As a young atheist, I kept my opinion to myself. I even hung out with a Lutheran student group at the university campus because I enjoyed the company. What I thought was a noble notion – keeping my irreligion to myself – was shattered through a knowledge of the existence of religiots such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, Jim and Tammy Fae Baker, etc. The never-ending Parade of Fools continues with the likes of Ann Coulter and Bill Donohue. Many people think that the so-called ‘new atheism’ (What the hell is that? Is there some new way to not be superstitious?) is some spontantaneous phenomenon that has arisen without cause.
Nothing could be further from the truth. We atheists have been around a long time, but we have respected – wrongly, it turns out – the holding of superstitious beliefs. Now these superstitions, which should have remained private and without recognition by state institutions, are affecting public policy with potentially (and, in many cases, already) disastrous and deadly results. We can no longer afford to remain silent when religion is not only being accommodated but is becoming a factor in decisions affecting everyone in which it has no business. The idea that Religion has something relevant to say on matters of public policy or law is smoke and mirrors and its adherents display such abject ignorance that can only be described as inexcusable and repugnant.
I can not stress this in stronger terms: This is wrong. This is unethical. This is immoral. Holding secularism as a virtue is the only sensible course a society can take without it tearing apart at the seams.
Perhaps the ‘new atheism’ does have one thing actually new to offer – demolishing the concept that Religion is immune from criticism. It is time to end this political correctness, draw back the curtain and expose religion for what it is: a load of harmful superstitious nonsense. Time to take off the kid gloves….
One Comment
Not only atheists think these people are not right like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell who preach hate. Multitudes of lovers of God ignore them and shield our disgust of their comments, but try not to judge them.
I think they call it ‘new atheism’ because of the anger. Like when I read Sam Harris I don’t hear a sober intellectual, but rather an angry and arrogant sounding man. Same with Hitchens or Dawkins.
I am a fan of secularism in government too, but not to an Communist extent of banning religion or teaching non-religion to the public. I see the teaching of non-religion or non-God as a form bigotry too, aka China or old Russia and how its school books are geared to indoctrinate a non-God point of view. School books and government should give freedom period. Holding no stance in education or one of diversity.
I disagree with your idea on secularism as only value worth pursuit in society. If there were no religions, humans would still have conflict. Economics, ideas, laws, land, resources and general selfish would cause wars and hate much like they do now.
I would propose freedom, equality, liberty, right to property and expression, that is held together by a secular government that acts in righteousness. < from the Hebrew/ Biblical meaning of 'one who realizes his possessions are apart of a community and acts so'
I like your passion and well written articles, look forward to hearing from you.
Justin
http://lastinglewis.wordpress.com/