Media Coverage of Afghanistan: What's So Bad About the Taliban?

I suppose I'm just old and increasingly out-of-touch, but I can still remember when most of us looked to our mainstream news media to inform us rather than to shape our attitudes in particular directions or feed us propaganda. The ideal was that they'd present the facts, and it would be up to us to figure out how to feel about them. I miss those days. It now seems like much of the mainstream news media, at least much of the mainstream cable news media, serves very different functions.

I've noticed something missing from almost all of the coverage I have seen of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and it has to do with the odd title I've selected for this post. We've learned that the Taliban has taken over, much quicker than most seemed to expect, to fill the vacuum left by the U.S. The overwhelming consensus is that this is a bad thing. Why is it a bad thing?

On September 11...

It is not like anybody is in danger of forgetting what happened on 9/11, at least not anytime soon. Still, I believe that this image and its caption have something important to say about one of the lessons of 9/11 that we must remember. It provides a partial answer to a question most atheists are asked from time-to-time: "What's so bad about religion?"

The point of sharing it is not to deny that no good is ever accomplished in the name of religion. Some good has come from religion, and many religious believers are good people. The point is that religion often facilitates evil in a way few other things can.

What's Wrong With Religion?

Regular readers of Atheist Revolution have seen me give countless reasons to regard religion as a destructive force. Still, one of the most common questions I receive from those who are new here is why I say religion is destructive. "What's wrong with religion? Look at all the good that has come from religion." I think this question makes sense, especially when one considers the perspective of those who were raised to value a religious tradition.

There are at least two problems with this line of thought (and probably many more). First, much of the good attributed to religion would (and often does) happen without religion. Thus, it isn't always clear that we wouldn't have as much (or even more) good in the world if religion had never emerged. Second, even if we decide to credit religion with a great deal of the good in the world, this hardly makes up for the harm it has caused. It is hard to deny, for example, that some Catholic clergy have done some good things, but does that negate the evil some have perpetrated? I don't think so. I suspect most of their victims don't think so either.

Being as charitable as possible, we may consider the possibility that those asking this question have a point. Maybe the overall good from religion far outweighs the bad. Maybe the costs of religion run amok are significantly less than the benefits. What then are the costs? What are the bad things about religion that would need to be outweighed by the good?

Which Religion is the Worst?

One of the more common questions I have received over the years I've been writing Atheist Revolution is which religion I consider to be the worst. I've recognized that those asking it almost always have a particular agenda and rarely one with which I agree. Many are Christians who seem to find great solace in the hope that I'll say something besides Christianity. Some are rabidly anti-Islam and are merely looking for an opportunity to bash Islam or Muslims. Some are atheists who consider any answer other than "all of them are equally bad" objectionable for one reason or another. Despite all of this, I do have some brief thoughts on the question I'd like to share here.

I was raised as a Christian in a predominately Christian region where Christianity was not merely the default but was so pervasive that I was surrounded by people who were largely ignorant of the fact that not every person on Earth was Christian. As I realized I could no longer believe in gods, I was scared. I feared a variety of negative outcomes that might result from letting others know that I was an atheist. I feared that I might be disowned by my family, subjected to discrimination and/or bigotry, or even physically assaulted. But there is one thing I never feared, one thing that never occurred to me in the process of transitioning from Christian to atheist. I never feared that I would be killed for walking away from Christianity.

Had I been raised as a Muslim and lived in an Islamic theocracy like Saudi Arabia, I'm not sure I'd be able to say that. In fact, I suspect that if I had been raised as a Muslim and been living in an Islamic theocracy at the time I'd have been more than a little worried about this possibility. The probability of it happening would have been much higher, and I think that's important to recognize.

Writing About Christianity More Than Islam

I do not live in Europe or the U.K. In fact, I have never lived outside the United States. I do not know how I would be different or how my life might be different if I did live elsewhere. I suspect that if I lived in Europe or the U.K., I might write about somewhat different things. This is just a guess, but I suspect that I would write about evangelical fundamentalist Christianity and Christian extremism far less often than I do now. Why? I imagine they would seem far less relevant than they do now.

I also suspect that I might write about radical Islam and Muslim extremists far more than I do now. Again, this is only a guess, but I bet they would seem more relevant in at least some parts of Europe or the U.K. than they do now. I base this guess on the observation that many of the people I follow on Twitter who live in Europe or the U.K. seem to tweet about Islam as much if not more than they tweet about Christianity. It seems reasonable to me that they would do so.

Conservative Religions Blame Women for Men's Inappropriate Behavior

While writing a post about conservative Muslims in Bangladesh becoming so outraged at the sight of young girls surfing that they threatened them, I found myself thinking about efforts by conservative Christians to control women. It seems like there are some obvious similarities here in that both conservative Muslims and conservative Christians prefer to blame women for the feelings of sexual attraction men sometimes feel in the presence of women. Both groups push the value of modesty, albeit in different ways. But what I find most interesting here is the notion that women are ultimately to blame for arousing male lust. Men, it would seem, have no responsibility for how they feel or how they behave.

Feminists have long decried our tendency to blame the victims of sexual assault, and they have been right to do so. Responding to an instance of sexual assault with something along the lines of "she shouldn't have worn that" still happens far too often. The blame in these cases does not belong to the person who was assaulted but to the person who perpetrated the assault. This strikes many of us outside of conservative religions as fairly obvious; however, it appears to be far less obvious for those inside conservative religions.

Surfing Girls Enrage Muslims in Bangladesh

There's an awful lot about Islam that I don't understand. It is not one of the religions I've studied extensively, and so it is important for me to acknowledge the many gaps in my knowledge of Islam. One of the specific questions that seems to come up for me recurrently is how (or if) Islam can be considered apart from the culture in which it resides. When I encounter a specific belief or practice, it is often difficult for me to determine whether it derives primarily from Islam or primarily from other cultural traditions in a country or region of the world.

I recently saw a brief bit of reporting from the PBS News Hour on a girls' surfing competition in Bangladesh, a predominately Muslim country. It was interesting, and it had not previously occurred to me just how brave these young girls have to be to do something as simple as surfing. Why would I say they have to be brave to surf? Evidently, conservative Muslims in the town hosting the competition were upset by the mere sight of girls in the water. From the transcript:

Watching girls surf is a rare sight in this predominantly Muslim country of 160 million. The surfers are mainly men, and most of the people here say it bothers them to see girls in the water.

Why Christian Extremism Seems Milder Than Islamic Extremism

Suppose we discovered a previously unknown island roughly the size of Puerto Rico that was uninhabited and unclaimed by any country. Now suppose that we placed the following people in charge of this island and gave them absolute authority to create any form of government they desired without having to adhere to the laws of any other country: Pat Robertson, Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, Louie Gohmert, Roy Moore, Michele Bachmann, Mike Pence, and...well, I think you get the idea. If I've left any of your personal favorites off the list, feel free to add them. The specific personalities aren't terribly important here.

Now that we've got this island with these people running the show, what sort of government do you suppose they would set up? A Christian theocracy, of course! Remember, they are not beholden to the laws of any other country. They don't have to worry about the U.S. Constitution; they are free to draft their own set of laws. Unless all of them have been lying to us this entire time about what they want to see here in the U.S., I think we'd have to predict that a Christian theocracy is exactly what they'd set up.

Orienting Muslim Immigrants to Western Values

When you start a new job, it is fairly common to receive some sort of orientation and/or training. Even if you have an impressive resume and considerable work experience, you have not worked at this particular company, agency, etc. Thus, they cannot assume that you know how everything works there. How could you? The orientation/training is designed to acclimate you to the employer's culture, make sure you know what you need to know to do what they want you to do, and prevent the sort of problems that might result from you lacking information about their policies and procedures.

When I see stories like this one out of Canada, I can't help thinking that we need something similar for immigrants from Muslim countries. I realize that the man described here may well have been using his ignorance of Canadian law as an excuse. But let's consider the possibility that someone growing up in Iran might not have known that Canada really frowns on wife-beating. I don't know about you, but that possibility does not strike me as being particularly far-fetched. Was he provided with this sort of information when he immigrated? If not, could he have been?

Embracing Christian Extremism to Fight Islamic Extremism

I don't think that the optimal strategy for dealing with the threat posed by Islamic extremism (i.e., Islamism and jihadism) is to double-down on Christian extremism and establish a Christian theocracy. Secularism strikes me as a far more desirable solution than attempting to replace one form of religious extremism with another. I suppose I might be wrong. Perhaps there is some reason I'm not thinking of as to why Christian extremism is a more effective approach, but I seriously doubt it. And even if Christian extremism was somehow successful in defeating Islamic extremism, then we atheists would still be left with Christian extremism. It seems like less religious extremism of all varieties would be preferable.

What This Liberal Thinks About Islam

I am a liberal. When it comes to the left-right political spectrum, I am far to the left. And when it comes to the libertarian-authoritarian pole, I am far to the libertarian side (you can see a visual representation of where I fall if you are interested). Admittedly, this might be somewhat misleading because I am also a freethinker. That means that I do not toe the line on any particular ideology. I am liberal on many economic issues but not all of them, and the same goes for being libertarian on many but not all social and cultural issues.

As a freethinker, I don't blindly follow any political party, dogma, or accepted narrative. I consider the issues and think for myself. I know of no political candidate I would not criticize, and I reject the claims that any particular ideology is somehow beyond criticism. Bad ideas must be criticized, regardless of their source, and better ideas must be offered as alternatives.

Can Atheists Unite on Church-State Separation While Disagreeing on Muslims?

By JayCoop - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

Atheism does not mean anything more than the lack of god belief, and this may well be one of the reasons it can be so difficult to unite atheists for the purpose of activism. Not believing in gods does not translate directly into any sort of activist efforts or causes. And while a majority of atheists in the U.S. lean to the left on the right-left political dimension, even this is no guarantee of agreement on which causes they will support.

The one cause that probably receives the most attention and is widely described as having the most potential to be appealing to the most atheists is probably the separation of church and state. Undoubtedly, you have heard atheists arguing about how atheism has nothing to do with political ideologies concede that most atheists probably do support the separation of church and state, at least in principle. And so, the argument goes, activism aimed at preserving church-state separation is probably a decent place to start if one's goal is to bring atheists together to pursue secular activism.

Southern Poverty Law Center Equates Reasoned Criticism of Islam With Hate and Bigotry

Southern Poverty Law Center. Montgomery, Alabama. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It has been clear for some time that at least some of the regressive left would like nothing better than to convince us that the criticism of Islam is "gross and racist." They refuse to acknowledge the realities of Islam in order to maintain a potentially destructive narrative where all cultural beliefs, including religious beliefs, are equally valid and deserving of respect. And it now appears that they have found a new ally in their efforts: the Southern Poverty Law Center.

As you have almost undoubtedly heard by now, the Southern Poverty Law Center has added Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz to their list of 15 "prominent anti-Muslim extremists." The list takes the form of their Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists, which is described as "a resource on anti-Muslim public figures for reporters and media professionals."

The Southern Poverty Law Center is quite clear in explaining how they would like to see their guide used by members of the news media in their coverage of Islam:

We hope journalists will use this guide to learn more about these extremists and the damage they cause to society and either deny them a public platform altogether or be better prepared to publicly challenge their hateful rhetoric and misinformation.

The Left Needs to Acknowledge the Realities of Islam

I was not raised a Muslim, and I have never been a Muslim. I have never studied Islam, and I have read only portions of the Quran. I did not grow up around Muslims and did not have the opportunity to get to know Muslims as more than casual acquaintances until I was in college.

For these reasons, I recognize that I am not particularly well-suited to discuss Islam. Instead, I tend to defer to Muslims who are currently working to reform Islam (e.g., Maajid Nawaz) or ex-Muslims criticizing the faith and seeking to help others escape it (e.g., Ayaan Hirsi Ali). This does not mean that I never find myself disagreeing with them; it means that I assume they know more about Islam than I do.

At the same time, I believe that it is important for atheists and liberals - two labels I apply to myself - to reject the cultural taboo against criticizing Islam that some liberals are trying to impose on us. I think we need to criticize the bad ideas within Islam and the bad behavior of some Muslims in the same way we criticize the bad ideas within Christianity and the bad behavior of some Christians. Refusing to do so out of fear or the suspicion that Muslims cannot handle criticism of their religion without resorting to violence smacks of bigotry (i.e., the "soft bigotry of low expectations"). Refusing to do so out of political correctness is dangerous because it cedes the entire discussion to the political right. And so, as unqualified and out of my element as I often feel, I will continue to write about Islam.

Assigning Responsibility for Religious Extremism

Do religious moderates have any responsibility for the behavior of religious extremists? Many atheists, including this one, would probably answer in the affirmative. Religious moderates provide cover for religious extremists, making it more difficult for the rest of us to critically examine religious beliefs. And even moderate forms of religion glorify superstition and make the willful ignorance of faith into a virtue. When a religious extremist commits an atrocity, religious moderates often rush to the defense of their religion and obscure the fact that the extremists are often doing what their own "holy" books command. And so, I think that many of us would agree that religious moderates might bear at least some responsibility for what the extremists do.

Having said that, I think that reasonable people can and will disagree about how best to assign responsibility in specific cases of religious extremism or other bad behavior by religious persons. Atheists are going to have different opinions, depending on the circumstances involved in the specific case. So let's take a look at a few and see what we think.

Maajid Nawaz Suggests We Call Out Those Who Advocate Islamic Theocracy

Laura-C-F, CC By-SA 3.0

While referring those who advocate Islamic theocracy during a recent discussion with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Maajid Nawaz recommended that we "call them out" in order to make their ideas "a taboo."

After watching a recent discussion on Islam between Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (see the video below), I found myself pondering a question that should be relevant to atheists and freethinkers who value the free expression of ideas. Someone asked a question from the audience about how the discussants would balance the right to free expression (i.e., our right to criticize Islam) with concerns over "hate speech" (i.e., some of the critics of Islam may be motivated by racism and/or xenophobia). I think this is an important question and one with which many of us have struggled. But what prompted me to post about it is that something in Nawaz's response caught me off guard.

Not surprisingly, both he and Hirsi Ali came down on the side of free expression. I believe Hirsi Ali even described herself as a "free speech fundamentalist" or something along those lines. Starting right about 36:58, Nawaz said that he opposes no-platforming and "safe spaces" and that he believes that the answer to hate speech is more speech. I couldn't agree more. When it comes to dealing with bad ideas, I think it is a mistake to attempt to stifle their expression.

Support Ex-Muslims of North America

As much as many religious believers seem to hate atheists, what they often hate even more are atheists who were once part of their religious faith and then left it behind. I've lost count of the number of Christians who have insisted that I was "never a real Christian" and point to my walking away from Christianity as if that somehow proved their absurd claim. I suppose they have to do this, to some extent, to shield themselves from the reality that they too could one day be an ex-Christian.

The situation is much worse for former Muslims, often labeled apostates by those who continue to follow Islam. Not only are they more likely to receive death threats from practicing Muslims, but they often find little support from those on the regressive left who cannot seem to comprehend that Islam is not a race and that criticizing Islam is neither "gross" nor "racist." Somehow, many regressive leftists are willing to overlook all sorts of atrocities when committed by Muslims out of a misguided belief that all cultural values are equally good. This leaves many ex-Muslims without the sort of allies they imagined they might have among secular progressives.

What Sharia Law Teaches Us About Islam

To understand the effects of religion, it can be instructive to examine what happens when church and state merge into a single entity (i.e., there is no separation of church and state whatsoever). This is precisely what one observes in a theocracy, and it shows us what the religious would do if they had the power to make and enforce laws.

There are certainly Christian groups with theocratic leanings in the U.S. and other Western democracies, and it is possible to get at least some idea of what they would like to do by looking closely at how they behave when they face little opposition. Still, the clearest examples of true theocracies are found in the Muslim world. In predominately Muslim countries with official theocracies, we can learn a great deal about Islam by studying Sharia law and the manner in which it is enforced.

Let us suppose that Islam is a peaceful religion in which tolerance of human differences are valued and persons are to be treated with kindness and respect. We would expect to see clear evidence of this in Islamic law. Great value would be placed on human life, social harmony, and service to the collective good. Conflict would be discouraged, and armed conflict would be rare. Punishments, when deemed necessary, would fit the crimes.

Left is Failing on Muslim Immigration

The Muslim population of the world map by percentage of each country, according to the Pew Forum 2009 report on world Muslim populations. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It occurs to me that if I lived in Western Europe or the U.K., I'd likely have a very different perspective on Muslim immigration than I do now. The mainstream news media in the U.S. has devoted relatively little coverage to the massive number of migrants entering many of these countries. We have heard a bit more about the Syrian refugees; however, the much larger numbers of economic migrants from predominately Muslim countries has received minimal attention. As a result, I feel ill-informed about what is happening and how much of a concern it is for those who live in the countries taking in large numbers of immigrants.

From the handful of YouTube videos I have watched, primarily from people based in the U.K. (here's one example), I have the impression that the problem - or at least the potential for waves of migrants from predominately Muslim countries to become a problem - is much greater than what I am hearing from the corporate news media in the U.S. It is also clear from a recent poll of Muslims living in Britain, which actually has received some attention from our corporate news media, that many Muslims who already live there have values which are at odds with much of the rest of society. It seems reasonable to expect that bringing in large numbers of Muslims might have a real impact on Britain and other countries.

Is Christianity a Soft Target?

Those of us who use Twitter regularly love to complain about it. At least, we love to complain about some of Twitter's policies and many aspects of how others use the service. But there is a big upside to Twitter. There has to be or I wouldn't continue to use it. I find that it is a great way to get news before the mainstream news media reports it (e.g., virtually anything having to do with Bernie Sanders and almost everything that happens outside of the U.S.). Twitter also provides me with the opportunity to interact with people I'd have no way of finding without it.

My interactions with people on Twitter sometimes inspire the posts I write here at Atheist Revolution. This post is one such example because the question contained in the title was prompted by a tweet I received last week.