Richard Dawkins Says 'Religions Are NOT Equally Violent' After Charlie Hebdo Attack

[rug]

By Cavan Sieczkowski
Posted: 1/07/2015 1:47 pm EST '
Updated: 5 hours ago

Author, biologist and New Atheist Richard Dawkins took to Twitter to sound off on religion after the attack on France's satirical weekly publication, Charlie Hedbo.

Three masked gunmen stormed the Charlie Hedbo offices in central Paris Wednesday, killing 12 people. Four of the slain were cartoonists for the publication, known for its controversial illustrations lampooning political and religious figures, including Islam's Prophet Muhammad. People who witnessed the Paris attack said that the gunmen allegedly shouted "We have avenged the Prophet Muhammad" and "God is Great" in Arabic, according to the BBC.

Charlie Hebdo's satirization of Islamic figures over the years has resulted in backlash and threats against the paper. In 2011, its Paris office was firebombed after it published an issue that jokingly said it had been "guest edited" by the Prophet Muhammad.

Dawkins on Wednesday took aim at violence and religion in tweets to his 1 million followers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/richard-dawkins-religion-charlie-hebdo_n_6430724.html

Sam should be along any time now.

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. Religions aren't violent ...

People use religion as an excuse/justification for their violence.

[Alittleliberal]

16. That is precisely why they are so dangerous

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. is the excuse of religion ...

Any more dangerous than a fervent belief in white supremacy? Or, nationalism/patriotism? Or, justice? Or, any other belief that would allow one to believe they are justified to kill?

DU's shameful sheet is showing today.

[Alittleliberal]

18. Yes

Religion is more dangerous because they think they are serving a higher power that no one knows whether or not it exists. It doesn't mean it's any worse then other types of violence but it's certainly a more dangerous belief. These other fervent beliefs are atrocious as well but at least they are rooted in the real world. Much easier to fight extremism that isn't based on fairy tales.

[rug]

19. You simltaneously misunderstand white supremacy and religion.

Do you think an atheist white supremacist is less dangerous than a religious believer?

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. Thank you ...

And, I'm I to believe that the supremacy of white folks is less fanciful, i.e., more grounded in reality than a non-believers estimation of a believers faith.

That's problematic for me.

[rug]

21. I don't understand the mindset at all.

[Goblinmonger]

22. You do know most white supremacist organizations

stem from religion? Specifically Christianity.

[rug]

23. Do you think an atheist white supremacist is less dangerous than a religious believer?

Or do you believe such a person does not exist?

[Goblinmonger]

41. They would be equally dangerous.

Statistically speaking, I would posit that the atheist white supremacist is rare compared to the religious one. A non-believer would not be welcome in the KKK. If the White Aryan Resistance had not been dismantled due to the lawsuit, they would not have allowed non-believers either.

[rug]

48. Seriously? You think David Duke and and Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori are equally dangerous?

[Goblinmonger]

50. I thought the comparison was

religious white supremacist and non-religious white supremacist. Those are equally dangerous.

Are you saying that David Duke is non-religious? I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

[rug]

55. It wasn't.

The question was:

Do you think an atheist white supremacist is less dangerous than a religious believer?

If you want to go there, Rudolf Hess issued a decree in 1933 stating:

"No National Socialist may suffer any detriment on the ground that he does not profess any particular faith or confession or on the ground that he does not make any religious profession at all."

Baynes, Norman H. ed. (1969). The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939. 1. New York: Howard Fertig, p. 378.

This takes nothing away from their cynical use of religions to advance their political aims but there doubtless were atheists in the Nazi Party. You can't get more white supremacist than that.

To return to the question, is it correct then that you consider a religious believer less dangerous than an atheist white supremacist?

If so, are there any other ideologies that you believe trump atheism?

[Alittleliberal]

26. You lack reading comprehension

I'm not talking about individuals committing acts of violence. An extremism based on a belief that can't be proven wrong by definition has to be more dangerous then extremism that can be shown to be objectively wrong.

[rug]

28. Not at all.

I know exactly what a little liberal means.

[Alittleliberal]

29. Clearly not

The little in my name refers to my height not how far to the left I am.

[rug]

30. I do know the broader the brush the less the liberal.

[Alittleliberal]

32. I'm not painting a broad brush of all religions

I'm making a statement on the concept of religious extremism and that it is more dangerous because with religion you can justify literally any belief.


Also cut the more liberal then thou bullshit.

[rug]

33. I don't see "extremism" in this statement:

Religion is more dangerous because they think they are serving a higher power that no one knows whether or not it exists.

Looks pretty broad to me.

[Alittleliberal]

34. You're going to have to try harder then that

I'm referring to religious violence. Remember you inserted yourself into a conversation between two other people. I have no problem with that as this is a message board. I will, however, not stand for you pulling a statement out of the context of the conversation to try to put words in my mouth. How dare you act like more of a liberal then I am and pull one of the most used tricks out of Fox's playbook.

[rug]

35. One, I don't have to "try harder".

Two, you're on a discussion board not in a private chat room.

Three, that is your statement, unedited.

Four, defend it, if you can.

[Alittleliberal]

36. Do you not read posts you reply to?

Remember you inserted yourself into a conversation between two other people. I have no problem with that as this is a message board.

This statement was not me saying to butt out. It was that you entered a conversation after it had begun and I was letting you know that maybe you should re read the whole conversation for the context. I made that statement as a response to a post about religious violence.

[cbayer]

44. Do you apply this same logic when looking at the good things that religion does?

Is it then more positive because of the belief in serving a higher power?

[bvf]

37. Religion differentiates

the believer from others who are not of that religion.

I don't know of any religion that holds its tenets to be inferior to those of any other.

I think all religion is ridiculous. The fact that people use it as an excuse/justification for violence doesn't do much to alter my stance. Further, I think you could safely add "motivation" to "excuse/justification" in your post.

[MellowDem]

56. Religions are belief systems...

Some advocate violence explicitly in their texts, including all the Abrahamic religions, along with other terrible stuff.

So some belief systems help create violence.

[bluestateguy]

2. The truth hurts

Becuase he is right.

[Sopkoviak]

3. His Twitter account

[immoderate]

4. I'll agree with Dawkins and add my "then, so what?"

--imm

[cleanhippie]

5. I'll second what immoderate said, and add "whats your point?"

[cleanhippie]

6. Oh, and I forgot to say DAWKINS!!!111!!OMG11!!!!

[Goblinmonger]

7. Is this a shock to you?

You have heard of Quakers, right?

[cleanhippie]

8. Not a shock, just a chance to post something with "Dawkins" in the title.

[rug]

12. I have yet to post a story with dead baby in the title.

[cleanhippie]

15. The day isn't over yet.

[rug]

9. I have a twelve year old cat.

It is not a shock to me when it farts.

At this point, I am far less interested in what he says than where, when and how he says it.

That applies to my cat as well.

[hrmjustin]

11. I have a 5 cats and the litter boxes can knock you on your feet wt times.

[rug]

13. Got to keep ahad of them.

[hrmjustin]

14. lol yes.

[edhopper]

25. If I were you I would ignore

reading threads like this with Dawkins as the subject.

The OP seems to be captivated by him though.

[rug]

27. If I were you, I'd check who I was replying to before hitting "Post".

[edhopper]

31. I was well aware

It wasa jest at your dismissal of Dawkins while posting about it.

Probably needed a good delivery for the humor to get through.

[Lordquinton]

40. Dawkins said it in his tweet

Sarcasm is often lost on some folks.

[hrmjustin]

10. i tend to think many of our religions could use reformations.

[msongs]

24. german catholics and protestants were a tad violent religiously speaking not that long ago nt

[edhopper]

42. Hence this tweet

"No, all religions are NOT equally violent. Some have never been violent, some gave it up centuries ago. One religion conspicuously didn’t."

So you agree with Dawkins?

[Humanist_Activist]

38. He's making an accurate observation, is there something wrong with that? n/t

[goldent]

39. This edgy tweet is not quite edgy enough these days

[cbayer]

43. Thanks, Richard. This is really going to help.

Muslims around the world have condemned the attack on Charlie Hebdo. France's Grand Mosque of Paris, one of the largest in the nation, posted a statement on its website, reading:

We strongly condemn these kind of acts and we expect the authorities to take the most appropriate measures. Our community is stunned by what just happened. It’s a whole section of our democracy that is seriously affected. This is a deafening declaration of war. Times have changed, and we are now entering a new era of confrontation.

But he takes the opportunity to attack all of Islam. Islamophobic garbage.

[Goblinmonger]

45. There are people on this board

who are saying that the publishers of the cartoon should have reasonably expected the violent reaction that they got. One of your friends. The only person calling him on it are some of the atheists here. Your husband actually chimed in in his defense and called us a lynch mob. That person is saying that Islam is a violent religion and these attacks should have been anticipated.

I await you going there and telling that person that they, too, are wrong. I know it is much easier to make up a charge of Islamophobia against Dawkins, but calling out those that are right here and can respond and explain might actually make a bigger difference.

[cbayer]

46. Another who is so blinded by his need to get me that he sees only what he wants to see.

Take a look at the thread by NYC_SKP, then get back to me.

As I have said before, credibility factor here is 0.

[Goblinmonger]

47. I have looked at that

Why would NYC_SKP be saying that the violent reaction should have been expected if he didn't have an underlying assumption about the way Muslims would react?

[cbayer]

49. You had looked at that and still saw fit to call me out?

Really? You need to take a step back and look at your motivations.

Seeya.

[Goblinmonger]

51. If you are going to call people out for their attitudes,

then, yeah, I'm going to ask why you didn't respond when one of your buddies does worse somewhere else.

Or, you could try explain how his position is not victim blaming and assuming that there is violence in Islam when he says that the violent reaction should have been expected.

[cbayer]

52. You still haven't looked at it have you?

I'm sorry. Was my disagreement with him not quite strong enough for you?

I feel for you, I really do. You are in a completely untenable position.

[Goblinmonger]

53. Here's your response to him. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place.

I am going to disagree with you here. I think this is free speech and is entirely politically motivated. I think their targets were extremists and not islam or any other religion in general.

I do not think this meets the criteria for hate speech.

The magazine was a staunch supporter of keeping the French government secular and the comics reflect that sentiment and are often in direct response to some threat to that.

I don't see them as anti-Islamic, but they clearly provoked some Islamic extremists.

They knew what the risk was and they stood by their principles.

Yes, you do say that the cartoons aren't anti-Islamic. I'm talking about his victim blaming. And even more so his assumption that Islam is violent which leads to his conclusion that the violence should have been expected.

[cbayer]

54. Ah, so it wasn't strong enough or specific enough for you.

Poor you. You just have no where to go with this, do you.

Go back and look at your initial accusation of me, then continue to flounder around or show some indication that you were wrong.

Uh, oh. This is going to be a tough one. The eyes of the world are upon you.