Hi,

Guy (atheist) in my forum (post here) is insistent that Dawkins & Hitchens are “right-wingers” because of their “Islamophobia” and I don’t think that is justifiable ... I mean I know we humans tend to get a little more conservative (small “c”) as we get older but taking a particular stance on a given religion doesn’t, as far as I can tell, make you a “right-winger” does it?

I did a bit of research and came up with the following about Dawkins:

* Opposed to the 2003 invasion of Iraq,
* Opposed to the British nuclear deterrent
* Opposed to the actions of U.S. President George W. Bush.
* A supporter of the campaign to replace the British monarchy with a democratically elected president.
* A Labour voter in the 1970s
* A voter for the Liberal Democrats since the party’s creation.

And this about Hitchens:
* Vehemently opposed to the Vietnam war (demonstrated against it).
* A member of International Socialists (1967).
* Stood on street corners selling copies of “Socialist Worker”
* Spoke at The Labour Club
* A close associate of Martin Amis
* Bisexual [is]

Neither demonstrate that these gentlemen are politically to the right currently and I know Hitchens was pro action against Saddam Hussein (but then so was I at the time ... not a supporter of the war in Iraq now though) but does that equate to being politically to the right? Although he’s not the best advert for the atheist movement I agree with virtually everything Dawkins has ever said on religions and most of Hitchens stuff on the same (even his anti-royal stance) but I can’t see how that makes someone “right-wing”. My main concerns are education, welfare and defence (strongly support) and religion (extremely negative) and my personal politics are old school labour (socialist but not Marxist or communist, though possibly by US standards) ... I see almost everything else as negotiable.

As far as I know “left-wing” is a term used to refer to someone who is politically to the left and “right-wing” to someone politically to the right and I don’t understand how anyone can claim Dawkins and Hitchens to be right-wing because of what they’ve said.

I genuinely don’t get this argument but maybe someone does here ... does anyone else agree with him and, if so, why?

Keke

Huh.. didn’t know Mr. Hitchens was Bisexual.

What’s wrong or right-wing about being afraid of Islam?  I think it is one of the most dangerous religions we currently face in our world today.

Rocinante - 12 December 2010 09:55 AM

I think it is one of the most dangerous religions we currently face in our world today.

Clearly not true as there are millions of Muslims who don’t show any aggressive behaviour. One could say that some Muslim terrorists are the most dangerous group of people today, but that is certainly not true either. Yes, according to the statistics one has a greater chance being killed by a lawn mower than by a Muslim terrorist.

I wasn’t comparing the dangers of lawn mowers to the dangers of Islam (or any religion.)  I also didn’t say all - or even most - Muslims are dangerous.  I simply said that of all the religions in the world today, Islam is the most dangerous.  For a variety of reasons it is much more likely to become radicalized and support the wide-spread killing of Infidels, not to mention its horrendous treatment of women and gays.

ShadowSot - 12 December 2010 08:21 AM

Huh.. didn’t know Mr. Hitchens was Bisexual.

By which I don’t mean to imply anything. Just didn’t know. 
Pretty sure it rules him our of being right wing.

Rocinante - 12 December 2010 10:52 AM

I wasn’t comparing the dangers of lawn mowers to the dangers of Islam (or any religion.)  I also didn’t say all - or even most - Muslims are dangerous.  I simply said that of all the religions in the world today, Islam is the most dangerous.

Yes, you’re right, mowing a lawn is not a religion. (I shouldn’t be posting on the weekend when I am busy doing ten things at the same time.) My point was that Islam is not dangerous.

Rocinante - 12 December 2010 10:52 AM

For a variety of reasons it is much more likely to become radicalized and support the wide-spread killing of Infidels, not to mention its horrendous treatment of women and gays.

For a variety of reasons? What are they? The 9/11, Madrid train, and London subway bombers clearly didn’t become radicalized because of Islam. They had other reasons and problems why they did what they did. The fact that they justified their actions in the name of their god, doesn’t make Islam dangerous. In the past decade or so surely more people died because of “democracy” than Islam. Is democracy more dangerous than Islam?

Hi George,

I’d tend to agree with Rocinante for a very simple reason, a personal observation which is that just post 9/11 there was an awful lot of soul searching and stuff going on in the media and there were (admitedly to my knowledge) no Muslims willing to decree the terrorists and say they were wrong, they all (especailly very young, quite progressive seeming Muslims) seemed to avoid the question, fail to condemn and in some ways striving to defend the terrorists. Whilst i admit there wre causes of such things I thought that was unnacceptable.

Seeing that made me somewhat more antagonistic towards Islam than I perhaps otherwise woudl have been.

Keke

Keke,

The “German” Muslim terrorists (9/11), the “Spanish” Muslim terrorists (Atocha train station in Madrid), and the “English” Muslim terrorists (London Underground) carried out the attacks because these young men were simply unable to fit into the European society. The reason for that is obviously racism. Arabs, not Muslims per se, will never be seen by Europeans as either Germans, Spaniards or English. That’s one reason why the young Arabs are frustrated, specially in Europe. The second one is obviously the American and Israeli occupation of the Middle East. Muslims who won’t tell you the terrorists were wrong in attacking the western world are as dissatisfied living in a society, where being white is often worth more than ten PhDs, as the terrorists themselves. Islam has nothing to do with this.

George - 12 December 2010 11:13 AM

In the past decade or so surely more people died because of “democracy” than Islam. Is democracy more dangerous than Islam?

If you mean pure “democracy,” i.e “mob rule,” then yes it is dangerous.  If you mean “freedom” or “liberty” I can only assume you mean that people have died as a result of trying to fight radical Islamofascism in order to restore a bit more liberty and sanity to some of the more unfortunate oppressed peoples of the world.  If this is what you mean, then you are purposely eliminating half the equation.  That’s like blaming only the Allies for all the deaths of WWII while purposely ignoring the atrocities of the Nazis. 

Speaking of ignoring things, you also ignore the massive amount of oppression of women, gays, atheists and Infidels of all stripes in a multitude of Muslim countries.  Putting deaths aside, this huge part of the “Danger Equation” is real and completely ignored by the politically correct and Islamofascist apologists of the world.  And that is doing much more harm than good. 

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

-Edmund Burke

Rocinante - 12 December 2010 04:47 PM

George - 12 December 2010 11:13 AM

In the past decade or so surely more people died because of “democracy” than Islam. Is democracy more dangerous than Islam?

If you mean pure “democracy,” i.e “mob rule,” then yes it is dangerous.  If you mean “freedom” or “liberty” I can only assume you mean that people have died as a result of trying to fight radical Islamofascism in order to restore a bit more liberty and sanity to some of the more unfortunate oppressed peoples of the world.  If this is what you mean, then you are purposely eliminating half the equation.  That’s like blaming only the Allies for all the deaths of WWII while purposely ignoring the atrocities of the Nazis. 

Speaking of ignoring things, you also ignore the massive amount of oppression of women, gays, atheists and Infidels of all stripes in a multitude of Muslim countries.  Putting deaths aside, this huge part of the “Danger Equation” is real and completely ignored by the politically correct and Islamofascist apologists of the world.  And that is doing much more harm than good. 

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

-Edmund Burke

To believe that Islam is responsible for the way they treat women and gays only shows how little you know, Rocinante. The Anglicans who allow women and gays to become priests follow a book, the Bible, as monstrous in moral teachings as the Koran. Why do atheists believe people are good due to their evolutionary path, but are quick to blame religion when trying to find an explanation for people’s vices?

Regarding your comparison of the Americans in the Middle East and the Russians and Americans during IIWW, I would point to the difference of the local people welcoming their liberators.

Rocinante - 12 December 2010 04:47 PM

George - 12 December 2010 11:13 AM

In the past decade or so surely more people died because of “democracy” than Islam. Is democracy more dangerous than Islam?

If you mean pure “democracy,” i.e “mob rule,” then yes it is dangerous.  If you mean “freedom” or “liberty” I can only assume you mean that people have died as a result of trying to fight radical Islamofascism in order to restore a bit more liberty and sanity to some of the more unfortunate oppressed peoples of the world.  If this is what you mean, then you are purposely eliminating half the equation.  That’s like blaming only the Allies for all the deaths of WWII while purposely ignoring the atrocities of the Nazis. 

Speaking of ignoring things, you also ignore the massive amount of oppression of women, gays, atheists and Infidels of all stripes in a multitude of Muslim countries.  Putting deaths aside, this huge part of the “Danger Equation” is real and completely ignored by the politically correct and Islamofascist apologists of the world.  And that is doing much more harm than good. 

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

-Edmund Burke

Right, it is ridiculous that anyone could compare the treatment of women and gays in Western (“White” if you will) society as compared to the Arab/Muslim world.  There are state sanctioned hangings of gays in Iran, stonings of women, and tacit approval of men (often family members) murdering female family members.  I dated a “reformed” (apostate) Lebanese woman, and to hear her stories, of even a “moderate” muslim country was jaw-droppings.  Not to mention the writings of Hirsin-Ali and others (like Nonnie Darwish). 

Say what you will about the Christian “West” (most of which is significantly watered down through the centuries), but Islam has no peer when it comes to the oppression of not only women and gays, but anyone who disagrees with their world view.  Islam will never have a pluralist society, because the Number 1 requirement for a pluralist society is a belief in a pluralist society.  Protect as you wish my liberal brothers and sisters, but they are coming for your heads.

As the famous quote goes:

‘Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was
me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family
against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe
against the world, and all of us against the infidel.—Leon Uris, ‘The
Haj’

George - 12 December 2010 04:16 PM

The reason for that is obviously racism. Arabs, not Muslims per se, will never be seen by Europeans as either Germans, Spaniards or English.

Obviously? Not trying to be funny here but ghettoism isn’t always the result of racism by the indigenous population ... seems to me those who ghettoise often do it to themselves, often choose to be with others like them, often insist on separating themselves from the society of the country concerned. British ex-pats do exactly the same and I don’t like that behaviour either and I think that being “seen” by the indigenous as part of their society, whilst it takes time, is as much the responsibility of the immigrants as anyone else.

Keke

I only know about ghettos in the US, not in the rest of the world. In the US, they began as areas where a specific ethnicity was forced to live because of red-line discrimination. Red-lining and covenants restricting who a home could be sold to were outlawed in the 1970s (at least in CA). These areas ended up as depressed areas. The housing always sold for much less than comparable homes in other areas seen as more ‘desirable’. People forced to live in ghettos were usually discriminated against in other ways—rentals (in the 70s when I looked for rentals in nice areas of the Bay Area, the landlord was always eager to show me the apartment—until they saw me…then the housing suddenly became unavailable. On the phone, they could not tell I was black, in person, it was obvious. If these landlords had been able to determine I was black on the phone, I would never have been able to see the apartment. I ended up renting from a nice Austrian man for years and years, in an upscale neighborhood, until I bought my home. I am still friends with the family years later…but I digress..), employment, and schooling. If you could not get a decent schooling, you couldn’t get a decent job, or a rental in a decent area of town, thus you are trapped in the ‘undesirable’ area, which then becomes more undesirable. It becomes a vicious cycle.

Fair point .. I suppose I was thinking more of cultures that choose to move to other countries.

Ultuimately I’d say it was more complex than simple discrimination.

Keke

George - 12 December 2010 04:16 PM

The “German” Muslim terrorists (9/11), the “Spanish” Muslim terrorists (Atocha train station in Madrid), and the “English” Muslim terrorists (London Underground) carried out the attacks because these young men were simply unable to fit into the European society. The reason for that is obviously racism. Arabs, not Muslims per se, will never be seen by Europeans as either Germans, Spaniards or English. That’s one reason why the young Arabs are frustrated, specially in Europe.

I’ll grant you do have one point of the larger issue.  Europe does have a much worse problem integrating immigrants than the U.S. causing immigrants living in many European nations to feel more isolated—and Europe needs to face up to, and reform, it’s racism.  But please, notice it is almost always Muslim immigrants in Europe who carry out attacks.  Any resentment caused by racism from Europeans is only one small aspect of a much larger problem with Muslims. 

The recent attack in Sweden was (allegedly) carried out by a British university graduate.  He was also a Muslim.

Osama bin Laden: Rich millionaire with an engineering background…and a Muslim .

The 19 9/11 hijackers:  Most were highly educated and came from well-to-do backgrounds…and all Muslims.

The attempted suicide bombers in London and Glasgow were doctors and medical students…and Muslims.

Gee, anyone notice a pattern here?

Let’s look at Osama bin Laden’s own words to Americans on the subject:

“The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.”

Convert to Islam! And it’s his very first demand!  Nothing about U.S. foreign policy, nothing about Europe’s racism.  It’s all about Islam! 

“The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.”

These are the hallmarks of the highly “moral” Islamic teaching. 

Then there was the terrorism manual, kept by Islamic cleric Abu Hamza, and dedicated to Osama bin Laden.  It calls for Muslims to carry out their “religious duty” to Allah and kill Jews, “infidels” and lapsed Muslims as part of the fight against enemies of Islam.  This struggle went toward establishing a “world caliphate” under Sharia law, even at the White House in Washington.

Marc Sageman, forensic psychiatrist at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, studied 400 al Q’aeda members.  Three quarters of this sample were upper or middle class. 90% came from caring, intact families. 63% attended college.  73% were married with the vast majority having children.  Three quarters were professionals or semiprofessionals including engineers, architects, civil engineers and scientists.

”When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network - a series of British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology - I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.  By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this “Blair’s bombs” line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology...And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice.” [Emphasis added.]

—Hassan Butt, reformed Jihadist in an article entitled “I Was a Fanatic”

Sorry, George, but Islam has a lot to do with the problem.