If that's true, I don't think you fully understand what a person is.

It's amazing how completely you misunderstood what Dawkins clearly said (and has restated many times). I have no intention of changing your mind here, I'm just astounded.

Hi Fr. Sean. Keeping on the Russian theme there was a purge while you were away and Andre B was one of the casualties. So he won't be replying. You can find him in the salt mines.

This is all from memory from studying Russian history in the
1970's, but I still remember the big picture.

Tsarist Russia was not a great place to live. The characteristics we would call "political corruption" existed, but what we call corruption today is just how a feudal system works. The aristocracy considered that they owned everything -- even the serfs who worked the land, who had effectively no rights at all -- and so they took whatever they could. If you wanted to do business, you had to get in good with the royalty.

Heavy alcohol use goes back hundreds of years in Russia. The monarchist governments would sometimes promote vodka use in order to increase tax revenues. We also know that people are tempted to turn to drugs when they have a hard life, and most Russians had a very hard life.

I can't speak to abortions under the Tsar, but I note substantial changes in available medical technology since 1917.

When the Bolsheviks took over, they set up a sort of double-think system, but they essentially made themselves the new aristocracy and used the same methods: Intimidation, secret police, "disappearing" of dissidents, etc. The two things the Bolsheviks had going for them in the October revolution was that 1) life under the Tsar sucked (so they got a lot of support for just being anti-Tsar, even though the Tsar had already abdicated the previous spring), and 2) they were WAY more ruthless.

Of course, we can still entertain Peter Hitchens' apparent claim that religion is responsible for civil society, and therefore we should have religion regardless of whether it is true or not. I just don't think he makes his point by observing that modern Russia is in bad condition.

You make some very good points. Let me see whether I can address your questions collectively and fairly.

First, you will understand, I suppose, that blasphemy and liberty can never be mine to determine (for me, one Arbiter settles all accounts). What liberty entails for the believer so differs from the selfsame word's association in the non-believer’s mind that the gap may seem unfathomable. I understand your point, however, which is the basic and correct question to ask when considering someone's right to say something. A couple of examples may suffice:

1) God is omniscient, omnipotent, and reflected in every inch and every molecule of the universe. If you believe in God, you see this clearly; if you do not, you see only infinite darkness replete with infinite questions. There is nothing truer, or more logical and rational, than belief in Him.

2) Atheists (or "anti-theists," as you prefer; I certainly understand yours and Hitchens's distinction) are a bunch of [vulgar epithet(s)] and will all burn in [whatever doomsday realm you choose to invoke]. I would love to [verb of vicious physical violence] them into a million little pieces (no reference to the drug-addled, fictionalized biography).

Curiously, the first statement, not the second, is the more likely to make an intelligent atheist – you have stated elsewhere that atheists are, on average, more intelligent than believers – howl. Vainglorious bragging aside, the second intends bloodhot wickedness, and under unfortunate circumstances it could (and has) come true; it is also just as easily dismissed as the rhetoric of the bandit and the imbecile. Yet it is the second one that can be considered hate speech; and the second one that would be subject, under less enlightened regimes, to interdiction.

Why would an intelligent atheist howl at the first comment? Because it insults his most precious quality: reason. In the believer’s usage above, reason is so degraded by superstition and other mumbo-jumbo that the atheist does not know how and where to combat people who espouse such notions. Maybe he would just laugh.

But if the speaker of the first statement were to append the mantras vocalized at the Reason Rally, with now solely the context shifted, it would make for something remarkable: an attack at the core of the atheist's system coupled with a pledge to "mock" and "contemn" his intelligence. Is intelligence not the most important thing to an atheist, as important as faith to a believer? Does the notion of hate speech not depend, in some small measure, on what its target loves?

You may find my position quaint and, very likely, in need of concinnity. But nevertheless it is a position, however minor, yet never one endorsing blasphemy laws, limits on free speech, or any other barrier.

About charity and statues (Baptist or otherwise): I do not question anyone’s empathy for the poor. To feel sorry for the millions and millions deprived of basic human needs is one of the easiest (and for that same reason, most obligatory) of emotions – but it is not the needy and undernourished who engage atheists in these dialogues. It is far harder to show love towards those unstinting in their enmity towards everything you hold dear. While there are, alas, no shortage of ignorant jackasses calling themselves Christians while enriching themselves, neglecting the poor, despising all those who are not of their race, gender, or sexual orientation, and advocating theories about the world’s origin that we may loosely term ‘ridiculous,’ we cannot and should not appoint these twits representative of what Christianity means and has always meant.

Yet that is exactly what has occurred. Reviewing his allies, one Reason Rally participant (I forget which) said something akin to “all the believers had on their side was Anne Coulter” – who may just be the most despicable person alive. Herein lies the mistake: to do justice to your views, your peers should not be gloryhounds (or in aforementioned lady’s case, a glory-bitch) or loudmouthed buffoons. You should engage, first and foremost, the gentlest and meekest of Christianity’s apologists. The current Pope has the makings of an excellent interlocutor, but there are many others, many of whom, I should say, are long deceased: Aquinas, Newman, Leibniz, Pascal, Chesterton, inter alia, and their slew of adherents. These should be your peers. These are the thinkers whose views should be tested by modern skepticism and rebutted as you see fit. A shame only that they are not around to speak for themselves.

This is done, of course, but not enough. More often than not, older thinkers are simply left unread or unconsidered in modern dialogues because modernity has "moved past such times," somehow invalidating their descriptions of eternal truth. In other words, the pundits of today are terribly uninterested in ancient wisdom because they deem it ancient foolishness.

But this should and can change, and the result will be real dialogue. I like talking to non-believers who are intrigued by Christianity’s richness, even if, of course, they remain steadfast in their belief that it is inapplicable to reality. But those who simply scream, antagonize, and belittle (and “mock” and “contemn”)? They are broken like butterflies on a wheel.

You and I take different roads to arrive at agreement about blasphemy laws being uncivilized. Whereas you say that blasphemy laws can lead to over-sensitivity I would contend the reverse is true: overly sensitive people need to construct blasphemy laws.

I would ask your opinion on the following: what responsibility would you rather be charged with: A) Being the final arbiter on what constitutes blasphemy or, B) Being the final arbiter on what constitutes liberty?

I would also ask your opinion about the throngs of protesting Christians who obviously felt safe enough to set up proselytizing areas within earshot of my $1000.00 VIP chair. Would they have felt as safe in Brunei? Is this disparity worth pausing over and appreciating?

And lastly, can you name any of the participants (there were many) who you would label as being uncharitable and lacking in empathy for the downtrodden among our species? Would Richard Dawkins make that list?

Good question. I'll put it this way: I am a very devoted believer, so of course if someone burned a Bible, I would take offense. But what difference lies in burning a Bible, denouncing the whole book as rot, or merely chuckling dismissively at someone's faith? None, really; if you are a believer, these things will always happen and you must persist in your beliefs. Blasphemy laws lead to oversensitivism and, in their ugliest manifestation, the type of nonsense witnessable in Saudi Arabia and other theocracies. So I stand against blasphemy laws, as all firm believers should.

That said, the "mockery" aspect mentioned (in the Reason Rally where you were a front-row VIP) is extremely degrading and unnecessary. It is allowed, of course, since free speech short of inciting violence should be allowed; but it begins to approach hate speech in its contempt and condescension. I know you may not feel the way I do since you have dubbed yourself a staunch "anti-theist." But perhaps you will see that the way in which the calls to mockery are phrased -- be they against individuals or, as I understood them, against their beliefs -- border on singling out people and verbally abusing them for their religion. The underlying tone is venomous, not one of "we-love-you-so-we-want-you-to-see-the-truth," which should be (and, of course, often is not) the basis for religious argument.

Again, our viewpoints differ so strongly I suspect you may feel I am exaggeratory in my concern.

I struggle to see how you could arrive at certainty.

Brandon,

It looks to me that the faithful are pinning people like John Bell to an unfair standard. Does your list of "evidence" give you certainty about the existence of God?

If you are uncertain about your God's existence then you could have a point. But I hope you can see why I'd say you have no footing to keep pressing upon John with your struggle if the reverse is closer to reality.

If your faith is the most important thing about you, then a directive of contemptuous mockery towards such faith can and should be construed as a very personal attack.

What are your thoughts on blasphemy laws?

As to comments regarding the mockery of others' religious beliefs: surely this must be permitted in open societies. I do not wish to debase this forum with a sports story, yet the venom underlying the "mockery" rhetoric might be best viewed through such a prism. It has been said of a famous baseball player (anonymity never hurt anyone) that the three most important things to him were, in order: 1) God; 2) the player's family; and 3) baseball. At one point, he was considered the best player in the sport, a label that made commentators wonder: imagine what he would be like if baseball were number 1? He humbly deflected all criticism of his play; he was far sterner, but still restrained, when something -- I forget the matter exactly -- came up about his family. But no one dared to criticize his faith because this would have been too personal an attack.

If your faith is the most important thing about you, then a directive of contemptuous mockery towards such faith can and should be construed as a very personal attack. Every true believer should be given the benefit of the doubt that we usually allot to a monk. Atheists can relate with an attack on their most beloved word, reason (even if, even if, a true believer will tell you there is nothing more rational or logical than God).