The Pope Passes, The Atheists Sneer
I am in agreement with Fred Barnes, a self-described evangelical, that Protestants too are right to mourn the passing of Pope John Paul II. While most of the news coverage I have seen has been positive, plenty of atheists have attacked John Paul II as an evil man responsible for untold suffering. Most recently, I heard a spokeswoman for American Atheists on a local radio show. It was not enough to disagree with the Pope, she had to express her contempt for him and Catholicism in general.
When the host asked her about the Pope’s recognized contributions to encouraging a bloodless revolution in Soviet-dominated Poland and Eastern Europe, and therefore helping bring down the Communist regimes that murdered millions, she scoffed. It was not appropriate for a theologian to interfere with the internal politics of a sovereign nation, she said. The host, who is fairly anti-Catholic, was surprised and asked her if she meant that what the Pope did was wrong. She reiterated her belief that the Church had no business interfering with the internal politics of the communist nations. Now remember what the Pope did. He traveled to Poland and other Eastern European nations -- with the permission and cooperation of the communist governments -- and gave speeches that undermined without directly attacking, the foundations of communism.
Presumably the atheist spokeswoman thinks that it is a good thing that communism fell. Of course, she may not. After all, communism is the only example we have of what happens when atheism becomes the predominant belief of a nation’s rulers. Most of us view the result of 100 million dead and hundreds of millions more oppressed as a bad thing. But hey, not as bad as a theologian giving a few speeches stressing the value of human rights and individual dignity. Right?
How can such people have any credibility? Her preference for the most deadly and destructive philosophical system to ever achieve power over allowing the Pope to give speeches which she presumably would largely agree with betrays a frightening anti-religious bigotry. On the other hand, there is a positive side to what I heard. I cannot believe that atheists will ever achieve much politically so long as they continue to tolerate such people as their spokespersons.
I am in agreement with Fred Barnes, a self-described evangelical, that Protestants too are right to mourn the passing of Pope John Paul II. While most of the news coverage I have seen has been positive, plenty of atheists have attacked John Paul II as an evil man responsible for untold suffering. Most recently, I heard a spokeswoman for American Atheists on a local radio show. It was not enough to disagree with the Pope, she had to express her contempt for him and Catholicism in general.
When the host asked her about the Pope’s recognized contributions to encouraging a bloodless revolution in Soviet-dominated Poland and Eastern Europe, and therefore helping bring down the Communist regimes that murdered millions, she scoffed. It was not appropriate for a theologian to interfere with the internal politics of a sovereign nation, she said. The host, who is fairly anti-Catholic, was surprised and asked her if she meant that what the Pope did was wrong. She reiterated her belief that the Church had no business interfering with the internal politics of the communist nations. Now remember what the Pope did. He traveled to Poland and other Eastern European nations -- with the permission and cooperation of the communist governments -- and gave speeches that undermined without directly attacking, the foundations of communism.
Presumably the atheist spokeswoman thinks that it is a good thing that communism fell. Of course, she may not. After all, communism is the only example we have of what happens when atheism becomes the predominant belief of a nation’s rulers. Most of us view the result of 100 million dead and hundreds of millions more oppressed as a bad thing. But hey, not as bad as a theologian giving a few speeches stressing the value of human rights and individual dignity. Right?
How can such people have any credibility? Her preference for the most deadly and destructive philosophical system to ever achieve power over allowing the Pope to give speeches which she presumably would largely agree with betrays a frightening anti-religious bigotry. On the other hand, there is a positive side to what I heard. I cannot believe that atheists will ever achieve much politically so long as they continue to tolerate such people as their spokespersons.
Comments
And any other cliche you can think of signifying people whose hate binds them together more than the object of their hate distinguishes them.