aware of the following article:
"The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism":
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

It lists about 180 years of claims that evolution is on its last legs, about to die, no one believes it anymore, it will soon be a footnote in history, etc.

Hm! It's taking its time to die!

266. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165538 by Barry Pearson on April 21, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Dr Benway: Some of us work for a living. If we are required to write an essay each time a creationist asks a question that has been well addressed elsewhere, we will lose our jobs and our children will starve.

That is the plan!

The Darwin awards are for cases where dumb people remove themselves from the gene-pool.

The anti-Darwin awards are for when intelligent people remove themselves from the gene-pool.

267. Mecca should become core to measure time zones: scholars

Comment #165534 by Barry Pearson on April 21, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Mel Olontha: This part of the world is still to a large part in the middle ages. It is time we learn how to live with that fact.

Precisely. I have had reason to examine muslim attitudes on some specialised topics over the last few years, and my conclusion is:

"... Islam "in its natural state" is currently at best medieval, (for example, its typical attitude towards science), and at worst intolerant and barbaric, (for example, various aspects of Sharia Law including attitude towards women, intolerance towards other religions, desire for jihad, and immature and exaggerated reactions to criticism).

"This isn't a "Clash of Civilisations" - Islam "in its natural state" isn't yet civilised. This is a "Clash of Eras" - the 1st millennium CE (Islam) versus the 3rd millennium CE (the rest of us)."

http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/#islam
Richard Dawkins talks of the "shifting Moral Zeitgeist". I think there is something broader than this: the "shifting Enlightenment Zeitgeist". Not just morals, but all aspects of the enlightenment, including science, freethinking, etc.

Religions, and religious people, are being forced to evolve simply by existing within this Enlightenment Zeitgeist. It can be SLOW - centuries for the Catholic Church to fully accept Galileo, and it still hasn't properly accepted Darwin. Religions are struggling to accept the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including freedom of expression.

Religious people are pulled backward by their religion, (all religions are inherently conservative), and foreward by the shifting Enlightenment Zeitgeist. (And, of course, religious people vary a lot). The Enlightenment Zeitgeist is hardly apparent in some Islamic states, and so there is little pull foreward.

The shifting Enlightenment Zeitgeist can pull an organised religion foreward (slowly!) and all members should then eventually follow. But Islam isn't an organised religion. There is no authority that can be dragged into the 21st Century which will then carry all its members with it.

Global communications may be our best hope of making the modern Enlightenment Zeitgeist apparent in those countries. Internet censorship, etc, would thwart that. I think many people hoped that Turkey could be a bridge, but I'm now a bit gloomy about Turkey.

There are also various reform initiatives within Islam, but the knee-jerk reaction is to issue death-threats against them! Here are the email addresses of one such reform organisation:

Email: info AT reformislam.org

Death Threats: die AT reformislam.org

268. Mecca should become core to measure time zones: scholars

Comment #165354 by Barry Pearson on April 21, 2008 at 11:38 am

al-rawandi: The guy is not only a moron, but a bigot too.

Bigot, yes. Moron ... I can't decide.

How can we know whether someone is ignorant or lying? At first, ignorance may be a possibility, but after sufficient repeats, we are entitled to assume that it has become lying. (cf. Michael Behe in the Dover courtroom).

Have you read the Atlas of Creation? It is a mind-bogglingly polished production, and far beyond the capability of a moron. It is over 800 pages long, with detailed discussions such as:

In truth, however, the results of molecular comparisons do not work in favour of the theory of evolution at all. There are huge molecular differences between creatures that appear to be very similar and related. For instance, the cytochrome-C protein, one of the proteins vital to respiration, is incredibly different in living beings of the same class. According to research carried out on this matter, the difference between two different reptile species is greater than the difference between a bird and a fish or a fish and a mammal. Another study has shown that molecular differences between some birds are greater than the differences between those same birds and mammals. It has also been discovered that the molecular difference between bacteria that appear to be very similar is greater than the difference between mammals and amphibians or insects. Similar comparisons have been made in the cases of haemoglobin, myoglobin, hormones, and genes and similar conclusions are drawn.

There are detailed references that make it clear he (or people supplying him) IS aware of many scientific papers, and has at least skim-read them. He must therefore be lying about many of the implications, not just be ignorant. He must KNOW from this reading that scientists are not deserting the science of evolution, as he states.

I can't get inside his head (or, as Eugenie Scott might say, his heart) to know how much he actually knows and so where he is lying for Allah. I THINK he has missed the point of common descent, and so places expected transitional fossils "between" modern species (he gives the example of crocodiles & squirrels!) rather than near common ancestors. But perhaps he has deliberately created a strawman version of evolution so that he can convince readers that he has demolished evolution. And it would be hard for anyone without some literacy in evolution to see where his claims are wrong. (I had to spend quite a bit of time re-reading parts of "The Ancestor's Tale" to spot where some of his claims were false).

He may be an intelligent man (or more likely a group of people) telling a "big lie", and not be a moron. It is certainly clever propoganda, and it makes the connection between "Darwinism" and the Nazis, of course.

269. Mecca should become core to measure time zones: scholars

Comment #165286 by Barry Pearson on April 21, 2008 at 9:48 am

huzonfurst: Another part of Quranic science is the denial of evolution, of course.

Not always. But I agree that this is often the view, and in a (UK) Channel 4 TV program perhaps last year, about half of the young muslims in the audience didn't accept evolution.

Look on the bright side! Here is a sustained attack on Intelligent Design:

"The "Intelligent Design" Distraction":
http://www.harunyahya.com/new_releases/news/intelligent_design.php

Some headings:

Who Else, Apart from Allah, Could Expressions Like "Intelligent Design" and "An Intelligent Power" Refer To?

Allah Does Not Need to Make a Design in Order to Create

"Intelligent Design" Accounts Could Harm Individuals Sincerely Inclined toward Religion

"Intelligent Design" Is Another of Satan's Distractions

Some statements:

Even children at primary school know that it is Allah, and not "intelligent design," Who created the sky, gazelles, fish, lambs, apples, bananas, grapes and oranges.

To put forward any claim of "intelligent design," while ignoring the existence of Allah (He is surely beyond that) is exceedingly irrational and illogical. After a moment's reflection, anyone of normal intelligence and possessed of a conscience will understand that if the perfection in the universe appears to have been designed, then the Creator of that perfection can be none other than Allah.

Here is the complete explanation for everything:

Qur'an, 36:82: His command when He desires a thing is just to say to it, "Be!" and it is.

Qur'an, 2:117: [He is] the Originator of the heavens and Earth. When He decides on something, He just says to it, "Be!" and it is.

These are accurate quotations from the Koran, so they must be true!

270. Mecca should become core to measure time zones: scholars

Comment #165218 by Barry Pearson on April 21, 2008 at 8:27 am

I just watched this: just 3 minutes 36 seconds. Mind-boggling crackpot assertions!

"Science in Islam: Mecca Time Must Replace Greenwich MT!"
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_N7t19hfeSE

This isn't just a one-off - there appears to be lots more like this!

271. Mecca should become core to measure time zones: scholars

Comment #165196 by Barry Pearson on April 21, 2008 at 7:46 am

In a clear support for the call, Islamic scholar Yousuf al-Qaradawi said Islam, "unlike other religions, never contradicted science".

Wow!

Given that many muslims contradict science, and many other muslims believe what they say, what does that statement actually mean?

http://www.harunyahya.com/
http://www.harunyahya.com/en.m_categorie_79.php
http://www.harunyahya.com/en.m_categorie_76.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_science
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=technology&res=9802E4D91730F933A05753C1A9679C8B63

272. Evolution exhibit shows why nobody's perfect

Comment #165189 by Barry Pearson on April 21, 2008 at 7:36 am

Timed to coincide with the approach of Charles Darwin's 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of his seminal work "On the Origin of Species," both happening in 2009.

2009 may be the year when "evolution strikes back"! (I hope).

Is there anywhere a comprehensive list of Darwin events across the world? Here are some links, but I doubt if they tell the full story:
http://www.yearofevolution.org/yoe.shtml
http://www.thebeagleproject.com/links.html
http://www.darwin2009.cam.ac.uk/
http://www.darwin200.org/
http://darwin-online.org.uk/2009.html

273. Religion is 'the new social evil'

Comment #165104 by Barry Pearson on April 21, 2008 at 4:15 am

Following up on the following from the report:

... perhaps based on a refined Human Rights Act

I found this worrying:
"Speech To European Humanist Federation To Mark The 60th Anniversary of Universal Declaration of Human Rights."
http://www.secularism.org.uk/speechtoeuropeanhumanistfederati.html

In particular:

The proposition I start out with and will go on to justify, is that the body overseeing international Human Rights, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva, is ineffective. Worse, it is in grave danger of shielding Human Rights abuses and abusers from public scrutiny. Worse still, it is starting to be used to legitimise â€" even initiate â€" attacks on the basic human right of freedom of expression.... It soon became obvious that much of the debate, especially on topics such as freedom of expression, was polarised along religious lines. The dominant voices were coming from the countries that belong to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC). There are over fifty of them, and on their own form a powerful bloc vote, which is often strengthened by other countries (for example China, Cuba and Russia) for a variety of disparate motives. Up against this, the European states, and others which share their commitment to freedom of expression and other basic human rights seem powerless, certainly in terms of votes.

Islam, in particular, is incompatible (even in theory) with Universal Human Rights, and I guess there will be continual attacks on human rights across Europe as well.
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam_cairo.htm

Fortunately, there are relatively few Islamic states in the Council of Europe, the source of our Human Rights Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_europe#Membership

274. Religion is 'the new social evil'

Comment #165098 by Barry Pearson on April 21, 2008 at 4:00 am

Adding to the quotes from Geoff at #164700:

There are too many of them [religions], and none make any sense. We need to develop a consensus around rules for a decent, open and honest society, perhaps based on a refined Human Rights Act.

Gradually humanism is becoming more recognised as a school topic:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3773661.ece

"Teenagers are to be given the chance to study humanism as part of a religious education GCSE for the first time.

"The leading exam board OCR has published proposals for a new "philosophy and ethics" course to cover issues such as euthanasia and abortion.

"Pupils will be encouraged to examine topics from the standpoint of humanism, a philosophy that rejects religion as irrational and advocates reason in its place.

"The course will include units on the nature of good and evil, medical ethics, death and the afterlife."

In fact, at least one of the other exam organisations already includes humanism.

See also:
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/newsarticleview.asp?article=2439
Also, spot the names at:
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentviewarticle.asp?article=1162

275. Religion is 'the new social evil'

Comment #165089 by Barry Pearson on April 21, 2008 at 3:45 am

rod-the-farmer : If the source data was only those who responded to a web advert, that will likely skew the answers considerably.

From the main report:
"The consultation was conducted online on the website www.socialevils.org.uk. Anyone could take part and 3,500 people did so, sharing a wide range of views about the underlying social problems that cause the most damage to British society or the most misery to its people. This group is unlikely to be representative of the British population generally and it was recognised from the start that conducting the survey online would exclude some groups. In order to address this, the National Centre for Social Research was commissioned to explore today's social evils with groups that were less likely to be reached through the online consultation. The results of this strand of work are detailed in a separate report."

The latter is the 3rd report I cited at #164613:
"Modern-day social evils - The voices of unheard groups" (144KB):
http://www.socialevils.org.uk/documents/social-evils-natcen-report.pdf

Discussion groups were held with:
- People with learning disabilities;
- Ex-offenders;
- Carers;
- Unemployed people;
- Vulnerable young people;
- Care leavers; and
- People with experience of homelessness.

276. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165033 by Barry Pearson on April 21, 2008 at 12:34 am

mmurray: PS: I don't think he is a rev but you can find out more at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Brent_Bozell_III

I see that Wikipedia says "Employers: Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights".

That says: "The Catholic League is known for press release statements about anti-Catholic and anti-Christian themes in the media".

Gosh!

277. Religion is 'the new social evil'

Comment #164625 by Barry Pearson on April 20, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Terry Sanderson: "Britain has had it with religion".
petermun: "If only!"

I think we are becoming more polarised. Many people are fed up with it, and many others probably want more of it.

I think the only way to resolve this is to pursue seclarisation, (eg. disestablishment), then make it clear that religion is OK when practised by consenting adults in private. We are NOT (I hope) trying to establish an atheist state - but we should always be intolerant towards religious intolerance.

278. Religion is 'the new social evil'

Comment #164613 by Barry Pearson on April 20, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Links here:

Summary: "Consultation on today's social evils reveals deep unease about greed, individualism and decline of community":
http://www.jrf.org.uk/pressroom/releases/200408.asp

"What are today's social evils?":
http://www.socialevils.org.uk/

See links to PDFs on right hand side:

Summary, "What are today's social evils?" (111KB):
http://www.socialevils.org.uk/documents/social-evils-summary.pdf

"What are today's social evils? The results of a web consultation" (415KB):
http://www.socialevils.org.uk/documents/social-evils-report.pdf

"Modern-day social evils - The voices of unheard groups" (144KB):
http://www.socialevils.org.uk/documents/social-evils-natcen-report.pdf

It is worth opening these and doing a search of each for "Religion". There is a mixture of views that religion is the problem and that decline of religion is the problem.

279. Flea of the week

Comment #163794 by Barry Pearson on April 19, 2008 at 3:20 am

I subscribe to the Intelligent Design Theory of memetic evolution. While many memes arise and evolve naturally, some needed specific assistance.

One of the most powerful recent memes within the scope of religion is "God is a delusion".

I sense the influence of a master memetic-engineer! Even people opposed to the statement assist with its proliferation in the meme-pool.

280. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163755 by Barry Pearson on April 19, 2008 at 1:41 am

jimbob: I'm a bit rusty on my holy books, so I'm not sure if the 10 commandments apply to jews and muslims?

Jews, Christians, and Muslims all have "10 commandments". But they are not exactly the same 10 commandments. Indeed Catholics and Protestants have slightly different commandments. All interpret them different ways, of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

281. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156625 by Barry Pearson on April 8, 2008 at 4:25 am

In the UK we have a few new laws which make "inciting religious hatred" into a criminal offence. Does anyone know if atheists covered by these?

Yes. Here is section 29A of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. (This Part came into force last October).

29A, Meaning of "religious hatred":
"In this Part "religious hatred" means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief."

Note that therefore the following also applies AGAINST atheists:

29J, Protection of freedom of expression:
"Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system."

Oh, gosh! We can be insulted! Let's propose blasphemy laws to protect atheists! (Chuckle!)

("Part" means all sections 29x. This Act actually inserts all those sections into The Public Order Act 1986).
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060001_en_1
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/uksi_20072490_en_1

282. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156576 by Barry Pearson on April 8, 2008 at 12:06 am

I had never heard of her, so I did what I always do with a new name - I consulted Wikipedia.

The incident is already there. Until a few days ago, she had just a minimum entry, now this is most of her record!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monique_D._Davis

283. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #155079 by Barry Pearson on April 4, 2008 at 6:27 am

My Boobies!

Blue-footed Booby:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/pictures/eg95/eg95_15_16_3.htm

Nazca (Masked) Booby:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/pictures/eg95/eg95_14_09_3.htm

284. Sean Carroll on the Today Program

Comment #154296 by Barry Pearson on April 3, 2008 at 4:27 am

gyokusai said:

Is it just me, or are there others here who also think this interviewer was rather obnoxious?

This is the "Today" programme! These people regularly interview senior politicians and attempt to get past their b*llsh*t. I think they assume by default that their interviewees are trying to get away with something, until they show they are not.

That interview was very mild in comparison!

(I was once interviewed, pre-recorded in advance then edited, for the "Today" programme. The interviewer kept going until I had expressed myself with clarity. It isn't a chat show).

285. Scientists reshape Y chromosome haplogroup tree gaining new insights into human ancestry

Comment #154248 by Barry Pearson on April 3, 2008 at 1:41 am

What do Christians think the Y-chromosome of Jesus was like?

286. Thy will be done

Comment #154245 by Barry Pearson on April 3, 2008 at 1:33 am

FightingFalcon says:

The amount of Atheists, in my opinion, who want a completely secular society are a minority compared to those of us who are willing to live in a society with a measure of religious observation.

It is important to be clear that secularism is not the same as atheism. Otherwise people will get the wrong idea about what people who want a secular society are asking for.

A secular country (at least for many people) is one where state & religion are separated. Implicitly, that includes separating the state & atheism too. For example, I recently wrote to my MP and his party leader Nick Clegg say:
"I want all religious bias to be removed from Government and Law" &
"I want all religious bias to be removed from organisations funded by taxes".
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/letter1.htm

In effect, religion can be OK when practised by consenting adults in private.

287. Sean Carroll on the Today Program

Comment #154231 by Barry Pearson on April 3, 2008 at 12:14 am

I recently bought and read Sean's "The Making of the Fittest" and Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish".

I enjoyed both of them, and learned a lot. Sean answers so many of the questions about how new genes can "appear" without ruining the use of existing genes, and shows how some genes are conserved for very long periods while others are highly changeable. It makes me wonder just how much we will learn about genomes throughout the whole evolutionary tree. Research into the whole Theory of Evolution appears to be stronger than ever!

Neil's book is shorter (although well over 200 pages!), presumably on the principle "leave 'em wanting more", but shows both the enjoyment that people get from doing science in different ways, and has good diagrams which shows key aspects of evolution (eg. jaw to ear bones). These diagrams show just how important the evolution of development of the embryo is with more clarity than I have seen elsewhere.

Both recommended by me.

288. Beware the Believers

Comment #153100 by Barry Pearson on April 1, 2008 at 3:19 am

Slightly baffled as to how this constitutes an April fool.

Unlike this!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/ttv/arts.jhtml?bcpid=1358314062&bclid=1363192294&bctid=1482436596

289. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153046 by Barry Pearson on April 1, 2008 at 12:33 am

This process has been underway for decades, and I have previously published stuff about it elsewhere. For a long time, many muslims have been saying that Islamic states should not have signed the UN Declaration of Human Rights, because it is not, even in theory, compatible with Islam, especially with Sharia Law. (Perhaps Saudi Arabia didn't sign it, in fact?)

In 1981, there was a first attempt to define an Islamic version: the "Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights". I have a commentary on it here:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam_universal.htm

In 1990, there was a more "politically successful" attempt, endorsed by the OIC: the "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam". I have a commentary on it here:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam_cairo.htm

David Littman published an article about this process in 1999:
http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/universal_islam.html

The UN Declaration of Human Rights is not binding, but it was still important. For example, it influenced the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and that IS binding, via the European Court of Human Rights, and national laws such as the UK's Human Rights Act 1998. Obviously, those laws and conventions don't change as a result of this change at the UN, but the same processes have been influential in Europe in general and the UK in particular. Many influential people want to erode our rights of free speach where religion is concerned.

In 2006, the Blair government, in an attempt to consolidate the Muslim vote, pushed through the "Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006". Both houses of Parliament rightly rebelled to some of it, and a key section was inserted by 1 vote. (I think of it as "the Rowan Atkinson section", because he was a prominant opponent of the Blair's version of the law). More at:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/#laws

At the moment, that section in UK law says:

29J - Protection of freedom of expression: "Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system".

If Blair had voted, that wouldn't be there - it was as close as that.

290. Beware the Believers

Comment #152583 by Barry Pearson on March 31, 2008 at 8:29 am

From khafre78 ...

I can see how someone unaccustomed to this kind of communcation would not be able to understand it clearly. those that are older and unfamiliar with the language and culture of the younger generation or the culture of rap would definitely have a difficult time deciphering this.

i just want to assure everyone that everyone is looking very deeply into this, and it isnt necessary. i understand this kind of thing very well, and i can say with no doubt that the intent is to flatter a pro-science stance.

My comment is: I'm 60, (presumably that counts as "older"), and being childfree I'm not up to date on those cultures, but ...

I still find this video as funny as when I first saw it, and and when viewed through the filter of humour, it is pro-science and anti-religion.

(I wonder if there is a correlation between those who think it is funny and those who think it is pro-science? I wonder what an agnostic rap-lover at college would make of it?)

291. Beware the Believers

Comment #152024 by Barry Pearson on March 30, 2008 at 3:17 am

If this is viral marketing (which I don't believe) which brand is it marketing? Which name do you remember at the end of it?

(Would you even remember the name "Expelled" if you didn't already know about it?)

But that is largely irrelevant - it is running free and isn't going to go away. Why not exploit it?

(Observation - it is being enthusiastically discussed on both this website and PZ Meyer's. Is it active on any ID/Creationist website? If not, why not?)

One thing this discussion emphasises - atheists don't have much in common except the obvious! I still think it very funny after watching it several times, despite being about 60.92 years old without a prior interest in rap!

292. Beware the Believers

Comment #151764 by Barry Pearson on March 29, 2008 at 10:39 am

Here is a test: let's see how long it is before a DI or Creationist website shows this video and debates it!

This video reminds me of the way some groups parody or send-up themselves when they have the self-confidence to do so. For example, the BBC news-readers for "Children in Need":
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gbnUpGqik2Y
(Oooooh! Fiona Bruce!)

I don't believe this came from the "Expelled" camp. Where were the Nazis? There were cheap-shots that could have been made but were not.

Unlike some, I don't believe that this "battle" is about totting-up a score, with debating points being awarded to one side or the other. I believe it is at least as important to keep the debate in public so that the next generation can typically make their choices by the time they leave school or college. I would have welcomed such material instead of "lingering" as an agnostic until I was in my 30s.

Question: if this video had been produced by "Richard Dawkins Productions", and first published here, would the consequences have been positive or negative?

(I believe revenues for "Expelled" are irrelevant, and those who are concerned about publicity for it because it may encourage more paying customers are missing the point. What surely matters are the consequences).

ps: I didn't think I could like rap until I heard this video. I don't believe I could like Scientology - but now I am going to investigate further, so the next time I post here I may be a Scientologist! Or a Hindu. Isn't free-thinking wonderful?

293. I always aim to misbehave

Comment #151610 by Barry Pearson on March 29, 2008 at 4:03 am

nanaj:

Is it meant to be insulting? There is no consensus at YouTube. Some think it is pro-atheist pro-science irony/sarcasm. I suspect the same.

I would love to know what Eugenie Scott would think of her role in it!

294. I always aim to misbehave

Comment #151556 by Barry Pearson on March 29, 2008 at 1:21 am

Nearly but not quite off-topic - words can't describe this, it has to be seen. (4 minutes).

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

295. When blasphemy bit the dust

Comment #140601 by Barry Pearson on March 8, 2008 at 1:28 am

How come the UK has an official 'Church of England', but as a nation, is very secular; And yet here in the US we have a constitutional separation of church and state, but we're so much more pious? How did you guys manage that?

Constrast Christianity in the UK with Islam.

The latter (when represented by vocal and politically-minded muslims) often exhibits excesses similar to Christianity in the USA, or more so. Yet, of course, Islam is not the established religion. (Much of the support for the more excessive Islam comes from oversees, especially, I believe, financial support from Saudi Arabia).

Parts of the UK are not very secular. When the Archbishop of Canterbury talked about Sharia Law, he was (rightly) criticised for appearing to advocate it. But when he said aspects of it were inevitable, he was probably reflecting existing reality in some communities.

296. When blasphemy bit the dust

Comment #140597 by Barry Pearson on March 8, 2008 at 1:11 am

If you're an atheist you cannot be blasphemous as you don't believe in any god to begin with. Only religious people can be blasphemous. Or am I missing something?

Some quotes from the debate:

"it is important to point out that the blasphemy offences are offences of strict liability - that is, the intention to commit an act of blasphemy is not required. That contrasts with the incitement to religious hatred offence, where an intention to stir up religious hatred needs to be demonstrated. All that matters for an offence to have been committed under the blasphemy laws is that a person published material that is the subject of prosecution. It follows that a person might commit such an act inadvertently, but it would not be a defence in law to say that there had been no intention to be blasphemous".

"In the High Court, Lord Justice Hughes recited the history of the offence and, following a reference to Lord Scarman's judgment in the Whitehouse v Lennon case, said in paragraph 16 of his judgment that there was common ground on the gist of the offenceâ€"that the material had to be, "so scurrilous and offensive in manner that it undermines society generally, by endangering the peace, depraving public morality, shaking the fabric of society or tending to be a cause of civil strife"."

In effect, it was no longer about "protecting" God or Jesus, but about preventing riots, etc. Recent Acts have focused on trying to prevent intentional incitement to hatred and violence, which is more justifiable if safeguards for free speech are strong enough.

Another quote is interesting:

"The recognition that the offences appear to be moribund was reinforced by the High Court's decision on 5 December 2007 in the case of Stephen Green v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court and others, which was a private prosecution for blasphemous libel. The court's primary judgment was that the Theatres Act 1968 and the Broadcasting Act 1990 now already prevent the prosecution of a theatre, the BBC or another broadcaster for blasphemous libel."

I just skimmed those Acts, and couldn't find anything about blasphemous libel. They permit obscenity (in certain cases). I think the court "stretched" those laws to permit "Jerry Springer - the Opera" when it strictly shouldn't have!

297. When blasphemy bit the dust

Comment #140592 by Barry Pearson on March 8, 2008 at 12:46 am

Don't forget that 26 of the Lords are Lords Spiritual: Church of England clergy. The list contains a few familiar names: I wonder how many of them voted in favour of the change?

I believe 2 Bishops (Durham and Portsmouth) voted for the change and 3 (Chester, Rochester and Nothingham) voted against. No Archbishops voted.

298. When blasphemy bit the dust

Comment #140587 by Barry Pearson on March 8, 2008 at 12:32 am

What irritates me is that 87 of the Lords voted against it. I am so glad that we have an unelected body of rich toffs approving the laws in my country.

I favour a secular democracy. But sometimes the arguments from unelected people can be more sensible. Would people in the USA want Supreme Court judges to be directly elected by citizens? I wonder how well that would work. And who would want scientists to use democracy rather than rational thought? "60% of citizens have voted that Evolution by Natural Selection is wrong, therefore it has been abandoned, and we are seeking alternative explanations for the rise in antibiotic-resistant bacteria and changes to the nature of Bird Flu, etc"!

I believe the most important section (29J) in the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, the one that protects freedom of speech, was inserted by the Lords. Many in the House of Lords did not inherit their position, but were "appointed" for public service of some kind. Some spent their lives doing things other than trying to get elected by popular vote. Some retain the ability to think. Here is the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_House_of_Lords

My higher priority would be disestablishment of the Church of England, hence removal of those 26 Bishops. I have written to my MP and his party leader about that. (I'm sure many here have made their views known about this!)
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/letter1.htm

299. Dispatches: Holy Offensive

Comment #135467 by Barry Pearson on February 29, 2008 at 2:20 am

Britain has freedom of speech according to the "Human Rights Act 1998", which in turn simply brought into the jurisdiction of British courts the "European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" which Britain had already signed up to.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980042_en_3#sch1-pt1

The relevant articles are:

Article 9 Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

and

Article 10 Freedom of expression

Note that each right is accompanied by potential limitations, and any conflict would have to be resolved in court or by case law. I haven't looked at case law on this matter, so don't know what restrictions might apply in practice.

300. Dispatches: Holy Offensive

Comment #135460 by Barry Pearson on February 29, 2008 at 2:09 am

Yes, Britain has blasphemy laws. They haven't been used for a decade or two, and may never be used again, (they have been overridden for theatres and broadcasts by permissive laws), but they do need to be removed for symbolic reasons.

It is worth reading the following section of the "Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006":

29J - Protection of freedom of expression:

"Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system."

(That came into effect last October). It would be hard to bring a case against someone ridiculing religious beliefs and practices now.