-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
To go along with blasphemy and hate-speech criminalization, there’s a new line of attack on atheists that has recently gained some popularity. Critics of atheism are trying to associate atheistic arguments against Islam with Islamophobia. In a recent article in Salon, Nathan Lean has written what is basically one long ad-hominem fallacy focusing on Richard Dawkins. Lean’s attempt to link Dawkins with the Islamophobia of the far-right is totally lacking in substance.
Lean claims that Dawkins is “on record praising the far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders.” We have previously discussed Wilders’ trial as a threat to free speech, here, and his travel ban from England for his anti-Islam movie “Fitna,” here. Dawkins wrote:
To repeat, Wilders may have said and done other things of which I am unaware, which deserve condemnation, but I can see nothing reprehensible in his making of Fitna, and certainly nothing for which he should go on trial.
Dawkins characterizes Wilders’ trial as “pandering to the ludicrous convention that religious opinion must not be ‘offended’.” Russell Blackford wholeheartedly agrees with Dawkins when Dawkins wrote: “In Fitna, taken on its own, I have found no cause to put Wilders on trial or even to censure him in any substantial way.” Lean conflates Dawkins’ praise of Wilders’ film with praise for Wilders’ other views, while offering no supporting evidence. The support of free speech rights, especially for those with whom we disagree, is a cornerstone of liberty. Lean’s article is devoid of any reference to the right of free speech.
Lean quotes Dawkins’ Twitter account:
Islam is comforting? Tell that to a woman, dressed in a bin bag [trash bag], her testimony worth half a man’s and needing 4 male witnesses to prove rape.
Lean makes no attempt to deny the validity of the content, he only notes that Dawkins, by his own admission, hasn’t read the Quran. Lean offers no explanation as to why reading the Quran is a prerequisite for criticizing the words, deeds, and beliefs of its adherents.
Lean notes Dawkins’ criticism of the gender segregated seating at a University College of London debate. Lean seems to find nothing wrong with the “separate seating option for conservative, practicing Muslims.” I’m a “conservative, practicing” civil-libertarian and a Muslim’s Female-segregation is not to be accommodated. Lean goes on to cite a similar situation when “Barclays Center in New York recently offered gender-separate seating options for Orthodox Jews.” Lean is fallaciously directing attention away from Muslims’ Female-segregation by pointing out someone else’s Female-segregation. Lean’s article is devoid of any reference to equal rights for women.
Powerful philosophical arguments, such as the imaginary nature of God and the impossibility of omniscience/omnipotence, are just as valid with respect to Islam as Christianity. The arguments for creationism are just as vacuous when they come from Muslims.
Lean’s substance-free diatribe only highlights the intellectual flimsiness that supports religion.
H/T: Jerry Coyne, Eugene Volokh, Russell Blackford, Taner Edis.
Taken care of. I guess the @ symbol wasn’t different enough. Strange, it should have been. That word is one of the ones that JT has on the list.
Nal, I’m trying to comment and I am not getting through?
Organized religion has brought us mass killing prefaced by angry utterances of, “All@h Akb@r, If God is on our side who can be on theirs,” etc. With our angry atheist here I guess we can just look to the Minnesota thread from yesterday and add, “All in favor of killing the evil b@stard say Aye.”
There is only one religion worth saving. With time, with education, with modernity, mankind will climb out of the swamp. When he.she climb, they weill need assistance, and not an alligator. No. The climb to responsible thought and life is necessitated by the assistance of Dog. Gott spulled backwards is Ttog. Which in Swedish is Dog. At least according to my Dogalogue Machine,
“Religious persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group of individuals as a response to their religious beliefs or affiliations or lack thereof.
The tendency of societies or groups within society to alienate or repress different subcultures is a recurrent theme in human history. Moreover, because a person’s religion often determines to a significant extent his or her morality and personal identity, religious differences can be significant cultural factors.
Religious persecution may be triggered by religious bigotry (i.e. the denigration of practitioners’ religions other than those of the oppressors) or by the State when it views a particular religious group as a threat to its interests or security. At a societal level, this dehumanization of a particular religious group may readily turn into violence or other forms of persecution. Indeed, in many countries, religious persecution has resulted in so much violence that it is considered a human rights problem.” (Wikipedia).
Dredd,
No. WordPress labeled them as spam (for reasons unknown to me) and I unspammed one.
Tony C. 1, April 27, 2013 at 7:26 pm
…
As for Dawkins claims, the Constitution protects free speech and opinion and ill will toward religion, which is what he was expressing. Citizen or not, his expressions were not at odds with the Constitution.
==========================================
If he was a university professor or administrator and he enforced his:
that would cost him his job, a big lawsuit, and damages.
Not very smart.
He does not know the difference between his rights and his wrongs.
Nal,
Are you moderating my comments?
Dredd: What I said is that if a government official used government power to enforce his views there would be a giant lawsuit
Not in that post, you didn’t. There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, there is something wrong with you trying to write coherently.
In that post you claimed Dawkins’ position was unconstitutional. And whether the US Constitution applies to Dawkins or not is immaterial, a view held by a foreigner can indeed be at odds with the US Constitution. Not being subject to the Constitution makes no difference in the matter, an unconstitutional viewpoint remains a fact whether it can be punished or not.
(In fact, the Constitution also applies to non-citizens within the jurisdiction of the US Government; as I believe Dawkins has been many times. A visitor to this country has most of the same Constitutional protections as a citizen does, including the rights to free speech, religion, a trial by jury, etc.)
As for Dawkins claims, the Constitution protects free speech and opinion and ill will toward religion, which is what he was expressing. Citizen or not, his expressions were not at odds with the Constitution.
“A m e r i c a n A t h e i s t s and two co-plaintiffs today filed in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Kentucky a lawsuit demanding that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) stop giving preferential treatment to churches and religious organizations via the process of receiving non-profit tax-exempt status under the Internal Revue Code (IRC) procedures and definitions.
“A m er i c a n A t h e i s t s receives tax-exempt status under Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3),” said A m e r i c a n A t h e i s t s President David Silverman” (Am. Ath. org).
Three posts with A m e r i c a n A t h i e s t s . o r g in them will not post.
Is wordpress anti athiest?
testing …
Deist, atheist, communist, cubist, functionalist, …. Think about it. All these contrarian things ending in “ist”. I think that I am a Contortionist.
Elaine M. 1, April 27, 2013 at 5:50 pm
…
SOME atheists may have hostilities toward religious folks. That certainly does not mean that ALL atheists have hostility toward them.
===============================================
I would direct your attention to my comment up a couple from yours: “Of course all atheists and all religionists do not have the same outlook as their fellow atheists and religionists.”
I have heard people in the south say “I am so mad I can’t see straight.”
I think we can concede the point that Dawkins is that way when it comes to religion, and that Pat Robertson is that way when it comes to atheism.
Tony C. 1, April 27, 2013 at 5:59 pm
Dredd: <I.Both are unconstitutional
Nothing Dawkins said is unconstitutional. He said the He is hostile and angry, that he is against religion, that he considers religion a lethal weapon that he wants to cut off at its roots.
He did not make a threat against anybody, and he did not suggest government should be involved. You attribute sentiments to him that he did not express.
======================================
Something is in the way of your reading comprehension again.
Dawkins is not bound by the U.S. constitution since he was born in Nairobi and is a British subject.
He is not an American.
What I said is that if a government official used government power to enforce his views there would be a giant lawsuit and the official would be found to have been acting illegally, and could suffer a damages judgment against him personally.
Likewise for a government official doing that in the name of religion.
And that would include Dawkins if he was here in the U.S. doing that at a University.
Dredd: <I.Both are unconstitutional
Nothing Dawkins said is unconstitutional. He said the He is hostile and angry, that he is against religion, that he considers religion a lethal weapon that he wants to cut off at its roots.
He did not make a threat against anybody, and he did not suggest government should be involved. You attribute sentiments to him that he did not express.
Dredd: Dawkins and some other atheists would have the government “punish” religion by removing its tax exemption.
Removing a privileged status is not a “punishment,” if you describe it that way, then anybody that doesn’t have the privilege is already being punished.
Tax exemption for professing a belief in the supernatural is discriminatory, and selective by our government, it is favoritism for a belief.
Eliminating discrimination and favoritism is not punishing one side or granting a favor to those discriminated against; it is justice, it is egalitarianism, it is the right thing to do.
The fact that this financial favor is obtained by professing an impossible to prove belief leaves it wide open to abuse by the criminal element; and then because large amounts of money are at stake, it becomes the government’s job to establish standards for what makes a “real” church or religion “worthy” of their exemption; and it is a mistake to have government pass judgment on whether religion are “real.”
Dredd,
Dawkins and some other atheists would have the government “punish” religion by removing its tax exemption.
Some religionists would have evolution banned from educational institutions.
Yes, they have hostilities toward one another.
*****
SOME atheists may have hostilities toward religious folks. That certainly does not mean that ALL atheists have hostility toward them.
Gingerbaker 1, April 27, 2013 at 4:40 pm
Question to Richard Dawkins: “What makes you angry about religion?
If the same question was posed to a fundamentalist religionist the sentiments would likely be the same against atheists.
Both are unconstitutional and if a government official had either position and tried to government power to enforce it they would be liable under U.S. law.
Of course all atheists and all religionists do not have the same outlook as their fellow atheists and religionists.
I said in a comment up-thread:
Question to Richard Dawkins: “What makes you angry about religion?
“I am hostile I can get angry … I think faith … is a lethal weapon … the fact that it can be used for the bad makes me want to cut it off at the roots”
“I am against religion”
Dawkins and some other atheists would have the government “punish” religion by removing its tax exemption.
Some religionists would have evolution banned from educational institutions.
Yes, they have hostilities toward one another.
That is why I said “Both sides should be happy with being protected in their beliefs, and stop the struggle to grasp more power than the other.”
Anything else is contra the U.S. Constitution and laws.