Unbelievers on the march

A few days ago I noticed that an atheist by the name of B. A. Robinson had quoted me as a specimen of religious intolerance.

The first thing I’d like to do is to commend Robinson for his reading habits. I’m grateful that the Lord sent him to Triablogue. And there are a number of other Christian blogs and websites I’d be happy to recommend for his spiritual edification.

I’d also encourage Robinson to quote me more extensively. Indeed, he’s more than welcome to reproduce the entire content of Triablogue over at religioustolerance.org.

While we’re on the subject, I’ll quote and comment on some things which he and Robert Mettetal have written. The first two excerpts are from Robinson, and the third from Mettetal.

***QUOTE***

There exists massive discrimination against Atheists in the U.S.

Another reasons for this discrimination is the common belief that a person cannot be motivated to lead a moral life unless they hope for the reward of heaven, and fear the punishment of Hell. In the past, this belief has been codified into law.

***********************************

Although adults in North America exhibit reasonable tolerance towards persons of different Christian denominations and other organized religions, this acceptance does not necessarily extend to Atheists. Some older surveys published in the 1980's, showed that almost 70% of Americans agreed that freedom of religion applies "to all religious groups, regardless of how extreme their ideas are." But only 26% agreed that Atheists should be given freedom of speech to ridicule religion and God, "no matter who might be offended." 71% believed that Atheists "who preach against God and religion" should not be permitted to use civic auditoriums i.e. lecture halls supported by general taxation.

This is a serious concern to many non-Christians -- one which has every likelihood of becoming more intense in the future, because of the rapid change in the religious makeup of the U.S. Polling data from the 2001 ARIS study has revealed that the percentage of American adults who do not follow any organized religion has almost doubled from 1990 to 2001. Their number has increased from 8% to 14% of the adult population. Many of the latter are Atheists, Agnostics, Non-believers etc. Many American adults -- 81% of whom identify with a specific religion -- are probably unwilling to extend elementary freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly to this growing minority of fellow Americans.

The ARIS study also showed that the number of American adults who identify themselves as Christians has slid from 86% to 76% over the same interval -- a loss of almost 1 percentage point per year. This could promote a siege philosophy among some Christians, and increase their fears of a growing influence by non-believers.

Born-again Christians in particular seem to have a very negative belief about Atheists. In a 1995 survey by Barna Research, 92% of them viewed Atheism as having a negative impact on society. However, only 50% of non-Christians view the impact of Atheists as negative.

A common thread running through the writings of many conservative Christians is that all people, including Atheists, are aware of God's existence.

From the hundreds of conversations that we have had with Atheists via Email and face-to-face meetings, we have concluded that Atheists generally do not feel that they are suppressing any personal belief in God. They truly believe that they can detect no evidence for the existence of God, Satan or any other supernatural entity. Many find it difficult to understand how others can believe in God, without any convincing data to support that belief.

Of course, Christians are Theists. Many pray to God and believe that their prayers are answered. They believe that they see God taking an active role in their life. Many use phrases such as "their daily walk with Christ." They often find it difficult to understand how anyone can refuse to acknowledge God's presence. This mindset may well lead them to conclude that Atheists are "faking it."

Many conservative Christians state that Atheists reject God because of an ulterior motive: If Atheists were to accept God's existence, then they would have to yield to God's criticism of their immoral behavior, and adopt a higher moral standard to govern their lives. We have see numerous references to this conviction published on the Internet and broadcast over conservative Christian radio programs.

***************************************

Although an atheist myself, I have always believed that most religious beliefs are generally good, and that they only cross the line into immorality when they are used to justify intolerance and hatred. The Bible itself may urge intolerance, but most Christians and Jews are better than the Bible they believe in, and they respect the rights of their neighbors to believe whatever they wish. Those who urge intolerance, perhaps even to the extent of violence, are in the minority among believers, and in the extreme minority among clergymen.

This tolerance frequently doesn't extend itself to atheism, however. Often, a Christian can't fathom how an atheist can have morals that aren't grounded in Biblical teachings. They overlook, of course, the fact that the concept of morality was explored by such Pagans as Plato, Socrates, and other philosophers from this era in Greek history. Morality comes from within, not from without. People have a natural antipathy towards killing, stealing, and other such immoral acts, dictated to them by what is commonly referred to as the conscience. It's not fear of damnation that makes a criminal confess; it's guilt. Guilt is a natural feeling that goes through a man when he realizes he has done something morally wrong.

Atheists, except for the bravest and boldest of us, are afraid to tell people that they are atheists, for fear of the millions of devout Christians in this country who think they are immoral and on the road to hell. Certainly, some of us are immoral (Stalin was an atheist), but so are some Christians (Hitler was a Catholic). It's unfair to judge someone based solely on their particular beliefs regarding the existence of a deity.

There are two sides to this coin, however. Many atheists have responded to Christian intolerance with equal intolerance towards the Christians. Atheists have been known to refer to Christians as "hopelessly deluded," along with several other uncomplimentary names. Madalyn Murray O'Hair and Jon Garth Murray in their "FAQs About Atheism" describe religious beliefs as "old, silly ideas that we should have abandoned by now." 1 They also do not capitalize the names of any religions, God, or the name of Jesus Christ, which is simply an open act of disrespect.

It should be noted that they also say (supposedly speaking for all atheists) that God "was never anything other than a fictional idea," suggesting that atheists actively disbelieve in God. Many atheists, however, simply refuse to believe in God, but don't go so far as to disbelieve in Him.

It seems like most of the atheists who speak out (rather than hide) hold beliefs like these. When they make their atheism public, they seem to immediately go on the offensive, attacking the beliefs of Christians before they can attack their disbeliefs. The entire FAQ referred to above seems more like one long treatise against Christianity than an explanation of atheism.

My point here is that if we atheists expect to be treated with respect by Christians, we have got to treat them with respect too. We say that we want the right to believe whatever we want without fear of discrimination. Well, if we expect to get that right, we have to practice what we preach: tolerance.

***END-QUOTE***

By way of comment:

i) Robinson says that atheists in America suffer massive discrimination. He doesn’t give us any statistics to substantiate his allegation.

Perhaps, though, the best evidence of this allegation is the demontrable fact that atheists are disproportionately represented in high-end jobs in the media, academia, and judiciary, as well as high-end real estate along the East and West Coast. I can certainly sympathize with the plight of a Hollywood director who has to scrape by on a fixed, 8-digit income in the slums and ghettoes of Malibu or Laguna Beach.

Clearly the American Humanist Association should lobby Congress to enact a vigorous affirmative action program to rectify this massive discrimination and ensure a demographically equitable representation of atheistic janitors and garbage collectors. Distributive justice demands no less.

ii) At the same time I must question his projections. As James Taranto has often said about the “Roe Effect,” children generally inherit their political views from their parents. In addition, it’s the baby-butchers who practice abortion while prolifers refrain from abortion. This means that prolifers generally have larger families, and generally pass along their conservative values to their kids.

Moreover, Mexican immigrants constitute an increasingly large share of the American electorate. While Mexicans tend to be politically pro-Democrat, they also tend to be socially pro-GOP. And it is likely, over time, that they will trend towards the GOP.

iii) Furthermore, it’s the secular liberals, and not the Bible-thumpers, who have enacted speech-codes and hate-speech laws. It’s the ACLU which litigates in favor of prior restraint and content discrimination whenever the subject-matter is Christian.

iv) As to “the common belief that a person cannot be motivated to lead a moral life unless they hope for the reward of heaven, and fear the punishment of Hell,” Calvinism maintains that due to natural revelation and common grace, it is possible for an unbeliever to retain a modicum of common sense and common decency.

On the other hand, when we see a post-Christian culture offering profanity, obscenity, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia as the preferred alternative to Christian ethics, it does rather suggest that the popular opinion about moral motives and ethical incentives has more than a grain of truth to its credit.

v) Naturally we wouldn’t expect the average atheist to admit that he’s suppressing the knowledge of God, anymore than we’d expect the average suicide bomber to admit that he’s smuggling an explosive device on board the airplane.

However, we do find atheists going to hysterical lengths to suppress any public or even private expression of the Christian faith—which is rather paranoid if they don’t believe in God and hate God at some level.

vi) If guilt is a merely natural feeling, and we’re aware that it’s only a natural feeling, then we are at liberty to override our natural programming. What, after all, do we owe to nature?

vii) Is the Bible intolerant of unbelievers? The Mosaic Law didn’t expect unbelievers to act like believers. Indeed, resident aliens were forbidden from participating in the religious life of Israel unless they underwent conversion.

The Mosaic Law did not punish unbelief. What it did punish were certain public expressions of unbelief, such as child sacrifice and cultic child prostitution. Yep, pretty intolerant!

viii) It is true that unbelievers feel threatened by believers, and believers by unbelievers.

On paper, Christian Americans hold all the high cards. On paper, the Constitution safeguards Christian freedom of expression. On paper, our form of gov’t enshrines popular sovereignty. And Christians outnumber unbelievers by maybe 10-1.

And yet, Robert Mettetal rightly observes that, despite this, most Christians take a live and let-live attitude towards their unbelieving neighbors.

And we are rewarded for our tolerance by having unbelievers try to treat the majority as a despised minority and deny us our rights.

Unbelievers constantly repair to the courts to get liberal judges to strike down acts of Congress and popular referenda. Anything to thwart the will of the electorate and subvert the democratic process.

Unbelievers defy the free exercise clause. They twist the establishment clause into a disestablishment clause, although several of the states had established church both before and after the Constitution was ratified. They penalize freedom of speech as a hate-crime. They defy the freedom of assembly. They defy the 2nd Amendment. They pretend to find a right of abortion in the 4th Amendment, and strike down a conscience clause for Christian physicians. They deny parental consent or even parental notification. From “emanations and penumbras,” they find a right of sodomy in the Constitution, although all 13 colonies which ratified the Constitution had anti-sodomy laws on the books, and the 14th Amendment was only concerned with the voting rights of ex-slaves. In the meantime, they expand the right of eminent domain in the teeth of the 4th amendment. They force Christians to subsidize public schools without allowing them any say on the curriculum—even though we’re footing the lion’s share of the tab. They deny the civil rights of the citizenry while awarding civil rights to illegal aliens and terrorists. They deny equal rights to Christians while according special rights to their social mascots.

Unbelievers try to ban Christmas trees from the public square, Christmas carols from the shopping mall, Christian films from the movie-theater, and Christian prayer from the schoolhouse, the courthouse, the House of Representatives, home Bible studies, and the chaplaincy of the armed forces.

The list goes on and on and on.

The unbelievers win more often than they lose, but they win by cheating. As a result, every time they win something, they lose something. They win by alienating public opinion and eroding popular support.

We wouldn’t have such a polarized, red state/blue state divide were it not for these iron-fisted tactics. Believers can live side-by-side unbelievers, but unbelievers cannot abide believers.