Freethinker Sunday Sermonette: militant and non-miltant atheism

You know atheism is making headway when it starts to elicit new, and more desperate, forms of push back. It's no longer possible burn atheists at the stake, at least not in the US, but you can tar and feather them with accusations that they are as bad as -- what? As bad as the intensely religious? Yes. That's the new tactic. Richard Dawkins is a Fundamentalist:

Despite its minority status, atheism has enjoyed the spotlight of late, with several books that feature vehement arguments against religion topping the bestseller lists.

But some now say secularists should embrace more than the strident rhetoric poured out in such books as "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris. By devoting so much space to explaining why religion is bad, these critics argue, atheists leave little room for explaining how a godless worldview can be good.

[snip]

In his book, Dawkins likens philosopher Michael Ruse, a Florida State University professor who has worked on the creationism/evolution debate in public schools, to Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister best known for his appeasement policy toward Nazi Germany.

Ruse, in turn, accuses "militant atheism" of not extending the same professional and academic courtesy to religion that it demands from others. Atheism's new dogmatic streak is not that different from the religious extremists it calls to task, he said. Dawkins was traveling and unavailable for comment.

The suggestion that atheists may be fundamentalists in their own right has, unsurprisingly, ruffled feathers. [Etc., etc.] (WaPo)

Dawkins is only one kind of atheist, although one of the most effective. And he also varies his militancy. Many of us do. Militancy serves a purpose, but many of us atheists, when we want to be nice, also agree with American critic H. L. Mencken when he wrote:

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

-- H L Mencken, Minority Report (1956), quoted from Jonathon Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Insulting Quotations

That was the "nice" Mencken, though. There's also this:

The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.

-- H L Mencken, in American Mercury (March, 1930)

And of course there is the Dawkins-like Mencken, covering the Scopes trial:

The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.

True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge. Did Darrow, in the course of his dreadful bombardment of Bryan, drop a few shells, incidentally, into measurably cleaner camps? Then let the garrisons of those camps look to their defenses. They are free to shoot back. But they can't disarm their enemy.

-- H L Mencken, "Aftermath" The Baltimore Evening Sun, (September 14, 1925)

The theists are shooting back. But they can't disarm their enemy.

More like this

> Is it, perchance, cherished by persons
> who should know better?

Sure, but I wonder how often they DO know better. The Prince and all that. It seems to me rather likely in many cases.

Eh. There are militant creeps in both camps.

I've had militant Xtian's call me a damned to hell stupid atheist and a bad parent for not thinking what they think I should I think.

I've had militant atheists call me a stupid fundy-whacko and bad parent for not thinking what they think I should think.

From my perspective, both extremes act similiarly, however different their motivations may be. And both are incorrect in their opinions of what kind of person I am.

I am happy that our culture is changing enough that militant atheism can exist without it's voices being silenced by violence or hatred. I hope that the camp doesn't fall into the "let's legislate our POV because we're right and they're wrong" behaviors that plague militant Xtianity.

By PennyBright (not verified) on 27 May 2007 #permalink

PB, don't make wild accusations without foundation. Legislation that mandates atheist "belief" isn't possible, because there is no atheist "belief." I think you're aware of this, but what else would atheist legislate to mandate their "position?" (I put quotes around "position" because there is no one agreed-upon position.)

If we freethinkers ever attempted to commit the thoughtcrime of attempting to mess with other people's heads at the point of the government's gun using force of law, we'd give up our intellectual and moral high ground. Reality is its own defense.

By speedwell (not verified) on 27 May 2007 #permalink

High path and low path atheism, what a concept!

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 27 May 2007 #permalink

I love how people try to hide behind "atheism" and its dictionary definition. Speedwell, you are correct that atheism is not a belief per se. It is either disbelief or lack of belief in a deity, depending on which "type" of atheist you are. However, there's a difference between atheism, atheistic philosophies/ideologies/religions, and atheists.

Atheism isn't a belief. Atheists (if they're human and not in a vegetative state) must have beliefs: metaphysical, political, economic, social, scientific, etc. Beliefs having to do with the values/meaning will be intricately connected to disbelief or lack of belief in a deity or to belief in a g-dless universe. These beliefs can and are structured via atheistic philosophies/ideologies/religions: Jainism, some forms of Bhuddism, Confucianism, antitheism, materialism, nihilism, humanism, naturalism, etc. Let's not fall into the trap of think that any particular expression of atheism is the only true expression. Who, after all, makes that distinction?

"Atheism" in a variety of forms has been and is enforced by a variety of nations or officially acknowledged as the "state religion" of some nations: the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Albania (atheism was the state religion until 1991), etc. with disastrous results.

And yes, the atheist's response to discrimination and oppression can be structured through militant/dogmatic philosphies. This is not just an accusation made by theists against atheists (only fools would claim militancy represents all atheists), but by many atheists against those who poorly represent atheism in the public sphere.

All of this results not from atheists being bad or some other such b.s. but from atheists being human. No ism can separate us from our fundamental humanity in both its best and worst aspects. The problem of state-enforced atheism has nothing to do with the value of atheism either, only with the brutality inherent in the state enforcing any worldview on its citizens.

Apropos of nothing, I offer another strange link on this Sunday in May. These people hate atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, miners, soldiers, gays, and everyone else in-between. Can Fred Phelps possibly have this many followers?

Note: there is nothing in this video that is pornographic, but it fits my definition of obscenity just in its joyous hatred of anyone who dares believe differently.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=720_1179383603

By wenchacha (not verified) on 27 May 2007 #permalink

Ladeez an' Gents, Puhleeze see in the center of the Ring...
the population arranged in blocs. Note the shape of the blocs that depend on Royal or Divine Authority to establish their societies. Over here in the lower LH corner is a sub-bloc of diverse classes warring to become unified under a classic Authority figure too! Some of them haven't got sense enough to examine and classify the Big Blocs an' do a bit of diplomacy with one end of the bellcurve that ye see there.
Note that Christian absolutists seek rapproachment with Islamic Dominionists and Messiah Moon is buying what he can.

I subscribe to a Franciscan view of religious speech. It's probably apocryphal, but the saint is reputed to have said, "Always preach the Gospel. Use words when necessary."

What matters is how you live. If kindness, compassion and empathy are what matters, the reveres are better believers than the Xtian fundamentalists who run off at the mouth.

I suppose that I am all three of the Mencken mindsets.
I am tolerant and pleasant when religion is brought up with friends. I find it fascinating as far as the history and what makes peoples brains work.
I am against the promotion of it in public life and when confronted with those who shove it in my face, I become angry and ready for battle.

"Atheism's new dogmatic streak is not that different from the religious extremists it calls to task," etc. Yawn. Wake me up when Victor Stenger bombs a church and Christopher Hitchens, drunk of course, slams an airplane into the Vatican.

I love how the same people who toss about the term "New Atheism" say that Dawkins (in particular) is "preaching to the choir." Which way do you want it: a pre-existing body of believers or a new idea to believe?

And the best Christians IMO are those that dont try to hammer down those who chose not to believe. Paging Dr. Torquemada, Paging Dr. Torquemada.

So many sinners, too many fires. How can one not believe?

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 27 May 2007 #permalink

And I've heard the term "hard and/or soft atheist."

MRK: How can one not believe? you ask. Because God is being blamed for all the ills and woes on the globe.

I don' think god is the problem. I think it's people.

Gindy; But of course. That goes without saying. God can't be any more of a problem than can Zeus or the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus (although of the three, I prefer Santa Claus).

"The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms"

Does "all arms" include sloppy thinking and bad research? The problem with atheists like Dawkins is that they aren't just speaking bluntly, but also trying to demonize the opposition ("Neville Chamberlain Atheists," anyone?) which inevitably involves distorting the facts. So we get Ken Miller implicitly compared to Hitler. We get a bogus quote from Thomas Jefferson in TGD. We get a non-argument argument against the Trinity that consists of a false statement followed by a statement which is either false or badly written, followed by another false statement bolstered by a fallacious appeal to Thomas Jefferson's authority. We get Dawkins inexplicably attacking a strawman version of Thomas Aquinas' Fourth Way argument even though the real argument is fairly easy to destroy. We get Larry Moran claiming that the "Neville Chamberlain atheists" (like, oh, the NCSE) say that miracles are part of science. We get PZ Myers and Larry Moran asserting that they can hardly tell the difference between theistic evolution and intelligent design. We get PZ Myers responding not to what Elaine Pagels actually said, whatever its merits or demerits, but what she would have said if she had uttered "Christians" instead of "the people I study" (i.e. the Gnostics).

Let's not pretend that the only reason that so-called "militant atheists" are raising hackles is because they are speaking the truth bluntly, especially when they themselves get cavalier with the truth. Let's also throw into the garbage the false dichotomy that if one isn't "militant," one is a milquetoast or a "do-nothing" atheist.

Well, being militant means I won't listen or take your delusional fairy tales serious, with other words exercising your rights while being logical. As every ones know all your rights get canceled when the other party claims they are delusional(have "faith").

Dan P: "Well, being militant means I won't listen or take your delusional fairy tales serious"

I presume that is a generic "you." After all, I'm sure you're not foolish enough to presume that those who disagree with the "militant" stance must be theists.

Dan P: "As every ones know all your rights get canceled when the other party claims they are delusional(have 'faith')."

All my rights get cancelled if the other side has "faith"? Not only is it unclear what evidence you have for this, but it is also unclear what that even means.

JJR, I think your take on Dawkins is right on. Thanks.

I heard him talk earlier this year. I wouldn't describe him as a "militant atheist" or as a "soldier" for atheism though. Professional wrestler seems a more appropriate methaphor.

After all, similar to professional wrestling, the culture war is mostly staged for entertainment and profit.

BTW. Nice 'humanitarian' advertisements from DOW on the scienceblogs site: from the friendly neighborhood chemists that brought us the Bhopal disaster, napalm, michigan dioxins and Durspan.

By traumatized (not verified) on 28 May 2007 #permalink

JJ Ramsey wrote:

Let's not pretend that the only reason that so-called "militant atheists" are raising hackles is because they are speaking the truth bluntly, especially when they themselves get cavalier with the truth.

When Dawkins is wrong at least we can discuss it sensibly. He is, at the very least, several centuries ahead of the Roman Catholic Church on this mark, (which is still trying to figure out what happens to dead, unbaptised babies in the afterlife).

He can be at least reasoned with. He would never argue that the Thomas Jefferson quotes were outside of the natural world and therefore not subject to rational inquiry.

That is a plus, really. That said, Dawkins isn't the only "militant atheist". You can't impugne them all based on your dislike for him, so if you mean Dawkins than you should say Dawkins and not "militant atheists".

Melinda Barton wrote:

I love how people try to hide behind "atheism" and its dictionary definition.

There is nothing to hide behind. It's a dictionary definition, and a very narrow one at that. If it's the definiton of communism or totalitarianism you want, then maybe you ought to just look them up.

Here, I often find this site to be very helpful.

I am not an atheist, but don't find it scary or need to get defensive over it. I count numerous atheists among my friends, including the reveres, and find them among the most congenial of humans.

I'm more interested in what people DO than what they claim. The character if an individual rests less on their proclamations than on what they do. Judge people by their actions.

"Dawkins isn't the only 'militant atheist'. You can't impugne them all based on your dislike for him ..."

Which is why I mentioned Myers and Moran as well. Read more carefully.

Leni,

I am more than aware of the definitions of communism and totalitarianism. Please don't insult my intelligence. As I stated: "The problem of state-enforced atheism has nothing to do with the value of atheism either, only with the brutality inherent in the state enforcing any worldview on its citizens." However, we can't deny that atheism was, in fact, forced on citizens of the Soviet Union and all Soviet dominated/influenced countries or that it is forced on citizens of communist countries today. In fact, from 1967 to 1991, atheism was the OFFICIAL state "religion" of Albania. (No, I'm not calling atheism a religion. That's why it's in quotation marks.)

My point about the dictionary definition of atheism is that no one has atheism as a worldview or belief system. I agree that it is NOT a belief. However, atheists can have atheistic worldviews like humanism, materialism, nihilism, communism, etc. that encompass beliefs and these worldviews can be forced on others via the power of the state. If you look at the true definitional opposite of atheism, theism, we can argue that it's all but impossible to enforce theism as it's such a vague and abstract term, implying no particular set of metaphysical, political, economic, or social beliefs.

For me, atheism v. religion is a false dichotomy because 1.) it pits the response or a nonresponse to a single question against complete worldviews and 2.) Because there are atheistic religions/philosophies/ideologies that serve the same or at least some of the same purposes as religion.

Melinda,

You wrote:

However, we can't deny that atheism was, in fact, forced on citizens of the Soviet Union and all Soviet dominated/influenced countries or that it is forced on citizens of communist countries today. In fact, from 1967 to 1991, atheism was the OFFICIAL state "religion" of Albania. (No, I'm not calling atheism a religion. That's why it's in quotation marks.)

That's all well and good, but what does this have to do with Dawkins or contemporary Western atheists? I see dots, but no lines.

In any case, state religions are entirely common and their existance does not necessarily mean than all citizens are compelled to practice them. Europe is full of such examples. It strikes me as pointless, but I don't really see anything necessarily sinister about it.

I also don't understand why you think it is so significant that atheists can and do have opinions and beliefs. It's so trivial that I can't imagine why it requires several paragraphs from you to make the point.

Last, your remarks about enforcing theism is at best a pointless hypothetical. When theism is enforced, it most certainly isn't the bland, unidentifiable variety you mentioned. Consider the fact that it is very, very common for religious people to believe that there is no distinction between religious law and secular law. Government is and should be established by religious leaders, and practice or avoidance of religious taboo is compulsory.

It is utterly disingenuous to assert that atheists are "hiding behind" the defintion of atheism to avoid camparison with a theocracy like the one I describe above. They simply aren't the same animals. So you simply are not justified in implying (as I think you are by saying atheists are "hiding" from something) that state atheism arises naturally from the atheist position the way that it does from some religious belief.

....

Also, Blake Stacey: ROFL

I keep thinking about a drunk Christopher Hitchens trying fly a place into the Vatican but missing.

My grandad used to tell of the day when an atheist wouldn't dare speak out, if he knew what was good for him. Now look at them all. Criticising their betters. Blaspheming. Everything is going to Hell in a handbasket. The world can't end too soon for me.

/Fey

By JohnnieCanuck, FCD (not verified) on 29 May 2007 #permalink

Leni,

Perhaps I should have cited what I was referring to when I made the original point : PB, don't make wild accusations without foundation. Legislation that mandates atheist "belief" isn't possible, because there is no atheist "belief."

I was not arguing that state-enforced atheism flows naturally from atheism, but the equivalent is NOT religion. Atheism is the opposite of theism, if we want to make a fair comparison. Or we could fairly compare some particular theistic religion to some particular atheistic ideology. (Please note that some religions i.e. Judaism forbid compelling "outsiders" to practice the religion or acknowledge the deity. Judaism actually forbids proselytizing of any kind.)

Some atheistic worldviews i.e. communism have the destruction of religion as a goal. Albania is the only country to officially have atheism as a state religion per se, but you should look up the Albanian purges to see what happened with that. I think the Soviet purges and anti-religious laws are pretty well known.

I wrote "a few paragraphs" to make sure I was very careful in my wording. As I'm a theist, I know it would be easy for me to come off sounding as if I had a problem with atheism/atheists when I don't. (It sounds cliche, but some of my best friends are REALLY atheist/agnostic.)

My comments were purely academic. I also don't think atheists as a group hide behind the definition, only that some atheists play semantics with the definition to avoid difficult questions, ignoring that real world atheism is more complex than the definition.

Finally, I don't see Dawkins and his ilk actually doing these sort of things, as obnoxious as I may find them. I was merely arguing against what I cited above, the idea that legislated atheism is impossible.

Melinda wrote:

My problem with your remarks is that you want it both ways. Atheism isn't religion, but look, it almost is when you conflate it with communism!

Or we could fairly compare some particular theistic religion to some particular atheistic ideology.

And I'm saying, "No, we can't".

For the reasons I explained above: they aren't the same animals. Further, atheism wasn't enforced, prohibitions on religious practice were. Since prohibition on practice is not atheism I still fail to understand why you think it is "hiding from something difficult" to make this distinction.

(Notice, I'm not saying I think these are good policies. Nor do I think it is even remotely defensible to prohibit religious practice in general. But even the Marxists, despite their infinite idiocy and frequent barbarism, would have recognized that the best a prohibition could offer was a reduction in overt practice, with the overall goal of marginalizing it, hopefully to extinction. The same way I think people recognize that prohibitions on drug use doesn't mean anything like "adrugism".)

...ignoring that real world atheism is more complex than the definition

See, there you go again. Communism (the only example of "real world atheism" you've come up with so far) is NOT real world atheism and I can not stress this enough. It is real world totalitarianism, period. This is exactly why I said you were implying that communism arises naturally form atheism, because you basically are.

That said, I'm not calling you a bigot. It's nice that you have atheist friends and I'm sure you are aware they they are not authoritarian maniacs. Nevertheless, I do think you are conflating political regimes with atheism in order to make the point that atheists can be stupid a**holes too.

Atheists can be stupid and evil. But not because their atheism directly compells it. It simply doesn't matter that you don't like what happened in Albania. I don't either, but it wasn't real world atheism any more than the Taliban is real world Islam. (Subtle distintion here: The Taliban is real world Islamic authoritarianism, directly arising from the beliefs of it's followers. But not all muslims share those beliefs so it isn't real world Islam and it would be, in my opinion, disingenuous to imply that it was.)

Ok I think I overstated something. The point that "atheists are jerks too" is oversimplified, and not really where I think you were going. My apologies. It's just one I hear so often it's starting to become habitual to respond to it. It's just not germaine to your point (although I do think it's tangential).

In general though, I think PB is going is in the right direction. You can't really make non-belief compulsory. While you are right that you can make public non-practice compulsory, that really isn't the same thing as "enforced atheism". Nor is it real world atheism, which is a description I find utterly loathesome. I hope you'll understand why.

No, that's not where I'm going with it at all. I don't think any particular religion or ideology or philosophy "naturally" arises from atheism any more than I think any particular religion "naturally" arises from theism. Different people come to different conclusions about how the nonexistence (or existence) of a deity or deities influences the value and meaning of life, humanity, morality, etc. Some of these conclusions are better than others. I, for one, would place secular humanism far above nihilism from a subjective standpoint. Atheism also makes up part of some ideologies that aren't specifically derived from atheism.

I referred to communism as an atheistic ideology because atheism was part of it, not b/c it "was" atheism. Theism, for instance, is only part of the Judaic worldview, which also encompasses ideas about the nature of humanity, family, economics, education etc.

I probably used the wrong examples. The purges were specifically targeted at ended religious practice, you're correct, but I'll get back to that later. On the other hand, the Soviet system promoted scientific atheism through the centrally controlled education system. Also, membership in the Communist Party and thus access to many jobs, benefits, etc. hinged on one being willing to profess atheism.

Is this forcing atheism? Maybe we get to semantics here. For instance, was the Christian destruction of other religions' temples enforcing Christianity? How about the threat of torture and execution if one did not convert? I think the purges and anti-religious laws set up an atmosphere where people felt they had to conform to an atheistic worldview in order to survive.

My argument isn't simply, "Atheists can be jerks, too." It is mainly, "Atheists are human, too." We often expect the "other" to conform to perfection or else be condemned as monstrous. OR we ignore what we have in common with the other in order to condemn. I think we should correct these ideas by seeing that humanity encompasses us all. Our humanity also encompasses far more than just atheism, theism, religion, etc. but also the complex dance between our natural selves, our "cultured" selves and our external circumstances.

Dawkins is only one kind of atheist, although one of the most effective.

I firmly disagree that Dawkins is effective as an atheist, at least in the American context. The only effect I've seen on anyone in this country of his little publicity blitz over the last year has been to inspire weak atheists to turn into strong atheists, inspire strong atheists to turn into assholes, and inspire Christians across the spectrum to ratchet up their respective levels of intolerance and perceived imaginary persecution. You could reasonably accuse Dawkins, occasionally, of being right. But effective? Certainly not.

I mean, unless "effective" means "effective at selling books" or something.

When Dawkins is wrong at least we can discuss it sensibly.

At least on the internet, I have not found this to consistently be the case.

You can't really make non-belief compulsory. While you are right that you can make public non-practice compulsory, that really isn't the same thing as "enforced atheism".

Leni:

I agree with your other point that perpetrators of state-enforced atheism and Richard Dawkins cannot reasonably be viewed as the same kind of animal.

But I don't think this is a very useful distinction that you're making here about "enforced atheism". By the same token, "enforced Christianity" or "enforced Islam" is equally impossible. You're correct that you can't force someone into nonbelief, only into non-practice. But for the same reason, you also can't force someone into belief, you can only force them into practice. The distinction you're making here doesn't do anything by itself to distinguish atheism from religion. Even given that atheism isn't religion, it is exactly as enforceable as religion, and there have been times and places in the recent historical past it has been enforced in exactly the same way as religion.

And I think this was the point that Melinda was trying to make-- I'm not sure but I think you and Melinda are mostly talking past one another here, I don't think she was trying to malign atheism.

Wake me up when... Christopher Hitchens, drunk of course, slams an airplane into the Vatican.

Hitchens was an extremely prominent member of the neoconservative punditocracy that did so much to help lead us into, and kept us in, the incredibly destructive and pointless war in Iraq that has been going on the last four years. And in doing so, the particular peculiar way in which he views his atheism was in fact one of the things, if not the major thing, motivating him-- if you read what he wrote at the time it's clear that most of his actions and arguments were rooted in the belief that the religion of Islam was unto itself dangerous and needed to be Stopped, and that the things he was saying and doing were serving that end.

People generally forget this now that Hitchens has bailed on the sinking neoconservative ship and instead tried to grab on to the rising star of Richard Dawkins/"militiant atheism", but between his 90s stance of "I hate Catholics" and his current stance of "I hate everybody", there was a period of about five years there where he was one of those special kinds of atheists who believe that all religion is wrong but one particular religion, in Hitchens' case at the time Islam, is Bad. I haven't seen much of Hitchens' more recent stuff, but the impression I got was that he's finally come around and decided Christianity and such are Bad too. But there was quite awhile there where Hitchens' personal militant atheism found quite a lot of common ground with militant Christians, in serving the common goal of trying to transform the "War On Terror" from a war against Islamic extremists and Al Qaeda, and into a War of Civilizations between America and Islam. And partially because such efforts were so successful at confusing America as a nation into making some very poor foreign policy decisions, quite a lot of people are now dead who didn't need to be.

If you're trying to play the "yes, but there is no blood on their hands, as there is with some religious leaders" angle, you really need to pick someone other than Christopher Hitchens.

A very interesting discussion, and a nice contribution by Coin. I'm enjoying reading it.

I do not believe I've made any "wild accusations", and certainly my comments had foundation -- I am reporting (granted not verbatim) actual conversations I have had ,both online and irl, with militant Christians and militant atheists.

My point is very simply what I said - there are militant creeps in both camps. In my experience they employ similar rhetoric, though their motivations are obviously different. I believe the tactic of calling the militant atheist stance 'fundamentalist' is a poor attempt to describe the similarity in rhetoric.

Again - I am happy that our culture has progressed enough that people can freely express atheism (militant or otherwise) without fear of violent repercussions. It is good to have a strong secular voice in the public conversation, and the US has lacked that for a long time.

What I cannot stomach is the way that militant Christians attempt to impose their POV on others through legislation. I wish they would stop. I hope that militant atheists don't start trying to legislate their POV (by, say, trying to get religious books banned from public libraries, the way the fundies go after irreligious or 'wrong-religious' books).

I am not saying I think that the folks in the militant atheist camp *are* doing anything like that -- just that I hope they don't start. There is in humans a regrettable tendency to try to dominate others, and *any* POV with a strong "we're right/they're wrong" component is liable to be used as an excuse to exercise that tendency.

I'm not commenting on any of the public figures in this debate, or on religious history - I'm not familiar enough with either to do so. I speak only of my own experience, and my own concerns. It is perhaps over simplistic of me, but when people behave similarly in one way I do tend to consider that they may behave similarly in others.

By PennyBright (not verified) on 30 May 2007 #permalink