Gabe, if you happen to come back, try arguing facts.
Your posts seem to do nothing but employ tricks like red herrings, truth by verbosity and the totally lame “not my god/beliefs” argument. 10 pages of poetic nonsense and verbal gymnastics does not prove the existence of god, or whatever quasi-deistic entity you are rambling on about.
Marie Therese O’Laughlin.your article on Goldenbridge is 100 per cent absolutely accurate, except one thing >The Rosary Bead factory was up and running from 1930,I was one of those Frightened Abused Children and the Sadistic Cruelty inflicited on us children has effected my Whole Adult life,and now it is effecting my childrens and grandchildrens lives,our lives in Goldenbridge was so Harsh ,Cruel,abusive it would be difficult to find the words to discribe the Severe Physical and Mental Pain they inflicited on us children in that dark, cold, Brutal Institution which was a child prison,where children were incarcerated from the age of a few days old,to Sixteen years of age They then did their best covering the whole thing up ,Divide and Rule was their motto,by turning Survivors against each other by pampering some ,and ignoring others to brush it all under their Dark Habits.Thank you for writing that article Marie,Bye for now.A Fellow Child Sufferer.
Re: Azar Majedi
Mr Majedi deals exclusively with issues of free speech, which is commendable. But the larger issue is not the threat to personal liberties posed by the Bush/Blair war on terror. Bush and Blair are gone and Obama and Brown can undo these “threats” if they can indeed be identified as such. Islam,on the other hand,is immutable. Mr Wilders now has to worry about his personal safety. Mr Majedi does not have to fear the dreaded “neocons.” But by implicitly attacking Islam in terms of addressing Mr Wilders’ right to free expression, Mr Majedi now has something real to worry about. The Bell now tolls for him,too.
Azar Majedi is not a Mr.
If you look at her other articles here you will see that she is well aware of the threat.
RE: The One Law for All Rally
The link to the website at the bottom of the article isn’t working.
Thanks – link fixed.
THE POPE’S HORRIFIC IGNORANCE?
I see you now have published FIVE news articles about Pope Benedict’s views on condoms – of which the above is a typical title. Can I be permitted a second letter then?
Regarding Christopher Orlet’s take on Christianity and the Dark Ages, this seems to be a rehash of Andrew D. White’s stuff. For the most part this is myth, as historian Rodney Stark, among others, has amply demonstrated.
A fanstastic site called BeastRabban
goes over the historical connection between Christianity and what we call modern science as well as (earlier) the development of Western political thought. I highly recommend it.
REF: Review of C S Lewis and the Search for Rational ReligionIs Lewis’s God a good god, or just the boss?
Is this not the point?
The logic of this is quite peculiar –
“I see you now have published FIVE news articles about Pope Benedict’s views on condoms – of which the above is a typical title. Can I be permitted a second letter then?”
“Then”? Of course not. The fact that I publish five articles on a particular subject doesn’t somehow create an entitlement for you to post any particular quantity of letters. I’m not obliged to reach any particular quota of opposition, especially not in the case of letters, which have no editorial control and thus no qualitative criteria.
Where do people get this idea?! I’ll publish any number of articles on any subject I want to, because this is my site. I make no claim to publish all opinions on all subjects; why should I?
“VATICAN INSIDERS EDGE AWAY: CLUELESS PONTIFF IS ON HIS OWN”
No he’s not actually. Edward C. Green is one of the world’s leading field researchers on the spread of HIV and public health interventions and is the director of the Harvard AIDS Prevention Research Project. He was interviewed by Christianity Today about the Pope’s comments on condoms and AIDS.
Re: On Rights and Sexuality
The author makes much of the fruitlessness (oops) of determining the origins of homosexuality, and tries to make the case that intrinsicality of a trait establishes neither morality nor a guarantees protection from discrimination.
He misses another, larger point in establishing the involuntary nature of sexual desire (which simply is a fact). It’s very important to investigate the origins of sexual orientation so as to knock the legs from the bigot’s argument that gays and lesbians fill their ranks by recruitment.
It won’t ever convince the die-hard haters, but so many sit on the fence, and need accurate information.
Any reasonable person who sees the studies done on correlation of family and experiential factors for gay and lesbian kids understands that the kids share virtually identical childhoods to straight kids.
So, it’s still a mystery as to ‘why’ we are the way we are. I am sure of one thing: I was never recruited. I’ve asked around: none of my friends were either! Anectdotal, I know!
Great work by Kenan Malik, who is doing a wonderful job lately. I recently enjoyed his Strange Fruit, and I’m looking forward to the new book.
Just one pedantic correction. According to the version at the AustLII site, which is usually trustworthy, the Victorian law just says at section 8: “A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.” The word “involves” is not there.
It’s weird and convoluted drafting, and difficult to make sense of. E.g. shouldn’t the word “at” appear after “revulsion”? How is “ridicule” the same sort of thing as “hatred” or “contempt” or “revulsion”? Does the wording mean that the incitement is subjectively motivated by the person’s religion, or that the hatred, contempt, etc., is based on the person’s religion? The grammar suggests the former, but the courts seem to think the latter (in which case one may “incite” hatred, contempt, etc., without meaning to). And so on.
Still, this is the legislation we are stuck with at the moment.
What happened to Jesus and Mo? If I click the link it wants to send me some weird file (maybe a virus). Has it been hijacked?
Also, please OB don’t waste your time discussing with trolls on “Readers Letters”, there is an abundance of idiots you will not school many of them. Remove and block the worst, ignore the rest.
Rather write another book, “Does God hate Women” was splendid. And get the current ones translated into other languages (it doesn’t need to be Turkish or Arabic, French and Spanish would be already very helpful, ask your publisher).
“Can anyone help”?
Countries voting in favour included 15 of the 16 countries that are also members of the OIC – Burkina Faso alone went against the OIC line and abstained – along with OIC allies China, Russia, Cuba, South Africa, Angola, Nicaragua, Bolivia and the Philippines.
Canada and Chile joined nine European countries in voting against the motion.
Abstaining were Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Ghana, India, Japan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, South Korea, Uruguay, and Zambia.
Great article by R. Joseph Hoffmann on the recent anti-defamation” resolution by the UNHRC. Thank you.
He says 23 nations voted for it. 11 nations against and 13 abstained. I have tried to find a list of who these nations are – such info on the internet should be so easy – but I have been unable to find it. Can anyone help?
But it’s so depressing to be depressed and resigned, and I refuse to be resigned anyway; plenty of time for that when I’m dead.
In any case all this has been going on under the radar for years, but now it is starting to get more media attention. The first step in resistance is knowing there’s something to resist, so I think it’s a good thing that Austin (and Anthony Grayling) have joined Roy Brown and David Littman in monitoring the Human Rights Council.
My friend Joe Hoffmann is missing the point, mellifluously as ever. Or rather, his article is missing an argument. The opening of the article promises “a good reason not to take the UNCHR resolution seriously,” and seems to suggest that “outraged friends of liberty” are missing it. But it never comes.
In fact, friends of liberty should take such resolutions very seriously, even though they do have the force of international law. First, they are part of campaign that aims to criminalize religiously offensive speech by expanding the prohibition of ‘advocacy of religious hatred’ found in existing treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Second, and more immediately harmful, they lend legitimacy to the repression of political dissidents and religious minorities in autocratic regimes, the Islamic states first among them. See http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/humanrights/1276/religious_persecution_wolf_in_anti-defamation_sheep%27s_clothing/.
It is always nice to be thought mellifluous, especially when missing a point.
I think Austin meant to say “even though such resolutions do not have the force of international law.”
I don’t think arguments have arguments, at least not like fish have guppies, but I would agree with Austin that this sort of thing will lead to worse. However, I find it difficult to be anything but depressed and resigned to such outcomes. It is part of an international trend that includes Rowan Williams’ announcing that a certain amount of sharia law would be good for Britain. If a commission of the United Nations thinks it can confer rights on a social phenomenon, who am I to be outraged? Why should such votes matter?
I could be wrong however, and if I am I hope I am mellifluously wrong.