The rise of the the atheist right

[No Robots]

[W]ithout Christian appeals to goodness, love, and equality to temper conservative impulses, an icy nihilism takes hold — because the hard right’s rejection of Christianity is not only a rejection of certain Christian virtues but the dismissal of a deeper understanding of humanity.--"The Right Without Wrong" by Dustin Guastella

We are seeing the rise of an atheo-fascism that makes the Christian Right look like Sunday school.

 

[pood]

[W]ithout Christian appeals to goodness, love, and equality to temper conservative impulses, an icy nihilism takes hold — because the hard right’s rejection of Christianity is not only a rejection of certain Christian virtues but the dismissal of a deeper understanding of humanity.--"The Right Without Wrong" by Dustin Guastella

We are seeing the rise of an atheo-fascism that makes the Christian Right look like Sunday school.

Could you explicate “atheo-fascism”? Not interested in reading the article, I want to hear it from you.

 

[laughing dog]

The article is a bit long, but it is interesting reading. The basic argument is that Christianity restrained conservatives and right wingers in the past to some degree. Atheist right wingers don't have the restraint. That terse summary does not do it the article justice.

 

[ideologyhunter]

If there can be Log Cabin Republicans, I guess there can be far right atheists. I'd be curious to know how they get along with The Asshole's rank & file true believers.

 

[pood]

The article is a bit long, but it is interesting reading. The basic argument is that Christianity restrained conservatives and right wingers in the past to some degree.

It did? News to me.

 

[pood]

I’ve no doubt there are far-right atheist assholes, like Jerry Coyne, who was recently riding his anti-trans hobbyhorse again but got rather severely rebutted. But I still don’t know what atheo-fascism is supposed to be. I suppose there are atheists who are fascists, but the coining of the term in the OP sounds suspiciously like claiming there is some direct links between the two, when of course there is not.

 

[No Robots]

I use the term "atheo-fascist" to contrast with the term "Christofascist." There is plenty in the article that fleshes out this notion:

[T]he new thinkers of the dissident right are channeling older anti-egalitarians: obviously Friedrich Nietzsche but also the “superfascist” Julius Evola, German philosopher Oswald Spengler, and, of course, Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, all of whom concluded that any ultrareactionary project ought to be very suspicious of Christianity.

The article contends that the Right stripped of all Christianity devolves into "an aggressive, unashamed form of scientific racism."

Militant atheists may think that the way to fight the Right is to fight Christianity. The article suggests that in fact anti-Christian activism just furthers the growth of atheo-fascism. From this perspective, anti-Christian activists, even if they believe themselves to be anti-Right, are merely acting as shock troops for the rising atheo-fascists.

 

[pood]

Lumping Nietzsche in with Nazis already discredits anything this bozo has to say.

 

[Axulus]

Lumping Nietzsche in with Nazis already discredits anything this bozo has to say.

Not really sure what you mean. The intellectuals in the Nazi movement incorporated many of the ideas of Nietzsche into their philosophy.

Look up Nietzsche and the Nazis by professor Stephen Hicks for a more through analysis of the links.

 

[pood]

Lumping Nietzsche in with Nazis already discredits anything this bozo has to say.

Not really sure what you mean. The intellectuals in the Nazi movement incorporated many of the ideas of Nietzsche into their philosophy.

Look up Nietzsche and the Nazis by professor Stephen Hicks for a more through analysis of the links.

They incorporated his stupid sister’s distortions and editing of his writing. Nothing in Nietzsche’s philosophy had anything to do with Nazism or fascism and Nietzsche was a steadfast opponent of anti-Semitism and German nationalism. Nietzsche’s Overman was about a spiritual transcendence over the mundane and ordinary, the “herd.” It was not about ethno-nationalism or war or anything of the sort. He certainly was an opponent of Christianity but attempts to hijack him to Nazis or the far-right fascists in general are just falling for the beguiling bait that if you oppose Christianity you must have no morals or ethics.

 

[Axulus]

I use the term "atheo-fascist" to contrast with the term "Christofascist." There is plenty in the article that fleshes out this notion:

[T]he new thinkers of the dissident right are channeling older anti-egalitarians: obviously Friedrich Nietzsche but also the “superfascist” Julius Evola, German philosopher Oswald Spengler, and, of course, Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, all of whom concluded that any ultrareactionary project ought to be very suspicious of Christianity.

The article contends that the Right stripped of all Christianity devolves into "an aggressive, unashamed form of scientific racism."

Militant atheists may think that the way to fight the Right is to fight Christianity. The article suggests that in fact anti-Christian activism just furthers the growth of atheo-fascism. From this perspective, anti-Christian activists, even if they believe themselves to be anti-Right, are merely acting as shock troops for the rising atheo-fascists.

One way to fight the right, especially the MAGA movement, is to redouble efforts aimed at educating people how to think logically and rationally, how to develop a better bullshit detector, how to evaluate claims and evidence. How to think scientifically.

This will attack both Christianity and many ideas and arguments on the right simultaneously.

 

[No Robots]

One way to fight the right, especially the MAGA movement, is to redouble efforts aimed at educating people how to think logically and rationally, how to develop a better bullshit detector, how to evaluate claims and evidence. How to think scientifically.

This will attack both Christianity and many ideas and arguments on the right simultaneously.

The article contends that Christianity is the source of the drive toward reason:

Paul’s fanatical drive to preach the Gospels to people who spoke different languages, paid tribute to different gods, and swore allegiance to unimaginably different tribes helped to prove something we now take for granted — that the human capacity for reason is truly universal.

From this perspective, attacking Christianity merely enables a conservatism freed from all restraint. It seems far better strategy to embrace authentic Christianity as an ally against the Right.

 

[bilby]

The basic argument is that Christianity restrained conservatives and right wingers in the past to some degree.

Which is just the kind of laughable claim Christians make all the time.

Christians are inherently better and nicer people than non-Christians, so just think how much worse it could be if atheists were in charge. Imagine how unpleasant the Spanish Inquisition would have been, if the inquisitors had been atheists!

If you subscribe to the premise: Christians are inherently better and nicer people than non-Christians, then the worries expressed by the article are compelling and terrifying. If you don't, then it's a sick joke.

The Fascists want to take over, put people into camps, eliminate freedom, impose draconian rules, impose harsh punishments for anyone who deviates from their image of human perfection, and generally make everyone except the chosen few suffer - but it's going to be OK, as long as they aren't atheists.

 

[bilby]

The article contends that Christianity is the source of the drive toward reason

Which is, in itself, a risible and stupid contention, and immediately shows that the article is valueless tripe.

Christianity is a religion, and religion is a common exemplar of the abandonment of reason.

 

[bilby]

From this perspective, attacking Christianity merely enables a conservatism freed from all restraint.

Conservatism is already freed from all constraint. The far right uses religion to justify their choices, not to question them.

It seems far better strategy to embrace authentic Christianity as an ally against the Right.

There's no such thing as "authentic Christianity"; Every flavour of Christianity is equally (in)authentic.

The Bible is a Forer effect document; It says whatever the reader wants it to say.

So the only 'authentic Christianity' is "Christianity as I practice it", for any given value of "I".

 

[pood]

Yes, I was going to ask: what is authentic Christianity? And how does one distinguish it from inauthentic Christianity?

 

[No Robots]

The author refers to "universalism, egalitarianism, and injunctions to peace" as fundamental Christian values, and identifies Christianity with socialism:

Socialism expressed Christian values in a secular language and melded religiously held convictions about moral rights and wrongs with materially rooted calls for class struggle. Even nonbelievers, perhaps especially nonbelievers, in the socialist movement took the Christian belief that the meek shall inherit the earth more seriously than popes from Avignon or Rome.

A century ago, the social gospel unified socialism and Christianity. Divided, they fall.

 

[laughing dog]

The basic argument is that Christianity restrained conservatives and right wingers in the past to some degree.

Which is just the kind of laughable claim Christians make all the time.

Christians are inherently better and nicer people than non-Christians, so just think how much worse it could be if atheists were in charge. Imagine how unpleasant the Spanish Inquisition would have been, if the inquisitors had been atheists!

If you subscribe to the premise: Christians are inherently better and nicer people than non-Christians, then the worries expressed by the article are compelling and terrifying. If you don't, then it's a sick joke.

The Fascists want to take over, put people into camps, eliminate freedom, impose draconian rules, impose harsh punishments for anyone who deviates from their image of human perfection, and generally make everyone except the chosen few suffer - but it's going to be OK, as long as they aren't atheists.

While I don’t subscribe to the argument in the article, I don’t think the article’s argument generates the conclusion in your last sentence. If I understand it correctly (a big if), i think the argument would say the degree of punishment would be less harsh, fewer freedoms eliminated or constrained, etc…. That doesn’t make it okay.

 

[pood]

The author refers to "universalism, egalitarianism, and injunctions to peace" as fundamental Christian values, and identifies Christianity with socialism:

Socialism expressed Christian values in a secular language and melded religiously held convictions about moral rights and wrongs with materially rooted calls for class struggle. Even nonbelievers, perhaps especially nonbelievers, in the socialist movement took the Christian belief that the meek shall inherit the earth more seriously than popes from Avignon or Rome.

A century ago, the social gospel unified socialism and Christianity. Divided, they fall.

That’s nice, but today we have a bunch of MAGA evangelical Christians who don’t go for this at all.

Now one could interpret the quotes put in Jesus’s mouth by later writers as a call to socialism or love they neighbor or whatever. But that obviously still wouldn’t the validate Christian claim that Jesus was divine and was resurrected. But possibly one could be a Christian atheist, as Dostoevsky appears to have been, and accept some of the New Testament ethical precepts without believing in the truth of divinity.

Why can’t one believe in universalism, egalitarianism and injunctions to peace without believing in superstitious BS?

 

[No Robots]

A century ago, the social gospel unified socialism and Christianity. Divided, they fall.

That’s nice, but today we have a bunch of MAGA evangelical Christians who don’t go for this at all.

And they need to be attacked for fundamentally misrepresenting the nature and meaning of the doctrines they purport to uphold.

Now one could interpret the quotes put in Jesus’s mouth by later writers as a call to socialism or love they neighbor or whatever. But that obviously still wouldn’t the validate Christian claim that Jesus was divine and was resurrected. But possibly one could be a Christian atheist, as Dostoevsky appears to have been, and accept some of the New Testament ethical precepts without believing in the truth of divinity.

Pretty much. I would say, however, that a true universalism has no problem acknowledging the divine in all things, and its special manifestation in the life of the saintly individual.

Why can’t one believe in universalism, egalitarianism and injunctions to peace without believing in superstitious BS?

Christianity is in essence not superstitious at all. It is a doctrine of acknowledging and manifesting the divine in man.