As a short side note on that ideal/legislative reality thing--
I've said repeatedly here that I can still enjoy dozens of somewhat Antisemitic or bigoted writers, musicians and artists despite their beliefs, so long as they are just that--beliefs. I like to try and find something redeemable about my heroes (I think there are some elements and specific lines in "The Merchant of Venice" which are sympathetic to Jews, and I can at least respect T.S. Eliot's decision to leave Jews alone in his poetry and essays later in life and after WWII) but that's always up for debate--
You may not think that cuts it for Eliot, or that Shakespeare's plays are still more racist, sexist, and Antisemitic than not (I'd argue that on the sexism charge, at least, there's a pretty strong argument in favor of the Bard given the sheer amount and diverse nature of his female protagonists who save the day/wield great power in both his tragedies AND comedies, especially in his post "Romeo and Juliet" works, ie, his mature years, but I digress.)
And that's perfectly fine.
We can debate it either way, but even if I lost the debate, neither Eliot or Shakespeare nor any such similar author/artist/musician/etc. would be invalidated by just holding or expressing a belief I disagree with, even if it's bigoted by our standards, and even if it hurts or saddens me personally.
THE *ONLY* TIME THAT'S *NOT* THE CASE is if such a figure tries to take those views and in some way IMPOSE THEM on others, thereby causing ACTUAL hurt.
I've cited my two (and really only two) examples of this for me numerous times:
Richard Wagner and Ezra Pound.
To me--and you're free to disagree, I know folks do--their offense here is so rank that while their genius remains intact, I simply can't read or listen to them with enjoyment, and the ethos of their works are invalidated to an extent to me...
NOT just because they were Antisemites, since I just listed Shakespeare and Eliot who were, to varying degrees, Antisemitic or at least very complicated on that issue, but because they tried, in one form or another, to make their hatred of Jews into a legalized, real kind of hatred to hurt real, living people...
Wagner by calling for the expulsion of Jews from musical professions and arguably by extension from European society itself (and we'll spare him the Nazi connection...we can argue whether or not that's "his fault," but it's redundant here since Wagner wrote pamphlets and materials against the Jews trying to push them out himself)...
And Pound by calling for their deaths and writing for Mussolini and supporting the greater Axis effort during WWII (and just for schnicks and giggles, STILL supporting that view even after the war.)
Dawkins isn't doing that, fulhamish.
He's not pushing for actual, tangible legislation against actual, flesh and blood people.
He's making an abstract, theoretical argument on the ethics and morality of abortion and disease...
And you may well disagree with him, which is fine, and even good in a sense, as it promotes debate, in the way a good play or poem can...
But Richard Dawkins is NOT going the Wagner/Pound route of going from belief to IMPOSING that belief and its implication upon others.
Replacement Opportunity
)
)
)
)
