Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA08947 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Thu, 20 Sep 2001 11:55:27 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3102A6D002@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <email@example.com> To: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com> Subject: RE: Dawkins View Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 11:22:02 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Filter-Info: UoS MailScan 0.1 [D 1] Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
<So you think that being a member of a given faith automatically
> to the excesses of that faith and precludes critical reflction on that
> actions of extremists?>
No, but it predisposes one to be less accepting of the possibility
of atrocities commited in the name of that religion, or to not seeing such
things as atrocities at all, or to fail to see them as the fault of that
religion- the 'they were fanatics, not ture believers like me'. Moderates
believers often deny the link between fundamentalists' actions and their own
<Can one generalize that religious moderates (or mainstreamers) are
> apologists for actions of extremists?>
In the sense of denying that the religion is to blame, yes, but not
in the wider sense that my comment may have been interpreted.
> <Are moderate Christians flocking to support the recent comments made by
> Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson?>
I don't know. I do know that Asians and muslims in the US have been
attacked, and some of their comments about this include 'how come nobody
went around attacking white christians after Oklahoma city?' I'm sure many
of the people committing these acts of retribution, and many calling for
massive military response would call themselves moderates rather than
< Are moderate Christians flocking to support the actions of the
> terrorists (who may make up a small proportion of the pro-life movement
> itself). Are mainstream pro-lifers (or anti-choicers) generally in support
> of violence against abortion clinics?>
Extremists are always at one end of a continuum, and simply
represent those willing to go the full distance where many would not out of
incapacity, fear, social conformity or whatever.
< Are mainstream Muslims in general support of the extremists? Are
they flocking to be apologists for the recent
What is a mainstream muslim? The difficulty in creating coalition
stems precisely from the problem of the Islamic world, with all its myriad
variations from state to state. In Pakistan, for example, it seems clear
that the rich elite pragmatically support Musharaf's pro-US line, whilst
many of the poor near the border are pro-Taleban. But is this support (like
the support of Iran) a true reflection of more moderate muslim nations'
attitudes, or simple smart diplomacy so as not to become a target?
<Could one interject that the Soviet Union was under the spell of
> Communism"? How well did the religious fare under that system compared to
> other political systems?>
Despite extensitve persecution, the Russian Orthodox faith survived
and has been majorly regenerating itself since the end of the Cold War.
Like the nationalism of Ukraine, Belarus and so on, the oppressive Soviet
regime, did nothing to quell such feelings, but that's surely a product of
the oppression of beliefs, not the choice of people to thorw away faiths.
<I wouldn't say that all atheists or even militant atheists are into
> religious persecution or capable of evil acts, but it is possible that
> someone with a militant atheist bent who believed religion to be the
> of the masses or the occupation of *them* mindless cattle could, in a
> position of power, do some heinous things in the name of stamping out the
> scourge of religion. Would moderate atheists act as apologists?>
Well, if this has ever happened, we'd have to look seriously at it,
and indeed possibly concede the point, as no doubt atheists might use the
'they weren't a real atheist' line. In terms of atheism, which after all
literally means the absence of belief, it might be more accurate than for
claims that someone isn't a true muslim or christian or whatever. But has
it ever happened? History is littered with acts of violence done in the
name of religion.
<Using rhetoric militant atheists are capable of launcing verbal
> against the religious. I'm not sure one could generalize that moderate
> atheists support this verbal extremism.>
Yes, that's a perfectly fair point. But since we're now engaged in
a war for freedom and democracy against terrorism, I'd always defend the
right for freedom of speech as a heartfelt debate and discussion is some way
from the terrible acots of terror of the past week.
-- The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the University of Stirling shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 20 2001 - 12:05:24 BST