To hell with their culture

[Taruda]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_XHkgS ... r_embedded

[Olerand]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_XHkgScOSY&feature=player_embedded

There is an undue sense of entitlement amongst some refugees today. The blame lies entirely on Germany -and Sweden- and their irresponsible attitudes.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

Yes, but now that they have Israel they dropped the rest. They wanted A, ONE small state, but not to evangelize other states.

Oh don't you worry, they keep about half the world at a nice close distance.

Especially for a state that has no claim to Judaism (considering they haven't even agreed to a uniform definition yet) so many Jews are still waiting for the messiah to come, and restore Israel.

[Constantinopolis]

The headscarf is worn as a sign of modesty by women, a burden not placed on men.

That's not correct. The rules of hijab also require men to keep most of their body covered when going to public places where women might see them - but, granted, they don't have to cover their heads.

Women must protect their virtue, for if men were to harass or violate a woman -not modestly covered, as in not at least hijabed- then it is her fault. Men who leer at uncovered women commit no sin, as it is the woman who has sinned.

That's not correct either. Harassing women is always a sin in most forms of Islam. And in any case, this is not the reason for hijab. The reason for hijab is simple modesty.

What is the reason why we, in Western culture, don't consider it acceptable for people to walk down the street in their underwear, even in the summer? Modesty. If you would not personally want to be seen in public in your underwear, then you understand the impulse to modesty. It just goes further in Muslim culture than in Western culture.

Having said that, yes, there are some Muslim men who think it's ok to harass uncovered women because "it's their fault". Since Islam is, for the most part, a highly decentralized religion, there is no supreme authority to decide what is or isn't a sin. So, in many cases, individuals and communities create their own standards for what is or isn't sinful. Men who think it's ok to harass uncovered women are reactionary scum, and they should be called out, opposed, shamed, and if necessary prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But not because they are Muslims.

How this theological victim blaming is consistent with feminism is beyond me. But there is quite a difference between the various national and regional branches of feminism in the world, so perhaps I do not understand for lack of background information.

Look at it this way: If there was a culture somewhere in the world in which people went naked on the street every summer, and members of this culture came to you and said that you requiring women to cover up parts of their bodies is victim blaming and anti-feminist, what would you think? Would you think that they are making a big deal out of nothing, and that it's strange to become so obsessed with the question of which clothes it's socially acceptable to wear?

Yes, precisely. Socially acceptable clothing in many cultures around the world (not just Muslim ones) simply covers more of the body than socially acceptable clothing in present-day Western culture. There is nothing wrong with that. It's a non-issue. There are many real problems with discrimination against women, but this isn't one of them.

Also, as I said before:

Also, leaving Iran aside and talking about Muslims in the West - because they are the topic here - every single Muslim woman I know who wears hijab, wears it absolutely of her own free will. Every one of my female Muslim friends (all of whom live in the West) would be extremely insulted by your suggestion that there is something "oppressive" about their choice to express their faith through modesty.

And, personally, I strongly sympathize with religious concepts of modesty. For example, although it is socially acceptable (and perfectly legal) for men to walk around shirtless in the summer in Europe, I never do that. Unless I'm at a beach or otherwise going for a swim (which happens very rarely), I always wear a shirt and full-length trousers in public. I don't have a particularly well-defined reason for doing this, but I just feel that it's proper. So I am very adamant about defending women who choose to wear head coverings, because I think I know how they feel. Stop telling them that they should uncover themselves. If you told me I have to take off my shirt, no matter how hot it might be outside, I'd tell you to fuck off. Likewise for wearing shorts instead of full-length trousers. It's my choice not to wear them.

[Trotskylvania]

Most Muslim feminists do not consider the headscarf to be an issue, and are frankly baffled by Westerners being so focused on it.

The idea that you can either have feminism or keep Arab cultural practices is stupid. Dawkins outright condemnation of Arab and other Muslim people's cultural practices is what makes him an ignorant buffoon.

The headscarf is worn as a sign of modesty by women, a burden not placed on men. Women must protect their virtue, for if men were to harass or violate a woman -not modestly covered, as in not at least hijabed- then it is her fault. Men who leer at uncovered women commit no sin, as it is the woman who has sinned.

How this theological victim blaming is consistent with feminism is beyond me. But there is quite a difference between the various national and regional branches of feminism in the world, so perhaps I do not understand for lack of background information.

There are similar religious and cultural injunctions towards male modesty. Head scarves are practical attire , especially given the climate.

The issue is not the clothing. Banning headscarves is just as wrong as mandating them. It would be akin to banning bras as a purely sexist imposition to enforce feminine modesty.

[Taruda]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_XHkgScOSY&feature=player_embedded

There is an undue sense of entitlement amongst some refugees today. The blame lies entirely on Germany -and Sweden- and their irresponsible attitudes.

More on Sweden since the majorityof population support mass immigration. Germany can only be blamed on Merkel since she invited them.

[Olerand]

The headscarf is worn as a sign of modesty by women, a burden not placed on men.

1- That's not correct. The rules of hijab also require men to keep most of their body covered when going to public places where women might see them - but, granted, they don't have to cover their heads.

Women must protect their virtue, for if men were to harass or violate a woman -not modestly covered, as in not at least hijabed- then it is her fault. Men who leer at uncovered women commit no sin, as it is the woman who has sinned.

2- That's not correct either. Harassing women is always a sin in most forms of Islam. And in any case, this is not the reason for hijab. The reason for hijab is simple modesty.

3- What is the reason why we, in Western culture, don't consider it acceptable for people to walk down the street in their underwear, even in the summer? Modesty. If you would not personally want to be seen in public in your underwear, then you understand the impulse to modesty. It just goes further in Muslim culture than in Western culture.

4- Having said that, yes, there are some Muslim men who think it's ok to harass uncovered women because "it's their fault". Since Islam is, for the most part, a highly decentralized religion, there is no supreme authority to decide what is or isn't a sin. So, in many cases, individuals and communities create their own standards for what is or isn't sinful. Men who think it's ok to harass uncovered women are reactionary scum, and they should be called out, opposed, shamed, and if necessary prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But not because they are Muslims.

How this theological victim blaming is consistent with feminism is beyond me. But there is quite a difference between the various national and regional branches of feminism in the world, so perhaps I do not understand for lack of background information.

5- Look at it this way: If there was a culture somewhere in the world in which people went naked on the street every summer, and members of this culture came to you and said that you requiring women to cover up parts of their bodies is victim blaming and anti-feminist, what would you think? Would you think that they are making a big deal out of nothing, and that it's strange to become so obsessed with the question of which clothes it's socially acceptable to wear?

6- Yes, precisely. Socially acceptable clothing in many cultures around the world (not just Muslim ones) simply covers more of the body than socially acceptable clothing in present-day Western culture. There is nothing wrong with that. It's a non-issue. There are many real problems with discrimination against women, but this isn't one of them.

Also, as I said before:

Also, leaving Iran aside and talking about Muslims in the West - because they are the topic here - every single Muslim woman I know who wears hijab, wears it absolutely of her own free will. Every one of my female Muslim friends (all of whom live in the West) would be extremely insulted by your suggestion that there is something "oppressive" about their choice to express their faith through modesty.

And, personally, I strongly sympathize with religious concepts of modesty. For example, although it is socially acceptable (and perfectly legal) for men to walk around shirtless in the summer in Europe, I never do that. Unless I'm at a beach or otherwise going for a swim (which happens very rarely), I always wear a shirt and full-length trousers in public. I don't have a particularly well-defined reason for doing this, but I just feel that it's proper. So I am very adamant about defending women who choose to wear head coverings, because I think I know how they feel. Stop telling them that they should uncover themselves. If you told me I have to take off my shirt, no matter how hot it might be outside, I'd tell you to fuck off. Likewise for wearing shorts instead of full-length trousers. It's my choice not to wear them.

1- Men and women both cannot be quasi-naked in public. Understandable. But only women have the increased onus of wearing a hijab -at best- or a niqab -at worst. Men are simply not subject to such strict regulations.

2- No it is. Women who are not modestly dressed, and are looked upon by men lasciviously, have sinned. How is this acceptable? That the woman sins for the man's actions?

3- You most certainly can, in many places. In New York, toplesness is allowed. In many parts of Spain, Germany, and many littoral towns in France, public nudity is also allowed. Western culture in general is not uniform on this subject, as clothing regulations are now cultural, and thus varied, and no longer religious, as in explicitly subject to Christian morality.

4- Theologically, and this argument emanates from the Ulamma of the Muslim world, most often those of the Peninsula; women who are immodestly dressed are indeed at fault, and they sin by being so. This is, according to a plurality, and perhaps increasing majority of Muslims and Muslim scholars today, a simple truth.

5- If my culture placed a heightened responsibility on women to protect their modesty than it does on men, I would most certainly agree.

6- The higher onus placed on a woman to protect her modesty, not on men to not unjustly look and act towards "immodestly" dressed women is a very serious and discriminatory issue.

The headscarf is worn as a sign of modesty by women, a burden not placed on men. Women must protect their virtue, for if men were to harass or violate a woman -not modestly covered, as in not at least hijabed- then it is her fault. Men who leer at uncovered women commit no sin, as it is the woman who has sinned.

How this theological victim blaming is consistent with feminism is beyond me. But there is quite a difference between the various national and regional branches of feminism in the world, so perhaps I do not understand for lack of background information.

There are similar religious and cultural injunctions towards male modesty. Head scarves are practical attire , especially given the climate.

The issue is not the clothing. Banning headscarves is just as wrong as mandating them. It would be akin to banning bras as a purely sexist imposition to enforce feminine modesty.

No, male modesty requirements are nowhere near as stringent. And considering the popularity of headscarves in say, Tower Hamlets, or northern Marseille, I do not see how the climates of southern England or France require headscarves.

Bras lift women's breasts and provide structural support. Wearing them is not mandatory, nor is there a movement encouraging wearing them. If women want to forsake bras, even though that will be uncomfortable, it is their right, and no one can stop them.

Can the hijab be replaced for bras in the previous sentence? Clothing is an issue. The hijab is an onus on a woman to protect her modesty and virtue in a way a man does not have to do. That is theological sexism, which breeds a variety of other anti-women attitudes in the societies it is present in.

[Fanosolia]

Also, leaving Iran aside and talking about Muslims in the West - because they are the topic here - every single Muslim woman I know who wears hijab, wears it absolutely of her own free will. Every one of my female Muslim friends (all of whom live in the West) would be extremely insulted by your suggestion that there is something "oppressive" about their choice to express their faith through modesty.

And, personally, I strongly sympathize with religious concepts of modesty. For example, although it is socially acceptable (and perfectly legal) for men to walk around shirtless in the summer in Europe, I never do that. Unless I'm at a beach or otherwise going for a swim (which happens very rarely), I always wear a shirt and full-length trousers in public. I don't have a particularly well-defined reason for doing this, but I just feel that it's proper. So I am very adamant about defending women who choose to wear head coverings, because I think I know how they feel. Stop telling them that they should uncover themselves. If you told me I have to take off my shirt, no matter how hot it might be outside, I'd tell you to fuck off. Likewise for wearing shorts instead of full-length trousers. It's my choice not to wear them.

Now, is that in part due to the decentralized nature of the religion so the organized faiths they're a part of are more, I guess of alack of a better term, reformed, or "western", or is that something else? I'm curious as I've been getting mixed messages about these of the longest time, and I have no Muslim friends to ask (and I'm not going to ask the couples that come into my work place because that's none of my business, and they probably just want to shop.)

[Hydesland]

Islam is an ideology. If someone rejects communism, fascism, nazism on the grounds they disagree with those ideologies, is that idiotic bigotry? Or if they reject Catholicism or Moromonism because they think the tenants of either are wrong, is that idiotic bigotry?

Rejecting a political ideology or religion (and Islam is a religion with political aspects) is not idiotic bigotry if based on substantive grounds. Now I agree to say "to hell with their culture" is not substantive or constructive.

But for someone to say they disagree with Islam as the Quran rejects the separation of church and state and therefore most Islamic teaching is antithetical to secularism would not be idiotic bigotry, but a valid criticism.

Nope.

See, I'm not Muslim because it doesn't particularly appeal to me. That doesn't make me a bigot, just a follower of a different belief system, if a somewhat disorganized one. However, the difference is that I do understand that Islam is deeply meaningful to others...

Since we're on the topic of "ideologies", then yes ideologies do tend to be very important to ideologues, Islam is not unique in this regard, not even religion in general. Dawkin's critique appears to be that Islam is unjustifiably held to a different standards for criticism compared to other belief systems, at least among his compatriots in the 'liberal intelligentsia' (obviously not in the right wing media, which Dawkins isn't talking about). He's been very consistent on this theme in general, because he applied this same critique for a decade or more over here, constantly on UK television, to Christianity - until it no longer became controversial to be harshly critical of it. This is basically part of his general critique of cultural relativism, which is in line with his universal humanism kind of outlook - so from what I see this is simply Dawkins being consistent with his own epistemic approach to the world. It's not him being senile or cranky as some claim, "to hell with culture" aptly describes his strong disagreement he's had with cultural-relativism for most of his life.

[Constantinopolis]

1- Men and women both cannot be quasi-naked in public. Understandable. But only women have the increased onus of wearing a hijab -at best- or a niqab -at worst. Men are simply not subject to such strict regulations.

Men have to cover their bodies too, just not their hair. The only difference between the regulations for men and for women is the headscarf. Does that mean that the regulations are not precisely equal? Yes, of course. But I don't understand why you seem to think that this little difference is so important.

Muslim women that I know - and one of them is a feminist activist, actually - simply don't understand what your problem is (I mean the plural "you" - "you" as in "Westerners who object to hijab"). Yes, there is a difference between the dress code for men and the dress code for women. So what? Don't most cultures have differences between the clothes that are socially acceptable for men and those that are socially acceptable for women?

Niqab is a different issue. My Muslim friends oppose it.

2- No it is. Women who are not modestly dressed, and are looked upon by men lasciviously, have sinned. How is this acceptable? That the woman sins for the man's actions?

Both parties have sinned in that case. Here, read the beginning of this article:

The hijab of men

(it also explains a little bit of the dress code for men, by speaking against men who wear revealing shirts)

3- You most certainly can, in many places. In New York, toplesness is allowed. In many parts of Spain, Germany, and many littoral towns in France, public nudity is also allowed. Western culture in general is not uniform on this subject, as clothing regulations are now cultural, and thus varied, and no longer religious, as in explicitly subject to Christian morality.

The point is, in every culture, there is a level of nudity that is considered socially unacceptable, and - more importantly for my point - people themselves don't WANT to be seen wearing too little clothing. Only the definition of what counts as "too little clothing" differs between cultures.

Of course Western culture is varied - and so is Muslim culture for that matter - but my point is that modesty is a universal human impulse, although different people interpret it differently.

4- Theologically, and this argument emanates from the Ulamma of the Muslim world, most often those of the Peninsula; women who are immodestly dressed are indeed at fault, and they sin by being so. This is, according to a plurality, and perhaps increasing majority of Muslims and Muslim scholars today, a simple truth.

Well, I can't defend the rulings of Salafist imams, because they are indefensible. The fact that they are gaining more and more influence in the Muslim world is indeed a major problem.

I can only say that, according to the majority Muslim opinion, men who glare at immodestly dressed women are also at fault. Here's what a highly conservative Muslim website says (I picked a highly conservative one precisely to demonstrate the point that even right-wing Muslims agree that it's sinful for men to leer at women):

"B. It is unlawful for a man to look at the body and hair of a non-mahram woman with the exception of her face and hands. It is also unlawful for a man to look her hair and this verdict is applied on a woman concerning looking at men other than her father, son, uncle, grandfather , brother and those related to them.

C. It is forbidden for a man to look at the details of the face of a non-mahram women, or her hands with sexual desire and vice versa."

5- If my culture placed a heightened responsibility on women to protect their modesty than it does on men, I would most certainly agree.

On most beaches in the Western world (not all, but most), women are required to cover their breasts, while men are not. Is this sexist? And is this important enough for us to worry about it?

I would say no and no.

6- The higher onus placed on a woman to protect her modesty, not on men to not unjustly look and act towards "immodestly" dressed women is a very serious and discriminatory issue.

Again, there is an onus placed on men not to look and act unjustly. Go back to the article I linked about "the hijab of men". There's even a verse in the Quran explicitly telling men not to look.

Of course, many Muslim men don't follow it, but that's nothing new. Many people of all religions don't follow the parts of their faith that they don't like.

[Constantinopolis]

Now, is that in part due to the decentralized nature of the religion so the organized faiths they're a part of are more, I guess of alack of a better term, reformed, or "western", or is that something else? I'm curious as I've been getting mixed messages about these of the longest time, and I have no Muslim friends to ask (and I'm not going to ask the couples that come into my work place because that's none of my business, and they probably just want to shop.)

I'm not sure I understand your question... what things are you asking about?

[Fanosolia]

Now, is that in part due to the decentralized nature of the religion so the organized faiths they're a part of are more, I guess of alack of a better term, reformed, or "western", or is that something else? I'm curious as I've been getting mixed messages about these of the longest time, and I have no Muslim friends to ask (and I'm not going to ask the couples that come into my work place because that's none of my business, and they probably just want to shop.)

I'm not sure I understand your question... what things are you asking about?

Sorry I tend to ramble my questions into giberish.

I guess what I'm asking it what gives them this feeling a freewill, when this something that is encouraged at a young age? Like is it coming over here, is it the mosques they go to, or just their rationale?

[Constantinopolis]

I'm not sure I understand your question... what things are you asking about?

Sorry I tend to ramble my questions into giberish.

I guess what I'm asking it what gives them this feeling a freewill, when this something that is encouraged at a young age? Like is it coming over here, is it the mosques they go to, or just their rationale?

Well, first of all, I have 5 female Muslim friends who wear hijab (or, I guess I should say three friends and two acquaintances - I don't really know the two acquaintances that well). All except one were born in the West. Either their parents or their grandparents were immigrants (depending on which person we're talking about), and they have varying degrees of connection to the "old country". But the point is, they grew up in Western culture - even the one who wasn't born in the West came over at a young age.

They are all, broadly speaking, progressive in their political outlook, and as I mentioned one of them is actually a feminist activist. She is the one that I know best, and the most outspoken on the issue of hijab.

I know for a fact that none of their parents pressured them into wearing hijab, and in one case a friend's mother doesn't actually wear it herself. Besides the obvious religious reasons (they are practicing Muslims after all), as far as I can tell the main reason they wear hijab is... the hyper-sexualized Western culture. They see hijab as a form of protest against it.

My friend who is an activist explains it in plainly political terms. She sees her hijab as a symbol of opposition to the objectification of women in Western culture, and as a symbol of solidarity with Muslims who are being discriminated against for their faith. She could take off her hijab and no one would know she is Muslim, so, by wearing it, she is announcing her faith in public as a gesture of defiance against Islamophobes.

She's the sort of person who, the more Western liberals criticize the hijab, the more she will be inclined to wear it. I think the same holds true for my other friends who wear hijab.

[Fanosolia]

Sorry I tend to ramble my questions into giberish.

I guess what I'm asking it what gives them this feeling a freewill, when this something that is encouraged at a young age? Like is it coming over here, is it the mosques they go to, or just their rationale?

Well, first of all, I have 5 female Muslim friends who wear hijab (or, I guess I should say three friends and two acquaintances - I don't really know the two acquaintances that well). All except one were born in the West. Either their parents or their grandparents were immigrants (depending on which person we're talking about), and they have varying degrees of connection to the "old country". But the point is, they grew up in Western culture - even the one who wasn't born in the West came over at a young age.

They are all, broadly speaking, progressive in their political outlook, and as I mentioned one of them is actually a feminist activist. She is the one that I know best, and the most outspoken on the issue of hijab.

I know for a fact that none of their parents pressured them into wearing hijab, and in one case a friend's mother doesn't actually wear it herself. Besides the obvious religious reasons (they are practicing Muslims after all), as far as I can tell the main reason they wear hijab is... the hyper-sexualized Western culture. They see hijab as a form of protest against it.

My friend who is an activist explains it in plainly political terms. She sees her hijab as a symbol of opposition to the objectification of women in Western culture, and as a symbol of solidarity with Muslims who are being discriminated against for their faith. She could take off her hijab and no one would know she is Muslim, so, by wearing it, she is announcing her faith in public as a gesture of defiance against Islamophobes.

She's the sort of person who, the more Western liberals criticize the hijab, the more she will be inclined to wear it. I think the same holds true for my other friends who wear hijab.

That... is an interesting take on its use. Kudos to your friend, she seems like an cool person . Honestly, that probably the best thing I've heard all year.

Anyways, I'm sorry if I seemed a bit ignorant, or accusing in my questions.

[Davinhia]

My thoughts exacly

[Constantinopolis]

That... is an interesting take on its use. Kudos to your friend, she seems like an cool person . Honestly, that probably the best thing I've heard all year.

Anyways, I'm sorry if I seemed a bit ignorant, or accusing in my questions.

No worries. You didn't seem that way at all. I'm just glad I was able to answer your questions.

[Grunvirdym]

Richard Dawkins is so annoying, he hasn't ever done anything positive for humanity and all he does is insult peoples religions.

Also, most of the people who participate in Islams culture do it because it is their own choice to do so or they grew up around it and it feels comfortable to them. It is only bad when big governments and extremist groups force them to do so.

[Fanosolia]

That... is an interesting take on its use. Kudos to your friend, she seems like an cool person . Honestly, that probably the best thing I've heard all year.

Anyways, I'm sorry if I seemed a bit ignorant, or accusing in my questions.

No worries. You didn't seem that way at all. I'm just glad I was able to answer your questions.

Meh, I worry sometimes since I'm only really familiar with bits and pieces of the religion, and have made a tool of myself, many a time just trying to explain my positions.

Like I'm not against criticizing anything either, but then you have those making into a "they HAVE to leave their culture behind because they came over", or enforcing a ban, or a very discriminatory tax is when I start having the problem for multiple reasons. Know this just justifies my position even more. So thanks.

[The Emerald Legion]

So the thread is little more than an attempt at a dittohead convention to get a bunch of people going "Dawkins and Maher are right, Moozlemz are Ebil".

Hardly seems to be the point to me. Seems like a fairly sensible rejection of Subjective culture. When someones own cultural morals differ with yours in a way that's disruptive, the correct choice is not to throw your hands up and go "Well darn, they're culture thinks that's ok." You change it. Or change your own. It's one thing to say "Oh, well they think wearing funny scarves is important. I suppose I'm alright with that." And another thing entirely to say "Oh hey, they think killing women because they had sex is ok. I don't like it but I suppose that's their way..."

Obviously there is a practical side to this but in the end, any cultural relationship that has not done the above is doomed to failure.

[Risottia]

Oh don't you worry, they keep about half the world at a nice close distance.

Especially for a state that has no claim to Judaism (considering they haven't even agreed to a uniform definition yet) so many Jews are still waiting for the messiah to come, and restore Israel.

I wonder if Ben Gurion is allowed to feel a bit pissed about that.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'm saying that you can poke all of the fun at religion that you want. Just don't pretend that it's actual intelligent discourse, or that it's going to result in any constructive response. Draw Mohammed, mock the Prophet, piss on the Quran: it's all there for you. And you're not going to change a single Muslim mind in the process. And if you're only doing it to instigate a violent response, then you're setting up a situation where innocents will be killed so that you can prove a point about Muslims killing innocents. That, of course, would be between you and your conscience.

So basically you're just saying that if people are stupid enough to want to make a joke or two and that, for no other reason but to spend a good time, then they shouldn't be surprised if it come back to them and eventually ruin their live because, after all, they did searched it?
Is it me or this argument look a fucking lot like one a Pro-Lifers would do?
Saying that simply wanting to have some recreational fun should be forbidden, and that for no other reason than them not liking it, and then try to enforce their view by making the victims seem like they are the ones who are guilty of what happened to them?
It's funny how the horseshoe theory is proven right once more as the liberals are becoming as bigoted as the conservatives...

I suppose that my point is this: You're free to make fun of whatever you want, but what are you trying to achieve with it? Trying to make a point? Okay, that's a time-honored reason to mock something, going back to the ancient Greeks. But what point are you making, to whom are you trying to make it, and how effective are you being at getting this point across? Just for a laugh? Okay, that's fine, but when people call you out on it for bigotry (If it was indeed a bigoted joke), then understand that they're not censoring you, but instead exercising their own rights to free speech. None of the above? Then why are you telling it?

What I'm trying to achieve by making a joke or reading a caricature? Isn't it just plain obvious? I'm just trying to have a damn laugh or give to some of my friend one.
Why should there be a point to a joke? Why should there be a point to humor in general? Do one really need a purpose to laugh?
Or is it that you're just trying to justify why muslims should be such special snowflakes that no one can touch nor make fun of as if they were made of sugar?
Muslims are just like christians or atheists or jews. They are in no way differents and deserve no special treatement. Saying the contrary would make you the one being racist.

And, by the way, as the border between what is bigotry and what isn't change a lot from people to people, it's quite hard to define what is or isn't bigoted.
Now, I will just say that trying to mindlessly shame and call racists people who dare not have the same opinions nor views as you, as did a lot of people on this thread, make you just about as bigoted as the people you're serving your "Social Justice" to.

I got as far as you using the word "forbidden". As I've repeatedly tried to make the point that you're actually free to do whatever you want, and you made a counterpoint comparing me to people who actually wish to forbid things rather than simply advise against them, or encourage more responsible dialogue, I felt no obligation to read further, as I couldn't trust that the rest of your post would have anything to do with what I actually stated.

[Wolfmanne2]

Richard Dawkins is a twat. But, speaking as a Catholic, he is not representative of atheism and those who are willing to engage in the reasonable debate that I personally find thrilling and which actually makes me reconsider my own personal philosophy and beliefs. Dawkins should not stain his excellent work in biology with crap like this. But hey, this is probably how he makes money, so he will carry on.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Nope.

See, I'm not Muslim because it doesn't particularly appeal to me. That doesn't make me a bigot, just a follower of a different belief system, if a somewhat disorganized one. However, the difference is that I do understand that Islam is deeply meaningful to others...

Since we're on the topic of "ideologies", then yes ideologies do tend to be very important to ideologues, Islam is not unique in this regard, not even religion in general. Dawkin's critique appears to be that Islam is unjustifiably held to a different standards for criticism compared to other belief systems, at least among his compatriots in the 'liberal intelligentsia' (obviously not in the right wing media, which Dawkins isn't talking about). He's been very consistent on this theme in general, because he applied this same critique for a decade or more over here, constantly on UK television, to Christianity - until it no longer became controversial to be harshly critical of it. This is basically part of his general critique of cultural relativism, which is in line with his universal humanism kind of outlook - so from what I see this is simply Dawkins being consistent with his own epistemic approach to the world. It's not him being senile or cranky as some claim, "to hell with culture" aptly describes his strong disagreement he's had with cultural-relativism for most of his life.

It wasn't particularly unusual to be critical of Christianity before Dawkins came along. In fact, most of his positions seem to be directly copied from Bertrand Russell, and badly at that. He's not a particularly original thinker on these matters, nor a deep one. What he is is a biologist who quite rightly wishes for religion to be kept out of science due to the lack of scientific training of those who would (for instance) teach creationism or intelligent design in the classroom, but has no issues with using his position to opine on religious and spiritual matters without evidence that he's taken so much as a decent comparative religions or theology course.

I'm no cultural relativist, either, though I suppose I'm a bit more sympathetic to that outlook than he is. My major concern is to ensure that people aren't getting lumped together unnecessarily, or subjected to religious bigotry because of what others have done in the name of that faith.

[Risottia]

Richard Dawkins is a twat. But, speaking as a Catholic, he is not representative of atheism and those who are willing to engage in the reasonable debate that I personally find thrilling and which actually makes me reconsider my own personal philosophy and beliefs. Dawkins should not stain his excellent work in biology with crap like this. But hey, this is probably how he makes money, so he will carry on.

Yeah, speaking as an Atheist, Dawkins does look like a professional troll sometimes.

[Salus Maior]

There are a lot of problems within the Islamic community, though Dawkins tends to assume most of these are somehow inherent to Islam and seldom takes account of the culture that brought them about. The fact that he treats Islam like a single monolithic culture clearly illustrates how out of his league he can get on this issue. I agree with him on some issues, and still have a fair amount of respect for the man, but he doesn't allow for the recognition of any diversity within the faith. There are progressive Muslims and Muslim feminists attacking the very same issues he is, but by assigning all blame to Islam even they are thrown into the same bus as fundamentalists. By making Islam the problem rather than the actions and attitudes of some Muslims, reform becomes impossible. The Qur'an never demands that all women must be veiled and it sure as hell never says marital rape is okay. There are certainly communities within the Islamic world that do this and they must be addressed, but by ignorantly pretending all Muslims do this then nothing can ever get done except for spreading what legitimately must be recognized as bigotry and scaremongering.