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


← The problem in public life isn’t Islam, but religion itself

Finch's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by Finch

From the article:

Britain might follow the lead of Ontario, where public outcry over proposed Muslim sharia tribunals led the government to realize that Christians and Jews had been allowed similar religious-based tribunals, and that the whole thing was a bad idea. By putting an end to the practice of religious law, Ontario relegated religion to the place it works best, as a philosophy of private enlightenment (if only the same could be done for schools).

Ontario got it right. Please follow suit, UK.

How is it that modern Western governments so quickly forget religious history, by allowing religious-based tribunals (saying the words, makes my skin crawl), and that humans have always furthered their religious fanaticism by using politics (and education) to accomplish it?

Also, from the article:

We’re entering an age when Muslims are no longer seen as alien outsiders but as ordinary participants in public life. If earlier public hysteria over their beliefs had a benefit, though, it was in making us all realize the value of a neutral, secular public life.


In Western culture, any devout Muslim who follows sharia law and takes office to lead "a campaign to enforce mandatory prayer and to lobby for religious-based values and laws" (Warsi) is a direct threat to that Western culture...and is, by definition, an "alien outsider" and, by no means, an "ordinary participant in public life."

Comment 5 by TeraBrat :

Why can't the problem be both?

Good question. It is both.

Islam, specifically: The Baroness is a devout Muslim who wants Islamic law injected into Western government. Real basic. She doesn't identify as a Christian who wants these things,...or as a Jew, or as a Rasta, or as a Buddhist, or as a Hindu. She openly identifies as a Muslim.

Religion, generally: Any religious law has no part in Western government.

Comment 12 by Border Collie :

Every time I see the word "devout", I want to vomit. He just thinks Islam isn't the problem. He ain't seen nothin' yet. Warsi is only using this "Christian" thing as an Islamic wedge. As a "devout" Muslim, by definition, she doesn't give a damn about Christianity and is sworn to destroy it. Just another stupid dhimmi article.


Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply delusional. IMO, calling Warsi "devout" is ultimately synonymous with "radical" because, if Sharia gets a toehold in government, Radical Islam will win and eventually call the shots, when push comes to shove, because it has a history of keeping adherents in line with violence and terrorism (actual and threatened) that very few Muslims will resist when faced with losing either their life, their freedom, or those of their family members.

If that happens, if the scales tip, we dhimmi will no longer be allowed...err...tolerated.

I don't think that it's too far-fetched to predict that, if the UK allows Sharia to get a firm toehold in government, Dawkins and those participating in the RDF will become a bigger target and receive death threats. Holy shit, just look at the stir created by the religious community over the RDF-sponsored, Ipsos MORI survey. A freakin' survey. Get a life.

(Also, IMO, terrorism perpetrated by radical Islamists, in the West, is designed not necessarily to terrorize Westerners...or to damage western interests...but to terrorize Muslims living in the West to keep them in line, whether that's in the UK, Canada, or the US. That's why we only hear peeps and whispers denouncing Islamic terrorism from the Muslim community rather than huge numbers raising holy hell over the issue. They either agree...or they are fearful. Either way, they become complicit, by remaining relatively silent, via the "sin" of commission...or the "sin" of omission. I wonder what others think of this perspective?)

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:55:17 UTC | #920740