Midwest Populist Party » Review of Michel Onfray’s “Atheist Manifesto”

Michel Onfray in his book Atheist Manifesto sets out to perform a task that has long been waiting in the wings; a subversion theme that has been acknowledged but rarely openly enunciated in clear and unmistakable terms. He embarks along the mission of deconstructing religion; in all of its manifestations; in all of its bigotry; every one of its expressions of hatred; all of its incarnate delusions, which give the powerless provocation to submit to the few – the priestly – the elites, who opaquely practice their arcane rituals through which they purportedly commune with the gods they monopolize; a process through which their politically expedient mambo jumbo, serves as the justification for the protraction of the unjust conditions in which they acquire their positions of power.

Onfray’s thorough knowledge of the subject is revealing – as he calls to task the details of religious praxes; historical specificities that are often swept under the rug by the narrative accounts that come to embody, in contemporaneity, what the religion promises to be while, concurrently, neglecting to treat what it actually has been.

From the preceding, I hope I have already made clear the central crux of the thesis expounded by Onfray as he liberates our historical interpretations of religion from those who claim to embody it: Religion has served as device to legitimize the discourse of the politically elite – the powerful – those who appeal to religion in order to sanction their social positions via reference to the transcendental; the atemporal, which is packaged and served up as ab initio.

Of course, an immediate objection will be raised by the pious, who will cite the persecution endured by the early Christians – whose tenuous grip on existence was under siege by Emperor Nero, and their suffering - the plight of the early Christians - became symbolically represented in the fanciful delusions of Revelations.

However, the unfortunate nature of being entrapped within a power struggle does not extricate early Christians from the encumbering weight of their Church leaders, who extolled the virtues of martyrdom, in a gesture designed not only to sustain their religion – through an appeal that amounted to nothing less than human sacrifice – but, additionally, to preserve their elitist positions within a socio-political counter-discourse, which eventually came to be integrated into the Roman state by Constantine, who appropriated Christianity for service in projects subsumed under his own political interests.

There are, in fact, many histories to extrapolate from the from the political struggles existing among the competing groups constituting the forerunners of Catholicism. Further, somewhere therein – amongst the contention – as the Roman Bishop consolidated power and control into an office that would become the Papal of Christendom – absurdities, such as the Trinity and Transubstantiation came to augment and, indeed, obscure – if not entirely pervert – what few teachings from Jesus, the man, had actually lingered only to be injected into the bizarre concoction that would come to be Christianity.

Onfray’s overarching interpretation of religion can best be understood as a family-resemblance, consisting of ideologies, whose only – excluding the characteristic of absurdity – congruent theme repeatedly tells of its servitude to the interests of the political elite. Therefore – no matter what shape a socio-political formation assumes - no religion that is appealed to by institutions of socio-political should be impetuously dismissed from anti-humanistic aspersions by an appeal to historical narratives that have been constructed by those who have interests vested in the propagation of religion.

Onfray points to our current misadventure in Iraq as a consequence of religiosity, and if we look to the rhetoric that was used by the current faith-based Administration when selling this ill conceived, disastrous act of imperial belligerence, we are not hard pressed into accepting his argument: The allusions to the Crusades were more than unfortunate mishaps with semiotic implications unintended by a half-wit American President. Rather, they were calculated messages signaling to other segments of the war-mongering-religious-right that a new unholy holy war was afoot, which involved a new enemy upon which to project seething sexual frustrations and socio-economic insecurities; a new vexing fixation for the authoritarian psychology to symbolically convert into the personification of its own paranoia.

In a time that screams for a sufficient dose of coolly calibrated reason in order to extinguish the fires that have erupted from aspects of our own worse natures – Onfray’s Atheist Revolution will be well received.

Russell Cole

If you enjoyed this post,
Subscribe to the Free Midwest Populist Party Newsletter

Please consider a donation of $1 or more
to help keep this website active.

Spread the Word:

Tags: atheist manifesto, michel onfray, power, religion, religion. atheism, Russell Coles Blog
Categories: Commentary, Russell Cole's Blog, Power, Religion

4 Responses to “Review of Michel Onfray’s “Atheist Manifesto””

Clavis wrote a comment on December 19, 2007

Gadzooks, what an unreadably prolix mess. I am interested in this book, but this review was just terrible. Endless self-satisfied, overly complex verbal mush — “Therefore – no matter what shape a socio-political formation assumes - no religion that is appealed to by institutions of socio-political should be impetuously dismissed from anti-humanistic aspersions by an appeal to historical narratives that have been constructed…” This sounds like it was written by someone who is paid by the word and judged by how many times the reader has to re-read each sentence in order to understand it. If the reviewer is that in love with the sound of his own voice, perhaps he should write books instead of reviews.

russell cole wrote a comment on December 19, 2007

I am so very sorry for not appealing to your aesthetics. However, to be perfectly honest, I have no stake in selling this and was certainly not commissioned to write any type of review. Therefore, this was intended to express my own ideas that were generated in reflection to Onfray’s work. also, if you cannot understand my writing, good luck with Onfray, because you will not have a chance. I suggest dumbing it down a bit and, perhaps, attempting to tackle Chicken Soup for the
Aethist, or something along those lines.

Russ Cole

Ben Kewish wrote a comment on March 6, 2008

Russell,

Your review was great, and exceptionally well thought out - though I must agree it was at times a little laborious in syntax. The beauty of Onfray is that (mostly) even the difficult philosophical concepts were reasonably erudite and concise. There is really no need to be so conceited or defensive when someone comments on your review. Your education and ideas speak for themselves, just leave it be. Nice work.

Ben Kewish

Russell Cole wrote a comment on March 6, 2008

Ben,
Your point is well taken.

Care to comment?