Why the Left Protects Islam

Dawkins is an equal opportunity religion-hater.  A sensible believer would avoid making him his "champion." You are obviously not one of those. 

This is true about Dawkins. If you are expecting anything different, you got the wrong guy. 

I guess that you will meet Hal and Randy our most adamant atheists on this site up to now.  

I am aware of who and what Dawkins is.  He is no friend of mine.  It's almost funny that the secular progressive left is treating one of its own this way.  I nearly seeded the issue of Dawkins being excluded from speaking at the Berkeley church in the event the progressive radio station is hosting before now.  Bill Mahr of HBO fame is another secular progressive atheist who also speaks out against radical Islam.  

Dear KPFA

I used to love your station when I lived in Berkeley for two years, shortly after that beloved place had become the iconic home of free speech. I listened to KPFA almost every day during those years, and I regularly contributed to your fundraising drives, grateful for your objective reporting and humane commentary while I participated in the People’s Park and Vietnam war demonstrations. It was therefore a matter of personal sorrow to me to receive this morning your truly astonishing “justification” for de-platforming me.

My memory of KPFA is that you were unusually scrupulous about fact-checking. I especially admired your habit of always quoting sources. You conspicuously did not quote a source when accusing me of “abusive speech”. Why didn’t you check your facts — or at least have the common courtesy to alert me — before summarily cancelling my event? If you had consulted me, or if you had done even rudimentary fact-checking, you would have concluded that I have never used abusive speech against Islam. I have called IslamISM “vile” but surely you, of all people, understand that Islamism is not the same as Islam. I have criticised the ridiculous pseudoscientific claims made by Islamic apologists (“the sun sets in a marsh” etc), and the opposition of Islamic “scholars” to evolution and other scientific truths. I have criticised the appalling misogyny and homophobia of Islam, I have criticised the murdering of apostates for no crime other than their disbelief. Far from attacking Muslims, I understand — as perhaps you do not — that Muslims themselves are the prime victims of the oppressive cruelties of Islamism, especially Muslim women.

I am known as a frequent critic of Christianity and have never been de-platformed for that. Why do you give Islam a free pass? Why is it fine to criticise Christianity but not Islam?

You say I use “abusive speech” about Islam. I would seriously — I mean it — like to hear what examples of my “abusive speech” you had in mind. When you fail to discover any, I presume you will issue a public apology, which I will of course accept in a spirit of gratitude for what KPFA once was. And could become again.

Yours sincerely

Richard Dawkins

I bet the station will not be moved by his letter which I'd seen before on another article I didn't seed.  There is a part of the secular progressive left that wishes to use Islam in their attack on Christianity and western civilization and Dawkins words are not what that part of the secular progressive left wants to hear.  

Is it beyond your ken to imagine that Dawkins (and Mahr, for that matter) could be both an atheist and a bigot when it comes to Muslims? Christopher Hitchens was also in that category.  Dawkins even admits he has some sentimental attachments to some of the rituals and holidays of his Anglican upbringing so it's no surprise he'd find the ways of devout Muslims difficult to accept.  I find all of the radical believers of any type who advocate violence and repression in the name of religious equally repugnant.  There's a bunch of the Christian variety of that kind of terrorist now operating in the Central African Republic (and adjacent areas) and I don't hear much, if any, condemnation from the rest of the Christian community for their atrocities.  And we have plenty of our own home-grown bible-thumping fundamentalists whose hostile and or demeaning attitudes toward women and other groups are repugnant.  I do like the reminding Christians of the teachings, most of which ignored, of their founder:  "Let him without sin cast the first stone" and "Judge not, lest ye be judged." 

Why are they bigots when they bash Islam yet perfectly fine when they use similar words toward Christians?  What did you think of his letter to the station that Hal posted here?  

Liberals are into the "underdog" thing.  Christians and Jews have been persecuted it seems like forever.  We know who we are and stand strong. 

Christians and Jews have been persecuted it seems like forever. 

Well, what long standing religious group hasn't been? 

The same has also true at various times and places for Muslims, Bhuddists, Baha'ai, Hindus, Jehovah's Witnesses, Sikhs...even Atheists.

Just my 2 cents...but IMO it seems a fruitless pursuit to try to prove that "My religious group has been more persecuted than your relighous group"

That is not what I said nor implied.  Thank you.

I did see that letter and Dawkins is being a bit disingenuous when he suggests that his criticisms of Christianity and Judaism are no different than his attacks on Islam.  He blames all Muslims for the actions of a tiny radical minority.  Neither he, nor Mahr, nor Hitchens before them, ever blame all Christians and Jews for the actions of their violent radicals' actions.  Furthermore, there's this false claim that mainstream Muslims are not quick or strong enough in condemning violence of their radical elements but there doesn't ever seem to such an expectation of this from Christians or Jews.  Muslims are definitely held to a higher standard than the others.  

When a Christian sect films themselves burning non-Christians in cages and painting the shores with blood from freshly shorn heads, Christians will be held to that same standard.  Not that that has never happened in history, but there really is no equal comparison between the two religions today.

hrw

I won't argue that that isn't horrific, but it was a retaliatory counter attack.  The anti-balaka may be predominantly Christian, but it doesn't appear that Christian dogma is their primary driving force.  Personally, I don't know how anyone can continue to believe in a god of any kind after watching their family get hacked to pieces.  It wouldn't surprise me if half of the anti-balaka had lost any belief they had by the time they were cutting toddlers throats.

We are on the same page about religion in general, but in today's world Islam takes the top prize for religiously motivated violence.  Calling that sentiment Islamaphobic is to not acknowledge the facts.

I won't argue that that isn't horrific, but it was a retaliatory counter attack. 

Wit terrorists it's always all about evening the score, isn't it?  

The anti-balaka may be predominantly Christian, but it doesn't appear that Christian dogma is their primary driving force.

That's true for islamist terrorists as well but that argument doesn't satisfy people when mainstream Muslims point that out.  And please don't start citing all the gory segments of the Quran.  The Torah (Hebrew bible) will win that game every time. 

"And please don't start citing all the gory segments of the Quran.  The Torah (Hebrew bible) will win that game every time. "

Oh, right.  Like Christianity hasn't left millions of corpses in its wake over the last 1500 years and still doing so (even if it's been lately under the guise of "freeing people"*). 

* of their oppressive freedom, lands and assets

Ilam[sic] has not "evolved" like the others.

Says the self-righteous, sanctimonious "christian."

Dawkins own words:  " If you had consulted me, or if you had done even rudimentary fact-checking, you would have concluded that I have never used abusive speech against Islam. I have called IslamISM “vile” but surely you, of all people, understand that Islamism is not the same as Islam. I have criticised the ridiculous pseudoscientific claims made by Islamic apologists (“the sun sets in a marsh” etc), and the opposition of Islamic “scholars” to evolution and other scientific truths. I have criticised the appalling misogyny and homophobia of Islam, I have criticised the murdering of apostates for no crime other than their disbelief. Far from attacking Muslims, I understand — as perhaps you do not — that Muslims themselves are the prime victims of the oppressive cruelties of Islamism, especially Muslim women.

I am known as a frequent critic of Christianity and have never been de-platformed for that. Why do you give Islam a free pass? Why is it fine to criticise Christianity but not Islam?

You say I use “abusive speech” about Islam. I would seriously — I mean it — like to hear what examples of my “abusive speech” you had in mind. "

Interesting fact about the Jesus and prostitute fable - it wasn't even a part of the original canon of scripture, but instead was added by a zealous scribe.

washingtonpost

Is your thinking a good reason to not allow differing perspectives to be heard?  Are we now afraid that if someone is heard they might be believed, so they must be silenced?  So much for the ability to debate if you only allow your pet beliefs to be heard and nothing else.

 He is no friend of mine.  It's almost funny that the secular progressive left is treating one of its own this way. 

Not as funny, not to mention pitiful, as watching a bible-thumper try to use him to make his ridiculous case.

Do those of you on the right want to target and persecute Muslims, then?

Only the ones that try to kill us.

The continuous lies, hatred, cruelty, racism, bigotry and intolerance exhibited by conservatives never ceases to amaze me.

The continuous lies, hatred, cruelty, racism, bigotry and intolerance exhibited by secular progressives never ceases to amaze me.  

Now you've passed from absurd to disturbed. 

Who did?  Sichuan?

It's just his way of saying hello.