RE: Dawkins. Just because some people will get irrationally upset no matter how politely somebody says that they fervently believe things which are patently untrue, doesn't mean the person who said it wasn't polite or civil enough. Dawkins would get called an asshole, and so would anybody who cited him, no matter how courteous he was. I mean, to an American the man is preternaturally soft-spoken because he's not just American-courteous, he's British-courteous. I don't think there's any tone of criticism of religion that is satisfactorily obsequious.
I mean, if you can find a way to tell a devoutly religious person, "You know. If there weren't so many Christians, we would classify your beliefs as a mental illness. In fact, we already institutionalize people who clearly actually believe what most Christians only say they do," in a way that is so polite and gentle that you are immune to the tone argument while doing so, you are magic and need to be doing all the talking for all the rest of us.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
Re: I wish this was true, because it's very well stated.
Date: 2011-03-15 04:54 pm (UTC)From:I mean, if you can find a way to tell a devoutly religious person, "You know. If there weren't so many Christians, we would classify your beliefs as a mental illness. In fact, we already institutionalize people who clearly actually believe what most Christians only say they do," in a way that is so polite and gentle that you are immune to the tone argument while doing so, you are magic and need to be doing all the talking for all the rest of us.