Well it’s confirmed, last night on Q&A on the ABC with Richard Dawkins as guest, Senator Fielding did the usual sidestepping around the direct question of whether he believes in creation over evolution, he also claims that Kevin Rudd is also a creationist. He did admit in the end he was, but hey, we all knew that.
If you missed the program you can see it here.
This is the same man that said “A bloke cannot marry his brother; it is not right. A woman cannot marry their sister; it is not right. A bloke cannot marry a bloke because it is not right, and a female cannot marry a female because it is not right. I don’t support this.” How’s that for reasoned logic? (You can also see a list of senators that voted for discrimination over at Blogotariat.com)
Dawkins seemed to get the religious folk in a bit of a huff with this comment :
The New Testament – you believe, if you believe in the New Testament, that God, the all powerful creator of the universe couldn’t think of a better way to forgive humanity’s sins than to have himself put on earth, tortured and executed in atonement for the sins of humanity? What kind of a horrible, depraved notion is that?
I agree wholeheartedly in Dawkins opinion, I would however of cut to the quick and said something along the lines of “It’s not much of a sacrifice to send yourself to suffer a couple of days pain, as a supreme being, knowing you are going to be raised again to spend eternity as a ruler in heaven”.
Anyway this got Julie Bishop a bit riled then Tony Burke jumped on the bandwagon both claiming ‘being ridiculed’, but anyway read for yourself, let’s follow what happened next reproduced here for your convenience :
JULIE BISHOP: No, I’m saying that what disturbs me about this debate and we see it often is that there are extremes. And whenever I see extremes I’m concerned.
RICHARD DAWKINS: But the extreme is in the New Testament. I simply told you what is New Testament doctrine. That is St Paul’s view, which is accepted by Christianity. That’s why Christ came to earth, in order to atone for humanity’s sins. If it’s extreme, it’s not me that’s being extreme, it’s the new testament that’s being extreme.
He is very right there, Dawkins did not ridicule religion, he outright said his view that the notion embroiled in the christian doctrine is depraved. What kind of moral teaching is it to have someone tortured and executed for forgiveness of sins? It’s a horrible notion, totally lacking moralistic basis and you would think a supreme being that was omni-benevolent by it’s very nature would and could not do such a thing. Why not just forgive them? Why go through a process so .. depraved, as that?
TONY JONES: No, well, I’m going to jump in here, because is that not a story of sacrifice and therefore has something admirable attached to it which is the opposite of what you suggested?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Do you think it’s admirable? You think it’s admirable that God actually had himself tortured for the sins of humanity?
TONY JONES: That is the Christian view obviously.
RICHARD DAWKINS: That is the Christian view. If you think that’s admirable, you can keep it.
Indeed. Nothing said here other than his opinion on the claims, for which he was directly asked if he thought it was admirable, of course he does not, either do I.
TONY JONES: Okay. Tony Burke, first of all, quickly?
TONY BURKE: I don’t think your ridicule of people’s faith is much better than what you’re criticising. I really don’t.
RICHARD DAWKINS: But I just stated it. I didn’t ridicule it. I simply stated it.
AHA! that little gem of the religious lately, anything that goes against their concepts is ridicule. He asked a question which contained a clear representation of his impressions of the concepts.
Let’s look at the dictionary definition :
n. Ridicule
Words or actions intended to evoke contemptuous laughter at or feelings toward a person or thing: “I know that ridicule may be a shield, but it is not a weapon” (Dorothy Parker).
tr.v. rid·i·culed, rid·i·cul·ing, rid·i·cules
To expose to ridicule; make fun of.
[French, from Latin rdiculum, joke, from neuter of rdiculus, laughable; see ridiculous.]
Tony has taken Richard’s opinion after direct questions, because they differ wildly from his as ridicule. This is just simply wrong. Dawkins was not at all trying to make a joke about it.
TONY BURKE: No. No. No. No. Sorry, if you go back over the words you used, once you’re stating it you did then ridicule it. You did. And if you want to look at the challenges and the conflicts and making a community around the world work together, then the level of respect that so many religions have not shown for each other absolutely needs to be lifted and your level of respect and tolerance could probably be a bit better too.
Well there you go, really his comments are about this :
“What kind of a horrible, depraved notion is that?”
That’s opinion on your claims Tony Burke, not ridicule. The way you deal with starfk difference over your opinion says a lot for how you actually view your opinion held. If you have to call it ridicule you obviously feel that there must be something underlying your concept that lends itself to that. This does not mean Dawkins actually did it. You just perceive it that way.
Would you say the same thing if we switch the topic?
“You think blah blah should happen with regard the boat people! What kind of a horrible, depraved notion is that?”
Would you then turn to another in political belief, and say they are ridiculing your position? Would it be ridicule? No. It is vastly differing opinion get over it.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Let me answer that. Let me answer that. I did not more than state the Christian doctrine and Tony then said, “That is the Christian doctrine. Isn’t it admirable.” People said, “Yes, it’s admirable.” So how is it disrespectful if I simply state what it is and half the audience think it’s admirable? What’s disrespectful about stating it?
TONY BURKE: Press rewind, hear your own words. You have changed them.
TONY JONES: Okay.
RICHARD DAWKINS: I have not.
Tony Burke that was a lie, he didn’t change the words, he didn’t ridicule, he just didn’t realise that you actually can’t deal with a difference of opinion when it comes to religious belief.
Anyway, I leave you with Julie Bishops DEATH STARE at someone speaking in the audience.
Julie Bishop Death Stare
