Sunday, April 20, 2008

Washington Post Supports Anti-Atheist Bigotry

The King of Saudi Arabia wants to bring about peace in the Middle East by uniting the three Abrahamic religions – Christianity, Islam, and Judaism – against atheists.

According to the Times of London:

"If God wills it, we will then meet with our brothers from other religions, including those of the Torah and the Gospel to come up with ways to safeguard humanity," he added. The king, who is the guardian of the holy sites of Mecca and Medina, said the major faiths shared a desire to combat "the disintegration of the family and the rise of atheism in the world". . . . King Abdullah said "I have noticed that the family system has weakened and that atheism has increased. That is an unacceptable behavior to all religions, to the Koran, the Torah and the Bible.”

Source: The Carpet Bagger Report: Saudi king seeks new crusade against atheists.

Okay, what can we expect from a moral monster such as the King of Saudi Arabia. He needs a diversion. He needs to point the global finger at somebody else and say, “Look! Over there!” while he preserves his misogynistic monarchy.

But . . . that’s not the news that caught my attention.

The Washington Post agrees. In an editorial called, “A Hint of Tolerance” , the Washington Post wrote:

Last week, Saudi King Abdullah delivered a little-noticed but potentially momentous statement calling for an interfaith dialogue among Saudi Muslims, Christians and Jews. Saying he had the support of the official Saudi clergy, King Abdullah said "the idea is to ask representatives of all monotheistic religions to sit together with their brothers in faith and sincerity to all religions as we all believe in the same god."

The Washington Post added:

The king didn't offer details . . .

Um . . . Mr. Post . . . the King certainly did offer details. He wants to start a joint Jihad/Crusade against atheists.

What the Washington Post editorial staff did was ignore the details, telling their readers that those details did not exist because . . . well, apparently, the safety and well-being of atheists around the world is not of much concern to the Washington Post editorial staff.

Still, the implicit recognition of other religions and the message of tolerance was a radical and welcome break from the message of Sheik Barak.

As Morbo points out in the Carpetbagger Report:

Imagine if Abdullah has singled out just about any other class of people. Pretend he had said Hinduism is increasing, and this is unacceptable. Substitute Buddhists, Sikhs, followers of Confucius or whatever. Can you imagine the uproar? Would any Christian or Jewish religious leader endorse such talks?

My question: Would the Washington Post have written an editorial calling this joint conference for the purpose of attacking Buddhists or Hindus “A Hint of Tolerance?”

Atheists, however, are a legitimate target – or at least a group whose targeting is of no concern - not only in Saudi Arabia, but on the editorial board of the Washington Post.

What is worse even than this is that, as I understand it, the Washington Post is a fairly well read newspaper. Furthermore, its readership consists of at least a few people who knew about what the Saudi King was proposing in this meeting of the representatives of the monotheistic religions – even thought the Washington Post decided not to mention it in their editorial.

And, yet, even those readers gave the endorsement of a joint Crusade/Jihad against atheists a pass. At least . . . it took me two weeks to find out about it.

You can contact the Washington Post at: ombudsman@washpost.com

4 comments:

anticant said...

This won't get far - they'll be at each others' throats long before they agree a common program.

Dan said...

I'd like a better fallback plan than "let the theists fight each other."

Sure, if you could toss them into Thunderdome to go at it with each other it's not a bad plan, but the problem is that both sides like to use tactics that involve big bombs, sweeping legislation, and hurtful resource distribution.

When you've got a deity on your side, you can chalk up lots of collateral damage to "hey, he works in mysterious ways."

Anonymous said...

This is awful. Funny how people go on about freedom and rights for their own chosen religious group, but are quick to try and take those away from others!

Dan said...

Large scale religion is really the ultimate game of King of the Mountain. There's really only room for one true god at the top. Even the Greeks couldn't imagine a dozen gods living in harmony at the top.
Once you've got big chunk of freedom of religion, the next logical step is to create scarcity in the marketplace, right?