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

← Gaza: What would Jehovah do?

Gaza: What would Jehovah do? - Comments

yanquetino's Avatar Comment 31 by yanquetino

Yup: So let it be written: so let it be dumb.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 02:05:09 UTC | #478678

rkher531's Avatar Comment 32 by rkher531

I think no body did calculation. If we assume that at least 20 City states were destroyed with all the population the and assuming that each had on average 20K population it adds up to 400K people killed. The total population of the world at that time was say about 100M. This means that almost 0.5% of population was wiped out. If all of you remember that Western countries allowed Israel to come into existence as a sop to their holocaust conscience.

I think Jews need to deeply reflect on their historical heritage and their assertions that Israel is mandated by their GOD but the same GOD is deeply reddened by the Blood of Huge no. of people.

Now Israel exists and Jew do need Homeland. Adjust with Palestine. Do not confront them in a way they are doing it. If Bible is right even Holocaust is no longer a justification. Yet they need a Homeland.

So Palestinians live with Jews and Jews stop justifying that area as GOD given but live with Palestinians harmoniously

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 05:08:04 UTC | #478697

Steven Mading's Avatar Comment 33 by Steven Mading

Comment 29 by Styrer :

Steven

My one decent Uni tutor told me once, in her giving advice on how to tackle Finals: 'transcend the question.'

This has not happened here, and the failure to do so has resulted in a blatantly partisan piece. Paula has always shown herself to be extremely fair-minded, and given the stakes in discussing this topic, she should have ensured continuity in this. She has not, unfortunately.

I have no idea what your complaint is. It seems to simply be that she, in her attempt to belittle the question as idiotic by answering it literally, didn't belittle it from two different texts even though one was sufficient.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 06:18:11 UTC | #478719

Steven Mading's Avatar Comment 34 by Steven Mading

Comment 28 by Bigger Al :

Comment 23 by Steven Mading :

Next time try reading the whole article, "Bigger Al". Paula was asked by the Washington post to answer the question THEY asked their columnists to respond to. It wasn't her idea to couch the recent incident in Biblical terms. It was theirs. Her article was a snark against those who think that's the right thing to do - by pointing out why that's a stupid idea to use that as the yardstick.

But no - please just misunderstand the article and then pretend she said the exact opposite of what she did just as an excuse to spew rhetoric. She wasn't arguing against the government of Israel. She was arguing against the idiots who thought that religion is the answer - the idiots at Washington Post who asked her to write on the subject in those terms.

I just read the article. Did not see that.

Admittedly I have the advantage of knowing the context of how this series that the Washington Post is being run because I remember Dan Dennet and Richard Dawkins being fingered to write columns for it the same way. The Post sets the question and the columnist answers it. The part of the article up at the top in boldface was not Paula's words. It was the bit she was responding TO, and unfortunately the Washington Post does a piss-poor job of making that clear to the audience when they publish the article. They make it look as if the topic was chosen by the article's writer on their own whim. They did the same thing to Richard Dawkins when they had him write a piece and it led to lots of comments exactly along the lines of yours - falsely blaming him as if he was the one who chose the topic.

But the point remains, only one side seems to take religion seriously.

If that was all there was to your point, I'd have agreed. It was the part where you called Paula's response poor that I disagreed with - an accusation you made under the false premise that she chose how to frame the question and what the topic was going to be. She was engaging in argumentum ad absurdum by showing where the question about what god would think of the current conflict actually leads if taken seriously.

Updated: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 06:29:47 UTC | #478724

mmurray's Avatar Comment 35 by mmurray

Comment 32 by rkher531 :

So Palestinians live with Jews and Jews stop justifying that area as GOD given but live with Palestinians harmoniously

Of course those Jews who believe that their land was given to them by some sort of divine supernatural being are a problem as are the ultra-orthodox who think women should sit at the back of the bus. But this is a small minority of the citizens of Israel. It is not the government of the Israel even though it might have influence. On the other hand on the other side the nutters are running the place.

Michael

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 06:42:21 UTC | #478727

jel's Avatar Comment 36 by jel

Comment 20 by Papalinton. This is the ultimate Allah vs Jehovah battle to determine the: 'my god is better than your god, so there!' issue.

That's funny, I always thought that they were both supposed to be the same god. Makes you wonder just what it was thinking of when it promised this land to it's followers.

I thought this was a good article by Paula, it shows up the absurdity of expecting anything good to come of following any so called holy texts. Religion is what started the problems here, religion will not solve it.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 06:46:53 UTC | #478728

PERSON's Avatar Comment 37 by PERSON

If this is the debate I think it is, it gives a lot of context for the conflict, in particular the recent election of Hamas.

It's worth repeating though: Kirby's attack is principally on religion here, not the actions of the Israeli state.

Updated: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 07:23:55 UTC | #478731

Bigger Al's Avatar Comment 38 by Bigger Al

Comment 34 by Steven Mading :

Comment 28 by Bigger Al :

Comment 23 by Steven Mading :

Next time try reading the whole article, "Bigger Al". Paula was asked byΩΩΩ the Washington post to answer the question THEY asked their columnists to respond to. It wasn't her idea to couch the recent incident in Biblical terms. It was theirs. Her article was a snark against those who think that's the right thing to do - by pointing out why that's a stupid idea to use that as the yardstick.

But no - please just misunderstand the article and then pretend she said the exact opposite of what she did just as an excuse to spew rhetoric. She wasn't arguing against the government of Israel. She was arguing against the idiots who thought that religion is the answer - the idiots at Washington Post who asked her to write on the subject in those terms.

I just read the article. Did not see that.

Admittedly I have the advantage of knowing the context of how this series that the Washington Post is being run because I remember Dan Dennet and Richard Dawkins being fingered to write columns for it the same way. The Post sets the question and the columnist answers it. The part of the article up at the top in boldface was not Paula's words. It was the bit she was responding TO, and unfortunately the Washington Post does a piss-poor job of making that clear to the audience when they publish the article. They make it look as if the topic was chosen by the article's writer on their own whim. They did the same thing to Richard Dawkins when they had him write a piece and it led to lots of comments exactly along the lines of yours - falsely blaming him as if he was the one who chose the topic.

But the point remains, only one side seems to take religion seriously.

If that was all there was to your point, I'd have agreed. It was the part where you called Paula's response poor that I disagreed with - an accusation you made under the false premise that she chose how to frame the question and what the topic was going to be. She was engaging in argumentum ad absurdum by showing where the question about what god would think of the current conflict actually leads if taken seriously.

Yes I made a mistake. If I had understood the context I would have a different statement. Namely that she leaves out the Islamic approach to the question. But her indictment of Christian idiocy is spot on, as Paula usually is. I am simply in the habit of letting Christianity be Christianity, because it needs no more debunking around here, it is silly and ridiculous and is no way to solves a political crisis.

If God looked at the conflict from the perspective of the Abrahamic God, he would have to be confused because he issued so many promises to so many people, he has to look foolish now. If he were and all merciful god, he would have to be pissed off at how childish certain people were behaving.

So my apologies for the fuck up. I read the thing in haste, and commented with such certainty. I am imperfect, I know, a shock to you all.

Updated: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:58:20 UTC | #478734

Papalinton's Avatar Comment 39 by Papalinton

Comment 22 by Styrer :

It's about a secular, democratic state threatened with extinction by Islam adherents intent on playing out their canonically-derived desires to exterminate the Jews ....

Right there with you, Styrer. But what is quite distressing is the manner of the Israeli blockade of the Gaza. It is extremely concerning to watch such brutal [no other word will suffice] enforcement of policy. Yes, I know there is a life-and-death undercurrent always present, but the merciless and indifferent treatment of fellow humans, purportedly in protection of Israeli citizens, does not in any meaningful way portray the kind of model of a modern democratic, secular state, that other states can and would wish to aspire to. The Israeli's malicious application of the Gaza containment policy is unjustified and does great damage to democratic ideals. The Israelis are not practicing the values of a democratic, secular state in which the over-riding axiom of the rule of law underpins humane and just protection of all people. I always thought a democratic, secular, ideal was about fair and just treatment, no matter what. What the Israelis are doing at the moment is downright retrograde.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:10:47 UTC | #478743

Papalinton's Avatar Comment 40 by Papalinton

Comment 36 by jel :

That's funny, I always thought that they were both supposed to be the same god. Makes you wonder just what it was thinking of when it promised this land to it's followers.

You might have something there jel. Perhaps it's the ultimate battle over branding and naming rights under trademark law for the block of land in question. A battle won by [Allah] or [Jehovah]; circle the successful candidate.

Cheers

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:25:38 UTC | #478749

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 41 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:48:06 UTC | #478787

gimlibengloin's Avatar Comment 42 by gimlibengloin

Oh, and I note that a video on Youtube shows that Dawkins is too cowardly to debate Lane Craig. A member of the audience asks him, In refusing to debate Craig are you not avoiding the strongest possible arguements for theism? Dawkins answer simplified is, What credentials does Lane Craig have other than being a professional debater? Well, I suggest you look at his CV on Reasonable Faith to answer that. Perhaps this is why Dawkins is always slagging off 'Christian apologists'- its easier than debating them and constantly being defeated.

Updated: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:57:10 UTC | #478793

epeeist's Avatar Comment 43 by epeeist

Comment 41 by gimlibengloin :

The question, then, is not whose moral theory is correct, but which is the true God?

Ah, I see fimbul-fambi is back. Got any evidence for a global flood yet?

Actually, the question is not "which is the true god" since it begs the question. The question being whether there is a god in the first place.

Updated: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:05:39 UTC | #478795

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 44 by Richard Dawkins

Some critics have suggested that Paula should fairly have quoted, in equal measure, from Islamic scriptures. Since she was responding to a specific question set by the Washington Post about 'religious and moral considerations', it was appropriate for her to concentrate on the religions that dominate the readership of the Washington Post, namely Christianity and Judaism. However, it would be an interesting exercise for one of our Koranically-informed readers to undertake a matching article drawing on the scriptures of the 'Religion of Peace'. Which of the 'great' monotheistic faiths will win First Prize for bloodthirsty nastiness and ethnic cleansing zeal?

Richard

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:22:35 UTC | #478798

Mark Jones's Avatar Comment 45 by Mark Jones

Comment 42 by gimlibengloin :

Oh, and I note that a video on Youtube shows that Dawkins is too cowardly to debate Lane Craig. A member of the audience asks him, In refusing to debate Craig are you not avoiding the strongest possible arguements for theism? Dawkins answer simplified is, What credentials does Lane Craig have other than being a professional debater? Well, I suggest you look at his CV on Reasonable Faith to answer that. Perhaps this is why Dawkins is always slagging off 'Christian apologists'- its easier than debating them and constantly being defeated.

"Arguing with a fool proves there are two" just came up on my desk calendar. Spooky. God moves etc...

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:26:07 UTC | #478799

epeeist's Avatar Comment 46 by epeeist

Comment 45 by Mark Jones :

"Arguing with a fool proves there are two" just came up on my desk calendar. Spooky. God moves etc...

Hmm, I was looking up for a quote for elsewhere and recently came up with "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.", from George Bernard Shaw.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:35:10 UTC | #478802

Paula Kirby's Avatar Comment 47 by Paula Kirby

Thank you, Richard.

The question was in the context of the US consulting on new ways to address the situation in Gaza, and asked the panellists to comment on the religious and moral considerations that should inform those 'new ways'. In the context of what the US should do, 'religious considerations' are going to be overwhelmingly CHRISTIAN considerations. The point of my response was not to take sides with either the Israelis or the Palestinians - a plague on both their houses, so far as I am concerned - but to highlight the preposterousness of thinking that it might be remotely helpful to bring religious considerations into the question at all. Or any other question either, come to that.

The Washington Post questions seems to have fallen into a pattern of saying 'Such-and-such has happened in the world. How should our religion lead us to respond?' Well, as an atheist, this doesn't give me much to work with. MY purpose in my responses is therefore to challenge the assumption that religion has anything to offer in dealing with the situations under discussion and to point out that it is often actively obstructive. I focus almost exclusively on Christianity because 1) it's the religion I know best and 2) Christianity is the religion that most readers of the WP On Faith feature will have in mind when thinking about their religious responses.

Does my article set out a peace plan for Gaza? Does it provide detailed textual analysis of other relevant 'holy' texts? Does it say everything that could meaningfully be said on the subject? Of COURSE it doesn't! That was never my intention, and wouldn't have been possible within the constraints of the WP anyway. All it can ever do is make the point that I wanted to make.

Comment 44 by Richard Dawkins :

Some critics have suggested that Paula should fairly have quoted, in equal measure, from Islamic scriptures. Since she was responding to a specific question set by the Washington Post about 'religious and moral considerations', it was appropriate for her to concentrate on the religions that dominate the readership of the Washington Post, namely Christianity and Judaism. However, it would be an interesting exercise for one of our Koranically-informed readers to undertake a matching article drawing on the scriptures of the 'Religion of Peace'. Which of the 'great' monotheistic faiths will win First Prize for bloodthirsty nastiness and ethnic cleansing zeal?

Richard

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:47:53 UTC | #478806

TheRationalizer's Avatar Comment 48 by TheRationalizer

Have you guys seen NonStampCollectors video what would Yahweh do?

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:47:59 UTC | #478807

PERSON's Avatar Comment 49 by PERSON

for 'aid flotilla' one can with justification read 'Hamas flotilla' I suppose so, but only insofar as one can call exports to Saudi Arabia "Burkha boats" or highways leading into to Arizona "Racist roads".

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:51:11 UTC | #478821

quarecuss's Avatar Comment 50 by quarecuss

So good to hear from Paula Kirby again. She nails it every time.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:37:58 UTC | #478859

Scott_Cunning's Avatar Comment 51 by Scott_Cunning

@ steve oberski

Thanks, I may have to check that out.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:22:27 UTC | #478903

Steven Mading's Avatar Comment 52 by Steven Mading

Comment 49 by PERSON :

for 'aid flotilla' one can with justification read 'Hamas flotilla'

I suppose so, but only insofar as one can call exports to Saudi Arabia "Burkha boats" or highways leading into to Arizona "Racist roads".

No, this flotilla was, quite literally, from Hamas.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:26:30 UTC | #478906

alif's Avatar Comment 53 by alif

I don't think Palestinians are arguing that the land they are fighting for was designated to them by God. They are angry that land they were on was taken to create Israel. It's the Israeli's who have invoked their right to be on that land as some kind of deal with God.

And this is where I get stuck on this issue--why was it okay to use land Palestinians had lived on to create Israel? I'm not trying to be snarky or sarcastic, I really don't have the historical information on this basic point.

Can anyone help out?

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:35:13 UTC | #478910

Bigger Al's Avatar Comment 54 by Bigger Al

Comment 43 by epeeist :

Comment 41 by gimlibengloin :

The question, then, is not whose moral theory is correct, but which is the true God?

Ah, I see fimbul-fambi is back. Got any evidence for a global flood yet?

Actually, the question is not "which is the true god" since it begs the question. The question being whether there is a god in the first place.

Ha, the onus is on him. I know for a fact that Quetz... Qotuazl... Quhagotzl.... Quehut.... DAMN. I know Jonathan created the earth and the heavens and this guy cannot prove me wrong. And Jonathan would bulldoze Gaza and make it a retirement community with modestly priced condos with beach living. Shuffleboard anyone?

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:36:04 UTC | #478911

Bigger Al's Avatar Comment 55 by Bigger Al

Comment 52 by Steven Mading :

Comment 49 by PERSON :

for 'aid flotilla' one can with justification read 'Hamas flotilla'

I suppose so, but only insofar as one can call exports to Saudi Arabia "Burkha boats" or highways leading into to Arizona "Racist roads".

No, this flotilla was, quite literally, from Hamas.

With a sprinkle of al-Qaeda. The head of Hamas from the Netherlands seems to have been on board.

Some Israelis I know are contemplating a reverse flotilla. Sailing to either Turkey to supply the Kurds, or to Iran for the Baha'is and Ahmadis. We are taking bets on how far from shore they will get before on of those navies just sinks their ship. Could you imagine trying to sail to Iran with a boat full of books for Baha'is who are barred from any and all higher education. The Iranians would denounce you as a Great Satan Zionist Spy Pigeon, and kill you.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081020091136.9y3qoow5&show_article=1

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:39:16 UTC | #478913

Steven Mading's Avatar Comment 56 by Steven Mading

Comment 55 by Bigger Al :

Some Israelis I know are contemplating a reverse flotilla. Sailing to either Turkey to supply the Kurds, or to Iran for the Baha'is and Ahmadis. We are taking bets on how far from shore they will get before on of those navies just sinks their ship. Could you imagine trying to sail to Iran with a boat full of books for Baha'is who are barred from any and all higher education. The Iranians would denounce you as a Great Satan Zionist Spy Pigeon, and kill you.

The Kurds idea wouldn't be analogous - unlike with Gaza there's no shoreline to directly land a ship from international waters right into Kurdish territory, which is a highly relevant factor since the possibility of a direct transfer from sea without going through security checkpoints first to check the cargo was the main reason for the blockade. The Bahai idea wouldn't be analogous either because there's no such thing as the "Bahai region" to land a ship into - they aren't concentrated by geographical region - they are sparsely dispersed throughout Iran.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:54:05 UTC | #478923

PERSON's Avatar Comment 57 by PERSON

Comment 52 by Steven Mading :

Comment 49 by PERSON :

for 'aid flotilla' one can with justification read 'Hamas flotilla'

I suppose so, but only insofar as one can call exports to Saudi Arabia "Burkha boats" or highways leading into to Arizona "Racist roads".

No, this flotilla was, quite literally, from Hamas.

Oh, right, so from Hamas in other countries (or other parts of Palestine? But if so, why come from Greece?). That hadn't occurred to me. Have you got a link? What proportion of the people were Hamas? What proportion of the donations? Or do you mean that the Palestinian government paid for the goods?

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:27:48 UTC | #478932

besleybean's Avatar Comment 58 by besleybean

Possibly at least supporters of Hamas. I think the Turks were, is it Muslim Brotherhood? Some unsavoury group, anywhere. As was said on the flotilla thread, some were obviously expecting trouble.

Updated: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:20:39 UTC | #478976

scottishgeologist's Avatar Comment 59 by scottishgeologist

alif asked:

"why was it okay to use land Palestinians had lived on to create Israel?"

That is a seriously good question

My understanding of it (and please, anyone out there correct me if I am wrong) is that it goes back to the days of the British Empire, when Palestine became a British Mandate after WW1. The famous "Balfour Declaration" which, AFAIK, had a lot of British Zionist pressure behind it, declared that tere should be a Jewish State in Palestine.

However, I think it also makes provision for the Palestinians who were there at the time.

Here it is , courtesy of Wikipedia (E &OE)

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

This of course was pre-Holocaust. No doubt the events of WW2 gave added impetus to the whole thing

So does that mean that the whole mess is basically OUR fault?!

Eek!

:-) SG

PS: Related to this, I remember reading an article by a Christian Zionist, who maintained and I kid you not, that the decline of the British Empire started, when Britain stopped being so supportive of the Jews in the 30s

Here is a film about it - "The Forsaken Promise"

http://www.theforsakenpromise.org.uk/

and heres an excerpt from the site:

"In November 1917 the British government made a pledge to the Jewish people through the Balfour Declaration to help establish a Jewish National Homeland in the territory then known as Palestine. After World War 1 ended the League of Nations awarded Britain the Mandate for Palestine with the proviso that the Balfour Declaration was implemented along with “close Jewish settlement in the Land”. As difficulties arose, Britain gradually watered down her original commitment until the MacDonald White Paper of 1939 virtually closed the borders of Palestine to Jewish immigration. In the aftermath of World War 2 and the Mandate in Palestine, the sun finally set on the Great British Empire, her status as the world’s superpower rapidly waned, and the nation has since fallen into moral decadence"

In other words, God took Britains empire away and screwed the country because we back tracked on zionism........... Worst thing is, there are people who FERVENTLY believe this in the evangelical movement.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:22:04 UTC | #478979

Dr. Strangegod's Avatar Comment 60 by Dr. Strangegod

Bigger Al - Your comment (the first one) would be nice if it were connected to reality. Or even if there was any way to connect you to it, which there clearly isn't, so I won't waste my breath.

Updated: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:47:41 UTC | #478986