Oy Vey!

Then They Came for the Atheists

July 31, 2017

Multiple Pages
Then They Came for the Atheists

It’s official: Atheists now occupy a lower place than Muslims in the “progressive stack,” meaning that in the Sacred Church of Equality, Muslims are now considered holier than atheists.

If you doubt my assertion, riddle me this: When was the last time you heard a Muslim accused of “infidelophobia”?

Superstar atheist Richard Dawkins recently had an upcoming radio appearance canceled by a listener-funded radio station in Berkeley, CA, a city whose primary purpose these days is to ban things considered sinful to progressives. In justifying their ritualistic shunning of Dawkins, KPFA 94.1 FM in Berkeley cited “hurtful” comments from Dawkins such as the time he called Islam “the greatest force for evil in the world,” because apparently even atheists just can’t help themselves from believing in backwards and superstitious notions such as “evil.”

Because it is clearly evil to refer to Islam as evil, the radio station snatched the moral high ground away from Dawkins, who then defiantly snatched it back from them by insisting that rather than being evil, he was absolutely moral for condemning Islam’s litany of evils:

I have indeed strongly condemned the misogyny, homophobia, and violence of Islamism, of which Muslims—particularly Muslim women—are the prime victims. I make no apologies for denouncing those oppressive cruelties, and I will continue to do so.

That’s tremendously righteous of you, Mr. No God. But the plank in your eye is the fact that you’ve gullibly lied prostrate before pseudo-religious terms such as “misogyny” and “homophobia” and have “strongly condemned” them with all the chest-thumping fervor that religious zealots decry sodomy and faggotry. For all your posturing as a rationalist, your thinking shows a laughable gullibility toward progressive mysticism.

“When was the last time you heard a Muslim accused of ‘infidelophobia’?”

Dawkins is one of the primary movers ’n’ shakers in what he calls “militant atheism,” which is a phenomenon where people who deny the existence of God become just as evangelical and annoying as the theists whom they decry as their intellectual and ethical inferiors.

Another top dog in the “new atheist” kennel is Sam Harris, whom now-dead atheist neocon Christopher Hitchens once referred to as a “Jewish warrior against theocracy and bigotry of all stripes.” (Perhaps Hitch never pondered that “bigotry” is just a modern way of saying “sin.”)

Harris calls Islam a “motherlode of bad ideas.” Like Hitchens and Dawkins, Harris doesn’t seem to realize that without no God, there can be no evil: “There are gradations to the evil that is done in the name of God,” he says, stealing the right of religionists to define what is good and evil and claiming it for himself. Because he and his Western liberal allies know what is right and wrong, Harris has claimed that it may be an “ethical necessity” to torture terrorists. He has said that “you just can’t have too many Muslims in your culture if you want it to remain enlightened.” In other words, Muslims exist in darkness, while he has seen the light. Sounds mighty religious to me.

He singles out Islam among world religions for its propensity toward violence, so in his warped moral constellation, the only moral way to fight their immoral violence is to be violent toward them. Like Dawkins, Harris seems to believe that quantifiable “morality” can somehow exist in a universe that emerged stillborn out of a meaningless void.

But as self-righteous as Dawkins and Harris are, the strange piety of neo-atheists may prove to be no match for the earth-swallowing sanctimony of the modern progressive left.

An article in The Guardian suggests that neither Dawkins nor Harris has any moral standing vis-à-vis Islam since from birth, their souls were stained with the unforgivable sin of being privileged white males.

While accusing both Dawkins and Harris of committing the mortal sin of “Islamophobia,” Salon compares their anti-Islamist invectives to “the rowdy, uneducated ramblings of backwoods racists rather than appraisals based on intellect, rationality and reason.”

Forget if you will, just for a moment please, that there is nothing remotely intellectual, rational, or reasonable about the term “racist.” It is merely a word used to demonize people—and thus a religious term.

So where does this leave us earthlings as our little green planet spins around in a vast swirling universe of darkness?

As far as taboos and superstitions regarding religion in 2017 in the United States of America go, here’s the current pecking order:

You can criticize Christianity AND Christians—as much as you want. In fact, you are encouraged to do so. You’re almost considered a heretic if you don’t.

You can criticize Judaism but NOT Jews. A lot of Jews are atheists, so it’s OK to criticize their religion but not them. Don’t say a bad word about Jews. I probably don’t have to tell you this, but I’m reminding you anyway. Lay. Off. The. Jews.

You cannot criticize Islam OR Muslims. If you do either, you are a bad person who must be publicly shamed as a sinner.

Although Muslims don’t currently hold the reins of power in America, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that Islam is the nation’s de facto religion because it’s held as beyond reproach. It is sacred. You cannot criticize it without being accused of blasphemy. The most prominent form of “Islamophobia” in America today is one that the pundits and paid professional tut-tutters never discuss—the understandable fear of being called Islamophobic, because being tarred and feathered with that sin can ruin you.

In the intersectional status wars that are arranged by the cult of progressivism, the atheists have lost to the Muslims. But the progressives will eventually capitulate to and be swallowed up by the Muslims for the simple reason that progressives are weak and Muslims aren’t. However inbred they may be and despite rather unimpressive mean IQ scores, Muslims aren’t nearly so dumb as to come up with a concept such as “progressophobia.” At least they’re smart enough to have a survival instinct.

I’m not quite sure why people can’t just be honest and struggle for power without having to hide behind half-assed notions such as good and evil. As I see it, all this finger-pointing and moral status-jockeying is nothing more than a primordial struggle to seize power by claiming some imaginary ethical high ground, which then magically affords the winner to act like a complete asshole with impunity. When you have so much power that you can dictate what’s good and evil, you get to abuse other people and it’s “justice” rather than sin. When you can successfully tag your opponent as the bad guy, it allows you to disable and crush and destroy him with a clean conscience.

When it comes to atheism versus religion, I don’t see either option being any less deadly. Communism should have forever proved that you don’t need religion to slaughter people by the millions—you just need to be a fanatic.

As a believer in nothing but someone who suspects many things, I suspect that agnosticism is the only honest way to go. I think the idea that everything sprang from nothing is roughly as nonsensical as the idea of a God who creates a universe that constantly pisses him off and has him perpetually lashing out at his own creations.

Unfortunately, societies can’t cluster together without desperately clinging to collective myths, which is the primary reason I’m so antisocial.

Daily updates with TM’s latest


The opinions of our commenters do not necessarily represent the opinions of Taki's Magazine or its contributors.