Monday, October 01, 2007

Are We Sure The 'A' Is For 'Atheist' ?

Uh oh - looks like another victim group is nudging up to the trough:
I have had many letters from people saying 'I don't dare give my opinions. I am afraid of my family. I am afraid of my wife, I am afraid of my husband. I am afraid of my work people. I am afraid of being fired'."
Run for your lives everybody! The Christians are coming!

Hmmmm... what are they going to do ? Bore us to death ?

Seriously, these people keep claiming there's nothing unmanly about liberalism, but then they claim to be scared rigid by the Jesus freaks. What's with that ?

Not that The Dawk is motivated by a monomaniacal hatred of Christianity - there's a whole other bunch of people he hates as well:
When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.
So that's both Christians and Jews that are oppressing The Dawk - he's really not going to like Jesus then.

Personally, words can't describe my shock on finding a prominent Oxbridge academic pushing retarded anti-Semitic libels - although words like 'not' 'at' and 'all' come pretty close - but it does kind of ram home the central problem with Dawkism.

The Dawk claims to be a standard bearer for science and rationality, but you don't have to delve too deep before you start to suspect he's something of a shill for the unhinged left. There's nothing logical about believing in stupid conspiracy theories about the 'Jewish lobby'. Ditto, where's the science in pushing easily debunked myths about US domestic policy, like this:
Obviously stem cell research and all the interference with scientific research that goes on [should stop].
Never mind that The Dawk isn't actually saying what he appears to be saying here, and just concentrate on the sleight of hand. No one's 'interfering' with stem cell research in the US. The Federal government won't fund research on a certain subset of stem cells - embryonic ones - but that doesn't mean anyone else can't - including other layers of government.

In other words, The Dawk's position only stands up if you define 'interference' as 'failing to believe that federal tax dollars should be used to fund morally dubious research of questionable utility'. True, Christians oppose embryonic stem cell research for religious reasons, but then femiloons support it as 'second front' for abortion rights. Who cares ? The science is the science - or it should be.

Far be it from me to criticise anyone for going low early, but then I don't claim to be the Oliver Cromwell of Science, speaking truthiness to power. That's the problem with The Dawk, the double dipping. He claims to be the voice of reason, but he splashes round in the sewer just as much as anyone else.

Say what you like about creationists, at least they're upfront about their motivation. Meanwhile, The Dawk conjures up pretendey persecutions and imaginary interference, all in the cause of justifying his agenda of vile liberal fascism. Don't mock him though - he'll only claim you're oppressing him.

No comments: