The so-called "new atheists" might find it entertaining to be anti-religion. But their anti-religion onslaught just arouses the fervor of the Christian right. Are fat-cat Republicans funding the so-called "new atheists"? Are fat-cat Republicans funding the media coverage of the so-called "new atheists"?
When so-called "new atheists" and secular humanists in academia sound anti-religion, they are firing up the Christian right and thereby helping to advance the causes of fat-cat Republicans.
As an alternative scenario, Carroll urges us to discuss and debate good religion and bad religion, but without sounding anti-religion. Those liberals who are truly anti-religion might need to hold their noses and stand down in the public discussion. With more than 80 percent of Americans saying that they believe in God, the anti-religion cause is not likely to win out in the near future.
Those liberals who are truly anti-religion might want to hold their noses and read Carroll's JERUSALEM, JERUSALEM and CONSTANTINE SWORD.
Next, they might read two accessible books about how the historical Jesus was probably crucified under Pontius Pile in Jerusalem at the times of the Passover festival: John Dominic Crossan's WHO KILLED JESUS: EXPOSING THE ROOTS OF ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE GOSPEL STORY OF THE DEATH OF JESUS (1995) and Paula Fredriksen's JESUS OF NARAZARETH: KING OF THE JEWS (1999). Crossan and Fredriksen disagree about one key consideration: She sees the historical Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher (i.e., proclaiming the coming end-time), whereas Crossan sees the historical Jesus as preaching a non-apocalyptic message (i.e., a message about spirituality, not about the end-time). But they both agree that the crucifixion of the historical Jesus was probably a crowd control measure taken by Pontius Pilate. (Like Carroll, Crossan, who is now retired, is a former Catholic priest. Fredriksen is a former Catholic who converted to Judaism.)
Next, they might want to read a critique of the Christian right by a secularist philosopher: James H. Fetzer's RENDER UNTO DARWIN: PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS OF THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT'S CRUSADE AGAINST SCIENCE (2007). (Disclosure: Fetzer and I were faculty colleagues at the University of Minnesota Duluth before each of us retired.)
Next, they might want to read a critique of the Catholic bishops' views regarding abortion by a Catholic lay philosopher: George Dennis O'Brien's THE CHURCH AND ABORTION: A CATHOLIC DISSENT (2010). (O'Brien, who is now retired, holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University.)
Finally, could fat-cat Democrats play a constructive role in helping to advance the public discussion and debate about good religion and bad religion? For example, fat-cat Democrats could sponsor workshops to have Crossan bring Democrats up to speed about the historical Jesus and his crucifixion. Carroll's call to discuss and debate good religion and bad religion should include leaders of the Democratic party.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
