<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Monday, June 19, 2006

Christian Intellectual Begs for Mercy

It is hard to believe how bad this article on NRO is. In it, a Princeton University Fellow argues against Richard Dawkins' Darwinism on the grounds that it hurts people's feelings. I'm not kidding. This is the argument of this "scholar": Dawkins should keep quiet, not because he is wrong, but because he knows "full well the emotional distress it will cause the spiritually sensitive." Holy PC, Leftist, kindergarten teacher, pussy argument!

I have already lost all respect for Holloway due to his cowardice, but let me continue. If we assume the mantle of the devout Christians that he is defending, how could we counsel a homosexual to repent, "knowing full well the emotional distress it will cause?" How could we convert a Jew or Muslim, "knowing full well the emotional distress it will cause?" I really don't think this is a principle he wants to establish.

He offers a totally bogus analogy to defend hiding the truth: Would you tell a man on his deathbed that his wife has been cheating on him? Well, no I wouldn't either. It hurts and it serves no purpose. But if Holloway's friend was about to propose to a woman, would Holloway shield him from the truth that she is an adulterer? Would he consider himself a better friend for performing this noble service? Because I would think him a traitor and coward. If his friend's business partner was defrauding him of his life savings and good name, would Holloway "save" him from the truth because he knows "full well the emotional distress it will cause?"

The column really does not go uphill from there, but I think that is enough stupidity for now.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?