Dawkins Jumps on Board the International Jewish Conspiracy Bandwagon

Patrick: Thanks, ever so much, to you and Mark of Akismet for your efforts. The last comment -- to my amazement -- went directly through. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

PS: Patrick (and BarryA) I trust you won't mind a link on a corrective note on the geopolitics issues that underly Mr Dawkins' bigoted remarks. Of particular interest is this paragraph [and the immediately following ones]:

There was unintended irony in the post-9/11 liberal caricature of Bush and Cheney as politicians who had haplessly allowed their administration’s policies to be hijacked by a few spookily effective intellectuals—this, less than a year after having been such master manipulators as to have allegedly stolen away the presidency from Al Gore. But this was not the only grotesque charge leveled at the President. Another was that the “neoconservatives” in question were in reality a group of Jews who were attempting to divert U.S. policy in the interests of Israel. This particular bit of slander ignored, among other things, the fact that the neoconservative position on the Middle East conflict was exactly congruous with the neoconservative position on conflicts everywhere else in the world, including places where neither Jews nor Israeli interests could be found—not to mention the fact that non-Jewish neoconservatives took the same stands on all of the issues as did their Jewish confrères.2

I'd say, so much for the self-chosen appellation, "brights." (Or, perhaps, more accurately, we should not confuse academic achievement or [worse!] mere IQ numbers with wisdom, good-will, fair-mindedness, a high value on truth [which inter alia restrains one from making ill-founded and bigoted offhand remarks], respect for others with whom one may differ on issues, and common sense.) Are we sure that we want this sort of "Materialist Ideology" to seize its declared intended monopolistic power over Science and the other the critical institutional and public spaces of our civilisation? [Cf. here the "banned in Sweden" issue.] For that alone, the ID movement is worthy of our respect, and if one finds the main arguments persuasive -- as I have [cf. my always linked] -- outright support. kairosfocus

Hi Patrick: I communicated with Akismet and they very kindly responded just this morning:

We work very hard to prevent people both calling unwanted comments as spam and also people who try to target commenters. I think it's fair to say we do catch virtually all of them. In this case though it was not malicious, it was an error by us. I am hopeful I have corrected it, but you can check by leaving a comment at [XXXXX] Should it not get through it will give me additional information. Sorry!

On trying the test, the comment there went through. This is a test here in effect. Thanks for the efforts on my behalf. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

Thanks Patrick. Appreciated; even though a bit frustrating. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

Unless one of the mods put you on the banned list without announcing it or telling the other mods "the spam filter somehow likes you" is the best explanation I have at the moment. http://akismet.com/faq/

Help! Akismet is catching a regular comment as spam! Don't worry, if you see a regular comment on your Akismet page, just click the "Not Spam" checkbox and submit and the comment will be sent back to Akismet as a mistake. The system will learn from your submission, though it may take a day or so in some cases. False positives, as they're called, are extremely rare and we watch them closely.

It's getting false positives all the time. Good thing the explanatory filter is not like akismet...anyway, I just emailed the akismet people about this problem. Patrick

Charles I note that the effect of your repeating of points on a rabbit trail is to divert the thread from its focus, a focus that has been well supported by the recent Crystal Clear Atheism event. 46 provides key evidence, onlookers. I also suggest: Re-read the report, especially on the Y Chromosome side, which indisputably comes from the male side. Indeed, the discussion of the Y Chromosome side comes BEFORE the Mitochondrial side:

The earlier study, led by Dr. Michael Hammer of University of Arizona, showed from an analysis of the male, or Y chromosome, that Jewish men from seven communities were related to one another and to present-day Palestinian and Syrian populations, but not to the men of their host communities. The finding suggested that Jewish men who founded the communities traced their lineage back to the ancestral Mideastern population of 4,000 years ago from which Arabs, Jews and other people are descended. It pointed to the genetic unity of widespread Jewish populations and took issue with ideas that most Jewish communities were relatively recent converts like the Khazars, a medieval Turkish tribe that embraced Judaism.

After this, it discussed the second study, and observed as a likely best explanation that:

Dr. Goldstein said it was up to historians to interpret the genetic evidence. His own speculation, he said, is that most Jewish communities were formed by unions between Jewish men and local women, though he notes that the women's origins cannot be genetically determined. ''The men came from the Near East, perhaps as traders,'' he said. ''They established local populations, probably with local women. But once the community was founded, the barriers had to go up, because otherwise mitochondrial diversity would be increased.''

As to the points you wish to make on mitochondrial DNA, I simply note that even Wiki acknowledges:

Unlike nuclear DNA, which is inherited from both parents and in which genes are rearranged in the process of recombination, there is usually no change in mtDNA from parent to offspring. Although mtDNA also recombines, it does so with copies of itself within the same mitochondrion. Because of this and because the mutation rate of animal mtDNA is higher than that of nuclear DNA[2], mtDNA is a powerful tool for tracking ancestry through females (matrilineage) and has been used in this role to track the ancestry of many species back hundreds of generations.

BarryA has made his point, and relevant to that point your attempts to argue that Jews do not constitute a race in the usual sense of that term, repeatedly fall to the ground. Mr Dawkins was WAAAAAAY out of line, and should apologise. (But then, sadly, this is just the latest outrage from this gentleman.) GEM of TKI PS: I have for some weeks now been on permanent mod without explanation other than a remark that the spam filter somehow likes me. kairosfocus

The NYT report you site seems to say that the Jewish "race" is really a genetic mishmash. Some points from the article are a bit antiquated, such as the idea that mitochondrial DNA necessarily comes soley from the mother. Sure, they have some relationship to a Middle Eastern past, but they appear to be at least half derived from local populations. I never claimed that there is no connection between Ashkenazis and Middle Eastern ancestors. My issue was never with genetics anyway, just the definition of race. The antiquated definitions from the OED are not compelling to me. You'll need to tell me what year your copy was from for me to give it context. Maybe you're right, though, on the main point that Dawkins has a special hatred for Jews (though I really just can't believe he hates them more than Christians and Christianity). I have no stock in defending his good name. It's just that, if you replace "Jewish" with "pro-interventionism-in-favor-of-Israel" in that one statement, it is not an entirely unjustified statement. I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps more than he deserves, but I guess I'm just a generous guy. Charles Foljambe

Charles: Kindly review my remarks in 11 and 20 supra, then compare BarryA's remarks in 33, 35 and 36. (I think you need to read a little more of what is being discussed in a thread before commenting, or at least, to acknowledge even en passant what has been said before.) You will first see therein a plain set of statements that show the broad-spectrum contempt that seems to be Mr Dawkins' forte, especially for those who are by his lights "religious." Second, you will see therein, sufficient to clearly identify that Mr Dawkins has specified the Jews in a way that identifies them as a specific object of ill-informed contempt and bigotry. All of this goes seriously to his character and the supercilious and utterly superficial and inferior quality of his thought; never mind his conceit that atheists are the "brights." In that context, he clearly buys into the all-too-common -- and easy to confute, if one will but seriously check the facts -- propagandistic slander that the Jews [especially of course religious ones] monopolise American Foreign policy. No-one who has a modicum of knowledge of the history of spiteful deceptive propaganda and resulting pogroms against Jews [ESPECIALLY in Europe, but also in for instance the Arab world; cf here Peters' summary and the links between the infamous Mufti Hussein of Jerusalem and the Nazis] will fail to realise that such casual bigotry is telling, sadly and sickeningly telling. And I say that as a member of the no 2 perennial target-group of racism, oppression and exploitation in the world. THEN, to top all of this off, he sets out to say that he wishes to emulate such perceived monopolistic dominance, for his own pressure group, those ever-so-"bright" and well-informed, morally exemplary atheists! Worse, he pretends in so doing that atheists constitute a "downtrodden" minority in the USA, and expresses his horror that of all shocking things, in a nation set up under the declaration that God has given us liberties which Governments are to acknowledge and secure and so has in its Constitution inter alia a declaration of intent that it is designed to secure "the BLESSINGS of liberty," those who acknowledge God have a significant voice in the public square. (Cf. my compilation and discussion of too-often overlooked, or even hotly denied and suppressed evidence here.) All I can say to such, is that to be forewarned should be to be forearmed. But, there is none so blind as s/he who refuses to see what is "an inconvenient truth." GEM of TKI PS: Here is a NYT report on relevant genetic studies on the ancestry patterns of Jewish populations. A similar, later study has shown a very close genetic relationship with the Kurds (who oddly just happen to be located just about where the Northern tribes were taken into exile circa 722 BC by the Assyrians). kairosfocus

Well, right, I was restating some things, but reformulated a bit for more meaningful goodness. As to Dawkins being hateful, I never denied it, I was just denying that hatred for Jews is any kind of special, extra-hatey hatred for him, and calling him an anti-semite is, I think, painting with too narrow a brush. I think he hates Judaism, Christianity, Islam, et cetera. But the Jewish "race"? I don't think so. Charles Foljambe

Charles: Enough has already long since been said (e.g. 40, 46) to show the defects in your latest. You have, sadly, simply chosen to ignore inconvenient facts and factors. Astute readers can look those facts and factors up for themselves. Not to mention, your latest is a repeat -- and already answered -- red herring relative to the main issues at stake in the thread and indeed the blog; on which Barry A is abundantly vindicated, especially as at the citations in 46. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

Do you not see the pernicious effects of such an antiquatedly loose definition of race? Did not Hitler use the ridiculous idea of a German "race" as a way of allowing for the persecution of the Slavic "race"? Even then, race was seen as having an inherent, biological component. I don't believe that "Jews" have any such distinctions. As I've said, many Ashkenazis are basically white. Resisting relativism is all well and good; what you propose is a deterministic life sentence, where one is trapped by a defintion that does not necessarily describe him, but only his ancestors. When I say I'm white, it describes the relative level of melanin in my skin. For an athiest Jew, it describes nothing about what they are, necessarily, just what their mother may have been. It is one of the reasons I'm no Christian: the Judeo-Christian God is all too willing to make offspring suffer the consequences of their ancestors' actions. We live in a fallen world, and are fallen, not because we rebelled, but because our ultimate ancestors did. Jews are blessed, a "chosen people", not because of what they do, but because of what Abraham did. A God that so arbitrarily holds individuals responsible for the actions of others is unworthy of worship, in my opinion. I see people as individuals, not collectives. I believe that collectivist mindsets could easily be shown to be the source of the massive horrors of the last century, and many from centuries before. Charles Foljambe

All: It would, first, be good to read the article referenced in the Gil D Oct 12 Thread on the Atheist Alliance's launch [?] conference. Of particular note are these excerpts:

In his speech, Dawkins portrayed a black-and-white intellectual battle between atheism and religion. He denounced the "preposterous nonsense of religious customs" and compared religion to racism. He also gave no quarter to moderate or liberal believers, asserting that "so-called moderate Christianity is simply an evasion." "If you've been taught to believe it by moderates, what's to stop you from taking the next step and blowing yourself up?" he said. By contrast, Harris's speech was a more tempered critique of the atheist movement itself. While Harris said he believed science must ultimately destroy religion, he also discussed spirituality and mysticism and called for a greater understanding of allegedly spiritual phenomena. He also cautioned the audience against lumping all religions together . . . . Specifically, he noted that radical Islam was far more threatening than any radical Christian sect, adding that Christians had a right to be outraged when the media treated the two religions similarly . . . . While the audience gave Dawkins a standing ovation, Harris received only polite applause. One questioner later declared herself "very disappointed" in Harris's talk . . . . "Religion is not the root of all evil, but it gets in the way of [determining] how we got here and where we find ourselves," Dawkins said. "And that is an evil in itself." Dawkins was particularly critical of parents who raise their children as a "Catholic child" or "Protestant child." Children must not be labeled as subscribing to a particular religion, he said, and should be allowed to examine the evidence and determine their beliefs for themselves.

It is -- sadly -- painfully plain that Mr Dawkins is an uncivil intellectual bully, serial slanderer and irrational bigot who is motivated by hostility to the point where even his fellow atheist Sam Harris had to try to correct him publicly, by dissociating himself from the immoral equavalency slander that tries to push the Christian faith in the same boat as Islamofascism. Of particular interest is the audience response to that correction: While the audience gave Dawkins a standing ovation, Harris received only polite applause. In short, we can see immediately that Dawkins is pretty much as Barry A has summed up, and that the movement he is founding is in pretty much the same vein of bigotry, disrespect, slander, refusal to face inconvenient truths that mean that their objects of hostility don't fit their convenient demonic caricature, and worse. Are you sure you want to allow such people and movements to monopolise the US public square and major cultural institutions, as they intend? BTW: on the direct focus of this blog, why is it that Dawkins and his ilk wish to present an incoherent worldview, Evolutionary Materialism, under the misleading label, Science, and will not allow students in school "to examine the evidence and determine their beliefs for themselves" by learning about the issues and evidence that challenge the NDT and associated theories and models? Plainly, Mr Dawkins is guilty as charged, and his movement of hostility to God and those who stand up for God is extremist and resistant to plainly factual correction. Now, in closing off, a few further remarks on points raised above: 1] CF: I don’t believe in Judaism, nor Christianity for that matter, and therefore I have no basis to accept the racial claims . . . I just tend to see race as falling under the Mongoloid, Caucusoid, Negroid sort of classification. Charles, you don't have the power to decide that commonly used words mean what you as an individual simply want them to mean. That is the nature of language, if it is to function as a means of communication in a community. I have simply reported how the term and concept "race" [btw, not a properly scientific term] is and has been commonly used; for good or ill. You may not like it, but that is an objective fact. Here is OED:

race2 noun each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics: people of all races, colours, and creeds. a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group: we Scots were a bloodthirsty race then.

2] Judaism is a religion. Its practicioners are Jews, but at least from my individualist perspective that rejects collectivist notions that is a definition of belief/action of individuals. One chooses to be Jewish, or not to be Jewish. Nope. Judaism is an ancestral, traditional religion practised by some Jews; who share by and large a common ethnicity, history and culture. For one to be accepted as a Jew by the relevant authorities, s/he needs to either be born of a Jewish mother, or become a convert [which they often actually counsel against!]. Here is OED again: Jew noun a member of the people and cultural community whose traditional religion is Judaism and who trace their origins to the ancient Hebrew people of Israel. 3] I could say I’m Jewish and in my mind have as much authenticity as athiest “Jews”. Therein hangeth a long tale about the pernicious effects of subjectivism and relativism on how we tend to approach knowledge and reasoning today, as Western Civilisation self-stultifies under the impacts of Evolutionary Materialism and its implications. What you may or may not think to yourself is irrelevant to what is objectivley so. Again, cf. OED. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

"Of the covenant"? I'm sorry, I'm not Jewish, that is, I don't believe in Judaism, nor Christianity for that matter, and therefore I have no basis to accept the racial claims. Meh, I just tend to see race as falling under the Mongoloid, Caucusoid, Negroid sort of classification. Judaism is a religion. Its practicioners are Jews, but at least from my individualist perspective that rejects collectivist notions that is a definition of belief/action of individuals. One chooses to be Jewish, or not to be Jewish. I could say I'm Jewish and in my mind have as much authenticity as athiest "Jews". Charles Foljambe

Apollo230: Please look at comment 11 above, on the specific statement by Mr Dawkins, its import, and the wider context of his antipathies and agendas. Then compare the opening words of the "holds that" text block at the top of this page. Namely, "Materialist ideology." This cultural agenda and its advocates have seized undue -- in some cases, even monopolistic -- power in major science and educational and media and courts and other institutions, and is exploiting that power to suppress alternative views and in particular the scientific work and findings that would underpin that work. In that context, it is obviously appropriate for us to take time to note on the agenda such advocates reveal by their public statements and actions; not least so that we can be forewarned. And, given that there are several cases of career busting associated with the debate, the blog owners and moderators would IMHCO be unwise indeed to constrain themselves to a narrower discussion of scientific issues. Not least, because the other side is abusing institutional power to cut off resources, de-legitimise and demonise scientists working within the ID paradigm. In this case, we see a leading British advocate for evolutionary materialism openly embarking on a political campaign to seize monopolistic power over the American Public square. In so doing, he adverts to a slanderous conspiracy theory claim against the Jews of America, as if that slander were the truth. This is at minimum important news, and it is also revealing on the character and likely behaviour of the initiators of this campaign should they succeed in gaining the degree of power they plainly covet. And, given the "long train of abuses and usurpations" already evident where Evo Mat advocates and their ilk already hold power, that likely behaviour is not hard to identify. Indeed, I understand the same Mr Dawkins has already publicly advocated using the British Libel law [much stronger and more severe than the US version] to prosecute those who advocate against "the truth,' i.e. Evolutionary Materialism. Multiply that by his unrecanted, bigoted assertion that those who reject his worldview are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. Then, look again at what he and/or the Editors of the Guardian said in his interview, especially:

Britain’s leading atheist is spearheading a campaign in America to challenge the dominance of religion in every day life and in politics, insisting that the millions of US godless deserve to be heard too. Atheists in the US “have been downtrodden for a very long time. So I think some sort of political organisation is what they need”, he said . . . . Religion is palpable in US schools, places of work and public institutions. . . . .

Think again about the implications of the highlighted phrase, in its context: silencing "religion" in the public square and all institutions of note. In that context, observe how he alluded to the slanderous accusation against the Jews of the US (especially the religious ones) as having monopolistic power over US Foreign Policy; which is in itself revealing on his attitudes. In short, Dawkins aspires to monopolistic Atheist power over the public and institutional spaces. Add to that, now, the point that the slanderous claim of the Evo Mat advocates is that Design Theory is an injection of the voice of "religion" into science. (In short, while you may wish to play science, Mr Dawkins and his ilk are playing hardball politics and censorship though slander and manipulation to create a hostile public environment.) Plainly, under the doctrine of prudence in the face of a credible threat, BarryA is right to warn us. And, we are equally right to speak up loudly now, while we still have a voice. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

apollo230: Hear, hear. MacT

Shouldn't we be avoiding this kind of thrust? This thread is beginning to look more like an ad-hominem attack on Richard Dawkins rather than a reasoned, critical look at his contrarian positions on intelligent design-the self-evident subject of this blog. apollo230

Jehu: I am certainly not anti-Semitic. And I don't leap to conclude that Dawkins is as well, despite his clumsy analogy. I am pointing out what I believe is a fallacious ad hominem attack. It is unfortunate that your response is in that same vein, rather than addressing the issue. BarryA: "MacT, it is staggering to me that you would compare a comment about the NRA or the ACLU to bigotry against Jews." You're twisting my words; I did not compare anything to bigotry against Jews. I don't accept that Dawkins' comments reveal underlying bigotry against Jews, or anyone else. I don't know whether Dawkins is a bigoted anti-Semite (hopefully not; that alone would make him a horrible individual). As I read his comments, Dawkins was referring to the power of a special interest group. Most likely he was thinking of AIPAC. I did note in my initial comments that the analogy is clumsy (for some of the reasons you offer, e.g., Jews are a culture and race), but that does not warrant a shrill charge of conspiratorial anti-Semitism. MacT

Larry & Charles (etc): I find your comments at 38 - 39 just a little disturbing (given what is at stake and the wider context, e.g. cf my comments at 11 and 20 and BarryA's reasoning in 33, 35 - 36); sufficiently so to make a few follow-up remarks that I hope will be both reasonable and at least balancing. Even through the inexplicable "permanent" mod pile problem I seem to suffer in recent weeks here at UD. (Patrick, any update on that?) 1] LF, 38: Dawkins ignores the fact that Christian fundies bear a great part of the blame for the one-sidedness of the USA’s support of Israel H'mm, let's see; in 1940 - 41, who was to "blame" for the "one-sidedness" of the USA's overt and covert support for that old imperialist power, Britain, in a foreign, European war where the other side had many a legitimate grievance? (The Shoah had not yet happened, too. Cf. Hitler's rhetorically devastating finger-pointing reply in 1939 was it to Roosevelt's inquiry on his peaceful intent towards the various nations of Europe. In effect, he distracted attention from his own destructive ambitions by pointing to the sins of the French and British, and indeed the Americans too.) Take-home lesson: [Im]moral equivalency is rhetorically very effective but it is a dangerous fallacy with a horrible track record of strategic paralysis in the teeth of mortal danger. In other words, there is in the above excerpted comment a major begging of a question of alignment of basic strategic interests and even of the moral stance of an embattled democracy -- however imperfect it will inevitably be -- based on longstanding and long since internationally recognised legitimate national claims and history [cf discussion here, and the 1919 Weismann-Feisal side agreement to the Versailles treaty process on the joint mutually supportive development of the Arab and Jewish nations in the Middle East, here -- observbe the use of "palestine" to refer to the then re-emergent Jewish nation!], confronting enmity that is in material part a global conquest religiously motivated ideology, aptly termed by the Algerian moderates, "Islamofascism." For, Islam can indeed be understood and lived in a peaceful way, but unfortunately has in it Quran- and early foundational history-based elements [cf Q 9:5, 29 ff] that can easily lend themselves to such radicalisation. To give a broader view on the issue at stake in the ME, note that Al Qaeda etc have an identically structured claim against Spain [Al Andaluz], and indeed, Jamaica, my native land. [Cf. the Afroz thesis that by dint of the claimed Moorish element in the Spanish settlement and the claimed large Islamic proportion of the slaves in later years under Britain, by direct implication, Jamaica is properly Islamic land to be "reclaimed." The same fallacious historical revisionist rhetoric directly applies to the southern states of the US.] As to the use of the smear-word "fundies," I simply note that I commented on the implications of Mr Dawkins' remarks on religious influence in 11 above. And, noting on what is now routine in contexts where Atheist thought and its associated agendas dominate [cf. Expelled], one has to take serious pause and thought on the implications of widening such influence and agendas in the US and globally. 2] CF: what he said was bigoted, but what he meant probably wasn’t. Any reasonable person would pause, long and hard, before saying something that manifests bigotry. (And, if something like that inadvertently slipped out, any decent person would at once apologise and retract it.) So far as we know, Mr Dawkins has not. He is also the long-standing unrepentant declarer that those who differ with his evolutionary materialism are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. I and many others differ with him on his pseudo-scientific ideology and logically incoherent philosophy, without being exceptionally ignorant, stupid or insane. (On "wicked," I freely admit to being a repentant sinner struggling to be reformed by Grace; but I am certainly not motivated by sinful desires in my rejection of his views!) In short, sadly, it is unsurprising to see yet another outrageous, unapologised for comment from the same source. 3] I’ve never really understood why the Jews are thought of as a race. Semites are a race, but then, most American Jews are Ashkenazi anyway, and basically white. Do you really mean to say that? FYI, "race" is a socio-cultural, ethnically linked concept [not just genetic]; e.g. in say Churchill, you can see discussion of various European nations as "races," and racism targetted the Irish, Poles, Italians etc in C19 in the US. This sort of thinking for instance appears in Darwin's discussion of the Saxons [read, English], Irish and Scots in his notorious later book The Descent of Man. [My Irish-side (and ultimately Belgian) ancestors would approve of my saying that!] In this context, regardless of their "whiteness," the Jews of Germany and Europe, of course were notoriously, and, sadly, murderously, the victims of: racism. As to the Jewishness of the Ashkenazi, you should note that ethnicity often has in it, for instance, a significant religious identification component; i.e. if one comes into a covenantal people, one is a part of that people. [Going back to the OT period, King David was part Moabite [Ruth], and Caleb was of Edomite stock.] Similarly, today, "Hispanics" are in effect a racial group in the US, but obviously, the Spanish-speaking peoples of the Latin America and Caribbean region are very, very diverse. But, they share a strong socio-cultural stamp and are in the main of Catholic religious heritage. Topping that off, there were some interesting recent studies on the roots of the Jews and Arabs based on Y chromosome studies. As I recall from my reading on the topic, the Ashkenazi seem to largely descend from Jewish settlements in various European communities, where local girls were married and then the circle more or less closed. Consequently, they are genetically close to the Oriental Jews and to their Arab cousins of Palestine, Jordan, Arabia Lebanon and Syria. They are also reportedly close to the Kurds. A similar pattern may in part account for the Jews of Ethiopia [now in Israel], who certainly count as being of the covenant. So, please, think again. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

Gotta agree with MacT and some others here, that the title phrase “Dawkins Jumps on Board the International Jewish Conspiracy Bandwagon” is out of proportion to the evidence. It’s conceivable that Dawkins has a bigoted or paranoid attitude toward Jews, but that’s not demonstrated by what he said. The Golden Rule would mean we shouldn’t distort what he said. Well, I think that what he said was bigoted, but what he meant probably wasn't. AIPAC is surely mostly Jews, but that doesn't make it "the Jewish lobby". On the other hand, it is monstrously powerful, and I do mean that in a derogative sense, as they are essentially a representative of a foreign power (Israel) that can exert massive pressure on our politicians to keep a destructive, interventionist foreign policy. Dawkins is, in my opinion, a victim of his own clumsy wording. It is bigoted to ascribe political influence to a race of people. I've never really understood why the Jews are thought of as a race. Semites are a race, but then, most American Jews are Ashkenazi anyway, and basically white. Charles Foljambe

Dawkins ignores the fact that Christian fundies bear a great part of the blame for the one-sidedness of the USA's support of Israel -- see http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/08/christian-and-jewish-zionists.html Also, an article in Time magazine said,

The Democratic party, with its many Jewish activists, has traditionally supported Israel. But the Republicans have no such ethnic affinity. It is the Evangelicals, major stakeholders in the G.O.P., who have made it a bastion of pro-Israel and pro-Jewish sentiment.

-- from http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1578973,00.html Larry Fafarman

It’s very interesting Dawkins would make these comments about the Jews, seeing as they are for the most part a religious people. Looks like that religion meme hasn’t gotten in their way much hah? Dawkins has just shown his cards with this one. He’s power hungry, plain and simple, and he’s jealous of folks who have it. I imagine he also must be quite jealous of Christians too. shaner74

Let me also say this. Above, I demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the subject of Dawkins’ comment in the Guardian was not an organization, but the Jews as a racial group. What is Dawkins saying about the Jews? He says they “monopolize” American foreign policy. “Monopolize” is a value laden term. It means “to have too much power in a particular market,” and, by extension, as here, to “wield undue influence.” Boiled down to its essence, Dawkins said, “The Jews have undue influence over American foreign policy.” One wonders if Dawkins would approve of a pogrom to remedy this state of affairs. BarryA

lars, you refer me to the Golden Rule. Yes, I must apply the principle of charity to Dawkins’ statement, which means I am obligated to interpret it, if possible, in a way that does not ascribe bigotry to Dawkins. The principle of charity does not require me to look the other way when someone spouts bigotry though. Let’s see if there is any way to interpret Dawkins’ statement as other than bigoted. In context, when Dawkins says “the Jewish lobby,” he is clearly not talking about an organization such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. How do I know this? Look at what he goes on to say. He goes on to compare the number of people in the Jewish lobby to the number of atheists. This would make no sense if he were not talking about Jews as a race. Would anyone ever say, for example, there are more people in the NRA than there are atheists? Of course not. The only fair interpretation of Dawkins’ statement is that he is stating that the Jews monopolize American foreign policy. By the way, I agree with the commenter who said Dawkins’ “as far as many people see” comment is weasel words that do nothing to mitigate the bigotry implicit in his statement. Then you say, “I’d want to ask him on what basis he believes it, before finding him guilty of bigotry.” Nonsense. If a racist other than Dawkins said something like, “Them n*gg**s are lazy, shiftless and no account” would you want to say, “On what basis do you believe that?” before you attribute racial bigotry to him? Of couse not. By definition a prejudiced statement (see definition above) against a racial group is unreasonable and therefore cannot possibly have a reasonable basis. Finally, you say my title to this post is over the top. I disagree. If anything, it is too restrained. BarryA

Rude:

When Dr. D says that they “… more or less monopolise American foreign policy” he’s conspiratorial

You've got a point there... I'd forgotten he said that. That is a leap, even if he did hedge with "as far as many people can see." To be fair though, I'd want to ask him on what basis he believes it, before finding him guilty of bigotry (again, Golden Rule, symmetric standards, that sort of thing). lars

MacT, it is staggering to me that you would compare a comment about the NRA or the ACLU to bigotry against Jews. Here's the difference -- and I would have thought you would have learned this in the romper room -- the NRA and the ACLU are political organizations. The Jews are a race of people. Political organizations are fair game for comments of this sort. Races are not. The following is the Random House dictionary’s definition of prejudice: “unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.” It is bigoted to ascribe political influence to a race of people. Certain Jews may have influence over American foreign policy, and it is OK to say that if it is true. But that’s not what Dawkins said. He said, “The Jews” monopolize American foreign policy. There is no other name for this but racial bigotry, and it is startling and sad if you don’t understand that. It is not a close question. This is especially true when the Jews are the target of the racially bigoted accusation, because like no other people they have been persecuted and slaughtered by the millions, and much of the rationale for these persecutions and killings was that they had too much influence. God help us if this simple undisputable fact is not obvious to everyone. BarryA

That a small percentage of one group can dominate foreign policy is not that remarkable. Neo-cons (globalists in nationalist clothing) are probably a minority. But clearly, they are not populated by religiously motivated people, nor do they have a religious agenda. Add to that the fact that about 90% of American Jews are seculare, and you get a picture very far removed from Dawkin's fantasies. But the irony doesn't end there. Darkins also assumes "believers" are calling the shots in the U.S. In fact, secularists are in charge of all the cultural institutions, while the moderate political and religious institutions fawn all over the secularists to stay out of trouble. He also assumes that atheists are persecuted more than believers. In fact, only Catholics, non-Catholic Christians and Jews are persecuted in our culture. Muslims and atheists are given a pass. Posting the Ten Commandments is out; installing foot baths for Muslims is in. And, of course, Darwinism rules academia. You could almost say he has it backwards. StephenB

Lars, When Dr. D says that they "... more or less monopolise American foreign policy" he's conspiratorial and way out of line and ready for the looney bin. And so the Left continues in its relentless slide into anti-Semitism. Inasmuch as who it was that gave us our Abrahamic faiths, the atheistic left is by definition anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. Funny how it all churns from the same cauldrin: Darwinism, atheism, statism, socialism, nihilism … anti-Semitism. Mearsheimer and Walt’s recent screed (The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy) and the positive attention it’s received should give us all pause. As for Jewish brilliance and any supposed Natural Selection y’all might enjoy Charles Murray’s article in Commentary (Jewish Genius) and Norman Podhoretz’s response Jerusalem: The Scandal of Particularity. Rude

Gotta agree with MacT and some others here, that the title phrase "Dawkins Jumps on Board the International Jewish Conspiracy Bandwagon" is out of proportion to the evidence. It's conceivable that Dawkins has a bigoted or paranoid attitude toward Jews, but that's not demonstrated by what he said. The Golden Rule would mean we shouldn't distort what he said. Dawkins' statements about the Jewish lobby seems about as reasonable (and as politically touchy) as what Larry Summers said about the prevalence of women in science careers. Let's not follow a double standard just because it's Dawkins. lars

APPOLLOS: its like Dawkins wants atheism to be a career move also. Last time it was the militaristic Call to Arms - what next - The Call to take over the Papacy! Tina

MacT, (@ 10/11/2007, 4:55 am) As Apollos and kairofocus have stated, the revealing part is his choice of example, not the concept of influence itself. Allow me to slightly alter your quote to illustrate what you don't seem to understand: Did anyone actually read the Guardian article? Dawkins wasn’t criticizing the (purported) Reptilian lobby. He was simply pointing out that a relatively small group, if it functions cohesively, can exert a disproportionate influence in society. His assertion that US foreign policy is monopolised by that lobby may overstate the case, but it is hardly indicative of Ickean conspiracy theory. He is merely indulging in some wishful thinking that atheists might emulate that lobby in order to achieve greater influence of their own. angryoldfatman

Dawkins committed intellectual suicide long ago when he became an atheist. It is well known that atheism brings a person to believe anything at all - as long as it isn't the simple and obvious truth of the design inference all humans in all ages have logically made when looking at nature.

Forth from his dark and lonely hiding-place, (Portentous sight!) the owlet Atheism, sailing on obscene wings athwart the noon, drops his blue-fringed lids, and holds them close, and hooting at the glorious sun in Heaven, cries out, ''Where is it?''

-Samuel Taylor Coleridge Borne

Mac T: In an interview with the Guardian, he said: “When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.” I don't think anyone here commenting so far thinks this is quite on par with true bigotry, but the phrasecraft is similar to the derogatory use often employed by groups who hate the "jew lobby" or the "Israli" lobby, the implication being that it is illegit support for a small trouble making nation that has our support to the exclusion of "the larger picture" of "Palestinian" rights--among other media created fictions (as in, the Jews stole precious Arab land). This has ALWAYS been the meaning of the "jewish lobby" phraseology--and the silly accompanying notion that the Palestinians don't have their own voices and legal and political rallying groups. Israel is a nation already almost bisected in half, smaller than some municipalities here in the West, and striving for mere survival--for this Dawkins has them lebeled with a particularly nasty smear for merely keeping from being pushed into the ocean. S Wakefield Tolbert

Here is another observation about Jews that I have. They are heavily involved in left wing politics and from what I understand of socialism were heavily involved in both German and Russian socialist movements. While Nazism was also a socialist movement it had different objective than other socialist movements which were more transnational. Israel was originally set up as a socialist state and it was successful as such, the first ever successful socialist movement in history. It then turned its back on socialism within a generation and is now mostly a capitalist society though the kibbutz still exist. Its main early supporter was the Soviet Union. So the left which still has many Jewish supporters may feel betrayed by what has happened and I believe a lot of the resentment towards Israel lies here and thus the left's feigned support for Islamic hardships. High levels of government always seem to dominated by idealist and most have liberal or left leanings. I think this is obvious in much of Europe and Israel is a thorn in the side of socialism success. Yes it can work in certain situations but its only success morphed into capitalism in a jiffy. I am sure it did not make them happy and they would like to see it disappear. Again just my observation. jerry

MacT, Do you really beleive that religious Jews monopolize US foreign policy? Are you an anti-semitic nut job? Do you also agree with Dawkins that we need to discuss whether eugenics might be a good idea? Jehu

I do not think it is religious Jews that have had the influence on American policy. I believe it is has been the non religious Jews that have influence though I am sure both are involved. I used to teach at Fordham University in the Bronx which is a Jesuit institutions and there were several non Catholics teaching there including several Jews and they were mostly conservative religious Jews. A couple of them told me they felt comfortable there because their religious beliefs were tolerated while at secular institutions they were derided. I also taught at Baruch College in Manhattan which is part of the CUNY system and there were many Jewish professors but few obviously religious ones. These were the secular Jews and felt extremely comfortable and were in control of the college and its policies. And by the way they could fight intensely with each other over minutiae. My wife and I also worked in some businesses in Manhattan and there were Jews at high levels in all of them. Most of my bosses were Jews. All secular. The New York Times is dominant by many Jewish interests, all secular. This is also true of Hollywood. The ACLU is heavily dominated by Jewish interests. My impression of life in New York City was one of rampant secularism which I believe is born out by independent observations other than mine. So this is where the power lies not with some very small religious movement. By the way there was movement of some religious Jews to grow rapidly but from within. One of my office mates had just had his seventh child when I left Fordham and he told me that it was a common phenomena within his community to have large families against the obvious trend that was going on in the country. As I said above my observation is that most Jews are atheists though not in the sense of Dawkins. They don't proselytize it. Probably if they did they would lose their power. Why bother they are very successful in a secular world and atheism is not an ideological objective for them though it may drive some of their actions. It does not help them reach their secular objectives. My experience is that Jews are as a group very smart people, at high levels of all the major areas of our society such as business, media, medicine, academia, entertainment, and to some extent government. They promote a sense of fairness within these organizations as far as I can see and the many Jewish bosses of my wife and I had no hesitation of promoting non Jews or firing incompetent Jews. You could almost use the argument that here is where natural selection has proved out. Since Jews have been routinely persecuted for 2000 years maybe only the fittest managed to slip through the pogroms. I have always found them very interesting people to engage and enjoyed my times working for and with them and can understand why they have so much influence for such a small population. Many of them were ferociously bright. I suggest those interested in understanding the phenomena more than my personal observations go to wikipedia and look up the pages Jewish atheist and secular Jewish culture. jerry

Indeed Dawkins has. Emjoyed the thoughful comments by all of you. Stuart Harris's stood out in the "imagine" department, as did this: So Dawkins is criticizing some of his biggest believers because many of these atheistic Jews are major supporters of Israel. Is Dawkins as vocal in his criticism of muslim influence in British politics these days? Dawkins is just revealing his left wing political leanings and the sad thing is that he probably doesn’t know why he believes certain things. He is just following his crowd via informational cascades. Dawkins brand of atheism has more the flavor of PCism than objective moral values--which interestingly (contradictorily?) is not (per his opinion) even present as some intrinsic value of the Cosmos and certainly not of biology in the first place. Worse than this philosophical quirk of finding political and moral values to harp about on the world front in international cabals and political dark warriors, Dawkins contradictions are funnier in light of the fact that other organizations are at work besides Jewish believers (and someone pointed out atheist Jew support for Israel as well!). Yes Virgnia, there REALLY is such a thing a Palestinian advocacy groups, many if not most of them religious in nature (per Islam's demands), and very active here and abroad in trying to shape US policy for the Mideast, else we would not have so much support for the Palestinian Authority nor be approving the absurdist compromises that Israel has forced to suffer (like cleaving the very NON-Muslim and NON-Arabic city of Jerusalem into parts to salve the anger of the Palestinians). Whom does Dawkins think he's fooling? This is PCness more than just "objective" atheism in any case. Is there no Palestinian Lobby? Is there no advocacy on their front? Dawkins tells us on the one hand when making the Grand Tour of materialism that nature shows us no intrinsic values to be had and that this is all mush and slush and mere gene replication mechanisms at work--nothing more. Yet he's blind to his own hooking by a....religious movement in its own right. Wow. S Wakefield Tolbert

Dawkins: “When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been..." File this in the Can You Imagine folder, as in "Can you imagine what would happen if, say, Behe, Dembski, or the Discovery Institute were to say something like that." StuartHarris

MacT: The issue is not that Mr Dawkins thinks that a well organised group can exert disproportionate influence, but the implications of the "example" he chose. BarryA highlights this well in no 4 above, and of course in the actual cite at the head of the thread:

[Guardian article, as cited at the head:]In an interview with the Guardian, he said: “When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place . . . . [BarryA, at no 4:]the fatuity of his analysis of American foreign policy would be funny if it were not so malevolent. Jews comprise approximately 2 percent of the American population; religiously observant Jews are a fraction of that. Can he seriously believe that small fraction of our population “monopolizes” our foreign policy? One wonders if he has been staying up nights reading “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” . . .

So, we can immediately see that contrary to your suggestion, BarryA and others have indeed been reading the article and seeing where it leads. Not to a good place, methinks. Of course, too, on the abundant and publicly available evidence of the past 100 or so years, I am not at all convinced that atheist-dominated public squares would improve our condition; not least based on Rummel's numbers on state-sponsored genocide by secularism-dominated regimes, which amount to well over 100 mn. But more to the point, Mr Dawkins here -- softening words notwithstanding -- in effect endorses the notion that a tiny fraction of [especially religious] Jews monopolise US Foreign policy. That is on abundant evidence plainly nonsensical, and it is nonsense driven by some of the worst bigotry, slanders and even propaganda out there. (It is also fraught with implications as to where his own group and others of like ilk may well end up if they gain even more power over the public square than they now have, which has its own sobering implications as I noted in my earlier remarks at 11; just cf. the new film, Expelled. BTW, thanks Mr Moderator, and will the spamkiller software finally learn, as advertised?) Then, between him and the Guardian, they extend such sl^and^er to in effect a veiled form of the now commonly met with "theo^cracy" slur against Christians who seek to engage the public square, as is our right and as is based on centuries of sacrificial contribution to the rise of modern liberty and democracy. (I speak on this as an inheritor of the tradition of the C18 - 19 Dissenter Evangelical Christians who played such a vital role in the liberation of my slave ancestors here in the Anglophone Caribbean.) That nakedly revealed bigotry, sadly, says a lot about the quality of Mr Dawkins' thinking, as well as that of too many of his fellow secularists; and none of it good. Going back to the main theme of this blog, the false accusation of improper injection of religious influence into the various major cultural institutions is one of the main wayus Secularist propagandists and polemicists seek to cloud and poison the atmosphere so that there will be no calm and objective evaluation of the evidence for design. To this end, they have repeatedly insisted on distorting the nature of the design theory paradigm, and its main theses, despite being frequently corrected on the point -- events in and surrounding Judge Jones' courtroom are a notorious case in point. And on such falsehood and misrepresentaiton, public policy is being set, and careers are being unjustly broken. This is happening already on a now routine basis in the University, the Science institutions, and in schools -- where evo mat driven secularist thought is already very influential. Guess what that tells us about the want of strength of their case on the merits of fact and logic? And, what it tells us on intent and likely behaviour (as well as the underlying moral principles and agenda) of such Evo Mat advocates? Multiply that by Lord Acton's observation that power tends to corrupt and power without accountability corrupts without limit. We would do well to heed the old saw about being forewarned . . . GEM of TKI kairosfocus

Why be so hard on Dawkins? All he's saying is that with enough focus, atheists might be able to control banking, the media, hollywood, and US foreign policy. Apollos

William J.: "Disproportionate compared to what? Other lobby groups, like the NRA or the AARP?" Yes, and the ACLU, AFL-CIO, AMA, and pretty much all other interest groups that make the investment in lobbying. The NRA may be the closest comparison in terms of clout, though it is much less familiar on the international stage. Dawkins did not single out Jews in a way that is irrational, or bigoted. He had a point about organizing to achieve influence, and made it clearly, if maybe a little clumsily. He could have made the same point by citing the NRA. That would not define his position, whatever it is, on the NRA. Suggesting that atheists might gain more influence if they followed the example of a powerful lobby group does not add up to bigotry. I don't know what Dawkins believes about speaking on behalf of other atheists, or what opinion other atheists may hold of him. How do you know? MacT

OMG the Dawkins Delusions keep on getting worse and worse! Tina

He was simply pointing out that a relatively small group, if it functions cohesively, can exert a disproportionate influence in society. Disproportionate compared to what? Other lobby groups, like the NRA or the AARP? Singling out Jews for this kind of irrational comparison reveals Dawkins' bigotry; he also errantly believes that he speaks for most atheists. I believe most atheists think Dawkins should shut up and quit giving atheism a bad name. William J. Murray

[Off topic] "A High Court judge who ruled on whether climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, could be shown in schools said it contains 'nine scientific errors'." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm Rowan

Did anyone actually read the Guardian article? Dawkins wasn't criticizing the (purported) Jewish lobby. He was simply pointing out that a relatively small group, if it functions cohesively, can exert a disproportionate influence in society. His assertion that US foreign policy is monopolised by that lobby may overstate the case, but it is hardly indicative of anti-Semitism. He is merely indulging in some wishful thinking that atheists might emulate that lobby in order to achieve greater influence of their own. MacT

"Is Dawkins as vocal in his criticism of muslim influence in British politics these days ?" I doubt it. I suspect the guy is basically a coward. He is silent in the face of animals rights wacko's seeking to shut down actual productive science research, instead preferring to pick on targets that wont use violence in return to his idiocy. Jason Rennie

Let's not forget that Dawkins also wants to reopen the debate on eugenics. He is not sure eugenics is such a bad idea. Jehu

H'mm: Maybe, we need to look back at the lead of the Guardian article:

Britain's leading atheist is spearheading a campaign in America to challenge the dominance of religion in every day life and in politics, insisting that the millions of US godless deserve to be heard too. Atheists in the US "have been downtrodden for a very long time. So I think some sort of political organisation is what they need", he said . . . . Religion is palpable in US schools, places of work and public institutions. God is invoked by soldiers and politicians in a way that would seem inappropriate in Britain. George Bush used God as one of the reasons for invading Iraq. In Congress, where godlessness can equate with being unelectable, only one representative, Pete Stark, is prepared to admit to being a non-believer.

Now, of course, this is in a context where, through the courts, the campuses and the media, atheism and related secularist ideas and agendas actually have astonishing and disproportionate power. So, in that context, Mr Dawkins' revealing remark -- and plainly ill-informed and bigoted -- about wanting to have as much influence as "the Jews" do over US Foreign policy, reveals that he obviously wishes for atheism and its agendas to monopolise the US public square. Of course, as Barry A points out, in saying such an ill-informed patently slanderous thing against Jews, Mr Dawkins thereby reveals his prejudice, his failure to accurately research facts before spouting off his ideas, and perhaps even outright animosity to Jews. This, sadly, is all of a piece with the Village Atheist level thinking in especially his recent books, and indeed, in much of his shrill advocacy of Evolutionary Materialism in the name of "Science." Thus, too, the underlying targets are now all too plain: Evangelical, Bible-believing Christianity and probably as well Roman Catholicism, the largest and most influential religiously motivated conservative blocs of the US' public. (Indeed, the highlighted dubious -- and probably outright false and slanderous -- explanatory aside on Mr Bush is even more revealing of the perceptions of the Guardian's Editors and readership in some ways than the remarks on "Jews.") But, is any of this really surprising coming from the mouth of one who is unrepentantly on record that those who reject his evolutionary materialism are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked? And, as Robo highlighted (cf. the recent humorous Aug 20 or so thread on Darwin's 1861 ID quote), relative to such Evo Mat views, how can we ground/ warrant and thus assign any objective weight to moral judgements beyond in effect mere sentiment, or media- and campus- manipulated relativistic notions, or even outright "might makes right"? Coming back on the main themes of this blog, that immediately raises serious questions about the hostility of the elites of major educational and scientific institutions to ID thinkers, as has now been manifested in a long string of career-busting abuses and usurpations. [Cf the recent film, Expelled.] For, the power-centres of such institutions ARE unquestionably dominated by atheists and fellow secularists. Is that the kind of future that is being planned for us by Mr Dawkins' Atheists Alliance? If so, those who do not kowtow to the Evo Mat party-line should take fair warning and act in good time to protect themselves! GEM of TKI kairosfocus

Isn't this a GOOD thing? Even Atheists are going to start turning on him. As some high ranking ones have, as far as I am aware, right? Gods iPod

What does he mean by "better"? No God = no objective moral values. Thus "better" must mean personal preference. So what Dawkins really means is: "...So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be [insert personal preferences here] place.” I wonder what his personal preference REALLY are? Different from Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao I hope. Robo

From what I understand Christopher Hitchens animosity to religion and Catholicism in particular flows from his mother's suicide during an affair with an ex priest in Athens where they entered into a mutual suicide pact. But before this he had become a committed socialist and I assume atheist. He has since lost the socialism but his anti-religion is what drives him today. That is supposedly what mainly drives his support for Bush's policies in the Middle East. By the way Hitchens is technically jewish since he is a descendant through his mother's side from Jews. jerry

Add paranoid antisemitism to the list of Dawkins' traits. The New Atheists are looking more and more like the monsters we thought were defeated in the last century. StuartHarris

Dawkins has completely lost it, and makes a fool of himself ever more convincingly. There is nothing more to say. It's sad and pathetic to watch. GilDodgen

I know a fair amount of Jewish people since I grew up in areas where there are large Jewish population (Atlantic City, Philadelphia and now live in the New York City area) and some have admitted to me that there are very few religious Jews and most are atheists. Now this is unscientific and maybe just the ones I know and have had discussions with but I found it interesting. I came across this for the first time when I was in college and worked at a Jewish day camp for the summer. Every non Jewish counselor at the camp had an assistant who was a Jewish teen ager and I would pick him up each morning and return him home at night. We had some long conversations about Jews and what they believed but the one which struck me the most was that fact that few Jews believed in God. This could have been this fellow's circle of acquaintances but I have seen and heard consistent points of view since. So Dawkins is criticizing some of his biggest believers because many of these atheistic Jews are major supporters of Israel. Is Dawkins as vocal in his criticism of muslim influence in British politics these days? Dawkins is just revealing his left wing political leanings and the sad thing is that he probably doesn't know why he believes certain things. He is just following his crowd via informational cascades. jerry

Dawkins main problem is that he is extremely superficial when dealing with anything outside his specialty, which, of course, is most things. His specialty is zoology, and I assume he is a competent zoologist. But when he speaks on anything else, it seems he can only spout hackneyed clichés that suit his prejudices. His atheism, for all its notoriety, is not really sophisticated. It is the kind of atheism that is commonly derided as “village atheist” atheism. Similarly, the fatuity of his analysis of American foreign policy would be funny if it were not so malevolent. Jews comprise approximately 2 percent of the American population; religiously observant Jews are a fraction of that. Can he seriously believe that small fraction of our population “monopolizes” our foreign policy? One wonders if he has been staying up nights reading “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” When did he wonder into the fever swamps of international conspiracy theorists? Is he a dilettante conspiracy kook? Or is this a serious new direction for him? NOTE THIS TOO: The Guardian article is nine days old. The American media, like sharks smelling a drop of blood in the water a mile away, usually goes into a feeding frenzy over the faintest whiff of anti-Semitism. One wonders why they have given Dawkins a pass on this. BarryA

Editor at Guardian;; "Hey the news is kind of slow today" Reporter on the beat: "sure is boss" Editor: "Hey go push that idiot Dawkin's buttons and see what comes out" Reporter: "Yea it's been a while since he has said anything stupid" Editor: "Yea you got to love that guy, our circulation always goes up when he is interviewed for his moronic views" Later on after interview: Editor: "Well what did Dawkins say this time?"" Reporter: "You are not going to believe it boss,,,He is saying atheist would make the world a better place if they had as much influence as the Jews have!" Editor: "Your kidding me right!?! Reporter: "No sir, he said it and said it stone cold sober at that!" Editor: "I could kiss that man!" Man I could kiss that man" bornagain77

One thing I find interesting here - Dawkins seems to assume that it's only religious jews who support Israel, or who are hawks. Which is more amusing when you look the way of Christopher Hitchens. He truly lives in a world where the only bad things that happen are the fault, ultimately, of religious people. nullasalus

It is a pity Dawkins is going completely off the deep end like this. He is getting progressively harder to parody as he keeps doing things like this. It would be funny if so many people didn't take him so seriously. As it stands it is just sad and pathetic. Jason Rennie