I'm in complete agreement, Ian. I have a feeling that the emergence of "radical" publicists for atheism, such as Dawkins, has something to do with a growing feeling of subtle oppression among non-theists. The roots of this development are complex, among them being the overtly atheistic nature of the failed Soviet-Leninist-Imperialist model of dialectical materialism (in fact the atheistic nature of the model, while logically fundamental, was, in practice, not particularly important), as well as the growth in influence (primarily in the USA) of so-called evangelical Christianity.
The argument, comment and criticism over Obama's choice of pastor Warren to give some kind of address at his inauguration is a case in point. I would question what a religious figure has to do at all with a formal event in a supposedly secular republic - the fact that this is not the general topic of debate (rather the position of the said churchman with regard to specific social issues, such as gay marriage), shows how far the theistic majority automatically regards its position as being the unquestioned und unquestionable basis of society. And, it seems, the majority of US Americans regard professed atheism as an automatic disqualifier for high political office ( http://www.newuniversity.org/main/article?slug=anti-atheists_put_a_cross-shaped57). I certainly don't experience a militant campaign from atheists/ agnostics/humanists/brights to impose their views on anyone. I do, occasionally, get the sense that we are regarded by sections of the believing majority as being somehow perverse, or at least pitiful. Christians should recognise that the basic models for the liberal republics in the western world were developed during the enlightenment, mostly in (to put it mildly) tension to the prevailing, overtly Christian, status quo. I'll finish this with a quotation from Rosa Luxemburg (the 90th. anniversary of whose murder is on Thursday): "Freiheit ist immer Freiheit der Andersdenkenden" [Freedom is always freedom for those who have a different opinion]. Francis On 11 Jan., 11:37, "Ian Pollard" <[email protected]> wrote: > Craig, for what it's worth I agree in principle with what you say that the > atheist label can (at times any way) make no sense. I'm not sure we picked > the label, though. I wouldn't choose to be labelled at all as such. You > could call me a Humanist or Bright; that would be more accurate and tell you > more about what I believe. > > As for non-believers being disinterested in what believers think, I probably > agree here too. Outside of philosophical discussions like we have here, it > really shouldn't matter to me what believers think. Sadly it's not so > simple, since believers are shaping the society I live in in a manner which > I think is bad. Whether it's them taking public money, creating sectarianism > through their faith schools (again, with public money), attacking scientific > and medical progress, or generally trying to position themselves as having > some kind of moral authority (see the recent Radio 4 Thought For the Day > nonsense), there's all kinds of reasons why I'm interested in what they > believe. It affects me and my family. I wish it didn't. > > Ian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
