.
| Hearsay: |
The British publisher who decided to pick up Jewel of Medina, the novel that Random backed out on for concerns over terrorism, got a Molotov cocktail thrown through the front door of his flat in London. I have a hunch that his stance on the Whiteout sniffing issue at the school board meeting last week has come back to haunt him. I make light, because that’s what I do, but seriously: this is insane.
The London home of the publisher of a controversial new novel that gives a fictionalised account of the Prophet Muhammad’s relationship with his child bride, Aisha, was firebombed yesterday, hours after police had warned the man that he could be a target for fanatics.
A petrol bomb is believed to have been thrown through the door of Martin Rynja’s ÂŁ2.5m town house in Islington’s Lonsdale Square, which also doubles as the headquarters of his publishing company, Gibson Square. Three men have been arrested on terrorism charges.
The Observer has learned that police told Rynja late on Friday night to leave his property. His company recently made headlines when it announced it was to publish The Jewel of Medina.
January 2006
December
2005
November
2005
October
2005
September
2005
August
2005
July
2005
June
2005
May
2005
April
2005
March
2005
February
2005
January
2005
December
2004
November
2004
October
2004
September
2004
August
2004
July
2004
June
2004
May
2004
April
2004
March
2004
February
2004
January
2004
December
2003
November
2003
October
2003
September
2003
August
2003
Bookninja © Copyright
The opinions expressed on this site are those of individual participants
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the site owners,
organizers, or other participants.
[powered by WordPress.]
September 29th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
This is absolutely religulous! Honestly, let’s bring on the rational revolution. Religion’s time has come and gone.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
yeah, secular states have a much better track record. Like the Soviet Union, for instance.
September 29th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
The USSR might have been officially secular, but it wasn’t very rational.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:40 am
Michel, when someone is determined to put on their Atheist Avenger costume and go beat up on straw men, you just gotta let him. No one gets hurt but the straw.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:37 am
does this mean ther Atheist Avenger has never beaten up on a real person? Or that religion is the straw man, and Paul the Avenger?
I’ve known plenty of rational people with religious beliefs. I’ve known many atheists who were hostile and unreasonable.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Michel, there’s nothing rational about setting one’s moral compass according to ancient legends about wizards and ghosts.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Paul not all religions are about “wizards and ghosts”. And since men are finite and mortal, therefore not omniscient (aka we don’t know all the facts no matter how smart we think we are) we cannot logically discount every theory that smacks of religion just because we think it’s silly.
Put another way, if the atheists are right, then the actions of radical religionists (silly or not) make no matter save for their contribution to natural selection. If on the other hand one of the religions happens to be right, then …well…there could be hell to pay for those who discounted it.
The choice in the end of course is with the end user.
And by the way, I have yet to see a really successful secular state last very long in any state of power. They tend to get irrational in their destruction of religious adherence. At best they mock religion and end up as targets (France etc.), at worst they attack religion and become quite evil (Soviets, China, N. Korea).
While religions in general can become quite extreme, atheism (which is a religion of humanism) is just as bad. The problem lies not in the belief system, but the state of mankind.
Me, I believe in the Christian/Hebrew God, heaven and hell, etc. If I’m wrong, I vanish into nothingness and nothing really matters, if I’m right though…well that’s a different story.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Basil, the bet-hedging argument you cite is known as Pascal’s Wager. There are plenty of arguments to refute it, if you’re curious. You can click on my name for one of them.
Oh, and France is only a target of the isolationist American religious right. The rest of the world is on pretty good terms with France. I love France, myself. It’s a prosperous nation with a bustling economy, an extremely high standard of living, strong cultural institutions, great social programs and national health care, populated by cultured and well-educated people with excellent tastes in food, art, and the finer things in life. France is totally awesome.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
France is awesome but not totally. The baguette (not to mention the croissant) has gone downhill in the last fifty years, and the record for racial/religious tolerance isn’t that awesome in most of central Europe. Cheese is still outstanding, of course. And they make f-ing brilliant carbon steel knives.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Regarding France: Do folks already forget the Muslim riots sparked last year when the government forbade the wearing of headscarves?
Oh, and by the way…where’s the French Empire? Gone. They went totally secular in the early 1800’s and their power (military and economic) dwindled to the point of no return within a century.
Just saying…
September 30th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
On the point of religion though. I don’t believe on account of hedging my bets, to the contrary I believe based on experience and evidence. But I have also discovered in thirty years of explaining my position that no amount of explanation, description or personal experience even with glaring evidence will every cause anyone to convert unless those things are their own experiences, etc.
Therefore believe what you want. But don’t knock religion as a whole. Without, what would be the reason morality?
September 30th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
my previous post had some errors….here’s a reprint
On the point of religion though. I don’t believe on account of hedging my bets, to the contrary I believe based on experience and evidence. But I have also discovered in thirty years of explaining my position that no amount of explanation, description or personal experience even with glaring evidence will every cause anyone to convert unless those things are their own experiences, etc.
Therefore believe what you want. But don’t knock religion as a whole. Without it, what would be the reason for morality?
September 30th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
“Without it, what would be the reason for morality?”
That this question even needs to be asked sends ice cold chills down my spine. I shudder to think of all people who actually believe they would be brutal, lawless murderers without some posthumous system of punishment and reward put in place by a proselytizing cosmic genie.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Why shudder? Who defines morality if there is no higher authority to execute and regulate it? Do lions and sharks exercise morality? If we are nothing more than animals, albeit intelligent, who is to accuse Hitler or Stalin et al of being evil?
My point is, without the belief in a power that commands a particular reason for acting in a certain way any such belief is devoid of sense or authority. In other words, “who are you to tell me what is right and wrong?” or “I have might morality and you have yours.”
In the past tossing unwanted babies into a river after birth was a perfectly acceptable method of what we today would call abortion, and it often had nothing to do with sacrifice…it was just expedience. This of course would be unequivocally condemned in western society today.
I am not condoning such behaviour, just stating that a truly secular society has no basis for it’s concept of morality beyond what it the public condones at the time. And the trend of mankind is towards the Lord of the Flies mentality, might wins…or at least makes right suffer.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
I shudder at the over-simplification. Without religion, there are still genetic, social and civic causes for moral and ethical thought and behaviour… not least of which is our sense of empathy. These things evolve, over time, like everything else, with or without the help of superstition. In fact, it by superstition, not reason, that these causes are more easily perverted to something tribal, antagonistic and harmful. If anything, the prevailing moral consesus of a given society influences how its spiritual leaders can interpret “sacred” texts in order to favour or oppose extant power structures, rather than the reverse. This is why scriptures tend to be vague and inscrutable; it makes them more useful as tools of propaganda.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
I guess it depends on how you look at it, and what scriptures one is referring to in regards to vagueness. I have been a student of history my whole life and have yet to see a secular culture that has not devolved into anarchy within a short span from its inception.
There is also plenty of proof that those who abuse the power of religion for coercive means seldom every actually believe the very scriptures they invoke, otherwise, with few exceptions of some rather violent religions, they would never act the way they do.
That being said, I do not believe my own religion to be superstition. I believe it to be the recognition of a living being of other than mortal humanity as we know it. If God, as I understand is a real living being, then it is not superstitious to believe in him any more than it is to believe in my mortal human father. Of course, anyone who believes in a different diety would discount my own belief, but the burden of proof is only available from experience or after death.
I am curious though, this genetic, social, and civic morality you mention, what caused it? What is its purpose and why does it exist. If it is a simple chemical reaction then what is morality more than boiling water or or burning wood, also chemical reactions. My point in other words, is that anything that consistently serves a purpose is generally not an accident, it is created by someone who intended it for a purpose.
To be honest, I believe that atheism is little more than an effort to rid oneself of the burden of judgement based on absolutes. If there is no creator, then there is no rule maker. If there is no rule make, the rules can be whatever I like.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Having said all that we have, the point of the original has been missed.
And I think it is this: If you’re going to write something that pisses off someone else…be careful who it is you offend or be prepared to pay the price.
We have a right to say whatever we want, but if you poke a cobra with a stick to make a point, however just and harmless you think that point may be, the cobra is bound to disagree.
The pen may seem mightier than the sword in the long run, but in the immediate the sword kills for real.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Evolutionary genetics are not a “simple chemical reaction.” They are anything but simple. Comparing it to boiling water (which is a physical state reaction, not a chemical one) or burning wood (which is a simple chemical reaction: oxidation) is a logical fallacy — actually, it’s two: an apples and oranges comparison and a red herring in the argument.
You mention “burden of proof.” The burden of proof lies with whomever asserts something to true. Conventions of logic dictate that a negative isn’t provable, so if you say there is a god, it is you who must prove it.
You say, “If there is no creator, then there is no rule maker. If there is no rule maker, the rules can be whatever I like.” This is logical fallacy, a blatant non sequitur. There is no reason to assume that a “creator” can be the only rule maker. A civilization can make its own rules and codify them in a law or some other system of generally agreed upon conventions. Not even all religious societies worship a creator-deity, but all societies have laws, ethics and both social and private morality. Busted.
Having said that, I really do apprectiate your not-so-subtle threats of violence. Irrational threats of violence only prove my origial point, Basil. Thank you for the warning, but I will happily excerise my right to free expression without regard to feeling censured by threats.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Having said that, I really do apprectiate your not-so-subtle threats of violence. Irrational threats of violence only prove my origial point, Basil. Thank you for the warning, but I will happily excerise my right to free expression without regard to feeling censured by threats.
I believe you misunderstood my tone. I have not, nor would I ever threaten anyone, especially not online. What I said was not a threat of violence, it was a statement of historical and logical fact. So please exercise restraint and do not assume I am one who would bomb you for your words. I am not a Jihadist but a Christian.
…now if you mess with my coffee in the morning..well that’s another issue…and that has nothing to do with religion… ;) (that’s a joke…not a threat…humour injected here)
If you take it upon yourself to insult a brute who knows only violence and reacts as such when humiliated, be prepared to run or get pummelled. It’s logical to assume that while you have the right to say whatever you want, you must exercise a bit of wisdom as to when and how you say it. If you would like proof, walk into a Hip-Hop club and start spouting Neo-Nazi KKK rhetoric and see how long you can stay standing in there.
You’ve got every right to say what you want and when and where, but there are consequences for bad choices of venue.
If Rushdie, or whoever wants to insult Islam, let him. But if he makes his name known he andhis supporters will be hunted. Not a threat from me, just statement of a historical precedent. And with a billion muslims, 10% of whom are Jihadists (that’s 100,000,000 who would be willing to kill him, he might want to consider anonymity…publish it on the web if it is just the word he wants to get out there. Put it on You-Tube while wearing a hood. Or if he just wants to make the sensationalized sales figures jump up, get fire bombed.
I am not the threat. The one who pokes his finger in the giant’s eye then stands there and doesn’t hide is just rather foolish, don’t you think?
A civilization can make its own rules and codify them in a law or some other system of generally agreed upon conventions.
My point precisely. And when the leader of that civilization is replaced by someone else, the rules change to whatever the new leader and group agree upon. What was one legal and ethical becomes illegal and immoral. And what was once crime is legalized, even encouraged.
Without a single absolute authority, a universal morality, rules are whatever you make them. And wildly variant they can be.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:27 am
Howdy, Paul. I think this is relevant and pretty cool. Fatima, Portugal, Oct. 13, 1917…I always love listening to the atheists rationally explain this one. It’s like a creative writing test. Seventy thousand witnesses, modern times, nice lead up, zillions of journalists…and no, Timothy Leary wasn’t born yet.
October 1st, 2008 at 7:54 am
Spanner,
Got any film footage? No? Zillions? Is that even a number? Thanks but no thanks.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:58 am
Spanner, no amount of historical evidence, especially of anything supernatural, will convince a skeptic. It has to be seen with their own eyes. That is why I do not site it. I am sure that even with film footage, photographs and sworn statements, it will only be met with skepticism at best, or equally likely derision. Moreso if it is more than a couple of years old.
Jesus himself said that ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ Luke 16:31.
At any rate, truth stands regardless of belief in it. If you are convinced Paul that your position is true and tenable then stand in it. Time will tell.
Regardless of what we want reality to say, what I said about being cautious in what we write stands true. Write what you want but be aware of the repurcussions.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
boy, this went goofily off-topic. For the record, I’m an atheist, but i still maintain I’ve know some fine, and even rational, people who are beleivers of one sort or another. We should not assume that if these people are violent murderers, it is necessarily because of their religion. That was my original point, coupled with pointing out that atheists, too, have been known to be nasty.
I would also like to point out that Basil is correct about proving things to skeptics. The interesting thing is, beleiver in science almost universally accept what their told by scientists, without demanding the evidence. They simply beleive the evidence exists, because scientists said so.