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

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

Here’s part of the problem, this quote: “The proper response to such attacks on the freedoms we hold dear is not to vilify any faith, but instead to marginalize extremists of all backgrounds who seek to stifle freedom and to create or widen societal divisions.” What does that mean to marginalize the extremists? Everyone is someone’s extremist, so that’s an empty statement.

From Huffington Post article, “Why Muslims Are Talking About Islam And Blasphemy After Charlie Hebdo”:
“Even if something is offensive to our religion, it can never be a justification to use violence or to hurt others," said Azhar Azeez, president of the Islamic Society of North America, one of the many organizations that has forcefully condemned the attack. “But freedom of speech doesn’t mean I have to offend someone else’s faith or tradition. There are boundaries and limitations. There is a fine line between freedom of speech and bigotry."
So Azeez is saying here that the Charlie murderers were wrong, BUT, Charlie should have limited his free speech rights?
Yasir Qadhi, an assistant professor of Islamic studies at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee:
“Loving the prophet is a necessary requirement of (faith). Defending his honor is a sign of belief. This is done by following his teachings and practice, not by murdering in his name," Qadhi wrote in a widely shared Facebook post. “Even for those who believe that the penalty for blasphemy should be death: by unanimous consensus of all the scholars of Islam, this must take place after a legitimate trial, by a qualified judge, appointed by a legitimate Islamic state. Under no circumstances does Islam allow vigilante justice."
So Qadhi is saying, perhaps Charlie should have been condemned to death, but only by a fair Islamic State trial?
These two guys should be considered to be relatively moderate, western Muslims. Still, there seems, to me, to be a chasm in ideology between what free societies expect and what these guys promote. And they’re some of the “nice” Muslims.

Here's part of the problem, this quote: "The proper response to such attacks on the freedoms we hold dear is not to vilify any faith, but instead to marginalize extremists of all backgrounds who seek to stifle freedom and to create or widen societal divisions." What does that mean to marginalize the extremists? Everyone is someone's extremist, so that's an empty statement.
You are absolutely right. It means exactly nothing. If we were to only "marginalize"--whatever that's supposed to mean-- extremists we'd be annihilated. This fear of hurting someone's feelings is getting out of hand. We aren't supposed to defend ourselves from terrorists because we might be called unpleasant people? Lois
From Huffington Post article, "Why Muslims Are Talking About Islam And Blasphemy After Charlie Hebdo": “Even if something is offensive to our religion, it can never be a justification to use violence or to hurt others," said Azhar Azeez, president of the Islamic Society of North America, one of the many organizations that has forcefully condemned the attack. “But freedom of speech doesn’t mean I have to offend someone else’s faith or tradition. There are boundaries and limitations. There is a fine line between freedom of speech and bigotry." So Azeez is saying here that the Charlie murderers were wrong, BUT, Charlie should have limited his free speech rights? Yasir Qadhi, an assistant professor of Islamic studies at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee: “Loving the prophet is a necessary requirement of (faith). Defending his honor is a sign of belief. This is done by following his teachings and practice, not by murdering in his name," Qadhi wrote in a widely shared Facebook post. “Even for those who believe that the penalty for blasphemy should be death: by unanimous consensus of all the scholars of Islam, this must take place after a legitimate trial, by a qualified judge, appointed by a legitimate Islamic state. Under no circumstances does Islam allow vigilante justice." So Qadhi is saying, perhaps Charlie should have been condemned to death, but only by a fair Islamic State trial? These two guys should be considered to be relatively moderate, western Muslims. Still, there seems, to me, to be a chasm in ideology between what free societies expect and what these guys promote. And they're some of the "nice" Muslims.
There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. Lois

So, what’s the solution? Bombing them doesn’t seem to have stopped them.

So, what's the solution? Bombing them doesn't seem to have stopped them.
Unfortunately, there is no solution. Violence is here to stay, including religious violence. . We can only try to deal with its consequences one incident at a time. It would be nice if we could do away with it altogether, but it is apparently impossible to do as long as humans are determined to practice it to their own detriment. Lois
So, what's the solution? Bombing them doesn't seem to have stopped them.
It seems the solution is to admit multiculturalism doesn't work, and be very discriminating about who we allow in. Also, Dawkins is correct about religions differing in violence, however, he's right for the wrong reasons.

I suggest that we stop denying that the doctrines of Islam, whether they are being interpreted correctly or incorrectly, are a major part of the problem. All Muslims may ultimately decide that controlling the rest of the world’s people through religiously inspired violence is not in their best interests. But if it’s going to take 500 years for some of them to recognize that, then in the meantime, the rest of the world’s people must maintain their own ideals despite these sorts of attempts at control.

So, what's the solution? Bombing them doesn't seem to have stopped them.
It seems the solution is to admit multiculturalism doesn't work, and be very discriminating about who we allow in. Also, Dawkins is correct about religions differing in violence, however, he's right for the wrong reasons. Which are? Lois
So, what's the solution? Bombing them doesn't seem to have stopped them.
It seems the solution is to admit multiculturalism doesn't work, and be very discriminating about who we allow in. Also, Dawkins is correct about religions differing in violence, however, he's right for the wrong reasons. Which are? LoisThe capacity for violence is in the population who subscribes to that religion, not the religion itself. I'm sure Dawkins (as a biologist) is aware of this, but he has to play the PC game in order to keep himself in business.
So, what's the solution? Bombing them doesn't seem to have stopped them.
It seems the solution is to admit multiculturalism doesn't work, and be very discriminating about who we allow in. Also, Dawkins is correct about religions differing in violence, however, he's right for the wrong reasons. Which are? LoisThe capacity for violence is in the population who subscribes to that religion, not the religion itself. I'm sure Dawkins (as a biologist) is aware of this, but he has to play the PC game in order to keep himself in business. All humans have the capacity for violence. We are all predators.
So, what's the solution? Bombing them doesn't seem to have stopped them.
It seems the solution is to admit multiculturalism doesn't work, and be very discriminating about who we allow in. Also, Dawkins is correct about religions differing in violence, however, he's right for the wrong reasons. Which are? LoisThe capacity for violence is in the population who subscribes to that religion, not the religion itself. I'm sure Dawkins (as a biologist) is aware of this, but he has to play the PC game in order to keep himself in business. All humans have the capacity for violence. We are all predators.Very true. The problem in Western Europe is that the Muslim immigrants are from two violent, clannish populations - Arabs and North Africans. These groups are far more clannish and violent than the Western Europeans.
So, what's the solution? Bombing them doesn't seem to have stopped them.
It seems the solution is to admit multiculturalism doesn't work, and be very discriminating about who we allow in. Meaning, what, exactly? No Muslims? Given that their religion allows them to lie if they believe its for a holy cause, this doesn't sound like an effective strategy to me. It also fails to deal with the fact that some terrorists have been born in the West and become radicalized, and that some Westerners have converted to Islam and become radicalized.
So, what's the solution? Bombing them doesn't seem to have stopped them.
It seems the solution is to admit multiculturalism doesn't work, and be very discriminating about who we allow in. Also, Dawkins is correct about religions differing in violence, however, he's right for the wrong reasons. Which are? LoisThe capacity for violence is in the population who subscribes to that religion, not the religion itself. I'm sure Dawkins (as a biologist) is aware of this, but he has to play the PC game in order to keep himself in business. What business do you suppose he's in? He would be a successful writer and speaker no matter what he says or writes. Who do you think is controlling him? Lois
There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim.
I suggest that we stop denying that the doctrines of Islam, whether they are being interpreted correctly or incorrectly, are a major part of the problem. All Muslims may ultimately decide that controlling the rest of the world's people through religiously inspired violence is not in their best interests. But if it's going to take 500 years for some of them to recognize that, then in the meantime, the rest of the world's people must maintain their own ideals despite these sorts of attempts at control.
Nuff said. The atheist emotions can be just as terrible as anyone else's, and we use science only when it fits our gut feelings.
There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim.
I suggest that we stop denying that the doctrines of Islam, whether they are being interpreted correctly or incorrectly, are a major part of the problem. All Muslims may ultimately decide that controlling the rest of the world's people through religiously inspired violence is not in their best interests. But if it's going to take 500 years for some of them to recognize that, then in the meantime, the rest of the world's people must maintain their own ideals despite these sorts of attempts at control.
Nuff said. The atheist emotions can be just as terrible as anyone else's, and we use science only when it fits our gut feelings. Supercilious, aren't we?
There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim.
I suggest that we stop denying that the doctrines of Islam, whether they are being interpreted correctly or incorrectly, are a major part of the problem. All Muslims may ultimately decide that controlling the rest of the world's people through religiously inspired violence is not in their best interests. But if it's going to take 500 years for some of them to recognize that, then in the meantime, the rest of the world's people must maintain their own ideals despite these sorts of attempts at control.
Nuff said. The atheist emotions can be just as terrible as anyone else's, and we use science only when it fits our gut feelings. Supercilious, aren't we? Perhaps Lois you were being supercilious, also, in stating that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. That is just a matter of semantics. But I don't get how my statement, above, only fits with my gut feelings and represents "a terrible atheist emotion" that denies science. Looking at something logically, does not always require a series of rigorously designed double blind studies. The question that GdB seems to be saying requires scientific analysis, is "Does Islamic doctrine play a role in the predominance of murderous acts in the world, where the murderers are shouting "Allahu Akbar!" while they are murdering?" Now, I admit that I can have an emotional reaction to the fact of people being murdered. However, I think that I can compartmentalize my emotions more effectively than most. And when I do that and answer the question, the answer is still, "obviously yes".
So, what's the solution? Bombing them doesn't seem to have stopped them.
It seems the solution is to admit multiculturalism doesn't work, and be very discriminating about who we allow in. Also, Dawkins is correct about religions differing in violence, however, he's right for the wrong reasons. Which are? LoisThe capacity for violence is in the population who subscribes to that religion, not the religion itself. I'm sure Dawkins (as a biologist) is aware of this, but he has to play the PC game in order to keep himself in business. What business do you suppose he's in? He would be a successful writer and speaker no matter what he says or writes. LoisNo way. Dawkins' audience is obviously secular humanists/atheists, and these are mostly leftist, progressive people. They aren't going to be supportive of views which they think are racist. Even if these views are based on fact.
But I don't get how my statement, above, only fits with my gut feelings and represents "a terrible atheist emotion" that denies science.
Because I know you are stating opinions that simply are not true based on actual field research about the causes of Islamic terrorism.
Looking at something logically, does not always require a series of rigorously designed double blind studies. The question that GdB seems to be saying requires scientific analysis, is "Does Islamic doctrine play a role in the predominance of murderous acts in the world, where the murderers are shouting "Allahu Akbar!" while they are murdering?"
If they had been members of Baader Meinhof they might have yelled 'Long live the proletariat!'. But not everybody who has left wing political ideas is a terrorist, and you won't blame people who defend that we should strive for a fairer world are the root cause of their terrorism (even if some people in Baader Meinhof-days thought so). So why do you think Islam is the root cause of Muslim terrorism? It is at most one small stone in the explanation of their behaviour. See my 'gift' for you here]. (And Thevillageatheist's reaction on it.)