The Pat Condell Thread [DISCUSSION]

Cal wrote:

Fatal Exception wrote:Not Pat, but related.

If a phobia is an irrational fear of something, and the vast majority of the muslims in this video clearly identify themselves, when asked, as 'moderate' muslims (as in 'not radicals'), and also clearly agree with the practice of executing people for the 'crime' of being homosexual, is the word 'Islamophobia' an insult, a logical response or an 'irrational' fear of muslims?

How many Muslims are in that video? Is it fair to judge every Muslim based on the ones featured?

We also come down (again) to people might describe themselves as something while not actually being it. They might say they are moderate but not actually be moderate.

Moggy wrote:How many Muslims are in that video? Is it fair to judge every Muslim based on the ones featured?

You mean the ones in the video who, when asked, describe themselves as 'moderate'? I was always under the impression that 'moderate' muslims form the majority of muslims - in western democracies, at least, that is what we are always being told. On that basis, yeah, I'd say it is probably fair to judge the majority of muslims.

Moggy wrote:We also come down (again) to people might describe themselves as something while not actually being it. They might say they are moderate but not actually be moderate.

Still, the video raises some troubling issues. Here is a video in which - beyond any shadow of a doubt - we have a room full of self-declared 'moderate' muslims approving, by majority, a vote that all queers should be murdered for their 'crime' against Islam.

Did anyone call the police? Was anyone arrested as a result? What might have happened if, say, an EDL meeting had fielded a vote on...oh, I dunno, let's say 'the death sentence for anyone wearing the full hijab in public' or some such nonsense. How likely do we think it that there might have been some arrests as a result of such a public vote?

Curiouser and curiouser...and down the rabbit hole we go.

Cal, you're working yourself up about a bunch of morons. You should have an issue with morons, not with Muslims.

Cal wrote:

Moggy wrote:How many Muslims are in that video? Is it fair to judge every Muslim based on the ones featured?

You mean the ones in the video who, when asked, describe themselves as 'moderate'? I was always under the impression that 'moderate' muslims form the majority of muslims - in western democracies, at least, that is what we are always being told. On that basis, yeah, I'd say it is probably fair to judge the majority of muslims.

So the ones in the video said that they were moderate. How many where there? And how many Muslims are there in the world? Do you think there might be a difference in those figures?

Cal wrote:

Moggy wrote:We also come down (again) to people might describe themselves as something while not actually being it. They might say they are moderate but not actually be moderate.

Good answer.

Cal wrote:Still, the video raises some troubling issues. Here is a video in which - beyond any shadow of a doubt - we have a room full of self-declared 'moderate' muslims approving, by majority, a vote that all queers should be murdered for their 'crime' against Islam.

You missed my point. Them saying that they are moderate does not make them moderate.

Cal wrote:Did anyone call the police? Was anyone arrested as a result? What might have happened if, say, an EDL meeting had fielded a vote on...oh, I dunno, let's say 'the death sentence for anyone wearing the full hijab in public' or some such nonsense. How likely do we think it that there might have been some arrests as a result of such a public vote?

Curiouser and curiouser...and down the rabbit hole we go.

I reckon that if the EDL had a vote on some such nonsense then very little would happen to them. Have you got examples of groups being arrested for having votes on what should get the death penalty or campaigning for changes in the capital punshment law?

Slartibartfast wrote:Cal, you're working yourself up about a bunch of morons. You should have an issue with morons, not with Muslims.

Morons, as a general rule, don't go around executing people for the 'crime' of their sexual orientation. I think we both know who do.

Cal wrote:

Slartibartfast wrote:Cal, you're working yourself up about a bunch of morons. You should have an issue with morons, not with Muslims.

Morons, as a general rule, don't go around executing people for the 'crime' of their sexual orientation. I think we both know who do.

So do white supremacists, so do some African states, so do homophobes everywhere. The common factor is them being morons.

My point isn't that it's not a terrible thing, my point is that you're failing hard at logic. 'Some Muslims want to murder gays' does not mean 'all Muslims want to murder gays' or 'all gay murders must be Muslim'. By making that connection you are being an Islamophobe and ignorant.


Edit - I can't type!

Cal wrote:

Slartibartfast wrote:Cal, you're working yourself up about a bunch of morons. You should have an issue with morons, not with Muslims.

Morons, as a general rule, don't go around executing people for the 'crime' of their sexual orientation. I think we both know who do.

And this lot!

http://www.christianpost.com/news/bible ... tor-99583/

Oh come on, that video is laughable.

He didn't say 'Hands up if you think we should execute gays' what he actually said was 'Hands up if you reckon God is correct about stuff'. Of course they're going to say yes; they're strawberry floating idiots. Exactly the same would happen with a room full of Christians.

If you had a room full of Christians and said 'Hands up if you're not a terrorist' you'd get everyone. If you then followed with 'and how many reckon God is right about his rules?' you'd get the same sea of hands. It doesn't mean that everyone literally agrees with slavery; it just means they've done the iTunes Licence Agreement thing that 99% of religious people have; skipped to the end without reading it and said 'I agree'.

You are both correct - it is plainly ridiculous to assume all muslims want to go around killing queers. But here's the thing. Muslims, of course, in the majority here in the west at least, are most certainly what we would consider 'moderate'. The real question is, therefore: 'is there such a thing as 'moderate' Islam?'.

Does such a thing exist? Is it allowed to exist, according to the precepts of the religion/ideology? Most scholarly Islamic opinion seems to consider the Quran a 'sealed book', for instance:

Amil Imani, is an Iranian-American, who is now an ex-Muslim and writes about Islam. Amil says:
“There is no such thing as moderate Islam. There is no such thing as secular Islam or a secular Muslim. It’s the nature of the faith to deny any separation of religion and the state or religion and society. There are numerous sects within Islam. One and all are extremes and not in the least amenable to change. Keep in mind that Islam claims that it is the perfect eternal faith for mankind. Splits have occurred and will continue to occur in Islam. Yet, reformation has not happened in nearly 1400 years and is not going to happen. Islam is carved in granite, just the way it was. No change is possible. Allah’s Qur’an is a sealed volume.”

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/abdulmuhd/amu ... lammuslim/

It's one view, but a view I see echoed repeatedly most often in Islamic circles.

So, I think I'll rephrase my initial question a page back in this thread to this:

If a phobia is an irrational fear of something, and the vast majority of the muslims in this video clearly identify themselves, when asked, as 'moderate' muslims (as in 'not radicals'), and also clearly agree with the practice of executing people for the 'crime' of being homosexual, is the word 'Islamophobia' an insult, a logical response or an 'irrational' fear of Islam?

Which I think is a more accurate question to ask.

Cal wrote:The real question is, therefore: 'is there such a thing as 'moderate' Islam?'.

As much as there is moderate anything. Take a dogmatic belief system and apply to vast numbers of people; some will utterly reject it, some will get fanatic about it; most will be moderately cherry pickers about it. And all will assume that they know the correct way it's supposed to be taken.

Cal wrote:
If a phobia is an irrational fear of something, and the vast majority of the muslims in this video clearly identify themselves, when asked, as 'moderate' muslims (as in 'not radicals'), and also clearly agree with the practice of executing people for the 'crime' of being homosexual, is the word 'Islamophobia' an insult, a logical response or an 'irrational' fear of Islam?

Which I think is a more accurate question to ask.

Except that unless you're genuinely afraid of a book then its largely impossible to be genuinely scared by Islam. It's an idea; by itself entirely harmless until it gets into someone's head. You can, however, be afraid of the followers; but as we've discussed such a fear would be largely irrational given that 99% of people who you are therefore afraid of would pose no threat. Ergo, it would be an irrational phobia.

Skarjo wrote:Except that unless you're genuinely afraid of a book then its largely impossible to be genuinely scared by Islam. It's an idea; by itself entirely harmless until it gets into someone's head. You can, however, be afraid of the followers; but as we've discussed such a fear would be largely irrational given that 99% of people who you are therefore afraid of would pose no threat. Ergo, it would be an irrational phobia.

Okay, I'm not unreceptive to such a line of argument, but I'm still struggling to rationalise Moggy's insistence that when we see the vast majority of a roomful of people vote for themselves - under no pressure - as 'moderates' what we are actually seeing is a roomful of liars. Bear with me, but isn't this just another way of saying 2+2=5? That what you saw with your own eyes isn't what you just saw?

However, I still agree that muslims are not and never have been the issue: Islam is the problem and very much the issue. This is why to take a critical stance against Islam is nothing to do with anything but confronting a poisonous, dangerous, totalitarian ideology which in its purest form (the only 'true' form if the scholars are to be believed) represents a danger to modern, free democratic societies everywhere.

Cal wrote:

Skarjo wrote:Except that unless you're genuinely afraid of a book then its largely impossible to be genuinely scared by Islam. It's an idea; by itself entirely harmless until it gets into someone's head. You can, however, be afraid of the followers; but as we've discussed such a fear would be largely irrational given that 99% of people who you are therefore afraid of would pose no threat. Ergo, it would be an irrational phobia.

Okay, I'm not unreceptive to such a line of argument, but I'm still struggling to rationalise Moggy's insistence that when we see the vast majority of a roomful of people vote for themselves - under no pressure - as 'moderates' what we are actually seeing is a roomful of liars. Bear with me, but isn't this just another way of saying 2+2=5? That what you saw with your own eyes isn't what you just saw?

People are not necessarily lying, but they might not be the best judge of whether they are personally moderate or not. In the same way that very few dictators would describe themselves as evil or in the same way a serial killer might think they were doing the right thing or how an animal rights activist might think it is the right thing to let all the monkeys out of a cage. How people describe themselves is not the same as what they actually are.

Cal wrote:However, I still agree that muslims are not and never have been the issue: Islam is the problem and very much the issue. This is why to take a critical stance against Islam is nothing to do with anything but confronting a poisonous, dangerous, totalitarian ideology which in its purest form (the only 'true' form if the scholars are to be believed) represents a danger to modern, free democratic societies everywhere.

Islam is no more of a problem than Christianity or a whole heap of other religions. There is nothing in Islam that is not also found in other religions. The problem is with followers who distort or take teachings to the extreme and Islam is not the only religion with that problem.

Cal wrote:

Skarjo wrote:Except that unless you're genuinely afraid of a book then its largely impossible to be genuinely scared by Islam. It's an idea; by itself entirely harmless until it gets into someone's head. You can, however, be afraid of the followers; but as we've discussed such a fear would be largely irrational given that 99% of people who you are therefore afraid of would pose no threat. Ergo, it would be an irrational phobia.

Okay, I'm not unreceptive to such a line of argument, but I'm still struggling to rationalise Moggy's insistence that when we see the vast majority of a roomful of people vote for themselves - under no pressure - as 'moderates' what we are actually seeing is a roomful of liars. Bear with me, but isn't this just another way of saying 2+2=5? That what you saw with your own eyes isn't what you just saw?

However, I still agree that muslims are not and never have been the issue: Islam is the problem and very much the issue. This is why to take a critical stance against Islam is nothing to do with anything but confronting a poisonous, dangerous, totalitarian ideology which in its purest form (the only 'true' form if the scholars are to be believed) represents a danger to modern, free democratic societies everywhere.

No, what you saw was a room full of people be asked if they were moderates and then asked if they think God's punishments are just.

What you didn't see was a room full of people put their hands up to say they would agree with murdering gay people. Logically that would follow, I agree. But you would get exactly the same from a group of Christians. If you asked a hall full of Christians whether they think God's judgements or God's punishments are just and correct, I can guarantee you would see exactly the same reaction. Logically, every single one of those Christians has just endorsed slavery, genocide, rape, murder, child abuse and a thousand other atrocities. Ask a Christian whether they directly support those things and of course you'd get a negative.

The important thing is though; do you think that those moderate Christians would largely be capable of actually carrying out such acts? Do you feel you have legitimate grounds to fear Christians based on the logical implications of thinking their God is just and infallible in his love and his punishments?

I would argue not; there's a difference between ticking the 'I agree' box for a religion and actually even understanding let alone acting on what that logically entails.

And thank strawberry float for that.

Cal wrote:However, I still agree that muslims are not and never have been the issue: Islam is the problem and very much the issue. This is why to take a critical stance against Islam is nothing to do with anything but confronting a poisonous, dangerous, totalitarian ideology which in its purest form (the only 'true' form if the scholars are to be believed) represents a danger to modern, free democratic societies everywhere.

Hardly. Our modern societies are pretty robust - we just lock up anyone who doesn't play the game of allowing human rights for all. And on a purely numbers game, the jihadists aren't winning (although the Americans are losing their souls with the drone strike programme. It breaks too many laws of war to be justifiable).

Moggy wrote:There is nothing in Islam that is not also found in other religions.

You're very probably right there, Moggy. I certainly don't believe Christianity can sit across the room from Islam with a smug grin on its face. I suppose the pertinent question is, then: 'How many people did Christianity kill just this year, compared to the number killed by Islam in the same time-frame?'. I can't find an answer to that. Seems nobody wants to say - certainly not the msm. If it turns out that Islam has killed by far the greater number, would you agree that Islam represents the bigger danger?

Define 'Christian' kills.

George Bush said that his action in the middle east was divinely inspired. Is the death count over there to be laid at the Church's feet? Because if so, I wouldn't want to think too much about that particular scorecard.

Cal wrote:

Moggy wrote:There is nothing in Islam that is not also found in other religions.

You're very probably right there, Moggy. I certainly don't believe Christianity can sit across the room from Islam with a smug grin on its face. I suppose the pertinent question is, then: 'How many people did Christianity kill just this year, compared to the number killed by Islam in the same time-frame?'. I can't find an answer to that. Seems nobody wants to say - certainly not the msm. If it turns out that Islam has killed by far the greater number, would you agree that Islam represents the bigger danger?

How many do you think the Catholic church has indirectly killed through banning condoms? How many gay people get imprisoned, tortured and killed in Christian African countries?

Comparing these though is like asking who's the least gooseberry fool. They all are, and the craziest people don't actually consider themselves crazy.

Cal wrote:

Moggy wrote:There is nothing in Islam that is not also found in other religions.

You're very probably right, there, Moggy. I certainly don't believe Christianity can sit across the room from Islam with a smug grin on its face. I suppose the pertinent question is, then: 'How many people did Christianity kill just this year, compared to the number killed by Islam in the same time-frame?'. I can't find an answer to that. Seems nobody wants to say - certainly not the msm. If it turns out that Islam has killed by far the greater number, would you agree that Islam represents the bigger danger?

How are we calculating the death toll? Just terrorism? Wars between Muslim countries? Executions? Religious fanatics/gangs? Do we count deaths from leaders/countries who just happen follow a certain religion?