The Tao of Arizona Atheist: Atheist Hypocrisy

One of the interesting things about being an atheist and anarchist is I have the chance to debate and study both subjects. Because I spend so much time examining the arguments for both atheism and anarchism I've become very familiar with both positions, both pro and con. This has lead to an interesting realization. That of the similarities between the state (government) and religion. In fact, this is one reason that caused me to become such an ardent supporter of anarchism. If I did support government I would end up being a hypocrite. My religious and political views would become contradictory.

During debates that I'd have with various people about anarchism, atheists in particular, I discovered something very interesting. The same reasons Christians believe religion is needed for a society are precisely the same reasons atheists believe government is necessary for a society. It's also strange how atheists will criticize religion for precisely the reasons I criticize government and yet, despite very similar issues occurring with religion and government, atheists will often wish for the decline (if not the outright extinction) of one, while defending and promoting the other. I still find this cognitive dissonance strange...especially for people who are on average very intelligent. But, as I've written previously, just because someone rejects the idea of god doesn't mean they are an entirely logical thinker. Atheism does not make one immune to ignorance or error.

This is the controversial subject I've discussed in the past and I will explore it in more depth in this part of my series The Tao of Arizona Atheist.

Statism and Theism: The Similarities Are Striking

I suppose the best way to begin making my case is to give several examples of these similarities.

Religion/Government is Needed to Dictate Right & Wrong

I've been told on a few occasions that without government in place all will become chaotic and there will no longer be any laws or rules to govern behavior. For all you atheists reading, this argument sounds familiar, doesn't it? However, all atheists I know don't believe we need some authoritarian god to hand down rules for us to follow.

In both instances the counter-argument is the same, whether or not someone is promoting statism or theism. Human beings create the rules they wish to live under and there isn't any need of gods or even government to dictate these rules. We all know murder is wrong. We all know stealing is wrong. Atheists argue all the time, making use of evolutionary morality, that these things are just bad for a society and therefore will be weeded out naturally. No authority needed to tell you this, and yet even atheists fall into this trap when you mention the word anarchism.

This wrongheaded belief is even expressed in popular books by atheists. One such book is Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (2003), by Julian Baggini. There, he writes that,

Everything will be permitted only if we abandon ourselves to anarchy, and there is no reason why someone would want to do that just because they do not believe in god.

More profoundly, it is an odd morality that thinks that one can only behave ethically if one does so out of fear of punishment or promise of reward. The person who doesn't steal only because they fear they will be caught is not a moral person, merely a prudent one. The truly moral person is the one who has the opportunity to steal without being caught but still does not do so. (40) [emphasis mine]

When Baggini says, "More profoundly, it is an odd morality that thinks that one can only behave ethically if one does so out of fear of punishment or promise of reward" he is contradicting himself because what is the purpose of jails and prisons? What is the purpose of speeding tickets? What is the purpose of police? All these things (and countless others) are to keep people in line through fear of punishment just like the laws in religion, and atheists claim they don't need religion to be moral, so why would it be different for the state and morality?

Religion/Government Kills People and is a Source of Conflict

A common argument against religion that atheists use is that religions are responsible for much of the world's violence and yet when an anarchist mentions all of the violence perpetuated by the government and its henchmen (cops) most atheists' eyes seem to glaze over and argue that governments may do some of these things but that governments also do a lot to help people, with such things as welfare programs, etc.

Similarly, a theist will often argue how religion can be a source of much conflict but it also does a lot of good with its various humanitarian programs, shelters, etc. An atheist will commonly counter that argument by arguing that secular programs can be just as effective in humanitarian aid as their religious counterparts, therefore, that's no reason to keep religion since secular organizations can do the same job – and without all of that needless preaching.

Governments have started more wars then even religion has, so while atheists condemn one source of violence they embrace and even defend another source of violence that is much worse. Just as the atheist argues that secular organizations can aid people, so too can groups be put together in an anarchist society to aid people.

Members of Religion/Government are Often Hypocritical and Immoral

One of the major complaints by atheists about religion is the fact that religion preaches the utmost morality and yet countless Christians (and other religionists) completely contradict themselves when they lie, commit adultery, murder, etc. Christians claim to hold the key to moral truth and yet many of them consistently act immorally.

Those in power in our government constantly abuse their power and break the laws they themselves set, and those who are paid to enforce those laws, often break them themselves, often with no repercussions. This should sound familiar to atheists. The Catholic Church and the child molestation scandal anyone? The Church often protected those who were guilty, despite their moral preachings.

Atheists often are up in arms over this hypocrisy and would never want to be loyal to such people. Atheists often argue how they would never bow down to such an authoritarian god; that god is a moral monster if it was found he was real.

However, atheists contradict themselves when they actually defend similar behavior by their government. The god of the bible is told to have murdered many innocent people and the government also does this, except it's most often called “collateral damage.” The murder of civilians is a common occurrence in military operations (and is sometimes does intentionally) but this fact is (as far as I know) never (or almost never) condemned by atheists at large. But more importantly, they still defend their government and make excuses for it, just as Christians make excuses for their god's actions. Similarly, many atheists still believe police are necessary despite their brutal and murderous actions towards not just those who do wrong, but innocent people as well (See my Lucifer Effect series for examples). Atheists proudly proclaim they'd never worship (much less defend) such a being who has killed so many innocent people as the Christian god, but they defend the existence of a state that does the same thing.

Atheists often argue that religion does more harm than good and therefore it's not needed, but so many atheists insist we still need government to tell us what to do for some reason, and they continue to insist this institution is necessary. This is hypocritical because both religion and government cause more harm then they're worth and yet atheists defend one, while calling for the decline of the other.

Victimless Crimes and Sin

Often atheists complain about many of religions' restrictive and pointless laws. Such laws include no masturbation, certain forms of sex, alcohol, etc. Some of these things are even forced upon people by the government such as when alcohol is deemed illegal to buy on Sundays in some communities, and some states pass laws on sodomy, etc. In some cases stores are forced to close on Sunday.

Many atheists hate that religion often prevents people (sometimes by force, the vote) to engage in activities that harm no one and is a violation of their freedom. These are all examples of needless religious restrictions, some of which overlap with government because the religious have gotten the government to force their beliefs on others.

Similarly, the government often outlaws activities that harm no one. Such examples include drug laws; if a person wants to jack themselves up on cocaine that's their business and so long as they do no harm to another person should be free to put whatever they want in their bodies.

Speeding is another example of a victimless crime. The act of driving fast in and of itself causes no one harm so long as that person is not acting irresponsibly. If they happen to hurt someone then punish them, but do not restrict everyone's freedom for one person's mistake. I will go over laws and punishment/retribution in more detail in a later post.

Prostitution is often punished in states and is a purely consensual act between two consenting adults.

There are many victimless crimes that governments outlaw. Too many to list here so I refer the reader to the book Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Society, by Peter McWilliams.

Government and Religion Are Authoritarian

In the third section about the hypocrisy and immorality of those in the government and many religionists, I mentioned the fact that many atheists would never want to bow down to such a cruel being as the Christian god. A related point is the fact that both governments and some religions are based upon the idea of authoritarianism; the favoring of absolute obedience to authority. How many times have you seen police taser someone for failing to obey whatever ridiculous command they give? Take a look at my Lucifer Effect series and see for yourself.

Each of the victimless crimes are examples of this. In these cases the government (like religion) foists its morality upon people by threat of punishment. The government dictates “right” and “wrong” and even if those actions harm no one you will be sent to their hellish prisons.

In some cases if you protest, even peacefully, you are either arrested or attacked, or both.

Anti-war protester Bradley Manning was arrested for “aiding the enemy” and leaking government documents. Of course, no one can cite a single case of “the enemy” making use of any information that was leaked. Due to Manning's harsh and unnecessary treatment it seems to me that the government is just angry at this 'unpatriotic' soldier, and the embarrassment caused by the leaked documents, because it exposes the government's deceit. Because of this embarrassment the government and military decided to abuse him and violate his rights. [1]

Many religions are obviously authoritarian. The very Commandment to “have no other gods before me” is a good example of this. This is even more explicitly expressed in the bible. In 2 Chronicles 15:13 it says, “All who would not seek out the Lord, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.” (NIV)

The very authoritarianism inherent in government and some religions (particularly the fundamentalist branch that is so active in attempting to curb our liberty) is another example of atheist hypocrisy. Atheists express their outrage about the authoritarianism of one group but not the other. They wish for the weakening, if not the outright abolition, of religion, all the while arguing that the government is needed despite these similarities.

I've been confronted with the argument that because this is a democracy the people can vote and boot those who commit atrocities and act immorally out of office. Though, those who make this argument are hugely missing the point. The fact is, as I mentioned in the piece about anarchism, those in power have always acted immorally at some level, regardless of their political bent. Democrat, Republican (who are the primary office holders) it matters not. They each commit atrocities such as war, theft (taxes), and the restriction of our rights. As I quoted Rose Wilder Lane, “They replace the priest by a king, the king by an oligarchy, the oligarchs by a despot, the despot by an aristocracy, the aristocrats by a majority, the majority by a tyrant, the tyrant by oligarchs, the oligarchs by aristocrats, the aristocrats by a king, the king by a parliament, the parliament by a dictator, the dictator by a king, the king by --- there’s six thousand years of it, in every language.” No matter who is in power our freedoms have never been entirely secure. Only through total equality can we be free of these abuses and restrictions of our freedoms.

I contend that a majority of atheists are hypocrites for the reasons I've explained above. The fact that both religion and government harm people and needlessly restrict our rights is something that should cause any rational thinker pause and to question such institutions. Luckily, most atheists understand the reasons of getting rid of religion, though at the same time, the same atheists often defend another institution that does the same things. The very fact that many atheists wish to see the decline, if not the outright disappearance, of religion, while defending government, is a case of pure cognitive dissonance. That atheists would defend government is a slap in the face to the very concepts of freedom and rationality.


1. The government has also targeted Wikileaks.org itself for the same reasons. One piece of leaked information by Manning was the murder of journalists by the military. No wonder the military is pissed. It's been shamed by Manning. That's what this is really about. For more information about this I'd recommend this Salon article.