I am just as keen on universal civil liberties as the next Samizdatista, however I must concede that the case of India vis-à-vis the Danish cartoons made me briefly question my blanket commitment to the freedom of the press. I yearn for a major Australian newspaper to have the stones to print these cartoons in self defence and defiance, however I would argue that any editor of an Indian publication who allows them to be published is astonishingly irresponsible, given India’s history and continuing record of bloody communal violence. If these cartoons found their way into a publication with a moderate degree of circulation, the question would not be “will there be deaths?”, but “how many?” Upon reflection, I certainly do not believe that government censorship is the answer, however it is marginally more justifiable there than in any other nation I can think of. Because of this, it is crucial that Indian editors exercise their judgement wisely – and not publish the cartoons. Hopefully there will come a time when India is not the exception (regarding this issue) amongst countries governed by the rule of law.
I should mention that I have huge faith in the wisdom of Indians.
At least if violence broke out over the republication, India would know better what they have on their hands.
Perhaps groups responsible for organizing violence would be tried and thrown in jail.
Why tippy-toe around thugs? Why not flush them out with such an invitation.
Note that this is all in the context of publishing the cartoons in order to better describe what the issue is — and not just slapping them on the funnies page 🙂
James, from what I gather, it is not a newspaper at all, but a neighbourhood newsletter. Hardly any circulation to speak of. Also, the neighbourhood it is distributed in is not a sectarian tinpot- the chances of rioting would have been much less than if it would have been printed in, say, an Old Delhi paper.
For the first time, I disagree with James Waterton.
India is an old Islam hand. They’ve been at it for hundreds of years and they don’t put up with rioting Islamocrap. Rioters get their brains beaten out with lathis.
India is committed to free speech. In fact, they never stop talking. The editor was correct to publish the cartoons. As Ivan Kirigin says, they weren’t published in the comics pages. There can be no understanding of what this intemperate, insane Islamorage is all about without seeing the cartoons (unlike most of the foaming Islamoloonies, who have never seen them). The police are wrong to have seized the publication.
There comes a time when the divinity of cows and shiny mosque domes must be labeled for what it is–seventh century superstition. If not now, when? It looks like the Iraqis are determined NOT to have a civil war, and more power to them. Why not put the Indian peoples to a few more tests like this, and get them over the hump? The civilized world should not have to indulge them in this nonsense forever.
While the chances for violence are high in India I nevertheless think the images need to be printed. Suppressing speech, even one’s own, for fear of violence is appeasement and will backfire.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Benjamin Franklin
Our core always serves us well.
exguru – Hinduism, which is not a religion, began thousands of years before “7th C superstitition”.
I’m getting a little sick of all you smartasses telling people, from your point at the peak of universal knowledge and understanding of all things, to “get over” religion. You are all so aggressive and angry. Why?
Religion gives solace to hundreds of millions of people and encourages them to care for their fellow man. As long as religion is not imposed by force, belief in something larger than mankind can be a force for good.
What is it about you people who so destructively want to take religious beliefs away from people who cling to them and take comfort from them (and who may be right – we don’t know)? Why the lofty aggression?Why the anger? Why on earth are you occupying yourselves with the spiritual lives of other people? My god (so to speak), get a life of your own!
At least if violence broke out over the republication, India would know better what they have on their hands.
India knows precisely what it has on its hands, having had very nasty communal violence fitfully over the 60 years of independence, as well as horrific disorders on partition. Any republication there might be exercise of press freedom by a famously fearless press; but it might also be a deliberate attempt to spark violence by some aggressive Hindu Nationalist groups. There are certainly Muslim ghettoes in some Indian cities where people go in daily fear of real violence from nationalist thugs. (Which those who complain about ‘islamophobia’ in Western Europe would do well to note for comparison.) See here for a neutral account.
Seems like James Waterton has submitted to dhimmitude.
“I am just as keen on universal civil liberties as the next Samizdatista, however”
He sounds like anyone blaming Denmark and supporting the violence with the nonsensical “I believe in freedom of speech BUT” drivel.
If someone wants to publish a cartoon they shouldn’t be threatened with violence. The Jyllands Post has been proved right yet again; self-censorship exists and the promotion of self-censorship is now being trumpeted by a samizdata contributor, sickening.
I notice that none of you “libertarians” has any criticism to make of Google et al for censoring the Internet. One mighta thought that the freedom of bloggers wd be of very slight interest.
Google own their search engine and surely any person using the internet is at liberty to use a different search engine. (Although it is spineless of them to change their policy to appease bullies.)
On the issue of re-publication of the cartoons though you cannot give up a little bit of freedom. One is either free to speak or not.
How many more times does it have to be said: Deaths caused by riots over the cartoons are caused by the rioters and not the printers. People have free will…or at least SOME people have free will.
This Pavlovian response should be exposed for what it is – a manifestation of brainwashing on a grand scale.
A little censorship? Like a little pregnancy? India is an old hand when it comes to censorship. It was the oh-so-holy government of India which had banned Rushdie’s book and which then gave the mullahs in Iran to call for his death.
The Indian government is as spineless as the people of India — dhimmitude has been part of their creed ever since the brutal Islamic invasion of India a thousand years ago.
Karl Rove (if that _is_ your real name!),
Check this out, though not 100% relevant:
“The impossibility of completely censoring the Chinese blogosphere”
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/008284.html
GIYF: “google censor china site:samizdata.net/blog”
You can pretty much assume folks here don’t like it, but the “foot-in-the-door” argument might also fly.
Just because another person’s blog doesn’t comment enough on topics of interest to you, it does not mean they aren’t 100% covered under a label like “libertarian”. Perhaps you’d like to start your own libertarian blog about China & Google, and maybe some ponies.
Unless one owns shares in Google, the company’s operating decisions are not one’s business. The owners of the company can make any policy they choose. We’re free to use other search engines. Yahoo has banned, as an email address, allah or any word with that combination of letters in it. So people called Callahan can’t use their name for a Yahoo email address.
India should expel Islamic troublemakers to their spiritual home and the iron mental straightjacket of Islam. Pakistan and Bangladesh beckon.
Massive reverse immigration must now be considered, not just for India but for Western countries that are being destabilised by terrorism and the camel with its nose under the tent demanding tiny concession after tiny concession, eroding the liberty and free thought and expression that are the underpinnings of the advanced, enlightened West.
Verity, I could not agree with you more.
Read William Bennett and Alan Dershowitz Failure of the press in which they detail the cowardice of the American press, which failed to publish the cartoons, while praising itself for “sensitivity”. Very good article.
Of course various newspapers and governments are declining to publish or censoring these cartoons—they are terrified of the response.
All censorship, whether self directed or state imposed, is based on fear. All repression of any kind is based on fear.
Calm, confident, courageous people have no need, or inclination, to suppress the ideas or religious beliefs of others, nor are they afraid to express their own opinions and ideas.
Violent, repressive regimes and their belief systems, always seem so dangerous, so strong and menacing, because they’re constantly in a state of terrified frenzy, threatening anyone and anything, rioting, cursing (or fatwa-ing) their enemies, who are always legion, sinister, and diabolical.
Multiculturists, and PC dainties, don’t restrain debate or art or ideas because they’re confident of their beliefs, but specifically because they’re unsure and embarrassed by who they are and what they represent.
The reason they cave in is the same reason they try to repress—weakness. Intellectual, moral, and cultural weakness.
The poster above makes the only totally valid point, which must be repeated and repeated and reapeated— the violent rioters are the problem, and the ones who are wrong, not the newspapers or others who have printed or reprinted these cartoons.
The rioters and their instigators don’t know what danger really is. Danger is when those who are willing to live and let live have had enough, and decide to put a stop to whatever nonsense is disturbing their world.
Yamamoto knew exactly who the dangerous ones were.
James W., you could have saved a small amount of bandwidth by merely positing that civil liberties are great AND India may need to yield to pragmatism and make a considered decision to forgo publication of the infamous cartoons.
See? Nice and simple. I love reading Samizdata, but sometimes folks just invest too much effort when presenting their (usually valid) points.
I’m not sure that believing a fantasy is literally true is ever a good thing. Maybe in limited cases (I’m thinking of placebos), but surely there is some value to seeking after truth for its own sake? Or at the very least, not blindy believing in things you’re unsure of? In any case, the burden of proof is surely on the religious crowd since they’re the ones making the unprovable assertions. If people have personal reasons to believe that God is real, that is, of course, their business — but they need to understand that they are not entitled to anyone else’s respect for their beliefs.
Probably because religion still manages to be oppresive in its petty little ways. People who are content to believe on their own terms in their own little corner of the world are perfectly fine with me. But there seems to be no shortage of Jerry Fallwell types who are not. It is, for example, illegal to buy alcohol on Sundays here. A minor annoyance, you say – and you’re right. But the point is that it is an annoyance, and an annoyance caused and maintained by people who offer no other justification for their law than a book of dubious authorship filled with stories that stand up to no kind of rational analysis (least of all one that concludes they have anything at all to do with blue laws!). If it were the case that religious people largely kept to themselves, your point would be absolutely right. But the fact is that a great many religious people do NOT keep to themselves, so it should come as no surprise to you that those of us who don’t believe in religion are bothered by the whole thing.
Hear, hear. That is the only point that ever need be made about this issue. If a newspaper in India or anywhere else in the world wants to publish any damn thing it pleases, the last thing it should have to take into account is whether unruly mobs will result. No paper can ever be held even partly responsible for such a response.
Joshua – In the US, the religious right is more aggressive, but America is unique in that sense; such aggression is not seen in other parts of the world. I have found some of the atheist prosyletisers posting here to be every bit as aggressive and irritating as fundamentalist Christians.
Your statement: “I’m not sure that believing a fantasy is literally true is ever a good thing.” is as foolish and self-deluding as those qualities you ascribe to people who do hold religious beliefs. You do not know whether one, or all, spiritual beliefs are a fantasy or not, because you’re not dead yet. Thus, you are as didactic as a Christian or a Hindu, and you have as much desire to control other people’s spiritual beliefs i.e., they must divest themselves of them, as do some spiritual leaders. And those ayatollahs of atheism are as irritating as Jehova’s Witnesses.
Just live your lives. There is plenty in life to occupy you without setting out spiritual rules for people you don’t even know.
Joshua, if it’s important for you to drink on Sundays, then move. No one’s forcing you to stay there and be annoyed, are they?
Or just load up for the weekend and drink at home.
So far as an Indian publication printing the things goes, it’s hardly necessary, is it? Indians can log into Google as easily as they Rediff.
Already, the outrage is so high that an Indian state minister has offered a reward for the heads (Link)of the Danish cartoonists. And the Indian clerics objected only because they believe that issuing those kinds of fatwas are properly their job(Link).
So, I’d say the uproar is out of the hands of the Indian press.
Verity, I think you are quoting me selectively. I also said this:
I am perfectly content to leave people alone with their beliefs. I do not claim to know whether God exists or not. People who have personal convictions that he does – well, I have nothing to say about that. I’m just saying that I cannot be expected to respect, out of hand, beliefs for which no independent motivation is given. If certain religious beliefs DO turn out to have been fantasies (and I make no secret of suspecting they will), I can’t see how it was a good thing for people to have believed in them, that’s all. There is nothing the least bit arrogant about such an attitude – it is simple common sense. I do not, after all, demand that religious people think like I do.
I agree with you that there is no shortage of aggressive atheists, by the way, and I don’t believe that anything in my post defended them.
Sandy P – your post is nonsense. People should not be in the business of making laws for which there is no rational justification. I chose my words deliberately : I am “annoyed” by the law, not “outraged.” Do you understand the difference? No one is forcing me to stay here, right, and I am not about to give up a PhD over whether or not I can buy alcohol on sundays (drinking is perfectly legal, by the way – please read the posts to which you object). If you think that anyone who complains about a law must immediately seek a new place of residence, then you really are new to this whole democracy and public discussion thing, and I suggest you brush up on the rules.
Joshua says: I agree with you that there is no shortage of aggressive atheists, by the way, and I don’t believe that anything in my post defended them.
You are one yourself. Why style people’s deeply felt spiritual beliefs (whatever they are) “fantasies” when your belief in atheism is equally a fantasy as you know no more than they do? Most people with religious beliefs do not try to take anything away from others. Atheists do. They try to take away comfort and succour from people who innocently believe in a diety or dieties and I find that despicable.
Yes, religions have been a cause of war, but mankind goes to war at the drop of a hat anyway, but by and large – the exception being the monster of Islam – they are beneficent and give meaning to life to those who believe in them.
There are a clutch of aggressive atheists around here – all male, incidentally – and they grab one by the collar and shout in one’s ear and are as determined to force people into their own fold as any fire and brimstone preacher – and I find them foolish and irritating.
Back on topic – please forgive me for straying, James Waterton; I wasn’t trying to highjack your post – The Sanity Inspector notes that there was no reason for the Indian publication to run the toons as they’re easily available on the internet. I don’t agree. The newspaper chose to exercise its freedom to print what it saw fit to print, and by doing so, it added its small voice to the fight not to lose our right of freedom of expression. Every voice is important here.
Verity, you make some great points. I would love to see the Islamonazis among us sent packing.
On the subject of free speech, freedom of speach is a right and with any right comes some responsibility in its exercise. Joshua here misses the point. Sure, an Indian newspaper has the right to publish the Cartoons, and maybe they should and come down like Ghenghis Khan of the rioting fanatics and boot their asses out of India. There might be a net gain for India here, maybe not. I am hardly informed about Indian politics. So, let me pose a gedankenexperiment:
I am Mark the Media Mogul. I have newspapers, TV stations, the works. It is Los Angeles after the Rodney King beating by LAPD. My soap box beckons. I will exercise my right of free speech and state,”Rodney King deserved what he got!” People would die as a result of this inflamatory statement through my media empire.
I am exercising my Constitutional right of free speech.
I am being morally irresponsible.
I am in fact, if not at law, inciting a riot.
Who supports my free speech in this instance?
If you think you’re being morally irresponsible, you should not be asking support of others.
I don’t know who you refer to as Islamonazis on this blog.
For Americans living in the DC area, writer Christopher Hitchens has organised a peaceful demonstration outside the Danish Embassy at 32 Whitehaven St (Off Massachusetts Avenue) to support the Danish people tomorrow (Friday) between noon and 1 p.m. He asks that people behave peacefully and have cheerful conversations among themselves. In other words, for an hour of your life, act like a Dane! Apparently the response at christopher.hitchens@yahoo.com has been overwhelming. If you live in the area, I hope to see your face on the TV news, because just now, the tiny country of Denmark is holding the ramparts for freedom of the press – without the help of the pusillanimous British, American and Australian press or governments -alone. If you can’t be there, go out and buy a pack of LurPak, Havarti or Danish blue! Let’s hope this is the start of a wave of peaceful demonstrations of support for the Danes at their embassies and consulates in civilised countries.
I am not asking anyone’s support. I am asking if anyone would support the action I posed as freedom of speech. There is a rather large difference. Islamonazis are militant Islamists.
Mark McGilvray – Here is what you posted:
I am exercising my Constitutional right of free speech.
I am being morally irresponsible.
I am in fact, if not at law, inciting a riot.
Who supports my free speech in this instance?
I responded, “If you think you’re being morally irresponsible, you should not be asking support of others.”
Yes, we know that Islamonazis are militant Islamoloonies. You wrote: “I would love to see the Islamonazis among us sent packing.” If by “among us” you meant Samizdata, I would repeat that I don’t think there are any among us, other than that weird little Islamotroll last week who hasn’t been back.
Good grief, I am aware of what I posted. I read your response the first time. If you do not wish to answer my question, then don’t. There is no need to repeat it.
I am certainly not calling anyone at Samizdata an Islamonazi. LOL! My apologies for any misimpression created.
Nice try Verity, but feelings are no defence. If someone believes in something with no independent reason for doing so and that something is not true, then it is a fantasy.
My not knowing whether God exists is not the same thing, because I have not asserted that he does not. I have simply said that I cannot be asked to respect beliefs that have no independent or objective motivation. This is neither aggressive nor arrogant. You are unusually sensitive about this issue.
It sounded very petty and whiny, Joshua.
I read every post – albeit quickly.
I’m not allowed to buy booze on Sundays because they have an irrational belief.
Funny that people with a certain irrational belief are the most content…..
And it seems the secularists have been getting really pissy the last few years.
Joshua: As I understand it, the standard atheist argument has bugger all to do with claiming or not claiming to know whether God exists or not.
Atheism has little to do with knowledge per se because it is really about how beliefs relate to truth. Some atheists argue that our beliefs must be ‘aimed’ at the truth (i.e. subject to rational criticism) otherwise they are fantasies and not actually beliefs. Beliefs about the probability of volcanoes erupting for example, tend to be filtered through the scientific process of rational criticism whereas beliefs about the existence and nature of a god are often based on social norms and pressures of social acceptance.
I too don’t really give a rats arse about people having religious beliefs, but I do give a lot more than a rats arse about what they do with those beliefs.
And what they will do with those beliefs is try to enforce them with State power.
So, insofar as I am concerned religious people fall into the same category as communists and national socialists with differing degrees of potential threat.
Some people seem to mistake my post as a call for censorship. This is wrong. I suggested that, given the climate in India, a responsible Indian editor should not publish the cartoons.
I have to say, I think there are several people on this thread who do not know a great deal about the nature of communal violence in India. Pay heed to Guy Herbert’s comment.
Verity – I do not agree that the problem of communal violence is in hand; its reccurrence suggests otherwise. If only a lathi charge or two could solve the problem. I do agree that it would be nice to exile the Islamic troublemakers in India to Bangladesh or Pakistan. The final stage of partition. Pity neither country would take them.
Brian – it is my prerogative to post what I like on Samizdata, and this will continue to be the case until the blog owner decides otherwise. You yourself could have saved a small amount of bandwidth by not making an utterly irrelevant observation.
mememe – are you always an uncomprehending fool or do you take a day off every now and again?
Sandy P –
The general contentment of religious people, if they are indeed content, is a good advertisement for their belief system and a reason non-believers might want to convert. It is NOT a license to make irrational laws. What religious people do on their own time is their business. When they start insisting that the rest of us respect their customs, a line is crossed.
Joshua says, of me: “You are unusually sensitive on this issue.” No, I’m not. As you don’t know me, you have absolutely no idea how sensitive I am on any issue and whether this issue has occasioned extra sensitivity or not.
I simply find your attitude arrogant – an attitude often found in smart-ass young men with pretensions to learning and who believe themselves to be superior, more rational thinkers than other people.
Trying to destroy other people’s religious or spiritual believes to show how frightfully logical and boldly dismissive you are is mean-spirited and spiteful. There are more mature, better grounded atheists who are simply atheists and don’t feel the need to come crashing in angrily with condemnations of religious beliefs every time the subject comes up.
No, I’m not unusually sensitive on this – except for feeling protective of people who cling to beliefs that do no one any harm. How does it hurt you that many Jews keep kosher, because that is a requirement of their religion? How does it hurt you that Hindus believe that Shiva creates and destroys the universe with his dance, every 30 million years?
Ooooooh, wars! There have been thousands of times more wars fought over territory than religious beliefs. And trade.
You have no idea whether I have any religious beliefs at all. You assume that because someone opposes you, it must be out of self-interest or wounded feelings. You are wrong.
It seems to me that atheism is the most pointless and futile of all possible religions. Why do they have to be so evangelical about it? Not to mention all the laws and lawsuits they bring to avoid having their sensitivities offended. Why do they have to legislate their religion? 🙂
James Waterton – No, I realise India’s communal problems aren’t really in hand – but they are pretty damn good at riot control. I can’t imagine anyone who’s ever seen a lathi charge going back for more.
What I meant about India – and failed to say so – was that they are aware of the problem of Islam in a clear-headed, realistic way. They are under no Blairesque illusions that it’s “only a few” troublemakers who are terrorists, and that “the vast majority” are absolutely not “moderate”. They believe in the imposition of Dar-es-Salaam as fervently as the mothers of suicide bombers who stay in touch with their sons by cell phone as they wend their way to their appointment in Samarra until they hear the big bang.
If India thought it could get any international encouragement – or at least not be bullied and hectored – they would start shovelling the Muslims out of their country. I didn’t know that Pakistan and Bangladesh wouldn’t take them, though.
“Brian – it is my prerogative to post what I like on Samizdata, and this will continue etc.. etc..”
Steady on, JW. I was merely making a lighthearted observation that, amongst the many qualities exhibited by the disparate contributors to Samizdata, circumspection is noticably absent.
-B.
What I get out of Verity’s post is “you don’t know me or whether I’m religious, but I know that you are a smart-ass, pretentious young man out to deliberately cause psychological harm to people.”
But then, consistency was never one of her strong points. In any case, if that isn’t a sensitive reaction, I don’t know what is.
Midwesterner-
I can’t tell how serious your post is meant to be! Do you think most of these lawsuits are about sensibilities? Certainly some of them are (e.g. the one about the Pledge. The “Under God” bit was added later, but who cares? If you don’t agree with it, just don’t say it!), but for the most part I think they are intended to keep religion in the private sphere where it belongs. My personal beef is not with inconsequential things like what’s printed on my money (I could care less about the “In God We Trust” thing) but with laws that actually do affect people’s lives. Religion is, for example, no basis for telling shopkeepers when they can and cannot sell alcohol. Likewise (to quote another Indiana example), I’m not sure why the presence of a church on an adjacent lot should mean a restaurant has to give up its liquor license. But sure, campaigns against any public display of religion are misguided and, as you say, overly sensistive.
Joshua – You have already softened your stance because your posturing has been noted as absurd by others.
However, this sentence, that you ascribe to me, makes no sense at all: “”you don’t know me or whether I’m religious, but I know that you are a smart-ass, pretentious young man out to deliberately cause psychological harm to people.”
I’ll put it simply in the hope that there’s a window of opportunity to slip quickly around your ego:
1. You do not know whether I am religious. That is indisputable. Whatever motives you impute to me are conjectural and not worth the bandwidth they are written on.
2. I know you are a pretentious, dismissive smartass because your writing in the above posts provides us ample evidence for this deduction.
3. “In any case, if that isn’t a sensitive reaction, I don’t know what is.” Then you don’t know what is. A comment disagreeing with your posture does not make the demurrer “sensitive”, by definition.
Because I defend people with religious beliefs against aggressive, bad-mannered atheism, it doesn’t necessarily mean that I hold religious convictions myself, and it doesn’t necessarily mean I don’t.
Slightly off topic, but good news:
Canada has decided not to expand its hate laws to cover the cartoons.
The story (for those of you who haven’t been following) it that a certain heroic publisher decided to publish the cartoons in a routine news story about the issue. Canadian muslim groups responded by filing “hate speech” (yes, that is a national crime in Canada) charges against him.
The government has just anounced that the current statutes don’t cover this case, and that it has no intention of expanding them to do so.
Verity-
I have not softened my stance in the least. My stance was to say that I’m not sure it’s a good thing to be comforted by a fantasy. I still believe that.
The way I understand it, most people with religious beliefs assert that those beliefs are literally true. That is, the overwhelming majority of Christians believe that it is literally true that Jesus was God, was born as man, and died for their sins, no?
If that turns out to be true (which I personally doubt, but as you say, there is no way for me to know), then certainly the joke will be on me. If, however, it turns out not to be true, then the people who believe in it were being comforted by what can only be described as a fantasy.
I am not convinced that is a good thing. In other words – the simple fact that something is comforting to some people is not enough to label it a “good thing,” certainly not enough to end discussion of it out of hand.
I have been anti-Gandhi for years. It was he who started India on the path to socialism, enthusiastically abetted by Nehru, of course, and then his daughter Indira. Freedom at midnight was badly handled by any measure, but all this dealing with Ali Wotsit and making concessions was terribly unrealistically done.
If they were to have partition, which was a genuinely good idea because it would have got the Islamics the hell out of everyone’s hair, they should all have been repatriated to Pakistan (as it then was). Letting huge tranches stay on in India was a gross error.
Speaking of the bombing of the Samara mosque: seems the Islamists demand more (much more) respect for Islam than they themselves show.
Imagine the outcry if the US forces blew up that mosque by mistake !
Joshua, I was serious about atheism being a religion in that it is a belief that cannot be substantiated. And I was also serious about it being the most pointless and futile of religions.
I was also serious about some atheists being very insistant that I have to believe what they believe or I am … whatever derisive comment.
The remark about all of the lawsuits (there are a lot) is a parody of the Islamic etc sensitivities. By the way, the word was ‘sensitivities’, not ‘sensibilities’. Many of their lawsuits are reasonable and appropriate. Some of them are absurd. Here is an example of one of the absurd ones.
The post was intended to be in good humour while still pointing out that both sides use the power of government to enforce their religious beliefs.
Or give away milk.
Ha! I had never heard of this “milk incident,” thanks. Yes, clearly that constitutes an abuse of state power by anti-religionists in a blatant attempt to enforce their customs on others.
I agree that atheism is a faith. I hesitate to call it a “religion” since its only central doctrine seems to be flat rejection of any religious teaching as automatically false, but that is, of course, an incconsequential semantic point. In any case, it is true that it is “a belief that cannot be substantiated,” as you say.
I agree that atheism is a faith. I hesitate to call it a “religion” since its only central doctrine seems to be flat rejection of any religious teaching as automatically false, but that is, of course, an incconsequential semantic point. In any case, it is true that it is “a belief that cannot be substantiated,” as you say
from Joshua.
Well, well.
Midwesterner, what else can you expect from the Religion of Me?
It is, after all, all about them.
I’m not sure why you should find this surprising. Lines from my earlier posts such as this one:
should probably have tipped you off that I am an agnostic and not an atheist. You can save yourself a lot of trouble in life by paying attention to what people actually say and responding appropriately (rather than flying off the handle in response to what you expected to hear).
OK, Spock.
But it goes both ways, you know.
Cute.
The way I remember it, you suggested that I should pick up and move at an unjustified law I found merely “annoying.” I don’t think I read that wrong. If you don’t want silly things you say quoted back at you, don’t say silly things.
India officially has no state religion, and Indian culture is certainly based on a mixture of religions. But India does have a political culture in which Hindu nationalism plays a very heavy hand indeed. Of course this is not just due to the independence movement but as a reaction to the Muslims too.
I wonder whether Hinduism played any role in insulating corruption in India via favours-for-favours type deals with the BJP government?
For God’s sake I don’t believe it! Religion vs Atheism ad nauseum…
mike – Indian culture is based on Hinduism. – although certainly it was ruled by the Moguls for a long time. (Can’t be bothered to look it up.)
You raise a very interesting point about the “licence raj” – the ministries that were in charge of issuing permissions at the cost of payoffs. I doubt whether Hinduism played a large, or any, part in this – any more than Christianity plays a part in the corrupt civil service of Britain. It’s just human greed – for money, power or self-advancement.
Joshua – you wrote this line: “I do not claim to know whether God exists or not” after I pointed out that you were treating atheism as a fact rather than as much an act of faith as any religion.
Verity-
Interesting. Would you please point me to the place in my comments where I treated atheism as a fact? I think you’ll find that you read that in yourself. As I said, you can save yourself a lot of trouble by responding to what people actually say rather than flying off the handle at what you think they should have.
India – big government deficit and government thinking up (and introducing) new welfare programs as part of the competition (within the government) between the Congress party and the Communists parties.
Sadly India is not an escape from the “social justice” religion of our age.
It is a pity, as I would not mind India becomming top nation (if the United States collapses under the entitlement programs and the fiat money credit bubble financial system).
A land of strong and ancient familes with a love of gold and other nongovernment stores of value.
As well as a land with a long and complex history and great cultural richness (both the varius sorts of Hindu and all the other religions – and the secular Indians).
The world could do worse.
If only it could avoid the welfare program and credit bubble (fractional reserve “backed” by government fiat and central bank institutions) banking traps.
Sadly it does not seem as if it will avoid these traps.
I would rather have India than China as the next big player (much rather) – but I don’t know that India is really a shining beacon itself. Corruption maybe isn’t as nasty as in China, but it’s still a huge problem. Also, there is a socialist legacy that they’re a long way from having gotten over.
I don’t know that the love of gold and other non-governmental stores of value is an aspect of Indian culture. I think that’s more a side-effect of the fact that India is paradoxically talented/educated, i.e. has the capacity for wealth, but still tragically underdeveloped on the ground. The more efficient the country gets, the less “nongovernmental” their sources of value will likely become.
But yeah – if the US is going to collapse, we could definitely do worse than India to fill the gap.
Joshua writes: As I said, you can save yourself a lot of trouble by responding to what people actually say rather than flying off the handle at what you think they should have.
1. I don’t give a rat’s arse what you said. Do you think people read Samizdata to learn from little homilies you post?
2. I am not an off-the-handle flyer. Not being such is a feature of me.
3. I’ve addressed your comments several times above, but I’m not going to make a career of it. This issue is now closed as far as I am concerned.
China and India will become the next big players basically neck and neck. Great efforts are underway for them to work in friendly competition and not hostility. This is very important and is being pushed by elder statesman and the most experienced politician on earth, Lee Kuan Yew. India is already building a giant high tech park in China to train Chinese computer techies.
Joshua is correct when he notes that India has a destructive legacy of socialism. And how! And it all started with that self-righteous “great spirt” Mohanandas Gandhi. Then his acolyte Nehru. Then Nehru’s daughter Indira. What a curse! Rajiv was making tentative steps to breaking the tradition with the introduction of a car that wasn’t black and could go over 35 mph (the Ambassador) with the development of the Maruti, before he was assassinated. He was personally very corrupt, though.
India neglected to develop its manufacturing sector for 50 years, a mistake the Chinese did not make. Manufacturing, of course, leads to infrastructure, so China is ahead in this regard with roads and public transport. But India is streets ahead, so to speak, in technological innovation and applied for more patents last year than did the entire EU. (Quelle surprise.) That is why my money’s on India as the more desirable country. India has better corporate law and protections and a better banking system. But, barring any amazing surprises, I think they will run neck and neck and will try to avoid hostility.
I think the US will be top nation for at least the next 50 years, though, although of course, the gap with China and India will have almost closed by then.
Hardly. I think you look ridiculous for arguing over things in my comments that simply weren’t there.
People who are not “off-the-handle-flyers” don’t need three bullet points and phrases like “a rat’s arse” to dodge a simple question.