Reviewing a history of atheism in the 19th-century U.S., titled Village Atheists, alongside a biography of H.L. Mencken—once called “America’s village atheist”—Crawford Gribben addresses the relationship among unbelief, religious enthusiasm, and religious liberty in the United States. While some atheists thought greater tolerance of their unbelief would or should go hand-in-hand with greater tolerance of religious minorities, others did not. Take, for instance, the widely popular anti-religious cartoonist Watson Heston:

Heston was well aware that some of the faithful shared his concerns about the nation’s dominant religious culture. After all, Adventists, Mormons, and Jews were also shut out of full civic participation. However, his sympathy for these outcasts was ambivalent; it was not just his “Hebraic portraits” that were “coarse, derogatory, and predictable.”. . . His visual ridicule left little middle ground between the hegemony of unenlightened zeal and those [like himself] who wished to disrupt it.

Despite the mid-20th-century successes of atheists and skeptics, unbelief has remained on the defensive till today:

[T]hings changed very quickly after the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional the exclusion of atheists from public office (1961), and after the consequent battles for free speech against restrictive notions of blasphemy that precipitated the culture wars and did so much to contribute to the bifurcation of American politics. But the seeds of this decline had been sown generations before, and cold-war paranoia proved unable to retard the continual decline of religious privilege, so that in 1966, only five years after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the prohibition of atheists in public office, Time magazine ran a cover story entitled, “Is God dead?”

But modern-day believers and unbelievers may both be exaggerating their marginality. Even as debates rage about bakeries and bathrooms, most Americans continue to agree with the Psalmist that, “the fool has said in his heart there is no God.” A Pew survey in 2014 found that voters would look with more negativity on a presidential candidate’s atheism than on drug use or marital infidelity.

Two extraordinary events demonstrate something important about Israel’s most fervent adversaries. One was a speech given at something called The People’s Forum (funded generously by Goldman Sachs), which stated, “When the state of Israel is finally destroyed and erased from history, that will be the single most important blow we can give to destroying capitalism and imperialism.”

The suggestion that this tiny state is the linchpin of a global, centuries-old phenomenon like capitalism goes well beyond anything resembling rational criticism. Even if Israel were guilty of genocide, apartheid, and oppression—which of course it is not—it would not follow that its destruction would help end capitalism or imperialism.

The other was an anti-Israel protest that took place in front of New York City’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, deemed “complicit” in Israel’s evils. At organizers’ urging, participants shouted their slogans at kids in the cancer ward, who were watching from the windows. Given Hamas’s indifference toward the lives of Gazan children, such callousness toward non-Palestinian children from Hamas’s Western allies shouldn’t be surprising. The protest—like the abovementioned speech—deliberately conveyed the message that Israel is the ultimate evil and its destruction the ultimate good, cancer patients be damned.

The fact that Israel’s adversaries are almost comically perverse does not mean that they can be dismissed. If its allies fail to understand the obsessive and irrational hatred that it faces, they cannot effectively help it defend itself.