REBUTTAL TO ""Without God, Gall Is Permitted"

I read a very irritating article in the January 19, 2007 edition of THE WEEK (which by the way is the best weekly news magazine, they cull the best articles from across the globe and give both sides of whatever topic is covered) titled "Religion" The Rise of the angry atheist". They quoted Sam Schulman of the Wall Street Journal reviewing Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion". I got so irritated by his comments that I searched the web for the complete article and found it at: http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110009482.

I wanted to post a comment to the WSJ online but because the article was more than one week old and they were no longer taking responses. So I'll rebut it here.

First off even the title got my goat, lol:

"Without God, Gall Is Permitted"
Modern atheists have no new arguments, and they lack their forebears' charm.
BY SAM SCHULMAN
Friday, January 5, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

The free online dictionary defines gall as:

gall 1 (gôl) n.
1. See bile.
2. a. Bitterness of feeling; rancor.
b. Something bitter to endure: the gall of defeat.
3. Outrageous insolence; effrontery.

I take it he was using definition 3. Outrageous insolence. Insolence is defined as: "discourtesy, offence - a lack of politeness; a failure to show regard for others; wounding the feelings or others". I would argue the complete opposite and that "With God Gall Is Not Only Permitted, It Comes With The Territory!". I can't even believe he had the gall to write that. If any group of people has gall it is the believers not the atheists. Religions throughout history have been the intolerant ones, they are guilty of countless murders to those found unwilling to either convert or expressed heresy to the party line.

He implies that the "New Atheists" as he calls them, are the ones with an intolerant attitude and that their tone is "vicious & mocking disgust". Again I say that applies to believers more than the few vocal atheists. He dismisses all of Dawkins arguments based solely on the tone of Dawkins arguments and not their merit, well Schulman's tone in the article is hypocrisy in action, and uses the same juvenile name calling tactics he finds appalling in Dawkins book. For example:

"What is new about the new atheists? It's not their arguments. Spend as much time as you like with a pile of the recent anti-religion books, but you won't encounter a single point you didn't hear in your freshman dormitory. It's their tone that is novel." (Sounds pretty condescending to me and elitist, not everyone had the privilege of attending college. Guess he spent too much time partying in togas.)

"They write as if they were the first to discover that biblical miracles are improbable," (Well duh! If we found them probable we wouldn't be atheist, now would we?)

"They argue as if these questions are easily answered by their own blunt materialism." (Apples and oranges! Tell that to the super rich evangelical hypocrites. The question is one of ignorance vs rational thought)

"The faith that the new atheists describe is a simple-minded parody." (A parody of what exactly?)

"The new atheists are separated from the old by their shallowness." (Ouch! Matched only by his ignorance. The new faithful are separated from the old by being even more stupid by rejecting the obvious in the age of reason and scientific advancement, we can forgive the Old faithful as they didn't know any better.)

"the Victorians described the sense of grief they felt when religion goes--and the keen, often pathetic attempts to replace it by love, by art, by good works, by risk-seeking and--fatally--by politics." (Oh hell no! He didn't bring politics into this, it's the church that has been meddling in politics for eons, the religious right & the moral majority come to mind. Come on! Religion invented politics for christ's sake.)

"The new atheists remind me of other students from more "open-minded" homes--rigid, indifferent, puzzled by thought and incapable of sympathy." (Is he serious! It's the religious that are rigid, do not think for themselves, just ask the millions slaughtered throughout history, how sympathetic the church has been. I for one feel great sympathy towards their ignorance.)

"The atheists say that they are addressing believers. Rationalists all, can they believe that believers would be swayed by such contumely and condescension? They seem instead to be preaching to people exactly like themselves--a remarkably incurious elite." (Incurious? We're not the ones blindly following superstitious fairytales. If not for the doubters we'd still be in the Dark Ages and believe the earth is flat.)

So as you can see, he doesn't address the merits of the argument, rather he chooses to shoot the messenger by dismissing them outright and with carefully chosen inflammatory words like: blunt, simple-minded, shallowness, pathetic, and incurious! Oddly enough the very words I would use to describe Shulman and the proponents of religious belief.

But the one comment that started this rant was:

"Today's atheists are particularly disgusted by the religious training of young people--which Dr. Dawkins calls "a form of child abuse." He even floats the idea that the state should intervene to protect children from their parents' religious beliefs."

He is obviously incredulous that someone could 'float' the idea that we should protect our children from religious belief. I whole heartily agree with Dawkins on this point. It is a form of child abuse. The only way to rid the world of religion is to break the chain. Think about it, more likely than not you were raised (indoctrinated) into your parents faith. The only exception would be those that jumped the Catholic boat in favor of a more progressive protestant one. Children are the churches secret weapon to survival, get them early and shape their worldview before they can think for themselves and encourage them to 'be fruitful and multiply.'

Wouldn't it be more responsible to let kids be kids, unfettered by the shame and guilt imposed by religious dogma and intolerance, especially towards sexuality, and then at an age appropriate time give them an overview of all the available faiths and let him choose the one to follow or not follow. Given that opportunity the Churches days would be numbered, guaranteed. Unfortunately kids are not given a choice instead they are purposely mislead and forced to accept the myths and dogma of their families 'tradition' without question. Ignorance perpetuating ignorance. What a pathetic system.

Copy/paste this link in your browser to read his article in full: http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110009482