Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

2018-06-24T03:42:40Z

TheOther: Fixed some grammar issues

'''Voluntary Human Extinction Movement''' (abbreviated '''VHEMT'''<ref>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5401422 All Choked Up]</ref>) is a movement which advocates the voluntary [[extinction]] of humankind. The movement was founded by Les U. Knight.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2005/11/16/gree.DTL&type=printable]</ref><ref>[http://www.vhemt.org/aboutvhemt.htm]</ref> The members of this movement do not advocate illegal methods like murder or suicide; they just want to prevent [[Human reproduction|reproduction]],<ref>[http://www.vhemt.org/death.htm]</ref> which will ultimately result in the extinction of humankind. Thus, they use the slogan "phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed".<ref>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221862.800-breeding-to-death.html Breeding to death]</ref> The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is based on the belief that the Earth will be better without human beings,<ref>[http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id831/pg1/index.html]</ref> and is primarily based in San Francisco.<ref>[http://www.aversion.com/news/news_article.cfm?news_id=5443 Group Lobbies for Human Extinction]</ref> The motto of the VHEMT is "May we live long and die out".<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/13/arts/15book.php Book review: The World Without Us]</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://vhemt.org Voluntary Human Extinction Movement]

[[Category:Environmentalism]]

Macroeconomics

2018-05-30T13:28:05Z

TheOther: Forgot to capitalise "P" in Prize

'''Macroeconomics''' is the analysis of the aggregate activity of a nation's [[economy]]. Topics in the study of macroeconomics include [[inflation]], [[unemployment]], and [[fiscal policy]]. The purpose of this discipline is to understand how societies can more effectively achieve goals such as economic growth, economic security, and [[full employment]].

== Development of Macroeconomics ==
Macroeconomics is a relatively new field of study, gaining attention during the 1930s; with the term first being used by the Norwegian Nobel Prize-winning economist Ragnar Frisch<ref>http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/frisch.htm</ref> though naturally the principles upon which it is founded have been in existence far longer. During the 1930s it became possible for the first time to collect increasingly detailed economic data on national income, balance of trade and the current account; allowing for a more precise analysis of the entire national economy.

=== The Great Depression ===
[[The Great Depression]] of 1929 was a powerful influence behind the development of macroeconomics, since it highlighted the major flaws in applying [[microeconomics|microeconomic]] theory to the national economy. According to microeconomic, or "market-clearing" theory, the large amount of unemployment following the Great Depression should have been adjusted by the "invisible hand" of the markets, whereby workers revised their wage expectations downwards to the point where firms were willing to employ more workers. However, due to the unemployment and poverty, the demand for goods and services dropped, so firms did not require workers. In addition to this, workers were unwilling to accept substantially lower wages to do the same jobs as before, preventing the wage rate dropping to an appropriate level.
In response to this situation, the British economist [[John Maynard Keynes]] wrote ''The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money'' in which he outlined the limitations of Microeconomics and put forward many founding macroeconomic principals such as aggregate demand,<ref>http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/general-theory-of-employment-interest-and-money.php</ref> and thus can be considered the "father" of Macroeconomics. Since then many of Keynes' original theories have been subject to intense scrutiny and critique, notably by [[Monetary theory|monetarists]] such as [[Milton Friedman]] who claim government intervention to correct market failure is inefficient, and private firms motivated by [[profits]] and price competitiveness are far better at ironing out market failures.

== Government Policy ==
Typically, governments use [[Fiscal policy|fiscal]] and [[monetary policy]] to stabilize the economy and prevent events such as the Great Depression from happening. Fiscal policy involves government taxation and spending to reduce or increase aggregate demand and Monetary policy seeks achieves the same using the manipulation of [[Interest rates]].

==Schools of Thought==
Since the 1930s, two main schools of macroeconomic thought have developed, although within these other sub-groups exist. The two schools are:
*'''Monetarism'''- advocated by economists such as [[Milton Friedman]] and [[Anna Schwartz]], monetarism rejects Keynes' demand management and government intervention proposals, stating that these create distortions in the market and force out the more efficient private firms. Rather, monetarism seeks to understand changes in the economy through the lens of the money supply.
*'''Keynesian'''- this school stems from the original work of [[John Maynard Keynes]], and uses the principal of [[aggregate demand]] to explain unemployment and changing levels of economic growth. Keynesian economists usually advocate demand management or [[fiscal policy]] as a means of correcting market failure.

==Further reading==
* Buchholz, Todd G. ''New Ideas from Dead Economists: An Introduction to Modern Economic Thought'' (2007), [http://www.amazon.com/New-Ideas-Dead-Economists-Introduction/dp/0452288444/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1254858338&sr=8-2-fkmr0 excerpt and text search], by conservative economist
* [http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=9872935679950 Cate, T., Colander, D., and Harcourt,g. ''Encyclopedia of Keynesian Economics''. 1997]
* Coats, A. W. Bob ''The Development of Economics in Western Europe since 1945'' 1999 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=109285982 online edition]
* Dorfman, Joseph. ''The Economic Mind in American Civilization,'' (5 vol 1947-1959), thorough coverage down to 1933.
* Eatwell, John et al. eds. ''The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics'' 3 vol 1998;
** 2nd edition (8 vol 2008), edited by Steven Durlauf and Lawrence Blume
*Ekelund, Robert B., and Robert F. Hebert. ''A History of Economic Theory and Method'' (2007)
* Negishi, T. ''History of Economic Theory'' (1989) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Economic-Advanced-Textbooks-Economics/dp/044470437X/ref=sr_1_18/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190649241&sr=8-18 excerpt and text search]
* Robbins, Lionel et al. ''A History of Economic Thought'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Economic-Thought-Lionel-Robbins/dp/0691070148/ref=pd_bbs_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190648431&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* Roncaglia, Alessandro. ''The Wealth of Ideas: A History of Economic Thought'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Ideas-History-Economic-Thought/dp/0521691877/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190648431&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
* Samuels, Warren, John Davis, and Jeff Biddle, eds. ''A Companion to the History of Economic Thought.'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Companion-Blackwell-Companions-Contemporary-Economics/dp/1405134593/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190729175&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Samuels, Warren J. ''Histories of Economic Thought'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Histories-Economic-Thought-Research-Methodology/dp/0762309970/ref=sr_1_16/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190648431&sr=8-16 excerpt and text search]
* Snowdon, Brian ''The Power of Ideas - an interview with Joel Mokyr'' World Economics July–September 2007 [www.world-economics-journal.com]
* [http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~munro5/schump.htm#N_1_ Schumpeter, Joseph A., ''History of Economic Analysis'', (1954, 1996)] [http://www.amazon.com/History-Economic-Analysis-New-Introduction/dp/0195105591/ref=sr_1_15/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190648431&sr=8-15 excerpt and online search]
* Wahid, Abu N. M. ''Frontiers of Economics: Nobel Laureates of the Twentieth Century'' 2002 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=107166560 online edition]
==References==
{{Reflist}}

==See also==
* [[Microeconomics]]
* [[Milton Friedman]]
* [[John Maynard Keynes]]
* [[Ludwig von Mises]]

{{Economic preparedness topics}}

[[Category:Economic Preparedness]]

[[Category:Economics]]

Macroeconomics

2018-05-30T13:26:01Z

TheOther: Capitalised "N" in Nobel

'''Macroeconomics''' is the analysis of the aggregate activity of a nation's [[economy]]. Topics in the study of macroeconomics include [[inflation]], [[unemployment]], and [[fiscal policy]]. The purpose of this discipline is to understand how societies can more effectively achieve goals such as economic growth, economic security, and [[full employment]].

== Development of Macroeconomics ==
Macroeconomics is a relatively new field of study, gaining attention during the 1930s; with the term first being used by the Norwegian Nobel prize-winning economist Ragnar Frisch<ref>http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/frisch.htm</ref> although naturally the principles upon which it is founded have been in existence far longer. During the 1930s it became possible for the first time to collect increasingly detailed economic data on national income, balance of trade and the current account; allowing for a more precise analysis of the entire national economy.

=== The Great Depression ===
[[The Great Depression]] of 1929 was a powerful influence behind the development of macroeconomics, since it highlighted the major flaws in applying [[microeconomics|microeconomic]] theory to the national economy. According to microeconomic, or "market-clearing" theory, the large amount of unemployment following the Great Depression should have been adjusted by the "invisible hand" of the markets, whereby workers revised their wage expectations downwards to the point where firms were willing to employ more workers. However, due to the unemployment and poverty, the demand for goods and services dropped, so firms did not require workers. In addition to this, workers were unwilling to accept substantially lower wages to do the same jobs as before, preventing the wage rate dropping to an appropriate level.
In response to this situation, the British economist [[John Maynard Keynes]] wrote ''The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money'' in which he outlined the limitations of Microeconomics and put forward many founding macroeconomic principals such as aggregate demand,<ref>http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/general-theory-of-employment-interest-and-money.php</ref> and thus can be considered the "father" of Macroeconomics. Since then many of Keynes' original theories have been subject to intense scrutiny and critique, notably by [[Monetary theory|monetarists]] such as [[Milton Friedman]] who claim government intervention to correct market failure is inefficient, and private firms motivated by [[profits]] and price competitiveness are far better at ironing out market failures.

== Government Policy ==
Typically, governments use [[Fiscal policy|fiscal]] and [[monetary policy]] to stabilize the economy and prevent events such as the Great Depression from happening. Fiscal policy involves government taxation and spending to reduce or increase aggregate demand and Monetary policy seeks achieves the same using the manipulation of [[Interest rates]].

==Schools of Thought==
Since the 1930s, two main schools of macroeconomic thought have developed, although within these other sub-groups exist. The two schools are:
*'''Monetarism'''- advocated by economists such as [[Milton Friedman]] and [[Anna Schwartz]], monetarism rejects Keynes' demand management and government intervention proposals, stating that these create distortions in the market and force out the more efficient private firms. Rather, monetarism seeks to understand changes in the economy through the lens of the money supply.
*'''Keynesian'''- this school stems from the original work of [[John Maynard Keynes]], and uses the principal of [[aggregate demand]] to explain unemployment and changing levels of economic growth. Keynesian economists usually advocate demand management or [[fiscal policy]] as a means of correcting market failure.

==Further reading==
* Buchholz, Todd G. ''New Ideas from Dead Economists: An Introduction to Modern Economic Thought'' (2007), [http://www.amazon.com/New-Ideas-Dead-Economists-Introduction/dp/0452288444/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1254858338&sr=8-2-fkmr0 excerpt and text search], by conservative economist
* [http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=9872935679950 Cate, T., Colander, D., and Harcourt,g. ''Encyclopedia of Keynesian Economics''. 1997]
* Coats, A. W. Bob ''The Development of Economics in Western Europe since 1945'' 1999 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=109285982 online edition]
* Dorfman, Joseph. ''The Economic Mind in American Civilization,'' (5 vol 1947-1959), thorough coverage down to 1933.
* Eatwell, John et al. eds. ''The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics'' 3 vol 1998;
** 2nd edition (8 vol 2008), edited by Steven Durlauf and Lawrence Blume
*Ekelund, Robert B., and Robert F. Hebert. ''A History of Economic Theory and Method'' (2007)
* Negishi, T. ''History of Economic Theory'' (1989) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Economic-Advanced-Textbooks-Economics/dp/044470437X/ref=sr_1_18/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190649241&sr=8-18 excerpt and text search]
* Robbins, Lionel et al. ''A History of Economic Thought'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Economic-Thought-Lionel-Robbins/dp/0691070148/ref=pd_bbs_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190648431&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* Roncaglia, Alessandro. ''The Wealth of Ideas: A History of Economic Thought'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Ideas-History-Economic-Thought/dp/0521691877/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190648431&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
* Samuels, Warren, John Davis, and Jeff Biddle, eds. ''A Companion to the History of Economic Thought.'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Companion-Blackwell-Companions-Contemporary-Economics/dp/1405134593/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190729175&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Samuels, Warren J. ''Histories of Economic Thought'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Histories-Economic-Thought-Research-Methodology/dp/0762309970/ref=sr_1_16/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190648431&sr=8-16 excerpt and text search]
* Snowdon, Brian ''The Power of Ideas - an interview with Joel Mokyr'' World Economics July–September 2007 [www.world-economics-journal.com]
* [http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~munro5/schump.htm#N_1_ Schumpeter, Joseph A., ''History of Economic Analysis'', (1954, 1996)] [http://www.amazon.com/History-Economic-Analysis-New-Introduction/dp/0195105591/ref=sr_1_15/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190648431&sr=8-15 excerpt and online search]
* Wahid, Abu N. M. ''Frontiers of Economics: Nobel Laureates of the Twentieth Century'' 2002 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=107166560 online edition]
==References==
{{Reflist}}

==See also==
* [[Microeconomics]]
* [[Milton Friedman]]
* [[John Maynard Keynes]]
* [[Ludwig von Mises]]

{{Economic preparedness topics}}

[[Category:Economic Preparedness]]

[[Category:Economics]]

Richard Dawkins

2018-05-30T13:10:01Z

TheOther: Improved "see also" list punctuation

[[File:Richard Dawkins - March 2005.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|251px|right|Richard Dawkins declared "[[Christianity]] may actually be our best defence against aberrant forms of religion that threaten the world".<ref name="christiantoday.com">[http://www.christiantoday.com/article/richard.dawkins.says.christianity.is.worlds.best.defence.against.radical.islam/76416.htm Richard Dawkins says Christianity is world's best defence against radical Islam], Christianity Today, January 2016</ref><ref name="breitbart.com">[http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/01/12/professional-atheist-dawkins-says-christianity-bulwark-against-something-worse/ Professional Atheist Dawkins Says Christianity ‘Bulwark Against Something Worse’], by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D, ''Breitbart News Network'', Jan 12, 2016</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations|Richard Dawkins and Islam]] ]]
'''Clinton Richard Dawkins''', [[Royal Society|FRS]], FRSL, (born March 26, 1941, age {{age|1941|3|26}}), is a British author, [[biologist]], [[evolution]]ist, [[agnosticism|agnostic]] and [[leftist]]/[[liberal]] (See also: [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism]]).<ref>
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html Mailvox: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!]
*[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100139859/id-go-to-church-just-to-reduce-the-probability-of-spending-eternity-in-hell-with-richard-dawkins/ ''I'd go to church just to reduce the probability of spending eternity in Hell with Richard Dawkins'' by Dr. Tim Stanley, ''The Daily Telegraph'', February 27, 2012]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3_rGbiT_3c Richard Dawkins Says He's Agnostic -- NOT atheist - video testimony of Richard Dawkins saying he is not an atheist, but an agnostic]</ref>

He is sometimes referred to as the "world's most famous atheist" but when interviewed, he claims that, on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is perfect faith in God and 7 is perfect confidence in atheism, he is a 6.9.<ref>{{Cite news |author= Bingham, John |title= Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist |url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html |newspaper= [[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph]] |date= February 24, 2012 |accessdate= February 24, 2012}}</ref>

Although Dawkins is an agnostic, he advocates [[evangelical atheism]] and is widely considered to be an [[atheist activist]]. Author [[Vox Day]] wrote concerning this matter, "While the fact that Dawkins declared himself a literal agnostic in the very book in which he declared the importance of atheist evangelism is both ironic and incoherent, it will surprise no one who has read the chapter of ''The Irrational Atheist'' entitled "Darwin's Judas".<ref name="voxday.blogspot.com"/>

Most of Richard Dawkins' popular books have [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience|promoted evolutionary pseudoscience.]] Dawkins is also the former holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair of the Public Understanding of Science at [[Oxford University]].

He is an ardent opponent of religion, which he dismisses as mere [[superstition]].<ref>Richard Dawkins is a man with a mission – the eradication of religion and superstition, and their total replacement with science and reason. [http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Dawkins.html "Richard Dawkins comes to call"]</ref> However, Dawkins has offered no effective rebuttal to studies which show that the irreligious [[Irreligion and superstition|are more likely]] to be superstitious than [[evangelicalism|evangelical]] [[Christianity|Christians]].<ref name="online.wsj.com">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>

Dawkins is one of the principle founders of the [[New Atheism]] movement, which is a form of [[militant atheism]] in terms of its [[rhetoric]]. Dawkins said about New Atheism, "[O]ur struggle is not so much an intellectual struggle, as a political one: What are we going to do about it?”.<ref>[http://secularismandnonreligion.org/articles/10.5334/snr.al/print/ Faithless: The politics of new atheism] by Steven Kettell</ref> In recent years, the prominence of Richard Dawkins and the New Atheism movement has greatly waned (see: [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]] and [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]]).

In terms of the [[theism]] vs. agnosticism and [[atheism]] issue, Dawkins has shown himself to be rather ignorant in matters of [[philosophy]] and [[theology]]. For example, philosopher Dr. [[Michael Ruse]] declared concerning Dawkins' book ''[[The God Delusion]]'': "''The God Delusion'' makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."<ref>http://www.alternet.org/media/47052?page=entire</ref>
The philosopher [[Antony Flew]], who was one of the most prominent atheist academics in the world before adopting [[deism]], said about Dawkins: “The fault of Dawkins as an academic…was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form”.<ref>[http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/ten-years-on-from-that-book-of-atheistic-faith-the-god-delusion-1-7496360 Ten years on from that book of atheistic faith, the God Delusion] by Mike Taggart</ref>

As far as the origin of the [[universe]], Dawkins wrote: “The fact that [[origin of life|life evolved]] out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=4TDTnoBLdQMC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=%E2%80%9CThe+fact+that+life+evolved+out+of+nearly+nothing,+some+10+billion+years+after+the+universe+evolved+literally+out+of+nothing,+is+a+fact+so+staggering+that+I+would+be+mad+to+attempt+words+to+do+it+justice.%22&source=bl&ots=g1m0iQzew4&sig=CT1XkXd8yfbNUCIDKeDH_x_UbO8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7vImP8ZjNAhUGPCYKHSAdDXcQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CThe%20fact%20that%20life%20evolved%20out%20of%20nearly%20nothing%2C%20some%2010%20billion%20years%20after%20the%20universe%20evolved%20literally%20out%20of%20nothing%2C%20is%20a%20fact%20so%20staggering%20that%20I%20would%20be%20mad%20to%20attempt%20words%20to%20do%20it%20justice.%22&f=false Richard Dawkins quote about the origin of the universe], ''God, Science, and Reason: Finding the Light of God Amidst the Darkness of Atheism and Dogmatism'' By Michael Bunner, page 141</ref> See also: [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]]

Dawkins is a [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations|vocal opponent of Islam]]. Dawkins has said, "[[Islam]] is the greatest force for evil in the world today".<ref>[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40710165 Richard Dawkins' Berkeley event cancelled for 'Islamophobia'], BBC,
2017</ref><ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/richard-dawkins-islam-muslims-islamophobic-row-twitter-tweets-atheist-kpfa-us-university-of-a7854751.html Radio station cancels Richard Dawkins appearance over Islam tweets], The Independent, 2017</ref> Despite his opposition to religion/[[Christianity]], Dawkins indicated: "Christianity may actually be our best defence against aberrant forms of religion that threaten the world".<ref name="christiantoday.com"/><ref name="breitbart.com"/> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and Christianity]]

== Biography of Richard Dawkins ==

[[File:Richard Dawkins photo.jpg|thumbnail|200px|left|After previously apologizing to [[feminism|feminists]] and others for the [[Elevatorgate]] scandal, Dawkins retracted his apology and said, "I don’t take back anything that I’ve said. I would not say it again, however, because I am now accustomed to being misunderstood and so I will... I feel muzzled, and a lot of other people do as well.“<ref name="washingtonpost.com">[http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/richard-dawkins-stands-by-remarks-on-sexism-pedophilia-down-syndrome/2014/11/18/a2915cd8-6f64-11e4-a2c2-478179fd0489_story.html Richard Dawkins stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome], by Kimberly Winston | Religion News Service November 18, 2014 and syndicated to the ''Washington Post''</ref><ref>[https://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/status/497087309805027328 Rebecca Watson's Twitter post about Dawkins' apology]</ref><ref name="Who is belittling what">[https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/who-is-belittling-what/ Who is belittling what?] by Richard Dawkins</ref>]]
Richard Dawkins was born in Kenya.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/jul/25/research.science</ref> He was a child of a family of colonial forest officers.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3657215/Preaching-to-the-converted.html</ref>
Dawkins was raised to have religious values, and confesses that when he was young, he acknowledged the complexity of life and believed that it indicated a designer. However, during his teens, he chose to abandon this faith and embrace Darwinism instead, despite admitting that he hadn’t actually read [[Charles Darwin]]’s works.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/10/religion.scienceandnature</ref><ref name="bbc.co.uk">http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/dawkins.shtml</ref> See also: [[British atheism]] and [[UK and secularism]]

The atheist philosopher [[John Gray (philosopher)|John Gray]] says of Dawkins' time spent in [[Kenya]]: "Unlike the best of the colonial administrators, some of whom were deeply versed in the languages and histories of the peoples they ruled, Dawkins displays no interest in the cultures of the [[Africa]]n countries where he lived as a boy. It is the obedient devotion of those who served his family that has remained in his memory."<ref name="newrepublic.com">[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins''], New Republic by John Gray</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins' family fortune and the slave trade]]

Dawkins studied zoology at Oxford University, and graduated in 1962. As a undergraduate at Oxford, he studied zoology under the Dutch ethologist Niko Tinbergen and the two developed a strong student/teacher relationship.<ref>http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/dawkins.htm</ref> He remained at [[Oxford]] for his doctoral work, receiving his Ph.D in 1966. From 1967-1969, Dawkins served as Assistant Professor of [[Zoology]] at [[Berkeley]]. During this time, he was, in his own words, “heavily involved” in the unrest and liberal activism for which Berkeley is notorious.<ref name="bbc.co.uk"/> He returned to Oxford in 1970 and served as a Lecturer in Animal Behaviour and a Fellow of New College. In 1995, Dawkins became the Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science which was a post created by an endowment of £1.5m from Dr. Charles Simonyi. In September 2008, Richard Dawkins retired from his post as Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science.

Despite this, Richard Dawkins might have remained a relatively obscure professor if not for the publication of his first book, ''The Selfish Gene'', in 1976. This book became a bestseller, and brought Dawkins a celebrity which he has worked to maintain with further books and lectures.

In 1984, Dawkins divorced his wife of 17 years, Marian Stamp; later that same year, he married Eve Barham. Dawkins also divorced Barham, though the precise circumstances of this divorce are unclear.<ref>http://www.richarddawkins.com/</ref> He married science fiction actress Lalla Ward in 1992 and they separated after 24 years of marriage.<ref>[http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dawkins-evolves-into-single-man-after-amicable-split-with-time-lady-sp9llk2nt Dawkins evolves into single man after ‘amicable’ split with Time Lady], ''The Sunday Times''</ref>

[[Vox Day|Theodore Beale]] wrote in the his book ''The Irrational Atheist'' about Dawkins's claim that teaching children about [[Hell]] is more harmful to children than "mild child abuse":
{{Cquote|Richard Dawkins is perhaps one of the last men on Earth who should be discussing what is the right and proper way to raise children, given that the number of his wives outnumber his offspring.

In his letter to his daughter Juliet, addressed to her at the age of ten and published in ''A Devil’s Chaplain'', there is little mention of love, no admission of regret, and no paternal promises. As one British journalist noted, the letter is “coldly impersonal” and “authoritarian.” There is no expression of interest in what might be important to her.<ref>[http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf The Irrational Atheist. Chapter VIII DARWIN’S JUDAS] by Vox Day</ref>}}

See also: [[Richard Dawkins and love]]

The ''Christian Times'' reported:
{{Cquote|The 75-year-old evolutionary biologist, who suffered a stroke early this year, had stirred the public years ago when he denounced monogamy and fidelity in relationships.

In [http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2007/11/29/banishing-the-greeneyed-monste/3484 his article piece] "Banishing the Green Eyed Monster," Dawkins referred to "jealousy" in a relationship as "immoral and selfish."

He defended that men should be allowed to keep mistresses and indulge in sexual pleasures with others.<ref>[http://christiantimes.com/article/atheist-richard-dawkins-divorces-third-wife-actress-lalla-ward/59223.htm Richard Dawkins to divorce third wife: Prominent atheist to split from actress Lalla Ward], ''Christian Times''</ref>}}

Since 2011, Dawkins has been embroiled in controversies related to [[feminism]]/[[Islam]] and he has received a significant amount of criticism from his fellow [[secular left]]ists as a result (see: [[Richard Dawkins and women]] and [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations]]).

According to ''The Richest'', "Richard Dawkins..has an estimated net worth of $10,000,000 according to the ''Sunday Times'' in 2012."<ref>[http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/authors/richard-dawkins-net-worth/ Richard Dawkins Net Worth]</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins' net worth]]

== Richard Dawkins and women ==
[[File:2404429188 ea8f1fc48b.jpg|thumb|200px|Survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, [[Atheism and women|atheism is significantly less appealing to women]].

According to the website tracking firm [[Alexa]], women frequent the website of richarddawkins.net significantly less than men.<ref name="Alexa data for Richarddawkins.net">[http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/richarddawkins.net Alexa data for Richarddawkins.net]</ref>]]
=== Women's views of Richard Dawkins ===

See: [[Richard Dawkins and women]], [[Elevatorgate]], [[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]], [[New Atheism and women]] and [[Atheism and rape]]

=== Majority of web visitors to Dawkins' website are men ===

Survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, atheism [[Atheism and women|is significantly less appealing to women]].

According to the website tracking firm [[Alexa]], women frequent the website of richarddawkins.net significantly less than men.<ref name="Alexa data for Richarddawkins.net"/><ref>[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/05/according-to-alexa-what-percentage-of.html According to Alexa, what percentage of Richard Dawkins' website visitors are women?], ''Examining Atheism''</ref> In recent years, there has been a significant amount of friction between Richard Dawkins and [[feminism|feminists]] (see: [[Richard Dawkins and women]]).

=== Elevatorgate controversy ===

''See also:'' [[Elevatorgate]], [[Atheist feminism]] and [[Richard Dawkins and social media]]

In July 2011, Richard Dawkins was widely criticized within the atheist community and in various press outlets for his insensitive comments made to atheist [[Rebecca Watson]] about an incident which occurred in an elevator (see: [[Elevatorgate]]).<ref>
*[http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting Richard Dawkins: Skeptic of women? - Salon, July 8, 2011]
*[http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum Sharing a lift with Richard Dawkins by David Allen Green - New Stateman - 06 July 2011]
*[http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists Richard Dawkins Torn Limb From Limb—By Atheists - Gawker]
*[http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-09-15/atheist-sexism-women/50416454/1 Atheists address sexism issues - USA Today]
*[http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/09/is-richard-dawkins-destroying-his-reputation Is Richard Dawkins destroying his reputation?] by Sophie Elmhirst, ''The Guardian'', June 9, 2015
</ref>

Prior to Elevatorgate, [[Monica Shores]]' ''Ms. Magazine'' article titled ''Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women?'' criticized the News Atheism movement for being [[sexism|sexist]].<ref name="msmagazine.com">[http://msmagazine.com/blog/2010/11/01/will-new-atheism-make-room-for-women/ ''Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women''] by Monica Shores, ''Ms. Magazine'', 2010</ref> She also cited [[Conservapedia]] in her article and indicated: "The lack of lady presence is so visible that Conservapedia commented on it by noting that [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science website|Dawkins’ website]] overwhelmingly attracts male visitors."<ref name="msmagazine.com"/>

For more information, please see:

*[[Elevatorgate news stories]]

*[[Atheist conferences]]

*[[Research on atheist conferences]]

==== Dawkins retracts his Elevatorgate apology, says Elevatorgate incident was rather trivial ====
[[File:Rebecca watson portrait 2011.jpg|left|thumbnail|181px|The atheist [[Rebecca Watson]] and Richard Dawkins were central figures in the [[Elevatorgate]] scandal. ]]
On August 6, 2014, Dawkins apologized for his remarks related to his Elevatorgate scandal.<ref name="Who is belittling what"/><ref>[https://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/status/497087309805027328 Rebecca Watson's Twitter tweet about Richard Dawkins apologizing for his Elevate scandal]</ref>

However, on November 18, 2014, Richard Dawkins retracted his apology and indicated that: he stands by his recent remarks about women/men relations, he feels muzzled by "thought police" and that [[Rebecca Watson]]'s experience in the elevator was "rather trivial" compared to events some Muslim women experience.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/richard-dawkins-stands-by-remarks-on-sexism-pedophilia-down-syndrome/2014/11/18/a2915cd8-6f64-11e4-a2c2-478179fd0489_story.html Richard Dawkins stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome], by Kimberly Winston | Religion News Service November 18, 2014</ref>

Specifically, the ''Washington Post'' reported on November 18, 2014:
{{cquote|“I don’t take back anything that I’ve said,” Dawkins said from a shady spot in the leafy backyard of one of his Bay Area supporters. “I would not say it again, however, because I am now accustomed to being misunderstood and so I will. “

He trailed off momentarily, gazing at his hands resting on a patio table.

“I feel muzzled, and a lot of other people do as well,” he continued. “There is a climate of bullying, a climate of intransigent thought police which is highly influential in the sense that it suppresses people like me.”

Recent criticism of Dawkins has come from women, many of them within the [[atheist movement]], which has long drawn more men to its ranks. His online remarks, some women say, contribute to a climate they see as unwelcoming to female atheists...

“I concentrate my attention on that menace and I confess I occasionally get a little impatient with American women who complain of being inappropriately touched by the water cooler or invited for coffee or something which I think is, by comparison, relatively trivial,” he said.<ref name="washingtonpost.com">[http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/richard-dawkins-stands-by-remarks-on-sexism-pedophilia-down-syndrome/2014/11/18/a2915cd8-6f64-11e4-a2c2-478179fd0489_story.html Richard Dawkins stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome], by Kimberly Winston | Religion News Service November 18, 2014 and syndicated to the ''Washington Post''</ref>}}

==== Reason Rally related incident involving David Silverman and Richard Dawkins ====

''See also:'' [[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]]
[[File:David Silverman.JPG|thumbnail|right|150px|[[David Silverman]] ]]
An article by Sarah posted at [[Skepchick]] about a conversation between Richard Dawkins and [[David Silverman]] (a former president of the [[American Atheists]] organization), which took place during the planning phase of the [[Reason Rally]]:
{{cquote|Richard was standing behind the podium, and he asked Dave something along the lines of, “What exactly is the Reason Rally?” Dave started explaining it, and as he did, someone who was waiting in the line outside opened the door to peek inside and we could all hear a lot of noise. I rushed up the aisle and made frantic “shut the door” gestures at the people peeking inside, and they did. As I walked the ten feet back, I couldn’t hear everything Dave was saying, but I heard the name “Rebecca Watson.” Richard suddenly had a very angry look on his face and I heard him almost shout, “No, absolutely not! If she’s going to be there, I won’t be there. I don’t want her speaking.” and then Dave immediately replied, “You’re absolutely right, we’ll take her off the roster. It’s done.” Richard huffed for a moment, Dave continued to placate him, and then he made the video.

I was crushed.<ref>[http://skepchick.org/2013/09/my-time-with-richard-dawkins-or-why-you-should-never-meet-your-idols/ My Time With Richard Dawkins (Or, Why You Should Never Meet Your Idols)] by Sarah at [[Skepchick]], September 5, 2013</ref>}}

For more information, please see: [[Elevatorgate]]

==== Elevatorgate and increased division within the atheist population ====

''See also:'' [[Atheist movement]] and [[Atheism and leadership]]

Post-Elevatorgate, Richard Dawkins is often criticized by secular leftists for igniting deep fractures in the [[atheist movement]] and hindering the atheist movement. For example, on November 26, 2013, the atheist activist and blogger [[Jen McCreight]] posted at Twitter the message: "Did anyone on Dawkins AMA ask how he feels about singlehandedly destroying the atheist movement with the Dear Muslima yet?"<ref>[https://twitter.com/jennifurret/status/405391218273554433 Jennifer McCreight on the Twitter about the Elevatorgate scandal]</ref> In December 2013, atheist Jack Vance at Atheist Revolution called July 2, 2011, which is the day that Elevatorgate occurred, "The day the atheist movement died."<ref>[http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/12/the-day-atheist-movement-died.html The Day the Atheist Movement Died] by Jack Vance at Atheist Revolution</ref>

{{See also|Atheism and the internet}}

=== Dawkins' disinvitation to speak at a skeptics conference due to a feminism/Islam controversy ===

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' health]], [[Richard Dawkins' health#Richard Dawkins' stroke and news reports|Richard Dawkins' stroke]], [[Richard Dawkins and medical science]] and [[Richard Dawkins, Darwin and psychogenic illness]]

As a result of the controversy relating to a Dawkins Twitter post about [[feminism]]/[[Islam]], Dawkins was disinvited to speak at the 2016 Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism (NCSS) (See: [[Richard Dawkins and women#Feminists cause Richard Dawkins to be disinvited to skeptic conference|Feminists cause Richard Dawkins to be disinvited to skeptic conference]]).<ref name="richarddawkins.net">[https://richarddawkins.net/2016/02/an-update-on-richards-condition-in-his-own-words/ An update on Richard Dawkins condition in his own words]</ref> Stephanie Zvan is an atheist blogger at [[Freethought Blogs]]. She wrote an open letter to the [[Center for Inquiry]] (CFI) about the events surrounding the Dawkins' Twitter post about feminism/Islam that "CFI now has a harassment denialist on its board, a harassment denialist who has tied his denialism to his work at your organization."<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2016/01/29/dawkins-goes-denialist-an-open-letter-to-the-cfi-board/ Dawkins Goes Denialist: An Open Letter to the CFI Board] by Stephanie Zvan at [[Freethought Blogs]]</ref>

Dawkins said he was very upset about being disinvited to the conference.<ref name="richarddawkins.net"/> After his disinvitation, Dawkins gave some news about his health condition after suffering a minor stroke and he mentioned that his doctors advised avoiding controversies due to his chronic high blood pressure.<ref>
*[https://richarddawkins.net/2016/02/an-update-on-richards-condition-in-his-own-words/ An update on Richard’s condition in his own words], Richarddawkins.net
*[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-stress-over-twitter-tweet-feminism-controversey-caused-stroke-157840/ Richard Dawkins Said He Was Stressed by Controversy Over Tweet Before Stroke], ''Christian Post'', February, 2016
*[http://www.religionnews.com/2016/02/15/richard-dawkins-stroke-due-to-stress/ Richard Dawkins says stroke caused by stress over controversy], Religion New Service</ref> In recent times Dawkins has been embroiled in a number of controversies involving the topics of [[feminism]]/[[Islam]] and he has faced a significant amount of criticism from his fellow [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]]/liberals (see: [[Richard Dawkins and women]] and [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations]]).

[[File:Hemant Mehta.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|[[Hemant Mehta]] ]]
Atheist [[Hemant Mehta]] reported about Dawkins' stroke and Dawkins' report that he had been once again invited to the conference:
{{cquote|It was the result of stress-related higher blood pressure, which he says he may have had as a result of recent controversy, including being booted from the NECSS conference. He added, however, that on February 5, he received a letter from conference organizers apologizing for disinviting him and asking him back to the conference.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/02/14/richard-dawkins-gives-update-on-his-health-in-audio-message/ Richard Dawkins Gives Update on His Health in Audio Message]</ref>}}

On the morning of Richard Dawkins' stroke, Dawkins received a letter from the NCSS apologizing to Dawkins for his disinvitation and once again inviting him to speak at the conference.<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-stress-over-twitter-tweet-feminism-controversey-caused-stroke-157840/ Richard Dawkins Said He Was Stressed by Controversy Over Tweet Before Stroke], Christian Post</ref>

Despite the medical advice of his doctors, Dawkins had a very active Twitter presence before his minor stroke (with a number of Twitter controversies) and numerous public controversies.<ref>
*[http://www.religionnews.com/2016/02/15/richard-dawkins-stroke-due-to-stress/ Richard Dawkins says stroke caused by stress over controversy], Religion New Service
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/21/the-12-stages-of-a-richard-dawkins-twitter-scandal_n_5698443.html The 12-Stage 'Evolution' Of A Richard Dawkins Twitter Scandal] by Paul Vale, The Huffington Post UK, Posted: 22/08/2014 02:06 BST
*[http://www.salon.com/2016/01/27/richard_dawkins_delete_your_account_the_prominent_atheist_unleashes_new_islamophobic_assault_partner/ Richard Dawkins, delete your account: The prominent atheist implodes on Twitter (again)], Salon
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/15-of-richard-dawkins-most-controversial-tweets_us_56004360e4b00310edf7eaf6 15 Of Richard Dawkins' Most Controversial Tweets], ''Huffington Post''
</ref>

Dawkins has accumulated over 30,000 Twitter tweets.<ref>[https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author Richard Dawkins Twitter]</ref> ''The Independent'' reported, "Dawkins also admitted he wasn't very good at managing Twitter and the strong reactions his posts tend to provoke. 'Twitter is very difficult medium to handle,' he said. 'I’m not much of a diplomat.'"<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-defends-ahmed-mohamed-comments-and-dismisses-islamophobia-as-a-non-word-10515389.html Richard Dawkins defends Ahmed Mohamed comments and dismisses Islamophobia as a 'non-word']</ref> However, after his stroke, in May 2016, Dawkins gave up posting on Twitter for awhile and the tweets that appeared in his name were done by his staff.<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/affinity/2016/05/26/dawkins-ive-given-up-twitter/ Dawkins: I’ve Given Up Twitter.]</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and Twitter]]

Debates raged over praying for Richard Dawkins health after his stroke.<ref>[http://www.charismanews.com/world/55133-debate-rages-over-praying-for-atheist-richard-dawkins-after-stroke Debate rages over praying for atheist Richard Dawkins after stroke]</ref><ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-church-of-england-deny-trolling-biologist-by-sending-prayers-following-minor-stroke-a6871966.html Richard Dawkins: Church of England denies 'trolling' biologist by sending 'prayers' following minor stroke]</ref>

''The Guardian'' reported that Dawkins is expected to have a full recovery or near full recovery from his stroke.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/feb/12/richard-dawkins-has-stroke-on-eve-of-australia-and-new-zealand-tour Richard Dawkins stroke forces delay of Australia and New Zealand tour], ''The Guardian'', February 11, 2016</ref>

In December 2016, Dawkins appears to have started to Tweet again despite his doctors warnings to avoid controversy (For example, he tweeted that Britain had become a "nasty little backwater" after the [[Brexit]] vote and his Tweet drew fierce criticism).<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/authors/richard-dawkins-england-becoming-nasty-little-backwater-brexit/ Richard Dawkins: England becoming a 'nasty little backwater' after Brexit vote], ''The Telegraph'', March 2017</ref><ref>[http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/748479/Richard-Dawkins-pretending-war-on-christmas-christians SHOCK RANT: Richard Dawkins mocks Christians for 'pretending' there's WAR on Christianity], ''Express'', December of 2016</ref><ref>[https://swarajyamag.com/insta/what-british-scientist-dawkins-thinks-of-islam What British Scientist Dawkins Thinks Of Islam], ''Swaraya'', June 7, 2017</ref>

=== Richard Dawkins' health ===

* [[Richard Dawkins' health]]

==== Richard Dawkins' stroke ====

*[[Richard Dawkins' health#Richard Dawkins' stroke and news reports|Richard Dawkins' stroke]]

=== Atheist PZ Myers comment about Dawkins' attitude towards women ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and women]] and [[Richard Dawkins and women]]
[[File:PZ Myers.jpg|thumbnail|150px|left|[[PZ Myers]] ]]
In 2014, the prominent [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] [[PZ Myers]] said of Richard Dawkins' attitude towards women: "At a time when our movement needs to expand its reach, it’s a tragedy that our most eminent spokesman has so enthusiastically expressed such a regressive attitude.”<ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name Richard Dawkins has lost it: ignorant sexism gives atheists a bad name] by Adam Lee, ''The Guardian'', September 18, 2014</ref>

Myers also said in 2014 concerning Dawkins:
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins: you’re wrong. Deeply, profoundly, fundamentally wrong. Your understanding of [[feminism]] is flawed and misinformed, and further, you keep returning to the same poisonous wells of misinformation.

...you persist in presenting these anti-feminist caricatures as reasonable. You say you are a feminist, and even find feminism an undeniable virtue, but at the same time you parrot absurd anti-feminist remarks.<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/09/12/dear-richard-dawkins/ Dear Richard Dawkins] by PZ Myers at Pharyngula blog, September 12, 2014</ref>}}

=== Richard Dawkins commentary on Mary the Mother of Jesus ===

In 2010, the [[Christian apologetics]] website [[True Free Thinker]] wrote:
{{cquote|The atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins just referred to Mary, the mother of Jesus, as a ‘submissive cosmic doormat’...

If Richard Dawkins had a better grasp of womanhood [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|and a greater grasp of manhood]], he would still be married to his first wife and not his third.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-immaculate-and-mary-cosmic-doormat</ref>}}
=== Other reasons why many women hold unfavorable views of Richard Dawkins ===

Another plausible explanation for many women having a lack of enthusiasm for Richard Dawkins's message is that many women who attend religious services and hold traditional beliefs and values find Richard Dawkins' [[atheism and morality|atheistic values]] repugnant. In terms of traditional values, in 2007, when asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the [[Muslim]] [extremists] aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the [[Bible]]. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the [[Sabbath]]."<ref name=Hitler>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref>

(See also: [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]])

=== Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins ===

*[[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]]

== Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations ==
[[File:StarCresent.png|thumbnail|125px|right|Assuming patterns of net immigration do not change significantly, the Pew Forum thinks that there will be just over 5.5 million British Muslims, representing 8.2 per cent of the UK population, by 2030.<ref>[http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-will-britain-have-a-muslim-majority-by-2050/13690 FactCheck: will Britain have a Muslim majority by 2050?]</ref> See: [[Atheism vs. Islam]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations]], [[New Atheism and Islamophobia]] and [[Atheism vs. Islam]]

The [[New Atheism|New Atheists]] Richard Dawkins, [[Sam Harris]] and the late [[Christopher Hitchens]] have received multiple accusations of engaging in [[Islamophobia|Islamophobic]] behavior.<ref>
*[http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins_harris_hitchens_new_atheists_flirt_with_islamophobia/ Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens: New Atheists flirt with Islamophobia] by Nathan Lean, ''Salon'', March 30, 2013
*[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus] by Glenn Greenwald, ''The Guardian'', April 3, 2013</ref> Dawkins is dismissive of the concept of Islamophobia and declared: "I’m always being accused of Islamophobia, that’s a non-word."<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-defends-ahmed-mohamed-comments-and-dismisses-islamophobia-as-a-non-word-10515389.html Richard Dawkins defends Ahmed Mohamed comments and dismisses Islamophobia as a 'non-word'], ''Independent'', 24 September 2015</ref>

On December 28, 2015, the ''Daily Express'' reported about Dawkins:
{{cquote|The furious academic walked out of an interview when a Muslim journalist confirmed he personally believed the prophet [[Muhammad]] flew to heaven on a winged horse.

Dawkins, 74, author of best-seller The God Delusion, told the New Statesmen's Emad Ahmed that his belief was "pathetic" before angrily storming off.<ref>['Pathetic': Richard Dawkins in extraordinary outburst against Islam] by Jason Taylor, ''Daily Express'', December 28, 2015</ref>}}

Ryan Kerney wrote at ''New Republic'' concerning Dawkins' behavior towards Emad Ahmed: "Richard Dawkins is just as rude in person as he is on Twitter, apparently."<ref>[https://newrepublic.com/minutes/126632/richard-dawkins-just-rude-person-twitter-apparently Richard Dawkins is just as rude in person as he is on Twitter, apparently], ''New Republic'', 2015</ref>

On the other hand, defenders of atheist criticisms of [[Islam]]/Muslims indicated that New Atheists should be able to criticize Islam without being accused of Islamophobia.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2013/04/new-atheism-should-be-able-criticise-islam-without-being-accused-islamophobia New Atheism should be able to criticise Islam without being accused of Islamophobia] by Andrew Zak Williams, ''New Statesman'', Published 19 April 2013</ref>

== Richard Dawkins and racial minorities ==

=== Sikivu Hutchinson's criticism of RDF and Center for Inquiry merger ===
[[File:Skivu Hutchinson speaking at Center For Inquiry.JPG|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Sikivu Hutchinson]] speaking ath the [[Center for Inquiry]]. ]]

''See also:'' [[Western atheism and race]] and [[Atheism and leadership]]

Atheist [[Sikivu Hutchinson]] wrote:
{{cquote|The recent merger of the secular organization [[Center for Inquiry]] (CFI) and the [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science|Richard Dawkins Foundation]] (RDF) has been dubbed atheism's supergroup moment. Acknowledging the two organizations' outsized presence in the atheist world, Religion News Service acidly declared it a "royal wedding". The partnership, which gives Richard Dawkins a seat on the CFI board, smacks of a vindication of Dawkins' toxic, reactionary brand of [http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/richard_dawkins_does_it_again_new_atheisms_islamophobia_problem/ damn-all-them-culturally-backward-Western-values-hating- Muslims] New Atheism. As one of the most prominent global secular organizations, CFI's [http://www.centerforinquiry.net/about/corporate_governance all-white board] looks right at home with RDF's [https://richarddawkins.net/boardandstaff/ lily white board] and staff.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sikivu-hutchinson/atheismsowhite-atheists-o_b_9078736.html #AtheismSoWhite: Atheists of Color Rock Social Justice] by Sikivu Hutchinson</ref>}}

The [[secular humanism|secular humanist]] document Human Manifesto II, which was written in 1973 by [[Paul Kurtz]] and Edwin H. Wilson, decried racism and it declared:
{{cquote|The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook. In various societies, the demands of women and minority groups for equal rights effectively challenge our generation.<ref>[http://americanhumanist.org/humanism/humanist_manifesto_ii Humanist Manifesto II]</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins wants people to eat manufactured human lab meat to "overcome our taboo against cannibalism” ==
[[File:Richard Dawkins 2015.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|Richard Dawkins ]]
''LifeSite News'' declares:
{{Cquote|Richard Dawkins, the (in)famous [[atheist activist|atheism proselytizer]], has mused about eating human meat.

No, he doesn’t want to join the Donner Party. Researchers may soon be able to manufacture meat from cell lines in the lab, and Dawkins has suggested in a tweet that we could “overcome our taboo” by eating human flesh so manufactured.

What if human meat is grown? Could we overcome our taboo against cannibalism? An interesting test case for [[Consequentialism|consequentialist morality]] versus “yuck reaction” [[Objective morality|absolutism]].<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/2018/03/06/richard-dawkins-wants-to-eat-human-meat-to-overcome-our-taboo-against-cannibalism/ Richard Dawkins Wants to Eat Human “Meat” to “Overcome Our Taboo Against Cannibalism”], ''LifeSite News'', 2018</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins' bleak worldview ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism, agnosticism and pessimism]], [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]] and [[Atheism and inspiration]]

According to Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."<ref>[http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richarddaw402494.html Richard Dawkins quote]</ref>

== Richard Dawkins and the religious rights of parents ==

''See also:'' [[Evangelical atheism]]

Richard Dawkins is commonly thought to be an [[Evangelical atheism|evangelical atheist]].<ref>[https://newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins] by John Gray, ''New Republic''</ref><ref>[https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2014/10/evangelical-atheism Evangelical Atheism] by Peter J. Leithart, First Things</ref><ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-stedman/evangelical-atheists-what_b_765379.html ‘Evangelical Atheists:’ Pushing For What?] by Chris Stedman, Huffington Post</ref>

Although evangelical atheists do not advocate the violent/murderous methods that the [[militant atheism|militant atheists]] of [[communism]] have employed, they generally favor using the power of state to indoctrinate children into believing various aspects of [[Atheist worldview|atheist ideology]] (see: [[Atheist indoctrination]]). The new atheist Richard Dawkins claims that children need state protection from religion/religion of children's parents.<ref>[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/richard-dawkins-the-government-needs-to-protect-children-from-religion-and Richard Dawkins: The state needs to ‘protect’ children from religion…and their parents], LifeSite News</ref>

== Richard Dawkins and the encouragement of atheist mockery ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and mockery]]

The new atheist Richard Dawkins has encouraged his supporters to go beyond humorous ridicule.<ref name="shadowtolight.wordpress.com">[https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/dawkins-mock-them-ridicule-them-in-public/ Dawkins: Mock them. Ridicule them! In public]</ref> He wrote, "I lately started to think that we need to go further: go beyond humorous ridicule, sharpen our barbs to a point where they really hurt."<ref name="shadowtolight.wordpress.com"/> For more information please see: [[Atheism and mockery]] and [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]]

== Richard Dawkins on the dissemination of pornography videos to theocratic societies ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles"]] and [[Atheism and pornography]]

On January 1, 2015, ''The Telegraph'' reported:
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins’ insanity has now become an English institution – like warm beer and rain. On Saturday morning, a tweet from his account asked why we don’t send lots of "erotic videos" to theocracies, adding that it should be “loving, gentle, woman-respecting” (I guess this involves the pizza delivery boy calling the next day). If we’re going down this road, I also hear that [[Islam]]ists aren’t very keen on bacon, so perhaps we should bombard the [[Iran]]ian countryside with pig carcasses? Also, miniature bottles of gin. And photos of hot guys making out – in a “men-respecting” and “gentle” sort of way.

After a few minutes of mockery, the tweet was deleted. Perhaps even he realised how utterly mad it was. Which suggests a degree of self-awareness that I didn’t think possible in Britain’s nuttiest professor.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11381529/Richard-Dawkins-wants-to-fight-Islamism-with-erotica.-Celebrity-atheism-has-lost-it.html Richard Dawkins wants to fight Islamism with erotica. Celebrity atheism has lost it] By Tim Stanley, ''The Telegraph'', January 1, 2015</ref>}}

{{See also|Atheism and pornography}}

== Atheists declaring that Richard Dawkins is now a liability to the atheist movement ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]] and [[Atheism and public relations]]

Although the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] Richard Dawkins was always known for [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|his abrasiveness]] and [[Atheism and arrogance|arrogance]], post [[Elevatorgate]] and subsequent to his various embarrassing Twitter posts, many atheists are now asking if he is a liability to the [[atheist movement]].<ref>
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/richard-dawkins-atheisms-asset-or-liability/2014/08/07/9f19a7a2-1e58-11e4-9b6c-12e30cbe86a3_story.html Richard Dawkins: Atheism’s asset or liability?] by Kimberly Winston, ''Washington Post'', source: ''Religion News Service'', August 7, 2014
*[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins''], New Republic by John Gray
*[https://twitter.com/jennifurret/status/405391218273554433 Jennifer McCreight on the Twitter about the Elevatorgate scandal]
*[http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/downs-syndrome-girl-passes-six-4095031 Down's Syndrome girl passes six GCSEs as dad calls Richard Dawkins 'an ignorant idiot'], Mirror by By Grace Macaskill, Aug 23, 2014 15:41
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/21/the-12-stages-of-a-richard-dawkins-twitter-scandal_n_5698443.html The 12-Stage 'Evolution' Of A Richard Dawkins Twitter Scandal] by Paul Vale, The Huffington Post UK, Posted: 22/08/2014 02:06 BST</ref>

See also:

*[[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]]

*[[Richard Dawkins quotes]]

*[[Decline of the atheist movement]]

== Richard Dawkins' cult of personality ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' cult of personality]], [[Atheist cults]], [[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Atheism and leadership]]

[[File:Vox Day.jpg|thumbnail|left|175px|[[Vox Day|Theodore Beale]] noted that the [[Richard Dawkins' cult of personality]] has some similarity to the cult of [[Scientology]].<ref name="The Cult of Dicky Dawkins">[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-cult-of-dicky-dawk.html The Cult of Dicky Dawkins]</ref> ]]
On August 16, 2014, Andrew Brown wrote an article for The Spectator entitled ''The bizarre – and costly – cult of Richard Dawkins'' which declared:
{{cquote|...the [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science website|Richard Dawkins website]] offers followers the chance to join the ‘Reason Circle’, which, like [[Dante]]’s [[Hell]], is arranged in concentric circles. For $85 a month, you get discounts on his merchandise, and the chance to meet ‘[[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science]] personalities’. Obviously that’s not enough to meet the man himself. For that you pay $210 a month — or $5,000 a year — for the chance to attend an event where he will speak...

But the $85 a month just touches the hem of rationality. After the neophyte passes through the successively more expensive ‘Darwin Circle’ and then the ‘Evolution Circle’, he attains the innermost circle, where for $100,000 a year or more he gets to have a private breakfast or lunch with Richard Dawkins, and a reserved table at an invitation-only circle event with ‘Richard’ as well as ‘all the benefits listed above’, so he still gets a discount on his Richard Dawkins T-shirt saying ‘Religion — together we can find a cure.’

The website suggests that donations of up to $500,000 a year will be accepted for the privilege of eating with him once a year: at this level of contribution you become a member of something called ‘The Magic of Reality Circle’. I don’t think any irony is intended.

At this point it is obvious to everyone except the participants that what we have here [[Atheist cults|is a religion]] without the good bits.<ref>[http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9286682/the-bizarre-and-costly-cult-of-richard-dawkins/ The bizarre – and costly – cult of Richard Dawkins], The Spectator, Andrew Brown 16 August 2014</ref>}}

[[Vox Day|Theodore Beale]] noted that the Richard Dawkins cult has some similarity to the cult of [[Scientology]].<ref name="The Cult of Dicky Dawkins"/>
Dawkins was one of the founders of the New Atheism movement. The [[New Atheism]] movement, which has waned in recent years, was called a cult by the [[agnosticism|agnostic]], journalist Bryan Appleyard in a 2012 article in the ''New Statesman'' in which he describes the abusive behavior of New Atheists.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2012/02/neo-atheism-atheists-dawkins ''The God wars'' by Bryan Appleyard], ''New Statesman''</ref> Although the New Atheism movement does not perfectly fit the various characteristics of a cult, it does fit some of the characteristics.<ref>[http://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/how-cultish-is-new-atheism/ How cultish is the New Atheism?]</ref>

See also: [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science|Richard Dawkins's Foundation and an embezzlement allegation]] and [[Atheist nonprofit scandals]]

==Abrasive demeanor of Richard Dawkins==

''See also:'' [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]], [[Richard Dawkins and anger]] and [[Atheism and leadership]]

Richard Dawkins has a reputation for being an aggressive and angry man (see: [[Richard Dawkins and anger]]).

Atheist author and [[sociology]] professor Phil Zuckerman said of Dawkins: "He is smug, condescending and emits an unpleasant disdainfulness. He doesn’t ever seem to acknowledge the good aspects of religion, only the bad. In that sense, I think he doesn’t help atheism in the PR department."<ref>[http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/58271839-80/dawkins-atheism-atheist-rape.html.csp Richard Dawkins: Atheism’s asset or liability?] By KIMBERLY WINSTON, ''Religion News Service''</ref> See also: [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Richard Dawkins quotes]]

[[Gary Demar]] commenting on the abrasiveness and incivility of Richard Dawkins quotes Dawkins stating the following:
[[Image:Mohler.jpg‎|thumbnail|200px|right|Dr. R. [[Albert Mohler]] Jr.]]
{{cquote|It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in [[theory of evolution|evolution]], that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).}}

Dr. R. [[Albert Mohler]], Jr. has echoed Mr. Demar's estimation of Richard Dawkins and has stated regarding Richard Dawkins the following:
{{cquote|His aggressiveness and abrasiveness have now prompted some of his fellow defenders of evolution to wonder if he is doing their cause more harm than good.

The September 2005 issue of Discover magazine features an article that raises this very question. In "Darwin's Rottweiler," author Stephen S. Hall suggests that Dawkins is simply "far too fierce."....

Dawkins admits that he just may be "a bit of a loose canon." In reality, that is a significant understatement.<ref>Mohler, R. Albert, Jr. (September 9, 2005). [http://www.christianpost.com/news/darwin-s-rottweiler-richard-dawkins-speaks-his-mind-6434/ "Darwin's rottweiler--Richard Dawkins speaks his mind"]. The Christian Post website. Retrieved on October 19, 2014.</ref>}}

In addition, Richard Dawkins appears to have had struggles maintaining marital harmony in his life and three of his three marriages have ended in divorce (see also: [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]]).

In September 2010, Richard Dawkins became nasty towards a woman in an audience he spoke before.<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/richard-dawkins-i-never-meet-people-who-disagree-with-me-2080451.html Richard Dawkins: 'I never meet people who disagree with me', ''The Independent'' by reporter Andy McSmith, Thursday 16 September 2010]</ref>

Furthermore, Dawkins has developed a reputation for being angry (see: [[Richard Dawkins and anger]]).

=== The film documentary The Atheist Delusion features a humorless Richard Dawkins who is the object of audience laughter ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and humor]]

The movie ''[[The Atheist Delusion]]'' features Richard Dawkins being the object of audience laughter due to something unreasonable he said.<ref name="M The Atheist Delusion Movie 2016">[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChWiZ3iXWwM The Atheist Delusion Movie (2016) HD]</ref> Dawkins indignantly asked the audience, "Why is that funny?".<ref name="M The Atheist Delusion Movie 2016"/>

== Dogmatic arrogance of Richard Dawkins ==

''See:'' [[Atheism is a religion]], [[Atheism and arrogance]] and [[Atheism and intolerance]]

Using special text analysis software, the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt found that [[New Atheism|New Atheists]], such as Richard Dawkins, very often wrote in dogmatic terms in their major works using words such as “always,” “never,” “certainly,” “every,” and “undeniable.”<ref>[http://www.thisviewoflife.com/index.php/magazine/articles/why-sam-harris-is-unlikely-to-change-his-mind10 Why Sam Harris is Unlikely to Change his Mind] by JONATHAN HAIDT, February 3, 2014 8:36 pm</ref>

Yet, the works of New Atheists, including Richard Dawkins, often betray an amateurish knowledge of philosophy, religion and science. For example, [[Vox Day]]'s book ''[http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf The Irrational atheist]'' found multiple errors in reasoning and factual errors when it came to the works of New Atheist authors.<ref>[http://creation.com/review-irrational-atheist-by-vox-day Excellent refutation of ‘new atheists’ flawed by heterodox open theism], A review of The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens by Vox Day, Benbella Books, Dallas, TX, 2008, reviewed by Lita Cosner</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]]

=== Atheist philosopher John Gray on the dogmatic arrogance of Richard Dawkins ===

[[File:John Gray.JPG|thumbnail|left|200px|The [[economist]] Tomáš Sedláček (left) and the [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] [[John Gray (philosopher)|John Gray]] (right) at ZURICH.MINDS 2012]]
In a 2014 New Republic article entitled ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins: His atheism is its own kind of narrow religion'', the atheist philosopher [[John Gray (philosopher)|John Gray]] wrote:
{{cquote|One might wager a decent sum of money that it has never occurred to Dawkins that to many people he appears as a comic figure. His default mode is one of rational indignation—a stance of withering patrician disdain for the untutored mind of a kind one might expect in a schoolmaster in a minor public school sometime in the 1930s. He seems to have no suspicion that any of those he despises could find his stilted pose of indignant rationality merely laughable. “I am not a good observer,” he writes modestly. He is referring to his observations of animals and plants, but his weakness applies more obviously in the case of humans. Transfixed in wonderment at the workings of his own mind, Dawkins misses much that is of importance in human beings—himself and others.<ref name="newrepublic.com">[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins''], New Republic by John Gray</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins' comment about aborting Down syndrome babies ==

''See also:'' [[Abortion and atheism]], [[Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social intelligence]] and [[Eugenics]]

In August 2014, Richard Dawkins caused a firestorm by claiming an unborn baby with [[Down's Syndrome|Down’s syndrome]] should be aborted and that it would be “immoral to bring it into the world.”<ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/20/Atheist-Richard-Dawkins-Abort-Down-s-Syndrome-Baby-Immoral-To-Bring-It-Into-The-World Atheist Richard Dawkins: 'Abort' Down's Syndrome Baby, 'Immoral To Bring It Into The World'] by by Dr. Susan Berry, Breitbart News 20 Aug 2014</ref> Dr. Michael Brown wrote in the ''Christian Post'' about this matter: "It is becoming increasingly clear that Dawkins is something of an embarrassment, even to other atheists (although he is still revered by many). The only question that remains is this: Are his irrational and immoral positions unique to him, or are they the logical outcome of his Darwinian evolutionism?"<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-exposes-the-immorality-of-his-atheism-125159/ Richard Dawkins Exposes the Immorality of His Atheism By Michael Brown, ''Christian Post'', August 21, 2014|10:15 am]</ref> See also: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]]

A British father whose Down's syndrome daughter passed six General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) tests called Richard Dawkins an "ignorant idiot".<ref>[http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/downs-syndrome-girl-passes-six-4095031 Down's Syndrome girl passes six GCSEs as dad calls Richard Dawkins 'an ignorant idiot'], Mirror by By Grace Macaskill, Aug 23, 2014 15:41</ref>

== Martin Robbins at ''New Statesman'': Dawkins grasping for attention and relevance ==

In 2013, Martin Robbins wrote in the ''New Statesman'' concerning the public persona of Dawkins: "Increasingly though, his public output resembles that of a man desperately grasping for attention and relevance..."<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2013/08/atheism-maturing-and-it-will-leave-richard-dawkins-behind Atheism is maturing, and it will leave Richard Dawkins behind]</ref>

Recently, Richard Dawkins has been reduced to Tweeting provocative Twitter posts in order to gain attention. After the predictable ensuing uproar, Dawkins half-heartedly apologizes for the provocative Tweets.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/21/the-12-stages-of-a-richard-dawkins-twitter-scandal_n_5698443.html The 12-Stage 'Evolution' Of A Richard Dawkins Twitter Scandal], By Paul Vale, The Huffington Post UK, Posted: 22/08/2014 02:06 BST</ref>
== Richard Dawkins' loss of influence post Elevatatorgate and other controversies ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]], [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]] and [[Internet atheism]]

As can be seen by the graph below, by means of embedded code on his website from Quantcast, Quantcast directly measured the web traffic of Richard Dawkins' website. Traffic to Dawkins website is significantly down post-[[Elevatorgate]]. See also: [[Internet atheism]]

Although his following of Dawkian atheist has significantly waned post-Elevatorgate and due to his generally [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|abrasive manner]], he does retain a small cult following (See: [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]], [[Richard Dawkins' cult of personality]] and [[Atheist cults]]).

Furthermore, the New Atheism movement has greatly waned in terms of its prominence (see: [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]]).

=== Initial loss of web traffic to Richard Dawkins's website post Elevatorgate ===
[[File:Richard Dawkins web traffic 12-23-12.png|thumbnail|center|775px|According to the web traffic tracking company [[Quantcast]], the web traffic of Richard Dawkins' website fell in 2012.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/12/2012-has-been-bad-year-for-richard.html 2012 has been a very BAD year for Richard Dawkins's website according to Quantcast]</ref> By October 2014, the web traffic for his website fell to a lower level according to Quantcast.<ref>[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2014/10/richard-dawkins-loss-of-influence.html Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]</ref>

 
 
In October of 2012, [[Rebecca Watson]] published a story about Elevatorgate and its aftermath in ''Slate'' entitled, ''It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too: I spoke out about sexual harassment among atheists and scientists. Then came the rape threats''.<ref>[http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/10/sexism_in_the_skeptic_community_i_spoke_out_then_came_the_rape_threats.html It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too: I spoke out about sexual harassment among atheists and scientists. Then came the rape threats] by Rebecca Watson, ''Slate'', October 2012</ref>
 
 
The web traffic was measured via [[Quantcast]] which directly measured Dawkins' website traffic via embedded code on his website.<ref name="Quantcast - Quantcast Measure">[https://www.quantcast.com/measure/ Quantcast - Quantcast Measure]</ref>]]

=== Web traffic of Richard Dawkins' website has seen a dramatic drop ===
[[File:Richard Dawkins' website traffic.jpg|500px|thumbnail|center|The above graph shows the monthly website traffic to Richard Dawkins' website as of June 22, 2015 in terms of unique monthly web visitors.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2015/06/web-traffic-of-richard-dawkins-main.html Web traffic of Richard Dawkins' main website]</ref> As you can see above, in 2012, Richard Dawkins saw a very large decrease in web traffic.
 
 
The website traffic is measured via [[Quantcast]] which directly measures Dawkins' website traffic via embedded code on his website.<ref name="Quantcast - Quantcast Measure"/>]]

=== Alexa ranking of Richard Dawkins' website ===

''See also:'' [[Alexa rankings of Richard Dawkins' website]]

[[File:Richarddawkins.net alexa.png|thumbnail|center|400px|According to [[Alexa]], Richard Dawkins website lost a large amount of its global market share during to period between 2010 and the beginning portion of 2012.]]
{{Clear}}
[[File:Richard Dawkins alexa 2016.png|thumbnail|center|400px|In 2015, Richard Dawkins' website fell in terms of its Alexa ranking.]]
{{Clear}}
[[File:Richarddawkins.net alexa 10-2106.png|thumbnail|center|400px|In 2016, Richard Dawkins' website lost a considerable amount of global market share according to the web traffic tracking company [[Alexa]].]]
{{Clear}}
[[File:Richard dawkins website alexa April 2017.png|thumbnail|center|400px|In April of 2017, according to Alexa, Richard Dawkins' website continued to experience a steep decline in terms of its global market share.]]
{{Clear}}
[[File:Richard dawkins alexa 10-27-2017.png|thumbnail|center|400px|On November 27, 2017, Richard Dawkins' website was the 158,206th most popular website in the world.
 
 
His website was losing global market share in the latter quarter of 2017.]]
{{clear}}

=== Coverage of Richard Dawkins speaking tour ===

In 2016, the Shadow To Light blog wrote in article entitled ''Fading Dawkins'':
{{Cquote|Dawkins has been on a speaking tour recently in the United States. On Nov 1 and 2, he had a “public conversation” with [[Sam Harris]].

In the golden years of [[New Atheism|Gnu]], there would have been a couple of news reports about this talk filled with some click-bait quote and I’d probably be blogging about something they said. But despite Dawkins’ return to the speaker circuit, and despite him teaming up with Sam Harris for two days, I can’t find a single report. No one outside that theater is interested in what two of the Four Horsemen had to say.

Look, Dawkins and Harris will always have their place among the [[Madalyn Murray O'Hair|Madalyn Murray O’Hair]] crowd. But as far as breaking out into the mainstream is concerned, the fad has run its course.<ref>[https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2016/11/03/the-fading-dawkins/ ''Fading Dawkins'']</ref>}}

== Survey of scientists: Richard Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists ==
[[File:Richard Dawkins Stockholm.JPG|thumbnail|right|250px|Richard Dawkins]]

''See also:'' [[Atheism and science]]

''The Independent'' reported:
{{Cquote|British scientists who mentioned Richard Dawkins during a recent study seem mostly to dislike him, with some arguing that he misrepresents science and is misleading the public.

Criticism of the British evolutionary biologist came up repeatedly in a new study looking at public understanding of science and how scientists feel that they are portrayed in the media – despite respondents never actually being asked about him. The research was published in a recent edition of Public Understandings of Science as part of a broader study looking at how scientists feel about religion.

As part of the study, the researchers conducted a survey of over 20,000 scientists from eight countries. In the UK, the researchers surveyed 1,581 randomly sampled scientists. They then spoke to 137 of them for in-depth interviews to see what they thought.

Though Dawkins wasn’t a part of the interview process, and researchers didn’t ask about him, 48 of the 137 British scientists they spoke to mentioned Dawkins. Of those 48 that referenced him, 80 per cent said they thought that Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public speeches, according to the study by Rice University, Texas.<ref>[British scientists don't like Richard Dawkins, finds study that didn't even ask questions about Richard Dawkins] by Andrew Griffin, The Independent, 2016</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins, pseudoscience, and other errors ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]] and [[Irreligion and superstition]]

Within the [[evolution]]ary science community and the [[creation science]] community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in [[pseudoscience]] and also has faced charges of committing elementary errors.<ref name="truefreethinker.com">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref><ref>http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php</ref>

The website [[True Free Thinker]] notes:
{{cquote|Moreover, note that with regards to “assertions without adequate evidence” evolutionary biologist and geneticist, Prof. [[Richard Lewontin]], referenced [[Carl Sagan]]’s list of the “best contemporary science-popularizers” which includes Richard Dawkins. These authors have, as Lewontin puts it, “put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.” Lewontin specifically mentions “Dawkins’s vulgarizations of Darwinism” (find details [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/how-billions-demons-haunted-baloney-while-avoiding-detection here]).

Even renowned evolutionary biologists H. Allen Orr, David Sloan Wilson, and Massimo Pigliucci have called into question the power that Dawkins once had as an intellectual, since he has made elementary errors in ''[[The God Delusion]]''.<ref name="truefreethinker.com">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref>}}
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|160px|A Baylor University study found that the irreligious are more likely to be [[superstitious]] than evangelical [[Christians]].<ref name="online.wsj.com"/>]]

In 2010, a new discovery relating to the [[eye]] further discredited the [[evolution]]ary quackery of Richard Dawkins.<ref>http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins</ref> In addition, in 2010, the journal ''Nature'' featured an interview with the evolutionist, biologist, and atheist David Sloan Wilson who criticized Richard Dawkins for denying the evidence for the societal benefits of religion (see also: [[Atheism and mental and physical health]]).<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/atheism-as-a-stealth-reli_3_b_83605.html</ref>

As far as the the social science of [[history]], Richard Dawkins has [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism|engaged in historical revisionism when it comes to the mass murders committed by atheists]].

Many of Richard Dawkins detractors are [[conservative]] [[Christianity|Christians]] which is not surprising. As alluded to earlier, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians."<ref name="online.wsj.com"/> In the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].<ref name="cbsnews.com">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref>

== Agnosticism of Richard Dawkins ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism]], [[Atheism, agnosticism and flip-flopping]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

Although Dawkins declared himself an agnostic in his 2006 book ''The God Delusion'', he declared that atheist evangelism is important.<ref name="voxday.blogspot.com">[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html Mailvox: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!]</ref> Author [[Vox Day]] wrote concerning this matter, "While the fact that Dawkins declared himself a literal agnostic in the very book in which he declared the importance of atheist evangelism is both ironic and incoherent, it will surprise no one who has read the chapter of ''The Irrational Atheist'' entitled "Darwin's Judas".<ref name="voxday.blogspot.com"/> Also, despite being an elderly self-declared agnostic, in his book ''The God Delusion'', Dawkins said that "permanent agnosticism in principle" is "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice".<ref>''The God Delusion'', page 70</ref> In February 2012, Dawkins declared that he believed that there is a 6.9 out of 7 probability of [[God]]'s non-existence (approximately a 1 percent probability that God exist).<ref name="voxday.blogspot.com"/><ref name="blogs.telegraph.co.uk">[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100139859/id-go-to-church-just-to-reduce-the-probability-of-spending-eternity-in-hell-with-richard-dawkins/ ''I'd go to church just to reduce the probability of spending eternity in Hell with Richard Dawkins'' by Dr. Tim Stanley, ''The Daily Telegraph'', February 27, 2012]</ref>

Although Dawkins declared that he was an [[agnosticism|agnostic]] in 2006 and 2012, in 2002 Richard Dawkins publicly argued for the position of [[militant atheism]] and claimed that he will not feel anything after death (see also: [[Ex-atheists]]).<ref name="voxday.blogspot.com"/><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3_rGbiT_3c Richard Dawkins Says He's Agnostic -- NOT atheist - video testimony of Richard Dawkins saying he is not an atheist, but an agnostic]</ref><ref>
*[http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html Richard Dawkins on militant atheism]</ref> Despite arguing for the position of militant atheism previously, Dawkins told the Archbishop Dr. [[Rowan Williams]] that he never said was an atheist.<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic], ''Daily Mail'', 24 February 2012</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW429E4 Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist]</ref><ref>[http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html Richard Dawkins on militant atheism]</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism]] and [[Atheism and historical revisionism]]

The historian Dr. Tim Stanley wrote that he believed Dawkins is taking a foolish gamble and Dawkins is risking spending an eternity in [[hell]].<ref name="blogs.telegraph.co.uk"/> Dr. Don Batten, a scientist at [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote that despite Richard Dawkins' skeptical protestations, Dawkins appears to be a [[God]]-hater.<ref>[http://creation.com/is-richard-dawkins-an-atheist Is Richard Dawkins an atheist? by Dr. Don Batten]</ref>

=== Criticism of fairies at the bottom of the garden analogy ===
[[File:Fairy-md.png|thumbnail|200px|left|On July 18, 2012, a supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] showed the folly of Richard Dawkins' comparison of fairies at the bottom of the garden to the issue of God's existence. According to Dawkins' faulty and irrational analogy, there is about a 1% chance that fairies are at the bottom of the garden.<ref name="questionevolution.blogspot.com">[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-does-richard-dawkins-have-such-high.html Why does Richard Dawkins have such a high belief in the possibility of fairies being at the bottom of the garden?]</ref>]]
A supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] wrote:
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins wrote in his book the God Delusion: "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden" (God Delusion, page 74). In addition, Dawkins said in his book the God Delusion that on a 7 point scale of being sure that God does not exists: "I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7."

In 2012, in video recorded discussion with Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury, Richard Dawkins said he was 6.9 out of 7 of sure that God does not exist and counted himself as an agnostic.

A 6.9 out of 7 would mean that Richard Dawkins believes there is about a .986 percent chance that God exists. In short, according to Dawkins, there is about a 1% chance that God exists.

Since Richard Dawkins likened God's existence to fairies being at the bottom of the garden, why does Dawkins believe there is about a 1% chance that fairies are at the bottom of the garden?

Dawkins is either being disingenuous or he is being irrational or a combination of both is occurring. Anyone who gives weight to Dawkins' views on the existence of God or his views on the creation vs. evolution controversy is obviously displaying bad judgement.

Sin is very irrational. Dr. Don Batten, a scientist at Creation Ministries International, wrote that despite Richard Dawkins' skeptical protestations, Dawkins appears to be a God-hater. This seems to be the best description of Dawkins' behavior.

It really comes as no surprise that Dawkins has been noticeably quiet about the
[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists of the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]. He obviously cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions.<ref name="questionevolution.blogspot.com">[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-does-richard-dawkins-have-such-high.html Why does Richard Dawkins have such a high belief in the possibility of fairies being at the bottom of the garden?]</ref>}}

=== Publisher's notice of his upcoming book and the issue of inconsistency and flip-flopping ===

On June 5, 2012, the ''Christian'' Post reported:
{{cquote|Famed atheist and scientist Richard Dawkins has set out to write a new book that will focus on his own evolution toward the path of atheism.

"Dawkins will tell the story of his own intellectual evolution, explaining how his groundbreaking work as a scientist led to his work as an atheist," states Dawkins' new publisher HarperCollins' Ecco. The book has not yet been given a title, but is expected to be on bookshelves by 2014.<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-next-book-to-focus-on-personal-path-toward-atheism-76099/ Richard Dawkins' Next Book to Focus on Personal Path Toward Atheism]</ref>}}

In response a supporter of the Question evolution! campaign wrote in an article entitled ''Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy'':
[[File:Flip-flops.png|thumbnail|right|200px|The article ''Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy'' written by a supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] wrote: "Christians should call Dawkins on his disingenuous [[Flip-flop (politics)|flip-flopping]] if his publisher continues to promote the book as a book focusing on his journey to atheism without mentioning the fact that Dawkins is presently an agnostic who has rejected atheism."<ref name="ReferenceA">[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/atheism-is-rudderless-and-unseaworthy.html Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy]</ref>]]
{{cquote|The publisher's notice of the upcoming book using the term "atheist" can be found on several other prominent internet properties besides the ''Christian Post'' such as ''Publishers Weekly'', ''The Blaze,'' ''Christianity Today'' and ''Galleycat'' (''Galleycat'' is on the Media Bistro domain).

First, Richard Dawkins has gone from being [http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html a militant atheist] to being [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html an agnostic].

Vox Day [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html wrote] about Dawkins' inconsistency when it comes to the issues of atheism and agnosticism...

Christians should call Dawkins on his disingenuous [[Flip-flop (politics)|flip-flopping]] if his publisher continues to promote the book as a book focusing on his journey to atheism without mentioning the fact that Dawkins is presently an agnostic who has rejected atheism.

An author calling himself an atheist or a publisher giving the impression that someone is an atheist may sell more books as it is more provocative, but it isn't intellectually honest if the author has rejected atheism and is an agnostic. If Dawkins claims to be an agnostic who is unsure if God exist or not, then he should clearly communicate this to the public and so should his publisher. Dawkins has been unreasonable as far as his alleged agnosticism and I recommend reading the article ''Why does Richard Dawkins have such a high belief in the possibility of fairies being at the bottom of the garden?''

Given the weakness of his argumentation and the vitriol which often accompanies it, I agree with Dr. Don Batten that the weight of the evidence points to Dawkins being a God-hater.<ref name="ReferenceA">[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/atheism-is-rudderless-and-unseaworthy.html Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy]</ref>}}

==== Title of the book ''The God Delusion'' displayed odd and inconsistent behavior ====

A July 25, 2012 article entitled ''Is Richard Dawkins a flip-flopper'' declared:
{{cquote|Another reason why Dawkins displays odd behavior in reference to the atheism and agnosticism issue is that he titled a recent book of his ''The God Delusion''. Obviously, this is an odd title for an agnostic author to name a book - especially one who asserts there is about a 1% chance that God exist in his estimation. This odd behavior leads me to the conclusion that the reason the book was titled ''The God Delusion'' was for crass marketing reasons as it is more provocative title which would grab more press headlines and sell more books.

Think about it. If there was a 1% chance that something existed, would you call your neighbor delusional if he believed it existed? No, you would not. Sure, you would think the odds are against your neighbor in terms of his belief, but you would not think he is delusional. The term delusional is generally used in connection with ideas that are insane to believe due to there being overwhelming evidence to the contrary.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-richard-dawkins-flipflopper.html Is Richard Dawkins a flip-flopper?]</ref>}}

== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped==
[[File:Richard Dawkins stumped.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins stumped|thumbnail|200px|left|The video ''From a Frog to a Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]], features Richard Dawkins being stumped by the question of a creationist.<ref name="creation.com">http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again</ref> The interviewer asked Dawkins for an example of [[genetics|genetic]] [[information]] arising from a [[mutation]].<ref name="creation.com"/> Recently, a creationist produced an excellent [[YouTube]] video demonstrating the Richard Dawkins still has not answered the question posed to him by the interviewer and he uses Richard Dawkins own words to demonstrate this fact.<ref name="youtube.com">[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo YouTube video - Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!]</ref>]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]], [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]] and [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates]]

In 2008, a video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public, showing Dawkins <ref name="stumped">[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).</ref>
[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ being stumped] by a question from the creationist interviewer.
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation.

In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped, but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.<ref>[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]</ref> However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.<ref>[http://creationontheweb.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]</ref>
However, despite being given a free reign in a sceptic publication to respond, he still didn't provide any examples. Recently, a creationist produced an excellent [[YouTube]] video demonstrating the Richard Dawkins still has not answered the question posed to him by the interviewer and he uses Richard Dawkins own words to demonstrate this fact.<ref name="youtube.com"/> The [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo video] can be found at [[YouTube]] and is entitled ''Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!''

As noted earlier, Dr. Don Batten of [[Creation Ministries International]] theorizes that Richard Dawkins is a God hater and not a skeptic.<ref>http://creation.com/is-richard-dawkins-an-atheist</ref> The video in which Richard Dawkins [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ clearly squirms] when asked for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation and dodges the question with an unrelated monologue, certainly gives some credence to Dr. Batten's postulate. Richard Dawkins inept response relating to the existence of God during his interview with Ben Stein further bolsters the view that Richard Dawkins is more motivated by hatred towards God than any inward assurance Dawkins has concerning the validity of his skeptical contentions.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rgtN0pCMQ VIDEO] There is certainly historical precedence for evolutionists/atheists having inward doubts about the validity of evolution and atheism. The evolutionist [[Charles Darwin]] wrote in a private notebook that he was a [[materialism|materialist]] (a type of atheist).<ref>http://creation.com/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it</ref> Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>

Richard Dawkins [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|has been inconsistent concerning his supposed refusal to debate creationists]] and his refusal is merely a ruse to avoid losing debates to creation scientists. Generally speaking, [[Creation science|creationist scientists]] tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]).

==Dawkins' comment concerning Adolf Hitler==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]], [[Richard Dawkins and morality]] and [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]]
[[File:Hitler.jpg|thumb|206px|right|The [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism|and agnostic]] Richard Dawkins said in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."<ref name=Hitler /> ]]
As noted earlier, when asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the [[Muslim]] [extremists] aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the [[Bible]]. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the [[Sabbath]]."<ref name="Hitler"/>

The interviewer wrote in response, "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own [[philosophy|philosophical]] position [[Atheism and morality|did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments.]] His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."<ref name=Hitler />

For additional information, please see:

*[[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]]

*[[Atheists, Adolf Hitler and the no true Scottsman fallacy]]

== Accusations of cowardice ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and debate]], [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Atheism vs. Christianity debates]]
[[Image:Billcraig_czvx.jpg‎‎|thumb|left|200px|Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] ]]

As far as Christianity vs. atheism public debates, in recent years there have been a number of notable instances of atheists being reluctant to debate and doing poorly in debates (see: [[Atheism vs. Christianity debates]]).

Richard Dawkins has established a reputation [[Richard Dawkins and debate|for avoiding debates]] with his strongest opponents. On May 14, 2011, the [[Great Britain|British]] newspaper ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' published a news story entitled ''Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God''.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', May 14, 2011</ref> In ''The Daily Telegraph'' article Dr. [[Daniel Came]], a member of the Faculty of [[Philosophy]] at Oxford University, was quoted as writing to fellow atheist Richard Dawkins concerning his refusal to debate Dr. [[William Lane Craig]]: "The absence of a debate with the foremost [[Christian apologetics|apologist]] for [[Christianity|Christian]] [[theism]] is a glaring omission on your [[Curriculum vitae|CV]] and is of course apt to be interpreted as [[cowardice]] on your part."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Richard Dawkins accused of [[cowardice]] for refusing to debate existence of God], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', May 14, 2011</ref>

In October 2011, Dr. Craig went to England and the Daily Telegraph declared that Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for his refusal to debate William Lane Craig plus declared that Dawkins is a "proud man" and a "coward" who puts on an "illiterate, angry schtick" for the public.<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100112626/richard-dawkins-is-either-a-fool-or-a-coward-for-refusing-to-debate-william-lane-craig/ Richard Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for refusing to debate William Lane Craig - October 21, 2011 - ''The Daily Telegraph'']</ref> In addition, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[True Free Thinker|Ken Ammi]] called Dawkins a "cowardly clown" because Dawkins and other prominent skeptics/atheists refused to debate [[Creation Ministries International]] at the 2010 Global Atheist Convention.<ref>[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown Richard Dawkins, the Cowardly Clown]</ref> For more information please see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]

Richard Dawkins is known for his vehement and sometimes vitriolic promotion of [[weak atheism]] and the evolutionary paradigm. Dawkins has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect. Mr. Dawkins currently resides in the [[UK]]. He was an assistant professor of Zoology at the [[University of California, Berkeley]] for two years before becoming a zoology researcher at [[Oxford]].

== Richard Dawkins lost a debate to a rabbi and then denied the debate ever took place ==
[[Image:2402173645 c8e6168fe7.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|200px|right|Richard Dawkins,]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]], [[Atheism and Debate]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]

As briefly noted earlier Richard Dawkins had a debate with Rabbi [[Shmuley Boteach]]. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach was named the London Times Preacher of the Year 2000 and is the author of 20 books.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>

Recently Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote:
{{cquote|...Dawkins attacked me on his website and denied that he and I had ever debated. My office quickly posted the full footage of a two hour debate which took place on October 23, 1996, a debate which Dawkins actually lost after a vote taken by the students as to which side, science or religion, caused more students to change their minds. In my article on the subject responding to his attack I was extremely respectful of Dr. Dawkins and was therefore shocked to receive a letter in return in which he accused me of speaking like Hitler. Had the noted scientist lost his mind? Hitler? Was this for real?<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>}}

[[WorldNetDaily]] offers the following quotes of Rabbi Boteach about debate and the initial denial by Dawkins that the debate never took place:
{{cquote|That is a particularly bold untruth. Our debate, which took place at St. Catherine's College, Oxford on Oct. 23, 1996, attracted hundreds of students and featured, on the atheist side, Prof. Dawkins and chemistry Prof. Peter Atkins, and on the religion side, me and Prof. Keith Ward, Oxford's Regius Professor of Divinity. Student president Josh Wine was in the chair," the rabbi explained.

"In a vote at the end of the debate as to how many students had changed their minds after hearing the arguments, Dawkin's side was defeated and religion prevailed, which might account for his selective memory," he wrote.<ref name="wnd.com">http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref>}}
[[File:Shmuley Boteach.jpg|thumbnail|150px|left|[[Shmuley Boteach]] ]]
Rabbi Boteach reported at Beliefnet:
{{cquote|I also gave Dr. Dawkins the opportunity to even score by accepting a further debate, at the time and place of his choosing (within reason, of course), to which he has yet to respond.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>}}

A video of the debate that Dawkins lost to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is available at Rabbi Schely Boteach's website.

A supporter of the [[Question evolution campaign]] wrote:
{{cquote|We don't believe a word Richard Dawkins says and for good reason. For example, he claimed to have never debated Rabbi Schmuley Boteach, but then he had to admit a debate took place as it was videotaped. According to the student audience, the rabbi won the debate as he convinced more students of the validity of his position concerning the existence of God.

Furthermore, an angry and embarrassed Dawkins then claimed the rabbi shrieked like Adolf Hitler. Now tell me, how do you forget a debate with a rabbi who supposedly shrieks like Adolf Hitler? Obviously, Dawkins exposed himself for the clown and fraud he is.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/richard-dawkins-and-rabbi-shmuley.html Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach debate ]</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins and radio appearances ==

=== Richard Dawkins' radio debate with Giles Fraser ===
[[File:Giles Frasier.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Giles Frasier]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' debate with Giles Fraser]] and [[Richard Dawkins quotes]]

On February 19, 2012 ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported:
{{cquote|...some critics of Dawkins branded him "an embarrassment to atheism" after what many listeners considered a humiliation in a Radio 4 debate with Giles Fraser, formerly Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, in which the professor boasted he could recite the full title of [[Charles Darwin]]'s "[[The Origin of Species]]", then when challenged, dithered and said: "Oh God."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9091007/Slaves-at-the-root-of-the-fortune-that-created-Richard-Dawkins-family-estate.html Slaves at the root of the fortune that created Richard Dawkins' family estate, The Daily Telegragh, February 19, 2012]</ref>}}

On February 14, 2012, ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported regarding the radio debate:
{{cquote|Dr. Fraser skewered the atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins so fabulously, so stylishly, and so thoroughly that anti-religion’s high priest was reduced to incoherent mumbling and spluttering.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9082059/For-once-Richard-Dawkins-is-lost-for-words.html For once, Richard Dawkins is lost for words - Atheists’ arrogance is their Achilles’ heel, as a cringemaking radio performance has proved By Stephen Pollard, Feb 14, 2012]</ref>}}

[[Vox Day]] wrote concerning the embarrassing incident for Dawkins:
{{cquote|As I have said repeatedly, Richard Dawkins is a huge intellectual fraud, and perhaps those who previously expressed incredulity at the idea that I would quite easily trounce the old charlatan in a debate will find it just a bit more credible now. This behavior isn't an outlier or a momentary lapse of memory, it is entirely characteristic. The man quite frequently pretends to knowledge that he patently does not possess and assumes he knows things that he obviously does not, which is why he avoids debate with those who are aware of his intellectual pretensions and are capable of exposing them.

It's bad enough that Dawkins couldn't come up with the name of what he considers to be the most important book ever written immediately after claiming he could do so, but in addition to stumbling a little on the subtitle, he even forgot the rather important part of the title that refers to the actual mechanism supposedly responsible!<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html Richard Dawkins, sans pants, Wednesday, February 15, 2012]</ref>}}

(The full title of Charles Darwin's book is ''On the [[The Origin of Species]] by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'' and evolutionists rarely cite the book's full title which is racist. See: [[Evolutionary racism]])
=== Scott Simon of National Public Radio: Interview of Richard Dawkins ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and charity]] and [[Atheism and love]]

Scott Simon of [[National Public Radio]] (NPR): "I have covered a lot of wars, famines and tragedies. And it seems to me, truly every theatre of suffering I have ever been to, there is a dauntless nun, priest, clergy or religious person, who is working very selflessly and bravery there for the good of human beings. But I don't run into [[Atheist movement|organized atheists]] who do this.

Richard Dawkins: "Perhaps there is not enough of them."...

Scott Simon, NPR: "But I do wonder am I just not seeing the world correctly to see large numbers of well-motivated atheists lending their lives to trying to better the world... If I might put it this way, are they just more concerned about being right intellectually."<ref>[http://www.npr.org/2017/05/27/530337283/richard-dawkins-on-terrorism-and-religion Richard Dawkins On Terrorism And Religion]</ref>

== New Atheism ==
[[File:Christopher Hitchens.jpg|right|thumb|200px|[[Christopher Hitchens]] ]]
''See also:'' [[New Atheism]] and [[Causes of the New Atheism movement]]

The term [[New Atheism]] which first appeared in the November 2006 edition of ''Wired'' magazine, is used to describe a new incarnation of [[militant atheism]] and also frequently applied to a series of six best-selling books by five authors that appeared in the period between 2004–2008. These authors include Richard Dawkins, [[Christopher Hitchens]], [[Sam Harris]], [[Daniel Dennett]] and [[Victor J. Stenger]].<ref>http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/battle.html</ref> The four most prominent writers of the New Atheist movement are Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

The New Atheism movement was a reaction the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] on Manhattan and also due to [[Antitheism|antitheist]] anger over the failure of the [[secularization thesis]] (the secularization thesis wrongly predicted that religion would fade away and it also did not predict the [[Desecularization|resurgence of religion]] in much of the world).<ref>[This just in from Oxford Press: Turning the intellectual tables on 'New Atheists'] by Richard Osling</ref><ref>[http://www.catalystresources.org/reflections-on-the-new-atheism/ Reflections on the New Atheism] by Alister McGrath</ref>

For more information, please see: [[Causes of the New Atheism movement]]

=== Impact of the New Atheism ===

''See also:'' [[Desecularization]] and [[Decline of the atheist movement]]

New Atheism has not had much of an impact in terms of gaining new adherents to [[atheism]]. In a March 10, 2008 [[USA Today]] article Stephen Prothero stated the following regarding the impact of the "New Atheism":
{{cquote|Numbers lie, but they also tell tales untrustworthy and otherwise. So the key question stirring around the much discussed U.S Religious Landscape Survey released in late February by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life is what tale does it state about the state of the union.

For some, the story of this survey, based on interviews in multiple languages with more than 35,000 adults, is the strength of American Religion.

Not too long ago, I wrote that [[American atheism]] was going the way of the freak show. As books by Christopher Hitchens and other "new atheists" climbed the best seller lists, I caught a lot of flak for that prophecy. But atheist make up only 1.6% of respondents to this survey....<ref>American Faith: A Work In Progress by Stephen Prothero, USA Today, March 10, 2008, page 11A</ref>}}
[[File:Sam Harris 01.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Sam Harris]] ]]
YouTube atheist [[Thunderfoot]] said about the atheist movement after [[Reason Rally 2016]] had a very low turnout:
{{Cquote|I'm not sure there is anything in this movement worth saving. [[Christopher Hitchens|Hitchens]] is dead. Dawkins simply doesn't have the energy for this sort of thing anymore. [[Sam Harris|Harris]] went his own way. And [[Daniel Dennett|Dennett]] just kind of blended into the background. So what do you think when the largest gathering of the nonreligious in history pulls in... I don't know. Maybe 2,000 people. Is there anything worth saving?<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/even-atheists-bash-reason-rally/ Even atheists bash 'Reason Rally']</ref>}}

On the other hand, Stephen LeDrew wrote at [[Oxford University]] Press's Academic Insights for the Thinking World website:
{{cquote|The ten-year anniversary of the publication of Richard Dawkins’ ''The God Delusion'' is approaching, and it has already been over ten years since Sam Harris published ''The End of Faith''.

Social science in general has not yet fully appreciated the significance of the New Atheism and has tended not to take it very seriously, with the exception of those working in the new sub-discipline of secularity studies. But whatever one might think of the New Atheists’ ideas, an honest appraisal would recognize that they have had a significant and lasting impact.

They should be remembered for catalyzing a movement for religious dissent and inspiring atheists to come together and find a voice in American public life. But there’s a much darker side to the legacy of the New Atheism that stems from its imperialist and xenophobic tendencies, to say nothing of some thinly veiled Social Darwinism and [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11047072/Richard-Dawkins-immoral-to-allow-Downs-syndrome-babies-to-be-born.html arguments] for eugenics. Sam Harris in particular is now known more for [http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestine] and [http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/in-defense-of-profiling ethnic profiling] at airport security than for his science-based critique of religious faith. Richard Dawkins’ personal legacy has taken a heavy hit in the past few years, as his rambling criticisms of feminism and Muslim “barbarians” on Twitter have led to charges of [http://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/new_atheisms_troubling_misogyny_the_pompous_sexism_of_richard_dawkins_and_sam_harris_partner/ sexism], [http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/richard_dawkins_does_it_again_new_atheisms_islamophobia_problem/ racism], and general arrogance and intolerance.<ref>[http://blog.oup.com/2015/11/legacy-new-atheism/#sthash.6ZTcoHLw.dpuf The legacy of the New Atheism] by Stephen LeDrew wrote at [[Oxford University]] Press's Academic Insights for the Thinking World website</ref>}}

The [[liberal]] leaning British newspaper ''[[The Guardian]]'' said regarding the New Atheism:
{{cquote|Anti-[[faith]] proselytising is a growth industry. But its increasingly hysterical flag-bearers are heading for a spectacular failure...

These increasingly hysterical books may boost the pension, they may be morale boosters for a particular kind of American atheism that feels victimized - the latest candidate in a flourishing American tradition - but one suspects that they are going to do very little to challenge the appeal of a phenomenon they loathe too much to understand.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2074076,00.html</ref>}}

In 2010, it was reported that ''The God Delusion'' sold 2,086,402 copies and 907,161 of those copies were sold in [[North America]]. Contrastly, in 2010, the [[Evangelical Christians|evangelical Christian]] [[Rick Warren]] sold between 25,000,000 to 50,000,000 copies of his book ''The Purpose Driven Life''.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2010/02/03/how-many-copies-of-the-god-delusion-have-been-sold/ How Many Copies of The God Delusion Have Been Sold?]</ref>

=== Decline of the New Atheism movement ===

''See also:'' [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]] and [[Causes of the New Atheism movement#The rise and decline of New Atheism and the role of the media|Decline of New Atheism and the media]]

On November 6, 2015, the ''New Republic'' published an article entitled, ''Is the New Atheism dead?''<ref>[https://newrepublic.com/article/123349/new-atheism-dead ''Is the New Atheism dead?] by Elizabeth Bruenig, New Republic, November 6, 2015</ref>

In 2015, the atheist author Joshua Kelly wrote:
{{cquote|...since the death of Hitchens: angry atheism lost its most charismatic champion. Call it what you like: New Atheism, fire-brand atheism, etc., had a surge with the Four Horsemen in the middle of the last decade and in the last four years has generally peetered out to a kind that is more docile, [[Political correctness|politically correct]], and even apologetic.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2015/12/uproar-against-dawkins-is-sign-of-new-atheism-retrogression/ Uproar Against Dawkins Is Sign of New Atheism Retrogression] by Joshua Kelly</ref>}}

==== Richard Dawkins' lack of a counter plan to reverse the decline of global atheism and agnosticism ====

Also, on July 31, 2012 in an article entitled ''Evolutionists, atheists and agnostics: Where is your master plan to reverse your decline?'' supporters of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] indicated that atheists, agnostics and evolutionists lack a plan to reverse their global decline.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/evolutionists-atheists-and-agnostics.html Evolutionists, atheists and agnostics: Where is your master plan to reverse your decline?]</ref>

==== Poor leadership skills ====

Using academic studies, survey data and other information, supporters of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] maintain that including Richard Dawkins, there is a lack of sound leadership within the agnostic/atheist and evolutionist communities.

See:

*[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/03/richard-dawkins-insightful-secular.html Richard Dawkins: Insightful secular strategist or an insincere book peddler?]

*[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/03/atheism-is-rudderless-and-unseaworthy.html Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy]

*[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/03/evolutionists-atheists-and-agnostics.html Evolutionists, atheists and agnostics: Where is your master plan to reverse your global decline?]

== Selective outrage on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles" ==
[[‎File:668738335 394b3820fb.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|Ben-Peter Terpstra wrote in the ''Australian Conservative'': "In all truth, Britain’s clean-shaven [[atheism|atheists]] aren’t serious about children’s rights, or they’d be launching venomous attacks against the [[United Nations]], in light of their more recent sex abuse scandals."]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles"]], [[Atheism and child pornography]] and [[Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA]]

The ''Australian Conservative'' recently published an article by Ben-Peter Terpstra entitled ''Preparing for Richard Dawkins’ crocodile tears'' which charges that Richard Dawkins exhibits selective outrage on the issue of child molestation. In the article Terpstra cites Bendan Oneill who wrote:
{{cquote|The [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested when he visits Britain later this year exposes the deeply disturbing, authoritarian and even Inquisitorial side to today’s campaigning secularism...

In 2006, Dawkins criticised ‘hysteria about paedophilia’ and said that, even though he was the victim of sexual abuse at boarding school, he would defend his abusive former teachers if ‘50 years on they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers’. Yet now he wants to put abusive priests on a par with genocidaires.<ref>http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8526/</ref>}}

Ben-Peter Terpstra writes: "In all truth, Britain’s clean-shaven atheists aren’t serious about children’s rights, or they’d be launching venomous attacks against the [[United Nations]], in light of their more recent sex abuse scandals."

Concerning Richard Dawkins recent selective outrage on child molestation the Christian apologetics website [[True Free Thinker]] writes:
{{cquote|His reputation has always been the very same and this Pope related publicity stunt is nothing new. Moreover, why would he oppose the Pope considering that what the Pope may be complicit in, surely, relates to some gentle pedophiles.

What! “Gentle pedophiles”!!!

Oh, no, no, no; those are not my words but Richard Dawkins who, indeed, argues that there are gentle pedophiles and that way too much is made of pedophilia at times.

For these reasons and more Robert Fulford’s referring to Richard Dawkins as a clown is very, very offensive—to clowns. Clowns are lovable and funny whilst Richard Dawkins is belligerent, arrogant, belittling and shockingly lacking in knowledge with regards to many of the issues that he takes on (find ample evidence [http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins here]).<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref>}}

=== The Atlantic article about Richard Dawkins repeatedly defending "mild" pedophilia ===

*[https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/richard-dawkins-defends-mild-pedophilia-again-and-again/311230/ Richard Dawkins Defends 'Mild' Pedophilia, Again and Again] , The Atlantic, September 10, 2013

=== Richard Dawkins' on child abuse and children believing in Hell ===

See: [[Richard Dawkins and Hell#Richard Dawkins' on child abuse and children believing in Hell|Richard Dawkins' on child abuse and children believing in Hell]]

== Richard Dawkins' battle with online fans over their use of profanity and gossip ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and profanity]], [[Richard Dawkins' battle with online fans]] and [[Atheism and the internet]]

In February 2010, the news organization ''The Telegraph'' reported Richard Dawkins was "embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'."<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html</ref> Richard Dawkins [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|has a reputation for being abrasive]] so the behavior of his fans is not entirely surprising. See: [[Atheism and profanity]]

It is commonly thought that some individuals who commonly use profanity have limited vocabularies and imaginations.<ref>''Handbook for New Converts'' By William J. (Bill) Morgan ThD, page 77</ref><ref>[http://www.contrarianconsulting.com/the-etiquette-of-profanity/ The Etiquette of Profanity] by Alan Weiss, Posted on October 31, 2010</ref>

== Richard Dawkins on homosexuality ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Richard Dawkins on homosexuality]] and [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]] and [[Atheism and homosexuality]]

Richard Dawkins, who is a liberal, speculates that a "gay gene" causes [[homosexuality]], but science has not discovered such a gene (see: [[Causes of Homosexuality|Causes of homosexuality]])<ref>[http://anglicansamizdat.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/richard-dawkins-explains-how-the-gay-gene-was-preserved/ Richard Dawkins speculates that gene for homosexuality exists]</ref> In 1993, Professor [[Miron Baron]], M.D., the renowned medical researcher and Professor at [[Columbia University]], wrote in [[BMJ]] (British Medical Journal) that there is a conflict relative to the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] and the notion of [[gene]]tic [[determinism]] concerning homosexuality. Dr. Baron wrote "...from an evolutionary perspective, [[homosexuality and genetics|genetically determined]] homosexuality would have become [[extinct]] long ago because of reduced reproduction."<ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1678219 BMJ. 1993 August 7; 307(6900): 337–338.]</ref> In the United States, liberals are [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|more likely]] to believe in evolution.<ref name="cbsnews.com"/> Also, in the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and liberals generally have [[Views on Homosexuality|more favorable]] opinions about homosexuality. Given Dr. [[Miron Baron]]'s commentary about homosexuality, many American liberals are inconsistent on the issues of evolution and homosexuality.
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]] ]]
An individual's beliefs regarding [[creation science]]/[[creationism]] and the theory of evolution appear to influence their views on homosexuality. Creationist scientists and creationist assert that the theory of evolution cannot account for the origin of gender and sexual reproduction.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/136</ref><ref name="answersingenesis.org">http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] states: "Homosexual acts go against [[God]]’s original [[Intelligent design|design]] of a man and a woman becoming one flesh — see [[Genesis]] 1 and 2, endorsed by [[Jesus]] Himself in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:3â€“6;&version=49; Matthew 19:3–6]."<ref>http://creation.com/web-cast-questions-and-answers-2002</ref> In addition, the vast majority of creation scientists reject the notion of [[gene]]tic [[determinism]] concerning the [[Causes of Homosexuality|origin of homosexuality]].<ref name="answersingenesis.org"/>

See also:

*[[Atheism and homosexuality]]
*[[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]]

==== Richard Dawkins commentary on the God of the Old Testament ====

Richard Dawkins has accused the [[God]] of the [[Old Testament]] of being [[homophobic]].<ref>[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-praises-bible%E2%80%A6-he-ignorant-barbarian Richard Dawkins praises the Bible…is he an ignorant barbarian?]</ref> Yet, Dawkins has not explained why God, who is described as an all powerful spiritual being in the Old Testament, would be afraid of homosexuals.

==Implication in the death of Jesse Kilgore==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Jesse Kilgore]], [[Atheism and depression]], [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and mental and physical health]]

[[Image:Desperation_man.jpg‎ |thumb|left|200px|Pitzer College sociologist Phil Zuckerman stated concerning [[atheism and suicide]]: "this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations."]]
Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" along with a [[community college]] biology class, have been linked to the tragic suicide of Jesse Kilgore.<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81459</ref> Kilgore had several discussions with friends and relatives in which he made it clear Dawkins' book had destroyed his belief in God. This loss of faith is considered the cause of his suicide which is not surprising given that there is evidence which suggest that atheism can [[Atheism and suicide|be a causal factor]] for suicide for some individuals.<ref name="adherents.com">http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html</ref><ref name="adherents.com"/><ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9507E2DC1131E033A25754C1A96F9C94659ED7CF NY Times, September 17, 1894, ATHEISM A CAUSE OF SUICIDE.; Dr. MacArthur Preaches on the Sin and Cowardice of Self-Destruction]</ref>

Jesse's father is quoted as saying "If my son was a professing [[homosexuality|homosexual]], and a professor challenged him to read [a book called] 'Preventing Homosexuality'… If my son was gay and [the book] made him feel bad, hopeless, and he killed himself, and that came out in the press, there would be an outcry. He would have been a victim of a hate crime and the professor would have been forced to undergo sensitivity training, and there may have even been a wrongful death lawsuit. But because he's a [[Christianity|Christian]], I don't even get a return telephone call."

Jesse's blog remains online after his death.<ref>http://users.newblog.com/Jkrapture/?post_id=17727</ref>

Please see: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]

== ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' ==

In the film ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', a documentary concerning suppression of the [[intelligent design]] movement, [[Ben Stein]] interviewed Richard Dawkins.

=== Ben Stein Interview with the evolutionist Richard Dawkins ===

{{See also|Ben Stein Interview with Richard Dawkins}}

In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with Richard Dawkins ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rgtN0pCMQ A clip of the interview has been uploaded to YouTube] ).

The [[Discovery Institute]] provides an transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"

DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Ho,ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:

Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In "Message from the Designers", Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.

Richard Dawkins and Rael; "clear thinking" kindred spirits!
<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/4589</ref>}}
[[File:Ben stein.jpg|right|thumbnail|201px|[[Ben Stein]] ]]
A [[Christian apologetics]] website provides some additional commentary on the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview which focuses on Dawkins response to Ben Stein's questions about the likelihood of the existence of God:
{{cquote|In this interview there is the following exchange between Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins. Mr. Stein prefaces the exchange with this comment: “Professor Dawkins seemed so convinced that [[God]] doesn’t exist that I wondered if he would be willing to put a number on it.” Here is Professor Dawkins response, “Well, it’s hard to put a figure on it, but I’d put it at something like ninety-nine percent against or something like that.” Mr. Stein responded with this question. “Well, how do you know it’s ninety-nine percent (“I don’t,” Dr. Dawkins interjects.) and not, say, ninety-seven percent?” Dr. Dawkins continues, “You asked me to put a figure on it and I’m not comfortable putting a figure on it. I think it’s… I just think it’s very unlikely.” “But you couldn’t put a number on it?,” Mr. Stein clarifies. “No, of course not,” said Dr. Dawkins. “So it could be forty-nine percent?,” Mr. Stein asks. Dr. Dawkins replies, “Well, it would be… I mean I think it’s… it’s… it’s unlikely, but… but… I… and it’s quite far from fifty percent.” (He's very difficult to quote.) “How do you know?,” Mr. Stein asks. “I don’t know, I mean, I put an argument in the book,” Dr. Dawkins responds.<ref>http://www.readyalways.org/Home/does-god-exist</ref>}}

Stein expressed surprise in the narration that Richard Dawkins "believe[d] in intelligent design."<ref name=DSouza>D'Souza, Dinesh. "[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/04/21/ben_stein_exposes_richard_dawkins Ben Stein Exposes Richard Dawkins]." ''<Townhall.com>'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

Instead of attempting to defend [[abiogenesis]], Dawkins actually suggested [[directed panspermia]]—the very thing that [[Francis Crick]] once suggested to explain life's beginnings.

On March 20, 2008, Dawkins and colleague [[Paul Zachary Myers|P. Z. Myers]] tried to gain entry to a special preview of the Ben Stein documentary, though no member of the production team had invited them. Dr. Myers was not allowed in, but Dawkins was. Accounts vary as to why this was so; the production team asserts that they decided to grant Dawkins entry on-the-spot because {{cquote|he has handled himself fairly honorably, he is a guest in our country and I had to presume he had flown a long way to see the film.<ref name=Dean>Dean, Cornelia. "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film]." ''The New York Times'', March 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008. Note the erroneous headline: ''Expelled'' propounds [[intelligent design]], not [[creationism]].</ref>}} On the other hand, Myers himself states that he guesses that Richard Dawkins was not recognized.

Richard Dawkins arranged to have a filmed conversation between Richard Dawkins and [[PZ Myers]] concerning this incident posted to YouTube<ref>[http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=c39jYgsvUOY]</ref> In it Myers claimed that the production team had full knowledge of his attendance through the online RSVP system and Dawkins claimed that it was an "incredible piece of inept public relations" to "expel" PZ Myers from a film about people being expelled for their views. Both PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins were featured in the film.

== Richard Dawkins, atheist attrocities, and historical revisionism ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism]], [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]] and [[Atheism and historical revisionism]]

[[Dinesh D'Souza]] took Richard Dawkins to task for engaging in [[historical revisionism]] when it comes to the atrocities of [[atheism|atheist]] regimes and declared Dawkins "reveals a complete ignorance of history".[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk VIDEO]
[[Image:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|left|201px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]]'s atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people.]]
In a recent interview D'Souza declared:
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins argues that at least the atheist regimes didn't kill people in the name of [[atheism]]. Isn't it time for this biologist to get out of the lab and read a little history? Marxism and [[Communism]] were atheist ideologies. [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] weren't dictators who happened to be atheist; atheism was part of their official doctrine.

It was no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that they shut down the churches and persecuted the clergy...}}

Dinesh D'Souza stated in another interview:
{{cquote|As one writer put it, “Leaders such as Stalin and Mao persecuted religious groups, not in a bid to expand atheism, but as a way of focusing people’s hatred on those groups to consolidate their own power.” Of course I agree that murderous regimes, whether [[Christian]] or atheist, are generally seeking to strengthen their position. But if Christian regimes are held responsible for their crimes committed in the name of Christianity, then atheist regimes should be held accountable for their crimes committed in the name of atheism. And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a “new man” and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist.<ref>http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/atheism/805-answering-atheists-regarding-war.htm</ref>}}
[[Image:Khvhkgfiy.jpg|right|thumb|[[Vladimir Lenin]] ]]
[[Karl Marx]] said "[Religion] is the opium of the people". Marx also stated: "[[Communism]] begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] wrote: "A Marxist must be a [[materialism|materialist]], i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the [[class struggle]] which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm</ref>

Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate concerning the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref> The atheism in [[communism|communist]] regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] that has committed various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and the oppression of religious leaders and believers (for details see: [[communism]]). In the atheistic and communist Soviet Union, 44 anti religious museums were opened and the largest was the 'The Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism' in [[Leningrad]]’s Kazan cathedral.<ref>http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2008/12/merry-anti-christmas.html</ref>

== John Lennox's discussion with New Atheist Richard Dawkins about the historicity of Jesus ==

''See also:'' [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]] and [[Historicity of Jesus]]

[[John Lennox]] pointed out to Richard Dawkins that Dawkins claimed in his book ''The God Delusion'' that [[Jesus Christ]] may have never existed and that Dawkins errantly claimed that ancient historians have some disagreement on whether Jesus existed or not. After some additional discussion with Dawkins, Dawkins conceded that Jesus existed and said, "I take that back. Jesus existed".<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ant5HS01tBQ Richard Dawkins admits Jesus existed]</ref>

== Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig is Reported to Have Called Dawkins a Coward ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig]], [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Atheism and Debate]]

Dr. William Lane Craig is one of [[Christian apologetics|Christianity's leading defenders]] and many individuals over the years have attempted to arrange a debate between Dr. Craig and Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins has offered various ruses on why he will not debate William Lane Craig, which Dr. Craig supporters have shown were inconsistent and merely a dodge to avoid debating one of Christianity's strongest advocates.<ref name="uncommondescent.com">http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref>

[[‎‎File:Dr. William Lane Craig.jpg|thumb|150px|Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] ]]
[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Dr. Victor Reppert is the author of ''[[C. S. Lewis]]'s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason''.<ref name="dangerousidea.blogspot.com">http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/dawkins-ducks-craig.html</ref> In 2007, Dr. Reppert wrote:
{{cquote|[[William Lane Craig|Bill Craig]] sent me a newsletter in which he will be debating twice in the UK on "Is God a Delusion" but will not be debating Dawkins himself. Now that would be the debate to see! Having seen this, I wrote him saying "Oh drat! no debate with Dawkins!" He responded:

The coward! He said, "I've never heard of [[William Lane Craig|William
Craig]]. A debate with him might look good on his
resume, but it wouldn't look good on mine!"

Bill<ref name="dangerousidea.blogspot.com">http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/dawkins-ducks-craig.html</ref>}}

There was public pressure for Dawkins to debate the Christian [[philosophy|philosopher]] of science and Christian apologist Dr. [[William Lane Craig]].<ref name="manawatu.christian-apologetics.org">http://manawatu.christian-apologetics.org/sign-the-richard-dawkins-should-debate-william-craig-petition/</ref> For example, currently there is a petition for Richard Dawkins debate William Lane Craig.<ref name="manawatu.christian-apologetics.org"/>

As far as Dawkins and and his comfort level around professional philosophers, the atheist philosopher Massimo Pigliucci wrote:
{{Cquote|Interestingly, over lunch during one of those days, I experienced Dawkins in what is a rather uncharacteristically humble mood: he confided at our table that he felt a bit intimidated, being surrounded by so many professional philosophers (he wasn’t talking about me, I assure you, but more likely of [[Daniel Dennett|Dan Dennett]] and Alex Rosenberg, among others). It was interesting to see that rather unexpected (from his public appearances) side of him.<ref>[https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2016/02/01/richard-dawkins/ Richard Dawkins] by Massimo Pigliucci</ref>}}

== Refusal of Richard Dawkins to Debate Christian apologist Dinesh D'Souza==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Dinesh D'Souza]], [[Atheism and Debate]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]
[[File:Dineshdsouza-full.jpg|thumb|180px|left|[[Dinesh D'Souza]] ]]
Christian author [[Dinesh D'Souza]] wrote concerning Richard Dawkins refusal to debate him: "To be honest, I find your behavior extremely bizarre. You go halfway around the world to chase down televangelists to outsmart them in an interview format that you control, but given several opportunities to engage the issues you profess to care about in a true spirit of open debate and inquiry, you duck and dodge and run away."<ref name="one-episcopalian-on-faith.com">http://www.one-episcopalian-on-faith.com/2008/07/richard-dawkins.html</ref> D'Souza further wrote concerning Dawkins: "When he is confronted with history, philosophy, and logic, Dawkins seems to have very little to say."<ref>http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/07/28/countering_richard_dawkins_on_al-jazeera</ref> Next, D'Souza indicated Dawkins was a "showman who takes on unprepared and unsuspecting opponents when you yourself control the editing, but when a strong opponent shows up you manufacture reasons to avoid him."<ref name="one-episcopalian-on-faith.com"/> Lastly, D'Souza wrote: "So why doth Dawkins languish in his corner, attended by sycophants? Tremble not, Sir Richard. 'Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant do taste of death but once.'"<ref>http://www.tothesource.org/11_13_2007/11_13_2007.htm</ref>

Dr. Jamie Glazov wrote concerning the refusal of Richard Dawkins to debate Dinesh D'Souza:
{{cquote|As many readers can attest, D’Souza has debated [[Daniel Dennett]], [[Christopher Hitchens]], Peter Singer, [[Michael Shermer]], Dan Barker, and other well-known atheists. He intellectually cut those guys to pieces. Harris and Dawkins are just afraid to meet D’Souza. D’Souza writes: “And my challenges to Dawkins to step into the arena have only met with pathetic rationalization: ‘Richard is simply too busy and smart to debate you Dinesh.’ Busy doing what besides being caught with his pants down by Ben Stein? And I guess he's smart because he doesn't want to risk further embarrassing himself and destroying his public reputation. Won't it be hilarious if the ‘party of faith’ is unafraid of opposing arguments while the ‘party of reason’ cannot withstand the arguments of its critics? This is what Henry James might describe as a most interesting turning of the screw.”}}

== Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists ==

For more information please see: [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]], [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Global atheism]]

[[File:Safarti3.jpg|200px|thumbnail|right|Recently, a [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] called Richard Dawkins a "cowardly clown" for refusing to debate apt debate challengers such as the [[creation science|creation scientists]] at Creation Ministries International.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] recently published the book ''The Greatest Hoax on Earth'' which rebuts Richard Dawkins' recent book ''The Greatest Show on Earth''.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref>]]
Richard Dawkins has publicly declared that he will not debate creationists.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> Yet, Richard Dawkins debated the theist John Lennox who adheres to the position of [[intelligent design]].<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> According to Richard Dawkins, intelligent design is a form of creationism.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> Therefore, Richard Dawkins is not consistent and trustworthy concerning his assertion that he will not debate creationists.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] website [[True Free Thinker]] which declared: "Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties..."<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate</ref> When Richard Dawkins refused to debate Dr. William Lane Craig one of the ruses Richard Dawkins used was supposedly because Dr. Craig was a creationist and Richard Dawkins claimed he didn't debate creationist.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> Richard was called on his inconsistency and lack of trustworthiness concerning his excuses for refusing to debate Dr. Craig by the intelligent design advocate Clive Hayden.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/>

In 2010, the prominent atheists who attended the 2010 global atheist conference, which included Richard Dawkins, were challenged to a debate by Creation Ministries International.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Richard Dawkins, [[PZ Myers]] and other prominent atheists refused to debate the creation scientists at Creation Ministries International.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> As noted above, generally speaking, creationist scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]).

The refusal of Richard Dawkins and other prominent atheists to debate the staff of Creation Ministries International is not surprising given that there are several instances Richard Dawkins avoiding strong debate opponents. In addition, creationists maintain that Richard Dawkins did not give a particularly strong showing at the [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]. One of the more embarrassing debates (particular the events surrounding the debate) was the case of Richard Dawkins losing a video taped debate to Rabbi Boteach according to the college audience.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref name="wnd.com">http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> After the debate, Richard Dawkins denied the debate ever took place and Rabbi Boteach provided the video taped evidence that the debate did take place.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref name="wnd.com">http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> Mr. Dawkins has declined to debate Rabbit Shmuley Boteach another time.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref name="wnd.com">http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> Incidentally, Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Oxford debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith (see: [[Huxley Memorial Debate]])<ref name="cr"/> Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.<ref name="cr"/>
[[File:PzMyers2.jpg|thumbnail|200px|left|[[PZ Myers]]]]
The website [[True Free Thinker]] declared concerning the refusal of Richard Dawkins, [[PZ Myers]] and other prominent atheists to debate the [[creation science|creation scientists]] and other staff at Creation Ministries International:
{{cquote|In keeping with his constant attention getting shenanigans and his equally constant absconding from debating apt challengers via a barrage of illogical and excuses, the moniker of cowardly clown fits Richard Dawkins more than ever (see [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges Send in the Clowns – Richard Dawkins Obliges]).

Enter Jonathan Sarfati (PhD in chemistry),senior scientist at Creation Ministries International, who recently published the book “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution.” Interestingly, Jonathan Sarfati sought to publish the book by the time that the 2010 Global Atheist Convention—billed as “The Rise of Atheism”—of March 12–14 at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Center in Australia.

The most intelligent, well informed and vociferous atheists in the world, including [http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins Richard Dawkins], [http://www.truefreethinker.com/dan-barker Dan Barker], [http://www.truefreethinker.com/pz-myers PZ Myers], et al, were challenged to debate while their worldwide choir was gathered in one place and yet, one by one they each found excuses to cower from debate even whilst proclaiming to their adherents the intellectual superiority of atheism.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref>}}
=== Richard Dawkins excuses for not debating creationists ===

Richard Dawkins has offered some [[Richard Dawkins' ruses for refusing to debate creation scientists|unjustifiable ruses for not not wanting to debate creationists but the true reason is that he knows he will lose the debates]].

There are certainly reputable scientists, medical doctors and members of the public who hold the evolutionary paradigm in low esteem for valid reasons so Dawkins excuses for refusing to debate creationists simply have little to no weight and they are certainly not the best explanation for Mr. Dawkins' behavior in this matter. In 2007, "[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture today announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/2732</ref> In addition, given that atheism is held in low esteem in many parts of the world and it is a minority position worldwide, Dawkins' refusal to debate strong theistic debaters is quite odd given his allegation that he doesn't debate creationists because he doesn't want to give them respectability and publicity. Furthermore, the Rabbi Boteach debate and the events surrounding it, shows the great lengths that Dawkins will go to avoid letting the public know about a debate loss to a [[theism|theist]] (As mentioned previously Dawkins lost his video taped debate to Rabbi Boteach and then claimed the debate never took place). The reason why Dawkins refuses to debate creation scientists is that generally speaking, [[Creation vs. evolution debates|creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].

==Opposition to Creationism and Religion ==

* Professor Dawkins' anti-religious views are based on two subjective opinions. The first is that religious faith is irrational, the second is that religion causes wars and [[hatred]], or as he puts it, 'Religion makes good people bad'.

Richard Dawkins is a writer and media commentator on the debate between evolution and the opposing positions of creation science and intelligent design.<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/dawkins-r.html Christiananswers.net webpage on Richard Dawkins.]</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1872331.stm School attacked over evolution teaching]</ref> He is an ardent proponent of the evolutionary view of life in works targeted at the general public, such as his books entitled ''The Selfish Gene'' and ''The Ancestor's Tale''. However, his efforts to promote the theory of evolution have not been very successful, and even in his native land of the UK, 40% of the population believes that creationism or intelligent design should be taught in the school science curriculum.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm</ref>
[[Image:Winston.jpg‎‎|right|thumb|175px|Lord Robert Winston stated Richard Dawkins is bringing science "into disrepute".]]
As an evolutionist, Dawkins holds [[Charles Darwin]]'s view that "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." In addition, he often comes across as having a mocking attitude towards religion.<ref>[http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg]</ref> He stridently<ref>Dawkins "has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect." Cornelia Dean, "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life’s Origin," New York Times, Science Section (September 27, 2007).[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html]</ref> opposes the traditional role of religion in educational institutions and in society in general.<ref>[http://www.godlessinamerica.com/When%20atheists%20attack.html When atheists attack: Debunking religion without apology] - George A. Ricker.</ref> Dawkins has derided belief in [[God]] as a "mind-virus",<ref>[http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/ The Dawkins Delusion] by Alistair McGrath</ref> which is infectious and harmful to society. In his 2006 book ''The God Delusion'', he states his belief that fundamentalist religion "subverts science and saps the intellect," a view that is contrary to the fact that many of the most productive scientists, from [[Isaac Newton]] to [[Louis Pasteur]], were devout Christians. The foundation of modern science [[Christianity and Science|was largely established by those who held a Christian worldview]]. Dawkins often says that these men were rather a product of their time and, like many that came before them, lived in fear of persecution by Christians. There is no substantive evidence for this.
Dawkins also cites in his book, the God Delusion, that not one winner of the [[Nobel Prize]] for Science is a theist. While this has been openly debated, he cites his own personal relationships with many of these scientists.
[[Image:McgrathatRefresh.jpg‎|left|thumb|175px|[[Alister McGrath]]]]
Lord Robert Winston is a prominent scientist and British doctor who served as the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science from 2004 to 2005.<ref>http://www.tvsa.co.za/actorprofile.asp?actorID=5547</ref> Currently, Lord Winston serves as Emeritus Professor of Fertility Studies at Imperial College in Britain. In 2006, Winston launched a broadside against Richard Dawkins and stated that he is bringing science "into disrepute" due to his refusal to "connect with spirituality". Winston also stated that Dawkins "sometimes doesn't seem to understand the limitations of science."

[[Alister McGrath]], a Christian theologian who has a background in biophysics and is Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, wrote:
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins’ latest book ''The God Delusion'' fires off a series of salvos against religion. It is perhaps his weakest book to date, marred by its excessive reliance on bold assertion and rhetorical flourish, where the issues so clearly demand careful reflection and painstaking analysis, based on the best evidence available.}}

Atheist philosopher [[Michael Ruse]] echoes McGrath's estimation of ''The God Delusion'' and recently stated that the book makes him embarrassed to be an [[atheist]].

Professor McGrath asserts that the aggressive rhetoric of Dawkins' works is merely a mask to cover a deep insecurity about the public credibility of [[atheism]].
McGrath recently wrote a book opposing the [[atheist]] ideology of Dawkins entitled ''The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine''.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433628&in_page_id=1770</ref>

== Richard Dawkins and the Huxley Memorial Debate ==

For more information please see: [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]

The September 2005 issue of ''Discover'' magazine had an article on Richard Dawkins entitled "Darwin’s Rottweiler".<ref name="discover">http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/</ref> The title is an allusion to Thomas Henry Huxley who became to be known as "Darwin's Bulldog".<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i1/monkeys.asp</ref> Huxley is arguably most well known for his debate with Bishop [[Samuel Wilberforce]] over the theory of evolution, and evolutionists and creationist dispute whether or not a key claimed event in the debate actually occurred.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v13/n1/kids</ref> The ''Discover'' article stated the following:
{{cquote|Dawkins has become “Darwin’s rottweiler”— as [[Alister McGrath]], an Oxford theologian, reminded readers of his recent book, Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life — so intent on prevailing in intellectual combat that he alienates others and undermines the dazzling quality of his argumentative skills."<ref name="discover" />}}

The Simonyi Professorship Home Page promotes the idea that Richard Dawkins is "Darwin's Rottweiler" and has an article published in the Seattle newspaper ''EastSideweek'' which states the following:
{{cquote|...Thomas Henry Huxley, earned the nickname "Darwin's bulldog" from his fellow Victorians. In our own less decorous day, Dawkins deserves an even stronger epithet: "Darwin's Rottweiler, perhaps," Simonyi suggests. Now, thanks to [[Charles Simonyi|Simonyi]]'s gift of £1.5 million sterling to England's venerable Oxford University, the Rottweiler is unleashed."}}
[[Image:Wilder-smith-book.jpg‎|right|150px|thumb|Dr. Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith]]
Now given that Thomas Henry Huxley's is arguably most well known for his debate over the theory of evolution and given that Dawkins has stated he will no longer debate a [[creation scientists]] the title of "Darwin's Rottweiler" can certainly be disputed. Creationists wrote regarding Richard Dawkins current refusal to debate a creation scientist:
{{cquote|A. E. Wilder-Smith is also probably responsible for Richard Dawkins refusing to debate creationists any more. In 1986, Wilder-Smith and Edgar Andrews debated the two leading evolutionists in Britain, Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith, at Oxford – a lions’ den with the two strongest Darwinian lions in Europe. Yet even there, over a third – almost half – of the staunchly pro-evolution audience voted that the creation side had won the debate. The vote count became a contentious issue. There were claims of a cover-up by the Oxford Student Union. The AAAS was accused of lying about the vote count and didn’ [sic] correct it even when confronted (see article). The evolutionists apparently were embarrassed that the creationists made such a strong showing. For whatever reason, Dawkins no longer will debate creationists. Reports from those in attendance say that, contrary to the ground rules of the debate, the Dawkins and Maynard Smith repeatedly attacked religion, while the creationists used only scientific arguments. Dawkins himself had to be reprimanded by the moderator for attacking Wilder-Smith about his religious views. Dawkins implored the audience not to give any votes to the creationists lest it be a “blot on the escutcheon of ancient University of Oxford” (an odd remark, considering Oxford was founded by Christians). After the debate, details of the event were lost by the University. Normally, Oxford Union debates are big news, given prominent publicity in the press, radio and television. This one, however, which should have rivalled the historic 1860 Huxley-Wilberforce debate in importance, and indeed was even titled the ’Huxley Memorial Debate,” was silently dropped from the radar screen. In his memoirs, Dr. Wilder-Smith wrote, “No records of my having held the lecture as part of the Oxford Union Debate could be found in any library. No part of the official media breathed a word about it.<ref>http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_5.htm</ref>}}

The aforementioned debate involving Richard Dawkins is fairly well known in creationist/intelligent design circles and the debate was tape recorded.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/1986-huxley-memorial-debate/</ref> In August 2003 the [[Creation Research Society]] published some interesting material about their correspondence with Richard Dawkins which focused on the debate.<ref name="cr">http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref> The Creation Research Society declared:
[[Image:PH2006022801720.jpg‎|left|thumb|150px|[[Henry Morris]]]]
{{cquote|Despite Dr. Dawkins’ plea, there were apparently 115 votes for the creation position (more than 37%). This was done near Darwin’s turf. Imagine flat-earthers going to NASA and convincing over 37% of the scientists there that the earth is flat. Maybe creation science is not as closely akin to flat-earthism as Dr. Dawkins supposes (see his Free Inquiry article).<ref name="cr" />}}

Richard Dawkins no longer will debate a creation scientist. Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a ''Wall Street Journal'' reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. [[theory of evolution|evolution]] controversy.<ref>Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John, [http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science]</ref>
In August 1979, [[Henry Morris|Dr. Henry Morris]] reported in an [[Institute for Creation Research]] letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”
Morris also said about the creation scientist [[Duane Gish]] (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.” Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/811/</ref>

=== Richard Dawkins violation' of the terms of the debate proceedings ===
As noted earlier, it was agreed before the debate that discussion of religion was not to occur during the debate and that only the evidence related to the physical sciences were going to be discussed. At the end of the debate, Richard Dawkins started to give an impassioned plea to the audience to not give a single vote to the creationists which would show support for creationism. Mr. Dawkins was told to sit down by the President of the Oxford Union for violating the terms of the debate as far as not mentioning religion (as noted earlier John Maynard Smith also violated the terms of the debate).<ref name="cr"/>

=== Deception related to email correspondence with Richard Dawkins ===
As mentioned earlier, Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Huxley Memorial Debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith.<ref name="cr"/> Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.<ref name="cr"/>

==Brights Movement==

The [[Brights Movement]] was started in 2003 by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell in order to assist in the advocacy of a [[Naturalism|naturalistic worldview]]. In October 2003 in a article in ''[[the Guardian]]'', Richard Dawkins associated being a "bright" with being an intellectual.<ref>http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html</ref> Atheist [[author]] and columnist Christopher Hitchens expressed his "annoyance at Professor Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for their cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called "brights".<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165035/</ref> [[ABC News|ABC]] News.com commentator John Allen Paulos remarked of the Brights campaign, "I don't think a degree in [[Public Relations|public relations]] is needed to expect that many people will construe the term as smug, ridiculous, and arrogant" (Paulos 2003).<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_2</ref>

== Other reactions to Dawkins' views within the academic community ==

Some in the academic community are critical of Richard Dawkins. One such example is Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal and President of the [[Royal Society]]. In a debate in May 2007 between Rees and Dawkins, Rees said that science needed as many friends as possible and that creating enemies within mainstream religion will make it "more difficult to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiments that are really important". He also argued that it will make it more difficult to fight terrorism. Richard Dawkins counter-argued that being nice to bishops helps to foster the view that faith is virtuous and can excuse any act on its behalf. Rees continued to argue that religion has no [[monopoly]] on being unreasonable citing examples of scientific sects such as the [[Raelism|Raelians]] or extreme eco-groups as being as dangerous as religious fundamentalists.<ref>Guardian story of Martin Rees and Richard Dawkins debate|http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/29/controversiesinscience.peopleinscience</ref>

Among theologians there are many critics of Richard Dawkins, a notable example being Alister McGrath as noted earlier. Alister McGrath is Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford. He has accused Dawkins of being ignorant of theology and has written a book challenging Dawkins' anti-religious stance, ''The Dawkins Delusion''. Even among biology colleagues, there are critics. While Ken Miller, a biology professor, doesn't challenge Dawkins' views on evolution, he does take issue with his insistence that religion and science are incompatible.<ref>Discover's article on Darwin's Rottweiler|http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=</ref>

Richard Dawkins, for his part, claims bafflement that some scientists he respects are capable of religious faith.<ref>Richard Dawkins, 2006. ''The God Delusion''</ref><ref>The Humanist article Is Science A Religion?|http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html</ref>

==Criticism of the Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable==
[[Image:Willard-dallas-3.jpg‎‎|left|thumbnail|150px|Dr. Dallas Willard]]
[[United States|American]] [[philosopher]] Dr. Dallas Willard wrote concerning ''The Blind Watchmaker'' by Richard Dawkins:
{{cquote|When he writes a book like the present one he is not functioning as a scientist. If he were, he should incorporate his "findings" into the most advanced textbooks in the field and see how they fare as representations of established knowledge. He complains that "the true, Darwinian explanation of our own existence is still, remarkably, not a routine part of the curriculum of a general education." Then by all means let him enter the academic arena and present his views about the watchmaker as established knowledge. He should not reserve his views for infliction upon a largely helpless public whom his scientific credentials and elaborate rhetorical devices will overwhelm and make incapable of any accurate assessment of argument. When he writes books like ''The Blind Watchmaker'' he is just a naturalist [[metaphysics|metaphysician]], trying to cozy up to the scientists and blend into their company in such a way that his true colors will not be noticed. He takes the liberty to dress down what he calls "redneck creationism", but unfortunately there are rednecks on the side of "Darwinianism" as well. He is one of the most outstanding.<ref>http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52</ref>}}

Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] offered several criticisms of the book ''The Blind Watchmaker'' by Richard Dawkins and states in his summary that the "...Apostle of [[Atheism]] has a long way to go to make a convincing case for his faith."<ref name="cotw">http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855</ref>

== Awards ==

* ''Silver Medal of the Zoological Society of London'' (1989)
* ''Royal Society's Michael Faraday Award'' (1990)
* ''Nakayama Prize for Achievement in Human Science'' (1990)
* ''The International Cosmos Prize'' (1997)
* ''Kistler Prize'' (2001)
* ''Shakespeare Prize of the Alfred Toepfer Foundation'' (2005)
* ''Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science'' (2006)
* ''Galaxy British Book Awards Author of the Year'' (2007)
* Honorary Doctorates in both literature and science
* Fellow of the Royal Society
* Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature

==Books==
Dawkins has written eleven books: nine have been on evolution and evolutionary theory, another is his ''[[New York Times]]'' bestselling [[atheist]] polemic ''[[The God Delusion]]'', and most recently, he has written a book for children introducing them to his way of thinking.

The first of his books, ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', was published in 1976, and won him international acclaim. It has sold over one million copies and has been translated into 25 languages.

His books are:

* ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'' (1976)
* ''The Extended Phenotype'' (1982)
* ''The Blind Watchmaker'' (1986)
* ''River Out of Eden'' (1995)
* ''Climbing Mount Improbable'' (1996)
* ''Unweaving the Rainbow'' (1998)
* ''A Devil's Chaplain'' (2003)
* ''The Ancestor's Tale'' (2004)
* ''[[The God Delusion]]'' (2006)
* ''[[The Greatest Show on Earth]]: The Evidence for Evolution''. Free Press (United States), Transworld (United Kingdom and Commonwealth). 2009.
* ''The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True'' (2011) - a science book for children.

'''Anti-evolution books specifically addressing Richard Dawkins:'''

*''The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution'' by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]], 2010

==See also==

*[[Richard Dawkins statistics]]
*[[Evangelical atheism]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Richard_Dawkins Directory of Richard Dawkins articles]
*[[Richard Dawkins on Jews and Nobel Prizes]]
*[[Ravi Zacharias vs. Richard Dawkins]]
*[[Richard Dawkins and YouTube]]
*[[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]]
*[[British atheism]]
*[[Richard Dawkins and Hell]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.atheistdelusion.net/ The Atheist Delusion] (website rebutting Richard Dawkins)
*[http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8885481/after-the-new-atheism/ Richard Dawkins has lost: meet the new new atheists] by [[Theo Hobson]]

'''Video:'''

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo Is Richard Dawkins really stumped? The truth - In his own words - YES...he is!] - [[YouTube]] video
* Former Atheist Alister McGrath discusses Dawkins (video) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghIghLvttVU part 1] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UiCUEBB9Z4&feature=related part 2]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 YouTube - Video of Richard Dawkins being stumped by a creationist's question]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideosearch%3Fhl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial%26hs%3DxUv%26q%3Ddawkins%2520and%2520his&feature=player_embedded Atheists dodge their history of atrocities] (Video)

'''Collection of rebuttals:'''

*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins Richard Dawkins - Christian rebuttals] by [[True Free Thinker]]

'''Reviews of Richard Dawkins' works:'''

*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855 A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]
*[http://www.atheistdelusion.net/ Atheist delusion: Answering "The God Delusion" and other works of atheist Richard Dawkins]
*[http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52 Reflections on Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker] by [[Christianity|Christian]] [[Philosophy|philosopher]] Dallas Willard
*[http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9908/reviews/barr.html A Review of Unweaving the Rainbow by Richard Dawkins]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1127dawkins.asp Deconstructing a deluded Dawkins by Paul Taylor]
*[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6280 A review of A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love by Richard Dawkins]

'''From a Frog to a Prince video''':

*[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 YouTube - Video of Richard Dawkins being stumped by a creationist's question]
*[http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_gb_01.asp Gillian Brown answers Barry Williams] (Gillian Brown is the film's producer. Barry Williams is a Skeptic who criticised the film. The page includes an apology from another skeptic, and an admission that the film accurately presents Dawkins' answer.)
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Dawkins_could_not_give_an_example_of_increasing_information CreationWiki's response to TalkOrigins Archive's criticism of interview.]

'''Richard Dawkins administered websites and web pages:'''

*[http://www.richarddawkins.net/ Richard Dawkins' main website]
*[http://twitter.com/richarddawkins Richard Dawkins' Twitter page]
*[http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/ The Richard Dawkins Foundation]
*[http://users.ox.ac.uk/~dawkins/ Richard Dawkins homepage at Oxford University]

== Notes ==
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Dawkins, Richard}}
[[Category:Richard Dawkins]]
[[Category:British People]]
[[Category:Academics]]
[[Category:Atheism]]
[[Category:Liberal Authors]]
[[Category:Atheist Authors]]
[[Category:British Authors]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category:Biologists]]
[[Category:Evolutionists]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:New Atheism]]

Richard Dawkins

2018-05-30T12:56:26Z

TheOther: Slight punctuation changes

[[File:Richard Dawkins - March 2005.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|251px|right|Richard Dawkins declared "[[Christianity]] may actually be our best defence against aberrant forms of religion that threaten the world".<ref name="christiantoday.com">[http://www.christiantoday.com/article/richard.dawkins.says.christianity.is.worlds.best.defence.against.radical.islam/76416.htm Richard Dawkins says Christianity is world's best defence against radical Islam], Christianity Today, January 2016</ref><ref name="breitbart.com">[http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/01/12/professional-atheist-dawkins-says-christianity-bulwark-against-something-worse/ Professional Atheist Dawkins Says Christianity ‘Bulwark Against Something Worse’], by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D, ''Breitbart News Network'', Jan 12, 2016</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations|Richard Dawkins and Islam]] ]]
'''Clinton Richard Dawkins''', [[Royal Society|FRS]], FRSL, (born March 26, 1941, age {{age|1941|3|26}}), is a British author, [[biologist]], [[evolution]]ist, [[agnosticism|agnostic]] and [[leftist]]/[[liberal]] (See also: [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism]]).<ref>
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html Mailvox: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!]
*[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100139859/id-go-to-church-just-to-reduce-the-probability-of-spending-eternity-in-hell-with-richard-dawkins/ ''I'd go to church just to reduce the probability of spending eternity in Hell with Richard Dawkins'' by Dr. Tim Stanley, ''The Daily Telegraph'', February 27, 2012]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3_rGbiT_3c Richard Dawkins Says He's Agnostic -- NOT atheist - video testimony of Richard Dawkins saying he is not an atheist, but an agnostic]</ref>

He is sometimes referred to as the "world's most famous atheist" but when interviewed, he claims that, on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is perfect faith in God and 7 is perfect confidence in atheism, he is a 6.9.<ref>{{Cite news |author= Bingham, John |title= Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist |url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html |newspaper= [[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph]] |date= February 24, 2012 |accessdate= February 24, 2012}}</ref>

Although Dawkins is an agnostic, he advocates [[evangelical atheism]] and is widely considered to be an [[atheist activist]]. Author [[Vox Day]] wrote concerning this matter, "While the fact that Dawkins declared himself a literal agnostic in the very book in which he declared the importance of atheist evangelism is both ironic and incoherent, it will surprise no one who has read the chapter of ''The Irrational Atheist'' entitled "Darwin's Judas".<ref name="voxday.blogspot.com"/>

Most of Richard Dawkins' popular books have [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience|promoted evolutionary pseudoscience.]] Dawkins is also the former holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair of the Public Understanding of Science at [[Oxford University]].

He is an ardent opponent of religion, which he dismisses as mere [[superstition]].<ref>Richard Dawkins is a man with a mission – the eradication of religion and superstition, and their total replacement with science and reason. [http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Dawkins.html "Richard Dawkins comes to call"]</ref> However, Dawkins has offered no effective rebuttal to studies which show that the irreligious [[Irreligion and superstition|are more likely]] to be superstitious than [[evangelicalism|evangelical]] [[Christianity|Christians]].<ref name="online.wsj.com">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>

Dawkins is one of the principle founders of the [[New Atheism]] movement, which is a form of [[militant atheism]] in terms of its [[rhetoric]]. Dawkins said about New Atheism, "[O]ur struggle is not so much an intellectual struggle, as a political one: What are we going to do about it?”.<ref>[http://secularismandnonreligion.org/articles/10.5334/snr.al/print/ Faithless: The politics of new atheism] by Steven Kettell</ref> In recent years, the prominence of Richard Dawkins and the New Atheism movement has greatly waned (see: [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]] and [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]]).

In terms of the [[theism]] vs. agnosticism and [[atheism]] issue, Dawkins has shown himself to be rather ignorant in matters of [[philosophy]] and [[theology]]. For example, philosopher Dr. [[Michael Ruse]] declared concerning Dawkins' book ''[[The God Delusion]]'': "''The God Delusion'' makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."<ref>http://www.alternet.org/media/47052?page=entire</ref>
The philosopher [[Antony Flew]], who was one of the most prominent atheist academics in the world before adopting [[deism]], said about Dawkins: “The fault of Dawkins as an academic…was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form”.<ref>[http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/ten-years-on-from-that-book-of-atheistic-faith-the-god-delusion-1-7496360 Ten years on from that book of atheistic faith, the God Delusion] by Mike Taggart</ref>

As far as the origin of the [[universe]], Dawkins wrote: “The fact that [[origin of life|life evolved]] out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=4TDTnoBLdQMC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=%E2%80%9CThe+fact+that+life+evolved+out+of+nearly+nothing,+some+10+billion+years+after+the+universe+evolved+literally+out+of+nothing,+is+a+fact+so+staggering+that+I+would+be+mad+to+attempt+words+to+do+it+justice.%22&source=bl&ots=g1m0iQzew4&sig=CT1XkXd8yfbNUCIDKeDH_x_UbO8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7vImP8ZjNAhUGPCYKHSAdDXcQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CThe%20fact%20that%20life%20evolved%20out%20of%20nearly%20nothing%2C%20some%2010%20billion%20years%20after%20the%20universe%20evolved%20literally%20out%20of%20nothing%2C%20is%20a%20fact%20so%20staggering%20that%20I%20would%20be%20mad%20to%20attempt%20words%20to%20do%20it%20justice.%22&f=false Richard Dawkins quote about the origin of the universe], ''God, Science, and Reason: Finding the Light of God Amidst the Darkness of Atheism and Dogmatism'' By Michael Bunner, page 141</ref> See also: [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]]

Dawkins is a [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations|vocal opponent of Islam]]. Dawkins has said, "[[Islam]] is the greatest force for evil in the world today".<ref>[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40710165 Richard Dawkins' Berkeley event cancelled for 'Islamophobia'], BBC,
2017</ref><ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/richard-dawkins-islam-muslims-islamophobic-row-twitter-tweets-atheist-kpfa-us-university-of-a7854751.html Radio station cancels Richard Dawkins appearance over Islam tweets], The Independent, 2017</ref> Despite his opposition to religion/[[Christianity]], Dawkins indicated: "Christianity may actually be our best defence against aberrant forms of religion that threaten the world".<ref name="christiantoday.com"/><ref name="breitbart.com"/> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and Christianity]]

== Biography of Richard Dawkins ==

[[File:Richard Dawkins photo.jpg|thumbnail|200px|left|After previously apologizing to [[feminism|feminists]] and others for the [[Elevatorgate]] scandal, Dawkins retracted his apology and said, "I don’t take back anything that I’ve said. I would not say it again, however, because I am now accustomed to being misunderstood and so I will... I feel muzzled, and a lot of other people do as well.“<ref name="washingtonpost.com">[http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/richard-dawkins-stands-by-remarks-on-sexism-pedophilia-down-syndrome/2014/11/18/a2915cd8-6f64-11e4-a2c2-478179fd0489_story.html Richard Dawkins stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome], by Kimberly Winston | Religion News Service November 18, 2014 and syndicated to the ''Washington Post''</ref><ref>[https://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/status/497087309805027328 Rebecca Watson's Twitter post about Dawkins' apology]</ref><ref name="Who is belittling what">[https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/who-is-belittling-what/ Who is belittling what?] by Richard Dawkins</ref>]]
Richard Dawkins was born in Kenya.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/jul/25/research.science</ref> He was a child of a family of colonial forest officers.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3657215/Preaching-to-the-converted.html</ref>
Dawkins was raised to have religious values, and confesses that when he was young, he acknowledged the complexity of life and believed that it indicated a designer. However, during his teens, he chose to abandon this faith and embrace Darwinism instead, despite admitting that he hadn’t actually read [[Charles Darwin]]’s works.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/10/religion.scienceandnature</ref><ref name="bbc.co.uk">http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/dawkins.shtml</ref> See also: [[British atheism]] and [[UK and secularism]]

The atheist philosopher [[John Gray (philosopher)|John Gray]] says of Dawkins' time spent in [[Kenya]]: "Unlike the best of the colonial administrators, some of whom were deeply versed in the languages and histories of the peoples they ruled, Dawkins displays no interest in the cultures of the [[Africa]]n countries where he lived as a boy. It is the obedient devotion of those who served his family that has remained in his memory."<ref name="newrepublic.com">[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins''], New Republic by John Gray</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins' family fortune and the slave trade]]

Dawkins studied zoology at Oxford University, and graduated in 1962. As a undergraduate at Oxford, he studied zoology under the Dutch ethologist Niko Tinbergen and the two developed a strong student/teacher relationship.<ref>http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/dawkins.htm</ref> He remained at [[Oxford]] for his doctoral work, receiving his Ph.D in 1966. From 1967-1969, Dawkins served as Assistant Professor of [[Zoology]] at [[Berkeley]]. During this time, he was, in his own words, “heavily involved” in the unrest and liberal activism for which Berkeley is notorious.<ref name="bbc.co.uk"/> He returned to Oxford in 1970 and served as a Lecturer in Animal Behaviour and a Fellow of New College. In 1995, Dawkins became the Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science which was a post created by an endowment of £1.5m from Dr. Charles Simonyi. In September 2008, Richard Dawkins retired from his post as Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science.

Despite this, Richard Dawkins might have remained a relatively obscure professor if not for the publication of his first book, ''The Selfish Gene'', in 1976. This book became a bestseller, and brought Dawkins a celebrity which he has worked to maintain with further books and lectures.

In 1984, Dawkins divorced his wife of 17 years, Marian Stamp; later that same year, he married Eve Barham. Dawkins also divorced Barham, though the precise circumstances of this divorce are unclear.<ref>http://www.richarddawkins.com/</ref> He married science fiction actress Lalla Ward in 1992 and they separated after 24 years of marriage.<ref>[http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dawkins-evolves-into-single-man-after-amicable-split-with-time-lady-sp9llk2nt Dawkins evolves into single man after ‘amicable’ split with Time Lady], ''The Sunday Times''</ref>

[[Vox Day|Theodore Beale]] wrote in the his book ''The Irrational Atheist'' about Dawkins's claim that teaching children about [[Hell]] is more harmful to children than "mild child abuse":
{{Cquote|Richard Dawkins is perhaps one of the last men on Earth who should be discussing what is the right and proper way to raise children, given that the number of his wives outnumber his offspring.

In his letter to his daughter Juliet, addressed to her at the age of ten and published in ''A Devil’s Chaplain'', there is little mention of love, no admission of regret, and no paternal promises. As one British journalist noted, the letter is “coldly impersonal” and “authoritarian.” There is no expression of interest in what might be important to her.<ref>[http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf The Irrational Atheist. Chapter VIII DARWIN’S JUDAS] by Vox Day</ref>}}

See also: [[Richard Dawkins and love]]

The ''Christian Times'' reported:
{{Cquote|The 75-year-old evolutionary biologist, who suffered a stroke early this year, had stirred the public years ago when he denounced monogamy and fidelity in relationships.

In [http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2007/11/29/banishing-the-greeneyed-monste/3484 his article piece] "Banishing the Green Eyed Monster," Dawkins referred to "jealousy" in a relationship as "immoral and selfish."

He defended that men should be allowed to keep mistresses and indulge in sexual pleasures with others.<ref>[http://christiantimes.com/article/atheist-richard-dawkins-divorces-third-wife-actress-lalla-ward/59223.htm Richard Dawkins to divorce third wife: Prominent atheist to split from actress Lalla Ward], ''Christian Times''</ref>}}

Since 2011, Dawkins has been embroiled in controversies related to [[feminism]]/[[Islam]] and he has received a significant amount of criticism from his fellow [[secular left]]ists as a result (see: [[Richard Dawkins and women]] and [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations]]).

According to ''The Richest'', "Richard Dawkins..has an estimated net worth of $10,000,000 according to the ''Sunday Times'' in 2012."<ref>[http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/authors/richard-dawkins-net-worth/ Richard Dawkins Net Worth]</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins' net worth]]

== Richard Dawkins and women ==
[[File:2404429188 ea8f1fc48b.jpg|thumb|200px|Survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, [[Atheism and women|atheism is significantly less appealing to women]].

According to the website tracking firm [[Alexa]], women frequent the website of richarddawkins.net significantly less than men.<ref name="Alexa data for Richarddawkins.net">[http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/richarddawkins.net Alexa data for Richarddawkins.net]</ref>]]
=== Women's views of Richard Dawkins ===

See: [[Richard Dawkins and women]], [[Elevatorgate]], [[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]], [[New Atheism and women]] and [[Atheism and rape]]

=== Majority of web visitors to Dawkins' website are men ===

Survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, atheism [[Atheism and women|is significantly less appealing to women]].

According to the website tracking firm [[Alexa]], women frequent the website of richarddawkins.net significantly less than men.<ref name="Alexa data for Richarddawkins.net"/><ref>[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/05/according-to-alexa-what-percentage-of.html According to Alexa, what percentage of Richard Dawkins' website visitors are women?], ''Examining Atheism''</ref> In recent years, there has been a significant amount of friction between Richard Dawkins and [[feminism|feminists]] (see: [[Richard Dawkins and women]]).

=== Elevatorgate controversy ===

''See also:'' [[Elevatorgate]], [[Atheist feminism]] and [[Richard Dawkins and social media]]

In July 2011, Richard Dawkins was widely criticized within the atheist community and in various press outlets for his insensitive comments made to atheist [[Rebecca Watson]] about an incident which occurred in an elevator (see: [[Elevatorgate]]).<ref>
*[http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting Richard Dawkins: Skeptic of women? - Salon, July 8, 2011]
*[http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum Sharing a lift with Richard Dawkins by David Allen Green - New Stateman - 06 July 2011]
*[http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists Richard Dawkins Torn Limb From Limb—By Atheists - Gawker]
*[http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-09-15/atheist-sexism-women/50416454/1 Atheists address sexism issues - USA Today]
*[http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/09/is-richard-dawkins-destroying-his-reputation Is Richard Dawkins destroying his reputation?] by Sophie Elmhirst, ''The Guardian'', June 9, 2015
</ref>

Prior to Elevatorgate, [[Monica Shores]]' ''Ms. Magazine'' article titled ''Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women?'' criticized the News Atheism movement for being [[sexism|sexist]].<ref name="msmagazine.com">[http://msmagazine.com/blog/2010/11/01/will-new-atheism-make-room-for-women/ ''Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women''] by Monica Shores, ''Ms. Magazine'', 2010</ref> She also cited [[Conservapedia]] in her article and indicated: "The lack of lady presence is so visible that Conservapedia commented on it by noting that [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science website|Dawkins’ website]] overwhelmingly attracts male visitors."<ref name="msmagazine.com"/>

For more information, please see:

*[[Elevatorgate news stories]]

*[[Atheist conferences]]

*[[Research on atheist conferences]]

==== Dawkins retracts his Elevatorgate apology, says Elevatorgate incident was rather trivial ====
[[File:Rebecca watson portrait 2011.jpg|left|thumbnail|181px|The atheist [[Rebecca Watson]] and Richard Dawkins were central figures in the [[Elevatorgate]] scandal. ]]
On August 6, 2014, Dawkins apologized for his remarks related to his Elevatorgate scandal.<ref name="Who is belittling what"/><ref>[https://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/status/497087309805027328 Rebecca Watson's Twitter tweet about Richard Dawkins apologizing for his Elevate scandal]</ref>

However, on November 18, 2014, Richard Dawkins retracted his apology and indicated that: he stands by his recent remarks about women/men relations, he feels muzzled by "thought police" and that [[Rebecca Watson]]'s experience in the elevator was "rather trivial" compared to events some Muslim women experience.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/richard-dawkins-stands-by-remarks-on-sexism-pedophilia-down-syndrome/2014/11/18/a2915cd8-6f64-11e4-a2c2-478179fd0489_story.html Richard Dawkins stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome], by Kimberly Winston | Religion News Service November 18, 2014</ref>

Specifically, the ''Washington Post'' reported on November 18, 2014:
{{cquote|“I don’t take back anything that I’ve said,” Dawkins said from a shady spot in the leafy backyard of one of his Bay Area supporters. “I would not say it again, however, because I am now accustomed to being misunderstood and so I will. “

He trailed off momentarily, gazing at his hands resting on a patio table.

“I feel muzzled, and a lot of other people do as well,” he continued. “There is a climate of bullying, a climate of intransigent thought police which is highly influential in the sense that it suppresses people like me.”

Recent criticism of Dawkins has come from women, many of them within the [[atheist movement]], which has long drawn more men to its ranks. His online remarks, some women say, contribute to a climate they see as unwelcoming to female atheists...

“I concentrate my attention on that menace and I confess I occasionally get a little impatient with American women who complain of being inappropriately touched by the water cooler or invited for coffee or something which I think is, by comparison, relatively trivial,” he said.<ref name="washingtonpost.com">[http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/richard-dawkins-stands-by-remarks-on-sexism-pedophilia-down-syndrome/2014/11/18/a2915cd8-6f64-11e4-a2c2-478179fd0489_story.html Richard Dawkins stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome], by Kimberly Winston | Religion News Service November 18, 2014 and syndicated to the ''Washington Post''</ref>}}

==== Reason Rally related incident involving David Silverman and Richard Dawkins ====

''See also:'' [[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]]
[[File:David Silverman.JPG|thumbnail|right|150px|[[David Silverman]] ]]
An article by Sarah posted at [[Skepchick]] about a conversation between Richard Dawkins and [[David Silverman]] (a former president of the [[American Atheists]] organization), which took place during the planning phase of the [[Reason Rally]]:
{{cquote|Richard was standing behind the podium, and he asked Dave something along the lines of, “What exactly is the Reason Rally?” Dave started explaining it, and as he did, someone who was waiting in the line outside opened the door to peek inside and we could all hear a lot of noise. I rushed up the aisle and made frantic “shut the door” gestures at the people peeking inside, and they did. As I walked the ten feet back, I couldn’t hear everything Dave was saying, but I heard the name “Rebecca Watson.” Richard suddenly had a very angry look on his face and I heard him almost shout, “No, absolutely not! If she’s going to be there, I won’t be there. I don’t want her speaking.” and then Dave immediately replied, “You’re absolutely right, we’ll take her off the roster. It’s done.” Richard huffed for a moment, Dave continued to placate him, and then he made the video.

I was crushed.<ref>[http://skepchick.org/2013/09/my-time-with-richard-dawkins-or-why-you-should-never-meet-your-idols/ My Time With Richard Dawkins (Or, Why You Should Never Meet Your Idols)] by Sarah at [[Skepchick]], September 5, 2013</ref>}}

For more information, please see: [[Elevatorgate]]

==== Elevatorgate and increased division within the atheist population ====

''See also:'' [[Atheist movement]] and [[Atheism and leadership]]

Post-Elevatorgate, Richard Dawkins is often criticized by secular leftists for igniting deep fractures in the [[atheist movement]] and hindering the atheist movement. For example, on November 26, 2013, the atheist activist and blogger [[Jen McCreight]] posted at Twitter the message: "Did anyone on Dawkins AMA ask how he feels about singlehandedly destroying the atheist movement with the Dear Muslima yet?"<ref>[https://twitter.com/jennifurret/status/405391218273554433 Jennifer McCreight on the Twitter about the Elevatorgate scandal]</ref> In December 2013, atheist Jack Vance at Atheist Revolution called July 2, 2011, which is the day that Elevatorgate occurred, "The day the atheist movement died."<ref>[http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/12/the-day-atheist-movement-died.html The Day the Atheist Movement Died] by Jack Vance at Atheist Revolution</ref>

{{See also|Atheism and the internet}}

=== Dawkins' disinvitation to speak at a skeptics conference due to a feminism/Islam controversy ===

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' health]] and [[Richard Dawkins' health#Richard Dawkins' stroke and news reports|Richard Dawkins' stroke]] and [[Richard Dawkins and medical science]] and [[Richard Dawkins, Darwin and psychogenic illness]]

As a result of the controversy relating to a Dawkins Twitter post about [[feminism]]/[[Islam]], Dawkins was disinvited to speak at the 2016 Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism (NCSS) (See: [[Richard Dawkins and women#Feminists cause Richard Dawkins to be disinvited to skeptic conference|Feminists cause Richard Dawkins to be disinvited to skeptic conference]]).<ref name="richarddawkins.net">[https://richarddawkins.net/2016/02/an-update-on-richards-condition-in-his-own-words/ An update on Richard Dawkins condition in his own words]</ref> Stephanie Zvan is an atheist blogger at [[Freethought Blogs]]. She wrote an open letter to the [[Center for Inquiry]] (CFI) about the events surrounding the Dawkins' Twitter post about feminism/Islam that "CFI now has a harassment denialist on its board, a harassment denialist who has tied his denialism to his work at your organization."<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2016/01/29/dawkins-goes-denialist-an-open-letter-to-the-cfi-board/ Dawkins Goes Denialist: An Open Letter to the CFI Board] by Stephanie Zvan at [[Freethought Blogs]]</ref>

Dawkins said he was very upset about being disinvited to the conference.<ref name="richarddawkins.net"/> After his disinvitation, Dawkins gave some news about his health condition after suffering a minor stroke and he mentioned that his doctors advised avoiding controversies due to his chronic high blood pressure.<ref>
*[https://richarddawkins.net/2016/02/an-update-on-richards-condition-in-his-own-words/ An update on Richard’s condition in his own words], Richarddawkins.net
*[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-stress-over-twitter-tweet-feminism-controversey-caused-stroke-157840/ Richard Dawkins Said He Was Stressed by Controversy Over Tweet Before Stroke], ''Christian Post'', February, 2016
*[http://www.religionnews.com/2016/02/15/richard-dawkins-stroke-due-to-stress/ Richard Dawkins says stroke caused by stress over controversy], Religion New Service</ref> In recent times Dawkins has been embroiled in a number of controversies involving the topics of [[feminism]]/[[Islam]] and he has faced a significant amount of criticism from his fellow [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]]/liberals (see: [[Richard Dawkins and women]] and [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations]]).

[[File:Hemant Mehta.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|[[Hemant Mehta]] ]]
Atheist [[Hemant Mehta]] reported about Dawkins' stroke and Dawkins' report that he had been once again invited to the conference:
{{cquote|It was the result of stress-related higher blood pressure, which he says he may have had as a result of recent controversy, including being booted from the NECSS conference. He added, however, that on February 5, he received a letter from conference organizers apologizing for disinviting him and asking him back to the conference.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/02/14/richard-dawkins-gives-update-on-his-health-in-audio-message/ Richard Dawkins Gives Update on His Health in Audio Message]</ref>}}

On the morning of Richard Dawkins' stroke, Dawkins received a letter from the NCSS apologizing to Dawkins for his disinvitation and once again inviting him to speak at the conference.<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-stress-over-twitter-tweet-feminism-controversey-caused-stroke-157840/ Richard Dawkins Said He Was Stressed by Controversy Over Tweet Before Stroke], Christian Post</ref>

Despite the medical advice of his doctors, Dawkins had a very active Twitter presence before his minor stroke (with a number of Twitter controversies) and numerous public controversies.<ref>
*[http://www.religionnews.com/2016/02/15/richard-dawkins-stroke-due-to-stress/ Richard Dawkins says stroke caused by stress over controversy], Religion New Service
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/21/the-12-stages-of-a-richard-dawkins-twitter-scandal_n_5698443.html The 12-Stage 'Evolution' Of A Richard Dawkins Twitter Scandal] by Paul Vale, The Huffington Post UK, Posted: 22/08/2014 02:06 BST
*[http://www.salon.com/2016/01/27/richard_dawkins_delete_your_account_the_prominent_atheist_unleashes_new_islamophobic_assault_partner/ Richard Dawkins, delete your account: The prominent atheist implodes on Twitter (again)], Salon
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/15-of-richard-dawkins-most-controversial-tweets_us_56004360e4b00310edf7eaf6 15 Of Richard Dawkins' Most Controversial Tweets], ''Huffington Post''
</ref>

Dawkins has accumulated over 30,000 Twitter tweets.<ref>[https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author Richard Dawkins Twitter]</ref> ''The Independent'' reported, "Dawkins also admitted he wasn't very good at managing Twitter and the strong reactions his posts tend to provoke. 'Twitter is very difficult medium to handle,' he said. 'I’m not much of a diplomat.'"<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-defends-ahmed-mohamed-comments-and-dismisses-islamophobia-as-a-non-word-10515389.html Richard Dawkins defends Ahmed Mohamed comments and dismisses Islamophobia as a 'non-word']</ref> However, after his stroke, in May 2016, Dawkins gave up posting on Twitter for awhile and the tweets that appeared in his name were done by his staff.<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/affinity/2016/05/26/dawkins-ive-given-up-twitter/ Dawkins: I’ve Given Up Twitter.]</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and Twitter]]

Debates raged over praying for Richard Dawkins health after his stroke.<ref>[http://www.charismanews.com/world/55133-debate-rages-over-praying-for-atheist-richard-dawkins-after-stroke Debate rages over praying for atheist Richard Dawkins after stroke]</ref><ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-church-of-england-deny-trolling-biologist-by-sending-prayers-following-minor-stroke-a6871966.html Richard Dawkins: Church of England denies 'trolling' biologist by sending 'prayers' following minor stroke]</ref>

''The Guardian'' reported that Dawkins is expected to have a full recovery or near full recovery from his stroke.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/feb/12/richard-dawkins-has-stroke-on-eve-of-australia-and-new-zealand-tour Richard Dawkins stroke forces delay of Australia and New Zealand tour], ''The Guardian'', February 11, 2016</ref>

In December 2016, Dawkins appears to have started to Tweet again despite his doctors warnings to avoid controversy (For example, he tweeted that Britain had become a "nasty little backwater" after the [[Brexit]] vote and his Tweet drew fierce criticism).<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/authors/richard-dawkins-england-becoming-nasty-little-backwater-brexit/ Richard Dawkins: England becoming a 'nasty little backwater' after Brexit vote], ''The Telegraph'', March 2017</ref><ref>[http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/748479/Richard-Dawkins-pretending-war-on-christmas-christians SHOCK RANT: Richard Dawkins mocks Christians for 'pretending' there's WAR on Christianity], ''Express'', December of 2016</ref><ref>[https://swarajyamag.com/insta/what-british-scientist-dawkins-thinks-of-islam What British Scientist Dawkins Thinks Of Islam], ''Swaraya'', June 7, 2017</ref>

=== Richard Dawkins' health ===

* [[Richard Dawkins' health]]

==== Richard Dawkins' stroke ====

*[[Richard Dawkins' health#Richard Dawkins' stroke and news reports|Richard Dawkins' stroke]]

=== Atheist PZ Myers comment about Dawkins' attitude towards women ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and women]] and [[Richard Dawkins and women]]
[[File:PZ Myers.jpg|thumbnail|150px|left|[[PZ Myers]] ]]
In 2014, the prominent [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] [[PZ Myers]] said of Richard Dawkins' attitude towards women: "At a time when our movement needs to expand its reach, it’s a tragedy that our most eminent spokesman has so enthusiastically expressed such a regressive attitude.”<ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name Richard Dawkins has lost it: ignorant sexism gives atheists a bad name] by Adam Lee, ''The Guardian'', September 18, 2014</ref>

Myers also said in 2014 concerning Dawkins:
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins: you’re wrong. Deeply, profoundly, fundamentally wrong. Your understanding of [[feminism]] is flawed and misinformed, and further, you keep returning to the same poisonous wells of misinformation.

...you persist in presenting these anti-feminist caricatures as reasonable. You say you are a feminist, and even find feminism an undeniable virtue, but at the same time you parrot absurd anti-feminist remarks.<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/09/12/dear-richard-dawkins/ Dear Richard Dawkins] by PZ Myers at Pharyngula blog, September 12, 2014</ref>}}

=== Richard Dawkins commentary on Mary the Mother of Jesus ===

In 2010, the [[Christian apologetics]] website [[True Free Thinker]] wrote:
{{cquote|The atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins just referred to Mary, the mother of Jesus, as a ‘submissive cosmic doormat’...

If Richard Dawkins had a better grasp of womanhood [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|and a greater grasp of manhood]], he would still be married to his first wife and not his third.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-immaculate-and-mary-cosmic-doormat</ref>}}
=== Other reasons why many women hold unfavorable views of Richard Dawkins ===

Another plausible explanation for many women having a lack of enthusiasm for Richard Dawkins's message is that many women who attend religious services and hold traditional beliefs and values find Richard Dawkins' [[atheism and morality|atheistic values]] repugnant. In terms of traditional values, in 2007, when asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the [[Muslim]] [extremists] aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the [[Bible]]. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the [[Sabbath]]."<ref name=Hitler>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref>

(See also: [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]])

=== Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins ===

*[[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]]

== Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations ==
[[File:StarCresent.png|thumbnail|125px|right|Assuming patterns of net immigration do not change significantly, the Pew Forum thinks that there will be just over 5.5 million British Muslims, representing 8.2 per cent of the UK population, by 2030.<ref>[http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-will-britain-have-a-muslim-majority-by-2050/13690 FactCheck: will Britain have a Muslim majority by 2050?]</ref> See: [[Atheism vs. Islam]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations]] and [[New Atheism and Islamophobia]] and [[Atheism vs. Islam]]

The [[New Atheism|New Atheists]] Richard Dawkins, [[Sam Harris]] and the late [[Christopher Hitchens]] have received multiple accusations of engaging in [[Islamophobia|Islamophobic]] behavior.<ref>
*[http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins_harris_hitchens_new_atheists_flirt_with_islamophobia/ Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens: New Atheists flirt with Islamophobia] by Nathan Lean, ''Salon'', March 30, 2013
*[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus] by Glenn Greenwald, ''The Guardian'', April 3, 2013</ref> Dawkins is dismissive of the concept of Islamophobia and declared: "I’m always being accused of Islamophobia, that’s a non-word."<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-defends-ahmed-mohamed-comments-and-dismisses-islamophobia-as-a-non-word-10515389.html Richard Dawkins defends Ahmed Mohamed comments and dismisses Islamophobia as a 'non-word'], ''Independent'', 24 September 2015</ref>

On December 28, 2015, the ''Daily Express'' reported about Dawkins:
{{cquote|The furious academic walked out of an interview when a Muslim journalist confirmed he personally believed the prophet [[Muhammad]] flew to heaven on a winged horse.

Dawkins, 74, author of best-seller The God Delusion, told the New Statesmen's Emad Ahmed that his belief was "pathetic" before angrily storming off.<ref>['Pathetic': Richard Dawkins in extraordinary outburst against Islam] by Jason Taylor, ''Daily Express'', December 28, 2015</ref>}}

Ryan Kerney wrote at ''New Republic'' concerning Dawkins' behavior towards Emad Ahmed: "Richard Dawkins is just as rude in person as he is on Twitter, apparently."<ref>[https://newrepublic.com/minutes/126632/richard-dawkins-just-rude-person-twitter-apparently Richard Dawkins is just as rude in person as he is on Twitter, apparently], ''New Republic'', 2015</ref>

On the other hand, defenders of atheist criticisms of [[Islam]]/Muslims indicated that New Atheists should be able to criticize Islam without being accused of Islamophobia.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2013/04/new-atheism-should-be-able-criticise-islam-without-being-accused-islamophobia New Atheism should be able to criticise Islam without being accused of Islamophobia] by Andrew Zak Williams, ''New Statesman'', Published 19 April 2013</ref>

== Richard Dawkins and racial minorities ==

=== Sikivu Hutchinson's criticism of RDF and Center for Inquiry merger ===
[[File:Skivu Hutchinson speaking at Center For Inquiry.JPG|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Sikivu Hutchinson]] speaking ath the [[Center for Inquiry]]. ]]

''See also:'' [[Western atheism and race]] and [[Atheism and leadership]]

Atheist [[Sikivu Hutchinson]] wrote:
{{cquote|The recent merger of the secular organization [[Center for Inquiry]] (CFI) and the [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science|Richard Dawkins Foundation]] (RDF) has been dubbed atheism's supergroup moment. Acknowledging the two organizations' outsized presence in the atheist world, Religion News Service acidly declared it a "royal wedding". The partnership, which gives Richard Dawkins a seat on the CFI board, smacks of a vindication of Dawkins' toxic, reactionary brand of [http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/richard_dawkins_does_it_again_new_atheisms_islamophobia_problem/ damn-all-them-culturally-backward-Western-values-hating- Muslims] New Atheism. As one of the most prominent global secular organizations, CFI's [http://www.centerforinquiry.net/about/corporate_governance all-white board] looks right at home with RDF's [https://richarddawkins.net/boardandstaff/ lily white board] and staff.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sikivu-hutchinson/atheismsowhite-atheists-o_b_9078736.html #AtheismSoWhite: Atheists of Color Rock Social Justice] by Sikivu Hutchinson</ref>}}

The [[secular humanism|secular humanist]] document Human Manifesto II, which was written in 1973 by [[Paul Kurtz]] and Edwin H. Wilson, decried racism and it declared:
{{cquote|The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook. In various societies, the demands of women and minority groups for equal rights effectively challenge our generation.<ref>[http://americanhumanist.org/humanism/humanist_manifesto_ii Humanist Manifesto II]</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins wants people to eat manufactured human lab meat to "overcome our taboo against cannibalism” ==
[[File:Richard Dawkins 2015.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|Richard Dawkins ]]
''LifeSite News'' declares:
{{Cquote|Richard Dawkins, the (in)famous [[atheist activist|atheism proselytizer]], has mused about eating human meat.

No, he doesn’t want to join the Donner Party. Researchers may soon be able to manufacture meat from cell lines in the lab, and Dawkins has suggested in a tweet that we could “overcome our taboo” by eating human flesh so manufactured.

What if human meat is grown? Could we overcome our taboo against cannibalism? An interesting test case for [[Consequentialism|consequentialist morality]] versus “yuck reaction” [[Objective morality|absolutism]].<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/2018/03/06/richard-dawkins-wants-to-eat-human-meat-to-overcome-our-taboo-against-cannibalism/ Richard Dawkins Wants to Eat Human “Meat” to “Overcome Our Taboo Against Cannibalism”], ''LifeSite News'', 2018</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins' bleak worldview ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism, agnosticism and pessimism]] and [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]] and [[Atheism and inspiration]]

According to Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."<ref>[http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richarddaw402494.html Richard Dawkins quote]</ref>

== Richard Dawkins and the religious rights of parents ==

''See also:'' [[Evangelical atheism]]

Richard Dawkins is commonly thought to be an [[Evangelical atheism|evangelical atheist]].<ref>[https://newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins] by John Gray, ''New Republic''</ref><ref>[https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2014/10/evangelical-atheism Evangelical Atheism] by Peter J. Leithart, First Things</ref><ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-stedman/evangelical-atheists-what_b_765379.html ‘Evangelical Atheists:’ Pushing For What?] by Chris Stedman, Huffington Post</ref>

Although evangelical atheists do not advocate the violent/murderous methods that the [[militant atheism|militant atheists]] of [[communism]] have employed, they generally favor using the power of state to indoctrinate children into believing various aspects of [[Atheist worldview|atheist ideology]] (see: [[Atheist indoctrination]]). The new atheist Richard Dawkins claims that children need state protection from religion/religion of children's parents.<ref>[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/richard-dawkins-the-government-needs-to-protect-children-from-religion-and Richard Dawkins: The state needs to ‘protect’ children from religion…and their parents], LifeSite News</ref>

== Richard Dawkins and the encouragement of atheist mockery ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and mockery]]

The new atheist Richard Dawkins has encouraged his supporters to go beyond humorous ridicule.<ref name="shadowtolight.wordpress.com">[https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/dawkins-mock-them-ridicule-them-in-public/ Dawkins: Mock them. Ridicule them! In public]</ref> He wrote, "I lately started to think that we need to go further: go beyond humorous ridicule, sharpen our barbs to a point where they really hurt."<ref name="shadowtolight.wordpress.com"/> For more information please see: [[Atheism and mockery]] and [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]]

== Richard Dawkins on the dissemination of pornography videos to theocratic societies ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles"]] and [[Atheism and pornography]]

On January 1, 2015, ''The Telegraph'' reported:
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins’ insanity has now become an English institution – like warm beer and rain. On Saturday morning, a tweet from his account asked why we don’t send lots of "erotic videos" to theocracies, adding that it should be “loving, gentle, woman-respecting” (I guess this involves the pizza delivery boy calling the next day). If we’re going down this road, I also hear that [[Islam]]ists aren’t very keen on bacon, so perhaps we should bombard the [[Iran]]ian countryside with pig carcasses? Also, miniature bottles of gin. And photos of hot guys making out – in a “men-respecting” and “gentle” sort of way.

After a few minutes of mockery, the tweet was deleted. Perhaps even he realised how utterly mad it was. Which suggests a degree of self-awareness that I didn’t think possible in Britain’s nuttiest professor.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11381529/Richard-Dawkins-wants-to-fight-Islamism-with-erotica.-Celebrity-atheism-has-lost-it.html Richard Dawkins wants to fight Islamism with erotica. Celebrity atheism has lost it] By Tim Stanley, ''The Telegraph'', January 1, 2015</ref>}}

{{See also|Atheism and pornography}}

== Atheists declaring that Richard Dawkins is now a liability to the atheist movement ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]] and [[Atheism and public relations]]

Although the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] Richard Dawkins was always known for [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|his abrasiveness]] and [[Atheism and arrogance|arrogance]], post [[Elevatorgate]] and subsequent to his various embarrassing Twitter posts, many atheists are now asking if he is a liability to the [[atheist movement]].<ref>
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/richard-dawkins-atheisms-asset-or-liability/2014/08/07/9f19a7a2-1e58-11e4-9b6c-12e30cbe86a3_story.html Richard Dawkins: Atheism’s asset or liability?] by Kimberly Winston, ''Washington Post'', source: ''Religion News Service'', August 7, 2014
*[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins''], New Republic by John Gray
*[https://twitter.com/jennifurret/status/405391218273554433 Jennifer McCreight on the Twitter about the Elevatorgate scandal]
*[http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/downs-syndrome-girl-passes-six-4095031 Down's Syndrome girl passes six GCSEs as dad calls Richard Dawkins 'an ignorant idiot'], Mirror by By Grace Macaskill, Aug 23, 2014 15:41
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/21/the-12-stages-of-a-richard-dawkins-twitter-scandal_n_5698443.html The 12-Stage 'Evolution' Of A Richard Dawkins Twitter Scandal] by Paul Vale, The Huffington Post UK, Posted: 22/08/2014 02:06 BST</ref>

See also:

*[[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]]

*[[Richard Dawkins quotes]]

*[[Decline of the atheist movement]]

== Richard Dawkins' cult of personality ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' cult of personality]] and [[Atheist cults]] and [[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Atheism and leadership]]

[[File:Vox Day.jpg|thumbnail|left|175px|[[Vox Day|Theodore Beale]] noted that the [[Richard Dawkins' cult of personality]] has some similarity to the cult of [[Scientology]].<ref name="The Cult of Dicky Dawkins">[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-cult-of-dicky-dawk.html The Cult of Dicky Dawkins]</ref> ]]
On August 16, 2014, Andrew Brown wrote an article for The Spectator entitled ''The bizarre – and costly – cult of Richard Dawkins'' which declared:
{{cquote|...the [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science website|Richard Dawkins website]] offers followers the chance to join the ‘Reason Circle’, which, like [[Dante]]’s [[Hell]], is arranged in concentric circles. For $85 a month, you get discounts on his merchandise, and the chance to meet ‘[[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science]] personalities’. Obviously that’s not enough to meet the man himself. For that you pay $210 a month — or $5,000 a year — for the chance to attend an event where he will speak...

But the $85 a month just touches the hem of rationality. After the neophyte passes through the successively more expensive ‘Darwin Circle’ and then the ‘Evolution Circle’, he attains the innermost circle, where for $100,000 a year or more he gets to have a private breakfast or lunch with Richard Dawkins, and a reserved table at an invitation-only circle event with ‘Richard’ as well as ‘all the benefits listed above’, so he still gets a discount on his Richard Dawkins T-shirt saying ‘Religion — together we can find a cure.’

The website suggests that donations of up to $500,000 a year will be accepted for the privilege of eating with him once a year: at this level of contribution you become a member of something called ‘The Magic of Reality Circle’. I don’t think any irony is intended.

At this point it is obvious to everyone except the participants that what we have here [[Atheist cults|is a religion]] without the good bits.<ref>[http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9286682/the-bizarre-and-costly-cult-of-richard-dawkins/ The bizarre – and costly – cult of Richard Dawkins], The Spectator, Andrew Brown 16 August 2014</ref>}}

[[Vox Day|Theodore Beale]] noted that the Richard Dawkins cult has some similarity to the cult of [[Scientology]].<ref name="The Cult of Dicky Dawkins"/>
Dawkins was one of the founders of the New Atheism movement. The [[New Atheism]] movement, which has waned in recent years, was called a cult by the [[agnosticism|agnostic]], journalist Bryan Appleyard in a 2012 article in the ''New Statesman'' in which he describes the abusive behavior of New Atheists.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2012/02/neo-atheism-atheists-dawkins ''The God wars'' by Bryan Appleyard], ''New Statesman''</ref> Although the New Atheism movement does not perfectly fit the various characteristics of a cult, it does fit some of the characteristics.<ref>[http://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/how-cultish-is-new-atheism/ How cultish is the New Atheism?]</ref>

See also: [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science|Richard Dawkins's Foundation and an embezzlement allegation]] and [[Atheist nonprofit scandals]]

==Abrasive demeanor of Richard Dawkins==

''See also:'' [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]] and [[Richard Dawkins and anger]] and [[Atheism and leadership]]

Richard Dawkins has a reputation for being an aggressive and angry man (see: [[Richard Dawkins and anger]]).

Atheist author and [[sociology]] professor Phil Zuckerman said of Dawkins: "He is smug, condescending and emits an unpleasant disdainfulness. He doesn’t ever seem to acknowledge the good aspects of religion, only the bad. In that sense, I think he doesn’t help atheism in the PR department."<ref>[http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/58271839-80/dawkins-atheism-atheist-rape.html.csp Richard Dawkins: Atheism’s asset or liability?] By KIMBERLY WINSTON, ''Religion News Service''</ref> See also: [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Richard Dawkins quotes]]

[[Gary Demar]] commenting on the abrasiveness and incivility of Richard Dawkins quotes Dawkins stating the following:
[[Image:Mohler.jpg‎|thumbnail|200px|right|Dr. R. [[Albert Mohler]] Jr.]]
{{cquote|It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in [[theory of evolution|evolution]], that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).}}

Dr. R. [[Albert Mohler]], Jr. has echoed Mr. Demar's estimation of Richard Dawkins and has stated regarding Richard Dawkins the following:
{{cquote|His aggressiveness and abrasiveness have now prompted some of his fellow defenders of evolution to wonder if he is doing their cause more harm than good.

The September 2005 issue of Discover magazine features an article that raises this very question. In "Darwin's Rottweiler," author Stephen S. Hall suggests that Dawkins is simply "far too fierce."....

Dawkins admits that he just may be "a bit of a loose canon." In reality, that is a significant understatement.<ref>Mohler, R. Albert, Jr. (September 9, 2005). [http://www.christianpost.com/news/darwin-s-rottweiler-richard-dawkins-speaks-his-mind-6434/ "Darwin's rottweiler--Richard Dawkins speaks his mind"]. The Christian Post website. Retrieved on October 19, 2014.</ref>}}

In addition, Richard Dawkins appears to have had struggles maintaining marital harmony in his life and three of his three marriages have ended in divorce (see also: [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]]).

In September 2010, Richard Dawkins became nasty towards a woman in an audience he spoke before.<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/richard-dawkins-i-never-meet-people-who-disagree-with-me-2080451.html Richard Dawkins: 'I never meet people who disagree with me', ''The Independent'' by reporter Andy McSmith, Thursday 16 September 2010]</ref>

Furthermore, Dawkins has developed a reputation for being angry (see: [[Richard Dawkins and anger]]).

=== The film documentary The Atheist Delusion features a humorless Richard Dawkins who is the object of audience laughter ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and humor]]

The movie ''[[The Atheist Delusion]]'' features Richard Dawkins being the object of audience laughter due to something unreasonable he said.<ref name="M The Atheist Delusion Movie 2016">[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChWiZ3iXWwM The Atheist Delusion Movie (2016) HD]</ref> Dawkins indignantly asked the audience, "Why is that funny?".<ref name="M The Atheist Delusion Movie 2016"/>

== Dogmatic arrogance of Richard Dawkins ==

''See:'' [[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Atheism and arrogance]] and [[Atheism and intolerance]]

Using special text analysis software, the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt found that [[New Atheism|New Atheists]], such as Richard Dawkins, very often wrote in dogmatic terms in their major works using words such as “always,” “never,” “certainly,” “every,” and “undeniable.”<ref>[http://www.thisviewoflife.com/index.php/magazine/articles/why-sam-harris-is-unlikely-to-change-his-mind10 Why Sam Harris is Unlikely to Change his Mind] by JONATHAN HAIDT, February 3, 2014 8:36 pm</ref>

Yet, the works of New Atheists, including Richard Dawkins, often betray an amateurish knowledge of philosophy, religion and science. For example, [[Vox Day]]'s book ''[http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf The Irrational atheist]'' found multiple errors in reasoning and factual errors when it came to the works of New Atheist authors.<ref>[http://creation.com/review-irrational-atheist-by-vox-day Excellent refutation of ‘new atheists’ flawed by heterodox open theism], A review of The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens by Vox Day, Benbella Books, Dallas, TX, 2008, reviewed by Lita Cosner</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]]

=== Atheist philosopher John Gray on the dogmatic arrogance of Richard Dawkins ===

[[File:John Gray.JPG|thumbnail|left|200px|The [[economist]] Tomáš Sedláček (left) and the [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] [[John Gray (philosopher)|John Gray]] (right) at ZURICH.MINDS 2012]]
In a 2014 New Republic article entitled ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins: His atheism is its own kind of narrow religion'', the atheist philosopher [[John Gray (philosopher)|John Gray]] wrote:
{{cquote|One might wager a decent sum of money that it has never occurred to Dawkins that to many people he appears as a comic figure. His default mode is one of rational indignation—a stance of withering patrician disdain for the untutored mind of a kind one might expect in a schoolmaster in a minor public school sometime in the 1930s. He seems to have no suspicion that any of those he despises could find his stilted pose of indignant rationality merely laughable. “I am not a good observer,” he writes modestly. He is referring to his observations of animals and plants, but his weakness applies more obviously in the case of humans. Transfixed in wonderment at the workings of his own mind, Dawkins misses much that is of importance in human beings—himself and others.<ref name="newrepublic.com">[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins''], New Republic by John Gray</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins' comment about aborting Down syndrome babies ==

''See also:'' [[Abortion and atheism]] and [[Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social intelligence]] and [[Eugenics]]

In August 2014, Richard Dawkins caused a firestorm by claiming an unborn baby with [[Down's Syndrome|Down’s syndrome]] should be aborted and that it would be “immoral to bring it into the world.”<ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/20/Atheist-Richard-Dawkins-Abort-Down-s-Syndrome-Baby-Immoral-To-Bring-It-Into-The-World Atheist Richard Dawkins: 'Abort' Down's Syndrome Baby, 'Immoral To Bring It Into The World'] by by Dr. Susan Berry, Breitbart News 20 Aug 2014</ref> Dr. Michael Brown wrote in the ''Christian Post'' about this matter: "It is becoming increasingly clear that Dawkins is something of an embarrassment, even to other atheists (although he is still revered by many). The only question that remains is this: Are his irrational and immoral positions unique to him, or are they the logical outcome of his Darwinian evolutionism?"<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-exposes-the-immorality-of-his-atheism-125159/ Richard Dawkins Exposes the Immorality of His Atheism By Michael Brown, ''Christian Post'', August 21, 2014|10:15 am]</ref> See also: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]]

A British father whose Down's syndrome daughter passed six General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) tests called Richard Dawkins an "ignorant idiot".<ref>[http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/downs-syndrome-girl-passes-six-4095031 Down's Syndrome girl passes six GCSEs as dad calls Richard Dawkins 'an ignorant idiot'], Mirror by By Grace Macaskill, Aug 23, 2014 15:41</ref>

== Martin Robbins at ''New Statesman'': Dawkins grasping for attention and relevance ==

In 2013, Martin Robbins wrote in the ''New Statesman'' concerning the public persona of Dawkins: "Increasingly though, his public output resembles that of a man desperately grasping for attention and relevance..."<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2013/08/atheism-maturing-and-it-will-leave-richard-dawkins-behind Atheism is maturing, and it will leave Richard Dawkins behind]</ref>

Recently, Richard Dawkins has been reduced to Tweeting provocative Twitter posts in order to gain attention. After the predictable ensuing uproar, Dawkins half-heartedly apologizes for the provocative Tweets.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/21/the-12-stages-of-a-richard-dawkins-twitter-scandal_n_5698443.html The 12-Stage 'Evolution' Of A Richard Dawkins Twitter Scandal], By Paul Vale, The Huffington Post UK, Posted: 22/08/2014 02:06 BST</ref>
== Richard Dawkins' loss of influence post Elevatatorgate and other controversies ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]] and [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]] and [[Internet atheism]]

As can be seen by the graph below, by means of embedded code on his website from Quantcast, Quantcast directly measured the web traffic of Richard Dawkins' website. Traffic to Dawkins website is significantly down post-[[Elevatorgate]]. See also: [[Internet atheism]]

Although his following of Dawkian atheist has significantly waned post-Elevatorgate and due to his generally [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|abrasive manner]], he does retain a small cult following (See: [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]] and [[Richard Dawkins' cult of personality]] and [[Atheist cults]]).

Furthermore, the New Atheism movement has greatly waned in terms of its prominence (see: [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]]).

=== Initial loss of web traffic to Richard Dawkins's website post Elevatorgate ===
[[File:Richard Dawkins web traffic 12-23-12.png|thumbnail|center|775px|According to the web traffic tracking company [[Quantcast]], the web traffic of Richard Dawkins' website fell in 2012.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/12/2012-has-been-bad-year-for-richard.html 2012 has been a very BAD year for Richard Dawkins's website according to Quantcast]</ref> By October 2014, the web traffic for his website fell to a lower level according to Quantcast.<ref>[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2014/10/richard-dawkins-loss-of-influence.html Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]</ref>

 
 
In October of 2012, [[Rebecca Watson]] published a story about Elevatorgate and its aftermath in ''Slate'' entitled, ''It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too: I spoke out about sexual harassment among atheists and scientists. Then came the rape threats''.<ref>[http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/10/sexism_in_the_skeptic_community_i_spoke_out_then_came_the_rape_threats.html It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too: I spoke out about sexual harassment among atheists and scientists. Then came the rape threats] by Rebecca Watson, ''Slate'', October 2012</ref>
 
 
The web traffic was measured via [[Quantcast]] which directly measured Dawkins' website traffic via embedded code on his website.<ref name="Quantcast - Quantcast Measure">[https://www.quantcast.com/measure/ Quantcast - Quantcast Measure]</ref>]]

=== Web traffic of Richard Dawkins' website has seen a dramatic drop ===
[[File:Richard Dawkins' website traffic.jpg|500px|thumbnail|center|The above graph shows the monthly website traffic to Richard Dawkins' website as of June 22, 2015 in terms of unique monthly web visitors.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2015/06/web-traffic-of-richard-dawkins-main.html Web traffic of Richard Dawkins' main website]</ref> As you can see above, in 2012, Richard Dawkins saw a very large decrease in web traffic.
 
 
The website traffic is measured via [[Quantcast]] which directly measures Dawkins' website traffic via embedded code on his website.<ref name="Quantcast - Quantcast Measure"/>]]

=== Alexa ranking of Richard Dawkins' website ===

''See also:'' [[Alexa rankings of Richard Dawkins' website]]

[[File:Richarddawkins.net alexa.png|thumbnail|center|400px|According to [[Alexa]], Richard Dawkins website lost a large amount of its global market share during to period between 2010 and the beginning portion of 2012.]]
{{Clear}}
[[File:Richard Dawkins alexa 2016.png|thumbnail|center|400px|In 2015, Richard Dawkins' website fell in terms of its Alexa ranking.]]
{{Clear}}
[[File:Richarddawkins.net alexa 10-2106.png|thumbnail|center|400px|In 2016, Richard Dawkins' website lost a considerable amount of global market share according to the web traffic tracking company [[Alexa]].]]
{{Clear}}
[[File:Richard dawkins website alexa April 2017.png|thumbnail|center|400px|In April of 2017, according to Alexa, Richard Dawkins' website continued to experience a steep decline in terms of its global market share.]]
{{Clear}}
[[File:Richard dawkins alexa 10-27-2017.png|thumbnail|center|400px|On November 27, 2017, Richard Dawkins' website was the 158,206th most popular website in the world.
 
 
His website was losing global market share in the latter quarter of 2017.]]
{{clear}}

=== Coverage of Richard Dawkins speaking tour ===

In 2016, the Shadow To Light blog wrote in article entitled ''Fading Dawkins'':
{{Cquote|Dawkins has been on a speaking tour recently in the United States. On Nov 1 and 2, he had a “public conversation” with [[Sam Harris]].

In the golden years of [[New Atheism|Gnu]], there would have been a couple of news reports about this talk filled with some click-bait quote and I’d probably be blogging about something they said. But despite Dawkins’ return to the speaker circuit, and despite him teaming up with Sam Harris for two days, I can’t find a single report. No one outside that theater is interested in what two of the Four Horsemen had to say.

Look, Dawkins and Harris will always have their place among the [[Madalyn Murray O'Hair|Madalyn Murray O’Hair]] crowd. But as far as breaking out into the mainstream is concerned, the fad has run its course.<ref>[https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2016/11/03/the-fading-dawkins/ ''Fading Dawkins'']</ref>}}

== Survey of scientists: Richard Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists ==
[[File:Richard Dawkins Stockholm.JPG|thumbnail|right|250px|Richard Dawkins]]

''See also:'' [[Atheism and science]]

''The Independent'' reported:
{{Cquote|British scientists who mentioned Richard Dawkins during a recent study seem mostly to dislike him, with some arguing that he misrepresents science and is misleading the public.

Criticism of the British evolutionary biologist came up repeatedly in a new study looking at public understanding of science and how scientists feel that they are portrayed in the media – despite respondents never actually being asked about him. The research was published in a recent edition of Public Understandings of Science as part of a broader study looking at how scientists feel about religion.

As part of the study, the researchers conducted a survey of over 20,000 scientists from eight countries. In the UK, the researchers surveyed 1,581 randomly sampled scientists. They then spoke to 137 of them for in-depth interviews to see what they thought.

Though Dawkins wasn’t a part of the interview process, and researchers didn’t ask about him, 48 of the 137 British scientists they spoke to mentioned Dawkins. Of those 48 that referenced him, 80 per cent said they thought that Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public speeches, according to the study by Rice University, Texas.<ref>[British scientists don't like Richard Dawkins, finds study that didn't even ask questions about Richard Dawkins] by Andrew Griffin, The Independent, 2016</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins, pseudoscience, and other errors ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]] and [[Irreligion and superstition]]

Within the [[evolution]]ary science community and the [[creation science]] community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in [[pseudoscience]] and also has faced charges of committing elementary errors.<ref name="truefreethinker.com">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref><ref>http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php</ref>

The website [[True Free Thinker]] notes:
{{cquote|Moreover, note that with regards to “assertions without adequate evidence” evolutionary biologist and geneticist, Prof. [[Richard Lewontin]], referenced [[Carl Sagan]]’s list of the “best contemporary science-popularizers” which includes Richard Dawkins. These authors have, as Lewontin puts it, “put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.” Lewontin specifically mentions “Dawkins’s vulgarizations of Darwinism” (find details [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/how-billions-demons-haunted-baloney-while-avoiding-detection here]).

Even renowned evolutionary biologists H. Allen Orr, David Sloan Wilson, and Massimo Pigliucci have called into question the power that Dawkins once had as an intellectual, since he has made elementary errors in ''[[The God Delusion]]''.<ref name="truefreethinker.com">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref>}}
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|160px|A Baylor University study found that the irreligious are more likely to be [[superstitious]] than evangelical [[Christians]].<ref name="online.wsj.com"/>]]

In 2010, a new discovery relating to the [[eye]] further discredited the [[evolution]]ary quackery of Richard Dawkins.<ref>http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins</ref> In addition, in 2010, the journal ''Nature'' featured an interview with the evolutionist, biologist, and atheist David Sloan Wilson who criticized Richard Dawkins for denying the evidence for the societal benefits of religion (see also: [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health]]).<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/atheism-as-a-stealth-reli_3_b_83605.html</ref>

As far as the the social science of [[history]], Richard Dawkins has [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism|engaged in historical revisionism when it comes to the mass murders committed by atheists]].

Many of Richard Dawkins detractors are [[conservative]] [[Christianity|Christians]] which is not surprising. As alluded to earlier, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians."<ref name="online.wsj.com"/> In the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].<ref name="cbsnews.com">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref>

== Agnosticism of Richard Dawkins ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism]] and [[Atheism, agnosticism and flip-flopping]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

Although Dawkins declared himself an agnostic in his 2006 book ''The God Delusion'', he declared that atheist evangelism is important.<ref name="voxday.blogspot.com">[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html Mailvox: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!]</ref> Author [[Vox Day]] wrote concerning this matter, "While the fact that Dawkins declared himself a literal agnostic in the very book in which he declared the importance of atheist evangelism is both ironic and incoherent, it will surprise no one who has read the chapter of ''The Irrational Atheist'' entitled "Darwin's Judas".<ref name="voxday.blogspot.com"/> Also, despite being an elderly self-declared agnostic, in his book ''The God Delusion'', Dawkins said that "permanent agnosticism in principle" is "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice".<ref>''The God Delusion'', page 70</ref> In February 2012, Dawkins declared that he believed that there is a 6.9 out of 7 probability of [[God]]'s non-existence (approximately a 1 percent probability that God exist).<ref name="voxday.blogspot.com"/><ref name="blogs.telegraph.co.uk">[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100139859/id-go-to-church-just-to-reduce-the-probability-of-spending-eternity-in-hell-with-richard-dawkins/ ''I'd go to church just to reduce the probability of spending eternity in Hell with Richard Dawkins'' by Dr. Tim Stanley, ''The Daily Telegraph'', February 27, 2012]</ref>

Although Dawkins declared that he was an [[agnosticism|agnostic]] in 2006 and 2012, in 2002 Richard Dawkins publicly argued for the position of [[militant atheism]] and claimed that he will not feel anything after death (see also: [[Ex-atheists]]).<ref name="voxday.blogspot.com"/><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3_rGbiT_3c Richard Dawkins Says He's Agnostic -- NOT atheist - video testimony of Richard Dawkins saying he is not an atheist, but an agnostic]</ref><ref>
*[http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html Richard Dawkins on militant atheism]</ref> Despite arguing for the position of militant atheism previously, Dawkins told the Archbishop Dr. [[Rowan Williams]] that he never said was an atheist.<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic], ''Daily Mail'', 24 February 2012</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW429E4 Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist]</ref><ref>[http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html Richard Dawkins on militant atheism]</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism]] and [[Atheism and historical revisionism]]

The historian Dr. Tim Stanley wrote that he believed Dawkins is taking a foolish gamble and Dawkins is risking spending an eternity in [[hell]].<ref name="blogs.telegraph.co.uk"/> Dr. Don Batten, a scientist at [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote that despite Richard Dawkins' skeptical protestations, Dawkins appears to be a [[God]]-hater.<ref>[http://creation.com/is-richard-dawkins-an-atheist Is Richard Dawkins an atheist? by Dr. Don Batten]</ref>

=== Criticism of fairies at the bottom of the garden analogy ===
[[File:Fairy-md.png|thumbnail|200px|left|On July 18, 2012, a supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] showed the folly of Richard Dawkins' comparison of fairies at the bottom of the garden to the issue of God's existence. According to Dawkins' faulty and irrational analogy, there is about a 1% chance that fairies are at the bottom of the garden.<ref name="questionevolution.blogspot.com">[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-does-richard-dawkins-have-such-high.html Why does Richard Dawkins have such a high belief in the possibility of fairies being at the bottom of the garden?]</ref>]]
A supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] wrote:
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins wrote in his book the God Delusion: "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden" (God Delusion, page 74). In addition, Dawkins said in his book the God Delusion that on a 7 point scale of being sure that God does not exists: "I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7."

In 2012, in video recorded discussion with Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury, Richard Dawkins said he was 6.9 out of 7 of sure that God does not exist and counted himself as an agnostic.

A 6.9 out of 7 would mean that Richard Dawkins believes there is about a .986 percent chance that God exists. In short, according to Dawkins, there is about a 1% chance that God exists.

Since Richard Dawkins likened God's existence to fairies being at the bottom of the garden, why does Dawkins believe there is about a 1% chance that fairies are at the bottom of the garden?

Dawkins is either being disingenuous or he is being irrational or a combination of both is occurring. Anyone who gives weight to Dawkins' views on the existence of God or his views on the creation vs. evolution controversy is obviously displaying bad judgement.

Sin is very irrational. Dr. Don Batten, a scientist at Creation Ministries International, wrote that despite Richard Dawkins' skeptical protestations, Dawkins appears to be a God-hater. This seems to be the best description of Dawkins' behavior.

It really comes as no surprise that Dawkins has been noticeably quiet about the
[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists of the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]. He obviously cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions.<ref name="questionevolution.blogspot.com">[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-does-richard-dawkins-have-such-high.html Why does Richard Dawkins have such a high belief in the possibility of fairies being at the bottom of the garden?]</ref>}}

=== Publisher's notice of his upcoming book and the issue of inconsistency and flip-flopping ===

On June 5, 2012, the ''Christian'' Post reported:
{{cquote|Famed atheist and scientist Richard Dawkins has set out to write a new book that will focus on his own evolution toward the path of atheism.

"Dawkins will tell the story of his own intellectual evolution, explaining how his groundbreaking work as a scientist led to his work as an atheist," states Dawkins' new publisher HarperCollins' Ecco. The book has not yet been given a title, but is expected to be on bookshelves by 2014.<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-next-book-to-focus-on-personal-path-toward-atheism-76099/ Richard Dawkins' Next Book to Focus on Personal Path Toward Atheism]</ref>}}

In response a supporter of the Question evolution! campaign wrote in an article entitled ''Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy'':
[[File:Flip-flops.png|thumbnail|right|200px|The article ''Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy'' written by a supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] wrote: "Christians should call Dawkins on his disingenuous [[Flip-flop (politics)|flip-flopping]] if his publisher continues to promote the book as a book focusing on his journey to atheism without mentioning the fact that Dawkins is presently an agnostic who has rejected atheism."<ref name="ReferenceA">[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/atheism-is-rudderless-and-unseaworthy.html Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy]</ref>]]
{{cquote|The publisher's notice of the upcoming book using the term "atheist" can be found on several other prominent internet properties besides the ''Christian Post'' such as ''Publishers Weekly'', ''The Blaze,'' ''Christianity Today'' and ''Galleycat'' (''Galleycat'' is on the Media Bistro domain).

First, Richard Dawkins has gone from being [http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html a militant atheist] to being [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html an agnostic].

Vox Day [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html wrote] about Dawkins' inconsistency when it comes to the issues of atheism and agnosticism...

Christians should call Dawkins on his disingenuous [[Flip-flop (politics)|flip-flopping]] if his publisher continues to promote the book as a book focusing on his journey to atheism without mentioning the fact that Dawkins is presently an agnostic who has rejected atheism.

An author calling himself an atheist or a publisher giving the impression that someone is an atheist may sell more books as it is more provocative, but it isn't intellectually honest if the author has rejected atheism and is an agnostic. If Dawkins claims to be an agnostic who is unsure if God exist or not, then he should clearly communicate this to the public and so should his publisher. Dawkins has been unreasonable as far as his alleged agnosticism and I recommend reading the article ''Why does Richard Dawkins have such a high belief in the possibility of fairies being at the bottom of the garden?''

Given the weakness of his argumentation and the vitriol which often accompanies it, I agree with Dr. Don Batten that the weight of the evidence points to Dawkins being a God-hater.<ref name="ReferenceA">[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/atheism-is-rudderless-and-unseaworthy.html Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy]</ref>}}

==== Title of the book ''The God Delusion'' displayed odd and inconsistent behavior ====

A July 25, 2012 article entitled ''Is Richard Dawkins a flip-flopper'' declared:
{{cquote|Another reason why Dawkins displays odd behavior in reference to the atheism and agnosticism issue is that he titled a recent book of his ''The God Delusion''. Obviously, this is an odd title for an agnostic author to name a book - especially one who asserts there is about a 1% chance that God exist in his estimation. This odd behavior leads me to the conclusion that the reason the book was titled ''The God Delusion'' was for crass marketing reasons as it is more provocative title which would grab more press headlines and sell more books.

Think about it. If there was a 1% chance that something existed, would you call your neighbor delusional if he believed it existed? No, you would not. Sure, you would think the odds are against your neighbor in terms of his belief, but you would not think he is delusional. The term delusional is generally used in connection with ideas that are insane to believe due to there being overwhelming evidence to the contrary.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-richard-dawkins-flipflopper.html Is Richard Dawkins a flip-flopper?]</ref>}}

== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped==
[[File:Richard Dawkins stumped.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins stumped|thumbnail|200px|left|The video ''From a Frog to a Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]], features Richard Dawkins being stumped by the question of a creationist.<ref name="creation.com">http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again</ref> The interviewer asked Dawkins for an example of [[genetics|genetic]] [[information]] arising from a [[mutation]].<ref name="creation.com"/> Recently, a creationist produced an excellent [[YouTube]] video demonstrating the Richard Dawkins still has not answered the question posed to him by the interviewer and he uses Richard Dawkins own words to demonstrate this fact.<ref name="youtube.com">[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo YouTube video - Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!]</ref>]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]] and [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]] and [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates]]

In 2008, a video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public, showing Dawkins <ref name="stumped">[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).</ref>
[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ being stumped] by a question from the creationist interviewer.
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation.

In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped, but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.<ref>[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]</ref> However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.<ref>[http://creationontheweb.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]</ref>
However, despite being given a free reign in a sceptic publication to respond, he still didn't provide any examples. Recently, a creationist produced an excellent [[YouTube]] video demonstrating the Richard Dawkins still has not answered the question posed to him by the interviewer and he uses Richard Dawkins own words to demonstrate this fact.<ref name="youtube.com"/> The [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo video] can be found at [[YouTube]] and is entitled ''Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!''

As noted earlier, Dr. Don Batten of [[Creation Ministries International]] theorizes that Richard Dawkins is a God hater and not a skeptic.<ref>http://creation.com/is-richard-dawkins-an-atheist</ref> The video in which Richard Dawkins [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ clearly squirms] when asked for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation and dodges the question with an unrelated monologue, certainly gives some credence to Dr. Batten's postulate. Richard Dawkins inept response relating to the existence of God during his interview with Ben Stein further bolsters the view that Richard Dawkins is more motivated by hatred towards God than any inward assurance Dawkins has concerning the validity of his skeptical contentions.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rgtN0pCMQ VIDEO] There is certainly historical precedence for evolutionists/atheists having inward doubts about the validity of evolution and atheism. The evolutionist [[Charles Darwin]] wrote in a private notebook that he was a [[materialism|materialist]] (a type of atheist).<ref>http://creation.com/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it</ref> Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>

Richard Dawkins [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|has been inconsistent concerning his supposed refusal to debate creationists]] and his refusal is merely a ruse to avoid losing debates to creation scientists. Generally speaking, [[Creation science|creationist scientists]] tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]).

==Dawkins' comment concerning Adolf Hitler==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]] and [[Richard Dawkins and morality]] and [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]]
[[File:Hitler.jpg|thumb|206px|right|The [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism|and agnostic]] Richard Dawkins said in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."<ref name=Hitler /> ]]
As noted earlier, when asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the [[Muslim]] [extremists] aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the [[Bible]]. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the [[Sabbath]]."<ref name="Hitler"/>

The interviewer wrote in response, "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own [[philosophy|philosophical]] position [[Atheism and morality|did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments.]] His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."<ref name=Hitler />

For additional information, please see:

*[[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]]

*[[Atheists, Adolf Hitler and the no true Scottsman fallacy]]

== Accusations of cowardice ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and debate]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Atheism vs. Christianity debates]]
[[Image:Billcraig_czvx.jpg‎‎|thumb|left|200px|Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] ]]

As far as Christianity vs. atheism public debates, in recent years there have been a number of notable instances of atheists being reluctant to debate and doing poorly in debates (see: [[Atheism vs. Christianity debates]]).

Richard Dawkins has established a reputation [[Richard Dawkins and debate|for avoiding debates]] with his strongest opponents. On May 14, 2011, the [[Great Britain|British]] newspaper ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' published a news story entitled ''Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God''.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', May 14, 2011</ref> In ''The Daily Telegraph'' article Dr. [[Daniel Came]], a member of the Faculty of [[Philosophy]] at Oxford University, was quoted as writing to fellow atheist Richard Dawkins concerning his refusal to debate Dr. [[William Lane Craig]]: "The absence of a debate with the foremost [[Christian apologetics|apologist]] for [[Christianity|Christian]] [[theism]] is a glaring omission on your [[Curriculum vitae|CV]] and is of course apt to be interpreted as [[cowardice]] on your part."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Richard Dawkins accused of [[cowardice]] for refusing to debate existence of God], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', May 14, 2011</ref>

In October 2011, Dr. Craig went to England and the Daily Telegraph declared that Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for his refusal to debate William Lane Craig plus declared that Dawkins is a "proud man" and a "coward" who puts on an "illiterate, angry schtick" for the public.<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100112626/richard-dawkins-is-either-a-fool-or-a-coward-for-refusing-to-debate-william-lane-craig/ Richard Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for refusing to debate William Lane Craig - October 21, 2011 - ''The Daily Telegraph'']</ref> In addition, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[True Free Thinker|Ken Ammi]] called Dawkins a "cowardly clown" because Dawkins and other prominent skeptics/atheists refused to debate [[Creation Ministries International]] at the 2010 Global Atheist Convention.<ref>[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown Richard Dawkins, the Cowardly Clown]</ref> For more information please see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]

Richard Dawkins is known for his vehement and sometimes vitriolic promotion of [[weak atheism]] and the evolutionary paradigm. Dawkins has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect. Mr. Dawkins currently resides in the [[UK]]. He was an assistant professor of Zoology at the [[University of California, Berkeley]] for two years before becoming a zoology researcher at [[Oxford]].

== Richard Dawkins lost a debate to a rabbi and then denied the debate ever took place ==
[[Image:2402173645 c8e6168fe7.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|200px|right|Richard Dawkins,]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]] and [[Atheism and Debate]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]

As briefly noted earlier Richard Dawkins had a debate with Rabbi [[Shmuley Boteach]]. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach was named the London Times Preacher of the Year 2000 and is the author of 20 books.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>

Recently Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote:
{{cquote|...Dawkins attacked me on his website and denied that he and I had ever debated. My office quickly posted the full footage of a two hour debate which took place on October 23, 1996, a debate which Dawkins actually lost after a vote taken by the students as to which side, science or religion, caused more students to change their minds. In my article on the subject responding to his attack I was extremely respectful of Dr. Dawkins and was therefore shocked to receive a letter in return in which he accused me of speaking like Hitler. Had the noted scientist lost his mind? Hitler? Was this for real?<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>}}

[[WorldNetDaily]] offers the following quotes of Rabbi Boteach about debate and the initial denial by Dawkins that the debate never took place:
{{cquote|That is a particularly bold untruth. Our debate, which took place at St. Catherine's College, Oxford on Oct. 23, 1996, attracted hundreds of students and featured, on the atheist side, Prof. Dawkins and chemistry Prof. Peter Atkins, and on the religion side, me and Prof. Keith Ward, Oxford's Regius Professor of Divinity. Student president Josh Wine was in the chair," the rabbi explained.

"In a vote at the end of the debate as to how many students had changed their minds after hearing the arguments, Dawkin's side was defeated and religion prevailed, which might account for his selective memory," he wrote.<ref name="wnd.com">http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref>}}
[[File:Shmuley Boteach.jpg|thumbnail|150px|left|[[Shmuley Boteach]] ]]
Rabbi Boteach reported at Beliefnet:
{{cquote|I also gave Dr. Dawkins the opportunity to even score by accepting a further debate, at the time and place of his choosing (within reason, of course), to which he has yet to respond.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>}}

A video of the debate that Dawkins lost to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is available at Rabbi Schely Boteach's website.

A supporter of the [[Question evolution campaign]] wrote:
{{cquote|We don't believe a word Richard Dawkins says and for good reason. For example, he claimed to have never debated Rabbi Schmuley Boteach, but then he had to admit a debate took place as it was videotaped. According to the student audience, the rabbi won the debate as he convinced more students of the validity of his position concerning the existence of God.

Furthermore, an angry and embarrassed Dawkins then claimed the rabbi shrieked like Adolf Hitler. Now tell me, how do you forget a debate with a rabbi who supposedly shrieks like Adolf Hitler? Obviously, Dawkins exposed himself for the clown and fraud he is.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/richard-dawkins-and-rabbi-shmuley.html Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach debate ]</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins and radio appearances ==

=== Richard Dawkins' radio debate with Giles Fraser ===
[[File:Giles Frasier.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Giles Frasier]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' debate with Giles Fraser]] and [[Richard Dawkins quotes]]

On February 19, 2012 ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported:
{{cquote|...some critics of Dawkins branded him "an embarrassment to atheism" after what many listeners considered a humiliation in a Radio 4 debate with Giles Fraser, formerly Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, in which the professor boasted he could recite the full title of [[Charles Darwin]]'s "[[The Origin of Species]]", then when challenged, dithered and said: "Oh God."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9091007/Slaves-at-the-root-of-the-fortune-that-created-Richard-Dawkins-family-estate.html Slaves at the root of the fortune that created Richard Dawkins' family estate, The Daily Telegragh, February 19, 2012]</ref>}}

On February 14, 2012, ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported regarding the radio debate:
{{cquote|Dr. Fraser skewered the atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins so fabulously, so stylishly, and so thoroughly that anti-religion’s high priest was reduced to incoherent mumbling and spluttering.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9082059/For-once-Richard-Dawkins-is-lost-for-words.html For once, Richard Dawkins is lost for words - Atheists’ arrogance is their Achilles’ heel, as a cringemaking radio performance has proved By Stephen Pollard, Feb 14, 2012]</ref>}}

[[Vox Day]] wrote concerning the embarrassing incident for Dawkins:
{{cquote|As I have said repeatedly, Richard Dawkins is a huge intellectual fraud, and perhaps those who previously expressed incredulity at the idea that I would quite easily trounce the old charlatan in a debate will find it just a bit more credible now. This behavior isn't an outlier or a momentary lapse of memory, it is entirely characteristic. The man quite frequently pretends to knowledge that he patently does not possess and assumes he knows things that he obviously does not, which is why he avoids debate with those who are aware of his intellectual pretensions and are capable of exposing them.

It's bad enough that Dawkins couldn't come up with the name of what he considers to be the most important book ever written immediately after claiming he could do so, but in addition to stumbling a little on the subtitle, he even forgot the rather important part of the title that refers to the actual mechanism supposedly responsible!<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html Richard Dawkins, sans pants, Wednesday, February 15, 2012]</ref>}}

(The full title of Charles Darwin's book is ''On the [[The Origin of Species]] by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'' and evolutionists rarely cite the book's full title which is racist. See: [[Evolutionary racism]])
=== Scott Simon of National Public Radio: Interview of Richard Dawkins ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and charity]] and [[Atheism and love]]

Scott Simon of [[National Public Radio]] (NPR): "I have covered a lot of wars, famines and tragedies. And it seems to me, truly every theatre of suffering I have ever been to, there is a dauntless nun, priest, clergy or religious person, who is working very selflessly and bravery there for the good of human beings. But I don't run into [[Atheist movement|organized atheists]] who do this.

Richard Dawkins: "Perhaps there is not enough of them."...

Scott Simon, NPR: "But I do wonder am I just not seeing the world correctly to see large numbers of well-motivated atheists lending their lives to trying to better the world... If I might put it this way, are they just more concerned about being right intellectually."<ref>[http://www.npr.org/2017/05/27/530337283/richard-dawkins-on-terrorism-and-religion Richard Dawkins On Terrorism And Religion]</ref>

== New Atheism ==
[[File:Christopher Hitchens.jpg|right|thumb|200px|[[Christopher Hitchens]] ]]
''See also:'' [[New Atheism]] and [[Causes of the New Atheism movement]]

The term [[New Atheism]] which first appeared in the November 2006 edition of ''Wired'' magazine, is used to describe a new incarnation of [[militant atheism]] and also frequently applied to a series of six best-selling books by five authors that appeared in the period between 2004–2008. These authors include Richard Dawkins, [[Christopher Hitchens]], [[Sam Harris]], [[Daniel Dennett]] and [[Victor J. Stenger]].<ref>http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/battle.html</ref> The four most prominent writers of the New Atheist movement are Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

The New Atheism movement was a reaction the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] on Manhattan and also due to [[Antitheism|antitheist]] anger over the failure of the [[secularization thesis]] (the secularization thesis wrongly predicted that religion would fade away and it also did not predict the [[Desecularization|resurgence of religion]] in much of the world).<ref>[This just in from Oxford Press: Turning the intellectual tables on 'New Atheists'] by Richard Osling</ref><ref>[http://www.catalystresources.org/reflections-on-the-new-atheism/ Reflections on the New Atheism] by Alister McGrath</ref>

For more information, please see: [[Causes of the New Atheism movement]]

=== Impact of the New Atheism ===

''See also:'' [[Desecularization]] and [[Decline of the atheist movement]]

New Atheism has not had much of an impact in terms of gaining new adherents to [[atheism]]. In a March 10, 2008 [[USA Today]] article Stephen Prothero stated the following regarding the impact of the "New Atheism":
{{cquote|Numbers lie, but they also tell tales untrustworthy and otherwise. So the key question stirring around the much discussed U.S Religious Landscape Survey released in late February by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life is what tale does it state about the state of the union.

For some, the story of this survey, based on interviews in multiple languages with more than 35,000 adults, is the strength of American Religion.

Not too long ago, I wrote that [[American atheism]] was going the way of the freak show. As books by Christopher Hitchens and other "new atheists" climbed the best seller lists, I caught a lot of flak for that prophecy. But atheist make up only 1.6% of respondents to this survey....<ref>American Faith: A Work In Progress by Stephen Prothero, USA Today, March 10, 2008, page 11A</ref>}}
[[File:Sam Harris 01.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Sam Harris]] ]]
YouTube atheist [[Thunderfoot]] said about the atheist movement after [[Reason Rally 2016]] had a very low turnout:
{{Cquote|I'm not sure there is anything in this movement worth saving. [[Christopher Hitchens|Hitchens]] is dead. Dawkins simply doesn't have the energy for this sort of thing anymore. [[Sam Harris|Harris]] went his own way. And [[Daniel Dennett|Dennett]] just kind of blended into the background. So what do you think when the largest gathering of the nonreligious in history pulls in... I don't know. Maybe 2,000 people. Is there anything worth saving?<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/even-atheists-bash-reason-rally/ Even atheists bash 'Reason Rally']</ref>}}

On the other hand, Stephen LeDrew wrote at [[Oxford University]] Press's Academic Insights for the Thinking World website:
{{cquote|The ten-year anniversary of the publication of Richard Dawkins’ ''The God Delusion'' is approaching, and it has already been over ten years since Sam Harris published ''The End of Faith''.

Social science in general has not yet fully appreciated the significance of the New Atheism and has tended not to take it very seriously, with the exception of those working in the new sub-discipline of secularity studies. But whatever one might think of the New Atheists’ ideas, an honest appraisal would recognize that they have had a significant and lasting impact.

They should be remembered for catalyzing a movement for religious dissent and inspiring atheists to come together and find a voice in American public life. But there’s a much darker side to the legacy of the New Atheism that stems from its imperialist and xenophobic tendencies, to say nothing of some thinly veiled Social Darwinism and [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11047072/Richard-Dawkins-immoral-to-allow-Downs-syndrome-babies-to-be-born.html arguments] for eugenics. Sam Harris in particular is now known more for [http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestine] and [http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/in-defense-of-profiling ethnic profiling] at airport security than for his science-based critique of religious faith. Richard Dawkins’ personal legacy has taken a heavy hit in the past few years, as his rambling criticisms of feminism and Muslim “barbarians” on Twitter have led to charges of [http://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/new_atheisms_troubling_misogyny_the_pompous_sexism_of_richard_dawkins_and_sam_harris_partner/ sexism], [http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/richard_dawkins_does_it_again_new_atheisms_islamophobia_problem/ racism], and general arrogance and intolerance.<ref>[http://blog.oup.com/2015/11/legacy-new-atheism/#sthash.6ZTcoHLw.dpuf The legacy of the New Atheism] by Stephen LeDrew wrote at [[Oxford University]] Press's Academic Insights for the Thinking World website</ref>}}

The [[liberal]] leaning British newspaper ''[[The Guardian]]'' said regarding the New Atheism:
{{cquote|Anti-[[faith]] proselytising is a growth industry. But its increasingly hysterical flag-bearers are heading for a spectacular failure...

These increasingly hysterical books may boost the pension, they may be morale boosters for a particular kind of American atheism that feels victimized - the latest candidate in a flourishing American tradition - but one suspects that they are going to do very little to challenge the appeal of a phenomenon they loathe too much to understand.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2074076,00.html</ref>}}

In 2010, it was reported that ''The God Delusion'' sold 2,086,402 copies and 907,161 of those copies were sold in [[North America]]. Contrastly, in 2010, the [[Evangelical Christians|evangelical Christian]] [[Rick Warren]] sold between 25,000,000 to 50,000,000 copies of his book ''The Purpose Driven Life''.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2010/02/03/how-many-copies-of-the-god-delusion-have-been-sold/ How Many Copies of The God Delusion Have Been Sold?]</ref>

=== Decline of the New Atheism movement ===

''See also:'' [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]] and [[Causes of the New Atheism movement#The rise and decline of New Atheism and the role of the media|Decline of New Atheism and the media]]

On November 6, 2015, the ''New Republic'' published an article entitled, ''Is the New Atheism dead?''<ref>[https://newrepublic.com/article/123349/new-atheism-dead ''Is the New Atheism dead?] by Elizabeth Bruenig, New Republic, November 6, 2015</ref>

In 2015, the atheist author Joshua Kelly wrote:
{{cquote|...since the death of Hitchens: angry atheism lost its most charismatic champion. Call it what you like: New Atheism, fire-brand atheism, etc., had a surge with the Four Horsemen in the middle of the last decade and in the last four years has generally peetered out to a kind that is more docile, [[Political correctness|politically correct]], and even apologetic.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2015/12/uproar-against-dawkins-is-sign-of-new-atheism-retrogression/ Uproar Against Dawkins Is Sign of New Atheism Retrogression] by Joshua Kelly</ref>}}

==== Richard Dawkins' lack of a counter plan to reverse the decline of global atheism and agnosticism ====

Also, on July 31, 2012 in an article entitled ''Evolutionists, atheists and agnostics: Where is your master plan to reverse your decline?'' supporters of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] indicated that atheists, agnostics and evolutionists lack a plan to reverse their global decline.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/evolutionists-atheists-and-agnostics.html Evolutionists, atheists and agnostics: Where is your master plan to reverse your decline?]</ref>

==== Poor leadership skills ====

Using academic studies, survey data and other information, supporters of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] maintain that including Richard Dawkins, there is a lack of sound leadership within the agnostic/atheist and evolutionist communities.

See:

*[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/03/richard-dawkins-insightful-secular.html Richard Dawkins: Insightful secular strategist or an insincere book peddler?]

*[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/03/atheism-is-rudderless-and-unseaworthy.html Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy]

*[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/03/evolutionists-atheists-and-agnostics.html Evolutionists, atheists and agnostics: Where is your master plan to reverse your global decline?]

== Selective outrage on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles" ==
[[‎File:668738335 394b3820fb.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|Ben-Peter Terpstra wrote in the ''Australian Conservative'': "In all truth, Britain’s clean-shaven [[atheism|atheists]] aren’t serious about children’s rights, or they’d be launching venomous attacks against the [[United Nations]], in light of their more recent sex abuse scandals."]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles"]] and [[Atheism and child pornography]] and and [[Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA]]

The ''Australian Conservative'' recently published an article by Ben-Peter Terpstra entitled ''Preparing for Richard Dawkins’ crocodile tears'' which charges that Richard Dawkins exhibits selective outrage on the issue of child molestation. In the article Terpstra cites Bendan Oneill who wrote:
{{cquote|The [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested when he visits Britain later this year exposes the deeply disturbing, authoritarian and even Inquisitorial side to today’s campaigning secularism...

In 2006, Dawkins criticised ‘hysteria about paedophilia’ and said that, even though he was the victim of sexual abuse at boarding school, he would defend his abusive former teachers if ‘50 years on they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers’. Yet now he wants to put abusive priests on a par with genocidaires.<ref>http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8526/</ref>}}

Ben-Peter Terpstra writes: "In all truth, Britain’s clean-shaven atheists aren’t serious about children’s rights, or they’d be launching venomous attacks against the [[United Nations]], in light of their more recent sex abuse scandals."

Concerning Richard Dawkins recent selective outrage on child molestation the Christian apologetics website [[True Free Thinker]] writes:
{{cquote|His reputation has always been the very same and this Pope related publicity stunt is nothing new. Moreover, why would he oppose the Pope considering that what the Pope may be complicit in, surely, relates to some gentle pedophiles.

What! “Gentle pedophiles”!!!

Oh, no, no, no; those are not my words but Richard Dawkins who, indeed, argues that there are gentle pedophiles and that way too much is made of pedophilia at times.

For these reasons and more Robert Fulford’s referring to Richard Dawkins as a clown is very, very offensive—to clowns. Clowns are lovable and funny whilst Richard Dawkins is belligerent, arrogant, belittling and shockingly lacking in knowledge with regards to many of the issues that he takes on (find ample evidence [http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins here]).<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref>}}

=== The Atlantic article about Richard Dawkins repeatedly defending "mild" pedophilia ===

*[https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/richard-dawkins-defends-mild-pedophilia-again-and-again/311230/ Richard Dawkins Defends 'Mild' Pedophilia, Again and Again] , The Atlantic, September 10, 2013

=== Richard Dawkins' on child abuse and children believing in Hell ===

See: [[Richard Dawkins and Hell#Richard Dawkins' on child abuse and children believing in Hell|Richard Dawkins' on child abuse and children believing in Hell]]

== Richard Dawkins' battle with online fans over their use of profanity and gossip ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and profanity]] and [[Richard Dawkins' battle with online fans]] and [[Atheism and the internet]]

In February 2010, the news organization ''The Telegraph'' reported Richard Dawkins was "embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'."<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html</ref> Richard Dawkins [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|has a reputation for being abrasive]] so the behavior of his fans is not entirely surprising. See: [[Atheism and profanity]]

It is commonly thought that some individuals who commonly use profanity have limited vocabularies and imaginations.<ref>''Handbook for New Converts'' By William J. (Bill) Morgan ThD, page 77</ref><ref>[http://www.contrarianconsulting.com/the-etiquette-of-profanity/ The Etiquette of Profanity] by Alan Weiss, Posted on October 31, 2010</ref>

== Richard Dawkins on homosexuality ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Richard Dawkins on homosexuality]] and [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]] and [[Atheism and homosexuality]]

Richard Dawkins, who is a liberal, speculates that a "gay gene" causes [[homosexuality]], but science has not discovered such a gene (see: [[Causes of Homosexuality|Causes of homosexuality]])<ref>[http://anglicansamizdat.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/richard-dawkins-explains-how-the-gay-gene-was-preserved/ Richard Dawkins speculates that gene for homosexuality exists]</ref> In 1993, Professor [[Miron Baron]], M.D., the renowned medical researcher and Professor at [[Columbia University]], wrote in [[BMJ]] (British Medical Journal) that there is a conflict relative to the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] and the notion of [[gene]]tic [[determinism]] concerning homosexuality. Dr. Baron wrote "...from an evolutionary perspective, [[homosexuality and genetics|genetically determined]] homosexuality would have become [[extinct]] long ago because of reduced reproduction."<ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1678219 BMJ. 1993 August 7; 307(6900): 337–338.]</ref> In the United States, liberals are [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|more likely]] to believe in evolution.<ref name="cbsnews.com"/> Also, in the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and liberals generally have [[Views on Homosexuality|more favorable]] opinions about homosexuality. Given Dr. [[Miron Baron]]'s commentary about homosexuality, many American liberals are inconsistent on the issues of evolution and homosexuality.
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]] ]]
An individual's beliefs regarding [[creation science]]/[[creationism]] and the theory of evolution appear to influence their views on homosexuality. Creationist scientists and creationist assert that the theory of evolution cannot account for the origin of gender and sexual reproduction.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/136</ref><ref name="answersingenesis.org">http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] states: "Homosexual acts go against [[God]]’s original [[Intelligent design|design]] of a man and a woman becoming one flesh — see [[Genesis]] 1 and 2, endorsed by [[Jesus]] Himself in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:3â€“6;&version=49; Matthew 19:3–6]."<ref>http://creation.com/web-cast-questions-and-answers-2002</ref> In addition, the vast majority of creation scientists reject the notion of [[gene]]tic [[determinism]] concerning the [[Causes of Homosexuality|origin of homosexuality]].<ref name="answersingenesis.org"/>

See also:

*[[Atheism and homosexuality]]
*[[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]]

==== Richard Dawkins commentary on the God of the Old Testament ====

Richard Dawkins has accused the [[God]] of the [[Old Testament]] of being [[homophobic]].<ref>[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-praises-bible%E2%80%A6-he-ignorant-barbarian Richard Dawkins praises the Bible…is he an ignorant barbarian?]</ref> Yet, Dawkins has not explained why God, who is described as an all powerful spiritual being in the Old Testament, would be afraid of homosexuals.

==Implication in the death of Jesse Kilgore==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Jesse Kilgore]] and [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health]]

[[Image:Desperation_man.jpg‎ |thumb|left|200px|Pitzer College sociologist Phil Zuckerman stated concerning [[atheism and suicide]]: "this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations."]]
Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" along with a [[community college]] biology class, have been linked to the tragic suicide of Jesse Kilgore.<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81459</ref> Kilgore had several discussions with friends and relatives in which he made it clear Dawkins' book had destroyed his belief in God. This loss of faith is considered the cause of his suicide which is not surprising given that there is evidence which suggest that atheism can [[Atheism and suicide|be a causal factor]] for suicide for some individuals.<ref name="adherents.com">http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html</ref><ref name="adherents.com"/><ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9507E2DC1131E033A25754C1A96F9C94659ED7CF NY Times, September 17, 1894, ATHEISM A CAUSE OF SUICIDE.; Dr. MacArthur Preaches on the Sin and Cowardice of Self-Destruction]</ref>

Jesse's father is quoted as saying "If my son was a professing [[homosexuality|homosexual]], and a professor challenged him to read [a book called] 'Preventing Homosexuality'… If my son was gay and [the book] made him feel bad, hopeless, and he killed himself, and that came out in the press, there would be an outcry. He would have been a victim of a hate crime and the professor would have been forced to undergo sensitivity training, and there may have even been a wrongful death lawsuit. But because he's a [[Christianity|Christian]], I don't even get a return telephone call."

Jesse's blog remains online after his death.<ref>http://users.newblog.com/Jkrapture/?post_id=17727</ref>

Please see: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]

== ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' ==

In the film ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', a documentary concerning suppression of the [[intelligent design]] movement, [[Ben Stein]] interviewed Richard Dawkins.

=== Ben Stein Interview with the evolutionist Richard Dawkins ===

{{See also|Ben Stein Interview with Richard Dawkins}}

In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with Richard Dawkins ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rgtN0pCMQ A clip of the interview has been uploaded to YouTube] ).

The [[Discovery Institute]] provides an transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"

DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Ho,ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:

Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In "Message from the Designers", Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.

Richard Dawkins and Rael; "clear thinking" kindred spirits!
<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/4589</ref>}}
[[File:Ben stein.jpg|right|thumbnail|201px|[[Ben Stein]] ]]
A [[Christian apologetics]] website provides some additional commentary on the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview which focuses on Dawkins response to Ben Stein's questions about the likelihood of the existence of God:
{{cquote|In this interview there is the following exchange between Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins. Mr. Stein prefaces the exchange with this comment: “Professor Dawkins seemed so convinced that [[God]] doesn’t exist that I wondered if he would be willing to put a number on it.” Here is Professor Dawkins response, “Well, it’s hard to put a figure on it, but I’d put it at something like ninety-nine percent against or something like that.” Mr. Stein responded with this question. “Well, how do you know it’s ninety-nine percent (“I don’t,” Dr. Dawkins interjects.) and not, say, ninety-seven percent?” Dr. Dawkins continues, “You asked me to put a figure on it and I’m not comfortable putting a figure on it. I think it’s… I just think it’s very unlikely.” “But you couldn’t put a number on it?,” Mr. Stein clarifies. “No, of course not,” said Dr. Dawkins. “So it could be forty-nine percent?,” Mr. Stein asks. Dr. Dawkins replies, “Well, it would be… I mean I think it’s… it’s… it’s unlikely, but… but… I… and it’s quite far from fifty percent.” (He's very difficult to quote.) “How do you know?,” Mr. Stein asks. “I don’t know, I mean, I put an argument in the book,” Dr. Dawkins responds.<ref>http://www.readyalways.org/Home/does-god-exist</ref>}}

Stein expressed surprise in the narration that Richard Dawkins "believe[d] in intelligent design."<ref name=DSouza>D'Souza, Dinesh. "[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/04/21/ben_stein_exposes_richard_dawkins Ben Stein Exposes Richard Dawkins]." ''<Townhall.com>'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

Instead of attempting to defend [[abiogenesis]], Dawkins actually suggested [[directed panspermia]]—the very thing that [[Francis Crick]] once suggested to explain life's beginnings.

On March 20, 2008, Dawkins and colleague [[Paul Zachary Myers|P. Z. Myers]] tried to gain entry to a special preview of the Ben Stein documentary, though no member of the production team had invited them. Dr. Myers was not allowed in, but Dawkins was. Accounts vary as to why this was so; the production team asserts that they decided to grant Dawkins entry on-the-spot because {{cquote|he has handled himself fairly honorably, he is a guest in our country and I had to presume he had flown a long way to see the film.<ref name=Dean>Dean, Cornelia. "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film]." ''The New York Times'', March 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008. Note the erroneous headline: ''Expelled'' propounds [[intelligent design]], not [[creationism]].</ref>}} On the other hand, Myers himself states that he guesses that Richard Dawkins was not recognized.

Richard Dawkins arranged to have a filmed conversation between Richard Dawkins and [[PZ Myers]] concerning this incident posted to YouTube<ref>[http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=c39jYgsvUOY]</ref> In it Myers claimed that the production team had full knowledge of his attendance through the online RSVP system and Dawkins claimed that it was an "incredible piece of inept public relations" to "expel" PZ Myers from a film about people being expelled for their views. Both PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins were featured in the film.

== Richard Dawkins, atheist attrocities, and historical revisionism ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism]] and [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]] and [[Atheism and historical revisionism]]

[[Dinesh D'Souza]] took Richard Dawkins to task for engaging in [[historical revisionism]] when it comes to the atrocities of [[atheism|atheist]] regimes and declared Dawkins "reveals a complete ignorance of history".[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk VIDEO]
[[Image:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|left|201px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]]'s atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people.]]
In a recent interview D'Souza declared:
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins argues that at least the atheist regimes didn't kill people in the name of [[atheism]]. Isn't it time for this biologist to get out of the lab and read a little history? Marxism and [[Communism]] were atheist ideologies. [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] weren't dictators who happened to be atheist; atheism was part of their official doctrine.

It was no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that they shut down the churches and persecuted the clergy...}}

Dinesh D'Souza stated in another interview:
{{cquote|As one writer put it, “Leaders such as Stalin and Mao persecuted religious groups, not in a bid to expand atheism, but as a way of focusing people’s hatred on those groups to consolidate their own power.” Of course I agree that murderous regimes, whether [[Christian]] or atheist, are generally seeking to strengthen their position. But if Christian regimes are held responsible for their crimes committed in the name of Christianity, then atheist regimes should be held accountable for their crimes committed in the name of atheism. And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a “new man” and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist.<ref>http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/atheism/805-answering-atheists-regarding-war.htm</ref>}}
[[Image:Khvhkgfiy.jpg|right|thumb|[[Vladimir Lenin]] ]]
[[Karl Marx]] said "[Religion] is the opium of the people". Marx also stated: "[[Communism]] begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] wrote: "A Marxist must be a [[materialism|materialist]], i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the [[class struggle]] which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm</ref>

Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate concerning the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref> The atheism in [[communism|communist]] regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] that has committed various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and the oppression of religious leaders and believers (for details see: [[communism]]). In the atheistic and communist Soviet Union, 44 anti religious museums were opened and the largest was the 'The Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism' in [[Leningrad]]’s Kazan cathedral.<ref>http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2008/12/merry-anti-christmas.html</ref>

== John Lennox's discussion with New Atheist Richard Dawkins about the historicity of Jesus ==

''See also:'' [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]] and [[Historicity of Jesus]]

[[John Lennox]] pointed out to Richard Dawkins that Dawkins claimed in his book ''The God Delusion'' that [[Jesus Christ]] may have never existed and that Dawkins errantly claimed that ancient historians have some disagreement on whether Jesus existed or not. After some additional discussion with Dawkins, Dawkins conceded that Jesus existed and said, "I take that back. Jesus existed".<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ant5HS01tBQ Richard Dawkins admits Jesus existed]</ref>

== Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig is Reported to Have Called Dawkins a Coward ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Atheism and Debate]]

Dr. William Lane Craig is one of [[Christian apologetics|Christianity's leading defenders]] and many individuals over the years have attempted to arrange a debate between Dr. Craig and Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins has offered various ruses on why he will not debate William Lane Craig, which Dr. Craig supporters have shown were inconsistent and merely a dodge to avoid debating one of Christianity's strongest advocates.<ref name="uncommondescent.com">http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref>

[[‎‎File:Dr. William Lane Craig.jpg|thumb|150px|Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] ]]
[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Dr. Victor Reppert is the author of ''[[C. S. Lewis]]'s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason''.<ref name="dangerousidea.blogspot.com">http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/dawkins-ducks-craig.html</ref> In 2007, Dr. Reppert wrote:
{{cquote|[[William Lane Craig|Bill Craig]] sent me a newsletter in which he will be debating twice in the UK on "Is God a Delusion" but will not be debating Dawkins himself. Now that would be the debate to see! Having seen this, I wrote him saying "Oh drat! no debate with Dawkins!" He responded:

The coward! He said, "I've never heard of [[William Lane Craig|William
Craig]]. A debate with him might look good on his
resume, but it wouldn't look good on mine!"

Bill<ref name="dangerousidea.blogspot.com">http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/dawkins-ducks-craig.html</ref>}}

There was public pressure for Dawkins to debate the Christian [[philosophy|philosopher]] of science and Christian apologist Dr. [[William Lane Craig]].<ref name="manawatu.christian-apologetics.org">http://manawatu.christian-apologetics.org/sign-the-richard-dawkins-should-debate-william-craig-petition/</ref> For example, currently there is a petition for Richard Dawkins debate William Lane Craig.<ref name="manawatu.christian-apologetics.org"/>

As far as Dawkins and and his comfort level around professional philosophers, the atheist philosopher Massimo Pigliucci wrote:
{{Cquote|Interestingly, over lunch during one of those days, I experienced Dawkins in what is a rather uncharacteristically humble mood: he confided at our table that he felt a bit intimidated, being surrounded by so many professional philosophers (he wasn’t talking about me, I assure you, but more likely of [[Daniel Dennett|Dan Dennett]] and Alex Rosenberg, among others). It was interesting to see that rather unexpected (from his public appearances) side of him.<ref>[https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2016/02/01/richard-dawkins/ Richard Dawkins] by Massimo Pigliucci</ref>}}

== Refusal of Richard Dawkins to Debate Christian apologist Dinesh D'Souza==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Dinesh D'Souza]] and [[Atheism and Debate]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]
[[File:Dineshdsouza-full.jpg|thumb|180px|left|[[Dinesh D'Souza]] ]]
Christian author [[Dinesh D'Souza]] wrote concerning Richard Dawkins refusal to debate him: "To be honest, I find your behavior extremely bizarre. You go halfway around the world to chase down televangelists to outsmart them in an interview format that you control, but given several opportunities to engage the issues you profess to care about in a true spirit of open debate and inquiry, you duck and dodge and run away."<ref name="one-episcopalian-on-faith.com">http://www.one-episcopalian-on-faith.com/2008/07/richard-dawkins.html</ref> D'Souza further wrote concerning Dawkins: "When he is confronted with history, philosophy, and logic, Dawkins seems to have very little to say."<ref>http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/07/28/countering_richard_dawkins_on_al-jazeera</ref> Next, D'Souza indicated Dawkins was a "showman who takes on unprepared and unsuspecting opponents when you yourself control the editing, but when a strong opponent shows up you manufacture reasons to avoid him."<ref name="one-episcopalian-on-faith.com"/> Lastly, D'Souza wrote: "So why doth Dawkins languish in his corner, attended by sycophants? Tremble not, Sir Richard. 'Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant do taste of death but once.'"<ref>http://www.tothesource.org/11_13_2007/11_13_2007.htm</ref>

Dr. Jamie Glazov wrote concerning the refusal of Richard Dawkins to debate Dinesh D'Souza:
{{cquote|As many readers can attest, D’Souza has debated [[Daniel Dennett]], [[Christopher Hitchens]], Peter Singer, [[Michael Shermer]], Dan Barker, and other well-known atheists. He intellectually cut those guys to pieces. Harris and Dawkins are just afraid to meet D’Souza. D’Souza writes: “And my challenges to Dawkins to step into the arena have only met with pathetic rationalization: ‘Richard is simply too busy and smart to debate you Dinesh.’ Busy doing what besides being caught with his pants down by Ben Stein? And I guess he's smart because he doesn't want to risk further embarrassing himself and destroying his public reputation. Won't it be hilarious if the ‘party of faith’ is unafraid of opposing arguments while the ‘party of reason’ cannot withstand the arguments of its critics? This is what Henry James might describe as a most interesting turning of the screw.”}}

== Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists ==

For more information please see: [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Global atheism]]

[[File:Safarti3.jpg|200px|thumbnail|right|Recently, a [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] called Richard Dawkins a "cowardly clown" for refusing to debate apt debate challengers such as the [[creation science|creation scientists]] at Creation Ministries International.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] recently published the book ''The Greatest Hoax on Earth'' which rebuts Richard Dawkins' recent book ''The Greatest Show on Earth''.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref>]]
Richard Dawkins has publicly declared that he will not debate creationists.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> Yet, Richard Dawkins debated the theist John Lennox who adheres to the position of [[intelligent design]].<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> According to Richard Dawkins, intelligent design is a form of creationism.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> Therefore, Richard Dawkins is not consistent and trustworthy concerning his assertion that he will not debate creationists.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] website [[True Free Thinker]] which declared: "Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties..."<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate</ref> When Richard Dawkins refused to debate Dr. William Lane Craig one of the ruses Richard Dawkins used was supposedly because Dr. Craig was a creationist and Richard Dawkins claimed he didn't debate creationist.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> Richard was called on his inconsistency and lack of trustworthiness concerning his excuses for refusing to debate Dr. Craig by the intelligent design advocate Clive Hayden.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/>

In 2010, the prominent atheists who attended the 2010 global atheist conference, which included Richard Dawkins, were challenged to a debate by Creation Ministries International.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Richard Dawkins, [[PZ Myers]] and other prominent atheists refused to debate the creation scientists at Creation Ministries International.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> As noted above, generally speaking, creationist scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]).

The refusal of Richard Dawkins and other prominent atheists to debate the staff of Creation Ministries International is not surprising given that there are several instances Richard Dawkins avoiding strong debate opponents. In addition, creationists maintain that Richard Dawkins did not give a particularly strong showing at the [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]. One of the more embarrassing debates (particular the events surrounding the debate) was the case of Richard Dawkins losing a video taped debate to Rabbi Boteach according to the college audience.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref name="wnd.com">http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> After the debate, Richard Dawkins denied the debate ever took place and Rabbi Boteach provided the video taped evidence that the debate did take place.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref name="wnd.com">http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> Mr. Dawkins has declined to debate Rabbit Shmuley Boteach another time.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref name="wnd.com">http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> Incidentally, Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Oxford debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith (see: [[Huxley Memorial Debate]])<ref name="cr"/> Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.<ref name="cr"/>
[[File:PzMyers2.jpg|thumbnail|200px|left|[[PZ Myers]]]]
The website [[True Free Thinker]] declared concerning the refusal of Richard Dawkins, [[PZ Myers]] and other prominent atheists to debate the [[creation science|creation scientists]] and other staff at Creation Ministries International:
{{cquote|In keeping with his constant attention getting shenanigans and his equally constant absconding from debating apt challengers via a barrage of illogical and excuses, the moniker of cowardly clown fits Richard Dawkins more than ever (see [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges Send in the Clowns – Richard Dawkins Obliges]).

Enter Jonathan Sarfati (PhD in chemistry),senior scientist at Creation Ministries International, who recently published the book “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution.” Interestingly, Jonathan Sarfati sought to publish the book by the time that the 2010 Global Atheist Convention—billed as “The Rise of Atheism”—of March 12–14 at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Center in Australia.

The most intelligent, well informed and vociferous atheists in the world, including [http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins Richard Dawkins], [http://www.truefreethinker.com/dan-barker Dan Barker], [http://www.truefreethinker.com/pz-myers PZ Myers], et al, were challenged to debate while their worldwide choir was gathered in one place and yet, one by one they each found excuses to cower from debate even whilst proclaiming to their adherents the intellectual superiority of atheism.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref>}}
=== Richard Dawkins excuses for not debating creationists ===

Richard Dawkins has offered some [[Richard Dawkins' ruses for refusing to debate creation scientists|unjustifiable ruses for not not wanting to debate creationists but the true reason is that he knows he will lose the debates]].

There are certainly reputable scientists, medical doctors and members of the public who hold the evolutionary paradigm in low esteem for valid reasons so Dawkins excuses for refusing to debate creationists simply have little to no weight and they are certainly not the best explanation for Mr. Dawkins' behavior in this matter. In 2007, "[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture today announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/2732</ref> In addition, given that atheism is held in low esteem in many parts of the world and it is a minority position worldwide, Dawkins' refusal to debate strong theistic debaters is quite odd given his allegation that he doesn't debate creationists because he doesn't want to give them respectability and publicity. Furthermore, the Rabbi Boteach debate and the events surrounding it, shows the great lengths that Dawkins will go to avoid letting the public know about a debate loss to a [[theism|theist]] (As mentioned previously Dawkins lost his video taped debate to Rabbi Boteach and then claimed the debate never took place). The reason why Dawkins refuses to debate creation scientists is that generally speaking, [[Creation vs. evolution debates|creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].

==Opposition to Creationism and Religion ==

* Professor Dawkins' anti-religious views are based on two subjective opinions. The first is that religious faith is irrational, the second is that religion causes wars and [[hatred]], or as he puts it, 'Religion makes good people bad'.

Richard Dawkins is a writer and media commentator on the debate between evolution and the opposing positions of creation science and intelligent design.<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/dawkins-r.html Christiananswers.net webpage on Richard Dawkins.]</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1872331.stm School attacked over evolution teaching]</ref> He is an ardent proponent of the evolutionary view of life in works targeted at the general public, such as his books entitled ''The Selfish Gene'' and ''The Ancestor's Tale''. However, his efforts to promote the theory of evolution have not been very successful, and even in his native land of the UK, 40% of the population believes that creationism or intelligent design should be taught in the school science curriculum.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm</ref>
[[Image:Winston.jpg‎‎|right|thumb|175px|Lord Robert Winston stated Richard Dawkins is bringing science "into disrepute".]]
As an evolutionist, Dawkins holds [[Charles Darwin]]'s view that "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." In addition, he often comes across as having a mocking attitude towards religion.<ref>[http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg]</ref> He stridently<ref>Dawkins "has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect." Cornelia Dean, "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life’s Origin," New York Times, Science Section (September 27, 2007).[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html]</ref> opposes the traditional role of religion in educational institutions and in society in general.<ref>[http://www.godlessinamerica.com/When%20atheists%20attack.html When atheists attack: Debunking religion without apology] - George A. Ricker.</ref> Dawkins has derided belief in [[God]] as a "mind-virus",<ref>[http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/ The Dawkins Delusion] by Alistair McGrath</ref> which is infectious and harmful to society. In his 2006 book ''The God Delusion'', he states his belief that fundamentalist religion "subverts science and saps the intellect," a view that is contrary to the fact that many of the most productive scientists, from [[Isaac Newton]] to [[Louis Pasteur]], were devout Christians. The foundation of modern science [[Christianity and Science|was largely established by those who held a Christian worldview]]. Dawkins often says that these men were rather a product of their time and, like many that came before them, lived in fear of persecution by Christians. There is no substantive evidence for this.
Dawkins also cites in his book, the God Delusion, that not one winner of the [[Nobel Prize]] for Science is a theist. While this has been openly debated, he cites his own personal relationships with many of these scientists.
[[Image:McgrathatRefresh.jpg‎|left|thumb|175px|[[Alister McGrath]]]]
Lord Robert Winston is a prominent scientist and British doctor who served as the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science from 2004 to 2005.<ref>http://www.tvsa.co.za/actorprofile.asp?actorID=5547</ref> Currently, Lord Winston serves as Emeritus Professor of Fertility Studies at Imperial College in Britain. In 2006, Winston launched a broadside against Richard Dawkins and stated that he is bringing science "into disrepute" due to his refusal to "connect with spirituality". Winston also stated that Dawkins "sometimes doesn't seem to understand the limitations of science."

[[Alister McGrath]], a Christian theologian who has a background in biophysics and is Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, wrote:
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins’ latest book ''The God Delusion'' fires off a series of salvos against religion. It is perhaps his weakest book to date, marred by its excessive reliance on bold assertion and rhetorical flourish, where the issues so clearly demand careful reflection and painstaking analysis, based on the best evidence available.}}

Atheist philosopher [[Michael Ruse]] echoes McGrath's estimation of ''The God Delusion'' and recently stated that the book makes him embarrassed to be an [[atheist]].

Professor McGrath asserts that the aggressive rhetoric of Dawkins' works is merely a mask to cover a deep insecurity about the public credibility of [[atheism]].
McGrath recently wrote a book opposing the [[atheist]] ideology of Dawkins entitled ''The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine''.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433628&in_page_id=1770</ref>

== Richard Dawkins and the Huxley Memorial Debate ==

For more information please see: [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]

The September 2005 issue of ''Discover'' magazine had an article on Richard Dawkins entitled "Darwin’s Rottweiler".<ref name="discover">http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/</ref> The title is an allusion to Thomas Henry Huxley who became to be known as "Darwin's Bulldog".<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i1/monkeys.asp</ref> Huxley is arguably most well known for his debate with Bishop [[Samuel Wilberforce]] over the theory of evolution, and evolutionists and creationist dispute whether or not a key claimed event in the debate actually occurred.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v13/n1/kids</ref> The ''Discover'' article stated the following:
{{cquote|Dawkins has become “Darwin’s rottweiler”— as [[Alister McGrath]], an Oxford theologian, reminded readers of his recent book, Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life — so intent on prevailing in intellectual combat that he alienates others and undermines the dazzling quality of his argumentative skills."<ref name="discover" />}}

The Simonyi Professorship Home Page promotes the idea that Richard Dawkins is "Darwin's Rottweiler" and has an article published in the Seattle newspaper ''EastSideweek'' which states the following:
{{cquote|...Thomas Henry Huxley, earned the nickname "Darwin's bulldog" from his fellow Victorians. In our own less decorous day, Dawkins deserves an even stronger epithet: "Darwin's Rottweiler, perhaps," Simonyi suggests. Now, thanks to [[Charles Simonyi|Simonyi]]'s gift of £1.5 million sterling to England's venerable Oxford University, the Rottweiler is unleashed."}}
[[Image:Wilder-smith-book.jpg‎|right|150px|thumb|Dr. Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith]]
Now given that Thomas Henry Huxley's is arguably most well known for his debate over the theory of evolution and given that Dawkins has stated he will no longer debate a [[creation scientists]] the title of "Darwin's Rottweiler" can certainly be disputed. Creationists wrote regarding Richard Dawkins current refusal to debate a creation scientist:
{{cquote|A. E. Wilder-Smith is also probably responsible for Richard Dawkins refusing to debate creationists any more. In 1986, Wilder-Smith and Edgar Andrews debated the two leading evolutionists in Britain, Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith, at Oxford – a lions’ den with the two strongest Darwinian lions in Europe. Yet even there, over a third – almost half – of the staunchly pro-evolution audience voted that the creation side had won the debate. The vote count became a contentious issue. There were claims of a cover-up by the Oxford Student Union. The AAAS was accused of lying about the vote count and didn’ [sic] correct it even when confronted (see article). The evolutionists apparently were embarrassed that the creationists made such a strong showing. For whatever reason, Dawkins no longer will debate creationists. Reports from those in attendance say that, contrary to the ground rules of the debate, the Dawkins and Maynard Smith repeatedly attacked religion, while the creationists used only scientific arguments. Dawkins himself had to be reprimanded by the moderator for attacking Wilder-Smith about his religious views. Dawkins implored the audience not to give any votes to the creationists lest it be a “blot on the escutcheon of ancient University of Oxford” (an odd remark, considering Oxford was founded by Christians). After the debate, details of the event were lost by the University. Normally, Oxford Union debates are big news, given prominent publicity in the press, radio and television. This one, however, which should have rivalled the historic 1860 Huxley-Wilberforce debate in importance, and indeed was even titled the ’Huxley Memorial Debate,” was silently dropped from the radar screen. In his memoirs, Dr. Wilder-Smith wrote, “No records of my having held the lecture as part of the Oxford Union Debate could be found in any library. No part of the official media breathed a word about it.<ref>http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_5.htm</ref>}}

The aforementioned debate involving Richard Dawkins is fairly well known in creationist/intelligent design circles and the debate was tape recorded.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/1986-huxley-memorial-debate/</ref> In August 2003 the [[Creation Research Society]] published some interesting material about their correspondence with Richard Dawkins which focused on the debate.<ref name="cr">http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref> The Creation Research Society declared:
[[Image:PH2006022801720.jpg‎|left|thumb|150px|[[Henry Morris]]]]
{{cquote|Despite Dr. Dawkins’ plea, there were apparently 115 votes for the creation position (more than 37%). This was done near Darwin’s turf. Imagine flat-earthers going to NASA and convincing over 37% of the scientists there that the earth is flat. Maybe creation science is not as closely akin to flat-earthism as Dr. Dawkins supposes (see his Free Inquiry article).<ref name="cr" />}}

Richard Dawkins no longer will debate a creation scientist. Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a ''Wall Street Journal'' reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. [[theory of evolution|evolution]] controversy.<ref>Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John, [http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science]</ref>
In August 1979, [[Henry Morris|Dr. Henry Morris]] reported in an [[Institute for Creation Research]] letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”
Morris also said about the creation scientist [[Duane Gish]] (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.” Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/811/</ref>

=== Richard Dawkins violation' of the terms of the debate proceedings ===
As noted earlier, it was agreed before the debate that discussion of religion was not to occur during the debate and that only the evidence related to the physical sciences were going to be discussed. At the end of the debate, Richard Dawkins started to give an impassioned plea to the audience to not give a single vote to the creationists which would show support for creationism. Mr. Dawkins was told to sit down by the President of the Oxford Union for violating the terms of the debate as far as not mentioning religion (as noted earlier John Maynard Smith also violated the terms of the debate).<ref name="cr"/>

=== Deception related to email correspondence with Richard Dawkins ===
As mentioned earlier, Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Huxley Memorial Debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith.<ref name="cr"/> Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.<ref name="cr"/>

==Brights Movement==

The [[Brights Movement]] was started in 2003 by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell in order to assist in the advocacy of a [[Naturalism|naturalistic worldview]]. In October 2003 in a article in ''[[the Guardian]]'', Richard Dawkins associated being a "bright" with being an intellectual.<ref>http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html</ref> Atheist [[author]] and columnist Christopher Hitchens expressed his "annoyance at Professor Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for their cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called "brights".<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165035/</ref> [[ABC News|ABC]] News.com commentator John Allen Paulos remarked of the Brights campaign, "I don't think a degree in [[Public Relations|public relations]] is needed to expect that many people will construe the term as smug, ridiculous, and arrogant" (Paulos 2003).<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_2</ref>

== Other reactions to Dawkins' views within the academic community ==

Some in the academic community are critical of Richard Dawkins. One such example is Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal and President of the [[Royal Society]]. In a debate in May 2007 between Rees and Dawkins, Rees said that science needed as many friends as possible and that creating enemies within mainstream religion will make it "more difficult to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiments that are really important". He also argued that it will make it more difficult to fight terrorism. Richard Dawkins counter-argued that being nice to bishops helps to foster the view that faith is virtuous and can excuse any act on its behalf. Rees continued to argue that religion has no [[monopoly]] on being unreasonable citing examples of scientific sects such as the [[Raelism|Raelians]] or extreme eco-groups as being as dangerous as religious fundamentalists.<ref>Guardian story of Martin Rees and Richard Dawkins debate|http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/29/controversiesinscience.peopleinscience</ref>

Among theologians there are many critics of Richard Dawkins, a notable example being Alister McGrath as noted earlier. Alister McGrath is Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford. He has accused Dawkins of being ignorant of theology and has written a book challenging Dawkins' anti-religious stance, ''The Dawkins Delusion''. Even among biology colleagues, there are critics. While Ken Miller, a biology professor, doesn't challenge Dawkins' views on evolution, he does take issue with his insistence that religion and science are incompatible.<ref>Discover's article on Darwin's Rottweiler|http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=</ref>

Richard Dawkins, for his part, claims bafflement that some scientists he respects are capable of religious faith.<ref>Richard Dawkins, 2006. ''The God Delusion''</ref><ref>The Humanist article Is Science A Religion?|http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html</ref>

==Criticism of the Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable==
[[Image:Willard-dallas-3.jpg‎‎|left|thumbnail|150px|Dr. Dallas Willard]]
[[United States|American]] [[philosopher]] Dr. Dallas Willard wrote concerning ''The Blind Watchmaker'' by Richard Dawkins:
{{cquote|When he writes a book like the present one he is not functioning as a scientist. If he were, he should incorporate his "findings" into the most advanced textbooks in the field and see how they fare as representations of established knowledge. He complains that "the true, Darwinian explanation of our own existence is still, remarkably, not a routine part of the curriculum of a general education." Then by all means let him enter the academic arena and present his views about the watchmaker as established knowledge. He should not reserve his views for infliction upon a largely helpless public whom his scientific credentials and elaborate rhetorical devices will overwhelm and make incapable of any accurate assessment of argument. When he writes books like ''The Blind Watchmaker'' he is just a naturalist [[metaphysics|metaphysician]], trying to cozy up to the scientists and blend into their company in such a way that his true colors will not be noticed. He takes the liberty to dress down what he calls "redneck creationism", but unfortunately there are rednecks on the side of "Darwinianism" as well. He is one of the most outstanding.<ref>http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52</ref>}}

Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] offered several criticisms of the book ''The Blind Watchmaker'' by Richard Dawkins and states in his summary that the "...Apostle of [[Atheism]] has a long way to go to make a convincing case for his faith."<ref name="cotw">http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855</ref>

== Awards ==

* ''Silver Medal of the Zoological Society of London'' (1989)
* ''Royal Society's Michael Faraday Award'' (1990)
* ''Nakayama Prize for Achievement in Human Science'' (1990)
* ''The International Cosmos Prize'' (1997)
* ''Kistler Prize'' (2001)
* ''Shakespeare Prize of the Alfred Toepfer Foundation'' (2005)
* ''Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science'' (2006)
* ''Galaxy British Book Awards Author of the Year'' (2007)
* Honorary Doctorates in both literature and science
* Fellow of the Royal Society
* Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature

==Books==
Dawkins has written eleven books: nine have been on evolution and evolutionary theory, another is his ''[[New York Times]]'' bestselling [[atheist]] polemic ''[[The God Delusion]]'', and most recently, he has written a book for children introducing them to his way of thinking.

The first of his books, ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', was published in 1976, and won him international acclaim. It has sold over one million copies and has been translated into 25 languages.

His books are:

* ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'' (1976)
* ''The Extended Phenotype'' (1982)
* ''The Blind Watchmaker'' (1986)
* ''River Out of Eden'' (1995)
* ''Climbing Mount Improbable'' (1996)
* ''Unweaving the Rainbow'' (1998)
* ''A Devil's Chaplain'' (2003)
* ''The Ancestor's Tale'' (2004)
* ''[[The God Delusion]]'' (2006)
* ''[[The Greatest Show on Earth]]: The Evidence for Evolution''. Free Press (United States), Transworld (United Kingdom and Commonwealth). 2009.
* ''The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True'' (2011) - a science book for children.

'''Anti-evolution books specifically addressing Richard Dawkins:'''

*''The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution'' by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]], 2010

==See also==

*[[Richard Dawkins statistics]]
*[[Evangelical atheism]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Richard_Dawkins Directory of Richard Dawkins articles]
*[[Richard Dawkins on Jews and Nobel Prizes]]
*[[Ravi Zacharias vs. Richard Dawkins]]
*[[Richard Dawkins and YouTube]]
*[[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]]
*[[British atheism]]
*[[Richard Dawkins and Hell]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.atheistdelusion.net/ The Atheist Delusion] (website rebutting Richard Dawkins)
*[http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8885481/after-the-new-atheism/ Richard Dawkins has lost: meet the new new atheists] by [[Theo Hobson]]

'''Video:'''

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo Is Richard Dawkins really stumped? The truth - In his own words - YES...he is!] - [[YouTube]] video
* Former Atheist Alister McGrath discusses Dawkins (video) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghIghLvttVU part 1] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UiCUEBB9Z4&feature=related part 2]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 YouTube - Video of Richard Dawkins being stumped by a creationist's question]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideosearch%3Fhl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial%26hs%3DxUv%26q%3Ddawkins%2520and%2520his&feature=player_embedded Atheists dodge their history of atrocities] (Video)

'''Collection of rebuttals:'''

*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins Richard Dawkins - Christian rebuttals] by [[True Free Thinker]]

'''Reviews of Richard Dawkins' works:'''

*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855 A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]
*[http://www.atheistdelusion.net/ Atheist delusion: Answering "The God Delusion" and other works of atheist Richard Dawkins]
*[http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52 Reflections on Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker] by [[Christianity|Christian]] [[Philosophy|philosopher]] Dallas Willard
*[http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9908/reviews/barr.html A Review of Unweaving the Rainbow by Richard Dawkins]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1127dawkins.asp Deconstructing a deluded Dawkins by Paul Taylor]
*[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6280 A review of A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love by Richard Dawkins]

'''From a Frog to a Prince video''':

*[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 YouTube - Video of Richard Dawkins being stumped by a creationist's question]
*[http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_gb_01.asp Gillian Brown answers Barry Williams] (Gillian Brown is the film's producer. Barry Williams is a Skeptic who criticised the film. The page includes an apology from another skeptic, and an admission that the film accurately presents Dawkins' answer.)
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Dawkins_could_not_give_an_example_of_increasing_information CreationWiki's response to TalkOrigins Archive's criticism of interview.]

'''Richard Dawkins administered websites and web pages:'''

*[http://www.richarddawkins.net/ Richard Dawkins' main website]
*[http://twitter.com/richarddawkins Richard Dawkins' Twitter page]
*[http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/ The Richard Dawkins Foundation]
*[http://users.ox.ac.uk/~dawkins/ Richard Dawkins homepage at Oxford University]

== Notes ==
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Dawkins, Richard}}
[[Category:Richard Dawkins]]
[[Category:British People]]
[[Category:Academics]]
[[Category:Atheism]]
[[Category:Liberal Authors]]
[[Category:Atheist Authors]]
[[Category:British Authors]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category:Biologists]]
[[Category:Evolutionists]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:New Atheism]]

Richard Dawkins

2018-05-30T12:52:41Z

TheOther: Improved punctuation

[[File:Richard Dawkins - March 2005.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|251px|right|Richard Dawkins declared "[[Christianity]] may actually be our best defence against aberrant forms of religion that threaten the world".<ref name="christiantoday.com">[http://www.christiantoday.com/article/richard.dawkins.says.christianity.is.worlds.best.defence.against.radical.islam/76416.htm Richard Dawkins says Christianity is world's best defence against radical Islam], Christianity Today, January 2016</ref><ref name="breitbart.com">[http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/01/12/professional-atheist-dawkins-says-christianity-bulwark-against-something-worse/ Professional Atheist Dawkins Says Christianity ‘Bulwark Against Something Worse’], by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D, ''Breitbart News Network'', Jan 12, 2016</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations|Richard Dawkins and Islam]] ]]
'''Clinton Richard Dawkins''', [[Royal Society|FRS]], FRSL, (born March 26, 1941, age {{age|1941|3|26}}), is a British author, [[biologist]], [[evolution]]ist, [[agnosticism|agnostic]] and [[leftist]]/[[liberal]] (See also: [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism]]).<ref>
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html Mailvox: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!]
*[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100139859/id-go-to-church-just-to-reduce-the-probability-of-spending-eternity-in-hell-with-richard-dawkins/ ''I'd go to church just to reduce the probability of spending eternity in Hell with Richard Dawkins'' by Dr. Tim Stanley, ''The Daily Telegraph'', February 27, 2012]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3_rGbiT_3c Richard Dawkins Says He's Agnostic -- NOT atheist - video testimony of Richard Dawkins saying he is not an atheist, but an agnostic]</ref>

He is sometimes referred to as the "world's most famous atheist" but when interviewed, he claims that, on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is perfect faith in God and 7 is perfect confidence in atheism, he is a 6.9.<ref>{{Cite news |author= Bingham, John |title= Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist |url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html |newspaper= [[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph]] |date= February 24, 2012 |accessdate= February 24, 2012}}</ref>

Although Dawkins is an agnostic, he advocates [[evangelical atheism]] and is widely considered to be an [[atheist activist]]. Author [[Vox Day]] wrote concerning this matter, "While the fact that Dawkins declared himself a literal agnostic in the very book in which he declared the importance of atheist evangelism is both ironic and incoherent, it will surprise no one who has read the chapter of ''The Irrational Atheist'' entitled "Darwin's Judas".<ref name="voxday.blogspot.com"/>

Most of Richard Dawkins' popular books have [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience|promoted evolutionary pseudoscience.]] Dawkins is also the former holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair of the Public Understanding of Science at [[Oxford University]].

He is an ardent opponent of religion, which he dismisses as mere [[superstition]].<ref>Richard Dawkins is a man with a mission – the eradication of religion and superstition, and their total replacement with science and reason. [http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Dawkins.html "Richard Dawkins comes to call"]</ref> However, Dawkins has offered no effective rebuttal to studies which show that the irreligious [[Irreligion and superstition|are more likely]] to be superstitious than [[evangelicalism|evangelical]] [[Christianity|Christians]].<ref name="online.wsj.com">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>

Dawkins is one of the principle founders of the [[New Atheism]] movement, which is a form of [[militant atheism]] in terms of its [[rhetoric]]. Dawkins said about New Atheism, "[O]ur struggle is not so much an intellectual struggle, as a political one: What are we going to do about it?”.<ref>[http://secularismandnonreligion.org/articles/10.5334/snr.al/print/ Faithless: The politics of new atheism] by Steven Kettell</ref> In recent years, the prominence of Richard Dawkins and the New Atheism movement has greatly waned (see: [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]] and [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]]).

In terms of the [[theism]] vs. agnosticism and [[atheism]] issue, Dawkins has shown himself to be rather ignorant in matters of [[philosophy]] and [[theology]]. For example, philosopher Dr. [[Michael Ruse]] declared concerning Dawkins' book ''[[The God Delusion]]'': "''The God Delusion'' makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."<ref>http://www.alternet.org/media/47052?page=entire</ref>
The philosopher [[Antony Flew]], who was one of the most prominent atheist academics in the world before adopting [[deism]], said about Dawkins: “The fault of Dawkins as an academic…was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form”.<ref>[http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/ten-years-on-from-that-book-of-atheistic-faith-the-god-delusion-1-7496360 Ten years on from that book of atheistic faith, the God Delusion] by Mike Taggart</ref>

As far as the origin of the [[universe]], Dawkins wrote: “The fact that [[origin of life|life evolved]] out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=4TDTnoBLdQMC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=%E2%80%9CThe+fact+that+life+evolved+out+of+nearly+nothing,+some+10+billion+years+after+the+universe+evolved+literally+out+of+nothing,+is+a+fact+so+staggering+that+I+would+be+mad+to+attempt+words+to+do+it+justice.%22&source=bl&ots=g1m0iQzew4&sig=CT1XkXd8yfbNUCIDKeDH_x_UbO8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7vImP8ZjNAhUGPCYKHSAdDXcQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CThe%20fact%20that%20life%20evolved%20out%20of%20nearly%20nothing%2C%20some%2010%20billion%20years%20after%20the%20universe%20evolved%20literally%20out%20of%20nothing%2C%20is%20a%20fact%20so%20staggering%20that%20I%20would%20be%20mad%20to%20attempt%20words%20to%20do%20it%20justice.%22&f=false Richard Dawkins quote about the origin of the universe], ''God, Science, and Reason: Finding the Light of God Amidst the Darkness of Atheism and Dogmatism'' By Michael Bunner, page 141</ref> See also: [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]]

Dawkins is a [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations|vocal opponent of Islam]]. Dawkins has said, "[[Islam]] is the greatest force for evil in the world today".<ref>[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40710165 Richard Dawkins' Berkeley event cancelled for 'Islamophobia'], BBC,
2017</ref><ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/richard-dawkins-islam-muslims-islamophobic-row-twitter-tweets-atheist-kpfa-us-university-of-a7854751.html Radio station cancels Richard Dawkins appearance over Islam tweets], The Independent, 2017</ref> Despite his opposition to religion/[[Christianity]], Dawkins indicated: "Christianity may actually be our best defence against aberrant forms of religion that threaten the world".<ref name="christiantoday.com"/><ref name="breitbart.com"/> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and Christianity]]

== Biography of Richard Dawkins ==

[[File:Richard Dawkins photo.jpg|thumbnail|200px|left|After previously apologizing to [[feminism|feminists]] and others for the [[Elevatorgate]] scandal, Dawkins retracted his apology and said, "I don’t take back anything that I’ve said. I would not say it again, however, because I am now accustomed to being misunderstood and so I will... I feel muzzled, and a lot of other people do as well.“<ref name="washingtonpost.com">[http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/richard-dawkins-stands-by-remarks-on-sexism-pedophilia-down-syndrome/2014/11/18/a2915cd8-6f64-11e4-a2c2-478179fd0489_story.html Richard Dawkins stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome], by Kimberly Winston | Religion News Service November 18, 2014 and syndicated to the ''Washington Post''</ref><ref>[https://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/status/497087309805027328 Rebecca Watson's Twitter post about Dawkins' apology]</ref><ref name="Who is belittling what">[https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/who-is-belittling-what/ Who is belittling what?] by Richard Dawkins</ref>]]
Richard Dawkins was born in Kenya.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/jul/25/research.science</ref> He was a child of a family of colonial forest officers.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3657215/Preaching-to-the-converted.html</ref>
Dawkins was raised to have religious values, and confesses that when he was young, he acknowledged the complexity of life and believed that it indicated a designer. However, during his teens, he chose to abandon this faith and embrace Darwinism instead, despite admitting that he hadn’t actually read [[Charles Darwin]]’s works.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/10/religion.scienceandnature</ref><ref name="bbc.co.uk">http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/dawkins.shtml</ref> See also: [[British atheism]] and [[UK and secularism]]

The atheist philosopher [[John Gray (philosopher)|John Gray]] says of Dawkins' time spent in [[Kenya]]: "Unlike the best of the colonial administrators, some of whom were deeply versed in the languages and histories of the peoples they ruled, Dawkins displays no interest in the cultures of the [[Africa]]n countries where he lived as a boy. It is the obedient devotion of those who served his family that has remained in his memory."<ref name="newrepublic.com">[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins''], New Republic by John Gray</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins' family fortune and the slave trade]]

Dawkins studied zoology at Oxford University, and graduated in 1962. As a undergraduate at Oxford, he studied zoology under the Dutch ethologist Niko Tinbergen and the two developed a strong student/teacher relationship.<ref>http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/dawkins.htm</ref> He remained at [[Oxford]] for his doctoral work, receiving his Ph.D in 1966. From 1967-1969, Dawkins served as Assistant Professor of [[Zoology]] at [[Berkeley]]. During this time, he was, in his own words, “heavily involved” in the unrest and liberal activism for which Berkeley is notorious.<ref name="bbc.co.uk"/> He returned to Oxford in 1970 and served as a Lecturer in Animal Behaviour and a Fellow of New College. In 1995, Dawkins became the Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science which was a post created by an endowment of £1.5m from Dr. Charles Simonyi. In September 2008, Richard Dawkins retired from his post as Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science.

Despite this, Richard Dawkins might have remained a relatively obscure professor if not for the publication of his first book, ''The Selfish Gene'', in 1976. This book became a bestseller, and brought Dawkins a celebrity which he has worked to maintain with further books and lectures.

In 1984, Dawkins divorced his wife of 17 years, Marian Stamp; later that same year, he married Eve Barham. Dawkins also divorced Barham, though the precise circumstances of this divorce are unclear.<ref>http://www.richarddawkins.com/</ref> He married science fiction actress Lalla Ward in 1992 and they separated after 24 years of marriage.<ref>[http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dawkins-evolves-into-single-man-after-amicable-split-with-time-lady-sp9llk2nt Dawkins evolves into single man after ‘amicable’ split with Time Lady], ''The Sunday Times''</ref>

[[Vox Day|Theodore Beale]] wrote in the his book ''The Irrational Atheist'' about Dawkins's claim that teaching children about [[Hell]] is more harmful to children than "mild child abuse":
{{Cquote|Richard Dawkins is perhaps one of the last men on Earth who should be discussing what is the right and proper way to raise children, given that the number of his wives outnumber his offspring.

In his letter to his daughter Juliet, addressed to her at the age of ten and published in ''A Devil’s Chaplain'', there is little mention of love, no admission of regret, and no paternal promises. As one British journalist noted, the letter is “coldly impersonal” and “authoritarian.” There is no expression of interest in what might be important to her.<ref>[http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf The Irrational Atheist. Chapter VIII DARWIN’S JUDAS] by Vox Day</ref>}}

See also: [[Richard Dawkins and love]]

The ''Christian Times'' reported:
{{Cquote|The 75-year-old evolutionary biologist, who suffered a stroke early this year, had stirred the public years ago when he denounced monogamy and fidelity in relationships.

In [http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2007/11/29/banishing-the-greeneyed-monste/3484 his article piece] "Banishing the Green Eyed Monster," Dawkins referred to "jealousy" in a relationship as "immoral and selfish."

He defended that men should be allowed to keep mistresses and indulge in sexual pleasures with others.<ref>[http://christiantimes.com/article/atheist-richard-dawkins-divorces-third-wife-actress-lalla-ward/59223.htm Richard Dawkins to divorce third wife: Prominent atheist to split from actress Lalla Ward], ''Christian Times''</ref>}}

Since 2011, Dawkins has been embroiled in controversies related to [[feminism]]/[[Islam]] and he has received a significant amount of criticism from his fellow [[secular left]]ists as a result (see: [[Richard Dawkins and women]] and [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations]]).

According to ''The Richest'', "Richard Dawkins..has an estimated net worth of $10,000,000 according to the ''Sunday Times'' in 2012."<ref>[http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/authors/richard-dawkins-net-worth/ Richard Dawkins Net Worth]</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins' net worth]]

== Richard Dawkins and women ==
[[File:2404429188 ea8f1fc48b.jpg|thumb|200px|Survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, [[Atheism and women|atheism is significantly less appealing to women]].

According to the website tracking firm [[Alexa]], women frequent the website of richarddawkins.net significantly less than men.<ref name="Alexa data for Richarddawkins.net">[http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/richarddawkins.net Alexa data for Richarddawkins.net]</ref>]]
=== Women's views of Richard Dawkins ===

See: [[Richard Dawkins and women]], [[Elevatorgate]], [[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]], [[New Atheism and women]] and [[Atheism and rape]]

=== Majority of web visitors to Dawkins' website are men ===

Survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, atheism [[Atheism and women|is significantly less appealing to women]].

According to the website tracking firm [[Alexa]], women frequent the website of richarddawkins.net significantly less than men.<ref name="Alexa data for Richarddawkins.net"/><ref>[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/05/according-to-alexa-what-percentage-of.html According to Alexa, what percentage of Richard Dawkins' website visitors are women?], ''Examining Atheism''</ref> In recent years, there has been a significant amount of friction between Richard Dawkins and [[feminism|feminists]] (see: [[Richard Dawkins and women]]).

=== Elevatorgate controversy ===

''See also:'' [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Atheist feminism]] and [[Richard Dawkins and social media]]

In July 2011, Richard Dawkins was widely criticized within the atheist community and in various press outlets for his insensitive comments made to atheist [[Rebecca Watson]] about an incident which occurred in an elevator (see: [[Elevatorgate]]).<ref>
*[http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting Richard Dawkins: Skeptic of women? - Salon, July 8, 2011]
*[http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum Sharing a lift with Richard Dawkins by David Allen Green - New Stateman - 06 July 2011]
*[http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists Richard Dawkins Torn Limb From Limb—By Atheists - Gawker]
*[http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-09-15/atheist-sexism-women/50416454/1 Atheists address sexism issues - USA Today]
*[http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/09/is-richard-dawkins-destroying-his-reputation Is Richard Dawkins destroying his reputation?] by Sophie Elmhirst, ''The Guardian'', June 9, 2015
</ref>

Prior to Elevatorgate, [[Monica Shores]]' ''Ms. Magazine'' article titled ''Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women?'' criticized the News Atheism movement for being [[sexism|sexist]].<ref name="msmagazine.com">[http://msmagazine.com/blog/2010/11/01/will-new-atheism-make-room-for-women/ ''Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women''] by Monica Shores, ''Ms. Magazine'', 2010</ref> She also cited [[Conservapedia]] in her article and indicated: "The lack of lady presence is so visible that Conservapedia commented on it by noting that [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science website|Dawkins’ website]] overwhelmingly attracts male visitors."<ref name="msmagazine.com"/>

For more information, please see:

*[[Elevatorgate news stories]]

*[[Atheist conferences]]

*[[Research on atheist conferences]]

==== Dawkins retracts his Elevatorgate apology. Says Elevatorgate incident was rather trivial ====
[[File:Rebecca watson portrait 2011.jpg|left|thumbnail|181px|The atheist [[Rebecca Watson]] and Richard Dawkins were central figures in the [[Elevatorgate]] scandal. ]]
On August 6, 2014, Dawkins apologized for his remarks related to his Elevatorgate scandal.<ref name="Who is belittling what"/><ref>[https://twitter.com/rebeccawatson/status/497087309805027328 Rebecca Watson's Twitter tweet about Richard Dawkins apologizing for his Elevate scandal]</ref>

However, on November 18, 2014, Richard Dawkins retracted his apology and indicated that: he stands by his recent remarks about women/men relations, he feels muzzled by "thought police" and that [[Rebecca Watson]]'s experience in the elevator was "rather trivial" compared to events some Muslim women experience.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/richard-dawkins-stands-by-remarks-on-sexism-pedophilia-down-syndrome/2014/11/18/a2915cd8-6f64-11e4-a2c2-478179fd0489_story.html Richard Dawkins stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome], by Kimberly Winston | Religion News Service November 18, 2014</ref>

Specifically, the ''Washington Post'' reported on November 18, 2014:
{{cquote|“I don’t take back anything that I’ve said,” Dawkins said from a shady spot in the leafy backyard of one of his Bay Area supporters. “I would not say it again, however, because I am now accustomed to being misunderstood and so I will . “

He trailed off momentarily, gazing at his hands resting on a patio table.

“I feel muzzled, and a lot of other people do as well,” he continued. “There is a climate of bullying, a climate of intransigent thought police which is highly influential in the sense that it suppresses people like me.”

Recent criticism of Dawkins has come from women, many of them within the [[atheist movement]], which has long drawn more men to its ranks. His online remarks, some women say, contribute to a climate they see as unwelcoming to female atheists...

“I concentrate my attention on that menace and I confess I occasionally get a little impatient with American women who complain of being inappropriately touched by the water cooler or invited for coffee or something which I think is, by comparison, relatively trivial,” he said.<ref name="washingtonpost.com">[http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/richard-dawkins-stands-by-remarks-on-sexism-pedophilia-down-syndrome/2014/11/18/a2915cd8-6f64-11e4-a2c2-478179fd0489_story.html Richard Dawkins stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome], by Kimberly Winston | Religion News Service November 18, 2014 and syndicated to the ''Washington Post''</ref>}}

==== Reason Rally related incident involving David Silverman and Richard Dawkins ====

''See also:'' [[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]]
[[File:David Silverman.JPG|thumbnail|right|150px|[[David Silverman]] ]]
An article by Sarah posted at [[Skepchick]] about a conversation between Richard Dawkins and [[David Silverman]] (a former president of the [[American Atheists]] organization), which took place during the planning phase of the [[Reason Rally]]:
{{cquote|Richard was standing behind the podium, and he asked Dave something along the lines of, “What exactly is the Reason Rally?” Dave started explaining it, and as he did, someone who was waiting in the line outside opened the door to peek inside and we could all hear a lot of noise. I rushed up the aisle and made frantic “shut the door” gestures at the people peeking inside, and they did. As I walked the ten feet back, I couldn’t hear everything Dave was saying, but I heard the name “Rebecca Watson.” Richard suddenly had a very angry look on his face and I heard him almost shout, “No, absolutely not! If she’s going to be there, I won’t be there. I don’t want her speaking.” and then Dave immediately replied, “You’re absolutely right, we’ll take her off the roster. It’s done.” Richard huffed for a moment, Dave continued to placate him, and then he made the video.

I was crushed.<ref>[http://skepchick.org/2013/09/my-time-with-richard-dawkins-or-why-you-should-never-meet-your-idols/ My Time With Richard Dawkins (Or, Why You Should Never Meet Your Idols)] by Sarah at [[Skepchick]], September 5, 2013</ref>}}

For more information, please see: [[Elevatorgate]]

==== Elevatorgate and increased division within the atheist population ====

''See also:'' [[Atheist movement]] and [[Atheism and leadership]]

Post-Elevatorgate, Richard Dawkins is often criticized by secular leftists for igniting deep fractures in the [[atheist movement]] and hindering the atheist movement. For example, on November 26, 2013, the atheist activist and blogger [[Jen McCreight]] posted at Twitter the message: "Did anyone on Dawkins AMA ask how he feels about singlehandedly destroying the atheist movement with the Dear Muslima yet?"<ref>[https://twitter.com/jennifurret/status/405391218273554433 Jennifer McCreight on the Twitter about the Elevatorgate scandal]</ref> In December 2013, atheist Jack Vance at Atheist Revolution called July 2, 2011, which is the day that Elevatorgate occurred, "The day the atheist movement died."<ref>[http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/12/the-day-atheist-movement-died.html The Day the Atheist Movement Died] by Jack Vance at Atheist Revolution</ref>

{{See also|Atheism and the internet}}

=== Dawkins' disinvitation to speak at a skeptics conference due to a feminism/Islam controversy ===

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' health]] and [[Richard Dawkins' health#Richard Dawkins' stroke and news reports|Richard Dawkins' stroke]] and [[Richard Dawkins and medical science]] and [[Richard Dawkins, Darwin and psychogenic illness]]

As a result of the controversy relating to a Dawkins Twitter post about [[feminism]]/[[Islam]], Dawkins was disinvited to speak at the 2016 Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism (NCSS) (See: [[Richard Dawkins and women#Feminists cause Richard Dawkins to be disinvited to skeptic conference|Feminists cause Richard Dawkins to be disinvited to skeptic conference]]).<ref name="richarddawkins.net">[https://richarddawkins.net/2016/02/an-update-on-richards-condition-in-his-own-words/ An update on Richard Dawkins condition in his own words]</ref> Stephanie Zvan is an atheist blogger at [[Freethought Blogs]]. She wrote an open letter to the [[Center for Inquiry]] (CFI) about the events surrounding the Dawkins' Twitter post about feminism/Islam that "CFI now has a harassment denialist on its board, a harassment denialist who has tied his denialism to his work at your organization."<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2016/01/29/dawkins-goes-denialist-an-open-letter-to-the-cfi-board/ Dawkins Goes Denialist: An Open Letter to the CFI Board] by Stephanie Zvan at [[Freethought Blogs]]</ref>

Dawkins said he was very upset about being disinvited to the conference.<ref name="richarddawkins.net"/> After his disinvitation, Dawkins gave some news about his health condition after suffering a minor stroke and he mentioned that his doctors advised avoiding controversies due to his chronic high blood pressure.<ref>
*[https://richarddawkins.net/2016/02/an-update-on-richards-condition-in-his-own-words/ An update on Richard’s condition in his own words], Richarddawkins.net
*[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-stress-over-twitter-tweet-feminism-controversey-caused-stroke-157840/ Richard Dawkins Said He Was Stressed by Controversy Over Tweet Before Stroke], ''Christian Post'', February, 2016
*[http://www.religionnews.com/2016/02/15/richard-dawkins-stroke-due-to-stress/ Richard Dawkins says stroke caused by stress over controversy], Religion New Service</ref> In recent times Dawkins has been embroiled in a number of controversies involving the topics of [[feminism]]/[[Islam]] and he has faced a significant amount of criticism from his fellow [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]]/liberals (see: [[Richard Dawkins and women]] and [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations]]).

[[File:Hemant Mehta.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|[[Hemant Mehta]] ]]
Atheist [[Hemant Mehta]] reported about Dawkins' stroke and Dawkins' report that he had been once again invited to the conference:
{{cquote|It was the result of stress-related higher blood pressure, which he says he may have had as a result of recent controversy, including being booted from the NECSS conference. He added, however, that on February 5, he received a letter from conference organizers apologizing for disinviting him and asking him back to the conference.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/02/14/richard-dawkins-gives-update-on-his-health-in-audio-message/ Richard Dawkins Gives Update on His Health in Audio Message]</ref>}}

On the morning of Richard Dawkins' stroke, Dawkins received a letter from the NCSS apologizing to Dawkins for his disinvitation and once again inviting him to speak at the conference.<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-stress-over-twitter-tweet-feminism-controversey-caused-stroke-157840/ Richard Dawkins Said He Was Stressed by Controversy Over Tweet Before Stroke], Christian Post</ref>

Despite the medical advice of his doctors, Dawkins had a very active Twitter presence before his minor stroke (with a number of Twitter controversies) and numerous public controversies.<ref>
*[http://www.religionnews.com/2016/02/15/richard-dawkins-stroke-due-to-stress/ Richard Dawkins says stroke caused by stress over controversy], Religion New Service
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/21/the-12-stages-of-a-richard-dawkins-twitter-scandal_n_5698443.html The 12-Stage 'Evolution' Of A Richard Dawkins Twitter Scandal] by Paul Vale, The Huffington Post UK, Posted: 22/08/2014 02:06 BST
*[http://www.salon.com/2016/01/27/richard_dawkins_delete_your_account_the_prominent_atheist_unleashes_new_islamophobic_assault_partner/ Richard Dawkins, delete your account: The prominent atheist implodes on Twitter (again)], Salon
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/15-of-richard-dawkins-most-controversial-tweets_us_56004360e4b00310edf7eaf6 15 Of Richard Dawkins' Most Controversial Tweets], ''Huffington Post''
</ref>

Dawkins has accumulated over 30,000 Twitter tweets.<ref>[https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author Richard Dawkins Twitter]</ref> ''The Independent'' reported, "Dawkins also admitted he wasn't very good at managing Twitter and the strong reactions his posts tend to provoke. 'Twitter is very difficult medium to handle,' he said. 'I’m not much of a diplomat.'"<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-defends-ahmed-mohamed-comments-and-dismisses-islamophobia-as-a-non-word-10515389.html Richard Dawkins defends Ahmed Mohamed comments and dismisses Islamophobia as a 'non-word']</ref> However, after his stroke, in May 2016, Dawkins gave up posting on Twitter for awhile and the tweets that appeared in his name were done by his staff.<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/affinity/2016/05/26/dawkins-ive-given-up-twitter/ Dawkins: I’ve Given Up Twitter.]</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and Twitter]]

Debates raged over praying for Richard Dawkins health after his stroke.<ref>[http://www.charismanews.com/world/55133-debate-rages-over-praying-for-atheist-richard-dawkins-after-stroke Debate rages over praying for atheist Richard Dawkins after stroke]</ref><ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-church-of-england-deny-trolling-biologist-by-sending-prayers-following-minor-stroke-a6871966.html Richard Dawkins: Church of England denies 'trolling' biologist by sending 'prayers' following minor stroke]</ref>

''The Guardian'' reported that Dawkins is expected to have a full recovery or near full recovery from his stroke.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/feb/12/richard-dawkins-has-stroke-on-eve-of-australia-and-new-zealand-tour Richard Dawkins stroke forces delay of Australia and New Zealand tour], ''The Guardian'', February 11, 2016</ref>

In December 2016, Dawkins appears to have started to Tweet again despite his doctors warnings to avoid controversy (For example, he tweeted that Britain had become a "nasty little backwater" after the [[Brexit]] vote and his Tweet drew fierce criticism).<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/authors/richard-dawkins-england-becoming-nasty-little-backwater-brexit/ Richard Dawkins: England becoming a 'nasty little backwater' after Brexit vote], ''The Telegraph'', March 2017</ref><ref>[http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/748479/Richard-Dawkins-pretending-war-on-christmas-christians SHOCK RANT: Richard Dawkins mocks Christians for 'pretending' there's WAR on Christianity], ''Express'', December of 2016</ref><ref>[https://swarajyamag.com/insta/what-british-scientist-dawkins-thinks-of-islam What British Scientist Dawkins Thinks Of Islam], ''Swaraya'', June 7, 2017</ref>

=== Richard Dawkins' health ===

* [[Richard Dawkins' health]]

==== Richard Dawkins' stroke ====

*[[Richard Dawkins' health#Richard Dawkins' stroke and news reports|Richard Dawkins' stroke]]

=== Atheist PZ Myers comment about Dawkins' attitude towards women ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and women]] and [[Richard Dawkins and women]]
[[File:PZ Myers.jpg|thumbnail|150px|left|[[PZ Myers]] ]]
In 2014, the prominent [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] [[PZ Myers]] said of Richard Dawkins' attitude towards women: "At a time when our movement needs to expand its reach, it’s a tragedy that our most eminent spokesman has so enthusiastically expressed such a regressive attitude.”<ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name Richard Dawkins has lost it: ignorant sexism gives atheists a bad name] by Adam Lee, ''The Guardian'', September 18, 2014</ref>

Myers also said in 2014 concerning Dawkins:
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins: you’re wrong. Deeply, profoundly, fundamentally wrong. Your understanding of [[feminism]] is flawed and misinformed, and further, you keep returning to the same poisonous wells of misinformation.

...you persist in presenting these anti-feminist caricatures as reasonable. You say you are a feminist, and even find feminism an undeniable virtue, but at the same time you parrot absurd anti-feminist remarks.<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/09/12/dear-richard-dawkins/ Dear Richard Dawkins] by PZ Myers at Pharyngula blog, September 12, 2014</ref>}}

=== Richard Dawkins commentary on Mary the Mother of Jesus ===

In 2010, the [[Christian apologetics]] website [[True Free Thinker]] wrote:
{{cquote|The atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins just referred to Mary, the mother of Jesus, as a ‘submissive cosmic doormat’...

If Richard Dawkins had a better grasp of womanhood [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|and a greater grasp of manhood]], he would still be married to his first wife and not his third.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-immaculate-and-mary-cosmic-doormat</ref>}}
=== Other reasons why many women hold unfavorable views of Richard Dawkins ===

Another plausible explanation for many women having a lack of enthusiasm for Richard Dawkins's message is that many women who attend religious services and hold traditional beliefs and values find Richard Dawkins' [[atheism and morality|atheistic values]] repugnant. In terms of traditional values, in 2007, when asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the [[Muslim]] [extremists] aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the [[Bible]]. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the [[Sabbath]]."<ref name=Hitler>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref>

(See also: [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]])

=== Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins ===

*[[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]]

== Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations ==
[[File:StarCresent.png|thumbnail|125px|right|Assuming patterns of net immigration do not change significantly, the Pew Forum thinks that there will be just over 5.5 million British Muslims, representing 8.2 per cent of the UK population, by 2030.<ref>[http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-will-britain-have-a-muslim-majority-by-2050/13690 FactCheck: will Britain have a Muslim majority by 2050?]</ref> See: [[Atheism vs. Islam]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations]] and [[New Atheism and Islamophobia]] and [[Atheism vs. Islam]]

The [[New Atheism|New Atheists]] Richard Dawkins, [[Sam Harris]] and the late [[Christopher Hitchens]] have received multiple accusations of engaging in [[Islamophobia|Islamophobic]] behavior.<ref>
*[http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins_harris_hitchens_new_atheists_flirt_with_islamophobia/ Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens: New Atheists flirt with Islamophobia] by Nathan Lean, ''Salon'', March 30, 2013
*[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus] by Glenn Greenwald, ''The Guardian'', April 3, 2013</ref> Dawkins is dismissive of the concept of Islamophobia and declared: "I’m always being accused of Islamophobia, that’s a non-word."<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-defends-ahmed-mohamed-comments-and-dismisses-islamophobia-as-a-non-word-10515389.html Richard Dawkins defends Ahmed Mohamed comments and dismisses Islamophobia as a 'non-word'], ''Independent'', 24 September 2015</ref>

On December 28, 2015, the ''Daily Express'' reported about Dawkins:
{{cquote|The furious academic walked out of an interview when a Muslim journalist confirmed he personally believed the prophet [[Muhammad]] flew to heaven on a winged horse.

Dawkins, 74, author of best-seller The God Delusion, told the New Statesmen's Emad Ahmed that his belief was "pathetic" before angrily storming off.<ref>['Pathetic': Richard Dawkins in extraordinary outburst against Islam] by Jason Taylor, ''Daily Express'', December 28, 2015</ref>}}

Ryan Kerney wrote at ''New Republic'' concerning Dawkins' behavior towards Emad Ahmed: "Richard Dawkins is just as rude in person as he is on Twitter, apparently."<ref>[https://newrepublic.com/minutes/126632/richard-dawkins-just-rude-person-twitter-apparently Richard Dawkins is just as rude in person as he is on Twitter, apparently], ''New Republic'', 2015</ref>

On the other hand, defenders of atheist criticisms of [[Islam]]/Muslims indicated that New Atheists should be able to criticize Islam without being accused of Islamophobia.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2013/04/new-atheism-should-be-able-criticise-islam-without-being-accused-islamophobia New Atheism should be able to criticise Islam without being accused of Islamophobia] by Andrew Zak Williams, ''New Statesman'', Published 19 April 2013</ref>

== Richard Dawkins and racial minorities ==

=== Sikivu Hutchinson's criticism of RDF and Center for Inquiry merger ===
[[File:Skivu Hutchinson speaking at Center For Inquiry.JPG|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Sikivu Hutchinson]] speaking ath the [[Center for Inquiry]]. ]]

''See also:'' [[Western atheism and race]] and [[Atheism and leadership]]

Atheist [[Sikivu Hutchinson]] wrote:
{{cquote|The recent merger of the secular organization [[Center for Inquiry]] (CFI) and the [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science|Richard Dawkins Foundation]] (RDF) has been dubbed atheism's supergroup moment. Acknowledging the two organizations' outsized presence in the atheist world, Religion News Service acidly declared it a "royal wedding". The partnership, which gives Richard Dawkins a seat on the CFI board, smacks of a vindication of Dawkins' toxic, reactionary brand of [http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/richard_dawkins_does_it_again_new_atheisms_islamophobia_problem/ damn-all-them-culturally-backward-Western-values-hating- Muslims] New Atheism. As one of the most prominent global secular organizations, CFI's [http://www.centerforinquiry.net/about/corporate_governance all-white board] looks right at home with RDF's [https://richarddawkins.net/boardandstaff/ lily white board] and staff.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sikivu-hutchinson/atheismsowhite-atheists-o_b_9078736.html #AtheismSoWhite: Atheists of Color Rock Social Justice] by Sikivu Hutchinson</ref>}}

The [[secular humanism|secular humanist]] document Human Manifesto II, which was written in 1973 by [[Paul Kurtz]] and Edwin H. Wilson, decried racism and it declared:
{{cquote|The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook. In various societies, the demands of women and minority groups for equal rights effectively challenge our generation.<ref>[http://americanhumanist.org/humanism/humanist_manifesto_ii Humanist Manifesto II]</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins wants people to eat manufactured human lab meat to "overcome our taboo against cannibalism” ==
[[File:Richard Dawkins 2015.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|Richard Dawkins ]]
''LifeSite News'' declares:
{{Cquote|Richard Dawkins, the (in)famous [[atheist activist|atheism proselytizer]], has mused about eating human meat.

No, he doesn’t want to join the Donner Party. Researchers may soon be able to manufacture meat from cell lines in the lab, and Dawkins has suggested in a tweet that we could “overcome our taboo” by eating human flesh so manufactured.

What if human meat is grown? Could we overcome our taboo against cannibalism? An interesting test case for [[Consequentialism|consequentialist morality]] versus “yuck reaction” [[Objective morality|absolutism]].<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/2018/03/06/richard-dawkins-wants-to-eat-human-meat-to-overcome-our-taboo-against-cannibalism/ Richard Dawkins Wants to Eat Human “Meat” to “Overcome Our Taboo Against Cannibalism”], ''LifeSite News'', 2018</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins' bleak worldview ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism, agnosticism and pessimism]] and [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]] and [[Atheism and inspiration]]

According to Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."<ref>[http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richarddaw402494.html Richard Dawkins quote]</ref>

== Richard Dawkins and the religious rights of parents ==

''See also:'' [[Evangelical atheism]]

Richard Dawkins is commonly thought to be an [[Evangelical atheism|evangelical atheist]].<ref>[https://newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins] by John Gray, ''New Republic''</ref><ref>[https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2014/10/evangelical-atheism Evangelical Atheism] by Peter J. Leithart, First Things</ref><ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-stedman/evangelical-atheists-what_b_765379.html ‘Evangelical Atheists:’ Pushing For What?] by Chris Stedman, Huffington Post</ref>

Although evangelical atheists do not advocate the violent/murderous methods that the [[militant atheism|militant atheists]] of [[communism]] have employed, they generally favor using the power of state to indoctrinate children into believing various aspects of [[Atheist worldview|atheist ideology]] (see: [[Atheist indoctrination]]). The new atheist Richard Dawkins claims that children need state protection from religion/religion of children's parents.<ref>[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/richard-dawkins-the-government-needs-to-protect-children-from-religion-and Richard Dawkins: The state needs to ‘protect’ children from religion…and their parents], LifeSite News</ref>

== Richard Dawkins and the encouragement of atheist mockery ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and mockery]]

The new atheist Richard Dawkins has encouraged his supporters to go beyond humorous ridicule.<ref name="shadowtolight.wordpress.com">[https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/dawkins-mock-them-ridicule-them-in-public/ Dawkins: Mock them. Ridicule them! In public]</ref> He wrote, "I lately started to think that we need to go further: go beyond humorous ridicule, sharpen our barbs to a point where they really hurt."<ref name="shadowtolight.wordpress.com"/> For more information please see: [[Atheism and mockery]] and [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]]

== Richard Dawkins on the dissemination of pornography videos to theocratic societies ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles"]] and [[Atheism and pornography]]

On January 1, 2015, ''The Telegraph'' reported:
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins’ insanity has now become an English institution – like warm beer and rain. On Saturday morning, a tweet from his account asked why we don’t send lots of "erotic videos" to theocracies, adding that it should be “loving, gentle, woman-respecting” (I guess this involves the pizza delivery boy calling the next day). If we’re going down this road, I also hear that [[Islam]]ists aren’t very keen on bacon, so perhaps we should bombard the [[Iran]]ian countryside with pig carcasses? Also, miniature bottles of gin. And photos of hot guys making out – in a “men-respecting” and “gentle” sort of way.

After a few minutes of mockery, the tweet was deleted. Perhaps even he realised how utterly mad it was. Which suggests a degree of self-awareness that I didn’t think possible in Britain’s nuttiest professor.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11381529/Richard-Dawkins-wants-to-fight-Islamism-with-erotica.-Celebrity-atheism-has-lost-it.html Richard Dawkins wants to fight Islamism with erotica. Celebrity atheism has lost it] By Tim Stanley, ''The Telegraph'', January 1, 2015</ref>}}

{{See also|Atheism and pornography}}

== Atheists declaring that Richard Dawkins is now a liability to the atheist movement ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]] and [[Atheism and public relations]]

Although the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] Richard Dawkins was always known for [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|his abrasiveness]] and [[Atheism and arrogance|arrogance]], post [[Elevatorgate]] and subsequent to his various embarrassing Twitter posts, many atheists are now asking if he is a liability to the [[atheist movement]].<ref>
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/richard-dawkins-atheisms-asset-or-liability/2014/08/07/9f19a7a2-1e58-11e4-9b6c-12e30cbe86a3_story.html Richard Dawkins: Atheism’s asset or liability?] by Kimberly Winston, ''Washington Post'', source: ''Religion News Service'', August 7, 2014
*[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins''], New Republic by John Gray
*[https://twitter.com/jennifurret/status/405391218273554433 Jennifer McCreight on the Twitter about the Elevatorgate scandal]
*[http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/downs-syndrome-girl-passes-six-4095031 Down's Syndrome girl passes six GCSEs as dad calls Richard Dawkins 'an ignorant idiot'], Mirror by By Grace Macaskill, Aug 23, 2014 15:41
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/21/the-12-stages-of-a-richard-dawkins-twitter-scandal_n_5698443.html The 12-Stage 'Evolution' Of A Richard Dawkins Twitter Scandal] by Paul Vale, The Huffington Post UK, Posted: 22/08/2014 02:06 BST</ref>

See also:

*[[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]]

*[[Richard Dawkins quotes]]

*[[Decline of the atheist movement]]

== Richard Dawkins' cult of personality ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' cult of personality]] and [[Atheist cults]] and [[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Atheism and leadership]]

[[File:Vox Day.jpg|thumbnail|left|175px|[[Vox Day|Theodore Beale]] noted that the [[Richard Dawkins' cult of personality]] has some similarity to the cult of [[Scientology]].<ref name="The Cult of Dicky Dawkins">[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-cult-of-dicky-dawk.html The Cult of Dicky Dawkins]</ref> ]]
On August 16, 2014, Andrew Brown wrote an article for The Spectator entitled ''The bizarre – and costly – cult of Richard Dawkins'' which declared:
{{cquote|...the [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science website|Richard Dawkins website]] offers followers the chance to join the ‘Reason Circle’, which, like [[Dante]]’s [[Hell]], is arranged in concentric circles. For $85 a month, you get discounts on his merchandise, and the chance to meet ‘[[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science]] personalities’. Obviously that’s not enough to meet the man himself. For that you pay $210 a month — or $5,000 a year — for the chance to attend an event where he will speak...

But the $85 a month just touches the hem of rationality. After the neophyte passes through the successively more expensive ‘Darwin Circle’ and then the ‘Evolution Circle’, he attains the innermost circle, where for $100,000 a year or more he gets to have a private breakfast or lunch with Richard Dawkins, and a reserved table at an invitation-only circle event with ‘Richard’ as well as ‘all the benefits listed above’, so he still gets a discount on his Richard Dawkins T-shirt saying ‘Religion — together we can find a cure.’

The website suggests that donations of up to $500,000 a year will be accepted for the privilege of eating with him once a year: at this level of contribution you become a member of something called ‘The Magic of Reality Circle’. I don’t think any irony is intended.

At this point it is obvious to everyone except the participants that what we have here [[Atheist cults|is a religion]] without the good bits.<ref>[http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9286682/the-bizarre-and-costly-cult-of-richard-dawkins/ The bizarre – and costly – cult of Richard Dawkins], The Spectator, Andrew Brown 16 August 2014</ref>}}

[[Vox Day|Theodore Beale]] noted that the Richard Dawkins cult has some similarity to the cult of [[Scientology]].<ref name="The Cult of Dicky Dawkins"/>
Dawkins was one of the founders of the New Atheism movement. The [[New Atheism]] movement, which has waned in recent years, was called a cult by the [[agnosticism|agnostic]], journalist Bryan Appleyard in a 2012 article in the ''New Statesman'' in which he describes the abusive behavior of New Atheists.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2012/02/neo-atheism-atheists-dawkins ''The God wars'' by Bryan Appleyard], ''New Statesman''</ref> Although the New Atheism movement does not perfectly fit the various characteristics of a cult, it does fit some of the characteristics.<ref>[http://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/how-cultish-is-new-atheism/ How cultish is the New Atheism?]</ref>

See also: [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science|Richard Dawkins's Foundation and an embezzlement allegation]] and [[Atheist nonprofit scandals]]

==Abrasive demeanor of Richard Dawkins==

''See also:'' [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins]] and [[Richard Dawkins and anger]] and [[Atheism and leadership]]

Richard Dawkins has a reputation for being an aggressive and angry man (see: [[Richard Dawkins and anger]]).

Atheist author and [[sociology]] professor Phil Zuckerman said of Dawkins: "He is smug, condescending and emits an unpleasant disdainfulness. He doesn’t ever seem to acknowledge the good aspects of religion, only the bad. In that sense, I think he doesn’t help atheism in the PR department."<ref>[http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/58271839-80/dawkins-atheism-atheist-rape.html.csp Richard Dawkins: Atheism’s asset or liability?] By KIMBERLY WINSTON, ''Religion News Service''</ref> See also: [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Richard Dawkins quotes]]

[[Gary Demar]] commenting on the abrasiveness and incivility of Richard Dawkins quotes Dawkins stating the following:
[[Image:Mohler.jpg‎|thumbnail|200px|right|Dr. R. [[Albert Mohler]] Jr.]]
{{cquote|It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in [[theory of evolution|evolution]], that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).}}

Dr. R. [[Albert Mohler]], Jr. has echoed Mr. Demar's estimation of Richard Dawkins and has stated regarding Richard Dawkins the following:
{{cquote|His aggressiveness and abrasiveness have now prompted some of his fellow defenders of evolution to wonder if he is doing their cause more harm than good.

The September 2005 issue of Discover magazine features an article that raises this very question. In "Darwin's Rottweiler," author Stephen S. Hall suggests that Dawkins is simply "far too fierce."....

Dawkins admits that he just may be "a bit of a loose canon." In reality, that is a significant understatement.<ref>Mohler, R. Albert, Jr. (September 9, 2005). [http://www.christianpost.com/news/darwin-s-rottweiler-richard-dawkins-speaks-his-mind-6434/ "Darwin's rottweiler--Richard Dawkins speaks his mind"]. The Christian Post website. Retrieved on October 19, 2014.</ref>}}

In addition, Richard Dawkins appears to have had struggles maintaining marital harmony in his life and three of his three marriages have ended in divorce (see also: [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]]).

In September 2010, Richard Dawkins became nasty towards a woman in an audience he spoke before.<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/richard-dawkins-i-never-meet-people-who-disagree-with-me-2080451.html Richard Dawkins: 'I never meet people who disagree with me', ''The Independent'' by reporter Andy McSmith, Thursday 16 September 2010]</ref>

Furthermore, Dawkins has developed a reputation for being angry (see: [[Richard Dawkins and anger]]).

=== The film documentary The Atheist Delusion features a humorless Richard Dawkins who is the object of audience laughter ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and humor]]

The movie ''[[The Atheist Delusion]]'' features Richard Dawkins being the object of audience laughter due to something unreasonable he said.<ref name="M The Atheist Delusion Movie 2016">[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChWiZ3iXWwM The Atheist Delusion Movie (2016) HD]</ref> Dawkins indignantly asked the audience, "Why is that funny?".<ref name="M The Atheist Delusion Movie 2016"/>

== Dogmatic arrogance of Richard Dawkins ==

''See:'' [[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Atheism and arrogance]] and [[Atheism and intolerance]]

Using special text analysis software, the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt found that [[New Atheism|New Atheists]], such as Richard Dawkins, very often wrote in dogmatic terms in their major works using words such as “always,” “never,” “certainly,” “every,” and “undeniable.”<ref>[http://www.thisviewoflife.com/index.php/magazine/articles/why-sam-harris-is-unlikely-to-change-his-mind10 Why Sam Harris is Unlikely to Change his Mind] by JONATHAN HAIDT, February 3, 2014 8:36 pm</ref>

Yet, the works of New Atheists, including Richard Dawkins, often betray an amateurish knowledge of philosophy, religion and science. For example, [[Vox Day]]'s book ''[http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf The Irrational atheist]'' found multiple errors in reasoning and factual errors when it came to the works of New Atheist authors.<ref>[http://creation.com/review-irrational-atheist-by-vox-day Excellent refutation of ‘new atheists’ flawed by heterodox open theism], A review of The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens by Vox Day, Benbella Books, Dallas, TX, 2008, reviewed by Lita Cosner</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]]

=== Atheist philosopher John Gray on the dogmatic arrogance of Richard Dawkins ===

[[File:John Gray.JPG|thumbnail|left|200px|The [[economist]] Tomáš Sedláček (left) and the [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] [[John Gray (philosopher)|John Gray]] (right) at ZURICH.MINDS 2012]]
In a 2014 New Republic article entitled ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins: His atheism is its own kind of narrow religion'', the atheist philosopher [[John Gray (philosopher)|John Gray]] wrote:
{{cquote|One might wager a decent sum of money that it has never occurred to Dawkins that to many people he appears as a comic figure. His default mode is one of rational indignation—a stance of withering patrician disdain for the untutored mind of a kind one might expect in a schoolmaster in a minor public school sometime in the 1930s. He seems to have no suspicion that any of those he despises could find his stilted pose of indignant rationality merely laughable. “I am not a good observer,” he writes modestly. He is referring to his observations of animals and plants, but his weakness applies more obviously in the case of humans. Transfixed in wonderment at the workings of his own mind, Dawkins misses much that is of importance in human beings—himself and others.<ref name="newrepublic.com">[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins ''The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins''], New Republic by John Gray</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins' comment about aborting Down syndrome babies ==

''See also:'' [[Abortion and atheism]] and [[Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social intelligence]] and [[Eugenics]]

In August 2014, Richard Dawkins caused a firestorm by claiming an unborn baby with [[Down's Syndrome|Down’s syndrome]] should be aborted and that it would be “immoral to bring it into the world.”<ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/20/Atheist-Richard-Dawkins-Abort-Down-s-Syndrome-Baby-Immoral-To-Bring-It-Into-The-World Atheist Richard Dawkins: 'Abort' Down's Syndrome Baby, 'Immoral To Bring It Into The World'] by by Dr. Susan Berry, Breitbart News 20 Aug 2014</ref> Dr. Michael Brown wrote in the ''Christian Post'' about this matter: "It is becoming increasingly clear that Dawkins is something of an embarrassment, even to other atheists (although he is still revered by many). The only question that remains is this: Are his irrational and immoral positions unique to him, or are they the logical outcome of his Darwinian evolutionism?"<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-exposes-the-immorality-of-his-atheism-125159/ Richard Dawkins Exposes the Immorality of His Atheism By Michael Brown, ''Christian Post'', August 21, 2014|10:15 am]</ref> See also: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]]

A British father whose Down's syndrome daughter passed six General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) tests called Richard Dawkins an "ignorant idiot".<ref>[http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/downs-syndrome-girl-passes-six-4095031 Down's Syndrome girl passes six GCSEs as dad calls Richard Dawkins 'an ignorant idiot'], Mirror by By Grace Macaskill, Aug 23, 2014 15:41</ref>

== Martin Robbins at ''New Statesman'': Dawkins grasping for attention and relevance ==

In 2013, Martin Robbins wrote in the ''New Statesman'' concerning the public persona of Dawkins: "Increasingly though, his public output resembles that of a man desperately grasping for attention and relevance..."<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2013/08/atheism-maturing-and-it-will-leave-richard-dawkins-behind Atheism is maturing, and it will leave Richard Dawkins behind]</ref>

Recently, Richard Dawkins has been reduced to Tweeting provocative Twitter posts in order to gain attention. After the predictable ensuing uproar, Dawkins half-heartedly apologizes for the provocative Tweets.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/21/the-12-stages-of-a-richard-dawkins-twitter-scandal_n_5698443.html The 12-Stage 'Evolution' Of A Richard Dawkins Twitter Scandal], By Paul Vale, The Huffington Post UK, Posted: 22/08/2014 02:06 BST</ref>
== Richard Dawkins' loss of influence post Elevatatorgate and other controversies ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]] and [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]] and [[Internet atheism]]

As can be seen by the graph below, by means of embedded code on his website from Quantcast, Quantcast directly measured the web traffic of Richard Dawkins' website. Traffic to Dawkins website is significantly down post-[[Elevatorgate]]. See also: [[Internet atheism]]

Although his following of Dawkian atheist has significantly waned post-Elevatorgate and due to his generally [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|abrasive manner]], he does retain a small cult following (See: [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]] and [[Richard Dawkins' cult of personality]] and [[Atheist cults]]).

Furthermore, the New Atheism movement has greatly waned in terms of its prominence (see: [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]]).

=== Initial loss of web traffic to Richard Dawkins's website post Elevatorgate ===
[[File:Richard Dawkins web traffic 12-23-12.png|thumbnail|center|775px|According to the web traffic tracking company [[Quantcast]], the web traffic of Richard Dawkins' website fell in 2012.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/12/2012-has-been-bad-year-for-richard.html 2012 has been a very BAD year for Richard Dawkins's website according to Quantcast]</ref> By October 2014, the web traffic for his website fell to a lower level according to Quantcast.<ref>[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2014/10/richard-dawkins-loss-of-influence.html Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]</ref>

 
 
In October of 2012, [[Rebecca Watson]] published a story about Elevatorgate and its aftermath in ''Slate'' entitled, ''It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too: I spoke out about sexual harassment among atheists and scientists. Then came the rape threats''.<ref>[http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/10/sexism_in_the_skeptic_community_i_spoke_out_then_came_the_rape_threats.html It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too: I spoke out about sexual harassment among atheists and scientists. Then came the rape threats] by Rebecca Watson, ''Slate'', October 2012</ref>
 
 
The web traffic was measured via [[Quantcast]] which directly measured Dawkins' website traffic via embedded code on his website.<ref name="Quantcast - Quantcast Measure">[https://www.quantcast.com/measure/ Quantcast - Quantcast Measure]</ref>]]

=== Web traffic of Richard Dawkins' website has seen a dramatic drop ===
[[File:Richard Dawkins' website traffic.jpg|500px|thumbnail|center|The above graph shows the monthly website traffic to Richard Dawkins' website as of June 22, 2015 in terms of unique monthly web visitors.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2015/06/web-traffic-of-richard-dawkins-main.html Web traffic of Richard Dawkins' main website]</ref> As you can see above, in 2012, Richard Dawkins saw a very large decrease in web traffic.
 
 
The website traffic is measured via [[Quantcast]] which directly measures Dawkins' website traffic via embedded code on his website.<ref name="Quantcast - Quantcast Measure"/>]]

=== Alexa ranking of Richard Dawkins' website ===

''See also:'' [[Alexa rankings of Richard Dawkins' website]]

[[File:Richarddawkins.net alexa.png|thumbnail|center|400px|According to [[Alexa]], Richard Dawkins website lost a large amount of its global market share during to period between 2010 and the beginning portion of 2012.]]
{{Clear}}
[[File:Richard Dawkins alexa 2016.png|thumbnail|center|400px|In 2015, Richard Dawkins' website fell in terms of its Alexa ranking.]]
{{Clear}}
[[File:Richarddawkins.net alexa 10-2106.png|thumbnail|center|400px|In 2016, Richard Dawkins' website lost a considerable amount of global market share according to the web traffic tracking company [[Alexa]].]]
{{Clear}}
[[File:Richard dawkins website alexa April 2017.png|thumbnail|center|400px|In April of 2017, according to Alexa, Richard Dawkins' website continued to experience a steep decline in terms of its global market share.]]
{{Clear}}
[[File:Richard dawkins alexa 10-27-2017.png|thumbnail|center|400px|On November 27, 2017, Richard Dawkins' website was the 158,206th most popular website in the world.
 
 
His website was losing global market share in the latter quarter of 2017.]]
{{clear}}

=== Coverage of Richard Dawkins speaking tour ===

In 2016, the Shadow To Light blog wrote in article entitled ''Fading Dawkins'':
{{Cquote|Dawkins has been on a speaking tour recently in the United States. On Nov 1 and 2, he had a “public conversation” with [[Sam Harris]].

In the golden years of [[New Atheism|Gnu]], there would have been a couple of news reports about this talk filled with some click-bait quote and I’d probably be blogging about something they said. But despite Dawkins’ return to the speaker circuit, and despite him teaming up with Sam Harris for two days, I can’t find a single report. No one outside that theater is interested in what two of the Four Horsemen had to say.

Look, Dawkins and Harris will always have their place among the [[Madalyn Murray O'Hair|Madalyn Murray O’Hair]] crowd. But as far as breaking out into the mainstream is concerned, the fad has run its course.<ref>[https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2016/11/03/the-fading-dawkins/ ''Fading Dawkins'']</ref>}}

== Survey of scientists: Richard Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists ==
[[File:Richard Dawkins Stockholm.JPG|thumbnail|right|250px|Richard Dawkins]]

''See also:'' [[Atheism and science]]

''The Independent'' reported:
{{Cquote|British scientists who mentioned Richard Dawkins during a recent study seem mostly to dislike him, with some arguing that he misrepresents science and is misleading the public.

Criticism of the British evolutionary biologist came up repeatedly in a new study looking at public understanding of science and how scientists feel that they are portrayed in the media – despite respondents never actually being asked about him. The research was published in a recent edition of Public Understandings of Science as part of a broader study looking at how scientists feel about religion.

As part of the study, the researchers conducted a survey of over 20,000 scientists from eight countries. In the UK, the researchers surveyed 1,581 randomly sampled scientists. They then spoke to 137 of them for in-depth interviews to see what they thought.

Though Dawkins wasn’t a part of the interview process, and researchers didn’t ask about him, 48 of the 137 British scientists they spoke to mentioned Dawkins. Of those 48 that referenced him, 80 per cent said they thought that Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public speeches, according to the study by Rice University, Texas.<ref>[British scientists don't like Richard Dawkins, finds study that didn't even ask questions about Richard Dawkins] by Andrew Griffin, The Independent, 2016</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins, pseudoscience, and other errors ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]] and [[Irreligion and superstition]]

Within the [[evolution]]ary science community and the [[creation science]] community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in [[pseudoscience]] and also has faced charges of committing elementary errors.<ref name="truefreethinker.com">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref><ref>http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php</ref>

The website [[True Free Thinker]] notes:
{{cquote|Moreover, note that with regards to “assertions without adequate evidence” evolutionary biologist and geneticist, Prof. [[Richard Lewontin]], referenced [[Carl Sagan]]’s list of the “best contemporary science-popularizers” which includes Richard Dawkins. These authors have, as Lewontin puts it, “put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.” Lewontin specifically mentions “Dawkins’s vulgarizations of Darwinism” (find details [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/how-billions-demons-haunted-baloney-while-avoiding-detection here]).

Even renowned evolutionary biologists H. Allen Orr, David Sloan Wilson, and Massimo Pigliucci have called into question the power that Dawkins once had as an intellectual, since he has made elementary errors in ''[[The God Delusion]]''.<ref name="truefreethinker.com">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref>}}
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|160px|A Baylor University study found that the irreligious are more likely to be [[superstitious]] than evangelical [[Christians]].<ref name="online.wsj.com"/>]]

In 2010, a new discovery relating to the [[eye]] further discredited the [[evolution]]ary quackery of Richard Dawkins.<ref>http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins</ref> In addition, in 2010, the journal ''Nature'' featured an interview with the evolutionist, biologist, and atheist David Sloan Wilson who criticized Richard Dawkins for denying the evidence for the societal benefits of religion (see also: [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health]]).<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/atheism-as-a-stealth-reli_3_b_83605.html</ref>

As far as the the social science of [[history]], Richard Dawkins has [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism|engaged in historical revisionism when it comes to the mass murders committed by atheists]].

Many of Richard Dawkins detractors are [[conservative]] [[Christianity|Christians]] which is not surprising. As alluded to earlier, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians."<ref name="online.wsj.com"/> In the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].<ref name="cbsnews.com">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref>

== Agnosticism of Richard Dawkins ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism]] and [[Atheism, agnosticism and flip-flopping]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

Although Dawkins declared himself an agnostic in his 2006 book ''The God Delusion'', he declared that atheist evangelism is important.<ref name="voxday.blogspot.com">[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html Mailvox: Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!]</ref> Author [[Vox Day]] wrote concerning this matter, "While the fact that Dawkins declared himself a literal agnostic in the very book in which he declared the importance of atheist evangelism is both ironic and incoherent, it will surprise no one who has read the chapter of ''The Irrational Atheist'' entitled "Darwin's Judas".<ref name="voxday.blogspot.com"/> Also, despite being an elderly self-declared agnostic, in his book ''The God Delusion'', Dawkins said that "permanent agnosticism in principle" is "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice".<ref>''The God Delusion'', page 70</ref> In February 2012, Dawkins declared that he believed that there is a 6.9 out of 7 probability of [[God]]'s non-existence (approximately a 1 percent probability that God exist).<ref name="voxday.blogspot.com"/><ref name="blogs.telegraph.co.uk">[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100139859/id-go-to-church-just-to-reduce-the-probability-of-spending-eternity-in-hell-with-richard-dawkins/ ''I'd go to church just to reduce the probability of spending eternity in Hell with Richard Dawkins'' by Dr. Tim Stanley, ''The Daily Telegraph'', February 27, 2012]</ref>

Although Dawkins declared that he was an [[agnosticism|agnostic]] in 2006 and 2012, in 2002 Richard Dawkins publicly argued for the position of [[militant atheism]] and claimed that he will not feel anything after death (see also: [[Ex-atheists]]).<ref name="voxday.blogspot.com"/><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3_rGbiT_3c Richard Dawkins Says He's Agnostic -- NOT atheist - video testimony of Richard Dawkins saying he is not an atheist, but an agnostic]</ref><ref>
*[http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html Richard Dawkins on militant atheism]</ref> Despite arguing for the position of militant atheism previously, Dawkins told the Archbishop Dr. [[Rowan Williams]] that he never said was an atheist.<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic], ''Daily Mail'', 24 February 2012</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW429E4 Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist]</ref><ref>[http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html Richard Dawkins on militant atheism]</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism]] and [[Atheism and historical revisionism]]

The historian Dr. Tim Stanley wrote that he believed Dawkins is taking a foolish gamble and Dawkins is risking spending an eternity in [[hell]].<ref name="blogs.telegraph.co.uk"/> Dr. Don Batten, a scientist at [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote that despite Richard Dawkins' skeptical protestations, Dawkins appears to be a [[God]]-hater.<ref>[http://creation.com/is-richard-dawkins-an-atheist Is Richard Dawkins an atheist? by Dr. Don Batten]</ref>

=== Criticism of fairies at the bottom of the garden analogy ===
[[File:Fairy-md.png|thumbnail|200px|left|On July 18, 2012, a supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] showed the folly of Richard Dawkins' comparison of fairies at the bottom of the garden to the issue of God's existence. According to Dawkins' faulty and irrational analogy, there is about a 1% chance that fairies are at the bottom of the garden.<ref name="questionevolution.blogspot.com">[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-does-richard-dawkins-have-such-high.html Why does Richard Dawkins have such a high belief in the possibility of fairies being at the bottom of the garden?]</ref>]]
A supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] wrote:
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins wrote in his book the God Delusion: "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden" (God Delusion, page 74). In addition, Dawkins said in his book the God Delusion that on a 7 point scale of being sure that God does not exists: "I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7."

In 2012, in video recorded discussion with Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury, Richard Dawkins said he was 6.9 out of 7 of sure that God does not exist and counted himself as an agnostic.

A 6.9 out of 7 would mean that Richard Dawkins believes there is about a .986 percent chance that God exists. In short, according to Dawkins, there is about a 1% chance that God exists.

Since Richard Dawkins likened God's existence to fairies being at the bottom of the garden, why does Dawkins believe there is about a 1% chance that fairies are at the bottom of the garden?

Dawkins is either being disingenuous or he is being irrational or a combination of both is occurring. Anyone who gives weight to Dawkins' views on the existence of God or his views on the creation vs. evolution controversy is obviously displaying bad judgement.

Sin is very irrational. Dr. Don Batten, a scientist at Creation Ministries International, wrote that despite Richard Dawkins' skeptical protestations, Dawkins appears to be a God-hater. This seems to be the best description of Dawkins' behavior.

It really comes as no surprise that Dawkins has been noticeably quiet about the
[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists of the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]. He obviously cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions.<ref name="questionevolution.blogspot.com">[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-does-richard-dawkins-have-such-high.html Why does Richard Dawkins have such a high belief in the possibility of fairies being at the bottom of the garden?]</ref>}}

=== Publisher's notice of his upcoming book and the issue of inconsistency and flip-flopping ===

On June 5, 2012, the ''Christian'' Post reported:
{{cquote|Famed atheist and scientist Richard Dawkins has set out to write a new book that will focus on his own evolution toward the path of atheism.

"Dawkins will tell the story of his own intellectual evolution, explaining how his groundbreaking work as a scientist led to his work as an atheist," states Dawkins' new publisher HarperCollins' Ecco. The book has not yet been given a title, but is expected to be on bookshelves by 2014.<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-next-book-to-focus-on-personal-path-toward-atheism-76099/ Richard Dawkins' Next Book to Focus on Personal Path Toward Atheism]</ref>}}

In response a supporter of the Question evolution! campaign wrote in an article entitled ''Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy'':
[[File:Flip-flops.png|thumbnail|right|200px|The article ''Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy'' written by a supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] wrote: "Christians should call Dawkins on his disingenuous [[Flip-flop (politics)|flip-flopping]] if his publisher continues to promote the book as a book focusing on his journey to atheism without mentioning the fact that Dawkins is presently an agnostic who has rejected atheism."<ref name="ReferenceA">[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/atheism-is-rudderless-and-unseaworthy.html Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy]</ref>]]
{{cquote|The publisher's notice of the upcoming book using the term "atheist" can be found on several other prominent internet properties besides the ''Christian Post'' such as ''Publishers Weekly'', ''The Blaze,'' ''Christianity Today'' and ''Galleycat'' (''Galleycat'' is on the Media Bistro domain).

First, Richard Dawkins has gone from being [http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html a militant atheist] to being [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html an agnostic].

Vox Day [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/mailvox-richard-dawkins-is-not-atheist.html wrote] about Dawkins' inconsistency when it comes to the issues of atheism and agnosticism...

Christians should call Dawkins on his disingenuous [[Flip-flop (politics)|flip-flopping]] if his publisher continues to promote the book as a book focusing on his journey to atheism without mentioning the fact that Dawkins is presently an agnostic who has rejected atheism.

An author calling himself an atheist or a publisher giving the impression that someone is an atheist may sell more books as it is more provocative, but it isn't intellectually honest if the author has rejected atheism and is an agnostic. If Dawkins claims to be an agnostic who is unsure if God exist or not, then he should clearly communicate this to the public and so should his publisher. Dawkins has been unreasonable as far as his alleged agnosticism and I recommend reading the article ''Why does Richard Dawkins have such a high belief in the possibility of fairies being at the bottom of the garden?''

Given the weakness of his argumentation and the vitriol which often accompanies it, I agree with Dr. Don Batten that the weight of the evidence points to Dawkins being a God-hater.<ref name="ReferenceA">[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/atheism-is-rudderless-and-unseaworthy.html Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy]</ref>}}

==== Title of the book ''The God Delusion'' displayed odd and inconsistent behavior ====

A July 25, 2012 article entitled ''Is Richard Dawkins a flip-flopper'' declared:
{{cquote|Another reason why Dawkins displays odd behavior in reference to the atheism and agnosticism issue is that he titled a recent book of his ''The God Delusion''. Obviously, this is an odd title for an agnostic author to name a book - especially one who asserts there is about a 1% chance that God exist in his estimation. This odd behavior leads me to the conclusion that the reason the book was titled ''The God Delusion'' was for crass marketing reasons as it is more provocative title which would grab more press headlines and sell more books.

Think about it. If there was a 1% chance that something existed, would you call your neighbor delusional if he believed it existed? No, you would not. Sure, you would think the odds are against your neighbor in terms of his belief, but you would not think he is delusional. The term delusional is generally used in connection with ideas that are insane to believe due to there being overwhelming evidence to the contrary.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-richard-dawkins-flipflopper.html Is Richard Dawkins a flip-flopper?]</ref>}}

== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped==
[[File:Richard Dawkins stumped.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins stumped|thumbnail|200px|left|The video ''From a Frog to a Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]], features Richard Dawkins being stumped by the question of a creationist.<ref name="creation.com">http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again</ref> The interviewer asked Dawkins for an example of [[genetics|genetic]] [[information]] arising from a [[mutation]].<ref name="creation.com"/> Recently, a creationist produced an excellent [[YouTube]] video demonstrating the Richard Dawkins still has not answered the question posed to him by the interviewer and he uses Richard Dawkins own words to demonstrate this fact.<ref name="youtube.com">[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo YouTube video - Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!]</ref>]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]] and [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]] and [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates]]

In 2008, a video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public, showing Dawkins <ref name="stumped">[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).</ref>
[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ being stumped] by a question from the creationist interviewer.
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation.

In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped, but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.<ref>[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]</ref> However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.<ref>[http://creationontheweb.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]</ref>
However, despite being given a free reign in a sceptic publication to respond, he still didn't provide any examples. Recently, a creationist produced an excellent [[YouTube]] video demonstrating the Richard Dawkins still has not answered the question posed to him by the interviewer and he uses Richard Dawkins own words to demonstrate this fact.<ref name="youtube.com"/> The [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo video] can be found at [[YouTube]] and is entitled ''Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!''

As noted earlier, Dr. Don Batten of [[Creation Ministries International]] theorizes that Richard Dawkins is a God hater and not a skeptic.<ref>http://creation.com/is-richard-dawkins-an-atheist</ref> The video in which Richard Dawkins [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ clearly squirms] when asked for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation and dodges the question with an unrelated monologue, certainly gives some credence to Dr. Batten's postulate. Richard Dawkins inept response relating to the existence of God during his interview with Ben Stein further bolsters the view that Richard Dawkins is more motivated by hatred towards God than any inward assurance Dawkins has concerning the validity of his skeptical contentions.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rgtN0pCMQ VIDEO] There is certainly historical precedence for evolutionists/atheists having inward doubts about the validity of evolution and atheism. The evolutionist [[Charles Darwin]] wrote in a private notebook that he was a [[materialism|materialist]] (a type of atheist).<ref>http://creation.com/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it</ref> Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>

Richard Dawkins [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|has been inconsistent concerning his supposed refusal to debate creationists]] and his refusal is merely a ruse to avoid losing debates to creation scientists. Generally speaking, [[Creation science|creationist scientists]] tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]).

==Dawkins' comment concerning Adolf Hitler==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]] and [[Richard Dawkins and morality]] and [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]]
[[File:Hitler.jpg|thumb|206px|right|The [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism|and agnostic]] Richard Dawkins said in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."<ref name=Hitler /> ]]
As noted earlier, when asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the [[Muslim]] [extremists] aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the [[Bible]]. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the [[Sabbath]]."<ref name="Hitler"/>

The interviewer wrote in response, "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own [[philosophy|philosophical]] position [[Atheism and morality|did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments.]] His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."<ref name=Hitler />

For additional information, please see:

*[[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]]

*[[Atheists, Adolf Hitler and the no true Scottsman fallacy]]

== Accusations of cowardice ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and debate]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Atheism vs. Christianity debates]]
[[Image:Billcraig_czvx.jpg‎‎|thumb|left|200px|Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] ]]

As far as Christianity vs. atheism public debates, in recent years there have been a number of notable instances of atheists being reluctant to debate and doing poorly in debates (see: [[Atheism vs. Christianity debates]]).

Richard Dawkins has established a reputation [[Richard Dawkins and debate|for avoiding debates]] with his strongest opponents. On May 14, 2011, the [[Great Britain|British]] newspaper ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' published a news story entitled ''Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God''.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', May 14, 2011</ref> In ''The Daily Telegraph'' article Dr. [[Daniel Came]], a member of the Faculty of [[Philosophy]] at Oxford University, was quoted as writing to fellow atheist Richard Dawkins concerning his refusal to debate Dr. [[William Lane Craig]]: "The absence of a debate with the foremost [[Christian apologetics|apologist]] for [[Christianity|Christian]] [[theism]] is a glaring omission on your [[Curriculum vitae|CV]] and is of course apt to be interpreted as [[cowardice]] on your part."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Richard Dawkins accused of [[cowardice]] for refusing to debate existence of God], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', May 14, 2011</ref>

In October 2011, Dr. Craig went to England and the Daily Telegraph declared that Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for his refusal to debate William Lane Craig plus declared that Dawkins is a "proud man" and a "coward" who puts on an "illiterate, angry schtick" for the public.<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100112626/richard-dawkins-is-either-a-fool-or-a-coward-for-refusing-to-debate-william-lane-craig/ Richard Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for refusing to debate William Lane Craig - October 21, 2011 - ''The Daily Telegraph'']</ref> In addition, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[True Free Thinker|Ken Ammi]] called Dawkins a "cowardly clown" because Dawkins and other prominent skeptics/atheists refused to debate [[Creation Ministries International]] at the 2010 Global Atheist Convention.<ref>[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown Richard Dawkins, the Cowardly Clown]</ref> For more information please see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]

Richard Dawkins is known for his vehement and sometimes vitriolic promotion of [[weak atheism]] and the evolutionary paradigm. Dawkins has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect. Mr. Dawkins currently resides in the [[UK]]. He was an assistant professor of Zoology at the [[University of California, Berkeley]] for two years before becoming a zoology researcher at [[Oxford]].

== Richard Dawkins lost a debate to a rabbi and then denied the debate ever took place ==
[[Image:2402173645 c8e6168fe7.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|200px|right|Richard Dawkins,]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]] and [[Atheism and Debate]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]

As briefly noted earlier Richard Dawkins had a debate with Rabbi [[Shmuley Boteach]]. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach was named the London Times Preacher of the Year 2000 and is the author of 20 books.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>

Recently Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote:
{{cquote|...Dawkins attacked me on his website and denied that he and I had ever debated. My office quickly posted the full footage of a two hour debate which took place on October 23, 1996, a debate which Dawkins actually lost after a vote taken by the students as to which side, science or religion, caused more students to change their minds. In my article on the subject responding to his attack I was extremely respectful of Dr. Dawkins and was therefore shocked to receive a letter in return in which he accused me of speaking like Hitler. Had the noted scientist lost his mind? Hitler? Was this for real?<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>}}

[[WorldNetDaily]] offers the following quotes of Rabbi Boteach about debate and the initial denial by Dawkins that the debate never took place:
{{cquote|That is a particularly bold untruth. Our debate, which took place at St. Catherine's College, Oxford on Oct. 23, 1996, attracted hundreds of students and featured, on the atheist side, Prof. Dawkins and chemistry Prof. Peter Atkins, and on the religion side, me and Prof. Keith Ward, Oxford's Regius Professor of Divinity. Student president Josh Wine was in the chair," the rabbi explained.

"In a vote at the end of the debate as to how many students had changed their minds after hearing the arguments, Dawkin's side was defeated and religion prevailed, which might account for his selective memory," he wrote.<ref name="wnd.com">http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref>}}
[[File:Shmuley Boteach.jpg|thumbnail|150px|left|[[Shmuley Boteach]] ]]
Rabbi Boteach reported at Beliefnet:
{{cquote|I also gave Dr. Dawkins the opportunity to even score by accepting a further debate, at the time and place of his choosing (within reason, of course), to which he has yet to respond.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref>}}

A video of the debate that Dawkins lost to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is available at Rabbi Schely Boteach's website.

A supporter of the [[Question evolution campaign]] wrote:
{{cquote|We don't believe a word Richard Dawkins says and for good reason. For example, he claimed to have never debated Rabbi Schmuley Boteach, but then he had to admit a debate took place as it was videotaped. According to the student audience, the rabbi won the debate as he convinced more students of the validity of his position concerning the existence of God.

Furthermore, an angry and embarrassed Dawkins then claimed the rabbi shrieked like Adolf Hitler. Now tell me, how do you forget a debate with a rabbi who supposedly shrieks like Adolf Hitler? Obviously, Dawkins exposed himself for the clown and fraud he is.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/richard-dawkins-and-rabbi-shmuley.html Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach debate ]</ref>}}

== Richard Dawkins and radio appearances ==

=== Richard Dawkins' radio debate with Giles Fraser ===
[[File:Giles Frasier.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Giles Frasier]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' debate with Giles Fraser]] and [[Richard Dawkins quotes]]

On February 19, 2012 ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported:
{{cquote|...some critics of Dawkins branded him "an embarrassment to atheism" after what many listeners considered a humiliation in a Radio 4 debate with Giles Fraser, formerly Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, in which the professor boasted he could recite the full title of [[Charles Darwin]]'s "[[The Origin of Species]]", then when challenged, dithered and said: "Oh God."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9091007/Slaves-at-the-root-of-the-fortune-that-created-Richard-Dawkins-family-estate.html Slaves at the root of the fortune that created Richard Dawkins' family estate, The Daily Telegragh, February 19, 2012]</ref>}}

On February 14, 2012, ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported regarding the radio debate:
{{cquote|Dr. Fraser skewered the atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins so fabulously, so stylishly, and so thoroughly that anti-religion’s high priest was reduced to incoherent mumbling and spluttering.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9082059/For-once-Richard-Dawkins-is-lost-for-words.html For once, Richard Dawkins is lost for words - Atheists’ arrogance is their Achilles’ heel, as a cringemaking radio performance has proved By Stephen Pollard, Feb 14, 2012]</ref>}}

[[Vox Day]] wrote concerning the embarrassing incident for Dawkins:
{{cquote|As I have said repeatedly, Richard Dawkins is a huge intellectual fraud, and perhaps those who previously expressed incredulity at the idea that I would quite easily trounce the old charlatan in a debate will find it just a bit more credible now. This behavior isn't an outlier or a momentary lapse of memory, it is entirely characteristic. The man quite frequently pretends to knowledge that he patently does not possess and assumes he knows things that he obviously does not, which is why he avoids debate with those who are aware of his intellectual pretensions and are capable of exposing them.

It's bad enough that Dawkins couldn't come up with the name of what he considers to be the most important book ever written immediately after claiming he could do so, but in addition to stumbling a little on the subtitle, he even forgot the rather important part of the title that refers to the actual mechanism supposedly responsible!<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html Richard Dawkins, sans pants, Wednesday, February 15, 2012]</ref>}}

(The full title of Charles Darwin's book is ''On the [[The Origin of Species]] by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'' and evolutionists rarely cite the book's full title which is racist. See: [[Evolutionary racism]])
=== Scott Simon of National Public Radio: Interview of Richard Dawkins ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and charity]] and [[Atheism and love]]

Scott Simon of [[National Public Radio]] (NPR): "I have covered a lot of wars, famines and tragedies. And it seems to me, truly every theatre of suffering I have ever been to, there is a dauntless nun, priest, clergy or religious person, who is working very selflessly and bravery there for the good of human beings. But I don't run into [[Atheist movement|organized atheists]] who do this.

Richard Dawkins: "Perhaps there is not enough of them."...

Scott Simon, NPR: "But I do wonder am I just not seeing the world correctly to see large numbers of well-motivated atheists lending their lives to trying to better the world... If I might put it this way, are they just more concerned about being right intellectually."<ref>[http://www.npr.org/2017/05/27/530337283/richard-dawkins-on-terrorism-and-religion Richard Dawkins On Terrorism And Religion]</ref>

== New Atheism ==
[[File:Christopher Hitchens.jpg|right|thumb|200px|[[Christopher Hitchens]] ]]
''See also:'' [[New Atheism]] and [[Causes of the New Atheism movement]]

The term [[New Atheism]] which first appeared in the November 2006 edition of ''Wired'' magazine, is used to describe a new incarnation of [[militant atheism]] and also frequently applied to a series of six best-selling books by five authors that appeared in the period between 2004–2008. These authors include Richard Dawkins, [[Christopher Hitchens]], [[Sam Harris]], [[Daniel Dennett]] and [[Victor J. Stenger]].<ref>http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/battle.html</ref> The four most prominent writers of the New Atheist movement are Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

The New Atheism movement was a reaction the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] on Manhattan and also due to [[Antitheism|antitheist]] anger over the failure of the [[secularization thesis]] (the secularization thesis wrongly predicted that religion would fade away and it also did not predict the [[Desecularization|resurgence of religion]] in much of the world).<ref>[This just in from Oxford Press: Turning the intellectual tables on 'New Atheists'] by Richard Osling</ref><ref>[http://www.catalystresources.org/reflections-on-the-new-atheism/ Reflections on the New Atheism] by Alister McGrath</ref>

For more information, please see: [[Causes of the New Atheism movement]]

=== Impact of the New Atheism ===

''See also:'' [[Desecularization]] and [[Decline of the atheist movement]]

New Atheism has not had much of an impact in terms of gaining new adherents to [[atheism]]. In a March 10, 2008 [[USA Today]] article Stephen Prothero stated the following regarding the impact of the "New Atheism":
{{cquote|Numbers lie, but they also tell tales untrustworthy and otherwise. So the key question stirring around the much discussed U.S Religious Landscape Survey released in late February by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life is what tale does it state about the state of the union.

For some, the story of this survey, based on interviews in multiple languages with more than 35,000 adults, is the strength of American Religion.

Not too long ago, I wrote that [[American atheism]] was going the way of the freak show. As books by Christopher Hitchens and other "new atheists" climbed the best seller lists, I caught a lot of flak for that prophecy. But atheist make up only 1.6% of respondents to this survey....<ref>American Faith: A Work In Progress by Stephen Prothero, USA Today, March 10, 2008, page 11A</ref>}}
[[File:Sam Harris 01.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Sam Harris]] ]]
YouTube atheist [[Thunderfoot]] said about the atheist movement after [[Reason Rally 2016]] had a very low turnout:
{{Cquote|I'm not sure there is anything in this movement worth saving. [[Christopher Hitchens|Hitchens]] is dead. Dawkins simply doesn't have the energy for this sort of thing anymore. [[Sam Harris|Harris]] went his own way. And [[Daniel Dennett|Dennett]] just kind of blended into the background. So what do you think when the largest gathering of the nonreligious in history pulls in... I don't know. Maybe 2,000 people. Is there anything worth saving?<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/even-atheists-bash-reason-rally/ Even atheists bash 'Reason Rally']</ref>}}

On the other hand, Stephen LeDrew wrote at [[Oxford University]] Press's Academic Insights for the Thinking World website:
{{cquote|The ten-year anniversary of the publication of Richard Dawkins’ ''The God Delusion'' is approaching, and it has already been over ten years since Sam Harris published ''The End of Faith''.

Social science in general has not yet fully appreciated the significance of the New Atheism and has tended not to take it very seriously, with the exception of those working in the new sub-discipline of secularity studies. But whatever one might think of the New Atheists’ ideas, an honest appraisal would recognize that they have had a significant and lasting impact.

They should be remembered for catalyzing a movement for religious dissent and inspiring atheists to come together and find a voice in American public life. But there’s a much darker side to the legacy of the New Atheism that stems from its imperialist and xenophobic tendencies, to say nothing of some thinly veiled Social Darwinism and [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11047072/Richard-Dawkins-immoral-to-allow-Downs-syndrome-babies-to-be-born.html arguments] for eugenics. Sam Harris in particular is now known more for [http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestine] and [http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/in-defense-of-profiling ethnic profiling] at airport security than for his science-based critique of religious faith. Richard Dawkins’ personal legacy has taken a heavy hit in the past few years, as his rambling criticisms of feminism and Muslim “barbarians” on Twitter have led to charges of [http://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/new_atheisms_troubling_misogyny_the_pompous_sexism_of_richard_dawkins_and_sam_harris_partner/ sexism], [http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/richard_dawkins_does_it_again_new_atheisms_islamophobia_problem/ racism], and general arrogance and intolerance.<ref>[http://blog.oup.com/2015/11/legacy-new-atheism/#sthash.6ZTcoHLw.dpuf The legacy of the New Atheism] by Stephen LeDrew wrote at [[Oxford University]] Press's Academic Insights for the Thinking World website</ref>}}

The [[liberal]] leaning British newspaper ''[[The Guardian]]'' said regarding the New Atheism:
{{cquote|Anti-[[faith]] proselytising is a growth industry. But its increasingly hysterical flag-bearers are heading for a spectacular failure...

These increasingly hysterical books may boost the pension, they may be morale boosters for a particular kind of American atheism that feels victimized - the latest candidate in a flourishing American tradition - but one suspects that they are going to do very little to challenge the appeal of a phenomenon they loathe too much to understand.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2074076,00.html</ref>}}

In 2010, it was reported that ''The God Delusion'' sold 2,086,402 copies and 907,161 of those copies were sold in [[North America]]. Contrastly, in 2010, the [[Evangelical Christians|evangelical Christian]] [[Rick Warren]] sold between 25,000,000 to 50,000,000 copies of his book ''The Purpose Driven Life''.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2010/02/03/how-many-copies-of-the-god-delusion-have-been-sold/ How Many Copies of The God Delusion Have Been Sold?]</ref>

=== Decline of the New Atheism movement ===

''See also:'' [[New Atheism#Decline of New Atheism|Decline of New Atheism]] and [[Causes of the New Atheism movement#The rise and decline of New Atheism and the role of the media|Decline of New Atheism and the media]]

On November 6, 2015, the ''New Republic'' published an article entitled, ''Is the New Atheism dead?''<ref>[https://newrepublic.com/article/123349/new-atheism-dead ''Is the New Atheism dead?] by Elizabeth Bruenig, New Republic, November 6, 2015</ref>

In 2015, the atheist author Joshua Kelly wrote:
{{cquote|...since the death of Hitchens: angry atheism lost its most charismatic champion. Call it what you like: New Atheism, fire-brand atheism, etc., had a surge with the Four Horsemen in the middle of the last decade and in the last four years has generally peetered out to a kind that is more docile, [[Political correctness|politically correct]], and even apologetic.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2015/12/uproar-against-dawkins-is-sign-of-new-atheism-retrogression/ Uproar Against Dawkins Is Sign of New Atheism Retrogression] by Joshua Kelly</ref>}}

==== Richard Dawkins' lack of a counter plan to reverse the decline of global atheism and agnosticism ====

Also, on July 31, 2012 in an article entitled ''Evolutionists, atheists and agnostics: Where is your master plan to reverse your decline?'' supporters of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] indicated that atheists, agnostics and evolutionists lack a plan to reverse their global decline.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/evolutionists-atheists-and-agnostics.html Evolutionists, atheists and agnostics: Where is your master plan to reverse your decline?]</ref>

==== Poor leadership skills ====

Using academic studies, survey data and other information, supporters of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] maintain that including Richard Dawkins, there is a lack of sound leadership within the agnostic/atheist and evolutionist communities.

See:

*[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/03/richard-dawkins-insightful-secular.html Richard Dawkins: Insightful secular strategist or an insincere book peddler?]

*[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/03/atheism-is-rudderless-and-unseaworthy.html Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy]

*[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/03/evolutionists-atheists-and-agnostics.html Evolutionists, atheists and agnostics: Where is your master plan to reverse your global decline?]

== Selective outrage on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles" ==
[[‎File:668738335 394b3820fb.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|Ben-Peter Terpstra wrote in the ''Australian Conservative'': "In all truth, Britain’s clean-shaven [[atheism|atheists]] aren’t serious about children’s rights, or they’d be launching venomous attacks against the [[United Nations]], in light of their more recent sex abuse scandals."]]
''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles"]] and [[Atheism and child pornography]] and and [[Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA]]

The ''Australian Conservative'' recently published an article by Ben-Peter Terpstra entitled ''Preparing for Richard Dawkins’ crocodile tears'' which charges that Richard Dawkins exhibits selective outrage on the issue of child molestation. In the article Terpstra cites Bendan Oneill who wrote:
{{cquote|The [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested when he visits Britain later this year exposes the deeply disturbing, authoritarian and even Inquisitorial side to today’s campaigning secularism...

In 2006, Dawkins criticised ‘hysteria about paedophilia’ and said that, even though he was the victim of sexual abuse at boarding school, he would defend his abusive former teachers if ‘50 years on they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers’. Yet now he wants to put abusive priests on a par with genocidaires.<ref>http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8526/</ref>}}

Ben-Peter Terpstra writes: "In all truth, Britain’s clean-shaven atheists aren’t serious about children’s rights, or they’d be launching venomous attacks against the [[United Nations]], in light of their more recent sex abuse scandals."

Concerning Richard Dawkins recent selective outrage on child molestation the Christian apologetics website [[True Free Thinker]] writes:
{{cquote|His reputation has always been the very same and this Pope related publicity stunt is nothing new. Moreover, why would he oppose the Pope considering that what the Pope may be complicit in, surely, relates to some gentle pedophiles.

What! “Gentle pedophiles”!!!

Oh, no, no, no; those are not my words but Richard Dawkins who, indeed, argues that there are gentle pedophiles and that way too much is made of pedophilia at times.

For these reasons and more Robert Fulford’s referring to Richard Dawkins as a clown is very, very offensive—to clowns. Clowns are lovable and funny whilst Richard Dawkins is belligerent, arrogant, belittling and shockingly lacking in knowledge with regards to many of the issues that he takes on (find ample evidence [http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins here]).<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref>}}

=== The Atlantic article about Richard Dawkins repeatedly defending "mild" pedophilia ===

*[https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/richard-dawkins-defends-mild-pedophilia-again-and-again/311230/ Richard Dawkins Defends 'Mild' Pedophilia, Again and Again] , The Atlantic, September 10, 2013

=== Richard Dawkins' on child abuse and children believing in Hell ===

See: [[Richard Dawkins and Hell#Richard Dawkins' on child abuse and children believing in Hell|Richard Dawkins' on child abuse and children believing in Hell]]

== Richard Dawkins' battle with online fans over their use of profanity and gossip ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and profanity]] and [[Richard Dawkins' battle with online fans]] and [[Atheism and the internet]]

In February 2010, the news organization ''The Telegraph'' reported Richard Dawkins was "embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'."<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html</ref> Richard Dawkins [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|has a reputation for being abrasive]] so the behavior of his fans is not entirely surprising. See: [[Atheism and profanity]]

It is commonly thought that some individuals who commonly use profanity have limited vocabularies and imaginations.<ref>''Handbook for New Converts'' By William J. (Bill) Morgan ThD, page 77</ref><ref>[http://www.contrarianconsulting.com/the-etiquette-of-profanity/ The Etiquette of Profanity] by Alan Weiss, Posted on October 31, 2010</ref>

== Richard Dawkins on homosexuality ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Richard Dawkins on homosexuality]] and [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]] and [[Atheism and homosexuality]]

Richard Dawkins, who is a liberal, speculates that a "gay gene" causes [[homosexuality]], but science has not discovered such a gene (see: [[Causes of Homosexuality|Causes of homosexuality]])<ref>[http://anglicansamizdat.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/richard-dawkins-explains-how-the-gay-gene-was-preserved/ Richard Dawkins speculates that gene for homosexuality exists]</ref> In 1993, Professor [[Miron Baron]], M.D., the renowned medical researcher and Professor at [[Columbia University]], wrote in [[BMJ]] (British Medical Journal) that there is a conflict relative to the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] and the notion of [[gene]]tic [[determinism]] concerning homosexuality. Dr. Baron wrote "...from an evolutionary perspective, [[homosexuality and genetics|genetically determined]] homosexuality would have become [[extinct]] long ago because of reduced reproduction."<ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1678219 BMJ. 1993 August 7; 307(6900): 337–338.]</ref> In the United States, liberals are [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|more likely]] to believe in evolution.<ref name="cbsnews.com"/> Also, in the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and liberals generally have [[Views on Homosexuality|more favorable]] opinions about homosexuality. Given Dr. [[Miron Baron]]'s commentary about homosexuality, many American liberals are inconsistent on the issues of evolution and homosexuality.
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]] ]]
An individual's beliefs regarding [[creation science]]/[[creationism]] and the theory of evolution appear to influence their views on homosexuality. Creationist scientists and creationist assert that the theory of evolution cannot account for the origin of gender and sexual reproduction.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/136</ref><ref name="answersingenesis.org">http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] states: "Homosexual acts go against [[God]]’s original [[Intelligent design|design]] of a man and a woman becoming one flesh — see [[Genesis]] 1 and 2, endorsed by [[Jesus]] Himself in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:3â€“6;&version=49; Matthew 19:3–6]."<ref>http://creation.com/web-cast-questions-and-answers-2002</ref> In addition, the vast majority of creation scientists reject the notion of [[gene]]tic [[determinism]] concerning the [[Causes of Homosexuality|origin of homosexuality]].<ref name="answersingenesis.org"/>

See also:

*[[Atheism and homosexuality]]
*[[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]]

==== Richard Dawkins commentary on the God of the Old Testament ====

Richard Dawkins has accused the [[God]] of the [[Old Testament]] of being [[homophobic]].<ref>[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-praises-bible%E2%80%A6-he-ignorant-barbarian Richard Dawkins praises the Bible…is he an ignorant barbarian?]</ref> Yet, Dawkins has not explained why God, who is described as an all powerful spiritual being in the Old Testament, would be afraid of homosexuals.

==Implication in the death of Jesse Kilgore==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Jesse Kilgore]] and [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health]]

[[Image:Desperation_man.jpg‎ |thumb|left|200px|Pitzer College sociologist Phil Zuckerman stated concerning [[atheism and suicide]]: "this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations."]]
Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" along with a [[community college]] biology class, have been linked to the tragic suicide of Jesse Kilgore.<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81459</ref> Kilgore had several discussions with friends and relatives in which he made it clear Dawkins' book had destroyed his belief in God. This loss of faith is considered the cause of his suicide which is not surprising given that there is evidence which suggest that atheism can [[Atheism and suicide|be a causal factor]] for suicide for some individuals.<ref name="adherents.com">http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html</ref><ref name="adherents.com"/><ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9507E2DC1131E033A25754C1A96F9C94659ED7CF NY Times, September 17, 1894, ATHEISM A CAUSE OF SUICIDE.; Dr. MacArthur Preaches on the Sin and Cowardice of Self-Destruction]</ref>

Jesse's father is quoted as saying "If my son was a professing [[homosexuality|homosexual]], and a professor challenged him to read [a book called] 'Preventing Homosexuality'… If my son was gay and [the book] made him feel bad, hopeless, and he killed himself, and that came out in the press, there would be an outcry. He would have been a victim of a hate crime and the professor would have been forced to undergo sensitivity training, and there may have even been a wrongful death lawsuit. But because he's a [[Christianity|Christian]], I don't even get a return telephone call."

Jesse's blog remains online after his death.<ref>http://users.newblog.com/Jkrapture/?post_id=17727</ref>

Please see: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]

== ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' ==

In the film ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', a documentary concerning suppression of the [[intelligent design]] movement, [[Ben Stein]] interviewed Richard Dawkins.

=== Ben Stein Interview with the evolutionist Richard Dawkins ===

{{See also|Ben Stein Interview with Richard Dawkins}}

In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with Richard Dawkins ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rgtN0pCMQ A clip of the interview has been uploaded to YouTube] ).

The [[Discovery Institute]] provides an transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"

DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Ho,ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:

Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In "Message from the Designers", Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.

Richard Dawkins and Rael; "clear thinking" kindred spirits!
<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/4589</ref>}}
[[File:Ben stein.jpg|right|thumbnail|201px|[[Ben Stein]] ]]
A [[Christian apologetics]] website provides some additional commentary on the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview which focuses on Dawkins response to Ben Stein's questions about the likelihood of the existence of God:
{{cquote|In this interview there is the following exchange between Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins. Mr. Stein prefaces the exchange with this comment: “Professor Dawkins seemed so convinced that [[God]] doesn’t exist that I wondered if he would be willing to put a number on it.” Here is Professor Dawkins response, “Well, it’s hard to put a figure on it, but I’d put it at something like ninety-nine percent against or something like that.” Mr. Stein responded with this question. “Well, how do you know it’s ninety-nine percent (“I don’t,” Dr. Dawkins interjects.) and not, say, ninety-seven percent?” Dr. Dawkins continues, “You asked me to put a figure on it and I’m not comfortable putting a figure on it. I think it’s… I just think it’s very unlikely.” “But you couldn’t put a number on it?,” Mr. Stein clarifies. “No, of course not,” said Dr. Dawkins. “So it could be forty-nine percent?,” Mr. Stein asks. Dr. Dawkins replies, “Well, it would be… I mean I think it’s… it’s… it’s unlikely, but… but… I… and it’s quite far from fifty percent.” (He's very difficult to quote.) “How do you know?,” Mr. Stein asks. “I don’t know, I mean, I put an argument in the book,” Dr. Dawkins responds.<ref>http://www.readyalways.org/Home/does-god-exist</ref>}}

Stein expressed surprise in the narration that Richard Dawkins "believe[d] in intelligent design."<ref name=DSouza>D'Souza, Dinesh. "[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/04/21/ben_stein_exposes_richard_dawkins Ben Stein Exposes Richard Dawkins]." ''<Townhall.com>'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

Instead of attempting to defend [[abiogenesis]], Dawkins actually suggested [[directed panspermia]]—the very thing that [[Francis Crick]] once suggested to explain life's beginnings.

On March 20, 2008, Dawkins and colleague [[Paul Zachary Myers|P. Z. Myers]] tried to gain entry to a special preview of the Ben Stein documentary, though no member of the production team had invited them. Dr. Myers was not allowed in, but Dawkins was. Accounts vary as to why this was so; the production team asserts that they decided to grant Dawkins entry on-the-spot because {{cquote|he has handled himself fairly honorably, he is a guest in our country and I had to presume he had flown a long way to see the film.<ref name=Dean>Dean, Cornelia. "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film]." ''The New York Times'', March 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008. Note the erroneous headline: ''Expelled'' propounds [[intelligent design]], not [[creationism]].</ref>}} On the other hand, Myers himself states that he guesses that Richard Dawkins was not recognized.

Richard Dawkins arranged to have a filmed conversation between Richard Dawkins and [[PZ Myers]] concerning this incident posted to YouTube<ref>[http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=c39jYgsvUOY]</ref> In it Myers claimed that the production team had full knowledge of his attendance through the online RSVP system and Dawkins claimed that it was an "incredible piece of inept public relations" to "expel" PZ Myers from a film about people being expelled for their views. Both PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins were featured in the film.

== Richard Dawkins, atheist attrocities, and historical revisionism ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism]] and [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]] and [[Atheism and historical revisionism]]

[[Dinesh D'Souza]] took Richard Dawkins to task for engaging in [[historical revisionism]] when it comes to the atrocities of [[atheism|atheist]] regimes and declared Dawkins "reveals a complete ignorance of history".[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk VIDEO]
[[Image:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|left|201px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]]'s atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people.]]
In a recent interview D'Souza declared:
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins argues that at least the atheist regimes didn't kill people in the name of [[atheism]]. Isn't it time for this biologist to get out of the lab and read a little history? Marxism and [[Communism]] were atheist ideologies. [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] weren't dictators who happened to be atheist; atheism was part of their official doctrine.

It was no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that they shut down the churches and persecuted the clergy...}}

Dinesh D'Souza stated in another interview:
{{cquote|As one writer put it, “Leaders such as Stalin and Mao persecuted religious groups, not in a bid to expand atheism, but as a way of focusing people’s hatred on those groups to consolidate their own power.” Of course I agree that murderous regimes, whether [[Christian]] or atheist, are generally seeking to strengthen their position. But if Christian regimes are held responsible for their crimes committed in the name of Christianity, then atheist regimes should be held accountable for their crimes committed in the name of atheism. And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a “new man” and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist.<ref>http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/atheism/805-answering-atheists-regarding-war.htm</ref>}}
[[Image:Khvhkgfiy.jpg|right|thumb|[[Vladimir Lenin]] ]]
[[Karl Marx]] said "[Religion] is the opium of the people". Marx also stated: "[[Communism]] begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] wrote: "A Marxist must be a [[materialism|materialist]], i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the [[class struggle]] which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm</ref>

Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate concerning the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref> The atheism in [[communism|communist]] regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] that has committed various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and the oppression of religious leaders and believers (for details see: [[communism]]). In the atheistic and communist Soviet Union, 44 anti religious museums were opened and the largest was the 'The Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism' in [[Leningrad]]’s Kazan cathedral.<ref>http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2008/12/merry-anti-christmas.html</ref>

== John Lennox's discussion with New Atheist Richard Dawkins about the historicity of Jesus ==

''See also:'' [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]] and [[Historicity of Jesus]]

[[John Lennox]] pointed out to Richard Dawkins that Dawkins claimed in his book ''The God Delusion'' that [[Jesus Christ]] may have never existed and that Dawkins errantly claimed that ancient historians have some disagreement on whether Jesus existed or not. After some additional discussion with Dawkins, Dawkins conceded that Jesus existed and said, "I take that back. Jesus existed".<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ant5HS01tBQ Richard Dawkins admits Jesus existed]</ref>

== Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig is Reported to Have Called Dawkins a Coward ==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Atheism and Debate]]

Dr. William Lane Craig is one of [[Christian apologetics|Christianity's leading defenders]] and many individuals over the years have attempted to arrange a debate between Dr. Craig and Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins has offered various ruses on why he will not debate William Lane Craig, which Dr. Craig supporters have shown were inconsistent and merely a dodge to avoid debating one of Christianity's strongest advocates.<ref name="uncommondescent.com">http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/</ref>

[[‎‎File:Dr. William Lane Craig.jpg|thumb|150px|Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] ]]
[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Dr. Victor Reppert is the author of ''[[C. S. Lewis]]'s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason''.<ref name="dangerousidea.blogspot.com">http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/dawkins-ducks-craig.html</ref> In 2007, Dr. Reppert wrote:
{{cquote|[[William Lane Craig|Bill Craig]] sent me a newsletter in which he will be debating twice in the UK on "Is God a Delusion" but will not be debating Dawkins himself. Now that would be the debate to see! Having seen this, I wrote him saying "Oh drat! no debate with Dawkins!" He responded:

The coward! He said, "I've never heard of [[William Lane Craig|William
Craig]]. A debate with him might look good on his
resume, but it wouldn't look good on mine!"

Bill<ref name="dangerousidea.blogspot.com">http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/dawkins-ducks-craig.html</ref>}}

There was public pressure for Dawkins to debate the Christian [[philosophy|philosopher]] of science and Christian apologist Dr. [[William Lane Craig]].<ref name="manawatu.christian-apologetics.org">http://manawatu.christian-apologetics.org/sign-the-richard-dawkins-should-debate-william-craig-petition/</ref> For example, currently there is a petition for Richard Dawkins debate William Lane Craig.<ref name="manawatu.christian-apologetics.org"/>

As far as Dawkins and and his comfort level around professional philosophers, the atheist philosopher Massimo Pigliucci wrote:
{{Cquote|Interestingly, over lunch during one of those days, I experienced Dawkins in what is a rather uncharacteristically humble mood: he confided at our table that he felt a bit intimidated, being surrounded by so many professional philosophers (he wasn’t talking about me, I assure you, but more likely of [[Daniel Dennett|Dan Dennett]] and Alex Rosenberg, among others). It was interesting to see that rather unexpected (from his public appearances) side of him.<ref>[https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2016/02/01/richard-dawkins/ Richard Dawkins] by Massimo Pigliucci</ref>}}

== Refusal of Richard Dawkins to Debate Christian apologist Dinesh D'Souza==

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins and Dinesh D'Souza]] and [[Atheism and Debate]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]
[[File:Dineshdsouza-full.jpg|thumb|180px|left|[[Dinesh D'Souza]] ]]
Christian author [[Dinesh D'Souza]] wrote concerning Richard Dawkins refusal to debate him: "To be honest, I find your behavior extremely bizarre. You go halfway around the world to chase down televangelists to outsmart them in an interview format that you control, but given several opportunities to engage the issues you profess to care about in a true spirit of open debate and inquiry, you duck and dodge and run away."<ref name="one-episcopalian-on-faith.com">http://www.one-episcopalian-on-faith.com/2008/07/richard-dawkins.html</ref> D'Souza further wrote concerning Dawkins: "When he is confronted with history, philosophy, and logic, Dawkins seems to have very little to say."<ref>http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/07/28/countering_richard_dawkins_on_al-jazeera</ref> Next, D'Souza indicated Dawkins was a "showman who takes on unprepared and unsuspecting opponents when you yourself control the editing, but when a strong opponent shows up you manufacture reasons to avoid him."<ref name="one-episcopalian-on-faith.com"/> Lastly, D'Souza wrote: "So why doth Dawkins languish in his corner, attended by sycophants? Tremble not, Sir Richard. 'Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant do taste of death but once.'"<ref>http://www.tothesource.org/11_13_2007/11_13_2007.htm</ref>

Dr. Jamie Glazov wrote concerning the refusal of Richard Dawkins to debate Dinesh D'Souza:
{{cquote|As many readers can attest, D’Souza has debated [[Daniel Dennett]], [[Christopher Hitchens]], Peter Singer, [[Michael Shermer]], Dan Barker, and other well-known atheists. He intellectually cut those guys to pieces. Harris and Dawkins are just afraid to meet D’Souza. D’Souza writes: “And my challenges to Dawkins to step into the arena have only met with pathetic rationalization: ‘Richard is simply too busy and smart to debate you Dinesh.’ Busy doing what besides being caught with his pants down by Ben Stein? And I guess he's smart because he doesn't want to risk further embarrassing himself and destroying his public reputation. Won't it be hilarious if the ‘party of faith’ is unafraid of opposing arguments while the ‘party of reason’ cannot withstand the arguments of its critics? This is what Henry James might describe as a most interesting turning of the screw.”}}

== Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists ==

For more information please see: [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Global atheism]]

[[File:Safarti3.jpg|200px|thumbnail|right|Recently, a [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] called Richard Dawkins a "cowardly clown" for refusing to debate apt debate challengers such as the [[creation science|creation scientists]] at Creation Ministries International.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] recently published the book ''The Greatest Hoax on Earth'' which rebuts Richard Dawkins' recent book ''The Greatest Show on Earth''.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref>]]
Richard Dawkins has publicly declared that he will not debate creationists.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> Yet, Richard Dawkins debated the theist John Lennox who adheres to the position of [[intelligent design]].<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> According to Richard Dawkins, intelligent design is a form of creationism.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> Therefore, Richard Dawkins is not consistent and trustworthy concerning his assertion that he will not debate creationists.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] website [[True Free Thinker]] which declared: "Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties..."<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate</ref> When Richard Dawkins refused to debate Dr. William Lane Craig one of the ruses Richard Dawkins used was supposedly because Dr. Craig was a creationist and Richard Dawkins claimed he didn't debate creationist.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/> Richard was called on his inconsistency and lack of trustworthiness concerning his excuses for refusing to debate Dr. Craig by the intelligent design advocate Clive Hayden.<ref name="uncommondescent.com"/>

In 2010, the prominent atheists who attended the 2010 global atheist conference, which included Richard Dawkins, were challenged to a debate by Creation Ministries International.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> Richard Dawkins, [[PZ Myers]] and other prominent atheists refused to debate the creation scientists at Creation Ministries International.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref> As noted above, generally speaking, creationist scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]).

The refusal of Richard Dawkins and other prominent atheists to debate the staff of Creation Ministries International is not surprising given that there are several instances Richard Dawkins avoiding strong debate opponents. In addition, creationists maintain that Richard Dawkins did not give a particularly strong showing at the [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]. One of the more embarrassing debates (particular the events surrounding the debate) was the case of Richard Dawkins losing a video taped debate to Rabbi Boteach according to the college audience.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref name="wnd.com">http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> After the debate, Richard Dawkins denied the debate ever took place and Rabbi Boteach provided the video taped evidence that the debate did take place.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref name="wnd.com">http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> Mr. Dawkins has declined to debate Rabbit Shmuley Boteach another time.<ref name="beliefnet.com">http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Shameful-Attack.aspx</ref><ref name="wnd.com">http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61565</ref> Incidentally, Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Oxford debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith (see: [[Huxley Memorial Debate]])<ref name="cr"/> Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.<ref name="cr"/>
[[File:PzMyers2.jpg|thumbnail|200px|left|[[PZ Myers]]]]
The website [[True Free Thinker]] declared concerning the refusal of Richard Dawkins, [[PZ Myers]] and other prominent atheists to debate the [[creation science|creation scientists]] and other staff at Creation Ministries International:
{{cquote|In keeping with his constant attention getting shenanigans and his equally constant absconding from debating apt challengers via a barrage of illogical and excuses, the moniker of cowardly clown fits Richard Dawkins more than ever (see [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-%E2%80%93-richard-dawkins-obliges Send in the Clowns – Richard Dawkins Obliges]).

Enter Jonathan Sarfati (PhD in chemistry),senior scientist at Creation Ministries International, who recently published the book “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution.” Interestingly, Jonathan Sarfati sought to publish the book by the time that the 2010 Global Atheist Convention—billed as “The Rise of Atheism”—of March 12–14 at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Center in Australia.

The most intelligent, well informed and vociferous atheists in the world, including [http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins Richard Dawkins], [http://www.truefreethinker.com/dan-barker Dan Barker], [http://www.truefreethinker.com/pz-myers PZ Myers], et al, were challenged to debate while their worldwide choir was gathered in one place and yet, one by one they each found excuses to cower from debate even whilst proclaiming to their adherents the intellectual superiority of atheism.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown</ref>}}
=== Richard Dawkins excuses for not debating creationists ===

Richard Dawkins has offered some [[Richard Dawkins' ruses for refusing to debate creation scientists|unjustifiable ruses for not not wanting to debate creationists but the true reason is that he knows he will lose the debates]].

There are certainly reputable scientists, medical doctors and members of the public who hold the evolutionary paradigm in low esteem for valid reasons so Dawkins excuses for refusing to debate creationists simply have little to no weight and they are certainly not the best explanation for Mr. Dawkins' behavior in this matter. In 2007, "[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture today announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/2732</ref> In addition, given that atheism is held in low esteem in many parts of the world and it is a minority position worldwide, Dawkins' refusal to debate strong theistic debaters is quite odd given his allegation that he doesn't debate creationists because he doesn't want to give them respectability and publicity. Furthermore, the Rabbi Boteach debate and the events surrounding it, shows the great lengths that Dawkins will go to avoid letting the public know about a debate loss to a [[theism|theist]] (As mentioned previously Dawkins lost his video taped debate to Rabbi Boteach and then claimed the debate never took place). The reason why Dawkins refuses to debate creation scientists is that generally speaking, [[Creation vs. evolution debates|creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].

==Opposition to Creationism and Religion ==

* Professor Dawkins' anti-religious views are based on two subjective opinions. The first is that religious faith is irrational, the second is that religion causes wars and [[hatred]], or as he puts it, 'Religion makes good people bad'.

Richard Dawkins is a writer and media commentator on the debate between evolution and the opposing positions of creation science and intelligent design.<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/dawkins-r.html Christiananswers.net webpage on Richard Dawkins.]</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1872331.stm School attacked over evolution teaching]</ref> He is an ardent proponent of the evolutionary view of life in works targeted at the general public, such as his books entitled ''The Selfish Gene'' and ''The Ancestor's Tale''. However, his efforts to promote the theory of evolution have not been very successful, and even in his native land of the UK, 40% of the population believes that creationism or intelligent design should be taught in the school science curriculum.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm</ref>
[[Image:Winston.jpg‎‎|right|thumb|175px|Lord Robert Winston stated Richard Dawkins is bringing science "into disrepute".]]
As an evolutionist, Dawkins holds [[Charles Darwin]]'s view that "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." In addition, he often comes across as having a mocking attitude towards religion.<ref>[http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg]</ref> He stridently<ref>Dawkins "has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect." Cornelia Dean, "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life’s Origin," New York Times, Science Section (September 27, 2007).[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html]</ref> opposes the traditional role of religion in educational institutions and in society in general.<ref>[http://www.godlessinamerica.com/When%20atheists%20attack.html When atheists attack: Debunking religion without apology] - George A. Ricker.</ref> Dawkins has derided belief in [[God]] as a "mind-virus",<ref>[http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/ The Dawkins Delusion] by Alistair McGrath</ref> which is infectious and harmful to society. In his 2006 book ''The God Delusion'', he states his belief that fundamentalist religion "subverts science and saps the intellect," a view that is contrary to the fact that many of the most productive scientists, from [[Isaac Newton]] to [[Louis Pasteur]], were devout Christians. The foundation of modern science [[Christianity and Science|was largely established by those who held a Christian worldview]]. Dawkins often says that these men were rather a product of their time and, like many that came before them, lived in fear of persecution by Christians. There is no substantive evidence for this.
Dawkins also cites in his book, the God Delusion, that not one winner of the [[Nobel Prize]] for Science is a theist. While this has been openly debated, he cites his own personal relationships with many of these scientists.
[[Image:McgrathatRefresh.jpg‎|left|thumb|175px|[[Alister McGrath]]]]
Lord Robert Winston is a prominent scientist and British doctor who served as the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science from 2004 to 2005.<ref>http://www.tvsa.co.za/actorprofile.asp?actorID=5547</ref> Currently, Lord Winston serves as Emeritus Professor of Fertility Studies at Imperial College in Britain. In 2006, Winston launched a broadside against Richard Dawkins and stated that he is bringing science "into disrepute" due to his refusal to "connect with spirituality". Winston also stated that Dawkins "sometimes doesn't seem to understand the limitations of science."

[[Alister McGrath]], a Christian theologian who has a background in biophysics and is Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, wrote:
{{cquote|Richard Dawkins’ latest book ''The God Delusion'' fires off a series of salvos against religion. It is perhaps his weakest book to date, marred by its excessive reliance on bold assertion and rhetorical flourish, where the issues so clearly demand careful reflection and painstaking analysis, based on the best evidence available.}}

Atheist philosopher [[Michael Ruse]] echoes McGrath's estimation of ''The God Delusion'' and recently stated that the book makes him embarrassed to be an [[atheist]].

Professor McGrath asserts that the aggressive rhetoric of Dawkins' works is merely a mask to cover a deep insecurity about the public credibility of [[atheism]].
McGrath recently wrote a book opposing the [[atheist]] ideology of Dawkins entitled ''The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine''.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433628&in_page_id=1770</ref>

== Richard Dawkins and the Huxley Memorial Debate ==

For more information please see: [[Huxley Memorial Debate]]

The September 2005 issue of ''Discover'' magazine had an article on Richard Dawkins entitled "Darwin’s Rottweiler".<ref name="discover">http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/</ref> The title is an allusion to Thomas Henry Huxley who became to be known as "Darwin's Bulldog".<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i1/monkeys.asp</ref> Huxley is arguably most well known for his debate with Bishop [[Samuel Wilberforce]] over the theory of evolution, and evolutionists and creationist dispute whether or not a key claimed event in the debate actually occurred.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v13/n1/kids</ref> The ''Discover'' article stated the following:
{{cquote|Dawkins has become “Darwin’s rottweiler”— as [[Alister McGrath]], an Oxford theologian, reminded readers of his recent book, Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life — so intent on prevailing in intellectual combat that he alienates others and undermines the dazzling quality of his argumentative skills."<ref name="discover" />}}

The Simonyi Professorship Home Page promotes the idea that Richard Dawkins is "Darwin's Rottweiler" and has an article published in the Seattle newspaper ''EastSideweek'' which states the following:
{{cquote|...Thomas Henry Huxley, earned the nickname "Darwin's bulldog" from his fellow Victorians. In our own less decorous day, Dawkins deserves an even stronger epithet: "Darwin's Rottweiler, perhaps," Simonyi suggests. Now, thanks to [[Charles Simonyi|Simonyi]]'s gift of £1.5 million sterling to England's venerable Oxford University, the Rottweiler is unleashed."}}
[[Image:Wilder-smith-book.jpg‎|right|150px|thumb|Dr. Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith]]
Now given that Thomas Henry Huxley's is arguably most well known for his debate over the theory of evolution and given that Dawkins has stated he will no longer debate a [[creation scientists]] the title of "Darwin's Rottweiler" can certainly be disputed. Creationists wrote regarding Richard Dawkins current refusal to debate a creation scientist:
{{cquote|A. E. Wilder-Smith is also probably responsible for Richard Dawkins refusing to debate creationists any more. In 1986, Wilder-Smith and Edgar Andrews debated the two leading evolutionists in Britain, Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith, at Oxford – a lions’ den with the two strongest Darwinian lions in Europe. Yet even there, over a third – almost half – of the staunchly pro-evolution audience voted that the creation side had won the debate. The vote count became a contentious issue. There were claims of a cover-up by the Oxford Student Union. The AAAS was accused of lying about the vote count and didn’ [sic] correct it even when confronted (see article). The evolutionists apparently were embarrassed that the creationists made such a strong showing. For whatever reason, Dawkins no longer will debate creationists. Reports from those in attendance say that, contrary to the ground rules of the debate, the Dawkins and Maynard Smith repeatedly attacked religion, while the creationists used only scientific arguments. Dawkins himself had to be reprimanded by the moderator for attacking Wilder-Smith about his religious views. Dawkins implored the audience not to give any votes to the creationists lest it be a “blot on the escutcheon of ancient University of Oxford” (an odd remark, considering Oxford was founded by Christians). After the debate, details of the event were lost by the University. Normally, Oxford Union debates are big news, given prominent publicity in the press, radio and television. This one, however, which should have rivalled the historic 1860 Huxley-Wilberforce debate in importance, and indeed was even titled the ’Huxley Memorial Debate,” was silently dropped from the radar screen. In his memoirs, Dr. Wilder-Smith wrote, “No records of my having held the lecture as part of the Oxford Union Debate could be found in any library. No part of the official media breathed a word about it.<ref>http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_5.htm</ref>}}

The aforementioned debate involving Richard Dawkins is fairly well known in creationist/intelligent design circles and the debate was tape recorded.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/1986-huxley-memorial-debate/</ref> In August 2003 the [[Creation Research Society]] published some interesting material about their correspondence with Richard Dawkins which focused on the debate.<ref name="cr">http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF</ref> The Creation Research Society declared:
[[Image:PH2006022801720.jpg‎|left|thumb|150px|[[Henry Morris]]]]
{{cquote|Despite Dr. Dawkins’ plea, there were apparently 115 votes for the creation position (more than 37%). This was done near Darwin’s turf. Imagine flat-earthers going to NASA and convincing over 37% of the scientists there that the earth is flat. Maybe creation science is not as closely akin to flat-earthism as Dr. Dawkins supposes (see his Free Inquiry article).<ref name="cr" />}}

Richard Dawkins no longer will debate a creation scientist. Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a ''Wall Street Journal'' reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. [[theory of evolution|evolution]] controversy.<ref>Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John, [http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science]</ref>
In August 1979, [[Henry Morris|Dr. Henry Morris]] reported in an [[Institute for Creation Research]] letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”
Morris also said about the creation scientist [[Duane Gish]] (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.” Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/811/</ref>

=== Richard Dawkins violation' of the terms of the debate proceedings ===
As noted earlier, it was agreed before the debate that discussion of religion was not to occur during the debate and that only the evidence related to the physical sciences were going to be discussed. At the end of the debate, Richard Dawkins started to give an impassioned plea to the audience to not give a single vote to the creationists which would show support for creationism. Mr. Dawkins was told to sit down by the President of the Oxford Union for violating the terms of the debate as far as not mentioning religion (as noted earlier John Maynard Smith also violated the terms of the debate).<ref name="cr"/>

=== Deception related to email correspondence with Richard Dawkins ===
As mentioned earlier, Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Huxley Memorial Debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith.<ref name="cr"/> Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.<ref name="cr"/>

==Brights Movement==

The [[Brights Movement]] was started in 2003 by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell in order to assist in the advocacy of a [[Naturalism|naturalistic worldview]]. In October 2003 in a article in ''[[the Guardian]]'', Richard Dawkins associated being a "bright" with being an intellectual.<ref>http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html</ref> Atheist [[author]] and columnist Christopher Hitchens expressed his "annoyance at Professor Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for their cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called "brights".<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165035/</ref> [[ABC News|ABC]] News.com commentator John Allen Paulos remarked of the Brights campaign, "I don't think a degree in [[Public Relations|public relations]] is needed to expect that many people will construe the term as smug, ridiculous, and arrogant" (Paulos 2003).<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_2</ref>

== Other reactions to Dawkins' views within the academic community ==

Some in the academic community are critical of Richard Dawkins. One such example is Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal and President of the [[Royal Society]]. In a debate in May 2007 between Rees and Dawkins, Rees said that science needed as many friends as possible and that creating enemies within mainstream religion will make it "more difficult to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiments that are really important". He also argued that it will make it more difficult to fight terrorism. Richard Dawkins counter-argued that being nice to bishops helps to foster the view that faith is virtuous and can excuse any act on its behalf. Rees continued to argue that religion has no [[monopoly]] on being unreasonable citing examples of scientific sects such as the [[Raelism|Raelians]] or extreme eco-groups as being as dangerous as religious fundamentalists.<ref>Guardian story of Martin Rees and Richard Dawkins debate|http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/29/controversiesinscience.peopleinscience</ref>

Among theologians there are many critics of Richard Dawkins, a notable example being Alister McGrath as noted earlier. Alister McGrath is Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford. He has accused Dawkins of being ignorant of theology and has written a book challenging Dawkins' anti-religious stance, ''The Dawkins Delusion''. Even among biology colleagues, there are critics. While Ken Miller, a biology professor, doesn't challenge Dawkins' views on evolution, he does take issue with his insistence that religion and science are incompatible.<ref>Discover's article on Darwin's Rottweiler|http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=</ref>

Richard Dawkins, for his part, claims bafflement that some scientists he respects are capable of religious faith.<ref>Richard Dawkins, 2006. ''The God Delusion''</ref><ref>The Humanist article Is Science A Religion?|http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html</ref>

==Criticism of the Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable==
[[Image:Willard-dallas-3.jpg‎‎|left|thumbnail|150px|Dr. Dallas Willard]]
[[United States|American]] [[philosopher]] Dr. Dallas Willard wrote concerning ''The Blind Watchmaker'' by Richard Dawkins:
{{cquote|When he writes a book like the present one he is not functioning as a scientist. If he were, he should incorporate his "findings" into the most advanced textbooks in the field and see how they fare as representations of established knowledge. He complains that "the true, Darwinian explanation of our own existence is still, remarkably, not a routine part of the curriculum of a general education." Then by all means let him enter the academic arena and present his views about the watchmaker as established knowledge. He should not reserve his views for infliction upon a largely helpless public whom his scientific credentials and elaborate rhetorical devices will overwhelm and make incapable of any accurate assessment of argument. When he writes books like ''The Blind Watchmaker'' he is just a naturalist [[metaphysics|metaphysician]], trying to cozy up to the scientists and blend into their company in such a way that his true colors will not be noticed. He takes the liberty to dress down what he calls "redneck creationism", but unfortunately there are rednecks on the side of "Darwinianism" as well. He is one of the most outstanding.<ref>http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52</ref>}}

Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] offered several criticisms of the book ''The Blind Watchmaker'' by Richard Dawkins and states in his summary that the "...Apostle of [[Atheism]] has a long way to go to make a convincing case for his faith."<ref name="cotw">http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855</ref>

== Awards ==

* ''Silver Medal of the Zoological Society of London'' (1989)
* ''Royal Society's Michael Faraday Award'' (1990)
* ''Nakayama Prize for Achievement in Human Science'' (1990)
* ''The International Cosmos Prize'' (1997)
* ''Kistler Prize'' (2001)
* ''Shakespeare Prize of the Alfred Toepfer Foundation'' (2005)
* ''Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science'' (2006)
* ''Galaxy British Book Awards Author of the Year'' (2007)
* Honorary Doctorates in both literature and science
* Fellow of the Royal Society
* Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature

==Books==
Dawkins has written eleven books: nine have been on evolution and evolutionary theory, another is his ''[[New York Times]]'' bestselling [[atheist]] polemic ''[[The God Delusion]]'', and most recently, he has written a book for children introducing them to his way of thinking.

The first of his books, ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', was published in 1976, and won him international acclaim. It has sold over one million copies and has been translated into 25 languages.

His books are:

* ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'' (1976)
* ''The Extended Phenotype'' (1982)
* ''The Blind Watchmaker'' (1986)
* ''River Out of Eden'' (1995)
* ''Climbing Mount Improbable'' (1996)
* ''Unweaving the Rainbow'' (1998)
* ''A Devil's Chaplain'' (2003)
* ''The Ancestor's Tale'' (2004)
* ''[[The God Delusion]]'' (2006)
* ''[[The Greatest Show on Earth]]: The Evidence for Evolution''. Free Press (United States), Transworld (United Kingdom and Commonwealth). 2009.
* ''The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True'' (2011) - a science book for children.

'''Anti-evolution books specifically addressing Richard Dawkins:'''

*''The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution'' by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]], 2010

==See also==

*[[Richard Dawkins statistics]]
*[[Evangelical atheism]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Richard_Dawkins Directory of Richard Dawkins articles]
*[[Richard Dawkins on Jews and Nobel Prizes]]
*[[Ravi Zacharias vs. Richard Dawkins]]
*[[Richard Dawkins and YouTube]]
*[[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]]
*[[British atheism]]
*[[Richard Dawkins and Hell]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.atheistdelusion.net/ The Atheist Delusion] (website rebutting Richard Dawkins)
*[http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8885481/after-the-new-atheism/ Richard Dawkins has lost: meet the new new atheists] by [[Theo Hobson]]

'''Video:'''

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo Is Richard Dawkins really stumped? The truth - In his own words - YES...he is!] - [[YouTube]] video
* Former Atheist Alister McGrath discusses Dawkins (video) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghIghLvttVU part 1] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UiCUEBB9Z4&feature=related part 2]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 YouTube - Video of Richard Dawkins being stumped by a creationist's question]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideosearch%3Fhl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial%26hs%3DxUv%26q%3Ddawkins%2520and%2520his&feature=player_embedded Atheists dodge their history of atrocities] (Video)

'''Collection of rebuttals:'''

*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/richard-dawkins Richard Dawkins - Christian rebuttals] by [[True Free Thinker]]

'''Reviews of Richard Dawkins' works:'''

*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855 A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]
*[http://www.atheistdelusion.net/ Atheist delusion: Answering "The God Delusion" and other works of atheist Richard Dawkins]
*[http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52 Reflections on Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker] by [[Christianity|Christian]] [[Philosophy|philosopher]] Dallas Willard
*[http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9908/reviews/barr.html A Review of Unweaving the Rainbow by Richard Dawkins]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1127dawkins.asp Deconstructing a deluded Dawkins by Paul Taylor]
*[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6280 A review of A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love by Richard Dawkins]

'''From a Frog to a Prince video''':

*[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&NR=1 YouTube - Video of Richard Dawkins being stumped by a creationist's question]
*[http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_gb_01.asp Gillian Brown answers Barry Williams] (Gillian Brown is the film's producer. Barry Williams is a Skeptic who criticised the film. The page includes an apology from another skeptic, and an admission that the film accurately presents Dawkins' answer.)
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Dawkins_could_not_give_an_example_of_increasing_information CreationWiki's response to TalkOrigins Archive's criticism of interview.]

'''Richard Dawkins administered websites and web pages:'''

*[http://www.richarddawkins.net/ Richard Dawkins' main website]
*[http://twitter.com/richarddawkins Richard Dawkins' Twitter page]
*[http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/ The Richard Dawkins Foundation]
*[http://users.ox.ac.uk/~dawkins/ Richard Dawkins homepage at Oxford University]

== Notes ==
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Dawkins, Richard}}
[[Category:Richard Dawkins]]
[[Category:British People]]
[[Category:Academics]]
[[Category:Atheism]]
[[Category:Liberal Authors]]
[[Category:Atheist Authors]]
[[Category:British Authors]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category:Biologists]]
[[Category:Evolutionists]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:New Atheism]]

European Union

2018-02-08T13:38:27Z

TheOther: Updated with Brexit information

:''For the results of EU policies, see [[European migrant crisis]]''
{{Country
|name =''European Union''
|map =EU member states.png
|flag =European Union flag.png
|arms =
|capital =
|capital-raw = [[Brussels]], [[Luxembourg]], [[Strasbourg]]
|government =
|government-raw = Sui generis [[supranationalism]]
|language = 24 official languages
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw = [[Donald Tusk]] (Council) [[Jean-Claude Juncker]] (Commission)
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =
|area =4,475,757 km² (1,728,099 sq mi)
|pop =511,805,088 (2017)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =$17.1 trillion (2017 IMF)
|gdp-year =
|gdp-pc =$33,551 (2017 IMF)
|currency =euro
|idd =
|tld =.eu
}}
The '''European Union (EU)''' is an experiment in [[globalism]], combining very different cultures and nations into one legal, political and economic union of 28 [[European]] countries. It was formed in 1993 with the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty, though its predecessor, the [[European Economic Community]], was founded in 1957. It is not the same as "[[Europe]]", though most European nations have joined the EU.

As a set of institutions, the EU has more powers over its member states and their citizens than other international bodies; many of its competencies are supranational (above the member states) rather than intergovernmental (between them). Despite having a legal personality and sovereignty in agreed areas, it is not regarded as a federation or state in its own right: rather, it stands somewhere between these two points. Fifteen member states use a common currency, the '''[[euro]]'''.<ref>Five other states formally agree to use it, and four others use it without formal agreement.</ref> The EU is moving in the direction of eventually becoming a politically unified federation, something which many of its leaders consciously support.<ref>Newman, Alex (August 20, 2013). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/16343-the-eu-regionalization-trumps-sovereignty The EU: Regionalization Trumps Sovereignty]. ''The New American''. Retrieved November 25, 2017.</ref>

There is no EU military. Each nation has its own forces, but nearly all are members of [[NATO]], in which the U.S. has a preponderant voice.

The EU is a driving force of global economic and political integration, but Hix (2008) sees three problems with the EU: policy gridlock, lack of popular legitimacy and the democratic deficit. He notes, "In substantive terms ... the EU is closer to a form of enlightened despotism than a genuine democracy."<ref>Hix (2008)</ref> In addition, on February 5, 2000, John Laughland indicated in ''The Spectator'' that the European Union's entire purpose was to subject Western Europe to Marxist–Leninist/Marxist-Trotskyist thought.<ref>THE [European ]UNION CAN MAKE A VITAL CONTRIBUTION to the reform of the international economic architecture and to the establishment of a mechanism for collective governance. 
*From: Commission of the European Communities
*Brussels 9.2.2000 [COM (2000) 154 final]
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: 
*STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES 2000-2005
*"SHAPING THE NEW EUROPE"

Writing in The Spectator (London) of 5th February 2000 John Laughland stated that "The West is now on the verge of achieving that of which Lenin and Trotsky dreamed in 1917. For the point is not to replace nation states with a European or world superstate. It is instead to achieve the old Marxist dream of abolishing statehood altogether"</ref>

In 2016, the UK voted to leave the EU; a process termed [[Brexit]]. It will become the first nation to leave the EU in 2019.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39325561 |title=Article 50: Theresa May to trigger Brexit process |publisher=BBC News |date=20 March 2017|access-date=20 March 2017}}</ref>

==Politics==
Each nation elects members to the Parliament in proportion to population. The June 2009 elections saw sweeping gains by conservative and anti-immigration parties, as labor and socialist parties lost heavily. Since the 2004 elections the largest grouping has for the last five years been the centre-right European People's Party '''EPP''' (288 seats out of a current 785), followed by the centre-left '''PES''' (216) and the liberal '''ALDE''' (100). With the 2009 election EPP made gains and retains power in the parliament.

Conservative Jose Manuel Barroso, who will have a second term as European Commission president, thanked voters and assured them their voices would be heard.

In 2009 The British [[Labour Party]], Germany's [[SPD]] (Social Democrats) and France's Socialist Party suffered historic defeats—the worst defeat for Labour in Britain in a century..

Turnout was at an all-time low in some countries, including France (41%) and Germany (42%).

==Structure==

===The European Commission===
In September 2009 Jose Manuel Barroso, was re-elected as president of the [[European Commission]] after the European Parliament voted to give him a second term. This ended weeks of uncertainty during which Socialist, Green and Liberal critics tried to block Mr Barroso's candidacy on the grounds that he had yielded too much power to national governments and promoted the kind of free-market liberalism that led to the financial crisis.

The role and responsibilities of the European Commission place it at the centre of the EU's decision-making process. Acting as the EU's policy and executive engine, the Commission is composed of 28 Commissioners, one from each state, and is supported by a substantial staff located primarily in [[Brussels]], [[Belgium]]. In matters relating to economic integration ("First or 'Community' Pillar"), only the Commission has the right to propose legislation for approval by the EU Council and European Parliament. As "guardian of the Treaties," the Commission ensures that EU laws are applied and upheld throughout the EU, prosecuting member states and other institutions for failing to follow treaty precepts or otherwise apply Community law. The Commission has full authority to enforce Community competition policy, and its policing of implementation of Community legislation preserves the integrity of the EU single market. The Commission likewise manages and develops the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), implements the budget, and represents the European Community in its areas of competence, notably including international trade negotiations.

The Commission President is appointed by agreement of the EU heads of government and is subject to approval by the European Parliament. Commissioners serve for a renewable five-year term. New Commissioners are identified by member state governments in consultation with the President-designate of the Commission and are normally put in place at the beginning of the term of the Commission President. The entire Commission must be confirmed as a collective whole by the European Parliament before its formal appointment by common accord of EU governments.

===The European Council===
The European Council brings together EU heads of government and the President of the European Commission; foreign ministers of member states also participate. Finance ministers are normally included when the leaders discuss questions related to the euro and the economy. The European Council meets at least twice a year, usually quarterly, at the end of each Presidency, to review major EU projects, set guidelines for policies and provide necessary guidance. The Presidency of the Council rotates every six months among EU member states (January–June; July–December). Its role has become increasingly important with the expansion of EU responsibilities and competencies. The Presidency organises and presides over the meetings of the European Council and EU Council (ministerial) meetings, drafts compromises, and seeks solutions to problems submitted to the European Council.

===Council of Ministers===
The Council of Ministers of the European Union (the "EU Council") is the body in which representatives of the individual member state governments, usually ministers, legislate for the EU, set its political objectives, coordinate national policies and resolve differences among their governments and with other EU bodies. Legally speaking, there is only one Council, but it meets in nine different formations, depending on the matters on its agenda. Foreign ministers usually meet at least once a month in the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC), which deals with major foreign policy issues and plays a coordinating role. Ministers for the Economy and Finance (ECOFIN) and ministers responsible for agriculture also hold monthly meetings. Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) hold regular meetings to coordinate policies within their competence.

The Council holds formal sessions in its Brussels headquarters, except in April, June and October, when all sessions take place in Luxembourg. Most formations of the Council also meet informally (tasking no legally binding decisions) in the country holding the EU Presidency, usually once in the course of the Presidency's six-month term. The most prominent of these informal meetings is the so-called "Gymnich" meeting of foreign ministers, named for a town in Germany where the first such meeting took place.

The Council takes most decisions under the Community Pillar by qualified majority voting (QMV) but endeavours to reach the broadest possible consensus before approving legislation. Unanimity is required for a number of specific areas related to economic integration (e.g. taxation), constitutional matters such as amendments to the treaties, the launching of a new common policy, the accession of a new member state, and matters falling within the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy, European Security and Defence Policy, and aspects of law enforcement and judicial cooperation. The number of votes cast by each member state when the EU Council votes by qualified majority voting was determined by the Nice Treaty and roughly correlates to the size of its population.

===The [[European Parliament]]===
[[File:Conchita Wurst Ban Ki Moon.jpg|right|300px|thumb|UN Geneal Secretary Ban Ki-Moon with singer Conchita Wurst. In 2014 Wurst was invited to sing before the European Parliament.]]
The European Parliament is the largest trans-national parliament in the world, and the second-largest overall (behind [[India]]), with an electorate of almost half a billion. Members of the Parliament are directly elected by all EU citizens for five-year terms; elections follow national election procedures, except they have to be a form of proportional representation. Members do not sit in national delegations; rather, they sit in groups according to political affiliation (including Socialists, Christian Democrats/Conservatives, Liberals, Greens, et cetera).

Parliament's powers have gradually grown with the entry into force of the Single European Act (1986), the Maastricht Treaty (1993) and the Treaty of Amsterdam (1999). Parliament shares decision-making power on an equal footing with the Council in many areas under the Community Pillar to which the "co-decision procedure" applies. The European Parliament is one of the two branches with budgetary authority – the Council is the other. The signature of the EP president brings the overall EU budget into effect.

The European Parliament also plays a role in the process of selecting the President and other members of the Commission. The European Council's nomination of the President is subject to approval by the Parliament. The EP holds U.S.-style public hearings of Commission nominees before taking a formal vote to approve the nomination of the Commission as a body. Parliament has the power to censure the entire Commission, but not to dismiss individual Commissioners.

===The European Court of Justice===
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ensures uniform interpretation and application of both the Treaties establishing the European Communities and the secondary legislation and other law adopted under their authority. To enable it to carry out that task, the Court has wide jurisdiction to hear various types of cases. For example, the Court has the authority to hear and issue binding judgements in lawsuits that seek to annul a law adopted by the EU, to compel an EU institution to act, or to require that a member state comply with EU law. The ECJ may issue clarifications of EU law (in response to a request for a preliminary ruling from any member state court) and hears appeals on legal questions arising out of cases at the Court of First Instance. The ECJ currently has 28 justices and eight advocates-general, who are appointed by common accord of the governments of the member states and who hold office for six-year renewable terms.

==Sovereignty==
The member states of the European Union fall under the jurisdiction of the Union's legislative and judicial institutions (the Court of Justice, the Commission, the Council and the Parliament) in those competences that they have conferred to the Union (the principle of subsidiarity). Similar to Federal Law trumping State Law in United States politics, EU member states are obliged to follow the laws set forth by the European Court of Justice, even if their national laws are contradictory. This system of government pools sovereignty in those agreed areas from the nation, and rests it in the EU institutions. Some political theorists argue that the EU is thus the death of the nation, as by the [[Treaty of Westphalia]], nations are defined by their right of self-sovereignty; however, each member state has a legal right to cede from the EU, which non-sovereign components of states do not.

==Economy==

{{See also|Eurozone Crisis}}

The institutions of the European Union were originally created to oversee the operation of the several economic communities that later became the Single European Market. Even as the EU's political integration has continued, the area of greatest integration has always been in the economic sphere: goods, capital, and labour move freely between member states (with exceptions for goods which pose a public health risk), businesses in all member states are increasingly subject to common basic rules, and fifteen of the 28 member states use a common currency, the euro. The rest of the states are legally obliged to adopt the euro when their economies meet strict ''Convergence Criteria'' (except the UK and Denmark, which negotiated opt-outs). The fifteen euro-area countries share a common monetary policy administered by the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, Germany. The EU strives to eliminate internal barriers to the free flow of goods, services, labour, and capital, and to promote the overall convergence of living standards. Internationally, the EU aims to strengthen Europe's trade position and capitalise on the political and economic leverage that a large, unified market brings.

===Growth===
The EU is the world's largest economic area (the U.S. is second) with a 2007 GDP of $16.6 trillion. Growth in many member states has been slow; between 2001 and 2003, the overall growth rate dropped from 1.8 percent to 1.0 percent, then recovered in 2004 to 2.4%, fell to 1.8 percent in 2005, then rose to 2.8% in 2006 and 2.4% in 2007. Within the euro area, growth varies as much as 4.5 percentage points between the fastest and slowest-growing economies: in 2005, the economies of Germany, France and Italy, grew by less than two percent. Growth remains strong in the new [[Central Europe]]an member states with rapidly industrialising economies.

In spring 2000, the EU committed to a ten-year strategic goal of transforming the EU into a more competitive, knowledge-based economy capable of sustaining higher levels of growth. Focusing on labour market reform, macroeconomic and fiscal policy, and promotion of e-commerce and entrepreneurship, the EU's "Lisbon Agenda" was an attempt to stimulate growth while remaining committed to the EU social model. Some suggest that it has so far failed to achieve its goals in large part because national governments (which retain authority over employment policy, immigration, large public sector workforces, entitlement programs and pensions) have not completed the necessary reforms, with unemployment at 6.9 percent in 2007. The European Commission re-launched the Lisbon Agenda in March 2005, promising three percent growth and six million new jobs by 2010. The revamped strategy focuses on developing political consensus within member states to make the changes necessary to complete elimination of barriers in the internal market, reduce the regulatory burden on business, improve labour market flexibility, provide incentives to work and increase investment in human capital.

===Fiscal and Monetary Policy===
Introduced in 1999, the euro is currently the official currency of fifteen of the 28 EU member states. The United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden chose to retain their national currencies, and some of the newer EU members have yet to meet the strict economic conditions required to adopt the euro. Prior to the euro's launch in 1999, national currency exchange rates of countries intending to join the euro were fixed within an Exchange Rate Mechanism. Following the January 2002 introduction of euro notes and coins into general circulation, national currencies were removed from circulation. Each of the euro area countries agreed to abide by a shared fiscal policy rule book known as the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP). This agreement generally obliges national governments to limit government budget deficits to 3 percent of GDP and established a target debt-to-GDP ratio of below sixty percent. Although enforcement actions have been forgiving – France and Germany, for example, avoided sanctions despite missing SGP targets – countries violating the SGP are technically subject to sanctions by the European Commission. As of March 2005, national governments have been granted budget leeway to achieve structural reforms and to combat prolonged stagnation, negative growth or other factors, such as the cost of German reunification or state pensions. The revised standards still require deficits to remain close to the targets; they may only temporarily exceed the three percent limit.

The euro area's monetary policy is set by the European Central Bank (ECB), which must devise a monetary policy to accommodate a wide range of domestic policies and economic conditions within the euro area. The Treaties require that the ECB's primary objective be to maintain price stability (i.e., to keep inflation low). Euro area national governments have sometimes criticised the ECB for guarding against inflation at the expense of interest rate flexibility that could enable struggling economies to gain traction. The ECB's consistent overnight interest rate of two percent has been credited with creating favourable conditions for growth in Spain and Ireland, but has been blamed for hindering growth in France, Germany, Italy, and Portugal. Non-EU countries have also adopted the euro, including Andorra, United Kingdom base areas, Kosovo, Monaco, Montenegro, and the Vatican City. Additionally, several countries have currencies pegged to the euro, including French African states and those in the Exchange Rate Mechanism.

===Trade===
The EU is the world's largest exporter of goods and services. In 2003, the then fifteen EU members exported $987 billion worth of goods to non-EU countries. The EU's exports grew rapidly between 1996 and 2000 but have grown more slowly since. Except for 2002, the EU as a whole has posted a trade deficit every year since 1999; it was $62 billion in 2004. The EU is a major exporter of chemicals, transport equipment, and industrial machinery. The EU has large trade deficits in raw materials and energy, and a small deficit in food and drink.

The U.S. is the EU's main trading partner by a wide margin. U.S. goods and services exports to the EU reached $283 billion in 2004, while U.S. goods and services imports from the EU totalled $388 billion. Asian economies such as Japan and China, however, account for an increasingly important share of EU trade. The EU's two-way merchandise trade with China grew to $223 million in 2004, while merchandise trade with Japan was $149 million. Internal trade between euro area and non-euro area countries was down one percent in the first quarter of 2005, but the EU's external trade was up four percent, particularly with Russia and Norway.

Member states have given almost exclusive authority to the EU to negotiate binding international trade treaties. The European Community (EC) is a full member of the World Trade Organisation and plays an active role in the Doha Development Round to foster international trade in services and agricultural products. Bilaterally, the EC maintains framework agreements to facilitate trade flows with thirty-five countries worldwide, mostly elsewhere in Europe, in North Africa, and in the Middle East.

===Foreign Direct Investment===
The EU is both a major destination for foreign direct investment (FDI) and a major source of FDI. U.S. foreign direct investment in the EU totalled $83.3 billion in 2004; EU FDI into the U.S. totalled $46.6 billion. Following strong year-upon-year growth in the late 1990s, however, inward and outward flows of FDI have contracted since 2001. The EU is a net recipient of FDI from Japan, receiving $81 billion in 2003. Conversely, the EU is a net investor in Canada ($86 billion in outward investment in 2003), and China ($29 billion in outward investment in 2003). Growth of intra-EU FDI has increased rapidly in recent years and has increased much faster than FDI in non-EU countries.

The pattern of foreign investment by European firms reflects deep commercial ties with the United States. U.S. and EU businesses invest heavily and operate profitably on both sides of the Atlantic. U.S. affiliates in Europe accounted for 56 percent of the aggregate output of U.S. affiliates worldwide. European firms were the largest foreign investors in 44 U.S. states and the second largest foreign investor in the remaining six. Sales by U.S. affiliates in Europe totalled $1.5 trillion in 2002, more than double those of U.S. affiliates in the Asia/Pacific region. European affiliate sales in the U.S. were $1.2 trillion in 2002, more than three times the value of U.S. imports from Europe.

Intra-firm trade involving foreign affiliates is particularly important to the transatlantic trade and investment relationship. Approximately 58 percent of U.S. imports from the EU in 2004 involved trade between related parties, as did 30 percent of U.S. exports to Europe in 2003. This high level of intra-firm trade has contributed to the persistence of the U.S. trade deficit with Europe even as the dollar has lost value against the euro since 2002.

===Budget===
The EU's budget is composed of member state contributions. Equivalent to roughly one percent of the member states' combined gross national income (GNI), it was $123 billion in 2005. The UK receives a rebate for some of its contribution, as the CAP benefits the UK less than other states. In June 2005, the EU failed to agree on a budget plan for 2007 through 2013, due in part to a disagreement between the UK and France over the persistence of the UK budget rebate and the funding of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Costs attributable to the CAP constitute the EU's largest annual budget item, benefiting farmers across the EU, especially in France. Payments to net-recipient member states, designed to reduce economic and social disparities among EU countries and regions, are another budget item which has become more contentious with the accession of ten new states poorer than the EU average.

==Criticism==
[[File:No-EU.png|thumb|250px|Numerous people oppose the EU due to its [[socialist]] and [[globalist]] policies.]]
{{See also|Euroskepticism|European migrant crisis}}
A significant number of Europeans on the political right-of-center are opposed to the EU on the grounds that it undermines national sovereignty and identity. The term "eurosceptic" has risen in popularity in Britain to describe these people, and among them are such members as the former British Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] (although, while in power, she committed Britain to the 1986 [[Single European Act]], a major integrationist measure). They also, however, include less well-respected politicians belonging to "far-right" or [[nationalism|nationalist]] parties, such as France's [[Jean-Marie Le Pen]]. There are also extreme left-wing opponents of the European Union, such as ''Die Linke'' in Germany, who regard it as constituting an anti-progressive "Fortress Europe", and claim that EU membership impedes countries from following socialist policies. However, compared to [[conservative]] critics, left-wing Euroskeptics usually take softer positions against the EU, as they still support many of its policies such as on immigration and nationalism.

The European Union has been described as "a culturally amorphous post-ideological world. A [[cosmopolitan]] easy going [[agnostic]] world where the European Parliament invites a long haired bearded [[Transgender|shemale]] to perform in front of its building and announces him/her as 'The voice of Europe' singing for equality, without anyone batting an eye."<ref>https://gatestone.eu/eu-going-down/</ref>

===Anti-Israel===
In 2013 the European Union forced their 28 members not to cooperate with Israeli entities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.<ref>http://frontpagemag.com/2013/noah-beck/the-eus-broken-mideast-compass/</ref>

==History==
Following World War II, traditional European rivals sought to solidify peace by bringing their nations together under a common institutional structure. Influenced by his compatriot [[Jean Monnet]], French Foreign Minister [[Robert Schuman]] officially tabled a plan on May 9, 1950 to pool French and German coal and steel production under an organisation that would be open to other European countries. German Chancellor [[Konrad Adenauer]] supported this proposal, and six founding countries – Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands – took an early step toward European integration by establishing the '''European Coal and Steel Community''' (ECSC) in 1951.

After failing to establish a European Defence Community in the 1950s, the six countries then decided to set up a common market. With the entry into force of the ''''Treaty of Rome''' in 1957, they created the '''European Economic Community''' (EEC), with an objective of liberating the movement of goods, capital, workers and services. (The European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) was also established at this time.) The Treaty of Rome established the basic institutions and decision-making mechanisms still in place in today's European Union. in 1968, the EEC abolished customs duties between member states on manufactured goods. New policies, including a common agricultural policy (CAP) and a common trade policy, were in place by the end of the 1960s.

The success of the European integration project during a period of steady economic growth in the 1960s set the stage for a first enlargement – the accession of Britain, Ireland and Denmark – in 1973. Further "deepening" of European integration followed: the Community acquired executive authority in social, regional, and environment policies. The benefits of economic convergence became more evident in the context of the 1970s energy crisis and financial turmoil, which led to the launch of the European Monetary System in 1979. In the same year, the first direct elections to the European Parliament (EP) took place. Previously, delegates from national parliaments had represented their country's legislative bodies at the EP in Strasbourg, France.

The Community further expanded southward with the accession of Greece (1981, the second enlargement), followed by Spain and Portugal (1986, the third enlargement). These accessions led the EEC to adopt "structural programs" in order to reduce economic and social disparities among its regions.

During the 1960s and 1970s, the Community began to assert itself on the international scene with the conclusion of agreements with southern Mediterranean countries. Starting in 1963, the EEC signed four successive Lome Conventions, which guaranteed trading advantages and development aid for member states' former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific (ACP).

World recession and internal disputes over member states' financial burdens gave way, from 1985 onward, to renewed efforts for economic integration, enshrined in the 1985 "Single European Act" (SEA) and marked by the 1992 "Single Market Project." The SEA set January 1, 1993 as the date by which an internal single market was to be established and, by extending the practice of majority voting rather than unanimity in the EU Council, gave Community institutions the means of adopting the 300 Community-wide Directives required to abolish the remaining barriers and obstacles to intra-Community trade. In 1995, the Community entered into the "Barcelona" partnership with twelve southern Mediterranean countries. The partnership, reinforced by agreements on social, cultural, and human cooperation, was intended to lead to a free-trade area.

The collapse of the Berlin Wall and German unification prompted member states to negotiate the 1992 Treaty on European Union (the "Maastricht Treaty"). In addition to establishing the European Union, the Maastricht Treaty set an ambitious program of further integration: establishment of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) by 1999 (part of the "First or 'Community' Pillar"), setting up of a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) ("Second Pillar"); and cooperation on Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) ("Third Pillar"). Shortly thereafter, in 1995, Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the EU – the fourth enlargement.

Signed in 1997 and entering into force on May 1, 1999, the '''Amsterdam Treaty''' partially streamlined the EU institutional structure. Its most significant effects were: (1) to transfer aspects of Justice and Home Affairs policy to the Community Pillar, enabling the Commission to propose decisions to be taken by the EU Council by qualified majority voting instead of by consensus, and (2) to establish a High Representative for the CFSP (who also serves as Secretary-General of the Council Secretariat). Ten countries in [[Central Europe]] and Cyprus began accession procedures in 1997, followed by Malta. The prospect of eastward enlargement raised significant resource concerns and prompted the adoption in March 1999 of the "Agenda 2000" package, which covered amendments to the CAP and EU structural policies, as well as a budgetary framework through 2006.

In May 1998, EU heads of government officially designated eleven member states eligible to adopt a single currency. Britain and Denmark "opted out." On January 1, 1999, the euro became the official currency of the EU, and the '''European Central Bank''' (ECB) put euro notes and coins into circulation in 2002. Today, fifteen countries use the euro: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.

Streamlining the size and procedures of EU institutions to make the expanded EU more efficient was also an aim of the 2003 Treaty of Nice.

===Expansion===
In 2004, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined the EU, and in 2007 Bulgaria and Romania acceded, bringing total membership to 27. Croatia joined in 2013, making the total number of members 28. Candidate countries currently include [[Turkey]], FYR [[Macedonia]] and [[Montenegro]], [[Serbia]], and potential candidates include the rest of the Western [[Balkans|Balkan]] states.

In October 2004, member states signed an EU Constitutional Treaty designed to replace all previous treaties. French and Dutch voters rejected the treaty through referendums in 2005, thereby suspending the ratification process. In 2007, a modified '''Treaty of Lisbon''' was agreed upon, which retains most of the reforms of the Constitution, but amends rather than replaces previous treaties.

At the late 2009 the [[Eurozone Crisis|European sovereign-debt crisis]] started. [[Greece]], [[Ireland]], [[Portugal]], [[Cyprus]], [[Spain]] and [[Italy]] are most affected.

The EU and other European countries were greatly affected by the [[European migrant crisis]] resulting from lax immigration standards due to EU policies.

==Candidates for membership==
There are three official candidates being considered for membership, [[Turkey]], [[Montenegro]], [[Serbia]] and [[Macedonia]]. The western Balkan states of Kosovo, Bosnia-Hercegovina and Albania are officially ''potential candidates''. A country that is expected to accede is required to make some economic, social and governmental changes to bring it in line with other member states.

The status of Turkey is highly controversial. It has repeatedly applied to join the EU but has been rejected each time on numerous grounds. Despite being one of the first countries to join the post-war Council of Europe and being a key regional power with a strong military, Turkey has a long list of obstacles to overcome before accession. Many nations have cited its poor relations with other countries such as Cyprus, as well as its views on the rights of women and the Turkish Penal Code which includes the notorious Article 301. Article 301 is a recent piece of legislation that provides that "a person who publicly insults the Turkish nation, the State of the Republic of Turkey, or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and two years". Turkey's population of 70 million would make it one of the largest states in the EU with the second-highest amount of MEPs, and would be the first Muslim-majority state in Europe. Britain supports admission while France is strongly against Turkey's membership.

Gateway to the European Union (EU official website) <ref>http://europa.eu/</ref>

==Member states==
*[[Austria]]
*[[Belgium]]
*[[Bulgaria]]
*[[Croatia]]
*[[Cyprus]]
*[[Czech Republic]]
*[[Denmark]]
*[[Estonia]]
*[[Finland]]
*[[France]]
*[[Germany]]
*[[Greece]]
*[[Hungary]]
*[[Ireland]]
*[[Italy]]
*[[Latvia]]
*[[Lithuania]]
*[[Luxembourg]]
*[[Malta]]
*[[Netherlands]]
*[[Poland]]
*[[Portugal]]
*[[Romania]]
*[[Slovakia]]
*[[Slovenia]]
*[[Spain]]
*[[Sweden]]
*[[United Kingdom]] (until 29 March 2019)

==References==
<References/>

{{License|license = This work is in the [[public domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.| source = [http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/54126.htm]}}
==Further reading==
* Cini, Michelle, and Nieves Perez-Solorzano Borragan, eds. ''European Union Politics'' (2009)
* Craig, Paul and Gráinne de Búrca. ''EU Law, Text, Cases and Materials'' (4th ed. 2007)
* Dinan, Desmond. '' Europe Recast: A History of European Union' '(2004).
* Hix, Simon. ''What's Wrong with the Europe Union and How to Fix It'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Wrong-Europe-Union-How/dp/0745642055/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1263576617&sr=1-10-spell excerpt and text search]
* Kaiser, Wolfram. ''Christian Democracy and the Origins of European Union'' (2007)
* Peterson, John, and Michael Shackleton eds. ''The Institutions of the European Union'' (2nd ed. 2006)
* McCormick, John. ''The European Union: Politics and Policies'' (2007)
* Pinder, John, and Simon Usherwood. ''The European Union: A Very Short Introduction'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/European-Union-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0199233977/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263575844&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
*Podmore, Will & Nicholls, Doug (2006), The EU: bad for Britain - a [[trade union]] view. Bread Books, ISBN 0-942112-5-1.
* Staab, Andreas. ''The European Union Explained: Institutions, Actors, Global Impact'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/European-Union-Explained-Institutions-Actors/dp/0253220181/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263575844&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Yesilada, Birol A. and David M. Wood. ''The Emerging European Union'' (5th ed. 2009)
[[Category:European Politics]]
[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:European Union]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category:Marxism]]
[[Category:Globalism]]

United States Congress

2018-02-06T12:34:31Z

TheOther: Updated to current events

{{outdated|2014}}[[File:U.S. Supreme Court and Capitol Washington D.C..jpg|thumb|The Capitol from the Supreme Court, Washington, D.C.]]
'''Congress (Congress of the United States)''' (a word derived from the Latin "congressum", from "congredior", meaning "to come together") is the term for the legislative body of the [[United States of America]], composed of the [[House of Representatives]] and [[United States Senate|Senate]]. In the current 115th Congress, both the House and the Senate are controlled by the [[Republican Party]]. The reelection rate for congressional incumbents is 93% despite persistently low approval ratings, typically near 20%.

==Powers==
The powers of Congress, called the [[Delegated Powers]] are detailed in [[United States Constitution:Article I|Article I]], section eight. Congress is vested with the power to impose and collect [[taxes]], to [[loan|borrow]] and [[coin]] [[money]], and to regulate foreign trade and [[interstate commerce]]. Congress is also responsible to create [[post office]]s and [[federal court]]s, maintain the [[Army]] and [[Navy]], and admit new [[states]] into the union. Additionally, Congress can propose [[amendment]]s to the [[Constitution]]. The [[Necessary and Proper Clause]] grants Congress all other powers necessary to carry out its duties.<ref>U.S. Government and Politics</ref>

==Origin==
The Congress of the United States was created in the [[Unites States Constitution:Article I|first article]] of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]].<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section1</ref> Most [[historian]]s agree that the [[bicameral]] system within Congress is derived from the English [[Parliament]].

==Houses==
Congress is divided into two houses, the [[United States Senate|Senate]] and the [[House of Representatives]]. The Senate gives equal weight for each state, with each state electing 2 senators who serve 6 year terms. The House is proportioned based upon [[population]], with each House member serving a 2-year term. The House and Senate must agree for [[legislation]] to be enacted. The [[President]] can [[veto]] that legislation which can then be overridden by a 2/3rds majority of both Houses of Congress.

The basis of these two components come from [[James Madison]]'s [[Virginia Plan]] and [[William Patterson]]'s [[New Jersey Plan]]. During the [[Philadelphia Convention]] in 1787, Madison's [[Virginia]] Plan called for two houses both of which would be represent each state based on its population. Smaller states took issue with this, as the provision was highly favorable to Virginia. Thus, William Patterson proposed the [[New Jersey]] Plan - which called for one house that represented each stated with a single vote. Eventually the [[Connecticut]] delegates proposed the [[Connecticut Compromise]] - which called for two houses, the upper of which would represent each state equally, and the lower of which would represent each state according to population.<ref>Boyer, 187</ref>

== Congressmen in the White House==
Thirty-three members of Congress have gone on to become [[President of the United States]], the vast majority of which were [[Republican]] members.<ref>http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/mem_bio/mem_pres.html</ref> Among those who ascended to the White House are:
*[[George H.W. Bush]]
*[[Abraham Lincoln]]
*[[Andrew Jackson]]
*[[Gerald Ford]]
*[[John Quincy Adams]]

== Benefits ==
[[File:Interior of the Library of Congress.jpg|thumb|Interior of the Library of Congress.]]

==Notable Members==
*[[Larry McDonald]], a passenger on [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] shot down by the Soviets on Sept. 1, 1983, the only congressman reported killed by the Soviets during the [[Cold War]]
*Senator Hiram Revels of [[Mississippi]] and Representative Joseph Rainey of [[South Carolina]] became the first [[African American]] members of Congress in 1870.<ref>http://baic.house.gov/</ref>
*Republican Florence Prag Kahn was the first [[Jewish]] woman and first widow elected to Congress<ref>http://florencekahn.clerk.house.gov/</ref>
*[[William Jennings Bryan]], four-time presidential candidate, best known as the prosecutor in the 1920 [[Scopes Monkey Trial]]

==Quotations==
{{cquote|There is no distinctly American criminal class, except Congress}}
-- [[Mark Twain]]
{{cquote|Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a [[member of Congress]], but I repeat myself.}}
-- [[Mark Twain]]

==References==
Boyer, Paul, Clifford Clark, Jr., Nancy Woloch, Neal Salisbury, and Harvard Sitkoff. The Enduring Vision. 5th. New York: Charles Hartford,

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:United States of America]]
[[Category:United States Government]]
[[Category:United States Senate]]
[[Category:United States House of Representatives]]
[[Category:DC]]

ObamaCare

2017-11-01T06:43:07Z

TheOther: Added new stuff about how it's even worse than universal healthcare

[[File:ObamaCareSymbol.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Image courtesy [[Newsbusters]].]]
'''ObamaCare''', officially and ironically known as "'''The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act'''" (ACA), has imposed massive penalties on young workers, small businesses and others who choose not to buy expensive health insurance, beginning in 2014. ObamaCare is the biggest handout by [[liberals]] to a single interest group — the health insurance industry — in [[America]]n history. Even [[Democrat]]ic Presidential candidate [[Jim Webb]] admitted in 2012: Obamacare "cost [[Obama]] a lot of credibility as a leader."<ref>http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/222259-sen-webb-says-president-obamas-health-law-cost-him-a-lot-of-credibility-as-a-leader</ref> On June 28, 2012, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare — by only one vote, 5-4 — as being within the taxing power of the federal government. Since then, leading Democrats have described ObamaCare as a "train wreck," and [[union]]s increasingly agree with [[conservatives]] that Obamacare should be repealed.<ref>http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/300881-labor-unions-break-ranks-on-health-law</ref>

ObamaCare caused the creation of 23 health exchange co-ops, 22 of which lost money in 2014, and five of which have gone out of business as of October 14, 2015.<ref>http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/14/another-obamacare-collapse-kentucky-health-co-op-goes-under/</ref>

The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] (AAPS) pointed out that there are no redeeming provisions of Obama's health care plan.<ref name="aapsonline.org">http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00377</ref> AAPS observes that Obama's health care plan will significantly increase the overall cost of health care for a majority of United States citizens, plus reduce the quality of care that a [[free market]] system would otherwise provide.<ref name="aapsonline.org"/> Interestingly, ObamaCare even costs significantly more, both in terms of actual money and as a percentage of GDP, than most universal healthcare programs, such as Australia's, which costs roughly half as much as a percentage of GDP, and delivers comparable or better results.

Obamacare will soon cause havoc and harm to tens of millions of Americans: 28 million Americans will be caught in a "massive game of health coverage pingpong" due to Obamacare.<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-medi-cal-churn-20130520,0,5572821.story</ref>

As of April 2014, the House of Representatives has voted 55 times to scale back or repeal the law, but none of those proposals has received consideration in the Senate.<ref name=fulltime/>

__TOC__
[[File:Jane orient.jpg|right|200px|thumbnail|Dr. Jane Orient, Director of the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] (AAPS). The AAPS, a [[conservative]] doctor's association, has always been against Obamacare, while the liberal [[American Medical Association]] endorsed it.<ref>[http://www.aapsonline.org/index.php/article/the_right_not_to_work_for_obamacare/ The right not to work for Obamacare]</ref><ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/why-the-ama-endorses-obamacare-but-your-doctor-does-not/ Why the AMA endorses Obamacare]</ref> ]]
Obamacare is opposed by many state governors, including [[Florida]] Governor [[Rick Scott]]. He declared after the Supreme Court ruling, "I will not implement this law. Florida will not implement Obamacare." Scott encouraged other states to reject Obamacare in three ways:

*opt out of the expensive Medicaid provision in ObamaCare, which would incur massive costs in extending free care to those over the poverty line
*refuse to set up a [[health-insurance exchange]] - "If there were any value added by these exchanges, the private sector would be doing it already," Governor Scott observed
*repeal Obamacare in Congress, which requires electing a [[Republican]] majority in the [[U.S. Senate]]

Obamacare was passed by [[Congress]] on March 21, 2010, and signed into federal law by President [[Barack Obama]] on March 23. This law furthers the process of [[Socialism|socializing]] the [[United States]] [[health care]] system, which began with [[Medicare]].<ref>Epic [[Direct spending#New spending|new spending]] and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html Nancy Pelosi's New Health-Care Bill], ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', November 01, 2009.</ref><ref>[[President Obama]], Senate Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] and House Speaker [[Nancy Pelosi]] rammed Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, much more is known about the bill than when it was passed into law. [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamacare-is-even-worse-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html Examiner Editorial: Obamacare is even worse than critics thought], ''Washington Examiner'', September 22, 2010.</ref> The centerpiece of Obamacare is the individual mandate, a provision that makes it mandatory for every citizen to purchase private health insurance, which was unprecedented in American history. Under an [[Executive Order]] signed by President [[Donald Trump]], collection of the Obamacare tax and fines has been temporarily suspended, however individuals and businesses' penalties continue to accrue daily.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Saving-Money/2017/0125/What-Trump-s-executive-order-on-Obamacare-repeal-means-for-your-health-care-coverage </ref> Through legislative mandates, Obamacare requires private citizens to purchase health insurance, involuntarily fund [[abortion]]s, and pay for sex offenders to use Viagra under the threat of legal sanctions if they do not. The new law imposes penalties that will increase to 2.5% of one's income if he fails to purchase government-approved health insurance.

On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court voted 5–4 that while ObamaCare exceeded Congress’s authority under the commerce clause, the law was a permissible tax under the Constitution.<ref>[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf]</ref> The constitutionality of Obamacare was originally challenged under the theory that it exceeded the limitations of the commerce clause; more than 20 federal lawsuits have been filed against Obamacare since President Barack Obama signed it into law.<ref>By Janet Adamy and Evan Perez. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704058704576015631138296112.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth Federal Judge to Rule on Health Law's Constitutionality], WSJ.com, December 13, 2010.</ref><ref>By Rep. [[Lamar Smith]]. [http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/19/rep-lamar-smith-voting-repeal-new-health-care-law/ REP. LAMAR SMITH: Why I Am Voting to Repeal the New Health Care Law], ''[[Fox News]]'' (FoxNews.com), Published January 19, 2011.</ref> In total, 27 states have started or joined in a lawsuit against Obamacare.<ref>Brandon Stewart. [http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/17/list-of-states-suing-over-obamacare/ List of 27 States Suing Over Obamacare], heritage.org, January 17, 2011.</ref> A federal judge ruled on 13 December 2010 that a central component of ObamaCare, the requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty, violates the Constitution. U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is quoted as saying the law "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."<ref name=unconstitutional>Judge Rules Mandatory Insurance Unconstitutional; First Round of Long Battle. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703727804576017552229615230.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEADNewsCollection Court Strikes at Health Law], By Janet Adamy (WSJ.com), December 14, 2010.</ref> Then on 31 January 2011 federal judge Roger Vinson ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/31/judges-ruling-health-care-lawsuit-shift-momentum-coverage-debate/ Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional], [[Fox News|FoxNews.com]], Published January 31, 2011.</ref><ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/content/home/daily/site_020111/content/01125106.guest.html Obamacare Ruled Unconstitutional, But Fight for Repeal Must Continue], RushLimbaugh.com, February 1, 2011.</ref> The U.S. district judge declared Obamacare unconstitutional because it violates the [[Commerce Clause]]. In a footnote attached to the ruling, federal judge Roger Vinson cited Barack Obama's position in 2008 from an interview with [[CNN]], when Obama stated that, "If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house."<ref>Stephen Dinan. [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/ Judge uses Obama’s words against him], ''[[The Washington Times]]'', January 31, 2011.</ref>

The [[Congressional Budget Office]] (CBO) estimates the invasive revenue generating device could produce as much as $36 billion over ten years.<ref>[http://allnurses-central.com/world-news-current/proposed-senate-plan-405168.html Proposed Senate Plan Would Involve IRS in Collecting Fines from Non-participants], ALLNURSES CENTRAL, Jul 03, 2009.</ref> The fines are euphemistically dubbed "shared responsibility payments."<ref>http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/cbo-reports-entitlements-and-shared-responsibility</ref> Employers would be required to deduct the penalties from employees' paychecks.<ref name="ReferenceA">http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00421</ref> The State of [[Massachusetts]] has had a similar program in place for several years, and many have elected to pay the penalties rather than purchase insurance, and many remain uninsured.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>

ObamaCare will do more than detrimentally impact healthcare accessibility. According to the [[Heritage Foundation]], Obama is intentionally sacrificing millions of jobs, at a time when unemployment is around 10%, with the Medicare surtax without any objective exception of increases in revenues.<ref>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/Obamas-Capital-Gains-Tax-Hike-Unlikely-to-Increase-Revenues</ref> ObamaCare will cost 650,000 U.S. jobs if it is not repealed. The Congressional Budget Office says the figure would be more than 800,000 people would lose their jobs.<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-director-says-obamacare-would-reduce-employment-800000-workers_547288.html CBO Director Says Obamacare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers, Weekly Standard, February 10, 2011]</ref>

==Bill History==
===Background===
In the 1940s in the wake of World War II, European countries and Canada rebuilt their health care systems on a single-payer model. However, the United States continued its system of private health care insurance, which was largely paid by employers to cover the health care of employees. Rep. John Dingell, Sr. introduced a bill to establish a national system of health care. When Dingell died in 1955, his son was elected to represent the same Michigan district in Congress. [[John Dingell]], Jr. introduced the National Health Insurance Act, to provide universal health care in each session of congress.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://dingell.house.gov/issue/health-care|title=Health Care|accessdate=April 10, 2014}}</ref> In the Senate, [[Edward M. Kennedy]] advocated universal health care.

In 1965, Congress passed the law establishing [[Medicare]] - a single-payer insurance program for citizens over 65, which was funded through a federal payroll tax.

The United States Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) in 1986. EMTALA requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. EMTALA applies to virtually all U.S. hospitals. As a result, many people who could not afford to see a doctor came to hospital emergency rooms for non-emergency care. Because EMTALA does not have a way of paying for this care, hospitals raised the rates charged to other patients to cover these costs.

On April 12, 2006, Massachusetts Governor [[Mitt Romney]] signed state health legislation which provided for universal health coverage in that state.<ref>{{cite news|title=Landmark Health Bill Signed|agency=Los Angeles Times and Associated Press|date=April 13, 2006|publisher=The Seattle Times|url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002927493_insure13.html}}</ref>

Obama during the 2008 elections had campaigned on healthcare reform, promising that the negotiations would not be behind closed doors, but televised publicly on C-Span.<ref>Spiering, C. (2010, January 6). "[http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/beltway-confidential/2010/01/video-obama-promises-health-care-negotiations-will-be-cspan Video: Obama Promises That Healthcare Negotiations Will Be On C-Span]." ''Washington Examiner''. Holan, A.D. (2009, July 10). "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/517/health-care-reform-public-sessions-C-SPAN/ Obama Said He'd Televise Health Reform Negotiations on C-Span]." ''PolitiFact''.</ref> He had also promised Planned Parenthood on July 17, 2007, that "reproductive care" would be central to the coming healthcare bill, and that he believed it important for Planned Parenthood to be part of the system:<ref>McGurn, William (2009, November 9). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574525962492620186.html The Man Who Made Pelosi Cry 'Uncle']." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> {{cquote|"Well, look, in my mind, reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care. So it is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose... Essentially what we are doing is to say that we're going to set up a public plan that all persons, and all women, can access if they don't have health insurance. It'll be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services, as well as mental health services, and disease-management services, because part of our interest is to make sure that we're putting more money into preventive care. And so many of women's diseases are preventable if they're getting access to regular care. So we subsidize women who don't have health insurance, or can't afford low group rates. We also will subsidize those who prefer to stay in the private insurance market, except the insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care, and mental care services, and they won't be able to keep people out as a consequence of pre-existing conditions. So, that's going to be absolutely vital... I still believe that it is important for organizations like Planned Parenthood to be part of that system, because many young women for example may be much more comfortable when they're in college, or universities, or in other places, going to Planned Parenthood clinics and services, to get contraception, for example."
-Barack Obama before Planned Parenthood, July 17, 2007<ref>nrlccomm (2009, August 18). "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqww8jmizug Obama Promises Abortion in Public Plan]." ''YouTube''.</ref>}}

===Democratic Supermajority===
On April 28, 2009, the 2008 [[Wall Street Journal's]] prediction of a '[[Liberal]] [[Supermajority]]'<ref>(2008, October 17). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html A Liberal Supermajority]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> proved correct; as the defection of Senator [[Arlen Specter]] from the [[Republican Party]] to the [[Democratic Party]] put the Democrats on the verge of one of the rarest blessings in politics, a Supermajority - complete control of the [[House]], two-thirds of the [[Senate]], and [[Presidency]] so that they wouldn't need a single Republican vote to pass bills.<ref>Davis, S. (2009, April 28). "[http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/04/28/sen-specter-to-switch-parties-democrats-near-60-vote-majority/ Sen. Specter To Switch Parties, Democrats Near 60 Vote Majority]." Washington Wire. ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> Senator Bernie Sanders then urged the Democratic party to pursue single-payer healthcare reform.<ref>keithmsnbcer (2009, April 29). "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGYBbFMeFNc Bernie Sanders on Ed Show]." ''MSNBC''. YouTube.</ref> On May 16, 2009, [[Barack Obama]] urged [[Congress]] to pass health care reform within the year, stating, "Our businesses will not be able to compete; our families will not be able to save or spend; our budgets will remain unsustainable unless we get health care costs under control".<ref>(2009, May 16). "[http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5js3WXGJZSiC4UpHS8rzfumBXGd-w Obama Urges Health Care Reform by Year's End]." ''AFP''.</ref> On July 1, 2009, [[Al Franken]] was finally declared the winner of his election (narrowly winning by 312 votes<ref>Gilbert, K. (2009, July 1). "[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/al-franken-win-hands-supermajority-to-senate-democrats Al Franken Win Hands Supermajority to Senate Democrats]." ''LifeSiteNews''.</ref>), giving the Democrats their desired Supermajority, and a clear path towards [[healthcare]] reform which Republicans would be powerless to stop.<ref>Hulse, C. (2009, July 1). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/politics/02cong.html Congressional Memo - What's So Super About a Supermajority?]" ''New York Times''.</ref> Nevertheless, sickness of [[Ted Kennedy]] and [[Robert Byrd]] along with several other factors led to question marks about the supermajority's strength.<ref>Pergram, C. (2009, July 1). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/01/democrats-senate-supermajority-strong-advertised/ Democrats' Senate Supermajority Not As Strong As Advertised]." ''FOX News''. Stewart, J. (2009, July 1). "[http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-1-2009/indecision-2008---franken-s-time Indecision 2008 - Franken's Time]." The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. ''Comedy Central''.</ref> Democrats maintained this Supermajority until February 5, 2010, when Republican [[Scott Brown]] was sworn in to replace deceased Senator [[Edward Kennedy]].<ref>(2010, February 5). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/05/democrats-lose-supermajority-brown-sworn/ Democrats Lose Supermajority as Brown Sworn In]." ''Associated Press''.</ref>
====Locking Out Republicans, Literally====
Democrats were so confident that the 2008 elections displayed [[American]] backing for the Democratic Party that in October 2009 they even changed the door locks for the House [[Oversight and Government Reform Committee]] to keep Republicans from meeting when Democrats weren't present.<ref>Crabtree, S. (2009, October 20). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/63941-democrats-lock-republicans-out-of-committee-room Democrats Lock Republicans Out of Committee Room]." ''The Hill''. Pershing, B. (2009, October 23). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102204442.html Democrats on House Committee Lock Out Republicans]." ''Washington Post''.</ref> The debacle occurred because Republicans were trying to launch an investigation into corruption by Democrat Senators [[Kent Conrad]] and [[Chris Dodd]] for receiving special VIP loans from [[Countrywide Financial]].<ref>Sherman, J. (2009, October 20). "[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28531.html Towns Locks Republicans Out, Literally]." ''Politico''. Klein, R. & Jaffe, M. (2009, October 21). "[http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/10/dems-lock-out-republicans-literally/ Dems Lock Out Republicans - Literally]." ''ABC News''.</ref> Democrats canceled the meeting by secretly leaving before the meeting was to begin, and a GOP staffer caught this on videotape, set it to the tune of "Hit the Road, Jack", and posted it on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s minority webpage for the press. Committee Chairman Sen. [[Edolphus Towns]] and the Democrats then had the locks changed in retaliation.<ref>Freeman, J. (2009, October 20). "House Democrats Lock GOP Out of Committee Room." ''Wall Street Journal''. (2009, October 21). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/21/oversight-panels-democrats-lock-republicans-dispute/ Oversight Panel's Democrats Lock Out Republicans After Dispute]." ''FOX News''.</ref>
====Public Option Removed====
On July 8, 2009, Barack Obama met with hospital [[lobbyists]] and struck a deal with the hospital industry to remove the [[public option]] in exchange for the industry's support of the bill, while also reducing costs for hospitals under the plan.<ref>Mogulesku, M. (2010, March 16). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html NY Times Reporter Confirms Obama Made Deal to Kill Public Option]." ''Huffington Post''. Manjunath, Y. (2010, October 6). "[http://www.alan.com/2010/10/06/obamas-not-so-secret-deal-with-the-hospital-industry-to-kill-the-public-option/ Obama's Not-So-Secret Deal With the Hospital Industry to Kill the Public Option]." ''AlanColmes.com''. Manjunath, Y. (2010, October 7). "[http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/07/908619/-Obama-rsquo-s-Not-So-Secret-Deal-With-The-Hospital-Industry-To-Kill-The-Public-Option Obama's Not-So-Secret Deal With the Hospital Industry to Kill the Public Option]." ''Daily Kos''.</ref> {{cquote|"Not to worry, [[Jim Messina]], the deputy [[White House]] [[chief of staff]], told the hospital lobbyists, according to White House officials and lobbyists briefed on the call. The White House was standing behind the deal, Mr. Messina told them, capping the industry’s costs at a maximum of $155 billion over 10 years in exchange for its political support... Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying [[Medicare]] rates — generally 80 percent of [[private sector]] rates — or controlled by the [[secretary of health and human services]]. 'We have an agreement with the White House that I’m very confident will be seen all the way through conference,' one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter."
-David Kirkpatrick, ''[[New York Times]]'', [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html Obama is Taking an Active Role in Talks on Health Care Plan]<ref>Kirkpatrick, D. (2009, August 13). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html?pagewanted=all Obama is Taking an Active Role in Talks on Health Care Plan]." ''New York Times''.</ref>}} In November 2009, an amendment proposed by [[Dennis Kucinich]] to let states have single-payer healthcare systems without insurance industry lawsuits was stripped from the healthcare bill because [[Nancy Pelosi]] said it would break Obama's promise to let people keep their current insurance plans if they liked them.<ref>Grim, R. (2010, March 18). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/pelosi-single-payer-amend_n_347017.html Pelosi-Single Payer Amendment Breaks Obama's Health Care Promise]." ''Huffington Post''.</ref> Kucinich expressed frustration with the move, stating, "They took single-payer off the table right at the beginning, because the table was set by [[insurance]] companies."<ref>Grim, R. (2010, March 18). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/29/pelosi-not-planning-to-al_n_339188.html Pelosi Not Planning to Allow Amendments to Health Care Bill]." ''Huffington Post''.</ref> On March 25, 2010, Obama claimed the public option wasn't included "Because we couldn"t get it through Congress, that's why." He also on December 22, 2009 erroneously<ref>(2011, July 27). "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/23/barack-obama/public-option-obama-platform/ Public Option Was in Obama's Platform]." Truth-O-Meter. ''Politifact''. Jilani, Z. (2009, December 22). "[http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/12/22/74682/obama-repeatedly-touted-public/?mobile=nc FLASHBACK: Obama Repeatedly Touted Public Option Before Refusing To Push For It In The Final Hours]." ''ThinkProgress.org''. Hamsher, J. (2009, September 10). "[http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/09/10/yes-obama-campaigned-on-a-public-option/ Yes, Obama Campaigned on a Public Option]." ''FireDogLake''.</ref> claimed that he hadn't campaigned on a public option.<ref>Jacobson, L. & Drobnic Holan, A. (2010, March 26). "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/518/create-public-option-health-plan-new-national-heal/ Create a Public Option Health Plan for a New National Health Insurance Exchange]." The Obameter. ''PolitiFact''. Murray, M. & Montanaro, D. (2009, December 23). "[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/12/23/4424556-did-obama-campaign-on-public-option?lite Did Obama Campaign on Public Option?]" First Read. ''MSNBC''.</ref> Following Obama's claim, a liberal group, [[The Progressive Change Campaign Committee]], began airing television ads accusing Obama of breaking his promise of a single-payer healthcare plan.<ref>Seelye, K. (2009, December 23). "[http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/liberal-group-accuses-obama-of-reneging-on-promises/ Liberal Group Accuses Obama of Reneging on Promises]." ''New York Times''.</ref>
====Tax on Medical Device Makers====
The only healthcare industry to not readily acquiesce to the administration's demands for cooperation, medical device manufacturers, were hit with a 2.3% [[excise]] tax.<ref>LeBlanc, S. (2010, June 7). "[http://www.boston.com/business/taxes/articles/2010/06/07/medical_device_makers_new_tax_will_cost_jobs/ Medical Device Makers: New Tax Will Cost Jobs]." ''Associated Press''. Morris, D. & McGann, E. (2009, October 23). "[http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/64493-obama-taxes-pacemakers-heart-valves Obama Taxes Pacemakers, Heart Valves]." Pundits. ''The Hill''. Musgrove, M. (2009, October 14). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/13/AR2009101303015.html Planned Tax on Medical-Device Makers Too High, Firms Say]." ''Washington Post''.</ref> [[The Wall Street Journal]] suggested this was due to retaliation since the tax would add just $40 billion in funds for a bill costing $900 billion.<ref>(2009, September 18). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574418941379207328.html The Innovation Tax]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> Medical device makers continue to accuse the tax of costing jobs in 2012.<ref>Kelly, S. (2012, April 18). "[http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/18/medicaldevices-tax-idUSL2E8FI25620120418 Medical Device Tax May Spur Price Hike, Cost Cuts]." ''Reuters''. Pecquet, J. (2012, March 26). "[http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medical-devices-and-prescription-drug-policy-/218151-medical-device-makers-decry-cost-of-new-tax- Medical Device Makers Decry Cost of New Tax]." HealthWatch. ''The Hill''. Flavelle, C. (2012, March 22). "[http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-22/how-much-will-the-medical-device-tax-hurt How Much Will the Medical Device Tax Hurt?]" ''Bloomberg Businessweek''.</ref>

===Role of Pro-Life Democrats===
====House Bill: H.R. 3962====
=====Stupak's Resistance=====
In June and July 2009 some 200 [[Planned Parenthood]] [[activists]] arrived in [[Washington D.C.]]<ref>Connolly, C. (2009, July 13). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/07/state_of_play_democrats_dig_in.html State of Play: Democrats Dig In Despite Senate Focus on Hearings]." Daily Dose. ''Washington Post''.</ref> and a number of [[Pro-Choice]] bills began receiving support, as the Pro-Choice movement sought to ensure [[abortion]] would be mandated in health care reform.<ref>Novak, V. (2009, July 31). "[http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/surgery-for-seniors-vs-abortions/ Surgery for Seniors vs. Abortions?]" ''FactCheck.org''.</ref> The Republicans would find an unlikely ally in the [[Pro-Life Democrats]] (Democrats for Life of America). On June 25, 2009, 19 of them, led by Congressman [[Bart Stupak]], sent a letter to House leader Nancy Pelosi expressing refusal to support any healthcare bill with an [[abortion]] agenda,<ref>Kenworthy, Z. (2009, June 30). "[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529632,00.html President Obama's Approval Index Rating Takes a Dive]." ''FOX News''. Russert, L. (2009, July 16). "[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/07/16/4429288-health-bill-to-floor-in-two-weeks Health Bill to Floor in Two Weeks]." First Read. ''MSNBC''.</ref> which firmly stated, "''Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan... By ensuring that abortions are not funded through any health care reform package, we will take this controversial issue off the table so that Congress can focus on crafting a broadly-supported health care reform bill.''"<ref>Gilbert, Kathleen (2009, June 26). "[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/jun/09062608 Pro-Life Democrats Unite to Protect Unborn Children in Healthcare Restructuring]." ''LifeSiteNews''.</ref>

In July, Stupak introduced the [[Stupak-Pitts amendment]] to ensure [[abortions]] would not be [[subsidized]] in the healthcare bill,<ref>(2009, July 22). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5180854-503544.html Dem Says Abortion Language a Must in Healthcare Bill]. ''CBS News''.</ref> but it was defeated 30-29 in the [[Energy and House Committee]], the committee responsible for drafting it for proposal to the entire [[House of Representatives]], when [[Bart Gordon]] sneakily switched his vote from Yes to No last minute.<ref>McCormack, J. (2009, July 31). "[http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/07/house_democrat_introduces_comp.asp Waxman Strong-Arms Vote to Allow Abortion Coverage in Public Plan]." ''The Weekly Standard''.</ref> Chairman [[Henry Waxman]] replaced it with the [[Capps amendment]], which mandated one healthcare plan in each state must cover abortions.<ref name=menges>Menges, D. (2009, October 30). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/31/stupak-on-the-attack/ Stupak On the Attack]." ''The Washington Times''.</ref> On July 17, 2009, Obama once more urged rapid passage of the healthcare bill.<ref>(2009, July 17). "[http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hXW-UnAKQIiTxd2SoCN6TDQ0Fm3Q Obama Urges Congress to Pass Health Care Reform]." ''AFP''. Ferraro, T. & Smith, D. (2009, September 10). "[http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/10/us-usa-healthcare-obama-idUSTRE5881V520090910 Democrats Seek to Build Momentum On Healthcare]." ''Reuters''.</ref> Pro-Life Democrats then, in mid-July, nearly stopped the healthcare process in its tracks by initially defeating a rule required to start healthcare reform legislation, 215-214, but Democrats managed to persuade a few members to change their votes, barely passing it.<ref>Pergram, C. (2009, July 17). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/17/abortion-debate-complicate-efforts-overhaul-health-care Abortion Debate May Complicate Efforts to Overhaul Health Care]." ''FOX News''.</ref>

Obama on July 16 pressured Republicans to support the healthcare bill, even as the [[Congressional Budget Office]] criticized the proposed healthcare reform for not paying for itself.<ref>Dixon, K. (2009, July 16). "[http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/16/usa-healthcare-idUSN1641208920090716?pageNumber=2 WRAPUP 2-Obama Looks for Republican Healthcare Backing]." ''The New York Times''.</ref> Republicans criticized the lack of [[tort reform]] and insistence on covering 5.6 million [[illegal immigrants]].<ref>(2009, July 22). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/22/president-obama-uses-magnetism-political-capital-push-health-care/ President Obama Uses Magnetism, Political Capital to Push Health Care Bill]." ''FOX News''.</ref> Obama predicted he would be held responsible if the bill failed, stating: {{cquote|"You know, I intend to be president for a while and once the bill passes, I own it. And if people look and say, 'You know what? This hasn't reduced my costs. My [[premiums]] are still going up 25 percent, insurance companies are still jerking me around,' I'm the one who's going to be held responsible."<ref>Kroft, S. (2009, September 13). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-5301098.html?pageNum=2&tag=contentMain;contentBody Obama on Health Care: 'I Own It']." 60 Minutes. ''CBS News''.</ref>}} Obama initially claimed that allegations of abortion in the healthcare bill were "fabrications" by "people who are bearing false witness."<ref>Bordlee, D. (2009, September 30). "[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113335539 Pelosi & Co. Talk Abortion]." ''The National Review''. Winfield, P. (2009, October 23). "[http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/octoberweb-only/142-52.0.html Health Care Reform Splits Democrats on Abortion]." ''Christianity Today''.</ref> On August 21, he said, in a radio talk show, that claims of abortion in the bill were "not true".<ref name=menges /> However, a detailed [[FactCheck.org]] analysis concluded Obama went too far in decrying claims of abortion in healthcare as fabrications, since his own previous promise of "[[reproductive]] services" in the bill coupled with the bill's wording showed that abortion likely would be subsidized by government under the bill.<ref>Jackson, B. (2009, August 21). "[http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/ Abortion: Which Side Is Fabricating?]" ''FactCheck.org''.</ref> On September 9, Obama continued to assert the bill would not fund abortions, promising immediately after [[Joe Wilson]] famously stood up and yelled "You lie!", that "Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."<ref name=menges />

In late September after 31 different Pro-Life Democrats had signed various letters opposing abortion in the healthcare bill, Nancy Pelosi and Obama began meeting with their leader, Bart Stupak, for the first time.<ref>Kirkpatrick, D. (2009, September 28). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/health/policy/29abortion.html Abortion Fight Complicates Healthcare Debate]." ''New York Times''. Gilgoff, D. (2009, November 9). "[http://www.usnews.com/news/religion/articles/2009/10/09/the-countrys-emerging-shift-on-abortion?page=2 The Country's Emerging Shift on Abortion]." ''U.S. News & World Report''.</ref> Stupak denied claims that he was trying to "kill" healthcare reform, stating publicly at the time, "I believe we need comprehensive healthcare reform and I am excited that we are closer than we have ever been to passing a healthcare reform bill in Congress. But any reform must address legitimate concerns, including using public funding for abortions, even if party leaders disagree."<ref>Stupak, B. (2009, October 29). "[http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/65297-i-am-not-trying-to-kill-health-reform-abortion-issue-is-key Stupak: I am Not Trying to Kill Health Care Reform; Abortion Still a Concern]." ''The Hill''.</ref> On October 21, a coalition of Pro-Life groups led by key Republicans, including [[Mike Pence]], delivered a petition signed by 137,000 Americans to Congress expressing disapproval with the healthcare reform legislation.<ref>Brandt, J. (2009, October 21). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/21/house-members-raise-concerns-abortion-funding-health-reform/ House Members Raise Concerns Over Abortion Funding in Health Reform Bill]." ''FOX News''.</ref>
=====Bill Introduced=====
On October 26, the House healthcare bill was unveiled, a 1,930 page piece of legislation, the [[Affordable Healthcare for America Act]] (H.R. 3962).<ref>Allen, J. & Soaghan, M. (2009, November 29). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/65409-pelosi-unveils-healthcare-bill-house-moves-toward-floor-vote Pelosi Unveils Healthcare Bill; House Moves Toward Floor Vote]." ''The Hill''. Jackson, J. (2009, November 7). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5570605-503544.html Key Provisions of the House Healthcare Bill]." ''CBS News''.</ref> Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) accused the bill of being a "government takeover of health care in America".<ref>Barrett, T., Bash, D., et. al. (2009, October 29). "[http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/29/health.care/ House Democrats Unveil $894 Billion Health Care Bill]." ''CNN''.</ref> By early November, the House was trying to pass the healthcare bill<ref>(2009, November 4). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/04/democrats-running-time-address-abortion-dispute-health-care-reform/ Democrats Running Out of Time to Address Abortion Dispute]." ''FOX News''. Oliphant, J. (2009, November 4). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-11-04/news/0911030597_1_abortion-rights-activists-supporters-of-abortion-rights-hyde-amendment Delay on Health Care Bills Loom in Congress]." ''The Chicago Tribune''. (2009, November 2). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/02/abortion-health-care-reform-question/ Abortion Part of Health Care Reform Still in Question]." ''FOX News''. (2009, November 2). "[http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20091102/editorial02_st.art.htm Abortion Foes Seek to Use Health Plan to Curb Access]." ''USA Today''.</ref> but Bart Stupak claimed 40 Pro-Life Democrats could vote with him if his Stupak-Pitts Amendment was not voted on to prevent abortion funding in the bill.<ref>Bacon Jr., P. (2009, November 3). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110203232.html Some Democrats Concerned Over Abortion Provisions in Health Bill]." ''The Washington Post''. McCormack, J. (2009, September 21). "[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/941kghiv.asp Democratic Dissenters]." ''The Weekly Standard''.</ref> With 218 votes required for passage, this would derail the historic vote set to occur on November 7.<ref>Whitesides, J. (2009, November 4). "[http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/05/us-usa-healthcare-congress-idUSTRE5A233B20091105 Democrats Wrestle With Abortion on Health Bill]." ''Reuters''. Soraghan, M. (2009, October 22). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/64439-whip-count-shows-dems-lack-votes-on-public-plan Whip Count Shows Democrats Lack Votes on 'Robust' Public Option for Healthcare]." ''The Hill''.</ref> While Senate Leader [[Harry Reid]] (D-UT) sought to create a separate bill in the Senate, he continued to lack the 60 votes needed for a public option, i.e. a government insurance program.<ref>Jen.sen, K. & Litvan, L. (2009, November 2). "[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTYrPXF97cFw Senate, House Move Closer on Health Bills as Battle Goes Public]." ''Bloomberg''.</ref>
=====Passage=====
Bart Stupak and his 40 Pro-Life Democrats refused to budge,<ref>(2009, November 6). "[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120161271 No Public Money for Abortion]." ''The National Review''.</ref> and Pelosi until the last day tried to play 'chicken', denying the Stupak Amendment its vote.<ref>McCormack, J. (2009, November 5). "[http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/11/post_149.asp Pelosi Likely to Allow Vote on Phony Abortion Compromise Ellsworth Amendment (Update)]." ''The Weekly Standard''.</ref> On November 7 Obama made personal last-minute contact with moderate Democrats in an attempt to persuade them to vote for the healthcare bill without Stupak's amendment.<ref>Haberkorn, J. (2009, November 7). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/07/furious-scramble-for-health-reform-support/ Furious Scramble for Health Reform Support]." ''The Washington Times''. Allen, J. & Hooper, M. (2009, November 7). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/66787-health-bill-reaches-moment-of-truth Health Bill Reaches Moment of Truth]." ''The Hill''.</ref> A desperate Nancy Pelosi met with Bart Stupak last-minute and at his request, the [[Conference of Catholic Bishops]],<ref>''Associated Press'' (2009, November 11). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/11/catholic-bishops-inserting-influence-health-care-fight/ Catholic Bishops Sway Health Care Fight]." Retrieved from ''FOX News''.</ref> ultimately allowing the Stupak-Pitts amendment its vote, which passed by a vote of 240-194.<ref>Silva, C. (2009, November 23). "[http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/11/23/gvsa1123.htm Abortion Amendment Threatens to Derail Health Reform]." ''The American Medical Association''. Duin, J. (2009, November 19). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/19/duin-catholics-celebrate-their-stand-on-health-bil/ Catholics Celebrate Their Stand on Health Bill]." ''The Washington Times''.</ref> While some Republicans had considered voting 'Present' on the Stupak amendment to defeat it and thus perhaps healthcare reform, Pro-Life groups opposed the strategy and were scoring the vote so less than a 'Yes' would change a member's perfect Pro-Life rating.<ref>Hooper, M. (2009, November 9). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/67091-house-gop-mulled-present-strategy-on-abortion-amendment House GOP Mulled 'Present' Strategy on Abortion Amendment]." ''The Hill''.</ref> Republican House leader [[John Boehner]] confronted Democrat [[Charles Rangel]] on the House floor, asking whether the Stupak language would be preserved in the final bill or removed in the end, stating, "I have my doubts this language if it passes has any chance of being in the final version of this bill".<ref>(2009, November 9). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/07/republicans-question-abortion-agreement-effort-stop-health-care-momentum/ Republicans Question Abortion Agreement in Effort to Stop Health Care Momentum]." ''FOX News''.</ref> Boehner refused to vote for the bill without a guarantee the language would be kept.<ref>Phillips, K. (2009, November 7). "[http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/rangel-boehner-tangle-over-ethics-abortion/ Rangel and Boehner Tangle Over Ethics and Abortion]." ''The New York Times''.</ref> {{cquote|"Republican congressional leaders have to be chuckling right now. In the end, all the [[tea-party]] town halls, [[Glenn Beck]] rallies and '[[death panel]]' rumors may have less of a hand in bringing down health care reform than an intraparty Democratic culture war. Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan, whose amendment restricting abortion coverage on all policies sold through the new insurance exchange paved the way for passage of health reform in the House of Representatives, vows that 'there will be [[hell]] to pay' if his language gets stripped out of, or weakened in, the final legislation."
-[[Amy Sullivan]], ''[[Time Magazine]]'', [http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1939600,00.html#ixzz1vJ6ILjRr Can Dems Resolve Their Abortion Split?]<ref>Sullivan, Amy (2009, November 16). "[http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1939600,00.html#ixzz1vJ6ILjRr Can Dems Resolve Their Abortion Split?]" ''Time Magazine''.</ref>}} On November 8, 2009, the House healthcare bill, newly amended with the Pro-Life Stupak-Pitts amendment, narrowly passed the House by a vote of 220-215.<ref>''Associated Press'' (2009, November 9). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/07/politics/main5570400.shtml House Passes Landmark Healthcare Bill]." ''CBS News''. Condon, S. (2009, November 16). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/09/politics/main5588038.shtml Health Care Progress Report: November 9]." ''CBS News''.</ref> [[Joseph Cao]] was the only Republican to vote in favor of the bill.<ref>Haberkorn, J. (2009, November 12). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/12/cao-explains-his-breaking-rank-in-health-care-vote/ Lone GOPer: Health Vote Could End Career]." ''The Washington Times''.</ref> 39 Democrats still voted against the bill, including many fiscally conservative [[Blue Dog Democrats]] and socially conservative Pro-Life Democrats affiliated with DFLA.<ref>Blake, A. (2009, November 10). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/67097-at-risk-dems-defend-their-tough-votes At-Risk Democrats Defend Their Tough Votes on Healthcare Reform Bill]." ''The Hill''.</ref>

=====Reaction=====
Afterwards, Obama stressed that it was time for the Senate to "take the baton."<ref>(2009, November 8). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-08/politics/health.care_1_public-option-republican-filibuster-health-insurance?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama: Time For Senate to 'Take the Baton' on Health Care Reform]." Healthcare Insurance. ''CNN''.</ref> Several Democrats including [[Debbie Wasserman Schultz]] (D-FL) revealed they voted for the bill only with the understanding that it would be removed from the final bill version.<ref>O'Brien, M. (2009, November 9). "[http://thehill.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66969&pop=1&page=8&Itemid=70 Senior Democrat is 'Confident' that Stupak Amendment Will be Stripped]." ''The Hill''.</ref> The passage of Stupak's Pro-Life amendment in the House healthcare bill led to a letter signed by 40 Pro-Choice Senate Democrats, led by [[Dianna DeGette]],<ref name=thrush>Thrush, G. (2009, November 17). "[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29651.html Abortion Causes Family Feud for Democrats]." ''Politico''. Halloran, L. (2009, November 10). "[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120254656 Democrats Face Backlash Over House Abortion Limits]." ''NPR''. Cooper, C. (2009, November 10). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504365_162-5605926-504365.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody The Left's Stupak Stupification]." Coop's Corner. ''CBS News''.</ref> saying that they would not pass healthcare reform unless Stupak's amendment was removed,<ref>Litvan, L & Rowley, Rowley, J. (2009, November 9). "[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aaqkPE6p_8ig Abortion Curbs Draw 40 Democrats' Threat of 'No' Vote (Update 1)]." ''Bloomberg''. Young, J. (2009, November 9). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/67099-liberals-threaten-to-sink-health-bill-over-abortion Liberals Threaten to Oppose Healthcare Bill Over Stupak Abortion Amendment]." ''The Hill''. (2009, November 27). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/11/27/abortion-s-new-battleground.html Abortion's New Battleground]." ''Newsweek Magazine''.</ref> even as Senate Pro-Life Democrats vowed to reject any bills with abortion agendas. Senator [[Ben Nelson]] (D-NE) promised, "If it isn’t clear that government money is not to be used to fund abortions, I won’t vote for it," and Obama assured that "This is a health-care bill, not an abortion bill."<ref>Jen.sen, K. & Litvan, L. (2009, November 10). "[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aI.clKoFb__M Abortion Issue Threatens Healthcare Overhaul Plan (Update 1)]." ''Bloomberg''. (2009, November 10). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/10/abortion-haggling-looms-health-care-debate-senate/ Abortion Haggling Looms Over Health Care Debate in Senate]." ''FOX News''. Franke-Ruta, G. (2009, November 13). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/11/a-new-frontier-opens-up-in-the.html A New Frontier in the Abortion Wars: Health Insurance]." 44 - Politics and Policy. ''The Washington Post''.</ref>

On the Pro-Life side, a website, StopTheAbortionMandate.com, was created, and [[Susan's B. Anthony's List]], an [[Abortion#Activist|anti-abortion group]], fund-raised in attacks on the bill, receiving contributions over 50% above the previous year's levels, which it used in advertising attacks on Sen. Harry Reid. On the Pro-Choice side, Stupak's stand drew the anger of liberal groups.<ref>Kirkpatrick, D. (2009, November 23). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/health/policy/24abortion.html?_r=1 Health Bill Revives Abortion Groups]." ''The New York Times''. (2009, November 27). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/11/27/abortion-s-new-battleground.html Abortion's New Battleground]." ''Newsweek Magazine''.</ref> The Progressive Change Campaign Committee performed three "Stop Stupak" fundraisers and began issuing attack ads against him in his home state of [[Michigan]].<ref>Price, D. (2009, November 12). "[http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DTNB&s_site=detnews&f_site=detnews&f_sitename=Detroit+News%2C+The+%28MI%29&p_multi=DTNB&p_theme=gannett&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=12BEFFE1532DF538&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM Group Raises Cash, Will Take Stupak to Task]." ''The Detroit News''. Clift, E. (2009, November 12). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/11/12/both-parties-abandon-women-s-rights.html Both Parties Abandon Women's Rights]." ''Newsweek''.</ref> [[CNBC]]'s [[Rachel Maddow]] predicted a revolt among [[women]].<ref>Depke, D. (2009, November 13). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/11/13/stupak-is-as-stupak-does.html Stupak Is as Stupak Does]." ''Newsweek Magazine''.</ref>

Democratic Senator [[Barbara Boxer]] vowed to keep the Stupak-Pitts amendment from passing in the [[Senate]].<ref name=thrush /> White House Senior Advisor [[David Axelrod]] claimed Obama would intervene to change the Stupak language, and Stupak responded with "They're not going to take it out. If they do, health care will not move forward,. We won fair and square. ... That's why Mr. Axelrod's not a legislator. He doesn't really know what he's talking about."<ref>(November 17, 2009). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/stupak-health-care-stall-white-house-strips-abortion-restrictions/ Stupak: Health Care Bill Will Stall if White House Strips Abortion Restrictions]." ''FOX News''.</ref> Polls taken in mid-November showed public support for the Pro-Life Democrat position. 61% of Americans, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey, oppose using federal money for abortions, while a [[CBS News]] poll found 56% oppose federal subsidies for abortions.<ref>Black, N. (2009, November 18). "[http://www.christianpost.com/news/most-americans-against-abortion-coverage-in-health-care-bill-41906/ Most Americans Against Abortion Coverage in Health Care Bill]." ''The Christian Post''.</ref>
====Senate Bill: H.R. 3962====
On November 18 the U.S. Senate under Senate Leader Harry Reid introduced its own health care bill (H.R. 3962 The Affordable Health Care for America Act), separate from the House bill. Obama called this bill a 'milestone' and urged Congress to pass it quickly.<ref>Bazinett, K. & McAuliff, M. (2009, November 19). "[http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-11-19/news/17939142_1_reform-bill-illegal-immigrants-public-health-insurance-plan Senate Rolls Out $849 Billion Health Care Reform Bill; President Obama Urges Congress To Act Quickly]. ''New York Daily News''.</ref>

Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska attempted to introduce the [[Nelson Amendment]], a [[Pro-Life]] amendment identical to the Stupak-Pitts amendment, but it was defeated 54-45 on December 8.<ref>Feldmann, L. (2009, December 9). "[http://www.minnpost.com/christian-science-monitor/2009/12/nelson-amendment-fails-health-care-abortion-battle-isn’t-over Nelson Amendment Fails, But Healthcare Abortion Battle Isn't Over]." ''The Christian Post''.</ref> Four Senators stood in the way of the bill's passage, [[Ben Nelson]], [[Mary Landrieu]], [[Blanche Lincoln]], and [[Joe Lieberman]].<ref>Tantaros, A. (2009, December 16). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/06/obama-heads-captiol-hill-health-care-push/ The Senate's Health Care Bill Isn't On My Christmas List]. ''[[FOX News]]''. Cordes, N. (2009, December 15). [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/15/eveningnews/main5983872.shtml What Will it Take to Win Over Lieberman?]. ''[[CBS News]]''.</ref> By December 16, both Landrieu and Lieberman had agreed to support the bill since its public option and Medicare expansions were removed.<ref>Haberkorn, J. (2009, December 17). [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/17/democrats-recraft-health-bill-to-win-passage/?feat=home_headlines Dems Recraft Health Bill to Win Passage]. ''The Washington Times''.</ref> Lieberman agreed only on condition that Medicare not be expanded to include Seniors as young as 55.<ref>(2009, December 16). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/16/senate-dems-contemplate-half-loaf-health-care/ Democrats' Health Care Wish List Cut Short]. ''Associated Press''.</ref> Landrieu in the process agreed to take $100 million in Medicaid money for her state, and was accused by Republican [[John Cornyn]] as having been "bribed".<ref>Sherman, J. (2009, December 18). [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30783.html Mary Landrieu hot over NRSC comments]. ''Politico''.</ref>
{{cquote|"We are approaching the eve of Christmas and maybe in that spirit, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid morphed into Santa Claus, giving out presents to the little boys and girls who were naughty and (not so) nice this year. Of course, he was not using his own money. America's overused credit card, issued by the Bank of China, may have to be used one more time to pay for Reid's deals. The majority leader traded to help ensure the votes of Sens. Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Chris Dodd, Bernie Sanders and others representing 11 states by giving them special perks for staying on the health care bus that's about to drive us all over the financial cliff."
-[[Ed Rollins]], [http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/23/rollins.health.care.deals.reid/ Harry Reid Playing Santa With Your Money], [[CNN]].<ref>Rollins, E. (2009, December 23). [http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/23/rollins.health.care.deals.reid/ Harry Reid Playing Santa With Your Money]. ''[[CNN]]''.</ref>}}
On December 19 following 13 hours of negotiations, Senator Nelson finally agree to back the Senate bill in exchange for tighter restrictions on abortion and increased Medicaid funding for his state.<ref name=hersz>Herszenhorn, D.M. & Hulse, C. (2009, December 19). [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/health/policy/20health.html?pagewanted=all Democrats Clinch Deal for Deciding Vote on Health Bill]. ''[[The New York Times]]''.</ref> The [[National Right to Life Committee]] opposed Nelson's compromise and said it was "light years removed" from the House bill's language per the Stupak Amendment.<ref>Jensen, K. & Litvan, L. (2009, December 20). [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aim3g2AJwUHI House, Senate Health-Care Legislation: Side-by-Side Comparison]. ''Bloomberg''.</ref> A day later, both the RNC and Rick Santorum then initiated a robocall to 100,000 Nebraskans asking them to call Ben Nelson and ask him to reconsider.<ref>Budoff Brown, C. (2009, December 19). [http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/RNC_Santorum_hit_Nelson_in_robocall.html?showall RNC, Santorum hit Nelson in Robocall]. ''Politico''.</ref> On December 22, the GOP led by [[John McCain]] began accusing Nelson of a "Cornhusker Kickback" because his state had received $45 million of Medicare funding in the deal. Nelson denied this, claiming "I didn't ask for a special favor here".<ref>Scott, B. (2009, December 22). [http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/gop_blasts_kickback_health_fix_dAelgwc0jXXhMD6fwB05IK GOP blasts 'kickback' health fix]. ''[[New York Post]]''.</ref> Landrieu's deal was likewise criticized as the "Louisiana Purchase".<ref>Rowley, J. & Gaouette, N. (2009, December 23). [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aIkM0vXz_yxk Republicans Assail ‘Cornhusker Kickback’ Health Deals (Update1)]. ''[[Bloomberg]]''.</ref>

Both the [[AARP]] and [[American Medical Association]] ran ads urging Senators to vote for the bill. On December 24, 2009, the Senate passed its bill on a party-line vote, 60-39, without a single Republican vote.<ref>Pear, R. (2009, December 24). [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/25/health/policy/25health.html Senate Passes Health Care Overhaul on Party-Line Vote]. ''The New York Times''.</ref>

===Reconciliation===
The possibility of splitting healthcare into two bills and reconciling them was rumored as early as August 20, 2009.<ref>Weisman, J. & Bendavid, N. (2009, August 20). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125072573848144647.html New Rx for Health Plan: Split Bill]." ''The Wall Street Journal''. Hetchtkopf, K. (2009, August 20). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5255030-503544.html Dems Might Split Healthcare Reform Into Two Bills]." ''CBS News''.</ref><ref>Bash, D., Glass, E., & Walsh, D. (2010, March 19). "[http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/19/health.care.abortion/ Abortion Again an Issue in Health Care Debate]." ''CNN''.</ref>

==Effort to Repeal==
On January 19, 2011, the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] voted 245-189 to repeal Obamacare (56 percent to 44 percent). In a historic repudiation of an entitlement program that was only 10 months old, the House voted to overturn President Obama's health care takeover.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/19/house-poised-vote-health-law-repeal/ House Republicans Vote to Overturn Obamacare in Symbolic Move], [[Fox News|FoxNews.com]], Published January 19, 2011.</ref><ref>An historic repudiation of an entitlement that is only 10 months old. ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', Review & Outlook: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704590704576091973130244618.html The Repeal Vote], January 20, 2011.</ref> Repealing the bill would eliminate $770 billion in the newly mandated tax increases, according to the CBO.<ref>Philip Klein. [http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/07/breaking-cbo-says-repealing-ob CBO Says Repealing Obamacare Would Reduce Net Spending by $540 Billion], ''The American Spectator'', January 07, 2011.</ref> The CBO released accounting data which shows that repealing the national health care law would reduce net government spending by $540 billion in the ten-year period from 2012 through 2021; that number represents the cost of the new provisions, minus Medicare cuts. The [[Tea Party Movement]] firmly supports the proposed repeal of Obamacare.

On February 2, 2011, the [[U.S. Senate]] proceeded with a hearing to discuss the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and whether or not the individual mandate requiring Americans to purchase health insurance under penalty of a fine is constitutional.<ref>Amanda Carey. [http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/03/senate-hearing-on-health-care-bills-constitutionality-had-more-show-than-substance/ Senate hearing on health care bill’s constitutionality had more show than substance], ''The Daily Caller'', February 03, 2011.</ref> The amendment to repeal Obamacare failed in the Senate by a 51-47 vote.<ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/02/undoing-obamacare-senate-repeal-fails-47-51-on-party-line-vote-1099-provision-killed-83-17/ Undoing Obamacare: Senate repeal fails 47-51 on party-line vote; 1099 provision killed 83-17], MichelleMalkin.com, February 2, 2011.</ref>

The Individual Mandate requiring U.S. citizens to buy healthcare was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as constitutional in 2012. It is possible the entire bill could end up getting repealed.<ref>(2012, April 7). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7404552n Obama vs. Supreme Court: How Serious?]" ''CBS News''.</ref> A ''CBS News''/''New York Times'' poll taken March 21–25, 2012, found that just 26% of Americans want the Supreme Court to keep the entire healthcare law intact.<ref>Condon, S. (2012, March 26). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57404793-503544/poll-1-in-4-want-supreme-court-to-uphold-health-care-law/?tag=featuredPostArea Poll: 1 in 4 Want Supreme Court to Uphold Health Care Law]." ''CBS News''.</ref>

Obama criticized the Supreme Court for considering the case, saying to overturn the bill would be "unprecedented" and was criticized by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who said he should "back off. Let the Court do its work. Let our system work the way it was intended."<ref>Condon, S. (2012, April 5). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57410114-503544/mcconnell-tells-obama-to-back-off-on-supreme-court/ McConnell Tells Obama to 'Back Off' on Supreme Court]." ''CBS News''.</ref> Following this, Obama conceded the Supreme Court does have the power to overturn the bill.<ref>(2012, April 5). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7404408n WH Concedes Court's Power to Kill Health Care Law]." ''CBS Evening News''.</ref>

The Congressional Budget Office in 2011 projected that repealing the bill would add $211 billion to the deficit, but this was contradicted in April 2012 by economist Charles Blahouse who said the bill adds $340 billion to the deficit.<ref>''Associated Press'' (2012, April 10). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57411669/study-obamas-health-care-law-will-add-at-least-$340-billion-to-deficit/?tag=cbsnewsLeadStoriesArea Study: Obama's health care law will add at least $340 billion to deficit]." Retrieved from ''CBS News''.</ref>

As of February 2015, the House of Representatives has voted 56 times to scale back or repeal the law, but none of those proposals has received consideration in the Senate.<ref name=fulltime/><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/3/house-votes-repeal-replace-obamacare/|title=House votes to repeal, replace Obamacare|first=Tom |last=Howell Jr.|work=The Washington Times -|date=February 3, 2015 |accessdate=February 6, 2015}}</ref>

In October 2013, the Congress needed to adopt a continuing resolution to allow the federal government to remain open after the existing appropriation laws expired. The House adopted a series of continuing resolutions which were conditioned upon the repeal or modification of the ACA. However, the Senate adopted a series of continuing resolutions which did not contain such ACA conditions. As a result of the impasse, many federal programs were shut down and remained shut until the House agreed to fund without ACA conditions.

In November 2016, the ''Washington Times'' reported that [[Paul Ryan]]
:is hoping to work with GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump to repeal Obamacare and replace its heavy mandates and coverage requirements with Republican reforms that rely on free-market levers to incentivize people into buying coverage. <ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/7/ryan-warns-obamacare-wont-be-repealed-clinton-wins/ Paul Ryan’s final warning to voters: Obamacare won’t be repealed if Clinton wins]</ref>

As a result of the 2016 election, Republicans controlled the White House, the House and the Senate. As a result, they followed the original Obamacare playbook and sought to make a bill repealing of Obamacare part of the budget reconciliation, which will not be subject to the Senate's 60-vote filibuster requirement. The Republicans proposed a three phase approach: a bill to repeal Obamacare and the tax provisions, new regulations from HHS, and follow-up legislation enacting the details of the new health care plan. The House committees voted the repeal bill to the floor of the House, but the House Freedom Caucus withheld its support. On March 24, 2017, the Republicans withdrew the bill. They passed a modified bill later and it was sent to the Senate. The Senate, with a slim GOP majority and with several [[RINO]]s struggled to find a replacement plan.

== Basic Requirements ==

Beginning in 2014, Americans are required to buy government-approved, private health insurance or else pay a penalty.

Health insurance companies will be required to spend on medical care at least 80% of the premium payments they receive from individual and small-group plans (and at least 85% from large group plans). The federal government will define what constitutes medical care.

=== Immediate Impact in 2010 ===

Creating temporary high-risk pool with subsidized premiums for certain people with pre-existing conditions.

Imposing new taxes on some facilities, such as tanning parlors.

Health insurers raised premiums for Americans as a direct result of President Obama's health care overhaul.<ref>Janet Adamy. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html?KEYWORDS=health+care+insurance+premiums Insurers Pin Rate Hikes on Health Law], ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', September 07, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703340904575285002595068326.html?KEYWORDS=health+care+insurance+premiums Health Law Augurs Transfer of Funds From Old to Young], WSJ.com, July 25, 2010.</ref>

=== Requirements for Insurance Companies ===

Prohibit bans on pre-existing health conditions in children, lifetime and annual limits on expenses, and limits coverage exclusions of pre-existing health conditions in adults.

Requires family policies to include coverage of children up to age 26.

Allows states to form compacts in order to allow the interstate sale of insurance.

Requires direct access to obstetrical and gynecological care, which might include abortion.

Creates (starting in October 2013) health insurance exchanges or marketplaces that will be state-based and state-administered, but states can opt out of this if certain conditions are met; insurance can be sold within the exchange only if government-approved. If a state fails to set up its own exchange, residents of the state can purchase insurance on a federally-administered exchange. Insurance can be sold outside of the exchange, but only policies purchased on the exchange will be eligible for a premium tax credit.<ref name=pcredit/>

Prohibits health plans from discriminating against providers, but plans are not required to contract with any provider.

Requires health plans to develop politically correct language services, community outreach and cultural competency trainings.

Requires "silver" insurance plans sold on the exchange to implement a premium tax credit program for individuals making less than $45,960 ($94,200 for a family of four).<ref name=pcredit>{{cite web|url=https://www.healthcare.gov/will-i-qualify-to-save-on-monthly-premiums/|title=Will I qualify for lower costs on monthly premiums?|work=healthcare.gov|accessdate=April 10, 2014}}</ref> The insurance company receives the credit from the federal government and is responsible for billing the difference to each insured person.

=== Employer Requirements ===

Requires that employers with more than 50 full-time employees provide health insurance or pay a penalty.

Employers with 25 or fewer full-time employees, receiving average salaries of $50,000 or less, can apply for tax credits in order to provide their employees with health insurance.

=== Medicaid ===

Obamacare expands [[Medicaid]] (medical care for the poor) to everyone (under the Medicare age of 65) who has income less than 133% the federal poverty level. States must pay this enormous new burden, but federal government promises to reimburse 100% of costs of newly eligible patients under this program from 2014 to 2016, and then 90%. Although the law was drafted to make this a required part of the existing Medicare program, the Supreme Court considered an appeal from certain states and interpreted the law as giving each state the option to either retain the prior scope of Medicaid or expand Medicaid. If a state refuses to expand Medicaid, the taxes collected from that state will be redirected to states that have expanded Medicaid, and hospitals will still be required to provide medical care to the uncovered individuals without reimbursement.

On April 10, 2014, Secretary of Health and Human Services Sebelius acknowledged there are extensive backlogs of people in some states who have applied for Medicaid but remain unable to access care because of out-of-date state computer systems. In April 2014, the government said three million people had enrolled in Medicaid from October 1 through February 28.<ref name=Sebelius>{{cite news|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/10/us-usa-healthcare-obama-idUSBREA3918920140410|title=Obamacare enrollment to surpass 7.5 million: U.S. official|first=David|last=Morgan|date=April 10, 2014|accessdate=April 11, 2014|work=Reuters}}</ref>

=== New Bureaucracy ===

Establishes a new Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program with the goal of creating non-profit, member-run health insurance companies in every state

=== Impact on the deficit and expanded welfare spending ===
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that Obamacare’s refundable health insurance tax credits (or [[tax expenditure]]s<ref>[http://www.concordcoalition.org/publications/facing-facts/1996/0913/back-door-entitlement The Back-Door Entitlement], The Concord Coalition.</ref> in D.C. parlance) will add to the [[national debt]] $1.36 trillion in the first seven years of implementation. 85% of filers who claim the tax credit will end the year with zero or negative income tax liability. Since the tax credit is refundable, nearly all 11.3 million of these filers will have negative income tax liability and will no longer pay the cost of government by contributing federal income taxes. Tax credits, or tax expenditures, are a form of federal un-appropriated [[backdoor spending]].

For example, a family of four at 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (about $48,677 in 2016) cannot pay more than 6.3% of their income for health insurance. The CBO estimates that the average cost of the reference insurance plan (the plan used to calculate the tax credit) will be $14,100 for family coverage in 2016. Therefore, a family of four that qualifies for a credit in 2016 and that makes $48,677 would be required to pay about $3,067 for health insurance (6.3% of household income). The difference, $11,033, is the value of this family’s refundable tax credit. According to the CBO, 20 million Americans will receive health insurance tax credits in 2020 at a cost of $130 billion.<ref>[http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/10-27-11_Obamacares_Subsidies_and_Tax_Distribution_Final.pdf Impact of the Obamacare Tax Credits], House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Staff Report, October 27, 2011.</ref>

===Other impacts===
Due to ObamaCare, big hospital corporations received much larger profits at the expense of smaller firms.<ref>Carney, Timothy P. (July 18, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamacare-has-meant-record-profits-for-hospitals-not-to-the-benefit-of-the-public/article/2628938 Obamacare has meant record profits for hospitals, not to the benefit of the public]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved July 18, 2017.</ref>

== Basis for Legal Challenges ==
===Commerce Clause===
There have been several grounds for challenging the Cosntitutionality of the bill. Obamacare includes an "individual responsibility requirement" compelling persons to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. The one legal justification for this requirement by Congress is the [[Commerce Clause]]:
{{cquote|The individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section ... is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of the effects described in paragraph (2). ... [Paragraph (2) states,] The requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased.}}

Apparently uncertain that this would withstand legal scrutiny as a valid exercise of Commerce Clause authority, on March 21 (the same day as passage) the Joint Committee on Taxation released a 157-page "technical explanation" of the bill. This "explanation" grounded the justification for the bill in the tax authority of Congress, and nowhere mentioned commerce. As Professor Randy Barnett explained in an article on April 29, 2010 in the Wall Street Journal:
{{cquote|The word "commerce" appeared nowhere. Instead, the personal mandate is dubbed an "Excise Tax on Individuals Without Essential Health Benefits Coverage." But while the enacted bill does impose excise taxes on "high cost," employer-sponsored insurance plans and "indoor tanning services," the statute never describes the regulatory "penalty" it imposes for violating the mandate as an "excise tax." It is expressly called a "penalty."}}

Professor Barnett then explained that in ''Bailey v. Drexel Furniture'' (1922), "the Supreme Court struck down such a penalty saying, 'there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.'" A subsequent Supreme Court decision, ''U.S. v. Kahriger'' (1953), upheld a punitive tax on gambling based on an express statement in the law that Congress was exercising its power to tax. No such statement exists in Obamacare. ''See also Sonzinsky v. U.S.'' (1937) ("Inquiry into the hidden motives which may move Congress to exercise a power constitutionally conferred upon it is beyond the competency of courts."). Professor Barnett noted that the penalty is not enforced as a tax in a customary manner, providing further evidence that Obamacare is based on the Commerce Clause and not on any taxing authority.

Requiring Americans to buy insurance "would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers," wrote Judge Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee in the Eastern District of Virginia. The federal judge also wrote:
{{Cquote|At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it's about an individual's right to choose to participate.<ref name=unconstitutional/>}}

It has also been pointed out that because the penalty applies to inactivity, it is beyond the powers authorized by the [[Sixteenth Amendment]].

Since the [[federal]] judge decided the entire healthcare reform bill law was unconstitutional, states such as Alaska have decided not to implement the mandated reforms.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/17/alaska-governor-refuses-enact-obamacare/?test=latestnews Alaska Governor Refuses to Enact 'Obamacare', Fox News, February 17, 2011]</ref> This prompted Obama's Justice Department to appeal to Judge Vinson by claiming that states cannot ignore the new health care law while his ruling is being appealed.

===Origination Clause===
On September 12, 2012, the [[Pacific Legal Foundation]] filed suit in a Washington, D.C., federal court, arguing that the mandate is unconstitutional under the [[Origination clause]].<ref>[http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/amended_suit_claims_obamacare_was_enacted_in_violation_of_origination_claus/ Amended Suit Claims Obamacare Was Enacted in Violation of Origination Clause] ABA Journal. Welss, Debra.</ref> The Origination Clause (Article I, Section 7, clause 1 of the Constitution) provides that "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

On September 17, 2009, Congressman Charlie Rangel introduced a bill in the House, H.R. 3590, the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009," whose purpose was "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees." The bill passed the House on October 8 by a 416-0 vote.

On November 19, Harry Reid introduced his own version of H.R. 3590 in the Senate. He took the bill that had been unanimously passed by the House, renamed it the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," deleted all its contents after the first sentence, and replaced it with totally different content. What followed was the first pass of the Senate version of Obamacare.<ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/29/Justice-Roberts Justice Roberts Turns Obamacare into Origination Clause Shell Game] Breitbart. Leahy, Michael P.</ref>

Thus, the only portion of Obamacare to originate in the House was its number. Congress frequently uses this same practice for many years, and if the Supreme Court were to overturn the law based on the Origination Clause, a large number of other laws would be open to court challenge as well.

==History of Mandatory Coverage==

One of the early proposals (a predecessor to the one enacted) would create a system to require adults (over age 19, U.S. citizens, not incarcerated) to enroll themselves and dependent children in a plan through the statewide Health Help Agency (HHA) unless they provide evidence of enrollment or coverage through Medicare, a health insurance plan offered by the Department of Defense, an employee benefit plan through a former employer (i.e. retiree health plans), a qualified collective bargaining agreement, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the Indian Health Service. The law contains a religious exemption for people, such as [[Christian Scientists]] who do not receive health care. {{USC|26|5000A(d)(2)}}. Each adult would have the responsibility to enroll each child in a plan. Dependent children include individuals up to age 24 claimed by their parents for deductions in the tax code.
[[File:Penalty.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|If an individual fails to purchase coverage and does not meet the exceptions or the religious exemption, then under Obamacare a financial penalty may be assessed for non-indigent individuals. (Image courtesy See-Ming Lee)]]

===History of Penalty for Failure to Purchase Coverage===

Monthly payments for Obamacare are massive, roughly 12-15% of an individual's annual salary. If an individual fails to purchase coverage and does not meet the exceptions or the religious exemption, then a financial penalty will be assessed for non-indigent individuals. An exemption is available if more than 8% of the individual's household income would be required to pay for the cheapest available coverage.<ref>https://www.healthcare.gov/exemptions/</ref>

Fines were to be paid to the HHA of the State in which the person resides. That agency also may establish a procedure to waive the penalty if the penalty poses a hardship. Each State would determine appropriate mechanisms to enforce the requirement that individuals be enrolled.<ref>http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/Healthy%20Americans%20Act/HAA_Section_by_Section.pdf (Link doesn't work.)</ref>

The law that was enacted replaced the state-based approach with a direct penalty to be paid to the United States.

===Privacy Rights===

Section 163 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would have "require[d] the Secretary of HHS to adopt standards for typical transactions between insurers and providers such as claims, eligibility, enrollment, and prior authorization building on the standards in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996".<ref>http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/sbys3200.pdf</ref>

==Rationed Care==
{{main|Complete Lives System}}

Doctors have said they anticipate more people waiting in the waiting-rooms, more phone calls, people upset because they want to be seen now. Doctors will be overbooked. As the health care system brings in more and more patients, the system will be overwhelmed. Obamacare will be a tremendous burden for doctors in the United States.

Obamacare will shorten the amount of time Doctors have with each patient, and lengthen the amount of time patients will have to wait. Dr. Sreedhar Potarazu said that the current bill passed into law will create a scenario where the supply cannot meet the demand. Because the necessary health care reform needs are not included in Obamacare, there are still no protections for physicians in the medical industry, and doctors are going into the profession to work harder to earn less.

There will be an oversight board where the government looks at what should and shouldn't be given to patients, regardless of medical need. There is going to be rationing of care, according to Dr. Sreedhar Potarazu. Doctors have agreed there will be "rationed care" under Obamacare.<ref>[http://beta.video.foxbusiness.com/v/4115101/doctors-respond-to-health-care-reform/?playlist_id=87185 Doctors Respond to Health-Care Reform], FoxBusiness.com, March 18, 2010.</ref>

==Disinformation==
{{see also|Jonathan Gruber}}
If private citizens have disagreements, discussions, and dissections of Obamacare, the proposed expansion of federal debt and deficits through its planned regulation of the healthcare industry, whether its communicated through e-mail, websites, blogs, or even casual conversation the Obama administration has asked that these people be reported to the executive branch of the federal government.<ref>McCullough, K. (2009, August 6). [http://townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2009/08/06/welcome_to_gestapo-care Welcome to Gestapo-Care]. ''TownHall.com''.</ref> To counter any discussions related to the repeal of Obamacare, or that are against the implementation of Obamacare which will in turn destroy jobs and create more taxpayer debt, a Web page at whitehouse.gov entitled "Reality Check" has claimed that the president's program "would be fully paid for over 10 years, and it would not add one penny to the deficit."<ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq Frequently Asked Questions About Health Insurance Reform]. Health Insurance Reform Reality Check. ''WhiteHouse.gov''.</ref>

The [[CBO]] is mandated to prepare cost estimates and to show how individual legislative proposals would change spending or revenue levels under current law.<ref>[ http://www.cbo.gov/aboutcbo/budgetprocess.shtml Overview]. ''Congressional Budget Office''.</ref> A July 15, 2009 letter from the CBO made this assessment,
{{Cquote|Enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period."<ref>Elmendorf, D.W. (2009, June 15). [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10310/06-15-HealthChoicesAct.pdf Preliminary Analysis of Major Provisions Related to Health Insurance Coverage Under the Affordable Health Choices Act]. ''Congressional Budget Office''. U.S. Congress.</ref>}} However, deceptively, CBO analysis of the House and Senate versions of the health care reform bills show that they would reduce the federal budget deficit by $109 billion <ref>http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=421</ref> and $81 billion <ref>http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=387</ref> respectively.

In a 2010 report, HHS claimed a provision in the health-care law would extend the Medicare trust fund by 12 years. The Congressional Budget Office released a memo that said HHS’s math was more than a little off.

Health and Human Services Secretary [[Kathleen Sebelius]] appearing on Capitol Hill for questioning admitted to double-counting in the Obamacare budget. Rep. Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania said “The same dollar can’t be used twice. This is the largest of the many budget gimmicks Democrats used to claim Obamacare would reduce the deficit.” <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/04/hhs-secretary-sebelius-admits-to-double-counting-in-obamacare-budget/ HHS Secretary Sebelius admits to double-counting in Obamacare, The Daily Caller, March 4, 2011]</ref>

==Implementation==
{| class=wikitable align=right
|+States implementing Medicare Expansion<ref>{{cite news|url=http://kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/state-activity-around-expanding-medicaid-under-the-affordable-care-act/|title=Status of State Action on the Medicaid Expansion Decision, 2014|work=Kaiser Family Foundation|accessdate=April 4, 2014}}</ref>
!State!!Status as of April 2014
|-
|Alabama||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Alaska||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Arizona||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Arkansas||Implementing Expansion in 2014<ref group=note name="ar">AR and IA have approved Section 1115 waivers for Medicaid expansion.</ref>
|-
|California||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Colorado||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Connecticut||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Delaware||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|District of Columbia||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Florida||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Georgia||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Hawaii||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Idaho||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Illinois||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Indiana||Open Debate<ref group=note name="in">IN and PA have pending waivers for alternative Medicaid expansion plans.</ref>
|-
|Iowa||Implementing Expansion in 2014<ref group=note name="ar"/>
|-
|Kansas||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Kentucky||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Louisiana||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Maine||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Maryland||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Massachusetts||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Michigan||Implementing Expansion in 2014<ref group=note>MI has an approved waiver for expansion and plans to implement in April 2014.</ref>
|-
|Minnesota||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Mississippi||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Missouri||Open Debate
|-
|Montana||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Nebraska||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Nevada||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|New Hampshire||Implementing Expansion in 2014<ref group=note>NH has passed legislation approving the Medicaid expansion that is expected to be signed by the Governor in March 2014. While the state plans to seek a waiver at a later date, the legislation calls for the expansion to begin July 1, 2014.</ref>
|-
|New Jersey||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|New Mexico||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|New York||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|North Carolina||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|North Dakota||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Ohio||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Oklahoma||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Oregon||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Pennsylvania||Open Debate<ref group=note name="in"/>
|-
|Rhode Island||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|South Carolina||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|South Dakota||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Tennessee||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Texas||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Utah||Open Debate
|-
|Vermont||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Virginia||Open Debate
|-
|Washington||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|West Virginia||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Wisconsin||Not Moving Forward at this Time<ref group=note>WI amended its Medicaid state plan and existing Section 1115 waiver to cover adults up to 100% FPL in Medicaid, but did not adopt the expansion.</ref>
|-
|Wyoming||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|}
The ACA as passed assumed that the eligibility for [[Medicaid]] would be automatically expanded in all 50 states. However, some states appealed this provision, and the US Supreme Court ruled that each state would have the right to decide whether to continue Medicaid on its present terms or to expand Medicaid to cover more low-income individuals. Although the ACA provided for the federal government to pay for all costs of medicaid expansion during the first four years, there was no statutory guarantee for full federal funding after that time. So, some states, particularly those with Republican Governors or Republican-controlled legislatures, refused to expand the eligibility requirements for the Medicaid program in their states. However, hospitals faced financial pressures to limit or end free charity care for indigent patients under the new structure, leaving low-income people in a difficult, un-insured dilemma.

Individuals and families who earned enough money to not qualify for [[Medicaid]], and were not covered by employer-provided insurance, were then required to purchase insurance through health care exchanges in order to receive federal subsidies of insurance premiums and deductibles. However, there were massive problems with the online health care exchanges operated by the federal government for states that did not set up their own exchanges. This was true at the start of the open season in October 2013 as well as toward the end of the open season in March 2014. Despite these problems, 7.5 million people signed up for insurance on the exchanges.<ref name=Sebelius/><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/04/01/more-7-million-americans-have-enrolled-private-health-coverage-under-affordable-care|title=7.1 Million Americans Have Enrolled in Private Health Coverage Under the Affordable Care Act|work=whitehouse.gov|date=April 1, 2014}}</ref> This number does not indicate a growth in the number of people covered by private health insurance. First, the 7.5 million includes people who became covered by Medicaid expansion. Second, some of the people were already covered by a grandfathered health plan, but were forced to purchase on the exchange so as to receive premium and deductible subsidies. Third, some states, like California, required insurance companies to cancel their existing insurance plans as a precondition of offering plans on the health care exchanges. Fourth, purchasing a plan and signing-up are two very different criteria in determining the viability of government healthcare. The Obama administration has declined to provide "paid for" statistics.

Some people thought that they had purchased insurance through the exchange, but because of malfunctions in the back office of the exchange, the insurance providers did not receive any record of the insurance purchase. The Obama Administration launched a crash program to fix the federal exchange software and in January 2014 replaced the contractor responsible for building and operating the healthcare.gov website.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/01/10/obama-administration-to-replace-top-healthcare-gov-contractor/|title=Obama administration to replace top HealthCare.gov contractor|date=January 10, 2014|accessdate=April 3, 2014|work=Washington Post|author= Juliet Eilperin and Amy Goldstein}}</ref>

Although a number of Americans gave up their grandfathered health care plans for new policies. If the number of people purchasing policies under the ACA is not sufficient, insurance companies will raise their rates in future years, perhaps trapping these Americans who gave up their rights to switch back to the grandfathered plans.

The ACA imposed a mandate for employers who hire more than 50 full-time employees. A full-time employee is defined as someone who works 30 or more hours per week. In response, some employers have cutback the number of full-time employees to avoid the duty to comply with the ACA's insurance requirements. The Obama Administration has postponed the implementation of the employer mandate until 2015. Some employers have cut the hours that their staff could work to under 30 hours per week. For example, adjunct faculty members have found that the number of classes per semester have been reduced so that they will not be covered by employer insurance. House Republicans have passed legislation through the House to increase the definition of full-time worker to 40 hours per week.<ref name=fulltime>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-votes-to-change-health-care-laws-definition-of-full-time-work/2014/04/03/dc0b7066-bb69-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html|title=House votes to change health-care law’s definition of full-time work|first=Ed |last=O’Keefe|date=April 3, 2014|work=Washington Post|accessdate=April 10, 2014}}</ref>

The ACA requires health plans to offer women family planning and contraceptive services. Some employers object that such coverage violates religious principles. This issue has been taken to the United States Supreme Court with a decision expected by the summer of 2014.

Following the troubled roll-out of the ACA, on April 11, 2014, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced her resignation.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/11/us-usa-healthcare-idUSBREA3926R20140411|title=Health secretary resigns after Obamacare launch woes|first=Roberta|last=Rampton|date=April 11, 2014|accessdate=April 11, 2014|wprl=Reuters}}</ref>
===2015===
The second year posed a number of different challenges for the law. The open season started on November 15 and runs through February 15, 2015. The federal exchange website (healthcare.gov) did not have as many problems during the second open season as it had during the first. HHS reports that 6.6 million people have enrolled or were "automatically re-enrolled" on the Federal exchange through January 2, 2015.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/blog/2015/01/open-enrollment-week-seven.html|title=Open Enrollment Week 7: December 27, 2014 – January 2, 2015|date=January 7, 2015|accessdate=January 9, 2015|work=hhs.gov}}</ref> The fees or penalties on individuals who fail to enroll in health insurance for 2015 are: either 2% of the taxpayer's income, or $325 per adult ($162.50 per child) — whichever is higher.<ref>https://www.healthcare.gov/quick-guide/ Retrieved January 9, 2015.</ref> The IRS will have to implement their new computer systems for calculating the tax credit that each taxpayer was due under the ACA for 2014 and then compare it to the subsidies that the taxpayer received in 2014 and then collect or refund any differences. This may be a surprising new complication to taxpayers as they attempt to file their tax returns for 2014.

According to HHS, 25 percent more issuers have joined their Marketplace for 2015, and consumers can choose from an average of 40 health plans, which is up from 30 in 2014.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/factsheets/2014/10/affordable-care-act-is-working.html|title=The Affordable Care Act is Working|work=hhs.gov|date=January 8, 2015|accessdate=January 9, 2014}}</ref> To promote plan enrollment to young people, President Obama appeared on the '''Colbert Report''' on December 8, 2014.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/88p9oh/the-word---president-barack-obama---to-health-in-a-handbasket|title=The Word - President Barack Obama - To Health in a Handbasket|date=December 8, 2014|retrieved=January 9, 2015}}(ACA is "half as popular as a grumpy cat video")</ref>
===2016===
The open enrollment period for 2016 began on November 1, 2015, and 11.6 million people signed up for an insurance plan through either a state insurance exchange or through healthcare.gov.<ref name="2016a">{{cite web|url=https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Fact-sheets/2016-Fact-sheets-items/2016-01-29.html|title=By the Numbers: Open Enrollment|date=2016-01-29|accessdate=February 20, 2016}}</ref> Sixty percent of the people who enrolled in a plan in 2015 and used an exchange in 2016, switched to a different insurance plan.<ref name="2016a"/>

== Obama Administration health care plan and liberal elitism ==
[[File:Arrogant obama.jpg|right|125px|thumbnail|[[Barack Obama]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism]] and [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]

In 2007, when Obama was running for the office of President of the United States, he promised Americans "health care that is as good as the health care that I have as a member of Congress."<ref>http://www.emaxhealth.com/10/18430.html</ref> The ACA has a provision which requires members of Congress and their staff to purchase insurance on a health care exchange instead of from the health care plans offered through the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The Obama Administration wrote implementing regulations which would have Congress and their staff receive a subsidy on the exchange-purchased insurance equal to the amount that OPM subsidizes the insurance of all other federal employees. However, during the October 2013 government shutdown crisis, one of the provisions the House added to one of the continuing resolution to fund the federal government was a prohibition of such a subsidy. The Senate rejected it.<ref>http://theweekincongress.com/2013/10/08/how-the-senate-and-house-handled-h-j-res-59-the-continuing-resolution-for-fy-2014/</ref>

The Obama administration's [[Liberal Elite|liberal elitism]] is not unusual when it comes to health care. For example, [[Belinda Stronach]], a former Member of the Canadian Parliament, chose to have a surgical treatment in the United States rather than be treated in Canada for her condition ([[Canada]] has a [[socialized medicine]] system of health care).<ref>http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/09/14/canadian-official-refuses-canadian-health-care/</ref>
[[File:MedSybolBlog.jpg|left|125px]]

Congressman [[John Fleming]] has offered a legislative amendment that would require United States congressmen and senators to take the same health care plan they try to force on others (under proposed legislation they are curiously exempt). Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go to his website and sign his petition.<ref>http://fleming.house.gov/index.html</ref> Fleming and other Congressmen advocate ending the health care plans offered through OPM and placing all federal employees under the health care exchanges.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://fleming.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fleming_letter_to_president_on_opm_fix.pdf|title=Letter to President Obama|date=August 9, 2013|format=PDF|accessdate=April 17, 2014}}</ref>

===Two-Tier Health Care System===
Socialist regimes reveal their true nature by the special treatment they give to their permanent ruling class; they deny such treatment for ordinary citizens of their country. The worst corruption in socialist regimes flows from that simple two-caste system. Some critics claim there is a two-tier health care system under the ACA.<ref>[http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamacare-means-a-two-tier-health-care-system/ Obamacare Means a Two-Tier Health Care System], by James Lewis at ''Pajamas Media'', March 9, 2010.</ref>

The first example of Obamacare's creation of a two-tier health care system was seen as millions of hardworking Americans struggle to make ends meet and watch as their health care costs increase due to provisions in Obamacare. Senate staffers planned to participate in a two-day orgy of back massages, organic food tastings and milk mustache photos as part of a "health fair" for the staffers, who enjoy some of the best health care in the country.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/08/senate-office-host-health-fair-covered-staffers/ Senate Office to Host Health Fair for Well-Covered Staffers], FoxNews.com, October 08, 2010.</ref> The Senate staffers will be treated to seated massages, herbal [[tea]]s, polarity therapy, low-fat [[cheese]] samples and organic foods. A [[pharmacist]] and health coach will be available to speak to fair-goers about their medications, nutrition and healthy lifestyle questions. All of which is at the American taxpayers expense. Of course, the ACA provisions regarding employee health care had not gone into effect at the time of that proposed health fair.

Less than one year after Obamacare was signed into law, 111 [[unions]], companies, and organizations had received approval for Waiver of the Annual Limits Requirements of the PHS Act Section 2711.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/lots-of-unions-are-on-the-hidden-list-to-receive-obamacare-waivers/ Lots of Unions Are on the ‘Hidden’ List to Receive Obamacare Waivers], ''[[The Blaze]]'', November 15, 2010.</ref><ref name=waivers>Applications for waivers from annual limit requirements: [http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html Approved Applications for Waiver of the Annual Limits Requirements of the PHS Act Section 2711], (as of December 3, 2010).</ref><ref>When the American people learned that the congressmen who wrote the new healthcare law were exempt from it, questions regarding the alleged benefits of the new legislation were raised. Further proof that Obamacare may not be all that it was touted to be can be found in the fact that 111 companies, including a number of unions, have been given waivers to be exempted from certain provisions of the law. [http://www.examiner.com/will-county-libertarian-in-chicago/government-health-care-is-not-law-for-everyone?cid=parsely#parsely Government Health Care is not law for everyone], by Steve Balich, Examiner.com, November 15, 2010.</ref><ref>Warner Todd Huston. [http://biggovernment.com/wthuston/2010/11/15/obamacare-waivers-prove-policy-is-a-jobs-killer-unions-benefit-most/ Obamacare Waivers Prove Policy is a Jobs Killer, Unions Benefit Most], biggovernment.com, November 15, 2010.</ref> By December 7, 2010, the list of unions, companies, and insurers who have used the HHS waiver as an escape to avoid the costly, destructive consequences of Obamacare for their members and employees grew from 111 to 222.<ref name=waivers/><ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/07/obamacare-waiver-mania-continues-list-tops-222/ Obamacare Waiver-mania! continues: List tops 222], MichelleMalkin.com, December 7, 2010.</ref> More than 50 unions have already received waivers.<ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011711/content/01125114.guest.html Why We Must Repeal Obamacare], RushLimbaugh.com, January 17, 2011.</ref> Moreover, three [[Service Employees International Union]] (SEIU) local chapters, including the [[Chicago]] chapter, whose political action committee spent $27 million supporting Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, have received waivers from a provision in the Obamacare law.<ref>Fred Lucas. [http://cnsnews.com/news/article/seiu-locals-including-chicago-chapter-wa Three SEIU Locals--Including Chicago Chapter--Waived From Obamacare Requirement], CNSnews.com, January 24, 2011.</ref>

===Treatment of older patients===
Some critics, including 2008 Vice-Presidential candidate [[Sarah Palin]], have accused Obama of planning on setting up "[[Death panel|Death Panels]]" to judge the worthiness and "cost effectiveness" of keeping certain people alive, such as senior citizens. In spite of public outcry over [[Death panel|Death Panels]], the Obama administration is pressing forward to enact the same measures by bureaucratic regulations, called "end-of-life planning."<ref>Meredith Jessup. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/return-of-death-panels-obama-to-enact-end-of-life-planning-for-medicare/ Return of ‘Death Panels’? Obama to Enact End-of-Life Planning for Medicare], ''[[The Blaze]]'', December 26, 2010.</ref> Quoting research from the [[British Medical Journal]], the [[Obama administration]] insists death panels are humane: "Advance care planning improves end-of-life care and patient and family satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving relatives."
Prior to ObamaCare, uninsured indigent patients would be subject to rationing of care dictated by the limited amount of charity funding available at local hospitals. Insurance companies also rationed care by declining to authorize and reimburse procedures and treatments that they considered wasteful or experimental.

This "end-of-life" care is apparently to be doled out like pork from a salt barrel from the 200 or so "Elderly Care Centers" nationwide that will distribute strictly rationed medication to those in need until such time as the "committee" considers the patient to be too old. 200 centers in the country amounts to about 4 per state on average, though California, Massachusetts and Iowa were able to grab more funding from the Obama administration through a combination of political dealings and judicial activism <ref>http://blogs.smartmoney.com/tax/2011/02/10/lights-camera-tax-scandal-iowa-trial-begins/</ref> The majority of Elderly Care Centers are located in urban areas of states; for example, the state of Kansas has only two Elderly Care Centers for their entire retired population and both are located in Topeka, far from the rural elderly who "need" government help the most. This may be a strategy to reduce the strain on the system by allowing a large portion of the elderly to die off "naturally," while still making a show of treating them in cities, where liberal voters tend to congregate.

There have already been deaths attributed to doctors exercising newly granted authority from these extrajudicial decision making bodies. A young girl, in liberal California of all places, was told that her liver transplant was not "worth it," because she wouldn't live long enough to justify the value of the organ. Though public outcry forced the doctors to change their minds after ten days, but those ten days were enough to kill an innocent child. Another woman, a nurse in Texas, was denied treatment for her breast cancer, purportedly because she was in middle age and was not worth the "investment." <ref>http://dying.about.com/od/ethicsandchoices/a/death_panels.htm</ref>

Under Obamacare, in every state taxpayer dollars originally slated for caring for the elderly in our communities have been transferred to a "Community Health" slush fund run by federal government-appointed bureaucrats. The purpose of this fund is to allow unscrupulous doctors and insurance companies, who are the acknowledged source of our high health costs, to charge ridiculous amounts of money for basic services, without leaving a paper trail or even committing a (legal) crime.

==Polls==
Taken from an [[Associated Press|AP]] poll, on January 17, 2011, Kellyanne Conway, president of the polling company, inc./WomanTrend, pointed out that when asked if voters would favor a law "that would require every American to have health insurance, or pay money to the government as a penalty if they do not, unless the person is very poor," 59 percent are opposed.<ref>Katrina Trinko. [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/257331/two-new-obamacare-polls-have-high-numbers-democrats-misleading-questions-katrina-trink# Two New Obamacare Polls Have High Numbers of Democrats, Misleading Questions], ''National Review'', January 17, 2011.</ref> {{Cquote|When they actually hear what the health care reform is, they’re opposed to it," Conway said.}}
One week after a federal district judge ruled in favor of 26 states and declared Obamacare to be unconstitutional, Rasmussen's poll of likely voters showed that Americans support its repeal by a margin of 21 percentage points (58 to 37 percent). Among [[independents]], the margin in support of repeal was even higher: 27 points (63 to 36 percent).<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-rasmussen-poll-obamacare_541512.html New Rasmussen Poll on Obamacare], ''[[The Weekly Standard]]'', February 7, 2011.</ref> The pollsters also point out that many voters don't just want Obamacare repealed — they also want it replaced with a better system.

* On August 29, 2011, the ''[[Rasmussen Reports]]'' national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters showed that 57% at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law, including 46% who Strongly Favor repeal. Thirty-seven percent (37%) at least somewhat oppose repeal, with 25% who are Strongly Opposed.<ref>Voters Express Stronger Enthusiasm for Health Care Repeal. [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law Health Care Law], ''[[Rasmussen Reports]]'', August 29, 2011.</ref>

* According to the ''Kaiser Health Tracking'' [[poll]], as reported on August 30, 2011, 44% of Americans have an unfavorable view of Obamacare. Only 39% of those surveyed have a favorable view of the law.<ref>Conn Carroll. [http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/poll-obamacare-support-all-time-low Poll: Obamacare support at all time low], ''The Washington Examiner'', August 30, 2011.</ref>

* According to a monthly poll from the ''Kaiser Family Foundation'', as reported by ''[[The Hill]]'' on October 28, 2011, 51 percent of respondents had an unfavorable view while only 34 percent had a favorable impression of Obamacare.<ref>[http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/190399-healthcare-laws-popularity-hits-a-new-low-poll-says Healthcare law's popularity hits new low], ''[[The Hill]]'', October 28, 2011.</ref>

== See also ==
[[File:Dr Obama.jpg|right|150px]]
* [[King v. Burwell]]
* [[Socialized Medicine]]
* [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] (doctor organization which opposes Obamacare)
* [[Accountable Care Organization]]
* [[Single payer]]
* [[Obamunism]]
* [[Barack Hussein Obama#Obama's Medical Administrator|Obama's Medicare/Medicaid Administrator]]
* [[Essay:47 million Americans without health insurance lie]]
* [[Predicting ObamaCare Outcome]]

== External links ==
*[http://obamacarewatch.org/ Website publicizing the numerous, latest harms caused by ObamaCare]
*[http://www.healthcare.gov Official website]
*[http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf Full text of Obamacare, aka Affordable Healthcare Act]
*[http://www.healthcare.gov/news/brochures/info-for-small-businesses.pdf Official site info for small businesses; statement there will be penalties against employers]
*[http://www.castlibrary.com/free_books Three Days of Argument: Obamacare On Trial Audiobook] - Complete coverage of the arguments to the Supreme Court regarding Obamacare
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcBaSP31Be8 Know the TRUTH about the Government Health Care Bill H.R.3200- Key Points video]
*[http://www.aapsonline.org/obamacare-bill/ Obamacare] by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzLDb2igKM The Obama health care press conference: The Public Option]
*[http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-archive.php?podcast_id=653 Collectivism and Obama, McCain], featuring David Boaz, [[CATO Institute]] Daily Podcast, June 10, 2008.
*[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071510/content/01125107.guest.html White House Snaps Fingers and Triggers End of Private Insurance], [[Rush Limbaugh]] on how the Obama Administration just issued new rules requiring health insurance companies to provide free coverage.
*FoxNews.com: [http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/19/taxpayer-calculator-health-care-repeal Taxpayer Calculator: ''Find Out How Much Health Care Law Is Costing YOU'']. To find out how much your taxes will increase because of Obamacare, [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/health-care-bill-gross-cost-of-coverage-provisions CLICK HERE]. In addition to calculating your individual tax burden caused by the overall health care takeover, FoxNews.com has also broken down the bill into three main pieces: the [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/health-care-bill-gross-cost-of-exchange-subsidies-related-spending.htm gross cost of exchange subsidies and related spending], the [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/health-care-bill-gross-cost-of-medicaid-chip-outlays.htm cost of Medicaid and expense of the Children's Health Insurance Program], and the [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/healthcare-bill-gross-cost-of-small-employer-tax-credits.htm cost of small employer tax credits].
* http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/21/premiums-set-to-rise-this-year-in-run-up-to-obamacare-tax-on-insurance-industry/
* http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/01/memphis-based-medical-company-lays-off-100-blames-obama-care/
* http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/339456/obamacare-s-pressure-points-thomas-p-miller

{{Liberalism}}

==Notes==
<references group="note"/>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:ObamaCare]]
[[Category:Totalitarianism]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category:Health]]
[[Category:Health Care]]
[[Category:Government Programs]]
[[Category:Welfare State]]
[[Category:United States Law]]
[[Category:Retirement]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Paris climate agreement

2017-11-01T06:22:55Z

TheOther: Added stuff about legality

The '''Paris climate agreement''' (also known as the '''Paris accord''') is an international agreement intended to fight [[climate change]]. It is described as "the first universal, legally binding deal to tackle [[global warming]]."<ref name="Gosden">Gosden, Emily (December 12, 2015). [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/paris-climate-change-conference/12047909/Paris-climate-change-agreement-a-major-leap-for-mankind.html Paris climate change agreement 'a major leap for mankind']. ''The Telegraph''. Retrieved June 6, 2017.</ref>

Interestingly, the actual substance of the 'agreement' was specifically worded to be non-binding, presumably to allow it to 'count' as an [[executive agreement]] rather than a treaty, thus allowing Obama to circumvent Senate approval when adopting it.

==Origins==
The Paris climate agreement was agreed to by 195 nations on December 12, 2015.<ref name="Rothwell">Rothwell, James; Gosden, Emily; Crilly, Rob; Millward, David (December 12, 2015). [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/paris-climate-change-conference/12047133/Final-text-of-climate-deal-to-be-released-imminently.html Paris climate change deal - ministers adopt historic agreement to keep global warming "well below" 2C]. ''The Telegraph''. Retrieved June 6, 2017.</ref>

At the time of its adoption, many [[liberal]]s and [[environmentalist]]s opposed the agreement because they did not believe it effective enough to stop supposed climate change.<ref>Harvey, Fiona (December 14, 2015). [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/14/paris-climate-change-deal-cop21-oxfam-actionaid Paris climate change deal too weak to help poor, critics warn]. ''The Guardian''. Retrieved June 6, 2017.</ref><ref>Chernyshova, Daria (December 11, 2015). [https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201512111031601573-climate-change-paris-talks/ Paris Climate Deal Unlikely to Be Strong Enough – Environmentalist Group]. ''Sputnik''. Retrieved June 6, 2017.</ref><ref>Adler, Ben (December 9, 2017). [http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/12/paris-climate-agreement-wont-keep-fossil-fuels-ground/ The Big Climate Agreement Won’t Keep Fossil Fuels in the Ground]. ''Mother Jones''. Retrieved June 6, 2017.</ref> [[Conservative]]s also opposed the agreement due to the negative economic consequences on the [[United States]] that would result from following the agreement despite its inadequacy in stopping supposed climate change, among other reasons.<ref name="Hayward">Hayward, John (June 1, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/01/top-7-worst-reasons-keep-paris-climate-accord/ Top 7 Worst Reasons to Keep the Paris Climate Accord]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 6, 2017.</ref><ref name="Carney">Carney, John (May 31, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/economics/2017/05/31/every-bad-thing-avoided-rejecting-paris-climate-accords/ Every Bad Thing We Will Avoid By Rejecting the Paris Climate Accords]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 6, 2017.</ref><ref name="Delingpole">Delingpole, James (April 21, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/21/delingpole-climate-realists-urge-president-trump-to-pull-out-of-suicidal-expensive-and-pointless-paris-agreement/ Delingpole: Climate Realists Urge President Trump to Pull out of Suicidal, Expensive and Pointless Paris Agreement]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 6, 2017.</ref><ref name="Harbin">Harbin, Christine (June 5, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-paris-climate-agreement-was-a-terrible-deal-for-the-us/article/2624974 The Paris climate agreement was a terrible deal for the US]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved June 6, 2017.</ref> Some conservatives noted the [[hypocrisy]] of the liberals negotiating the agreement.<ref>Harsanyi, David (December 4, 2015). [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427989/paris-climate-talks-reveal-progressivisms-true-hypocrisy-david-harsanyi Paris Climate Talks Reveal Progressivism’s True Hypocrisy]. ''National Review''. Retrieved June 6, 2017.</ref>

==Goals and effects==
The Paris climate agreement is intended to "limit" global temperatures at 1.5 Celsius (2.7 [[Fahrenheit]]) above pre-industrial levels.<ref name="Gosden"/> The deal requires developed nations to fund poorer nations so they can develop [[Alternative energy|"green" energy]] and adapt to the supposed effects of climate change, which is achieved through a new organisation called the "Green Climate Fund".<ref name="Rothwell"/> Numerous developing countries took advantage of this by committing to more anti-pollution/emission efforts if they are paid.<ref name="Wolfgang">Wolfgang, Ben (June 5, 2017). [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/5/paris-climate-agreement-shares-nations-wealth/ Developing nations in Paris climate accord threaten to keep polluting unless they’re paid]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved June 6, 2017.</ref><ref>Delingpole, James (June 7, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/07/delingpole-paris-trump-just-dodged-a-2-5-trillion-bullet/ DELINGPOLE: Paris – Trump Just Dodged A $2.5 Trillion Bullet]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 7, 2017.</ref>

China's emissions are expected to increase until 2030, while the [[European Union]] is attempting to decrease emissions by 40 percent by the same year.<ref name="Wolfgang"/>

Despite their climate pledges for the agreement, [[G-20]] countries continued investing in [[fossil fuels]] – four times as much than in renewable energy.<ref>Wolfgang, Ben (July 5, 2017). [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/5/despite-paris-deal-g20-countries-continue-sweethea/ Despite Paris accord, G-20 countries invest four times as much in fossil fuels as green energy]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved July 5, 2017.</ref> Despite European [[environmental alarmism]], U.S. coal exports to Europe (along with Asia) rose 60% in early 2017 compared to the previous year.<ref>Multiple references:
*Siciliano, John (July 31, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/us-coal-floods-europe-despite-continents-fear-about-climate-change/article/2630079 US coal floods Europe despite continent's fear about climate change]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved July 31, 2017.
*Gardner, Timothy; Chestney, Nina (July 27, 2017). [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKBN1AD0DU U.S. coal exports soar, in boost to Trump energy agenda, data shows]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved July 31, 2017.</ref> According to Lawrence Solomon of the environmentalist organization Energy Probe, "most signatories are ignoring, if not altogether abandoning Paris commitments."<ref>Williams, Thomas D. (October 22, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/22/report-most-signatories-are-ignoring-or-abandoning-paris-climate-commitments/ Report: Most Signatories Are ‘Ignoring’ or ‘Abandoning’ Paris Climate Commitments]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved October 22, 2017.</ref>

Conservatives noted the flawed underlying presuppositions for the agreement and the failed reasoning for remaining in it.<ref name="Hayward"/><ref name="Carney"/><ref name="Delingpole"/><ref name="Harbin"/>

===Efforts to reduce carbon emissions===
[[France]] stopped granting licenses for oil and gas exploration in France and its territories,<ref>Bamat, Joseph (June 23, 2017). [http://www.france24.com/en/20170623-france-stop-giving-oil-exploration-licences France to stop granting oil exploration licences]. ''France 24''. Retrieved July 7, 2017.</ref> and it set a goal of ending the sale of gasoline and diesel vehicles by 2040 in its effort to comply with the agreement's carbon reduction goals.<ref>Henry, Devin (July 6, 2017). [http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/340809-france-to-end-sales-of-gasoline-diesel-vehicles-by-2040 France to end sales of gasoline, diesel vehicles by 2040]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved July 6, 2017.</ref><ref>Samuel, Henry (July 6, 2017). [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/06/france-ban-petrol-diesel-vehicles-2040/ France to 'ban all petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040']. ''The Telegraph''. Retrieved July 7, 2017.</ref><ref>Chrisafis, Angelique; Vaughan, Adam (July 6, 2017). [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/06/france-ban-petrol-diesel-cars-2040-emmanuel-macron-volvo France to ban sales of petrol and diesel cars by 2040]. ''The Guardian''. Retrieved July 9, 2017.</ref> The [[United Kingdom]] also set a goal of banning gasoline or diesel vehicles by 2040.<ref>Henry, Devin (July 26, 2017). [http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/343866-uk-to-ban-diesel-gasoline-vehicles-by-2040 UK to ban diesel, gasoline vehicles by 2040]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved July 26, 2017.</ref>

==Legality under U.S. law==
The 'agreement' was specifically worded to use non-binding language for much of its contents, including the actual emissions level that the nations are meant to cut.<ref>https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/your-top-5-questions-about-the-paris-climate-agreement-answered</ref> The use of non-binding language was likely intended to allow the agreement to 'count' as an [[executive agreement]] rather than a treaty, as the Constitution stipulates that ratification of a treaty requires the supermajority consent of the Senate.

However, binding executive agreements are only allowed within the President's authority. The Paris Agreement does not entirely fall into the President's authority, so its binding articles are problematic. As a result, some analysts and commentators have argued that the binding articles of the Paris Agreement (such as its 4 year exit period) make it a treaty that cannot be ratified without the consent of the Senate, which would make the agreement unratified and Obama's executive order unconstitutional.<ref>http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-paris-agreement-treaty-and-should-be-submitted-the-senate</ref><ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/01/the-u-s-cant-quit-the-paris-climate-agreement-because-it-never-actually-joined/</ref>

==U.S. withdrawal==
To the dismay of world leaders,<ref>Multiple references:
*[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/01/paris-agreement-on-climate-change-world-reaction-to-us-pullout.html Paris agreement on climate change: World reaction to US pullout]. ''Fox News''. June 1, 2017. Retrieved June 1, 2017.
*Wolfgang, Ben (June 1, 2017). [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/1/angela-merkel-emmanuel-macron-exit-paris-climate-d/ European leaders say Trump’s exit from Paris climate deal is ‘irreversible’]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved June 2, 2017.
*Henry, Devin (June 3, 2017). [http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/336176-globe-heaps-scorn-on-trump-for-paris-exit Globe heaps scorn on Trump for Paris exit]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved June 3, 2017.
</ref> the media,<ref>Multiple references:
*Kurtz, Howard (June 2, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/02/getting-hot-in-here-why-media-hate-trumps-climate-deal-exit.html Getting hot in here: Why the media hate Trump's climate deal exit]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved June 2, 2017.
*Adams, Becket (June 1, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/media-drop-all-pretense-of-objectivity-to-bemoan-us-withdrawal-from-paris-agreement/article/2624726 Media drop all pretense of objectivity to bemoan US withdrawal from Paris Agreement]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved June 5, 2017.
*Kurtz, Howard (June 5, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/05/climate-coverage-opposing-not-just-trumps-policies-but-presidents-persona.html Climate coverage: Opposing not just Trump's policies but the president's persona]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved June 5, 2017.</ref> and other liberals,<ref>Multiple references:
*Griswold, Alex (June 1, 2017). [http://freebeacon.com/politics/traitorous-act-war-liberals-angrily-react-trump-pulling-paris-agreement/ ‘Traitorous Act of War’: Liberals Angrily React to Trump Pulling Out of Paris Agreement]. ''The Washington Free Beacon''. Retrieved June 1, 2017.
*Singman, Brooke (June 1, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/01/paris-agreement-on-climate-change-washington-reacts-to-us-pullout.html Paris Agreement on climate change: Washington reacts to US pullout]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved June 1, 2017.
*Mason, Ian (June 1, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/01/meltdown-left-goes-apocalyptic-over-trump-paris-decision-aclu-calls-it-assault-on-communities-of-color/ Meltdown: Left Goes Apocalyptic over Trump Paris Decision, ACLU Calls It ‘Assault on Communities of Color’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 2, 2017.
*Shaw, Adam (June 2, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/02/liberal-cities-react-trumps-paris-decision-green-lights/ Liberal Cities React to Trump’s Paris Decision by Shining Green Lights on Buildings]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 2, 2017.
*Pandolfo, Chris (June 1, 2017). [https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/liberals-are-losing-their-minds-over-trumps-climate-decision Liberals are losing their minds over Trump’s climate decision]. ''Conservative Review''. Retrieved June 2, 2017.</ref> and in a major blow to former President [[Barack Obama]]'s legacy,<ref>Wolfgang, Ben (June 1, 2017). [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/1/donald-trump-withdraws-us-from-paris-climate-accor/ Trump eviscerates Obama’s Paris legacy]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved June 1, 2017.</ref> U.S. President [[Donald Trump]] announced the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris climate agreement and immediately stop its implementation,<ref name="ParisFox6/1/17">Chakraborty, Barnini (June 1, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/01/trump-u-s-to-withdraw-from-paris-climate-pact-calls-it-unfair-for-america.html Paris Agreement on climate change: US withdraws as Trump calls it 'unfair']. ''Fox News''. Retrieved June 1, 2017.</ref><ref name="MoonsParis6/1/17">Moons, Michelle (June 1, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/01/trump-u-s-will-withdraw-from-paris-climate-accord/ Trump: U.S. Will Withdraw from Paris Climate Accord]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 1, 2017.</ref><ref>Easley, Jonathan (June 2, 2017). [http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/336014-trump-cements-america-first-doctrine-with-paris-withdrawal Trump cements 'America First' doctrine with Paris withdrawal]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved June 2, 2017.</ref> including by ending payments to the U.N. Green Climate Fund.<ref>Volcovici, Valerie; Mason, Jeff (June 1, 2017). [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-trump-idUSKBN18R1J4 Trump abandons global climate pact; allies voice dismay]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved June 1, 2017.</ref> In his announcement speech, Trump made clear that "I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris," and that "our withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty."<ref name="MoonsParis6/1/17"/><ref>Mason, Ian (June 1, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/01/trump-time-to-put-ohio-michigan-and-pennsylvania-before-paris/ Trump: Time to Put Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania Before Paris]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 2, 2017.</ref><ref>Despite mockery from liberals due to the fact that the mayor of the city of Pittsburgh supported the Paris accord, Trump won the Pittsburgh metro area:
*Lee, Tony (June 4, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/04/trump-won-pittsburgh-metropolitan-area-paris-accord/ CityLab Analysis: Trump Actually Won Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 5, 2017.</ref>

Although many environmentalists opposed the Paris agreement for not being strong enough, they opposed the U.S. withdrawal, with some accusing President Trump of committing "environmental racism."<ref>Williams, Thomas D. (June 6, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/06/trump-accused-of-environmental-racism-in-withdrawal-from-paris-agreement/ Trump Accused of ‘Environmental Racism’ in Withdrawal from Paris Agreement]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 6, 2017.</ref>

Some, such as EU Commission President [[Jean Claude-Juncker]],<ref>https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-climate-juncker-you-cant-leave-paris-deal-overnight/</ref> said that Trump's decision to leave the agreement was illegal because the supposedly non-binding agreement had a clause that does not allow countries to leave until 4 years after its ratification.<ref>https://www.snopes.com/2017/06/01/authority-paris-agreement/</ref> As stated earlier in the 'legality' section, the argument that the clause is binding would defeat the argument that Obama had the authority to enter the agreement without the consent of the Senate. Some respond that the authority for the legally binding elements of the agreement are derived from the UNFCCC, a prior agreement that was ratified by Congress,<ref>https://www.snopes.com/2017/06/01/authority-paris-agreement/</ref> but the UNFCCC does not mention many of the binding elements in the Paris Agreement, such as the requirement for emission 'targets'.<ref>http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-paris-agreement-treaty-and-should-be-submitted-the-senate</ref>

A very small minority believe that President Trump's decision to leave the agreement was illegal due to the fact that it was performed unilaterally with an executive order. Even ignoring the obvious hypocrisy in their beliefs, the Supreme Court essentially legalised the unilateral withdrawal from any agreements by refusing to hear a case against President Carter's decision to withdraw from the China-US Mutual Defense Treaty, which was a binding agreement ratified by the Senate.<ref>https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-02/trump-paris-climate-change-and-constitutional-realities</ref>

According to a [[Washington Post]]–[[ABC News]] poll, 59% of Americans opposed the decision to withdraw from the agreement versus 28% in support.<ref>Savransy, Rebecca (June 5, 2017). [http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/336408-poll-public-opposes-trumps-withdrawal-from-paris-deal-by-21-margin Poll: Public opposes Trump's withdrawal from Paris deal by 2:1 margin]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved June 6, 2017.</ref> However, a Rasmussen poll found that 41% of Americans believed the Paris agreement would have increased energy costs versus 20% thinking the opposite and 23% saying it would have no effect.<ref>Starr, Penny (June 6, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/06/poll-americans-agree-with-trump-on-paris-agreement-41-say-deal-would-increase-energy-costs/ Poll: Americans Agree with Trump on Paris Agreement: 41% Say Deal Would Increase Energy Costs]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 6, 2017.</ref>

Many Democrat-controlled states opposed Trump's action, and [[Hawaii]] became the first state to enact a law implementing the Paris agreement's standards.<ref>Phillips, Ariella (June 6, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hawaii-first-state-to-enact-law-in-step-with-paris-agreement-after-trump-signals-exit/article/2625164 Hawaii first state to enact law in step with Paris Agreement after Trump signals exit]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved June 7, 2017.</ref>

Communist [[North Korea]] condemned the U.S. for leaving the accord.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/06/09/north-korea-slams-trump-for-pulling-out-paris-climate-agreement.html North Korea slams Trump for pulling out of Paris Climate Agreement]. ''Fox News''. June 9, 2017. Retrieved June 9, 2017.</ref><ref>Siciliano, John (June 7, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/north-korea-trumps-decision-on-paris-agreement-poses-great-danger/article/2625213 North Korea: Trump's decision on Paris Agreement 'poses great danger']. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved June 9, 2017.</ref>

An app was created for people opposed to President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement.<ref>Siciliano, John (June 7, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dont-like-trumps-decision-on-paris-theres-an-app-for-that/article/2625201 Don't like Trump's decision on Paris? There's an app for that]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved June 9, 2017.</ref>

Despite left-wing and [[establishment]] criticism of U.S. withdrawal from the agreement, the U.S. was well on its way to reducing admissions, showing that the Paris agreement was unnecessary for the U.S. from an emissions perspective.<ref>Wolfgang, Ben (June 21, 2017). [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/21/paris-climate-goals-attainable-without-us-governme/ Who needs Paris? U.S. is well on its way to lower emissions with economic, technological changes]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved June 22, 2017.</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf Text of the Paris agreement]

[[Category:Climate Change]]
[[Category:International Politics]]
[[Category:United Nations]]
[[Category:Treaties]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Globalism]]

Robert Menendez

2017-10-29T04:20:37Z

TheOther: Added new stuff about his trial

{{Officeholder
|name=Robert Menendez
|image=Menendez.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=Jane Menendez (div.)
|religion=[[Roman Catholic]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=New Jersey
|terms=January 18, 2006 – Present
|preceded=[[Jon Corzine]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=New Jersey
|district=13th
|terms=January 5, 1993 – January 18, 2006
|preceded=Jim Saxton
|former=n
|succeeded=Albio Sires
}}
}}

'''Robert "Bob" Menendez''' (born January 1, 1954) is the junior [[United States]] [[Senator]] from [[New Jersey]] and a member of the [[Democratic Party]]. After being appointed to fill the vacant Senate seat left by [[Governor]] [[Jon Corzine]], Menendez was elected to a term in his own right with 53% of the vote in 2006. He has voted with his Democrat colleagues 97.2% of the time.<ref>[http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000639/ Source: ''The Washington Post'']</ref> Menendez was chairman of the [[Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee]] from 2009-2011, during which Democrats lost a net of six Senate seats.

Previously he served as [[Mayor]] of Union City, New Jersey, and then as a U.S. Representative for New Jersey's 13th congressional district.

Recently, he has been accused of accepting donations, trips, and gifts from a friend in exchange for pressuring government officials to act in a way that would be beneficial for the friend's business interests.<ref name="trial">http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/26/menendez-corruption-and-bribery-trial-what-to-know.html</ref> As a result, he is currently on trial for bribery.<ref name="trial" /> Even the liberal mainstream media like the New York Times<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/opinion/step-down-senator-robert-menendez.html?_r=0</ref> believes he should resign. Conversely, the Democratic Party, which previously joined a bipartisan attempt to call upon Senator [[Ted Stevens]] to resign in 2008, had several prominent members, including Senate Minority Leader [[Chuck Schumer]] and Senators [[Bernie Sanders]], [[Joe Manchin]], [[Kamala Harris]], [[Claire McCaskill]], and [[Jon Tester]], dodge the question of whether he should resign if convicted.<ref>https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/10/02/no-comment-bernie-joins-list-of-senate-dems-unwilling-to-say-menendez-should-resign-if-convicted-n2389239</ref>

== Recall election ==
In 2009, three citizens, inspired by the [[Tea Party Movement]], started a campaign to recall Menendez from office, on the grounds that he had failed in his duty to represent them properly and to uphold the [[United States Constitution]], as any Senator swears to do.<ref name=sussextp>[http://weseethroughu.com/2009/12/campaign-to-recall-senator-robert-menendez/ Sussex County Tea Party Committee Announces Campaign to Recall Senator Robert Menendez]</ref> [[New Jersey]] state law requires a minimum number of signatures equivalent to at least 25% of the prior general election’s registered voters in order to grant a special [[recall election]].

The Committee to Recall Robert Menendez from the Office of United States Senator filed a Notice of Intent with the New Jersey Division of Elections on September 25, 2009. The Division, then under the supervision of Secretary of State Nina M. Wells (an appointee of then-[[Governor]] [[Jon Corzine]]), initially acknowledged receipt of the application on October 5. The Division then said nothing further for a total of three and a half months, during which the Committee first filed a second Notice of Intent (which the Division never acknowledged) and then sued the Division in the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. When the Elections Division did not respond to the lawsuit within the required 30 days, the Committee filed for summary judgment.<ref name=summary>Hurlbut T, "[http://www.examiner.com/essex-county-conservative-in-newark/summary-judgment-asked-menendez-recall-effort Summary judgment asked in Menendez recall effort]," <http://www.examiner.com/Newark>, 11 January 2010</ref>

The next day, the Elections Division declared the Notice inherently illegal on the ground that States may not recall their Senators mid-term, because only the Senate can judge the qualifications of its own membership.<ref name=illegal>Hurlbut T, "[http://www.examiner.com/essex-county-conservative-in-newark/nj-elections-division-says-menendez-recall-illegal NJ Elections Division says Menendez recall illegal]," <http://www.examiner.com/Newark>, 14 Jan 2010</ref>

The Menendez Recall Committee appealed at once.<ref name=appeal>Hurlbut T, "[http://www.examiner.com/essex-county-elections-2010-in-newark/menendez-recall-committee-appeals-decision Menendez recall committee appeals decision]," <http://www.examiner.com/Newark>, 29 Jan 2010.</ref> The Appellate Division accepted the appeal and served notice on the Elections Division, and also on Menendez, as an "indispensable party" to the case. By all accounts, this is the first time that Menendez even realized that a movement to recall him from office existed.

Between the filing of the appeal and the eventual oral argument on the matter, something happened that would directly affect the State's handling of the case: [[Christopher J. Christie]] became Governor instead of Corzine, and [[Kim Guadagno]] took over as lieutenant governor and also as Secretary of State. Thereafter the State made no attempt to defend the decisions of the previous administration.

The Appellate Division heard oral argument on March 2, 2010.<ref name=oralappellate>Hurlbut T, "[http://www.examiner.com/essex-county-elections-2010-in-newark/oral-arguments-today-menendez-recall Oral arguments today in Menendez recall]," <http://www.examiner.com/Newark>, 2 March 2010</ref> Then on March 14, 2010, the court held 3-0 that the US Constitution was silent on the matter of recalling a Senator, that the [[United States Supreme Court]] had had no case "squarely on point" before it, and therefore, in the absence of clear federal Constitutional guidance, the New Jersey Constitution must stand. But the court stayed its decision for 45 days, the time limit for the Supreme Court of New Jersey to take appeals.<ref name=appealdec>Hurlbut T, "[http://www.examiner.com/essex-county-elections-2010-in-newark/menendez-recall-may-go-forward-perhaps-within-45-days Menendez recall may go forward—perhaps—with 45 days]," <http://www.examiner.com/>, 16 March 2010</ref>

Menendez appealed the decision on April 4, 2010.<ref name=sconjpetition>Hurlbut T, "[http://www.examiner.com/essex-county-elections-2010-in-newark/menendez-appeals-recall-decision-to-nj-supreme-court Menendez appeals recall decision to NJ Supreme Court]," <http://www.examiner.com/Newark>, 5 April 2010</ref> The Supreme Court of New Jersey accepted the "petition for certification" and asked for briefs on an accelerated briefing schedule.<ref name=briefsked>Hurlbut T, "[http://www.examiner.com/essex-county-elections-2010-in-newark/nj-supremes-accelerate-briefing-sked-on-menendez-recall NJ Supremes accelerate briefing sked on Menendez recall]," <http://www.examiner.com/Newark>, 8 April 2010</ref> The case went to oral argument on May 25<ref name=oralsupreme>Hurlbut T, "[http://www.examiner.com/essex-county-elections-2010-in-newark/oral-arguments-conclude-menendez-recall-case Oral arguments conclude in Menendez recall case]," <http://www.examiner.com/Newark>, 26 May 2010</ref>—before only six Justices and an empty chair. (Christie has earlier refused to reappoint Associate Justice [[John E. Wallace]] to a tenured position on the Court, and the New Jersey Senate, taking exception to Christie's non-reappointment of a sitting Justice who did not stand accused of moral turpitude, refused to hold hearings on the confirmation of a permanent successor to Wallace, and continues so to refuse to this day.)

On November 18, 2010, the Supreme Court held, 4-2, that a United States Senator was ''not'' subject to recall.<ref name=reversed>Hurlbut T, "[http://www.examiner.com/essex-county-elections-2010-in-newark/nj-supremes-declare-recall-unconstitutional NJ Supremes declare recall unconstitutional]," <http://www.examiner.com/Newark>, 18 Nov 2010.</ref> The arguments that the Court used are difficult to follow, and amount to an assertion that the US Constitution's silence on recall, after the [[Articles of Confederation]] had made recall an explicit right, constituted a denial of the right of recall. Justices [[Roberto A. Rivera-Soto]] and [[Helen E. Hoens]] stingingly dissented, saying that "a dark day" had fallen on the Court after it had, in essence, declared part of New Jersey's own Constitution unconstitutional.

The Recall Committee and its lead counsel ([[User:Aschlafly|Andrew L. Schlafly]]) have now announced their intention to petition for ''certiorari'' to the [[United States Supreme Court]].<ref name=scotus>Hurlbut T, "[http://www.examiner.com/essex-county-elections-2010-in-newark/menendez-recall-committee-will-petition-us-supremes Menendez recall committee will petition US Supremes]," <http://www.examiner.com/Newark>, 28 Dec 2010.</ref>

==External links==
*[http://menendez.senate.gov/ Official website]
*[http://www.menendezfacts.com/ MenendezFacts website]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Bob_Menendez.htm Menendez on the issues]
*''[http://www.scribd.com/full/43153706?access_key=key-b06pwafc6x5obt38l1z Committee to Recall Robert Menendez from the Office of United States Senator v. Wells & Giles],'' Case No. A-86-09, Supreme Court of New Jersey, syllabus, opinion and dissent.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Menendez, Robert, Donald}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:United States Elected Officials]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:111th United States Congress]]
[[Category:112th United States Congress]]
[[Category:113th United States Congress]]
[[Category:114th United States Congress]]
[[Category:New Jersey]]

Joe Manchin

2017-10-29T03:52:23Z

TheOther: Added stuff about progressives disliking him

{{Officeholder
|name=Joseph Manchin
|image=Joe Manchin official portrait 112th Congress.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=Gayle Conelly
|religion=[[Roman Catholic]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=West Virginia
|terms=November 15, 2010 – Present
|preceded=[[Carte Goodwin]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=34th
|state=West Virginia
|terms=January 17, 2005 – November 15, 2010
|preceded=[[Bob Wise]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Earl Ray Tomblin]]
}}
{{Officeholder/secretary (cabinet)
|of=State
|state=West Virginia
|number=27th
|deputy=n
|governor=[[Bob Wise]]
|terms=January 15, 2001 – January 17, 2005
|preceded=Ken Hechler
|former=y
|succeeded=Betty Ireland
}}
}}
'''Joseph Manchin''' was elected in November 2010 as the United States Senator from [[West Virginia]], filling the seat formerly held by the late [[Robert Byrd]]. Because Manchin was filling a vacant seat in a special election, he was sworn in almost immediately and then participated in the [[lame duck]] session of [[Congress]] prior to 2011.

Manchin portrayed himself as a "[[conservative]]" in order to be elected, campaigning against the positions of the [[Democratic Party]] leadership on [[cap and trade]], [[gun control]], and the Bush tax cuts. As a Senator, however, he has shown himself to be left-wing (though definitely less so than the majority of his party). Manchin displays [[liberal values]] not only in his beliefs, but also in his behavior, using vulgar language in public.<ref>Weaver, Al (August 7, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/joe-manchin-i-dont-give-a-s-t-if-i-win-re-election/article/2630818 Joe Manchin: 'I don't give a s--t' if I win re-election]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved August 7, 2017.</ref><ref>Thomsen, Jacqueline (August 7, 2017). [http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/345589-manchin-i-dont-give-a-sh-t-if-i-win-reelection Manchin: 'I don't give a s---' if I win reelection]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved August 7, 2017.</ref><ref>Chakraborty, Barnini (August 7, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/07/manchin-says-doesnt-give-s-about-getting-reelected.html Manchin says he doesn't give a s--- about getting reelected]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved August 7, 2017.</ref>

Manchin was previously the Governor of West Virginia.

He abandoned his pro-gun views in 2013 when he co-wrote the Manchin-[[Toomey]] gun-grab bill, showing his true colors as an anti-gun [[liberal]].

However, in 2016, Manchin expressed his willingness to work with Republican President [[Donald Trump]], and voted for most of his cabinet nominations, and for [[Neil Gorsuch]]. This earned him ire from "progressives", who demanded his removal from his leadership position and consider him a "DINO" (Democrat In Name Only).<ref>https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2017/03/02/225000-progressives-sen-schumer-remove-joe-manchin-leadership</ref> However, whenever a close vote for a conservative bill or a Trump Administration nominee was held, Manchin took the liberal Democrat position.

It was reported in April 2017 that less than 2% of Manchin's campaign donations actually came from his state of West Virginia.<ref>Scher, Brent (April 20, 2017). [http://freebeacon.com/politics/less-2-joe-manchins-campaign-donations-came-west-virginia/ Less Than 2% of Joe Manchin’s Campaign Donations Came From West Virginia]. ''The Washington Free Beacon''. Retrieved April 23, 2017.</ref>

==Support for gun control==
Manchin has a record of supporting [[gun control]] measures, despite being from a conservative state known for its opposition to gun regulations. In 2013, Manchin sponsored a bill that would have instituted universal background checks, and in April 2017 he stated his hope that President [[Donald Trump]] would sign gun control measures.<ref>Hawkins, Awr (April 21, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/21/joe-manchin-trump-fortitude-make-senate-pass-gun-control/ Joe Manchin: Trump Has the ‘Fortitude’ to Make Senate Pass Gun Control]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 2, 2017.</ref>

===Liberal, anti-gun donors===
Despite claiming to be pro-gun, Manchin went to anti-gun [[Michael Bloomberg]]'s mansion in 2013 for a fundraiser.<ref>Hawkins, Awr (July 11, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/11/joe-manchin-denies-knowing-big-donors-although-attended-bloomberg-fundraiser-person/ Joe Manchin Denies Knowing His Donors, Yet He Attended Bloomberg Fundraiser]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 13, 2017.</ref>

It was reported in 2017 that Manchin received donations from the law firm Paul, Weiss, which had a record of supporting gun control and defending terrorists in court.<ref>Persons, Sally (July 28, 2017). [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/28/joe-manchin-received-donations-from-law-firm-pushi/ Joe Manchin received donations from law firm pushing for gun control]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved July 28, 2017.</ref>

==Support for abortion==
In April 2017, Manchin endorsed [[Planned Parenthood]], which funds abortions, the legalized murder of the [[unborn]].<ref>Berry, Susan (April 22, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/22/pro-life-sen-joe-manchin-poses-support-planned-parenthood/ ‘Pro-Life’ Sen. Joe Manchin Poses in Support of Planned Parenthood]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 23, 2017.</ref><ref>Swan, Jonathan (May 8, 2017). [https://www.axios.com/joe-manchins-tightrope-on-planned-parenthood-2398587475.html Joe Manchin's tightrope on Planned Parenthood]. ''Axios''. Retrieved May 16, 2017.</ref><ref>Ertelt, Steve (April 24, 2017). [http://www.lifenews.com/2017/04/24/pro-life-democrat-senator-joe-manchin-caught-holding-i-stand-with-planned-parenthood-sign/ “Pro-Life” Democrat Senator Joe Manchin Caught Holding “I Stand With Planned Parenthood” Sign]. ''LifeNews.com''. Retrieved May 16, 2017.</ref><ref>Ross, Chuck (May 9, 2017). [http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/09/photos-show-sen-joe-manchin-is-a-planned-parenthood-poseur/ Photos Show Sen. Joe Manchin Is A Planned Parenthood Poseur]. ''The Daily Caller''. Retrieved May 16, 2017.</ref><ref>Schor, Elana (May 14, 2017). [http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/14/abortion-politics-senate-2018-238331 Abortion politics hound senators from both parties]. ''Politico''. Retrieved May 16, 2017.</ref> Less than a month earlier, he voted against eliminating a pro-abortion Obama-era regulation prohibiting states from blocking Planned Parenthood funds.<ref>Dinan, Stephen (March 30, 2017). [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/30/senate-passes-bill-let-states-strip-funding-pp/ Senate passes bill to let states strip funding from Planned Parenthood]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved April 23, 2017.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Abortion betrayals]]
*[[PLINO]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=M001183 Profile] in the ''Biographical Directory of the United States Congress''

{{DEFAULTSORT:Manchin, Joe}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:West Virginia Governors]]
[[Category:Democratic Governors]]
[[Category:Abortion Advocates]]
[[Category:111th United States Congress]]
[[Category:112th United States Congress]]
[[Category:113th United States Congress]]
[[Category:114th United States Congress]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Conservative Coalition

2017-10-29T03:23:49Z

TheOther: Added bit about conservative Democrats today

The '''Conservative Coalition''' was a coalition in the U.S. Congress that brought together the majority of the Northern [[Republicans]] and a conservative, mostly Southern minority of the [[Democrats]]. The coalition usually defeated the liberals of the [[New Deal Coalition]]; the Coalition largely controlled Congress from 1937 to 1963. It continued as a potent force until the 1990s when most of the conservative southern Democrats were replaced by southern Republicans. The coalition no longer exists, though debatably some conservative-leaning Democrats (such as Senator [[Joe Manchin]] of West Virginia) perpetuate a weaker form of the coalition by occasionally voting with the Republicans.

In its heyday, its most important Republican leader until his death in 1963 was Senator [[Robert A. Taft]] of Ohio; Illinois Senator [[Everett Dirksen]] was the key Republican in the 1960s. The chief Democrats were Senator [[Richard Russell, Jr.]] of Georgia and Congressmen [[Howard W. Smith]] of Virginia and [[Carl Vinson]] of Georgia. Dirksen and the Republicans broke with Southern Democrats and provided the [[bipartisan]] votes necessary to insure passage of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]].

Between 1939 and 1963, the coalition was able to exercise virtual veto power over domestic legislation, and no major liberal legislation was passed during this entire quarter century. [[Harry Truman]] won reelection in 1948 and carried a Democratic Congress, but the only portion of his [[Fair Deal]] program that passed was cosponsored by Taft. Under [[Lyndon Johnson]] in 1963-65 liberals broke the power of the coalition by passing the Civil Rights Act, which was assisted by a newly elected liberal Congress in 1964. Congress passed the liberal [[Great Society]] programs over the opposition of the coalition. However the coalition regained strength in the 1966 election, in the face of massive rioting in the cities, and the tearing apart of the Democratic [[New Deal coalition]] over issues of black power, liberalism, student radicalism and Vietnam.

In 1981 President [[Ronald Reagan]] won over enough conservative southern Democrats—called '''Boll Weevils'''-- to carry his major tax cuts through a House nominally controlled by the Democrats. Led by Congressman [[Phil Gramm]] of Texas,<ref>Gramm later became a Republican. On Gramm see David Frum, "Righter Than Newt," ''The Atlantic Monthly'' v. 275#3 (March 1995) pp 81+, online at [[Questia]]</ref> they helped Reagan enact many of his domestic policy proposals, to increase defense spending sharply, and to block leftists attacks on Reagan's anti-Communist policies in Central America. They also helped dismantle some of the remnants of [[Lyndon Johnson]]'s [[Great Society]].<ref>The "boll weevil" was a pest that ruined cotton plants across the South in the early 20th century, and forced the region to diversify out of cotton.</ref> Reagan did not campaign against them, so they kept their seats a few years longer.<ref>Lou Cannon, ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime'' (2000) pp 89, 754</ref>

After 1994 the Republicans took control of most of the conservative southern districts, so the Southern Democratic part of the coalition has largely evaporated.

==Bibliography==
* Caro, Robert A. ''The Years of Lyndon Johnson: vol 3: Master of the Senate'' (2002); highly detailed narrative of late 1950s
* Dierenfield, Bruce J. ''Keeper of the Rules: Congressman Howard W. Smith of Virginia'' (1987)
* Fite, Gilbert. ''Richard B. Russell, Jr, Senator from Georgia'' (2002)
* Goldsmith, John A. ''Colleagues: Richard B. Russell and His Apprentice, Lyndon B. Johnson.'' (1993)
* Hulsey, Byron C. ''Everett Dirksen and His Presidents: How a Senate Giant Shaped American Politics''. (2000).
* MacNeil, Neil. ''Forge of Democracy: The House of Representatives'' (1963) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=11599068 online edition]
* Malsberger, John W. ''From Obstruction to Moderation: The Transformation of Senate Conservatism, 1938-1952'' 2000
* Moore, John Robert. "The Conservative Coalition in the United States Senate, 1942-45." ''Journal of Southern History'' 1967 33(3): 369-376. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2204865 in JSTOR] statistical analysis of roll calls
* Nye, Mary Alice. "Conservative Coalition Support in the House of Representatives, 1963-1988," ''Legislative Studies Quarterly,'' Vol. 18, No. 2 (May, 1993), pp. 255–270 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/439993 in JSTOR] +
* Patterson, James T. "A Conservative Coalition Forms in Congress, 1933-1939," ''The Journal of American History,'' Vol. 52, No. 4. (Mar., 1966), pp. 757–772. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8723%28196603%2952%3A4%3C757%3AACCFIC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C in JSTOR]
* Patterson, James. ''Congressional Conservatism and the New Deal: The Growth of the Conservative Coalition in Congress, 1933-39'' (1967) [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Patterson, James T. ''Mr. Republican: A Biography of Robert A. Taft'' (1972)
* Remini, Robert V. ''The House: The History of the House of Representatives'' (2006)
* Schapsmeier Edward L., and Frederick H. Schapsmeier. ''Dirksen of Illinois''. (1985) the standard biography
* Schickler, Eric. ''Disjointed Pluralism: Institutional Innovation and the Development of the U.S. Congress'' (2001)
* Shelley II, Mack C. "Presidents and the Conservative Coalition in the U. S. Congress," ''Legislative Studies Quarterly,'' Vol. 8, No. 1 (Feb., 1983), pp. 79–96 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/439472 in JSTOR]
* Shelley II, Mack C. ''The Permanent Majority: The Conservative Coalition in the United States Congress'' (1983)
* Rohde, David W. ''Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House'' (1991)
* Young, Roland. ''Congressional Politics in the Second World War'' (1956)

====notes====
<references/>
[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:1950s]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:Broke with FDR]]

Green Party

2017-10-28T05:30:44Z

TheOther: Added a comma

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name = Green Party
| party_articletitle =
| party_logo =
| website = [http://www.gp.org/ www.gp.org]
| headquarters =1700 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 404 Washington, DC 20009
| chairman = Theresa El-Amin Mike Feinstein Farheen Hakeem Julie Jacobson Jason Nabewaniec David Strand Craig Thorsen
| houseleader =
| senateleader =
| foundation = 2001
| ideology = [[Environmentalism]]
| fiscalpolicy = [[Social democracy]]
| socialpolicy = [[Liberalism]]
| international = Global Greens
| colors = green
| footnotes =
}}
The '''Green Party''' is an essentially [[left-wing]] [[political party]] in the [[United States]] which places a strong emphasis on [[environmentalism]]. It supports many [[liberal]] social policies, as well as advocating moving politics to the [[grassroots]] and community level. It also supports [[national debt|debt reduction]], a conservative principle, though it generally supports doing this by raising taxes on the upper income brackets and cutting military spending.

There are other Green parties throughout the world, though most, if not all, act independently of each other.

The Green Party's nominee for [[POTUS|President]] in 1996 and 2000 was [[Ralph Nader]]. It was [[Ralph Nader]]'s candidacy as the Green Party nominee in 2000 that reportedly split enough votes in [[Florida]] to enable [[George W. Bush]] to defeat [[Al Gore]] there, and that became the margin of Bush's victory for the entire nation.

The Green Party 2004 candidate was David Cobb, with Pat LaMarche as his running mate. In 2008, the Green Party nominee was ultraliberal former Congresswoman [[Cynthia McKinney]] of [[Georgia]]. Their 2012 candidate was [[Jill Stein]].

==External links==
*[http://www.gp.org/ Official Party Website]
*[http://www.gp.org/tenkey.shtml Ten Key Values of the Green Party]

[[Category:United States Political Parties]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]

Murder of Seth Rich

2017-10-06T07:05:45Z

TheOther: 'And' works better than 'but'

[[File:Sethrich-e1494948876256.jpg|right|300px|thumb]]
'''Seth Conrad Rich''' (January 3, 1989 – July 10, 2016) of the DNC, was shot in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C. on July 10, 2017, at 4:19:43. He was transported to a hospital and pronounced dead at 5:57 AM after emergency surgery.<ref>Stephen Loiaconi, "WikiLeaks reward offer in DNC staffer's murder raises questions,''ABC6'', August 10, 2016. http://abc6onyourside.com/news/nation-world/wikileaks-reward-offer-in-dnc-staffers-murder-raises-questions</ref>

==Personal background==
DNC worker Seth Rich was born on January 3, 1989, to parents Joel and Mary Rich,<ref>CBS affiliate KMTV, ''Action 3 News Live at 10'', "Parents of Seth Rich saddened by his death," YouTube video of parents (upload Jul 11, 2016), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vLAeTN960Q</ref> and [[murder]]ed 27 years later on Sunday, July 10, 2016, around 4:19 AM in the Bloomingdale neighborhood near his home, shot at 2134 Flagler Pl NW, Washington DC 20001<ref>''SCRIBD'', "Event 16113797 Public Incident Packet (1)",
uploaded by Jessica McBride https://www.scribd.com/document/320691960/Event-16113797-Public-Incident-Packet-1</ref> at the Southwest corner of Flagler and W Street <ref>Pat Collins and Andrea Swalec, "27-Year-Old DNC Staffer Seth Rich Shot, Killed in Northwest DC," NBC Washington (July 11, 2016), http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-Shot-Killed-in-Northwest-DC-386316391.html</ref> in Northwest [[Washington DC]]<ref>Peter Hermann; "Parents, D.C. police chief appeal for help in killing of DNC staffer in Bloomingdale" ''The Washington Post'' (August 4, [2016]) https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/parents-dc-police-chief-appeal-for-help-in-killing-of-dnc-staffer-in-bloomingdale/2016/08/04/e65b8c94-5a69-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html</ref> across from the Flagler Market which faces W Street.<ref>Google Maps</ref> It has been reported that the police were on the scene by 4:20 AM.<ref>''Independent, Infact'', "Who is Seth Rich -- and Was His Death Connected to Hillary Clinton", May 16, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh2n0yDtbs4</ref> According to the police report, Rich was approached by two individuals.<ref>Rod Wheeler, et al., "Walkthrough of crime scene where DNC staffer was murdered," ''Fox & Friends'', Fox News (Aug. 11, 2016) http://video.foxnews.com/v/5079544790001/walkthrough-of-crime-scene-where-dnc-staffer-was-murdered/?#sp=show-clips</ref> According to Mary Rich, near the time of the murder, he had been engaged in conversation on the phone with his girlfriend when she heard some noise coming from Rich's phone. Rich told his girlfriend not to worry about it. Mary Rich concluded that "there had been a struggle" and that his hands, face, and knees were bruised.<ref>Collins and Swalec, http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-Shot-Killed-in-Northwest-DC-386316391.html</ref> Reportedly, detectives said that Seth had bruises on his face and knuckles.<ref>Joseph Morton, "D.C. police, family of slain DNC staffer Seth Rich urge anyone with information about murder to come forward," ''Omaha World-Herald'' (Aug 5, 2016) http://www.omaha.com/news/crime/d-c-police-family-of-slain-dnc-staffer-seth-rich/article_dc98d83c-c674-5136-b681-b20d930fcb0c.html</ref> Joel Rich reported that Seth's watchband was torn.<ref>Louise Boyle,"Murdered DNC staffer was about to join Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, reveals father," ''Daily Mail .com'' (August 24, 2016) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3741754/Father-murdered-DNC-staffer-reveals-son-join-Hillary-Clinton-presidential-campaign-punching-hole-ugly-rumor-Wikileaks-source.html?login#readerCommentsCommand-message-field</ref> The particular intersection where Rich was killed has been rated on a Crime Risk scale (ranging on a spectrum from red as less safe to green as safer) as a "yellow" area, a little to the right of center, on the safer side of the scale.<ref>"Real Estate in Bloomingdale > Crimes," ''Trulia'' [(c. July–August, 2016)] http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Bloomingdale-Washington/1798/crime/</ref> [[Fox News]] has provided a video of a "Walk Through the Crime Scene."<ref>Wheeler, et al., http://video.foxnews.com/v/5079544790001/walkthrough-of-crime-scene-where-dnc-staffer-was-murdered/?#sp=show-clips</ref>

Rich was survived by an older brother named Aaron.<ref>Joseph Morton, "27-year-old Creighton grad, DNC staffer shot dead in D.C. wanted 'to try to save the world'," ''Omaha World-Herald'' (July 13, 2016) http://www.omaha.com/news/crime/year-old-creighton-grad-dnc-staffer-shot-dead-in-d/article_023644eb-87b4-5c36-be7b-3edf96d02ebe.html</ref> Rich had been raised in Omaha, Nebraska, belonging to a family said to be "a pillar of the [[Jewish]] community in Omaha." His father had been sometime president of the Beth El Synagogue, of which his grandfather had been a founding member.<ref>
Ari Feldman, "National Committee Staffer Shot Dead on Own Washington D.C. Block," ''Forward'' (July 11, 2016) http://forward.com/news/344698/promising-jewish-democratic-national-committee-staffer-shot-dead-on-own-was/</ref> He had been a student at the Friedel Jewish Academy and Central High School. Later while a student at Creighton University, he had worked with the US Census Bureau as well as the Nebraska Democratic Party, interning for Senator [[Ben Nelson]]. After graduating from Creighton in 2011,<ref>Obits: "Rich, Seth C." ''Omaha World-Herald'' (July 13, 2016) http://www.omaha.com/obits/rich-seth-c/article_957ece9b-67c3-53d6-b88b-0c78d813b299.html</ref> Rich had obtained employment by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (a polling company) and relocated to Washington, DC. In Washington DC, Rich found employment for two years with the [[Democratic National Committee]] (DNC), where he developed a computer program that let people find their polling places by entering their names. By the time that he died, Rich had become Deputy Director of Data-for-Voter Protection/Expansion at the DNC.<ref>Stan Green, "Assange: Was Seth Rich Shot by the DNC for releasing information to Wikileaks?" ''Santa Monica Observer'' (August 26, 2016) http://www.smobserved.com/story/2016/08/26/news/assange-was-seth-rich-shot-by-the-dnc-for-releasing-information-to-wikileaks/1840.html</ref>

==Murdered in DC==
:''Main article: [[United States presidential election, 2016]]''<ref>op. cit.</ref>
There in Washington DC, within about one minute after speaking on his cell phone with his sometime girlfriend, Kelsey Mulka, Seth Rich was shot.<ref>Louise Boyle, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3741754/Father-murdered-DNC-staffer-reveals-son-join-Hillary-Clinton-presidential-campaign-punching-hole-ugly-rumor-Wikileaks-source.html?login#readerCommentsCommand-message-field</ref> "He was talking on the phone with his girlfriend when she heard noise on Rich's end of the line, Mary Rich said. Her son told his girlfriend not to worry about it."<ref>Pat Collins and Andrea Swalec, "27-Year-Old DNC Staffer Seth Rich Shot, Killed in Northwest DC", ''4NBCWashington'' (no date; probably July 11, 2016) http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-Shot-Killed-in-Northwest-DC-386316391.html</ref> ''The Washington Post'' published a record of Seth's cell phone calls that night (including early July 10, 2017):

::'''Before Closing Time at Lou's Bar: Seth made 3 calls:'''
:::1) & 2) to Joel Rich (unanswered).
:::3) to a friend lasting 1 minute.
::'''At Closing Time at Lou's Bar:'''
:::4) 1:21-1:33 Another friend called Seth, 12 minute call.
::'''After Closing Time'''
:::5) 2:05-3:34 Seth called Kelsey Mulka, his girlfriend, who was in Michigan. They conversed for 89 minutes. Then the call was disconnected.
:::6) 3:36-4:19 (approx) Seth called Kelsey again, and they conversed for 43 minutes.
:::At about 4:19 a.m., Rich told Kelsey that he was nearly home and said, 'I gotta go,' according to Joel Rich (Seth's father), who has talked with Kelsey . . . ."<ref>Manuel Roig-Franzia, "Seth Rich wasn’t just another D.C. murder victim. He was a meme in the weirdest presidential election of our times", The Washington Post (January 18, 2016) https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/seth-rich-wasnt-just-another-dc-murder-victim-he-was-a-meme-in-the-weirdest-presidential-election-of-our-times/2017/01/18/ee8e27f8-dcc0-11e6-918c-99ede3c8cafa_story.html?utm_term=.4a76a6cbeb58</ref>

This time log indicates that immediately or almost immediately after ending that call, he was in a fight, then quickly shot from behind, all possibly in less than 1 minute after call ended; then in about 1 minute after the shots police were on scene at 4:20.<ref>Daniel Halper, "Julian Assange suggests DNC staffer was shot dead for being a 'source'," ''New York Post'' (August 10, 2016) http://nypost.com/2016/08/10/julian-assange-suggests-dnc-staffer-was-shot-dead-for-being-a-source/</ref> Although there was a report that Seth had been shot twice in the ''head'' ,<ref>Nick Allen, "WikiLeaks offers $20,000 reward over murder of Democrat staffer Seth Rich," ''The Telegraph'' (August 10, 2016) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/10/wikileaks-offers-20000-reward-over-murder-of-democrat-staffer-se/</ref> he was evidently shot in the torso.<ref>Alana Goodman In Washington, Dc, ''Dailymail.com'' "EXCLUSIVE: The missing hours of murdered DNC staffer"(August 17, 2016) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3743880/Alone-bar-guzzling-beer-depressed-trouble-girlfriend-newly-hired-Clinton-campaign-staffer-Seth-Rich-refused-ride-home-staggered-shocking-death.html#ixzz4jerxCMNf</ref> It has been theorized that the motive was a robbery, but neither his wallet nor his watch were taken, causing doubt that the motive was robbery.<ref>Obituaries, "Seth Conrad Rich," ''The Jewish Press'' (posted July 20, 2016; issue July 22, 2016) http://www.jewishomaha.org/jewish-press/2016/seth-conrad-rich/; cf. "Kelsey Mulka," Friends page, Facebook (August, 2016) https://www.facebook.com/kmulka1/friends?pnref=lhc; "Kelsey Mulka," LinkedIn (August, 2016) https://www.linkedin.com/in/kelseymulka; Rachel Kurzius, "'We Need Your Help': Family Of Murdered DNC Staffer Pleas At Crime Scene," ''Dcist'' (August 5, 2016) http://dcist.com/2016/08/we_need_your_help_parents_of_murder.php; cf. Prince of Space, "To: TigerClaws," ''Freerepublic'' (August 12, 2016) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3458886/posts?page=97 [not a reliable source]; cf. modus_owens, [untitled comment], ''DNCLEAKS'' (August 12, 2016) [https://www.reddit.com/r/DNCleaks/comments/4w55x8/was_seth_conrad_rich_murdered_for_exposing/] [not a reliable source].</ref> The (tabloid style) ''Daily Mail Online'' says that the coroner's office confirmed the cause of death as gunshots to the torso.<ref>Goodman, "EXCLUSIVE: The missing hours of murdered DNC staffer."</ref> Fox 5 reports that a witness near the scene, Mark Mueller, heard the shots and went to the scene. Mueller says, "He was conscious, & I saw him moving his hand, and uh then they carried him past me to the ambulance. I had to look at him to see if he was anybody that we knew from the neighborhood".<ref>Fox 5 News, displayed on YouTube Channel CommonSense Avenger,"CSA #63 Seth Rich Timeline or 'Where is His Laptop' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eobj9qQc-S8&t=54s</ref> Consistent with Mueller, Seth's mother reports that he was alive and talking when the police arrived (about a minute later). This report with the lack of a head shot (and evidence of a fight), requires explanation if one entertains the hypothesis of a political assassination.

''The Daily Mail'' also claims that prior to his death Rich had been at Lou's City Bar until around 1:45 AM where he was inebriated, but refused the offer of a ride home.<ref>Alana Goodman, "The missing hours of murdered DNC staffer," ''Daily Mail .com''
(August 17, 2016)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3743880/Alone-bar-guzzling-beer-depressed-trouble-girlfriend-newly-hired-Clinton-campaign-staffer-Seth-Rich-refused-ride-home-staggered-shocking-death.html</ref> It is a walk of about 1.7 miles from Lou's City Bar to the corner where Rich was shot at about 4:19 AM with Rich's activities between 1:45 and 4:19 still under investigation as of August 18, 2016.<ref>[https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Lou's+City+Bar,+1400+Irving+St+NW,+Washington,+DC+20010/W+Street+Northwest+%26+Flagler+Place+Northwest,+Washington,+DC+20001/@38.9228817,-77.0297126,15z/data=!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x89b7c820291dea95:0xbe9e62cf68f85237!2m2!1d-77.0337839!2d38.9284711!1m5!1m1!1s0x89b7b7fed4b66c0d:0x78ae7cf6246fbdcc!2m2!1d-77.013541!2d38.919177 Google Maps (August, 2016)]</ref> In contrast with the inebriation claims of the Daily Mail, witnesses at Lou's City Bar said that Rich had a couple drinks, which would likely have lost much of their effect in two hours. The general manager of Lou's bar stated that Rich was a "couple-of beers kind of guy," and that "despondent and drunk" was "just not Seth. I never saw him drunk or even tipsy."<ref>Jeff Stein, "Seth Rich: inside the killing of the DNC staffer," ''Newsweek'' (August 20, 2016) http://www.newsweek.com/seth-rich-murder-dnc-hack-julian-assange-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-492084</ref>

The walk home time has been estimated at 30 minutes, but whether or not Rich went to a second bar before heading towards home (2113 First St NW, DC 20001), remains to be shown. The Washington Post claims, ". . . a person who spoke to him that night and agreed to be interviewed on the condition of anonymity said he did not go [to the Wonderland Ballroom bar] . . . ."<ref>Manuel Roig-Franzia, "Seth Rich wasn’t just another D.C. murder victim. He was a meme in the weirdest presidential election of our times", The Washington Post (January 18, 2016) https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/seth-rich-wasnt-just-another-dc-murder-victim-he-was-a-meme-in-the-weirdest-presidential-election-of-our-times/2017/01/18/ee8e27f8-dcc0-11e6-918c-99ede3c8cafa_story.html?utm_term=.4a76a6cbeb58</ref> Fox News has presented a video of Lou's bar and the neighborhood of that bar, also of the nearby Wonderland Ballroom bar, and what the possible walk-for-home route looks like.<ref>Marina Marraco, "What happened during final hours slain DNC employee Seth Rich was alive?" Fox 5 (August 18, 2016) http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/193631067-story</ref> (Sales and service of liquor Saturday-Sunday is limited to no later than 3 AM in Washington DC, by law.<ref>District of Columbia Official Code Title 25, Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration; and District of Columbia Municipal Regulations Title 23; Alcoholic Beverages (Revised March, 2016) [http://abra.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/abra/publication/attachments/DCOfficialCodeTitle%2025DCMRTitle23_0.pdf PDF]</ref> The Wonderland Ballroom bar closed at 3 AM early Sunday morning if it was following the schedule posted on internet on August 21, 2016.)<ref>The Wonderland Bar, "Business Hours," http://www.thewonderlandballroom.com/hours-and-location/</ref>

The police were aided in finding the location of the shooting by an auditory system in Washington DC called ShotSpotter.<ref>Stan Green, "Assange: Was Seth Rich Shot by the DNC for releasing information to Wikileaks?" ''Santa Monica Observer'' (August 26, 2016) http://www.smobserved.com/story/2016/08/26/news/assange-was-seth-rich-shot-by-the-dnc-for-releasing-information-to-wikileaks/1840.html</ref> Rich was yet conscious and breathing when the police found him. World News Daily reported that Vito Maggiolo (EMS public information officer) stated that Seth was transported to a hospital in Priority 1 condition (critical) in an ambulance ride of 6 minutes and 40 seconds.<ref>Alicia Powe, "1st Responders: Seth Rich was 'Critical' in Our Ambulance". WorldNewsDaily.com (June 7, 2017), http://www.wnd.com/2017/06/1st-responders-seth-rich-was-critical-in-our-ambulance/</ref> But after emergency surgery, he was pronounced dead at 5:57 AM.<ref>Stephen Loiaconi, "WikiLeaks reward offer in DNC staffer's murder raises questions,ABC6, August 10, 2016. http://abc6onyourside.com/news/nation-world/wikileaks-reward-offer-in-dnc-staffers-murder-raises-questions; Adam Shrier, "Democratic National Committee staffer killed in Washington, D.C. shooting," ''New York Daily News'' (July 11, 2016) http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/washington-dnc-staffer-seth-conrad-rich-shot-killed-article-1.2707538</ref> It has been reported that Rich's "favorite spot" was Lou's City Bar, where the bar put a plaque at his usual seat, either temporarily or permanently.<ref>Louise Boyle, "Murdered DNC staffer was about to join Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, reveals father," ''Daily Mail .com'' (August 16, 2016) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3741754/Father-murdered-DNC-staffer-reveals-son-join-Hillary-Clinton-presidential-campaign-punching-hole-ugly-rumor-Wikileaks-source.html?login#readerCommentsCommand-message-field; Scott Roberts, " At Lou's City Bar last night: celebrating Seth Rich's life well-lived," Bloomingdale (August 4, 2016) http://bloomingdaleneighborhood.blogspot.com/2016/08/at-lous-city-bar-celebrating-seth-richs.html.</ref>

On July 22 three days before the presidential Democrat convention, [[WikiLeaks]] released a multitude of emails from "the top of" the Democratic National Committee (DNC),<ref>Tom Hamburger and Karen Tumulty, "WikiLeaks releases thousands of documents about Clinton and internal deliberations," ''[[The Washington Post]]'' (July 22, [2016]) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/22/on-eve-of-democratic-convention-wikileaks-releases-thousands-of-documents-about-clinton-the-campaign-and-internal-deliberations/</ref> emails which indicated that members of the DNC had given favorable treatment to [[Hillary Clinton]] over [[Bernie Sanders]] in the Democratic [[2016 U.S. presidential election#Democratic candidates|presidential primary of 2016]]. After the Democratic primary, the leader of Wikileaks was interviewed by a Dutch television man; in that interview [[Julian Assange]] spoke about the dangers to their sources (whistle-blowers) who give information to WikiLeaks.

==Rewards for information on the murder==

At about the same time, Assange offered a reward of $20,000 for information concerning the murder of Seth Rich. But Assange did not directly assert that Seth Rich was the source of the email leaks, though he gave three very slight nods after being asked about Rich as the source. This $20,000 reward followed the reward of $25,000 offered by the Washington DC police.<ref>Obituaries, "Seth Conrad Rich," The Jewish Press (posted July 20, 2016; issue July 22, 2016) http://www.jewishomaha.org/jewish-press/2016/seth-conrad-rich/; cf. "Kelsey Mulka," Friends page, Facebook (August, 2016) https://www.facebook.com/kmulka1/friends?pnref=lhc; Hannah Parry and Wills Robinson, "Parents of slain DNC staffer Seth Rich ask for help three weeks after he was gunned down on D.C. street" ''Daily Mail .com'' (August 4–5, 2016) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3724508/Parents-slain-DNC-staffer-Seth-Rich-ask-help-three-weeks-slain-DC-street.html; Chris Harris, "Friends of Slain DNC Staffer Seth Rich Remember Him as 'Honest' and 'Self-Sacrificing," People (July 13, 2016) http://www.people.com/article/friends-remember-dnc-staffer-seth-rich; http://abcnews.go.com/US/dnc-staffer-killed-wanted-make-difference-family/story?id=40551800; Nick Allen, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/10/wikileaks-offers-20000-reward-over-murder-of-democrat-staffer-se/; "Assange implies murdered DNC staffer was WikiLeaks' source" ''Fox News'' (August 10, 2016) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html.</ref> These offers were followed in September, 2016, by a reward offer of $100,000 by [[Republican]] lobbyist Jack Burkman.
<ref>fox5dc.com staff. "Republican lobbyist offers $100K reward in murder of Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich" (SEP 14 2016) http://www.fox5dc.com/news/205324045-story; PR News Channel (September 14, 2016) http://www.prnewschannel.com/2016/09/14/gop-lobbyist-offers-100000-reward-in-dnc-staffers-death/</ref>

Another reward was apparently offered back in August, 2016, at a site called WeSearchR which claimed to be collecting reward money.<ref>WeSearchr (August, 2016) https://www.wesearchr.com/contact</ref> As of 7 PM, August 18, 2016, WeSearchR claimed to have raised $20,040 to add to the police and Wikileaks reward. $20,000 of that sum was credited to Mike Cernovich.<ref>"Who Murdered 27-Year-Old DNC Staffer Seth Rich?" WeSearchr (August, 2016) https://www.wesearchr.com/bounties/who-murdered-27-year-old-dnc-staffer-seth-rich</ref> However, the WeSearchR site had a disclaimer which may indicate that this reward collection was a joke or a scam.

==Statements by Assange==

Certain statements by Assange open the possibility that Seth Rich was a source (or a believed source) for Wikileaks.

1) "It’s, I think, interesting and acceptable to speculate who our sources are. But if we’re talking about the DNC, there’s lots of consultants that have access, lots of programmers."<ref>Charisse Van Horn, "Was Seth Rich Assassinated" ''Inquisitor'' (August 10, 2016) http://www.inquisitr.com/3400412/was-seth-rich-assassinated-wikileaks-posts-reward-in-murder-case-some-speculate-rich-was-dnc-leaker/#mJIikLwBByFOMhuv.99</ref>

2) Julian Assange was interviewed for the Dutch television program Nieuwsuur by Twan Huys. Selected statements, (excerpts from a longer interview) in chronological order (omitting vocal pauses) are quoted below. A = Julian Assange; H = Twan Huys.

A: "We have a lot of material related to the . . . DNC."
A: "We never discuss sources ruling them out, ruling them in, . . . ."

H: " . . . , does it matter that the source of these emails . . . is most likely from . . . , Russia . . . ?"
A: "Well, that's false."

A: “Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. As a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington, . . . .”

H: “That was just a robbery, I believe. Wasn’t it?”
A: “No." "There’s no finding … I’m suggesting that our sources take risks.”

H: "But was he one of your sources then?"
A: "We don't comment on who our sources are."<ref>Cf. ‪Twitter, @AbrahamLincthun, replying to ‪‪@Real_Assange "It is easy to account 4 a couple of intended Robbers not taking anything & running. But '''ur nods seem significant'''" ‪#SethRich 9:51 PM - 1 Jul 2017 1 '''Like [by Assange]''' -- Assange had made 3 slight nods during interview which seemed to confirm Seth Rich as Wikileaks source. [emphasis editor]</ref>

H: “Then why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?”
A: “Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the [[United States]], and that our sources face serious risks. That’s why they come to us. So we can protect their anonymity.”

H: ". . . to suggest a murder, that's basically what you are doing."
A: ". . . others have suggested that. We are investigating . . . with Seth Rich. . . . there's not a conclusion yet."
A: "We are concerned about it, and more importantly, a variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when that kind of thing happens."

Soon after that interview on [[Twitter]] Wikileaks posted "a $20,000 reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich."<ref>''@Wikileaks'', Twitter, (August 9, 2016) ''Nieuwsuur'' (August 9, [2016]) http://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2124316-assange-belooft-nieuwe-onthullingen-over-clinton.html?title=assange-belooft-nieuwe-onthullingen-over-clinton</ref>

3) If the theory that it was a Russian hack which was the source the Wikileaks DNA emails, were confirmed, that might be used as an argument to discount Seth Rich as a Wikileaks source. However, in addition to Assange's direct denial of a [[Russia]]n source, Assange argued against the Russian hack theory saying:

: "Russia has been brought up . . . ." "There are claims that in the metadata (a digital trail of any changes made to a file) someone’s done a document to PDF conversion, and . . . , in some cases the language of the computer that was used for that conversion was Russian. "So . . . [that would be] circumstantial evidence that some Russian was involved or someone who wanted to make it look like a Russian was involved." "That’s not the case for the material that we released."<ref>"Seth Rich murder: Julian Assange suggests link to DNC emails leak, WikiLeaks offers reward for information about staffer's death," ''Belfast Telegraph'' (August 10, 2016) http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/seth-rich-murder-julian-assange-suggests-link-to-dnc-emails-leak-wikileaks-offers-reward-for-information-about-staffers-death-34955137.html -- This source may have a video of the neighborhood in which Rich was killed.</ref>

==Wikipedia bias==

As of August 15, 2016, the article in En.[[wikipedia]] ("Murder of Seth Rich") had a ''motion to delete'' template on it, delete on grounds of not being notable, although at one point it was getting 1500 daily views. It was so allegedly unnotable that a strong debate was generated there on the talk page and on the Delete Articles section, where editors essentially "voted" to Keep vs. Delete, allegedly on the grounds of non-notability.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich</ref> Among the arguments for deleting the article there was a repetitious reference to the talking point "conspiracy theory," though the article said nothing at all about a conspiracy theory. Also, as of August 17, 2016, the Wiki editor who started this article, was officially blocked by an administrator. His talk page said: "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TradingJihadist</ref> As of August 21, 2016, the motion to delete was denied on grounds of no consensus, although a derogatory false comment was attached attacking some of those who argued in favor of "Keep." Soon after, the article was summarily locked down until August 27, 2016, and a request for mediation was filed.

Despite the fact that the article was not deleted, several details about the murder were deleted from the article by the same editors who advocated for deletion,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich#List_of_excluded_items</ref> leaving the article a rather short stub article. And as of August 24, 2016, there was a continuing debate and vote on the talk page of that article as to
"Should this article mention the fact that WikiLeaks offered $20,000 in reward money for providing information regarding the perpetrator of this crime?" along with this template warning: "{{Ds/talk notice|blp}}," which warned: "This article is subject to discretionary sanctions."

On September 18, 2016, less than a month after the previous motion to delete failed, a second motion to delete was started by the same editors who tried to delete it the first time, but once again, on October 4, the motion to delete was denied, as there was "no consensus."<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich_(2nd_nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Seth Rich (2nd nomination)]</ref>

==Later reports==
In May 2017, [[Fox News Channel]] reported that the FBI knew Seth Rich had made contact with WikiLeaks.<ref>Zimmerman, Malia (May 16, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/16/seth-rich-slain-dnc-staffer-had-contact-with-wikileaks-say-multiple-sources.html Seth Rich, slain DNC staffer, had contact with WikiLeaks, say multiple sources]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved May 16, 2017.</ref> The liberal mainstream media have chosen not to cover this report, which was uncovered by Fox News.<ref>Kew, Ben (May 16, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/05/16/silence-from-establishment-media-over-seth-rich-wikileaks-report/ Silence from Establishment Media over Seth Rich WikiLeaks Report]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 16, 2017.</ref> The White House declined to comment on the revelations.<ref>Spiering, Charlie (May 16, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/16/white-house-no-comment-on-ongoing-seth-rich-investigation/ White House: No Comment on Ongoing Seth Rich Investigation]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 16, 2017.</ref> Rich's family and the D.C. police denied confirmation of reports.<ref>Noble, Andrea (May 16, 2017). [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/16/seth-richs-family-police-deny-reports-linking-slai/ Family, police deny reports linking slain DNC staffer to WikiLeaks]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved May 16, 2017.</ref> Several questions, according to some news outlets, remained unanswered up to that time.<ref>Nash, Charlie (May 16, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/05/16/4-unanswered-questions-surrounding-murdered-dnc-staffer-seth-rich/ 4 Unanswered Questions Surrounding Murdered DNC Staffer Seth Rich]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 16, 2017.</ref> Fox News retracted the report several days later.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/23/statement-on-coverage-seth-rich-murder-investigation.html Statement on coverage of Seth Rich murder investigation]. ''Fox News''. May 23, 2017. Retrieved May 23, 2017.</ref> Conservative commentator on Fox News, [[Sean Hannity]], did not retract anything he stated, noting the fact that liberals and Democrats themselves widely accepted and circulated [[Conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]], most notably those regarding alleged Russian interference in the [[United States presidential election, 2016|2016 presidential election]].<ref>Concha, Joe (May 23, 2017). [http://thehill.com/homenews/media/334825-hannity-on-seth-rich-coverage-i-retracted-nothing Hannity on Seth Rich coverage: ‘I retracted nothing’]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved May 23, 2017.</ref> Because of Hannity's decision, liberal advertisers chose to pressure and bully him by pulling out their ads from his show.<ref>Kew, Ben (May 24, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/05/24/advertisers-bow-to-activist-left-begin-pulling-ads-from-hannity/ Advertisers Bow to Activist Left, Begin Pulling Ads from Hannity]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 24, 2017.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Debbie Wasserman Schultz]]
*[[Awan investigation]]
*[[Obamagate timeline]]
*[[Obamagate timeline 2009-2015]]
*[[Barack Obama Controversies]]
*[[Obama's second term agenda]]
*[[Barack Hussein Obama's unlawful acts]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[https://www.robbinyoung.info/test-2 Twitter DM's Between @Guccifer_2 & @Robbin_Young]
*[https://voat.co/v/SethRich Seth Rich subverse on Voat.co]

[[Category:2016 presidential election]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Hillary Clinton]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:United States Political Scandals]]
[[Category:2010s]]
[[Category:Corruption]]

David Clarke

2017-09-23T14:03:46Z

TheOther: Reworded

{{Officeholder
|name=David Clarke
|image=David Clarke by Gage Skidmore.jpg
|party=[[Democratic Party (USA)|Democrat]] (in name only)
|spouse=Julie Clarke
|religion=
|offices=
{{Officeholder/sheriff
|county=Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
|terms=March 19, 2002 – August 31, 2017
|preceded=Leverett F. Baldwin
|former=y
|succeeded=TBD
}}
}}
'''Sheriff David Clarke''' (born August 21, 1956) is a [[conservative]] veteran of the Milwaukee police department and is a fierce critic of [[Barack Obama]], [[Eric Holder]] and the [[black lives matter]] movement. He served as the Milwaukee County Sheriff from 2002 to 2017.

[[File:Sheriff Clarke.png|thumb|150px|left|Clarke in 2013, receiving an award.]]
Clarke is a registered member of the [[Democrat Party]], but only because his county is very liberal and so he can win elections. On issues, however, Clarke is even more conservative than many Republicans. He speaks a GOP events, endorses Republicans, frequently criticizes the Democrat Party and leftists, and he is supported by the [[National Rifle Association]].<ref>Bice, Daniel (July 27, 2014). [http://archive.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/does-anyone-still-think-sheriff-david-clarke-is-a-democrat-apparently-one-b99319030z1-268812281.html Does anyone still think Sheriff David Clarke is a Democrat? Apparently, one]. ''Milwaukee Journal Sentinel''. Retrieved October 23, 2016.</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/12/gun-fight-bloomberg-nra-spend-thousands-on-local-milwaukee-co-sheriff-race.html Gun fight? National political donors spend hundreds of thousands on local Milwaukee sheriff's race]. ''Fox News''. August 12, 2014. Retrieved October 23, 2016.</ref> He has also criticized congressional Republicans for complacency and not passing conservative legislation.<ref>Sherfinski, David (April 28, 2017). [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/28/david-clarke-rat-bastards-left-never-give-up/ Sheriff David Clarke: ‘Rat bastards’ on the left never give up]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved April 28, 2017.</ref>

Clarke's public campaign in defense of cops has won over many people who are sick and tired of the unjustified attacks against law enforcement, in defense of criminals. In appearances on [[Fox News]] and comments on [[Twitter]], he rips the BLM group as "Black Lies Matter," and labeling its members "subhuman creeps" and calling for the movement's eradication "from American society." <ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/black-milwaukee-sheriff-takes-black-lives-matter-movement-120700515.html;_ylt=AwrC0CNNotFWlEcA5xjQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBydWNmY2MwBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM0BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg Black Milwaukee sheriff takes on Black Lives Matter movement, Yahoo, 2-27-2016]</ref>

Clarke is no stranger to controversial remarks. He called on Milwaukee's inner city residents to take responsibility for their lives and take up arms to defend themselves against criminals.

Sheriff Clarke endorsed businessman [[Donald Trump]] for the [[2016 U.S. presidential election]], and he spoke for Trump at the Republican National Convention in [[Cleveland, Ohio]].<ref>Gass, Nick (July 18, 2016). [http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/rnc-2016-sheriff-dave-clarke-225768 Milwaukee sheriff at RNC: 'Blue lives matter']. ''Politico''. Retrieved October 23, 2016.</ref> He remarked on the presidential race, "To Say That [[Trump]] Can't Beat [[Hillary Clinton|Mrs. Bill Clinton]] In November Is Ludicrous."
<ref>[https://soundcloud.com/peoplessheriff/to-say-that-trump-cant-beat-mrs-bill-clinton-in-november-is-ludicrous-031916 Soundcloud - PeoplesSheriff]</ref> Clarke announced in 2017 that President Trump had appointed him to a Department of Homeland Security position, but he later stated he declined the position after delays in assuming office and in order to help the administration in other ways.<ref>Chaitin, Daniel (June 17, 2017). [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sheriff-david-clarke-wont-take-a-role-with-dhs/article/2626307 Sheriff David Clarke won't take a role with DHS]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved June 18, 2017.</ref><ref>Seipel, Brooke (June 17, 2017). [http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/338297-sheriff-david-clarke-reverses-acceptance-of-homeland-security Sheriff David Clarke reverses acceptance of Homeland Security role: report]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved June 18, 2017.</ref>

Liberals strongly dislike Clarke, and they have thrown petty attacks at him, such as a claim that he wears "fake military metals" on his uniform. Even the liberal-leaning [[Snopes.com]] showed those claims to be false.<ref>Palma, Bethania (May 23, 2017). [http://www.snopes.com/david-clarke-military-medals/ Does Sheriff David Clarke Wear 'Fake' Military Medals?]. ''Snopes''. Retrieved May 25, 2017.</ref>

Clarke resigned his position as Milwaukee County Sheriff on August 31, 2017,<ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/31/david-clarke-resigns-milwaukee-sheriff/ David Clarke Resigns as Milwaukee Sheriff]. ''Breitbart News''. August 31, 2017. Retrieved September 5, 2017.</ref> and he joined a pro-Trump super PAC soon after.<ref>Singman, Brooke (September 5, 2017). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/05/ex-sheriff-david-clarke-to-join-pro-trump-super-pac.html Ex-Sheriff David Clarke to join pro-Trump super PAC]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved September 5, 2017.</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Law Enforcement]]
[[Category:Conservative Democrats]]
[[Category:Pro Second Amendment]]

Ben Carson

2017-09-23T13:58:41Z

TheOther: Chelsea Handler part added

[[File:Ben Carson official portrait.jpg|thumb|250px|Official portrait]]
'''Benjamin Solomon "Ben" Carson''', M.D. (born September 18, 1951), is the 17th United States [[Secretary of Housing and Urban Development]] under Republican President [[Donald Trump]]. He is also a widely admired [[conservative]] who was a candidate for the [[Republican]] nomination for president in the [[2016 U.S. presidential election|2016 election]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/04/ben-carson-tells-tv-station-is-running-for-president/ "Carson, Fiorina launch 2016 bids as diversity of GOP field grows"] (May 4, 2015). Fox News website/Politics/Republicans.</ref> Carson finished a strong fourth in the [[CPAC]] straw poll in 2015. Carson, [[Ted Cruz]], [[Rand Paul]] and [[Mike Huckabee]] were the only [[2016 presidential candidates on homosexuality|presidential candidates]] willing to speak the truth against the [[homosexual agenda]].

In August 2015, Ben Carson rebuked the [[liberal media]] and "dismisses '[[anchor-babies]]' controversy as 'silly'"''': “We need to talk about the actual issue and stop getting pulled off into the weeds and saying, 'you can't use this term, you can't use that term.'"'''<ref>Herb, Jeremy (August 23, 2015). [http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/ben-carson-anchor-babies-immigration-2016-121639.html#ixzz3jeO9xbve "Carson dismisses 'anchor-babies' controversy as 'silly'"] (August 23, 2015). Politico website.</ref>

[[File:Bccurrent.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Earlier photo of Carson]]
Carson is a former Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at [[Johns Hopkins University|Johns Hopkins Hospital]]. He has since retired from medical practice. Carson rose to national political attention for his remarks criticizing Obama at the February 2013 [[National Prayer Breakfast]]. Carson had previously received publicity for being portrayed in the television movie ''Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story'', which starred Cuba Gooding, Jr.

Among many conservative positions, Carson favors [[charter school]]s as part of a school choice program, saying that competition keeps schools from becoming complacent.<ref>Richter, Greg and Bachman, John (April 14, 2013). [http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/ben-carson-education-attacks/2013/04/14/id/499393?promo_code=F492-1&utm_source=Test_Newsmax_Feed&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1#ixzz2Qd9Y52RN "Ben Carson: Attacks only making me more determined"]. Newsmax website.</ref>

With his wife Candy, Ben Carson wrote the best-seller ''America the Beautiful: Rediscovering What Made This Nation Great'' in 2013 and also a best-seller in 2014 which remained a best-seller among U.S. politics books in 2015: ''One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America's Future''.

He is described by liberal "comedian" [[Chelsea Handler]] as a "black white supremacist".<ref>https://www.infowars.com/chelsea-handler-calls-ben-carson-a-black-white-supremacist/</ref>

==Quote==
"America became a great nation early on not because of politicians but because of people who encouraged hard work, creativity, and innovation." (August 6, 2015).

==See also==
* [[Colion Noir]], [[Alfonzo Rachel]], [[Alex Barron]], [[Sheriff]] [[David Clarke]], Dr. Ben Carson, [[Alan Keyes]], [[Reginald Kaigler]] ([[Demcad]]), [[Thomas Sowell]], [[Clarence Thomas]], Conservative [[African American|black]] pundits (See [[:Category:Black Conservatives|Black conservatives]] and [http://africanamericanconservatives.com/about/ AfricanAmericanConservatives.com])
* [[School choice]]
* [[Charter school]]

==External links==
*[http://m.christianpost.com/news/neurosurgeon-ben-carson-retires-from-surgery-becomes-columnist-for-washington-times-99878/ Neurosurgeon Ben Carson Retires From Surgery; Becomes Columnist for Washington Times]
*[https://www.bencarson.com Ben Carson 2016 campaign website]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Carson, Ben}}
[[Category:Best Selling Authors]]
[[Category:2016 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Black Conservatives]]
[[Category:Fiscal Conservatives]]
[[Category:Physicians]]
[[Category:Conservative Commentators]]
[[Category:Conservative Authors]]
[[Category:Conservative Podcasters]]
[[Category:Conservative Bloggers]]
[[Category:Libertarians]]
[[Category:Republicans]]
[[Category:Christian Podcasters]]
[[Category:Christian Bloggers]]
[[Category:Pro Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Anti-Communism]]
[[Category:American Gun Rights Advocates]]
[[Category:Patriots]]
[[Category:Trump Cabinet]]

Hanging Gardens of Babylon

2017-09-12T13:36:46Z

TheOther: Added new theory stuff

The '''Hanging Gardens of Babylon''', one of the [[Seven Wonders of the Ancient World]], are believed to have been built under the rule of [[Nebuchadnezzar II]] (604-562 BC). There is very little information concerning their existence that has survived and [[archaeologist]]s continue to attempt to piece together its exact location and design.<ref>http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/wonders/gardens.html</ref>

A recent theory is that the gardens described by the ancient texts were actually built by the [[Assyrian]] king [[Sennacherib]] in Nineveh. Archaeologists have found an extensive system of underground aqueducts with inscriptions attributing them to Sennacherib and describing their operation, which resembles the descriptions given by the ancient texts, such as the use of a water screw.<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/may/05/babylon-hanging-garden-wonder-nineveh</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Lighthouse of Alexandria]]
*[[Great Pyramid of Giza]]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Ancient World Wonders]]

Geert Wilders

2017-08-22T13:25:13Z

TheOther: Added security concerns

[[File:Rotterdam-DSC.jpg|thumb|Geert Wilders|200px]]
'''Geert Wilders''' (born September 6, 1963<ref name="Wilders">http://www.geertwilders.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=190&Itemid=110</ref>) is a [[Euroskeptic]] [[Netherlands|Dutch]] politician. He is the leader of the [[right-wing]] [[Party for Freedom]] (PVV). He has been a member of the Dutch parliament since 1998. He is well known for his struggle against [[multiculturalism]] and for [[free speech]] in the Netherlands. Lately his efforts to broadcast his movie ''[[Fitna]]'', which is critical of [[Islam]], have been opposed by many Dutch politicians and even the United Nations Secretary-General, who in calling for the film to be censored, nevertheless stated "the right of freedom of expression is not at stake here."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2844232220080328?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true</ref>

Wilders wrote:
* Islam is primarily a [[totalitarian]] ideology rather than a religion. I feel sorry for the Arab, Persian, Indian and Indonesian peoples who have to live under the yoke of Islam. It is a belief system that marks [[apostate]]s for death, forces critics into hiding and denies our Western tradition of individual freedom. Without freedom, there can be no prosperity and no [[pursuit of happiness]]. More Islam means less life, less liberty and less happiness.<ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/4/resisting-threat-of-fanatical-islam/ Resisting threat of fanatical Islam: West must not surrender permanent liberty for temporary tolerance]</ref>

Due to his strong emphasis on free speech and anti-Islam policy, he has strong political enemies. His main opponents are Alexander Pechtold (from D66, a liberal socialist party), Jesse Klaver (from the socialist GroenLinks) and Lodewijk Asscher (from PVDA, the Dutch labor party).

His strong views on Islam have caused many attempts on his life, and as such he has been under permanent police protection since 2004.

In the 2017 elections, although the PVV did not achieve a massive victory as hoped, it saw a rise in votes at the same time when [[establishment]] parties either declined or collapsed.<ref>Lane, Oliver JJ (March 15, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/03/15/dutch-elections-pyrrhic-victory-as-mainstream-party-clings-to-power/ Dutch Elections: Pyrrhic Victory As Mainstream Party Clings to Power]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved March 15, 2017.</ref> Establishment "conservative" [in-name-only] Prime Minister [[Mark Rutte]]<ref>[http://dw.com/p/2WGTt Dutch PM Rutte issues open letter wooing right-wing voters]. ''Deutsche Welle''. January 23, 2017. Retrieved March 15, 2017.</ref> and several political parties did shift their stances to the political Right in order to attract voters who would otherwise have supported Wilders.<ref name="Euronews3/16/17">Harris, Chris (March 16, 2017). [http://www.euronews.com/2017/03/16/five-takeaways-from-the-netherlands-election Five takeaways from the Netherlands' election]. ''Euronews''. Retrieved March 16, 2017.</ref> Rutte's diplomatic battle with Turkey just before the election served as an example of this.<ref name="Euronews3/16/17"/><ref>Pieters, Janene (March 15, 2017). [http://nltimes.nl/2017/03/15/row-turkey-will-boost-support-pm-rutte-dutch-election-analysts Row With Turkey will Boost Support for PM Rutte in Dutch Election: Analysis]. ''nltimes.nl''. Retrieved March 15, 2017.</ref>

==Biography==
Geert Wilders was born in Venlo, Limburg. He was raised as a Catholic but left the church at age 18 and nowadays considers himself an [[agnostic]].<ref>http://www.geertwilders.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1702&Itemid=1</ref> His political career started in 1990. In that year he became an assistant of [[Frits Bolkestein]], leader of the conservative liberal party [[VVD]]. In 1998 he was elected as a member of the parliament. Later he formed his own political party, the PVV.
Wilders lived in [[Israel]] for a few years, where he worked as a volunteer for the moshav [[Tomer]] (located in the [[West Bank]]).<ref>http://www.jta.org/2014/04/29/news-opinion/world/geert-wilders-and-dutch-jews-end-of-the-affair</ref> In this period he travelled to multiple neighbouring countries, which have an major Muslim population, he had the impression that democracy did not exist in these countries during this travel.
Between 1997 and 1998 he was a member of the City Council of [[Utrecht]], where he lived in the disctrict Kanaleneiland.

==Lawsuits==
Due to his controversial statements, going against the left-wing and multicultural European [[establishment]], Wilders has found himself the center of numerous lawsuits.

In 2010 and 2011, Wilders was indicted for supposedly spreading hatred and discrimination against [[Muslims]]. He was declared not guilty in June 2011.<ref>https://www.forbes.com/sites/abigailesman/2011/06/23/geert-wilders-found-not-guilty-in-victory-for-free-speech/#14b206486a96</ref>

In 2014, after the Local elections in March, Wilders submitted a position paper to the public concerning whether they wanted more or less Moroccans, making them afterwards "Fewer, fewer, fewer",in December of the same year, the Dutch public ministry decided that he should be re-prosecuted, the first session was on 18 March 2016, and the final verdict was on 9 December 2016 where he was declared guilty of incitement to discrimination and insulting a group, according to a Dutch law the Moroccans are a "race" within the meaning of Articles 137c and 137d of the Dutch Criminal Code.

A substantial proportion of the declarations against Wilders seems to be fake, which making the case from all sides smacks of dishonesty, also the most left-wing media give the impression that he made that statement in itself while this was merely a position and chanted by the crowd,<ref>http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/25376163/__Aangiften_Wilders_blijken_nep__.html</ref>

Wilders himself always called the judges "D66 judges" thus referring to the Progressive Liberal Party [[Democrats 66]].

==See also==
*[[European migrant crisis]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
* [http://www.geertwilders.nl Personal site]
* Wilders, Geert (March 30, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/03/30/wilders-patriot-spring-full-bloom-dutch-enough-open-door-policies/ WILDERS: Patriot Spring in Full Bloom — Dutch Have Enough of Open Door Policies]. ''Breitbart News''.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Wilders, Geert}}
[[Category:Agnostics]]
[[Category:International Political Figures]]
[[Category:Dutch Politicians]]

Template:AustralianPoliticalParty

2017-08-20T13:17:59Z

TheOther: Created, can now illustrate Australian political parties better

{| class="toccolours" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 .5em .5em; width: 25em; font-size: 90%;" cellspacing="5"
|-
! colspan="2" style="text-align: center; font-size: larger;" | '''{{{party_name}}}'''
|-
| colspan="2" style="padding: 1em 0; text-align: center;" | {{{party_logo}}}
|- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
| '''Leader'''
| {{{leader|}}}
|- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
| '''President'''
| {{{president|}}}
|- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
| '''Deputy Leader'''
| {{{deputyleader|}}}
|- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
| '''Founded'''
| {{{foundation|}}}
|- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
|'''Headquarters'''
| {{{headquarters|}}}
|- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
|'''Political ideology'''
| {{{ideology|}}}
|- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
|'''Political position'''
| ''Fiscal:'' {{{fiscalpolicy|}}} ''Social:'' {{{socialpolicy|}}}
|- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
|'''International affiliation'''
| {{{international|}}}
|- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
|'''Colo{{#if:{{{colours|}}}|u|}}r(s)'''
| {{{colo{{#if:{{{colours|}}}|u|}}rs|}}}
|- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
|'''Website'''
| {{{website|}}}
|-
|colspan="2" style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left; font-size: 80%;" | {{{footnotes|}}}
|}<noinclude>
{{TemplateDoc|pages=Australian Political Party Articles|purpose=Better Illustration of political parties on Conservapedia pages|cat=}}
<noinclude>[[Category:Navigation box]]</noinclude>

National Party of Australia

2017-08-20T13:07:34Z

TheOther: Added infobox

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name = National Party of Australia
| party_articletitle = National Party of Australia
| party_logo =
| website = [http://www.nationals.org.au/ www.nationals.org.au/]
| headquarters = 7 National Circuit, Barton [[Canberra]] 2600
| chairman =
| senateleader = N/A Leader = [[Barnaby Joyce]]
| houseleader = N/A Deputy Leader = [[Fiona Nash]]
| foundation = 1920
| ideology = [[Conservative|Conservatism]] [[Fiscal Conservative|Fiscal conservatism]] [[Social conservatism]] [[Agrarianism]]
| fiscalpolicy = [[Free Market]]
| socialpolicy = [[Conservative]]
| international =
| colors = [[Green]] [[Yellow]]
| footnotes =
}}

The '''National Party of Australia''' is a [[political party]] in [[Australia]], with wide national appeal, and is generally considered the 3rd largest party by popular vote.

It is considered to have [[Conservatism|conservative]] values and policies, is historically anti-[[union]], has supported at various times either state support for [[primary industry]] ("agrarian socialism") or free agricultural trade, and has opposed tariff protection for Australia's manufacturing and service industries. Their current leader is [[Barnaby Joyce]].

==History==
The party was formally launched in [[1913]] in [[Western Australia]], and grew into a federal party in the 1920s with the addition of various state-based minor parties.

The main traditional base is among rural voters, and it was originally called the '''Country Party'''. It adopted the name '''National Country Party''' in 1975, and changed to '''National Party of Australia''' in 1982. From 2003 the name '''The Nationals''' was used for campaigning purposes, in line with common usage, although the legal name was unchanged.
The Nationals is generally recognized as the main advocates of the agragrian economic model that was developed in the years following the Second World War.

==Coalition==
Federally, in [[New South Wales]] and [[Victoria]], it has generally been the minor party in the traditional coalition with the [[Liberal Party of Australia]] in government and in opposition since the 1940s. However, it was the major coalition party in government in [[Queensland]] between 1957 and 1989, and still retained more seats than the Liberals before their merger.

The division of Ministers or Shadow Ministers is generally made according to the proportion of seats held by each party. In most cases, the leader of the 'junior' party is given the role of Deputy Leader of the coalition. In government, the Nationals have most often provided the Minister responsible for farm issues and/or international trade. Combined party meetings are held, to discuss policies, as well as single-party meetings.

Various agreements have been worked out between the coalition partners as to non-aggression in elections; generally, where parties may draw votes away from the other to the combined detriment then the less favoured coalition party will not stand a candidate.

==Possible Merger==
In March 2008, the then-leader of the federal [[Liberal Party of Australia|Liberal Party]], [[Brendan Nelson]], indicated that he was in favour of a merger between the two coalition parties.<ref>http://news.theage.com.au/nelson-stakes-leadership-on-merger/20080309-1y5t.html</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}
==External links==
* [http://www.nationals.org.au Official web site]
** [http://www.nationals.org.au/About/values.asp Values (policies)]
* [http://www.aec.gov.au Australian Electoral Commission]
** [http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseStateFirstPrefsByParty-13745-NAT.htm 2007 federal election results (Representatives, first preferences)]

[[Category:Australian Political Parties]]

Clint Eastwood

2017-06-09T07:25:34Z

TheOther: Fixed spacing and capitalisation

'''Clint Eastwood, Jr.''', born May 31, 1930 (age {{age|1930|5|31}}), in [[San Francisco]], [[California]], is an award-winning American [[actor]], [[director]], [[producer]], [[composer]] and [[writer]]. Eastwood was also the [[mayor]] of [[Carmel]], [[California]], from 1986 until 1988.

Clint Eastwood observed:<ref>http://cnsnews.com/news/article/clint-eastwood-not-everyone-hollywood-left</ref>
{{cquote|President [[Obama]] is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the [[America]]n people.}}
and
{{cquote|Not everyone in [[Hollywood]] is on the [[Left]].}}

Eastwood has been registered as a [[Republican Party|Republican]] since 1951 but describes himself as a [[libertarian]].<ref>[http://wcbstv.com/slideshows/Conservative.Celebrities.20.824701.html Celebs Who Lean To The Right - Slide 1], ''wcbstv.com'', Accessed on April 5, 2009</ref><ref>[http://www.celebolitics.com/2008/08/clint-eastwood-political-quotes/ Clint Eastwood Political Quotes], ''Celebolitics - Celebrity Politics'', August 28, 2008</ref><ref>[http://www.celebolitics.com/2008/08/clint-eastwood-political-views/ Clint Eastwood Political Views], ''Celebolitics - Celebrity Politics'', August 28, 2008</ref> Eastwood is not known to be [[conservative]] on social issues. He supports [[homosexuality]].<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/CNG---7406dba2d503f4c4ae45d58894934f43---241</ref>

At the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida on August 30, 2012, Eastwood made an appearance to give a speech to the gathered delegates. As part of his speech, Eastwood, who had endorsed [[Mitt Romney]] as the Republican candidate for the 2012 presidential election, delivered an improvised routine where he addressed an empty chair on stage which he intended to represent President [[Barack Hussein Obama|Barack Obama]]. Eastwood used the speech to criticize Obama's performance as President, then he asked the American public to send a message to Obama by voting him out of office for his poor presidential record. Eastwood's presentation hit a raw nerve among [[Leftists]], with [[liberals]] protesting far too much on the internet afterward. Eastwood's speech was well received by the crowd at the Tampa Bay Times Forum (where the convention was held) and by much of the public. He also supported [[Donald Trump]]<ref>http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/director-clint-eastwood-just-made-a-huge-announcement-about-donald-trump/</ref>

==Academy Awards==
*2006 - Best Director, ''[[Letters from Iwo Jima]]''
*2006 - Best Picture, ''Letters from Iwo Jima''
*2004 - Best Director, ''[[Million Dollar Baby]]''
*2004 - Best Picture, ''Million Dollar Baby''
*2004 - Best Actor, ''Million Dollar Baby''
*2003 - Best Director, ''[[Mystic River]]''
*2003 - Best Picture, ''Mystic River''
*1992 - Best Picture, ''[[Unforgiven]]''
*1992 - Best Actor, ''Unforgiven''
*1992 - Best Director, ''Unforgiven''

==See also==
* [[Dirty Harry]]
* [[List of Conservative or pro-Conservative Hollywood stars]]
* [[Conservative media#Hollywood Conservatives|Hollywood conservatives]]
* [[Essay:List of celebrities who support the Second Amendment]]
* [[List of celebrities against Second Amendment]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*http://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/clint-eastwood/145220
*http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9283502
*http://www.clinteastwood.net/
*http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/database/eastwood_c.html


{{DEFAULTSORT:Eastwood, Clint}}

[[Category:Actors]]
[[Category:Libertarians]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Pro Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Directors]]
[[Category:People Associated with Firearms]]
[[Category:American Gun Rights Advocates]]
[[Category:Hollywood Conservatives]]

List of Conservative or pro-Conservative Hollywood stars

2017-06-09T07:23:48Z

TheOther: Fixed some grammar

{{uncited}}1. [[Ronald Reagan]] The 40th [[President of the United States]] (1981–89) and the first modern [[Conservative]] President . 
2. [[John Wayne]] One of the greatest [[actor|actors]] in [[American]] history and an [[icon]] of American cultural. A patriot and prominent conservative [[Republican]]. An outspoken anti-[[communist]], he worked hard to defend American cultural and America’s involvement in [[Vietnam]] when it was attacked by lefts and [[Socialists]]. 
3.[[Clint Eastwood]] A great actor, [[director]], [[producer]], [[composer]] and cultural icon in American [[film]] industry. He is a long time supporter of Republican Party. He appeared as a guest speaker in 2012 [[Republican National Convention]]. 
4.[[Charlton Heston]] A longtime Conservative and the president of the [[National Rifle Association]] from 1998 to 2003. 
5.[[Kirk Cameron]] A famous child star an active evangelical [[Christian]] evangelist 
6.[[Patricia Heaton]] An [[actress]], [[comedienne]], producer and [[model]]. A Republican and consistent life ethicist, her name was in an advertisement in the [[Los Angeles Times]] (17 August 2006) that condemned [[Hamas]] and [[Hezbollah]] and supported [[Israel]] in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. 
7.[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] An icon of [[Hollywood]] action movies. He elected as Republican [[Governor]] of [[California]] and endorsed [[John McCain]] at 2008 Presidential election although her wife is from [[Democratic]] [[Kennedy family]]. 
8.[[Mel Gibson]] A prominent actor, film director, producer, screenwriter and long time Conservative. Several Conservative movies he made, like [[The Patriot]], [[The Passion of the Christ]], and [[We were Soldiers]], have already become classics. 
9.[[Bruce Willis]] An icon of Hollywood action movies. He was the guest speaker at the 2000 Republican National Convention and he is a supporter of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]]. His name was in an advertisement in the Los Angeles Times on August 17, 2006, that condemned Hamas and Hezbollah and supported Israel in the 2006 Israel-[[Lebanon]] war. He also is a supporter of [[gun rights]]. 
10.[[Stephen Baldwin]] A Conservative, Baldwin was supporter of the [[John McCain|McCain]]–[[Sarah Palin|Palin]] presidential ticket after [[Mike Huckabee|Huckabee]] dropped out of the 2008 presidential race. He floated the possibility of entering [[New York City]]'s 2013 mayoral race as an opponent of his brother [[Alec Baldwin]] who is an outspoken [[liberal]] and previously suggested that he may run himself. 
11.[[Jon Voight]] A Conservative, he endorsed former New York City Mayor [[Rudolph Giuliani]] for the 2008 Republican Party nomination. He provided the narration for a video biography of Alaska governor Sarah Palin that appeared on McCain's campaign website. He was a guest at the 2008 Republican National Convention. In November 2009 he was a featured speaker, at a [[Tea Party]] protesting the healthcare reform legislation, and again on March 20, 2010. he endorsed [[Mitt Romney]] for the Republican 2012 nomination. 
12.[[Robert Downey, Jr]] A supporter of the Republican Party. 
13.[[Chuck Norris]] An icon of Hollywood action movies and a long time Republican. He has donated more than $32,000 to Republican candidates and organizations since 1988. He is a supporter of gun rights and a column for the conservative news website [[WorldNetDaily]]. He supports the California Proposition 8 ban on [[same-sex marriage]]. In 2012, he endorsed Mitt Romney. He endorsed [[Republican]] Governor [[Micheal Huckabee]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8</ref> 
14.[[Adam Sandler]] An actor, comedian, [[screenwriter]], [[musician]], film producer and a Republican. He donated $2,100 to Republican Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign the same year. 
15.[[Dennis Hopper]] an actor, filmmaker and [[artist]]. He donated $2,000 to the [[Republican National Committee]] in 2004 and an equal amount in 2005. 
16.[[Kelsey Grammer]] A Republican, he was a guest at President [[George W. Bush]]'s first inauguration. He endorsed Rudy Giuliani in the 2008 presidential primary and later campaigned for John McCain in the general election. He promotes [[RightNetwork]], a conservative start-up American television network.[58] He endorsed [[Michele Bachmann]] for the Republican nomination for president in 2012. 
17.[[Robert Duvall]] He was personally invited to Republican President George W. Bush's inauguration in 2001. In September 2007, he announced his support for Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani.[29] He worked the floor and narrated most of the videos at the GOP's 2008 national convention. In September 2008, he appeared on stage at a John McCain-Sarah Palin rally in [[New Mexico]]. In 2012, Duvall endorsed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. 
18.[[Jodi Benson]] Devoutly Christian, is also against same-sex marriage.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Conservative]]

==See also==
* [[Conservative media#Hollywood Conservatives|Hollywood conservatives]]
* [[Essay:List of celebrities who support the Second Amendment]]
* [[List of celebrities against Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Hollywood Conservatives]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]

Australian Labor Party

2017-05-29T06:48:24Z

TheOther: Updated to reflect recent events, added infobox

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name = Australian Labor Party
| party_articletitle = Australian Labor Party
| party_logo = [[Image:Lpa.jpg|200px|"The Australian Labor Party logo"]]
| website = [http://www.alp.org.au/ www.alp.org.au/]
| headquarters = 5/9 Sydney Avenue, Barton, Australian Capital Territory
| chairman =
| senateleader = N/A Leader = [[Bill Shorten]]
| houseleader = N/A Deputy Leader = [[Tanya Plibersek]]
| foundation = 1901 (official), 1891 (technical)
| ideology = [[Liberal|Liberalism]] [[Fiscal Conservative|Fiscal conservatism]] [[Social progressivism]]
| fiscalpolicy = "Third Way" (somewhat conservative)
| socialpolicy = [[Progressive]]
| international = [[Progressive Alliance]]
| colors = [[Red]]
| footnotes =
}}

The '''Australian Labor Party (ALP)''' is [[Australia]]'s oldest continuous political party. The ALP was formed in 1891. The ALP has a strong connection to the trade union movement.

During the 1950s communist scare in Australia, the ALP expelled many anti-communist Catholic members. The anti-communist Catholic members became suspicious of communist influence in the trade union movement and groups were formed to take control of the unions. The '''groupers''' went on to form the anti-communist, Catholic aligned, '''Democratic Labor Party (DLP)'''. The DLP became largely irrelevant after the election of a Federal ALP majority under [[Gough Whitlam]] in 1972.

Famous ALP prime ministers have included the [[World War Two|war time]] [[John Curtin]], 1970s [[Gough Whitlam]] and [[Bob Hawke]]. Although it has espoused socialist ideals in the past, the ALP has never introduced [[socialism]] to Australia. In recent decades, the ALP has remodelled itself in terms of its ideological vision to combat political pressure from outside sources.

An overwhelming majority of ALP MP's do not support [[same-sex marriage]] at the federal level. In 2004 an act titled The ''''Marriage Amendment Act 2004'''' was introduced into the [[Australian House of Representatives]] which stated that '''marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life''' and that a union solemnised in a foreign country between:
 
(a) a man and another man; or 
(b) a woman and another woman; 
'''must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia'''. [http://legislation.gov.au/comlaw/Legislation/Act1.nsf/0/91DFFD1199DF26D8CA2574170007CE06/$file/1262004.pdf]. It was passed by a majority of MP's in both chambers of parliament and in the [[Australian Senate]] only 6 Senators rejected the Bill compared to 38 who supported it. [http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/13/1092340471989.html]

Bill Shorten is the current leader of the ALP, having taken over from [[Kevin Rudd]] in 2013 following his resignation from politics. Rudd's predecessor, Julia Gillard, was the first female Prime Minister of Australia.

[[Category:Australian Political Parties]]
[[Category:Labor Unions]]

Liberal Party of Australia

2017-05-29T06:23:22Z

TheOther: Added some information about being in power federally and in Tasmania and New South Wales

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name = Liberal Party of Australia
| party_articletitle = Liberal Party of Australia
| party_logo = [[Image:Lpa.jpg|200px|"The Liberal Party of Australia logo"]]
| website = [http://www.liberal.org.au/ www.liberal.org.au/]
| headquarters = Cnr Blackall & Macquarie St, Barton [[Canberra]] 2600
| chairman = [[Alan Stockdale]]
| senateleader = N/A Leader = [[Malcolm Turnbull]]
| houseleader = N/A Deputy Leader = [[Julie Bishop]]
| foundation = 1944
| ideology = [[Conservative|Conservatism]] [[Fiscal Conservative|Fiscal conservatism]] [[Social conservatism]]
| fiscalpolicy = [[Free Market]]
| socialpolicy = [[Conservative]]
| international = [[International Democrat Union]]
| colors = [[Blue]]
| footnotes =
}}

The '''Liberal Party of Australia''' is the main [[conservative]] political party based in the Commonwealth of [[Australia]]. The Liberal Party was founded in 1944 by [[Robert Menzies|Sir Robert Menzies]]. Robert Menzies kept the Liberal Party in power during much of the post-war boom. As with many other Western democracies the winds of change swept through Australia and the Liberal Party was ousted from power by [[Gough Whitlam]] and the [[Australian Labor Party]] in 1972.

The Liberals in general believe in minimal interference by the government in the economy and are understood to be more socially conservative than their more left wing political opposition, the [[Australian Labor Party]] and the Australian Greens. Thus in this sense, the term "liberal" refers to neo-liberalism rather than the social liberalism that is implied in the American context.

Until the 1970s the Liberal Party occupied the centre of Australian politics. However, the breakway of left-wing groups meant that the Liberals have moved to the right of politics with the Labor Party occupying the centre-left.

The Liberal Party is divided into state-based divisions. The Liberals contest both local, state and federal elections.
The current leader of the Liberal Party is Prime Minister [[Malcolm Turnbull]],<ref>http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/01/2758221.htm</ref> while Julie Bishop serves as deputy leader.

==Government==
The Liberal Party is one of the two main parties of government at both state and federal level. Although it was the principal government party at federal level from 1996 to 2007, by the end of that period it had lost power to the Labor Party in every state and territory. Its low point arrived in November 2007 when it lost the federal election, leaving itself out of power nationwide. It has since bounced back and is currently in power at both the federal level and in Tasmania and New South Wales.

==Possible Merger==
In March 2008, the then leader of the federal Liberal Party, [[Brendan Nelson]], indicated that he was in favor of a merger between his party and the [[National Party of Australia|National Party]].<ref>http://news.theage.com.au/nelson-stakes-leadership-on-merger/20080309-1y5t.html</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Australian Political Parties]]
[[Category:Conservative Political Parties]]
[[Category:Member of the International Democrat Union]]

Red Hot Chili Peppers

2017-05-23T13:09:00Z

TheOther: Fixed Dave Navarro's name

{{Artist (Music)
|picture =
|picture2 =
|country =United States
|style =Alternative Rock
|style2 =
|style3 =
|style4 =
|style5 =
|year =1983
|website =
}}

The '''Red Hot Chili Peppers''' are an [[United States|American]] [[alternative rock]] band which was formed in 1983. Since then, the band has gone on to release ten studio albums (five of which received Platinum status). Their current line-up consists of: Anthony Kiedis (vocals), [[Josh Klinghoffer]] (guitar, backing vocals), Flea (bass) and Chad Smith (drums). While the bass, drum and vocal line-up has been static for some time, they have had a number of guitarists, most notably [[Dave Navarro]] and [[John Frusciante]]. In 1991 they received a nomination for the Grammy Best Hard Rock Performance Award. In 2006 they received multiple awards for ''Stadium Arcadium''. They first experienced mainstream success with ''Blood Sex Sugar Magik'', with hit singles such as "Under The Bridge", "Give It Away", and "Breaking The Girl".

==Discography==
*''Red Hot Chili Peppers'' (1984)
*''Freaky Styley'' (1985)
*''Uplift Mofo Party Plan'' (1987)
*''Mother's Milk'' (1989)
*''Blood Sugar Sex Magik'' (1991)
*''One Hot Minute'' (1995)
*''Californication'' (1999)
*''By the Way'' (2002)
*''Stadium Arcadium'' (2006)
*''I'm With You'' (2011)
*''The Getaway'' (2016)

[[Category:Alternative Rock Bands]]

Red Hot Chili Peppers

2017-05-23T13:07:54Z

TheOther: /* Discography */ Added new album

{{Artist (Music)
|picture =
|picture2 =
|country =United States
|style =Alternative Rock
|style2 =
|style3 =
|style4 =
|style5 =
|year =1983
|website =
}}

The '''Red Hot Chili Peppers''' are an [[United States|American]] [[alternative rock]] band which was formed in 1983. Since then, the band has gone on to release ten studio albums (five of which received Platinum status). Their current line-up consists of: Anthony Kiedis (vocals), [[Josh Klinghoffer]] (guitar, backing vocals), Flea (bass) and Chad Smith (drums). While the bass, drum and vocal line-up has been static for some time, they have had a number of guitarists, most notably [[Dave Navaro]] and [[John Frusciante]]. In 1991 they received a nomination for the Grammy Best Hard Rock Performance Award. In 2006 they received multiple awards for ''Stadium Arcadium''. They first experienced mainstream success with ''Blood Sex Sugar Magik'', with hit singles such as "Under The Bridge", "Give It Away", and "Breaking The Girl".

==Discography==
*''Red Hot Chili Peppers'' (1984)
*''Freaky Styley'' (1985)
*''Uplift Mofo Party Plan'' (1987)
*''Mother's Milk'' (1989)
*''Blood Sugar Sex Magik'' (1991)
*''One Hot Minute'' (1995)
*''Californication'' (1999)
*''By the Way'' (2002)
*''Stadium Arcadium'' (2006)
*''I'm With You'' (2011)
*''The Getaway'' (2016)

[[Category:Alternative Rock Bands]]

Libertarianism

2017-05-23T13:04:26Z

TheOther: Added Gary Johnson's 2016 nomination

'''Libertarianism''' is a [[Political Philosophy|political philosophy]] that believes in minimizing or entirely eliminating government interventionism in many aspects of life including economic, personal, and in foreign policy matters. Libertarians tend to oppose legal restrictions on social behavior that doesn't affect anybody else. The [[French]] [[term]] of ''[[Laissez faire|Laissez-Faire]]'', or ''let us do'', is a term that describes some aspects of the libertarian belief.<ref>"Libertarians are neither. Unlike Liberals or Conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians advocate freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare. But Libertarians are also socially tolerant. We won't demand laws or restrictions on other people who we may not agree because of personal actions or lifestyles.

Think of us as a group of people with a "live and let live" mentality and a balanced checkbook." [http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml]</ref> Libertarianism tends to emphasize a form of individual ''liberty'', and tends to support rights of private property.

The first systematic libertarian was [[Herbert Spencer]] (1820-1903), an English political philosopher whose books such as ''The Man Versus the State'' (1884) had a major impact in Europe and America in the late 19th century.<ref>Chris Matthew Sciabarra, "The First Libertarian," ''Liberty'' (Aug 1999) [http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/spencer.htm online]</ref> The chief American representative was [[Yale]] professor [[William Graham Sumner]].

[[Ronald Reagan]] stated in 1975, "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism....The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is....Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals."<ref>see [http://www.reason.com/news/show/29318.html "Inside Ronald Reagan: A Reason Interview" (July 1975)]</ref>

In the United States, libertarians are typically fiscally conservative and socially liberal using the common US meanings of liberal and conservative. A faction of libertarians exist in the GOP, and are typically more ardent than other members of the GOP in keeping the principle of fiscal sanity and are less willing to "sell out" those principles for political expediency. They support an isolationist foreign policy and are to the left of most Democrats on social and foreign policy issues. The foremost libertarian figure in the GOP is former long-time Congressman [[Ron Paul]].
== Libertarian Philosophy ==

Libertarianism is best summed up in the Non-Aggression Principle, which states that government (or "private police agencies" in the anarcho-capitalist variant) should only exist to protect life, liberty, and property from force and fraud.

Libertarianism is closely related to liberalism, if this word is interpreted according to its original meaning of [[classical liberal]]ism. Libertarians in America tend to be [[liberal]] on social issues but [[conservative]] on economic issues. Libertarians generally oppose government regulation of drugs, prostitution, and marriage (including bans of [[same-sex marriage]]). The Libertarian Party officially supports legalized [[abortion]], however, libertarians themselves are divided on the issue, since government protection from force depends on the personhood of the unborn baby (or fetus). However, libertarians are uniformly opposed to government funding for abortions (such as through [[Planned Parenthood]]). Furthermore, they oppose restrictions on [[pornography]]. However, they also oppose [[universal health care]], [[taxes]] and the [[welfare state]]. They are strong supporters of [[school choice]], and oppose continuing the [[public school]] system. Some libertarians support [[school vouchers]], while others are skeptical due to the issue of government influence over [[private education]].

Libertarians support an expansive view of liberty as the proper basis for organizing civil society. They tend to define liberty as the freedom to do whatever one wishes up to the point that one's behavior begins to interfere with another's person or property through coercive means. At the point of interference, each party would become subject to certain principled rules for adjudicating disputes, generally accepting that one who has demonstrated a proven lack of respect for the rights of others should be subject to sanctions, including possible constraints on their freedom. They believe that liberty is the right of every individual.

Libertarians generally defend the ideal of freedom from the perspective of how little one is constrained by authority, i.e., how much one is allowed to do (also referred to as negative liberty). This ideal is distinguished from a view of freedom focused on how much one is able to do (also called positive liberty).

=== Libertarianism and irreligion/religion ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and politics]]

According to Murray N. Rothbard, who writes for the [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]], most libertarians at the present time are [[Atheism|atheists]].<ref>[https://mises.org/library/myth-and-truth-about-libertarianism Myth and Truth About Libertarianism], Mises Daily</ref> [[Ayn Rand]] was a libertarian and atheist.

Rothbard also declares:
{{cquote|There are many libertarians who are theists, Jewish or Christian. Among the classical-liberal forebears of modern libertarianism in a more religious age there were a myriad of Christians: from John Lilburne, [[Roger Williams]], Anne Hutchinson, and [[John Locke]] in the 17th century, down to Cobden and Bright, [[Frédéric Bastiat]] and the French laissez-faire liberals, and the great [[John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton|Lord Acton]].<ref>[https://mises.org/library/myth-and-truth-about-libertarianism Myth and Truth About Libertarianism], Mises Daily</ref>}}

Both [[Ron Paul]] and [[Rand Paul]] are religious libertarians.

== Libertarian Factions ==

Libertarians tend to use the word "libertarian" (small "l") to refer to the philosophy, and "Libertarian" (capital "L") to refer to the party. Thus, more libertarians exist than members of the [[Libertarian Party]]. Two general factions exist in the libertarian movement. The first are those libertarians who apply the principles of right to person and property to an absolute. They believe that no person, group, or government is above the right to violate these two things. They thus believe that government itself is illegitimate because it violates person and property. These libertarians subscribe to [[anarcho-capitalism]], as first named by [[Murray N. Rothbard]]. They believe that law and security can be handled by private means in the free market. The other faction believes in a very limited government. They are often referred to as [[Minarchism|minarchists]]. Libertarian minarchists want the state to only enforce law and order but generally nothing else. [[Ayn Rand]] was a minarchist.

Libertarians tend to view liberalism as a philosophy advocating less government interference in private morality and more government control of business, and view conservatism as a philosophy advocating more government interference in private morality and less government control of business, while they view libertarianism as advocating less government control in all areas. However, there have been fusionist attempts to mix libertarianism and with social conservatism. This is noted in particular by [[paleolibertarianism|paleolibertarians]]. They believe that social conservatism is a natural entity in a free society, but do not believe that it can be enforced by state interventionism. For instance, they may personally oppose [[homosexuality]], but advocate for [[marriage privatization]] rather than believing that government should sanction "marriage" exclusively between a man and a woman.

Outside the United States, the term "libertarian" refers to [[Anarchism|left-wing anarchism]].

== Libertarian Thought in America ==

While there are libertarian factions within the [[Democratic]] and [[Republican]] [[parties]], neither party is particularly well aligned with libertarian thought. While the Republican Party sometimes adopts libertarian-sounding rhetoric of small government in economic affairs, many libertarians see it as being a force that has increased government interventionism in these affairs. Libertarians generally, for example, are opposed to the [[USA PATRIOT Act]], which they believe increases government power and removes protections on the liberty and privacy of the public. Most conservatives, on the other hand, view it as a necessary government program and believe security to be more important than personal liberty and privacy. Libertarians point out that such a view contradicts those of the founding fathers, such as Benjamin Franklin, who summarized it most eloquently, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Libertarians are also generally opposed to the [[Iraq War]], unlike the majority of conservatives.

While all libertarians agree in general on the principles of the desirability of maximizing individual liberty and avoiding excessive government interference with the operation of the free market, individual libertarians have opinions that differ wildly within these general principles.

The libertarian movement generally praises the [[United States Constitution]], regarding it as the proper scope of the national government. They believe that the Democratic and Republican parties have overstepped constitutional limits. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians, on the other hand, view the implementation of the constitution as the very reason the national government is the size it is today.

== Notable Libertarians ==
Libertarian-oriented writers include [[Frédéric Bastiat]], [[William Leggett]], [[John Stuart Mill]], [[Henry David Thoreau]], [[Lysander Spooner]], [[Herbert Spencer]], [[William Graham Sumner]], [[Carl Menger]], [[Ludwig von Mises]], Rose Wilder Lane, [[Albert Jay Nock]], [[Henry Hazlett]], and [[Isabel Paterson]]. Science fiction writers; [[L. Neil Smith]], [[J. Neil Schulman]], and [[Brad Linaweaver]]. Several popular financial writers including [[Harry Browne]] and [[Howard J. Ruff]]. Browne would later run for President, twice, on the Libertarian Party ticket. Ruff declared his political philosophy as libertarian but as a socially conservative [[Mormon]] made an exception on issues like abortion and prostitution, where he disagreed with the libertarian view. Nobel Laureate economists [[Milton Friedman]], [[F.A. Hayek]], [[Ronald Coase]], Gary Becker, James Buchanan, [[George Stigler]], and Vernon Smith. Humorist [[Dave Barry]], actor/comedian [[Drew Carey]], actor [[Denis Leary]], former MTV VJ [[Lisa "Kennedy" Montgomery]], actor [[Kurt Russell]], investigative reporter [[John Stossel]], and the late rocker [[Frank Zappa]] have all referred to themselves as being aligned with or openly supporting the Libertarian Party. Many Republican congressmen and senators hold libertarian positions, such as [[Walter B. Jones]], [[Rand Paul]], and [[Justin Amash]].

The most influential libertarian of the 20th century was [[Milton Friedman]] (1912-2006), a leader of the [[Chicago School of Economics]].

*[[Glenn Beck]], political commentator, describes himself as a libertarian.
*[[Ed Clark]], the Libertarian Party's 1980 nominee for President. Clark obtained the highest popular vote percentage to date for a Libertarian candidate.
*[[Barry Goldwater]], Republican presidential nominee in 1964 often described himself as libertarian, although whether or not this was true has been disputed by conservatives.
*[[Robert A. Heinlein]], science fiction author, whose 1966 novel ''The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress'' was an influence on the movement.
*[[Karl Hess]], speechwriter for [[Barry Goldwater]] credited with penning Goldwater's famous 1964 statement "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice". Hess later became a major figure in the Libertarian Party.
*[[Gary Johnson]], businessman, former Governor of New Mexico (as a Republican), and 2012 and 2016 Libertarian Party nominee.
*[[Alex Jones]], radio host and activist, describes himself as a libertarian.
*[[Samuel Edward Konkin III]], a significant figure in 1970s libertarianism, whose influence waned considerably after the rise of the Libertarian Party as he opposed political parties and voting as being against libertarian principles. He proposed instead a purely marketplace-based route to a free society, such as [[tax resistance]] and doing business "off the books".
*[[Robert LeFevre]], significant in promoting libertarian philosophy in the 1950s and 1960s before it was a well-defined movement, with his "Freedom School" seminars on political and economic philosophy.
*[[Mario J. Lucero]] and [[Isabel Ruiz Lucero]], the cofounders of [[Heaven Sent Gaming]].
*[[Trey Parker]] and [[Matt Stone]], the creators of [[South Park]], proclaimed that they are libertarians. South Park is vulgar, supports evolution, and sometimes attacks social conservative positions like religion. However, they also make fun of liberals' positions such as political correctness, environmentalism and atheism.<ref>[http://www.reason.com/news/show/116787.html] Parker and Stone, Reason Magazine</ref> The phrases "South Park Conservative" (the name of a book) and "South Park Republican" are used to describe the followers of these beliefs.
*[[Ron Paul]], Republican congressman from Texas, 1988 Libertarian Party and 2008 & 2012 Republican Party presidential candidate. Ron Paul is considered to be of the Constitutionalist and [[paleolibertarianism|paleolibertarian]] schools of libertarian thought.
*[[Penn and Teller]], stage magicians turned libertarian evangelists preaching [[atheism]] and promoting libertarian philosophies, including controversial positions such as legalization of prostitution and drugs in their Showtime series, which sports a name that cannot for reasons of good taste be expressed here.
*The novelist [[Ayn Rand]] advocated a philosophy of ''Objectivism'', embodying some libertarian thought, although differing from libertarianism in many ways. Some of her novels, such as ''Atlas Shrugged'', have become icons of some people in the libertarian movement, while others find her materialism and atheism incompatible with moral ethics and natural rights and law.
*[[Murray N. Rothbard]] was nicknamed "Mr. Libertarian." He brought to life the anarcho-capitalist movement. Rothbard was an economist of the [[Austrian School of Economics|Austrian School]].
*The Canadian rock band [[Rush]], which has been together since 1968, often explores libertarian themes in their lyrics, like in "Free Will", "Tom Sawyer" and "Something for Nothing". Drummer and Lyricist [[Neil Peart]] claims to be a "left leaning libertarian.",<ref>[http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/neil-peart.html]</ref>
*The psychiatrist [[Thomas Szasz]], opponent of the therapeutic state and compulsory mental institutionalization.

== See also ==
* [[Herbert Spencer]]
* [[Democratic Freedom Caucus]]
* [[Republican Liberty Caucus]]
* [[Libertarian Party of Canada]]

==Further reading==
* Boaz, David. '' The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Writings from Lao Tzu to Milton Friedman'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Libertarian-Reader-Contemporary-Writings-Friedman/dp/0684847671/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223323253&sr=8-18 excerpt and text search]
* Doherty, Brian. ''Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Radicals-Capitalism-Freewheeling-American-Libertarian/dp/1586485725/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259466101&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Hamowy, Ronald, ed. ''The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism'' (Sage, 2008), 644pp, sponsored by the Cato Institute; [http://www.sage-ereference.com/PublicBrowse.html Online at some academic libraries] also [http://books.google.com/books?id=yxNgXs3TkJYC&dq=intitle:Encyclopedia+intitle:of+intitle:Libertarianism&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0 excerpt and text search]
* Murray, Charles. ''What It Means to Be a Libertarian'' (1997) [http://www.amazon.com/What-Means-Libertarian-Charles-Murray/dp/0767900391/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223322878&sr=8-16 excerpt and text search]
* Tilman, Rick. ''Ideology and Utopia in the Social Philosophy of the Libertarian Economists'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Libertarian-Economists-Contributions-Economics/dp/0313315582/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223322878&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]

== References ==
{{reflist|1}}

== External links ==
* [http://www.faqs.org/faqs/libertarian/faq/ Libertarian FAQ]
* [http://dmoz.org/Society/Politics/Liberalism/Libertarianism/ Open Directory libertarian links ]
* [http://chelm.freeyellow.com/black_index.html Black Libertarians]
* [http://libertarianwiki.org/Main_Page Libertarian Wiki]
* [http://www.l4l.org/ Libertarians for Life]
* [http://www.independent.org/ The Independent Institute]
* [http://www.mises.org/ Ludwig von Mises Institute]
* [http://www.fee.org/ Foundation for Economic Education]
* [http://www.cato.org/ Cato Institute]
* [http://reason.org/ Reason Foundation]
* [http://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/dispassionate-assessment-libertarians A Dispassionate Assessment of Libertarians], by [[Russell Kirk]], [[Heritage Foundation]]
[[Category:Capitalism]]
[[Category:Libertarianism]]
[[Category:Tax Revolts]]
[[Category:Pro Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Anti-Communism]]

Gary E. Johnson

2017-05-23T12:55:42Z

TheOther: Added some recent events

{{Officeholder
|name=Gary E. Johnson
|image=Garyjohnson.jpg‎
|party=[[Libertarian]] (formerly [[Republican]])
|spouse=Dee Johnson (1977-2005) (divorced)
|religion=[[Lutheran]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/governor
|state=New Mexico
|terms=January 1, 1995 – January 1, 2003
|preceded=[[Bruce King]]
|former=n
|succeeded=[[Bill Richardson]]
}}
}}

'''Gary Earl Johnson''' (born January 1, 1953) is an entrepreneur who served as the [[Republican]] [[Governor]] of [[New Mexico]] from 1995 through 2003. He graduated from the University of New Mexico at [[Albuquerque]] in 1975 and went on to launch his own business, Big J Enterprises, which became one of the most successful construction companies in New Mexico. In the [[2012 Presidential Election|2012]] and [[2016 Presidential Election]]s he was the nominee for the [[Libertarian Party]].

Johnson was elected Governor of New Mexico in 1994 and reelected in 1998, becoming the first governor in state history to serve two consecutive four-year terms. He is a triathlete and the first governor to compete in Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon.

As Governor he cut [[tax]]es 14 times (annually $123 million), vetoed over 750 bills (more than the other 49 governors combined), cut the rate of [[government]] growth in half, reduced [[welfare]] spending 30%, balanced the budget, eliminated the state's deficit, privatized half of the state prisons, was a national advocate for school vouchers. He increased the budget for the state's [[education]] system and signed a $1.2 billion highway improvement package to upgrade 500 miles of state roads. When he left office New Mexico had 1,200 fewer government employees.<ref>http://listentovon.com/Johnson%20For%20America/meetgary.php</ref> Johnson was called "the most [[fiscal conservative|fiscally conservative]] governor" during his two terms.<ref>http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/about</ref>

Johnson feels the Sixteenth Amendment (creating the Income Tax) should be repealed and replaced with the [[FairTax]] - a 23% national Sales Tax. He argues that this would close all loopholes, and, as the name implies, be "fair". Johnson has said that while there is no such thing as a "good tax", the FairTax is the "best of the worst".

Johnson's views on some issues are at odds with [[conservative]] values. For instance, Johnson is [[pro-choice]] regarding [[abortion]], although he supports overturning [[Roe v. Wade]]. He has said, "It should be a states issue to begin with, the criteria for a Supreme Court justice would be that those justices rule on the original intent of the constitution. Given that, it's my understanding that justice would overturn Roe v. Wade." Additionally, he earned high [[pro-life]] ratings as Governor of New Mexico by banning late-term abortions and requiring parental notification for minors. He also opposes all government funding for abortion (while as a Libertarian, he opposes government funding for almost everything, he considers this a specific point to mention).

Additionally, at first, Johnson opposed a government-mandated definition of marriage (either recognizing or refusing to recognize [[same-sex marriage]]s), saying "I think the government should be out of the marriage business and leave marriage to the churches." Instead, he supported [[civil union]]s for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples offering the same benefits currently granted to married couples, and felt it should be up to the churches and the private individuals to determine what is or isn't "marriage". However, during an online town hall meeting on December 2, 2011, Johnson announced that he had changed his view on the issue to support outright government recognition of both same-sex and opposite-sex marriages.<ref>[http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/02/gary-johnson-comes-out-in-favor-of-gay-m]</ref> Johnson would clarify that he did not see a difference between civil unions and marriages, but that the former would "require amending every federal code and law that says 'marriage' to instead say 'civil union'". Regardless, Johnson believes the [[Equal Protection Clause]] means that whatever term is used ("marriage" or "civil unions") must be used for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples and contain the same rights for both.

Johnson's positions are [[libertarian]] leaning, and some of his views were outside the mainstream of the Republican Party even when he was a member. He opposed the 2003 invasion of [[Iraq]] and supports reducing the defense budget by 44 to 90 percent from current levels.<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/meet-gary-johnson-ron-paul-2012_520775.html?nopager=1</ref> In 1999, Johnson became the highest-ranking elected official in the United States to advocate legalization of marijuana. He endorsed [[Ron Paul]] during the [[2008 Presidential Election]].

Johnson is highly critical of President Obama's economic policy. At one point, he quipped that his neighbor's two dogs had created more "shovel-ready" jobs than the President. Johnson has stated that he would not actually create the jobs themselves, but would rather create the opportunity for jobs through lower taxes and relaxed economic policy. He points out that this is the policy he used as Governor and it significantly improved the economy in New Mexico.

Johnson initially sought the Republican nomination in the [[2012 Presidential Election]], but was not very successful. Considering his highly conservative fiscal stances, but also his liberal or libertarian stances on social issues, most Republicans described Johnson as more libertarian than truly conservative. He is similar to fellow libertarian Republican presidential candidate [[Ron Paul]]. However, whereas Paul supports the [[Defense of Marriage Act]], Johnson believes marriage is a right guaranteed by the [[Equal Protection Clause]] and that therefore, same-sex marriage should be legalized on a federal level. Johnson is also [[pro-abortion]], whereas Paul is [[pro-life]]. However, both believe [[Roe v. Wade]] should be overturned and the laws should be left up to the states.

Paul is far better-known and so was expected to get the bulk of the libertarian vote in the primaries. Barring an early withdrawal by Paul, it appeared Johnson had virtually no chance of securing the Republican nomination. His situation was made worse by the refusal of the sponsors of most of the 2011 Republican Presidential Debates to allow Johnson to participate. As a result, there was increasing speculation that Johnson, who unsuccessfully sought assistance from the Republican National Committee, would seek the nomination of the [[Libertarian Party]].

Months of rumors were confirmed on December 28, 2011, when Johnson announced he would switch parties and seek the Libertarian nomination. Johnson stated that the Republican party "snubbed" him because they "didn't want more than one [libertarain] messenger on stage" (a reference to Paul).<ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70906.html Politico.com article: "Gary Johnson launches Libertarian presidential bid"]</ref> He is considered the front-runner for the party nomination, which will be determined at the convention May 4–6 in [[Las Vegas]]. Although there are at least five other candidates, Johnson is by far the most experienced and well-known and is widely expected to be nominated.<ref>http://www.lp.org/event/2012-libertarian-party-convention-at-red-rock-resort-in-las-vegas</ref>

On May 5, 2012, Johnson easily won the Libertarian Party nomination on the first ballot. He received approximately 70% of the vote while the next closest candidate received 25%. He nominated former [[California]] [[judge]] and marijuana legalization advocate [[Jim Gray]] to be his Vice President. This was confirmed on the first ballot with Gray receiving roughly 60% of the vote.

Johnson is expected to be on the ballot in every state, with the possible exception of [[Oklahoma]]. [[Douglas Schoen]], a columnist for [[Fox News]], wrote a column in support of Johnson's campaign, saying "With neither Obama nor Romney offering an overarching message that has been able to resonate with an electorate that is becoming increasingly cynical about anyone's ability to fix this country’s ongoing, trenchant and most vexatious problems – Gary Johnson’s voice is one that needs to be heard".<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/12/gary-johnson-could-catch-presidential-race-by-surprise/?intcmp=related</ref> Another Fox News article reported on the challenges Johnson will experience getting into the debates - he needs to be on the ballot in enough states to potentially gather 270 electoral votes (almost a given at this point), and he needs to poll at 15% in several polls. PPP was the first poll to include him, but [[Zogby]] is now mentioning him as well. He is currently polling between 4 and 10 percent.

Governor Johnson did not have his name on the ballot in [[Michigan]] due to a [[sore loser law]]. However, he was registered in Michigan as a valid write-in candidate. Governor Johnson was three minutes late in withdrawing from the Republican Priamry and was thus on the ballot. Therefore, he is not allowed to run on another line. The case is currently pending. However, another Gary E. Johnson, a Texas businessman, has volunteered to stand in on the ballot if needed, and his electors would vote for Governor Johnson if he carries the state. Since ballot access in Michigan is by party, not person, one of the two Gary E. Johnsons should be on the ballot. However, the Michigan Secretary of State, Ruth Johnson, claimed Michigan has no procedure for switching candidates, in spite of precedent to the contrary. So, Johnson ended up with partial access in Michigan, but had no access, even as a write-in candidate, in Oklahoma. Johnson/Gray had ballot access in the other 48 states, write-in access in Michigan, and full access in [[Washington DC]]. He was the third party candidate who had the most availability on the 2012 Presidential ballot.

As of September 22, 2012, the domain [http://www.MittRonmey.com MittRonmey.com] (transposing the m and n in Republican Candidate [[Mitt Romney]]'s name), redirects to Johnson's campaign site.

Johnson has admitted on several occasions that he has always been a libertarian and governed New Mexico as a [[Republican in name only]]. He also made the admission that he is not a "social conservative in any way," and unlike libertarian ally Ron Paul, Johnson is also [[pro-choice]].

He ran for President in 2016 on the Liberterian platform with former Republican Governor of Massachusetts [[William Weld]] as his running mate. He received 4.4 million votes (roughly 3.3% of the total vote), the highest for a third party presidential candidate since [[1996 Presidential Election|1996]] and the highest ever national vote for a Liberterian candidate.

==References==
<references/>
{{2012 presidential candidates}}

[[Category:New Mexico Governors]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:Libertarianism]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Johnson, Gary E.}}
[[Category:Fiscal Conservatives]]
[[Category:RINOs]]