What did Dawkins try to say?

 Clinton Richard Dawkins was born on 26 March 1941. He is an evolutionary biologist ethnologist, and writer. He is a resigned fellow of New College, Oxford, and was also teaching the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford’s from 1995 until 2008. Today he is famous for being an atheist. Voltaire’s anti-Semitism was thorough. In its contempt for the primarily “primitive,” it forestalls greatly that is said about Muslims in Europe and the US nowadays. He is also saying that the Jews never were native philosophers, geometricians, or even astronomers.
That would major Islamophobe of modern world, famous Richard Dawkins proud, that can be concluded after he said that Nobel Prize winners who were Muslim are fewer than the University of Cambridge and then made a joke about middle ages when Muslims were the most modern group. In the wake up what’s happened in France, I think it’s worth m
aking a couple of points:
1) Free speech is not negotiable. Do we truly want to live in free societies (A question we should consider carefully before answer!)? If so, we must accept offensive, vile, destructive, and reductive speech as part of the bargain.
2) Accepting that those forms of speech will not be censored or punished by the government does not mean that we must personally find them ethically acceptable.
3) Free speech is also a negative right– the right NOT to have words put in your mouth. This goes for pledges of allegiance, motions of solidarity, etc.
4a) Charlie Hebdo magazine is a xenophobic, racist, obnoxious, destructive, reductive exercise in free speech. I want nothing to do with the kind of person who subscribes to such a magazine.
4b) Charlie Hebdo magazine exists to attack deeply held ideas indiscriminately. They have spent an inordinate amount of time attacking what amount to powerless populations in France (minority populations, relatively economically disenfranchised, socially ‘separate,’ lacking significant representation in government). This is not an action of a brave organization. This is punching down; it’s pure cowardice and it’s despicable.
4c) at the same time, I acknowledge and support their right to be all of those things in physical safety and without official recrimination.
At this moment in history, I think it’s more appropriate to say “I am with the people of Paris, I am not supportive of racist and destructive magazines, but I believe in dissent and the right of the ugly to exist.”
To mock a whole civilization and set of values on the basis of its number of Nobel Prizes, is as disappointing (rationally) as doing the same to women because men have won 20 times as many Nobel prizes, or implying on grounds of race that white Europeans or Americans are superior because they have more Nobels than others.

Comments are closed.