Support NeoGAF

[Meus Renaissance]

An interesting experiment I often wonder about is giving a child equal education (from members of different faiths) on varying religions and letting them decide which they begin to develop a personal belief in. I'd presume most parents would never allow such a thing, evidently because it may "confuse" and lead astray the child to the "wrong" faith. The irony, however, is that parent would feel disappointed if a child belonging to another couple [of a different faith] came to ask them about their religion but were then denied that chance by his/her parents. So is reverence to God inherent to man or is it taught during childhood in your opinion?

 

[Shanadeus]

Is reverence to God inherent to man or is it taught during childhood? Also, an interesting experiment I often wonder about is giving a child equal education (from members of different faiths) on religion and letting them decide which they begin to develop a personal belief in. I'd presume most parents would never allow such a thing, evidently because it may "confuse" and lead astray the child to the "wrong" faith. The irony, however, is that parent would feel disappointed if a child belonging to another couple [of a different faith] came to ask them about their religion but were then denied that chance by his/her parents. Hence my question on whether faith is taught or inherent.

Humans have an innate misunderstanding of nature that leads them to seeing patterns where there are none. Most (all?) religions take advantage of this human flaw and has because of systematic indoctrination (as an example, see Islam and the way it view children born to muslim parents - born as muslims and from an early age taught to accept the non-existent patterns) been able to do so at a general scale.

So like with any nature/nurture-question, the truth holds both as important factors.

 

[JGS]

An interesting experiment I often wonder about is giving a child equal education (from members of different faiths) on varying religions and letting them decide which they begin to develop a personal belief in. I'd presume most parents would never allow such a thing, evidently because it may "confuse" and lead astray the child to the "wrong" faith. The irony, however, is that parent would feel disappointed if a child belonging to another couple [of a different faith] came to ask them about their religion but were then denied that chance by his/her parents. So is reverence to God inherent to man or is it taught during childhood in your opinion?

The reason I would never do that is basically because I believe my beliefs are right. This is also why i would have no issue with explaining my beliefs to another kid. His parents should be prepared beyond just making them believe the same way.

Respect all religions (& atheism) but assume yours is the right one. With that step out of the way, a Christian has a responnsibilty to raise their kids the same way.

At adulthood they can then do as they wish although I hope the believe as I do. I imagine the cycle gets repeated.

 

[phisheep]

For Christians who do not subscribe to it, how are Christians who do defined?

The Apostles called these men heretics. They have denied the God who saved them by saying Jesus was not God in human flesh.

Are they frowned upon?

See above.

Is there doubt as to whether they've truly accepted Christ and thus whether they are really a Christian?

Paul says a person cannot say Jesus is God without the Holy Spirit living in them and through them (born again).

And vice versa (i.e. I'd like to hear both GameAnalyst's and JGS' opinions). What's the relationship between these two very different grasps of the faith? Is it even fair to say they're 'very' different?

One belief denies what Jesus and the Apostle's taught and the other doesn't. One should not call themselves a Christian if they do not believe Jesus is God in human flesh. The Mormon's do this but they fail to tell the public their definition of Jesus being God (one of many gods). Their definition is not the Biblical definition.

All cults attack the deity of Jesus. That is why they are called cults.

That is what the Bible teaches. Hope that helped.

With respect, Game Analyst, I don't quite think that hits the mark. Being non-Trinitarian doesn't necessarily mean denying the deity of Jesus. I think what you've got here is a Trinitarian's view of what non-Trinitarians believe, and it is at least overly generalised.

Sure, there are some well-known Unitarian belief sets that don't, or at least don't explicitly hold with the Godhood of Jesus - but not all of them are like that. And besides, Unitarianism isn't the only alternative either. I guess, for example that there might be a bunch of, let's say, Binitarians somewhere who believe wholy in the dual personality of a single God in the Father and Jesus, but see the Spirit as an aspect of the one God rather han a separate personality.

So they can't all be just swept aside as nonbelievers or cults. And one person's cult can be another's orthodoxy anyway.

As to whether people should call themselves Christians or not, I think they have every right to do so so long as they follow Christ in some way or another. Perfectly sensible use of the word.

Beyond that, I'm pretty uncomfortable with the idea of telling people they are 'not true Christians' - for starters that is not a very Christian thing to do (judge not etc) and also there's one church, and it is an inclusive one, so we ought not to rush around excluding people from it.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

The reason I would never do that is basically because I believe my beliefs are right. This is also why i would have no issue with explaining my beliefs to another kid. His parents should be prepared beyond just making them believe the same way.

Respect all religions (& atheism) but assume yours is the right one. With that step out of the way, a Christian has a responnsibilty to raise their kids the same way.

At adulthood they can then do as they wish although I hope the believe as I do. I imagine the cycle gets repeated.

But not every faith can be the right one, and so from you're perspective, those parents are instilling in their child something very wrong and potentially fateful. That child is being taught, bluntly put, sin (lies) and not being given the chance to explore e.g. Christianity. And vice versa.

The reason I ask is because it seems contradictory to me that, for a subject matter based on a conviction that a particular message is the undeniably correct one, children are forbidden to compare messages. You yourself say you believe your faith is the correct one but concede that you don't feel comfortable putting your child in a position where they can discover that one truth faith amongst others. So the question is, how did you come to believe your faith is the right one?

This pattern plays out in every corner of the world, each believe in what they were taught to believe in because that's the only religion they were taught. And so they pass on that to their children and each group will look at the other and think "Well, they're doomed" blissfully unaware of how similar they are.

Having said that of course, in practice it doesn't always make much difference as the environment the child is raised in doesn't guarantee a sense of spirituality as an adult. But when all faiths agree that we are only of this world temporarily and it is our hearts and minds that distinguish us from each other, then its unfortunate that those hearts and minds are created in identical ways.

If you had been adopted by a Sikh family, there is a high likelihood that you'd be here tonight declaring your absolute conviction that that faith is the right one.

 

[JGS]

But not every faith can be the right one, and so from you're perspective, those parents are instilling in their child something very wrong and potentially fateful. That child is being taught, bluntly put, sin (lies) and not being given the chance to explore e.g. Christianity. And vice versa.

This is technically true, but it's also what's expected. however, i disagree with the part regarding repercussions since Christianity does not focus on punishment of others. It focuses on what we do to remain in good standing. Teaching a child a bunch of faiths that you personally may not believe in is somewhat dishonest in and of itself since you must even explain what you believe (Thus corrupting the neutrality of the whole thing) or pretend that you don;'t have a reference yourself. I think it's far healthier to teach your kid clearly what you believe, rght or wrong, & then help them develope the skills to challenge that teaching.

No parent should expect their kids to follow no questions asked. I don't even know why they would want that.

The reason I ask is because it seems contradictory to me that, for a subject matter based on a conviction that a particular message is the undeniably correct one, children are forbidden to compare messages. You yourself say you believe your faith is the correct one but concede that you don't feel comfortable putting your child in a position where they can discover that one truth faith amongst others. So the question is, how did you come to believe your faith is the right one?

This is why training the child the way you plan works for you- because you may not (Don't want to assume) actually have a particular belief system to follow. Those who are faithful to their beliefs tend to stick to their guns and would indeed be sinning to open the door to other options they clearly view as wrong.

This pattern plays out in every corner of the world, each believe in what they were taught to believe in because that's the only religion they were taught. And so they pass on that to their children and each group will look at the other and think "Well, they're doomed" blissfully unaware of how similar they are.

This is a misconception. I actually believe that children stay in their religion for ease, but they adapt it to their own whims when their parents suck at expaining it. So each generation gets a watered down version of the previous belief. How anyone can see that not appening in the Catholic Church for example is beyond me.

Also, religions are very different from each other too- far different that are similar. Even in Christianity, the belief that there is eternal torture as oppposed to no eternal torture is a canyon wide difference in teaching.

Having said that of course, in practice it doesn't always make much difference as the environment the child is raised in doesn't guarantee a sense of spirituality as an adult. But when all faiths agree that we are only of this world temporarily and it is our hearts and minds that distinguish us from each other, then its unfortunate that those hearts and minds are created in identical ways.

At the end of the day, people are religious or not because they want to be. You can't force religion on someone outside of a theocracy based government. It is often not possible. At best, you create liars.

If you had been adopted by a Sikh family, there is a high likelihood that you'd be here tonight declaring your absolute conviction that that faith is the right one.

This is true but so what? It's what I would believe to be true. It should be fine and dandy to be challenged on it. I think many people think that to be religious means to be cocooned. It doesn't mean that at all unless that is all there is around you. This is not the case for the majority of mankind.

 

[Chaplain]

"180" Movie
Award-Winning Documentary
Free to watch at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI

 

[archnemesis]

Using the holocaust to promote Christian anti-abortion propaganda is weak.

 

[RedShift]

"180" Movie
Award-Winning Documentary
Free to watch at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI

I'm afraid that account of Hitler hating Christianity is bullshit, Read this page, it lots of pictures and quotes showing the relationship between the Nazi party and the church. http://nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

Hell, the video itself follows it up with a quote from Hitler saying Jews 'cannot be human in the sense of being an image of God'.

BTW I'm not saying Christianity is what inspired the atrocities of the Nazi party or their anti semetic views, but when Christians start spouting this 'Hitler hated Christianity and his godlessness is what made him evil' its just rewriting history. Just blatant lies. Hell the Catholic Church sent him happy birthday messages every year.

That aside, the link is Godwin's Law: The Movie.

 

[Orayn]

But guuuuuuuyyss! Hitler! Evil! Nazis!

 

[JGS]

I have no idea about Hitler except I was under the impression he was far from devout.

Like most politicians he likely took advantage of his people's religious beliefs. Less understandable is a religion embracing him back if that's the case.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

Archbishop Antonio Mennini, the Apostolic Nuncio, called for closer co-operation with other faiths as well as Christian denominations to put pressure on the Government over its plans to allow same-sex couples to marry. In an address to Catholic bishops from England and Wales, he echoed the recent comments of Pope Benedict who said the Church faced “powerful political and cultural currents” in favour of redefining marriage. His comments come after a series of high-level interventions by some Muslim and Jewish leaders last month after the Equalities Minister, Lynne Featherstone, launched a national consultation on how same-sex marriage might be introduced.

Last month the Muslim Council of Britain voiced opposition to the plans, describing it as “unnecessary and unhelpful”.But, as the Islamic faith in Britain does not have the same hierarchical structures as Christian Churches, much of the Muslim opposition has been voiced through local alliances. In Scotland, the Council of Glasgow Imams recently agreed a joint resolution describing same-sex marriage as an "attack" on their faith and fundamental beliefs. Opinion in the Jewish community has been more sharply divided. The Liberal and Reform synagogues have given their support to same-sex marriage but rabbis within the main United Synagogues have expressed opposition.

The Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, who is retiring, has so far resisted pressure to voice opposition to the proposal. But Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet of Mill Hill United Synagogue in north London, who advises him on family issues, recently accused the Coalition of launching an “assault” on religious values. Meanwhile Lord Singh, head of the Network of Sikh Organisations, recently said the proposed reforms represented “a sideways assault on religion”. Addressing English and Welsh bishops at their plenary meeting in Leeds, Archbishop Mennini, warned them they faced a “lengthy and probably difficult campaign”. “I wonder if we shouldn’t ask for and look for more support among other Christian confessions and indeed, persons of other faiths,” he said. “It seems to me that, concerning the institution of marriage, and indeed the sanctity of human life, we have much in common with the position of the Jewish community, the Chief Rabbi and many of the more significant representatives of Islam.”

Speaking in London yesterday the second most senior active Catholic cleric in England and Wales, Archbishop Peter Smith, of Southwark, said there had been no “formal” contact with Jewish groups to form a united front on the subject of marriage. But he said: “We will work with anyone who agrees with us that to redefine marriage is not a good thing for society and will lead to more confusion.” He criticised the Government’s plans as “dangerous” and lacking in the usual consultation processes required for major legislation. “It has not been thought through,” he said. “It is a very dangerous way to go forward in terms of legislation on such a vital topic.”
Archbishop Smith added: “We are working as best we can with all sorts of different faith groups, the Church of England is very much along the same lines as ourselves on this. “I went to see Theresa May back in February and the Church of England was well represented.” In a reference to suggestions that the redefinition of marriage could challenge the Anglican position as the established church, the Archbishop said: “It is particularly difficult for the Church of England because of all the legal ramifications of it. “There are something like 3,000 mentions of marriage in various statutes and it is quite clear that the Government has not thought through the implications of the changes they are proposing.” He also defended the right of Catholic schools to promote the Church’s position on marriage following accusations of “political indoctrination” from secular and humanist campaigners.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...c-alliance-with-Muslim-and-Jewish-groups.html​

 

[archnemesis]

Why not post a new thread instead? I'm not at all surprised that bigots will stick together across different faiths.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

Why not post a new thread instead? I'm not at all surprised that bigots will stick together across different faiths.

Because the thread would just be the regular drive-by "bigots" "lol religion" type of thread, offering no discussion.

 

[archnemesis]

Because the thread would just be the regular drive-by "bigots" "lol religion" type of thread, offering no discussion.

If you have a good reason why some people should not have the same rights as others, you are more than welcome to share it with the rest of us. Are you still a social conservative Muslim?

 

[F#A#Oo]

I'm ok with civil marriages for same sex but actual church marriages...etc I would oppose that introduction.

 

[archnemesis]

I'm ok with civil marriages for same sex but actual church marriages...etc I would oppose that introduction.

As long as it's called marriage and has the same legal benefits, I'm fine with leaving local churches with the decision of who they want to marry in their own private church. Gay people can find other places to conduct the ceremony.

 

[CiSTM]

I'm afraid that account of Hitler hating Christianity is bullshit, Read this page, it lots of pictures and quotes showing the relationship between the Nazi party and the church. http://nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

Hell, the video itself follows it up with a quote from Hitler saying Jews 'cannot be human in the sense of being an image of God'.

BTW I'm not saying Christianity is what inspired the atrocities of the Nazi party or their anti semetic views, but when Christians start spouting this 'Hitler hated Christianity and his godlessness is what made him evil' its just rewriting history. Just blatant lies. Hell the Catholic Church sent him happy birthday messages every year.

That aside, the link is Godwin's Law: The Movie.

Hitler hated the church hieararchy, many catholich churches were the last ones to oppose Hitler but eventually they came around too. After that Hitler really didn't have any reason to hate them. Also Vatican was really spinless back in those days.

 

[Kinitari]

I'm ok with civil marriages for same sex but actual church marriages...etc I would oppose that introduction.

What if they get married in a church that holds the religious belief that gay people can get married no problem. Would you deny that religion their beliefs?

 

[archnemesis]

What if they get married in a church that holds the religious belief that gay people can get married no problem. Would you deny that religion their beliefs?

That's the case for the Church of Sweden. If smaller denominations want to deny gays to marry then that isn't a huge problem.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

If you have a good reason why some people should not have the same rights as others, you are more than welcome to share it with the rest of us. Are you still a social conservative Muslim?

Well, whatever socially conservative views I may have are my own personal ones rather than points of faith that I adopted as my own. As to your other question, I'm not opposed to same sex marriage but I don't believe there is a framework within religion enabling me to be a proponent of it, for example.

A criticism I have of the Church, however, is that they aren't acknowledging the real changes in attitude surrounding marriage by society as a whole. In an attempt to rebuke this same-sex legislation, they offer the reasoning that marriage is an age-old tradition between a man and a woman, a sanctity to produce children and establish a family. But I'd wager fewer than they anticipate hold marriage in the same regard; people tie the knot later in life if at all, sleep together before it and some avoid children altogether. Ironically, whilst marriage rates drop, they are in a battle against a group of people fighting for a right to marry themselves. Having said that, I do understand the reasons for the opposition but I think this is an opportunity for some frank discussions of the role of marriage in a modern day secular society.

 

[F#A#Oo]

What if they get married in a church that holds the religious belief that gay people can get married no problem. Would you deny that religion their beliefs?

Same sex marriages are already happening though...

Forcing religious organisations to accept same marriages is wrong (this is the core discussion) I think these organisation should have a say in whether they want to conduct the ceremonies or not rather then enforcing a legal basis for these organisations to comply...

 

[Chaplain]

A commentary on the marriage of Adam and Eve.

a. The marriage principle stated here is based upon the dynamic of sameness yet difference; a man and wife can truly come together in a one-flesh relationship, yet they must be joined. It doesn't happen by accident or chance.

b. This passage forms the foundation for the Bible's understanding of marriage and family. Both Jesus (Matthew 19:5) and Paul (Ephesians 5:31) quote it in reference to marriage.

i. "The institution of monogamous marriage, home, and family as the basic medium for the propagation of the race and the training of the young is so common to human history that people seldom pause to reflect on how or why such a custom came into being." (Morris)

ii. Today, people want to make you think the monogamous, two-parent family was invented in the 1950's by Ozzie and Harriet, but this is the original family. This is God's ideal family. This isn't polygamy. This isn't concubinage. This isn't the keeping of mistresses. This isn't adultery. This isn't promiscuity. This isn't living together outside the marriage bond. This isn't serial marriage. This is God's ideal for the family, and even when we don't live up to it, it is still important to set it forth as God's ideal.

c. The idea of one flesh is taken by many to be mainly a way of expressing sexual union. While sexual union is certainly related to the idea of one flesh, it is only one part of what it means to be one flesh. There are also important spiritual dimensions to one flesh.

i. Paul makes it clear the sexual union has one flesh implications even when we don't intend so, as when a man has sex with a prostitute (1 Corinthians 6:16). Husband and wife become "one flesh" under God's blessing. In extramarital sex, the partners become "one flesh" under God's curse.

ii. In this sense, there is no such thing as "casual sex." Every sexual relationship at least begins a one-flesh bond. Will the bond be something beautiful (like the beautiful dancing of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers) or will it be something grotesque (like Siamese twins)?

iii. It depends on whether the bonding takes place in a relationship with the right conditions: committed love, demonstrated by the marriage commitment, and a pursuit of true intimacy. Just because sex is taking place in marriage doesn't mean it is truly fulfilling God's purpose of bonding together a one-flesh relationship.

d. Though the initial bond in a one flesh relationship can be formed at the first sexual relationship a couple has, the fullness of what God wants to do in the one flesh relationship takes time: they shall become one flesh.

e. Before the fall, Adam and Eve were both naked . . . and not ashamed. The idea of "nakedness" is far more than mere nudity. It has the sense of being totally open and exposed as a person before God and man. To be naked . . . and not ashamed means you have no sin, nothing to be rightly ashamed of. You really can be an "open book" to another person.

i. Adam and Eve knew they were physically naked - nude - before the fall. What they did not know was a sinful, fallen condition, because they were not in such a condition before their rebellion.

ii. How do you feel when someone stares at you? Does it make you uncomfortable? Why? Because we associate staring with prying, and we don't want people to pry into our lives. We want to remain hidden, to only reveal to other people what we want to reveal.

iii. When we want to be most attractive to someone else, we do the most to change our normal appearance. We have the thought, "If I really want to impress this person, I have to fix myself up." None of this feeling was present with Adam and Eve when they were naked . . . and not ashamed.

 

[Kinitari]

Same sex marriages are already happening though...

Forcing religious organisations to accept same marriages is wrong (this is the core discussion) I think these organisation should have a say in whether they want to conduct the ceremonies or not rather then enforcing a legal basis for these organisations to comply...

Churches would be forced to marry same sex couples?

 

[Earthstrike]

Same sex marriages are already happening though...

Forcing religious organisations to accept same marriages is wrong (this is the core discussion) I think these organisation should have a say in whether they want to conduct the ceremonies or not rather then enforcing a legal basis for these organisations to comply...

Name an institution that is forced to perform same sex ceremonies.

 

[phisheep]

Churches would be forced to marry same sex couples?

Seems to me that there is something lying beneath the surface here.

In general, I think I support the view that each religion/denomination can choose who they will marry or not marry - but even that comes with a qualification over, say, mixed-race marriages.

And in general, I think I support the right of a state (or maybe a community or society) to define what it counts as marriage - after all historically much of this comes down to what is considered socially acceptable.

Where the Churches may have a valid fear or concern over whether 'gay marriage' is allowed in the wider society outside the Church comes with the same sort of thing as we have seen with adoption agencies. It's to do with whether bodies that receive state financing either directly (through funding) or indirectly (through charitable status or other beneficial taxation) might get caught by anti-discrimination laws and be forced into either marrying people they do not want to, or into abandoning their role in marriage altogether.

And I can see that may be a real concern even though it isn't explicit in the public arguments that have been made so far.

That apart, I see no reason for people to stick their noses into other peoples' business. Let's be tolerant after all. There doesn't seem to be any particular reason that what the Church recognises as marriage should necessarily be the same as what the State recognises.

It isn't all that unusual for people to have to go the extra mile to make sure their marriage is recognised in different places anyway - my sister got married to the same bloke twice on consecutive days in different churches: one was valid for her home church, the other was valid for his home state and neither recognised the other. Makes it damn hard to remember their anniversary.

 

[JGS]

Why not post a new thread instead? I'm not at all surprised that bigots will stick together across different faiths.

It doesn't even dawn on you that to be opposed to gay marriage could actually have something to do with heterosexual marriages being the norm for thousands of years of civilization?

Religion has nothing to do with it beyond enforcing within their beliefs what was the standard for all but maybe the last ten or twenty years of discussion.

That said, religion should stay out of it unless they are forced to acknowledge it. Then they should fight it if they want to since any forced marriage by the religious community opposed to it would still be an invalid one.

 

[F#A#Oo]

Name an institution that is forced to perform same sex ceremonies.

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

If this legislation passes the Equality Act 2010 will come into play...it will mean religious institutions will by law have to treat gay couples asking for a wedding in the same way they treat heterosexual couples.

You know full well that if a church for example turns someone down the gay couple will make a fuss and try to go through courts etc etc...this has already happened a few times now where couples have gone to the European Courts of Human Rights and had their cases thrown out because it's a clear violation of the freedom of religion but more importantly it's not a "right"...The Convention on Human Rights even states marriage as "men and women".

It will be interesting how this will be seen in Strasbourg...

 

[Meus Renaissance]

Please be quiet, Richard Dawkins, I'm begging, as a fan


Suffice to say, I was quite surprised when I saw the original tweets.

 

[archnemesis]

He's absolutely right about Islam not being a race. Comparing Nobel prizes between different faiths is a bit silly though.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

He's absolutely right about Islam not being a race. Comparing Nobel prizes between different faiths is a bit silly though.

He isn't a racist, I agree, but his choice of words are no less curious. Dawkins isn't anti-Islam as he is anti-religion so I can understand why he would want to correlate a lack of academic or scientific acclaim to religious beliefs. He couldn't have picked Christianity as an example; we've seen great developments in the West over the last several centuries in contrast to the Muslim world. But as the article above rightly points out:

... would Dawkins have tweeted another fact, which is that Trinity also has twice as many Nobel prizes as all black people put together? It's just as true, but presumably he doesn't believe that it's because black people aren't as clever.
​

Of course no reasonable person would, and that includes Dawkins. His reasoning here was more akin to that of the non-intellect trying to make sense of his prejudice against Muslims, which is why you may find like-minded atheists amongst the critics in this episode

 

[gerg]

Please be quiet, Richard Dawkins, I'm begging, as a fan


Suffice to say, I was quite surprised when I saw the original tweets.

A good commentary on how stupid the original tweets were can also be found here.

A quote by Dawkins from here:

"This prompted the thought that if they are all THAT numerous, shouldn't they have more to show for it in terms of achievement? The comparison with Trinity Cambridge I judged less offensive to Muslims than the even more dramatic comparison with Jews (who have garnered an ASTOUNDINGLY large number of Nobel Prizes)."

Because, of course, there aren't any geographic or socio-economic factors at all as to why the majority of the world's Muslim population may be much less likely to get a Nobel Prize than the majority of the world's atheists. What a stupid, stupid tweet.

There is no justifying that tweet. You were right in your choice of words - Dawkins is most definitely being prejudiced.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

His response is frustrating to read and, dare I say it, perhaps disingenuous. This is effectively a simplified version of events.

1. Dawkins talks about the incompatibility of science and religion, particularly in our education curriculum with the advent of faith-based schools of which many reject e.g. evolution altogether, for example.
2. Amongst the rebuttals are some from the Muslim community who point to the Islamic Golden Age that saw scientific and academia led from the Middle East as proof that their faith is compatible with science.
3. Dawkins acknowledges this and responds with asking why there hasn't been any acclaim from Muslim intellectuals since that period

So the question is: what exactly did he mean by his remark if he is willing to acknowledge that religion, including Islam, is not inherently incompatible with science? If the context of his remark isn't faith-based, then what is it if not an overt derogative against an entire group? It certainly seems that way when you read the tweet on it's own. His rebuttal thus far has been largely relegated to rejecting allegations of racism from those who interpreted his remark as being an insult against a group of people. And for those who saw it as a comment about Islam the faith? Well, that doesn't fit either with his admission that Islam led to Muslims doing great things in the past.

If he wanted to embarrass his [Muslim] dissenters, he should have adopted a more coherent statement

 

[BocoDragon]

I'm more troubled about Sam Harris' hawkish views on Islam/the Muslim world.