Today's blast from the espresso press: A thought on Equivalencism.
The appropriate way for an atheist to show he is not Equivalencist is to say something like the following:
“I have problems with theism in general, and I have problems with Judaeo-Christian theology in particular, as well as with some episodes in the history of the Jews and of Christians; but all this utterly pales in comparison with the deep and searing problems I have with Islam. Indeed, on the most important level—our values and existence today as freedom-loving people in the modern world—any comparison at all between Islam and any other religion should never even be mentioned at all, except by way of a stark contrast to show how good all other religions and their followers generally are capable of being and how pernicious and dangerous Islam remains today, as it always has been throughout its historical career.”
This would be the absolute minimum to establish the bonafides of an atheist today (particularly influential ones like Dawkins, Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Paul Berman). One iota less, one hint of a mere whiff of equivocation on this, and he should be unceremoniously ejected to the Outer Darkness where there is weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth (yes, you Atheist Literalists, relax; that’s just a rhetorically figurative flourish tapping into the beautiful mythopoetry of the Bible, not meant to be construed literally…).
Equivalencism = criticizing Islam in a more or less gingerly way, while making sure to include all other religions in the criticism broadly speaking, and usually reseving stronger language of criticism (if not outright condemnation and mockery) for Judaeo-Christianity. The net effect of Equivalencism is to strongly imply that Islam is no worse than other religions, or at best only slightly worse. This is evidence of an irrationality so morbid and perverse, one must use the term “mental disease” to describe it.
(And, a postscript.)
No comments:
Post a Comment