Bigotry: Yes or No? Dawkins and Voting for a Mormon

[Apex]

A recent quote from Richard Dawkins and his twitter in reference to the Curiosity landing:

Yes, America STILL manages to reach Mars, despite half the country preparing to elect a man who believes he'll get a planet when he dies. It is all the more to the credit of the sane, rational half of America that it manages to achieve so much despite being positively held back by the other half, the half that believes the universe is 6000 years old, the half that seriously contemplates voting for a Mormon.

So, is it bigotry, or not, to claim that half of Americans are worthy of condemnation simply because they are considering voting for a Mormon?

 

[Father Heathen]

It's far more than merely "voting for a mormon". It's about a large portion of the public being anti-science, which is a valid concern rather than bigotry. It's not a good sign when people don't care whether or not their leader is actually knowledgeable and intellectually honest. If people choose to disbelieve in evolution, then that is their right, but is it really bigoted to not want someone so woefully ignorant to be in such a high position of power and responsibility?

 

[Quintessence]

It's far more than merely "voting for a mormon". It's about a large portion of the public being anti-science, which is a valid concern rather than bigotry. It's not a good sign when people don't care whether or not their leader is actually knowledgeable and intellectually honest. If people choose to disbelieve in evolution, then that is their right, but is it really bigoted to not want someone so woefully ignorant to be in such a high position of power and responsibility?

Eh, I'd agree the anti-science perspective warrants upset, but I have to admit the quote sure comes across as bigoted because of how it was said.

 

[Apex]

It's far more than merely "voting for a mormon". It's about a large portion of the public being anti-science, which is a valid concern rather than bigotry. It's not a good sign when people don't care whether or not their leader is actually knowledgeable and intellectually honest. If people choose to disbelieve in evolution, then that is their right, but is it really bigoted to not want someone so woefully ignorant to be in such a high position of power and responsibility?

If it truly was about far more, than why is "voting for a Mormon" emphasized so much? Especially when LDS tend to be far less anti-science, and much more highly educated, than other religious groups.

 

[sojourner]

A recent quote from Richard Dawkins and his twitter in reference to the Curiosity landing:



So, is it bigotry, or not, to claim that half of Americans are worthy of condemnation simply because they are considering voting for a Mormon?

Are you claiming that Romney won't get his own planet, if he's been a good Mormon?

 

[TheKnight]

A recent quote from Richard Dawkins and his twitter in reference to the Curiosity landing:



So, is it bigotry, or not, to claim that half of Americans are worthy of condemnation simply because they are considering voting for a Mormon?

Richard Dawkins should stick to what he does best and leave the philosophy and political science to experts in those fields.

To suggest that we shouldn't vote for someone on the sole basis that they are a Mormon is rather ridiculous. Especially when there are plenty of legitimate reasons not to vote for Romney.

It's far more than merely "voting for a mormon". It's about a large portion of the public being anti-science, which is a valid concern rather than bigotry. It's not a good sign when people don't care whether or not their leader is actually knowledgeable and intellectually honest. If people choose to disbelieve in evolution, then that is their right, but is it really bigoted to not want someone so woefully ignorant to be in such a high position of power and responsibility?

1. The largesse of the population's lack of interest in science has little to do with religion and more to do with the absolute failure of our schools to educate or inspire
younger generations into scientific career fields.

2. Just because a person is religious doesn't mean the person is "woefully ignorant."

3. Woefully ignorant people in high positions of power is nothing new. It's sort of the status quo.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, is it bigotry, or not, to claim that half of Americans are worthy of condemnation simply because they are considering voting for a Mormon?

I believe it is.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Richard Dawkins should stick to what he does best and leave the philosophy and political science to experts in those fields.

:clap

 

[Father Heathen]

2. Just because a person is religious doesn't mean the person is "woefully ignorant."

Of course not. Those who embrace fundamentalism and scriptural literalism are, however.

3. Woefully ignorant people in high positions of power is nothing new. It's sort of the status quo.

A status quo we should be striving to change.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

There are no experts in political science. WTF.

 

[Gui10]

Richard Dawkins is rather radical but in all honestly, can a country such as ''The Great United-States'' really elect such a man?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Richard Dawkins is rather radical but in all honestly, can a country such as ''The Great United-States'' really elect such a man?

That is not the issue. Romney (who I strongly oppose politically) is arguabbly no more 'religious' than JFK or, for that matter, Obama.

 

[TheKnight]

A status quo we should be striving to change.

Rather difficult when the choices are status quo and status quo. I suppose one could always vote for the less quo of the two.

 

[PolyHedral]

Richard Dawkins should stick to what he does best and leave the philosophy and political science to experts in those fields.

He has exactly as much backing as any other philosopher or political commentator. That is to say, none at all.

That is not the issue. Romney (who I strongly oppose politically) is arguabbly no more 'religious' than JFK or, for that matter, Obama.

:areyoucra
The fact that Romney is overtly religious at all arguably makes him more religious than Obama.

However, the fact that foreign comedians, completely unrelated to US politics, get a laugh (as one I saw did, a few nights ago) from the fact that a Mormon is even an option is definitely a sign that he is more religious and ridiculous than Obama.

 

[Falvlun]

Eh, I'd agree the anti-science perspective warrants upset, but I have to admit the quote sure comes across as bigoted because of how it was said.

Basically agree with this. The thrust of Dawkin's incredulity that Americans would vote for a Romney is that Romney, due to his religious background, holds scientifically questionable beliefs.

But, I don't doubt that Dawkins is legitimately biased against religious peoples simply for being religious as well.

 

[Revoltingest]

So, is it bigotry, or not, to claim that half of Americans are worthy of condemnation simply because they are considering voting for a Mormon?

The rational half? Who is that? Obama, who believes that a Jewish zombie is the son of God, or Joe Biden who drinks Jesus's blood & eats
his flesh? Besides, it ain't like we heathens are all that rational...we make boneheaded decisions too. Dawkins can certainly be a lout.

 

[Gui10]

That is not the issue. Romney (who I strongly oppose politically) is arguabbly no more 'religious' than JFK or, for that matter, Obama.

What the hell are you talking about?!! There is no such thing as a moderate mormon and if there is Romney is not one. That is precisely the issue.

He has exactly as much backing as any other philosopher or political commentator. That is to say, none at all.

I don't understand your point. You are telling me no one can critique politicians? Richard dawkins might not have a law degree or a masters in finance or politics, but knowledge is ABSOLUTELY OVERATED when it comes to politics. Richard Dawkins is a smart man and he is very well entitled to an opinion regarding politics in any country.

 

[Gui10]

And I guess, with this quote you may consider Dawkins as a ''bigot'' but is it a bad thing? I don't think so.

Edit: to me it is as relevant as considering Martin Luther King Jr. as a bigot for his firm views against racism.

 

[Me Myself]

A recent quote from Richard Dawkins and his twitter in reference to the Curiosity landing:



So, is it bigotry, or not, to claim that half of Americans are worthy of condemnation simply because they are considering voting for a Mormon?

THE IRONY! how many americans think all the unchristian world diserves hell because they are voting (or not voting) for the wrong deity! :areyoucra

He didn`t "condemn", he is thinking low of them. I would guess (without knowing of politics, very less northamerican politics) he is talking about the "mormon" bit because many of his laws or proposals are inspired on his religious beliefs? I would still think it would have been a bad way to put it, but if that wasn`t even the case, it gets beyond semantics.

 

[Sir Doom]

If it truly was about far more, than why is "voting for a Mormon" emphasized so much? Especially when LDS tend to be far less anti-science, and much more highly educated, than other religious groups.

I agree that Dawkins is a bigot against the religious. He is pretty open about it. However, the bolded phrase here is equally prejudicial. Be careful what you say when leveling the accusatory finger at someone.

Dawkins doesn't get a vote in the USA last time I checked. Its not that his opinion doesn't count... its that we won't be counting it because he isn't a citizen of this country. He's allowed to voice his opinion no matter how stupid and inflammatory it is. So is everyone else. When I need to make a judgment about Romney, I'll listen to Romney's opinions and judge him on those.

As it was said, there are plenty of reasons for me not to vote for the guy and they have nothing to do with his religious affiliation.