The Alliance For Positive Thought

Omar Hammami was born and raised in Alabama, dated a prom queen, played soccer, and looked like a normal American kid.  Yet now he is a key figure in a Jihadist unit that conducts murders and suicide bombings in the name of God.

Americans are fascinated by stories like this, because they undermine our ability to otherize.  Recognizing that it is possible for a fresh-faced, popular American boy to grow up to be a terrorist forces us to realize that these religious extremists are people just like us.  Radical Muslims are not animals or aliens, they are human beings who care deeply about the consequences of their actions.

This shouldn’t come to us as a shock.  Good people are capable of bad things.  Those of us who are familiar with the Stanford Prison Experiment know that circumstances can lead to behaviors that might seem totally out of character, or even utterly evil.  Having total control over another person’s fate is one way that our situation in life can overwhelm our sense of decency.  Being subject to the perverse yet sometimes subtle manipulation of religious fervor can also influence us to behave in startlingly destructive ways.

Omar’s motivation is dedication to Allah, who he believes commands him to act violently.  He did not arrive at his current worldview casually.  His story was full of twists and turns: he underwent a great deal of soul-searching, and examined a number of philosophical positions before settling on Jihad as his purpose.

He debated religion with his peers, and he won.  No one was able to convince him that he was wrong, and how could they?  What could a Christian society tell him to dissuade him from his path?  Christians agree that service to God is the ultimate good.  Christians agree that nonbelievers will be violently punished, whether in this life or the next.  Christians agree that God’s commands are written in a book that cannot be questioned.

When you are part of a society that believes these things, there is nothing to stop a thoughtful individual from taking these principles to their logical conclusion, which is what Omar has done.  His only crime is a desire for consistency in his religious beliefs.  An honest Christian who believes that the Bible is the word of God, and who is not willing to compromise in his or her faith would also have to be an extremist.  The (Christian) Bible is full of exhortations and promises to kill nonbelievers and adulterers.

Some Haiti survivors believe that they were chosen by God to survive the tragedy.  It's a common mistake.  Those who survive any treacherous circumstance feel lucky, even though someone has to survive.

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — Drumbeats called the faithful to a Sunday Mass praising God amid a scene resembling the Apocalypse - a collapsed cathedral in a city cloaked with the smell of death, where aid is slow to reach survivors and rescue crews battle to pry an ever-smaller number of the living from the ruins.

Sunlight streamed through what little was left of blown-out stained windows as the Rev. Eric Toussaint preached to a small crowd of survivors. A rotting body lay in its main entrance.

"Why give thanks to God? Because we are here," Toussaint said. "We say 'Thank you God.' What happened is the will of God. We are in the hands of God now."

In a huge disaster in an area densely packed with people, it is extremely likely that some people will be in the areas that happen to remain structurally sound.  They aren't blessed, they aren't lucky: someone had to be there, and it happened to be them.  The lucky ones who happen to be under a support that survives the tumble will be amazed at their incredible good fortune.

But when you are the one who experiences this “luck” it is overwhelmingly difficult separate one's subjective experience of the world from this objective analysis.  When a terribly tragedy befalls us, our instinct is to call foul believe an injustice has occurred.  Similarly, when we are fortunate beyond our wildest dreams, we must be “blessed.” My grandfather survived the holocaust by the barest of threads, and never understood that God need not have favored him in order for him to have experienced good fortune. Many died and many survived -- some just barely. His story happened to be one of the latter.

200,000 people may have died in Haiti.  But the capital, Port-au-Prince, where population was most dense in the earthquake's affected area, had a population over 700,000.  That means, yes, you were lucky if were among the survivors.  But you would be in the company of at least half a million other people.

If God had control over the entire situation, why would he callously exterminate the equivalent of a small city full of his children?  What father, however angry, could stomach such tragedy in his own family, let alone cause it?

Even though the Alliance for Positive Thought questions the existence of the supernatural, we believe that there are some aspects of religion which are useful and desirable to incorporate into everyday life. Possibly the biggest benefits of organized religion are the social relationships and community it creates for participants.

People who belong to a religious faith often attend a worship service where they meet like minded individuals and have the opportunity to make friends. They often feel as though they belong to a community that they can trust, and therefore they have a high level of social capital (the potential energy of social relationships). That is, they have people they can count on for advice on health, employment, relationships, and life events.

These feelings of community are partially generated by participants’ perceptions of shared beliefs and norms. Members of a congregation know that they share moral values and have a sense of right and wrong. Membership and belonging is often perpetuated by the religious leader, and reinforced through actions of the congregation.

However where there is inclusion and relationship building there is also a risk of exclusion and naming those who are different as the “other.” To a religious person, the “other” is someone who does not share their morals. The “other” is someone who they cannot trust. What do these perceptions of the unworthy “other” reveal about the social relationship benefits that religion brings to its participants? Must there always be a boundary between those who are included in a community and excluded? Is it possible to maximize the benefits of social relationships without generating exclusive boundaries?

A 2007 Gallup poll revealed that only 45% of Americans said that they would be willing to vote for a qualified candidate who happened to be atheist. This compares to 55% who would be willing to vote for a candidate who happened to be homosexual, 57% who would vote for a candidate who happened to be over age 72, and 67% who would vote for a candidate who happened to be married for the third time.

When results are tabulated by political ideology, liberals are more likely to say they would vote for an atheist (67% say they would) compared to moderates (48%) and conservatives (29%).

Tabulating by educational level reveals that 52% of those who have attended some college would be willing to vote for an atheist, whereas only 32% who have not attended college would be willing to do so.

Would you vote for an atheist for president? Why or why not?