The Lower Quote, As If You Didn't Know, Is By Richard Dawkins, Son.

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Dinesh Douchesouza Gets It Wrong Once Again

Jesus fucking christ Dinesh D'Souza is thick.

I mean, I'm not going to kick his ass again, I've done that too many times, plus PZ's already done it.

All I'm going to do is point out that in his new post he pulls out the same old-ass bullshit. Allow me to present:
The real problem with Darwinism in the public school classroom is that it is often taught in an atheist way.
And of course his "evidence" for the old-ass argument:
the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits public schools from teaching or promoting atheism in any way. How do I know this? Well, the religion clauses of the First Amendment protect the "free exercise" of religion and at the same time forbid the "establishment" of religion. Courts have routinely held that the free exercise clause protects not only religious beliefs but also the absence of religious beliefs. If you are fired from your government job because you are an atheist, your First Amendment rights have been violated. In other words, the term "religion" means not only "religion" but also "atheism."

Yet if the free exercise clause defines religion in a way that includes atheism, then the no-establishment clause must define religion in the same way. So the agencies of government are prohibited from "establishing" not only religion but also atheism. This means that just as a public school teacher cannot advocate Christianity or hand out Bibles to his students, so too public school textbooks and science teachers cannot advocate atheism.
To refresh everyone's memory, here's your First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Firstly, D'Souza blockheadedly equates secularity and atheism (the difference being obvious - secular = no mention of any supernatural being(s) on the money; atheist = "There is/are no supernatural being(s), so stop being retarded" on the money), then he goes on to make a house of cards built on that false equality by saying that "Darwinism" - whatever the fuck that means - is a religion, is being taught in the schools via biology class, and as such is violating the above stated First Amendment.

Ok, let me make this crystal clear so even Dinesh can understand: If atheism is a religion, then not sucking my dick is a sex act.

No one is hindering his or anyone's right to the free expression of their silly religion. Get the fuck over yourself and stop being such a little whiny douche.

6 Barbaric Yawps:

At 3/4/08 7:46 pm, Blogger Sean the Blogonaut F.C.D. said...

To quote some movie:

Desouza woul have to be the dumbest smart person I know.

 
At 3/4/08 8:20 pm, Anonymous onclepsycho said...

"Ok, let me make this crystal clear so even Dinesh can understand: If atheism is a religion, then not sucking my dick is a sex act."

Oh man, I wish I can use that line someday...

 
At 4/4/08 10:06 am, Blogger Titan said...

I hope you're sitting down.

I actually agreed with D'Souza a bit in this article. (Take a deep breath and hear me out.)

I'm a law student, and I've been researching evolution-creation issues for some time now as part of a project. The two sides have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the other side is saying, and I think this is a perfect example. D'Souza said:

I'd like to see Christian legal groups suing school districts for promoting atheism in the biology classroom. No need to produce creationist or ID critiques of Darwinism. All that is necessary is to parade the atheist claims that have made their way into the biology textbooks and biology lectures. The issue isn't the scientific inadequacy of evolution but the way in which it is being used to undermine religious belief and promote unbelief. If the case can be made that atheism is being advocated in any way, then the textbooks would have to be rewritten and classroom presentations changed to remove the offending material. Schools would be on notice that they cannot use scientific facts to draw metaphysical conclusions in favor of atheism.

Well, he's right! I don't think he's equating secular with atheist. He's saying that biology textbooks (none of which he's ever read, I'm sure) go beyond secular.

You often hear anti-evolutionists say "Teach evolution, just don't teach it as true." This seems utterly bizzare at first. Lurking beneath that complaint is a real issue. Science produces models of the world. The decision to accept that model as the real explanation is a metaphysical (atheistic) choice.

Now I don't think textbooks actually do this - which makes D'Souza full of shit - but if they do then they go too far.

"The earth was not created; it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion." ~ Julian Huxley

All I'm saying is that Huxley's quote shouldn't be part of science books (unless it's being used in a historical sense).

 
At 4/4/08 3:46 pm, Blogger Kay said...

Oh good grief. That guy is a total tool.


And yes, I too would like to use the “not suck my dick as a sex act” line someday.

Think I can work it into a rant regarding intelligent design? Me thinks there are possibilities.

 
At 11/4/08 6:14 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This sad tale annoyed me enough to lower my high standards and satirize what is, essentially, already a parody. Witness: Dinesh D'souza - The real problem with Newtonism.

Modusoperandi (sorry, I can't sign in. *Ahem*...work.

 
At 22/4/08 12:24 am, Blogger Cob450 said...

The way he says it is pretty stupid because he seems to be saying that if they can't teach Christian belief then they are automatically teaching atheist belief, which should be prohibited. This doesn't make sense because if you can't do either, what can you do?

But I don't agree that atheism isn't a religion, in a way. It still requires the belief in something, though in the case of atheism, it's that God doesn't exist. I'm agnostic because I see no conclusive proof either way.

That being said, I've never heard of any school or teacher saying "There is no God, only evolution." I really don't see how religion and evolution aren't compatible, unless you're a fundamentalist, in which case you're a dumbass. But to do so would be going too far, just as refusing to teach evolution because of religious views is.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home