Tuesday, 13 April 2010

Abuse of the law...

That well known atheist Richard Dawkins and so-called scientist (I make that charge as, if you bother to sully your mind with his diatribe against Christianity, "The God Delusion", you quickly realise that it is unresearched and based entirely in inaccuracy, misrepresentation of facts, abuse even of historically improtant events and little, if any, scientific rigour. If that is an example of his usual scientific work, then I question his claim to be a scentist!) has, according to the Sunday Times Online, instructed his lawyers to prepare a case for the arrest of the Pope on his visit to Britain for "Crimes against humanity".

Quite apart from anything else, this man has become extremely offensive in his ill-informed and frequently hatefilled utterances. He is not alone though and is almost guaranteed publication by a media which ssupports him in attempting to destroy Christianity. Even the publishing houses here in the UK refuse routinely any book based on Christianity or which shows religion in a positive light, but will rush into print garbage such as Dan Brown's depictions of the Templars and the Cathars as saints and the Christians as murderers and liars. This does beg the question, why are the literati, certain (Notably NOT all) scientists and certain politicians suddenly so vehemently anti-Christian?

I do believe that it is, in part, due to their failure to convince others of their "faith" and to the realisation that they are losing the "moral" argument. Their dream of a "religion free world" is rapidly vanishing. Religion is gaining ground, and, thanks to their efforts, the most fundamentalist forms are striding back to centre-stage. The truth is that humanity is programmed to believe in something and perhaps it is this inner conflict which drives men like Dawkins to such fury. They rail against any form of belief in anything other than their narrow vision of a creation made up entirely of random particles, nucleic acids and carbonaceous matter all randomly mixing to create life - or not. They find every platform from which to denigrate religion, frequently from a starting point outside of all religion, yet they stridently proclaim themselves "expert" in the tenets of faith, then open their mouths to prove they don't know what they are saying. Dawkins is a good example, the man HATES religion with a passion worthy of St Paul. Specifically, Dawkins hates Christianity, yet he proudly proclaims, in writing his book, The God Delusion, that he has no need to study Christian beliefs, the Bible, the creeds or anything that might inform his vocal opinion, because "he knows its false."

The author Philip Pullman who has declared that he aims to "destroy Christianity" through his writing is another of the current atheist tendency whose hatred of religion, and Christianity in particular, drives them to a vehemence and a vitriolic abuse of facts and the invention of untruths where it suits to make their point. One has to ask again, why? What is it that drives them to this frenzy of hatred. If they do not wish to be a part of a religion, fine, that is their choice. They insist that I must not be allowed to speak out in public about my faith - because they find it "offensive" - yet I am not permitted to object when they make statements, tell blatant lies and spread disinformation about my faith.

One of the ultimate ironies has to be that Dawkins is a professor at Oxford University, his post, his salary and probably even his house, all provided out of invested trusts set up by the Christian founders of his college. Likewise Pullman is awarded prizes and lauded by those who now administer the Trusts and Prizes set up by Christians such as C S Lewis. The irony there is that Pullman has deliberately set out to write an "atheist" counter Narnia, which is best described as "Pantheistic and floundering in its attempt to escape the Gospel outcome of self-sacrificing love.

Having listened in growing anger to Stephen Fry and another atheist on BBC "Hard Talk" lambasting the Roman Catholic Church with hyperbole and histrionics, I found it remarkable that they can trot out unchallenged such utterances as "the Catholic Missionaries were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands - if not millions - in their conquest of South America. Naturally the carefully selected "Studio audience" dutifully declared that the "Catholics were a bad thing" in the end of show voting. Big surprise, the predebate vote showed that the outcome was a forgone conclusion - especially after the impassioned, but utterly factless performances of the two "Abolish the Church" speakers. Great tragedies certainly did follow the conquest of the South Americas, but these were hardly the result of the Christianisation of the populace, but rather of the greed of the Conquistadori who never bothered much with religion anyway, except when it suited them. In fact, to call some of these soldiers of fortune "Christian" is to use the term very loosely.

The truth is that, in the last Century, the Atheist/Humanist/Socialist movements currently driving Western Civilisation to destruction were responsible for more genocide, murder and cruelty that can be laid at the door of any church in the last two thousand. For the record Prof Dawkins et al -

Lenin/Stalin - Between 30 and 40 million Russians plus an unknown number of other nationalities including 25,000 Polish PoWs and around 2 million German civilians and PoWs who "vanished".

Mao Tse Tung - some estimates put his score at between 50 and 100 million Chinese

Pol Pot - Between 2 and 5 million Cambodians

Hitler - 6 million Jews, gypsies and homo sexuals

It makes a pretty impressive total, and remarkably, though this same coterie of angry and hate filled atheist are quick to accuse the Roman Catholic Church of "conniving" with Hitler, they seldom acknowledge that he and all the other mass murderers in this incomplete list, were atheist-socialist-humanists...

Perhaps that is why they hate Christianity with such passion, we are proof that religion does moderate behaviour...

In a later report on the BBC web page I note that this report is now claimed to be a "joke". Either that, or the University Council has finally seen where his continued vitriolic and insane campaign is likely to lead them, and called him to heel. I certainly wouldn't count on his obedience for too much longer though, this is a man blinded to everything by his hatred.


  1. I strongly object to Hitler being called a humanist.

  2. Certainly not a humanist - but definitely an atheist!