Who'd have thought it? Karl Rove is an atheist, according to Christopher Hitchens. Now fundies will have one more evil atheist to throw into the argument about morals: Stalin, Pol Pot and Rove.
Well no, they're not going to do that are they, because Karl works for their boss. So does that make him a good atheist? Oh dear, its all so confusing, this morality business.
Myself, I am glad Mr Rove has made a life-long commitment to nothing. Like no god zone, I don't think one's atheism has anything to do with one's ethics. It tires me to see happy-clappy Christians and equally happy-clappy Humanists throwing famous people back and forth, as if the virtues and vices of adherents or infidels could prove the truth claims of either position. Whether one has religious beliefs or not says nothing about one's morality. There are bad atheists and good atheists; get used it.
Worse still is to witness some Humanists judging who can be called an atheist. The ridiculous Dr Cooke, in one of his editorials for the NZARH journal, deemed that Heidegger was the wrong kind of atheist, while Sartre was not an atheist at all. We couldn't have those nasty Continentals joining our clusterfuck, could we?
I could go on but I will save that for a later rant.
2 comments:
Sadly, not believing in an Invisible Friend is not in itself enough to be a guarantee of virtue.
Rove is obviously a Leo Strauss neocon type of atheist, though, who does not engage in theism himself, but is eager to manipulate and use godbots who share his sociopathic and Machiavellean worldview
Craig Y
Rove has a world view?
I guess I view him more in a semi-descartisian sort of alive-without-a-soul kind of way. Very efficient, gives the illusion of intelligence but it's all just raw instinct, fear, and will to survive.
Of course he's an atheist. So's a parvovirus.
Post a Comment