Clinton Richard Dawkins Deplatformed in Berkeley
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
One of the high priests of atheism is C. Richard Dawkins. (His tinhorn fans consider themselves "New Atheists", but the only thing "new" about them is their extreme hatred and intolerance, dishonesty, lack of thinking skills, redefining "reason" and "rational" to mean "naturalist" and "atheist".
One of the high priests of atheism is C. Richard Dawkins. (His tinhorn fans consider themselves "New Atheists", but the only thing "new" about them is their extreme hatred and intolerance, dishonesty, lack of thinking skills, redefining "reason" and "rational" to mean "naturalist" and "atheist".
 |
| Background image of shattering atheist symbol courtesy of Why?Outreach |
They are detestable to the rest of the American population. (I reckon professing atheists of yore would be embarrassed by this lot.) Atheopaths rally behind Dawkins since he gives a façade of intellectualism, although atheism cannot withstand true logic.
To put it another way, he's considered brilliant by people who already hate God and are digging up excuses to justify their rebellion against their Creator. Dawkins is angry, hypocritical, and mean-spirited in general, but is surprised that people do not like him. In the formerly great Britain, other scientists also have a dim view of him. That should tell him something.
Atheists and leftists are champions of free speech — but only as long as it's their kind of speech, as is readily apparent. Free speech was a big deal at University of California at Berkeley in the 1960s, but they have protested appearances by people who say things they dislike — lately, they have done this with violence. The reason? They reject the content as well as the people that oppose leftist views. Colleges used to be places that taught people how to think, which includes dealing with opposing views. Now they have safe zones so they can be protected from challenges and concepts they find threatening, poor snowflake darlings.
Ride with me on a side trail for a spell. Way back when, I visited a Ku Klux Klan rally in a small town near Kalamazoo, Michigan. The white supremacists were well-mannered, and the protesters were borderline violent. I wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper, defending their right to free speech, even though I despise what they promote. Someone responded to my letter and justified the juvenile actions of the protesters, saying, "Do you know what they teach?" Yes, yes I do. He conveniently missed the point of what I was saying: we can't shut them down because we don't like them, and we could be next.
Now, let's get back to the Dr. Dawkins subject. He was invited to speak in Berkeley, but not by the college itself. He was going to be making chin music on atheism and his "excellent new book on science". (The title, Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Realist, implies philosophy and metaphysics more than actual science, but I digress.) He was "deplatformed" (did that word even exist five years ago?) from speaking because he said harsh things about Islam. Interesting how "progressives" adore homosexuality as well as Islam, but Islam rejects homosexuality, with some adherents actively killing homosexuals. Leftists have a dilemma. They didn't check to see if Dawkins spoke the truth, did they?
Listen, I don't cotton to Dawkins. I think he is an irrational, hateful sidewinder that lies about God and Christians under the nebulous word "religion". He needs to humble himself and repent before the God he claims does not exist, as should his followers. I also believe he should have been allowed to speak. The winds of political correctness can shift quickly. While atheists are notorious for suppressing the free speech of creationists and other Christians, that does not justify my taking a "serves you right" approach. And there may still be a few intelligent atheists who would join with others in protecting such rights against governmental interference and obstruction by confused people who follow trends. I'm not saying that everyone should give everyone a platform in every circumstance when people want to present their views. In a public setting where free speech was promoted in the past, though, denying Dawkins the opportunity to speechify is hypocritical.
Here are some articles that I thought you might like. Note: No way do I approve of the full contents of each article.
Atheists and leftists are champions of free speech — but only as long as it's their kind of speech, as is readily apparent. Free speech was a big deal at University of California at Berkeley in the 1960s, but they have protested appearances by people who say things they dislike — lately, they have done this with violence. The reason? They reject the content as well as the people that oppose leftist views. Colleges used to be places that taught people how to think, which includes dealing with opposing views. Now they have safe zones so they can be protected from challenges and concepts they find threatening, poor snowflake darlings.
Ride with me on a side trail for a spell. Way back when, I visited a Ku Klux Klan rally in a small town near Kalamazoo, Michigan. The white supremacists were well-mannered, and the protesters were borderline violent. I wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper, defending their right to free speech, even though I despise what they promote. Someone responded to my letter and justified the juvenile actions of the protesters, saying, "Do you know what they teach?" Yes, yes I do. He conveniently missed the point of what I was saying: we can't shut them down because we don't like them, and we could be next.
Now, let's get back to the Dr. Dawkins subject. He was invited to speak in Berkeley, but not by the college itself. He was going to be making chin music on atheism and his "excellent new book on science". (The title, Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Realist, implies philosophy and metaphysics more than actual science, but I digress.) He was "deplatformed" (did that word even exist five years ago?) from speaking because he said harsh things about Islam. Interesting how "progressives" adore homosexuality as well as Islam, but Islam rejects homosexuality, with some adherents actively killing homosexuals. Leftists have a dilemma. They didn't check to see if Dawkins spoke the truth, did they?
Listen, I don't cotton to Dawkins. I think he is an irrational, hateful sidewinder that lies about God and Christians under the nebulous word "religion". He needs to humble himself and repent before the God he claims does not exist, as should his followers. I also believe he should have been allowed to speak. The winds of political correctness can shift quickly. While atheists are notorious for suppressing the free speech of creationists and other Christians, that does not justify my taking a "serves you right" approach. And there may still be a few intelligent atheists who would join with others in protecting such rights against governmental interference and obstruction by confused people who follow trends. I'm not saying that everyone should give everyone a platform in every circumstance when people want to present their views. In a public setting where free speech was promoted in the past, though, denying Dawkins the opportunity to speechify is hypocritical.
Here are some articles that I thought you might like. Note: No way do I approve of the full contents of each article.
- Berkeley Event With Richard Dawkins Cancelled Over 'Hurtful Speech' About Islam
- Dawkins Banned in Berkeley
- Richard Dawkins Now A Heretic To Progressives
- Jerry Coyne makes a few good points, but keep an eye out for his bigoted, loaded terminology, at Richard Dawkins deplatformed at a book talk in Berkeley for “abusive speech” about Islam on Twitter
