A renowned atheist cited the "Jewish lobby" as a model for his campaign to promote atheism in the United States.
Richard Dawkins said he wanted to gain the same kind of influence as the Jewish lobby, saying it "monopolizes" U.S. foreign policy.
"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 monopolize American foreign policy as far as many people can see," Dawkins, a British evolutionary biologist who advocates atheism, told the Guardian newspaper. "So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."
Dawkins, an Oxford professor who wrote the best-seller "The God Delusion," told the Guardian that he wants to organize American atheists to counter the influence of religious groups.
"I think some sort of political organization is what they need," he said.
I wonder if Mr. Dawkins is the least bit suspicious that he might suffer from a Jew Delusion.
James Taranto, always wry and ironic, had this to say in response to Mr. Dawkins original thought:
Embracing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories does not seem the most effective way for atheists to expand their influence, at least not in America. Besides, to what end exactly does Dawkins seek to expand atheists' influence? Does he want to create a homeland for atheists, à la Israel? But there already was one--it was called the Soviet Union--and we all remember how well that worked out.
I concede that none of this destroys Mr. Dawkins' able arguments against the existence of God. Surely I can excuse his ignorance about America; I cannot expect him to know that a fairly large contingent of Christians in this country has vigorously defended Israel without any assistance from a "Jewish lobby." Consider Mr. Dawkins' ignorance of America excused. But I cannot absolve him of his blatant and public anti-Semitism; nor can I help him understand the capacious and able Christian mind he loathes. He may consider me deluded. But if his perspicacity leads to the type of thought quoted above, then I delight in the God Delusion.
(Perhaps Mr. Dawkins' remarks have been ripped from some justifying context. I would love to know.)
Peace.
BG
If you are interested in reading my starting points when discussing atheism, see my Letter to Christopher Hitchens.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
HT: James Taranto/Wall Street Journal
6 comments:
If Mr. Dawkins were to succeed, query how a nation predicated upon Darwinian self-interest would be better than one which at least pays lip-service to "love thy neighbor."
Cheers.
R.S.,
Point well-taken. Thank you.
Gnade
There is no consensus about how much power the Jewish lobby wields. As far as I can tell, while it has influence it by no means determines the direction of American policy. If one were to examine closely American course of actions in the region one could very conclude this not a given fact. Besides, we all know (wink) the British (Anglo-Saxon) lobby is more powerful.
That said, it could very well be that was a ridiculous comment on that gentleman's part.
Bill, I'm so glad you're out there. I don't know if you realize how agile and gentle and cutting your words are, all at the same time. It is a delight to have you contributing your thoughts to the cause of truth in His world.
Interesting that Dawkins, a name which represents "world's smartest man" to the western world, ends up at the same place very small minded people do: "If only we could stop those Jews!" Kind of reminds me of the end of the movie, "The Meaning of Life," by Monty Python. (The woman at the end concludes that the meaning of life is unknowable, really, but "at least she doesn't have to work for a Jew.")
Bill--
From what you've presented here, the worst we can reasonably suspect of Dawkins is that he has an exaggerated impression of the amount of influence Jewish lobbying has on U.S. foreign policy. And it's true that many genuine anti-Semites obsessively point to Jewish influence on U.S. foreign policy.
However, none of this means that Dawkins is a racist; he has never given any indication that he is; in fact, I have heard him speak emphatically against racism several times.
Your accusation of anti-Semitism is a cheap shot, and it's pathetic. You have backed it up with absolutely nothing. And no matter what one thinks of Dawkins' philosophical abilities, what you've done here is utterly unfair; it is precisely the same kind of politically-correct smear that you so often attack others for engaging in. I find it sad that your audience seems not to have noticed your shoddy reasoning.
--Luke
Forsooth! I don't know how a Luke Buckham comment could have passed my surveillance cameras without my notice.
Mr. Buckham accuses me without flinching:
"You have backed [your accusation] up with absolutely nothing. And no matter what one thinks of Dawkins' philosophical abilities, what you've done here is utterly unfair; it is precisely the same kind of politically-correct smear that you so often attack others for engaging in. I find it sad that your audience seems not to have noticed your shoddy reasoning."
Shoddy reasoning, eh? Indeed, it must be true, because Mr. Buckham has so declared. Not that I can at all disagree with him, since my only defense is that I have not even presented a reasoned case against Mr. Dawkins. I merely blasted off a few comments; one would be hard pressed to find anything resembling an argument. So there is nothing I can offer as a counter to Mr. Buckham other than the obvious fact of the absence of any initial polemic here. (Odd that Mr. Buckham should suggest I've not backed up my charge with evidence; I can't help but note the inversion: I have based my comments on evidence -- direct quotes from Mr. Dawkins himself.) That Mr. Buckham presumes, or so it seems, that everything must be presented in something akin to a syllogism is disappointing, especially since such presumption renders most journalism rather dumb. Besides, the bulk of my post was actually based on a report drafted by someone else -- a journalist -- who is not framing a philosophical debate.
What is not debatable is the sheer foolishness -- the coarse manners, if you will -- of Mr. Dawkins. Jews the world over are sensitive to the sort of slight -- no matter how innocent -- that Mr. Dawkins commits. Surely a reasonable person can expect that Mr. Dawkins possesses a modicum of understanding regarding anti-Semitism, its varies linguistic forms, and the people who are its victims. How could a man of such alleged erudition be so crudely disrespectful (at best) and recklessly indifferent (at worst)?
Note that in my essay I do not suggest that Mr. Dawkins' recklessness weakens his arguments against theism, and this from someone who believes that Dawkins' arguments are adolescent at best. Nor do I keep a door closed on his commentary: I specifically asked readers to provide some sort of justifying context for me so I could reframe Mr. Dawkins' words. Nothing has been offered; I sadly persist in my conviction that Mr. Dawkins is an accidental anti-Semite.
Hence, Mr. Buckham seems to have overreacted just a bit. That disappoints me, truly. I invite Mr. Buckham to set the record straight. Surely his deep and profound respect for Mr. Dawkins will motivate him to make an unflagged and exhaustive defense of the man he obviously admires. Or has Mr. Buckham already offered up that defense?
Post a Comment