Did you know the background of unherd? If you did you might not have regard for this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/102963491...
... which isn’t exactly terribly substantiated on its own.
Furthermore, unless this opinion piece is demonstrably in bad faith I dunno why that would detract from viewing it in a fair light.
Also, your comment comes across as an ad hominem attack, not sure if I'm just misreading it though.
There are a lot of such organizations that don't openly declare their ideological background, and funding sources.
https://unherd.com/2021/04/why-the-atheists-turned-on-richar...
"Why the atheists turned on Dawkins - They care more about social justice than whether or not God exists"
Written by: Ben Sixsmith is an English writer living in Poland. He has written for Quillette, Areo, The Catholic Herald....
And FWIW, the idea mentioned in these links that early-millennium New Atheism eventually evolved into the current wave of social-justice activism, is something that has been often set forth by people here on HN and is not exclusive to any particular religious or anti-religious viewpoint.
[0] https://unherd.com/thepost/richard-dawkins-scientism-is-a-di...
You keep saying that. Let's like at some random headlines from their "contributors" page:
> Ideology should not trump children’s health (anti-trans)
> France’s mega-mosque problem
> The emptiness of ‘British values’
> The death of American patriotism
> The problem with male feminists
> Universities have destroyed feminism
> Can Labour be saved from the hard Left?
> Labour isn’t working
> Why liberals are scared of football
> Is Labour dead?
> America attracts the wrong immigrants
None of the headlines that you cite are specific to “extremist Christian-right propaganda”, indeed these are themes are commonly discussed by those who identify as leftist and unreligious, but feel that certain things that are presently insisted on in leftism as de rigeur, are not part of the leftist tradition they recognize from a few decades back. For example, with regard to being “anti-trans”, there are a lot of soixante-huitards who find the current focus on trans activism on the left excessive and even problematic, because it was utterly foreign to their struggle against rightist forces.
You have still not brought forth any proof of your claim above that UnHerd was founded and funded expressly for “extremist Christian-right propaganda” purposes. The gentlemanly thing to do would be to back up that claim, or retract it.
LOL normally when people say "includes people from a range of ideological outlooks", they usually mean so they present a range of ideological viewpoints. What you actually mean is so they can present a single ideological viewpoint, how counter-intuitive.
> None of the headlines that you cite are specific to “extremist Christian-right propaganda”
Anti-islmam, anti-feminist, anti-left, anti-immigrant, anti-trans...gosh what was I thinking! It's true the headlines are not overtly religious...but I never that was the case. Propaganda is often subtle so it can hide it's true nature and purpose and origin.
> You have still not brought forth any proof of your claim above that UnHerd was founded and funded expressly for “extremist Christian-right propaganda” purposes
Websites that take up the anti-trans cause are either secular radical feminist or Christian-right. Let's look up the founder of unherd shall we? (you probably guessed I already knew this).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Montgomerie
> Montgomerie was born into an army family in Barnstaple in 1970.[7][8] He said in a Guardian interview[9] that "his teenage Thatcherism was tempered by discovering evangelical Christianity at sixteen".
I guess it's not the radical feminist kind.
Also, as Christian but pro-secular-politics left-leaning person, I think the statement you quote as an example of far right Christian propaganda is...just literal factual truth; the negative reactions to Dawkins in some parts of the atheist community is about social justice trumping shared identity around belief in the nonexistence of God.
Maybe this is just a story you've concocted to explain away evidence that contradicts your predetermined conclusions about who believes what?
For the few that might it is generally worth knowing whether it's actually worth the time. If the writer is someone considered and knowledgeable, on a credible venue, for instance. I know nothing about this site/writer so I'm not commenting on that, but generally that is an input before one spends the time on an essay.
For example the best published scientific studies can't be judged on their own merits because you have to trust that the scientists actually conducted the studies and didn't fake the data. So you basically have to fall back to some assumption over whether the scientist is honest, not on the merits of what they wrote in the study.