Atheist activist Hemant Mehta has brought an obscure state election to our attention. In Tennessee, atheist Gayle Jordan is running as the Democratic candidate for state senator. The Tennessee Republican party put out a press release labeling her as an extreme anti-Christian. Activist Mehta responded by characterizing this as “an attack on her religion,” effectively supporting the common belief that atheism is a religion.

But Mehta did more than this. He objected to political candidate Gayle Jordan being described as a radical atheist. In fact, he smugly mocked it:

What are “radical” atheist views, anyway? If being an atheist means you don’t believe in God, does a “radical” atheist not pray even harder?

and

Jordan wants to run for office because there are people marginalized and demonized by the Christians in power. And because she’s willing to do that, those Christians are condemning her for not having an imaginary friend. As if that’s the new prerequisite for public office.

Activist Richard Dawkins joined in:

Can you believe, they think the fact that she’s an atheist is a reason NOT to vote for her?https://t.co/ksAMkEplCs

Good people of Tennessee, live down the disgrace of Scopes 1925. Support Gayle Jordan. Give Tennessee something to be proud of: an openly atheist State Senator. — Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) 13 February 2018

The problem with politicians and activists is that they are politicians and activists. As such, their thinking is guided by emotion as they seek to sway opinion with emotion. In contrast, many of us here truly value critical thinking. So let’s think about this critically. We begin by asking a simple question – who is right?

Is the Tennessee GOP correct in noting that Jordan is a radical atheist who holds anti-Christian views? Or is Mehta/Dawkins correct in that she is a just an atheist who is being condemned for her mere lack of belief in God?

After looking through the evidence, it seems rather clear to me that Jordan is indeed a radical atheist and likely has anti-Christian views. There are four lines of converging evidence that point toward this conclusion, so let us review them.

Gale Jordan is an Atheist Activist

Jordan is not simply someone who “doesn’t have an imaginary friend.” She is an activist who surrounds herself with other atheists activists who themselves are indeed radicals. She is executive director of Recovering from Religion, an atheist organization. Jordan explains how she got this position:

Darrel Ray, one of the founders of RfR and author of The God Virus: How Religion Affects Our Lives and Cultures, was one of the first people I met when I attended my first secular conference in 2011. I was so impressed with his vision and drive, and his body of work was remarkable. He reached out to me in the fall of 2015 to see if I might be interested in the position of executive director. I jumped at the chance to not only work with Darrel, but for this incredibly vital and important organization.

So Darrel Ray is Gayle Jordan’s close political ally and friend. It looks like he essentially gave her the position at RfR and she greatly admires him. So who is Darrel Ray?

Ray is the atheist activist who teaches the radical notion that religion is like a disease, insisting that God belief is a virus that infects people. Here is just one example where Ray compares religious belief to the chicken pox:

Just as the chicken pox virus continues to live quietly in the body after the disease is gone, the god virus may live quietly in the host until something evokes it.

He also equates religion with a “brain eating bacteria”:

Ray also insists that Jesus was mentally ill:

Every founder of every major religion was mentally ill……Delusion is the pathway to religion and religious founders are incredibly deluded.

Ray had to clarify, given that many of his atheistic followers don’t think Jesus ever existed:

I agree, he probably didn’t exist, but if he did, he was bat shit crazy by any objective standard.

This is radicalized thinking. So, we ask, is there any evidence that Gayle Jordan disagrees with any of this? If she did, would Ray have offered her the leadership position of a organization he helped create?

Jordan has also been quite active in the radical atheist activist community. She has appeared on many anti-religious podcasts and spoke at the most recent Reason Rally.

And then there is this:

Organizers also booked a big name from the secular world. David Silverman, president of American Atheists, will be the keynote speaker. Silverman, who is on a book tour for his new work “Fighting God, An Atheist Manifesto for a Religious World,” was the catalyst for the entire convention.

Gayle Jordan, who is the executive director of Recovering from Religion and president of Murfreesboro Freethinkers, is friends with Silverman, and invited him to town to talk about his book.

So Jordan is friends with the man who currently leads the origanization founded by Madalyn Murray O’Hair. As one who has observed atheist activists for some time now, it has become clear the majority of them are radical and anti-Christian. Given Jordan is friends with such prominent activists as the president of American Atheists and the founder of Recovering from Religion, it is clear she has deep connections with the radical elements of militant atheism. And since radicals typically bond together, we have good reason to think Jordan is similarly radicalized.

Gayle Jordan Scrubbed Her Blog.

Jordan has a blog entitled Happy. Healthy. Heathen.

At first glance, she doesn’t come across as an atheist who has been radicalized. Although I did not look through the blog extensively, most of the postings did not deal explicitly with religion. But then I noticed she admits to have scrubbed the blog of harsh anti-religious postings back in May 2016:

What I’m struggling with right now is making private those blog posts where I specifically deal with my secularism. My atheism. There is a difference in the eyes of most believers between the statement: “I’m not a religious person” and “I’m an atheist”. To those of us on the secular side of the spectrum, there’s not a gnat’s whisker’s difference in those statements. These blog posts often use the word Atheist, and some are harsh in their judgment of religion and religious ideas.

and

So I’m taking these posts, these posts that I’ve labored through to write, these posts that express how I left my religion behind, and why, and how painful, and making them private. I’ve made private the most aggressive.

So Jordan decided to hide the “harsh” and “aggressive” anti-religious postings purely for political reasons. This is what radicals do. When not running for office, they express their true radicalized feelings and thoughts. But once they become a politician, they feel the need to hide those feelings and thoughts because radical positions do not typically play well in elections.

So far, her associations and behavior are consistent with radicalization.

Gayle Jordan Positively Reviewed and Promoted a book about radical atheism.

Gayle Jordan reviewed her friend David Silverman’s book, Fighting God.

Remember that Silverman is president of the organization founded by Madalyn Murray O’Hair. As Gayle Jordan admits in her review:

As president of American Atheists, Silverman is the head of the largest, and likely most militant and litigious, atheist organization in the world.

Yes, American Atheists is indeed a militant organization. And the president of this militant atheist organization is radically anti-religious. Consider some quotes from his book about Fighting God:

Religious people are all brainwashed: “Religionists have a perceived need, planted there as a part of the brainwashing they’ve received. They need no religion, but they think they do, because religion has convinced them of it.”

Christianity is the source of evil: “Christianity spurs hate, division, and murder as it has throughout history.”

Religion deserves mockery: “But religion deserves no respect. Rather, it has earned scorn, ridicule, and in-your-face opposition, as have its trappings.”

There is nothing good about religion: “Religion has no positive value.”

Clearly, these are the views of an extremist.

And how does Jordan respond to Silverman’s militancy?

For starters, she gives the book a five star review on Good Reads. In fact, her excited approval of the book is obvious from her closing paragraph:

For the purpose of full disclosure: not only am I an non-believer, but I’m one of those firebrand atheists Silverman describes. This book does a wonderful job of explaining why I am the way I am, but I would also have loved to have read it when I was on my way out of religion. Instead of slinking quietly away, I would have hired a marching band, drill team and all, and I myself would have lead the parade, carrying the atheist banner.

Speaking of her friend David Silverman, she also writes:

He’s over “live and let live”. He’s over “respecting your beliefs”. He’s over “coexist”. He’s over all this, and he explains in this book why: not because he’s an intolerant hater, but because religion won’t allow him. He cares too much for other people, and he cares too much for America and its values. Religion, as he sees it, invades every corner of our cultural and political arenas, and not in a good way.

Is Jordan also over “respecting your beliefs” and “coexist?” Does she think the problem is that religion “invades every corner of our cultural and political arenas, and not in a good way?” In her enthusiastic, supportive review, there is no reason at all to think she disagrees. As she says:

I’m one of those firebrand atheists Silverman describes.

She also writes:

This book builds with intensity. As an attorney, my favorite chapter is Chapter 8: On Fighting Unpopular Battles (but Being Right). The chapter addresses the problem of religion in politics in America.

The problem of religion? So Jordan thinks we have a “Religion Problem.” Is that why she wants to get elected?

Even the most devout of believers will agree that religion has a position of privilege in our government. This is perhaps the most powerful reason in a series of powerful reasons to push back against the ubiquity of religion, and to push hard.

Personally, I think only over-sensitive anti-religious extremists think “religion has a position of privilege in our government” and “invades every corner of our cultural and political arenas.” Anything more than being invisible from public perception is deemed “privilege” by such extremists. But I don’t want to get into that in this blog positing.

Instead, focus on the fact that in her mind, religion has a “position of privilege” and she wants to push back hard against “the ubiquity of religion” (remember, this was her “favorite chapter”). This is an anti-religious position.

And then we get this:

Silverman reminds us that religion will never, ever concede its position of privilege, and it will only be taken from religion with muscle, stamina, and determination.

We have to take the “privilege” from religion with “muscle” and “stamina.”

That Gayle Jordan was so strongly approving of Silverman’s extremism (and made zero effort to distance herself from such radical views) clearly indicates that she shares in his extremist thinking when it comes to the “problem of religion.”

Gayle Jordan admits she is a radical atheist.

In the same review, pay close attention to this claim:

For the purpose of full disclosure: not only am I am non-believer, but I’m one of those firebrand atheists Silverman describes.

So she admits she is not merely a “non-believer” (thus contradicting Hemant Mehta’s spin). She is

one of those firebrand atheists Silverman describes.

How is “firebrand” defined? Let’s check a dictionary:

a person who is passionate about a particular cause, typically inciting change and taking radical action.

And what are the synonyms?

radical, revolutionary, agitator, rabble-rouser, incendiary, subversive, troublemaker

So Jordan clearly admits to being a radical atheist when admitting she’s not just a “non-believer” but a firebrand atheist.

And this is precisely what the TNGOP noted: is what she herself calls a “firebrand atheist.” She isn’t simply non-religious

It is also worth noting that David Silverman portrays his own radicalized version of atheism as “firebrand atheism.” Jordan is thus telling us her thinking about religion is essentially the same as the president of American Atheists. “Firebrand atheism” is just the new brand for New Atheism (as various internet atheists will tell you).

Summary: Radical atheist activists Hemant Mehta and Richard Dawkins try to portray political candidate Gayle Jordan as a simple unbeliever who is under political attack merely for her lack of belief in God. This is spin, as the evidence indeed indicates Jordan is a radicalized atheist: 1) She works closely with other atheist activists who are well-known for having radical, anti-Christian views; 2) She felt the need to hide her criticisms of religion once she became a political candidate; 3) She positively reviews and promotes a book that advocates radicalized “firebrand atheism”; 4) and she openly admits she is one of those “firebrand atheists.” It would seem fair to me for the Tennessee Republican party to draw attention to the radicalized anti-religious views of an opposing political candidate. Mehta and Dawkins’ only defense is to play the victim card and pretend she is being attacked merely for “not having an imaginary friend.”

In other words, dishonest spin.