Atheist Richard Dawkins attacks liberals who defend Islam's homophobia and misogyny

[lapislzi]

88. It's not a zero sum equation

Yes, some Christian radicals WOULD do those things if they had permission. Some do it without permission. The problem with radical Islam is that brutality and savagery are part of its very fabric. As Sam Harris likes to say (and I'm paraphrasing), "what would X group do if it could do anything in the world it wanted to do?" I think Daesh has made it very clear what it would do if it was completely unfettered, and it's not a pretty picture.

Radical Christians? They'd shut down all the Planned Parenthoods and make the Bible the only textbook used in school. Don't get me wrong; I think these are terrible ideas that should never ever come to pass. But they are a far cry from executing people for being "apostates," which is a stated goal of Daesh. Another goal: the keeping of slaves. I think most Christians have abandoned this idea by now (I said "most.&quot Daesh is absolutely clear on the reason and need for holding humans in slavery. And we are talking about A LOT of people here who would be executed or made into slaves if Daesh could do anything it wanted. I dislike radical Christians intensely, but you cannot create true equivalence here.

One must separate the ideas from the people that hold them. Radical Islam is a barbaric idea. That doesn't make all Muslims barbarians. That's a false equivalence.

And I think that is the point that many New Atheists are trying to get across. The ideas are the problem.

Along with that is the fact that free speech means just that. Some speech may offend some people. That's the way things go. There's a world of difference between saying "I wish he would not say those things" and saying "He is not allowed to say those things."

If God is so picky about what is said about him, he can come down and do something about it himself.