Bill Maher, Religious Terrorists v Atheist Terrorists

On Friday’s show Real Time with Bill Maher, Maher brought up the fact that Christians in this country refuse to acknowledge that Norwegian terrorist, Anders Breivik, is in fact, a Christian. He points to Bill O’Reilly who claimed,  “That’s impossible. No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder.” (Never mind the silly Crusades or Timothy McVeigh or the countless other Christian terrorists throughout history.) Maher goes on to point out that none of these same Christians who are so outraged at the depiction of Breivik as a Christian terrorist, defended Islam against calling those responsible for 9/11, Muslim terrorists. Margaret Hoover, a guest panelist on the show, countered by saying that atheists have killed more people than Christians citing Russian communism as an example. Elliot Spitzer, another panelist, somewhat agreed with Hoover but his argument was that religion itself was not the culprit, but fanaticism. I do not agree with Spitzer’s point of view, but I can accept it as a legitimate argument. Hoover’s idea, however, is completely baseless and makes no sense whatsoever. She is confusing an socioeconomic system with religion. And atheism is no more a religion than a poodle is a wild animal. One is a natural evolution or state in nature- untamed, pure, innate, authentic; and the other is an artificially selected, man-made, manipulated creation.

Let’s take this argument and put it in a different context to make it clearer. Instead of religion, I’m going to use being on the road as the context, and I will break it down into drivers (religious believers), non-drivers (atheists), and drunk drivers (religious extremists). Keep in mind, this is not an actual argument about driving or not driving, but an example to show how the religious argument can be seen from a different context.

No one is going to argue that drunk driving is clearly reprehensible and those who do so and murder innocent people deserve to condemned for their actions. For the  most part, non-drunk drivers are more responsible, though occasional texting, putting on make-up, eating, etc, while driving is also dangerous and can cause serious accidents and even death. This cannot be discounted, and they still risk putting the lives of others in danger by getting behind the wheel and making poor choices. Non-drivers, however, cannot kill or risk anyone’s well-being on the road since they don’t drive at all.  This is not to say that all drivers are killers or that all drivers are dangerous, but all drivers have a potential to be dangerous and to effect the lives of other drivers and non-drivers alike by simply getting behind the wheel. (Again, this is all meant to be kept in the context of being on the road and is not to say that both drivers and non-drivers do not kill in other contexts or environments, but in those cases it has nothing to do with being a driver or a non-driver.)

Now let’s put each person’s argument into this new context. What O’Reilly is saying is that a drunk driver who kills multiple people on the road is not a driver because a driver would never drive while under the influence, even though the driver himself admitted to being completely drunk while driving. (The denial a statement like that involves is unprecedented.) What Hoover is saying is that non-drivers are responsible for more deaths on the road than drivers, including drunk drivers, but she is taking one side of her argument completely out of context (off the road) while keeping the other side in context (on the road) and that delegitimatizes her entire argument. (It’s like an argument about Red Delicious apples versus Granny Smith apples and she is brings up carrots.) Spitzer is saying, it’s not drivers as a whole who are irresponsible, but the drunk drivers. Finally, Maher is saying that all driving is the problem because even those who supposedly drive responsibly, also pose a risk to other drivers and non-drivers alike.

I agree with Maher. Religion as an institution is a problem because even those who are not extremists and who would never consider actually killing in the name of their religion, still pose a risk to society by imposing their beliefs on everyone else and limiting the choices and freedoms of others. They even pose a risk to themselves by advocating for things like abstinence-only sex education and ending abortion. By not giving teenagers the knowledge they need to make their own choices, they are putting them at risk for STDs and pregnancy. By limiting or ending abortion as a legal option, they are risking the lives of women who suffer complications in pregnancies and who might otherwise need an abortion to save themselves. The religious stifle scientific breakthroughs and cures by trying to limit things like stem-cell research and protesting against funding for scientific development. They risk our children’s education and understanding about the world we live in by advocating for mythological-based education standards and fighting against facts and science. They risk the lives of our youth by condemning homosexuality and calling gay people sinners and evil. They stifle truth and debate in this country by trying to hide facts they choose to ignore and dismiss and by promoting falsehoods and misinformation. They are making choices for others they have no business making and infiltrate policy and legislation in ways that effect everyone. Religious institutions do not pay taxes. They get a free pass on their hatred and bigotry by calling it “religion”. They preach about love and doing right, but hate others who do not believe as they do. Religion is dangerous. Not just Christianity, but all religion. People can believe whatever they want, but I don’t understand why they cannot keep it to themselves and apply it to their own lives and leave it at that.

The argument that atheism is its own religion and that atheists try to force their beliefs on others or try to convert the religious into being non-believers is unfounded and absurd. Atheists don’t have an agenda or a system of beliefs to force on anyone! You can’t force a non-belief on anyone. Atheists also couldn’t care less what the religious believe, but we don’t want to hear about it and we definitely don’t want the religious to impose their beliefs on us in a way that limits our choices or forces us to bend to their beliefs. The only time atheists get worked up and will get involved and make a stand is in order to defend our rights against the religious. We don’t go door-to-door or hand out pamphlets or have a special book or oath we use to distinguish ourselves. We have no church or building or standing to request government funding. We have no rituals or exclusion or inclusion criteria or secret handshake or politics. We are individuals who simply do not believe in religion or a god or gods or magic underwear or talking snakes or heaven or hell or miracles or prayer or any other idea that comes out of religion. I can’t say what “we” believe in because we are individuals and we each have our own ideas about the world, so none of us can speak for each other. Our only shared commonality is that we do not believe in religion or god(s).