Showing posts with label Religious Intolerance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religious Intolerance. Show all posts
Sunday, August 07, 2011
The Ultimate End Game for No One is Illegal
In Britain, the battle against Shariah law is intensifying.
In Wolfenstow, in East London, a group led by Anjem Choudary has set out to set up its very own Shariah law zone. They have even boasted that they've assembled vigilante groups to roam the streets enforcing Shariah law.
Among the prohibited activities in these zones are drugs, prostitution, gambling, alcohol, and music.
They've at least shown the courtesy of displaying posters declaring Wolfenstow to be a Shariah-controlled zone. Police, meanwhile, have promptly set to removing the posters everywhere they are put up. There is a law in London, and it is not Shariah law.
But if groups like No One is Illegal have their way, Shariah law in East London -- and around the world -- really will be unstoppable, as Choudary insists.
No One is Illegal has managed to remain obscure enough that their core beliefs remain a mystery to the vast majority of Canadians. But among them is the rejection of any idea of being a "good immigrant" and integrating into the societies they immigrate into.
In other words, No One is Illegal believes that people should be able to immigrate at will, then do as they will. So long as No One is Illegal can convince themselves that such people are not "colonizers", then everything is OK in their eyes.
For those paying attention to the group, NOII's response to this will finally clarify where they stand on the issues they themselves so eager racialize. If they stand up and declare that the clear colonizing tactics of these groups -- including the comically named "Muslims Against the Crusades", who are now waging a crusade of their very own.
If they declare the actions of this group to be acceptable, or failt to respond at all, it will be clear that NOII has a clear racial bias in the application of their own ideals; that only whites can colonize, even if individuals like Choudary will be far more unjust and oppressive than anything ever imagined by British settlers arriving in Canada.
No One is Illegal calls North America "occupied Turtle Island". What would their name be for an Islamic, theocratic Emirate established in Wolfentow? When one considers that their goal is for as many radical Shariah-backing Muslims to move about the world as wish to do so, perhaps it's entirely fair to consider it NOII's ultimate end game.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Lies the Harper Haters Tell, Part 4
Today on the Nexus series fact-checking the Shit Harper Did website, we examine the site's descent from specious half-truths and outright lies into sheer religious bigotry:
Of course, all of this is based on the work of Douglas Todd.
As if to provoke some very severe doubts about the nature of Todd's work, it seems that his claims about the Alliance Church's beliefs regarding an apocalypse are corroborated only by works by himself. That's suspicious, particularly when Todd tips his hand when he attempts to also link Harper's religious beliefs to Sarah Palin.
It would be bad enough if it weren't just blatant dog-whistle politics. It's also poorly supported.
Todd offers examples of work by Vision TV's Randall Mark and Fraser Valley University professor Ron Dart. Mark's and Dart's works on this subject are not peer-reviewed, and themselves cite no sources.
In other words: they don't pass scholarly muster.
Not that anyone should expect such scholarly matters to be of any concern to the people behind ShitHarperDid. After all, the website is all about dog-whistle politics -- about making statements that would rightly be rejected by most people as utter rubbish, yet serves to get the far-left base all fired up for the election.
As it turns out, however, the joke may actually be on the creators of Shit Harper Did: the far-left base is already fired up to vote. It's moderate voters they desperately need, and moderate voters are likely to be repulsed by the kinds of lies being told at the Shit Harper Did website.
What's been seen so far is only the tip of the iceberg. Ther are more.
As if to provoke some very severe doubts about the nature of Todd's work, it seems that his claims about the Alliance Church's beliefs regarding an apocalypse are corroborated only by works by himself. That's suspicious, particularly when Todd tips his hand when he attempts to also link Harper's religious beliefs to Sarah Palin.
It would be bad enough if it weren't just blatant dog-whistle politics. It's also poorly supported.
Todd offers examples of work by Vision TV's Randall Mark and Fraser Valley University professor Ron Dart. Mark's and Dart's works on this subject are not peer-reviewed, and themselves cite no sources.
In other words: they don't pass scholarly muster.
Not that anyone should expect such scholarly matters to be of any concern to the people behind ShitHarperDid. After all, the website is all about dog-whistle politics -- about making statements that would rightly be rejected by most people as utter rubbish, yet serves to get the far-left base all fired up for the election.
As it turns out, however, the joke may actually be on the creators of Shit Harper Did: the far-left base is already fired up to vote. It's moderate voters they desperately need, and moderate voters are likely to be repulsed by the kinds of lies being told at the Shit Harper Did website.
What's been seen so far is only the tip of the iceberg. Ther are more.
Friday, August 27, 2010
You Mean Like This? Still No?
Canadian Muslim Congress denounces radical Islam
In the wake of arrests involving a suspected terror cell in Ottawa, various Canadian bloggers have called for Canadian Muslims to denounce terrorism.
The Canadian Muslim Congress has done precisely that.
"This is not something that comes as a total surprise," says the CMC's Raheel Raza. "We have a problem."
"There is a serious problem among Canadian Muslim youth and if we don't address this now, it can culminate into something dangerous," Raza continues. "We have to stand up and tackle this."
Raza doesn't seem to be concerned that her admissions of concern would attract attention from Islamophobes.
"There are always going to be bigots, we can't stop speaking out against radicalization just because we are afraid of a few bigots and hate-mongers," she continues. "Those people who are sensible ... will understand what we are talking about."
This comes hot on the heels of a declaration by the Canadian Council of Imams denouncing radical Islam -- one that was met with cynicism by Canadian critics of Islam.
Sadly, it's unlikely that Raheel Raza's concern about the radicalization of Muslim youths -- and her organization's efforts to stop it -- will be met with similar cynicism.
In the wake of arrests involving a suspected terror cell in Ottawa, various Canadian bloggers have called for Canadian Muslims to denounce terrorism.
The Canadian Muslim Congress has done precisely that.
"This is not something that comes as a total surprise," says the CMC's Raheel Raza. "We have a problem."
"There is a serious problem among Canadian Muslim youth and if we don't address this now, it can culminate into something dangerous," Raza continues. "We have to stand up and tackle this."
Raza doesn't seem to be concerned that her admissions of concern would attract attention from Islamophobes.
"There are always going to be bigots, we can't stop speaking out against radicalization just because we are afraid of a few bigots and hate-mongers," she continues. "Those people who are sensible ... will understand what we are talking about."
This comes hot on the heels of a declaration by the Canadian Council of Imams denouncing radical Islam -- one that was met with cynicism by Canadian critics of Islam.
Sadly, it's unlikely that Raheel Raza's concern about the radicalization of Muslim youths -- and her organization's efforts to stop it -- will be met with similar cynicism.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Moderate Islam: Like it or Not, it Exists
Islamophobes are wron to deny existence of moderate Islam
With Cordoba House becoming increasingly controversial, the matter has become a focal point for debate of radical Islam, with the Imam leading the Cordoba group being accused of being an Islamic militant.
This despite the detail that he has given help to the FBI's counter-terrorism division.
Opponents of the Mosque have trafficiked in guilt by association -- noting his membership on the board of directors for an organization that provided funding to Gaza blockade-runners -- and statements critical of American foreign policy.
All this while they demand that Muslims denounce Islamic radicalism.
The trouble is that Muslim groups have periodically denounced Islamic extremism. This is something that the Jihad Watch crowd continually refuses -- simply refuses -- to acknowledge. Making declaration such as "Muslims take honour in deceeiving non-believers", Islamophobes have given themselves all kinds of excuses to ignore these denunciations.
A recent declaration issued by the Canadian Council of Imams has been similarily ignored.
In the declaration, the Imams throoughly denounce Islamic radicalism:
Arguments have been raised by those who deny the existence of moderate Islam that religious training centres are breeding grounds for radical Islam.
As it turns out, those worried by Islamic terrorism should want more, not less, religious training for Muslims.
A recent report from Duke University has found that Muslims who have received religious training are the least likely to be radicalized.
Denunciations of radical Islam, self-policing, and the creation of an identity as Muslim-Americans rather than simply as Muslims have figured largely into the effort of American Muslims to combat radicalism.
These are facts taht, sadly, those who have based their knowledge of Islam on individuals such as Mark Steyn and Robert Spencer simply choose to ignore.
But whether they like it or not, moderate Islam exists -- not that they'll ever admit it.
With Cordoba House becoming increasingly controversial, the matter has become a focal point for debate of radical Islam, with the Imam leading the Cordoba group being accused of being an Islamic militant.
This despite the detail that he has given help to the FBI's counter-terrorism division.
Opponents of the Mosque have trafficiked in guilt by association -- noting his membership on the board of directors for an organization that provided funding to Gaza blockade-runners -- and statements critical of American foreign policy.
All this while they demand that Muslims denounce Islamic radicalism.
The trouble is that Muslim groups have periodically denounced Islamic extremism. This is something that the Jihad Watch crowd continually refuses -- simply refuses -- to acknowledge. Making declaration such as "Muslims take honour in deceeiving non-believers", Islamophobes have given themselves all kinds of excuses to ignore these denunciations.
A recent declaration issued by the Canadian Council of Imams has been similarily ignored.
In the declaration, the Imams throoughly denounce Islamic radicalism:
"1. We believe in the oneness of Allah (God) and in the oneness of humanity and that all the Messengers of God, including the final Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), have taught human beings how to come closer to God and closer to one another. Islam is a religion of nature and humanity, one that teaches that a person cannot be a good Muslim until he/she becomes a good human being. All human beings are equal, and all of them are the children of Adam and Eve (peace be upon them). The best Muslim is the one who is good to his/her family and neighbors and one who avoids harming others with his/her hand or tongue.Naturally, this is a statement that Canada's Islamophobes have chosen to ignore, even as they demand that Muslims denounce radical Islam.
2. We believe in peaceful coexistence, dialogue, bridge building, and cooperation among all faiths and people for the common good of humanity. Islam does not permit the killing of innocent people, regardless of their creed, ethnicity, race, or nationality. The sanctity of human life overrides the sanctity of religious laws. Islamic rulings do not – and should not – contradict natural laws. Islam is a religion that promotes peace, justice, equality, dignity, and freedom for all human beings.
3. We believe in the preservation of all the necessities of life. Islam upholds the sanctity of religion, life, intellect, family/society, and property.
4. We believe that the well-being of our fellow citizens is the well-being of Muslims, and that the well-being of Muslims is the well-being of our fellow citizens. Being law-abiding people is part of the Islamic practice, and following the pristine teachings of Islam leads to good citizenship.
5. We believe in gender equity and each man and each woman’s divine right to education, social contribution, work, and treatment with respect and dignity. Men and women complement each other, and healthy relationships between them are essential to a healthy society.
6. We believe that it is the right of every individual adult person to determine for themselves their conduct towards and within their society (for example, in matters of dress or good manners), and their personal conduct in matters of faith and belief as well, as long as their conduct does not threaten the common good. Likewise, we believe that every society must be allowed to express and celebrate humanity’s profound cultural diversity, as long as the expression of that diversity does not include the compulsion of any individual to violate their own human rights, or their personal values, or their human nature, or otherwise threaten the common good of all people.
7. We believe and strongly encourage Muslims to seriously engage in civic life and contribute to their communities and society as much as they can."
Arguments have been raised by those who deny the existence of moderate Islam that religious training centres are breeding grounds for radical Islam.
As it turns out, those worried by Islamic terrorism should want more, not less, religious training for Muslims.
A recent report from Duke University has found that Muslims who have received religious training are the least likely to be radicalized.
Denunciations of radical Islam, self-policing, and the creation of an identity as Muslim-Americans rather than simply as Muslims have figured largely into the effort of American Muslims to combat radicalism.
These are facts taht, sadly, those who have based their knowledge of Islam on individuals such as Mark Steyn and Robert Spencer simply choose to ignore.
But whether they like it or not, moderate Islam exists -- not that they'll ever admit it.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
God Hates... Terrible Music? Redux
Justin Bieber WBC's most recent random target
If there was any doubt that the hate-worshippers at the Westboro Baptist Church were picking the targets of their protests at random, the announcement of their most recent target has pretty much confirmed it.
When Justin Bieber fans turn up to his concert in Kansas City, they can expect to be confronted by Fred Phelps and his congregation.
While the WBC's recent attempts to picket at the San Diego Comic-Con and at Lady Gaga Concerts met with a humiliating response, it seems that this church has resorted back to its original, cowardly tactics:
Pick on those unlikely to fight back.
After all, it's unlikely that the pre-pubescent teenage girls attending Bieber's concerts even know who the WBC are, let alone are they likely to be prepared to meet the church's bigotry with the response it deserves: contempt and ridicule.
Sadly, it seems Bieber fans are about to get a crash course in precisely how deep and dark the malice of a bigot truly runs.
If there was any doubt that the hate-worshippers at the Westboro Baptist Church were picking the targets of their protests at random, the announcement of their most recent target has pretty much confirmed it.
When Justin Bieber fans turn up to his concert in Kansas City, they can expect to be confronted by Fred Phelps and his congregation.
While the WBC's recent attempts to picket at the San Diego Comic-Con and at Lady Gaga Concerts met with a humiliating response, it seems that this church has resorted back to its original, cowardly tactics:
Pick on those unlikely to fight back.
After all, it's unlikely that the pre-pubescent teenage girls attending Bieber's concerts even know who the WBC are, let alone are they likely to be prepared to meet the church's bigotry with the response it deserves: contempt and ridicule.
Sadly, it seems Bieber fans are about to get a crash course in precisely how deep and dark the malice of a bigot truly runs.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Saturday, July 24, 2010
The Irrationality of Rationality
In Religulous, Bill Maher seeks to highlight the irrationality of religious belief. In many cases, he successfully highlights the irrationality of irrational people.
Maher clearly thinks himself to be wise when he declares that he simply doesn't know. He employs the Socratic method to his questioning of the religious believers featured in the film -- from the relatively mundane and benign men in the truck stop chapel or Judaism-to-Christianity convert Steve Burg to crazies like Ken Ham (who ironically resembles the missing link between man and ape) or outright philistines like Rabbi David Weiss.
Yet Maher applies the Socratic method to sophist ends -- something that Socrates actually would have despised. Maher has decided on the message of his film -- that all religion is ridiculous, irrational and dangerous -- from the very beginning, and is merely using the Socratic method to make that argument.
That Maher actually profited from the production of Religious -- not in itself unthinkable -- further demonstrates Maher's sophism.
The greatest irrationality of people who think themselves to be rational is the suspicious eye they cast at anyone who doesn't share their sense of rationality.
Maher successfully demonstrates the irrationality of many of his subjects. However, Maher tends to cherry-pick some of the most extreme examples of religious believers. He magnifies a comparatively marginal sub-strata of religious believers in order to treat them as mainstream.
It's a feat he replicated from individuals such as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers.
There is value in Religulous. While it's hyperbolic, bombastic, and in fact irrational, it's also thought-provoking. As CS Lewis would insist, anything that provokes thought about religion is actually of service to religious believers.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Lady Gaga 1. Westboro Baptist Church Can Go Fuck Itself
Singer of terrible pop music finds something she can do right
If God's love were apportioned according to the distribution of musical talent, the Westboro Baptist Church would have had something right when they declared that God hates Lady Gaga.
But few proper-thinking Christians could have ever made that error.
For a group that has long convinced many that they basically choose their targets at random, singling out Lady Gaga seemed to confirm those suspicions. For her own part, Lady Gaga seems to have figured out the appropriate response.
In a message to her fans ahead of a show in St Louis, Missouri at which the WBC had promised to show up and protest, Gaga told her fans to simply ignore the group, whom she aptly described as "hate criminals":
While Lady Gaga couldn't write a decent song to save her career, at least dealing with the Westboro Baptist Church is one thing she can get right.
If God's love were apportioned according to the distribution of musical talent, the Westboro Baptist Church would have had something right when they declared that God hates Lady Gaga.
But few proper-thinking Christians could have ever made that error.
For a group that has long convinced many that they basically choose their targets at random, singling out Lady Gaga seemed to confirm those suspicions. For her own part, Lady Gaga seems to have figured out the appropriate response.
In a message to her fans ahead of a show in St Louis, Missouri at which the WBC had promised to show up and protest, Gaga told her fans to simply ignore the group, whom she aptly described as "hate criminals":
"I would like to make my little monster fans aware of a protest being held outside the Monsterball in St Louis tonight. Although we have had protesters before, as well as fundamentalists at the show, this group of protesters are hate criminals and preach using lewd and violent language and imagery that I wish I protect you all from. Their message is of hatred and divisiveness, but inside at the Monsterball we preach love and unity.Although the WBC demands attention -- and occasionally even warrants it -- the appropriate response to these hell-bound scumbags is really nothing more than sheer contempt. Nothing more, and nothing less.
My request to all little monsters and public authorites is to pay these hate criminals no mind. Do not interact with them, or try to fight, Do not respond to any of their provocation. Don’t waste your words, or feelings, no matter what you hear or see you are more fortunate and blessed than they are, and in your heart just pray for them. Although I respect and do not judge anyone for their personal views on any politics or religion, this group in particular to me, is violent and dangerous I wanted to make my fans aware of my views on how to approach, or rather not approach, these kinds of hate activists.
Be inspired to ignore their ignorant message, and feel gratitude in your heart that you are not burdened or addicted to hate, as they are."
While Lady Gaga couldn't write a decent song to save her career, at least dealing with the Westboro Baptist Church is one thing she can get right.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
The Wrong Idea
In a 60 second spot rejected by CBS, the Republican Trust attempts to make its case against Cordoba House, a 13-story Islamic centre that will also feature a mosque.
Arguments against Cordoba House insist that it will become a lightning rod for militant Islamists, will promote militant Islam, and that it will be a celebration of 9/11 -- a symbol of Islam's triumph.
This is precisely the argument presented in this ad.
The problem for the GOP Trust is that this argument relies on an overweening ignorance of the individuals behind Cordoba House, and the beliefs of the organization leading the project.
Even the evidence offered for the alleged radicalism of Cordoba Initiative -- such as its Shari'ah index project -- are not in reality what they are said to be. In fact, the Shari'ah law promoted by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf doesn't appear to be any Shari'ah law that would be recognized by those familiar with the extreme variant of it practiced in so many states today.
“What are the principles that make a state Islamic?" Rauf rhetorically asks. "We can say among them is justice, protection of religion and minorities and elimination of poverty, and so on.”
Protection of minorities isn't a concept one would associate with Shari'ah law-practising countries such as Iran or Saudi Arabia.
The opponents of Cordoba House are close to being right about one thing: the construction of the centre would represent a triumph for Islam: a triumph of moderate Islam over the evil and militant political ideology individuals like Osama Bin Laden have transformed it into.
Opposing Cordoba House doesn't aid the fight against this insidious political ideology -- it actually hampers it. By denying organizations such as the Cordoba Initiative public space, they deny them the opportunity to counter the vile message of militant Muslim demagogues who send their poorest and most disenfranchised to wage war for their benefit.
Opponents of Cordoba House may not appreciate the symbolic value of Muslims worshipping peacefully at the feet of the towers their hateful counterparts destroyed. But a great many moderate Muslims will.
To deny them that opportunity out of a xenophobic, intolerant and paranoid mania would be a historical tragedy with little comparison, and that is what would really embolden militant Islam.
On the fifth anniversary of the 7/7 bombings that tore through downtown London, there are few better days than today to realize that obscuring the difference between peaceful, moderate Islam and the aforementioned Islamist political ideology is unacceptably counter-productive.
It's the wrong idea, through and through.
Friday, May 14, 2010
My, How the Cultural Warriors Pretend to Be Moderates
Marci McDonald continues to insist she's a "moderate"
Speaking in an interview with Lloyd Mackey of Canadian Christianity, Armageddon Factor author Marci McDonald insists that it wasn't her intent to demonize Evangelical Christians.
"I am not an atheist," says McDonald, who also says that she is a Christian. "I believe that faith is a strong motivator for some of the finest actions in public life."
"I am a Christian who lost my faith for some years, and came back to it," McDonald explains.
She also described herself as a "centrist".
McDonald further insists that her book is not meant to make a case for the isolation of religion -- or any religion -- from public life.
"I think having a secular Canada where all faiths have a place -- and feel comfortable and welcome -- is what most Canadians still want," she continues.
These words may be somewhat comforting to many of those who have found the tenor of her work alarming. But that comfort will be meagre, as those who intend to make use of McDonald's work to wage a cultural war against conservatives -- such as Antonia Zerbisias and Murray Dobbin -- to wage a culture war such as the one recommended to the Liberal Party by Frank Graves.
Even if Marci McDonald is herself a centrist, or a moderate, the truth is that her work is then being used by far-left extremists to wage a cultural conflict designed to pit citizens against one another -- with Evangelical Christians being exploited as convenient scapegoats.
If Marci McDonald doesn't want to see her work abused to such ends, it will stand to her to speak out against extremists such as Zerbisias and Dobbin.
Speaking in an interview with Lloyd Mackey of Canadian Christianity, Armageddon Factor author Marci McDonald insists that it wasn't her intent to demonize Evangelical Christians.
"I am not an atheist," says McDonald, who also says that she is a Christian. "I believe that faith is a strong motivator for some of the finest actions in public life."
"I am a Christian who lost my faith for some years, and came back to it," McDonald explains.
She also described herself as a "centrist".
McDonald further insists that her book is not meant to make a case for the isolation of religion -- or any religion -- from public life.
"I think having a secular Canada where all faiths have a place -- and feel comfortable and welcome -- is what most Canadians still want," she continues.
These words may be somewhat comforting to many of those who have found the tenor of her work alarming. But that comfort will be meagre, as those who intend to make use of McDonald's work to wage a cultural war against conservatives -- such as Antonia Zerbisias and Murray Dobbin -- to wage a culture war such as the one recommended to the Liberal Party by Frank Graves.
Even if Marci McDonald is herself a centrist, or a moderate, the truth is that her work is then being used by far-left extremists to wage a cultural conflict designed to pit citizens against one another -- with Evangelical Christians being exploited as convenient scapegoats.
If Marci McDonald doesn't want to see her work abused to such ends, it will stand to her to speak out against extremists such as Zerbisias and Dobbin.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Oh Theocracy, Where Art Thee?
Eeeek! It's Christians! And They're Praying!
To hear Canada's far left describe it, one would think that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have transformed Canada into a theocracy.
Murray Dobbin is quite keen to insist as much. As is Antonia Zerbisias.
Sometimes the evidence offered for their panic-mongering is rather thin. For example, Zerbisias points at the National Prayer Breakfast, where denizens of Parliament Hill meet to pray over some pancakes (or something).
The problem for Zerbisias is that there has been 44 such breakfasts prior to 2010. Yet only in 2010 does this render Canada into a theocratic state.
She points also to the other thin gruel offered by she and her fellow panic-mongerers: Conservative reluctance to include abortion in a maternal health care plan for the developing world (contrary to Zerbisias' report, family planning has been included in the plan), the de-funding of a collection of over-political and under-productive women's activist groups, and the de-funding of various other things she likes and the funding of some things she doesn't like (like Bible schools).
Zerbisias is apparently a rather big fan of Marci McDonald and her upcoming book The Armageddon Factor: the Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada.
Like so many of the arguments raised by Canada's far left, the book seems to be an attempt to transplant the panicky arguments the American far left deployed against George W Bush into Canada.
Originality? They're not big on it. Overrated, perhaps.
“All my worries about having to prove my case that this government is intent on cultivating the social conservative constituency in this country were nothing to worry about," McDonald says. "They were doing it so openly that you could hardly keep up with the headlines.”
“This was not a polemic I wrote; I do not reveal that Stephen Harper has a secret altar in his basement," McDonald continues. "But I did try to connect the dots because everybody was telling me this isn’t happening here, not in nice, tolerant, moderate Canada.”
Nice, tolerant, moderate Canada. Where everything's OK until politicians stop refusing to be seen in the same room as an Evangelical Christian. Then it's panic time.
Likewise if they stop obligingly advancing the political agenda of the far left.
Apparently, even something so basic as the cancellation of the Martin government's promised national daycare scheme is evidence of theocratic intentions.
“That showed the canniness of Harper’s strategy," McDonald says. "Most people saw it as, ‘Oh yes the neocons don’t like government-funded social policies.’ What they didn’t realize was that he was also pandering to social conservatives who don’t believe that the government should have any role in child-rearing, who believe that mothers should be at home bringing up their children or who send their children to religious daycares and schools. It was one of those policies that cut across both of his constituencies, economic and social. That would characterize most of his policies.”
What McDonald doesn't seem to appreciate is that, whether she likes it or not, Canadian parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit. If they choose to send their children to a religious daycare, that's their right. They shouldn't have to pay twice for child care.
But this is the bizarre thinking of Canada's far left: if you believe that government has no role in raising children, apparently you're a theocrat.
McDonald also offers up a number of private members' bills on abortion as evidence that Stephen Harper has a theocratic agenda. (Naturally, she omits the fact that it was Harper who killed these bills. Once again, accuracy isn't at a premium with these people.)
“I just want people to know the facts," McDonald insists. (Although, clearly, she doesn't want people to know all the facts.) "It is the connections, the depth of the organizational roots, that these organizations have put down in Ottawa. These are not known. Four years ago, they were not being catered to, they weren’t being invited to VIP receptions, they weren’t being asked for special election events, they weren’t having special letters read out their rallies, they weren’t getting (security) passes to Parliament Hill."
The problem for McDonald, Zerbisias, Dobbin and company is that given how loudly they parrot their claims, few Canadians could not know about the facts.
It's just clear that Canadians don't share their panic about Stephen Harper and Evangelical Christians.
And for good reason. Not only do they treat what is actually a diverse category of Canadian Christians as monolithic, but it's clear that Canadians can do the math much better than these shrill, panicky denizens of the far left.
Two plus two, after all, doesn't equal five.
But even if the math doesn't add up, it seems that Zerbisias, McDonald and Dobbin seem to think there's plenty of reason to panic.
“I think we should be vigilant,” McDonald says. “We have to decide what kind of a country we want to live in. We have to stay on top of these issues because this is a government wedded to secrecy."
“This government has chosen a strategy that risks changing the Canada that most of us have agreed we want to live in and the tolerance that we have built, faulty as it is," she concludes.
Marci McDonald shouldn't pretend to speak for most Canadians.
Apparently, she and her fellows on the far left decided they want to live in a country that is hostile to Christians, and exists basically as a far left ideological construct.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has fostered a country that is more respectful and accepting of Christians -- Evangelical and otherwise -- and has begun to dismantle the organs that have facilitated the institutionalization of the far left ideology.
And Canadians continue to not be outraged.
Antonia Zerbisias, Murray Dobbin and Marci McDonald just cannot seem to take the clue. If this is theocracy, it seems that more more Canadians are comfortable with it.
It isn't, but if Zerbisias, Dobbin and McDonald want to continue panicking, that's their prerogative. It's just time for them to stop pretending that the rest of Canada should join them.
To hear Canada's far left describe it, one would think that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have transformed Canada into a theocracy.
Murray Dobbin is quite keen to insist as much. As is Antonia Zerbisias.
Sometimes the evidence offered for their panic-mongering is rather thin. For example, Zerbisias points at the National Prayer Breakfast, where denizens of Parliament Hill meet to pray over some pancakes (or something).
The problem for Zerbisias is that there has been 44 such breakfasts prior to 2010. Yet only in 2010 does this render Canada into a theocratic state.
She points also to the other thin gruel offered by she and her fellow panic-mongerers: Conservative reluctance to include abortion in a maternal health care plan for the developing world (contrary to Zerbisias' report, family planning has been included in the plan), the de-funding of a collection of over-political and under-productive women's activist groups, and the de-funding of various other things she likes and the funding of some things she doesn't like (like Bible schools).
Zerbisias is apparently a rather big fan of Marci McDonald and her upcoming book The Armageddon Factor: the Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada.
Like so many of the arguments raised by Canada's far left, the book seems to be an attempt to transplant the panicky arguments the American far left deployed against George W Bush into Canada.
Originality? They're not big on it. Overrated, perhaps.
“All my worries about having to prove my case that this government is intent on cultivating the social conservative constituency in this country were nothing to worry about," McDonald says. "They were doing it so openly that you could hardly keep up with the headlines.”
“This was not a polemic I wrote; I do not reveal that Stephen Harper has a secret altar in his basement," McDonald continues. "But I did try to connect the dots because everybody was telling me this isn’t happening here, not in nice, tolerant, moderate Canada.”
Nice, tolerant, moderate Canada. Where everything's OK until politicians stop refusing to be seen in the same room as an Evangelical Christian. Then it's panic time.
Likewise if they stop obligingly advancing the political agenda of the far left.
Apparently, even something so basic as the cancellation of the Martin government's promised national daycare scheme is evidence of theocratic intentions.
“That showed the canniness of Harper’s strategy," McDonald says. "Most people saw it as, ‘Oh yes the neocons don’t like government-funded social policies.’ What they didn’t realize was that he was also pandering to social conservatives who don’t believe that the government should have any role in child-rearing, who believe that mothers should be at home bringing up their children or who send their children to religious daycares and schools. It was one of those policies that cut across both of his constituencies, economic and social. That would characterize most of his policies.”
What McDonald doesn't seem to appreciate is that, whether she likes it or not, Canadian parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit. If they choose to send their children to a religious daycare, that's their right. They shouldn't have to pay twice for child care.
But this is the bizarre thinking of Canada's far left: if you believe that government has no role in raising children, apparently you're a theocrat.
McDonald also offers up a number of private members' bills on abortion as evidence that Stephen Harper has a theocratic agenda. (Naturally, she omits the fact that it was Harper who killed these bills. Once again, accuracy isn't at a premium with these people.)
“I just want people to know the facts," McDonald insists. (Although, clearly, she doesn't want people to know all the facts.) "It is the connections, the depth of the organizational roots, that these organizations have put down in Ottawa. These are not known. Four years ago, they were not being catered to, they weren’t being invited to VIP receptions, they weren’t being asked for special election events, they weren’t having special letters read out their rallies, they weren’t getting (security) passes to Parliament Hill."
The problem for McDonald, Zerbisias, Dobbin and company is that given how loudly they parrot their claims, few Canadians could not know about the facts.
It's just clear that Canadians don't share their panic about Stephen Harper and Evangelical Christians.
And for good reason. Not only do they treat what is actually a diverse category of Canadian Christians as monolithic, but it's clear that Canadians can do the math much better than these shrill, panicky denizens of the far left.
Two plus two, after all, doesn't equal five.
But even if the math doesn't add up, it seems that Zerbisias, McDonald and Dobbin seem to think there's plenty of reason to panic.
“I think we should be vigilant,” McDonald says. “We have to decide what kind of a country we want to live in. We have to stay on top of these issues because this is a government wedded to secrecy."
“This government has chosen a strategy that risks changing the Canada that most of us have agreed we want to live in and the tolerance that we have built, faulty as it is," she concludes.
Marci McDonald shouldn't pretend to speak for most Canadians.
Apparently, she and her fellows on the far left decided they want to live in a country that is hostile to Christians, and exists basically as a far left ideological construct.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has fostered a country that is more respectful and accepting of Christians -- Evangelical and otherwise -- and has begun to dismantle the organs that have facilitated the institutionalization of the far left ideology.
And Canadians continue to not be outraged.
Antonia Zerbisias, Murray Dobbin and Marci McDonald just cannot seem to take the clue. If this is theocracy, it seems that more more Canadians are comfortable with it.
It isn't, but if Zerbisias, Dobbin and McDonald want to continue panicking, that's their prerogative. It's just time for them to stop pretending that the rest of Canada should join them.
Sunday, March 07, 2010
Better Yet, Let's Not
Enshrining of "Atheist heroes" seems an awful lot like canonization
Like an annoying rash that proves perpetually resilient to medicine, the Rational Response Squad just refuses to go away quietly, regardless of how many times it humiliates itself.
Indeed, Brian Sapient and company have proven to be particularly resilient to their numerous self-humiliations. Whether it's losing a televised debate to Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, alienating relevant atheists by slandering them, or getting knocked the fuck out for financial impropriety (or mere incompetence), the Rational Response Squad has demonstrated a particular predilection for self-inflicted wounds.
They've also proven to be particularly adept at hypocrisy.
An intriguing case in point is the recent move to place "atheist heroes" on a pedestal. Sometimes the hilarity goes far deeper than the hypocrisy.
For example, in a recent post urging his followers to support "atheist heroes", Sapient draws attention to a campaign waged by a group at the University of Texas at San Antonio by the name of Atheist Agenda.
Sapient treats the group's "smut for smut" campaign -- in which they exchange religious scriptures for pornography -- as a recent development. The problem is that one of the videos Sapient links to is nearly fully one year old. But even beyond that, Sapient's treatment of the campaign falls into some basic logical pitfalls that only someone capable of losing to Kirk Cameron can be trusted to fall into.
Sapient extends his congratulations to Atheist Agenda for having "found a way to be controversial thereby grabbing attention and literally forcing theists to think".
But the problem for Sapient is that he, like his followers, have yet to grasp a very simple concept: ridicule is not really an argument. In fact ridicule, as the RRS has so often indulged themselves in it, is founded on the idea that the beliefs or viewpoints of others are unworthy of logical consideration -- a basic cop-out in the face of intillectual debate, and a strain of ad hominem argument that has become particularly virulent in modern discourse.
Ridicule does not force anyone to think. In fact, ridicule causes people to recoil, and leads to a discourse that is increasingly toxic and resistent to rational debate -- one that the Rational Response Squad actively and intentionally fosters.
But this isn't even the deepest depth of Sapient's folly.
It's become increasingly impossible to ignore the means by which atheism promotes itself using the same means as any other religion. They relentlessly proselytize. They continue to reserve for themselves the right to extol scientific works in manners akin to sacred texts. Now they're even enshrining their own heroes within the imagination of their cohorts -- an act tantamount to canonizing their own saints.
It's just another indulgence that fundamentalist atheists like Brian Sapient and the Rational Response Squad have granted themselves.
But if anyone begins to fear that the Rational Response Squad is being taken too seriously, they need fear not: they could always lose another debate to Kirk Cameron.
Bonus spankage - Enormous Thriving Plants' Audrey apparently takes exception to the idea that Brian Sapient and Kelly O'Connor would lose to Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, and so wants to attempt to re-cast that entire debate to the topic of the "Crock-o-duck".
Contrary to what Audrey would like her readers to believe, that Sapient and O'Connor could manage to lose to someone who bases their argument on that kind of premise just reminds one how intellectually helpless Sapient and O'Connor really are.
There's a reason why their arsenal of argumentative tactics is limited to ridicule. Debating like grown-ups is simply too much work for someone whose intellectual gifts are as limited as Sapient's and O'Connor's -- or, for that matter, Audrey's.
As for Audrey, she's just trying to cover for a previous humiliation. Readers may make of that what they will.
Like an annoying rash that proves perpetually resilient to medicine, the Rational Response Squad just refuses to go away quietly, regardless of how many times it humiliates itself.
Indeed, Brian Sapient and company have proven to be particularly resilient to their numerous self-humiliations. Whether it's losing a televised debate to Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, alienating relevant atheists by slandering them, or getting knocked the fuck out for financial impropriety (or mere incompetence), the Rational Response Squad has demonstrated a particular predilection for self-inflicted wounds.
They've also proven to be particularly adept at hypocrisy.
An intriguing case in point is the recent move to place "atheist heroes" on a pedestal. Sometimes the hilarity goes far deeper than the hypocrisy.
For example, in a recent post urging his followers to support "atheist heroes", Sapient draws attention to a campaign waged by a group at the University of Texas at San Antonio by the name of Atheist Agenda.
Sapient treats the group's "smut for smut" campaign -- in which they exchange religious scriptures for pornography -- as a recent development. The problem is that one of the videos Sapient links to is nearly fully one year old. But even beyond that, Sapient's treatment of the campaign falls into some basic logical pitfalls that only someone capable of losing to Kirk Cameron can be trusted to fall into.
Sapient extends his congratulations to Atheist Agenda for having "found a way to be controversial thereby grabbing attention and literally forcing theists to think".
But the problem for Sapient is that he, like his followers, have yet to grasp a very simple concept: ridicule is not really an argument. In fact ridicule, as the RRS has so often indulged themselves in it, is founded on the idea that the beliefs or viewpoints of others are unworthy of logical consideration -- a basic cop-out in the face of intillectual debate, and a strain of ad hominem argument that has become particularly virulent in modern discourse.
Ridicule does not force anyone to think. In fact, ridicule causes people to recoil, and leads to a discourse that is increasingly toxic and resistent to rational debate -- one that the Rational Response Squad actively and intentionally fosters.
But this isn't even the deepest depth of Sapient's folly.
It's become increasingly impossible to ignore the means by which atheism promotes itself using the same means as any other religion. They relentlessly proselytize. They continue to reserve for themselves the right to extol scientific works in manners akin to sacred texts. Now they're even enshrining their own heroes within the imagination of their cohorts -- an act tantamount to canonizing their own saints.
It's just another indulgence that fundamentalist atheists like Brian Sapient and the Rational Response Squad have granted themselves.
But if anyone begins to fear that the Rational Response Squad is being taken too seriously, they need fear not: they could always lose another debate to Kirk Cameron.
Bonus spankage - Enormous Thriving Plants' Audrey apparently takes exception to the idea that Brian Sapient and Kelly O'Connor would lose to Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, and so wants to attempt to re-cast that entire debate to the topic of the "Crock-o-duck".
Contrary to what Audrey would like her readers to believe, that Sapient and O'Connor could manage to lose to someone who bases their argument on that kind of premise just reminds one how intellectually helpless Sapient and O'Connor really are.
There's a reason why their arsenal of argumentative tactics is limited to ridicule. Debating like grown-ups is simply too much work for someone whose intellectual gifts are as limited as Sapient's and O'Connor's -- or, for that matter, Audrey's.
As for Audrey, she's just trying to cover for a previous humiliation. Readers may make of that what they will.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Religious Intolerance is Not Leadership
Giving in to bigotry is a failure of leadership
Writing in the Metropolitan, Dan Delmar calls out many of the leaders in Canada who have opposed a ban on the burqa, the controversial garment worn by many Muslim women.
"The burqa (or niqab) is possibly the most offensive garment on the face of the earth: A head-to-toe covering worn by women who practice an extremist and some say perverted form of Islam," Delmar writes. "It is a symbol of repression, misogyny and, as French president Nicholas Sarkozy said last year, 'debasement.' It should not be tolerated in any civilized society."
Whether or not a woman wears the burqa voluntarily doesn't seem to matter much to Delmar.
"We have somehow become a nation of nations, and as such, it is difficult to find common ground, shared values," Delmar continues. "Only a small minority of Muslim women in this country may be forced by their husbands to drape themselves in these sheets; some are coerced by family; some, at the very least, have been raised with a warped sense of obligation to a tyrannical subculture. But are we being true to ourselves as Canadians if we accept this type of behavior? Do we see these tragic figures and look the other way out of indifference or a misplaced commitment to multiculturalism?"
Delmar notes that rejection of a burqa ban is one of the issues that Conservative and Liberal politicians alike reject.
"Canadian women have the right, if they want, to wear a burka," said Liberal MP Marlene Jennings. "As a woman, clearly it makes me a little uncomfortable. But then there are other practices that are perfectly legal and acceptable that make people uncomfortable."
Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has also outright rejected the very notion of a burqa ban.
Delmar doesn't like this -- he insists that it's a dereliction of leadership.
"Montreal Liberal Marlene Jennings was one of the first MPs to rebuff calls for a burqa ban, saying that it would not survive a constitutional challenge though she herself – as a feminist – finds it offensive," Delmar continues. "Her leader, Michael Ignatieff, was also quick to abandon the idea of new legislation, as was Conservative Justice Minister Rob Nicholson."
"A medieval and, in certain cases, abusive practice adopted by a small minority of Muslims without reason should not be shielded from scrutiny by the religious freedom defense. What is needed are leaders, apart from Quebec sovereignists, who have the courage to test the elasticity of the Charter and, in so doing, uphold Canadian values and plainly decent behaviour."
Unfortuantely for Dan Delmar's argument, religious freedom is a Canadian value, and it is plainly decent.
Religious intolerance isn't leadership, and abusing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to this end isn't the act of a leader.
Writing in the Metropolitan, Dan Delmar calls out many of the leaders in Canada who have opposed a ban on the burqa, the controversial garment worn by many Muslim women.
"The burqa (or niqab) is possibly the most offensive garment on the face of the earth: A head-to-toe covering worn by women who practice an extremist and some say perverted form of Islam," Delmar writes. "It is a symbol of repression, misogyny and, as French president Nicholas Sarkozy said last year, 'debasement.' It should not be tolerated in any civilized society."
Whether or not a woman wears the burqa voluntarily doesn't seem to matter much to Delmar.
"We have somehow become a nation of nations, and as such, it is difficult to find common ground, shared values," Delmar continues. "Only a small minority of Muslim women in this country may be forced by their husbands to drape themselves in these sheets; some are coerced by family; some, at the very least, have been raised with a warped sense of obligation to a tyrannical subculture. But are we being true to ourselves as Canadians if we accept this type of behavior? Do we see these tragic figures and look the other way out of indifference or a misplaced commitment to multiculturalism?"
Delmar notes that rejection of a burqa ban is one of the issues that Conservative and Liberal politicians alike reject.
"Canadian women have the right, if they want, to wear a burka," said Liberal MP Marlene Jennings. "As a woman, clearly it makes me a little uncomfortable. But then there are other practices that are perfectly legal and acceptable that make people uncomfortable."
Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has also outright rejected the very notion of a burqa ban.
Delmar doesn't like this -- he insists that it's a dereliction of leadership.
"Montreal Liberal Marlene Jennings was one of the first MPs to rebuff calls for a burqa ban, saying that it would not survive a constitutional challenge though she herself – as a feminist – finds it offensive," Delmar continues. "Her leader, Michael Ignatieff, was also quick to abandon the idea of new legislation, as was Conservative Justice Minister Rob Nicholson."
"A medieval and, in certain cases, abusive practice adopted by a small minority of Muslims without reason should not be shielded from scrutiny by the religious freedom defense. What is needed are leaders, apart from Quebec sovereignists, who have the courage to test the elasticity of the Charter and, in so doing, uphold Canadian values and plainly decent behaviour."
Unfortuantely for Dan Delmar's argument, religious freedom is a Canadian value, and it is plainly decent.
Religious intolerance isn't leadership, and abusing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to this end isn't the act of a leader.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Polluting the Separation of Church and State
Difference between separation of Church and State and the exclusion of religionIn what is quickly being described as the first shot in the "annual war against Christmas", a man in Michigan is suing the Road Commission of his county for what he describes as the "right" to erect an eight foot by eight foot nativity scene on the median of a local highway.
John Satawa's family has erected the scene every year for 63 years. But this year Satawa was ordered to remove the scene because he had not applied for a permit.
Fair enough.
But when Satawa applied for the permit, it was rejected because it "clearly displays a religious message". It turns out that the Warren County Road Commission had received a complaint from the Freedom From Religion Foundation about the display.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is based out of Wisconsin.
Robert Hoefner, the Road Commission employee who rejected the application, insisted that to allow the display would represent the state taking sides on a religious issue.
What Hoefner apparently failed to discern was that by bowing to a complaint by a non-constituent, they already had. And it was on that note that they actually violated their own interpretation of the First Amendment of the US Contstitution.
The reason why this is so is best explained by Benjamin Barber. In A Place for Us, Barber argues that the separation of church and state does not entail banshing religion entirely from the public sphere. Rather, Barber posits, religious displays in the public square should be fully allowed, so long as it isn't the state organizing the display.
Barber posits that these displays are of benefit to civil society as they essentially represent a form of cultural exchange and promote understanding between otherwise separate groups.
John Satawa has every right to the opportunity to make use of the public commons as any other individual, including the FFRF, who are now effectively occupying that space by refusing to allow anything they oppose to occupy it.
Most importantly, allowing Satawa to display his nativity scene on public land doesn't violate the separation of church and state, as it is not the state's display. The display is Satawa's, and he remains responsible for it. The state could -- and should -- allow displays from any other religious group (including the FFRF) and still never have taken a position on a religious issue.
Facilitating public debate and cultural exchange through the authorization of the use of the public commons is not taking a side.
Banishing religion from the public commons, however, is taking a side. It's taking the side of the fundamentalist atheists (or, as the FFRF describes themselves, "nontheists").
The issue is now, once again, a matter for the courts. It's hard to say if John Satawa will win his case and the privlege (not a right, per se, any more than anyone has the right to never have to look upon a religious display) to erect his nativity scene.
But he should. And if he doesn't, it will only be another sign of how successfuly atheist groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation have managed to pollute the notion of separation of church and state with their own religious values.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Teabing's (And Dawkins') Folly
Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code has been controversial to many Christians, for a wide variety of reasons.
At the heart of most Christian objections to The Da Vinci Code is the treatment of Jesus Christ not as divine, but essentially as an ordinary mortal man with a powerful message who left a family behind him.
The film, quite naturally, has been just as controversial as the novel.
In each, Dr Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is a Harvard anthropologist who gets caught up in intrigue when he's summoned to the crime scene where Jacques Saunière lay murdered.
Dr Langdon is a suspect in the case, and eventually runs to an older friend, sir Leigh Teabing (sir Ian McKellen) for help.
With the help of Teabing and Sophie Neveau (Audrey Tautou), Dr Langdon outmaneuvers French Police Captain Bezu Fache (Jean Reno) and Bishop Manuel Aringarosa (Alfred Molina) in order to discover the secret of the Priory: nothing less than the Holy Grail.
At the heart of Dr Langdon's quest is actually the intent of one man -- Teabing -- to destroy at the very least the Catholic Church.
In many ways Teabing seems to closely resemble Richard Dawkins, the avowed leader of the global fundamentalist atheist movement. Among the various complaints Dawkins registers against religion is that it is a force of oppression. Not only does Dawkins insist that religion oppresses women and minorities, but Dawkins insists that religion oppresses rational intellect.
He describes faith as a "virus", and clearly yearns for the same fate humankind wishes on any viral infection -- its outright destruction.
In these sentiments Dawkins is closely echoed by many of his fellow atheists -- individuals like Michel Onfray, and by the intellectually-crippled members of the Rational Response Squad.
Teabing belives that the revelation that Christ had left a lineage behind him would invalidate the power of the Catholic Church and destroy it.
But with the Catholic Church remaining quite central to the lives of nearly one billion people only a madman would want to see that institution destroyed considering the kind of social and political unrest that would follow.
But people like the fictional sir Leigh Teabing and the real-life Richard Dawkins tend to be individuals of miniscule imagination. They cannot comprehend the possible consequences of their actions becuase they cannot see beyond their own dogmatic beliefs.
That is the ultimate folly of those who believe they know so well what is best for all humankind that they are willing to destroy millenia-old institutions.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Does Paul Erland Build a Case?
Erland's case against CS Lewis is weakness incarnate
One of the more amusing things about the fundamentalist atheism movement that has emerged behind individuals like Richard Dawkins is the very real sense that every fundamentalist atheist seems to believe they're a master philosopher.
Often, however, their arguments are every bit as weak as the religious arguments they seek to counter. For example, their ojbection to Pascal's Wager -- the argument that one is better off believing in God in order to essentially "hedge their bets" for the afterlife -- is usually expressed by positing the ever-insipid (although admittedly otherwise hilarious) Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Of course no one actually believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But many people actually do believe in a sentient and interventionalist god. Thus, God is what philosophers would refer to as a live hypothesis, where as the FSM is not.
A much better argument against Pascal's Wager is a much simpler one -- Pascal's Wager is actually an extremely cynical argument. No believe based on solely on Pascal's Wager could ever be genuine. An all-knowing god would very much know the difference.
Many fundamentalist atheists can't seem to settle for these kinds of simple arguments. Instead, they seem to feel a need to concoct drawn-out arguments that they seem to believe implies a sophistication which rarely turns out to be present.
An interesting case in point are the objections recently raised to CS Lewis' religious thought voiced by The Examiner's Paul Erland, a Nashville Agnostic Examiner:
Erland seems to think that he isn't required to attempt any kind of serious attempt to debunk Lewis' thought -- and that the fact that Lewis is a religious thinker has already done the lion's share of the work of invalidating his thought.
Noting that architects often employ "signature features and flourishes", Erland insists that these would be irrefutable evidence of the architect's existence, and that this notion somehow counters Lewis' ideas.
But in order to make this claim, Erland has to overlook the cornerstone of Lewis' religious thought: namely, that religion is much an enterprise of the rational mind as of the spiritual self.
As with many kinds of evidence, the "signature features and flourishes" example employed by Erland is only as meaningful as a human actor's ability to properly perceive, analyze and interpret them. To the unknowing mind or the untrained eye, such "signature features and flourishes" would seem like any other feature of the house.
Even beyond that, the "signature features and flourishes" are not, themselves, the architect, but rather identifying characteristics left ehind by the architect.
Much like the "moral law" that Lewis has often posited, both through his philosophical works and through his literary works.
Erland posits that this "moral law" would "be more plausibly explained as a biological imperative" vis a vis natural selection. But his argument could quickly be countered by anyone who argued, even if only for argument's sake, that such a biological imperative could have been included by the creator's design.
What CS Lewis would actually argue in regard to his moral law argument is that the "moral law" in question is actually the message of Jesus Christ, and the blueprint for a moral life that his teachings provide. Lewis argues that those who do not follow this blueprint essentially debase themselves.
Lewis would go so far as to argue that the benevolence of Christ's message essentially gives it a monopoly on moral behaviour. He would more explicitly argue that no evil could ever truly be done in Christ's name -- although some certainly attempt to invoke Christ to justify their own immoral actions.
Moreover, Lewis argues that those who live in a moral manner are doing the work of Jesus Christ regardless of whatever religion they purportedly follow. (Admittedly, this argument has been interpreted as offensive -- perhaps quite rightly -- by a great number of people who subscribe to non-Christian religious beliefs.)
Perhaps Lewis would even argue that human conscience -- that voice within us that tells us when we've done something wrong -- could be interpreted as God's moral fingerprint on humanity.
These are interesting ideas, and admittedly are no more decisive than Erland's.
But there's very likely a good reason why Erland targeted Lewis in such a brazen manner in the first place. Richard Dawkins -- whose "faith as a virus" epithet Erland invokes in the conclusion of his article -- has advanced a perception of religion as adverse to rational thought.
Yet it was CS Lewis who said that being a Christian is hard intellectual work. He argued for spiritual faith mediated by the rational and intelligent mind. As a result, Lewis is clearly a thinker very threatening to Erland, Dawkins, and their fundamentalist atheist worldview.
CS Lewis certainly doesn't build a decisive case for "moral law", but he never truly meant to, either. What Lewis does do is build a compelling and inclusivist case for God's moral influence on the world.
Paul Erland, on the other hand, fails spectacularly in his attempt to build a decisive case against CS Lewis. Not only does he not seem to understand Lewis' thinking in the first place, but his scornful starting point nearly precludes any kind of rational criticism of Lewis' ideas.
One of the more amusing things about the fundamentalist atheism movement that has emerged behind individuals like Richard Dawkins is the very real sense that every fundamentalist atheist seems to believe they're a master philosopher.
Often, however, their arguments are every bit as weak as the religious arguments they seek to counter. For example, their ojbection to Pascal's Wager -- the argument that one is better off believing in God in order to essentially "hedge their bets" for the afterlife -- is usually expressed by positing the ever-insipid (although admittedly otherwise hilarious) Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Of course no one actually believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But many people actually do believe in a sentient and interventionalist god. Thus, God is what philosophers would refer to as a live hypothesis, where as the FSM is not.
A much better argument against Pascal's Wager is a much simpler one -- Pascal's Wager is actually an extremely cynical argument. No believe based on solely on Pascal's Wager could ever be genuine. An all-knowing god would very much know the difference.
Many fundamentalist atheists can't seem to settle for these kinds of simple arguments. Instead, they seem to feel a need to concoct drawn-out arguments that they seem to believe implies a sophistication which rarely turns out to be present.
An interesting case in point are the objections recently raised to CS Lewis' religious thought voiced by The Examiner's Paul Erland, a Nashville Agnostic Examiner:
"CS Lewis, the defender of the faith so beloved by all Christ-ininnies for lending elegance to their untenable beliefs, wrote:Erland actually tips his hand awfully early in his article -- he flagrantly disrespects the religious views of Christians (referring to them as "Christi-ninnies", and labeling the post with "Christ-inanity"). That disrespect informs his argument against Lewis, as is, in fact, his argument's undoing.'If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe -- no more than an architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves.'First of all, if we’re likening God to an architect, why couldn’t he leave traces of himself inside his work? Architects often employ signature features and flourishes.
Blithely assuming, however, as he frequently does (Lewis is a master of the false syllogism), that we’re all agreed so far that God can’t be expected to reveal himself, Lewis then proceeds to tell us what we should expect -- for him to show himself 'inside ourselves.' So, in light of the architect analogy, should we expect the builder of our house to show himself inside us? And in any event, how does his conclusion follow from his premise? OK -- God is outside the universe and can’t blatantly interfere. So, obviously, he has installed that little voice inside us that says, 'You’re being watched, so behave yourself.'
Lewis is trying to account for the 'Moral Law' that may or may not be universal (he says it is). But wouldn’t such a 'law' be more plausibly explained as a biological imperative—a check on murderous impulses that grew out of natural selection—than as the finger of God perpetually tapping us on the shoulder?
Richard Dawkins says that the God delusion is a virus. If that’s the case, then Lewis was struck by a particularly virulent strain."
Erland seems to think that he isn't required to attempt any kind of serious attempt to debunk Lewis' thought -- and that the fact that Lewis is a religious thinker has already done the lion's share of the work of invalidating his thought.
Noting that architects often employ "signature features and flourishes", Erland insists that these would be irrefutable evidence of the architect's existence, and that this notion somehow counters Lewis' ideas.
But in order to make this claim, Erland has to overlook the cornerstone of Lewis' religious thought: namely, that religion is much an enterprise of the rational mind as of the spiritual self.
As with many kinds of evidence, the "signature features and flourishes" example employed by Erland is only as meaningful as a human actor's ability to properly perceive, analyze and interpret them. To the unknowing mind or the untrained eye, such "signature features and flourishes" would seem like any other feature of the house.
Even beyond that, the "signature features and flourishes" are not, themselves, the architect, but rather identifying characteristics left ehind by the architect.
Much like the "moral law" that Lewis has often posited, both through his philosophical works and through his literary works.
Erland posits that this "moral law" would "be more plausibly explained as a biological imperative" vis a vis natural selection. But his argument could quickly be countered by anyone who argued, even if only for argument's sake, that such a biological imperative could have been included by the creator's design.
What CS Lewis would actually argue in regard to his moral law argument is that the "moral law" in question is actually the message of Jesus Christ, and the blueprint for a moral life that his teachings provide. Lewis argues that those who do not follow this blueprint essentially debase themselves.
Lewis would go so far as to argue that the benevolence of Christ's message essentially gives it a monopoly on moral behaviour. He would more explicitly argue that no evil could ever truly be done in Christ's name -- although some certainly attempt to invoke Christ to justify their own immoral actions.
Moreover, Lewis argues that those who live in a moral manner are doing the work of Jesus Christ regardless of whatever religion they purportedly follow. (Admittedly, this argument has been interpreted as offensive -- perhaps quite rightly -- by a great number of people who subscribe to non-Christian religious beliefs.)
Perhaps Lewis would even argue that human conscience -- that voice within us that tells us when we've done something wrong -- could be interpreted as God's moral fingerprint on humanity.
These are interesting ideas, and admittedly are no more decisive than Erland's.
But there's very likely a good reason why Erland targeted Lewis in such a brazen manner in the first place. Richard Dawkins -- whose "faith as a virus" epithet Erland invokes in the conclusion of his article -- has advanced a perception of religion as adverse to rational thought.
Yet it was CS Lewis who said that being a Christian is hard intellectual work. He argued for spiritual faith mediated by the rational and intelligent mind. As a result, Lewis is clearly a thinker very threatening to Erland, Dawkins, and their fundamentalist atheist worldview.
CS Lewis certainly doesn't build a decisive case for "moral law", but he never truly meant to, either. What Lewis does do is build a compelling and inclusivist case for God's moral influence on the world.
Paul Erland, on the other hand, fails spectacularly in his attempt to build a decisive case against CS Lewis. Not only does he not seem to understand Lewis' thinking in the first place, but his scornful starting point nearly precludes any kind of rational criticism of Lewis' ideas.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
The Idolatry of Anti-Blasphemy
Criticism is essential to religion
A prominent global controversy recently has been the proposal of various anti-blasphemy laws, including a proposed anti-blasphemy resolution at the United Nations.
One of the western states farthest along in the introduction of an anti-blasphemy law is Ireland, where an anti-blasphemy law is set to take effect in October.
The law will impose hefty fines on anyone who "publishes or utters matter that is (intentionally meant to be) grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion."
Unsurprisingly, the law has a vociferous critic in Richard Dawkins.
"It is a wretched, backward, uncivilized regression to the Middle Ages," Dawkins said.
And while Dawkins -- who himself in the name of his quest to "enlighten" humanity by helping to wipe out religion would lead humanity back into the Dark Ages -- is so often so wrong about matters entailing religion, this is one time he is right about it.
Anti-blasphemy laws -- even in places like Ireland, where violence has traditionally surrounded religious conflicts between Catholics and Protestants -- place the intellectual and philosophical development of religious thought in peril by threatening to outlaw criticism.
In Ireland, the anti-blasphemy law -- which Justice Minister Dermot Ahern insists merely clarifies anti-blasphemy provisions in the Irish Constitution -- is quite clearly aimed at attempting to quell tensions between Catholics and Protestants by giving the government a means to punish those who stir up tensions between the two.
But as a club with which critics of either religions -- or Christianity in general -- could be threatened with, this law not only clearly plays to the hypothetical and often-imagined "right not to be offended", but also to an imagined right to not have to think about their religion.
Few things could be more devastating to any religion, especially Christianity. CS Lewis once wrote that being a Christian is hard intellectual work. One has to continually be able to reconcile their religious beliefs against real-world realities, or risk falling into dogmatism.
Ireland's anti-blasphemy law imperils the hard intellectual work of the proper-thinking Christian, and serves to encourage the kind of intellectual sloth that gives rise to dogmatism in the first place.
This is the peril of the idolatry of anti-blasphemy.
A prominent global controversy recently has been the proposal of various anti-blasphemy laws, including a proposed anti-blasphemy resolution at the United Nations.
One of the western states farthest along in the introduction of an anti-blasphemy law is Ireland, where an anti-blasphemy law is set to take effect in October.
The law will impose hefty fines on anyone who "publishes or utters matter that is (intentionally meant to be) grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion."
Unsurprisingly, the law has a vociferous critic in Richard Dawkins.
"It is a wretched, backward, uncivilized regression to the Middle Ages," Dawkins said.
And while Dawkins -- who himself in the name of his quest to "enlighten" humanity by helping to wipe out religion would lead humanity back into the Dark Ages -- is so often so wrong about matters entailing religion, this is one time he is right about it.
Anti-blasphemy laws -- even in places like Ireland, where violence has traditionally surrounded religious conflicts between Catholics and Protestants -- place the intellectual and philosophical development of religious thought in peril by threatening to outlaw criticism.
In Ireland, the anti-blasphemy law -- which Justice Minister Dermot Ahern insists merely clarifies anti-blasphemy provisions in the Irish Constitution -- is quite clearly aimed at attempting to quell tensions between Catholics and Protestants by giving the government a means to punish those who stir up tensions between the two.
But as a club with which critics of either religions -- or Christianity in general -- could be threatened with, this law not only clearly plays to the hypothetical and often-imagined "right not to be offended", but also to an imagined right to not have to think about their religion.
Few things could be more devastating to any religion, especially Christianity. CS Lewis once wrote that being a Christian is hard intellectual work. One has to continually be able to reconcile their religious beliefs against real-world realities, or risk falling into dogmatism.
Ireland's anti-blasphemy law imperils the hard intellectual work of the proper-thinking Christian, and serves to encourage the kind of intellectual sloth that gives rise to dogmatism in the first place.
This is the peril of the idolatry of anti-blasphemy.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Richard Dawkins Says It's Wrong to Indoctrinate Children...
...Unless he's the one doing the indoctrination
One of the interesting things about fundamentalist atheism is their tendency to accept the pontifications of hypocritical people at face value.
Richard Dawkins is a brilliant example of this. His vaunted "lying for Jesus" argument has become a central weapon in the rhetorical aresenals of many fundamentalist atheists despite the fact that he's been caught being dishonest using it.
Likewise, Dawkins' argument that children shouldn't be indoctrinated into religion has gained some evident traction amongst fundamentalist atheists. Why, even ABBA member Bjorn Ulvaes thinks so.
So indoctrinating children into religion is bad.
...Oh, unless it's Dawkins' and Ulvaes' religion. Then it's A-OK.
Aside from starting work on a children's book, Dawkins has sponsored a summer camp for atheists.
Dawkins says that the camps are intended to "encourage children to think for themselves sceptically and rationally."
But interestingly enough, Dawkins has made it plainly evident that, to him, thinking for oneself "sceptically and rationally" entails thinking exactly what Dawkins wants them to.
Naturally, Dawkins and company are going to pretend that the camps in question aren't about atheism, but rather merely about secularism.
"There is very little that attacks religion, we are not a rival to religious camps," says camp organizer Samantha Stein. "We exist as a secular alternative open to children from parents of all faiths and none."
So says "atheist rock star" Samantha Stein.
One wonders if Dawkins and Stein realize the extent to which the entire matter defies credulity. An "atheist rock star" accepting funds from Richard Dawkins attacking religion? Apparently we're supposed to perish the thought.
Of course, all of this is aside from the point. There's nothing wrong with parents sending their children to Dawkins' and Stein's camp if they are intent upon raising their children as atheists -- or perhaps even legitimate free-thinkers.
There's nothing wrong with teaching children about evolution or leading them in sing-alongs of "Imagine". In fact both of these -- teaching kids about science and about great music -- can be very good things.
But the least Richard Dawkins could do is stop pretending that he isn't indoctrinating these children in his religion -- atheism, which people like himself have very much transformed to a religion.
Just imagine that kind of honesty from someone who so enjoys vacuously accusing his opponents of "lying for Jesus".
One of the interesting things about fundamentalist atheism is their tendency to accept the pontifications of hypocritical people at face value.
Richard Dawkins is a brilliant example of this. His vaunted "lying for Jesus" argument has become a central weapon in the rhetorical aresenals of many fundamentalist atheists despite the fact that he's been caught being dishonest using it.
Likewise, Dawkins' argument that children shouldn't be indoctrinated into religion has gained some evident traction amongst fundamentalist atheists. Why, even ABBA member Bjorn Ulvaes thinks so.
So indoctrinating children into religion is bad.
...Oh, unless it's Dawkins' and Ulvaes' religion. Then it's A-OK.
Aside from starting work on a children's book, Dawkins has sponsored a summer camp for atheists.
Dawkins says that the camps are intended to "encourage children to think for themselves sceptically and rationally."
But interestingly enough, Dawkins has made it plainly evident that, to him, thinking for oneself "sceptically and rationally" entails thinking exactly what Dawkins wants them to.
Naturally, Dawkins and company are going to pretend that the camps in question aren't about atheism, but rather merely about secularism.
"There is very little that attacks religion, we are not a rival to religious camps," says camp organizer Samantha Stein. "We exist as a secular alternative open to children from parents of all faiths and none."
So says "atheist rock star" Samantha Stein.
One wonders if Dawkins and Stein realize the extent to which the entire matter defies credulity. An "atheist rock star" accepting funds from Richard Dawkins attacking religion? Apparently we're supposed to perish the thought.
Of course, all of this is aside from the point. There's nothing wrong with parents sending their children to Dawkins' and Stein's camp if they are intent upon raising their children as atheists -- or perhaps even legitimate free-thinkers.
There's nothing wrong with teaching children about evolution or leading them in sing-alongs of "Imagine". In fact both of these -- teaching kids about science and about great music -- can be very good things.
But the least Richard Dawkins could do is stop pretending that he isn't indoctrinating these children in his religion -- atheism, which people like himself have very much transformed to a religion.
Just imagine that kind of honesty from someone who so enjoys vacuously accusing his opponents of "lying for Jesus".
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
The Death of an Argument
Key rhetorical flub reveals fatuity of Richard Dawkins' "lying for Jesus" argument
Ever since its inception as an argument in the religion/atheism debate, "lying for Jesus" has become a favoured accusation lobbed by the most zealous atheists.
In fact, accusations of general dishonesty have often been central to the arguments of militant fundamentalist atheists. But in a column appearing on the Spectator website Melanie Phillips chronicles the tale of Dawkins flubbing this argument so badly he may never be able to use it again -- at least not with any trace of credibility.
The tale begins with a debate between Dawkins and Irish mathematician John Lennox in which Dawkins reportedly admitted that belief in God is a defensible belief.
"You can make a respectable case for deism," Dawkins admits. "Not a case that I would accept but I think it is a serious discussion that you could have."
Dawkins would insist that he hadn't really meant his comments as an admission that belief in a god could be respectably defended -- insisting that he was merely being sarcastic. As Lennox and Phillips would both note, Dawkins certainly said nothing at the time to indicate that he was being sarcastic, and had reportedly seemed sincere at the time that he said it.
But Dawkins was not yet finished.
Dawkins would go on to accuse Phillips of misrepresenting him in a column published on the Spectator site. He would even go so far as quoting her in a slide shown at a subsequent debate with Lennox:
Those words were actually penned by Culture Watch's Bill Muehlenberg. Oops.
Dawkins would go on to accuse Phillips of "lying for Jesus" based on quotes that he was misrepresenting as hers. But his folly in doing so actually ran deeper than this simple fact.
As it turns out, Phillips is actually Jewish. One clearly pertinent detail is that Jews don't believe in Jesus -- or at least don't believe he was the prophesized Messiah.
Oops.
At the very least, Dawkins most recent flub has demonstrated precisely how eager he is to deploy his vaunted "lying for Jesus" argument, to the extent that he will rush to use it without even stopping to make sure that the words he's quoted were ever written or spoken by the person he's attributed them to.
Considering the high level at which Dawkins has conducted his scientific work it would be hard to believe -- nearly impossible -- that he was unable to tell Bill Muehlenberg' words from Melanie Phillips'.
Then again, considering Dawkins' history of weakly razor-thin arguments -- such as suggesting that astrology is akin to racism -- perhaps there is ample cause for doubt. It's of little surprise that Dawkins isn't nearly as bright as he and his supporters would like to have people believe.
One thing is for certain: Dawkins' "lying for Jesus" argument is now officially dead in the water. That certainly won't stop Dawkins or any of his supporters from using it -- they thrive on the ignorance of those they would convince, and on the alleged ignorance of anyone who believes in religion.
All that can be done is for those who oppose Dawkins and his virulent brand of atheism to remind people that he isn't nearly as bright -- or honest -- as he pretends to be.
Ever since its inception as an argument in the religion/atheism debate, "lying for Jesus" has become a favoured accusation lobbed by the most zealous atheists.
In fact, accusations of general dishonesty have often been central to the arguments of militant fundamentalist atheists. But in a column appearing on the Spectator website Melanie Phillips chronicles the tale of Dawkins flubbing this argument so badly he may never be able to use it again -- at least not with any trace of credibility.
The tale begins with a debate between Dawkins and Irish mathematician John Lennox in which Dawkins reportedly admitted that belief in God is a defensible belief.
"You can make a respectable case for deism," Dawkins admits. "Not a case that I would accept but I think it is a serious discussion that you could have."
Dawkins would insist that he hadn't really meant his comments as an admission that belief in a god could be respectably defended -- insisting that he was merely being sarcastic. As Lennox and Phillips would both note, Dawkins certainly said nothing at the time to indicate that he was being sarcastic, and had reportedly seemed sincere at the time that he said it.
But Dawkins was not yet finished.
Dawkins would go on to accuse Phillips of misrepresenting him in a column published on the Spectator site. He would even go so far as quoting her in a slide shown at a subsequent debate with Lennox:
"Arch-atheist Richard Dawkins is an evolutionist. But many are now asking whether the dyed-in-the-wool critic of religion may be, well, evolving in his views about God. You see, in a recent debate with theist and Christian John Lennox, he let slip what many would regard as a major blooper: he actually admitted that there might be a case for theism of sorts. This was a worldview change of seismic proportions. It was a most remarkable turnaround. For someone who had spent over five decades championing the atheist cause to all of a sudden renounce it was an incredible achievement."The problem, as it turns out, is that Phillips never wrote those words.
Those words were actually penned by Culture Watch's Bill Muehlenberg. Oops.
Dawkins would go on to accuse Phillips of "lying for Jesus" based on quotes that he was misrepresenting as hers. But his folly in doing so actually ran deeper than this simple fact.
As it turns out, Phillips is actually Jewish. One clearly pertinent detail is that Jews don't believe in Jesus -- or at least don't believe he was the prophesized Messiah.
Oops.
"Lying for Jesus! Oh dear oh dear. Not only did Dawkins falsely accuse me of distorting his position, but he accused me of doing so because he assumed I was a Christian. Five minutes’ research maximum would have told him that I am a Jew. Either he thought that all the stuff written on Culture Watch by Bill Muehlenberg, who appears to be a devout Christian, was written by me; or he assumed that, since John Lennox is a Christian, anyone who supports John Lennox must also be a Christian. Either way, the man who has made a global reputation out of scorning anyone who makes an assumption not grounded in empirical evidence has assumed to be true something that can easily be ascertained to be totally false – thus suggesting that the mind that is so addled by prejudice it cannot deal with demonstrable reality is none other than his own."Those words at least actually were written by Phillips.
At the very least, Dawkins most recent flub has demonstrated precisely how eager he is to deploy his vaunted "lying for Jesus" argument, to the extent that he will rush to use it without even stopping to make sure that the words he's quoted were ever written or spoken by the person he's attributed them to.
Considering the high level at which Dawkins has conducted his scientific work it would be hard to believe -- nearly impossible -- that he was unable to tell Bill Muehlenberg' words from Melanie Phillips'.
Then again, considering Dawkins' history of weakly razor-thin arguments -- such as suggesting that astrology is akin to racism -- perhaps there is ample cause for doubt. It's of little surprise that Dawkins isn't nearly as bright as he and his supporters would like to have people believe.
One thing is for certain: Dawkins' "lying for Jesus" argument is now officially dead in the water. That certainly won't stop Dawkins or any of his supporters from using it -- they thrive on the ignorance of those they would convince, and on the alleged ignorance of anyone who believes in religion.
All that can be done is for those who oppose Dawkins and his virulent brand of atheism to remind people that he isn't nearly as bright -- or honest -- as he pretends to be.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Don't Fall for the Big Con of Religion, Atheism
Intellectual folly, profit motive at the heart of modern religious-atheist intolerance
In an Easter Sunday op/ed article published in Britain's Daily Mail, AN Wilson offers a scathing denunciation of atheism, hyperbolically entitled "The Religion of Hatred".
In the article Wilson complains that most of the public intellectuals in Britain are allegedly atheists, the result of a secular society which has branded religious belief as "uncool" and "unsexy".
Wilson's greatest criticisms are reserved for Polly Toynbee, a columnist for The Guardian and President of the British Humanist Association.
"Of all the elements of Christianity, the most repugnant is the notion of the Christ who took our sins upon himself and sacrificed his body in agony to save our souls. Did we ask him to?" Toynbee once wrote, as Wilson quotes.
"When absolute God-given righteousness beckons, blood flows and women are in chains," Toynbee is again quoted.
Individuals like Hitchens, Dawkins and Toynbee are treated as evidence that atheists are smug, hateful and intolerant.
It's little secret that this smugness and arrogance is largely the design of these atheists. Many of them enjoy irritating religious believers into passionate denunciations of them, feeling this confirms the allegedly irrational basis on which religious belief is established and held.
When religious believers lash out at atheists in this particular fashion, they tumble into the same pitfall that these most fervent atheists fall into -- the pitfall of being threatened by other peoples' beliefs.
This inevitably leads to all kinds of folly -- including the folly of taking an individual like Christopher Hitchens, who is as committed an atheist as there ever was, on the radio to try to convince him that he should believe in God.
Just as atheists need to accept that there are reasons why the religious believe, religious believers need to accept that there are reasons why atheists do not believe. To fault them for that fails to address the simple fact that religion has evidently not met the spiritual needs of these individuals -- if indeed these individuals feel they have any spiritual needs at all.
There are plenty of atheists who are more than willing to go about their lives, believing as they believe (or rather, don't believe) relatively quietly without demanding that everyone else believe as they do.
While individuals like Hitchens and Richard Dawkins often promote themselves as spokespeople for atheism, many atheists have made public their discomfort with having such individuals represent them.
To hold up individuals such as Hitchens, Dawkins, or the Rational Response Squad as atheism's leading examples is to risk overlooking the vast majority of atheists who are content to mind their own spiritual business -- just as holding up religion's most vigorous proselytizers as leading examples risks to overlook the vast majority of believers who are content to mind theirs.
Of course such moderate views -- by either atheists or the religious -- are far from marketable. Inherent in these broad denunciations of opposing camps is the big con of a self-promoting ideologue out to enrich themselves through the sale of their next book or their next movie.
Many of these people are perfectly content to lead their masses of followers into folly if it will earn them a few extra dollars annually.
In an Easter Sunday op/ed article published in Britain's Daily Mail, AN Wilson offers a scathing denunciation of atheism, hyperbolically entitled "The Religion of Hatred".
In the article Wilson complains that most of the public intellectuals in Britain are allegedly atheists, the result of a secular society which has branded religious belief as "uncool" and "unsexy".
Wilson's greatest criticisms are reserved for Polly Toynbee, a columnist for The Guardian and President of the British Humanist Association.
"Of all the elements of Christianity, the most repugnant is the notion of the Christ who took our sins upon himself and sacrificed his body in agony to save our souls. Did we ask him to?" Toynbee once wrote, as Wilson quotes.
"When absolute God-given righteousness beckons, blood flows and women are in chains," Toynbee is again quoted.
Individuals like Hitchens, Dawkins and Toynbee are treated as evidence that atheists are smug, hateful and intolerant.
It's little secret that this smugness and arrogance is largely the design of these atheists. Many of them enjoy irritating religious believers into passionate denunciations of them, feeling this confirms the allegedly irrational basis on which religious belief is established and held.
When religious believers lash out at atheists in this particular fashion, they tumble into the same pitfall that these most fervent atheists fall into -- the pitfall of being threatened by other peoples' beliefs.
This inevitably leads to all kinds of folly -- including the folly of taking an individual like Christopher Hitchens, who is as committed an atheist as there ever was, on the radio to try to convince him that he should believe in God.
Just as atheists need to accept that there are reasons why the religious believe, religious believers need to accept that there are reasons why atheists do not believe. To fault them for that fails to address the simple fact that religion has evidently not met the spiritual needs of these individuals -- if indeed these individuals feel they have any spiritual needs at all.
There are plenty of atheists who are more than willing to go about their lives, believing as they believe (or rather, don't believe) relatively quietly without demanding that everyone else believe as they do.
While individuals like Hitchens and Richard Dawkins often promote themselves as spokespeople for atheism, many atheists have made public their discomfort with having such individuals represent them.
To hold up individuals such as Hitchens, Dawkins, or the Rational Response Squad as atheism's leading examples is to risk overlooking the vast majority of atheists who are content to mind their own spiritual business -- just as holding up religion's most vigorous proselytizers as leading examples risks to overlook the vast majority of believers who are content to mind theirs.
Of course such moderate views -- by either atheists or the religious -- are far from marketable. Inherent in these broad denunciations of opposing camps is the big con of a self-promoting ideologue out to enrich themselves through the sale of their next book or their next movie.
Many of these people are perfectly content to lead their masses of followers into folly if it will earn them a few extra dollars annually.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)