Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I hate seeing "the religion of peace" bullshit here. [View all]muriel_volestrangler
(106,117 posts)219. OK, that interview was in April 2009, when the University of Antwerp gave him an honorary doctorate
http://old.richarddawkins.net/videos/3810-interview-met-darwins-rottweiler
In the same month, we have a withering sarcastic piece on Blair:
Or, in 2013, his opinion of Thatcher:
which goes to:
He is not, and never has been, a neo-con. He votes Lib Dem (the largest party to oppose the invasion of Iraq). In comparison, you have shown nothing whatsoever about him being 'neo-con'. You just say that someone who attacks Islam must be a neo-con.
In the same month, we have a withering sarcastic piece on Blair:
Dear Person of Faith
Basically, I write as fundraiser for the wonderful new Tony Blair Foundation, whose aim is to promote respect and understanding about the worlds major religions and show how faith is a powerful force for good in the modern world. I would like to touch base with you on six key points from the recent New Statesman piece by Tony (as he likes to be called by everybody, of all faiths or indeed of none, for thats how tuned in he is!).
My faith has always been an important part of my politics
Yes indeed, although Tony modestly kept shtum about it when he was PM. As he said, to shout his faith from the rooftops might have been interpreted as claiming moral superiority over those with no faith (and therefore no morals, of course). Also, some might have objected to their PM taking advice from voices only he could hear; but hey, reality is so last year compared with private revelation, isnt it? What else, other than shared faith, could have brought Tony together with his friend and comrade-in-arms, George Mission Accomplished Bush, in their life-saving and humanitarian intervention in Iraq?
Admittedly, there are one or two problems remaining to be ironed out there, but all the more reason for people of different faiths Christian and Muslim, Sunni and Shia to join together in meaningful dialogue to seek common ground, just as Catholics and Protestants have done, so heart-warmingly, throughout European history. It is these great benefits of faith that the Tony Blair Foundation seeks to promote.
We are focusing on five main projects initially, working with partners in the six main faiths
Yes I know, I know, its a pity we had to limit ourselves to six. But we do have boundless respect for other faiths, all of which, in their colourful variety, enrich human lives.
In a very real sense, we have much to learn from Zoroastrianism and Jainism. And from Mormonism, though Cherie says we need to go easy on the polygamy and the sacred underpants!! Then again, we mustnt forget the ancient and rich Olympian and Norse traditions although our modern blue-skies thinking out of the box has pushed the envelope on shock-and-awe tactics, and put Zeuss thunderbolts and Thors hammer in the shade!!! We hope, in Phase 2 of our Five-Year Plan, to embrace Scientology and Druidic Mistletoe Worship, which, in a very real sense, have something to teach us all. In Phase 3, our firm commitment to Diversity will lead us to source new networking partnership opportunities with the many hundreds of African tribal religions. Sacrificing goats may present problems with the RSPCA, but we hope to persuade them to adjust their priorities to take proper account of religious sensibilities.
...
http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2009/04/tony-blair-faith-children
Basically, I write as fundraiser for the wonderful new Tony Blair Foundation, whose aim is to promote respect and understanding about the worlds major religions and show how faith is a powerful force for good in the modern world. I would like to touch base with you on six key points from the recent New Statesman piece by Tony (as he likes to be called by everybody, of all faiths or indeed of none, for thats how tuned in he is!).
My faith has always been an important part of my politics
Yes indeed, although Tony modestly kept shtum about it when he was PM. As he said, to shout his faith from the rooftops might have been interpreted as claiming moral superiority over those with no faith (and therefore no morals, of course). Also, some might have objected to their PM taking advice from voices only he could hear; but hey, reality is so last year compared with private revelation, isnt it? What else, other than shared faith, could have brought Tony together with his friend and comrade-in-arms, George Mission Accomplished Bush, in their life-saving and humanitarian intervention in Iraq?
Admittedly, there are one or two problems remaining to be ironed out there, but all the more reason for people of different faiths Christian and Muslim, Sunni and Shia to join together in meaningful dialogue to seek common ground, just as Catholics and Protestants have done, so heart-warmingly, throughout European history. It is these great benefits of faith that the Tony Blair Foundation seeks to promote.
We are focusing on five main projects initially, working with partners in the six main faiths
Yes I know, I know, its a pity we had to limit ourselves to six. But we do have boundless respect for other faiths, all of which, in their colourful variety, enrich human lives.
In a very real sense, we have much to learn from Zoroastrianism and Jainism. And from Mormonism, though Cherie says we need to go easy on the polygamy and the sacred underpants!! Then again, we mustnt forget the ancient and rich Olympian and Norse traditions although our modern blue-skies thinking out of the box has pushed the envelope on shock-and-awe tactics, and put Zeuss thunderbolts and Thors hammer in the shade!!! We hope, in Phase 2 of our Five-Year Plan, to embrace Scientology and Druidic Mistletoe Worship, which, in a very real sense, have something to teach us all. In Phase 3, our firm commitment to Diversity will lead us to source new networking partnership opportunities with the many hundreds of African tribal religions. Sacrificing goats may present problems with the RSPCA, but we hope to persuade them to adjust their priorities to take proper account of religious sensibilities.
...
http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2009/04/tony-blair-faith-children
Or, in 2013, his opinion of Thatcher:
In all the outpourings on Margaret Thatcher today, Ian McEwan's perceptive intelligence http://bit.ly/10NzZmm stands out.
https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/321534429296222208
https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/321534429296222208
which goes to:
Margaret Thatcher: we disliked her and we loved it
What bound all opposition to Margaret Thatcher's programme was a suspicion that the grocer's daughter was intent on monetising human value
"Maggie! Maggie! Maggie! Out! Out! Out!" That chanted demand of the left has been fully and finally met. At countless demonstrations throughout the 80s, it expressed a curious ambivalence a first name intimacy as well as a furious rejection of all she stood for. "Maggie Thatcher" two fierce trochees set against the gentler iambic pulse of Britain's postwar welfare state. For those of us who were dismayed by her brisk distaste for that cosy state-dominated world, it was never enough to dislike her. We liked disliking her. She forced us to decide what was truly important.
In retrospect, in much dissenting commentary there was often a taint of unexamined sexism. Feminists disowned her by insisting that though she was a woman, she was not a sister. But what bound all opposition to Margaret Thatcher's programme was a suspicion that the grocer's daughter was intent on monetising human value, that she had no heart and, famously, cared little for the impulses that bind individuals into a society.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/09/margaret-thatcher-ian-mcewan
What bound all opposition to Margaret Thatcher's programme was a suspicion that the grocer's daughter was intent on monetising human value
"Maggie! Maggie! Maggie! Out! Out! Out!" That chanted demand of the left has been fully and finally met. At countless demonstrations throughout the 80s, it expressed a curious ambivalence a first name intimacy as well as a furious rejection of all she stood for. "Maggie Thatcher" two fierce trochees set against the gentler iambic pulse of Britain's postwar welfare state. For those of us who were dismayed by her brisk distaste for that cosy state-dominated world, it was never enough to dislike her. We liked disliking her. She forced us to decide what was truly important.
In retrospect, in much dissenting commentary there was often a taint of unexamined sexism. Feminists disowned her by insisting that though she was a woman, she was not a sister. But what bound all opposition to Margaret Thatcher's programme was a suspicion that the grocer's daughter was intent on monetising human value, that she had no heart and, famously, cared little for the impulses that bind individuals into a society.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/09/margaret-thatcher-ian-mcewan
He is not, and never has been, a neo-con. He votes Lib Dem (the largest party to oppose the invasion of Iraq). In comparison, you have shown nothing whatsoever about him being 'neo-con'. You just say that someone who attacks Islam must be a neo-con.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
251 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Have to agree, characterizations like you suggest are racist, religist and bad.
Shrike47
Nov 2014
#2
"Muhammeds successful military conquests" -- "the early Christians had no power"
JDPriestly
Nov 2014
#8
It can't be done. The divisions, the hatreds, the rules and punishments are coded into the texts.
RadiationTherapy
Nov 2014
#19
"there is no historical record that Jesus or his disciples led and armed action"
Thor_MN
Nov 2014
#51
From everything I have read and heard, there is no evidence in the historical record
Thor_MN
Nov 2014
#107
I don't get your meaning. Unless what you are saying is that your previous "Riot at the Temple" post
Thor_MN
Nov 2014
#116
The Bible is no sort of historical record. It is a compilation of stories, many borrowed, all retold
Thor_MN
Nov 2014
#149
Even if you assume without a historical record that Jesus' death was the result of some
JDPriestly
Nov 2014
#119
I don't disagree with you, but even if people do not believe in the historical Jesus, the
JDPriestly
Nov 2014
#144
Some believe that he was mentioned in a historical text, but you may be right.
JDPriestly
Nov 2014
#118
That the very early, pre-Constantine Christians were drawn from the slave and maybe middle
JDPriestly
Nov 2014
#123
See my post #119. You might find it interesting with regard to what the early Christians
JDPriestly
Nov 2014
#122
Please see my post #119. I do not disagree with you but explain why Christians did not
JDPriestly
Nov 2014
#120
And when was Constantine's conversion? 312 AD When was the first council of Nicea? 325 AD - When was
Douglas Carpenter
Nov 2014
#46
True, but although we have other books and a historical record of the existence of Christian
JDPriestly
Nov 2014
#124
I would argue that the Christianity we know today was an invention of Constintine
Exultant Democracy
Nov 2014
#126
The bigoted, fanatical "New Atheist" idiots make me ashamed of being an Atheist.
Odin2005
Nov 2014
#167
Aslan can use all the religious imagery he wants when describing atheists, since
RadiationTherapy
Nov 2014
#29
It seems to me the word "supernatural" has an inherent claim of being beyond
RadiationTherapy
Nov 2014
#56
No hate to say that some dogma provide more cover for pro-violent fundamentalists than others.
ancianita
Nov 2014
#10
Yes, of course they are. You can't have "free will" if you believe in hell.
RadiationTherapy
Nov 2014
#25
Every religion is, I think, inherently theocratic within its own hierarchy.
RadiationTherapy
Nov 2014
#58
That sounds like "religion" as politics rather than as spiritual liberation
Cosmic Kitten
Nov 2014
#64
That is, to me, religion as religion, since religions seem inherently political.
RadiationTherapy
Nov 2014
#65
Since it exists without any empirical evidence, religion is largely semantic, yes.
RadiationTherapy
Nov 2014
#72
Only when theocracy teaches that all are created with free will, while systematically bending
ancianita
Nov 2014
#53
Poetry is fine, yes. Lovely. But to claim divinity is being anthropomorphized
RadiationTherapy
Nov 2014
#94
I see. But I disagree. If a group of people want to believe something, as long as they don't impose
ancianita
Nov 2014
#86
"The No-Ego ego trip is the biggest ego trip of them all." Robert Anton Wilson
RadiationTherapy
Nov 2014
#92
Yeah, there's a lot of hipster fakery around no-ego, for sure. But the ordinariness of doing good
ancianita
Nov 2014
#93
Between your quote's claim of no-ego being the biggest ego of all, and the realness of no ego.
ancianita
Nov 2014
#96
There is such a thing as no ego. But one has to get to that by letting go of an ego, first. Buddha
ancianita
Nov 2014
#113
The premise of "believe what you want but don't impose it" seems implausible?
Cosmic Kitten
Nov 2014
#102
Agreed. And in the context of hierarchal religions, it's a hard way to be without being persecuted.
ancianita
Nov 2014
#114
Well, the idea that islam is "peaceful" or that to be jewish is to be "chosen" are absurd
RadiationTherapy
Nov 2014
#23
that freepfuck crap is not criticism. of course religion needs criticism. there is scarcely a human
cali
Nov 2014
#42
You seem angry that their self descriptions have turned into PEJORATIVES?
Cosmic Kitten
Nov 2014
#66
I don't respect religion or religious thinking. I don't respect faith or the faithful.
RadiationTherapy
Nov 2014
#14
I don't respect generalizations that are tantamount to rank and ugly bigotry, dear.
cali
Nov 2014
#17
I didn't use any generalizations in that post that I don't feel capable of defending.
RadiationTherapy
Nov 2014
#35
In many cases religious people are tolerable only in spite of, not because of, their religions.
Silent3
Nov 2014
#101
I couldn't disagree more. The purpose of religion is to quash individuality.
RadiationTherapy
Nov 2014
#21
another ridiculous generalization, but even if I agreed with your simplistic nonsense
cali
Nov 2014
#27
You seem to lack an aversion for communication without insult, but I can take it.
RadiationTherapy
Nov 2014
#44
At the root, it's a conflict between the rational and irrational mind with each individual
Cosmic Kitten
Nov 2014
#77
Well, I have personally never used the term "religion of peace" to describe any monotheism.
RadiationTherapy
Nov 2014
#39
well obviously I agree - this place loaded with Pamella Gellar lite posts - it is horrifying
Douglas Carpenter
Nov 2014
#30
I completely zgree. We have a few one note posters who sole purpose is to say Islam is violent.
hrmjustin
Nov 2014
#57
Ancient Egypt, Greece, pre-Christian Rome, Hindus, Babylon, the Hittites, the Aztecs, etc.
hobbit709
Nov 2014
#236
Point me to the moderate groups of Scientologists who oppose the Church of Scientology.
Chathamization
Nov 2014
#172
So religious bigotry is ok, if you don't like the religious demographic? nt
ZombieHorde
Nov 2014
#183
No, smearing someone for something they didn't do and are opposed to do just because they happen to
Chathamization
Nov 2014
#185
As I said, point me to the moderate Scientologists who oppose the Church of Scientology
Chathamization
Nov 2014
#189
The Church of Scientology doesn't condone violence against the general population.
ZombieHorde
Nov 2014
#194
Violence of individual members? No. But I haven't seen Scientology attacked for the violence of
Chathamization
Nov 2014
#196
For the third time - where is the group of moderate Scientologists who condemn the Church of
Chathamization
Nov 2014
#199
Can you provide any evidence that people attack the Church of Scientology because of their beliefs?
Chathamization
Nov 2014
#203
Well, yes, I don't agree with those saying it's not a real religion. The fact is, any religion is
Chathamization
Nov 2014
#206
For the most part (although not exclusively) it's the same 2 assholes trolls doing it. One of whom
Guy Whitey Corngood
Nov 2014
#89
Ironically, religious wars are fought to "protect" omnipotent deities.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Nov 2014
#105
Right. Pay no attention to mass slaughter, disease, famine, natural disasters, and so on.
Arugula Latte
Nov 2014
#245
When they condemn Islam they are really condemning all people in the "Islamic World"
cpwm17
Nov 2014
#174
That is not a "hard truth". It is bigoted garbage straight from the piehole of Sam Harris
CrawlingChaos
Nov 2014
#208
OK, that interview was in April 2009, when the University of Antwerp gave him an honorary doctorate
muriel_volestrangler
Nov 2014
#219
So Islam can never be criticised, because that would be useful to neo-cons?
muriel_volestrangler
Nov 2014
#221
I, too, harbor the suspicion that New Atheism is a neo-con front movement
CrawlingChaos
Nov 2014
#223
While I'm probably as guilty of assuming "Republican" = "asshole" as anyone, I try to give
nomorenomore08
Nov 2014
#163
Judaism, Christianity, Islam different sects of the same bloody religion.
Exultant Democracy
Nov 2014
#132
Jesus isn't some rabbi in Islam he is haled as a chief profit second to only Mohammad.
Exultant Democracy
Nov 2014
#229
Exactly. Think what you will about the tenets of the faith, but its followers possess the same
nomorenomore08
Nov 2014
#153
Yes, which is why people saying they put down Christianity too is like Freepers saying they
Chathamization
Nov 2014
#175
I wonder often what modern day extreme Christians would do to nonbelievers, gays, et al
Voice for Peace
Nov 2014
#180
Only likely? Look at Sabra and Shatila or the Bosnian War. For what extremist atheists would do,
Chathamization
Nov 2014
#186
Yes. The habit of blaming everyone, anyone else, for one's own unhappiness.
Voice for Peace
Nov 2014
#242
There's no such Thing as a "Religion of Peace".. ALL RELIGIONS provoke Division/Violence/War
2banon
Nov 2014
#195
How about just peace, without religion!? Can we just be in a state of peace? Please!?
Dont call me Shirley
Nov 2014
#251