Are Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens Freemasons

In the beginning there was darkness. After over 1000 years of Christian tyranny, someone finally found the light switch. Philosophers shattered religious delusions and led people from a slave existence under God to freedom and personal responsibility. Cuddle atheists feed on the fruits of the Enlightenment without watering the tree. Fanaticism is back, its opponents are on the retreat.

Since the establishment of the republic, theologians, romantics, idealists and social scientists have left no stone unturned to reverse the Enlightenment and to revive the golden age of barbarism and fanaticism. Finally, even the last scouts could be disarmed and now lead a leisurely niche existence in a small parallel universe called "Reality".

And what better opportunity could there be for this than today, when Islamists are blowing up freedom, where Russia is transforming itself back into a Christian-Orthodox tsarist empire, where millions of Americans are looking forward to the end of the world soon and where the zealous lads from the Catholiban Threatening liberal Christians with death just because they sing a harmless little song about the Pope?

If you don't know, you don't want to change anything

Softened atheists are convinced that religion is not necessarily bad, in fact it is often a good thing. Just think of Christian hospitals, old people's homes and the station mission. Indeed, let's think about it!

We would soon find out that many church social groups believe in employee rights, fair pay and a pleasant working atmosphere as much as a fish in the fresh air. And as for the station mission - did you know? One can also drink tea without recognizing Christ as his friend and savior.

Basically, it is certainly true that any woolly rubber belief can lead to good deeds in addition to the general idiocy it causes. Just take Albert Schweitzer, who is also respected by real atheists. But doesn't all of this work just as well and better without religion?

The mostly atheistic Scandinavian countries show that it is very possible to develop a social, even more social and just society without religion than is the case in predominantly religious countries like Saudi Arabia. A book on the subject has just been published, Society without God by Phil Zuckerman, which shows this fact comprehensively. But why are there so few atheistic old people's homes, hospitals, kindergartens etc. in Germany? Five reasons:

  1. Many atheists do not want any denominational or purely atheist hospitals because doctors should help all people equally and not just those of their denomination or non-denomination. The same applies to other social institutions, where there should be no ideological separation.

  2. Freethinker and humanist associations were banned by the Nazis. The two major churches were supported by them. That gives the churches a head start.

  3. Church social groups are favored financially by the state and by law by the courts.

  4. Atheism as a mass-compatible phenomenon is still quite young. It has only been around practically since Darwin.

  5. Demography has only recently been on the side of atheists. Almost all Germans still belonged to a Christian denomination during the Nazi regime (of course one has nothing to do with the other ...).

Stalin again

For once it is not about the notorious Stalin and Hitler argument with which theologians deny their godless opponents the moral ability. All New Atheists have already dealt with this extensively. The problem this time is how to distinguish yourself as a decent anti-religious from Stalin's communist church destroyers.

Theologians are particularly pleased that the Soviets failed to ban religion. Now Christianity is the big star again in Russia. That the Russian Orthodox Church is spreading "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", Hitler's favorite anti-Semitic reading, in its communities, that it wants to replace the theory of evolution with the creation myth and canonize the tsar, that it incites against gays like hardly any other church before , is more of a footnote. Rejoice you Christians, rejoice very much.

The American skeptic dealt with the subject under the title “And God created Lenin” in 2007. Michael Shermer even quotes evolutionary biologist Edward O. Wilson as saying that science and education can do no more against religion than prohibitions. Shermer also seems to be happy about it when he says afterwards: “The power of faith truly has something deeply elemental about it.” Rather, there is something deeply masochistic about this secret joy in the steadfastness of religion.

That being said, the lesson to be learned from the unsuccessful communist approach is quite different. For example, the fight against religion in the GDR, albeit in a questionable way, already hasis working. A more religiously free area than the east of the republic can hardly be found anywhere in the world. But this shows the real problem with the fight against religion by state regulation, civil rights considerations excluded: Most of those affected are not conscious atheists for good, well-considered reasons, but apatheists, for whom the question of God, one of the central philosophical questions, is meaningless.

The tragic problem with Russia, as opposed to eastern Germany, is that its citizens have been blinded and oppressed by their spiritual and secular leaders for thousands of years without ever being able to enjoy a real democratic education. If the communist ideology disappears from there, no one should be surprised if it is quickly replaced by another. That Christianity should be so suitable for this - that is hardly our fault.

What one does not understand, one must not criticize

From the ranks of the cuddle atheists it is also said: If we cannot grasp and explain the phenomenon of religion 100% scientifically, we risk making a mistake if we criticize it. Maybe in the end she will be invincible and the effort was in vain.

Well, that would logically have to apply to other worldviews as well. One could have said in the same sense that National Socialism should not be criticized, just as one should not criticize Islamism today as long as it is not fully understood and researched.

In fact, there is no reason to believe that religion cannot be defeated. Our findings so far suggest that it is a cultural phenomenon. At least that is the case when it comes to the specific manifestation of religion, unless someone seriously wants to claim that certain people have a virgin birth gene that forces them to believe in the dogma of the virginity of the holy mother.

Even if such a gene existed, one would have to remember that human behavior is not genetic determined, but only predisposed is. Even if the inclination towards religiosity was stronger in some people, they could still abandon it or instead turn to harmless spiritual practices such as meditation.

The rising numbers of atheists in Europe, Canada and Australia finally prove to us that we are not cursed to believe nonsense forever.

Black Book of Pacifism

The New Atheists have never called for religion to be banned, nor have they called for violence against believers. At least not against the moderate average believer.

Christopher Hitchens is of the opinion, however, that fanatical groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda must be violently opposed. Not because they disagree, but because they directly threaten the lives of others. In doing so, they mostly blow up other Muslims. They meet Christians and atheists alike, indiscriminately. So all people who don't like this kind of thing are affected by this problem.

Cuddle atheists don't see it that way. For them, Taliban and co. Somehow bad at best, but they really don't want to do anything about them either. Terrorists have magical powers: not only do they get up again when they have been killed, they also multiply in a miraculous way, like Jesus did the bread and fish. It is as if Sisyphus' rock not only rolled back again and again, but also got bigger every time. Who says atheists don't believe in miracles?

Whoever denies peace three times ...

Besides Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris (who does not support the Iraq war but does not reject military operations in principle), Ian McEwan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, David Aaronovitch, Bernard-Henri Levy and Nick Cohen see it differently. For cuddle atheists, those representatives of the “Pro War Left”, as Nick Cohen's attitude is called in England, are not “true” atheists. Rather, these heretics fell for the “Wise House's propaganda”, as I was recently told from the cozy corner. It is quite inconceivable for the softened that someone could use their brain and arrive at a different assessment of the situation than they do. There must be an ideology or a conspiracy behind it! After all, if one adheres to an ideological worldview, one cannot understand what it is like to form one's own opinion beyond Michael Moore films.

Because they don't know what peace is

Perhaps radical pacifists are not entirely clear about what “peace” actually means. The American skeptics television series "Penn & Teller: Bullshit" has taken on the topic of "world peace" in one episode (parts 1, 2 and 3). To do this, they asked peace activists at an anti-Bush demonstration what peace actually is. One answer was, “Peace is when I'm in bed with my wife and children on a Saturday morning.” Penn Jillette (2005 Richard Dawkins Award winner) found an appropriate answer: “So peace is when you are with of your family lying in bed while people are being shot in Rwanda. "

It is time to see that peace and diplomacy only work if both parties have an interest in it. If one party simply wants to wipe out the other for the purpose of establishing a world caliphate and for a ticket to an unearthly mass orgy, then there can be no peace and those who still turn the other cheek can be happy to have also been martyred for their ideology be, but there is no reward in the hereafter. Perhaps we shouldn't reward such martyrdom in this world either.

Cheers to the freedom fighters

Perhaps the problem is that it is not yet widely accepted how unteachable and dangerous the Taliban and other groups of this kind actually are. So they are really seen by parts of the left as freedom fighters against the evil USA. They have been responsible for all the suffering in the world since 9/11.

Wikipedia has taken the trouble to compile a list of bans that were in place in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan and that they want to reintroduce. Among them there are peculiarities such as the ban on letting kites fly, the ban on breeding birds and the ban on drawing living things. They have also renamed all places in which the word “woman” occurs, for example “women's garden” in “spring garden”.

When the Taliban weren't dealing with relatively harmless insanity, they enjoyed amputating the limbs of suspected criminals, beating men with too short beards and publicly stoning women because they were raped (adultery ...) . It is definitely worth going through the list and considering what rights women still had. It's not that easy at all.

"Non-Muslims had to wear a yellow badge on their clothing," it also said. That sounds familiar. One knows the practice of another ideology, which a part of the left, including Bertrand Russel, did not want to fight at the time either. But one must, as heard from the ranks of the softeners, consider the following: "The Americans also committed crimes in World War II, and not just the Nazis."

Something is wrong with today's left. Perhaps the fact that it argues in the same way as the right.

Should we seriously tell our troops in Afghanistan that in future they will no longer be allowed to defend themselves in the process of building up the country and should rather be shot? Anyone demanding their immediate withdrawal must be aware of the possible consequences: the Taliban will kill countless people and bring the country back under their control. Then they will kill even more people. After all, that's what they have always done. Why do you simply accept that as an alleged defender of human rights?

Should the "peace" of the cuddle atheists consist in the fact that fanatics are allowed to kill people indiscriminately, as long as they do not hit the softened unbelievers?

Because America is very bad

If you want, you can listen to a comparison of Saddam Hussein's torture camps with Abu Ghraib from the softeners. In fact, Abu Ghraib is a significant improvement over what it was before, as Hitchens laconically remarked. The peace activists just have absolutely no idea about pre-war Iraq. They do not know that Saddam Hussein is responsible for the deaths of 1,400,000 people, that he even had the families of his closest party friends kidnapped so that they could be tortured and rape in front of their eyes if they only looked at him the wrong way. In contrast to Guantanamo, practically no one survived a visit to its countless torture camps, where suspects (alleged "Freemasons") were impaled on stakes. Just imagine if Ms. Merkel would impale even one person on a stake! But she's not a bad dictator either, who is naturally allowed to do something like that ...

Hussein's attempted extermination of the Kurds using poison gas must pass as an industrial accident for Ghandi fans. After all: "Iraq was secular". This is probably why Hussein had the country paved with mosques and gave a televised sermon every week. Anyway: what kind of defense is that actually? Can a dictator let off steam as he wants, as long as he is only "secular" (whatever that may actually mean)?

As if there was no difference between genocidal fascists like the Ba'ath Party and the only nation deliberately founded on the principles of the Enlightenment. As if there was no difference between the fight for freedom and the fight for an inhumane theocracy. Of course you can, yes you have to criticize the USA - but only as soon as you know which side you are actually on! The in itself justified criticism of CIA prisons, surveillance and waterboarding sounds only half as convincing from the mouth of someone who considers Al Qaeda terror camps to be scout camps.

Land you have to build

It is often overlooked that, for Hitchens too, the real solution lies in improving socio-economic conditions. In the case of Iraq, these conditions are given due to the natural oil reserves; in fact, the country is in a better financial position than its liberator with a huge surplus. The problem is Afghanistan because it does not have the raw materials it needs. Hitchens proposal is that the West should buy the opium from the Afghan farmers and turn it into medicine. That could get the country's economy going.

So nobody questions that there are material conditions for a civilized society. But a country cannot be built if fanatics prevent it by force of arms; when they blow up our troops and children playing along the way. So the soldiers have to defend themselves and the people of the country against these forces. Actually logical. Unless one sees pacifism not as a justified attempt to prevent unnecessary wars, but as ideological legitimation for “allowing evil to triumph because good people are inactive”.

Now somebody tells Osama!

Despite all these problems, even in the case of Islamic dictatorships, the principle of “enlightenment”, reduced to the element of “education”, should be the only true solution. But how could that work in practice? How can you promote education in a country, especially as a foreigner, that specifically and violently prevents education? Not even the local progressive forces can do that.In addition, education is an indispensable but very time-consuming process.

Unfortunately, right now, people are being slaughtered in the name of faith - and because of faith - because some people are not fanatical enough. Are you just watching and hoping that one day you will be able to drop educational leaflets, or do you intervene? Perhaps the answer is really “wait and see and have some tea”, but can't you at least state that the question is legitimate instead of shirking the challenge with conspiracy theories about the evil USA?

Peace at any cost?

Pacifism can be just as deadly as other ideologies. Just remember the Rwanda genocide, the Screbrenica massacre, the indifference of the United Nations when Milosevic revived totalitarianism. Indeed, one can begin to wonder what the UN is good for at all.

Those who consider “peace” to be more important than human rights actually feel that their own comfort is more important than the lives of those around them. While George Orwell, this alleged hero of the left, was still fighting the fascists in the Spanish Civil War, while Tom Paine and the Marquis de La Fayette still advocated human rights in two revolutions, the American and the French, their heirs are only fighting in one: The revolution in defense of tyranny through active idleness.

The torch of enlightenment

Cultural and intellectual achievements have emerged from the secular tradition that are far superior to their theistic competition. Without them there would be no philosophy, no science and only a very impoverished art that is in the service of superstition. The alternative to the Enlightenment can be found in the first thousand years of Christian rule, when theater was banned, when the works of philosophers were censored and thinkers were burned. You can find them in today's Iran, in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, North Korea and in other, from the perspective of the relativistic left, paradisiacal vacation spots.

When we become clear about what it really means to administer the legacy of the Enlightenment, only then can we take our positions upright and convincingly. As long as we apologize for Dawkins and Hitchens, internalize theistic propaganda, and treat injustice with indifference, we don't deserve to be taken seriously by the general public.

Andreas Müller

Note: Attached is a list of references, web recommendations and videos on the subject of the Iraq war from the perspective of the “Pro War Left”.

The new atheists
To overview