Posted on 11/13/2007 8:07:51 AM PST by NYer
Richard Dawkins has a bright idea: Atheists are the new gays. Is he joking? Not at all. The bestselling author of The God Delusion has been suggesting for two years now that atheists can follow the example of gays. This would put the atheists last in the line of liberation groups: first the civil rights movement, then the feminist movement, then the gay liberation movement, and now the cause of atheist liberation.
What makes Dawkins want atheists to be like gays? Dawkins explains that gays used to be called homosexual, but then they decided to pick a positive-sounding name like "gay." Suddenly the meaning of the term "gay" was entirely appropriated by homosexuals. Gays went from being defined by their enemies to defining themselves in a favorable way.
Dawkins cited this example in advocating that atheists call themselves "brights." After all, atheist is a somewhat negative term because it defines itself by what it is opposed to. "Bright" sounds so much happier and, more important, smarter. "Bright" kind of reflects the high opinion that atheists have of their own intellectual abilities. Even the stupidest village atheist gets to pat himself on the back and place himself in the tradition of science and philosophy by calling himself a "bright."
Dawkins and the philosopher Daniel Dennett have both written articles promoting the use of the term “bright.” Not all atheists have warmed to the term, but Dawkins and Dennett clearly envision themselves as far-looking strategists of the atheist cause. But how bright, really, are they?
Dawkins has also suggested that atheists, like gays, should come out of the closet. Well, what if they don't want to? I doubt that Dawkins would support "outing" atheists. But can an atheist "rights" group be far behind? Hate crimes laws to protect atheists? Affirmative action for unbelievers? An Atheist Annual Parade, complete with dancers and floats? Atheist History Month?
Honestly, I think the whole atheist-gay analogy is quite absurd. It seems strange for Dawkins to urge atheists to come out of the closet in the style of the all-American boy standing up on the dining table of his public high school and confessing that he is a homosexual? Dawkins, being British, doesn't seem to recognize that this would not win many popularity contests in America.
If Dawkins' public relations skills seem lacking in this area, they are positively abysmal when they come to building support for science. Remember that Dawkins is professor of the public understanding of science. He has a chair funded by the Microsoft multimillionaire Charles Simonyi. If I were that guy, I'd withdraw the support, not because I disagree with Dawkins, but because I think he is setting back the cause of science.
Basically Dawkins is saying if you are religious, then science is your enemy. Either you choose God or you choose science. No wonder that so many Americans say they are opposed to evolution. They believe that evolution is atheism masquerading as science, and Dawkins confirms their suspicions. Indeed Dawkins takes the same position as the most ignorant fundamentalist: you can have Darwin or you can have the Bible but you can't have both.
Dawkins is in some ways a terrible representative for atheism, which I'm glad about because a bad cause deserves a bad leader. He is also a terrible advocate for science, which I'm sad about because science deserves all the support it can get.
Having debated Christopher Hitchens, I’d like the opportunity to debate Dawkins. I think I can vindicate a rational and scientific argument for religion against his irrational and unscientific prejudice. When I wrote Dawkins to propose such a debate, however, Dawkins said that “upon reflection” he decided against it. He didn’t give a reason, and there is no reason.
In his writings on religion, Dawkins presents atheism as the side of reason and evidence, and religion as the side of “blind faith.” So what’s he afraid of? How can reason possibly lose in a contest with ignorance and superstition? I have written Dawkins back offering him the most favorable terms: a debate on a secular campus like Berkeley rather than a church, with atheist Michael Shermer as the moderator, and a donor ready and willing to pay both our fees.
So I hope Dawkins takes me up on my challenge to an intellectual joust. If you want to encourage him, write Dawkins and send the email to dineshjdsouza@aol.com. I’ll forward your thoughts to our wavering atheist knight. He may want to pattern atheism on the gay rights movement, but surely he doesn’t want the world to think that he’s a sissy.
Bestselling author Dinesh D'Souza's new book What's So Great About Christianity has just been released. D’Souza is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Hmmm. I can’t figure out if that title is an insult to the atheists or the gays.
New term: Gaytheist.
- Bill Vance
I would add Atheism and Islamo-Fascism to the above quote.
What? Do the atheists want to be married now?
Most queers are in fact atheist or at least profess said belief. In reality, there are no human atheists, only animals. When disaster strikes, even the atheist will beg his maker for mercy. In war, when the bullets start flying over the head of the atheist, first they pee their pants, then they ask God to save them. Recall all that found God when 911 hit.
No, Muslims are the new gays. Atheists are the new Muslims.
There are no atheists in foxholes!
MV
How could you possibly offend a homosexual man?
I mean, think about it............
There are no athiests on the front lines.
Nothing like painting with a broad brush.
If he feels it necessary to tell me how "bright" he is, maybe he isn't all that "bright".
You would be wrong.
Just why do we even listen to him? Earth shaking scientific thesis? No. Tremendous technical accomplishments? No. Solid business leader? Military hero? No. Oh, I forgot, he’s a wordspinner (or member of the chattering class). Never did nuttin’...no how. Put words on a page and other mindless libs chose to believe him. Sorta like Gore. Guess we should listen to him to eh? After all, mom....everybody else is doing it.
It’s the whole garbage of identity politics. All these groups (now the atheists) feel this fuzzy solidarity with the Black Civil Rights movement. Now, if I were black I’d be kind of insulted. Atheists, gays and many others have never had too endure Jim Crow, lynchings, cross burnings, and other forms of violent wholesale discrimination. Most gay people are not outrageously flamboyant. One might surmise that so-and-so might be gay or lesbian, but in this day and age the Oprahfication of society demands that one publicly states everything. WHY? Don’t ask, don’t tell-—what evr happened to that one? Atheists are even less in a position than gays to get on a bandwagon. Do atheists have lisps, go ga-ga over Garland, Ross, and Streisand or any other stereotype that may be applied to gay people. I don’t think so. It’s all about the need to feel special.
tell him stop acting like a prissy old queen if he gets under your skin.
B.S.
See http://www.maaf.info/expaif.html for a bunch of them
And
Less Prayer in the Foxholes, and Why
The old adage that there are “no atheists in foxholes” does not appear to apply as much as it used to. It turns out that the active duty troops in the American armed forces are somewhat less religious than the population as a whole.
Americans over all are 78 percent Christian, 1.3 percent Jewish, .5 percent Moslem, .4 percent Hindu, 13 percent unknown or none and the rest various other sects and faiths. But the troops are 55 percent Christian, .3 percent Moslem, .27 percent Jewish, .04 percent Hindu, .24 percent Buddhist and 34 percent unknown or no preference.
So Dawkins wants to further debase the currency of thought, eh? The atheists already claimed “freethinker”, which was supposed to sound positive. Let them keep to that rather than ruining another perfectly good word.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.