Barrel Strength

One of the best descriptions of the perversion of science we are witnessing with AGW is found here.

Conclusions first, evidence later. The goal is power, not truth.

Or why the term “climate science” has become an oxymoron.

I was saddened to learn of the death of Owsley Stanley III on Monday. He was a great benefactor of mankind, both as the dispenser of LSD in San Francisco at a crucial period in the 1960s, and as a sound engineer who revolutionized how rock bands were heard.

The hidden history of acid (lysergic acid monohydrate) is like the hidden history of the Masons: enormously influential, out of sight and yet whose results are right in front of your face. Without acid, the sixties would have been creative, as so many were then young; with acid, the sixties denoted a period of transformative creativity, not without considerable damage to social institutions, and yet the step children of the sixties are the computers and networks which have changed our lives. I am given to believe that the transformations of ordinary experience that were first experienced under the influence of pschoactive chemicals led to the creation of personal comouters and the Internet. I cannot prove it, but acid and personal computers all came out of a cultural milieu heaviliy influenced by Owsley Stanley, and the possibilities made evident once the doors of perception were cleansed.

Conservatives and other sensible people will be divided by this issue, as they should be. There are strong arguments for “just say no to drugs”. I would have more respect for that opinion if people who said it would go off their meds, their coffees, and their wine for six months. I suspect however, that a significant proportion of conservatives know what I am talking about, and agree. Your path to enlightenment may have started with a little orange square of cardboard with a darker orange owl in the middle.

Besides which, iand on a lesser note, it appears he lived on a meat and dairy diet, having declared that vegetables were poison. He attributed throat cancer to the broccoli his mother made him eat as a child. Already I can hear some of you hang-’em high conservatves wavering.

Owsley Stanley was a benefactor of mankind. His essays are found here. I think that a recollection of your best trip would be an appropriate thank you.

I am reading the most bizarre stuff about the CRTC these days. You know the CRTC I am talking about: the omnicompetent, omniscient regulator of broadcasting, the far-seeing enabler of leftist hegemony, not the dupes who got suckered into setting bit caps too low and allowing the carriers to charge too much for too little. Am I reading about the same group of people? Apparently so.

Lorne Gunter’s entertaining column in the National Post Full Comment blog largely straightens out the story published in the Globe and Mail, which was floridly mad.

Mad I say, mad! Deranged. For this correction of the Globe story, we who know the inside of government are grateful to our learned friend Mr. Gunter.

There was a public outcry – what we would call an Astroturf campaign so as to distinguish it from a grass roots protest- against the CRTC’s attempted obedience to the rulings of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations, formerly the Standing Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Never heard of the Standing Joint Committee? I am sure there are many of you who live outside of the NatCap whose lives remain blissfully undisturbed by any notion of what the Committee does. May your lives continue as such.

The Standing Committee had been subjecting the CRTC to water torture for ten years to get it to correct its regulations regarding false and misleading news. The regulation would not survive the scrutiny of any reasonable Court for ten minutes. This is the era of the Charter. It means that the rights of people to speak, whether by way of blogs, newspapers or television may not be subjected to unreasonable measures. The law was probably always this way but the Charter has armed the judiciary against the other branches of government, in order to protect our rights and freedoms. (For the sake of argument, conservatives, please indulge me without flipping out about the absence of  property rights, the malefactions of the Court Party and its myrmidons in human rights commissions.)

As Gunter writes:

Concerned that this rule would never withstand a Charter challenge because it is too vague and broad, the joint committee told the CRTC to change the regulation so that it applied only to a licensee who “knowingly” broadcasts news that is “false or misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.”

This is standard operating procedure in government. Every piece of legislation and every regulation must be made conformable to the Charter and, as much as reasonably possible, proof against Charter challenge. It is the Joint Committee that chides government lawyers  to accomplish this.

In the uncharitable interpretation, the Committee’s lawyers are notorious in government for being intolerable even unto other lawyers for their persnicketiness, for the general pettifogging rule of the minor mind which has become separated from any strategic or operational objectives. In the less uncharitable interpretation, the lawyers assigned to the Joint Committee have a reputation across the government for hyper vigilance for potential Charter violations, and a persistence over time that is unbounded either by profit or by practical considerations.

So when this micro-event blows up, the Standing Committee said it was no longer interested in the question, whereupon the CRTC’s Chairman immediately grasps the opportunity not to take up further Commission time  with this issue. When I say “further time”, I remind you that the Joint Committee’s nagging had been going on for ten years, and even government agencies know when their time is being wasted.

And this is where our friend Lorne Gunter goes off his particular rails.

 “As for the CRTC’s contention that it didn’t want to change the regulation in the first place, but gave into the committee because after 10 years it had run out of delaying tactics, can anyone imagine that the regulator called for public submissions precisely because it knew a lefty firestorm would follow and it surmised that would be the best way to stop the committee insisting on the change?”

Lorne, get a grip! 

The CRTC is obliged by law to publish for public comment a proposed amendment to a regulation . See Section 10 (3) of the Broadcasting Act  if you doubt me.

As it happened, following the Astroturf campaign, the Joint Committee told the CRTC that it was no longer interested in seeing the change it had insisted on for ten years, thereby overruling its own lawyers,  and the Heritage Committee, to which the CRTC also reports on broadcasting matters. voted recently not hear the Commission explain why it had dropped the issue. Case closed.

But the weirdest thing about the whole matter is that the misnamed “Fox New North” already has its licence. First, it is not associated with Fox News or Rupert Murdoch in any way,  but is a wholly owned enterprise of Pierre-Karl Peladeau, owner of Viedotron. Second , the proposed news channel obtained a class 2 cable television licence this summer. A class 2 licence is issued without a hearing and furthermore does not require a carrier to carry it. They are issued by the dozen to Chinese, Hindi and Gujarati television channels, for example. Whether Peladeau’s news channel is carried or not is a matter of negotiation with the large carriers: Rogers, Bell, Shaw and Videotron, which is owned by Peladeau himself. Since it has won carriage with Rogers and Bell, Canadians are going to get the opportunity to pay for Peladeau’s news channel, if they want it, on terms arranged between the large carriers.

If the Left wanted to argue that too much power has been handed to large carriers, that would be a debate worth having. Instead it deludes itself and its useful idiots into a pointless debate about false and misleading news, which is like missing the assassination of a Pope for an ambulance chase.

But maybe they do not want to rein in the power of large carriers, because they believe that, with that power, they can regulate to limit free speech. See Tim Wu’s The Master Switch for further reading.

There is too much error in the world for Lorne Gunter and me to fix. But thank you, Lorne, for your part in the neverending struggle.

The silence of the Barrelstrengthians on this topic is caused by our complete disbelief that anything particularly good or important will come out of it.

Democracy is impossible in Islamic countries because Islam makes all questions, all of them, matters of religious interpretation of the will of an inscrutable and insane God. Therefore the psychic space necessary for democratic discussion – the realm of pragmatic uncertainty- cannot exist, or if it does, has no moral force in relation to religious law.

To creatures who believe themselves to be acting projections inside Allah’s holodeck, free will is a blasphemy.

As to the issue of importance, all that we have seen in the removal of one ageing despot by a military junta, backed by popular uprising. There may be more of them throughout the Arab world. If these popular uprisings lead to war with Israel, as they are wont to do, since despotism stands between the people and their desire to crush the Zionist snake, then the removal of Arab despots is not in our interest, unless until accompanied by fundamental democratic reform. See above as to why we do not believe this will happen. 

Any questions?

Baroness Warsi, the Chairman of the Conservative Party in the UK has expressed the view that the Muslim community has become the object of derision and hatred in dinner table conversations among polite society.

She said:

Indeed, it seems to me that Islamophobia has now crossed the threshold of middle class respectability.

For far too many people, Islamophobia is seen as a legitimate – even commendable – thing. You could even say that Islamophobia has now passed the dinner-table-test.

The drip feeding of fear fuels a rising tide of prejudice. So when people get on the tube and see a bearded Muslim, they think “terrorist” …when they hear “Halal” they think “that sounds like contaminated food”…and when they walk past a woman wearing a veil, they think automatically “that woman’s oppressed”. And what’s particularly worrying is that this can lead down the slippery slope to violence.

We need to think harder about the language we use. And we should be careful about language around religious “moderates”. This is something I’ve been thinking about a lot. It’s not a big leap of imagination to predict where the talk of “moderate” Muslims leads: In the factory, where they’ve just hired a Muslim worker, the boss says to his employees: “not to worry, he’s only fairly Muslim”. In the school, the kids say “the family next door are Muslim but they’re not too bad”. And in the road, as a woman walks past wearing a Burkha, the passers-by think: “that woman’s either oppressed or making a political statement”.

For a suitable come-uppance of the Baroness Warsi, you can read Nile Gardiner’s riposte.

The reaction in England to Warsi’s speech has been mixed, and not entirely hostile. But the real fact of importance is that anti-Islamic talk in polite society has become socially normal. Many will think this is bad; I think it is to be expected. The real question is: what is Islam? Is it, as I have previously argued, a combination of mass psychosis, a religion whose God is deranged, a culty of anti-reason,  the social manifestation of male supremacism, and a totalitarian political idea? Or is it the religion of peace it claims to be?

At least people are talking about it in hostile terms in civilized society. This is progress.

The big debate that grew up in the 1920s and continues to this day is whether we are permitted to speak of a reality beyond what is picked up by our instruments,  or whether we are confined to speak only of observations through instruments. The principal protagonist of the new way of seeing things was Niels Bohr, the Danish physicist, and in his camp were most of the leading physicists of his day, including Werner Heisenberg (of the uncertainty principle) and Wolfgang Pauli (author of the phrase “not even wrong!”). Ranged against them was the great Einstein himself who, for reasons of his own philosophical/religious preference, was unable to accept that quantum physics was a complete description of reality. Right as far as it goes, but incomplete.

The chief point of what came to be called the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics was the role of the observer in formulating the experiement. Set up the experiment one way, and you see a particle, set up another experiment another way, and the same “particle” appears as a wave.

That the mind of the designer of the experiment should influence the outcome this way is intolerable to many who think about it. Einstein was the first and most important of physicists to reject the Copenhagen intepretation as incomplete (not incorrect, just not the complete description of reality) on the basis of a philosophical preference for realism.

In the years since the Einstein-Bohr debate, the general view has been that the Copenhagen interpretation has been successful. The experiments conducted to prove or disprove Bell’s inequality theorem have shown results consistent with the ideas inherent in the Copenhagen interpretation.

But here’s the problem, for some. You may recall Schrodinger’s cat, the creature who lies dead in the box simultaneously with being alive in the box. Schrodinger used his cat as a thought experiment to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that, until the obervation is made, the probability of it being alive or dead is not determined. Its probability of being either alive or dead”collapses” into a definite observation when the observation is made, and not before. In physics they call this act of observation “collapsing the wave function”.

Physics gained something enormous with quantum theory, but it placed a new god (or God) at the centre by enthroning the act of observation. It dumped materialism – the doctrine that there is only matter and its motions -over the edge of the universe into oblivion. Now mind is at the core of physics. Observation is inextricably linked to the interplay of “material” particles. Observation is the characteritic of mind. Mind therefore enters as a fundamental constiuent of the material universe.

[As a brief aside, it is evident that the biological theorists have yet to come to grips with the philosophical implications of quantum physics. Dawkins take note.]

Once you dump materialism over the edge, you face a certain problem: God.

Quoting from Manjit Kumar’s “Quantum: Einstein, Bohr and the Great debate about the nature of Reality”,

“The Copenhagen interpretation requires an observer outside of the universe to observe it, but since there is none – leaving God aside – the universe should never come into existence but remain forever a superposition of many possibilities”.

Since the world has come into being, the only way to get around the supercosmic observer summoning it forth (as in “I’ll see you to the door”) is to take refuge in the many worlds interpretation of Hugh Everett., published in 1957.

Every time there is a different observation, the universe keeps splitting into one where Schrodinger’s cat lives and another where it dies. It seems absurd at first that one should take refuge in many worlds rather than accept a deity who observes the universe into being, until you think about what the Copenhagen interpretation really does to liberate the universe from the primacy of matter. Once matter no longer matters, so to speak, what limit is there in principle on the generation of as many worlds as observers may contrive with thought alone?

Nothing new is being said here by Sibley; what matters is that for the first time, in a major Canadian newspaper, the house intellectual is giving us some straight talk about the sources of the Islamic crisis in the suppression of reason centuries ago. He is also suggesting, for those with eyes to see, that Muslims cannot adapt to the liberal political order.

“Islamism is grounded in a spiritual pathology based upon a theological deformation that has produced a dysfunctional culture,” argues political scientist Robert Reilly in a newly published book, The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis. Mainstream Sunni Islam, which comprises the majority of the faithful in the Muslim world, “has shut the door to reality in a profound way.” This, says Reilly, is the consequence of Islam’s long suppression of reason in favour of religious dogmatism.

Reilly refers to the abandonment of scientific thinking as the “Dehellenization” of Islam. Islam was eventually dominated by those who thought like al-Ghazali. They held that the Koran contained Allah’s direct speech. And, because Allah’s will and action is unlimited, the Koran, as his eternal word, must apply to all times and places. There is no need to look elsewhere in responding to the human condition, regardless of changing circumstances. Since Allah is the first cause of everything, there is no need to look for secondary causes; that is to say, no need to use reason to understand nature’s laws, and, therefore, no need for science.

Reason and revelation must exist is balance. The crisis of Islam is rooted on the suppression of reason itself, which is one of the two pillars of the balanced life. The crisis of western liberal society, as I read it, lies in the suppression and deligitimization of revelation as the other  source of life-ordering power.

Having spoken enough to militantly anti-Christian leftists, I am persuaded that the current crisis of confidence in western societies is directly rooted on the suppression of revelation. Otherwise they would not need speech codes and “human rights: commissions to police the social order. Between the Muslims and the anti-Christian left, we have nothing to choose. They are both spiritual pathologies.

My perusal of the blogs today and for the past few weeks is enough to generate despair, but the hope persists that people will wake up in time. That is because I am hopeful by nature, not because I know the outcome.

Non-discrimination and Islam

1. The would-be Portland bomber tries to blow up adults and children at a Christmas-tree lighting ceremony. Of thousands of reports, 75% fail to report that the bomber is a Muslim.
2. Elisabeth Sabbaditsch-Wolff is on trial in Austria for expounding the doctrines of Islam. The European Commission is about to pass a law that makes criticism of Islam effectively illegal.
3. Airport pat-downs continue to try to protect against a threat that we dare not name. Israeli airport secuity measures are criticized for “profiling” Muslims.  A counterblast points out that the article might have ignored the fact that Muslims are Israel’s chief security threat. Of course, they are our chief security threat. Robert Spencer makes this point: it is time to profile according to who causes the risk.

Economic collapse

1. You can run an immigrant society or a welfare state, but you cannot have both, as Europe is discovering. You cannot vastly expand state expenditures, collapse the birth rate and attach increasingly dysfunctional immigrants (from Muslim countries largely) to the welfare system, and still remain solvent.
2. Expect one European country to go under every six months until something more dranatic happens (Greece, Portugal, Ireland and so forth).

Given what we have been doing since World War II cannot be sustained, and give that the evidence for this is to be found in ruinous economic and demographic policies, some discussion of these ideas is in order.

What is Islam?

Is Islam:

a) a totalitarian political ideology? or

b) a mass psychosis? or

c) the religion of a raiding party of slave-drivers?

Discuss. See for instance, “The Principle of Abrogation in The Quran“. The difference between moderate and radical Islam is the speed at which world domination is to be achieved.

Every day that passes I increasingly think David Warren is both right and prescient.

The recent Blair-Hitchens debate on the role of religion in the world gives us good cause to reflect upon the decrepit standard of what passes for transcendent thought in our society.

This video is only a slight parody of that:

Oprah Invites Hundreds Of Lucky Fans To Be Buried With Her In Massive Tomb

Welcome to our weekly donnybrook, in which most Barrelstrengthians take vigorous exception to some moderate, well reasoned view of Oban.  Today’s rumble is on Islam/Palestine/Israel. Rebel Yell started it with a piece in the Jerusalem Post praising Harper at Obama’s expense.

Prime Minister Harper may not get many kudos from our drivelling liberal press,
but his positions are certainly not viewed the same way where it matters in the
world….. (cites Jerusalem Post on Harper versus Obama).

Then Arran Gold chimes in

“I voted for Obama and all I got was a crotch-cupping”.

Oban tries to be reasonable, as is his wont:

My observation is that for a Canadian PM full throated support for Israel is cheap – it starts to shake Jewish support from the Liberal Party, appeals to religous fundamentalists, and is largely a reflection of domestic political interests and calculations.
 
The US has different interests.  An Israeli-Palestinian peace would relieve a major irritant in its relations with the Muslim world, much of Europe and Africa.  No US President has viewed Israeli settlements with any enthusiasm, and all have seen colonisation of the West Bank as a serious impediment to finding a peaceful settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflicts.  Papa Bush, Baby Bush and Clinton all have opposed extension of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and been extremely sensitive to development in Jerusalem.  That is because an Arab-Israeli peace is in the interests of the United States.  The Obama government senses an opportunity for a settlement and wants Israel to back off of provocative development schemes while the parties negotiate.  That seems reasonable to me.  If the area in which development is presently restrained emerges as part of Israel after a peace accord, then settlement can go ahead.

If not, then the development shouldn’t take place – at least for some  reasonable period to permit negotiations to proceed.   

 
It seems to me that the differing Canadian and US positions are ones of nuance.  Canada has no role in overseeing the settlement process.  It has neither the power, credibility or interest to sponsor or guarantee the end result.  For the US, it has huge interests in the outcome of the process, will likely be its primary guarantor as well as a beneficiary
of peace.  If it were Canada that were to sponsor the peace talks, you can bet without a shadow of doubt that it would be very sensitive to Israeli settlements outside the boundaries of 1967 Israel, as it would be of Arab terrorism, militias in Lebanon, etc. etc.
 

At this point, everyone piles on Oban. Arran Gold chides Oban in these  terms:

Oban, your view of this is very western, very white, very christian and totally leftist.

I once met a captain in the Canadian military who had just returned from a peacekeeping mission in the Balkans.  I talked to him about his mission and he shared some insights.  He said that they said to him “Why are you guys getting involved in this?  This fight is centuries old”.  Essentially both sides were waiting for them to leave so that they could at it again.  Similarly, there is no reason to believe that a “peace” agreement will be the end of it as far as muslims are concerned.  It sure isn’t likey to “relieve a major irritant … with the Muslim world”

I get my oar in as follows:

I agree with Arran Gold’s remarks (on Brother Oban), save with regard to “leftist”. I
think many sensible people share Oban’s views. I no longer consider them realistic.

The point I have reached in re the Israeli thing is that it would make little difference to Arab opinion if Israel subjected the Palestinians to a march past under a triumphal arch and then slaughtered every male older than 12, and filmed it, as regards how the Muslims look at israel.

This reflects my increased understanding of Islam, which sees the Jews as a hideous uncleanness that must be extirpated from the face of the earth, and in which Islam is either or any of the following:

a) a totalitarian political ideology (sharia)
b) a psychosis (Arab male dominated family structure, and incessant violence within the family, and a defence against shame)
c) an ideological justification of slavery, both of chattel slavery (Christians in the past, and possibly the future) and sexual slavery (of women).

I have, as it were,”jumped the shark”. But I invite all who think this view to be extreme to read the texts and see the propaganda of Islam itself, and see how they actually treat each other. Then you decide.

Rebel Yell cannot resist  rejoinder.

Folks:

“Relieving an irritant” is a major red-herring in the political discourse.  It
stems from a misunderstanding of the Israeli-Islamic stand-off.  

Islam will never be satisfied until Israel is eliminated and the Jews destroyed.
 ”Occupation” to the Muslims means the very existence of Israel itself.  It was
not “cheap” at all for PM Harper to make that stand–”cheap” would have been
kow-towing to the Islamic bloc in the UN–something the Liberals would do only
too willingly under the slippery guidance of Iggy.  

“The Obama government senses an opportunity for a settlement”.. No it doesn’t.
 It senses a further opportunity to ingratiate itself before Muslim despots and
drag America’s reputation through the mud again.  America has done great works
for freedom, not the least of which is standing up for the small guy threatened
by an army of ignorant thugs, a.k.a. in this case, the Islamic world.  The Arabs
would not have lost the West Bank had they not on several occasions tried to
destroy Israel, so tough luck on losing the property.  Despite that, on several
occasions, Israel has made offers of returning upwards of 95% of the lands, only
to be rebuffed again by the Arabs.  

The different positions of the Obama regime and the Canadian government are
considerably more than “nuance”, a flaccid word for a flabby position on a
crucial topic.  PM Harper was quite right and deserves extra kudos for taking
such a spirited stand.  On the other hand, Hussein took the opportunity of
bashing Israel again in Indonesia, his homeland, a land which doesn’t even allow
Israeli citizens to visit, and which treated his own wife with contempt and with
no objection from him.  If Hussein’s understanding of the Islamic world really
is reflected in the appallingly inaccurate speech he gave at Cairo university,
then Israel would do well to avoid all his suggestions as much as possible.

When Islamic countries allow Christians and Jews and Hindus etc. to live as
citizens with equal rights, then there might be a possibility of a settlement.
 I don’t see it happening any time soon.  And until that time, Israel should
stay alert and not be sucked in to devious arrangements with any state.  The
Muslim nations have to show that they can live up to an agreement, ANY
AGREEMENT, and stick to it.  We all know what their record is on that one.

And when Iran gets the Bomb, all the “nuance-ing” in the world is not going to
produce any settlement.  And the Appeaser-in-Chief will have some ’splainin to
do.

Caol Illa responds to Oban:

While I respect your opinion I think your analysis of the situation is at least 20 years out of date.

Regarding the political situation in Canada it is a fact that for the last 60 years, at least,the Liberal Party sought the support of the Jewish community and received it. As a result the Liberals won a number of ridings they would not otherwise have held. The Liberals rewarded the loyalty of the Jewish community so long as there was not a better deal elsewhere. Then the demographics changed, Muslims became more numerous than Jews and the Liberals abandoned Israel in favour of the Palestiians. The Conservatives have not won a seat in which the Jewish community was a significant factor until 2008, when they won the riding of Thornhill. Ridings like York Centre, Eglington-Lawrence and Mount Royal remain Liberal. Even in the Mulroney sweep of 1984 all these ridings voted Liberal. Even though the Liberals have abandoned the Jews, the Jews, especially the secular Jews have not abandoned the Liberals. Therefore, I think you are wrong to suggest that our PM is supporting Israel for narrow partisan purposes.

As for there being any hope for a “peacful settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflicts” I would say that whereas that might once have been possible, those days are long past and I think your opinion may be based more on wishful thinking than an analysis of what is happening on the ground in Gaza and the West Bank.  Not only did the former Palestinian leadership torpedo the Oslo Accord, more important the new elected government of Gaza, Hamas, have repeatedly stated they are not interested in a peaceful settlement of the Palestinian conflict. Hamas’ chief supporter, Iran claims it wants to annihilate Israel. That replaces the former PLO policy regarding Israel of “driving them into the sea”.  I cannot find the seeds of a peaceful solution in those policies. Just to be clear about its intentions Hamas continues to fire rockets into random targets in Israel even when it knows Israel is bound to retaliate. Not the actions of those desiring peace.

I am glad Stephen Harper has stood up to the illiterate, hate fueled thugs who rule the Arab world. With Obama’s abandonment of Israel somebody needs to stand up and say we will not sit idly by while the only  pluralistic liberal democracy in the Middle East is bullied by it’s much larger neighbours.  At this point it is diplomatic support and not military action that Israel needs.  If Obama is too foolhardy to do it I am glad we have a Stephen Harper around to do so. I wish the world had a few more leaders with the strength of character to stand up for what is right instead of what is politically expedient.

Oban is still talking to us.

A study shows that they do, and seeks to explain it in evolutionary terms.

Please note:

It is important to note that both income and education, as well as childhood social class and parents’ education, are controlled in multiple regression analyses of these data from the US and the UK.  It means that it is not because more intelligent people occupy higher-paying, more important jobs that require them to socialize and drink with their business associates that they drink more alcohol.  It appears to be their intelligence itself, rather than correlates of intelligence, that inclines them to drink more.

Arran Gold, Oban, Dalwhinnie, Rebel Yell, Duggan’s Dew, Tobermory, Blair Atholl, and Glendronach wish to state that they had nothing to do with the sponsorship of this study. Honest!

This schedule of payments is posted on the website of the Consulate General of India for the Saudi city of Jedda. It states what Saudi law allows for death caused by accident in certain limited circumstances:

5. Maximum Amount admissible :

The maximum amount of Death Compensation (Diyya) generally admissible in Saudi Arabia, in respect of road/traffic/fire accident, murder, etc. is as under:

Death Compensation in respect of a male person:

i. Muslim – SR. 100,000/-

ii. Christian/Jew – SR.50,000/-

iii. Other religions : such as Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, etc. – SR 6666.66

In the case of death of a female, death compensation allowed is equal to half the amount as admissible to males professing the same religion. Further the amount of compensation admissible, is based on the percentage of responsibility fixed on the causer e.g. if the causer is held 50% responsible for the accident resulting in the death of a Muslim, the amount of Death Compensation admissible will be SR 50,000 only.

————end quote ————————

Several questions arise.

Why are “heathens” assigned a price akin to the number of the Beast in Revelations?

Why are Muslims assigned twice the value of Christians and Jews?

And note this charming fact in paragraph 3.

3.   Volume of work . 

 Around 70% of the total deaths registered in the Missions are unnatural.

See also paragraph 1 of the notice:

ii)   Unnatural death – Death due to murder, suicide, traffic accident, industrial  accident or other accidents like drowning, falling down, snake bite, sun stroke etc.

          On an average 2-3 death cases are registered in the Embassy at Riyadh (the Consulate General at Jeddah registers 1or 2 cases) on each working day.

“The Crisis of Islamic Civilization” was written by Ali A. Allawi, a former Minister of Defence and of Finance in the post-war Iraqi government. I recommend it highly even as I disagree with several of its peripheral arguments.

Allawi is is hugely learned, and not without sympathy for other religions than Islam. Accordingly you will find yourself beguiled by the  tone even if you remain unpersuaded by the arguments. Partly his book arouses sympathy because no Canadian or American politician now in office could ever produce anything so learned and well-written. Partly it arouses sympathy because it is the cri de coeur of a genuinely religious man confronting the all-powerful monster of technological civilization. David Warren, meet Ali Allawi. You have much in common.

“A root principle in the world view of Islam is that no individual or social group, if it seeks harmony and justice, can assume the absolute power to determine its own ethical standards of conduct. The operative phrase here is the qualification regarding harmony and justice. There are any number of ethical models and norms of morality …which do not seek their justification in anything but reason, utility personal desire or natural rights. But Islam would venture that these cannot but be unstable”

“It becomes clear now that the claim for the absolute autonomy for man in the design of the moral universe is in itself an invalid and false claim within the framework of Islamic reasoning.”

1. Substitute the word “Christian” for Islamic in the above paragraphs and see if it makes any difference. I submit that the Pope would agree to them in that case, too.

2. If this is so, wherein lies the difference between the two revealed religions?

The answer, to the extent that one can be stated simply, seems to lie in the fixity with which all social relations and intellectual possibilities were cemented by Shari’a.  Islamic law (Shari’a) is immutable and comprehensive. The people authorized to consider it are limited to a narrow class of learned men and to a narrow range of topics. When everything has been revealed, the role of reason is merely to clean up the inconsistencies and gaps in the revelation, to the extent that such possibilities could be admitted at all. The effect on inquiry at all levels of Islamic behaviour has been devastating. Ayaan Hirsi Ali recounts how her mother would slap her face for asking any question at all, no matter how remote from religion. Is it too much to argue that the hostility to questioning of any kind has its roots in Islam, and not tribal Somali culture?

I do not wish to imply that this book makes ultimately coherent or satisfactory arguments; I only wish to draw to your attention a book that reveals that a highly educated Muslim feels that Islam could well be on its last legs.

“The quest for continuous material improvement, a rising standard of living, and an almost fetishistic belief in the power of science and technology is now a nearly universalcondition….The response in the West has been to accept the process of secularization as an inevitable consequence of the general increase in wealth and power. The same recipe is being offered to Islam. Reformers, both in the Muslim world and outside are, in effect, calling for a ‘Christianization; of Islam, a final break between the sacred and the profane in the world of Islam….

“Radical Islamists, and even the rank and file of ‘rationalist’ Muslims, suffer from a different conceit, namely that, by picking and choosing from the menu of change, a happy compromise between Islam and what is acceptable from modernity can be fashioned. This approach, which has been entertained for over a century, has neither produced satisfactory material progress nor strengthened the foundations  of Islamic civilization in any way. The fundamental conundrum for all such rationalists and radicals is that the change they are facing is a product of a different and ascendant civilizational order”.

“If Muslims want the very things that modern technological civilization promises and in some cases has delivered, they have to acknowledge the roots of this civilization in order to become active  and creative part in it. Otherwise they will simply become a parasitic attachment to it. It is difficult to see how Islam can contribute to this civilization while rejecting or questioning its premises.”(pp.271-272)

Nor does he hold out hope for political Islam.

“The success of political Islam may, paradoxically, prove to be the last crisis of Islamic civilization. For it will remove, once and for all, the possibility that the political route could ever be the basis for rejuvenating or refashioning the elements of a new Islamic civilization.” (p.253)

Allawi’s book is a useful insight into how the crisis of modernity appears to a pious and worldly Muslim. They are at the same stage that Christian society was in 1500, and we had 500 years of religious war and scientific progress, with the accompanying changes of mores and ideals, in which to adapt. They have scarcely had 50.

You will not agree with Allawi on many points. Certainly I do not. The review by the Christian Arab Raymond Ibrahim nails those faults accurately. My point is that it is occasionally useful, in the gloom of apparently  impending dhimmitude,  to realize that Islam is cosmically fucked. Allawi explains why, and even the faults of his argument illustrate the truth of his fundamental assertion.

So far Petraeus, UN, EU, Clinton, Holder, Vatican, NATO, Pentagon and NYPD are just some of the people and organisations that have opined on the plan by a US-based pastor to exercise his right to free speech by burning the Koran.  There was a time not long ago when liberals, when discussing the Bush administration, were fond of saying that “dissent is the highest for of patriotism“.  In that vein can we now say that “desecration is the highest form of respect”?  After all we have seen other instances of respect for Christianity ranging from Piss Christ to Virgin Mary in elephant dung.

I find myself in total agreement with the decision of  Judge Gerard Dugre in the case of  Loyola High School in Montreal versus the Quebec government, which appears to be engaging in a clear-cut attack on the right of Catholics to be Catholics, and in so doing, for parents to educate their children with any religious conception of existence whatever. However ironic it is to find Jesuits on the side of religious freedom, nonetheless the clear and present danger comes from the overmighty and pretentious State, not the Roman branch of the Christian church.

Reading the case judgment is a revelation of the intolerance of the new secular humanist establishment. In the words of the expert witness for Loyola High School, Douglas Farrow:

« … first, that the Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) program represents a significant transfer of power from civil society to the state; second, that its ambitious goals belie any claim to neutrality; third, that the ERC program is intended to provide formation (i.e., to cultivate a world view and a way of thinking and acting consistent with that world view) and not merely information, and that the formation it hopes to provide is at points incompatible with a Catholic formation; fourth, that the imposition of this curriculum (with its mandatory pedagogy) on Catholic schools constitutes, from the perspective of the Catholic Church, a breach of fundamental rights as well as a defeat for certain of the program’s own objectives in recognizing diversity. »

The case concerned whether Loyola could teach its students about other cultures and religions from a Roman Catholic point of view. Specifically, the objection of Loyola to the government’s approach was based on the idea that the government was calling for the acceptance of all practices without any reference to the underlying beliefs that gave them meaning. Loyola wrote:

“Nous avons conçu un programme qui affirme la valeur des religions du monde et qui enseigne leurs coutumes et croyances d’une manière bien plus approfondie que le nouveau programme d’éthique et de culture religieuse.  Notre programme examine non seulement les coutumes externes des autres religions mais aussi leurs croyances fondamentales.  En effet, nous sommes convaincus qu’une simple explication de pratiques externes accomplira bien peu en termes de promouvoir la tolérance et l’acceptation des autres sans une compréhension plus complète des autres fois, comme il est proposé dans notre programme

“We have developed a program which affirms the value of the world’s religions and which teaches  about their customs and beliefs from a much deeper viewpoint than the new program of ethics and religious culture. Our program examines not only the external customs  of other religions but also their fundamental beliefs. In effect, we are convinced that a simple explanation of external practices will accomplish much less in terms of promoting tolerance and the acceptance of others without a more complete understanding  of other religions, as it is proposed in our program.

The government of Quebec wrote to the high school saying that:

“Les deux grandes finalités du programme Éthique et culture religieuse sont la reconnaissance de l’autre et la poursuite du bien commun.  L’approche et la conception du bien commun développées dans le programme Éthique et culture religieuse et celles proposées par Loyola High School sont très différentes.  L’approche préconisée dans le programme Éthique et culture religieuse est culturelle et non fondée sur la foi.  Or, suivant le sommaire du programme proposé par Loyola High School et soumis au Ministère pour évaluation, il appert que le programme de Loyola High School est fondé sur la foi catholique et a pour principale finalité la transmission des croyances et convictions catholiques.  Il englobe une conception de l’autre, mais toujours par rapport à la perspective chrétienne catholique.

“The two great goals of the ethics and religious culture program are the recognition of the other and the pursuit of the common good. The approach and conception of the common good  developed in the ethics and religious culture program  and the one proposed by Loyola are very different. The approach extolled in the ethics and religious culture program is cultural and is not founded on faith. Now, according to the summary of the program proposed by Loyola High School and submitted to the Minister for evaluation, it appears that the program of Loyola High school is founded on the Catholic faith and has for its principal goal the transmission of Catholic beliefs and convictions. It encompasses a conception of the other, always in relation to the Christian Catholic perspective.

and further:

“…il appert que, contrairement au programme Éthique et culture religieuse, le programme de Loyola High School n’amène pas l’élève à réfléchir sur le bien commun, ni sur des questions d’éthique, mais l’amène plutôt à adopter la perspective jésuite du service chrétien.

“It appears that, contrary to the ethics and religious culture program, the program of Loyola High school does not lead the student to reflect on the common good, nor on questions of ethics, but leads him rather to adopt a Jesuit perspective on Christian service.

The Quebec government’s guidelines for teaching the Ethics and religious culture program were another triumph of compulsory ethical relativism.

« De plus, elle [la formation] ne propose pas à l’élève un univers particulier de croyances et de repères moraux. »

Dans ce contexte, il lui [l’enseignant] faut comprendre l’importance de conserver une distance critique à l’égard de sa propre vision du monde, notamment de ses convictions, de ses valeurs et de ses croyances.

Posture professionnelle

Pour favoriser chez les élèves une réflexion sur des questions éthiques ou une compréhension du phénomène religieux, l’enseignant fait preuve d’un jugement professionnel empreint d’objectivité et d’impartialité.  Ainsi, pour ne pas influencer les élèves dans l’élaboration de leur point de vue, il s’abstient de donner le sien. »

Moreover, the course does not propose to the student a particular universe of beliefs and moral benchmarks.

In this context, the student must understand the importance of keeping a critical distance in regard to his own view of the world, notably his convictions, his values and his beliefs.

Professional approach

To encourage a reflection by the students on questions of ethics or an understanding of the religious phenomenon, the teacher demonstrates a professional judgment characterized by objectivity and impartiality. Moreover, so as not to influence his students in the development of their point of view, he abstains from giving his own.

 I would characterize this approach by saying that Quebec allows teachers to expose students to religion as long as it is done in such a way that they deal with the outer behaviour and not the beliefs which inform them, and requires the student to refrain from any kind of critical judgment of others’ beliefs, convictions, and world views, ultimately with the effect of rendering him incapable of moral judgment – including judgment of his own beliefs, convictions and world view. Belief is all absurd, religious and ethical questions become a “whatever”, a zone from which critical thinking is excluded.

Hence the welcome decion of Judge Dugre  when he said:

“…l’obligation imposée à Loyola d’enseigner la matière ÉCR de façon laïque revêt un caractère totalitaire qui équivaut, essentiellement, à l’ordre donné à Galilée par l’Inquisition de renier la cosmologie de Copernic.”

“…The obligation imposed on Loyola to teach the ECR course in a secular fashion reveals a totalitarian character which is equivalent essentially, to the order given to Galileo by the Inquisition to deny the Copernican cosmology.”