Atheists Have an Anti-Muslim Bigotry Problem

On Monday, September 14, Ahmed Mohamed, a fourteen-year-old student at MacArthur High School in Irving, Texas, was arrested after school officials believed his homemade clock was a bomb. Although Irving Police Chief Larry Boyd knew it wasn’t a bomb, Mohamed was arrested anyway on charges of bringing a “hoax bomb” to school. As soon as the story broke nationwide, many people vocally expressed support for Mohamed with the hashtag #IStandWithAhmed, including many within the secular community—the Center for Inquiry, Sarah Morehead, and the American Humanist Association to name a few.

However, despite the overwhelming support for Mohamed, some prominent atheists instead chose to attack him. On September 18, Real Time host Bill Maher defended Mohamed’s arrest because “for the last thirty years, it’s been one culture that has been blowing shit up over and over again” [Correction: Bill Maher did say Ahmed Mohamed deserves an apology]. Also, Richard Dawkins suggested on Twitter that perhaps Mohamed “wanted to be arrested” (although, to be fair, Dawkins did condemn the police for arresting him). Indeed, Maher and Dawkins are two examples of prominent atheists whose criticisms of Islam only promote anti-Muslim bigotry.

There is a lot of debate within secular communities about whether or not criticizing Islam is racist. The argument goes that since Islam is not a race (indeed, one does not need to be a certain ethnicity to be a Muslim), criticizing Islam cannot be racist. Certainly there are legitimate criticisms of Islam. According to a 2013 Pew Research survey, 89 percent of Muslims surveyed in Pakistan, 85 percent of Muslims in Afghanistan, and 89 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territory support stoning as a punishment for adultery. The study also reveals that 86 percent of Muslims in Egypt, 79 percent of Muslims in Afghanistan, and 76 percent of Muslims in Pakistan believe leaving Islam should be punishable by death. These are human rights issues that all humanists should publicly acknowledge.

Although criticizing Islamic doctrine is no more racist than criticizing Christian doctrine, some atheists’ idea of criticizing Islam is to stereotype Muslims. For example, I once saw a meme in an online atheist community of a Sikh playing basketball with the words, “He suddenly got excited when his coach said they were doing suicides.” (A “suicide” in basketball is an exercise where you run the entire court touching down in intervals until you’ve completed the exercise on both sides of the court.) Not only are Sikhism and Islam two separate religions, but insinuating a brown person with a head wrap is a terrorist is just as racist as suggesting an African-American boy with a hoodie is a thug.

The anti-Muslim bigotry in the atheist community isn’t limited to just ridiculous memes. Sam Harris infamously wrote a few years ago that “We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it.” Although Islam is not tied to one specific ethnicity, Harris’s suggestion that “anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim” should be profiled is, in practice, racial profiling.

In a post on titled “When and How Criticizing Islam Takes a Turn for the Racist,” ex-Muslim Heina Dadabhoy writes,

[T]hough Islam might not be a race, people do treat Muslims as if they are part of a single racial category. It is widely assumed that all Muslims are Arabs and that all Arabs are Muslims….The stereotyping of Muslims, then, comes from racism and is a part of racism against Middle-Easterners (and, more broadly, the Other) rather than is equivalent to or is racism. Because Muslims are widely perceived and stereotyped to be a certain race, i.e. not white, criticism that is purported to be of Islam can end up being dressed-up racist statements against Arabs.

This underlying anti-Muslim bigotry in the atheist community frustrates many ex-Muslims, including activist Kiran Opal, who says, “I have seen the stigma and ostracism many people who question or stop following Islam face from their own families and communities. I have also seen how quickly many ex-Muslims get picked up and supported by reactionary Westerners, who are looking for any excuse to justify their hatred of Muslims.” Opal, who has contributed to the blogs Ex-Communications and, has seen many atheists try to pass off anti-Muslim stereotypes as legitimate criticisms of Islam:

They will spread disgusting imagery that is meant to degrade all Muslims or even all Arabs and Asian people. These are the “atheists” who will only speak about things like women’s rights, or LGBT rights, or animal cruelty, or violence when it can be blamed on Muslims, but will never address it in any other context, especially not when it’s “their people” who perpetuate those things. That’s how you know someone is a bigot, not a reasonable critic: when they will target only one group with their “criticism” and it’s never the groups they themselves identify with. That’s the quickest way to identify a bigot.

When it comes to being an ally for any marginalized group, the best thing to do is listen to other people’s stories. Indeed, there are many diverse sources online to further understand complex issues. For example, the Ex-Muslims of North America aim to be a safe place from both Islamic dogma and anti-Muslim bigotry. According to their “About Us” page,

There are those who propagate racist, bigoted and xenophobic ideas against Muslims, against anyone who comes from a Muslim background, and even against people who are not Muslim at all (e.g. Sikhs). These types of people (the bigots) tend to treat all Muslims (or all those perceived to be Muslim) as a monolith, a horde without internal differences or dissent. On the other hand, there are those who react to the bigoted, xenophobic types by trying to justify the violent parts of Islam and the harsh actions of some Muslims. This second type (the apologists) often shields Islam and Muslims from any and all critique and scrutiny, even the kinds of critique and scrutiny they themselves apply to other ideologies like Christianity, Capitalism, Communism, and others.

Human rights violations committed in the name of Islam need to be openly discussed and condemned by everyone, religious and secular. However, in order to provide a safe space for ex-Muslims, humanists must listen to and understand the complexities of their stories. As Opal concludes, “Criticism of Islam or Islamism should be contextualized in terms of other things that are going on as well that are causing the problems as well. This is to ensure that your message, i.e. your critique of particular aspects of Islam, is not used by bigots to promote hatred against all Muslims.”

[Correction: Bill Maher did say Ahmed Mohamed deserves an apology]

Tags: ,
  • Chuck O’Neil

    Over generalism abounds regarding Muslims. Just because we don’t aprove of some of the behaviors of some of the Muslims doesn’t mean they all or even most of them engage in questionable practices. Over generalization just helps breed hate and a willingness to justify wars. Whenever we go to war the warmongers start by getting the populace to degrade and hate the potential enemy. It makes it more acceptable to kill “towel headed Hajjis” than real human beings.

    It is very discouraging to see prominent Athiests engage in dissing Muslims.

    • as with so many things, the key is to be balanced and discerning.

      Americans, or Westerners in general, do themselves a great disservice by not promoting and encouraging the many good positive behavior of so many good positive Muslims that live with us together in our society.

      • mark dietrich

        You’re going to have to define these good positive behaviors that Muslims have that we should encourage, I admit I’m an infidel American who really doesn’t have a clue what you could possibly mean that wouldn’t be more a “humanist” quality as opposed to a Muslim behavior. Unless your good positive type stuff is all the times you haven’t blown something up, in which case , well done!! Congratulations on not dieing for a myth, and thank you for not choseing to take as many infidels as you can with you.
        Now if you want to leave your religion, you should understand, I have no issue with your race. It is merely your belife in the obscene that frightens me enough to get defensive. For what it’s worth the Christian’s frighten me more, but they’re closer, some of them are family.

        • well, at least you concede your ignorance on the matter.

          • mark dietrich

            As long as you concede, You still haven’t listed any of the good positive Muslim behaviors. Yes I am ignorant because whatever Good Muslims have done, It has NEVER been spoken of in my presence, how could I not be ignorant, your PR sucks! More so because when I ask for an example, just one, you give me nothing. Let me guess, this is a case of “those who tell, don’t know. those who know, don’t tell.”

    • SeySands

      There’s a lot of agenda-based cherrypicking going on in this article. Is this the over-generalization the author is concerned about?

  • “Atheists Have an Anti-Muslim Bigotry Problem”

    Yes, and to me, Bill Maher is the face of this problem.

    • Bryan

      Well glad you could clear that up for us.

  • SeySands

    As an atheist I am happy to be anti-Islam, just as I am anti-Catholicism, anti-Judaism, etc.. I do, however, think Zeus was kinda cool.

    • TaenaMoPaksyet

      Trav Mamone, the author of this bigoted article, is a bigot.

      • Mike De Fleuriot

        Nope, just a SJW

        • Robert Davidson Jesus Freak

          SJW is just what bigots call anyone who dares point out their bigotry

          • Mike De Fleuriot

            So according to you, a bigot is on the correct side of justice and equality. well do me with a rubber toy.

      • FuqDisSite

        Every is considered a bigiot. Even humanist and humanism are bigiots.
        Also, he said he was a Gender queer, what a tumblrtard.

  • TaenaMoPaksyet

    Trav Mamone shut up! You BIGOT!

  • johnwratcliff

    Have you actually read the Quaran?

  • John

    This headline is very misleading. Atheism itself does not have a Muslim bigotry problem as much as Muslim apologists have an oversensitivity problem. Islam is a homophobic, misogynistic, bigoted ideology at its very core and to dismiss that is to spread disinformation and ignorance. This does a huge disservice to the people who are struggling to find a voice and create meaningful change in socially oppressive Muslim communities and in the liberal western community that should be fighting for the liberation of the human spirit instead of sweeping one bigoted ideology under the rug to defend against another.

    • Rurudo

      Yes, Islam itself has many problems, but when you go from criticizing Islam to attacking/stereotyping individuals who may or may not even be Muslim, there’s a problem.

      • John

        I totally agree. My issue with the article is that it is stereotyping atheists by implying that criticizing Islam (and more importantly, what practicing it entails and imposes upon our fellow human beings) equates to bigotry, which it most certainly does not.

        • Thomas

          Agreed. While I also completely agree with Rurudo the emphasis of the article was that atheists must (never established in the slightest) have a natural propensity toward bigotry. Then, though completely disconnected, the idea that the bigotry is applied to none deserving ex-Muslims and non-Muslims was floated.

          • Rurudo

            The article actually acknowledges that there are many legitimate criticisms of Islam, and that we should call it out on those issues, but Dawkins, Harris, and Maher were more attacking Muslims (and in general people of Arabic descent) rather than the ideas themselves.

          • Thomas

            Rurundo, I am very familiar with Maher and Harris and here are my thoughts given that knowledge. First, for the sake of our short comments in place a full conversation, I’ll accept that the three have attacked (or disparaged) Muslims, in general, due to their comments about what they believe to be the views of the vast majority of Muslims (which the article itself corroborated to the tune of 76% to 89%). BUT, even if each of the three are bigots and have wrongfully attacked Muslim and non-Muslims who might look like Muslims, it still fails to demonstrate an underlying atheist bigotry against Muslims, a statement which itself is disparaging and stereotyping of atheists. Finally, at certain critical points we need to police people, not ideas. We can all agree to criticize dozens of Islamic beliefs all day and all night, but at some point the people who hold those beliefs must be our concern and dealt with. That, I believe, is the point of Maher and Harris, though I don’t know Dawkins.

          • David Barkin

            To assume that a 14 year old kid, from a moderate Islamic background Deliberately created a hoax, is all the proof I Need that these Atheists are racist and Islamophobic.

            My neighborhood is 20 percent Muslim. No one goes around trying to board up the booze stores or the numerous night clubs. No one goes around yelling at the Babes to stop wearing shot skirts.

            Nope, all the moral bigots in my area are Christian.

          • Thomas

            Thank you, David Barkin; you posted: “To assume that a 14 year old kid, from a moderate Islamic background Deliberately created a hoax, is all the proof I Need that these Atheists are racist and Islamophobic.

            My neighborhood is 20 percent Muslim. No one goes around trying to board up the booze stores or the numerous night clubs. No one goes around yelling at the Babes to stop wearing shot skirts.

            Nope, all the moral bigots in my area are Christian.”

            Wow. Those are extraordinary comments, David. Let me highlight them for the recognition they deserve.

            1) David stands convinced that 14 year old Islamic moderates can’t create hoaxes. They just can’t do it. Not sure if it is because they are 14, Islamic,
            or moderate, but try as some have they just can’t hoax. Exactly why they
            can’t might be offered in future comments. I, of course, don’t know that David will offer more, but I’m on pins and needles hoping to find out. I hope David will list, by demographic, exactly who can and can’t create hoaxes. I doubt David will share any empirical evidence, but he does strike me as a man of rare insights, so I’ll forward any additional profiling techniques to the FBI so they can thank David personally. Even so, his one profile offered thus far is going to be a huge help to the FBI the next time a hoax is committed. “Great effort gentlemen, you eliminated all 14 year old moderate Muslims, now let’s get to work.”

            2) Given that a person (it only takes one person in David’s logic model) believes the kid can pull off a hoax, David has the all proof he needs to label that person a racist and an Islamophobe. His proof, though not immediately apparent, is definitional; David orates ergo he knows. So you’ll just have to take David’s word for it, remember, he has unique abilities.

            3) David also has personal knowledge that in his neighborhood Muslims don’t do a number of things that nobody here has suggested they do. Thanks David. I’d like to return the favor if I may. For your edification, 5% of my neighborhood is Hispanic. I just want you to know that they don’t do anything at all that nobody suggested they did. Let me repeat that because I want to be clear. If nobody in these comments suggested that Hispanics did anything that we would hope they generally don’t do, they didn’t. Glad I cleared that up. I’d hate to give the Hispanics in my neighborhood bad on-line press by associating them with negative behaviors that nobody said they did.

            4) Finally, in case the stamp of intolerance and stereotyping that David has on his forehead has gone unnoticed to this point, he would like everyone to know that it is strictly Christians who are moral bigots were he lives. I might
            suppose that by “Christians in my area” he means all Christians and only Christians. I confess that I know very little about David’s neighborhood but feel oddly fortunate that I do not share it with him.

          • Jack7

            *mic drop*

          • Bart Bols

            holy fuck thomas, “*mic drop*” indeed

          • Curtis

            David Barken shall now been banned from posting until Thomas says so due to an excessive ass-whooping after making a stupid comment.

          • John Cochran

            They don’t do such things as you mention as the other 80% are not Muslims and would kick the crap out of them if they went around doing such things. If, however, they were in a Muslim country they would have no problem terrorism non-Muslims for behaving outside the laws of the Koran.

          • Rurudo

            True, but when three of the most prominent members of your group express problematic views like this, I think that constitutes a problem for that group even if most of the people in the group don’t support those beliefs.

          • Curtis

            How on earth can you say that 80+% of muslims (including muslim leaders)support stoning to death for adultery and a death sentence for leaving the faith, but we should not dare comment on muslims as a whole. Yet, three high profile atheists make 3 separate comments about muslims and suddenly atheism has a problem with islamaphobia. I personally have a case of onlyanevilmoronstonespeopleforlackofbeliefaphobia, if that particular phobia happens to consist of 80+% of muslims then that has nothing to do with any other phobias; It is simply a comment on the insane views of the vast majority of the followers of islam.

          • NameWithheldByRequest

            “… but we should not dare comment on muslims as a whole

            And that, right there, is the problem. You’ve gone from criticizing the beliefs held by some Muslims (a majority, in this case, granted), to saying it is legitimate to “comment” on all Muslims. That is, by definition, stereotyping, and, from a purely tactical point-of-view, extremely counterproductive. If you want to encourage Muslims to rethink their extremist beliefs, you don’t want to lump in the more tolerant Muslims with the less tolerant Muslims. Because, if you attack “Muslims as a whole,” all you’re going to accomplish is driving both the tolerant and intolerant Muslims into a defensive posture. Just like if you try to imply that the opinion of a handful of bigoted atheists somehow proves something about atheism “as a whole” drives many atheists who might not necessarily agree with these bigoted atheists to defend them.

          • Curtis

            I am not interested in convincing less than a 19% minority of a religion that encourages stoning and death sentences for changing your mind that they would be even less evil if they stopped believing in an imaginary cartoon character in the clouds or taking the words of a peadophile as law. I don’t care about the belief that stereotyping is somehow bad. If 80%+ of a group has red hair then you say that red hair is a trait of that group. As with almost anything, stereotyping requires context. If I say to a friend of Irish decent “You Irish fellows are the only ones that can out drink us Canadians”. Any reasonable person can infer that I am referring to the well known trope that the Irish are heavy drinkers and not declaring that every single Irishman can out drink every single Canadian. We round off numbers, we make educated guesses and we stereotype for a reason. It is because any reasonable person is able to infer from the context of a statement whether a person means the majority or a group or if they mean every single member of a group. The minority of catholics are hard core fruitcakes while the majority of muslims are hard core fruit cakes; all hard core fruit cakes are half-wit morons that should be prevented from breeding for the good of the human race.

            But none of that matters here because what I actually said was that the OP said we should not criticise the muslim faith as a whole based on the beliefs of only 80%+ of muslims (including their leaders). The OP then turns and immediately criticises all atheists based on 3 different arguments made by 3 prominent atheists (I will guess that 3 is a bit less than 80% of all atheists).

          • NameWithheldByRequest

          • Curtis

            No I said the OP is a hypocrite.The fact that you cannot figure that out is troubling. As for my Irish friend he would take the wife beating comment, apply context and ask me why insulted him. See how context works?

          • NameWithheldByRequest

            “No I said the OP is a hypocrite.The fact that you cannot figure that out is troubling.”

            You accuse the OP of hypocrisy, but are blind to your own. I suppose projecting your own character flaws onto others should surprise no one. The monotheists are not the only ones who appreciate the utility of scapegoats, it seems.

            Just for my own edification, why don’t you feel the need to acknowledge, let alone apologize, for your mischaracterizations of the OP’s argument and your malicious stereotyping of Muslims?

            “As for my Irish friend he would take the wife beating comment, apply context and ask me why insulted him. See how context works?”

            Because your “Irish friend” wouldn’t be offended by hearing that the Irish like to drink. You’re not the only one who has Irish friends, and they’re usually the first to poke fun at Irish stereotypes. In other words, it’s not offensive, especially when you’re joking among friends. This is not the same thing as stereotyping Muslims, not even a little bit. In the case of Muslim stereotypes, it is meant to dehumanize and demean, and any Muslim would and should be offended. See how context works?

          • Robert Davidson Jesus Freak

            Proving the article’s point very neatly there

          • Bret

            No, they were not. That is a flat out lie.

          • Bart Bols

            >but Dawkins, Harris, and Maher were more attacking Muslims (and in
            general people of Arabic descent) rather than the ideas themselves.

            This is nonfactual, im an avid follower of the debates these people represent, and i can clearly say they are attacking the ideology and the ideas the apologists defending the ideology propose…

            Theyve been doing it just the same with Christianity, but people only seem to care when they do it to Islam… seems like bigotry to me..

          • Rurudo

            If you’re arguing that we should profile everyone that looks like they might be a Muslim, you’ve gone beyond attacking ideologies.

          • John Cochran

            Dawkins, Harris, and Maher were attacking Islam because of the poison within the Koran’s seedy pages. The point is, who knows where the next radical terrorist will come from when you have such extreme inhuman garbage pounded into Muslims from the time they can listen? There is a widespread concern about the lack of condemnation within the Muslim world whenever an act of terrorism occurs. If the Muslim religion was beyond reproach, why is there such an obvious indication of acquiescence?

      • Mike De Fleuriot

        // to attacking/stereotyping individuals who may or may not even be Muslim,//

        If you make a mistake in selecting a person who is not a Muslim, or is an innocent Muslim, you can apologise for your mistake. If you fail to look for a Muslim terrorist and he succeeds in his mission to kill for Allah, then you are at fault for not looking hard enough. Reality is like that.

    • Bryan Stone

      Amen John

    • Robert Davidson Jesus Freak

      Islam is not equatable to an ideology.

      • John

        i·de·ol·o·gy (ī′dē-ŏl′ə-jē, ĭd′ē-)
        n. pl. i·de·ol·o·gies
        A set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of a social group or that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

        • Robert Davidson Jesus Freak

          Exactly – Islam has that, but it’s much more than that. It’s a set of practices, experiences, cultural forms. To reduce it to an ideology is wrongheaded in the extreme.

          • John

            All of those things can be incorporated into or attributed to an ideology. Just ask someone living in a Scientology compound as the result of L. Ron Hubbard’s vivid imagination. Religions are all reducible to ideologies. In fact, that’s all they are, someone’s ideas that other people follow. What people do with them afterward is just reflective of human nature doing what it has always done with grandiose ideas, which is to give people a false sense of purpose to run wild with and build a life around. Human sacrifice was a great example of humanity’s inability to separate bad ideas from things they accepted as bigger than themselves. Islam is not bigger than just being some crazy idea any more than any of the many now extinct polytheistic religions that it borrows heavily from similarly to Christianity and Judaism.

          • Robert Davidson Jesus Freak

            We may need to agree to disagree. I don’t see beliefs as anything but peripheral to religion, very comparable to training wheels in relation to the Tour de France. They get beginners started, but that’s all. I grant you, there are many beginners.

          • John

            I’d have many less friends if it weren’t for agreeing to disagree.

          • Robert Davidson Jesus Freak

            moi aussi

  • array528

    Being suspicious of a violent, misogynistic, totalitarian death-cult isn’t “bigotry”. It’s intelligence.

  • mchasewalker

    Calling yourself a Humanist does not entitle you to your own facts. Maher did not defend the boy’s arrest, but, in fact, criticized it. He defended the teachers’ good sense to err on the side of caution and call the authorities.

    • RegularJoe62

      I’ll depart from this at “the teacher’s good sense.” If anyone seriously thought the thing might have been an actual bomb, why wasn’t the school evacuated, the bomb squad called, or the item secured instead of being tossed in the back seat of a squad car. The only sensible answer is that the school overreacted and then fell back on the “hoax bomb” canard in order to provide some cover for freaking out over a science experiment.

      • Bryan

        The police obviously shouldnt have arrested the kid. It was rightfully condemned by Maher and others.

      • mchasewalker

        Fair enough and arguable. I was correcting the author’s assertion that Maher defended the arrest. He did not. He defended the teachers reactions.

      • SR Foxley

        There’s a difference between believing the device was a bomb, and believing the person with the device was trying to pull a hoax. I understand this all finally came to a head when the alarm went off in his bag in English class, and when the teacher asked about the noise… out came the device that neither the teacher nor probably many students had seen before that.

        Should the administrators stopped short of arresting him? Probably. But if there was a zero-tolerance policy in place (which I don’t know whether there was), they might not have been able to.

        So really: Kid with no sense of self-awareness does something stupid in class and teachers over-react. It was never about race or religion until it was blown out of proportion, ended up on the national news, and was politicized.

        • RegularJoe62

          A zero tolerance policy about what? Science projects? They can call anything at all a hoax threat. Hey – that kid’s backpack might have a bomb in it – call the cops! This is the same sort of idiocy that leads to kids getting suspended for pointing their finger and going “bang” or biting a Pop-tart into the shape of a gun. It’s stupidity, plain and simple. And I don’t buy that race and religion weren’t factors. Do you really think a white Christian kid would have been treated with that much suspicion?

          • SR Foxley

            A zero tolerance policy around bomb threats or hoaxes. Even the po-dunk little middle school I attended in Idaho had such a policy (kids were fond of calling this stuff in around exam time– only to realize they were a lot more traceable than they thought and the consequences were a lot more harsh than they realized).

            You’ve asked me my opinion on whether white Christian kids would be treated with as much suspicion, and I say: Yes, because I saw similar stuff with white Christian kids in my youth (though that never went as far as the national news). And this was before the days of Columbine. But now the conversation has veered off into opinion, which isn’t really something that can be debated on the facts.

            My point in bringing this up is that just because the teachers knew it was a bomb does not necessarily mean the actions they took were wholly inappropriate or inexplicable.

            What’s the truth in this case? At this point, we’ll probably never know since there isn’t a whole lot of concrete data on what went down other than personal testimony (the worst kind of “evidence”) and all parties have a vested interest in making themselves look good, especially since this has hit the national media stage. So let’s be a little less quick to judge, eh.

          • Fred Bailey

            Look, the kid never did any hoax. He said repeatedly to anyone and everyone that it was a clock. And anyone with the judgment of a small squirrel knew it was a clock, because its timer completed its cycle, and the result was an alarm going off in the bag. You don’t seem to understand this, but let me fill you in that when a bomb’s timer completes its run, the result is not an alarm. If that’s too complex for you then by all means institute a zero tolerance policy on alarm clocks.

          • SR Foxley

            You seem to be upset that I won’t immediately condemn the school administration, teachers or cops or the kid when I don’t have enough evidence to indicate anyone’s intentions or motivations, or what actually happened when it all went down. (Though I think it’s interesting that you apparently feel qualified to read the minds of the teachers, administrator and cops. You really ought to try to make some money off that amazing ability of yours, eh!)

            You also seem to think that I think it was actually a bomb and proceed to insult me based on this. Pop quiz: Did I ever say anyone believed it was actually a bomb? Or even imply that anyone did?

            A word of advice: Work on your reading comprehension.

            Also, he needn’t actually claim it’s a bomb for a teacher or administrator to believe he’s trying to pull a bomb hoax. The appearance of the device is all that’s necessary for there to be “deception.” It’s a judgement call on the part of the authority figures– an opinion. Was that judgement call correct? Obviously not. And I’ve already said it was probably not appropriate for them to arrest him over this.

            Look: I’m not saying that the teachers, cop, etc. aren’t anti-Muslim bigots or racist or whatever. I’m saying that y’all are prematurely jumping to conclusions and are too quick to condemn when not enough detail is available or clear (and when the school officials are legally prevented from publicly weighing in on the event in any significant way because Ahmed is a minor and his family have exercised their right to disallow them from making any public statements on the matter). Just because I’m not with you doesn’t mean I’m against you– though your irrational exuberance in denouncing racial or religious discrimination that might not actually be present certainly makes it tempting to avoid your side of this issue.

          • Fred Bailey

            Avoid whatever your predilections tempt you to avoid, pard. Which “side” of any issue you decide on matters little.
            Let’s discuss what we do have evidence for. We now know that if everyone had simply carried on with English class, it would have been a far better day for all concerned. You seem to grant that. Do you? Or do you think the way it went down was better in some way than if they’d all gone on with class?
            Because I think we have evidence that calling authorities caused a snowballing mass of shit to build up. As you acquire more experience with authorities, you may be able to observe that it’s frequently like that. This is because authorities have no magical powers to fix anything.
            If you can make a reasonable plan what to do next, what need have you of any authorities?
            That was the mistake that was made.

          • SR Foxley

            Why are you still trying to convince me based on hearsay and your opinion?

          • John Cochran

            If I was a school administrator I’m not sure I wouldn’t have a policy against alarm clocks in bags in school. What purpose do they serve there? The kid needs to buy a watch.

          • Fred Bailey

            The point here is, nobody thought it was a bomb, the kid told all and sundry it was a clock. Calling any authorities whatsoever was idiotic. We know this because: No one put a whole lot of distance between themselves and the kid’s bag. No one evacuated the school. They sent the kid AND his bag to the office, placing him just outside the principal’s door, and the cops threw the bag in the squad car, got into the car and drove away with it next to them. You cannot square this with anyone ever thinking for a moment that it was a bomb. In addition, to have a hoax, you have to have a deception; there was no deception. There was no hoax nor any attempt at one.

            It was not, unfortunately, inexplicable. No one has any sort of policy, zero tolerance or otherwise, about clocks in bags in English class. They have policies about bombs, and hoaxes, too. This was patently neither the one nor the other, but the specter of a bomb still hung in the air and both the teacher, calling his admin, and the administrator, calling the cops, reacted to this spectral idea. Even the cops went ahead like all the other to cover their asses by arresting the kid, even though no one at any time either believed it was a bomb or was told by the kid that it was one. Where else in the wide world could this irrational, chimerical specter come from, if not the kid’s religion? Once we hear his name, we know where the bizarre behavior of the teacher, administrator, and cop came from. It’s about as far from inexplicable as you can get.

          • John Cochran

            Any kid of any ethnicity or race should have been suspected for bringing such a weird device into the school. I mean, a disassembled clock? What was the idea to begin with? I brought some weird stuff into school that probably shouldn’t have been there (beer, etc.) but a disassembled clock? What was the idea? Curious minds want to know.

      • Fred Bailey

        Damn straight.

    • A correction will be added tomorrow. Sorry about that, y’all!

  • Reluctant Skeptic

    So if an atheist is critical of a story involving a Muslim because parts of it don’t seem to make sense, that makes the atheist a bigot. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up for this bigoted atheist.

    • Audrey

      No, he’s saying that if an atheist is critical of a story involving a Muslim then by association ALL atheists are bigots.

      • ######################

        Bisexual Genderqueer Humanist Bloggers have an Anti-Reality Bigotry Problem.


        There, fixed the headline.

    • Hypocrite

      No you don’t get it. It is not about being critical. It is about the dehumanization that is behind being unfairly (sometimes stupidly) critical of a 14-yo. If you are not dehumanizing, you won’t go that deep to claim some absurd thing to make you feel better, that no this is not all the other side’s fault. The boy should have done something that they are doing this to him. He is a Muslim.

      Ask yourself, if some stupid Muslim would go that far to claim say Raif Badawi is a Mosad or CIA spy how would you feel? It is not that there is not a 0.00000001 % chance of this being a hoax, it is rather talking about such a minuscule possibility shows how your views of the other is dehumanizing that you are searching desperately for some other explanation.
      At the heart of the critical thinking, is intellectual fairness. Dawkins never applies such approach to his side. Never ever.

      • Reluctant Skeptic

        You’re right. By applying a bit of reasoning I’m dehumanizing someone. Thank you so much for the correction (HEAVY SARCASM). While I do believe that the police and school overreacted and opted to go with their feelings of racial and cultural stereotypes, I believe that this is exactly as intended by the family. His father has enough exposure to public relations through his contact with Pastor Terry Jones to make an educated guess on how not only the community would react to something like this, but how the media would latch onto it and how people would receive the story. It was a risk, but a calculated one to have his smart and talented son take apart a department store alarm clock and stuff it into a pencil box so that it looked like a prop from the set of Knight Rider. Then make sure his son continues to state it is a clock, not a bomb, so that he can’t be charged with a bomb hoax, or if he was charged would be able to have the charges dropped with even the worst public defender. If his plan doesn’t work, and the school and community don’t take the bait, the fallout is small. But if it works out, windfall for them. And it worked brilliantly. Heck of a con job. I’m not being Islamophobic in saying this, just cynical toward human behavior.

  • Ryan Dingess

    No the issue isn’t anti-muslim. The issue is they are both anti-religion. They are people who believe strongly that religion has caused too many problems in the world, and should go away. And, I would have to agree with them. While I am a lot tougher critic of the religion I was raised in, I also think that all other religions are BS. But, on the other hand I don’t think this news story should be consider a religious story. What it is is a story about racism and prejudice. If anything, I myself am prejudice of Christians.

  • Audrey

    Dawkins and Maher represent all atheists? Rather a bit of generalizing going on here….. Beginning with the title.

    • RegularJoe62

      I find both at times interesting and entertaining, but Maher plays pretty loose with facts, Dawkins too often goes off on things that are far afield of his expertise, and neither speaks for me.

      • John Cochran

        They both have too much intelligence to speak for someone of your limitations.

        • RegularJoe62

          Which limitations would those be?

          • John Cochran

            Those which separate the homo sapien species from others, mainly the ability to comprehend intelligence, analyze data and synthesize facts into correct and logical assessments. This is assuming that the ability of the opposed thumbs has progressed sufficiently to where it is not limited to grasping tree branches.

        • grenouillard

          ad hominem – Out!

  • rp518dan

    I have been saying this for years. As an atheist, I reject the theological claims of Islam.

    Just because I don’t like Islam, does not mean I should join the Christians and Jews in their violent wars against moslems.

    The leaders of the zionist state are as gleeful that the Islamic State is stamping out christianity with a vengance as they are that the American people are busily bombing moslem nations back to the Stone Age. Having Islamic nations attack atheists is icing on the cake for the Israeli government.

  • Arjen Bootsma

    As an atheist, I’m an equal opportunity discriminator of all religions, Islam included, and Christianity most certainly not excluded.

    • Tod Coulson

      I once believed myself to be an athiest. I am not. I am a Freethinker. My beliefs, any of them, are transformable to other beliefs—for evidence that stands up to the scientific method. Don’t know, not sure Google it. Theory, test, retest, publish, peer review,analyse, Yada yada yada. Superman comics score about the same as most religious text. Athiests dont have a book or funny hats, don’t kill people for not praying to their imaginary friend, get to sleep in on sunday.

      • Bryan

        If you don’t believe in any gods you are an atheist. You may also be a freethinker/rationalist/skeptic whatever but atheism is simply not believing in any gods.

        • Craig W Crosby Sr

          I have had this discussion often; like Tod, I do not happen to believe in a god at the moment. I do not, as an article of faith, say there cannot be, or even that there is not, a god. Like Dawkins, you say not believing in a god = I am an atheist. I say, no. I do not believe there is a god and I do not believe there is no god. In order to believe one way or the other, I would need some strong evidence. Having none, and there being no logical argument that is both valid and sound, I have no belief, in either particular direction.
          If you have some proof that has escaped me in 51 years of philosophical study and logical examination of the subject, please enlighten me. Atheism is a religion, just like any other, that has as an article of faith that there is no god. “Non credo in ullum deum.”. Christians have the opposite: “Credo in Unum deum.”

          • Bryan

            Well atheism is not a religion as it has no dogma or faith based criteria. It is simply not believing in gods. You also have an issue with equating acceptance of a faith based statement such “there is a god” and saying there is no evidence of a deity. Acknowledging that there COULD be a deity is not the same as saying there is. I am an atheist because I dont believe in any deities but my position would change if evidence presented itself. False dichotomies and false equivalence are still facile even after “51years of philosophical study”

          • Craig W Crosby Sr

            I am not sure that you didn’t just paraphrase me. I do not say there is a god; I do not believe there is, and do not accept, as an article of faith, that there is a god. And, there is no convincing evidence one way or the other.
            Given sufficient evidence, I would change my position. I just do not accept, as an article of faith, that there is no god. Though, again, given sufficient evidence I would of course change my position. I am not really agnostic b/c, in my opinion, by definition it is impossible to actually say anything, much less prove anything, about a being in a completely different hypothetical realm. Knowledge of that being cannot, again by its definition, be gained in our existence. If such a being exists, it is not in our universe and is irrelevent.
            And, again, I do not accept the label ‘atheist’ if by being an atheist one supposes that I therefore take step of faith and say that there can be no deity. This is the stance of the ‘new atheists,’ and to me it seems to be a religious stance.
            Having said that, I can say that I have no religion, and so more properly I would call myself an areligionist. I am not sure that it is even possible to have a rational discussion of gods and spirits since I see no congruent reality sufficient to define the subject of such discussion. Bandersnatch and all that, you know.

          • Bryan

            Well by that logic you cant discuss any magical creatures. Werewolves, pixies, hobgoblins etc. Can’t determine if they are true or not so you don’t believe or disbelieve in them. No one I know of including “New Atheists” say there can’t be god you are misspeaking there. Many atheists are inherently agnostic as well because you can’t prove or disprove the supernatural. But to be clear many atheists are as agnostic about minotaurs and goblins as they are about deities. Meaning we don’t believe they exist but would change our position if new evidence presented itself. Your fear of being labeled an atheist because of someone elses false definition of what atheists are is sad to me. You either believe that tye deities exist or you don’t, whether or not the possibility of existence is there is a secondary question. Anything is possible, but what is likely and what does the evidence show.

          • Dickson

            “And, again, I do not accept the label ‘atheist’ if by being an atheist
            one supposes that I therefore take step of faith and say that there can
            be no deity. This is the stance of the ‘new atheists,’ and to me it
            seems to be a religious stance.”

            WRONG. Good grief, you aren’t even in the same ball park as what they have said on the matter. Take Christopher Hitchens, for instance: “The atheist proposition is the following – most of the time – it may not be said that there is no god; it may be said that there is no reason to think that there is one.”
            Christopher Hitchens was an anti-theist, which pushes the atheist position slightly more to the emotional, as he said he considered it a relief to find that there is no good evidence to believe in the existence of a deity. How can you misunderstand the definition of atheism so badly if you have been researching for 51 years? Are you lacking in integrity or intelligence?

      • So which god(s) do you believe in?

        • Craig W Crosby Sr

          What do you mean, “god(s)?” What exactly are you talking about?

          • Which god or gods do you believe in?

            Be specific.

          • Craig W Crosby Sr

            Please define “God.” At the present time I am aware of no defined “God” that is plausible to me; there is certainly no evidence that any “God” I have been asked or told about, where the term was defined, exists. At best, those who put forth such tell me that it “lives” in some other reality they call “heaven” but which cannot be accessed, measured or observed from our reality except by dying after making proper and telepathic entreaties to it. Since there is no direct or indirect evidence of those entities defined as “Gods”, I will wait until such is available.
            Whilst a grandiose claim like “God” would seem to demand the highest level of evidence to enable belief, I would probably accept a mere iota – an indicia of fact on which to hang a deistic hat. And yet, to date, no one has satisfied even this, least of all possible proofs for its existence.

          • Winner Winner!

          • Whilst a grandiose claim like “God” would seem to demand the highest level of evidence to enable belief, I would probably accept a mere iota – an indicia of fact on which to hang a deistic hat. And yet, to date, no one has satisfied even this, least of all possible proofs for its existence

            I’m not a religious believer either, but the notion that no one has presented evidence makes nonbelief sound more like conspiracy-theorist denial than a philosophical difference of interpretation. Don’t 9/11 truthers and Holocaust deniers claim there’s no evidence all the time, when the truth is that their standard of evidence is just so unrealistically high that nothing can satisfy it?

            The reason I’m not religious is that I don’t ascribe agency to phenomena, even the sort of phenomena I don’t fully understand. I don’t look at religious belief as an evidentiary matter. What sort of evidence would be sufficient for you to believe, pray tell?

          • Craig W Crosby Sr

            Hmm… how about a real miracle? Documented, and undeniable, not mythical. One that can only be done by the theoretical deity, and not by natural means.
            I would, of course, prefer a nice one. Let’s say that some pastor, every time he prays over a child who is dying of cancer, the child experiences remission – and no recurrence. Not just once or twice (might be coincidental remission), but every time! And lots of times. That would be pretty good evidence. Scientifically documented cancers, all cured, every time. That kind of deity I could get behind.
            Just like one that allows childhood cancer is not.
            I thought about having the deity speak to me, and decided that could just be schizophrenia or other mental illness. So, the cancer cure thing would be minimum proof.

          • Let’s say that some pastor, every time he prays over a child who is dying of cancer, the child experiences remission – and no recurrence.

            Big difference between evidence of a Magic Pastor and of The Big G, though. That just proves my point: there’s no conceivable evidence that your online foes can present of the existence of God, because it’s not an evidential matter.

            I think we should acknowledge that people don’t affirm belief in God because of evidence, and pointing out the lack of evidence won’t affect their belief. It just indicates how determined we are to miss the point.

    • sassandahalf

      I will use my discriminating mind to call out archaic thoughts and behaviors and barbaric deeds.

  • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

    Only yesterday kristians were castigating us for picking in them and ignoring Muslims. They are all wrong. Atheists have no problem with Muslims or christians. It is your religion s we abhor and would readily see the end of all religious delusion …like Yesterday….!

  • Butch_Zee

    Bill Maher was sensible to the whole situation. Yes, Bill can come across as a moron at times, but the teacher did the right thing in alerting the school administration. People that come to the conclusion that Bill’s comments represent all athiests are the same people that consider Ahmed to be a Carl Sagan-like science genius because he removed a clock from its plastic housing.

  • Islam is a belief system neither a racial or even geographically centered group. Criticising Islam cannot be classed as racist.

    • Criticisms of Islam can sometimes be a veneer covering a person’s racist attitude toward Arabs, however.

  • Bryan

    Since Bill Maher condemned the arrest and said he was owed an apology. Is this author willfully ignorant…or a liar? It’s one or the other. I think he owes all his readers a retraction and an apology for this revisionist garbage.

    • A correction will be added tomorrow. Sorry about that!

    • Maher did say the student was owed an apology, but he denied that the teacher or the cops had done the wrong thing. He showed a photo of the contraption and said it looked like a bomb. The most he would say was that they “erred on the side of caution,” and that doesn’t sound like condemnation to me.

  • mumd0g

    When one says ‘Islam has a problem with X,’ folks like the author come out of the woodwork to accuse them of bigotry, even though Islam is a set of ideas. It seems ironic then, that the author and many others like them (yes them, read the footer) would have the gall to say ‘Atheism has a problem with Y.’ Transitive property something or other?

  • Dat Eni

    no Abrahamic faith is a religion of peace… many american atheists have had to be content sticking to criticizing Christianity because that’s all we were surrounded by growing up in the states… no religion is beyond criticism… minority status doesn’t grant moral authority… reason does

  • LeftOCenter

    Fortunately for Ahmed he was only a Muslim, if he were an African-American the police would have shot him.

  • John Scherkenbach

    The title of this is…
    Atheists Have an Anti-Muslim Bigotry Problem
    The only thing atheists “Have” is the non belief in a god. “Atheist” is not a religion. “Atheist” is not a group. “Atheist” is a term. Knowing that one person is an atheist, and another person is an atheist, tells you NOTHING about ones views on any other subject vs. the other person.
    Good day.

  • Religion = Superstitious Nonsense for Ignorant Simpletons

    ALL Religion.

    • Mr. Greene


  • markinator

    I really cannot stand when the media seems to have a fetish for applying these religious labels to people, such as “Muslim teenager.” If an infant is the subject of a story, do they call it a “muslim baby” or “Hindu adolescent”? These labels are most of the problem, yet the human animal still applies them.

  • Bhan

    The amount of point missing here is extraordinary. Trav: its wrong to say all Muslims and poc who look the way we expect Muslims to look are terrorists. Commenters: Trav is an anti atheist pro Islam bigot.

  • Skylar Steward

    its funny, you obviously pay close attention to the way you categorize yourself, but fail to offer that same attention to what people like harris actually say. if you are going to write about a topic, it would be worthwhile to actually understand the views of the people you quote.

  • David Alan Dresser

    Do Humanists think all atheists believe the same? I don’t think so.

  • rojawi

    This article paints atheists with as wide a brush as it claims atheists paint Muslims.

  • Bill

    I will admit to being an atheist and islamaphobe and proud of both. I don’t make “concessions” to any religions and I offer no apologies. When I see all the religions of the world confirm that atheism is valid and those who adhere to it are safe and unpersecuted then i will maybe cut them some slack. This kid may feel persecuted and stereotyped but that is the burden we atheists have had to bear for thousands of years without any end in sight.

  • A sense of proportion helps here. Anti-Atheist bigotry is worse, and more deadly. Atheist bloggers are frequently persecuted and killed in places like Pakistan and Bangladesh. There is comparably little genuine persecution on that level in open societies.

  • Sincere

    Trav cuts to the point with lapidary concision. I have and continue to echo their sentiment regarding this continued (not surprising, not shocking) trend of the “atheist dudebro,” those who feign as if they are above bias and have reached an “intellectual plateau” when, really, it tends to be the case that their vision is obscured by a thick, insular, prejudicial, privileged lens.

    Thank you for writing this.

  • Bo Galles

    Why does the author need to disclose their sexual orientation and gender association? I feel like the author is trying to get bonus nonconformist points or something. “Oh, you must have such insight into so many issues we simpletons just can’t understand.” I have a journalism degree, and one’s sexuality, etc. has nothing to do with objective journalism. No one cares unless you’re the subject of a story, not the author.

  • Beau Birkett

    “Harris’s suggestion that “anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim” should be profiled is, in practice, racial profiling.”
    I could be wrong but I don’t think he was talking about skin colour, you can spot people who are obviously Muslim by what they wear, and I see many people that are obviously Muslim because of there clothing here in Britain, and there are many ethnic groups (including caucasian) that are Muslim. And I meet many people who you would never guess were Muslim until the subject came up. Anyone can wear traditional Muslim clothing. Assumption is learnt through experience, It’s a survival mechanism. It doesn’t matter how hard you try, It’s impossible to have zero assumptions about anyone.

  • Beau Birkett

    This whole “disliking Islam is racist” thing needs to stop, anyone can be fucking Muslim! It’s not even an argument anymore.

  • rwssdca

    anti theists atheists are serious religious bigots. and individual atheists can allow their innate biases to become bigotry as easily as any person. but, atheists, as a class, are not defined by anti muslim, or anti anything bigotry. the loudest voices in the room (celebritards) do not represent the whole.

  • Ray Bunten

    I am an atheist if that matters. This article is highlighting prominent atheists using prejudice against race to identify Muslims. Everyone understands that atheists for the most part are not a fan of religion. However, the way that Christianity and Islam are getting treated is showing a racist undertone. In Dawkins’ defense, he pulls no punches and will always highlight a wariness of religion. If the kid was Christian I think he sticks to the same sentiments. However, I occasionally feel there is something under the surface with Harris from time to time.

  • Some Guy Somewhere

    Atheists have a problem with religion… and it’s deserved. Religion is the number one source of irrational, destructive behavior in groups, and that is dangerous. If someone identifies themselves as a Muslim, or as a Christian, I can already make some assumptions about them, and they will rarely turn out to be wrong.

    One of the largest irrational and destructive behaviors in Christians and Muslims is the persecution complex they seem to be in love with.

    • Religion is the number one source of irrational, destructive behavior in groups, and that is dangerous.

      Actually, nationalism is number one with a bullet. Did I say a bullet? I meant ten million bullets, concentration camps, and mass graves.

      And as far as nutty ideas prevalent these days, the most dangerous and diabolical are the ones that say vaccines cause autism and that global warming is a hoax. Those beliefs will cause a lot more legitimate suffering, and for no good reason whatsoever, than religious people praying to the Big G.

      • Some Guy Somewhere

        Nationalism can be a powerful destructive force, but it’s not necessarily irrational. Nationalism is still answerable to physical reality, and there’s some means of keeping it in check by challenging nationalistic assertions. When you bring the God card into play, you can justify any act without feeling the need to defend it. I think that’s far more insidious than nationalism.

        • I’m not sure what’s so rational about the belief that one’s group is superior to others and as a result can oppress and slaughter the inferior ones. I also question the success we’ve had in keeping nationalistic folly “in check,” if WWII and the genocides in the Balkans are any indication. I’m not religious and there’s plenty to complain about with organized religion. But the fact that you can rail against religious belief while you handwave away the horrors of nationalism shows how selective your outrage is.

          • Some Guy Somewhere

            First of all, I’m not “handwaving” anything, nor am I dismissive of how dangerous fanaticism of any kind can be. Your main beef seems to be that I think religion is comparatively worse than nationalism, and I don’t think you’ve made a quantitative case for your argument. This is really like saying that getting your brains bashed in is worse than having your legs lopped off at the knees. Technically, one is generally considered worse than the other, but nobody in their right minds wants either, and certainly does not consider either trivial.

            Secondly, I didn’t say nationalism was rational, I said it’s not necessarily irrational, as opposed to religion where the first thing you have to do is believe in something for no good reason. It’s not irrational to be somewhat patriotic; even some forms of extreme nationalism aren’t necessarily irrational, i.e. some non-native hostility or resisting one’s own government (but they usually are).

            So we can quibble over semantics, but I still think religion, starting from a point where a person does not feel obligated to defend the atrocities they are committing beyond “God wants it that way, he told me”, and nationalism, where an atrocity may be committed because some guy wants to effect rapid change in the hopes of improving society (in his mind) are different levels of dangerous, and religion comes out as the more dangerous agent.

  • Thomas

    Holy Shit it’s been a long time since I’ve read an article this poorly constructed.

    Paragraph 1: Background about the arrest of 14 year old “clock maker” Ahmed Mohamed.
    Paragraph 2: Two prominent atheists were less than outraged by the arrest.
    Paragraph 3: 76% to 89% of Muslims in traditionally Muslim countries are actually bad people.
    Paragraph 4: Criticizing Muslims if perfectly fair because it criticizes doctrine – and that’s not racism. Also a joke is that incorrectly suggested a Sikh was a Muslim was determined to be a bad joke since Sikh’s don’t commit suicidal murders in the name of their religion.
    Paragraph 5: Sam Harris, an atheist, writes openly about his concerns that the 76% to 89% of Muslims referred to in paragraph 3 are dangerous. He wants to profile, which is wrong since everyone knows that profiling is wrong.
    Paragraph 6: We are informed that anti-Muslim bigotry underlies atheism which frustrates “many ex-Muslims”. We hear about one such ex-Muslim.
    Paragraph 7: Instructions on how to recognize and condemn bigotry of any marginalized group, with an important reminder that we should remain critical of the behavior of some Muslims (76% to 89% according to paragraph 3).
    Paragraph 8: Conclusion. It is proper to discuss and condemn Ongoing Islamic human rights violations. But, understandably so, condemnation should not apply to ex-Muslims. We are, though, reminded once again (via the prior paragraph) to criticize Islam if our information is based in the context of actual crimes in the name of Islam.

    Got it. Very helpful.

  • John Aguilera

    bisexual genderqueer defending islam.

    you would die in approximately 1.9 seconds upon entering pretty much any middle eastern country.

    people are racist for all sorts of reasons and use all sorts of excuses for it. legitimate criticism of islam is not racist. stop it.

  • Beejaym

    Muslims are what Catholics would be if they took their religion seriously. A guy could be of Arabic descent, but if they say they’re an atheist, then I’d gladly treat them with the respect they deserve. If a white guy, on the other hand, grew a beard out and claimed his love for Islam, I’d call him out on being the little rat-bastard he is.

  • R Daneel Olivaw

    No, we have an anti violent misogynistic cult problem. Sorry if Muslim apologists have a problem with that. There are too many pesky facts that make the philosophy of Islam incompatible with civil society.

  • James Doerfel

    Equation of brown-skin or Semitic language with jihadism is racism & bigotry. Sensitivity toward religious behaviors practiced by jihadists is pragmatism & humanity. Humanists oppose crimes against humanity; and we find them particularly odious when committed by those who self-claim religious motivation & divine authorization.

  • I think we can all agree that recently PROMINENT atheists have made some pretty bigoted remarks. Assuming that is the mindset of all atheists really isn’t any better than those individuals who believe all Muslims are terrorists. Hint: The loudest or most visible group doesn’t speak for everyone.

  • Bobby Salvin

    There are cultural issues involved too. If you surveyed Muslims who have assimilated into a western country, they are unlikely to approve of stoning for adultery or death for leaving the faith.

  • yellowdogdemocrat

    There are Muslims living two houses from me and in the 25 years they have lived there they have NEVER interacted with me or my wife or my children. When I read about the treatment of people of other faiths in Islamic countries, it reinforces my belief that Islam has not been “secularized” as Xtianity and Judaism have been. And when I read about the roving bands of young Islamic militants in European countries harassing and assaulting females about their “unIslamic” clothing, it does not bode well for our women here in America.

    I have been an Atheist for over 50 years and I really have no respect for any religious doctrine, but I know which countries I want to live in; those that are Democracies and do not have a Muslim majority, because in those countries, Secularists and Atheists would be executed.

  • “…86 percent of Muslims in Egypt, 79 percent of Muslims in Afghanistan, and 76 percent of Muslims in Pakistan believe leaving Islam should be punishable by death.”

    When the majority of a certain group is fine with seeing you killed over a disagreement, it’s pretty evident that some stereotypes are legitimate. We atheists have more to fear from Muslims than they have to fear from us.

  • Matthew

    sigh. Maher is a comedian, for one. also, some PEOPLE see muslims as part of the problem, instead of simply Islam being part of the problem, this has nothing to do with whether they are an athiest or not. statistically, all types of people can be found in all demographics, so citing one or two people as being representative of the sum of all of any group is simply ridiculous.

  • Joseph Mayfield

    Ahh right of the bat a blatant skewing of Maher’s position and then down the line to Harris. I wonder when people write these articles (which there are many now), if they actually read the books to take in the context of the quotes or if they just post what the other article written before them said.
    The imperialist/bigot argument is lazy, old and anti-intellectual.

  • KevinT

    Trav Mamone is a bisexual generqueer LOL – and he is writing about Atheists having bigotry towards Muslims .. Maybe he needs to be just as worried about Muslims as they love to toss gays from the roof tops just to watch them splatter.


    The kid took apart a commercially available clock and bolted it into a briefcase. He did not invent a fucking clock. He didn’t even BUILD a clock. He MOVED a clock from the original casing into a briefcase. Yes. It looks like a hoax bomb to me. He was even too lazy to remove the 9v power backup the clock came with. If I could give him a grade for his “project” I would give him an F. Stop glorifying this hack. I will praise any talent he may have if he ever chooses to demonstrate that talent. This did not demonstrate talent unless you want to praise his damned shop skills for being able to take a clock apart and put it in a briefcase without breaking it.

  • Badjumbly

    A headline which lumps atheists together like that does not sit well on an article about bigotry.

  • Sean

    Couldn’t get past the second paragraph when you printed this flat out lie:

    “On September 18, Real Time host Bill Maher defended Mohamed’s arrest…”

    Maher did the exact opposite. He stated that Ahmed “should NOT have been arrested.” When you either can’t get something that fundamental correct, or worse deliberately lie to further your own agenda, you immediately lose credibility. Bye.

  • Joseph Muldoon

    I find the charge of “Islamophobia” so often made by virtue signaling SJWs interesting inasmuch as no group is more terrified of Muslims than they. The constant nervous pandering that SJWs engage in is a sure sign of fear, whether they’re afraid of being blown up or of being suspected of bigotry.

    I miss the days when charges of bigotry were reserved strictly for those who actually were, you know, clearly bigoted.

  • sirexilon

    So… I am an Atheist, a free thinker, and I defended the kid, on the situation that he was wrongfully accused, wrongfully discriminated. Now that being said, I can care less about his Sci-Fi beliefs and wont respect them as real is different thing, to me Muslims and Catholics are the same s#$#. Both have had thousands killed in the name of their delusion, both have extremist, and some regular followers, I don’t mind the regular followers, still is sad that they are so weak minded that need magic to live, but if they stay on their side and don’t try to impose I can live with that. So not all Atheists had that reaction. PS I love SciFi, I just don’t go around believing “The Force” is with me 😉

  • David Ewers

    I think you are mis reading what the author is trying to say. Why was this kid’s religion brought into light. Maybe because he was named
    Ahmed Mohamed? If the this was a jhn smith that did this, would it have gotten the media attention and would we dicussing this right now?

    Lets face the truth, there is a form of bigotry here, yes we can b critical of the religion, but is everything done by a kind named Ahmed Mohamed, done for religous or political issues?

  • Luigi Novi

    As an atheist for about the past 15 or so years, I’ve
    observed that some atheists can be as militant, intolerant and irrational in
    their conduct as similary-behaving people in other religious or demographic
    groups. Whether one is able to think and express themselves critically, without
    falling down the cliff of extremism, is a question of mindset and character.
    Not the religious/non-religious group to which they belong.

    That being said, I don’t know if it’s true that “atheists
    have an anti-Muslim bigotry problem”, any more than they have an anti-Christian
    problem, or any more than religionists have “an anti-atheist problem”. Any
    large demographic group is going to exhibit variation across the mindsets of
    its individual members, and that means that we’re going to see small-minded,
    intolerant views among many of those members.

    With that mind, although some of the views expressed by
    Harris or Dawkins may be disappointing, I don’t think Maher has said anything
    bigoted towards Muslims (he has made it clear that he has referred to segments
    of the Muslim community, and not Muslims as a whole), and I question whether
    using the example of some of the louder members of the atheist community, along
    with a meme author, is accurately representative of atheists as a group.
    Criticize the individual members of said group, or cite research that
    illustrates attitudes that are prevalent among large swaths of said group. But
    using a few famous examples to extrapolate conclusions about the entire group
    is not sound reasoning.

  • Craig W Crosby Sr

    I don’t think atheists are bigots – we don’t target one theistic group as superior or inferior to others. We don’t think that what they believe about a god matters. It is just that some groups, when you let them know that it doesn’t matter, tend to blow things up and behead people. And when a member of that group creates a box of wires and a timing device, even if it is just a clock, we tend to be a bit more realistic about it than others who, perhaps because they recognize that we are saying that what they believe does not matter, feel more threatened by that than by the possibility of a bomb. At least the maybe/maybe not bomber believes in something like what they do.
    Just saying.

  • leppy111

    That kid,had his sister coaching him through all the phone interviews he was taking – they are dishonest because their book says they can do anything to non-believers because god said so.

  • Dr.Strangelove

    I don’t understand your criticism of Mr. Harris because an accurate profiling of Muslims can not be confined to a specific race. I know you are aware that millions of Muslims are not Arab since you point out that associating Islam with only brown people is ignorant. It can’t be racist to profile Muslim’s as supported by your conclusion that “Muslim” is not a race…

  • snake

    wow, what a joke. How about all the anti-everyone else bigoted Muslims ?

  • alincorneliuandries

    Starting the article with a plain lie was just a big sign of “garbage ahead” for me and, damn, I wasn’t dissapointed!

    “was arrested after school officials believed his homemade clock was a bomb.” -no, no, no, and they repeatedly said two things:
    He was not arrested, just handcuffed.
    They detained him (not arrested) because they wanted to inquire about the presumed bomb hoax. A bomb hoax, even if not a real bomb, will still land you in jail, do not pass go, do not collect.
    Ahmed knew “the clock” he “made” (by reassembling an alarm clock in a small briefcase looking like a fking bomb) looked like a fking bomb!
    He said “I closed it with a cable (the box), because I thought it might look suspicious”

    Mix in random quotes from Sam Harris about profiling, some irrelevant conderations about some other random quotes and memes, and there u go, we have a big problem with bigotry, because, u know, potato.

  • Although criticizing Islamic doctrine is no more racist than criticizing Christian doctrine, some atheists’ idea of criticizing Islam is to stereotype Muslims.

    “Some” atheists? The entirety of the atheist critique of Islam consists of stereotyping and scaremongering.

    I’m a nonbeliever, but I’m disgusted with the way atheists have decided to parrot the generalizations and rhetoric of experts like Bill Maher and Sam Harris instead of trying to engage with the cultures and beliefs of Muslims in a more empathetic way. After the Charlie Hebdo massacre, mocking the religious beliefs of all Muslims became the leisure sport of choice for people who have no desire to distinguish between terrorists and Muslims. Aren’t we supposed to be the reasonable ones?

  • Trhoin Thi

    Indeed, criticising Islam simply can’t be attributed to racism,
    since it is NOT a racial issue.
    Islam is a religion,
    even more so it can be deemed as a cult.

    As an atheist I am not anti Muslim.
    I AM anti Islam!
    And the reasons for this are glaringly obvious.
    And anyone who does not understand this,
    is either from another planet,
    or just plain stupid!

  • craiggnt

    So you take two Atheist and lump all Atheist in the same group? Isn’t that what Christian say when people put Wesrboro Church in with all Christians? Bill Maher nor Richard Dawkins are my god and I do not agree with everything they say.Yes they are hard on Islam because Islam extremism is the issue of the day. Had they lived in the mid 1800’s, Islam would be replaced with Catholicism or at other periods in time with Jews.Islam just happens to be the flavor of the week. You will also find that they do not only dislike Islam but, ALL religion.

  • Hypocrite

    To those here who thinks this is generalization to all atheists. it is not. It says atheism has an anti Muslim bigotry problem. From this sentence it does NOT follow that all atheists are bigots. A very general rule in logical arguments is trying to reconstruct your opponents side’s argument as best as you can and in good faith. What some people did here is EXACTLY the opposite, aka straw-man.
    Given that Kiran herself is an atheist, claiming that the article is generalizing over to all atheists is irrelevant. But given that many so-called new atheist horsemen have shown such bigotry (and some of their followers have followed), it is reasonable to infer that atheism does have a bigotry problem. Denying so tells many things about you and how close-minded you are, and does not erase the bigotry problem.

    The other claim about “atheism means not believing” is how atheism ought to be, but not how atheism is. Some branches of atheism are showing clear cult-like mentality, with dogmatic irrational behaviors, and bigotry.

    That anti-atheism bigotry is worse than anti-Muslim bigotry is certainly true at the time, but to hold atheism ( as a reasonable position) to religious standards is self-contradictory.

  • Bart Bols

    Its only considered bad to bash on islam? i distinctly remember humanists to be not affiliated with a religious flow of any kind… seems like some hidden culture hate in the author of the article is bubbling up… the doctrine of islam sucks in every way possible… arguably it sucks more or less just as much as any religion.

  • DrumminD21311

    Isn’t this article itself bigoted? It says “atheists have an anti-muslim problem,” as if all atheists are anti-muslim or atheism is a concrete belief-system that encourages bigotry. Certain people that identify as atheist are bigots. That does not mean “atheism” has a problem, or that these people’s beliefs represent the beliefs of other atheists, because atheism is not a belief system. The author is perpetuating the same bigotry as the people he is criticizing.


    I’ve traveled a LOT in this world and know that Muslims come in all colors. Criticizing some of their scriptures and actions cannot be ”racist” because they’re NOT one ”race.” There’s nothing sacrosanct about religion….when it’s stupid, I’ll say so, regardless of which religion that might be.

  • JazzyJake

    I have a “people who believe crazy shit and try to impose it on other people” problem. If that makes me a bigot, so be it.

  • TheGodless

    There is nothing at all bigoted with being suspicious of people that support Islam, as Islam is based on the Quran and the Quran repeatedly tells followers to convert, conquer, and kill. Why would I not be suspicious of someone that supports a religion that says that I should be killed. There is also the issue of taqiyaa giving followers license to deceive as long as it benefits the religion. How are we to know when we aren’t just being tricked about the whole not being a terrorist thing? We do have evidence to show that Islamic terrorists in America have been pretending to fit in, partaking in American culture, and deceiving the people around them (sometimes for years) before they unexpectedly perform a terrorist attack. Being anti-Muslim can certainly be a bigoted position, as people should at least try to get to know one another, but most atheists I have ever talked to take the completely justifiable stance of love the believer, hate the belief. It all rests on Islam’s shoulders for changing. If a group doesn’t wish to be thought of in any kind of negative light, that group should probably not be built on something that demands bigotry and violence (or be trying like Saudi Arabia to get the UN to mold human rights around Islamic doctrine that says that people deserve to be killed for leaving or criticizing Islam, for being gay, or getting raped). .

  • Bob

    I consider all religions to to be anachronistic myths and often think about the quote Bob Mankoff made in his TED talk. “Religious conflict can be summed up by “My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend.” No one should be hated or despised for their choice of “Binkies.” I would stand up for Muslims or Christians or Jews or any other belief, but I would, at the same time, hope for the end of all the myths through attrition, not violence. If someone has to “die,” let it be the imaginary “gods.”

  • julea bacall

    there are legitimate reasons for criticizing Islam And actually it should be done more. As al Sisi in Egypt and many others have bravely said, al Azhar plus all Muslim entities have to change the way this philosophy is taught and preached. Islam is doing more damage world wide even than fundamental Christianity and no matter what religion or non religion, what race or ethnicity, no matter Democrat or Republican there is ENTIRELY too much defense of these dangerous doctrines that run throughout every sect/school of all kinds of Islam. This goes beyond free speech or freedom of, or from religion. Too bad it is directed against PEOPLE instead of the Doctrine which is the problem. It is the Doctrine. It is a Real and dangerous problem. Since I was curious and studied it, I now know…it is the Doctrine taught to people which is dangerous and Anti-Humanity (far beyond just treatment of women…that is only the tip of the iceberg) But it should be about the Doctrine and not People.

  • B. Clark

    “…the best thing to do is listen to other people’s stories.” Nope. I’m done listening to the lie that Islam is a religion of peace and understanding. Call me a bigot who is full of hatred, but I don’t like homophobia, misogyny and BLOWING / SHOOTING / BURNING shit up. There is no voice in the Muslim community speaking out against the violence used to further their religious values, so I will continue to consider any follower of the religion as someone who wants to wipe the Earth clean of infidels.

  • Dennis Trisker

    As a Humanist living in India I affirm that all religions are open to criticism, including Islam. I have seen a lot of Islamic prejudice against non-Muslims and against atheists. If Myslims can kill Christians, Jews, Tazidis, Baha’is, gays and atheists, to not criticize Islam is a crime.

  • John Cochran

    Kiran Opal’s definition …”That’s how you know someone is a bigot, not a reasonable critic: when
    they will target only one group with their “criticism” and it’s never
    the groups they themselves identify with.” According to this definition Opal is certainly a bigot as he (she) targets a group and it is not allegedly one with which the author identifies. Actually, many people have come to the defense of “innocent” Muslims and separate these people from their terrorists countrymen. So why would some people question all of a religion when only some act so atrociously? Maybe because the Qua ran itself is so vengeful. Maybe because that “holy” book defends the teachings of Muhammad and condemns anyone who would go against its maniacal texts. Maybe because that book proclaims that any Muslim who even considers leaving the faith should be murdered. Maybe because that holy book considers anyone who is not a Muslim to be an infidel. Almost everyone knows of the Sharia laws in Muslim lands and the brutality it requires. Because of all that poisonous teaching maybe it is obvious why atheists, or anyone else would have serious doubts about anyone who worshiped under such inhuman requirements. Maybe all Muslims are not terrorists, but who is to say where the poison will fall and sprout?

  • Sukhamaya Bain

    “Anti-Muslim Bigotry” is a wrong phrase. An honest atheist is likely to be more anti-Muslim than anti-Christian or anti-Hindu or anti-Buddhist. Is that bigotry? No. Here is why. On an average, Muslims are most likely to insist on believing in their inherited religion and committing or supporting crimes that are sanctioned by their religion. Let me quote from this article, “According to a 2013 Pew Research survey,
    89 percent of Muslims surveyed in Pakistan, 85 percent of Muslims in
    Afghanistan, and 89 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territory
    support stoning as a punishment for adultery. The study also reveals
    that 86 percent of Muslims in Egypt, 79 percent of Muslims in
    Afghanistan, and 76 percent of Muslims in Pakistan believe leaving Islam
    should be punishable by death.” Note that this is not about Islam, this is about Muslims.For example, in terms of punishing apostates, Islam and and Christianity are fundamentally the same; but in the world today there are not many Christians who would support murdering an apostate.

    • On an average, Muslims are most likely to insist on believing in their inherited religion and committing or supporting crimes that are sanctioned by their religion.

      I love how one survey is supposed to lend scientific legitimacy to our stereotype of Muslims as homicidal maniacs. Can we step away from the scaremongering and discuss things like adults, please?

      • Sukhamaya Bain

        Forget about this survey if you want to. Just look at the Muslim-dominated nations around the world and at their human rights records, especially how they treat non-Muslims. Look, for example, at the record of what the Coptic Christians got from the most recent democratically elected government of Egypt (the government that the current military dictators ousted).

  • The Overman

    This is just another liberal going overboard. Libs have played the race card SO MANY times that no one cares anymore. It’s not racism when Sam Harris says we should profile Muslims; it’s inductive reasoning grounded in the human instinct to survive.

  • Trav Mamone seems to be a most egregious protector of religious bigotry.

  • Joseph

    This. Article. Is. Absurd.
    SJW’s, take your thumb out of your mouths and grow up!

  • Karen R. Koenig

    We are Humanists second and irrational humans first. It’s hard to get rid of that territorial/”other” reaction that is in our DNA. Most of my friends are Humanists and we (including myself) are as complicated as non-Humanists in our response to fear. These kinds of discussions are great for us in understanding that and in exploring our feelings even when they are mixed, as mine are on this subject.

  • Ahmed Mohamed’s teacher reported his actions to the principle because his “assembly” looked like a fucking bomb. Furthermore, the kid invented jack shit, because his “assembly” is just a commercial clock’s components stuffed into a pencil case.

    I’m not one of these ninnies who say that they only criticise Islam as an ideology but not Muslims as people. I disagree. A lot of Muslims hold fucked up, illiberal views, and I gladly go after them as well.

  • The Gorn

    “If a belief in astrology were causing people to go berserk—to deny medical care to their children or to murder unbelievers—many of us would speak and write about the dangerous stupidity of astrology. This would not be bigotry or intolerance on our part. It would be a plea for basic human sanity. And that is all that an atheist’s criticism of religious tribalism and superstition ever is.” – Sam Harris

  • you know me

    This is an incredibly irresponsible piece of journalism. The facts are not checked, the logic is fallacious, and it reeks of pandering to the straw-man crowd in the regressive left. Are there some people that are bigoted towards Muslims? Yes, certainly. Are ANY of the people you mentioned, like Harris, Maher, or Dawkins, remotely close to being such a person? No Way! Those individuals relentlessly scrutinize, criticize, and even mock the tenets and teachings of Islam, but not the people and their human dignity despite ascribing to the religion. Never mind the whole bit about what defines a race. The issue is that you can vehemently attack an idea or set of ideas (the doctrines of Islam, found within the Qur’an or Hadith) without being the least bit bigoted toward adherents to those ideas. You have completely (and possibly intentionally) misrepresented what Sam Harris has suggested about profiling. Go and read his actual suggestions…or if you don’t have time, ask yourself, “why would a Muslim Reformer like Maajid Nawaz, want to write a book with Harris if he really had such a blatantly bigoted attitude towards Muslims generally?”. So again…is bigotry a problem worth condemning? YES. But do you need to do a much more responsible job in how you identify bigotry? EVEN MORE SO!

    • The issue is that you can vehemently attack an idea or set of ideas (the doctrines of Islam, found within the Qur’an or Hadith) without being the least bit bigoted toward adherents to those ideas.

      That sounds like a distinction without a difference: I’m only saying that the beliefs you hold dear and which define the identity of you and your community are dangerous delusions. That’s so different than accusing you of being dangerous and delusional!

      One of the problems is that we’re letting people opposed to Islam define what Islam is and what Muslims believe. It’s not as simple as pointing to bits of the Koran and saying, this is what Muslims believe. And it’s not like “experts” such as Sam Harris or Bill Maher are going to be able to provide us all the nuance for understanding the range of interpretations of Muslim scriptures and the scholarly commentary.

      And that’s what bigotry is, painting all these people with the same broad brush. After the Charlie Hebdo massacre, we atheists made no attempt to differentiate between terrorists and Muslims. We thought the best response to a terrorist attack was to caricature and mock images and beliefs sacred to all Muslims, because we just don’t have the time or the inclination to engage with this worldwide network of belief communities in anything more than a harassing and accusatory way.

  • Martin Marty マ (m)

    God mucked up when he saved Noah. The twot!

  • Bigdogsrun2

    Actually muslims have been given a pass by atheist groups… It is only Christians that they come after…post one example of atheists trying to shut down muslim prayers or symbols…. You can’t… Because it’s never happened!

  • Mete

    I have to say I am getting quite tired of how people like lumping atheists together and acting like Prominent Atheist X/Y/Z speaks for all of us. Also, criticism of islam or muslims should be considered no different from criticism of any other religion or its adherents. There is good reason for anyone interested in humanist matters to be wary of many aspects of islam that have widespread support among muslims, such as death penalties for adultery, apostasy and homosexuality. Obviously, rabid profiling should be avoided.

  • The headline for this article seems to be maligning all Atheists when the article is really discussing just “some” Atheists (and truthfully just cherry-picks a couple of high profile ones at that). Generally Muslims seem to aggregate into their own forums and don’t always seem to have good English language skills which I’m quite tolerant of given I live in Europe but as a group I find them on a par with YEC – Young Earth Creationists. I used to argue with them but they are somewhat boring and my current focus for the past few years has been Intelligent Design loons (that’s not a race now is it ?). I doubt Islamic apologetics has advanced much and if Islam provides the moral and ethical framework that is the basic of the systemic human rights abuses in the Islamic republics throughout the world today then it is a fundamentally flawed ethical framework (as flawed as Christianity is). You would have to be very naive to think Muslims are a monolithic bloc given Sunni and Shia sectarian violence has been running for many decades now (arguably for the past 1400 years). In time we may see the end of Islamic sectarian violence (the same brutal sectarian violence that had dogged Christianity to this very day in places like Northern Ireland) and then in time we may see Muslims tolerate others (such as Atheists and Homosexuals).

  • whateva

    Lol not a very intelligent blogger, he just made a blanket statement against all atheists , hope he doesn’t get paid for his work !!! As an atheist I think anyone who believes in a God is brainwashed equally !!! I am not anti Muslim I am anti sharia !!!!

  • giantslor

    Excellent article, thanks.

  • Missy Dierks

    It is the VIOLENT ACTIONS by muslims that is promoting anti-muslim bigotry, not the comments made by atheists. Put the blame where it belongs…

  • S. Graham

    The author of this article is a boiling SJW regressive. Ex Muslims are not Muslims (the ‘ex’ part gives that away). Nor is Islam a race. Islam is a terrible and dangerous religion that is the ideological enemy of humanity and human well-being. It’s the war of this generation, but no one wants to admit that it’s at war with the civilized world; people are too fast to jump on to defending Muslims right after those working for Islam murder innocents.
    It’s not just terrorism that’s the problem. It’s a tragic short term byproduct of Islamism. The long term problem is the proliferation of Islam through Europe and the regression of society.

  • Christopher Stronski

    I want to get this straight. You claim to have heard a couple atheists made racist comments towards Muslims? I’m going to use the term race because there is no accepted biological definition for race. Its an informal term and was based on a belief that someone from one group was genetically inferior to another. So right away you discredit your self by saying Muslims aren’t technically a race. No group is technically a race ergo it is now a term used for irrational hatred toward a group for simply existing.

    Anyway you made this claim and gave 2 or 3 examples and somehow you blew it up to encompass everyone who doesn’t adhere to a God (which I’m sure you only do because you were constantly told it’s true since you were born). But your logic doesn’t even make sense. Finding someone who has extreme ideologies within any group does not make it a group position (and misquoting in some of the instances you gave). If you want to use that type of logic to make yourself feel better about attacking someone for using their brain then Christianity does not have a great history or present. It’s far worse. I can find so many people who are racists who say they are Christian.

  • sophion

    thats fine. since muslims have an anti-atheist, anti-christian, anti-jew, anti-hindu, anti-buddhist bigotry problem. eh?

  • BeetleBailey88

    Thing is, when you follow a religion and your prophet sets the law, your prophets actions are your example, then you know what that religion is.
    No not all muslims do as mohammed did, and I am glad of it. But fact is when your prophet is a pedophilic murdering rapist that endorses openly the taking of property and beheading anyone refusing to join your religion, then that is not something to be tolerated.
    I do not care , there are criminals everywhere. But no other society built by any other religious group in the present day is as intolerant as Islamic cultures.No other religious group has the widespread backing for excusing rape, murder, beastiality, and pedophilia as Islam.
    That is factual.

  • Guy

    Atheism is a fad

  • FuqhumanistandHumanism


  • Humanist,Humanism,LGBT,sjw,sux

    Top kek

  • Wilhelm Guggisberg

    I thought atheist means not to believe in god, according to that we are actively persecuted and legally liable to death penalty by Muslim countries. In Saudi Arabia we are automatically branded as Terrorists. Who are the bigots?

    • rp518dan

      It does not need to be “either-or”.
      There seems to be an ethical standard that allows some of us to believe that we can say or do anything, no matter how repugnant, as long as we can point to someone doing something worse.