First of all I want to affirm that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a courageous woman.
She came out of an oppressive Islamic culture and now bravely speaks out against it. As a result of her outspokenness she has attracted derogatory labels from leftist critics. She has been called an Islamophobe and her life has been threatened because of her criticism of “radical Islam.” Through all this she has maintained her integrity and dignity.
Hirsi Ali also has a vision for an Islamic Reformation and has written a book to that effect. She wants modern Muslims to modify Islam and has identified 5 areas which need change:
1) Its unquestioning reverence for Muhammad and the Qur’an
2) Its focus on the suicidal path to the afterlife
3) Its insistence on Sharia Law
4) Its injunction to command right and forbid wrong
5) Its call for jihad (holy war)
One can certainly agree with her as far as Islam goes. The problem is that Hirsi Ali is also an atheist who believes Islam will get better as it is modernized; and even better when any notion of a god is removed from the affairs of man. This applies to Christianity as well.
Jon Stewart once attempted to pin Hirsi Ali down as to whether she thought there were fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity, but she wouldn’t commit. She adheres to the Humanist ideology of “human progress.” Danusha Goska notes that she ascribes to the same views as those articulated by atheists Michael Shermer and Steven Pinker:
“In this worldview, we don’t need the Judeo-Christian tradition to inform our ethics, because human progress is making us better people every day.”
Atheists-humanists assume they have a better option than Christianity. This better option is the leadership of “freethinking” modernists like themselves, minus a made-up god. So they feel an obligation to spread their humanist-utopian gospel to the unenlightened masses.
Former atheist Peter Hitchens wryly warns:
“If they [atheists] know, or are reasonably certain, that there is no ultimate authority and no judgement, they are instantly quite extraordinarily free. If they have a desire to become all-powerful, they are immensely free, since without God, law has no origin except power, and the more powerful they are, the more free they are. But this freedom is as available to monsters and power-seekers as it is to advanced intellectuals dwelling in comfortable suburbs.”
Elsewhere Hitchens has noted Aldous Huxley’s admission that:
“For myself, as no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust.”
Who adjudicates when atheists have squabbles? What if the monster power seekers outnumber the “advanced” intellectuals”? You know, like under a Stalinist regime. Richard Dawkins thinks men like Stalin and Mao were only as bad as some Christians. Dawkins offers up Hitler as a Christian example – ever here that before? Yet he wasn’t really.
Whether or not self-professing Christians have historically done bad things is beside the point. The point is that Christianity has a fixed and high moral code ordained by God, even where some choose to abandon it. Atheists can, and often do, have moral codes but they are fluid and subject to the whims of its adherents. Its moral code also has the potential for oppression, as history has shown.
In his book The Rage Against God, Peter Hitchens wrote extensively on the intolerance of the New Atheists. He makes another perceptive observation:
“Only one reliable force stands in the way of the power of the strong over the weak … Only one reliable force restrains the hand of the man of power. And in an age of power-worship, the Christian religion has become the principal obstacle to the desire of earthly utopians for absolute power…”
I mentioned the humanist gospel earlier. Humanists have been actively spreading this gospel via the education system, while diligently evicting Christianity from schools and the public arena. Ironically, we’re now seeing some new tactics being introduced by members of the humanist faith system. They’ve learned some handy lessons from activist groups such as LGBT by playing the victim card.
Gretta Vosper is an ordained United Church of Canada minister who is resisting her church’s efforts to remove her from the pulpit. The problem is that she is an atheist. Vosper sees no reason why her lack of faith should prevent her from preaching and claims she is being discriminated against. I doubt she believes that at all. Why would anyone want to be a Christian minister when they don’t believe in Christianity? Vosper has an agenda.
A group which calls itself Openly Secular also says it has had enough of bullying from Christians and is now fighting back. They are coming out of the Atheist Closet in a neighborhood near you. According to Openly Secular press kits:
“Non-religious people are treated like second-class citizens. [They are] often shunned by family and friends. Kids are bullied and even assaulted on the playground; activists receive death threats.”
I’m sure it has happened. No Christian should ever bully anyone who thinks differently. Nor should Christians impose their faith on anyone. We proclaim and defend the gospel.
But I don’t buy the story in general. It’s a useful ruse for activism. These people are agenda driven just like those multiple lawsuits instigated by the American Atheists. Remember the Ground Zero twisted metal that looked too much like a cross?
If you care to see an example of angry atheists in action, read the comments of the positive Amazon reviews of Stephen Meyer’s books. Then go read some of the derogatory press comments about Christianity made by people like Dawkins.
According to prominent activist atheist Greta Christina anti-atheist bigotry is (allegedly) one reason for activism. But there’s another, bigger goal:
“Most atheist activists would love to see anti-atheist bigotry disappear, and are working towards that. But many of us – I’m one of them – see that as only one of our goals. Many of us don’t just want a world where believers and atheists get along and let each other practice their religion or lack thereof in peace. Many of us want a world where there’s no religion.” (Emphasis mine)
Except the religion of Humanism…And there lies the real issue. These atheists do not want God’s influence in their lives. But it isn’t just a personal preference. They want YOU to stop believing in Him as well.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse Rom 1:20
Believe in Christ now or not, like it or not, one day all will bow before Him (Philippians 2:9-11).
That will include the atheist.
Sharing is caring!
