Another ‘intolerant bigot’…for Science!


Mike Dunford takes my side in the War of Angry Words.

Comments

  1. Caledonian says

    There is nothing inherently valuable about tolerance. The value comes from what is and isn’t tolerated.

  2. JONBOY says

    PZ
    David Heddle is having a good time spouting his stilted
    diatribe against you on his blog “He Lives”
    GTC and I are not letting him have it all his own way.

    Posted by: JONBOY

  3. says

    PZ, in my own faint way, I support you in your voluable and in-your-face approach. You would mind your own business if you could but circumstances have made this outspoken stance your business. You could hardly be called a “professor” of science if you were silent amidst the onslaught of superstition. You have been forced into counter attacking.

    If I ever figure out how trackbacks work, I will point to your posts that way when I link to them. People reading here should know you speak for a wider community than just yourself or the science faculty or even scientists generally…I am none of those.

  4. says

    It’s telling that self-styled conservatives are placing themselves on the side of political correctness. We used to make jokes about the hypersensitive left. Now hypersensitivity is our own modus operandi.

  5. afterthought says

    Thanks for linking to Mike’s post.
    It is very, very good.

    You would mind your own business if you could but circumstances have made this outspoken stance your business. You could hardly be called a “professor” of science if you were silent amidst the onslaught of superstition. You have been forced into counter attacking.

    I was thinking about this very issue WRT the IDiots forcing the confrontation. I like the way you put this in your comment greensmile.

  6. afterthought says

    I have no quarrel with religion of any stripe. I don’t care what people believe. I do care about two things where the IDiots have crossed the line of battle:
    1) This country is proudly secular from the very start. Keep your cult away from my liberal democracy.
    2) The attack on science is an affront to my evidence-based relationship with my world. I do not take this relationship on faith, but instead on evidence and reason. The attempt to re-define science as any foolishness someone comes up with, without a shread of evidence, is an abomination to reason and reality.

  7. Hank Fox says

    Dunford said:

    Insisting that people who are responsible for the proper education of all their students should take that responsibility seriously is not intolerance. Insisting that they respect the fundamental First Amendment rights of their students is not intolerance. Suggesting that those who willfully refuse to do so should be removed from their jobs is certainly not intolerance.

    It’s just an appropriate consequence for wildly inappropriate actions.

    … and I agree wholeheartedly.

    The ID faction might as well clamor for pedophiles to get equal time in any public discussion of schoolyard safety. It would seem to fit their definition of “tolerance.”

  8. says

    I try not to be a blogwhore, but I had to make a second entry today on this issue, directed at the one commenter who frequents. From Tangled Up In Blue Guy

    …they are setting a very bad example. And they are fast destroying the credibility of the conservative movement because the conservative movement is not standing up to them. The conservatives are embracing pseudo-science for whatever reason, perhaps because of campaign donations to the Republican Party from the same Moral Majority that Reagan tapped into.

    No longer can they claim to have their position based on Reason as Limbaugh so loudly proclaims. And the Christians have much to answer for based on their own stated beliefs. Unless and until reasoned conservatives and reasoned Christians tell the likes of Casey Luskin and the repugnant sleazebag named Ann Coulter there is no reason for Dawkins, Myers or Harris to lay off their public statements about religion.

    Conservatives, in order to regain what respect that they can salvage should also tell the WorldNet Daily that they are loudmouthed, insulting, lying bastards who should pray for forgiveness. In this I am referring to recent posts by Pat Boone, Chuck Norris, Chuck Colson and, of course this beauty from the founder. World Net Daily

    I am not afraid of offending my friend’s religious beliefs, so I didn’t hold back. No one should hold back, and I wonder if Brayton has read Dunford’s entry today.

  9. jimmiraybob says

    PZ: If I am someday rendered a bat-shit-crazy, wonderland-inhabiting nutjob* that is single-mindedly working to impose my bat-shit-crazy-nutjob world view on you and everyone else while doing my best, in my bat-shit-crazy-nutjob way, to ridicule, marginalize, co-opt, and/or eliminate every non-bat-shit-crazy-nutjob worldview in seeming opposition to my fantasy world I will certainly be distressed if you call me on being bat-shit fuckin’ insane. That would be such a discourtesy. I will rail against you and in the strongest terms call you a mighty poopy head.

    But, I will be wrong. Please keep up the good work.

    * no offense was meant to bats, guano, excrement in general, nuts and/or the insane**.
    ** exclusions: Religious fascista & IDists/Creationists.

  10. MartinC says

    Just to throw a different slant on the proceedings here I might just point out that a minute or so ago I just finished watching ‘Jesus Camp’ here in Sweden on Channel 2 TV (one of the main terrestrial channels). Earlier this evening they showed the first episode of Dawkins ‘The Source of All Evil?’ Probably not what you in the US are used to on mainstream TV.
    The appeasement strategy is a political one that is seen as neccessary for your particular environment, just as non criticism of explicit racist policies and laws was a politically correct action in the deep south in the 50’s and 60’s. It isn’t, however, treated that way in other parts of the world where rationalism is in the majority so those who object to PZ and Dawkins approach might hopefully take this into consideration.

  11. David Marjanović says

    Channel 2 TV (one of the main terrestrial channels).

    Let me guess… that’s a *gasp* public-owned one? :-)

  12. David Marjanović says

    Channel 2 TV (one of the main terrestrial channels).

    Let me guess… that’s a *gasp* public-owned one? :-)

  13. Jason says

    Jesus Camp is currently being shown in the U.S. only in movie theaters, I believe. (How come Swedish TV gets it before American TV?)

    Does anyone know if The Root of All Evil has been shown or will be shown in the U.S.?

  14. MartinC says

    David, indeed it is a public TV channel. I was surprised to see ‘Jesus Camp’ so close to its theatrical release rather than for its content. Watching it provokes a mixture of shock, dismay and Ted Haggert induced hilarity (“the bible is very clear as to what to do with homersexuals”).

  15. Stogoe says

    Fat chance, Jason. The only public mention of religion must be fawning, kneeling, insipid simper of praising words. Any back-talk, any perceived skepticism, any sniff of a whisper of a doubt that there are no gods must be crushed.

  16. says

    I must confess that I was angy with mainstream media for their years of “What did Jesus eat?” “What did Jesus wear?” “What Jesus might have seen/done/said” documentaries with nary a whisper that there’s no damned historical evidence that he ever existed and a great pile of textual or contextual evidence that he didn’t.

  17. dzd says

    Does anyone know if The Root of All Evil has been shown or will be shown in the U.S.?

    No, and the likelihood that it ever will is about zip point shit times squat to the negative infinite power.

  18. dzd says

    Which is kind of funny, considering my cable system has about eight Jesus channels (nine if you count Fox News)–is a mere two hour documentary that terrifying to people with a 216-hour-a-day continuous media outlet?

  19. Crudely Wrott says

    It’s high time that a new group, embodying a new offense, raises its collective might to silence the peddlers of intolerance. I’m talking about those thoughtful individuals who are deeply, fundamentally, painfully and with a nauseating sense of deja-vu offended, discommoded, and needlessly encumbered by the claims made by the acolytes of woo that they have been offended.

    Imagine the result if thousands of us raised a stink over being subjected to the runny-nosed wimperings of everyone who’s pet belief was held to the light of day!

    It’ll be a new world, I tell ya!

  20. says

    Kevembuangga –

    How do you expect to win this endless fight?

    Just because a fight cannot be won, does not mean it shouldn’t be fought.

    I say this, but also just read on James Randi’s site about an upcoming episode of Oprah, where she had three psychics and one skeptic. This is the most popular personality on television; knowing who has editorial control, imagine a bloodbath. How the skeptical guest was treated was the stuff of nightmares.

    But I’m proud that she appeared.

  21. raj says

    “Tolerance” is an over-rated concern. One should not tolerate murder, theft, bigotry, and a myriad of other activities. The sad fact is that the bigots, et al., have picked up on the “tolerance” motif as a mechanism to silence cries against their bigotry.

    In effect, what the bigots are saying is “You’re intolerant because you will not tolerate my bigotry.” My response to that is, damn right I won’t tolerate your bigotry.

  22. Itsanyoneguess says

    If you wish to watch Jesus Camp in full you can view it here:

    Jesus Camp

    The same site also has Dawkins’ Root of all Evil parts 1 and 2

  23. Jason says

    Itsanyone: Thanks for the link.

    I think there’s a decent chance PBS might show The Root of All Evil. It doesn’t seem likely that any commercial channel will go near it, not even National Geographic or the Discovery Channel or the Science Channel. I think I’ll email my local PBS station about it and see what they have to say.

  24. Alexander Vargas says

    intolerant is not avirtue in itself either. It may only mean you are an asshole. And bigot DEFINITELY meand you are an asshole. No bigots for science, please. Can there be anything more stupid than rejoicing about bigotry in science?
    After all, its not about being nice or not being nice. That is secondary . It is the ideas that are defended. And dawkobots are just awash in stupidity. I dont care if Dawkis and Pz talked pretty please with sugra on top. They way they think about science and religion would still be stupid. Being a “proud bigot for science” does not make your arguments any stronger (in fact, it looks more like pathetically public self-reassurance).

  25. says

    OK, Vargas, you don’t recognize sarcasm, either. Your tedious whining about “dawkobots” has worn out its welcome.

    Goodbye. Don’t come back, please.