The Mind of Jihad

This is a kind of rambling post…stream of consciousness with punctuation.

Obviously, I don’t think like a terrorist.  The idea that I’m willing to kill myself to punish people who don’t think like me seems somewhere on the other side of insanity.  But even when we set aside the religious fanaticism; I’m still baffled.

Why do they continue to try and blow up airplanes?

It seems to me that there are so many targets that would be significantly “softer” than international fights.  A mall at Christmas.  A St. Patrick’s Day parade.  A high school football game.  Granted, a terrorist still has to get into the country and build his explosive device, but if you want to instill terror in the greater population imagine what would happen if five or ten grocery stores blew up simultaneously.

And that brings me to my point.  You can’t fight a “war on terror” any more than you can fight a war on bullets.  Terror is a weapon not an enemy.  The real enemy is a culture of Islamic intolerance at war with the modern world and modern values.  We, in the West, are not the true targets of this war.  The true targets are the reform minded men and women in the Islamic world and the people they persuade.

I do believe military power needs to be a part of this conflict.  The Islamic fanatics will continue to prove their strength by causing pain to the modern world.  However, there needs to be pressure put on the “moderate” Muslim to condemn the fanatics.  There are more than 1.5 billion adherents to Islam.  Surely there are strong, charismatic members of the faith that can stand up against the idea of jihad.

As an atheist, there is a part of me that says, “See, this is what worshiping imaginary people gets you.”  But that isn’t very constructive.  Islam is at war with itself.  The 21st century versus the 10th.

America and the West need to stop thinking that we are the focus of this battle.  The Cobra Commander types of attacks against us are designed to inspire and recruit more fundamentalists, not destroy our way of life.  We need to be an ally to the modern Muslim world, such that it exists.

So after writing all that maybe I do think a little like a terrorist and I’m not so baffled by the continued attempts to hit the hard targets.

-Jay

On Healthcare Reform, Atheism and the Nature of Debate

I’ve been thinking about and discussing two important topics lately, atheism and the proposed healthcare system reform.  On the surface there doesn’t seem to be much in common with these two trains of thought and they generally don’t come up at the same time.

However, I’ve been struck and frustrated by a tactic used by proponents of the Democrats’ reform that relates to tactics theists use to justify their irrational beliefs.

Proponents of this healthcare reform package might point to the number of people uninsured (or life expectancy or pre-existing condition exclusions, etc.), assert there is a problem and that the solution is legislation authorizing massive restructuring that must be passed quickly.  All while characterizing opponents as merely obstructionists, in the pocket of evil special interests who hate poor people.

Fundamentalist theists might point to out of wedlock births (or divorce rates or teen violence, etc.), assert there is a problem and that the solution is legislation authorizing prayer in school.  All while characterizing opponents as merely people who don’t love God,  worshipers of the Devil who hate the traditional family.

I may agree that there are problems and pressures affecting the American family.  As an atheist, I clearly don’t love gods, nor do I worship devils and my wife and two kids argue against my hatred of the traditional family (although I have no issue with non-traditional families per se).  And even though I may not have a complete solution to teen violence or kids having kids, I will still fight to keep prayer out of the schools because I think it is wrong.

I’m not going to argue the merits of healthcare reform here.  I just want to comment on the nature of the debate.  The Democrats have asserted that the status quo is unacceptable.  I may or may not agree with that completely, but let’s assume that is true.  As the minority, Republicans have few options in shaping the bills especially if there are stark ideological differences.  The proposed legislation is less a question about what kind of reform there will be and more a question of if it will pass.  And although the Republicans don’t have the power or the votes to pass the kinds of reforms they think might agree with, their fight to stop something they see as wrong is still valid.

My point in all this is not to anger the liberal atheists out there by comparing them to fundamentalists (or worse still, Republicans).  My point is to say that proponents of this healthcare reform, since it is their proposal and since they have the Presidency and both houses of Congress, have the burden arguing their position is right and will work.  While attacking opponents of reform as the “Party of No,” feels good and score points with people that agree with them, it does nothing to help them meet their burden and further their argument.

I’ve been very disappointed with our political discourse lately.  Logic and reason seem to give way all too easily to emotion and demagoguery.  Those of us who embrace reason and rational thought must take a step back, dial down the rhetoric and assume that everyone involved is truly working to make our country a better place.

-Jay