Posted on 10/08/2005 5:29:47 AM PDT by Crackingham
Citizens of the world should be concerned about religious extremism whether it’s in Iran or America, says author Salman Rushdie, who was once marked for death by Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini.
Rushdie compared the emergence of religion into public life in Kansas with similar movements across the world in a lecture Thursday at the Lied Center.
“I would really love never to mention that word again: religion,” Rushdie said. “But now it seems to be coming right at us all. I don’t just mean radical Islam, by the way. I believe we have some problems right here.”
Rushdie received a standing ovation after the lecture, in which he revealed his thoughts on writing and receiving death threats and also blasted religion, intelligent design and the best-selling book “The Da Vinci Code.”
SNIP
Rushdie told the crowd that religion has much potential to do harm in the world today.
“It’s a pretty bad time for us who don’t believe that superstition should rule the world,” he said.
When asked how rationalism could win the fight against religion, Rushdie said with ridicule, argument and battle. When he was young, the 58-year-old said, he and others thought they’d won the battle. So they turned their heads.
We were “so busy having fun that all the uncool people took over the world,” he said.
And this superstition needs to be pushed back in the cupboard where it belongs, he said. Rushdie also blasted intelligent design proponents.
“I never had any doubts about evolution theory,” he said. “I gather there are parts of Kansas where the big bang did not take place.”
You responded with the crudest ad-hominem and now threaten force - when no action is possible - because you imagine that you have the backing of numbers. Truly, you are the scum of the earth, an untermensch, a sub-human, part of the vilest rabble populating the earth.
No doubt you imagine yourself to be religious and moral...but you are a perfect example the people and attitudes which Rushdie despises.
Oh, I’m crushed.
Cue the dramatic music, yourself. Being unable to address the issue I raised, you take a put-down shot at a humorous throw-away. Do you believe no one noticed? Now that you’ve been called on your dodge, would you care to speak to the issue? You don’t have to, you know. It’s a free country . . . sort of - yet - for a little while.
Ball in your court.
Yes, death to those who question or disagree!
</sarc>
#####Rushdie was a hero as long as he ridiculted the other guy's beliefs. Now that he ridicules ours he's a bum. Typical...and pathetic.#####
How do you come up with that kind of reasoning?
Rushdie wrote a piece of fiction that included a few pages offensive to Muslims. They responded by demanding his death, and even put a bounty on his head.
Rushdie then comes along and attacks ALL religious folks and demands that perfectly peaceful and law abiding Christians should be locked in the cupboard and silenced.
Sounds to me like Rushdie's the hypocrite here. He demands free speech....but only for himself and those who share his views.
That you didn't notice that is typical...and pathetic.
> Rushdie then comes along and attacks ALL religious folks and demands that perfectly peaceful and law abiding Christians should be locked in the cupboard and silenced.
Interesting. I read the article, and didn't see that. Where does Rushdie say that? The closest I saw was: "Even Dan Brown must live,” he said. “Preferably not write, but live.”
Rather a lot of Christians also agree that Dan Brown should nto write, as they're a bit ticked off abut "Da Vinci Code."
But I really want to see where Rushdie said: "perfectly peaceful and law abiding Christians should be locked in the cupboard and silenced."
#####Rushdie compared the emergence of religion into public life in Kansas with similar movements across the world in a lecture Thursday at the Lied Center.#####
######“I would really love never to mention that word again: religion,” Rushdie said. “But now it seems to be coming right at us all. I don’t just mean radical Islam, by the way. I believe we have some problems right here.”#####
#####Rushdie received a standing ovation after the lecture, in which he revealed his thoughts on writing and receiving death threats and also blasted religion, intelligent design and the best-selling book “The Da Vinci Code.”#####
#####Rushdie told the crowd that religion has much potential to do harm in the world today.######
#####“It’s a pretty bad time for us who don’t believe that superstition should rule the world,” he said.#####
#####And this superstition needs to be pushed back in the cupboard where it belongs, he said. Rushdie also blasted intelligent design proponents.#####
Paints with a pretty broad brush, doesn't he?
61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime
5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military
2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges
1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing
1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse Link
I don't believe he attacked ALL religious folk...and he certainly didn't demand that they be silenced or locked up. Rather he lamented the return of a certain type of religious outlook to the West and recommended "ridicule, argument and battle (and I am certain he meant political rather than military)" as a way of dealing with it.
Ah! After reading some of your posts to others about this statement I can say that you've misinterpreted it. Rushdie doesn't want to lock up religious folk. He wants to push superstitition back into the cupboard...and his method of doing so is the judicious use of ridicule and argument.
One can't blame Rushdie if Governmental embrace of religion makes him uncomfortable.
> Paints with a pretty broad brush, doesn't he?
Yes, he does. Much akin to those "Christians" who declare that all atheists/agnostics are evil and/or liberal and/or marals free, or that one must agree with YEC or you're an anti-Christian, or those who say that anyone who says that they don't like some particular belief system is therefore calling for the deaths or imprisonment of people who keep to that belief system.
But I didn't see anything in there that would cause reasonable people to want to have him killed. Nor did I see anything along the lines of "perfectly peaceful and law abiding Christians should be locked in the cupboard and silenced."
> One can't blame Rushdie if Governmental embrace of religion makes him uncomfortable.
Should make *everyone* uncomfortable, even if that religion is your own. Government should be completely agnostic on the whole thing, and leave religion to the people to have it or not as they wish.
#####Yes, he does. Much akin to those "Christians" who declare that all atheists/agnostics are evil and/or liberal and/or marals free, or that one must agree with YEC or you're an anti-Christian, or those who say that anyone who says that they don't like some particular belief system is therefore calling for the deaths or imprisonment of people who keep to that belief system.#####
Then we fully agree that Rushdie was out of line in what he said.
#####But I didn't see anything in there that would cause reasonable people to want to have him killed.#####
Did I say otherwise?
#####Nor did I see anything along the lines of "perfectly peaceful and law abiding Christians should be locked in the cupboard and silenced."#####
Face it, he's a rank hypocrite who envisions secularists such as himself as the only people fit to rule or even to participate in the political process. What do you think he meant by locking "superstition" in the cupboard where it belongs? He wants people of faith to go home and shut up. This from a guy who is treated as a 1st Amendment hero.
He should lay blame for the Jihad declared against him on the specific people responsible and stop trying to find moral equivalence when it's not there.
You're a wealth of knowledge. Next time I need a resource I am coming to you!
LOL!!! Well, thanks I think.
Agreed, Liberalism run amuck was on display
and yet the secularists were not embarrassed for their baseness,
Why should the secularist be embarrassed? Louisiana is the most Christian state in the nation. The people in charge and the people who voted them in, as well as the looters are overwhelmingly Christian.
Look at Kobe in Japan for a comparison, The Kobe Earthquake in 1995 was a bigger disater than Katrina, yet even though Japan is the most Atheistic country in the world there was none of the looting or violence that was seen by Christians in New Orleans.
they pointed their accusing fingers screaming it's your fault and you don't care about US. That flood of waters quickly became a flood of lies.
You seem to be doing the same. Religion or lack of it had nothing to do with the Katrina mess, and by blaming Atheist you make yourself look foolish and let the Liberals off the hook.
Agreed, Liberalism run amuck was on display
and yet the secularists were not embarrassed for their baseness,
Why should the secularist be embarrassed? Louisiana is the most Christian state in the nation. The people in charge and the people who voted them in, as well as the looters are overwhelmingly Christian.
Look at Kobe in Japan for a comparison, The Kobe Earthquake in 1995 was a bigger disater than Katrina, yet even though Japan is the most Atheistic country in the world there was none of the looting or violence that was seen by Christians in New Orleans.
they pointed their accusing fingers screaming it's your fault and you don't care about US. That flood of waters quickly became a flood of lies.
You seem to be doing the same. Religion or lack of it had nothing to do with the Katrina mess, and by blaming Atheist you make yourself look foolish and let the Liberals off the hook.
#####But I didn't see anything in there that would cause reasonable people to want to have him killed.#####
> Did I say otherwise?
Others on this very forum have. Read the first few posts. Now, on the one hand you've got a loudmouth saying things that annoy people. On the other hand, you've got those annoyed people considering, *publicly,* that killing him just might be a good idea.
Which is more comment-worthy? Which view is most likely to be "hypocritical?" The guy who finds some beliefs to be silly, and that people should get past them... or the people who say that someone should be killed for saying something that offends them?
> What do you think he meant by locking "superstition" in the cupboard where it belongs?
Same thing you would undoubtedly mean if you said it. About, say, astrology or fear of Friday the 13th or fairy rings or the like. His definition of what constitutes "superstition" is just slightly broader than yours.
>He should lay blame for the Jihad declared against him on the specific people responsible and stop trying to find moral equivalence when it's not there.
Hmm. Not there?
Post 2: "Maybe the Muslims were right about him after all."
Post 3: "The Muslims WERE right abut him."
Post 4 (responding to 2): "After reading this, I tend to agree with you."
If, say, these were bunch of Muslims talking about *you,* what would you think?
> we fully agree that Rushdie was out of line in what he said.
There's a difference between being annoying and being out of line. Sometimes the annoying guy is *right,* he's jsut lacking in tact. Or he's being annoying and right about something that is popular and wrong.
Compared to the first posts in this thread, Rushdie is a paragon of diplomacy and can't-we-all-just-get-along-edness.
"He wants to push superstitition back into the cupboard..."
It's quite clear that by "superstition" he means "belief in God".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.