Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Off speaking truth to weakness today, just time for another raw comment whore. From a thread at Digby's Hullaballo
Despite what probably seems like a truism to you, there is nothing special about your religious beliefs that makes them unassailable or inviolate. If you bring it into political play, expect people to react to it. If the risk of being possibly offended is too great, then keep it at home. It's not really that hard to grasp.
John Lenin, since I didn't identify any religious beliefs I might or might not hold this has nothing to do with what you are responding to. I have no trouble with any rejection of my beliefs and never try to inject them into political discussions. My post isn't about me at all, it is about how the left can consolidate and advance.
This response is typical of the Dawkinsites, it assumes much more than the evidence supports, not unlike much of Dawkins scientific work.
However, I do believe that he and much more so Harris, who Dawkins is on record of admiring, are actually calling for the end of any toleration for peoples' religious beliefs. My point is that even if that is desirable, something I don't happen to believe, it is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
Their program of converting the human species to atheism is not going to happen, it is a folly.
So, short of installing an anti-democratic rule by Dawksinsites religious believers are going to vote, they are going to have those votes informed by their religious beliefs and to how those will be impinged on by whoever is elected. We have decades worth of evidence that they are anxious about the effects of anti-religious office holders, whipping up those anxieties is one of the main features of Republican success.
The left has to deal with the world as it is and as it is going to be, not with the world as imagined by Dawkins and Harris. The work of the left, including saving the species, is too important to indulge their cults.
olvlzl The Heretic
Despite what probably seems like a truism to you, there is nothing special about your religious beliefs that makes them unassailable or inviolate. If you bring it into political play, expect people to react to it. If the risk of being possibly offended is too great, then keep it at home. It's not really that hard to grasp.
John Lenin, since I didn't identify any religious beliefs I might or might not hold this has nothing to do with what you are responding to. I have no trouble with any rejection of my beliefs and never try to inject them into political discussions. My post isn't about me at all, it is about how the left can consolidate and advance.
This response is typical of the Dawkinsites, it assumes much more than the evidence supports, not unlike much of Dawkins scientific work.
However, I do believe that he and much more so Harris, who Dawkins is on record of admiring, are actually calling for the end of any toleration for peoples' religious beliefs. My point is that even if that is desirable, something I don't happen to believe, it is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
Their program of converting the human species to atheism is not going to happen, it is a folly.
So, short of installing an anti-democratic rule by Dawksinsites religious believers are going to vote, they are going to have those votes informed by their religious beliefs and to how those will be impinged on by whoever is elected. We have decades worth of evidence that they are anxious about the effects of anti-religious office holders, whipping up those anxieties is one of the main features of Republican success.
The left has to deal with the world as it is and as it is going to be, not with the world as imagined by Dawkins and Harris. The work of the left, including saving the species, is too important to indulge their cults.
olvlzl The Heretic
