KNOW-NOTHINGS

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009 | Uncategorized

If genius can be defined as the ability to drive people completely insane by the most innocuous action, then Pope Benedict XVI is a genius.  For reasons known only to their Vague, Ambiguous, Non-Judgmental, Inclusive Deity Concept, Newsweek’s Jon Meacham and the Washington Post’s Sally Quinn of On Faith asked atheist Richard Dawkins what he thought about the Roman Catholic Church’s provision for disaffected Anglicans:

Q: The Vatican is making it easier for Anglicans — priests, members and parishes — to convert to Catholicism. Some say this is further recognition of the substantial overlap in faith, doctrine and spirituality between the Catholic and Anglican traditions; others see it as poaching that could further divide the Anglican Communion. What do you think?

And as might be expected, the megalomanical old loudmouth went bat crap:

What major institution most deserves the title of greatest force for evil in the world? In a field of stiff competition, the Roman Catholic Church is surely up there among the leaders.

Ooh, ooh, I know!  For the 100 million or so people they butchered last century.  No, wait, that’s atheism.  For legally forbidding any religious views other than their own?  Yeah, you’re right, that’s also atheism. 

For torturing, imprisoning and sometimes murdering people who disagreed with them?  Nope, atheism.  For forcing people into concentration camps, often working them to death?  Son of a…atheism again. 

Okay, I’m stumped.

The Anglican church has at least a few shreds of decency, traces of kindness and humanity with which Jesus himself might have connected, however tenuously: a generosity of spirit, of respect for women, and of Christ-like compassion for the less fortunate.

On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church spends all its time beating up people and stealing their stuff.  Big bullies.  Always beating up people and stealing their stuff.

The Anglican church does not cleave to the dotty idea that a priest, by blessing bread and wine, can transform it literally into a cannibal feast; nor to the nastier idea that possession of testicles is an essential qualification to perform the rite.

And here we go.  Dawkie?  You do not ”cleave to the dotty idea” that there’s a God, cupcake.  Why should any of us Christians care what you think about anything at all?

It does not send its missionaries out to tell deliberate lies to AIDS-weakened Africans, about the alleged ineffectiveness of condoms in protecting against HIV.

In effect, Catholic missionaries deliberately try to arrange as many African deaths as they possibly can.  Tell me again that fairy tale about how people don’t need God in order to live moral and ethical lives, mein Dawkie, old chum.

Whether one agrees with him or not, there is a saintly quality in the Archbishop of Canterbury, a benignity of countenance, a well-meaning sincerity. How does Pope Ratzinger measure up? The comparison is almost embarrassing.

I have to admit that Dawk Victory got that one right.  One is a forceful, dynamic and forward-looking Christian leader who is not afraid to take risks for the Gospel and is undaunted when people get mad at him.  The other is the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Poaching? Of course it is poaching. What else could you call it?

Evangelism?

Maybe it will succeed. If estimates are right that 1,000 Anglican clergymen will take the bait (no women, of course: they will swiftly be shown the door), what could be their motive?

Gee.  Wonder what It Was A Dawk And Stormy Night is going to say next.

For some it will be a deep-seated misogyny (although they’ll re-label it with a mendacious euphemism of some kind, which they’ll call ‘an important point of theological principle’).

Mendacious euphemism?  You mean like “an atheist explaining Christian theology” or something?  Actually, that would be more like “an embarrassingly idiotic waste of time.”

One wonders how their wives can stomach a husband whose contempt for women is so visceral that he considers them incapable even of the humble and unexacting duties of a priest.

That doesn’t make even a little bit of sense.  I don’t think I’ve ever been a woman but I have to believe that if a man who had visceral contempt for women asked me to marry him, I’d most likely turn him down.

For some, the motive will be homophobic bigotry, and a consequent dislike of the efforts of decent church leaders such as the Archbishop of Canterbury to accept those whose sexual orientation happens to deviate from majority taste.

How Much Is That Dawkie In The Window?  There are lots and lots and LOTS of “sexual orientations” that happen to deviate from majority taste.  Why don’t the Anglicans get all prog, save time and take them all on right now?

Some “sexual orientations” should be easy enough to handle while others might cause problems.  Will the three women John Smith is planning to marry each get their own set of bridesmaids?  If so, it could get kind of crowded up there at the altar.

Lots of churches are going to have to do away with pet-blessing Sundays for, um, obvious reasons.  But maybe they could replace them with spanking paddle-blessing Sundays.  Then, instead of passing the peace, people could…Johnson, for the love of God, drop it now!!

Never mind that they will be joining an institution where buggering altar boys pervades the culture.

Professional atheist logic, ladies and gentlemen.  So “buggering altar boys” pervades Roman Catholic culture, does it?  Yet Roman Catholic parents keep baptizing their kids Catholic and bringing them to Catholic churches every Sunday.

Do you seriously believe that every Roman Catholic parent in the world is that cruel?  Because if “buggering altar boys” really did pervade Catholic culture, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. 

Know why that is, dumbass?  Because Eastern Orthodoxy would be the largest and most important Christian tradition in America since all those Roman Catholic parents would have shaken Catholic dust from their feet decades ago.

So either you think that every single Roman Catholic in the world is the most vile person who ever lived(every single one; if you’re a Catholic liberal or if you’re unmarried but attend a Catholic church, you’re aiding and abetting) or your sentence not only makes no sense at all but jumps into Lake Libel and swims across it.

Come up with a mendacious euphemism for that, tough guy.

Turning to the motives of the poachers, here we find cause for real encouragement. The Roman Catholic Church is fast running out of priests. In Ireland in 2007, 160 Catholic priests died, while only nine new recruits were ordained. To say the least, those figures don’t point towards sustainability.

Yeah, that billion-and-change the snackeral mappers are pulling in is a cause for real concern.  But slow down, big smacker.  Have you seen the latest Episcopal numbers

At the rate they’re shedding peeps, every Episcopalian will eventually be his or her own bishop and diocese and they’ll be holding General Conventions at the Old Country Buffet.

No wonder that disgusting institution, the Roman Catholic Church, is dragging its flowing skirts in the dirt and touting for business like a common pimp: “Give me your homophobes, misogynists and pederasts. Send me your bigots yearning to be free of the shackles of humanity.”

And people actually think that professional atheists are arrogant, bigoted pissants full of scorn, contempt and white-hot hatred for views other than their own.  But I have a serious question, Dawkie.

I’m a Protestant and proud of it.  Lots of people who regularly comment here are Roman Catholic and equally proud of that.  I don’t know how loathsome little d-bags like you handle this sort of situation but I’ve generally found that if I want people to treat my views respectfully, I need to treat their views respectfully.

Even atheist views, Dawkie.

Do you seriously think that any Catholic is going to be convinced by digusting rhetoric like that?  Do you seriously believe that Catholics reading that are going to slap their foreheads and exclaim, “Dawkie’s right!  We need to become Anglicans immediately!”

Because if you do, you’ve just set back British education 100 years.

Archbishop Rowan Williams is too nice for his own good. Instead of meekly sharing that ignominious platform with the poachers, he should have issued a counter-challenge: “Send us your women, yearning to be priests, who could make a strong case for being the better-qualified fifty percent of humanity; send us your decent priests, sick of trying to defend the indefensible; send them all, in exchange for our woman-haters and gay-bashers.” Sounds like a good trade to me.

I can see why you like Dr. Williams.  He’s the sort of churchman who will never get in your way.  He’ll appear on BBC chat shows with you and the conversation and what “debate” there is will be pleasant.  And he’ll never insist that you believe anything in particular.

It’s not how we western Anglicans do stuff.

Prediction.  If Richard Dawkins is anything, he’s a publicity whore.  So as soon as people get bored with him, which should be any day now, Dawkie will declare that he’s a deist. 

He’ll get a book and a book tour out of it which should make the old fraud happy.  Only problem will be that his deity will be the weak, impotent, spineless jellyfish of the western liberal Anglicans.

On one level, I would not, if I were Roman Catholic, be terribly upset by this article.  Dawkie’s just being Dawkie; crap like this is what he does.  I would, however, be enraged at two people

Newsweek’s Jon Meacham and the Washington Post’s Sally Quinn.

A venture connected to what used to be two legitimate American news media sources publishes one of the most virulently anti-Catholic screeds I can ever remember reading and does it in the most dishonest way possible.

By getting somebody else to do it for them.

Meacham and Quinn wanted to say something like this directly but knew they would catch hell if they did.  Solution?  Ring up the most controversial figure you possibly can and ask him what he thinks(An atheist?  At a site called On Faith?).

If people yell at you, use that old “we were only trying to contribute to the debate” canard.  Jon?  Sal?  We were, as they say, born at night but not last night.

56 Comments to KNOW-NOTHINGS

LaVallette
October 29, 2009

“Archbishop Rowan Williams is too nice for his own good. Instead of meekly sharing that ignominious platform with the poachers, he should have issued a counter-challenge: “Send us your women, yearning to be priests, who could make a strong case for being the better-qualified fifty percent of humanity; send us your decent priests, sick of trying to defend the indefensible; send them all, in exchange for our woman-haters and gay-bashers.” Sounds like a good trade to me.”

And Dawkie Baby!!! What’s stopping them, if they wish to trade down from the RollsRoyce to the current “off the shelf” model with its in built current fad obsolence? Wish they would hurry up. They don’t need ACB’s special invitation as the current state of the C of E should be suffient attraction for them. In order to produce the purest of gold the real work is in getting rid of the dross and the impurities.

P.P. Dawkie baby: In search for notoriety have you noyticed thst you have become what is known in literary circles as a “bomb thrower”. People soon get tired of the one sideness, lack of intellectual rigour and honesty and the hatred and bile that is the usual hallmark of such writers. Nothing that you write against God and the Catholic church in particular is new or intellectually fresh. Neitszche existed be3fore you and went mad before he died. We have also seen even worse catholicisin all its version and vileness in the Jack Chick tracts, and we hold you in the same esteem. Great company you keep there.

Fuinseoig
October 29, 2009

*sporfle*

Sally Quinn, Jon Meacham, and Richard Dawkins.

If you wanted to gather a group of Absolute Cluelessness about religion together, you couldn’t have done better.

I mean, a cannibal from Papua New Guinea (should there still be cannibals there, or ever were) would have a firmer grip on sacramental theology. Actually, now that I’ve looked it up on Wikipedia, there may possibly be cannibalism in Papua (as distinct from Papua New Guinea) – and guess which is the single largest Christian denomination?

Three guesses: which is the Most Evillest Ever? Yeah, a Papuan ex-cannibal would have a better chance of understanding Roman Catholicism.

:-)

Connie
October 29, 2009

Excellent, excellent fisking, CJ. Right on target. Thanks.

Fuinseoig
October 29, 2009

Oh, and his figures are out of date. According to the website of the Irish Conference of Diocesan Vocation Directors:

http://www.vocations.ie/

“36 new seminarians are to commence studies for the priesthood for Irish dioceses this week. This represents an increase of more than 20% on 2008 when 30 men entered the priesthood for Irish dioceses.”

Now granted, all 36 may not make it all the way through. For 2007, we’re talking about a study of seven years, so they would have been the group that entered the seminaries in 2000.

Certainly we’re not talking about the massive numbers of vocations of the Good Old Days, but on the other hand, there are still those interested in the religious life. And apparently the African churches are bulging with vocations, so yeah – we’ll probably see (we are seeing already) missionaries coming from Africa to evangelise Europe.

And that’s what being a global church is all about.

:-)

While the Western countries are seeing a drastic drop, the rest of the world is growing apace:

http://www.vocationsireland.com/index.php

“The figures show that the number of priests has increased over the last eight years, from 405,178 in 2000 to 408,024 in 2007, although their distribution differs from continent to continent. While numbers of priestly vocations are growing in Africa and Asia (by 27.6 percent and 21.2 percent respectively), in America they remain more or less stationary, and have fallen in Europe and Oceania (by 6.8 percent and 5.5 percent respectively).

The number of candidates to the priesthood has also grown slightly, from 115,480 in 2006 to 115,919 in 2007. Here too the different continents show a different evolution, with notable increases in Africa and Asia while Europe and America show a drop of 2.1 percent and 1 percent respectively.”

So we can manage to stagger on for another little while, anyway.

Or is it the fact that white Europeans will be in the minority is what is behind all this “the Vatican is desperate to make up the numbers” rumbling?

How – dare I say it? – racist!

;-)

Fuinseoig
October 29, 2009

Ah – here’s where Richard got his figures, I imagine:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1124/1227293467863.html

“Noting that 30 men entered seminaries to train as priests in Ireland last September, with 31 having done so in September 2007 and 30 in September 2006, he contrasted this with the situation at the beginning of the decade when, in 2000 for instance, 13 men entered. Of that number nine were ordained last year.”

Though Fr. Rushe draws a different conclusion to that drawn by Professor Dawkins:

“IT IS “a myth” to say there is a continuing dearth of vocations to the Catholic priesthood in Ireland, the church’s national co-ordinator of diocesan vocations, Fr Paddy Rushe, has said.

…Of those entering in recent years, he expected that at least 18 would be ordained in each year. “The problem is that when people sign up, it takes six or seven years for them to be ready,” Fr Rushe said.

This meant that “we are only starting to see people emerge who signed up in 2001, which was a bad year for the Catholic Church as scandals broke and we were at the height of the Celtic Tiger”.

Should the numbers of seminarians continue to rise, he expected an influx of new priests to the Irish Catholic Church by 2014.

He forecast that “in 2014 we will see twice, if not three times as many new priests emerging”.

Another factor, Fr Rushe added, was that while the average age of seminarians in Maynooth now was about 34, this was coming down. In his own diocese of Armagh the average age of entrants was 24. Currently there are 70 men training for the priesthood at St Patrick’s College Maynooth.

Others are training for service in Ireland at St Malachy’s College, Belfast, in Rome and in Spain.”

Well, who are you going to believe on this subject: a world-famous professor of ethology, or an Irish Catholic director of vocations?

Please bear in mind when answering the above question that the priesthood involves “humble and unexacting duties”, not to mention “dotty idea(s)” and “cannibal feast(s)”, unlike the important and taxing duties, biggest of big-brain ideas, and vegetarian delights (presumably) of an evolutionary biologist.

;-)

Fuinseoig
October 29, 2009

Christopher, I’m wondering about something. On the one hand, this stunt is about the level of tact and knowledge I’d expect from Sally and Jon.

On the other hand, could this possibly be a bit of revenge on their parts? I know Sally was very, very distressed by all the nasty people who criticised her for receiving Communion at Tim Russert’s funeral (God rest the man) just because she wasn’t, like, Roman Catholic herself.

Jon Meacham is a vestryman at St. Thomas Episcopalian Church in New York, which seems (by its webpage) to be Anglo-Catholic, Anglo-philic, and nosebleed-High Church (I see by the order of service they even sang “O Salutaris” on Sunday!) and the webpage is not obviously heterodox or crazy, whereas my impression of Jon was that he was very liberal, to say the least.

So I guess as a High High Churchman, he has an interest in this, and may even be feeling a little bit miffed: after all, this offer by Pope Benedict might seem to indicate that he does not, in fact, think that Jon is just as much or even more Catholic as himself but has one or two little trifling elements of difference between them, which must seem like a positive insult.

Oh, and if we’re talking misogyny and not letting women be priests, Richard, you might want to have a word with Jon’s church: according to their staff page, there’s not one single solitary female member of clergy at all, at all, and only two lay women as staff members.

Tsk, tsk!

;-)

Christopher Johnson
October 29, 2009

I think it’s genuinely what both think, Fuinseoig. But they can’t come out and say or print something like that because there would be hell to pay if they did. Solution? Have Dawkie say it for them since it gives them a little deniability.

Janjan
October 29, 2009

Years ago we knew the priest at St. Thomas’ when he was here in Boston at the Advent. Nice enough guy but very very “Church of the Good Gin & Tonic”.

Don’t be fooled. Nose bleed high church places are full of leftists with excellent taste.

As for Sally Quinn and Jon Meachum, who are they, again?

Katherine
October 29, 2009

I continue to be amused by the liberal reaction to this. Really, they shouldn’t care any more about this than they do about the Southern Baptist Convention. Making fun of benighted conservative Christians is good sport, though, and makes easy columns for them. Oh, and the one by Hans Küng linked in the previous thread is another hoot. It’s all about the Vatican’s thirst for power.

FW Ken
October 29, 2009

Five or six years ago, the Catholic diocese of Fort Worth had 5 seminarians. This year we have 31. But let’s not confuse Dawkins with facts.

Five or six years from now, give or take, Newsweek will be gone. I suppose it could change back to something resembling journalism, but they weren’t doing so well at that. The problem with their new approach is their market. I suspect they are betting on the growing number of secularists in this country, but they are most likely to appeal to religious liberals like Episcopals, a shrinking population. Secularists I know simply aren’t interested enough in religion to pay attention to repeated attacks on Christianity. No, Newsweek has a short shelf like under Jon Meacham.

One last thought: when poor people need help, where do they go? To the food bank run by the local chapter of American Atheists? No, they are at St. Mary’s Catholic Church food bank, St. Andrew’s Episcopal East Door Ministries, Broadway Baptist Church, the Presbyterian Night Shelter, Salvation Army, or Union Gospel Mission (to be fair, The Shelter and Broadway Baptist are fairly liberal religiously, but get a lot of cooperation from other Christians as well). Before medicine became a business, Fort Worth had 4 hospitals: 1 each Catholic, Episcopal, Methodist, and public (not the same as “secular”).

Another last thought: Christopher, I wouldn’t exactly say I’m “proud” to be a Catholic. I’m reading Eamon Duffy’s Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes”. There’s a lot of garbage with the gold, you know. I’m glad and grateful to be Catholic, though.

Dave
October 29, 2009

Sigh… Thanks a lot Chris, Now I’ll have to spend the weekend on my knees repenting for laughing so hard at a pathetic, confused old man.
The old dawk certainly hasn’t learned any new tricks in the past few decades. Just wind him up and he spits out the same tired, predictable venom… But on the plus side, he’s a wonderful advertisement for the bankruptcy of Atheism and by contrast, the virtue of Christianity.

Aquila
October 29, 2009

Chris – Could you please interview Prof. Dawkins and publish his views on Islam? Thanks.

KY Catholic
October 29, 2009

Too funny for words! It’s not as though the Anglicans who are planning to join the Catholic Church don’t know exactly what they are doing. They are adults, presumably they have thought and prayed about their decision.

Why should Dawkins care? Like the old saying goes, if you don’t play the game, you can’t make the rules.

dwstroudmd
October 29, 2009

aaaahhhh, poke an atheist and you see how hard he kicks against the goad! People this angry at God, or his surrogates in this case, are much nearer God than they think! Rather like angry adolescents complaining the world is unfair because they aren’t getting their way. But the ignorance of the actual number of killings by atheistic governments in the 20th century is unconscionable for a supposedly educated man. Atheism does not turn your brain to mush but anger certainly does. I give you exhibit A.

Fuinseoig
October 29, 2009

Y’know, I had wondered about the nice things Professor Dawkins had to say about Jesus – “traces of kindness and humanity with which Jesus himself might have connected, however tenuously; Christ-like compassion for the less fortunate” – which made me go looking for his opinions about Christ.

It seems to be that oldie but goodie, the “ethical teacher crucified by the establishment for going around telling people to be nice to one another.”

http://richarddawkins.net/article,20,Atheists-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins

“Of course Jesus was a theist, but that is the least interesting thing about him. He was a theist because, in his time, everybody was. Atheism was not an option, even for so radical a thinker as Jesus. What was interesting and remarkable about Jesus was not the obvious fact that he believed in the God of his Jewish religion, but that he rebelled against many aspects of Yahweh’s vengeful nastiness. At least in the teachings that are attributed to him, he publicly advocated niceness and was one of the first to do so. To those steeped in the Sharia-like cruelties of Leviticus and Deuteronomy; to those brought up to fear the vindictive, Ayatollah-like God of Abraham and Isaac, a charismatic young preacher who advocated generous forgiveness must have seemed radical to the point of subversion. No wonder they nailed him.

…I think we owe Jesus the honour of separating his genuinely original and radical ethics from the supernatural nonsense which he inevitably espoused as a man of his time.”

Whew! Glad to know that, since for a moment it almost seemed as though the Prof was teetering towards saying something nice about religion for once!

We also find out in that article from 2006 the kind of bishop the Professor approves of:

“This week I had a public conversation in Edinburgh with Richard Holloway, former Bishop of that beautiful city. Bishop Holloway has evidently outgrown the supernaturalism which most Christians still identify with their religion (he describes himself as post-Christian and as a ‘recovering Christian’). He retains a reverence for the poetry of religious myth, which is enough to keep him going to church.

…Be under no illusions, for Bishop Holloway was not. The singularity is a product of blind evolution itself, not the creation of any unevolved intelligence. It resulted from the natural evolution of the human brain which, under the blind forces of natural selection, expanded to the point where, all unforeseen, it over-reached itself and started to behave insanely from the selfish gene’s point of view.”

;-)

stephen
October 29, 2009

I was going to post a reducio ad absurdum argument against getting Dawkins’ opinion on the declaration, but realized I couldn’t reduce the absurdity any further.

Also, when the most militant anti-theist (and especially anti-christian) in public view approves of your brand of Christianity, it’s time to take a hard look at your theology.

Bill (not IB)
October 29, 2009

**** Beverage Warning ****

This spew of vomitus* is amazing. I’ve seldom seen someone manage to simultaneously prove that:

1) He is more bigoted in his own right than David Dukes.

2) “A mind is a terrible thing to waste”.

3) The most intolerant people are the ones who scream loudest for tolerance.

4) Lack of a relationship with God really does make one stupid.

5) Everyone knows what a pathetic loser ++Williams is.

6) Common Sense has turned from a quality valued by society into a mere historical reference about a Revolutionary War pamphlet.

7) Holding to one position does not prevent one from taking gratuitous shots at that same position (as in being pro-homosexual, and then make an oh-so-genteel comment about “buggering altar boys”.)

8) Pope Benedict must be doing the right thing; the allies of Satan are furious about it.

9) Being erudite often means someone has merely achieved a greater ability to make an a$$hole out of themself.

and finally,

10) The Roman Church is doing a wonderful job of preaching the Gospel – even this twisted, loathing, bitter, warped, pathetic self-proclaimed atheist has got the basics of Catholic doctrine down quite well.

* – actually, I suppose it’s wrong to call this vomitus; it clearly has more of the qualities of expulsions from the other end of the gastro-intestinal system.

Mark Windsor
October 29, 2009

On one level, I would not, if I were Roman Catholic, be terribly upset by this article.

Nah, we’re used to it. This stuff is easy to ignore.

Bill (not IB)
October 29, 2009

Now here’s an irony with real coincidence power. In my list of items, I forgot that typing the numeral 8 and a right parenthesis translates into a “Smiley Face” – but I can think of no better place for it on that list than where it ended up appearing.

(CJ – if I ever knew a way to get just the desired text of “8″ and “)”, I’ve forgotten it. Do you happen to know?)

Dr. Mabuse
October 29, 2009

I’m surprised an atheist would even HAVE an opinion on whether it’s good or bad for Christians to cluster under one roof or another. He should consider that they’re ALL clueless; like when Obama and Hillary Clinton were locked in combat for the Democratic presidential nomination, and Mark Steyn sighed, “Couldn’t they BOTH lose?” But no, Dawkins has a definite preference when it comes to theistic lunacy, and I suspect his softness for Anglicanism is based purely on its pushover status. He’s correctly evaluated its utter uselessness at the job of teaching anything real about God, so he uses it as a convenient backstop for his fight with the REAL enemy – Catholicism.

Paula Loughlin
October 29, 2009

This interview had one purpose only. To allow Newsweek/ Washington Post publishers, editors and writers to vent their hatred of the Catholic Church without having to be direct about it. Why else have that hell bound gonadless pond scum spew his filth? Why else publish a piece which they knew would have the sodomites and bitter, dry harridan crones of Molech spitting out bile in fury over the mere mention of the Church.

The Church is hated. Not for the errors of history. As if this was the case all institutions would receive such treatment. No. She is hated because she dare says keep your legs closed, keep your marriage tackle in your pants unless you are a man and woman married to one another.

Not giving her smile upon people rutting like pigs at a trough just does not earn the world’s accolades these days.

Funny how the modern liberal claims to be atheist or ofa progressive spiritual mind, when truly what they worship is tucked safely behind a thatch of hair. What irrelevant gods they have.

Scott W.
October 29, 2009

Ooh, ooh, I know! For the 100 million or so people they butchered last century. No, wait, that’s atheism.

Forget it Chris, he’d just say those had nothing to do with atheism. Get it? When Christians do something awful, it’s Christianity at fault. With athiests it’s something else. They are masters of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Smurf Breath
October 29, 2009

For some, the motive will be homophobic bigotry, and a consequent dislike of the efforts of decent church leaders such as the Archbishop of Canterbury to accept those whose sexual orientation happens to deviate from majority taste.

Wait!!! I don’t understand… I thought Rowan was supposed to be moderately conservative. Open to a two track communion, didn’t invite Gene Robinson, post Lambeth comments, etc. How could Dawkins possibly have gotten this mistaken impression of him???

[/kidding]

Smurf Breath
October 29, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw

I must admit thought, at least he’s honest and consistent in his views. The most maddening people on the planet are the theological liberals. They are truly delusional, and in the case of the leftist/pro-perversion activists posing as Christians, dishonest as well.

Christopher Johnson
October 29, 2009

Bill,

I don’t know either so if it comes up, I just leave a space between the 8 and the ).

angloorthodox papist
October 29, 2009

I just pray those on the bank of the river Tiber can read the signs. Get swimming!

diane in nc with a small d
October 29, 2009

Nice enough guy but very very “Church of the Good Gin & Tonic”.

LOL, sounds very Advent-ish.

Ever have sherry in the monastery garden at the Cowley Fathers’ monastery? Is that still there, even? Last time we visited, which was about 15 years ago, there was a massive condo high-risey thing next to the monastery. So much for a little bucolic oasis in the heart of Cambridge. :o

Michael D
October 29, 2009

I’m with Dr. M. Why on earth would anyone ask Dawkin’s opinion on church policy? And why would he answer? If the atheist Marxist-Leninist party made a move to grab membership from Dawkin’s “Brights” would the reporters go to the Pope for an analysis?

And Chris – excellent come-backs on the ridiculous atheist assertions that religion is the source of all evil. Stephen Barr did a similar job debunking atheist assertions about science (see “Modern Physics and Ancient Faith” ISBN 10:0-268-02198-8, pages 11-18).

He looks, for example, at whether atheists are (as they claim) more objective as scientists, and concludes that believers are more objective. why? Because they admit to more possible explanations for a phenomenon, whereas atheists must always find a materialist explanation. The atheist “is in a straightjacket of his own devising.” When they come across phenomena (such as consciousness, free will, rational thought, morality) that conflict with their self-imposed restriction, they must assert that these phenomena do not exist.

And when atheists hear of cosmic patterns that speak of a creator, they invent a bunch of unobservable metauniverses from which ours must have been selected via an anthropic principle. As Barr says, “It seems that to abolish one unobservable God, it takes an infinite number of unobservable substitutes.”

bob
October 29, 2009

Why would he even bother to comment except to show he’s a greater ##s than Spong? Quite full of himself, ain’t he?

Minuteman
October 29, 2009

diane in nc with a small d
“the Cowley Fathers’ monastery? Is that still there, even?” — Dear Diminutive d, still there as Society of St John Evangelist. Bishop Tom Shaw residing. I suspect it is a far cry from the Cowley Fathers

JM
October 29, 2009

Why aren’t the Piskies and leftist Anglicans accused of poaching atheists? Not converting them, as there would be less of a doctrinal change for an atheist to become Anglican than for an Anglican to become RC, but simply poaching.

st. anonymous
October 29, 2009

“… buggering altar boys pervades the culture”

You mean, as in “those whose sexual orientation happens to deviate from majority taste”?

Damian G.
October 29, 2009

This looks awfully familiar…

Just kidding, Chris. Excellent fisk.

William Tighe
October 29, 2009

This brings back memories. In 1992 or 93 I had occasion to have several telephone conversations with the then Rector of the Church of the Advent in Boston. In one of them he told me of his intention to become a member of “your church” once he had put his children through college. Fast forward — now he is Rector of St. Thomas, Fifth Avenue, New York, and one of his sons is (or was) Curate at St. Mary the Virgin, Times Square. The latter was once an Anglo-Catholic “shrine church” until, about 12 years ago, its then Rector “came out of the closet” in his own pulpit, announcing his own homosexuality and sumultaneously declaring his support for WO and SS; and further informing the congregation that Catherine Roskam, the ex-RC assistant bishop in the TE”C” Diocese of New York, would be the celebrant of the “Solemn High Mass” on the forthcoming Candlemas.

St. Mary’s has “gone south” — and so, alas, has Meade the Younger. Would that his Dad had acted on his earlier intention.

Christopher Johnson
October 29, 2009

Damian,

You gave me the idea.

:-)

Daniel Muller
October 29, 2009

Why would he even bother to comment except to show he’s a greater ##s than Spong? Quite full of himself, ain’t he?

Just like Spong, he has books to sell. I fault his “interviewers.”

FW Ken
October 29, 2009

What Daniel Muller said…

I put a comment at Bovina’s this morning that keeps coming back to my mind: what does it say about a society that after a century when at least 100 million people died at the hands of atheists, people like Richard Dawkins are all the media’s darlings. Of course, this is a society that protects – and even celebrates the murders of at least a million babies a year.

Damian G.
October 29, 2009

Chris,

I know, I know. We’re all friends here. :-D

William – St. Thomas, sadly, offers up prayers for the woman suffragan “bishop”. It’s a major flaw in an otherwise Anglo-Catholic parish.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
October 29, 2009

How do peopole who are this stoopid stay employed?

Theodore
October 29, 2009

Why doesn’t Dawkins curl his scornful lips and focus his beady little ones on the true champion Gold medalists in the Threatening Butcherous Contemptuous Religion Category (TBCRC):
http://anglicanprayer.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/southern-sudan/

He’s chicken. That’s why.

Far easier to pick on a non-violent, meek, turn the other cheek, love, bless, pray for, forgive your enemies and entreat them gently type religion, ’cause it won’t cost you your life.

May the Lord be merciful and to this guy and help him to his senses and grant him conviction of sin and repentance so he can stand with Christians against the rising tide of Babylon and be with the Lord forever in heaven.

Janjan
October 29, 2009

Well, I am happy to say that Fr Warren at Advent, although politically very liberal, is perfectly orthodox. The Episcopal Club drives him crazy. As for Bishop “Arafat was my homeboy” Shaw….’nuf said.

Duane
October 29, 2009

“I wear his scorn as a badge of honor”.

Seriously, I would wager that the average member of my Catholic parish is a WHOLE lot happier and content than this angry man.

Sibyl
October 29, 2009

Double dog dare Dawkie to take on the Religion of Peace, the warm green globular religion, the nouveau nazi fascists or the sex-worship crowd. He’s equally rabid, but probably not that dumb.

When he tires of ranting about Christianity, he’ll probably take on the RVers or the Westminster Dog Show crowd.

Floridian
October 29, 2009

“It does not send its missionaries out to tell deliberate lies to AIDS-weakened Africans, about the alleged ineffectiveness of condoms in protecting against HIV.”

The only real means to protect against HIV is one of such an unspeakable horror, Dawkins, Spong and VGR cannot bear to think of it or utter its name.

Peter C.
October 30, 2009

diane in nc with a small d, as of a couple of years ago when I lived in Boston, the services at the SSJE monastery, a.k.a. the Cowley Fathers, were known at the place for a man to go and find a nice, church-going… man to settle down with… at least, for a night or two. It was either there or the Ramrod.

Fuinseoig
October 30, 2009

Well, regarding Dawkins and Islam, he has made some derogatory comments; from that “Atheists for Jesus” piece, he talked about “the Sharia-like cruelties of Leviticus and Deuteronomy” and “the vindictive, Ayatollah-like God of Abraham and Isaac”, which are obviously not meant as compliments.

:-)

He has also had a letter in “The Independent” newspaper:

“The young men whom you call ‘radicalised Britons’ and ‘extremists’ are just honest Muslims who take their scriptures seriously (‘We are fighting British jihadists in Afghanistan’, 25 February). They sincerely believe what all Muslims are taught to believe: that the Koran is the inerrant word of God. If Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton, will Afghanistan be lost in the faith schools of Birmingham?”

Letter from Richard Dawkins in the Independent, 26 February 2009″

So he has indeed expressed disagreement with Islam, and it’s probably fair to say he holds it in the same esteem (or lack thereof) as Christianity. It’s just that for English/American audiences, the media (naturally) emphasise his views on Christianity, what with the majority of us being Christians.

After all, both Professor Dawkins and a 5-Point Calvinist would probably agree that Mahommed was a false prophet, but for vastly differing reasons.

Christian
October 30, 2009

I’m starting to think that the wily B16 has Dawkins and Spong on his payroll as double agents.

Whitestone
October 30, 2009

Fuinseoig,
The spirit operating in Mohammed’s teachings and followers is evident by the fruit it produces. It is a religion of the natural mind and brings forth fruit of the natural flesh.

There are only two forces, Holy God and the devil.

Each has an army of spirits, good and evil. God’s produces good fruit and His enemy cannot, but only counterfeits light, good, benevolence with the works of the flesh, but always, pride, power, flesh, natural reasoning or death lie beneath these false good works.

Fuinseoig
October 30, 2009

Thanks for making my point for me, Whitestone.

:-)

Professor Dawkins would agree about religion being a product of the natural mind and the fruits it produces, except he wouldn’t confine it to Islam.

Peter C.
October 30, 2009

The difference between Islam and Christianity? Mohammed killed his enemies. Jesus died on the Cross so that even His enemies might repent and be saved.

Whitestone
October 30, 2009

Mohammedism proves itself daily. The evidence is apparent to both the spiritually discerning and even to the natural mind.

There are people, who for some reason, refuse to see plain evidence and reason. Some are the pansexual/abortion agendites, the Utopians (one world government/religion, world peace, global warming myth) and the various world despots and power-mongers, and others. There are some of these in almost every church.

Sibyl
October 30, 2009

In regard to the claim of Mohammed’s followers to be children of Abraham, please see John 8:39-47 where Jesus defines Abraham’s children.

[...] opinion on the Summa Theologica.)  Christopher gives his hate filled screed a fisking to remember here.  Bravo Christopher!  You may never swim the Tiber, but you will always have a cheering section [...]

Bishop of Bray
October 31, 2009

I think we may safely discount the opinions of a game show host as to the existence or non-existence of our Supreme Being. Further our Catholic sistren and brethren need our outreached hands in this time of trial.

Luckily the Diocese of Bray stands ready to receive anyone who is persecuted by the hordes of fundamentalist Jesuits and Dominicans, aided and abetted by the ever fiendish Knights of Columbus (talk about a name that stands for patriarchy, oppression and imperialism!). Our churches are staffed by sensitive and caring priests. Our liturgy combines the best of the historical traditions and modern, progressive thought. The vast majority of our clergy are joined in blessed unions of one form or another.

Our latest Diocesan Convention was so spirit-filled that I may of our atheist and agnostic visitors were heard praying to our creator.

In fact, I’m sure if our dear friend, the deeply tanned former POW and atheist were present, he would have been moved to call upon god as well.

[...] MCJ BLOGGER: “If genius can be defined as the ability to drive people completely insane by the most [...]

[...] became baseball bats, furniture, pencils, spanking paddles(doggone it, me, I thought I told you to drop it!!  I have standards around here!!), doors, wainscotting, hockey sticks and other useful items. The [...]

Support The MCJ

Search

Links

Meta