Should Atheists Be Allowed to Publish?

It still surprises me how often critics of atheism express the desire or simply the attitude that atheists shouldn't be able to publish or publicly express their criticisms of religion and theism at all. It shouldn't surprise, given how many treat any sort of public, uanpologetic critiques of religion as "intolerance," but few such believers will take the next step and even hint at a desire that the public square be free from atheism. That desire does exist, however, and we can find apologists who are willing to make their position clear.

Besides Hitchens' book, which has dominated nonfiction bestseller charts for months, there's the popular "Letter to a Christian Nation" by atheist author Sam Harris, sequel to his earlier tome "The End of Faith," and Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" – all New York Times bestsellers.

Then there are other hot titles: "God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist" by Victor J. Stenger. "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" by Daniel C. Dennett. "Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism" by David Mills. And so on. ...

"How can this be?," you might wonder. "Hasn't America always been a Christian nation?"

Source: World Net Daily

David Kupelian's question is a curious one and his intention behind it depends a lot on what he means by "Christian Nation." If he simply means that most people in America are Christian, then he is expressing surprise that so many Christians would be buying books by atheists about atheism. Why would that be surprising, though? Could he really assume that Christians would only be interested in books written by Christians and defending Christianity?

That, however, is not what conservative Christians mean by the term "Christian Nation." When they insist that America was founded as a "Christian Nation," what they mean is that America's laws, government, culture, and public institutions are supposed to have a fundamentally Christian character, should be based on Christian assumptions, exist to promote Christian beliefs, and should therefore prefer Christian ideas, Christian citizens, and Christian leaders above all others.

What could David Kupelian's question mean under such an understanding of "Christian Nation"? The most natural reading to me is that he's surprised or concerned that atheist books could get published, get sold, and get popular in a nation where the law, culture, and public institutions are Christian in nature. Church publishing houses would never publish these books, so why are other publishers doing it? Churches wouldn't sell these books, so why are other outlets doing it?

No question about it. America was founded by Christians. Its very purpose for being was the furtherance of biblical Christianity, according to the Pilgrims and succeeding generations.

Legally and politically, the "founding" document for America is the Constitution. Most of the signers were indeed Christians, though few if any were the sort of Christians which conservative evangelicals would accept or recognize as legitimately Christian today. Many held rather deistic beliefs which were a bit unorthodox even for their own era and which would be flatly rejected as legitimate by many today — including more than a few moderate and liberal Christians.

If there is a tiny amount of unintended truth in David Kupelian's first statement, there's absolutely no truth in his second: there is nothing in the Constitution about it's purpose being "the furtherance of biblical Christianity." The opinions of the Pilgrims and other early colonists are irrelevant because they had no say in the creation or adoption of the Constitution. If David Kupelian has to grasp at straws by reaching to the opinions of people whose perspectives simply aren’t relevant to his thesis, then it's legitimate to consider that he might know very well that what he's saying is false.

Today, however, many of us are infatuated with outright, outraged, full-bore atheism. Almost half of Americans – 45 percent according to a recent Gallup poll – say they'd be willing to vote for an atheist for president of the United States.

If David Kupelian's anti-atheist bigotry weren't already clear, he makes sure everyone knows where he stands by expressing horror at the fact that nearly half of Americans aren't as bigoted as he is and wouldn't refuse to vote for a person merely because they happen to be an atheist. Imagine if he had expressed similar horror at the idea of nearly half of Americans being willing to vote for a black person or a Jew. Far more people would in fact be willing to vote for such people, but that level of bigotry might be enough to get David Kupelian dumped from even a publication like World Net Daily. Such Bigotry against atheists, though, is acceptable — and perhaps even favored in publications like this.

Dawkins, the charismatic evolutionist-author, is even selling young people "Scarlet Letter" tee-shirts with a giant "A" – for "Atheist" – on his website (and bumper stickers too). Somehow, atheism – just like homosexuality, which used to be considered shameful and something to hide – is now becoming hip, sophisticated, even a badge of honor.

Not only is it terrible that so many Americans aren't bigoted enough against atheists, but it's also terrible that atheists themselves don't have the good sense to be ashamed of their atheism. In a "Christian Nation" like America, atheists should hide their atheism — and perhaps even be forced through social pressure or laws to do so — because atheism is a shameful thing. If more people treated atheism as shameful, not only would there not be so many books defending atheism, but there could be more bigotry against atheists and it would be easier for bigots like David Kupelian in even more venues.

This, of course, is why it's so important for atheists to be public, unapologetic, and unashamed about their atheism. It's also why so-called "militant" atheism probably does more good than harm, exactly the opposite of what "liberal" religious believers keep trying to tell us. What they call "militant" is simply being unafraid to say what we think and to take step based on what we believe, exactly the same sort of freedom which religious believers have enjoyed for... well, forever.

I won't get into all of the pseudo-explanations which David Kupelian offers for why atheism is receiving more attention today. Suffice it to say that Kupelian demonstrates far more knowledge of other bigots' favorite myths and misrepresentations of atheists than he does of what atheism really is. That's not really a surprise, is it?

One point which does bear mentioning is how he goes off on a tangent and brings evolution into the mix:

Evolution, of course, is a key battleground for all of atheism's champions. ...evolution is a religion, full of incredible and unproven beliefs about man's origin, and by logical extension his destiny, and even his very nature. Any theory/philosophy – especially an unprovable one – having to do with explaining the origin, destiny and nature of man is, by definition, religious. If you don't get that, you're not thinking. ...whatever else evolution may be, the driving force behind it today is the same as it has always been – a way to deny God's existence.

This is emblematic of how religion can cause a person to deny reality, regardless of how much evidence there is or how easy it is to demonstrate the truth of what reality really is. Everything David Kupelian writes in the above is false, but it's all necessary in order for Kupelian to argue for his preferred religious ideology. That's what it's all about, after all. It's why people like this consistently repeat so many falsehoods about politics, history, secularism, atheism, science, and so forth: they only interest is in making the world safe for their false dogmas. Anything done in the service of those dogmas is a virtue; anything which might contradict or undermine confidence in those dogmas is a sin.