Richard Dawkins' Berkeley event cancelled for 'Islamophobia'

a reply to: ketsuko

I feel no threat from atheism, nor from Dawkins.

Simply put, he represents no threat whatsoever to my way of life, to my beliefs, or to anyones right to hold beliefs. He DOES pose a threat to the nature of the subtle creep of theocracy into political institutions, lawmaking bodies, and other such things however, as he damned well should.

I believe that people of faith should be the strongest opponents of institutionally dictated ideals, which issue partly from a faith based perspective. Living a faithful life should be something one does because one is free to do so, not because the country one is in mandates certain aspects of ones life or the law, in such a way as to make the exercise of free will impossible for others.

For example, I believe in Jesus Christ, that is message was one of peace and love, and that he is the route by which one might come to God. But I also believe that others must be free to believe something else, or nothing, and free to not only express that, but live without the restrictions that they consider a faithful life, might apply to their lives. Free will is a central column of my faith. If I were not free to turn aside from my beliefs, then the holding of that faith would not be faith, but only fear. I do not call myself a follower of Christ because the law demands that I live as if I were one. I call myself a follower of Christ because his path of tolerance, love, and respect for others is one I choose, willingly, without coercion, without institutional badgering, or a narrow legal system designed to promote it by making all besides the walking of that path a crime.

Furthermore, I also do not believe that Dawkins methods or his speech are hateful. I feel certain that Dawkins does not hate the individuals who profess to faith. I feel it is very probable however, that he hates what some of them have done in the name of those faiths, and he is right to do so, because I do too. I hate the crusades, I hate the phobia expressed toward the LGBT community, I hate the collection of vast quantities of funds, all to make sure that buildings are maintained as worship spaces, using money that could be used to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick and protect the weak. I hate the indoctrination of the young, their abuse at the hands of clergy, the fact that there is even a debate about abortion, which, in a free will dominated society ought to be something a lady either young, old or otherwise, has to justify before no one, in order to access.

I believe in Jesus Christ, because I am free to do so. But I believe in free will also, and I do NOT insist that all bow before the God I worship. I do NOT want people controlled into worship, or into compliance. I do not want my choices to be inflicted on others, because I only accept my life being the way it is because I chose it. If I were forced into it, into narrow channels of acceptable behaviour by an institution or by the law, it would not be the beautiful thing that it is, nor would my engagement in it be for the right reasons, as a matter of free will rather than coercion.

It does Christ no honour to have His followers seek dominion, no matter how great or small, over others. It does Him no honour for His followers to influence others lives in a restrictive fashion. Offering those who have yet to find Him the Word, having them come to Him of their own free will? I respect that greatly. But trying to create a shadow theocracy which can only oppress those who have yet to come to Christ, does Him no honour, nor does it achieve anything positive, save for creating a situation where the free will of human beings is curtailed, in the name of the Christ who was meant to free their souls to ascend to Heaven.

Both from the perspective of my faith, and my political beliefs, I find it absolutely ridiculous that this talk has been cancelled.

a reply to: chr0naut

I don't think you know the meaning of double standard, or free speech.

In my opinion, there should be no such thing as hate speech. Who gets to determine what hate speech is? free speech should be absolute or nothing at all.

Once you allow different situations or circumstances dictate what free speech is, you only create room for bias and prejudice, which can already be witnessed from the extreme left -- where every opposing view is considered hate.

Going down this road only leads to authoritarianism..

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Leftists are all about authoritarianism, its always been their end goal.

But hey........this is Berkley, in the land of fruits and nuts. Really...........who cares what they do in Berkley. I mean, think about it. What they've created in Berkley is the worlds largest echo chamber of their own views. Its like confirmation bias on steroids. And better yet.......they don't travel well, kind of like Italian wine. Most never leave the bubble. In 25 years in Texas, I've never once met a graduate of Berkley. And if one did land here, they'd immediately gravitate to Austin. Real people don't even visit Austin anymore.

Another non-issue in my opinion.

a reply to: TonyS

The irony is they are doing it in the name of freedom and equality.

And better yet.......they don't travel well, kind of like Italian wine.

Lol, great analogy.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986
There are some people who SHOULD be refused a platform, any platform, for any reason, so that their way of thinking can eventually die off.

This makes me wonder how you would react if popular consensus put you in that category...

a reply to: underpass61

This makes me wonder how you would react if popular consensus put you in that category...

Not only that, but the notion that ideas "die off" because they are censored is fundamentally absurd. It is quite the opposite.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underpass61

This makes me wonder how you would react if popular consensus put you in that category...

Not only that, but the notion that ideas "die off" because they are censored is fundamentally absurd. It is quite the opposite.

He might want to remember a certain Nazarene who was lethally "refused a platform". His posts would be much shorter if those ideas had died off as he says they would.

They invited him with no intention of ever letting him speak. Only to publicly disinvite him and discredit him. That university is now run by radical islamists. Shut down berkley, before they start imposing sharia on their students... trust me it's only a matter of time. /conspiracy

a reply to: underpass61

He might want to remember a certain Nazarene who was lethally "refused a platform". His posts would be much shorter if those ideas had died off as he says they would.

Or, as another example, the Nazis. The Nazis were "verboten", and Hitler himself said this directly contributed to the growth of the Nazi party, and made them stronger.

originally posted by: ketsuko
What part of "Dawkins is an atheist" do these people not understand? Of course, he's not going to be very complimentary to people of faith, any faith, not even Islam.

Seriously, this would be like me getting upset because some Muslim preached about Jesus only being a prophet and not the actual Messiah, son of God. Of course, that's what the Muslim will say because it's their faith, just like Dawkins won't be very complimentary of Islam because he isn't into faith.

He is not an atheist. He's anti religion. There's a difference. Just ask China about Tibet, or Stalin, or Mao. Dawkins would rather see Pogroms than civil discourse.

He has also refused open invitations to scientific and religious debates with certain leaders because he knows half his talking points are ficticious and would get pwned if used in those debates he's so afraid of.

Him and Sam Harris are both tools who atheists worship and blindly follow the words of without question...ironic

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Verboten, that's an old Germanic adjective is it not? I think it means forbidden.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underpass61

This makes me wonder how you would react if popular consensus put you in that category...

Not only that, but the notion that ideas "die off" because they are censored is fundamentally absurd. It is quite the opposite.

Anyone who thinks that is the case need only look at Christianity in China. It has been censored there for decades and yet it keeps growing underground.

I find it interesting that we get told that ideas will die off is censored and yet we are told when it comes to things like drugs that making them forbidden only makes them more attractive ... because, you know, forbidden fruit and all that.

I would think it is either one way or the other. If forbidding a thing makes it die, then drugs would be dead, murder would be dead, rape would be dead.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underpass61

This makes me wonder how you would react if popular consensus put you in that category...

Not only that, but the notion that ideas "die off" because they are censored is fundamentally absurd. It is quite the opposite.

Anyone who thinks that is the case need only look at Christianity in China. It has been censored there for decades and yet it keeps growing underground.

Yeah I think Pontius Pilate was one of the the first guys to say, "This ain't gonna work."

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: chr0naut

So what are your thoughts on the double standards by those who called him out?

Or is it justified because he's one of the four horsemen that only spews hate?

I'm not Islamic but I think calling Islam "the greatest force for evil in this world" and suggesting that the actions of terrorists and criminals are those of Islam, is offensive hate speech.

It is like blaming all Christians for the Westboro Baptist Church's actions. It is offensive and incorrect.

The radio station calling him out on it is not a double standard.

There is no such thing as hate speech. Anyone who believes otherwise are against the freedom of speech.

There are many examples of hate speech. Choosing to deny something so obvious and historically attested is not very open minded.

Identifying hate speech is not against freedom of speech, it is the attempt to silence hate speech is against freedom of speech.

The radio station did not stop Dick Dawkins from speaking, it just stopped the potential broadcast of his hate speech.

A similar thing happens in America where the bearing of arms is a right. However, the arrest of someone who has shot someone and the confiscation of their weapon is not an abuse of their rights.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Berkley used to be a bastion and champion of free speech. Now it is the bastion and champion of censorship.

over 40,000 students attend Berkeley.....how about this, the GOP is now the bastion and champion of "F the poor"....if you are going to make generalizations, at least try and be somewhat accurate.

a reply to: chr0naut

So who gets to dictate what is considered hate speech?

originally posted by: 0racle
They invited him with no intention of ever letting him speak. Only to publicly disinvite him and discredit him. That university is now run by radical islamists. Shut down berkley, before they start imposing sharia on their students... trust me it's only a matter of time. /conspiracy

The radio station has no association with the University. The article said that plainly. Everyone assuming that the University has invited Dawkins to speak and has turned him down are mistaken.

The radio station is not preventing Dawkins from saying what he wants. They are just preventing its broadcast through their station.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: chr0naut

So who gets to dictate what is considered hate speech?

From Wikipedia:

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law"

In the United Kingdom, several statutes criminalize hate speech against several categories of persons. The statutes forbid communication which is hateful, threatening, or abusive, and which targets a person on account of disability, ethnic or national origin, nationality (including citizenship), race, religion, sexual orientation, or skin colour.

In the United States, in 1942, Justice Frank Murphy summarized the case law: "There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or 'fighting' words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia explicated the fighting words exception as follows: “The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey”

a reply to: chr0naut

The problem is that in the US, there are groups who want to say that if you teach certain things out of the Bible, even the part where it is simply mentioned that marriage is between a man and a woman, that is hate speech and should be censored.

Hate speech in some places is defined now as speech that someone simply hates to hear and not speech that would be actually hateful in the realm of advocating we string up or toss off of buildings anyone who doesn't agree with us. That kind of speech is thankfully very, very rare, so rare that the door is open to all these other nonsense interpretations.