• Why Dhimmi atheism doesn’t work

    I shouldn’t keep doing this to myself – reading FtB is one of the top three causes of brain cancer (or so I’m lead to believe) – but it does at least furnish me with examples of spectacularly bad faith and bad thinking.

    Case in point, this post by Myers in which he praises Glenn Greenwald for attacking Sam Harris.  You get three guesses why, and the first two don’t count.  It is because Sam Harris understands that Islam is a unique menace.  What tickled me in particular was the following:

    the kind of ideas espoused by Harris are harmful to the propagation of a diverse, world-wide, tolerant atheism … I am also peeved every time an atheist shouts that Islam is an existential threat, therefore we shouldn’t waste our time on trivial problems at home.

    I will never cease to be amazed at the utter parochialism of the FtB crowd.  I’m European.  This is my home.  Islam is a problem at home for me.  But the good little dhimmi Myers thinks that people like me should be ignored, and, in fact, nothing but the parochial concerns of the comfortable US middle class left should be considered.

    The reason I am particularly furious today is that it looks like the Spanish government is going to deport an ex-Muslim to Indonesia to face certain death.  That actually matters far more to me then the pathetic whining over a Hawaiian shirt.  As I have had cause to say to people like this before: “If you turn your back on me and mine, why should I not turn my back on you?”

    This dhimmi atheism, which is happy to shout when it’s safe and clams up at the menace of Islam, isn’t just parochial, cowardly, insufferable and chauvinistic.  It is actively dangerous.  First of all, the conflation of criticism of Islam with racism and prejudice, as is done exactly by people like Myers and Greenwald, was what lead to no action being taken over the rape and exploitation of fourteen hundred girls in Rotherham.  So it is people exactly like Myers and Greenwald who are responsible for a real rape culture.

    Second, and I will keep banging on about this, it discredits the case for atheism and secularism.  If this tendency becomes seen as synonymous with atheism, then people will turn elsewhere.  If ‘atheists’ are seen as being loudmouths when it’s safe and as silent went it comes to the menace of Islam, it means that people will start to look elsewhere.  The reason that Breivik decided to kill seventy-seven people was, in his own words, that he’d observed that the liberal mainstream would howl down anyone who just tried to argue their case, but caved completely when it came to the threat of physical violence.  The Shiv Sena have noticed the same thing.

    [UPDATE:  Just to make this crystal clear, since I’m apparently being misread, the point is as follows: when the liberal mainstream advertises that it will cave at the very hint of violence, that provides an incentive to those willing to use violence.  The Western left has built a perfect engine of excuses for homicidal fascism and have never bothered to ask itself – what happens on the day that other violent  groups decide to make use of it.]

    As I’ve noted before, Vladimir Putin is positioning himself as the protector of Greater Europe.  His government is moving not just to ban the hijab, but significant sections of the Islamic canon too.

    So dhimmi atheists are not just useful idiots for Islam – they are useful idiots for every illiberal force that will step into that vacuum.

    Category: atheismIslamJihad

    Article by: The Prussian

    • Did you mean to cite Breivik approvingly? I cannot get behind that.

      • PubliusCorneliusScipio

        Understanding of his complaints and motivations and condoning of his actions are not synonymous.

      • ThePrussian

        Of course not! Look, if I were to write: “The failure to react to the militarization of the Rheinland signaled weakness that Hitler took advantage of, and the allies were idiots not to see it” – am I then defending Hitler? Or would I be defending the Nazis if I say that the utter failure of the social democratic parties to address the crises of Weimar Germany drove some to vote for the Nazis? Is that a defense? Or if I point out that the default on the subject of racism in segregated America and Apartheid South Africa by the political right saw many good people go along with communists – is that a defense of Communism?

        I am in no way a defender of Breivik – I am saying that he saw weakness and decided to take advantage. He saw that the lefty mainstream shows boundless indulgence and acquiescence to the demands of Islamic fanatics, because they back their demands with violence – and thought, “Hey! I could get me a piece of that action!”

        • The thing about the militarization of the Rheinland — and the allies non-response — is that those things actually happened and we can cite source after source backing that up. The thing about Breivik’s stated views on the lefty mainstream in Europe is that they are the subjective opinions of a deranged mass-murderer. Probably not your best go-to for making a strong case.

          • ThePrussian

            ? I fail to see why. The point’s the same – a fanatic saw weakness and exploited it.

            • The weakness in one case is clear-cut and historically attested, in the other case not so much.

            • ThePrussian

              Really? Did you see the way various governments behaved after the cartoon riots? The way that after every atrocity we have fools wittering that ‘Islam is a religion of peace’? The way that people speaking against Islam are howled down in public, while Muslim fanatics get no similar treatment?

              Weakness is provocative.

          • PubliusCorneliusScipio

            People don’t react to “facts”; they react to their perception of what the facts are, however unfounded.

            Even deranged mass murderers can have thoughts, views and opinions that are not entirely wrong.

            In this particular, I agree to some degree with Breivik’s assessment.

    • PubliusCorneliusScipio

      There seems to be some conflating of “atheism” and “the atheist movement”.

      One can quite happily and profoundly be an atheist, and neither know nor care who Sam Harris and P.Z. Myers are or what they think.

      A person who worships the “right God” in the wrong way is deemed to be a heretic; there seems to be an attempt to establish heresy for atheism: “the wrong way to believe in no gods”. This is not just incredibly stupid, it is immensely ironic.

      • ThePrussian

        I’m discussing what the public face of atheism is, and how we ‘market’ the idea.

        N.B.: I never can get a hold on your views. Could you expand on them a little further? I’m honestly curious.

        • PubliusCorneliusScipio

          Expanding: There are a lot of people expressing ideas about what being an atheist implies, what it entails and what that says about the person. (Atheists are smarter, more moral, less moral, the bane of society, the salvation of society, etc…).

          There are also people expressing views about what a “good atheist” ought to be: (Against islam in particular, for social justice and gender equality, etc….)

          It is my opinion that people come to be atheists in all manner of ways: some lose their faith, some reason it out, some are brought up to it,and so on. It says nothing about the person EXCEPT that they do not believe in god(s) .

          For similar reasons, there is no one way an atheist “ought” to think or act. Atheist can be and are Democrats or Republicans, Liberals or Conservatives, scientifically minded or flat-earthers, sinners or saintly, and this does not make them any more or less atheists.

          Expressing the opinion that BECAUSE someone is an atheist they should do, feel or think anything at all is, in MY strongly felt opinion, quite foolish.

          I hope that this a clearer statement of my position.

    • NoCrossNoCrescent

      Isn’t PZ attacking a straw man? I mean, where did he get the “we shouldn’t worry about things here” bit? After all Sam Harris was as fierce a critic of Bush administration’s theocratic policies as any.

    • kraut2

      Good that you talk about the boundless parochialism of sites like FTB and I think Patheos could be included here. I live in Canada. but still have ample connections to the fatherland and the now extended fatherland.
      And any idiot who does not see the problems Muslim religion and the unwillingness by many Muslims to integrate causes is just is not connected to the realities of a continent, which not only includes Europe but Asia as well.
      I remember the flack I got when I praised the Russians in a post on Patheos how they dealt with jihadis in Chechnya.
      Sure it was not petty, but it was effective against a menace threatening the area.

      • NoCrossNoCrescent

        Kraut, many times as we have clashed, I still want you to know that I value your opinion even though I often don’t agree with you.

        • kraut2

          Understood. What bothered me was your suggestion not to continue to challenge you on your own blog, or better the question why I continue to respond when I obviously disagree with some of your posts.

          This I found unworthy of you.