Dawkins on Alien Rubbish

[charlou]

Yes, by all means let's make assumptions without having the full story, especially when it plays into our pet biases.

Oh Bella don't you start. We won't get the full story until Richard Dawkins has had 20 years psychoanalysis starting with his potty training. Get real, FFS.

“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.” --Harlan Ellison

But my opinions are informed. Richard Dawkins is a confirmed islamophobic bigot. He repeatedly describes women wearing the niqab as bin liners. He dehumanises muslims to the status of rubbish. He uses the judeo-christian concept of evil to insult islam. These are facts. Now he has added to his track record by calling the teaching of muslim schools 'alien rubbish', deliberately using the word 'alien' to paint a foreign, non-human picture. Tell me what is not informed about this account of Richard Dawkins's approach to islam before you start quoting fiction writers at me.

I'm responding to your posts as I'm reading through the thread (probably obvious, by now ) ... At this point I'm going to assume at least one person's already asked for it, but again, evidence, please.

[charlou]

He characterizes the niqab as a bin liner. This is not hard, do try to keep up.

Correct, he characterizes the niqab as a bin liner. What do you put in bin liners? Rubbish! Just like your contributions to this debate.

Okay ... here's the point on which you leap from what you say RD has said to what you think he meant? That's quite some distance.

[JimC]

Charlou, even though I think Gawd and Exi have gone too far, I am worried by RD's choice of terminology. Whether meant or not, the "alien" tag will resonate with the racist and anti-immigrant fringe. I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, and accept that it wasn't cynical spin to assist his agenda, but at the least, it was a poor choice of words.

Basically, it makes it that much harder for a reasoned critique of Islam and its educational perversions to escape the clutches of the Gert Wiilders of this world...

[charlou]

He characterizes the niqab as a bin liner. This is not hard, do try to keep up.

Correct, he characterizes the niqab as a bin liner. What do you put in bin liners? Rubbish! Just like your contributions to this debate.

Okay ... here's the point on which you leap from what you say RD has said to what you think he meant? That's quite some distance.

I think you may be in part right ... but I think you're lost on who you believe thinks muslim women are "rubbish". From what I've read from RD, it's clear to me that he believes that muslim women are considered "rubbish" by their own culture/religion. In extreme cases I think he's correct. Moderate muslims ... well, their own view of it may be different from the extreme (by definition, it would be), but that doesn't change the underlying issues of why a culture would seek to treat women this way.

[charlou]

Charlou, even though I think Gawd and Exi have gone too far, I am worried by RD's choice of terminology. Whether meant or not, the "alien" tag will resonate with the racist and anti-immigrant fringe. I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, and accept that it wasn't cynical spin to assist his agenda, but at the least, it was a poor choice of words.

Basically, it makes it that much harder for a reasoned critique of Islam and its educational perversions to escape the clutches of the Gert Wiilders of this world...

Okay ... RD is an advocate of creating awareness ... this might be an example where he could heed the same when it's pointed out to him.

[charlou]

I can't help it if his use of English is entirely correct nor that that fact upsets you.

I am not the slightest bit interested in Dawkins's linguistic competence. You said his use of English was correct in talking about science and islam. You clearly agree with what he said, hence your reason for affirming its correctness in that context. Your position is becoming as two-faced as Dawkins. I suppose this is not surprising.

Yep, the Koran is inconsistent with science. As is the Bible and every other pre-scientific text.

Who's on a hobby-horse now, Clinton Huxley? We were discussing Dawkins's use of a word that could easily be interpreted as racist and dehumanising. And you revert to the same old new atheist hobby horses? Way off-topic.

The topic is "Dawkins on Alien Rubbish". You seem to think he's referring to muslims with his use of "alien rubbish"? Clinton,and others think he's using it wrt Islam being alien to science. If I learned he meant it the way you're thinking I'd be reconsidering why he used it. Here's my thinking on his use of it ... Islam is alien to rationality, to equality, to humanism, and to science.

[charlou]

Dawkins knows his language? He's had to make many retractions in his public career as an 'atheist'.

Hardly foundational for his supposed erudite infallibility.

Who supposes or claims he's infallible?

What problem do you have with a person making a retraction upon learning something and/or changing an opinion?

[charlou]

And examples of those "many" retractions, please ... for context would be good.

[Exi5tentialist]

Dawkins is not known for dumbing his ideas down to suit the lowest denominator. That might be considered as elitist, but I don't think that's the case. I think he simply expects people to make some intellectual effort rather than have every detail spelled out for them.

And that's exactly what I'm doing - making some intellectual effort, so what's the problem?

[charlou]

Do go on, then.

[Ronja]

I'll have to read the thread again, because it is difficult to believe that nobody asked Exi5 for evidence before Charlou did. Yet it seems that way to me.

I will go back and check before saying anything more.

[Exi5tentialist]

Given the way that he likes to describe women wearing a niqab as 'bin liners'

re the bit I've bolded ... Can you post links or some evidence to where RD has done this, please.

I'm after evidence as well as context.

Well I would make one small correction to my statement which I think is of no consequence, but some Dawkins supporters might see massively amplified to a scale of overwhelming importance, and that is that Dawkins has repeatedly described the niqab as a 'bin liner', not the women themselves as 'bin liner'. To me it makes no difference because either way the description means Dawkins is firmly applying the metaphor of trash to the women concerned, but you might think for some reason that the difference is absolutely fundamental and completely lets him off the hook. In the context of that slight adjustment, if you still want evidence, I am happy to provide it.

[charlou]

Given the way that he likes to describe women wearing a niqab as 'bin liners'

re the bit I've bolded ... Can you post links or some evidence to where RD has done this, please.

I'm after evidence as well as context.

Well I would make one small correction to my statement which I think is of no consequence, but some Dawkins supporters might see massively amplified to a scale of overwhelming importance, and that is that Dawkins has repeatedly described the niqab as a 'bin liner', not the women themselves as 'bin liner'. To me it makes no difference because either way the description means Dawkins is firmly applying the metaphor of trash to the women concerned, but you might think for some reason that the difference is absolutely fundamental and completely lets him off the hook. In the context of that slight adjustment, if you still want evidence, I am happy to provide it.

The important issue is whether he personally thinks of Islamic women as trash, or whether he believes the Islamic culture does and that it is manifested in their imposition of the dress code we're discussing. I think it's the latter.

[Robert_S]

I'm guessing that Dawkins doesn't so much as glance at the Daily Mail or have many racists co-workers, so I'm willing to forgive and inadvertent verbal assist to such people.

Much like if a UK-EU person were to casually say "nigger" in the US. They often don't get the weight the choice of words has outside their familiar context.

[Atheist-Lite]

I'm guessing that Dawkins doesn't so much as glance at the Daily Mail or have many racists co-workers, so I'm willing to forgive and inadvertent verbal assist to such people.

Much like if a UK-EU person were to casually say "nigger" in the US. They often don't get the weight the choice of words has outside their familiar context.

'Machievelli'?....hiding behind naivety there is a very educated man, a expert wordsmith and if we don't like we can fuck-off.