She had one of the most stupid faces I've ever seen
by MikeGeneFrom here:
He definitely has a temper, though. When he starts talking about Nadia Eweida, the Christian recently denied permission to openly wear a cross by her employer British Airways, his cheeks are positively puce.
"I saw a picture of this woman," Dawkins says. "She had one of the most stupid faces I've ever seen. She actually said, 'Christians should be allowed to work for British Airways."'
He continues, face reddening: "Well, of course, Christians are sodding well allowed to work for British Airways. It's got nothing to do with it. She is clearly too stupid to see the difference between somebody who wears a cross and somebody who is a Christian."
All of a sudden it seems possible that as much as Dawkins believes religion is the natural foe of science, a part of him just isn't keen on religious types themselves. Could he ever respect a believer?
"Oh yes," he says breezily, "because there's such an enormous spectrum of people who call themselves religious, some of whom don't really believe in God at all."
So there you have it. Dawkins doesn't mind religious people so long as they don't believe in God. Should his first concern as a scientist really be to snarl about religion?
January 12th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
From the article
Is that the role of a scientist? To enthuse people?
Comment by Jehu — January 12, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
January 12th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
I wouldn't read Dawkins as saying that enthusing people is a scientist's role; I think he's trying to imply (rather poorly) that what scientists do should enthuse people and perhaps that it's part of a scientist's job to get people excited about advancement and discovery.
Comment by thechristiancynic — January 12, 2007 @ 8:49 pm
January 12th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Richard Dawkins has always been a people's person. Another example:
Comment by Krauze — January 12, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
January 12th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Regardless any atheist that actually sat through a Ted Haggard service has my respect.
Comment by Guts — January 12, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
January 12th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Guts, that video was so aesthetically painful to my eyes that I had to stop watching for fear of premature blindness. I will be needing your E-mail address promptly for the deluge of hatemail with which I will be drowning you.
Comment by thechristiancynic — January 12, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
January 12th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
LOL! That was hilarious!
Comment by MikeGene — January 12, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
January 13th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Guts, I'd like your e-mail address too please. I have a whole bunch of hate mail in my drafts folder waiting for you. What a mocker Dawkins is.
Comment by bFast — January 13, 2007 @ 12:18 am
January 13th, 2007 at 12:33 am
You are all blind if you CAN'T see the risk of having Christian FUNDIES working on airlines.
Pat Robertson has went on and on and on about how we NEED to get rid of non-believers.
There's video game after video game being made by Christians that promote the KILLING of NONBELIEVERS!
Movies coming out of Hollywood promoting Christian ideals.
If these people could they would FORCE you to convert to their religion. There is no middle road.
Social scientists believe that Christianity is just as dangerous (if not TWICE as more) than radical Islam. There have been SCIENTIFIC study after study showing that Christianity leads to intolerance, HATE, and violence (if you don't convert to their beliefs).
Mike, maybe if you'd put down your Bible and pick up an ACTUAL science book you might see that evidence CLEARLY supports evolution. Let me guess, "do the Fossils STILL say 'no'" Mike?
It's HILARIOUS, people like keiths, MrsCorigan, myself and scores of others are here trying to show you guys how to think with out the need of your religious indoctrination and what do you do back? You threaten us with banning, quote Bible passages, throw your inanity around, all to support this non-idea that IDiots have been supporting for years.
"Hmmmm, well everything is just so gosh darn complex I think a magical being must have created this, how about we write a book about it too, then we can brainwash more people into believing that just because something looks design it must have been. I just hope they don't ask 'who designed the Designer'!".
Sound familiar?
How many of you even followed my link to Penn&Teller's humiliating of Dane Gish? You're scared and you are like the little kid who didn't want to face the truth that Santa didn't exit.
Amazing.
Wake the FUCK up!
Comment by Sam — January 13, 2007 @ 12:33 am
January 13th, 2007 at 12:35 am
I shouldn't have sweared. But I don't need to apologize.
People like you just get me enraged! I'm partially to blame, but most of the blame should come on those who INTENTIONALLY ignore the facts because want they sooooooooooooooooooooooo want to exit doesn't.
Comment by Sam — January 13, 2007 @ 12:35 am
January 13th, 2007 at 12:43 am
Comment by MikeGene — January 13, 2007 @ 12:43 am
January 13th, 2007 at 12:47 am
Uh Mike, by Bible I don't just MEAN the Christian Bible. I mean anything that you take as authority without proof that it actually has the role of authority.
It's not MY job to explain each and every sentence.
Read it as rigid as you'd like to. I wouldn't expect any less.
Comment by Sam — January 13, 2007 @ 12:47 am
January 13th, 2007 at 12:51 am
You sound…ah…..mad?
Comment by MikeGene — January 13, 2007 @ 12:51 am
January 13th, 2007 at 12:55 am
I already explained that. I do get mad, who doesn't get mad at IDiots.
Comment by Sam — January 13, 2007 @ 12:55 am
January 13th, 2007 at 12:57 am
I see that Master Dawkins has taught you well. But I'm left wondering…just what is "the risk of having Christian FUNDIES working on airlines?"
Comment by MikeGene — January 13, 2007 @ 12:57 am
January 13th, 2007 at 2:40 am
Christian fundamentalists will kill non-believers any chance they get. Noted.
Pat Robertson also has a criminal record of numerous counts of homocide against non-believers.
These popular, well-known games are a detriment to society! Ban rape games in Japan while we're at it!
'Cause the Bible always had sex scenes as the main focus of life.
Wow. Thanks for the warning, Sam.
I love how you cite copious amounts of the aforementioned studies.
Once again, thanks!
Comment by ABigSmall — January 13, 2007 @ 2:40 am
January 13th, 2007 at 2:47 am
Sam I am, my name is Sam, would you like green eggs and ham? Sammy, you are a wierd duck.
Comment by bFast — January 13, 2007 @ 2:47 am
January 13th, 2007 at 3:37 am
It's HILARIOUS, people like keiths, MrsCorigan, myself and scores of others are here trying to show you guys how to think with out the need of your religious indoctrination and what do you do back? You threaten us with banning, quote Bible passages, throw your inanity around, all to support this non-idea that IDiots have been supporting for years.
Comment by Vividbleau — January 13, 2007 @ 3:37 am
January 13th, 2007 at 4:42 am
This is a good one.
Comment by inunison — January 13, 2007 @ 4:42 am
January 13th, 2007 at 6:04 am
Ten bucks says "Sam" is yanking our collective chain.
Comment by Krauze — January 13, 2007 @ 6:04 am
January 13th, 2007 at 6:30 am
He has to be. No one can be that stupid!
Comment by Ford Prefect — January 13, 2007 @ 6:30 am
January 13th, 2007 at 7:40 am
My e-mail address is nanosoliton AT yahoo yadayada, be gentle.
Comment by Guts — January 13, 2007 @ 7:40 am
January 13th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Oh c'mon Guts, I wasn't that serous. 'Hope thechristiancynic wasn't either. You weren't responsible for putting the dear piece together. I actually suspect that Dawkins was, because the hard core mocking fits with his other writings. The footage may have been gross, but it was insiteful.
Comment by bFast — January 13, 2007 @ 10:25 am
January 13th, 2007 at 10:43 am
I don't know; I might have to dish out some retribution for those images still imprinted on my mind's eye.
And I really thought Sam's post was a parody at first, but I really don't know after reading further. I'm a total loss for how any of that makes sense unless it's a joke.
Comment by thechristiancynic — January 13, 2007 @ 10:43 am
January 13th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Sam, that post of yours WAS satirical, right?!?!?!?
Comment by CJYman — January 13, 2007 @ 11:37 am
January 13th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
You don't suppose that Sam's last name is "Harris," do you?
Comment by jb — January 13, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
January 13th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
And I really thought Sam's post was a parody at first, but I really don't know after reading further. I'm a total loss for how any of that makes sense unless it's a joke.
Sam attended the same school of comedy as Michael Richards.
Comment by Bradford — January 13, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
January 13th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
"I saw a picture of this woman," Dawkins says. "She had one of the most stupid faces I've ever seen.
Reminds me of a story about Niels Bohr and his brother (also brilliant) who as children rode with their mother on a train or bus. Another woman observed the brothers and had sympathy for their mother thinking that the duo looked retarded. She remarked to the mother (roughly translated) "you poor dear."
Comment by Bradford — January 13, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
January 13th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
That explains it. Thanks for clearing that up.
Comment by thechristiancynic — January 13, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
January 13th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Is Sam for real?
Comment by obrienr — January 13, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
January 13th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
If you have not published research since the Thatcher Administration then perhaps so.
Comment by obrienr — January 13, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
January 14th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Disregard the "stupid face" comment for a moment. A women is denied permission to openly wear a cross by her employer British Airways, and Dawkins attacks the woman. Good thing no one has shown Dawkins a petition against public employees wearing crosses, or he might just accidentally have signed it.
Comment by Krauze — January 14, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
January 14th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Krauze,
If you reread the post, you'll see that Dawkins attacked Ms. Eweida for claiming that Christians weren't allowed to work at British Airways. He's right — that is a stupid statement, utterly unsupported by the facts.
A news story confirms that she believes this:
I wonder how her Christian colleagues at BA feel about her implication that they are not true Christians.
This whole fracas is a perfect illustration of the special and undeserved deference accorded to religion in our society. Imagine if, instead of being a Christian, Ms. Eweida had been a dedicated and evangelistic member of Greenpeace, insisting on her right to advertise her views by wearing a Greenpeace button on her uniform. Or a Labor party member, wearing a small, gilded portrait of Tony Blair. Does anyone believe that there would have been a public outcry over this?
Why do religious beliefs deserve special treatment which is not bestowed upon other beliefs held with equal seriousness and conviction?
Comment by keiths — January 14, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
January 14th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
This whole fracas is a perfect illustration of the special and undeserved deference accorded to religion in our society. Imagine if, instead of being a Christian, Ms. Eweida had been a dedicated and evangelistic member of Greenpeace, insisting on her right to advertise her views by wearing a Greenpeace button on her uniform. Or a Labor party member, wearing a small, gilded portrait of Tony Blair. Does anyone believe that there would have been a public outcry over this?
Politicians are fair game in the UK and the USA but if an individual of an ethnic minority had been denied the right to wear something representative of that group, those denying the individual would be lucky to escape with mere job termination. Civil rights violations and a lawsuit would be likely consequences- at least on the US side of the Atlantic.
Comment by Bradford — January 14, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
January 14th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
It looks like it's about political correctness:
Comment by MikeGene — January 14, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
January 14th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Mike,
You managed to omit the most important part of that sentence (highlighted in bold below):
Thus there was no "politically correct" privileging of Islam and Sikhism over Christianity.
BA's position was quite consistent: They believed that employees should be allowed to wear symbols of their religious beliefs. They also believed that uniformed employees should not display those symbols openly. Where the two principles conflicted, the first took precedence: thus turbans, hijabs, and bangles, which could not be concealed, were allowed to be worn openly; Eweida's cross, which could be concealed, was not.
Of course, to get back to my earlier point, none of this should have been an issue at all. Religious beliefs do not deserve a special respect above and beyond that bestowed upon other equally sincere, strongly held, but non-religious beliefs. Had that been the case here, then BA could have consistently forbidden religious symbols, political symbols, LiveStrong wristbands, etc., for uniformed employees. Alternatively, they could have allowed all of those things (to the extent they were consistent with job performance and safety). As it was, the pressure to allow the wearing of religious symbols first forced them to cave in on the issue of turbans, hijabs, and bangles, and then inevitably on crosses as well.
For the record, I prefer the laissez-faire approach to employee dress codes. I have no objection to Eweida being allowed to wear a cross, but I do object to the double standard that allows a cross but forbids a Greenpeace button.
Again I ask:
Why do religious beliefs deserve special treatment which is not bestowed upon other beliefs held with equal seriousness and conviction?
Comment by keiths — January 14, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
January 14th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Keiths: Thus there was no "politically correct" privileging of Islam and Sikhism over Christianity.
BA's position was quite consistent: They believed that employees should be allowed to wear symbols of their religious beliefs. They also believed that uniformed employees should not display those symbols openly.
What sense does it make to instruct in the need to be sensitive to other cultures and religions on the one hand while behaving with insensitivity towards Christianity on the other? This is really not surprising though because diversity advocates mean everyone but Christians. They don't phrase it that way because it is not PC but actions speak louder than words. BTW, why would employee status obviate the need for sensitivity? This makes sense only to a Dawkinite.
Comment by Bradford — January 14, 2007 @ 10:11 pm
January 14th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Hi Keiths,
I think it more significant that she could no longer wear her little cross because its about being "sensitive to various cultures, religions and political allegiances."
Well, you could make a case that a button is different from a piece of jewelry. For example, do you think a little silver cross on a necklace is the same as a button that says, "Are you Saved?" But I'm like you "“ I don't care if they are wearing jewelry or buttons as long as they do their job.
Comment by MikeGene — January 14, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
January 15th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Hi Keith,
"If you reread the post, you'll see that Dawkins attacked Ms. Eweida for claiming that Christians weren't allowed to work at British Airways. He's right – that is a stupid statement, utterly unsupported by the facts."
I think Bradford makes a good point. Someone being forbidden from carrying a symbol of her religious belief could be excused for thinking that her religious belief is a problem for her employers.
But imagine this situation: A person's employer is forcing her to comply with some stupid work policy. In response, that person makes an argument that you think is wrong. Assuming that you agree that the work policy is stupid, wouldn't your first choice be to let the bad argument slide and criticize the policy? After all, a stupid work policy is going to hassle that employee every day, whereas bad arguments against it cause no harm to anyone.
I think it's reasonable to assume that Dawkins supports the British Airways' policy against crosses. Going one step further, he probably considers it an entirely appropriate way to combat the spread of the religious mind virus.
"Imagine if, instead of being a Christian, Ms. Eweida had been a dedicated and evangelistic member of Greenpeace, insisting on her right to advertise her views by wearing a Greenpeace button on her uniform."
As Mike also points out, a button with a message on it is different from a symbol on a necklace. To make the examples more similar, how about a necklace with a small peace sign?
Comment by Krauze — January 15, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
January 21st, 2007 at 12:03 pm
I am intrigued by the Dawkins quote – is he intellegentsia's answer to Jade Goody? Please could you tell me the source and context of this quotation?
Comment by iverflossie — January 21, 2007 @ 12:03 pm