[lbo-talk] M. Parenti joins the New Atheists?

[shag carpet bomb]

At 01:22 PM 3/28/2010, Joseph Catron wrote:
>Personally, I frown upon the production of ill-considered, poorly-reasoned
>crap, which is what nearly all New Atheist (pseudo-)philosophy seems to be
>on those occasions when it deviates from announcement of the obvious, as a
>general rule. I'll refrain from further commentary on Parenti's book until
>I've had the (mis)pleasure of actually reading it, but Elich's review gave
>me little reason to hope that it might elevate itself above the bloviations
>of Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens. And while they are explicitly (in most
>cases) or implicitly (in Dawkins' case) right-wingers, Parenti's leftism
>makes it all the more likely that I'll be forced to deal with his asininity
>in the future.

so, what is the problem with new atheism, then? that they are rightwingers 
shouldn't matter should it? and if they are, why would you possibly care? 
it's a debate being had on the right and the more fragmented the right is, 
the better.

I picked up a copy. It's dedicated to Giordano Bruno, 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno.

Parenti says he started writing the book years ago, in response to the rise 
of the religious right, but that the project was put aside for other 
deadlines. He was raised Catholic, considered becoming a priest, mostly 
because it seemed the most likely way to end up sitting by the right hand 
of dawg. at 15, he drifted away realizing he just didn't believe in 
catholic precepts. Later, he delved into various theologies, "just as 
people might enjoy studying any mythology or belief system with a willing 
suspension of disbelief. One need not adhere to a religion in order to 
resonate to it." That statement describes how I felt about religion: other 
people's religiosity always fascinated me, but more in terms of their practice.

He says he's not interested in people who believe in general, they are not 
his target. Rather, he's interested in rightwing religious practices. 
Religious progressives, Parenti thinks, "might find much to agree with in 
the pages ahead. In any case, they are not the people I am struggling against."

Later he writes:

"religion is what the religious do. One frequently hears that we cannot 
reject an all-perfect doctrine because of its imperfect adherents. But how 
else can we decide the workable value of a belief system, save by the 
performance of its faithful acolytes?

Difficult it is to accept the sacred when it is so heavily besmirched by 
the profane, when it is vented by the meanest of spirits, breathing spite 
and hatred rather than mercy and love. ...

Played out in actual history, religion has proven to be more of a toxin 
than a tonic. A chronicle of all the cruelties and crimes committed in is 
name would vill more volumes than I could manage. So the record here is by 
necessity selective. Presented in this book is a two-pronged critique 
directed not only at the 'beliefs' but at the 'practices' of organized 
religion, bringing us the shabby side of faith....' (pp 16-7)

--
http://cleandraws.com
Wear Clean Draws
('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)