fpb: (Default)
fpb ([personal profile] fpb) wrote2009-10-30 05:47 pm

The mask of atheism

My experience is that the Pope's decision to form an Anglican grouping - not yet a Rite, but the difference is slight - has unleashed a vicious avalanche of anti-Catholic hatred such as I had not seen in quite a while. Catholic blogs are suddenly awash not only with Protestant and Anglican, but, more to the point, with atheist and Christian-hating trolls. And I hope my Protestant friends are not offended, but this seems to me to really throw off the masks of many so-called atheists. They do not reject or hate God. Of course, if you asked them to argue against the Aristotelian Unmoved Mover or against the Hindu Self of Selves, they would - in a fairly untroubled, perhaps even bored tone, as a duty. But what they really hate, what unleashes their rage and fury, is the Catholic Church. What makes this obvious is how the Pope's effective dismissal of further ecumenic progress with the CofE as it is, and his decision to create a Catholic Anglican area, have drawn such rage. Richard Dawkins, in his hideous Washington Post screed (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_dawkins/2009/10/give_us_your_misogynists_and_bigots.html), really throws off the mask. If he took his atheist positions - yes, those same views that have earned him millions of pounds through a worldwide bestseller - at all seriously, he would be as much against the Church of England as against the Catholic Church. Indeed, he might well oppose it more fiercely, because it means subsidizing "religion", however vague, with taxpayer money, and giving a status, however vague, as a part of the nation's legal establishment. (Compare and contrast Article 7 of the Italian Constitution: "The Italian Republic and the Catholic Church are, each in its own sphere, independent and sovereign.") But that is the absolute opposite of what he does; what enrages him is that the Catholic Church should dare to try and claim the Anglican heritage for itself. He valued the Anglican Church as a breakwater against the Catholic Church. So, basically, Dawkins is lying to someone; whether himself, or only his public, I do not know and have no interest in knowing. The point is that his supposed opposition to "religion" is blatantly revealed to be opposition to the Catholic Church alone.

As revealing as Dawkins' rant is that the Washington Post published it, and the string of horrors in the comments thread. Even the Bishop Williamson affair had not called forth so much sheer brute hate for the Church; but then, those who objected to Williamson and to the SSPX were not all motivated by hatred for the Church - they included people like me, who love it. In this case, the only thing that can possibly call forth so many haters is the Church itself; and anyone who wants to claim that anti-Catholicism is not one of the main, the driving forces in modern culture and politics must first explain away this horrible outburst of bigotry and hatred.

[identity profile] fellmama.livejournal.com 2009-10-31 04:14 pm (UTC)(link)
I assume you read my atheist rant from a few weeks ago. Inverarity's right that most atheist vitriol in the US isn't directed at the RC, but that's just a function of culture and location. I've long been of the belief that most atheists aren't actual atheists but rather firmly anti-Christian.

[identity profile] mindstalk.livejournal.com 2009-10-31 06:58 pm (UTC)(link)
Most atheists are actual atheists. As far as hostility to religions goes, atheists surrounded by Christians -- or raised in and escaped from Christianity -- will tend to react to Christianity. Change the milieu, change the reactions.

[identity profile] fpb.livejournal.com 2009-10-31 07:11 pm (UTC)(link)
How do you become an atheist when born in a Buddhist country - Buddhism being an atheistic religion?
ext_402500: (Default)

[identity profile] inverarity.livejournal.com 2009-10-31 07:23 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, technically that's true -- I've known a few self-identified "Buddhist atheists."

But Buddhism has many forms, as I'm sure you're aware, and some include veritable pantheons of saints and deities. (Technically, of course, Buddhism doesn't have either saints or deities, but in some traditions there are figures who are for all practical purposes the same thing.)

[identity profile] fellmama.livejournal.com 2009-11-01 04:36 am (UTC)(link)
Bullshit. Find me an atheist who opens an argument by referring to Zeus and you'd have a point.
ext_402500: (Default)

[identity profile] inverarity.livejournal.com 2009-11-01 05:16 am (UTC)(link)
Find me an atheist who is surrounded by Zeus-worshippers...
ext_402500: (Default)

[identity profile] inverarity.livejournal.com 2009-10-31 07:19 pm (UTC)(link)
What mindstalk said. The few people from Middle Eastern countries who've come out as atheists (usually after leaving their home country) tend to speak out much more against Islam than Christianity. There are a lot of atheists in Israel, and they mostly criticize the Orthodox Jews.

To the degree that atheists are "anti-" any specific religion, it's going to be the one that dominates their environment and stigmatizes them. Atheists in the U.S. aren't usually going to say much about Hindus, for example, because Hindus don't affect them much. It doesn't mean they have any more regard for Hindu beliefs than they do Christian ones.