Richard Dawkins: “The liberal intelligentsia of Western countries is betraying itself where Islam is concerned”

Dawkins.jpg

I said the same thing a few days ago. “Richard Dawkins” Hate Mail,” by Rowan Hooper in Slate, December 28, 2013 (thanks to Beatrix):

RH: You have turned your attention to Islam recently. Why is that?

RD: I think my love of truth and honesty forces me to notice that the liberal intelligentsia of Western countries is betraying itself where Islam is concerned. It’s stymied by the conflict between being against misogyny and discrimination against women on the one hand, and on the other by the terror of being thought racist””driven by misunderstanding Islam as though it were a race. So people who would normally speak out against the maltreatment of women don’t do it. I do fret about what I see as a betrayal by my own people, the nice liberals.

UK's Guardian urges surrender to Islamic jihad
Robert Spencer in PJ Lifestyle: The Hypocrisy of the Feminist Response to Islam's Oppression of Women
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    Dawkins doesn’t quite grasp the situation, IMO, if he thinks it’s simply a case that liberals won’t criticize Islam because they’re “terrified of being called racist”. That may be true for some liberals, but to a large degree this is a clash of worldviews.

    For a good portion of the political left, their worldview is that the traditional West, with its Judeo-Christian religious background, with its capitalist economic theories, with its technological and military success–is the true and ultimate source of evil in the world. They’ve rejected the basic Christian understanding that ALL men are internally flawed and fallen, and they’ve replaced it with a progressive worldview which says that Western, conservative, white, heterosexual Jewish or Christian males are a priori bad, and that non-western, non-white, non-Christian peoples (and of course, liberal westerners) are a priori good. And in some ways, they’re absolutely right that the worldview of the traditional West–with it’s Christian morality, emphasis of personal responsibility and individuality–is the largest obstacle to many of their progressive goals of statism, free sexuality, and restriction of individual rights in favor of collectivism.

    So, when Dawkins says “they’re afraid of being called racist”, that’s kind of true. But really, for liberals to acknowledge that the traditional West is morally superior to the non-Western Muslim culture would be a seismic, catastrophic overturning of their entire worldview. And that’s a place that most on the left are not willing to go—and if it means betraying millions of Muslim women, gay Muslims, artists and writers, and any true liberals in the Muslim world, you can bet that they will.

  2. says

    Bravo! Richard Dawkins is seeing what others have seen for decades: the Western liberal intelligentsia is deeply dishonest with itself!

    They have consistently refused to let the facts speak for themselves, when the facts contradict their cherished dogmas…such as Marxism. Until the Berlin Wall was enthusiastically taken down by ORDINARY CITIZENS WHO HATED MARXISM, the WLI continued to support Soviet totalitarianism despite 60 Stalinist murders and 25 million in war losses due to Stalin’s paranoia and ineptitude!

    The WLI has very little ability to see their own destruction coming. Muggeridge called it the ‘Great Western Death Wish’…it is similar to the frenzy of lemmings leaping en masse to their deaths into the ocean.

  3. says

    “The thing is, the facts about Islamic supremacism may sound just like what the Nazis said about the Jews — but they also sound just like what Churchill said about the Nazis. And one of them proved to be right.”

    Excellent!

  4. says

    Yep, I get you, Miriam. The funny thing about Massachusetts, though is that I’m not really sure the population is all that liberal—to some extent, voting Democrat is just a cultural thing. Folks may complain about the “crazy liberals”, but it’s almost like voting Republican just isn’t something they’d consider.

  5. says

    I really think Dawkin’s view of liberals is pretty on target. Also having always considered myself a liberal, I think liberals can be made to understand that their liberal views re civil rights, human rights and freedom of speech do put them on the side which would be very much opposed to Islamism and sharia etc in the west and elsewhere. I think that they just do not want to feel they are being racist, or that they are being perceived as racist, as Dawkins said.

    I would like to see these issues be put into arguments that totally focus on women’s’ rights etc. and of course freedom of speech. It disgusts me that I can’t blaspheme if I want to; just as long as I don’t cross the line to threaten or incite violence.

  6. says

    Dawkins refers to Islam as the worst, the “greatest force for evil in the world today.”

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/08/islamophobia-a-quack-pseudo-diagnosis-based-on-erroneous-premise-that-those-who-criticize-islam-are-.html

    He comments in a frank and harshly critical manner on Islam on a daily basis, as well as taking various Islam-defending cultural relativists and apologists to task. He takes a lot of flack for this, and puts himself at risk for doing so.

    http://www.richarddawkins.net/

    https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins

  7. says

    Slowly, but inexorably, it’s sinking into Westerners from all political persuasions (even the Left) that Islam is not only a religion but also a political ideology of the meanest and most ungracious kind.

    Certainly there can still be fine tuning here and there whether person A from the West “gets” Islam better than person B (as evidenced by the give and take on this very thread), but the overall thrust remains that more people in the West, not fewer, with each passing year are becoming aware of just how inimical, how malevolent and, yes, how stupid Islam really is.

    Oh, it will still be decades for all this to work out to the advantage of the non-Muslim world, especially for the West. Count on this as you can count on still many deaths and maimings as well as parastical use of Western freedoms, courtesy of the most troubling religion of all time. But the overall movement here is not to the advantage of Islam.

    Indeed, I envision a day when Islam will be despised and discarded as just about the worst idea ever invented by man. But we’re not there yet. Won’t be till mid-century. And the price for this too slow realization will be enormous. Damn shame but count on it.

  8. says

    My appologies,but I do think that there is still present the paranoia in the west of the evil communist empires which had the potential to ruin the west,but never did that. Communism was a western idea,ehich was proven as utopia and is long forgotten in the past now. It may still be the ideology of the far left,but their numbers are not critical. So,having no communists,there are the mainstream leftists,who are less objective and rigid in their perception of the priorities.
    The priority is to overcome the minor differencies with the right and unite against the deadly islamofascism. Even the communists were allies against the Nazzi in the WW2. That why I continue to speak loud and debate with the left upon the topic of Islam and I believe that I have results…

  9. says

    I don’t know, southeuropean. Modern leftism is very far from where it was in WWII, and I think today they see Muslims more as allies rather than foes. Here’s an article that I think is incredibly important–it’s the “smoking gun”. I think this scenario has played and is playing out in most Western countries, but in this case it was actually openly admitted:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

  10. says

    keep it in perspective, Dawkins is a scientist, not a politician. for his place in the world, i think hes done a lot with a few statements.

  11. says

    Many of you have it wrong here. As a left of center progressive democrat — but one who gets it about Islam and the international threat, the issue for “liberals” today is simply their flawed belief that what all Man want is inherently “good”.

    This is a Locke v. Hobbs psychological debate and issue over the evil nature of Man — not a left-right struggle.

    Too many on the left just can’t process that some humans really do not want peace and do not want to celebrate our differences. Many Liberals just can’t fathom that some people really instead want to impose a medieval fascist culture on others and think that killing infidels and non-believers in the process is ok to accomplish that end.

    And while the left was able to see the atrocities of the right in Latin America in the 60-80’s when thousands were tortured or disappeared to stop communism, here they are currently blind. That it’s dark skinned people who may be “victims” of capitalist excess and weak economically – may further add to the feeling of trying to help them, or to make excuses. They may instead see the violence in class terms as frustration, as is mistakenly applied to the Palestinian struggle instead of seeing it as another Muslim effort to kill infidels. However, this is still not the core driver for liberals.

    The core dichotomy here is that it simply doesn’t compute psychologically for too many on the left that the very freedoms they love would be wiped out in a minute under Sharia and the fascist Islamic extremists because they can’t accept that anyone really would want to do this. So in effect, it’s a denial of reality.

    That’s also why they can’t process the atrocities of today – reading how 1000 innocent Christians were slaughtered at Christmas and 80 churches burned by the Islamic extremists. It does not compute. The “liberal” need instead is to believe that we can all resolve our problems peacefully and just sit around the camp-fire, sing “Kumbiya” and engage in group Gestalt therapy sessions to talk about our issues as John Lennon’s “Imagine” plays in the background.

    In short, the Liberal world view of what they hope for Man is not wrong, but the ability to see that others do not want that too and instead want their an oppressive religious vision implemented through violence — is where liberals miss the mark.

    But history repeats itself. In the same way many on both the left and right denied the reality of the fascist threat in the 1930’s, eventually the handwriting and violence will become too psychologically painful to ignore today. I anticipate a wholesale turn-around in the West by John and Jane q public — to finally confront this Islamic menace. It’s happening right now here and in Europe. “Liberals” – whom many of you rant about, will soon shed their difference with the right over issues like abortion. They will eventually join in to first recognize and then finally support confrontation of the Muslim fanatics. That’s of course unless there’s an unlikely reformation and turn-around by Islam from within first – which does not seem likely.

    This site and the work of Pamela Geller are very helpful towards that end. Because for every liberal that calls Robert Spencer and Geller a hate-monger today, there are a few realistic progressives like myself who begin to see and internalize the undeniable facts and logic presented, and then speak out and begin to turn-around our other lefty friends and bring them into the fold.

    I can’t tell you how much psychological trouble I am causing these days for all my red diaper baby progressive buddies when I actively confront their naivete internationally on Islam, or tell them they are actually “betraying” the progressive cause by not speaking out against the slaughter of innocents by Islam – just because being “infidels.” I ask about their hypocrisy of calling for stopping the fascist right in Latin America – but silence over the fascist religious nuts in Africa and the Mid-East.

    Over time, this political dynamic does have a turn-around affect. And eventually you will see the media reflect that change of consciousness as well. But for many in the media too today, it is a psychological denial of reality, still seeing all Man as good and logical, not a left-right political issue and many of you here believe.

    Right now, we are in that middle period of awareness with some only beginning to recognize the true nature of the Islamic threat – and beginning to confront those who are still in denial.

    In a few years, what is today called “islamophobic” will be seen instead as being strong about protecting America and our freedoms from a real threat.

  12. says

    Political correctness is a Christian heresy which teaches that ones neighbor is The Other. In Jesus time it were Romans, Samaritans, sinners, fallen women. But the real revolutionary breakthrough was, non Jews. In the middle ages it were the poor. In the 60ties American blacks. In the 70ties, homosexuals. In the 80ties, Africans. Now it are Muslims… PC being contemporary doesn’t believe in the traditional concpet of sin, since the seven capital sins like lust or vanity are sanctified as freedoms. So the concept of sin has been transformed to be racism, homophobia, islamophobia, etc. In short, whatever is offensive to the Other. And since the human mind is a dynamic process, we are always underway from extreme to extreme and stop after falling off the edge.

  13. says

    Wow…
    The posts of spotontarget, Plexus and flusem give me some inspiration that there are intelligent “liberals” reading JW. Thanks for taking the time to contribute you guys.
    The issue is human and civil rights denial by Islamic ideology. Belief in a god, any kind of god, is irrelevant and should not be part of the dialogue taking place here.

  14. says

    Dawkins is mistaken about how “nice” liberals are, they are in fact the opposite. Many of us know this already but here’s a small example. I attended a lecture by Dawkins here where I live (at the University of Hawaii) and let me tell you, the crowd was pushing and shoving and cutting in line; they were horrid people! I had weeks before attended a debate between Searle and Lane Craig and it was the picture of decorum and kindness–not very scientific but an observance nonetheless, and I find this to be true across the board.

  15. says

    Happy new year champ! Where I live and work, NJ/NYC area the liberals(democrats) out number republicans 6 to 1. God forbid you tell them what Islam all about. The cry of racism is louder that the TNT that the jihadists use to blow people up. M

    Or the hijacked planes that hit the World Trade buildings.

  16. says

    Happy new year champ! Where I live and work, NJ/NYC area the liberals(democrats) out number republicans 6 to 1. God forbid you tell them what Islam all about. The cry of racism is louder that the TNT that the jihadists use to blow people up. M

  17. says

    But the liberal intelligentsia is not in power is it? Without exception, in the West the laws are being made by the corporate elite to suit their agenda in every sphere, especially economic and immigration policy – how can then one explain the dichotomy of conservative governments that espouse a right-wing and Capitalist and Globalist agendas, in all other spheres, in this one instance when it comes to Islam, suddenly become “liberal’ and start to impinge of freedom of speech and other rights we used to take for granted in the West? Some thing does not add up. Dawkins is right here, there is a betrayal here somewhere.

  18. says

    Thank you for that lucid explanation. Like a number of things I’ve learned since I became aware of the worldwide jihad, it helps to click into place a better understanding of what was always making me uncomfortable on some liberal sites I used to spend a lot of time on, such as DailyKos. I love European culture and Western Civilization. I’m delighted to be an heir to the Greco-Roman tradition as developed through Anglo-American civilization. And yet, just as you say, I had the feeling that these sentiments were not, to put it mildly, widespread in the liberal community.

    re your name: One of the reasons I love Massachusetts is that almost everywhere you go, you see reminders of key moments, figures and places in the history of Anglo-American civilization and the ideals that gave rise to the American Revolution.

  19. says

    Indeed, the WLI is TERRIFIED of being called ‘racist’ or ‘neo-colonialist’…which is more like it. ‘Imperialism’ is the Marxist slur. (Marxist imperialism is acceptable.)

    The WLI has decided (in their post-colonial guilt) that Western-Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian society must be destroyed, so ANY philosophy opposed to it is ‘a friend’ to be cultivated. Islam is viciously opposed to the West, so the WLI has taken this toxic viper into its bosom. Can it be long before the honeymoon is over?

  20. says

    Actually, Dawkins, in locating the acute nodus of the whole problem of the Western aversion to Islamocriticism in an irrational fear of being racist, hits the acute nail on the head.

    The anti-Western meme Boston Tea Party thinks is unrelated to this nodus is in fact directly related. It is, in fact, the obverse side of the coin. The mantra or meme of Reverse Racism has two sides:

    1) an irrational respect for the non-white non-West

    2) an irrationally morbid self-criticism of one’s own white West.

    These two sides are fused as surely as two sides of a coin.

    Indeed, Boston Tea Party in a recent comment on another thread seemed to show awareness of this; so it puzzles why now he would make this artificial and untenable distinction:

    While there are still some honest liberals on the left today, this piece is just further illumination that many leftist organizations are, at their core, hate-groups. They hate the traditional West, with its history of Christianity, capitalism, and its preponderance of heterosexual white men. This is their real enemy, above all. They say that they’re womens’ rights groups, or gay rights groups, or whatever, but when push comes to shove they will choose to side with the most violent, misogynist, homophobic men in the world as long as they’re non-Western–and indeed anti-Western. Their choice couldn’t be more clear. And I think they’re dimly aware of the massive psychological disconnect involved with that, so they have to twist their logic like a pretzel. Their Holy Religion of Multiculturalism has told them that white conservative men are bad, and non-westerners are good. So, when conflicts like this arise, in the best Orwellian tradition they willfully doublethink themselves into a complete reversal of reality… [emphasis added]

  21. says

    Your entire hate filled diatribe against liberals is seriously flawed. The “political left” by definition are not liberal. Therefor your quite accurate description of those lefties is complete nonsense when applied to those of a true liberal political disposition.

    Perhaps your experience is limited and views so narrow, because you have never actually encountered the real political left. I recommend attending a Trotskyist meeting and sit quietly at the back. Afterwards you will come to respect liberals and their inherently democratic outlook.

  22. says

    What you’re saying is all part of the “racial” agenda. It’s all based on fear of “racism”. Actually, however, it’s fear of losing their self-righteous position. They believe that they live in the default position of righteousness and are unassailable. If they lose that, they have nothing and are nothing.

  23. says

    “…for liberals to acknowledge that the traditional West is morally superior to the non-Western Muslim culture would be a seismic, catastrophic overturning of their entire worldview.”

    So true, so clear, so simple, BTP.
    Spot on!

  24. says

    I know what you mean. When I first began explaining the jihad problem to a Jewish friend, she got tears in her eyes and said “This is just what the Nazis said about the Jews!” I asked whether the Nazis were able to link to umpteen websites on which Jews laid out plans for world domination, or count up Jewish suicide bombings with casualties in the tens of thousands, or show videos of Jews carrying signs saying “Behead those who insult the Torah!”

    The thing is, the facts about Islamic supremacism may sound just like what the Nazis said about the Jews — but they also sound just like what Churchill said about the Nazis. And one of them proved to be right.

  25. says

    Miriam, please tell your girlfriend that, myself a Jew and a liberal, I’ve NEVER WORN BLINDERS and ignored what Muzzies are always capable of.
    She needs to program herself off of her spirit of world kumbaya and pay serious attention to the evil of Islam, its fundamentalists, and devout adherents!
    For G-d’s sake, these willfully ignorant Muslims are in the majority! They’re either jihadists, or aid and abet jihad as commanded to do in their disgusting unholy scriptures!
    Tell her that one good place to get educated in Jihad Watch.

  26. says

    Thanks Bradamante.

    Now, I don’t mean to say that all liberals consciously and actively hate the West—Heck, I was a liberal when I was 20, and I now have friends that are liberal, and they don’t hate the West. But, I do hold that this worldview is shared by most on the far left, and it’s very clearly evidenced by their craven behavior towards Islam.

    Yes, Massachusetts has lots of great history–unfortunately, political correctness has, for now at least, taken the forefront here.

  27. says

    Too little, too late and too careful.

    He is critical, sort of, of liberals reluctance to speak about islam for fear of being called racist. But I don’t recall him mentioning with one word the wickedness of Islam. Which makes one wonder what is the thing HE is afraid of?
    Oh, he is full of fire condemning religion and ridiculing believers, but he is very careful to reserve his scorn to all religions, EXCEPT Islam.

    From the CHristian Post:

    “In a recent Al-Jazeerah interview, Richard Dawkins was asked his views on God. He argued that the god of ‘the Old Testament’ is ‘hideous’ and ‘a monster’, and reiterated his claim from The God Delusion that the God of the Torah is the most unpleasant character ‘in fiction’. Asked if he thought the same of the God of the Koran, Dawkins ducked the question, saying: ‘Well, um, the God of the Koran I don’t know so much about.'”

    Well, it is obvious he must know enough about Islam if he thinks the liberals don’t mention it (critically) enough. But wants others say the truth, which he himself would not. To be a coward can be understood and forgiven. But to be one and criticizing others for the same sin is contemptible.

    But what can be expected from one who famously said:

    It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane, or wicked,…”

    In my eyes Dawkins is a totalitarian creep.

  28. says

    P.S.: But I wholly agree with thomas h., who points out the incoherent (but at bottom cowardly) equivocation of Dawkins implicit in his ever-implied Equivalencism.

    Equivalencism = timidly criticizing Islam, but making sure to include all other religions in the criticism broadly speaking, and usually reseving stronger language of criticism (if not outright condemnation and mockery) for Judaeo-Christianity. The net effect of Equivalencism is to strongly imply that Islam is no worse than other religions, or at best only slightly worse. This is evidence of an irrationality so morbid and perverse, one must use the term “mental disease” to describe it.

  29. says

    Thomas_h

    “But I don’t recall him mentioning with one word the wickedness of Islam.”

    What you recall about Dawkins’ comments on Islam would be relevant, first of all, if you had read some significant extent of his work, his views, etc. on that subject.

  30. says

    I can only conclude you take exception to Dawkins opinion of Christianity because you are a Christian, what he has to say about evolutionary biology has made him a professor so unless you are a creationalist… oh, I think I understand now.
    Richard Dawkins is one of several scientists and philosophers who have expanded their area of interest into defending science from the stupefying intrusion of religion in the arena of science education in schools and in science research otherwise we may become as backward and violent as the Muslims.
    We can all see what Islam has done to people in those countries it has taken root well, over the ages it has been people like Dawkins, Sam Harris, Anthony Grayling and Karl Sagan to mention a few who have prevented Christianity doing the same to us..
    We concentrate our attention on Islam and their jihad, clear and present danger but we must never forget what the Christians did when they had real power.

  31. says

    LemonLime,

    “P.S.: But I wholly agree with thomas h.”

    You agree, apparently because you are are not knowledgeable of Dawkins’ statements which don’t support your claims about his views.

  32. says

    “Equivalencism = timidly criticizing Islam, but making sure to include all other religions in the criticism broadly speaking, and usually reseving stronger language of criticism (if not outright condemnation and mockery) for Judaeo-Christianity. The net effect of Equivalencism is to strongly imply that Islam is no worse than other religions, or at best only slightly worse. This is evidence of an irrationality so morbid and perverse, one must use the term “mental disease” to describe it.

    Mental disease – yes, self-inflicted. I think we need to have a word dedicated to that the phenomenon.

  33. says

    The problem is not merely our dastardly “Elites”, but also (if not more so) all the millions of non-Elites who countenance the PC MC paradigm.

    As I put it in an essay I wrote about 2-1/2 years ago:

    [The PC MC paradigm] has not won the hearts and minds of millions throughout the West because it is essentially pernicious. Nor has this emotional and intellectual conquest, this paradigm shift in worldview, occurred as the result of some dastardly cabal of evil elites machinating Macchiavellianly on the masses. It has not been imposed from without, as some kind of coup d’état: it has been a more or less voluntary change — a coup de state of mind. Thus, this paradigm shift has not been an intrusion of some alien ideology. It has evolved organically out of the goodness of Western heritage that has its roots in the four pillars of Judaeo-Christian Graeco-Roman wisdom. For all that, however, it is obviously not good in any simplistic sense: it is paradoxically a process of excess health — “too much of a good thing”.

    Some of the more important virtues which have been taken to excess, which illuminate the irrationality of the West in the face of the danger of Islam, and which unpack the double axiom mentioned above, are the following:

    1) a development away from tribalism toward the respect for the dignity and freedom of the individual;

    2) a development away from xenophobia toward a respect for and curiosity about the Other;

    and

    3) a development away from jingoism toward the virtue of self-criticism and constructive humility.

    Other developments have also partaken of this evolution, and even if they may not be not directly pertinent to the problem of the West’s denial of the danger of Islam, they serve to highlight the irrational excess of #1-3. For example:

    4) a development away from theocracy toward secularism

    and

    5) a development away from theocratic legalism and censorship toward secular freedom of expression and thought.

    The irrational excess of #1-3 is highlighted by a consideration of #4 and #5 because even when the West is faced with a massive global culture that is violently hostile toward the virtues reflected in #4 and #5, it persists in denial about the obvious inferiority and danger this presents.

    PC MC: Neither Left nor Right, but Ambidextrous

    http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2010/05/pc-mc-neither-left-nor-right-but.html

  34. says

    RodSerling’s links to substantiate the supposed non-Equivalencism of Dawkins are too broad to be of much use. I’m not inclined to spend time combing through the main website of Dawkins or his main Twitter page to find possible gold nuggets; nor is that Jihad Watch thread linked by RodSerling of much help, since just because the idiot Nathan Lean castigates Dawkins, that doesn’t mean Dawkins isn’t Equivalencist. Surely, if Dawkins is not Equivalencist on this issue, there should exist clear statements by him showing this; not subtle aspects among his writings to be subtly teased out through subtle exegesis.

    And to reiterate: simply being “against Islam” is not enough to prove that one is not Equivalencist about this (see my definition above in another comment). The appropriate way for an atheist to show he is not Equivalencist is to say something like the following:

    “I have problems with theism in general, and I have problems with Judaeo-Christian theology in particular, as well as with some episodes in the history of the Jews and of Christians; but all this utterly pales in comparison with the deep and searing problems I have with Islam. Indeed, on the most important level — our values and existence today as freedom-loving people in the modern world — any comparison at all between Islam and any other religion should never be even mentioned except as a contrast to show how good all other religions and their followers generally are capable of being and how pernicious and dangerous Islam remains today, as it always has been throughout its historical career.”

    This would be the absolute minimum to establish the bonafides of an atheist today (particularly an influential one like Dawkins). One iota less, one hint of a mere whiff of equivocation on this, and he should be unceremoniously ejected to the Outer Darkness where there is weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth (yes, you Atheist Literalists, relax; that’s just a rhetorically figurative flourish, not meant to be literal…).

  35. says

    Well, I went to his website in search of the “harsh criticism” of Islam and my impression, again, is that Dawkins is “too late, too little and too careful”.
    Nothing, absolutely nothing, compared to the tone and substance of so many websites (like this one) critical of Islam.

    One can safely say that as long as he doesn’t hide his residential address and doesn’t need bodyguards his islam criticism is very tame.
    It may change, of course, once he senses that winds have changed

  36. says

    “This would be the absolute minimum to establish the bonafides of an atheist today (particularly an influential one like Dawkins). One iota less, one hint of a mere whiff of equivocation on this, and he should be unceremoniously ejected to the Outer Darkness where there is weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth (yes, you Atheist Literalists, relax; that’s just a rhetorically figurative flourish, not meant to be literal…)

    Pleasure to read it, LL. Thanx.

  37. says

    so according to you who has the IQ of Einstein and the rest of JWers with an IQ of a f…goat and all of us softies RS should have never posted this article here. Am I correct? M

  38. says

    LemonLime,

    That’s irresponsible. When you make statements about someone’s views on a subject, you actually have to be willing to do a bit of work to find out what those views are, before presuming to comment on them and judge them. For a start, I quoted Dawkins, above, saying Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today. That quote (or variations of it as Dawkins has reiterated it) has been presented right here in front of you in Jihadwatch articles in the past, as shown in the article to which I linked. (Unfortunately, for the past few years the search function here at JW [nor on Google for JW] doesn’t work properly, so in a pinch, I didn’t get the optimal articles I was looking for. But see below for some examples). That statement requires you to either admit that you were wrong in what you claimed above regarding Dawkins’ views on Islam, or modify your position in a way that explains the data which apparently contradicts it.

    I usually read Dawkins’ postings at least once a week, and from this I know, especially in the past few years, he’s been quite outspoken and explicit in stating that Islam is the worst religion. That said, I don’t compile links. Fortunately, a deeply offended, outraged Loonwatcher has compiled some of the purportedly terrible things Dawkins has said about Islam, complete with links to the originals [note: some brackets contain Dawkins’ quotes of others]:

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2013/04/richard-dawkins-anti-islamanti-muslim-propaganda-exposed-the-facts/

    EXCERPTS

    #1: [Quoting: “No I don’t think it was racist to feel that way. If you saw a European mistreating his wife in public wouldn’t you feel the same? “] “Of course. In that case I might have called a policeman. If you see a Muslim beating his wife, there would be little point in calling a policeman because so many of the British police are terrified of being accused of racism or “Islamophobia’.”

    #2: “Religion poisons everything. But Islam has its own unmatched level of toxicity.”

    #3: “Religion poisons everything, but Islam is in a toxic league of its own.”

    #4: “…..But let’s keep things in proportion. Christianity may be pretty bad, but isn’t Islam in a league of its own when it comes to sheer vicious nastiness?”

    #5: [Quoting: “He blamed “radical stupid people who don’t know what Islam is,'”] “They are certainly stupid, but they know exactly what Islam is. Islam is the religion that wins arguments by killing its opponents and crying “Islamophobia’ at anyone who objects.”

    #6: “This horrible film deserves to go viral. What a pathetic religion: how ignominious to need such aggressively crazed defenders.”

    #7: “Muslims seem to suffer from an active HUNGER to be offended. If there’s nothing obvious to be offended by, or “hurt’ by, they’ll go out looking for something. Are there any other similar examples we could think of, I wonder, not necessarily among religious groups?”

    #8: “Paula’s letter in today’s Independent (see above) will doubtless provoke lots of fatuous bleats of “Oh but Islam is a peaceful religion.””

    #9: [Quoting: “But it has nothing to do with islam.”] “Oh no? Then why do the perpetrators, and the mullahs and imams and ayatollahs and “scholars’, continually SAY it has everything to do with Islam? You may not think it has anything to do with Islam, but I prefer to listen to what the people responsible actually say. I would also love it if decent, “moderate’ Muslims would stand up and condemn the barbarisms that are carried out, or threatened, in their name.”

    #10: “What is there left to say about Sharia Law? Who will defend it? Who can find something, anything, good to say about Islam?”

    #11: [Quoting: “needed to respect other religions”] “That word “other’ worries me and so does “respect’. “Other’ than what? What is the default religion which makes the word “other’ appropriate? What is this “other’ religion, which is being invoked in this high-handed, peremptory way. It isn’t hard to guess the answer. Islam. Yet again, Islam, the religion of peace, the religion that imposes the death penalty for apostasy, the religion whose legal arm treats women officially as second class citizens, the religion that sentences women to multiple lashes for the crime of being raped, the religion whose “scholars’ have been known to encourage women to suckle male colleagues so that they can be deemed “family’ and hence allowed to work in the same room; the religion that the rest of us are called upon to “respect’ for fear of being thought racist or “Islamophobic’. Respect? RESPECT?”

    #12: “All three of the Abrahamic religions are deeply evil if they take their teachings seriously. Islam is the only one that does.”

    #13: “Yes, Christians are much much better. Their sacred texts may be just as bad, but they don’t act on them.”

    #14: “Quite the contrary. I think the problem [with Islam] is with the MAJORITY of Muslims, who either condone violence or fail to speak out against it. I am now praising the MINORITY who have finally decided to stand up for peace and nonviolence.”

    #15: [Quoting: “Actually I think linking to every video this bigot releases does look like an endorsement, even if it’s unintentional. Why not link to some news items by some other right wing bigots the BNP or the EDL, they’re always banging on about Islam so it should qualify.”] “I support Pat [Condell]’s stance on Islam. It is NOT based on racism like that of the BNP, and he is properly scathing about so-called “Islamophobia’.”

    #16: “After the last census, Christianity in Britain benefited, in terms of political influence, from the approximately 70% who ticked the Christian box, whether or not they were really believers. With the menacing rise of Islam, some might even be tempted to tick the Christian box, for fear of doing anything to boost the influence of the religion of “peace””.

    #17: [Quoting: “What sort of justice is this? My daughter has been beaten to death in the name of justice,” Mosammet’s father, Dorbesh Khan, 60, told the BBC.] “What sort of justice? Islamic justice of course.”

    #18: “Just as “communities’ has become code for “Muslims’, “multiculturalism’ is code for a systematic policy of sucking up to their often loathsome “community leaders': imams, mullahs, “clerics’, and the ill-named “scholars’.”

    #19: “Forgive me for not welcoming this judgment with unalloyed joy. If I thought the motive was secularist I would indeed welcome it. But are we sure it is not pandering to “multiculturalism’, which in Europe is code for Islam? And if you think Catholicism is evil . . .”

    #20: “I don’t think this is a matter for levity. Think of it as a foretaste of more serious things to come. They’ve already hounded Ayaan Hirsi Ali out of Holland and their confidence is growing with their population numbers, encouraged by the craven accommodationist mentality of nice, decent Europeans. This particular move to outlaw dogs will fail, but Muslim numbers will continue to grow unless we can somehow break the memetic link between generations: break the assumption that children automatically adopt the religion of their parents.”

    #21: “I said that Islam is evil. I did NOT say Muslims are evil. Indeed, most of the victims of Islam are Muslims. Especially female ones.”

    #22: “Whenever I read an article like this, I end up shaking my head in bafflement. Why would anyone want to CONVERT to Islam? I can see why, having been born into it, you might be reluctant to leave, perhaps when you reflect on the penalty for doing to. But for a woman (especially a woman) voluntarily to JOIN such a revolting and misogynistic institution when she doesn’t have to always suggests to me massive stupidity. And then I remember our own very intelligent Layla Nasreddin / Lisa Bauer and retreat again to sheer, head-shaking bafflement.”

    #23: “Apologists for Islam would carry more conviction if so-called “community’ leaders would ever go to the police and report the culprits. That would solve, at a stroke, the problem that has been exercising posters here. “Community’ leaders are best placed to know what is going on on their “communities’. Why don’t they report the perpetrators to the police and have them jailed?”

    #24: “Presumably we shall hear all the usual accommodationist bleats about “Nothing to do with Islam”, and “It’s cultural, not religious” and “Islam doesn’t approve the practice”. Whether or not Islam approves the practice depends – as with the death penalty for apostasy – on which “scholar’ you talk to. Islamic “scholar’? What a joke. What a sick, oxymoronic joke. Islamic “scholar’!
    It is of course true that not all Muslims mutilate their daughters, or approve it. But I conjecture that it is true that virtually all, if not literally all, the 24,000 girls referred to come from Muslim families. And all, or virtually all those who wield the razor blade (or the broken glass or whatever it is) are devout Muslims. And above all, the reason the police turn a blind eye to this disgusting practice is that they THINK it is sanctioned by Islam, or they think it is no business of anybody outside the “community’, and they are TERRIFIED of being called “Islamophobic’ or racist.”

    #25: “Apologies if this has already been said here, but “Baroness” Warsi has no sensible qualifications for high office whatever. She has never won an election and never distinguished herself in any of the ways that normally lead to a peerage. All she has achieved in life is to FAIL to be elected a Member of Parliament, twice (on one occasion ignominiously bucking the swing towards her party). She was, nevertheless, elevated to the peerage and rather promptly put in the Cabinet and the Privy Council. The only reasonable explanation for her rapid elevation is tokenism. She is female, Muslim, and non-white – a bundle of three tokens in one, and therefore a precious rarity in her party. You might have suspected her lack of proper qualifications from the fatuous things she says, of which her speech in Rome is a prime example.”

    #26: [Quoting: “Muslim extremists have called for Aan to be beheaded but fellow atheists have rallied round, and urged him to stand by his convictions despite the pressure.”] “For one sadly short moment I thought the “but’ was going to be followed by “moderate Muslims have rallied round . . .’ Once again, where are the decent, moderate Muslims? Why do they not stand up in outrage against their co-religionists? Maybe Ayaan Hirsi Ali is right and “moderate Muslim” is something close to an oxymoron. How can they not see that, if you need to kill to protect your faith, that is a powerful indication that you have lost the argument? It is impossible to exaggerate how deeply I despise them.”

    #27: “There are moves afoot to introduce sharia law into Britain, Canada and various other countries. I hope it is not too “islamophobic” of me to hope that the “interpretation” of sharia favoured by our local Muslim “scholars” will be different from the “interpretation” favoured by Iranian “scholars”. Oh but of course: “That’s not my kind of Islam.””

    #28: [Quoting: “Richard, I really dislike disagreeing with you. However, female genital mutilation is not really based on Islam. My wife is from Indonesia and I have asked around and none of them know of anyone who does that in their country. From all that I have read and seen, it seems like it predates islam and is mostly found in Africa and to a lesser extent the Middle East.”] “Even if you are right (and I am not necessarily conceding the point) that FGM itself is not based on Islam, I strongly suspect that the British police turning a blind eye to it is very strongly based on islamophobophobia – the abject terror of being thought islamophobic.”

    #29: “Dear Lady Warsi
    Is it true that the Islamic penalty for apostasy is death? Please answer the question, yes or no. I have asked many leading Muslims, often in public, and have yet to receive a straight answer. The best answer I heard was from “Sir” Iqbal Sacranie, who said “Oh well, it is seldom enforced.”
    Will you please stand up in the House of Lords and publicly denounce the very idea that, however seldom enforced, a religion has the right to kill those who leave it? And will you stand up and agree that, since a phobia is an irrational fear, “Islamophobic” is not an appropriate description of anybody who objects to it. And will you stand up and issue a public apology, on behalf of your gentle, peaceful religion, to Salman Rushdie? And to Theo van Gogh? And to all the women and girls who have been genitally mutilated? And to . . . I’m sure you know the list better than I do.
    Richard Dawkins”

    #30: [Quoting: “Blimey Richard! This really has got up your nose, hasn’t it? Your comments are usually a great deal more measured. It’s not exactly uncommon for a Minister to “rise without trace”. I think we can all agree that our political system is “sub-optimal” to put it politely. Tokensim is one possibility (though if the Tories were really just after the muslim vote its interesting that they opted for a female muslim token).”] “I didn’t mean to suggest that the Tories were after the Muslim vote. I think they know that is a lost cause. I suspect that they were trying to live down their reputation as the nasty party, the party of racists, the party of sexists, the Church of England at prayer. More particularly, the ceaseless propaganda campaign against “Islamophobia” corrupts them just as it corrupts so many others. I suspect that the Tory leadership saw an opportunity to kill two, or possibly three, birds with one stone, by elevating this woman to the House of Lords and putting her in the Cabinet.
    I repeat, her [Baroness Sayeeda Warsi’s] qualifications for such a meteoric rise, as the youngest member of the House of Lords, are tantamount to zero. As far as I can see, her only distinction is to have stood for election to the House of Commons and lost. That’s it.
    Apart, of course, from being female, Muslim, and brown. Like I said, killing three birds with one stone.”

    #31: “Baroness Warsi has never been elected to Parliament. What are her qualifications to be in the Cabinet? Does anyone seriously think she would be in the Cabinet, or in the House of Lords, if she was not a Muslim woman? Is her elevation to high office (a meteoric rise, for she is the youngest member of the House of Lords) any more than a deplorable example of tokenism?”

    #32: “I too heard Paul Foot speak at the Oxford Union, and he was a mesmerising orator, even as an undergraduate. Once again, Christopher Hitchens nails it. It is the nauseating presumption of Islam that marks it out for special contempt. I remain baffled at the number of otherwise decent people who can be seduced by such an unappealing religion. I suppose it must be childhood indoctrination, but it is still hard to credit. If you imagine setting up an experiment to see how far you could go with childhood indoctrination – a challenge to see just how nasty a belief system you could instil into a human mind if you catch it early enough – it is hard to imagine succeeding with a belief system half as nasty as Islam. And yet succeed they do.”

    #33: “Orthodox political opinion would have it that the great majority of Muslims are good people, and there is just a small minority of extremists who give the religion a bad name. Poll evidence has long made me sceptical. Now – it is perhaps a minor point, but could it be telling? – Salman Taseer is murdered by one of his own bodyguard. If “moderate’ Muslims are the great majority that we are asked to credit, wouldn’t you think it should have been easy enough to find enough “moderate’ Muslims, in the entire state of Pakistan, to form the bodyguard of a prominent politician? Are “moderate’ Muslims so thin on the ground?”

    #34: “It is almost a cliché that people of student age often experiment with a variety of belief systems, which they subsequently, and usually quite rapidly, give up. These young people have voluntarily adopted a belief system which has the unique distinction of prescribing execution as the official penalty for leaving it. I have enormous sympathy for those people unfortunate enough to be born into Islam. It is hard to muster much sympathy for those idiotic enough to convert to it.”

    #35: [Quoting: “Why do any media outlets keep repeatedly inviting her [Yasmin Alibhai-Brown] (excluding more capable, intelligent, qualified guests) as if she is some kind of authority or expert on anything at all?”] “Do you really need to ask that question? Media people are petrified of being thought racist, Islamophobic or sexist. The temptation to kill three birds with one stone must be irresistible.”

    #36: [Quoting: “I’m surprised nobody has acknowledged the elephant in the room — namely, multicultural appeasement of Islam. The fact that (a) the paper was accepted, and (b) it took only five days to get accepted, suggests that there’s something funny going on here. Could it be that the referee of the paper was a subscriber to the popular opinion in Britain that anything associated with Muslims short of murder in broad daylight is somehow praiseworthy and something to be encouraged?”] “Yes, I’m sorry to say that is all too plausible. Perhaps the Editor decided it would be “Islamophobic” to reject it.”

    #37: [Quoting: “I seem to remember a very bright young muslim lad”] You mean a bright young child of muslim parents.

    #38: “Oh, small as it is, this is the most heartening news I have heard for a long time. What can we do to help these excellent young Pakistanis, without endangering them? If, by any chance, any of them reads this web site, please get in touch to let us know how we might help. If anybody here has friends in Pakistan, or elsewhere afflicted by the “religion of peace’ (it isn’t even funny any more, is it?), or facebook friends, please encourage them to join and support these brave young people.”

    #39: [Quoting: “The obvious question is: who cares, are we saying when it was a catholic school it was ok and a Muslim school is worse.”] “Yes. It is worse. MUCH worse”

    #40: [Quoting: “I was even accused of having converted and married into another religion. But I wasn’t worried as I’m a true Muslim,” says the feisty young woman.”] If only she were a bit more feisty she would cease to be a Muslim altogether – except that would make her an apostate, for which the Religion of Peace demands stoning. Indeed, you’ll probably find she’d be sentenced to 99 lashes just for the crime of being feisty.”

    #41: [Quoting: “Disgusting and hideous as this practice is, I think the article makes it quite clear that it’s not limited to any one religion or community. It’s common to Christians, Muslims, Hindus, yezidis and many others.”] I just did a rough count (I may have missed one or two) of the named victims Robert Fisk mentioned. As follows:
    Muslim 52
    Hindu 3
    Sikh 1
    Christian 0
    But of course, Islam is the religion of peace. To suggest otherwise would be racist Islamophobia.”

    #42:
    “Whatever else you may say about Sam Harris’s article quoted above, and whether or not he is right about the NY mosque, the following two paragraphs, about Islam more generally, seem to me well worth repeating.
    Richard”
    [Quotes Sam Harris] “The first thing that all honest students of Islam must admit is that it is not absolutely clear where members of al Qaeda, the Taliban, al-Shabab, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hamas, and other Muslim terrorist groups have misconstrued their religious obligations. If they are “extremists” who have deformed an ancient faith into a death cult, they haven’t deformed it by much. When one reads the Koran and the hadith, and consults the opinions of Muslim jurists over the centuries, one discovers that killing apostates, treating women like livestock, and waging jihad”not merely as an inner, spiritual struggle but as holy war against infidels”are practices that are central to the faith. Granted, one path out of this madness might be for mainstream Muslims to simply pretend that this isn’t so”and by this pretense persuade the next generation that the “true” Islam is peaceful, tolerant of difference, egalitarian, and fully compatible with a global civil society. But the holy books remain forever to be consulted, and no one will dare to edit them. Consequently, the most barbarous and divisive passages in these texts will remain forever open to being given their most plausible interpretations.
    Thus, when Allah commands his followers to slay infidels wherever they find them, until Islam reigns supreme (2:191-193; 4:76; 8:39; 9:123; 47:4; 66:9)”only to emphasize that such violent conquest is obligatory, as unpleasant as that might seem (2:216), and that death in jihad is actually the best thing that can happen to a person, given the rewards that martyrs receive in Paradise (3:140-171; 4:74; 47:5-6)”He means just that. And, being the creator of the universe, his words were meant to guide Muslims for all time. Yes, it is true that the Old Testament contains even greater barbarism”but there are obvious historical and theological reasons why it inspires far less Jewish and Christian violence today. Anyone who elides these distinctions, or who acknowledges the problem of jihad and Muslim terrorism only to swiftly mention the Crusades, Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, the Tamil Tigers, and the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma, is simply not thinking honestly about the problem of Islam.”

    #43: [Quoting: “I am newish here (and not planning to stay). Could someone please just set my mind at rest by confirming whether or not this poster is the real Prof. Dawkins. I really, really hope not. I used to have respect for him and I supposed that, being a busy man, he would never have time to come here, and therefore could not be held responsible for all the bigotry, against believers in general, and Muslims in particular, which gets aired here in the guise of Reason. If this really is him, then I guess he can’t disassociate himself from it and from the charge of providing a platform for bigots and haters. If it’s really you, Prof. Dawkins, you should be ashamed of yourself.” Quoting his own comment: “Whatever else you may say about Sam Harris’s article quoted above, and whether or not he is right about the NY mosque, the following two paragraphs, about Islam more generally, seem to me well worth repeating. Richard”] “You mean the Koran and the Hadith don’t say what Sam claims they say? I’m delighted to hear that, but can you substantiate it? I do hope you can, then we can all sleep easier. If, on the other hand, Sam is summarising Islamic scriptures accurately, why should I be ashamed of myself for simply quoting Sam’s accurate summary?”

    #44: “Some critics have suggested that Paula should fairly have quoted, in equal measure, from Islamic scriptures. Since she was responding to a specific question set by the Washington Post about “religious and moral considerations’, it was appropriate for her to concentrate on the religions that dominate the readership of the Washington Post, namely Christianity and Judaism. However, it would be an interesting exercise for one of our Koranically-informed readers to undertake a matching article drawing on the scriptures of the “Religion of Peace’. Which of the “great’ monotheistic faiths will win First Prize for bloodthirsty nastiness and ethnic cleansing zeal?”

    #45: “I have it on the authority of a London schools inspector that the reason the police do not prosecute is that they are afraid of being accused of racism or “Islamophobia.” In the words of the police officer quoted in this article, they “don’t want to alienate communities.” You might as well refrain from prosecuting child rapists because you don’t want to alienate the pedophile community. If arresting these vicious hags really were “islamophobic” (or course it isn’t), I’d be proud to be called islamophobic.”

    #46: “Most Muslims don’t do honour killings, but the vast majority of honour killings are done by Muslims, loyally practising their faith and following what their religion has taught them is the right and proper thing to do.”

    #47: [Quoting: “Given what the Palestinians have been through in the last 40 years, expecting polite grace & dignity at all times might be a little optimistic.”] “And you think these people were Palestinians? Or were they just Muslims?”

    #48: “Islam is surely the greatest man-made evil in the world today, and I think I’d feel a tiny bit more secure against the menacing threat of Islam and Islamic faith schools, under the Tories than under Labour”.

    #49: [Quoting Steve Zara: “Now, it seems like the Cartoons were designed to be quite offensive. That was the artistic intention. Putting aside any judgement on that, wouldn’t it have been more interesting if the cartoons had been designed to be hardly offensive at all, in the style of the UK atheist bus campaign. It would have make those claiming insult and offence look very silly indeed.”] “..…The Westergaard cartoon implies nothing more offensive than that Islam is a violent religion, a fact that was amply demonstrated by the response to it. Part of the problem, as many here have pointed out, is that Islam expects special treatment: expects to be allowed to take disproportionate offence, far beyond that assumed by anybody else on Earth.”

    #50: “I have just watched Fitna. I don’t know whether it is the original version, but it is the one linked by Jerry Coyne. Maybe Geert Wilders has done or said other things that justify epithets such as “disgusting’, or “racist’. But as far as this film is concerned, I can see nothing in it to substantiate such extreme vilification. There is much that is disgusting in the film, but it is all contained in the quotations, which I presume to be accurate, from the Koran and from various Muslim preachers and orators, and the clips of atrocities such as beheadings and public executions. At least as far as Fitna is concerned, to call Wilders “disgusting’ is surely no more sensible than shooting the messenger. If it is complained that these disgusting Koranic verses, or these disgusting Muslim speeches, or the more than disgusting Muslim executions, are “taken out of context’, I should like to be told what the proper context would look like, and how it could possibly make any difference.

    To repeat, Wilders may have said and done other things of which I am unaware, which deserve condemnation, but I can see nothing reprehensible in his making of Fitna, and certainly nothing for which he should go on trial. Like the film of Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, the style of Fitna is restrained, the music, by Tchaikowski and Grieg, is excellently chosen and contributes to the restrained atmosphere of the film. The horrendous execution scenes are faded out before the coup-de-grace; all the stridency, and almost the only expressions of opinion, come from Muslims, not from Wilders.

    Why is this man on trial, unless it is, yet again, pandering to the ludicrous convention that religious opinion must not be “offended’? Geert Wilders, if it should turn out that you are a racist or a gratuitous stirrer and provocateur I withdraw my respect, but on the strength of Fitna alone I salute you as a man of courage, who has the balls to stand up to a monstrous enemy.”

    #51: [Sarcasm] “How dare you interfere with their culture? Obviously these people should be allowed to follow their own customs, without interference from Islamophobic imperialists. In any case, I expect only SOME women will be stoned for the crime of being raped. And even they will almost certainly deserve it, as they surely wouldn’t have been raped if they hadn’t shown an inch of bare wrist or ankle, or if they hadn’t left the house unaccompanied by a male relative.”

    #52: “I am not in favour of banning the burqa, because I am not in favour banning any style of clothing. But I think Pat is right to compare the burqa with a Ku Klux Klan hood or a swastika armband (which shouldn’t be banned either). I think he is right to speak of Islamic fascism, I think he is right to condemn the use of the word “Islamophobia’….I think Islam is probably the greatest of all man-made evils in the world today. It takes courage to speak out against it. Pat has that courage. He will be making enough enemies among the Islamofascists. I prefer not to encourage them by attacking him from the other side. ”

    #53: “For a while now I have carried on a sporadic, and more-or-less friendly, correspondence with Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. I continually try to provoke her with the horrors of Islam, in order to persuade her to leave it. She roundly condemns the bad bits of Islam, but I wonder where there are any good bits for her to retreat to. I am becoming increasingly curious. Are there ANY good things about Islam at all?”

    #54: “I find it hard not to resent the implication of Comment 36645 by oao. I obviously refer to Christianity, by default, more than to Judaism (or Islam) because I am a cultural Christian, writing in a cultural Christian country (Britain) with an eye to a larger audience in another (more than merely cultural) Christian country (USA).”

    END OF EXCERPTS

  39. says

    Certainly there can still be fine tuning here and there whether person A from the West “gets” Islam better than person B …, but the overall thrust remains that more people in the West, not fewer, with each passing year are becoming aware of just how inimical, how malevolent and, yes, how stupid Islam really is.

    I think if this awareness is unaccompanied by the (re)discovery of how wholesome, just, true and wise Christianity is, not as compared to Islam, but in itself, the final outcome of the clash is impossible to predict.

  40. says

    One need not be religious to realize that Christianity is an enlightened religion and Islam is not, that the former is a boon to a society and the latter is not. I find particularly objectionable those who engage in moronic tu quoque arguments with Christianity and Islam. Beyond dumb.

  41. says

    I could care less about Dawkins opinion of Christianity, or Christians. However when he declares that accepting, or not accepting, a particular scientific theory is indicative of person’s moral failing then I think Dawkins is a fool. When he, faithful to his folly, rants about compulsory teaching of the evolution theory to children at the age five he proves he is a dangerous fool – one with a totalitarian streak. Dangerous regardless how true his theory may be.

    “Richard Dawkins is one of several scientists and philosophers who have expanded their area of interest into defending science from the stupefying intrusion of religion

    Dawkins before “expanding his area of interest” and embarking on the “science defending” crusade should have made an effort to “expand his area of interest” to philosophy and religion. If he had expanded it sufficiently he may have realized that science doesn’t need his defending.

    “We concentrate our attention on Islam and their jihad, clear and present danger but we must never forget what the Christians did when they had real power.

    This website is not about “what the Christians did when they had real power”, but what Islam/moslems do RIGHT NOW.

    If you can’t “forget what the Christian did” it is your problem and there are many websites, including Islamic, which would welcome your input.

    Try your Equivalencism shtick there.

  42. says

    flusem, I WAS a member of the real political left in my younger days, and I do understand the movmement. I’m not making any “hate-filled diatribe” against liberals, and in fact I would currently describe myself as a Classical Liberal, as the term was understood in the late 19th century. But you’re just in a denial of reality if you don’t think the political left had a major role in the influx of Muslims to the West in the post WWII era. Muslims didn’t invade the West by force—they were invited, and indeed paid. Why do you think Muslims in Europe vote 85% for leftist parties? Because they support gay marriage and secularism? I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the writings of Antonio Gramsci, for one—and if you want to get a good understanding of the role of the left in the Islamization of the West, here is a fantastic discussion by some very astute and informed people:

    http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=2695

  43. says

    I find particularly objectionable those who engage in moronic tu quoque arguments with Christianity and Islam. Beyond dumb.”

    Not just “beyond dumb”, but positively undermining the West’s defence effort against Islam offensive against the West.

    Take care, Wellington amigo.

  44. says

    Well, it’s heartening to see that Dawkins, like Hitchens before him, is bending his own paradigm almost to the point of breaking it; but also — like Hitchens — unable to jettison his laughably adolescent view of Judaeo-Christian history and theology. It’s a fascinating thing to behold, an intelligent mind under the competing pressure of two vectors, trying to maintain coherent unity while pursuing the forces that should rationally force the break, but can’t, for psychological reasons married to an irrational hatred and phobia about two of the “Abrahamic” religions. My only misgiving at this point is whether a restoration of the broader context in the oeuvre of Dawkins around those 50-plus excerpts provided by RodSerling will significantly blunt or dilute the apparent purport they have to undo the Equivalencism that lurks in apparently parenthetical sentiments such as:

    #12: “All three of the Abrahamic religions are deeply evil if they take their teachings seriously. Islam is the only one that does.”

    #13: “Yes, Christians are much much better. Their sacred texts may be just as bad, but they don’t act on them.”

    It’s like watching an inveterate racist slowly begin to realize that he has many “black friends” and that many black people are “decent”, yet still unable to repress his familiar racist feelings all the same. Everything hinges on the old saw that would praise any progress, however encumbered it seems to remain by vestiges of the very same paradigm that otherwise would subvert its good effects.

  45. says

    You wrote :
    That statement requires you to either admit that you were wrong in what you claimed above regarding Dawkins’ views on Islam, or modify your position in a way that explains the data which apparently contradicts it.”

    I am reminded of:
    “Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everybody gets busy on the proof.”
    ― John Kenneth Galbraith

    Lemonlime , why start with venomous ad hominems? Anyway, that link you provided as a way of putting me down is actually very good reading. If you meant it as a put down, I think you shot yourself in the foot. I urge you and the high fiving feces-hurling monkey gang to read it. It’s still thought provoking.

  46. says

    “Lemonlime , why start with venomous ad hominems?”

    Another habit of Leftists: flinging the term “ad hominem” around inaccurately, as well as loaded and charged descriptions that cannot be substantiated, such as “venomous”.

  47. says

    “Lemonlime , why start with venomous ad hominems?”

    Another habit of Leftists: flinging the term “ad hominem” around inaccurately, as well as loaded and charged descriptions that cannot be substantiated, such as “venomous”.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Exactly, LemonLime. I read “darmanad’s” comment and thought what a bald-faced lie!

  48. says

    LL,

    I’m not going to try and coax a clear answer out of you on this. I am content to let the above exchange, beginning with my responses to you and Thomas h, stand for itself.