> If you care enough which one, look it up. I personally don't.> Neither do I, but I stumbled on this anyway: http://www.sayeedawarsi.com/2011/01/university-of-leicester-sir-sigmund-sternberg-lecture/ > Since clearly she released it and expected it to be covered.> Then there is this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/8275020/It-was-selfish-and-wrong-of-Lady-Warsi-to-give-that-speech.html which begins by saying the speech is unobtainable on the Party website. The speech is littered with quotable gems: "In other words, in my last speech, I said that this government does God. This time, I’m saying we get God." "...All through the Bible, there is a close relationship between faith and reason. Perhaps the most telling are the opening words of the Gospel of John. “In the beginning was the Word… and the Word was with God…. …and the Word was God”. “The Word was God” So, at the very heart of Christian faith, we find that Reason and God’s Grace go hand in hand. And as the Pope made clear when visiting a mosque in Amman last year, this isn’t unique to the Christian religion, but to all the main religions." (Implying, controversially perhaps, that this inextricable linkage is not made by the non-main religions.) "....At its extreme, this kind of bigotry descends into absurd caricatures. Where all Catholicism becomes “dodgy Priests in Ireland”. Judaism becomes “murky international financiers”. Sikhism suddenly seems to be all about a play in Birmingham. And Evangelical Christianity is seen as anti-Abortion activists rather than campaigners like William Wilberforce." (That bloody play in Birmingham!) "....But of course, Islamophobia should be seen as totally abhorrent – just like homophobia or Judeophobia – because any phobia is by definition the opposite of a philosophy. A phobia is an irrational fear." (That the opposite of a philosophy is, by definition, totally abhorrent is an inference the validity of which we may ponder, as we may well ponder the polarisation of a philosophy and an irrational fear). "....The drip feeding of fear fuels a rising tide of prejudice." (A beautiful image, with those slow drips producing a rising tide by being also a liquid fuel of it.) "....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." (Frightening, isn't it? And let's not pretend only Muslims with beards are thought terrorists; some of the women only have moustaches). ".....So what I am saying is this: At all times, we should be working to drain the pool of people where extremists fish." (By pulling the plug of unreason and turning off the hose of insanity). "....“An eye for an eye”, is the advice from Exodus. “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife…both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death”, is what it says in Leviticus. And “The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death”, is what Deuteronomy says. I could go on…. …and I will." (Not for her Beckett's hesitant "I can't go on.."). "....Not only are we ramping up the fight against all phobias – including homophobia and gender inequality…" (If you didn't yet think "gender inequality" was a phobia, think again). "....Second, we need a response from society. It doesn’t take rocket science to know what that means. “Love thy Neighbour” may be a cliché, but it’s a cliche’ because it’s eternally relevant." (Eternal relevance being one of the defining characteristics of a cliche). "....Third, and above all, British Muslims needs to remember that with rights come responsibilities. That means no burying our heads in the sand and denying the problem… but standing up and doing something about it." (If we stand up it will also make it much harder to bury our heads in the sand) (We also need not worry about the jurist's point that the responsibilities or duties created by rights are imposed not on the persons with the rights, who gain powers and stuff, but on others, so strictly British Muslims could gain a lot of rights without gaining any responsibilities. A mere quibble in this breathless context). "....Faith leaders need to explain their religion – in a way that people of all faiths and no faiths can understand." (People of no faiths, hark and heed). "I had the privilege of raising this issue with the Pope when he was over here……and whilst he asked me to build on my speech at the Bishops’ Conference, I asked him to use his unique position to create a better understanding between Europe and its Muslim citizens. If we do all these three things, together, as government, as society, as people of faith, then we can come a little closer to defeating anti-faith bigotry……and building a more open, inclusive and, frankly, a more grown-up society." (For who does not want to build a more grown-up society? Hmmm? HMMMM? Hmmm-hmmmm?) Certainly her argument that there are no extremist Muslims, because their extremism is against the faith, may be of pressing interest to those wishing to assert there were no German Nazis as Nazism is against what it is to be German. Insofar as "She seemed to say that, if you were extreme, you could not, by definition, be Muslim", she also provided further ammunition for Popper in his ceaseless campaign against definitional arguments. But perhaps most dangerously of all, she has created conditions where the cretinous Charles Moore might appear to make a valid point. Donal Climbing the wooden hill Near Bedfordshire ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html