The mask of atheism

[fpb]

My experience is that the Pope's decision to form an Anglican grouping - not yet a Rite, but the difference is slight - has unleashed a vicious avalanche of anti-Catholic hatred such as I had not seen in quite a while. Catholic blogs are suddenly awash not only with Protestant and Anglican, but, more to the point, with atheist and Christian-hating trolls. And I hope my Protestant friends are not offended, but this seems to me to really throw off the masks of many so-called atheists. They do not reject or hate God. Of course, if you asked them to argue against the Aristotelian Unmoved Mover or against the Hindu Self of Selves, they would - in a fairly untroubled, perhaps even bored tone, as a duty. But what they really hate, what unleashes their rage and fury, is the Catholic Church. What makes this obvious is how the Pope's effective dismissal of further ecumenic progress with the CofE as it is, and his decision to create a Catholic Anglican area, have drawn such rage. Richard Dawkins, in his hideous Washington Post screed (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_dawkins/2009/10/give_us_your_misogynists_and_bigots.html), really throws off the mask. If he took his atheist positions - yes, those same views that have earned him millions of pounds through a worldwide bestseller - at all seriously, he would be as much against the Church of England as against the Catholic Church. Indeed, he might well oppose it more fiercely, because it means subsidizing "religion", however vague, with taxpayer money, and giving a status, however vague, as a part of the nation's legal establishment. (Compare and contrast Article 7 of the Italian Constitution: "The Italian Republic and the Catholic Church are, each in its own sphere, independent and sovereign.") But that is the absolute opposite of what he does; what enrages him is that the Catholic Church should dare to try and claim the Anglican heritage for itself. He valued the Anglican Church as a breakwater against the Catholic Church. So, basically, Dawkins is lying to someone; whether himself, or only his public, I do not know and have no interest in knowing. The point is that his supposed opposition to "religion" is blatantly revealed to be opposition to the Catholic Church alone.

As revealing as Dawkins' rant is that the Washington Post published it, and the string of horrors in the comments thread. Even the Bishop Williamson affair had not called forth so much sheer brute hate for the Church; but then, those who objected to Williamson and to the SSPX were not all motivated by hatred for the Church - they included people like me, who love it. In this case, the only thing that can possibly call forth so many haters is the Church itself; and anyone who wants to claim that anti-Catholicism is not one of the main, the driving forces in modern culture and politics must first explain away this horrible outburst of bigotry and hatred.

Comments

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I mean that the average liberal world-view can no more be derived from an atheist viewpoint than the opposite can. Atheism has no logical connection with it. Using atheism as a basis to campaign for the liberal bundle of causes-of-the-week is as rational as using Christianity to campaign for vegetarianism. And I insist that unless atheism bases its claim on reason and logic, it has no basis at all. That nearly every atheist is not coherent does not surprise me in the least, but does not change the matter. It was not us who demanded to be called "the brights". (To the contrary.... "I thank you, Father, because You have hidden these things from the wise and the mighty, and have revealed them to children.")

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

The brights? Come on. They exist almost entirely on the Internet, and don't represent more than a small fraction even of Internet atheists. Atheists aren't "demanding" to be called anything.

It sounds like your grievance is specifically with Richard Dawkins.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I certainly do not have to like a man who, if he ever had any kind of political power, would indubitably start a persecution. Nor do I have to favour superstition and ignorance. But if you think that Dawkins is not representative, I would like you to tell me who bought all thouse hundreds of thousand of copies of his books (and of the equally crude and ignorant Harris and Hutchens), who made him a media phenomenon, and who keeps listening to him. Those sure weren't Southern Baptists who crowded the debate thread after his star appearance on the Washington Post.