A new horseperson? Jeffrey Tayler rides again, attacking Obama’s execrable performance at the “National Prayer Breakfast”

February 16, 2015 • 11:30 am

Jeffrey Tayler, whose articles I’ve highlighted four times previously, is shaping up to be the new “Strident Atheist” to replace Christopher Hitchens, although I’d really nominate the underappreciated Ayaan Hirsi Ali to be Hitchens’s replacement horseperson.  (Why, when atheists call for greater diversity in New Atheism, arguing that it’s dominated by “rich old white men”, do they neglect Hirsi Ali, who is black, a woman, an ex-Muslim, relatively young, enormously accomplished, and with two excellent books under her belt? She’s lived the horrors that the rest of us only observe and criticize from afar. Yet she’s denigrated for working for a conservative think tank. But that’s just dumb, for she’s a liberal and they let her say what she wants.)

But I digress. Tayler is a contributing editor at The Atlantic, and doesn’t pull any punches when it comes to calling out faith, or, in his newest article, Obama’s unctuous coddling of religion at this month’s National Prayer Breakfast.

Tayler’s piece is called, awkwardly, “Faith-fueled forces of hatred: Obama’s religion speech was troubling—but not for the reasons the right alleges.” The subtitle is “It’s not that religion gets twisted and misused for evil. The cruelty is embedded in the very texts.” And it’s in Salon, which in other places has heaped the greatest scorn on New Atheism. Tayler himself can’t redeem that odious site, but his piece is very good. You should read it.

I talked a bit about the prayer breakfast on MSNBC (at least as far as Lawrence O’Donnell would let me speak), and echoed Tayler’s thesis, which is pretty much embodied in his title. But his prose is sharp and blunt at the same time, and reminds me a lot of Hitchens.  Here are a few quotes that should inspire you to read the article:

Progressives, it turns out, actually have more reason for rancor. Start with Obama’s attendance itself. No functionary, least of all the Democratic president of a country with a government proudly founded on the separation between Church and State, should show up at such an affair in an official capacity. Doing so lends credence to faiths that, by any humane standard, long ago discredited themselves and should certainly not be legitimized with Washingtonian pomp and reverence.

Indeed, and we still have a National Day of Prayer, which survived a constitutionality challenge by the Freedom from Religion Foundation. But seriously, can you imagine such a thing being officially proclaimed in France, Germany, or Sweden? It’s embarrassing, and really, it is unconstitutional. And Obama’s pandering to faith at the stupid Prayer Breakfasts is unseemly.

Tayler goes on, emphasizing a point I feel strongly about (and will post on tomorrow): whether or not ISIS and similar organizations represent “truth faith.” Of course they do! It’s just a form of faith different from other people’s! It’s like saying that a schizophrenic who thinks he’s Jesus has a truer form of delusion than one who thinks he’s Napoleon.  Tayler:

Soon after, Obama launched into what so riled conservatives — musings about faith being, as he put it, “twisted and misused in the name of evil.” His words deserve close scrutiny. I’ll quote at length:

“From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact, are betraying it. We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism — terrorizing religious minorities like the Yazidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.”

“Betraying” Islam? Really? The Charlie Hebdo assassins were executing the death penalty against “violators” of injunctions inscribed in the Quran and the Hadith that forbid the depiction and mocking of the Prophet Muhammad. Indeed, Al Qaeda and ISIS, to which the killers may have been linked, find sanction in these texts for beheadings, the enslavement of women and much else. To justifiably claim that any of these jihadis are “betraying” Islam, we have to ignore the meaning of words in such injunctions and interpret them to suit our tastes. Unfortunately, neither the Charlie Hebdo assassins nor the butchers of ISIS choose to do this.

I’d love to see Tayler debate Reza Aslan. He goes on in this vein, and eventually works himself up to sounding positively Hitchens-ian:

Obama went on to blame [religiously inspired violence’ on “a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith.” But slaughter and mutilation occur as natural, almost inevitable phenomena among those believers – and they have been no trifling minority – who take literally their canon’s commands to conduct themselves savagely. After all, if, as a wannabe martyr, you think you’re carrying out the demands of “the Almighty,” with everlasting hellfire or the threescore and twelve virgins of paradise as the stakes, what will you not do?

We should not ascribe vile behavior to misreadings of the canon. It does not help us to suppose that its all-too-human authors penned words like “behead” and “enslave” expecting that they would be metaphorically interpreted. (You can perhaps imagine the absurdity of one of the benighted scribes, resurrected before a Religion 101 class, declaring, “By ‘smite off the infidels’ heads’ I really meant ‘give the unbelievers a stiff talking-to.’”)  After all, they were writing in barbarous ages. The inevitable conclusion: Most folk of the faiths in question behave decently only to the extent that they “pervert and distort” – that is, ignore – the more macabre dictates of their sacred credos.

And finally, a rousing peroration:

Instead, after some bland excogitations on rights to freedom of speech and religion, [Obama] declared:

“. . . the protection of these rights calls for each of us to exercise civility and restraint and judgment. And if, in fact, we defend the legal right of a person to insult another’s religion, we’re equally obligated to use our free speech to condemn such insults and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with religious communities, particularly religious minorities who are the targets of such attacks. Just because you have the right to say something doesn’t mean the rest of us shouldn’t question those who would insult others in the name of free speech.”

Here Obama obliquely incriminates the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists for the satire of the Prophet Muhammad that led to their deaths. This is outrageous. It is not up to the president or any other government official to pronounce on the artists’ motives. In drawing their images, they were not so much acting “in the name of free speech” as exercising their lawful right to free speech. This in no way constitutes an “attack” on anyone. Obama’s use of the word implies that they deserved what they got. Such clever verbiage really signals one thing: capitulation. Easier to pay false homage to the ideals of multiculturalism than to state the politically inconvenient truth: Islamists murdered cartoonists for their cartoons.

And neither President Obama nor anyone else in the government should dare tell us that we are “obligated to use our free speech” to denounce anyone for insulting religion. The First Amendment contains no proviso regarding insults, let alone excluding them from its protection; that would eviscerate the very right the amendment proclaims. To be free, speech must be free to offend. Even less are we required to show solidarity with “religious communities” of any stripe, no matter what the issue. Rather, we should stand for rationalism and the values of the Enlightenment, not bolster pernicious, backward-looking belief systems out of misbegotten notions of “tolerance.”

Obama’s quote is execrable, echoing Pope Francis’s sentiment that we shouldn’t criticize religion. Indeed, Obama goes further than Francis by saying that we are OBLIGATED to defend religion against its critics. What has he been smoking?

I once said I thought Obama was a secret atheist, and I was roundly criticized for that. But I still entertain that thought, simply because I think that somebody that smart—and he is smart—couldn’t possibly be a believer. Perhaps I’m just naive.  But it doesn’t matter, for  even if he’s not an atheist, Obama pretends he’s a fervent believer, and at the Prayer Breakfast went much farther than he had to to simply acquire a veneer of faith. He was positively pandering.

As for the “no true Muslim,” fallacy, well, I’ve dealt with that before and will highlight it again tomorrow. The idea that there are “true” versions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism is simply ludicrous. All you have to do is look at the sacred texts to see that, if you think the truest versions are those that hew most closely to the texts, then extreme right-wing Christianity and “extremist” Islam are indeed “truest” versions of those faiths. Yet those are the versions decried as false.

 

100 thoughts on “A new horseperson? Jeffrey Tayler rides again, attacking Obama’s execrable performance at the “National Prayer Breakfast””

    1. His refusal to see the elephant in the room and his constant explanations of what “true Islam ” teaches certainly doesn’t help

      1. Good point Jay. Another thing that Conservapedia does not emphasize but is a favorite of this crowd, especially the Christian Zionists, is that “Obama hates Israel”.

  3. ” (at least as far as Lawrence O’Donnell would let me speak)”

    aint that the truth. remember the New Yorker bottom -of- the- page items? Infatuation with Sound of Own Voice Department was one.

    O’Donnell is the perfect example. It drives me crazy, just as someone is about to make an interesting point, in jumps the host,and of course the interviewee is too polite or stunned to over speak him. O’Donnell is not alone. Maybe along with the job comes a huge burst of ego. I’ll bet they spend much time taking selfless!

    1. I can’t stand to watch O’Donnell for just that reason. Exasperating!

      Christopher Hitchens was pretty good at dealing with hosts that attempted to talk over him.

    2. And that’s with guests he seems to like.

      I saw him repeatedly interrupt someone he obviously didn’t care for. Why act like O’Reilly in that regard? Let ’em finish and then chew on ’em if he must.

      Ah, but I gather the average Amuricun needs that conflict to stay engaged and entertained.

    3. “remember the New Yorker bottom -of- the- page items?”

      I liked those even better than the cartoons!

      1. I think they still occasionally have those. In fact my affection for camels came from one of those, years ago, in which it was revealed that a certain sheik used to carry his whole library of books, in alpha order, on a herd of camels when he migrated twice a year. Whenever I need to add a bunch of new books to my shelves (always in alpha order) and thus have to do a lot of moving from bookcase to bookcase, I call it “cameling”.

  4. I would second the idea that Jeffery Tayler may be the next Hitch. He does a very good job on Obama.

    I do not think Obama is a secret anything. He is all politician and pander is in the genes. My fear with him not understanding the religion when he sees it, is the action that may wrongly be taken. Certainly ISIS is just another branch of Islam, might call it a branch of Sunni. All the more reason it is their problem to fix. This send in the troops crap is just stupid and will not work. I cannot see spending one American soldier on this stuff.

      1. Good point. Extending this further, how is the world to rid itself of fundamentalism, terrorism, and totalitarianism? What, indeed, does the future hold for our children?

        1. Turkey has an army of 600,000. There are plenty of boots in the region to put on the ground. The problem will only be sorted if they take responsibility for it. America can support them with the air power they don’t have, and other Western countries can provide expertise in training. The Gulf States should be paying significantly towards the cost too, as they failed to stop their citizens financially and liturgically supporting Islamic terrorists. Some have even failed to condemn some of the terrorists, especially Hamas.

          1. That sounds hopeful. But isn’t Turkey ruled by it’s Islamists? Why don’t they move into Iraq and take pressure off the Kurds? Why don’t they take back Mosul and turn it over to the Baghdad government? Must be a little more complex than just having the 600,000 troops.

          2. “Why don’t they move into Iraq and take pressure off the Kurds?”

            Because they don’t want to help Kurds. There are a lot of Kurds in Turkey who want to be part of a Kurdish nation. The government of Turkey doesn’t want that.

            As always, in the Middle East, everything is all complicated and messed up.

          3. Actually, Turkey has pretty good relations with the Kurds in Kurdistan and has softened its opposition to an independent Kurdistan. It should be noted that the first shipment of oil from Kurdistan that bypassed Iraqi terminals went through Turkey and was offloaded on a tanker at a Turkish port. Oddly enough, it has been reported that the shipment ended up in Israel.

          4. The change in relationship with Kurdistan is fairly recent though, and there’s still the issue of the PKK. However, I too have hope in relation to the Turkey/Kurdistan relationship, as they recognize they now have a common enemy.

    2. “I cannot see spending one American soldier on this stuff.”

      Do I correctly gather that John McCain and his Republican ilk do?

  5. Free speech is not an obligation.

    When a nuclear power plant has inadequate safety controls to deal with a tsunami, should we feel obligated to criticize? Yes, but the only prudent criticism come from people who provide solutions so that nuclear power plants can be built in a manner that reasonable mitigates future disasters.

    If someone feels the obligation to defend religion, it needs to be defending, rationally. So far, there has been no defense, only the plea for defense, because everyone knows religion has no defense, save faith. What they all want is to live forever with their teddy bears at the side; and Obama is obliging.

    Obama is an atheist in the same way that ISIS is not motivate by true Islam.

    2. I was thinking this too. But the original 4 were named from the title of a DVD that was released from a joint meeting they had. This is explained here (scroll down).
      I suppose it would make it more official if there was a similar event.

  7. Why, when atheists call for greater diversity in New Atheism, arguing that it’s dominated by “rich old white men”, do they neglect Hirsi Ali

    Hear hear!

    And thank you for making me aware of Jeffrey Talyer’s writing.

  8. That goes without saying but he is the science horseman. This Tayler could still be the Hitch.

  9. “The idea that there are “true” versions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism is simply ludicrous. All you have to do is look at the sacred texts to see that, if you think the truest versions are those that hew most closely to the texts, then extreme right-wing Christianity and “extremist” Islam are indeed “truest” versions of those faiths.”

    To me there seems to be a contradiction here. If there are no “true” versions of Christianity and Islam, one cannot say that extreme right-wing Christianity and “extremist” Islam are the “truest” versions of those faiths.

    1. What contradiction is that? Prof. Coyne doesn’t believe there is a “true” version. He’s simply saying if you are one who thinks there is a true versions, and were to base that on how accurately the texts were followed the extremists version would be the truest version.

  10. After spending several years at a prominent liberal seminary (on a Unitarian track), I felt a very strong need to completely walk away from all conversation as to who or what was a true Christian. It struck me as a useless conversation, regardless of my continuing admiration for a selective subset of the teachings of Jesus and various liberal religious communities.

    I read somewhere that it is easier to develop a “true” interpretation of the Koran, simply because there is an explicit clause that states that all later books/sections supercede earlier ones.
    With the Judeo-Christian scriptures, you are just left with picking and choosing between the relatively benign deity of Isaiah or the warlike one of Judges, between the parable of the Good Samaritan, and the apocalyptic mayhem concluding the Bible.

    =-=-=

    At the same prayer breakfast that Obama attended there was a standard boilerplate evangelical speech stating that if you aren’t a Christian you are doomed to hell. Seems there are a variety of perspectives at this prayer breakfast.

    I don’t think Obama is an atheist. I think he’s very much a child of his mentor, Jeremiah Wright.

  11. When it comes to secret atheism, who knows? It is impossible to differentiate a true believer from a well closeted non-believer. In either case, Obama gets it very wrong when he makes speeches like this.

  12. Sorry to say I’m not so enthused by Taylor here. I don’t have time or energy to respond in detail, but I’ll just pick one line as example: “Here Obama obliquely incriminates the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists for the satire of the Prophet Muhammad that led to their deaths.” What a breathless reach – I don’t think that was Obama’s message or intent, and you have to be trying pretty hard to excoriate him for not walking a line of purity to get after him for that statement. And sorry, Professor, I don’t see Obama as pandering. Seems to me he is equally pissing off the right, Christians, Muslims – and dare I say the “pure atheists” for lack of a better term. I found his speech to be mature and on point.
    For a different viewpoint, see James Zogby’s article in HuffPo: “Obama: Sound Theology and Smart Politics.” I don’t ascribe to this 100% either, but I think he has a lot right there.

    1. The absurdity of Zogby’s article is clear in the title.

      Presidents aren’t supposed to do theology in public.

      1. Yes, but.

        This stupid prayer breakfast ritual has been going on for a while, with expected presidential attendance, and it’s one of those things that really doesn’t amount to much in the grand scheme of things, so why give the conservatives one more thing to get enraged about by not attending? Why decide to put up with the fallout that would attend such a snub when there are so many more important things to attend to?

        Sure, I’d much rather have seen him decide not to go, but he’s a canny politician and I’m sure he didn’t want to throw the right another piece of meat they could make a huge hairy deal out of.

        What sounded mild to us was also regarded as quite an affront to the poor, humble Christians–how dare he even begin to criticize Christianity! Well, he did–he delivered what is one of our popular tropes, that Xtianiy has no claim to the high road given its appalling actions in the not so distant past.

        This was the classic lose-lose situation for Obama no matter which decision he made, but he made the most of it by daring to condemn Christian history in public.

    2. I am not sure precisely what Taylor means by “obliquely incriminates.” He may mean what you apparently seem to think he meant. That Taylor is claiming that Obama was specifically, though indirectly, talking about Charlie Hebdo. I am not as certain as you. He may have meant that regardless of whether Obama intentionally meant to incriminate Charlie Hebdo that the point of view he was expounding did just that.

      And I agree with that. Claiming that it is all good peoples’ duty to push back at people who criticize religious beliefs in a way that offends some believers is wrong in several different ways, particularly for a president, and certainly would entail incriminating the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists for the satire of the Prophet Muhammad that led to their deaths. “So sorry they died, not blaming them they were victims, but really, they shouldn’t have been so insulting to religious people.”

      Regarding Obama, pandering and the Zogby article. Again, I disagree. Obama does pander and the Zogby article describes the pandering as a positive thing. And it may indeed have some positive affects! At least from some peoples perspective. We call what politicians do “pandering” when we don’t like it, and we call it Smart Politics when we do.

      Whatever you want to call it, it was Accommodationism. It was an exhortation to give religion special respect. I don’t see any reason to think of that as good politics. It seems trivial to me that Obama could have easily avoided that. Implicit in your claim is that there is some benefit to be had by not merely being fair to, and being careful not to antagonize religious believers, but by conceding to their presumption of special consideration for their beliefs. I don’t see it. That is the status quo and I have never noticed any clear benefit arise from it.

    3. I don’t remember the details of Zogby’s HuffPost piece, but I do remember reading it, and not liking it.

  13. I’ve asked Jeffery why he writes for that clickbait cesspit, Salon, and he’s politely noncommittal to an answer. There must be compelling personal reasons why he does.

    If he’s going to be a horseman, he’ll need to be able to maintain a tight public persona. I’d personally like to see Ms. Ali take a more active role, I think the others would welcome her, but she may be wanting less drama, not more.

    1. Perhaps because the clickbait cesspit has a reasonably large number of readers, many of whom may be willing to read his articles there in passing, but not willing to go out of their way to follow a bl… bl… blaspheming independent columnist.

  14. I used to think that ‘prayer breakfasts’ were mainly a US phenomenon. Now Cameron is in on the act. What he thinks he is doing I cannot fathom. I guess his main messages are:

    a. Sorry if we upset you over all that gay marriage business.
    b. We plan to offload even more of the health and education systems on to you after the election.
    c. And if you can get more people to go to church/mosque/synagogue and scare them into not being naughty, we might be able to save on the justice budget as well.
    d. Vote Conservative.

    Don’t think it will work somehow.

  15. I must say after 6-years I’m getting a little tired of Obama’s speeches…on pretty much any topic, but especially religion. I guess I feel they are hollow words that intend to placate (or in this case, as pointed out, pander). The action behind his words have consistently proven to be superficial: whether on healthcare, (didn’t even consider single-payer), the environment (has done better than any previous President, but made only minor policy changes while expanding oil/gas fracking/drilling), the economy (he is head-over-heels for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, really???), and finally his policies of spying, punishing whistle-blowers, and pervasive drone striking. I know he is the most obstructed President in history, but I find that to be less of an excuse these days (cynicism creeping in). He should have been using his executive powers from the beginning when he saw what he was up against. Finally, when he does say something I completely stand behind like increasing minimum wage, free community college, or dissolving student debt, I know that he knows it won’t be accomplished; so for me it just becomes another let-down.

    I will add that I would vote for him again if I could since in the current climate he will always be the lesser of two evils. However, that doesn’t mitigate the feeling that he hoodwinked me; he’s just another polished politician, not the statesman I once believed in.

    1. Excellent idea, although imagine what nastiness the religious right will come up with when assigning the plagues to particular people.

  17. My hunch is that the president understands that ISIS/ISIL is an Islamic atavistic movement but denies it is based on “true Islam” for reasons having to do with diplomacy and in hopes of forestalling bigots keen on harassing or attacking peaceful Moslems.

    One may disagree with the president’s policy but shouldn’t necessarily assume that he doesn’t understand the Islamic nature of the Islamic State.

    1. Quite right. While I appreciate Tayler’s feisty atheism, I gave up reading the Atlantic (and their look-alike, The New Republican) because of their ridiculous, never-ending schtick of posing as a “progressive voice” while always finding a way to spin up an attack on either the President or the Democratic left.

      Read back through the last few months of Atlantic headlines and the pattern is obvious: declare the issue of the moment as proof of a major betrayal/failing by the Left, blithely ignoring the efforts of the underlying Republican majority. It’s as if both-sides-do-it-ism represents the official mission statement of their editorial management.

  18. Atheist, no. Obama is/was a member of Trinity United Church of Christ and he does attend a church a few block from his house, and yours, when he is in town.
    I have a friend who is a deacon at the church in Hyde Park where he used to to attend before he became president.

      1. The interesting question is not whether he attended church before becoming President. More to the point, did he before becoming a politician?

      2. That is so true. If you want to rub shoulders with a large gathering of atheists, just attend a United Church of Canada service. Many members of which are, by the way, not closeted about their non-belief at all.

  19. Although I agree with Jerry pretty much completely, let me allow Obama, among others, the possibility of a more subtle agenda. That is, realizing that religion is not going away any time soon, and that it is currently manifesting in some particularly vile forms, he could easily have been trying to coerce, gently, the mildest possible interpretations. That is, getting enough religionists to adopt milder, cherry-picked readings of their texts as the most natural sort, as has largely happened in Judaism and Christianity, would have large social-policy and political benefits. And for us devout secularists, such an outcome would be at least a defanging and at best the beginning of the end of a long delusion. That is the most charitable reading I can offer; others are, of course, equally likely.

    1. I’m sure this is the most generous and the most likely interpretation of motivation. Still, it is sad that Obama should feel it necessary to twist reality this way. The political calculation says much more about the average dolt on the street than about Obama.

      1. “The political calculation says much more about the average dolt on the street than about Obama.”

        Yep, the average “Exceptional Amuricun.” But there’s a 96% chance he recognizes the moniker “Lady Gaga.”

        George Carlin directly and forcefully reflected on the matter.

    2. Good point. Do we really want to persuade millions of average Muslims that ISIL are the ‘true faith’? Or push them into a corner where they feel obliged to stand up for sharia law because they have been persuaded their faith requires them to do it?

      The more wishy-washy we let them become, the better, surely.

      1. Do we really want to persuade millions of average Muslims that ISIL are the ‘true faith’?

        Maybe I’m insanely optimistic, but I’m of the opinion that if the average Muslim were to become convinced that ISIL was the “true faith” they would abandon the faith because they’re better than that.
        If that’s not true the religion is more dangerous, and it’s followers already more extreme than I thought.

        1. Counter-example – look what millions of Germans managed to convince themselves of in the 30’s.

          I don’t think the average Muslim is more extreme, as a person, than anybody else. But it’s remarkable what ordinary people can be convinced of if it’s done persuasively enough.

          I think if the average Muslim was suddenly confronted with ISIL in all its ghastly nastiness, they’d instinctively reject it as you say. But if ISIL say they’re the true faith, and everybody else tells Muslims ISIL is their true faith, and add in a bit of suspicion, blame and persecution, and there’s a risk they could be persuaded.

          1. As always I am wary about a message that is based on a lie. (That ISIL isn’t espousing “true” mohammedanism.)

            Those have almost 100 % rate of coming back and bite you in the ass.

            A tentative alternative would be to identify the problem of innate violence et cetera, and 1) support the moderates in their practice of non-violence despite their teachings, while 2) asking for a reformation akin to what defanged christianism, injecting a peaceful basis for their beliefs.

            [I’m not saying that I am happy with the reformation, since they kept the myth texts as sources. But that is another question.]

          2. Hi Torbjorn

            Firstly, I’m not sure that the ‘truth’ is so black and white re the Koran (we know it certainly isn’t w.r.t. the Bible). I think ISIS cherry-pick the nastiest bits to suit them, moderate Muslims choose to emphasise other bits. We *know* there is more than one way to interpret it, Sunnis vs Shias amply demonstrate that. So I wouldn’t be too quick to concede that ISIS are ‘the [only] true Muslims’, either in fact or for political purposes.

            I think your 2-point program sounds hopeful, (not sure it would work but wish it would), even though it would in the terms you’ve just stated be a ‘lie’. In fact it’s fairly compatible with what I said in my post, I think.

            But anything to do with religion has the potential to come back and bite us in the ass (of course religion is a lie too, so I guess that just confirms your point 😉

          3. Infinite…,

            The programme of the conversation with moderate Muslims is a tricky one. I am thinking how to advance, in the public intellectual space, not in the diplomatic or political space, those reasonable forward-thinking Muslims to your side and to progress civilized, democratic, secular polities especially in the Middle East with peaceful, stable external relations.

            There is a credal difference between, say, Islam and Christianity. As we know, it is far easier to interpret the Koran in a barbarous manner: even sura 5:32, which is often quoted by moderate Muslims as the pericope for the religion of peace, doesn’t actually mean that on any reasonable reading.

            There is no wriggle-room for the separation of religion and state in Islam. As there is explicitly in Christianity. Islam’s founder was a warrior: Christianity’s was a victim. Mohammed went around killing people in war: Christ is not represented in any battle. And these things matter from the point of view of reforming the religion.

            Muslims like Maajid Nawaz, Irshad Manji, Ibrahim al-Buleihi, Dr. Noha Mahmoud Salem, Dhiyaa al-Musawi and Wafa Sultan agree that Islam needs reform. Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali support them in that and so do I. But I detect in the atheists scepticism at the possibility of Islam reforming itself. What to do with a religion which sees, and always has seen, religion as state?

            That is not to say that the project is not worth trying. The Christian reformation is there as a model: perhaps Islam could avoid the barbarities in that. But it isn’t doing so at the moment. x

          4. Hi Dermot

            I’m not sure it’s actually easier to interpret the Koran in a barbarous manner, simply because it’s also so very easy to interpret the Bible in a barbarous manner, as history shows. Maybe it’s a little more difficult to interpret the Koran in a non-barbarous manner than the Bible. This would be consistent with the Koran being a more coherent document, whereas the Bible is, notoriously, all over the shop. The end result, though, is what you said.

            However, religions have shown the ability to interpret their holy texts in remarkably versatile fashions, and I doubt whether Muslims are genetically more predisposed to violence than anyone else, so I think all we can do is try to encourage the moderates and avoid pushing them towards ISIL.

          5. Infinite…

            You are advocating a program of dishonesty.

            If you think the average Muslim is going to join ISIS because a bunch of atheists don’t lie to them about the nature of Islam, what does that say about your respect for the average Muslim?

          6. If you think the average Muslim is going to join ISIS because a bunch of atheists don’t lie to them about the nature of Islam, what does that say about your respect for the average Muslim?

            Yeah exactly. I regularly point out to Christians the crazy stuff in the bible, and knowing moderate Christians as I do, the last thing I would expect is for them to say “I guess I should stop eating shellfish, get myself a slave, and stone to death my disobedient child”. If they do anything I would expect them to say, or eventually start thinking something along the lines of “holy shit it really says that in there, why do I revere this crazy book?” Is there something inherently so different about Muslims, or Islam that I should expect otherwise?

          7. “You are advocating a program of dishonesty.”

            That’s bullshit and a strawman, as you very well know. I think ISIS like all religious, cherry-pick the bits that suit them – the nastiest bits in ISIS’s case. Do you think backing the average Muslim into a corner where he’s forced to support ISIS or abandon his religion is likely to be productive?

            “If you think the average Muslim is going to join ISIS because a bunch of atheists don’t lie to them about the nature of Islam, what does that say about your respect for the average Muslim?”

            I didn’t say that or anything remotely like it. I just can’t be arsed arguing with someone who prats on about ‘honesty’ then twists and deliberately misinterprets others points in the most prejudicial way.

          8. No, infinite, it isn’t straw manning. You said “But if ISIL say they’re the true faith, and everybody else tells Muslims ISIL is their true faith…”.

            Now, I will cop to interpreting a couple words in there in a particular way. I assume “ISIL is their true faith” intends to say “Islam is their [ISIL’s] true faith”. And I assume that by “everyone” you are including folk like us, shrill and strident atheists.

            When I read that I can’ not help but reading “So we should not tell Muslims that ISIL is comprised of faithful follows of Islam.” or something to that effect.

            To equate public statements that ISIL is comprised of genuinely faithful Muslims with “backing the average Muslim into a corner where he’s forced to support ISIS or abandon his religion” is where the logic failures lie. This is a false choice. And it is very much a call for dishonesty. It is a request that people like many of us on this page keep quiet about the very Islamic nature of The Islamic State

            It is inherently disrespectful of “the average Muslim” who, by your account, can’t be expected to handle reality like an adult.

          9. ‘When I read that I can’ not help but reading “So we should not tell Muslims that ISIL is comprised of faithful follows of Islam.” ‘

            Not quite. ‘True faith’ implies ‘the _only_ true faith’. I wouldn’t want to tell all Muslims that ISIL was the only valid way to follow Islam.

            “And it is very much a call for dishonesty. It is a request that people like many of us on this page keep quiet about the very Islamic nature of The Islamic State.”

            Firstly, you could call it ‘dishonesty’ or you could call it ‘diplomacy’. Persuasion gets more votes than ultimatums, usually.

            Secondly, I’m not suggesting anyone on this site keep quiet about anything (not that they would, and in the current context I doubt many Muslims read this page anyway). I think Islamic State is evil and far too totalitarian for the average Muslim to want to live under.

            I do think, though, that public pronouncements by people like President Obama and others in similar positions do have to take into account the desirability of not alienating the middle ground. Bash ISIS for their atrocities, don’t say they’ve got it ‘right’!

            By the way, I apologise for losing my rag in my last post. I still feel ‘advocating a program of dishonesty’ is an absurd overstatement but I need to take a step back before I take it too personally.

          10. “I wouldn’t want to tell all Muslims that ISIL was the only valid way to follow Islam.”

            Is someone doing that? I don’t think anyone except ISIS itself would say such a thing. In any case, it would be completely untrue.

            It is unclear who you are suggesting needs to be more ‘diplomatic’ (or you could call it ‘dishonest’). But it would seem to be anyone who might be encountered by “the average Muslim”. We are excused here only because such folk are not in the room.

            The program you want “us” (by some definition of “us”) to follow is to not say things that are true because “average Muslims” might take offense.

            “Diplomatic” may be an inoffensive word for it, but at the end of the day it is muzzling of the truth. In my book, doing so is a form of dishonest discourse and disrespectful of those whom you don’t think are mature enough to handle it.

            Please understand that I did not call you dishonest. I think you are expressing yourself honestly. I just think what you are advocating is wrong.

          11. ““I wouldn’t want to tell all Muslims that ISIL was the only valid way to follow Islam.”

            Is someone doing that? I don’t think anyone except ISIS itself would say such a thing. In any case, it would be completely untrue.”

            Yet, there are plenty of posts here saying ISIS have interpreted the Koran correctly, and that the Koran leaves little room for doubt. (I can’t comment on that, never having read it).

            IF the Koran was completely unambiguous and IF ISIS have got it right then they must logically be the ‘only true Muslims’. I don’t actually believe that myself, the existence of Sunnis and Shias (and the two-and-seventy warring sects back in Khayyam’s time) suggests it can’t be as clear-cut as that, at least not after theologians have got their hands on it.

            As to who needs to be diplomatic – well, Obama for a start (he is being, and the Rethuglicans are lambasting him for it), and anyone else in similar prominent positions. I think I said that specifically in my previous post.

            “The program you want “us” (by some definition of “us”) to follow is to not say things that are true because “average Muslims” might take offense.”

            Not quite. I was advocating not saying things that would suggest ISIS have got anything right. I think one should highlight the differences between the average Muslim and ISIS rather than anything they have in common (this is the approach Obama has adopted). I wouldn’t be so concerned with avoiding offense as with the (purely pragmatic) fact that offended people are difficult to reason with. (I know some people – not just Muslims – will deliberately ‘take offense’ as a ploy. I like to think that most people don’t do that and it’s them I would avoid offending unnecessarily.)

            Anyway, I think we’ve about talked this one out.

          12. Yes, I think we’ve pretty well played it out.

            But I can’t let this quite end. You’re claiming that people here (presumably including me) are saying “ISIL was the only valid way to follow Islam“.

            “Yet, there are plenty of posts here saying ISIS have interpreted the Koran correctly, and that the Koran leaves little room for doubt. (I can’t comment on that, never having read it).”

            It is true that the Islamic “holy” texts mandate all manner of nasty stuff. It is also true that reading it as ISIL does is an “honest” read. It is also true that one (a Muslim) can ignore the nastier parts and try to get on with the infidels.

            If you gave up on the “only valid way” assertion for the views you challenge you’d be closer to reality. But at the end of the day you’re still telling us to not say things that are in fact true because an honest reading of ancient “sacred” texts reads like an instruction manual for doing horrible things. To pretend otherwise is to act out a falsehood even if one’s goals are admirable.

          13. ‘But I can’t let this quite end. You’re claiming that people here (presumably including me) are saying “ISIL was the only valid way to follow Islam“.’

            In a word, no. I’m not saying that at all. If anything I said could be read that way then I phrased it badly.
            I said an implication could be drawn from ‘ISIS are reading the Koran correctly’ and ‘there is only one true interpretation’, that ISIS is it.
            In fact I gave the example of different sects, whose adherents would doubtless all claim to be ‘valid’.

            This was all in the context of Obama being criticised for saying ISIS weren’t true muslims. He’s technically wrong but strategically right, IMO (if I can put it that way).

            ISIS (I’m sure) claim they have the only valid way to follow Islam. But ‘we’ (i.e. Obama and the rest of the western world) should, in my view, do nothing to give any credibility to that claim. And if that means emphasising some facts and downplaying others, so be it.

            [Aside: I don’t think I’d call that ‘telling lies’, most real-life situations are far too complex for a simple black-white true-false distinction. Also, ISIS don’t deserve the benefit of the truth IMO. And also, I’d lie like a bastard if it would save one life. All these are beside the point, I think]

          14. Stating a falsehood or a partial truth is what I call “telling a lie”. You call it diplomacy, I guess.

            The following statements are all either blatantly false or intentionally designed to obscure true facts.

            “No God condones this terror.”

            “No religion is responsible for terrorism.”

            “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism.”

            I like President Obama. I’ve knocked on doors for him. I’ve donated money and voted for him. I think he’s made the best of an insane race and religion-motavated Republican opposition over the years. And I think he’s doing more-or-less the least-bad thing in the Middle East. But, I don’t think he does anyone any favors by prevaricating over the nature of Islamic extremism.

  20. If there isn’t one already; a simple aphorism is needed as a useful and memorable stamp for this kind of stupidity. Something like:

    Useful Idiot Logic: The closer a persons religious beliefs are to those of its primary and historical doctrine, the greater the corruption of its doctrine.

    Ideas?

    2. Perhaps a modification is needed:

      The closer a persons religious beliefs are to those of its primary and historical doctrine, the greater the immorality of those beliefs.

      2. This presupposes we can know what the historical doctrine *is*. Many of our texts have changed – in fact, isn’t the Sunni/Shiite split in part over texts?

  22. President Eisenhower, in his new-found Presbyterianism has a lot to answer for here. He put God onto the money and into the pledge of allegiance, and, given the date these Prayer Breakfasts started, I’m assuming they’re down to him too. These things are clearly unconstitutional, but it seems SCOTUS sees something akin to Papal Infallibility when it comes to presidential actions of this sort.

    Eisenhower thus embedded the idea in America that atheist and communist are similies, and that the leaders of communism were fighting for atheism. If not for him, America might be as secular as the rest of the Western world.

  23. Since when does “official membership” inside an organization, such as one’s name on a(ny) religion’s registry / roster, let alone, one’s actually sitting in its pews or bending over prostrate at his knees from time to time constitute actual belief in its ideologies / policies / faith. Pandering, self – puffery and promotion have a whole lot to do with … … pontificating.

    How many people say that they do believe in deities when … … actually … … they believe squat, do you suppose ? the majority actually challenged with this query I will venture it is.

    Check out for most of his formative first two decades of breathing the person most influential to Barack Obama, his mama, Ms Dunham, anthropologist. There … … be at where one’s answer most likely is as to whether the person genuflecting next to another actually believes in anything godly or goddy – like. At least one presidential exception to this likelihood ‘d be that o’ Mr Abraham Lincoln. I do not know of his two siblings, one dying in infancy, the other after young adulthood – childbirthing or of his daddy’s beliefs but of his mama’s (very Baptist separatist [over slavery]) who died when President Lincoln was nine years old ? As re belief in deities therefrom his mother’s, hardly President Lincoln’s.

    Blue

    2. It is my information that Ann Dunham was an atheist, as was Obama’s natural father Barack Obama Sr.

      A good example of someone who regularly attended religious services was Thomas Jefferson who was an Episcopalian, despite not being a believing Christian. He rejected the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the divinity of Yeshua bin Yusef of Nazareth, and the miracle stories in the Scriptures. He is best described as a non-Christian theistic rationalist.

  24. Ayaan Hirsi Ali was due to appear in the seminal youtube video of the ‘Four Horsemen’ discussion in, I think, Hitchens’ flat. But she was called away urgently and could not participate.

    My reference is the youtube discussion between Harris, Dennett, Dawkins and her at, I think, the Australian reason conference a couple of years back. They explain the unfortunate occurrence at the start of the clip. Dennett wittily remarks, “Four Horsemen? Five Pillars.” x

  25. And this post goes to show why a scientist would make a horrible politician. The only truth a politician should be concerned with are ones that benefit that general population, creates cohesion, solidarity, and allows the adoption of our values and ideals, across various cultures and beliefs.

    Even if that means to claim that the only true expression of religion, is one aligned with these ideals.

    If you think the world stands to benefit from the purveyors of anti-islamic sentiment, you think wrong.

    1. “The only truth a politician should be concerned with are ones that benefit that general population, creates cohesion, solidarity, and allows the adoption of our values and ideals, across various cultures and beliefs.”

      Yes, sound principles of herd management.

  26. The Islamic State believe they have the right to rule and be ruled exclusively by their religion and the duty to impose it by way of the sword. Many Muslims agree.
    Consider Saudi Arabia, it is not merely coincidence that virtually everyone there claims to be a devote Muslim. Both Saudi Arabia and the Islamic State enforce Sharia and publicly execute those who violate Islamic Law.

    (CNN)President Barack Obama defended Tuesday the need to maintain a close alliance with Saudi Arabia..
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/27/politics/obama-saudi-arabia-zakaria/

    The Islamic State will not be defeated with bombs and force. Perhaps only with strong criticism. Criticism that many Muslims and liberals oppose.
    The west’s message to the Islamic World is that of genuine tolerance and sensitivity.

    Despite this, the Islamic State continues to flourish

  27. He made light of Jerry Fallwell; check. Not quite as good as Hitch’s famous TV comment after Fallwell’s death: “If you gave him an enema you could bury him in a matchbox”. But I’ll take it.

  28. Excellent piece by Tayler.
    My favorite one-liner from it:
    “Hallowed ideologies, which is all religions are, do not deserve respect. People do.”

    Thanks to Professor CC for linking to it.

    As to the 4 horsemen:
    I agree with the sentiment of other commenters here: Ayaan Hirsi Ali and JAC should replace Hitchens.

  30. “But seriously, can you imagine such a thing being officially proclaimed in France, Germany, or Sweden?”

    I’m not sure it’s that hard to accept. I’m now studying in Austria and spent two months in Germany, at the end of last year. In Germany, in the town hall, there was a nativity display. In Austria, I had to register where I was living and one of the questions on the form asks what your religion is. It does say you can wait to fill that in after your landlord has signed the form and it’s also possible to leave it blank completely but it’s still there. The people may be more secular but religion seems to be tightly bound to the government and culture.

Comments are closed.