Richard Dawkins, or has he's more affectionately known "Darwin's rottweiler" has written a surprising article in the Washington Post today. In it he attacks the Roman Catholic Church (not unusual) but in an unusual twist defends the decency of the Anglican Church regarding the recent attempts to coax disaffected Anglican clergy into the "fold" of the Bishop of Rome. As an outsider to religion, Dawkins can perhaps go further than any Anglican clergy would like to go in his condemnation of the Catholics and frankly it's refreshing to see such a story get into the mainstream press; here is a small quote from the article which illustrates what I mean.
"For some, the motive will be homophobic bigotry, and a consequent dislike of the efforts of decent church leaders such as the Archbishop of Canterbury to accept those whose sexual orientation happens to deviate from majority taste. Never mind that they will be joining an institution where buggering altar boys pervades the culture."
Unfortunately this morally corrupt and insidious organisation seems to be immune from condemnation, I guess they have had many centuries of practice at it. As Dawkins concludes, if there are Anglican clergy who are happy to defend the indefensible then it seems like a win-win to an Atheist like me.
4 comments:
I think the World Bank might give the RC church a run for its money as a cause for suffering in the world. Or the oil lobby in the USA. Or Trafigura. Or (if you rewind 20 years) Eastern Bloc communism, now thankfully defunct, in large part due to the Catholic Church in E Europe.
Very readable as always. He does have a way with words - I'd never seen the Catholic view of priesthood defined as 'possession of testicles' before!
Hi dmk, I agree they're not the only ones, but you have to give it to them, they've got staying power! (unlike the personality cults of the 20th century)
Whenever I debate the evil done by religion, I find people automatically tend use the good things to offset the bad, somehow concluding that they cancel each other out. I don't hold with this view, every inherently evil institution can be shown to benefit someone, the Nazis built great roads for example.
I think it's almost irrelevant what people like Dawkins actually says, it's the fact that someone says it that represents progress in my mind, religions shouldn't get a free ride, regardless of how many charitable acts the followers do.
"the Nazis built great roads for example" - not down my Nan's street they didn't....
G, well, quite (they dropped a bomb on my nan's!)
Post a Comment