'The God Delusion' publisher prepares defence
Mikey 12 comments
A Turkish publisher of Richard Dawkins best selling book 'The God Delusion' has been threatened with legal action on the grounds the book insults believers.
The book was published in Turkey this summer and has sold around 6000 copies.
If the prosecutors decide to press charges, Erol Karaaslan (founder of the publishing company) could face between six months and 12 months in jail. Prosecutors have allowed Karaaslan a few days to prepare a written statement of defence.
Apparently Turkey has a history of restricting freedom of expression. In the past two years dozens of journalists have been charged under a law that makes it a crime to insult 'Turkishness'. Prize-winning novelist Orhan Pamuk and Armenian-Turkish journalist Hrant Dink were among them. Pamuk was acquitted, Dink was convicted but later murdered by an ultra-nationalist youth.
This all comes as very odd indeed, as polls conducted last summer show that 25% of Turks believe in evolutionary theory.
It does come across as a double standard. It's fine for them to reject the evolutionary theory, but it's not fine for an atheist to reject religion. Now why is that?
As Jake eluded too, in Dawkins' book he does put forward the question 'why do people have to treat believers with respect just because they are religious'? How does religion trump non-religion? What are the grounds for this illogical action? Respect is something earned, not something automatically inherited because of your particular religious beliefs.
Rodney
Tuesday 4th December 2007 | 11:38 AMHow about this. Try treating everyone with respect, regardless of their religiosity. Isn't that what we're supposed to work towards?
I'm known on this site for having a religious view. Do I care that your don't? Nope! I couldn't care less (in fact it's probably rather clear I'd rather you were aethiests than followers of a certain locally popular religion). I love your arguments and respect your opinions.
Now the majority of people on this site have argued religion at one point in time or another but done so in a respectful way (expect perhaps on the zeitgeist blog but they're not regulars). Isn't this a good thing? I don't expect you to agree with me but I do expect you to be respectful to me - just like you expect the same.
I haven't read enough of Dawkin's to give an honest interpretation but the little I have read is mildly offensive but nothing more. It's not offensive because he doesn't agree with me - I don't care about that - it's offensive because he has that typical career academic snobbishness which believes that only he is correct on any given topic, be it religion or otherwise. Having worked for 5 years in a University, I know this mentality all too well.
So how about we all take a leaf from the book of logic and say, if you don't like his work, don't read it (no one is making you). If you do like his work, don't become a complete hypocrite and act like some Jehovah's Witness and go pushing your beliefs on others.
Everyone just live and let live.
I can say with certainty Dawkins is very 'matter-of-fact' in his tone. In the high profile position he is on though he has to be nothing short of absolute self assurance. One little stumble or flaw and he will be called on it for the rest of his professional career.
It's like anything: Don't agree with it? The don't read it or watch it. And if you do anyway, don't complain when you get offended.
Joe Marco
Tuesday 4th December 2007 | 12:28 PMTurkey! it's not just for thanksgiving.
Jake
Tuesday 4th December 2007 | 01:51 PMRodney, a few good points, though when it comes to this subject, it almost always ends up in combat as people defend their positions based on this and that. In my experience, when religion is your only identity (and born agains and evangelicals of the various religions are notorious for this) there is no middle ground, there is only their way, your way doesn't exist!
Obviously, those who have certain beliefs but still carry an identity and free will are the ones who are able to live and let live, respect to gain respect etc.
In my opinion though, Dawkins is more of an antitheist (opposed to theism) than atheist, this is just an observation though.
Gilly
Wednesday 5th December 2007 | 02:02 PMquote Jake\\
I must admit, if your entire world was your religion, you could walk away feeling pretty insulted by Dawkins work. Having watched this documentary and read this book as an atheist, I was just confounded by his apparent lack understanding and lack of empathy for believers. But that is one of his main arguments; why should an atheist show understanding or empathy for a religion they have no intention of following. By doing so, you simply add to the scourge of momentum that it has accumulated over millennia.\\ end quote Jake
Why should a believer show any empathy for an Atheist? Maybe because we dont think the world has to conform to our decision like he does. That thinking helped the German people turn there back on Jews. Congrats Dawkins
quote Jake\\
It oppresses everything that it touches, especially children (an excellent argument put forward in his book) that are forcefully indoctrinated into a religion they would likely never choose themselves if given the opportunity to 'discover it' and make an informed discussion to join.\\ end quote Jake
Jake Jake Jake How is your freshly Christend Catholic child. Mate you are a Hypocrite.
Let me remind you that my children are neither baptized, christened or whatever and I am the Christian. Sheesh. That will be their decision.
quote Jake\\
One thing is for sure though, Dawkins does repeatedly insult believers, so the argument, I assume will be that the insult is there to purposely invoke thought and discussion on the matter.
\\end quote Jake
Insulting people. Clearly the higher ground.
people with a weak argument resort to insults, lets call it bullying.
You nerds know all about that LOL (laughing out loud not lots of love)
Gilly
Wednesday 5th December 2007 | 02:16 PMAgain Jake\\-
Rodney, a few good points, though when it comes to this subject, it almost always ends up in combat as people defend their positions based on this and that. In my experience, when religion is your only identity (and born agains and evangelicals of the various religions are notorious for this) there is no middle ground, there is only their way, your way doesn't exist!
End Jake
Where do you get this stuff from. You dont want me to believe in Creation and some of the threads in here are testimony to that. I can accept the theory of evolution, even understand it but I dont see the proof so creation is my default.
As a Christian I know you have a free will and it is none of my business what you choose to do.
Your way does exist stop loading me up with your narrow self pitying dribble. Go live your life and leave me alone. Every time I respond on this site it is in response to your attacks on my beliefs, this whole Dawkins stuff is based on an attack on peoples faiths.
Cant you see that?
Jake
Wednesday 5th December 2007 | 03:13 PMThanks for your two cents gilly, but the mere fact that you debate these topics on here sets you apart from the mainstream evangelical (I realise those terms are contradictory) population.
Last weekend I was walking back from a show with my wife and was berated with "you're going to hell" this and "repent" and "jesus is the only way to salvation" as I walked through the mall on my way home.
A few weeks back, I helped a girl, who was being picketed infront of a family planning clinic, to walk inside. I didn't ask why she was there, but if it was for what I had assumed, it would have been a trying enough time without the vile bastards berating her.
Proof of evolution is humanity mate, plain and simple. What you were eluding to is proof of spontaneous mutation through natural selection, which again can have humanity as proof, though in order to show the process, obviously would take the millions of years that evolution takes to show.
For whatever reason I feel I need to defend myself with regards to my daughter. From my atheistic point of view mate, all she did was have water poored on her head. She was offered the choice and took it. She understood the consequences and wanted to attempt catholic school after some apparently unresolvable issues in a state school. My children are allowed to make their own decissions and come to their own conclusions with respect to religions or lack there of, as I have.
Gilly
Wednesday 5th December 2007 | 03:33 PMSo I can assume that the two examples you have cited are indicative of every Christian Evangelical on Earth.
and in no way are you broadly painting everyone with the same brush?
As Christians we have a duty to tell people about Christ. Thats it, nothing more.
As for an Abortion clinic, I can understand the protesters point, even agree with it, the thought not the actions. Its not my decision though. Thats theirs, sad that a child pays the price. Sad people dont take responsibility for their actions.
To suggest my beliefs oppress my children is as arrogant as anything you accuse fundamentalists of.
Anders
Wednesday 5th December 2007 | 04:34 PM"Sad people dont take responsibility for their actions."
Agreed, but it's not always black and white. If it is an unwanted pregnancy resulting from a rape, I have no problems with abortion.
Jake
Friday 7th December 2007 | 09:13 AMAnders, while this is off topic, the point is that if you were not the father of the child, you have no right to an opinion anyway.
You have an opinion about abortion? Go with the rest of your religious brothers and sisters and others with opinions and adopt every orphaned and neglected child in the world; then speak out, because only then will your voice speak anything but hypocritical garbage.
Gilly, you are right, your beliefs won't oppress your children, as long as they remain yours. When you force your beliefs on your children, you forfeit your childs right to make that same spiritual discovery in their adult life as you did.
Jake
Tuesday 4th December 2007 | 10:05 AMI must admit, if your entire world was your religion, you could walk away feeling pretty insulted by Dawkins work. Having watched this documentary and read this book as an atheist, I was just confounded by his apparent lack understanding and lack of empathy for believers. But that is one of his main arguments; why should an atheist show understanding or empathy for a religion they have no intention of following. By doing so, you simply add to the scourge of momentum that it has accumulated over millennia.
It oppresses everything that it touches, especially children (an excellent argument put forward in his book) that are forcefully indoctrinated into a religion they would likely never choose themselves if given the opportunity to 'discover it' and make an informed discussion to join.
One thing is for sure though, Dawkins does repeatedly insult believers, so the argument, I assume will be that the insult is there to purposely invoke thought and discussion on the matter.