Well, I'm not a big fan of Dinesh D'Souza. It has nothing to do with his current campaign against 'the atheists'. Like a lot of people, I had doubts about him when he declared that conservative Americans must join hands with conservative Muslims to win the war against terrorism.

For some reason, the idea of embracing CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood and every Saudi-supported-Imam around the country as a way of 'fighting' terrorism didn't sound like a good idea. D'Souza was criticized by people like Robert Spencer and Victor Davis Hanson for his support of conservative Islam.

The only person I know who agreed with D'Souza about Islam was Dean Esmay.. I stopped posting on Dean's blog because he claimed that Hirsi Ali was not worth listening to because she wasn't 'pious'. He thought any criticism of CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood was "Islamophobia"

Because of his support of conservative Islam, D'Souza was the most unpopular guy at the National Review. He ate lunch alone. I think this current "look at me, standing up for Christianity, fighting those rotten atheists" campaign is his latest effort to get conservatives to like him again. (and, of course, to sell books).

And who can argue with that? The selling books part that is...

I remember the other business you talk about and you wouldn't get any argument from me on that, either. But on this he's doing a fine job. Look, I like Hitchens on some things, but on other things -- like religion...and the man was a personal friend and defender of Edward Said ffs -- I can leave him.

I am sorry to hear D'Souza ate lunch alone, though. That seems kind of petty. Haha.

You can write here any time.

I also see lots of contempt and snobbery among some atheists against believers. Many seem to think that those who believe in G-d are stupid, so they tend to talk down to them. Your explination better explains the nastyness.

O/T
Please check out this story, and consider covering:

http://antiracistblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/indiana-university-jewish-center.html

Atheism is a religion, with an active proselytizing arm and a passionate dogma. No one could possibly *know* that G-d does not exist without fully comprehending the entire world; the best an atheist can do is *believe* that G-d doesn't exist. As such, atheism should be treated like any other militant religion.

I like Hitchens on some things, but on other things -- like religion...and the man was a personal friend and defender of Edward Said ffs -- I can leave him

I like Hitchens too, but his defense of atheism is unimaginative and relentlessly unkind. The rudeness works when he's arguing with a George Galloway, but not when he's dismissing someone's faith.

You can write here any time

Well thank you, I'd like to -

"Signing someone's name to a social contract without their permission is a sure-fire guarantee for bloody revolution."

I'm curious how that is different than any other social contract. In all cases, I (or any other member) am taken to have obligations and rules to which I never consented. These theoretical 'contracts' were in existence long before I was born. Some I support, others I don't - and what happens when I'm required by that 'contract' to do what I regard as irrational or immoral?

Clearly, some elements of the 'social contract' benefit me - and strike me as reasonable ways to interact. But no such 'agreement' can be derived solely by rationale processes. For example, what is the greatest good for the greatest number is subject to one's definition of the greatest good, and still leaves the minorities to be exploited on behalf of the greatest number ... so what reason, other than force, does the one who is harmed by this setup have to comply?

(I am by no means saying that people should be able to force their religious views or strictly religious morals on the larger society - even were these in the majority. The notion of religious compulsion is odious to me, but I recognize this reaction is partly a product of my own religious beliefs. I fail to see how religion itself (or personal belief) has anything much to do with this. As long as there were no compulsion or coercion I don't get the problem. I tend to think our view of a separation of powers works fairly well. But religious coercion and compulsion can (and historically have done) occur just as easily among those who assert there is no God.)

I agree that the motive you cite accounts for a portion of the vitriol. But I don't see how it accounts for the irrational elements of this, and I don't see how it accounts for a failure to perceive or acknowledge that the atheist versions of a social contract have not also done the same thing - sometimes with horrendous consequences.

Great site!

Would you like a Link Exchange with The Internet Radio Network?? At the IRN you can listen for free to over 50 of America's top Talk Shows via Free Streaming Audio!!

http://netradionetwork.com

I'm curious how that is different than any other social contract. In all cases, I (or any other member) am taken to have obligations and rules to which I never consented. These theoretical 'contracts' were in existence long before I was born. Some I support, others I don't - and what happens when I'm required by that 'contract' to do what I regard as irrational or immoral?

You're in trouble if that happens. I think the contract represented by the Constitution is the main one we're all born into -- the superstructure everything else is built around -- and yes, it requires coercion to function around the edges. For the most part, however, an atheist can accept that contract because the restrictions derived from it are seen as being derived from arguments that can be based around secular enlightenment values. Though in the abstract it may derive authority from a higher power (God), the laws of the land are derived from appeal to the document itself.

An atheist sees a religious person as going outside this agreed framework and endangering the whole by appealing to an outside structure for authority and argument (pick your Holy Book). This is threatening and causes anger. Make a Constitutional argument, yes, but appeal to an outside power? No. Consider how you feel about the idea of the Supreme Court using EU law for precedent in its case decisions for a taste of the feeling. You had no say in it, you didn't agree to it...I don't know about you but the thought makes me angry. It might incline you to respect the entire system less. I think the Atheist experiences something similar when confronted with the possibility of having religious law or argument applied to them.

I wouldn't argue that the Atheist version has had horrendous consequences, but that's another matter. I'm just commenting on how Atheists experience the whole thing and obviously they don't see it that way so it doesn't account for their anger.