Sam Harris article entitled "Head-in-the-Sand Liberals"

[bloom]

Head-in-the-Sand Liberals
Western civilization really is at risk from Muslim extremists.
By Sam Harris

TWO YEARS AGO I published a book highly critical of religion, "The End of Faith." In it, I argued that the world's major religions are genuinely incompatible, inevitably cause conflict and now prevent the emergence of a viable, global civilization. In response, I have received many thousands of letters and e-mails from priests, journalists, scientists, politicians, soldiers, rabbis, actors, aid workers, students — from people young and old who occupy every point on the spectrum of belief and nonbelief.

This has offered me a special opportunity to see how people of all creeds and political persuasions react when religion is criticized. I am here to report that liberals and conservatives respond very differently to the notion that religion can be a direct cause of human conflict. This difference does not bode well for the future of liberalism....

But my correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world — specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith.

On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right. This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that "liberals are soft on terrorism." It is, and they are.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

Harris has been given quite the platform to dis liberals and promote torture these days.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=74019

No friend of mine.

[The Deacon]

1. When Will These Idiots Realize That There Are Well Over A BILLION

Muslims? Aside from the laughable assertion that one can say ANYTHING about "Muslims" that would legitimately pertain to all of them - if they really WERE interested in destroying us we'd already BE dead.

[bloom]

6. It's pretty nuts.

I don't know that much about him. It was my impression that he says he practices "zen". To read the article - he sounds like quite the Zionist-defender ->

"Muslims routinely use human shields, and this accounts for much of the collateral damage we and the Israelis cause; the political discourse throughout much of the Muslim world, especially with respect to Jews, is explicitly and unabashedly genocidal.

Given these distinctions, there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah. And yet liberals in the United States and Europe often speak as though the truth were otherwise."


Of course there are "Jewish-atheists". It sounds like - either that or he is really just a right-winger-Bush-supporter for some other reason.


At any rate - I'm sure he wouldn't like people going around saying that all (devout?) atheists are ALL violent (or desirous of violence) or some other thing.

[Finder]

2. This is at least the 4th thread on this article...n/t

[bloom]

4. This is the first one in the religion section...

and seeing as how people like to quote him so much around here - it seems like a good idea if they know how anti-liberal he is.

He sounds like an atheist-zionist if you read the whole article.

[Finder]

5. Why do you think he is anti-liberal? n/t

[bloom]

7. Try reading the article. He makes it pretty clear. nt

[Scriptor Ignotus]

8. what's clear is that

he does not approve of the Democrats message on the war on terror. He is critical of the liberal strategy, so I guess in your head that means he is anti-liberal.

[bloom]

10. Maybe you didn't read it either. Here are some quotes:

"liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world"

"On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right."

"This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that "liberals are soft on terrorism." It is, and they are."

" liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism. "

"Such an astonishing eruption of masochistic unreason could well mark the decline of liberalism, if not the decline of Western civilization."

"an unusually clear view of the debilitating dogma that lurks at the heart of liberalism: Western power is utterly malevolent, while the powerless people of the Earth can be counted on to embrace reason and tolerance, if only given sufficient economic opportunities."

"Recent condemnations of the Bush administration's use of the phrase "Islamic fascism" are a case in point. There is no question that the phrase is imprecise — Islamists are not technically fascists, and the term ignores a variety of schisms that exist even among Islamists — but it is by no means an example of wartime propaganda, as has been repeatedly alleged by liberals."

"In their analyses of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions."

"While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren't"

__________________________

He is not merely disagreeing with "liberal strategy" - though he does that also (though it's not like prominent Democrats are against the "War on Terror") - he is attacking liberals. It is something that Daniel Pipes could have written. Or David Horowitz. And people who refuse to see it - because they think that he is "such a great spokesman" or something - are not paying attention.

[Finder]

9. I did read it...

perhaps you forget what makes liberals great...we are allowed to criticize each other.

[bloom]

13. And I don't consider people who are on-board with Bush's policies

in regards to the "war on terror" and who criticize liberals the way he did to be liberal. It's not "liberals criticizing each other". It's a defense of the neo-cons and the PNAC. That's how I read it.

The DLC people say they are progressive, too. I don't have to believe them. They would probably agree with Harris. Maybe you do too. I don't.

[Finder]

17. You really should read his book...

he is not a Bush supporter.

[bloom]

20. Harris is sure helping BushCo out - with articles like this.

He might as well be on the payroll.

[Finder]

21. Can you dispute any of his statements with facts?

I agree not all liberals believe this way or that way(and he is specifically talking about mail he got from liberals) but many of the things he states are discussed and debated here on DU daily.

edit typo

[bloom]

22. Why don't you start

by saying which of these quotes you agree with and we'll go from there....



"liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world"

"On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right."

"This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that "liberals are soft on terrorism." It is, and they are."

"liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism. "

"Such an astonishing eruption of masochistic unreason could well mark the decline of liberalism, if not the decline of Western civilization."

"an unusually clear view of the debilitating dogma that lurks at the heart of liberalism: Western power is utterly malevolent, while the powerless people of the Earth can be counted on to embrace reason and tolerance, if only given sufficient economic opportunities."

"Recent condemnations of the Bush administration's use of the phrase "Islamic fascism" are a case in point. There is no question that the phrase is imprecise — Islamists are not technically fascists, and the term ignores a variety of schisms that exist even among Islamists — but it is by no means an example of wartime propaganda, as has been repeatedly alleged by liberals."

"In their analyses of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions."

"While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren't"

[Finder]

24. The last one I agree with the most...

but like I said, I do not think ALL liberals believe the same. I don't agree with him using a broadbrush by any means.

[bloom]

25. The thing of it is

the Harris piece is not about facts but about a POV.

It's about calling liberals names:

"Head-in-the-Sand Liberals"


It's about disparaging people who don't buy the Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Pipes line that Muslims kill because they are "about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith". And that we should all be very afraid and that being afraid means that we should treat all Muslims like crap (as if that would help) and be suspicious of them - and torture them (that was a different article of his) - and kill and subdue them.

Maybe you agree with that - so you don't see what the big deal is.

I think the last quote I listed was way off the mark, " liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism". Liberals are VERY "sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism" - you see it all the time around here.

I think that Harris is "generally UNreasonable and INtolerant of diversity". And I think that he has an agenda against Muslims.

And he is right that as a liberal - I think that a large part of the "war on terror" is manufactured crap. I never said that I denied that - the thing that I have a problem with - is that he is condemning me and people like me for ideas like that - for being "tolerant of diversity". He seems to agree far more with BushCo than he does with the likes of me when it comes to politics and foreign policy. Maybe he missed this about the Lincoln group:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lincoln_Group

when he says by example:

"Recent condemnations of the Bush administration's use of the phrase "Islamic fascism" are a case in point. There is no question that the phrase is imprecise — Islamists are not technically fascists, and the term ignores a variety of schisms that exist even among Islamists — but it is by no means an example of wartime propaganda, as has been repeatedly alleged by liberals. "

And Harris must have missed entirely the whole bombing of Lebanon when he said:

"In their analyses of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so."


And I don't get why any liberal would be defending him. Unless that "liberal" had bought the FOX/neo-con line of crap as well.

[Finder]

28. I do not interpret what he says that way...

and would not support anyone advocating killing people because of their religion. I do not see him do that anywhere.

For the record, I do not agree with everything he says but his arguments are rational.

[bloom]

32. When he says....

"Western civilization really is at risk from Muslim extremists"

"liberals are soft on terrorism."

"Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies."


....Then what are people supposed to assume. That we are going to win Muslims over by love or diplomacy? That is exactly what he is saying NOT to do. He may not be writing down a plan of attack (though he has specifically defended torture in the past) - but I don't know what besides attacking and subduing our "genuine enemies" (as he puts it) he expects us to be on board with.

[trotsky]

27. So what's interesting here is that Harris is bashed for having

"black-and-white" thinking, yet here you are bashing him because of YOUR black-and-white thinking, that if Harris doesn't espouse the views on liberalism you think he should, then he's a neocon defender.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

3. For someone who is so proud of being "rational," he sure has

bought into the terror scam. (Actually, extremists of any type are prone to abrupt about-faces. Look at the founders of the neo-con movement, many of whom were staunch Communists until the McCarthy era.)

All successful captures of real (not suspected) terrorists have occurred as the result of painstaking police work, not military ventures.

Whatever their ideologies, terrorists are simply the extreme, indiscriminate, nutcase fringe of masses of people who have grievances. Whatever popular support they receive comes from frustrated people who would never toss a bomb themselves but believe that "something has to be done." I'm thinking of the IRA, the ETA in Spain, the Tamil Tigers, the Weathermen in the U.S. during the Vietnam War, the Tupamaros in Uruguay,even the abortion clinic bombers in the U.S. None of these were Arabs or even Muslims. They were all people who went off the deep end in pursuing what were original only mildly radical goals, and behind them was a whole spectrum of increasingly less radical people who wanted civil rights for Catholics or Basques or Tamils or who opposed the Vietnam War or who opposed CIA meddling in their country or who opposed abortion.'

The Islamic terrorists of today are no different. They aren't even a united movement. Some are just angry youth, born and raised in Europe but not accepted as equals in the only countries they know, and therefore seeking out radical Islam as a way of "getting back at the Man." Others are chickens coming home to roost, remnants of the Mujahedin forces that the CIA trained to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. It is also plausible that, as Thomas Friedman opines, that some of them are disappointed that the region dominated by their religion, supposedly the most perfect and final revelation of God, is doing so poorly compared to the West, so it must be the West's fault.

Black and white thinkers can't tolerate subtlety or complexity or shades of gray. Between his outright condemnation of all religion and his willingness to spout the "All West good All Islam bad" meme of the neocons makes me suspect that Harris is just that, a black and white thinker. I wouldn't be surprised if he eventually "flipped" and joined up with the religious right in this country, because they're "tough on terrorism." Hey stranger things have happened. The neocons flipped because Khrushchev denounced Stalin.

ON EDIT: Harris points to the fact that most Islamic terrorists have "above average educations and income." So did the Weathermen, the Tupamaros, the Baader-Meinhof Gang, and the Aum Shinri Kyo. As I heard one left-labor activist say many years ago, "Most terrorists are bourgeois brats."

[kwassa]

11. great post, Lydia.

"Whatever their ideologies, terrorists are simply the extreme, indiscriminate, nutcase fringe of masses of people who have grievances."

pretty well sums it up.

[The Deacon]

12. It Would Be Interesting To See How He Handled The

PLO, PFLP, Black September & associated groups during the 1970-80s. These groups had mostly the same aims as the "Islamist extremists" and the same cultural background - but were mostly Marxist-Leninist or Maoist. Would he have to admit that there might be some "objective reality" outside of religion which is driving the hatred of Westerners in the Middle East?

ON EDIT: Forgot to include that the "Western Civilization" he is so worried about is actually the product of Islamic Civilization - Westerners had retreated to barbarism & illiteracy when the Moorish Conquest of Spain re-introduced us to libraries & the great books of our own civilization.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. Thanks for reminding me of Black September

Yes, it's not Islam that's at "war with the West." It's Arabs who have grievances against the West, and they'll pick whatever the ascendant ideology is to hang their frustrations on.

[Finder]

23. Black September and ilk were islamists...

where do you get that they were marxists?

[The Deacon]

29. Their Charter

To overthrow the Jordanian Monarchy & replace it with a Marxist State (Black September.) Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (need I say more?) Black September, with Carlos at the head, taking over the OPEC Oil Ministers' Meeting in Vienna to "liberate their brothers of the Red Army Faction (Baader-Meinhof Gang.) They were all Maoist (Black September & Abu Nidal Organization) or Marxist-Leninist (PFLP & Fatah.) They maintained relationships with Baader-Meinhof, Japanese Red Army, Red Brigades & Tupamaros "for the World Revolution." Their State sponsors were Iraq, Egypt & Syria, all Ba'athist (Socialist) States. They were characterized by wanting to set up a modern Socialist State.
Islamists as usually viewed as coming to the forefront with the Iranian Revolution, the Soviet Ivasion of Afghanistan (both 1980) and the assasination of Anwar Sadat (1981.)
Islamist organizations didn't start to have an impact on Palestinians until the rise of Hamas during the First & Second Intifadas or the Lebanon until the rise of Hezbollah during the Israeli invasion & occupation.
It was seen at the time as a result of the failure of secular/political groups to secure either a homeland for the Palestinians or ethnic Muslim participation in the largely Christian Lebanese government. It now seems like these moves were more a part of a general movement to forge an identity by young people disatisfied with Western ways.
Islamism is a particular brand of politicized Islam as espoused by an Egyptian doctor named Zarwahi (sp?) (who you might recognize as Osama bin Laden's Number Two) and the Ayatollah Khomeni. It is characterized by a desire to impose Sharia & interpret the Qu'ran literally.
Completely different movements - about the only thing they share in common is a hatred of Israel.

[Finder]

37. Wrong! Have a link?

I think maybe you are taking the label "socialist" to mean marxist or Maoist.

[The Deacon]

39. Back at you

Show one statement by Black September, Fatah, PFLP or the Abu Nidal Organization that could be labelled "Islamic" let alone "Islamist."
(BTW - I was a member of that "World Revolution" so I DO know a little bit about it.)

[Finder]

40. I have to apologize and thank you...

what a fascinating part of the I/P conflict I was not aware of. (PLFP)

[trotsky]

14. Eh?

Did you actually read the article?

his willingness to spout the "All West good All Islam bad" meme of the neocons

How exactly does this quote support the "all west good all islam bad" meme:

This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims. But we are absolutely at war with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good, that cartoonists should be killed for caricaturing the prophet and that any Muslim who loses his faith should be butchered for apostasy.

Harris makes some points, and I certainly don't agree with everything in this piece. But I don't think you should be mischaracterizing him or his positions, either, just to try and fit him in your box of "black-and-white thinkers."

[bloom]

16. He may have added a qualifier later

But the whole tone is summed up in the sub-heading ->

"Western civilization really is at risk from Muslim extremists."

"But my correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world — specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith."


And he certainly sounded black and white when he said that all religion was bad (in other articles). I think Lydia characterized him pretty well.

[trotsky]

26. You've bashed Harris before, for your interpretation of his words then too

So I'm thinking it's not really worth it to pursue this any further.

[bloom]

30. "Bashing" - yOu mean when I disagreed with him

in regards to his assertion that all religion is bad ->

"Sam Harris: Why Religion Must End"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=68983#69235


Or when he defended torture (he was very proud of that) ->

"I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=74019#74395


I made a similar case then - he is essentially on the side of the Neo-cons - whether he comes out and says so or not.

And if you are on his side - then you're right - we don't have much in common.

[trotsky]

31. "Since he's not with me, he's against me."

NOW who's using black-or-white thinking? :eyes:

I agree with SOME of what Harris says, and I think his voice is worth hearing. I think these bashing threads, though, are used as a proxy to bash other atheists by extension.

[bloom]

33. You are rather black and white yourself.

And don't seem to be able to see that some atheists like myself don't worship the likes of Sam Harris.


Sam Harris is bashing liberals for crying out loud. It makes sense to me that people on a progressive board would have a problem with that. I don't know what the hell you consider yourself to be - but if you aren't offended (or if you basically agree with him)- you must not consider yourself to be a liberal.

[trotsky]

34. No atheist worships Sam Harris

No one I've seen, here on DU or on any website I've been on. What's with these wild exaggerations and accusations, bloom?

[bloom]

35. People may not be down on their knees

but in a manner of speaking..... like when people can't tolerate any criticism of him, etc. When people gush over (most of) everything he writes and ignore all the crazy and divisive crap - it can start to look like a form of worship. Just because you don't call it that - doesn't mean that it isn't - trotsky.

[trotsky]

36. Well, I guess if you get the liberty of defining "worship"

in a totally new and different way, then sure!

But just because you use it that way, doesn't make it so - bloom.

[bloom]

43. worship - v.

v.tr.
1. To honor and love as a deity.
2. To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion.

(Middle English worshipe, worthiness, honor...)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/worship


That isn't a made up defintion. It's been around quite awhile. It fits.

[trotsky]

44. Nope, and for two reasons.

1) That's not the way you were using the word.

and

2) "Ardent or adoring esteem or devotion" is such ridiculous hyperbole in this case you should be ashamed of even bringing this up. The most that's been thrown Sam Harris' way is a "Right on!" or "Dang, he makes a great point!" You are choosing to see things that just aren't there.

[bloom]

45. you are wrong

that is exactly how I was using the word.


Sam Harris comes up in 58 active threads in R/T. And is often used as a reference. These are just from the next thread down. Though there are other threads that have more gushy stuff than this.


1. Wow, great piece.

2. Sam always writes some real good stuff, very clear.

5. Sam Harris nails it in one sentence

9. BUT HE DOES BELIEVE STRONGLY - AND I LIKE A FELLOW THAT BELIEVES STRONGLY.

10. He is very clear in his writing, much clearer than I could ever hope

__________________________________________

Also - FYI - if you Google "Sam Harris", "Daniel Pipes" you will see lots of threads where people seem to worship (admire, honor, whatever) both of them. I am not surprised. They are two of a kind.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Daniel+Pipes%22,+%22sam+harris%22&hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en&start=0&sa=N

[trotsky]

50. LOLOL

Oh bloom, that's the best you could do?

"Great piece" - Yeah, that's definitely gushing and worshiping someone. I believe I said that one, didn't it?

"He writes some real good stuff, very clear"

My oh my this is just ridiculous. THAT'S your idea of worshiping a person? :rofl: :rofl:

Tell you what, find the most gushy stuff you can, and post it. Put up or shut up, 'cause right now you haven't put up anything.

[WhollyHeretic]

63. Did you see

his fourth quote is by papau. The full quote

"Sam's book "Letter to a Christian Nation" is a 9/06 release - wish he'd finish up that PHD he has been working on for so long that he says will prove that religious belief is just bad DNA that has produced brain wiring with less logic than that in the superior humans that he hangs with.

LOL!

BUT HE DOES BELIEVE STRONGLY - AND I LIKE A FELLOW THAT BELIEVES STRONGLY.

And he writes well."

It's quite obvious he doesn't know the definition of "worship"
Wonder if he knows "dissemble"

[trotsky]

64. LMAO

What a great "example" of an atheist gushing over Harris! :rofl:

[Evoman]

113. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Oh man....I'm crying here.

[beam me up scottie]

145. Priceless! It rivals *'s definition of Sovereignty!

Three thumbs up!

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[WhollyHeretic]

62. Wow was that a sad attempt

"He is very clear in his writing, much clearer than I could ever hope" That's worship?

"BUT HE DOES BELIEVE STRONGLY - AND I LIKE A FELLOW THAT BELIEVES STRONGLY." That quote is by a believer being snarky.

Nothing you quoted comes close to worship.

[bloom]

70. I could go find the most gushy things

from the 58 active threads that include Sam Harris - but it's not really something that I want to waste my time on. Nor am I interested in keeping track of everyone's religious persuasions.

I'm not the only one who has gotten the impression from the many positive references to Harris - that he has some quite devoted followers around here. I stand by what I said.

[beam me up scottie]

71. Translation: "I made it up."

You seem to be abnormally interested in keeping tabs on DU atheists, bloom.

We're flattered.

[trotsky]

76. You used a quote from a theist to "represent" an atheist's position.

Your behavior is disgusting, bloom. You have nothing to support your position other than your own personal prejudices against some of the people in this forum, it would appear.

[bloom]

93. P.S. most of the things that are said

are part of a context - I could have tried to explain the context - like the person gushing over how his Christian girlfriend got him Harris's book and how much it meant to him, etc. etc.

It's not news to anyone how well regarded Harris is around here by some atheists. Some may not like my terminolgy - but there isn't really any denying it. Look at how Harris has been defended on this thread. Nobody has to go looking.

[trotsky]

100. Newsflash, bloom.

Being "well-regarded" is not the same as being worshipped. You keep retreating and retreating. The evil atheist "whackjobs" have stood up to you and beat down your mischaracterizations.

[bloom]

102. I didn't expect you to like the word.

I'm of the opinion that everyone worships something. Whether they know it or not. Call it values, regard, I think it's the same.

It's what people focus on. Some people are more focused than others. And there are a lot of atheists who focus on Harris and his ideas and repeat them and defend them and so on and so forth.

So no - I'm not retreating.

[trotsky]

105. I regarded Paul Wellstone very, very highly.

Had the extreme pleasure of meeting him and chatting with him one-on-one on multiple occasions. And I'm no one, not a bigwig in the Democratic Party, not a big contributor, zilch. I admired him and respected him more than just about anyone on this planet - INCLUDING Sam Harris.

But still I did not worship him.

You're in full retreat, bloom - and in denial to match.

[Evoman]

114. That was me!

I gushed that my girlfriend got me that book. Not because I worship Sam Harris (I hadn't even READ the book by that time), but because my girlfriend loves me enough that she can fully accept me as an atheist and try to understand my position, even though she herself is a christian.

It wasn't about Sam Harris....I was over my beautiful girlfriend I was gushing.

On edit: If you call that worhsipping Sam Harris, I don't think any one can help you with your prejudice, lol. I love my girlfriend a whole lot more than I love Sam Harris, and I don't even worship her.

[Goblinmonger]

121. You frickin' Whackjob

"oh, look at me, my girlfriend loves me, isn't that great"

Are you a pirate or not, Nancy?

But seriously, I remembered that post and can't believe bloom used it as an example of "Harris worship."

[neebob]

142. Here's me, not gushing about Sam Harris

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=76991#77569

In post #5 you'll find links to a couple more threads with atheists not gushing about Sam Harris.

[beam me up scottie]

144. You are obviously an extremist not-gushing atheist, you whackjob.

:evilgrin:

[Finder]

38. That is just silly...

Some of us don't jump up and down in false outrage and would rather discuss or debate the points he makes.

I have realized lately that not all atheists are rational.

Now that I criticized some atheists does that make me a theist?

[bloom]

42. false outrage, huh

It's one thing to criticize some aspects of liberalism - or atheism (I do) - it's another thing to write diatribes against us and most of what we believe in.


I still maintain that his writings are not discernibly different from what Daniel Pipes and other Bush apologists write. Tell me how it is different - if you really want to debate the points. All I see you doing is slinging challenges - no content.

If people want to defend Harris - I think the ball the ball is in their court. I think Harris has rendered himself irrelevant by this - if he wasn't already.

It's my opinion that Harris is to Atheists (that would be some atheists) - what Falwell is to Fundamentalists - what Pipes is to Jews. It's all the same message - different audience. Defend Israel - Hate Muslims. Embrace torture as a tactic. Etc.

[Zhade]

66. You should probably also realize that some atheists...

...who bash other atheists and lie about atheists 'worshiping' people like Harris are, in fact, lying themselves about their 'atheism'.

Go, do a search on such posters' history - you'll find some clues as to the truth of their 'I'm an atheist' claims.

[Evoman]

115. Honestly, I think we should take her on her word that

she is an atheist. She says she is atheist, thats good enough for me.

But if she says something non-sensical, call her on it.

[beam me up scottie]

146. Since she invents new ones and banishes old ones to meaninglessness,

sure, why not?

It's not like anyone takes Newwordians seriously, after all.

[kwassa]

15. I'd like to see Sam back this statement up

"Numerous studies have found that the most radicalized Muslims tend to have better-than-average educations and economic opportunities."

Educations, yes, sometimes.

Some of these countries, however, have no or few jobs waiting for their college graduates, which certainly adds to the despair factor. It only takes a few of them to become the dangerous terrorists.

[Finder]

18. Why don't you dispute it with facts if you think he is wrong? n/t

[kwassa]

56. Because it is his assertion, he needs to prove his argument.

I can claim that the moon is made of green cheese. It would be my job to prove it, not the job of others to disprove it.

[trotsky]

58. I think it's fairly obvious that at least the leaders...

of Islamic terrorist groups were/are economically privileged. Look no further than OBL for a perfect example. Maybe that's what Harris is referring to?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. See my post re: "bourgeois brats"

Lots of terrorists throughout history have come from affluent backgrounds.

[kwassa]

59. Certainly true of most of the Weather Underground ...

mostly kids from middle-class to affluent families right here in the USA

[greyl]

77. Here's some backup for Harris.

Education, Poverty and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection?
Alan B. Krueger and Jitka Malecˇkova
...
The evidence we have presented, tentative though it is, suggests little direct connection between poverty or education and participation in terrorism. Indeed, the available evidence indicates that, compared with the relevant population, members of Hezbollah’s militant wing or Palestinian suicide bombers are at least as likely to come from economically advantaged families and have a relatively high level of education as to come from the ranks of the economically disadvantaged and uneducated. Similarly, members of the Israeli Jewish Underground who terrorized Palestinian civilians in the late 1970s and early 1980s were overwhelmingly welleducated and in highly regarded occupations.

Qualitative studies of participants in terrorism in several different settings have reached conclusions similar to ours. For example, Russell and Miller (1983) assembled demographic information on more than 350 individuals engaged in terrorist activities in Latin America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East from 1966 to 1976, based on newspaper reports. Their sample consisted of individuals from 18 revolutionary
groups known to engage in urban terrorism, including the Red Army in Japan, Baader-Meinhof gang in Germany, Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland, Red Brigades in Italy and People’s Liberation Army in Turkey. Russell and Miller found: “The vast majority of those individuals involved in terrorist activities as cadres or leaders is quite well educated. In fact, approximately two-thirds of those identified terrorists are persons with some university training, university graduates or postgraduate students.” They also report that more than two-thirds of arrested terrorists “came from the middle or upper classes in their respective nations or areas.” Taylor (1988) likewise concludes from his survey of the literature: “Neither social background, educational opportunity or attainment seem to be particularly associated with terrorism.”
http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/terrorism2.pdf *

*Very interesting, be sure to read the entire pdf.


Not direct backup, but food for thought:

University courses on Islam encouraging jihad and Sharia supremacism

British officials are shocked (not "shocked! shocked!," but really shocked) to find out that young Muslims are learning "radical teaching" in their university courses on Islam.

Here are the fruits of the official willful ignorance of Islam and jihad. Blair (and Bush, and so many others) insist that jihad violence does not stem from Islam, and has nothing to do with Islam. British (and American) officials cannot conceive -- are not allowed to conceive -- of the possibility that an ordinary course on Islam might not have to be subverted or infiltrated in order to teach the necessity to wage jihad in order to impose the Islamic social order over the world. If that course is not a whitewash designed to please and/or bamboozle Westerners, it is actually likely that it will teach that in one form or another.

If British officials had been aware of all that, if they had allowed themselves to be aware of it, they might not be so surprised by this. They might even have nipped it in the bud.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011450.php

[Goblinmonger]

46. So let me get this straight

Harris is "bashing liberals" so he is not a liberal but really a neo-con. But Harris has claimed many times that he is a liberal. He holds very progressive viewpoints. And the conservatives hate him. And you are bashing him. So that would make you a neo-con. My head is spinning from this.

Isn't it possible that Harris is a liberal but says some things that *GASP* not all liberals will agree with? Or, in your world, do liberals all have to be dittoheads that spout the party line and agree with you "100%" like they do for the almighty Rush? I would think that progressive liberals would to promote free thought, discourse, and disagreement on points over walking in lock-step.

And, for the record, as an atheist, I do not worship Harris. I enjoy reading him because he makes me think. I don't agree with everything he says, but he makes me consider things I wouldn't otherwise consider on my own. My take on Harris is that he would be happy that I, and others including yourself, do not agree with everything that he puts on paper or says. That would be a little too much like a religion which he clearly is not fond of.

[beam me up scottie]

47. Where was this rage when Barton advocated purging atheists from the party?

Gee, I agree with a lot of things Sam has to say, I guess I'm helping the neocons too.

If you hurry, you may still have a chance to resurrect Melinda's Purge-the-Secularists movement at rawng story and get rid of anti-liberals and extremists like us once and for all.

[Evoman]

48. Sam is okay.

I do think he makes a lot of good points, but I don't agree with him on a lot of other points too. Nobody can be all wrong or all right all the time. This idea that we are all Sam Harris worshipers is idiotic, however, and I'm pretty damn sure there is no one here who thinks hes a god, or Atheist messiah.

Lol...I also find it funny how quick liberals are to kick other people out of their circle or eat their own.

"I DISAGREE WITH HIM! HE HAS CRITICIZED ONE ASPECT OF LIBERALISM! HE IS A FUCKING NEOCON".

This is ridiculous. If you go GD, you can automatically see some of the fundamental disagreements there are AMONG DUERS, let alone the mainstream liberals out in the real world. There are plenty of people here who hate Muslims. I personally detest Islam (not the people, the religion) and Christianity, and I think there are way too many Christian and Muslim apologists on the left who "bury their heads in the sand" about some of the harmful effects of religion (extremism, indoctrination, justification for the status quo). I've seen DUers who assert that religion has NEVER caused a war (I'm not kidding..the only reason I'm not posting names or threads is because of DU rules, I could send you a PM).

Believing all that doesn't make me a neocon, does it?

[varkam]

49. As is usual, Sam Harris makes some good points and some bad ones, too.

I remember reading The End of Faith and really enjoying it. I was on board with pretty much everything he said until he started talking about torture. I had to check the cover of the book to make sure I was still reading The End of Faith and hadn't slipped up and started reading a Cal Thomas book or something.

It's much the same story with this article. Harris makes some genuinely good observations about the state of liberalism, which I agree with. For example, my friends often say that "Islam is a peaceful religion." No. No, it's not. There are few religions that are peaceful onces, and Islam is not one of them. The writing in the Koran might be beautiful and poetic, but a peaceful religion it does not make. However, Harris misses the mark when he writes that the people who speak with the most moral clarity on the issue are Christians. How about people that regard Islam as a death-worshiping religion and are not licking their chops in eager anticipation of Jesus' return?

Then I was also a bit disappointed at Harris' use of language in the article. I don't think Harris is a neo-con, but some of his views and language used are neo-conish at the least. Given that this is a time when our country is so divided along party lines, I think Harris did himself no favors with this article as he is alienating both his (presumably) predominantly liberal reader base as well as conservatives.

[Finder]

52. Where does he state Christians speak with the most moral clarity?

I do not think it is fair to say he condones torture overall--he makes a rational argument that it could be useful in "some" cases where we know the person is guilty and lives are at stake.

[Finder]

54. Never mind, found what you were referring to...

"Increasingly, Americans will come to believe that the only people hard-headed enough to fight the religious lunatics of the Muslim world are the religious lunatics of the West. Indeed, it is telling that the people who speak with the greatest moral clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian right, whose infatuation with biblical prophecy is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies. Religious dogmatism is now playing both sides of the board in a very dangerous game.

While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren't."

[bloom]

55. I don't presume that his following is mostly liberals.

As I posted elsewhere - you will find Harris being praised by the same people who like Daniel Pipes. It's no surprise to me. (There are fewer pages that share Greg Palast and Sam Harris, for example).

Like:

http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/posts/1130379473.shtml

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Daniel+Pipes%22,+%22sam+harris%22&hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en&start=0&sa=N



Harris has struck me as an Atheists Fundamentalist Preacher for quite a while. This just confirms it.

I think atheists can be duped just like anybody. And I think this forum is a example of that.

[trotsky]

57. Oh, there's definitely an atheist in this forum who's been duped. n/t

[varkam]

60. Atheist Fundamentalist Preacher?

What is fundamentalist atheism? If there is a central, unchallengable dogma that atheists must take as literal truth, then I am unaware of it.

[bloom]

68. it's like this:

"A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."

http://www.answers.com/topic/fundamentalism

Here are quotes from a review of his End of Faith Book - I expect from what I've heard that they are accurate:

"Sam Harris would like to see a world without religion...."

"Harris makes the point that any religion defines outsiders as heathens who must either be converted or condemned to Hell for eternity, and there can be no in-between."

"His main target is Islam, simply because Islam is the religion which is most threatening today, and he goes to great lengths to dispose of the idea that Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance and cooperation."


Harris is the epitome of intolerance and his opposition to religion mirrors (and I think is essentially the same as) opposition to secularism.

I am one who believes that people should work toward understanding people (at least people who are not actively hostile - those I try to ignore) - and I think that that is a liberal principle. Harris has made it very clear - esp. with this article - that he is against such liberal principles.


As far as "central, unchallengable dogma" - some Harris followers have made it their duty around here to challenge anyone who they think disses their definition of atheism in any way. I don't know if they learned that from Harris or not - but it strikes me as very similar to what a Fundamentalist of any other stripe would do.

[greyl]

75. No, it's like this:

bloom: "I am one who believes that people should work toward understanding people (at least people who are not actively hostile - those I try to ignore)"

Concerning radical Islamists, this means you'd try to ignore them, eh? Harris would prefer you work toward understanding them.

[varkam]

89. Hmmm

A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."

First and foremost, atheism is not a religious movement. But it has the qualifier "usually" attached to it, so I'll ignore that bit. A return to fundamental principles? A rigid adherence to them? So far as I know, my only principle when God comes into play concerns the demand for evidence or logical coherence. As long as we're playing fast and loose with definitions, then I suppose that makes me some kind of evidence-based fascist asshole because I don't trust every shmoe who comes along and tells me how Jesus personally saved / helped / carried them.

Here are quotes from a review of his End of Faith Book - I expect from what I've heard that they are accurate:

"Sam Harris would like to see a world without religion...."

"Harris makes the point that any religion defines outsiders as heathens who must either be converted or condemned to Hell for eternity, and there can be no in-between."

"His main target is Islam, simply because Islam is the religion which is most threatening today, and he goes to great lengths to dispose of the idea that Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance and cooperation."


Reading the book is so much better than reading reviews, because you tend to get more out of it. For instance, I'd say that Harris would like to see a world without unjustified belief as opposed to a world without religion. As for the second quote - what's the problem? What religion doesn't define itself as the one true path to salvation? It would be kind of hard to get converts by saying "Well, we think it's like this. But we could be totally wrong." As for the third quote - again, what's the problem? It's kind of hard to miss the fact (1) Islamists are led to believe in paradise if they sacrifice themselves for Allah and (2) Islam is as divisive as religion gets, what with the numerous passages to "kill the infidels" in the Quran.

Harris is the epitome of intolerance and his opposition to religion mirrors (and I think is essentially the same as) opposition to secularism.

Except that opposition to religion generally isn't based on a 2000 year old book. It's based on the track record that religion has gotten itself in those 2000 years. Is it dogmatic? Sure. But you've got to realize that there is a difference between the because-the-bible-says-so flavor of dogmatism and the dogmatism shown by say, evolutionary biologists when it comes to evolution in that one is supported by evidence and the other is not. I'm sure you can figure out which one is and isn't.

I am one who believes that people should work toward understanding people (at least people who are not actively hostile - those I try to ignore) - and I think that that is a liberal principle. Harris has made it very clear - esp. with this article - that he is against such liberal principles.

Can't argue with the first bit. I think we should try to understand people as well. There comes a time, however, when we have to call an apple an apple, and a death-worshiping religion a death-worshiping religion. I'm not bad talking individuals who are Muslim, but the system of Islam itself. It's a subtle distinction, and a fine line between being sober with the facts and bigotry. That being the case, it's an important distinction to both make and understand.

As far as "central, unchallengeable dogma" - some Harris followers have made it their duty around here to challenge anyone who they think disses their definition of atheism in any way. I don't know if they learned that from Harris or not - but it strikes me as very similar to what a Fundamentalist of any other stripe would do.

"Harris followers"? Give me a break. You make him out to be some atheist messiah. You see, if atheism were a religion and Harris were a messiah, then I wouldn't be able to disagree with anything that he says or else I wouldn't be a "true" atheist. Unfortunately, I disagree with a number of things he argues (e.g. torture being morally acceptable). I tend to read his arguments and evaluate them on their merit. I think he makes a good number of excellent points, a fair number of okay ones, and a few really bad ones.

If someone were to define your religious beliefs for you, then wouldn't you be a bit upset? I know I've been upset in the past when I've been told here that atheism requires faith, that atheism really is a religion, and that atheists can be smacked around with the fundie stick. The thing about atheism is that it has not central dogma to it - it's just the disbelief in God(s). That's it. Period. No bibles. No holy scriptures. No popes. So when someone tells me that Harris is my pope and The End of Faith is my bible, then perhaps you can understand why I might get a bit ticked off. It's essentially an attempt to neutralize the thought processes behind the things that I believe for the comfort and the placation of those who seek to neutralize them.

[bloom]

95. ....

"But you've got to realize that there is a difference between the because-the-bible-says-so flavor of dogmatism..."

I was mostly referring to people who insult others because someone uses a different definition than what they want used - which becomes very much like Biblical interpretation.



"You see, if atheism were a religion and Harris were a messiah, then I wouldn't be able to disagree with anything that he says or else I wouldn't be a "true" atheist. "

It's statements like that - (and that is just the sort of thinking that Harris promotes - like the review quotes I used) - that are really just strawmen and show that the person just doesn't know what s/he is talking about. Christians (and people of any religion) disagree about all kinds of things.

[varkam]

117. Speaking of strawmen...

I was mostly referring to people who insult others because someone uses a different definition than what they want used - which becomes very much like Biblical interpretation.

Yes, I have a biblical interpretation of my own thoughts and beliefs that I've spent years cultivating personally (oh, :sarcasm:). The only definition that I want used to describe the things that I personally believe is my own damn definition, seeing as how I would submit, in all humility, that I know more about what I believe than anyone else on the face of the planet does. I don't think you or anyone else has the neither the authority nor the ability to read my mind. That differs from fundamentalism with respect to the notion that my definition is subject to change. I'm constantly testing and revising the things that I believe based on new experiences and information. If you think that is either (a) dogmatic or (b) a fundamentalist mindset, then I believe I don't possess the words to convince you otherwise.

It's statements like that - (and that is just the sort of thinking that Harris promotes - like the review quotes I used) - that are really just strawmen and show that the person just doesn't know what s/he is talking about. Christians (and people of any religion) disagree about all kinds of things.

I take it though that if Jesus came back and started issuing moral edicts, then those who disagreed with him wouldn't really be followers of Christ, would they? So seeing as how my statement is a strawman, Christians are not followers of Christ? Please, educate me some more as to what words mean seeing as how I don't know what I'm talking about.

[bloom]

120. ....

The only definition that I want used to describe the things that I personally believe is my own damn definition


that's fine - except if someone wants to say that they believe hfjdiweoaih and they have defined it and that's it. That's not what happens. What happens is that someone comes along using a fairly common definition of atheism and people start insulting the person.



Christians have a gazillion ideas about what a Christian is. I make no assumptions about anyone - other than I assume that they think that Christ had some ideas that liked (or really that they like some of the ideas as they were recorded in the Bible). Other people make other assumptions.

I don't know if that answered your point. I may have missed it.

[varkam]

137. You may have missed it, indeed. eom

[beam me up scottie]

72. I Googled "fundamentalist atheist" and you'll NEVER guess what I found.

It's like playing Whack-a-Mole with O'Reilly and Coulter wanna-be's.

What kind of genius not only invents such a stupid and illogical term, but uses it constantly?

These people have some serious "issues".

[Zhade]

67. See, your use of lines like "atheist fundamentalist"...

...is why I suspect you're not actually an atheist as you claim.

People who are atheist know there are no 'fundamentals' to it aside from a lack of belief in gods.

You don't seem to grasp this very basic fact concerning atheism. Hence, while I can't prove you're not, I think it's wise to dismiss you as an atheist voice.

You should have been more subtle.

(For the record: torture never works, and Harris was wrong about his conclusions. He'd be wrong even if he were a believer. His atheism has zip to do with that wrong stance.)

[bloom]

69. What you don't get

is that there are plenty of Christians around here who diss Fundamentalist Christians. There may be some Muslims who would diss Fundamentalist Muslims.

I feel perfectly justified in taking issue with Fundamentalist Atheists - as an atheist. (more about that is post #68).


Just like Fundamentalist Christians - Fundamentalist Atheists don't seem to be able to see anything the matter with their intolerance.

I think that intolerance is a right-wing position to take whether you are a Christian or an Atheist or anything. Harris has more than proven that point with his rant against liberals.

I think that a lot of people are confused that just because someone's philosophy does not include religion that it makes them a liberal. It does not. I expect that there are plenty of neo-con atheists.

I am against neo-cons and intolerance - not against liberal atheists who are tolerant and who seek understanding and common ground with others.

So you and some other people want to say that I'm not part of your little clic or something. I have no desire to be in any clics that espouse the sorts of ideas and attitudes that Harris has. There are plenty of peaceful atheists. I align myself with them.

[Evoman]

103. What kind of common ground are you trying to find?

There is no common ground between atheists and believers in terms of religion, and there never can be. Building a bridge between diametrically opposing thoughts is a waste of time.

If your trying to find political or personal common ground, your too late because WE ALREADY HAVE THOSE....we are all liberals (and once outside this forum, many of us are bridged) and plenty of atheist and theists really like each other personally. Besides, your not ACTUALLY trying to make a bridge..most of your posts seem calculated to piss us off "Many of the atheist here.....". I find your attempts cynical and disenginious.


" I think that a lot of people are confused that just because someone's philosophy does not include religion that it makes them a liberal. It does not. I expect that there are plenty of neo-con atheists."

No one here has ever denounced a religious believer or an atheist as being non-liberal EXCEPT YOU. Why would we...everybody here is liberal (except the trolls perhaps...and guess what, most of them have been baned because they are fundies, not "fundie atheists" lol). Sam is a liberal because a)he is socially liberal b)hates neocons/religoius right c) SAYS he is liberal, during a time when its uncool to be liberal.

The only difference between Sam and many of the atheists here is that Sam has a moral justification for torture. True, its a biggy but guess what....look in GD where you will find plenty of people who believe the same damn thing. Hell, ask the people in this forum, "Would you ever have the partner of your childs abductor tortured, if you didn't have do it or see the effects of the torture, if it meant he MAY give information about the pedophile who abducted your kid." Answering in the positive does not take away your liberal card.

I wonder how many people here are really against torture ALL THE TIME. Especially in the examples Sam provides, where torture just means a pill that paralyzes somebody and causes excruciating pain, but has no long term effect. (BY THE WAY, before you accuse me of being "for" torture, i'll just say that I am against torture in all forms....although even I will admit, I don't know how I would react if somone I love got abducted or killed, and I had the perpetrator standing in front of me).

[trotsky]

108. Well said, Evoman.

Besides, your not ACTUALLY trying to make a bridge..most of your posts seem calculated to piss us off "Many of the atheist here.....". I find your attempts cynical and disenginious.

I totally agree. :thumbsup:

Oh shit, does that mean I worship you now? Please don't smite me!

[Evoman]

111. Yes, I've stolen another atheist from Sam Harris's flock

I won't smite you...now go clean my room. And don't forget the chamber pot.

[bloom]

110. do you deny that Harris is anti-religion?

[Evoman]

112. No

[bloom]

119. ok

so how can someone be anti-religion and expect to have common ground with religious people?


bonus questions:

how do you explain Harris's fondness for Israel? (He is certainly not evenly anti-religions) And his apparent blindness in regards to our own foreign policy?

Harris writes:

In their analyses of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so. Muslims routinely use human shields, and this accounts for much of the collateral damage we and the Israelis cause; the political discourse throughout much of the Muslim world, especially with respect to Jews, is explicitly and unabashedly genocidal.

Given these distinctions, there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah. And yet liberals in the United States and Europe often speak as though the truth were otherwise.

We are entering an age of unchecked nuclear proliferation and, it seems likely, nuclear terrorism. There is, therefore, no future in which aspiring martyrs will make good neighbors for us. Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies.

[trotsky]

122. How can someone be anti-choice...

and expect to have common ground with pro-choice people?

Easy - thousands do, they're called "pro-life" Democrats. Why, there's even one running for a Senate seat in Pennsylvania!

Similarly, someone could easily be personally anti-religion yet still share almost all the same goals of religious Democrats - reducing the tax burden on the poor and middle class, backing universal health coverage, fighting for workers' rights, etc.

I don't understand this constant all-or-nothing, black-or-white thinking you engage in, bloom. Are your set of views the only acceptable ones to be fully recognized as being a "liberal"? How much disagreement will you allow someone before you declare them NOT to be a liberal?

[bloom]

125. It depends on how anti-religion someone is.

Harris is using his anti-religion stance to justify killing Muslims - painting them as extremists - and that liberals are foolish if they are not on the killing bandwagon.


I suppose that Harris IS careful about how he words these things- because he knows how quotes can be used. But this is not simply some disagreement over philosophy. Harris is trying to use his powers of persuasion to convince people to support a bogus war. And he is using anti-religion to do it. That really isn't any different than someone using similar "logic" that we should fight the "other" for religious purposes.

[trotsky]

131. I think Harris is trying to illustrate the point that...

many terrorists are motivated solely by religion - a corrupt, distorted, and utterly screwed religion, but a religion nonetheless. How do you have a rational discussion with someone who thinks you are Satan personified, and that if he kills you, he'll be assured eternity in paradise? If you get him a job or political representation, will that stop him?

Personally, I think Harris is seeing only part of the picture, but I do think the part he is seeing, he's seeing pretty clearly. He makes some over-generalizations, but I challenge you to find one person who's never done that.

Still though, you haven't acknowledged that people who are anti- something can have a great deal of common ground with others. I think that's pretty clearly not only possible, but it happens all the time. I vote Democratic in the booth just like you, kwassa, Zebedeo (I hope), and others I've tangled with.

[Evoman]

138. Speak for yourself, COMRADE

I don't vote Democrat.
.
.
.
.
.
Well, I'm Canadian so technically I can't. We don't have Democrats here.

[trotsky]

148. Oh crap, now that I worship you...

am I going to have to get a red maple leaf tattoo on my forehead? Eh? ;-)

[Evoman]

124. Why not?

"so how can someone be anti-religion and expect to have common ground with religious people"

Same way that someone can be vegan and have common political ground with meat eaters.

Same way that someone can be pro-life and have common political ground with pro-choice people.

Same way that someone can be anti-pasta, and still have common ground with those who love pasta.

Same way that someone can be anti-atheism and still have common ground POLITICAL ground with atheists.

Everyone here is liberal. Every person, with the exception of trolls, are on DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, a liberal website. Some people are socially and fiscally liberal, others are one or the other. But we all share a common "liberal" ground, even if we differ on what a ideal liberal is.

[bloom]

126. see my answer to trotsky #125

[beam me up scottie]

73. Google it and see what kind of people use that term.

What a shock. :eyes:

[struggle4progress]

51. Sam Harris doesn't notice the ":Christian dispensationalists" in our midst

whose "longing for paradise" has led them to organize politically to begin a World War in the Middle East to force their messiah to return: that is clearly a "pestilential theology."

[Finder]

53. He sure does...n/t

[struggle4progress]

65. Oh, really? Let's look at this poisonous freeper tripe in detail:

It is so perfectly Rovian ... Terror! Muslims! Liberals! Terror! Muslims! Liberals! Terror! Muslims! Liberals!

Statements are made, as if they were bald-faced facts, when they are merely the platform of bigotry upon which SH seeks to build his unsupported rant about 'liberals,' whoever his reader might imagine the 'liberals' to be. And so we read: ".... <L>iberalism has grown dangerously out of touch .... <L>iberals are soft on terrorism .... <D>espite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine .... <L>iberal denial has found expression in a growing subculture of conspiracy theorists .... <T>he debilitating dogma that lurks at the heart of liberalism: Western power is utterly malevolent .... <L>iberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions .... Unless liberals realize .. there .. people .. scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies .... The .. failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe ...."

What does he say about Muslims? He says: ".... A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world .... We are fighting a pestilential theology .... Numerous studies have found that the most radicalized Muslims tend to have better-than-average educations .... <D>espite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair .... <T>here is every reason to believe that a terrifying number of the world's Muslims .. rally to the cause of other Muslims no matter how sociopathic their behavior .... Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants .... Muslims routinely use human shields .... <T>here are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney .... "

One looks in vain for parallel statements such as ".... A cult of death is forming in the Christian world ...." which might be an entirely defensible statement, based on the 100K or so innocent Iraqis slain in King George's war, and the organized Dispensationalist movement which seeks a third World War in order to create the apocalytic conditions they hope will herald the coming of their messiah. Such statements are lacking; instead we have one or two vague toss-offs, such as ".... I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of .. the Christian right ...." drowning in a sea of unsupported ranting about Muslims and liberals.

Most tellingly, SH's view provides no real insight into the phenomena he wants to discuss: he apparently imagines no mechanisms which might explain how or why some 'pestilential theology' would seize the mind.

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. Not to mention this astounding assertion:

"The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists."

So I'm not exactly sure what Harris thinks is a sensible policy - a ban on any immigration by Muslims, segregation into second class schools and housing of all Muslims, perhaps? Those are the 'solutions' the fascists in Europe are proposing. It sure as hell isn't something any liberal could support.

[bloom]

134. I'm glad to see

some people around here get it.

Oh - yeah - let's model ourselves after the fascists!! :wtf: :grr:

[beam me up scottie]

147. But he didn't accuse us of worshiping Harris or supporting fascism.

He took all the fun out of it, didn't he?

Bad Muriel! :spank:

[Jim__]

61. Talk about sloppy generalizations.

For example:

But my correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world — specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith.

So he takes a self-selected sample, offers zero evidence as to the representativeness of this sample; then uses it to draw a conclusion about the larger group.

[greyl]

74. Great piece.

The main basis for his opinion are the letters he's received. If pressed, I could provide hundreds of quotes from this board which illustrate the kind of worldview he's warning fellow liberals about. As Harris alludes to, at the "most extreme", there are some self described liberals who deny that terrorism exists at all. Queer how the same people will argue that the Bush admin is actually a supremely competent mastermind, rather than mendacious and incompetent as Harris describes.

He's definitely not saying "liberals suck", rather he's trying to make us aware of a vulnerability evidenced by our peers which has become ever more central to discussions about world peace in the past 5 years. He's pointing out a leak in our craft, not saying we should abandon ship. Because liberals are so tolerant of both religious and cultural diversity as a rule, we risk misunderstanding or accepting rationally intolerable behavior on grounds of overreaching cultural relativism.

If you don't think he's talking about a strand of your web of self-identity as Liberal, fantastic. Don't forget that not all liberals think alike.

Some of my favorite quotes from the article:

Given the mendacity and shocking incompetence of the Bush administration — especially its mishandling of the war in Iraq — liberals can find much to lament in the conservative approach to fighting the war on terror. Unfortunately, liberals hate the current administration with such fury that they regularly fail to acknowledge just how dangerous and depraved our enemies in the Muslim world are.

A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world — for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a "war on terror." We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise.

This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims. But we are absolutely at war with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good, that cartoonists should be killed for caricaturing the prophet and that any Muslim who loses his faith should be butchered for apostasy.

despite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism.

At its most extreme, liberal denial has found expression in a growing subculture of conspiracy theorists who believe that the atrocities of 9/11 were orchestrated by our own government.

The truth is that there is every reason to believe that a terrifying number of the world's Muslims now view all political and moral questions in terms of their affiliation with Islam. This leads them to rally to the cause of other Muslims no matter how sociopathic their behavior. This benighted religious solidarity may be the greatest problem facing civilization and yet it is regularly misconstrued, ignored or obfuscated by liberals.

Recent condemnations of the Bush administration's use of the phrase "Islamic fascism" are a case in point. There is no question that the phrase is imprecise — Islamists are not technically fascists, and the term ignores a variety of schisms that exist even among Islamists — but it is by no means an example of wartime propaganda, as has been repeatedly alleged by liberals.

Increasingly, Americans will come to believe that the only people hard-headed enough to fight the religious lunatics of the Muslim world are the religious lunatics of the West. Indeed, it is telling that the people who speak with the greatest moral clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian right, whose infatuation with biblical prophecy is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies. Religious dogmatism is now playing both sides of the board in a very dangerous game.

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. He says far worse things than "liberals suck"

like: "the debilitating dogma that lurks at the heart of liberalism: Western power is utterly malevolent".

It's total bullshit. Can't you see that?

[greyl]

82. Why take the quote out of context?

Is it to sufficiently change its meaning in an attempt to give your argument undeserved weight? Nah, couldn't be.

"There are books, films and conferences organized around this phantasmagoria{9/11 Conspiracy Theories}, and they offer an unusually clear view of the debilitating dogma that lurks at the heart of liberalism: Western power is utterly malevolent, while the powerless people of the Earth can be counted on to embrace reason and tolerance, if only given sufficient economic opportunities."

Knowing that Harris is a careful writer, I think it's safe to think that when he says "lurks at the heart of liberalism", he doesn't mean is the heart of liberalism. Concealed, unperceived, near the heart of liberalism. Note that he had just finished talking about the very real fringe liberal phenomenon of 9/11 CTs.

Is it true? Speaking for myself, I've always had big issues with how our Western culture has fucked over indigenous peoples, notably on this continent.
I hate seeing MTV t-shirts on people in the Mid-East who don't even have a tv.
I'm totally against our corporate globalism.
I think our culture has had by far the worst influence on life on Earth.
I'd rather see Americans learning from any of the other thousands of beautiful cultures on this planet than have them arrogantly assimilated into our Western culture which looks for all the world like it is simply not sustainable.
I tend to give other cultures the benefit of the doubt before I give it to ours.

Am I alone?

[muriel_volestrangler]

84. "Lurks at" does mean "is at" - just, as you say, unperceived

I don't think the surrounding words make his attack on liberalism any less - he's saying the belief that "Western power is utterly malevolent" is always there, but that the 9/11 conspiracy theories make it more obvious. You try to change "at" to "near" with no justification whatsoever.

Western power, and culture, has faults, but it is not "utterly malevolent". I don't think that is a typical liberal view either. Liberalism itself is part of Western culture. Harris is taking fringe views and painting them as a fundamental part of liberalism.

[greyl]

86. I didn't say "is at", I said "is".

Fuckin A, is this the grand jury? ;)

[trotsky]

91. People, people, people.

Why the disagreement? Can't all of us atheists just worship Sam Harris together in peace?? ;-)

[Goblinmonger]

78. Here's a question you still haven't answered, bloom

It was asked way up thread.

Why did you hop on the Barton bandwagon? She was "bashing liberals" but you were still on her side. Hell, she was bashing some of your fellow atheists, but you did bitch about her calling out fellow liberals.

But Harris does far less than Barton did and you go off on a rampage. Why?

[bloom]

79. well

I don't even know who Barton is.

I haven't noticed people going around swooning over her. Defending her, quoting her, etc. I could have missed something.

[Goblinmonger]

83. Perhaps this will ring a bell for you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1007330#1020067

So, why did you not go after Barton as someone who was attacking liberals and someone who was spouting neocon talking points?

[bloom]

87. Did she make justifications for the "war on terror"?

Did she advocate hating Muslims? (Not that I noticed - like I said I could have missed something).

- that is the neo-con agenda. Get people to hate Muslims and go along with BushCo's illegal wars.



The neo-cons don't care if people are extremists - like atheist extremists, Christian extremists, Jewish extremists. I think that they rather like it. Esp. when they can get those people to rail against liberals and hate Muslims.





What neo-con talking points are you referring to?

[Goblinmonger]

96. The talking points would be

that progressive atheists are whackjobs that have no other agenda than to destroy all that is good and just about religion. Those are the talking points that Barton made.

And, lest you forget, she attacked liberals which is another reason people are going off about Harris and calling him a neocon.

[bloom]

99. I don't see that as her point

You are going to have to find the specific quote that you think that I should be outraged about.


She would probably see Harris as an "atheist whackjob" - he would probably fit her definition of extremist. I didn't read it that she thought all atheists are whackjobs or extremists.


I think it's quite a stretch to compare what she said as supporting the neo-con agenda to Harris. It's not like with Harris - take away the atheist part and he could be Jerry Falwell or Daniel Pipes - (if you left out the subjects of feminists and gays and just focused on the Middle East).

[greyl]

85. You posted in at least one thread about her

in which you said this:

"It would be nice if this article caused some of the resident atheist "whackjobs" to cool it - if they don't want to be seen as "whackjobs". If they don't care - then I guess they will keep doing what they are doing.

I would define atheist "whackjob" as one who demands that no atheist ever insult another atheist - and when they do - the atheist "whackjobs" go on a "vigilent" (their words), organized attack.

link

[trotsky]

92. Wow, so you might almost think that someone who says...

I would define atheist "whackjob" as one who demands that no atheist ever insult another atheist

Would also, if they were to remain honest and logically consistent within their worldview, agree with the statement:

I would define liberal "whackjob" as one who demands that no liberal ever insult another liberal.

But that would be what someone would be doing in starting a thread insisting Sam Harris isn't a liberal because he insulted other liberals, wouldn't it?

[bloom]

94. there is insulting other liberals

and then there is making the case that people should NOT be liberal - which is essentially what Harris does.

But it's so much easier to pick apart what I say - than it is to defend Harris - isn't it?

[greyl]

97. I'm convinced your emotional reaction is preventing you

from accurately comprehending what Harris said. He absolutely is not making "the case that people should NOT be liberal". That's ridiculous.
Which brings us back to your contradictory quote...

[bloom]

101. Sure he is.

The idea of religious tolerance is essentially a liberal point of view. And it's in atheists interest to encourage that point of view.

Harris advocates religious intolerance. That isn't new. Maybe none of it is new - but I think that he is clearly saying that people need to stop being liberal - essentially tolerant - in the interest of "national security".

I think it's his followers who are too emotionally invested to see the truth. You really have to read the whole thing in all of it's context. Maybe if you tried to pretend that someone else wrote it...



"...liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world — specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith.

On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right."

"This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that "liberals are soft on terrorism." It is, and they are."

..."The truth is that we are not fighting a "war on terror." We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise. "

[greyl]

106. Invincible Ignorance.

Your quotes don't support the idea that he's arguing that people shouldn't be liberal.
He's pointing to one leak in our craft, not yelling "abandon ship!"

Personally, I'd rather talk about the leak than your vendetta against Harris.

Btw, I was looking for a Molly Ivins column from a few years ago where she talks about the definition of liberal and says she'd rather be known just as Molly. Help anyone?

[trotsky]

98. It sure is easier.

Which is why I'm not defending Harris, don't care to, don't need to. It's not like I worship him or anything, you know.

Face it, bloom. When you leave such blatantly hypocritical posts out there, people are gonna find 'em. You're busted, and the more you post on this thread, the deeper you're digging your hole.

[Goblinmonger]

104. But you are an atheist

and you are insulting another atheist (calling him a neocon when he tries very hard to make sure that people understand he is a liberal) which, BY YOUR DEFINITION, makes you an atheist whackjob. Are you going to come to grips with your hypocrisy or not?

[bloom]

109. So you think

that I'm a one-person vigilante group, eh? I don't know if that's possible.

I could have probably put more thought into my whackjob definition to include the type of nonsense that the extremists have a problem with - and maybe I would have if I had known it was going to codified into a dictionary.



You might try actually responding to one of my points like:


"It's my opinion that Harris is to Atheists (that would be some atheists) - what Falwell is to Fundamentalists - what Pipes is to Jews. It's all the same message - different audience. Defend Israel - Hate Muslims. Embrace torture as a tactic. Etc."


How is Harris's criticism of liberals and Middle East policy different in content from Pipe's or Kristol's or some other such neo-con commentator?

[Goblinmonger]

118. No I don't

But I think you are inconsistent.

Harris is different from Pipe and Kristol because Harris is a liberal and, even in his criticism of liberal's approach to Islam, condemns what the president is doing in the Middle East.

And I think it is insulting to compare the effect of Harris on atheists to that of Falwell and Pipes to their sheeple. You are an atheist; do you follow lock step what Harris says? You, of all people, should know that atheists are a very diverse group that really prides themselves on thinking for themselves (hence the term freethinkers). Getting atheists to agree on anything is, pardon the cliche, like herding cats. You insult me and other atheists (thus yourself, as much as that makes my head spin) by saying that Harris is blindly followed by all atheists. Hell, I don't even agree with much of anything in the essay at hand, but it still made me think. Nothing that comes from Falwell or Pipes makes me think. It isn't intended to. It is meant to be followed blindly. I do not believe that is Harris' goal.

[bloom]

123. You are making great leaps

in your assumptions - because you assume that I think that all Christians follow Falwell or that all Jews follow Pipes. I don't think any such thing.


But I do think that there are some atheists who "follow" Harris in a similar manner that some people "follow" Falwell or Pipes. People who are persuaded by their thinking. Who use them as an inspiration or even an authority on various subjects.


And I think that Harris is partly a figure for the same reason that Falwell is. He is out there saying extreme things - and saying things that are divisive against other groups. Some people glom onto it - others (like me) do not.

People like to say that atheists don't do groups - but I think this forum (and probably other similar venues) prove that wrong - there is a pretty clear group of people here who like Harris and who seem to agree about his polemical ideas.

And Falwell, Pipes and Harris do support this same agenda (not all of their agendas are the same, of course) - Defend Israel, hate Muslims - torture is justified, etc.

[Evoman]

127. THERE ARE THEISTS WHO BELIVE IN HIS POLEMICAL IDEAS!!!

Look on GD for gods sakes. There are people who side with Israel and there are people who can only be described as anti-jewish. AND d'ey aints only 'eathens, buddy.

Does that make everyone who is pro-israeli a Sam Harris follower, lol....even theists.

This has become absurd.

[bloom]

130. I'm sure there are.

But the people who LOVE, Love, love Harris's book - "the End of Faith" - are bound to be atheists. So he has an atheist following.

I've already shown that people who like Pipes can also also be found to be reading Harris - as further justification to hate Muslims. They might be Christians, Jews, anything - but if you deny that Harris has a following of atheists who like his anti-religious stance - that would be disingenuous.

[Goblinmonger]

128. Oh, please

don't use this forum to prove that atheists form groups. I love a great deal of the atheists in here: trotsky, evoman, bmus, greyl, zhade, neebob, sid, strong atheist (hope he comes back), arwelden, and a host of others. But I don't always agree with them. And they seem to be fine with that.

You, on the other hand, seem to take a difference of opinion as a personal affront or death threat or something. Sure, Harris has said some stuff that puts him outside my sphere. Doesn't make him part of the other side. And Falwell only likes the Jews better than the Muslims. I bet his love of the Jews does not run any deeper.

[trotsky]

132. He said he loves me!

*SWOON*
:loveya:

[neebob]

140. I love you, too, man!

Second that swoon.

[Evoman]

141. You love me? *sob* And here I was thinking I flew under the radar

most of the time. I've never really thought of myself as a full member of the atheist whackjob corps until now. I am in such esteemed company.

[ozone_man]

88. Harris is a liberal.

We get to criticize our own occasionally. That's part of liberal thinking, free thinking. If it doesn't pass the test of reason, we raise questions. What he says here makes good sense, not that I agree with all that he says. I also recommend that you read his book (finally), so you can speak (and criticize him) from a more knowledgeable position.

Perhaps I should establish my liberal bone fides at the outset. I'd like to see taxes raised on the wealthy, drugs decriminalized and homosexuals free to marry. I also think that the Bush administration deserves most of the criticism it has received in the last six years — especially with respect to its waging of the war in Iraq, its scuttling of science and its fiscal irresponsibility.

But my correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world — specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith.

On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right.

Regarding his position on moderates, I again think he is correct, though it may take a while to see where he is coming from. Should liberals be tolerant of everything? Of governments, religions, factions that threaten global peace? How about the Nazi's? The RCC was pretty tolerant of them I think. In the words of another free thinker, also unafraid to point out the preposterous aspects of Christianity:

Toleration is not the opposite of intolerance but the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms: the one assumes to itself the right of withholding liberty of conscience, the other of granting it.
-- Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man

Islam is still a medieval religion. Harris is right that Islam has violent borders. It is intolerant of other religions, of liberal thinking. Christianity went through this stage 500 years ago with the Inquisition, and as recently as their complacence toward Nazi Germany. Today, it looks considerably more tolerant than Islam. But Harris pulls no punches and says that religion must go eventually if we're to establish peace in the world, for each religion tries to force it's one correct faith over the others. The RCC still pressures governments to withold aid if there is family planning and contraception policies attached.

Regarding liberalism and intolerance, there are other areas equally important that we should be intolerant towards, notably the environmental tragedy unfolding and the overpopulation of the world. The latter feeds into the global environmental problem and is perpetuated by the RCC through their enforcement of the idea that sex is only for procreation. Many other causes of overpopulation including poverty, inadequate education, I'm just pointing out one due to the RCC. The RCC has never been a friend of education or liberal thinking, particularly not in Galileo's time.

I take the word liberal in the free thinking, humanist sense, as I think Harris does. But he's not afraid to criticize some of the erroneous thinking of liberals. Shall we all stay in the pot as the water temperature is raised gradually to boiling? Or should we perhaps question just exactly what some of the cooks are doing with those knobs?

[bloom]

90. I think that it just comes down to basic political differences.

Harris is supporting BushCo policies - and imperialism. I'm against them.

Harris would like us to think that the we should be supporting this "war on terror". I think that it is largely manufactured - if BushCo was concerned with stopping terrorism - he/they wouldn't be such good friends with Pakistan.


I think he goes far beyond just some little criticisms of liberals. He is at odds with liberal philosophy. I think he made it quite clear for anyone who hasn't noticed.


I think it's people like Harris that make it easy for some people to think of all atheists as "atheist fundamentalists" - because he is the most vocal and out there. Just like the crazy Christian Fundamentalists, or Pipes and his Islamism rants.

I think that liberal atheists need to frame themselves (and differentiate themselves) just like liberal Christians do - so the nuts (the Harris types) don't do it for them.

[Evoman]

107. Can you provide us with the quotes, please?

For this:

"Harris is supporting BushCo policies - and imperialism. I'm against them.

Harris would like us to think that the we should be supporting this "war on terror". I think that it is largely manufactured - if BushCo was concerned with stopping terrorism - he/they wouldn't be such good friends with Pakistan."

As to this:

"I think that liberal atheists need to frame themselves (and differentiate themselves) just like liberal Christians do - so the nuts (the Harris types) don't do it for them."

Quick: Name 3 "fundamentelist, right" atheists that you know that aren't liberal....quick, without googling. I'll do the same with extremist christians

I beat you: Jerry Falwell, Osama bin Laden, George Bush.

I win.


So have you finished with your three famous atheists extremists?

[bloom]

116. it's the type of exaggeration

it seems the purpose is to hate Muslims - just like some neo-con would say:

"we are absolutely at war with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good, that cartoonists should be killed for caricaturing the prophet and that any Muslim who loses his faith should be butchered for apostasy. "

interpretation: it's ok for us to be at believe that death is justified against others - and that our soldiers get medals and promotions for it - but Muslims shouldn't think so. Basically - we are supposed to think that Muslims are extremists that we should go to war against and we are wonderful.


and when he says:

"There are books, films and conferences organized around this phantasmagoria, and they offer an unusually clear view of the debilitating dogma that lurks at the heart of liberalism: Western power is utterly malevolent, while the powerless people of the Earth can be counted on to embrace reason and tolerance, if only given sufficient economic opportunities."

interpretation: Western power is good. The Muslims are bad.


and this:

"In their analyses of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so. Muslims routinely use human shields, and this accounts for much of the collateral damage we and the Israelis cause; the political discourse throughout much of the Muslim world, especially with respect to Jews, is explicitly and unabashedly genocidal."

interpretation: The US and Israel are justified in killing all the civilians they want - the Muslims are evil for doing so. How is that not just like some neo-con saying that - or some stupid talking head on FOX or CNN?


(Osama bin Laden isn't a Christian)

[Evoman]

129. I still win!

Your right! Osamy isn't christian. I thought I said theists...oh well. PAT ROBERTSON! See, I still win. You haven't mentioned ANY famous right wing atheists yet.

My challenge still stands..without googling:

Quick: Name 3 "fundamentelist, right" atheists that you know that aren't liberal

[bloom]

133. I concede

(just on your little game :) )


Most atheists DON't go around making a fuss about being anti-religion. Or at least - those are not the people that I normally pay attention to.

Harris has gotten to be an in-your-face kind of person - I suppose he's making big bucks off of it.

I think that people will be won over more through education than by confrontation. Most people don't like others going around saying how wrong they are.

But I also know how it is in the sticks and unless there is more visibility of atheists on TV or something (where people feel like they know and respect the people - and know that they are atheists) - change will be difficult - or not at all.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

161. I can do two off the top of my head: Rand and Strauss (sp?).

I'm not sure I can manage three, though, especially not without looking it up. If you take away the "rightwing" requirement, of course, then there are any number of communist options available.

[Goblinmonger]

135. You just admitted it.

"Harris is supporting BushCo policies - and imperialism. I'm against them."

You, too, bloom are an AGAINSTER.

:rofl:

on edit: cue the Ramones, please.

[beam me up scottie]

143. BREAKING: The birth of a brand new FUNDAMENTALIST religion on DU!

(in the voice of Stephen Colbert)

I wouldn't believe it if I didn't see it with my own three eyes, folks!

We are breathlessly watching the start of a one woman War on Non-Belief movement called the Anti-Againster Brigade.

A self defined atheist, on a religious crusade to bash other atheists in the proud tradition of Sam Harris, a liberal who defiantly bashes other liberals.

Just like all jihads, it all started with a damning accusation aimed at a religious minority who were a little too uppity for some folks' taste:

"Sometimes it seems that there is a group of people who are "againsters" - that is their identifying tribe. And some of them make the effort to alienate anyone who does not agree with them."

This was quickly followed up by common fundamentalist rhetoric, elevating oneself above the infidels by misrepresenting what they believe, accusing the alleged infidels of malevolent intent when they take issue with the fundies who are misrepresenting their beliefs, and, oh my, this scene is quite disturbing, folks, you might want to tell your children to leave the room, publicly butchering innocent words and defenseless religious terms with bloodthirsty abandon:

* "Some atheists like to insult people over imaginary slights - other atheists like to try to foster peace and understanding."

* "Some atheists are dividers - they think that it helps their cause to insult people who do not think exactly as they do"

* "I don't understand the level of animosity that some atheists display here - against people who are on their side ... speaking from the POV of a religiously liberal atheist"

* "there is much arguing that is disrespectful - intentionally so - on the part of some atheists."

* "I consider myself to be an unorthodox atheist - because apparently I don't follow the script"

* "Groups do have a reinforcing effect on people."

* "I don't have a group."

* "It's easy to be against things. It takes more effort to know what you are for."

* "they are not all as rational as they would like to think"

* "It's mostly the atheists who do the most arguing around here. And there are some who defend their definitions - just like they were defending a religion."

* "I expect that that represents that posters POV - it also represents an attitude that some like to foster that it is fun and games to disrespect others. Or that that is the best way to get one's point across."

***

It appears that the founder of this newest religious jihad is following in the footsteps of Pope Ratzi who now also uses the qualifier "some" in order to avoid accusations of religious intolerance.

Don't forget you heard it here first folks, before Rawng Story, even before Truthinessout.org!

Back to you, Katie, and your Nobel Prize worthy coverage of the continuing War on Christmas...



:rofl:

The trouble with saying that you are this or that label is that people have pre-determined assumptions about what you must think or believe - whether you do or not. As if you have to fit in with someone else's predetermined thinking.

You mean like how DU atheists fit into your "predetermined thinking", bloom?



Mirror mirror, on the wall

Whose the most tolerant atheist of all?

[ozone_man]

136. I think Harris is correct on religious issues,

that we have to move beyond faith, which doesn't mean beyond "spirituality", just beyond the blind dogmatic faith of organized religion. In particular, the monotheistic religions, Christianity and Islam. Even the Pope says (in his latest speech) that we have to include reason in our religious views, but he has a real problem with the amount of reason that exists in Europe. Probably because Europe is in negative population growth. They've outgrown the barefoot and pregnant phase of civilization, they're too secular, which the RCC doesn't like. So, some reason is good, too much reason is bad according to the RCC. This amount of liberalization occurred after 1,000 years of Crusades, Inquisitions and a Nazi Holocaust in the name of an invisible three in one deity. Harris explains all this before getting into the background of Islam, which is just going through some of the phases that Christianity did 500 years ago. It needs to be liberalized, and soon.

The issue is really one of blind acceptance of dogmas, whether they are political or religious in nature. If ideas are always subject to reason, rational thinking, then there is much less danger in the world. Danger that religious factions will make war or commit genocide in the name of their God or politics. The U.S. sort of accomplishes both in a subtle way. We put God on our money and in our pledge in 1954.

I may not quite agree with some of Harris' political views, though he doesn't go into depth there. He does seem to have been sold too much on the war on terror. I don't think he's as liberal as I am for example. He also takes issue with some of the left's views on Israel, Chomsky for example, and he is right to a significant extent. That the left has a blind spot when it comes to examining religious motivations for war and other problems like overpopulation, perpetual poverty. I think Christianity has been made safe for criticism through 500 years of rationalists, the age of enlightenment, people like Voltaire, Paine, and Freud paving the way. Islam has never had nor allowed such a period of criticism. Plus it is complicated by the human rights issues involved, and oil wealth now. But underlying it all is a medieval religion that needs to modernize, to undergo a liberalization process.

Also, I may differ in my generally pro-Palestine/anti-Israel middle east views. I always have been. I don't think Israel ever really had a right to exist, that the Palestinians were booted from their land. But, Harris is right on about religion. It's difficult to separate the political and racist issues from religious issues, particularly when U.S. global domination is involved, but the sooner the left understands the differences, and that religion is often the underlying reason for wars, the sooner we can move on toward a more rational and peaceful existence. As Harris puts it, science will "kill" religion, but how to educate the world in science? And sustainable economics? Hopefully it will happen before something really bad happens. ;)

[neebob]

139. I was okay with it

until I got to the phrase mishandling of the war in Iraq, like it was a good idea that the badministration screwed up. He sounds like a total idiot for four paragraphs, starting at that point. The U.S. and Israel seek to avoid intentionally murdering non-combatants - that's rich.

He never does say what liberals should do instead, and that - in concert with the four idiotic paragraphs - creates the impression that he's a closet wingnut.

I don't think he is one, but I do think his desire to end religion clouds his judgment. He's a bit of an egomaniac if you ask me.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

149. OMG the world is ending!

I agree with Sam Harris about something!!!

[trotsky]

150. Uh-oh, Grannie.

By bloom's reckoning, that means you now worship him.

I'm afraid you'll have to turn in your Christian membership card. You're a Harris-worshipping atheist now.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

151. Shhhhhh

I'm still trying to work off last week's sins.

[greyl]

152. What in particular?

(or am I missing your point?)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

154. Well, I am almost afraid to admit this on DU

BUT I will. I see the Islamic right as a huge threat. A cultural nuclear war waiting to happen. So does he.

I don't care for radical Christians either, and the jury is still out on whether they are actually going to be the new Roundheads or not, but right now, especially in Europe, there is a 850 pound gorilla in the room that we politically correct dems are determined not to talk about.

Most of his other stuff, while I see him as a superb writer, I think he throws out the baby with the bathwater in many instances. But I also think every Christian should read him. I did this summer. It wasn't pleasant, but it was illuminating.

[varkam]

156. Good for you.

So far, you're the one and only Christian I know who has actually read Harris. I tend to view all religion as threats, but if I had to pick only one, it would be Islam. At least my fundie neighbors aren't stapping bombs to their chests to get in good with God.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

157. I think they took a wrong turn somewhere

and perhaps it is the inhospitable environment so many Muslims live with. I don't know. This strange death fixation has me puzzled because from what I understand about history it is recent. I could see myself happy as a Muslim in the moderate sense, with their strong family emphasis and spirituality. I pray that someday we can all just calm down and enjoy each other.

Regarding Harris...for about 80 percent of his writing I'm nodding my head and agreeing, then he makes a wild statement and I find myself thinking "you stupid SOB!"

But he sure isn't boring. He's a thinker and I respect that.

[varkam]

158. The wrong turn

at least in my opinon, most certainly has something to do with the pervasiveness of the 'kill the infidel' passages in the Koran and the idea of paradise for martyrs (read: those who die while killing infidels).

Insofar as Harris is concerned, I think you and I are probably on the same page although I would say I find probably 85-90% of what he writes to be agreeable, and the remainder off in left field. I guess that makes me one of his apostles.

I find Richard Dawkins to be a bit more engaging than Harris as well as considerably more humorous. I've been trying to read whatever I can by him when I have the time ever since I read A Devil's Chaplain. If you like Harris, you might just love Dawkins.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

160. Thanks

I'm due for a library trip...got 20 books to return! I'll get online and register a copy.

[Evoman]

153. Your a neocon atheist.

Not only do you have to return your christian card, we're going to have to confiscate your liberal card as well.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

155. Can I still

have my library card?

[Goblinmonger]

159. Yeah, but if you're a neocon

you don't read, so it just takes up wallet space.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

162. I have mixed feelings about this.

I largely agree with his diagnosis of the problem, but not with his proposed solution.

Islam, in most albeit not all of its forms, especially the more orthodox ones, is clearly an especially unpleasant religion - much more so than any of the other major ones, on average (although obviously that's a very different claim to the clearly-false "all forms of Islam are more unpleasant that all forms of all other major religions"). Most liberals are far too unwilling to acknowledge this, and hypocritically willing to excuse and defend elements of Islam and Islamic cultures, especially compared with their willingness to criticise America & Christianity.

However, any form of war or attempt to use coercion against Islamic cultures by the west will be incredibly counterproductive - hurting innocent people, probably in vast numbers, increasing support for the most unpleasant forms of Islam and further blackening the name of western liberalism in Islamic cultures.

It would be wonderful if we could wake up tomorrow and find that Islam no longer existed and all the erstwhile Muslims had converted and become secular western liberals. Declaring ourselves to be at war with anything or anyone, though, is only going to make things worse.

The only policy that will help is one of cultural & economic engagement; support for comparative liberals, trying to marginalise more orthodox, rightwing and fundamentalist groups, advocating and supporting human rights and freedom of speech and religion whenever possible, and hoping for the best.



At present, the two prevailing voices appear to be conservatives saying that we must fight a war against Islam and terrorism (not really distinguishing between the two) and convert them to "our" way of thinking by force, and liberals saying that there is nothing wrong with Islam as a religion, or at any rate it's no worse than Christianity or Judaism, and saying that one culture is better than another is bigoted. The latter of these, while clearly less regretable than the former, is still not something anyone who claims to be a liberal and not a hypocrite can support, I think.