RoR: Forum

Post 0

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 10:48am

Link

Edit

Not So Bright

I was going to submit this quote as a "Guess Who" since Dawkins made it in Atlanta while Ahmedinejad was speaking in New York. Dawkins' Oxford recently voted to boycott all Israeli scholars due to the "oppression" of the Palestinian "people." The Boycott was rescinded at the last moment after the University's lawyer notified it that such a boycott would violate British anti-discrimination laws.

Dawkins is often celebrated for his mere atheism. Whatever good arguments he makes in that cause are okay with me. But Dawkins himself is a died-in-the-wool relativist and leftist. I agree with Hitchens' suspicion of Dawkins desire that atheists call themselves "brights." Not all bulbs burn at the same wattage. Don't tell me what you're against, tell me what you're for.

Ted Keer

Post 1

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 11:56am

Link

Edit

How sad and how odd that some of the most brilliant minds so often get themselves into patently absurd positions.

You'd have to be a borderline conspiracy theorist to accept that quote's assertion as true.

Post 2

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 12:34pm

Link

Edit

Hmmm - sounds like the NYTimes' position.....

Post 3

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 2:31pm

Link

Edit

The full quote would be helpful to see here for me to make a full judgement here. It seems I'd probably object to the word 'monopolize', and I'm wondering if that's what other people here think. Otherwise, there are mounds of evidence that establish that AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups are very influential in Washington.

Post 4

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 2:43pm

Link

Edit

"Otherwise, there are mounds of evidence that establish that AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups are very influential in Washington."

As are hundreds of others, including many pro-Palestinian groups, pro-Christian groups, pro-union groups, pro-climate change groups, etc., etc., etc.

If there's any 'group' that dominates Washington it's the 'pro-keeping-everyone-under-Washington's-boot heel group'.

Post 5

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 3:27pm

Link

Edit

Jeff,

Is there a single pro-Palestinian group that even comes close to having the rolodex and bipartisan influence of AIPAC? And as for the vast array of lobbying groups in Washington, what's unique is that AIPAC is one of the very few (and certainly the most powerful) groups that lobby our government de facto on behalf of a foreign government.

Post 6

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 3:52pm

Link

Edit

" what's unique is that AIPAC is one of the very few (and certainly the most powerful) groups that lobby our government de facto on behalf of a foreign government. "

Oh, I don't know. The Democratic Party is a pretty powerful lobbying group. ;)

Post 7

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 3:55pm

Link

Edit

Instead of "monopolize," what word would you use, Pete? I don't have a problem with an Israeli lobby. I might have a problem with a Palestinian lobby, however.

Post 8

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 4:56pm

Link

Edit

What is this quote's assertion? That the Jewish lobby is fantastically successful?

No.

The quote's assertion is that many people believe such to be the case.

Why would one have to be 'a borderline conspiracy theorist' to accept that assertion?

Pete is right. Context is necessary to really judge this quote.

Post 9

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 5:11pm

Link

Edit

Rick,

You have a point. I suppose it's possible to interpret it that way and it would help to have more of the quote.

I focused on this:

"they more or less monopolize American foreign policy"

as the relevant portion.

In the chaos that is foreign policy today, no single point of view dominates, certainly not anything so narrow as "the Jewish lobby," a phrase which strikes my ear as conspiracy theory-type talk.

Post 10

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 8:23pm

Link

Edit

Getting back to Richard Dawkins, I would guess that most of his admirers here are/were won over by his advocacy of evolution, and reason over faith. He is not a political analyst by background anyhow. I agree that the problems he and many other prominent atheists have comes in the field of ethics and politics.

Post 11

Saturday, October 6, 2007 - 8:55am

Link

Edit

I think Dawkins wouldn't be the first to fall for BS lines about the Jewish World Conspiracy (tm), considering the late Henry Ford did too, but later recanted his assessment after they were found to be false. Maybe Dawkins will do the same, or maybe not.

-- Brede

Post 12

Sunday, October 7, 2007 - 6:02am

Link

Edit

Einstein was a pro-Palestinian Jew.

He warned about Jews mistreating Palestinians, and how that would eventually build up to hostile Middle East tensions or all-out war. After it was created, he was offered the presidency of Israel, but declined.

He was eccentric, to say the least.

Ed

Post 13

Sunday, October 7, 2007 - 7:45am

Link

Edit

Einstein died in 1955. His knowledge of the situation was radically different than that available to us today. Also, he was a Jew only by background, not commitment nor belief. His religious views were similar to that of Spinoza, whom he admired.

If the Palestinians were taking Einstein as their poster boy rather than Arafat, the situation there wouldn't be what it is today.

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 10/07, 7:48am)

Post 14

Sunday, October 7, 2007 - 8:50am

Link

Edit

Jeff,

If the Palestinians were taking Einstein as their poster boy rather than Arafat, the situation there wouldn't be what it is today.

This reasoning assumes that Einstein's unapologetic socialism wouldn't have translated into tribal warfare -- and that's an awful big assumption to make. Perpetually-peaceful socialism is a pipe dream. Palestinians need someone on a totally different level than an Arafat, or even an Einstein. They need a Jefferson; or a Rand.

;-)

Ed

Post 15

Sunday, October 7, 2007 - 12:04pm

Link

Edit

Ed,

Good point; I wasn't focusing on his explicit political views but his general demeanor and approach to issues. I agree that Einstein's political recommendations would never have had the actual consequences he envisioned.

Post 16

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 - 8:03am

Link

Edit

"He is not a political analyst by background anyhow."

Neither was Sagan.

How would you define "analyst"? He takes the green-leftist-Palestinian-Marxist-PC stance wherever he goes. He is extremely vocal in Britain on all sorts of issues.

As for context, look up the article at the NY Sun, the reference was given for those who wanted to find it.

The quote was made by an Oxford Don (Dawkins) who had just participated in a blanket vote to ban all Israeli scholars from Oxford on the Marxist/identity politics premise that the Jewish "people" are "oppressing" the Palestinian "people."

Dawkins is often lionized due to the mere fact of his atheism. Yet he is a socialist and identity politics leftist to the core. In his Ancestor's Tale, he shows a picture of Cheney, Bush, Rice & Powell and asks how a Martian might "classify" them. I separated Rice from the rest, her physiology is female. Dawkins commented that the average American would distinguish them as black versus white. I hadn't even thought of race until he mentioned it. Not only is Dawkins a run-of-the-mill identity politics panderer, he's also prejudiced to think that all Americans are inherent ("systemic") racial bigots.

The only relevance of the quote at this time was that he made it at the same time Ahmedinejad was expressing his love for the Jews and all nations at Columbia.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 10/09, 8:14am)