On the 5th of
February, well-known Angry Atheist, Richard Dawkins suffered a minor stroke
(caused, apparently, by high blood pressure).
Now, it is well-known that I’m no fan of Professor Dawkins (I love the
description of him by John Finnemore; “He’s a very clever man, who’s also a bit
of an idiot”), but I’m nonetheless genuinely glad that he appears to be making
a full recovery.
In response to this, the Church of
England’s official Twitter account tweeted “Prayers for Prof Dawkins and his
family”, which, considering how scathing Dawkins is about religion in general,
but especially Christianity, is in my opinion a very Christian gesture. Incredibly (but actually, possibly
predictably) a lot of people online assumed that the Church were
being sarcastic or deliberately mocking.
It is extremely tempting to
see this as people judging by their own standards. I’ve spoken before about the propensity of
the vocal minority of vehement anti-theists that to prefer to trade in insults
and mockery than to engage in courteous debate, and perhaps they assume that
therefore this must be the Church doing exactly the same thing. The idea that a group or individual could
hear that an enemy is ill, and wish to see them recover, and send sincere good
wishes and prayers is perhaps entirely foreign to their way of thinking. “Love your enemies, bless those who curse you,
pray for those that hate you,” is presumably not in their lexicon.
One respondent to the tweet
asked whether it was “sarcastic or ignorant?”
By asking the question, they have, in my opinion, displayed their own
ignorance. After all, if, as Dawkins et
al believe, prayer is nonsense, then nothing bad can come of it, and if they’re
wrong, then only good will come of it.
It has been suggested that since Dawkins is so vehemently opposed to
prayer, saying that you’re praying for him can’t be anything but provocative,
but frankly he should be accepting them in the spirit in which they’re
intended. I have several pagan friends,
and if they wish me a happy Imbolc or Samhain, I don’t assume that they’re
being antagonistic, I assume they’re being nice. Again, perhaps these people are judging by their
own antagonistic standards?
I have a confession. Before about three days ago, I had never heard of
Antonin Scalia. That possibly makes me
extremely ignorant. I understand that he
was a US Supreme Court Judge, and based on the reactions to the news of his
death by my more conservative and liberal friends, I understand that he was
very strongly on the conservative side.
It sounds like I agree with some of his opinions, and disagree with many
others, in some cases fairly strongly.
He has now died, and conservatives
are mourning, as well they might.
However, I have frankly been disgusted by some of the online reactions
to his death by the more liberal side.
Disagree with him; it is your right.
Oppose him; it is your moral duty, if that is where your morals point
you. Mock him? Insult him?
Crow about his death at what, nowadays, is a comparatively young age? You are merely disparaging yourselves, and
confirming the worst of what your opponents think of you.
I am well aware that like the
Angry Atheists, such people in the politically liberal camp are a vocal
minority, but one of the downsides of the internet is that such vocal
minorities, of any group or side, are much more visible than ever before, while
the silent moderate majority are just as silent as ever, and thus every group
or faction appears to outsiders to be composed almost solely of its extremist
fringes.
It is possible to agree to
disagree. It is possible to be courteous
to those who disagree with you. It is
even possible to be friends with those who disagree with you. Indeed, many people whom I consider to be
good friends bizarrely and perversely persist in disagreeing with me on a
variety of topics. Well, all I can say
is that I consider it to be a Good Thing. Usually. Not always. Sometimes they're just plain wrong.
But if you disagree with me about
this, then I will, on this occasion, allow it.
No comments:
Post a Comment