Evangelical Atheists

Jane Galt has some interesting commentary on "Evangelical Atheists":

Anyone who's lived in a Blue State has probably encountered the problem of the Evangelical Atheist . . . the person who has discovered the Void and considers it their bounden duty to share their newfound joy with everyone around them, through force if necessary. Having lived in the born again Christian wing of my freshman dorm, I find that EA's, not fundamentalists, seem to be the undisputed champions of arrogant, intolerant, pig-headed religious boorishness. The fundamentalists who so earnestly tried to bring me into the fold were, after all, just trying to save me from an awful eternity in hell. The EA's are trying to save people from wasting two hours on Sunday morning. And no fundamentalist I've ever met has ever been so thoroughly oblivious to the possibility that they might be wrong.

As a Christian myself, I may be biased towards Jane's sentiments, but she sure says it is well.  Her anecdotal experience also backs up much of Professor Iannaccone's research on misperceptions of the "Religious Right".  Basically, Dr. Iannaccone says we have far more to fear from the secular and religious Left trying to interfere in our lives than we do from the "Religious Right".  To illustrate this point, here's some commentary by Micha Ghertner from Catallarchy:

Deb Frisch believes that “there is good reason to allow the market to allocate food and the government to allocate ideas.” Responding to Will Wilkinson’s extended analogy comparing a monopoly for education to a monopoly for food, Deb writes,

There is a difference between the choice between wheat and rye and the choice between evolution and creationism. In the bread case, there’s no truth of the matter. Different strokes for different folks works just fine. But in the case of evolution vs. creationism, there is a right answer. It is the kiss of death for a democracy to allow parents to send their children to schools that teach what the parents believe.

YIKES!!!  Deb thinks it is the "kiss of death" to let parents teach their children what they believe?  I'm floored that some people actually think they know better than you do what your kids should be taught.  At least if Deb has her way, we can take solace she won't be able to send her kids to schools teaching them her way of thinking, right?

Micha (sarcastically) continues:

This seems eminently sensible. As Deb has said elsewhere, responding to Catholic law prof. Stephen Bainbridge, there are

those who don’t believe there’s a guy in the sky who had a son named Hey Seuss by a virgin named Mary who died for MY sins… Professor, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but there is no guy who lives in the sky. Jesus was just a person. He wasn’t the “son of god.” He didn’t die for my sins or yours. I know it’s scary, but seeing as you’re a law professor at UCLA, it would be nice if you joined the “reality-based community.”

Again, eminently sensible, from a secular humanist point of view. And since religionists are simply wrong and we are right, we “as a democracy” must not “allow parents to send their children to schools that teach what the parents believe.” Because we, as intelligent, highly educated academics, surely know whats better for other people’s children than their own parents do. And if the parents don’t like it, tough; we have the coercive power of the state on our side. Thank God Rousseau for Democracy!

Ask yourself after reading Deb's comments, when was the last time a Christian came across so forcefully determined to decide how you should raise your kids or so condescending in tone?  I agree with Jane Galt, I have never known Christians to behave as arrogantly or intolerantly as this.

Perhaps Sean Lynch (also from Catallarchy) has the best explanation of this:

I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that socialism and atheism seem to go hand in hand? There must be a certain humility in believing there is a higher power than you, at least when you believe you do not know for sure what that higher power’s purpose is for you, or even if it has one. Certainly some people believe that God talks to them and only to them. However, it takes a special kind of arrogance to believe that you (or any human for that matter) can direct an economy. This is the same kind of arrogance that allows one to say with certainty “there is no God” and that others should join the “reality-based community.”

Do understand that I’m talking about a particular kind of atheist here. There is, of course, the Sartrian atheist, who says “Holy crap! There’s no God! Now what do I do?” The same sort of humility can come from the belief that one is alone in the universe and has no set purpose as from the belief that there is someone much more powerful than you. But there is also the type of atheist who believes that he or she can be God, because the position is open. This person, in my opinion, must be watched far more closely than the Jerry Falwells of the world.

AMEN!!!