-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Richard Dawkins’s response to his de-platforming in Berkeley
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
Dawkins is not my god mate, I'd never say he was 'infallible'. However, different view points are good in a democracy as long as they are not offensive, or likely to stir up hatred against a particular sector of the population correct? If anyone says that Dawkins is particularly "Islamaphobic" rather than "Christaphobic" (apologies, I may be making up new words here!), I'd like to see them present the evidence. He is anti theistic, and he correctly identifies Islam as the most threatening and aggressive religion at this point in time. Fair enough?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Liberals frequently denounce fundamentalist Christianity because of its homophobic, misogynistic, and anti-science views.
But if you denounce fundamentalist Islam because of its homophobic, misogynistic, and anti-science views, then liberals will accuse you of being a genocidal racist.
But if you denounce fundamentalist Islam because of its homophobic, misogynistic, and anti-science views, then liberals will accuse you of being a genocidal racist.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
I dislike Dawkins with a passion (in fact, he ruined Endless Forms Most Beautiful for me), but isn't Berkley a flaming dog turd anyways? Why would anyone with any ounce of self-respect want to speak there?
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
So, not putting words in my mouth there then?
No, probably like Dawkins himself, I know and work with Islamic believers, by and large they are agreeable people. They just want the best for themselves and their families, nothing wrong with that right? Religion is part of their lives, I just happen to think they are deluded in that part of their lives. I'm not interested in eradicating Muslims, so please a little less of the "genocidal manic" label thank you!Having said that, I haven't noticed a lot of Christian, Sikh, Hindu or Buddhist terrorism lately, certainly nothing compared to the scale of Islamic terrorism; unless you want to catergorise American military activity as "Christian terrorism"? You could build an argument around that.
How judgmental. And with not an inkling of factual basis.
Speech should be curtailed when it serves to organize violence. Otherwise, it should be protected. The radio station serves no one by exhibiting moral cowardness.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Religion is not a race, and beliefs/ideas are not people. Would you consider a globe to be a symbol of genocide against flat earthers, and thus should be removed from classrooms?
It's offensive to Martians, duh.
Politesse
Amor Vincit Omnia
It's actually a really nice town.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
So, not putting words in my mouth there then?
Having said that, I haven't noticed a lot of Christian, Sikh, Hindu or Buddhist terrorism lately, certainly nothing compared to the scale of Islamic terrorism; unless you want to catergorise American military activity as "Christian terrorism"? You could build an argument around that.
Now you know how I fell about atheists!!
So you deny there are forces pushing us towards a world war with Islam, maybe you're the one not up to date on things.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Racist!
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
Sure dude, I also recognise the vast majority of Christians are not interested in oppressing anyone either. Looks like we are making progress!
The depth and wisdom of your analysis should be an inspiration to us all, as usual.
Thank you.
Tom
I have a issue with "de-platforming". Weasel words bug me. The word "cancel" is perfectly good as a word.
I'll also note that in response a few people, call them cons (to match libs), like to attack the left. The left, as in this case, is wrong and I write that as a card carrying member of the left. Oversensitivity is a problem just as insensitivity is a problem.
To me the answer is not to shut down speech but to have more speech. If someone is controversial, add more voices to the converstion.
I'll also note that in response a few people, call them cons (to match libs), like to attack the left. The left, as in this case, is wrong and I write that as a card carrying member of the left. Oversensitivity is a problem just as insensitivity is a problem.
To me the answer is not to shut down speech but to have more speech. If someone is controversial, add more voices to the converstion.
Erebus
Well-Known Member
There's a woman called Katie Hopkins who found herself in a similar situation not too long ago. Now her views were definitely more than criticism, she was firmly in the hate-speech camp. I wouldn't blame any radio station for refusing air-time to somebody who spews bile devoid of any merit.
Richard Dawkins ... to be honest, I would be surprised if he actually fell into that category. I don't use or follow twitter at all, so I'm not really familiar with what he said. Based on what little I know of him, I suspect the station's reasons had more to do with fear of backlash than genuine concern about hate-speech. That's a position I have limited sympathy for.
Richard Dawkins ... to be honest, I would be surprised if he actually fell into that category. I don't use or follow twitter at all, so I'm not really familiar with what he said. Based on what little I know of him, I suspect the station's reasons had more to do with fear of backlash than genuine concern about hate-speech. That's a position I have limited sympathy for.