Dawkins you idiot
Posted by gimpy on October 1, 2007
Richard Dawkins, defender against faith, proselytiser for the non-godly and the rosy cheeked face of atheism has decided to take his atheist campaign to God-fearing America.
Dawkins argues that atheists “have been downtrodden for a very long time. So I think some sort of political organisation is what they need”. In his quest to uphold the rights of the oppressed he wants to form a organisation similar to the ‘Jewish lobby’ (his quotes, not mine), “When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told – religious Jews anyway – than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.” as well as co-opting the language of gay-rights organisations with his The Out Campaign.
Sadly, with these examples Dawkins exposes himself as a politically naive idiot.
Firstly there is the dubious notion of an atheist organisation. Politics has to allow argument between diverse groups of opinions on mutually acceptable terms. In my opinion these would be secular terms, not atheist, not religious. This is an important distinction. God(s) or the lacks of them have no place in politics. Politics is about real world life problems and the existence or not of God is (or should be) irrelevant. By all means campaign against politicians invoking scriptures to justify their actions or praising God as a shortcut to prove their moral probity but don’t bring the God debate into politics. It has no place there.
Then there is the worrying talk of the ‘Jewish Lobby’ being influential in American foreign policy. What I think Dawkins means is that Israel gets a disproportionate amount of support from America in his opinion. He naively assumes this is because of the ‘Jewish lobby’ when it is more like pragmatism wrapped up in an ideological support for a democracy in a notoriously undemocratic part of the world combined with a particularly succesful in American society ethnic group. I disagree with Dawkins on this, the man is entitled to his opinions and is not anti-semitic but it is of no relevance to the god debate, nor is the religion or not of the ‘Jewish lobby’. Frankly Dawkins is confused on this and has ventured far beyond his capabilities and understanding.
Then there is the rather odious co-option of the term ‘out’ and all the baggage that goes with it. A person’s sexuality is largely not a matter of choice, a persons beliefs or lack of them are. To equate atheism with homosexuality is perverse, while both should be acceptable in a society that considers itself civilised only the former is a choice. Penalising the latter is punishing a section of society because of what they are, penalising the former is punishing a section of society because of what they think. It does a disservice to those who are atheists by choice to compare them to those who have no choice and it does a disservice to those who are gay to compare them with those who have made a choice.
wilsontown said
Sad to say, I agree with you completely on thia. No idea what Dawkins is trying to achieve here. He’s going to get absolutely creamed for his comments on the ‘Jewish lobby’.
gimpy said
Yeah, I wonder if he spends too much time in liberal academic circles where ones prejudices are reinforced by surrounding yourself with like minded people. Now I made a resolve to myself when I decided to start blogging to stay away from Israel if possible as it can poison many an argument but this is why I have to criticise Dawkins for this. Israel has nothing to do with the position of atheists in American society nor does it receive American support for religious or ethnic reasons. It is a democratic pro-American state in a notoriously non-democratic anti-American part of the world and even if there were no Jews or ‘Jewish lobby’ in America it would receive as much help and aid as it needed. Dawkins doesn’t seem to realise this, which is a shame. All he has done is to provide those who wish to attack him and his views another opportunity to do so and for no good reason.
RS said
I think it is a mistake to get involved with arguments over the Jewish lobby in the US when it is clearly not his area of expertise. But, I disagree with you that an atheist organisation is necessarily a bad idea – sure, somewhere like the UK secularism is more the area of focus, but in the US where God most definitely does have a place in politics, and where atheists are vilified for being atheists an organisation devoted to fighting for acceptance of atheism in the political landscape is needed.
I agree that atheism and homosexuality differ in terms of the degree of choice involved – but I don’t see that as being an important distinction when campaigning against discrimination.
gimpy said
Hi RS, perhaps I could have made my point a bit clearer. While I have nothing against an atheist organisation in principle (although the idea of an organisation based on its members not believing in something is a little strange), I don’t think there is such a thing as a uniquely atheist ideology or uniquely atheist political beliefs. Where Dawkins arguments ends up is having a role for Atheists in politics, along with Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. Far better to argue for secularism where ones religion or lack of has no bearing on ones politics. Of all the nations on earth America probably has the the strongest constitutional separation of church and state which would make an ideal background to encourage secularism.
On your second point regarding campaigning against discrimination, I think, unlike race or sexuality, atheism is an intellectual position and Dawkins would be better served making and maintaining an intellectual argument against discrimination against atheists rather than linking it to movements where those discriminated against were discriminated on the basis of who they are rather than their beliefs. Perhaps Dawkins would be better off drawing parallels with socialists, communists and victims of McCarthyite witch-hunts when arguing against discrimination against atheists.
RS said
Hmm, I think perhaps tactically he’d be better off linking it to homosexuality than communism!
Re: atheists in politics – I agree that talking about politics in general atheism doesn’t really have much to offer as an ideology, and secularism is the obvious concentration (this is assuming liberal atheists I suppose, if we believe Dawkins’s critics he wants a fundamentalist atheist state which will wipe out the religionists in a latter day Holocaust). But my reading of most of Dawkins’s recent stuff about encouraging an atheist presence in US politics is in terms of resisting the traditional discrimination against atheists. Compare his attitude to US politics with UK politics where he is happy to unite with the Bishop of Oxford against the teaching of creationism – which is secularism in its most catholic manifestation.
gimpy said
RS, I’ll admit to being mischievous by linking atheism to socialism and communism. Nevertheless I think it is a better comparison than homosexuality. Of course if you want to be devious and manipulative then homosexuality is a far better comparison to make for PR purposes.
In my opinion it is easier to argue against a role for religion in politics than it is for a role for atheism in politics. If we could encourage politicians and organisations to argue their points in secular terms that can be debated by believer and non-believer alike on an equal footing then you are far more likely to make progress than introducing yet another division based on (non)belief.
nicholasmarsh said
One more minor point. I’m very much against laws against discrimination against religion. Religion is a chosen set of beliefs and is therefore completely different from race of sexuality. We should be completely free to criticise religion for being the irrational and cruel doctrine that it often is.
Implying that atheists should be protected against discrimination also opens the door to other beliefs being protected. Like religion. I really think that this is trying to set a dangerous precedent.
Dean Morrison said
I’m afraid I disagree Gimpy:
“Politics is about real world life problems and the existence or not of God is (or should be) irrelevant.”
It is very much not irrelevant in certain countries. In Saudi the sentence for being an Atheist is the death penalty – and since there is only one ‘out’ atheist in the entire USA congress – it would seem that Atheist beliefs more or less automatically exclude you from participation in the democratic process there.
The fact that Dawkin’s recognises the success of the Jewish lobby in influencing US policy should be taken as rather a compliment in the terms of Dawkins’ argument – he is after all citing it as a good example to follow.
To pretend that there is no such thing as the Jewish lobby – and that US support for Israel is entirely motivated by higher ideals of democracy is wilfully naive. American politics works by pandering to key voters in key constituencies – and ‘pork barrel politics’ is a way of life there. Despite constituting an estimated 12% of the population, Atheists have never been an identifiable constituency up to now – and this is what Dawkins is inspiring them to change.
This is how to lose weight said
This is how to lose weight…
[...]Dawkins you idiot « gimpy’s blog[...]…