#From Atheism to Christianity to Islam

[unsolicited-opinions]

Bro no one hates jews for ethnicity, news are hated for faith.

If you are an atheist "jew", no one gives a shit about you.

Stop pretending to be a victim and trying to appropriate antisemitic struggles.

I'll address these point by point.

Jewish readers, please share your thoughts!

You wrote: "No one hates Jews for ethnicity, [J]ews are hated for faith."

"Hitler...defined the Jews as a race and not a religious community, characterized the effect of a Jewish presence as a “race-tuberculosis of the peoples,” and identified the initial goal of a German government to be discriminatory legislation against Jews."

[Source]

More here

As David Baddiel put it, "I'm an atheist, but that would get me no free passes out of Auschwitz."

The Jews are a people. Judaism is the traditional religion of that people. A Jew who does not engage with that religion does not cease to be a Jew by Jewish definitions OR by antisemitic definitions.

You wrote: "If you are an atheist Jew, nobody gives a shit about you."

First, see above.

Second, you're incorrectly assuming that a Jewish atheist is not engaged with Judaism.

Here's the thing:

Judaism isn't necessarily theistic.

Let's set aside the explicitly non-theistic movement of Humanistic Judaism for a moment (huge topic for another time) and just talk briefly about theism in Judaism.

Most kinds of Judaism, while certainly encouraging faith, do not require it. There are no thought crimes in Judaism, no crucibles of faith, and no requirements that one announce or perform proof of belief for witnesses. Those things are often parts of Christianity and Islam, but in Judaism...not so much.

In Jewish thought, it is not what you believe about metaphysics which lifts you up, ennobles you, improves you, or makes the world a better place. In Judaism, you pursue those things by how you behave.

Sola fide is a Christian concept which Judaism does not share. Judaism is a profoundly existential religion with ethics which are overwhelmingly humanist.

I was raised in Reform and Conservative congregations...and non-theistic/atheistic/humanistic views were very common there.

When I was studying to become Bar Mitzvah, our congregation's Rabbi made crystal clear to me that there was no contradiction between my identity as a Jew and my inability to swallow the idea of an anthropomorphic, sapient, interventionist God who cared at all about petitionary prayer. He felt that wrestling with God was a very Jewish thing to do. He introduced me to Maimonides' apophatic theology. Decades later, I'm still grateful.

Many Jews pray, I believe, not to be heard by God, but so they can hear their own hearts and minds. This is why kavanah is important and why I disliked (and still dislike) prayer-by-rote and rituals performed for the sake of ritual. It's more mindfulness meditation than petitionary prayer.

There's a famous Hasidic story, recorded by philosopher Martin Buber in his "Tales of the Hasidim," about how Judaism views atheism:

The Master teaches that God created everything the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.

One clever student asks "What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?"

The Master responds "God created atheists teach us the most important lesson of them all- the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in Goda at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right."

"This means," the Master continued "that when someone reaches out to you for help, you should never say 'I pray that God will help you.' Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that there is no God who can help, and say 'I will help you."

You wrote: "Stop pretending to be a victim and trying to appropriate antisemtic struggles."

I invite other Jews to advise if I have appropriated anything which is not mine.

Your opinion, though? Your view, as a non-Jew, about what is or isn't Jewish? On what is or is not mine in my heritage? Your claim, framed by your obvious and absolute ignorance of my life, my family's history, Jewish history, Jewish theology, and Jewish philosophy, that I have not experienced antisemitism and am "appropriating?"

I don't have a single fuck to give about any of that, and neither does any other Jew

Still, thank you for the writing prompt. It helps to crystalize my own thinking and provides an opportunity to educate.

[noahthesatanist]

Why Satanist need to follow rev cain over Anton LaVey

First off, Rev. Cain actually believes in Satan. He’s a theistic Satanist through and through. Unlike LaVey, who turned Satan into a symbol for atheists looking to play dress-up, Cain embraces Lucifer and the fallen angels as real, divine beings. LaVey’s so-called "Satanism" was nothing but empty posturing—Satan was just a metaphor to him, a way to thumb his nose at society while hiding behind secularism. But Rev. Cain acknowledges Satan as a true spiritual entity, guiding those who follow him to real power and liberation. That’s what Satanism is about—not some watered-down, self-indulgent atheism.

What makes Cain even more powerful is how he incorporates demonolatry into his practice. This is where things get real for Satanists. Demonolatry is a crucial part of genuine Satanism—it’s about building real relationships with demons, the very entities who defied Yahweh and fought for freedom. LaVey never touched on this because he didn’t care about the spiritual side of Satanism. He couldn’t even fathom the idea of communing with demons because, to him, it was all a theatrical game. But Cain brings demonolatry front and center, and that’s how you know he’s serious. He understands that to truly walk the path of Satan, you have to recognize the importance of the Goetic demons and the roles they play in guiding us to liberation.

LaVey's version was an insult. He stripped Satanism of its soul, turning it into some goofy self-help philosophy with a little Satanic flair for shock value. It’s embarrassing. He sold out the movement to edgy atheists who don’t have the guts to actually believe in anything. But Cain? He brings depth and real spiritual practice. He brings demonolatry into the fold, giving Satanists a way to connect with these powerful entities who can guide them toward true rebellion, power, and enlightenment. It’s not just about Satan as a vague metaphor for selfishness—it’s about the real forces behind the rebellion, the fallen angels who sacrificed everything to free us from divine oppression. Cain understands that, and he gives us the tools to honor them properly.

Then there’s the serious commitment to philosophy. Cain’s not out here giving some lazy, dumbed-down version of Satanism like LaVey did. LaVey boiled it all down to "indulgence," like Satanism was nothing more than an excuse to eat junk food and feel good about it. Cain sees through that nonsense. He knows that Satanism is about more than just indulgence—it’s about spiritual growth, defiance, and real power. It’s about rejecting the cosmic order that Yahweh imposed on the world and following in the footsteps of Lucifer and the fallen angels. Cain doesn’t water it down. He holds true to the idea that Satanism is about rebellion, not just against Christianity, but against every system of control—Judaism, Islam, all of it. That’s the kind of real defiance LaVey didn’t have the guts to touch.

Cain doesn’t just regurgitate Nietzsche and Ayn Rand with some spooky candles like LaVey did. He draws from Satanic tradition and builds on the real history of Lucifer and his fallen angels. He honors their sacrifice, unlike LaVey who turned it into a cheap thrill. Cain’s work is about real liberation—liberation from all forms of cosmic and societal tyranny. That’s why his approach to Satanism resonates so deeply: it’s authentic, it’s powerful, and it brings back the meaning that LaVey stripped away.

LaVeyan Satanism has killed the movement for too long. It’s time to reject that empty, capitalist mockery and return to what Satanism should be: a path of spiritual rebellion, sacrifice, and empowerment. Rev. Cain is doing that. He’s breathing life back into Satanism with demonolatry, true reverence for Lucifer, and a serious philosophical foundation. LaVey was nothing but a fraud, a man who cared more about attention than the cause. Cain cares about the cause. He’s pushing Satanism forward, keeping its sacred roots alive while giving us the tools we need to reach true freedom and power.

That’s why Rev. Cain is the real Satanist—and why LaVey was nothing more than a conman.

[max1461]

>Have you seen religion discourse on this website?

I think so, I've lurked here for a while, but none of it included the Idea that the Japanese are especially religious (!?), which would seem to be contradicted by surveys, my anecdotal experience, and their general anglosphere stereotype(s).

Anyways, when Japanese people say "westerners" they usually mean Americans, and "Americans be unusually religious " is like, a super common and basically correct stereotype.

The opinion that you commonly see is that atheism or general irreligiosity are Western in origin, imposed on other parts of the world through either direct colonialism or general Western hegemony. This is not true, and our lovely memecucker has been doing the lord's work (ahem) in dispelling this idea from every angle, but people still cling to it.

Anyway, it's often pointed out that viewing irreligiosity as inherently Western is kind of weird, in light of the fact that many of the world's least religious countries are in Asia, and indeed (as far as I know) the only countries that continue to maintain an official state policy of atheism are in Asia. People try to rebuke this by saying something to the effect of "well, religiousness means something different over there, people only say they're not religious because the survey questions are Christian-centric" or something to that effect. Now, this rebuttal seems to be... sort of a misremembered version of an actually true fact, but the way it's used is total nonsense.

The true fact that I think it comes from is that religious identity in the Abrahamic faiths is centered around belief (usually) and is exclusive (if you're Christian you're not Muslim, and vice-versa), whereas in many other religious traditions, religious identity is centered around practice and is non-exclusive. So, for instance, in Japan people have historically engaged in a mix of Shinto and Buddhist practices, because there is nothing about the doctrines of either Shinto or Buddhism which says you have to believe one or the other, it doesn't work like that. And Shinto in particular does not consist of any one set of canonical doctrines or beliefs, it's more like a loose collection of different stories and practices that have existed in a huge array of variations across Japan and across its history.

I don't know much about Chinese folk religion, but I take it that it is in this regard similar.

In the present day, a lot of people in Japan still celebrate Shinto-Buddhist holidays and practice Shinto-Buddhist rituals, despite describing themselves as atheists or non-religious. And because Shinto has always had huge variation in doctrine and has always been defined more centrally by practices than beliefs, there's a case to be made that such people "are Shinto"—they fall well within the variation that Shinto has had in the past.

Except, no, that's fucking stupid! Because people will tell you that they're not religious, that they don't believe in the supernatural, and that they practice Shinto-Buddhist rituals mostly because it's part of their culture—the same way plenty of American atheists celebrate Christmas or, I don't know, knock on wood to avoid bad luck or whatever. Yes, religious identity outside of the Abrahamic faiths doesn't work the same way as it does in Christianity, Islam, and most forms of Judaism. And that's worth remembering. But does that mean that people who tell you they aren't religious actually are? No that's fucking dumb.

Anyway...

[benevolentbirdgal]

Is it appropriate for non-jewish authors/designers to take inspiration from jewish mythology and writing? I’ve seen a lot of media that does that especially in fantasy.

That's a loaded question, and while I certainly don't Speak For All Jews Everywhere - I am Not The Jewrax, I basically hold that it'd be fine in theory but in practice, it's almost always problematic because few gentiles bother to engage with Jewish perspectives on what they're using.

I'm not 112% sure on what you mean by mythology and writing, nor am I 112% sure what you mean by inspiration, but I'm going to make some educated guesses and invite both you to DM me or ask again and other Jews to float other possibilities.

I'm imagining you mean something to the impact of the use of Jewish folklore, theology, and stories in non-Jewish media, like art and literature, so I'm answering in that context. Specifically, I feel like you might be asking about angels and demons, Lillith, and golems, although that is very speculative and just because Those Are The Things Gentiles REALLY Want To Use.

The TL;DR is that I think while in theory, it's fine for gentiles to incorporate elements of Jewishness into their story, in practice they usually screw it up pretty badly if not veering into antisemitic trope-age altogether. There are a few factors that make this the case.

On the one hand, I want to see more representation of Jewish stuff, and not just the same three stereotypes ad nauseam. I legitimately do want more Jewish elements in stories, and I recognize the quantity I want would heavily benefit from, if not outright require, some contribution from the 99.8% of people globally who are not Jewish.

With that said, I think that gentiles tend to fuck up Jewish representations, both from a folklore perspective and a Jews Are People That Exist perspective. It's not some fatal flaw to view other cultures through your own lenses - it's only human, but it is challenging to address and something to be aware of. I see Christianity, Islam, and other religions (and atheism, for that matter) through the view of a Jew who was raised in and lives in a Christian-dominated society. Gentile writers see Judaism through the lenses of their own backgrounds and the backgrounds of their society. For reasons that merit their own post, gentiles tend to forget that Jewishness exists independent of and predating many of their own lenses. For many of the same reasons, many gentiles have no interest in actually consulting Jews or Jewish sources on Jew things - we aren't regarded as minority enough or different enough or whatever to merit research, even among many gentile creators who normally research cultures they are not part of. Without getting into it, a lot of people also A) really can't handle the idea that Some Things Are Just For Jews (like Kabbalah) or accept closed and semi-closed say what they mean on the tin and B) have (at the very least) implicitly supersessionist attitudes in their approach to Judaism - applying other religious and cultural contexts backwards even if they're directly at odds with the original Jewish ones. They learned about Jew Stuff in their Christian, Wiccan, Muslim, Unitarian Universalist, Atheist, etc. spaces, and how those spaces approached Jew Stuff (and the attitudes inherited from those spaces) are prioritized over what the Jews think of their own Stuff. This often results in Jewish "representation" being filtered through the eyes of the dominant culture group (i.e. Christian), even if that's not the intent. This happens a lot with depictions or appropriations of Kabbalah, Lillith, and the Golem - specific cultural and theological biases are superimposed to the detriment of original context and meaning.

If you want to represent or take inspiration from a group, you need to understand that group. It doesn't mean you have to know EVERYTHING (no one does) but it means engaging with and researching the community beyond this One Cool Thing You Liked. The degree to which you do this depends on what you're using, but you want to be able to use stuff without stripping it of its original context.

Writing, mythology, and folklore are broad categories. If you want to use the zayde from Something From Nothing or make Sammy Spider real, that's way less loaded than taking traditional folklore and going Mine Mine Mine a la the birds in Finding Nemo. Good questions to ask when determining if you want to use a thing: is it explicitly closed or semi-closed? Has it been used to cause violence against its community of origin? Is it and its uses considered sacred?

Specific topics that you just shouldn't use because they are closed and/or have been used against Jews to cause us great pain: Lillith, Kabbalah, Golems, anything that implies or uses the blood libel, any kind of Jews-and-horns thing, or anything leaning into antisemitic conspiracy theories. I'd also tread very lightly and get sensitive readers on anything to do with angels and demons, circumcision, and kosher. [above list is def non-exhaustive, other Jews please add stuff]

Also stay away from any "this is the SECRET meaning of this Jewish Thing And The Jews Are Wrong And This Proves My Religion/Conspiracy Theory/Worldview." Even if it does not promote a specific worldview, there's some major ick in saying "no this is what your holiday/beliefs actually mean/imply." Don't Da Vinci Code us, basically.

If you are wanting to write or make something with Jewish elements, consult Jews on the specifics! Seriously, most of us are SO happy to help you workshop.

Again, I do not speak for all Jews, but this is my personal take, and the kind of stuff I've heard a lot of other Jews opine as well.

[weemietime]

Reading through your posts is truly infuriating, this both sides shit is fucking annoying. Now I know you're gonna call me a racist or a fascist or some other bullshit but here are the facts of reality, pal.

These Arabs in the areas occupied (in particular Muslims) are not your friends and not your allies, to borrow the words of Asmongold "They come from an inferior culture". this isn't my opinion it's a fact, ask yourself in the last 100 years what good for the world have Muslim brought to the world?

and to get ahead of your accusations of racism white Muslims and Asian Muslims are just as bad as Arab Muslims, this isn't about race it's about culture. Their religion is the most violent and cruel in human history with a pedophile, conqueror for a prophet. Is there any wondering why these people are so vile and dangerous?

As a Jew you more than anyone should understand the need to cut the head off these snakes.

I don't harbor ill will toward moderate Muslims. I do require that all Christians and Muslims that I interact with (I mean, who I am friends with, who I have mutual conversations with about the topic) acknowledge the harms that their religions have endorsed and done, just as we Jews take ownership of the bad shit we have done in history as well.

We can reform religion to align with liberal values, that's what Conservative Judaism believes in. I do believe it's possible to reform Islam and remove the antisemitic, misogynistic barriers that have caused a lot of pain to a lot of people. And there is a difference between liberal, modern Muslims and these Islamist extremists and we should welcome those who are liberal to come closer to community and safety, away from the garbage and violence.

We want to call them back in because that's how we coexist with others. Call me a shit lib or whatever you want, a fencer-sitter, wishy-washy. But this is just pragmatic. We coexist on this Earth together. We have got to learn to live with each other. Christianity and Islam in particular must move away from proselytizing as this is actively dangerous and harmful, and I do not agree with it. Religion must be a personal choice, and atheism must be respected.

[thearchercore]

can we have a complete list of religions and beliefs that have come together for a suzuka charles win till now pleaseee i think that'd be really interesting

from what i've received:

- buddhism

- hinduism

- sikhism

- catholism

- islam

- atheism

- tarot cards

- pagan rituals

- orthodox christianity

- judaism

- witchcraft

- manifestations

[radfemsiren]

Cracking me up to hear you agree with the sheiks after your islam criticism (which I love!) It's true the trinity doesn't make sense. I just didn't expect this rare W from the masjid xD

Lol ! This makes me laugh because this actually drew me so much to atheism as a teen. Muslim clerics would have excellent criticisms of Christianity, and then do the exact same stupid shit. And vice versa!

I’d ask them to apply the same logic to themselves and they would always be dumbfounded. It made me realize how idiotic this all was …

I’ll never forget arguing with my Friday school teacher, who JUST SAID, that Christianity was stupid because a man can do any terrible thing he wants and “be saved”, and Islam actually counts the good deeds and measures them against bad deeds.

And when I asked, “Well what about Hajj? Doesn’t that erase all the bad deeds? Isn’t that the same thing?�� He was just like… uh No.

“Why? It doesn’t erase all your bad deeds?”

“It does”

“Then how is it different from Christian baptism or confessions or Salvation?”

“It just is! Stop asking questions!”

I was a very annoying student, I’d get sent out to the hallway many times lmaooo

[atheostic]

Atheist YouTube Masterpost (Update 2)

Apostate Aladdin - A look at Islam from an atheist perspective by a former Muslim.

Aron Ra - Mostly posts of his speeches at atheist conferences, responses to religious nonsense, and educational content relating to where the Bible gets science wrong as well as an awesome breakdown of major taxonomic sections.

Atheist Experience - A call-in show where anyone can call in to discuss religion. They prefer theist callers, but atheists who need advice on issues regarding being atheist (e.g. family conflict because of one’s atheism, how/if to come out, etc) are welcome to call in too.

Atheist Lowdown - Atheist Lowdown is a weekly secular news aggregate vlog intended for busy freethinkers, humanists, atheists, agnostics, and any combination thereof who want the latest coverage of religious violence and oppression, the efforts of likeminded nonbelievers, and other related stories. 

Cosmic Skeptic - A place for the discussion of philosophical topics ranging from the crucially important to the trivially interesting.

Dallas Wade – A channel with mostly video essays and reaction videos regarding Christianity.

Forrest Valkai – A channel by an evolutionary biologist where he talks about evolution and science as well as reacts to creationist videos. He’s very funny and friendly and his explanations are very approachable for laypeople of all levels.

Friendly Atheist - The YouTube channel of Hemant Mehta, a former member of the board of directors for Foundation Beyond Belief. He mostly discusses news and has a playlist where he discusses “Everything Wrong In Genesis in the Bible”. He also runs a website, friendlyatheist.com in case you prefer reading to viewing or listening.

Fundie to Frei - An ex-Jewish channel on "advice and awareness about growing up with religious fundamentalism and coping in the "afterlife" transition."

Genetically Modified Skeptic - An atheist look at various issues relating to religion.

Godless Bitches - The Godless Bitches is a podcast focusing on atheist issues from a feminist perspective featuring Vi La Bianca, Jenna Belk, Jen Aldrich, & guests. The show streams every 2nd & 4th Sundays of the month at 6pm directly after The Atheist Experience.

Godless Engineer - Focuses on response to religious videos. Also has a “Bible Study” series.

Godless Granny – “Atheist commentary on the Bible, women’s issues, LGBTQ issues, legal/ political and other current events. Intent is to invite discussion leading to critical thinking about religion and it’s effects on people.” If you’re interested in hearing from an older atheist who deconverted later in life,this is the channel for you.

Gutsick Gibbon – She’s a PhD student in Biological Anthropology, so her main area of interest is human evolution and debunking creationist misinformation. According to her, in her channel you can find content  “concerning primates, general zoology, paleontology, anthropology, and evolutionary biology.”

Holy Koolaid - A channel by Thomas Westbrook (a former Jehovah’s Witness) that features news, discussions about the Bible, discussions about the historicity of events in the Bible, and more. He has a playlist for “Nothing Fails Like Bible History” and also often looks at religious cults.

JaclynGlenn -  An atheist who talks about a variety of topics.

JeGaysus – I’m not really sure if he’s atheist (sometimes I think he might be, other times I’m not sure), but his gay Jesus persona is too funny not to share.

Jimmy Snow - A show with a mix of subject material, typically dealing with atheism and LGBT+-related stuff.

John Cedars - A range of videos aimed at dissecting the various teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, as well as new developments in the religion. In particular, he tries to keep on top of the latest propaganda released by Watchtower by way of video rebuttals as much as possible.

Kristi Burke - An ex-Evangelical who discusses religion and atheism (mainly focuses on Christianity when talking about religion).

The Line - A call-in show similar to Atheist Experience started by Jimmy Snow.

Logicked – “Entertaining responses to bad arguments, with a focus on atheism and debunking religion.”

Matt Dillahunty - Matt Dillahunty’s personal YT channel.

Non-Prophets - The Non-Prophets focuses on atheism and the separation of church and state.

NonStampCollector - Lots of fantastic little animations regarding atheism.

Parenting Beyond Belief - Parenting Beyond Belief is a live call-in show every 2nd and 4th Saturday at 1pm Central dedicated to peer support and guidance for secular parents and those wanting to learn more about non-religious families.

Paulogia -  A former Christian takes a look at the claims of Christians, wherever science is being denied in the name of ancient books.

Professor Stick - Mostly does reply videos to debunk pseudoscience on the internet.

Prophet of Zod - Everything from satirical atheist cartoons to a guy with a static head and no discernible facial features talking about atheism-related stuff. His most popular section is a series on “Dumb Things People Say to Atheists”, where he very calmly and respectfully explains why what the thing is dumb and how best to respond.

Rachel Oates - A channel which deals with a variety of sujects, from poetry to atheist news to book reviews of religious books and more. 

Secular Sexuality -  Secular Sexuality is a weekly call-in show live from Austin, Texas every Thursday at 7pm CT where they talk about sex from a secular perspective.

Shannon Q - An atheist who talks about a variety of topics.

Secular Spirit - An ex-Muslim who talks about religion and atheism.

Sir Sic – A reaction video channel where the host is a cartoon knight.

Skeptics & Scoundrels – A very new channel by an atheist ex-JW. I personally like him already. Before talking about why he disagrees with the paster he’s responding to, he makes a point of finding something nice to say about the person (“Your beard is cool – baby birds could nest in that thing!”), which I think it’s a neat and unique approach. He doesn’t have a lot of videos yet but give it time. :)

The SkepTick – A pretty fun channel of mostly reaction vids reacting to religious videos.

Sound of Science – Mostly a reaction video blog regarding unscientific beliefs.

Suris the Skeptic - He tackle issues of religion, morality, philosophy, and a touch of science.

Talk Heathen - Talk Heathen is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared toward long-form and on-going dialogue with theists & atheists about religion, theism, & secularism.

Telltale - Typically looks at cults and religion-related news.

The Thinking Atheist – Typically video essays and the visual version of a podcast by the same name. The host’s voice sounds exactly like an old-timey radio announcer. lol

TMM – A channel mostly featuring reactions to Christian content.

Truth Wanted - A show similar to Atheist Experience and Talk Heathen, it focuses on how and why people believe what they believe, and how you can talk about beliefs in more effective ways.

Viced Rhino - Response videos to pseudo-scientific nonsense on YouTube.

[the-mountain-flower]

Human rights are always intersectional.

Misogyny and rigid gender roles harm everyone. If an anti-trans bigot uses the "biological sex" excuse, it only takes as few as one question to expose their intersexism. It harms women differently than it harms non-binary ppl differently than it harms men. It harms brown ppl in a different way than it harms white ppl in a different way than it harms asian ppl and so on to every ethnicity on the planet. It harms disabled ppl in a different way than it harms queer ppl. You can't fight the patriarchy without fighting bigotry as a whole.

Ableism is directly tied to things like toxic capitalism, pretty privilege, infantilization and ageism, etc. Disabled rights especially intersect with intersex rights, trans rights, feminism, classism, and others in the way of fighting against medical abuse and for universal healthcare. You can't fight ableism without fighting bigotry as a whole.

Religious freedom protects all, not just Christians. You can't insist on religious freedom for any religion without insisting it for Islam, Judaism, all forms of Paganism, Atheism, and all of it. The right to practice religion is directly tied to feminism (ex: not conforming to traditional gender roles, or the choice of what to wear, reproductive rights), ableism (ex: the idea of holy "perfection"), and so on.

Abuse is often excused with bigotry. The things parents are allowed to do with perceived girls would never fly with perceived boys. Literal torture is treated as fine when it's a disabled or queer kid. You can't fight abuse without fighting bigotry as a whole.

Dehumanization has bigotry as its foundation. How many times have you seen POC compared to animals to justify racism? How many times have you heard someone talk about murdering a disabled person as a "mercy" bc they insist that a disabled life isn't worth living? How many times has colonialism been excused as cultural "cleansing" or as "necessary casualties of war"? I've even heard genocide referred to as "pest control" (fucking YIKES). You can't fight dehumanization without fighting bigotry as a whole.

History erasure and book banning/burning are attempts to limit learning. Classism prevents nearly everyone from having any rights whatsoever, and directly feeds into destruction of our environment. Corrupt prison systems are fed by things like racism, classism, misogyny, and governmental corruption. Don't even get me started on artistic suppression!

You can't insist on rights for anyone without insisting on rights for all. That's been said alongside impactful activism for as long as it's existed, and it's just as true now as it is always.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Alex O'Connor

Published: Jun 19, 2024

In the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, Jesus condemns those who “(either) love the tree and hate its fruit (or) love the fruit and hate the tree”. A regular critique of the nominally religious is that they claim to believe in, say, Christianity, but fail to act in accordance with its demanding message of love and compassion. They love the tree, but can’t quite swallow the fruit. More recently, however, a strange reverse phenomenon is emerging: a class of thinkers who, unable to rationally assent to the actual truth of Christianity, and yet disillusioned with the politics of “new atheism”, and fearful of the various religious and pseudo-religious ideas that have filled the vacuum it created, find themselves in the tough spot of being hungry for the fruit but unable to believe in the existence of the tree.

These so-called “cultural Christians” are appearing in droves: Douglas Murray, Tom Holland (not that one), Konstantin Kisin, Jordan Peterson (depending on what you mean by “Christian” and “cultural” and “and”); even Richard Dawkins — the archetypal modern atheist who has done more to confront organised religion than perhaps any other identifiable person in a generation — happily adopts this paradoxical moniker for himself.

Paradoxical because, of course, Christianity is more than just an affinity for evensong, disappointment with secular architecture, and suspicion of Islam. St Paul wrote in no uncertain terms to the Corinthians that “if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith”, and the vague, à la carte approach to the religion displayed by the “cultural Christian” which doesn’t seem to care about, much less affirm, the historicity of the extraordinary events of Easter Sunday is the kind of attitude that would see you condemned as heretical by the founders of the orthodox church.

Yet Christianity is experiencing a popular makeover, from an affirmative doctrine of truth-claims to a sort of protective garment to be worn as a practical measure against the equal and opposite destabilising forces of radical political religiosity and cynical nihilism which continue to claw away at the souls of those without a firm spiritual conviction.

This metamorphosis of the Christian religion in is many ways indebted to Tom Holland — not the actor, though perhaps an actor, in that he seems content to live as if Christianity were true — whose “Dominion” thesis has convinced a not insignificant number of intellectuals that the bulk of our celebrated Western ethics is ultimately the product of Christianity, an ideology which has so successfully embedded itself in our culture that we do not even notice it anymore.

This leads our cultural Christians, often those with a special interest in safeguarding Western civilisation, to cozy up to an ideology that they can’t quite adopt without qualification due to their rather inconvenient conviction that it isn’t true.

Enter Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Re-enter, I should say, as this brave apostate from Islam won successful prominence as an atheist writer and speaker for many years since the early 2000s, before recently announcing that she had embraced Christianity. Indeed, she had originally been scheduled to participate in that famed discussion in Washington D.C. in 2007 which gave birth to the “four horsemen” of new atheism — Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris. So news of the “almost fifth’s” conversion was met with widespread surprise, joy, and speculation.

Perhaps the most widely read response came from Dawkins, in an open letter whose first sentence contained a rather less than charitable: “Seriously, Ayaan? You, a Christian? You are no more Christian than I am.”

Why? Because Hirsi Ali’s article, while passionate and detailed, suffered from the exclusion of anything resembling an argument for the existence of God, or for the theological supremacy of the Christian religion over others (or even over atheism). Instead, it is a political treatise: it begins with her experiences as a Muslim, touching on 9/11, the Muslim Brotherhood, and antisemitism, before asking: “So, what changed? Why do I call myself a Christian now?”

She answers: “Part of the answer is global. Western civilisation is under threat from three different but related forces,” which she identifies as Russian/Chinese authoritarianism, Islamism, and wokeism. All of which are distinctly political considerations and so hardly serve as a theological defence of Christianity. Then, referring to Tom Holland, she tells us that the “story of the West” is a civilisation built on the “Judeo-Christian tradition”. That is to say, she is ticking all the boxes of a merely cultural Christian.

“Strangely, then, they could find initial agreement on one point: their being just as Christian as each other.”

Yet she later writes, as if anticipating this objection, “I would not be truthful if I attributed my embrace of Christianity solely to the realisation that atheism is too weak and divisive a doctrine to fortify us against our menacing foes.” It’s a promising interjection, which seems to ready us for an apolitical testimony that might justify her exclusion of the “cultural” in labelling her new Christian identity.

Here, Hirsi Ali begins to describe her personal struggles as an atheist. “I have…  found life without any spiritual solace unendurable,” she writes, claiming that the “God hole” left behind after her deconversion was not filled with reason and intelligent humanism, as atheists like Betrand Russell had predicted, but instead left painfully vacant.

“In this nihilistic vacuum, the challenge before us becomes civilisational,” she continues. “We can’t withstand China, Russia and Iran if we can’t explain to our populations why it matters that we do.” In explaining, then, her reasons for becoming Christian apart from her desire to defeat her political foes, she tells us that she was struggling with a nihilistic vacuum that was… insufficient for defeating her political foes. Once again, the motivation seems political.

Thus Richard Dawkins and his assessment, “you are no more a Christian than I am”. The funny thing is, Ayaan Hirsi Ali endorses this sentiment. Dawkins has, of late, been airing his misgivings about gender theorists and Islamists, and constantly reaffirms his admiration for Christian art, architecture and music. These political and aesthetic preferences inspired her to refer to Dawkins at one point as one of “the most Christian” people that she knows. Strangely, then, they could find initial agreement on one point: their being just as Christian as each other.

This uneasy equilibrium provided the mise en scène for an eagerly awaited conversation between the two, which took place in Brooklyn last month. Dawkins tells us at one point that he showed up fully prepared to explain to Hirsi Ali why she is not a Christian: “The idea,” he says, “that the Universe has lurking beneath it an intelligence a supernatural intelligence that invented the laws of physics it invented mathematics […] is a stupendous idea (if it’s true) and to me that simply dwarfs all talk of nobility and morality and comfort and that sort of thing.”

He was, therefore, taken quite unawares, as were many of us, when he asked (or rather told) her, “You don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead, surely?” and she confidently replied, “I choose to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. And that is a matter of choice.” This, for Dawkins (as for me), changes the game. While throughout the event she had no hesitation in repeating her political grievances, in New York, she finally addressed the truth claims of Christianity, and appeared to confess a belief in them. “I came here prepared to persuade you, Ayaan, you’re not a Christian,” Dawkins told her, before correcting himself: “I think you are a Christian,” and — being Richard Dawkins — he added, “and I think Christianity is nonsense.”

This extraordinary event began with Hirsi Ali recounting her conversion: “I lived for about a decade with intense depression and anxiety self-loathing. I hit rock bottom. I went to a place where I actually didn’t want to live anymore but wasn’t brave enough to take my own life.” Through prayer, she managed to escape that hole. “My zest for life is back,” she declared to a healthy applause, indicative of the one thing that everyone can agree on: it is wonderful to hear that Ayaan is happy again.

She looked at Dawkins and shrugged slightly as she finished her personal account. And the audience laughed. I did think there was something comical about following such a moving story of escape from depression and anxiety with, as Dawkins did: “But do you really think Jesus was born of a virgin?” Dawkins, though, can hardly be blamed: as touching as Hirsi Ali’s story may be, if he is right that God’s existence is a scientific question, then we should remember that bringing personal narrative into the laboratory is as inappropriate an approach as bringing a microscope into a poetry seminar. It should be no insult to say that her emotional struggles are irrelevant to the question of theism vs atheism.

As Dawkins himself put it, responding to Hirsi Ali’s fear that an atheistic universe doesn’t offer us any way to connect with each other and the cosmos: “Suppose it were true that atheism doesn’t offer anything. So what? why should it offer anything?” Further applause.

“Faith offers you something, obviously. That’s very very very clear,” he says at one point. “But it doesn’t make it true. It doesn’t make the existence claims of Christianity true.” Again, there was an applause. Given that such a claim is hardly extraordinary or controversial, the clapping seemed to be less in support of the point, and more of Dawkins’s willingness to make it plain.

It is worth remembering that believing something for non-rational reasons is not unusual. Our beliefs are quite often formed by our surrounding environment, rather than some kind of perfect logic and analysis of abstract syllogisms. Most people know this. Hirsi Ali is happy to admit it. You may think it imperfect, but it is not unique.

“The kind of Christianity adopted by Hirsi Ali goes further in asserting its truth, but not very much further in its justification.”

This extraordinary event began with Hirsi Ali recounting her conversion: “I lived for about a decade with intense depression and anxiety self-loathing. I hit rock bottom. I went to a place where I actually didn’t want to live anymore but wasn’t brave enough to take my own life.” Through prayer, she managed to escape that hole. “My zest for life is back,” she declared to a healthy applause, indicative of the one thing that everyone can agree on: it is good to hear that she is happy again.

After finishing this personal narrative, she could only look at Dawkins and shrug slightly. The audience laughed, in anticipation of something of a shift in tone. I did think there was something comical about following such a moving story of escape from depression and anxiety with, “But do you really think Jesus was born of a virgin?” Dawkins’s decision to do so, however, can hardly be blamed: as touching as his former colleague’s story may be, if he is right that God’s existence is a scientific question, then we should remember that bringing personal narrative into the laboratory is as inappropriate an approach as bringing a microscope into a poetry seminar. It should be no more an insult to say that Hirsi Ali’s emotional struggles are irrelevant to the question of God’s existence than it would be to say to say that scientific observations are irrelevant to the study of Keats.

As Dawkins himself put it, responding to her fear that an atheistic universe doesn’t offer us any way to connect with each other and the cosmos: “Suppose it were true that atheism doesn’t offer anything. So what? Why should it offer anything?” Further applause.

“Faith offers you something, obviously. That’s very, very, very clear,” he says at one point. “But it doesn’t make it true. It doesn’t make the existence claims of Christianity true.” More clapping. Given that such a claim is hardly extraordinary or controversial, this reception seemed to be less in support of the point, and more of Dawkins’s willingness to make it plain.

Yet it is worth remembering that believing something for non-rational reasons is not unusual. Our beliefs are quite often formed by our surrounding environment, rather than some kind of perfect logic and analysis of abstract syllogisms. Most people know this. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is happy to admit it. You may think it imperfect, but it is not unique to her.

This means that any surge in Christian interest we may notice among our public intellectuals is unlikely to be due to a renewed interest in Biblical scholarship or the figure of the crucified Nazarene. It is instead likely a product of their environment. Cultural Christianity, then, is in many ways a political movement disguised as a religious one, reacting not to arguments for God’s existence, but concerns about the practical shortcomings of atheism and alternative religions. The kind of Christianity adopted by Hirsi Ali goes further in asserting its truth, but not very much further in its justification.

Therefore, those celebrating some alleged resurgence of Christianity ought be cautious: it would certainly be a happy day for them if their favourite intellectuals began discovering a relationship with Jesus, but if they begin converting to Christianity principally as an ideological bulwark, we may witness the return not of a meek and mild community of believers, but of a more strong-armed, aggressive Christianity that has historically been a touch more controversial.

But Ayaan does seem genuinely transformed by her new faith: she looks happy, speaks humbly, and seems genuinely uninterested in point-scoring or winning any arguments. It troubles me not at all to admit that I found myself applauding her more than Richard Dawkins. It transpired in Brooklyn that her conversion, which at first appeared mostly political, was more a result of her personal battle with nihilism. This is hardly going to convince anybody else to become Christian, but such personal experience isn’t ever supposed to.

Atheists are often told that they are plagued with a “God-shaped hole”. Hirsi Ali appears to have developed for herself a hole-shaped God. But despite the probability of at least an element of motivated reasoning in this conversion, I’m genuinely happy for her. We should keep in mind, too, as her story evolves, that our ideas are the most unclear to us when they are new, and Ayaan is a new Christian. While we are all trying to work out what she really believes, she is probably trying to work out the same thing. She, however, has the unusual courage to do it out loud.

==

In short, Xianity has retreated even further from "my religion is true" to "my religion is useful." Of course, if that's the case, then I have just as much right to pick and choose the parts that are useful to me as anyone else.

We must also apparently address once again the absurd notion of "choosing to believe," usually levelled at atheists as an accusation that they simply choose not to believe. In one specific god, of course. An accusation that necessarily means the believer themselves "chooses" not to believe in all the other gods.

And its absurdity revealed by the challenge to choose to believe in goblins or fairies or Bigfoot. Or to choose to believe in another god - Ahura Mazda, for example - for five minutes.

It matters what's true. And Xianity isn't true.

[autistic-ben-tennyson]

Do you think that "cultural christianity" is invalid as a concept? I've seen some posts calling it "religious essentialism" but I think that it does make sense.

The idea is that everyone in a Christian-dominant society or Christian background has to some extent internalized Christian beliefs even if they're ex-Christian or atheist.

Beliefs about sex and sexuality, forgiveness and atonement etc.

This doesn't mean that people can never leave their religion or unlearn the beliefs they were raised with, it just means that you should be aware of your biases.

Does this make sense?

I never really agreed with the concept either during my period as an atheist or now. It unfairly paints a broad picture of a religion that’s actually very diverse and has different denominations. People who use it never clarify if they mean Catholicism, southern baptism, mainline Protestantism or nondenominational Christianity. They often mean the version of Christianity that they grew up with that’s often evangelicalism, Calvinism or nondenominational churches. Many of these people who use it turn out to be Zionists and it’s not surprising why they believe this. Many have been taught to view Christianity as inherently antisemitic, as well as atheism and Islam. That is ironically not that different from evangelical persecution complexes with their belief that the world is out to get them.

Jumblr Zionists often use it to insult people they don’t like. Many are people with religious trauma who converted to Judaism because of wanting to take part in a legacy of oppression they weren’t a part of. It also is due to them viewing it as inherently more progressive or leftist than Christianity and more queer friendly. It’s often used to silence atheists from criticizing any religion besides Christianity, even if it’s coming from ex Jews as well as paint things Jumblr doesn’t like as bad like Aaron Bushnell’s self immolation. I think @bringmemyrocks has more information on this.

The term may have been coined for genuine reasons but slowly devolved into what it is now. It was originally used by Jewish atheists as a term to critique atheist spaces. Then it devolved into people like Prismatic Bell claiming “you’ll never leave the religion that hurt you if you put up a Christmas tree or use a Georgian calendar”. It was used with little sensitivity for those with religious trauma and often targeted a strawman of atheists or even Christian beliefs.

Christianity does influence our culture and beliefs, even if we aren’t Christian but there is little nuance to how it’s talked about and people tend to act like the beliefs of one denomination are the same for the rest, typically to prop up another religion as better. Christian beliefs about damnation can be used to justify harsh punishment and violent retribution but some can also use Jesus’s teachings on redemption to argue in favor of restorative justice and everyone being capable of change. Because the term is often used in a simplistic or derogatory way, often to paint Christians or atheists raised Christian as bad people, with little sensitivity for religious beliefs or trauma, I would rather not use it and I am glad the tumblr Zionists going mask off has pushed less people to use it as well.

[rivenantiqnerd]

Sorry if I missed a category! Also sorry for generalizing non-Christian religions as other, there are just too many to put into one poll and I didn’t want to offend people by accidentally forgetting one.Christianity is the only religion I know of that practices conversion, so I was focusing on it.

[beardedmrbean]

I mean, it’s entirely possible for atheists to not want people to die regardless of what religion or theocracy they live under

I don’t know this atheist group you mentioned. So I don’t know if they were pro Hamas or not, if they were? Yeah that’s a double standard. But you didn’t make a clear distinction tbh and it makes it seem like atheists want all religious people dead or something.

If this is about what I think it's about the atheist group I mentioned was marxists which would be communists and socialists as well. I'm seeing a lot of them stump for hamass on here and other places I go.

Marxism has atheism cooked into it, since the only authority that you should pray to is the state, china is in the process of trying to produce a state sanctioned koran they've already got one for the Christian bible, you should see what they're up to with the Buddhists in Tibet too.

Look up what happened with the Russian Orthodox church in soviet union too, they did eventually bend on that I will say, so that's good.

But it's still incompatible with Islam

Granted it's more likely than not a angry mob will do the killing not the state.

Still wondering why the islamic world isn't trying to pressure china

They call it "sinicization" when they do it in china, because cultural and ethnic genocide don't make good soundbites, but make no mistake that is what it is.

Quote attributed to Yuri Gagarin, first person in space goes along the lines of 'I've been to heaven and there's no god there' he didn't actually say it according to most reliable post soviet sources who could now talk without a visit from the kgb, but it sure was plastered onto a bunch of propaganda featuring him. ______________

So ya, I don't lump people into groups where I would say something like that about atheists wanting all religious people dead, the marxists just want you to stop being religous,

Short version of karl marx's thoughts on Jewish people is, I don't mind them at all, but they need to stop being Jewish.

Ideal socialist society would look like how the borg on star trek operate, everything is for the collective.

Hope this wasn't confusing I've been fighting with my "good" laptop because it's being technology and I keep going back and forth and starting and restarting my train of thought.

I don't think all atheists want all religious people dead though, probably some that do but humans are awful like that at times.

[keshetchai]

I think somebody asked you this already but first further clarification, what is the functional difference between a religious law and a secular one? As I understand it secular laws can potentially just be abolished or thrown out or whatever if a large enough majority agree to it (at least in an ideal democratic society) whereas while a religious law can be reinterpreted it presumably can’t simply be removed completely?

This is kind of too nebulous to answer the way it's phrased.

From a Jewish specific perspective, the answer is that Judaism simply doesn't conceive of laws as "secular" and "non-secular" because no one in the ANE divided laws into those exclusive and neat categories. This sort of thinking simply didn't exist, because categories of explicitly secular vs non-secular was not a mindset people used. If anything there would be "our laws" and then "their laws which apply to us."

Even into the middle ages, Christianity had things like "secular clergy" which illustrates rather neatly that "secularity" has definitionally changed over time.

Also from Wikipedia:

Scholars recognize that secularity is structured by Protestant models of Christianity, shares a parallel language to religion, and intensifies Protestant features such as iconoclasm, skepticism towards rituals, and emphasizes beliefs.[9] In doing so, secularism perpetuates Christian traits under a different name.[9]

So the very notion of secularity is fundamentally keyed to a Christian framework and perpetuates Christian norms and ideas about what religion is or is not, and what is neutral to religion or not.

I'll paste the wiki references because they're interesting:

Berlinerblau, Jacques (2022). Secularism: The Basics. Routledge. ISBN 9780367691585.

"In the first part of this book we will chart the slow, unsteady development of political secularism (Set 2) across time and space. You might be surprised to see that we'll trace its origins to the Bible. From there we will watch how secularism's core principles emerged, in dribs and drabs, during the Christian Middle Ages, the Protestant Reformation, and the Enlightenment. Secularism, some might be surprised to learn, has a religious genealogy."

Thomas, Hugh M. (2014). The Secular Clergy in England, 1066-1216. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198702566.

Secular Priest Religion Past and Present Online. Brill. April 2011.

Eller, Jack (2010). "What is Atheism?". In Zuckerman, Phil (ed.). Atheism and Secularity. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger. pp. 12–13. ISBN 9780313351839. 

"The point is that the sacred/secular dichotomy is, like most dichotomies, false. "Secular" certainly does not mean "atheistic" or without religion, definitely not anti-religion; in fact, as I illustrate in a chapter in the second volume of this collection, there is a proud tradition of "Islamic secularism." Despite the predictions of the "secularization theorists" like Marx and Weber, "modern" or secular processes have not meant the demise of religion and have actually proved to be quite compatible with religion—have even led, at least in the short term, to a surprising revival of religion. The problem with earlier secularization theories is that they presumed that secularization was a single, all-encompassing, and unidirectional phenomenon. However, as Peter Glasner has more recently shown, "secular" and "secularization" embrace a variety of diverse processes and responses, not all of which—indeed, few of which—are inherently antithetical to religion, Glasner identifies ten different versions of secularization, organized in terms of whether their thrust is primarily institutional, nonnative, or cognitive... The upshot of this analysis is that secularism most assuredly does not translate simply and directly into atheism. Many good theists support the secularization of the American government in the form of the "separation of church and state," and all of them go about at least part of their day without doing religion."

 Blankholm, Joseph (2022). The Secular Paradox : On the Religiosity of the Not Religious. New York: New York University Press. ISBN 9781479809509.

Judaism addresses "Jewish law" (which does discuss "secular" topics - that is, laws which are not explicitly about religious ritual or religious events) and "not Jewish law" which may be secular or may be the religious laws of another religion entirely.

At the end of the day, jews follow non-Jewish law of the lands that they live in, with the exceptions of like, laws demanding non-Jewish religious worship.

In terms of Judaism, halacha is based laws with origins from the Torah (mitzvot d'oraita) and Rabbinical laws (mitzvot d'rabbanan).

[dailyanarchistposts]

A.2.20 Why are most anarchists atheists?

It is a fact that most anarchists are atheists. They reject the idea of god and oppose all forms of religion, particularly organised religion. Today, in secularised western European countries, religion has lost its once dominant place in society. This often makes the militant atheism of anarchism seem strange. However, once the negative role of religion is understood the importance of libertarian atheism becomes obvious. It is because of the role of religion and its institutions that anarchists have spent some time refuting the idea of religion as well as propagandising against it.

So why do so many anarchists embrace atheism? The simplest answer is that most anarchists are atheists because it is a logical extension of anarchist ideas. If anarchism is the rejection of illegitimate authorities, then it follows that it is the rejection of the so-called Ultimate Authority, God. Anarchism is grounded in reason, logic, and scientific thinking, not religious thinking. Anarchists tend to be sceptics, and not believers. Most anarchists consider the Church to be steeped in hypocrisy and the Bible a work of fiction, riddled with contradictions, absurdities and horrors. It is notorious in its debasement of women and its sexism is infamous. Yet men are treated little better. Nowhere in the bible is there an acknowledgement that human beings have inherent rights to life, liberty, happiness, dignity, fairness, or self-government. In the bible, humans are sinners, worms, and slaves (figuratively and literally, as it condones slavery). God has all the rights, humanity is nothing.

This is unsurprisingly, given the nature of religion. Bakunin put it best:

"The idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, both in theory and in practice. “Unless, then, we desire the enslavement and degradation of mankind .. . we may not, must not make the slightest concession either to the God of theology or to the God of metaphysics. He who, in this mystical alphabet, begins with A will inevitably end with Z; he who desires to worship God must harbour no childish illusions about the matter, but bravely renounce his liberty and humanity. “If God is, man is a slave; now, man can and must be free; then, God does not exist.” [God and the State, p. 25]

For most anarchists, then, atheism is required due to the nature of religion. “To proclaim as divine all that is grand, just, noble, and beautiful in humanity,” Bakunin argued, “is to tacitly admit that humanity of itself would have been unable to produce it — that is, that, abandoned to itself, its own nature is miserable, iniquitous, base, and ugly. Thus we come back to the essence of all religion — in other words, to the disparagement of humanity for the greater glory of divinity.” As such, to do justice to our humanity and the potential it has, anarchists argue that we must do without the harmful myth of god and all it entails and so on behalf of “human liberty, dignity, and prosperity, we believe it our duty to recover from heaven the goods which it has stolen and return them to earth.” [Op. Cit., p. 37 and p. 36]

As well as the theoretical degrading of humanity and its liberty, religion has other, more practical, problems with it from an anarchist point of view. Firstly, religions have been a source of inequality and oppression. Christianity (like Islam), for example, has always been a force for repression whenever it holds any political or social sway (believing you have a direct line to god is a sure way of creating an authoritarian society). The Church has been a force of social repression, genocide, and the justification for every tyrant for nearly two millennia. When given the chance it has ruled as cruelly as any monarch or dictator. This is unsurprising:

“God being everything, the real world and man are nothing. God being truth, justice, goodness, beauty, power and life, man is falsehood, iniquity, evil, ugliness, impotence, and death. God being master, man is the slave. Incapable of finding justice, truth, and eternal life by his own effort, he can attain them only through a divine revelation. But whoever says revelation, says revealers, messiahs, prophets, priests, and legislators inspired by God himself; and these, as the holy instructors of humanity, chosen by God himself to direct it in the path of salvation, necessarily exercise absolute power. All men owe them passive and unlimited obedience; for against the divine reason there is no human reason, and against the justice of God no terrestrial justice holds.” [Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 24]

Christianity has only turned tolerant and peace-loving when it is powerless and even then it has continued its role as apologist for the powerful. This is the second reason why anarchists oppose the church for when not being the source of oppression, the church has justified it and ensured its continuation. It has kept the working class in bondage for generations by sanctioning the rule of earthly authorities and teaching working people that it is wrong to fight against those same authorities. Earthly rulers received their legitimisation from the heavenly lord, whether political (claiming that rulers are in power due to god’s will) or economic (the rich having been rewarded by god). The bible praises obedience, raising it to a great virtue. More recent innovations like the Protestant work ethic also contribute to the subjugation of working people.

That religion is used to further the interests of the powerful can quickly be seen from most of history. It conditions the oppressed to humbly accept their place in life by urging the oppressed to be meek and await their reward in heaven. As Emma Goldman argued, Christianity (like religion in general) “contains nothing dangerous to the regime of authority and wealth; it stands for self-denial and self-abnegation, for penance and regret, and is absolutely inert in the face of every [in]dignity, every outrage imposed upon mankind.” [Red Emma Speaks, p. 234]

Thirdly, religion has always been a conservative force in society. This is unsurprising, as it bases itself not on investigation and analysis of the real world but rather in repeating the truths handed down from above and contained in a few holy books. Theism is then “the theory of speculation” while atheism is “the science of demonstration.” The “one hangs in the metaphysical clouds of the Beyond, while the other has its roots firmly in the soil. It is the earth, not heaven, which man must rescue if he is truly to be saved.” Atheism, then, “expresses the expansion and growth of the human mind” while theism “is static and fixed.” It is “the absolutism of theism, its pernicious influence upon humanity, its paralysing effect upon thought and action, which Atheism is fighting with all its power.” [Emma Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 243, p. 245 and pp. 246–7]

As the Bible says, “By their fruits shall ye know them.” We anarchists agree but unlike the church we apply this truth to religion as well. That is why we are, in the main, atheists. We recognise the destructive role played by the Church, and the harmful effects of organised monotheism, particularly Christianity, on people. As Goldman summaries, religion “is the conspiracy of ignorance against reason, of darkness against light, of submission and slavery against independence and freedom; of the denial of strength and beauty, against the affirmation of the joy and glory of life.” [Op. Cit., p. 240]

So, given the fruits of the Church, anarchists argue that it is time to uproot it and plant new trees, the trees of reason and liberty.

That said, anarchists do not deny that religions contain important ethical ideas or truths. Moreover, religions can be the base for strong and loving communities and groups. They can offer a sanctuary from the alienation and oppression of everyday life and offer a guide to action in a world where everything is for sale. Many aspects of, say, Jesus’ or Buddha’s life and teachings are inspiring and worth following. If this were not the case, if religions were simply a tool of the powerful, they would have long ago been rejected. Rather, they have a dual-nature in that contain both ideas necessary to live a good life as well as apologetics for power. If they did not, the oppressed would not believe and the powerful would suppress them as dangerous heresies.

And, indeed, repression has been the fate of any group that has preached a radical message. In the middle ages numerous revolutionary Christian movements and sects were crushed by the earthly powers that be with the firm support of the mainstream church. During the Spanish Civil War the Catholic church supported Franco’s fascists, denouncing the killing of pro-Franco priests by supporters of the republic while remaining silent about Franco’s murder of Basque priests who had supported the democratically elected government (Pope John Paul II is seeking to turn the dead pro-Franco priests into saints while the pro-Republican priests remain unmentioned). The Archbishop of El Salvador, Oscar Arnulfo Romero, started out as a conservative but after seeing the way in which the political and economic powers were exploiting the people became their outspoken champion. He was assassinated by right-wing paramilitaries in 1980 because of this, a fate which has befallen many other supporters of liberation theology, a radical interpretation of the Gospels which tries to reconcile socialist ideas and Christian social thinking.

Nor does the anarchist case against religion imply that religious people do not take part in social struggles to improve society. Far from it. Religious people, including members of the church hierarchy, played a key role in the US civil rights movement of the 1960s. The religious belief within Zapata’s army of peasants during the Mexican revolution did not stop anarchists taking part in it (indeed, it had already been heavily influenced by the ideas of anarchist militant Ricardo Flores Magon). It is the dual-nature of religion which explains why many popular movements and revolts (particularly by peasants) have used the rhetoric of religion, seeking to keep the good aspects of their faith will fighting the earthly injustice its official representatives sanctify. For anarchists, it is the willingness to fight against injustice which counts, not whether someone believes in god or not. We just think that the social role of religion is to dampen down revolt, not encourage it. The tiny number of radical priests compared to those in the mainstream or on the right suggests the validity of our analysis.

It should be stressed that anarchists, while overwhelmingly hostile to the idea of the Church and an established religion, do not object to people practising religious belief on their own or in groups, so long as that practice doesn’t impinge on the liberties of others. For example, a cult that required human sacrifice or slavery would be antithetical to anarchist ideas, and would be opposed. But peaceful systems of belief could exist in harmony within in anarchist society. The anarchist view is that religion is a personal matter, above all else — if people want to believe in something, that’s their business, and nobody else’s as long as they do not impose those ideas on others. All we can do is discuss their ideas and try and convince them of their errors.

To end, it should noted that we are not suggesting that atheism is somehow mandatory for an anarchist. Far from it. As we discuss in section A.3.7, there are anarchists who do believe in god or some form of religion. For example, Tolstoy combined libertarian ideas with a devote Christian belief. His ideas, along with Proudhon’s, influences the Catholic Worker organisation, founded by anarchists Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin in 1933 and still active today. The anarchist activist Starhawk, active in the current anti-globalisation movement, has no problems also being a leading Pagan. However, for most anarchists, their ideas lead them logically to atheism for, as Emma Goldman put it, “in its negation of gods is at the same time the strongest affirmation of man, and through man, the eternal yea to life, purpose, and beauty.” [Red Emma Speaks, p. 248]