American Humanist Association Board Statement Withdrawing Honor from Richard Dawkins
[Richard Dawkins's] latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient. ...Consequently, the AHA Board has concluded that Richard Dawkins is no longer deserving of being honored by the AHA, and has voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award.
I'm sure he's devastated by the removal of something he probably forgot he received since it is worth exactly zero cups of coffee down at Starbucks. Frankly, it's somewhat ironic that you have the AHA "withdrawing honor", something which in the atheistic universe is just made up and has no basis in objective reality according to their own criteria.
Actually, I guess it makes perfect sense as to why criticizing something that was just made up and has no basis in objective reality would result in the removal of an award which is just made up and has no basis in objective reality after all...
Still, we live in a world where something can be memory-holed and treated like it never happened due to something you say 25 years after the fact. Isn't progress grand?
Perhaps they have withdrawn the award because Dawkins is showing signs of sanity.
ReplyDeleteDawkins showing signs of sanity is, itself, a miracle.
DeleteYes, at least we can be thankful for Dawkins' sanity on "[Richard Dawkins's] latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient."
DeleteI pray for full restoration of sanity for him to understand the gospel unto salvation...
It works the other way around too, something you said or did 25 years ago (or apparently 250 years ago) can get you "canceled" and virtually "disappeared".
ReplyDeleteWho knew the old children's story "The Emperor's New Clothes" was so prescient?
Well, honor is a social construct, so isn't Dawkins the one to decide whether he's honorable or not (given the twisted "logic").
ReplyDeleteIt always tickles me when so-called moral “relativists” reveal themselves to be raving moralists. There are indeed absolutes...as long as they are THEIR absolutes!
ReplyDeleteAnd they can be so illogical about it.
To be colorblind is to be morally neutral to skin color. It doesn’t—and logically cannot—mean to SEE someone’s color and purposely ignore their suffering.
“Black Lives Matter” clearly points to the fact that blacks lives should matter, TOO (because they often haven’t in the past). Logically, “All Lives Matter” means that same thing EXACTLY. All are included. None are excluded (as has often unjustly happened). The only reason one should be incensed by the latter phrase is if you REALLY mean by the former that ONLY black lives matter. Whites are basically dispensable. (Kind of like Lazarus and Dives. Dives was blessed in life while Lazarus was cursed. Now, it’s time to switch places. Whites should suffer for a while.)