Red Celt wrote:JimC wrote:Red Celt wrote:Calilasseia wrote:I wouldn't put money on this. When it comes to the matter of protecting their beloved doctrine and its stolen privileges, they'll stop at nothing. See for example: Catholic Church cover up of child rape and its blatant meddling in democracies to further this, as eloquently exposed by Enda Kenny.
Still waiting for a reply to my question. Who is "us"?
Clearly, Cali means atheists in general, with the idea being that RD's issues, if made widely known, will somehow allow an attack against atheism per se.
Can't see it myself; storm in a small teacup, to me...
Can the lack of belief be classed as a group in that way? Can one atheist be detrimental to other atheists? Ted Bundy didn't believe that Santa Claus was real. I don't believe that Santa Claus is real. Oh no! (grabs his petticoats) My good name has been tarnished!
"I say, good sir... you don't believe in the same things that I don't believe in, therefore I believe that I can dictate your lifestyle choices to you."
You're really fond of these strawman caricatures, aren't you?
I've very well aware that the only truly unifying feature connecting atheists is their unwillingness to treat blind mythological assertions as fact. Trouble is, amongst some of the supernaturalists, that in itself is
enough for them to regard anyone exhibiting this feature, regardless of whatever other redeeming traits that someone may or may not possess, as an enemy to be destroyed. Some supernaturalists have issued explicit statements to this effect, and speak about people such as you and I using language that not only constitutes hate speech, but verges on the Streicher-esque. Do you think that the people harbouring this hatred will feel themselves subject to any restraint, if they think they have been given some sort of mandate by the authority figures they look up to? Some of the authority figures in question being perfectly willing to take their denominations down the
Kristallnacht route, if they think this will entrench their own hold on power?
Please, don't waste my time with hand-waving assertions about the above being purportedly hyperbolic, because there have been documented instances of hate crime, up to and including homicide,
before any such upswell puts in an appearance in the Republican Jesus Belt. Indeed, I'm minded to recall a chilling little comment by William Dembski about arranging Inquisitional kangaroo courts for "evolutionists" which gives the game away about how these people think. Basically, a serious fuck-up on RD's part could have nasty consequences for some of our fellow atheists in places like Georgia, if the result of said fuck-up is to give the fundies the impression that their time has come. Just because you may be nice and safe where you live doesn't mean the same is true everywhere, and frankly, knowing that there's a risk involved here, RD should be taking his public responsibilities seriously enough not to endanger either his mission or other people. This is what comes with the territory of being a public figure, like it or not, and if he wants to be a shag bandit, then either employ a bit more discretion, or disarm the fundies altogether by being up front about it and telling them straight that it doesn't matter, because at least he's shagging other consenting adults, unlike some of the fundie pastors getting the vapours over this. Once again, I refer you, and everyone else for that matter, to those two words, "political dimension".
