timeimmortal

Joel writes in again (twice!) to follow up on my previous response to him. I observe that the host for the communication was at atc.army.mil — the Aberdeen Test Center. Very interesting; the last atheist-in-uniform I tangled with was a fellow who went by the handle of Cartese. His arguments were that theists should, at best, be declared mentally unfit to vote/drive/own property…in his worst moments, he advocated for the open slaughter of the religious.

Joel seems substantially more moderate, which is good. Still, it has been my observation that debates with atheists can very quickly become ugly affairs; time will tell if this discussion goes down that all-too-familiar road.

At any rate, here is the first of two responses Joel sent in:

I appreciate your response to my email.

Apparently, given your reply, I didn’t make something clear.

I can only intelligently speak about atheism in the U.S.. Were I to speak about atheism in China or the Middle East, I would surely be a fool since I have never lived in eithr region, nor spoken with any atheists from those areas. Hence my points 1 & 2.

I suspect that atheists in various areas focus their efforts on the dominant Religion. But, again, I can only speak about atheism in the U.S.

Next, I consider Mormons and jehovah’s witnesses to be christian sects. They believe in Jesus and the Bible. Christian. I’m not sure there’s any meaningful distinctions here. God, Jesus, Bible.

Hence point #3.

I don’t know actual statistics, however if you know that Muslims proseletyze more than Christians, I’ll concede the point.

If I am myopic, I am at least honest about it. I believed, perhaps incorrectly, that my email made it clear I was only speaking about the U.S.. If that wasn’t clear, then I apologize.

Joel is quite welcome, of course, O Reader. And in turn, both for remaining reasonable into the second round and for the chance to discuss topics that I haven’t directly engaged in a while, I’d like to offer my thanks in turn to Joel. This is good…this is really good.

When religion is at issue, I think it is — or should be — necessary for any would-be commentator to keep firmly in mind the global picture, because religion transcends regional boundaries; Catholicism is represented on every continent and in almost every country on Earth, for example. So, for the most part, is Islam. So, for the most part, is atheism, and one would hope that it would be apparent that philosophical conjectures of every flavour are far larger things than the raw limits of a national boundary.

To put it another way, consider: if one based one’s opinions about American Christians solely on one’s observations of Christians in the state of…say…Utah, one would be left with an inaccurate picture of Christianity in America. Similarly, if one based one’s opinions about global Christianity solely on one’s experience of American Christians, one would be left with an inaccurate picture of Christ’s followers world-wide. For example, one would probably have a very inaccurate picture of the expanse and teachings of Catholicism, which is the majority Christian religion world-wide and yet a minority in the U.S.

I submit that the same is true of atheism. Therefore, limiting one’s consideration and disucssion to the peculiarities of a philosophical conjecture such as atheism to those found only in one small region of the globe is indeed rather myopic, and perhaps even borders on willful ignorance. The atheism of Sam Harris (an American) is related to, but still very different from, the atheism of Richard Dawkins (a Briton). And to be perfectly fair, the atheism of Richard Dawkins is related to, but still very different from, the atheism of Michael Onfray (a Frenchman).

However, what is most interesting about what Joel has said, O Reader, is his demonstrated ignorance where even American Christianity is concerned, for there is a great deal more to being Christian than simply “God, Jesus, Bible.” While the various Christian demoninations disagree sharply on different points of doctrine and the source of justification in Christ (i.e. faith vs. Grace), anyone who professes to be a Christian must, at minimum, acknowledge the following:

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

That is the Nicene Creed, promulgated in 381 as a definitive articulation of what Christian faith is, at its very minimum. It is all well and good that Joel personally considers Jehovahs and Mormons to be “Christian sects,” but the truth is that they are not particularly Christian, despite the invocation of Christ. Specifically, Jehovahs deny the trinitarian unity of God and Jesus; they believe Jesus is a wholly separate entity from God. They further believe that Jesus also appeared, in the recorded text of the Bible, as the archangel Michael and as Abaddon (c.f Revelation 9:11).

Some might dismiss this as a minor difference, but since Jesus — in his own words — claimed “oneness” with God the Father, the fact that Jehovahs do not acknowledge the Trinity renders them effectively non-Christian, despite the fact that they recognize Christ*.

Mormons likewise dispute the Nicene Creed’s concept of the Trinity, and so render themselves non-Christian in the most honest and basic sense of the term. Obviously, there are a lot of disputes around this, and obviously most mainstream Christians recognize at least some kinship of faith between themselves and both Jehovahs and Mormons. At the end of the day, though, Jesus and his apostles both spoke plainly enough (c.f. John 10:30, 20:28) about the unity that existed between God the Father and God the Son.

As to who proselytizes the most, I don’t have concrete numbers. But then, I’m not sure that the raw numbers are the important factor for consideration; most Western (and some Eastern) religions, faiths, and philosophical conjectures have an evangelical aspect to them…even atheism. The question, then, is not simply about who proselytizes, but about what religion the one who proselytizes follows — i.e. what religion is being “sold” (to use a crude term for it).

When an atheist attempts to evangelize, he or she is obviously not “selling” the same “stuff” as a Christian would be during an evangelical enterprise. And neither of them are “selling” the same “stuff” as a Muslim would be during an act of evangelism. The act of evangelism is not the important consideration; the “stuff” being “sold” is. What is each person “selling” by their efforts? What are the tenets of their faith? These are the more important questions to ask, because not all faiths are the same. Atheism is not the same as Christianity, which in turn is not the same as Islam, which in turn is very different from Judaism or Hinduism.

It is not enough to simply consider that something is being preached, then; what must be considered is what is being preached. What is being preached by Christian evangelists? What is being preached by atheist evangelists? What is being preached by Muslim evangelists? Which denominations of each faith or philosophy are the most active in terms of their evangelical efforts?

Setting aside pseudo-Christian sects like Jehovahs and Mormons, I can’t put my finger on exactly which strain of American Christianity is most active in its evangelical efforts (my mind tends to drift toward thinking it’s either the Baptists or the non-denominational “free” Evangelicals, who are rooted primarily in Pentecostal teachings).

As a Catholic, I obviously have my disagreements with both Baptist and Pentecostal theology, and certainly I disagree with members of those churches who…say…oppose the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools. On the other hand, I agree strongly with them when they stand up in favour of the traditional definition of marriage, or when they oppose embryonic stem cell research.

And I have to say: though I disagree with them over the evolution issue, their proselytism is, on the whole, generally not a bad thing. Most of them are earnestly convinced, as I am, that Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Light, who died and rose again for the salvation of all mankind from their sins. Take a look again at the Nicene Creed (above), O Reader: that’s what a Christian evangelist is attempting to bring into the lives of others. It’s not a bad thing to bring at all; it is not antithetical to reason, it is not dark or sinister — indeed, it is joyous news. A genuine Christian evangelist brings first and foremost this message to the unbeliever: “You are loved.”

Atheists the world over are, of course, welcome to dispute specific tenets of the various Christian faiths, and are encouraged to dispute the silly opposition some Christians have to the teaching of the theory of evolution in science classes. Indeed, atheists are even welcome to dispute the central thrust of the Christian evangelical message — they are welcome to deny that some transcendental divinity loves them, personally, as an individual.

But there is no inherent threat or danger in the Christian evangelical message; there is no subversion of reason, no need to abandon all other things that one knows, and no need to sacrifice one’s freedom (except perhaps in the sense that, if one’s conversion is true and motivates a change of heart, one might give up certain aspects of one’s lifestyle that one comes to realize are immoral — but even this is not a negative thing). And even when Christian evangelists focus on negatives — for example, the impending danger of eternal damnation — one cannot say that their hearts are not still in a good place; I wish Hell upon no man, nor on any woman, and no earnest Christian ever should. One can hardly fault Christians, then, for wanting to try and convince as many people as they can to turn away from something so horrible, even if it means that their evangelical rhetoric is not the most…palatable.

Now, I’ll grant that some Christian evangelists (a minority, thankfully) go astray from the above — Jack Chick fans are an easy example here. That is a pity, and such men and women do Christianity no credit. But it has to be observed, on the other hand, that most mainstream Christians look at such men and women and shake their heads; many also vocally denounce the errors such men and women make (I certainly do, as the long-time Reader will doubtless know).

What of Muslim evangelism? What is being “sold” therein? While moderate strains of Islam do exist, it has to be noted that the majority of Islamic schools, lobby groups, and evangelical ministries seem to be funded by either the Iranians (on the Shia side) or the Saudi Arabians (on the Sunni side). That in turn means that a goodly number of Muslim evangelical efforts are “selling” a more radicalized form of Islam that, while it may not be as vocal in opposing the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools, harbours substantially darker things beneath its surface — misogyny, violent rhetoric, the infidel/non-infidel hostile dichotomy, and the dar-al-Islam/dar-al-Harb conflict model view of the world. In many parts of the world, and America is not exempt, Muslim imams call for a new global caliphate and the subversion of all world governments under one Islamic order.

There is, then, something of an inherent threat in the main form of Muslim evangelism in the world today. And the peculiar myopia of atheism, as I have noted previously, is that atheists prefer to heap their opposition and condemnations upon benign Christianity while simultaneously ignoring (to the point of actively denying, as Joel did in his first letter, that other religions even engage in proseltyism to any meaningful extent) more malignant religions in their midst. I cannot be certain why this is; fear of seeming racist, perhaps? The only atheistic author I can think of who has devoted any meaningful amount of attention to the threat of Islam is Christopher Hitchens, and even then he goes somewhat astray by attempting to framework his objections to Christianity based on the transgressions and violence of Islam.

I got that Joel was speaking primarily about America in his first e-mail, and perhaps I was not clear enough in turn: that he limited himself thusly was one of problems. The other, of course, is that he seems to be sorely misinformed about both religious trends in America and in the world, and that he is woefully ignorant about what Christian faith constitutes.

I termed this “myopia,” and have pointed out why limiting one’s considerations to the extent that Joel has done is folly.

Speaking of myopia, I should post Joel’s second response:

OK, so here is actual myopia.

I simply assumed this blog was U.S. based. Which caused me to write my original email with that context in mind. ugh.

(note to self: try reading the FAQ before assuming facts not in evidence)

O Reader, this would hardly be the first time I’ve been mistaken for an American. I don’t know why American readers instinctively assume that this blog has a U.S. origin, but it does happen fairly often; curious indeed. At any rate, no harm done (and a good laugh was had).

I might suggest that the same principle — reading before assuming — would be a good habit for Joel to get in to regarding any further objections to religion he makes in which he attempts to argue from the principles of the religion being opposed. His dismissal of Christianity as being about “God, Jesus, Bible” demonstrates an unfortunate ignorance on his part. Fortunately, though, the remedy is easy enough.

* simply recognizing Christ’s divinity does not automatically make one Christian; just ask the Druze

Erf writes in with some potentially encouraging news. Following on the heels of the outcome of elections in northern Pakistan (in which Islamist parties lost, heavily), the possibility of a theological reformation in Islam is an exciting prospect indeed.

Erf, thank you for the update. I’d missed this story in the BBC newsfeed.

Wow — it looks like there’s a major reformation of Islam in progress in Turkey, according to BBC News. They’re reinterpereting what’s described as Islam’s second most fundamental text, the Hadith, applying the sort of analysis and verification techniques developed for the study of the Bible and other early religious texts. They mention specifically that all this violence againste and oppression of women going on in modern “Islam” was never intended by Muhommad and doesn’t belong. They even talk about interpereting statements and messages in the context of the culture and times in which they were given. For example, from the article:

“There are some messages that ban women from travelling for three days or more without their husband’s permission and they are genuine.

“But this isn’t a religious ban. It came about because in the Prophet’s time it simply wasn’t safe for a woman to travel alone like that. But as time has passed, people have made permanent what was only supposed to be a temporary ban for safety reasons.”

Here’s hoping this works, and spreads…

I would have to agree — this sort of reformative thinking must spread, and must be encouraged in its spread by…religious leaders in the West, Islamic and non-Islamic alike.

Of potential concern is the mention of how they are going to attempt to apply ” the sort of analysis and verification techniques developed for the study of the Bible and other early religious texts” to the Hadith. The University of the Saarland demonstrated a while ago (although they kept it under wraps until just recently) that when the Koran is held up to such analytical standards, its validity as a divinely inspired text rapidly crumbles, and it can demonstrably be shown to not have been dictated by the Archangel Gabriel at all — in fact, it was redacted from many extra-canonical Jewish and Christian (or Gnostic) sources.

Now, the Hadith are, if memory serves, the recorded sayings and teachings of Muhammad after he authored the Koran. Both Sunni and Shia Islam accept the validity of the Hadith in general, although the Shia Hadith also allows for the addition of additional traditions and teachings transmitted through the line of Muhammed descended from Fatima Zahra. Sunni Muslims would not recognize the validity of these additional teachings.

It would be interesting to see what would result from some genuine religious scholarly investigation of the Hadith, and one would certainly hope that at the outcome of such an investigation, a movement could get underway to attempt to reverse some of the many backward, barbaric, and misogynistic tendencies one sees in Islam the world over, and in Sharia law in particular.

But in particular, the best one can hope is that the scholars who are commissioned to do this research are able to approach their subject with no pre-existing bias or opinion about the Hadith’s teachings or the intent of Muhammad when he gave the teachings that he did. If they can do that much, this study might have some very good outcomes. Or, at least, some very honest outcomes.

RightGirl puts in a comment on Islam that I admit gives me pause:

It used to be easy for me to say that if you want to live under 7th century Sharia, go back to Crapistan and do it there. After all, why come to the free West, right? But I now realize that the whole point of coming here was to take over. Our touchy-feely naiveté leads us to believe they are “escapees” and “refugees”, running from oppression. But in fact they have sought out free lands in order to spread that oppression in the name of the devil Allah.

Even up to very recently I believed that the women of Islam were oppressed and that they should be freed. This, I have come to learn, is utter hogwash. On more than one occasion we have seen the women take up arms, the women strap on explosives, the women preach jihad to their sons and husbands. Enough is enough. Our leaders - be they political or religious - are too wrapped up in politically-correct doublespeak to be able to defend us from this insidious evil. It saddens me that it’s up to a bunch of bloggers and cartoonists to save the world from the new Caliphate, but I have seen more guts come from Dutch filmmakers than I have from my own government, who no longer even believe in freedom of the press.

I cannot advocate open season on Muslims in the street. But I think for our own sakes we make ready for the coming onslaught, and brace ourselves to fight them. Not in Afghanistan and Iraq, but in London and Toronto and Detroit. And the first way we can fight them - a way that will not cause bloodshed by any act of our own hands - is to say NO. No to Sharia. No to Islamic banking and trade. No to muzzeins screeching at dawn. No to polygamy and incestuous marriages. No to welfare for those perfectly capable of working - like our Khadr family here in Toronto. No to visas and citizenships for terrorists. No, no, no.

I’m reminded of Lenin’s (at least, I think it was Lenin) observation that capitalism would sell the rope to hang itself with to the communists. In a perverse sort of way, I think the same may be true of the tendency toward multiculturalism in most Western nations — that is the rope that we may well end up hanging from. It’s really just a question, I suppose, of whether the hangmen will be Sunni or Shia.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

I’m thinking that Philip Carl Salzman’s article may see its author charged with a hate crime before too long.

Today’s religious map of the Middle East traces to the unification of the Arabian tribes under the banner of Islam in the 7th century, and their subsequent conquest of much of the known world. Muhammad’s genius was in finding a way to unite the myriad of fissiparous, feuding Bedouin tribes of northern Arabia into a cohesive polity. Just as he had provided a constitution of rules under which the people of Medina could live together, so he provided a constitution for all Arabs, but this one had the imprimatur not just of Muhammad, but of God. Submission — Islam — to God and His rules, spelled out in the Koran, bound Arabian tribesmen into the community of believers, the umma.

Building on the tribal system of “balanced opposition” — the subject of yesterday’s essay — Muhammad was able to frame an inclusive structure within which the tribes had a common, God-given identity as Muslims. But unification was only possible by creating a tribalized enemy against which Muslims could make common cause. This Muhammad did by opposing Muslims against infidels; and the dar al-Islam, the land of Islam and peace, against the dar al-harb, the land of infidels and conflict. Through the precepts of Islam, traditional Bedouin raiding was sanctified as an act of religious duty.

With every successful battle against local unbelievers, especially after the critical early battle against the Meccans, more Bedouin joined the umma. Once united, the Bedouin warriors of the umma turned outward, teaching the world the meaning of jihad, holy war. The rest, as they say, is history.

The Arabs, in lightning thrusts, challenged and beat the Byzantines to the north and the Persians to the east, both weakened by their continuous wars with one another, thus imposing their control over the Christian majority in the Levant and the Zoroastrian majority in Persia, and therefore over the entire Middle East. These stunning successes were rapidly followed by conquests of Christian and Jewish populations in Egypt, Libya and North Africa’s Maghreb (Arabic for “the West”), and, in the east, central Asia and the Hindu population of northern India. Not content with these triumphs, Arab armies invaded and subdued much of Christian Spain and Portugal, and all of Sicily. Since the Roman Empire, the world had not seen such power and reach. All fell before the Saracen blades.

Most accounts of Islamic history, even that of the Lindholm’s esteemed The Islamic Middle East, glide over these conquests, as if they were friendly takeovers. But the truth was very different.

The evidence is overwhelming that vast numbers of infidel male warriors and civilians were slain, and that most of those spared, particularly the women and children, were enslaved for domestic and sexual servitude. While men who willingly converted were spared, their wives and children were taken as slaves. In conquered regions, children were regularly taken from parents, while on the borders — especially in Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Africa south of the Sahara — raiding for slaves was normal practice. Of the male slaves, a substantial number were made eunuchs by the removal of sex organs, in order to serve in harems. This account of the Arab campaign in northern India illustrates the usual procedures:

“During the Arab invasion of Sindh (712 CE), Muhammad bin Qasim first attacked Debal. It was garrisoned by 4,000 Kshatriya soldiers and served by 3,000 Brahmans. All males of the age of 17 and upwards were put to the sword and their women and children were enslaved. “[Seven hundred] beautiful females, who were under the protection of Budh (that is, had taken shelter in the temple), were all captured with their valuable ornaments, and clothes adorned with jewels.” Muhammad dispatched one-fifth of the legal spoil to Hajjaj, which included 75 damsels, the other four-fifths were distributed among soldiers.”

The multitude of reports from Muslim, indigenous and other sources of the Islamic conquests are equally detailed and equally daunting to a modern reader. It is true that throughout history intergroup relations in most of the world were exploitative and repressive, and not infrequently brutal and bloodthirsty. The world of Islam was not so much an exception to this, as exemplary of it.

The theological foundation of the Arab Empire was the supremacy of Islam and the obligation of each Muslim to advance its domination. The notion of Jihad, in particular, served to establish the Muslim community’s permanent state of war against the dar al-harb until the infidels’ conclusive submission and the absolute world supremacy of Islam.

Yet even as Islamic armies were coming to dominate the known world, fissures emerged within Islam, which would give rise to the bloody internecine battles that continue to this day in Iraq and elsewhere.

Most notably, the relentless oppositions within tribal life have been reflected on a large scale in the battles between Sunni vs. Shiite, a battle originating in a squabble between closely related kin groups over the leadership of the Islamic empire following Muhammad’s death. Their divergent philosophical orientations are based on two tribal principles: Sunnism recognizes leaders based on consent; Shiism recognizes leaders based on descent. The continued anatagonism between the two groups constitutes one of the many ways in which the tribal spirit continues its dominance in the Middle East.

The history of the Middle East, and of Islam, is fascinating, but it is also blood-soaked beyond even the wildest excesses of the Crusades (although it admittedly pales in comparison to the body-counts of the Soviets and the Chinese). But we may yet see a day come in Canada where it is a punishable offence to even mention that fact. Until then, though, I’ve re-posted the length of Salzman’s article here, because it contains in it too much detail to pass up losing once the National Post website cycles it out of the archive.

Blog as newspaper clipping folder.