I think that the adoption of the ‘New Atheism’, Dawkins-style by Anonymous needs a cautionary challenge, as below, in repost from yesterday.
I understand all too well the wish to take on religion, but the current brand created by the New Atheism is not ready to ship, and will lose out in the end to religious counterattack. Appleyard’s article, cited today, will help on this.
You can impose atheism on the left anymore, it has played itself out. And the New Athesits, didn’t Anonymous know, are crypto-consevatives and closet Islamophobes in action, energized by 9/11.
It is NOT a liberal/left movement.
I think that the hidden social darwnism in Dawkins is a scandal that has passed the liberal biologists by, fooling them completely.
No leftist movement should be condoning the Darwinian attack on altruism. Can noone see how this has born fruit in the Ayn Rand mania of current Darwinized culture.
From the comments:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/320639: Anonymous declares war on religion, hacks church websites Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/320639#ixzz1oF31VC5X
I will study this article and comment. My first impression is negative and I think I should caution the Anonymous group, whose work I have respected in the past, to be wary of these tactics, based on Dawkins’ rhetoric.
Religious groups are not the real enemy here, although exposing their conditioning culture is par for the course. But the analysis has to be right, and here it is borrowed from Dawkins and it is not right.
The formulation is wrong here from the start: they are attacking religion in general, and that is a momumentally wrong approach, and strategy. Am I the enemy because I have an interest in Buddhism? Are buddhists on the path to enlightenment a target for these critics of religion? In general Christian groups have a dozen soup kitches per church, in many cases. Will you replace this? Can you really debrief Xtianity?
The Dawkins formulation is so wrong headed it will lead to attacks on the wrong people, and great bitterness at the left, all over again. The history of Bolshevism should be a warning of the demonic fate of inaccurate attacks on religion, and the religion of the Tzarist kingdom was truly horrific, yet still won out.
This kind of tactic is naive, because it fails to consider that religions have a built in ‘counter-hack’ in the form of invisible entities who protect its groups. If you try to hack religion, you might so infuriate the invisbile world the rogue Buddhist occult ‘hackers’ who, onced aroused, are truly terrifying. They ‘hacked’ their way into German culture in the nineteenth century and seeded nazism.
If the Anonymous can hack this group, and leave innocent Christians and Buddhists alone, they will do us a big favor. But obviously they are minor leagues types here, and will at most deface the websites of a few idiot churches of muddled Christians. That seems cowardly. Fight with someone your size. Try hacking the Tibetan buddhist monster zone, and keep in mind they don’t confide with the Dalai Lama, who hasn’t a clue.
Dawkins is not a good guide for the left. His Darwinism is a rightwing social darwinist ideology in disguise, and his ‘new atheism’ is a very poor guide to the issues of religion.
To simply target ‘religion’ in this fashion suggested by the pied piper Dawkins will backfire and discredit Anonymous and the left.
Let sleeping dogs lie: religious types are harmless til aroused, but once they get mad….
Meanwhile this language is that of ‘war’, from Dawkins? the critic of religious war.
This raises the stakes on the question of religion. In any case, the left should be exposing, not embracing, the crypto-Thatcherite social darwinism of Dawkins et al.
Thanks for comment, which talk about this further.