One meme that's common among the followers of New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins (the man who coined the word meme in 1976) is that Christians have spent the last two millennia obsessing about, and persecuting, those who don't believe in God. Mention the word anti-Catholicism in a blog post, and 47 New Atheists will immediately clutter the comments with their claims that any attack on the Catholic Church is only the beginning of what the Church deserves, an infinitesimally small righting of the wrongs that the Church has wrought because her members cannot abide the idea that someone, somewhere, might not believe in God.
That most Christians of all stripes do not spend their time obsessing about atheists is unthinkable; after all, the New Atheists spend most of their time obsessing about us, and they're more important and interesting than we are, so how can we not be thinking about them? Oddly enough, though, I can go not merely hours or days, but even weeks and months, without Richard Dawkins even crossing my mind.
Until, of course, one of Dawkins' New Atheist disciples feels compelled to leave me a little present in one of the comments here on the Catholicism GuideSite or in the Catholicism Forum.
The latest such gift is a link to a post on RichardDawkins.net, the website of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (tagline: "Innovating for a Secular World"). The post itself offers nothing more than the first eight paragraphs of a story from the British Guardian, complete with a presumably copyrighted picture that I'm sure RichardDawkins.net got permission to repost.
The first line by Kate Connolly promises an exciting story:
One of the world's most prominent Catholic theologians has called for a revolution from below to unseat the pope and force radical reform at the Vatican.
Wow—"One of the world's most prominent Catholic theologians"? Why isn't this a major story in every newspaper of record? The Guardian seems to have a real scoop on its hands!
Hans Küng is appealing to priests and churchgoers to confront the Catholic hierarchy, which he says is corrupt, lacking credibility and apathetic to the real concerns of the church's members.
Oh. Hans Küng. Speaking of people most Catholics can go years without ever bringing to mind, every atheist's favorite Catholic theologian is surely one of them.
In an exclusive interview with the Guardian . . .
Exclusive! That Kate Connolly must be a real go-getter. Surely reporters are lined up six-deep outside Küng's office in Tübingen, Germany, hoping to get even a minute alone with an 84-year-old man who's been recycling the same tired clichés for 50 years now. I wonder how Miss Connolly managed to stand out from the crowd?
Miss Connolly's "exclusive," and even Hans Küng's utterly predictable call "for a revolution from below" and "radical reform," however, is not what I found most interesting about the link the erstwhile New Atheist deposited here on the Catholicism GuideSite. (If you're interested in that kind of thing, you can read the entire interview at the Guardian's website.) Rather, it was the comments on the post at RichardDawkins.net, which were almost uniformly hilarious—unintentionally, of course.
First out of the box was "JimJFox," who was beside himself with glee:
Wonderful news and a great beginning to the complete collapse of the second-worst religion.
Others quickly chimed in, calling Küng's comments "Delicious" and "better 495 years late than never," and squealing in delight: "OOOH! A catholic [sic] rebel!" Several declared that they could "smell an excommunication" coming on.
Now, it's entirely possible that most of these commenters are young and naive, and do not know that Hans Küng has been repeating his call for "revolution from below" and "radical reform" to anyone who will listen ("exclusive" interview or no) for almost two thirds of his own life. But one commenter cannot offer youth or naiveté as his excuse for overestimating the effect that the 32,168th Küngian call for revolution will have:
This is big. Hans Küng is one of the world's most distinguished theologians (insofar as there is anything in theology to be distinguished about) and a very important Catholic thinker. The Pope could not be stabbed in the back by a better Brutus. Very very welcome news.
Those words were written by Richard Dawkins himself, and they left me scratching my head. Either Dawkins is a liar, and he knows that what he wrote is a steaming pile of bull—this is anything but "big," Küng is "one of the world's most distinguished theologians" only in his own mind and in that of a few hundred radical nuns and defrocked priests, and the last time he could be considered a "very important Catholic thinker" was before the start of Vatican II, 50 years ago—or he's not nearly as bright as I thought he was. Or, perhaps, he's so blinded by hatred for the Catholic Church and the current Pope that he is able to convince himself that up is down and left is right.
Küng's "exclusive" interview with Miss Connolly got no play outside the Guardian and RichardDawkins.net, and it will have zero effect on the future of the Catholic Church, Dawkins' effusions notwithstanding.
I must, however, give credit where credit is due. Ever since Pope Benedict XVI was elected, Küng has taken every opportunity to stab in the back a man who, for his own part, has always referred to Küng as his friend and resisted calls to excommunicate him, even while making it clear that Küng's theological opinions are profoundly mistaken. Dawkins got this much right: "Brutus" is an accurate description of such a man.
But what, I wonder, is the best word to describe Richard Dawkins?
“Christians have spent the last two millennia obsessing about, and persecuting, those who don’t believe in God.” – almost, but not quite, actually xtians have been obsessing about those who don’t believe in “their” god or the right “god” – I direct you to a very prominent christian like Martin Luther who wrote a ton of bigoted books like “On the Jews and Their Lies”
Also to clarify, your average Joe Catholic does not obsess about atheists, but the leadership certainly does. Actually they ignore history and even lie about us – the current pope:
“Even in our own lifetimes we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live.. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny.”
As far as the Guardian story, all I can say is “meh” – who cares?
Not A Grumpy Old Atheist
Who is Hans Kung?
ROTFLMAO! This “news” must be from the Onion or maybe from “Eye of the Tiber”, the Catholic version of the Onion.
My grandfather was a Lutheran minister. In the 1920′s he used to make calls on a parishioner confined to an asylum for the insane (as it was refereed to at the time).
I am told that a peculiar thing about this man is that the staff always knew when my grandfather was coming because the man, confined to a room with only a tiny window looking inward into an enclosed courtyard would go into a rage, shouting “Get that Jesus man away from me. Here comes that Jesus man!” as soon as my grandfather was near the hospital grounds.
No one could account for how he knew my grandfather was near, and my grandfather always assumed it to be the work of Satan or one of his angels.
I notice with sadness that many atheist seem to have the same reaction. Quite often, they are perfectly happy to show respect to the beliefs of Shinto, Hindu, Muslim, Jews, Native Americans, etc, but fly into a rage at the mention of Christians or anything connected to the Church.
“Who is Hans Kung?”
Exactly.
For Dawkins to even use the phrase “one of the world’s most distinguished theologians” is hypocrisy, as is tacitly admitted in his parenthetical caveat “insofar as there is anything in theology to be distinguished about.” In Dawkins’ mind, the only possible content of that “insofar as” would be “not at all.” He has called theology a “non-subject” and has opined, IIRC, that Benedict XVI is a completely undistinguished individual. Of course, for materialists, there can be no objective morality, so what’s a little dishonesty to falsely pump up an opponent of one’s real enemy?
DKeane / Not A Grumpy Old Atheist,
Although an About Catholicism site is an odd place to be holding forth on (or defending) the father of the Protestant Reformation (or revolt), for what it’s worth Martin Luther’s writings against Jews were actually a tiny minority of his total writings (and his early writings about Jews were much more cordial than his later ones).
Far from obsessing about Jews, he was much more concerned with what he saw as the positive truths of the Christian religion; and while in his historical context this necessarily meantthat he was significantly concerned with what he saw as the errors of the Catholic faith, he did NOT think that Catholics worshiped “the wrong God.”
For example, were a Jew to become a Lutheran (something that Luther naively expected to happen on a wide scale, and the failure of which to occur was largely responsible for Luther’s later antisemitic animus), Luther would have baptized a Jewish convert, but if a Catholic became a Lutheran, Luther would NOT rebaptize him — a tacit acknowledgement that Catholics baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity were in fact baptized in the name of the true God.
So, it is not historically accurate to say that Luther was obsessed with people who didn’t believe in his God, or the true God.
SDG – That was a fantastic comment. You in a couple of paragraphs waived away a book that calls for stealing of the Jews possessions, burning of synagogues, ejecting them from countries and so on. Kind of slimy. Other Books by Martin Luther (the only reason I brought him up was because the text said “christians”, not catholics)
Against the Sabbatarians
Against the Antinoman
Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants (Luther called for the stabbing and slaying of peasant rebels which triggered the death of an estimated 100,000 people)
An Open Letter on the Harsh Book
Whitewash history. Don’t even get me started on the popes
It is curious how the ‘New Atheists’ will always discuss “revolution” within Christianity, but they never go after a religion that is truly oppressive–Islam.
In Christian countries, people are not stoned if they do not go to mass, women are not killed after they are raped, and the Holy Father is not calling a ‘fatwah’ against Dick Dawkins.
The Atheists have their own Church–secularism. Like the famous Al “I make a butt load of money off of Green stuff” Gore said, “The debate is over.” Yeah, that is really scientific. No, they are never wrong. When I was a kid in the early 80′s, we were being scared by public school teachers with the impending doom of an upcoming Ice Age. Nuclear war with the Atheist Russians (who killed millions–many more than the Catholic Church ever dreamed of) was bad enough, but now I had to move to Florida with the elderly to keep from becoming an ice cube.
By the time I was an adult, we were fearing “Global Warming”–which has changed again to the dubious title, “Climate Change.” The climate changes over time? No way! We had a mini-Ice Age during the Victorian Era and during the time of the Vikings, they could grow wine grapes in Northern Scotland, so yes, climate has always changed.
Since everything is cyclical, I am sure by the time I will able to collect my non-existent Social Security check, we will be back to the Ice Age again, while Al Gore and the other ‘Chicken Little’s’ laugh all the way to the bank.
New Atheists: Leave old priests and nuns alone. They help millions of starving people every year and they are not out strapping bombs to children. If you truly want to help people, start spreading your “truth” to the Middle East. I dare you to go to Tehran and start talking trash about the pedophile Muhammad. It is easy to pick on people who don’t care that you exist–so you need a hard target to get some respect. But, we know you won’t. Grandma going to Church is an easy target. Keep living the lie and have a great day!
DKEane,
I’m not “waiving away” [sic] or “whitewashing” anything. As a former Protestant turned Catholic, I’m highly critical of Luther (my review of the 2003 film LUTHER starring Joseph Fiennes faults the film precisely for whitewashing its subject, including on the “Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants” incident). Luther’s antisemitism was disgusting, and Catholic antisemitism throughout history has been equally disgusting. Luther’s polemics against others he disagreed with were also often of a rare level of vituperation and violence (though some of the New Atheists give him a run for his money; e.g., Sam Harris thinks it may be ethical to kill people for their beliefs).
But the question isn’t were 16th-century polemics and prejudices disgusting, or are people in all ages and of all worldviews capable of vituperative or violent statements. The question was whether Christians are obsessed with people who don’t believe in their God. For Luther, Sabbatarians and antinominians, however grievously wrong they may have been on points of doctrine, were not worshippers of a false God.
Anyway, the whole business of picking Luther — a historic revolutionary who changed the course of Western history precisely by picking a fight with all of Christendom — as an example of supposed Christian obsession with people who worship the wrong God is laughable. Luther was many things, but a typical Christian he wasn’t. Cheers.
“But the question isn’t were 16th-century polemics and prejudices disgusting, or are people in all ages and of all worldviews capable of vituperative or violent statements. ” I think we would agree that the answer is yes – but when you have the word of god on your side it is so much easier.
“but when you have the word of god on your side it is so much easier.”
Well, I don’t know. I haven’t noticed not having the word of God on their side slowing down Dawkins or Hitchens (RIP), etc. in that connection. I’ve noticed both believers and atheists who are self-critical and ones who aren’t. Belief in God doesn’t make my actions right; if anything, it means there is an objective standard by which they might be wrong.
Just wanted to say how much I enjoyed this essay. I never had an opinion one way or the other about About.com, but I have really enjoyed receiving Scott S’s pieces and this one was particularly funny.
Poor Hans Kung.
” word of God on their side slowing down Dawkins or Hitchens (RIP)” – BS – Let me know which book of theirs advocates for the death of peasants or the forced internment of Jews. And thought you were better than that. If you can’t distinguish between a debate about ideas versus advocating atrocity – we are done.
DKeane,
I think there’s been a misunderstanding. I took the antecedent for your “it’s so much easier” remark to be “I think we would agree the answer is yes” — in other words, that you thought I (believing in God’s Word) had an easier time rendering judgments regarding disgusting, violent or vituperative behavior.
If the topic is actual atrocities, then of course I would not have pointed to Dawkins or Hitchens (for whom, like many of my fellow believers, I harbor considerable affection), but to, e.g., Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Calles and so forth — none of whom looked to or pretended to look to the Word of God (however interpreted) to validate their various atrocities.
P.S. Thanks for thinking I was “better than that,” if that’s the correct interpolation of your comment. Still, you seemed rather quick to leap to a dismissive conclusion. I think it’s better to try to give people the benefit of the doubt, don’t you? Cheers.
Atheism is a meme, perpetuated by children of the devil, who needed to cope with the challenge that Christianity was presenting to them at its inception. This is why they particulary hate Christianity and even more, Cathoicism, because of The Truth she upholds, despite the sinners within. Thier persecution is a coping mechanism.
This persecution of The Catholic Church, which they partake in, delight in and feast upon, is exactly what is prophesised would happen to the Church. They unbeknownst to themselves are taking a part in Divine Providence, God’s Will!
So strap yourselves in and hang in their brothers and sisters! Pray always , especially the Rosary …and let the Persecution begin!
Poor Things, Those Atheist’s. They clearly need all our prayer’s.
kjs
to an objective reader…your article is so chocked with subjective and illogical arguments….as well and personal hate towards some person. It would rather be good that…as you age, you remember that a mature judgment comes when someone focuses on a subject matter without letting personal emotions and sentiments take the tole to judge.
I would not claim Hans Küng is the most brilliant personality I have ever read…but it confirms too that at least he is better…his judgments quite mature…
how will you rate your?.
Should someone be right if he/she only clings to your ´subjective truths´?
Well, what if Richard Dawkins said what you wanted Him to say and not what he thought to be his own…would he have been right?…
Sorry pal..next time…make a better reflection…then expose your mode of thought to the world…because, it might turn the opposite…that old man who has been recycling his thoughts, would be rich in that recycled thought…than your new but laughable and non undeniably simplistic judgement….
Once again we have a Roman Catholic apologist who understands nothing about atheism but feels free to call names, cast aspersions, and demean atheists while ineptly attempting to state our case.
How catholic of you, Scott!
How very christlike of you, Scott!
You are so holy!