Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
The three people she mentions (Tutu, Armstrong, Ramadan) who wish to create "conditions in which civilised dialogue can develop" are hardly stellar personalities, particularly Mr Ramadan, who can't seem to decide whether Islamic misogyny is "in line with Islamic teaching" or not.
These three reckon that any ideology which breeds hatred or contempt has failed the test of our time. While in one sense a noble statement, it's also a nonsensical one when given more than thirty seconds thought. Pretty much every ideology ever developed has bred hatred and contempt. Nowhere is this more evident than in the failure of religious teaching. I'm sure you don't need thirty more seconds before you've named a dozen incidents where religion has been the main cause of chaos in certain areas of the world.
"They promote the ethic of reciprocity, sometimes called the Golden Rule."
- The Golden Rule isn't as airtight as it's proponents would have us believe. A suicide bomber is bringing death to others in the hope he can get it for himself. You shouldn't want dialogue with anyone who disregards human life, and I think it's immoral to say you do.
Then comes reference to the poll taken by 50,000 Muslims in 35 countries. Their first two grievances are understandable enough, but the third: "...their perception that Islam is not respected as a religion, and that Muslims are not respected as believers..." is the kind of self-pitying whine common to anyone who takes the teachings of a book said to be a god's word as literal truth. Religion isn't respected in a secular society because...well...it's a secular society. We take pride in the fact that we can subject anyone at any time to ridicule and satire if we feel the beliefs they hold are silly. Tough shit. Deal with it. It's the beauty of secular democracy. No-one has forgotten what it was like to live under people who ruled for no other reason than they thought a god had given them permission to. No-one ever will. You have no more right to respect because you believe in a god than I do because I believe Keeley Hazell will marry me in the near-future provided I say my prayers and brush my teeth (and I would argue that her existence alone is enough to give anyone consolation - look what is achieved as a species when the right sperm meets the right egg!).
Probably the most repulsive section of the article is here:
[Dalia Mogahed said] "The word terrorist is like using the 'N-word' for describing blacks and African-Americans..."
Ah, that old chestnut. When all else fails, conflate race and religion, cross your arms and sit in the corner like a sullen child. I'd argue that this conflation is an augmented version of Godwin's Law.
No. Wrong. Don't do it. You're silly if you do and an idiot to boot (and be booted). I particularly like the apparently unaware sentence which follows: "It is callous, and a conversation stopper." Here they're referring to calling all Muslims terrorists. While no-one I know who wants to be taken seriously in these debates would do that, and since no-one to my knowledge with a serious opinion has thus far done it, I think we can call this entire section a "straw man" tangent and be done with it.
Anyway, apologise for the tl;dr nature of this (or, indeed, just ;dr), but it's a slow day and I've got time aplenty to waste.