Spectator N0 2653 By Cheesecracker
Crosswords1 min ago
Richard Dawkins 'to Hell With Their Culture'
24 Answers
Guess what he is referring to?
But how many here think he has overstepped the mark or is he simply saying what many are afraid to?
http://
But how many here think he has overstepped the mark or is he simply saying what many are afraid to?
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by agchristie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Do you agree with the rest of what Dawkins said, is about free speech at Universities, or are you just cherry picking the stuff you agree with?
// Maher and Dawkins started the discussing by criticising universities for banning extreme speakers.
That was sparked by the news former Muslim Maryam Namazie had a visit to Warwick University cancelled.
Dawkins said it ridiculed the whole ethos of universities.
He said: "At the university I went to, the University of California at Berkeley, we had the free speech movement in the 1960s.
"What a betrayal we're seeing now with campuses all over America and Britain denying people the right to speak. //
// Maher and Dawkins started the discussing by criticising universities for banning extreme speakers.
That was sparked by the news former Muslim Maryam Namazie had a visit to Warwick University cancelled.
Dawkins said it ridiculed the whole ethos of universities.
He said: "At the university I went to, the University of California at Berkeley, we had the free speech movement in the 1960s.
"What a betrayal we're seeing now with campuses all over America and Britain denying people the right to speak. //
Dawkins is interested in ideas.
So he is perceptive to *new* ideas.
What he is not interested in is 800 year old doctrine.
We shouldn't deny muslims, or christians or Jews the right to freely express themselves. But if they are just regurgitating old ideas, we do not have to be polite to them.
In this instance, Dawkins is not interested in why a man is justifying beating his wife up. He doesn't want to hear it, and dismisses it.
'To hell with their culture' is just an old man frustrated with constantly hearing the same rubbish.
So he is perceptive to *new* ideas.
What he is not interested in is 800 year old doctrine.
We shouldn't deny muslims, or christians or Jews the right to freely express themselves. But if they are just regurgitating old ideas, we do not have to be polite to them.
In this instance, Dawkins is not interested in why a man is justifying beating his wife up. He doesn't want to hear it, and dismisses it.
'To hell with their culture' is just an old man frustrated with constantly hearing the same rubbish.
The headline, "... Richard Dawkins in extraordinary blast at Muslims..." says it all. The press think that it's "extraordinary" that someone might think that Islam is not conducive to a good and free society.
The press, pretty much like very one else, has fallen for the lie that Islam is a harmless religion. They think it's like Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism. Just another 'harmless' belief system. What utter morons. Islam is fascistic and its goal is to convert the entire human race to its insane religion at the point of a sword. This is all detailed in black and white in the Koran - it's not hidden nor is it secret - it's common knowledge amongst muslims and those who have read the teachings of Mohammed. Those who refuse to convert will either be killed or forced into effective slavery - paying an exorbitant "tax" (Jizya) to ensure that they're not murdered and their families not raped and/or sold into slavery.
https:/
What's so frustrating about this terrifying threat to liberal, free-thinking, tolerant societies is that the powers that be seem almost wilfully blind to the very real threat that Islam poses. I'm often reminded of The Cure's fabulous track called, Lullaby, whenever the liberal media speaks about Islam. The lyric, "Come into my parlour, said the spider to the fly; we'll have a little snooze there" always springs to mind.
I'm so glad that someone as high profile as Dawkins has the guts to say this kind of thing publicly.
The press, pretty much like very one else, has fallen for the lie that Islam is a harmless religion. They think it's like Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism. Just another 'harmless' belief system. What utter morons. Islam is fascistic and its goal is to convert the entire human race to its insane religion at the point of a sword. This is all detailed in black and white in the Koran - it's not hidden nor is it secret - it's common knowledge amongst muslims and those who have read the teachings of Mohammed. Those who refuse to convert will either be killed or forced into effective slavery - paying an exorbitant "tax" (Jizya) to ensure that they're not murdered and their families not raped and/or sold into slavery.
https:/
What's so frustrating about this terrifying threat to liberal, free-thinking, tolerant societies is that the powers that be seem almost wilfully blind to the very real threat that Islam poses. I'm often reminded of The Cure's fabulous track called, Lullaby, whenever the liberal media speaks about Islam. The lyric, "Come into my parlour, said the spider to the fly; we'll have a little snooze there" always springs to mind.
I'm so glad that someone as high profile as Dawkins has the guts to say this kind of thing publicly.
"That was sparked by the news former Muslim Maryam Namazie had a visit to Warwick University cancelled. " The students' union tried to ban former muslim Maryam Namazie citing fears that the human rights campaigner could offend Islam and Muslim students.
http://
Maryam, born in Iran has experienced the realities of Islam. She was 12 when the Iranian revolution started. Her school was closed for islamicisation and the TV news broadcast executions daily and so on. She later moved to Sudan which became an Islamic republic 6 months after her arrival.
http://
Maryam, born in Iran has experienced the realities of Islam. She was 12 when the Iranian revolution started. Her school was closed for islamicisation and the TV news broadcast executions daily and so on. She later moved to Sudan which became an Islamic republic 6 months after her arrival.
naomi24
/// Yes, he is saying what many are afraid to say - and he's absolutely right. This is only considered ‘extraordinary’ because criticism of Islam is perceived to be a no-go area - and that speaks volumes. ///
And that is why sites such as this are so popular, it is only on sites such as this where views and thoughts can be discussed without the need to look over one's shoulder.
Admittedly you still get some who wish to muffle those who don't toe the PC line, with their repeated 'racist', "Islamophobic", "Xenophobic", "Bigot" name calling.
/// Yes, he is saying what many are afraid to say - and he's absolutely right. This is only considered ‘extraordinary’ because criticism of Islam is perceived to be a no-go area - and that speaks volumes. ///
And that is why sites such as this are so popular, it is only on sites such as this where views and thoughts can be discussed without the need to look over one's shoulder.
Admittedly you still get some who wish to muffle those who don't toe the PC line, with their repeated 'racist', "Islamophobic", "Xenophobic", "Bigot" name calling.
@ Danny
Dawkins is on record generally saying this:-
" It would be intolerant if I advocated the banning of religion, but of course I never have. I merely give robust expression to views about the cosmos and morality with which you happen to disagree. You interpret that as `intolerance’ because of the weirdly privileged status of religion, which expects to get a free ride and not have to defend itself. If I wrote a book called The Socialist Delusion or The Monetarist Delusion, you would never use a word like intolerance. But The God Delusion sounds automatically intolerant. Why?What’s the difference? I have a (you might say fanatical)desire for people to use their own minds and make their own choices, based upon publicly available evidence. Religious fanatics want people to switch off their own minds, ignore the evidence, and blindly follow a holy book based upon private ‘revelation’. There is a huge difference."
Dawkins is on record generally saying this:-
" It would be intolerant if I advocated the banning of religion, but of course I never have. I merely give robust expression to views about the cosmos and morality with which you happen to disagree. You interpret that as `intolerance’ because of the weirdly privileged status of religion, which expects to get a free ride and not have to defend itself. If I wrote a book called The Socialist Delusion or The Monetarist Delusion, you would never use a word like intolerance. But The God Delusion sounds automatically intolerant. Why?What’s the difference? I have a (you might say fanatical)desire for people to use their own minds and make their own choices, based upon publicly available evidence. Religious fanatics want people to switch off their own minds, ignore the evidence, and blindly follow a holy book based upon private ‘revelation’. There is a huge difference."
Latest Posts
ChatterBank14 mins ago
Film, Media & TV18 mins ago
Crosswords40 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles43 mins ago
Looking For A -Z List Of Charities...
Body & Soul44 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.