Why should religion be held immune from criticism, and why should the admission that one is a disbeliever be considered so disturbing? The Bush administration has supported faith-based charities—though their efficacy has not been adequately tested; it has prohibited federal funding for stem cell research; it has denied global warming; and it has imposed abstinence programs instead of promoting condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS. Much of this mischief is religiously inspired. How can we remain mute while Islam and the West are poised for a possible protracted world conflagration in the name of God?
[the charge of being outspoken is especially ludicrous for those of us who had the misfortune to live through the myths, fictions and delusions of not one but two major religions. double the dose of nonsense, loud and ever present, with one including death penalty for disbelief.]
1 comment:
The issue for me with evangelical atheism is that it always seems...shrill to me. Like Linux zealots^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hevangelists complaining about 'M$'. My reaction is the same: "uhh, ok there, no need to get excited...you go ahead and do your thing, buddy."
Is secularism really under attack? What do theists do to you in your everyday life that warrants the vitriol spewed in their direction?
Admittedly, I say this as someone who grew up in this largely secular, open society. I have never been persecuted for my choice not to have faith, let along been threatened with harm or death. But I also do not think that Canada or the US are in danger of becoming places where refusing to profess faith is a potentially bodily harmful thing to do, and treating it like we're headed that way is an overreaction that weakens the (valid!) arguments that evangelical atheism makes.
Post a Comment