Chris Morris is missing the point in The absurd world of Martin Amis (in response to this). These concepts are more complex than Amis would have us believe, he says, but doesn't go on to point out what any of these complexities are, nor why they effect Amis' central thesis - Islamism is a problem.
To reveal my own biases: I take a dim view if any kind of systematic irrational thought of belief, and a dimmer view still of organisations based upon them. On the whole, I don't care much about the details of the irrationality. I don't care which particular flavour of invisible friend people chose to be obsequious to.
But we can't totally ignore the fact that religions do differ in the extent to which they tolerate those who do not share their delusions. You don't get Jain suicide bombers, for instance, and I don't believe that that's wholly due to economic or political circumstances.
In Tulna's case, it's probably also due to not wanting to get blood on her Jimmy Choos. But I digress...
Certainly, we shouldn't single out Islam - the Christian Zionists have more than their share of blood on their hands too.
Of course, the majority of the followers of these belief systems don't use violence. The books at their centers contradict themselves, and people can take very different messages away from them. I suspect that people take away whatever suits their temperament. But that doesn't mean that the non-fanatics aren't part of the problem - they are legitimising the belief system upon which these atrocities depend. We should just leave the whole sordid lot in the history books where it belongs.
I've just been reading Hitchens again. You might have guessed. ;-)Posted to Atheism by Simon Brunning at November 26, 2007 01:54 PM