Mass murder in Nice: ask the right questions

Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel killed 84 people and injured over a hundred others in Nice when he deliberately ran them down in his rented truck on Bastille Day, 2016. Since then, media speculation abounds - was he or was he not recruited or inspired by ISIS?

In pursuing such futile lines we risk missing the point by more than the 2km of Bouhlel's murderous drive. Whether or not there be a direct link between the leadership of ISIS and Bouhlel himself, there is no doubt that he and they share the same religion. That ought to lead us to two particularly pertinent questions.

1. Why is the world so reluctant to recognise that Islam is a violent, aggressive, domineering ideology?

Beheadings, honour killings, placards promising death to those who fail to kowtow to their bullying demands... the religion of peace pops up time and again as the principal common factor linking meat-cleaver-wielding murderers, suicide bombers, rage-boy demonstrators, clerics who defend wife-beating, and opponents of scientific truth in education. The undeserved respect which the accommodationist left falls over itself to heap upon Islam further legitimises all of the above in the eyes of its perpetrators. It is high time that we stopped pussyfooting around and declared Islam to be what it is - a 7th century ideology based on a desire to rule, conquer, kill and enslave. It does not deserve one iota of respect and it should become as socially unacceptable as drink-driving.

2. Why the hell didn't Bouhlel's religious beliefs stop him committing mass murder?

No-one - absolutely no-one - has asked why, if Bouhlel was motivated to commit his atrocity by some entirely secular influence (as the media imply, constantly repeating that no link has been proven between him and ISIS), his peaceful religion and consequent love and respect for his fellow humans did not empower him to shun his destructive urge and follow the true path of righteous brotherly coexistence with his fellow citizens? If a Muslim can be persuaded by some means unconnected with religion to go out on a random mass killing spree, then what the hell use is his religion? He would certainly be no worse off without it. And neither would the rest of the world.

Inverted morality

Having just read a stimulating blog post on the uselessness of the god hypothesis, written by @MrOzAtheist, I'd like to add another facet of this worryingly persistent meme, together with a possible explanation for its persistence. 

When theists advance the god explanation for one of their favourite phenomena (usually chosen from abiogenesis, morality, ethics or some fictitious non-event such as resurrection) they invariably do so with a condescending, holier-than-thou tone. Even those honest enough to admit that their belief arises from a childish fear of death adopt the same patronising voice, resorting to ad hominem diversions and challenging atheists to prove 'naturalism' or some other made-up straw man standpoint.

I say that the god hypothesis provides a scapegoat for their arrogant, snide tone.

It releases them from the normal social obligation to speak politely with due regard to the person being addressed. Too often I have seen and heard self-professed god fearing folk do and say the most awful things, but to them it's OK because they speak and act on the authority of their all-powerful big brother, so they don't need to monitor their conscience as the rest of us do. Moreover, having declared themselves religious and therefore of a high moral standing, they assume that anything they say or do must me morally fine, simply on account of the first assumption.

Theists, when putting forward an argument or asserting an opinion, please have the decency to do so on your own account, and be prepared to have your assertions questioned robustly. If your arguments do not stand up on their own merits, be assured that religion grants you no automatic trump card. Your thesis does not deserve special respect simply because it is made on your god's behalf.