How humanists are like the Taliban
The British Humanist Association got a grant from the Equality and Human Rights Commission to hold a series of debates about the place of religion in public life.
The four events will include speakers from faith groups but one of the keynote addresses is being delivered by the prominent atheist Professor AC Grayling…
But? Why but? What do they mean ‘but’? That a series of debates about the place of religion in public life should include nothing but ‘speakers from faith groups’? But that would be kind of a stupid ‘debate,’ wouldn’t it? More like a prayer meeting, or a preaching to the choir session? More like a complete waste of time in fact? Why would a series of debates about the place of religion in public life not include atheists, even prominent atheists?
Critics say it is wrong for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to give taxpayers’ money to a controversial organisation whose stance would be found objectionable by many members of the public. Neil Addison, a Roman Catholic barrister who specialises in religious discrimination, said: “It’s a bit like paying the Taliban to lecture on women’s rights.”
Oh is it. Is it really. Because the British Humanist Association has so much in common with the Taliban? Or simply because in both cases the idea is that the thing discussed is not such a good idea. But the equivalency of course is 1) absurd and 2) vicious. You might as well say that abolitionists holding debates on slavery is a bit like the Taliban lecturing on women’s rights. In both cases the parties are opposed to the thing under discussion, but the morality of each position is hardly equivalent. Of course Neil Addison the Catholic barrister knows that perfectly well, but he also knows that his outrageous comment will leave the desired impression. Very Catholic, that is; downright Jesuit, that is.
No actually Mr Addison the Catholic church has a hell of a lot more in common with the Taliban than any humanist group does. Both tell women what to do, both tell women they are subordinate to men, both try to keep women pregnant and dependent. Both hate women unless they are meek and ‘devout’ and mostly out of sight. There’s some ecumenical ‘religious discrimination’ for you. Go tell the UN on me.
The tone of the Telegraph article was very strange. It made sound like atheists are a tiny despised minority.
Even for such a notoriously conservative newspaper, I found it odd that they took such a 1950’s-style attitude. I would have thought a large number of their readers would be atheists.
What an astonishing article! I mean, my Dog!
The really astonishing thing is that people think that Dawkins is strident! He’s excoriated everywhere for being so agressive and bold in his disbelief, so unrestrained, yet it’s considered alright for a roman catholic barrister (time to put religions in lower case) to compare the BHA to the Taliban!!! Good Dog!
Where does this idiocy come to an end? And how?
He’s a bright, manipulative tosser writing to a niche market.
Eric Dawkins may be brilliant but he is also strident and he goes in for name calling as well.
Richard. Define ‘strident’. Give me an example from Dawkins.
Excuse me? Who is “Eric Dawkins”? I googled on the name, and there does seem to be an American performer of that name (a gospel singer, perhaps?), but he doesn’t seem to have anything to do with what we’re discussing.
…and the Catholic Church’s charitable arm, “Caritas”, also gave material support to Uganda’s Lords Resistance Army on the hopeful (and wholly ineffective) pretext that this would help persuade them to add their campaign of killing, mutilation, and mass-rape. They simply used it to buy guns (http://www.iwpr.net/?p=acr&s=f&o=340172&apc_state=henh). Funnily this never got reported in the Telegraph, however…
(typo, sorry – for “add”, read “end”!)
Elliott, Richard left out a comma. It should read: “Eric, Dawkins may be…., etc.” Richard still hasn’t given me an example of Richard Dawkins’ stridency, nor a definition of the word ‘strident’. Dawkins always seems such a gentle man. Stridency doesn’t seem part of his repertoire, but I await to be corrected (with an example) by Richard.
Eric, Elliott knows that; he was needling Richard, much the way Richard needles us, but with better punctuation.
I would demur and say that Dawkins doesn’t always seem such a gentle man. He can breathe fire (and rightly so, in my view) when for instance evangelical preachers tell him what’s wrong with evolutionary biology on the basis of complete ignorance and misunderstanding (thinking natural selection is random, for instance).
Good, I rather thought so, but being a literal minded sod, thought I should explain anyway. Yes, Dawkins can breathe fire when talking about evolutionary biology, etc., but (though I haven’t read The God Delusion since it first came out) he never seemed to me militantly or stridently atheist, as so many have claimed. He has some amusing things to say about the god of the OT, but he hardly ever gets hot and heavy over believers themselves. I’m still puzzled why he is thought to be strident. I have read Alister McGrath (for example, The Twilight of Atheism), and he really is strident!
The truth seems to be that anyone who says anything about atheism without at the same time saying kind things about religion comes off sounding strident to religious believers. Take the bus sign. I mean, really, could anything milder be imagined, and yet to see and hear what religious believers have to say, not only about unbelief, but about belief, it is really beyond reason why they should speak of stridency when it comes to someone like Dawkins, who is, to tell the truth, unfailingly polite. Remember his interview of Ted Haggard? I mean, he didn’t even know what was meant by the Nuremburg Rallies, and yet Dawkins never scoffs, though he smiles with a bit of genuine surprise.
So, the whole business of stridency and militancy, given the contrast between the widespread stridency of religious believers talking about the loss of faith, etc., and the immorality of society without belief in a god, etc., is really something that takes my breath away.
Thank you, Elliott, for needling Richard. I wish Richard would answer.
I always wonder if uneuphemistic atheism really sounds strident to religious believers or if they just pretend it does in order to seize the moral high ground. I wonder if they’re really that stupid or just using every form of attack they can think of.
Richard – are you going to do a hit-and-run on us, or are you going to be an honest chap and give us examples of Richard Dawkins’ “name-calling” and “stridency?” And if you’re going to claim that making factual observations about religious demagogues – say, by correctly labeling them “liars” and “deluded” – is strident, please don’t bother. You’re smarter than that, and so are we. Oh, and for the eleventy-thousandth time, could you please give other commenters the courtesy of using punctuation and basic typographical competence so your posts are understandable?
During the Dawkins – Haggard encounter I was amazed that RD could restrain himself from sticking the heid on Pastor Ted.
Is this strident?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik
Non nobis Domine!(1) Dear friends and gentle hearts, you do me too much honour! I really was puzzled. I guess my coffee hadn’t kicked in yet. Being retired, my approach to mornings is what we might describe as casual. But when it comes to stridency, is the utterance of the proposition, “gods do not exist” any more strident than the utterance, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”?
(1)(Or possibly, OB, “Domina”.)
Eric Sorry about the punctuation I find it one of lifes mysteries,I just think he lacks class sometimes, for example his use of terms like hissy fit and cry baby or making Hitler comparisons to a rabi are unecesary. http://richarddawkins.net/article,2591,Richard-Dawkins-Responds-to-Rabbi-Shmuley-Boteach,Richard-Dawkins
“Taxpayer’s money” – one of these days our heads will explode if hearing this phrase, designed not to provide even a shimmer of a reason.
Ho-ho, this is taxpayer’s money – and I personally know taxpayers that disagree with this specific thing. Smug faces we get for free.
Richard, worry about punctuation but do not worry if it doesn’t come out right, one of the best poets I ever read would not be able to distinguish a . from a ,
Well some of it is strident and vicious G.T (although plenty of it is well earned by the likes of the R.C and islam in general), Dawkins is at his best when he just sticks to facts and logic.
Oh, come, come, Richard. This is just not enough to call Richard Dawkins strident and militant. He is explaining a few things about a long relationship with Rabbi Boteach, and doing so with a great deal of grace and, in a couple cases, mild remorse. He even ends with these eirenic words: “The storm in this particular teapot has run its course and deserves no more agitation. Peace. Let’s have a nice cup of tea and all calm down.”
This is simply not enough to go on to characterise Dawkins as strident and a name-caller. He thinks Boteach is being childish – as he seems to be – and then says, let’s bring this little tempest to an end. I didn’t think you had much to go on, that’s why I challenged you to give some evidence.
Fark fark farkety fark.
Tingey – as far as you’re concerned all my questions are rhetorical. I’ve told you not to comment, remember? Over and over again. The most recent time was two days ago; since then you have commented each day. I don’t want your answers to my questions because I already know what they are and so does everyone else. That’s why I want you to stop commenting, and why I keep telling/ordering/begging/beseeching you to (being unable to block you because you have a dynamic IP). Why you keep ignoring these commands/requests is beyond me.
Richard – classic example of what you always do – say one thing and then when challenged say you only meant something much milder. Remember I’ve told you several hundred times to slow down and think before you comment? That’s why. You never do think until after someone challenges you.
Fark fark fark. I get so sick of this.
And JoB, please don’t tell Richard not to worry about punctuation. Lack of punctuation renders his comments incomprehensible, and that’s a pain – see above.
Fark fark fark.
Well – sorry, but Richard once said, I think, he was dyslexic. Whether or not that is true I do not know, but it can be true and that’s enough for me to be a little bit careful there.
And, for the record, I told him: worry but don’t worry too much if you fail – that’s not what you say I said.
Ah yes – luckily this off-topic is not wasting “taxpayer’s money” ;-)
JoB – Dyslexia is not a condition that makes the writer unable to hit the “-” “.” and “,” keys.
And as I have told Richard, all he needs to do is use Word or an email program, let it correct his spelling and punctuation, and then copy and paste here. It would be a little bit more work, but it would be less work for everyone else; I think the onus is on him.
Meanwhile I’m still trying to figure out how I can shame Tingey into having some basic manners. I’m tempted to close down comments altogether just to get rid of him.
Ophelia – please don’t close down comments because of one rude poster. Many of us really enjoy this electronic watercooler. If Tingey is a naughty boy and can’t be blocked tecnically, why not just delete his comments? It’s a little extra work, but better I think than shutting down the whole shebang.
Josh, I do delete his comments. Every damn day, I delete his comments. It’s not a little extra work, unfortunately, it’s a lot (because of the nature of the database and because I don’t have broadband or wireless) – plus the irritation of the steady ongoing imperturbable refusal is getting on my nerves.
However, I only said I was tempted; I enjoy the electronic watercooler myself and don’t want to close it down. But Tingey and Richard in combination sometimes sour my otherwise sunny disposition.
Whoops, I didn’t realize how much crap you had to shovel behind the scenes, OB. Mea culpa.
I can understand why your last nerve is fraying, but “sunny” is to your disposition as “coherent” is to Richard’s posts (ducking and running).
Now, do we all have to come out there and run some broadband cable to your house? I’d want to kill myself too if I were on dial-up!
“Critics say it is wrong for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to give taxpayers’ money to a controversial organisation whose stance would be found objectionable by many members of the public. Neil Addison, a Roman Catholic…”
…objects to those criticisms, saying that the Catholic Church holds a special place in British history? Oh no, wait, it seems that, rather than being a *target* of those critics, he IS one of those critics. Physician, heal thyself?
OB, Philosopher’s Mag doesn’t give you high-speed? Can we pitch in somehow? You’re not doing this all on dial-up, surely? And if you are, you shouldn’t let on. You could be simply buried!
Come on Josh, with those restrictions, Ophelia is positively bubbling! I gave up dialu-up over ten years ago. So, how do we help?
Josh,
That’s downright dense – the condition indeed does not prevent hitting keys – it does however lead to the following:
– Punctuation is not used at all
– Some punctuation is used but is not understood
– Writer has no sense of where the marks should go, even though they have been told.
Ophelia, word will not help, it is not that magical.
(Sorry to insist on this off-topic but it just ain’t fair – and I’m not going on about Richard)
The sunny disposition joke was of course intentional – that is to say, it was ‘irony.’
Yes, dial-up. I’m a pauper, you know; of course it’s dial-up.
JoB…I know Word is not magical, I’m not that stupid. But it’s not true that it won’t help: it will catch many mistakes while creating a few new ones.
And as for not fair – look, I have to keep this place from turning into the kind of madhouse that internet comments so often do turn into. I think it is fair, because Richard’s tone is almost always unpleasantly aggressive and scornful, without the arguments or facts to back that up. That combined with typographical chaos does not make for a good read. That’s not your problem, it’s mine, so I get to deal with it.
I still ask: Can we help?
Uggggh –
I don’t suppose you can get G Tingey to shut up? I feel dirty. I feel as if I’ve been slimed. He uses a shared email, the idiot, and now I’ve had the person he shares email with shouting at me – but I have no other way to tell him to stop commenting, so what am I supposed to do?
I feel dirty. I feel nibbled to death by rats. I feel haunted and contaminated by idiots who will not shut up.
Bleah.
JoB – If I misunderstood dyslexia, I apologize. Unfortunately, the claim has been ruined by legion lazy people who want an excuse for their lack of courtesy when typing. Not fair to dyslexics.
Ophelia – I said what I did about your “sunny disposition” out of affection, one acerbic-by-nature-critic to another. I hope I didn’t offend; I surely didn’t mean to.
To all commenters who annoy – please stop. I know, that’s a pretty impotent attempt, but what can one do?
Eric I gave you one example not every example, Dawkins often resorts to that sort of thing when answering critics. I dont think it shows much grace to make Hitler comparisons when debating a jewish guy?
Dont you have to have a fair idea what the end product should look like for something like word to work?I dont see how it could put a coma after Eric for example.
Ophelia, fair enough – I have a little bit of a weak spot for dyslexics: as I said, one of my favourite poets is one such: see
http://quoughts.skynetblogs.be/tag/1/Childish
Josh, fair enough as well.
Richard, if you would move up contents of your postings, their form would get more bearable.
Dial-up, huh, it still exists. Ophelia (& I mean this) if you’d put a section where we could voluntarily leave small donations I would do so in an instant.
Thanks, JoB – I’ll install PayPal some day so that people can leave small donations if they want to.
Josh – nooooooo of course you didn’t offend. I took your joke as a compliment!
Word wouldn’t catch every mistake, and it would produce new ones, but it would catch a lot of mistakes.
One swallow does not a summer make, as Aristotle famously said. And, Richard, one example does not indicate a trend, especially when it is an example of forcible speech for which Dawkins apologised, recognising that it was inappropriate. But the point still remains that Schmuley Boteach, like many other preachers, has a tendency to screech (and I should know). (A bit like Hitler, who was a homilist of great power, and used to practice in front of a mirror, as many clergy do to empty churches.)
But my original point was to ask why Dawkins is said to be a militant or strident atheist, which is the point that so many of his critics seek to make. This is, remember, the new atheism, the strident, militant new atheism. Only Dawkins has never sounded particularly strident to me, so I was looking for examples, not from an occasion on which he had some reason to be annoyed, but from his writings. What is strident about his atheism. Where is the name-calling?
I’m with the others here – I’ll gladly chip into to the pot for B&W maintenance/broadband for OB if you get around to putting up a PayPal link. It’s the very least I can do for a site I get so much from.
Well, Ophelia, your thought seems clean to most of us, refreshingly so. So…., let us know, and we’ll help you over the dial-up-broadband divide. Hey! If getting rid of one of us cost some of us a bit of hard-earned cash, why should we balk at that. Get the Paypal account going right away. Then you can ditch the bugger(s)! Even me?
You, Eric? Certainly not! Not never, not nohow.
But oh god, if only I could get rid of G Tingey…if only…I told him in no uncertain terms yesterday I wanted to hear nothing from him or his email-sharer ever again – so what does he do today but send me 6 MB of cat pictures and a lot of chatty advice about not being so irrational about him. Fucking hell. I made the mistake of trying to explain (yet again) why I want him to stop commenting and why this is good bye – only to get another telling off from some total stranger because he is too stupid to get his own email with which to harass me. It’s unreal.
What will he send tomorrow? 12 MB of budgie pictures and further explanations of why he is too valuable to lose?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh
Out of intrest how much would a broadband conection cost in your part of the world O.B because it might be easier for you to post a P.O. box number that people could send cheques or cash to. It would probably only need 20 of us to send aprox 20 dollars each to fund it? I just wonder if that would be simpler than Pay pal? it also would avoid any I.R.S risks that Pay pal might raise.
What IRS risks, Richard? Maybe I’m overlooking something. . .
At any rate, I’m happy to use regular mail, but it’s so much easier for everyone to do it electronically. No stamps, no trips to the Post Office, no tedious check-deposit slips to make out.
Eric the fact that Rabi Schmuley Boteach screaches is no justification for making a comparison with him to Hitler? Hitler was a raving facist anti semetic war monger who by the end of his life left the continent of Europe in ruins and almost wiped out the entire European jewish and gypsy populations. I wasnt aware that Dawkins had apologised for making the comparison, I thought he just explained why he had said it.
Josh a Pay pal acount will list for all to see the amount of the donations, there could be a potential tax liability on that money, it would probably not be a large liability but it could be a hassle that would be avoided by sending cheques or cash?
Hey, Richard, don’t presume everybody is living in the US.
O.B lives in the U.S the tax liability would be hers, for example if she is sent one thousand dollars there would be a potetial tax liability of aprox $250.00