The targeting of Christianity is ... at the heart of the recent push for gay marriage. The atheist left has spent decades undermining the institution of marriage. They supported no-fault divorce laws, championed welfare policies that encouraged illegitimacy, destigmatized adultery, and celebrated cohabitation. Now that they have marriage on the ropes, they seek to plunge the final knife in by pushing for same-sex marriage.

This is the fourth installment of a four part analysis and critique of Joe Sabia's article "More Church, Less State."

Hmmm... I had no idea that no-fault divorce laws, welfare, the destigmatization of adultery, and the rise in cohabitation have all been achievements of atheists. The Evil Atheist Conspiracy has certainly been effective! Our grand plans to turn the entire nation over to Satan may even be ahead of schedule by this point.

But seriously, just what color is the sky in Joe Sabia's world? Can he sincerely believe that no theists and no Christians have defended no-fault divorce laws or many recent welfare policies? Does he genuinely think that no theists and no Christians have decided that cohabitation isn't always and necessarily a bad thing? As to adultery - it's not the crime that it once was, but I'm not so sure that it's really been destigmatized (unless he means all extramarital sexual relations, even when those involved aren't already married to someone else).

What is the connection between atheism, gay marriage, and Christianity? Well, there isn't really any connection - at least, not outside the fevered fantasies of people like Joe Sabia. Most, but not all, atheists would prefer to see gays have the ability to marry one another, but they aren't the driving force behind it. In reality, large numbers of Christians and other theists would like to end the discrimination. This includes, naturally, quite a few gay Christians and gay theists.

Does this represent an attack on Christianity? Of course not. Gay marriage is incompatible with some people's understanding of marriage and with some people's understanding of Christianity, but the government is not obligated to limit marriage in a manner consistent with the theology of certain types of Christians. In fact, just the opposite is the case because such limits would constitute an impermissible establishment of one type of Christianity over all other types and over all other religions. Granted, that seems to be exactly what Sabia wants, but we should make that agenda as clear as possible so that people will realize just how horrible it is.

During the past year, the state stepped up its war on God-fearing Americans. We have a moral obligation to fight back.

Is that so? Well, I wonder how Joe Sabia thinks that "God-fearing Americans" should fight back. Does he think that they should do more to have the government endorse and enforce their religious beliefs? Does he think that the rights of non-God-fearing Americans should be restricted, perhaps something along the lines of how the Boy Scouts of America treats them?

Of course, that raises the question of just how to differentiate the "God-fearing Americans" from the "non-God-fearing Americans." Atheists such as myself will fit into the latter category, but after that things become more difficult. I'm guessing that Sabia would include gays in the latter category, even those who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and so forth. I'm guessing that Sabia would include many, if not most, liberals, progressives, and leftists in the latter category - again, even those who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and so forth.

It would seem then that qualifying as a "God-fearing American" has nothing to do with believing in the existence of a god or even with belonging to a particular religion. Instead, it seems to be based upon adhering to a particular type of religious tradition - specifically, some sort of fundamentalist, evangelical, and/or conservative religious tradition like Sabia himself.

Thus, Sabia is not speaking on behalf of theists, he is not speaking on behalf of adherents of Western religious traditions, and he is not speaking on behalf of Christians. Instead, he is speaking on behalf of some radical Christians who believe in establishing a religious political order as a replacement for the secular system we currently have. Sabia's goal, as he expresses in the title of his article, is to have society controlled more by sectarian churches and less by impartial, secular government.

Is that the direction in which America should really move? Absolutely not. There is no value whatsoever in having American society controlled by theocrats - except, of course, to power-hungry theocrats. Fortunately they remain a minority in America and I hope that that continues to be the case. Joe Sabia has every right to believe in theocracy and to promote theocracy, but I hope that his ideas find no traction in American politics or religion. We deserve better than that.

This ends my critique of Joe Sabia's article "More Church, Less State." Part Three appeared yesterday.