"Persecuted" Atheists in America Need a New Perspective

[LeftishBrit]

13. This article is very confused on some crucial issues

Last edited Tue Feb 14, 2012, 08:10 AM - Edit history (1)

'So we may be relatively comfortable in America, but why are atheists looked down upon? The Financial Times suggests that it's because Christians are ignorant or judgmental, but considering how atheists portray themselves, it's difficult to think of them as a victimized minority. The famous biologist and author Richard Dawkins called religious belief "... one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate." ...Similarly, bestselling author Christopher Hitchens often compared belief in God to blind faith in a totalitarian political leader and called religion "... violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry ..." In light of those comments, it shouldn't surprise atheists that the religious majority remains skeptical of them.'

Apart from anything else: Dawkins and Hitchens are/ were not American, but British (though Hitchens did live in America for a significant period of time). So their outspoken statements have no relevance to the position of atheists in America The British are far more tolerant of atheism. Most Brits are not particularly interested in religious debates on either side - but most don't hate atheists.

The political situation for atheists is very different in Britain than in America. Although we don't have official church-state separation, we are far more secularist. Many British politicians are/have simply been relatively indifferent to religion, to the point that it's sometimes quite hard to tell whether a nominally Anglican politician is a believer or an atheist (there are still debates about whether Churchill was a believer, for example.) Two of our three current party leaders are openly atheist. We have had openly atheist MPs since at least the 1880s; whereas America had its first openly atheist Congressman in 2007! Of course, even the British can have ugly intrusions from the Christian (and sometimes Muslim) Right - and there is unfortunately increasing collaboration between British and American Christian-Righties; e.g. our Cabinet Minister Iain Duncan-Smith once co-authored an article about 'compassionate conservativism' with RICK SANTORUM; I am not kidding you.

So what Dawkins has or hasn't said is not really that relevant to America.


'The same is true of winning elections, too. People who openly bash voters generally don't make much headway in politics.'


On the whole not - though some politicians seem to make a career of denouncing modern society in 'broken Britain', etc. But being an atheist doesn't mean you automatically go around bashing voters who aren't. Ed Miliband doesn't go around saying that all Christians are bad or stupid! Dawkins and Hitchens were not seeking election. Similarly, Christian politicians do not automatically go around bashing non-Christians; in the UK it's rather uncommon. Barack Obama does not bash non-Christians; Rick Santorum, and even the comparatively moderate Bush 1 did, however.


'Such PR is a means to earn votes, but I don't think it's available to people who base their views on the idea that they're smarter than everyone else.'

Atheists are no more likely to 'base their views on the idea that they're smarter than everyone else' than anybody else. Most atheists just don't believe in God; it's not a proof of cleverness. Politicians generally do have a degree of arrogance, or they wouldn't be politicians. Some hide it better than others - it doesn't have much to do with religion.

'Furthermore, it's not wrong to consider a candidate's religious views when voting.'

If, and only if, their religious views are actually impacting their policies. And even then, the same religion may have different effects. Some strongly Christian politicians have translated their faith into pacifism and social justice (e.g. Martin Luther King or Desmond Tutu); some have translated it into harshness and a desire to risk the rights of other people. It would be quite wrong, indeed a form of bigotry, to reject Santorum just because he's a Catholic! The problem with Santorum is not his religion as such, but his desire to impose a theocracy onto other people, including homophobia, restriction of reproductive rights, and at the same time savagely right-wing economic views. Similarly, some atheists will translate their lack of belief into a general social tolerance; others may substitute a different intolerant ideology (from Randianism to Stalinism) for a belief in a God; and the majority will be decent or nasty people without much relevance to their nonbeliefs.'

'Beliefs about God lay the groundwork for people's views on a whole host social and political issues, and I doubt many atheists would disagree with me on that point.'

Not necessarily. They CAN lay such groundwork - but often they don't. Some admitted atheists (e.g. Norman Tebbit or Simon Heffer) have precisely the same social and political views as a Christian right-winger, and may explicitly say that they don't believe in God but support Christian traditions because they can be used in the cause of social - and often economic - conservativism. Some Catholic politicians are pro-choice liberals - e.g. the late Ted Kennedy; some are right-wing theocrats like Rick Santorum. One should look at people's policies when voting, not their beliefs as such.

I agree that atheists are not on the whole PERSECUTED in America. Persecution implies actual or threatened violence. But discrimination can occur well short of true persecution.


Edit: correcting a mistake - Hitchens did become an American citizen. This still does not justify punishing American atheists politically for Hitchens' rudeness.