No Bill, you are not racist, as Islam is not a race, but you ARE prejudiced. While there is every reason to defend and uphold the democratic principles you list against the reactionary and patriarchal elements of all religions including islam, there is no reason to believe that small arbitration courts in parts of London is a threat to the well established and well founded liberal legal systems of the Western world.

And to say that Mohammed is the most popular name for babies is at best bending the truth. In that count is also included Mohamad, Muhammed, Mohammad, Muhammad and similar variations of the name. To be fair you would also have to count names like Jake, Jack and Jacob in the same bin. Five minutes of googling would also have told you that there is a tradition for muslim parents of all denominations to name one of their children after the prophet, while no such tradition exists among other brits. This fact alone can explain the name statistics, without saying diddly-squat about the rise of radical islam in Great Britain.

@xxovercastxx if he meant change, he needed to say change. If he meant "people who use the word progress to mean change", that's what he needed to say. He said progress, and progress is the correct word to use in relation to the change in attitudes towards equality from 1920 to now.

I'm sorry, but i did say that originally!

If i said "society has taken a turn for the more intelligent in great britain - going from a largely religious population to a largely non-religious population." That would be wrong, because it implies that the original situation (belief) is not intelligent.

If i said "society has progressed from largely religious to largely non religious," it would be right.

It's the same here, he uses the wrong word and invalidates his own argument. When he says the equivalent of "progress implies that the original situation wasn't crazy!" He's completely wrong. There's people out there saying "black society has progressed to be less segregated," and they're in the right to say that, and yet he's insinuating that they're being irrational when it's really him being irrational.

He's accusing people of being crazy for saying "progress" when actually he hasn't understood the word "progress" correctly. Now he's wrongly 'attacking' people for saying progress, a word which he doesn't understand, he's saying THEY are at fault when HE is at fault.

Would you defend me if i mistook the word "beautiful" to mean "repulsive" and told you to go to hell for calling me beautiful? No, you'd tell me i misunderstood the word. It's an extreme example, but that's the best i can do to explain it.

I'm getting worried that this is becoming hard to follow.

Thank you. My error. You are correct. I stand corrected.

I have laboring under a misconception regarding Ireland being part of Great Britain.

*backup=[...snipped...]

Justice Scalia sez there is no right to secede. Not my favorite justice, that's for certain, but his argument on this issue is pretty sound.

However, any group of people can attempt to secede, and if they succeed (like the US did from Great Britain) then they have all authority they need to justify it. Such is the way the world works.

Back to the topic at hand, these guys are full of shit.

dawkins made his point. but i'd like to hear his answer to the response question: "what's the relevance of what happens in an islamic nation and great britain?"

Surely he doesn't need one. I normally find Dawkins to be possessed by an irritatingly superiority and smugness, but on this point he is entirely justified in having it.

Let's repeat what was said. By Sharia law, in any Islamic country, converting from Islam is to be punished by death. Can anybody in favor of religious freedoms honestly say they have no problem with this? If your religious views consider it ok to murder people for converting away from your faith, I'd call that a valid point of criticism of your faith, no matter which country you are in.

Here in the Western world, we the ignorant infidels don't tolerate that kind of backwards garbage.

>> ^raverman:

"what's the relevance of what happens in an islamic nation and great britain?"
Religions are transnational. If you are a believer church laws come from god then local laws are irrelevant.
If we accept that religion is core to a person's ethics and moral view of the world and other people - then changing country does not magically change those cultural attitudes.
When the pope in Rome forbids contraception under church law - Catholics in Africa, Spain, Brazil and around the world follow "the word of god" even if it means dying a horrible death from Aids.
The point is: Accepting murdering a loss of faith is the law of god, is accepting a moral code that is completely counter to tolerance, freedom and free will. - "Oh but i don't believe that part when i immigrate?"
Islam demands tolerance, in yet the very code of the religion's law forbids giving it in return.


when the pope forbade contraception and catholics the world over gave it up for aids, they did so of their own accord NOT because the african government said so or the brazilian government forced them by law to do so.

local laws are irrelevant only to those fundamental religious types. local laws still apply to the locals whether they want them to or not. that man that was killed by a radical muslim (with ties to al qaeda which, btw, probably had nothing to do with it (joke)) that was linked earlier, the murderer is still being sought for murder because thats the fucking law. Doesnt really fucking matter if John Q Murderingmuslim thought it was justified by God or fucking santa claus, he still murdered someone in a country where murder is against the damn law

>> ^smooman:

dawkins made his point. but i'd like to hear his answer to the response question: "what's the relevance of what happens in an islamic nation and great britain?"
if you look anywhere outside of islamic theocracies you will find that there are no legal ramifications for apostasy. Here in america (fuck yeah) if a muslim becomes a christian or an atheist or whatever he/she is not held under lawful punishment. I'm sure the same in britain, any free nation for that matter.


Sure, thats because those countries have secular laws that are specifically designed NOT to cater to any particular religion, but is based upon human rights that has been agreed upon during the enlightenment up to today.

But islam is the same shit everywhere. I have no doubt that many muslims are as disgusted and disturbed by these laws as I am, but if they are, it isnt because of Islam, its because of everything but Islam .

Think about it: Islamic theocracies were not designed by some outside evildoers who did their best to pick out the worst aspects of Islam that they could find, and then used superpowers to force them on the population. These societies evolved out of attempts to follow Islam as faithfully and true as possible. The reason women are treated like obedient cattle in these states and people are executed for leaving Islam is because thats what Islam preaches.

Theres little doubt that the man in this video would wish for Dawkins to find religion like he has , and convert to Islam along with the rest of the studio audience, and all of Britain for that matter. If that happened, what would happen to secular law in britain? do you think we'd have more and better rights for women? a better judicial system?, more tolerance?, more freedom to choose religion freely?

"what's the relevance of what happens in an islamic nation and great britain?"

Religions are transnational. If you are a believer church laws come from god then local laws are irrelevant.

If we accept that religion is core to a person's ethics and moral view of the world and other people - then changing country does not magically change those cultural attitudes.

When the pope in Rome forbids contraception under church law - Catholics in Africa, Spain, Brazil and around the world follow "the word of god" even if it means dying a horrible death from Aids.

The point is: Accepting murdering a loss of faith is the law of god, is accepting a moral code that is completely counter to tolerance, freedom and free will. - "Oh but i don't believe that part when i immigrate?"

Islam demands tolerance, in yet the very code of the religion's law forbids giving it in return.

The relevance is that fundamental islamic followers are moving to great britain and setting up here. I've heard a few rumblings in the past about certain areas in certain cities where nutjob muslims (yes, like there are nutjob christians too) refuse to speak any language other than their own, virtually ostracise themself from great britain from anything other than selecting which benefits of our country they want to live with. Such as jobseeker's allowance, child maintenance, free health care, housing payments, free schooling, free speech (especially this one), etc. etc.

There are many english speaking fuckbags who do it too. There are many people whose family history you could trace back hundreds of years to these islands, they're doing it as well.

I've also heard rumblings that some of these people want to bring elements of sharia (spell check) law into british law, allowing them to deal with 'their own' people in 'their own' way (not my words). I won't pretend that this is some major agenda being pushed by credible muslim groups in this country, it could easily be a bunch of isolated nutcases like the christian families in america protesting army funerals.

What i can say for certain is that in these certain areas of certain cities sharia law IS being practised. These little communities within a community set themselves up as being apart from everyone else and the people in there live how they like. I wish i could cite the documentary i watched on this subject but i can't, so i'm reduced to looking like an idle speculator.

Segregation of communities is CLEARLY a problem. I think it's been a problem for a while here in britain, we haven't worked hard enough to make sure immigrants grow to become part of britain. As a result, we are left with places like that in this country, and left with people voting for the BNP/UKIP because they feel like that's their only option left to resolve tensions in certain areas. It's why we're left with people arguing over schools, what's taught there and what isn't, whether it's fair for things to be included or excluded from schools, what you can wear to work, and so on.

The relevance of this question to me is establishing that there are elements of muslim life and religion from muslim countries that simply cannot be taken to other countries, and not just the death penalty for leaving the faith. That's what it meant to me.

The relevance could also very easily be showing that certain aspects of the muslim faith can't be visited upon other countries because it would be tantamount to a war crime. Replicating images of their god, leaving their faith. These things should only apply to their country, not internationally. Yet we've seen events where they ARE applied internationally by lunatics.

>> ^smooman:

dawkins made his point. but i'd like to hear his answer to the response question: "what's the relevance of what happens in an islamic nation and great britain?"


This guy wasn't killed in an islamic nation.

dawkins made his point. but i'd like to hear his answer to the response question: "what's the relevance of what happens in an islamic nation and great britain?"

if you look anywhere outside of islamic theocracies you will find that there are no legal ramifications for apostasy. Here in america (fuck yeah) if a muslim becomes a christian or an atheist or whatever he/she is not held under lawful punishment. I'm sure the same in britain, any free nation for that matter.

So what is the relevance of the question? to point out that fundamentalist, islamic theocracies are a dangerous, intolerant, and insufferable lot? to point the finger and laugh at the muslims and their mean ways? knowing the overt disposition of dawkins on religion i'd bet my bottom dollar on the latter. He was quite pointedly bashing religion, in this case islam, and being smug about it. "That's all i wish to hear"? fuck off dawkins.

look if you want to hold a conversation about the conflicts of theocracy fine. I think theocracy is shit and a bit oxymoronic in terms of its goal. but again, we have dawkins brow beating the religious and their neanderthal ways in lieu of actual dialogue.

i like dawkins ok. he's a brilliant scientist and widely influential. but this is the dawkins i cant stand. atheists like dawkins are no different than the religious who think he's an immoral, dirty, baby eating sinner that he talks down to.

what's really off putting about dawkins is that he thinks he's smarter, more evolved, and better looking than me because i'm NOT an antheist all while "preaching" how intolerant the religious are. How is that any different than if i were to think that i am more righteous, just, and compassionate than dawkins because he's NOT a christian?(ps: i dont think that)

it isnt.

i just hate interviews and videos like this i guess. where's the dialogue? wheres the discourse? theyve been substituted for a pissing contest

No. This video is misinformed at best and deceitful at worst. Now the Young Turks are trying to interpret history how they want to. History should not be read in light of current political feelings, by either side. It needs to be read as it happened.

When tea became popular in the colonies in the early 18th century, British Parliament passed a law in 1721 saying that the colonies had to import their tea only from Great Britain. The East India company never sold to the colonies; it sold wholesale auction in Britain which was then later imported by various merchant middlemen.

Since the British were taxing the East India company about 25% for their tea, plus additional taxes on tea for consumption, and the Dutch weren't taxing their companies any, a huge pastime in both England and the colonies was buying smuggled Dutch tea at much cheaper prices. The East India company was losing big money.

In 1767 Parliament passed the Indemnity Act to help the East India company compete with smugglers. This lowered the tax on tea consumed in Great Britain and gave the company a refund of the 25% duty of tea that was re-exported to the colonies. Of course, this meant a loss of revenue for Parliament, so they also passed the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767, which levied new taxes, including one on tea, on the colonies.

Don't forget that the British Empire was in massive debt following the Seven Year's War (1756-1763). You have the 1765 Stamp Act, which was a tax just on the colonies requiring most things on printed paper to use taxed or "stamped" paper purchased at a premium from Britian. You also have the Sugar Act of 1764, which was, again, a tax imposed only on the colonies. Then the Revenue Act of 1766. Add all of this on top of the fact that the colonies were in a big economic turmoil following the war, and that each of these added fuel to the fire of the "no taxation without representation" debate and you get a bunch of pissed off colonists, probably for a whole host of reasons.

The colonies were viewed as nothing more than a source of revenue for the 'grand' ideas of the British Empire.

>> ^papple:
Yes, Dag, NI is within Great Britain.


Sorry, now you're arguing too far in the other direction.

Northern Ireland is within the United Kingdom, but not Great Britain.

'Great Britain' just means the largest of the British Isles. 'Great' being used in terms of size, not grandeur.
Great Britain consists of only England, Scotland and Wales.

>> ^papple:

But by all means, don't take my word for it. If you're ever in Ireland, please visit Cork and refer to the locals as "British". Please.


People are free to call themselves anything they wish. Personally I'm Welsh and hate it when Americans make the mistake of saying Wales is part of England, rather than Britain or the UK. However I believe if I'm to argue for accuracy in that respect then I have to be consistent.

Ireland is the second largest of the British Isles, it is a British Island, but not part of Great Britain.

As Videosift does not currently seem to have a Channel for Ireland it makes sense to me to include it in the British Channel.
Maybe a new Ireland Channel could be created and the British one re-named to Britain?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I was wondering more If NI is referred to - or if they refer to themselves that way.>> ^papple:
>> ^heathen:
However, it is British.Would you refer to Chilean nationals as "American", simply because they reside in South America? You're very, very wrong.
But by all means, don't take my word for it. If you're ever in Ireland, please visit Cork and refer to the locals as "British". Please.
Also, this is not a 24hr news station, merely an excerpt from a 30 minute bi-nightly news programme.
>> ^dag:
How about Northern Ireland then- would we say that's British?

Yes, Dag, NI is within Great Britain. The Republic, however, gained independence in 1921 and severed all Commonwealth ties in 1949. The Republic of Ireland is in no way British.
/history lesson