The agonising death of liberal atheism

In recent months, the United States has found itself embroiled in a complex and contentious conflict, one that has sparked a renewed debate about the role of religion in politics and the military. The backdrop of this discourse is the war in Iran, a conflict that has been framed in increasingly religious terms by some within the U.S. military and political leadership. This shift has raised questions about the resurgence of religious fervor in a world that once celebrated liberal atheism as the dominant ideology.

The last few months have been particularly hectic for U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who has been tasked with justifying the war effort. In his speeches, Hegseth has adopted a bold and precise tone, often using phrases like “It’s not X – it’s Y” and “rule of threes.” Some have noted that these speeches bear a striking resemblance to the marketing language of ChatGPT, suggesting that Hegseth may be relying on AI-generated content to craft his messages.

On March 2, Hegseth addressed reporters, arguing that “crazy regimes like Iran, hell-bent on prophetic Islamist delusions, cannot have nuclear weapons. It’s common sense.” His remarks were met with skepticism by many, who questioned the merits of such a justification. However, the following day, an anonymous non-commissioned officer reported to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation that during a combat readiness briefing, he and 15 other unit members had been told that President Trump had been “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth.” The war, they were told, was “all part of God’s divine plan.”

This report came just a few days after a tragic event: on February 17, 168 Iranians, mostly girls under the age of 12, were killed in a U.S. triple-tap strike on Shajareh Tayyeheh Elementary School. The incident underscored the human cost of the conflict and raised further questions about the moral and ethical implications of the war.

In contrast to the current situation, during the Iraq War in the early 2000s, the liberal atheism of the time was at its peak, with pundits on both sides of the Atlantic ready to criticize President George W. Bush for framing the conflict in religious terms. Richard Dawkins, a prominent atheist, accused Bush of “seeing the world as a battleground between St. Michael’s angels against the forces of Lucifer.” Dawkins satirized Bush’s rhetoric, likening it to the biblical story of the Amalekites, a group that God commanded the Israelites to destroy.

The contrast between the reactions to the Iraq and Iran wars highlights a significant shift in the political and social landscape. While the Iraq War was met with widespread criticism for its religious undertones, the current conflict in Iran has seen some within the U.S. military and political leadership embrace religious language to justify their actions. This has led to a renewed examination of the role of religion in politics and the military, as well as a reevaluation of the once-dominant liberal atheism that once condemned such rhetoric.

The resurgence of religious fervor in politics and the military raises important questions about the role of faith in shaping public policy and military strategy. As the conflict in Iran continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how this shift in rhetoric will impact the broader discourse on religion and politics. The agonizing death of liberal atheism, as some have described it, may signal a new era in which religious language and beliefs will play a more prominent role in shaping global affairs.