Poor Douglas Todd, he just can't seem to understand why Richard Dawkins refused to be interviewed by him during Dawkins' visit to Vancouver. He thought that Dawkins' refusal was due at least in part to an article Todd wrote in which he linked atheism and science with "Hitler, eugenics, Stalin, weapons of mass destruction and environmental degradation." Why shouldn't Dawkins have wanted to sit down to be interviewed by an anti-atheist bigot like Douglas Todd? It doesn't make any sense at all.

I regularly interview (and respect) atheists -- and have interviewed thousands of people who would be aware that I could not agree with them on everything.

Source: The Vancouver Sun

But are they aware if Douglas Todd is bigoted against them? In such a situation they might change their minds — and well they should. There is already more than enough anti-atheist bigotry in the world; we don't need to add to it by enhancing the credibility of bigots in the media.

I have no trouble with someone being an atheist. It's quite a defensible position. It is just that it Dawkins' brand of atheism is particularly prone to skapegoating. I don't agree with religious fundamentalists either. But can you be an atheist fundamentalist? I definitely think so.

So, in addition to being an anti-atheist bigot (saying that "some of my best friends are atheists" doesn't mean that Douglas Todd isn't a bigot — it just means that he's a bigot who doesn't even recognize when he's using very old and worn rationalizations), Todd also doesn't really understand what atheism is. No one who has a grasp of atheism can think that "atheist fundamentalism" is a coherent concept.

You can't be a "fundamentalist" about mere disbelief in gods. You also can't be surprised when atheists refuse to be interviewed by a person who doesn't evince any interest in what atheism is, makes accusations they can't support, express bigoted sentiments, and so forth. Douglas Todd's entire article is an exercise is self-absorbed whining: "poor me, look at how the mean, intolerant atheist refused to be interviewed by me after I accused atheism and science of being responsible for the worst horrors of the 20th century."

Then, just in case the irony of the situation wasn't strong enough, Douglas Todd proceeds to complain about the dismissive and insulting tone of the comments to his article. Apparently, it's OK for a theist to express anti-atheist bigotry, ignorance, lies, and insults, but it's not OK for atheists to object and respond in any manner other than one which demonstrates the most rigorous politeness.

There is just one response to such a position: NO (actually, there is a far more appropriate response, but I can't write it here). If people like Douglas Todd want to traffic in ignorance and bigoted insults, they are of course free to do so — but they are not free to then whine about atheists not sitting down with them as if they were deserving of civil, polite treatment. Everyone starts out deserving a basic amount of civility and respect, but once a person launches into bigoted tirades, they give up any claim they might have had to being treated like everyone else.

As it turns out, though, Dawkins never refused to be interviewed at all — he doesn't recall ever being asked for an interview by Douglas Todd. He also doesn't recall ever reading Todd's original article, which is understandable. iI's certainly forgettable because it simply rehashes a series of fallacies, errors, and lies that have been used by every other anti-atheist bigot looking for a reason to attack atheists through Dawkins' book. So, in addition to being an unoriginal bigot, Douglas Todd turns out to be a very unimportant bigot as well — though one with delusions of grandeur, it seems.