THE MYTH OF THE EVANGELICAL ATHEIST

In the backlash to the atheist backlash, evangelical Christians and agnostic writers alike are calling atheist authors like Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) and Sam Harris (Letter to a Christian Nation) "evangelical atheists," "secular proselytizers," and "irreligious intolerants."

In "A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion," (Sun. Times, Dec. 3) Nicholas Kristof tries to make the case that intolerance on either side of the religion aisle is intolerable. This straw man argument is, of course, poppycock.

Kristof cites that 90% of Americans would vote for a woman, a Jew or a Black. 79% would vote for a gay. I'm guessing 69% would vote for a gay, Black, Jewish woman.

But only 37% would vote for an atheist. Who is intolerant of whom?

Religious and agnostic folk would have you believe the atheist is a certain kind of individual with a certain kind of ideology. In fact, Atheists are the opposite of ideologues. Atheists are open to anything that subjects itself to verification. Yet 63% of Americans would not vote for an atheist.

The indoctrinated, on the other hand, are most certainly a certain kind of individual with a certain ideology. Some would call them gullible at best --or at worst, devious. Some wear their religion, and others hide behind it. But all could agree that brainwashed individuals are a particular kind of person. They take things on faith. And 100% of Americans would vote for them. What choice do they have?

Atheism isn't something you acquire. It's the natural state. It's what you were before you were indoctrinated with theism. Babies aren't born screaming, "Jesus, it was humid in there!" Nor are newborns screaming to fight in Allah's name (no one fights in the name of atheism). Babies have never been successfully indoctrinated with a virus, to use the computer term: the dogma that magically allows one to accept the preposterous.

Humans are born atheist, not agnostic, as Kristof would have you believe. Atheism is the uncorrupted state. One must be indoctrinated in God before one is required to either dispute the concept or claim not to know.

The analogy to disease is a useful one. Without the existence of a particular disease, one wouldn't need to rid oneself of it or equivocate about its symptoms. Only when the disease presents itself, would there be any stock in addressing it.

In the 21st century, there is no need to introduce religion to children before they are old enough to take on history and philosophy. Introducing religion to children with their first words is, of course, indoctrination and as such, immoral. It is inoculating them against the truth by hot-wiring their belief system.

Believers have picked up the virus. They have drunken the Cool Aid. Most Believers picked up their viruses before they could think on their own. Some are brainwashed out of dire circumstances, some out of opportunity, and others because of the notion that it can do no harm, but in the end, all new recruits must suspend reality for fantasy. Their belief system requires it.

Sadly, religion requires that Believers indoctrinate others. Believers need to proselytize in order for the virus to replicate in others. New blood is essential to spreading the Word. The Word spreads virally. No replication, no money. And no money, no replication.

So, is this column proselytizing? Kristof would say yes. And Kristof would be wrong.

Reason doesn't require a virus. Indeed, reason works better with an operating system free of viruses. To clear your computer of viruses is not to program it. You are deprogramming the virus. Deprogramming is not proselytizing. It is optimizing. Spreading viruses is proselytizing.

Thank you Mr. Kristof -- I know you make a nice living kissing everyone's ass on both sides of the religion divide -- but please, no more nonsense about aggressive evangelical atheism. Those few brave and honest enough to describe themselves as atheists are the endangered species in this country.