Mockery is a game that can be played by two sides, as I endeavored to illustrate back in 2005 in a little parody of Dawkins' mockery of anti-Evolutionist Fundamentalists [HERE].
But contrary to scads of eminently rational Catholics and other Christian intellectuals who have offered serious-minded and duly argued rebuttals of the New Atheism [I won't even bother to list them: just go to Amazon and search for "New Atheism"], Richard Dawkins -- who should know better -- has long ago abandoned the chambers of serious argument for the limelight of grandstanding ad hominems, mockery, insinuation and innuendo.
Just listen:
“Don't fall for the convention that we're all 'too polite' to talk about religion,” Dawkins said, before urging rally attendees to ridicule Catholics' faith in the Eucharist.Sad to say, given his audience, this is powerfully effective stuff. It produces the desired effect: the smug satisfaction in those who then feel empowered by their derision of Catholics and all they stand for.
“Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated, and need to be challenged – and if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt,” he told the cheering crowd on the National Mall.
“For example, if they say they're Catholic: Do you really believe, that when a priest blesses a wafer, it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?”
If the answer is yes, Dawkins suggested atheists should show contempt for believers instead of ignoring the issue or feigning respect.
“Mock them,” he told the crowd. “Ridicule them! In public!”
But it also lacks the least shred of intellectual integrity and honesty. He has chosen the tools of the classic Sophist: taking the worse side of an argument and making it appear the better through distortion and mockery over honest argument, with the goal of winning over the jury at any cost. Why? Because, like the Sophist, he no longer believes in truth, no longer knows what truth is, so that all that remains is persuasion -- not persuasion of truth by means of argument, but persuasion to agree through victory in mockery. Richard Rorty, you may recall, defined "truth" as "what your peers let you get away with saying." Dawkins has turned Rorty's definition of truth into a regular modus operandi.
Call it "science." Call it "reason." Call it whatever you want. Even call it "truth." It's nothing of the kind, but sheer hatred of truth, posturing as moral high ground. Get real. It's not hard to imagine you eventually calling for Catholic extermination camps and calling it the "greening of the planet" or "love of liberty." We're on to you, Dawkins. You're simply a poor intimidated English white boy who finds himself still trying to defend with self-congratulatory panache the dying and bloodless values a liberal agnostic Establishment. You're "age of reason" is dead. Your "reason rally" exhibits no more intelligence than the crowd at a National Wrestling Federation event.

John-Henry Westen, "


Not at all cheesy is St. Francis de Sales's
And let your joy be deep and full.
Today, the stational churches present an opportunity for a Lenten pilgrimage. On its designated day, each stational church offers a procession, praying of the Litany of the Saints, and veneration of relics. While we are not aware of a published listing of the times of these services, the Pontifical North American College [Seminary] in Rome offers Mass in English at each of the stational churches each morning; a schedule is published at:
While you won't hear about this on MSNBC, there is considerable debate in the African American community about whether the Obama administration has actually helped or hurt the economic situation for American Blacks, as a quick search of the Internet will quickly verify. Some feel that they have been "played" by the President, precisely in such initiatives as his launch of "African Americans for Obama," and have no desire to be taken in again.


Why is it, do you think, that so many people appear to be more concerned about Rush Limbaugh's comments about Sandra Fluke (and Danica Patrick) than about what Fluke and Patrick themselves said?