quote:

---

Richard Dawkins, the Oxford professor and evolutionary scientist, has criticised Muslim parents for "importing creationism" into British schools.

By Duncan Gardham
Last Updated: 9:00AM BST 04 Aug 2008

Prof Dawkins, a well-known atheist, also blamed the Government for accommodating religious views and allowing creationism to be taught in schools.

"Most devout Muslims are creationists so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught," Prof Dawkins said in a Sunday newspaper interview.

"Teachers are bending over backwards to respect home prejudices that children have been brought up with. The Government could do more, but it doesn't want to because it is fanatical about multiculturalism and the need to respect the different traditions from which these children come."

---

quote:

---

"Most devout Muslims are creationists so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught," Prof Dawkins said in a Sunday newspaper interview.

---

"Most devout Muslims!?" There are millions of devout muslims on planet earth, he can't possibly know "most" of them.

[ 04 August 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

"I was shocked by how some put up barriers to understanding," he said "I showed them the evidence, and they just said, 'This is what it says in my holy book.' And so I asked, 'If your holy book says one thing, but the evidence says something else, you then go with your holy book?' And they said, 'Yes.' And I said, 'Why?' And they said, 'It's the way we've been brought up'."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
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 M. Spector:
If I ignore you will you go away?

---

quote:

---

Teaching religion to children is child abuse.

---

point of clarification, for others wandering in, I was mainly "yepping" stargazer's point about snukkum's posting this type of crap, with never an opinion.

Oh, I guess I should have agreed publically with your:

quote:

---

Teaching religion to children is child abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
...Ignore it and it will go away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Yep!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
If I ignore you will you go away?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Nope, we have tried ignoring you and you haven't, so............

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Once again, your theory goes down in flames!

---

quote:

---

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

---

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

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.

In terms of his actual comments, I'm not sure I follow him. He's mad at children for having religious beliefs? What does he want to do? Ban them from school do they won't affect the good agnostic kids?

[ 04 August 2008: Message edited by: TCD ]

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?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TCD:
The Telegraph chose to focus on his comments on Muslims amd that says a lot about their agenda.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

What's the Muslim version of the creation story?

---

Don't take this the wrong way, but other than for anthropologists - who cares?

What's the Jewish version of the origin of disease?

How about the Buddhist version of the laws of motion?

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
What agenda would that be? Could it be to present a distorted picture of what Dawkins was saying in order to discredit him as an islamophobic crank?

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TCD:
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.

In terms of his actual comments, I'm not sure I follow him. He's mad at children for having religious beliefs? What does he want to do? Ban them from school do they won't affect the good agnostic kids?

[ 04 August 2008: Message edited by: TCD ]

---

I agree that this interview was spun to be anti-Islam only, when Dawkins is clearly and consistently anti all religions (which I enjoy!).

quote:

---

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

---

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...

quote:

---

Their parents are free to teach them whatever illogical gobbledygook that they want about patriarchal men in the sky, however public schools should abandon any teaching or consideration of these myths. Respect for all religions should be taught, nothing more.

---

quote:

---

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

---

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

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.

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 ]

One thing that our public school systems cannot seem to abandon are Christmas concerts. They have gotten more diverse in recent years in some places (certainly not here on the Island, though), but still involve children singing overtly religious songs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
Dawkins isn't just saying "don't teach creationism" he's saying "Most devout Muslims are creationists so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught" which seems to go a little bit beyond... but I'm not sure where.

British state schools don't teach creationism so, what exactly is Dawkins saying?

---

What do you think he's saying - "deport Muslims"? "Ban them from schools?"

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.

quote:

---

Even worse, from his point of view, their science teachers are extremely unwilling to oppose anything that smacks of a faith-held belief. And the same applies to their head teachers and the government – even when a belief is contradicted by scientific truth. This infuriates Dawkins.

“Teachers are bending over backwards to ‘respect’ home prejudices that children have been brought up with,” he says . “The government could do more, but it doesn’t want to because it is fanatical about multi-culturalism and the need to ‘respect’ the different ‘traditions’ from which these children come. The government – particularly under Tony Blair – thinks it is wonderful to have children brought up with their traditional religions. I call it brainwashing.”

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
But isn't disrespect for an idea or belief constantly morphing into disrespect for the people holding it - as in Stargazer's last sentence, above? I find this distinction tenuous at best.
Unionist, hatred of Islam was already going strong fourteen years ago, with everyone rallying to Salman Rushdie, for instance.

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

---

Ok - people were rallying behind Salman Rushdie due to a LOVE of freedom of expression and due to a hatred of intolerant religious dogma that enacts fatwas calling for the death of an author. Hatred of Islam - the religion - was not the motivating factor. The actions of intolerant imams and religious leaders were. There was a lot more hatred of Salmon Rushdie doing on in the world at that time than hatred of Islam.

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ]

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

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
I read the interview and it's not, actually, clear or obvious at all.

---

Actually, I have no interest in defending Dawkins or micro-analyzing his writings.

It has already been noted on this board that some publicists (notably Sam Harris) spend far more time "exposing" Islam than other religions, and that this feeds quite nicely into imperialist needs at the moment.

Dawkins may very well be guilty of that as well. How should I know?

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
How do you know? Given the power of Western media to create "causes célèbres" 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.

---

Are you seriously dismissing one courageous man as nothing more than a "cause célèbres" - 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:

death sentence on writer Salman Rushdie for alleged blasphemy will remain in force

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:

Cleric reminds Iranians of Rushdie fatwa

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.

---

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 Mercy:
British state schools don't teach creationism so, what exactly is Dawkins saying?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
Teachers don't teach creationism in state schools in the UK.

---

How sure of you of that?

This article states that a creationist group sent out creation propaganda (DVDS, booklets etc) to all of the highschools in the UK and so far out of the the 89 responses they got back 59 were going to use the material - in science classrooms. The Guardian states that dozens of highschools are teaching creationism.

This article says

"The national curriculum requires schools to teach evolution but does not ban them from teaching creationism as well." It refers to creationism being taught in state schools.

This article talks about publically funded Evangelical, Jewish and Muslim schools teaching creationism. 40 out of the fifty contacted said that they were doing so.

quote:

---

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

---

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
If Dawkins is lying about having witnessed teachers hesitating to teach science for fear of offending someone, then he's lying. But if it's true, then what would be your comment on that, Mercy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
The disturbing implication I'm left with is that their presence 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.

---

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

How sure of you of that?

This article states that a creationist group sent out creation propaganda (DVDS, booklets etc) to all of the highschools in the UK and so far out of the the 89 responses they got back 59 were going to use the material - in science classrooms. The Guardian states that dozens of highschools are teaching creationism.

This article says

"The national curriculum requires schools to teach evolution but does not ban them from teaching creationism as well." It refers to creationism being taught in state schools.

This article talks about publically funded Evangelical, Jewish and Muslim schools teaching creationism. 40 out of the fifty contacted said that they were doing so.

We can largely thank Tony Blair for that. At least there is someone like Dawkins making noise against this lunacy.

---

The British system of education confuses me: "public schools" are actually private and often receive state funding. This makes it hard to draw clear lines between church and state. Having read these articles I'm still not clear.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
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?

---

Number of deaths due to papal pronouncements against contraception and abortion: 215 000 maternal pregnancy-related deaths per year (according to Guttmacher Institute stats).

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Number of deaths due to anti-Rushdie fatwa over the last eighteen years: 0

Number of deaths due to papal pronouncements against contraception and abortion: 215 000 maternal pregnancy-related deaths per year (according to Guttmacher Institute stats).

If we are going to take on religions, let's do so consistently.

---

OK - you are making some false correlations here. How many of those 215,000 women wanted to get pregnant? How many were Catholic? How many were non-religious or another religion?

Secondly, if you are doing comparisons like that, it would make sense to include the number of people killed in Islamic countries over speech-like "crimes". Zahra Kazemi is one that comes to mind. Salmon Rushdie was a well-publicized case. What of those in obscurity with no media representation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:

If we are going to take on religions, let's do so consistently.

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Number of deaths due to anti-Rushdie fatwa over the last eighteen years: 0

Number of deaths due to papal pronouncements against contraception and abortion: 215 000 maternal pregnancy-related deaths per year (according to Guttmacher Institute stats).

If we are going to take on religions, let's do so consistently.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
If this is happening in state-funded schools it's pretty apalling and I think I have a clearer sense of what Dawkins is ranting about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
OK; so can one loathe religions and still describe scientific inquiry and its (always temporary and incomplete) findings to people on their own merits (evidence, logic, scientific method, comparison basis, history of human inquiry), rather than going to the papers and whining

---

I would imagine that it was the reporter who came to Dawkins, not the other way around.

quote:

---

about the beliefs of people that our country is, purely coincidentally I am sure, at bloody war against?

---

So, Dawkins should only be allowed to criticize certain religions? I thought earlier you were whining about criticizing religions equally? (edit: I guess consistently is the world you used. Either way you have proven that your view of consistently is completely one-sided and therefore the opposite of consistent.)

Dawkins, btw, unlike Hitchens and Sam Harris, was an ardent and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq (before and ever since) and wrote articles in the months leading up to war about the lies, deception, racism and bigotry that were allowing Blair and Bush (two leaders who Dawkins couldn't think less of) to pull the wool over peoples eyes.

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Number of deaths due to anti-Rushdie fatwa over the last eighteen years: 0

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
OK; so can one loathe religions and still describe scientific inquiry and its (always temporary and incomplete) findings to people on their own merits (evidence, logic, scientific method, comparison basis, history of human inquiry), rather than going to the papers and whining about the beliefs of people that our country is, purely coincidentally I am sure, at bloody war against?

---

Our country (like the U.K.) is at war, and it has nothing to do with anyone's religious beliefs.

When we were (illegally and immorally) at war with Serbia, were we supposed to stop critiquing the absurdities of Orthodox Christianity? Were we actually fighting for Islam, because Kosovo is mostly Muslim?

What nonsense.

In fact, look at Dawkins' denunciation of Tony Blair - a religious fanatic who loves all religions, so much so that he is "accommodating" "multicultural" "feelings" in British schools.

Blair is the kind of bastard who welcomes Islam into British schools, but murders Muslims in their home countries.

I'm the kind of bastard who condemns the butchery of these modern-day imperialist crusaders (as you know very well, martin, just as you do), while never forgetting to mention that religion is a pile of crap and we don't want it in our schools.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
This interview was supposed to be about the three part series "The Genius of Charles Darwin" of which the first part aired on the weekend (and is available on google video here). Islam or Muslims have yet to mentioned

---

Finished watching the program. My count on the number of times Richard Dawkins mentions or criticizes Islam or Muslims: 0.

There was actually almost no mention of religion after the introductory 6 minutes or so (and all of that discussion of religion was generic). It was about Darwin and evolution, but of course journalists don't generally care to write about those topics.

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

When we were (illegally and immorally) at war with Serbia, were we supposed to stop critiquing the absurdities of Orthodox Christianity? Were we actually fighting for Islam, because Kosovo is mostly Muslim?

---

I certainly didn't support the CIA-SAS' training of and shipping weapons to mujahideen and al Qaida in Bosnia, or propping up drug-dealing mafia regimes in Albania and Kosovo.

And I was never very keen on the vicious empire aiding the Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan in the decade prior to the USA and British fomenting civil war in Yugoslavia.

Militant Islam or Soviet communism? The vicious empire didn't think twice about it before throwing together operation "Cyclone"

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Militant Islam or Soviet communism? The vicious empire didn't think twice about it before throwing together operation "Cyclone"

---

Exactly, entirely, correct - thanks Fidel. Imperialism is imperialism. It is not some religious ideology. If imperialism finds it in its interest on Tuesday to fund and create wild-eyed religious cults and armed groups - and to blame them for all the ills in the world and slaughter them on Wednesday - it has done, does, and will continue to do so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
I think Dawkins should tread more carefully then he does when discussing Islam but I don't think he should stop critiquing religious groups that seek to bring religious nuttiness into schools.

---

I don't think that Dawkins should be more careful when discussing Islam and would be extremely disappointed if he did. I think that he should criticize all anti-science dogma equally and I have yet to see any evidence that he doesn't. Being careful when discussing any religion would be going completely against what Dawkins is arguing - that religions should not be exempt from criticism.

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

quote:

---

Don't take this the wrong way, but other than for anthropologists - who cares?

---

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Unionist writes: "If some people out there are indeed confused, then the proper recourse is to clarify - not to give religion of any flavour a pass in our institutions", I would answer yes to clarify but no to taking the currrent war into schools as a backhanded way of fighting Muslims on the home front.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
When are you going to run out of straw, Martin?

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
(In response to Fidel and Unionist dismissing a link between imperialism and Islam-bashing)

---

Sorry I couldn't read past your opening line in this post.

It is precisely imperialism that bashes Muslims when its needs dictate. I thought I made that point rather clearly a few posts ago. Your inability to read it or recall it really concerns me. Maybe the "straw" allegation has something to it after all.

OK. Your loss.

"It is precisely imperialism that bashes Muslims when its needs dictate."

Yes, and imperialism that arms them when it needs dictate. I understand that.

But when Fidel argues that "The vicious empire didn't think twice about it before throwing together operation "Cyclone" and you agree saying that "imperialism is imperialism", I feel the connection is lost between one specific religion, Islam, and its real agency in this here and now world, active resistance to the Empire, something imperialists do think and fret about a great deal.

I worry that liberal secularism is too easily pressed into service by Christian/Zionist imperialists and tends to dismiss that global, current, very real function of Islam.
So the Blue Meanies bash and bomb them while the Lily-white Enablers selectively chide them.

P.S.: I was not talking about Islam-bashers here on Babble but in the U.K. (The Telegraph, Dawkins, just about every pundit really).

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
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.

---

Is that called a "win-win" situation?

quote:

---

But isn't disrespect for an idea or belief constantly morphing into disrespect for the people holding it - as in Stargazer's last sentence, above? I find this distinction tenuous at best.
Unionist, hatred of Islam was already going strong fourteen years ago, with everyone rallying to Salman Rushdie, for instance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Yes, and imperialism that arms them when it needs dictate. I understand that.

But when Fidel argues that "The vicious empire didn't think twice about it before throwing together operation "Cyclone" and you agree saying that "imperialism is imperialism", I feel the connection is lost between one specific religion, Islam, and its real agency in this here and now world, active resistance to the Empire, something imperialists do think and fret about a great deal.

---

Many Taliban, or students of militant Islam, did not fully appreciate who their enablers were in the late 1970's-1980's. Certain mujahideen leaders and OBL did know who was funding the Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the radicalization of Islam in Chechnya, Dagestan, Bosnia, Kosovo etc. The CIA, British, Saudis, Kuwaitis, Jordanians etc, deliberately bypassed support of more moderate Islamic leaders in Central Asia and Balkans in favour of extremists supporting a theocratic feudalist form of Islam. Many secular and moderately religious Pakistanis are said to blame Afghans for Talibanization of the two countries. But it isn't true.

eta: I don't believe unionist or myself are against Afghans joining the Taliban today. They do it because the Taliban represents resistance to the vicious empire. They are somewhat organized and have steady funding. Many Afghans don't believe in Taliban religious ideals. This is comparable, I believe, to when PDPA government officials and their supporters joined the "Northern Alliance" in order to oppose the U.S.-backed warlords, and then opposed the Taliban after 1992 to 1995. Some prominent mujahideen commanders declared war on the Taliban around 1992-93. And they lost their CIA funding because of it.

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timebandit:
Everything you ever wanted to know about Muslim creationism but were afraid to ask...

Essentially, Christianity, Judaism and Islam have the same roots and beliefs regarding creation (if taken literally) from the book of Genesis.

---

Thanks Tb, but that site's a little too weird to get into. I kinda though Mohammed basically just copied the Christian creation story, but I'm not sure how much the Koran actually discusses creation. I believe Adam and Eve are mentioned.

quote:

---

Essentially, Christianity, Judaism and Islam have the same roots and beliefs regarding creation (if taken literally) from the book of Genesis.

---

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Yeah, it all stems from a dirty old man who almost sacrificed a son because the voices told him to while on a mission for Dawkin's selfish gene. It's too perfect, really.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timebandit:
Everything you ever wanted to know about Muslim creationism but were afraid to ask...

Essentially, Christianity, Judaism and Islam have the same roots and beliefs regarding creation (if taken literally) from the book of Genesis.

---

Harun yahya is not a reliable source on Islamic doctorine.

That said, one thing people should realize is that Islam is not essentially a new religion. It is primarily a follow-up to Judaism, as Quran confirms that too ("We sent to you the same that we sent to people of the book before you..."). Most rules in Islamic Sharia (e.g. stoning) do not come from Quran, but from the old testament. Mohammad confirmed to is followers that the Christians were wrong in abandoning Jewish law, and he re-enacted it fo muslims with some modifications.

The main difference between Judaism and Islam is the nature of "God". In Judaism, God exists and behaves almost like a physical creature, as if he is a superhuman sitting in the sky. In Islam, God is more like an invisible force beyond the physical characteristics of this world. One could say that it was natural after 2000 years from Judaism to Islam, people in 600 A.D. could not easily accept the concept of a superhuman creature sitting in the sky anymore. The more human mind evolved and progressed, the more the concept of God became abstract and metaphysical.

The Islamic view of creation is based on the same principles as the Jewish view, with a couple of differences resulting from the more abstract nature of God:

1) As opposed to Christian views, Islam does not hold the belief that the whole universe and creatures and humans have been created at the same time (some 6000 yeas ago?). It does not give a time line at all. So the fact that the earth is billions of years old is not incompatible with Islamic beliefs.

Quran says that the universe was created in "six days", but there is a quote from Mohammad that Allah's days are different from human days. So many muslim scholars interpret the verse as six periods.

2) About evolution, there is no firm view. As far as I know most Muslim scholars oppose it. However I have seen opinions that explains the possibility of evolution within the context of creationism, by suggesting that "guided evolution" is a tool of God's creation.

Not that it was important, but thought I'd put in my 2 cents.

[ 10 August 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Oh, it's Richard Dawkins who is the Lily-white Enabler!

---

quote:

---

The Islamic view of creation is based on the same principles as the Jewish view, with a couple of differences resulting from the more abstract nature of God:

1) As opposed to Christian views, Islam does not hold the belief that the whole universe and creatures and humans have been created at the same time (some 6000 yeas ago?). It does not give a time line at all. So the fact that the earth is billions of years old is not incompatible with Islamic beliefs.

Quran says that the universe was created in "six days", but there is a quote from Mohammad that Allah's days are different from human days. So many muslim scholars interpret the verse as six periods.

2) About evolution, there is no firm view. As far as I know most Muslim scholars oppose it. However I have seen opinions that explains the possibility of evolution within the context of creationism, by suggesting that "guided evolution" is a tool of God's creation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timebandit:

This is no different than non-fundamentalist Christianity's views on creationism. The new testament does not offer any opinion how or when the world was created -- Judaism, Islam and Christianity are all working from roughly the same text and literal fundamentalists of all three faiths go with the 6 day theory, while more moderate views within all three faiths make attempts to reconcile the 6 days as metaphorical rather than literal.

---

Certainly if people are willing to water down their religions then their beliefs can be more easily reconciled with reality. There will also be cases where some religions happen to get something more right than others due to sheer chance.

And both these truisms miss the point entirely.

The point is that religion is an irrational framework to understand the world, regardless of whether or not it gets some components less wrong than others. This is as true of catholicism, mormonism, islam, jainism and scientology. We should be moving to a system where all fairy tales are kept out of the classroom.

[ 11 August 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

...religion is an irrational framework to understand the world

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
But so is reason. There is no rational meta-argument for reason. It merely corresponds to our current guesstimate of the best way to the 'truth' (whatever that is) but constitutes, from the outset, a leap of faith. In fact, in our culture, 'reason' and truth' define each other in a circular process.

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
But so is reason. There is no rational meta-argument for reason. It merely corresponds to our current guesstimate of the best way to the 'truth' (whatever that is) but constitutes, from the outset, a leap of faith (in the "truth fairy"...) In fact, in our culture, 'reason' and truth' define each other in a circular process.

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

---

Martin, reason is hardly irrational.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Belief in reason cannot be rational itself, since it is one level removed from reason, a meta-argument.

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

---

There are other ways of "justifying reason" - and other ways of conceiving reason than the one you seem to have in mind, come to that - but that's a very large subject.

I'd be interested in knowing how you explain or justify your strong beliefs, however. Do you just intuit the truth? Or, at least, the good?

[ 11 August 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Belief in reason cannot be rational itself, since it is one level removed from reason, a meta-argument.

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

---

I don't believe in reason blindly, I know it to be possible and therefore true.

reason:

quote:

---

4. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.

---

I have seen this capacity, so I know it to be true.

Fossils, carbon-dating and astrophysical research all contribute to rational and logical theories on evolution and the beginnings of the universe. These are rational because there is tangible evidence given and they are called theories because they are not 100% proven. A few centuries-old religious books tell a different story and don't even have the good sense to call them theories. They offer circular reasoning as proof (it is in this book, therefore God said it and it is true).

Reason is not a belief, but a system of thought where conclusions and theories have to be based on objective evidence.

[ 11 August 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Discussion is particularly important since we cannot absolutely entrust the guidance of human affairs to mere rationality.

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
My strong beliefs are based on desire for justice. I don't need to appeal for reason to justify it. As for guidance, I look at what the oppressed are saying, and I examine arguments for rationality, yes, but also for other criteria: correspondence to experience (theirs and mine), intuition, yes, commonality of analysis with other progressive-minded folks, lessons of history if any...

---

How do you recognize justice? How do you recognize injustice?

"correspondence to experience (theirs and mine), intuition, yes, commonality of analysis with other progressive-minded folks, lessons of history if any... "

Much of that, I would call an appeal to "reason", though none of this is simple. There are different "reasons" in our world and we all need to be open to changing our minds, to listening to arguments from outside. But disavowing the attempt to be reasonable is the end of everything.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
RosaL asks: "I'd be interested in knowing how you explain or justify your strong beliefs, however. Do you just intuit the truth? Or, at least, the good?" My strong beliefs are based on desire for justice. I don't need to appeal for reason to justify it. As for guidance, I look at what the oppressed are saying, and I examine arguments for rationality, yes, but also for other criteria: correspondence to experience (theirs and mine), intuition, yes, commonality of analysis with other progressive-minded folks, lessons of history if any...
Sorry if this disappoints the Mr. Spocks among us, but rationality shows severe limits when it is touted as the royal way to the truth.

---

I hate to break it to you martin, but many people believe in justice, but it is religious justice. The logical assertion that every human being has an inherent right to dignity, freedom and equality is disproven by the mere belief in religious justice. Some of these people are even oppressed. Muslims are an oppressed groups, but some Muslims would argue that an honour killing is just. Indians in British India were oppressed, but burnt widows alive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

People who are comfortable can do without "reason". The oppressed cannot.

---

quote:

---

Reason is not a belief, but a system of thought where conclusions and theories have to be based on objective evidence.

---

And which gave us such examples of rationality in action as the atom bomb and Auschwitz.

[ 11 August 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]

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

The idea that "rationality" is some kind of newly-born methodology of thinking that arrives with the European enlightenment, is just more Eurocentric arrogance, for the most part. Religion is born of the same desire to learn and to understand, and explain as the desire that put human beings into space. Trying to disown religion as the ancestor of modern science, and the clear relationship that exists between the two is just the bad manners of ignorant and ungrateful children.

quote:

---

Or let us take another example: The philosophy of antiquity was primitive, spontaneously evolved materialism. As such, it was incapable of clearing up the relation between mind and matter. But the need to get clarity on this question led to the doctrine of a soul separable from the body, then to the assertion of the immortality of this soul, and finally to monotheism. The old materialism was therefore negated by idealism. But in the course of the further development of philosophy, idealism, too, became untenable and was negated by modern materialism. This modern materialism, the negation of the negation, is not the mere re-establishment of the old, but adds to the permanent foundations of this old materialism the whole thought-content of two thousand years of development of philosophy and natural science, as well as of the history of these two thousand years. It is no longer a philosophy at all, but simply a world outlook which has to establish its validity and be applied not in a science of sciences standing apart, but in the real sciences. Philosophy is therefore "sublated" here, that is, "both overcome and preserved" {D. K. G. 503}; overcome as regards its form, and preserved as regards its real content. Thus, where Herr Dühring sees only "verbal jugglery", closer inspection reveals an actual content.

---

Anti-Dühring by Frederick Engels 1877

But yeah, go Don Quixote go! Get that windmill!

[ 11 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

In the second episode the evil Dawkins didn't bash religion once, in neither episode did the evil eurocentric Dawkins mention Islam or Muslims. Furthermore the evil Dawkins attacked capitalism and social darwinism and mostly talked about the evolution of altruism (the main topic of his 70s bestseller "The Selfish Gene" which many attack having never read more than the title). He interviewed Richard Leakey, Steven Pinker and De Waal among others.

If only Dawkins would support the teaching of fairy tales as fact in publicly funded schools and if only he would accept that some children should be forced to grow up completely ignorant - despite attending publicly funded schools where you would think that the governemnt would have an obligation to those students - of scientific evidence because of the religious views their parents force on them then I think that the left might not think he was completely evil.

And before people go on about Dawkins singling out Muslims - while demanding he treat all religions "consistently" maybe they should actually read and watch his work. Unlike Hitchen's "god is not Great" and Harris' book which I can't think of name of right now (edit: The End of Faith), "The God Delusion" talked significantly less about Islam than Christianity or Judiasm. His series "The Root of all evil" dealt with Christianity for the most part, and Islam the least. Indeed one of the criticisms of Dawkins over the years has been that he picks on Christianity (and Judaism to a lesser extent) while ignoring Islam. Unfortunately, lately it is his words about Islam that make the newspapers which is either because of the prejudice of the newspapers themselves or due to fact that his frequent remarks about and criticism of Christianity have been repeated and published for years ad nauseum. As the telegraph said Dawkins had been correctly and justifiably criticizing the Christian right and Christian creationism for decades and finally he said something about Islamic creationism. As we here on rabble are so concerned about the consistent treatment of religions I am sure that we can easily find in the archives threads about Dawkins criticizing Christian creationism and the outrage from babblers about such.

(edit: if you check out his other work you will find criticism of fundamentalism - again almost exclusively christian. From "The Selfish Gene" - Cathlocism - to "The Blind Watchmaker" to "A Devil's Chaplain" to his piles of essays)

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
What fairy tales? Fairy tales such as that the Qu'ran has no historical facts in it?

---

There is nothing - absolutely not a single thing - in the Qu'ran or the Bible that belongs in a science classroom. And that is what is being done. Preaching a religion as truth does not belong in schools. That is what this about. You can force all the ignorance you want on children elsewhere Cueball and I, and Dawkins, won't give a shit.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

The only person here who is propogating any falsehoods here is you, by your insistence that these texts have no value as a historical documents. That is the only "fairy tale" that is being espoused here.

I am sad that I have to break this news to you to you, the self described champion of "rationalist" science. But I guess that says a lot about the state of "science" today.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[QB]Then you are an idiot. Because in fact, it is quite obvious that in among the long and often boring lyrical passages there are quite concrete historical facts, that are verifiable by corroborating them with sources outside of the text itself.

---

"Enlightenment" my ass!

Personally, the only thing you seem to object to is my correcting you on your false representations, and your reptetition of the idea that everything in the Qu'ran is a fairty tale. One would think that a "serious" defender of science would be precise enough to avoid such ridiculous and stupid distortions.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
Don't you think, trev, that the ratio of people 'teaching the Qu'ran in the classroom' (as far as I can tell, virtually nil) to hostile writers like Dawkins and Hitchens is rather unbalanced?

---

Dawkins should never be compared to Hitchens. Hitchens was a strong proponent of the war in Iraq, Dawkins was a strong opponent. Hitchens blamed 9/11 on Muslims and Islam, Dawkins said that Islam could not be blamed for 9/11 just as Christianity could not be blamed for terrorism in Ireland. Dawkins wrote pieces just after 9/11 in which he criticized religious fanatacism in general without writing anything that could be linked to a specific religion, such as Islam. The same obviously can't be said for Hitchens who used words like Islamofascism and concentrated on muslims.

quote:

---

"Most devout Muslims are creationists so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught," Prof Dawkins said in a Sunday newspaper interview.

---

He then goes on to attack "multiculturalism" just like any jack booted skinhead: "it is fanatical about multiculturalism and the need to respect the different traditions from which these children come."

I can get such jingoistic sermons about multiculturalism from the folks at the Heritage Front. Thanks but no thanks. But you are right that I would expect nothing else from the primary think-tank that has been the source of the ideological justification of British Imperialism for the last 400 years: Oxford.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
I don't really give a shit about "creationism" but as far as I can tell the only thing that Darwinian science has brought to the real world of human existence is social Darwinism, eugenics and Adolph Hitler. Now that is some track record you guys got, I must say!

---

You are truly one ignorant human being. Beyond hope. No wonder you dislike Dawkins so.

(Hitler by the way never once mentions Darwin, had no understanding of evolution, and while he did view certain "races" as being inferior, such beliefs existed long before Darwin, Hitlers beliefs - well documented in Mein Kamf - were that the inferior races were inferior not due to evolution, but due to being created that way. Hitler was a creationist who believed in evolution within races, but not evolution from one species or race to another. Hitler would quite approve of your scientific ignorance. Darwin on the other hand abhored slavery - well documented and rare for his time, and considering his volumnious writing I can't recall anything I have ever read by him which stated that Europeans were superior to others.)

quote:

---

Personally, the only thing you seem to object to is my correcting you on your false representations, and your reptetition of the idea that everything in the Qu'ran is a fairty tale. One would think that a "serious" defender of science would be precise enough to avoid such ridiculous and stupid distortions.

---

I have never said that everything in the Qu'ran is a fairy tale. That is a figment of your imagination. However, the basis of the holy books is supernatural and without any evidence.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
You are saying that there is no evidence for the existance of the historical Mohammed?

---

quote:

---

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

---

From the Decent of Man by Charles Darwin.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Oh really? That is why he singles out Muslims specifically in this case

---

Again, if you read Dawkins work you would know that he has always concentrated on christian creationism. So your evidence is a single time, among hundreds, that he may have singled Muslims (or that may be only what was reported).

quote:

---

He then goes on to attack "multiculturalism" just like any jack booted skinhead: "it is fanatical about multiculturalism and the need to respect the different traditions from which these children come."

---

Multiculturalism is about coexisting and interrelating. It is not about a teacher deciding that they can't teach scientific evidence because it might offend someone's religion. Dawkins doesn't oppose mutliculturalism. He opposes the fanatical multiculturalism in which people believe that it is not allowed to criticize or offend other cultures and thereby you wind up with things like Tony Blair's faith schools and creationism in the classrooms which under the defence of promoting multi-culturalism is dividing people up into groups along religious and cultural lines instead of promoting diversity.

quote:

---

I can get such jingoistic sermons about multiculturalism from the folks at the Heritage Front. Thanks but no thanks. But you are right that I would expect nothing else from the primary think-tank that has been the source of the ideological justification of British Imperialism for the last 400 years: Oxford.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

Multiculturalism is about coexisting and interrelating. It is not about a teacher deciding that they can't teach scientific evidence because it might offend someone's religion. Dawkins doesn't oppose mutliculturalism. He opposes the fanatical multiculturalism in which people believe that it is not allowed to criticize or offend other cultures and thereby you wind up with things like Tony Blair's faith schools and creationism in the classrooms which under the defence of promoting multi-culturalism is dividing people up into groups along religious and cultural lines instead of promoting diversity.

---

If that is the case, then why does Dawkins single out mulitculturalism as the culprit despoiling science. If his target were elsewhere, why would he mention it as his appendix to his sermon on Muslims?

I should think a careful "scientist" would show more acumen.

Catchfire's point is right on. Where are these teachers being forced to teach creationism? There are none. No. What he is talking about is students being brought up to believe things at variance with what he believes, and being present in schools, not teachers being bullied into teaching false science.

Read this carefully... it is the students and their parents that are the problem:

quote:

---

"Most devout Muslims are creationists so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught,"

---

He is just another racist, Eurocentric Oxford educated white supremacist. That is all.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
You said that Darwin was not a racist who believed in the superiority of Europeans

---

I said:

quote:

---

Darwin on the other hand abhored slavery - well documented and rare for his time, and considering his volumnious writing I can't recall anything I have ever read by him which stated that Europeans were superior to others.

---

By the way I did not google that from a creationist web site, but the site which corrected misquotes from Darwin. There is the whole qoute unadulterated. Even without edits, Darwin clearly believes in Caucasian superiority over the "savages" such as the Australian aboriginals.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Catchfire's point is right on. Where are these teachers being forced to teach creationism? There are none.

---

As I have pointed out already in this thread there are several dozen publicly funded schools teaching creationism in the science classrooms in the UK. Mostly, but not exclusively, relgious schools funded due to Tony Blair.

quote:

---

No. What he is talking about is students being brought up to believe things at variance with what he believes, and being present in schools, not teachers being bullied into teaching false science.

---

quote:

---

Most devout Muslims are creationists so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught,"

---

Teachers are secondary to the issue. The problem is Muslim students at schools.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

And then harping on about the evils of mulitculturalism. Truly disgusting, really.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Why am I incorrect? I am right on the money. You are saying he is talking about teachers. He never mentions teachers. Read the quote carefully. He is not talking about teachers at all. He is talking about the students and their parents trotting out "what they have been taught."

Teachers are secondary to the issue. The problem is Muslim students at schools.

---

quote:

---

Most devout Monotheists are creationists so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of religious parents who trot out what they have been taught,"

---

It is not there. It is about the problem of Muslims. Muslims are the problem not "religious fundamentalists". You put that phrase in there. Dawkins is talking about Muslims, and Islam.

[ 12 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]