Your daily source of news & videos on science & religion since 2007
Considering how racist Condell is, I'd rather you choose to give the soapbox to people more representative of the Atheist community. Condell is to Atheists what Pat Robertson is to Christians...
Did Pat just go Zeitgeist on us? <shakes></shakes>
DR you are confusing religion with race.
Go on then DR, give us your consideration of how racist he is - maybe you could visit his website and post us a link to the videos in question? And while you're at it can you tell us what you think 'the atheist community' is too.
I'm all for keeping us atheists on the straight and narrow, DR. Please keep me informed on what's in and what's out. I don't want to let my membership lapse.
I believe Article II, Chapter 4 of the Constitution of the International Association of Atheists and Associated Agnostics states clearly that Racism is not permitted.
That's quite the straw man you've got there, john... Condell, like a few atheists out there, seem to believe that religion all is bad (i'm with you there), but Islam is so much worse than any others!!!! OMG, they talk about killiing people in the Qur'an!!!!! And they forget, for the time they rant and scream and shout about how evil Islam is, that the Bible and the Bhagavad Gita also contain lots and lots of killing and orders to kill. People have always followed no more and no less of their religion than they have wanted to. That is as true of Christianity as it is of Islam. The West is liberal; Christianity is not. Where the West had a clear influence in the Muslim world, Islam became liberal. You can look at Lebanon before Israel destroyed it as an example.Religion is evil; I have no problems with that statement. But to allow one's fears and hatreds to taint our discourse as Condell has done many times recently is in fact to act in exactly the same way as those we criticize. It makes their false claim that Atheism is a religion a little truer.
No. Condell is.
Condell has the right to be racist if he wants to. But then I'll do with him as I do with all racists: I'll denounce them. Which is exactly what I did.I speak for myself, and hope others will agree. Your snark is misplaced.
If you don't believe there's an "Atheist Community", why are you commenting on this site? There is no need for formal institutions to recognize a group of people as a community.
http://www.youtube.com/patcondell#p/a/u/1/NUiysSau8QkHe's painting Muslims as a single worldwide group of people bent on infiltrating and taking over the government. This is quite similar in tone to what the Nazis claimed of the Jews (and is as false of Islam as it was of Judaism). He's quoting lovingly from a book written by White Supremacists, which in and of itself is problematic to say the least... need I go on?
Huge huge huge huge huuuuuge difference is that his views will not become law as he is a secularist, unlike Robertson.Btw, a shoplifters arms..got a good laugh out of me. And..religion isn't a race, it's an idea, and a poor one.
DR. You haven't watched most if even half of his videos...watch for instance "A secular world is a sane world" in him making it clear that Islam alone isn't the problem. Religion is, and especially the type which has no interest in the seperation of church and state..
What's all this got to do with it? I simply noted your arrogance in hinting that Condell should be censored to better represent "the Atheist community" and in your assumption that you know what this "Atheist community" looks like.It seems a very "religious" attitude you have there, DR.As for Condell, he's definitely not a racists. I know, 'caus I'm one, and he's never at the meetings.
As far as I know, Condell hasn't suggested your "soapbox" be yanked because you don't fit in the Atheist chorus.
I'm generally reluctant to join "communities" (formal or informal) because eventually people like you, DR, take over.Do you always lay down the groundrules for all the communities (informal or formal) that you join?
I'm with DR. Based on some of the videos that I've seen, this Condell character definitely has racist tendencies, and suggesting that he shouldn't be given the limelight is not the same as actually censoring him.
Wow, first George Carlin converts to sun worship, and now Pat Condell. Think I'll have to check it out for myself...
Condell doesn't hate moslems, he just hates everything about them, believes that they have no place in Europe and that any who claim to be moderate are lying.Not a racist, then. Just a bigot.
Is he racist or culturist? Which race exactly does he hate? I've heard him talk very negatively of muslims, which race are they exactly?
Btw, Islam isn't a race it's a religion or maybe a culture. And it's ok to be a culturist because that implies behavior which is as legitimate of a reason to judge someone as there ever was.
DR, you must be confused - in the video link you posted Pat goes out of his way to state he doesn't hate muslims. He's got a problem with radical islam which is well justified looking at the evidence. Nice try, any more racist speeches from the man or is that the best you can come up with?Don - same question to you, please post the links to the videos that back up your assertion that he's a bigot. I think you'll find his point is that political islam does not have a place in Europe. It took hundreds of years to shake free from religious rule and Pat's problem, like mine, is that our leaders are so busy bending over to avoid offending muslims that they're weakening our ability to reject the latest one. All religions are simply ideas that should be challenged. Doing so is not bigoted, or racist, or even impolite. It is essential.
JED,Links? Well I'm sure you are familiar with Condell's recent shilling for WND's 'Muslim Mafia' as the most important book you could ever read. In fact, the only book you ever need to read, but I'll accept that that was hyberbole rather than an actual opinion.You are familiar with WND, right? If that is his idea of a reputable and reliable source then bigot or dupe, take your pick.Here's a link to Rachel Maddows take on the book.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E271Es21vaM
To me, this entire string suggests a majority of people seem to get all indignant about that ultra-politically correct "racist" issue, but don't seem to mind DR's initial suggestion that (1) At least one controversial view should be curbed on this site and (2) That all good atheists should graze in his herd (community, he calls it.)I'd hazard a guess, sadly, that there are plenty of racists amongst us atheists, and I'd be incorrect if I insisted that this fact would make them any less atheistic. It simply makes them unpleasant atheists.
John,I agree with DR's assessment of Condell, but you make a fair point; there is no requirement to be nice to be an atheist. But as (apart from DR) only Sputnik and myself have criticised Condell I don't see where you get 'majority' from.I'm not grazing in any herd. Way back when I used to have some regard for Condell, although I could never see why the 'humour' tag was applied, but over the last several months he has lost that regard. It ain't grazing to say so.
There is no requirement to be nice to be an atheist????? That's the main thrust you got from my posts???? I'll repeat one last time. I TOOK EXCEPTION, IN DR's INITIAL POST, TO (1.) HIS SUGGESTION OF CENSORSHIP, AND (2.) HIS INACCURATE ASSUMPTION ABOUT WHAT AN ATHEIST IS.The "majority" I'm talking about are the people here who seem to give him a pass on these two issues while focusing on the hot-button, socially-entrained racism issue.
No need to shout. HIS INACCURATE ASSUMPTION ABOUT WHAT AN ATHEIST IS. What is your definition and why does it matter? If Condell, or anyone else, is both an atheist and a bigot it is surely fair to ask in which capacity they are speaking.What do you mean by socially-entrained racism issue.. We are all socially entrained, aren't we? OK, except you. We might recognise it and take rational steps to deal with it, but if we are to be socially entrained then being so to call out bigotry is not the worst entraining possible. I didn't suggest he should be curbed, I did suggest he should be criticised. And once again, only two people have done that.
I give up
Don, I'm not fussed what Rachel Maddows or Pat Condell think of the book; I'm a freethinker so I'll read it and form my own opinion. Looking at just the source of a book is not a sure way to review its contents.I grant you that the video in which Pat endorses this comes across as a real rant and I didn't like the tone on first viewing, but I've watched it a couple of times since and he makes some valid points, book endorsment or not. My point is, how have you established that this man is a bigot from his videos?The bigot/racist card is always trotted out when someone dares to challenge the multicultural ethos of the left these days, leaving many of us naturally leaning that way exasperated that the only ones to see through it are the right wing loonies we abhor. Think Geert Wilders, consitently labelled far right when he stands up for Dutch liberal values or even Bruce Bawer, a gay American man living in Norway and having the guts to challenge the spineless colaboration of the ruling class there to homophobic Islamic demands.