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

← Extremism – and its religious exoskeleton

Extremism – and its religious exoskeleton - Comments

SimonSays79's Avatar Comment 1 by SimonSays79

What we should also not do is dismiss valid concerns about rule of law and due process.

Al-Aulaqi was a US citizen. As a lawyer Sean you are no doubt aware that we are a nation of laws. Treasury officials (this is the article you are citing) cannot decide anyone's guilt or innocence. This is something only a judge or jury can do. Al-Aulaqi had never been indicted -much less convicted- of any crime by a US court.

Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:26:45 UTC | #878148

BanJoIvie's Avatar Comment 2 by BanJoIvie

The Post piece described al-Aulaqi as a “radical.” A radical? To me, American communists are radicals - more likely to set fire to a joint than to a building with people inside. There’s radicalism, then there is outright terrorism.

"Radical" has a lot of definitions, but I most commonly hear it used today as basically a synonym of "extreme" or "out of the mainstream." I have not read the Washington Post article, but it doesn’t seem to me that this sense of the word is inaccurately applied to al-Aulaqi.

I can agree with Sean to the extent that, in common parlance, it’s an inadequate word to capture the full danger posed by violent extremists of whatever stripe. The fact that someone’s views are "radical" can be quite divorced from whether the methods they advocate or use are "radical."

I find it interesting that this politically oriented use of the word "radical" is never higher than the third definition listed in any of the three dictionaries I have just checked. The first definitions all refer to the fact that the “radical” connotes a relationship to roots: roots in botany, in language, in mathematics. By extension it means “of or related to origins,” and has implications similar to "fundamentalist". It seems an appropriate word in that sense to apply to Jihadists or other religious zealots who are incited by devotion to a core text, especially an ancient one.

Even when we get to the politics, the dictionary doesn't immediately seem to have a problem with "radical" as a description of Islamists:

3a : very different from the usual or traditional : extreme

b : favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions

c : associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change

d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs -the radical right-

Personally, my objection to using a word like "radical" to describe advocates of ‘conservative’ Islam is hinted at in one tiny part of that definition 3a above: “…different from the usual or traditional.

“Radical” Islamists consider their position to be the ultimate defense of tradition. They view modernity, the west, enlightenment values, and “the Great Satan” as the elements of extreme change, which they are merely resisting. Application of the word “radical” to strongly conservative viewpoints (as in 3d above) is a fairly recent phenomenon, and I would only view it as accurate to the extent that such views are exported and expressed in cultures where the zeitgeist has moved well past them.

A generation ago, the word “radical” would have been reserved almost exclusively for thinkers on the left side of the spectrum – supporters of radical progress. Those whose penchant for regressive change pushed beyond the mainstream would usually be labeled with the contrasting term “reactionary.” I share Christopher Hitchens’ preference for calling deluded madmen like al-Aulaqi reactionary Islamists. “Radical Muslim” gives to much credit to those who’s every effort is to drag society kicking and screaming backwards into the middle ages. Their goals are more correctly seen as efforts to reverse or resist change rather than to simply affect it.

Wed, 05 Oct 2011 17:47:04 UTC | #878216

wisnoskij's Avatar Comment 3 by wisnoskij

Comment 1 by SimonSays79 :

What we should also not do is dismiss valid concerns about rule of law and due process.

Al-Aulaqi was a US citizen. As a lawyer Sean you are no doubt aware that we are a nation of laws. Treasury officials (this is the article you are citing) cannot decide anyone's guilt or innocence. This is something only a judge or jury can do. Al-Aulaqi had never been indicted -much less convicted- of any crime by a US court.

That is exactly what I was thinking, maybe innocent until proven guilty is not sometime that he applies to Muslims.

Wed, 05 Oct 2011 17:58:25 UTC | #878219

UGAtheist's Avatar Comment 4 by UGAtheist

What we should also not do is dismiss valid concerns about rule of law and due process.Al-Aulaqi was a US citizen. As a lawyer Sean you are no doubt aware that we are a nation of laws. Treasury officials (this is the article you are citing) cannot decide anyone's guilt or innocence. This is something only a judge or jury can do. Al-Aulaqi had never been indicted -much less convicted- of any crime by a US court.

German Americans who went to fight for their hereditary homeland were given no such privlidge during the World Wars. I don't see the reason why America would go out of it's way in time of war to give due process to an explicitly treasonous citizen who went abroad to spread a message of war against them.

@Sean, I think you have made good points, but I find the suggestion that 99% of all religious persons don't adhere to a very convicted and possibly dangerous dogma a bit generous. This can be said of Christians and Muslims (not to mention Settler Jews in Israel) and I think that figure is higher than we in the progressive parts of the world would like to consider.

Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:00:17 UTC | #878252

Greyman's Avatar Comment 5 by Greyman

Comment 4 by UGAtheist :

What we should also not do is dismiss valid concerns about rule of law and due process.Al-Aulaqi was a US citizen. As a lawyer Sean you are no doubt aware that we are a nation of laws. Treasury officials (this is the article you are citing) cannot decide anyone's guilt or innocence. This is something only a judge or jury can do. Al-Aulaqi had never been indicted -much less convicted- of any crime by a US court.

German Americans who went to fight for their hereditary homeland were given no such privlidge during the World Wars. I don't see the reason why America would go out of it's way in time of war to give due process to an explicitly treasonous citizen who went abroad to spread a message of war against them.

Also during the Second World War, American citizens were sent to internment camps with no due process simply for being of Japanese decent.

That something was once done is not, in itself, sufficient grounds to keep doing it.

Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:45:06 UTC | #878261

SimonSays79's Avatar Comment 6 by SimonSays79

UGAtheist states that Al-Aulaqi was "explicitly treasonous". On who's say-so may I ask? Section 3 of the US Constitution is quite clear on this:

No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Source: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Thu, 06 Oct 2011 02:26:46 UTC | #878325

thebaldgit's Avatar Comment 7 by thebaldgit

Yes there is no doubt that the word radical does not accurately describe the sort of religious extremism that we are seeing in many forms of life today. Having an ideal based on a hatred of anyone who does not agree with your point of view and also a willingness to back up this hatred with violence is not radical, it is more like a rancid, closed minded paranoia and a sad reminder that there are many people for whom their religion means this is the way i live my life and if you do like it look out.

Thu, 06 Oct 2011 09:01:29 UTC | #878367

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 8 by AtheistEgbert

I completely disagree with those -- often fundamentalist Christians – who opposed the so-called “ground zero mosque”.

Not everyone who oppossed the 'ground zero mosque' were fundamentalist Christians, many were family members of the victims of the attack. It is was a highly insensitive idea and it divided opinion.

The blanket stigmatizing of a block of people based on religion is flat wrong.

Opposition to the building of the mosque was not about stigmatizing a block of people but about the insensivity to those affected and effected by the 9/11 terrorist attack done in the name of Islam.

I emphasize again: the vast majority of Muslims are good people. I don’t think Muslims, including those at this particular mosque, support suicide bombings or flying airplanes into buildings, or engaging in mass killing at a military base.

Ordinary people are capable of extraordinary evil under the right circumstances. That goes for anyone, whether they're Muslim, Christian or Atheist. Islam creates the environment for extraordinary exploitation and oppression. It is an authoritarian political ideology, so is Catholicism.

The idea that any culture only has a minority of violent people hides the fact that such cultures can be highly oppressive and exploitative.

Violence makes it appearance in many subtle ways. Apostasy, for example, is a form of violence widespread among Islam.

Each of us have a responsibility to protest against dogmatic, hate-filled ideology.

Not really. It is a matter of the law. I don't have a responsibility to protest against murderers or rapists or con-artists. It's not something to protest unless you live in an uncivilized culture.

You can't protest about the ordinariness of evil created by oppressive and authoritarian cultures but you can politically oppose such cultures.

What if we were to take a step back from all these ancient texts? And perhaps not treat them ever so gingerly as “conservative” and rather face them directly for what that accurately are: often misogynist, often violent, and, quite often, not very helpful to the goal of a more rational and compassionate world.

What I have been recently suggesting is that we expose these organized forms of religion as not religion at all but political organizations, with the intent of creating tyranny over people. If we oppose tyranny and authoritarianism, then that makes us liberals and atheism becomes irrelevant.

We have political goals not necessarily rational ones. We wear the mask of atheism just like others wear the mask of theism to hide behind their political agenda.

At the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, we will continue to face such issues squarely, always espousing more compassion, more reason, more science, more understanding, and more honest discussion.

I'm all for honest discussion. I'm glad RD.net is so willing to promote honest discussion.

Thu, 06 Oct 2011 09:31:54 UTC | #878375

Daisy Skipper's Avatar Comment 9 by Daisy Skipper

@Sean " I would bet my bottom dollar that 99% of those who attend are good law-abiding citizens out to do their best like any other citizen"

Of course. It's law abiding to sit there silently (in the back if you are a women), while members of your mosque preach violence/hate/misogyny. When the silent majority are good people but remain quiet they still share some of the blame.

I wonder about the children who look up to these imams. Some of them will become the next 'Radical' or possibly even a martyr. Extremism breeds extremism I guess.

I agree that we need to have frank discussions, not only about rigid religious ideologies but discussions about religion in general. The first step is to get the public/media comfortable talking about religion in the first place. Then it won't be long before society is comfortable asking tough questions of religion. Then.... because religion doesn't fare well in the face of honest scrutiny.... the house of cards will fall.

Thu, 06 Oct 2011 15:07:23 UTC | #878449

Vicar of Art on Earth's Avatar Comment 10 by Vicar of Art on Earth

A small group of Catholic Fundimentalist from Texas manages to blow up the Prophets' Mosque in Medina, what is my responsibilty for their act as a fellow citizen and while a non believer, what is my responsiblity as a person living in a Christian culture and fellow citizen for their actions?

Thirty years ago when I worked int he Middle East, many muslims thought the Pope was the leader of all christians in Europe/America and did not believe we celebrated Christmas on Dec 25th being more familar with Coptic's use of the Julian Calandar.

A real situtation, American Fundimenatalist missionaries are advocating killing gay people in Uganda. What is my responsibilty for my fellow citizens who are missionaries? If the pagans kick the fundies out, can they blame me for the problems these churches gave these people?

I also happen to think Western culture is a darn good thing. I do think everytime we kill someone without a fair and open trial, even "in abstensia", Osma bin Laden wins the hearts and minds.

I do have to ask, what am I sacrificing for, it is not about fair trials, it is not about promoting worldwide democracy and freedom of speech. Group protection does not seem an answer as the finacial bleeding by legal corporate shucksters goes on. As Catholic educated Justice Scalia made clear, justice is not important, procedure (dogma) is the penultimate goal, even if it means executing innocent people.

Thu, 06 Oct 2011 18:01:43 UTC | #878480

UGAtheist's Avatar Comment 11 by UGAtheist

Also during the Second World War, American citizens were sent to internment camps with no due process simply for being of Japanese decent.That something was once done is not, in itself, sufficient grounds to keep doing it.

And where did I suggest that, alltogether diffirent practice, continue aswell? The context here is a citizen leaving the country to join the opposing side of an ongoing war. That fits exactly with what Mr. al-Aulaqi did. AFAIK, no muslim citizens have been interned and had their rights suspended during this time of war as the Japaneese were duing WW2, so i'm afraid your point is totally invalid.

The prescedent here is clear and that is precisely why there is no great legal debate over the issue going on now. He was clearly working for AQ, had left the country to a location that would make extradition difficult, and became an enemy soldier no diffirently than the American Germans who served in the German military.

Anyone arguing that the US should have gone out of it's way to put a bunch of soliders on the ground in Yemen and extradite him is simply not in touch with the reality we live in. That would have caused far more collateral damage, far more death of American citizens (the soldiers sent in to get him), and far more of a political circus over where he would be tried and what the rammifications would/should be.

Thu, 06 Oct 2011 18:22:56 UTC | #878487

Sara12's Avatar Comment 12 by Sara12

Comment 11 by UGAtheist :

Also during the Second World War, American citizens were sent to internment camps with no due process simply for being of Japanese decent.That something was once done is not, in itself, sufficient grounds to keep doing it.

And where did I suggest that, alltogether diffirent practice, continue aswell? The context here is a citizen leaving the country to join the opposing side of an ongoing war. That fits exactly with what Mr. al-Aulaqi did. AFAIK, no muslim citizens have been interned and had their rights suspended during this time of war as the Japaneese were duing WW2, so i'm afraid your point is totally invalid.

The prescedent here is clear and that is precisely why there is no great legal debate over the issue going on now. He was clearly working for AQ, had left the country to a location that would make extradition difficult, and became an enemy soldier no diffirently than the American Germans who served in the German military.

Anyone arguing that the US should have gone out of it's way to put a bunch of soliders on the ground in Yemen and extradite him is simply not in touch with the reality we live in. That would have caused far more collateral damage, far more death of American citizens (the soldiers sent in to get him), and far more of a political circus over where he would be tried and what the rammifications would/should be.

The nexus of intelligence gathering and analysis with the needs of a free and open society is a matter of constant discussion within the intelligence community. It is fully understandable and even inevitable that those who are not familiar with how the intelligence community does, and is supposed to do, business, are not going to be disposed towards accepting premises based on evidence they don't have access to. There are certainly plenty of instances where the elements of the US intelligence community (there are 16 agencies) have done things they weren't supposed to be doing. But the vast majority of intelligence officers are professionals who do their jobs with honesty, integrity, and cognizance of the law. Going through the intelligence process is much like scientific method, in which a theory is developed about how or when something might happen, or who is responsible for a particular event; various hypotheses are generated that might account for what you want to know; evidence is collected, and analysis is conducted. You either confirm or deny your hypotheses and move on as appropriate. It is more like social science than hard science, which makes it inherently more difficult, but the process is nevertheless similar. In this case, as I understand it just from news outlets and such, an evidence-based decision was made to change Al-Awlaki's status to enemy combatant. Once that was done, that opened up a new set of laws to work with. Like the example of German American citizens going to fight for Germany in WWII, that fact supersedes citizenship.

Which is not to say that we shouldn't still have that discussion of whether it was the best way to handle the situation. That discussion is always worth having. But I think it is also worth remembering that one of the results of having an representative democracy rather than a direct democracy is that we recognize that we put those representatives, whatever their individual faults and foibles, in place to deal with things that we don't have the time, inclination, or expertise to deal with. Those tensions are never going to be resolved perfectly, of course. But that's what discussion is for.

Thu, 06 Oct 2011 22:58:48 UTC | #878590

SimonSays79's Avatar Comment 13 by SimonSays79

Minor detail: WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH YEMEN

Fri, 07 Oct 2011 12:23:45 UTC | #878721

Sara12's Avatar Comment 14 by Sara12

Comment 13 by SimonSays79 :

Minor detail: WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH YEMEN

We're also not at war with Pakistan. And yet...

My brother asked me what I thought about this the other day. I said well, they did declare him an enemy combatant. He said, In which war? I said, The one Al Qaeda declared on the United States in 1998.

Fri, 07 Oct 2011 13:28:20 UTC | #878729

TeraBrat's Avatar Comment 15 by TeraBrat

I scoff at the pandering of politicians who promote fear mongering by claiming Sharia law is about to be implemented across the US (There is indeed fundamentalist law in the United States – but it springs from fundamentalist Christians. More on this at another time.)

The one does not negate the other.

base my opinion that they want to implement Sharia law on the opinions of people like Ayaan Hirshi Ali.

Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:33:40 UTC | #878780

TeraBrat's Avatar Comment 16 by TeraBrat

Comment 1 by SimonSays79 :

What we should also not do is dismiss valid concerns about rule of law and due process. Al-Aulaqi was a US citizen. As a lawyer Sean you are no doubt aware that we are a nation of laws. Treasury officials (this is the article you are citing) cannot decide anyone's guilt or innocence. This is something only a judge or jury can do. Al-Aulaqi had never been indicted -much less convicted- of any crime by a US court.

As someone with dual citizenship I'd like to point out a fact you may not be aware of. After I served in the IDF I was required to show proof that I had been drafted and not volunteered in order to retain my American Citizenship. Al-Aulaqi clearly volunteered to be on the side of Al Quaida, and was fighting against American interests. That is grounds for immediate loss of citizenship.

Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:36:39 UTC | #878782

SimonSays79's Avatar Comment 17 by SimonSays79

Al-Aulaqi clearly volunteered to be on the side of Al Quaida, and was fighting against American interests. That is grounds for immediate loss of citizenship.citizenship.

1) If this is so "clear" then why has he never been indicted by any US court for any of his alleged crimes-much less convicted?

2) Can you clarify which statute you are referring to that even mentions "fighting against American interests"? The rules for loss of US citizenship are quite clearly listed here: http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

3) Even if we were to accept your somewhat shaky premise that there may have been grounds for loss of citizenship, the fact is that it was not.

Fri, 07 Oct 2011 19:38:01 UTC | #878843

Steven Mading's Avatar Comment 18 by Steven Mading

Comment 8 by AtheistEgbert :

I completely disagree with those -- often fundamentalist Christians – who opposed the so-called “ground zero mosque”.

Not everyone who oppossed the 'ground zero mosque' were fundamentalist Christians, many were family members of the victims of the attack. It is was a highly insensitive idea and it divided opinion.

The blanket stigmatizing of a block of people based on religion is flat wrong.

Opposition to the building of the mosque was not about stigmatizing a block of people but about the insensivity to those affected and effected by the 9/11 terrorist attack done in the name of Islam.

And it assumed incorrectly that the people building the mosque were of the same mindset as the ones initiating the attacks. Unitarians and Pentacostals are nothing like each other in their moral beliefs, but they both call themselves Christians despite the fact that in reality they're really not following the same religion as each other much at all. (The subset of the bible that one follows and the subset that the other follows have very little overlap). Muslims can pull the same trick of claiming their holy books say things other than what they do by just careful masking off of the parts they don't like. You can't assume everyone who uses the same religious label really does actually follow precisely the same religion. If the many different Christian religions can cherry-pick, so too can Muslims.

Never confuse the official tenets of a religion with the people who claim they follow it. They aren't all following the same subset of those tenets, and as such it would really be a lot clearer if they just didn't go around claiming the same label as each other. But alas they don't. So you still have to take each individual little sub-religion as its own special case and get to know what that particular sub-religion actually promotes and not make the mistake of believing two people are both following the same religion just because they use the same label for it.

Just because a religion is awful doesn't mean you should stereotype those who claim to follow it.

I emphasize again: the vast majority of Muslims are good people. I don’t think Muslims, including those at this particular mosque, support suicide bombings or flying airplanes into buildings, or engaging in mass killing at a military base.

Ordinary people are capable of extraordinary evil under the right circumstances. That goes for anyone, whether they're Muslim, Christian or Atheist. Islam creates the environment for extraordinary exploitation and oppression. It is an authoritarian political ideology, so is Catholicism.

The idea that any culture only has a minority of violent people hides the fact that such cultures can be highly oppressive and exploitative.

Violence makes it appearance in many subtle ways. Apostasy, for example, is a form of violence widespread among Islam.

Choose your words more carefully there. Calling "apostacy" a form of violence sounds like the proclamantion of the worst reactionary cleric trying to pretend that it is violent to tell him you don't follow his religion, and turn blame around onto the victim. I think what you meant to say was that the negative reaction to apostacy is a form of violence, not that the apostacy itself is.

Each of us have a responsibility to protest against dogmatic, hate-filled ideology.

Not really. It is a matter of the law. I don't have a responsibility to protest against murderers or rapists or con-artists. It's not something to protest unless you live in an uncivilized culture.

You can't protest about the ordinariness of evil created by oppressive and authoritarian cultures but you can politically oppose such cultures.

Huh? What is this weird imaginary line you are trying to draw between postesting something and politically opposing it?

What if we were to take a step back from all these ancient texts? And perhaps not treat them ever so gingerly as “conservative” and rather face them directly for what that accurately are: often misogynist, often violent, and, quite often, not very helpful to the goal of a more rational and compassionate world.

What I have been recently suggesting is that we expose these organized forms of religion as not religion at all but political organizations, with the intent of creating tyranny over people. If we oppose tyranny and authoritarianism, then that makes us liberals and atheism becomes irrelevant.

You seem to be imlpying that treating a religion as a religion and treating it as a political organization are two mutually exclusive things. I've never seen much of a difference. Politics is about shaping people's behaviors. So is religion.

We have political goals not necessarily rational ones. We wear the mask of atheism just like others wear the mask of theism to hide behind their political agenda.

You're not making sense here.

At the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, we will continue to face such issues squarely, always espousing more compassion, more reason, more science, more understanding, and more honest discussion.

I'm all for honest discussion. I'm glad RD.net is so willing to promote honest discussion.

Fri, 07 Oct 2011 19:56:46 UTC | #878849

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 19 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:29:20 UTC | #879188

hueman0un's Avatar Comment 20 by hueman0un

Islam makes people into "nut cases." not every middle easterner is Islam, but the only middle easterns we seem to hear from on the media are all islamic. I'm sure there are women out there that have been stoned by a crowd of angry Muslims for showing their face, and they probably have a much different view of Islam. Islam much like Christianity kills people. After 9-11 all of these Muslims were trying to get people to read the Quran because it is a "peaceful" religion, and I'm sure some interpretations of it are. However, these holy books are specifically written with multiple interpretations to disguise a lot of what they preach. Islam preaches to young men that they are actually in hell, and that the only way out of hell is to slay the great satan...and by doing so heaven will rule on earth and all of the women will be grateful of them and they will have 50 virgins. This is what Islam preaches in it's radical sects (sectors) Christianity also has radical sects that abuse homosexuals, that harrass jews, and that are white supremacist...sadly these sects of the church are still connected with the church...A Mosque at groundzero offends me...and so does a church at ground zero...because those people are not going to heaven they are forever taken from us, because of religion. Religion caused this war so putting a mosque at ground zero is offensive. Those hijackers did not beat the great satan and make heaven on earth. They died, they lost everything. Moreoever, those people that were so mercilessly killed by religion are not in heaven..that is just to soften the blow to keep our emotions bottled up. It soothes us to think that our murdered peoples are in a wonderful serene glorious place. In reality they are in pieces on the pavement and crushed under rubble...they were burned alive. Again, because of religion and because religion did this we are supposed to turn to a bible or mourn in a church?! We are supposed to read the Quran to better understand that Islam has a peaceful side?! No..that is the very culprit of these crimes, and you want to disgrace the memory of those people who were murdered by Islam by giving Islam real estate right where they murdered people. In that case religion really has won this war...meanwhile the people they killed are not being remember in some building dedicated to their lives but rather their is yet another site for Islam to promote itself. When will people realize that the Christian Church and the Islamic church are the same exact business...RELIGION..Religion has different sects in different REGIONS...Islam is merely Christianity in a different region. They have the same basic practices and they preach the exact same things. They wanted a war..they caused a war..and now yet another fanatical group demands that people tolerate it, because america seems to be the land of opportunity for dangerous religions...Not even the British would allow those fanatic puritans to burn their women alive..so they sailed the ocean blue and soon had the pilgrims burning witches and fearing the red man...One less church in the world is a good thing. The churches are responsible for many many wars. They like wars if they can profit off of them...so they cause them

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:22:46 UTC | #880308

hueman0un's Avatar Comment 21 by hueman0un

so he doesnt want to offend muslims but he calls terrorists "nut cases"..i guess hes not worried about offending people diagnosed with mental illnesses

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:28:33 UTC | #880311

KenChimp's Avatar Comment 22 by KenChimp

I've got no issues whatsoever for labeling "nut cases" as "nut cases".

Anyone who cannot see that fundamentalist extremism is a form of social insanity needs to take a look at what constitutes Sociopathy in psychology.

I do have issues with any element of the US government summarily executing anyone, especially U S citizens without due process of law. My issues with this are based upon sound reasoning and education in human history. We cannot maintain liberty by violating the principles of liberty. We cannot uphold the rule of law if we permit anyone for any reason to operate outside the bounds of the law.

It seems wise to me to hold those in positions of power particularly accountable for their actions when those acts are performed using the authority of their position of power.

Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:27:04 UTC | #880937

arrogant hamster's Avatar Comment 23 by arrogant hamster

it's not peaceful.

Sun, 16 Oct 2011 18:12:26 UTC | #881298

UGene's Avatar Comment 24 by UGene

If we are ever going to get rid of this plague called Islam, we need to stop tolerating the intolerant. Clearly, Islam is an intolerant religion, therefore any place of worship associated with it is (or should be) illegal, since the Qu'ran contains death threats against entire populations (atheists first and foremost, but also Jews and polytheists). This should also be applied to Christians and Jews with their Old Testament (unless they remove the violent verses), but the Muslim problem is much more pressing at the moment.

If islamists are not afraid of killing atheists, but we don't even have the guts to demolish a few mosques (one for each innocent life lost in any terrorist attacks committed in the name of Islam), is it surprising that Islam's influence in the world is on the rise? Worse, we actually aid terrorists and Islamic fanatics to gain power, like in Libya, where they want to fully implement Sharia law and even cancel some of the rights given to women by the Gaddafi regime. Just watch Mustafa Abdul Jalil's speech (he's the new leader of "democratic" Libya), and pay attention to the part where he bows to Allah in front of the crowd. We should have been installing dictators like Enver Hoxha - willing to implement atheism forcefully, if necessary.

To put it another way, the West's suicidal tolerance is the best friend of religion. This is what we as atheists should fight against. We must learn to be intolerant of the intolerant.

Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:38:04 UTC | #883986

ZenDruid's Avatar Comment 25 by ZenDruid

Ah yes, UGene... courting the 'final solution', I see.

I'm in favor of isolating the crazy mullahs by exile. And the crazy preachers and the crazy rabbis....

Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:49:24 UTC | #883988

Luis_Cayetano's Avatar Comment 26 by Luis_Cayetano

If islamists are not afraid of killing atheists, but we don't even have the guts to demolish a few mosques (one for each innocent life lost in any terrorist attacks committed in the name of Islam), is it surprising that Islam's influence in the world is on the rise? Worse, we actually aid terrorists and Islamic fanatics to gain power, like in Libya, where they want to fully implement Sharia law and even cancel some of the rights given to women by the Gaddafi regime. Just watch Mustafa Abdul Jalil's speech (he's the new leader of "democratic" Libya), and pay attention to the part where he bows to Allah in front of the crowd. We should have been installing dictators like Enver Hoxha - willing to implement atheism forcefully, if necessary.

Oh UGene, you so cray-zeh.

Don't you realise that this is going to achieve the exact opposite of what you want? What happens, for example, when the US launches a war against a predominantly Muslim country? Do the Muslims love them for it? So what do you think is going to happen when 'we' (who's that, by the way?) start demolishing mosques?

And sure, you can back dictators like Enver Hoxha, if your concerns begin and end with atheism.

Here's an idea, to level things out: for every innocent person the US kills, Muslims should demolish a Western embassy. Does that sound fair?

Sat, 05 Nov 2011 20:39:50 UTC | #887675