Activist Atheist divided regarding criticism of Islam

Carn

Graduate Poster
C
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
1,340
From my impression of many activist atheists (meaning actively engaged in political and/or philosophical debates/struggles) are fine with anything goes against many religions, especially Christianity.

For example, there were some atheists who publically implied that the god of the bible would have to considered as an immoral monster, if he existed. Cannot remember any atheist had much problem with that statement, which for Christians might sound somewhat unfriendly and rude.


And yet, i have the impression that if some atheist would in a similar way attack the god of the koran, that other atheists would have a problem with that (and might even use the termn "Islamophobia", which would irriate my from atheists; i mean being afraid of billions of people at least according to their official declarations putting life and death decisions in the hands of invisible pink unicorns and their words of wisdom or whatever is not necessarily "phobic" but might be pretty rational).

Is that only my false impression or is there actually such a divide among atheists regarding harsh criticism of Islam?
 
Last edited:
Carn said:
From my impression of many activist atheists (meaning actively engaged in political and/or philosophical debates/struggles) are fine with anything goes against many religions, especially Christianity.

For example, there were some atheists who publically implied that the god of the bible would have to considered as an immoral monster, if he existed. Cannot remember any atheist had much problem with that statement, which for Christians might sound somewhat unfriendly and rude.


And yet, i have the impression that if some atheist would in a similar way attack the god of the koran, that other atheists would have a problem with that (and might even use the termn "Islamophobia", which would irriate my from atheists; i mean being afraid of billions of people at least according to their official declarations putting life and death decisions in the hands of invisible pink unicorns and their words of wisdom or whatever is not necessarily "phobic" but might be pretty rational).

Is that only my false impression or is there actually such a divide among atheists regarding harsh criticism of Islam?
Click to expand...


Data and evidence?
Certainly Facebook atheist pages slam islam along with xianity
 
Why do you have the impression that atheists are against attacking Islam and the Koran?

I can accept that more effort is put towards taking down Christianity and the Bible. In the Anglosphere/Western world we're more likely to deal with Christians. I'd bet all of us in North America/UK/Australia have Christian friends and family, and have had Christians come to our door trying to convert us. Many of our politicians base their positions on Christian dogma. We're more likely to have to deal with Christianity, face it in our day to day lives, so we take more interest in what is most likely to affect us. I don't know if the same can be said about Islam.

Also, there's a Skeptic's Annotated Koran, done by the same people who do the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.
 
The only truths worth heeding enforce themselves, need no advocates to prosper, and reveal themselves in the same way to anyone caring to look (science!). The rest is freaking dangerous if you call it "truth," and even science prefers something less pompous. So when a hyper-enforcing, heavy-handed, violent brain fart comes along waving a Big Truth flag, it gets all the respect it truly deserves.
 
Carn said:
Is that only my false impression or is there actually such a divide among atheists regarding harsh criticism of Islam?
Click to expand...

It's your false impression. There is actually such a divide among atheists (all of society, really) regarding harsh criticism of Muslims, not Islam itself. Just because there's a lot of hateful crap in the religion doesn't mean its adherents are automatically bad people, or undeserving of basic human rights.
 
Last edited:
Oh for pity's sake, could the OP be any more full of it? Now atheists are supposedly Islam promoters?

Faux Christian persecution, anyone?
 
Beelzebuddy said:
There is actually such a divide among atheists (all of society, really) regarding harsh criticism of Muslims, not Islam itself.
Click to expand...

Is there someone who offers in public harsh criticism of Islam and itself and is not called an islamophobic?

For example Dawkins:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Richard_Dawkins#Islam
"Dawkins has also been critical of extreme Islam, while also indicating he has no great issue with the adherents of moderate Islam. Due to his views on Islamic extremism, Dawkins declared that "Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today".[81][82] In response, some commentators have accused Dawkins of Islamophobia."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...arris-face-islamophobia-backlash-8570580.html
"But now Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are on the receiving end of stinging criticism from fellow liberal non-believers who say their particular brand of atheism has swung from being a scientifically rigorous attack on all religions to a populist and crude hatred of Islam."

failed at offering a harsh public criticism of Islam without getting called islamophobic by "non-believers" so supposedly atheists.

Therefore my question, if there is someone who managed what you ask for, namely offering harsh criticism of Islam with nobody thinking it is harsh criticism of Muslims.

I cannot think of anyone.
 
rustypouch said:
Why do you have the impression that atheists are against attacking Islam and the Koran?
Click to expand...


E.g. Dawkins.

For me it seems he was so to say celebrated for all-out attacks against Christianity under the general header of criticism against religion in general; but when he goes for an all-out attack against Islam in similar ways he gets called islamophobic.

And my impression is that his motive and methods are in both cases so similar that this is not explainable by him doing much different.

As slight indication i offer wiki entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Richard_Dawkins#Views_on_religion

The entry of Christianity has no info of anyone calling him out for being "christianophobic" or whatever while the entry on Islam notes several instances in which Dawkins got counterfire for his approach regarding Islam.

Either Dawkins somehow acted differently in his criticism of Islam than Christianity or some people act differently to criticism of Islam than Christianity or a combination of the two.

rustypouch said:
Also, there's a Skeptic's Annotated Koran, done by the same people who do the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.
Click to expand...

I know. I do not suggest there aren't atheist dishing out against Islam like they dish out against Christianity.

Just that there are some other atheists who seem to be fine with the latter but not fine with the former.
 
Last edited:
Dawkins and Harris have specific attitudes in contexts associated with Muslims that they don't seem to have about Christians. Harris has a "Problem with Islam" and found himself having to retract his previous views on torture in this regard. People are tortured, not theologies, however absurd they may be.

Here is Dawkins' response to the desecration with bacon of a mosque in Edinburgh, perpetrated by fascists, for the purpose not of exercising a human right to festoon public buildings with bacon, but to cause distress to a section of the population. I am convinced that if the target had been a synagogue Dawkins would rightly have been more sympathetic to the outraged feelings of its congregation.

Intellectual attacks on the theology or irrationality of the religions involved, however valid, are not the point here. Dawkins seems to be operating outside the (very wide) range of his area of competence.
 
I realize that with Dawkins this issue borders on the ridiculous:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...-letter-to-the-people-who-canceled-his-event/

"If you had consulted me, or if you had done even rudimentary fact-checking, you would have concluded that I have never used abusive speech against Islam. I have called IslamISM “vile” but surely you, of all people, understand that Islamism is not the same as Islam.

...

I am known as a frequent critic of Christianity and have never been de-platformed for that.
..."

In the SAME letter Dawkins readily admits his fame as frequent critic of Christianity, not of Christianism, fundamentalist Christianity, but as a critic of the whole entire thing unter that label;

and on the other hand

tries to defend himself by implying he only critized islamism but - heaven forbid - not Islam.

I mean realy?

That guy is supposedly militant atheist; he should not respond to a charge of "you said something abusive about Islam" with I-only-critized-Islamism-defense, but something like "Exactly what i intended, religions in general are ... [negatives] ... and Islam especially is ... [negatives] ...; how the heck did you idiots think i got the title of being a "militant atheist"? I will always say all abusive things any religion as an intelectual concept deserves."

But apparently he thinks it is necessary to avoid the impression, he said something abusive about Islam.

What madness, a militant atheist concerned about being accused of saying something abusive about a specific religion.

(And yes, that radio station "accused" him for saying abusive things about Islam, not for saying abusive things about Muslims.)
 
I have a lot of problems with tone deaf attacks on Christianity and Islam alike. But the truly vicious and ignorant ones are more commonly flung against Islam. The fact that Muslims in Western society are in a vulnerable position doesn't help.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
There is a difference between criticism and abuse.
Click to expand...

Please elaborate on the difference between legitimate criticism of islam and illegtimate abuse of islam; or better give examples of legitimate criticism of islam.
 
Islam is a ridiculous religion. However, Christianity is just as ridiculous. Also, Christians have more influence in the USA than Muslims do. This is why it may be perceived that atheists attack Christianity more often, it might be true, but only because Christianity is more pervasive in America.
 
Last edited:
Carn said:
Is that only my false impression or is there actually such a divide among atheists regarding harsh criticism of Islam?
Click to expand...


I think that it's an artifact of living in the Christian west. Some 70% of Americans are Christian while less than 1% are Muslim. It would make sense that most atheists are christian by birth and, thus, are best suited to criticize Christianity.

I'm sure that in Muslim majority nations, the debate is between Islam and atheism with very little thought given to Christianity.
 
Loss Leader said:
I'm sure that in Muslim majority nations, the debate is between Islam and atheism with very little thought given to Christianity.
Click to expand...

Any example of atheists living in Muslim majority nation and publically critizising Islam from an explizit atheistic position?

I fear, that the number of atheist publically critizing Islam has no positive correlation with the percentage of population being Muslim.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Islam is a ridiculous religion. However, Christianity is just as ridiculous. Also, Christians have more influence in the USA than Muslims do. This is why it may be perceived that atheists attack Christianity more often, it might be true, but only because Christianity is more pervasive in America.
Click to expand...

Issue would not be, that one is critized more, but that critique of Islam or certain critique of Islam is off limits for some atheists although they have nothing against similar critique of Christianity.
 
Craig B said:
Dawkins and Harris have specific attitudes in contexts associated with Muslims that they don't seem to have about Christians.
Click to expand...
Evidence?
Craig B said:
Harris has a "Problem with Islam"
Click to expand...
No, such a quote can in itself never be evidence, that Harris has specific attitudes towards Muslims; it might be evidence him having specific attitudes regarding Islam.
Craig B said:
and found himself having to retract his previous views on torture in this regard. People are tortured, not theologies, however absurd they may be.
Click to expand...

And?

But if you talk about Harris, here something Harris said:
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/response-to-controversy
"Because I am concerned about the logical and behavioral consequences of specific beliefs, I do not treat all religions the same. Not all religious doctrines are mistaken to the same degree, intellectually or ethically, and it is dishonest and ultimately dangerous to pretend otherwise. People in every tradition can be seen making the same errors, of course—e.g. relying on faith instead of evidence in matters of great personal and public concern—but the doctrines and authorities in which they place their faith run the gamut from the quaint to the psychopathic."

Maybe his difference in attitude regarding Islam/Christianity is due to him thinking that Islam's doctrines "score" far more points for "psychopathic" than christian doctrine.

Cannot see why any atheist would consider such an attitude in general wrong, instead of just disagreeing with Harris which religion is more "psychopathic".

Craig B said:
Here is Dawkins' response to the desecration with bacon of a mosque in Edinburgh, perpetrated by fascists, for the purpose not of exercising a human right to festoon public buildings with bacon, but to cause distress to a section of the population. I am convinced that if the target had been a synagogue Dawkins would rightly have been more sympathetic to the outraged feelings of its congregation.
Click to expand...

And?

I find 9months actual actual prison for an 18-year old guilty of bacon attacks both in case of mosque and synagoge to be excessive. What would she get for bashing in the door and spraying some unfriendly words on the interior? 5 years? Or 7 years, which is one can get in the same region for attempted murder?
 
Carn said:
Any example of atheists living in Muslim majority nation and publically critizising Islam from an explizit atheistic position?
Click to expand...


I don't think we would have access to such information. First, those people would be communicating to Muslims in a Muslim world. Western nations just don't have access to that. How many Muslim-world philosophers, political scientists, doctors or physicists can any given American name? I would venture none - not because no such people exist, but because their work is in a foreign language meant for foreign consumption.

Then, obviously, you have the problem of fundamentalist Muslim governments suppressing any sort of dissent. I don't think you're going to find many outspoken critics of Islam in nations where they will kill you for being an outspoken critic of Islam.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Oh for pity's sake, could the OP be any more full of it? Now atheists are supposedly Islam promoters?

Faux Christian persecution, anyone?
Click to expand...

I think he's refering to, em... social justice warriors, who often tend to be atheists, calling any criticism of Islam "Islamophobia", which kind of blurs the line between legitimate criticism and outright bigotry. The same people have little sympathy for Christianity.
 
Loss Leader said:
I don't think we would have access to such information. First, those people would be communicating to Muslims in a Muslim world. Western nations just don't have access to that. How many Muslim-world philosophers, political scientists, doctors or physicists can any given American name? I would venture none - not because no such people exist, but because their work is in a foreign language meant for foreign consumption.

Then, obviously, you have the problem of fundamentalist Muslim governments suppressing any sort of dissent. I don't think you're going to find many outspoken critics of Islam in nations where they will kill you for being an outspoken critic of Islam.
Click to expand...

So having no evidence for atheist-muslim debates and having evidence for governments threatening to kill people "being an outspoken critic of Islam", one concludes "that in Muslim majority nations, the debate is between Islam and atheism".

I would conclude on that evidence that there being no atheist-muslim debate due to the atheist preferring to shut up and stay alive is also a rather likely scenario.

For example Indonesia which according to some vice-president has a quite nice "modern Islam" seems like a bad place to have a public debate about atheism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Indonesia
"When declared atheist Alexander Aan wrote in February 2012 (on Facebook) that God does not exist, he was taken into custody and initially charged with blasphemy. The police claimed that they were doing this to protect him from attackers, however, no charges have been levied against his attackers. He has not prosecuted under blasphemy law, but instead was eventually charged under the country's cyber crime laws for spreading his views on the non-existence of god by using the internet.[9] This incident raised a debate about the legality of atheism versus treating it as a genuine religion."

If that is the treat a "modern Islam" gives to atheists, the number of public debates Atheist-Muslim in Islamic majority countries might be rather close to 0.
 
Carn said:
From my impression of many activist atheists (meaning actively engaged in political and/or philosophical debates/struggles) are fine with anything goes against many religions, especially Christianity.

For example, there were some atheists who publically implied that the god of the bible would have to considered as an immoral monster, if he existed. Cannot remember any atheist had much problem with that statement, which for Christians might sound somewhat unfriendly and rude.


And yet, i have the impression that if some atheist would in a similar way attack the god of the koran, that other atheists would have a problem with that (and might even use the termn "Islamophobia", which would irriate my from atheists; i mean being afraid of billions of people at least according to their official declarations putting life and death decisions in the hands of invisible pink unicorns and their words of wisdom or whatever is not necessarily "phobic" but might be pretty rational).

Is that only my false impression or is there actually such a divide among atheists regarding harsh criticism of Islam?
Click to expand...



Definitely it’s your false impression.
 
Carn said:
Is there someone who offers in public harsh criticism of Islam and itself and is not called an islamophobic?
Click to expand...
Of course not. There's always someone available to call something islamophobic, just like there's always people who see repression of Christians under every rock. That don't mean it is.
 
Last edited:
Carn said:
I find 9months actual actual prison for an 18-year old guilty of bacon attacks both in case of mosque and synagoge to be excessive. What would she get for bashing in the door and spraying some unfriendly words on the interior? 5 years? Or 7 years, which is one can get in the same region for attempted murder?
Click to expand...
What should a fascist get as sanction for desecrating a mosque? This was an act by racists intended to provoke religious hostility. What should the punishment be then, in your view? Dawkins not only said that the punishment was excessive; he also mocked the whole idea of such desecration of a place of worship by bigots as a crime at all. My previous source:
But dedicated atheist Dawkins failed to see the seriousness of the offence, after posting a series of messages, including: “who (apart from the pig) is damaged by bacon?” Dawkins first wrote: “How can you be jailed a year for nonviolently draping bacon on a door? Law contemptible gives standing to “offence”. [my bold] He then posted a clip of an iconic Monty Python sketch where students are taught to defend themselves against fruit, adding: “Right! How to defend yourself against a man who attacks you with a slice of bacon!”​
Was it an offence at all in Dawkins' opinion? If it was, in your opinion, tell me what punishment a racist should receive for such an act, obviously inspired by religious hate, and intended to cause distress to members of a particular faith community.
 
Last edited:
Long ago I pointed out the West has spent hundreds of years turning Christianity into a harmless, quaint lifestyle choice, denuding it of actual power.

This process, not complete, is only just beginning in Muslim countries, and nobody here will live to see it.
 
Craig B said:
What should a fascist get as sanction for desecrating a mosque? This was an act by racists intended to provoke religious hostility. What should the punishment be then, in your view?
Click to expand...

First of all, it should matter little or under some circumstances not at all, whether the criminals were fascists and/or racists. If a baseball bat crashes into a skull it matters little whether the one swinging was fascist or a human rights activist; at most some during the event present motive might have an effect and usually only of less sentence (e.g. honestly presuming self-defence); the political affiliation should often matter not in the slightest way.

Second, crimes directly against persons should usually get more punishment than those against property or even ideas. A stone of relevant size thrown from a rather short distance at someone "looking muslim" out of motive "hate for muslims" should usually get more punishment than throwing a bacon at a mosque out of motive "hate for muslims"; even in case the stone misses and the bacon hits; buildings can be cleaned, non-muslims can be informed to remove the bacon or whatever; but a stone on the head often produces damage doctors take quite some time to repair.

Third, that "to provoke religious hostility" should only be relevant for sentence, if the action was actually suitable for provoking any relevant religious hostility; e.g. if someone screams "He said Jehova" in situations in which such a charge might result in someone ending under a more than man sized rock, then severe punishment for an otherwise rather harmless or even legal action should be considered, especially if the problem materializes; but what riots could be expected from someone putting a bacon on a doorknob in the middle of the night? Such an action seems pretty unsuitable to provoking actual hostiliy (and i am talking about the relevant hostility resulting in dead bodies, not the "i feel offended" hostility).

What i lack now is the usual punishment for throwing rocks with relevant potential of harm at people and missing in GB; but i would be quite suprised if a 18-yer old first offender throwing rock and missing at a police officer would get 1 year in jail without probabation.

Hence, this term for a presumable first offender for the equivalent of throwing bacon at a mosque, is excessive.

I would consider a reasonable punishment something like 3 months probation with the requirement that for 1 month the offender is required to clean the toilets at the mosque (if the people from the mosque are fine with that); you make someone else property dirty, you got to clean it.


Craig B said:
Dawkins not only said that the punishment was excessive; he also mocked the whole idea of such desecration of a place of worship by bigots as a crime at all. My previous source:
But dedicated atheist Dawkins failed to see the seriousness of the offence, after posting a series of messages, including: “who (apart from the pig) is damaged by bacon?” Dawkins first wrote: “How can you be jailed a year for nonviolently draping bacon on a door? Law contemptible gives standing to “offence”. [my bold]​
Click to expand...


The opinion that even drastic provocative religious offense should be just punished as equal actions without religious offense (meaning the punishment one usually gets for making a doorknob dirty in this case) is a position with some merit, because otherwise result might be religious sensibilities effectively determining what one is allowed to say; or in other words, the Pope in Rome would have the power to make actions in GB illegal, by declaring something sacred for caths, which then would no longer be allowed in GB as it would be offensive to caths there.

Hence, i understand why Dawkins has that position and i presume he would argue the same whether its about Islam or another religion.

I think in a very abstract sense he is correct, but unfortunately in reality the state has to some extent bow to the power of religion sometimes, so laws making "desecration" of a mosque or church "more" criminal than "desecrating" my house in exactly the same way are to some extent necessary.

Or if someone put a bacon at my doorknob against my wishes, should he/she go to jail for 9 months?​
 
Beerina said:
Long ago I pointed out the West has spent hundreds of years turning Christianity into a harmless, quaint lifestyle choice, denuding it of actual power.

This process, not complete, is only just beginning in Muslim countries, and nobody here will live to see it.
Click to expand...

If you are correct it would be dumb beyond the wildest madness to let any Muslims immigrate if the immigration could be in light of international and national law be avoided.

Because the inner christian bloodshed was in those hundreds of years horrible and if Islam copies that process the inner muslim bloodshed will be such, that historically ISIS will probably not register much; and anyone sane would do everything to avoid the risk of being drawn into an islamic 30-year war (*), for which the risk will increase the more muslims there are in a country.

(*In the historic 30 year war every weapon available was used; no reason in a serious bloodshed with in part religious motivation this would not be done today)
 
@Carn

It Is distressing to think that a scholar like Dawkins, who has done so much to spread enlightenment among people in general, should now find himself being applauded in the terms that you have exhibited in your response to my post, about making door handles dirty; let alone the diatribe against Muslim migrants in your later contribution.

Even following his ill-considered response to the desecration of the mosque in Edinburgh, Dawkins deserves better than exploitation of his reputation through that shameful stuff.

I hope he is able to retain his scholarly standing, in the face of such material, which I confidently believe must be as unwelcome to him as it is unpleasant to the general reader.
 
Craig B said:
@Carn

It Is distressing to think that a scholar like Dawkins, who has done so much to spread enlightenment among people in general, should now find himself being applauded in the terms that you have exhibited in your response to my post, about making door handles dirty; let alone the diatribe against Muslim migrants in your later contribution.

Even following his ill-considered response to the desecration of the mosque in Edinburgh, Dawkins deserves better than exploitation of his reputation through that shameful stuff.

I hope he is able to retain his scholarly standing, in the face of such material, which I confidently believe must be as unwelcome to him as it is unpleasant to the general reader.
Click to expand...


:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Was his response that "ill considered" however. Perhaps I missed something but I just thought he was suggesting the severity of the sentence was crazy. I agree with this it was. The bacon thing was a childish prank and the perpetrators should have been admonished by the police, and that's all.

I think we are seeing too much special consideration given to Muslims as we try so hard not to offend them.
 
Craig B said:
It Is distressing to think that a scholar like Dawkins, who has done so much to spread enlightenment among people in general, should now find himself being applauded in the terms that you have exhibited in your response to my post, about making door handles dirty;
Click to expand...

Funny that you consider an argument which would be considered perfectly reasonable (maybe formulated differently than i did) with many people well versed in legal matters to be that appalable.

A door handle was damaged. Religious feelings were hurt. And maybe the criminals did this in some vain hope to get some religious riots or similar stuff. Of these only the last issue could justify a severe sentence (if there was any chance for them to succeed).

That is not some crazy islamophobic right-wing argument, but plain evaluation about the purpose of punishing by the state. If you consider such argument to be crazy, you are the crazy one.

And here evidence for you, that a lot lower punishment is not unusual:
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/p...chweinekopf-anschlag-vor-gericht/9403770.html

A nazi (probably) putting a pig head at the entrance of a mosque was punished with a 1200 Euro fine; maybe a bit too lenient, but that is Berlin, they are unfortunately very soft on crime.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Of course not. There's always someone available to call something islamophobic, just like there's always people who see repression of Christians under every rock. That don't mean it is.
Click to expand...

Then let me reformulate.

You said:
"There is actually such a divide among atheists (all of society, really) regarding harsh criticism of Muslims, not Islam itself."

Is there some atheist who offers in public harsh criticism of Islam and itself and no atheists considers the criticism by said atheist to be too harsh criticism of Muslims?

Dawkins and Harris are examples for not achieving this; they attempt to offer harsh criticism of Islam and other supposedly atheists or secularists consider it to be too harsh criticism of Muslims.
 
Thor 2 said:
Perhaps I missed something but I just thought he was suggesting the severity of the sentence was crazy.
Click to expand...

In some countries there are laws and in other countries there are at least tendencies in application of law to treat the following two situations differently:

Someone throws bacon at the national headquater of PETA and a million Peta "disciples" feel deeply offended.

Someone throws [insert religiously offensive item here, e.g. bacon] at a [insert corresponding religious building here, e.g. Mosque, Synagogue] and a million disciples [insert corresponding religion here, e.g. Islam, Judaism] feel deeply offended.

DIFFERENTLY either directly through laws or at least in application of laws.


Many people see a problem there, because it gives religion a special status, an extra layer of protection and an extra bit of punishment for potential offenders. And i suspect that Dawkins comment "Who (apart from the pig) is damaged by bacon?" implies that he is against such extra protection for religions (since he classifies the religious offence as a non-damage) and suspects it was at work in the specific case leading to higher punishment than a comparable attack at Peta headquater.

And i think that my be the case, as a public prosecutor from Scotland said about that case:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/pair-jailed-for-edinburgh-mosque-bacon-attack-1-3452582
"John Logue, procurator fiscal for the east of Scotland, said: “The Muslim community are a valued and integral part of Scottish society and there is no place for such attacks in modern Scotland. ..." "

I doubt anyone would have offered a similar statement in case of bacon attacks against Peta about Peta being an integral part and there is no place, etc.
 
Thor 2 said:
:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Was his response that "ill considered" however. Perhaps I missed something but I just thought he was suggesting the severity of the sentence was crazy. I agree with this it was. The bacon thing was a childish prank and the perpetrators should have been admonished by the police, and that's all.

I think we are seeing too much special consideration given to Muslims as we try so hard not to offend them.
Click to expand...
That's crap. When fascist thugs - that's what SDL members are - desecrate a place of worship, that is not a "childish prank" and it requires stronger action than mere admonition by the police.

It was designed to cause distress and provoke disorder, in the interest of advancement of inter communal hostility. That is a serious motive. Now I have asked you what you think ought to have been done, and your answer is completely ridiculous, assuming it is sincere, I mean, and not, as I suspect, a cynical piece of extreme Rightist apologetics.

The organisation of which the perpetrators of that act are members have turned up here, in the district where I live, where many Muslims reside, to conduct a demonstration. The police didn't dismiss this as a prank, but kept it under close control to avert disorder. This is the organisation to which the desecrators of the mosque belonged. They are not childish pranksters, but something much more serious as I am perfectly sure you must already be aware.
 
Craig B said:
Now I have asked you what you think ought to have been done, and your answer is completely ridiculous, assuming it is sincere, I mean, and not, as I suspect, a cynical piece of extreme Rightist apologetics.
Click to expand...

Keep an eye on user names.

You did not ask Thor 2 for what should be done in that case; he just offered his opinion wihtout being asked.

You asked me and my answer was:
"I would consider a reasonable punishment something like 3 months probation with the requirement that for 1 month the offender is required to clean the toilets at the mosque (if the people from the mosque are fine with that);"

Craig B said:
The organisation of which the perpetrators of that act are members have turned up here, in the district where I live, where many Muslims reside, to conduct a demonstration.
Click to expand...
And?
Craig B said:
The police didn't dismiss this as a prank, but kept it under close control to avert disorder. This
Click to expand...

That is the usual stuff police does, when two opposing groups have demonstrations close to each other:

"Meanwhile, a nearly 400-strong counter-demonstration called Newcastle Unites, which was separated from the EDL by a police line sang: "Nazi scum, off our streets.""


Craig B said:
is the organisation to which the desecrators of the mosque belonged. They are not childish pranksters, but something much more serious as I am perfectly sure you must already be aware.
Click to expand...

You do not seem to understand that membership in a so far legal organization is usually not sufficient justification for increase of punishment. Thats not how law operates in most free societies.

Either one bans some organization or proves that the organization is in itself criminal or something like that or membership in that organization should usually not be specifically sanctioned by the state. Anything else is often arbitrary.

Why do you call them desecrators? "desecration" of some "holy place" is in itself usually irrelevant; its the illegal entry and the damage done and maybe causing strive/riots that matter legally.

And what do you think about fighting Nazi scumbags with legal methods instead of some arbitrary stuff that resonates with your feelings?
 
Last edited:
Carn said:
From my impression of many activist atheists (meaning actively engaged in political and/or philosophical debates/struggles) are fine with anything goes against many religions, especially Christianity.

For example, there were some atheists who publically implied that the god of the bible would have to considered as an immoral monster, if he existed. Cannot remember any atheist had much problem with that statement, which for Christians might sound somewhat unfriendly and rude.


And yet, i have the impression that if some atheist would in a similar way attack the god of the koran, that other atheists would have a problem with that (and might even use the termn "Islamophobia", which would irriate my from atheists; i mean being afraid of billions of people at least according to their official declarations putting life and death decisions in the hands of invisible pink unicorns and their words of wisdom or whatever is not necessarily "phobic" but might be pretty rational).

Is that only my false impression or is there actually such a divide among atheists regarding harsh criticism of Islam?
Click to expand...

I think you are under a misapprehention. If Muslims came to my front door to share with me the 'good news', I'd sick the dogs on them too. No, I'd never do that. I just douse them all with a hose.;)

As bad as I think Christianity is and I think it is horrible and immoral, Islam is much much worse. I think most atheists believe that although we aren't a group and I can only speak for myself.

That said, Muslims make up only a tiny part of the US population. I've had at least a hundred Christians of one stripe or another knock on my door, I've yet to have a Muslim do that. I have noticed on some English forums more Muslims proselytising. And frankly, if anything I stomp on them even harder as its easier to stop a disease before it infects the entire body.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom