Concerning militant Atheism/Musings of a self-critical militant atheist

Militant Atheism is what can be considered as the “extremist” stance or bunch when it comes down into grouping the different varieties of atheists into fictional/virtual boxes. I purposely label it as extremist when considering the history of the label “militant Atheist” which was probably conceived during the period 1925-1947 in Soviet Russia with the emergence of “League of militant Atheists” who were inspired by the ideological ideas, policies and cultural views of the communist party. A worthwhile look at this group and its ties to Communist ideas can be done but would deviate from the main issue (and I have to admit I am not too much in the know of this group and there is still the possibility the label can be older, having originated somewhere else).

Modern moderate militant atheists like Dawkins are still in a full crusade for secularism and the abolishment of religion due to its toxic and immoral (and unreasonable, sketchy) ideas that are being conditioned in the minds of many. Those that question the motivation and claim exaggeration should be referred to the various articles of the Christian stance against use of condoms, the various physical torments in Islam religion alike the crushing of a minors’ hand because of theft (out of poverty), public executions of those who dared to criticize and joke the religion (like the Swedish cartoonist a few years back) and so on. I am sure anyone will come up with many other examples of religious intolerance.

Why the militant Atheism? In the first and foremost place, militant to stop the toxic influence and evade harm to those people who are unreasonably punished by religion. Militant, to raise a loud and clear counter voice showing that the “godless” simply will not lay down and co-exist with toxic religion and want to have the religious toxic effects stop spreading among the other-religious or other-thinking.

Its goals are reasonable and will, at first glance, be something to get behind with. But within the confines of my own mind, a variety of questions arises. Is not this crusade pretty much the same as a Christian/Muslim/… convincing those around him of the truth and moral of its religious ideas? Sure we can state Atheism, being a simple lack of belief in god(s), brings up to the table the very same “universal” morals most religions have in common (while highlighting the lack of the holy/divine aspect) and its power of reasoning without the help of any divine influence. But, as it were, this same kind of reasoning can be found in religious extremism with the sole difference being the divine aspect.

Yet, militant Atheism concerns not only strict secularism but also in a very straight way the total abolishment of toxic religious influences. What it tends to overlook is the mental need of certain people towards a god-concept and the need of certain religious practice in order to maintain a certain mental stability. The great discussion and conflict which arises here is the one of moderation vs extremist. Should there be a religious tolerance with the full knowledge religious extremism, immorality and toxic influence will remain? Or should there be a striving to total secularism and/or abolishment of religion with the risk of losing precious cultural diversity/history/identity?

Both cases, in my opinion, are unfavorable. Cultural pride is something I, as a Satanist, rely heavily on as an aspect to identify and define a part of my individual self. Seeing it disappear would mean throwing away a part of the self. When going for the other option the arising problem will be one of stigmatization and willful closing of the eyes towards possible harm done to those of my kin, family or friends.

I’ve chosen for religious tolerance towards the very moderate religious yet with a striving to total abolishment of religion. Cultural pride/identity maintained not so much because of the possible religious inclinations of my ancestors but moreover to the intellectual and technological marvels, wonders and accomplishments achieved. It may sound hypocritical (in this context) to, at one hand, practice religious tolerance while, on the other hand, wanting to abolish and making it disappear. My reasoning here is the simple “to each their own” and the additional idea religion and belief is and should remain in the confines of the mind and home only.

My questions (to those who are willingly to answer): are you but a mere godless person who simply cannot bring it up to put his/her confidence to an external “something”? Or are you a godless individual who not only doesn’t need a god to be a “good” person but are also someone who sees the toxicity of religion and is prepared to take opposition? What choice is made (religious tolerance or total abolishment?) and what is the motivation for this choice? Isn’t this the same practice done by extremist religion and from what point should this be different?

~Dimitri