Atheists: An Australian catholic speaks

[Simon_Gardner]



A plague of atheists has descended, and Catholics are the target

GREG CRAVEN
November 4, 2009

Attacking Christians is not really clever, witty or funny.

FROM time immemorial, this world has been troubled by plagues. From bogong moths in Canberra to frogs in biblical Egypt, unwelcome and unlovely creatures have the awkward habit of turning up in bulk.

Just now, we are facing one of our largest and least appealing infestations. Somewhat in advance of summer’s blowflies, we are beset by atheists. Worse, they are not traditional atheists. These tended to be quiet blokes called Algie with ancillary interests in nudist ceramics, who were perfectly happy as long as you pretended to accept a pamphlet in Flinders Lane.

No, the new hobby atheist is as brash, noisy and confident as a cheap electric kettle. They want everyone to know that they have not found God, and that no one else should. Their particular target seems to be Catholics. On the surface, this is odd, as there are plenty of other religious targets just waiting to be saved from a vengeful, non-existent deity. Smaller herds, such as the Christadelphians or the Salvation Army, might seem more manageable. But the Catholic Church has two incomparable advantages as an object of the wrath of proselytising atheists. First, it is the biggie. Taking out the Catholics is the equivalent of nuking the Pentagon. Guerilla bands of Baptists and Pentecostals can be liquidated at leisure.

Second, the Catholics have the undeniable advantage that they do still demonstrably believe in something. Attacking some of the more swinging Christian denominations might mean upsetting people who believe a good deal less than the average atheist.

Mind you, the appeals of atheism as a diverting pastime are not immediately obvious to those of us who are on relatively easy terms with God. Why would anyone get so excited about the misconceptions of third parties as to the existence of a fourth party in which they themselves do not believe?

The answer is twofold. First, the great advantage of designer atheism is that you get to think of yourself as immensely clever. After all, you are at least much brighter than all those dumb-asses who believe in a supreme being, such as Sister Perpetua down the road, Thomas Aquinas, Isaac Newton and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. So satisfying.

The second factor has to do with wit. For some reason, contemporary Australian atheism seems to consider itself terribly funny. Its proponents only have to wheel out one of the age-old religious libels to lose control of their bladders. To outsiders, of course, it is a bit like watching a giggling incontinent drunk at a party. This is not to say that believers - and perhaps especially Catholics - do not get seriously irritated by atheists. They do, but not because atheists are fearfully clever or Wildely funny.

Frankly, the prime reason the average believer finds the common or garden atheist as appealing as a holiday in Birchip is because they consign them to that sorry category of individuals who spend their lives loudly congratulating themselves on their own intelligence without noticing that no one else is joining the chorus. Thus, as a Catholic, I do not normally sense in some tabloid atheist the presence of a supreme discerning intellect. I simply place him or her in much the same pitiable bin of intellectual vulgarians as the chartered accountant who cannot see the art in Picasso, the redneck who cannot admit of indigenous culture, and the pissant who cannot see the difference between Yeats and Bob Ellis.

It is not deep perception we encounter here, but a critical failure of imaginative capacity. It is a bit like the old joke: how many atheists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? None - no matter what they do, they just can’t see the light.

The second wearying thing about the new atheism is that it is not new at all. It is so banally derivative of every piece of hate mail ever sent to God that I am amazed Satan has yet to sue for copyright infringement. No old chestnut is too ripe, rotten or sodden, especially when it comes to the Catholics as accredited suppliers of what apparently is the Christian equivalent of methamphetamine.

In an average week of atheistic bigotry in the Melbourne media, we can expect to learn that Catholics endorse child molestation, hate all other religions, would re-introduce the crusades and the auto de fe at the slightest opportunity, despise women, wish to persecute homosexuals, greedily divert public moneys for their own religious purposes, subvert public health care, brainwash children, and are masterminding the spread of the cane toad across northern Australia.

Applied to the average totalitarian dictatorship, this charge sheet would be over the top. Ascribed to virtually any ethnic minority, it rightly would result at least in public revulsion and quite possibly in criminal charges. But applied to Christians, it seems to be accepted as just another modern blood sport, like the vilification of refugees and the elimination of the private life of the families of public figures.

At the bottom, of course, lies hate. I am not quite clear why our modern crop of atheists hates Christians, as opposed to ignoring or even politely dismissing them, but they very clearly do. There is nothing clever, witty or funny about hate.

Greg Craven is vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-plague-of-atheists-has-descended-and-catholics-are-the-target-20091103-hv52.html

[Lucretia]

Remarkable, he managed to make an enemy of atheists, all other Christian denominations, drunkards, the people of Birchip, financiers, low income Caucasians, Bob Ellis fans, Satan and the cane toad all in one article.

[lordshipmayhem]

No, the new hobby atheist is as brash, noisy and confident as a cheap electric kettle. They want everyone to know that they have not found God, and that no one else should. Their particular target seems to be Catholics. On the surface, this is odd, as there are plenty of other religious targets just waiting to be saved from a vengeful, non-existent deity. Smaller herds, such as the Christadelphians or the Salvation Army, might seem more manageable. But the Catholic Church has two incomparable advantages as an object of the wrath of proselytising atheists. First, it is the biggie. Taking out the Catholics is the equivalent of nuking the Pentagon. Guerilla bands of Baptists and Pentecostals can be liquidated at leisure.

No, we are not "hobby atheists". We are atheists. (We are lots of other things, but we don't hold the other things in common. It is only atheism that we have in common.)

Second, the Catholics have the undeniable advantage that they do still demonstrably believe in something. Attacking some of the more swinging Christian denominations might mean upsetting people who believe a good deal less than the average atheist.

I believe I'll have another cup of coffee. They demonstrably believe in something, it's just that the belief is all they have, they don't have any actual evidence (not "proof", but even the slightest shred of evidence) that what they believe in actually exists.

Mind you, the appeals of atheism as a diverting pastime are not immediately obvious to those of us who are on relatively easy terms with God. Why would anyone get so excited about the misconceptions of third parties as to the existence of a fourth party in which they themselves do not believe?

Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Your right to dictate my life does not include forcing me to follow the diktats of a non-existent invisible sky fairy. You might as well ask me to follow the commands of an undiscovered celestial teapot.

In an average week of atheistic bigotry in the Melbourne media, we can expect to learn that Catholics endorse child molestation, hate all other religions, would re-introduce the crusades and the auto de fe at the slightest opportunity, despise women, wish to persecute homosexuals, greedily divert public moneys for their own religious purposes, subvert public health care, brainwash children, and are masterminding the spread of the cane toad across northern Australia.

1) Not endorse child molestation, but certainly look the other way. Look at case after case after case in Ireland, Canada, the United States et al. where pedophile priests have been shuffled out of the way rather than being handed over to the criminal justice system to deal with.
2) Hate all other religions: well, there's that little matter of the Crusades. There are also the comments of the current Pope which have caused consternation among other, non-Catholic believers.
3) wish to persecute homosexuals: And do. I regularly hear condemnations of homosexuals and reports of clinics which try to "cure" them.
4) Subvert public health care: they'd rather have women give birth to unviable offspring than abort the malformed fetus. I do recall hearing of one member of the Board of the ONLY hospital in a small Northern Ontario town getting all exercised over a statistic in the annual report: "spontaneous abortions". She couldn't believe that the local hospital performed such treatments. The difference between "spontaneous" and "therapeutic" had to be explained to the faithful Roman Catholic lawyer.
5) Cane toad: OK, they're innocent of that, but by the same token I don't recall reading of them getting blamed for that in the first place.

At the bottom, of course, lies hate. I am not quite clear why our modern crop of atheists hates Christians, as opposed to ignoring or even politely dismissing them, but they very clearly do. There is nothing clever, witty or funny about hate.

Yet another True Believer who thinks I'm subsumed by hate. The typical atheist, if such a beast can be said to exist, does not hate the Christian of whatever stripe he or she might be. We find them a sorry category of individuals who spend their lives loudly congratulating themselves on their own intelligence without noticing that no one else is joining the chorus. We do not encounter deep perception, but the self-same critical failure of imaginative capacity that Greg Craven decries in the atheists. We are annoyed by them, we are frustrated occasionally by their inability to realize when observation, analysis and experimentation have left their old, decrepit world-view in not just disarray but utter destruction.

[DoctorE]

Every-time they open their mouth they sound like total fools.. hahaha

[james1v]

Nice way to categorize a whole swathe of human beings as sub-human Greg. Oh Waite! its what the catholic church does best!

[DoctorE]

[kiore]

This guy's a VC of a university? Wonder if he got his degree in generalizations.
Surely this is a student prank attaching his name to such a tabloid piece.
Now back to my nude ceramics class.

kiore.

[rikules]

when catholics, muslims, christians, protestants STOP trying to

a. silence ALL of their opponents
b. enforce (litigate) THEIR ignorant, primitive and dangerous beliefs as the laws of the universe
c. teach (brainwash/indoctrinate) THEIR primitive belefs in OUR schools

i'll go back to being a quiet bloke minding my own business


but as long as THEY continue to mind MY OWN BUSINESS

then it will be MY Business to fight against them


---------------------------------


I'll shut up when they do


rather irritating, really, that these dangerously deluded religious lunatics keep telling everyone else to shut up while they take over the world

[ForsakenEagle]

Greg: "HELP! I'm being oppressed!"

[Dudeistmonk]

Well he got it right that I do feel smarter than the average Theist....Although he should know I have a very vivid imagination (this is precisely the reason I dislike belief, it's no fun to imagine the same crap about the world that everyone else does).

Also did anyone else catch the fact that he states our "ancillary interests in nudist ceramics" and then accuses us of knowing nothing about the arts...any way back to reading Asimov, although I guess I shouldn't cause Atheists aren't capable of appreciating the arts.

[lrwms47]

I am new to the forum and I do not live in Australia so a lot of the humor and other provincial references are lost on me. I was brought up as a Catholic but in my later life I found the Church to be sorely lacking in answers to so many very basic questions that I have as an adult. As a child I had no problems with the teachings of the Church. I learned my catechism, went to mass and prayed for the living and the dead. But when I grew up I was unable to understand where the basics of the Church had come from. I wondered about all the people who lived before Christ. If he alone is the source of redemption what about all those who lived before he showed up? What about those who never heard of Christ? Are they just written off as "collateral damage" like the civilians killed in a military operation? What about all of these new "gospels" that seem to be showing up? It seems that somewhere along the line someone other than god made the conscious decision of what would be included in the scriptures and what would be left out. How was that decision made? Also, I asked myself how it could be that god incarnate in the person of Jesus lived and walked on this earth and apparently never wrote down one single thought for future generations. Would that be possible? I do not hate Christians or any other religious group who seek to live in peace with others. I abhor the incredible violence committed in the name of religion of any stripe. How could a loving god allow such actions to be taken in his name and not object? Could not god send his messenger to those who seek to kill the "infidels" and inform them that they are not to do so and if they persist he will personally kick their collective asses? Wouldn't you do that if someone was killing people in your name and you were all knowing and all powerful?
Too many questions, just too many questions and no answers.

[kiore]

Also did anyone else catch the fact that he states our "ancillary interests in nudist ceramics" and then accuses us of knowing nothing about the arts...any way back to reading Asimov, although I guess I shouldn't cause Atheists aren't capable of appreciating the arts.

You do nude ceramics too we should start a thread on that..But am confused should the pottery be nude or me the latter makes cleaning up easier although special care needs taking when unloading kilns


@Irwin47 welcome to RDnet good questions, most people around here have decided the answer at some point was: someone made it up for some particular reason maybe nolonger fathomable. Perhaps you would like to post an intro in the 'welcome new members' area. Certainly should be some things of interest for you in the 'Faith and Religion' and 'Atheism' sections.
kiore.

[Workingspace]

It's the old phrase - "If you don't want people to laugh at your beliefs, don't have such silly beliefs."

[Dudeistmonk]

Also did anyone else catch the fact that he states our "ancillary interests in nudist ceramics" and then accuses us of knowing nothing about the arts...any way back to reading Asimov, although I guess I shouldn't cause Atheists aren't capable of appreciating the arts.

You do nude ceramics too we should start a thread on that..But am confused should the pottery be nude or me the latter makes cleaning up easier although special care needs taking when unloading kilns


@Irwin47 welcome to RDnet good questions, most people around here have decided the answer at some point was: someone made it up for some particular reason maybe nolonger fathomable. Perhaps you would like to post an intro in the 'welcome new members' area. Certainly should be some things of interest for you in the 'Faith and Religion' and 'Atheism' sections.
kiore.

Perhaps both? I assumed we where supposed to have little naked ceramic statues everywhere as some sort of requirement of atheism...but maybe we are supposed to make them too? With other atheists, just flopping in the wind?

[210karman]

GREG CRAVEN
November 4, 2009

In an average week of atheistic bigotry in the Melbourne media, we can expect to learn that Catholics endorse child molestation, hate all other religions, would re-introduce the crusades and the auto de fe at the slightest opportunity, despise women, wish to persecute homosexuals, greedily divert public moneys for their own religious purposes, subvert public health care, brainwash children, and are masterminding the spread of the cane toad across northern Australia.

Well certainly the cane toad slur may be a bit unfair.

[Confused Primate]

Greg, I agree with you. Attacking christians is not cleaver, witty or funny.
As your rant demonstrates your too easy a target.

[espritch]

Yeah! We've reached plague proportions!

Po widdle Cafowics can't stand all dose meanie afeists pickin on em.

I guess they'll just have to go back to burning us at the stake like back in the good old days.

No, the new hobby atheist is as brash, noisy and confident as a cheap electric kettle. They want everyone to know that they have not found God, and that no one else should. Their particular target seems to be Catholics. On the surface, this is odd, as there are plenty of other religious targets just waiting to be saved from a vengeful, non-existent deity. Smaller herds, such as the Christadelphians or the Salvation Army, might seem more manageable. But the Catholic Church has two incomparable advantages as an object of the wrath of proselytising atheists. First, it is the biggie. Taking out the Catholics is the equivalent of nuking the Pentagon. Guerilla bands of Baptists and Pentecostals can be liquidated at leisure.

Second, the Catholics have the undeniable advantage that they do still demonstrably believe in something. Attacking some of the more swinging Christian denominations might mean upsetting people who believe a good deal less than the average atheist.

Well, there's also the pederasty thing. Mustn't forget the pederasty.

In an average week of atheistic bigotry in the Melbourne media, we can expect to learn that Catholics endorse child molestation, hate all other religions, would re-introduce the crusades and the auto de fe at the slightest opportunity, despise women, wish to persecute homosexuals, greedily divert public moneys for their own religious purposes, subvert public health care, brainwash children, and are masterminding the spread of the cane toad across northern Australia.

That's not fair. I for one do not hold Catholics responsible for the spread of the cane toad across Australia.

Although I suspect this bloke may have spent some time licking one before he wrote his little rant. You know, for a group that spent centuries preaching eternal damnation for anyone who doesn't buy what they are selling, they are surprisingly thin skinned.

[youngalexander]

Remarkable, he managed to make an enemy of atheists, all other Christian denominations, drunkards, the people of Birchip, financiers, low income Caucasians, Bob Ellis fans, Satan and the cane toad all in one article.

Read this in 'The Age' this morning. Been idly wondering what set the poor fellow off. Perhaps he is upset because he perceives that the 'natural' order of society is becoming more natural.

[rplatell]

I think that given the choice, I'd rather hang out with cane toads than the likes of Greg Craven. Mind you, it could be hard to tell the difference between them - slimy, noxious, repulsive creatures that they both are:


Craven:


Cane toad:

[ginckgo]

The irony of Catholic clergy complaining about others' hate is probably lost on someone who can't even write a funny commentary like that.

[Simon_Gardner]

The new crybaby theists

MICHAEL BRULL
November 5, 2009 - 10:22AM

Greg Craven attacks one of the terrible “infestations” we face today: being “beset by atheists”. Craven's article was remarkable for being almost entirely composed of ad hominem attacks on people who disagree with him. Incredibly, Craven declares that the “new atheism” is “so banally derivative of every piece of hate mail ever sent to God that I am amazed Satan has yet to sue for copyright infringement”.

Get it? This is obviously a fairly broad category, yet the long and short is that someone who doesn't believe in god is plagiarising the devil. Craven goes on to wonder at “atheist bigotry”, such as the view that at the “slightest opportunity”, Catholics would reintroduce the auto da fe. Who can fail to be dazzled at Craven's obvious framework of pluralism and tolerance?

Whilst Craven's writings can be easily dismissed as name-calling, they reflect the rise of a new phenomenon. The public and commercial prominence and success of atheist writers such as Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and AC Grayling has been heralded as the rise of a “new atheism”. Yet the response to this could equally be heralded as the rise of a “new theism”.

Facing a new attack with an international audience playing close attention, religions have as little rational argument in their favour as ever. There was a time when they could deal with dissent through more draconian measures: the kind that can still be practiced in, say, Saudi Arabia. Having lost the power of the gun in the West, apologists of religion have a new weapon: being offended.

Rather than confronting (say) Dawkins' arguments with counter-arguments, people like Craven, and many others like him, instead cry out: why are you picking on us? All we want is for you to respect our beliefs. And so, the crybaby theists hide behind the demand for respect, which sounds reasonable enough. The more shameless – and their ranks are represented in many religions, such as Muslims, Christians and Jews – complain that when someone criticises their religious faith, the people who belong to that religion are being subjected to abuse.

The bottom line is that such special pleading is a way for theists to avoid answering their critics. The cry that religious beliefs are not being treated respectfully often demonstrates incredible arrogance and hypocrisy.

Firstly, in a liberal democracy, people should adjust to the prospect of other people finding their views stupid, immoral, pernicious, or any other terrible thing. For example, consider the case of a racist. They may view others with contempt, and members of the targeted minorities might respond with contempt for the views of the racist. Should we demand that victims of racism respect the beliefs of racists? Of course not: we grant the truism that some beliefs are stupid, immoral, pernicious and other terrible things. A liberal democracy cannot function without the possibility of discussing which beliefs are good and which ones are not. Crybaby theists wish to be shielded from the normal rough and tumble of arguments about beliefs. There are people who honestly think religious belief irrational, and find aspects of organised religion troubling. If anything is outrageous, it is the arrogance of religious extremists, here and elsewhere, holding that such views should not be allowed open discussion.

Secondly, hearing of the need for religious beliefs to be treated respectfully by evangelical Christians is galling. This is a religious faith full of those who believe in the importance of preaching to unbelievers and converting them. Obviously, if they respected the views of atheists and believers in different religions, they would not indulge such practices. Yet many Christians, with scriptural support, think non-believers and the un-baptised are going to hell. How respectful is this? Unlike crybaby theists, I'm happy for missionaries to try to persuade adults of the merits of their irrational case. Indeed, no atheists that I know of actually suggest that theists should “respect” their beliefs and stop arguing for theism. Atheists have simply taken up arguing their point of view: against religious belief. Some people whose income depends on irrational belief in the afterlife and dated holy texts have naturally reacted with anger at such developments.

But to return to Craven: why pick on Catholics? No one picks on all Catholics, but certainly there's a few Catholics I can think of who deserve criticism. For example, there's Pope Benedict XVI, whose primitive views on contraception, abortion and homosexuality cause great harm in the world. Fortunately, there are many Catholics who don't take the popes very seriously. Religious motivations by no means monopolise those causing terrible evils in the world. Yet if the spread of the so called new atheism can encourage a new scepticism towards irrational dogmas and undeserving authorities, a very real public service will have been performed.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-new-crybaby-theists-20091105-hyyc.html

[keypad5]

The new crybaby theists

MICHAEL BRULL
November 5, 2009 - 10:22AM
[...]

I'm glad there are people who can offer reasonable responses to Craven's drivel. I was so flabbergasted by all the ad homs that I didn't know where to start.

I was also stunned by the hubris that Craven exhibits. I've never seen Catholics as 'special targets' or any more significant than any other woo generators. And anyone who reads forums like RDNet will see that it's often the science-blind, 6-day, YECs that get a good talking to.

A further problem is that Craven's article is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm sure he's now going to receive a whole lot of criticism from all the fronts that he feels persecuted by, which will leave him feeling justified that atheists are all haters and Catholics are the greatest.

[Nebogipfel]

This does seem to be getting more and more common, and it seems to be a peculiarly Catholic thing. Particularly the thing about atheists thinking they're "smarter" than everyone else.

I can only think that when no-one is trying to feed you to the lions any more, you just have to get your persecution wherever you can find it.

[Troodon_formosus]

FROM time immemorial, this world has been troubled by plagues. From bogong moths in Canberra to frogs in biblical Egypt, unwelcome and unlovely creatures have the awkward habit of turning up in bulk.

Like Catholics?

Just now, we are facing one of our largest and least appealing infestations. Somewhat in advance of summer’s blowflies, we are beset by atheists. Worse, they are not traditional atheists. These tended to be quiet blokes called Algie with ancillary interests in nudist ceramics, who were perfectly happy as long as you pretended to accept a pamphlet in Flinders Lane.

There is no requirement to being an atheist other than not believing in deities.

No, the new hobby atheist is as brash, noisy and confident as a cheap electric kettle. They want everyone to know that they have not found God, and that no one else should. Their particular target seems to be Catholics. On the surface, this is odd, as there are plenty of other religious targets just waiting to be saved from a vengeful, non-existent deity.

Are you an atheist?

Smaller herds, such as the Christadelphians or the Salvation Army, might seem more manageable. But the Catholic Church has two incomparable advantages as an object of the wrath of proselytising atheists. First, it is the biggie. Taking out the Catholics is the equivalent of nuking the Pentagon. Guerilla bands of Baptists and Pentecostals can be liquidated at leisure.

As an American, I wouldn't quite call Baptists "small". And I'm not attacking all Catholics so much as the people in charge of the Vatican.

Second, the Catholics have the undeniable advantage that they do still demonstrably believe in something. Attacking some of the more swinging Christian denominations might mean upsetting people who believe a good deal less than the average atheist.

Nah, Catholics have opinions around the board too.

Mind you, the appeals of atheism as a diverting pastime are not immediately obvious to those of us who are on relatively easy terms with God. Why would anyone get so excited about the misconceptions of third parties as to the existence of a fourth party in which they themselves do not believe?

Because such beliefs have caused the deaths of millions?

The answer is twofold. First, the great advantage of designer atheism is that you get to think of yourself as immensely clever. After all, you are at least much brighter than all those dumb-asses who believe in a supreme being, such as Sister Perpetua down the road, Thomas Aquinas, Isaac Newton and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. So satisfying.

People who lived in a time where there was no reason to be an atheist, due to religion having a stronger hold on society. Also, note that few of the most developed countries are strongly religious (Sweden, Japan, Denmark, etc)

The second factor has to do with wit. For some reason, contemporary Australian atheism seems to consider itself terribly funny. Its proponents only have to wheel out one of the age-old religious libels to lose control of their bladders. To outsiders, of course, it is a bit like watching a giggling incontinent drunk at a party. This is not to say that believers - and perhaps especially Catholics - do not get seriously irritated by atheists. They do, but not because atheists are fearfully clever or Wildely funny.

Sorry, not Australian. Also, if one looks objectively at religious texts, they tend to make little logical sense.

Frankly, the prime reason the average believer finds the common or garden atheist as appealing as a holiday in Birchip is because they consign them to that sorry category of individuals who spend their lives loudly congratulating themselves on their own intelligence without noticing that no one else is joining the chorus.

Except that atheism is growing in nearly every developed nation, from the USA to Spain to...AUSTRALIA.

It is not deep perception we encounter here, but a critical failure of imaginative capacity. It is a bit like the old joke: how many atheists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? None - no matter what they do, they just can’t see the light.

Not funny at all.

The second wearying thing about the new atheism is that it is not new at all. It is so banally derivative of every piece of hate mail ever sent to God that I am amazed Satan has yet to sue for copyright infringement. No old chestnut is too ripe, rotten or sodden, especially when it comes to the Catholics as accredited suppliers of what apparently is the Christian equivalent of methamphetamine.

We don't hate God (why hate something you don't believe in?), we hate religious douchebags like you.

In an average week of atheistic bigotry in the Melbourne media, we can expect to learn that Catholics endorse child molestation,

No, but they have ignored it in their church, and there instances of trying to cover it up.

hate all other religions,

They do.

would re-introduce the crusades and the auto de fe at the slightest opportunity,

Would never happen.

despise women, wish to persecute homosexuals,

Note the homophobic and sexist policies of the Catholic Church.

greedily divert public moneys for their own religious purposes,

To an extent.

subvert public health care, brainwash children, and are masterminding the spread of the cane toad across northern Australia.

Never heard of those.

Applied to the average totalitarian dictatorship, this charge sheet would be over the top. Ascribed to virtually any ethnic minority, it rightly would result at least in public revulsion and quite possibly in criminal charges. But applied to Christians, it seems to be accepted as just another modern blood sport, like the vilification of refugees and the elimination of the private life of the families of public figures.

At the bottom, of course, lies hate. I am not quite clear why our modern crop of atheists hates Christians, as opposed to ignoring or even politely dismissing them, but they very clearly do. There is nothing clever, witty or funny about hate.

Like the hate when the Church led invasions that ended up killing 9 million people. Like the hate when thousands are tortured and killed because they may or may not disagree with the Catholic Church's policies.

[bangingrocks]

I once heard George Pell (head of Australia's catholic church) quote in an interview on the ABC that "there is no such thing as an atheist" (sorry - can't find reference). Yet his friend Greg Craven has created a whole plague of them made of straw! These two need to talk.