The problem with Fitzy’s world view

I seriously try to stop myself, but I just can’t.  It’s time to make comment on one of the new high priests of atheist dogma, regular sports writer and columnist with the Sydney Morning Herald, Peter FitzSimons.  Clad in red bandana, Fitzsimons simply can’t resist using his media platform to shout out his world view with dogmatic and scathing methods.

In typical neo-atheist style, Fitzsimons is an adept at playing the man and not the ball, none more so than when any sports person lifts their head above the parapet and identifies themselves as a person of faith.  Seemingly oblivious to his hypocrisy, FitzSimons can be counted on to let loose with a predictable diatribe of scorn while at the same time proselytising his own dubious theological world view in the way he is taking the person to task.

This last weekend he took to his column in the Sunday Herald to lambast Australian Catholic Cardinal Pell for daring to venture his thoughts on climate change.  Here’s a sample of his narky bitterness:

Cardinal Pell – a man who has devoted his entire life to proselytising that there is an alpha male who lives above the clouds and is watching us all”.

Referring to what Pell does with his time “This would be the time when he’s not insisting on the virtues of people having “faith” based on no scientific fact, that 200 years ago a virgin gave birth to a child whose father was God, and when the child was later crucified it rose again”.

It’s not the first time he’s made similar sweeping assertions.  This from October 2009: “This from a man who has spent his entire life embracing faith – the passionate belief in something despite there not being a shred of evidence”.

You get the drift.  In a previous post I likened the antics of the neo—atheists, led by the vicious Archbishop Cardinal Dawkins, as like “a troop of barking baboons who will sit in the tree-tops, picking off each others’ fleas and throwing rotten fruit at anything that looks like honest and productive endeavour (particularly in the human services fields) below“.

But FitzSimon’s sloppiness is particularly galling and completely inconsistent with what seems his personal modus operandi.

Mr FitzSimons considers himself something of a scholar so let’s break it down into a methodology he should surely understand.  You see Fitzy is also an author, a fellow who has made a name for himself, and presumably a small fortune, writing jingoistic homilies to Australian heroics on the battlefields of World War Two.

They’re fairly lightweight tomes, designed for the masses to read on their morning commute – if you want to be properly informed, try Les Carlyon instead.  If you were to look at a gospel equivalent, it would be Mark’s gospel, breathless, homespun and easily consumed by popular culture (not that there’s anything wrong with that).  FitzSimons plays Mark to Carlyon’s considered and detailed analysis (aka Luke’s gospel).

So here we have FitzSimons writing about events 70 years ago, relying primarily on eye-witness accounts, source materials such as letters and official records, walking the terrain and some news reels (with film being the lazy modern equivalent of the rich verbal tradition of the Jewish nation’s long history).

In other words he’s writing his books using the exact same techniques as the gospel writers, though their records were probably made far closer to actual events than 70 years.  You’d think then that he’d have a certain understanding and sympathy for the cadence of the gospels.

I wonder if FitzSimons would say that he unequivocally has everything right in his books.  That he has perfectly read the battle sequences, the mood of the men (his books regularly ascribe a blokey jingoism to the ANZACS for instance) etc.

It’s a bit more than that however.  It’s often said that history is supposedly written by the victors.  One of the prime reasons FitzSimons can write about the exploits of the ANZACS is because they won a freedom that allows him to do so and because there is a market to hear about their heroism.

The gospels however were written by the persecuted, when the ideology they ascribed meant certain death.  The history they put forward was politically potent and vehemently opposed – the modern day equivalent of suggesting the Holocaust did not happen.  When their “books” entered the public arena there was every reason for them to be shot down, and any inconsistency of demonstrable fault would have been fatal to their message.

They exist 2000 years later, and of all the historical accounts written in the history of mankind, these have been subject to the most rigorous analysis of science, particularly anthropology and archeology, but not ending there.

The suggestion that there is “not a shred of evidence” to encourage the life-walk of followers of the historical figure of Christ is insulting and disingenuously misleading.  To suggest this is to identify oneself as guilty of sloppy research in the extreme, something I’m sure FitzSimons would not countenance with one of his books.

This brings me to another other “agenda” of FitzSimons’, his bugbear about the proliferation of gambling in sport.  His own High Priest, Richard Dawkins, is on record as suggesting that the likelihood of life as we know it evolving without intervention or design possible assuming there are zillions of parallel universes and one, or a few of them, are appropriately “fine tuned”.

I wonder how scathing Mr FitzSimons would be of anyone willing to bet their life and everything they own on a several zillion to one shot in a two horse race.


7 Responses to The problem with Fitzy’s world view

  1. BEN JOHNSTON says:

    very fine work….I wonder if you could send it too Fitzy and see if you get a response…he would have to at least give credit to your writing style…

  2. Peter FitzSimons says:


    Have just read enough of this to get the drift. Don’t know who the author is, but he sounds sincere in his criticism of me. All good. Go well, everyone.

    Might I just suggest however, if you take the best Christian value of the lot – do unto others etc – you can then sleep in on Sunday mornings and forget all the rest of the mumbo-jumbo?

    Despite what they’ve told you as children, it really IS embarrassing gibberish.

    All the Best,

    Peter Fitz

  3. MUM SAYS says:


  4. Saba says:

    He’s a weirdo. Why the f does he wear that stupid bandanna? And I’m an athiest. Trust me, blunt narrow-minded ignorant nutbags like him and Dawkins don’t represent us. Everybody has a right to believe in whatever they wish. We respect people of religion. 🙂 As to his writing on the Anzacs, I wouldn’t know. Peace and Love, Saba. xx

  5. Ozzibob says:

    The fact that Fitzsimon’s uses his media position to attempt to belittle believers at any chance shows just how small minded he is. If he is so confident in his belief in nothing why spend so much time and effort having a go at those with a different belief to his? The answer, he is just like the school yard bully, picking on what he sees as an easy target and actually in the end being nothing more than a coward.

    The more he uses his newspaper columns to “have a go”, the more he looks like a desperate atheist trying to convince himself of his own opinion.

  6. looney says:

    Peter Fitzsimmons is way too full of himself who should pull his red flagged head in.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: