The First Casualty of Religious Intolerance: Religious Criticism

What do the Pope and Rosie O’Donnell have in common?  (Ed.’s note: Oh man!  Just consider the numerous cheap shots one could insert right here!)  Besides both being raised as Catholics, both have been recently accused of religious intolerance.

During a discussion on the show “The View” she said, “Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have a separation of church and state.  We’re a democracy here.”

Although the syntax and context are a bit confusing, one can surmise what Ms. O’Donnell is trying to say: radical Christianity poses as much of a threat to the American way of life as does radical Islam.

This does NOT imply that either Christians or Muslims are evil or one religion is “worse” than the other: it does critique radical Christianity and radical Islam, and why should it not?

Although Al Qaeda, the epitome of radical Islam, is indeed a threat to American life and limb, their physical presence and power in terms of sheers numbers pales in comparison to the numbers of radical Christians now present in the United States.

Who are these radical Christians?  One could start with Christian Reconstructionists (CRs), which Wikipedia describes thusly:

“Although relatively insignificant in terms of the number of self-described adherents, Christian Reconstructionism has played a role in promoting the trend toward explicitly Christian politics in the larger U.S. Christian Right (this is the wider trend which some critics refer to, generally, as Dominionism)…  Because their numbers are so small compared to their influence, their gradualist strategy, and their more radical aims (even if less influential) are inharmonious with autonomous forms of democratic government (counterpoising God's Law against the arbitrary will of the people), they are sometimes accused of being secretive and conspiratorial… “

How important are these people?  Rousas John Rushdoony was considered to be the “intellectual” father of Christian Reconstruction and served on the Board of the Rutherford Institute… which represented Paula Jones in her civil case vs. President Clinton leading to his impeachment.

Oh.

Has Al Qaeda ever financed and helped orchestrate the impeachment of a President?  Was this a good thing for America?  May I go out on a limb and say “No!”

CRs provide the theological underpinning and rationale for much of the radical religious right’s stances on many issues, including gay rights, the death penalty and church-state separation.  While many in the Religious Right avoid promoting the actual penalties demanded in the bible, and CRs don’t hesitate to recommend state-sanctioned death penalties for gays, unruly children, non-believers or adulterers, these differences between truly radical Christians and the Religious Right continue to shrink.

Other radical Christian denominations include Fundamentalist Mormonism which routinely demands the brainwashing of girls as young as 14 years of age into believing that they MUST marry 50 year old friends of the Prophet, Warren Jeffs.  Does this brand of radical Christianity pose a danger to Americans?  Can Al Qaeda match this?

Add to this list the Christian Identity religion which advocates racism and has inspired racial killings, and the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing, and you get a clear picture of dangerous Christian beliefs that harm people right now in America.

But wait, there’s more!

Has Christianity spawned any other misery in America?  Did it serve to justify slavery and then segregation and racism in the form of Southern Baptism and other Christian denominations?  Who were the Kristian Knights of the KKK?  Muslims?  No, they were Christians and they were responsible for far more deaths and misery than Al Qaeda, counting 9-11.

And if you’re a gay or lesbian who wants to get married, it’s radical Christians making your life miserable, not Al Qaeda.

And then you have the actual scripture: the Old and New Testament often advise avoiding or shunning those sinful non-believers, not to mention the acceptability of taking them as slaves and at the worst, committing genocide if God so orders it.  You wouldn’t want to be a non-Hebrew Amelakite in the Old Testament.  According to two Psalms in the Old Testament, there are no atheists who do any good.

Ms. O’Donnell and this article are not implying that in a contest of “World’s Worst Religion” that either Christianity or Islam would win – the argument is that radical versions of either are dangerous and that since the US is populated by far more radical Christians, the danger they pose is more real and immediate in our every day lives.  She also targeted the theology and not persons, a point almost everyone forgets (deliberately?)

Of course all this does not mean we should not try to protect ourselves or capture bin Laden!  In fact, it means we should have concentrated our efforts on bin Laden, the most dangerous of Islamic radicals, and Afghanistan, his base of operation (and on our own homeland security and not divert ourselves with Iraq and Saddam Hussein.  That is a story for another day, however.)

What it also means is that we in the US should not turn a blind eye towards an incipient Taliban-like Christian fringe within our midst, many enslaving women and spreading racial hatred.  Their danger does result in Oklahoma City-like disasters every once in a while, after all.

Pope Benedict XVI, as opposed toMs. O’Donnell, though, chose a different target, as one would expect: Islam.

In a lecture at a University in Germany he quoted a 14th Century Byzantine Christian Emperor, Manuel Paleologos II, saying, “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

First, the irony has seemingly been lost on most persons: the Pope’s comments came in speech where he, as usual, attacked secularism, while also criticizing spreading religion with violence.  No matter what the argument, the Pope finds a way to attack secularism: what follows, though,  are his chickens coming home to roost.  Where would he prefer to spend his next day off: in secularist Europe, or somewhere a bit to the east?

There is little question in this case that the quote used was an insult with little constructive criticism attached, and came at a time when tensions were high.  Add to the fact the inglorious history of spreading Christianity by force for the Pope’s institution and you have the wrong messenger delivering the wrong message at the wrong time.

However, rather than calmly debate whether the quote had merit or not, Islamic critics immediately demanded an apology.  Ultimately the Pope apologized (in the way the Popes typically apologize); but the riots were on.  Churches burned and it may be that a nun was murdered in response: Are the reactions to the Pope’s comments justifiable?  Obviously not.  The Enlightenment has made a difference in some people is some parts of the world; sadly, not for others.

Again, this does not imply that the Pope was not being hypocritical in his position: Constantine’s Sword, the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch trials, Giordano Bruno… has the Pope forgotten?  Has he forgotten “Blood Libel,” and the charges of Jewish “Deicide” which the Church promoted over the years?  Have Protestants forgotten the anti-Semitism of Martin Luther, the founder?  And the numerous intra-Christian wars?

But is the hypocritical insult by the Pope legitimate?  Is it true or untrue that Islam has been spread by force and that the Prophet engaged in such violence?  Can this question even be asked?  Yes, although it would be best if the questioner did not also turn blind eye to the same problems of their own religion of choice.

The real truth is that the first casualty of religious intolerance is not the freedom to practice the prevailing religion - the Pope never threatened Muslim’s freedom to practice their religion – it is the freedom to criticize a prevailing religion that is endangered!

Larry Darby, Epilogue

If you’ve doubted that truth is stranger than fiction, consider the latest chapter of the story of Larry Darby, former champion of church-state separation based in the heart of the Bible Belt, Alabama, who we reported on in a previous INQUIRER newsletter.

When we left Mr. Darby, he had won a respectable 44% of the vote in the Democratic Primary (Ed.’s note: Republicans can vote in Democratic primaries in this state) for Attorney General of Alabama despite being a holocaust denier and cozying up to white supremacists while being an atheist!

A bitter loser, he was particularly hurt by the opposition to his candidacy by the Freethought community.  In an online post of July 8, 2006, he wrote that “groups that allegedly represent free thinkers were quick to jump on the Judeo-Marxist bandwagon and disassociate themselves from me…”  He managed to throw in this comment as well: the 9-11 attacks “were planned… as some evidence and logic suggest, by Israelis and disloyal Americans in high positions of government…”  For the whole post go to http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=539389.

Whatever...

The real shocker came at the end of his post which is as follows:

Statement Disavowing Atheism: I no longer categorically deny the existence of God.  My views have changed based on experiences or understanding of the world around me.  I appreciate the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson who, in the Declaration of Independence, spoke of the laws of nature and of nature’s God.  I agree with moral precepts put forth by Jesus of Nazareth and I am Chirstian in a sense that Jesus of Nazareth would approve.”

Somehow, I do not think the Freethought community will be missing Mr. Darby.

The Ballad of Larry Darby, part 2

Decatur Daily, 6/11/06) Mr. Darby told THE DAILY… that the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education and the civil rights acts "empowered the communist popular front."  He said both brought unwelcome change to the South.

(Huntsville Times, 6/9/06) Larry Darby believes that Jews exaggerated the Holocaust, that the country should be all-white and that illegal immigrants should be shot on sight…

He said about 140,000 Jews died in World War II - not the widely accepted number of 6 million - and not as part of a Nazi plan…

Darby also believes groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit group based in Montgomery that promotes racial diversity, have led the state down the wrong path.  "The open-borders policy which has been advocated by the Jewish supremacists at the Southern Poverty Law Center, they are responsible for the browning of Alabama," he said.  "They're trying to wipe out the white race in Alabama."

(Montgomery Advertiser, 6/30/06) Darby trotted out the usual tired old canards about Israel that are staples of anti-Semitic figures the world over.  In a response to a candidate questionnaire from the Advertiser, he accused the federal government of "using Alabama servicemen and materiel to advance the interests of the subversive state of Israel."  He claimed the Holocaust didn't happen.  Darby called for a declaration of martial law in Alabama and said "mestizos" should be treated as prisoners of war.  Sheriffs and a "revitalized community-based constabulary" would be "first defenders" against illegal immigrants under his administration, he said.

(Mobile Register, 6/12/06) "White people understand that our race is in danger of extinction, and they appreciate that I'm out talking about it, and a substantial portion of them voted for me for that reason," Darby said in the phone interview.  "Races were not meant to be mixed, and after the United States becomes completely brown, the Jews are still going to be Jews."

Yes, this is pretty ugly stuff; and add to this the fact that he is an atheist, the election is in Alabama, and he’s running as a Democrat – no one will vote for him, will they?

Larry Darby was even denounced in advance ofd the election by American Atheists:

(The Anniston Star, 5/28/06) By now, most Alabamians should be aware of Larry Darby’s candidacy for state attorney general on the Democratic ticket.  Darby is an atheist, which does not bother me as I am also an atheist.

What does bother me is that Darby is giving atheists a bad name by associating himself with known neo-Nazi, white separatist and white supremacist groups, as well as Holocaust deniers.  Darby refers to the Holocaust as a "hoax," "shoah business," and the "Holocaust industry."  Darby thinks Hitler has been mislabeled and inaccurately portrayed by historians.  Darby likes David Duke and was upset when the media did not cover the KKK rally in Russellville when they were protesting illegal immigration.

Darby thinks that the U.S. government and media are run by the Jews, and he believes the Mossad (Israel?s intelligence agency) has an outpost in Montgomery.  If elected, Darby wants to declare martial law and shoot any illegal aliens trying to cross over the Alabama state line.

Darby is a racist and an embarrassment to the state of Alabama and the Democratic Party and to atheists and secularism.  Blair Scott, Director, Alabama Atheists

So how’d he do?

Huntsville/Mobile Register, 6/12/06) How could a Holocaust denier, whose belief that multiculturalism is part of a global war on whites, get 44 percent of the votes cast for the Democratic nominee for attorney general the highest law enforcement officer in the state?

Was it because his name starts with “D” and his opponent’s with “T,” so voters, knowing little about either candidate, picked the first one listed on the ballot?  In some cases, that is probably what happened, but that explanation can’t account for all of the 160,000 votes that Larry Darby received.

(Huntsville Times, 6/9/06) "I think it is noteworthy that the Democratic Party had an atheist candidate and avowed Holocaust denier get so many votes in their primary," said Tim Howe, executive director of the Alabama Republican Party.

Since the CFI-LI INQUIRER is not a newspaper that cannot afford financially to offend its readership, we can offer an explanation that they cannot: voters often do not know what they’re doing, and often, when they do know, it’s disgraceful.

As documented before, a majority of Americans had major facts about Iraq, WMDs and 9-11 all wrong, and those persons tended to vote for President Bush.  Those who had their facts straight tended to vote for Candidate Kerry – andlost.

Still others, of course, had their facts straight and voted for President Bush.  What does it all mean?

So consider that in Alabama, 44% of the electorate voted for Larry Darby, despite his atheism and his strenuous opposition to Judge Roy Moore’s popular Ten Commandments display.

Since his atheist constituency could hardly have been more than 15% of the voters, and most of them probably knew him somewhat better than most and were disgusted with Mr. Darby’s views just as Blair Scott of American Atheists was disgusted, all that could be left were either ignorant voters or voters who supported his racism and anti-Semitism and his hatred of all non-whites.

So this is what’s left for atheist to take out of all this: Just run for office – and make sure your last name begins with a letter early in the alphabet.  Nothing seems to matter anyway, unless it’s that appealing to voters’ worst instincts will get you a significant number of votes.

The Ballad of Larry Darby

Have you ever voted for an atheist?  Who knows?  As far as anyone can tell, there are no federally elected or prominent state elected officials who openly claim to be atheist or agnostic or secular humanist.

So, all things being equal, one would think it would be excellent to see an unashamed atheist win up to 44% or more of the vote in an important state-wide election – in Alabama no less!

But it’s not excellent!  All things are not equal.

Larry Darby, whom I’ve met at various atheist functions, is the (very) former Alabama state director of American Atheists and then headed the Atheist Law Center.  He was a part of the fight against Judge Roy Moore over the Ten Commandment display in the Alabama Courthouse.  So far, so good.

The problem is that over the years, Mr. Darby began to display some political and social opinions that placed him decidedly outside of the mainstream of secularist thought.  Although many secularists are critics of many facets of Israel’s policies, Mr. Darby seemed to find many seemingly tangential opportunities to single out Israel and Judaism in his daily briefings of events relevant to atheists from the Atheist Law Center.  He also had problems with the Southern Poverty Law Center and Morris Dees in particular, though you could not quite figure out what the problem was.

Mr. Darby also began to vociferously oppose all hate crime laws, which is a legitimate position since a crime is a crime and such laws can be used (and have been) against persecuted minorities as well.  But his opposition seemed to be based on more than simple concern for persecuted minorities.

Then it all became clear with the following press release (with our added emphases) from the Atheist Law Center:

4 July 2005 – For immediate distribution

Atheist Law Center to host British historian David Irving on Wednesday, July 6 at 6:30 PM

For more information contact Larry Darby at xxx-xxx-xxxx.

British historian David Irving, an expert on World War Two, the NAZI era and erosion of rights of a Free Press and Free Speech will speak at the Prattville Holiday Inn…  Call Larry Darby before 2:00 PM on Wednesday so that we may reserve a seat for you.

Irving’s topic will be, “The Lipstadt Trial Five Years On: Its Methods and Achievements.”  This is the breathtaking inside story of Irving’s British High Court action against an Atlanta professor, Deborah Lipstadt for libel in England, and how she fought back with money poured in by the usual enemies of Free Speech.  Lipstadt spent 13 million dollars, paying allegedly neutral witnesses up to half a million dollars each.

Irving, who exposed the fake “Hitler Diaries” (Ed.s note: and later briefly endorsed them) in 1983, will also speak on “The Faking of Adolf Hitler for History,” a look at the numerous documents that have been faked to help provide history’s present view of him.

Darby, president of the Center, urges citizens concerned about the steady erosion of liberties in the U.S. to come hear of Irving’s experiences in challenging popular history of the NAZI era and the Western world’s taboos regarding what has grown into the holocaust industry.

Media for the masses in the U.S. are self-censoring, by and large unwilling to report criticism of Judaism (the root of all theism), organized Jewry, Israel or U.S. foreign policy regarding the Jewish state.  A result of this censorship of genuine issues has been the establishment in the U.S. of a void of knowledge concerning just how powerful Jewish interests, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, are in this country.

When individuals do find the courage to challenge politically correct notions involving Judaism, they are often met with knee-jerk responses of name-calling, such as “anti-Jew” or “anti-Semitic” or, in the case of Irving, “holocaust denier.”  Such vicious personal attacks have an effect of quashing free expression of opinion and free inquiry into a religion or faith-based practices, even when such practices have a bearing on U.S. national security…

(End of quotes from press release.)

Nowhere did the press release mention that free speech “champion” David Irving had sued Ms. Lipstadt in order to stifle her free speech in criticizing him, and that the court in England found Mr. Irving to be a liar, poor historian and instead, found for Ms. Lipstadt.

Knowing this, I wrote to Mr. Darby via email on 7/5/05 after receiving the above press release:

I just want to understand some things:

Irving sued Lipstadt for libel in England which has easier libel laws than the US, which would have put a damper on her free speech in that country.  Is that correct?  How would Lipstadt have curbed Irving's rights of free speech?

And who are the "usual enemies" of free speech? From Gerry Dantone

The following exchange via email ensued:

Darby: Hi Gerry, Thanks for writing!  No, that is not correct. Libel is not free speech.

Dantone: But the defendant was found to not be libeling Mr. Irving.   Quite often in this country, and even more in England where it is easier, the threat of a libel lawsuit is used to dampen freedom of expression.  You're saying that this is not what happened here?

Darby: The usual enemies include theists and atheists or anyone who might try and quash free inquiry or free expression.

Dantone: So you're saying the usual enemies could be anyone.  How unusual to use that phrasing when you did not mean to more specific.

Darby: You are not a subscriber to the Atheist Daily News or the ALC’s Atheist Daily Briefing, so you might not be up to speed on these issues.  I’ll send you a complimentary copy of today’s issue of the News which addresses some of the uninformed comments I received.

This informative exchange is revealing.  His initial response set the tone: In my question about whether Irving was limiting the free speech of Ms. Lipstadt, he dishonestly depicted Ms. Lipstadt’s speech as “libel” which it wasn’t – it was criticism.  Knowing the facts, I did not let this go.  And so on.

Soon after this episode, Mr. Darby announced that he would leave the Atheist Law Center and run for Alabama State Attorney General as a Democrat.  The primary was June 6,2006.  Along the way, he made his views better known.

 

See following entry.

 

 

George Allen, “Macaca” and Race in 2006

Is the personal racism of a US Senator enough to turn voters off in an election in the year 2006?  Is incompetent lying enough to do so?  As we have learned, racism is almost enough to get an atheist elected in Alabama (see the INQUIRER, Sept. 2006, “An Atheist Gets Over 44% of the Vote in Alabama – Unfortunately!”)  It may be that in these times where illegal immigration has become a campaign issue that racism may again be in vogue (even if there are numerous other non-racist objections to illegal immigration.)

According to Wikipedia, on Friday, August 11, 2006, Senator George Allen twice called S.R. Sidarth, a 20-year-old Jim Webb campaign volunteer (Allen’s opponent in this election) a word that sounds like "macaca" or "macaque".  Sidarth is of Indian ancestry, but was born and raised in Fairfax County, Virginia.  Sidarth was filming an Allen campaign stop in Breaks, Virginia, near the Kentucky border, as a "tracker" for the opposing Webb campaign.  During a speech, Allen paused, then began referring to Sidarth.

“This fellow here over here with the yellow shirt, Macaca, or whatever his name is.  He's with my opponent.  He's following us around everywhere.  And it's just great.  We're going to places all over Virginia, and he's having it on film and it's great to have you here and you show it to your opponent because he's never been there and probably will never come. [...]  Let's give a welcome to Macaca, here.  Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia.”

According to the Washington Post, Allen's campaign manager initially dismissed the racial incident with an expletive.  Allen later said that he had heard his staff use the term "macaca" in reference to Sidarth, that he did not know what the word meant, and that he did not intend to insult Sidarth's ethnicity when he singled him out to the crowd.  "I do apologize if he's offended by that," Allen said, adding that "I would never want to demean him as an individual."   On August 20, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported Allen as saying "he made up the word macaca (a different explanation from the campaign's first response)."

From the Raising Kaine website: Only a decade ago, as governor of Virginia, Allen personally initiated an association with the Council of Conservative Citizens, the successor organization to the segregationist White Citizens Council and among the largest white supremacist groups… After speaking with CCC founder and former White Citizens Council organizer Gordon Lee Baum and two of his cohorts, Allen suggested that they pose for a photograph with then-National Rifle Association spokesman and actor Charlton Heston.  The photo appeared in the Summer 1996 issue of the CCC's newsletter, the Citizens Informer.

According to Baum, Allen had not naively stumbled into a chance meeting with unfamiliar people. He knew exactly who and what the CCC was about and, from Baum's point of view, was engaged in a straightforward political transaction.  "It helped us as much as it helped him," Baum told me. "We got our bona fides."  And so did Allen.

Descended from the White Citizens' Councils...the CCC is designated a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  In its "Statement of Principles," the CCC declares, "We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races."  (http://raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4172)

So we’ll soon find out whether racism and dishonesty is a disqualifier for the holding of a seat in the US Senate.  You’d think that we could do better.

Either You're an Orthodox Catholic or You're Lost

 

File the following into the “Why religion is divisive” file.

I recently a mailing from the Catholic Resource center which is convinced for some reason that I’m a faithful Catholic.  Since they are convinced, they feel comfortable in speaking to me frankly.

This month’s plea for money was a campaign to save “Catholics on the brink.”  Not the brink of doing something terrible or harmful, but on the brink of being something other than very “orthodox” Catholics.

Yes, it goes, “It’s hard to believe, but millions of Catholics have ‘jumped off the ship’ into the shark-infested waters of doubt, unbelief, heresy, and outright denial of our Holy Faith!”

Obviously this implies that there is something wrong with doubt, unbelief, heresy and denial of their religion, even if, I would submit, these things are entirely natural, often justified and in many cases, the only intellectually honest course.

But what does Catholic orthodoxy believe to be behind such wavering by Catholics?

They list several possibilities: these doubters are either divorcing, using contraceptives, fornicating, having abortions, or are gay.

Many, they believe, are being turned into atheists by “godless” professors at college or are under the “spell” of feminists.  Some others are turned because of scandals in the church (which they blame on gays as well.)

NOWHERE is to be found more realistic reasoning in this plea for support: they never even consider that many former Catholics find the claims of the church to be unconvincing and after serious thought, reject all supernatural-based claims.  No mention is made that despite their claims to moral authority, the Church has often been involved in outright immorality, such as the cover-up of pedophilia, nun abuse, and numerous political and moral atrocities over the centuries.

This deliberate obtuseness reflects a greater problem – just think about how such a person immersed in such orthodoxy views the non-Catholic world in general: everyone else must have an ulterior motive for rejecting the Church.  No one, other than Roman Catholics, can have a sincere, rational opinion.

Here is the closing line from this financial appeal: “God reward you for teaching souls why the Church is Christ’s One True Church!”

Western Jihadists

By Gerry Dantone

A very disturbing story emerged in June 2006; the arrest of 17 Toronto area Canadians that Canadian investigators claimed were planning massive terrorist attacks in that country.

Everything about this story points to the complete and utter misunderstanding of the “War on Terror” in which the “West” is supposedly engaged.

All the suspects lived in Canada, many were long-time residents and citizens.  Their radicalization was not born of any particular impoverished situation or other oppression.  Most were suburbanites.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service Deputy Director of Operations Jack Hooper said, “They are virtually indistinguishable from other youth.  They blend in very well to our society, they speak our language, and they appear to be, to all intents and purposes, well-assimilated.”

Police believe the Internet played a role in the suspect’s planning and that they frequented the Al-Rahman Islamic Center isMississauga, a western Toronto suburb.  The only suspect over 25 was known to have vocal and extreme views within the mosque.

Sheik Husain Patel, an Iman at the Islamic Foundation of Toronto believes that some leader led the younger suspects into extremism.  Patel claims violence has no place in Islam and that mainstream Muslims need to be more vigilant in protecting the young from getting caught up in such movements.

Of course, Sheik Patel cannot admit what is obvious: magical and faith-based thinking cannot be controlled for long, and violence, particularly when scripture and religious tradition do have violent and intolerant aspects, is inevitable.  After all, it is only a matter of opinion whether killing infidels or heretics is “Islamic” or “Christian.”  What we DO know is that the First Commandment of the Old Testament, a document that many religions consider foundational, calls for killing many transgressors, including non-believers or heretics.

Exactly why should an impressionable young believer reject what is written in scripture?  Yet that is precisely what moderate religious leaders are asking them to do!

There is but one answer to religious extremism and it is not that they moderate their violent directives found in scripture; it is that they understand that scripture is NOT the word of a god and that obedience is NOT a virtue.

The moderate religious person walks a near invisible tightrope: Praise God and scripture and obey your religious beliefs, just don’t take it too far.

Of course, this makes no sense to a person who wants to be devout all the way.

Dogma, obedience and the supernatural are the issues that embody the actual “War on Terror” and need addressing.  Once again, it is clear that the war has not yet begun.