Mpride said:
The rise of secular progression within American society has crossed in recent years a delicate line between passive tolerance and active resistance. Led principally by Christopher Hitchens, modern-day members of the New Atheists movement have called for active resistence against religion and an outright rejection in a belief in God, crediting varies institutions of religion as the sole source of human suffering for thousands of years.
Christopher Hitchens is dead, and so he isn't leading much of anything. Even when he was alive, while many atheists enjoyed reading his books, he wasn't the Leader in the sense that the Pope is the leader of the Catholics. Atheists aren't very centralized.
The 'New Atheists' aren't really saying anything different from the atheists of a hundred years ago. They're just getting better book deals, and more people are reading their works.
'Active resistance against religion?' I don't really see it from many atheists, unless you mean resistance to the idea that laws that govern atheists should mandate a certain set of religious beliefs (for example, that gay people can't marry because God is against it, or that women can't get abortions because God doesn't want them to).
'Outright rejection of a belief in God' is sort of what atheism is. It's a little confusing as an accusation.
Hitchens's book, 'God Is Not Great,' is, I assume, where you get the accusation that "institutions of religion are the sole source of human suffering for thousands of years." But he doesn't say that. He simply says that institutions of religion do more harm than good. Have you read his book? You don't have to agree with him to read and understand it.
In a 2006 CNN profile of the movement, correspondent Simon Hooper stated, "what the new Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."
Yes. What is special about a religious belief statement that makes it no longer subject to the question, 'Is that accurate? Is it true? Is it supported by evidence? Is it a good idea?' People should not assume that when they say "I believe that God wants liquor stores to be closed on Sundays," the phrase 'I believe' means that they automatically get their way or cannot be questioned.
One of the most principled tenets of New Atheism is the absolute severance of church and state and the eradication of institutional religions. They hold as sacred Article VI and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States because it provides in America a separation of CHURCH and STATE. However, though church and state remain separated (and rightfully so), I believe faith in God is in-severable from the moral foundation of America's conception, a foundation grounded foremost in Christian values.
The United States was founded by people who were trying to create a nation different from the nations governed by religions. They were very aware of what a nation grounded in Christian values looks like, and they carefully avoided creating one. There were people among the founders who wanted to make Christianity the state religion, but they didn't win that argument. Instead, the constitution was written to create something unusual- an explicitly secular nation, governed by laws, not religious tenets. So many people who want America to have a state religion have misrepresented what really happened that many people have inaccurate ideas about history, but it is not difficult to find the real history, and even the original documents. The founders kept pretty much all their letters and papers.
There exists no secular substitution for historically (and traditionally) religious principles that will preserve in its original intent the meaning and purpose of the founding documents that constitute America.
How about the Constitution? A not at all religious document, which makes me wonder what you think the 'founding documents' are.
So, your first part has a large number of factual errors. It makes me wonder where you are getting your information about history. It sounds like you are very sincere in your opinions, but how can you form sound opinions if you are basing them on inaccurate facts? An opinion based on bad information is, inherently, a bad opinion. Why not read what Hitchens said for yourself? Why not read the founders' words for yourself? They're all interesting reading.