What Ann Coulter and atheist Richard Dawkins have in common

[cbayer]

https://theweek.com/article/index/267148/what-ann-coulter-and-atheist-richard-dawkins-have-in-common

Hating on the faithful has produced some strange bedfellows

By Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig | August 28, 2014

?208
An unlikely pair. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images, Fiona Hanson/AP)

Dr. Kent Brantly, the American physician who contracted Ebola while treating the virus in Liberia, has now fully recovered. A month after falling ill with the famously lethal fever, Brantly is now walking, talking, and returning to business as usual. The only thing more surprising than Brantly's sudden and total recovery has been the inability of particular pundits to cope with it in a sane, humane fashion.

For someone who risked his life to perform charitable medical care, Brantly has incurred a truly mind-boggling level of backlash. After he thanked God for his recovery in a press conference — something any rational person would expect of an openly Christian doctor whose overseas medical work was funded by Christian charity — Brantly's speech was dubbed "bizarre," and he was subsequently labeled "douchebag of the day" by the vanguard of irate internet scientism. The complaint they lodged against Brantly was that by praising God he was failing to give "science" its due.

This is a specious understanding of what Christians mean when they praise the work of God in a medical recovery; it is highly unlikely that Brantly, himself a physician who treats others as an act of Christian charity, believes that the work of God is separate from work of medicine. Rather, he probably views them as inextricable, which isn't an atypical view for faithful Christians. But it's challenging to score points against perceived cultural rivals when ignoring nuance, and on that count the anti-Brantly net warriors have good precedent from both the Christian right and atheists.

Consider, for example, Ann Coulter, whose vicious diatribe against Brantly made the rounds in early August. Like the pro-science twitter hoard accusing Brantly of being a "douchebag," Coulter intentionally misconstrued the doctor's intentions and behavior in the most negative light possible. Chalking all of Brantly's charitable motives up to "narcissism," Coulter berated him for allegedly showing off via overseas charity rather than sticking to humble, anonymous down home stuff — as though he knew he would fall ill, the only reason his charity earned media attention.

more at link

[Live and Learn]

1. Sadly, hate seems to be a unifier. nt

[Heather MC]

2. Just to Clarify

The problem is, if an all powerful god stepped in and saved Brantly's life, why didn't it bother to save the lives of the 0ver 1200 people who died in a most horrible manor long before this Dr.?

If a god is credited for saving one life from this horrific illness, then a god is also to blame for letting all the others die. Because if a god did it, there would be no need for science to have taken all that time to come up with a treatment.

Science doesn't need praise like a god does. Because Science exist, with or without prayer.

[cbayer]

3. Why do you assume that Brantly could not be both thankful

to his god that his life was saved and angry at his god for letting others die?

Dr. Brantly is a scientist. He knows that many things were involved in his recovery. He just believes that god was one of those things and is thankful. He also thanked science and the medical team.

But, you make the point of the article quite well.

[Heather MC]

4. Some people, believe

God is this All powerful being that has the power and ability to create life, make an entire universe, and Raise the dead.

But when it comes to the Ebola Virus IT can only bother to lift a finger to save two people?

As I said, IF a god had anything to do with this Dr's life being saved, why did scientists need to waste all that time trying to find a proper treatment? Why not just let a god do it?

Giving credit to A god negates the need for human intervention.

Let's say that Dr. was left to die in the hot African Desert, then some how became completely healed. Maybe then a god did it, however, the question would still be asked WHY SAVE ONLY his life?

And which god should get the credit the continent of Africa is filled with many gods why is it that the Christian god is the one that seems to be getting the credit, maybe it was allah

[cbayer]

5. Some people do believe that. I doubt Dr. Brantly is one of them.

In one's zeal to attack religion and those that will embrace it, many a very silly argument can be made and many a very good person can be demonized.

It is sad, but, as the author points out, it sure does make for interesting bedfellows.

[Heather MC]

6. The author of the article never

Showed one example of Dawkins talking about Brantly, instead the author compared Dawkins comment about Downs babies being aborted to Ann Volture's, comment about Brantly being an attention whore by getting sick.

Not the same thing at all. But even if an actual correlation between the two could be made, so what.

I doubt Richard Dawkins would have a hard time agreeing with Ms. Volture if she ever said anything agreeable.

[cbayer]

7. You are correct. She is comparing their attitudes and their approach

but using different incidences to do so.

You may not agree, but I think she makes a point worth considering.

Those driven by a rather zealous need to attack others often do so for similar reasons and in similar ways.

Whether one means to agree with them or not, it is interesting to note the similarities.

[Heather MC]

8. Considering Voluture is the king and queen of Attention Whoring in the political

World (Kim Kardashian Reigns Supreme in the "Entertainment" world) It's funny reading about her attacking someone for seeking attention through charity work, she does it to sell books.

[cbayer]

9. I'm not following you here.

Who is it that you are saying seeks attention through charity work?

IMHO, both Coulter and Dawkins do what they do to sell books and both seek attention.

I think Coulter is much more menacing, though.

[Heather MC]

12. I am referencing this line from the Article

"Coulter intentionally misconstrued the doctor's intentions and behavior in the most negative light possible. Chalking all of Brantly's charitable motives up to "narcissism," Coulter berated him for allegedly showing off via overseas charity rather than sticking to humble, anonymous down home stuff"

Sounds like the pot and kettle to me.

Isn't every one selling a book nowadays LOL

[cbayer]

13. Well, I'm going to defend this guy.

I don't think anyone is in a position to criticize him unless they are also risking their lives taking care of those dying from an epidemic of unspeakable proportions at this point. If his religion is important to him and he feels grateful to his god for surviving, I'm fine with that.

Coulter would probably berate Jesus, that's just how she is.

It does seem that everyone is writing a book. The amount of self-promotion in the US is just unbelievable. And like politicians, I think most people will say just about anything to increase their ratings.

[Starboard Tack]

26. If Brantly believed such nonsense, thenI doubt he would've bothered with med school

Sounds like Dr. Brantly is far less obsessed with God than those who criticize him.

Those who are so angry at believers for their beliefs might want to do a little introspection and examine their own motives.

[Trajan]

10. Typical smear through false association

Par for the course for DU's theologians ...

Pitiful ....

[cbayer]

11. Do you think the author of this piece is a DU theologian?

Or perhaps were you referring to me, the person that posted it without comment and is not a theologian.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. *Groan* what a pile of shit

Coulter is bitching about Brantly risking his expertise, his 'value' (code: as a white person, because she is a disgusting classist and racist) on what she views as an unworthy risk to help unworthy backwater 3rd world sub-humans. (Her characterization, not mine, she ALSO injected a healthy dose of racism into her slime about America in the same rant.)

Show me where Dawkins said, once, that Brantly's mission to aid, medically, in any of these countries, was in any way a waste or unworthy.

There is no fucking mirror here.

[cbayer]

15. I think that the main point that the author is making is that people will end

up saying anything in their zeal to attack believers that are not like them. That goes for non-believers who attack believers and believers who attack others.

There is a stark lack of empathy, compassion and a rapid jump to saying really ugly things.

That is where I think she is making the comparison.

While I am not sure her argument is all that solid, there is a part that resonates with me. Those that attack others for their beliefs are intolerant and prejudiced, no matter which direction they come at it from.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Did you miss any of the genuine concern that was raised here about precisely WHY

Brantly's comments are, to some people, horribly callous and crude?

It's not a joke. It has nothing to do with Coulter's 'lack of empathy', she would happily stand back and chuckle while the whole 'diseased backwater' of, apparently, to her, Africa dies off, because she doesn't value them as humans.

Those of us that were opposed to Brantly's comments, were so on the grounds that it was callous and dismissive about the dead, the people who contracted Ebola, and did not survive.


There is no parallel between Dawkin's outrage over people being upset about his abortion suggestion (A progressive and real-world reflection of what DOES HAPPEN nearly 90% of the time in the UK, a higher rate than the US under same circumstances) and Coulter's bloody-minded mendacity toward people of other races, and other social classes.

Dawkins' comment was rooted in the facts on the ground in the UK, what is almost ALWAYS done in the case discussed. Coulter's was rooted in the horrible wraith-like nature of her disgusting, racist worldview.

[trotsky]

17. Well, the important thing is for Dawkins, the horrible evil atheist, to be associated with Coulter.

No matter how strained the comparison. Mission accomplished!

[cbayer]

18. I most likely did miss that.

You can continue to defend Dawkins. I think his position is indefensible. I shudder to think what might happen to choice is he were ever in charge. We generally outlaw things that are considered immoral.

The reason abortions are almost always down when there is a diagnosis of trisomy 21 is because one has to make a choice to have the test. When making that choice, it is generally clear that they are doing it because they intend to abort if it is positive. The 10% that don't reflect a population who apparently changes their mind. Are they immoral? Dawkins thinks so.

Coulter is evil. I don't think Dawkins is evil, but he says some really stupid things sometimes, and he is a zealot when it comes to anti-religion.

That's the parallel.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. That doesn't explain the delta between the US and the UK.

In the UK, some 90% elect to abort on positive test. In the US, it's in the mid-60's.

The mechanism is elsewhere.

We will apparently continue to disagree about Dawkins contribution to the public discourse.
Associating him with Coulter was unproductive. Coulter has publicly advocated invading the middle east, killing all their leaders, and replacing them with Christians.

[cbayer]

21. Where do you get your data?

"An estimated 92 percent of all women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome choose to terminate their pregnancies, according to research reviewed by Dr. Brian Skotko, a pediatric geneticist at Children's Hospital Boston.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/w_ParentingResource/down-syndrome-births-drop-us-women-abort/story?id=8960803

I don't think the article does anything but note a similarity between their styles and a possible underlying explanation for that similarity.

Ann Coulter is clearly the more menacing and dangerous figure, imo. Dawkins is just rather silly.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. That 92% number is world-wide.

Fucking hell, I'm having trouble finding a US-specific number that isn't also some frothing at the mouth anti-abortion site. One sec.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. So, it's apparently not cut and dried.

This is the most reasonable meta analysis of the various studies.

Worldwide is 92%
UK was 90% last time I validated Dawkin's claim with UK state numbers.
The US is somewhat south of that, variously claimed between the mid-60's and mid-80's depending on study criteria.
http://www.downsyndromedaily.com/2012/03/validating-pregnancies-with-down.html

Holy shit I had to wade through a billion anti-abortion links to get to that. Ugh. I need a shower.

[cbayer]

25. Well, serves you right for throwing out a number that is apparently only

embraced by those people.

I think the UK and US numbers are probably very close and not statistically different.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. It troubles me that there is no credible national number.

Some states are massively lower than even the 60's, and probably reflects the utter lack of abortion facitilies, which is another republican/Christian conservative anti-abortion strategy, hence the fight to require hospital admitting privs., etc.

Based on what I've seen, and where I have seen it reported, I still suspect the national number is quite a bit south of the UK.

[cbayer]

32. The number is high.

The only women that don't have an abortion are the ones that change their mind. There is always counseling prior to the test and the woman generally must take the position that she will terminate the pregnancy if it is positive. Otherwise, there is no reason for the test at all.

Those that are not sure from the beginning generally don't get the test.

This whole idea that it is somehow radically different in the UK, and that somehow explains Dawkins statement, is just flotsam.

I don't know what your experience is with women who choose to have amniocentesis for the purpose of ruling in or out trisomy 21, but I'm going to guess that it's not extensive. Am I wrong?

[AtheistCrusader]

35. I'm trying to base that position on comments like the president of the Fetal Medicine Foundation of

America.

"In liberal areas such as New York City, probably 80 to 90 percent of patients with severe abnormalties do choose to terminate when legal to do so," Evans said. "In conservative areas, the proportion of terminations is much lower, perhaps as little as 10 percent" in some cases."

I couldn't pick a governmental division of the UK, analogous to an American state (Like, Wales) with such an incredibly low rate post-test. New York is super-blue, very democratic state, and it's only nibbling at the world-wide average. Where is the high percentage state that could drag us up to 90%, carrying such incredibly low individual state numbers? New York and the UK compare on-par. What state could make up for those that don't compare? (Where in America is the rate post-test, higher than New York?)

[cbayer]

37. He has nothing to back that up.

I would agree that in rural areas, patients are much less likely to have amniocentesis to rule out chromosomal abnormalities. I think what his numbers reflect it that. I do not believe that in any area 90% of women who choose to have an amniocentesis and then find out that hey have a trisomy 21 baby decide to go to term. That is illogical in the extreme.

You do not have the data. I dropped "strong", now you should drop this. There are no "incredibly low individual state numbers". It's just not there.

You also have to consider why people have this test. No one generally wants it unless they are at risk, which has to do solely with maternal age. In areas where the age at pregnancy is lower, there are going to be a lot less tests.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. He recommends this be studied.

Until such studies are actually performed, his opinion is the best I can do. And it paints a troubling picture.

You make a good point though, about who would actually have the test if they don't have available facilities to perform an abortion based on the results if warranted. There does seem an inherent fault in logic there.

I'll drop it, but I really do want to see hard numbers. Certainly the US media gives no pause to reporting those same numbers I commented on about from anti-abortion US entities.

[cbayer]

39. His opinion is meaningless without data.

We can get back to this when there are numbers, until then anyone who throws this data around should be challenged.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. Fair enough.

[cbayer]

42. You're not a bad egg really.

I don't care what anyone says about you.

[edhopper]

49. What did Oscar Wilde say

About being talked about?

[cbayer]

52. There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.

I love Oscar Wilde, and I will agree with him here to a point. When talked about becomes a witch hunt, one might prefer to not be talked about.

[Starboard Tack]

28. They're both buddies with Bill Maher, maybe that's another association.

[edhopper]

20. Look, Coulter said something vaguely like Dawkins,

it shows how horrible he is.
But remember, we have to disregard when she says the things that 90% of RW Christians agree with. And a good percentage of all Christians.
We can't use the words of one Christian to denounce other Christians. Only to denounce an atheist.

[cbayer]

22. We who have to disregard what Coulter says when the RW christians agree with it.

Not here, certainly.

You have no basis for claiming that a good percentage of christians are RW.

Who is denouncing an atheist here?

[edhopper]

30. Bad phrasing on my part

"But remember, we have to disregard when she says the things that 90% of RW Christians agree with. And a good percentage of all Christians would agree with her on some of it. "

I can see how you took it differently.

[Starboard Tack]

29. Hopefully, nobody is denounced for their beliefs or lack of beliefs.

If we only denounce troublemakers and assholes, we'll be just fine. Let's respect people for having different beliefs regarding God, atheism, creation and Santa. We can discuss and argue, without denunciations based on belief.

[edhopper]

31. Some beliefs

should be denounced. Sometimes vehemently.

[Starboard Tack]

33. I agree, especially the belief that believers should be denounced just for believing.

Personally, I give religious beliefs a pass, regardless how obnoxious they may be. When those beliefs get translated into actions, then we have a whole other scenario, whether it's electing a Republican, beheading a journalist or insulting someone and their family just cause you disagree with their beliefs.
Nasty is nasty. I don't bother grading it. Best just to flush and leave the window open for a while.

[edhopper]

36. Well, we disagree on that

I don't give beliefs a pass, I challenge them, the more pernicious or vile, the more I think they should be challenged.
Too many harmful actions have a root cause of belief.

[Starboard Tack]

44. How do you challenge them if they are only religious beliefs? How do you know?

I have no idea what people believe unless I ask them, or for some weird reason, they tell me. I'm far more interested in their actions. If they tell me their beliefs, then that is an action. If I see someone going to church, for example, it tells me nothing about what they actually believe. However, if I see someone drive to the grocery store in a Hummer, take up two parking spots, wearing a gun to buy a loaf of bread, I don't give a fuck if he/she believes in Jesus or Dicky Dawkins. I know I'm looking at an asshole who doesn't believe/care about anything but him/herself and is helping to destroy the environment I and everyone else lives in (for now).

[edhopper]

45. Well

if you include that beliefs being talked about or written about as an action, then I that's what I mean by challenging them.
Can't really challenge an unknown belief.

[Starboard Tack]

46. That's good

because I see a lot of attacks on presumed beliefs rather than stated beliefs. Most of the nasty insults that get tossed around here tend to emanate from the imagination of certain members and be directed at what they imagine to be the beliefs of other members about supposedly imaginary things.

[edhopper]

47. I try to ask

Before I attack.

[Starboard Tack]

48. That's always good. Not all are like you.

You may have noticed that. I wasn't inferring that you were one that did btw.

[ZombieHorde]

34. Thanking God for human achievements usually comes off as weird to me.

Especially in the entertainment industry, such as football and award shows. I don't understand what they mean. I don't know what role they think he played in the event. This was never covered in my Catholic Sunday school lessons.

[cbayer]

41. i don't understand it either and it makes me vaguely uncomfortable.

But I generally end up with a big "so what". If someone believes that what they have gotten deserves a thanks to god, who cares.

It's those that then make some big leap that this means something entirely different, like god didn't care for the losers, that really have gone over the edge.

[ZombieHorde]

43. Sure. I'm not bothered by it,

it just strikes me as weird when I hear it.

[pokerfan]

50. some comic once commented

on why God never gets the blame for a loss...

"I was having a great game until Jesus made me fumble. God hates our team."

I'm on my phone or I would look it up.

[ZombieHorde]

51. That would be hilarious!

I would love to see a major sports player say that after losing a game.