Animosity Toward Religion Part 1

We live in an age where there is a definite distrust toward religion and in some cases outright animosity. Jean-Pierre Lehmann, in an article entitled, “The Dangers of Monotheism in an Age of Globalization” (The Globalist, 30 March 2006) writes, “I am a great believer that the progress of civilization requires the gradual eradication of all forms of established religion.” This is nothing new. Both the Humanist Manifesto I (1933) and II (1973) call for a similar eradication of religion.

Before you dismiss the above as extreme and this article as alarmist, think for a minute of the popular representation of religion in the media industry. Let anyone suggest a “right and wrong” notion and we are compared to fundamental extremist ready to enforce our beliefs by force given the chance. Those who agree with the political left are applauded, those who do not are demonized and warnings are broadcast alerting us of the religious right who are trying to hijack democracy. It seems that in our society everyone has a right to their opinion except conservative Christians. The majority applaud any group who wishes to impose their moral values on society but decry the right of groups who disagree with decadent views and seek, through the same political process to stop the proliferation of such views. So one group comes arguing for the right to publish pornography for example and if anyone dare oppose that “right” they are labeled extremist or worse–they are called “the religious right.” Then society is warned about their tendency to censure the rights of others. We forget that on a daily basis the rights of the majority are being censured by the outcry and frivolous lawsuits of the few who oppose religious expressions. For example millions have been spent in the Mount Soledad Cross issue alone, not only in defense of the Monument, but in fees paid through our tax dollar to the ACLU and fines imposed by the Courts on Cities should they fail to comply with such ridiculous demands.

Now my point is not to argue a political perspective, but rather support, by example, my thesis statement: that this is an age of distrust for religion and in some cases outrage against religion. The battle in our schools over the ability to continue to teach a totally non-scientific theory of origins as if it is legitimate science while decrying all opposing views as “religious propaganda” is an integral part in the battle to eradicate religion from the face of the earth. Make no mistake about it, that battle will mostly be won and if you want to read about what we can expect in such an “enlightened” world, read Revelation (the last book in the Bible) chapters 6-19.

I would not dare suggest that atrocities have not been committed in the name of religion. September 11, 2001 forbids such a contention and history records atrocities that have been committed in the name of Christianity as well. Sadly such atrocities are real (as in the Inquisition, Crusades, etc). Other times such tragedies are not real (for instance many claim that the Holocaust was carried out by men who believed in Christianity. We forget that Hitler was not a Christian, Hitler accepted both the theory of Darwinian Evolution and Nietzsche’s “God is dead” philosophy and used those beliefs to justify not only the murder of 6 million Jews but 7 million Christians as well–that is a story we forget. Hardly the actions of a “Christian.”) Erwin Lutzer observes, “We should remember that the number of people who died under the hands of an intolerant church is minute in comparison to the number of people who have died under the hands of intolerant humanistic states.” (Lutzer: “Exploding the Myths That Could Destroy America” Moody Press, 1986 pp. 19-20).

I am not arguing that the vast number of deaths inflicted upon mankind by those who have no religion ( a number in the millions), justify the deaths of those inflicted upon mankind inflicted upon mankind by the church (a number in the thousands). One death in the name of Christianity goes against the very tenants of Christ. I am not arguing that evil has not been done under the guise of Christianity, what I am arguing is that such acts are not Christian. I may commit a crime under an alias, but I promise you this: the laws of our land will not prosecute John Jones for my crime, though I may use his name. No! Mr. Jones’ will be cleared when it is proven that I acted in a way that he would neither agree with or participate in. Yet many are willing today to reject the name of Christ because of the criminal acts of individuals who dare use his name to support actions he would never condone.