After making atheist provocateur Richard Dawkins a deity himself for his vitriolic attacks on Christianity, the left is suddenly experiencing a case of tightly wound panties over the discovery that Dawkins doesn’t reserve his misanthropy for Christianity. He also thinks the feminist focus of “rape culutre” is ridiculous and that Islam is violent and dangerous. Dawkins may or may not be particularly smart. Obtaining a doctorate and academic tenure doesn’t necessarily mean you are smart or talented (his bio suggests he was more the benefactor of the British class system than anything else, but that is another matter). What is certain is that he’s a boorish and unpleasant little man.
All was fun and games so long as he was making cute but profoundly stupid statements ridiculing Christianity like:
“horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was [suffered by some children at the hands of deviant priests], the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.”.
Unfortunately, the “a” in atheisim means “against” and the “theism” means “belief in god.” So his personal theology, if you will, requires him to reject any manifestation of a god. So are we surprised when he tweets:
and makes a trenchant observation like:
To be sure, it’s always okay to critique religious beliefs. It’s healthy to do so and no religion should be immune from — or its followers resistant to — well-intentioned and reasonable inquiries about faith claims. But there’s a difference between problematizing a religion’s tenets and persecuting its adherents. There’s also a difference between raising legitimate concerns about doctrines, scriptures and the rationale of one’s beliefs, and hurling insults that shift the tenor of the debate into a machismo register better suited for high school locker rooms.
I checked for this guy’s defense of Christians in general or Catholics in particular and found none. I know. You are as shocked as I am. But here I have an advantage. I know what Dawkins is and therefore his opinions have no weight. What is offensive here, of course, is not his attack on a religion or its adherents but rather his attack on the favored pet religion of …read more