From the atheists you hear statements like this: "D'Souza is a goddamned idiot." "Odious little toad." "D'Souza is full of shit." "A smug, joyless twit." "Total moron." "Little turd." "Two-faced liar." Etc, etc. Now admittedly the topic of God v. atheism can be an emotional one, but you will find no comparable invective on the Christian side. Why then are so many atheists so angry?Listen, you odious little toad, come back to us when the fucking unicorns start trying to shove their so-called morality down your throat w/ the full force of a Republican-controlled gov't. It's called self-defense, you smug, joyless twit. Pardon us for hating the superstition & wilful ignorance that allows people to be used as cannon fodder in "Wars of Civilizations," for the aggrandizement of hucksters, & the seizure of power, while demonizing any who do not conform to the insane proscriptions of a book written many thousands of years ago by a persecuted minority tribe who'd been out in the desert too long.
One reason I think is that they are God-haters. Atheists often like to portray themselves as "unbelievers" but this is not strictly accurate. If they were mere unbelievers they would simply live their lives as if God did not exist. I don't believe in unicorns, but then I haven't written any books called The End of Unicorns, Unicorns are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion. Clearly the atheists go beyond disbelief; they are on the warpath against God. And you can hear their bitterness not only in their book titles but also in their mean-spirited invective.
An example of the hate D'Souza has burning in his breast:
Description: In this scathing indictment, conservative intellectual Dinesh D'Souza accuses the American left of being largely to blame for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. D'Souzsa argues that the American Left is anti-religionist and culturally offensive to tradition-minded Muslims, and that, in his view, it has engaged in an arrogant, offensive, and harmful "clash of civilizations." He cites Hollywood, the media in general, academia, and the Clintons, among others, to back up his argument. Furthermore, says D'Souzsa, the Left's post-9/11 stand against the War on Terror has put it on the side of the terrorists. In his view, the battle for the hearts and minds of those Muslims who share traditionalist values begins with the defeat of liberals on the homefront."Total moron," is letting D'Souza off easily. He wants a war on "culturally offensive" atheist liberals to go along w/ the bogus "War of Terror." But we're not allowed to be offended by his culture? Or to speak against it?There is very little that is more offensive than hypocrisy. And DD is a serial offender.
UPDATE (10 December 2007 @ 1355 PDT): In the comments atheist (& not just any atheist, but "the" atheist) checks in w/ a link to a brief but effective item on D'Souza by James Wolcott of Vanity Fair, from exactly one year & two months ago.
5 comments:
Hey M.-
Didja read Wolcott's takedown of D'Souza last year? That's a freakin' classic.
Also, that description of the book is not even logically self-consistent. Listen:
D'Souzsa argues that the American Left is anti-religionist and culturally offensive to tradition-minded Muslims, and that, in his view, it has engaged in an arrogant, offensive, and harmful "clash of civilizations."
But
Furthermore, says D'Souzsa, the Left's post-9/11 stand against the War on Terror has put it on the side of the terrorists.
So, "the Left" is in a clash of civilizations against islamic terrorists, but at the same time, "the Left" is on the side of the terrorists? Does he realize that that doesn't even make sense?
The Editor Pontificates:
We doubt if DD realizes anything besides where his next wingnut welfare check is coming from.
And we suspect that he means, even if he expresses it backwards in that first sentence you quote, that the "Left" has been on the side of the terrorists all along. Uh, except that makes no sense either, in the reality based world or DD's fantasy realm. How can anyone state that the dirty decadent gay leftists are on the side of a world-wide caliphate & the Taliban? (While saying what a fan of "traditionalist" Islam he is.) Pretty obvious that's how he even thinks he can be defeating atheists in debates. Let alone claiming that he does it "on the basis of the same reason and science and evidence that they say vindicates their claims." We'd be laughing if it didn't make us so angry that he's getting away w/ being a "two-faced liar."
Haven't read the Wolcott piece. We will, though. Thanks for the link. Keep on w/ your angry hating!!
Oh, and M... thanks for saying that I am 'the' atheist. That made me feel warm inside!
From The Ed.:
Our pleasure. We're all about warm & fuzzy here.
Post a Comment