Dawkins: Muslim parents 'import creationism' into schools

This is the second time Snukkums posted this shit, then never came back to comment on it, or let anyone know his position. Ignore it and it will go away.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]This is the second time Snukkums posted this shit, then never came back to comment on it, or let anyone know his position. Ignore it and it will go away.[/b]

---

Yep!

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]If I ignore you will you go away?[/b]

---

Nope, we have tried ignoring you and you haven't, so............

quote:

---

Teaching religion to children is child abuse.

---

It dosen't have to be.

He might have been talking to me remind. I couldn't tell.

Me???? Hahahaha. I'll have you know even my right hand passes out on me. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Ya know thread drift isn't always such a bad thing.

No thanks but thanks anyways M. Spector. If you like, you can though. I know how keen you are on that [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

---

Originally posted by curry:
...As I have read on [b]principled[/b] right wing message boards, enquiring minds want to know.

---

Whhhweeeeeeee, I guess something is going on in right wingnut land that they are seriously pissed at the rational left for...........thus causing an infestation today.

Well, I suppose they also could be bored as it is a holiday.

**bolding mine

So are you denying that religion, no matter the venue, is often used as a tool to stop working minds?

It's not "bending over backwards" to recognize that in particular, the three Abrahamic religions hold sway over a goodish section of the world's population and expose that section to all kinds of illogical, anti-science, anti-common sense feeling.

Or were you going to tell me that Imaginary Friend Allah is harmless while Imaginary Friend God is a Bad Thing?

They're both imaginary friends no more real than my oft-used-as-parody Great Potato Chip in the sky.

quote:

---

In the original interview in the Times Dawkins only mentions Islam in passing - his sustained attack is on Christianity. The Telegraph chose to focus on his comments on Muslims amd that says a lot about their agenda. I think this thread, inadvertantly, plays into that agenda.
I agree with Dawkins a lot but I find he's used, a little too willingly, as yet another tool to whip up anti-muslim feeling.

---

What's the Muslim version of the creation story?

I think the Taliban is a CIA-ISI-Saudi "creation" myself.

This thread is vintage babble! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] I love you guys!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]I think the Taliban is a CIA-ISI-Saudi "creation" myself.[/b]

---

Classic! But where is Cueball to spar with unionist?

quote:

---

Originally posted by just one of the concerned:
[b]Classic! But where is Cueball to spar with unionist?[/b]

---

Haven't you heard? Cueball agrees with me now! He has given me a proxy to speak for him on all religious matters! Yes, it's true, I have it here somewhere...

[img]http://content8.flixster.com/question/36/95/42/3695426_std.jpg[/img]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b]Respect for all religions should be taught, nothing more.[/b]

---

I agreed with your whole post, except the above sentence. Kids should be taught respect for [i]all people[/i], and respect for [i]people of all religious faiths[/i].

They must not be taught "respect for all religions". Why would a religion be more entitled to "respect" than a political platform, or a scientific hypothesis, or a view about art or music?

Must I really respect Roman Catholicism as a religion?? It will never happen, no more than I will respect the view that adultery should be punishable by death or that bad people go to Hell after death, or that combustion is explicable by phlogiston, or that Ptolemy's spheres underly cosmic motion (although the latter two had far more evidence for their truth than the dogmas of the Church).

Do we respect Roman Catholics and people's absolute freedom to worship and practice this faith? Of course.

Do you think kids are capable of understanding this distinction? No kidding.

I have read Dawkins' original intervew and there seems to be a lot of classism in his opposition to "fanatics" as opposed to his well-mannered hob-nobbing with Christian bishops and the Archbishop:

quote:

---

From The Sunday TimesAugust 3, 2008

(...) His inquiry into how Darwin’s theory of evolution continues to be watered down, and how our fear of giving religious offence encourages this, eventually led to a meeting with Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Who wasn’t that much help, since Williams’s line is that evolution is all well and good, but that God was responsible for it.

“Oh, Rowan Williams – what a sweet man,” says Dawkins, a smile breaking over his face. “I have a lot of time for the Church of England.” What? But you’re the most famous atheist in the country. “I feel rather sorry for them in a way. Compared to the alternatives, it is a thoroughly decent organisation. And if all Christians were like Rowan, there wouldn’t be a problem. I’ve met him socially, and he is delightful.”

Not only that, but Dawkins is very happy with school nativity plays and church bells. “I’m a human being who interacts with people socially,” he pleads.

“When I go to dinner with a bishop, I find them very often – extremely often – very convivial, nice people. Why ever not?” Indeed. Dawkins wants to be liked, and perhaps it’s unrealistic to expect him to thrust The God Delusion over the dinner table at anyone sporting a dog collar.

His view is that most of the Anglican top brass know the Virgin birth and other such “myths” are mumbo-jumbo anyway. “Often, when you talk to bishops, it appears they don’t believe in very much.”

Even the archbishop? “It would appear he does believe in it [the Virgin birth],” says Dawkins. “But he doesn’t thrust it down people’s throats. His kind of Anglicanism is benign and pretty harmless.”

Critics would say that the woolliness of the Church of England has allowed rabid creationists to start checking into local Alpha group meetings, and bringing pamphlets – such as Truth in Science, a manifesto for evolution via “intelligent design” – into schools. “I do think that’s a serious point,” says Dawkins. “Because we are all brought up to respect faith, it leaves open a gap through which fanatics can charge.”(...)

---

So I wonder if it is really religion he is opposing or the class of people whom one can today attack publicly - Muslims, mostly - for the sake of their children, in the name of a "rational" Empire.

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]So I wonder if it is really religion he is opposing or the class of people whom one can today attack publicly - Muslims, mostly - for the sake of their children, in the name of a "rational" Empire.
[/b]

---

While I don't share a lot of Dawkins' views on politics, at least give him credit for having preached disrespect for Islam (and other faiths) before Islamophobia was fashionable. This is from 1994:

quote:

---

If a slaughterman doesn't comply with the law in respect of cruelty to animals, he is rightly prosecuted and punished. but if he complains that his cruel practices are necessitated by religious faith, we back off apologetically and allow him to get on with it. Any other position that someone takes up can expect to be defended with reasoned argument. Faith is allowed not to justify itself by argument. Faith must be respected; and if you don't respect it, you are accused of violating human rights.

Even those with no faith have been brainwashed into respecting the faith of others. When so-called Muslim community leaders go on the radio and advocate the killing of Salman Rushdie, they are clearly committing incitement to murder--a crime for which they would ordinarily be prosecuted and possibly imprisoned. But are they arrested? They are not, because our secular society "respects" their faith, and sympathises with the deep "hurt" and "insult" to it.

Well I don't. I will respect your views if you can justify them. but if you justify your views only by saying you have faith in them, I shall not respect them.

---

I was in a heated argument with someone awhile back. They had told me that I had to "respect" the Catholic Church. I asked why. The answer was, just because.

I have no need, nor urge to "respect" any religion. I respect what particular people do who belong to organized religions when they do something that I can respect. Otherwise - no go.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]It's perfectly obvious what he is saying and has been saying for years: Do not treat issues like evolution or creation with kid gloves out of "RESPECT" for someone's culture or religion.[/b]

---

I read the interview and it's not, actually, clear or obvious at all.

Teachers don't teach creationism in state schools in the UK. They teach evolution. So, what exactly does "taking off the kid gloves" entail? Interrogating the kids about their religious beliefs and then belittling them for holding them? Are there documented cases where British teachers in state schools are saying, "Well, if you think evolution is wrong that's totally fair and I'll just stop teaching evolution."? If that happens I'm interested in hearing about it - no evidence is presented in either article.

How do you know? Given the power of Western media to create "causes cйlиbres" overnight, I would suggest that the reverse is true, i.e. that all it took was one disgruntled imam issuing a fatwa for millions of Western non-readers to be pressed into hatred for Islam as defense for Rushdie as symbol for "freedom-of-expression-what-a-crock" as metaphor for the West's case against Islam. Millions of Muslims have been massacred by the West since then on the strength of one Western "intellectual" having been threatened because of an anti-muslim pamphlet.
Regardless of this specific instance, I have to question the whole notion of war - physical or ideological - against peoples being (allegedly) justified by the ideas or lack of "enlightenment" one claims to discern in the targets. Is secularism a meta-religion everyone has to believe in or rationality fails like a punctured balloon? Could the problem rather be cars grinding to a halt for lack of cheap Arab oil?

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]How do you know? Given the power of Western media to create "causes cйlиbres" overnight, I would suggest that the reverse is true. i.e. that all it took was one disgruntled imam issuinga a fatwa for millions of Westerners to instantly rally to the defense of Rushdie as a symbol for "freedom-of-expression-what-a-crock" as a metaphor for the West against Islam. [/b]

---

Are you seriously dismissing one courageous man as nothing more than a "cause cйlиbres" - a man who was forced to live under death threat? Who's side did you take when Galileo was in the same situation? Here are some of the ways that I know:

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/26/newsid_2542... sentence on writer Salman Rushdie for alleged blasphemy will remain in force[/url]

quote:

---

Tehran Radio quoted Ayatollah Khameini as saying the decree by his predecessor Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini "remains unchanged even if he repents and becomes the most pious man of his time".

The Indian-born novelist has been in hiding under police guard since Ayatollah Khomeini ordered his death 22 months ago.

He renewed his faith in Islam on Christmas Eve and disassociated himself from the anti-Muslim sentiments expressed by characters in his book.

His decision came after talks with Muslim moderates, including Egyptian officials, and was an attempt to smooth over his differences with the Islamic community and come out of hiding.

---

That was from 1990. This was from last year:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2007/06/22/rushdie-fatwa.html]Cleric reminds Iranians of Rushdie fatwa [/url]

quote:

---

There were rallies in several Pakistani cities on Friday, calling for Rushdie to be killed and for a boycott of trade with Britain.

In a rally in Karachi, Pakistan's largest city, a leader of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam party compared Rushdie's award to the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published last year in a Danish newspaper.

"Earlier they had published cartoons of our prophet, and now they have given an award to someone who deserves to be killed," Abdul Ghafoor Hayderi said.

In a Muslim area of Indian Kashmir, a strike over Rushdie's knighthood closed shops, offices and schools.

Muslims also protested in London over the honour, which Britain defended as fitting for one of the pre-eminent novelists of the 20th century.

---

[img]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/223/513704953_5d3af4fc8d.jpg?v=0[/img]

ETA: Just saw that you added some things about war. This does not in ANY WAY imply that I support a war against a particular religion or country. It implies only that I think a progressive position would be support a writer oppressed by murderous medeival thugs addicted to lunatic religious dogma. My position is that there are many, many countries on this planet that are human rights abusers and far from secular. bombing them won't change that or help, change will have to come from within.

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]Unionist, hatred of Islam was already going strong fourteen years ago, with everyone rallying to Salman Rushdie, for instance.[/b]

---

Sigh.

That's one of the biggest crimes of irresponsible religious leaders of all stripes.

By sentencing someone to death for writing a novel, they help those forces (Bush-Blair-Brown-etc.) who need Islamophobia to abet their imperial aims.

By pretending that all good Muslims agree with their frenzied insanity which they try to pass off as "Islam", they fool some ignorant non-Muslims into believing that that actually might be true - where, in reality, most Muslims believe such fatwas to about the same extent that most Roman Catholics believe that divorce and birth control are sins.

And so the self-styled Islamic leaders are happy as clams (because their waning religious leadership suddenly has a new lease on life), while the U.S. and U.K. and Canadian and allied aggressive warmongers are much much happier, because they can pretend that their Crusade against the peoples of the region has something to do with "democracy" vs. "Islamic fanaticism", instead of what it's really about - power, wealth, domination.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
[b]The disturbing implication I'm left with is that their [i]presence[/i] in the classroom is the problem - and that crosses the line from a justifiable drive to keep religion out of the classroom to singling out children based on their faith.[/b]

---

If that's what Dawkins is suggesting, then he's a racist demagogue and xenophobe. I guess we're agreed on that.

I thought (in fact I'm rather sure) he was saying that teachers are "bending over backwards" not to offend kids of various backgrounds by soft-pedalling certain scientific teachings. If that's happening, that's unacceptable, and given your last post, I guess we're agreed on that also.

So we're agreed on everything.

Let me put it more clearly. I don't want my kids' teachers to know or care what any kid's religious beliefs are - let alone to tailor education accordingly.

Agree with that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
[b] I don't want my kids' teachers to know or care what any kid's religious beliefs are - let alone to tailor education accordingly.

Agree with that?[/b]

---

Oh yeah. See above.