It is not enough to merely be non-religious any more. You must declare your opposition to and offense taken by religious existence itself, not to mention your Victimization by religion. Religious existence is characterized by religious privilege, “privilege” being the new microagression which is visible only to those with highly specialized sensory apparati, those new privilege detector organs recently acquired by evolution in the Messiah Class.
Here Croft gives the defining situation:
“’I don’t believe in God,’ he said looking up from the menu. Was he challenging me because he knows I’m a Christian minister, I wondered?… Was he intentionally being aggressive?”
“Consider how intolerant this reaction is; how immediate, how judgmental. The mere words “I don’t believe in God” are a potential aggression. This is a reaction of someone with religious privilege, unused to having her assumptions about the world challenged. If your response to hearing someone say “I don’t believe in God” is to consider it an attack on your own beliefs, the problem is with you—not with any “fundamentalist atheism.” Imagine if I took every expression that someone is a Christian as a potential affront to me. How ridiculous would that seem? Yet atheists put up with this reaction all the time.”
It’s hard not to laugh in the face of this Atheist (and his apologist). The blurting of Atheism out of the blue, for no contextual reason borne of conversation, obviously was meant for other than information transfer. But what was it meant to accomplish? Any rational person would wonder. But not this Atheist, of course. For him, the incongruity of this out of place declaration bears no examination; in fact, the examination which it does produce in the Christian is decried as irrational. Only in the inverted logic of Atheism could this possibly be the case.
And contrary to what he claims, Atheists do indeed take any profession of faith as a personal attack on themselves; it produces the “gastric distress” claims used in court by the American Atheists. Faith belongs in the basement. Massive Atheist organizations exist specifically to drive religion out of their sight. They are cultural bullies.
The nouveau classist-chic privilege “microaggression” charge is similar to the charge that
“you’re too stupid to know how stupid you are, but I’m smart and I will tell you how stupid you are; believe me, you are stupid”.
In the case of the three-class Messiahs, microaggression is visible only to themselves, as is your perpetual guilt:
“you’re too biased by privilege and stupid to know how biased by privilege and stupid you are, but I am smart and unbiased by privilege, so I will tell you how biased by privilege and stupid you are”
– hence, microaggression, invisible except to Messiahs and their pet Victims.
However, the main thrust of the article is that Atheists cannot be fundamentalists because they have no principles at all, no fundamentals and no principles about which to be fundamental.
That is false, but just to this extent. Atheists are pretty much in agreement that religion of all types is wrong, evil, and that Atheists are put upon by the existence of religion. There undoubtedly are some who do not care about religion one way or another, but those people are not out making claims about how abused they are by religion all over the web. Everyone who goes onto the web as an Atheist is highly likely to adhere to the above fundamentals (and more, but that’s for a different time).
Free Thinking means thinking anarchically without constraints by religion. If hatred of religion did not exist, there would be no reason to claim Free Thinking. The same applies to the religion of Humanism, which started from the premise of religious hatred, and elitist desire to eradicate all religion by taking over all institutions (as always, read the Humanist Manifesto I).
But back to Croft and his claims regarding the persecution of Atheists:
That the charge of “atheist fundamentalism” is frequently a fig leaf for distaste of atheism in general is clear in the way the term is used by enormously powerful religious individuals to push their own agendas. The Archbishop of Wales, for instance, once decried “atheistic fundamentalism” for, among other things, wanting public hospitals to not assume all of their clients are Christian, and wanting public schools to respect the religious diversity of their students. To the archbishop, the desire of atheists to be equal is “atheist fundamentalism.”
This is false, at its core. What Atheists want is not “diversity respect” in any sense: they do not respect diversity. What they demand is pure Atheism in schools and hospitals, not tolerance of diversity.
This nefarious use of the term reveals the charge of “atheist fundamentalism” for what it sometimes is: A weapon to marginalize critique of religion and the religious, and to maintain a status quo in which religious viewpoints, practices, and communities are privileged over nonreligious ones.
And of course it is not “critique of religion” which is the issue. It is the Atheist raw attacks on religion by attempting to drive religion underground as they Athei-ize all of culture, education and government. Croft is deliberately misrepresenting Atheist actions as benign critiques, abstract discussions regarding religions and the religious: Atheist actions are anything but benign; their attacks are anything but mere “critiques”, as Croft’s use of the weaponized “privilege” demonstrates.
Croft is certainly correct in his claim that there are no binding moral principles to Atheism, if that is indeed his claim. That includes lying in defense of a false picture of Atheism, concealing that which Atheism becomes as it metastasizes into Leftist, totalitarian, elitist three-class Messiahism, and its attack on western civil culture in general.
It is this which one sees when one sees an Atheist, and for good reason. They are both Messiahs and Victims, and religion is the Oppressor Class.
Croft tries to calm the dialog with the following:
“I understand the desire of some religious people to hit back against what seems to them—and what sometimes really is—unreasonable and unfair criticism of their faith tradition. I understand too the desire of many atheists to improve the quality of discourse within our own community, so that we become more thoughtful, precise, and kind in our critiques of religion. But the term “atheist fundamentalism” is always inaccurate and often harmful. We should find clearer terms.”
Well, to be more specific, accurate and descriptive, I suggest the term “Atheist fundamentalism” be replaced with “Atheist Three-Class Messiahism”. That should clear up their position.