Some See Extreme 'Anti-Theism' As Motive In N.C. Killings

[rug]

This image provided by the Durham County Sheriff's Office shows a booking photo of Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, who was arrested on three counts of murder early Wednesday. On his Facebook page, Hicks described himself as a gun-toting atheist. (Durham County Sheriff's Office/AP)

February 15, 2015 9:23 AM ET
Tom Gjelten

Outrage over the murder of three young Muslim Americans in North Carolina last week has gone international. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation said Saturday that the killings reflected "Islamophobia" and "bear the symptoms of a hate crime," but local authorities say they don't yet know what motivated the murders.

The man held responsible for the killings is an avowed atheist. Whether that's relevant in this case is not clear, but some experts see a new extremism developing among some atheists.

The North Carolina killings have unnerved U.S. Muslims in large part because the victims, Deah Shaddy Barakat, his wife Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha and her sister Razan, were model Muslim Americans, devoted to public service, with friends throughout their community.

The guest worship leader this past Friday at the Dar al-Noor mosque in northern Virginia was Dr. Esam Omeish, a prominent lay Muslim leader in the D.C. area.

http://www.npr.org/2015/02/15/386406810/some-see-extreme-anti-theism-as-motive-in-n-c-killings

4:05 audio at link.

[TexasProgresive]

1. Maybe but maybe he's a undiagnosed sociopath.

Seems there's a lot of that going 'round.

[PSPS]

2. "some experts see a new extremism developing among some atheists"

Sorry, but I'm not buying this silly "dangerous militant atheist movement" angle at all.

[bvf]

3. You don't have to buy it.

But I'm betting there's a lot of pent-up demand for it nonetheless, the better to feed the religious persecution complex.

[Panich52]

4. Atheists have the longest history of discrimination of any minority.

Religionists would like nothing better than to paint the 'godless heathens' w/ an antisocial & murderous brush.

(I wouldn't be surprised to find that Hicks' parents were very religious & restrictive. That might explain a hatred f/ the obviously faithful, wouldn't it?)
..

[cbayer]

12. "Religionists would like nothing better than to paint the 'godless heathens'

w/ an antisocial & murderous brush."

That's a pretty broad brush you are painting with. Have you seen much of that here, where there are quite a few religionists.

Just as an aside, this is kind of an ironic post in light of the one right above it.

[haikugal]

88. While I agree that atheists are hated and discriminated against

with impunity, I take issue with your 'longest history' assertion...I'd say it's at least a pretty good chance women hold that place.

[cbayer]

11. He makes it pretty clear that he is talking about a small, fringe group.

"To recognize that there is a small fringe element that has a belief system predicated on the inherent nature of religion as insidious, as needing to be removed from society,"

Islamophobia is a problem. Whether it contributed to this incident or not, there is an opportunity to put some pressure on vocal activists to tone down the anti-islam rhetoric.

[Fumesucker]

5. I suspect a bit of George Zimmerman

Control issues along with a gun and probably paranoia and a boatload of anger, a fairly toxic combination.

Zimmerman called 911 a lot and tries to throw his weight around, this guy called the towing service a lot and tries to throw his weight around.

[haikugal]

89. Yes!

Thanks for putting words to the feeling I get looking at the guy, he has that Zimmerman look. His actions are very similar as you note.

[edhopper]

6. So rug

what do you think of this:

Religion scholar Reza Aslan says ordinary atheists just don't believe in God. Hicks, Aslan says, was an anti-theist.

"An anti-theist is a relatively new identity, and it's more than just sort of a refusal to believe in gods or spirituality; it's a sometimes virulent opposition to the very concept of belief," Aslan says.

cause the guy in your avatar would say that it isn't new at all, and Aslan is spouting his usual anti-atheist bullshit.

I think the term "expert" is used very loosely here.

[cbayer]

8. What part of his definition of anti-theist do you disagree with?

And what about this makes him anti-atheist?

Do you not see a difference between atheist and anti-theist?

[edhopper]

9. The part that it's a new identity

people like Marx and Thomas Payne would disagree.

[cbayer]

10. I think he is talking specifically about identifying with the term,

but I see your point.

How about my question about why you see this as anti-atheist?

[edhopper]

13. Aslan loves to criticize

the "New Atheists".
He saw this as another opportunity. that's all.

[cbayer]

14. I think he is highly critical of anti-theists, as am I.

I have never seen him criticize atheists in general. That's a meme.

The requirements for being atheist friendly are extremely rigid here.

[edhopper]

16. I can accept that distinction

but he is still off base here and making assumptions about this case that aren't yet determined.

As I said, he is being opportunist.

[cbayer]

19. I agree that he is an opportunist and he is certainly not alone in that space.

But he is a person one might want to ask about this episode. His education, training and experience give him a certain level of expertise in this area.

[rug]

29. I can count on one hand the number of posters here who are simply atheists.

If this Group is any measure, which it isn't, self-professed atheists here are agenda driven and the agenda has little to do with atheism. As this thread, to name but one, demonstrates.

Marx's critique of religion was on its influence and connivance with the ruling classes throughout civilization. You don't need to be an atheist to realize that. He had bigger fish to fry than to waste time with putting a sieve on his head.

Aslan's critique is not a critique of atheism at all. Calling an atheist an asshole because he is an asshole is not a critique of atheism.

[edhopper]

31. But it ain't new

as Aslan tries to say.

And he has no expertise when it comes to this case.

Just an excuse to spout his usual complaints against certain people.

[rug]

32. Assholery is not new. Its latest costume, which Aslan describes is somewhat new.

Although I agree it's been around in one form or another for a long time. Which is too bad. It really distracts from the real danger that should be exposed and criticized.

[edhopper]

35. You know

I don't accept your delineation of who is an asshole.

What do you think is this real danger?

[rug]

37. Accept it or not. I don't accept your - and their - delineation of who's gullible.

[cbayer]

7. I don't see extremism among anti-atheists is general.

Rigidity and intolerance, yes, but they are primarily keyboard warriors who use the cloak of anonymity to bully others.

This guy is not one of those. Though he carries the same label, he is clearly an anomaly, an extremist.

What I do see is a growing islamophobia both here and in Europe. Some of it is being promoted by prominent and vocal atheists and some of them have also self-identified as anti-theists. I hope that they take this as an opportunity to dial back the rhetoric and recognize the impact their words can have when embraced by somebody who is capable of killing his neighbors.

[edhopper]

15. You're

assuming this killing was motivated by the victims religion.
I don't think that can be determined yet.

[cbayer]

17. I'm not assuming that at all and never have.

[edhopper]

18. So what does this mean

I hope that they take this as an opportunity to dial back the rhetoric and recognize the impact their words can have when embraced by somebody who is capable of killing his neighbors.

If it was a parking dispute with an unstable man?

[cbayer]

20. I have said that whether this particular incident was fueled in part

by islamophboia or not, there is an opportunity to look at the issue in general.

As the article points out, the muslim community thinks this was a hate crime. They may or may not be right, but the fact that it is a rather pervasive conclusion and that the victims felt that he hated them because of their religion is very important.

Those that are promoting anti-islamic sentiments with some pretty harsh rhetoric have an opportunity here to step up and say they will be part of the solution, not further the problem.

[edhopper]

21. But you thought that was true

before this happened. And if this has nothing to do with their religion, the arguments about how to talk about religion haven't changed.

This incident hasn't made me re-examine anything about my position. I see no reason it should.

I Believe in criticizing all religion and I believe in treating people with the respect they deserve. What changed?

[cbayer]

22. I think I am not being clear.

I did think that the anti-islam rhetoric is very harmful wherever it comes from.

You don't think there is any reason to re-assess your position and views as a result of this. I think you couldn't be more wrong.

When something happens that brings up issues in which you engage and involves people that may share a label with you, it may be critical to re-examine your position. I hope that some of the more prominent and vocal anti-theists that push intolerance towards muslims will do exactly that.

You may re-examine your position and decide that it doesn't change anything for you, but to reject the idea of even taking a look seems pretty close minded.

It is not clear whether this had anything to do with their religion, but there are some facts at hand. This man defined himself as an anti-theist. The people he killed were obvious theists. This has led to a spotlight being shown on the issue of islamophobia and how it may intersect with anti-theism.

There is an opportunity here to stand up against religious intolerance and show support for the muslim community. Shutting your eyes and covering your ears and insisting that you don't have any reason to take a look at your own position is a sign of defensiveness in the extreme, imo.

[edhopper]

23. Do you think

there is more anti-Islam rhetoric coming from atheists or certain RW and Christian quarters?

[cbayer]

24. I don't think it's a contest. It's coming from both groups

and it's time to stand up against it.

It's more effective for those that share an identity with those pushing it to challenge it than it is for those outside.

So you can stamp your feet and say you have no need to re-examine anything, or you can ask yourself if standing up against anti-muslim rhetoric might be something you want to do. The answer to that question might be "no", but there is no harm in re-examining your position.

It must be threatening to do so would be my guess.

[edhopper]

25. I said

I don't have to re-examine myself because of this.

I also think there is a problem with the way some parts of the Muslim world behaves, and does so because of how they follow Islam. (Saudi Arabia, Taliban ie...) Sorry if you don't think that should be criticized, and doing so is "Islamaphobic"

I don't recall ever supporting violence against Muslims, so I don't know what you want me to "stand up" to.

[edhopper]

30. I do think

Last edited Mon Feb 16, 2015, 02:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Islam is irredeemable, since it is based on false ideas and beliefs about it's Prophet, who he was and it's God.

Not that it's isn't going to stay around for a time.

Of course i fell the same way about Christianity and Judaism. Being anti-theist and all.


THIS IS MEANT AS A BIG FUCKING JOKE.

[cbayer]

33. Irredeemable? Now there is an interesting word.

That is basically a condemnation of every muslim on earth, all 1.6 billion of them.

You have basically said that they can't be saved or helped because you deem their religion corrupt.

And then you double down with saying you think the same thing about another 7 billion or so people.

No, no prejudice there, none at all.

[edhopper]

36. Not Muslims

just the underlying concepts of the religion. They can easily be redeemed by stopping believing.

Okay, I am being very snarky and cheeky here.

[cbayer]

38. It's more than just snarky and cheeky.

But you've got the one way and must feel some tremendous obligation to save them.

You appear to basically see all these people as fools who just haven't reached the level of enlightenment that you have.

If only they could just stop believing and be more like you, the world would be perfect, wouldn't it.

[edhopper]

41. Irredeemable wasn't my word

I just used it for my snarky answer. See it however you want. But at this point, I won't defend something said with a big portion of jest.

Done with "irredeemable"

[edhopper]

46. In response to you using it.

Your unfortunate word, my cheeky response.

Tone is always a problem on the internet and I should learn by now that jesting doesn't read well.

[cbayer]

28. You never have to re-examine yourself… ever.

However, I think one of the tenets of free thought is the constant reexamination of what one thinks is true, particularly when new information becomes available.

I have never said that certain aspects of islam should not be criticized and never said you were islamophobic. You have fabricated that, and that right there might be a good reason for some re-examination.

But, to counter your point, I think that saying that you "have a problem with the way some parts of the muslim world behaves" is indicative of some possible blind spots. If you are talking about specific groups (political leaders in Saudi Arabia or groups of identified terrorists), that's one thing. But what does "some parts of the muslim world behaves" really mean?

Do you have a problem with every muslim in Saudi Arabia?

More importantly, what do you think of some of the anti-islamic rhetoric that comes from some prominent anti-theists who opportunistically use the media to spread their beliefs?

[edhopper]

40. I examine myself and my life on an ongoing bases

this event and this man on the other hand does not make me re-examine myself.

Hope you see the distinction.

If you show me the statement I will tell you whether I oppose it or not. Do Harris or Mahr talk about acts of violence against Muslims?


Not just political leaders, but religious leaders as well, and many of the followers who carry out these acts.

No matter how I state that I am talking about "some" or "certain" you always ask if I mean "all" which I obviously don't, so I don't try to hard to be precise, since it ends with the same question.

[edhopper]

44. Could you point me to some of what they have said

I can answer to specific statements.

[edhopper]

52. I agree with Maher's firs statement

I don't think his second is true.

Religion is the motherlode of bad ideas in general.

[edhopper]

67. Indonesia and Pakistan

Are not bastions of liberal ideals.


Would you criticize countries that govern based on Islam?

[edhopper]

70. If you remove the atheist adjective

Implying that atheism has a big role in how the Communist countries rule, I would agree.

[cbayer]

45. I see that you found it threatening, so much so that you had to take a public stand

against the possibility that this might merit some self-reflection.

If you have to ask me about Harris or Maher speaking about violence, then you truly are not familiar with the things they have said. Again, this might be a good reason to do a little reassessment.

You made the statement that Islam is irredeemable. You didn't say some or certain. You didn't specify some parts of it or certain interpretations. You indicated that there is nothing in Islam that is worthy or salvagable and in doing so you condemn all Muslims.

I'm afraid that if you did re-examine your POV you would find yourself squarely in the corner of Harris, Maher and Hitchens. That's most unfortunate.

[edhopper]

47. It was a friggin joke

in response to the word used in the previous post.

It wasn't meant to be serious, as Ilsa said in Frozen, "let it go"

[cbayer]

54. Well, in the context of the previous post, it's really not funny, but I will let it go.

[edhopper]

55. I said it was a joke

not that it was particularly funny.

[cbayer]

58. But look at how it played out.

Three young muslims were murdered in cold blood by someone who identified himself as an anti-theist. Whether his anti-theism was a factor or not is not entirely clear, but it can't be wholly dismissed.

The person you responded to made a very strong point about how anti-islamic rhetoric is fomenting hate against muslims.

the particular virulent brand of islamophobia Harris and Maher have been spreading, which condemns Islam as an irredeemably dangerous doctrine and its followers adherents to that dangerous doctrine, is dangerous

You then take the position that you agree with them, but call it a joke.

Sometimes jokes can be very revealing, particularly those that are based on one's particular biases.

[edhopper]

51. Yes the cries that atheists

and people who don't care for religion must now re-examine themselves because of this on man's actions did make me say something.

[cbayer]

56. No one must do anything in response, but actively rejecting

the opportunity to do something is just purely defensive. I don't think that this man's actions reflect on you at all.

As I have repeatedly said, it does provide an opportunity to stand up against anti-islamic rhetoric and stand up for muslims who are being harmed by it.

I suspect you have, in fact, examined the possibility of toning down some of your own rhetoric and rejected that. At least your supposed humorous statements would indicate that that is the case.

[hrmjustin]

26. I think his anti-theism played a part in it.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

34. 'Some see' just about anything.

Just like some fool somewhere will say anything, some fool somewhere will see anything or do anything.

[struggle4progress]

48. Angry, armed and white: Why Craig Stephen Hicks is the face of America’s violent extremism

STEVEN ROSENFELD

... Hicks’ social media posts show that he was an ardent atheist who equally mocked Muslims and Christians, an avid defender of the Constitution’s separation of church and state, and a gun nut who posted pictures of his revolver. The Associated Press quoted neighbors who say “he always seemed angry and frequently confronted his neighbors” and “his ex-wife said he was obsessed with the shooting rampage movie Falling Down” and showed “no compassion at all.”

The Wall Street Journal further reported that the father of two victims, who were sisters, “said this man was hateful. He was picking fights, knocking on their door.” The Journal also said Hicks obsessively called tow truck companies to have his neighbors’ cars towed, and once even met tow truck drivers in the street waving a gun ...

“The one thing we know is that the psychology has always been the same,” Joe Navarro, a former FBI agent and co-founder of the agency’s Behavioral Analysis Program, said in a Q&A in the SPLC report. “By that, I mean you have individuals who are collecting wounds, they’re looking for social ills, or things that have gone wrong, and they are nourishing these things that they’re ideating, that they’re thinking about. The solution for them is violence” ...

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/14/angry_armed_and_white_why_craig_stephen_hicks_is_the_face_of_americas_violent_extremism_partner/

[struggle4progress]

49. Chapel Hill suspect owned huge arsenal

Stephen Hicks, facing murder charges over deaths of three Muslim students, had two shotguns, seven rifles and four handguns

... Records filed in Durham County superior court on Friday list items recovered by police from the Chapel Hill condominium of Craig Stephen Hicks, the 46-year-old charged with three counts of first-degree murder. The warrants show that three handguns were recovered from the Hicks home, in addition to a pistol the suspect had with him when arrested. Also listed are two shotguns and seven rifles, including a military-style AR-15 carbine. Police also recovered numerous loaded magazines and cases of ammunition. Eight spent shell-casings were found in the neighboring apartment of the young couple killed ...

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/14/chapel-hill-suspect-huge-arsenal-hicks

[leveymg]

57. After the KKK/Nazis shot 5 in Greensboro in '79, US Attorney refused to purse Hate Crime charges

The official response to this shooting of Muslims is eerily reminiscent of the way Greensboro, NC and the Justice Department denied racial animus was the motive for the 1979 Greensboro Massacre. Two all-white state juries delivered not guilty in self-defense verdicts. It took a third civil trial before there was any semblance of justice.

It came out during the civil trail that the shooting was organized by an FBI informant, and the authorities were aware that the Klan and Nazi caravan was heavily armed looking for a showdown as it drove into a Black neighborhood that day. See Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_massacre

[rug]

59. I remember that.

Nazis killing Communists. No indictment.

[guillaumeb]

63. not being an atheist or an anti-theist

I ask what exactly is the difference between the two concepts?

The terms seems to be identical to me. Please enlighten.

As to the incident in North Carolina, basically a person with a gun killed 3 other people. That person's beliefs about religion may have motivated him, or not, but with proper gun regulation the incident might have been avoided. The media loves to obsess about why a particular violent person committed a violent act, as if somehow people with a predisposition toward violent behavior can be identified before they act. It rarely happens.

[cbayer]

64. It's simple.

An atheist is a person who has not beliefs in a god or gods. There is nothing else to add to that definition.

An anti-theist is one who is hostile towards and generally against theism (or religion). They are most likely to also be atheist, but they are atheists with specific beliefs about religion.

I believe that most atheists are not anti-theists at all.

[guillaumeb]

65. so anti-theists and militant religious fundamentalists

are two sides of the coin? Seems to be a good definition and explanation. Thanks

[Humanist_Activist]

66. No, not really, indeed its a rather ignorant comparison to make...

for one, militant religious fundamentalists have a specific code, holy book, or belief that justify their militancy, which typically results in violence. There is nothing like any of that in any stage of nonbelief.

[guillaumeb]

72. true, but

while nonbelievers do not have a holy book or other specific text, the point I make is that in each case, belief or non-belief, the adherents in each side have strong feelings that their side is correct.

I might believe in one thing, you another, but the commonality here is belief itself. Belief does not imply a religion. I believe in Darwin's Theory of Adaptation even though it cannot be proven in every sense. I also believe in global climate change.

Maybe the problem is in the wording.
If I say, I think that global climate change is real versus
I believe that global climate change is real
am I saying two different things?

[edhopper]

73. You don't believe in Darwinian evolution

the overwhelming evidence supports it. Concrete real data shows it to be the best explanation for species.

Unlike believing in angels or biblical miracles.

Acceptance of scientific theories is not belief based.


No, I won't get into a semantic argument about what "is" is.

[guillaumeb]

74. my post said that I do

believe in Darwin's Theory. And I do.

The bizarre factor comes into play when talking with certain types of religious fundamentalists who claim that because it is not Bible based they cannot believe in it. But they drive cars, use electricity, and deal with other things that are not mentioned in the Bible.

And thank you for not turning Bill Clinton on me.

[edhopper]

76. I know you accept Darwin

I am making the distinction between faith in religious concepts and acceptance of scientific explanations of real phenomenon.

It's not a question of "Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution?" belief got nothing to do with it.

I don't think they are parallel. Most religious beliefs require faith despite the evidence against them.

[guillaumeb]

80. very true

Someone, I cannot remember who, defined faith as "the willing suspension of disbelief" which seems as good a definition as any.
Faith does not require evidence, and I have argued with people who say that their faith IS their evidence. One cannot debate with that.

[edhopper]

81. I shy away from the word believe

because it has different meaning depending how it is used.

[guillaumeb]

82. the problem with language

I believe in something like a concept. Like freedom. I cannot see it. But definitions of what freedom is may differ. My personal definition of belief is something that I accept without being able to prove it.

I do not have to believe in Evolution, or mutation, or gravity, or climate change. They are observable, provable things.

[edhopper]

83. Exactly

When someone asks, Do you believe in the Democratic Party? It would mean do you support it's agenda, not whether there really is a Democratic Party.
Do you believe in God? Asks if you think he exists.

[guillaumeb]

84. bulls-eye

[edhopper]

85. I've had discussions

Where people equate the two. Very frustrating.

[guillaumeb]

87. that is what I like about this site.

There are funny, silly posts and there are serious posts. The serious posts are generally filled with information rather than empty rhetoric. I like the back and forth of debate, I have since my school days back in the paleolithic age.

Even when I disagree with the opinions I appreciate the thought that is evident in the writing. And the passion/obsession with politics.

Off for the night. The guitar is calling me.

[edhopper]

90. Good talking to you

Goodnight.

[Leontius]

86. Anti-theism is not just nonbelief it is a position of active opposition to religion and

religious belief it may manifest itself with violent action or it may not. It is not just some neutral position on the existence of gods.

[cbayer]

68. I wouldn't go that far.

While some anti-theists can be rather militant and much like fundamentalists, others have a more benign approach. Some just believe religion is a bad thing and the world would be better without it.

But some do think that all religious believers are delusional and that religion is a disease that must be cured.

As with any group, there are extremists on the fringes.

[demosincebirth]

91. well said.

[TM99]

75. I most assuredly see them as two sides of a coin.

There is no philosophical identity without a religion to be opposed to. They define themselves by their own religious pasts, their fears and hatred of fundamentalist religious believers, and bluntly think about religion, believers, and god as much as a fundamentalist religious believer does.

This is an extremely small subset of non-believers, atheists, agnostics, whatever, but I do find that they are quite vocal. They will argue that because there is no book, priests, dogma, etc. that the comparison fails but I see it as being more of a psychological similarity as the attitudes, rigidity of thought processes, and an "us versus them" mentality is strikingly the same -- belief or no belief.

[edhopper]

77. And of course they call for the death

of those that disagree, right?

[cbayer]

78. When you take the position that they are all diseased and that "we"

can find a cure, that could be interpreted as calling for their deaths by someone looking for something to act on.

And when people say that they are all psychotic and dangerous and their beliefs poison everything, that could also be interpreted as a call to arms.

Sam Harris has made the statement that it is sometimes justified to kill people for their beliefs.

You are trying to make a distinction where there isn't one, and the only reason for that is because you belong to one of the groups and not the other.

[edhopper]

79. I'll let

TM explain what he meant.

[NeoGreen]

92. Gee...why am I reminded of the old tried and true catch phrase...

..."Some people say..."?

Where have I heard that sentiment before...?

"Some see..."
"Some people say..."

I know that it has been used to great effect somewhere...but I just can't seem to put my finger on that particular melon seed...

Hmmm...

[cbayer]

93. I'm not sure where you have seen this, but in this case the "some"

that are referred to are muslim groups who are trying to sound the alarm on rising and dangerous islamophobia.

Whether this particular incident was a result of that is not at all clear, but to dismiss it because you find the introductory phrase trite or reminiscent of something else really does not give those who are afraid and in danger much respect.