Krauss & Dawkins angry at UCL gender segregation during debate-includes Tweeting dino

Galvasean

Essentially, Krauss was debating a Muslim representive at the University College of London as part of the Islamic Awareness Tour. The UCL decided to segregate the audience based on gender. Apparently they even tried to kick out students who sat in the 'wrong' place. Krauss nearly walked out over it and Dawkins ranted on twitter.
http://london.tab.co.uk/2013/03/10/richard-dawkins-outraged-by-islamic-gender-segregation-at-ucl/

As an aside, I like how Krauss is actively talking to a (surprisingly articulate) dinosaur on twitter:

Galvasean

FWIW, I am totally following Spinosaurus on Twitter now.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

I like the title

http://www.thebigdebates.com/debates/islam-or-atheism

Islam or Atheism: Which Makes More Sense?

It depends on what you mean by 'making sense'. I mean, I'd expect that Islam has far, far more hypotheses aimed at making sense of reality than Atheism. Well, it would have to, seeing as how we've none at all. In fact, we'd surely contest that 'sense' exists, depending on what they mean by it.

Plus, I'd suspect there's far more Muslims in the world than atheists. So whether you measure it by yards of explanatory texts, or by gross weight of brain tissue making sense of reality by praising Allah with some degree of enthusiasm, I'd say it would have to be Islam, hands down.

nagirrac

OP might want to consider reading the comments below the article and amending the opening post, rather than repeating the slander against UCL from the tabloid. The event was apparently held by an outside Islamic foundation called the IERA who rented the venue at UCL, as I am sure many outside groups do. According to the comments neither UCL nor for that matter the Islamic Society at UCL were involved. Surely the question for Dawkins and Krauss is if you accept an invitation to speak at an Islamic event attended by muslims, why would you be surprised to witness muslim culture?

You could make the argument that a secular university should not allow such groups to use their facilities, but that would not be very secular now would it. If the university took such a stance, should they also ban muslim students because they find aspects of their culture repugnant? It's a slippery slope, and Dawkins and Krauss are doing the secular cause no favors whatsoever by their hysterical ranting on twitter. "Who do these Muslims think they are" as tweeted by Dawkins is an ugly colonial mindset and frankly Islamophobic.

If Krauss and Dawkins are so outraged by Islamic customs, surely they should be in Saudia Arabia speaking publically against the plight of women in Islamic societies?

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

If Krauss and Dawkins are so outraged by Islamic customs, surely they should be in Saudia Arabia speaking publically against the plight of women in Islamic societies?

So basically you are saying that Dawkins shouldn't be bitching about minor incidents of sexism here that he is going out of his way to complain about as there is much more serious incidences of much worse sexism else where...

Huh.. where have I heard that exact sentiment which caused a whole guffaw before?

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

So basically you are saying that Dawkins shouldn't be bitching about minor incidents of sexism here that he is going out of his way to complain about as there is much more serious incidences of much worse sexism else where...

No, what I'm saying is that militant atheists like Dawkins need to try and see past their dogmatic blinkers and try and understand what secularism actually means before making defamatory allegations against a university. Secularism means a society where religion is not imposed but also where people are free to practice their religion without state interference. Unless they are breaking the law that is. This was a muslim funded and organized event, what did they expect?

.. and how is it sexism? which sex is being discriminated against in this instance? Should all private schools that practice gender segregation be closed down by the state?

I was making the obvious joke about Dawkins, given his over the top response to elevatorgate.. but go ahead and focus on that and not the real issue here, which is Dawkins and Krauss looking for publicity and having no issue defaming a university to further their ambitions. Disgusting behavior.

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

I was making the obvious joke about Dawkins, given his over the top response to elevatorgate.. but go ahead and focus on that and not the real issue here, which is Dawkins and Krauss looking for publicity and having no issue defaming a university to further their ambitions. Disgusting behavior.

Lol you are trying to be ironic right?

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

Lol you are trying to be ironic right?

No, I'm being very serious about the issue that actually matters. Given the fact that the event was organized by an Islamic foundation who rented a venue at UCL and invited Krauss to speak at their event, do you think the following tweet from Dawkins is reasonable:

"How has UCL come to this, cowardly capitulation to Muslims. Tried to segregate sexes in debate between Lawrence Krauss and some muslim or other".

I could care less what he thinks about muslims, but he has no basis for an attack such as this on a secular university.

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

No, I'm being very serious about the issue that actually matters.

But in your outrage to whine about Dawkins and Lawerence you are expressing the exact same sentiment that Dawkins did which you are then using to label him a sexist.

This means that you are either a hypocrite on several levels as you don't actually care as much about sexism or secularism as you do about getting the chance to give out about mean old atheists and skeptics or you are demonstrating how to do irony really really well in some sort of avant garde performance piece.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

But in your outrage to whine about Dawkins and Lawerence you are expressing the exact same sentiment that Dawkins did which you are then using to label him a sexist.

As usual, nothing to offer on the real issue worth debating. I am not labelling Dawkins a sexist, I made a sarcastic joke about his faux outrage on a gender related issue. Stop trying to cloud the real issue here in your pathetic attempt to defend your cultural hero.

I am labelling him as an hysterical hater of cultures he does not find appealing, and someone with such low moral standards that he would find it acceptable to attack a secular university solely to gain publicity and sell a few more books.

and yes I do care about issues like sexism and secularism, and in particular defending secularism against attacks from fundamentalists like Dawkins.

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

As usual, nothing to offer on the real issue worth debating. I am not labelling Dawkins a sexist, I made a sarcastic joke about his faux outrage on a gender related issue.

And that faux outrage looks suspiciously like the outrage you're fauxing right now.:rolleyes:

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

And that faux outrage looks suspiciously like the outrage you're fauxing right now.:rolleyes:

If you could actually think it through, the outrage is justifed.. but you can't because that would involve doubting your cultural hero :rolleyes:

My primary reason for responding to this thread was to highlight the potential slander in the OP ("the UCL decided to segregate the audience"). As for giving out about mean old atheists, every time Dawkins opens his mouth lately he does more harm to his cause than anything I (or anyone else) could do.

TheChizler

The issue here is that official UCL security were enforcing the segregation. Even without the knowledge of management, this makes the university complicit.

Delirium

nagirrac wrote: »

OP might want to consider reading the comments below the article and amending the opening post, rather than repeating the slander against UCL from the tabloid. The event was apparently held by an outside Islamic foundation called the IERA who rented the venue at UCL, as I am sure many outside groups do. According to the comments neither UCL nor for that matter the Islamic Society at UCL were involved. Surely the question for Dawkins and Krauss is if you accept an invitation to speak at an Islamic event attended by muslims, why would you be surprised to witness muslim culture?

The event was being held at a university, not a Muslim temple/cultural centre. Why would anyone expect genders to be separated at a public event at a university? And why should anyone accept it when it happens? Not everyone attending is a Muslim, so why should they have the gender segragation imposed on them?

You could make the argument that a secular university should not allow such groups to use their facilities, but that would not be very secular now would it. If the university took such a stance, should they also ban muslim students because they find aspects of their culture repugnant? It's a slippery slope, and Dawkins and Krauss are doing the secular cause no favors whatsoever by their hysterical ranting on twitter. "Who do these Muslims think they are" as tweeted by Dawkins is an ugly colonial mindset and frankly Islamophobic.

No you couldn't, or at least not on my understanding of secularism. How could a secular university justify barring religious people from the campus?

If Krauss and Dawkins are so outraged by Islamic customs, surely they should be in Saudia Arabia speaking publically against the plight of women in Islamic societies?

now you're contradicting yourself:

Surely the question for Dawkins and Krauss is if you accept an invitation to speak at an Islamic event attended by muslims, why would you be surprised to witness muslim culture?

Obliq

To my mind, the huge big deal here is the enforcement of Muslim practice by UL staff, and it highlights the problem Muslim people have with these kind of strict laws when in secular situations, but also highlights the extent to which this uni has bent over backwards to avoid offending the Muslims at the expense of offending everyone else.

Yes, it was a debate arranged by Muslims. Does that give them the right to enforce their laws on others who don't share their beliefs when they're outside of a mosque?

If I go to a Catholic/Protestant church, and as an atheist do not participate in any of the responses, then I show myself up as a non-believer but manage not to offend anyone. If there was a law in those churches that said I could not sit next to a man, then I would have to

1) choose to offend people by ignoring that law
2) compromise my own beliefs by complying
3) not attend.

In these churches there are no bouncers, but the thought of people's disapproval/upset would be enough IMO that most people would show respect by choosing the 2nd and 3rd options, yes? I would respect that church by not attending, personally.

However, let it be a debate open to the public, on public and secular property, and none of those options need to be considered at all, even if the person sitting next to me is offended by my proximity, or the people holding the debate wish I didn't sit there.
There is a massive difference.

robindch

There are a few videos doing the rounds. This one seems to be as good as any:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRrSmwqUxtk

Dades

I absolutely agree that some of the facts that you have presented change the dynamic somewhat. This wasn't a university event, but a venue that was booked by a Muslim group who obviously stated their preference for a segregated audience.

Obviously it doesn't make the notion of segregating genders any less ridiculous, but it does suggest the reactions might have been somewhat dramatic.

nagirrac wrote: »

...the real issue here, which is Dawkins and Krauss looking for publicity and having no issue defaming a university to further their ambitions. Disgusting behavior.

Your own reaction is equally dramatic however. Disgusting? Really? A few outraged tweets is hardly that chilling.

TheChizler wrote: »

The issue here is that official UCL security were enforcing the segregation. Even without the knowledge of management, this makes the university complicit.

This is a good point, though perhaps when you rent the university as venue you are also provided the staff to assist running your event in the way you specify.

---
EDIT - That video above suggests Krauss was promised the event would not be segregated, so I guess he has a right to lose the plot.

Doctor Strange

Here's my issue with the segregation:

UCL is a private institution. Therefore, there is no "free speech" as such, just what the Uni allows. Ergo, ANY religious group looking to rent a premises for the purposes of a public even should NOT expect to have their backwards ideals pandered to. If UCL said to the group hiring the room "no, you may not expect gender segregation" and promised as much to Mr. Krauss, either the group can accept this, or seek alternative venues.

It's this simple. It's not about secularism, it's the management reserving their rights to enforce their rules, as with any venue.

UDP

nagirrac wrote: »

Surely the question for Dawkins and Krauss is if you accept an invitation to speak at an Islamic event attended by muslims, why would you be surprised to witness muslim culture?

In the video Robindch posted Krauss says that he was promised beforehand that it would not be segregated which is why he was pi$$ed off being there and witnessing that promise broken. He was completely justified to walk out since they lied to him.

Dades

There may well have been a breakdown in communication somewhere that resulted in Krauss being told one thing and the university told to follow other instructions. This might have been deliberate, or not.

It's also conceivable that some zealot representative decided on the night to segregate the crowd and instructed the Uni staff to do so.

We may never learn the facts of what actually happened.

[-0-]

Did Dawkins really need to tweet the same thing several times? I hate when people do that, it makes them look like idiots.

Gbear

[-0-] wrote: »

Did Dawkins really need to tweet the same thing several times? I hate when people do that, it makes them look like idiots.

Well he is an ould fella. Computermatronics might be a bit tricky for him as an elderly gentleman.:pac:

Galvasean

nagirrac wrote: »

OP might want to consider reading the comments below the article and amending the opening post,

Good spot. It would appear, as always, there's more than meets the eye in relation to this. I my rush to make a Spinosaurus reference I did minimal research.
Some interesting points all 'round guys.

[-0-]

http://uclisoc.com/2013/03/10/islam-or-atheism-which-makes-more-sense-update/

Galvasean

If it had no connection to them why did they supply security staff or have I been misinformed on that too?

Dades

Is there anything to suggest it was people from the UCLU Islamic Society, rather than UCLU staff who were doing the segregating?

Morag

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0313/11032013-meeting

IERA event at UCL on 9 March

11 March 2013
Quad

An organisation known as the Islamic Education and Research Academy (IERA) booked a room at UCL for a debate on Saturday evening (9 March). UCL was notified during Friday by some individuals planning to attend the event that the organisers intended to segregate the audience by gender.

This was directly contrary to UCL policy. We do not allow enforced segregation on any grounds at meetings held on campus. We immediately made clear to the organisers that the event would be cancelled if there were any attempt to enforce such segregation. We also required the organisers to make it explicit to attendees that seating arrangements were optional, and guests were welcome to sit wherever they felt comfortable. We also arranged for additional security staff to be present to ensure that people were not seated against their wishes.

It now appears that, despite our clear instructions, attempts were made to enforce segregation at the meeting. We are still investigating what actually happened at the meeting but, given IERA’s original intentions for a segregated audience we have concluded that their interests are contrary to UCL’s ethos and that we should not allow any further events involving them to take place on UCL premises.

robindch

^^^ Ouch.

"Islam or Atheism - which makes more sense?"

Question comprehensively answered, I'd have said.

Dades

So it seems the IERA decided to segregate on the night despite being told that would not be permissible. I guess the UCL people present got swept into it - possibly due to fears of "offending" their clients.

So while the comments critical of the Muslims involved in this seem warranted, Dawkins' attacks on the UCL itself is somewhat harsh. All a bit of a clusterfuck, tbh!

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Dades wrote: »

I guess the UCL people present got swept into it - possibly due to fears of "offending" their clients.

When you think about, it's more than a slightly awkward position to put your frontline people into. How do you police 'voluntary' segregation? Does that mean you can ask people to move and, if they do, that's OK?

Obliq

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

When you think about, it's more than a slightly awkward position to put your frontline people into. How do you police 'voluntary' segregation? Does that mean you can ask people to move and, if they do, that's OK?

I suppose it would be ok to ask people to observe segregation and you don't police it at all. Most who aren't of that observance would shake their heads and stay put, don't ya think? (I'd like to think that, but would they meekly get up and go....? ) If people don't move, well...the person next to them can move if he/she has a problem with sitting there, can't they?

The fact that segregation needs enforcing clearly shows what's wrong with the notion. The idea that it has to be policed only comes about when a 3rd person is offended by "seeing" a man and a woman sitting together, even if the man and woman don't agree with segregation and won't separate.

Paramite Pie

koth wrote: »

Why would anyone expect genders to be separated at a public event at a university? And why should anyone accept it when it happens? Not everyone attending is a Muslim, so why should they have the gender segragation imposed on them?

Well if there was an equal amount of seating reserved for both genders then they could've simply called it a 'gender quota' and slapped a 'progressive' and 'modern' label on it.:rolleyes:

But yeah this was absurd to begin with... none of the Muslims at my university ever complained about gender mixing during lectures.... and according to the Koran, Muslims must respect the traditions of the culture they live in..

pH

Hmmmm.

We *all* support gender "segregation" where we believe it is appropriate. We'd be outraged if security staff didn't kick a man out of the women's toilets or changing rooms - we all agree that in certain circumstances (even if there aren't extremely good logical reasons) we have a cultural bias about doing some things in the presence of the other sex.

I have no tolerance at all for forcing any woman to sit where she is told - but if we accept that some muslim women might feel the the same way about sitting in a darkened theater with a man beside them as we might about being asked to share a public dressing room with the other sex - then what?

Maybe the answer is indeed "tough love", but reserving a "women only" area for those women who might want it doesn't seem to be the end of the world - of course forcing all women to use this area would be entirely wrong - but politely asking a couple of men to move out of this are doesn't seem as wrong to me.

Obliq

Well, it was kinda my point that if there is a person offended by the proximity of a 2nd person, then surely person no.1 should move and not even ASK person 2 to go anywhere. The women only section sounds more reasonable, but ONLY if they want to be there! It's clearly a rule that requires enforcing, or there'd be no problem with it.

Mark Hamill

pH wrote: »

but politely asking a couple of men to move out of this are doesn't seem as wrong to me.

And if they say no, then what? Force them to move?

Paramite Pie

Obliq wrote: »

Well, it was kinda my point that if there is a person offended by the proximity of a 2nd person, then surely person no.1 should move and not even ASK person 2 to go anywhere. The women only section sounds more reasonable, but ONLY if they want to be there! It's clearly a rule that requires enforcing, or there'd be no problem with it.

But then some guys will demand their 'own' section too just on principle, and while technically it would be discrimination to bar men from a women's only area, there is a sometimes genuine concern even if it indirectly makes gross insinuations on all men.

but then what? separate urinals for gay and straight men?? everyone will be demanding segregation.. where do we draw the line...

Obliq

Paramite Pie wrote: »

But then some guys will demand their 'own' section too just on principle, and while technically it would be discrimination to bar men from a women's only area, there is a sometimes genuine concern even if it indirectly makes gross insinuations on all men.

but then what? separate urinals for gay and straight men?? everyone will be demanding segregation.. where do we draw the line...

I want my own section. Nay, I DEMAND my own section. I would like a chair, and space for my legs. Also, it would be nice if I had enough elbow room so that I don't have to touch my neighbour. Tks.

pH

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And if they say no, then what? Force them to move?

Well what would you do to men in the ladies toilets?

force them to move?

Or maybe you could explain to them that these women are from a different tradition and have an expectation not to sit in the company of men, and as polite and caring individuals you could balance their comfort and enjoyment of the event against your god given right to sit anywhere you damn please in your own country.

but then what? separate urinals for gay and straight men?? everyone will be demanding segregation.. where do we draw the line...

But WE are quite happy to segregate based on sex for toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards and even schools. It all seems perfectly reasonable to us, indeed most of us would be outraged if a man demanded access to women's changing rooms.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Obliq wrote: »

I suppose it would be ok to ask people to observe segregation and you don't police it at all.

That would be the Irish solution - very strict laws, that no-one observes and no-one enforces.

What I'd say, in this case, is it has to be one or the other. Either it's a meeting where Islamic rules apply or it's a meeting according to secular rules. In either case, people can accept the rules or stay away. Kicking the issue down the line to whomever is policing the event is, I think, ducking responsibility.

Given the kind of folk involved, who will regard any opportunity to establish their rules as a victory, I'd feel the policy should have been enforced by cancelling the booking as soon as it became apparent that segregation would be attempted.

Obliq wrote: »

Most who aren't of that observance would shake their heads and stay put, don't ya think?

I don't know - I'd say it could depend on how the approach was put, people might not immediately twig the reason they were being moved. At the risk of getting lost in minutiae, I'm sure we've all seen people being asked to move because of (say) accidently sitting in seating reserved for invited guests, or whatever. Also, maybe people genuinely don't want to offend, even if they disagree with the concept in play.

It's possible to put people in unnecessarily awkward situations; unambiguously directing that segregated seating is out avoids any potential awkwardness.

Obliq

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That would be the Irish solution - very strict laws, that no-one observes and no-one enforces.

What I'd say, in this case, is it has to be one or the other. Either it's a meeting where Islamic rules apply or it's a meeting according to secular rules. In either case, people can accept the rules or stay away. Kicking the issue down the line to whomever is policing the event is, I think, ducking responsibility.

To your first sentence: Well yes exactly. And my entire point is based on the fact that these islamic laws have to be enforced among their own, never mind among those of different faiths. Which is exactly why the Uni didn't allow the meeting to be segregated (I imagine) but would have no problem if people want to segregate themselves. On Uni property it would cause more trouble surely, to have a meeting where Islamic rules apply. The CLASH here is that Islamic rules have to be enforced.

Mark Hamill

pH wrote: »

Well what would you do to men in the ladies toilets?

force them to move?

Yes, because they are in a toilet, a private place. Not private in the sense of membership, but private in the sense that what you do there is private. An audience is not a private place.

pH wrote: »

Or maybe you could explain to them that these women are from a different tradition and have an expectation not to sit in the company of men, and as polite and caring individuals you could balance their comfort and enjoyment of the event against your god given right to sit anywhere you damn please in your own country.

These women may have quite a few expectations about men that we completely ignore, why should segregated audiences be an exemption? Should men start growing their beards out to suit them? Should men make sure to wear trousers of sufficient length to reach their knees and navels?

pH wrote: »

But WE are quite happy to segregate based on sex for toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards and even schools. It all seems perfectly reasonable to us, indeed most of us would be outraged if a man demanded access to women's changing rooms.

Because a changing room is a private place. As is a toilet and a hospital ward (I don't agree with school segregation). These places all involve people getting naked or near naked. An audience is not a private place, it does not involve nudity.

pH

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because a changing room is a private place. As is a toilet and a hospital ward (I don't agree with school segregation). These places all involve people getting naked or near naked. An audience is not a private place, it does not involve nudity.

So public (sex-segregated) changing rooms and public toilets are "private" places?. Only half to population of the planet are allowed in therefore it's "private"? (And I have no idea what you and others get up to in public toilets, but I can assure you that the majority of us don't get "naked" or "near naked" in them)


No it means there are some activities that the majority of us only feel comfortable with in the presence of our own sex, I don't feel it unreasonable that if some women would prefer not to be seated beside a strange (as in stranger) man in a theater then I can't see why we can't consider accommodating them?

UDP

pH wrote: »

No it means there are some activities that the majority of us only feel comfortable with in the presence of our own sex, I don't feel it unreasonable that if some women would prefer not to be seated beside a strange (as in stranger) man in a theater then I can't see why we can't consider accommodating them?

I agree with your point and I would be of the view that there should be no segregation at all for any of those things unless there is full privacy. Those things are arbitrarily determined to be single gender only which is ridiculous. Who decides if something should be gender segregated or not? It comes from stupid societal unwritten rules which don't make the audience segregation as ridiculous as it seems in comparison when you step back and look at it.

For instance if we are segregating by gender why should we not segregate by "race" also or any other arbitrary differences.

Mark Hamill

pH wrote: »

So public (sex-segregated) changing rooms and public toilets are "private" places?. Only half to population of the planet are allowed in therefore it's "private"?

Yes, like I said "Not private in the sense of membership, but private in the sense that what you do there is private." Many toilets and changing rooms have cubicles and barriers for privacy, even between members of the same sex.

pH wrote: »

(And I have no idea what you and others get up to in public toilets, but I can assure you that the majority of us don't get "naked" or "near naked" in them)

You don't consider pulling down your trousers "near naked"?

pH wrote: »

No it means there are some activities that the majority of us only feel comfortable with in the presence of our own sex, I don't feel it unreasonable that if some women would prefer not to be seated beside a strange (as in stranger) man in a theater then I can't see why we can't consider accommodating them?

What could they be doing that they would feel uncomfortable? The women I mean. In a toilet or changing room, they would be getting naked or near naked, so having a strange man there (or even strange woman there) might make them feel uncomfortable. They aren't doing anything, as a member of the audience, to bring the attention of others to them, so why do they need segregation.

What if they didn't stop there? What if these women started calling for segregation in buses or trains or cafes?

Tordelback

There are of course many situations where changing rooms and toilets are unisex, and where mixed nudity is expected and even enforced. It's all part of the great whirl of cultural and situational diversity. However, once an institution has policies in place, these should respected or explicitly challenged in advance. Just showing up and violating those policies is rude.

Dades

Tordelback wrote: »

There are of course many situations where changing rooms and toilets are unisex, and where mixed nudity is expected and even enforced.

Starship Troopers, ftw.

HHobo

nagirrac wrote: »

OP might want to consider reading the comments below the article and amending the opening post, rather than repeating the slander against UCL from the tabloid. The event was apparently held by an outside Islamic foundation called the IERA who rented the venue at UCL, as I am sure many outside groups do. According to the comments neither UCL nor for that matter the Islamic Society at UCL were involved. Surely the question for Dawkins and Krauss is if you accept an invitation to speak at an Islamic event attended by muslims, why would you be surprised to witness muslim culture?

You could make the argument that a secular university should not allow such groups to use their facilities, but that would not be very secular now would it. If the university took such a stance, should they also ban muslim students because they find aspects of their culture repugnant? It's a slippery slope, and Dawkins and Krauss are doing the secular cause no favors whatsoever by their hysterical ranting on twitter. "Who do these Muslims think they are" as tweeted by Dawkins is an ugly colonial mindset and frankly Islamophobic.

If Krauss and Dawkins are so outraged by Islamic customs, surely they should be in Saudia Arabia speaking publically against the plight of women in Islamic societies?

Why would you invite atheists to a debate and expect them to fall in line with what they see as oppressive religous practices?

Your slippery slope argument holds no water. If the university conducts itself in accordance with certain principles, they would be entirely justified in requiring that any group utilising it's premises abide by them also. They don't have to, of course, but there would be no slopes and no slipping. If I went into a mosque and was required to remove my shoes or be quiet, I wouldn't consider it discriminatory or prejudicial. Everyone is required to do these things. If I don't like it, I am free not to attend a mosque.

The Saudia Arabia comment is just silly. Do you approve of Islamic militants chopping off the heads of young girls for trying to go to school? Well, by your reasoning you aren't allowed to be outraged about it unless you are willing to travel to Iraq and speak publically about it. They DO speak publically about the injustices perpetrated against women in Islamic countries. Apparently you won't be happy until they do so in a particular geographic location and in a manner tantamount to suicide. Are you being remotely serious with that comment?

nagirrac

HHobo wrote: »

Why would you invite atheists to a debate and expect them to fall in line with what they see as oppressive religous practices?
The Saudia Arabia comment is just silly. Do you approve of Islamic militants chopping off the heads of young girls for trying to go to school?

First of all I condemn all human rights violations regardless of their geographic location, unlike say Sam Harris another atheistic debating colleague of Dawkins who seriously mused on whether a nuclear bomb would be an ethical solution for certain muslim countries but supports the state of Israel, a theocracy, and refuses to condemn human rights violations committed by them. As for Dawkins, ask yourself the following question: if this had been an event organized by orthodox Jews would he have ranted on twitter : "Who do these Jews thing they are?"? Would he hell, because that would have been universally condemned as anti-semetic and his buddy Harris wouldn't like it.

This whole incident was blown out of all proportion by Dawkins as a publicity stunt. There is no evidence that there was enforced segregation of sexes, both the organizers and people who attended the event have stated that an area was set aside for orthodox muslim women. The whole incident was apparently sparked off by a few guys who sat among the muslim women, probably for "a bit of a larf". If there had been enforced segregation for all attendees then absolutely the organizers should be turfed out and never allowed in again.

The most hilarious aspect of this whole silly incident is the reaction in the English newspapers. I would say 90% of the comments I have seen are along the line of; "you muslims need to behave yourselves, you live in a secular democracy and this is how we do things here". Quite ironic given they live in a constitutional monarchy, the head of state is mandated by law to be a Protestant, the Church of England is the state religion, and 26 bishops from said religion get to sit in the house of lords and enact laws.

Now there's some selective religious and non secular legislated practices for an atheist to get excited about, rather than aspects of muslim culture that are regarded as "oppressive religious practices".

Turtwig

nagirrac wrote: »

First of all I condemn all human rights violations regardless of their geographic location, unlike say Sam Harris another atheistic debating colleague of Dawkins who seriously mused on whether a nuclear bomb would be an ethical solution for certain muslim countries but supports the state of Israel, a theocracy, and refuses to condemn human rights violations committed by them. As for Dawkins, ask yourself the following question: if this had been an event organized by orthodox Jews would he have ranted on twitter : "Who do these Jews thing they are?"? Would he hell, because that would have been universally condemned as anti-semetic and his buddy Harris wouldn't like it.

This whole incident was blown out of all proportion by Dawkins as a publicity stunt. There is no evidence that there was enforced segregation of sexes, both the organizers and people who attended the event have stated that an area was set aside for orthodox muslim women. The whole incident was apparently sparked off by a few guys who sat among the muslim women, probably for "a bit of a larf". If there had been enforced segregation for all attendees then absolutely the organizers should be turfed out and never allowed in again.

The most hilarious aspect of this whole silly incident is the reaction in the English newspapers. I would say 90% of the comments I have seen are along the line of; "you muslims need to behave yourselves, you live in a secular democracy and this is how we do things here". Quite ironic given they live in a constitutional monarchy, the head of state is mandated by law to be a Protestant, the Church of England is the state religion, and 26 bishops from said religion get to sit in the house of lords and enact laws.

Now there's some selective religious and non secular legislated practices for an atheist to get excited about, rather than aspects of muslim culture that are regarded as "oppressive religious practices".

Good God! Is this your actual response to his/her post? Some random irrelevant waffle about Sam Harris. A diatribe about how Dawkins blew the event out of proportion and some musing about the ignorance of online comments of people on the internet.

Wow! I mean, seriously wow. You didn't even directly address anything s/he posted. But, yeah I get it, you don't like Dawkins or Harris. Great, they don't post here btw.

nagirrac

Jernal wrote: »

Wow! I mean, seriously wow. You didn't even directly address anything s/he posted. But, yeah I get it, you don't like Dawkins or Harris. Great, they don't post here btw.

er, the thread is about Dawkins!

I clearly adressed everything in HHobo's post. To repeat, if the organization involved tried to enforce segregation on the audience they should have been turfed out and not allowed back.

The commentary on Harris is highly relevant. You are either against discrimination and human rights abuses or not, you cannot be selectively against some and ignore or even support others. How can you rant against religious influence in some countries and support a theocracy? If Dawkins is so concerned about religious discrimination why is he not calling for changes to the legal system in the UK where he lives to abolish the "privileged" COE position nonsense. If 26 bishops are justified to sit in the house fo Lords, surely due to population there should be a few mullahs as well? Oh wait, we don't mean that kind of religious freedom old chap.

Maybe you could add something to the discusion rather than having a little personal rant. How are people who choose to sit separately at public events discriminatory? Who is being discriminated against? If a man went into a bar and a group of girls were having a hen party, should he feel discriminated against because they would not allow him join them?

How does hysterical tweeting such as "who do these muslims think they are" further the secular cause, which supposedly promotes tolerance and respects religious freedom?

nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

To repeat, if the organization involved tried to enforce segregation on the audience they should have been turfed out and not allowed back.

.....

How does hysterical tweeting such as "who do these muslims think they are" further the secular cause, which supposedly promotes tolerance and respects religious freedom?

I thought that turfing them out was against their rights and a betrayal of secularism...?