Not in our name: Dawkins dresses up bigotry as non-belief - he cannot be left to represent atheists

[rug]

His anti-Muslim tweet is only the latest in a catalogue of smears

Owen Jones
Friday 9 August 2013

If anyone should be a fan of Richard Dawkins, it should be me. I've always been an atheist: well, I was a Jehovah's Witness for three hours when I was 8, but only because I had a crush on a believer, so I'm not sure that counts. Being raised by Godless heathens was undoubtedly the reason, but I just could never get my head around key religious tenets. Why had a deity created a vast universe, placed his flock on a tiny rock circling one of trillions of stars, hidden himself from view, and determined that those who opted not to devote themselves to him faced an eternity of damnation? How could he have granted free will when, omnipotent and perfect as he was, he would have known that I would be typing these words and you would be reading this column as he created the Universe? How could I subordinate myself to a superior being who, in the Old Testament, casually engaged in smiting and demanded that men who have sex with men should be executed?

These are all questions that the more patient Christian has time for – as the former university roommate of an evangelical, I should know – but my atheism has never been seriously challenged. When the journalist John Diamond lay dying of throat cancer, he was bombarded with letters urging him to repent and embrace religion. But Diamond responded that it wasn't simply he couldn't believe in God; he didn't want to either. That had a huge effect on me when I read it, and summed up how I felt.

My secularism is uncompromising, too. I think it is anachronistic that a largely irreligious country containing a range of minorities should be officially Christian, the Church still fused with the State. It is absurd that there are bishops in our unelected Second Chamber; we are the only country other than Iran where clerics automatically sit in the legislature. We live in a country where children are separated by the religious convictions of their parents, in so-called 'faith schools'. Religious worship is compulsory in schools. All of this has to go if we are to build a modern secular country.

Provoke

So given Richard Dawkins is the most famous champion of atheism living today, why do I find him so objectionable? His supporters – and they are a passionate bunch – claim that Dawkins takes on all religion indiscriminately. But this is simply not true. Earlier this year, Dawkins tweeted: “Haven't read Koran so couldn't quote chapter & verse like I can for the Bible. But often say Islam greatest force for evil today.” In a recorded interview, he described Islam as “One of the great evils in the world.” Pretty clear then: he regards Islam as a particularly objectionable religion.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/not-in-our-name-dawkins-dresses-up-bigotry-as-nonbelief--he-cannot-be-left-to-represent-atheists-8754183.html

[digonswine]

1. I would have to say-

that he does, indeed, attack Christianity the hardest. He is certainly dismissive about all faiths, and offended by a few.

Atheists are not an organized bunch that adhere to a strict set of ideas. I can accept that an atheist can see active negativity toward a certain religion as being bigoted--I just do not agree with that idea. Dawkins is not the representative for us all-he does fairly well, though.
Though I cannot speak for most atheists, I will say that--Most christians are not a problem until they want their BS beliefs to affect me or my teaching. Most Muslims are not a problem-until they want to set up schools that teach nonsense.
It is not that we have a problem with a faith, we have a problem with faiths that promote backward and incorrect content.
Dawkins made this quite clear in many forms.

[Daemonaquila]

2. Speak for yourself.

All the organized religions have clerics and followers doing hideous things in the name of Gawd. But which religion keeps women separated from society, veiled, unable to get an education or legally drive, unable to hold property, etc. in multiple countries? That would be Islam. Whose adherents have been shooting schoolgirls? It ain't politically correct, but Dawkins is factually in the money if you judge the relative evil of religions by which one is doing the most damage to human rights.

[rug]

3. Let me ask you this.

Is it necessary to criticize Islam and Islamic societies while wrapped in the garb of atheism?

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. I think it's OK for anyone, whatever their religion, to criticize Islam and Islamic societies

it needn't be restricted to atheists doing it.

[cbayer]

9. Can you honestly read this article and still take the position that this guy

is not islamophobic?

The wish for some to distance themselves from him is growing, coming from different quarters and legitimate. While I understand that there are those that will defend him at all costs, are they really any different that what are frequently called "pope apologists" around here?

And what the heck is going on over there to address the church/state issues that this article lays out so cleanly? Is part of the reason that people like Dawkins have to be so strident that the church remains so dominant in your government?

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. He thinks Islam is a bad thing, but that is a considered opinion, not bigotry

"Islamophobic" is a loaded word - the article linked in the OP accuses Dawkins of bigotry, which I think is an unthinking prejudice against something. Islam is a belief system that people are meant to voluntarily belong to (of course, it hates people who leave it - with the more extreme threatening death to those who do), and thus open for criticism, just the same as any philosophy or political belief is, if the reasons are given. Dawkins has often given his reasons for why he thinks Islam is a bad influence on people.

People can criticise Dawkins, as they can criticise a pope; criticism for popes here tends to revolve around the Catholic idea that homosexuality is 'objectively disordered', or that women should never use contraception or have abortions, or the cover-up of paedophilia. I think those are serious faults, or bigotry, in the pope's case; Dawkins attitude to Islam is like a conservative's attitude to communism. We may or may not agree with it, but I don't think it's bigotry.

Many British people are conservative, and think it's OK to have bishops legislating, or religions having influence in the state school system. For instance, here is what I wrote to my (Conservative) MP, and his reply:

Dear Mr. Brine,
I read with alarm an article in the Times Educational Supplement that the Department for Education is proposing to give the Church of England and Roman Catholic church more influence over purely secular state schools:
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6331195

I see this as a dangerous compulsory intrusion of particular denominations of one religion into the education and private lives of children who have no say in the matter. It is not up to the government to change the 'ethos' of a school in favour of churches that hold highly controversial doctrines, such as opposition to same sex marriage, or even, in the case of the Catholics, contraception. Many people regard the ethics of churches as sub-standard.

It is vital that parents have the option of allowing their children to be educated without the interference of religious organisations, if they want that. Please assure me you will raise this with the Department of Education, and register my strong objection, as a constituent, to the direction they want to take the future of the country in. It looks like another attempt to lessen the control that the local community has, through elected councils, over the education of their children, in favour of self-appointed bodies of clerics.

His reply:

I have spoken with colleagues over the weekend who tell me that they are keen to build up the number of outstanding schools that can provide support as sponsors to underperforming schools. As part of this, they are talking to a range of bodies and organisations to explore how they can help undertake this important role.

I will of course bear your own position in mind.

So, basically, "I don't care that religions are going to get influence over supposedly secular schools; I think religious schools are better, and this is a popular position".

The influence of religions in legislation and state-funded education is something we need to fight against. But a lot of people will say "these are moderate religions - what harm can they do? Why change the system?"

[cbayer]

13. IMHO, his views on Islam are offensive and really have nothing to do with atheism at all.

If there are those that wish to distance themselves from that because they see it as intolerant at best and bigotry at worst, that certainly seems understandable.

I would disagree about your definition. I think most people that express bigotry have thought about it and can justify it all kinds of ways. I would revise the definition to include that it is the painting of all members of a group as something based on the actions of a few.

Interesting stuff on what is going on in the UK. My take from what you posted is that there is a "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude. I was no aware of how deeply emeshed the church and state were until I met by husband. As more and more people in the UK identify as non-religious, I wonder if the situation will be challenged more directly.

[okasha]

14. Just curious--

are the people who are opposed to Bishops' being seated in the House of Lords opposed only to the Bishops' presence or are they opposed to the idea of an unelected, hereditary legislative body regardless of religious affiliation? It seems to me that the real problem is the existence of the House of Lords, not so much who's allowed to belong to it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. There's more opposition to the hereditary peers than to the bishops

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords

Since 1999, there's been 92 hereditary peers left in it (they elected the ones to remain among themselves, and elect replacements when one dies), 26 bishops, and about 630 life peers - appointed for life, some as party politicians nominated by parties in rough proportion to their support in the country, some as non-partisan (these can sometimes worthwhile people).

The junior partners in the current coalition, the Lib Dems, proposed a Lords - see Wikipedia for details - of 80% elected, 20% appointed - both categories sitting for 15 years, plus 12 bishops, and no hereditary ones at all. In the end, Conservative opposition to this (plus Labour not wanting to see a government bill get passed) blocked it. But no major politician proposed getting rid of the bishops altogether.

[okasha]

17. Thanks for the clarification.

It kind of explains why Scotland is moving toward a republic rather than a renewal of the Stewart dynasty.

[rug]

10. I agree with that but the criticism is not an extension of the belief or nonbelief.

The opinion held does not require that specific criticism anymore than religion is necessary to do a good thing.

After all, if atheism is simply nonbelief in divinity, neither Islamism nor Islamophobia logically or necessarily flow from that position.

I think that's the point he's getting at. While Dawkins is as free as anyone to criticize, or even hold bigoted views towards, Islam, he cannot couch it as a critique from atheism unless he's prepared to define and speak for that concept of atheism.

It's really the same argument against right wing republicans who claim to act in the name of Christianity.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. I wasn't aware that Dawkins was claiming to speak for atheism

That seems such a strawman that I hadn't considered if that was what you were saying. No, the criticism is not an extension of atheism - being an atheist does not mean you then have to criticise Islam, or any religion. I don't think Dawkins is arguing that.

[rug]

19. I doubt he's speaking as a femininst.

[xfundy]

33. Always nice to see one of your posts.

Thinly veiled hatred of all who don't fall down on their knees for invisible men in the sky.

Oh, he's not an invisible man?

Great, post an image.

He's real, but not an invisible man?

"Invisible man" is "hate speech?"

OK, Fine. What else would you call a man who is invisible?

Other than Basil Rathbone.

"Misty Man?" too gay, I'd guess.

"Cloudy Cloudington?" Too juvenile.

[edhopper]

35. No, no, no

it's Claude Rains. Rathbone was Sherlock Holmes.

[rug]

37. You win the daily non sequitur award.

[cbayer]

38. Why mock at all? Why not just acknowledge that some people

believe in a deity, you don't, and that doesn't make anyone better than anyone else?

I will make an analogy that you may not like, but I think is apt.

I will start with the premise that for many, believing or not believing is not a choice. It is part of who they are. They are born that way or discover that aspect of themselves at some point.

When people are just being who they are, is it ok to mock them? Call them names? Ridicule those both seen or unseen who they believe in?

Would it be ok if they were gay?

[okasha]

39. And I'll add: Would it be okay

if they were people of color? There were many, many people in the 60's and 70's (and there are still a few) who held a "considered opinion" that people of color are inherently inferior to whites.

[Lordquinton]

4. Funny, we say this about the Pope

and we get called Bigots and racists and flamebait, etc..

[cbayer]

8. Here's the difference, which should be obvious.

This is an atheist saying this about someone who has put himself out there as a spokesperson and leader of atheists. There are rising atheists who don't want to be represented by this guy.

It would be equivalent to a catholic saying the same things about the pope, not a non-believer saying those things.

And I've never seen anyone here called a bigot or a racist for criticizing the pope and would challenge you to produce anything that would back that up.

And lastly, why do some atheists on this site use the first person plural all the time? Who do you speak for?

[Lordquinton]

21. The royal we

Now that that is settled, if you really haven't seen anyone called a bigot for calling out the pope around here, you have been really selectively reading posts.

This particular story is what you said, but there have been tons of theists saying the same thing, and when issues are raised about the pope, all the Catholics pile on calling us out for challenging their beliefs, calling us bigots and anything but actually address the issues that the RCC is, by doctrine, racist(in practice, if not by law), sexist, and homophobic. The us here is anyone who challanges the pope, for those of you who have trouble following along.

[cbayer]

25. What royal we? Who do you speak for?

I really haven't seen anyone called a bigot for calling out the pope, and since you made the accusation, I think it's incumbent on you to provide evidence to support that.

All what Catholics? There is but one regular catholic poster in the group.

And there we are with the we again. Who compromises this poor, beleaguered group that is attacked by the sole catholic. There is lots of criticism of the pope and catholic church around here, and much of it well deserved. Not everyone who criticizes the pope is piled on by the catholic member(s).

There has been a great deal of anti-catholicism expressed in this group. Much of it is aimed at catholics, not the church or the pope. That may or may not be bigotry, depending on one's definition. But it is much different than attacking the pope and, imho, some of it is outright bigotry.

I think it may be you that is reading selectively.

[Lordquinton]

34. I get so caught up answering simple questions

like what "royal we" means that I loose my place and don't edit properly. Contextual clues also help you figure out what might be meant when someone says something like "we" which is a common distraction from the content at hand.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022524425

There is a thread, anyone who disagreed with the poster was labeled a bigot.

[cbayer]

36. That thread is about personally attacking catholics in general, as opposed

to the pope or RCC. And I agree that that is or can be bigoted behavior.

Admittedly, I have not read the entire thread and avoid threads by this member at all costs, so I can't say with certainty, but I did scan for "bigot" and I can't find a single instance of someone being called a bigot for criticizing the pope, as you previously stated. I do see accusations of bigotry for attacks against catholics in general, which certainly happens here all the time and is intolerant and prejudiced, at the very least.

[mr blur]

5. Self-righteous drivel. Islam is “One of the great evils in the world.” Catholicism is another.

[rug]

6. Go on.

[okasha]

15. He will.

There are two or three posters who appear to be auditioning for the position of DU's fourth Rockinghorseman. This one seems to be a few points behind.

[rug]

20. No, he's a one-line pony.

[dimbear]

18. I try to take on all religion indiscriminately too, but I notice Islam makes itself a soft target.

Perhaps if it is so sensitive to criticism it might moderate its ultra-violence.

[muxin]

22. You're speaking as if Islam is a person

Just like Dawkins, you actually speaking about the behavior of some people or a society that promote violence. That's like saying Charles Darwin's theory is evil just because some white supremacist groups are using it to justify their racist acts, which is plain stupid.

I don't know about the "sensitivity to criticism" as you mentioned, because I rarely see a "real" critic to the religion, most of these so called "critics" are just speaking about the behavior of some followers and NOT a critic to the religion itself. How come someone make a proportionate critic about Islam without even studying the Koran which is the main source of its teaching? He said it himself “Haven't read Koran so couldn't quote chapter & verse like I can for the Bible. But often say Islam greatest force for evil today.” A typical ignorance I see all the time in this forum, "they did this.. they did that.. their religion must be evil"

Do you know that some bigotry against atheists are also similar to this? in many places, atheism is often connected to communism, a lot of people think that a person becomes an atheist because he believes in Karl Marx's doctrine, and because according to Marx, religion helped keep the masses passive before the abuse of the wealthy and powerful, and the only way to free them from the “stupor", God and religion had to be eradicated, they see both atheism and communism as evil forces that have to be eliminated and banned forever. Typically they used Stalin and his "five-year plans of atheism" as a reference to the "danger" of atheism. I know because that's what happened in my country, I refuse to believe that logic because it's stupid. I wonder what you think if in Stalin's era there's someone said "perhaps Atheism should moderate its ultra-violence".

[dimbear]

29. "perhaps Atheism should moderate its ultra-violence".

Good idea. Let's all give it up.

[edhopper]

23. So how does one criticize

what can be perceived as a force of evil in the world. Namely the many wrongs and horrors that are done by people and governments in the name of Islam. The repressive laws, the killings and wars, the treatment of people. And not criticize Islam?
As an atheist I obviously think the theology of Islam is bullshit, the same as I do got Christianity or Judaism or Shinto or Hindu etc....
But if I say that a significant part of the Islamic culture is screwed up, wouldn't that still be seen as a criticism of Islam? Can i critize a culture without it being a criticism of what they use as a foundation?
I think Dawkins makes a very valid point about scientific advancement in the modern Islamic world (the same could be said of our own fundamentalist Christian culture). And I don't think he is wrong that it is largely due to the way Islam is practiced in these cultures.
So I wonder how people hear would denounce countries that are dominated by Islamic law and act in these horrible ways. Perhaps being too reticent to challenge belief makes the criticism anemic?

[rug]

24. It would help if he knew what he was talking about first.

One of the problems of bigotry and bigoted thinking is that its flattens and simplifies the object of its bigotry until only a caricature remains.

Islam, like most global human endeavors, is complex both in its theology and in its politics, as well as its impact on human life.

For instance, Islam, submission to Al-lah, (assuming it exists), is not an inherent evil. In fact, it's the contrary. How Islam gets from that point to this point fifteen centuries later, where tiny groups of terrorists commit unspeakably vicious acts in its name, is no simple tale. By no measure is it the logical outcome of the premise.

To tweet, or to lecture, or to sit down, write and publish those astoundingly inane remarks is to ignore the ethnic, economic and political history of Muslims and to lazily, smugly and stupidly conclude Islam is inherently evil.

You can see what's wrong with many Muslim countries as well as I can. And we both can accurately criticize western countries with a Christian heritage. My conclusion is the root of the problem is an unrelenting march to consolidated property and capital, using whatever ideology, including religion, racism, sexism, and nationalism, advances that consolidation. The problem is the submission to property, not submission to Al-lah.

The problem with Dawkins is that he clouds a factual analysis with a lens founded on an unsupportable premise that religion, all religion, is inherently a delusion and evil. That easily leads him into the realm of bigotry.

[cbayer]

26. +1

[edhopper]

27. I agree that a tweet was not a good way

to comment on this subject.
But I also think that one must criticize the origins of these abhorrent conditions. And since most of the leaders of these Muslim countries use Islam and the Koran as the basis of their rule and laws then we must criticize their religion as they see it. While there are hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims throughout the world, to say that we will won't talk about the religious underpinnings of their culture is to ignore a large part of the problem.

[rug]

28. Religion is but one underpinning.

Economics and class will trump religion (while absorbing it) every day of the week.

In this case, Dawkins' own class is warping his view.

[edhopper]

30. Not sure if I agree completely,

but that is a valid POV. Still, religion must be addressed as well as the other underpinnings. Because religion is the reason those others are allowed to prevail in much of the Muslim world. We cannot ignore the role of religion because it offends some people.

[rug]

31. You're right about that.

I just wish there was more accuracy in the criticism.

[edhopper]

32. Yes

it is a bit snarky. Which probably isn't the best tone when talking about an entire culture.
It's different than tweeting about what some official or other might have said. In that case snark is sometimes the appropriate response.
I adore Dawkins, and think his larger point has validity, but he made a mistake in his delivery and venue.