Are you calling the pope a witch?
The Freethinker tells us of an unusually idiotic outburst even for the Institute of Ideas (which is a refuge for the old Living Marxism gang, who apparently converted from “Revolutionary Communism” to libertarianism as a group and overnight) and Claire Fox. It’s about how the (wait for it) new atheists are demonizing that nice man the pope and (yes really) engaging in a witch hunt.
A New Atheist witch-hunt – in stark contrast to their own professed views on tolerance.
What professed views on tolerance? I, for one, have said many times that I don’t believe in blanket “tolerance”; it depends what is being tolerated and what the tolerance consists in. I don’t profess to tolerate everything. I don’t think most gnu atheists do; so what is Claire Fox referring to? I doubt that she knows; I think it’s just a cliché that right-thinking people profess tolerance and surely gnu atheists think of themselves as right-thinking so surely they must profess tolerance…or something.
But more to the point – what does she mean “witch hunt”? People – including some new atheists – are saying that Ratzinger should be held accountable for his actions and the actions of the organization he heads. That’s not the same thing as hunting witches. It’s nasty and dishonest to pretend it is.
One would hope that Christians would know better than to invoke the term “witch hunt,” seeing as actual witch hunts are generally done in the name of God, and are happening to this day by Christians in Africa, who are killing children accused of “witchcraft.” For Claire Fox to describe a call for honest and impartial **accountability** for criminal actions as a witch hunt while, presumably, ignoring the crimes of Christians currently engaged in **actual**, horrific witch hunts shows that her priorities are pretty screwed. While I’m generally against the invocation of “won’t somebody please think of the children,” I think it may on point in some cases. So, won’t Claire Fox please think of the Children?
According to their website The Institute of Ideas considers one of its key “commitments” to be “civil liberties, with no ifs or buts.” Except, apparently, for children who have been raped by a priest, in which case Articles 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 (and arguably 2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights do not apply.
Off-topic from the rest of your post, but this:
made me laugh. Not really that surprising, especially if you’re familiar with liberal critiques of libertarianism.
As it happens, I read that article. Despite the clear inference of your post it was not a defence of religeon (the author is an athiest) nor of priests nor of the Catholic Church. It was a condemnation of rhetorical excess, inaccurate “facts” and vastly inflated numbers.
A key paragraph:
“So nothing like 10,000 individuals in America ‘say they were raped’ by Catholic priests. In truth, 1,203 made this allegation. And not all of them resulted in a conviction. Every allegation of rape should be treated seriously, of course, but what happened to the idea of innocent until proven guilty? How did a complex US report about all manner of allegations against priests come to be translated in the words of the Independent into the idea that ‘over 10,000 people have come forward to say they were raped [by priests]’? Because in the outlook of certain sections of the intolerant New Atheist lobby, everything from sex talk to fondling to being shown a porn flick is ‘rape’ – if it’s done by a priest, that is – and every priest is guilty of what he is accused of despite the question of whether or not he was convicted in a court of law.”
To be fair, if this is the same bunch as Spiked Online they’re more attention-seeking contrarians than anything so ideologically coherent (relatively speaking) as libertarians.
In the form of a rhetorical excess.
If it’s the case that it’s not the IoI massaging the figures then the BBC made the same mistake as The Indefensible. Which would make this a story about journalists, not atheists. But that wouldn’t play as well with a bunch of former communists and their appreciative new Tory press audience.
(OB) “That’s not the same thing as hunting witches. It’s nasty and dishonest to pretend it is.“
Oh, I think that’s stretching things a bit — “witch hunt” is a common enough idiom, surely? Nobody thinks actual witches are involved, or implied?
“Are you calling the pope a witch?”
Well, he turned me into a gnut.
I’m better now.
Dirigible is right this is about journalism. The problem isn’t even ‘excess’ but the use of rhetoric. I don’t know who or what this “New Atheist lobby” is but presumably there is no membership card or AGM. This is a standard journalistic rhetorical trick – invent an enemy & then condemn them. What does “New Atheist lobby” mean – are they “new” to atheism or is the lobby “new”. Does she mean the humanist organisation that put up those patronising anti-religion adverts on London buses? Has that organisation been spreading the idea that 10,000 people have been abused by priests in the US?
This is Claire Fox’s job – anybody who has listened to the Moral Maze will be aware of the arrogant and opinionated persona she is hired to perform for the entertainment of radio 4 listeners. Surely most people know this is show biz & nothing she is payed to opine is worth taking seriously?
Nice takedown of the LM nutters at:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n13/jenny-turner/who-are-they
I expect the author has axes to grind, but she grinds them quite nicely on their heads here.
Comparing the Pope to a witch is offensive to Wiccans.
Comparing the Pope to a witch is offensive to Wiccans
Hilarious! How Ironic.
If Ratzi weighs the same as a duck, he’s made of wood. And therefore …
James – LOL. In fact I think it may qualify as incitement to religious hatred in the UK.
From what I can find about the report I think the differences in statistics may result in part from the fact that there are lots of different statistics given in it, using various sources or methodologies. Some of them, if you round them up, support the BBC/Indie claim. So I stand by my comment that this is a journalism problem, although whether on the part of the BBC/Indie or the IoI I couldn’t say.
Possibly one for Ben Goldacre?
What a strange idea some people have of what toleration consists in. To tolerate something is to allow it to take place or to be practiced without intervention or violence, but it is not to accept it as true, nor is it to undertake not to criticize it. The whole point of secular space is that it allows for the free play of intelligence and criticism without that space becoming a battleground. The problem seems to be that more and more people see criticism itself as a form of belligerence, which effectively nullifies the point of freedom of speech. If toleration means that everyone can express their beliefs without risk of criticism, the result can only be cacophony. The whole point of freedom speech is the progressive refinement of our ideas and beliefs, and it is worrying that so many people misunderstand this.
I think that the new atheists in general do stand for toleration, but toleration for them reasonably does not include a reluctance to express criticism. In fact, the whole point of the atheist point of view is surely to express the most vigorous criticism of religion. Nor does toleration include the reluctance to ridicule ideas or beliefs, though in general it does not direct such ridicule towards individual believers. Of course, where individual believers become public standardbearers for their beliefs, and those beliefs are indeed ridiculous, or at least believed to be ridiculous, toleration does not include an undertaking not to ridicule or criticize such public proponents of belief. It is clear for example that Claire Fox deserves to be ridiculed for her criticism of what she takes to be the new atheist’s position, for new atheists are as prepared to criticize Claire Fox as she is to criticize them.
Mike Funnell
But I wasn’t talking about “that article”; I was talking about the press release by Claire Fox which the Freethinker quoted. You’re also quite wrong about the implication of my post; if you look at it you can see that it’s quite specifically about what Fox said about “new” atheists and about the pope.
Ughh, Claire Fox.
The Moral Maze, which is not really listenable to at the best of times becomes positively poisonous when she is on the panel. Add “Mad Mel” Phillips and Clifford Longley to the mix and it is enough to make you throw the radio out of the window. I never thought I would say this, but those three make Michael Portillo seem the epitome of reasonableness.
Eric McDonald #14 wrote:
When we are children, our parents and other adults try to teach us to “tolerate” other people — meaning, be nice. It shouldn’t matter that they’re different. Don’t tease them, don’t make fun of them, don’t criticize them, don’t tell them they’re wrong. Accept them as they are. Let it go. It’s more important to be polite, than to be “right.”
I think some people naturally revert to the basic understanding of tolerance which they learned at their mother’s knee. It’s perfect for getting along well with others by avoiding divisive issues. A more sophisticated, mature interpretation of “tolerance,” however — one devoted to debating ideas in the public square — may take more thinking through.
Hmmm. Really, Sastra? Maybe your experience was atypical! :- )
I don’t think I was ever taught that, and I kind of doubt that most children are. It’s too complicated. What’s needed is “don’t hit!” and variations on that theme. It’s command morality. Tolerance comes way later.
I posted this at the Freethinker. It did not get accepted, I think?
“Welcome, all ye gnu atheists, to the ‘witch-hunt clan.
The same ‘witch hunt’ tag was employed by Catholic apologists to victims-survivors of institutional and clerical child abuse.”
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2006/the-goldenbridge-secret-rosary-bead-factory
I think the point is that there was never such a thing as “actual witches.” A “witch hunt” is necessarily an aggressive act of scapegoating, i.e. the victim of a witch hunt is never actually guilty of the crime.
Pedophiles are unlike witches inasmuch as there are actually pedophiles. And some priests are pedophiles. And other members of the Catholic clergy have obstructed justice to hide those pedophiles. So looking for Catholic clergy who are pedophiles or protect pedophiles is completely unlike a witch hunt — a witch hunt will never actually find a witch, but it probably wouldn’t be too hard to find pedophiles and their defenders among Catholic clergy.
Does that clear things up?
Disputing the amount of children raped by priests is one thing. Nevertheless, it is another thing altogether, when even one priest is found guilty of child sexual abuse. Bernadette Fahy brought a similar reminder home to people disputing numbers of children abused in institutional care. Her motto: ‘one child abused is one child too many’.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/printable/9548/ISdIS
Not true, Sastra. I was certainly taught to be nice, but no one called it toleration. And I was taught to share my toys, though no adult that I know of actually shares his or hers in the same way.
Toleration is a highly sophisticated concept, and is not for children. We might have been taught as children that we should be nice to people whose beliefs are different from ours, but this wasn’t toleration; it was just good manners.
However, childhood is a rather special time, when it’s not so easy to isolate oneself from people who believe differently, especially when they attend the same school, but when we grow up, and can hive off into separate communities, we may tolerate each other, but not necessarily by saying nice things about each other. I remember my time as a priest. Before I realised what I was doing, the word ‘Pharisee’ had become a disparaging word. And yet the Pharisees mark the beginning of rabbinical Judaism. And at least some Jews retain, in their synagogue services, the ritual denunciation of Christians (can’t remember what it is called right off hand), just as the Qu’ran, while sometimes treating Jews and Christians as respected predecessors, also calls them names, and denounces them as infidels.
All religions do it, more or less, as well as political parties and other social identity groups. Well, of course we do. We disagree with each other. And, while we may have been taught gentler customs when we were children, the differences matter, sometimes they matter a lot. And that’s when toleration is needed, not agreement, not a commitment not to criticise, but a commitment to carry on our disagreements in a reasonably civilised, if sometimes acerbic, way. When it ends up in fisticuffs, then we have moved past toleration to intolerance. But so long as we restrict ourselves to words, no matter how cutting — and sometimes cutting words are needed — we can go on tolerating each other and our differences, no matter how much we disagree. See, I didn’t even hit you once! Toleration is, as Ophelia says, way more complicated, and it comes much later.
The expression “witch hunt” usually connotes an unjust effort to punish someone for bogus or trumped-up charges. That ain’t what’s happening here. All I’ve seen we gnu atheists asking for is not that the pope be burned at the stake, but rather that law enforcement play its proper role here. As Hitch wrote yesterday on Slate, we don’t think it’s right for the Chruch to exercise this outlandish “self-proclaimed right to be judge in its own cause.”
As recently as 3 months ago, the Catholic Church was trying to derail investigations by Belgian detectives, arguing that secular police should not be allowed onto church buildings to collect evidence. So much for the argument that Ratzinger has made significant changes to Church policy on child abuse.
This is not a witch-hunt by anti-Catholic groups. It is a desperate last-ditch attempt by the Church to make wall itself off from secular criminal prosecution and civil reparations.
Look, let’s just toss the fucker into the river and see if he floats.
It’s not a witch hunt, it’s a perfectly legitimate scientific experiment.
As far as I am concerned, societal “tolerance” is bullshit. The only culturally significant definition of the word is bad, and every other is useless. I do not, for example, “tolerate” homosexuality, in any sense that is distinct from my “tolerance” of heterosexuality, or grass growing, or other people breathing. Homosexuality is not something which needs my tolerance in any meaningful way.
I am not a tolerant person; I simply only have a problem with things that are actually bad. Things which are not actually bad (read: the stuff most religions focus on condemning) do not require my tolerance. And things which are actually bad shall not receive it.
So to review: women who want any sort of reproductive control, homosexuals, nonmarital sex: not actually bad. Not requiring of any tolerance.
Institutionalizing the protection of child rapists, telling lies to dying Africans about life-saving prophylactics, condemning life-saving abortions: actually bad. Worthy of real, meaningful criticism. Not deserving of tolerance.