Article

Lawyer Murders Judge For Allah

When the secular west decides to fight religious extremism, it protests with protective laws, cartoons, or peaceful demonstrations. When followers of radical Islam don’t like secular laws, they respond with killing.

Today Alpaslan Aslan, 29, an Islamic attorney, used his identification to get into a courthouse in Ankara, Turkey. Shouting out "Allahu Akbar," he murdered a judge whose ruling he didn’t agree with. Four others were wounded in the attack. As he tried to flee, he again cried out "I am a soldier of Allah!"

It’s such an old story, and we should all be so tired of hearing it, that we finally decide to declare an end to it.

There was a time in the U.S. when radical groups such as the KKK were rampant. They had tacit approval, the proverbial wink and a nod, from many members of society–even venturing into politics in some states. But eventually, they were supressed because people realized their real agenda. Only when public shame reached high enough levels did governments crack down–seizing assets. Opprobrium took care of the rest. Today, the KKK is scattered and largely impotent.

But governments are still afraid to challenge radical religions. Liberals justify protection of religion out of multiculturalism or simply the idea that all beliefs are equally valid and must be ‘respected’ based on tolerance. This is unadorned relativism, and it’s dangerous.

In the comment section under Sam Harris’ recent interview, a particularly strident christian (handle rbohan) tried to insist that their beliefs deserved respect by equating them to racial or sexual identity.

You wouldn’t think to tell an African-American, a gay man or woman, a Hispanic man or woman what he or she "believes" as a member of their culture… Bigotry is bigotry.

Rbohan couldn’t be more wrong. Beliefs are chosen. Race and sexual orientation are not. Beliefs lead people to action, and when they are untestable (i.e. subjective), they defy either proving or disproving. This feature allows people to arrogantly cling to positions that are a danger to themselves and others. Insisting subjective beliefs are real is the first step toward violence against non-believers. Many believers choose not to do violence, but that’s no justification: unsupported beliefs are the gasoline, radicals simply choose to light the match.

As long as imams are allowed to run their madrasas, follow sharia law, and teach their faith as if it were real, we will continue to see slaughter after slaughter. If secular governments, such as Turkey, want to stop the slaughter, they will have to ban the madrasas. They will have to place imams under surveillance, and arrest anyone who preaches violence against ‘infidels,’ or cites any such passages in the Koran.

There can be no compatibility between radical religion, and secular government–because religious radicals have no respect for government. They consider it to be illegitimate, and–if living peacefully–are merely biding their time. This is true to a certain extent in the U.S., where die-hard theocrats are thundering that even George W. Bush is too liberal!

Secular governments cannot afford to wait any longer. I stand with Sam Harris and many other bright, peaceful atheists: The time for religious ‘tolerance’ is over.


Comments (4 comments)

Francois Tremblay / May 18th, 2006, 11:07 am / #1

As long as you support a concentration of power that can be taken over by any group of religious nuts or religious agenda, Sean, we are definitely on opposite sides of this debate…

BlackSun / May 18th, 2006, 11:57 am / #2

What?? Please explain…

Dallas Criminal Defense Attorney / December 10th, 2010, 8:16 pm / #3

Given that we’re speaking about things within the region of Black Sun Journal » Lawyer Murders Judge For Allah, Positivism places strength on the rules as they’re laid down, on the premise that the process of the legislature will be the time for challenge and interpretation. Although this could normally be the case, it does throw up some problems in relation to the practical consequences of specific enactments, which reflect far better with experience the level of effectiveness. An additional characteristic of the positivist movement is that rather than be guided by moral considerations, the law may be employed in particular circumstances to make a decision what is right and what is wrong, on the basis of its status as in accordance with or against the law. Once more this causes complications that have formed the basis of significantly academic argumentation inside the area.

Doris Tracey / May 28th, 2015, 1:42 pm / #4

Is religious tolerance and religious freedom the same thing?

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this post.