This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← OUR VIEW: Atheists trade bibles for porn; dis Mother Teresa

TheVirginian's Avatar Jump to comment 24 by TheVirginian

I really despise the dishonesty of posting a poll with such a loaded question. I don't care if that phony Mother Teresa was Catholic and anti-abortion. I care that the U.S. government is trying to issue a postage stamp honoring a woman whose sole claim to fame is her religious fanaticism. Plus, she was NOT an American. Giving her honorary citizenship and medals for no good reason does not make her an American. The fact that she got a Nobel Prize via a scam, as Christopher Hitchens documents, makes the prize a real joke that year.
As far as the article itself, it's just a pile of bile, an incoherent collection of insults. Atheism is not a "movement" that can fall apart. Atheists have organized into groups in self-defense. Even if one or more groups fail, atheists will be with us as long as there are theists. (If the day comes that no one believes in gods, the whole concept of theist/atheist will simply disappear.) And as long as theists are on the offense, atheists will join together to protect themselves.
Oh, one big pet peeve: Cherrypicking a few comments by some of the more rabid Web posters (the ones who raged against Dawkins) to claim these are representative of a large, diverse group is about as dishonest as you can get.
That's why I don't claim that Fred Phelps and similar extremists represent all Christians, nor see his appearance as a sign that Christianity is falling apart.
I do, however, argue that when large numbers of Christians act in the same way, move in the same direction, because of specific Christian beliefs, then that can legitimately be critiqued as being "Christian," even if the group is not a majority of Christians. Thus, Catholic bishops might be non-representative of most Catholics on some issues (such as contraception) or the Southern Baptist Convention might not represent most Christians or even a lot of Baptists on, say, church-state separation. But the prominence and political power of these groups makes them legitimate targets of criticism. Historically, you can say the same thing about the crusaders, the Puritans, the Nazis, etc. Their actions may be rejected by liberal Christians, but they were well within historical norms for Christianity, per se.
So this article fails on multiple counts. I'm not surprised it's from Colorado Springs, which a particularly fanatical branch of Christianity has been besieging for years!

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:04:00 UTC | #447986