Oh, Atheists are the Problem...
Philip Swarts writes a piece in the Daily Northwestern about a speech by Dinesh D'Souza. Dinesh has an opinion about the culture of this country and the 9/11 attack.
Muslim extremists are attacking America because not everyone in the U.S. follows a moral code given by an "external being," D'Souza said. This new moral code leads to acts such as adultery and gay marriage, he said.
"The radical Muslims exploit the idea of an ... immoral America," D'Souza said. "This is their main recruiting slogan in the Muslim world."D'Souza said the world's perception of America as an atheistic, immoral society is a result of the popular culture America exports.
"That's not America," D'Souza said. "That may be Hollywood, that may be one face of America, (but) that's not the way that Americans actually live."
Ummm... Dinesh. They are attacking us because most of us don't believe in Allah. They attack us because most of us don't read the Qur'an. They attack us because of the freedoms we believe in!
It is more than just some Americans not believing in god. It is a lot more than that.
What really grinds my gears on this one is that there is an underlying tone that only atheists have this supposed immoral aura because we don't believe in an "external being" -- hence leading to "immoral acts" of adultery and gay marriage.
Well, the last time I checked sir... there were plenty of Christians engaging in your supposed immoral acts. And when I checked again... they are the ones who should be following the rules of this supposed "external being."
Radical Islam wants to attack this country for *everything* this country stands for... and just because that means as an atheist I have the freedom to worship nothing doesn't mean that is the all encompassing reason to a terrorist to attack me and my fellow citizens. They want to attack us because this country grants me that right!
The answer is not trying to cower to these people in the name of morality. But to show defiance...
I would much rather stand with fellow Americans who strive for gay marriage rights than try to adjust my "morality" so that Islamic terrorists won't attack.
Life. Liberty. The pursuit of happiness.
Comments
I think his main point wasn't to attack atheism so much as to say that our popular culture isn't representative of the typical American (who remains a believer in some higher power and generally avoids acts of moral depravity such as we can see during Primetime). Yet our popular culture is all that some poor boy in Pakistan will know of America. If you're seized by a powerful radical theology, you're going to want to kill some godless heathens.
I have never believed that the hatred toward America is really about religion or even morality. This war, like most wars, is based in economics. The terrorists hate us because our lives are clearly better than theirs and they are jealous. They are miserable and have been duped into believeing that by making others miserable their lives will somehow improve.
If their leaders weren't so corrupt and ignorant and if their economies actually functioned, very few people in that part of the world would care what kind of garbage the media generate in our part of the world. They would probably criticize us but they wouldn't care enough to get violent.
I agree that appeasement is not the answer.
Greed, my friend, is not the word you're looking for. If one looks at a situation in terms of (our interests) = Good, while (conflicting interests) = Bad, then one would also avoid the polarizing "good vs. evil" talk. But the plebeians don't like things phrased in terms of national interest. They like to hear "right" and "wrong." It's much easier to frame a debate in terms of right and wrong when one has a religious backdrop. And quite frankly when considering Muslim aggression throughout history we are right to be fighting their more radical strains.
I disagree. The fact that you are allowed to be an atheist is rather telling of which civilization is currently ahead of the game in terms of peace. Your average Muhammed Q. Public may not be a jihadi, but his religion allows for it explicitly. Christian scholars had to really stretch to enable Christian kingdoms to defend themselves militarily. Muslim scholars had no such difficulty in rationalizing the conquest of non-Muslim lands. They still don't.
Conjecture for me, I am not imaginative.
Religion is certainly influenced by culture and by historical context, but we must be careful not to confuse religion with the teachings of a faith. Religion is the expression of that faith which attempts to impart universal Truths. I don't know the refutation of Pascal's Wager. It seems like a safe bet to me.
Also Muslims are not nearly as agressive, in a global sense, as Christians have been in the past.
If I may cite Spain as an example, instead of burning and looting Christian churches, the Muslim conquerers simply bought the land on which the churches were founded and converted them into mosques. European Christians were the aggressors during the Crusades and their violent anti-heretic stance spread not only to the invasion of Muslim countries, but also to the slaughter of Jews. Conversion to Islam was not enforced either, it was mainly Christians who 'discovered' the world and then attempted to impose Christianity as the one true faith on all and sundry. Also, look up what Christians are explicitly allowed to do: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 for example.
Conjecture for me, I am not imaginative . . . I don't know the refutation of Pascal's Wager. It seems like a safe bet to me.
They would, fairly obviously, defend vehemently the religion they had been brought up in, rather than seeking out other religions. The famous repudiation of Pascal's Wager is that it fails to take into account other religions. It is merely deciding between the Christian god and atheism, whereas, in reality, it is deciding beteween theism and atheism, and, if deciding on theism, then deciding which branch of said theism, and then deciding on which denomination of said branch of said theism. You know how god hates those heretics...
I don't see how that's relevant. For all I know there could be a Muslim wager out there. If we're saying that culture is a big determinant in religion and its teachings then can't we agree that Christianity has a leg up on Islam in a lot of respects?
The difference being that if the Christian boy wanted to convert to Islam he would have a much easier time of it than the Muslim boy converting to Christianity.
So...what should modern politics consist of?
Please. Christianity started out as a small cult that was persecuted by Romans and Judaism at once. It continued to be attacked for 300 years until finally it won over a Roman emperor.
Contrast this with Islam, which was persecuted for about 10 years before Muhammed had enough and started a war with Mecca. Then contrast the spread of Islam with the spread of Christianity. Muslim expansion came at the point of a sword, and there is no denying this fact. Also, the state of Christians and Jews was that of dhimmis in the Muslim territories. Tax-paying dhimmis. Christians and Jews were actually prevented from converting to Islam. Their social status was thus limited by their new ruling class.
Christendom embarked on the Crusades because the Muslims had spent centuries conquering Christian lands. Conquering, not buying. They went up through Africa into Spain and France, and they attacked the Byzantine Empire relentlessly. It was in fact the Emperor who requested military aid. While it is true he didn't expect an army of 30,000 to show up at his door, they were invited. It wasn't Christian aggression, it was that they ran out of other cheeks to turn.
Of the two faiths, only a person with a clearly anti-Christian agenda would label Islam as the more peaceful.
Har har. You'd have to take that issue up with a Jew from 500 B.C. Christ, so the belief goes, taught things a little differently. If you wanted to be fair you could mosey on over to a Christian (preferably Catholic, I admit my bias) site that explains the Christian teaching on the passages. Look, I know you're an anti-theist, but I'm sure you can make an objective statement that Christianity is a less "damaging" religion than Islam, past and present. If you had to choose to be an atheist in a predominantly religious country, which one would you go for? America, or Saudi Arabia?
Ugh, I feel off-topic. I still think that D'Souza's point was valid.