The racist George Galloway

February 27th, 2013 at 7:42 am by David Farrar

The Independent reports:

The controversial MP has been accused of racism after walking out of a meeting at Oxford University when he discovered he was debating with an Israeli.

Mr Galloway, who is the Respect party MP for Bradford West, had been speaking in the debate organised by Christ Church college in favour of the motion: “Israel should withdraw immediately from the West Bank”.

Around three minutes into the speech given by his opponent, Eylon Aslan-Levy, Galloway interrupted asking: “You said we. Are you an Israeli?”

The third year student Aslan-Levy answered “I am, yes.”

Galloway then stood up and replied: “I don’t debate with Israelis, I’ve been misled, sorry.”

Mr Galloway then left the lecture theatre.

This confirms what has been pretty obvious.

It is one thing to criticise the Government of Israel. Nothing anti-semitic about that. But to refuse to engage with someone based on where they were born is simply racism.

Video footage of the incident, obtained by the Oxford student newspaper Cherwell, quotes Aslan-Levy as saying: “I am appalled that an MP would storm out of a debate with me for no reason other than my heritage. To refuse to talk to someone just because of their nationality is pure racism, and totally unacceptable for a member of parliament.”

It is racism.

Galloway was willing to debate Israel, just not with someone born there. How pathetic.

Tags: ,

70 Responses to “The racist George Galloway”

  1. Pete Macaulay (47 comments) says:

    Gorgeous George, showing his true colours again. Pro Iran, anti Jewish, and entirely full of himself. While living in the UK I got fed up with his continuous publicity seeking and intolerant rants.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. big bruv (13,678 comments) says:

    Don’t be so bloody silly DPF. Galloway is a lefty and they are never racist.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Richard29 (377 comments) says:

    The guy was called “Eylon Aslan-Levy” and he didn’t click that the guy was Jewish?

    Then again I guess that just proves that most racists are just very ignorant people….

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Lance (2,620 comments) says:

    Wait for the leftists to attempt to twist this into something noble.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Richard29 (377 comments) says:

    Just saw the picture on his Wikipedia profile. If I had to name the NZ politician he most looks like I think I’d be naming a certain middle aged, overweight, bearded, racist NZ first MP.

    They just happen to be on different sides of the world and different sides of the Israeli Palestinian conflict – but could George Galloway and Richard Prosser be each others evil twin??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Lance (2,620 comments) says:

    @Richard29
    Except Prosser did meet with a Muslim family in person to set things straight. Galloway is too far up his own arse to even contemplate such a thing with an evil Jooo.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. scrubone (3,090 comments) says:

    Lest we forget.
    —————
    British MP George Galloway, who has campaigned against Islamophobia for 30 years, told Radio New Zealand Mr Prosser’s comments were “disgusting”.

    “I’m surprised because it’s New Zealand and I’m surprised that it has come from the pen of a Member of Parliament.

    “It’s not surprising in another sense that there are right-wing politicians across the world seeking to scrape the barrel of prejudice in order to boost their political popularity.”

    Mr Galloway said it was “deeply shocking” that Prosser’s party leader had not repudiated his comments entirely.

    “What kind of leader would not see that talking about ‘Wogistan’, talking about Muslims – 1.7 billion of them – in these sweeping stereotypical and deeply insulting ways [is wrong]?

    Mr Galloway said the comments could be “dangerous” for New Zealand.

    “It’s not good for New Zealand to be known as a country where Parliamentarians go un-repudiated when making these deeply racist comments.”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    George Galloway is as entitled to be as racist as he likes to be. In fact I have some admiration for people who are open and direct about their likes and dislikes. Much better than these sly rats who say they like everybody but in fact are just a biased about the world as everybody else.

    And I dont know of anybody who doesnt have some bias about peoples ethnicity and nationality.

    In general one does have some sympathy for the israel situation – but on my vists there over the years Ive always been struck by the utter arrogance of israeli people. They deeply believe that the world is against them and that no-one understands their problems – which is total bullshit of course.

    Israel is a very lucky and favoured country. It has effective EU membership and their industrial sector is highly trained by US finance. It is totally understandable that there are more then just a few people in the world who think israel has got a better deal than they should have – and Galloway is probably one of them and sees no good purpose in communicating with them.

    Whether hes right or wrong – I dont know – but good on him for being open and direct about his feelings.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. AG (1,823 comments) says:

    There is an Israeli “race”? That seems an odd use of the word – would we say holding NZ citizenship makes you a part of the “New Zealand race”? Or that by being both a British and New Zealand citizen, I am a member of both the British and New Zealand races?

    Galloway is a prejudiced fool, for sure. But saying he is a “racist” is a misuse of a term.

    (Unless, of course, Galloway’s position is that he won’t debate with Jewish Israelis (but will debate with Arab Israelis). But that isn’t what he said – so in order to make him mean that we would have to conflate “Israeli” with “Jewish”. And isn’t that a bit … racist?)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Galloway is scum, the worst kind of scum.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. scrubone (3,090 comments) says:

    Actually Manolo, I disagree.

    Galloway is so scummy that it’s odivious what he is.

    While I disagree with barry, he does have a point that we know exactly what Galloway is. It’s the ones that don’t make the song and dance about their hatred that we need to worry about.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. jakejakejake (150 comments) says:

    Is Richard Dawkins also guilty of hate crimes for refusing to debate with Christians?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Nigel Kearney (969 comments) says:

    I agree with AG. Racism is treating people differently because of their race. Nationality is not race. If he refused to debate jews he would presumably have walked out as soon as the guy was introduced. This is evidence that Galloway is an asshole not a racist. Let’s leave the false accusations of racism to the left.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    He is an absolute moron. He promotes islam whenever he can but he is only in it for the multiple wives..Of course he was allowed into NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    From what I recall , he was banned from entering Canada.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. alloytoo (525 comments) says:

    Jakex3

    Dawkins position is more that won’t debate Young Earth Creationists.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Nigel Kearney (263) Says:
    February 27th, 2013 at 8:43 am

    I agree with AG. Racism is treating people differently because of their race. Nationality is not race.

    But isn’t it essentially the same thing in this context? A superficial attribute of birth that one cannot change, yet they are prejudiced on that fact alone.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Doonesbury is currently running a series of cartoons at the moment to do with creationists.

    Good morning, this is myFACTS, privatising the truth since 2003,this is Austin,how may I help you?
    Yes, I’m trying to teach my kids creationism,so I need some materials to disprove evolution ,can you help?
    Yes, Ma’am,we have a complete package for debunking evolution in the home. It comes with a plastic teaching model for use in the bathtub.
    Bathtub?
    It’s a fully loaded ark-complete with drownable dinosaurs.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. andyscrase (89 comments) says:

    Galloway is just another far left rent-seeking toerag. This action is hardly a surprise

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. eszett (2,392 comments) says:

    Here’s the video to it.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AzIXdQiaRBc

    @jakex3, Dawkins will not debate certain topics (for which he thinks debate isn’t the right format), nothing to do with being Christian or not.

    @Weihana, essentially it is the same, I guess we just don’t have a special word for it. (Though idiot comes to mind)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. andyscrase (89 comments) says:

    Thanks for the video. What a weapon grade jerk Galloway is

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Seán (397 comments) says:

    I am loathe to be seen to be sticking up for George Galloway – I am not – and while it was childish and weak of him to walk out of the debate, I think it’s drawing a long bow to say he is racist. He is a wuss, yes, but a racist? It only weakens criticism against him to go this far.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. andyscrase (89 comments) says:

    Not racist?

    Let’s say I was in a debate and a Pakistani was debating me. I walk out saying I don’t debate Pakistanis.

    and….

    This Galloway is so typical of the intolerant, bigoted liberal fascism that pervades British and Western Society these days.
    Try, for example, discussing climate change with a Green. “I don’t discuss with deniers” would be a typical response.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Seán (397 comments) says:

    And the Greenie could not be accused of being racist. Galloway was being a coward, he does not like to debate with someone he knew would not share is view. It’s the same scenario. Again, “racist” is the wrong label.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Scott (1,763 comments) says:

    George Galloway has always seemed to me to be a very strange kind of fellow. He doesn’t appear to like anything about his own country and its traditions. He hates Israel with a passion. And for some reason he loves everything Islam. One question would be – did he refuse to debate the person because he was Jewish?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    I think we need a few more words here. (not sure about the spelling – some of them are new…..)

    Culturalist – doesnt like a certain culture
    Ethnithicist – doesnt like a cetain ethnicity
    nationalist – doesnt like a a certain nationality
    Societyist – doesnt like certain types of society
    traditionalist – doesnt like certain traditions
    customist – doesnt like certain customs

    and so on.

    Jeez – there are some nasty buggers out there arent there…….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Scott (1,763 comments) says:

    And just on the subject of Richard Dawkins, he is not guilty of a hate crime. What a dubious judicial concept that is.

    But he does hate God, he does hate Christianity and he does seem to hate Christians. He seems to be a very angry man?

    But the reason is, rather than any rational, I have examined the evidence and find no foundation for creation and evolution is undoubtedly true because of the facts. It is not to do with facts or reason at all.

    The reason why this person is an atheist is that he was abused by a teacher, who was apparently a priest as well, at the age of 9 or 10.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Dean Papa (787 comments) says:

    So Weihana, when I hear the jocks on radiosport referring to Australians as convicts, and saying that cheating is in their (Australian) DNA, that is in fact racism? Or is the context not the same?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    “But he does hate God”

    No he doesn’t, you can’t hate something you know not to exist.

    “Is Richard Dawkins also guilty of hate crimes for refusing to debate with Christians?”

    Only creationists

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. RRM (9,770 comments) says:

    It is one thing to criticise the Government of Israel. Nothing anti-semitic about that.

    Thanks for clearing that up DPF! ;-)
    Curious, I’ve been called an anti-semite on here for years by people who think any criticism of any action whatsoever by the Israeli govt or military is automatically anti-semitism.

    (In fact I think I once commented that if the IDF held a baby-eating contest, anyone who said anything about it on here would probably be labelled an anti-semite, and I got howls of “stop being so anti-semitic!”)

    Meanwhile, I see people are calling Daniel Barenboim a “traitor” again because he’s trying to use music as a vehicle to get Israeli and Palestinian yoof onto the same page. Sad. Doesn’t give me a lot of hope for the future of that country.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. oob (196 comments) says:

    “Anti-Semitism” is a Hebrew term. It translates into English as “pro-peace and pro-justice.”

    George Galloway’s principled stand is thoroughly laudable. The Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions movement a rationale response to continual Jewish crimes against humanity and peace, in the unconscionable occupation of Palestine.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. scrubone (3,090 comments) says:

    Richard Dawkins refuses to debate William Lane Craig, because Craig actually is a professional and can show up Dawkins – who is an amateur when it comes to philosophy of religion.

    His excuses not to do so seem to change on a regular basis but all are pretty silly – the latest one mentioned above no less so.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. scrubone (3,090 comments) says:

    No he doesn’t, you can’t hate something you know not to exist.

    1) In my experience, atheists are happy to acknowledge that in a hypothetical universe (to them) where the God of the Bible exists, they would indeed hate him.

    2) Atheists actually do believe God exists. They just consider God to be an idea in the heads of believers. That idea exists, and they hate it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    “2) Atheists actually do believe God exists. They just consider God to be an idea in the heads of believers. That idea exists, and they hate it.”

    You are getting atheists confused with anti-theists. Almost everyone I know is an atheist and only a handful are anti-religion.
    There are no atheists who believe in God – believing in an idea is meaningless to this conversation.

    “atheists are happy to acknowledge that in a hypothetical universe (to them) where the God of the Bible exists, they would indeed hate him”
    Maybe but you cannot actively hate something you can only hypothetically hold to exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. kowtow (8,153 comments) says:

    The fact this guy can get elected to Westminster tells one that there’s a seriously dangerous problem with immigration,Islam and so called integration of minorities in Britain.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. scrubone (3,090 comments) says:

    You are getting atheists confused with anti-theists. Almost everyone I know is an atheist and only a handful are anti-religion.

    I wasn’t talking about religion – at all. I was talking about atheists hating God.

    There are no atheists who believe in God – believing in an idea is meaningless to this conversation.

    I’m struggling to understand how you could ever come to the point where you had to tell anyone that atheists don’t believe in God. That’s the definition of an atheist.

    You appear to have completetly missed the point of what I said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. eszett (2,392 comments) says:

    No, scrubone, they don’t hate the idea. They may hate the idiocy and nonsense that the such ideas give rise to.

    William Craig is a good debater, but a lousy and intellectually dishonest philosopher (if you can even call him that).
    Dawkins has debunked him and his arguments as has Harris and Coyne.

    Craig is a joke to everyone, but to the gullible.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Akaroa (552 comments) says:

    I looked at this page at 7.55 and was bursting to contribute, but was called away to breakfast. Since then there has clearly been a fair degree of response to the original comments by our esteemed blog-meister.

    Here’s my five cents worth. “Racism” and “Racist” are currently the two most mistakenly interpreted terms that I know.

    For instance. I don’t like Canadians. Why? because i have had a series of unhappy and costly experiences in my interaction with people of that nationality. But i’m not stupid enough to think that all Canadians are drongoes – its just that I haven’t yet met any of the other kind.

    And secondly – and this is the nub of the issue – “Canadian” is not a race, its a nationality containing racial types of many descriptions – Anglo-Saxon, Mediterranean, African, Innuit and Hispanic, to name but a few.. So lets have some descriptive accuracy around here folks. What do you say?

    So when people say that gorgeous George is racist they are just using a casual, sloppy, short-hand way of saying they don’t like him.

    Well, I’m not over the moon about him myself – but that’s because of what he does and says, not because he can be conveniently slotted into a drawer marked ‘Racists’. People who resort to that term are too often too lazy/unable to quantify and articulate what it is that they really don’t like about him?

    It would be amazing if people at large judged and commented on others’ activities and convictions on their merits – (or demerits!) – instead of resorting to the sloppy, inaccurate use of the word ‘racist’ – which, if you think about it, can have positive connotations as well as pejorative ones.

    Rant over!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    Scott (1,182) Says:

    February 27th, 2013 at 9:57 am
    And just on the subject of Richard Dawkins, he is not guilty of a hate crime. What a dubious judicial concept that is.

    But he does hate God, he does hate Christianity and he does seem to hate Christians. He seems to be a very angry man?

    But the reason is, rather than any rational, I have examined the evidence and find no foundation for creation and evolution is undoubtedly true because of the facts. It is not to do with facts or reason at all.

    The reason why this person is an atheist is that he was abused by a teacher, who was apparently a priest as well, at the age of 9 or 10.

    First, Dawkins does not hate god. He does not believe there is any god. So how can he hate something that isn’t there?
    Of course a few thousand years ago some people used to believe in multiple gods, now we are down to one god. In another few thousand years I reckon no-one will even believe there is one god.
    Second, Dawkins was never abused by a priest. He was confirmed into the Church of England when he was 13. He started to lose his religious faith when he discovered Darwin. His understanding of evolution led him to atheism.
    I went to a Church of England school. Although we went to chapel every morning six days a week it would be fair to say religion was not forced down our throats. So far as I can remember I have never believed there was a god and have never understood why other people believe there is.
    Re Israel and Palestine. The way I understand it is the Jews think they are entitled to have there own state, but in forming that state many Palestinians were forced off their land. So they have got a grudge which I guess is understandable.
    But they were offered a reasonably fair deal about fifty or so years ago and they didn’t take it. And now you have those Jewish fudamentalists holding the balance of power so an Israeli Prime Minister can’t agree to anything reasonable even if he wanted to.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    As bad as Galloway’s racism is, it’s simply individual prejudice. State sanctioned, institutionalised racism like our Maori seats are far, far more destructive.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    scrubone (1,979) Says:
    February 27th, 2013 at 10:22 am

    In my experience, atheists are happy to acknowledge that in a hypothetical universe (to them) where the God of the Bible exists, they would indeed hate him.

    Agreed in terms of literal interpretations.

    Atheists actually do believe God exists. They just consider God to be an idea in the heads of believers. That idea exists, and they hate it.

    Rubbish. I am an Atheist and I do not hate my partner for not being one, nor does it make me angry, nor do I hate the fact that she is religious.

    Although I do make distinctions about different types of beliefs. I would call myself agnostic to any generalized religious proposition that was constructed to conform with scientific knowledge. I am atheist towards any religious proposition that contradicts scientific knowledge.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    “I was talking about atheists hating God.”

    Back where we started – you can’t actively hate something you know not to exist

    “William Craig is a good debater”
    Yes he is good (and thankfully not a creationist) however his arguments are circular and long since disproven

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. scrubone (3,090 comments) says:

    Dawkins has debunked him and his arguments as has Harris and Coyne.

    Oh dear. Well, you’re welcome to believe that.

    If you ever want to challenge your own preconceptions, feel free to go looking for the atheist philosophers who call out Dawkins for the embarassment he is.

    No, scrubone, they don’t hate the idea. They may hate the idiocy and nonsense that the such ideas give rise to.

    Well, I disagree. Though I’d be the first to agree that there are plenty of believers (supposed and actual) out there who are peddling nonsense worse than any new atheist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Scott (1,763 comments) says:

    The contrarian – why do you call yourself the contrarian? Please correct me if I am wrong but your views appear to be standard liberal leftist politically correct Wellington Beltway opinions? To be a contrarian in New Zealand today is to be a person on the right, a person of faith. It is hard to be a contrarian on the left because even the most wildest left-wing opinions will be warmly greeted by the liberal elite and their colleagues in the news media that together run this country.

    I would suggest to you that Richard Dawkins hates God. He has even written books about how horrible God is. So he has 2 concepts in his mind – God does not exist and I hate God.

    Sadly it appears that he was molested as a boy, this is in his own blog, and that has affected him very badly emotionally, which we can understand. So his abuse by a priest/teacher is at the heart of his hatred of God. So while denying God, he hates him as well. Complicated and contradictory I know, but that seems to be where Mr Dawkins is at.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    “I would suggest to you that Richard Dawkins hates God. He has even written books about how horrible God is. ”

    he has written books about how horrible religion is – not just your god.

    I also like to way you think I can’t be a contrarian because I don’t agree with you.

    “Sadly it appears that he was molested as a boy,”

    Links please.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Scott (1,763 comments) says:

    The contrarian – don’t have the reference right now sorry. Just google it. He has said that he was molested on his own blog, which from memory is Richard Dawkins.net or some such.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    Found links – he was fondled once by a Latin teacher but he says nothing of being badly affected emotionally. He says he was embarrassed by considers nothing in comparison to what others experience.

    What does it have to do with anything?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. scrubone (3,090 comments) says:

    So to sum up the thread so far:
    Anti-Israel demagogue blowhard who refuses to debate: bad
    Anti-Christian demagogue blowhard who refuses to debate: good

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    “Anti-Christian demagogue blowhard who refuses to debate”

    He only refuses to debate creationists scrubone. Because why would you?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. eszett (2,392 comments) says:

    lol, scrubone, you are quite anxious about Dawkins, aren’t you?
    You don’t seem to deal very well with rational arguments, reality or facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Scott (1,763 comments) says:

    The contrarian – what does it have to do with anything? Well here is a man who hates God. He specifically in his latest book talks about how horrible God is. What is the source of all this anger? Surely if a man is molested at the age of 9 or 10 by a priest/teacher that would be a good explanation for his anger?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Dean Papa (787 comments) says:

    watching the video of the incident, it certainly didn’t take long for the shrieks of racism to follow. But clearly Galloway isn’t a racist, while there is a certain irony in the eagerness of the Israeli student debater to play the race card. Galloway is somewhat pompous and arrogant at times, but that shouldn’t be used to discredit his viewpoints. Looking at the video, and at that audience of earnest wet-behind-the-ear oxford student toffs, it is possible that Galloway suddenly realised he didn’t in fact want to be there, and who could blame him!

    Instead, here’s Galloway at his best, slicing and dicing the US Senate. My fav bit occurs at the 40min 55s point, “Senator Coleman thinks that’s funny” remarks Galloway in a devastating put down of the Senator. Poor Norm, he got totally ‘pwned’ by Galloway. You can tell Norm is squirming inside by his unconvincing attempt to feign indifference during his public evisceration, but the smirk on the face gives him away. Norm later tried to get Galloways’s statements excised from the record, not sure if he succeeded with that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    “He specifically in his latest book talks about how horrible God is”

    His Latest book was The Grand Design not the God Delusion.

    He wasn’t molested by a priest/teacher. It was a Latin teacher – there was no priest. You are saying that because it makes your argument sound better. So it has nothing to do with anything.

    Dawkin’s talks about how horrible religion is, not specifically God. He dislikes RELIGION and disbelieves in God. Again you conflating too singular things to make your argument sound better.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. scrubone (3,090 comments) says:

    Instead, here’s Galloway at his best, slicing and dicing the US Senate.

    Ah yes, his senate committee testimony. Where he loudly proclaimed that he’d never received a single barrel of oil. Of course, that’s not what he was accused of but hey, he said it loudly so he’s awesome.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. scrubone (3,090 comments) says:

    Following the debate with Christopher Hitchens in 2009, the website, Common Sense Atheism commented: “Craig was flawless and unstoppable. Hitchens was rambling and incoherent. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child.”

    Clearly, it’s because he’s a creationist.

    http://www.bethinking.org/what-is-apologetics/dawkins-refuses-god-debate-with-william-lane-craig.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Scott (1,763 comments) says:

    The contrarian – sorry I missed his latest book. You are quite right I am referring to “the God Delusion”. In his book he says “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
    ― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

    So if that is not hating God, I don’t know what is?

    We both agree that he was abused as a child by a teacher. The reports I read stated that the abuser was also a priest. It being a church school.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    William Lane Craig is not a creationist, Scrubone

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. scrubone (3,090 comments) says:

    TheContrarian: that was sarcasm. Sorry you missed it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

    Yes but he, at various times, as said the same for other concepts of God (not just Christianity) and the God of the Old Testament was like Dawkins says.

    Secondly you are making an error based on your own beliefs. Because you believe in the Christian God as the one true god you are placing YOUR beliefs onto Dawkins in that because he wrote a book about the concept of God being a delusion he must mean your concept of God. That is a mistake – he is talking about ALL concepts of god, not just the Christian god. Therefore you cannot say he hates god because he doesn’t believe in any god. He hates all gods and no gods because he doesn’t belief it/them or they to exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    But don’t put me down as a Dawkins defender, personally. I don’t even like him or his writings.

    But the whole “He just hates god” is ridiculous

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Steve Wrathall (283 comments) says:

    Why should the Jews leave the West Bank? Don’t the Arabs like “diversity” in their communities?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. iMP (2,352 comments) says:

    As a word “racism” covers more than “race.” It also concerns xenophobia (fear of “others”) as well as bigotry. Galloway is a class A “racist.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. iMP (2,352 comments) says:

    Scott, if Richard Dawkins is an atheist, and God doesn’t exist, how can he hate him?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Scott (1,763 comments) says:

    The contrarian – my dear chap – I can see why you call yourself the contrarian, because you are happy to argue opinions contrary to the facts.

    I think Mr Dawkins has been very clear in what he has said. He is specifically talking about the God of the old Testament.He is not talking about “all concepts of God”. He is specifically talking about the God of the old Testament. He hates that God as a misogynist, malevolent bully.

    I think his opinions are abundantly clear my dear old thing. He hates God while he also denies his existence. I appreciate that seems a little mixed up, but that is where Mr Dawkins is at right now.

    One can only hope that one day he actually gets to know God. Hopefully he might change his mind?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. iMP (2,352 comments) says:

    For the frothy-at-the-mouth anti-religionsists, I thoroughly recommend this erudite and fair BBC/Guardian one-hour documentary by agnostic investigative reporter Rod Liddle THE TROUBLE WITH ATHETISM (Dec.2006).

    It focuses on atheism for its perceived similarities to religion, as well as arrogance and intolerance. The programme includes interviews with a number of prominent scientists, including atheists Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne. It also includes an interview with Ellen Johnson, the president of American Atheists. REALLY GOOD WATCH.

    Here’s Part 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i20vLIgBt4M

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    Scott, have you read the God Delusion?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Dean Papa (787 comments) says:

    Have just watched part 1 of THE TROUBLE WITH ATHEISM, and that will be all I watch. This Rod Liddle fellow comes across as a ponce, which means the rest of the program will be unwatchable. While it could be argued that Dawkins is also a ponce, at least he makes a coherent argument. I see nothing of that from Liddle, and his claim that Stalin was an atheist immediately raises a red flag.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. muggins (3,341 comments) says:

    How can Dawkins get to know something that doesn’t exist?
    Billions of Chinese don’t believe there is a god.
    Also, Church of England schools do not have priests. I went to one for four years so I should know. The only religious teacher at the school I went to was the Chaplain , who only took Divinity classes and the like.
    As for the Latin teacher ,he was devoutly Social Credit, hence those in the class that weren’t interested in Latin used to ask him about Social Credit.We all learnt more about Social Credit than we did Latin.
    Einstein did not believe in a superior being.
    Dawkins writings are a bit beyond me but I agree with him when he says god is a delusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Jim (407 comments) says:

    I’m not sure why the theists here have such a hard-on for Richard Dawkins, who he chooses to debate, and whether or not he hates god. It’s all completely irrelevant to George Galloway being labeled a racist for walking out of a debate based on the nationality of his opponent.

    Perhaps superficially similar, but very different people with very different motivations.

    From what I have read and seen, Dawkins’ rejection of god is not philosophical so that would be a fair reason for not wanting to get in a debate with a religious philosopher about it. Arguments based upon a question of certainty can easily be challenged – but philosophical counter arguments much less so. Like sword vs cloud. Entertaining for some – but not really telling us anything.

    Galloway on the other hand is a politician who has taken up Islam. He’s mimicking Ahmadinejad when he rejects the existence of Israel. He’s not exactly anti-Jewish (he says), but against the idea of a Jewish nation. Anti-zionist perhaps.

    Kinda silly when you consider that Islamists want exactly the same thing for their religion: Islamist states. Islamic Republic of Iran anyone?

    Galloway’s view is most likely motivated by his religion. He has taken sides in a religious-political conflict. Refusing to argue based on nationality just shows he is a twat. Both him and his opponent would have been a reasonable match.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    You know what makes me mad? That Father Christmas, aka Santa Claus. I hate him so much.

    I stopped believing in Him as a child, and since then, I guess I’ve hated him. Makes perfect sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.