Religious "moderates" and atheists
May 22, 2014 at 3:29 pm
(This post was last modified: May 22, 2014 at 4:07 pm by Mudhammam.)
I find it strange that when atheists criticize religion for the devastating effects that it has on the human psyche (particularly as it relates to fear that is unfairly placed on children and gullible adults), individual freedom (the ability to doubt and question belief free of authority and judgment), and civil liberties (when people actually get physically hurt by religious dogma), the reaction by most religious "moderates" is: "Well, that's not our religion! Those people don't represent us!" This is a peculiar defense considering that oftentimes both the "moderate" and "extremist" take the same texts to be God's word, the only difference being that one interpretation is preferred over the other based on justifications that have little to do with pure reason. Hence, it comes down to both sides essentially claiming, "I'm just right and they're just wrong!"
What strikes me about this is that most atheists seem to only exist as vocal opponents to religion because the moderates aren't doing the job of discrediting the extremists themselves. And moderates, that is your job, not ours. Take the US, for instance, where biblical fundamentalism is hardly the fringe, yet moderates pretend that it is when an atheist comes along and brands those Christian ideas for what they are--insane, childish, silly, etc. If the majority of Christians believe that God literally made the world in six days, became a human sacrifice to atone for moral error as a blood offering, and anyone who doesn't believe in this Gospel is going to hell, maybe, just maybe it's time for the moderates to disassociate themselves with this group by coining a term other than "Christian" to identify themselves? Though it's not quite drastic enough in my opinion, how about Neo-Christian? Muslims and countless other religious "moderates" would be wise to do the same, if they wish to be taken seriously, and I would hope most moderates agree with me that fundamentalists don't offer many serious ideas. Who wouldn't want to run as far away as possible from a label that history has soaked and tarnished in so much blood? Can the KKK really reform themselves as a non-racist group while maintaining the organization's name, long associated with bigotry and other backward ideas. Can Christians?
Why can't atheists and moderates agree that these religious extremists should be stigmatized and discredited when clearly no one has anything to gain by supporting or giving cover to fundamentalists, except fundamentalists. And what do THEY have to gain? Well, only open a history book and see the world that it is they wish to return to--theocracy, suppression of free thought, persecution of non-believers,"deviants," and whatnot. This is apparent when you look at the number of children who are deprived of a proper science education, trading in the joy that comes with learning about the Universe and a human history of brilliant thinkers who held dissenting views, for a worldview that is small enough to fit inside a book usually just under 2,000 pages. Do moderates really support children spending hours upon hours of the week studying this book at the cost of other, more enlightening literature? Do moderates really not want children to learn opposing views, to question their beliefs, to have the freedom to doubt?
If the answer is no, then why not support the cause of the Dawkins' or the Harris' or the Hitchens'? Because as far as I can tell, they're not trying to rid the world of religious symbols, they're trying to rid the world of religion--which means taking those symbols so literally (or seriously, depending on your views of literalism) that it effects the growth of beings IN THIS LIFE, irregardless of the next.
What strikes me about this is that most atheists seem to only exist as vocal opponents to religion because the moderates aren't doing the job of discrediting the extremists themselves. And moderates, that is your job, not ours. Take the US, for instance, where biblical fundamentalism is hardly the fringe, yet moderates pretend that it is when an atheist comes along and brands those Christian ideas for what they are--insane, childish, silly, etc. If the majority of Christians believe that God literally made the world in six days, became a human sacrifice to atone for moral error as a blood offering, and anyone who doesn't believe in this Gospel is going to hell, maybe, just maybe it's time for the moderates to disassociate themselves with this group by coining a term other than "Christian" to identify themselves? Though it's not quite drastic enough in my opinion, how about Neo-Christian? Muslims and countless other religious "moderates" would be wise to do the same, if they wish to be taken seriously, and I would hope most moderates agree with me that fundamentalists don't offer many serious ideas. Who wouldn't want to run as far away as possible from a label that history has soaked and tarnished in so much blood? Can the KKK really reform themselves as a non-racist group while maintaining the organization's name, long associated with bigotry and other backward ideas. Can Christians?
Why can't atheists and moderates agree that these religious extremists should be stigmatized and discredited when clearly no one has anything to gain by supporting or giving cover to fundamentalists, except fundamentalists. And what do THEY have to gain? Well, only open a history book and see the world that it is they wish to return to--theocracy, suppression of free thought, persecution of non-believers,"deviants," and whatnot. This is apparent when you look at the number of children who are deprived of a proper science education, trading in the joy that comes with learning about the Universe and a human history of brilliant thinkers who held dissenting views, for a worldview that is small enough to fit inside a book usually just under 2,000 pages. Do moderates really support children spending hours upon hours of the week studying this book at the cost of other, more enlightening literature? Do moderates really not want children to learn opposing views, to question their beliefs, to have the freedom to doubt?
If the answer is no, then why not support the cause of the Dawkins' or the Harris' or the Hitchens'? Because as far as I can tell, they're not trying to rid the world of religious symbols, they're trying to rid the world of religion--which means taking those symbols so literally (or seriously, depending on your views of literalism) that it effects the growth of beings IN THIS LIFE, irregardless of the next.
