 Today's
debate: "The Role of Faith in the Public Sphere"
YouTube - Christopher Hitchens: The Moral Necessity of Atheism
...
10 min - Sep 8, 2007
A lecture by Christopher Hitchens about how
atheism (and anti-theism) is not only a healthy belief system but a
moral necessity.
Election 2012: Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum & Barack Obama respectively.
ISSUE: So where does religion exactly begin and end?
 
Excerpt from Dinesh D’Souza’s What’s So Great About Christianity
MIS-EDUCATING THE YOUNG: SAVING CHILDREN FROM THEIR PARENTS
"Isn't it always a form of child abuse to label children as possessors of
beliefs that they are too young to have thought about?”
- Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
IT SEEMS THAT ATHEISTS are not content with committing cultural suicide-they
want to take your children with them. The atheist strategy can be described
in this way: let the religious people breed
them, and we will educate them to despise their parents' beliefs. So the
secularization of the minds of our young people is not, as many think, the
inevitable consequence of learning and maturing. Rather, it is to a large
degree orchestrated by teachers and professors to promote antireligious
agendas.
Consider a timely example of how this works. In recent years some parents
and school boards have asked that public schools teach alternatives to
Darwinian evolution. These efforts sparked a powerful outcry from the
scientific and non-believing community. Defenders of evolution accuse the
offending parents and school boards of retarding the acquisition of
scientific knowledge in the name of religion. The Economist editorialized
that "Darwinism has enemies mostly because it is not compatible with a
literal interpretation of the book of Genesis."
This may be so, but doesn't Darwinism have friends and supporters mostly
for the same reason? Consider the alternative: the Darwinists are merely
standing up for science. But surveys show that the vast majority of young
people in America today are scientifically illiterate, widely ignorant of
all aspects of science.' How many high school graduates could tell you the
meaning of Einstein's famous equation? Lots of young people don't have a
clue about photosynthesis or Boyle's Law. So why isn't there a political
movement to fight for the teaching of photosynthesis? Why isn't the ACLU
filing lawsuits on behalf of Boyle's Law?
The answer is clear. For the defenders of Darwinism, no less than for its
critics, religion is the issue.
If religion is so bad, what should be done about it? It should be
eradicated.
But how should religion be eliminated? Our atheist educators have a short
answer: through the power of science.
By abolishing all transcendent or supernatural truths, science can establish
itself as the only source of truth, our only access to reality.
How is all this to be achieved? The answer is simple: through indoctrination
in the schools.
Consider a practical example of how this works. In his famous PBS program
Cosmos, astronomer Carl Sagan developed the trademark slogan "The cosmos is
all there is or ever was or ever will be." Sagan's implication was clear:
the natural is all that exists, and there is simply no supernatural. This
was presented not as a metaphysical claim but as the authoritative finding
of science.
But at least it was presented to adults, who could evaluate Sagan's
arguments and make up their own minds. Pretty soon Sagan's doctrine could
be found in children's books. One, The Berenstain Bears' Nature Guide,
features the bears going on a stroll through the woods. Emblazoned on the
page featuring a beautiful scene is the ideological message, "Nature is all
that IS, or WAS, or EVER WILL BE."
The effect of all this indoctrination, leading advocates of atheism argue,
is
not that religion will disappear but that it will cease to matter.
The strategy is not to argue with religious views or to prove them wrong.
Rather, it is to subject them to such scorn that they are pushed outside the
bounds of acceptable debate. This strategy is effective because young
people who go to good colleges are extremely eager to learn what it means to
be an educated Harvard man or Stanford woman. Consequently their teachers
can very easily steer them to think a certain way merely by making that
point of view seem fashionable and enlightened. Similarly, teachers can
pressure students to abandon what their parents taught them simply by
labeling those positions simplistic and unsophisticated.
A second strategy commonly used to promote atheism on campus utilizes the
vehicle of adolescent sexuality. Against the power of religion, one
champion of agnosticism told me, "we employ an equal if not greater
power-the power of the hormones." Atheism is promoted as a means for young
people to liberate themselves from moral constraint and indulge their
appetites. Religion, in this framework, is portrayed as a form of sexual
repression.
Children spend the majority of their waking hours in school. Parents invest
a good portion of their life savings in college education to entrust their
offspring to people who are supposed to educate them. Isn't it wonderful
that educators have figured out a way to make parents the instruments of
their own undoing? Isn't it brilliant that they have persuaded Christian
moms and dads to finance the destruction of their own beliefs and values?
Who said atheists weren't clever?
The role of religion in American History:
 SOURCE 1: Howard Fineman's
The Thirteen American Arguments, Ch. 3: "The Role of Faith"
T
he
land
we
live
on
was
claimed
in
God's
name,
but
the
world's
first officially
secular
government
sits
on
it. We
invoked
God
in making
our
Declaration
of
Independence,
but
not
in
our
governing
authority,
the Constitution.
Only
one
clergyman
signed
the
former;
none
the
latter.
Yet
we are
among
the
world's
most
devout
people;
most
of us
see
the
Bible
as
literal
truth,
the
Word
of God.
We
base
our nationhood
on the
unalienable
rights
the
Creator
bestowed
upon
all
of mankind.
So
what
role
should
He
play
in
our
public
life?
Faith
and
its traditions
and institutions
can
strengthen
society's
social fabric,
and
amplify
its
commitment
to family
and
justice.
But
if
the
Word
rules all,
the
faithful
are
duty
bound
to spread--yea,
even enforce--it.
The
result:
sectarian
crusades
in
secular
realms.
Some
are
noble
(abolition
or
the
bioethics
movement),
but
some
foment
intolerance
(the
anti-Catholic
Know-Nothings,
the
ravings
of
Louis
Farrakhan),
or warp
scientific
inquiry,
public
education,
and
foreign
policy.
Vve
are
one
country,
yet
forever
torn
between
two
methods
of understanding,
Revelation
and
Reason,
and two
sacred
texts,
the
Bible
and the
Constitution.
Of
all
the
arguments
that define
us none
is
more
vexing-alternately
troubling
and
inspiring-than
the
one
we
had
for
four
centuries
over
the
role
of faith.
Look ing
back, it
is clear
that
it is
our
destiny
to
argue
about
faith
in public
life.
History
makes
us
do
it.
O ne
reason
is the
centrality
of the
Bible--not
just
what
it contains,
but the
fact
of
its
new,
wide availability
at the
time of
our founding.
Our
earliest
seventeenth-century
settlers
arrived
with Reformation
ideas.
They came
bearing
new
ways
of thinking
and guiding
their lives
created
by
post-Gutenberg
technology
(the
movable-type
printing
press)
and
individualistic,
post-Martin
Luther
theology.
To these
early
Protestants,
and for
those
who
came here
over
the
next two
centuries,
the
Bible-not
popes,
prelates,
or
princes-was
the
arbiter
of morality
and
the
road
map to
heaven.
What's
more,
it
was within
the
power
and
the
ken
of
any
mortal
to
read
it and
interpret
it
for
himself.
He
could
and
did
go forth
into the
New World
to
seek
its riches
and
master
its
dangers
with
a
rifle,
an
ax,
and
a
Bible.
"Those
who
believe
that
knowledge
of God
comes
direct
to them
through
the study
of the
Holy
Writ,"
observes
historian
Paul
Johnson
"read
the
Bible
for
themselves,
assiduously,
daily.
The
authority
lay
in the
Bible,
not
the
minister."
Th e
result
was a
uniquely
American
invention:
a lively,
supply-side
marketplace
of religion.
"The
direct
apprehension
of the word
of God,"
writes
Johnson,
was a formula
for dissent-"for
a
Babel
of conflicting
voices."
Diverse
faith
was, and is,
like
the
energy
from
splitting
the
atom.
"Nowhere
else
in
Christendom
was
religion
so fragmented,"
writes
colonial
historian
Gordon
S.
Wood.
"Yet
nowhere
was it
SQ vital."
It was all
the
more
vital
because,
in
a
New
Eden
of
America,
there
was
more
urgency
in finding
the
right
biblical
path
away
from
sin.
The
place
was pure;
the
temptations
of
freedom
were
great.
P hiladelphia,
birthplace
of our
Republic,
was known
through
most
of
the
eighteenth
century
as the
ultimate
faith-based
bazaar-site
of the
legendary,
building-packing
sermons
of George
Whitefield,
American's
first
revival
evangelist.
The
Founders
who
convened
there
in
1787
to draft
a Constitution
knew
the
history
of the
city.
They were
not
hostile
to religion;
indeed,
they
were
not
all
firmly
against
some version
of an
official
church,
if
it could
be democratically
selected.
Just t wo
years
earlier,
a committee
of the
Continental
Congress
had
come within
a
single
vote
of moving in that
direction.
Drafting
rules for
selling
land
in the
Northwest
Territory,
the
committee
voted
to allot
for
"the
maintenance
of public
schools"
one section
within
each
square
of
surveyed
squares.
Then
they
voted
to
devote
"the
section
immediately
adjoining
the
same
to the
northward
for
the support
of
religion.
Profits
arising
therefrom
in
both
instances
to be
applied
forever
according
to
the
will
of the
majority
of male
residents
of full
age
within
the same."
In
other
words,
the
public
would
pay to
"support
religion,"
presumably
by
constructing
the
church
the
locals
wanted.
T o
James
Madison's
great
relief,
the
"support
of religion"
clause
was voted
down
in the end.
"How
a regulation
so
unjust in itself,
foreign
to
the
authority
of
Congress
...
smelling
so strongly
of an antiquated
Bigotry,
could have
received
the
countenance
of
a committee
is
a matter
of astonishment,"
he
wrote
to James
Monroe.
Presbyterian
clergy,
Madison
reported,
"were
in
general
friends
of the
scheme,"
but
they
had
tempered
their
"tone, either
compelled
by the
laity
of that
sect,
or
alarmed
at the
probability
of further
interferences
of the
Legislature,
if
they
once
begin
to
dictate
in
matters
of religion."
In writing
a Constitution,
Madison
and
the
other
Founders
took
another
step
back
from
the
approach
the
Continental
Congress
had
considered.
The
idea
of a state-supported
church-even
one
democratically
chosen
by
local
elders-would
not
even
be considered.
When
it
came
time
to
draft
a
Bill
of
Rights
four
years
later,
they
hammered
home
the
point.
"Congress
shall
make
no
law,"
the
First Amendment
says,
"respecting
the
establishment
of
religion,
or
prohibiting
the
free
exercise
thereof."
The
framers
were
not
banishing
faith
from
the public
square--but
they
were
banishing
the
possibility
of
state
monopoly
in
the
market
of
creeds.
They
made
the
point
in
1796
in
another,
but
significant,
context.
In the
Treaty
of
Tripoli,
they
tried
to soothe
the
Muslim
ruler
there
by
asserting
that
"the
United
States
is
not,
in
any
sense,
founded
on the
Chris-
tian
religion."
That
wasn't
quite
right,
of
course.
We
were
set
in motion
by Christians
in the
name
of
Christian
kings.
But
after
1776,
the
kings
did
not
govern
us, and
neither
did
their
faith.
No one
faith
could.
You
could
believe
in
any
you
chose--or
in none
at
all.
Th e
fact
is that
the
focus
of the
Founders
was
what
they
thought
the country
indeed
was "founded
on
"-was
not
Christianity
per
se,
or
the
Bible,
or
at
least
the
Bible
alone.
The
focus
of
their
intellectual,
political,
and
moral
ambition
was
the world,
history
as
it
was
lived,
and
the
Enlightenment
spirit
of
inquiry
and
science.
Many
were
Deists,
skeptical
of
Christian
dogma
about
the
divinity
of
Jesus.
They
studied
Athens
and
Rome-not
Jerusalern--for
most
of
their
clues
to
the
nature
of
government.
Their
holy
trinity
was
Bume,
Locke,
and
Montesquieu.
The
decision
of
the
committee
of
the
Continental
Congress
is
a footnote
in
history,
but
a
crucial
one,
reflecting
and
foreshadowing
an
argument
for
the
ages:
T hey
concluded
that
the
only
kind
of
education
that
government
should
pay
for
is
the
kind
that
takes
place
in
a
secular
classroom.
But,
as was the
case in
1785,
it
was
always
a close
question.
In 180!,
Baptists,
a minority
in
Connecticut,
wrote
to
President
Jefferson
to
complain
that
their
state
viewed
religious
liberty
not
as an
immutable
right but
as a privilege
granted
by
the
legislature-as
"favors
granted."
In
his
famous
and
carefully
considered
reply,
Jefferson
said
nothing
about
Connecticut,
but noted
that
it
was an
"act
of
the
whole
American
people"
(the
Bill
of
Rights)
"which
declared
that
their
legislature
should
make
no
law
respecting
an
establishment
of
religion,
or prohibiting
the
free
exercise
thereof,
thus
building
a wall
of
separation
between
church
and
state."
[Does]
Jefferson's
"wall"
means
there
can.
be
no
state-sponsored
church.
But
must
it mean
no
role
for
faith
in public
life?
Pr obably
not.
Even
in his
letter,
Jefferson
seemed
to
make
the
point.
He
closed
his
"wall
of
separation
letter"
to
the
Danbury
Baptists
this
way: "I
reciprocate
your
kind prayers
for
the
protection
and
blessing
of
the
common
Father
and
creator
of
man."
However
guarded
his
words,
he
was
reciprocating
something.
Faith
and
public
life
are
not
a unity,
but
Jefferson
understood
that
here
they
are
virtually
inseparable
in
many
ways.
SOURCE 2:
Excerpt from Steven Prothero's Religious Literacy, Chapter 2:
“Religion Matters“
In 1966 Time magazine asked, on a stark, black cover reminiscent of a Victorian
funeral card, "Is God Dead?" Today, when books on spirituality crowd the
best-seller lists, God is a recurring character on television, and Jesus is big
at the box office, this question seems, well, a little European. "Is Secularism
Dead?" seems the pertinent question. Whereas redstate believers once felt
marooned in a sea of secularists, now unbelievers in the blue states feel adrift
in a sea of patriotic piety. The challenge is not to decide whether it is time
to pay our last respects to the Almighty but to figure out how anyone ever could
have imagined that God was anything other than alive and well and living in
America. Was there really a time when people actually believed that the world
was outgrowing religion?
The academic culture that produced "secularization theory," as the
social-scientific species of this prognosticating is called, is a curiously
parochial enclave, by no sights as cosmopolitan as its natives imagine, and by
no means representative of modern societies. Among academia's curiosities is the
persistent skepticism of its inhabitants, their tendency to dismiss faith as
fanaticism. Theorists who postulated the death of religion under modernity's
crush (or, at a minimum, its retreat into the closet of the private) often based
their predictions on nothing more substantial than the vague air of skepticism
they detected at the dean's sherry hour; if academia was marching away from
God-or so the logic went-the rest of the modern world would surely follow. So it
seemed safe for social scientists to ignore religion as a force in the modern
world. Religion, after all, had no force over them. When it came to truly
important matters such as politics, economy, and society, religion must be as
vestigial as the appendix; whether you had one or not didn't matter a whit
(though having one might make you deathly ill). Or so went the conventional
wisdom.
We now know that prophecies of God's death, however passionately or poetically
argued, were but fingers in the wind, measuring little more than the climate of
faith in, say, Sigmund Freud's Vienna, Jean-Paul Sartre's Paris, or the environs
of Harvard Square. Secularization theory has run aground, as grand theories
often do, on the shoals of historical facts. Today the hardcore atheist, once a
stock figure in American life, has gone the way of the freak show.
Textbook Ignorance (American Style)
High school textbooks blatantly disregard this rule, following instead Emily
Post's dictum not to discuss religion in polite company. So US high school
students learn virtually nothing about the powerful historical and contemporary
effects of religious beliefs, religious practices, religious people, and
religious institutions.
When religion is mentioned in US history schoolbooks, it is all too often an
afterthought or an embarrassment (or both) and clearly a diversion from what is
presumed throughout to be a secular story. Historian Jon Buder has called this
the jack-in-the-box approach: Religious characters pop up here and there,
typically with all of the color and substance of a circus clown, but their
appearances-prosecuting witches in Salem in the 1690s or making monkeys of
themselves at the Scopes Trial in Dayton, Tennessee, in the 1920s-are always a
surprise (or a scare), and, happily, they go back into hiding as quickly as
they emerge.
Secularists love to chuckle at evangelicals for their quaint take on American
history-for forcibly converting the Founding Fathers to Christianity and for
reading the godless Constitution as part of God's divine plan for "Christian
America." But secularists have their foibles too, including their own odd take
on American history-an interpretation enshrined, unfortunately, in all too many
history textbooks. According to this view-call it the secular myth of
America-American civilization is on the march from religion to reason,
superstition to science. "The
treatment of religion as a force in US history continues to receive short
shrift."
A Very Short History of Religion in US History
Religion mattered in North America's English colonies.
Religion mattered in the encounters of British, French, and Spanish colonists
with the Indians, and of these colonists with one another.
Religion mattered in the American Revolution too, which proceeded very
differently from France's more secular revolt. Religion mattered as well
during the early nineteenth century, when a series of social reforms swept the
country.
Religion mattered in the Civil War also.
Religion mattered as the United States expanded its empire overseas in the late
nineteenth century.
Religion mattered during World War II.
During the Cold War, of course, religious considerations were paramount.
Religion mattered as well in each of America's great waves of immigration
since, in addition to hopes and dreams, pilgrims from Ireland and Germany,
Japan and India brought to America their religious traditions.
Finally, religion mattered in the culture wars of the 1980s and beyond, which
were set off by Supreme Court decisions banning school prayer and upholding
abortion.
Reasons for Neglect
Many reasons have been offered for this not-so-benign neglect of religion in US
and world history textbooks, which appears to have begun in the 1960s and 1970s.
A desire to steer clear of controversy has already been mentioned. Another
reason is confusion about Supreme Court decisions on religion and public
education. Many teachers, parents, principals, superintendents, curriculum
committees, textbook authors, textbook publishers, and members of textbook
selection boards are simply unaware that the Court has repeatedly and explicitly
given a constitutional seal of approval to teaching about religion "when
presented objectively as part of a secular program of education."?' In fact,
many teachers wrongly believe that any mention of religion is unconstitutional.
A related reason for the silence on religion in public schools is confusion
about the crucial distinction between theology and religious studies-between
what the Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg called "the teaching of religion"
(which is unconstitutional) and "the teaching about religion" (which is nor)."
Religion has been neglected because of demands for coverage of other "new"
subjects-from women and blacks to Native Americans and Latinos. Religion has
also been squeezed our by the "back to basics" movement, by the mania for
testing (such as Massachusetts's high-stakes MCAS examinations), and by
President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" initiative. In each of these cases an
emphasis on so-called essentials has pushed to the sidelines supposed
inessentials, such as the study of religion.
Schoolbooks also tend to trivialize religion because of the secular biases of
those who write and publish them. Eurosecularity is rampant in both higher
education and the media, textbook publishing's two homes.
So perhaps Peter Berger is not all wrong; perhaps those who lord over this
country still have a bit of Sweden's secularity in them. The United States is
ruled, to be sure, from the White House, the Capitol, and the Supreme Court, and
none of these institutions is in danger of going over to the secular side any
time soon. But knowledge is power too, and textbooks have long functioned in
the United States as the scriptures of our schools.
Things were not always so. Not long ago high school textbooks were filled with
references to the living God and the resurrected Christ. They quoted freely from
the Gospel of Matthew and the five books of Moses. The truths these schoolbooks
told were religious to the core: that the United States was a chosen nation,
that good boys and girls would go to heaven, and that cleanliness was next to
godliness. You may not agree with these messages, but there is no gainsaying the
fact that this sort of education cultivated religious literacy, at least of the
Protestant sort. In fact, in the colonies and the early republic, basic literacy
and religious literacy were intimately intertwined. It was impossible to learn
how to read without learning basic facts about the Christian tradition. To
understand how we fell into the predicament we find ourselves in today, we need
to go back to this educational Eden and see how teachers and students in that
time heeded the biblical commandment to "remember."
Religion: better off
with or without?
 SOURCE 1:
A GUEST'S PERSPECTIVE: A better world without religion
By T.J. Bronson, Contributing Columnist
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The Daily Aztec
Online source: http://www.thedailyaztec.com/state_of_mind/2.6697/a_guest_s_perspective_a_better_world_without_religion-1.905581
Over the years, religion has become a giant wall between us. You may think
that political loyalties cause the divide in this country, but it’s more
often people’s faith. Lives and rights are being sacrificed, leaving only
one conclusion: The world would be a much better place without religion.
Without religion, religious wars would not exist. Religious wars have
plagued us for years, especially in the Middle East. Wars fueled by
religion surpass all others when it comes to bloodshed and hate.
Technically, Christians, Muslims and Jews all worship the same god.
But apparently, that god is telling each of them to wage war on each other
using explosives and cheap tactics.
Pause for a second. God is supposed to love everybody. So it’s very puzzling
that God would want the “creations” to be so hateful to one
another.
Whoosh! — I just erased God from the picture. All of a sudden, there’s a lot
more potential and possibility. It’s hard to deny that without
religious conflicts, there wouldn’t be such a low standard of living in the
Middle East. In fact, the Middle East would possibly be more technically
advanced than other top countries in the world. And even more important:
think of all the lives that would have been spared, and could still be
spared.
Religious war could be totally eliminated.
Religion is used as a tool to strip people of their rights. Moving
away from physical violence, religious proponents use religion as a means to
deny rights to people. A perfect and recent example was Proposition 8, which
was recently on the ballot in California, and which most of us now know
denies same-sex couples the right to get married. When asking supporters of
Proposition 8 why same-sex couples should not have the right get married
like everyone else, the majority of the time the answer is a religious
argument, saying that God defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Now, I do realize that some people are not comfortable with same-sex
marriage, but that belief is most likely because of their faith. Usually,
“discomfort” is not a good enough reason to change the state constitution.
It’s completely mind-blowing that a being that’s unproven at best and
fictional at worst can dictate the rights of others in our society. If we
took religion out of the picture, there would no longer be any argument
against the right for same-sex couples to get married, and citizens would be
equal.
People use the concept of God to create peer pressure. A friend of
mine once told me a story that made me feel both embarrassed and angry, but
not for myself. It was about why she stopped going to church. One day, when
she was much younger, she was at church, and after listening to the sermon,
of course, the time for donations came. As the plate made its way around the
room, it stopped by one woman. This woman struggled to make a living, but
she felt as if she was required to give to the church. In reality, her
donations most likely go to the nice car that “Pastor Larry” drives. This
woman was asked by her fellow churchgoers, who were obviously pressuring
her, if she was going to make a donation. She took a look into her wallet
and she had one twenty-dollar bill. Perhaps, the twenty dollars that would
get her through to her next paycheck. After a long thought process, the
woman dropped the bill onto the plate.
After witnessing this, my friend stopped attending church. This event
provides yet another reason why religion simply should not exist. It seems
the only way to be shown some love or mercy from God is if you provide the
pastor — the “middle man” — with a nice car and big house.
Religion has reared its ugly head for thousands of years. When you take the
modern examples above into consideration, you can’t help but imagine what
the world would be like without it. A few pieces of art, a few buildings or
music is not enough of an excuse to keep religion around. I would gladly
give all of that up to see more peace and to see the people of this country
acquire the proper rights, such as the right to same-sex marriage. We need
to take a leaf out of former president Ronald Reagan’s book, and “Bring down
this wall!”
There are many people who will no doubt say that God is angry with me now,
because of what I’ve pointed out here. Just remember I’m an understanding
person. I can be negotiated with. Consider that, and tell him I would be
willing to discuss this civilly over lunch any day of the week.
~T.J. Bronson was a journalism and finance junior.
Source 2:
 Atheism,
not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history
By Dinesh D'Souza
Source:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.htm
In recent months, a spate of atheist
books have argued that religion represents, as "End of Faith" author Sam
Harris puts it, "the most potent source of human conflict, past and
present."
Columnist Robert Kuttner gives the
familiar litany. "The Crusades slaughtered millions in the name of
Jesus. The Inquisition brought the torture and murder of millions more.
After Martin Luther, Christians did bloody battle with other Christians
for another three centuries."
In his bestseller "The God Delusion,"
Richard Dawkins contends that most of the world's recent conflicts - in
the Middle East, in the Balkans, in Northern Ireland, in Kashmir, and in
Sri Lanka - show the vitality of religion's murderous impulse.
The problem with this critique is that
it exaggerates the crimes attributed to religion, while ignoring the
greater crimes of secular fanaticism. The best example of religious
persecution in America is the Salem witch trials. How many people were
killed in those trials? Thousands? Hundreds? Actually, fewer than 25.
Yet the event still haunts the liberal imagination.
It is strange to witness the passion
with which some secular figures rail against the misdeeds of the
Crusaders and Inquisitors more than 500 years ago. The number sentenced
to death by the Spanish Inquisition appears to be about 10,000. Some
historians contend that an additional 100,000 died in jail due to
malnutrition or illness.
These figures are tragic, and of course
population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, they are
minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist
despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of
a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong
produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly
match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million
people.
Moreover, many of the conflicts that are
counted as "religious wars" were not fought over religion. They were
mainly fought over rival claims to territory and power. Can the wars
between England and France be called religious wars because the English
were Protestants and the French were Catholics? Hardly.
The same is true today. The
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not, at its core, a religious one. It
arises out of a dispute over self-determination and land. Hamas and the
extreme orthodox parties in Israel may advance theological claims - "God
gave us this land" and so forth - but the conflict would remain
essentially the same even without these religious motives. Ethnic
rivalry, not religion, is the source of the tension in Northern Ireland
and the Balkans. Blindly blaming religion for conflict
Yet today's atheists insist on making
religion the culprit. Consider Mr. Harris's analysis of the conflict in
Sri Lanka. "While the motivations of the Tamil Tigers are not explicitly
religious," he informs us, "they are Hindus who undoubtedly believe many
improbable things about the nature of life and death." In other words,
while the Tigers see themselves as combatants in a secular political
struggle, Harris detects a religious motive because these people happen
to be Hindu and surely there must be some underlying religious craziness
that explains their fanaticism.
Harris can go on forever in this vein.
Seeking to exonerate secularism and atheism from the horrors perpetrated
in their name, he argues that Stalinism and Maoism were in reality
"little more than a political religion." As for Nazism, "while the
hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in a predominantly secular
way, it was a direct inheritance from medieval Christianity." Indeed,
"The holocaust marked the culmination of ... two thousand years of
Christian fulminating against the Jews."
One finds the same inanities in Mr.
Dawkins's work. Don't be fooled by this rhetorical legerdemain. Dawkins
and Harris cannot explain why, if Nazism was directly descended from
medieval Christianity, medieval Christianity did not produce a Hitler.
How can a self-proclaimed atheist ideology, advanced by Hitler as a
repudiation of Christianity, be a "culmination" of 2,000 years of
Christianity? Dawkins and Harris are employing a transparent sleight of
hand that holds Christianity responsible for the crimes committed in its
name, while exonerating secularism and atheism for the greater crimes
committed in their name.
Religious fanatics have done things that
are impossible to defend, and some of them, mostly in the Muslim world,
are still performing horrors in the name of their creed. But if religion
sometimes disposes people to self-righteousness and absolutism, it also
provides a moral code that condemns the slaughter of innocents. In
particular, the moral teachings of Jesus provide no support for - indeed
they stand as a stern rebuke to - the historical injustices perpetrated
in the name of Christianity.
Atheist hubris
The crimes of atheism have generally
been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as
the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and
technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here
on earth. Of course if some people - the Jews, the landowners, the
unfit, or the handicapped - have to be eliminated in order to achieve
this utopia, this is a price the atheist tyrants and their apologists
have shown themselves quite willing to pay. Thus they confirm the truth
of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's dictum, "If God is not, everything is
permitted."
Whatever the motives for atheist
bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the
world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many
people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few
decades.
It's time to abandon the mindlessly
repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of
human conflict and violence. Atheism, not religion, is the real force
behind the mass murders of history.
|
We
are better prepared to recognize truth and falsehood if we can argue
a question pro and con. ~Aristotle
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
Excerpt
from Benjamin Franklin's comments about George Whitefield: