Segregated seating.

[Gob]

A leading London university has banned an Islamic organisation from holding events on its campus after it told women to sit separately from men and couples at a debate there.

Audience members at the public debate at University College London (UCL) were told to enter the chamber through either the men's or women's entrances.

Event organisers iERA (Islamic Education and Research Academy) then asked women to sit at the back, while men and couples were allowed to sit at the front.

The audience was there for a public debate on the subject 'Islam Or Atheism: Which Makes More Sense?'.

It was organised by north London-based iERA, and the speakers were atheist American scientist Lawrence Krauss and Greek Islamic convert, Hamza Andreas Tzortzis.

When Professor Krauss realised the audience was being segregated before the debate started, he packed his bag and said he was leaving.

To boos and jeers from the audience, he told an organiser: 'Either you quit the segregation or I'm not interested'.

Prof. Krauss then walked out, only returning when he had been persuaded by staff that they would abandon attempts to sit the audience according to gender.

American student Dana Sondergaard wrote on her Facebook page: 'Tonight I attended a debate at UCL on Islam and Atheism.

After having been told the event would NOT be gender segregated, we arrived and were told that women were to sit in the back of the auditorium, while men and couples could file into the front.

'After watching three people be kicked out of the auditorium for not following this seating plan, Dr Krauss bravely defended his beliefs of gender equality and informed event staff that he would not participate unless they removed the segregated seating.'

Miss Sondergaard added: 'Needless to say, the staff got their s*** together pretty quickly and the event (thankfully) continued.

'Props to Dr Krauss for standing up for his beliefs, especially in such a biased environment!'

[rubato]

Good for him.

It is discouraging how fundamental principles of civil society which we already had to wrest from western religious christian kooks we have to now defend against eastern religious kooks.

Religion is evil.


yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

Religion is evil.

It is not religion that is evil. There are evil people who commit evil acts and explain their actions with an intentional misinterpretation of a religion's true purpose.

Most people, even those of less than average intelligence, understand that.

It's unfortunate for you that you cannot grasp that concept.

[Lord Jim]

Most people, even those of less than average intelligence, understand that.

But some are more less than average than others...

And ignorant bigots like our rube tend to be even more less than average than that....

[MajGenl.Meade]

It is discouraging how fundamental principles of civil society which we already had to wrest from western religious christian kooks we have to now defend against eastern religious kooks.

What a coincidence! That's just what Protestants say!

[Econoline]

It is discouraging how fundamental principles of civil society which we already had to wrest from western religious christian kooks we have to now defend against eastern religious kooks.

What a coincidence! That's just what Protestants say!

Ah. I see now. I was wondering why he added that completely unnecessary, gratuitously insulting final sentence....

[MajGenl.Meade]

(and yes, I get your drift!)

[Lord Jim]

I was wondering why he added that completely unnecessary, gratuitously insulting final sentence....

I believe I can handle that one for you, Econo...

It's because he's an asshole. (I know that he's pretty subtle about it, so perhaps you missed that.... )

[oldr_n_wsr]

Good for him.

It is discouraging how fundamental principles of civil society which we already had to wrest from western religious christian kooks we have to now defend against eastern religious kooks.

Religion is evil.


yrs,
rubato

Don't remember ever in my 14years as a Catholic school student seeing where women had to sit anywhere other than where they wanted.
Only people who are closed minded think religion is evil. I myself do not suscribe to any religion, but I do think that those that do choose to engage in the religion of their choice, do so with the best of intents and are not evil neither are their religion.

[Crackpot]

Absent religion what can be Evil?

[Joe Guy]

Absent religion what can be Evil?

You don't have to be religious to understand what is evil. Religions are practiced by people who agree on what is good & evil. They don't determine what is good & evil.

Religions are like country clubs for righteous people.

[Crackpot]

no you don't have to be religious to understand it but abesnt religion what meaning does it have? Evil is not something that can be defined objectivly absent religion. Just like blasphemy, hubris, blessed, etc, etc..

[Lord Jim]

I disagree CP, I don't see religion as being required in order to have a meaningful sense of the concept of evil; all that's required is a moral code...

I know plenty of atheists who have no problem being able to identify and characterize something or someone as evil.

Of course one can also have a moral code and not believe in the existence of evil, or even be a person of faith and not believe it exists, (I believe Big RR falls into this category).

[Joe Guy]

no you don't have to be religious to understand it but abesnt religion what meaning does it have? Evil is not something that can be defined objectivly absent religion. Just like blasphemy, hubris, blessed, etc, etc..

Maybe 'blessed' & 'blasphemy', but 'evil' and 'hubris' don't necessarily have anything to do with religion.

[Crackpot]

Then Define evil in a manner absent the divine.

Evil exists as a concept in absolute. Absolutes in morality have thus far (and will likly continue to) elude atheistic philosophies. You see without someone or some thing to dictate morality in absolute an absolute moraity can not exist. And to thier credit no self respecting atheist is going to place that authority in any terrestrial being.

[Crackpot]

I stand corrected on hubris it seems current opinion has evolved (not without reason) from what I was taught

[Scooter]

Then Define evil in a manner absent the divine.

Evil is that which separates human beings from their own selves, from each other, and from the world around them.

Absolutes in morality have thus far (and will likly continue to) elude atheistic philosophies.

There are very few absolutes in any religious philosophy either. Even in something so basic as the taking of a human life, virtually all religions admit exceptions. So the notion that there is any animal that can be called "absolute morality" is a myth.

[Crackpot]

So video games are evil?

[Crackpot]

There are very few absolutes in any religious philosophy either. Even in something so basic as the taking of a human life, virtually all religions admit exceptions. So the notion that there is any animal that can be called "absolute morality" is a myth.

But there is an absolute judge of what is moral therefore said absolute morality must exist.

[Scooter]

When said absolute judge has proven incapable of communicating said absolute morality such that everyone has a common understanding of what it is, then it might as well be that neither exists.

And it is impossible to define video games or any other thing as evil without reference to the use to which they are put. If video games are being used in a way that stunts the development of human potential and prevents the user from forming relationships, then yeah, that is a form of evil.