Dear Editor:

Mohamed Elsmasry says [FAUW Forum, March/April 2002] those who would
blame religion for the September 11 attacks are guilty of of
"logic-chopping".  But it seems that in his zeal to absolve religion of
any role in those attacks, he's chopping a bit himself.

For example, Elmasry asks, "[W]ould anyone blame "nationalism" for the
millions of civilians who lost their lives during World Wars I and II?"
Yes, I would, and so would most historians.  Therefore, according to
Elmasry, I and most historians must be "irrational".  If by
"logic-chopping" we understand "a shallow and sophistic argument",
Elmasry's would seem to qualify.

To take another example, Elmasry quotes his mother saying, in effect,
that those who murder in the name of God must be liars.  Elmasry's
mother is certainly a fine person, but here she is simply wrong.    A
lie is an untruth uttered with intent to deceive.  Neither Elmasry nor
his mother have provided any evidence that the attackers of the World
Trade Center were not completely sincere in their belief that they were
carrying out God's will and that killing thousands would earn them a
place in heaven.

It is certainly unfair to assign blame for terrorism on aspects of the
terrorists' lives that are unrelated to the causes of their acts.  It
is certainly unfair to blame all Muslims for the actions of a few.
But to pretend that religion was not a significant motivation for the
September 11 terrorists is disingenuous at best.

What is it about religion that makes it uniquely responsible for so
much evil?  The answer is complicated, but surely elements include
institutional dogma, promises of afterlife, deprecation of unbelievers,
and the confusion of belief with knowledge.  These elements can be
found in Islam as well as Christianity.  As physicist Steven Weinberg
remarked, "With or without religion, good people can behave well and
bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil---that takes
religion."

Elmasry seems to believe that those who point out the evils of religion
are "propagating their own brand of faith".  If this is true, then
those who point out that cigarette smoking is unhealthy must be
propagating sickness.  Unwillingness to accept the dogma of others is
not faith, any more than bare feet are a type of shoe.

I am very glad that Professor Elmasry is not teaching Logic 101.

Jeffrey Shallit
Computer Science