Ayaan Hirsi Ali converts to Christianity

[random poet]

Speaking of Richard Dawkins, he has commented on the conversion in the form of an open letter:

Open letter from Richard Dawkins to Ayaan Hirsi-Ali

Dear Ayaan

As you know, you are one of my absolutely favourite people but . . . seriously, Ayaan? You, a Christian? You are no more a Christian than I am.  I might agree with you (I actually do) that Putinism, Islamism, and postmodernish wokery pokery are three great enemies of decent civilisation. I might agree with you that Christianity, if only as a lesser of evils, is a powerful weapon against them. I might add that Christianity has been the inspiration for some of the greatest art, architecture and music the world has ever known. But so what?  I once got into trouble for extolling the beauty of Winchester Cathedral bells by comparison with the "aggressive-sounding" yell of "Allahu Akhbar" (the last thing you hear before the bomb goes off, or before your head rolls away from your body). I might agree (I think I do, although certainly not in its earlier history) that Christianity is morally superior to Islam. I might even agree that Christianity is the bedrock of our civilisation (actually I don't, but even if I did . . .) None of that comes remotely even close to making me – or you – a Christian.

This is some wild shit. He's coming right out and saying it; "hey I know we are both giant islamophobes and racists together, but ..."

Is there a category of fallacy for this? Appeal to fuckheadism?

For once his conclusion is correct -- she is no Christian -- but that is by pure chance because none of his arguments are sound.

[werecow]

Both the Hoover Institute and the AEI have had guest speakers from the Discotute but then so have several universities. The only quasi religious dogma they appear to really associate with is free market fundamentalism.

In the US at least, isn't that point of view associated with the political "right", which tends to be more religious than their opponents?

I may be mistaken but I don't think the Christian fundie wing is the same as the free market wing. It's more of a marriage of convenience since they both like to make poor people more miserable and steal their money (but in slightly different ways).

[Desert Fox]

I may be mistaken but I don't think the Christian fundie wing is the same as the free market wing. It's more of a marriage of convenience since they both like to make poor people more miserable and steal their money (but in slightly different ways).

They will eventually turn on each other but grim satisfaction because we will be dead and the world will be ruined.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Both the Hoover Institute and the AEI have had guest speakers from the Discotute but then so have several universities. The only quasi religious dogma they appear to really associate with is free market fundamentalism.

In the US at least, isn't that point of view associated with the political "right", which tends to be more religious than their opponents?

I may be mistaken but I don't think the Christian fundie wing is the same as the free market wing. It's more of a marriage of convenience since they both like to make poor people more miserable and steal their money (but in slightly different ways).

I don't think it is reasonable to assume malice from political opponents in that way.

You are correct that it is a marriage of convenience, but I also think that many people in that marriage espouse both sets of views.

[Shibboleth]

We should start calling shit like this a "Michu Kaku".

[arthwollipot]

What does "michu kaku" mean?

ETA: Never mind, I'm just being disagreeable. I assume you mean Michio Kaku, the futurist and author.

[werecow]

Both the Hoover Institute and the AEI have had guest speakers from the Discotute but then so have several universities. The only quasi religious dogma they appear to really associate with is free market fundamentalism.

In the US at least, isn't that point of view associated with the political "right", which tends to be more religious than their opponents?

I may be mistaken but I don't think the Christian fundie wing is the same as the free market wing. It's more of a marriage of convenience since they both like to make poor people more miserable and steal their money (but in slightly different ways).

I don't think it is reasonable to assume malice from political opponents in that way.

You are correct that it is a marriage of convenience, but I also think that many people in that marriage espouse both sets of views.

If it walks like a duck... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Quetzalcoatl]

Both the Hoover Institute and the AEI have had guest speakers from the Discotute but then so have several universities. The only quasi religious dogma they appear to really associate with is free market fundamentalism.

In the US at least, isn't that point of view associated with the political "right", which tends to be more religious than their opponents?

I may be mistaken but I don't think the Christian fundie wing is the same as the free market wing. It's more of a marriage of convenience since they both like to make poor people more miserable and steal their money (but in slightly different ways).

I don't think it is reasonable to assume malice from political opponents in that way.

You are correct that it is a marriage of convenience, but I also think that many people in that marriage espouse both sets of views.

If it walks like a duck... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Not from the point of view of critical thinking:

More Evidence for Motivated Reasoning

I also think we need to remind ourselves that people who disagree with us are just people. They are not demons. They have their reasons for believing what they do. They think they are right just as much as you think you are right. They don't disagree with you because you are virtuous and they are evil. They just have a different narrative than you, and your narrative is likely just as subjective and flawed as theirs.

[Quetzalcoatl]

I googled to see what Christians think about her conversion. They have also noticed, like atheists did, that she didn't refer to any reason for thinking Christianity is true, but gave only pragmatic reasons. And they criticized her for that. But some also defended her stated reasons:

In Defense of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Conversion

Yet precisely the civilizational emphasis in Hirsi Ali's conversion story has invited a number of believers to question her motives and even her authenticity. Christianity might be a better answer to age-old human problems than narrow-minded scientism or woke-ism, they note, but where is Christ in all this? Has Hirsi Ali even assented to the basic teachings of "mere Christianity": that the one God took it upon himself to heal the breach caused by our first ancestors, becoming man, dying on the Cross, and rising again on the third day?

These aren't irrelevant questions. But they are to be asked by the ministers of Hirsi Ali's church, not by the Christian public at large. For the rest of us, the civilizational or cultural case for converting to Christianity should be enough. Indeed, the very fact that these are the first questions that pop into the Christian public's mind is a symptom of the loss of public, cultural Christianity and the faith's sad confinement to a narrow, individualistic sphere. Historic Christianity, by contrast, spread civilizationally.

How else could the Church of apostles and martyrs have converted the Roman Empire from the inside out? It certainly didn't have tribal armies to command (as the prophet Muhammad did). No, Roman people, often beginning with Roman elites, turned to Christianity because Christian life was attractive: In a late-Roman world characterized by decadence, oppression, infant exposure, rising divorce, and collapsing fertility, the followers of this strange sect lived justly and humanely.

The association between the Church and civilization deepened with the Constantinian conversion, a phenomenon that saw the Christian share of the empire spike dramatically: Did every new convert understand every article of the creed? Hardly. As the French patrologist Jean Cardinal Danielou noted, for many of these newly Christianized masses, the faith was little more than a set of external rituals. And yet immersion in a Christian civilization benefited these masses from both the temporal and eternal perspectives.

Or rather, in the centuries after Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, pagans and heretical Christians were persecuted in the Roman Empire as well as in the kingdoms that succeeded it.

How can one be proud of such a legacy?

[werecow]

Both the Hoover Institute and the AEI have had guest speakers from the Discotute but then so have several universities. The only quasi religious dogma they appear to really associate with is free market fundamentalism.

In the US at least, isn't that point of view associated with the political "right", which tends to be more religious than their opponents?

I may be mistaken but I don't think the Christian fundie wing is the same as the free market wing. It's more of a marriage of convenience since they both like to make poor people more miserable and steal their money (but in slightly different ways).

I don't think it is reasonable to assume malice from political opponents in that way.

You are correct that it is a marriage of convenience, but I also think that many people in that marriage espouse both sets of views.

If it walks like a duck... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Not from the point of view of critical thinking:

More Evidence for Motivated Reasoning

I also think we need to remind ourselves that people who disagree with us are just people. They are not demons. They have their reasons for believing what they do. They think they are right just as much as you think you are right. They don't disagree with you because you are virtuous and they are evil. They just have a different narrative than you, and your narrative is likely just as subjective and flawed as theirs.

Thanks for that, quote master Quetz, but it is a very obvious fact that both many prominent free market advocates and many prominent Christian evangelical leaders in the US are robbing the people who follow them blind as a matter of course.

[daniel1948]

... in the centuries after Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, pagans and heretical Christians were persecuted in the Roman Empire as well as in the kingdoms that succeeded it.

How can one be proud of such a legacy?

By blatantly denying the facts.

[Desert Fox]

If you fast forward this video to 50 seconds in, she has a very unique answer

Asked about the number of Christian in the UK being less than half, she responds:

"If you define Christianity in its narrowest sense,
people who accept um Jesus, who attend church, etc,
you are right about those numbers. But I think if you
accept if you define it in a much broader term on a
civilization al level, I think you will see that most
people even though they say they're not Christian, um
do um, its a Christian Society still."

I tried to add some punctuation but otherwise as direct a quote as I could make.
At best one could say she is arguing for "Cultural Christianity."
I would arguing more that she is babbling bullshit. 

I would also argue that Christianity in the United States, at least in it more fundamental forms, is more of a threat to freedom and rights than Islam.  They tried to overthrow the government January 6. 2021. They want to circumvent the right to have abortions even after the voters specifically voted for an amendment allowing it.  They want religion to supersede mask mandates. They want to burn damn books. 

I believe she  lives in the United States. . .  .  . How the fuck can she miss all that?  She is suppose to be an intellectual. 

[Harry Black]

She masquerades as an intellectual. But is a known liar who just helps a sub section of atheists feel better about being islamaphobic.

[Quetzalcoatl]

She masquerades as an intellectual. But is a known liar who just helps a sub section of atheists feel better about being islamaphobic.

To those not as familiar with her, what are her lies?

[Desert Fox]

She masquerades as an intellectual. But is a known liar who just helps a sub section of atheists feel better about being islamaphobic.

To those not as familiar with her, what are her lies?

Her history is a big one. . . . .Her claims of persecution do not appear to be supported.