Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
David Kupelian is the #2 man at the Worldnutdaily. It hardly seems possible, but he might actually be more shallow and ridiculous than his boss, Joseph Farah. He has a particular talent for vaguely hysterical writings that get his credulous followers without ever actually identifying what they should feel threatened by, as brilliantly displayed in his latest screed. He begins by expressing just how baffled he is that atheists could actually publish books in Christian America:
Besides Hitchens' book, which has dominated nonfiction bestseller charts for months, there's the popular "Letter to a Christian Nation" by atheist author Sam Harris, sequel to his earlier tome "The End of Faith," and Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" - all New York Times bestsellers.Then there are other hot titles: "God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist" by Victor J. Stenger. "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" by Daniel C. Dennett. "Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism" by David Mills. And so on.
"This is atheism's moment," crowed David Steinberger, CEO of Perseus Books in a Wall Street Journal interview. "Mr. Hitchens has written the category killer, and we're excited about having the next book." That's right - this fall the publishing world will further cash in on the anti-God juggernaut with "The Pocket Atheist," featuring the writings of famous atheists, edited by Hitchens.
"How can this be?," you might wonder. "Hasn't America always been a Christian nation?"
Well no. It's always been a nation populated mostly by Christians, but only an idiot would think that therefore only Christian books could become popular. Then he peddles some familiar Christian Nation myths:
No question about it. America was founded by Christians. Its very purpose for being was the furtherance of biblical Christianity, according to the Pilgrims and succeeding generations.
Except, of course, the Pilgrims did not found America, they founded British colonies that operated as theocracies. Perhaps Kupelian slept late the day they taught about the revolutionary war in school, but in the 1770s we actually overthrew theocratic British colonialization and established a new nation that rejected all of those things.
Our first school system was created expressly to propagate the Christian faith.
Same mistake as above. He is no doubt referring to the law in the Massachusetts Bay Colony establishing public schools in 1635. The problem, again, is that this was not the first American public school, it was a public school in a colonial theocracy. The revolution was an explicit rejection against both colonialism and theocracy.
Almost all the Founding Fathers who drafted and signed the Constitution were believers.
Imagine Thomas Jefferson or John Adams walking into Kupelian's office and telling them the beliefs they so clearly expressed in their personal writings to one another about Christianity. Imagine them telling him, as they told each other, that they rejected virtually every key doctrine of Christianity - the virgin birth, the atonement, the resurrection, the divinity of Jesus, and so forth. I somehow doubt Kupelian would embrace them as Christian brothers; he would condemn them as heathens and heretics.
Even Supreme Court Justice David Josiah Brewer, in the high court's 1892 "Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States" decision, proclaimed the obvious: "This is a Christian nation."
By which he meant nothing more than the obvious: that America is and has always been made up primarily of Christians. He explained this in detail in a series of lectures he gave in 1905, which were published as a booklet. He said:
But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that people are in any matter compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all of its citizens are either in fact or name Christian. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.
By his criteria, even I could agree that America is a Christian nation, but that hardly means what Kupelian wishes it to mean.
He then goes on to try and explain why atheism is gaining such attention in America. It will likely not surprise you that he blames it on the Muslims. No, seriously.
What is responsible for this blooming of atheism in America today?Dennis Prager, the brilliant Jewish radio talker and columnist, ferrets out some key reasons.
"First and most significant," he points out, "is the amount of evil coming from within Islam." He explains:
Whether Islamists (or jihadists, Islamo-fascists or whatever else Muslims who slaughter innocents in the name of Islam are called) represent a small sliver of Muslims or considerably more than that, they have brought religious faith into terrible disrepute.
How could they not? The one recognized genocide in the world today is being carried out by religious Muslims in Sudan; liberty is exceedingly rare in any of the dozens of nations with Muslim majorities; treatment of women is frequently awful; and tolerance of people with different religious beliefs is largely nonexistent when Muslims dominate a society.
If the same were true of vegetarians - if mass murder and violent intolerance were carried out by vegetarians - there would be a backlash against vegetarianism even among people who previously had no strong feelings about the doctrine.
Now let's back up 223 years. It's 1785 and James Madison is trying to convince his fellow legislators in Virginia of the need to do away with the state's official Anglican church establishment. But the only thing he has experience with, either in the early American colonies or in European history, are established Christian churches, not Muslims churches. And what did that history tell him? It tells him the exact same thing that modern Islamic theocracies tell Prager and Kupelian:
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution...What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries.
Madison was absolutely right. Just as Prager notes that free societies are rare wherever Islam predominates, Madison notes that prior to his day, there was not a single example of a nation dominated by Christianity that remained free. What changed that for Christianity was the influence of the Enlightenment, something Islam has yet to undergo.
And just as Prager and Kupelian think the threat of theocratic Islam provokes a literary backlash today, centuries of oppression under theocratic Christianity led to a literary backlash during the Enlightenment as well. Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and others are walking in the footsteps of Voltaire, Paine, Condorcet, Diderot, d'Holbach and, yes, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Madison as well.
The secondary blame goes to - surprise, surprise - the public schools:
Another major, if more long-term, factor contributing to the popularity of atheist books, Prager notes, is the "secular indoctrination of a generation," thanks to our de facto atheistic public school system:Unless one receives a strong religious grounding in a religious school and/or religious home, the average young person in the Western world is immersed in a secular cocoon. From elementary school through graduate school, only one way of looking at the world - the secular - is presented. The typical individual in the Western world receives as secular an indoctrination as the typical European received a religious one in the Middle Ages. I have taught college students and have found that their ignorance not only of the Bible but of the most elementary religious arguments and concepts - such as the truism that if there is no God, morality is subjective - is total.
So the generation that has been secularly brainwashed is now buying books that reconfirm that brainwash - especially now, given the evil coming from religious people.
There's just one problem with this theory: rates of religious belief in the United States, despite this alleged "secular indoctrination," remain vastly higher than in any other Western nation. Atheists remain a small minority in America, less than 10%, while they are a sizable number in nearly all of our Western allies - even those with established churches like the UK. I guess that secular indoctrination isn't working so well.
By the way, I suspect that a large portion of the sales of these atheist books that so concern Kupelian are from Christians like him seeking outrage.
Politics
Comments
The rise of outspoken atheism in America has as much to do with the behavior of religious fundamentalists in America as it does with the violence perpetrated by Islam. Many American atheists (myself included) are getting sick and tired of seeing the religious right constantly trying to force Christian belief into the government (and, via the government, onto the rest of us). I seriously doubt that American atheism would be nearly as "militant" if there weren't a vast movement in America to Christianize all aspects of public life.
Maybe if the Christians in this country would be more respectful of atheists, they'd notice atheists toning down their message. But it's ludicrous to spend all your energy proclaiming that atheists have no morals and that your God should be shoe-horned into schools and courthouses or else society will degenerate, and then get your panties in a wad when the atheists start getting pissed off.
Posted by: Wes | July 16, 2008 9:55 AM
Well, I think there might be some merit to his theory. The difference, for me, is that I see them as good things. I think maybe the insanity of radical islam is putting a spotlight on the insanity of all religions. I think the fact that many public schools have completely removed religion may be contributing to students being more secular and that's wonderful (obviously there are many schools that do not do a good job of this at all).
If this is sarcasm, it's hard to tell on the interweb, it's funny. If not, I disagree. I certainly don't go around buying Bill O'Reilly books just to get myself worked up. :)Maybe I'm just a chronic optimist but I think maybe the book sales are a sign that the 10% is not quite right. A lot of people in this country are scared to call themselves atheists. There's such a stigma. There's also the whole belief in belief idea that Dennett talks about. In the recent Pew survey, the "Conception of God" results were as follows:
Personal God - 60%
Impersonal Force - 25%
Other/Don't Know - 7%
This was widely reported as "92% of Americans Believe in God!!!!!". Again, it may just be foolish optimism but I found the 60% number a little bit encouraging.
Posted by: sdg | July 16, 2008 9:56 AM
"such as the truism that if there is no God, morality is subjective"
That's not a truism, it's not even true. It's simply an expression of typical theistic shallow thinking.
Posted by: Woody Tanaka | July 16, 2008 10:05 AM
I think the popularity of these books is related to the rise of the internet. There were probably already many people who had questions regarding their faith. The internet was a place of solitude in which they could find answers without their family, friends, neighbors, or fellow church goers from giving them the evil eye. This probably led to more skepticism so when these books came out they bought them searching for more answers. I'm willing to bet there's a lot less believers in the US (or at least people calling themselves christians) than any statistics would show.
You know, I'm still a member of my church and I've considered myself an atheist for over 4 years now!
Posted by: llDayo | July 16, 2008 10:07 AM
Trying to find something good to say....
I've got it: At least he's provided a good reading list for everyone who reads WorldNetDaily.
Posted by: Jason Failes | July 16, 2008 10:16 AM
Um, I'm confused. "Its very purpose for being was the furtherance of biblical Christianity, according to the Pilgrims"??? What's the importance of Pilgrams? Why not go to the first British settlers in America?
The Jamestown colony was founded (first), not for religious purposes, but as a business venture. Sounds like this country to me.
Posted by: dkw | July 16, 2008 10:18 AM
If they're bound and determined to push the "this country was founded on Christianity" angle, they're just going to paint themselves into a corner explaining why Christianity "failed."
Posted by: Kristine | July 16, 2008 10:19 AM
Islam, for those how do not know it, is a peaceful religion, and has no relation whatsoever to terrorism act. For those who want to know about Islam, might find these webs of interest to them: www.islam-guide.com or www.islamalways.com . I ask GOD to let all of us, all the world's inhabitants live in peace and harmony. Thank you.
Posted by: ABRAHAM | July 16, 2008 11:00 AM
Looks like Kupelian's ignorance of Euthyphro is likewise total. Ugh.
Posted by: nicole | July 16, 2008 11:08 AM
"such as the truism that if there is no God, morality is subjective"
I never really got this argument. That is, lets just say that it is true, that, if there is no God all morals are utterly meaningless. That doesn't mean God exists, as this is an argument from consequence.
It would only prove that it is convenient to propagate the lie of the existence of God in society (i.e. religion as a means to power).
Posted by: Tinuz | July 16, 2008 11:26 AM
I'm going to speculate that the percentage of atheists and agnostics (and others who are willing to at least listen to arguments against religion) among the portion of the population that buys non-fiction books to read is somewhat higher than their percentage of the population as a whole.
Posted by: JimV | July 16, 2008 11:30 AM
Because the Bible has to be interpreted by humans, its dictates remain subjective. Perhaps "true" morality, as dictated by God, is not subjective, but nobody, not even the most devout Christian, actually knows what that true morality is, so in any effective sense, morality remains subjective and would even if we were truly a nation of faithful Christians.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 16, 2008 11:54 AM
JimV: that is a very astute piece of speculation.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | July 16, 2008 11:56 AM
I speculate that the % of atheists is MUCH higherthan polls in America state for a variety of social reasons. Other polls show 70+% of Americans who claim God belief have a vaque spirituality on some level similiar to deism even if they attend Christian churches.
Really good post Ed.
Posted by: GH | July 16, 2008 11:59 AM
Where did you get this quote from Madison? I'm certainly not contending it - on the contrary - I'd like to see what else is there
Thanks!
Posted by: normalityrelief | July 16, 2008 11:59 AM
So, less than a dozen books on godlessness have become popular in the last few years...
How many thousands of religious books have been published in the same time period?
Methinks they doth protest too much!
Posted by: Mark | July 16, 2008 12:02 PM
WorldNut is truly the gift that keeps on giving.
Posted by: CHV | July 16, 2008 12:30 PM
Interesting hypothesis. If we assume for a moment that it is correct, what is the reason for the recent rise in popularity? Is it just lack of availability of similar titles in the past? It might be a bit time consuming to do the research (and I don't plan on doing it) but I guess we'd have to go back and figure out how many books about atheism were published each year. I admit that I have no data to back me up (so I too am speculating just as you clearly stated that you were) but I wouldn't be surprised if there were always (let's say for the last 20 or 30 years at least) a decent amount of books with atheistic themes. If the breakdown of the population of non-fiction readers was the same, they should have been equally popular. Perhaps you're saying that there has not been a rise in popularity and that while they've always been relatively popular amongst the non-fiction reading population, it is only recently that the general public has become aware of said popularity.
I think this is true for a lot of people and was certainly true for me.
Posted by: sdg | July 16, 2008 12:52 PM
Jebus! You read the whole thing, and took NOTES! I'm impressed.
Posted by: Bert Chadick | July 16, 2008 12:52 PM
Some data on atheists. According to the Statistical abstract to the Census, (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/) in 2001 there were 902,000 atheists or .4% of the population. There were 991,000 agnostics or .5% of the population. There were 27.5 million who chose "no religion" or 13.2% of the population.
The data I used for this can be found in table 74 of the document (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/population/religion.html)
I fail to see ho .4% of the population is a threat.
Posted by: mess | July 16, 2008 12:55 PM
This of anti-blasphemy laws etc as like trade sanctions. Now that the free market's opened up, religion's monopoly is eroding. It is losing marketshare.
Posted by: anon | July 16, 2008 12:57 PM
"What changed that for Christianity was the influence of the Enlightenment, something Islam has yet to undergo."
Was not the flowering of Islamic arts and science during the Middle Ages an Enlightenment (at least of sorts) that was precursor to the European Renaissance?
What we see now looks more like regression to me, as with our own Christian fundamentalists.
Posted by: bpilgrim | July 16, 2008 1:11 PM
but like i and others have posted, there are reasons why people might not identify themselves as atheists even though they may think that religion is, or might be, nonsensical. that's what makes me wonder if the book sales are actually a better indicator than some of the survey results. to me it's kind of like racism in the democratic primary of west virginia. if you survey the voters, some will come right out and say "yup, i'm a racist" but many who are very much racist will not admit to it. however, the racism seems obvious when you look at the voting results. it may seem like a poor analogy because racism is, in fact, a bad thing while atheism, in fact, is not. however, atheism is perceived as a bad thing by a lot of americans so people might not want to be perceived (even if we are only talking about self-perception since i assume that these surveys are done anonymously) in a negative way. so MAYBE the books sales are like the votes. i don't know, it's JUST A THEORY. ;)
all of that said, i certainly do not think that everyone who buys/reads these books is, or becomes, a non-believer.
Posted by: sdg | July 16, 2008 1:18 PM
...the Enlightenment, something Islam has yet to undergo.
Arguably, Islamic civilization has had two "enlightenments" (the "golden age" of the early 'Abbasid dynasty in Baghdad, circa 786-861, and the Muslim kingdoms in Spain, particularly of the 14th century.
Neither one lasted (the first corrupted by its own imperialistic militarism, the second by that of adjoining Christians). Progressive tendencies can be seen here and there in modern times, but seem likely to be overwhelmed by fundamentalists empowered by the backlash against western oil grabs.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 16, 2008 1:22 PM
Ed:
Just a debating point. To Mr. Kupelian's statement " Almost all the Founding Fathers who drafted and signed the Constitution were believers," you replied:
Imagine Thomas Jefferson or John Adams walking into Kupelian's office and telling them the beliefs they so clearly expressed in their personal writings to one another about Christianity. Imagine them telling him, as they told each other, that they rejected virtually every key doctrine of Christianity - the virgin birth, the atonement, the resurrection, the divinity of Jesus, and so forth.
Since neither Jefferson nor Adams was among those who drafted and signed the Constitution, your reply doesn't address Kupelian's point directly at all, seems to me.
Posted by: flatlander100 | July 16, 2008 1:23 PM
I just finished a translation of a book on faith, "In You I Trust, Verses, Teachings, and Prayers from Jewish Tradition for Inspiration and Comfort."
You would think that I would be upset with the atheist arguments. The funny thing is, I am not. I think the atheists, and Brayton's depiction of the founding fathers, have articulated several truths about simply living: enjoying life, contributing, enjoying the gifts that come into our lives. A lot of these ideas, for me, are found in a somewhat forgotten book of the bible, Ecclesiasticies.
There is so much to be said for a healthy love of humanity that Theists, sadly, often loose perspective on. Or perhaps it is just the depiction in our collective consensus. of the Theists doing unthinkable acts in the name of God.
Brayton's emphasis on reminding us that the United States was, and is, a nation dedicated to ideals, for all people have "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."
One does not need to be a theist to agree with that powerful declaration.
Posted by: Jeffrey Alhadeff | July 16, 2008 1:25 PM
I find that to be a weirdly schizoid article -- it's evident that Kupelian has read the material, and puts what appear to be its most devastating arguments in the column without ever really twigging to the fact that he was cutting his own legs out from under him. Devastating? His entire argument came down to "can you believe this shit?" and it's hard not to look at it and think to yourself, "Yeah, maybe I can."
Posted by: Brian X | July 16, 2008 1:35 PM
Wes nailed it for me in the first comment.You know Kupelian is nuts when he called Prager "brilliant".Ya right!
Posted by: ed | July 16, 2008 2:35 PM
@James Hanley
This seems to explain the cognitive dissonance of many fundamentalists who insist that we're further away from biblical teachings and morals than ever. Since their childhood, or the time of their grandparents, *must* have been more moral, we're obviously moving away from biblical perfection at an alarming rate. What they're failing to consider is that every age and every time there have been fundamentalists who were saying that we're as far away from God as can possibly be, and soon His judgment will rain down. There is no way to live in biblical perfection, since there will always be "moral" leaders, looking to establish and continue to rule over their flock, who will tell them, and the rest of us, that we're doing it wrong.
@Ed regarding public schools
I was the first amongst my friends to discover my atheism in junior high. I kept my mouth shut. There is no way that a Christian can understand how geared American life is towards Christianity. The American school system is no place for critical thinking or dissent. Believe something different, and you will be ostracized.
Posted by: Jonathan | July 16, 2008 2:45 PM
Bravo, Mr Brayton. In addition to citing the logical failures of believers, you have also delved into their psychological issues -- opening a lovely can of worms.
Believers seem to revel in fantasizing about the mental and motivational states of atheists, always looking for the most damning explanation possible. They constantly refer to atheists as "hating" God or religion or believers. This is awfully presumptuous, not to mention incredibly immature.
But you seem to have hit the nail on the head with your final remark: "By the way, I suspect that a large portion of the sales of these atheist books that so concern Kupelian are from Christians like him seeking outrage."
Boom! That's it! Not all, but many believers must have an addiction to feeling certain emotions. They seem to most love feeling superior to others, and to feeling outraged at those who think differently.
To put it technically, we're dealing with some sick puppies here.
Do they teach their children to acquire this pathological emotional need, or is it passed on via heredity?
Posted by: Pierre JC | July 16, 2008 3:06 PM
@sdg,
I understand your position and believe that the % of non-believers is actually higher than what is reported. I actually did some web research and found the following. I have no idea of the validity of the study, but I found it interesting.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=237
Loosely translated, they indicated that about 50% of the people who say they attend church on a regular basis actually do.
Posted by: mess | July 16, 2008 3:09 PM
You know, I'm starting to feel sorry for the poor abused and overwhelmed Christians. The proliferation of Christian Bookstores being taken over by Atheist Reading Rooms is heartbreaking. Whereas, I used to see a church or two or three every five miles, I see only Atheist Study Centers. Public schools, the bastions of secular training, used to be one for every fifteen (approximately) churches in towns and cities; not so now that education in the secular arts has become the number one priority of our government. Kupelian says, "That's right - this fall the publishing world will further cash in on the anti-God juggernaut", and he's right, the godless publishing world is only interested in the millions of dollars represented by the atheist majority. Think of the economic repercussions in the Christian publishing world, represented by specialty publishing houses in the hundreds, as opposed to Prometheus Books. Is it right that the one prosper at the cost of the hundreds?
Because my morality is subjective I guess Hitchens, Dawkins, Stenger and the rest are lucky I've decided that murder and theft are wrong and my sympathy for the suffering Christians will be the sum of my response to this crisis.
Posted by: B8ovin | July 16, 2008 3:34 PM
Normalityrelief, that quote is from Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance Against A General Assessment" IIRC.......
Posted by: EyeNoU | July 16, 2008 3:38 PM
Thanks much EyeNoU!
Posted by: normalityrelief | July 16, 2008 4:15 PM
So you mean that He's not letting us live that way now?
What a jerk.
Posted by: Ick of the East | July 16, 2008 6:24 PM
"What changed that for Christianity was the influence of the Enlightenment, something Islam has yet to undergo."
This quote expresses a fundamental mistake that many make in assuming that the experience of Christianity in Western history can and should hold true for Islam and its history. But we are dealing with two very different things here and the influence on society of the latter cannot be fairly judged by that of the former. Qur'anic Islam is rationally sound. Biblical Christianity is not. Islam did not stand in opposition to scientific progress. Christianity did. Islam provides a comprehensive means for dealing holistically with humanity's affairs. Christianity does not. The seperation of the spiritual and temporal, of Church and State, is applicable to Christianity as this was really it's position before the fall of the Roman Empire (Luke 20:25-"Render unto Caeser what is Caeser's and unto God what is God's."). It is not applicable to Islam as Islam is a harmonious combination of spiritual and temporal, with rights and freedoms granted according to God's revealed wisdom rather than human folly, and with detailed regulations on all aspects of life. The problems seen in Muslim majority countries today are not due to Islam but the lack of the full implemention of Islam.
Posted by: Salmah | July 16, 2008 6:39 PM
B8ovin:
Sounds like Robby Berry's Life in Our Anti-Christian America.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | July 16, 2008 6:48 PM
.....unless of course you're not Muslim, let alone not a theist.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 16, 2008 6:53 PM
This quote expresses a fundamental mistake that many make in assuming...
Baghdad Bob, is that you?
Posted by: trog69 | July 16, 2008 7:14 PM
You and llDayo have a good point with regard to the internet, which I want to acknowledge, albeit with some defensiveness below. Without the internet, I would have been unaware of any of the books mentioned in the article except for Dawkins' The God Delusion and Hitchens' book (the only ones I remember seeing featured in my library's New Releases section, and hearing mentioned on TV news).
However, in my anecdotal case the internet has had the opposite effect on the popularity of those books. I have not read any of them, because I feel (rightly or wrongly) that there is little in them that I haven't already pondered - thanks to the internet and my own thinking on the subject.
The only similar books I have heard of prior to the recent spate were well before my time, by Robert Ingersoll and Bertrand Russell (also heard of thanks to the internet). I have a vague impression that they were also fairly well received by serious readers, but have no hard data. Richard Feynman made a few atheistic references in his popular books, as did Carl Sagan, but that was not their primary topic.
Anway, I will agree that my hypothesis is not a complete explanation for the current popularity of some atheist authors. (I have some other speculations on that ...)
Posted by: JimV | July 16, 2008 7:33 PM
From GH, "I speculate that the % of atheists is MUCH higherthan polls in America state for a variety of social reasons."
But don't forget, other polls show about a quarter of atheists believe in God, so it all evens out.
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | July 16, 2008 7:45 PM
Ferrous Patella, I'm only aware of just one such poll, which put the number at 21%. The actual question asked was "Do you believe in God or a universal spirit?" I'd be willing to bet that more in depth look would reveal that 6% of atheist count the Grand Unified Theory as a universal spirit, 2% of are easily confused, and 12.5% love fucking with telephone pollsters/answered sarcastically. ;-)
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 16, 2008 8:21 PM
"What changed that for Christianity was the influence of the Enlightenment, something Islam has yet to undergo."
Was not the flowering of Islamic arts and science during the Middle Ages an Enlightenment (at least of sorts) that was precursor to the European Renaissance?
What we see now looks more like regression to me, as with our own Christian fundamentalists.
(Agreeing with the above, but with adjustment).
Let's not conflate Islam with government. Repressive shitty little dictatorships are repressive and shitty regardles of the religion they use to assist in their control. Adjusting for economics and development, I don't think you could say Malaysia or Indonesia was any worse than other non-Muslim nations in similar situations. They're certainly a lot better than any Christian nation was in the early stages of enlightenment.
The areas of repressive Islam are the same regions who have suffered serial imperialism, including massive and destabilising militarisation during the cold war, and continue to have arsehole regimes propped up by powers much greater than progressive elements inside the countries could hope to counter.
It's not Islam that screwed them over, and I'd say they'd be just as bad regardless of religion, given their history.
Posted by: Magpie | July 16, 2008 9:02 PM
I don't think you could say Malaysia or Indonesia was any worse than other non-Muslim nations in similar situations. They're certainly a lot better than any Christian nation was in the early stages of enlightenment.
thanks, so many people seem to forget about Indonesia when they are talking about states that are primarily islamic. ignorant christians seem to think islam=arab dictatorship. I'm not saying everything in indonesia is fabulous, as an atheist women i had some difficulties working there, but much less than i would have had in saudhi arabia or in a mormon cult in usa.
Posted by: yoyo | July 17, 2008 12:37 AM
And our fundamentalists here in America say that Christianity is better than all other religions (including Islam), because "Christianity is about Faith, whereas all other religions are about Works."
It's a myopic, ethnocentric, ignorant, and frankly just plain stupid view of religion. And yours is not any better. Let me make a few things clear for you, though I know they won't sink in:
1) Koranic Islam is no more "rationally sound" than Biblical Christianity. I have read both books, the Bible and the Koran, and neither is any less the product of primitive humans than the other. Basing one's entire life on the Koran is just as ludicrous as basing one's entire life on the Bible, the Iliad, the Tao Te Ching, the Bhagavad Gita, the I Ching, or any other ancient book. Yes, there are many beautiful and insightful things in all of these books, but none of them are perfect.
2) Islam has most certainly stood in the way of scientific progress. One of the largest creationist movements in the world is the Harun Yahyah movement. Islamists to this day in Saudi Arabia still reject even the Copernican hypothesis, based on Koranic teachings. During Islam's gradual disintegration (following its truly laudable "golden age") libraries were burned and intellectuals were persecuted.
3) Islam does not provide a way for "dealing holistically" with "human affairs" any more or less than Christianity. Both might provide some insights, but both are also at the mercy of highly subjective readings and arbitrary interpretations of very ambiguous texts.
4) The Islamic world needs separation of church and state even more than the Christian world does. The atrocities being committed in the name of Allah today are simply appalling. Letting unelected mullahs and Imams control society is a sure-fire way to oppression, especially of women, ethnic minorities, and people of different beliefs.
5) You have no more proof of what "God's wisdom" is than any other religion has. Why should I trust what you, a fallible human, claim is "God's wisdom" as opposed to a Christian, a Jew, a Jain, a Hindu, a Sikh, a Mormon, a Scientologist, a Bahai'ian, an animist, a Wiccan, or any other religiond claim is "God's Wisdom"? You want to demean all these other religions and proclaim your own religion to have true access to the End All Be All of the Whole Universe. And, of course, all these other religions make exactly the same claim for themselves. And none of these religions provide a shred of objective evidence in support of these claims. That's part of why I'm an atheist.
6) Your claim that "rights and freedoms" come from "God's wisdom" along with "detailed regulations on all aspects of life" is just about as Orwellian as it gets. "Rights and freedoms" are incompatible with "detailed regulations on all aspects of life". And the fact that you then claim that the problems in Muslim dominated countries aren't due to Islam, with all its "detailed regulations on all aspects of life", is simply laughable. You obviously want to control people's private lives, want to call your domination of them "freedom", and want to excuse yourself from the socio-economic ramifications of such totalitarian brutality. You want control without responsibility. In other words, you want to make your fellow humans fit your preconceived mold, or else.
Posted by: Wes | July 17, 2008 1:13 AM
"such as the truism that if there is no God, morality is subjective"
That's not a truism, it's not even true. It's simply an expression of typical theistic shallow thinking.
I would argue that morality is a subjective argument even IF there was a true and Christian/Jewish/Islamic God/Yehovah/Allah. The fact of human free will (if true) means every spectrum of behavior is subjective based on your beliefs. You must know a thing to argue for or against it, and this includes morality. Absence of morality is an absence of perspective.
Posted by: Jaime A. Headden | July 17, 2008 3:05 AM
Posted by: DaveL | July 17, 2008 8:44 AM
@mess - interesting read.
@JimV - good point about the internet potentially (or actually in your case) obviating the need to read more books on the subject. and yes, as with almost anything, i'm sure there are multiple contributing factors.
Posted by: sdg | July 17, 2008 9:01 AM
I guess that secular indoctrination isn't working so well.
How would you suggest we improve it?
Posted by: Grammar RWA | July 18, 2008 12:18 AM
Maybe I am coming late, but what I don't understand is what place the Muslims could have in this discussion on atheism.
Atheism means that you make not believing in a god your doctrine. The Muslims believe in god, even in the same god as we Christians.
So where is the pun?
Posted by: Puzzled | July 18, 2008 6:40 AM
Puzzled, according to the tortured logic of many fundamentalist Christians in this country (I'm back in the States, by the way--damn), since both atheism and Islam in any form are pure, unadulterated evil, they are in fact two sides of the same coin. I've actually heard one fellow try to argue that atheism leads to Islam, and vice versa.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 18, 2008 9:34 AM