Dawkins and Hitchens call for Arrest of Pope when he visits UK

[Andalublue]

I'm curious though, why do you think he is not a hypocrite?

Digsbe, I just reread the article and then took a look at the comments posted in response to it. Did you read those? I think they balanced up the picture very well. You probably guessed that I'm not a fan of Dawkins, but the article itself I thought was very poorly argued on some points. Claiming Nazism was an essentially atheistic movement is both wrong and crass.

Thanks for the link though. It was all a good read.

 

[Apocalypse]

Well, if you call anywhere between 20 and 60% of religious Jews a tiny percentage, so be it. Of course, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs figures may be wrong. Perhaps you'd like to correct them.

From wiki:

As of 2006[update], 7% of Israeli Jews defined themselves as Haredim; an additional 10% as "religious"; 14% as "religious-traditionalists" ; 22% as "non-religious-traditionalists" (not strictly adhering to Jewish law or halakha); and 44% as "secular" (Hebrew: חִלּוֹנִי‎, Hiloni).[5]

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Israel]Religion in Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


"Haredim", by Israeli terms, means Orthodox.

Of course, the "non-religious-traditionalists" might as well be considered secular by Western standards, since they only follow the traditions of Judaism, and not its religious rules.

 

[Tashah]

I see, so you believe that being a moderator gives your opinions greater weight, do you?

Not at all. Simply highlighting your ridiculous charges of incivility and intolerance for the benefit of all readers. You picked the wrong chickadee for that schtick to garner any traction.

Quoting an article by an Israeli think tank falls very far short of lecturing anyone on anything. It was quoted in order to challenge an assertion by Gardener that Orthodox Judaism accounts for a "tiny minority" of Jews. Period. For some reason it caused you to become excessively defensive.

For some reason, you seem to doubt that Israelis know all about Orthodoxy. That's a bit like saying Italians don't know jack about pasta. wtf?

Non sequitur number... sorry, lost count.

YOU first brought up Gardener bright eyes, not me. Scroll up.

Stalking you? :rofl
I suspect you need to work on your bogglability. :mrgreen:

An admission that you don't know either me, or my varied political stances as you disingenuously intimated. In the future, look before you leap to shady conclusions.

 

[mbig]

I think the point is that you are indulging in non sequiturs. You are positing that because we live in a world of mass communications, the continued existence of archaic forms of religious practice and belief should be transformed by that technology. You are using this false logic to score partisan points against your cultural/political/religious enemies, the Moslems. I think yours is the trite and crass argument.

This whole argument/apologia about "relatively new".. is Ridiculous.
1500 Years is old enough for anything.
How about if someone suggests Really "relatively New" Israel (60 years) is cut some slack instead of the Reverse?
Would you go along with that?

So you can't comment, right? But you feel qualified to comment on Islam, despite not being a Moslem.

ALWAYS glad to comment on Fundmentalists and literalists, of which Islam has the highest percent.
I've banged them ALL here, Jewish, Christian, and Islamic literalists. (tho PC others just demonize Christian literalists as 'Fundamentalists', while Falwell/Robertson would just be a mainstream Muslim in piety/intolerance)
That would include Saudi Arabia where virtually EVERYONE has acces to TV and internet.
I have NO problem condemning The Pope's Crime of Conspiracy.
But the chances of him being arrested are nil unless he converst to Judaism.
Then the Brits would find several to arrest him.

Change will come. Maybe not at the pace you will be happy with, maybe not in the form that you will be happy with, but then, it's not your faith.

Change will come ONLY if we hasten it, not apologize for it.
MAINSTREAM Islam is a Problem.
Not just a few terrorists.

'The Trouble With Islam'
Sadly, Mainstream Muslim teaching accepts and promotes violence.
Featured Article - WSJ.com

I'm not arguing that Islam hasn't much to do in terms of reform. My trouble with all the Moslem attack posts on DP is that they condemn it as uniquely backward and repressive. That attitude seems as much based in neo-con political ideology than in any theological analysis. Check out some of the archaic practices in Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhism, African Animist theologies and then label Islam as uniquely retrogressive.

The operative word/STRAWMAN "Uniquely" Bolded! While trying to set up said strawman, Unwittingly he was just highlighting his Fallacy to those of minimal ken.

Islam is Inordinately Literalist, Intolerant, Violent, and Backwards.
THAT'S the Operative, Germaine, and Fair Word.
Not strawman "uniquely".
-

 

[gunner]

Indeed Andalublue. I've been here half a decade. 13,000+ posts. The owner (a Christian) gave me the keys to his kingdom. Everyone who knows me knows that I don't blow smoke. Nice smear attempt, but no cigar.

Something you like to constantly remind the board acting the 'genius loci' with 'folie de grandeur'. All that being here that long determines is...you have been here half a decade. And, in the short time Ive 'played the game' Ive seen that arrogance blur your steely eyes on occasion...this being one.


Paul

 

[gunner]

Islam is Inordinately Literalist, Intolerant, Violent, and Backwards.

That one sentence, as you know, can be applied to almost any Religion. Its just better disguised within certain society's, and not necessarily placed at the vanguard of public policy.

Paul

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- At core, we both seem to agree on the fruits and benefits of an Islamic reformation.

Absolutely!

-- It's nice to have mutual respect as a given.

:2wave: I have to apologise for the rubbish grammar of my last post - hard to type accurately when my 3 month old daughter (yikes - a girl!) is bubbling and cooing away on your knee.

What I am saying is that a much greater part of the Islamic World is under-developed and that internet access and use, even in countries such as Egypt and Iran, is far lower than in the West.

This is trite apologia and you know it. I suggest you get out more --

I acknowledge your experience in the ME Tashah but Indonesia, Nigeria and other Islamic countries are not the same.

Internet access in Nigeria (one country I lived in) is not universal and the flow of Islamic propaganda within the country is mainly from the hardline north - mainly Sokoto and Maidugri. The "centres" of Lagos and Abuja are more centres of corruption and advance fee fraud than Islamic doctrine.

My goodness, you are certainly right there with this hackneyed ruse.

Just because others resort to such silly sophistry, that doesn't mean you need to add your voice. If you were to think rather than just repeat, you would realize that Islam exists in the same world as any other religion, and that this particular bit of argumentation is mere twaddle.

Maybe you'll help me by understanding how any part of your post answers what I said? Are you saying that Islam is as old or establised as Judaism or Christianity? That Islam has gone through (as Tashah and I agree it needs to go through) a reformation of any kind?

I think the point is that you are indulging in non sequiturs. You are positing that because we live in a world of mass communications, the continued existence of archaic forms of religious practice and belief should be transformed by that technology. You are using this false logic to score partisan points against your cultural/political/religious enemies, the Moslems. I think yours is the trite and crass argument.

You can rise above this Andalublue, there's no particular need to be personal. Tashah is a better person than you think and has personal experience beyond what you may imagine.

I do feel however that Tashah's immediate experience in North Africa and the ME blind her to the other Muslim states around the world and how their technological developments stand up to those of the ME.

-- I'm not arguing that Islam hasn't much to do in terms of reform. My trouble with all the Moslem attack posts on DP is that they condemn it as uniquely backward and repressive. That attitude seems as much based in neo-con political ideology than in any theological analysis. Check out some of the archaic practices in Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhism, African Animist theologies and then label Islam as uniquely retrogressive.

Much better.

-- Tashah makes some reasonable points, I just don't agree with many of them. I didn't call her mindless, just partisan.

Wrong person to throw that particular charge at. Having read some of Tashahs discussions with Laila and of Tashahs travels in the immediate ME and North Africa area, she speaks from wider first hand experience than you give credit.

Indeed Andalublue. I've been here half a decade. 13,000+ posts. The owner (a Christian) gave me the keys to his kingdom. Everyone who knows me knows that I don't blow smoke. Nice smear attempt, but no cigar--

And to Tashah, I think you wrong Andalublue there. I personally don't feel at that moment he meant you. He may do later after further responses / exchanges though.

This whole argument/apologia about "relatively new".. is Ridiculous.
1500 Years is old enough for anything.

Maybe you'll explain why when Islam is generalised and the question - if I recall the original perpetrator - asks for "balance..."

How about if someone suggests Really "relatively New" Israel (60 years) is cut some slack instead of the Reverse?
Would you go along with that?

Depends of what Israel is up to or has done at the time.

I have NO problem condemning The Pope's Crime of Conspiracy.
But the chances of him being arrested are nil unless he converst to Judaism.
Then the Brits would find several to arrest him -

Like Pinochet or anyone else that we had doubts about?

Anyhow, thanks for taking the thread back to the pope and his current problems.

OK, quoted nearly everyone...

 

[Laila]

:2wave: I have to apologise for the rubbish grammar of my last post - hard to type accurately when my 3 month old daughter (yikes - a girl!) is bubbling and cooing away on your knee

Congratulations on a baby girl.

And on topic I don't mind Dawkins and Hitchens calling for the arrest of the Pope but unless there is evidence to convict him, it is a pointless exercise.

 

[Andalublue]

Not at all. Simply highlighting your ridiculous charges of incivility and intolerance for the benefit of all readers. You picked the wrong chickadee for that schtick to garner any traction.

They can judge for themselves, without you telling them what to believe.

For some reason, you seem to doubt that Israelis know all about Orthodoxy. That's a bit like saying Italians don't know jack about pasta. wtf?

As long as you are the Israeli that has the final say. I never made any claim to my own knowledge. Check back on the thread. I quoted an Israeli think tank who, unless you have superior qualifications, seem to have done their research. Have I misquoted them? Have they been discredited? That's a bit like saying Israelis don't know anything about Orthodoxy. Why should we accept your unsubstantiated assertions and reject their substantiated ones? If you give us good data, I'll believe you. Honest. Wiki pages don't really carry the same weight however.

 

[angrybeaver]

If someone makes a legitimate complaint to the police then they are obliged to investigate.

Besides, who's going to stop the arrest? God? :lol:

Dawkins and Hitchins can make a legitimate complaint if they like but the police will not investigate and the Pope will not be arrested

 

[Andalublue]

You can rise above this Andalublue, there's no particular need to be personal. Tashah is a better person than you think and has personal experience beyond what you may imagine.

I have made no personal attacks on Tashah, merely responded to her attacks. The sentence you quote above, and took me to task for, was a direct response to Tashah's comment from Post 35, "This is trite apologia and you know it. I suggest you get out more."

I think you'll find, if you read the preceding posts, that there were no personal comments exchanged up to that point.

I do feel however that Tashah's immediate experience in North Africa and the ME blind her to the other Muslim states around the world and how their technological developments stand up to those of the ME.

Agreed. X2.

Wrong person to throw that particular charge at. Having read some of Tashahs discussions with Laila and of Tashahs travels in the immediate ME and North Africa area, she speaks from wider first hand experience than you give credit.

I have no reason to doubt her experience of travel around the ME/Maghreb, but her posts do give reason to doubt her objectivity.

Maybe you'll explain why when Islam is generalised and the question - if I recall the original perpetrator - asks for "balance..."

This has been the entire thrust of my contributions; not to exonerate fundamentalist aspects of Islam but equally not to indulge in negative Islamic exceptionalism.

 

[Apocalypse]

They can judge for themselves, without you telling them what to believe.



As long as you are the Israeli that has the final say. I never made any claim to my own knowledge. Check back on the thread. I quoted an Israeli think tank who, unless you have superior qualifications, seem to have done their research. Have I misquoted them? Have they been discredited? That's a bit like saying Israelis don't know anything about Orthodoxy. Why should we accept your unsubstantiated assertions and reject their substantiated ones? If you give us good data, I'll believe you. Honest. Wiki pages don't really carry the same weight however.

You've quoted an article from the 80's for ****'s sake.
It speaks about Israel having 3.5 million Jews.
It has over 6 million Jews.

I've corrected you, carry on now.

 

[Gardener]

For some reason, you seem to doubt that Israelis know all about Orthodoxy. That's a bit like saying Italians don't know jack about pasta. wtf?

Or like saying a Spaniard doesn't know a thing or two about Bull.

 

[mbig]

Change will come ONLY if we hasten it, not apologize for it.
MAINSTREAM Islam is a Problem.
Not just a few terrorists.

'The Trouble With Islam'
Sadly, Mainstream Muslim teaching accepts and promotes violence.
Featured Article - WSJ.com


Quote:

I'm not arguing that Islam hasn't much to do in terms of reform. My trouble with all the Moslem attack posts on DP is that they condemn it as uniquely backward and repressive. That attitude seems as much based in neo-con political ideology than in any theological analysis. Check out some of the archaic practices in Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhism, African Animist theologies and then label Islam as uniquely retrogressive.

The operative word/STRAWMAN "Uniquely" Bolded! While trying to set up said strawman, Unwittingly he was just highlighting his Fallacy to those of minimal ken.

Islam is Inordinately Literalist, Intolerant, Violent, and Backwards.
THAT'S the Operative, Germaine, and Fair Word.
Not strawman "uniquely".

That one sentence, as you know, can be applied to almost any Religion. Its just better disguised within certain society's, and not necessarily placed at the vanguard of public policy.

No it Can't.
It's like a complete Denial-read of what I said.
I said Islam is Inordinately Violent, Etc. (compared to the others such as Buddhism andalublu named)
Inordinately means Unusually/Exceedingly COMPARED to the rest, NOT the same as the rest.
We have an simple English language problem here precipitated by a spolitcial position that not only refuses reality, but definition.
-

 

[Tashah]

:2wave: I have to apologise for the rubbish grammar of my last post - hard to type accurately when my 3 month old daughter (yikes - a girl!) is bubbling and cooing away on your knee.

Big congrats IC! A friendly warning though... girls can be “difficult”

I acknowledge your experience in the ME Tashah but Indonesia, Nigeria and other Islamic countries are not the same.

I agree with you here IC. I make no special claims beyond an intimate knowledge of Islam/Muslims in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia. You and I have had some strenuous encounters on this board. Granted, we don't always see eye-to-eye on everything. But I think we do agree that each of us enjoys a measure of unique knowledge beyond that of the typical user here.

I know that you have extensive experience vis-a-vis the African continent and I respect that. I learn from you, you learn from me. It's a shame not everyone can do likewise and extend the same respect and courtesy.

I do feel however that Tashah's immediate experience in North Africa and the ME blind her to the other Muslim states around the world and how their technological developments stand up to those of the ME.

I readily admit that not all is equal. But I take strong issue with the notion that 21st century Islam has little or no advantages vis-a-vis similar Reformation epochs in Judaism and Christianity. Such a position is disingenuous at best and apologist at worst.

And to Tashah, I think you wrong Andalublue there. I personally don't feel at that moment he meant you. He may do later after further responses / exchanges though.

He did indeed refer to me, as I will demonstrate in the next post.

 

[Tashah]

I have made no personal attacks on Tashah, merely responded to her attacks.

This is an outright untruth. Your attack...

I think neutral readers will draw their own conclusions as to where the bias and intolerance is coming from in this thread, and indeed, who is showing the greater degree of civility.

Clearly, implicit and explicit references that I am blatantly biased, that I display and embrace intolerance, and that I have been less than civil in this thread.

By any measure, an attempt to smear and demean via sinister and pejorative allusions. To allow such a contrivance to pass without a comment is both unrealistic and unreasonable. You're fortunate that I didn't report this as a flame post.

 

[alexa]

You've quoted an article from the 80's for ****'s sake.
It speaks about Israel having 3.5 million Jews.
It has over 6 million Jews.

I've corrected you, carry on now.

Thank you for pointing out the date. Unfortunately I was unable to find a link which makes a comparable study more recently.

I had however for some time been wondering who those Jews were, both in Israel and on the streets of London dressed as Orthodox, protesting the Gaza war and they appear to be from the group you mention.

A small minority of Jews, who claim to have been descended from communities who had lived peacefully with their Arab neighbors during the 18th and early 19th centuries, took a different stance. In 1935 they formed a new grouping called the Neturei Karta out of a coalition of several previous anti-Zionist Jewish groups in the Holy Land, and aligned themselves politically with the Arabs out of a dislike for Zionist policies.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredi_Judaism]Haredi Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Guess that is them and recent genetic research seems to be suggesting they may have been right.

Regardless of numbers, I thought it was pretty well understood that Orthodox religion was getting more of a hold in Israel. Is that not what some Israel soldiers themselves complained after the Gaza War.

Indeed the only time when I think I have ever agreed with you was when you said you had concerns about the religious in Israel gaining control.

Now when I was in Israel in the 70's they were not popular at all - thought of more as extremists to be kept away from.

The point I think Andalablue was making was that it is quite wrong to imagine any religion is free from zealotry. MBig has frequently argued that Islam well above everyone else for Literalism and yet an article I found discovered Christians in the US depending on where they were could have it as high as in the 80% and I think the average was around 50%.

All of this is so far off topic. Now RoR who rarely posts anything which is not anti - Islam brought this into this thread excusing this by saying he wanted balance.

On another forum I have joined it is Buddhists who are apparently the worst child molesters in the world.

Let's try and get this thread a bit more on topic.

 

[Degreez]

This is an outright untruth. Your attack...


Clearly, implicit and explicit references that I am blatantly biased, that I display and embrace intolerance, and that I have been less than civil in this thread.

By any measure, an attempt to smear and demean via sinister and pejorative allusions. To allow such a contrivance to pass without a comment is both unrealistic and unreasonable. You're fortunate that I didn't report this as a flame post.

How fortunate...

That quote of him is post #45.

Let's take a look at post #43:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...rrest-pope-he-visits-uk-5.html#post1058694316

I am much more familiar with Judaism and Islam than I am with Christianity. Too bad if that combination doesn't satisfy your preconceived notions of what a Westerner should know. Your bias and intolerance here are noted.

You yourself have no qualms commenting on alien religions, yet you expect me to hush up simply because I'm Jewish commenting on Islam? Your temerity boggles the mind.

So yes, Andalublue is right, you attacked him first.

 

[mbig]

How fortunate...

That quote of him is post #45.

Let's take a look at post #43:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...rrest-pope-he-visits-uk-5.html#post1058694316


So yes, Andalublue is right, you attacked him first.

Wrong again buddy.
You better keep me on ignore

Here was andalublue's post #40 to Tashah

I think the point is that you are indulging in non sequiturs.
You are positing that because we live in a world of mass communications, the continued existence of archaic forms of religious practice and belief should be transformed by that technology. You are using this False logic to score Partisan points against Your cultural/political/religious Enemies, the Moslems.

I think yours is the trite and Crass argument.

So you can't comment, right? But you feel qualified to comment on Islam, despite not being a Moslem.

[...............]

So who engaged in attack first?

And for the record, despite not being Christian or Islamic (and Jewish culturally and genetically only), I reserve my right to comment on Islam.
On the latter probably with more knowledge than most. Especially in regard it's interaction with the rest of the planet which is more an observation than scriptural.
Tho even scripturally, there are very few here who can discuss Islam as I can.
Immodest but true.

 

[Degreez]

Wrong again buddy.
You better keep me on ignore

Here was andalublue's post #40 to Tashah



So who engaged in attack first?

A non-sequitur is an informal fallacy. Stating that something is an informal fallacy is not an attack.

Trite and crass are descriptions of a post, not the poster, so it cannot be an attack.

Good day.

 

[Andalublue]

This is an outright untruth. Your attack...

Your attack...
Comment from Post 35, "This is trite apologia and you know it. I suggest you get out more."

This was the first personal attack in this thread. You aim it directly at me. My comment, to which you took umbrage, was not aimed solely at you, but also at Gardener, who had also been involved in the debate. Your assumption that I was referring only to you is solipsistic. You however, have been clearly less than civil in this thread...

From Post 33..."What you are suggesting here (a communications deficiency/curtain) is laughable."

From Post 43... "Your bias and intolerance here are noted." "Your temerity boggles the mind." "Sorry pal, it doesn't work that way with this chickadee." "Did you ever stop to consider how silly you sound tutoring the Jews and Israelis on this board about the composition of world Jewry while simultaneously castigating any Jew who dares utter a comment on Islam? Indeed."

From Post 49... "For some reason you seem to think anything Islam is by default primitive and isolated. That's your hangup." "You know me? I daresay, unless you are stalking me your temerity absolutely boggles the mind."

From Post 53... "In the future, look before you leap to shady conclusions."

Again, I'll leave others, mods included if you still feel like reporting me, to decide what constitutes civility. I'm not attacking you personally, just your argument.

The reason I include Gardener in my comments in a previous post are for comments such as the following:

Gardener to IC in Post 38... "My goodness, you are certainly right there with this hackneyed ruse. Just because others resort to such silly sophistry, that doesn't mean you need to add your voice."

Gardener to me in Post 41... "as it is your mindless apologia that is so irrational as to be the stuff of some sort of intentional campaign to deceive."

Clearly, implicit and explicit references that I am blatantly biased, that I display and embrace intolerance, and that I have been less than civil in this thread.

By any measure, an attempt to smear and demean via sinister and pejorative allusions. To allow such a contrivance to pass without a comment is both unrealistic and unreasonable. You're fortunate that I didn't report this as a flame post.

I did suggest that you were biased, is that infractable? I made no allusion or comment to the effect that you embrace intolerance. Please quote the post in which I said so, and I do indeed state that you have been less than civil, please see above.

I don't consider myself fortunate not to have been reported, please go ahead and let the mods decide.

 

[mbig]

A non-sequitur is an informal fallacy. Stating that something is an informal fallacy is not an attack.

Trite and crass are descriptions of a post, not the poster, so it cannot be an attack.

Good day.

TWO Lies and wrong in Both cases.
You don't have me on ignore and have not the self-control to keep to such even if you do.

Second, Veiled personal attacks of posts are still considered (and are) Personal attacks.
Not that the cited ones are even veiled!

Saying "YOUR arguments are Trite and Crass" IS Personal not just about a post. Definitely hostile.

It's also clearly "personal" to say to someone [Inferring they're a Hypocrite]... "Yet you feel qualified to comment on Islam even tho you're not a Muslim".
Not to mention Inane.
Since educated non-muslims are perfectly qualified to comment on Islam/Muslim interaction with the planet and on their own practices such as Sharia.
One doesn't have to live in Mecca to comment on Saudi Intolerance.
-

 

[Tashah]

I did suggest that you were biased, is that infractable? I made no allusion or comment to the effect that you embrace intolerance. Please quote the post in which I said so, and I do indeed state that you have been less than civil, please see above.

I've said what needed saying. No point in further derailing this thread. I'm confident we'll meet again somewhere down the road.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

Alright, let's all get back on topic.

 

[Andalublue]

I've said what needed saying. No point in further derailing this thread. I'm confident we'll meet again somewhere down the road.

No doubt. Happy to return to the matter in hand.

In a previous post Digsbe linked to an article from Huffington by an Irish writer who calls for a tit-for-tat action against Dawkins for concealing the 'crimes of atheism', whatever they may be. Several comments from readers posted after the article pointed out the false comparison. I recommend the article, or rather the comments, to everyone on the thread.

I suspect that the original Dawkins/Hitchens call to be a stunt designed to inflame the, in my terms, righteous anger at the Pope not being called to account for his actions in relation to the abusive priests. They are following a tactic that a famous UK gay activist, Peter Tatchell has used several times to garner wide publicity. One stunt of his was to attempt a citizens arrest on Robert Mugabe when he visited Britain some years ago. Tatchel was attacked and beaten by Mugabe's bodyguards.

I suspect Dawkins and Hitchens won't put their bodies where their mouths are in quite the same manner.