Dear Poirot,

>>why couldn't he just have said "extremism" - most people would have drawn their own conclusions on his sentiments.<<
Why cannot people who criticise e.g. “pedophile priests“, just say “pedophiles”? I think you know the answer. Yes, the Pope wanted to draw attention to the fact that these extremists - probably the worst of their kind in the century - were atheists, the same as in the above example one wants to draw attention to the fact that these pedophiles were priests.

Let me add to your (and Pelican’s) “whys” also this one:

Why can Catholics accepts that SOME priests were pedophiles, inquisitors, Crusaders etc, but atheists cannot accept that SOME atheists were Nazis, Communists etc.? It is the generalisations (to ALL Catholic priests, ALL atheists etc) that are objectionable.

Many (not all) people think that there was a correlation between celibacy and the pedophile acts, and the Pope (and many others, again not everybody) think that there was a correlation between unbelief in God as the Highest moral authority, and the Nazi crimes.

I think both opinions have arguments in favour as well as against, and have the right to be expressed. And, of course, one can draw all sorts of conclusions from both, including oversimplified ones.

Come, come, George,

Surely you're not suggesting that such reasonable souls as Pelican and myself don't accept that some Nazis were atheists....that would be silly. Of course we accept that. No doubt, Pelican would agree that there was probably a mix between Christians and those who do not subscribe to a theistic belief who made up the bulk of the foot soldiers.
We are arguing against the Pope singling out atheists as the driving, if not the only, force behind Nazism. We all know that these things are far more complex than most people will admit - there are myriad reasons for the rise of a monster like Hitler. The Pope knows that, yet he took a cheap shot to bolster the standing of the church knowing full well he would offend many peaceful responsible people who identify themselves as not theistic.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

You write:

["militant atheism" is just an inflammatory phrase religious interests use. Dawkins isn't "militant", and I don't know of any who are.]

My 1982 edition of The Concise Oxford Dictionary gives an interesting definition of the word "militant":

"engaged in warfare (Church militant); combative, agressively active"

In an interview with Thomas Bass (an American writer and professor in literature and history) for a book published in 1994 ("Reinventing the future: conversations with the world's leading scientists") Dawkins is quoted as saying:

" I am a fairly militant atheist, with a fair degree of active hostility toward religion. I certainly was hostile toward it at school, from the age of about sixteen onwards. I mellowed a bit in my twenties and thirties. But I'm getting more militant again now.

It was a mind-blowing experience to discover Darwinism and realize there were alternative explanations for all the questions with traditional religious answers. I became irritated at the way the rligious establishment has a stranglehold over this kind of education. Most people grow up and go through their lives without ever really understanding Darwinism. They spend enormous amounts of time learning church teachings. This annoys me, out of a love of truth. To me religion is very largely an enemy of truth."

... duly noted ...

Might I add that, in my view, the action of Richard Dawkins is just as honourable as that of a priest or a member of a political party.

It is intolerance and extremism that poses problem.



.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote:

"If atheism is simply “lack of belief (in God)” how could an education be atheistic, i.e. built on this lack? It can only prevent a child from gaining an inside knowledge of any religious (there are many of them) way of looking at life."

Darwinism rather than creationism may perhaps be qualified by some people as "atheistic" education.

" ... I experienced not atheistic, but explicitly anti-theistic education ... "

I accept your term of "anti-theistic" education. I therefore suggest that the legislator should outlaw "religious and ant-theistic" education of minors and other vulnerable persons by school and church.

" ... I grew up in a Stalinist country ... but even there the Authorities would not have dared to “outlaw“ education by e.g. Christian parents, only discriminate against it."

I do not suggest the legislator should outlaw "religious and anti-theistic" education of minors by parents. I do not suggest lt should be "descriminated against" either.

The legal restriction I preconise would apply to school and church only.

In my view, the State has no place in the parent/child relationship unless the child is in physical, moral or psychological danger.

.

George my response to your post is similar to Poirot's.

The difference is that many atheists (I cannot speak for all atheists - we are not an organisation) accept that only SOME Catholic Priests are pedophiles - we are not suggesting that a calling to priesthood must automatically make one a pedophile.

We also don't accuse Catholicism of teaching pedophilia as a tenet of its religion, and by association all Catholics must be pedophiles. What Christians and atheists have done together is to call for more accountability within the Catholic leadership and to be true to those principles of which they espouse. That does not deserve the label of 'ophobia'. It is too easily to dismiss legitimate concerns by labelling or by taking offence to phrases like "pedophile priests". The guilty pedophiles within the Catholic Church were priests and it should not be forgotten in the same way that the Nazi regime should not be forgotten for it's inhumane treatment of the Jewish people.

The reference by the Pope to Hitler or Nazis appeared to be a defensive response to fear of losing 'market-ground' (excuse the phrase) by associating the 'practice' of atheism to evil doings. It is both dishonest and divisive.

Both theists and non-theists are capable of doing wrong and it has nothing to do with a lack of religion or the adherence to a religion (unless that religion incites killing in the name of their God) but responsibility lies totally and wholly with the individual.

It is not wrong to ask why the Catholic Church did nothing to protect its parishioners - the Church by nature, is in a position of authority and with that comes responsibility.

The best we can all hope for is that these harsh lessons learnt will be taken on board and right will be done.

Dear Banjo,
my 1993 Shorter Oxford says a little more, but I concede the point--and emphasise the point that language is wonderfully rhetorical and frighteningly imprecise (considering we predicate our lives and thought upon it).
<Might I add that, in my view, the action of Richard Dawkins is just as honourable as that of a priest or a member of a political party.>
I would say just as "dishonourable"; I don't think the priests or the secular priests have honourable motives.
Conceded too that extremism is regrettable; but if we're talking extreme polemics (I deplore all violence), extremism is the only way to make oneself heard within the bland intellectual landscape of modernity.
It is indifference, not extremism, that poses the problem.

Dear George,
you are a sensitive plant!
As I've intimated elsewhere, I have the greatest respect for your learning and your experience, but debate takes precedence. I do not single you out for having an impoverished horizon (you seem to have an expansive horizon, despite your self-imposed delimitations), I was merely paraphrasing you back to yourself. As you must recall, I've been a critic of Dawkins myself, for constructing straw men.
I do see belief as "mental starch", though the metaphor belongs to E M Forster.
I see the church as little different to any other corporation, except that some, like Catholicism, enjoy an unfair advantage in government patronage and protectionism. I say float all religions on the stock market and let the competition in, that would be much more in keeping with our modern ethos, no?