Richard Dawkins says: "When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."
At best, Dawkins has used extremely loose language, and merely meant to say that AIPAC and such have disproportionate influence over U.S. policy with regard to Israel, and he wishes atheists had similar power. But when a British blogger calls him on it, instead of defening Dawkins as engaging in hyperbole in an informal interview, many of the comments basically say, "Dawkins is right, Jews do control American foreign policy." Sheesh!
Politics/Policy = not so much.
Just goes to show -something- about demagoguery.
Or was it the military/industrial complex?
Religious Right?
Big Business?
Bilderbergers?
Skull and Bones? Cuban-Americans?
Hard to keep track of all of this sometimes.
The religious right and Bilderbergers are just a smokescreen.
Also, add to your list: Big Agra. Farm subsidies are a bad idea, for any number of reasons that have been discussed elsewhere. So while Big Agra might not have any power over whether I can obtain a Cuban cigar or whether we waste billions in Israel, they do have a say in whether my Coke contains sugar or high fructose corn syrup.
The Military Industrial Complex - which, while you might not take seriously, General Eisenhower did - has no say over whether I get a Cuban cigar, but they do have a say in how billions will be spent on wars that we probably shouldn't have waged.
Likewise, Jewish interest groups exercise incredible power. One not bee paranoid or anti-Semitic to recognize that an vocal ethnic group can exercise disproportionate power. What's amusing is that commenter here have no problem seeing that such a thing as the "MSM" or "liberal elite" exists. Yet those same people doubt the power of the Jewish-American lobby. Have some intellectual integrity, why don't ya?
Apropos today: Have you ever had the day off because of Casimir Pulaski Day? You have if (and only if) you're from Illinois. The Polish-American lobby is responsible for that. You didn't get any mail today largely because of the Italian-American lobby. They have Martin Luther King, Jr. day off in Arizona because of the African-American lobby.
So, yeah, lots of groups exercise a lot of power that, in a perfect world, they wouldn't exercise. Not that I have anything against day's off. But noting the politics of government holidays is a clear and undeniable example of the power exercised by ethnic lobbying groups.
Yes, but influence is not control.
If the Jews control American FP, how do the Cuban Americans or Big Oil or "x" also exert influence?
Let faction counter faction. Although we do have the problem of public choice theory entering things.
Still, to say that Group "A" controls American policy is silly.
Well, the Jews have that sabbath thingie -- the Cuban oil magnates jump into the breach then.
Is this the selfsame Dawkins who appeared as the cockney on "Hogan's Heroes" and who later went on to achieve greater fame as the host of "Family Feud"?
Er, no. That was Richard DAWSON.
Also, Dawkins did not say, "the Jewish lobby controls [all of] American foreign policy;" he said, "Jews...more or less monopolise American foreign policy." It may be six of one, half a dozen of the other, but why confuse matters by using other than his exact words?
And that "Jews do control American foreign policy" amounts to revealed wisdom for many in the UK, especially those who read The Guardian. For them, if it was printed there, that is as good as if they themselves had heard it from the Burning Bush.
The Jewish lobby really does sound like a neat gig! Do you know now I can apply? (Though my secret fear is that there'll turn out to be a religious or ethnic-background requirement or something...)
There then appears to be great truth to the statement "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."
The Selfish Gene was written in the 1970s. At that time, a much more organismal and species-focused view of evolution prevailed in the scientific community. His book stirred the pot and led to evolutionary biologists viewing some aspects of evolution quite differently. Not just transposons, either.
I recollect that his book was not a report of original research, contained no new experimental data, and made little (if any) predictions as to the results of possible future experiments. I thus am baffled at your statement that the book does not "make good science". It's not a "scientific" book and Dawkins didn't pretend it was.
I wonder what you think of this book?
BTW, heard E.O. Wilson, the ant man, lecture last week on biodiversity. Is his "sociobiology" somehow related to this "selfish gene" stuff, or a different business. Doesn't "sociobiology" emphasize "altruistic genes" to explain behavior that serves the interests of the colony or species at the expense of the individual?
I only bring it up because E. O. Wilson was much maligned just for asking questions about the possible genetic nature of behavior. Sounds like another Harvard type in the news recently.
Oh, and Dawkins has always been something of an antisemite. But your "English Malingerer Dawkins" scans rather nicely and would make a good Homeric epithet.
It is also entirely what Dawkins' reputation is based upon. The reason we care about what Dawkins says, as opposed to hundreds of other biologists, is because of that book. At least with someone like Sagan or Gould, you had groundbreaking work that made their forays into the public spotlight a little more understandable.
I wasn't addressing Dawkins' claim. Rather, I was addressing the claims of a vocal group of VC commenters. Whenever a post about the Jewish-American lobby comes up, a bunch of hecklers (like EricH) mock the claim.
These same people will be the first, however, to decry the "liberal media" that hides the truth from good Americans, the "liberal elite" that rules academia, and the "trial lawyers" that are ruining the economy. They recognize the existence and power of special interest groups - when it suits them. But mention AIPAC and people act as if no insular community could ever exercise such power. This is intellectual dishonesty at its worst.
Is there a Jewish-American special interest group? Yes. Does that group exercise incredible influence? Yes. That much is obvious, though if you listened to the hecklers, you'd consider those controversial claims.
Wilson's chief antagonist back in the 70's was another Harvard professor, Lewontin, who accused Wilson of being a eugenecist or the cat's paw of eugenicists. Lewontin's scientific opinions on the subject were in keeping with his Marxist faith. I don't know that Lewontin has ever recanted or apologized, but I think he does keep his mouth shut on the subject now. (Wilson related how back then a class lecture of his was interrupted and a student poured ice water over his head in protest of what Wilson had to say on the subject of "sociobiology." Ah, the good old days.)
And Dawkins/Hawkins (both Oxbridge, but which?) was pure silliness, especially the "malingerer" crack, no attempt at anything Homeric. (Did you mean "epithet" or "epic"? What, pray tell, might be a Homeric epithet?)
Dawkins as an antisemite - I know nothing about such other than what DB brought forward here, and that is a bit equivocal, I think, especially when judged by UK academy standards.
(There are so many other possibilities of that sort, but it is late, and they ought not be that hard to come up with.)
That's better than 6.28, and it's not imaginary. Not bad for a simple Pole.
Recently, Frank Menetrez in a very detailed response to DB's claims about Norman Finkelstein, suggested that on the topic of Israel Professor Bernstein has difficulty affording critics even a "minimally charitable interpretation" (if I recall Menetrez correctly).
Now it seems that the Dawkins quote is verbal, not written. So is it too hard to imagine that when Dawkins said "the Jewish lobby" he meant to say "The Israel Lobby"? And although DB favors interpreting " The Jewish lobby...more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see." as "the Jewish lobby controls [all of] American foreign policy." perhaps it can more reasonably and charitably be seen to say "The Jewish lobby has dramatic impact and influence [more or less monopolizes] American foreign policy [in the Middle East] as far as many people can see." Since "many people" are not claiming and have never claimed that "the Jewish lobby" has great sway in American foreign policy in South America or Cuba or Asia, perhaps Professor Bernstein can consider that his addition of [all of] may be inappropriate and do a disservice to Dawkins' meaning, to say nothing of any serious discourse on the topic.
Now, if Dawkins had merely said, "The Israel lobby is very powerful, significantly controling debate in America on Middle East issues and consequently on American foreign policy in that area, and it's a shame a similar number of atheists can't be similarly successful in lobbying," one would merely assume he'd been reading Mearsheimer and Walt, yet Professor Bernstein seems again ready to accuse yet another person of anti-semitism. And neurodoc 1:04am joins in by casually stating "Oh, and Dawkins has always been something of an antisemite" without anything resembling supporting evidence to say nothing of proof. I think Menetrez concluded that many people on this blog don't take claims of antisemitism seriously, so scurrilously do they bandy about the term. If Menetrez's insight is correct, this would be another example.
Twenty years ago they posed as the Japanese Jews, AKA known as Japan Inc.
During the 1973 oil crisis they were rumored to be OPEC Jews, mostly of the OPEC Saudi sect.
Lindbergh and Joseph Kennedy are said to have believed they were Media Jews sometimes allied with Money Jews.
I remain unsure. Which is just the way THEY like it.
And, not to date myself or anything but I remember hearing of the lecture when EOW had water poured on his head. I was taking a seminar with him at the time in which he patiently stared at young students who didn't understand much.
But in Dawkins' defense, The Selfish Gene is a very important work. (it is best summed up by the saying that predates it: 'a chicken is just an egg's way of making another egg.') It hardened the crucial paradigm shift away from vestiges of teleology that remainned in many an evolutionary biologist's mind. (I. e. 'flippers evolved because they were needed for....")
I also highly recommend Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable as a lucid refutation of the Intelligent Design folks supposition that the eye could not have evolved without a sense of purpose or design.
So, it is all the more sad to see his continued reflexive anti-Semitism. Heck, Einstein's politics were pretty wacky, if not as malevolent. But say, didn't Judge Posner write some sort of brilliant book/article detailing why people brilliant in one field can be dolts in another?
Gives us all a perverse sense of hope perhaps....
I think Professor Berstein’s missing the point – Dawkins wasn’t slamming American Jews, he was slamming American atheists by implying that if they had a greater influence on American foreign policy, they’d subordinate American interests to that of other countries in order to make “the world . . . a better place.”
In all seriousness though, Dawkins is just living under the delusion that there is something unique about atheists that they have in common with each other, other than not believing in God. It’s like the Japanese who thinks that all Gaijin are alike because they aren’t Japanese or the Jew who thinks that all Gentiles are alike because they aren’t Jewish even though the only thing that they have in common is the one thing they aren’t.
In terms of politics and overall worldview, a conservative atheist has more in common with a religious conservative than s/he would with a leftist atheist and vice versa.
In some aspects of worldview, possibly yes. But atheists tend to have in common that they see they world from a rationalist perspective. A conservative atheist and a leftist atheist may disagree on many social issues, but they will probably agree that issues should be decided by evidence and logic, not by appeals to ancient superstitious mumbo-jumbo.
He wouldn't want to inadvertently offend anyone.
Yes -- look at the full quote, where Dawkins is making a comparison between atheists and religious Jews.
Ridiculous.
"I have had many letters from people saying 'I don't dare give my opinions. I am afraid of my family. I am afraid of my wife, I am afraid of my husband. I am afraid of my work people. I am afraid of being fired'."
Absolutely absurd, and contemptibly spineless if true.
"So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."
The world did so well when atheists controlled Soviet foreign policy...
a bunch of hecklers (like EricH) mock the claim.
I mocked the claim that Jews control (monopolise) American foreign policy.
Not influence, not predominate, not have a disproportionate affect. But, CONTROL.
Yep, I'll mock that absurd claim every-damned-time.
FWIW, Richard Dawkins signed on to the following:
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,751264,00.html
What are you talking about? EricH mocked the Dawkins claim of control, you know the one you say you aren't addressing?
The guy's mostly a popularizer, but then, Darwinism remains in need of popularization. (I have yet to find *one* good survey of the subject for the pop audience, including books by Dawkins, Maynard Smith, Mayr ....)
"Religion is palpable in US schools, places of work and public institutions."
Ridiculous.
Ridiculous? You don't live in Mississippi, do you?
Please explain how "environmentalism" is "modern superstitious mumbo-jumbo". Your blanket dismissal of environmentalism is frankly ridiculous. Clean air and water are chief among environmentalism concerns that cannot be kept in check by a laissez faire attitude. Private action has significant difficulties containing the type of pollution externalities that effect them.
And he would know. This is a guy who writes a book every time he has an idea--which also explains why his books are as short as they usually are even after padding out the one idea the book conveys. Not that Posner doesn't sometimes have something thought provoking to say, but the padding often displays his basic ignorance in the field he chooses to pontificate on.
[editor: Let's see, the three posts surrounding this post are on Naomi Klein, Sandy Berger, and neologisms. Gee, guess what, this isn't solely a legal blog. I guess with your U. Chicago education, you realize that, though, right, and are just trying to annoy me?]
But it is really a cheap shot and irrational of you to then go after the remark again on the basis of what “comments” in blogs say about it. If I were to post a remark about Arabs being subhuman, towel-wearing savages would David Bernstein be responsible for that? Worse yet, if I made those comments at a blog where David Bernstein is not the blogger would he be responsible for my comments? Obviously not.
To link comments, by others on blogs where Dawkins has no control, to what he said in an informal interview is just too sleazy.
If that isn’t sleazy enough you then turn the comment about “more or less” monopolizing US foreign policy into controlling foreign policy. There is a whole world out there but the US spends a heavy amount of time on policies that directly effect Israel. And that is because is politically advantageous to do so and candidates know that. He hedged his comment with “more or less” indicating he wasn’t trying to say they monopolize foreign policy literally. I interpreted that to mean the issue got more attention than it deserves and I would agree with that.
David: it is true you offered an “alternate explanation” for Dawkins, and I suggest a more correct one. But you also tied that into comments over which he had no control whatsoever and that was underhanded.
Yes, there is a pro-Israeli lobby (not limited to Jewish-Americans, btw), and yes, they have real influence. But to pretend there's some kind of consensus among Jews, either in America or worldwide, who are marching in lockstep, is beneath contempt. I mean, isn't there an old saying to this effect -- two Jews, three opinions?
The concept of a Jewish lobby controlling U.S. foreign policy is also offensive to us non-Jews.
Feel free to continue to debate the empty chair.
And notwithstanding Frank Menetrez's defense of Finkelstein, first published by CounterPunch, even maximally charitable interpretations of what Finkelstein has published on repeated occasions support the charge of antisemitism there. (What alternative explanation can you offer for Finkelstein's vicious and completely gratuitous insult of Ruth Wisse and Cynthia Ozick.)
--
To point out the blatantly obvious, there is no risk of pogroms of Jews in the United States. It is this type of absurd reaction to a rather mild statement by Dawkins that makes it so difficult to discuss Israel and American foreign policy in the United States.
DB: Hey, "Thoughtful", did you miss the part of the very short post where I DID provide an alternate explanation of what Dawkins said: At best, Dawkins has used extremely loose language, and merely meant to say that AIPAC and such have disproportionate influence over U.S. policy with regard to Israel, and he wishes atheists had similar power.
-----
Hey, David, did you miss the part of your very short response where you equated "[yet Jews] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see" with "[Richard Dawkins] said "the Jewish lobby controls [all of] American foreign policy." I've already explained why the gratitous insertion of "[all of]" is both unreasonable and uncharitable. I didn't even mention the inappropriateness of your putting quotes around a paraphrase of your own invention.
So let me get this straight: those who interpreted the statement the way it was written rather than the way you, "right from the start," interpreted what the statement meant have "intentionally and widely misinterpreted" the statement. Can it not be possible that someone who did not read into the statement what you did, but rather took it at its face value, is not guilty of "intentional misinterpretation"?
Elliot123, we agree as to the "empty chair," though I expect you mean it literally, while I mean it figuratively. (If someone will never accept a finding of "antisemitic" no matter how strong the evidence may be because in their opinion "antisemitic" is always a meaningless characterization, why should that person be heard when they would try to rebut a charge of "antisemitism" in any particular case?)
CLS, Dawkin's may not have direct responsibility for anything anyone might post in response to what he said/wrote, but is it really "a cheap shot and irrational" of DB to take note of those responses? Don't they reflect how others understood Dawkins? If great numbers of unabashed antisemites stand up and cheer loudly, as they regularly do in response to Finkelstein, doesn't that say something in and of itself. I do think that in general a speaker's own words are the best indication of his/her thinking and intentions, but less direct evidence can be telling too, e.g., the listener/reader responses for and against; choice of an audience (M&W making one of their first presentations to CAIR) or place to publish (CounterPunch; the speaker's comportment (Finkelstein vis-a-vis his critics); etc.
Marc, how interesting to learn that you studied with Wilson back then and know something of that scientific (and political) contretemps. Any experience of Lewontin and/or Gould? (My daughter had a class with Gould and enjoyed it/him greatly, though it seems he could be churlish.) This is a bit OT (maybe a lot), but perhaps it can be related to Dawkins, especially as he ventures into the political realm.
MDJD2B, certainly relevant that Dawkins signed on to that petition. The shame is that it only makes him one of a very large herd of UK academics, and thus less discriminating. Any other evidence in this regard?
Is Mississippi the entire USA now? Is it America's cultural bellwether? As goes Mississippi, so goes the United States? If you have to cherrypick an example like that, it hardly makes the case for the dominance of religion here.
I have lived, worked, and gone to school in areas of the Bible Belt South, and at no time did I feel my grade, my job, or my interaction with public officials would suffer penalties because I was not a Christian. Most of the time, religion simply wasn't an issue. Dawkin's arguments that religion dominates American life are simply hysterical nonsense.
Dawkins is not just an atheist but an anti-theist -- he won't be satisfied till you're an atheist, too. From the many references to the "FSM"* I've seen on left-wing blogs, his influence is spreading.
*FSM = Flying Spaghetti Monster, Dawkins' mockery of the God idea.
In order to control something, there must be a direction steered. When everyone has their own mind, there is no direction.
Prof. Bernstein: Given the long, and occasionally honored, place of anti-semitism in European intellectual thought, why should I assume that Prof. Dawkins didn't mean exactly what he said? His statement seems consistent with three recurrent trends in European intellectual thought: (1) Jewish conspiracy theories; (2) A general lack of understanding of American politics -- with 50 states, the US is composed of more sovereign states than the EU and has many more interest groups with varying levels of influence. Much easier to say that "It's the Jews" in explaining American foreign policy than trying to understand American politics; (3) Denial or glossing over of the histories of nations like the USSR which espoused publicly an atheistic, utopian ideal. Whatever Prof. Dawkins' brilliance in his own field, that doesn't mean he isn't a person of his society or that his understanding of subjects beyond his own field of expertise is any greater than the popular prejudices of his society.
Thoughtful, there have been pogroms in New York City in my lifetime.
Remember, his big thing is being an 'atheist leader'. His point is not the scope of Jewish influence - he is telling atheists "we outnumber the Jewish lobby!"
Here is the same sentiment in print in The God Delusion, a book clearly geared towards atheists:
The paragraphs around this one talk about polls showing that an atheist faces a huge disadvantage for public office. So I think its clear that the Jewish reference is a passing reference. Sure the pro-Israeli lobby may be more/less powerful than the comment implies, but that's not really the point. I think everyone would agree that the pro-Israeli lobby is a lot more powerful than the atheist lobby. In fact, the very idea of an atheist lobby is fairly humorous. That's the main point.
Maybe Thoughtful will say that the pogrom that took place in Crown Heights was in no way comparable in scope, horror and number of deaths to the many pogroms of Eastern Europe preceding the greatest "pogrom" there could ever be, the Holocaust. I think Crown Heights was more than enough for America, and its significance ought not be diminished by comparisons to what Jews experienced in Europe.
Can you tell us what Dawkins would have an atheist lobby do? Would they step in to oppose just about everything religious groups might seek? Or would they only seek to de-stigmatize atheism?
I can't speak for Dawkins, but I am a fan and an atheist myself, so I will try to give a good answer.
I don't think an "atheist lobby" would stand in opposition to all religious groups. There are quite a few religious groups that believe in faith through good works (helping the poor, etc.) and I think common cause could be made there.
"Americans United" is not an atheist group, but I suspect that their agenda would overlap very closely with an atheist lobby. Christian Protestant prayer in schools is offensive to Catholics, Hindus, and atheists alike. Teaching creationism or intelligent design instead of evolution, etc.
Destigmatizing atheism would be a big goal. As Dawkins is fond of saying, you're an atheist too. You don't believe in Thor or Zeus. I just feel the same way about your god.
Around 10% of the American population is atheist. This percentage correlates dramatically with education. A survey of the leading organization of scientists in America found that they were 93% atheist/agnostic. Yet atheism is largely a political deathblow. If you add up all the Congressmen, Senators, Presidents, and Supreme Court Justices over the past 100 years you can find one admitted atheist. (Congressman Pete Stark.) In many European countries, however, its just not an issue.
Thank you for asking. I'll leave you with a transcript clip from the "Under God in the Pledge" case.
Sorry to everyone else that I went off-topic, but I wanted to answer neurodoc.
Regardless, his premise is silly. Atheists are difficult to organize because they're too "independent." Anarchists for crying out loud have found ways to organize.
In my experience, I have found it best to keep quiet about ALL religious matters. I suspect many attorneys who post here did not go out of their way to list their involvement with religious or atheist organizations on their resume. Employers are more concerned about anyone standing out too much, be they Christian or atheist.
My reply is that this is nonsense. First, your argument would mean than any criticism of Israel or the Israeli lobby is automatically invalid since real anti-semites latch onto such things. And racists latch onto to any remark critical of someone who is black as well. And homophobes latch onto critical remarks of any gay group. Under this sort of logic there are protected classes of people immune from criticism because there are people who hate them.
There are always idiots and bigots who take valid points and use them for invalid purproses. That they does not make the point invalid.
But I also think, whether intentional or not, Dawkins is killing two birds with one stone - by encouraging atheists that they too can be a noisy and influential group despite their small numbers AND by subtlely reminding them that disproportionate influence from Jewish groups re: American foreign policy is one of the reasons they need to do this.
I mean, he could have used any of hundreds of examples to demonstrate his general point (that being a minority does not mean you have to be a silent minority or resign yourself to defeat) and the fact that he singled out Jews and the hyperbolic language he used seems to underscore my above point. I have a hard time believing that was a completely innocuous reference.
This seems to be a pattern with the prominent anti-religion movements. Eventually they always seem to zero in on Jews and the zionist conspiracies. I guess they see fighting hundreds of millions of happy little girls in Easter dresses as a lost cause so they focus in on that 1% with their undue influence on Wall St and the latest fiasco in the Middle East. Well, that and evolution, which provides them with scientific ammunition.
You're joking, right? Are you Jewish? I am. If I thought like that, I'd have trouble sleeping at night. A pogrom of Jews in America can occur at any time because a small number of Jews were killed in a hate crime in one small community in America? Is that all it takes to be fearful of a pogrom? Should gays be consumed with fear, being the victims of perhaps even more such incidents in the USA? Would you take seriously a gay spokesman who constantly referred to the risk of a gay pogrom in America? Do you double-lock your doors at night and sleep with a gun by the bed because of concern political forces in power will send goons to your house in the middle of the night to round you up because you're Jewish (if you are)? Do any of your Jewish friends really act this way? Do you know of any Jews emigrating from America because of pogrom concerns? Have all Jews even moved out of Crown Heights?
This is just another example of not taking anti-semitism seriously. The willingness to blow up any (horrible, granted, what happened in Crown Heights, but) small incident to the magnitude of a potential pogrom in order to stiffle criticism is outrageous, and trivializes victims of real pogroms.
Well said. Agree fully.
"I'm wondering where the Atheist National Homeland would be -- obviously it must be some godforsaken piece of land, but where?"
Rockall, perhaps?
My argument does NOT "mean than (sic) any criticism of Israel or the Israeli lobby is automatically invalid since real anti-semites latch onto such things." That is your exaggeration and distortion of what I am saying. I do find it telling that Finkelstein is a darling of antisemites, though weaker evidence of Finkelstein's antisemitism than his own words and conduct. (Note: it matters not a whit for these purposes that Finkelstein was born a Jew, however intriguing that may be from a psychiatric perspective.) You are mistaken to think that the only commonality the antisemites who cheer Finkelstein share with him is an antipathy toward the state of Israel.
I agree and disagree with you. Sam Harris recently gave a speech saying that we shouldn't use the label atheist, but instead we should just fight irrationality when we see it. There are no groups of a-astrologists, or a-racists. I think this idea has a lot going for it.
As Harris said in a different context, the problem with Stalinist Russia is not that they were atheist. It's that they were too much like religion. They replaced worship of God with worship of the state, the party, and your "comrade brothers." North Korea is atheist, but citizens are told that the birds sing to honor their Dear Leader and that the shipments of food they receive from US are payments of homage.
So you're correct, that atheism alone is useless if it is just replaced with a different irrationality. I think the current "atheist leaders" recognize this and are really more champions of rationality in general.
And, by the way, I hope when you said that atheists have "had their opportunity" you also considered the current status of majority atheist/agnostic Sweden, Vietnam, Denmark, Norway, Japan, Czech Republic, Finland, France, South Korea......
Oh, here's another current issue that "atheists" are pushing for. Ayaan Ali, who was a member of parliament, fled the Netherlands after receiving death threats for criticizing Islam. Her friend and co-criticizer had his throat slit. Eugene blogged about the events.
She has lived in America for a year, but the Netherlands recently announced that they would no longer pay for her protection. The "atheist lobby" (that still sounds so silly) would like to see the Netherlands retract their decision. LA Times Article. If not, America should pick up the tab as a symbol of taking a stand for free speech.
I hope someone at Volokh blogs about this. As I think you can see, many "atheist" causes are just "rationalist" causes.
You can sign a petition on her behalf here.
At the blog "Cold Fury" there is a link to Dipnote, the State Dept blog. It concerns a young FSO who spent some months in Saudi Arabia.
What is scary is the number of approving references to Walt and Mearsheimer and other such views in the comments. Which, presumably, are mostly from other State people.
Really scary, presuming you didn't already expect it.
Israel and Saudi Arabia have asked to be graded on different curves. Israel is on the "sole democracy in the Middle East, and best friend and strongest ally of the United States" curve. As you point out, Saudi Arabia is on the "oil tyranny" curve. We expect it to be sexist, hang drug dealers, flog liquor drinkers and gays, etc. If Israel started saying it was "really, when all is said and done, no better than Somalia," or "America's deadliest enemy," I imagine U.S. expectations of it would decrease proportionally.
But your mentioning Saudi Arabia reminded me of the power that Israel's supporters used to have on U.S. elections. Former Illinois Senator Charles Percy, sponsor of Supreme Court Justice Stevens, fell afoul of the Israeli fan club when he voted to sell AWACS airplanes to Saudi Arabia. At his next election, supporters of Israel sent tons of money to his opponent, Lutheran Paul Simon. Independent of the Simon campaign, Michael Goland of California paid over a million dollars to run anti-Percy tv commercials, for which the Election Commission later fined him $5000.
So perhaps things like that made Saudi Arabia decide to beef up its lobbying efforts in the U.S. Of course, foreign countries cannot interfere with U.S. election campaigns.
<b>Marc said</b>"sociobiology" encompasses a wider area of study, but there is quite a bit about genetic altruism. usually, though, it is studied in the context of a species that is haploid/diploid, in other words the females have a pair of each chromosome but the males have only one of each. the darwinian implications are that some bugs can share more than half their genes with other bugs, leading to 'altruisitc' behavior. or so my dim memory of the theory has it.
</blockquote>
adding to this, though it's off-topic: the notion of inclusive fitness, even in normal (diploid) species, is often invoked to explain seemingly altruistic behavior.
You're kidding, right? You use Al Sharpton's running for President (this, from Wikipedia: January 5, 2003 Sharpton announced his candidacy for the 2004 presidential election as a member of the Democratic Party. On March 15, 2004, Sharpton announced his endorsement of leading Democratic candidate John Kerry), who didn't make it anywhere close to finishing the primaries, who had no significant support, as evidence of the rise of antisemitism, in part by claiming he's a "spokesman" for African Americans. (Perhaps because the media made him one. How many of your black friends and acquaintances take Sharpton seriously, or as "their" spokesman?)
Meanwhile, you ask "has any other hater of any other ethnic group gained such status?" Well, yes, actually. Many of Israel's greatest political leaders, including some Prime Ministers, engaged in what, retrospectively, everyone agrees was terrorist action (arguing only whether or not it was justified to establish the state of Israel).
For example, April 9, 1948, commandos of the Irgun, headed by Menachem Begin, and the Stern Gang attacked Deir Yassin, a village with about 750 Palestinian residents. By noon over 100 people, half of them women and children, had been systematically murdered. A final body count of 254 was reported by The New York Times on April 13. A 1987 study found "the numbers of those killed does not exceed 120." No knowledgeable person disagrees with these general facts. Perhaps we should elect Lt. William Calley as our next president.
And of course Begin's Irgun blew up the King David Hotel, 91 dead, 45 injured. (7/22/46).
Similar details can be given about similar attrocities not merely ordered by but engaged in and supervised by Ariel Sharon, Moshe Dayan, many others. Now, THAT might be called a pogrom. Israeli historian Ilan Pappe prefers to call it ethnic cleansing.
You think Crown Heights was not all that significant because only “a small number of Jews were killed in…one small community” (italics added)? Though the neighborhood is shared with African-Americans, that small community amounts to a Jewish ghetto within New York City, the largest and most Jewish American city. Surely, it must trouble you that what happened there was fueled by antisemitic rhetoric, Jews were the target, and the mayor and police force did so little for so long to quell the violent lawlessness. Or, are you only agitated by the characterization of it as a “pogrom,” because in response to Ted Frank, you had just categorically stated, “there is no risk of pogroms of Jews in the United States,” asserting that was “blatantly obvious.”
Marauding mobs, incited by antisemitic rhetoric, menacing and killing Jews, are not enough to make a “pogrom” in your book? Why, because to be counted a “pogrom” by you, a minimum number of Jews must die or be seriously injured; the whole affair must be an organized one; the authorities must actually encourage the violence, or at least look away, rather than only fail to act quickly and decisively to quell the violence; and above all, it must take place in Europe? Can we dispense with the geographical requirement, so we can refer to the slaughter of Hebron’s Jews by their Arab neighbors in 1929 as a “pogrom”?
“Holocaust” is capitalized because it refers to an ineffably horrific historic singularity. “Pogrom” is not capitalized because it does not refer to a historic singularity, pogroms having been carried out by different people in different places at different times over the course of many years, albeit always with the same victims, namely Jews. (We do not refer to the organized massacres of Native Americans as “pogroms,” though they could be seen as such. And we don’t capitalize “lynching” or “slavery,” though those were terrible crimes perpetrated mostly against black Americans by white ones.)
No, to answer your question, I don’t “double-lock (my) doors at night and sleep with a gun by the bed because of concern political forces in power will send goons to (my) house in the middle of the night to round (me) up because (I am) Jewish.” But I do worry about the safety of Jews, especially when they congregate, even here in the relatively secure United States. Is that unfounded paranoia on my part or otherwise clearly unwarranted? Kahana was murdered because he was a Jew, but he stood out and inflamed Arabs, right? The talk show host murdered in Denver, he stood out too? How about the fellow murdered because he happened to be in the El Al terminal at LAX, he should have known better than to be around Jews, especially Israeli ones? Those killed or shot in Seattle and at the Jewish nursery in LA, isolated crimes with no greater significance? The yeshiva student shot in the head in New York, an Arab venting his anger? The hostage taking at Bnai Brith in Washington, long ago?
Do you think my former congregation is wasting its money on off-duty police to guard the premises? Are churches spending the money that Jewish organizations are spending to increase their security? Do they ask worshippers they don't recognize to show ID before entering?
Jews should not worry about antisemitic rhetoric here because “classic” European-style pogroms, with “political forces in power” directing violence against them, is not likely? The Father Caughlins and Louis Farrakhans are no reason for concern? Neither is “the Wolfowitzs, Perles, Feiths, and other Jewish neocons, AIPAC, et al. got us into this war” talk, because antisemitism has no traction in this country? Al Hilliard and Cynthia McKinney are gone from Congress, and there are none of their ilk still around, right? (Certainly not Jim Moran, he’s white.)
I understand and appreciate your concerns (e.g., “not taking anti-semitism seriously”, “trivializ(ing) victims of real pograms,” exaggerating threats, etc.). And I think you should understand and appreciate mine (e.g., not taking anti-semitism seriously, trivializ(ing) victims of pograms whenever and wherever, underestimating threats, etc.). I do not impute to you ignoble motives, stupidity, naivete, or anything of the sort, and you ought not impute anything of the sort to me, at least not without a sound basis for doing so, which you do not have. And resst assured that neither Ted Frank, who brought up Crown Heights, nor I, were trying to stiffle criticism, just challenging the dismissive "can't happen here" thinking.
On the other hand, as stated before, nobody has very high expectations for the Saudis either. Were it not for oil, I like to think the US would think twice before allying with such a loathsome regime.
I think we can presume that making nice with Arab regimes in terms of expecting one more concession from Israel, expecting Israel to give up one more piece of strategic depth, letting a couple of hundred terrorists go as a good-will gesture, is making nice with the Saudis, as they are all on the same team in that particular game.
sheesh I go to work, come back and there are a bajillion posts....sorry it is OT but while I did take a class with EO Wilson I didn't exactly study...and with 500 of my closest friends I did take a class with SJGould as well. He was an amazing, enthralling lecturer. I have forgotten most of what he said though his politics sounded mild.
thoughtful-
I find Dershowitz's definition of political antisemitism to be useful: When certain people regularly criticize Israel and only Israel for things other counties do far more egregiously it can quickly become anti-Semitism.
And heck he's a lawyer so it's OK on this blog.....
2. It is quite possible to have a pogrom in this country. I was at an event a few years ago where violence was narrowly averted. Just imagine two or three hundred people screaming 'kill the jew.' This event didnt happen in Saudi Arabia. It happened at San Francisco State University. In America. In the 21st century.(Reference: Meryl Yourish Blog
) As you may recall, Gray Davis issued a statement with a seven point action plan for combating antisemitism as a result:
"In particular, Davis pointed to incidents at or near the University of California at Berkeley campus, including an attack on two Orthodox men, vandalism at the Hillel house, an illegal sit-in by pro-Palestinian demonstrators and a spate of anti-Semitic graffiti.
In addition, pro-Palestinian groups at San Francisco State University disrupted a pro-Israel observance with virulently anti-Semitic invective, posted blood libels and used their Web sites for Holocaust denial. "
I was actually at that 'pro-Israel observance' and was chased by several dozen people screaming 'kill the jews! kill the jews! Violence was only narrowly averted by the arrival of a hundred or so armed police officers.
So, Yes, I believe Dawkins is an antisemite. And yes, I think it is representative of a lot more people than would like to let on. I think that speaking with the Guardian, itself a notably anti-Zionist rag that veers on occasion into blatant antisemitism, he let his guard down. And yes, I would not be surprised to see a pogrom in America. Because I've already pretty much experienced one.
And Islam is a religion of peace.
If it weren't for the blue eyes, I think I could carry off wearing one of those funny hats. I might even be attacked. Would that constitute "entrapment"?
Heck, all you Middle Easterners look alike to me. Is he the Orthodox Jew, or is he the observant Muslim?