Log In | Register
Religious ideas seem to live within a cocoon of respect. To question the ideas of religion can result in being labeled a ‘militant atheist’. To criticize religious ideas is often labeled disrespectful by the religious – as if their religious ideas aren’t open to the same criticism that other ideas are routinely open too.
If applied properly, the term ‘militant atheism’ would only be applied to atheists who wish to suppress religion by force. However, the term is often used to describe any atheist that speaks out against religion, religious extremism, theism, religious ideas and does so without being meek, mild and deferential in their criticism.
It’s a double standard for sure. We don’t call Christians militant Christians when they call homosexuals abominations or when they criticize atheists because they think we have no morals. We don’t call them militant Christians when they send out missionaries to convert people, put billboards up that tell people they risk burning in eternal torment if they don’t believe in their God or spread their message on TV or through the media. That’s perfectly okay to do if you’re religious. You won’t be labeled a militant Christian.
However, if you’re an atheist, it is disrespectful to put up billboards spreading your message or criticizing religion. Here’s an example from a recent news story:
As a Colorado atheist group purchases space for three billboards in major cities in Colorado, one Christian research fellow refers to their efforts as "bad manners."
"They say their ad is intended to spark dialogue with people of faith on the existence of God, but you don't draw people into conversation by poking fun of the beliefs," Glenn Stanton, director for Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, told The Christian Post.
Stanton was referring to a billboard sponsored by Boulder Atheists that states, "God is an imaginary friend; Choose reality, it will be better for all of us."
"Pew reports that 92 percent of Americans believe in God or some higher being," Stanton pointed out. "And more than 70 percent say they have a firm, confident belief in God. And this atheist group equates that very widely-held belief to a small child having an imaginary friend to play with."
I suppose this sign is more disrespectful than the one I pass going home that basically says I will burn in Hell if I’m not a believer in Jesus.
Now if an atheist group was advocating for forcefully destroying church property or creating laws outlawing religion, then you could accurately apply the term ‘militant’ to them. But most times, believers don’t do that. They just apply the term willy-nilly whenever they feel threatened by a vehement argument against their religious ideas. It’s not being used in any way accurately but instead as an attack on the person to try and discredit them and make their argument seem less valid. They are trying to demonize the atheist for speaking out against what they perceive as a very bad idea and one that causes great harm to society and perhaps societies around the world.
It’s the same reason why some believers will say that atheists have no morals. They’re trying to demonize the atheist and portray them as someone who can’t be trusted. There is no data or facts to back this claim up. It’s made purely out of either ignorance or an attempt to discredit the atheist or sadly, both.
In North America, Christianity has enjoyed a privileged status for a very long time. Terms like ‘fundamentalist atheist’ and ‘militant atheist’ are used as a way of shaming the atheist into being quiet. If all atheists are quiet and act deferentially towards religion, it gives religion more credibility and allows them to continue with their privileged status unquestioned.
No other idea is given this type of leeway or respect. If you’re a Liberal, you can bet your bottom dollar that if you bring your Liberal ideology into an open forum, you’ll probably meet a Conservative who holds strong views that oppose your own. Nobody says the Conservative is militant if they harshly criticize your ideology. The same can be said of Conservatives meeting a hardcore Liberal. The Conservative can bet on being challenged and that is the way most things work.
I agree that treating people with respect is a good idea. If I were a hardcore Conservative, for example, I would try to treat the Liberal with respect, but that doesn’t mean I have to necessarily treat their Liberal ideology with respect. I could question it, criticize it and try to prove it wrong. It’s fair game.
In my books, religion is fair game and it’s enjoyed a privileged status in the world for too long already. If that makes me ‘militant’ then so be it. I won’t treat ideas I see as harmful and misplaced with kid gloves because a majority believes in it. It deserves to be looked at and scrutinized with the same level of scrutiny as any other idea that affects our society in the same profound ways as religion does.
And to be clear, I don’t even mind when religious people share their ideas with me or try to convert me. It’s fair game. But they have to expect the same level of treatment back. I do my best to remain civil (which isn’t usually hard to do) but I won’t kowtow or bend the knee to religious ideas I see as harmful.
I’ll question and challenge those ideas till my dying breath, like I’ll challenge any idea I don’t agree with.
