Captain Britain [Archive] - Comic Book Resources Forums

Steven Grant

06-04-2009, 01:20 AM

I'd like to see him turned into a 19th century cowboy - people hated when Jonah Hex became Hex, ergo they'll love it when the space man becomes a cowboy!

When Paul Smith and I pitched our version of GL in '83 or so, that was basically our pitch. We saw him as a modern incarnation of an Old West marshal, AKA "the only law west of Andromeda," which I later titled the first issue of the two-part Abin Sur story - set in the Old West - that Mike Zeck and I did for LEGENDS OF THE DC UNIVERSE, where Abin Sur partners up with Hal Jordan's (great?) grandfather. (I never did work out the timeline, I only knew he wasn't his dad.) That's still the way I think they should play him: the "federal marshal" of this wild and lawless "territory," otherwise far from the reach of the "Washington" that sent him... Instead of, you know, just another superhero...

But I wasn't literally talking about Hal Jordan becoming a cowboy, I meant he's a lone figure from the losing side of a war, roaming the fallout of that war, and meting out his own brand of justice, effectively a law unto himself but having to watch out for established authorities...

Then again, I always hated those pompous Guardian gits, at least once it was decided they were always looking over his shoulder and handing out doctrinaire edicts like little dictators instead of just trusting him to do his job... When the Guardians became micromanagers, the logical response from Hal would've been, "I've pulled your bacon out of the frying pan more times than YOU can count, so get off your high horse before I shove this power ring up your prissy, condescending asses. Either trust me or fire me but get off my back." If you ask me, it's THOSE gits and their constant nattering that finally drove him Parallax. Coast City was just a convenient excuse.

- Grant

Abraxas

06-04-2009, 02:53 AM

I was all for Captain Britain, and then that rumor came out around issue 3 or 4 that it was to get the ax, so instead of picking up a dying, but good book I dropped it. The ax did not fall, and it lasted another year. But that is why I am greatful that I was able to get my hands on the UK TPB's of the original, Claremont, Trimpe, Freidrich, and Lieber run on Captain Britian, which I was surprised to find some John Buscema art in it. But as for the Marvel tossing out the "baby in the bathwater" by sacking one of its better series, it is the usual MO for the house of bad-ideas.

As for Didio's apparent dislike of those who "wait for the trade" it is a fact of comic book life. I do it for Scalped, and DMZ, which I know is Vertigo but still, the point is made.

I can say this much for DC, that even though, IMO there editors don't do as good of a job as they should, and alot of books bring me to question why I read comics, at least they do not milk or sap all the creativity of a 2 or 3 issue story and prolong the agony over 5 or 6 issues just of fill a trade. That is one plus to DC.

And for comics like Battle for the Cowl, and other comics that leech off of event comics, yet serve no purpose, I have named them, "Napkin Comics". They soak up all residual intrest in a series/event(Final Crisis, WWHulk, Secret Invasion...), but have no value in them, no other purpose to take your $2.99(or more) away from you.

Charles RB

06-04-2009, 04:08 AM

Does make me wonder what other people are reading superhero comics for if it's not something like this, or my other current fave Hercules

That's a very good question. Certainly, all the talk about the dreaded Lack of Fun in superhero comics and "why can't the heroes be HEROES" would lead me to believe Captain Britain was what they wanted. (Also the Guardians of the Galaxy)

I remember a blogger noting the low sales on Slott's Spider-man/Human Torch miniseries: (http://www.spideykicksbutt.com/YearinReview/Spiderman2005.html)

"For months I’ve been reading on the boards "Dan Slott should be given a regular Spider-title" and "why isn’t anyone writing any more light hearted adventures of Spider-Man – you know, like the old days when Spidey was fun?" Well I’ll tell you why – the answer to both questions is BECAUSE YOU WON’T BUY IT. No, I’m not talking about you, or you over there, or you, or even you sitting there in your underwear scratching your balls. But someone sure didn’t show up when it came time to support the type of Spider-Man stories you claim that you want Marvel to tell."

Anyway, just wanted to say, I don't remember their being an outrage and the character being a Muslim

Sadly, there were people in the gutters of the net who were offended by Faiza's very existence and the idea of her getting Excalibur. Because Muslims can't be British, see.

King mob reports that Paul Cornell gets asked why he created a female Muslim lead all the time and he's pissed off about it.

Jim Hall

06-04-2009, 06:45 AM

I'm not sure if it was a focus on magic per se that hurt CB&MI13. I think the easier answer is that it began with a sort of artificial bump in sales (due to tying in to Secret Invasion), which was followed by a fairly lackluster (love ya, Paul, but it's true) storyline involving a Duke of Hell taking over an apartment building. If Paul had followed the SI crossover with the current Dracula storyline, the title might have built up a little bit of momentum. Instead the opposite happened.

Of course, I base this on the shop talk and ordering numbers of one comic shop chain (the one where I work), so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

In regards to people waiting for the trades, I think retailers are more worried about that than publishers. Marvel especially loves their trade sales.

bartl

06-04-2009, 08:44 AM

My problem with the "and magic" bit was the opposite: the fact that magic had to be specified. It's magic, why do you need to specifically state that Superman's vulnerable to it? I thought that was a sign of how overpowered Superman got in the Silver Age.It's been handled multiple ways. Originally, the idea seemed to be that Superman's invulnerability did not extend to magic, although his heroic nature made him more resistant than most. With some writers, he inexplicably became MORE vulnerable to magic than non-powered humans. At least the former makes some degree of sense.

Of course, one of the problems involved with writing about magic is not having a concept of what magic IS (although several writers do have a good deal of familiarity with "real world" literature on magic; ones I know of in particular include Joe Straczynski, Len Kaminski, and our esteemed host). Writer and occultist Isaac Bonewits, years ago, wrote a book called "Authentic Thaumaturgy", a self-consistent magic system for roleplaying games.

Calvin and Hobbes? Doesn't Bill Watterson hate licencing his creations with a passion?But not mindlessly. He has given reasons for refusing to license his creations for merchandise and cartoons (the links I had seem to have been removed), whether or not one agrees with them. Notably, he believes that doing so cheapens his creations. One can reasonably assume that if one can overcome those particular objections, he might be open to such things.

bartl

06-04-2009, 09:00 AM

When Paul Smith and I pitched our version of GL in '83 or so, that was basically our pitch. We saw him as a modern incarnation of an Old West marshal, AKA "the only law west of Andromeda," which I later titled the first issue of the two-part Abin Sur story - set in the Old West - that Mike Zeck and I did for LEGENDS OF THE DC UNIVERSE, where Abin Sur partners up with Hal Jordan's (great?) grandfather. (I never did work out the timeline, I only knew he wasn't his dad.) That's still the way I think they should play him: the "federal marshal" of this wild and lawless "territory," otherwise far from the reach of the "Washington" that sent him... Instead of, you know, just another superhero...
This was, at least initially, the basic idea behind the Darkstars. Consider the original, medieval, purpose of the marshal; a local noble whose job it was to maintain order in his territory so that the higher noble isn't bothered with such things.
"I've pulled your bacon out of the frying pan more times than YOU can count, so get off your high horse before I shove this power ring up your prissy, condescending asses. Either trust me or fire me but get off my back." If you ask me, it's THOSE gits and their constant nattering that finally drove him Parallax. Coast City was just a convenient excuse.
I seem to remember that this was the original idea.

bartl

06-04-2009, 09:11 AM

Sadly, there were people in the gutters of the net who were offended by Faiza's very existence and the idea of her getting Excalibur. Because Muslims can't be British, see.
There are many Muslims in Britain who do not see themselves as British, but as an occupying force, and that the government payments they receive is a form of "dhimmi tax". There is also the issue of the government actually supporting forced marriage, even polygamous ones. A couple of years back, a member of Parliament was blocked from visiting a largely Islamic community in London, with the idea being that he had no business entering Islamic territory.

While there are far more moderate Muslims than radical ones, the radical ones have created sufficient fear among the moderates that they are afraid to publicly oppose them, creating an illusion of most of the British Muslims making common cause with the radical jihadists. The British government's continually giving in to the radicals does not give the moderates much motivation to change this position.

To many, making a Muslim "Captain Britain", even one who bucks the trend, is too reminiscent of the effort to turn Great Britain into a Muslim territory, with the native British citizens reduced to dhimmi status.

rorshach1982

06-04-2009, 09:50 AM

I don't find Marvel to be very good at collecting trades. They never seemed to have a clear idea of how they wanted to collect long runs of series. I remember when they started to collect the Daredevils a few years ago, they seemed collected in a haphazard manner that was rushed in an effort, I'm guessing, to cash in on the popularity of the Guardian Devil relaunch from Smith and Quesada. They spend a lot of time collecting their backlog of books, most recently in those big hardcover collections (I think they just over-printed a bunch of hardcovers and made them available to retailers at drastic reductions. I got Dark Tower vol 1 for $5 and my dealer had stacks of them).

In a specific Captain Britain trade issue; the very first volume of CB & MI13 contains only 4 issues of the series. It has some older stories featuring Captain Britain, maybe some origin information, which basically amounts to older issues that I could probably pick up in a quarter bin (not denigrating the work of the past, just making an economic point). The price for this trade? $15.99 That's four dollars per issue. And while I am aware that this seems to be the price point lots of comics are heading for, I'm still not willing to drop that kind of money on a trade. Now, with the positive reviews MI 13 was getting, it certainly would have made me look twice, but four issues collected, for me, should not exceed a $12 price point. It is hard, in fact, to find any Marvel trade priced below the 14-15 dollar mark (with the exception of the Marvel Age line, which I'm sad to see not more people financially backed. Three volumes of Runaways, $8 each? Awesome).

DC, while I haven't liked much of what they put out in the last couple years, are slightly smarter about how they collect their trades (Vertigo as a branch seems particularly good about it). Northlanders vol 1, for instance, collects 8 issues and costs $9.99. That is a $1.25 an issue. That's unheard of in today's market. Losers vol 1: 6 issues for 9.95. Blue Beetle vol1: $12.99, 6 issues. The prices for subsequent trades goes up, but with the initial price being so low, it is more enticing to me to buy that trade or take a chance on a work that I might have had little interest in previously. DC isn't perfect either. They'll over-price collections like Justice League vol 3, which has the Black Canary/Green Arrow wedding special and four issues for a whopping $17.99 ($3.60 per issue for a book whose own writer says isn't very good). I think this is due to what Grant mentioned above, about the company trying to make their main books and characters seem the only worthy ones.

I think DC is smarter with the way they handle the hardcover/softcover issues as well. They almost force a reader to buy the hardcover (just like any publishing company would) if the reader wants to read the story immediately after the issues do their run (All Star Superman, Hush, Batman RIP all had hardcovers out fairly quickly) and much later the softcovers come out, price reduced as you would think, sometimes in time for a crossover that features the character (like the Sinestro issue mentioned above). DC is also far better at Absolute Editions, which hold little attraction to me, but with the high price of the things, they must be making a big profit on what amounts to reprinted material in new packaging.

The range that DC prices at (high and low) seems like a much better strategy for trade production.

king mob

06-04-2009, 12:50 PM

King mob reports that Paul Cornell gets asked why he created a female Muslim lead all the time and he's pissed off about it.

Just to clarify, the word was in Bristol last month that Cornell was fed up having to answer questions about why there was a Muslim in a comic about British superheroes, all the bloody time rather than just accept that Britain is a multicultural society who has a sizeable Muslim population.

king mob

06-04-2009, 12:58 PM

There are many Muslims in Britain who do not see themselves as British, but as an occupying force, and that the government payments they receive is a form of "dhimmi tax".

Really?

There is also the issue of the government actually supporting forced marriage, even polygamous ones.

You mean the Labour government that regularly demonises the Muslim population in order to steal the BNP's thunder?

A couple of years back, a member of Parliament was blocked from visiting a largely Islamic community in London, with the idea being that he had no business entering Islamic territory.

Which MP, what part of London and when?

While there are far more moderate Muslims than radical ones

Well done for spotting that.

the radical ones have created sufficient fear among the moderates that they are afraid to publicly oppose them

Bollocks. You're talking complete bollocks here.

creating an illusion of most of the British Muslims making common cause with the radical jihadists

Which is actually an illusion created by the media and a Labour government pandering to the Daily Mail in order to win votes.

. The British government's continually giving in to the radicals does not give the moderates much motivation to change this position.

What the bloody hell are you on about? Labour are by no means giving into the 'radical jihadists'. Where on earth are you pulling this stuff from?

To many, making a Muslim "Captain Britain", even one who bucks the trend

'Bucks the trend'? What .The. Fuck? This is exactly the sort of nonsense that was driving Paul Cornell insane.

is too reminiscent of the effort to turn Great Britain into a Muslim territory, with the native British citizens reduced to dhimmi status.

No it isn't. It's a sign that some people are just bigots who hate Muslims and will make shite up in order to justify their bigotry.

Brenz

06-04-2009, 01:26 PM

So on those days when GL's ring is magic, Superman can be hurt by just about any blast, but on the days when it's science, he can take it like a regular laser?

Imaginos666

06-04-2009, 02:20 PM

I always understood Superman's problem with magic was a lack of physical resistance. Bullets might bounce off him, but if Zatanna wanted to turn him into a rabbit there's really no reason for him to be less susceptible to these spells than anybody else.

The problem is the interpretation of magic as "science sans reason" ... magic as a quantifiable force that operates with consistent formulas that defy science. Most people can buy into ideas like silver bullets killing werewolves, voodoo, hexes, etc. But Superman exists with his own, unique collections of formulas that also don't hold up under scrutiny. Superman + magic is like mixing Kabbalah and Santeria.

Of course, that's never stopped Marvel from routinely pitting Thor against Mephisto. Or from putting Ghost Rider on the same team with Hercules and members of the X-Men.

Steven Grant

06-04-2009, 02:41 PM

Really?

You have to remember that most of the "information" about Britain that we get over here comes from the Murdoch papers and various right-wing "experts" who assure us the National Health is in utter shambles and on the verge of dissolution, which warms the cock(le)s of the Amurrikin Medical Association. The British gov't, likewise, is constantly on the verge of declaring Britain a Muslim state in the interests of religious equality, etc.

And, yes, I've read several "trusted sources" who've stated that while the vast majority of British Muslims are law-abiding, peaceful and non-violent, they are constantly threatened by radical Muslims who force them to cooperate with terrorists daily striking against the British homeland. This is because Labour does such a crappy job with security and they just want to be loved rather than do their job of rounding up all Muslims and then separating the wheat from the chaff.

If it's any consolation, yesterday afternoon I stumbled across Glenn Beck on Fox News blubbering out that al-Queda is now hooking up with American white supremicists - that's where OUR national security focus is shifting, to potential DOMESTIC threats, like, oh, "disgruntled" Iraq War veterans, a term that suddenly keeps coming up here - and readying other terror attacks on this great land of ours, then said, "I don't get it! Weren't the terrorists supposed to LOVE us after we elected Barack HUSSEIN OBAMA?!" Which, if he really believes that was the case (I doubt he does), he's even more of a total blithering idiot than I thought.

So we have our own variety of that crap going on here too...

Matter of fact, my local paper this morning had an article about how far right parties are expected to WIN BIG in Britain's next elections... So I doubt our "official" inflow of information about Merrie Olde will get much better anytime in the near future...

By the way, yes, we have always been at war with Eurasia...

- Grant

Steven Grant

06-04-2009, 02:43 PM

Steven Grant

06-04-2009, 02:45 PM

Superman + magic is like mixing Kabbalah and Santeria.

You've obviously never hung out with Madonna...

By the way, Marvel at one point explained away that whole Satan thing by saying it's not the traditional Satan of Christianity but Satanish of Dr. Strange lore...

- Grant

Imaginos666

06-04-2009, 03:13 PM

You've obviously never hung out with Madonna...

By the way, Marvel at one point explained away that whole Satan thing by saying it's not the traditional Satan of Christianity but Satanish of Dr. Strange lore...

- Grant

I remember an issue of The Defenders where "Satan" became a sort of "unholy trinity" that encompassed Mephisto, Satannish and some third character (I forget which. Maybe just vanilla Satan?) They were three faces of the same figure. Even when I was 10 years old I knew that was a cop out. It wasn't until later that I learned where this idea came from.*

But that was back in 1981/82, so who knows how many times that's been revised.

* And it wasn't until much, much later that I learned that religions have operated under the same rules of comic book continuity/wrestling arcs since the days of the "horned god" and pagan shamans. In Greece, Zeus cults assimilated the gods of small villages by marrying them off to Zeus (or creating some other kind of blood tie) which merged them under one rule. Those that didn't knuckle under had their gods turn heel, like Medusa, which discouraged new followers. (Jesus is possibly the greatest "retcon" in history.)

If only DC has assimilated the Charlton heroes with this kind of finesse.

Lord Destiny

06-04-2009, 04:42 PM

About trades....

I found that once I shift to "waiting for the trade" I inevitably lose interest in the series. And when I do buy trades of that series, it's sporadically--whenever there's a particularly interesting arc, or when there isn't anything else to buy.

So for me, shifting to trades is basically a halfway house towards quitting the title altogether.

About magic...

The problem with magic-users is that their powers are so ill-defined. We don't really know what the limits of magic are (since magic is fantasy anyway). We know Superman's limits (even though they're just as unreal as if they were magic). This lets us know ahead of time whether he can or can't do something. It feeds into our fascination for watching a hero overcome obstacles by using predictable "tools" to do unpredictable things--kinda the same fascination as watching MacGiver.

There's just no thrill when Doc Strange zaps a baddie, because there was no real reason for the reader to doubt it was going to happen. It just doesn't compare to the thrill of watching, for the first time, Flash save a falling victim by using the simple power of running fast (to create an updraft of air that softens the fall). Wow, whoda thunk of that?

So once Doc Strange casts a major spell that does something incredible, such as mind alteration or time travel, it makes the reader scream out "why doesn't he do that all the time?"

Not that limiting the magic-user is a successful alternative. In Alpha Flight, John Byrne took all the wind out of Shaman's sails when he changed (limited) his powers to only being able to ask the gods to make things happen. Whatta *yawn* weakling!

Charles RB

06-04-2009, 04:44 PM

Oh for Christ's sake:

There are many Muslims in Britain who do not see themselves as British, but as an occupying force, and that the government payments they receive is a form of "dhimmi tax".

Some Muslims don't view themselves as British, true - some - but you're drastically overestimating their numbers. Especially when they're outnumbered by the number of Catholic Northern Irish who don't want to be in the UK.

There is also the issue of the government actually supporting forced marriage, even polygamous ones.

Except it doesn't. They're illegal under British law and there have been numerous arrests over it.

A couple of years back, a member of Parliament was blocked from visiting a largely Islamic community in London, with the idea being that he had no business entering Islamic territory.

Which community, and which MP?

the radical ones have created sufficient fear among the moderates that they are afraid to publicly oppose them

Define "publicly oppose them". You mean publicly say "that's wrong"? They do say that.

The British government's continually giving in to the radicals

Agents of MI5 were recently caught trying to blackmail moderate Muslims into spying on the radicals.

To many, making a Muslim "Captain Britain", even one who bucks the trend, is too reminiscent of the effort to turn Great Britain into a Muslim territory, with the native British citizens reduced to dhimmi status.

Aside from this movement being nothing in size and chances of success compared to, say, Welsh seperatism, Faiza isn't a Captain Britain. This bit actually annoys me more than the rest, because you could find out she's not from ten seconds looking at Wikipedia.

bartl

06-04-2009, 08:00 PM

You've obviously never hung out with Madonna...
If some guy with a DD married the Pope's cousin, and said he was now the Pope of a religion he made which he's calling "Roman Catholicism", very few would say that his religion WAS Roman Catholic Church, nor that he was the Pope.

Yet, a failed insurance salesman who has a low level rabbinnical degree that wouldn't even get him a job in a synagogue as a rabbi, and a doctorate nobody has ever seen from a source he will not reveal, dumps his wife and children, creates a religion based on Kabbalah with a "tell them what they want to hear" philosophy, claiming to be heir to a school from which he never received a degree, and the newspapers call him the head of the "Kabbalah" religion.

bartl

06-04-2009, 08:16 PM

Pól Rua

06-04-2009, 08:21 PM

There are many Muslims in Britain who do not see themselves as British, but as an occupying force, and that the government payments they receive is a form of "dhimmi tax". There is also the issue of the government actually supporting forced marriage, even polygamous ones. A couple of years back, a member of Parliament was blocked from visiting a largely Islamic community in London, with the idea being that he had no business entering Islamic territory.

While there are far more moderate Muslims than radical ones, the radical ones have created sufficient fear among the moderates that they are afraid to publicly oppose them, creating an illusion of most of the British Muslims making common cause with the radical jihadists. The British government's continually giving in to the radicals does not give the moderates much motivation to change this position.

To many, making a Muslim "Captain Britain", even one who bucks the trend, is too reminiscent of the effort to turn Great Britain into a Muslim territory, with the native British citizens reduced to dhimmi status.

Which, of course, doesn't stop it being a load of reactionary, bigoted, racist toss.
Of course, for a company like Marvel, it's utterly necessary to cater to the most reactionary, racist sections of their audience.
Trying to introduce characters who are individuals rather than bullshit racist stereotypes designed to cater to the worst fantasies of loony right-wingers?

What WERE they thinking?

Village Idiot

06-04-2009, 09:05 PM

king mob

06-05-2009, 01:16 AM

Sorry, all. When I read in this thread that they had put a female Muslim "lead" in Captain Britain, I just assumed they were telling the truth, and that a female Muslim had become Captain Britain. If she is just a patriotic British superhero, then I see no reason why any reasonable person should object.

And if Cornell had decided to make a new Captain Britain a Muslim you'd have a problem and consider people 'unreasonable' if they don't object?

dancj

06-05-2009, 06:05 AM

In a specific Captain Britain trade issue; the very first volume of CB & MI13 contains only 4 issues of the series. It has some older stories featuring Captain Britain, maybe some origin information, which basically amounts to older issues that I could probably pick up in a quarter bin (not denigrating the work of the past, just making an economic point). The price for this trade? $15.99 That's four dollars per issue.
I was considering picking up the first Captain BRitain + MI13 tpb, but that's completely killed my interest. DC have done the same thing with some of their Superman TPBs. It's quite scandalous really.

dancj

06-05-2009, 06:16 AM

So on those days when GL's ring is magic, Superman can be hurt by just about any blast, but on the days when it's science, he can take it like a regular laser?
Yes, that's exactly right.
It's a little more complicated than that. If we're talking about the magic lantern (which is just Alan Scott right?) then it depends on the nature of his attack. If his ring produces a giant laser gun to shoot Superman then it would do the same damage as a giant laser gun that wasn't magic, because it would be the heat of the laser hurting Superman which is something he is invulnerable to.

If he used the ring to do some kind of magical attack then it probably would work as long as it wasn't going via some physical method of attack.

dancj

06-05-2009, 06:18 AM

Brian Hibbs recently suggested that this could happen, and was savaged as being unrealistic. I don't think a lot of the people who go to trades end up dropping the series altogether, but I'd bet it's a significant number.

I think the difference here is that when you buy a monthly comic, buying it is the default and you have to make an actual decision to stop buying it. When you buy TPBs then each new volume is a decision you have to make a decision to buy it and not buying it is the default.

In terms of quality control, this is probably a good thing - the only unfortunate thing is that it has a delayed effect.

rorshach1982

06-05-2009, 07:20 AM

It's a little more complicated than that. If we're talking about the magic lantern (which is just Alan Scott right?) then it depends on the nature of his attack. If his ring produces a giant laser gun to shoot Superman then it would do the same damage as a giant laser gun that wasn't magic, because it would be the heat of the laser hurting Superman which is something he is invulnerable to.

If he used the ring to do some kind of magical attack then it probably would work as long as it wasn't going via some physical method of attack.

I think you've missed the sarcastic natures of the responses above.

bartl

06-05-2009, 10:42 AM

And if Cornell had decided to make a new Captain Britain a Muslim you'd have a problem and consider people 'unreasonable' if they don't object?
No. Reasonable people can disagree with each other.

king mob

06-05-2009, 07:13 PM

No. Reasonable people can disagree with each other.

They can also talk shite & backtrack because they've been sussed for posting bollocks based upon whatever far-right website you want to think for you.

bartl

06-05-2009, 07:24 PM

Paul McEnery

06-07-2009, 02:36 PM

There are many Jews in Germany who do not see themselves as German, but as an occupying force.

While there are far more moderate Jews than radical ones, the radical ones have created sufficient fear among the moderates that they are afraid to publicly oppose them, creating an illusion of most of the German Jews making common cause with the radical socialists. The German government's continually giving in to the radicals does not give the moderates much motivation to change this position.
.

Fixed it for you.

Adam C

06-07-2009, 02:48 PM

If you ask me, it's THOSE gits and their constant nattering that finally drove him Parallax. Coast City was just a convenient excuse.

Beyond cynical examinations of the potential marketing decisions involved in writing Emerald Twilight that's probably the most sensible interpretation of that story I've seen.

bartl

06-07-2009, 05:34 PM

Fixed it for you. "There are many Jews in Germany who do not see themselves as German, but as an occupying force."
Feel free to name one.

Paul McEnery

06-07-2009, 07:23 PM

Feel free to name one.

It's no surprise really that someone whose head explodes at the mere sound of the word Muslim doesn't get the point.

Tages

06-07-2009, 07:26 PM

No. Reasonable people can disagree with each other.

Do reasonable people tend to intrude upon reasonable conversations with reams of libelous horseshit?

rorshach1982

06-08-2009, 09:05 AM

Maybe someone who actually lives in Britain could correct me, but isn't there a growing movement in the UK to allow things like Sharia law to be used by provincial governments in some cases? Here's a link to a commentator at the Guardian (I admittedly do not know his political leanings, he could be a crank)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/feb/04/comment.religion

Here's some disagreeing articles by Ziauddin Sardar, (who may have a bias, again I do not know) http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/ziauddinsardar

And more, here's an article from the Times UK that discusses the sale of books within Britain by Muslims, for Muslims, condemning damn near everything. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2767252.ece

I bring these up because, while maybe Bartl was too blanket in his statement, criticizing Islam, especially in Britain is not wrong (Christianity needs the same attention in the US). The attitudes shown in recent years of the UK government toward Islam has been fairly apologist. The attitudes in Europe, in the UN, where Turkey and other nations are trying to pass an international resolution that makes defamation of Islam a crime (http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1285603&ct=6831061) are approaching serious levels of concern. I'm glad that most of the UN seemed ready to object to such a document that cripples free speech, but the idea that this could even be put forward, that Islam should be given special protections, is absurd. Unless his opinion is wildly unfounded, there's no reason to drop the hammer. Some supporting evidence links would have been nice though, bartl.

Maybe it's an overreaction to "Islamophobia" and while I'm sure there are plenty of moderates out there, that doesn't mean you don't complain about the extremists.

Tages

06-08-2009, 09:27 AM

If by "Too blanket a statement" you mean "Would not be out of place coming from the fucking Klan," then yes.

There are hicks everywhere. Over in the UK two non-Muslim hicks from the British National Party, a party with ethnic cleansing in its fucking charter and one that has been whipping up anti-Muslim hysteria for years, just got elected. That's just one of dozens of European political organizations that has xenophobia as their tentpole platform.

It seems to me that they're the bigger threat.

Tages

06-08-2009, 09:31 AM

Oh, and Sharia is law that only can be applied in an Islamic state, and only applies to Muslims.

Just to clarify a bit one of the scary-sounding foreign words the bigots try tossing in your face without understanding.

Paul McEnery

06-08-2009, 10:30 AM

the idea that this could even be put forward, that Islam should be given special protections, is absurd..

If it were true, it would be.

Since it isn't, it isn't.

And I'm appalled to see you say it was just "too blanket". It was 100% bigoted horseshit.

For that matter, I wouldn't put much trust in a hate site like UNWatch, either.

Tages

06-08-2009, 11:48 AM

rorshach1982

06-08-2009, 12:01 PM

If it were true, it would be.

Since it isn't, it isn't.

And I'm appalled to see you say it was just "too blanket". It was 100% bigoted horseshit.

For that matter, I wouldn't put much trust in a hate site like UNWatch, either.

http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-62-154/page_2

a direct pdf of the actual resolution. Part 8 goes something like "Deplores the use of the print, auio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia, or related intolerance and discrimination against Islam or any other religion, as well as the targeting of religious symbols." Part 9. "Stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement of religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular."

Both of those seem to be singling out Islam (since they've specifically named it) for special treatment. And keep in mind, this document is not stating that the denial of the right to participate in a religion is a human rights violation, but is instead attempting to make the defamation of one an actionable offense. To criticize a religion, any religion, and call it a crime is not anywhere close to reflective of freedom of speech and expression. This is an action that curtails free speech.

And Paul, it was put forward to the UN, by the Pakistani representative I believe, and supported by several Islamic states. The resolution itself is non-binding (one wonders why it is even put forward then) but it seems similar to blasphemy laws that fall under the Sharia Law system. If I'm off on something feel free to correct me, but everything I'm looking at says the above is fact (minus my comparison to the blasphemy laws). What about this didn't happen?

Taking another look at bartl's post, you make a point; it seems incredibly biased and offers no proofs for its claims, which seem wildly inaccurate. It may well be "bollocks" as kingmob said. I would personally like to see some proof if he has some. I'm not as read up on the delicacies of the British political system as I could be.

I'm reminded of some political cartoons that featured Muhammed and the death threats that accompanied them in Holland. I'm recalling the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie several people who died because of it. Theo van Gogh was murdered after making a 10 minute film about the treatment of women in Islam. These horrible things happened when free speech was allowed. What happens when the defamation of religion becomes a criminal act, which is what this resolution is attempting to do?

And for Mr. Tages: Sharia (Arabic: '‎شريعة Šarīʿah) is the body of Islamic religious law. The term means "way" or "path to the water source". It is the legal framework within which the public and private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on fiqh (Islamic principles of jurisprudence) and for Muslims living outside the domain. Sharia deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business, contracts, family, sexuality, hygiene, and social issues.

Islamic law is now the most widely used religious law, and one of the three most common legal systems of the world alongside common law and civil law.[1]

Most countries of the Middle East and North Africa maintain a dual system of secular courts and religious courts, in which the religious courts mainly regulate marriage and inheritance. Saudi Arabia and Iran maintain religious courts for all aspects of jurisprudence, and the Mutaween (religious police) assert social compliance. Laws derived from sharia are also applied in Afghanistan, Libya and Sudan. Sharia law is officially recognised by the justice system in Israel in matters of personal status of Muslims (e.g. marriage, divorce, guardianship.) Judges' salaries are paid by the state.[82] Some states in northern Nigeria have reintroduced Sharia courts.[83]

A bill proposed by lawmakers in the Indonesian province of Aceh would impose Sharia law on all non-Muslims, the armed forces and law enforcement officers, a local police official has announced. The news comes two months after the Deutsche Presse-Agentur warned of "Taliban-style Islamic police terrorizing Indonesia's Aceh".[86][87][88]

So, this statement by you Mr. Tages "Oh, and Sharia is law that only can be applied in an Islamic state, and only applies to Muslims." is incorrect unless Israel has become an Islamic state. And here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece) is an article from the Times that clearly states that Sharia is in active use in the UK, only for Muslim civil issues at the moment. Pretty sure Great Britain is not an Islamic state.

rorshach1982

06-08-2009, 12:31 PM

"Oh NOEZ! A non-binding resolution condemning the defamation of Islam! Anything but that! Dhimmitude, dhimmitude aaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!"

Plus, rorschach, I didn't notice Turkey as a sponsor of the resolution as you said it was. Turkey, as you may or may not know, has secularism inscribed into its founding document as surely as the United States has secularism in the Constitution.

And as for the radical clerics, dipshits in America like Fred Phelps do that all the time. Yet while we point at Phelps and laugh at him for being a carnival geek with no relevance at all, somehow this Abu Usamah in England, mentioned in the Guardian article, is supposed to have major influence amongst British Muslims?

I don't know what dhimmitude actually means. The tax thing that bartl mentioned is the first time I've heard of it.

You are correct. I had my facts mixed up. I must have been thinking of Turkey's application to the European Union or something. And I do know that they are a secular nation according to their founding documents.

The difference between the men are that Fred Phelps' church population is comprised mainly of his own family, with a small congregation of followers. Abu Usamah is an Imam known internationally, and respected by large portions of the Islamic community. His major influence in Britain, I cannot say for certain. I don't have enough information, but he was notorious enough to have a scathing documentary done on his mosque, which I believe was admonished for taking too hard a view of Muslims and representing the actions of the mosque incorrectly. From wiki "The Saltley Gate Peace group, an inter-faith action group based at the Saltley Methodist Church in Birmingham (which includes Muslims and non-Muslims), gave its "undiminished support" for Abu Usamah and Green Lane Mosque and made a press release prior to the airing of the Channel 4 documentary. The press release included the following statements:[7]

1. That Imam Abu Usaamah, one of the preachers featured in the documentary, is acknowledged by the a significant portion of his congregation and the wider interfaith community "to be a peaceful man and is known to promote peace to his congregation", and that he has denounced terrorism.
2. That the Green Lane Mosque is not known to promote extremism and the founders and committee of the mosque have always distanced themselves from such extremism
3. That the UK branch of Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith are based at the Green Lane mosque and Islamic. The statement explains that Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith is known loosely as 'Salafism', and that this school of thought does not promote extremism. However, it concedes that there may be a minority that feel otherwise. Nonetheless it states that those following the Salafi methodology strive to follow the earliest traditions so that their Islam is peaceful and pure.

Furthermore, Abu Usamah was known to have openly and consistently opposed terrorist and extreme takfiri thought from as early as the early 1990s[8] to the extent that the extremist preacher Abdullah el-Faisal had called for the assassination of Abu Usamah."

I don't see how you are comparing Fred Phelps to this guy, since they seem very different in scope and tactic. It seems like the documentary may have just been a smear piece and the article was written off of that faulty information.

Charles RB

06-08-2009, 12:33 PM

Maybe someone who actually lives in Britain could correct me, but isn't there a growing movement in the UK to allow things like Sharia law to be used by provincial governments in some cases?

In practice it would be exactly the same as the Jewish Beth Din courts, and we already have those (and so do you).

And last year, justice minister Prentice confirmed the UK courts can rubber-stamp decisions made there but can also ignore them, since English & Welsh courts (and presumably Scottish and Northern Irish) take precedence. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7690809.stm) The courts have shown this (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/court-rules-islamic-law-discriminatory-969777.html), putting gender equality (enshrined in the Human Rights Act) over sharia law in a conflict.

And isn't it amazing. The Times reports government-approved "official" sharia courts exist but I'm not finding it on other news sites archives. I am finding lots of evidence that large numbers of politicians oppose it being seen as official.

The attitudes shown in recent years of the UK government toward Islam has been fairly apologist.

Except it hasn't. See: anti-terror raids on the wrong people, MI5 blackmailing Muslims to spy for them, deportation of extremists, condemnation of fundamentalism, aforementioned political opposition to sharia law.

king mob

06-08-2009, 12:36 PM

Maybe someone who actually lives in Britain could correct me, but isn't there a growing movement in the UK to allow things like Sharia law to be used by provincial governments in some cases?

We already have seperate religious laws, Jewish courts for example, for small minor things. Now personally I'm no fans of such things but they've existed for a while, but it's only the Muslims who get stick over this.

I bring these up because, while maybe Bartl was too blanket in his statement, criticizing Islam, especially in Britain is not wrong

It's not, but criticising Muslims for things they've not done, or generally spreading far-right lies isn't helping us have a sensible discussion with the Islamic community.

The attitudes shown in recent years of the UK government toward Islam has been fairly apologist.

Really?

No it hasn't. Labour have tried to adopt the language of the BNP to win votes. They failed to do that as it's driven people to the right wing parties like UKIP & the BNP.

Maybe it's an overreaction to "Islamophobia" and while I'm sure there are plenty of moderates out there, that doesn't mean you don't complain about the extremists.

Of course not, but whenever Muslims are discussed in the British media they're often represented by lunatics with a hook, while dissenting voices are silenced as they don't fit the popular image of Muslims.

And Islamophobia exists, you don't need to question that.

king mob

06-08-2009, 12:39 PM

Taking another look at bartl's post, you make a point; it seems incredibly biased and offers no proofs for its claims, which seem wildly inaccurate. It may well be "bollocks" as kingmob said. I would personally like to see some proof if he has some.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

Charles RB

06-08-2009, 12:43 PM

Oh, but I did find this (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/patriotic-respectful-and-homophobic-a-portrait-of-british-muslims-state-of-mind-1681062.html) when searching:

Perhaps the survey's most surprising finding was that more than three-quarters of British Muslims (77 per cent) said they identified "very strongly" with the UK, compared to just half (50 per cent) of the general public. This contradicts the idea that Muslims are outsiders who have little in common with the UK, and is further borne out by a second statistic: 82 per cent said British Muslims were loyal to the country. Professor Ziauddin Sardar, a London-based scholar who specialises in the future of Islam, said that British Muslims with Pakistani or Middle Eastern heritage are all too aware of the troubles in their homelands and can see the UK's benefits better than those who have lived here for generations. "They look at the stability of Britain and appreciate it deeply," he said.

...

British Muslims were found to have faith in the police, with 76 per cent saying they trusted them compared to 67 per cent of the general public. They were also found to be more likely to have confidence in the Government, the judicial system, financial institutions and the media. "British Muslims and their parents have sometimes had personal experience of societies which are not democratic and where the rule of law is not always followed," said Professor Sardar. "They are not yet disillusioned with the systems of governance, in the way that those who have lived here for generations might be. There is still a lot of expectation."

...

British Muslims appear to be a lot more tolerant than the rest of the UK population when it comes to accepting other religions. More than a quarter of the general public (26 per cent) said they felt the above statement was accurate. According to Professor Sardar, tolerance of other faiths is an important part of Islam and the handful of British Muslims who felt it was under attack could safely be called extremists.

They also found British Muslims to be more socially conservative than non-Muslims, particularly that they were homophobic. But that's not an issue you or bartl raised, so...

Paul McEnery

06-08-2009, 12:48 PM

http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-62-154/page_2

a direct pdf of the actual resolution. Part 8 goes something like "Deplores the use of the print, auio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia, or related intolerance and discrimination against Islam or any other religion, as well as the targeting of religious symbols." Part 9. "Stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement of religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular."

Both of those seem to be singling out Islam (since they've specifically named it) for special treatment.

What part of "and other religions" do you not understand?

To be sure, since the Western world has been defaming muslims like a bastard for a while, I dare say the muslims would like us to knock it off, and I'm fine with that.

And keep in mind, this document is not stating that the denial of the right to participate in a religion is a human rights violation, but is instead attempting to make the defamation of one an actionable offense.

Nope. No it isn't.

The resolution itself is non-binding

At last he notices.

(one wonders why it is even put forward then)

See this incitement to hatred (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=9040985&postcount=15)for details.

The point is, the far right gets around the usual incitement to racial hatred laws when talking about muslims because, unlike being Jewish, muslim isn't counted as an ethnicity. So you can incite all the hatred you want.

Taking another look at bartl's post, you make a point; it seems incredibly biased and offers no proofs for its claims,

Try again.

It's bigoted propaganda, no different from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or any other antisemitic filth.

rorshach1982

06-08-2009, 02:03 PM

What part of "and other religions" do you not understand?

To be sure, since the Western world has been defaming muslims like a bastard for a while, I dare say the muslims would like us to knock it off, and I'm fine with that.

What counts as defamation? Saying there is no god would fall under that heading I'm almost sure, since that might be construed as heresy. A political cartoon featuring a depiction (any depiction really) of the Prophet would be defamation. I'm not fine with that. Why does a non-believer need to be admonished for stating an opinion about an imaginary man in the sky? Wouldn't stating that Yahweh is the one true god count as defamation of Islam since it contradicts a pretty basic part of the faith? Where does the line get drawn between defamation and blasphemy? Maybe the point of the resolution is only to address the undue hatred heaped on Muslims over the past 8-9 years, but the wording of it seems far-reaching and the intent does not seem harmless. That it is non-binding is little comfort to me since it establishes free discussion as something that could be demeaning to people if it insults a religion, "Islam and Muslims in particular," as Item 9 mentioned. Considering the source countries of this proposition, some of which do have anti-blasphemy laws, what is this resolution other than a veiled attempt to push that ideology? I really don't think I'm making too big a leap here. And you're cynical enough to know adding in "and other religions" was political padding at best.

I still do not know what the dhimmi part is. I assume it's Arabic for something.

The point is, the far right gets around the usual incitement to racial hatred laws when talking about muslims because, unlike being Jewish, muslim isn't counted as an ethnicity. So you can incite all the hatred you want.

I'm not trying to. I personally don't like any religion having anything to do with government, whether it's Blair's weirdness, Bush's bible-beating, or Sharia. I don't think Jewish should count as an ethnicity. A person can be raised Jewish or Muslim, but they aren't born either. People can believe whatever craziness they want to believe. Just don't try and pass a resolution that makes my low opinion of said craziness something condemnable.

It's bigoted propaganda, no different from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or any other antisemitic filth.

It's not pleasant I'll give you that. I wouldn't exactly compare it to the Great White Supremacist myths about the secret Jewish leaders of the world, but that's your call.

rorshach1982

06-08-2009, 02:13 PM

In practice it would be exactly the same as the Jewish Beth Din courts, and we already have those (and so do you).

And last year, justice minister Prentice confirmed the UK courts can rubber-stamp decisions made there but can also ignore them, since English & Welsh courts (and presumably Scottish and Northern Irish) take precedence. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7690809.stm) The courts have shown this (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/court-rules-islamic-law-discriminatory-969777.html), putting gender equality (enshrined in the Human Rights Act) over sharia law in a conflict.

And isn't it amazing. The Times reports government-approved "official" sharia courts exist but I'm not finding it on other news sites archives. I am finding lots of evidence that large numbers of politicians oppose it being seen as official.

Except it hasn't. See: anti-terror raids on the wrong people, MI5 blackmailing Muslims to spy for them, deportation of extremists, condemnation of fundamentalism, aforementioned political opposition to sharia law.

Did not know about Beth Din courts. I disagree with both, even though they deal with (it appears) relatively innocuous things like divorce and marriages. The idea that a government can rubber stamp any religious court's decision seems ridiculous to me. Law should have a rational basis, and religion is non-rational from basic premise. I'm glad politicians oppose it and the fact that a government would recognize it seems apologist to me, but I guess I need to get more facts before I spout off.

I actually can't stand the tax-exempt status that religion enjoys in America (I do not know if it is the same in the UK). Is the Times an unreliable source or do they have a noted bias?

Paul McEnery

06-08-2009, 03:16 PM

Did not know about Beth Din courts. I disagree with both, even though they deal with (it appears) relatively innocuous things like divorce and marriages. The idea that a government can rubber stamp any religious court's decision seems ridiculous to me. Law should have a rational basis, and religion is non-rational from basic premise. I'm glad politicians oppose it and the fact that a government would recognize it seems apologist to me, but I guess I need to get more facts before I spout off.

I actually can't stand the tax-exempt status that religion enjoys in America (I do not know if it is the same in the UK). Is the Times an unreliable source or do they have a noted bias?

Depends. Do you regard Fox News as a reliable source?

Paul McEnery

06-08-2009, 03:21 PM

What counts as defamation?

Who fucking cares? It's not a fucking law.

But pretty fucking obviously, it's there to protect a population against incitement to hatred. Duh!

I still do not know what the dhimmi part is. I assume it's Arabic for something.

Same as anyone using the words kike or nigger, you can tell that anyone using the word dhimmi against muslims is a stone fucking racist. And that's all you need to know.

I'm not trying to. I personally don't like any religion having anything to do with government, whether it's Blair's weirdness, Bush's bible-beating, or Sharia. I don't think Jewish should count as an ethnicity. A person can be raised Jewish or Muslim, but they aren't born either. People can believe whatever craziness they want to believe. Just don't try and pass a resolution that makes my low opinion of said craziness something condemnable.

Yeah, well, it's not about that, is it.

It's not pleasant I'll give you that. I wouldn't exactly compare it to the Great White Supremacist myths about the secret Jewish leaders of the world, but that's your call.
It's a little more subtle. And that's about all it's got going for it.

Adam C

06-08-2009, 04:00 PM

The attitudes in Europe, in the UN, where Turkey and other nations are trying to pass an international resolution that makes defamation of Islam a crime (http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1285603&ct=6831061) are approaching serious levels of concern.

From the site you linked to, it's Headline:

Proposal at U.N. to criminalize 'defamation of Islam'

From the actual text:

While non-binding, the resolution constitutes a dangerous threat to free speech everywhere. It would ban any perceived offense to Islamic sensitivities as a "serious affront to human dignity" and a violation of religious freedom, and would pressure U.N. member states -- at the "local, national, regional and international levels" -- to erode free speech guarantees in their "legal and constitutional systems."

In then proceeds not to detail why a non-binding resolution would constitute "a dangerous threat to free speech" beyond speculating on some pretty vague generalities. Vague speculation is not good reasoning.

Tages

06-08-2009, 04:40 PM

I like how the headline uses the word "criminalizes" and the article then makes sure to specify that it's non-binding.

Kind of like simultaneously ascribing both guile and naivete` to President Obama.

Charles RB

06-08-2009, 05:25 PM

The way this thread has gone shows us why Paul Cornell gets pissed off.

Is the Times an unreliable source or do they have a noted bias?

They're usually a reliable source, though they do lean to the right. They're not, however, infallible, and in this case they fallibled quite a bit.

bartl

06-08-2009, 06:43 PM

It's no surprise really that someone whose head explodes at the mere sound of the word Muslim doesn't get the point.
As my head is still here, my head has clearly not exploded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r7fgf1nnI4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hBXHtQDxOo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_WKFpak9Mc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGSWEdS1E54

Loki

06-08-2009, 06:47 PM

I still do not know what the dhimmi part is. I assume it's Arabic for something.
I didn't either, so I looked it up.

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

Based on that, it isn't a racist insult word like the ones Paul thought it matched to. It's an Arabic word for a non-Muslim living in a Muslin country, who has accepted their laws and so can also expect protection under those laws.

Tages

06-08-2009, 07:09 PM

As my head is still here, my head has clearly not exploded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r7fgf1nnI4

I look forward to your dissertation on the Radical Negro problem in these united States based on the Channon Christian murder case.

Oh wait, that'd be racist, wouldn't it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hBXHtQDxOo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_WKFpak9Mc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGSWEdS1E54
Pretty much what I expected. Notice that the Youtube accounts that posted those videos have intentionally provacative names, like "Charlesmartel." The fourth one is a pro-British National Party (i.e. pro-ethnic cleansing) themed account.

So we've learned that Muslims in the UK are reading controversial books, teaching in religious-themed schools and angry at their government.

None of which is any scarier than the Christian Dominionist and Quiverfull movements in America, or the BNP, Vlaams Blok or Front Nationale. None of which, indeed, even points to a cohesive movement to subvert the UK's democracy, though it does point to a comprehensive campaign of public demonization and fearmongering.

So you could have saved all of us some time by just declaring "I will uncritically swallow any racist swill I come across that fits my preconceptions."

Paul McEnery

06-08-2009, 07:13 PM

I didn't either, so I looked it up.

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

Based on that, it isn't a racist insult word like the ones Paul thought it matched to. It's an Arabic word for a non-Muslim living in a Muslin country, who has accepted their laws and so can also expect protection under those laws.

I didn't say that, did I.

What I'm saying is that the only people who bring it up are racists. Essentially, it means discrimination against non-muslims.

Funny how nobody ever uses the word for, oh say, the discrimination against muslims in Israel; for for discrimination against hispanic workers in the US; or any other discrimination.

But noooooo. We have to use the special word, because then we think that muslim discrimination is a special thing that only muslims do. When in fact majority populations have always treated minority populations like crap. And the muslim record is actually substantially better than the Christian one.

Which, as memory serves, involved murdering anyone who wasn't Christian.

Paul McEnery

06-08-2009, 07:16 PM

The way this thread has gone shows us why Paul Cornell gets pissed off.

They're usually a reliable source, though they do lean to the right. They're not, however, infallible, and in this case they fallibled quite a bit.

It's not the worst -- those would be the Telegraph and the Mail -- but I've still seen it used to launch anti-muslim propaganda.

And we should never expect a Murdoch publication to be free from his editorial interference.

Tages

06-08-2009, 07:19 PM

I didn't either, so I looked it up.

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

Based on that, it isn't a racist insult word like the ones Paul thought it matched to. It's an Arabic word for a non-Muslim living in a Muslin country, who has accepted their laws and so can also expect protection under those laws.

"Using the word dhimmi against Muslims." Key words.

Basically when fearmongerers want to whip up hysteria against Muslims they start screaming "SHARIA!" and "DHIMMI!", ignoring that the latter exists purely as a legal term inapplicable outside an Islamic state, and that it was one of the earliest examples of toleration in history.

Non-Muslims under the Islamic Empire had a lot more rights than non-Christians (or Christian heretics) did in Catholic Europe.

So, basically, when someone like bartl decides he wants to act like a white supremacist without taking responsibility for it he throws scary foreign words at you in the hopes that you'll take them at their intended meaning instead of taking the time to understand their meaning within context. That's how you create a smear.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-08-2009, 07:41 PM

Sadly, there were people in the gutters of the net who were offended by Faiza's very existence and the idea of her getting Excalibur. Because Muslims can't be British, see.

King mob reports that Paul Cornell gets asked why he created a female Muslim lead all the time and he's pissed off about it.

Is it from British people though, or from people across the pond?

There are many Muslims in Britain who do not see themselves as British, but as an occupying force, and that the government payments they receive is a form of "dhimmi tax". There is also the issue of the government actually supporting forced marriage, even polygamous ones. A couple of years back, a member of Parliament was blocked from visiting a largely Islamic community in London, with the idea being that he had no business entering Islamic territory.

While there are far more moderate Muslims than radical ones, the radical ones have created sufficient fear among the moderates that they are afraid to publicly oppose them, creating an illusion of most of the British Muslims making common cause with the radical jihadists. The British government's continually giving in to the radicals does not give the moderates much motivation to change this position.

To many, making a Muslim "Captain Britain", even one who bucks the trend, is too reminiscent of the effort to turn Great Britain into a Muslim territory, with the native British citizens reduced to dhimmi status.

What the fuck are you on about?

I hated the way they turned Salmon Rushie over when the fatwa was placed on him, or how they made Cat Stevens next in line for the throne...

If it's any consolation, yesterday afternoon I stumbled across Glenn Beck on Fox News blubbering out that al-Queda is now hooking up with American white supremicists - that's where OUR national security focus is shifting, to potential DOMESTIC threats, like, oh, "disgruntled" Iraq War veterans, a term that suddenly keeps coming up here - and readying other terror attacks on this great land of ours, then said, "I don't get it! Weren't the terrorists supposed to LOVE us after we elected Barack HUSSEIN OBAMA?!" Which, if he really believes that was the case (I doubt he does), he's even more of a total blithering idiot than I thought.

Did he cry?
I love it when he cries...

(Pretty certain Stewart and Colbert pay that guy to set up material for them.

Matter of fact, my local paper this morning had an article about how far right parties are expected to WIN BIG in Britain's next elections... So I doubt our "official" inflow of information about Merrie Olde will get much better anytime in the near future...

If that happens, that's much more to do with the house of cards falling apart without Blair, and not the fear of an uprising from... them.

Sorry, all. When I read in this thread that they had put a female Muslim "lead" in Captain Britain, I just assumed they were telling the truth, and that a female Muslim had become Captain Britain. If she is just a patriotic British superhero, then I see no reason why any reasonable person should object.

As long as she's not 'Captain Britain' you have no problem????
Yeah, because that's a long line of national pride which we can't let be stained by a darkie... specially not a muso darkie woman!
What would it matter if she was Captain Britain?
Maybe it would show that England is a progressive nation, where citizenship is more important that the colour of your skin and whoever you pray to in your own time.

I mean the current guy is white, and whilst most of the whites in England a re a good and peaceful sort, some think that Hitler had the right idea and are constantly trying to upset the order by pushing his ideas forward and getting it back to a white only country...

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-08-2009, 07:42 PM

"Using the word dhimmi against Muslims." Key words.

Basically when fearmongerers want to whip up hysteria against Muslims they start screaming "SHARIA!" and "DHIMMI!", ignoring that the latter exists purely as a legal term inapplicable outside an Islamic state, and that it was one of the earliest examples of toleration in history.

Non-Muslims under the Islamic Empire had a lot more rights than non-Christians (or Christian heretics) did in Catholic Europe.

So, basically, when someone like bartl decides he wants to act like a white supremacist without taking responsibility for it he throws scary foreign words at you in the hopes that you'll take them at their intended meaning instead of taking the time to understand their meaning within context. That's how you create a smear.

And Obama was educated in a madrassa!

Tages

06-08-2009, 07:49 PM

And Obama was educated in a madrassa!

I hear tell that every year millions of helpless French children are indoctrinated in ecoles.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-08-2009, 08:19 PM

I hear tell that every year millions of helpless French children are indoctrinated in ecoles.

But I thought we freed them from the Hun's grip?

Paul McEnery

06-08-2009, 08:31 PM

I hear tell that every year millions of helpless French children are indoctrinated in ecoles.

And I understand they're forced to live in arrondissements and eat from patisseries.

I certainly don't like the sound of that.

Steven Grant

06-08-2009, 11:09 PM

What I'm saying is that the only people who bring it up are racists. Essentially, it means discrimination against non-muslims.

Traditionally Muslim nations encouraged non-Muslims to settle in their lands, operate businesses, etc., and shared a high degree of protection. The rationale for this wasn't exactly noble - according to Muhammed's teachings, Muslims were forbidden to tax Muslims, but they could tax non-Muslims all they liked - but the upshot was pretty good treatment of non-believers, as long as they didn't cause trouble. Matter of fact, our Renaissance (at least the widely acknowledged Italian one; nobody ever talks of the Northern European Renaissance of the 12th century) was heavily predicated on the tolerance of Muslims for non-believers, because it enabled them to import Greek and Roman texts and other knowledge (like math) from Arab lands, as well as the gold that financed much of the Renaissance. (Matter of fact, in medieval Europe Jews were commonly protected by kings because, unlike Europeans, Jews could count. So they were used as accountants and tax collectors because, frankly, they were the only people educated enough for the job. The downside was that when the king upped taxes, it was the Jews collecting the taxes who received the hatred and scorn, which eventually snowballed into the myth of the Jews having all the money despite very few Jews having all the money, though those who functioned as accountants for kings often managed to form banks, perpetuating the stereotype. But taxes were a major influence on our culture in many ways. But when the Crusades kicked into high gear, so did the European hatred of Jews. Actually, the main legacy of the Crusades wasn't the freedom of the Holy Land but the persecution of Jews in Europe - crusaders figuring as long as they were off to drive the unbelievers from the Promised Land, they may as well drive the unbelievers from their own lands along the way - and the pillaging of Constantinople, the proceeds of which also underwrote the Renaissance, particularly in Venice.)

- Grant

Steven Grant

06-08-2009, 11:10 PM

Which, as memory serves, involved murdering anyone who wasn't Christian.

That's a bit harsh.

Don't forget that many of them did get the opportunity to be tortured into converting first.

- Grant

Tages

06-08-2009, 11:35 PM

The rationale for this wasn't exactly noble - according to Muhammed's teachings, Muslims were forbidden to tax Muslims, but they could tax non-Muslims all they liked -

If we're not counting zakat as a tax, that is.

Steven Grant

06-08-2009, 11:59 PM

If that happens, that's much more to do with the house of cards falling apart without Blair, and not the fear of an uprising from... them.

Don't gimme that booshwah. I know what's what there. I watch MI-5...

- Grant

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-09-2009, 12:54 AM

Don't gimme that booshwah. I know what's what there. I watch MI-5...

- Grant

Gordon and his crew were going fine... until they fucked with Savage!

Has nothing to do with the last several years or unrelated scandals caused by too much power for too long....

Charles RB

06-09-2009, 05:41 AM

Is it from British people though, or from people across the pond?

Annoyingly, it's both. I wish it was all Yanks and the same type of Yanks who freak out over Mickey and Martha on New Who "sounding white", but no, there's actual British posters talking crap as well.

There's a scene in #2 where all of Britain feels the Captain's death in their souls (he got better), where a group of Asian men (who might be Muslims but I'm not sure) are seen crying. Those posters probably missed the fucking point of that panel.

Charles RB

06-09-2009, 05:44 AM

Gordon and his crew were going fine... until they fucked with Savage!

http://www.2000ad.org/covers/2000ad/hires/1528.jpg

bartl

06-09-2009, 08:27 AM

I look forward to your dissertation on the Radical Negro problem in these united States based on the Channon Christian murder case.[/qupte]
Insults are not arguments.
[quote]Pretty much what I expected. Notice that the Youtube accounts that posted those videos have intentionally provacative names, like "Charlesmartel." The fourth one is a pro-British National Party (i.e. pro-ethnic cleansing) themed account.
Agument ad hominem. Try again.

None of which is any scarier than the Christian Dominionist and Quiverfull movements in America, or the BNP, Vlaams Blok or Front Nationale. None of which, indeed, even points to a cohesive movement to subvert the UK's democracy, though it does point to a comprehensive campaign of public demonization and fearmongering.
The existence of evil does not justify it.

bartl

06-09-2009, 08:30 AM

Traditionally Muslim nations encouraged non-Muslims to settle in their lands, operate businesses, etc., and shared a high degree of protection. The rationale for this wasn't exactly noble - according to Muhammed's teachings, Muslims were forbidden to tax Muslims, but they could tax non-Muslims all they liked - but the upshot was pretty good treatment of non-believers, as long as they didn't cause trouble. Matter of fact, our Renaissance (at least the widely acknowledged Italian one; nobody ever talks of the Northern European Renaissance of the 12th century) was heavily predicated on the tolerance of Muslims for non-believers, because it enabled them to import Greek and Roman texts and other knowledge (like math) from Arab lands, as well as the gold that financed much of the Renaissance. (Matter of fact, in medieval Europe Jews were commonly protected by kings because, unlike Europeans, Jews could count. So they were used as accountants and tax collectors because, frankly, they were the only people educated enough for the job. The downside was that when the king upped taxes, it was the Jews collecting the taxes who received the hatred and scorn, which eventually snowballed into the myth of the Jews having all the money despite very few Jews having all the money, though those who functioned as accountants for kings often managed to form banks, perpetuating the stereotype. But taxes were a major influence on our culture in many ways. But when the Crusades kicked into high gear, so did the European hatred of Jews. Actually, the main legacy of the Crusades wasn't the freedom of the Holy Land but the persecution of Jews in Europe - crusaders figuring as long as they were off to drive the unbelievers from the Promised Land, they may as well drive the unbelievers from their own lands along the way - and the pillaging of Constantinople, the proceeds of which also underwrote the Renaissance, particularly in Venice.)

Unfortunately, the initial defeats of the Muslims by the Crusaders allowed for radical extremist movements to form, which brought Islam from being the forefront of the world's science and culture into a rough equivalent of Europe's Middle Ages.

rorshach1982

06-09-2009, 09:28 AM

Who fucking cares? It's not a fucking law.

No it certainly is not. What it is is an attempt to create one, or even several. It starts with getting the largest international consortium of civilized nations to agree to making the questioning of a religion (or ridicule, or anything that defames) publicly condemnable, even if it is not an actionable law. Said resolution also encourages member states of the UN to create laws at the local, state, and national level that protect religion from defamation, which the resolution claims is an affront to human dignity. It would like public officials to be educated about said religion (only one is named in the document, as you well know), which is certainly not a bad idea, but since "educated" would imply an impartial and objective view of any religion; I somehow doubt that is the intention of the document that would like to eschew with such a pesky thing like free speech and is put forward to the UN by countries that have anti-blasphemy laws on the books. (Iran has imprisoned 10 people since 2005 for defamation according to http://www.article19.org/advocacy/defamationmap/overview.html, and despite the number not being overly large, keep in mind that these are people who are jailed for spoken or written words).

But pretty fucking obviously, it's there to protect a population against incitement to hatred. Duh!

And how does it do that, if indeed it is not a law? It's toothless in application since it is non-binding (the UN itself is pretty toothless aside from its ideological stances). The danger of this idiotic resolution is in it's implications for the freedom of expression. It attempts to foster an atmosphere where merely defaming a religion is somehow wrong. If I were to say "Islam has historic and modern ties to violence against women, despite its many positive historical contexts." This could easily be construed as defamation since it adds a negative connotation to the religion. Ibn Warraq would certainly be guilty of defamation, as well as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, of defamation (she travels with security due to the constant threats of death, a recent one was in Pittsburgh, where an Imam called for her death after she's tried in a Muslim country. Lovely man).

The resolution could easily be worded to state that libel or slander that is knowingly false in reference to religion should be punishable (the US has libel and slander laws, I'm sure the UK does). It does not. It uses defamation, which can be true or false criticism of an entity or idea, as its watchword. This resolution does not seek to stop the spread of outright lies about Islam. It sets out to make criticism, blasphemy, and disagreement wrong. If the words a person uses have no factual basis, if they lie about Islam simply to incite hatred I would like someone to call them to task just like you Paul. But this resolution does not call for anything less than a highly offensive and broad reaching ban on negative speech about Islam.

Same as anyone using the words kike or nigger, you can tell that anyone using the word dhimmi against muslims is a stone fucking racist. And that's all you need to know.

I always seem to want to know more than what people think I need. I've seen the many posts on this. I think Tages is an idiot, but the other posts seem to have cleared it up. Though, when I looked it up, I got this "A more recent pejorative usage variant of "dhimmi" and "dhimmitude" divorces the words from the historical context of jihad and applies them to situations where non-Muslims in the West and India are championing Islamic causes above others. "Dhimmi" is treated as analogous to "Quisling" within this context." Is that what you meant?

And one thing that continues to annoy me is this historic pissing contest these posts come down to. I'm sure we're all well read on the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. I'm sure we're all aware that at a point in the past Islam was the seat of knowledge of medicine, mathematics, art, and some wonderful culture. We're all aware that Christianity has the same, if not dozens more atrocities that can be attributed to it throughout history. I'm glad we all know our history.

None of this addresses the current issues that surround the Islamic world. None of it talks about how Islam is routinely used to justify violence, and sometimes as inspires it. It does not talk about the systems of religion that are used in place of systems of rational law, systems that were created almost two thousand years ago by primitive tribes of men who were traders, farmers, shepherds, etc (and this is true across the religions, not just Islam). The beauty of the Muslim culture should not cover for its horrors, any more than it would for Christianity, Buddhism, or Judaism. It's history is wonderfully interesting, but as it stands now, Islam is an archaic system of belief that is constantly brought to the forefront of discussion in a modern world and on an international stage. It should be allowed to be criticized openly, not protected merely because it is a religion. No system that calls for faith instead of reason should be immune to ridicule when the issues it deals with (human rights, international relations, etc.) are so incredibly important.

rorshach1982

06-09-2009, 09:44 AM

Annoyingly, it's both. I wish it was all Yanks and the same type of Yanks who freak out over Mickey and Martha on New Who "sounding white", but no, there's actual British posters talking crap as well.

There's a scene in #2 where all of Britain feels the Captain's death in their souls (he got better), where a group of Asian men (who might be Muslims but I'm not sure) are seen crying. Those posters probably missed the fucking point of that panel.

I liked the bit where all the Union Jacks flew from around the country to form Captain Britain's new form. Kirk is damn good. Issue 3 or 4 I think.

Charles RB

06-09-2009, 10:06 AM

Agument ad hominem. Try again.

But you did link to pro-BNP account in order to prove a point about British Muslims - the BNP standing for ethnic cleansing, and being the equivalent of a pro-KKK account to prove a point about black Americans. He's right. You did do this.

And that completely undermines your argument which, let's face it, was already pretty shaky because your initial post was full of inaccuracies and falsehoods.

Steven Grant

06-09-2009, 10:34 AM

Unfortunately, the initial defeats of the Muslims by the Crusaders allowed for radical extremist movements to form, which brought Islam from being the forefront of the world's science and culture into a rough equivalent of Europe's Middle Ages.

It was hardly overnight. It took two or three centuries of frequent invasion of their lands by what amounted to barbarian forces to convince the populace and leaders that defense - and it was the Crusaders who framed the conflict as a holy war, not the Muslims, who for a long time viewed the Crusades simply as wars of conquest, and they were strangers to neither those nor losing them; Muslims only came to that viewpoint after a couple dozen decades of invasion and occupation, since forcing conversations was a Christian, not Muslim, preoccupation - was more important than education, knowledge or arts. As late as the third crusade Muslims were still being as generally gracious to Christians as war allowed. But centuries of shifting resources to warfare left the Abuyyid dynasty in Egypt - the power behind Islam during the first few Crusades - exhausted and depleted, leaving the region open to power grabs that diffused authority and sent that region of the Muslim world into slow decline, shifting the seats of power eastward toward what would become the Ottoman Empire.

But it's not like the Crusaders conquered the Holy Land and the immediate Muslim response was to throw away math and science and become a bunch of religious fanatics intent on destroying the infidel. Knowledge, learning and art remained an Egyptian Muslim concern until they were simply forced to put resources elsewhere. Of course, as happens virtually everywhere, once science and learning are devalued, irrationality expands its territory and educational decline becomes inevitable.

- Grant

Steven Grant

06-09-2009, 10:56 AM

"Dhimmi" is treated as analogous to "Quisling" within this context." Is that what you meant?

No, what he means (if I'm reading this correctly) isn't that Westerners are hurling "dhimmi" at Muslims as insults to them, but using the term to indicate that Muslims use it to dehumanize Westerners. So a Westerner using the term "dhimmi" is using it to indicate there is a Holy War underway perpetrated by Muslims. Not nutjob radical Muslims. Just Muslims.

None of this addresses the current issues that surround the Islamic world.

Perhaps not, but it does inform it, and I don't see that anything can be successfully addressed unless we account for conditions and situations that created the current issues. Nothing gets resolved that way.

We also live in a country who many believe is based on systems of religion created millennia ago by primitive tribes in considerably different circumstances. You're right; there's no reason Islam should be "protected" from discussion of its own history, but we can't discuss their history without casting an equally severe eye on our own.

Religion is religion; it's all hooey. Curiously, in occupied Iraq the tendency among the young since Saddam was deposed has been neither to convert to Christianity (despite the hordes of missionaries we underwrote into the country) nor to become more staunchly Muslim, but to embrace atheism.

I don't know that Islam is routinely used to justify violence, except on 24. I suspect most Muslims don't advocate violence anymore than most Christians do. There are certainly passages in the Koran that "advocate" violence, but others vehemently denounce it, the same as the Bible. The fact is that some people just want violence, and cherrypick authorization for it.

The trick, I think, is to denounce religions without denouncing their believers. I don't even feel any great urge to denounce religions, and denouncing specific religions tends to prompt believers in other faiths to take that as backing of their religion and justification for attacks on the other religion. Let people hold whatever faith they like; what we need is widespread and vehement ridiculing of any suggestion that faith should be accepted as superior to reason in any situation dealing with concrete, real-world issues.

If nothing else, instituting that should result in fewer murdered doctors.

- Grant

Paul McEnery

06-09-2009, 11:08 AM

Though, when I looked it up, I got this "A more recent pejorative usage variant of "dhimmi" and "dhimmitude" divorces the words from the historical context of jihad and applies them to situations where non-Muslims in the West and India are championing Islamic causes above others. "Dhimmi" is treated as analogous to "Quisling" within this context." Is that what you meant?.

It certainly does divorce the word from its historical and cultural meaning in order to turn it into a slure, but nope. I meant exactly what I said.

The only people who bring this word up, whether in arguments or on their websites or in casual conversation, are bigots.

In the same way that the only people who bang on about four twenty are stoners.

That's just a statement of empirical fact.

It's a term of art for fascists to use the word. It lends the bullshit they're trotting out a spurious authority. Rather like banging on about jihad.

One might point out that the practical meaning of dhimmi is "toleration" (so that's completely turning the word around), and the literal meaning of jihad is "justice".

Come to think of it, then, it's no surprise to find fascists having a problem here.

Paul McEnery

06-09-2009, 11:17 AM

Agument ad hominem..

It's a bit rich to be complaining about arguments ad hominem when you're spewing bigoted lies about people, don't you think?

Though not quite as rich as complaining about other people's fanatical religious politics, when that's exactly who you are.

Because that's what this is about, isn't it. If we treat muslims like human beings, then suddenly the excuses for Zionism (and American Imperialism) vanish into the air, and it stands revealed as the same ethnic, religious and political supremacism that drives what YOU see in Islam.

If elements in Islam have shifted towards supremacism, they've learned well from Israel, America and Europe.

Paul McEnery

06-09-2009, 11:22 AM

No, what he means (if I'm reading this correctly) isn't that Westerners are hurling "dhimmi" at Muslims as insults to them, but using the term to indicate that Muslims use it to dehumanize Westerners. So a Westerner using the term "dhimmi" is using it to indicate there is a Holy War underway perpetrated by Muslims. Not nutjob radical Muslims. Just Muslims.

That's also true.

It's the mirror.

We bomb the bejesus out of muslims, invade their countries, make them submit to our way of life, take their resources -- and then steal and misuse one of their words, too, so we can project it all onto them.

But mostly, I'm saying that "dhimmi" is a fascist tell. Nobody of good will, who's actually informed, would use the word that way.

Paul McEnery

06-09-2009, 11:34 AM

No it certainly is not. What it is is an attempt to create one, or even several. It starts with getting the largest international consortium of civilized nations to agree to making the questioning of a religion (or ridicule, or anything that defames) publicly condemnable, even if it is not an actionable law.

Still not getting it, are you.

It's an attempt to think up a way to condemn defaming A POPULATION for the purpose of VIOLENTLY MISTREATING THEM.

Muslim populations are not currently protected by the already existing protections against racism, because they're not pretending to be a single unified ethnicity like some religions I could mention. In fact, that's kind of the point of Islam, is that it's race neutral, and supportive of all religion's struggle out of sectarianism towards unity.

But if we accepted and understood that, then we'd have to find a better explanation for why muslim radicals have taken to extreme violence.

And let me tell you, as a London Irishman, I've heard all this crap before; and it takes the damn colonialists a long bloody time to face themselves and admit how they were wrong.

Note: I think it's a not terribly well thought through plan to achieve this; but I understand the thrust and intention.

king mob

06-09-2009, 12:00 PM

As my head is still here, my head has clearly not exploded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r7fgf1nnI4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hBXHtQDxOo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_WKFpak9Mc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGSWEdS1E54

Why is it that every time this subject comes up and far-right Americans are involved they blindly post racist material such as the above?

Paul McEnery

06-09-2009, 12:06 PM

Why is it that every time this subject comes up and far-right Americans are involved they blindly post racist material such as the above?

Because they are racist, and because non-racist materials slap their point around and makes it call them Daddy?

Imaginos666

06-09-2009, 12:15 PM

Does every thread have to devolve into some ridiculous showdown of ideologies?

king mob

06-09-2009, 12:16 PM

Is it from British people though, or from people across the pond?

I believe mainly Americans who are constantly shocked that Muslims can be British.

It's worth pointing out that Cornell has a history working in British television with his work on Doctor Who being his best known. His work has been seen by more people who will ever read Captain Britain, or any American comic this month. He's used to controversy, but this has taken him by surprise.

king mob

06-09-2009, 12:21 PM

There's a scene in #2 where all of Britain feels the Captain's death in their souls (he got better), where a group of Asian men (who might be Muslims but I'm not sure) are seen crying. Those posters probably missed the fucking point of that panel.

Those people were probably the same people who are confused by sportsmen like Amir Khan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Khan_(boxer)) or John Barnes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Barnes_(footballer)) who both managed to be British while being clearing Pakistani & Jamaican in origin.

They don't get the duality that many British immigrants have, especially the 2nd & 3rd generation who have been born here.

Paul McEnery

06-09-2009, 12:52 PM

Those people were probably the same people who are confused by sportsmen like Amir Khan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Khan_(boxer)) or John Barnes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Barnes_(footballer)) who both managed to be British while being clearing Pakistani & Jamaican in origin.

They don't get the duality that many British immigrants have, especially the 2nd & 3rd generation who have been born here.

And yet strangely not confused by South Africans like Allan Lamb. Or that young fella with the dolly bird who does the reverse sweep for six.

Paul McEnery

06-09-2009, 12:53 PM

Does every thread have to devolve into some ridiculous showdown of ideologies?

This one hasn't.

There's a racist ideology.

And there's the rest of us giving it a good kicking.

But by all means ask why anyone should want to post bigoted lies from an ideological standpoint, because that's a reasonable question.

Steven Grant

06-09-2009, 02:31 PM

We bomb the bejesus out of muslims, invade their countries, make them submit to our way of life, take their resources -- and then steal and misuse one of their words, too, so we can project it all onto them.

It occurred to me later that the lesson to be learned from Bart's brief response to my Crusades post is that invading Muslim countries creates indigenous support for violent radicalism and undermines unradicalized legal and educational systems.

But mostly, I'm saying that "dhimmi" is a fascist tell. Nobody of good will, who's actually informed, would use the word that way.

As I was unaware of the term until this conversation (I may have heard it in passing but if so never paid attention to it) I realize I must not be reading or viewing the right fascist media...

- Grant

Steven Grant

06-09-2009, 02:38 PM

And yet strangely not confused by South Africans like Allan Lamb. Or that young fella with the dolly bird who does the reverse sweep for six.

Hell, I'm still confused by Susan Boyle. Every time I see her on TV, my immediate reaction is that she's Jim Broadbent doing a Benny Hill sketch. Then I realize who it is...

- Grant

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-09-2009, 08:03 PM

Agument ad hominem. Try again.

You link to a KKK wanna be group, and he has to try harder to de-bunk your point?

Your points about Muslims in Brtiain are like saying 'Most Americans are alright, but some hate black people, and their numbers are growing'.
It paints a very untrue picture.
You hate Muslims - it's fucked up, but you do* - stop trying to reshape the world to fit your view of it.

*Deny if you want, but that 'It's fine for a Muslim to be a hero, just not Captain Britain' is fair proof that you seem them as lesser, you r other posts as mistrustful.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-09-2009, 08:12 PM

Because they are racist, and because non-racist materials slap their point around and makes it call them Daddy?

I would prefer if you used the term 'fact based and unbiased' as opposed to 'non-racist'.
By labeling it as such, you bring it down to the level of the 'racist' materials delusions.
One is real, the other is drivel.

Does every thread have to devolve into some ridiculous showdown of ideologies?

How do you want us to react?

"There are many Muslims in Britain who do not see themselves as British, but as an occupying force, and that the government payments they receive is a form of "dhimmi tax". There is also the issue of the government actually supporting forced marriage, even polygamous ones."
"While there are far more moderate Muslims than radical ones, the radical ones have created sufficient fear among the moderates that they are afraid to publicly oppose them, creating an illusion of most of the British Muslims making common cause with the radical jihadists. The British government's continually giving in to the radicals does not give the moderates much motivation to change this position.
To many, making a Muslim "Captain Britain", even one who bucks the trend, is too reminiscent of the effort to turn Great Britain into a Muslim territory, with the native British citizens reduced to dhimmi status."

Drivel like that, used to justify the outrage of morons deserves to called out.

I believe mainly Americans who are constantly shocked that Muslims can be British.

You're an optimist - I figured they were shocked that Muslim could be a hero.

It's worth pointing out that Cornell has a history working in British television with his work on Doctor Who being his best known. His work has been seen by more people who will ever read Captain Britain, or any American comic this month. He's used to controversy, but this has taken him by surprise.

And oddly, Marvel feels the need to launch the series by tying it into 'Secret Invasion', instead of a big banner stating 'From The Writer Of Doctor Who' as it's key selling point.

Same with Dwayne McDuffie - sack the bugger of JLA for saying why a story didn't make much sense, instead of paying attention to the fact that he makes more money for you with those characters in other media when you aren't messing with his stories...

Paul McEnery

06-09-2009, 09:27 PM

I would prefer if you used the term 'fact based and unbiased' as opposed to 'non-racist'.
By labeling it as such, you bring it down to the level of the 'racist' materials delusions.
One is real, the other is drivel.

I stand corrected.

And oddly, Marvel feels the need to launch the series by tying it into 'Secret Invasion', instead of a big banner stating 'From The Writer Of Doctor Who' as it's key selling point.

What are you talking about. Secret Invasion had an audience of, of, um....

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

bartl

06-09-2009, 10:27 PM

But it's not like the Crusaders conquered the Holy Land and the immediate Muslim response was to throw away math and science and become a bunch of religious fanatics intent on destroying the infidel. Knowledge, learning and art remained an Egyptian Muslim concern until they were simply forced to put resources elsewhere. Of course, as happens virtually everywhere, once science and learning are devalued, irrationality expands its territory and educational decline becomes inevitable.
Don't forget about philosophy; otherwise excellent point.

bartl

06-09-2009, 10:28 PM

Why is it that every time this subject comes up and far-right Americans are involved they blindly post racist material such as the above?
There is an American childhood game. One kid tags another, and yells out "You've got the cooties!" The child then either passes it on to another child, or hits his or her shoulder and yells, "Injected!"

In any case, "Injected!"

bartl

06-09-2009, 10:31 PM

You link to a KKK wanna be group, and he has to try harder to de-bunk your point?
If you are going to malign the source, malign those who made the videos, not the ones who posted it. Better, show how the videos are incorrect.

Pól Rua

06-09-2009, 10:36 PM

If you are going to malign the source, malign those who made the videos, not the ones who posted it. Better, show how the videos are incorrect.

So, you're using the old journalist's saw of "some people are saying..."

Not YOU of course, 'some people'.

You're just handing it 'round as though it's valid.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-09-2009, 10:38 PM

There is an American childhood game. One kid tags another, and yells out "You've got the cooties!" The child then either passes it on to another child, or hits his or her shoulder and yells, "Injected!"

In any case, "Injected!"

So your saying someone injected with you with racist bullshit, and you're trying to pass it on to us?

Maybe you could sue them or something.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-09-2009, 10:42 PM

If you are going to malign the source, malign those who made the videos, not the ones who posted it. Better, show how the videos are incorrect.

You post it as proof of your argument - if rubbish racist drivel proves your argument, then your argument is racist drivel.

And so hang on - you get to throw out some racist garbage about how lots of British are feeling rightfully scared about militant Muslims - who the government are caving into - I (along with all the others) say 'bullshit' (or 'Bart's trying to inject me with bullshit' or whatever) - and it's on us to prove that Militant Muslims being coddled by the government aren't really there?

Why don't you prove that your favourite senator doesn't have an illegitimate black child whilst your at it?

Edit to add:

To many, making a Muslim "Captain Britain", even one who bucks the trend, is too reminiscent of the effort to turn Great Britain into a Muslim territory, with the native British citizens reduced to dhimmi status.

Sorry, all. When I read in this thread that they had put a female Muslim "lead" in Captain Britain, I just assumed they were telling the truth, and that a female Muslim had become Captain Britain. If she is just a patriotic British superhero, then I see no reason why any reasonable person should object.

Just thought it was worth reminding you of what you were saying, that you now want us to disprove...

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-09-2009, 11:38 PM

If you are going to malign the source, malign those who made the videos, not the ones who posted it.
Better, show how the videos are incorrect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r7fgf1nnI4

Not actual journalism - just an opinion piece.
It actual leaves out that the men were convicted of hate crimes - so it wasn't unfair treatment.
Three even fled to Pakistan - where there is no extradition treaty, except that Mohammad Sarwar, the MP of the area, of Pakistani origin, negotiated with the Pakistani government and got theme extradited.
Criticism was also leveled at the BBC for ignoring the story because it happened it Scotland.

From the posters homepage: 'ISLAM DOES TO A PERSON WHAT RABBIES DOES TO A DOG.'

Fantastic source there Bart.

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

A segment about a private school teaching from their bible... much like Liberty University really... and less prominent as well.
Note how everyone interviewed seems shocked and shamed by it - and the school headmaster denies that it is taught as part of the curriculum.

And now for the two from news channels in a different country...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_WKFpak9Mc

Jackpot!
Someone actually mentions Militant Muslims as an actual segment of society...

Doesn't seem much more than the sorts who want a war in Israel to kick off the rapture though.
The Daily Mail says Ed Husain is 'a brave Muslim'...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/DailyMailFrontPage.jpg.
Obviously he's disliked by extremists, but even moderate Muslims (ie. normal people) say that his story is far from typical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGSWEdS1E54

Last and least, a story about a group of radical extremists... pulling so much power, that a man on the street who identifies himself as Muslim - living in one of Englands largest Muslim neighborhoods - hasn't even heard of Shari law.
Obvious sign of them taking over...

But yeah, watch it again dude - it looks real bad at their events, or when it cuts to a 'traditional wedding' - but on the street, which is what you were arguing, it looked pretty damn normal to me.

From the posters page: 'Sitting back and whispering behind closed doors on how upset you are with the way the UK has been taken from you must now be voiced out loud & proud.
Be proud of your history and what your country used to be.Liberals and antis will scream racist and nazi as this is their only way of targeting you to try to keep you quiet.
Smile,you know the truth,your family members fought nazis,you know in your own mind you want to save you identity.'

From the political party they link to on their page, the BNP - on immigration: 'On current demographic trends, we, the native British people, will be an ethnic minority in our own country within sixty years.'
Obviously a fair and balanced source.

You've cherry picked videos - three from programs, one put together at some chaps home - posted by racists, showing that the group they hate is horrible.
Bravo.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-09-2009, 11:51 PM

What are you talking about. Secret Invasion had an audience of, of, um....

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

DC sure missed the opportunity when it came to Green Arrow - putting Kevin Smiths name on it, all big and upfront, when they could of sold the shit out of that thing with 'Spinning out of THE FINAL NIGHT'.
Stupid DC.

Steven Grant

06-10-2009, 12:14 AM

You post it as proof of your argument - if rubbish racist drivel proves your argument, then your argument is racist drivel.

Of course, racist drivel is no proof of anything. What you mean to say is that if racist drivel is all he can provide in support of his argument, then his argument is racist drivel.

and it's on us to prove that Militant Muslims being coddled by the government aren't really there?

Coddled?!! Don't you mean acquiesced to in preference to British citizens?!!

Why don't you prove that your favourite senator doesn't have an illegitimate black child whilst your at it?

Pretty hard to do; I'm pretty sure they all have at least one by now. I mean, if Strom Thurman had one every politician must have one. (I hear even Barack Obama has a black child.

- Grant

P.S. Yeah, coming back following page after page of refutation then saying, "Okay, if you don't like my sources, then prove me wrong" is a common Internet "debate" ploy, though much of the time I don't believe it's used consciously.

Paul McEnery

06-10-2009, 12:20 AM

If you are going to malign the source, malign those who made the videos, not the ones who posted it. Better, show how the videos are incorrect.

And you'd stand for that if people posted video after video of antisemitic horseshit, would you.

Let's just say I did.

It's now up to you to prove it's false.

Hell, I think I'm ahead of this game. Having posted nothing at all, now you've got to waste a few decades proving all the antisemitic horseshit was false.

Charles RB

06-10-2009, 05:51 AM

And oddly, Marvel feels the need to launch the series by tying it into 'Secret Invasion', instead of a big banner stating 'From The Writer Of Doctor Who' as it's key selling point.

It says something about my long-term comic fandom that it genuinely didn't occur to me until now that they should've done that.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/DailyMailFrontPage.jpg

"BRITISH PEOPLE 'SOMETIMES EMIGRATE' SHOCKER!"

Presumably their next headline will mention the terrifying fact that British people go on holiday outside of Britain. Because there are foreigners in Skegness and Blackpool!

dancj

06-10-2009, 06:17 AM

From the posters homepage: 'ISLAM DOES TO A PERSON WHAT RABBIES DOES TO A DOG.'
What do rabbis do to dogs? I've got a mental image of circumcised dogs running around!

bartl

06-10-2009, 08:05 AM

So your saying someone injected with you with racist bullshit, and you're trying to pass it on to us?
No, I am saying that if you use childish name calling with the hope that it might have some effect, I will treat it with the disrespect it deserves.

bartl

06-10-2009, 08:29 AM

You post it as proof of your argument
And so hang on - you get to throw out some racist garbage about how lots of British are feeling rightfully scared about militant Muslims - who the government are caving into - I (along with all the others) say 'bullshit' (or 'Bart's trying to inject me with bullshit' or whatever) - and it's on us to prove that Militant Muslims being coddled by the government aren't really there?
My initial contention had to do with the belief, and I stated that the belief was largely illusory. In addition, I never said I was presenting proof. There is a difference between proof and evidence.

However, with the current educational deficiencies, people aren't taught basic logic anymore (evidence that what happened to Islam is now happening to Western civilization, with religious fanaticism on both the right and the left taking over and treating knowledge of such things as of lesser importance).

Why don't you prove that your favourite senator doesn't have an illegitimate black child whilst your at it?
I can't; he does.

Just thought it was worth reminding you of what you were saying, that you now want us to disprove...
OK, let's go over it again. Someone wrote (and I believed without checking the facts) a statement which, for all intents and purposes, said that an Islamic woman had become Captain Britain, and that a lot of people had become upset.

I had pointed out that the combination of the radical jihadist movement's actions in Britain, and the British government's giving in to much of it, without strong voices on the other side, had (or, in this case, would have) given a lot of people the idea that making an Islamic woman the spirit of Great Britain that it was an "in your face" mockery. Not that I agreed with it, merely that the attitude was understandable and not insanity. As I stated, reasonable people can disagree with each other.

In any case, when I found out that, apparently, being the lead in a Captain Britain comic did NOT mean being "Captain Britain", then I took back my statement; nothing in the current situation would justify a reasonable person believing that making an Islamic woman a patriotic superhero in Britain is somehow wrong or insulting.

I was still treated like someone who had suggested that the Bible had internal inconsistencies in a roomful of fundamentalist Christians. And, when I quickly looked up a few videos showing how the beliefs could occur, I got the equivalent of, "it doesn't matter what the videos contained, or who made them. The people who POSTED them are damned atheists!"

For those who call me a racist, consider. If one allows behavior among radicals of a so-called "racial", or, more properly, a geo-cultural/religious group (as, frankly, what we call "race" is pretty much a fiction anyway, albeit a commonly believed one) that we would not accept from our own country, or countries like Britain of the United States, the isn't one treating the former group as if they are somehow subhuman, unable to live up to the standards that they expect for themselves?

bartl

06-10-2009, 08:30 AM

So, you're using the old journalist's saw of "some people are saying..."

Not YOU of course, 'some people'.

You're just handing it 'round as though it's valid.
No, OTHERS here started with "some people are saying".

Pól Rua

06-10-2009, 09:00 AM

No, OTHERS here started with "some people are saying".

Oh, I thought you were trying to distance yourself from a bunch of extremist right-wing racist nutbags.

Fair enough.

Charles RB

06-10-2009, 09:10 AM

No, I am saying that if you use childish name calling with the hope that it might have some effect, I will treat it with the disrespect it deserves.

You opened with inaccurate and Islamophobic falsehoods, and you've tried to back it up with a video at a pro-racism account. But you don't seem to like us treating that with the disrespect it deserves.

I had pointed out that the combination of the radical jihadist movement's actions in Britain, and the British government's giving in to much of it, without strong voices on the other side

And now you're doing it again. You said this before and it was refuted, and now you're saying it again even though it was pointed out as wrong! Bloody hell.

bartl

06-10-2009, 09:17 AM

First of all, thank you. You bring up some excellent points. As far as "cherry picking videos", what I did was look up "Islamic extremism britain" on youtube, and grabbed a more or less random handful. Anybody interested in looking further can feel free to do the same thing, with whatever critical facilities they choose. A few comments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r7fgf1nnI4

Not actual journalism - just an opinion piece.
The point the piece was trying to make, as far as I saw, was the news coverage of the crimes based on who the perpetrators and victims were. I looked up the coverage, but did not look at the poster's home page, which was, in this case, relevant. One comment on that:
From the posters homepage: 'ISLAM DOES TO A PERSON WHAT RABBIES DOES TO A DOG.'
It's SUPPOSED to be a quote from Winston Churchill. The original (which appears to have been recently removed from winstonchurchill.org website, although I was able to find it still cached in their search engine), is "Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy." Note that Churchill was referring to religious fanaticism, and, frankly, the statement is probably correct for any religion, including Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or Marxism (although I would admit that fanatical Buddhism would be an oxymoron, kind of like a "radical moderate").

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

A segment about a private school teaching from their bible... much like Liberty University really... and less prominent as well.
Note how everyone interviewed seems shocked and shamed by it - and the school headmaster denies that it is taught as part of the curriculum.
But since my initial point was about perception, the fact that media such as the BBC and CNN are covering these stories simply shows that reasonable people can get the perception that there is an active Islamic supremacist movement in Great Britain, the British government has been letting it happen, and there is little or no dissent taking place among non-supremacist Muslims, regardless of what the objective truth is.

bartl

06-10-2009, 09:20 AM

P.S. Yeah, coming back following page after page of refutation then saying, "Okay, if you don't like my sources, then prove me wrong" is a common Internet "debate" ploy, though much of the time I don't believe it's used consciously.
Except that FGJ DID come back and post relevant and intelligent comments on the pieces.

Paul McEnery

06-10-2009, 10:39 AM

Charles RB

06-10-2009, 10:43 AM

the fact that media such as the BBC and CNN are covering these stories simply shows that reasonable people can get the perception that there is an active Islamic supremacist movement in Great Britain, the British government has been letting it happen, and there is little or no dissent taking place among non-supremacist Muslims, regardless of what the objective truth is.

Not really, because the BBC has never to my knowledge reported "British government lets supremacists run riot, moderates say nothing". I know for a fact it's reported on things the government did against extremists and on Muslims speaking up.

Paul McEnery

06-10-2009, 10:49 AM

Not really, because the BBC has never to my knowledge reported "British government lets supremacists run riot, moderates say nothing". I know for a fact it's reported on things the government did against extremists and on Muslims speaking up.

You're not going to find that with a confirmation bias google search, are you.

I went looking for St. Anselm's ontological proof today, but all I got was pictures of Anne Magnusson naked. How'd that happen?

king mob

06-10-2009, 12:14 PM

And oddly, Marvel feels the need to launch the series by tying it into 'Secret Invasion', instead of a big banner stating 'From The Writer Of Doctor Who' as it's key selling point.

Odd isn't it? One of the most popular programmes in the UK and huge cult hit worldwide & they missed a trick to cash in on that. They could have added a few thousand in sales just in the UK alone.

king mob

06-10-2009, 12:18 PM

If you are going to malign the source, malign those who made the videos, not the ones who posted it. Better, show how the videos are incorrect.

You know you could have checked out if those videos were accurate, & perhaps the fact one was posted by a BNP sympathiser could have given you a wee bit of a hint as to what they were.

Or you could just not have given a fuck & are just trying to carrying on backtracking because you've been sussed.

king mob

06-10-2009, 12:32 PM

However, with the current educational deficiencies

Which can result in.....

OK, let's go over it again. Someone wrote (and I believed without checking the facts) a statement which, for all intents and purposes, said that an Islamic woman had become Captain Britain, and that a lot of people had become upset.

People being unable to read something without letting their own prejudices overrule what's in front of them.

I had pointed out that the combination of the radical jihadist movement's actions in Britain, and the British government's giving in to much of it, without strong voices on the other side

Still waiting for you to prove that the Labour government are actually doing this.

, had (or, in this case, would have) given a lot of people the idea that making an Islamic woman the spirit of Great Britain that it was an "in your face" mockery.

Which wasn't anything like what was mentioned.

Not that I agreed with it

"I'm not a racist but'

merely that the attitude was understandable and not insanity. As I stated, reasonable people can disagree with each other.

You've not been reasonable and you've written nonsense as well as repeating the same tired American racist viewpoints about Britain.

In any case, when I found out that, apparently, being the lead in a Captain Britain comic did NOT mean being "Captain Britain", then I took back my statement; nothing in the current situation would justify a reasonable person believing that making an Islamic woman a patriotic superhero in Britain is somehow wrong or insulting.

Your back must be hurting after that.

I was still treated like someone who had suggested that the Bible had internal inconsistencies in a roomful of fundamentalist Christians.

Or your lies and racism was called out by people who actually live in the UK. You were asked for evidence and you did this:

And, when I quickly looked up a few videos showing how the beliefs could occur
Which proved what? You believe the words of racist over anyone else because they fit your argument.

I got the equivalent of, "it doesn't matter what the videos contained, or who made them. The people who POSTED them are damned atheists!"

Bollocks. You posted racist videos. Stop trying to make yourself look fucking saintly.

For those who call me a racist, consider. If one allows behavior among radicals of a so-called "racial", or, more properly, a geo-cultural/religious group (as, frankly, what we call "race" is pretty much a fiction anyway, albeit a commonly believed one) that we would not accept from our own country, or countries like Britain of the United States, the isn't one treating the former group as if they are somehow subhuman, unable to live up to the standards that they expect for themselves?

So you hate Muslims then.

rorshach1982

06-10-2009, 01:40 PM

Perhaps not, but it does inform it, and I don't see that anything can be successfully addressed unless we account for conditions and situations that created the current issues. Nothing gets resolved that way.

The problem I have with this discussion of the history is that it overtakes the current issues and becomes a game of one-ups-man-ship of historical trumping. "You say Islam is violent? Well what about the Inquisition?!" The past is done, horrible as it is. It's fine to know, but I've found it more a hindrance then a help when trying to look objectively at modern religious horrors.

We also live in a country who many believe is based on systems of religion created millennia ago by primitive tribes in considerably different circumstances. You're right; there's no reason Islam should be "protected" from discussion of its own history, but we can't discuss their history without casting an equally severe eye on our own.

And I'm all for it. The people who falsely believe this country was founded by Bible Thumping reformers and God Fearing farmers are people not well informed about their country's history and I'm glad when anyone takes the time to correctly point out that Thomas Jefferson loathed religion and Abe Lincoln was decidedly agnostic. The idea that we are a Christian Nation is ridiculous and I hope people cast a baleful eye toward Christianity's intrusions on democracy.

Religion is religion; it's all hooey. Curiously, in occupied Iraq the tendency among the young since Saddam was deposed has been neither to convert to Christianity (despite the hordes of missionaries we underwrote into the country) nor to become more staunchly Muslim, but to embrace atheism.

That makes me smile.

I don't know that Islam is routinely used to justify violence, except on 24. I suspect most Muslims don't advocate violence anymore than most Christians do. There are certainly passages in the Koran that "advocate" violence, but others vehemently denounce it, the same as the Bible. The fact is that some people just want violence, and cherrypick authorization for it.

The trick, I think, is to denounce religions without denouncing their believers. I don't even feel any great urge to denounce religions, and denouncing specific religions tends to prompt believers in other faiths to take that as backing of their religion and justification for attacks on the other religion. Let people hold whatever faith they like; what we need is widespread and vehement ridiculing of any suggestion that faith should be accepted as superior to reason in any situation dealing with concrete, real-world issues.

If nothing else, instituting that should result in fewer murdered doctors.

- Grant

It's nice to hear someone else say it. Thanks. I thoroughly believe that most people are rational (to an extent) and the more modernized the world becomes, the easier it is to see the fallacies that stem from religious belief. Even believers don't really believe in the tenets of organized religion fully, not if they are the "moderates" I keep hearing about, because people who claim to follow an archaic set of rules and principles made up my desert nomads two thousand years ago, yet still thrive in a pluralistic and modern society clearly aren't following their founding documents word for word.

Religion is anti-rational. It's anti- many things, but that's its main problem. It asks for faith-based decisions backed by the immutable word of the creator of universe. And if the immutable words of god, written in a book by men who must have been blessed to convey his almighty words, say that apostasy demands a death sentence, that a woman has less rights than a man, what does that man who truly believes do when faced with that? Protecting these ridiculous systems in anyway disgusts me. We rush into the defense of religion, sometimes too quickly, because (and this is for my generation I think) we grew up in the PC-conscious era. We should defend the right to believe in a religion, but we should never give its claims any legal validity.

bartl

06-10-2009, 02:27 PM

Lame excuse number 97 from the big book of internet bigotry:

I wasn't saying that myself, I was just saying that other people say that!
I wasn't even saying that other people were saying that. I was responding to comments that other people were saying that.

bartl

06-10-2009, 02:33 PM

Still waiting for you to prove that the Labour government are actually doing this.
Question: If you don't like the source, will you accept the evidence?

Paul McEnery

06-10-2009, 02:42 PM

The problem I have with this discussion of the history is that it overtakes the current issues and becomes a game of one-ups-man-ship of historical trumping. "You say Islam is violent? Well what about the Inquisition?!" The past is done, horrible as it is. It's fine to know, but I've found it more a hindrance then a help when trying to look objectively at modern religious horrors.

Not really, no.

Being ignorant of the history means being ignorant of the meaning of what people say. Which means you're more easily gulled by the bullshit artists.

Religion is anti-rational. It's anti- many things, but that's its main problem.

No again. Religion is arational.

It asks for faith-based decisions backed by the immutable word of the creator of universe.

No again again. That's only Christian fundamentalism, not all religion.

And if the immutable words of god, written in a book by men who must have been blessed to convey his almighty words, say that apostasy demands a death sentence, that a woman has less rights than a man, what does that man who truly believes do when faced with that? Protecting these ridiculous systems in anyway disgusts me.

Again, let me stop you there. You're thinking entirely within the constructs of Christian Fundamentalism. They don't apply to any other religion; hell, they don't even apply to the rest of Christiainity.

We rush into the defense of religion, sometimes too quickly, because (and this is for my generation I think) we grew up in the PC-conscious era. .
Nonsense.

People who belong to a religion defend their religion. And people like myself who've studied comparative religion like to dispel people's misunderstandings.

Otherwise, people are simply concerned to defend a population against bigots.

We should defend the right to believe in a religion, but we should never give its claims any legal validity.
Of course.

But the defence of muslims against bigotry and violence isn't about giving Islam legal validity, is it.

Paul McEnery

06-10-2009, 02:44 PM

Question: If you don't like the source, will you accept the evidence?

I'm going to go ask the nearest five year old his ideas on the subject. They've got more authority than anything you'll ever come up with.

Paul McEnery

06-10-2009, 02:45 PM

I wasn't even saying that other people were saying that. I was responding to comments that other people were saying that.

Bullshit.

You yourself spewed bigotry.

Then, to defend your bigotry, you cited some bigots.

Then you started to lie to make yourself look less like a bigot.

What will you try next, I wonder?

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-10-2009, 06:32 PM

Odd isn't it? One of the most popular programmes in the UK and huge cult hit worldwide & they missed a trick to cash in on that. They could have added a few thousand in sales just in the UK alone.

I read a comment from Cornell (http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=21439) saying ' In the UK we were doing very well, but those numbers don't get added into the Diamond sales figures.'

I really hope to god Marvel aren't as silly as that - I hope they didn't just count the diamond numbers.
I know Hollywood counts American box-office profits as the end game as everything makes it's money back once it goes worldwide and hits DVD and TV sales... but surely a sale is a sale.

Pól Rua

06-10-2009, 07:06 PM

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-10-2009, 07:34 PM

"BRITISH PEOPLE 'SOMETIMES EMIGRATE' SHOCKER!"

Presumably their next headline will mention the terrifying fact that British people go on holiday outside of Britain. Because there are foreigners in Skegness and Blackpool!

I just really love 'The countless thousands we don't even know about'.

'There are so many they can't be counted... they are in their thousands.... we have no facts on this'.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-10-2009, 07:41 PM

No, I am saying that if you use childish name calling with the hope that it might have some effect, I will treat it with the disrespect it deserves.

Yeah, but the first one was racist drivel.

He was calling a spade a spade.

I had pointed out that the combination of the radical jihadist movement's actions in Britain, and the British government's giving in to much of it, without strong voices on the other side, had (or, in this case, would have) given a lot of people the idea that making an Islamic woman the spirit of Great Britain that it was an "in your face" mockery. Not that I agreed with it, merely that the attitude was understandable and not insanity. As I stated, reasonable people can disagree with each other.

I like that they are radical jihadists... as opposed to moderate jihadists, or left leaning jihadists.
I would say extreme Islamic movement as oppose to Jihadist.

However, I've yet to see proof of the British government is giving in to radical Islamic extremists, and not just making policy to protect and serve it's citizens.

Understand the sorts of things that set off outrage - In Australia, schools have to provide opportunity for scripture classes - in primary school, abut an hour a week, high school it depends (mine worked out a once a term deal) - where someone from a Church comes and educates about the religion.
When I started at school it was Catholic and Anglican only.
A note from parents was needed stating if the child was not to attend these classes - you had to opt out.
There was 'outrage' when Muslim groups, and other religious groups were granted the same right -'It shouldn't be taught in our schools' etc.

Another one that hit the news here was the proposal of an Islamic school in Camden.
Recently it was rejected for planning issues (http://macarthur-chronicle-campbelltown.whereilive.com.au/news/story/camden-islamic-school-plans-turned-down-by-nsw-land-and-environment-court/), but when first put before council, here is an example of how people reacted. (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23770582-5013404,00.html).
This is for a school remember - one that still has to operate with a NSW Dept. Of Education approved curriculum, still governed by the law on what can be taught and what can't be.

In any case, when I found out that, apparently, being the lead in a Captain Britain comic did NOT mean being "Captain Britain", then I took back my statement; nothing in the current situation would justify a reasonable person believing that making an Islamic woman a patriotic superhero in Britain is somehow wrong or insulting.

But agree her being 'Captain Britain' would be, despite being a British citizen.
(And Captain Britain is such a source of national pride after all...)

I was still treated like someone who had suggested that the Bible had internal inconsistencies in a roomful of fundamentalist Christians. And, when I quickly looked up a few videos showing how the beliefs could occur, I got the equivalent of, "it doesn't matter what the videos contained, or who made them. The people who POSTED them are damned atheists!"

Where fundamentalists because we require proof of something before we slur a group of people?
A few videos aren't proof of a belief, nor even how it could occur.
How did YOU come to this belief Bart - these are random videos you found to show how 'someone could come to this belief' - how did you come to this belief?

For those who call me a racist, consider. If one allows behavior among radicals of a so-called "racial", or, more properly, a geo-cultural/religious group (as, frankly, what we call "race" is pretty much a fiction anyway, albeit a commonly believed one) that we would not accept from our own country, or countries like Britain of the United States, the isn't one treating the former group as if they are somehow subhuman, unable to live up to the standards that they expect for themselves?

Your tarring a whole group, and being an apologist for those that fear them, and we're calling bollocks to it - and calling it out for the racist fear mongering (or the result of racist fear mongering) that it is.
I don't like the fringe extremists on either side, and hating the majority for those peoples actions/beliefs is what allows them to drag people into their beliefs.

This is just CoE and Catholics all over again, except there's different coloured skins involved as well.
Taking sides or justifying the feelings of bigoted morons of either stripe didn't help sort that one out, and it won't sort this one out.
Treating everyone the same did.

First of all, thank you. You bring up some excellent points. As far as "cherry picking videos", what I did was look up "Islamic extremism britain" on youtube, and grabbed a more or less random handful. Anybody interested in looking further can feel free to do the same thing, with whatever critical facilities they choose. A few comments.

Grabbed a random handful?
I mean, I'll be honest, I used bloody wikipedia for rebuttals - I did check for pages with citations though - but Youtube?
Come on man.

The point the piece was trying to make, as far as I saw, was the news coverage of the crimes based on who the perpetrators and victims were. I looked up the coverage, but did not look at the poster's home page, which was, in this case, relevant.

But it wasn't proof of shit - regardless of the fact the fella hates the Muslims, it was a video of stills with text commentary added.
No citation of anything.
Proof some people hate Paki's, proof some Pakistani's are cocks.
Not proof of an overriding hatred on either side though.

It's SUPPOSED to be a quote from Winston Churchill.

And Churchill was a racist.

Pretty bloody good in WW2, but not a nice fellow.

But since my initial point was about perception, the fact that media such as the BBC and CNN are covering these stories simply shows that reasonable people can get the perception that there is an active Islamic supremacist movement in Great Britain, the British government has been letting it happen, and there is little or no dissent taking place among non-supremacist Muslims, regardless of what the objective truth is.

Not really - they run a lot news stories the BBC.
One story about the outrages at a private school does not prove that it's a massive thing - if anything, I'm pretty sure the BBC would have done it to stir more shit over outrage at Blair's private schools policy.
(But then again, I read about that from George Monbiot in 'Bring On The Apocalypse', who had a column on how the terms of Blair's private schools did allow for whatever the owner wanted taught... who I'd assume anyone on the right would disregard - I can't actually find the article online, just others of him opposing privatisation of healthcare, of parklands - privatisation of anything really, a godless commie by US standards).

The two CNN stories I assume were made for American audiences, and really fail to make an actual case.
Proof of the leanings of at an extreme Mosque included a faded torn bill, and a street in a Muslim community where they obviously couldn't find anyone to side with the extremists.

None of it proves a national fear, nor what a reasonable person would do - a reasonable person is expected to be able to sort through that and see that it's three news reports, about different things, and one loony, all found on the internet... that's not enough for a reasonable belief.

I think your backtracking like all hell, redefining what you said, and struggling for wriggle room.
I'd be happy with your penance if you went down and picked up the Captain Britain and MI:13 trade.
See the chick who can't be Captain Britain, but your fine with carrying Excalibur.

bartl

06-10-2009, 10:34 PM

I like that they are radical jihadists... as opposed to moderate jihadists, or left leaning jihadists.
I would say extreme Islamic movement as oppose to Jihadist.
There are, in fact, moderate jihadists; most Islamic people are. They consider Jihad to be an internal fight to overcome one's own limitations. The radical jihadists take jihad as an external fight, Islam against the rest of the world.

However, I've yet to see proof of the British government is giving in to radical Islamic extremists, and not just making policy to protect and serve it's citizens.
From the London Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article1323814.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article544443.ece

Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/12/AR2006081201036.html

BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7900779.stm

But agree her being 'Captain Britain' would be, despite being a British citizen.
(And Captain Britain is such a source of national pride after all...)
If a REAL Islamic woman became a REAL Captain Britain, that would be one thing. On the other hand, consider artist Chris Ofili. He created a painting of the Madonna using elephant dung. He claimed that, in Africa, this would be considered complimentary, but he knew damned well that, to his potential audience, it was a slap in the face. Given the current unrest in Great Britain, and statements even by a bishop, like this one,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-506419/Islamic-extremism-creating-areas-non-Muslims-Britain-says-Bishop-Rochester.html
it would be naive to not take a fictional Islamic Captain Britain as a political statement.

By the way, can you please point out a racist statement I have made? I would very much like to apologize for it.

Adam C

06-10-2009, 11:56 PM

On the other hand, consider artist Chris Ofili. He created a painting of the Madonna using elephant dung. He claimed that, in Africa, this would be considered complimentary, but he knew damned well that, to his potential audience, it was a slap in the face.

See, what's funny to me about this is that Olifi's a satirist and he's playing around (http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/1999/02/10feature.html) with people's conceptions of aesthetics.

He placed boxed ads in the tony Brit art magazine Frieze that read, simply, "Elephant Shit," amid ads announcing other art shows. He used lumps of dung to prop up some of his paintings. "Somehow it makes the painting feel more relaxed, instead of being pinned upon the wall like it's being crucified ... [The painting can] stand in its own shit and watch the other paintings being crucified on the wall." He has placed dung in a paper bag for his installment "Bag of Shit," and in 1993, held a Shit Sale in Brick Lane Market in London. He has played with the street parlance of "shit" as drugs, and the fact that some people have assumed he was selling drugs because of his dreadlocked hairstyle -- hence his work "Shithead": a piece of elephant dung, which resembles hashish, incorporating his own hair.

"I'm interested in ideas of beauty ... and elephant dung in itself is quite a beautiful object. But a different sort of beauty. And I want to bring the kind of beauty and decorativeness of the paintings together with the apparent concept of ugliness of the shit and put them together and try and make them exist."

Also, he's Catholic (http://www.adherents.com/people/po/Chris_Ofili.html).

Given the current unrest in Great Britain, and statements even by a bishop, like this one,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-506419/Islamic-extremism-creating-areas-non-Muslims-Britain-says-Bishop-Rochester.html
it would be naive to not take a fictional Islamic Captain Britain as a political statement.

Just to deal with this briefly, the Bishop's speech isn't that convincing in absence of supporting examples of no-go areas.

And the Daily Mail has a reputation as being a dodgy tabloid appealing to parochial, reactionary interests because...well it is. There's a link on the following article to an op-ed piece that talks about why the Bishop is right. Surprisingly it contains no reference to any examples and bitches about Labour investing in money in giving Muslim woman assertiveness training courses because it would be perceived as the government lavishing disproportionate attention on Muslims. And all from a paper that ran a fear mongering campaign against the HPV vaccine in Britain, while supporting it in its Irish version.

Tages

06-11-2009, 12:07 AM

The Daily Mail is the favorite paper of mouth-breathers and knuckle-draggers, for one, with a reputation that is the furthest thing from reliable since they tend to uncritically print absolutely anything the LCD wants to hear.

I wouldn't trust them to tell me what color the sky is.

(And someone who slags wikipedia for being unreliable definitely has no business citing it)

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-11-2009, 01:06 AM

There are, in fact, moderate jihadists; most Islamic people are. They consider Jihad to be an internal fight to overcome one's own limitations. The radical jihadists take jihad as an external fight, Islam against the rest of the world.

Sure... you know full well the implication of that word in an non-Islamic sense, and what the mind immediately goes to when we read it.
Don't try and act all Mr. Expert now.

And remember with the following, your point was that a female Muslim is a slap in the face to British people because it reminds them of the attempt to turn England into an Islamic state, forced upon them by extremists who the government goes out of it's way to protect - and that this is a reasonable iew to have.
(Which as you've not got one UK person here to agree with is quite bizarre).
That still what you arguing for, or you trying to prove with new evidence that you aren't racist for having said that?

I shall also point out again, three of these are op-ed pieces.

From the London Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article1323814.ece

Did you read that opinion piece beyond the headline?
It's not actually about anything you are saying.
It's less about the Government providing refuge, and more about they have to take action against this religious group.
(She also mentions Blairs creation of the private schools giving ground to this sort of thing.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article544443.ece
You bring up bombers?
To discuss a nation... okay...

As it points out, there have been bombers in Spain, Bali and America - are these places in the grip of extremeism?
Bali there's an argument - but America?
I presume after the shoot out at the museum today - horrible, horrible stuff - that America is in the grip of the neo-nazis as well?

Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/12/AR2006081201036.html

That's from three years ago, and there hasn't been another attack, which you'd imagine there would be after this article.

BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7900779.stm

This is unrelated to anything you talk about.
A member of the opposition says cultural sensitivity is getting in the way, of stopping polygamy.
The government says no it's not, and that it's illegal and they try and stop it.

If a REAL Islamic woman became a REAL Captain Britain, that would be one thing. On the other hand, consider artist Chris Ofili. He created a painting of the Madonna using elephant dung. He claimed that, in Africa, this would be considered complimentary, but he knew damned well that, to his potential audience, it was a slap in the face. Given the current unrest in Great Britain, and statements even by a bishop, like this one,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-506419/Islamic-extremism-creating-areas-non-Muslims-Britain-says-Bishop-Rochester.html
it would be naive to not take a fictional Islamic Captain Britain as a political statement.

Unless it was by a white male author writing a book to reflect the REAL Britain as it is today, which it was.

By the way, can you please point out a racist statement I have made? I would very much like to apologize for it.

You slippery little eel.
Preferred ignorance and back door slights against a people, and you want to know why we think your a bigot?

'Britain is in the grip of extreme Islamic groups and the government refuses to take issue, people are rightfully outraged about a Muslim being Captain Britain as it's a slap in the face and reminds them of this'.

You've got no proof of this, so take back the statement - continuing to support it is you being a bigot.

How did you come to this conclusion?
It wasn't those articles, you've gone looking for them since.
Where did you get this idea that Britain was in the grip of Islamic Extremists, the majority of the people were scared, and were resentful that the government was protecting and encouraging them?
Where has there been any proof that a Muslim comic character reminds a Brit of the attempts to make their country an Islamic state?

You know what this government protection is - it's called having a sizeable Muslim population.
It seems odd to you, but in England, there are a lot of Muslims.
They are British citizens.
As long as they aren't breaking the law, the government won't stop them.

What should they do? Start spying on churches?
I'm all for it, I want the American government in American churches - most hate crimes or murders of people who perform abortions come from those who identify themselves as Christian.
Oh, only spy on their churches.

'What, I just linked to the videos all I did was type in Islamic Extremists - how was I to know they would be cherry picked and posted by racists. Not my fault. What? I didn't say I believed them, just that a reasonable person could come to that conclusion'.

Honestly, if being a muppet is your excuse for acting like a muppet, don't get upset when your called a muppet.

king mob

06-11-2009, 01:07 AM

Question: If you don't like the source, will you accept the evidence?

Is this a way of you trying to find the bollocks to say 'why no, I can't prove that a Labour government that has demosied Muslims and contains Jack Straw, has been sucking up to those filthy Jihadists'?

king mob

06-11-2009, 01:10 AM

I read a comment from Cornell (http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=21439) saying ' In the UK we were doing very well, but those numbers don't get added into the Diamond sales figures.'

I really hope to god Marvel aren't as silly as that - I hope they didn't just count the diamond numbers.
I know Hollywood counts American box-office profits as the end game as everything makes it's money back once it goes worldwide and hits DVD and TV sales... but surely a sale is a sale.

If Marvel have done that then they've been incredibly stupid. Compare it with DC, who when they launched Vertigo saw it wasn't selling well in the US, but certain titles were shifting huge numbers in the UK that made it worthwhile for them to continue with Vertigo.

king mob

06-11-2009, 01:18 AM

There are, in fact, moderate jihadists; most Islamic people are. They consider Jihad to be an internal fight to overcome one's own limitations. The radical jihadists take jihad as an external fight, Islam against the rest of the world.

That's funny, the Muslim lad I work with has more worries about paying his mortgage than trying to take Islam to the world. Do you even know any Muslims?

If a REAL Islamic woman became a REAL Captain Britain, that would be one thing.

It's comics, nothing is real.

Given the current unrest in Great Britain

Listen. I live in one o the most multicultural areas of one of the most multicultural cities in the UK. Yes, there's problems but trying to discuss those problems in a sensible manner is fucking hard because tossers like you cloud the discussions with your fearmongering and racism.

Paul McEnery

06-11-2009, 01:39 AM

Paul McEnery

06-11-2009, 01:41 AM

The Daily Mail is the favorite paper of mouth-breathers and knuckle-draggers, for one, with a reputation that is the furthest thing from reliable since they tend to uncritically print absolutely anything the LCD wants to hear.

I wouldn't trust them to tell me what color the sky is.

It's not black. It's not, it's not. See all those stars? It's white!

Charles RB

06-11-2009, 07:53 AM

Question: If you don't like the source, will you accept the evidence?

Ah. So the source is going to be crap then.

Let's face it, you've already tried to claim the BBC doesn't report on government action against extremists.

From the London Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle1323814.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...icle544443.ece

Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081201036.html

BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7900779.stm

First and second articles (and it's The Times, not London Times - the clue is on the website) are op-ed column from a right-leaning newspaper. The first fixates on the idea that complaining about Islamophobia increases extremism, which is a rather dodgy stance to take.

The second isn't even about the government being nice to extremists, it's about national identity. You have linked to something as evidence that is about a different subject, why have you done this?

The third article mentions that the government was increasing counter-terror actions, and that aggressive actions and foreign policy are causing anger among Muslims. Which undermines what you're trying to claim, so why did you link there?

The fourth article quotes the Ministry of Justice in saying polygamy is illegal and they don't ignore it; one of the professors quoted says the problem is caused because marriages don't have to be registered, which is unrelated to religion. And let's note that Baroness Warsi is a member of the opposition party, who has a vested interest in making the current government look bad.

This is fucking pathetic.

I read a comment from Cornell (http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=21439) saying ' In the UK we were doing very well, but those numbers don't get added into the Diamond sales figures.'

I really hope to god Marvel aren't as silly as that - I hope they didn't just count the diamond numbers.

I'd assume they'd know about the overseas sales because they have to print the issues. They should know how large demand is, shouldn't they?

See the chick who can't be Captain Britain, but your fine with carrying Excalibur.

And god, did some people on Newsarama whine about that. (It's not fucking real, people)

Charles RB

06-11-2009, 08:05 AM

Unless it was by a white male author writing a book to reflect the REAL Britain as it is today, which it was.

He also put in an Ulster Loyalist as Wisdom's love interest in his MAX series, saying that there didn't seem to be any in comics so he thought "there should be one, and a nice one" even though he doesn't agree with their politics.

Listen. I live in one o the most multicultural areas of one of the most multicultural cities in the UK.

How do you cope with all that multiculturalism destroying your national identity?!

rorshach1982

06-11-2009, 08:13 AM

Being ignorant of the history means being ignorant of the meaning of what people say. Which means you're more easily gulled by the bullshit artists.

Not asking anyone to be ignorant. I'm asking them to stop with the constant game of comparison of atrocity. I think it's great that people know the difference between Sunni and Shiite and Wahabi. I think it's more important to address the fact that all three sects ask that women be subservient to men (so do the Babptists by the way) and they hide their bodies under giant tents (with varying degrees according to which sect one belongs to, and what mosque even).

No again. Religion is arational.

No, not really. The presupposition of Islam is that there is a god, and Muhammed is his prophet. In and of itself that is not rational. And I assume you are using "arational" as in "amoral" or "the absence of rationality" ? I've heard this argument before, that religion is not irrational because it does not go against rationality. I find it incorrect, due mostly to its practice. Certainly people who are religious are capable of rational decisions; for instance, if one must not suffer a witch to live, we should kill them. But how do we tell they are a witch? Well a series of torturous trials given to a suspected witch would surely elicit the truth. St. Augustine himself advocated torture as appropriate for those who actively sin against the Lord. Now to start the branding.

All of this mummery stems from the idea that thou shall not suffer a witch to live, which must be true because it's written in the holy book of the Christians. If you question that, the faithful keep faith that it is what god wanted. Questioning this is discouraged, and at times would lead the death of the questioner as well. And while this is a Christian example, it demonstrates the heart of the problem. Namely, that belief does not require reason and, in action, denies reason. It is not the lack of reason that is the problem, it is antithetical nature of faith to reason. If you have some example that helps your "arational" argument I'd like to hear it but simply claiming it to be true doesn't help your case.

No again again. That's only Christian fundamentalism, not all religion.

Feel free to elaborate. I'm pretty sure Islam requires the belief that there is one god and he created the universe and he has created laws for people to live by. Hinduism believe in several. Judaism in Yahweh. There are entire religious texts devoted to what is and is not moral and what constitutes a sin in all those religions. And since all those gods see all that we do (that plucky omniscience they have) your daily life is then subject to their will and their laws, if you are a believer that is.

Again, let me stop you there. You're thinking entirely within the constructs of Christian Fundamentalism. They don't apply to any other religion; hell, they don't even apply to the rest of Christiainity.

Perhaps you're simply thinking of the people who follow the religions? When I say "religion" I'm talking about the texts, structure, and the effect of it. The people, as far as I'm concerned, are simply victims of it (or users of it). If I'm thinking in anything, it's Fundamentalism in general. I dislike Orthodox Judaism, Mormonism, Wahabi, African Tribal Mutilation, etc. It's all nonsense that harms people. And fundamentalism can only exist when the core belief does, so with one springing from another, I refuse to defend the less offensive simply because fundamentalism is an easier target.

Nonsense.

People who belong to a religion defend their religion. And people like myself who've studied comparative religion like to dispel people's misunderstandings.

Otherwise, people are simply concerned to defend a population against bigots.

Not from what I've read Paul. You're not out educating anyone. A one line response that simply says the person is wrong does little to dispel a misunderstanding. If they are so different, please tell us how and why. If I'm only speaking from the Christian perspective and Islam has some deep and compassionate base that somehow makes non-belief okay in the eyes of the believer, then by all means correct me. I've got no problem with it. Just give me more than the simple word of Paul McEnery. You're an obviously intelligent guy. Please show it off.

Of course.

But the defence of muslims against bigotry and violence isn't about giving Islam legal validity, is it.

I would argue that the UN resolution attempts to do just that.

Paul McEnery

06-11-2009, 11:43 AM

No, not really. The presupposition of Islam is that there is a god, and Muhammed is his prophet. In and of itself that is not rational. And I assume you are using "arational" as in "amoral" or "the absence of rationality" ?

That's how the prefix works.

I've heard this argument before, that religion is not irrational because it does not go against rationality.

Nope. It's arational because it's not about rational things. It's about the ritual expression of emotional states, and it's about the reinforcement of the social structure of the tribe.

I find it incorrect, due mostly to its practice. Certainly people who are religious are capable of rational decisions; for instance, if one must not suffer a witch to live, we should kill them. But how do we tell they are a witch? Well a series of torturous trials given to a suspected witch would surely elicit the truth. St. Augustine himself advocated torture as appropriate for those who actively sin against the Lord. Now to start the branding.

This view of religion looks through the filter of Fundamentalism.

Feel free to elaborate. I'm pretty sure Islam requires the belief that there is one god and he created the universe and he has created laws for people to live by.

Wrong. There is one god, but Allah's nature is inscrutable, and he created no laws.

Hinduism believe in several. Judaism in Yahweh. There are entire religious texts devoted to what is and is not moral and what constitutes a sin in all those religions.

And we have laws against jay-walking and worship the Yankees, no wait, the Cubs, no wait, the Giants. Your point?

And since all those gods see all that we do (that plucky omniscience they have) your daily life is then subject to their will and their laws, if you are a believer that is.

You're overdue for a course in comparative religion.

Perhaps you're simply thinking of the people who follow the religions? When I say "religion" I'm talking about the texts, structure, and the effect of it.

From the point of view of Fundamentalism, which is far from typical of religion.

The people, as far as I'm concerned, are simply victims of it (or users of it). If I'm thinking in anything, it's Fundamentalism in general. I dislike Orthodox Judaism, Mormonism, Wahabi, African Tribal Mutilation, etc. It's all nonsense that harms people. And fundamentalism can only exist when the core belief does, so with one springing from another, I refuse to defend the less offensive simply because fundamentalism is an easier target.

Only one of these is Fundamentalism, which is specific to turn of the 19th Century Christianity, and heretical in any case.

What you mean is fanaticism. And fanaticism is characterized by, amongst other things, a failure to distinguish valid differences within the other.

Not from what I've read Paul. You're not out educating anyone. A one line response that simply says the person is wrong does little to dispel a misunderstanding. If they are so different, please tell us how and why. If I'm only speaking from the Christian perspective

You're not. You're speaking within the preconceptions sold you by the Fundamentalist movement. And I haven't got all day to teach you comparative religion. Have the gumption to read a book about it. Anything by Ninian Smart would be a good start.

and Islam has some deep and compassionate base that somehow makes non-belief okay in the eyes of the believer, then by all means correct me.

Your terms of reference simply don't apply. In fact, they so don't apply that I can't even tell what you're saying here.

I've got no problem with it. Just give me more than the simple word of Paul McEnery. You're an obviously intelligent guy. Please show it off.

I'm not the person making blanket declarative statements from a position of very limited knowledge here.

You want to learn what these religions are in themselves, go study.

I would argue that the UN resolution attempts to do just that.
Nope. You would assert that.

An argument proceeds from evidence and makes logical deductions. Your assertion does neither.

Tages

06-11-2009, 12:05 PM

So all religion is first and foremost about the immutable law laid down by the Creator that can never be questioned?

Damn. My Buddhist and Taoist friends have been lying to me.

Also, a non-binding resolution, by definition, does not grant legal validity to anything. That's just stupid.

Tages

06-11-2009, 12:11 PM

I haven't got all day to teach you comparative religion.
Since when? :tongue:

king mob

06-11-2009, 12:24 PM

How do you cope with all that multiculturalism destroying your national identity?!

Do you mean I should be unable to cope with being a Scot living in a multicultural part of Bristol who works with Bristolians, Somalis, Muslims, Jews, Irish and all manner of crazy mixed up bastards. I dunno, I think I just get on with it.

Adam C

06-11-2009, 12:30 PM

So all religion is first and foremost about the immutable law laid down by the Creator that can never be questioned?

Damn. My Buddhist and Taoist friends have been lying to me.

That's right. Buddhist and Taoist precepts were just a scheme created by the demiurge. :tongue:

bartl

06-11-2009, 01:45 PM

Just to deal with this briefly, the Bishop's speech isn't that convincing in absence of supporting examples of no-go areas.

And the Daily Mail has a reputation as being a dodgy tabloid appealing to parochial, reactionary interests because...well it is. There's a link on the following article to an op-ed piece that talks about why the Bishop is right. Surprisingly it contains no reference to any examples and bitches about Labour investing in money in giving Muslim woman assertiveness training courses because it would be perceived as the government lavishing disproportionate attention on Muslims. And all from a paper that ran a fear mongering campaign against the HPV vaccine in Britain, while supporting it in its Irish version.
Thank you for pointing this out. It is important to note the gap between popular perception and reality, although I am discussing the aspect of popular perception, which I know many zealots here consider to be a cop-out.

bartl

06-11-2009, 01:49 PM

The Daily Mail is the favorite paper of mouth-breathers and knuckle-draggers,
I've heard the same thing said about comics.

Adam C

06-11-2009, 02:17 PM

Thank you for pointing this out. It is important to note the gap between popular perception and reality, although I am discussing the aspect of popular perception, which I know many zealots here consider to be a cop-out.

You're welcome. Though most of the posters here have been pointing out this gap in response to your original statements which appeared to them as an uncritical restatement of these perceptions as fact.

I've heard the same thing said about comics.

Well it's utterly true in this case. The Daily Mail is a paper that panders to the lowest common denominator and is only distinguished from typical British tabloids (which unlike American ones comment and report on political issues) in that it's writing style is only slightly more sophisticated and the layout less flashy. Hence my reference to the HPV scaremongering (http://layscience.net/node/507), though they also solicited for "anonymous horror stories" (http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2008/02/daily_mail_soli) from people who had East European immigrants in their employ and had to pay libel damages over falsely reporting (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/nov/04/daily-mail-materazzi-racism-libel) that a soccer player had uttered a racist slur.

king mob

06-11-2009, 02:19 PM

Thank you for pointing this out. It is important to note the gap between popular perception and reality, although I am discussing the aspect of popular perception, which I know many zealots here consider to be a cop-out.

So would you like to prove that the Labour government are bending over backwards to Mulsim exremists and all the other things you've tried to post with no proof at all?

Becuase if you don't then the perception I have of you is a typical far-right American who only gets his 'perception' of the world through typical far-right American views about a country he clearly knows fuck all about.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-11-2009, 06:48 PM

That's funny, the Muslim lad I work with has more worries about paying his mortgage than trying to take Islam to the world. Do you even know any Muslims?

It's been about a month since I last talked to some.... of them!
Friends of a housemate.
We were all having some scotch, passing a joint around and discussing preferences of waxed versus fur.
The chick, Zed, said she couldn't understand any girl who didn't have it waxed.

I wish ther ha'd been someone then to tell me that conversation was a sham, a slap in the face to many, a cover up of the fact that there is really a massive Jihadist movement aiming to turn my country into an Islamic state.

What I loved, was when former Liberal MP Jackie Kelly, whose husband is currently facing fines and serving time for distributing fake pamphlets at election time stating that an extremist Islamic movement supported the labour party, got up in parliament when RU486 was being debated and said it shouldn't be allowed because due to current population numbers Australians would abort themselves into being an Islamic state.

I'd assume they'd know about the overseas sales because they have to print the issues. They should know how large demand is, shouldn't they?

You'd really hope so.

You know, I'm not sure if they mentioned who Cornell was on the back of the first trade - his name isn't even on the front of the first one.
Got the second trade yesterday, fun stuff, but you know, the only place it mentions who Cornell is?
In a quote from a review on CBR.
Comic book marketing - I'm pretty certain it's one of those jobs you get tax-cuts from the government for letting special people work in.

And god, did some people on Newsarama whine about that. (It's not fucking real, people)
Not a mention about how Arthur, being a Saxon, only got the land by being a vulture and moving in whilst the Roman Empire collapsed?
Those damn PC historical revisionists!

Thank you for pointing this out. It is important to note the gap between popular perception and reality, although I am discussing the aspect of popular perception, which I know many zealots here consider to be a cop-out.

Bart, I think your pants are on fire.

You have switched to discussing 'popular perception' - well more 'ignorant Islamophobic perception' - to defend your claims that England is in the grip of an Islamic take over.
You said it, and now your trying to unsay it.
The funny/sad part is - you can't even find solid proof that would back up the claim that 'popular perception' is that the UK is under grip of an 'Islamic take over' and that a Muslim Captain Britain is a slap in the face to British readers, let alone there actually being one.

I've heard the same thing said about comics.

Oh shit - and we all read comics, so we can't attack the daily mail?

It's like you are rubber, and we are glue!

Charles RB

06-11-2009, 06:53 PM

Do you mean I should be unable to cope with being a Scot

Shit, don't bring up Scotland! That reminds us Britain comprises of three distinct countries, four if you take "British national identity" to mean "UK identity" - then we'd have to think about how much of what English pundits consider "British" is actually "English", and whether people choose English/Scot/Welsh/Irish identity over a British one, and look it's all multiculturalisms fault alright?!

Thank you for pointing this out. It is important to note the gap between popular perception and reality, although I am discussing the aspect of popular perception, which I know many zealots here consider to be a cop-out.

Is this an admission that you were wrong and lack evidence?

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-11-2009, 06:57 PM

Meanwhile, did you all see the disgusting BS Cornell had the nerve to write into that second Captain Britain trade - Hell Comes To Birmingham?
That foul little wench who wields Excalibur?
He has the nerve to show her family as living in the suburbs, and being pretty apathetic towards religion - despite them being Islamic!

And not only that, NOT ONLY THAT, but now there she seems to have a crush on the true-blooded white American hero, Black Knight* - obviously she'd want to better herself, but get this - he seems to be developing similar feelings.
What rot!
And if that's not enough, Spitfire seems to be falling for Blade - who is of course a black Brit - over the affections of her former blue-collard white lover Union Jack!
This is PC nonsense gone overboard - it just shows how far the true Brit's have fallen!
DISGUSTING!

*Why the hell isn't anyone complaining about a yank getting tied into Arthurian legend?
If anything, the Americanization of British culture is a more noticeable concern, and thus a bigger face slap, than that of Islamic take over.
Oh... because he's white.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-11-2009, 07:06 PM

Is this an admission that you were wrong and lack evidence?

No, then he'd be discussing 'uninformed perception' - he's still trying to say he wasn't wrong to come in stating what he stated as fact, because apparently that's how the majority of people see it.
Do note, he's not separating those outside of the UK as having that popular perception, he's maintaining that everyone does - despite no one here, a guys from the UK, an expat in the states, others in the stats, and me on the other side of the world - having any idea what the heck he's talking about.
Or do we not count because we're informed?

I was actually thinking about this last night - could his trouble be coming from the fact that America had less of an initial multicultural clash due to their civil rights movement in the fifties and sixties taking up most of their time - and most immigrants being Mexican - and that everyone there pretty much had the same religion - Christian/Catholic.
Therefore true multiculturalism is actually a rather, dare I say, foreign concept to him?
Also unaware of the fact that the best way to combat extremism is to treat everyone the same and send them all to the same schools - the more you mix the more we all match?

king mob

06-12-2009, 01:11 AM

Shit, don't bring up Scotland! That reminds us Britain comprises of three distinct countries, four if you take "British national identity" to mean "UK identity" - then we'd have to think about how much of what English pundits consider "British" is actually "English", and whether people choose English/Scot/Welsh/Irish identity over a British one, and look it's all multiculturalisms fault alright?!

And even 'English' means different things to different parts of England. The Cornish want independence and Yorkshire barely consider themselves part of England. Calling Britian 'England' is missing the point and is not only hugely annoying, it's doing a misjustice to the multiculturalism that's existed in this country for centuries.

king mob

06-12-2009, 01:16 AM

If anything, the Americanization of British culture is a more noticeable concern, and thus a bigger face slap, than that of Islamic take over.

The Americanisation of our culture and society is a huge problem, far more than anything one can throw up regarding Muslims, or even the BNP. Try walking through most of our Americanised, homogenous city centres and you'll see how Americanisation has affected us.

Charles RB

06-12-2009, 06:02 AM

*Why the hell isn't anyone complaining about a yank getting tied into Arthurian legend?

Cos that was done in the Silver Age, SO IT MUST BE GOOD YOU MUST LOVE IT.

Or do we not count because we're informed?

We're not informed in the right way.

And even 'English' means different things to different parts of England...multiculturalism that's existed in this country for centuries.

Butbutbutbutbut this only started a few decades ago SOME GUYS IN A PAPER SAID SO! :frown:

(Hell, why even restrict it to "centuries"? Let's go back to Roman times...)

Adam C

06-12-2009, 10:31 AM

From the London Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article1323814.ece

There's a huge problem with this article, namely it's the report that that the author draws off of. The Times article repeats the claim of the report that official multiculturalism is to blame for this division, so I snooped out the original report (http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/assets/Living_Apart_Together_text.pdf) and scanned through it. Its conclusion is based on tenuous reasoning and appallingly bad methodology. On page 78 it claims that government initiatives to allay fears about Islam only contribute to the feeling of apartness among Muslims, that they are different from British society. Unfortunately it cites no evidence for this beyond some cherry picked quotes. Additionally, while hi-lighting that major organizations claiming to represent Muslisms in Britain may not be that representative (79-81) it jumps to the conclusion that the problem is having organizations purporting to represent Muslim interests:

Political engagement starts from the premise that people’s political opinions and interests are not tied to a cultural or religious identity (although there may well be some overlap), and that they should be represented by people who share the same views as them, regardless of their cultural or religious background. Therefore, there is no reason why an Asian woman MP cannot be just as good at representing her white constituents as any white MP. People vote for ideas and beliefs, not skin colour or ethnicity. Similarly, Muslim voters can be just as disillusioned with the policies and ideas of a Muslim politician, even if he shares their religion. The process of political engagement should allow people to transcend the cultural or ethnic background they inherit and think for themselves about which political ideas and policies are relevant to them. If Government engages with ‘community leaders’ because they have the right religious or cultural identity, it ends up denying this very real freedom that all citizens should have. (page 80)

The problem is that this practice is found all the time throughout the world, that is political organizations forming out of minority groups to advance that group's perceived interests. Why is it assumed that this immediately problematic especially when the report never bothers to look for empirical evidence to back its conclusions up? There's no comparison with the political organizations of other groups in Britain (or even other countries) and the attitudes of the minority groups they purport to represent towards the organizations (which would allow for better generalizations). More crucially it doesn't even bother to ask the people they're polling what they would like to see which would better represent their concerns in British political life, if only to get a better idea where they feel that disconnect between their needs and representation occurs. This would allow them to actually find out whether it's too much representation from lobbying groups as opposed to better representation by elected officials, or whether said groups don't get enough input from communities...anything that would actually draw closer to the heart of the matter rather than jumping to conclusions based on the authors' individual biases and blaming 'multiculturalism' (which is ill-defined in this report) for the problem.

Adam C

06-12-2009, 10:38 AM

Is it just me or did the last two posts on this thread mysteriously vanish?

Edit: And there they are.

Adam C

06-12-2009, 10:44 AM

*Why the hell isn't anyone complaining about a yank getting tied into Arthurian legend?

Same reason for Robin Hood speaking in an American accent in a major movie I imagine.

Butbutbutbutbut this only started a few decades ago SOME GUYS IN A PAPER SAID SO! :frown:

Hell at this rate I'm surprised they aren't dragging the old legend that Britain was founded by Aeneas' descendant Brutus with all the gross oversimplification involved.

rorshach1982

06-12-2009, 11:32 AM

That's how the prefix works.

Nope. It's arational because it's not about rational things. It's about the ritual expression of emotional states, and it's about the reinforcement of the social structure of the tribe.

I can do this too: Nope. It's irrational because it attempts to explain the physical world through nonsense with no logical basis. For instance, the wind blows because Allah wants it to so we can have good shipping and trade.

[30.46] And one of His signs is that He sends forth the winds bearing good news, and that He may make your taste of His mercy, and that the ships may run by His command, and that you may seek of His grace, and that you may be grateful.
[30.47] And certainly We sent before you apostles to their people, so they came to them with clear arguments, then We gave the punishment to those who were guilty; and helping the believers is ever incumbent on Us.
[30.48] Allah is he Who sends forth the winds so they raise a cloud, then He spreads it forth in the sky as He pleases, and He breaks it up so that you see the rain coming forth from inside it; then when He causes it to fall upon whom He pleases of His servants, lo! they are joyful
[30.49] Though they were before this, before it was sent down upon them, confounded in sure despair

I like the part at the end where it states that the rain fell before, but before it was sad rain, not happy god rain.

Wrong. There is one god, but Allah's nature is inscrutable, and he created no laws.

I am well aware that most of Islamic religious law is derived from other sources (the sunna, ijma, and qiyas according to wikipedia) but the Koran does contain laws, many of them simple religious functions about washing and such. And some not. From Surah 5 of the Koran The Table "[5.38] And (as for) the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah; and Allah is Mighty, Wise." Seems oddly legal. Perhaps you'll argue that this is Muhammad speaking, or Gabriel, as proxy to the Lord. It's in the book either way. It's probably derived from Hammurabi anyway. Wasn't this a common punishment in Europe for stealing too way back when?

From the Same Surah "[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
[5.34] Except those who repent before you have them in your power; so know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." I'd really like to know what making mischief entails. Like, does a whoopey cushion under a divan count?

From Surah 4 The Women "[4.15] And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them" This sounds like the punishment for adultery is house arrest. You'll be happy to know that up until 2006 or so, in Pakistan, the 4 witnesses rule was still in effect thanks largely to the hudud laws established in 1979 http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/zia_po_1979/ord7_1979.html. They've since been repealed I believe, but I would have to check.

Is it because the actual word "law" isn't used in the text? These seem to describe a negative action and the punishment for said action. And I'm wondering how Sharia could be based of the teachings of the Koran (and the three sources listed above) if it didn't contain some kind of legal points.

And we have laws against jay-walking and worship the Yankees, no wait, the Cubs, no wait, the Giants. Your point?

I really don't know what you're saying here. I guess I could say that, while it is difficult, Western Law can more easily be changed than something that is considered sacred and immutable?

You're overdue for a course in comparative religion.

Had one. It was in college. It was wonderfully balanced with a modern look at Mid-East History class. I still am a supporter of a separate Palestinian state thanks to that class.

From the point of view of Fundamentalism, which is far from typical of religion.

Heard this argument before. I tend to divorce fundamentalism from Fundamentalism and use it generally. Maybe you object. Totally fine. I would argue that the root word "fundamental" which came into usage back in the 15th century, and meaning "serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying: fundamental principles; the fundamental structure. " applies when I'm talking about using the founding principles of a religion. A strict interpretation of any text's fundamental principles would constitute fundamentalism, in my view.

Your defense of religion in this case is always colored by the idea of the "moderate" or "liberal" follower. And that's great. Those are the people who can take the culture and leave the dogma alone, who can appreciate the history of their people without being ruled by it. Grand. These are not the people I am concerned with and it's not who the resolution addresses. Put forth by countries who already have laws that make defamation of Islam a crime, which is rather fundamental and not in keeping with the precepts of free speech, encouraging other countries to create their own...I just don't see this as a resolution that seeks to protect the moderate worshipper. Is a moderate concerned with the mere act of speaking critical words of their religion, or even outright lies? Remember that the wording of the resolution does not ask that only false claims about Islam are denigrating to people, but that any defamation (which can be true or false) is demeaning to human dignity. Taken to its widest interpretation, that means anything that is negative, even if it is true, toward a religion would be something that could be made wrong. That's my problem with it.

Only one of these is Fundamentalism, which is specific to turn of the 19th Century Christianity, and heretical in any case.

Heretical to who? Surely not the religious movements that founded the idea. They're all for it. Catholics? Zoroastrians? Scientologists?

What you mean is fanaticism. And fanaticism is characterized by, amongst other things, a failure to distinguish valid differences within the other.

One does not exist without the other. You can't have fundamentalism without something to be fundamental about. There is a starting point for every religion and from there, fanatics can have a field day. The starting point is the acceptance of an irrational idea. Maybe it's that virgin's give birth to messiahs, or that the magic man who lives in the sky sent down a winged messenger to tell an illiterate merchant his divine wishes, but the acceptance of that idea is the first step. Accept the idea, based on no evidence whatsoever, and what stops the man or woman from accepting the next idea that has no evidence? Moderates are people who, through reason and tolerance, stop after the first idea, maybe the second, and are content to believe just that. But they are not moderate because of some precept of the religion they ascribe to. They are moderate because they are intelligent human beings. The religion is inherently irrational, human beings are not (at least not all the time).

You're not. You're speaking within the preconceptions sold you by the Fundamentalist movement. And I haven't got all day to teach you comparative religion. Have the gumption to read a book about it. Anything by Ninian Smart would be a good start.

Funny, I don't remembering buying any...

Ah, your responses are short and content-light due to your busy schedule. Completely understood. Wouldn't want to trouble you when you're clearly busy enough that posting well written arguments is a drain on your time. Only time for opinionated blurbs. Check.

http://www.scottlondon.com/interviews/smart.html An interview with Smart. Interesting for sure. He seems to gloss over the questions about fundamentalism, but it's only one interview so I'll go take another look.

king mob

06-12-2009, 12:19 PM

Butbutbutbutbut this only started a few decades ago SOME GUYS IN A PAPER SAID SO! :frown:

It's nonsense isn't it, we've managed to integrate for generations, not always easily, but we've managed to do it to the benefit of the country as a whole.

Paul McEnery

06-12-2009, 03:24 PM

I can do this too: Nope. It's irrational because it attempts to explain the physical world through nonsense with no logical basis.

Failing to grasp the distinction between irrational and arational, then. Also making false assertions with no empirical basis.

For instance, the wind blows because Allah wants it to so we can have good shipping and trade.

For instance my arse.

Stop talking bollocks and go read a book.

Tages

06-12-2009, 05:12 PM

I can do this too: Nope. It's irrational because it attempts to explain the physical world through nonsense with no logical basis.
The Tylorist assumption that religion exists as a protoscientific means of modeling the material world was junked in anthropological circles about nine decades ago. So this statement is false.

For instance, the wind blows because Allah wants it to so we can have good shipping and trade.
Mary Douglas once asked a group of Polynesians she was living with why they only performed their rain ceremony at the beginning of the rain season. Their answer (paraphrased): "Because we're not idiots. Obviously we do not cause the rain." They did it to celebrate and enter into communion with the rain.

Similarly, the Koranic verses quotes do not describe a hypothesis. They exist to create a sacred space in the mind of the listener, i.e. "Everything that is exists because of God. You know everyday things you depend on, like wind and rain? Those too."

Saying that religious texts make for poor science lessons is like complaining that the Harry Potter series is a shitty dictionary.

I like the part at the end where it states that the rain fell before, but before it was sad rain, not happy god rain.
I like it when you don't sound like a near-illiterate. This quote sadly disappoints.

I am well aware that most of Islamic religious law is derived from other sources (the sunna, ijma, and qiyas according to wikipedia) but the Koran does contain laws, many of them simple religious functions about washing and such.
Religious instructions are not laws.

And some not. From Surah 5 of the Koran The Table "[5.38] And (as for) the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah; and Allah is Mighty, Wise." Seems oddly legal. Perhaps you'll argue that this is Muhammad speaking, or Gabriel, as proxy to the Lord. It's in the book either way. It's probably derived from Hammurabi anyway. Wasn't this a common punishment in Europe for stealing too way back when?
It was.

The Bible similarly contains instructions to punish certain transgressions. However, some of those transgressions are labeled toevah, an act the righteousness of which is between the actor and G-d alone. Why is this?

There is a subtlety to Jewish and Islamic thought that someone viewing these religions from a Western standpoint can rarely appreciate.

I really don't know what you're saying here. I guess I could say that, while it is difficult, Western Law can more easily be changed than something that is considered sacred and immutable?
It's not surprising that someone not learned enough to understand the meaning of the term "non-binding" would fail to grasp this concept.

Heard this argument before. I tend to divorce fundamentalism from Fundamentalism and use it generally. Maybe you object. Totally fine. I would argue that the root word "fundamental" which came into usage back in the 15th century, and meaning "serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying: fundamental principles; the fundamental structure. " applies when I'm talking about using the founding principles of a religion. A strict interpretation of any text's fundamental principles would constitute fundamentalism, in my view.
A view that completely ignores the historical meaning and usage of the term.

Fundamentalism, deriving from the title of the pamphlet series The Fundamentals refers specifically to a movement within American Protestantism that began at the end of the 19th Century and in the ensuing decades spread to most of the rest of the world. It involves a strict literalist interpretation of the Bible.

You will find that a strict literalist approach to Koranic exegesis is expressly prohibited, and the last school that attempted such an approach ended in the 10th Century. So the word "fundamentalism" in its historically coherent definition cannot be applied to Islam (or Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other religion besides Christianity).

Your defense of religion in this case is always colored by the idea of the "moderate" or "liberal" follower. And that's great. Those are the people who can take the culture and leave the dogma alone, who can appreciate the history of their people without being ruled by it.
Point of order: dogma is a Christian invention. It doesn't exist in any other religion besides Christianity and its offshoots (which include Scientology, oddly enough, if we're counting Satanism as a Christian offshoot).

Grand. These are not the people I am concerned with and it's not who the resolution addresses. Put forth by countries who already have laws that make defamation of Islam a crime, which is rather fundamental and not in keeping with the precepts of free speech, encouraging other countries to create their own...I just don't see this as a resolution that seeks to protect the moderate worshipper.
Think harder.

It isn't concerned with the feelings of the worshipper. It's concerned with the guy inciting fear against a community. For example, when Dawkins says that an evidence-based approach to religious claims is ideal, he's doing critical analysis. When geert Wilders screams that Muslims in particular are a race of women-abusing barbarians he's stirring shit.

Is a moderate concerned with the mere act of speaking critical words of their religion, or even outright lies? Remember that the wording of the resolution does not ask that only false claims about Islam are denigrating to people, but that any defamation (which can be true or false) is demeaning to human dignity. Taken to its widest interpretation, that means anything that is negative, even if it is true, toward a religion would be something that could be made wrong. That's my problem with it.
Where in the world did you get that definition of "defamation?" Of course defamation is false, or investigative journalists would be sued for libel every time they published an article.

Heretical to who? Surely not the religious movements that founded the idea. They're all for it. Catholics? Zoroastrians? Scientologists?
Heretical to Christianity as it had been practiced the preceding 1400 years.

One does not exist without the other. You can't have fundamentalism without something to be fundamental about. There is a starting point for every religion and from there, fanatics can have a field day. The starting point is the acceptance of an irrational idea. Maybe it's that virgin's give birth to messiahs, or that the magic man who lives in the sky sent down a winged messenger to tell an illiterate merchant his divine wishes, but the acceptance of that idea is the first step. Accept the idea, based on no evidence whatsoever, and what stops the man or woman from accepting the next idea that has no evidence? Moderates are people who, through reason and tolerance, stop after the first idea, maybe the second, and are content to believe just that.
This part doesn't even make sense.

But they are not moderate because of some precept of the religion they ascribe to.
Funny, because moderation and toleration are written into the DNA of all three Abrahamic faiths.

They are moderate because they are intelligent human beings. The religion is inherently irrational, human beings are not (at least not all the time).
Religion is no more inherently irrational than the American pork industry is inherently anti-Semitic. That's just a silly thing to say.

And all rationality necessarily emerges from competing subrational processes. Brain damage that impairs any of these processes renders rationality for the effected person difficult or impossible (see: Phineas Gage).

Charles RB

06-12-2009, 06:19 PM

It's nonsense isn't it, we've managed to integrate for generations, not always easily, but we've managed to do it to the benefit of the country as a whole.

Yes yes yes, but it's a problem now because the columnist is alive now and things are different than when they were ten!

God, it's the nationalist equivalent of half of all comic industry complaints since fandoms existed.

Michael P

06-12-2009, 06:20 PM

Yes yes yes, but it's a problem now because the columnist is alive now and things are different than when they were ten!

God, it's the nationalist equivalent of half of all comic industry complaints since fandoms existed.

BNP = HEAT?

I think you're onto something there.

king mob

06-13-2009, 04:36 AM

Yes yes yes, but it's a problem now because the columnist is alive now and things are different than when they were ten!

Indeed. The thing that's annoying is there are problems, there's huge tensions between the Bristolian Jamaican community & Somali immigrants for example, but the issue is made worse by people scaremongering & making the situation worse. This is exactly what Labour has done & it's exactly what bartl has done because they both put forward ill-informed pandering racism, rather than actually trying to address genuine problems.

Charles RB

06-13-2009, 07:50 AM

Indeed. The thing that's annoying is there are problems, there's huge tensions between the Bristolian Jamaican community & Somali immigrants for example, but the issue is made worse by people scaremongering & making the situation worse.

Though it's not an official government policy to back the Jamaican's/Somalis against the Somalis/Jamaican's to create indebted proxies, so we've learned since colonial times at least...

Steven Grant

06-13-2009, 11:52 PM

Question: If you don't like the source, will you accept the evidence?

I think the question would have to be: "Is it 'evidence' (that is, objectively verifiable information) or someone's speculation or interpretation?"

- Grant

Steven Grant

06-14-2009, 12:01 AM

Sure... you know full well the implication of that word in an non-Islamic sense, and what the mind immediately goes to when we read it.

You mean that "Jihadist" with or without "radical" attached for emphasis is Fox News for "frothing religious maniac out to murder us all in our sleep!" AKA "Muslim"?

- Grant

Steven Grant

06-14-2009, 12:19 AM

Hell at this rate I'm surprised they aren't dragging the old legend that Britain was founded by Aeneas' descendant Brutus with all the gross oversimplification involved.

Funny, I was just thinking the other day of doing something with that story as a follow-up to ODYSSEUS THE REBEL (http://www.bigheadpress.com). Wasn't Brutus a relative of Aeneus from Troy (nephew, I think) and not his descendant?

What now, are you saying Brutus was fictitious? Christ, if you can't trust Geoffrey of Monmouth, who can you trust?!!

- Grant

Steven Grant

06-14-2009, 12:20 AM

I can do this too: Nope. It's irrational because it attempts to explain the physical world through nonsense with no logical basis.

It's two - two - TWO affronts to rational thought in one!

- Grant

Steven Grant

06-14-2009, 12:28 AM

Mary Douglas once asked a group of Polynesians she was living with why they only performed their rain ceremony at the beginning of the rain season. Their answer (paraphrased): "Because we're not idiots. Obviously we do not cause the rain." They did it to celebrate and enter into communion with the rain.

In high school I knew a girl who had grown up in Samoa because her father ran a radio station there, and in that time became quite friendly with a wide variety of tribespeople. At the time, anthropologists operated on the premise that cannibalism, which was once practiced on the island, was of a ritual, religious nature. My friend had read books about it and decided to get the native perspective on it.

To her surprise, they laughed themselves silly of any notion of religious connotations to cannibalism. It was well known to the Samoans that cannibalism sprang not from religious practice but from hunger, during times of extreme famine. Somehow this just wasn't what western anthropologists wanted to hear.

- Grant

Tages

06-14-2009, 04:24 AM

In high school I knew a girl who had grown up in Samoa because her father ran a radio station there, and in that time became quite friendly with a wide variety of tribespeople. At the time, anthropologists operated on the premise that cannibalism, which was once practiced on the island, was of a ritual, religious nature. My friend had read books about it and decided to get the native perspective on it.

To her surprise, they laughed themselves silly of any notion of religious connotations to cannibalism. It was well known to the Samoans that cannibalism sprang not from religious practice but from hunger, during times of extreme famine. Somehow this just wasn't what western anthropologists wanted to hear.

- Grant

It reminds me of my karate sensei's explanation of the meaning of the belt: "It keeps your gi on."

Pragmatism is not exclusively a Western preoccupation.

king mob

06-14-2009, 04:24 AM

Though it's not an official government policy to back the Jamaican's/Somalis against the Somalis/Jamaican's to create indebted proxies, so we've learned since colonial times at least...

Quite, but we have national & local government putting Somali immigrants into the same poor areas that they dumped immigrants in during the Windrush (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/windrush_01.shtml), normally with little or no warning, and certainly with no consultation for local communities where they can explain why they need to do this.

We're making a lot of the same mistakes as we did in the 50's & 60's which is why we're getting much of the same problems, though the fact we do have fully integrated non-white & white communities is a major difference.

Steven Grant

06-14-2009, 11:03 AM

Pragmatism is not exclusively a Western preoccupation.

Really? Even with all that lost knowledge of the ancients and all that? How deflating.

See, the real idea behind all that jive is that the "ancients" - those mighty power behind other mighty cultures, lost and known - must have had lost spiritual powers and/or knowledge far superior to our own because our culture is vulgar and materialistic, so it's simply not possible that we could be the most developed culture ever to have existed on this earth. Because if we were truly developed we couldn't possibly be vulgar and materialistic.

Funny, though, a lot of those ancient superior cultures seem to have a) endorsed slavery as an economic underpinning and b) collapsed. I guess if they had incredible spiritual powers and knowledge, and they still collapsed, we're certainly doomed!

But I suggest anyone who believes in ancient spiritual traditions watch a few Mixed Martial Arts fights. The original intent of MMA was to match, say, karate against muy thai and kung fu against jui-jitsu or taekwando etc to determine once and for all what the truly supreme fighting art is. What was discovered was that the so-called "magic martial arts" - those masterpieces of "oriental wisdom," as the phrase used to go - weren't any more successful overall than boxing or wrestling, and what has developed in the intervening 20 years is fighters who are a) trained in a wide variety of "martial arts" and b) are trained to defend against a wide variety of martial arts. B) seems to be the key; the reason so many of those "magic martial arts" seemed so impressive is that most opponents didn't come into contact with them with enough frequency to know how to defend against them. But once you know how to defend against any style, it ceases to be especially impressive - and any fighter expert in only one style, no matter how expert, will have his head handed to him in a match these days.

Of course, devotees of particular styles have told me MMA means nothing because true masters of particular martial arts styles don't fight. Which may be true, but, under the circumstances, is also ridiculously convenient...

- Grant

bartl

06-14-2009, 11:06 AM

I think the question would have to be: "Is it 'evidence' (that is, objectively verifiable information) or someone's speculation or interpretation?"
Point taken. However, the idea of objectivity in journalism has been lost, even as an ideal to which to aspire, and while the idea of objectivity in history still exists as an ideal, not enough time has transpired. Which makes the idea of evidence extremely difficult; sort of like the philosophical puzzle of the scientist who fishes the ocean with nets with 2" holes, and concludes that there are no fish less than 2" long.

bartl

06-14-2009, 11:07 AM

You mean that "Jihadist" with or without "radical" attached for emphasis is Fox News for "frothing religious maniac out to murder us all in our sleep!" AKA "Muslim"?
Has Fox News ever used the term "radical jihadist"?

bartl

06-14-2009, 11:18 AM

See, the real idea behind all that jive is that the "ancients" - those mighty power behind other mighty cultures, lost and known - must have had lost spiritual powers and/or knowledge far superior to our own because our culture is vulgar and materialistic, so it's simply not possible that we could be the most developed culture ever to have existed on this earth. Because if we were truly developed we couldn't possibly be vulgar and materialistic.
What really annoys me is the alien visitors theories; as if only Western Europeans could develop mathematics, agriculture, etc. without the aid of advanced aliens.
What was discovered was that the so-called "magic martial arts" - those masterpieces of "oriental wisdom," as the phrase used to go - weren't any more successful overall than boxing or wrestling, and what has developed in the intervening 20 years is fighters who are a) trained in a wide variety of "martial arts" and b) are trained to defend against a wide variety of martial arts. B) seems to be the key; the reason so many of those "magic martial arts" seemed so impressive is that most opponents didn't come into contact with them with enough frequency to know how to defend against them.
There is a GREAT web site covering a major aspect of this; let's see if it still exists....

Yes. Here is the place I was looking for (http://www.badmartialarts.com/myths/Myths.php), but the entire site is very well done. And the guy does give his sources, for those who want to do further research on the subject.

Steven Grant

06-14-2009, 03:11 PM

Has Fox News ever used the term "radical jihadist"?

I couldn't say whether they've ever used the phrase. I've heard them use "Jihadist(s)" on many occasions without the slightest indication of nuance that you've suggested the word contains; in their world, Jihadists appear to be radical and violent by definition. At this point, saying there are varying levels of meaning for "jihadist" is like saying "bitch" has different meanings. Why, it could just refer to a female dog in heat. Which is technically correct; it could. But it almost never does anymore, and using the word in that sense but in a context where other meanings are the more logical interpretation, then excoriating the listener/reader for not grasping the prosaic meaning in context is just game-playing.

- Grant

Steven Grant

06-14-2009, 03:23 PM

What really annoys me is the alien visitors theories; as if only Western Europeans could develop mathematics, agriculture, etc. without the aid of advanced aliens.

That was always the flaw in the Von Daniken version, yeah; his entire thesis was built on the notion that the silly little primitive non-White races could never have achieved any astronomical or scientific knowledge on their own, so it must've been given them by great and powerful beings from beyond Time (Atlantis) or Space (Aliens). Or rather, that any culture that did not trace its origins from Rome, the great dream of all Western European empires, could never have achieved such heights. Blame it on Caesar, who wrote his own histories, and left out the high levels of technology and culture the Celts had achieved and painted them as backwards, eternally warring barbarians instead. But, as was common in many cultures, anyone outside that culture was a barbarian; it's only through resurgent European re-interpretation (and worship) of Roman culture that "barbarian" took on the brutal and primitive resonance we give it today, not helped by the perception (which now turns out to be rather mistaken) that "barbarians" destroyed Rome, and ended the greatest empire and nest of civilization the world has ever known.

- Grant

Michael P

06-14-2009, 03:54 PM

Is it true that the term "barbarian" evolved from the Romans' onomatopoeia for the sounds of non-native languages? Y'know, "They all go 'bar-bar-bar,'" that sort of thing?

Steven Grant

06-14-2009, 04:53 PM

Is it true that the term "barbarian" evolved from the Romans' onomatopoeia for the sounds of non-native languages? Y'know, "They all go 'bar-bar-bar,'" that sort of thing?

That's a theory, but I find it specious, since the Romans nicked the word from the Greeks, who were the first, at least on record, in Europe to come up with a word referring to everyone outside their territory. (Though I don't know if the Greeks viewed Persians, Trojans or Egyptians as barbarians.) I'd have to go look it up, but I imagine the original Greek word had some cultural reference that didn't include animal noises. (By the way, "barbarian" apparently doesn't exist in the English language prior to the 16th century.) Etymologists, like anthropologists, for a long time lept to grandiose conclusions about word origins. The word "berber" for the cultural group of North African that leads us to the term Barbary (as in Barbary Coast and Barbary pirates) was once thought to have descended from the Latin for barbarian but the Berbers themselves claim an entirely different etymology for the word based on their own language. Another theory about the origin of the word "barbarian" is that it means "bearded one," or someone unshaven, and, therefore, by Roman standards, uncivilized.

- Grant

Charles RB

06-14-2009, 05:08 PM

Paul McEnery

06-14-2009, 05:38 PM

Point taken. However, the idea of objectivity in journalism has been lost, even as an ideal to which to aspire, and while the idea of objectivity in history still exists as an ideal, not enough time has transpired. Which makes the idea of evidence extremely difficult; sort of like the philosophical puzzle of the scientist who fishes the ocean with nets with 2" holes, and concludes that there are no fish less than 2" long.

Balls it has.

There are lying bastards, and there are facts that prove they are lying bastards.

That the sources you frequently fall back on -- like the sources you used to prove Obama was a secret communist -- are lying bastards is easily demonstrated.

You just can't be arsed, because you don't give a toss about the truth when your confirmation bias is at stake.

You want objectivity? Start practicing it.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-14-2009, 06:15 PM

Fucking hell - He's like Samurai on the Comm board isn't he?
They've got inbuilt kill switches like the electricity at my house - they get proven wrong and called out for lies, kill switch flicks, and they reset as though it never happened.

Point taken. However, the idea of objectivity in journalism has been lost, even as an ideal to which to aspire, and while the idea of objectivity in history still exists as an ideal, not enough time has transpired.

HAHAHA!
Cleaner hands than Pontius Pilate!

So that makes it alright for you to make some shit up, and then go scrambling for scraps to prove that you weren't wrong, then go scrambling for more scraps to prove 'what you were actually doing was showing how someone could come to see the world as whatever was just made up'?

Which makes the idea of evidence extremely difficult; sort of like the philosophical puzzle of the scientist who fishes the ocean with nets with 2" holes, and concludes that there are no fish less than 2" long.

It's not mate - just stop going to op-ed pieces or racist papers or articles that aren't proving what you're saying.
Get scientific with it - look at the evidence, and then form an opinion/worldview, not the other way around.

You've still yet to say what originally made you think Britain was in the grip of being overrun, and why it's 1) Understandable for people to be outraged by the concept of a female Muslim Captain Britain (even though there isn't one), B) why a reasonable person should assume Britain is undergoing a hostile take over.

Has Fox News ever used the term "radical jihadist"?

No one has - how could there be any other type of Jihadist?

A Moderate Jihadist would be like a moderate Rapturist - they want to start a war in Israel, but are looking to do it in an environmentally friendly way.

bartl

06-14-2009, 10:02 PM

I couldn't say whether they've ever used the phrase. I've heard them use "Jihadist(s)" on many occasions without the slightest indication of nuance that you've suggested the word contains;
The reason I asked is that, because of close contact I have had with a number of Muslims who came to the United States to get AWAY from the violence, including a religious discussion group at a Turkish mosque near where I used to live, I learned enough about Islam to dislike the terms "radical Muslim", "Muslim extremists", and to DESPISE the term "Islamic fundamentalists." I have come to the conclusion that it is those, whether or not they are religious, who follow the idea of Jihad to be the conquest of others, rather than the conquest of self, who are dangerous (and yes, there are dangerous people in other religions as well; Christian Identity and Kahane Chai come to mind immediately); I use the phrase "radical jihadist", but have not really heard others use the phrase.

king mob

06-15-2009, 11:49 AM

Fucking hell - He's like Samurai on the Comm board isn't he?

But even more ignorant of reality if such a thing is actually possible.

They've got inbuilt kill switches like the electricity at my house - they get proven wrong and called out for lies, kill switch flicks, and they reset as though it never happened.

It's the marching out of the same argument, worded the same with the same lack of sources that might actually prove their point that the really annoying thing. After all, why try to argue against facts when spreading half-arsed lies is much easier.

You've still yet to say what originally made you think Britain was in the grip of being overrun, and why it's 1) Understandable for people to be outraged by the concept of a female Muslim Captain Britain (even though there isn't one), B) why a reasonable person should assume Britain is undergoing a hostile take over.

I'm waiting for him to show people here that a Labour government (I'm betting he never even knew what party was in government here) containing the likes of Jack Straw and Hazel Blears is pandering to Muslims. I'm not holding my breath.

Paul McEnery

06-15-2009, 01:44 PM

No one has - how could there be any other type of Jihadist?.

Perhaps a better question would be: is there, in fact, any such thing as a Jihadist? Or is that just a Western usage intended to conflate any political muslim with the extremists?

I mean, Islamic Jihad, sure, we can see that they're extremists. We know what that is, the people who think Hamas isn't going far enough (and when Hamas goes official, like the PLO did, Islamic Jihad are positioned to take their place as the fanatics du jour).

But a "Jihadist"? Nope. For a start, -ist is purely a Western suffix; it's only us who thinks in terms of ideological -isms; it's part of our Rationalist, Platonic world view. We want to think of some creeping doctrinaire corruption, because that's the way we do it; and if we project it onto them, then we can pretend that's not the way we do it. After all, who ever talks about Christianists?

I mean, it's about as bad for someone to want to be an "Islamist" as it is to be a "Christian Socialist" or a "Christian Democrat", let alone a member of the Religious Right; for some reason, that's a whole lot less threatening.

All "jihadist" could possibly mean is "one who strives for justice"; a defence lawyer, a social worker, the head of the UN -- they're all jihadists, aren't they? Batman -- the Jumpsuited Jihadist. Oh, but I forgot, we're supposed to be afeared of the scary arab word.

In fact, jihad is the opposite of crusade. Because "crusade" has always meant a war of colonial oppression, and only later achieved the metaphorical sense of striving for justice. Whereas "jihad" has always meant justice, and only became a name for fanatical violence in the minds of the West.

Paul McEnery

06-15-2009, 01:48 PM

I learned enough to dislike the terms "radical", "extremists", and to DESPISE the term "fundamentalists." .

Funny. Seems to me the sentence makes a lot more sense this way.

Because it's got fuck all to do with Islam, and everything to do with being a nutball.

And jamming "Islam" in there just demonstrates how much it's Islam you hate, and not extremism at all.

Which is not at all surprising, since your incitements to hatred are themselves extremism.

Steven Grant

06-15-2009, 03:16 PM

Perhaps a better question would be: is there, in fact, any such thing as a Jihadist?

I've certainly never heard a Muslim use the term, let alone refer to themselves in that way. "Islamic Jihad" is an organizational name, like "New York Yankees." "Jihadist" is basically just a way to imply that all Muslims are potential terrorists.

Because "crusade" has always meant a war of colonial oppression, and only later achieved the metaphorical sense of striving for justice. Whereas "jihad" has always meant justice, and only became a name for fanatical violence in the minds of the West.

Even in our culture, "crusade" still has an aura of fanaticism, as even in a positive context it suggests a battle whose goal is of overriding importance and merits hardship & sacrifice, and in which defeat is not an option. The implication of any "crusade" is still conquest of some sort, regardless of how undesirable its target may be; it's just that now, as always, the nobility of the cause is often given the benefit of the doubt. (For example, the "Crusade For Christ," which overtly desires to overcome unChristianity in whatever form, or the "crusade against cancer," which seeks to "conquer" cancer. Few people would suggest cancer is good, but an element of conquest is still implied.)

- Grant

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-15-2009, 07:03 PM

The reason I asked is that, because of close contact I have had with a number of Muslims who came to the United States to get AWAY from the violence, including a religious discussion group at a Turkish mosque near where I used to live, I learned enough about Islam to dislike the terms "radical Muslim", "Muslim extremists", and to DESPISE the term "Islamic fundamentalists."

They fled Britain to get away from violence which they were apparently causing?

Or they fled the regularly bombed Lebanon?

I have come to the conclusion that it is those, whether or not they are religious, who follow the idea of Jihad to be the conquest of others, rather than the conquest of self, who are dangerous (and yes, there are dangerous people in other religions as well; Christian Identity and Kahane Chai come to mind immediately); I use the phrase "radical jihadist", but have not really heard others use the phrase.

So you made it up, but refuse to change it when people go 'Oi, I think that term paints an incorrect picture'.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-15-2009, 07:13 PM

Well, as Bart's pretty much given up because we are being unfair about the fact he is wrong...
(So rude to keep pointing it out, don't you think?)

Gee, you don't think it'll maybe be Green Lantern, do you?

(Though it'd be kind of interesting to see the GLs lose, the Guardians be imprisoned, broken or destroyed, and Hal Jordan turn into effectively the Jonah Hex of space.)

Anyway, since Darkest Night is their big push for the year, to the extent they crossed it into a bunch of books that originally had nothing to do with it, I suspect anything even vaguely Darkest Night-related, comics and trades, maybe esp. trades, will be pushed like hell once the full-on push for the series starts.

- Grant

But see, I got my Final Crisis Hardcover - and FC Companion... yeah, that was worth the money - and now Hal has a scar on his face!
WTF!
How am I supposed to follow this without Sinestro corps war having been collected?

And oddly, GLC is now two collections past the Sinestro Corps War, despite the series having started after the main GL series.
I can fully understand trying to use one event to boost sales off of the other, but longer and longer waits for collections - especially this long - surely leads to reader apathy when it eventually comes out.
It's certainly affected me on other series - if it becomes a less interesting read (and GL's not got much more than look at the pretty colours colliding - literally) it could possibly get a few more buys out of me if it came out quick enough, but with long waits, something else comes along...

Oh, and I checked, no mention of who Cornell is, beyond being the writer of the Wisdom mini, on the first Captain Britain trade.
Why would Marvel get him on board and not promote it?

Steven Grant

06-15-2009, 09:13 PM

But see, I got my Final Crisis Hardcover - and FC Companion... yeah, that was worth the money - and now Hal has a scar on his face!
WTF!

Seriously, or was that a Jonah Hex joke? (I haven't been paying close attention to the series.)

How am I supposed to follow this without Sinestro corps war having been collected?

Religiously.

Oh, and I checked, no mention of who Cornell is, beyond being the writer of the Wisdom mini, on the first Captain Britain trade. Why would Marvel get him on board and not promote it?

Because while Marvel wants accomplished writers from media these days, corporately they do feel it in their best interests to build the reputations of properties, not talent. Talent just take their Marvel-given fame and cash it out at other publishers or in their own publishing rackets. Properties are forever. I don't know why this is such a mystery for anyone anymore. Plus Cornell is there to draw DR. WHO fans, who most likely already know who he is and who have their own chains of information for getting the word about CAPTAIN BRITAIN out (though it seems more successful in the UK than here), to Marvel, not to lead Marvel fans to DR. WHO.

I'm not saying all this isn't pretty stupid, I'm just saying it's not nonsensical.

- Grant

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-15-2009, 09:29 PM

Seriously, or was that a Jonah Hex joke? (I haven't been paying close attention to the series.)

No, he really does.

The FC Companion trade has 'the directors commentary', and I think JG Jones or the editor says 'Why does Hal have a scar' and Morrison says 'Keep reading to find out'.
With hooks like that, how could Secret Invasion have a hope?

(I didn't even notice it until they mentioned it in the commentary).

As for the companion, well, I was excited for Final Crisis, and assumed the companion would actually enhance the reading experience... DC taught me not to make that mistake again - back to choosing books by the talent who made them I'm afraid.

Religiously.

But DC won't release the holy books!

Because while Marvel wants accomplished writers from media these days, corporately they do feel it in their best interests to build the reputations of properties, not talent. Talent just take their Marvel-given fame and cash it out at other publishers or in their own publishing rackets. Properties are forever. I don't know why this is such a mystery for anyone anymore. Plus Cornell is there to draw DR. WHO fans, who most likely already know who he is and who have their own chains of information for getting the word about CAPTAIN BRITAIN out (though it seems more successful in the UK than here), to Marvel, not to lead Marvel fans to DR. WHO.

I'm not saying all this isn't pretty stupid, I'm just saying it's not nonsensical.

- Grant

I get it when it comes to getting Ellis or Morrison on a book - mentioning 'From the writer of the competitions best seller' makes little sense, but when it's from another medium, it just makes no sense what so ever to not do in case the collection is stored in a book shop or something, with the hope it'll get the extra sales.
Obviously launching it as part of a crossover hurts that, but it's just weird to not see them even try sell it - people may not know his name, but they know the show he works on.
It's more ingrained in people's minds in the UK and Australia than Marvel characters are.

Marvel needs Dr. Who viewers more than Dr. Who needs Marvel readers, after all.

bartl

06-15-2009, 09:32 PM

Well, as Bart's pretty much given up because we are being unfair about the fact he is wrong...
(So rude to keep pointing it out, don't you think?)
No, I gave up answering those who use obscenity, try to claim that I made statements I never made, try to claim I hold opinions I don't hold, use argument ad hominem, appeals to prejudice, name calling, and their own religious fanaticism. Doesn't leave much else.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-15-2009, 10:26 PM

No, I gave up answering those who use obscenity, try to claim that I made statements I never made, try to claim I hold opinions I don't hold, use argument ad hominem, appeals to prejudice, name calling, and their own religious fanaticism. Doesn't leave much else.

That AND you initial argument had no backing in terms of proof.

I used naughty language, sure, but how that's obscenity and your argument wasn't, I truly don't know.
It's fine though that you run away, hell, keep your 'The Brits are knowingly under attack and bowing to becoming a Muslim state' for all I care, just don't go saying it to anyone.
Rot from that particular disease on your own.

Paul McEnery

06-16-2009, 12:55 AM

No, I gave up answering those who use obscenity, try to claim that I made statements I never made, try to claim I hold opinions I don't hold, use argument ad hominem, appeals to prejudice, name calling, and their own religious fanaticism. Doesn't leave much else.

Poor darling. It must make you feel just awful the way people keep holding you accountable for pumping out bigoted old crap --

Which you most certainly do agree with, because you keep saying it, rather than apologizing for saying something stupid and awful.

king mob

06-16-2009, 01:07 AM

Plus Cornell is there to draw DR. WHO fans, who most likely already know who he is and who have their own chains of information for getting the word about CAPTAIN BRITAIN out (though it seems more successful in the UK than here), to Marvel, not to lead Marvel fans to DR. WHO.

There's a vast untapped number of Who fans who read Doctor Who Adventures, buy the Panini stickers and lap up everything Who that Marvel ignored because they're the core audience of the programme, those are the kids.

Had Marvel stuck an ad in DWA, or took advantage of Cornell's reputation then Captain Britain could have sold more, but it seems they thought the Captain Britain property could sell itself with the market as it stood.

king mob

06-16-2009, 01:10 AM

No, I gave up answering those who use obscenity, try to claim that I made statements I never made, try to claim I hold opinions I don't hold, use argument ad hominem, appeals to prejudice, name calling, and their own religious fanaticism. Doesn't leave much else.

Or you could have the bollocks to admit you were wrong, hold cliched racist views of a country and people you know fuck all about, or even try to back your opinions up with more than posts that are just you throwing your toys out your pram.

So, want to show how a Labour government that contains Jack Straw and Hazel Blears is pandering to Muslims and helping turn the UK into a Muslim state?

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-16-2009, 01:10 AM

Had Marvel stuck an ad in DWA, or took advantage of Cornell's reputation then Captain Britain could have sold more, but it seems they thought the Captain Britain property could sell itself with the market as it stood.

Rubbish, they gave it every opportunity, and even a massive push by launching it as an unnecessary tie in to a crossover!

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-16-2009, 01:12 AM

Poor darling. It must make you feel just awful the way people keep holding you accountable for pumping out bigoted old crap --

Which you most certainly do agree with, because you keep saying it, rather than apologizing for saying something stupid and awful.

He never said anything like that, when he said it, he was showing how a reasonable person could have that opinion, which is why he posted those links to show that some people say that's how it is, to expose that the media can distort the minority opinion, which is the one he formed by himself.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-16-2009, 01:17 AM

Oh Bart, you should look up the footage of the BNP winning it's first two seats ever.

Be it crowds surrounding the new MP's car, chanting 'Nazi Scum', or the 'how to spot an indigenous Brit' interview on Sky News... that's the crowd you want to side with alright.

Charles RB

06-16-2009, 06:42 AM

No, I gave up answering those who use obscenity

You posted stuff that was racist and used videos by racists as a defence. Why should swearing be considered worse?

Rubbish, they gave it every opportunity, and even a massive push by launching it as an unnecessary tie in to a crossover!

It was very necessary, it killed the hell out of lots of Skrulls and forever banned them from entering the UK! Thank you, Paul!

bartl

06-16-2009, 08:44 AM

He never said anything like that, when he said it, he was showing how a reasonable person could have that opinion, which is why he posted those links to show that some people say that's how it is, to expose that the media can distort the minority opinion, which is the one he formed by himself.
Close enough.

king mob

06-16-2009, 12:13 PM

Rubbish, they gave it every opportunity, and even a massive push by launching it as an unnecessary tie in to a crossover!

They hardly gave it a full promotion as they failed to capitalise on Cornell's name. As for the Secret Invasion crossover, that might have proven to be more of a hinderance than a help, even though one never actully needed to read Secret Invasion to know what was going on.

king mob

06-16-2009, 12:16 PM

You posted stuff that was racist and used videos by racists as a defence. Why should swearing be considered worse?

Because it's a diversion from being caught talking racist shite & spewing out far-right bollocks that he can't prove.

Paul McEnery

06-16-2009, 01:16 PM

You posted stuff that was racist and used videos by racists as a defence. Why should swearing be considered worse?

Standard American Practice.

Inciting hatred against Muslims = teh good; carry on Rush!

Saying bottomburp on the radio = you. are. off. the. air!

Paul McEnery

06-16-2009, 01:17 PM

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-16-2009, 06:19 PM

It was very necessary, it killed the hell out of lots of Skrulls and forever banned them from entering the UK! Thank you, Paul!

You think that was his comment on the whole thing?

That would be pretty funny.

I was saddened when he killed off John though.
I think he would have worked in a superhero series better than in the MAX mini - playing the Pete Wisdom part now that Wisdom was getting serious about it.

They hardly gave it a full promotion as they failed to capitalise on Cornell's name. As for the Secret Invasion crossover, that might have proven to be more of a hinderance than a help, even though one never actully needed to read Secret Invasion to know what was going on.

I never saw it like that...

There are two things that apparently only the People of the Pink Bits understand.

How to spot a racist; and how to do irony.

And yet he sees it as a good encapsulation of what happened.

I feel like I'm in a Don McGregor comic - we may have won, but did it gain us anything, and was the price to our sanity worth it?
All I know is... despite the pain... no... because of the pain... we will.... we must... stay strong!

Charles RB

06-16-2009, 06:40 PM

You think that was his comment on the whole thing?

That would be pretty funny.

I hope so!

It'd be easier to tell if they had a letter's page "answered" by Captain Midlands, like how 2000 AD is by Tharg, Transformers UK comics by Transformers, etc. Then we'd get some anti-Skrull invasion rants that'd give a clue. In fact, it should've had a letter's page like that ANYWAY.

I was saddened when he killed off John though.

Yeah. :frown:

Paul McEnery

06-16-2009, 06:49 PM

You think that was his comment on the whole thing?

That would be pretty funny.

I was saddened when he killed off John though.
I think he would have worked in a superhero series better than in the MAX mini - playing the Pete Wisdom part now that Wisdom was getting serious about it.

I never saw it like that...

And yet he sees it as a good encapsulation of what happened.

I feel like I'm in a Don McGregor comic - we may have won, but did it gain us anything, and was the price to our sanity worth it?
All I know is... despite the pain... no... because of the pain... we will.... we must... stay strong!

I'm the lead, you're the hot chick with the big booty (flame/cold power optional).

King Mob is my mud brother.

Charles is Pstun Rage.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-16-2009, 07:07 PM

I hope so!

It'd be easier to tell if they had a letter's page "answered" by Captain Midlands, like how 2000 AD is by Tharg, Transformers UK comics by Transformers, etc. Then we'd get some anti-Skrull invasion rants that'd give a clue. In fact, it should've had a letter's page like that ANYWAY.

And it'd give voice to all those Brits outraged by the shameless modernization of the book - oh, even the old character in the book doesn't actually mind all races being treated equally.
Weird.

(Did he top himself at the end of Hell Come To Birmingham, or not? Was a little confused by that bit).

Yeah. :frown:

Marvel probably cracked down - he's a good character and all, but it turns out we can't license John Lennon!

Paul McEnery

06-16-2009, 07:20 PM

And it'd give voice to all those Brits outraged by the shameless modernization of the book - oh, even the old character in the book doesn't actually mind all races being treated equally.
Weird.

(Did he top himself at the end of Hell Come To Birmingham, or not? Was a little confused by that bit).

Marvel probably cracked down - he's a good character and all, but it turns out we can't license John Lennon!

Bugger.

Have to license Michael Caine instead, then.

EDIT: C the noun, S the verb; yes teacher.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-16-2009, 07:52 PM

Bugger.

Have to license Michael Caine instead, then.

I thought he had been replaced by a Skrull doing an over the top impersonation of him these past two decades.

Charles RB

06-16-2009, 08:05 PM

oh, even the old character in the book doesn't actually mind all races being treated equally.

I bet he minded Dane though. Bloody foreigner!

(Did he top himself at the end of Hell Come To Birmingham, or not? Was a little confused by that bit)

Nah - Pete doesn't hear a shot, implying Sid didn't have the guts to use the gun.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-16-2009, 08:25 PM

I bet he minded Dane though. Bloody foreigner!

You mean foreigners can be white?

Nah - Pete doesn't hear a shot, employing Sid didn't have the guts to use the gun.

Makes sense... so now there's a prisoner with a gun?

Thought it was a bit rough of Wisdom though - you may not be found guilty, so do us a favour and top yourself!

But then again, that's because I thought the idea of an elderly Captain Midlands was hilarious.

I really wish Marvel had a policy like DC had with Starman - yeah, sales aren't there, but it's pretty good so lets just pretend it isn't there and let it do it's own thing.

Steven Grant

06-16-2009, 09:15 PM

I really wish Marvel had a policy like DC had with Starman - yeah, sales aren't there, but it's pretty good so lets just pretend it isn't there and let it do it's own thing.

If CAPTAIN BRITAIN were consistently being written up in the "real press" as a sterling example of top notch modern comics storytelling, Marvel might conceivably have adopted that policy. STARMAN was consistently touted as a paragon of excellence at every turn, and Robinson routinely lionized as the best writer in comics. Nobody did either of those with CB. (Not saying CB didn't merit such treatment, only that it didn't get it.)

- Grant

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-16-2009, 09:45 PM

If CAPTAIN BRITAIN were consistently being written up in the "real press" as a sterling example of top notch modern comics storytelling, Marvel might conceivably have adopted that policy. STARMAN was consistently touted as a paragon of excellence at every turn, and Robinson routinely lionized as the best writer in comics. Nobody did either of those with CB. (Not saying CB didn't merit such treatment, only that it didn't get it.)

- Grant

See, I didn't see it written up in the press - comics are taken even less seriously here.

Reckon they could of got a bit of press if anyone knew the Doctor Who chap was writing it... If America had Doctor Who.
('He's that guy Pink Floyd liked').

Michael P

06-16-2009, 10:08 PM

Wasn't there a brief bit of buzz because Gordon Brown or someone was in an issue?

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-16-2009, 10:48 PM

Wasn't there a brief bit of buzz because Gordon Brown or someone was in an issue?

Yeah, he ordered the insanely powerful Excalibur should be given to the Muslim girl, both as an act overt-PC gone out of control, and to coddle her extremist family.

You read Young Avengers, and think Nick Fury Vs. Ares is worth getting excited over, but not Captain Britain?

Steven Grant

06-17-2009, 12:55 AM

Reckon they could of got a bit of press if anyone knew the Doctor Who chap was writing it... If America had Doctor Who. ('He's that guy Pink Floyd liked').

DOCTOR WHO is very well known over here these days, but the only name regularly associated with it here, besides David Tennent, is Russell Davies. If Russell Davies had written CAPTAIN BRITAIN, it probably would've gotten tons of press.

- Grant

king mob

06-17-2009, 01:15 AM

You mean foreigners can be white?

Oddly enough when talking about illegal immigrants, there's little or no conversation about the thousands of white Kiwis and Aussies who remain in the UK even though their visas have ran out.

king mob

06-17-2009, 01:21 AM

Wasn't there a brief bit of buzz because Gordon Brown or someone was in an issue?

It got the comic into every national paper, on all the major news programmes (even got on Newsnight), and in a lot of reports it tied the story into Cornell's work on Doctor Who ('the man who wrote the scarecrow episode' was a popular quote), so it gave the series a decent profile among adults. There was even a small flurry of stories over Cornell's idea to use David Cameron in a story.

Charles RB

06-17-2009, 06:37 AM

Wasn't there a brief bit of buzz because Gordon Brown or someone was in an issue?

Yeah, he was in #1 giving the superheroes their marching orders against the Skrulls.

Cornell was going to have David Cameron as a double-agent, pretending to be defecting to Dracula, but Marvel wouldn't let him so he went with Doom instead.

king mob

06-17-2009, 12:05 PM

I thought it was Cameron who refused permission for his image to be used?

Charles RB

06-17-2009, 04:34 PM

Could be. You'd think he'd love the idea of being in print as a double-agent fighting Ultimate Evil though.

Michael P

06-17-2009, 05:41 PM

Yeah, he ordered the insanely powerful Excalibur should be given to the Muslim girl, both as an act overt-PC gone out of control, and to coddle her extremist family.

Not how I recall it.

You read Young Avengers, and think Nick Fury Vs. Ares is worth getting excited over, but not Captain Britain?

I've been one of the book's biggest supporters since the first issue. Don't know where you've been.

Steven Grant

06-17-2009, 09:20 PM

Could be. You'd think he'd love the idea of being in print as a double-agent fighting Ultimate Evil though.

Maybe he didn't want his cover blown...

- Grant

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-18-2009, 01:40 AM

Oddly enough when talking about illegal immigrants, there's little or no conversation about the thousands of white Kiwis and Aussies who remain in the UK even though their visas have ran out.

They're home!

(In the Ancestral sense...)

We could run an exchange though, citizen for citizen... that said, we all sent our Kiwis back, NZ would crumble from overpopulation.
They sprout like Lantanna!

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-18-2009, 01:43 AM

Not how I recall it.

It must lose som,ething when translated into American.

Actually, I haven't noticed - does the book use English or American English spellings?

I've been one of the book's biggest supporters since the first issue. Don't know where you've been.

Not reading your blog?

king mob

06-18-2009, 01:07 PM

Could be. You'd think he'd love the idea of being in print as a double-agent fighting Ultimate Evil though.

I'm amazed Cameron never took the chance to cash in on some easy publicity seeing he's a massive publicity whore.

I did love David Mitchell's comments about Cameron in his Observer column about Alan Sugar last Sunday. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/14/david-mitchell-alan-sugar-bbc)

No, the Tories are just desperate to rob Labour of its little publicity coup because Sir Alan Sugar comes across on TV as exactly the sort of cock who Tory voters like. His brand of "no-nonsense" nonsense and second-hand rhetoric, and his public affirmation that wealth makes what you say more important, are perfectly judged to appeal to the sort of idiot who thinks David Cameron talks a lot of sense, even though all he does is repeatedly bleat "change" like a tramp in a doorway, and his only stated policy is "to become prime minister".

Paul McEnery

06-18-2009, 03:53 PM

They're home!

(In the Ancestral sense...)

We could run an exchange though, citizen for citizen... that said, we all sent our Kiwis back, NZ would crumble from overpopulation.
They sprout like Lantanna!

But I understand you can get high from licking them.

Steven Grant

06-18-2009, 04:17 PM

But I understand you can get high from licking them.

A little backwards there.

They get high when you lick them. If you do it right.

- Grant

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-18-2009, 08:24 PM

A little backwards there.

They get high when you lick them. If you do it right.

- Grant

I'll take your words for it!

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-18-2009, 08:25 PM

I'm amazed Cameron never took the chance to cash in on some easy publicity seeing he's a massive publicity whore.

I did love David Mitchell's comments about Cameron in his Observer column about Alan Sugar last Sunday. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/14/david-mitchell-alan-sugar-bbc)

I'm surpirsed anyone would turn down any oppurtunity to fight Dracula!

Maybe it's because he has no problem sucking the blood from innocents to further his own needs?
Perhaps he was on board until he found out he was a double agent...

Antrustion

06-19-2009, 02:26 AM

I think the difference here is that when you buy a monthly comic, buying it is the default and you have to make an actual decision to stop buying it. When you buy TPBs then each new volume is a decision you have to make a decision to buy it and not buying it is the default.

In terms of quality control, this is probably a good thing - the only unfortunate thing is that it has a delayed effect.

I'm a trade only buyer, and I think this is really the case. There's no continuous momentum. No matter how much you're looking foward to the next volume of something, that desire peters out well before the 6 months (at least) to the next trade has passed.

Buying in trade also switches comics from a monthly expense to an occasional treat. When I was buying monthly comics, I budgeted for them, even though I've been on an extemely limited budget for almost a decade now. I'd know that I'd be buying 10 comics or whatever at whatever price every month. Now that I buy trades, which come out on odd schedules, I just buy when I have some extra money. And even then, there are a very limited number of titles I enjoy enough to buy immediately for near-full price rather than let languish until I can pick them up used for cheap. The first volume of a series or a collected mini might get an impulse buy for cover price. A middle volume of a series I'm reading but not loving will probably end up bought off Amazon 2 years after it comes out for less than half the cover price.

The real problem with waiting for trades is that you may end up seeing a series canceled before you ever try it. That was the case with Captain Britain and MI-13. The concept sounds good, and I've read nothing but praise for it, but I don't buy any series until I can get the first 2 volumes. The second volume of CB&MI-13 came out this month, but the series is already canceled, so I have no reason to bother with it other than a secondhand purchase of the series at some point in the future.