Sorry Richard Dawkins, Bristol Palin Understands The Evil Of The 9/11 Hijackers Better Than You Do
I don’t usually go to her for theological or political wisdom, but Bristol Palin laid out a pretty good slap-down on Atheist idol Richard Dawkins when he stated that the 9/11 hijackers weren’t really evil because they were simply following the pernicious influence of religion.
Here’s his statement as she quotes it from the Blaze:
“I’m interested in the cases where religion actually moves people to do horrible things … although they themselves might not be horrible people, they might be actually very righteous people,” Dawkins said. “They believe they’re doing right.”
That’s when he launched into an example surrounding the September 11 attacks to illustrate his point.
“I think the 9/11 hijackers all sincerely believed that they were doing the right and proper moral, religious thing,” he continued. “They were not in themselves evil. They were following their faith — and faith is pernicious because it can do that to people. It can do that to otherwise decent people.”
And here’s Palin’s response:
Regardless of your religious beliefs or lack thereof, it’s absolutely ludicrous to say that men who chose to train for years with the sole aim to kill as many people as possible are somehow not evil. I would say their actions are the very definition of evil.
It is an incredibly dangerous thing to downplay the motives of the hijackers or try to normalize them. They were not normal men. They were radicalized jihadists. And, yes, their actions were evil. If their actions are not evil, then one cannot even fathom something that would actually be evil.
This is the problem with radical atheists like Richard Dawkins. Their agenda is to attack people of all faiths. And Dawkins has to fit even something as obviously evil as the terrorist attacks on 9/11 into his own radical agenda.
So the radical atheist ends up defending the radical jihadists, because according to his crazy ideas, they aren’t evil – they were just brainwashed.
This is an extreme misunderstanding and underestimation of our dangerous terrorist enemies.
She’s about a thousand percent correct in identifying Dawkins’ motivation that darkens his judgement – he’s much more interested in smearing religion, and in confirming his bias against faith than he is in judging whether these people are evil are not.
Let’s put it another way – basically what Dawkins is saying is that they’re not evil, and it isn’t their fault that they targeted and murdered innocent people because they were just following orders from their religion.
JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS.
You know who else said that?!?
Let me give you a hint – it starts with an “H” and ends with an “ITLER”!!!!
OK, not so much Hitler himself, but many of the Nazis who were later put on trial for the atrocities of WW2 at Nuremburg made the defense that they were merely following orders from the German high command. The Nazis were not allowed this defense then, and Dawkins should be bright enough to know that it shouldn’t exonerate Islamo-Nazis now.
It’s important to note also that, as Plato recognized two thousand years ago, EVERYONE who does evil does it because they think they’re doing a good. They’re just misplacing the wrong thing they see as a good, whether it be their own pleasure or satisfying a sadistic god or anything else, above what is actually the good. So if we take Dawkins’ rationalization and apply it universally, then NO ONE is evil. But that’s stupid.
And that’s why Dawkins might be a great zoologist (that’s what his PhD is in), but he’s a terrible theologian and a worse ethicist.
Bristolblog:1, Atheist Obama: 0.