Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A "Brite" Who is Actually a "Know Nothing" (Dawkins: Catholic Church "greatest force for evil")
Discovery Institute ^ | October 27, 2009 | Bruce Chapman

Posted on 10/27/2009 6:46:41 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

In America we are a century and a half away from the "Know-Nothing Party", a secret political society that fulminated against the Catholic Church and Irish immigrants. (Asked about its composition, members would say, "I know nothing;" hence, the moniker.) Formed in public as The American Party, the party's hateful, nativist politics took a long time to expunge from our shores. But we now have an Englishman, Richard Dawkins--one of society's "Brites" according to his fellow-Darwinist, Daniel Dennett--in a screed against the Catholic Church that proclaims the same frothing bigotry exemplified by the Know-Nothings. This and Dawkins' various other attacks should remind us that the hoary religious hatreds of old (including those of the angry atheist) were a European legacy. Catholics and other Christians need to realize that Dawkins and Company aim to revive them.

Rome is possibly "the greatest force for evil in the world," Dawkins announces, "a disgusting institution" that is "dragging its flowing skirts in the dirt and touting for business like a common pimp." That kind of language is like a blast of stale air from the 1850s.

You cannot expect his fellow Darwinists to repudiate Dawkins for the simple reason that a number (e.g., P.Z. Myers) share his prejudices and his paranoia. Darwinism never was mainly about science; it is about metaphysics. It is a worldview that has no space for the sacred, no regard for the exceptionality of human life. Darwinists, who operate few if any hospitals or homeless shelters, cannot recognize the humanity of those who do.

Dawkins is not an oddity. He is the world's leading Darwinian spokesman. He is hailed at universities, museums and foundations. Publications like The Washington Post and The New York Times--that simply will not run an article by scientists presenting the evidence against Darwinism--can't showcase him enough.

Other than such Know Nothings, what other modern bigots are regarded as so fashionable?


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: antiscienceevos; belongsinreligion; catholic; christian; corruption; creation; darwiniacs; evangelical; evolution; evoreligionexposed; godsgravesglyphs; homosexualagenda; intelligentdesign; liberalfascism; moralabsolutes; notasciencetopic; prolife; propellerbeanie; protestant; science; socialism; spammer; templeofdarwin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-173 next last

1 posted on 10/27/2009 6:46:42 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I never expected to see an article where you agreed with Dawkins.


2 posted on 10/27/2009 6:49:17 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

bookmark


3 posted on 10/27/2009 6:50:54 PM PDT by GOP Poet (Obama is an OLYMPIC failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

This is why I am no longer a science major, only two years in and I cannot deal with the arrogance, snobbery, and disdain for anything “anti-science”


4 posted on 10/27/2009 6:51:45 PM PDT by LukeL (Yasser Arafat: "I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

I don’t agree with Dawkins. That’s why I’m posting it. But as a God-hating, evo-atheist, Temple of Darwin fanatic, you are in full agreement with him, aren’t you mnehring.


5 posted on 10/27/2009 6:51:53 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The Know Nothings, the American Party, were one of the groups that combined to form the Republican Party as the Whigs collapsed.

"For those of us somewhat vague on late 19th century American history, we know that the phrase "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion" meant something important to somebody somewhere. But it wasn't until we read Summers exhaustive discussion of the campaign of 1884 that we learn that one Dr. Samuel D. Burchard, addressing a gathering of the Religious Bureau of the Republican National Committee, a week before the general election, stated,

We are Republicans, and don't propose to leave our party and identify ourselves with the party whose antecedents have been rum, Romanism, and rebellion. We are loyal to our flag.

What Burchard did, by reciting this triplet, was to saddle the Democrats with being on the wrong side of three of the most sensitive issues of the times:

Prohibition --- a controversy which the Women's Christian Temperance Union and others had brought to fever pitch;

Catholicism --- a feared minority of the time (all actions were considered as coming from Rome), and

The Civil War --- which had but twenty years before, been brought to its bloody end, leaving in its wake no end of bitterness on both sides."

http://www.ralphmag.org/BH/rum-romanism.html

6 posted on 10/27/2009 6:54:18 PM PDT by Pelham (Obammunism, for that smooth-talking happy -face communist blend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Not in the least. But isn’t true that you consider “Dariwinsts” Nazi, Communists, evo-athiests- all of which sound pretty evil to me. And isn’t it also true that you have condemned the Catholic church for accepting Theistic Evolution as the same “evo-atheists”, etc, etc, etc, for believing that evolution is the tool that God used in Creation?

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t damn them in one breath then say you don’t in another just because some loon author (Dawkins) also damns them.


7 posted on 10/27/2009 6:54:52 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Are these people going to do to the term ‘bright’ what the homosexual lobby has done to the word ‘gay’?


8 posted on 10/27/2009 6:56:51 PM PDT by jmcenanly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
LOL. Dawkins is another anti-Christian bigot. Let's see him trash talk Islam, which by any objective measure has the highest "body count" of any major religion.

Of course, this doesn't factor in the numbers of murders carried out by atheist regimes such as those led by Mussolini, Castro, Mao, Lenin and Stalin, just to name a few.

9 posted on 10/27/2009 6:58:17 PM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

Actually, Dawkins has trashed Islam.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1b0QKO1rJQ where he takes on an Islamic cleric.

In this one, Dawkins calls Islam as evil!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhp5ktBSsu8


10 posted on 10/27/2009 7:04:06 PM PDT by JimWayne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

Dawkins will never criticize Islam.

If he does, Muslims will kill him.

Just made for each other.


11 posted on 10/27/2009 7:07:35 PM PDT by elcid1970 ("O Muslim! My bullets are dipped in pig grease!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment

Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

12 posted on 10/27/2009 7:08:11 PM PDT by narses ("These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
I agree with the Catholics who still hold to the traditional Catholic understanding of Genesis, which is young earth biblical creation. And yes, I disagree with the Catholic Church hierarchy's increasing openness to the unbiblical evolutionary ideas that make the Richard Dawkines of the world possible. But that does not mean I agree with Richard Dawkins’ assessment of the Catholic Church in the slightest. And the fact that you would go so far out on a limb to deliberately misrepresent my position speaks volumes about your evo-atheist motivations.
13 posted on 10/27/2009 7:08:43 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Out on a limb? So are you saying you have not said almost the exact same thing about the Catholic Church as Dawkins, just from a different direction?

Dawkins (who I think is completely off his rocker) didn’t categorize his remarks here by saying those who believe X but not Y. Are you innocent of that? Are you saying you have not called Catholics ‘evo-atheists’, ‘Nazis’, ‘Temple of Darwin’ followers with out the same categorization you are now making?


14 posted on 10/27/2009 7:12:41 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Dawkins hates the light as vampires do.


15 posted on 10/27/2009 7:12:49 PM PDT by darkangel82 (I don't have a superiority complex, I'm just better than you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1b0QKO1rJQ where he takes on an Islamic cleric.

Does Dawkins have any manners? He keeps trying to talk down the cleric who is speaking and behaving a calm, collected and civilized manner.

In this one, Dawkins calls Islam as evil!

In Dawkins' view, Islam is just evil. Clearly, that is not as evil as he thinks the Catholic Church is, as he says the latter is the greatest evil. Notice the cowardice and trepidation in his voice as he gingerly expresses concern over Islam. That's nothing like his screed against Christians.

In this view I say Christianity needs to learn a thing or three from Islam, and stop taking it on the chin from cretins like Dawkins.

And if some people think that is somehow "un-Christian," keep in mind it was this attitude that helped Christianity beat back Islam during the Crusades. Jesus Himself warned His disciples that they would need to use force to defend the faith.

16 posted on 10/27/2009 7:14:52 PM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: narses; GodGunsGuts; mnehring

I have never seen GodGunsGuts call the Catholic Church “greatest force for evil”. To say that the OP is in agreement of this is insulting, especially when there are some FReepers who do feel that way and make it well known.

I have read MANY of the article posted by GGG and spent time over on the Religion Forum seeing first hand those that thing the Catholic Church IS the “greatest force of evil”.

GGG is not one of them. While GGG may have some differences of opinion from the Vatican, I have always found that those disagreements have come in good taste and with tact.


17 posted on 10/27/2009 7:17:35 PM PDT by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: pnh102
Does Dawkins have any manners?

No, Dawkins is an idiot. He is so bad, even some atheists think he is a 'troll' out to discredit their arguments. I see him like Michel Moore of politics, he acts outrageous and makes strong, unsubstantiated or illogical arguments and personal attacks just for the shock value. Usually when you resort to the Michael Moore type debate, as Dawkins does, it shows you either have no logical or rational argument, or your motivation is shock, not selling your side.

Someone who claims to have an argument but just jumps to subjective labels like 'the greatest force of evil' is compensating for their lack of rational evidence.

18 posted on 10/27/2009 7:18:44 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; GodGunsGuts; mnehring

I agree.


19 posted on 10/27/2009 7:19:11 PM PDT by narses ("These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
I have always found that those disagreements have come in good taste and with tact.

That has to be one of the funniest thing's I've read.. Thanks for the laugh. Of course, I know you are joking because comparing, in my opinion, comparing someone to a Nazi, Communist, or Atheist, is the antithesis of 'good taste and tact'. Wouldn't you agree that throwing those charges around are far beyond good taste and tact?

20 posted on 10/27/2009 7:20:48 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mnehring; pnh102

My post does not mean I endorse everything Dawkins says. I just posted it for information. It is good that he took on Islam because it has liberals in a bind when that happens. You can throw this at liberals who defend Islam and watch the fun as they get confused because one of their idols has bashed Islam.

I don’t think that Islamofascists deserve politeness and that the demand to explain the punishment for apostasy in Islam was a good one. Also, I wouldn’t put Michael Moore in the same league as Dawkins. Dawkins has at least criticized Islam, I doubt if Moore would do that.


21 posted on 10/27/2009 7:35:12 PM PDT by JimWayne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Dawkins is such a moron. Whatever the shortcomings of the Catholic Church, Officially Atheist regimes have murdered more people (in less than 100 years) than all the religions of history.

(Please don’t anybody say they weren’t “real” atheists).


22 posted on 10/27/2009 7:35:15 PM PDT by cookcounty (Obama: ---Despiser of the Honduran Constitution and contemptuous of ours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty

20th century atheists
Mao- 18 Million
Stalin- 12 Million

20th century occultists
Hitler- 10 Million

20th century Catholics
Catholic Church- ??? Maybe someone can find three? (and don’t start quoting me the stats when they were fighting the above regimes)


23 posted on 10/27/2009 7:37:45 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: LukeL
"This is why I am no longer a science major, only two years in and I cannot deal with the arrogance, snobbery, and disdain for anything “anti-science”

There are a lot of young students that have turned away from "science" because of all the PC crap. It used to be that PC closedmindedness was limited to the humanities.

But not anymore.

24 posted on 10/27/2009 7:38:04 PM PDT by cookcounty (Obama: ---Despiser of the Honduran Constitution and contemptuous of ours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JimWayne

I understand what you are saying now. Yep, Moore would pee his xxxxl pants if faced with an Islamist. However, an Islamist may see Moore as a useful tool so he may be safe until some of their other enemies are dealt with. I don’t, however, change my opinion that Dawkins is an idiot who resorts to very vague, ad-hominem attacks that use circular reasoning or a lack of rational logic, to attack those of faith simply for their faith. He has even gone so far as to attack Stephen Hawking for his very obscure references to God in his books. If that isn’t the height of arrogance, I don’t know what is.


25 posted on 10/27/2009 7:42:26 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

The Catholic Church? Never!


26 posted on 10/27/2009 7:43:30 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
brite is a lot like cool... if you have to tell somebody you are, you aren't.
27 posted on 10/27/2009 7:44:01 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist *DTOM* -ww- I AM JIM THOMPSON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chode

LOL brother Chode! As always, perfect in its simplicity.


28 posted on 10/27/2009 7:45:14 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; narses

Thank you :o)


29 posted on 10/27/2009 7:47:42 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Chode
Good point! And given the number of times they have felt compelled to tout their briteness...!!!
30 posted on 10/27/2009 7:49:46 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

Ping :o)


31 posted on 10/27/2009 7:50:57 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
You cannot expect his fellow Darwinists to repudiate Dawkins

Back in the day, before the big fight, Patrick Henry and Vade Retro, two of the most vocal evo combatants in the evo/crevo wars, did repudiate him when it came to the crunch. They didn't want to talk about religion, cosmology, etc. - just "science" and common descent - IIRC.

wore this "God helmet" in some experiments in "neurotheology." Ha ha ha
32 posted on 10/27/2009 7:51:09 PM PDT by caveat emptor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty; All

==Dawkins is such a moron.

What cookcounty said!!!


33 posted on 10/27/2009 7:51:54 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: caveat emptor

I keep hearing about the good old days of the “epic fight”...sometimes I feel like I really missed out :o(


34 posted on 10/27/2009 7:54:26 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Rome is possibly "the greatest force for evil in the world," Dawkins announces, "a disgusting institution" that is "dragging its flowing skirts in the dirt and touting for business like a common pimp."

Funny, considering the Catholic Church's position on evolution...

I guess his hatred of God overrides his support of evolution, and any semblance of reasonable thought processes he may have possessed at one time.

35 posted on 10/27/2009 8:05:18 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; mnehring
And the fact that you would go so far out on a limb to deliberately misrepresent my position speaks volumes about your evo-atheist motivations.

Can an evo ever respond to a creationist comment without misrepresenting him?

I don't think so, as witnessed here in another of a long line of examples.

36 posted on 10/27/2009 8:07:58 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Somebody else who’s afraid to die. Talk about whistling past the graveyard...


37 posted on 10/27/2009 8:13:31 PM PDT by redhead (They are running SCARED, folks! :o) Check out the Halfbaked Sourdough at mukluk.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Thanks Metmom. I never cease to be amazed on how these guys just invent lies out of thin air to throw at us, and then turn around and act all shocked and hurt when we call them on it.


38 posted on 10/27/2009 8:13:51 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: redhead

I had never heard that phrase before...but boy does it conjure up one heck of a comical image! To say that you gave me a good chuckle would be a gross understatement :o)


39 posted on 10/27/2009 8:15:50 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Wow, your response on #36 is very interesting considering your post at #35.


40 posted on 10/27/2009 8:18:52 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Dawkins’ bigotry is less about Catholic belief than about his own sense of having a compliant Partner in Progressiveness and facing the prospect of losing it.
He starts out his piece, “The Anglican church has at least a few shreds of decency, traces of kindness and humanity with which Jesus himself might have connected, however tenuously: a generosity of spirit, of respect for women, and of Christ-like compassion for the less fortunat.”
(He means ordaining women and welcoming homosexuals)

and then he goes on to complain of “poaching”.

He's willing to appeal to the qualities of the Christ yet in another breath assure us that accepting Christ's view of God would be tantamount to a delusional mind state.

In short, the Anglican Church is in no way going to pose an intellectual challenge to the secular world view of Darwinism or Dawkins’ atheism and Dawkins would really, really like for it to stay that way.

41 posted on 10/27/2009 8:20:48 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Good find!


42 posted on 10/27/2009 8:31:42 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

PS Given what you’ve turned up, I’m going to tack on the keyword “homosexualagenda” to this thread. Your good find just got better :o)


43 posted on 10/27/2009 8:36:13 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
He starts out his piece, “The Anglican church has at least a few shreds of decency, traces of kindness and humanity with which Jesus himself might have connected ..."

It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant of Christianity that people like Dawkins are. Of course, coming from someone who thinks the Catholic Church is more evil than Islam that doesn't surprise me in the least.

Perhaps Dawkins should read the parts of the New Testament in which Jesus compares His own disciples to Satan when they question his teachings, or when He curses the fig tree for not obeying His command. Maybe the metaphorical way in which Jesus did things are beyond the ability for a simpleton like Dawkins to understand, but anyone who really wants to understand the Bible can easily do it.

That being said, there are many times in the New Testament in which Jesus takes an approach that ranges between "not so nice" and "bluntly physical" when it comes to correcting people who get it wrong.

And I thank Jesus for that... people like me would not know otherwise if He didn't care so much to show us the way.

44 posted on 10/27/2009 8:54:44 PM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

The whole “screed” from The Washington Post should be shown(not possible, I know) but everyone should at least read it twice at least.


45 posted on 10/27/2009 8:58:19 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: mnehring; GodGunsGuts
I never expected to see an article where you agreed with Dawkins.

I've been trying to get GGGs to dedicate another thread to me. This would have have been perfect! Whatcha think, Bro?

46 posted on 10/27/2009 9:02:19 PM PDT by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LukeL
This is why I am no longer a science major, only two years in and I cannot deal with the arrogance, snobbery, and disdain for anything “anti-science”

?

47 posted on 10/27/2009 9:05:37 PM PDT by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I don’t agree with Dawkins.

Then you WILL let evolutionist Catholics into heaven?

48 posted on 10/27/2009 9:06:41 PM PDT by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pnh102
Dawkins’ contempt for the Anglican Church is clear as goes to add to what you quote in your reply, “however tenuously:”.

Despite the Anglican’s lack of opposition to all of Dawkins’ favorite Progressive beliefs, he still attempts to kill them with faint praise. A real lesson to be learned here: They'll get neither love nor respect for compromise and only the most contemptuous and contingent tolerance.

49 posted on 10/27/2009 9:14:57 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


50 posted on 10/27/2009 9:22:18 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-173 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson