[KPFA Radio in Berkeley, California], which is not affiliated with the University of California, said in a letter - which Mr Dawkins published online - that it does not support "hurtful" or "abusive speech."...
[Dawkins] said harsh statements he has made in the past have been directed at "IslamISM" - apparently referring to those who use the religion for political objectives - and not adherents of the faith.
"I have criticised the appalling misogyny and homophobia of Islam, I have criticised the murdering of apostates for no crime other than their disbelief," Professor Dawkins writes. He also pointed out that he has been a "frequent critic of Christianity but have never been de-platformed for that"...
July 24, 2017
"Richard Dawkins' Berkeley event cancelled for 'Islamophobia.'"
BBC reports.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
105 comments:
The adherents aren't great either.
He's going along with some of the PC moral high groundism.
Dawkins is naive. Should have been wise before he was old
Deplorable.
That's pretty disingenuous of Dawkins. He has made harsh statements not just about politicized Christianity, but about Christianity in all forms and about Christians. If he hasn't made harsh statements about Islam and Muslims, then either (i) he is a hypocrite or (ii) more likely, he didn't get around to it.
And what's wrong with misogyny and homophobia.
What pussies the courageous dissenters are these days.
The circular firing squad's circle tightens.
He's "never been deplatformed for that" because Christians don't cut people's heads off and blow stuff up if you piss them off.
Dawkins is from Londonstan and environs.
It runs in their blood and surrender is the default position since they threw out Thatcher.
Protected class identified!!
He also pointed out that he has been a "frequent critic of Christianity but have never been de-platformed for that"...
Doesn't he understand the rules? Pretty amusing for a guy who claims others are driven to believe untrue things because it helps them hide from harsh realities.
Throwing gays off buildings isn't homophobia anyway.
It's just being a good muslim.
As for misogyny, they like women.
It's weak argument all around.
He ought to be arguing that islam is idiotic, not that it's not PC by the weird US standards.
Interesting that Dawkins' antipathy towards Christianity is never described as Christianophobia, and he is never described as anti-Christian bigot. Also, Dawkins' talk at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University is on YouTube. Might be a lesson there.
We mustn't be hurtful!
"If he hasn't made harsh statements about Islam and Muslims, then either (i) he is a hypocrite or (ii) more likely, he didn't get around to it." Of course he has. Look at what he said about Islam being misogynistic and homophobic. He's trying to pretend he didn't offend them, I don't know why. He should be saying, This is what I do to bad religion.
The Muslims have obviously been keen observers of the domestic American scene.
They know that if they act like an aggrieved minority group and claim victim status, then most of the Left will rush to support them.
Muslim is the new black.
(Unless it's Black Muslims, which is a twofer)
Also, Dawkins has been on the SJW hit list for a while now given his response to Rebecca Watson histrionics over being invited by a male companion of a skeptic conference to join him in his hotel room.
p.s. Skeptic/atheist conferences and organizations are completely moronic.
He also pointed out that he has been a "frequent critic of Christianity but have never been de-platformed for that"
No shit, Dick!
If someone is a lefty out of that's their considered & conscientious position, well, okay. But to be a lefty, & to be either unaware or, worse, an apologist for the incredible nut-jobs that inhabit the post-Marxist Left, that's unforgivable.
This is the first time Dawkins has been their target. It won't be the last.
Berkeley: We believe in free speech -- except for HATE! speech. (which we conveniently define as "stuff" we don't like.
Dawkins may be obnoxious and wrong on many things, but he is highly intelligent. His opinions should be heard, discussed and debated.
The skeptic community (hate that phrase but it is what it is) has been divided over SJW issues for years. Like libertarianism, because it tends to draw a predominantly male crowd, there is an assumption that it must be riddled with misogyny and sexism. PZ Myers is probably the most outspoken (and obnoxious) atheist SJW. His blog is riddled with virtue signaling over these issues. Michael Shermer is on the other side and is a frequent target of their abuse, up to and including being called a rapist.
He just dodged a bullet. A guy could get seriously hurt criticizing Islam in public and all.
It's only prudent.
Lefties gotta "Lefty".
Suppression of opinions of which they disapprove are inevitably silenced in every Lefty dominated system.
Not to mention the Left and the Islamists are completely aligned politically.
Drago -- the only question is, which of the two hates Western Civilization more?
Just his selfish gene. Flamboyantly entertaining. For 30 seconds. Atheists I love: Paul Kurtz. Let Dawkins redeem himself by preaching Muslim-love for Ibn Khaldun.
Dawkins is an old man (76) and is way behind the times, by a generation or more.
He is irrelevant to modern controversies.
He did his part in his day, to overthrow what constituted civilization at the time.
He is just tasting a bit of that fruit that he helped plant so long ago.
J. Farmer,
That sounds like a lovely lot.
"He also pointed out that he has been a "frequent critic of Christianity but have never been de-platformed for that"..." Now, if he were a scientist, rather than a science writer spouting off about religion, he might formulate a hypothesis to deal with this apparent anomaly, and learn something.
So, Dick--may we call you Dick?--why are you a "critic of Christianity," but not a "critic of Islam"? You are aware, aren't you, that the stuff you dislike is right there, in the teachings of the Prophet? You aren't using "Islamism" as a CYA don't-kill-me-bros copout, are you? And you do know, do you not, that Muslims themselves, such as the distinguished democratically elected Muslim leader Erdogan, insist that there is only one Islam?
If you don't toe the party line, the Left punishes you.
Dawkins knows that.
IRC, Dawkins wants to outlaw people teaching their kids religion, since its "Child Abuse".
He's not a free speech advocate (that's understatement, Fred).
Dawkins bashes all religion. Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Hindu, he doesn't care. He sees it all as superstition, guiding people to evil and irrational behavior. I disagree with him on many parts, but to describe him as "Islamaphobic" is ridiculous. He's everything phobic.
But ... this just shows once again that PC will eat itself. Because no one can be ideologically pure enough.
"The Muslims have obviously been keen observers of the domestic American scene.
They know that if they act like an aggrieved minority group and claim victim status, then most of the Left will rush to support them.
Muslim is the new black.
(Unless it's Black Muslims, which is a twofer)"
That is the absurdity here - militant, radicalized, Muslims are the furthest thing from the multiculturalism so beloved by the left. Islam, where Christian and Jews need to submit and pay tax in order to practice their religions. Where other religions need to convert or die, Women need to submit to the men in their families, their father's, brothers, husbands, and even sons. And gays need to submit in order to be executed. This is what modern multicultural leftism has come to support. And in order to prove their liberal bona fides, they have to step in front of the line for submission to Allah.
How has the left gotten to this dysfunctional position? I think that it comes from their reflexive antiwesternizm. They hate the Christian (and Jewish) west, and so do many Muslims. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, or at least ally. Except that in this case, the classic liberalism that lets progressives thrive in our culture is one of the facets of westernism most despised by many of the most radicalized Muslims.
To the Left, Islam is an ally in the goal of achieving power. In the UK, Muslims are a key Labour voting bloc.
"Unless it's Black Muslims, which is a twofer"
The native US sect of Black Muslims, the Nation of Islam, which is most US black Muslims, doesn't get much respect though.
I think the big difference is that NOI does not have Arab oil money behind them, and isn't likely to get it, being extremely heretical vs Sunni Islam.
In all this stuff, follow the money.
@BP,
being extremely heretical vs Sunni Islam.
It is amazing just how much effort the media has put into ignoring what a bunch of weirdness the NoI is. I mean, I guess the MSM can't attack them too vociferously, because they're black, but they sure don't fit on the modern Left.
For a start, they are classical 19th C racists. There's black people at the top of human nature, & then there's everyone else, with the white people being the worst, since they're the result of a scientific experiment by an evil scientist unleashed on the world.
They hate gays. Women should definitely be subordinate to their men. Matter of fact, they make your average fundamentalist Christians seem like party animals by comparison.
The silence on this topic from the lefty Althouse commenters is deafening.
Fabi: "Drago -- the only question is, which of the two hates Western Civilization more?"
Easy.
The left hates western civilization more. Obviously.
Many islamists, though they are happy to lop the heads off Christians, at least admire faith on the part of the Christians.
The western left, well, you already know the answer.
Fabi: "The silence on this topic from the lefty Althouse commenters is deafening."
The lefties are practicing their "we are the tolerant ones!!" chant, in between idea suppression, maoist self-criticism conferences and honoring terrorists.
Like many Western thinkers, Christopher Hitchens spend a lot of time attacking the philosophy nearest to him, Christianity, but at least he was able to recognize Islam as something far more dangerous. I wish he had lived just to hear his thoughts on the situation now. Dawkins is doing the same but I've never found him as compelling as Hitchens. But it seems like most thinkers that attack Christianity seem open and welcoming to Islam. it's very odd. Makes me think thinkers is probably the wrong word to use
Sometimes I think that post-60's liberalism has finally pushed the ignorant hypocrisy too far. That a line is being crossed, that enough people will see through it that it will fade as a force in American life.
So far I've always been wrong, but I still believe there is a line out there somewhere that, once crossed, will open eyes and the Democrats will be forced to embrace democracy again and become the second party in our two-party system. Again.
Christians won't slit your throat. Others will. That's all you need to know about motivation here.
You're right, Drago -- Islam has a bit of respect for Christianity, unlike the left.
"He's everything phobic." Won't save him. Not all phobias are created equal.
Of course, Islamophobia, like homophobia, is just a rhetorical tool of the left.
Berkeley. He should have kept his mouth shut and just burned something down.
Volokh has a good piece on this.
The Shariah ratchet clicks into another notch.
Dawkins himself I think has contributed to the current culture of non-debate over the years. But this is revealing of the Left mindset these days.
Dawkins is in good company.
This is actually a very informative example:
In the early years of the BBC, Reith’s main way of steering clear of controversy was to aim for political balance. Reith did this by subcontracting the choice of political speakers heard on the BBC. The leadership of each party could choose who broadcast on its behalf. It was an approach that guaranteed exposure for the opinions of ministers and their shadows, while dissident voices were silenced. Winston Churchill and David Lloyd George jointly complained that they were being prevented from broadcasting their views simply because they were not party loyalists.
Exactly. Loyalists and fellow travelers is what comes of this kind of high-minded censorship.
On 5 April 1955, E R Thompson, the BBC’s first parliamentary correspondent, delivered the first-ever live TV news report: the announcement that Churchill was retiring. Churchill had unwittingly done the BBC a favour by resigning during a newspaper strike so that the corporation had the story to itself. Not for much longer, though. Some years earlier, Churchill had taken a decision that would change television for good.
He had decided to break the monopoly that his old enemy John Reith had considered so vital for broadcasting. He did so in the face of Reith’s hysterical warning that commercial television would be as disastrous for Britain as “dog racing, smallpox and bubonic plague”. Indeed, that wild overstatement seems to have helped overcome Churchill’s initial doubts. The grand old man explained his conversion to his doctor, Lord Moran: “For 11 years, they kept me off the air. They prevented me from expressing views that proved to be right. Their behaviour has been tyrannical.”
Hitchens, we miss you.
Dawkins has always been outspoken in his contempt for Islam, a few of the commenters here seem unaware of that. In the 90s that was okay on the Left; they used words like "Taliban", "fatwa", and "jihad" to denigrate religious conservatives, rather than to celebrate an unjustly oppressed minority.
A footnote. Reading Eugene Volokh's reporting and re-reading the Althouse blog entry makes it clear that Cal Berkeley is not involved. The entity is just radio station KPFA. Volokh summarizes the thoughts of Bob Baldock, events coordinator at KFPA:
Baldock also noted that this was the only event they had canceled in the more than a thousand that he had helped organize, setting aside events when the speaker was sick or otherwise couldn’t make it.
This "defense" is appalling. Out of all the radicals, iconoclasts, and curmudgeons you've elected to broadcast, this is the one you can't stomach?
re: Volokh: Thanks Ken B. Volokh's piece is great reporting.
'The lefties are practicing their "we are the tolerant ones!!" chant, in between idea suppression, maoist self-criticism conferences and honoring terrorists.'
That should be
'their "We are the tolerant ones!! Take them first!!" chant.'
Blogger Unknown said...
Hitchens, we miss you.
***
Argh, don't remind me.
Money, money, money.
Arab oil money has purchased a great deal. It has become the owner of much of the environmental movement worldwide. It has purchased US academics and whole university departments - especially anything to do with Arabic and Middle Eastern studies. It has created an anti-Israel movement out of nothing, since the 1970s.
It created much of the US "peace" movement 2003-2008, as the US in Iraq was inconvenient to the Saudis and everyone else there but Kuwait.
frequent critic of Christianity but have never been de-platformed for that
In Islam, it's called defenestration, and there's never a happy landing.
Dirty Mohammed's Islam or Death by the Sword Cult is growing fast in a Post-Christian world.
Reality Check: The Christian Gospel has survived and spread everywhere...except for those places where all the Christians were slaughtered. And Islam is the Slaughterer.
except for those places where all the Christians were slaughtered
Christianity in France and Germany got past that for a long time.
This is absurd. He has attacked the fundamental religious movements in both Christian and Islamic groups that that use religion for political purposes. He should be allowed to speak period.
J. Farmer said...
p.s. Skeptic/atheist conferences and organizations are completely moronic.
I went to a one or two meetings of some atheist club 40-some years ago - to meet chicks, IIRC - and recall a guy talking about fossil hunting in S. America, and some similar stuff from other people - travelogues, I guess. Not scintillating, or even controversial, but far more intelligent and interesting than any church service.
Which is more likely, they are actually ignorant of things he's said about Islam or they booked him just to reject him and get some press coverage? Maybe I'm being too cynical and they just don't know how to use Google.
Judging from these comments, it appears that it's time to declare war on all Christianists, Islamists, and religious militants of all stripes.
Thank God that the vast majority of scientists are atheists. We alone hold the keys to understanding nuclear physics. Maybe now's the time to unite to save humanity by destroying religion of every stripe.
"Maybe now's the time to unite to save humanity by destroying religion of every stripe."
Except for the ones hiding in our National Park system.
KPFA= Kommie Pinko FAg radio. "What do you expect from a pig but a grunt". (JFK, Kevin Bacon)
@jimbino,
Maybe now's the time to unite to save humanity by destroying religion of every stripe
Yeah, just like the Marxist regimes. In the process, they murdered 100 million of their own citizens in peacetime.
Be careful what you wish for. Every secularist in the world thinks that by getting rid of religion, they'll be able to enjoy their favorite perversion without societal judgment. Actually, what happens is that the first commandment that goes into the trash can is "Thou shalt not kill".
Jimbino, if you actually sat down & read any theology (or philosophy for that matter), your head would explode
YH:...except the atheistic secular far left is actually full of societal judgement seeking to squash everyone's favorite preversions. They are puritanical christian fundamentalists without the trinity mythology.
Richard Dawkins of "Unweaving the Rainbow" is far different than the post "God Delusion" incarnation. The former made ripples to instigate critical thought. The latter most likely just wants to incite asshole arguments to tick up royalties.
My guess is that this might be a riding the Milo wave sort of thing. (Shrug.)
Some commenters seem to think that Dawkins has not been critical of Islam. He has been. I haven't paid much attention to the "new atheists" but most of the ones I've heard have criticized Islam, they don't shy away from it. Dawkins' claim that he's been a "frequent critic of Christianity but [has] never been de-platformed for that" is meant to show the double-standard of those who cheer those criticisms but react in horror when he says similar things about Islam. I don't think he's expressing genuine surprise, he's just pointing out that these people are raging hypocrites.
Blogger jimbino said...
"Judging from these comments, it appears that it's time to declare war on all Christianists, Islamists, and religious militants of all stripes.
Thank God that the vast majority of scientists are atheists. We alone hold the keys to understanding nuclear physics. Maybe now's the time to unite to save humanity by destroying religion of every stripe."
Actually, the vast majority of scientists are philosophical materialists, they just think they are atheists.
I do love this story about Dawkins. It must create cognitive dissonance among his devotees, mostly secular progressives. Do they go with Dawkins or the SJWs?
This progressive insanity is bad for the country, but God how I love to have my suspicions confirmed. They really are nuts - and silly.
Atheism is the religion that has killed more people than any other religion in the last century by an order of magnitude.
I'm a frequent critic of people who confuse concepts and conflate logical domains. This includes the three great faiths: theism, atheism, and agnosticism. And, unfortunately, science when practiced outside a limited frame of reference. It's ironic that the second and fourth have often been the source of greater abuses, albeit contingent on the adopted ideology/religion (e.g. moral philosophy). Narcissistic delusions (e.g. god-complex) are the root of all evil in our world, which is a first-order source of inertia that prevents reconciliation of moral, natural, and personal imperatives. Selectively, of course.
Blogger Howard said...
. . . They are puritanical christian fundamentalists without the trinity mythology.
Some of us have noticed that they have completely decoupled sexuality from sex. They believe people can be homosexuals, or heterosexuals, without ever performing a homosexual or heterosexual act (or, in the case of children, not knowing what a sexual act is).
Dawkins is a heretic.
The list of people who CAN speak at Berkeley must be awfully short.
Howard said...
YH:...except the atheistic secular far left is actually full of societal judgement seeking to squash everyone's favorite preversions."
Jacques Barzun made this point a long time ago: the left preaches sexual liberation until it gains power. Once in power, it turns curiously puritanical. Emma Goldman and John Reed were "free love" advocates, but the USSR was hardly a libertine's paradise. Those baggy gray pajamas worn by the Chinese under Mao were as asexual as it gets. Does anybody think North Korea is a hotbed of sexual pleasure? Although plenty of Cuban women have been driven by poverty to hustle their wares to foreign tourists, Castro put homosexuals into camps and psychiatric hospitals.
Because the human sex drive is so powerful, the left must control it, as they must control all aspects of existence. Their promise of "sexual freedom" is a lure used to undermine societal norms. When they have total control, they are no more interested in sexual freedom then they are in any other kind of freedom. They are closer to Islam on that score than most people suspect.
Not scintillating, or even controversial, but far more intelligent and interesting than any church service.
7/24/17, 9:32 PM
How many have you been to?
I used to attend the Archbishop's Mass when Dolan was still in Milwaukee. His sermons were far more intelligent and interesting than any atheist screed I've ever read.
Leftwingers adore the religion of hate.
Burning people alive in cages, chopping off heads - this is what leftists want to do to us. Right after they steal our stuff.
exiledonmainstreet said...
"Not scintillating, or even controversial, but far more intelligent and interesting than any church service."
How many have you been to?
Quite a few, actually.
I used to attend the Archbishop's Mass when Dolan was still in Milwaukee. His sermons were far more intelligent and interesting than any atheist screed I've ever read.
That's wonderful! I'm so happy for you! Dolan, no less!
As far as I know, other than books on physics and biology etc., I've never read an "atheist screed" - can you point out a good one?
Achilles said...
Atheism is the religion that has killed more people than any other religion in the last century by an order of magnitude.
Besides atheism obviously not being a religion, I'm pretty sure you meant "communism" (I know, those "isms" get confusing!), which is a economic system and also not a religion other than the fact that it's based on fantasy. Communists were a pretty mean bunch and enjoyed executing capitalists!
I bet KPFA is pretty worried about those atheist terrorists we keep hearing about bombing their radio station.
I am most impacted by the word "de-platformed". I don't like it. Is it necessary?
It is not news to anyone that in Berkeley the "right" people can march vowing death to all Jews, but that the "wrong" people may not march claiming that unborn children or Jews or homosexuals in Muslim countries have the right to life. Free speech at Berkeley is entirely censored. He must be the last to realize this, surely?
Dawkins is anti-religion. He is also against religious freedom to an extent - his claim that raising children in a religion is child abuse raises issues of free speech and conscience, surely?
But whether Dawkins is right or wrong is beside the point when his opinions are denied a public forum. What harm does it really do to society to listen to him? If one does not agree, framing a strong rebuttal is surely a good exercise? Don't we need such voices to force us to confront WHY we do what we do, believe what we believe, and HOW we structure our lives in response to what we believe?
In his own way, Dawkins is a bigot. His criticism of some religious issues is quite well-founded, however. Our society is probably better for his speech, and a society that is so fragile that it cannot handle speech such as Dawkin's is a doomed society by Enlightenment standards. I would never want to live in a Muslim ummah - I consider such a society to be benighted, bigoted, and willfully backward. But what Berkeley is creating is just another version of a progressive ummah, and I think they will end up in a similar situation.
Jim S.: Some commenters seem to think that Dawkins has not been critical of Islam. He has been.
Do you include Dawkins himself in your list of "some commenters" who "seem" to think this?
Dawkins: The idea that I have engaged in abusive speech against Islam is preposterous...I have indeed strongly condemned the misogyny, homophobia, and violence of Islamism...
(Emphasis mine)
SeanF,
Should I infer that Dawkins has been critical of Christianity, (all Christianity, not just fundamentalist and therefore presumably ignorant denominations), but only critical of Islamism, and not Islam in general?
Because that would definitely put him in the raging hypocrite camp.
Delayna, that does seem to be the reasonable understanding of his words, doesn't it?
"Besides atheism obviously not being a religion, I'm pretty sure you meant "communism" (I know, those "isms" get confusing!), which is a economic system and also not a religion other than the fact that it's based on fantasy"
Atheism and Communism go together for a reason. The State is god and alone determines what is right and wrong; there can be no other.
"I've never read an "atheist screed" - can you point out a good one?"
"The God Delusion" by Dawkins is one long screed.
He also pointed out that he has been a "frequent critic of Christianity but have never been de-platformed for that"...
Deeply, deeply funny.
. Communists were a pretty mean bunch and enjoyed executing capitalists!
Communists enjoyed executing everyone.
Richard Wurmbrand wrote in Tortured for Christ that the communist torturers would explicitly appeal to atheism to justify their actions. They would say there is no afterlife, so no punishment for evil or reward for good. They would say there is no metaphysical ground for morality, so they were free to embrace whatever morality they wanted or none.
It is kind of weird to call atheism a religion. I ask my students what they think, and I've never been able to discern a pattern. In one class, one-fourth of the students thought atheism was a religion, and then they turned out to be all the atheists in the class!
I think what such ideas are hinting at is that atheism tries to answer some of the same questions that religion tries to answer, so in that sense it's playing the role of a religion. But since it answers those questions by negating the answers that religions give, it seems weird (again) to call it a religion.
" They would say there is no afterlife, so no punishment for evil or reward for good. They would say there is no metaphysical ground for morality, so they were free to embrace whatever morality they wanted or none."
And they're perfectly correct - if there is no God, everything IS permissible.
Atheists can be good people, of course, but they don't realize that's because they have internalized 2000 years of Christian morality. The Western world is running on its fumes right now. I do not expect a post-Christian future to resemble the blandly sentimental world of "Imagine."
Here is a quote from Tortured for Christ going into some of the tortures the communists inflicted on Christians.
Well, sure, Dawkins has long been a leading critics of ALL religious beliefs and he is consistent. He is no more anti-Islam than anti-Christity or anti-Judaism or anti-Hinduism. And he is anti-religion, not anti-religious people qua people.
He is an atheist and makes no bones about it. Not exactly my cup of tea, but he is consistent and fair about it.
And refusing him a speaking engagement is as offensive as any of the other recent incidents.
Jim S. said...
It is kind of weird to call atheism a religion.
Nowadays billions of people share the religion of not believing in Aztec gods, and doubting the existence of Valhalla.
It seems that having a common religion should bring everyone together!
exiledonmainstreet said...
"The God Delusion" by Dawkins is one long screed.
I've certainly heard of it, maybe I'll check it out; the only book of Dawkin's I've read was The Selfish Gene, and it really was extremely excellent.
The State is god and alone determines what is right and wrong; there can be no other.
That's completely different from how the U.S. punishes people for making graven images, coveting their neighbor's stuff and performing witchcraft, but not punishing anyone for insider trading or drunk driving because those activities aren't mentioned in the bible.
Which reminds me, how is someone punished for making graven images nowadays? Do they go to jail, or go to hell, or what? A fine? A monetary fine is not fair to poor people, so it doesn't sound very Christian, certainly not as Christian as burning people at the stake.
Atheists can be good people,
But certainly not those atheist terrorists?
of course, but they don't realize that's because they have internalized 2000 years of Christian morality.
Christian morality, rather than being solidly consistent, has varied quite a bit over those 2000 years (no burning heretics at the stake - for now!), is based on human nature, which is why it's not significantly different than Buddhist or or other philosophies, e.g. Confucius' "What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others." (~ 400 BC).
For probably most of those 2000 years, Christianity was at least as evil as radical Islam until it was moderated and diluted by modern thought, and it was certainly nothing to admire or emulate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion
Can you think of a society anywhere at any time whose tenets consist of:
"Kill other people whenever you feel like it."
"Disrespect your parents and other relatives."
"Don't take care of your children."
"Be obnoxious to your neighbors."
"Steal stuff whenever possible."
"Be a homosexual."
"Commit suicide."
??
Some Amerindian tribes had interesting ideas about stealing physical property, but otherwise their philosophies weren't very different from the basic Christian moral ideas of how people should treat each other.
Jim S. said...
Here is a quote from Tortured for Christ going into some of the tortures the communists inflicted on Christians.
Nobody expects the Communist Inquisition!
Christians were pretty good at torturing each other:
Of Common Purgation, and especially of the Trial of Red-hot Iron, to which Witches Appeal
"There is, nevertheless, a difference between a duel and the trial by red-hot iron or boiling water."
Good to know!
Of the Method of passing Sentence upon one who has been Accused by another Witch, who has been or is to be Burned at the Stake.
"The fourteenth method of finally concluding a process on behalf of the Faith is used when the person accused of heresy, after a careful discussion of the circumstances of the process with reference to the informant in consultation with learned lawyers, is found to be accused of that heresy only by another witch who has been or is to be burned. And this can happen in thirteen ways in thirteen cases."
Those 13 ways and cases were only 500 years ago.
I bought a copy of the Malleus years ago because the procedures in "family court" reminded me of it.
Delicious development, no?
I was listening on the radio once to a speech by Christopher Hitchens in front of a Canadian audience. He made fun of Christians and Christianity to the wild applause and laughter of the crowd. But when he lit into Islam, you could have heard a pin drop.
Cute snark, Fernandinande, worthy of a clever 14 year old. No Christian is aware of the fact that people have done bad things in the name of Christ. Since Obama is no longer around to chastise us for the Crusades, it's good of you to step up to the plate. Don't want those Christian bakers and florists to get on their high horses or anything because - Salem witch trials! (I note you somehow fail to note that Christianity was the driving force behind the abolishment of the slave trade in the British Empire.)
But how can you, logically, say this is wrong:
"the communist torturers would explicitly appeal to atheism to justify their actions. They would say there is no afterlife, so no punishment for evil or reward for good. They would say there is no metaphysical ground for morality, so they were free to embrace whatever morality they wanted or none."
It does boil down to "might equals right" in the end, doesn't it?
Post Christian Europe is too enlightened for religion. It also lacks the will to procreate, the will to defend itself, the will to preserve its' own culture. It will remain post-Christian. It will not remain secular - because atheists and agnostics, with a few exceptions, don't have the guts or will to fight for what amounts to a spiritual void.
Liberals getting mugged.
Jim S. said...It is kind of weird to call atheism a religion. I ask my students what they think, and I've never been able to discern a pattern. In one class, one-fourth of the students thought atheism was a religion, and then they turned out to be all the atheists in the class!
Did you ever ask them to define religion?
Never been "de-platformed" for anti-Christian statements but he is for statements perceived as anti-Islamic? Color me totally unsurprised.
UC Berkely: Richard Dawkins, it's unsafe for you to speak on the Berkeley campus. You could get hurt.
Dawkins: Hurt? Who is going to hurt me?
UC Berkely: We are.
exiledonmainstreet said...
Cute snark, Fernandinande, worthy of a clever 14 year old.
IOW, it was all true and hit home.
No Christian is aware of the fact that people have done bad things in the name of Christ. Since Obama is no longer around to chastise us for the Crusades, it's good of you to step up to the plate.
You're the one who referred to the 2000 years of Christian history, and now you bring up the crusades - is that 2000 year history now not so rosy?
Don't want those Christian bakers and florists to get on their high horses or anything because - Salem witch trials!
I strongly believe they have the right to not bake cakes that they object to baking, for whatever reason. (Libertarian, ya know, not a socialist and not an SJW.)
(I note you somehow fail to note that Christianity was the driving force behind the abolishment of the slave trade in the British Empire.)
Only after the religion became more secular.
But you are correct, I didn't provide a full history of everything to do with European religions.
And the Catholic church itself tortured and enslaved Indians, so it's a bit of a wash, isn't it?
But how can you, logically, say this is wrong:
"the communist torturers would explicitly appeal to atheism "
You can replace "atheism" with just about anything: the Catholic torturers explicitly appealed to God and peoples' souls.
How cool is that?!?
It does boil down to "might equals right" in the end, doesn't it?
How did god end the European religious wars? How about the crusades? World War II? Did god blow up a couple of Japanese cities?
Post Christian Europe is too enlightened for religion. It also lacks the will to procreate, the will to defend itself, the will to preserve its' own culture. It will remain post-Christian. It will not remain secular - because atheists and agnostics, with a few exceptions, don't have the guts or will to fight for what amounts to a spiritual void.
I think their is some truth to that! Rates of reproduction are
Religious > atheist > agnostic
But on the other hand, the less religious modern countries are far better than the most religious countries, hands down and without a doubt. (Holland vs Uganda. Canada vs Somalia, etc.)
And I never claimed that religion serves no purpose - if it didn't, the tendency to "believe" would have evolved away, though I think it's purpose (simple explanations for the physical world and humanity; making death go away; group identity and controlling behavior) is ending that it will evolve away - just that religious beliefs - nearly all of them, about almost anything - are obviously false and illogical.
"Post Christian Europe is too enlightened for religion. It also lacks the will to procreate, the will to defend itself, the will to preserve its' own culture. It will remain post-Christian."
Christian Europe is destroying itself:
Churches helping muslim immigrants
e.g. "Islam Is Strengthening In Europe... With The Blessing Of The Church ..."
Pathological altruism.
There is The Church and there is the Church.
Fernandinande said...etc etc etc
Fern, I usually don't get into such, because I'm happy for you to believe what you like.
But could you identify the atheist society (AS) to be held up as a role model in your thinking? The AS that has achieved what Western, religious-dominated society (W/RDS) has achieved? The AS who has avoided W/RDS's mistakes?
Because in practice, a) there doesn't seem to be much grounds for comparison, b) what there is to be seen of AS (communism) seems bad, c) WRDS has been fairly steadily improving.
Post a Comment