Harris's beliefs that murder is ok and the close correlation between his position and the Neocon one - in fact he has expressed support for the extreme-right won Dutch racist Gert Wilders so possibly he is more correctly place alongside traditional European racist movements than the US Neocon ideology - gives cause for concern about his 'manifesto' and the atheist agenda in general. I believe these factors add up to a chilling possibility that -given the right circumstances - should the current atheist fad gain sufficient traction and build up a power-base there may well be some sort of pogrom and 'Star Chamber' instituted that may well legitimize torture at the very least and judicial deaths at worst.
I do believe this is a real possibility. In fact, one may even see it as inevitable given the right conditions - hopefully they will not occur but let's look at the facts:
1) It is well known that when a Fundamentalist movement gains power it WILL seek to neutralize and eradicate the 'sinners' and, given the extreme nature of the view under consideration, this will involve murder. Though they will never call it that.
It happened with the Spanish Inquisition. It happened with the Nazis. It is happening now with Wahabi-sponsored Islamism.
There is no reason to believe - no 'evidence' hahahahah - that atheist Fundies will be any different should they gain power.
There are chilling indications they will be the same.
2) Exhibit A: Sam Harris. Atheist poster-boy and archetypal atheist role-model (hence this thread)
Harris believes it is ok to torture:
Note two things there: first the acceptance of torture but second - and this is the key: acceptance of torture in the light of the WAR ON TERROR
Ie: Harris accepts the ideology of the 'War on Terror" - accepts there is and can be such a things as the WOT and accepts its necessity. He also argues it is ETHICAL. Not even all right-wingers go that far. So we can position him nicely on the political spectrum. Hold that while we look at his other key positions...
....fearing that the above reflection on torture may offer a potent argument for pacifism, I would like to briefly state why I believe we must accept the fact that violence (or its threat) is often an ethical necessity.
Armed conflict "in the defence of Islam" is a religious obligation for every Muslim man (p111) Islam, more than any religion humans have ever devised, has the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death
Is Islam compatible with a civil society? Is it possible to believe what you must believe to be a good Muslim and not to pose an unconscionable threat to the civil societies of others? I believe that the answer to this question is no.
So this is the position. It is a Neocon one for sure but that is not my point…my point is more about what atheists will do if they gain power and also the hypocrisy of their oft-stated position "religion is the cause of violence". Clearly that is a lie. Or else Harris is religious.
Also the opinions re Islam above by Harris are as noxious as those of most racists and Islamophobes, but they are also a lie and widely known to be untrue..they are therefore, irrational….it is not a 'religious obligation' to fight for Islam for example and of course he offers no proof of this because there is none. And also 'proof' is of course, something only religious-believers need to provide. But on….
3) A contention was made in the original Harris thread that "Atheists in political power cannot admit they are atheists in the US". Let's assume this is true.
When a religious Fundie behaves irrational, shows racism, expresses violent or murderous tendencies etc….then it will be obvious that this is being done by a religious fundie. Because of the above circumstance.
Now unless there are no atheists in government, when an ATHEIST does the equivalent (forget for a moment the idea that atheists could not or would not do 'bad things' or contemplate the Harris quotes again) it will not be obvious. In fact, no-one will know an atheist did anything at all.
Put another way: it is highly likely there are atheists in Government. given Harris's views above, it is highly likely they are devising schemes - perhaps even DID devise such things as Abu Ghraib etc - to kill Muslims and torture those they believe to be in need of it.
Or, if you prefer, just read again Harris's beliefs and imagine he was not a celebrity atheist but rather someone with the same beliefs he holds but in a military or other Governmental policy-making position.
Then imagine a legion of Harris's disciples moving on from the eradication of Muslims (by whatever means) and turning their attention to members of other faiths………
The possibilities are disturbing.