The Left loved Richard Dawkins when he was calling Catholics paedophiles, now he's racist because he's attacking Islam too
Isn't it amazing how the Left is fine with some kinds of bigotry, but not others?
Remember the days when Richard Dawkins was in full-on attack mode against Pope Benedict? One of his silliest little pieces of spite was the following statement on the day he resigned as Pope: "I feel sorry for the Pope and all old Catholic priests. Imagine having a wasted life to look back on and no sex." That was just immature.
The nastier stuff centred on plans to arrest the Pope for alleged complicity and/or cover-ups over paedophile priests. While Dawkins was on his "crusade" against Catholics the Left loved him. See this fawning piece from Guardian star columnist George Monbiot (which bizarrely manages to end up as an attack on Israel!).
Curious, then, that the Left now seems to be having a sense of humour failure over Dawkins's latest object of attack: Islam.
A couple of days ago, Dawkins tweeted the following:
"All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though."
Now, he didn't start accusing senior Muslims of complicity in child abuse; let alone try to prosecute them. Nor did he start waxing lyrical about Muslim clerics' sex lives. He just made a point about what he took to be the backwardness of the Muslim world, with the implication that Islam was behind its lack of successes in the modern world.
True? False? Neither, nor? You decide. But surely nothing compared to his attacks on Catholics.
Well, that's not how Martin Robbins sees it in an article today in the New Statesman (and his sentiments have been widely echoed on the Left). For Robbins, "this is simply a statement about Muslims - all Muslims – and a spectacularly bigoted one at that."
"When Dawkins talks about ‘Muslim’ Nobel prizes over the years, he is not simply criticising a religion; he is attacking a group of people in a fairly well defined geographical area, associated with a particular set of ethnicities.
"He contributes to racially-charged discourse through his choice of dubious facts, the exaggerated and inflammatory language he uses to describe them, and the context within which he presents them. In short, he is beginning to sound disturbingly like a member of the far right – many of his tweets wouldn’t look out of place on Stormfront. Whatever the motives behind it, one wonders how much further he can continue down this path before the tide of opinion turns firmly against him."
And "one" also wonders where Robbins and his Leftist friends were when Dawkins was spouting far worse than this against Catholics...Thoughts?
We are wholly dependent on the kindness of our readers for our continued work. We thank you in advance for any support you can offer.