The Uninspired Manifesto
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
We Hate Bush So There Is No God
I bet you can guess where this one is going. Here's the short article by Deal Hudson. (Via Atheism.About.com)
Why is is so hard for fundamentalists to accept that their are legitimate reasons for a person not believing in god. Hudson can't even give legitimate examples to back up his stupid claims, just repeated mentions of Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins. If he had even read any of their books, he could at the least piece together some random sentences out of context in an attempt at looking credible.
There are plenty of logical reasons a person could become an atheist. Hating Bush and his theocratic reign is just a bi-product of that.
Atheism is the chic on the cultural scene, according to an article in today's Washington Post.
Led by Mother Teresa-basher, Christopher Hitchens, the new atheistic cabal -- including Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and David Dennett, is creating a minor sub-culture devoted to selling books and applauding the ACLU in its attempts to strip the public square of any references to God and traditional religion.
Look for this movement to get larger before it gets smaller.
Why?
The primary reason for the recent spike in interest is George W. Bush. Yes, our Methodist, born-again President has created a frenzy among the non-believers at Oxford, Berkeley, and the upper West Side of New York City.
The books of Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, and Dennett are much less a reasoned argument for the non-existence of a Supreme Being than a torrent of complaints about the influence of religion in politics and public policy.
Their "argument" goes something like this:
I don't like the way Evangelical religion has impacted public policy, say, the war in Iraq, or the choice of Supreme Court justices.
Religion, being a matter of faith not reason, should not be allowed in politics.
It's teachings being backward and irrational are contrary to enlightenment, progress, and modernity.
Therefore, since Bush and his religious friends are all stupid and led by superstitions, the only way to really show how stupid they are is to just go to the bottom line and say,
"Hey, there isn't really any God in the first place!"
What it all comes down to is, "We hate Bush so there there is no God."
Why is is so hard for fundamentalists to accept that their are legitimate reasons for a person not believing in god. Hudson can't even give legitimate examples to back up his stupid claims, just repeated mentions of Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins. If he had even read any of their books, he could at the least piece together some random sentences out of context in an attempt at looking credible.
There are plenty of logical reasons a person could become an atheist. Hating Bush and his theocratic reign is just a bi-product of that.
2 Comments:
Why is is so hard for fundamentalists to accept that their are legitimate reasons for a person not believing in god.
I think the devout believer has a difficult time coming to terms with someone that rejects a belief system they've been indoctrinated with since their earliest childhood days.
Perhaps a combination of neurological propensity and cultural memes have created a reality that exists with all the icons and symbols of dogma that combine to create a feedback of confirmation. Once confirmed, they find it difficult to accept that reason and rational thought cannot be a part of the process, hence other explanations must exist.
"They hate Bush" is one. "They hate god" is another. Often, the explanations that devout believers arrive at seem to include "hate" and "anger" when they refer to the atheist. They seem to always assume that we atheists "deny" god because of some tragedy or unfulfilled prayer or because of our discontent with religions treatment of [insert lifestyle].
This comment comes years after this blog was posted... but as a responsible and proud secular humanist, I think one point needs to be highlighted.
Deal claims that Bush's (admittedly) wacky religious views (and those of the parasites in the religious right) have created what he seems to describe as an "athiestic backlash," ... one championed by the late Christopher Hitchens.
What Deal neglects to mention (and this is something that very few of Hitchens' fans can actually own up to) is that Christopher Hitchens was the loudest, most vitriolic, most vocal and most prominent cheerleader for Bush's (admittedly religiously oriented) invasion of Iraq.
Hitch can now claim to be in the same ranks as Jerry Falwell or Mullah Omar, in that he allowed a number of unsubstantiated supertstitions (albeit, "secular" superstitions) to open the way up for a massive bloodbath that has killed countless innocent people, has broken the US economy, has done untold damage to the environment, and that was actualized by strategically pitting one religious group against another (remember?)
Of course, his close friendships with the high ranking generals in the Peshmerga have everything to do with his position.
But, like his equally dogmatic counterparts in religious circles, Hitchens had allowed his own irrational leanings to fuse with other (explicitly religious) motivations, and the result is nothing more than countless dead bodies and plundered cities.
They say "the war is over," but anyone who has been to Iraq knows that is not true. Sure, US forces are being downsized, but the branches of government those forces put in power are killing each other, as well as killing Iraqi civilians. Its civil war, but one from which we now abdicate any responibility.
if there is such a thing as reincarnation, it would only be natural justice for Hitch, Falwell, and all the rest of those blood guzzlers to be reborn in the country which they claim is now "liberated."
Post a Comment
<< Home