The litmus test

In 2003, I marched many times alongside several religious and "interfaith" groups who shared my position on the Iraq war but did not share my view that there was no sky god looking down on all of us protesters as we marched. However, I can't remember ever thinking about these theists' religious views, and certainly never considered withdrawing support from the overall cause because it included religious people.

The march wasn't about whether Jesus rose from the dead and flew into the air. It was about the war.

No doubt, many of those religious folks left the march and went on in their religious capacity to promote ideas that I believe can accurately be called delusional. And I went on to promote ideas that they believe imperil people's immortal souls.

And so what? We marched together against the war. That common cause implies virtually no other agreements on any other subjects whatsoever. I certainly didn't expect the evangelical Christian anti-war folks (both of them!) to hold back on their strident attacks on atheism because an atheist joined one isolated political cause with them.

Because that would be kind of stupid.

Yet some religious "moderates," usually political liberals, have developed a litmus test for those who would join them in political causes designed to take on the right wing. According to the rules developed by these self-proclaimed "interfaith" uniters, anyone who has spoken plainly about their atheism -- for example, using terms like "delusional" to describe strongly held beliefs in unseen worlds -- should not be welcome to join the fight against the right, and their offers to join the cause should be refused.

In other words: Unless you show reverence for my religious ideas, you can't join me to fight in political causes.

And guess what article is quoted at length by a theist to support this idiotic notion?

Austin Cline comments:

It appears that a religious theist is sending the message that "respect and tolerance" can't mean merely allowing a person to believe things without suppression, discrimination, or penalty. Instead, "respect" somehow gets extended to include attitudes like esteem and deference — as if a person's religious beliefs automatically deserve deference, regardless of what they are.

Thanks, Greg Epstein. What a fine contribution you have made to our dialogue.