I don't really care if you make a fansite for an actor or a famous person or even make a person famous because of their blog or website. People can argue with me about PZ, for instance, whose blog is quite popular, and which I enjoy highly and I think he makes fantastic points worth spreading to a lot of people. Much like it's fine if an actor makes a particularly good movie that everyone should go watch. Just temper it all with common sense. Many of PZ's followers (or Dawkins') seem to have forgotten that his shit smells after his morning constitutional just like everyone else's. This is where people get the idea that we "worship" any of the new atheists, and its ridiculous. I respect the man, I don't find him or Dawkins to be a christ figure, and I find it hilarious that Statler immediately used Dawkins in his initial response. As it's been pointed out before, the man is a biologist - not a judge, not a psychologist and not the parent of any of those kids. But he did go through a similar experience, and he's stating his opinion. I think Dawkin's mistake was assuming readers could come to that conclusion - that it's his OPINION.
Much like those fuckwits who worship Ayn Rand, who then gets lambasted by people who don't agree with her philosophies.
People, whether it's Christ, Dawkins, Rand, or fucking Harry Potter, it's 99% sure that it's never the body of work itself that's the problem, or even the author. It's the followers who ALWAYS fuck things up. Unless it's Glenn Beck, of course. Then you're fucked from the get-go.
Statler - 1) we don't all agree with everything any of our figureheads say. Something your religion seems to encourage is a cohesion of the type that requires you agree with every point being said by YOUR leaders. In fact, I'd argue that's why there are so many forms of Christianity, and so many churches. "Whoops! I don't agree with that guy...let's make another one so we're only with people who share our opinions!" It's part of what I hate about our Republican-Democrat party system here - I've yet to meet more than a handful of people who truly agree with all the points on one side or the other, yet it's assumed you do if you label yourself as such.
2) Life is NOT as simple as saying "molestation is molestation". Abuse has levels. Reaction to it has levels. If you don't realize this, maybe you've never been abused. I have. The non-sexual physical abuse I endured was more than "embarrassing," but not so much to be more than slightly debilitating in rare circumstances now. In this case it was my own father, who I could have pressed police charges against at the time. I didn't. We are now working to rebuild a relationship after almost a decade. We each have to judge for ourselves how to deal with it. And judges have to decide how to dole out punishment accordingly. The man who diddles a kid once, then realizes he was wrong and never does it again should be punished for that crime only if the kid calls him on it. The repeat offender should be punished more drastically. If you kill a guy in self-defense, is that the same as killing someone out of irritation?
Dawkins was arguing for fairness - I read that section of the book while I was in math class last night. He was right that we make sweeping judgments about all priests based on the crimes of a growing number of them. If you want a more "fair" assessment, many of us are angry not because we think all priests are guilty of abuse, but because others who never lay a hand on a child covered it all up, and that's a different sort of crime.
3) Dawkins cries out against religion on a whole because religion IS a harm. That pope you mentioned continues to tell people not to wear condoms. An entire continent is rampant with disease and bigotry helped by his influence and his minions. A priest fondles one boy. A man continues to keep a nation in the third world rather than trying to help raise it. You tell me how you balance the scales.
Much like those fuckwits who worship Ayn Rand, who then gets lambasted by people who don't agree with her philosophies.
People, whether it's Christ, Dawkins, Rand, or fucking Harry Potter, it's 99% sure that it's never the body of work itself that's the problem, or even the author. It's the followers who ALWAYS fuck things up. Unless it's Glenn Beck, of course. Then you're fucked from the get-go.
Statler - 1) we don't all agree with everything any of our figureheads say. Something your religion seems to encourage is a cohesion of the type that requires you agree with every point being said by YOUR leaders. In fact, I'd argue that's why there are so many forms of Christianity, and so many churches. "Whoops! I don't agree with that guy...let's make another one so we're only with people who share our opinions!" It's part of what I hate about our Republican-Democrat party system here - I've yet to meet more than a handful of people who truly agree with all the points on one side or the other, yet it's assumed you do if you label yourself as such.
2) Life is NOT as simple as saying "molestation is molestation". Abuse has levels. Reaction to it has levels. If you don't realize this, maybe you've never been abused. I have. The non-sexual physical abuse I endured was more than "embarrassing," but not so much to be more than slightly debilitating in rare circumstances now. In this case it was my own father, who I could have pressed police charges against at the time. I didn't. We are now working to rebuild a relationship after almost a decade. We each have to judge for ourselves how to deal with it. And judges have to decide how to dole out punishment accordingly. The man who diddles a kid once, then realizes he was wrong and never does it again should be punished for that crime only if the kid calls him on it. The repeat offender should be punished more drastically. If you kill a guy in self-defense, is that the same as killing someone out of irritation?
Dawkins was arguing for fairness - I read that section of the book while I was in math class last night. He was right that we make sweeping judgments about all priests based on the crimes of a growing number of them. If you want a more "fair" assessment, many of us are angry not because we think all priests are guilty of abuse, but because others who never lay a hand on a child covered it all up, and that's a different sort of crime.
3) Dawkins cries out against religion on a whole because religion IS a harm. That pope you mentioned continues to tell people not to wear condoms. An entire continent is rampant with disease and bigotry helped by his influence and his minions. A priest fondles one boy. A man continues to keep a nation in the third world rather than trying to help raise it. You tell me how you balance the scales.
![[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1140.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn569%2Fthesummerqueen%2FUntitled2_zpswaosccbr.png)
