Paul Crowley

I think part of the problem there is that when Arsenal fans have a large degree of control over the US government and send their military to kill vast numbers of Hotspur fans until they hate us all very much and blow themselves up on buses, when they want to teach in schools that the world was created by a man in a red scarf, when they want to prohibit adoption by people who follow different teams... we'll worry a bit more about sport. As it were.

From:

Well, sure, but the religious believers I'm actually trying to convert aren't like that; I'm not going to prevent any suicide bombings by converting them.

From:

Sure, but I think Dawkins is right that it's all part of the same ball of snakes, that moderates lead inevitably to extremists - and while one might not be regularly talking to the extremists, the sense that they're around leads (me, anyway) to fret more about religion than I do about sport.

From:

I'm wary, because I *want* to believe this. I'd much rather think I was doing my best to make the world a better place, rather than scratching at a mental itch. But there are plenty of examples of moderates giving the extremists trouble in a way that we never can, and so I find it hard to be convinced.

In keeping with my role as Greta Christina's biggest fanboy, an interesting related blog entry by her. And when she says "I actually think my first vision may be more plausible than the second." I agree with her.

From:

Hm. That's got the free ride in, where if I say Thatcherism's a big load of hooey that's a normal opinion but if I say God's a big load of hooey that's disrespectful etc. (I know I'm preaching to the choir here).

So I guess it might just be itch-scratching, but absent the free ride, it's an itch that's OK to scratch.

From:

valkyriekaren.livejournal.com

I'd much rather think I was doing my best to make the world a better place, rather than scratching at a mental itch.

You scratch the itch, I'll get on with the other stuff. Seriously, there are good people working on dismantling religious privilege without bothering too much about converting anyone.

(Taking the professional hat off for a bit, it makes my brain itch too because I can't understand the double-think that allows people to believe in an interventionist god when there's absolutely no good evidence, other than some old books, of said intervention. But I don't think people believing it actually harms anyone - it's only when people justify bigotry, hatred, killing and oppression through those beliefs that my hackles get raised.)

From:

alextiefling.livejournal.com

Can we dismantle religious privilege together? I'm rather afraid it's going to make my own denomination smaller, uglier, and more dangerous unless we get rid of it.

From:

I've never had reason to believe that there was a single one of the aims of the BHA that you disagreed with.

From:

It's a good entry. But I, of course, think the second vision is more likely than the first, because I find it easier to imagine significant numbers of people shifting towards forms of religion more suitable for a tolerant and inclusive world than to imagine them abandoning it entirely. I'd be happy with either, though - if people don't need religion, that's fine. Although I do wonder what would happen to a person who had an inexplicable spiritual experience in the world of the first example - would they end up sectioned for being dangerously crazy?

From:

But I wasn't phrasing it in terms of threat, only of rough analogy. (And it's not as if sport-related violence hasn't been problematic in many countries, sometimes on a large scale)

If we're going to start worrying about the reasonableness of threats, and suggest that moderates encourage extremism, I shouldn't be worrying about religion. Maybe I should be worrying about men. If we're looking at the levels of sexual violence and domestic/ex-domestic violence in this country, I think I'm in far more danger of being stabbed in the street by an ex-partner than blown up by a suicide bomber. At 53, 600 sexual offences last year* (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708.pdf) and two women a week murdered by partners & ex-partners (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=10309), especially if they're transwomen (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7543430.stm), I don't think religious extremists are my biggest problem. (Bit of a bugger for men too, as they're still twice as likely to be victims of violence - so they have to mistrust each other, or maybe themselves?)

Maybe when religious fanatics live in our homes, control our money, our children, our bodies and activities, when they are taught by everything in our culture that it's their inalienable right to do so...I'll worry a bit more about religious extremists. As it were.

I realise that not all men are violent, they're all part of the same ball of snakes, even 'nice guys' can be entitled and aggressive - and while one might not be regularly talking to the misogynists, the sense that they're around leads (me, anyway) to fret more about men than I do about religion.

(I'm aware that was a bit of a cheap shot, but your argument did rather invite it, I'm afraid. I've got a big brush too, and a large bucket of tar, right here.)

*p 25

From:

Touche'.

From:

:-) Nothing personal, you understand. I'm sure you're not like Those Other Men.

From:

emarkienna.livejournal.com

But surely people do worry about these issues you list?

Okay, I take your point that worrying about these issues doesn't mean one should worry about every single man, although I don't think any atheists have said they worry about every single religious person(?)

Re: moderates encouraging extremism - I wouldn't say that all moderates encourage it, but I do see some merit in the argument that particular ideas put forward by moderates can be used to defend extremism, most notably, the idea that faith should be regarded as a virtue, and that someone's faith cannot be criticised.

I see this argument applied with the issues you list also: for example, rape myths that are commonly held by men - even though these may be men who will never commit a crime, it is still reasonable to question those ideas (and just to be clear, I'm not trying to make any judgement on comparing religion to rape myths, but just that sometimes it may perhaps be a valid tactic to question ideas held by "moderates" - possibly there are some less extreme examples).

From:

My point was actually that

damerell's statement;

I think Dawkins is right that it's all part of the same ball of snakes, that moderates lead inevitably to extremists

can be made about all sorts of subjects, equally unfairly, using the same justification. I have certainly never suggested that moderate beliefs shouldn't be questioned, but that statement is pretty insulting, in the same way that the statement that all men are just potential rapists waiting to happen is. *Some* moderate views may encourage extremism, but others specifically oppose it. Blanket statements are wildly unhelpful in making actual progress.

It's a frequent source of annoyance to me that many otherwise liberal and progressive folk don't seem to be able to tell allies from enemies when it comes to religion.

From:

And also;

I don't think any atheists have said they worry about every single religious person(?)

seems like an odd thing to say in light of the statement I quoted above - I would say that they appear to contradict one another, wouldn't you?

In the context of the original statement made by

damerell, I would certainly read his 'ball of snakes' remark as indicating that every single religious person is worth worrying about, even if he isn't doing it right now.

From: