David Boaz

I think the use of religion as a means to power is a dangerous thing. It has occurred in Christianity and you agree with this. But as the Nazi experience showed it is not necessary to hijack a religion to produce fanatic actions based on a belief structure.

Your argument is that Islam is structured in such a way that it is inevitably a tool for power. Fellow human argues that it is not. It is obvious that there is a movement that is actively trying to hijack Islam. This is equally troubling to Islam and Islamic countries, remember that they suffer much more from the extremists than you or I do but the hijackers have significant traction amongst the poor and illiterate and are good value to a despotic regime. (such regimes are by no means unique to Islamic countries).

But it is important to separate the two. The inquisitors distorted their scriptures to this end and no doubt the Muslim Brotherhood is doing the same.

Personally I do not care what belief structure anyone has as long as they are good people and respect others. If religion is a help to someone along a decent path then all power to that.

TR: I hope the irony of your situation is not lost on you. The only argument of Dawkins that has any emotional appeal is the argument that monotheism – or any theism, I suppose – is a common cause of war and other strife. Lots of evidence to that effect. True. The rest of his stuff is, whether strong or weak, confined to one’s left hemisphere and is dry stuff issuing from the little empiricist box.

I don’t mean the dry stuff has no merit or power, I mean that Dawkins relies on his colourful debunking of the misbehaviour of theists to energise the interest in his dry stuff.

The irony facing you on this site just now is that, while the various monotheists are working out a peace deal, you’re baying for blood. You think we are “bigoted”, yet it is clear that you are. Or at least, that you also are.

You say,

“Freethinkers, rationalists and scientists are merely presenting a worldview with the facts as they see them.”

True – the facts “as they seem them”. Good for them. I think the rest of us are doing the same. We just see more facts than your freethinkers, rationalists and scientists.

You keep claiming a monopoly on rational thought. This is a socially jarring claim to make, so I think you need to establish your monopoly.

By the way, I don’t think any of us is asking for any special respect, just respect. The respect owed to all human beings. Not “reverence”, just civility. This would be asking too much of Richard Dawkins. Is it asking too much of you?

Pax,

TR has assigned himself (or herself) a position of superior self-righteousness that posits man worships man and that anti-religious writings are an equal substitute to religious texts.
An argument that white being valued as white can be replaced by green and no difference will be made.

The love of God equals the love of self equals the love of fellow man, which must never be misconstrued for the love of religion and the love of power. Religious Extremist have always done great harm and fueled the righteousness of the God haters. Religious extremist love religion for it's potential power over man not as an example of the love of God. They, the religious extremist, are as much God haters themselves and for this very reason must be denied the use of religion in the name of God. This is evil constantly trying to assert itself over the good by using the institutions of the good as a weapon turned inward. The destroyers are amongst us with smiling faces, and we will know them tomorrow by their smiling faces because we no longer will be able to smile with them.

TR,
Thank you for your sincere words. Well, I do not think being polite is the same thing as pussy footing about anything, neither is being abusive the same thing as being critical. I also put the word "civilised" in quotation marks, because it is hard to define, since different cultures or civilisations have different values and tastes, but still. You are right, you do not have to treat religion with more reverence than you are capable of, however you should treat with reverence people for whom this or that religion, or ethnicity or political preferences etc. are part of their intellectual and emotional makeup.

How many thinkers, Jewish, Christian or Muslim, have you had a discussion with to be able to claim that you are more rational than them? What urges you to make such sweeping statements? You see, I have never had any formal religious education since I grew up in Stalinist country. So I could quote a lot of (marx-leninist) atheist nonsense that was presented to us (and that actually convinced me that there must be something to That which they were so scared of). However, it would never occur to me to claim that Vidal or Dawkins are equally stupid, unable to think rationally (their problem is of a different kind).

Dear Logic
you said:

"Your argument is that Islam is structured in such a way that it is inevitably a tool for power. Fellow human argues that it is not. It is obvious that there is a movement that is actively trying to hijack Islam"

Not quite. I'm saying 'Islam' is a political animal by nature.
If you look closely at the rise of Islam, Mohammad was establishing 'The Islamic State' from the day he entered Medina.
This is common knowledge and quite accepted, it is even 'claimed' by Muslims. The whole concept of Sharia law presupposes a political 'state'.

Islam is not a 'tool' for power, it 'IS' power. FH is just giving you the 'minority muslim' spin :)

So, I have to politely disagree that there is any movement trying to 'hijack' Islam, I suggest that movement is simply asserting it as it really is. Pity we don't have a few hours over cofee to discuss this in front of a computer and look at many sources.

Here is something which might interest you. (if ur in Melbourne)

http://www.icjs-online.org/cf.php?a=8R0bZrCN552K19YRIbIUlbexYWq67ECm

Screening of the movie "Obsession" at Beth Weizman (Caulfield)

Hear 'it' from the mouths of Muslims....don't worry about me saying it :) They can tell the story far better than I can.
cheers.

TR, you quoted Dawkins: "[Christianity, Judaism and Islam] are literally patriarchal - God is the Omnipotent Father - hence the loathing of women for 2000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly delegates."

1. To view Allah as "father" is offensive to many Muslims.

2. Jesus was extremely progressive in his treatment of women. In a patriarchal society Jesus showed remarkable love and respect towards the women he encountered (eg a Samaritan woman in John 4 - this was scandalous for the times). Those who follow after Jesus should by definition (ie 'Christian') exhibit the same traits that he did.

It is a shame that very few Dawkinites can debate without abrasive and deliberately offensive jibes (as evident on Dawkins' website). Forget religion being the source of evil, imagine if this intolerent and empirical belief system continues in the same manner. This is not anti-religion but a whole new belief system in itself.

Tell me, sir, what is the difference is between your belief system - which many are trying to impose on the wider community - and the other faiths that you are trying to destroy? It reeks of 'Sharia' to me.

ps I am braced for personal attacks as seems to be par for the course (again, as per Dawkins' site).