Jeffrey Goldberg writes:

I am not arguing, of course, that American Muslims, as a whole, are violently unhappy with America (I’ve argued the opposite, in fact). But I do think that elite makers of opinion in this country try very hard to ignore the larger meaning of violent acts when they happen to be perpetrated by Muslims. Here’s a simple test: If Nidal Malik Hasan had been a devout Christian with pronounced anti-abortion views, and had he attacked, say, a Planned Parenthood office, would his religion have been considered relevant as we tried to understand the motivation and meaning of the attack? Of course.

Ta-Nehisi Coates replies:

Jeff asks what we’d say if a devout Christian had attacked Planned Parenthood. Fair enough–we have a pretty good corollary in George Tiller. I could be wrong, but I don’t recall a lot of “media elites” trying to divine what Tiller’s death said about Christianity, itself. Again, beyond the fact that some wacko interpreted Christianity to mean he had the right to shoot people, what else would there be to say?

There is an ongoing debate, a debate that is gaining attention and passion, among Atheists about whether or not Atheism ought to take a militant position, that is, if, given our current reality, we perceive a real threat to our society from militant religionists, is the proper response to push back with greater militancy; in a phrase, to get all medieval on their asses?

That’s a loaded question with a lot baggage.

Atheism is the position that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, there is no need to posit any influence not present in and of the natural world: that there is no supernatural. Atheism has not, in the past, demanded that not only is there no supernatural but further that any supposition of a supernatural is detrimental to society.

I recently traveled to my home town to attend the funeral of my youngest brother’s father-in-law. No caring person can stand among mourners and assert that their god is a superstition, a societally damaging figment of their imagination. Yes, telling a child that there is no Santa Claus is being honest, but is it kind? Is it better to allow them to figure out the fantasy themselves? At what age do we decide that they’re not making the leap they need to make?

What happens when our children have children and they still believe in Santa Claus? What happens Christmas morning to such a parent who awakens and finds nothing under the tree for their children? What kind of discussion could we have with a tearful adult who calls to ask why Santa Claus didn’t bring any presents for their children?

Do we tell them that Santa Claus moves in mysterious ways or do we tell them to get their butt out the door and go shopping?

Addressing violence by targeting religion is the wrong tack. People who fall into the trap that their religion is the only Truth and act in a way to eliminate all opposition to that position do not do so because of their religion any more than sexual predators like Anthony Sowell act because of pornography. They suffer from a pathology that attracts them to both violence and religion, one does not cause the other.

Religion in cases such as those of Timothy McVeigh and Nidal Malik Hasan is an easy target, but it is a diversionary target that causes society to divert attention and resources better placed in addressing the core pathology that leads such people to act in horrible ways.

Our understanding of why humans really do what they do is primitive at best.

We need to get much better.