Last week, liberal Christian blogger Rachel Held Evans wrote an interesting piece for CNN’s Belief Blog titled, “Hey atheists, let’s make a deal.” So here is her deal:
“How about we Christians agree not to throw this latest Richard Dawkins thing in your face and you atheists agree not to throw the next Pat Robertson thing in ours?”
The “Dawkins thing” she is referring to was a recent excerpt from his upcoming memoir, “An Appetite for Wonder,” in which he describes an experience he had as a youth relating to mild sexual molestation from a teacher. Dawkins commented that he didn’t think the mild molestation left any lasting damage to him or his small group of classmates he discussed the matter with at the time. He goes on to explain that times were different then and that this type of behavior was considered acceptable… at the time.
Obviously, not everyone had the same experiences that Dawkins and his friends had and not everyone would react in the same way. Today, we don’t consider the behavior of that teacher to be acceptable. We recognize that even mild sexual molestation is immoral and that despite Dawkins’s claim to the contrary, it actually might have caused some lasting damage that even Dawkins might be unaware. So if Christians want to “throw this latest Richard Dawkins thing” in our faces, have at it!
That isn’t to say that we must take full responsibility for everything Dawkins or any other atheist ever says or does; that would be ridiculous. I certainly won’t throw the latest Pat Robertson crazy comment at Evans as long as what he says has nothing to do with the Bible. There is the real difference here that Rachel Held Evans doesn’t get.
There is no atheist bible! Dawkins and I are not worshipping from the same holy book. Neither of us have a holy book that states that mild pedophilia is okay. However, Evans and Robertson both do share a holy book in common and that holy book says some pretty horrific things. Robertson believes those things, while Evans apparently does not. Yet she still claims to worship that same holy book.
It isn’t that I am “throwing” what Robertson says at her; it is that I am throwing his use of the Bible at her – the very same Bible she claims to be holy and to worship. Robertson claims that his crazy statements are based in the Bible and to a large extent they are!
Now, I couldn’t care less what the Bible says because I reject it as holy, I reject it as divine, and I reject it as being anything other than fiction. Rachel Held Evans on the other hand, accepts the Bible as holy, divine, and true. Therein lies our problem.
No deal Rachel. I will continue to throw the ridiculous Bible-based words and actions of Christians who actually follow what their holy book instructs at all Christians even those who reject those particular words and actions because they still accept and worship the source material. The only way out here is to admit that the Bible is not divine and that it is no different than any other book or book series written by human beings. Then and only then can you take the bits you like and discard the bits you don’t. Of course, this means that the principle character in the book series would be in question. If the Bible is like any other book, then God could be like any other character… fictional!
PS Comparing any statement that Richard Dawkins says with Pat Robertson’s statements is a false equivalency to begin with. Dawkins said he didn’t feel that his experience being mildly molested caused any lasting damage; Robertson said that 9/11 was caused by atheists, feminists, and the ACLU. Such a false equivalency would be like comparing Chris Matthews with Glenn Beck.
Related articles
- Hey atheists, let’s make a deal (religion.blogs.cnn.com)
- Richard Dawkins is Not the Atheist Version of Pat Robertson (patheos.com)
- 5 Best Books To De-Convert A Christian (skepticink.com)
- Reason and Circular Reasoning (skepticink.com)
- Hello? Your Beliefs Are Ridiculous!! (skepticink.com)
- My Interview With Ray Comfort (skepticink.com)
- Atheism 101: Hitler, Stalin, and Mao (examiner.com)
