Pharyngula

Posted by: Screechy Monkey | July 13, 2009 7:11 PM

I'm really disappointed in Bob Wright lately. I've enjoyed some of his previous books, though they have their flaws (The Moral Animal is a little too fond of the evo-psych "just so" stories, and Non-Zero goes off the rails with his "directionality" arguments), and Bloggingheads.tv has provided plenty of good content over the years.

But now Bob is taking Templeton money as sponsorship for some diavlogs on bloggingheads, and the new book he's flogging seems to be in large part another predictable "faith in faith" tract.

In a recent diavlogue with John Horgan, Wright was more shrill and strident than I've ever heard any of the so-called New Atheists be.

So I'm not surprised that he's decided to join the Flea Circus.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 13, 2009 7:12 PM

wait, what?

I know one rather prominent one who is, but that's hardly a sufficient sample size to draw conclusions from

Posted by: Kel, OM | July 13, 2009 7:16 PM

I actually went and read his arguments. Gah! Brain want to bash against wall.

Posted by: aratina cage | July 13, 2009 7:21 PM

Did anyone see his interview with Dan Dennett? He was such an ass in that one, always trying to force Dennett to concede even though it was supposed to be an interview.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | July 13, 2009 7:23 PM

If religion is the wellspring of radicalism, why bother paying attention to any issues in the actual material world?

As opposed to the immaterial world?

Posted by: thickslab | July 13, 2009 7:29 PM

From the article:

Consider Dawkins's assertion, in his book The God Delusion, that if there were no religion then there would be "no Israeli-Palestinian wars."

For starters, this is just wrong. The initial resistance to the settlements, and to the establishment of Israel, wasn't essentially religious, and neither was the original establishment of the settlements, or even of Israel.

Wow. Talk about missing the point of Dawkins's point about the Israel-Palestine situation.

Posted by: Peterd102 | July 13, 2009 7:32 PM

Damn just remembered a good comic on this point - http://www.atheistcartoons.com/?p=373

Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | July 13, 2009 7:35 PM

I'm not sure how Dawkins's comments on Israel and Palestine make him a righty, except in Wrighty's fevered imagination.

This was pretty pathetic.

Posted by: Anton Mates | July 13, 2009 7:38 PM

The Israeli and American right join Dawkins in stressing religious motivation in the Middle East, and there's a reason for that. The people there whose political grievances are most conspicuously caught up with religion are Muslims. If the problem is that Muslims are possessed by this irrational, quasi-autonomous force known as religion, then there's no point in trying to reason with them, or to look at any facts on the ground that might drive their discontent.

I take it Wright's unaware that Dawkins signed onto that 2002 letter condemning Israel for "its policy of violent repression against the Palestinian people in the occupied territories," and calling for the EU to reduce its funding of Israeli institutions "until Israel abides by UN resolutions and opens serious peace negotiations with the Palestinians?"

Dawkins is almost 180 degrees from Hitchens and Harris when it comes to foreign policy in the Middle East.

Posted by: deang | July 13, 2009 7:44 PM

The first self-professed atheists I ever heard about (back in the late 70s) were a few members of the US military who felt that the Christianity they were raised to believe in, one that emphasized helping the poor and meek, got in the way of their desire to dominate through military might. They were Ayn Rand types.

Posted by: a different phil | July 13, 2009 7:49 PM

That article made my brain hurt.

Posted by: CapnCrunch | July 13, 2009 7:50 PM

Hitchens and Harris are both scumfuckers when it comes to foreign policy. I have no use for them, and I'm sure most people here, and most "new atheists" in general, feel the same way.

Posted by: Jewbacca | July 13, 2009 7:52 PM

Benjamin Geiger @7,

That's the closer to making sense of that article than I've been able to come. It's like an even more silly version of "All men are mortal. Socrates was mortal. Therefore, all men are Socrates."

rob @3,

Game Theory? Where?

Posted by: Badger3k | July 13, 2009 7:56 PM

Guys - all you need to do is look at where it is - Huffington Post. I used to read them, before the election, and they have slid (or perhaps always were) off the scale. Their "science: writing is full of woo, their religion writing is full of shit, and there is an abundance of ignorance filling the comments. If Huffington sees fit to print it, read it with caution, keep irony meters shielded, and be prepared to lose brain cells.

Posted by: maus | July 13, 2009 8:04 PM

"If Hitchens is a "Trokstyist" of any sort that Leon Trotsky would actually recognize, I'll eat my hammer and sickle."

If he fits in line with the Neocon ideals, he MUST have been a commie liberal beforehand, duh.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | July 13, 2009 8:13 PM

I stopped reading Huffpro some time ago when they went all woo in science.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 13, 2009 8:26 PM

I don't think I'd go as far as calling Hitchens a right-winger. After all, he still considers himself a Trotskyist

He was a Trotskyist, but I don't think he considers himself so any longer. After George Galloway called him a "drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay" Hitchens wrote:

He says that I am an ex-Trotskyist (true), a "popinjay" (true enough, since its original Webster's definition means a target for arrows and shots), and that I cannot hold a drink (here I must protest).

Posted by: Helena Handbag | July 13, 2009 8:56 PM

What, Hitchens is an asshole so all 'new atheists' are, too? I think 'asshole' is what he wanted to say, but used 'right winger' instead because that's even more pejorative among educated people these days.

I'm uncomfortable with Harris' anti-Muslim stridency, too, (how different is it from the Southern Baptist worldview, really?) bit I don't see how he can fit Dawkins into that mold. RD can come off as snarky, but always kind and filled with wonder.

I'm reading Wright's new book just now. It's a little dense going, and the prose doesn't sing like Dawkins' but it's interesting. Not sure what's bringing on this chorus of 'but I'm not one of THOSE atheists!' from scholars and journalists lately. Must not be getting as many cocktail party invitations as previously.

Posted by: TuxedoCartman | July 13, 2009 9:09 PM

I couldn't really get past him using "New Atheists", as if Atheism underwent a schism in the mid-1900's, and now we have Orthodox Atheism and The New Reorganized Church of the Immaculate Atheism... or something.

Posted by: Steven Sullivan | July 13, 2009 9:29 PM

As this silly Wright essay shows, Hitchens simply can't be dismissed as doctrinaire 'right winger', except by lazy minds.

How many right wingers claims to still be *Marxist* (as Hitchens has done several times in the last few years)?
How many 'right wingers' consider Palestine to be occupied , colonized territory, and Zionism to be based on 'lies' (while supporting the right of Israel to exist)?
How many 'right wingers' called for investigation into the Ohio voting irregularities in the 2004 election?
How many 'right wingers' condemned 'waterboarding' (and underwent it themselves to boot)?
How many 'right wingers' wrote books eviscerating Mother Teresa and Henry Kissinger, and articles titled 'The Stupidity of Ronald Reagan?"
How many 'right wingers' are STONE ATHEISTS who have no problems with evolutionary biology?

Posted by: M. Brazeau | July 13, 2009 9:37 PM

Next up: Michael Steele as proof that most African-Americans are Republicans.

Posted by: Tongue of Groucho Marx | July 13, 2009 9:49 PM

Sam Harris directly criticizes the Iraq War here, albeit briefly. *note: was first result in 'sam harris iraq war' search on Google*

Richard Dawkins sounds downright contemptuous of Bush here. *note: was first result in 'richard dawkins iraq war' search on Google*

So, that leaves Christopher Hitchens, who is certainly one of the most outspoken neoconservatives (although, to his credit, he's backpedaled on torture).

...err, I can't really come up with a reason why Wright wrote that article, other than that he was lazy and thought that he could woo his established market (anti-vaccination Lefties) in one quick post, while additionally annoying atheists (and likely anyone that's right-wing on foreign policy, too).

I do agree with him in that atheists are an overwhelmingly left-wing group, with right-wing atheists/other non-religious falling almost exclusively into various forms of libertarianism, other than paleolibertarianism. (Slightly OT, but Ayn Rand had a rather interesting moral model: William Hickman, who kidnapped a 12-year old girl.)

Posted by: pcarini | July 13, 2009 10:02 PM

Badger3k @ #28 hit the nail on the head. I've never been a fan of HuffPo, but now I feel dirty when I knowingly click a HuffPo link.

I saw the article earlier but closed it as soon as I saw that the author was going to treat Dawkins and Hitchens as the same, politically.

Posted by: Grahame | July 13, 2009 10:17 PM

"For starters, this is just wrong. The initial resistance to the settlements, and to the establishment of Israel, wasn't essentially religious, and neither was the original establishment of the settlements, or even of Israel."

I got as far as the fourth paragraph. This is a ridiculous assertion. Without a belief in yahweh's real estate deal with Abraham there would have been no Zionist movement, at least not one focused on Israel/Palestine. Any patch of land would have done.

Posted by: TheVirginian | July 13, 2009 10:22 PM

I automatically discount a lot of credibility points from anyone who uses the terms "new atheist" or "militant atheist." Atheists have been around for millennia, and the arguments today are pretty much the arguments you would have heard 2,000 years ago. That's because the problems with theism have been around since the beginning (no evidence for gods; contradictory beliefs about gods; obvious fictions in the stories about gods, etc.) When con artists (the clergy) keep churning out the same nonsense century after century while demanding money and power from their victims, then you will always have people who see through the lies and cry foul.

What's new is simply that a combination of events (the rise of the militant religious right since the 1970s, in particular) has created a countersurge of open criticism from sane, rational people. I've been a member of freethought groups since the 1980s and wrote numerous articles for freethought newsletters in the 1990s, long before such Johnny-Come-Latelys as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, PZ, etc. :) It's the popularity of the recent books, sign of a growing audience tired of Christian aggression, that is now stirring counterattacks.

So, leaving aside the other problems with this piece of nonsense that other commentators have pointed out, his use of "New Atheist" and his silly effort to pin the "right wing" label on all atheists because of a few atheist war hawks (if that's even an accurate term) by themselves severely damage any credibility he might claim.

Posted by: kencabbit | July 13, 2009 10:29 PM

suggested->subjected. I also put the wrong email address in. Ah well.

Posted by: Anton Mates | July 13, 2009 10:34 PM

TheVirginian

So, leaving aside the other problems with this piece of nonsense that other commentators have pointed out, his use of "New Atheist" and his silly effort to pin the "right wing" label on all atheists because of a few atheist war hawks (if that's even an accurate term) by themselves severely damage any credibility he might claim.

And again, none of the atheists he mentions are hawkish with respect to the particular issue he focuses on: Israel vs. Palestine. Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins have all strongly criticized the Israeli settlers and/or government for their behavior toward the Palestinians. Harris is centrist at worst on that particular issue--he thinks both sides are pretty nutty--while Dawkins and Hitchens come down strongly on the side of the Palestinians. So why'd Wright bring the subject up at all?

Yes, it's a very lazily-written article.

Posted by: Sonja | July 13, 2009 11:00 PM

More ridiculous non sequiturs:

"Why the Presbyterians are Right-Wing on Health Policy."
"Why the Buddhists are Left-Wing on Space Policy."
"Why the Muslims are Right-Wing on Environmental Policy."
"Why the Catholics are Left-Wing on Economic Policy."

non se·qui·tur (nn skw-tr, -tr)
n.
1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.

Posted by: BenW | July 13, 2009 11:10 PM

In my area about half of atheists would be considered conservative. Rejecting belief in a deity does not make one more or less likely to have a particular view on national security or what type of diaper to purchase for their children.

While silly, perhaps in the lexicon of the author "New" Atheist literally means right wing atheist. Much like how people started talking about South Part Republicans several years ago.

Posted by: SteveC | July 13, 2009 11:23 PM

Here is a graph of a bunch of atheists on the political compass:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?s=cd8cb6e1d17ea62167a68b0036224221&t=229564

Loads more neato graphs here:
http://homepage.mac.com/lpetrich/Politics/Compass/DensityPlots.html

Posted by: Anton Mates | July 14, 2009 1:24 AM

TheVirginian,

My "war hawk" comment was directed at the Iraq war, and as I tried to say, I doubt it's applicable, even to Hitchens, must less the others. I should have been clearer.

Oh, your meaning was perfectly clear. Wright's, on the other hand....

Posted by: Blue-eyed Videot | July 14, 2009 2:34 AM

"For starters, this is just wrong. The initial resistance to the settlements, and to the establishment of Israel, wasn't essentially religious, and neither was the original establishment of the settlements, or even of Israel."

When I start reading paragraphs like this one, I have to throw in the towel. Parsing out the meaning is just too damn hard.

Posted by: Aquaria | July 14, 2009 3:32 AM

Cimourdain, did you fail reading comprehension? What part of "Joke" did you miss? I used the word twice in my post. I even used a little emoticon at the end, to reinforce the concept that this was a fucking joke.

But, if Hitchens lied to my face, yes, I would call him a liar. He wouldn't get a pass just because he's Hitchens.

Are you saying you wouldn't have the integrity to do that much?

Posted by: TheVirginian | July 14, 2009 4:19 AM

Anton Mates:

If I'm clear, it means that I've joined the Scientologists!!

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!

I'm a free man, not a number nor a clear!!!

PZ, please apply the tentacles!! Save me from the curse of the Hubbardites. Sacrifice me to Cthulhu! Destroy my soul via the Haunter of the Dark! Feed me to the Rats in the Walls! Any horror is better than being a Scientology slave!!

Posted by: Jack | July 14, 2009 4:38 AM

Yeah, I saw this bit of desperation yesterday. Very impressive. This idiot seems to think that Hitchens is the entire "New Atheist" movement.

I hear Wright's next piece is going to be a devastating analysis of why all modern physicists have motor neurone disease.

Posted by: Walton | July 14, 2009 5:49 AM

All this goes to show is that "right-wing" and "left-wing" are simplistic terms to the point of uselessness, and should be abandoned in our political discourse. The political views of any intelligent person are complex and nuanced, and can't be described adequately by a simple one-dimensional spectrum.

Posted by: Mattmon | July 14, 2009 6:00 AM

Why ONE "New Atheist" is right-wing on foreign policy.

Posted by: Dianne | July 14, 2009 6:46 AM

I'll give him some small part of a point in that it's not clear to me to what extent religion is the reason for religious violence and to what extent it is the excuse. People will kill (including themselves) for religion, but they'll also do so for country, race/culture, and political ideology. There seems to be a basic us/them division that people make. The borders can be changed but the tendency may not be eliminable. In other words, if religion disappeared from the world, would it make people more peaceful or would they just find a different excuse for discriminating against and killing each other?

Posted by: Ric | July 14, 2009 7:28 AM

Damn it! I loved "The Moral Animal," but now this? Grrrrr.

Posted by: Didac Lopez-Martinez | July 14, 2009 7:45 AM

Binomial thinking (right wing/left wing ; old atheist/new atheist) has its own limitations. When you apply always a dicotomic method to analyze reality, you finally obtain a mere confirmation of your own bias. Take for example, being right-winger or left-winger in US international policy. It is being taken for granted that right-winger are "interventionists" and left-winger "anti-interventionists". But imagine for a moment Obama strikes Gorilletti's ungovernment in Honduras and reinstates Zelaya. Then, a lot of left-wingers in US would praise Obama as a Liberator. And right-wingers in US would condemn Obama's interventionism. So, it is not a question of to intervene or not to intervene, or when or how to intervene but on behalf to. For classical Trotskysts any foreign intervention by a capitalist state is always condemned as imperialist. For Burnham-oriented (ex-)Troskysts, interventions are justified if they bring an improvement in the government of the intervented state. For example, if you replace a multi-party democracy by Saddam Hussein, then it is good. They forget the very intentions of this kind of interventions and they reduce their analysis to government (not to real sufferings of real people). However, there is an additional problem. You cannot really differentiate between foreing and domestic policies. States and frontiers are social constructs, and you cannot base your entire line of reasoning and action to social constructs. There is only a world, I'm afraid. There is a frontier-fetishism in both right-wing and left-wing commenters. Finally, there is the dicotomic cathegory of "New Atheists". This category is not a innocent one, even if some "New Atheists" assume it with pleasure. This category construed the existence of "Old Atheists" that were atheists only for themselves (and thus forgetting the social character of religion). The same cathegory of "Atheists" is opposed to "Theists" as if they both were on the same level. However, most Buddhists are practically Atheists. And some Atheists believe in the extraterrestrial intelligence character of UFOs. Reality is complex. For example, if you are American your first duty is to fight American interventionism because interventionism is a hindrance on American economy and an absolute no-benefit for American working- and middle-classes, no matter if you are accused of pro-Islam. And if you are Iranian then your duty is to fight the Iranian government, no matter if you get accused of pro-American. It is hard to do, but if we fail, we have a whole world to lose in hate, war and ignorance.

Posted by: Marc Abian | July 14, 2009 8:05 AM

interventionism is a hindrance on American economy and an absolute no-benefit for American working- and middle-classes

Would you please expand on this?

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 14, 2009 8:19 AM

Walton,

and I think it's unfortunate that this site, which ought to be welcoming to all types of rationalists and freethinkers, is so dominated by the orthodox left

Yeah, it's almost as if there is a banner saying this website is run by a godless liberal.....

Posted by: Marc Abian | July 14, 2009 8:32 AM

How does this weigh against the benefits to the economy of military action (not just military spending, but also the continued use of the dollar as a main currency, trade agreements, the pillaging of natural resources from other countries etc)?

I don't have any concrete details on it, but I assume the cost-benefit is favourable to America or at least to the corporate classes of America.

Posted by: Didac Lopez-Martinez | July 14, 2009 9:10 AM

All those benefits, Marc, are actually further damages to the US economy (destruction of jobs, etc.) There is no corporate class in America because the so-called corporate class is a world-class without any regard for American truly interests.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 14, 2009 9:25 AM

Hitchens is a right-wing hawk.

Yeah, most trotskyites are.

Posted by: Tom | July 14, 2009 9:32 AM

Hmmmmm .. You know what ... this upsets me some :(

The moral animal was the book that first lit the fire of curiosity in me, over evolution and how human psychology is affected by it ... and it would seem that Mr Wright has come over a tad apologetic for us, I'd assumed his kinsmen (intellectually - not genetically, of course), in the face of US pressure groups, and the oh so human desire to please all. I can see how he arrives at his thesis, and to a degree I can understand what he means, but it would appear that he's falling into the same trap as, my once fave' man EVER ... Dawkins.

Why must ALL religion be evil, or ALL atheists be right wing ... that just doesn't stack up from either side, no???

I am a devout atheist (I often call myself a practising atheist), and have no doubt whatsoever that we arrived at now (flora and fauna-wise) via a slow, Darwinian evolutionary process, but I fail to see how having that knowledge forces me to hold certain political views ... personally I flip-flop at the drop of a hat, change my mind based on spurious logic or a good speech by a charismatic individual (just like the rest of our human heard), and thus my right/left wingedness is irrelevant to my understanding of religion and evolution.

This smacks to me of people creating an 'us' to justify the human urge to attack 'them' ... and implying (for self-justification purposes) that anyone who holds the same scientific view as them must also agree politically ... and that ain't cricket (apologies for the 'englishism') ... I can know things and hold opinions that are contradictory, and I'm free to be a ruthless individual politically, if I so wish, or a lovely woolly liberal, and this need not be based on my opinions of evolution (I love it!) and religion (good lord ... you must be mad!).

Maybe that's just me :)

Posted by: Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac | July 14, 2009 10:00 AM

The problem here is that two ethnic groups disagree about who deserves what land.

And WHY do they think they deserve that land? Because GOD TOLD THEM SO. It. Is. Zion. We could have given a nice swatch of the American West to the Jews for reparations that Nobody Inhabited, but no. They don't want That Land. They want Zion. Jews are continually making Illegal settlements along the West Bank claiming Divine Right to do so. This is delusional and the Only justification is religious.

If there were no belief in paradise, there would be few suicide bombers. Then again, there might be less charity.

Based on what does he make this claim? I could as easily claim that there would be more charity, since this Mortal Coil is all that we have. If you believe the afterlife is better, then why not just let people starve, so they can get to heaven faster and be better off, since this world is so evil and wrong. I can almost guarantee that most Pro-Lifers who murder doctors think they are sending these people to "be judged by God."

If the problem is that Muslims are possessed by this irrational, quasi-autonomous force known as religion, then there's no point in trying to reason with them, or to look at any facts on the ground that might drive their discontent.

Most reasonable people don't want to fight all muslims. If you want to pray 5 times a day in your own house and not drink alcohol, FINE. Just don't threaten me or attack me for not doing so. Same goes for you Christians.

It's the Extremeism that Religion breeds that "is the root of all evil." Giving these people a place of certainty that is otherwise unobtainable. That seems to be the point mr Wright is missing..

Sheesh, what a pile of garbage.

Posted by: Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac | July 14, 2009 10:09 AM

Additionally. . .

Dawkins only says that Moderate Christians (those who stay in their house, not enforcing their ideas on everyone else) are bad Because they ENABLE the wackos to exist. A Pro Lifer Goes out and murders a doctor, and Millions of americans say "good, somebody needed to do it."

I don't see how that isn't evil.

Posted by: Cimourdain | July 14, 2009 11:20 AM

MrJonno,

The right is associated with anti-science, pro-religion and sexuality based bigotry.

Really? Ayn Rand? Leo Strauss? Ludwig von Mises? Friedrich August von Hayek?

Don't think that the left is necessarily pro-science either; witness the anti-science, anti-technology, anti-civilization Neaderthals of the Deep Green movement.

I agree that the right/left thing is useless.

-----------------

And WHY do they think they deserve that land? Because GOD TOLD THEM SO. It. Is. Zion. no

Agora, I know that this is the version of history that most people accept, but that doesn't make it so. Zionism dates back at least two centuries. Why did it originate? Well, because the European powers started leaning on the decaying Ottoman Empire to start treating it's non-Muslim subjects somewhat decently. These are often called "religious minorities"; bullshit, they were the remainder of the original inhabitants of these lands who had seen them seized by a vicious imperialism that proceeded to oppress and degrade them for over a Millennium. Zionism is a movement of dhimmi emancipation.

Things came to a head when the Ottomans went looking for a fight, found one, lost, and now the Muslims are whining that they lost a piece of territory the size of Wales. Color me unimpressed.

If the premise that religious irredentism is wrong, then where, exactly, are all the protests about the existence and behavior of Pakistan?

No, wrong wrong wrong. I call this the "Bill Maher" school of thought. Religulous was a decent movie, but it was Far harsher on Muslims than it was on Christians, unfairly. It's not "muslims" that are the problem, it's the Jihadists,

If anything, Bill Maher was too lenient on Islam. However, I can appreciate he doesn't want his head hacked off. To get to the meat of this, you give me the distinct impression of not being cognizant with any of the arguments of your own position. Allow me to recommend an excellent essay: "Islam, the Middle East, and Fascism". It's available online.

Allow me to sketch a brief reading list:

Ibn Warraq, Why I Am Not A Muslim
Andrew Bostom The Legacy of Jihad and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism
Bat Ye'or The Dhimmi, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam, and Islam and Dhimmitude
Ayaan Hirsi Ali Infidel
Brigitte Gabriel Because They Hate
Snouck Hurgronje, The Achehnese; mainly the introduction and ending.

Read these and digest them, especially the first three authors, and I assure you, you'll know something about the subject.

Posted by: itzac | July 14, 2009 11:58 AM

It's as if he's actively dodging the points people are trying to make in the arguments he thinks he's addressing.

Posted by: Lambert | July 14, 2009 12:30 PM

The initial resistance to the settlements, and to the establishment of Israel, wasn't essentially religious, and neither was the original establishment of the settlements, or even of Israel.

The problem here is that two ethnic groups disagree about who deserves what land.

And I suppose it was just a huge coincidence that one ethnic group just happened to be Jewish while the other was non-Jewish.

What drivel we are supposed to swallow: the two ethnic groups were in a bit of a dispute about the land, and then all of a sudden it became a religious issue. Piffle!

Posted by: Marc Abian | July 14, 2009 4:24 PM

and now the Muslims are whining that they lost a piece of territory the size of Wales. Color me unimpressed.

Yeah, of course they are. You can't just come in and take over an area and move all the people out.

But of course, it's not just the initial creation of Israel. It's the continued oppression mediated by an appalling illegal (in my view) nation. They don't allow cement into Palestine.

Posted by: Anton Mates | July 14, 2009 6:38 PM

Everyone I talk to generally has nuanced political views that would resist simple categorization as "right wing" or "left wing."

Not me. I'm leftie and simplistic as hell.

Posted by: whitebird | July 14, 2009 6:46 PM

@15 - that was the first thing I noticed!

The comments, as usual on the Huffpo, are most amusing. I like watching the "quantum energy is the divine vibration, or what I call god" people compete with the "jesus is lord and savior!1!!" people for snappy corrections by the reality-based community.

Posted by: Mr.Man | July 14, 2009 7:31 PM

rob @#3: it's actually "Root Of All Evil?", as in a question. And the question mark was inserted because Dawkins insisted on it.

Dear me, ever heard of Google?

Posted by: Cimourdain | July 15, 2009 6:11 AM

Correction: Efraim Karsh.

Posted by: Marc Abian | July 15, 2009 8:44 AM

Cimourdain,

I ignored your point (not points, I only saw one) because I don't think it's actually that relevant.

You said you were unimpressed by the anguish of the arabs over the situation in Palestine because of previous oppression. I don't think that should make them any less upset, and I don't see how it justifies the current oppression visited on the middle east by Israel.

Posted by: John N. | July 15, 2009 10:31 AM

Is Robert Wright an atheist or an agnostic?

I'm working on designing a t-shirt featuring the names of prominent atheists and would love to include him (despite this shoddy article). However, I haven't been able to find proof of his atheism. Anybody have any quotes that prove he's an atheist?

Posted by: Q | July 15, 2009 1:25 PM

> Zionism dates back at least two centuries. Why did it originate? Well, because the European powers started leaning on the decaying Ottoman Empire to start treating it's non-Muslim subjects somewhat decently.

Bullshit. Modern Zionism was founded neither by European powers nor by the Middle Eastern non-Muslims whose emancipation movement you want us to believe it was meant to be, but by a bunch of Eastern European Jews who, understandably, got tired of being beaten up by Christian thugs.
Theodor Herzl: born in Hungary.
Vladimir Zhabotinsky: born in Russia.
David Ben-Gurion: born in Poland.
Chaim Weizmann: born in Russia.

The actual non-Muslims of Palestine, far from welcoming the supposed "dhimmi liberation movement" that left so many of them in exile or under occupation, have been conspicuous for their efforts to resist it. Look at George Habash, Hanan Ashrawi, Suha Arafat, Khalil as-Sakakini, Azmi Bishara, Edward Said...

> they were the remainder of the original inhabitants of these lands

Just as most of the Muslim majority are. Or do you imagine that in 1400 years not a single non-Muslim converted? That all billion-odd Muslims on earth are descended exclusively from the tiny population of seventh-century Arabia? Oh wait, I get it: if people decide to believe something different than their parents, they automatically lose their rights to their ancestral land. Because only religions and ethnicities have rights or homes, not mere individual humans.

If every Palestinian on earth had become atheist in 1850, or 1914, or even now, they would still be as strongly opposed to Israel as they are now, and with good reason. You can't "liberate" a country from its own inhabitants.

Posted by: Cimourdain | July 15, 2009 2:18 PM

Oh dear. This is why I wish people would take the time to read some real books on the subject. I'd strongly recommend Bat Ye'or's works. Zionism, as a movement of dhimmi emancipation, began in Europe because unsurprisingly the Ottoman Empire throttled any attempt at emancipation. It was the pressure of the great powers that forced the Ottomans to pass the tanzimat, the reforms, that reduced the hideous and humiliating punishments of dhimmitude.

I thank you not to attribute to me points that I have not made. Of course, there was a process of converting the conquered people, sometimes by force, mostly because they lived in perpetual fear, by means of their abject position. You can applaud that, if you'd like.

The existence of Arab Christian anti-Zionism is traceable to the Islamochristian movement. To put is simply, there was some hope amongst Arab Christians that they might replace Islamic supremacism with an appeal to a shared Arab identity. They failed to see that Islam is inextricably linked with Arab identity. The Ba'ath party, that claims descent from the Nazi party and Stalinism, amongst others, counted many such amongst its founders. So these Islamochristians destroyed their own heritage and civilization to "fit in", and then raised the chorus against Israel. This is nothing more than the umpteenth case of Christians deciding to throw the Jews into the furnace to save their own necks.

You can applaud that too, if you'd like.

The injustices and cruelties towards the Jewish people continued right up to the moment of Israel's foundation. I hear it often said "Why not Israel in Germany?" After all, Germany's track record would justify that. Very well, here we have another nation (the Ottoman Empire) with a similar track record, the same principle applies.

Finally, I think you owe it to yourself to read Ibn Warraq's skillful dismemberment of Edward Said.

Posted by: JDP | July 16, 2009 1:47 PM

The sheer amount of shameless antisemitism in this thread is absolutely unconsciable.

Also, to the asshole who stated that the US should have just handed over an uninhabited chunk of the western US, thre [i]are[/i] no uninhabited chunks of the western US. America dropped itself on top of an entire continent of people with their own cultural histories, killed most of them, and shoved the rest into refugee camps called "reservations."

If you want to talk about dismembering illegal states and illegal settlements, let's start by dismembering such illegal settlements as New York City, Los Angeles, Saint Louis, Salt Lake City, Rio de Janiero, Caracas, etc. and return to the 1492 borders in the Americas.

Posted by: Cimourdain | July 17, 2009 11:30 AM

h. You had to move in and evict people from their homes.

The original Zionists bought the land, and it was expanded because the Arab nations decided that going to war against Israel with genocidal intent a good idea. Too bad for them.

History is littered with displaced cultures and people, but the present is different.

Place this quote together with your insouciance towards Pakistan, as expressed here:

That's cos everywhere was colonised and attacked and recolonised. There's a certain point where you have to leave it go. Where that is is hard to say I admit.

I'll fill it in for you. "Where" is "as long as it ain't the Jews". Pakistan has been a long run of oppression and genuine ethnic cleansing, continuing right up to this day - see the fates of Christians and Hindus there, or the Ahmadi Muslims - and you'll find nada complaints about Pakistan.

Sure thing, though, let's talk about the present. The present pits a civilized state - Israel - that goes so far as to provide free medical treatment even for terrorists that get wounded against a pack of genocidal maniacs who routinely use their own people as human shields (war crime, btw) because they know that the pansy Left - in Orwell's magnificent phrase - is that easily suckered. It's not unknown for the recipients of free medical care to return to those hospitals to blow themselves up.

It's really no contest.

Ah, but then the past suddenly becomes relevant again, yes? When it's the Palestinians, it's all about historic grievances and yada yada yada. When one points out the Jewish people's historic grievances, it's all "let's live in the present".

Have you ever watched Palestinian television? Seen those shows where they rape the minds of six year olds to get them to say they want to be Shahid? Know about the museums celebrating suicide-murder and displaying the dismembered bodies of Jews? Or what about the fact that twenty-five members of the "secular", "moderate" PLO took the name Hitler or Abu Hitler?

The reason I place oppression in quotation marks is simple. One million Arab Muslims in Israel enjoy better rights than they would in any Arab Muslim state - and that's not even comparing them with the way Non-Muslims would be treated.

Finally, I have little time for those lucky enough to be born into freedom who call free societies tyrannical.