http://www.salon.com/2014/02/28/the_rights_ayn_rand_hypocrisy_why_their_religious_posture_is_a_total_sham/
That salon article on the right's hypocrisy in espousing Randian views whilst proclaiming a Christian conscience was interesting and troubling. In exposing the fact that their personal economic needs outweigh any tenants of their chosen faith, it was well founded and well put.
Of course the Christian Right is led by charlatans and half wits who follow received wisdom with little intellectual curiosity. Many of them believe that their's is the party of Christianity, being perhaps young enough, and ignorant enough of their own party's history, to be unaware of the decision to adopt an evangelical approach to politics in order to secure forever the suffrage of the faithful. Rove, and perhaps his forebears, use of the three Gs to grab the attention of those use to being led from a pulpit, was a cynical and successful move that not only bought much of the religious vote, but shielded the party from accusations of heartlessness with the assumption of goodness that comes with religiosity.
They have pushed religion in the same way that Woodrow Wilson pushed Americanism as religion. No quicker way to bind people, and retain them without question, than to define their bond as something the requires faith, and that there is no greater loss than the loss of faith. The right, in the main, have been so successful in both of these things that it is now impossible to stand for election without professing religious belief and without asserting a belief in the nation. The right claim to be able to define both of these things: what is Christian and what is America, to the point where arguments can be swiftly silenced on the grounds that they are un-American. In a nation that rightly sanctifies free speech, it seems odd to let any one side define what it is to be an American.
This is what troubled me about the salon piece. It didn't seem upset that atheists had, had their free speech denied. In fact the tone of the piece seemed to suggest that Rand and atheism are the same thing. That she might be an atheist doesn't mean that all atheists are Randian. Rand's issue with the crucifixion being unbelievable as an act of god because it's selflessness was obvious folly, and therefore proof that it had no divinity, is not a core atheist tenant.
On the whole, atheists, I believe, seek to liberate people from oppression and self hatred.
My personal feelings about the crucifixion are twofold: 1) it didn't happen because Jesus did not exist and there is no verifiable historical source to suggest otherwise; 2) even if you take the four different and conflicting accounts found in the gospels, I've never understood how it was an act of martyrdom: Jesus argued against the claims that he was supposedly on trial for - he did not: make claims, stand by them and face harsh injustice to make a point. Quite the reverse, we are asked to sympathise with Jesus as an innocent put unwillingly to death. The only sense of martyrdom comes from a belief that he is the son of god, and as such could have found a divine way to avoid this natural fate. To that end, the bible offers us its usual proofs that its word is divine, by serving up a miracle in the form of the resurrection. Surely, defeating the idea of his being a martyr. After all, his being the son of god as mere mortal is blown to bits as soon as he cheats death to say goodbye to his friends. So keen they are to offer proof of his divinity, that they put the lie to their original premise. Surely, faith alone is needed. Well, that and some conjuring tricks.
For me Socrates is the greater martyr. He died for the right to think freely. To question. He really did too. He existed, verifiably. He stood by his convictions, even though falsely brought to trail on the lie that he had denied the gods - which he had not - he didn't attempt to wriggle off the hook on that technicality. Instead, he said he would continue to question all things; was ordered to put himself to death by taking poison and did so. A martyr for our right to think. Not an innocent, falsely accused by a political conspiracy, who repeatedly denies the claims aimed at him - standing for nothing in the process - only to be slain and for that death to be used as a proof of the inherent sin in man and the redemptive power of faith in god alone. In other words a martyr to the idea of obedience (although oddly depicted as a rebel).
Christianity, of course, has some wonderful values. Ones that would be far more powerful if they were spoken as a philosophy and divorced from bogus religious authority and separated from the Hebrew text that stands before the gospels and stands in stark contrast to them.
Without god to hide behind Christians would have to follow Christ because they believed the man and not because they subordinate themselves to a higher power. Act like a man who followed a philosophy and not just a man who joined a club. Then what would the religious right do?
