Is atheism the New Evangelism?

[ScottSA]

Islam is an ideology, and that's why I hate it...

Bingo. But why don't we use two different words? Jihadism is the ideology that belongs in philosophical scrap heap beside communism or facism. Islam is the religion which promotes many desireable values using cultural metaphors from the societies that created it.

Well, because if we did use those words, we'd look like naive PC idiots, so we won't. I won't anyway; you do what you want. It may make you feel cultured and superior to pretend I'm a hillbilly troglodyte, but I assure you it's entirely possible that I have at least the amount of education you do. So perhaps we'd like to drop the superior attitude and open our mind a bit, eh wot?

I know, from the Kosovo thread and others, that you operate with a broad knowledge, but it's a knowledge that lacks depth in some areas. Islam is not the sweetness and light counterpart of a dualism in which Jihad is the darkside, nor Islam is some way disassociated from Jihadism. In fact, Jihadism is an integral part of Islam, and is rooted in the very centrality of Islam. It makes sense within western rationalism to make distinctions between the bombers and peaceful Muslims, but in fact this is similar to trying to make distinctions between nasty Nazis and peaceful Nazis. Those distinctions may hold loosely true, but they are largely irrelevant. Allow me to repost a post in another thread that you may not have seen due to it's being buried by another poster's sniping:

...It's easy enough to identify what exactly Nazi began as and why it became what it became. It's common currency to either write off Hitler as mad or as evil incarnate, but he was really neither; he was a revolutionary. He found his ability as an orator, tagged it on to a sort of aboveground/underground racialist philosophy of volk, rather than nationalism, per se, and then flogged it through the 20s, into eclipse in the late 20s, and then blew through the doors of the Reichstag in the 30s. Those who have tried to identify Nazism have always been frustrated, because in the end, it appears that in Hitler's mind Nazism was simply a ongoing revolution of the people, more akin to a sort of Maoist continuing revolution than anything Stalin ever came up with. All his actual policies, of liebenstrau, anti-Jewish laws, everything, were directed at continuing revolution and the ascendency of the Aryan volk.

This ideology, if it can be called that, directed his every action. Borrowing from marxism, he treated the niceties of alliance politics as mere bourgeois trifles, which is why what he said to foreign leaders never much mattered. He said what people wanted to hear as a matter of course, merely as an aid to a furtherance of his aim. It wasn't that he had no morals, it was simply that he operated on a different moral scale; similar to a communist revolutionary's; with utter contempt for bourgeois morality and utter contempt for the "weakness" of others.

But what was striking is that he had fully exposed his plans two full decades beforehand. Anyone who had read Mein Kampf knew pretty much exactly what he claimed he was going to do, with the Jews, with leibenstrau, with the German volk. Hell, they even knew which direction he was going to go for living space.

Hitler and Nazism were really quite simple. So simple in fact that no one quite "got it," because it didn't fit with their way of thinking. Buckets of apologist ink have blaming Versailles for the rise of Hitler, and while his minor and temporary rise in the early 20s might have been explained away through this mechanism, it was moot by 1933. People have blamed the world depression, but that too was largely irrelevant to Hitler's rise. Nazism was simply action mated with racial pride, interpreted as a sort of nationalism that has managed to get a bum rap since. Hitler was a revolutionary who did nothing more than what he said he would do, and managed to succeed not because of any particular cleverness, but because he knew the opposition was weak, and most importantly because the opposition persisted in disbelieving him.

In many ways we have the same situation with Islam. There's nothing particularly clever about it; we all know precisely what it wants, because it's not only told to our faces on a weekly basis by the videotaped confessions of bombers, would be bombers, and bin laden himself, but it's written right in the Koran. So-called "moderate" Muslims play the same good cop game of part blackmail and part soothing soto voce, blaming "Israel" when it makes sense, declaiming "radicals" when it helps their cause, claiming Islam is a "religion of peace" as a matter of course, taking care to forget that peace means "submission" within the context of Islam. We know they are full of shit, because we see it not only in the blackmail, but we can read right in the Koran that it is quite acceptable to lie to the non-believer if it will further Islam. They tell us what we need to hear, and we file it away as a promise, while they might as well be passing wind in their own minds. Meanwhile Islam moves steadily forward on every front, in our institutions, and in our midst. There won't be any panzer divisions racing across frontiers, because unless we wake up fairly suddenly, there won't be any need of them.

Yet, like the western politicians in the thirties, we're running around constructing the most elaborate conceptual choreographies in an effort to make it make sense in a context of western rationalism. We needn't bother. It's not poverty or Israel or dictators. It's really quite simple.

[Riverwind]

In fact, Jihadism is an integral part of Islam, and is rooted in the very centrality of Islam.

Many Muslims disagree with you. Who are you to tell them what their religion means?

Christian Fundamentalists do not represent all Christians. In fact, they don't even represent a majority of Christians. Yet many people seem to equate Christian Fundamentalism with Christianity. Should Christianity be labelled a religion of neanderthals because a few insist on denying the scientific facts regarding evolution?

Islam also has different meanings to different people and it is not reasonable to judge the entire religion because of the actions of a few.

Furthermore, Islam is practiced in some form by over a billion people. It is not going to disappear no matter what you might wish. For that reason, you should feel motivated to find some way to accomodate Islamic beliefs. Arguing that the entire religion should be 'stomped out' simply encourages more of the Jihadism that you hate.

[ScottSA]

In fact, Jihadism is an integral part of Islam, and is rooted in the very centrality of Islam.

Many Muslims disagree with you. Who are you to tell them what their religion means?

Christian Fundamentalists do not represent all Christians. In fact, they don't even represent a majority of Christians. Yet many people seem to equate Christian Fundamentalism with Christianity. Should Christianity be labelled a religion of neanderthals because a few insist on denying the scientific facts regarding evolution?

Islam also has different meanings to different people and it is not reasonable to judge the entire religion because of the actions of a few.

Furthermore, Islam is practiced in some form by over a billion people. It is not going to disappear no matter what you might wish. For that reason, you should feel motivated to find some way to accomodate Islamic beliefs. Arguing that the entire religion should be 'stomped out' simply encourages more of the Jihadism that you hate.

Yes, and sending Sherman tanks against Panzers simply encourages more Panzer shells, but that startling wisdom aside, Islam will either be destroyed, beaten back and eradicated in the west, or we will be facing perpetual Jihad. The alternative is submission to Islam. Which do you prefer?

[Riverwind]

Islam will either be destroyed, beaten back and eradicated in the west, or we will be facing perpetual Jihad.

You are engaging the same hate mongering that you accuse Muslims of. Islam will never be 'eradicated' - there are too many people out there that believe in it. Out of curiousity. Can you give me one example where one group of people has successfully 'eradicated' another? Who do you consider role models in your quest for an Islam-free society?

[ScottSA]

Islam will either be destroyed, beaten back and eradicated in the west, or we will be facing perpetual Jihad.

You are engaging the same hate mongering that you accuse Muslims of. Islam will never be 'eradicated' - there are too many people out there that believe in it. Out of curiousity. Can you give me one example where one group of people has successfully 'eradicated' another? Who do you consider role models in your quest for an Islam-free society?

Throughout history peoples have eradicated other peoples, but that's not my argument.

I said we ought to eradicate Islam, not that we ought to eradicate all Musselmen. I also said as an alternative that we beat it back. Fascism is a case in point in which an ideology, not entirely dissimilar to Islam, has been beaten back to the point of western irrelevance, if you choose not to call it "eradicated." Communism, although perhaps the coffin lid is not yet sealed, is ailing tremendously. Further, entire religions have been destroyed or eradicated, or beaten to the point of irrelevance...Zoroastrianism comes immediately to mind, not ironically, as does the middle eastern animalism that Islam stamped out.

The question is not whether we can beat Islam to the point of irrelevance, but rather whether we have the will to do so before it's too late.

[Riverwind]

Fascism is a case in point in which an ideology, not entirely dissimilar to Islam, has been beaten back to the point of western irrelevance, if you choose not to call it "eradicated."

Fascism can only be compared to Jihadism if you accept that Jihadism is distinct from Islam. If you accept that then Jihadism could, in theory, could be rendered irrelevant like Communism.

However, such an outcome is impossible if you insist that Islam and Jihadism are inseparable. Islam is an essential part of the culture of billions of people and it cannot be eradicated unless you are willing to commit genocide on a massive scale. Even then you would likely never succeed.

The more you talk about 'eradicating' Islam the more you sound like the fascists that caused so much bloodshed 60 years ago.

[ScottSA]

Fascism is a case in point in which an ideology, not entirely dissimilar to Islam, has been beaten back to the point of western irrelevance, if you choose not to call it "eradicated."

Fascism can only be compared to Jihadism if you accept that Jihadism is distinct from Islam. If you accept that then Jihadism could, in theory, could be rendered irrelevant like Communism.

However, such an outcome is impossible if you insist that Islam and Jihadism are inseparable. Islam is an essential part of the culture of billions of people and it cannot be eradicated unless you are willing to commit genocide on a massive scale. Even then you would likely never succeed.

The more you talk about 'eradicating' Islam the more you sound like the fascists that caused so much bloodshed 60 years ago.

Right, the old "if you hate fascists, you must be a fascist" line popping up. Must you be so trite?

Tell me something...what do you suppose happened to Zoroastrianism? Was it not encultured for centuries into every thought and breath of it's believers? I could probably come up with dozens of eradicated religions with the same characteristics as Islam...and you probably know it as well as I do.

Whether I pretend Jihadism is distinct from Islam or not is nothing but an intellectual lark, because it's not. Take a hard long look at Islam...not just the bumpersticker slogans and surface analyses of how "Islam is a religion of peace" and "terrorists are not Islamic," because that is utter hogwash. It's like arguing that Crusaders were not Christian, or Nazis were not fascists.

[Mad_Michael]

The question is not whether we can beat Islam to the point of irrelevance, but rather whether we have the will to do so before it's too late.

Good to see that the old evangelism is still alive and kicking!

I don't think the atheists have taken over the market quite yet.

[Riverwind]

Right, the old "if you hate fascists, you must be a fascist" line popping up. Must you be so trite?

Then explain why your 'solution' to the Jihadist problem is any different from the 'solutions' offered by facists to the problems that they obsessed about? This is not a rhetorical question - I would really like to know why think the entire religion of Islam could be eradicated with anything less than genocide on a massive scale.

It's like arguing that Crusaders were not Christian

The crusaders were mercenaries and thugs out for plunder. They were nominally christian but not much more.

[ScottSA]

It's like arguing that Crusaders were not Christian

The crusaders were mercenaries and thugs out for plunder. They were nominally christian but not much more.

Right. On that completely and astoundingly ahistorical note, this conversation has wilted. Go read up on the warrior prince Christianity of the 9th through 12th centuries. Look up "Deus Vult." Get back to me when your knowledge of medieval religion has at least a turtlehead poking out of highschool history class.

[Riverwind]

Go read up on the warrior prince Christianity of the 9th through 12th centuries.

The crusades were simply one of a numerous examples of people using religion as a pretext to justify economic conquest

Why don't you answer the more relevent question:

Then explain why your 'solution' to the Jihadist problem is any different from the 'solutions' offered by facists to the problems that they obsessed about? This is not a rhetorical question - I would really like to know why think the entire religion of Islam could be eradicated with anything less than genocide on a massive scale.

[ScottSA]

Go read up on the warrior prince Christianity of the 9th through 12th centuries.

The crusades were simply one of a numerous examples of people using religion as a pretext to justify economic conquest

Why don't you answer the more relevent question:

Then explain why your 'solution' to the Jihadist problem is any different from the 'solutions' offered by facists to the problems that they obsessed about? This is not a rhetorical question - I would really like to know why think the entire religion of Islam could be eradicated with anything less than genocide on a massive scale.

I'm working on weaponizing bagels.

Of course you're asking a rhetorical question. Several people have already answered it, and there's not much more to say about it. France is beginning, with tentative steps, to do what is necessary...banning headscarves. What is required is the banning of all indentifiable Islamic garb and symbology. Not fair? Who gives a shit? Any religion that starts blowing things up as a matter of ongoing course in the name of their religion they should be banned too.

It can stew along breeding backwardness in Asian and the middle east to its heart's content until such time as one of its national bases, like Afghanistan, brings itself into the crosshairs. My concern is here in the west and the concessions we keep leaking to it.

[Riverwind]

What is required is the banning of all indentifiable Islamic garb and symbology.

ROTFL. You actually believe that banning Islamic garb and symbology would actually 'eradicate' jihadism? Such actions would simply radicalize even more people and would likely lead to more violance - not less.

[ScottSA]

What is required is the banning of all indentifiable Islamic garb and symbology.

ROTFL. You actually believe that banning Islamic garb and symbology would actually 'eradicate' jihadism? Such actions would simply radicalize even more people and would likely lead to more violance - not less.

Oh I have no doubt it will lead to violence, at least initially. But there's going to be violence anyway. It's too late to avoid it. There's violence aplenty now. Would you rather wait until western liberalism is in a minority position? Is your position that you'd rather go gently into the night rather than kicking and screaming? Is

what you want?

[August1991]

France is beginning, with tentative steps, to do what is necessary...banning headscarves. What is required is the banning of all indentifiable Islamic garb and symbology.

France has only banned the wearing of headdress in State schools. And France is hardly a good example of Muslim-Christian ethnic peace.

Peter the Great tried to ban beards and I suspect what you propose would accomplish about the same.

There's also a supreme irony in imposing dress codes to defend a liberal society.

ScottSA, if you look back in history (and you seem to enjoy doing that), you'll note that we largely didn't defeat obscurantism by violent means. On our side is the obvious fact that individuals benefit from freedom.

[ScottSA]

ScottSA, if you look back in history (and you seem to enjoy doing that), you'll note that we largely didn't defeat obscurantism by violent means. On our side is the obvious fact that individuals benefit from freedom.

It's not obscurantism we're fighting against. It's Islam. And looking back in history, you'll find that neither Mustafa Pasha in 1687 nor the Ottomans in 1444, nor any of the numerous clashes between Islam and the west were won by trotting out "freedom" as an end unto itself. Freedom is not working well at the moment either as an antidote to Islam. In fact, I can't think of a single case in which either freedom or enforced politeness working. The only time it has been tried, actually, is the Austro-Hungarian Empire, where there were even more "anti-racism" type laws than there are now in Europe, and we all know how hand-holdingly peaceful that turned out to be.

The simplistic slogan claiming that freedom has to be defended is not merely an empty platitude.

[cybercoma]

Talk about religious and moral solipsism... How convenient to have been born to Christian parents, so that you might be on the "right" side of the argument. Religion on all sides has warped the minds of good people allowing them to justify terrible things for their God. The things done in Muslim nations are certainly worse; however, those people are far less educated, much poorer and have theocratic dictatorships.

That doesn't mean there aren't problems inherent with Christianity in the United States. For example, Evangelists saying 9/11 and Katrina are punishment to a country that is beginning to put an end to the oppression of homosexuals and women. Not to mention a president who claims God told him to go to war in the middle east.

Right. And the neighbours dog has been telling me to kill people, too.

[ScottSA]

Talk about religious and moral solipsism... How convenient to have been born to Christian parents, so that you might be on the "right" side of the argument. Religion on all sides has warped the minds of good people allowing them to justify terrible things for their God. The things done in Muslim nations are certainly worse; however, those people are far less educated, much poorer and have theocratic dictatorships.

That doesn't mean there aren't problems inherent with Christianity in the United States. For example, Evangelists saying 9/11 and Katrina are punishment to a country that is beginning to put an end to the oppression of homosexuals and women. Not to mention a president who claims God told him to go to war in the middle east.

Right. And the neighbours dog has been telling me to kill people, too.

WTF are you even talking about? Are there crusades going on that only you know about? Are there similar terror bombings and threats of terror bombings around the world by Christians that no one but you know about? I know it's frustrating to be defending something that simply can't be defended, but don't make a total ass of yourself trying...

[cybercoma]

WTF are you even talking about? Are there crusades going on that only you know about? Are there similar terror bombings and threats of terror bombings around the world by Christians that no one but you know about? I know it's frustrating to be defending something that simply can't be defended, but don't make a total ass of yourself trying...

I never once compared the two. Christianity doesn't get a free ride because Islam is worse.

You sound like someone who justifies beating his wife because afterall.... it could be worse.

[ScottSA]

WTF are you even talking about? Are there crusades going on that only you know about? Are there similar terror bombings and threats of terror bombings around the world by Christians that no one but you know about? I know it's frustrating to be defending something that simply can't be defended, but don't make a total ass of yourself trying...

I never once compared the two. Christianity doesn't get a free ride because Islam is worse.

You sound like someone who justifies beating his wife because afterall.... it could be worse.

And you sound like someone looking at picture books about dinosaurs to remove your concerns about the herd of elephants stampeding toward you. Again, WTF?

[jdobbin]

I tend to think most atheists are not in the least evangelical about it. They don't debate the subject because it doesn't occur to do them to do so, And when asked about God, they often shrug and simply believe they don't believe in one.

[ScottSA]

I tend to think most atheists are not in the least evangelical about it. They don't debate the subject because it doesn't occur to do them to do so, And when asked about God, they often shrug and simply believe they don't believe in one.

You don't consider the following atheistic evangelicalism?

Talk about religious and moral solipsism... How convenient to have been born to Christian parents, so that you might be on the "right" side of the argument. Religion on all sides has warped the minds of good people allowing them to justify terrible things for their God. The things done in Muslim nations are certainly worse; however, those people are far less educated, much poorer and have theocratic dictatorships.

That doesn't mean there aren't problems inherent with Christianity in the United States. For example, Evangelists saying 9/11 and Katrina are punishment to a country that is beginning to put an end to the oppression of homosexuals and women. Not to mention a president who claims God told him to go to war in the middle east.

Right. And the neighbours dog has been telling me to kill people, too.

[jdobbin]

You don't consider the following atheistic evangelicalism?

Talk about religious and moral solipsism... How convenient to have been born to Christian parents, so that you might be on the "right" side of the argument. Religion on all sides has warped the minds of good people allowing them to justify terrible things for their God. The things done in Muslim nations are certainly worse; however, those people are far less educated, much poorer and have theocratic dictatorships.

That doesn't mean there aren't problems inherent with Christianity in the United States. For example, Evangelists saying 9/11 and Katrina are punishment to a country that is beginning to put an end to the oppression of homosexuals and women. Not to mention a president who claims God told him to go to war in the middle east.

Right. And the neighbours dog has been telling me to kill people, too.

Most atheists wouldn't even lift a finger to post in a religious thread. They don't usually announce they are atheists. Why would they? It really doesn't matter to them.

[cybercoma]

Most atheists would even lift a finger to post in a religious thread. They don't usually announce they are atheists. Why would they? It really doesn't matter to them.

Sorry, I find it hard not to say anything when religious people do things like welcome the death of innocent people because it is God's judgment for a society that refuses to discriminate against homosexuals. I find that kind of ignorance to be intolerable.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sorry, I find it hard not to say anything when religious people do things like welcome the death of innocent people because it is God's judgment for a society that refuses to discriminate against homosexuals. I find that kind of ignorance to be intolerable.

Intolerant of ignorance....isn't that "intolerable"?