Athée Canadien
CFI revises statement on mosque.
By Zak
Due to an overwhelming number of people who can’t read properly, CFI has revised their press release on the Ground Zero mosque. The new letter makes it clear where they stand. They’ve deleted some of the rhetoric and got straight to the point. (Kudos to whomever had to work this weekend to write it.)
Some of the criticisms of the first edition still stand (ie. they still insist that Islam is what inspired the 911 terrorists) so I doubt the new edition will convince those with past criticisms of CFI to hold back. I’m sure Paul Kurtz and his band of bumbling idiots will still use the letter to continue slandering CFI so I encourage people maintain an open mind when these articles begin surfacing.
The new edition may be seen as a retraction but since I don’t see any change to the message I’d rather refer to it as a clarification instead. CFI sticks to its criticism of all religious structures but maintains the right of all religions to build what they legally can wherever they want.
The previous edition has been removed from their website so I’ve added it to the bottom of my previous post on this topic in case anyone wants to compare.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Zak on August 29, 2010 at 9:51 pm, and is filed under General. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |
Comments are closed.
about 1 year ago
Basically the only point they’re making is they “(do) not consider houses of worship to be beneficial to humanity” which is BS in and of itself. To lump together all places of worship, and imply that nothing anyone does in these places ever benefits anyone, is total garbage.
about 1 year ago
‘Beneficial to humanity’ and ‘benefiting that guy over there’ are two totally different things.
You understand that, right?
CFI did not claim that “nothing anyone does in these places ever benefits anyone”. That would be nonsense of your own making. Peter Popoff has been *immensely* benefited by the existence of churches. This, however, is not a benefit to *humanity*.
about 1 year ago
“Due to an overwhelming number of people who can’t read properly”
We can read just fine. You’re simply talking past the people who disagree with you, and you’re not engaging their arguments. This will simply annoy people, and it will make it harder for people to take your opinions seriously.
The new statement is still fundamentally wrong, and completely hypocritical.
Lindsay Beyerstein has written a response to it here:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/23071
“Do we free-thinking humanists want to fight for a free, open, tolerant society or do we want to join the Christianist pile-on whenever a more vulnerable world religion is on the ropes?”
Indeed.
about 1 year ago
Perhaps I’m being too mean but I’m not trying to convince anyone, especially on emotional issues like this one where everyone has already made up their mind.
I just think CFI should be accused of bad writing and timing, not hypocrisy or intolerance. I think people have misinterpreted the statements and should cut CFI some slack (but criticisms are still good because CFI has some PR issues to work on).
about 1 year ago
CFI’s problem is PR to the same extent that Mel Gibson’s problem is that he drinks.
about 1 year ago
And this doesn’t apply to Muslim’s building a terror mosque at ground zero… how exactly?