A Great Response to Pat Condell

He truly lives up to his YouTube moniker with this video. It was an excellent response to Pat Condell’s idiocy (which I’m still surprised that Pat, a fellow atheist, would give into emotional argument and lies and misinformation).

Hey, I argued that it is better for them [Christians and Muslims] to fight each-other and give us a break. I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding between European politics and the politics of the U.S. We don’t take people messing with our first amendment well, to say the least. (Yes, I’m aware there are those that believe in it as long as it suits them, but that is not the standard and most of them can be brought about to understand what that would mean).

Mike, I don’t think he’s saying that he’s equating decency to legality at all. Did you watch all of it? Please watch it again and note the points where he says despicable ideas should still be legal to believe.

It should be legally allowed, or else our first amendment is in jeopardy. We get enough bozos telling each other what they can and can’t do with their land, their liberty, etc.

These videos are quite tiresome. I watched a few Pat Condell videos at the time I was first made aware of them, but haven’t watched any since. He was sensible enough, not interesting or entertaining though, now it seems he’s advocating the banning of Islam and Mosque building. I agree with The Amazing Atheist’s message but both videos annoyed me. They’re rhetoric heavy, repetitive, and delivered in a browbeating way.

I really feel this “Ground Zero Mosque” thing is a non-issue cooked up by right wingers who are mainly religious, we secularists should be ignoring it. Those of us that do should say “we support freedom” and “we don’t like Islam”, and be done with it.

Freak’n awesome.
Do they have they have the right to build the mosque? Yes.

Do I think it should be built? Does it matter?
If it were a Christian shrine, built to honor the dead, I would have just as much, if not more, against it.
Put that out there. What would you say if the 51 Park was set up as a Christian worship center to honor those that died? Would you be OK with that?

He says people judge all of Islam by the actions of Al Queda (I’ve never met anyone who does this) But what about Hamas, Hezbolla, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqusa Martyrs Brigade, Abu Sayyaf Group, Al-Badr, Al Ittihad Al Islamia, Al-Umar-Mujahideen, and Ansar al-Islam to name but a few? And what about the over 15,000 terrorists attacks since 9/11? I don’t think Al Queda was behind all of them. I think Pat Condell is right on the Money, He makes me proud to be an Atheist.

The walking towards the camera is distracting and serves no purpose. His delivery (as always) is sing-song, although better than he used to do when his voice would squeal at the start of every sentence. I give it a C+, mostly for the content.

Condell is an idiot. He claims that the imam behind Park51 is a supporter of terrorism, etc., which are just unfounded claims made by right-wingers. He basically fell into their trap. He submitted to the supposed power of the lies and misinformation.

The truth is, Imam Rauf has done more for anti-terrorism measures than any Christian has ever done, and has always been outspoken against terrorism. For those demanding that the moderate Muslims speak out against the radical ones, Rauf has done just that, time and time again, in the past.

Condell’s video kind of pissed me off. In my eyes, when it comes to this issue, he’s no better than the neoconservatives who turned this non-issue into a controversy by spreading lies and rumors.

I don’t support Islam any more than I support Christianity or Judaism. But what I do stand for, is the truth.

YAA,

“The truth is, Imam Rauf has done more for anti-terrorism measures than any Christian has ever done, and has always been outspoken against terrorism.”

Well, sometimes in English he pretends to do that and sometimes not. Like when Castro or Chavez do their interviews and are all for human rights. In Arabic he’s pretty much for establishing Sharia in all western democracies. He’s two faced.

Look up Imam Rauf Quotes on google, and educate yourself. Pay attention to the offensive ones in Arabic.

I don’t really watch either usually. But this was an excellent video.

I 100% agree that they have a right to build it. But Americans have a rational reason to oppose it being built:

http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2010/08/clarifications-on-ground-zero-mosque.html

This is one of the best commentaries on this issue I’ve ever seen.

That was a brilliant rant. I used to watch more of The Amazing Atheist’s videos, but I fell out of the habit of doing that because I didn’t have the time. Videos like this one remind me of why I liked The Amazing Atheist.

Pat Condell is just wrong on this issue.

According to Hitchens Rauf is fully supportive of the clerical dictatorship in Iran. So then this video states “anyone who has looked into what Rauf has done what Rauf has written” yada yada, ‘Condell is lying’ I can’t agree with Rauf being portrayed as moderate or neccesarily that Condell is lying. Then again I haven’t watched Pat for a long time now.

The video is right in that we must allow assholes their opinions because otherwise the only alternative is oppression and sometimes truths are very impopular. Galileo is so cliche but a good illustration to that.

Loved this! He is absolutely right. Is this a good idea? Probably not, not any more than any extra churches ever are. But we MUST allow the bad ideas, or this isn’t America. It’s the only way to be sure to get all the GOOD ideas.

Very impressive. I used to be subbed to TJ back when his videos were often like this, profanity laced and outrageous but with actual ideas. Then he got rid of the ideas and I got tired of him and unsubbed. This sort of thing makes me reconsider my position.

I think Pat Condell’s main complaint is the way western politicians treat islam as just another religion rather than a political movement like communism. Both aim to reign supreme and would replace your precious constitution should they achieve that goal.

I would say that neither Pat nor anyone else I’ve seen talk about the subject has shown enough evidence that this is the case and especially have never defined what “Islam” is. Somehow the millions of secular Turks and moderate Indonesians and hundreds of thousands of Americans never figure as a part of “Islam” when it’s being discussed. I agree there is a problem with Islam, and I have no doubt that many Islamists would happily put me in one of those bin-liners they call clothing and deny me my rights. However I have yet to see evidence that the danger of this happening is so dire that we should make some sort of exception to our fundamental values to deny a whole class of citizens their rights.

I loved the overall video and message.

And while I did not personally care too much for the “let them fight each other” piece in the middle of it, I support his right to suggest it. 8=}

A juvenile, emotional and excessively vulgar ad hominem rant.
I’ve heard all these “arguments” from others, but stated much more eloquently and convincingly.
Not impressed in the least, especially as only half of his points were valid.

I’m applauding. Well said. I am so putting this video on my wall. And just may subscribe to his channel to make up for dropping Pat’s.

Both aim to reign supreme and would replace your precious constitution should they achieve that goal.

So the way to fight that is to throw the constitution out before they even try to? Voluntarily give up rights instead of fighting anyone who tries to take them from us? Yeah, that’ll work. Riiiight.

Sigh. Once again, I feel the need to point out that sharia law would be unconstitutional at its core. American Muslims are free to voluntarily follow it, just as there are American Jews who keep kosher for instance, but even if it were (doubtful but for the sake of argument) passed as law, it’d soon be struck down as unconstitutional by the courts.

I had no idea Pat was getting all nutty on us, but this issue has been pretty divisive. Good response from the Amazing Atheist. Calling all Muslims terrorists is like calling all Christians Dominionists or Reconstructionalists. They are all superstitious and we need to keep talking sense into them, but we do have to be realistic. Once we start believing crazy ideas and stereotypes we become like the worst case examples of religionists.

@MikeTheInfidel

It’s perfectly rational for some people to be offended.

I don’t think it is rational for people to be offended. At the very least it’s arguable. If all Muslims should not be accountable for the actions of a few, then there is nothing offensive about it, they had nothing to do with it. The fact that some people will be irrationally offended doesn’t change that.

@Secular Stu, I would just like to back up what you said. Amazing Athiest repeats a common Conspiracy Theory claim that Osama was trained by the CIA. There is no evidence to support this and I think it really hurts his rant.

Here is some info on the subject – http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bin_Laden_CIA_links

You beat me to it, Revid! Nice going.

i’m quite disinterested in the matter and couldn’t finish the video. sounds like he was saying mostly rational things. but as far as manufactured un-controversies go, i’m Over this one and have been for a while now.

“How dare anyone question the greatest country on Earth! How dare anyone suggest that maybe, just maybe, we go a little overboard with our idea of tolerance and should perhaps re-evaluate it! America is never wrong! Rah rah rah! American fuck yeah!”

Sorry but what? The American exceptionalism types are actually on the other side of this issue. I can guarantee you that if you find a guy with an American flag shirt he’s a lot more likely to think the mosque should be banned.

No, this is the idea that one of the ideas this country was founded on was freedom of speech, and you don’t throw that away because some given form of speech offends you. In fact, it’s offensive speech that needs defending. The idea is to appeal to people’s patriotism in the form of their belief in the value of freedom of speech. He’s not directing himself at other countries but rather other Americans.

I do think it’s legitimate (if mistaken) to think the mosque is offensive or a bad idea IF you absolutely recognize the right to build it. I recongize the right of the Westoboro Baptist Idiots to protest in their usual vile manner, but I can and do say that it’s offensive. In this case, since people who oppose it are also made up of people willing to throw the Constitution in the toilet for this “special case”, people who think it’s offensive but don’t support it being banned need to make that particularly clear.

“He says people judge all of Islam by the actions of Al Queda (I’ve never met anyone who does this) But what about Hamas, Hezbolla, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqusa Martyrs Brigade, Abu Sayyaf Group, Al-Badr, Al Ittihad Al Islamia, Al-Umar-Mujahideen, and Ansar al-Islam to name but a few?”

How many of those acts are really about religion? Hamas is about a homeland for the Palestinians, Al Qaida wants us to stop supporting Israel and get our troops out of the Middle East, religious wars are rarely about religion, they are just drawn along religious lines, or use religion to brainwash the public.

I’m really concerned about Islam and it’s constant attempt to seek hate crime legislation when one criticizes it…it happened in Canada. In the US when political correctness frowns upon it I feel even more silenced. It is in these occasions, laws and political correctness, when laws do get passed.
I also dislike the notion of “cultural relativism.” In that all cultural practices are equal. No, they are not. Middle Eastern Islamic is not as good as Western Culture. And you only have to look at the barbarous practices of the region and brutal punishment given to it’s citizens. So when decency gets trumped, as in the mosque uprear, by political correctness, I get irritated. Is one to tell me that those people who were building the Cordoba Community Center didn’t know that building at the present site may be seen as provocative? Seems to me building it in another spot may have been more prudent.
I’m aware that they can build their mosque anywhere they want, but am I to be told they are stunned by the reaction? Islam is held in suspicion because people don’t trust it anymore and for very good reason.
So unless I hear more about “moderate” Islam and renunciation of violence and honor killings and female circumcision, I’m going to hold this religion in particular disdain whether it’s here in America or any damn where else in the world.

So unless I hear more about “moderate” Islam and renunciation of violence and honor killings and female circumcision, I’m going to hold this religion in particular disdain whether it’s here in America or any damn where else in the world.

And again, taking a moment to parse things out saves me from sounding like an ass.

I was going to say that attacking Muslim moderates for being too quiet about the extremists is like attacking moderate Christians for being too quiet about the Phelpses. But the Phelpses aren’t even comparable to Muslim extremists. At the very least, they’re not out murdering people.

I like this guy…. a lot.

“But what about Hamas, Hezbolla, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqusa Martyrs Brigade, Abu Sayyaf Group, Al-Badr, Al Ittihad Al Islamia, Al-Umar-Mujahideen, and Ansar al-Islam to name but a few?”

There are roughly 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. The combined membership of all those organizations might top 100,000. Even if you found over a million terrorists (good luck with that) that would still be less than 1% of the Muslim population. To codemn 99% of a population for the actions of 1% is asinine to say the least regardless of the stupidity of their religion.

“And what about the over 15,000 terrorists attacks since 9/11?”

15,000? That seems like extreme BS to me. There were the bombings in Madrid and England and a couple other incidents but unless you are counting every IED in Iraq as a terrorist attack this number is a complete fabrication.

“…treat islam as just another religion rather than a political movement like communism. Both aim to reign supreme and would replace your precious constitution should they achieve that goal.”

I think most atheists would support opposition to Islam as an ideology, but if you are going to fight it you have to fight it the right way and for the right reasons. Instead we get silly, whiny, indignant theatrics like we are seeing with this whole mosque thing. In a democracy that values freedom, censorship and subjugation are not the proper tools to combat bad ideas.

@Matt

I have to respectfully disagree as well as add that I’ve always considered Germany to be wrong with their policy. At the core, it is the principal of the matter. One group’s terrorist may be another group’s savior. Who gets to make the decision over what is objectively decent enough to be allowed by free speech? Once you start to place limits on things you find personally distasteful, you are dealing with a slippery slope.

I think that certain ideas can be totally and objectively discerned as good and bad, not from a personal like/dislike, but from a universal human moral (which actually exists, over countries, religions and cultures). Of course slavery (as an example) was good for some (enslavers) and bad for others (slaves). However, aren’t we capable, nowadays, of saying without any doubt that slavery is a very bad idea and that we must get rid of it in the whole world? (not by means of war, etc). The same goes for the racist and genocidal ideas of nazism, and so on. The slippery slope is what you said about terrorism: it seems you were (although I know you weren’t) endorsing terrorism, just because it can be seen as good by some people, so who are we to say it’s bad? That’s dangerously wrong. Hamas maybe a terrorist group for Israel and a savior for Palestinian people (the same that the Israeli army is seen as an oppressing group by Palestinians and as a defense by Israelis). But we shouldn’t say, “we don’t know which one is better because both are seen as savior and terrorist at the same time for different people, so we’ll allow both”. The right thing to say is: murder is objectively wrong, so both are wrong.
The thing is many people confuses ideas with the people that believe those ideas. Not all ideas are respectable: they can be criticized, challenged and there are some very bad ideas (universally speaking) that we must get rid of (as we have in some cultures) to continue evolving socially. However, people are respectable (every single person, that’s another universally objective good idea). So I should not harm others just because I think their ideas are bad. But if their ideas are objectively wrong (from a universal human moral point of view, not from a personal dislike) modern society has learned to get rid of those ideas, always respecting the people that believe them.

MikeTheInfidel,

There is nothing irrational about being offended by the Mosque being built so close to ground zero. How can you make such an ignorant and irrational statement? Also holding a protest against it in no way violates their rights. It’s called free speech.

There are quite rational limits to both free speech and religion, at least there should be, and when your speech or religion incites violence against others, or defames them then it can and should be restricted.

There are certain forms of speech that are quite clearly defamation. When one speaks a universal against another group claiming that “all x are greedy” then it is quite clear that the speaker cannot know that unless he has direct knowledge of every single member.

Putting others in danger is a form of harm. You can’t unsafely store dynamite next to your neighbors house even if it is on your property.

Defamation is telling a falsehood against another that causes that other person to suffer harm.

History has established that saying the false statement “All Jews are greedy” puts Jews in danger.

If you lie about an individual in a way that causes him harm that is illegal, and considered a defamation. [Note this applies to corporations which are technically groups but legally “persons” under the law and therefore individuals. You can’t defame a corporation either.]

Now there is an aspect of defamation law that is irrational. It doesn’t apply to groups. Even though that a claim about a group is identical to a multitude of statements against each individual in the group the law doesn’t treat it that way. Therefore you are allowed to defame groups all you want.

I think the reason this is allowed is to protect religion. Religion is all about the defamation of other groups.

I think it is rational to have the law apply to group defamation as well.

I think it is fairly easy to establish that Nazi lies about the Jews lead to harm. Therefore it is quite justifiable to outlaw such speech.

Note this doesn’t mean we have to ban the publication of Mein Kampf. It’s perfectly reasonable for these kinds of books to be treated as works of fiction.

It is when someone actively promotes such a book as fact and advocates action based on it that it becomes both a statement of falsehood, and a harm.

Yes, it would likely put a crimp in the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church, if the were to start harming people.

Yes, it would put a crimp in the activities of those who claim that gays deserve to be lynched because of the teachings of the bible.

No it would not violate their free speech rights because that doesn’t include the right to defame others.

I don’t have a problem with that, do you?

In fact defamation is a violation of others rights to freedom of association at the very minimum because it intentionally interferes in their free association with others via a falsehood, and is therefore a fraud. The butcher who is lied about has his right to associate with customers violated when someone falsely claims his scales are fixed. His customers rights to associate with the butcher are also violated by the fraud.

Defamation is therefore justifiably prohibited.

Incitement to violence is also another form of speech that we quite rationally do not consider free speech. I leave it to the reader to figure out why.

I do not think religion should be a shield protecting either activity, incitement to violence, nor defamation. Just because you have a religion doesn’t mean you get to violate other peoples rights.

We did not give Osama bin Laden CIA training. That is a lie. It is based on confusing one set of groups fighting against the Soviets and another. Osama wasn’t a member of the groups receiving funding.

Even if he was that does not mean “we” are responsible for 9/11. You have to be a stupid twit to think that. Besides the Imam’s statements were far more offensive than that and much less precise. He did in fact blame us for 9/11.

Brian:

There is nothing irrational about being offended by the Mosque being built so close to ground zero. How can you make such an ignorant and irrational statement?

Rather than just say this, why not build a case for rational offense? You didn’t really respond to me, you just asserted that I was wrong.

I personally know people who spent weeks pulling body parts out of the ruins of the twin towers who also support the right of the Muslims to build their community center. I know people who lost loved ones on 9/11 who do to. As far as I can tell, the only reason for offense is a false conflation of Imam Rauf and his group with the people who committed the terrorist attacks. It’s a false comparison. It’s like getting offended that a Christian church gets built a few blocks from where a bombed abortion clinic used to be.

And I don’t think I’ve once said that people don’t have a right to protest.

Since when did the American civil war begin (or end) in 1910? Considering the subjective and opinionated nature of this hapless and embarrassing rant, you’d think this guy would have made a minimal effort to correctly date the only fact contained within that piss-poor excuse for philosophic insight.

“You didn’t really respond to me, you just asserted that I was wrong.”

You didn’t support your statement. You just made an unsupported assertion. I do see reading further down that you rejected your own comment and also didn’t support that either. You should write a comment complaining about yourself.

I gave you a long comment on why Islam is a problem, because of defamation and incitement to violence.

Islam at it’s core is a violent religion. It’s texts, and even the supposedly peaceful parts, are fundamentally violent, and the founder of the religion was a criminal and some kind of sociopath.

The acts of 9/11 are fully compatible with Islam, was justified based on Islam, was motivated by Islam.

Imam Rauf is a two faced liar who makes different claims to different audiences and is seeking funds in terrorist states like Iran.

How can you be so ignorant of all these facts. Of course, people will take offense at a religion that incites violence and defames non-believers.

Some of these people may be hypocrites but they are not being irrational about Islam. Islam is a very big threat to non-Muslims in every part of the globe.

I like Pat’s videos and his messages. I don’t have to agree with everything he say’s in order to like him in general. I think his message got lost in his personal distaste for Islam, which is fine with me, because I can also agree with AA on many points.

Hey, Brian, here’s an idea:

When someone asks to know what your sources are, don’t call them an ignorant, lazy ass. I actually was interested in what you’ve been reading, because I am genuinely interested in understand why people are upset.

You’ll find that not once did I stoop to attacking you, even when I disagreed with you. Perhaps rather than stand aghast at how little I know, you could send me links to some of the things you’ve been reading. That would be helpful, rather than just snidely condescending.

People like you belittle claims that this is two blocks away and yet the fucking bastard Rauf wrote a book in Arabic titled, “A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of post 9/11 America.” He seems to think there is significance in the site in converting non-believers. Yep, mass murdering us is an opportunity for conversion.

That just scratches the surface you ignorant ass.

Again: what are your sources? I just spent a good 20 minutes on Google and I just see a bunch of blogs linking to each other. I see no actual evidence of this – just people re-reporting each other’s claims as facts.

Here you are bitching about how ignorant the opponents of this are

This never happened. Based on my lack of information, I wasn’t able to figure out a rational reason for being offended. At no point did I ever complain about opponents of Park 51 being ignorant.

Go google him you and stop being lazy about it. I told you how. Do I have to provide a link too.

Yeah, actually, that would be helpful, seeing how I asked you what your sources were. When you start stating things as facts but don’t let me know where your information comes from, that weakens your position.

Let me clue you in on something. You need to start thinking critically in both directions and not just in the anti-American direction.

What the hell are you reading? When did reserving judgment based on lack of information become equated with leaning in an anti-American direction?