Atheism’s Aggressive Political Agenda

BY JOEL MCDURMON

The Village Atheist by Joel McDurmon

Note from Reformed Faith Weblog Administrator: I read this post by Joel McDurmon today and felt it extremely important to post this to the blog asap. You’ll see an “editorial plea” about 2 thirds of the way into the article to repost this quote wherever it can be posted… but I will go one better and just post the whole article. I feel if the quote is not posted in context of it’s background, the weight of what the man said will not come down and bring us to a realization of what kind of mindset, and yes, social agenda, Christians are and will be dealing with. So on that note, here is the post in it’s entirety…

“We don’t care what they say in order to get elected in this religious country. We care about what kind of judges they give us on the Supreme Court . . . I don’t care what kind of verbal obeisance they pay to religion if that’s what it takes to get a person in the White House who will give us church-state separationists on the Supreme Court.” — (Atheist, Edward Tabash, on Democratic Candidates)

From my very first encounter with the writings of the modern atheists I have argued that the movement is not philosophically sophisticated, nor intellectually rigorous, and it was never intended to be. Despite their pretense to a monopoly on “reason” and “honesty,” these guys’ motivation has been a political agenda from day one.

Nowhere have I seen this agenda as brazenly presented as in the recent Convention “Crystal Clear Atheism” 2007, organized by the Atheist Alliance International. The Alliance, which claims as its purpose to “help establish and strengthen the religion-free community,” invited all the big names of atheism to address a crowd of — judging by the videos and audience applause — 200 people max. The convention was a mirror image of similar conferences put on by religious groups, with plenary speakers, nightly movies, a “secular parenting” workshop, advice on how to start local atheist cell-groups, and, believe it or not, even an atheist apologetics workshop entitled, “Snappy Answers to Religious Questions: How to Combat Common Questions Posed to Atheists in Formal and Informal Settings.”

Admittedly, I’m guessing about the small number of attendees, but there was no need to guess about the message these speakers where there to promote. Far from merely a rehearsal of their typical jokes and name-calling, the speakers spilled an overt agenda to insulate American public life from any and all religious influence (as if that is what the First Amendment meant), called for a concentrated effort to establish and solidify the U.S. Supreme Court as a secular and anti-religious tyranny, and appealed for a radical leftist vision of America.

Well, OK, you may think that as one who has an interest in painting these atheists as bad guys that I have exaggerated my description of their party. Not in the least. Hearing this has again confirmed my presentation in Return of the Village Atheist that the current popular atheism is a reincarnated Marxism. Let the reader decide.

Atheism, Socialism, Marxism: the Hope of America?

The link between atheism and tyrannical socialism became very obvious when former Hollywood screen writer and author Matthew Chapman made an overt plea for American to be made into an openly atheistic and socialistic country. I say socialist, but the whole talk sounded openly Marxist to me. Chapman argued that religion won’t die away in America because it still provides so many great things for its people: community, support, help for the needy, etc. If the delusion of superstition were to be taken away, and government institutions were to take over the support roles, then the need for religion would die away too. He put it like this,

“The church takes care of people . . . and how does atheism compete with that? I don’t think it can. I don’t believe atheism actually can ever succeed in isolation; only as a result of a much larger political change.
. . . It’s quite clear that the better a country takes care of its citizens, the less religion there is. . . . I don’t think atheism can succeed in a country as primitive as this one [the U.S.] now is; a country where politicians deride their own profession, sneering at the political process as if it was the problem not the solution, who deride the idea that government should help, protect, and raise up its weaker citizens; where the current government has turned over the delivery of basic needs to religion and made them a matter of charity.”

Get that. We need less religion, less charity, and more government care-taking. Indeed, he argued that, “without gigantic social change, the church will have to remain the only place where ordinary people can go to find community, and equality (albeit under the eye of a very stern god) . . .”

Now if this sounds openly Marxist, it is for good reason: it is a direct repetition of one of Marx’s most famous ideas, that religion is the “opium of the people.” Marx wrote, “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people, is the demand for their real happiness.” This is the core of the atheist political agenda: religion is a false hope which must be destroyed in order to society to progress. Religion must go, and all the functions of religion must be replaced by non-religious institutions in order to convince people that religion was wrong to begin with. Thus, Marx assessed, “The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.” (Karl Marx, Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right)

Now, it seems to me that this is exactly the type of “social change” that Chapman calls for. Build society upon decidedly atheistic institutions, hijack the role of religion in society, and push religious groups to the fringes, then claim victory for atheism. Equally, with anti-capitalist odor, Chapman followed up, “If atheism, if reason is to flourish, it will only do so when people feel protected by a rational system in which they have involvement, and which is run on principles of compassion, not profit.” It is this profit, he argued — the greed and fear allegedly nurtured by the free market — that enables religious hunger to grow also.

Let me translate: for atheism to flourish in the marketplace, we must destroy the marketplace, and bring its role under the direct supervision of atheists.

All of this leads me to the obvious conclusion: big-government socialism is the opiate of atheism.

Chapman was hardly coy about this idea. He literally cursed the idea that “big-government” should be frowned upon, and retorted, “I am for big-government,” and to even my surprise — and having studied them for a while now, I usually am not surprised by the continued antics of the atheist crowd — the audience heartily applauded.

A View of the Atheistic Agenda

The second overt rally cry was given by crusading anti-religion lawyer Edward Tabash. Tabash caught my attention by name at first because I am familiar with his active role as a debater of the existence of God. I have heard a few of his debates, particularly one many years ago in which he did not fair too well under the acumen of Dr. Greg Bahnsen. Nevertheless, Tabash continues, primarily as chair of the activist legal group “Americans United for Separation of Church and State.”

At first Tabash merely called for the atheists to have two objectives:

1) “To secure an America in which the separation of church and state is absolute (in the words of John F. Kennedy), and to make sure that no branch of government is able to treat the believer and non-believer differently”
2) “To promote the atheistic idea to society at large, and use our powerful scientific and philosophical arguments to explain why the supernatural is non-existent.”

Related to these objectives Tabash foresees two possible futures:

1) One where “secular government” secures that “religion will be left as a matter of private conscience to the individual, and not be legislated by government,” or, conversely,
2) one where “by a shift of only one vote on the United States Supreme Court, we will essentially become a theocracy, in which all branches of government will be freed to favor religion collectively over non-belief.”

Tabash’s inability not to editorialize was already showing through. But his real feelings came out much later. For now, let us rehearse quickly what awful things Tabash fears that imminent “theocracy” threatens to take away. What is Tabash afraid such a “freed” government will cause atheists to lose? He gives a list:

1) “We will lose autonomy in every area of our private lives if the Supreme Court in a new decision nullifies government neutrality in matters of religion. We will not just lose the right of abortion for women, we will lose the right to use birth control even for married women . . . we would lose the morning after pill, … [and] all post-fertilization forms of birth control.”

2) America will be plunged into scientific ignorance: citing a “shocking example of the attack on evolution,” Tabash added, “Not only would they bring about oppression here at home in America, the Religious Right is in danger of being able to actually cripple our competitiveness worldwide by destroying rational modern scientific education here at home.”

3) This includes stem-cell research: “we are going to forfeit our leading role in science to those nations who do not have a religious right that hampers the development of this most important aspect of modern biotechnology.”

4) Worst of all is the “overt effort to oppress gays and lesbians.” Referring to a 6-3 Supreme Court decision that decriminalized homosexual behavior to the extent that “no state can punish what two adults do with each other in private,” and lamenting that a more recent ruling reduced that decision to 5-4, Tabash gave the awful news : “Justice Scalia very chillingly said that the people of a state should be able to use their sense of tradition to criminalize all sexual behavior they regard as deviant.” (Imagine that. States actually determining their own laws without the Supreme Court forcing them! Why, it sounds almost like the Tenth Amendment.) Tabash will have none of that: “We don’t want this man to have a majority on the United States Supreme Court.”

5) Further, “We will lose modern sex education.”

6) “End of life issues” (read: euthanasia)

7) Further, tax money to “faith-based initiatives.” Eddie expounds on this one: “It is not the business of the President of the United States to appropriate billions of dollars of tax money to fund charitable programs through religious institutions, when it should be secular government that provides social welfare services to the people.”

So, in short, this is what Tabash fears his atheistic community will lose: abortion, post-fertilization contraceptives, embryonic stem-cell research, homosexuality, sex education, euthanasia, government socialism, and tax money. Condensing these into their fundamental concerns, Tabash fears the loss of atheistic powers to define and arbitrate life, family, and wealth.

In the face of imminent danger, how can atheists preserve these great delights of free society? Tabash advises: “This is what we must do. We must make sure that the next president of the United States supports church-state separation.” Further,

“Every single time there is a vacancy on the United States Supreme Court, we must deluge our Unites States senators with as many letters as we possibly can, and phone calls, to make sure that they do not pass through a religious right-winger,” and, “we must vigorously oppose all United States Senate nominees who indicate a willingness to support the confirmation of religious right-wing judges.”

The agenda was becoming more clear. Rather than peaceful, freedom-loving people who simply have a “lack of belief in God,” the atheist conference courted and promoted a radical political agenda: to gain control of political power in strategic places.

Lying to Win

Then Tabash got really scary. It was not until the question and answer session when he revealed his most ominous side; perhaps due to the more informal nature of the format, he spoke as unguardedly as any liberal I’ve heard. One questioner asked that due to the abundance of religious talk coming from not just Republican (which is to be expected) but Democratic candidates as well, whether atheists should be concerned. Tabash responded with this gem:

“We don’t care what they say in order to get elected in this religious country. We care about what kind of judges they give us on the Supreme Court, because only the Supreme Court determines if we’ll have secular government.” So, he expanded, “Don’t look to the rhetoric they need to pander to, remember what country they’re running in. I don’t care what kind of verbal obeisance they pay to religion if that’s what it takes to get a person in the White House who will give us church-state separationists on the Supreme Court.”

[Editorial plea: Please mark the preceding quote down, copy it to every website you can imagine, email it to everyone you know, mail it to those who have no email. Distribute!]

Tabash’s endorsement of blatant dishonesty was unsettling even for an atheist audience. One questioner pushed the issue, arguing that we should hold the candidates’ “feet to the fire” for what they say as well as do. Tabash would not budge: “When it comes to Democratic presidential candidates, they all will give us the right judges on the Court, courts [emphasizing the plural, and thus the entire federal court system] . . . so let’s not make the fire too hot.”

Tabash could not get off the issue. When another questioner asked for his comments on how to stop the “the proliferation of church-based law schools,” like Regent and Liberty, and their “influx into government legal roles,” Tabash continued his campaign: “The only way to do that is to have a president who disfavors the Religious Right and will not be accepting those people into White House positions.”

Here is a good point to note the hypocrisy in our crusader’s agenda. Aside from his open endorsement of lying when pragmatic for his cause, in his opening “objective,” he claimed to fight “to make sure that no branch of government is able to treat the believer and non-believer differently.” By the end of his talk, however, his agenda was noticeably opposite. Apparently, for him, it’s OK to reverse the prejudice and disfavor the Religious Right and bar them from White House positions.

When it seemed as if his rhetoric could sink no lower, Tabash closed his atheistic spin with this completely debasing comment: “We [atheists], the true First-Amendment patriots, cannot allow these vicious fanatics to take over our country.” He made no attempt to hide the atheistic political agenda, “Let us make saving the United States of America from the Religious Right our absolute number one priority.”

Conclusion

What have our atheists told us in just this one brief conference? Far from docile citizens hoping to live their lives quietly in private peace, these atheistic leaders have your government, your children, and your money in their sights, and they are serious about things. Society can only progress when religion is eradicated from society (Chapman) or at least driven to the dark corners of something called “private conscience” (Tabash). In addition, they say, we must fight for atheistic control over the definitions of life, death, family, sex, and taxes.

Worst of all, we have learned that these atheists believe it is acceptable for a presidential candidate to consciously deceive religious people in order to gain votes, and then work to promote a secular atheistic society in opposition to those who voted them in. As we have know all along, and now have Tabash’s own words, an atheistic society must be built on the foundations of deception and political strong-arming. Apparently, the only thing stronger than a Christian faith is the atheist’s faith in the dishonesty of Democratic candidates. Blessed be the lie than binds!

And we, Christians, we are the ones they call vicious fanatics.

Joel McDurmon is the author of Return of the Village Atheist
He is a graduate of Reformed Episcopal Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and an adjunct speaker, writer, and researcher for American Vision.


2 Responses to “Atheism’s Aggressive Political Agenda”

  1. whizler Says:

    Hi Joel, I understand a bit of hyperbole is necessary to sell your books, but let’s keep things in perspective. The words of one or two atheists do not represent the views of all atheists. I happen to be libertarian, for example, and I know of many others who are the same.

    Does Dominion Theology represent Christianity? Probably not, but I’d be willing to bet that the number of Christians who are sympathetic to it far exceeds the number of atheists.

  2. The Reformed Faith Weblog Says:

    Hi Whizler,

    This is the Reformed Faith Moderator. Joel McDurmon didn’t post this here, although he did post it on his own blog. I made an executive decision and posted this for informational purposes, and as a courtesy to him I placed a link to his book in case anyone was interested in the product.

    I don’t think that there was any degree of exaggeration in Mr. McDurmon’s conclusions. There is plenty of documentation regarding the statements and opinions of these Neo-Anti-Christian-Atheists if you wish to look it up on their own websites and read it in their own books. And let’s not forget how influential “one or two” people can be when given the opportunity… it only takes one or two people with a prominent platform to either change the world for good, or for evil.

    Also, the particular theological views of anyone who’s work is posted on this blog may or may not line up perfectly with myself or anyone else who posts on this blog. However, I do consider that I can have fellowship with someone who espouses “dominion theology” or one who does not and do so in each instance with a clear conscience… not all Christians agree completely on disputable doctrines.

    Just as some atheists do not espouse such radical, agressive, anti-Christian viewpoints as Sam Harris, Edward Tabash, Dawkins and others of their ilk, if you can call eradicating faith from any public expression a disputable, constitutional right, then you’ll have no problem standing up for the “Dominion Atheists…”

    The point of the article was to alert people to an agenda that a certain group of atheists have that is aimed at eradicating all public expressions of faith from society. They will use politics to gain that end. So, as a Libertarian, can you stand up for this kind of agenda? If so, then that worries me, but if not, then the words of these particular atheists should worry you a great deal, since they do espouse Marxist ideals, and certainly not libertarian ones.

    There is certainly nothing live-and-let-live about trying to make it illegal or socially impossible for people to freely talk about or express their devotion for God in public. Wouldn’t you agree?


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s