Of Arabs and Atheists

Feeling very Middle Eastern today, and in that spirit, I'd really hate to drop the debate Paul initiated below concerning Israel and Palestine while there's still FFB blood to be shed. So I'll pose a question: Why is it that, as a general rule, the more intense someone's atheism the more passionately they tend to identify with the Palestinian cause?

If you think about it, this question is really just the flip-side of the allegation that Paul made against me, namely that I am irrationally blinded toward Israeli injustice and Palestinian grievance because I'm Christian, as if being Christian made one naturally sympathetic toward the Jews. The long-view historical record might cast skepticism on such a claim, given the unsavory history of anti-semitism with which we Christians have only recently sought to come to terms. It is true, of course, that many contemporary evangelicals favor Israel from a belief that restoration of the second Temple is a necessary step in the apocalyptic return of JC (not Jimmy, the other one). That hypothesis doesn't explain my sympathies very well, however, since I'm not evangelical, would rather Revelation had never been included in the sacred canon, and don't expect to see fiery horsemen descending from the clouds anytime soon. Now, maybe I admire Israel partly out of a vague simpatico with other "people of faith," but that term certainly includes the Palestinians as well, so it fails to resolve the issue. Let's just assume then, at least for now, that my judgments in favor of the Israeli position have a primarily rational, not emotional basis.

On the other side of the debate, however, I've always found that atheism tends to correlate with a furious defense of the Palestinian cause, coupled with disdain for Israel. I've often found myself in arguments with otherwise very rational people--committed secularists and liberals, typically "anti-war"--who defend suicide bombing as a legitimate, even righteous expression of an oppressed culture's frustrations. Like Paul, many seethe with indignation about the blood on Israel's hands, breaking into rants on how Zionism equals racism or selectively quoting biblical passages designed to make the Jews look like a fascist cult full of bloodthirsty imperialists. Meanwhile, my disputants seemingly fail to recognize that the Palestinians they champion are dominated by their most bellicose and religiously fanatical elements. Why would anti-war, liberal, atheist rationalists embrace a cause that seems the very antithesis of everything for which they claim to stand?

It would be tempting to chalk this all up to anti-semitism. If I were Jewish, that's probably how I would read the indictment that Paul levels below, not just on the Israeli government, but on the very foundations of Jewish faith, which he describes as silly and "immoral." And yet I find the antisemitism thesis unconvincing. Indeed, I presume that Paul, who likely has warm relations with Jews he knows personally, will consider the very suggestion outrageous. Charges of racism and antisemitism get thrown around very casually in debates like this one, and it seems to me that you shouldn't accept them unless you've got some damned good evidence. It also seems unlikely that antisemitism would be a systematic (as opposed to merely individual or random) motivator of atheists as a group. OK, maybe then it's the rational merits of the case that convinces so many atheists. Unfortunately, this thesis fails to explain the fist-pounding, eyeball-popping rage that Israel seems to provoke in the atheist minority, while leaving the vast majority of Americans on the opposite side. Nor does it gel very well with the atheists' tendency to falsify the historical record, as if Jews "stole" Palestine, "breaking into the house," as it were.

So what explains this rather perplexing paradox? I've got a pet theory. As a bonus, it's a theory sure to offend most of you. The answer is that atheists are prone to anti-religious bigotry that makes them incapable of exercising coherent moral judgment when religious disputes are involved.

Atheists presume that religion per se is wrong, but more importantly, they presume that all religion is a grievous moral error: it is superstitious, irrational, violent, and divisive. As a result, atheists tend to have a natural preference for those religions or sects that confirm all their worst opinions about religion generally. If you're going to be religious, at least have the good manners to be insane about it. Don't tell us you're a liberal, democratic, tolerant person of faith! That's hypocrisy, designed to quiet the outrage that you cultists properly deserve. Naturally, then, in a dispute between liberal religion (Israel) and fanaticism (Fatah, Hamas, etc.), atheists instinctively prefer the crazies.

Bigotry is an inflammatory word. In fairness, anti-religious bigotry cannot be simply equated with racial bigotry, sexism, or homophobia. After all, religion is a belief system over which individuals have a considerable degree of choice, whereas race, sex, and sexuality allow much less (although there's still some limited range in each). You're not entitled to courtesy just because you're religious, and "tolerance" does not require agreement or even respect. Hating religion is not the same thing as hating blackness. And yet, atheists abandon coherent moral judgment when they presume the equality of all religions in malevolence. Rather than looking for allies among tolerant, liberal believers, atheists suspect deep down that moderate incarnations of religion are dishonest and even dangerous. Because they see religion as the enemy, rather than religious extremism, they're especially unsympathetic toward the more successful incarnations of humanistic religion in the political realm. Hence, anti-Israel. That's my theory. Prove me wrong.