Sam Harris: Religious Fundamentalism, Impact On Everyday Life

[Charleston Chew]

Run time: 07:07 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GSI3yFWOrk   Posted on YouTube: November 17, 2010 By YouTube Member: LiberalNewsChannel Views on YouTube: 112   Posted on DU: November 17, 2010 By DU Member: Charleston Chew Views on DU: 5384

 
16 November, 2010 MSNBC

When Mr. Harris speaks I always slow down to listen.
Check this out and tell me what you think.

[SkyDaddy7]

1. Same here...Just started reading his new book.

The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values

I just started but I like where he is going with this!

[trotsky]

2. There are some, even on DU, who insist...

that Sam Harris saying that religion isn't always a dandy thing is JUST AS DANGEROUS as the people who flew planes into buildings or want to publicly burn the Koran.

Yup, just as dangerous. :eyes:

[Charleston Chew]

3. similar to....

....compassionate intellectuals are as dangerous as religious fundamentalist

[Douglas Carpenter]

4. The Dangerous Atheism of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris by Chris Hedges

snip:

Harris, echoing the blood lust of Hitchens, calls, in his book The End of Faith, for a nuclear first strike against the Islamic world. He defends torture as a logical form of interrogation. He, like all utopians, has reduced millions of human beings and cultures he knows nothing about to primitive impediments to his vision of a better world.

"What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry?" Harris asks. "If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own.

Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime -- as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day -- but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe." Harris reduces a fifth of the world's population to a vast, primitive enemy. He blithely accepts that we may have to murder "tens of millions of people in a single day." His bigotry, and the bigotry of all who dehumanize others, sets the stage for indiscriminate slaughter and atrocity. The people to be killed, we are told, are not really distinct individuals. They do not have hopes and aspirations. They only appear human. They must be destroyed because of what they represent, what lurks beneath the surface of their human form. This dehumanization, especially by those who live in a society with the technological capacity to carry out acts of massive industrial slaughter, is terrifying. The new atheists see only one truth -- their truth. Human beings must become like them, think like them and adopt their values, which they insist are universal, or be banished from civilized society. All other values, which they never investigate or examine, are dismissed as inferior.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/80449/?page=entire

[alanquatermass]

6. Wow! But isn't Harris like a world-famous Atheist and not a Fundie?

And isn't he also like pro-choice and pro-feminist etc.

In other words, isn't Harris supposed to be one of Us?

[Charleston Chew]

8. "us"

What's all this "us", Paleface?

[alanquatermass]

13. Ha! I am definitely a white guy -- damn, is it that obvious?! -- but what I meant was...

-- Sam Harris is (allegedly) a Progressive so his views about the threat (in quotation marks or otherwise) posed by Radical Islam are a bit puzzling to me.

[cpwm17]

11. Thanks for that

I'm an atheist, but I don't like either Harris or Hitchens. They're both dangerous neocons that use atheism to rationalize their pseudo religion.

They've stripped the humanity of people that don't think like them. Listen to them speak - it's scary. It's clear that Chris Hedges is right.

This is a common attitude among atheists in the so called humanist movement. If you hear someone call themselves a humanist, like Harris and Hitchens do, run away quickly.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CrawlingChaos]

15. Thank you for posting that!

Once again, Chris Hedges provides a much needed dose of reason and clarity.

The hatemongering of Sam Harris and his "new atheist" cohorts has got to be exposed. I don't think many people see them for what they are - dangerous hypocrites with the same foreign policy goals as the far-right.

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. indeed, Absolutist demagoguery is not the exclusive domain of religionists.

It matters little to the victims whether one is killed in the name of God or slaughtered in the name of reason.

Chris Hedges:

Many of these atheists, like the Christian fundamentalists, support the imperialist projects and preemptive wars of the United States as a necessity in the battle against terrorism and irrational religion. They divide the world into superior and inferior races, those who are enlightened by reason and knowledge and those who are governed by irrational and dangerous religious beliefs. Hitchens and Harris describe the Muslim world, where I spent seven years, most of them as the Middle East bureau chief for the New York Times, in language that is as racist, crude and intolerant as that used by Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell. They are a secular version of the religious right. They misuse Darwin and evolutionary biology, just as the Christian fundamentalists misuse the Bible, by trying to argue that we can evolve morally -- something Darwin never asserted. They are as anti-intellectual as the Christian Right.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/80449/?page=entire

[Charleston Chew]

5. the answer, religion or science?

Cholera death toll in Haiti has passed 1,000
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x526128

[TwentyFive]

7. Any Religion + Power = Murdering of infidels.

Sam points out Christianity was the big murderer back in the dark ages. Given the power, they'll do it again.

If the religious right could re-write our constitution...does anybody doubt that abortion and homosexuality would be capital offenses? And heretics like Sam Harris would be the first to go.

[Charleston Chew]

9. Niemöller's famous quotation

The Inactivity of Intellectuals

[SkyDaddy7]

10. I think you are 1000% correct...

We are headed to a corporate controlled theocracy where the religious right would do exactly like you said if they get their way! People think this could never happen...Well, we are on a path to just that right now with almost half if not more who vote do so on religious grounds.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CrawlingChaos]

16. Sam Harris up there disagrees with you

He does not think that religions are "all the fucking same". He promotes the idea that one religion is uniquely dangerous, and that religion is Islam. He openly promotes the killing, torture and racial profiling of Arabs.

Just want people to be clear on what Sam Harris and "New Atheism" are all about.

[alanquatermass]

17. "Uniquely dangerous..."??

He's bug NUTS, that's all.

So why is he so hateful anyway? I mean, I can see a fundie CHRISTIAN behaving this way (because Islam conflicts with Christianity -- in THEIR mind!), but what would a (presumably) rational thinker like him be singling out one religion for?

And why that PARTICULAR religion?

[trotsky]

23. Could you perhaps point to the official document...

that lays out EXACTLY how "New Atheism" promotes those things?

If you can't, then I suggest you lay off the broadbrush smears.

Thanks.

[CrawlingChaos]

29. official document - WTF?

You require the existence of an "official document" before objecting to flagrant racism and hatemongering? Are you serious?

Douglas Carpenter and cpwm17 have kindly provided explicit passages from Sam Harris' writings, as well as links to articles such as this one: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html

This is seen throughout New Atheism, to one degree or another - all the prominent New Atheists (Christopher Hitchens being another striking example) have a clear focus on promoting Islamophobia, vilifying Muslims to a degree well beyond other religions, with a mind towards "dealing" with them militarily. It's not subtle. If you are willfully determined not to see it, then there's no point in talking to you.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CrawlingChaos]

31. a truly nonsensical response

New Atheists are fictional?

http://newatheists.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism
http://articles.cnn.com/2006-11-08/world/atheism.feature_1_new-atheists-new-atheism-religion?_s=PM:WORLD

I also loathe Republicans - would you call that bigotry too?

[Turborama]

99. Thanks for the links

Here's a longer version of Hooper's: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/08/atheism.feature/index.html

And one from NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113889251

[cpwm17]

32. It's nothing to do with atheism

Atheism is the absence of a belief in god. Several of the so-called "New Atheists" (whatever that is) go way beyond atheism and almost make their belief a religion. Well, atheism isn't a religion.

There are only a small number of these "New Atheists", but they have become prominent in recent years. They include Hitches, Harris, and Bill Maher (Agnostic I think). They are violently anti Muslim. Bill Maher may be the worst from what I've seen, but he gets a free pass among most liberals. Richard Dawkins is not included here since he sticks to atheism without the crusading BS.

Please don't feel you must defend them just because they promote atheism. Attacking them is not an attack on atheism. I'm an atheist and they don't represent me.

[trotsky]

37. You also miss the point.

They're individuals - "New Atheism" is a silly term, it mainly just refers to modern vocal atheists who no longer have to keep their religious opinions to themselves for fear of being burned at the stake. Certain people are taking the label and demonizing it in order to negate everything a "New Atheist" says. My whole point is that there is no doctrine of "New Atheism," there is nothing that says you have to be "violently anti-Muslim."

[Charleston Chew]

24. I beg your pardon, but...

If you could please share some links and cross-references?

[cpwm17]

27. Here's a passage in Harris' book "The End of Faith"

If this isn't a holy war that Harris is advocating, then nothing is:

The link between belief and behaviour raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas. (The End of Faith, p52-53.)

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. Sam Harris is pro-torture and he does advocate a possible nuclear first strike against the Arab and

Islamic world. These are facts that cannot be denied. He is a foreign policy neoconservative who certainly doesn't know anything about the Middle East.

Who has caused more harm to the world the fundamentalist-Christians of America without whom the right-wing coalition could never have come to power and caused may of the current problems of the Middle East, the atheist government of the former Soviet Union who invaded Afghanistan in the first place and thus set off the conditions that created much of the environment which now poisons the whole world?

No, the vast majority of the word's Muslims do not fit into Sam Harris' racist and bigoted caricature.

The vast majority of Muslims are just normal people living very ordinary lives and not harming anyone.

Yes, one can find loads and loads of anecdotal evidence to attack the world's 1.3 billion Muslims or even America's 7 million American-Muslims. After all, it would be just as easy to give anecdotal examples of things in Africa or Latin America that Western sensibilities would find shocking. It would be just as easy to find anecdotal material to attack Jewish society or gay sub-culture that could be presented in a manner meant to attack and demean. Any hate-site will be full of anecdotal examples to justify what ever bigotry they are peddling. Anti-black racist groups will list all kinds of reports of crime rates and statistics to justify racism against blacks. Anti-semite groups will put together all kinds of "evidence" to convince people to vilify Jews. Right-wing anti-gay groups will list loads of "data" to legitimize prejudice against gay people.

But none of this can face the simple fact that the vast majority of African-Americans, gay people and Jewish people are just ordinary people who are not harming anyone - just like the vast majority of Muslim people.


But it is simply not as socially acceptable in polite-liberal society these days to overtly demean and degrade blacks ,latinos, gays or Jews. It still happens of course. But bigots know that in educated and liberal society they will be quickly, soundly and quite rightly censored . But the racists and the bigots also know that Arab and Muslim people are still vulnerable and whether consciously or subconsciously they focus their hateful worldview on these groups..

We keep hearing people say that Muslim leaders should speak up and denounce extremism if they want people to know the other side - short of standing on their heads and saying "Simon says" - I really don't know what more they can do to get their message across

.

here are just four fairly recent ones, all recently posted right here on DU - but frankly, a simple google search will reveal countless cases going back years were Muslim leaders have condemned acts of terror and extremism of all kinds:

Top Muslim clerics issue Fatwa denouncing terror attacks on Canada and U.S

CALGARY – Top Imams affiliated with the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada have issued a fatwa calling those terrorists who attack the United States and Canada “evil.”

The Fatwa is the most important condemnation of terrorists who try to hurt people living in Canada. Extremists have been told that any attack on the U.S. or on Canada will be construed as an attack on 10 million Muslims who live in these two countries.

“This is the first Fatwa by the Muslim clergy declaring attacks on Canada and the United States as attack on Muslims. Following is the text of the Fatwa. A Fatwa is a religious edict.

“We, the undersigned Imams, are issuing the following Fatwa in order to guide the Muslims of North America regarding the attacks on Canada and the United States by the terrorists and the extremists,” said the declaration:

““In fact, the constitutions of the United States and Canada are very close to the Islamic guiding principles of human rights and freedom. There is no conflict between the Islamic values of freedom and justice and the Canadian /US values of freedom and justice.”
“Therefore, any attack on Canada and the United States is an attack on the freedom of Canadian and American Muslims. Any attack on Canada and the United States is an attack on thousands of mosques across North America. It is a duty of every Canadian and American Muslim to safeguard Canada and the USA.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4217266

Regarding Islam and Apostasy

The Qur’an does not specify any worldly punishment or retribution solely for apostasy. Similarly, there is no clear prophetic judgment on apostasy, nor examples that such punishment was meted out (during the time of the Prophet or in the period of the Righteous Caliphate) to someone solely for abandoning Islam as a creed, in contrast with apostasy-cum-treason, involving taking up arms against the Muslim community or the state.
...
We the undersigned Muslims from diverse backgrounds affirm: The freedom of faith and the freedom of changing one’s faith. In light of the Qur’anic guidance and the Prophetic legacy, the principle of freedom of faith does not lend itself to impose in this world any punishment or retribution solely for apostasy; thus there ought not to be any punishment in the name of Islam or fatwa calling for the same.

In addition, we call upon:

our esteemed scholars (ulama) and jurists (fuqaha), to address this inconsistency between the Islamic principle of freedom of faith and the position mandating punishment for apostasy, and to bring our legacy of Islamic jurisprudence and general Islamic discourse up-to-date for the times with reference to indisputable and categorical Islamic principles.

our fellow Muslims, to be informed of Islam’s position on apostasy and to uphold the principle of choice so that we may exercise tolerance towards those who have left the “straight path” and deal with their subsequent views and actions (even when they are against Islam) within the conext of human rights and civil liberties allowed by law.

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/apostasy_and_freedom_of_faith_in_islam/0016063

U.S. Muslims Condemn Attack at Fort Hood

Posted 11/5/2009 6:15:00 PM
http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=26126

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/5/09) - A prominent national Muslim civil rights and advocacy group tonight condemned an attack on Fort Hood military base in Texas that left at least 12 people dead.

In a statement, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said:

“We condemn this cowardly attack in the strongest terms possible and ask that the perpetrators be punished to the full extent of the law. No religious or political ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence. The attack was particularly heinous in that it targeted the all-volunteer army that protects our nation. American Muslims stand with our fellow citizens in offering both prayers for the victims and sincere condolences to the families of those killed or injured.”

Along with innumerable condemnations of terror, CAIR has in the past launched an online anti-terror petition drive called “Not in the Name of Islam,” initiated a television public service announcement (PSA) campaign against religious extremism and coordinated a “fatwa,” or Islamic religious ruling, against terrorism and extremism.

SEE: CAIR’s Anti-Terrorism Campaigns

link: http://www.cair.com/AmericanMuslims/AntiTerrorism.aspx

Islamic states condemn attack on Danish cartoonist

January 4, 2010 7:56 a.m. EST

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/04/denmark.cartoonist/

(CNN) -- The attack on a Danish political cartoonist "runs totally against the teachings and values of Islam," the umbrella organization representing Muslim countries has said.

Muslims on the Mall

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2009/09/the_national_mall_is_for_all.html?hpid=talkbox1

The Star-Ledger reported last week that a mosque in Elizabeth, New Jersey, Dar-ul-Islam, will spearhead a national prayer gathering for September 25 in Washington, D.C., "that organizers are billing as the first event of its kind--organized prayer for tens of thousands of Muslims outside the U.S. Capitol building."

The paper quoted Hassen Abdellah, president of Dar-ul-Islam and an event organizer: "Most of the time, when Muslims go to Washington, D.C., they go there to protest some type of event...This is not a protest. Never has the Islamic community prayed on Capitol Hill for the soul of America. We're Americans. We need to change the face of Islam so people don't feel every Muslim believes America is 'the great Satan,' because we love America. "

The Star-Ledger reports that "A permit from the Capitol Hill police, granted July 28, allows access to the area by the West Front of the Capitol building from 4 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Sept. 25, but the main gathering will occur at 1 p.m., for the Friday prayer service. Abdellah said he expects 50,000 people to attend, from mosques around the country, though non-Muslims are welcome, too."

Abdellah stated the idea germinated after President Obama's inaugural speech, and was reinforced by this summer's Cairo address: "For the first time in my lifetime," Abdellah said, "I heard someone of his stature speaking about Islam and Muslims not in an adversarial sense, but in the sense of being welcome and acknowledging we are integral citizens in the society -- that we're gainfully employed, we're educated."

below are a list of statements assembled by CAIR - the largest and most influential Muslim organization in North America

for links to complete statements: http://www.cair.com/AmericanMuslims/AntiTerrorism.aspx

Fatwa Against Terrorism

CAIR backs Fatwa against Terrorism. English, Arabic, Urdu radio anti-terror PSAs released (Washington, D.C., 7/28/05) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today offered its support for a fatwa, or Islamic religious ruling, against terrorism and extremism issued by the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) and endorsed by more than 120 U.S. Muslim groups, leaders and institutions.


Not in the Name of Islam Petition

The “Not in the Name of Islam” petition states: “We, the undersigned Muslims, wish to state clearly that those who commit acts of terror, murder and cruelty in the name of Islam are not only destroying innocent lives, but are also betraying the values of the faith they claim to represent. No injustice done to Muslims can ever justify the massacre of innocent people, and no act of terror will ever serve the cause of Islam. We repudiate and dissociate ourselves from any Muslim group or individual who commits such brutal and un-Islamic acts. We refuse to allow our faith to be held hostage by the criminal actions of a tiny minority acting outside the teachings of both the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.



Persistent and Consistent Condemnation of Terrorism

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has a clear record of consistently and persistently condemning terrorism. Yet American Muslim groups like CAIR get repeatedly asked the question why have Muslims not spoken out against terrorism? The fact is they have, but who is listening? This prompted one media commentator to ask, “Are Muslims condemning terror to the deaf?”



CAIR Statements on the Events of September 11

"We condemn in the strongest terms possible what are apparently vicious and cowardly acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. We join with all Americans in calling for the swift apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. No cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts."



CAIR: Video Shows Bin Laden's Complicity in 9-11 Attacks

(Washington, DC, 12/13/2001) The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Washington-based Islamic advocacy group, today offered its reaction to the videotape of Osama bin Laden released by the Pentagon.

CAIR stated: For anyone who was not convinced of Osama bin Laden's complicity in the events of September 11, the content of this videotape should remove all doubt. Bin Laden clearly spoke as someone who had foreknowledge of the attacks.



CAIR Condemnation of Suicide Bombing

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 3/28/2002) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Washington-based Islamic advocacy group, today condemned a bomb attack on a Passover celebration in the Middle East that left 20 people dead and more than 100 wounded.

In a statement, CAIR said: "We condemn this attack and all other attacks on innocent civilians. Illegitimate and counterproductive tactics must not be used in the legitimate struggle to end Israel's brutal occupation.



CAIR Full Page Advertisement in Washington Post on September 16, 2001

"We at the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), along with the entire American Muslim community are deeply saddened by the massive loss of life resulting from the tragic events of September 11. American Muslims utterly condemn the vicious and cowardly acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. We join with all American in calling for the swift apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts."



Canadian Muslim Scholars Reject "Misguided" Calls For Jihad

(OTTAWA, CANADA) - The Canadian office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR CAN) and the Canadian Muslim Civil Liberties Association (CMCLA) today denounced a series of recent statements made by Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network that state that Muslims should wage a "jihad" against Americans.



Toledo Muslims Condemn Attack on US, Ask Media to Excercise Restraint

TOLEDO, OH-- The United Muslim Association of Toledo, expresses its deepest regret at the death of our fellow citizens around the United States. The United Muslim Association condemns these acts of senseless violence. As American Muslims we are saddened by this loss of life. We offer our condolences to the families of the victims and pray for the recovery of those injured in the explosion. We call for a comprehensive investigation into the circumstances that led to this tragedy and full disclosure of the findings.



Rallying to Make a Difference Hundreds of Families and Community Leaders

"I'm here because I think I can try to make a difference – to inform the public about what's going on," he said.

Imad joined hundreds of other families and community leaders, Muslim and non-Muslim, on Saturday for a rally against terrorism sponsored by the Council on American-Islamic Relations-DFW.

He stood with his siblings and cousins holding banners and American flags.



American Muslim Response to the September Attacks

We, the undersigned Muslim organizations, support the President and Congress of the U.S. in the struggle against terrorism. Holding to the ideals of both our religion and our country, we condemn all forms of terrorism, and confirm the need for perpetrators of any such acts of violence to be brought to justice, including those who carried out the attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001.



ISNA Joins AMPCC in Condemning Terrorist Attacks

(Plainfield, IN – 9/11/2001) – The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), along with other Muslim organizations throughout North America, today condemned the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington and offered condolences to the families of those who were killed or injured.

The AMPCC statement read in part: "American Muslims utterly condemn what are vicious and cowardly acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. We join with all Americans in calling for the swift apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts."



ICNA Declares Friday, September 14, 2001, a Day of Mourning and Prayers

The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) is extremely horrified and saddened by the tragedy in New York and Washington D.C.

Our hearts and prayers are with the families of the victims of this horrible and despicable crime. We condemn this heinous act and call upon our political leaders and the media to act responsibly, and not generalize when speculating about the perpetrators.



Scholars of Islam Speak Out Against Terrorism; Clarify Position of Islam

Dozens of scholars of Islam issued a statement today, condemning the violent attacks of September 11th.

"We are grief-stricken at these horrifying events," they wrote; "the murder of innocents can never be justified and must not be tolerated."

In a lengthy statement, professors from major colleges and universities throughout the country expressed their compassion for grieving family members while also decrying the increase in violence against American Muslims this past week. "Anger and frustration are completely understandable and shared by us all," they wrote "yet that anger must not be directed at individuals utterly innocent of these terrible crimes.

U.S. Muslim Scholars Condemn Attacks

CHICAGO, Sept 12 (IslamOnline) - Muslim scholars in North America unanimously condemned the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon and expressed their deep sorrow and sympathy for those Americans who were killed and injured.

The Detroit-based Shari'a Scholars Association of North America (SSANA) strongly condemned the attack and said that there is no cause that justifies "this type of an immoral and inhumane act that has affected so many innocent American lives."


Call for Holy War Condemned by Florida Muslim Cleric

Osama bin Laden and his call for a jihad, or holy war, against the United States were denounced in a scathing address on Friday by the leader of one of Florida's largest mosques.

"There are some who tarnish Islam, who do terror in the name of Islam," said Maulana Shafayat Mohamed, head of Darul Uloom Institute in Pembroke Pines. "They confuse jihad with their own problems. We must educate them about Islam, so they will not corrupt it."



Experts Say bin Laden Is Distorting Islamic Law

Leading American scholars and practitioners of Islam said yesterday that Osama bin Laden had twisted and debased Muslim theology in a videotaped statement in which he called on "every Muslim" to "rush to make his religion victorious" by emulating those who attacked the United States on Sept. 11.

Ingrid Mattson, a professor of Islamic studies and Muslim-Christian relations at Hartford Seminary in Hartford, said there was no basis in Islamic law or sacred text for Mr. bin Laden's remarks.



American Muslim Scholar Declares: Terrorists are Mass Murderers, not Martyrs

Tuesday's terrorist attacks have saddened and maddened millions -- and raised questions for many about Islam. Speculation abounds that the hijackers were inspired by terrorists like Osama bin Laden, who teach that violent acts can pave the way to paradise.

But what does Islam really say about such matters? About jihad and martyrdom?

We asked Hamza Yusuf, an Islamic scholar in the East Bay, who said the attackers were ``enemies of Islam.'' Not martyrs, but ``mass murderers, pure and simple.''



Muslim Religious Figures Condemn Terrorism

* "Hijacking Planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood constitute a form of injustice that can not be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts."

Shaykh Abdul Aziz al-Ashaikh (Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and Chairman of the Senior Ulama, on September 15th, 2001)

*The terrorists acts, from the perspective of Islamic law, constitute the crime of hirabah (waging war against society)."



Islamic Statements Against Terrorism in the Wake of the September 11 Mass Murders

Mustafa Mashhur, General Guide, Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt; Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, Pakistan; Muti Rahman Nizami, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, Bangladesh; Shaykh Ahmad Yassin, Founder, Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Palestine; Rashid Ghannoushi, President, Nahda Renaissance Movement, Tunisia; Fazil Nour, President, PAS - Parti Islam SeMalaysia, Malaysia; and 40 other Muslim scholars and politicians:


Messages From Shaikh Muhammad Yusuf Islahi

The sudden barbaric attack on innocent citizens living in peace is extremely distressing and deplorable. Every gentle human heart goes out to the victims of this attack and as humans we are ashamed at the barbarism perpetrated by a few people.


Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi Condemns Attacks Against Civilians: Forbidden in Islam

DOHA, Qatar, Sept 13 (IslamOnline & News Agencies) - Renowned Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi denounced the attacks against civilians in the U.S. Tuesday and encouraged Muslims to donate blood to the victims of the attack.

In response to the bloody attack against civilians in the U.S., Sheikh Yusuf issued a statement Wednesday saying that:

Muslim World Condemns Attacks on U.S.

DUBAI, Sept 12 (IslamOnline & News Agencies) - The Muslim world expressed condemnation Wednesday towards the attacks that occurred Tuesday in the United States, news agencies reported.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) grouping 57 Muslim states condemned Wednesday the previous day's attacks on the United States, Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported.



Expressions of grief and sympathy in the Arab and Muslim world

For many of us, one of the most disturbing images of these past painful weeks has been that of the celebration of a few Palestinian youths after the tragedy.

This image has been played over and over again on CNN, thus reinforcing the myth that somehow the whole of the Arab and Muslim world rejoices at our pain.



Bin Laden's violence is a heresy against Islam

IN what sense were the World Trade Centre bombers members of Islam? This question has been sidelined by many Western analysts impatient with the niceties of theology; but it may be the key to understanding the recent attacks, and assessing the long-term prospects for peace in the Muslim world.


Koran a Book of Peace, Not War, Scholars Say

Osama bin Laden, who is widely assumed to be the force behind the September 11 hijackings in the United States, cites the Koran, Islam's most holy book, as the inspiration for terrorist attacks. But Muslim scholars around the world who are reviled by such actions explain that the Koran preaches peace.

http://www.cair.com/AmericanMuslims/AntiTerrorism.aspx

Here is a list of official Fatwas condenming terrorism, violence against civilians and extremism

http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslim_voices_against_extremism_and_terrorism_part_i_fatwas/0012209


of course there are several other denunciations other than formal Islamic Fatwas

Statements by Organizations -

several links:
http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslim_voices_against_extremism_terrorism_part_ii_statements_by_organizatio/0012210

Statements and Articles by Individuals several links

http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslim_voices_against_extremism_and_terrorism_part_iii_statements_articles/0012211
(see also power point presentations) - http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/powerpoint_presentations/

A Few Quotes A-K

(actually several)
http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslim_voices_against_extremism_and_terrorism_a_few_quotes/0012273

A few Quotes L-Z (actually, a LOT more than a few

)
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslim_voices_against_extremism_and_terrorism_a_few_quotes_l_z/0014337

The Muslim Majority Who Don’t Get Publicity

http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslim_voices_against_extremism_and_terrorim_part_v_the_muslim_majority_who/0012322
and a power point presentation:

http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/powerpoint_presentations/

Muslims and Arabs in the U.S. Military speak out:

http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslims_in_the_military/0013612

Selective Hearing of Muslim Voices Against Extremism and Terrorism - many, many links:

http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/selective_hearing_of_muslim_voices_against_extremism_and_terrorism/0012212

Sunni Shia Unity Resource -

collection of articles
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/shia_sunni/003107

Muslim Voices Promoting Islamic Non Violent Solutions - several sources

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/promoting_islamic_non_violent_solutions/0015593


/

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. in his book "The End of Faith"

" What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry?" Harris asks. "If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own." - Sam Harris from The End of Faith

There are many objectionable things in the Koran as there are also in the Bible as you have also pointed out. There are a number of Hadiths which are commentaries about the words of the prophet. They do not in themselves carry Koronic authority. They are more comparable to the Jewish Talmud which like most ancient religious books also contains some very unenlightened words that would not be embraced by the vast majority of modern religious Jews. It is simply not true that the vast majority of Muslims embrace the most extreme interpretation.

Regarding Islam and Apostasy

The Qur’an does not specify any worldly punishment or retribution solely for apostasy. Similarly, there is no clear prophetic judgment on apostasy, nor examples that such punishment was meted out (during the time of the Prophet or in the period of the Righteous Caliphate) to someone solely for abandoning Islam as a creed, in contrast with apostasy-cum-treason, involving taking up arms against the Muslim community or the state.
...
We the undersigned Muslims from diverse backgrounds affirm: The freedom of faith and the freedom of changing one’s faith. In light of the Qur’anic guidance and the Prophetic legacy, the principle of freedom of faith does not lend itself to impose in this world any punishment or retribution solely for apostasy; thus there ought not to be any punishment in the name of Islam or fatwa calling for the same.

In addition, we call upon:

our esteemed scholars (ulama) and jurists (fuqaha), to address this inconsistency between the Islamic principle of freedom of faith and the position mandating punishment for apostasy, and to bring our legacy of Islamic jurisprudence and general Islamic discourse up-to-date for the times with reference to indisputable and categorical Islamic principles.

our fellow Muslims, to be informed of Islam’s position on apostasy and to uphold the principle of choice so that we may exercise tolerance towards those who have left the “straight path” and deal with their subsequent views and actions (even when they are against Islam) within the context of human rights and civil liberties allowed by law.

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/apostasy_and_freedom_of_faith_in_islam/0016063

[ForeignSpectator]

25. Thank you for the reference.

I wouldn't call it "advocating" a nuclear first strike against arabs though.

That is your opinion and I could see how you come to your interpretation of it. If you provide me with more
references (especially where he would be pro-torture bush-style), maybe I would arrive at the same conclusion
that he is a neocon-type.

From the quote above alone, I would say he contemplates an extreme measure in an extreme situation.
Imagine an islamist regime getting a hold of pakistan's nuclear arsenal. IMO not a too remote possibility
as a islamist backlash against a US-backed dictatorial regime.

I think that's a situation he describes.
What would you do? I don't say categorically a nuclear strike but what would you do?


RE: apostasy. You're right the hadiths do not carry koranic authority BUT they carry authority nevertheless,
2nd only to the koran, and have been regarded as truth by islamic scholars.

And I NEVER said "that the vast majority of muslims embrace the most extreme interpretation".
I AGREE with you on that, at least not the majority of those living in western countries.

But my point was what the teachings actually are, i.e what the books actually say. I gave you the quote of the
prophet himself in the hadith and the muslim (scholar?) in the video who admitted that according to the sharia,
death is the penalty for apostasy. It is "punishable" by death, that's the point.

You gave me letter signed by muslims who disavow this practice and your statement that "the majority does not
embrace the most extreme interpretation".
So you're judging a religion by its followers, ok. But then you have to consider the "extremists", too. They
exist, albeit as a minority, and even implied by your own statement "the majority doesn't embrace..." (so a
minority does...)

And here lies the rub: the extremists, whether it be terrorists or the ayatollah calling for the death of
salman rushdie, can claim koranic authority from all its violent passages (verse of the sword et al)
No amount of signed letters will take that away.
So, when you judge by the followers, you have to take the "bad" ones too.

Or, you could judge an ideology by its actual teachings, what its books say. And then I arrive at the
conclusion that it's not an inherently peaceful one, especially when you also consider history,
the deeds of the prophet himself.
I arrive at the same conclusion for christianity, not out of relativism, but because of what the books
teach and its history as well.

And most christians aren't nuts and violent, just as with muslims. I don't dispute that at all, we can agree
on that I think...? But it doesn't make a whole ideology with all its teachings, all its verses etc inherently
peaceful. That's where I disagree.

And harris said s.t. similar in the video at 5:23 about.

[Douglas Carpenter]

28. actually Sam Harris wrote an article for Huffington Post called: In Defense of Torture

here is the link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html

There will never come a point in which all Muslims are liberal minded any more than there will ever come a point when all Christians, Jews or atheist are liberal minded. Early anti-Semites would quote the Talmud to prove their point that Jews consider themselves superior to everyone else and are thus a danger to society. Are there such disturbing quotes in the Talmud? Yes. Are there some Jews on the extreme end of the spectrum who firmly believe such things? Yes. Are there values expressed in the Torah and the Talmud which berate non-Jews and which are absolutely barbaric? Yes. But is this a fair representation of worldview of the vast majority of modern Jewish people? Of course not. That would be as preposterous as it is bigoted.

One must be very careful about relying on those who quote sources in a manner which is meant to paint a negative picture about whole groups of people. This was practiced to the extreme in an early era of the 20th Century when it was in vogue to be anti-Semitic and we all know what that kind of propaganda lead to. Right now there is a nationwide campaign of anti-Muslim hysteria being whooped up by right-wing politicians, the crazy wing of fundamentalist Christianity and the likes of Newsmax and Fox News and unfortunately - some ostensibly more libertine figures such as Sam Harris. There is a grave danger of this hysteria becoming - if it has not already - completely mainstream discourse in American society.

This hysteria has dangerous ramifications, not only for the American-Muslim community but for the entirety of society and the direction it is going. The 20th Century has surely shown that hate campaigns are not controllable and can and do lead society down extremely self-destructive paths.

This hysteria has even more dangerous ramifications for American foreign policy.

There are right-wing religious crazies in America who now pretty much dominate the Republican Party and there are the neoconservatives who are bent on promoting a permanent American war in the Middle East and I believe they must be stopped or America and the whole world will experience a catastrophe beyond imagination. The religious crazies believe they must help facilitate the battle of Armageddon in order to usher in the second coming of Christ. This is not a small marginal group of kooks. This is a group who are to a large degree now calling the shots in the Republican Party while their allies the neoconservatives work out the details. Unfortunately, whether intentional or not, the likes of those like Sam Harris are perhaps the unwitting allies of this potential madness.

Opposing this hysteria and not allowing this hysteria to become mainstream discourse is one of the most important stands anyone can possibly take - The consequences of this hysteria growing and becoming even more mainstream are just too dire.

[ForeignSpectator]

33. Once again, thanks for the reference, however you lost the argument....

I read your link http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html

completely. (btw, the content of your post above is not content from that link)

At the Huffingtonpost article I found this other interesting link, "response to controversy":
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/

At this link, Harris quotes from his book, the SAME passage you quote.
However, he gives the complete quote, unlike you and mr hedges. It goes:

"If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade."

If you're gonna try to paint him a nuclear wielding neocon, please quote him in completeness. So there goes the nuclear first strike argument.

Same goes for the "he is pro-torture" point. Like above, he proposes a thought-experiment, he does not advocate torture.
His point is that unwillingness to torture can't be squared with willingness to wage modern war because of its "collateral damage".
He says that a bomb killings many civilians is ethically worse than torturing a guy. Yet, the public tacitly accepts the former while
there's an outcry over the latter. He points out this discrepancy.

Read it from beginning to end as well as the response, quite interesting thoughts. Doesn't mean advocation of torture.

And one last thing: I wouldn't have expected an "award-winning" journalist such as hedges to be that disingenuous as to resort to quoting incompletely and out of context for a cheap ad hominem. Usually a hallmark of right-wingers, so I thought.

[CrawlingChaos]

34. in your own mind, maybe

But here in the real world, he has made a compelling argument backed up by copious evidence.

The larger quote you posted did not substantively change the nature of the comment.

Likewise, Sam Harris' feeble backpedaling in response to the outrage over his positions is hardly persuasive.

Here's another frothing piece of hate speech from Sam Harris, wherein he promotes racial profiling: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/bombing-our-illusions_b_8615.html

[Douglas Carpenter]

35. I'm sorry, but you are engaging in crass sophistry, Sam Harris said what he said

no amount of spin can change that. Writing an article which he chooses to title "In defense of torture" in which he justifies torture and then suggesting that he does not advocate torture is truly a stretch. Acknowledging that a nuclear first strike would be seen as genocidal after stating that it might be a necessity even if there might likely be no certainty about the state of readiness - is clearly advocating a possible possible nuclear first strike. Simply acknowledging that torture and nuclear first strike are problematic then going on to justify it, hardly changes the nature of what he advocates. No amount of expanded quotes alters one little bit the nature of his hate speech.

[ForeignSpectator]

41. You give imcomplete quotes out of context and you accuse ME of spinning?

Oh man. Everybody who wants can follow the posts and read it for themselves.

What's evident from your posts is that you didn't even read the article and his response critics.
Well, it's a long read after all.

[Turborama]

45. I followed them and the addition to the quote actually makes Douglas' argument even stronger....

...and anyone else who follows it can see how very much in context it was.

His excerpt...

"What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry?" Harris asks. "If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own." - Sam Harris from The End of Faith

Yours...

"If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade."

[trotsky]

48. Why didn't you bold this part:

Where Harris calls such a strike "an unconscionable act of self-defense"? What exactly in that phrase would say he endorses it?

[Turborama]

49. Can you read?

Just in case you need it all in bold to be able to get it...

Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade.

He's endorsing what would be an "unthinkable crime" and an "unconscionable act of self-defense" by saying "it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe".

Do you understand now?

[trotsky]

50. Can you?

"it may be" is not equal to "is".

I understand that Harris' thought experiments are difficult to follow and that many people confuse his meanderings with what he actually thinks.

[Turborama]

51. LOL, is that all you're left with?

In his hypothesis "he does advocate a possible nuclear first strike against the Arab and Islamic world", as Douglas stated upthread - where all this started. It must be very frustrating for him as none of his detractors have responded to the substantial and valid points he made http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=526277&mesg_id=526649">here and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=526277&mesg_id=526791">here.

It also shows how vapid your argument is when you're reduced to struggling to define the phrase 'may be'.

Trying to pass off what Harris proposes under the circumstances he outlined as a "thought experiment" to try and give yourself some cover is just more weak sauce.

Let's stop talking about what someone else thinks for a second. In such a situation, do you think it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe?

[trotsky]

53. When you refuse to actually read, yeah, it's all I have left.

Too bad.

[Turborama]

55. And now you've shown you've got nothing.

You're just embarrassing yourself.

[trotsky]

57. Nothing will counter your nothing, I agree. n/t

[Turborama]

62. Carry on embarrassing yourself.

The more you kick this thread the more chance others will get to see the spectacle.

[trotsky]

64. Oh we agree there's someone getting embarrassed alright. n/t

[Turborama]

68. And it sure ain't me.

Carry on.

[trotsky]

72. If that's what you need to believe!

:)

[cpwm17]

52. Some may call them thought experiments

others can call them fantasies. Either way, they obviously reflects what he actually thinks.

Harris is promoting the idea of a nuclear first strike against the Muslim World based on their beliefs. He can't be clearer about that. He is a supporter of the US's aggressive wars in the Middle East and southern Asia, and he is promoting the idea of taking it to the next level.

CrawlingChaos and Douglas Carpenter have made a great case.

[trotsky]

54. "they obviously reflects (sic) what he actually thinks"

Actually he says quite clearly that he finds it "unconscionable."

You don't like Sam Harris. Got it.

[Turborama]

56. Do you think it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe?

Even though it would be an "unthinkable crime" and an "unconscionable act of self-defense", like Sam Harris does?

[trotsky]

58. Why, am I required to have an opinion?

Have you enlisted in the thought police?

[Turborama]

59. Asking someone a question related to the topic of conversation means they're the thought police?

Why don't you just answer the question?

[trotsky]

60. You haven't told me why I should.

Or even why it's relevant. It's a desperation tactic on your part.

[Turborama]

63. You haven't asked me to, not that I should have to during a normal discussion.

And it's totally relevant because you are spending a lot of time and effort defending his stance, so it therefore begs the question whether you agree with it or not.

[trotsky]

65. I'm not defending his stance,

I'm pointing out that you have mischaracterized it.

Now I understand why you are so upset. You have a hard time disassociating people from the arguments they might make.

[Turborama]

69. Yes, you obviously are

And you're attempts at doing so are an epic failure.

And I'm not upset at all, It's been fun showing you the error of your ways. Even if it's not sinking in.

[trotsky]

73. Of course it's an "epic failure" because I'm not defending the strawman.

Your incredible frustration at being unable to actually present something resembling an argument is no reason to get upset at me.

[Turborama]

83. Invalid use of the strawman thing. Your refusal to answer a simple question is what's going on here

Simply put, the fact you refuse to answer it and are coming up with all this deflection instead tells me everything I need to know.

Hence, no frustration on my part. Just boredom with the tediousness of dealing with a "last-worder".

[trotsky]

86. From a strawman to a red herring.

You are certainly an endless supply of logical fallacies. You never once demonstrated why my opinion is even remotely relevant to discussing whether Sam Harris actually meant what certain individuals on this thread THINK he meant. And considering now you end up name-calling, I think you're done. Unless you have to get one last jab in, I suppose.

[Turborama]

88. Sam Harris wrote it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe.

Even though he also wrote it would be an "unthinkable crime" and an "unconscionable act of self-defense".

This is what he wrote in full, again...

"If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade."

Only he will be able to answer whether he meant what he wrote or not about why this "unthinkable crime" carried out as an "unconscionable act of self-defense... ...may be the only course of action available to us."

I have no difficulty saying that I don't agree with what he wrote about a nuclear first strike being "the only course of action available to us". The reason I don't agree is because, as he says, it would be an "unthinkable crime" and an "unconscionable act" to "kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day" based on what he thinks "Islamists believe".

Now, if you want to keep avoiding answering the simple question of whether you agree with what he wrote or not that's up to you. Anyone reading this will be able to determine why that would be.

I have stayed on topic throughout, therefore there have been no "strawmen", "red herrings" or "logical fallicies" from me. However, there have been multiple attempts of deflection from you (including those 3 accusations) to avoid answering that simple question.

Finally, the "name calling" began when I politely asked you for your stand on this and your only answer was to suggest I had "enlisted in the thought police".

I'll be the one who decides when I'm "done", thanks.

[trotsky]

89. You have done nothing but try and make this about me and/or my opinion.

Your opinion is also irrelevant.

This is about trying to determine what Sam Harris means. You've already made up your mind and do not care to analyze this anymore. I am able to understand what he's saying. We are thus at an impasse, and your attempts to make this personal by insinuating I hold a certain opinion are pathetic and sad. Oh you're done alright, you just need to get YOUR last word in.

[Turborama]

90. I have asked you whether you agree with him, correct. You have deflected & refused to answer.

The only impasse is that you refuse to answer a simple question about where you stand in regards to Harris' stated position. Your attempts to avoid answering it by insulting me have only resulted in you demeaning yourself.

My "opinion", along with a few others on this thread, is that he wrote what he wrote and it should be taken on face value.

Your "opinion" is that he didn't mean what he wrote. You haven't offered anything else. You have, however, consistently ignored what I have written and just used incorrect idioms in in an attempt to "win". You have offered no substantive arguments in your defense and have failed.

I already said only he will be able to definitively answer whether he meant what he wrote or not.

That is my last word on this. I have finished with you, responding any further is clearly a total waste of time.

As Harris himself wrote: "There is, in fact, no talking to some people."

[trotsky]

91. One's opinion on what Harris meant...

is separate from one's opinion on the hypothetical situation you are berating me for not answering. I am sorry you cannot see the difference, and that your inability to argue your point successfully has led to attempts to smear me, which I have smacked down as the petty personal attacks they are.

I will finish with a direct quote from Harris:

"...men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it."

Doesn't sound to me like Harris is advocating a nuclear strike AT ALL, especially when you *carefully* analyze *everything* Harris wrote and not just the snippets that Chris Hedges with his axe to grind likes to promote.

Glad to have wasted so much of your time, if for no other reason than to further demolish the attempts at misrepresenting and slandering Sam Harris. He's said plenty of stuff I think is stupid, but he did not say what you and others are insinuating.

Good day to you and peace.

[Turborama]

97. "but he did not say what you & others are insinuating" We are directly quoting him, ffs!

That's a prime example of you misrepresenting what we have been doing. He wrote what he wrote. Re-read upthread. All I have done is directly quote what he has written. Your denials that he wrote what he wrote did not "further demolish" any "attempts at misrepresenting and slandering Sam Harris" because there weren't any. You have just been denying the undeniable and defending the indefensible.

One's opinion on what Harris meant is separate from one's opinion on the hypothetical situation you are berating me for not answering.

Yes, this is true. However, I have not been "berating" you. You are now simply adding playing the victim to the previous deflections. What I have been saying is that your refusal to answer a simple question only leaves people to come to their own conclusions as to why that may be. You could have ended that and cleared up any misunderstandings that may have arisen by just answering it. If you want people to continue reading what they want into the fact you refused to answer, that's up to you.

I am sorry you cannot see the difference, and that your inability to argue your point successfully has led to attempts to smear me, which I have smacked down as the petty personal attacks they are.

I can see the difference. There have been 2 different conversations going on here. It's a shame you can't tell them apart. Your inability to understand my clearly written argument is your problem, not mine. The misrepresenting what Sam Harris wrote, an inability to argue your point successfully, smears and petty personal attacks? Don't make me laugh, that's all you've been doing against everyone who has been in contact with you throughout all of the subthreads. That's the definition of hypocrisy. Anyone who takes the time to read through them will be able to see how true that is.

I will not sit back and allow anyone to get away with accusing me of things I have not done, especially slander.

[trotsky]

101. So you CAN'T quit me.

I figured as much.

What I have been saying is that your refusal to answer a simple question only leaves people to come to their own conclusions as to why that may be.

And that is some dirty, lousy, personal attacking right there. You gave up trying to defend your position long ago and instead have escalated your attacks on me. That's a pity.

Now are you done yet? Or do you have a few more attacks to toss in because you can't let this go?

[Turborama]

103. Don't flatter yourself

As I said, I will not sit back and allow anyone to get away with accusing me of things I have not done, especially slander. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=526277&mesg_id=527077">Since our discourse began I have been defending myself from your misrepresentations and accusations.

Talking of which...

Your partial quote of what I said: "What I have been saying is that your refusal to answer a simple question only leaves people to come to their own conclusions as to why that may be."

Your response: "And that is some dirty, lousy, personal attacking right there. You gave up trying to defend your position long ago and instead have escalated your attacks on me. That's a pity."

Now, here is the full quote of what I said which puts it in context: "Yes, this is true. However, I have not been "berating" you. You are now simply adding playing the victim to the previous deflections. What I have been saying is that your refusal to answer a simple question only leaves people to come to their own conclusions as to why that may be. You could have ended that and cleared up any misunderstandings that may have arisen by just answering it. If you want people to continue reading what they want into the fact you refused to answer, that's up to you."

That wasn't an attack, it was an observation. You only have yourself to blame if you feel upset about the way things stand.

This is what a dirty, lousy, personal attack looks like: "http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=526277&mesg_id=528038">You have a lousy poker face. But I see you're infatuated with turds."

You: "You gave up trying to defend your position long ago and instead have escalated your attacks on me. That's a pity.

I had gone as far as I needed with explaining how Douglas' argument had been made even stronger by someone using an extension of the quote he used.

You: "Now are you done yet? Or do you have a few more attacks to toss in because you can't let this go?"

Your original attack on me about how you didn't like the way I used bold in a quote is where this all began.

Now read carefully, the only way I will let this contretemps "go" is if you stop accusing me of things I have not done and quit your misrepresentations, untrue accusations, faux victimhood and non sequiturs - see all your acts of deflection, misrepresentation and projection since the beginning of our exchange. (for a prime example of the inane projection I've had to deal with, look at what http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=526277&mesg_id=527114">your response was to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=526277&mesg_id=527094">all the content of post #51).

[trotsky]

104. I can't help it if the shoe fits you.

You are defending nothing but your attempt to pin a position on me that I do not hold, in order to impugn my character and neutralize my opinion - just as Chris Hedges did to Sam Harris.

I see that I will never get an acknowledgment of that, let alone an apology.

You have failed to justify your original statement and your frustration over that has led to your attacks on me.

Please respond again. I do enjoy your attention.

[Turborama]

105. What, am I supposed to apologize to you for asking you a question?

I see, I have to defend myself against your false accusations again do I? I was not trying to "pin a position" on you. I asked a simple question. You refuse to give an answer. Those are the facts. You continue with... "in order to impugn my character and neutralize my opinion." I have done no such thing, that's just more blatant projection and pathetic faux victimhood bordering on paranoia.

Just so I know exactly what you're accusing me of, what "original statement" of mine are you talking about?

I notice how you ignored everything I wrote in that post you're responding to. Must be because you can't justify your hypocrisy that I highlighted. Carry on with your false accusations and I will continue to defend myself.

[trotsky]

106. You've tried and tried to get me to play your game,

and I've refused, because I see it for the pathetic diversion it was. I can certainly understand why that frustrates you.

I notice how you ignored everything I wrote in that post you're responding to.

Well, that's what you've done to every one of my posts in this thread, so welcome to the club!

[Turborama]

107. No "game playing" involved at all.

I asked you a question because I was curious about whether you agreed or not with what Harris said. You have steadfastly refused to answer. That is your prerogative. However, because I asked you that question you've been flinging all manner of unfounded accusations against me. Unfounded accusations which I refuse to let you get away with.

Now, just so I know exactly what you're accusing me of, what "original statement" of mine are you talking about? I always stand by whatever I write so if you think I haven't been able to "justify" my "original statement" tell me exactly what you're referring to so I can address it.

You quoting me: "I notice how you ignored everything I wrote in that post you're responding to."

You: "that's what you've done to every one of my posts in this thread, so welcome to the club"

That is patently untrue. I have given lengthy responses to your false accusations, projection and rank hypocrisy, as anyone who follows this thread will be able to see.

[trotsky]

108. And your question is flawed on two counts:

1) Harris didn't say what you insist he did. His clarifying blog post makes it patently obvious.
2) So thus, not only is the hypothetical itself invalid, my opinion on it is irrelevant. A double-strike against you.

Now feel free to toss in another attack if you want.

On edit:

You know - I don't even care if you don't want to read Harris' full text. But AT THE VERY LEAST, carefully read his introduction to it:

Wherever they appear, Hedges’ comments seem calculated to leave the impression that I want the U.S. government to start killing Muslims by the millions. I will let the reader judge whether this award-winning journalist has represented my views fairly. Below I present the only passage I have ever written on the subject of preventative nuclear war and the only passage that Hedges could be referring to in my work (The End of Faith pp. 128-129). I have taken the liberty of emphasizing some of the words that Hedges chose to ignore:

Now if you can truly, honestly say that this introduction serves to REINFORCE your (and Hedges') opinion that Harris wants to nuke Muslims, then we are truly done because there is no fact that will penetrate your shield.

[Turborama]

109. This is a full exact quote of what Harris said and where the question is derived from...

"It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side."

Harris did say that, and yes I insist that he did. It is from his http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/">blog post, which makes it patently obvious.

This was my original question: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=526277&mesg_id=527094">In such a situation, do you think it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe?

Now, just so I know exactly what you're accusing me of, what "http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=526277&mesg_id=528115">original statement" of mine are you talking about? I always stand by whatever I write so if you think I haven't been able to "justify" my "original statement" tell me exactly what you're referring to so I can address it.

Let's see if you can make up an attack against you in this post.

[trotsky]

110. Please re-read what you responded to with the passage I quoted.

And tell me, if Harris is specifically addressing this claim by Hedges, and *specifically mentions that Hedges ignored certain words and phrases*, how he is doing anything else but saying that Hedges' mischaracterization of his position is wrong.

[Turborama]

111. I have never discussed Hedges' take on this with you or anyone else.

Therefore, just so you know for future correct usage if the terms, you are introducing a strawman argument as a red herring.

"Please re-read what you responded to with the passage I quoted." Link, please?

[trotsky]

112. Your opinon is Hedges' opinion.

That's where it came from. Chris Hedges, who for whatever reason, decided to launch a character assassination on Harris and decided to parse the section in question in a way to make it possible.

The link is the same one you just gave. Hedges' "response to controversy" post. I would have thought that as insistent you are that *I* read it, that you had actually done so.

[Turborama]

113. I honestly haven't read Hedges' opinion on this.

This thread is the first time I came across what Harris wrote, thanks to Douglas originally posting it upthread. I have since read the full quote I have posted for you, all the way through, including the part where he insults the holy texts of the major religions.

" All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. "

"The link is the same one you just gave. Hedges' "response to controversy" post. I would have thought that as insistent you are that *I* read it, that you had actually done so." - Incorrect, that link takes you to Harris' "http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/">Response to Controversy" posts on Harris' blog.


"Please re-read what you responded to with the passage I quoted." - This request didn't make any sense so that's why I asked for the link.

I actually thought you might have been finally referring to this request for you to clarify what you think my opinion is in a vague way... "Now, just so I know exactly what you're accusing me of, what "original statement" of mine are you talking about? I always stand by whatever I write so if you think I haven't been able to "justify" my "original statement" tell me exactly what you're referring to so I can address it."

[trotsky]

114. Fine then.

Read the passage I just quoted. It comes from the SAME "Response to Controversy" blog post that YOU are insisting that *I* need to read, and tell me - honestly - do you think Harris *agrees* with Hedges' opinion of what Harris meant (which happens to match your opinion exactly), or do you think Harris *disagrees*?

[Turborama]

115. I hadn't seen that you had added that quote on edit, hence the confusion.

"You know - I don't even care if you don't want to read Harris' full text. But AT THE VERY LEAST, carefully read his introduction to it"

As you now know, I was in the middle of posting the full text in response to these invalid accusations from you...

"1) Harris didn't say what you insist he did. His clarifying blog post makes it patently obvious.
2) So thus, not only is the hypothetical itself invalid, my opinion on it is irrelevant. A double-strike against you."

Wherever they appear, Hedges’ comments seem calculated to leave the impression that I want the U.S. government to start killing Muslims by the millions. I will let the reader judge whether this award-winning journalist has represented my views fairly. Below I present the only passage I have ever written on the subject of preventative nuclear war and the only passage that Hedges could be referring to in my work (The End of Faith pp. 128-129). I have taken the liberty of emphasizing some of the words that Hedges chose to ignore:

Now if you can truly, honestly say that this introduction serves to REINFORCE your (and Hedges') opinion that Harris wants to nuke Muslims, then we are truly done because there is no fact that will penetrate your shield.

I read his noncommittal introduction earlier. Does Harris actually deny that he wants "the U.S. government to start killing Muslims by the millions" when he created the opportunity for himself to do so, or does he leave it up to the reader to decide? Why didn't he just say, "I don't want the U.S. government to start killing Muslims by the millions" if that's what he means? He put in a lot of effort into defending his other positions but this one only got a vague introduction and some bold added to the text.


Hedges' "response to controversy" post. - No, again, it is Harris' "response to controversy" post.


YOU are insisting that *I* need to read,
I would have thought that as insistent you are that *I* read it - Where have I "insisted" you "need" to read the whole text? I just posted it. It's up to you whether you read it or not.


and tell me - honestly - do you think Harris *agrees* with Hedges' opinion of what Harris meant (which happens to match your opinion exactly), or do you think Harris *disagrees*? - See my reply above

[trotsky]

116. ...

Why didn't he just say, "I don't want the U.S. government to start killing Muslims by the millions" if that's what he means?

Because he didn't want to dignify such a ridiculous accusation with a direct response? I can certainly identify with being labeled and accused falsely on this very thread.

But please note - you did not answer my question. You may not think Harris was as direct as you'd like him to be, but do you think Harris *agrees* with the Hedges/Tuborama spin on his position or not? Yes or no. Very simple.

[Turborama]

117. "But please note - you did not answer my question." !ROTFLMAO!

Why didn't he just say, "I don't want the U.S. government to start killing Muslims by the millions" if that's what he means?

Because he didn't want to dignify such a ridiculous accusation with a direct response? I can certainly identify with being labeled and accused falsely on this very thread.

But please note - you did not answer my question. You may not think Harris was as direct as you'd like him to be, but do you think Harris *agrees* with the Hedges/Tuborama spin on his position or not? Yes or no. Very simple.

:rofl:

Oh poor trotsky, what have you been "labeled and accused falsely on this very thread" with? :shrug:


So, it's fine for you to constantly refuse answering my very simple question but you get all flustered when you didn't like my response to yours. Unlike you and Harris, I have no problem answering questions about this with direct answers. I just gave you my take on his introduction. Also, as I http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=526277&mesg_id=527085">already said ages ago, he's endorsing what would be an "unthinkable crime" and an "unconscionable act of self-defense" by saying "it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe".

[trotsky]

118. I understand why you won't answer the question.

You will only dodge and say Harris wasn't direct enough to satisfy you.

Needless to say, the fact that Harris even went out of his way to specifically create a "Response to Controversy" page on his blog should be enough of an answer for any reasonable, thinking person to accept.

[Turborama]

119. I did answer it.

You might not like the answer, but it was an answer.

[trotsky]

121. More games from you - it's how I know you've lost again.

Why did he even bother putting up a page to address the controversy, then? If what Hedges (and you) believe he said is true, why not just let that sit out there on the web? Why comment on it at all?

No, Sam Harris has made the same mistake John Kerry did in the 2004 election with the Swiftboaters. Kerry only half-heartedly shot down their claims, thinking that would be enough to dispel the ridiculous charges. He seriously miscalculated, as did Harris, the tenacity with which certain individuals will cling to lies they desperately want to believe.

[Turborama]

122. You're only dodging & saying I wasn't direct enough to satisfy you when I have made myself clear

I have answered your question and made my position clear. You are still refusing to answer mine and are leaving your position up in the air.

More games from you - it's how I know you've lost again.

Another misrepresentation of what I have posted. You think I have 'lost' because I have answered the question but not in the way you want me to? I think you must have been schooled enough to know what the word hypocrisy means by now. Do you know the meaning of the word irony?

You said:

Needless to say, the fact that Harris even went out of his way to specifically create a "Response to Controversy" page on his blog should be enough of an answer for any reasonable, thinking person to accept.

So, you're satisfied by the simple fact he created a page called ""Response to Controversy"? It could have said...

FUCK OFF HEDGES

...and that would have been answer enough for you?

Unlike Kerry in the long gone 2004 election, the blog post your poor Mr. Harris has created is a living document which he could update with a straightforward/unequivocal/unambiguous answer to his critics. He has obviously decided not to. Only he knows the reason for this continued vagueness.

[trotsky]

123. LMAO

That's what you said about Harris! That he wasn't direct enough to satisfy you! :rofl:

Nice consistency! :rofl:

[Turborama]

124. You're accusing me of not being direct enough to satisfy you. Where's your answer to my question?

Nice hypocrisy! :rofl:

[trotsky]

126. Once again, YOUR secondary question was a red herring.

It was a trick, a trap, to get me to admit that Harris really said he wanted to nuke Muslims. By answering the question, I'd lend credibility to your false accusation.

Harris never said he wanted to nuke Muslims.

Neither have I.

[Turborama]

128. Harris: "it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe"

It was a trick, a trap, to get me to admit that Harris really said he wanted to nuke Muslims. By answering the question, I'd lend credibility to your false accusation.

Can you read my mind? No, is the answer you are looking for. You are wrong. There have been no "tricks" or "traps" to get you to admit anything other than whether you agree with Harris or not.

On edit because I missed it the 1st time: What "false accusations" have I made? (I don't know why I bother asking, as you'll just ignore me calling you out on your false allegations, again).


My question to you, do you think "it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe"?

No "trick" or "trap" there, just simply asking whether you agree with Harris or not.

Harris never said he wanted to nuke Muslims himself, he can't because thankfully he doesn't own any ICBMs. He said "it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe".

That is an INDISPUTABLE FACT.

You REFUSING to answer my question and me WILLINGLY answering yours are other INDISPUTABLE FACTS.

[trotsky]

130. Still unproven, by both you and Chris Hedges.

You ignore EVERYTHING ELSE and your entire argument relies on one out-of-context sentence.

You lose.

Now please get your precious last word in so that you can get on with your life.

[Turborama]

125. Harris has not denied that he wants "the U.S. government to start killing Muslims by the millions"

Haven't I made my position clear enough already? Not satisfied? Want me to clarify it some more for you? Show me the vagueness and I'll give you some clarity.

[trotsky]

127. Why did he put up a page to address the controversy, then?

I'm beginning to think it was just to frustrate and taunt small minds.

[Turborama]

129. He put up a page to address "controversies". He answered at length and in detail the other positions

Anyone can look at it and see that the biggest question of all, does he want "the U.S. government to start killing Muslims by the millions"? was left up to the readers to decide the answer to: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/

Again...

I read his noncommittal introduction earlier. Does Harris actually deny that he wants "the U.S. government to start killing Muslims by the millions" when he created the opportunity for himself to do so, or does he leave it up to the reader to decide? Why didn't he just say, "I don't want the U.S. government to start killing Muslims by the millions" if that's what he means? He put in a lot of effort into defending his other positions but this one only got a vague introduction and some bold added to the text.

[trotsky]

131. Still unproven, by both you and Chris Hedges.

You ignore EVERYTHING ELSE and your entire argument relies on one out-of-context sentence.

You lose.

Now please get your precious last word in so that you can get on with your life.

[Turborama]

132. No, my entire argument relies on the full text of what he wrote.

That's why I posted it. I'm not the one who's hiding anything.

You have been making so much shit up about what I've been posting and avoided answering multiple questions about it, and whether you agree with Harris or not, that you lost a very long time ago. The reason I have kept on this thread for so long after you lost is to keep coming back to answer and expose all the false allegations and misrepresentations you've made against me.

I will keep coming back until you stop making up shit.

[cpwm17]

61. We're going in circles on this

Your argument has already been defeated. Harris has said what he said, and it's clear what he means.

You can pick out a few words (or an irrelevant typo) and ignore the rest to support your position, but many of us can see the forest for the trees.

[trotsky]

66. Except Harris says that you are both wrong.

You don't care, however. You think you know, and you've decided you despise him, and nothing - no amount of clarification even from Harris himself is going to change your opinion. You've made up your mind, there's no confusing you with facts anymore.

[Douglas Carpenter]

67. Sam Harris is pro-torture and he does advocate a possible nuclear first strike against the Islamic

world. His clarification only confirms that this is his position even though he claims to not like it and considers it an "unconscionable act of self-defense" but still adds "it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe". To argue that this is not his position is to refuse to comprehend what he is actually saying and to refuse to understand his "clarification".

I doubt that any of us would have any major problem with Sam Harris if his positions were not so extreme and so bigoted. Richard Dawkins is also considered one of the "new atheist". But I don't have any particular problem with him even if I might disagree with him on some major philosophic points. For one thing Professor Dawkins does not promote blind hatred and bigotry like Sam Harris. And for another thing Dr. Dawkins does not advocate torture like Sam Harris, nor does he a argue for a possible nuclear first strike like Sam Harris does.

[CrawlingChaos]

70. Unfortunately I have concerns about Dawkins also

While Dawkins has not gone as far as Harris, he has been regularly featuring the videos of the horrendous anti-Muslim crusader Pat Condell on his website, and in response to requests that he remove the videos, Dawkins wrote:

"I think it is well arguable that Islam is the greatest man-made force for evil in the world today. Pat Condell is one of the few with the courage to say so."

Details here: http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2010/6/6/richard-dawkins-reproduces-pat-condells-ground-zero-mosque-r.html

Furthermore, Dawkins has a close association with Harris and his ilk, yet as far as I know he has made no move to denounce their hateful rhetoric, and if anything, seems more and more willing to engage in it himself. He recently caused a good deal of offense in Britain for referring to the burka as a garbage bag.

Here's another disturbing comment from Dawkins found in this article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7085129.ece

“There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.”

[cpwm17]

78. I've never heard him say anything like that

though I shouldn't be too surprised. If he supports Pat Condell then I've lost respect for him.

There is an almost unlistenable long discussion on YouTube called "The Four Horsemen: Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens". Harris and Hitchens did go into their crazy crusading talk. Dawkins seemed uncomfortable, but he didn't disagree.

Dawkins does seem totally oblivious to the source of much of the terrorism in the World. Our problem with terrorism comes from our oppressive foreign policy. We drop more bombs on Muslims on the average day than Muslim terrorists probably have ever targeted against Americans. We support dictators and oppressive governments. We start and enter wars based on lies. Terrorism is blow back. It has little to do with Islam. The terrorists have been clear about their motivation.

It's strange how so many people have selective amnesia when it comes to our love of war. When the Cold War ended, we immediately started a war against Iraq based on lies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmfVs3WaE9Y&feature=related

That girl is lying. No Iraqi soldiers threw any babies out of any incubators in 1990. Anyone old enough should remember this. Some congressmen helped create this lie, and George Bush played along. This is how they sold that war. Blow back from that partially led to 9-11. Now there are millions of dead and homeless Iraqis, and many still blame the Muslims for being so violent.

[trotsky]

71. Jebus.

Doesn't matter what the guy himself says, you've already made up your mind.

[Douglas Carpenter]

74. Those are Sam Harris' words not mine

I made up my mind based on what he said including what he said in his so called clarification. I don't see any point in putting words in his mouth. He is very clear to those who actually read what he says. To claim that he is not an apologist for torture and for a possible nuclear first strike is either delusional or disingenuous or at the very least, emotional and irrational. Because Sam Harris makes it absolutely clear both in his original statements and this so-called clarification that he believes that torture is necessary and that a possible nuclear first strike might be a necessity. These are his words not mine.

There really is no point in denying it or engaging in self-deception. Anyone can read his words and see for themselves. I would hope they do.

[trotsky]

75. Doesn't matter what someone says,

YOU know what they REALLY mean. Must be awesome having mind-reading skills like that. Those magic powers apparently also come with a helping heaping of judgmentalism.

[Douglas Carpenter]

76. no mind reading - just reading Sam Harris' own words. He is absolutely clear.

If one doesn't want to believe that Sam Harris believes what he states very clearly...I don't know what to say.

[trotsky]

77. Harris re: nuclear option: "I have just described a plausible scenario..."

Yup. He's clear, alright. It's just that some people are incapable of understanding what he's actually saying.

Harris re: torture: "I think that torture should remain illegal"

Pretty clear there, too. But no, you know far better than to believe what he actually wrote and instead have decided to create a monster of your own design.

[Douglas Carpenter]

79. I would suggest that people read his entire articles if they want to know what he believes

In defense of torture:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html

and his follow-up statement on torture from his own website:

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2


and his statement about a possible nuclear first strike:

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2

and to remember what he has clearly stated in his own book:

"The link between belief and behaviour raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas. (The End of Faith, p52-53.)"

"What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry?" Harris asks. "If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade."

- Sam Harris from The End of Faith

[trotsky]

80. I gave you direct quotes pertinent to the claims you've made...

and you ignored them.

But I agree, people should read WHAT HARRIS ACTUALLY WROTE and certainly not your interpretation of it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

81. out of context quotes .. people should read what he actually said if they really want to know

[trotsky]

82. Yes, your entire position is based on out of context quotes.

I agree.

[Douglas Carpenter]

84. whatever....believe what you want to believe

:banghead:

[Turborama]

85. Thanks for the links, Douglas.

"There is, in fact, no talking to some people."

Ironically, he could have been talking about his own fans, it seems.

[trotsky]

92. For the record, I am not a "fan" of Sam Harris.

Please do not make false accusations.

[Turborama]

98. I didn't name any names in my reply to Douglas

You are reading what you want into what I wrote.

Please stop dumping turds in the punchbowl.

[trotsky]

100. You have a lousy poker face.

But I see you're infatuated with turds.

[trotsky]

38. Aw, what's a little thing like context when you have people to bash?

Darn you! ;-)

[cpwm17]

39. The context is clear - bigotry

So what if Harris (along with Hitchens and Bill Maher) promotes aggressive wars against scary Muslims that he knows nothing about. It's all in the context.

[trotsky]

40. Harris called a nuclear first strike an "unconscionable act."

That's promoting an aggressive war?

[ForeignSpectator]

42. Thank you! You actually bothered "reading"

;) :hi:

[trotsky]

46. It's sad that the same progressives who decry...

the average voter's willingness to swallow lies they WANT to hear about someone (or something) they don't like, will do the exact same thing and to top it off, ATTACK those who try and point out that's what they're doing.

[cpwm17]

44. He does promote aggressive war

See my entry #27 concerning Harris' support for aggressive wars. Well, here it is again:


"The link between belief and behaviour raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas. (The End of Faith, p52-53.)"


Harris is a warmongering neocon. He uses his belief on religion to rationalize it.

Harris promotes wars against Muslims for their beliefs. Of course Harris gets to define which beliefs are dangerous and require the death penalty. In reality, it is Harris' beliefs that are dangerous. The Muslim World is suffering greatly right now from warmongering Westerners like Harris. As I said before, he's a holy warrior.

[trotsky]

47. What Harris describes is what the US was trying to do with Hitler in WW2.

Was that wrong and dangerous?

What the Muslim world actually suffers from is the US supporting dictators and royal families instead of promoting equality, freedom, and democracy.

[cpwm17]

87. Let's fear the Muslim Blitzkrieg

Yes, we must fear a massive military power that scapegoats a religious group. Yes, that sure sounds like what them scary Muslims are up to - they're Hitler.

Come on now - you didn't learn anything from WWII. We are the aggressive military power. Muslims are the convenient scapegoats. Harris is pushing this dangerous propaganda in support of our military's mission:


"The link between belief and behaviour raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas. (The End of Faith, p52-53.)"

[trotsky]

93. Nope, not saying that at all.

But thanks for missing the point and instead attacking a strawman. Good luck to you.

[cpwm17]

94. My point is obvious

- at least to me. I was making fun of your anti-Muslim hysteria (or at least Harris' anti-Muslim hysteria that you are defending).

So often war proponents unearth Hitler to promote aggressive wars. Please don't fabricate a threat from Muslims that doesn't exist. Hitler liked aggressive wars, but we shouldn't.

[Turborama]

95. They always have to have the last word

I carried out an experiment and put them ignore to see what this thread would look like. The results were not surprising, 'ignored' is sitting at the end of every subthread below "Deleted message" at post #19.

On an ironic side note, that "Deleted message" was their's, too.

Welcome to DU, BTW. It's good to have you around. :hi:

[trotsky]

96. Obvious but irrelevant.

I'm not interested in your strawmen.

[Turborama]

43. BTW, the content of the post above is something Douglas wrote

It's interesting that you didn't respond to any of it.

[Turborama]

36. Very well said, Douglas! You should post that as an OP. n/t

[Charleston Chew]

26. Laugh Out Loud!

impressive collection... to say the least

[DeSwiss]

120. BS n/t

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[herbm]

133. Sam is full of it. The Torah and the Bible make martyrs into saints, and read Leviticus

Death for eating the wrong food, death for working the wrong day, death for not honoring parents, death for adultry, death for fornication. Sam, we christians and Jews are what Islam calls people of the book. Thier book is as edited and rewritten and misinterpetted as is our our own.

How many times did a "Thou shalt not kill" Yaweh get his words twisted into a "kill all those people who were in Canaan and Israel first"? Or kill all the uncircumsized?