Persecuted anti-theists?

I recently came across a well-argued post calling out American Christians to stop viewing atheists as immoral fools.


Why Christians Should Stand Up for Atheists

Freedom3I have just spent several hours talking with atheists on one of the blogs here at Patheos. This wasn’t my first time talking with atheists, but this conversation was particularly illuminating and, for the most part, respectful. Several members of this community welcomed me, despite the fact that they disagree profoundly with me. I am grateful for this. This community shared experiences and raised some very thought-provoking questions.

I came away from this conversation challenged that I need to do more to stand up for the rights of atheists (and those of other religions) here in the United States. Not because I agree with them on God and theology, but because they are human beings who deserve respect. Because when we stand up for someone else’s rights, we are appropriately loving our neighbor and treating them as we would want to be treated.

One thing that atheists (and those of other religions) rightly criticize in America is that there is a profound Christian religious privilege that is present here. If you are a Christian, this might not seem like a problem. Or you may be so steeped in religious privilege that you think the predominant mood of America toward Christians is one of persecution. You may even view attempts to level the playing field as being such persecution.

I don’t mind that there are a lot of Christians here in America. If they act like Christians, I think it’s great! In fact, I wish everybody was a Christian. But what I do object to is the wielding of power and dominance over others. I object to the confusion of the two kingdoms–the kingdoms of God’s left and right hand. I object to the idea that we can force everybody out there to conform to our beliefs.

I have argued previously that the Christian worldview as taught by the New Testament is not built on power, but on servanthood. While Christians are free to seek political power in order to serve their neighbor, they are not to seek it to benefit and serve themselves. Not only are attempts to wield power and dominance over others fundamentally unlike the Christ we serve, but they are also a terrible stumbling block to those who are not Christians. Do we want to witness to the saving power of Christ who is strong in our weakness? Then why have we bought into a model that claims earthly power a la James and John (Mark 10)? Why have we begun to believe the lie that our struggle is against flesh and blood, after all (see Ephesians 6)?

And why do we make atheists and those of other religions actually afraid for their lives when they ask for the same freedoms we want for ourselves and our families? I am told that the joke in the atheist community when they challenge our bastions of Christian political power and privilege is, “Cue the death threats.” Now, I understand that most Christians would not make death threats against atheists, but do we enable those who do by failing to call them out? Do we contribute to a hostile, snide, unloving atmosphere of discourse in our country when we tell them their issues with us are merely their perception of Christians rather than acknowledging that we have some serious problems in our community? Do we value those loud, obnoxious voices who are more interested in “sticking it to” somebody they disagree with than treating them with love and respect (I’m looking at you, Matt Walsh, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter)? Are we willing to listen and learn?

I feel blessed to have met these atheists. I don’t agree with them on faith, but I agree with them on the need to treat each other with respect. I agree with them that we need to make room for people who believe differently. Those differences in belief are crucial and important. I’m not about to give up my wish (and even prayer) that everybody come to faith in Jesus. But I am totally willing to give up my “right” to force everybody to be or act like a Christian.

So, how can we stand up for our atheist friends?

We can defend the child who is serious enough about his beliefs that he won’t “fake it” and stand up for the part of the Pledge of Allegiance that says “one nation under God.” We can stand against any instance when the government tries to establish some form of state religion. We can decry death threats against those who are speaking their beliefs, loving them enough to defend them even if we disagree profoundly with them. We can do this by considering that certain governmental expressions of religious faith may not be the greatest idea.

For example, why is it necessary that children in a secular school pledge allegiance to “one nation, under God”? Why is it necessary that schoolchildren have a time of prayer led by the teacher? If we would be willing to listen to the concerns of non-theists and those of other religions about such matters, perhaps we would find that such practices are not necessary after all and that they hinder freedom of religion for everyone–ourselves included. Perhaps we would have to acknowledge that atheists are actually persecuted in this country.

And perhaps we would discover that Christian witness is not best served by a dead, forced recitation, but by allowing freedom to flourish. Perhaps we would discover that authentic Christianity thrives when its focus is not on dominance but on service to neighbor. Maybe, every once in a while, someone who believes differently than we do would actually stop to listen to our perspective because we were willing to listen to theirs.

But even if they don’t, I ask you, which model better serves our humble Lord who emptied Himself for us (Philippians 2): political dominance or service? And isn’t faithfulness to Him more important than “results” or seeing our “agenda” achieved?

American Christianity is at a crossroads these days. We can either continue with our pursuit of power at all cost, or we can release the idolatry of control, surrender ourselves into the hands of God, and humbly serve our neighbor. Doing so will certainly mean that we share our faith with our neighbor (yes, even in words!), but it will not mean that we force them into submission. Such tactics are as far from New Testament Christianity as East is from West.

EDIT on 11/8/14: Several commenters have brought up the point that it sounded like I was describing atheism as a “religion.” I addressed this a few times in the comments, but I understand not everyone has time to wade through the comments. I think a better term would be “belief system,” although I do understand that the basic belief is non-belief in the sense of “I do not believe there is evidence for the existence of God.” The intent of my statement was not to call atheism a religion, but to recognize that Christians in general sometimes have a hard time recognizing the rights of other belief or non-belief groups.

Hopefully, that is helpful.


Here is my response.

Dear Rebecca Florence, thank you so much for this marvelous post.

As a Continental European, it’s really hard for me to imagine how it must feel for someone to live along the Christian Right.
I’m really glad that most Christians and atheists discussing with each other on the Old Continent tend to be pretty respectful and can develop a friendly relationship despite some fundamental differences in their most basic beliefs.

I do believe one always ought to be respectful towards a respectful opponent ,no matter how repugnant one might find his or her ideas.

I think that we must constantly remain wary of deeply entrenched psychological mechanisms which lead all too easily to tribalism, an “us against them”-mentality and dehumanizing our adversaries.

I think that my main problem with your article consists of the fact you unwittingly tend to present “atheists” as a homogeneous group.

Of course, it’s really not the case. There are many different types of Christians, Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, pantheists, deists and atheist out there.
A SMALL subpart of atheists are anti-theists, i.e. people who believe that all religions ought to disappear.

Having spent countless hours interacting with these folks and their writings, I can truly say they’re no better than nasty religious fundamentalists. (Interestingly enough, in an American context anti-theists often tend to be former fundies ).
They see the Bible in a perfectly binary manner like fundamentalists, and for some of them the presence of atrocities in one text justifies burning the whole book , i.e. also the writings of many completely unrelated authors.

The New Atheists (I use this phrase interchangeably with anti-theists) explicitely advocate the use of emotional bullying, ridicule and mockery against religious persons.

They sometimes even have a cult-like thinking and keep falling prey to binary thinking.

A great number of people present on their forums and blogs are driven by the same kind of hatred which motivates European far right people.

Let me be clear about this. I do believe there are great and respectful atheists out there. ( Here is a good example).

I hate hearing Conservative Christians asserting that atheists (in general) are immoral fools and I if I have the opportunity, I step in against this kind of vicious and groundless attacks .

I do affirm that many atheists are good people, and I believe that many of them dying as unbelievers will accept God’s invitation on the other side of the grave.
I am yearning for a society full of compassionate and humble persons who manage to remain courteous and polite while not denying their convictions.
I congratulate you for being an excellent rule model in that respect.

But we cannot say,in general, that Christians in America are the oppressors whereas atheist are the victims.
No, this country of yours is going through a terrible culture war where one can find assholes and individuals of good will in the different camps.

I see a vicious circle of hatred going on which is very similar to racial tensions in modern France .
It’s vital for everyone to recognize that all atheists and theists are not the same, and that our just anger should be reserved for self-righteous bigots who are the powder keeping alive the fire of the culture war.

I do speak up for the right of anyone to loudly proclaim their metaphysical convictions without having to fear any kind of discrimination.
But I will never encourage groups of people who are driven by hatred and the self-righteous desire to feel superior to all the rest of us.

Lovely greetings in Christ.

Thematic list of ALL posts on this blog (regularly updated)

My other blog on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)

10 thoughts on “Persecuted anti-theists?

  1. Might you have ever considered that Rebecca was actually talking to these baby-eating New Atheists without once being subject to emotional bullying, ridicule, mockery and hatred?

    Now how can that possibly be?

    It couldn’t be because your entrenched beliefs about New Atheists as a group might be wrong, of course.

    No, no, no… impossible.

      • So are most New Atheists, as I’ve said repeatedly… tolerant but highly critical. You seem to think the two cannot conceivably be mutual but the fact is that this is lived every day by most New Atheists. I don’t know any New Atheists who aren’t also very fond, tolerant, and welcoming of friends – even best of frends and spouses who are quite religious. Your sense of intolerance exercised by New Atheists is for respecting the beliefs themselves, and this is what New Atheists do not tolerate: granting pseudo-respect to really bad ideas like religion out of some misplaced sense of tolerance. The mockery and ridicule you’re so terrified of is for these ideas and not the basic worth and value of the people who hold them.

        • The mockery and ridicule you’re so terrified of is for these ideas and not the basic worth and value of the people who hold them.

          Let’s be clear: is “mockery and ridicule” a form of emotional manipulation, or not? After all, you just said:

          tildeb: Might you have ever considered that Rebecca was actually talking to these baby-eating New Atheists without once being subject to emotional bullying, ridicule, mockery and hatred?

          So on the one hand mockery and ridicule are bad and New Atheists don’t do them, and on the other hand they’re completely legitimate? It’s like you think you can call a person’s most deeply held beliefs stupid, without calling the person stupid.

          • In other words, Lab, mockery and ridicule are a legitimate response to ridiculous and absurd ideas held to be immutable from legitimate criticism. The idea of this was laid by Dawkins when faced by an individual who insisted wafers turn into flesh and wine into blood. These ideas are ridiculous and absurd and, when held to be immutable by a faithful Catholic should be met by ridicule and mockery because the ideas themselves are beyond reason, beyond reality’s unequivocal arbitration of them as factually and demonstrably incorrect. From this, Marc has assumed incorrectly that ridicule and mockery of all religious beliefs are somehow the only responses available to the New Atheist.

            I keep trying to correct him to little effect. And yes, some deeply held beliefs are quite stupid in that they are obviously wrong and demonstrably so. The person holding those beliefs is not stupid for doing so; it is the beliefs that are stupidly held. The stupid goes away when the belief does. They are directly linked.

          • In other words, Lab, mockery and ridicule are a legitimate response to ridiculous and absurd ideas held to be immutable from legitimate criticism.

            Yes, of course ideas you find “ridiculous and absurd” are the ones that are legitimately responded to by ridicule and mockery. And then, when the standard of “ridiculous and absurd” changes, as it always does, what is legitimately responded to by ridicule and mockery will change. At a point in the past, atheism itself was legitimately responded to by ridicule and mockery. Round and round the merry wheel goes.

            From this, Marc has assumed incorrectly that ridicule and mockery of all religious beliefs are somehow the only responses available to the New Atheist.

            I don’t see how this logically follows from what he has actually said. You seem to lack sufficient targets for “ridicule and mockery”, and so are driven to invent new ones. Generally, this is called “attacking straw men”.

            The person holding those beliefs is not stupid for doing so; it is the beliefs that are stupidly held.

            You could be a Christian apologist with that logic. A person is not stupid for holding beliefs which are “obviously wrong and demonstrable so”; instead, such beliefs are stupidly held, but not stupidly held by the person. Instead, those beliefs are stupidly held by some non-entity. Right.

          • Again Lab, you seem determined to argue what otherwise should be self-evident: believing wafers turn into flesh is not the kind of belief that is subject to the same kind of vagaries of beliefs that come under the today-it’s-true-but-tomorrow-it-may-not heading. It is a ridiculous and absurd belief today because there is exactly zero evidence in its favour. It will remain as a ridiculous and absurd belief tomorrow as it was yesterday. That’s why it’s deserving only of mockery through ridicule. Pretending to respect the belief because it is deeply held doesn’t change the fact that the belief has no basis of justification from reality. And that fact reveals just how dysfunctional it is to offer up respect for claims about reality and how it operates based on the ‘depth’ of that belief. Depth of belief is not an indicator of truth value for justifying the claim; evidence for it’s veracity is.

            You’ll figure this difference out eventually, I believe… deeply.

          • Nope, I’m not arguing about what you are allowed to consider “ridiculous and absurd”. I think you should be allowed to think whatever you want on that matter. I’m criticizing the justification that provides you to employ emotional manipulation in the name of rationality. One can respect an idea and criticize it without mocking and ridiculing it. What Dawkins and you are doing is rationalizing your emotional outbursts. It’s ok because you’re on the side of Truth. Where have I heard that kind of rationalization before?

  2. I really enjoyed reading this. I have been on some anti-theist blogs and I was surprised how vehemently they defended ridicule of Christians. Yet at the same time the person acted surprised and saddened that the people whose beliefs he ridiculed did not want to visit with him.

    But also I agree we as Christians should stand up more often against Christians who take it upon themselves to threaten people of different beliefs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s