An excellent article thanks.

It is essential that we criticize people who are now alive when they make idiotic statements. The criticized person can then answer back and a chance exists to change the opinion of some of those who have accepted the idiodic views.

When a person is deceased, and particularly when a person has been long deceased and his or her ideas are now incorrectly accepted as true by a religious following, then the criticism should be directed at the ideas using evidence to show why the ideas are no longer tenable.

For example just today I saw an excellent short video on the dangers of foisting creationism on young children. Fundamentalist religious leaders, and even some publicly funded schools, still indoctrinate young children with creationist ideas that stunt the child's intellectual development. That is a genuine great evil and our governments should not fund it.

The video is less than three minutes long and is available at;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU&feature=player_embedded

People who believe in things which they think are rational and can be supported by evidence respond to criticism by putting forward that evidence and discussing its relevance. The fact that fundamentalist Muslims are unable or unwilling to do this shows their own deep sense of doubt and uncertainty about the beliefs they claim to espouse. The protests are the political equivalent of a toddler, caught being naughty, threatening to hold its breath until it turns blue.

Maybe the collapse of Islam is closer than we think.

The extreme sensitivity of millions of Moslems to criticism, ridicule, whatever (actually dissent) of their idol calls to mind a ridiculing song popular in 1942: "Ve go Heil! Heil! Right in der Führer's face". What a red rag to a bull that would have been to tens of millions lost in adulation of a scoundrel! A sneering dagger at the heart of something more vital to them than life itself - hunger to end freedom throughout the world.

What do the message of Nazis and the message of Islam have in common? The will to suppress dissent, from the most banal to the most profound. Death to infidels, apostates, blasphemers! Islamophobia and Naziphobia have the one message: "No way, José"

#...Religious ideas are not only personal convictions; they also have a nasty habit of crossing over into the political sphere…#

Go on!!

...Christianity abandoned its crusade against immorality long ago in the West. Secularism and Christianity both face off to that abandonment in many ways. One of which is the surprise at displays of moral outrage among Muslims world-wide, of insults to historic beliefs of Islam; and human rights abuses ignored as the combined forces of the West attacked Islam directly, in unjustified wars in the Middle East and central Asia. While Pakistan and Iran await the inevitable, tensions naturally heighten. Secularism and Christianity are seen by Muslims as “sluts” and rightly so!

Moira writes

'It is even more unfortunate that certain religious leaders find it necessary to make racist, misogynous or homophobic pronouncements to their followers'

It is also unfortunate that fundamental secularism promotes immorality, perversion, Christophobia, abortion and then are often apologist for Islam. Secularist promote free speach until their idiotic pseudo science such as demonstrated by the warmist industry is exposed for its fraud. I love the way secularist take the 'high 'moral ground despite the fact they really have no moral basis for their failed philosophy.

Oh dear, Runner has missed the point and charged off into a rant.

There is nothing new about anti-science and accusations of warmism. What the author has argued for, and done so very well, is the right of contested free speech, the freedom to argue, not some kind of right to spout utter nonsense without challenge.

Quote: "...if we really want to live in a society where we can be aware of unpalatable points of view, discuss them and explain why they are wrong, we must let him [Hilaly, Runner, anybody] speak."

The key is discussion and explanation. This is not the time or place to discuss or explain the subject of warmism, by whatever name. The discussion here is about the rights of all to discuss anything at all with reason and without censorship or threat.

So, Runner may say whatever he chooses, but in the absense of any factual basis to his statements, his use of terms including "idiotic... pseudo science... fraud... failed philosophy" speaks volumes for his attitude and zero for the reasoning behind it, if any.

An interesting and thoughful article, thanks Moira, and comments by Foyle and John Bennetts were appreciated.

It would be great to have statements from our leaders,( if they are worthy of that term) and also hopefully from Islamic people, along the lines that any belief that calls for its critics to be killed etc is totally evil, as well as ignorant and stupid.

Having tried to read the Koran and the Old Testament I would be happy to see them both consigned to a dusty library somewhere. The New Testament is a great statement of ethics if one ignores the unbelievable miracle folklore. As has been said often enough, belief should be based on rationality and evidence.

"Secularism and Christianity are seen by Muslims as “sluts” and rightly so!"

You are obviously a weirdo; if you don't like a secular society, the best type of society invented by humanity, then leave.

The same can be said to the rioting muslims and indeed any muslim who wants the secular society of Australia to be replaced by sharia law.

Leave.

That they don't means they do not respect this society and are quislings and want to change it.

This is a reasonable article; religion is always political; Islam is the most overtly political religion ever; it wants political dominance; the methodology of achieving its political goal of sharia law varies between its exponents, from the rioting to more measured demands, but the goal is the same.

That islam uses secular freedoms of speech to promote its values which are opposed to freedom of speech is just one of the many hypocrises which islam brings with it.

If diver dan thinks "Christianity abandoned its crusade against immorality long ago in the West", it would be interesting if he and runner were to tell us why they are such indefatigable contributors to this forum.

The real problem, of course -- and this is what irritates the heck out of them -- is that Christianity is still crusading like mad, but fewer and fewer people are paying any attention. And Islam, unless it eradicates itself in a spasm of self-loathing, will inevitably go the same way.

JonJ

' The real problem, of course -- and this is what irritates the heck out of them -- is that Christianity is still crusading like mad, but fewer and fewer people are paying any attention. '

Sorry mate you are wrong. I have no doubt that truth will always be truth and still be around along time after you and me have gone to meet our Maker. The number of people adhering to something does not make it right or wrong otherwise the Muslims will soon win hands down simply by breeding. Whether you care to admit it now or not I have no doubt that you along with every other human will bow their knee to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Sure at the moment people bow their knee to mother earth, pseudo science, feminism, secularism and every other devil but it won't always be the case. Jesus could do anything except lie unlike some of the blather mouths on Q@A last night who were so full of themselves it was sickening. God certainly is patient.

Well said mr Foyle, this is an excellent article and as Cohenite notes it is reasonable. Religion is always political. In whatever form, religion is a mechanism for social organisation having rules and traditions. The inconsistencies or contradictions within the Muslim community, in this instance, with regard to 'free speech' is quite unfathomable!

Cohenite.
Yeah kinda sorta, the temporal power of the papacy was expressed and understood quite differently to the powers of an Imam or a Rabbi.
Emperor Julian,
Mohammed and Adolf Hitler need to be placed in history in the same context as Napoleon Bonaparte, Mao Zedong or Julius Caesar, they're messianic figures and can't ever be cast as scoundrels or folk devils, comparing Nazism to Islam on the basis that they are/were "cults" and their followers mere thralls is dangerously simplistic, "thrall" means "slave" and it's not the correct way to view willing followers of a genuinely inspired leader.

"the temporal power of the papacy was expressed and understood quite differently to the powers of an Imam or a Rabbi."

I agree; this, in fact, is the strength of islam in the modern era; it is not a centralised religion; even within the same strains of islam there are competing hierarchies.

It is extremely difficult for the West to deal with; even if an arrangement is reached with one islamic leader, others will not necessarily cease hostilities.

So, while the competing strains of islam may have a common purpose, sharia law and a caliphate, hence the monolithism of islam, the details will vary, hence the illusion of islamic diversity.

Looked at in this way islam is as close to natural selection as is humanly possible; it is a rebuttal of the claim that human evolution has ceased although what the selecting criteria for adaptive fitness are is problematic.

Diver Dan and Runner need to do some decent reading and expand their actual knowledge.

Robert Ardrey's writings are now rather ancient but on some matters I have found no better comments. In 1966 he wrote, in The Territorial Imperative (Ch 9, p377-8 Fortune Paperback);
"....we must know that the territorial imperative - just, one it is true of the evolutionary forces playing upon our lives – is the biological law on which we have founded our edifices of human morality. Our capacities for sacrifice, for altruism, for sympathy, for trust, for responsibilities to other than self-interest, for honesty, for charity, for friendship and love, for social amity and mutual interdependence have evolved just as surely as the flatness of our feet, the muscularity of our buttocks, and the enlargement of our brain; out of the encounter on ancient African savannahs between the primate potential and the hominid circumstance".

So much for getting our guidance from ancient scribblings of people who believed men were not bound by the iron laws of chemistry and physics.

The farming and herding tribes of the Middle East only arrived on the human scene some 150,000 years after the appearance of the first modern humans.

Diver dan
"Secularism and Christianity are seen by Muslims as “sluts” and rightly so!"us all, I hope these attempts fail. Freedom is a two-way street, otherwise it is not freedom at all.

The muslims see all their women as sluts if they don’t cover the fact that they are women in public with big black sheets and face masks.) Thats why they belt them and sexually assualt or imprison them for not wearing the prescribed clothes.

Look at free women in the world competing magnificiently in Sport and the Olympics, hard to do in a big black sheet, because Moslem men want to label them as sluts for daring to go about looking like what they are women.

Here is a radical idea for you diver dan and all the Moslems, women are people; just like men; they are neither sluts or holy, they are just ordinary human beings.

Maybe the Moslem religion should impose certain hours of curfew on their men, so the women could go about their daily lives in the street without being accosted and abused by Moslem men. After all
it is the men who are the aggressors.

Why do you have nipples diver dan? Because you are a copy of the prototype female fetus. Men twist it around and make it sound as though women are an inferior copy of them.Especially religious men.

Scientifically, (in the Lab) this is not so, the XX female chromosomes are the dominant programmer Of the human. The Y(male chromosome) is only imposed over the already perfect human being that is the XX chromosome to change the sex to male.

Funny how men never advertise this scientific fact isn’t it? If it was the other way round they would be bellowing it incessantly in the face of every woman to try to justify the religious lie that they are superior and come first. Very quiet on this one aren't they, maybe because they are afraid of the truth and they'll loose their power to bully women. Does this free speech even though it is true, frighten you Diver dan?

Excellent article, Moira, but i don't think you really meant that it was unfortunate that people find reasons to mock beliefs. In fact people who criticise and on occasion mock beliefs are public benefactors.
I also think that there is merit in the observation that Muslims are reacting against contempt on the part of the West. Of course this invites the question: why is such contempt felt?

Cheerful:

...Your eloquent abuse is noted! It may in fact be true you realise, that Muslims do actually equate Christianity and secularism as indistinguishable. But what is more seriously disturbing is the vulnerability of Christian communities living among Muslim majorities…We can only hope for their continued welfare!

...You have a very “dim” view of Muslims don’t you: But secularism is under attack, from the bottom up! It is the direction of the assault which is confounding the political elite. A military response will fail: They fail to realise the significance and power of religious morality juxtaposed with hypocrisy.

...One would think the experience over thousands of years with the hypocrisy of Catholicism, would be lesson enough; but it does seem that historic lessons have been lost on our modern society.

An interesting article that makes the reader think about the extreme effects that radical followers of ANY religion can have on society.

Unfortunately, if we live in a country of free speech and democracy, we have to take the good with the bad. We have to put up with what may be offensive words to us, and can only do something about it if it is illegal eg violent riots.

Most of these religions are only a few thousand years old, so I wonder how our ancestors managed to survive in a world without Jesus, Mohamed, Allah etc, and the religious books written by mere humans who think they knew what these 'Gods' said.

I wouldn't mind giving it a try...

It is a pity that creationist Christians and Muslims do not look at and appreciate the real wonders of the universe. The time span since the first herders and farmers until now is infinitesimal compared to the age of our planet which is only one third the age of the earliest light now reaching our telescopes.
The short video at the following site is worth watching.
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2012/37/video/a/

My dearest Foyle:

...The reverse could also be argued Foyle, The deeper science explores the physics of the universe, the more the mystery deepens, the more also, the complete and total insignificance of human kind must likewise dawn.

...Human ancestors were willing to draw conclusions of humanities total reliance on the physics of the universe, as it applied to their limited knowledge of the science of the universe, which varied through the course of human history, and extrapolate conclusions into a definition of religion.

...The same conclusions may just as easily be drawn by looking into the night sky with the naked eye and observing the immensity of what is “out there”, without the need to dissect their observations into finite scientific analysis.

...I think personally, scientists need to keep in touch with a reality of human frailty, in endeavours of exploration, perchance they fall victim to a misbelief that a concept of superior human intelligence trumps the omnipotence of God and his universe.

Jay Of Melbourne. Imagree that " the temporal power of the papacy was expressed and understood quite differently to the powers of an Imam or a Rabbi. " to understand that difference one needs to distinguish between the 'political' and 'theological' aspects of the three great monotheisms. The political has to do with the organisation and running of society ie. 'power', whilst the theological deals with the underlying tennets of mans relationship with God. The exercise of this power and evolution of the various 'churches' reflected the socio/political norms of the time.

I also agree that the comparison of Nazizm and Islam is overly simplistic but, at the same time, one can readily argue that Muslims can be described as in 'thrall' and are in fact 'slaves' to the Koran. I think that you will find that Muslims are proud to be in this slavery.

to describe all those of the Umma as "willing followers of a genuinely inspired leader" is drawing a long bow to those living in the 7th 8th and 9th centuries. (and to an extent still today) They were 'willing' to the extend that having your head chopped off as the alternative.

Cohenite. I agree that " Islamic diversity" is illusionary, in that the goal of Islam is to force, by any means necessary, the rule of Sharia and the Caliphate on the world.

However, I cannot see how " this, in fact, is the strength of islam in the modern era".

The appalling slaughter of Allawites, Shia and Sunni branches of Islam within Syria and evidenced in all those countries suffering the 'Arab spring' cannot be described as a 'strength'

Diver Dan
They fail to realise the significance and power of religious morality juxtaposed with hypocrisy.
...One would think the experience over thousands of years with the hypocrisy of Catholicism, would be lesson enough; but it does seem that historic lessons have been lost on our modern society.

The West understands clearly the hypocrisy of the Catholic church from earlier times in our history.
Because it is our history; and we have seen what fundamentalist religions are capable of. That is why we look at the Muslim religion with horror! because we see it espousing the same ideas,that the Christian church did in centuries past.

A list of the dictates of fundamentalist religions throughout history
1. Kill the Heretics(Catholic religion). Kill the Infidel (Moslem religion)
2. Control the women and their fertility. ( both Catholic&Muslim religions.) why? Because the power base of any Religion depends on the number of believers and bums on seats. The Christian religion
still won't allow contraception but their followers today don't allow them to dictate how many children they should have.
3. Control the sex lives of everybody else with their ridiculous ideas and strange fear of anything sexual, as if sexual sin is worse than murder, torture and all kinds of other violence.

4. All those people outside of our religion aren’t pure, so we should be careful not to mix with them.The Moslems with their you’re are going to hell sign and we are not(because we are pure And holy?). Then there are the Quakers and Amish who are told not to mix with people on the outside because they are not holy or pure.
Religions are so predictable.

Maybe it is you who needs to look carefully at history and understand that the Muslim religion is exactly the same in its ideas and dictates as the earlier Catholic and Christian religion was and most other religions to boot, and understand that this the reason the West has secular government, because we know better than anyone else what we suffered at the hands of fundamentalist religions in our earlier centuries.

Dear Foyle,
The main danger if kids are presented with evidence for creation is that they might stop believing in evolution. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're so worried about.

I looked at your 3 minute Youtube video on the evils of teaching creation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU&feature=player_embedded

And then I compared that video to a very similar one produced by the creationists themselves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xSi8g2ouCQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I found the creationist one more reasonable. Perhaps that's just me.

By the way, I pretty much agree with your comments above in your opening post, and the general thrust of the article. You seem to be saying that we need to challenge false ideas with free, open and informed debate. I agree with that. I just profoundly disagree with you as to which are the false ideas in need of challenging.

.

Dear Moira,

.

Thank you for drawing my attention de Mr Hilaly and his opinion of Australian women.

I understand that Mr Hilaly was somewhat begrudgingly granted "permanent residence" in 1990, at the age of 49 after having arrived in Australia in 1982.

Though Mr Hilaly has now been living in Australia for the past 30 years, it is quite evident that he does not accept the lifestyle of Australian women. Nor does he accept Australian law which severely condemns rapists. He obviously remains immersed in the Egyptian tradition which considers the female victim as the guilty party and the rapist to be her innocent victim.

Mr Hilaly is now 71 years old. As he has never managed to accept Australian laws and traditions, it is most unlikely that he will be able to do so during the coming years. It is difficult to teach an old horse new tricks.

As it would seem that he is Egyptian, as a foreign national he has a duty to refrain from interfering in Australian internal affairs. Failure to do so exposes him to the risk of being expulsed from the country back to his homeland.

Even if he has been granted Australian citizenship, he probably has double nationality: Australian and Egyptian.

Whatever his status, there is a good case for having his permanent residence permit or Australian nationality cancelled and deporting him back to his beloved Egypt whose culture he dearly wishes to impose on all Australians.

The fact that he is still here raises the question as to possible connections he may have with the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO).

On the subject of ostentatious dress attire, some Australians may consider that Mr Hilaly's robe, sandals, beard and borderless hat are more noticeable and offensive in the street than a mini-skirt on a pretty young girl.

Perhaps he should be confined to his mosque or bedroom in such provocative attire and only allowed out on the street, cleanly shaven, wearing a t-shirt, a pair of shorts and tongs, accompanied by his wife or wives in proper knee-high floral dresses.

.

Foyle,
At the end of the article it says, 'freedom (of speech) is a two-way street, otherwise it is not freedom at all.'

Yet there are those in educational circles that wish to stifle any and all discussion of the possibility of intelligent design or divine creation. They claim that the evolutionary story, their version of what took place in natural history in the unseen eons of time past many millions and billions of years ago, is beyond doubt and strictly the only way that history may be interpreted. And therefore all other theories of history must be suppressed and the Neo-Darwinian account must not even be critiqued.

Just to clarify, do you count yourself among these?

Creation and ID are junk:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/wackononsense.pdf

.

Dear cohenite,

.

Many thanks for that interesting comparative study of evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory by John Rennie, editor in chief of Scientific American.

I shall keep it for further reference.

.

.

Dear Dan,

.

It is my understanding that for any theory to be accepted, if only temporarily, it must be capable of resisting challenge based on natural deduction from all and any quarters, including peer review.

It would certainly be contrary to scientific method to "stifle discussion" on Darwin's theory of evolution.

I think you will agree that there continues to be a lively debate on this subject. The problem, evidently lies elsewhere.

It relates essentially to what we should teach our children. Parents are free to teach them what they want. Some religious or independent schools may also have this possibility. It is more complicated for state or public schools and all those schools which are obliged to respect state educational policy and curriculum.

Barring domination by a religious authority, the state usually bases its teachings on state of the art scientific knowledge. That by no means excludes the fact that such knowledge may later be proven to be totally inaccurate, as has often been the case in the past.

For the time being, there is a fairly large consensus among biologists that we have no better explanation of life in all its diversity than Darwin's theory of evolution.

Proponents of the intelligent design theory are mostly recruited among the various religious communities, including some of the best scientific minds who can find no scientific explanation for their observations. But that, of course, should not be interpreted otherwise than as a lack of scientific knowledge.

Lobbying for a change in school curricula is putting the cart before the horse. Proponents of the intelligent design theory have first to convince their peers among the scientific community that their theory is both scientifically well-founded and a superior explanation of life in all its diversity, not just the usual universal response of religion, whatever the topic and whatever the query: faith.

.

Dear Banjo,
My comments on this topic were made in support of free speech and freedom of discussion. From Cohenite’s link above to John Rennie's article, it would seem there is some debate occurring on creation and evolution. Why else would Rennie write such an article? Rennie admits, "in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy." He omits to make mention of the number of scientists that are also persuaded.

From your response, you give the impression that the "large consensus" towards Darwinian evolution is something other than a simple majority of opinion. However, science never progressed by means of majority vote but rather by the advance of evidence and argument.

That certain ideas are favoured and in vogue for a time is the history of science. The change from geocentrism to heliocentrism did not occur overnight. Often changes are generational, like 'scientific revolutions', a phrase popularised by Thomas Kuhn. Your post admits that certain views which are well held are often discarded at a later time.

So with evolution still struggling (perhaps increasingly so) to gain overall acceptance, debate must continue. The degree to which the current debate is being stifled is described in the Ben Stein documentary film "Expelled" and in the book 'Slaughter of the Dissidents’ by Jerry Bergman, which documents cases of discrimination against those who doubt the Darwinian orthodoxy.

With regard change in public school curricula, no creationist organisation is lobbying for creation to be inserted. It’s too controversial. Yet they do argue that there be freedom for evolution to be questioned and its weaknesses be open to query. Rather than forever propped up, it be taught ‘warts and all’ so students are not kept in the dark about the controversy.

Those sceptical of Darwinism are not just religious. To summarise the position of the agnostic David Berlinski. There are really only two reasons to doubt Darwinian Evolution: 1. it makes very little sense and 2. it is supported by very little evidence.

.

Dear Dan,

.

Thank you for explaining your comments and placing them in context.

We seem to be basically in agreement except for a couple of points where my vision differs.

I did not suggest that science "progressed by means of majority vote". I indicated that "the state usually bases its teachings on state of the art scientific knowledge" and that "for the time being, there is a fairly large consensus among biologists that we have no better explanation of life in all its diversity than Darwin's theory of evolution".

I noted that it was on the basis of this " fairly large consensus among biologists" (which you qualify as a "majority vote") that "for the time being", the state chooses to teach evolutionary theory rather than intelligent design theory.

However, I do agree with you that science does not "progress by means of a majority vote". If, therefore, at some future time, "the majority vote" were to swing in favour of intelligent design theory, obviously, science will still not have progressed one single iota.

You indicate that " With regard change in public school curricula, no creationist organisation is lobbying for creation to be inserted".

In fact, I had in mind the US when I wrote: " Lobbying for a change in school curricula is putting the cart before the horse".

Perhaps you might like to check out the following Wikipedia article on the question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_in_politics

It is true that, as you say: " Yet they (creationist organisations) do argue that there be freedom for evolution to be questioned and its weaknesses be open to query".

Their lobbying activity, nevertheless, seems real.

.

Dear Banjo,
You could accuse anyone who makes a public statement of lobbying depending on how you choose to define lobbying.

And I wouldn't advise you believe everything you read on Wikipedia.

>>And I wouldn't advise you believe everything you read on Wikipedia.<<

Yeah you should stick with a trustworthy source like Conservapedia:

http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page

Cheers,

Tony