In little over two weeks, a new documentary named Expelled will be making its nationwide debut, detailing for the country how, as the film’s creators see it, “Big Science” is repressing proponents of Intelligent Design, a theory that credits an intelligent creator for the creation of life rather than the more tendentially atheistic theory of Darwinian evolution. Reviewers of the pre-screening for Expelled, both positive and negative, have made numerous comments about the film’s use of images of Nazi Germany in such a way as to represent the forces of “Big Science” and “Darwinists” as being similar to those that caused the Holocaust. As Ray Comfort’s glowing review points out, the maker of the film, “can see the same pattern in the United States that led up to Nazi Germany.” (Comfort) The conflict between Darwinian evolution, and the concept of an intelligent designer is one of many public fronts in the ongoing confrontation between theism and atheism, with theists supporting the supposition that supports their belief in a creative designer, and with atheists supporting the theory that attempts to explain the origin of life without the need for such a supposition. It is not unusual, in this conflict, for this comparison between atheism and Nazism to be raised as it is in the film, with footage cutting between notable atheist Richard Dawkins, and Nazi troops marching in formation. This implicit parallel between atheism and Nazism, however, is just the tip of the rhetorical iceberg.

The popular view of atheism is rife with imagery that compares it to Nazism, Communism, and a plethora of other enemy figures in American history. Countless accusations of this sort have been leveled, accusing atheism of being an inherent source of evil and suffering, as proven by the atrocities committed by certain twentieth-century totalitarian governments that had rulers who were characterized as being atheist, whether correctly or incorrectly, most notably Hitler and Stalin. In fact, this association is so strongly made that the conservative collaborative encyclopedia Conservapedia’s “Militant Atheism” article has more information about the connections between atheism and communism than it does on all other parts of the definition combined (“Militant Atheism”). The promotion of connection, however, is hardly limited to the faceless mass of the internet. In the Current Events column on Forbes.com Paul Johnson writes that “More people were killed by totalitarian states (all atheistic) in the 20th century than in all previous periods of history.” (Johnson) In one brief parenthetical statement, Johnson is laying millions of deaths at the feet of all disbelievers, leaving it to be considered obvious that the atheistic tendencies of the totalitarian governments in question were, in fact, the cause of these atrocities. But where does this connection originate? While perceived atheism is a common thread between these two examples, commonality is not sufficient to create this powerful of an accusation. It would be just as baseless as saying that the cause of the atrocities were the two rulers’ common propensity for growing mustaches. Indeed, these claims point to things that are much more implicit in the American zeitgeist than a simple common attribute.

One of the themes that is most widely used to characterize the perceived forces of atheism is that of a hostile force, typically dripping with warlike rhetoric, some of which even goes so far as to name the conflict outright. This view is that disbelievers are actively pursuing the destruction of religion, usually the specific religion of the speaker, usually using tools provided via the scientific community. As was published in the Apologetics Press, “In fact, a large majority of scientists now believe that God does not exist. These scientists feel that they should militantly spread their ideas of atheism and evolution as far and wide as possible. They abhor the idea of a supernatural Creator and believe it should be eradicated from human consciousness.” (Lyons) This language drips with the same absolutism that is common to demagogic literature, since the atheistic evolutionists described here do not merely disbelieve, they abhor the very concept to the point where they wish to eradicate all mention of it. This charged and absolutist language not only robs the target of any human sensibility, it directly frames atheists as being a force locked in a perpetual battle against that which the audience presumably believes to be the ultimate good. This impression, that the amassed forces of atheism are making a concerted effort to destroy religious belief, is echoed throughout countless journals, editorials, articles and essays, and could even be considered a commonplace for a good number of people. Almost always, the rhetoric of war or combat is used to refer to this phenomenon, as exemplified by the following quip from Doug Hagin of RenewAmerica: “Now, emboldened by his victory on the pledge, he is back to broaden his campaign of religious genocide[…]” (Hagin) The conflict has even been given a name, by radio and television pundit Bill O’Reilly, who characterizes the “war” in his book entitled Culture Warrior.

“[…]I have chosen to jump into the fray and become a warrior in the vicious culture war that is currently under way in the United States of America. And war is exactly the right term. On one side of the battlefield are the armies of the traditionalists like me, people who believe the United States was well founded and has done enormous good for the world. On the other side are the committed forces of the secular-progressive movement that want to change America dramatically[...]” (O’Reilly)

Laced with accusation, O’Reilly makes the implicit claim that those who are secular, a label which is largely synonymous with atheistic in popular culture, are not only actively hostile to their country, but they are also engaged in an offense against those who identify as traditionalists. The culture war and conflicts with the secular progressives, wittily shortened to “SPs” at times, has since become a common theme in O’Reilly’s regular political analysis programs.

The second major theme to the popular qualities attached to the label of atheism is that of inhumanity, specifically the quality of being inherently devoid of any moralistic structure or motive. This view, again, is an absolutist take on the nature of disbelief, hinging on the principle that if someone feels that their moral code is based in some way on their religion, people without a religion are therefore without any sense of morality. This is an opinion that’s been voiced frequently through American history. As Ronald Regan said, of the separation of church and state, “The truth is, politics and morality are inseparable. And as morality’s foundation is religion, religion and politics are necessarily related.” It would be simple to just dismiss this as a view from a prior era in American history, but rather than become less common, this claim has become more and more widely used by American politicians. Indeed, Joseph Lieberman stated that the American people should not “indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” in an interview in 2001. More recently, and perhaps most bitingly, former Attorney General John Ashcroft made a parenthetical slight at not just atheists, but anyone not of the three Abrahamic religions, when he said, “Civilized people — Muslims, Christians, and Jews — all understand that the source of freedom and human dignity is the Creator.” This claim, that those who disbelieve are somehow less moral or civilized by mere virtue of their disbelief, has become so implicit, though, that many of these quotes pass largely unnoticed, their meaning either ignored or accepted implicitly. It is somewhat ironic, then, that this is the very same view of one of those very individuals who have been accused of committing terrible acts in the name of atheism. As he said, in a 1933 speech, “A general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion myst be derived from faith…. We need believing people.” (Hitler)

These popular stereotypical views of the nature of disbelief combine to give a much more pervasive and subtle character to the American zeitgeist. Regardless of whether or not you might directly accept the claims of hostility or inhumanity, the pervasiveness of these views cause society at large to hold an implicit distrust toward those who identify as irreligious, a component to the stereotype that is as common as it is unaddressed. In a 2006 study conducted by the University of Minnesota, a survey of more than 2,000 households put atheists as the least trusted minority in America, below Muslims, immigrants, homosexuals, and other racial and cultural minorities (Aquino). This opinion, while not one that is commonly mentioned in the mainstream of public discourse, is nonetheless present, usually in subtly divisive ways, such as in Republican presidential candidate hopeful Mitt Romney’s “Faith in America” speech. The speech was largely viewed by pundits and analysts alike as being largely harmless and conciliatory, aimed at attempting to assuage concerns that people might have with his Mormon beliefs. However, in the text of the speech, he makes such statements as “Freedom requires religion, and religion requires freedom,” and “Freedom and religion endure together or perish alone.” (Romney) These statements which seem largely pithy and inconsequential, take it as assumed, conversely, that those who are irreligious are inherent enemies to freedom. He even states that “Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me,” which parenthetically defines those who believe in religious freedom in such a way that excludes the irreligious. This mistrust runs so deep, in fact, that it has even found it’s way into the very letter of the law, in some ways. The Constitution of the State of Texas, for example has the following provision:

“No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.” (Texas)

It is in this divisive realm of mistrust that demagogic seeds can most easily take root, due to the importance of having a common enemy against which the demagogue can crystalize his movement. Lacking an force to fight against that is as absolute and unwavering in it evil as it is in its threatening nature, a movement based on fear and raw emotion is bound to fall apart before it is able to truly take shape. Even at the cost of an accurate understanding of the enemy, this is key. As Hitler himself points out in Mein Kampf, “It would have been correct to load every bit of the blame on the shoulders of the enemy, even if this had nor really corresponded to the true facts […] As soon as our own propaganda admits to so much as a glimmer of right on the other side, the foundation for doubt in our own right has been laid.” (182-183) Typically, this polarizing enemy is derived from the exploitation extant stereotypes as they exist in the public consciousness, as in Hitler’s exploitation of latent anti-Semitism in postwar Germany. These stereotypes are typically based on one key dividing factor that is fundamental enough to the audience’s identity that it allows for an easily created in-group/out-group mentality. In the current sociological state of the United States of America, the common stereotype of atheists and other irreligious individuals as being intrinsically inhuman and hostile could very possibly be used as a catalyst for a demagogic movement. The movement would not only benefit from the pre-existing stereotypes of the irreligious, but due to the success of science in the modern age, and the view that atheists are, in fact, in control of “Big Science,” a demagogic rhetor would also be able to use this to frame atheists as being arrogant and successful intellectual elites, a category that countless generations have been successfully rallied against.

The ease with which the implicit mistrust surrounding the label of atheist could be co-opted for demagogic gain is most clearly shown in the success of the second so-called Red Scare, and most specifically the acts of Joseph McCarthy, who was able to get enough implicit support for his actions that he was able to go on a multi-year witch-hunt for both Communists and those he felt would be susceptible to Communist tactics. As Noam Chomsky would say, more than fifty years later, “In the early 1950s in the US, there was what was called McCarthyism, and the only reason it succeeded was that there was no resistance to it.” How then, was there no strong public opposition to this sort of fear mongering, and how was it that communism, an economic and governmental concept, was so easily and succinctly used as a devil term in America for so long? As McCarthy himself put it, in his now famous speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, “Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity, […] and ladies and gentlemen, the chips are down—they are truly down.”



Works Cited

Aquino, Jeannine. “Survey: U.S. Trust Lowest For Atheists.” The Minnesota Daily 24 Mar. 2006. 20 Mar. 2008 .

Ashcroft, John. National Religious Broadcasters Convention. 19 Feb. 2002. The Avalon Project. Yale. 1 Apr. 2008 .

Chomsky, Noam. “Chom’pin at the Bit.” Interview with Mark Thomas. Schnews 28 Dec. 2002. 1 Apr. 2008 .

Comfort, Ray. “Expelled Review.” Weblog entry. 28 Mar. 2008. Comfort Food. 1 Apr. 2008 .

Hagin, Doug. “Atheist Fanatics–Stalin Would Be Proud!” Editorial. Renew America 15 Nov. 2005. 20 Mar. 2008 .

Hitler, Adolf. Nazi-Vatican Concordat. 26 Apr. 1933.

- -. Mein Kampf. 1943. Trans. Ralph Manheim. Boston: Hougton Mifflin, 1971.

Johnson, Paul. “Militant Atheism and God.” Forbes 8 Oct. 2007. 20 Mar. 2008 .

Lieberman, Joseph. Notre Dame University. 24 Oct. 2000.

Lyons, Eric, and Kyle Butt. “Reason & Revelation.” Apologetics Press 27 Jan. 2007. 20 Mar. 2008 .

McCarthy, Joseph. Wheeling, West Virginia. 9 Feb. 1950. History Matters. George Mason University. 1 Apr. 2008 .

“Militant Atheism.” Conservapedia. 16 Mar. 2008. 20 Mar. 2008 .

O’Reilly, Bill. “Centcom.” Preface. Culture Warrior. By O’Reilly. N.p.: Broadway, 2007.

Reagan, Ronald. Ecumenical Prayer Breakfast. Dallas. 23 Aug. 1984.

Romney, Willard Mitt. “Faith in America.” George Bush Presidential Library. 6 Dec. 2007. Rpt. in Commitment 2008. The Boston Channel. 20 Mar. 2008 .

Texas. “Article 1 - Bill of Rights, Section 4 - Religious Tests.” The Texas Constitution. Texas Legislature Online. 20 Mar. 2008 .