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

Manfred's Profile

Manfred's Avatar Joined over 7 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Manfred

More Discussions by Manfred

Latest Comments by Manfred

Go to: Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Manfred's Avatar Jump to comment 233 by Manfred

Thanks Baron
I sent the link.

Wed, 16 May 2007 13:08:00 UTC | #38944

Go to: Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Manfred's Avatar Jump to comment 228 by Manfred

Hitchens is at it again:
http://www.slate.com/id/2166337/

Wed, 16 May 2007 12:51:00 UTC | #38935

Go to: Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Manfred's Avatar Jump to comment 197 by Manfred

From the Washington Post "On Faith" panel by Susan Jacoby:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2007/05/predictably_obituary_writers_a.html

The Ill Truth About Falwell

Predictably, obituary writers are already portraying the Reverend Jerry Falwell as a more respectable figure than he was. Ah, what a beautiful tradition it is to speak no ill of the dead!

In the online edition of The New York Times, writer Peter Applebome observes that Falwell was "demonized on the left in much the same way Senator Edward M. Kennedy or Jane Fonda were on the right." The word "demonized" suggests that the well-meaning Falwell was treated unfairly by the left and that there ought to be a more balanced view of his so-called achievements.

How do you demonize a man who declared that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were evidence of God's judgment on a nation corrupted by civil libertarians and advocates of abortion and gay rights? Falwell demonized himself and followed up his sincere vitriol with the usual insincere public relations apology.

Jerry Falwell, by mobilizing the religious Right as a force for reactionary politics, played a vital long-term role in every retrograde social trend of the past thirty years. He and his Christian soldiers put George W. Bush in the White House.

This man's legacy is one of bigotry, xenophobia, anti-modernism, and utter stupidity. No doubt his funeral will be well-attended.


I agree with Jacoby. Good Riddance!
I will also rejoice on the day that Falwell's legacy in any form and shape is struck down.

Wed, 16 May 2007 07:21:00 UTC | #38799

Go to: The kiss that brought immorality debate to a head

Manfred's Avatar Jump to comment 22 by Manfred

I think there are two issues here. Muslims who live in Western countries ought to follow the laws of that country. As for their culture, they can keep it as long as it is not offensive to the host country's culture. Covering your face is not culturally acceptable in West. Thieves cover their faces. People rightly become suspicious of you. At the very least it is impolite to the host culture to cover your face and show up in public.

Wearing the head scarves though is not that big of a deal I guess, as long as it does not interfere with the woman's work and rights.

The other issue is in the Muslim countries (like Iran) where the law is that you have to cover your hair (not face in Iran's case). Here the law is oppressive. Not all women want to wear the head scarf, but they are forced to and will be punished if they don't.

The bigger problem in my opinion is that Muslim men and devout Muslim women think and believe that any woman who does not follow the strict Islamic dress code is morally corrupt and corrupts others.

I have lived in Iran, and I never had any problem with women who want to cover themselves from head to toe. It is thier life, none of my business. The problem is that they wouldn't leave me or women who think like me alone until they force their beliefs on us.

As a historical note, in Iran around 70 years ago, when Iran was still a kingdom, the king under the influence of Ataturk in Turkey, decided to westernize the country and banned the hijab. Police on horsebacks used to patrol the streets and pull off the sarves from women's heads (it happened to my grandmother). Well, this did not go well in a deeply religious culture. Many families decided that their daughters should not go out at all. It was not a very good experience.
After the ban was lifted several years later, then those who wanted to cover themselves did so, and those who didn't, went out normally. Until the revolution in 79 of course.

Humans are very reactionary. Ban something and they find a way to get around it.

My problem is not as much with the scarves of Muslim women but with the thinking that comes with it usually, that they think they are morally superior to other women and those who don't cover themselves according to rules of Islam are corrupt.

Sun, 06 May 2007 05:11:00 UTC | #35286

Go to: The kiss that brought immorality debate to a head

Manfred's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by Manfred

Comment #37599 by Robert Maynard : "I would think the most prudent thing to do, if I were an atheist in an essentially theocratic country, would be to get the fuck out of there as quickly as possible, rather than strive for social upheaval. One can call that cowardice, but it's also sensible!"

Yup!
That is exactly what I did. And I don't consider it cowardice. I call it survival!
There is not much one can do, really. Unless of course you want your life to be destroyed.

And Lawrence, the reformist predecessor of this madman, could not do much because the fundamentalist establishment has the hold on real power in Iran. And Ahmadinejad has been a memeber of the Revolutionary Guard, and is a fundamentalist. So in that sense the coup has already happened.

Really, I think people instead of being sick, are just used to these absurdities. You laugh and go on with your life. From time to time some groups, ususally university students, try to raise their voices, but that dies out too.

I for one am not very hopeful.

Sat, 05 May 2007 12:53:00 UTC | #35106

More Comments by Manfred