This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← These preachers of hate must be exposed

These preachers of hate must be exposed - Comments

PrimeNumbers's Avatar Comment 1 by PrimeNumbers

Superb article. Now we need to see some action. But the UK government are in bed with the Saudi's, so will anything really happen?

If I were still living in the UK I'd be thinking how to leave before my kids are getting converted to Islam in school, before the country shuts down five times a day for prayer, before women are not "allowed" out on their own, before any criticism at all of Islam is met with time inside, or worse.

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:34:00 UTC | #60032

Morro's Avatar Comment 2 by Morro

but it also proves how right we were to suspect that the weight of the law might one day, in a climate where the mildest criticism of religion prompts hysterical over-reactions, be employed to transform culprits into victims.

FANTASTIC! Joan Smith, eh? Time to fire off an encouraging email.

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:38:00 UTC | #60033

Theocrapcy's Avatar Comment 3 by Theocrapcy

You mean Smurftastic don't you?

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:50:00 UTC | #60034

Corylus's Avatar Comment 4 by Corylus

Joan Smith

On any sensible reading of events, .... the programme set out not to slander Islam as such but to investigate the extent of Wahhabi influence in British mosques.

Well said. That was precisely how I read this programme.

N.B. It is important to note that, a significant part of the programme was given to relaying any clarifying statements from the the people who were featured.

BTW. If anyone wants to make up their own minds about this one then the whole programme is available on Google video.

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=2668560761490749816&q=uk


Re the investigation by the Police, well if I were a cynic.... which as a matter of fact I am...

I would suspect that this is due to some high-up trying to advance their career by shamelessly using this to promote their 'PC and 'anti-racist' credentials.

What this does of course is send a signal to any Muslim terrified of the vitriol that these individuals are spouting that no help will be forthcoming from the Police - in fact they might be arrested if they complain.

[Edit: Link does not want to be clickable - works if you copy and paste into browser though]

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 01:01:00 UTC | #60037

AdrianB's Avatar Comment 5 by AdrianB

It must be remembered that most of the undercover reporting was done by a brave young Muslim chap, obviously keen to expose what is happening in his community.

What sort of signal then, is the WMP and CPS sending to the moderate majority in the Muslim community? Are they not reinforcing the fear that some vicims of religious intolerance must be feeling?

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 01:26:00 UTC | #60044

rokort's Avatar Comment 6 by rokort

Although undoubtedly the cross-contamination between Saoudi and British politics will be complicated, it baffles me that tolerance is served as a castrated lamb to its Muslim slaughter again and again.

As if the Enlightenment has been for nothing, the despicable religious morals get the upper hand over secular thought, for the sake of 'dialogue'. Dialogue between diametrically opposite fundies....., what a sh1te! (to paraphrase pewkatchoo). Such is the consequence of not being rational.

Apparently it's difficult for a 'Western' mind to accept religion is a bad thing, perhaps because the adage 'God is love' has been tolerated for too long. Well, how much more proof that ain't the case? Religion is all about fear, hate and suffering. Nothing more, nothing less.

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 01:27:00 UTC | #60045

The Wee Flea's Avatar Comment 7 by The Wee Flea

This article is excellent and I agree with every word. I watched the programme and thought it did an great job and was balanced and informative. The notion that our police ar enot to become thought police is indeed Orwellian. What matters is whether what was said was true - not whether the British thought police or the spin doctors of New Labour think it is 'off message'.

I also agree with the comments - except rokorts. Why spoil a good case by then lumping together all religions as the same?

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:27:00 UTC | #60068

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 8 by Steve Zara

I also agree with the comments - except rokorts. Why spoil a good case by then lumping together all religions as the same?


For the obvious reason that without the respect for faith in our society, there would not be attempts to cover up such hateful speech.

What matters is whether what was said was true - not whether the British thought police or the spin doctors of New Labour think it is 'off message'.


Coming from you, that is a bit rich. You regularly come here and try and 'spin' both the bible and the doctrines of your church, because much of what they include is 'off message' against the image you wish to present. If you are insisting we judge these people by what they actually say, they we should be allowed to judge your church by what it says, and what it says includes much that is hateful and prejudiced.

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:35:00 UTC | #60071

Crazymalc's Avatar Comment 9 by Crazymalc

Here Here! (or is it Hear Hear?)

Very brave and courageous article.

Let's hope there are no death threats

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:44:00 UTC | #60075

Henri Bergson's Avatar Comment 11 by Henri Bergson

Great article.

It seems that Saudi Arabia should have been invaded, not just Afghanistan and Iraq.

I wonder why it wasn't...

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:59:00 UTC | #60079

tieInterceptor's Avatar Comment 10 by tieInterceptor

excellent article, I really want to see this nonsensical claim by the CPS that 'it was out of context' followed until the end.

If that is the case prove it, if not retract publicly and clearly, and then do something serious about the hate mongers on those mosques.

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:59:00 UTC | #60078

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Comment 12 by Oromasdes1978

David! Hope Bulgaria was fun and that you are well, how did it go?

One question, I took this quote from your website it says that the Free Church of Scotland

"...stands firmly in the tradition which accepts the Bible in its entirety as the Word of God and, therefore, derives its forms of teaching, worship, ministry and government from it."

I must conclude then that this includes Deuteronomy and if I am not mistaken that really isn't the nicest way of treating unbelievers is it? I am in no way going to compare you with the fundamentalist monsters that preach the above such maniacal hate. After all you have acknowledged the hatred of which they spout is evil in your post. My point though is the Bible does preach hate as much as it does have some reasonably friendly things.

I want to be careful here because I have noticed in the past whenever I have presented a discussion point you point out I make a few mistakes about your church and religion. I am merely going on the above statement off your site and the contents of the bible using Deuteronomy as an example. Please can you explain this, I would like to hear your opinion,
cheers,
Philip

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 03:26:00 UTC | #60085

epeeist's Avatar Comment 13 by epeeist

Comment #63375 by The Wee Flea


What matters is whether what was said was true - not whether the British thought police or the spin doctors of New Labour think it is 'off message'.

It would be interesting to know whether the deference to faith in the government was a general thing, or whether it stemmed from one person in particular.

On another point, and to avoid going back to a thread that has petered out. I raised the supposition that could be reduced to the simple proposition:

~(Exists g) G(g)

This is both testable and falsifiable.

You responded that there were other "tenets" to atheism. Would you care to expand on this?

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 03:31:00 UTC | #60089

The Wee Flea's Avatar Comment 14 by The Wee Flea

Philip and Eepesit

If you don't mind I will get round to asking your questions on the thread they were asked in ASAP. I don't think it is fair to this website to have every thread I post in, dominated by questions about what I believe.

I will however make this general observation. If you are genuinely concerned (as I am) about the kind of extremism portrayed in this documentary, then in order to fight it, you are going to have to give up, what seems to be one of the central tenets of the atheist faith, that all religions are effectively the same. Apart from irrational and demonstrably falsifiable, it is also something that plays right into the hands of the extremists.

Meanwhile please leave me free to praise an article on this website, without reservation. Its a strange but pleasant feeling!

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 03:39:00 UTC | #60092

epeeist's Avatar Comment 15 by epeeist

Comment #63386 by Henri Bergson


It seems that Saudi Arabia should have been invaded, not just Afghanistan and Iraq.

I wonder why it wasn't..

Because of the relationship between Bush and the Saud family? Because the Americans sell huge amounts of armaments to the Saudis (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,497188,00.html). Invading them would put profits at risk and the poor bloody infantry might get wiped out by the weapons that were sold to them?

I presume Henri that you are a volunteer member of the armed forces involved in the Afghanistani/Iraqi conflicts.

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 03:40:00 UTC | #60093

Quetzalcoatl's Avatar Comment 16 by Quetzalcoatl

Wee Flea-

How was Bulgaria? Hope the camp went well. I'm sure the weather was better than here, at any rate!

I agree with your comment (there's a novelty!) I think that the reason that the CPS and police pursued this had more to do with "political pressures" than any genuine feeling that a criminal act had been committed.

If you're interested, I believe numerous comments were left on the threads that you had been frequenting before you left for Bulgaria. I'm sure everyone would be interested to hear your responses, if you're so inclined.

EDIT- Sorry, it appears you've already said you will comment on those threads. You must have commented while I was typing. Must learn to type faster!

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 03:44:00 UTC | #60095

epeeist's Avatar Comment 17 by epeeist

Comment #63399 by The Wee Flea


If you don't mind I will get round to asking your questions on the thread they were asked in ASAP. I don't think it is fair to this website to have every thread I post in, dominated by questions about what I believe.

Fair enough - I will look out for it.

I will however make this general observation. If you are genuinely concerned (as I am) about the kind of extremism portrayed in this documentary, then in order to fight it, you are going to have to give up, what seems to be one of the central tenets of the atheist faith, that all religions are effectively the same. Apart from irrational and demonstrably falsifiable, it is also something that plays right into the hands of the extremists.

I give you a hypothesis and you return with "faith" and "tenets" ;-)

I will leave the all faiths are the same bit to the other thread, it would seem to be better there.

Personally I have a loathing of this kind of extremism whether it comes from a theist or non-theist. The difficulty I find is that when statements like the above (or equivalently "If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth") the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is immediately raised by the moderates (not a real Moslem/Christian/Communist, delete as applicable).

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 03:51:00 UTC | #60097

Billy Sands's Avatar Comment 18 by Billy Sands

Come David, dont deny that your church has been involved in bad deeds. I really want to hear your opinion on whether your oath that the pope is the antichrist fuels sectarian hatred.
You still justify some bad doctrines based on the bible, despite what you say.
Have you checked out the comments on the other thread since you got back? where your arse was kicked over wilberforce?

(not a real Moslem/Christian/Communist, delete as applicable).

I remember someone on David's site saying no true christian was a homosexual

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 03:52:00 UTC | #60098

dazzjazz's Avatar Comment 19 by dazzjazz

I just saw part of the video. Why do these Muslims want to live in the West? Why don't they all go back to the M.E.

Gosh their ignorance makes my blood boil!

Darren

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 03:56:00 UTC | #60100

_J_'s Avatar Comment 20 by _J_

Hi, David,

Welcome back from Bulgaria. Hope you had a good trip.

On the article: general agreement. And a useful case study for bringing this issue to attention. It does add up to a general reminder not to sit on our concerns and hope that someone else will voice them. Freedom of criticism: use it or lose it...

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 04:01:00 UTC | #60101

_J_'s Avatar Comment 21 by _J_

dazzjazz, 19

Why don't they all go back to the M.E.

[My underlining]

Eeeeeeasy, tiger!

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 04:04:00 UTC | #60104

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 22 by Steve Zara

I don't think it is fair to this website to have every thread I post in, dominated by questions about what I believe.


You post as a publically identified representative of a religion. You chose that position. It is only reasonable to point out to readers who may not realise that your particular brand of Christianity has its own deep prejudices and other unpleasant views. This helps to put your posts into context, and raises serious issues with some of them (like your attack on 'spin').

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 04:05:00 UTC | #60105

dazzjazz's Avatar Comment 23 by dazzjazz

I don't like to preach intolerance but jeesh the stuff I heard on this video is very scary indeed.

Sorry for going off!

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 04:12:00 UTC | #60109

newatheist's Avatar Comment 24 by newatheist

Scary scary stuff. Not just the hate mongering, but the simpletons who are bending over backwards to facilitate it. (Can you really bend over backwards and stick your head in the sand? Ouch!)

Thank goodness Christianity in America doesn't have this sort of thing…

Oh… Wait… did someone say Phelps and Free Speech?

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 04:25:00 UTC | #60112

The Buxter's Avatar Comment 25 by The Buxter

On the discussion over whether atheists should attack only extremism or religion in general:

First of all it isn't a "tenet of atheism" to be opposed religion, there a quite a few atheists who actually see religion as a very good thing, and regret that they do not have the faith to believe in it.

The "new atheists" such as Dawkins/Hitchens a.o. are not saying that all religion is equally bad, but rather that moderate religion is better then extreme religion, but no religion is better than moderate religion. Personally I could live in a world where religion was only moderate - though I'd still think that it was wrong and ridicules.

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 04:28:00 UTC | #60114

Henri Bergson's Avatar Comment 26 by Henri Bergson

Epeeist,

Thanks for the link, though I was being rhetorical. I have not served in the middle east, though I am pro-war – Must you be against war if you have not served? Obviously not.

Another thing, let's not start having a go at weeflea again! Last time I checked, there were no Scottish protestants flying into skyscrapers!

Focus on the immediate threat.

---

Here's the actual documentary:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo&mode=related&search=

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 04:32:00 UTC | #60117

epeeist's Avatar Comment 27 by epeeist

Comment #63424 by Henri Bergson


Focus on the immediate threat.

Agreed that this is an immediate threat. However, the Dominionists and Christian Embassy people are just as immediate a threat.

I can't imagine Nietzsche being popular in a country ruled by the Christian right.

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 05:12:00 UTC | #60129

Henri Bergson's Avatar Comment 28 by Henri Bergson

Epeeist,

Ich habe einzige nicht schreiben... (ehhh hmm, I mean:)
I have not only written about Nietzsche. Come on, I use many thinkers, not just the mustached one.

(Good to hear, though, that Hitchens has finally embraced Nietzsche's concept of the will to power (hear his last radio debate).)

But granted that most Yank Christians are a threat to the progress of mankind; muslims are now a threat to the progress AND freedom of Europe.

Christianity (at present) is the lesser of two 'evils'.

----

There is a rally organised in Brussels against the introduction of Sharia Law in Europe. It should take place on 9/11. The mayor there has banned it, but hopefully this will soon be overturned.

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 05:28:00 UTC | #60133

Russell Blackford's Avatar Comment 29 by Russell Blackford

David's initial post on this thread was good, and he did have a point about rokort's post, with all respect to the latter. I don't actually think it's fair to say that all religion all the time is miserable, based on fear, etc. I'd argue that it applies to a helluva lot of religion a helluva lot of the time, but there are genuinely moderate religious views around.

By all means, let's criticise the truth claims of all religions, but we can be discriminating about how harmful different religious views actually are. And I don't think see the need to bite David every time he says anything, even when it's reasonable.

I also have to say, yet again, that I'm not very impressed by the moderate-religionists-enable-extreme-religionists thesis. I'm not saying there's nothing in it at all, but I think that extreme religionists are enabled by lots of people, and not necessarily more by religious moderates than by a lot of misguided secularists of various kinds.

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 05:31:00 UTC | #60134

Dr Benway's Avatar Comment 30 by Dr Benway

AdrianB:

It must be remembered that most of the undercover reporting was done by a brave young Muslim chap, obviously keen to expose what is happening in his community.
Hope he's given a new identity and residence, and a nice financial cushion. Hope his family are safe.

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 05:49:00 UTC | #60135