Irreligious people see all religions as equally preposterous.
Yes, in their abstract doctrines, but when an irreligious person looks at the ethical constructs those doctrines imply in earthly contexts, they are not equally preposterous, because these ethical constructs have implications for our day-to-day life in society, regardless of whether we are pledged to a certain religion or not(at least in a multi-faith society like ours).
You seem to imply that the believer’s actions on earth are just as random as his abstract beliefs, but they aren’t. As an example, pagans believed that sacrificing animals had an impact on the gods, so they sacrificed animals. Christians do not believe that, so they don’t sacrifice animals. Let’s assume everyone in PETA is irreligious. Wouldn’t they still favor Christianity over paganism on this score, even without any dog in the doctrinal fight? This is simply a recognition that ideas have consequences.
As for the passages of the Koran that the Muslim cleric would pull out to show how “peaceful” Islam is, yes, they are there, but they only apply to inter-Muslim ethics. Muslims are supposed to treat each other as brothers, much as the French doctrine of “Liberte, Fraternite, Egalite”. Looking as Islamic societies, this seems more honored in the breach. In any case, all of these wonderful sentiments do not apply to non-Muslims, but, and this is the important point for Mr. Derbyshire to realize, the Muslim cleric won’t tell you that until it’s too late. He will de-contextualize these passages to fool the non-Muslim into thinking Muslims have a universal doctrine of peace. This is the Muslim version of the Trojan Horse, which they are using masterfully to fool naive Westerners who aren’t willing to invest the time to “know the enemy”, and who refuse to believe that those who have invested this time could have, with all due circumspection and caution, found something that upsets the belief system of those who don’t do the looking.
For example, I happen to be a “soft” believer in the virtues of a mulitcultural society. By that I mean I don’t have wet dreams thinking about diversity in the way some people appear to do, but I’m fine with the general doctrine that the US should be open to people from around the world. Even given that belief, there is no way in hell I think that openness should apply to Muslims, since they simply don’t know how to play well with others. You tell a hard-core adherent to the doctrine of multiculturalism that you think there should be an exception made in the case of Muslims and they go postal on you because it offends their pre-existing beliefs, even though, from a purely empirical point of view, a Muslim exception can easily be justified.
In my more pessimistic moments, this is why I come to the conclusion that there will have to be a civil war in the West before we can deal with the Muslim problem. There is simply too much aggressive ignorance about the issues floating around the collective Western mind.
I say all this as an irreligious empiricist with a background in history.
