daniel_saunders ([info]daniel_saunders) wrote,
@ 2007-10-14 19:04:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:antisemitism, judaism

At It Again

  I've just sent another missive to the Jewish Chronicle, this time responding to this column:

Dear Sir,

Daniel Finkelstein is quite right: Richard Dawkins should be ashamed of himself.

Professor Dawkins has approvingly quoted John Hartung’s claims that Jews see the interpersonal mitzvot, from the commandments to love one’s neighbour and the stranger to the prohibitions on theft and murder, as governing relations with other Jews only, not relations with non-Jews.

Needless to say, these claims are based on selective quotation and outright falsification, but from here it is a small step to the idea that Jews actively seek to harm non-Jews, whether in the form of a ritual blood libel or in its modern equivalent: the claim that Jews are willing and able to spill British, American and Arab blood in a bid for world domination.

In this context, Professor Dawkin’s claim that “the Jewish lobby… more or less monopolise[s] American foreign policy” seems much more sinister than a mere slip of the tongue or an exaggerated debating point.

Yours etc.




(4 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]pellegrina
2007-10-14 06:22 pm UTC (link)
Good letter.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]daniel_saunders
2007-10-14 07:11 pm UTC (link)
Thanks.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]parrot_knight
2007-10-14 10:42 pm UTC (link)
Thank you for writing this. The generalizations of Dawkins and his circle, and the alliances they are prepared to make in the quest of imposing a uniform cult of secularism, are quite horrific. I have at least two friends who regard Dawkins as a sort of prophet and a scientific giant, and they are not alone. Frightening, really.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]daniel_saunders
2007-10-14 11:18 pm UTC (link)
I have at least two friends who regard Dawkins as a sort of prophet and a scientific giant, and they are not alone.

I'm not in any position to judge his scientific work (although as I may have mentioned before, my sister has a couple of his books, and flicking through them, I was interested to see he is not afraid to ridicule his colleagues in academia who dare to disagree with him), but his views on religion seem to be based on an extreme form of logical postivism that fell out of favour among philosophers decades ago, with the gaps plugged with straw men, fabricated 'evidence' and appeals to emotion ahead of fact (e.g. his assertion that without religion, there would be no conflicts in Northern Ireland or the Middle East).

The fact that he is held up as one of the most rational, intelligent men in our society says more about the way we treat genuine intellectuals than it does about him.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(4 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…