The power of being offended is about fear, which leads to anger… Blah blah…the dark side…
He told the Guardian: “My immediate response was to tweet that it was a violation of freedom of speech. But I deleted it when respondents convinced me that it was a matter of commercial judgment on the part of the cinemas, not so much a free speech issue. I still strongly object to suppressing the ads on the grounds that they might ‘offend’ people. If anybody is ‘offended’ by something so trivial as a prayer, they deserve to be offended.”
But I want the freedom to silence others dagnabit!
“My immediate response was to tweet”
Enough said
“Enough said?” If you have a point to make, why not make it clearly? “We” (activist atheists and anti-theists) are trying rid our own ranks of the Regressive Left types like Reza Aslan, and that description does NOT include R.D. Pls don’t be a regressive leftie, Veronica. Richard Dawkins has done too much good thus far to suddenly be deserving of widespread negative sentiment. As a blogger with a following (this site) could you please show him a bit more respect!? We all owe that man a debt of gratitude, not opprobrium! Outside of his misguided comments to Rebecca Watson some years ago, for which I am told he apologized, I’m unaware of any major missteps made by Dr. Dawkins.
My “Enough said” is to alert people to the idea that tweeting first and thinking or doing research after is not always the best procedure. Dawkins is not the only person to tweet first then change his mind about the message in his tweet.
I would respond that the purpose of Tweeting is, to some extent, to speak first and think later. It’s the nature of Twitter. Of course some brain farts will escape into the atmosphere. Calling attention to it doesn’t settle anything down, and in my already-expressed opinion snappy 2-word retorts don’t do proper justice to the likes of Dawkins.
Atheists have nothing in common except atheism. I think we owe it to ourselves to consciously try to hang on to at least SOME sense of community while the religious continue screeching battle-cries, and avoid going after our own leaders without good enough reason. So far, Dawkins has not provided much reason for atheists to attack him. [Neither has Sam Harris and he gets it from all directions, which is despicable.] Bill Maher is completely right: there is a definite lack of clear thinking in many leftie circles.
I’m not suggesting you would do this, but I think that a lot of people who say they don’t like Dawkins simply can’t stand his classy south-England accent, erudite speech and ability to speak for an hour, or two, without say “Um” even ONCE! And I am quite serious about that. I think a large number of North Americans unwittingly equate classy British accents and obvious intelligence with the arch-baddies of certain Hollywood productions, and fail to give proper consideration to their ideas without even realizing that they are being *highly* prejudicial.
There is an idea, which is wrong, that speech cannot be harmful and must never be restricted.
People forget the restrictions! Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre which is not on fire. Swearing in front of the Children/Parents/In-laws. Disrespecting a senior officer. Sedition. Telling your wife she is fat. Threats. Lying to Congress. Bomb hoaxes. Explaining the concept of death to 2-year olds.
A speech can cause a riot and gut a city of its institutions. We must continue to depend more on unregulated common sense than on anyone’s guaranteed right to say anything at all.
So technically, the CofE may have some right to free speech, but that doesn’t *make* it a good idea. I’m happy see the ads rejected, not because of past ideas but because of what I think is best for our futures.