Sponsored Links

[Julian]

Here is a link from the (altogether admirable) James Randi Edcational Foundation website. A Kuwaiti scientist has written to James Randi - for the purposes of the debate, I am only concerned with the content of the correspondent's message, not Mr Randi's editorial commentary.

An Insider's View of Islam

Salient extracts (emphasis mine):

When I was a high school student almost 25 years ago, we were taught evolution in biology class, and creationism in religious studies — which are mandatory in both our public and private school systems.

Now, and mainly due to the Islamist fundamentalist movements similar to those that control the extremist terrorists, our government is shying away from teaching evolution. Not only that, but there is a movement to discourage including references to ancient myths and beliefs in school curriculums, as if teaching children the Iliad is somehow going to make them believers in Zeus and Mars!

Anything sound familiar?

He goes on to talk about how this might be bad enough in a country where religion and state are constitutionally separate, meaning America, but is much worse where they are not, meaning Kuwait (but presumably even more true of places like KSA or Iran).

My questions for debate:

Should the Bush administration and their allies encourage secular, rationalist and sceptical movements in countries such as Iran and among the ordinary Islamic publics that are mostly sympathietic towards Islamist terrorism?

How does this square with their laissez-faire (at best) and proselytising (at worst - e.g. insistence on abstinence befroe providing funding for AIDS relief) attitude to Christian fundamentalist ideas in other areas of foreign and domestic policy?

Is there a material difference between non-violent fundamentalists of any religion, are are they to be encouraged, ignored, or discouraged in public policy?