Richard Dawkins on Ted Haggard, South Park

[bascule]

http://richarddawkins.net/tourJournal#11

 

I have repeatedly been asked what I think of South Park and of Ted Haggard’s downfall. I won’t say much about either. Schadenfreude is not an appealing emotion so, on Haggard, I’ll say only that if it wasn’t for people of his religious persuasion, people of his sexual persuasion would be free to do what they like without shame and without fear of exposure. I share neither his religious nor his sexual persuasion (that’s an understatement), and I’m buggered if I like being portrayed as a cartoon character buggering a bald transvestite. I wouldn’t have minded so much if only it had been in the service of some serious point, but if there was a serious point in there I couldn’t discern it. And then there’s the matter of the accent they gave me. Now, if only I could be offered a cameo role in The Simpsons, I could show that actor how to do a real British accent.

 

I thought that was a classy and humorous response to the two situations, especially from a man who is stereotyped by his detractors as an asshole.

[Pangloss]

Thanks for passing that on, I was kinda wondering how he felt about that episode. To be honest, it really wasn't one of their best efforts, and the "serious point" was somewhat obscure and lost in the clutter, at least compared with most episodes. And given the usual political position of that show, the whole attack just came off as a little strange. But there was a valid point there.

 

One has to appreciate the fact that he didn't follow the usual stereotype of sucking it up and pretending to enjoy it. He got treated about as heavy-handedly as anybody in that show ever has, and there's no reason why people should be expected to "get" South Park -- it's a free country, after all. If I were in his shoes I probably wouldn't like it either, so kudos for being honest.

[padren]

For each part "point," South Park likes to throw in at least one or two points worth of "shock bashing" when it comes to celebrity figures.

 

He did get off better than Tom Cruise, the Pope, Paris Hilton and Sally Struthers to name a few.

They make decent points at times but its clear they enjoy finding ways to go over the top in debasing portrayals.

 

As for the point of the Dawkins episode, its an understandable point of view that evangelical athiesm is as dangerous and liable to lead to violent contention as evangelical religions. And at least he wasn't technically "buggering a transvestite" since "she" was technically post-op.

 

I agree it was a good response on his part though.

[bascule]

For me, the episode reiterated something I've believed for quite some time: atheism is not something around which you can build a unified social movement, case in point the inability of anyone to agree on a name! Atheists. Free Thinkers. Skeptics. Brights. The Church of Reality. The list goes on and on.

 

As I believe in transhumanism and the impending technological singularity, I feel knowledge of these concepts, and the certainty they bring about the nature of the universe are the only sort of thing that could truly replace religion as a societal construct.

 

As a social movement, I believe atheism will evolve organically, with a gradual decline in religion over time as more information about the world becomes available. I think atheists should do their best to construct good arguments and make them available to religious types, but I'm not sure how I necessarily feel about proselytism. I certainly don't have enough confidence that the transhumanist view of reality is correct to attempt to proselytize it.