This is totally Godwintastic and not to be taken at all seriously at the level of implying an equivalence between critics of Dawkins and apologists for Fascism. And the whole thing - and its a joke, obviously - rests on the fact that Fascism is a kind of boo word that deligitimates any sort of defence, in a way that is almost divorced from the content of Fascist ideology. (Orwell had something to say about that, as you know.)
If there is any kind of point to this spoof, it is that the kinds of criticisms levelled at Dawkins rely on an assumption that religion and religions should be shown a certain respect. Making a parallel with Fascism is taking it way, way too far, I agree - the joke wouldn't work without going completely over the top - but the point that some of the criticisms of Dawkins only really work if one puts religion into its own special category that requires deference is not.
So I guess at this point you are going to be fuming at my "Its only a joke!" defence, which probably highlights the depth of misunderstanding between us. The piece I linked to is crude, but with something of a point to make. The fact that it is rude is, to my mind, part of the point. It is, naturally, completely outrageous to make these sorts of comparisons with religion and religious people, even in jest. Conversely, saying that atheists are amoral or even barely restrained sociopaths is pretty commonplace. It is that disparity, that rather severe lack of symmetry which I think is my reason for linking to this. Its also why I think that Dawkins attracts so much hate, as opposed to bored dismissal - it certainly has little to do with the content of the sorts of things he proposes, since as far as I am aware he doesn't actually propose doing anything much beyond criticising religion.
If there is any kind of point to this spoof, it is that the kinds of criticisms levelled at Dawkins rely on an assumption that religion and religions should be shown a certain respect. Making a parallel with Fascism is taking it way, way too far, I agree - the joke wouldn't work without going completely over the top - but the point that some of the criticisms of Dawkins only really work if one puts religion into its own special category that requires deference is not.
So I guess at this point you are going to be fuming at my "Its only a joke!" defence, which probably highlights the depth of misunderstanding between us. The piece I linked to is crude, but with something of a point to make. The fact that it is rude is, to my mind, part of the point. It is, naturally, completely outrageous to make these sorts of comparisons with religion and religious people, even in jest. Conversely, saying that atheists are amoral or even barely restrained sociopaths is pretty commonplace. It is that disparity, that rather severe lack of symmetry which I think is my reason for linking to this. Its also why I think that Dawkins attracts so much hate, as opposed to bored dismissal - it certainly has little to do with the content of the sorts of things he proposes, since as far as I am aware he doesn't actually propose doing anything much beyond criticising religion.
Reply
Leave a comment