Atheist Leader Calls for "Eradication" of Fundementalist Christianity

This was originally posted atheistwatch. also I linked to it on carm. The carm guys never read it. They read the first line then said "he expalined that hd didn't mean it." The article is not saying that the guy really wants to kill anyone. My point is lot more subtle than that. Read the whole thing please. Its' so typical of Dawkies not to read the article then insist they know all about it.


This was first reported on the Tea Party blog "Blaze." It's here listed form the right wing source RS Red State. It's validated well enough because it's being reported on a hundred other blogs of all stripes. It's been admitted to and damaage control done by Stefanelli himself.

Posted by The Rat (Profile)

Friday, September 16th at 10:11AM EDT

Our pals at American Atheists are in the news again; surprise, surprise. The hateful bigots just can’t seem to avoid controversy, although truth be told, I’m sure they know exactly what they’re doing. In a column that would make Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens proud – entitled Taking the Gloves off, Al Stefanelli, the group’s state director of Georgia, draws bizarre comparisons between “fundamentalist Christianity,” and radical Islam — referring to them both, as “sociopaths,” “psychopaths” and “delusional.”

The entire article exposes the irrationality of this bigot — including the laughable “NOTICE: INTOLERANCE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED” image included in the post. He makes broad-brush comments throughout his diatribe, while offering no proof for any of his ridiculous comments or comparisons. Here are a few of his best delusional comments:

”Intolerance toward beliefs and doctrines that serve only to promote hatred, bigotry and discrimination should be lauded, as should extremist points of view toward the eradication of these beliefs and doctrines.”

“Bigotry, discrimination, hatred, coercion, terrorism, slavery, misogyny and everything else that is part and parcel of fundamental Christianity and radical Islam should not be tolerated.”

“The fact is that fundamentalist Christians and radical Muslims are not interested in coexisting or getting along. They have no desire for peace. They want us to die.”

“Their interpretation of the Bible and Koran are such that there is no other course of action but to kill the infidel, and if anyone believes otherwise they are only fooling themselves.”

“The underbelly of fundamentalist Christianity and radical Islam does not operate in the legal system. They don’t respond to lawsuits, letters, amicus briefs or other grass-roots campaigns and they must, must, must be eradicated.”

“We [atheists] will become extinct not due to natural selection, but at the hands of those who believe that the supernatural has made the selection.”

In a May article, entitled Why do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? I discussed Greg Epstein, the “Humanist chaplain” at Harvard University, and author of Good Without God: What a Million Nonreligious People Do Believe, who has a different view of the role atheism and its believers should play in society.

Catholic Blog Creative Minority Report

Stefanelli wrote at Atheists.org:

The fact is that fundamentalist Christians and radical Muslims are not interested in coexisting or getting along. They have no desire for peace. They do not want to sit down with us in diplomatic efforts to iron out our differences and come to an agreement on developing an integrated society.

They want us to die.

Their interpretation of the Bible and Koran are such that there is no other course of action but to kill the infidel, and if anyone believes otherwise they are only fooling themselves. It is not just in the best interests of atheists to be intolerant of fundamental Christianity and radical Islam, but it is also in the best interest of mainstream believers within these faiths, as well. Moderates and even Progressives who stand in support of extremists just because there is a claim to the same deity are not doing themselves any favors. Fundamental Christians make all Christians look bad and radical Muslims make all Muslims look bad.

The growing ranks of fundamental Christians and radical Muslims should be of concern to everyone who is not part of these two groups. Everyone. Again, bigotry, discrimination, hatred, coercion, terrorism, slavery, misogyny and everything else that is part and parcel of fundamental Christianity and radical Islam should not be tolerated and anyone who agrees with this needs to adopt extremist points of view that includes the intolerance of their very existence. The only reason these groups exist is because they are allowed to, and we, as a society, are allowing them to...

But the underbelly of fundamentalist Christianity and radical Islam does not operate in the legal system. They don’t respond to lawsuits, letters, amicus briefs or other grass-roots campaigns and they must, must, must be eradicated. As long as they are allowed to exist, we will continue to be inundated with accounts of buses, buildings, markets and abortion clinics being blown up, rape victims being murdered for adultery, wives being beaten (sometimes to death), airplanes being flown into buildings, people being tortured and sometimes beheaded for blasphemy, people being burned for witchcraft and sorcery and all the other horrific, inhumane and insane practices that are part of fundamental Christianity and Radical Islam.

If we don’t take a stand and, as a society, insist that these doctrines and beliefs are treated just the same as they would be if religion were not part of the equation, we will become extinct not due to natural selection, but at the hands of those who believe that the supernatural has made the selection.

Naturally the atheist community is all atwitter moving fast to deny hat it means anything, as though people speak of "eradication" all the time without meaning anything.

message board where atheist denies that it's a call for violence.

http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=142535

Blue Crab of Pain (O him again) on the message board:
Scam.com (9/16/2011)

I suppose it wouldn't take too much time out of your day to actually look into it just a tad further.

Quote:

It is most certainly NOT a call for violence. Not once did I ever suggest that we use weapons, violence or physical contact. Not once. Nor did I say we be “mean” to them. Nor is my article aimed at a majority of believers in the world of any one specific religion. The individuals that I am referring to, and that I was very careful to point out, are the fringe groups. The minority of the religious. The fundamentalist extremists who have no desire to talk with us, to open a dialog with the exchange of ideas.

What is so hard to understand that these people want us to die. They want us dead. They do not want to negotiate, they do not want to budge from their points of view, they do not care about what we think and they could care less about the things we hold to high value.

We need to be firm with them, we need to counter their activism with our own activism and make sure that we stay within the bounds of the law, and use the legal system to our advantage. We need to call them out on their doctrines of hate, bigotry and discrimination. We need to let them know that we are not going away, no matter how much they want us to.

I work very hard and with due diligence to create relationships between theists and atheists, including organizing “Freethought Awareness Day” events and getting involved in interfaith activities.

So, with all due respect as well, my position stands regarding the fundamental extremists.

It's hardly surprizing that Stefanelli denies that he meant to call for violence. It's hardly surprising that the atheists deny that he meant it or that they wish to pursue it.

Wasn't his language badly chosen? I'm sure all would agree, including himself. I don't buy it. He's speaking this way for a reason. It's a tactic and he knows what he's doing. It's an old political tactic and I've seen it done. As for proving what he's up to I present first an Atheist and student of rhetoric who has some interesting things to say:



atheist professor Mirada Celecest blames Stefani for "lazy and schoking langaue."

http://mirandaceleste.net/2011/09/27/american-atheists-are-an-embarrassment-to-atheism/

9/27/11

No surprise here: American Atheists are once again engaging in reckless and unproductively antagonistic behavior. This time, though, they’ve really gone beyond the pale. In a recent post on their “No God Blog”, “Taking The Gloves Off…“, American Atheists’ Georgia State Director Al Stefanelli uses lazy and shockingly vitriolic rhetoric, unsupported assumptions, and sweeping generalizations in a futile attempt to defend an indefensible thesis.

Throughout his rant, Stefanelli fails to provide any actual evidence in support of his assertions, instead relying on generalizations, stereotypes, assumptions, anger, and arguments from personal experiences. He wants his audience to believe that his rant is a legitimate argument that should be taken seriously, yet the combination of its extreme nature and his refusal to engage in civil, rational, and evidence-based argument results in a thesis that is ultimately indefensible. Stefanelli is not deterred by this fact, though. He is determined to defend his thesis no matter what, and the result is a completely ineffective, vitriolic, and potentially dangerous rant dressed up as a legitimate argument.

one snippet from a statement by Stefanelli

Intolerance toward beliefs and doctrines that serve only to promote hatred, bigotry and discrimination should be lauded, as should extremist points of view toward the eradication of these beliefs and doctrines. (ibid Miranda Celest)

This guy knows what he's doing. he's agitating. This is an old tactic used by both sides, but by very serious people on both extreme ends who want to foment violence. It's the tactic used agaisnt Obama in the summer of the big health care reform squabble when the insurrance company provocateurs started teh lies about death panels and fights broke out at town meetings. The object is to create an atmosphere of hysteria in which others will do your dirty work for you because you work them up. They stand back and go "I didn't say to hurt anyone, I didn't say burn churches. I just said we need to fire to the problem." That's an example.

This guy talks like communists I knew when I was a communist. He talks just like the older more experienced comrades who were working up the crowd. Different slogans, different isseus, the same style of speech; both the CPUSA (Stalinist--Moscow) and the Fourth International types (Torkskyists). They all that same tendency to stick in a bunch of epithets about the enemy; "those evil, hysterical, rampant bad people who are supporting this bill." Make the other guys sound like Nazis as much as possible and create a climacteric of hysteria, like the troops are marching this way now!

Here's an article by a leftist from Australia who is talking about the Spartacists an they way they use inflammatory language.

Green left discussion message

Green left discussion: policies like Hitler.

this use of language is typical of the provocateur.

Re: "Howard's land policies like Hitler's"

By Bob Gould

Inflammatory language creates the potential for violence on the far left

here's a left wing analyst who agrees with me, although he's writing about the Sparticist, a left wing extremest group and Australian politics. The tactics are the same.



On the basis of the evidence presented, I'm not certain whether the
Spartacists are telling the truth about a bit of an incident recently
in Melbourne. I'm aware over many years of the Spartacists' capacity
to whip up small things into big things, and they themselves use
inflammatory language against their opponents, including in this
particular case.

I don't intend to join the Spartacist campaign on this question
because I'm not sure what happened, but I would point out that the
Spartacists solicited support, and they even mailed me a document to
which they attached a statement by an ostensible non-aligned
bystander, who signed his name. This person claimed that he didn't
know either of the groups involved before the event, and he saw the
male thump the woman.

If it's true that he's a mere bystander, that's significant evidence,
but I don't know enough about the incident, or about who this bloke
is, to form a firm conclusion.

Over 50 years of activity I've seen a few pieces of marginal violence
and I've been thumped a couple of times myself by political opponents
on the left. I've made a bit of a verbal scandal about it, but I've
never made a public hullabaloo, not wanting to draw the media or the
right wing into the affairs of the left.

A bit of a fuss and the embarrassment of there being witnesses is
usually enough to calm down the people doing the thumping, and that's
the best way to proceed. I was present at a famous May Day booze-up at
which some proletarian Stalinists thumped Denis Freney, and I made
myself scarce, not wanting to be the next victim. Some may regard that
as cowardice. (I've was also roughed up by coppers quite a few times
in the Vietnam period.)

I've been in the room while old experienced communist agitators plotted to use this form of agitation. It was a priest from Peru who was a friend of the great liberation theologian Gustavo Gutierrez and a labor Union guy and member of the Socialist Worker's Party who wrote a speech for a protest agaisnt the gulf war that was just a born burner. I said said "hey this is really laying it on thick, this could lead to an altercation." They said "that's what we want. This is a tactic called 'agitation.' We can create a climite in which people will act but we can deny having worked them into it."

This is obviously what this guy is doing. Go back up there and read the comments by Miranda. she sees it too but she isn't as up front about naming it that way. This is not just this one guy. It's obviously the tactic of his group and even though a lot of atheists back off form it (it's designed to be backed off from that's the beauty of it--only the idiots will carry out the dirty work but it's what they want all along).

The book the God haters, research by Don Boys demonstrates his finding that many athiests want to take away freedom to believe in God:

The God Haters
New Book By Former Indiana Legislator
Email Message ^ | September 29, 2011 | Don Boys, Ph.D.

Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2011 6:45:37 PM by John Leland 1789

Every atheist states his motives clearly: It must be illegal for any teacher, preacher, or parent to teach any child an exclusive salvation based on the death and resurrection of Christ and a literal Hell. It should be treated as child abuse. Boys asserts that the prohibition will be expanded to apply to adults and sees a major confrontation where real Christians will refuse to obey that obtrusive, offensive, and obviously unconstitutional law.

Dr. Boys characterizes these New Atheists as being tyrants and totalitarians in the pursuit of their desire to remake America in the old Soviet image, and suggests that blood will flow through the streets if children are taken from homes and Sunday schools and parents are charged with child abuse.

The author says he documents outrageous statements, mistakes, general errors, and many lies by atheists to prove their case against a sovereign God. He charges that his opponents identify the “fruits, flakes, and nuts” in some churches as mainline Christians. “It would be like generalizing, the average atheist coming home each evening with a bottle of cheap rum, kicking his dog, bullying his wife, beating his kids and getting roaring drunk terrorizing the whole neighborhood,” says Boys, “when that doesn’t characterize the group as a whole. It shows how desperate, disingenuous, and dishonest some atheists are. Even honest atheists find that offensive and shameful.”

I am not the only one who sees the totalitarian movement growing in New atheist Dawkametnalist ranks. When I started atheist watch no one else talked this one. No one saw the totalitarian potential shaping up, not even me. Now I find others starting to see it. But that can't be. Atheism is not a movement, it doesn't have an ideology, and it's not organized.Just like there is no organization called "American Atheists." So then Stefannelli doesn't exist and thus there's no problem.