Dawkins on Alien Rubbish

[charlou]

hehe.

[HomerJay]

Anyhow. I'm staying with the view that religion is a worthy topic for academic study and one that can be introduced at junior school level.

But this says nothing.

It does not make it clear what exposure you feel children should have, which is the crux, are you trying to bully the kids into religious education?

The issue here is around compulsion and the competing needs of different parts of the curriculum.

I don't know how it would be implemented at primary school... To ignore the presence of religion in the world would be a major failing on the part if the education system.

You're writing the same cheque as charlou here.

This is content-free in a world where content is king.

Implementation is all important. You mention you want religion taught at primary school but are you insisting it is taught to all pupils? Are you bullying kids into religious education?

ATM in the UK primary school kids in the UK stay with the same teacher, have the same lessons all day. There is a right of withdrawal from religious elements, but like in the Oz system, there is no requirement for the school to offer an alternative, just a requirement to supervise the child to make sure nothing happens.

It is a very poor system, arranged thusly to prevent kids withdrawing and having a proper lesson instead. When I go to school in the morning there is often one or two children having some remedial lesson (reading/maths) before school. They have this out of hours so as not to disrupt the rest of the day. The schools could teach them maths and reading during the time wasted on religion but they are not able to. This is not fair on the kids and I would withdraw them from religion and then at least they could improve their reading, even if they are not taught.

So under your system of implementation are you going to offer alternatives or are you insisting on compulsion but with some form of withdrawal as exists ATM?

If kids withdraw and don't get the religious shit then, under your rules, has the child been failed by the school/teachers/parents because they haven't been exposed to shit (implicit in your assumption that kids need RE)?

If you offer an alternative lesson then this would be (in the UK) the only time in the school day that the children are split up for different lessons, so you now need to double up on teaching staff (usually a teacher and a teaching assistant) just so that you can put non-compulsory religion onto the school day.

I think you are faced with a choice between compulsory attendance or an increasing drain on resources just to get religion on the agenda.

Neither of these are acceptable.

It's the lack of planning that we see from people who say that religion is important let's force it on 5 year olds, that leads me to dismiss all this as the cultural overlay charlou displayed. Why would people say let's force religion on children, without a consideration of how they were going to do it, unless there was a psychological rather than an educational reason?

[charlou]

You're writing the same cheque as charlou here.

I'd be insulted if it wasn't for ...



























... the fact that I'm easy.

[HomerJay]

You're writing the same cheque as charlou here.

I'd be insulted if it wasn't for ...

The cheque's in the post.

[Coito ergo sum]

You're very dimwitted, it seems, since you have extreme difficulty comprehending basic English and simple concepts, and you continually invent things. I talked of escorting people out. I didn't advocate violence.

I object to being called "dimwitted" as I do not think it shows rational approach to discussion. You are welcome to continue but frankly your posts for the time being will receive a low priority from me.

Just responding to your irrationality in kind.

Whatever else I might have said, I have not and would not personally attack you by implying that you are stupid or use any terms indicating you have low intelligence, as you have done in this case.

You did personally attack me in other ways, though.

Since you have stated that you do not consider yourself to be bound by any need for such restraint, I am not prepared to accept your disregard for this basic civilised respect for another member of the Forum.

You crossed that line first. You don't get to sling arrows with no fear of a retort.

Please therefore take this message as notification that unless I receive an apology from you, I will not be engaging in any further conversation with you on this message board.

You first.

[Cormac]

Knowing the ambiguity, Dawkins could just have said "alien to science".

Let's face it, Dawkins isn't stupid. Islamophobia has become a substitute for racism in our politically correct times, and Dawkins will squeeze every
gram of advantage out of such an ambiguity in order to raise his profile.

So, you don't think he has a point?

There is, of course, a meaning of the word 'alien' other than just 'foreign'. That is 'not of the planet' - i.e. non-human. Given the way that he likes to describe women wearing a niqab as 'bin liners', again dehumanising them to the status of rubbish, I think his latest outburst is entirely consistent with his broadly western-supremacist politics. I'm not surprised you think he has a point.

Perhaps because Western Thought arose from the Enlightenment, the greatest leap forward in human thought since the last time it was done - in Greece. Also, democracy and human rights came directly from enlightenment thought.

Unfortunately, one thing that also derived from Western thought is the idiotic moral and cultural relativism you espouse, which, if left unchallenged will lead inexorably to the extinguishing of the shining beacon of enlightenment thought. The loss of Western thought from the world is a recipe for oppression and misery.

Please explain where the moral and cultural relativism is that you are talking about. There is no such moral or cultural relativism in my argument as far as I can see. All I have said is that human beings should be treated as human beings, and not dehumanised. In talking about moral and cultural relativism, I think you are using words you don't understand; if I am wrong, I am sure you will be happy to explain your understanding of them, rationally.

1. You impute all sorts of nonsense to Richard Dawkins statements, (Alien meaning "non-human"?
2. You pretend that he refers to women as "bin-liners" instead of what he actually said, which is that the niqab is like a bin-liner (and in this, you are dishonest)
3. You then state that he dehumanises them, when his clear intention is the exact opposite - he feels that being forced to wear such clothing is wrong.
4. It is clear that the intention behind women wearing such clothing is to obliterate them from social discourse - to marginalise them, and discourage social interaction. When Richard Dawkins refers to bin-liners (as in the Chador, Niqab, etc), it is to this cultural reality that he objects.

You wrap all of this up as evidence of his supposed "western-supremacist" politics. This implies that you think that he thinks Western Culture is superior. Which in turn implies that you think that this is false. Which in turn implies that you think that other cultures, and in this case - fundamentalist islamic culture, is every bit as legitimate and worthy as Western Culture.

Hence, you are a cultural and moral relativist.

There is a great distinction to be made between human beings and the nonsense that many human being believe, and the cruel oppression many people suffer from due to their anachronistic cultures and religions.

Richard Dawkins is not a bigot and he is not someone who promulgates hatred. He may be naive and arrogant, but not a bigot.

[JimC]

Cormac wrote:

You wrap all of this up as evidence of his supposed "western-supremacist" politics. This implies that you think that he thinks Western Culture is superior. Which in turn implies that you think that this is false. Which in turn implies that you think that other cultures, and in this case - fundamentalist islamic culture, is every bit as legitimate and worthy as Western Culture.

Hence, you are a cultural and moral relativist.

There is a great distinction to be made between human beings and the nonsense that many human being believe, and the cruel oppression many people suffer from due to their anachronistic cultures and religions.

Richard Dawkins is not a bigot and he is not someone who promulgates hatred. He may be naive and arrogant, but not a bigot.

[Robert_S]

It is OK to dehumanize women as long as it is in the service of anti-colonialism.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It is OK to dehumanize women as long as it is in the service of anti-somethingism.

[Exi5tentialist]

1. You impute all sorts of nonsense to Richard Dawkins statements, (Alien meaning "non-human"?)

The word alien has an ambiguous meaning. You probably need to look in a dictionary and you will recognise the provocative ambiguity. Of course I am sure that Dawkins could clear all this up in the minds of lots of people here by saying that of course he did not mean "alien" with the intention of conjuring up the foreign or non-human sense that undeniably attaches to that word. And I would be required to believe him, since many people here are so keen to tell me that I must not infer anything outside the most simplistic face-value interpretation a literal statement made by any individual.

2. You pretend that he refers to women as "bin-liners" instead of what he actually said, which is that the niqab is like a bin-liner (and in this, you are dishonest)

I corrected myself without prompting on that, you need to read the whole thread and in that context the dishonesty accusation is somewhat over the top. However my correction is not a matter of substance to my argument, since it is plainly obvious that what people put in bin liners is rubbish - again this is a provocative ambiguity to add to the one above. The case against Dawkins starts to build up.

3. You then state that he dehumanises them, when his clear intention is the exact opposite - he feels that being forced to wear such clothing is wrong.

Again, there is an ambiguity in Dawkins's statement. He could mean that the responsibility for niqab-wearing women being depicted as rubbish lies with their oppressive religion, as manifested by their husbands. Or he could mean to disempower muslim women by denying their own responsibility for the clothes they wear. In the latter case, calling them rubbish is a dehumanising statement by Richard Dawkins. Herein lies another ambiguity. This is becoming a habit.

4. It is clear that the intention behind women wearing such clothing is to obliterate them from social discourse - to marginalise them, and discourage social interaction. When Richard Dawkins refers to bin-liners (as in the Chador, Niqab, etc), it is to this cultural reality that he objects.

Hmm except in that sentence you have avoided the question of responsibility for 'women wearing such clothing'. My position is that women voluntarily put the clothing on. It is a Sartrean existentialist position, I know, so we might need to start arguing about whether a soldier in the army is free to desert, as Sartre argues, or whether a french youth is free to decide for himself whether to stay in France in the war and be with his mother, or leave her and go and fight with the free French. It is really on that level that I would argue that muslim women have responsibility for the clothes they wear, even if you, and perhaps I, would if given the chance choose to argue with them that they should wear more relaxed attire.

You wrap all of this up as evidence of his supposed "western-supremacist" politics.

Er... no you were the one that wrapped all that up. I just came to the conclusion that anybody with any discernment should be able to - that the cumulative ambiguities that Richard Dawkins deploys so professionally in these cases, added to his many other statements about islam at the bottom of a hierarchy of evil, with Roman Catholicism second and English Protestantism at the civilised, benign top, add up to the unavoidable conclusion that Dawkins's position is inseparable from the values of traditionalist english protestant imperialism, which nowadays manifests itself in western-supremacist ideologies. I don't think it's an unreasonable position to hold given the large amount of evidence I've cited, which you have helped me with, thank you.

This implies that you think that he thinks Western Culture is superior. Which in turn implies that you think that this is false. Which in turn implies that you think that other cultures, and in this case - fundamentalist islamic culture, is every bit as legitimate and worthy as Western Culture.

hang on, hang on....fundamentalist islamic culture may be the culture that I think Dawkins thinks Western Culture is superior to, but the mistake is to think that fundamentalist islamic culture is the correct label for the culture of women who wear the niqab in Oxford, because of course it is so often lumped in with the "islamic fundamentalism" of Iran or Al Qaeda. Therefore your argument breaks down at this point and it is not true that I think of "fundamentalist islamic culture" as being equal to western culture. I may think that neo-liberal middle-eastern culture emerging in Egypt, Iraq or Libya is equal to neo-liberal western culture of Britain, France and the US, but I would need a more careful and more detailed interpretation the term "fundamentalist islamic culture" before I would consent to making any comparisons at all with western culture.

Hence, you are a cultural and moral relativist.

So your description of me as a "cultural and moral relativist" seems to rest on the false inference that I see fundamentalist islamic culture as being equal to western culture. However, women wearing the niqab in Oxford are already exercising a freedom within Western culture. The wearing of the niqab is a part of western culture, because women wearing the niqab in Oxford is an example of religious freedom, which is a fundamental human right. To support this human right does not mean supporting "fundamentalist islamic culture" or its equality with Western Culture.

In addition, making assumptions that women are forced to wear the niqab, and that they do not choose to wear the niqab, is the point at which Richard Dawkins's precious commitment to reason and science breaks down, and the point at which his prejudice and takes over from evidence and scrutiny of the assumption that he has made.

Now I have drawn conclusions from cumulative ambiguities added to explicit insulting language that Dawkins is responsible for. This does not make me a cultural relativist, and I think the conclusions I have come to that Richard Dawkins, and more to the point many people who support his views, are essentially islamophobic bigots is well-reasoned.

I am surprised that in describing him as naive and arrogant, you do not get a sense of the validity of my reasoning.

[Cormac]

1. You impute all sorts of nonsense to Richard Dawkins statements, (Alien meaning "non-human"?)

The word alien has an ambiguous meaning. You probably need to look in a dictionary and you will recognise the provocative ambiguity. Of course I am sure that Dawkins could clear all this up in the minds of lots of people here by saying that of course he did not mean "alien" with the intention of conjuring up the foreign or non-human sense that undeniably attaches to that word. And I would be required to believe him, since many people here are so keen to tell me that I must not infer anything outside the most simplistic face-value interpretation a literal statement made by any individual.

2. You pretend that he refers to women as "bin-liners" instead of what he actually said, which is that the niqab is like a bin-liner (and in this, you are dishonest)

I corrected myself without prompting on that, you need to read the whole thread and in that context the dishonesty accusation is somewhat over the top. However my correction is not a matter of substance to my argument, since it is plainly obvious that what people put in bin liners is rubbish - again this is a provocative ambiguity to add to the one above. The case against Dawkins starts to build up.

3. You then state that he dehumanises them, when his clear intention is the exact opposite - he feels that being forced to wear such clothing is wrong.

Again, there is an ambiguity in Dawkins's statement. He could mean that the responsibility for niqab-wearing women being depicted as rubbish lies with their oppressive religion, as manifested by their husbands. Or he could mean to disempower muslim women by denying their own responsibility for the clothes they wear. In the latter case, calling them rubbish is a dehumanising statement by Richard Dawkins. Herein lies another ambiguity. This is becoming a habit.

4. It is clear that the intention behind women wearing such clothing is to obliterate them from social discourse - to marginalise them, and discourage social interaction. When Richard Dawkins refers to bin-liners (as in the Chador, Niqab, etc), it is to this cultural reality that he objects.

Hmm except in that sentence you have avoided the question of responsibility for 'women wearing such clothing'. My position is that women voluntarily put the clothing on. It is a Sartrean existentialist position, I know, so we might need to start arguing about whether a soldier in the army is free to desert, as Sartre argues, or whether a french youth is free to decide for himself whether to stay in France in the war and be with his mother, or leave her and go and fight with the free French. It is really on that level that I would argue that muslim women have responsibility for the clothes they wear, even if you, and perhaps I, would if given the chance choose to argue with them that they should wear more relaxed attire.

You wrap all of this up as evidence of his supposed "western-supremacist" politics.

Er... no you were the one that wrapped all that up. I just came to the conclusion that anybody with any discernment should be able to - that the cumulative ambiguities that Richard Dawkins deploys so professionally in these cases, added to his many other statements about islam at the bottom of a hierarchy of evil, with Roman Catholicism second and English Protestantism at the civilised, benign top, add up to the unavoidable conclusion that Dawkins's position is inseparable from the values of traditionalist english protestant imperialism, which nowadays manifests itself in western-supremacist ideologies. I don't think it's an unreasonable position to hold given the large amount of evidence I've cited, which you have helped me with, thank you.

This implies that you think that he thinks Western Culture is superior. Which in turn implies that you think that this is false. Which in turn implies that you think that other cultures, and in this case - fundamentalist islamic culture, is every bit as legitimate and worthy as Western Culture.

hang on, hang on....fundamentalist islamic culture may be the culture that I think Dawkins thinks Western Culture is superior to, but the mistake is to think that fundamentalist islamic culture is the correct label for the culture of women who wear the niqab in Oxford, because of course it is so often lumped in with the "islamic fundamentalism" of Iran or Al Qaeda. Therefore your argument breaks down at this point and it is not true that I think of "fundamentalist islamic culture" as being equal to western culture. I may think that neo-liberal middle-eastern culture emerging in Egypt, Iraq or Libya is equal to neo-liberal western culture of Britain, France and the US, but I would need a more careful and more detailed interpretation the term "fundamentalist islamic culture" before I would consent to making any comparisons at all with western culture.

Hence, you are a cultural and moral relativist.

So your description of me as a "cultural and moral relativist" seems to rest on the false inference that I see fundamentalist islamic culture as being equal to western culture. However, women wearing the niqab in Oxford are already exercising a freedom within Western culture. The wearing of the niqab is a part of western culture, because women wearing the niqab in Oxford is an example of religious freedom, which is a fundamental human right. To support this human right does not mean supporting "fundamentalist islamic culture" or its equality with Western Culture.

In addition, making assumptions that women are forced to wear the niqab, and that they do not choose to wear the niqab, is the point at which Richard Dawkins's precious commitment to reason and science breaks down, and the point at which his prejudice and takes over from evidence and scrutiny of the assumption that he has made.

Now I have drawn conclusions from cumulative ambiguities added to explicit insulting language that Dawkins is responsible for. This does not make me a cultural relativist, and I think the conclusions I have come to that Richard Dawkins, and more to the point many people who support his views, are essentially islamophobic bigots is well-reasoned.

I am surprised that in describing him as naive and arrogant, you do not get a sense of the validity of my reasoning.

Squirm all you like.

[Exi5tentialist]

Squirm all you like.

I agree I've probably put too much rational argument in my last reply for you to cope with so let's break it down.

Do you think muslim women are not responsible for what they wear? Isn't that a bit of a knight-in-shining-armour fantasy? Richard Dawkins as the rescuer of muslim women from their evil* muslim husbands?

[*Dawkins's word. No hint of christian righteousness intended, apparently]

[Robert_S]

Squirm all you like.

I agree I've probably put too much rational argument in my last reply for you to cope with so let's break it down.

Do you think muslim women are not responsible for what they wear? Isn't that a bit of a knight-in-shining-armour fantasy? Richard Dawkins as the rescuer of muslim women from their evil* muslim husbands?

[*Dawkins's word. No hint of christian righteousness intended, apparently]

Relevant bit starts about 3:00

[Exi5tentialist]

"This video contains content from Channel 4, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."

[Coito ergo sum]

Squirm all you like.

I agree I've probably put too much rational argument in my last reply for you to cope with so let's break it down.

Do you think muslim women are not responsible for what they wear? Isn't that a bit of a knight-in-shining-armour fantasy? Richard Dawkins as the rescuer of muslim women from their evil* muslim husbands?

[*Dawkins's word. No hint of christian righteousness intended, apparently]

Doesn't that depend on the country? They're not responsible for what they wear in Saudi Arabia. They are required by law to wear certain coverings. They can't drive either, or go outside in public by themselves...