Canadian journalist snarls at atheists

October 2, 2013 • 9:52 am

Michael Enright, a “journalist” who broadcasts at CBC’s Radio One, has joined the chorus of atheist bashers in his broadcast last Sunday, “Could atheists please stop complaining?,” transcribed on the site (the audio is also available there; note that the URL uses the word “whining” instead of “complaining”). Although raised as a Catholic, and having attended a seminary for one year, Enright did describe his church in 1997 as “the greatest criminal organization outside the mafia”. That makes his most recent diatribe all the more mysterious, though I’ve often found that secularists who vigorously defend religion often were (like Enright) Catholic altar boys or the offspring of preachers.

The piece is more strident than anything that ever came out of the mouth of Richard Dawkins, but of course atheist-bashing, whether from believers or nonbelievers, doesn’t count as stridency.  Enright’s point is that atheists should stop whining about being discriminated against. They’re also smug and have no sense of humor:

If the atheists of the world could ever organize themselves into a non-religious church, their first Pope would undoubtedly be Richard Dawkins.

Professor Dawkins turns out homilies against religion the way the guy in Rome publishes encyclicals. He is currently on a book tour with his latest, which is very much part memoir.

His arguments are as immutable as Church doctrine; religion is bad, there is no God and if there was He would be a monster, religion retards the steady, unquestioned march of scientific achievement.

Along with Professor Dawkins this book season, we are treated to The God Argument, by the British philosopher A.C. Grayling.

Professor Grayling’s argument in The God Argument, is a “landmark book in the ongoing debate about atheism” according to his publisher.

. . . The two professors are pushing humanism, compassion and sympathy as antidotes to, I suppose, the anti-human, unsympathetic and unforgiving dogma of organized religion.

I doubt that Enright has even read Grayling’s book, which is about as civil and mild-mannered as one could wish. But, since Enright compared the Catholic Church to the mafia, why is he so exercised about vociferous atheism? It’s because we (apparently unlike the faithful) are smug and whiny:

I have been lucky enough to have interviewed the two most famous atheists in the world, Professor Dawkins himself and the late Christopher Hitchens.

And while there was little difference in their arguments, there was one thing that did differentiate them; Christopher had a sense of humour; Dawkins, not so much.

Therein lies the problem I have with atheism.

It’s not that atheists don’t believe in God. That’s fine. It’s not against the law. Atheism is a coherent system of beliefs arrived at, I am sure, after some very serious and sober consideration.

Atheists are not being prosecuted or silenced. They are lovingly tended by media interviewers, me included, and their nuanced arguments are politely acknowledged.

The problem to me is that they won’t shut up about it.

The public, endless public profession of atheism to me reflects a whiny, whinging self-pitying narcissism.

Well, yes, some atheists do complain about discrimination, and really, they are more discriminated against than religious people. Traveling in the southern U.S., or reading some of the comments on this site, you often hear atheists saying they’re afraid to “come out” for fear of discrimination by their co-workers, family, or friends.  You don’t hear Christians saying stuff like that. But, nevertheless, we’re beginning to hear the religious whine, too—and not for any good reason. Nobody whines louder than people like Bill Donohue, head of the Catholic league, who’s always banging on about discrimination against Catholics.  Well, at least the U.S. has had a Catholic president. We’ll never see an atheist in the Oval Office—not in my lifetime.

Religious kvetching (and Enright’s essay) are simply signs that people are paying attention to atheist arguments—which they can’t answer. And as for atheists lacking humor, when’s the last time you heard William Lane Craig make you LOL.  While Richard is not as publicly “warm” as some other folks, he does have a sense of humor (you can see it in The God Delusion, for instance) and nobody has ever accused Grayling, Dennett, or Pinker of lacking levity. This is simply an ad hominem tactic. Who cares if someone makes a funny when they’re fighting serious problems.  I don’t recall Martin Luther King being a public wit.

And here comes the inevitable accusation:
In  the last ten years or so, atheism has taken on some of the elements of fundamentalist Christianity.
 as well as the call that we should STFU:

Atheism and religion can co-exist, they always have. In fact, atheism has an important value set which believers would be well-advised to listen to and perhaps even adopt.

It’s just that instead of shouting their assertions and beliefs in a booming voice, they could maybe whisper.

As though they were in a library. Or a church.

Yes, and racism and calls for equality have always co-existed. That doesn’t mean that they both offer valuable insights.  And no, we’re not going to whisper. Do Republicans or Democrats whisper about their beliefs? Climate denialists? Christians and Muslims? Why on earth should we, unique among everyone with strong feelings, mute our tone? This is just part of the unwarranted privileging of religion: believers get to shout their delusions from the rooftops, but journalists fault us for simply speaking out.

Oh, my Canadian friends and readers: why do you harbor such a snake in your bosom?

90 thoughts on “Canadian journalist snarls at atheists”

  2. Not only do we harbour ( correct spelling ) such a creature to our bosoms, but because he’s on the CBC, we also pay for the privilage.

    2. “… we also pay for the privilage” Hmm, same as ministers, pastors, and “reverends.”

  4. This guy doesn’t see the irony in his own message? He’s *broadcasting* the opinion that it’s rude to broadcast a non-accommodationist position.

  5. The two professors are pushing humanism, compassion and sympathy as antidotes to, I suppose, the anti-human, unsympathetic and unforgiving dogma of organized religion.

    This is supposed to be… sarcasm? Oh, well…

  7. In the only defense I can give Enright is that he is far too mellow sounding to snarl.

    Otherwise he is all wrong.

    What I always enjoy taking apart is this statement:
    “In the last ten years or so, atheism has taken on some of the elements of fundamentalist Christianity.”

    I hear it a lot, but no one ever seems to have an example of how they are.

  8. It’s funny that I was just reading comments by anti-gay bigots using the same absurd rationalizations. Oh yeah, I guess it’s mostly the same group of people. Never mind…

    1. I had the same thoughts. I remember in the 80s people complaining that they didn’t care if people were gay but they should keep it to themselves.

  9. If only Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne or any other notable atheist received a hundredth of the media coverage that religious leaders do.

  10. As someone who regularly listens to the Sunday Edition, I was very disappointed with this essay from Michael Enright who I used to rather like. I am pleased to see he is getting push back over this on the CBC site. On the other hand, the interview with a retired Police officer that followed was very interesting, so I am torn. I am definitely not the fan I was formerly.

    1. Notwithstanding his whine on *this* issue, Enright is actually an excellent broadcaster and interviewer (the “journalist” appellation doesn’t require air quotes ;)).

      During Dawkins’ book tour for The God Delusion, one of the best interviews I came across was conducted by Enright on his radio program.

      1. Well said. I did a quick count of the comments on the CBC page for this essay and of the first 23 comments, 21 were disagreeing with him, so that is positive also.

    2. I concur. I have listened to The Sunday Edition for many years, often while on Ontario islands censusing wintering hawks and owls. So, not in the mood for anything sensational or shallow.
      Michael Enright is an interviewer any country would hope to have! He is always prepared to offer his listeners insight into subjects from politics to activism to farming and music. Always the people, the person… like you and me. Can’t say a bad thing about him.

      1. I can. I’ve never heard of him before this incident. His entire life might have been one of most admirable character before. But this commentary is profoundly obnoxious and stupid.

  11. we’re beginning to hear the religious whine, too — JAC

    Hold the phone, here. What about the din since the O’Hare prayer in schools USOC decision (among others before and after regarding rulings on religious privilege expression in the public square)?

    That loud raucous only increased with the ’70’s advent of the Moral Majority; religious/conservative satellite & cable tv channels; internet extremism; increased societal polarization …

    I must respectfully disagree about just when religious whining got going, and going great guns, too.

  12. So, Enright doesn’t think Richard Dawkins is a funny cut up so therefore all atheists lack humour. I think my humour is delightful and I go to David Silverman’s Twitter feed often for LOLs. Also, Ricky Gervaise – come one he’s hilarious! And what about Tim Minchin?

    Also, atheism as a set of beliefs? Two words: alpha privative. It’s the absence of a specific belief.

    2. Thanks for that. Wiki delights me by showing that in front of a vowel, the a- becomes an- as in an-archy and an-esthesia.

      I just always took the words for granted without knowing their construction.

  13. We’ve got a terrible rash of them lately. Perhaps it’s the drinking water gone bad?

    Rex Murphy:
    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/07/27/rex-murphy-the-angry-athiest/

    Diane Bederman:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/diane-bederman/rex-murphy-atheist_b_3683491.html

    Elizabeth Renzetti:
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/unholier-than-thou-gracious-in-victory-atheists/article14323324/

    Licia Corbella:
    http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/Corbella+Will+atheism+held+account+like+other+creeds/8854835/story.html

  15. I venture to say that atheists as a group have a better sense of humor than Christians. I read someplace that the Bible contains exactly one joke, and that’s in the Old Testament. And the leaders of the Christian churches have been notably lacking in humor: Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Cromwell, Jonathan Edwards, Rushdoony, etc.

    By contrast, you have many very witty infidels. We are also good at sarcasm! Douglas Adams, Woody Allen, George Carlin, H. L. Mencken, Isaac Asimov, Steve Allen, Pat Condell, Ricky Gervais, Bill Maher, Julia Sweeney, Richard Feynman, Kingsley Amis, Dave Barry, Daniel Dennett, Phyllis Diller, Eddie Izzard, Penn Jillette, just to name a few.

    2. The bible doesn’t contain one joke, the bible is a joke (and not a particularly funny one).

    3. Was the ‘joke’ the one about Abraham pimping his wife out over and over again?

      I didn’t find it all that funny, but some slightly-less-heavy relief when you discover it (it’s unlikely you’d hear about it from a christian).

      1. I really wish I could find that source for the “one joke” in the bible, but I haven’t been successful. There is the story of when Abraham was trying to talk Yahweh out of destroying Sodom, Genesis 18:16-33. Abraham bargains Yahweh down from 50 righteous persons to 10 in a series of wheedling steps. I always found that kind of humorous. But in the end Yahweh destroys Sodom anyway.

  16. “Atheism and religion can co-exist, they always have.”

    I just find this statement shockingly mendacious.

    1. Public religiosity and inner atheism surely coexist in a large proportion of ‘believers’, and always have.

  17. So, if only those faggots weren’t so loud and wouldn’t be so swishy; if only those niggers weren’t so uppity and would just sit at the back of the bus where they belong; if only those Kikes wouldn’t be so tight-fisted and whiny and hadn’t killed Jesus…

    …and, today, if only those militant atheists would just shut up, the current entrenched powers-that-be wouldn’t have to be so upset.

    At least they’re not hanging us from trees or rounding us up in pogroms. Progress, granted — and a hearty thanks to those before us who refused to shut up that all we have to deal with today is being told we should shut up.

    Cheers,

    b&

    2. and, today, if only those militant atheists would just shut up, the current entrenched powers-that-be wouldn’t have to be so upset.

      I seem to recall one Chris Mooney warbling this tune several years ago.

  18. Humor is gaining a lot of ground in the feminist movement notably with the stand-up work of Tina Fey laced with lots of wise feminist rhetoric; decades earlier feminism was often criticized for being humorless (with a bit of justification, but sometimes humor not what you need). (I still however chuckle at “How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?” “That’s not funny”.)

    In the annals of the civil rights struggle for African Americans, Richard Pryor and Dick Gregory were hilarious, Malcolm X not so much (but he still had lots of magnetism).

    Sure, Richard Dawkins tends to be a bit humorless (and very blunt), but then there’s George Carlin and Mark Twain and Tim Minchin.

    Re Jerry’s remark ” I’ve often found that secularists who vigorously defend religion often were (like Enright) Catholic altar boys or the offspring of preachers.” I’m the grandson of a preacher and the son of an agnostic religious studies professor, and I somewhat selectively semi-defend a minority of religious people.

  19. > Oh, my Canadian friends and readers: why do you harbor
    > such a snake in your bosom?

    Perhaps… the Beavers honor free speech more
    than do the Bald Eagles that live next door?

    imo,
    sam

    1. Perhaps, but don’t forget we have anti-hate laws that restrict free speech and they have a constitutional amendment that protects it.

      They killed almost all their Bald Eagles in the Lower 48, between DDT and just shooting them every chance they got. As I understand it, most of the recovering population is descended from Canadian Bald Eagles.

      BTW Brackendale near Squamish in BC have large numbers of eagles in the winter which come for the salmon and incidentally thrill the tourists.

  20. I’m a Canadian who often finds herself in a vehicle listening to Enright on a Sunday and as a result feeling piqued by the time I arrive at my destination. How Enright cannot see the blatant bigotry in his statements is beyond me. The hypocrisy and misplaced ridicule, however, are not what bugs me – that stuff goes with the territory and I think just makes the anti-atheist speaker sound desperate and stupid.

    What I do take issue with is the implication that atheists lack a sense of humour. Not only are the funniest stand-up comics atheists, whose material on religion is particularly hysterical, but all of the most recognized faces of the atheist movement are also capable of delivering a brutally funny punchline.

    Sometimes it’s not even the witty remark itself that is funny, so much as it is the style of delivery. For example, if you ever need to break up the heaviness of your day with a moment of levity, seek out a You Yube clip of Dave Silverman being interviewed or debated. Absolutely hilarious stuff! The expression on his face when he is posed an utterly absurd question or scenario is priceless.

  21. Jerry

    Some of your Canadian friends and readers publicly criticize “snakes” like Michael Enright.

    After I sent Enright an email calling his attention to a Canadian Atheist post that discusses his essay, “Could atheists please stop complaining?” he replied, thanked me for my email and asked me to call attention to what he said about atheism: “Atheism is a coherent system of beliefs, arrived at, I am sure after very serious and sober consideration. Atheism has an important value set which believers would be well advised to listen to and perhaps adopt in some form.”

    He appears to think that his praise for atheism counteracts the fact that he tells atheists to shut up.

      1. “…after some very serious and sober consideration.”

        For some atheists, maybe most gnu atheists, perhaps.

        I continue to suspect that, at least in Europe, most atheists are apathetic atheists: They just can’t be bothered with “the God thing”.

        /@

        1. It only makes sense if you assume theism as the default position, and that you need a good reason to decide that there aren’t any gods — or, in the mind of many theists, that you’re personally angry at their own favorite god.

          Of course, once you get to the point that you’re capable of properly framing the question, you’re generally already an atheist….

          Cheers,

          b&

        2. “…after some very serious and sober consideration.”

          Well, there are so many possible entities that deserve our serious consideration before we decide not to believe in them, including mermaids, vampires, faeries, leprechauns and unicorns, that the amount of consideration given to any single entity has to be very small indeed. Especially if are supposed to do it while sober.

  22. “.. religion is bad, there is no God and if there was He would be a monster… ”

    Yes, and oxygen is a diatomic gas with the atomic number 8.

  23. The claim that atheism is fundamentalist falls apart when one really sees some of the significant differences of opinion between Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris. Understanding these differences should be a very basic (fundamental) prerequisite for critiquing atheism.

    It is true that there have intermittently been atheist groups that have wanted an “ideological purity”, a tendency that I think is massively on the decline. (Both Greta Christina & Ed Brayton have blogged about this now and then.) And it isn’t even remotely on the scale of the same tendency in the Teaparty, a ratio of about 1 to seven million I think. And this is in fact a problem that has always to some degree afflicted !*every*! large-scale movement in history, pacifism, feminism, gay rights. It doesn’t make those movements less valid.

    1. Seems the place to start is the topic, “Does God Exist?”

      But, perhaps people are tired of that debate.

      I would amend it to: “Does the CONCEPT/ILLUSION of God Have a Place in the 21st Century?”

  25. As a Canadian, and as a former Anglican alter boy, I disavow this journalist’s comments.

  26. The inequity of his attitude is the key point. Why is he not telling the religious to STFU? Or his politcal opponents? Or people with different tastes in movies? Why are public statements by atheists somehow deserving of special condemnation?

    In the US, polls continue to show that atheists are the most hated minority. Reason enough to raise hell.

    3. Humor really is a great rhetorical weapon, and, as far as I can see, atheists are using it very effectively. The British are especially good at it.

          3. Sadly, Ant, in that example, the quality of the humour greatly outshines the quality of the beer.

  28. Stop whining and STFU, Enright!

    Well, not really. But that is the only response that can be lowered down to Enright’s abysmal level of analysis.

    Where Enright unfortunately joins the rest of the “God choir”.

    His arguments are as immutable as Church doctrine; religion is bad, there is no God and if there was He would be a monster, religion retards the steady, unquestioned march of scientific achievement.

    An old strawman. There isn’t anything immutable here:

    – “religion is bad”.

    Statistics, which are mutable facts.

    Especially since the sects _could_ change for the better if they wanted to, for example ditching old texts that encourage genocide, murder, torture, slavery and misogyny.

    – “there is no God”.

    The non-existence of magic action is an observable fact, so again mutable.

    – “if there was He would be a monster,”

    Again, is entirely up to the religion to change. AFAIK jainism has no monster agencies.

    – “religion retards the steady, unquestioned march of scientific achievement.”

    Statistics again, so mutable. Religion likely retards society (or at least correlates with retarded societies).

    Specifically religion is anti-science:

    Religion is in the business to replace facts with belief while science is in the business to replace belief with fact. (Both in historical records.)

    1. “Religion is in the business to replace facts with belief while science is in the business to replace belief with fact.”

      A nice chiasmus.

  29. “And no, we’re not going to whisper. Do Republicans or Democrats whisper about their beliefs? Climate denialists? Christians and Muslims? Why on earth should we, unique among everyone with strong feelings, mute our tone? This is just part of the unwarranted privileging of religion: believers get to shout their delusions from the rooftops, but journalists fault us for simply speaking out.”

    Nail. Head. Hit. Kudos!

  30. Re: harboring a snake in the northern hinterlands.

    I just don’t know. I don’t even know.

    I’m sorry.

    **Hangs head even lower than a typical Canadian just shamed – double Canadian shamed**

  32. Hemant Mehta has posted on this and I thought I’d share a particular comment I liked. It might need a slight “tweaking” but I thought it was more important that it be reproduced faithfully. Someone previously had commented …

    “And you know what? We’re better off because we refuse to be silent.”

    Richard Wade responds …

    And it’s not just the atheists who are better off.

    Their religious friends and families are better off when they are unburdened of their prejudice and stop throwing away their loving relationships over stupid stereotypes.

    Christians are better off because they’re challenged to actually live up to the best teachings of their prophet instead of being coddled, pious prigs and bigots. Their actual religious freedom is safer because atheists stand in the way of would-be theocrats who would love to establish a narrow and intolerant Federal version of Christianity that most Christians would dislike.

    Society as a whole is better off because atheists protect the integrity of science education. This is the same science that puts life-saving medicine into the veins of everyone including Christians, prevents epidemics, puts food in their bellies, finds the oil they love to burn, puts computers in their homes and cell phones in their hands, keeps bridges and buildings (including churches) from collapsing, gives us all fair warning that continuing to pollute our planet is having lethal consequences, and offers us alternatives to that self-destructive path.

  35. Okay, maybe Richard Dawkins isn’t the funniest man in or on the planet but how many jokes does the Pope tell? How funny was Osama Bin Laden?

    Goes to show you how many Canadians heard of this, when we hear about it from Jerry. Religion in Canada is just a bad habit, like heroin. The people here who are serious about it are the Muslims and they are very serious, although 80% of there kids won’t give a shit by the time they grow up.

  36. I think this quote is perfectly fitting here.

    “Polite opposition did not abolish slavery. It took arguments, campaigns and fearless outspoken criticism of the system and its fortifications. Freeing the human mind from the enslavement of superstition and religion requires the same approach. As Frederick Douglas said: ‘Those who profess to favour freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle’.

    -A. C. Grayling, The God argument. The Case against Religion and for Humanism.

  38. Yes if only atheists had the kind of sense of humor about their non-beliefs as the faithful have about their dogma. Remember how Catholics responded to PZ’s maltreatment of a symbolic wafer? I think what we have going on here is projection. There is an assumption that atheists have the same humorless piety that the faithful have. But this is a bizarre assumption. I find Jerry’s posts quite funny. Other funny atheists: Greta, PZ, Rebecca Watson, Jen McCreight, the Amazing Randi, Steven Pinker, Dan Dennett, Ricky Gervais etc.

Comments are closed.