The prosecutor started the inquiry into the book after one reader complained that passages in the book were an assault on "sacred values," Karaaslan said. Karaaslan said he will be questioned Thursday and faces prosecution both as the book's publisher and translator. The book has sold some 6,000 copies in Turkey since it was published by his Kuzey publishing house in June.
Source: International Herald Tribune
Turkey already has problems with the suppression of unpopular views and the European Union is pressuring them to change Turkish law to make it more compatible with Europe's free speech standards. Turkey might do this so long as they think they stand a good chance of entering the EU, but without that carrot there doesn't appear to be a lot incentive to protect minority viewpoints that are critical of Turkish history of Islam.
The position of those accusing Dawkins' book of inciting "religious hatred" may sound extreme, but isn't it just a step or two beyond those who accuse Dawkins of being a "militant atheist" or "fundamentalist atheist" who is just as guilty of promoting intolerance as religious fundamentalists? The problem is, when pressed to support such accusations, all critics can come up with are a few isolated comments which they complain hurt believers' feelings — and nothing which is worse than what is consistently found in other contexts and which the same people haven't complained about before.
To quell any concerns that his book might incite “religious hatred”, Dawkins should’ve asked the publisher to include a free plush bear venerably named after some popular prophet in the region. Who could say ‘no’ to a cute bear?
There are plenty of people in the U.S. who to do the same. Shameful, I think.
I remember Dawkins mentioning that a friend of his had planned to do the translation during several interviews. This is back when the book first came out. I never realized that this had been done or what the consequences were, though.
Whether the translator was the same person or not, the one who did this must have realized what could happen. Yet he did it anyway.
Gutsy.
I don’t see any mention on Dawkins web site yet, but it’s at http://richarddawkins.net/. Maybe he’ll comment on this.
“…who is just as guilty of promoting intolerance as religious fundamentalists?”
Has anyone else thought that maybe the reason he is perceived that way is because his book is called “The God Delusion”? Isn’t “deluded” a word that is often used in hate mail sent to, and rude comments on, this web site by Christian fundamentalists?
Someone needs to tell Ricahrd Dawkins to ask his friend Salmon Rushdi where he can hire good protection.
Inspire hatred? I hope the judge doesn’t watch any of Bill Donavans spittle-fests when he was asked about the book. But then, Bill hates everything.
411314:
>Isn’t “deluded” a word that is often used in hate mail sent to, and rude comments on, this web site by Christian fundamentalists?
Unfortunately, you’re right that people will translate “deluded” as insulting or rude.
However, this is generally a case of a word that is not used in it’s proper context in many cases. In other words, if you and I go to an art exhibit, and I think the artist is brilliant, but you think the artist is horrible, and I say, “Man, you’re deluded!” That’s really not what the word is meant for. It’s a misuse of the word.
Also, if you and I argue that your partner is faithful or not–and we lack the proper justification to come to an iron-clad decision. For example, your partner lies about where he/she is one night. Well, a lie doesn’t mean unfaithful. It just means dishonest. Maybe your partner is meeting with people to plan a surprise party for you. Or maybe your partner has a heroine habit he/she wants to hide from you. Whatever–it doesn’t mean “unfaithful.” So, if I am trying to say you’re an idiot for not drawing the same conclusion as I do from inconclusive evidence, and I say, “If you think your parnter is faithful–you’re completely deluded!” That’s also a misuse of the term, since the evidence doesn’t support my assertion any more than yours.
But in regard to god, we have a situation where someone is saying “X exists.” And this X has no observable manifestation. No measurable manifestation. By every method known to mankind it appears that “god” and “nothing” are indiscernable from one another.
Delusion is, by definition, clinging to a belief that conflicts with evidence to the contrary–and simply rejecting all evidence to the contrary because it does not support my belief.
I know definitions vary, but for example: “a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact,” is a pretty fair definition. Most of us, who encounter another person who does this (the guy who claims to be Napoleon or Jesus Christ in the year 2007, for example, despite his birth certificate) will say, “Yeah–OK. This is a deluded person. That belief is a delusion.”
And saying “something” is there, when “nothing” is there is the whole point of the “Emporer’s New Clothes” narrative. Such people are deluded. They are under a delusion.
Belief in god is the same.
Calling people deluded may be upsetting to them, but in Dawkins defense, the word is not unfairly applied with regard to belief in god. In fact, it’s probably the best example available of delusion in our culture today.
This is why eBooks are a good thing. Similar to the way editions of Harry Potter were disguised with plain covers, TGD eBook files could be disguised with innocuous filenames to evade the bad guys. That, and you can’t burn bits.