Should Atheists commit to Terrorism?
DISCLAIMER TO THE F.B.I WHO MIGHT BE READING THIS: 100% hypothetical, I love mankind, America, and the F.B.I. ;o
I can see only three possible outcomes for out future in regards to theism:
1. Religion slowly dies away.
2. We kill each other. Boom.
3. THROUGH killing each other, we unite and reshape humanity without religion.
I would hope number 1 is the most likely outcome, but I was wondering if people sped up the process for number 3, if that might save us from number 2. Now, you could say it might speed up number 2, but I think that depends on how you do it. Let's consider the details:
- NO ACTS OF TERRORISM would be in the name of ATHEISM. In fact, they would be masked as one of the major religions. The last thing Atheism needs is religious people uniting against it.
- Limiting human casualities would be a priority. Now of course, people would have to die to send forth a message, but (as bad as this sounds) keeping the number high enough for outrage, but low enough to avoid retribution would be the goal.
- Targets would have to create a sense of futility and frustration. For example, when terrorists bomb UN stations, that's expected and doesn't really shape the minds of those in the country. However, blowing up a church in the same country while claiming to be terrorists FROM that country could cause those living there to speak up and fight back. People at this level wouldn't be able to do any MAJOR damage like nuclear holocaust, but they would be able to dissolve the efforts of terrorist cells in their respective countries.
- Targets in countries like the United States would be very similar. Say for example, abortion clinic bombings. The citizens would be made to believe it was from fundamentalist christian networks instead of islamic radicals. Now, unlike arabic countries, the terrorist threat is imaginary here. Meaning, the people in the United States wouldn't have to fight back against specific militants but instead against religious parties. Since no one group would specifically be blamed, it would lead to verbal discourse and a loss of interest in the church. It's possible christian leaders or their members could become targets for retaliation in isolated incidents, but I don't think so. If you keep the number smaller in the United States than say Pakistan, I think people could actually live with the losses without feeling obligated to commit violence. After all, we watch the news every day and see small numbers of people getting killed domestically while barely flinching.
- The number and locations of the attacks would be planned, but appear sporadic. No need arising suspicion of a secular terrorist network. The terrorist networks would infilitrate the media in all outlets (have people inside for spin control) to help send the message home without deviation.
- In congruence with the efforts of these terrorists, respected worldly nonbelievers like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris would speak up not against religion SPECIFICALLY, but the violence associated with irrationality and faith-based society. Careful attention to detail would be prudent. No mention of atheism, ever. It's important to remember that people are naturally atheistic and that labels make targets.
- Lastly, the act of KILLING people doesn't necessarily have to be the method used in this attack. I mention it, because it seems to be what best communicates worldwide. Not to sound cheesy, but if you could use landmarks (like in V for Vendetta) or strategical attacks on important logistical facilities (like when the pentagon was attacked during 9/11) that would obviously be the best course of action.
Let it be known, I hate violence but we shouldn't ignore the reality that countless lives have been lost FOR NOTHING. You could easily write a history book with ONLY the details of murder, rape, pillaging, intolerance, and suffering that we've committed on ourselves. CAN we enlighten people through understanding? I hope so, but if our primal instincts are too overbearing for reason, does this really sound THAT ridiculous? That classic adage, "the pen is mightier than the sword," will certainly be put to the test in our near future.