This is something that intrigues me quite a bit. It seems that on several forums, not just here, atheists tend to adopt a rather "hostile" (pardon the wording if you think it is somewhat inappropriate) attitude against the religious people, by whom I mean the pope, George Bush (naturally), anyone who dares to make-known their theist beliefs and even Mother Teresa. This is particularly true with liberal atheists/atheist liberals. It seems that, and I could be completely wrong, liberal atheists are against almost all prominent figures that are religious but one the lovable Jimmy Carter. Indeed, although Carter's presidency was nothing short of a complete disaster, he as an individual had done a lot of charitable and commendable things. But why would any positive atheists, a group which also happens to overlap largely with liberal atheists give him a free PASS? Because, out of all presidents who identify themselves as a Christian, Carter is most likely the only TRUE believer, and if that were the case, religion would play a huge part in motivating him to do all those noble deeds, which is greatly despised by most positive atheists, because they think that's called being a suck-up (to god of course), people who do that, did so because of the fear of going to hell, not because they are good in their hearts. Why is that? What are liberal atheists particularly "tolerant" on Jimmy Carter?
Same reason many atheists quite like the current pope. They seem good, humble men, without much ego, and genuinely interested in the betterment of the human condition. Not so common amongst leaders of similar magnitude. Not sure what you mean by 'free pass'. Do you expect us to ignore goodness, or pretend it's something else, just to retain some arbitrary position (that you appear to attribute to us)? Sorry, but pretending those who represent 'the other' can't possibly be good is the province of Christians.
It's simply, really; I can recognize good people. It doesn't matter if they're religious or not. Mother Theresa, for instance, was a loathsome character, courting cruel dictators for money while leading a cult of suffering with no interest in helping make the world a better place. The latest pope, on the other hand, is aiming to follow the stuff that Jesus thought were actually important, like sympathy, solidarity and love. You know, all those things the WBC are dead set against. Heck, I regard Mr. Rogers as the epitome of a good human being. He was as devout a christian as you'd ever find, but he never let that be a source of cruelty and viciousness. Rather, he was the clearest example of what happens if you combine a genuinely good, caring and sympathetic human being with the very best teachings of Christ. I give no one a free pass. If someone has my respect, they've earned it. As for Jimmy Carter, I haven't the faintest idea who the guy was, beyond his position as president.
Glad you used the word "seem". If the pope were really anyway near good, he wouldn't be a pope. For all his long journey ascending to his throne, had he not for once heard all those atrocities committed by the catholic church? Any decent man would just be too proud to try to be one. He can start by denouncing those priests that molested little kids. Which BTW, isn't really happening is it? Because it is something else. An atheist donate to charity, he is a truly ethical man that feels the moral pressure and need to do good. A theist donate to charity is most likely because he is scared of the eternal damnation. He is not really good, just stupid enough to be scared by some pulp work into not doing evil.
Because the problem isn't religion or spirituality (at least not for the liberals -- the atheists might have some problems in theory). It's what you do with it. Carter was a good guy that did good things. Some of it failed, some of it failed badly, but he still seemed like a genuine, honest, good person. Most importantly, he didn't try to force other people to obey his religion or follow his own provincial views on what society should look like. How he got so far in politics, I have no idea. Same with the popes. This pope, people generally like. The last pope, people generally didn't. Same religion, same job, different attitude and different methods. The "War on Religion" primarily exists only in the paranoid fantasy worlds of republicans. That's why this doesn't make sense to you.
I would think it was obvious. Jimmy Carter hated the Jews and openly sided with the Palestinians. His anti-Semitism was like a symphony to the ears of liberals and they can overlook an awful lot for that.
Most people who loudly proclaim themselves to be atheists are likely to be hostile to religion in some way. Then there are athiests who don't really make a big deal out of being atheists and thus don't even mention it. Point being, that it can give a very misleading picture of atheists if we only look at those who make their atheism into a big deal.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/09/pope-francis-excommunicate-priest_n_6122766.html http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pope-francis-calls-u-s-churches-stupid-article-1.1295178 http://www.inquisitr.com/1504382/pope-francis-fires-bishop-who-protected-alleged-pedophile-priest/
I would say that Atheists like the pope, he seems like a good guy. The problem just comes down when theists use religion as the justification for everything. It just shuts down debate on a subject. Atheists need more then that, they need an actual reason why to believe in something. It's like getting an answer to a question but the answer doesn't explain anything.
When all else fails, when truth doesn't support you, when logic and facts and common sense abandon you, HIDE BEHIND RELIGION.
