RSS

Richard Dawkins is a bigot

Tue, Nov 3, 2009

Bigots

richard_dawkins

Recently I received an email from “Matt,” who sent me this link followed by these subsequent comments:

(I hope that your site is devoted to exposing bigots of all persuasions. To cry bigotry when someone attacks atheists while ignoring the hateful remarks made by atheists about others seems, well … rather bigoted.)

I pulled the link and read Dick‘s tirade, and as much of a fan of Dick‘s writings and wider work as I am, I had to agree. Matt was right.

The guy has lost it.

Dawkins has finally, irrevocably crossed the line from “trenchant critic of religion and champion of atheism” to “drooling nutjob thousand-mile-staring hatemonger RARRAAR RELIGION RRARARARA”. He has become the thing he hates (I seem to remember Nietzsche having something to say about that.)

In the interest of fairness and to defend against later accusations of decontextualization, I’ll reproduce most of the article here with my commentary. By all means read his original remarks yourselves (and the reader comments) and make up your own minds.

The question put to Dick was as follows:

The Vatican is making it easier for Anglicans — priests, members and parishes — to convert to Catholicism. Some say this is further recognition of the substantial overlap in faith, doctrine and spirituality between the Catholic and Anglican traditions; others see it as poaching that could further divide the Anglican Communion. What do you think?

His response, broken down with my exegeses:

What major institution most deserves the title of greatest force for evil in the world? In a field of stiff competition, the Roman Catholic Church is surely up there among the leaders.

Well, I guess it depends on which mouth-frothing wide-eyed lunatic you ask, Dick. The competition is indeed, as you rightly indicate, stiff.

There seem to be plenty of Americans who think the Federal Reserve would win the Oscar for uber-knavery. Others might say it were those reprehensible believers in the Holocaust fiction, while still others will point to the 7-foot tall, blood-drinking, shape-shifting reptilian humanoids from the Alpha Draconis star system who control humanity through Machiavellian manipulation of human emotion and military conflict.

Sane human beings, however, might have cause to think twice before pointing the diablo-stick at a relatively peaceful contemporary religious organization concerned with the promotion of such infamous underpinnings of depravity as love, family, compassion, hope, service, truth, justice, and forgiveness.

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 fortunate.

Doubtless all values as entirely absent in the rollicking, foaming cyclone of malevolence that is the Roman Catholic church as they are ubiquitous in the Anglican communion.

The Anglican church does not cleave to the dotty idea that a priest, by blessing bread and wine, can transform it literally into a cannibal feast; nor to the nastier idea that possession of testicles is an essential qualification to perform the rite.

I’ll certainly give you that religious organizations are theological factories concerned with the production of magical fantasy. I don’t understand why you find the doctrines of transubstantiation and male-exclusive priesthood any more deserving of condemnation and ridicule than such I-would-have-thought-equally-repugnant-and-certainly-no-less-dotty Anglican doctrines such as the supreme salvational authority of the Bible (nice read, I lol’d), belief in the essentially evil nature of mankind, and the predestination of all humans to either eternal torment or joy from the beginning of creation.

Well…actually that’s not quite true. I do have a theory about what’s behind your anti-Catholic hate speech. But I’ll get to that later.

It does not send its missionaries out to tell deliberate lies to AIDS-weakened Africans, about the alleged ineffectiveness of condoms in protecting against HIV.

Do Catholics oppose condom use? Yes. Has the Catholic church knowingly lied about condom effectiveness? Possibly. Does the promotion of condom use in Africa lead to a reduction in the AIDS rate? Actually, no. Not at all.

The truth is that if Roman Catholicism were responsible for the AIDS epidemic in Africa, it would be a trivial matter to test the hypothesis. The percentage of Roman Catholics in various countries of Africa are quite diverse, as are the HIV infection rates. One need only plot the per cent of Catholics by country against the HIV infection rate in that country.

Behold:

catholicvshiv

If the hypothesis that Catholic anti-condom doctrine (misguided or not) was responsible for spreading HIV and AIDS amongst “AIDS-weakened Africans”, you would expect to see increased infection rates in countries that contain more Roman Catholics. Instead, you find decreased HIV rates in Catholic-dominated countries. The idea that Roman Catholic teaching encourages the spread of HIV is refuted by the demographics. By Science. Do you remember Science, Dick? You used to be rather good at it, once. Before you turned into a shoddy philosopher. An assessment your man-crush Rowan Williams agrees with.

Whether one agrees with him or not, there is a saintly quality in the Archbishop of Canterbury, a benignity of countenance, a well-meaning sincerity. How does Pope Ratzinger measure up? The comparison is almost embarrassing.

Well, you tell us, Dick. I presume you’ve had a convivial cathedralside gentleman’s chat with the Pope, as you have with the Archbishop, so you can assess his “countenance”, “qualities” and “sincerity” from a vantage point of familiarity with the subject?

(Nice job cutting him off there at the end so you could make it seem the discussion terminated in a place where you had the upper hand, by the way.)

More generally the remark Dick makes about Ratzinger speaks to a feature of Dick‘s writing and pontificating (etymological pun intended) that is egregiously offensive. He claims to know things that he quite simply doesn’t. That he can’t. Particularly when it comes to the motivations of other people.

Brace for incoming shitspaz.

Poaching? Of course it is poaching. What else could you call it? Maybe it will succeed. If estimates are right that 1,000 Anglican clergymen will take the bait (no women, of course: they will swiftly be shown the door), what could be their motive? For some it will be a deep-seated misogyny (although they’ll re-label it with a mendacious euphemism of some kind, which they’ll call ‘an important point of theological principle’). They just can’t stomach the idea of women priests. One wonders how their wives can stomach a husband whose contempt for women is so visceral that he considers them incapable even of the humble and unexacting duties of a priest.

Gosh, Dick. I guess I understand why you’re so antagonistic toward the Christian conception of God now. Because YOU are the only omniscient being in the Universe! It must be grand to be able to remotely, magically peer into the minds of men and see their deep-seated misogyny dressed up by mendacious euphemism. To know their secret, visceral inner loathing of their own wives which they presumably disguise with outward displays of affection and respect. To have possession of the truth about priestly vocations: that the long years of diligent study and constant exposure to and responsibility for human misery that priests volunteer for (without remuneration) is really a “humble” and “unexacting” duty. Surely nothing to compare with what must be the wretched hard graft of calling religion a pile of shit on the Internet, shmoozing with celebs, and collecting royalty checks from books.

For some, the motive will be homophobic bigotry, and a consequent dislike of the efforts of decent church leaders such as the Archbishop of Canterbury to accept those whose sexual orientation happens to deviate from majority taste. Never mind that they will be joining an institution where buggering altar boys pervades the culture.

I guess for the first sentence see previous comments regarding my respect for your amazing powers of mentalism. For the second, Charles R Darwin, Dick, are you a professional Internet troll now? “Pervades the culture”? “Pervades the culture”? As well as psychic abilities you must have balls the size of Jupiter to feel comfortable telling 1.1 billion people that they have a culture of homosexual pedophilia. Really I don’t know what to say about the comment past that it sounds deliriously unhinged. Is there medication you ought to be taking that you’re not?

Turning to the motives of the poachers, here we find cause for real encouragement. The Roman Catholic Church is fast running out of priests. In Ireland in 2007, 160 Catholic priests died, while only nine new recruits were ordained. To say the least, those figures don’t point towards sustainability. No wonder that disgusting institution, the Roman Catholic Church, is dragging its flowing skirts in the dirt and touting for business like a common pimp: “Give me your homophobes, misogynists and pederasts. Send me your bigots yearning to be free of the shackles of humanity.”

I’m certainly not going to shed any tears over the decline in numbers of Catholic vocations (though it’s certainly not so dramatic as you try to imply–many countries, particularly developing ones are seeing increases.) As long as the overall number of Catholics isn’t decreasing though, for better or worse I don’t see a sustainability crisis.

With regard to the rest of the excerpt, at this point in the obloquy your frothy invective and gleeful denigration of Catholicism is just making you look like the mindless, bigoted assclown you’re accusing the organization of consisting of (along with *eyeroll* homophobes, misogynists, and pederasts.)

Archbishop Rowan Williams is too nice for his own good. Instead of meekly sharing that ignominious platform with the poachers, he should have issued a counter-challenge: “Send us your women, yearning to be priests, who could make a strong case for being the better-qualified fifty percent of humanity; send us your decent priests, sick of trying to defend the indefensible; send them all, in exchange for our woman-haters and gay-bashers.” Sounds like a good trade to me.

Well, Dick. Perhaps too nice for your own good would be a more accurate way of expressing it. In truth, Archbishop Williams is a very good, decent man with a few odd ideas about magical invisible beings who run around being boss of the Universe. You stand beside him in sharp contrast as a small, repugnant demagogue who is happy to gain personal infamy and publicity for his intellectual hobby horse via the rhetorical equivalent of collective punishment.

I stated earlier that I had a theory about what’s behind Dick’s  wildly irrational and emotive assault on the Catholic church, and I do. I’ll share it here.

For those of you who may not know, Dick had what he has described as “a normal Anglican upbringing”. He was an adherent of the religion up until roughly his mid-teens, when he became nonreligious after being exposed to the theories of evolution and natural selection. His parents were members of the affluent British upper-middle class.

My feeling is that Dick, like many people, has never really intellectually escaped from the specter of his religious upbringing and associated parental values. He’s likely to have been long-exposed in his youth to the antipathy or even outright hostility that exists between some sections of the Anglican communion and the Catholic church; he certainly would have grown up having had many thousands of hours of exposure to promotion of the Anglican agenda, and even more exposure to some of the many decent, good people who exist within that organization (though likely little direct experience of Catholicism or Catholics, aside from boogieman stories.)

While certainly an atheist intellectually, I feel pretty comfortable describing Dick as having an Anglican “soul”. Which I think means I just committed the crime of “poetic language” with which he so timidly and reverentially charges Rowan Williams. Regardless, I am confident that anyone with extensive experience of upper-middle class British Anglicanism will agree with me.

All of which amounts to a regrettably long-winded way of saying simply this:

Grow up.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

55 Responses to “Richard Dawkins is a bigot”

  1. fiks Says:

    While Dawkins is being too soft on the Anglicans in his attempt to bring force against the Catholic church, I have to ask, is this is a joke post?

    I mean, the irrelevant catholicism-HIV graph with no transition from correlation to causation, picking at dawkin’s criticisms with things far more shaky than what he himself says..not to mention acting like Dawkins is a bigot against catholics everywhere when he’s obviously talking about the organization of the catholic church itself, which has shown itself to be fundamentally retarded.
    He’s obviously speaking in a very rhetorical, political manner, which seems strange for him. I would almost suspect that you’re deeply offended by criticisms of catholic priests/the Vatican, more so than that Dawkins has some tremendous inherent love for the Anglican church, especially how he’s criticized anglican moderates so much before.

    I really don’t see anything bigoted here, except for, remotely:
    1)the claims about priests, but the catholic church has protected many of the abusive priests and, well, the church is basically misogynistic though naturally not all of the priests themselves are.
    2)calling the catholic church one of the most evil institutions is a bit much, I would hesitate to say that with all the shitty “governments” that exist. The claim is a bit more stomachable if you consider their history and not just the present. Plus, “one of the most” is a relative claim. But it is strange to see dawkins speaking this rhetorically. Still, “bigot” seems a stretch, especially when he’s not saying ALL CATHOLICS ARE MORALLY DEGENERATE PEOPLE, but at most “I can’t fathom how catholic priests’ wives stomach their backwards theology.”

    however, i am not used to seeing richard dawkins make this sort of political move and get all touchy feely with a certain church. i don’t actually follow him that much though. regardless, this piece is as assuming as his is. This doesnt seem like something to go side-by-side with “FUCK THE GUYS” and “ATHEISTS ARE IMMORAL”, though I suppose you have covered soft ignorance before.

    Really, how did you write this post? Half of this reads “Gosh, why are you such a fag? Oh, right, because YOUR DAD WAS A FAG SO YOU ARE TOO!”

    Reply

    • admin Says:

      While Dawkins is being too soft on the Anglicans in his attempt to bring force against the Catholic church, I have to ask, is this is a joke post?

      No. And he’s not “being too soft on the Anglicans,” he’s practically juggling Williams’ balls in his mouth.

      I mean, the irrelevant catholicism-HIV graph with no transition from correlation to causation

      The implication of the graph is clear, and its presence goes to demonstrate that Dawkins’ crazy demonization of the Catholic church on the “killing Africa with HIV” score is consequentially baseless even if his claims about their motivation and methodology is correct.

      picking at dawkin’s criticisms with things far more shaky than what he himself says
      Examples, please.

      not to mention acting like Dawkins is a bigot against catholics everywhere when he’s obviously talking about the organization of the catholic church itself, which has shown itself to be fundamentally retarded.

      Read his actual statements and it may become clearer to you. The Catholic church is not a institutional structure on top of of a billion mindless peasants. The people ARE the institution.

      I’m not saying the Catholic church hasn’t shown itself to be fundamentally retarded, but it would help your case to make your criticisms of it specific.

      He’s obviously speaking in a very rhetorical, political manner, which seems strange for him.
      I agree with this. It’s like he wrote it while he was drunk or something.

      I would almost suspect that you’re deeply offended by criticisms of catholic priests/the Vatican, more so than that Dawkins has some tremendous inherent love for the Anglican church, especially how he’s criticized anglican moderates so much before.

      Stick to the script. I didn’t say “tremendous inherent love”. I state that my theory is that he “has never really intellectually escaped from the specter of his religious upbringing and associated parental values”.

      You are welcome to your suspicions, as off-base as they may be. At least you’re not claiming you can read people’s minds, unlike Dawkins.

      I really don’t see anything bigoted here, except for, remotely: 1)the claims about priests, but the catholic church has protected many of the abusive priests and, well, the church is basically misogynistic though naturally not all of the priests themselves are.

      Individuals in positions of power within the Catholic church have certainly protected priests. At the highest level of the structure such behavior has been condemned and punished.

      Your assertion of misogyny will doubtless come as news to about 500 million women within the church who disagree. From a vantage point of knowledge and experience rather than supposition based on caricature and bigotry.

      2)calling the catholic church one of the most evil institutions is a bit much, I would hesitate to say that with all the shitty “governments” that exist. The claim is a bit more stomachable if you consider their history and not just the present.

      If you’re going to pick apart the recorded history of the collective actions of billions of people I’m sure you’ll be able to find plenty of fault with it. But if you choose to do so, please do be sure not to forget under which religious flag it was that the British Empire terrorized and raped the world. It seems to have slipped Dawkins’ mind.

      Plus, “one of the most” is a relative claim.

      Did you get the feeling he thought it was a long way down the list?

      But it is strange to see dawkins speaking this rhetorically.
      It seemed (seems!) downright bizarre to me.

      Still, “bigot” seems a stretch, especially when he’s not saying ALL CATHOLICS ARE MORALLY DEGENERATE PEOPLE, but at most “I can’t fathom how catholic priests’ wives stomach their backwards theology.”

      Disingenuous. Read his statements. He went a very long way beyond saying that.

      however, i am not used to seeing richard dawkins make this sort of political move and get all touchy feely with a certain church. i don’t actually follow him that much though. regardless, this piece is as assuming as his is. This doesnt seem like something to go side-by-side with “FUCK THE GUYS” and “ATHEISTS ARE IMMORAL”, though I suppose you have covered soft ignorance before.

      There are many shades of bigotry. I’m comfortable dealing to them all.

      Really, how did you write this post? Half of this reads “Gosh, why are you such a fag? Oh, right, because YOUR DAD WAS A FAG SO YOU ARE TOO!”

      Caricaturizing summaries are facile and lazy. If you want to debate in earnest and to be taken seriously, stick to the specifics. It would be nice if you could avoid homophobic remarks, too.

      Reply

      • fiks Says:

        “Examples, please.”
        Did you even read over the ways you attacked the things he said? The amount of random ad hominems is amazing.

        “It does not send its missionaries out to tell deliberate lies to AIDS-weakened Africans, about the alleged ineffectiveness of condoms in protecting against HIV.”
        “The implication of the graph is clear, and its presence goes to demonstrate that Dawkins’ crazy demonization of the Catholic church on the “killing Africa with HIV” score is consequentially baseless even if his claims about their motivation and methodology is correct.”
        “killing africa with HIV”
        Huh, funny, I don’t see him saying that anywhere. Not to mention that correlating Catholicism in African countries with less HIV again, does not show any causation. This could correlate more with the former colonial power’s influence on the country, which lead to both the Catholicism and perhaps developments which lead to less HIV. There could be a Z factor causing X and Y. Just because you can correlate X to Y doesn’t mean it is actually causing Y. And really, average Catholics don’t seem to listen to the Pope very much, like how average Christians pretty much amount to “Yeah, jesus was a cool dude.”

        “Read his actual statements and it may become clearer to you. The Catholic church is not a institutional structure on top of of a billion mindless peasants. The people ARE the institution.”
        Nope, not seeing it. “Vatican,” “Institution,” and “Priests” are the focus.
        Pretty sure most of those billion aren’t priests, cardinals, etc. A lot of them don’t even go to church, let alone care about the Pope more than the average Christian cares about what the bible really says.

        “Your assertion of misogyny will doubtless come as news to about 500 million women within the church who disagree. From a vantage point of knowledge and experience rather than supposition based on caricature and bigotry.”
        Dawkins claims misogyny because the rules of the church are based off of the bible while they ignore other parts of it that don’t fit their goals. They cherry pick to suit their claims. I don’t see what’s wrong with Dawkins pointing out that its misogyny at a basic level and wondering how their wives, let alone any christian, ignores such cherry picking. It is hardly him acting like some sort of all-seeing god.
        For those who aren’t actually misogynists, perhaps the majority, they’re woefully ignorant.
        “Individuals in positions of power within the Catholic church have certainly protected priests. At the highest level of the structure such behavior has been condemned and punished.”
        After researching this a little more, fair enough.

        “If you’re going to pick apart the recorded history of the collective actions of billions of people I’m sure you’ll be able to find plenty of fault with it.”
        Somehow I doubt there have been billions of priests/cardinals. Even if we didn’t account for the huge history of the Church’s corruption and terror, they’re still awfully backwards now. Though I will cede that the claim is rather silly, since some bible cherry picking and a few stupid pursuits stemming from general religious stupidity doesn’t really place them as a “force for evil.”

        “But if you choose to do so, please do be sure not to forget under which religious flag it was that the British Empire terrorized and raped the world. It seems to have slipped Dawkins’ mind.”
        Was the Anglican church the forefront of the “White Man’s burden” BS?

        “Disingenuous. Read his statements. He went a very long way beyond saying that.”
        Still don’t see what you mean. You’re reminding me an awful lot of Alan Dershowitz screaming ANTI-SEMITE! at anyone who complains when Israel does bad things.

        “Caricaturizing summaries are facile and lazy. If you want to debate in earnest and to be taken seriously, stick to the specifics”
        I’m not going to waste my time holding your hand to show you how silly some of the ad hominems are. I mean, really, why am I going to bother if you wrote this:

        “It would be nice if you could avoid homophobic remarks, too.”
        Did you even read what I said? I was painting most of your remarks as having that sort of sophistication.

        You make some fair points, but most of it is still dribble.

        Reply

        • admin Says:

          Huh, funny, I don’t see him saying that anywhere. Not to mention that correlating Catholicism in African countries with less HIV again, does not show any causation. This could correlate more with the former colonial power’s influence on the country, which lead to both the Catholicism and perhaps developments which lead to less HIV. There could be a Z factor causing X and Y. Just because you can correlate X to Y doesn’t mean it is actually causing Y. And really, average Catholics don’t seem to listen to the Pope very much, like how average Christians pretty much amount to “Yeah, jesus was a cool dude.”

          Nice theory. I prefer to stick to interpretations supported by hard data.

          Nope, not seeing it. “Vatican,” “Institution,” and “Priests” are the focus.
          Pretty sure most of those billion aren’t priests, cardinals, etc. A lot of them don’t even go to church, let alone care about the Pope more than the average Christian cares about what the bible really says.

          He talks about the Catholic CHURCH. If you look at the way he talks about the Anglican CHURCH in the same breath, you’ll see he’s attacking the entire organization, not just the clergy.

          Dawkins claims misogyny because the rules of the church are based off of the bible while they ignore other parts of it that don’t fit their goals. They cherry pick to suit their claims. I don’t see what’s wrong with Dawkins pointing out that its misogyny at a basic level and wondering how their wives, let alone any christian, ignores such cherry picking. It is hardly him acting like some sort of all-seeing god.
          For those who aren’t actually misogynists, perhaps the majority, they’re woefully ignorant.

          Suggest you stick to his actual words, which assert mindreading powers, rather than your charitable rewriting of them, which doesn’t.

          Somehow I doubt there have been billions of priests/cardinals. Even if we didn’t account for the huge history of the Church’s corruption and terror, they’re still awfully backwards now. Though I will cede that the claim is rather silly, since some bible cherry picking and a few stupid pursuits stemming from general religious stupidity doesn’t really place them as a “force for evil.”

          Building erected on sand, see earlier remarks.

          Was the Anglican church the forefront of the “White Man’s burden” BS?

          The point is “blah blah some people have done some bad stuff under the banner of religion look at that barn door bet I can hit it from 12 feet away with this shotgun.”

          Still don’t see what you mean. You’re reminding me an awful lot of Alan Dershowitz screaming ANTI-SEMITE! at anyone who complains when Israel does bad things.

          I’m not responsible for your memories or difficulty with reading comprehension.

          I’m not going to waste my time holding your hand to show you how silly some of the ad hominems are. I mean, really, why am I going to bother if you wrote this:

          “It would be nice if you could avoid homophobic remarks, too.”
          Did you even read what I said? I was painting most of your remarks as having that sort of sophistication.

          You make some fair points, but most of it is still dribble.

          “You’re wrong but I’m not going to tell you why neener neener neener PS most of your stuff SUCKS.”

          Clever, heroic.

          Side note: use the bold tag when you’re quoting, it makes the responses much easier to read.

          Reply

          • fiks Says:

            >implying that throwing in a graph correlating % of populace being catholic with the % with HIV is hard evidence against catholicism’s effects on the spread of HIV(lol correlation is causation!!!)
            >ignoring that that was all irrelevant when dawkins never said that catholicism was responsible for the AIDS epidemic in the first place like you wildly claim
            >asserting that one should stick to dawkins’s actual words, even though you didnt
            >criticizing others for sensationalist dismissal that you did several times in the original piece

            lol

            Reply

            • admin Says:

              implying that throwing in a graph correlating % of populace being catholic with the % with HIV is hard evidence against catholicism’s effects on the spread of HIV(lol correlation is causation!!!)

              (lol, lrn2science?)

              ignoring that that was all irrelevant when dawkins never said that catholicism was responsible for the AIDS epidemic in the first place like you wildly claim

              Suggest you re-read this statement and come up with a reasonable implication and justification for its inclusion in Dawkins’ diatribe aside from “The Church’s teaching on condoms is hurting the fight against AIDS in Africa.”

              “It does not send its missionaries out to tell deliberate lies to AIDS-weakened Africans, about the alleged ineffectiveness of condoms in protecting against HIV.”

              asserting that one should stick to dawkins’s actual words, even though you didnt

              Where have I not done this.

              criticizing others for sensationalist dismissal that you did several times in the original piece

              I’ve employed no rhetorical device that Dawkins hasn’t. This is an opinion blog, not an academic publishing house.

              Reply

  2. intepid Says:

    Thank you for making me realize that I am a religious bigot… I never really considered myself as such before but I must admit now I think it morally and intellectually inferior to swear allegiance and obeisance to a non-existent entity over and above your fellow humans. At first I felt your article was too hard on Dawkins, but now I realize that bigotry is inherent in the professing just about any opinion on the nature or existence of God.

    “Has the Catholic church knowingly lied about condom effectiveness? Possibly.” – Why the fuck do you say “possibly”? — What wrong with “yes”?

    I am not particularly surprised by the stats on Catholicism/AIDS, because the church also offers some not-so-shit advice on limiting sexual promiscuity. The problem is that those who can’t keep their dicks in their pants will also be less likely to use a condom. Would you argue that AIDS would be more widespread if the church relaxed its stance on condoms?

    Reply

    • admin Says:

      Thank you for making me realize that I am a religious bigot… I never really considered myself as such before but I must admit now I think it morally and intellectually inferior to swear allegiance and obeisance to a non-existent entity over and above your fellow humans. At first I felt your article was too hard on Dawkins, but now I realize that bigotry is inherent in the professing just about any opinion on the nature or existence of God.

      Your sarcasm is as amusing as it is trivial to dismiss. Address the topic.

      “Has the Catholic church knowingly lied about condom effectiveness? Possibly.” – Why the fuck do you say “possibly”? — What wrong with “yes”?

      Read it again. I italicized the “knowingly”. They certainly lied, I just don’t know for sure that they lied knowingly. Unlike Dawkins, I can’t read people’s minds.

      I am not particularly surprised by the stats on Catholicism/AIDS, because the church also offers some not-so-shit advice on limiting sexual promiscuity. The problem is that those who can’t keep their dicks in their pants will also be less likely to use a condom. Would you argue that AIDS would be more widespread if the church relaxed its stance on condoms?

      Unlike Dawkins I only deal with what’s known, not with what may be. I’m sadly lacking in both precognitive and psychic abilities.

      Reply

      • Jonathan Harford Says:

        Unlike Dawkins, I can’t read people’s minds.

        Your sarcasm is as amusing as it is hard to dismiss.

        Sauce, goose, gander, etc.

        Reply

      • PudgyBastard Says:

        I wonder if the article is as HARD on Dawkins as Priest’s penises are on little children’s buttholes.

        Reply

        • Hamsa Says:

          So, because my white next door neighbor got busted for robbery..then all of us ‘white folk’ must be robbers? So because some black men are rapists, all must be? Sound logic there…And bigotry.

          Reply

  3. intepid Says:

    I was actually only being half- sarcastic, and thought I was addressing the topic. I merely point out that to judge someone as a bigot for observing that one religious outlook is superior to another renders the word “bigot” virtually worthless.

    Yes the Catholic Church knows they are lying about condoms and AIDS. Would you seriously argue that they deserve the benefit of the doubt on that one? Is my judgment of them invalid because I cannot produce a document that shows that they know they are lying?

    Anglican clergy seem less prickish than their Catholic counterparts, mostly because they spend less time telling everyone they are going to Hell for their lifestyle choices. Is it really bigotry to point this out? If so is it also bigotry to make a value judgment about anyone based on their beliefs? If you really believe this is the case then you must be that moral relativist that conservatives are always accusing liberals of being, in which case I too must be a bigot by your standard. eg I think Scientology is idiotic and were I to discover that my doctor was a member I would request a transfer.

    Reply

    • admin Says:

      I was actually only being half- sarcastic, and thought I was addressing the topic. I merely point out that to judge someone as a bigot for observing that one religious outlook is superior to another renders the word “bigot” virtually worthless.

      Correct, but off-topic.

      Yes the Catholic Church knows they are lying about condoms and AIDS. Would you seriously argue that they deserve the benefit of the doubt on that one? Is my judgment of them invalid because I cannot produce a document that shows that they know they are lying?

      They’ve rescinded the assertion. If you’re going to accuse them of lying originally rather than simply being mistaken, you need to provide some evidence that that is the case, otherwise it’s merely hearsay/wishful thinking.

      Anglican clergy seem less prickish than their Catholic counterparts, mostly because they spend less time telling everyone they are going to Hell for their lifestyle choices. Is it really bigotry to point this out? If so is it also bigotry to make a value judgment about anyone based on their beliefs? If you really believe this is the case then you must be that moral relativist that conservatives are always accusing liberals of being, in which case I too must be a bigot by your standard. eg I think Scientology is idiotic and were I to discover that my doctor was a member I would request a transfer.

      I’ve yet to run into an RC priest who tells anyone they’re going to hell for their lifestyle choices. If your assertion were true, then of course it wouldn’t be bigotry to point this out.

      Enjoy your straw man, just be careful with the stuffing. I hear it falls out if you punch it too hard.

      Reply

      • intepid Says:

        “They’ve rescinded the assertion” – if so it is because of the flak they received over it. The Vatican has been obsessing over birth control for ever, you really think that they didn’t know that they were lying? That you are so willing to judge some people (and libel them as a bigot) based on an interview while at the same time bending over backwards to give the Church the benefit of the doubt over this issue is really sad.

        “I’ve yet to run into an RC priest who tells anyone they’re going to hell for their lifestyle choices.” – so if I was gay, and intended to stay that way, and I asked a RC priest what would happen after I die, what do you think he would say? I’m going to go out on a limb (without even obtaining a sworn affidavit) and guess that he will tell me I’m going to the bad place.

        So you have written a big rant about what an asshole Dawkins is based on his hyperbolic criticisms of the Catholic Church (the institution and the power structure, which is NOT the same thing as the members). In doing so you have been hyperbolic yourself and exaggerated his meanings and intent to justify your anger.

        It looks like any dissenting views offered by a commenter here will be met with dismissal or condescension, and you will make no attempt to actually understand why we disagree with you. So instead of [not] listening to me why not ask someone you really respect to read your original post and tell you honestly if you are being reasonable, because it seems to me you are suffering from righteousness-induced myopia.

        “Enjoy your straw man”

        Enjoy your twatty little comebacks and your disingenuous equivocation.

        Reply

        • admin Says:

          “They’ve rescinded the assertion” – if so it is because of the flak they received over it. The Vatican has been obsessing over birth control for ever, you really think that they didn’t know that they were lying? That you are so willing to judge some people (and libel them as a bigot) based on an interview while at the same time bending over backwards to give the Church the benefit of the doubt over this issue is really sad.

          Wow, are all Dawkins fans mind readers? Perhaps this revelation deserves a post of its own.

          “I’ve yet to run into an RC priest who tells anyone they’re going to hell for their lifestyle choices.” – so if I was gay, and intended to stay that way, and I asked a RC priest what would happen after I die, what do you think he would say? I’m going to go out on a limb (without even obtaining a sworn affidavit) and guess that he will tell me I’m going to the bad place.

          Wow. Do you even know any RC priests? You sound like you’re confusing them with evangelicals or something. Do you really believe that’s what they’d say?

          Here’s a crazy experiment: trot down to your local RC church and ask one. At least make an effort to be an informed bigot, rather than one of the frothy-mouthed Dawkins flavor.

          So you have written a big rant about what an asshole Dawkins is based on his hyperbolic criticisms of the Catholic Church (the institution and the power structure, which is NOT the same thing as the members). In doing so you have been hyperbolic yourself and exaggerated his meanings and intent to justify your anger.

          He refers to the Catholic CHURCH, not to the clergy, just as he does with the Anglican church. Just read the statements.

          I’ve certainly been sarcastic and mocking, but I haven’t said anything that wasn’t true, or exaggerated (or lied about) any of the things he actually stated. What he’s said is all there in black and white. Just take a chill pill, sit down, and read it before flying off the handle and deciding to argue with some created version of the dialog.

          It looks like any dissenting views offered by a commenter here will be met with dismissal or condescension, and you will make no attempt to actually understand why we disagree with you. So instead of [not] listening to me why not ask someone you really respect to read your original post and tell you honestly if you are being reasonable, because it seems to me you are suffering from righteousness-induced myopia.

          I understand why you disagree with me. You’re butthurt because someone made fun of your intellectual man-crush. It’s not complicated.

          Enjoy your twatty little comebacks and your disingenuous equivocation.

          OH I SAY, SIR. WHAT PREPOSTEROUS AND JOLLY UNKIND AD HOMINEM. FROTH FROTH. GARGLE GARGLE. PLEASE PLACE DAWKINS’ COCK BACK IN MY MOUTH SO I DON’T HAVE TO DEBATE WITH THIS BEASTLY LITTLE MAN ANY LONGER.

          Reply

          • yup Says:

            “I’ve yet to run into an RC priest who tells anyone they’re going to hell for their lifestyle choices.” – so if I was gay, and intended to stay that way, and I asked a RC priest what would happen after I die, what do you think he would say? I’m going to go out on a limb (without even obtaining a sworn affidavit) and guess that he will tell me I’m going to the bad place.

            Might I suggest, as admin did, talking to an actual priest, or *gasp* seeing what the bible says on the matter? Or are you a mind reader too?

            There is nothing inherently wrong about being gay, in terms of MOST Christian theology – it is only when you ACT on those feelings (gay sex, anyone?) that it becomes a sin.

            Reply

      • frzz Says:

        “I was actually only being half- sarcastic, and thought I was addressing the topic. I merely point out that to judge someone as a bigot for observing that one religious outlook is superior to another renders the word “bigot” virtually worthless.

        Correct, but off-topic.”

        how is him pointing out that you are using the word bigot incorrectly on a blog titled “is a bigot” off-topic?

        Reply

        • admin Says:

          The point is that while he’s correct that to judge someone as a bigot for observing that one religious outlook is superior to another renders the word “bigot” virtually worthless, that’s not what has been done here, and that therefore the comment is off-topic.

          It’s not enough just to assert that something is true. If you think the word is being used incorrectly, explain how this is the case. I think I’ve demonstrated that its usage here is entirely appropriate.

          Reply

  4. lol Says:

    lol commenters got pwned but are too goddamn stubborn to admit it.

    Reply

  5. Dennis N Says:

    You were serious with this post?

    Reply

  6. Dennis N Says:

    Hmm, seems so Poe though. Done so well that I can’t even tell the difference.

    Reply

  7. Susan Stanko Says:

    I’m calling Pie also. The admin is smart enough to know that when referring to the Catholic or Anglican Church It is referring to the organization and not the worshipers.

    Reply

  8. Nillerus Says:

    Obvious troll is obvious.

    Still, a fun read.

    The comments are well-informed, well-thought out, and all contribute to feeding the troll. Great stuff.

    Reply

  9. libhomo Says:

    Dawkins most certainly is not a bigot. You are conflating perfectly legitimate criticism with bigotry.

    Also, one of your factual errors is dangerous. Promoting condom use in Africa most certainly does cut back the HIV rate. Uganda has switched from doing that to promoting abstinence. HIV rates there have skyrocketed. The progress they had made in slowing the spread of HIV is gone.

    Reply

    • admin Says:

      Inflammatory hate speech is not considered “perfectly legitimate criticism” in civilized nations.

      Regarding the Africa/HIV comments, I stand by the data.

      Reply

  10. James Says:

    Tim,is that you?

    Reply

  11. TheGuy Says:

    This post is nothing more than pandering, right? Dawkins is a bigot for criticizing an abusive organization (or ANY organization for that matter)? Please. Tell me your thoughts on the KKK—I’d be willing to bet they’re not so nice. Or how about an organization that’s not so destructive; can I criticize the Democratic or Republican parties, or would that make me a bigot too?

    Reply

    • admin Says:

      He’s a bigot for using inflammatory hate speech (based largely on suppositions and misunderstandings) to target an organization and the people of which it is constituted.

      Reply

  12. jk Says:

    Ah, I see. So if Hitler had only written “Mein Kampf,” rather than actually becoming the dictator of Germany and carrying out the Holocaust, he would not have been a bigot, as there would be no theory-to-impact action to graph. Your mode of thought is so very illuminating.

    PS: Calling someone a bigot is quite often an act of bigotry.

    Reply

  13. Shii Says:

    I’m guessing these commentators come from a background similar to Dawkins himself: they did not grow up in an area with Catholic culture and have no Catholic friends.

    Reply

  14. DaveinHackensack Says:

    Dawkins appears in Ben Stein’s documentary about the censure of scientists who speculate about Intelligent Design, Expelled. As I noted in a recent blog post, Dawkins may think religious explanations are crazy but he thinks it’s plausible that space aliens could have seeded life on earth, which shows that atheists still end up faced with incredible stories to explain enduring mysteries.

    Reply

  15. Janey Shulte Says:

    dear owner; i conclude u are a dumb@ss motherfocker stoopid sh1t. I hate you for the evil things you say in your blog! LONG LIVE THE TURKISH FEDERATION!

    Reply

  16. JC Says:

    This is pretty sloppy. I think if you are going to characterize Dawkins’ dialogue as being bigoted, you should perhaps dispense with the homoeroticism-as-insult. I’m not typically opposed to such use for comedic purposes, but being that your entire diatribe is based on the prejudices of another, you should probably do a better job of not appealing to other prejudices.

    Reply

  17. Mama Bigot Says:

    Look at all of you being so defensive. Tsk tsk. Laughable. Atheist love to get so defensive when the fingers are pointed at them. Yet they will say we are not like the religious bigots. Takes one to know one. Look at yourself in the mirror folks

    Reply

  18. Mama Bigot Says:

    Y do you guys get so offended by the priest Richard Dawkins? He’s your father is it?

    Reply

  19. Mama Bigot Says:

    Richard Dawkins sounds more like a preacher than a scientist. The other day he claimed that he was an agnostic cause a scientist is an agnostic. What gives dude? So wishy-washy!

    Reply

  20. Michael Kenning Says:

    What a horrific attempt at a polemic against Richard Dawkins. I was going to write a rebuttal, but this post has no material to go on. This ‘polemic’ is strewn with references to hardly/not-at-all ‘bigoted’ remarks and comments by Richard Dawkins on the Catholic Church, most of which I would find myself so bold and unthought-through to sound like his words, and understandable so, but not denoting bigotry. You must have an incredibly loose definition of ‘bigot’ in order to dedicate an entire website to pointing out ‘bigots’, that you, sir, may share a quality of the very people you seek to expose.

    By the way, Richard Dawkins considers himself a cultural Anglican, and condoms do work. How repugnant to assert such a thing.

    Reply

  21. Mama Bigot Says:

    Well one day he is a cultural anglican, another day he is an atheist and then another day he is an agnostic. Sounds wishy-washy to me.

    Reply

  22. duck Says:

    you are all useless ducks

    Reply

  23. duck Says:

    llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllgggggoomm

    Reply

  24. Jess Says:

    This is the best thing I have written! Dawkins is absolutely laughable and if he’s the poster child for atheism, atheism has some really big problems. Loved the post, the humour and the understanding shown by the poster. Well done!

    Reply


Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by isabigot: New post: Richard Dawkins is a bigot (http://cli.gs/petnb) http://cli.gs/petnb

  2. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Larsen Rogers, intepid, istaranews, istaranews, Ivan Soto and others. Ivan Soto said: Callow blog! Rubbish! @isabigot @richard_dawkins Used to be a fan, but you've now become the thing you hate. See http://tinyurl.com/yfzpwwp […]

  3. […] This post was Twitted by dreadpiratemick […]

  4. […] This post was Twitted by isabigot […]

  5. […] Richard Dawkins is the proud owner of the world’s creepiest smile, from here. […]

Leave a Reply