(Ed) Richard Dawkins visits 9/11 'ground zero'

Enlighten

Scholar
E
Joined
Aug 21, 2007
Messages
112
TITLE:For the glory of God
Critics say the brand of literalist religion Richard Dawkins condemns is limited to a small minority of believers -- but in fact it's all too common
AUTHOR: Dan Gardner
PAPER: The Ottawa Citizen
PUBLISHED: Thursday, November 15, 2007

Gazing down from the 40th floor of a lower Manhattan skyscraper, Richard Dawkins shakes his head. "What a symbol," he growls.

In the evening drizzle, the city is a jungle of glitz and twinkling lights but Dawkins' attention is fixed on a flood-lit crater directly below us. It is Ground Zero, the footprint of the twin towers, still barren six years after the atrocity that made the world gasp. At the bottom of the vast hole, backhoes scrape into the night.

What does this symbolize, I ask? "Religious bigotry," he answers crisply. Not a twisted version of Islam. Not Islam as a whole. No, for the Oxford professor, biologist, renowned science writer, and author of the notorious bestseller The God Delusion, the void below is what religion itself hath wrought.
...
Across from Ground Zero, in the tiny cemetery of St. Paul's chapel, there is a bell given by the people of London on the first anniversary of 9/11. "For the greater glory of God," the inscription begins. When I tell Dawkins this, he shakes his head and points to the ground far below.

"It was precisely for the greater glory of God that that terrible deed was done," he says.
Click to expand...

Full article (four pages long):
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen...l?id=5575dc5a-facb-49b6-abef-5041fc800f1d&p=1
 
"It was precisely for the greater glory of God that that terrible deed was done," he says.

Agree. Next?
 
That "vast hole" is not the "footprint of the Twin Towers" but the imprint of god's mercifulness upon the Earth.

Praise IT; praise the THING.
 
That "vast hole" is not the "footprint of the Twin Towers" but the imprint of god's mercifulness upon the Earth.
Click to expand...
[fundamentalist logic]The hijackers made it quite clear they were doing the will of God. Who are we to disagree? Can we prove them wrong? [/fundamentalist logic]
 
slingblade said:
"It was precisely for the greater glory of God that that terrible deed was done," he says.

Agree. Next?
Click to expand...
Disagree.

It was done in the name of Allah, for the greater glory of a certain man and his cohorts, and his political and social aims.

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
Disagree.

It was done in the name of Allah, for the greater glory of a certain man and his cohorts, and his political and social aims.

DR
Click to expand...

I disagree. Bin Laden may have used them for that but the deed itself was committed for the glory of god. They didn't do it to sit at Bin Laden's right hand and molest virgins.
 
Yes, but international politics played just as much of a role.

If it were solely about religious differences, Muslim extremists would target other Christian and secular nations besides the U.S.

Yes, England and Spain were attacked, but that was because of their politics in regards to the U.S.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Disagree.

It was done in the name of Allah, for the greater glory of a certain man and his cohorts, and his political and social aims.
Click to expand...

I agree with DR. If we start taking complex issues and trying to distill them down to a single cause, we're no better than the religious folks who claim 9/11 happened because of gays and abortion.

Sometimes the answers aren't simple.
 
EeneyMinnieMoe said:
Yes, but international politics played just as much of a role.

If it were solely about religious differences, Muslim extremists would target other Christian and secular nations besides the U.S.

Yes, England and Spain were attacked, but that was because of their politics in regards to the U.S.
Click to expand...
Bali, Indonesia
 
EeneyMinnieMoe said:
Yes, but international politics played just as much of a role.

If it were solely about religious differences, Muslim extremists would target other Christian and secular nations besides the U.S.
Click to expand...

Turkey.
Indonesia.
Casablanca.
Egypt.
Amsterdam.
Pakistan.

Yes, England and Spain were attacked, but that was because of their politics in regards to the U.S.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt London was attacked because of Iraq or Afghanistan. Hassan Butt knew Mohammed Sidique Khan in the BJN, and Sidique was well known for his 'kufr' this, and 'kufr' that. He also became a radical, not because of US and UK foriegn policy, but because of his parents desires for him to have an arranged marriage. Friends remember Shehzad Tanweer holding a celebration on 9/11.

The failed fertiliser bomb plotters, who were friends of both Khan and Tanweer, said that they would blow up nightclubs, and were bugged saying, 'Yea, we'll blow it all up bruv, with all those slags dancing around'.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
I agree with DR. If we start taking complex issues and trying to distill them down to a single cause, we're no better than the religious folks who claim 9/11 happened because of gays and abortion.

Sometimes the answers aren't simple.
Click to expand...

I wasn't doing that, though. Someone quoted Dawkins making a statement, and I agreed with Dawkins' statement. That doesn't mean I think that's the only reason why it happened, or even the biggest reason. It doesn't even mean I'm distilling.

It just means I agree.
 
Last edited:
I should have snipped his "Disagree" part. I was expanding on his point that I agreed with, not responding to your agreement with Dawkins. :)
 
Yeah, saying it was all done in the name of Allah is a gross oversimplification. Surely Dawkins isn't going to tell me that the 50-some-odd years of the U.S. sticking its proverbial nose into the business of the Middle East had nothing to do with it? That al-Quaeda went to all that trouble just because we don't believe in Allah?

To me, blaming 9/11 on religion makes about as much sense as blaming the atrocities committed by the Soviet Union on atheism.

I would encourage everyone to read through this thread before jumping to any more generalizations.
 
It was actually done FOR one man's beliefs (Bin Laden's) for political and social reasons USING people who foolishly thought it was for the greater glory of Allah (God) and to get a bunch 'o virgins.


Cheers,
DrZ
 
Darth Rotor said:
Disagree.

It was done in the name of Allah, for the greater glory of a certain man and his cohorts, and his political and social aims.

DR
Click to expand...
Err... Allah is just the Arabic word for God. Christian Arabs (and Maltese) call God Allah.

So if you say it was done in the name of Allah you are saying it was done in the name of God.
 
drzeus99 said:
It was actually done FOR one man's beliefs (Bin Laden's) for political and social reasons USING people who foolishly thought it was for the greater glory of Allah (God) and to get a bunch 'o virgins.


Cheers,
DrZ
Click to expand...
You are assuming Bin Laden's religious beliefs are insincere. Actually, the more you read and hear about Osama Bin Laden the more you realise that his religious beliefs are in fact quite sincere. All of this really is for the greater glory of god.
 
1337m4n said:
Yeah, saying it was all done in the name of Allah is a gross oversimplification. Surely Dawkins isn't going to tell me that the 50-some-odd years of the U.S. sticking its proverbial nose into the business of the Middle East had nothing to do with it? That al-Quaeda went to all that trouble just because we don't believe in Allah?
Click to expand...
If U.S had been an Islamic Caliphate sticking it's nose into Middle East business for 50 years then Al-Qaeda would have been on side. The specific problem with the US (and allies) is that it is seen as a Christian nation, so in other words it is not that we don't believe in Allah - because overwhelmingly most Americans do believe in Allah - it is the fact that American's worship Allah in a way that they would regard as heretical.
To me, blaming 9/11 on religion makes about as much sense as blaming the atrocities committed by the Soviet Union on atheism.
Click to expand...
The difference is that the Soviet Union did not commit the atrocities explicitly in the name of atheism. The Soviet Union was not even an officially atheist federation - it's constitution guaranteed freedom of religion (however empty that guarantee turned out).

Al Qaeda and their fellow travellers have their religion explicitly as their sole raison d'etre. They are aiming to entrench Islam as a serious global political power. They are not simply a bunch of political thugs who happen to be Muslims.
 
Bin Laden is motivated by both religion and politics, but his politics are religious. He didn't attack the US because we're a mostly non-Muslim nation, he attacked us because we are a non-Muslim nation interfering in Muslim countries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom