You said that Dennett called for creationist concentration camps. Still waiting for some corroboration.
I love the King James Version of the Bible. My own spirit recoils from a God Who is He or She in the same way my heart sinks when I see a lion pacing neurotically back and forth in a small zoo cage. I know, I know, the lion is beautiful but dangerous; if you let the lion roam free, it would kill me; safety demands that it be put in a cage. Safety demands that religions be put in cages, too--when absolutely necessary.
(Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, 1995)
Yes, metacognative's source is a liar too, as is metacognative himself, since he expanded on the slander even further than the source did.
Dennett was actually talking about Islamofascists and the like when he wrote that passage, not Christian "creationists" as metacognative falsely charged (but refuses to retract), *AND* you'll find that Dennett's actual words have been hacked badly out of context, specifically in order to dishonestly hide what he was *actually* talking about. Creationists use dishonestly altered quotes to lie about things? Wow, what a "surprise". Not.
Here are Dennett's *actual* words (note, a "meme" is a set of beliefs):
"We preach freedom of religion, but only so far. If your religion advocates slavery, or mutilation of women, or infanticide, or puts a price on Salman Rushdie's head because he has insulted it, then your religion has a feature that cannot be respected. It endangers us all.Metacognative, WHAT IN THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU??It is nice to have grizzly bears and wolves living in the wild. They are no longer a menace; we can peacefully coexist, with a little wisdom. The same policy can be discerned in our political tolerance, in religious freedom. You are free to preserve or create any religious creed you wish, so long as it does not become a public menace. We're all on the Earth together, and we have to learn some accommodation. [Example of harmless Hutterite sect snipped.] Other religious memes are not so benign. The message is clear: those who will not accommodate, who will not temper, who insist on keeping only the purest and wildest strain of their heritage alive, we will be obliged, reluctantly, to cage or disarm, and we will do our best to disable the memes they fight for. Slavery is beyond the pale. Child abuse is beyond the pale. Discrimination is beyond the pale. The pronouncing of death sentences on those who blaspheme against a religion (complete with bounties or rewards for those who carry them out) is beyond the pale. It is not civilized, and it is owed no more respect in the name of religious freedom than any other incitement to cold-blooded murder. [1]"
[and then Dennett's referenced footnote 1 reads:]
1. Many, many Muslims agree, and we must not only listen to them, but do what we can to protect and support them, for they are bravely trying, from the inside, to reshape the tradition they cherish into something better, something ethically defensible. That is -- or rather ought to be -- the message of multiculturalism, not he patronizing and subtly racist hypertolerance that "respects" vicious and ignorant doctrines when they are propounded by officials of non-European states and religions. One might start by spreading the word about For Rushdie (Braziller, 1994), a collection of essays by Arab and Muslim writers, many critical of Rushdie, but all denouncing the unspeakably immoral "fatwa" death sentence proclaimed by the Ayatollah. Rushdie (1994) has drawn our attention to 162 Iranian intellectuals who, with great courage, have signed a declaration in support of freedom of expression. Let us all distribute the danger by joining hands with them.
-- Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, pp. 516-517
What is wrong with your morality and your mentality that you could shamelessly make such a transparently false, horrifying claim against someone just because you don't like that they support evolution?
You have taken a man's clear statement against Islamofacism's violence -- and his observation that rather than "accept" it through misguided "multiculturalism", it'll need to be contained, disarmed, and/or re-educated -- and you have TWISTED this sensible passage (which would be right at home here on FreeRepublic) and falsely pretended that it's actually saying that Dennett "wants creationist concentration camps" and "Creationist parents should be fenced off". Have you no *shame*?
And your "source" is a liar as well, as anyone can see if they compare the *butchered* version of the above passage presented by "Stephen E. Jones" on this page, along with Jones's *FALSE* description of it. And it should at this point come as no surprise that Jones is (drum roll please) an anti-evolutionary creationist:
My name is Stephen E. (Steve) Jones. I am in my late fifties, married with two adult children, and have recently completed a biology degree. I am an evangelical Christian and a member of Warwick Church of Christ (in a suburb of Perth, Western Australia). Since 1994 my main interest has been debating Creation/Evolution on the Internet. [...] I moderate two Internet discussion groups: CreationEvolutionDesign and ProblemsOfEvolutionThis is, sadly, typical of the sort of dishonest slander and twisting of facts that I see anti-evolutionists doing on a *daily* basis. And then when they're called on the carpet for it, they demonstrate no shame whatsoever -- incredibly they often keep asserting that they've done nothing wrong and that their claim is still valid.
Frankly, your shameless ability to lie and slander disgusts me.
(And speaking of getting "hysterical", this sort of "the evolutionists are out to get us" paranoid (and FALSE) crap from the anti-evolutionists is far more common, and far more shrill, than *anything* you'll ever see from the pro-evolution camp.)
Now a question for others on the thread -- do you abhor, or do you excuse metacognative's false slander? This question is especially directed to those who are either in the anti-evolution camp themselves, or who have whined about how it's allegedly the pro-evolutionists who are the dishonest and/or namecalling ones. (Somehow I predict a rush to the exits or excuses about why registering an opinion is unnecessary when an anti-evolutionist engages in smear tactics...)