Mississippi wants to be mocked, too

Posted on by

If you live in Mississippi and you care whether or not your kids grow up to be smart and well educated, you should be outraged by House Bill 25, which aims to introduce this disclaimer on all biology textbooks:

The word “theory” has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles. Scientific theories are based on both observations of the natural world and assumptions about the natural world. They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed observations.

This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered a theory.

Evolution refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced living things. There are many topics with unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including: the sudden appearance of the major groups of animals in the fossil record (known as the Cambrian Explosion); the lack of new major groups of other living things appearing in the fossil record; the lack of transitional forms of major groups of plants and animals in the fossil record; and the complete and complex set of instructions for building a living body possessed by all living things.

I always liked this “no one was present when life first appeared on Earth” business. It sounds so ridiculous as a way of discounting evolution I am embarrassed by it. Yeah, no one was around when the planet was formed, but you don’t see many Geology textbooks with a silly disclaimer, do you? Does someone need to be there to witness something in order for it to be considered true?

Also of note is their use of the words ‘unproven belief’ when referring to evolution. I’m not sure what they constitute proof. Apparently, all the millions of fossils, including transitional ones, DNA, and geological evidence all pointing to the soundness of evolution by natural selection is being debated! Yes, gravity is also being debated, as in no one can actually see it. It must therefore be an invention by Newton meant to make us question the notion that God is simply pushing us down on Earth because He ‘wills’ it so! Scientists and their theories, eh?

Why do religious people hate atheists?

Posted on by

According to a 1999 Gallop poll, half of the electorate automatically would vote against a political candidate if he was an atheist. That’s roughly the same percentage of people in 1958 who would have voted against a black candidate. There’s obviously a great deal of mistrust, hate, and bigotry going on here. It’s so carefully masked and seemingly invisible most people don’t think about it. Still, one has to wonder why do religious people hate us so much?

To answer this, we need to return to the 1970s during a time of great political and social upheaval. During that time, many powerful movements were beginning to take shape, notably anti war protesters and black activists. One group in particular was known as the Weathermen, and felt radical action was needed in order to reform society. They believed if they could show how weak and corrupt the system had become, the population would turn against that system and have a revolution.

Despite the fact the population was indeed experiencing a great deal of civil unrest, the truth was the majority of Americans were still comfortable and happy enough with the system that they did not feel the need to abandon it. The Weathermen felt as though their noble ambitions would be enough to convince the populace there needed to be drastic reform. However, the campaign of violence and destruction worked to further alienate them from the mainstream. During the 1970s, people were tired of fighting the government, and simply wanted life to return to a quietly predictable monotony. They feared and hated the Weatherman, for they represented the very dissent they now wanted to avoid.

There are countless examples of failed revolutions throughout history. These failures were generally met with swift and powerful retribution. In the case of the Weathermen, however, their punishment was not as severe as some might have thought. Intelligence agencies did not want their own illegal and shameful tactics exposed, and they handed out sentences we would consider light today. This is a relatively rare moment for governments, who usually take the opportunity to make an example of people who wish the destruction of their authority (one needs to look back to Tiananmen Square for a proper example of how rebellions are crushed).

What few people are willing to admit is their level of complacency in the face of this type of brutal punishment. People who have something to lose if a system is dismantled are just as blood thirsty as those controlling it. There is ultimately a need people have to protect themselves and their families from uncertainty. This can often lead people to behave in strange and savage ways if their security is threatened. They would view any individual or movement that could dismantle it as the embodiment of everything wrong, evil, and corrupt that their own systems fight against. The more they love their system, the more powerful the feeling of hate.

Atheism represents a revolution in the religious sense. It is the rejection of the divine; of values and ethics derived from the concept of a supreme being. To those who have a strong vested interest in this system of belief, atheism represents as powerful a danger as any revolution. It does not concern them that our actions are intended to help free mankind of the sick and diseased idea of religion. For them, they will continue to despise anything threatening the safety and certainty of their ideas. Although religions often fight amongst each other, they view these conflicts as merely growing pains of faith. The complete abandonment of religion, however, represents the greatest threat to their values, especially considering the power of the arguments against them. The more atheism gains acceptance, the more they see the erosion of their belief structure.

In a sense, I can understand their position. They are trying hard to maintain a system they believe is important. At the end of the day, their hatred is not a product of bigotry but rather a product of protectionism. Atheism is not seen as civil rights issue, because the values and ideas it espouses are incompatible with the paradigm of religion, which our current society feels is more important than individual liberty. We will continue to feel the force of their assault as religious people become increasingly desperate. This is why the percentage of people who would vote against an atheist candidate are likely to rise instead of fall. For them, accepting the idea of atheism is akin to abandoning their religion.

I am not defending hate here, but I am trying to make people see it is based on fear, not bigotry. People who hate atheists are not bad people; they are, however, terribly misguided. If they really wish to examine the worthiness of their ideas, they must consider how their belief system effects those who do not share their views. So far, it doesn’t look too good.

Don’t believe in magic: believe in miracles, dummies!

Posted on by

As many of you know, I’m a staunch supporter of the science of evolution. Although it’s a powerful yet simple idea, for many religious people, it’s simply the most damning and damaging idea ever conceived. Despite the fact even the Papacy has finally and reluctantly agreed it does indeed exist, it doesn’t stop people who have zero idea about how evolution works to deny it.

I’ve read many articles and blogs of these ‘deniers’, but today I had the pleasure of finding a rather eloquent and educated creationist living only a few hours from me here in good old Montreal (she is from the place all Montrealers disdain: Toronto). She’s apparently a journalist, and from her style of writing, I can tell she’s competent. However, it is obvious her field of expertise is not science, as she proclaims natural selection is akin to some form of magic; magic she says she simply refuses to believe in.

Now, people who live in glass houses should not be playing with bricks, and if anyone who claims to believe water can be turned into wine, or the blind healed, or a virgin give birth, then there is obviously an innate part of her that actually CAN believe in magic. Luckily, even this is not needed to trust that evolution is in fact a sound theory.

Her biggest pet peeve is of course the peppered moth. Yes, this old chestnut always comes to bite us in the ass, but it seems men and women looking for proof science is fraudulent can find only a few examples to cherish. The only actual controversy regarding the peppered moth involved pictures that were unfortunately staged. However, the underlying theory, that darker moths had a selective advantage during the Industrial Revolution due mostly to the soot in the air , is still sound. Ironically, as England has cleaned up their emissions, the instances of completely black peppered moths have drastically reduced, showing once again the theory itself is sound.

Of course, that’s simply not enough for some people. They want more. They want the smoking gun, the final proof that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt evolution is true. But is this really genuine effort on their part, or will they be unsatisfied no matter how many converging lines of evidence they are shown? People who deny evolution seem uninterested in genetics, one of the biggest proofs evolution does indeed happen. Geological records also support evolution, as older species are found in successive layers of the earth’s crust. So gargantuan is this evidence that any reasonably open minded and educated individual can easily make the necessary connection and trust the information they are receiving is genuine.

This is what most creationists seem unable to do. They simply do not trust that the millions of people working to refine the Theory of Evolution are being truthful. They assume a giant fraud is taking place, and every individual who believes this is misguided. However, if they simply put themselves in the shoes of other human beings, they would realize a fraud of this magnitude is impossible. We are skeptical by nature. For so many individuals, each with different beliefs and backgrounds, to come to understand and uncover the mystery of evolution is an indication of the power and logic of the idea. Unlike other ‘belief systems’, science places rigorous focus on evidence rather than faith. Any individual is invited to try and disprove even the soundest theories. There is much to gain from being able to produce a consistent and truer explanation on the diversity of life on the planet. Yet, the evidence continues to support an idea that seems almost too simple to be true: that organisms change due to selective pressures of the environment, and isolated groups changed so drastically over a large period of time that they lost the ability to breed with their organisms that shared a common ancestor.

If this person is sincerely interested in learning more about how evolution works, then there are a number of books I could recommend. However, I am under the impression her conclusions have already been decided. It is this level of close mindedness that reminds me not every human being is interested in the truth, but rather in simple platitudes that give them a sense of purpose. If evolution seems cold and cruel to you, then you are not wrong in your assumption. Nature is indeed these things. But human beings, themselves part of that process, are able to move beyond it. Agriculture, domesticated animals, and antibiotics are all inventions that stem from our ability to manipulate and change the rules of the game. We are a product of the cruel forces of nature, but it does not mean we cannot rise above them.

Annoying proselytizer is canned, involves courts

Posted on by

Penn Jillette said something I liked; he said he doesn’t respect anyone who isn’t proselytizing. He feels there is something genuinely good about it, and I generally agree: if you have an idea you think is great, tell people about it. There is, however, a limit to how much preaching is acceptable. You should not, like this man, do it to coworkers trying to get their jobs done without you bothering them every minute.

Seann Friesen wanted to involve the courts after he was fired when he refused to stop proselytizing during regular work hours. The BC Human Rights Tribunal turned down his request, actually pointing out that his former employer went above and beyond to accommodate Mr. Friesen’s need to tell people about his religion.

If you’re interested in telling people your point of view, there are a few things you should remember. The first is the workplace involves many people of different beliefs and values trying to work together towards a common goal. The last thing they need in this tenuous connection is you making their lives miserable by constantly bugging them with religion. The second is that from my own experience, emotional passions are bound to spring up anytime you bring up religion, and if your safety requires the trust of other human beings, it’s best not to piss them off. And finally, and most importantly, if work is the only place these people hang out with you, there might be a reason for it; odds are they are not your biggest fans.

You like proselytizing? Do what I do: blog about it. It’s a lot easier, and you’ll find most of the people who come on your site will actually enjoy what you have to say. That way, you can keep your job, and fulfill that strange need you have to tell others about ‘the good news’

Understanding the reasons for religious arguments

Posted on by

I’m beginning to understand intellectually debating religion is a giant waste of time. The blog Atheist Revolution has an interesting article on the types of ‘religious trolls’ who frequently comment in atheist’s sites and the tactics they use. However, there’s something important here that is not being mentioned: what exactly is their motivation?

It’s easy to dismiss trolls as simple troublemakers who want to start flame wars with atheists, but that’s not the whole answer. Sure, there are bound to be a few shit disturbers, but for the most part, I’ve always found that although these religious ‘trolls’ were unusually insistent and persistent, the motivation behind their actions are, to them at least, genuine and pure.

Imagine I want to convince you my favorite restaurant is simply the best place to get fried noodles with chicken (it is, but that’s not the point). I would try any tactic available to convince you. Did you know they make their own noodles there? That the business is owned by a small family who lives in the same building as their restaurant, and work 15 hour days? Sure, their cooking equipment is primitive and the service is slow, but I promise you the chicken is the tastiest around!

Ultimately, there’s an element of personal taste that enters the equation I cannot account for. Maybe you don’t like chicken. Maybe you prefer fancy places with lounge music. Whatever the reason, the reason behind me telling you about my restaurant are genuinely kind; I want you to experience the same pleasure and satisfaction I do. Religious people share this same need to proselytize; many feel their lives are richer for believing, and cannot understand why anyone would choose to live a life without God. The details of how the arguments unfold masks a far more primitive need every human being shares: the need to tell others about something good. I personally love my favorite restaurant specifically because I share it with others. This need is part of the reason we are a social species. Like the lion’s pride that learns to share for the good of the group, so have we learned to share those experiences that make us more healthy, and more happy. Whether or not religion does this is irrelevant; it’s important only that some people FEEL it is in order for it to be true to them. Everything they do can be explained from that one simple need.

So rather than worry about the kinds of arguments I can use to convince them on the logical truth of my ideas, I have come to see the reason I am an active atheist is I want to share how profound and incredible the realization of a godless universe is. In that sense, I am no different from my Christian counterpart, with the exception I have perhaps the stronger arguments. Ultimately though, if I am blinded by my emotional attachment to an idea, I may be unable to see why it may not be universally appealing to others. The only value I can hope to instill on others, therefore, is that one always has to be willing to question their assumptions. This is something very few religious people do, and the vindication I have in my unbelief is I will always try and maintain an open mind.

Religious people better at self control

Posted on by

Here’s an interesting article in the New York Times about how religion seems to help people have more self control. Normally, I would try and tear apart these kinds of articles, but in this case I don’t necessarily disagree with the findings. Intuitively, it seems right to me; I don’t know many people who could fight off the impulse of sex in favor of a relationship with God (I’m talking about Nuns and Catholic priests of course).

I’m curious as to how most people view these studies anyways. Do religious people feel uplifted by the results? Do atheists generally care? I would describe myself as having moderate self control (at least when it comes to matters of pleasure), and I don’t see any reason why I would need more. It certainly doesn’t seem to stop kids from having premature sex, or even experiment with drugs, unless of course their level of devotion is slavish. Even then, it’s fairly suspect.

Imagine I gave you a pill to help you with your impulse control. The side effects included occasional hallucinations, close mindedness, bigotry, intolerance and had a tendency in some patients to cause massive psychotic breakdowns. Would it be worth it?

Sure, when you don’t have a strict guidebook to live your life, you are more susceptible to some of life’s temptations. But so what? I don’t want to spend my life in a coma, content with thinking all the mysteries of the universe are solved, or it’s impossible to attain any higher morality than what we have now. Self control is exactly what I WANT to avoid. It’s the same impulse that make us complacent and sheepish in the face of so many of life’s important challenges. Keep your damn pill. I want to see life through sober eyes.

Article on abstinence teaches nothing new

Posted on by

I hate articles that regurgitate news anyone with half a brain already knows. Is it surprising study after study of teen sex always comes up with statistics showing there is no difference in premarital found between kids who are taught sex ed and those who are taught abstinence? No, of course not. Is it shocking kids without sex-ed are less likely to use any form of birth control or protection? Nope. And yet, they still ‘teach’ this garbage in schools hoping somehow kids will abstain from having sexual relations, completely ignoring the fact these raging bags of hormones find it difficult to avoid the temptation to play with themselves several times a day, let alone invite anyone to the fun.

Kids like sex. They want it. They crave it. Everything about their biology is inclined to try and get it. Yet somehow, a religiously motivated cretin thinks a promise and a shitty ring is enough to keep their hands off each other. It’s time we stopped living in fantasy land and take a pragmatic approach to the issue. There is nothing anyone can do to prevent teens from having sex. Most of the Western World has already acknowledged this. But the US is a special place; they fight wars against windmills, believing prohibitionism in all forms is the only way of curbing the natural vices of people. The problem is, of course, that morality is a private thing, and cannot be policed.

Guys, get real about teaching sex-ed in high school. Abstinence is nothing more than religiously mandated classes, and any country that takes the separation of church and state seriously would make mincemeat out of it. The US has a shamefully high rate of teen pregnancies and drop out rates shared only by developing nations. Let’s get real here, shall we?

Things are heating up in Iraq

Posted on by

It’s never good news when Iraq makes the front page of the news. That’s usually because we’ve become so accustomed to tragedy, that daily events, bombings, and massacres are casually relegated to a dark and lonely corner of most mainstream media sites.

Thursday was particularly brutal, as a female rights activist was beheaded in her home. Violence against women has been escalating, and is unlikely to stop. It was obviously intended to discourage other women from speaking out, and my guess is it may well have that consequence.

All of this comes a little over a month before their general elections, which the US hopes will help stabilize the country and give the population incentive to get involved in their government. Is it just me, or is this a fundamentally bad idea? The country is in no shape to vote, and their priorities should be focused on bringing order and peace to the region. Setting up a fragile government composed of warring groups will only further exacerbate the situation. Order in a country is the result of trust in government. It is unlikely this will occur. If anything, these elections will prove just how the Sunni, Shi’ite, and Kurds are unwilling to negotiate with one another. I predict more disaster, and far more politically motivated violence.

The Good Atheist Podcast: EP 034

This week, I have a very special guest to fill in for Ryan, who is enjoying much finer weather than we have here in Canada. Jeffrey Jones is a good friend of mine, and agreed to come on the show if I pimped out his new site, www.downandout.ca

The Good Atheist
The Good Atheist
The Good Atheist Podcast: EP 034
Loading
/

The real definition of marriage

Posted on by

There’s been a lot of debate concerning the definition of marriage. I know many conservatives are offended guys like me call them on the fact that the real reason they dislike gays marrying is because they are homophobic. I’m accused of making blanket statements about conservatives, and of labeling people.

Now, I want to make it clear to everyone that I’m not trying to make a person feel inferior for being a homophobe. Homosexuality is only now becoming more accepted, and I know of many friends and family members who have a certain degree of prejudice against them. But that’s the thing; it’s a controllable degree, and the trick is to try and rise above your upbringing to overcome some of our less noble emotions.

Even so, there’s still a large segment of the religious right who will tell you they want the definition to stay the same for religious reasons, not because of any real homophobia. Fine. If you want it that way, however, you’re going to have to follow it to the letter and stop choosing only the stuff you like. Here are some of the rules courtesy of Daily Kos:

  • Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
  • Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in
    addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
  • Marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a
    virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
  • Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.
    (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
  • Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
  • If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
  • In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required  you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

Any takers?

Religious people are easily frightened

Posted on by

TGA reader Ben sent me this link. It’s from a Australian news site, and deals with the issue of having secular ethics as an option for primary school parents. Seems as though the staff and parents aren’t too pleased about it:

Research director Jenny Stokes said: “If you go there, where do you stop? What about witchcraft or Satanism? If you accredit humanism, then those things would have an equal claim to be taught in schools.”

I’m not a big expert on just what goes down under, so these stories generally baffle me. You would think trying to teach kids about ethics without a higher power was as dangerous as throwing a can of gasoline on an open flame. Last time I checked, everyone I knew who learned about civics in class didn’t end up being morally psychotic or wanting to sell his soul to Satan. Lighten

The Santa experiment

Posted on by

I don’t have any children, although like any young adult, I’ve often contemplated how I would raise my own. I never particularly liked Christmas, and I always felt it unwise and deceitful to teach my children the rather silly notion of Santa Claus. The big bearded guy stands for many of the values I do not believe in; mainly the capitalist, consumerist attitude I feel is quickly destroying our planet.

Recently, however, I’ve changed my mind about the guy. There is another purpose to Santa Claus, not to mention the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny: they are quite effective tools to teach our children how to seek out evidence of claims made by others about how the universe operates, and ultimately of the duplicity of adults. In their infancy, kids are gullible. They’ll believe whatever you tell them. You could say babies come from storks, that Santa Claus can tell if they have been naughty or nice, or there is a bearded andro-centric God who will send them to a fiery pit of hell if they misbehave or fail to believe in his unprovable existence. In the case of Santa, the dogma is normally something that persists only a few months of the year, around the time of Christmas. Although those months may be intense, with images of him everywhere (in stores, on television, and the Internet). From November to December, the fat guy is everywhere.

We reward children who are especially pleased with the idea of Santa. The more they are excited about him, the more we ham it up, and play into the fantasy. The child benefits from a reward system that re-enforces the notion and existence of Santa, in the shape of presents, candies, and food. For a child, the idea that Christmas is actually about the birth of a man some consider God is completely lost on them; it’s all about Santa, and about the presents he brings.

But like any myth, the story of Santa is riddled with inconsistencies and impossibilities. As children grow up, they begin to question the mythology. How can Santa deliver presents to billions of children all in one night? How can he come in the house if someone doesn’t have a chimney, or if the chimney is lit? Why is it that some children (particularly the poor ones) never receive any gifts, or people who aren’t Christians don’t get any either? Are they not both deserving? An inquiring child will begin to ask these questions, and even the most credulous one will be highly suspicious of his existence once all of the evidence is examined. Like any good parent, we see a child abandoning his fantasy world as just one development in the many stages of growing up.

The Santa experiment offers us a rather unique look at how children are able to reject claims made by adults about the world, despite their bombardment of self reinforcing imagery. This is due to several factors: (1) the mythology of Santa is generally not held dogmatically, nor is it considered a crucial part of a person’s belief system. (2) The rejection of the idea of Santa is seen as a positive development in the life of a child. Credulous belief in his existence is usually seen as a sign of immaturity, and other incredulous children often reinforce the idea that the belief is juvenile. (3) The ‘indoctrination’ of the imagery and story of Santa are only reinforced during limited times of the year. After the Christmas season is over, the influence of Santa as a cultural and mythological entity fades.

Although some might criticize me for drawing a parallel between the notion of Santa and gods, the fact remains that the ideas share a great deal in common. Like many religions, the legend of Santa Claus is based at least partially on a real person (St. Nicholas), which, over the span of time, has been exaggerated, mystified, and stylized. The main differences lie in the fact the mythologies of religions are far more sophisticated, as are their underlying themes. The idea of Santa Claus does not deal with complex moral issues, but is rather a quaint view of how human beings should act towards one another. Santa is like a proto-religion that never really took off. It’s easy to see if the legend had been taken more seriously, and a whole set of moral and ethical guidelines had been built around this legend, that ‘Clausism’ might have quite the following; after all, the values of giving, honesty, and goodness are important and popular values. Instead, Santa Clause has been assimilated by our culture and turned into a religion fit for children, and not adults.

It seems fitting most children realize Santa is a myth, but they maintain the illusion in order to try and manipulate the system to gain more presents. By doing so, they turn the tables on our little lie for their own self interest. I see nothing wrong with this; the notion of Santa is something we use to manipulate kids around the holidays. It’s poetic justice that the Bearded Fat one eventually becomes their tool for manipulation. Ah, truely, this is the true spirit of Christmas, is it not?

The Good Atheist Podcast: EP 033

This week on TGA, Ryan and I discuss whether or not the Western world has the moral authority to tell other cultures what to do, and we also deal with the controversial issue of Nanotechnology. It’s an extra long show this week in preparation for Ryan’s vacation. Don’t worry though, faithful listener; I’m going to be bringing in a guest host. Stay tuned for more information!

The Good Atheist
The Good Atheist
The Good Atheist Podcast: EP 033
Loading
/

I knew it, Christmas IS evil!

Posted on by

More on the War on Christmas, and this time, it’s not coming from us filthy atheists. Anjem Choudary is a Muslim chairman for the Society of Muslim Lawyers, and preaches on the corrupt influence Christmas apparently has on Muslims. Now it’s one thing to dislike a holiday, but it’s another entirely to decree yuletide festivities are a ‘pathway to hellfire’.

You gotta love these brimstone and hellfire guys. They really love to rub hell in everyone’s face. Apparently, having a little bit of turkey on the 25th is something that Allah cannot tolerate. This is a God with an inferiority complex at the thought of anyone celebrating any other deity but him.

The thing that always gets me about the War on Christmas is just how sensitive all these religious people are. If I had a firm belief in the absolute truth of my God, I wouldn’t worry too much about other religions. Surely if I have the truth, my chosen Deity can fully intervene and show these infidels just who they are messing with. A little celebration, be it Christmas, Ramadan, or Yom Kippur certainly wouldn’t give me much pause; after all, I’m one of the chosen people, right?

What’s funny in all of this is Muslims actually believe in the historical Jesus. The only major difference is they believe he was a great prophet and not a God. Seems to me there’s no reason they couldn’t simply make a few of their own alterations to the celebration and not feel completely left out of all the fun. Because you know something; at the end of the day, celebrating the winter solstice with your friends, your neighbors, and your family is a pretty awesome thing. Not being able to participate because some asshole tells you that you’ll burn in hell forever puts a damper on things, doesn’t it?

Muslims condemn attacks, go on defensive

Posted on by

In case you were completely cut off from the whole world and haven’t heard, a group of Islamic terrorists executed 170 people in cold blood in Mumbai, India last week, and many religious leaders in the Muslim community have come out condemning the attacks, while also vehemently denying there is anything about their faith that may be causing these violent outbreaks. If Islam is such a peaceful religion, why is there so much violence and hatred?

Luckily, not everyone is blind to the impact terrorist attacks are having on the world perception of Islam. Al-Jenfawi, a columnist for a Kuwaiti newspaper, said this concerning the problem of perception:

Muslims and Arabs must confront the violence that is taking place in our name and in the name of our (Islamic) tenets. Unfortunately, we have yet to see a distinguished popular condemnation in the traditional Arab or Muslim communities that strongly rejects what is happening in the name of Islam or Arab nationalism

As far as I can tell, there’s no reason to believe this will happen anytime soon. The violent assaults we are witness to are only the beginning. The truth of the matter is the Muslim faith has done little to reform itself, and as a result, its dogma often reflects values and traditions that are incompatible with modern life. Although there are many moderate Muslims, they are generally considered corrupt, evil and infidels within other more orthodox traditions. Reformation seems impossible unless a majority of Muslims agree that there are elements of their faiths that must be expunged. I very much doubt anything of the sort will happen.

Tensions are going to continue to rise unless something drastic happens. How many Islamic terrorist attacks will occur before the public grows suspicious and mistrustful of any Muslim? I don’t defend judging an entire religion on the action of extremists, but why exactly is it so difficult for this religion to get some of its members under control? There is no denying there is a great deal of hatred in the Middle East, much of it directed against the West, and Jews in particular. If moderate and modern Muslims want to avoid being feared and mistrusted, they will need to do more than simply condemn the actions of their religious brethren. If, following the attacks, Muslim organizations had mobilized to bring help and assistance to the victims, it would have sent a clear message that it wasn’t a situation of them vs us. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like this is very likely, and the continued failure of Muslims to integrate Islamic faith in our modern world could well create a impenetrable cultural barrier.