due not to any enlightened social attitudes in the upper classes but due to the fact that white people fought against our aristocracies and reduced their power in law via a series of revolutionary movements going back to the collapse of rome but picking up after the fall of constantinople, the white aristocracies have largely retreated from trying to enforce christian dogma on their populations, until recently. this is not out of their own volition or choice, but because we forced them to stop, and we took away their power. this is the great victory of modern enlightened/secular european society over medieval christianity (a mostly brown-skinned religion from the middle east that remnant roman/jewish groups tried to colonize white europeans with, and mostly failed at doing) that created the modern world. this great victory of the white european masses over colonizing brown christians from rome opened up somewhat of a power vacuum, and islamist groups that are basically the same things as christians are now trying to walk into that power vacuum, which is scaring the remnant roman christian aristocracies into thinking they're being replaced by muslim aristocracies, who never faced that revolutionary back lash, and continue to viciously enforce what is really exactly the same religion on their own people using violence and coercion. that is the reason the christian aristocracies are trying to fight back now, as they are trying to protect what they see as a threatened position in society; they withdrew from enforcement, because we forced them to, which is allowing these other religions to walk in and take their place. you can in fact see that in the statistics they present, which appear to me to be valid, that show that religious belief amongst nonchristians in north america and europe is increasing at a rapid pace, while christian belief continues to decline, which is something that is being brought on by immigration policies authored not by the aristocratic elites but by the bourgeois political establishments. the bourgeois political establishments are trying to do things like increase gdp and really aren't concerned about religious belief, or the role of the religious aristocracy, that has never truly gone away, but has continued to exist in the background. this isn't an intentional attack by the bourgeoisie on the aristocracy, but rather an unintended consequence. the aristocracy is nonetheless interpreting it as an attack and responding to it as one and trying to retake control of that power vacuum before a new foreign born aristocracy manages to wrestle it from them. up to this point, the bourgeois class has largely responded to this by calling the aristocrats insane and accusing them of perpetuating conspiracy theories, but i think that a solid marxist analysis should show that the concerns of the aristocrats (from their own perspective) are very real, even if the capitalists don't really comprehend what they're doing.
but i'm neither a christian aristocrat, nor a bourgeois capitalist. i'm an anarchist, an atheist and a proletarian. the aristocracy and bourgeoisie can kill each other off all they want. i don't give a fuck; if anything, i'd egg it on, as it weakens them both, which makes it easier for an eventual proletariat overthrow of both of them.
my atheist position on the increasing tendency towards conflict between muslims and christians is really that we should step back and let them kill each other off with an eye on divide and conquer, while keeping the following things in mind:
1) our position should not be in protecting one of these communities from the other, but in ensuring that neither of them are able to project violence towards atheists or is able to mount any kind of attack on freedom, individuality or reason and
2) that our greatest threat is not this or that religionist group, but the haunting spectre of religious integration, of communalism, of syncretism and of inter-faith collusion and cooperation. our real concern should be in preventing christians and muslims from aligning with each other against us, not in taking a side when they fight each other.
the religionists, like any other groups, are stronger when they work together, and weaker when they fight against each other. the atheist position should be to step back and let them fight each other and not to try to bridge differences; it should be to get out of their way and let them kill each other off, while protecting our own from their violence as best we can, which means self-defense when required, and it will be required, eventually. for now, we're better off getting out of the way than trying to intervene.
likewise, the proletariat has no position to take in trying to protect white aristocrats from brown aristocrats, or in taking a side in a conflict between the capitalist bourgeoisie and the remnant christian aristocracy, at all. the proletariat should focus on advancing it's self interest, and avoid getting involved in these conflicts which they have no part in and no interest in. but it should also ensure it understands what is going on and is able to react to events as is required.
it is obviously true that islam is a greater threat to freedom than christianity is, in contemporary western society. but we should address that truth without getting lost in class conflicts that we have no stake in.