A couple of days ago in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, a guy called Craig Hicks walked into the house shared by his newly-married neighbours Deah Barakat and Yusor Mohammad and shot them and Mohammads visiting sister Razan, killing all three. Hicks immediate inspiration for the act seems to have been a parking dispute. Would he have done the same over a disagreement with his white neighbours, his neighbours with north-western European names, or his neighbours whose ancestors had lived more than two generations in the US? If so, it would break the nauseously familiar pattern that so far his crime seems to instantiate. Us-and-Them thinking cannot be uprooted from the human psyche; all the more urgent that its shoots be plucked off at first sight.
Theres a twist. As well as their skin colour, ethnicity, and provenance, the victims were all Muslim. Thats not the twist. Hicks advocates right-wing politics and opposes gun control. Thats not the twist either. The twist is that Hicks is an atheist, indeed a New Atheist, a devotee of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. Its looking like his atheism was part of the parcel that led him to think shooting someone is OK if theyre Muslim and nick your parking space.
New Atheism is one of multiple crowds that I hang out on the fringes of. Im not a big fan of Harris or Hitchens and my opinion of Dawkins has taken a pounding in the last couple of years, but I still admire Daniel C. Dennett and Steven Pinker, and I applaud Stephen Frys stance on God in the recent viral YouTube video. I could distance myself from Hicks by doing some Us-and-Themmery of my own redneck! gun-nut! libertarian! patriarch! but that wouldnt be honest. His crime has no bearing on the existence or otherwise of God, but it has punctured the protective bubble of self-praise that New Atheists have blown up around ourselves, part of which was that New Atheists dont blow that sort of bubble.
So here goes. No, violent aggression against people seen as other did not come into the world with religion. Most of todays major religions became major by harnessing it, but it predates them and, if Hicks is anything to go by, will survive their demise. No, rejecting supernatural beliefs does not make you immune to it. Yes, reason is one of the antidotes, but for that to work you have to commit yourself to the use of reason as your sole means of persuasion. Using the word reason as a badge of superiority wont cut it.
Yes, Islam is a religion, not a race. Yes, some of Islams sternest critics are former Muslims. Yes, they include leftists like Maryam Namazie as well as neocons like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Yes, one can leave Islam through mental effort. No, that doesnt make it OK to harass Muslims for being Muslims. Yes, everyone should have the right to free speech. No, that doesnt mean Muslims have to stop complaining when people trash-talk them. Actually thats kind of the opposite of what it means, when you think about it. Yes, false beliefs can be harmful. Yes, clinging to beliefs beyond the warrant of the evidence is therefore dangerous. No, that doesnt mean it should be punished, except insofar as rational debate constitutes punishment.
No, Islam does not contain qualitatively nastier ideas than Christianity, Judaism, or Hinduism. Yes, there is historical contingency as well as present geopolitics in the tangle of contributing factors that help explain why majority-Muslim countries nowadays are trailing the rest of the world on violence and human rights. Yes, particular readings of the Quran are part of the tangle. No, there is no sense in which they are core beliefs of Islam but the phobia of Jews, heresy, and Satan were not core beliefs of Christianity well into modern times.
Yes, 9/11 and the Charlie Hebdo shootings were committed in the name of Islam. No, that doesnt mean every single Muslim is more violent than every single non-Muslim, even by a tiny degree. It means, at most, that (at present) the proportion of people who are violent is slightly larger in Muslim populations than in other populations. If that justifies shooting Muslims, then the same logic mandates the extermination of men; the prevalence of violence among men is orders of magnitude greater than the prevalence of violence among women (and chronically so). No, Muslim immigrants into non-Muslim countries are not all sleeper agents of the global caliphate waiting for a signal to convert everyone by the sword. Not even mostly.
No, Muslims are not responsible for what other Muslims do just because theyre Muslims. That Enlightenment humanism stuff? That stuff we talk about, where you get judged by your individual actions, not the characteristics of a set that you happen to be a member of? That applies here too.