“Beyond the bestseller lists, however, a new survey shows there is indeed a significant gap between Christians and those Americans who are in the "no-faith" camp. For instance, most atheists and agnostics (56%) agree with the idea that radical Christianity is just as threatening in America as is radical Islam.” -- from this news article
“For instance, most atheists and agnostics (56%) agree with the idea that radical Christianity is just as threatening in America as is radical Islam.”
Just as threatening? Really?
Apparently the abandonment of religious faith can lead some to subscribe to other Articles of Faith, including the one that says "all religions are the same" or "all religions mean the same thing" or "all religions are equally dangerous."
Well, it is now time for that old Gedankenexperiment, that Thought-Experiment. You normally fly, as an airline hostess or steward -- or, if you prefer, we can make this hypothetical one in which you are a regular passenger, say, on a small commuter plane, New York to Nantucket.
Now over the years you have gotten friendly with the pilot (or if you are part of the crew, on a big plane, both pilot and co-pilot). Good, steady fliers. You like them. As it happens, one of them has recently gotten religion. He used to be a sometime churchgoer, but now he's really very serious about religion. On flights with layovers, he doesn't party, but goes to his room and reads his dog-eared Bible. He urges you, occasionally, to "look into it for yourself." He no longer drinks nor carouses, not that he ever did very much of it. In short, he's a little like Mitt Romney outwardly, not terribly entertaining, not the life of the party, and you think he's told you how proud he is that his son has gone off to do missionary work for a Pentecostal church in Africa, or possibly even some remote island in Indonesia.
Do you worry more about flying with him than you did previously? No.
Now vary the hypothetical. Same airline. Same pilot or co-pilot. Only in this case the pilot (and co-pilot) are not Christians who became even more devout, but were born into Christianity and have now discovered Islam, and have become fanatical in their new faith. Or perhaps -- this is, after all, a hypothetical – they were originally rather casual Muslims, possibly of Iranian background, people who fled Khomeini's Iran, or "secular" Muslims who came from India and went to school in the West, and who have now been seen reading the Qur'an, and re-reading it. They have even -- you notice -- now grown beards.
Well, any problems with this? Anything about what these fellows read and re-read in their Qur'an, and what they may read or re-read in the Hadith and Sira that they do not carry about with them, but certainly have at home in book form, or can get online at a click or in a clin d'oeil, that makes you nervous, and more than nervous?
You know the answer to that.
And if you are an atheist (as I am), you should not be pretending to believe -- as the latter-day would-be successors to Bertrand Russell of "Why I Am Not a Christian," such people as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins with their one-size-fits-all indictment of all religions equally, would have you believe -- that Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and all the other varieties of those belief-systems we call, in the case of Islam most carelessly and inaccurately, "religions," are essentially the same thing, with the same effects on their adherents. They aren’t.
And if you pretend that they are, and that there is no problem with any of them in particular, then I insist that the next time you have a chance to fly with a Muslim pilot, on a plane full of Infidels, you jump at the chance.
How can we find out? Well, let's ask the airlines. I'm sure they will be glad to tell us what Muslim pilots they employ, on which routes -- so we can be sure to take advantage of, or to carefully avoid, their flights.
Which choice do you think most people will make?
I wouldn't even get on that plane if muslims were piloting it. I bet that Islamophobia would come out of the woodwork if people knew that muslims were piloting the planes.
I bet the airlines wouldn't have a clue as to what to do if we started asking them about muslims pilots and where/when they were flying.
When I occassionally don't get my pre-ordered double wrapped strictly kosher meal on a flight, I feel like taking everyone down with me.
OK, so I settle for fresh fruit from business class. Same thing, no?
Religious belief and atheism both have the same flaw, the belief that a human being could possibly know whether a God exists or not.
Yes, the one-size-fits-all atheists are way off the mark by equally disdaining all religions. That seems to be part and parcel with the categorical thinking of atheism, or at least of many atheists.
But the question of all religious faith does indeed need to be addressed for one good reason.
Part of what inhibits the West from seeing jihad clearly, is the mental habit, found among the religious (and others), of regarding all religious faith outside the pale of rational criticism. And in fact, the criticism of mohammed-worship and of jihad in some respects can be applied to all religious belief. Religious believers understand the implications of such criticism.
It is not to throw Christians, Buddhists etc. into the same pile as mohammed-worshippers, that such criticism is necessary. It is to free the minds of religious believers (and others) from the mental habit of disdaining criticism of mohammed-worship althogether, out of a too sensitive regard for their own beliefs.
By refusing to question the very nature of religious belief in itself, we give up a valuable weapon against jihad and mohammed-worship, and we fail those on our side, who refuse to take part in the war to the extent they see their own beliefs threatened by implication.
The editorial was well stated. Probably doesnt need expansion as it was well stated, but, I would not hesitate to put my life in the hands of most any faith-practicioners. Hindi, Jewish, Mormons, Atheists, Buddists, even hardcore Pentecostal Christians.
But, I would surely think twice about boarding a plane piloted by a muslim whose faith feels it a social obligation to kill me and everyone else for a perceived insult.
-Mike
" ..most atheists and agnostics agree with the idea that radical Christianity is just as threatening in America as is radical Islam."
......................................
This idea says more about 56% of atheists and agnostics than it does about either islam or Christianity.
It's not entirely hypothetical.
We do have the experience of the Egypt Air pilot. What was the excuse given there - that he made a mistake or had a nervous breakdown or that it was a mechanical failure?
Unfortunately, what we call common sense and deductive reasoning too many people would call bigotry. They would feel compelled to get on the plane just to prove their liberal bona fides.
By refusing to question the very nature of religious belief in itself, we give up a valuable weapon against jihad and mohammed-worship, and we fail those on our side, who refuse to take part in the war to the extent they see their own beliefs threatened by implication.
Posted by: Moonzoo
Why is putting down all religions the best weapon against jihad? What is wrong with finding fault not with the beliefs but with the way they are put into practice?
Getting rid of the Inquisition didn't destroy Christianity. Why should eliminating violent jihad destroy Islam? Let it be the spiritual struggle that so many claim it to be. As long as Muslims realize that their rights end where mine begin.
Muslims' right to practice their religion doesn't allow them to destroy mine. What's so hard to comprehend about that?
The atheists' idea that it has to be all or nothing will eventually cause your defeat because you will waste too much energy chasing false alarms (of Hindu, Buddhist and Christian "radicals") and will ultimately be weakened to the point where you cannot fight Islamic tyranny (and that's what it is - tyranny).
If you thought living in a Christian society was stifling, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.
It isn't so much the potential jihadism that frightens me.
I've travelled on several flag carriers from islamic nations (air algerie was, by a country mile, the worst...) - the frightening thing is hearing pilots saying such as 'arrive at 3:35 pm local time, insh'allah.
I expect a little more confidence from professional pilots...
Greetings:
I attribute the findings to several causations:
1) The "near enemy" vs "far enemy" effect with the Christians
being close at had and thus somewhat more threatening.
2) The rampant "non-judgementalism" of parts of our citizenry
which refuse or are incapable of making moral judgements.
Why is putting down all religions the best weapon against jihad?
Getting rid of the Inquisition didn't destroy Christianity. Why should eliminating violent jihad destroy Islam?
-- from PMK
Before 9-11, when the study of mohammed-worship became incumbent upon all free men, it was easy to sympathize with Gibbon’s description of Roman attitudes toward religion: “The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord.”
It is not a question of "putting down" all religions. Belief in God and a supposed "consequent" belief in whatever religion is irrational. In this, mohammed-worship is not alone.
One of the most effective weapons against mohammed-worship is applicable to all religions, calling into question the very rationality of religion.
We are in a war of ideas. Yes, it is outside the mission of this website to focus on anything but the theology of mohammed-worship and its relation to the war we are in.
That does not mean anybody else should stint on having mohammed-worshippers give up their irrationality altogether. But other religious believers do in fact stint, understanding the implications for their own belief.
The Chief Stinter occupies the White House, and has been a hindrance in this war.
Dinesh D’Souza recently gave puerile expression to the irrationality of religious belief affecting public policy. He is worse than useless.
The question of religious belief needs to be addressed, with the understanding that not all religions are equal. But it needs to be addressed.
Why is putting down all religions the best weapon against jihad?
Getting rid of the Inquisition didn't destroy Christianity. Why should eliminating violent jihad destroy Islam?
-- from PMK
Before 9-11, when the study of mohammed-worship became incumbent upon all free men, it was easy to sympathize with Gibbon’s description of Roman attitudes toward religion: “The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord.”
It is not a question of "putting down" all religions. Belief in God and a supposed "consequent" belief in whatever religion is irrational. In this, mohammed-worship is not alone.
One of the most effective weapons against mohammed-worship is applicable to all religions, calling into question the very rationality of religion.
We are in a war of ideas. Yes, it is outside the mission of this website to focus on anything but the theology of mohammed-worship and its relation to the war we are in.
That does not mean anybody else should stint on having mohammed-worshippers give up their irrationality altogether. But other religious believers do in fact stint, understanding the implications for their own belief.
The Chief Stinter occupies the White House, and has been a hindrance in this war.
Dinesh D’Souza recently gave puerile expression to the irrationality of religious belief affecting public policy. He is worse than useless.
The question of religious belief needs to be addressed, with the understanding that not all religions are equal. But it needs to be addressed.
Not exactly. Most atheists are agnostic atheists, meaning we simply deny the existence of known gods based on the evidence at hand. We're still open to the idea that there's something out there we simply haven't seen.
A = lack of, theism = god belief.
Unfortunately, the term has come to include strong atheists, who make the positive claim that there is no such thing as a god or gods. This is, of course, unknowable, so such a position is irrational.
Good post, Mr. Fitzgerald. Islam is indeed the biggest threat to peace in the world, but I think we shouldn't fault Americans too much in putting Christians on par with Muslims. Proximity is certainly a factor. Their opinions will change as the country's Muslim community grows and continues to alienate itself.
Based on the years in which I attended a Pentecostal church, I would fly with a devout Pentecostal pilot anytime. S/he would be determined to protect every life on the plane, not just the Christians.