• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Sam Harris says it like it is

And you have said some pretty nasty things about Christians, which if the same things were said about Moslems you would be on your high horse condemning as bigotry. It's called a double standard.

Big QFT!

I practically fell out of my chair when I read his claim of being against all bigotry, even against religious people.
 
Last edited:
That's not even remotely what I'm saying. I am not saying that appeasement categorically is a good thing. I am merely saying that there are plusses and minuses to both sets of actions, and that you need to weigh them carefully and judge them accordingly. As I have said a few times, I am somewhat agnostic as to whether appeasement (and what kind of appeasement) is a good thing or a bad thing in this situation. I merely think that Harris and Fitna lack rigor, and lack of rigor is the root of all evil.

Thank you for that excruciatingly good example of what appeasement is all about. Have you ever considered submitting it to Wikipedia?
 
A point of comparison: The controversy of over Fitna was immediately followed by ubiquitous media coverage of a scandal involving the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). In Texas, police raided an FLDS compound and took hundreds of women and underage girls into custody to spare them the continued, sacramental predations of their menfolk. While mainstream Mormonism is now granted the deference accorded to all major religions in the United States, its fundamentalist branch, with its commitment to polygamy, spousal abuse, forced marriage, child brides (and, therefore, child rape) is often portrayed in the press as a depraved cult. But one could easily argue that Islam, considered both in the aggregate and in terms of its most negative instances, is far more despicable than fundamentalist Mormonism. The Muslim world can match the FLDS sin for sin--Muslims commonly practice polygamy, forced-marriage (often between underage girls and older men), and wife-beating--but add to these indiscretions the surpassing evils of honor killing, female "circumcision," widespread support for terrorism, a pornographic fascination with videos showing the butchery of infidels and apostates, a vibrant form of anti-semitism that is explicitly genocidal in its aspirations, and an aptitude for producing children's books and television programs which exalt suicide-bombing and depict Jews as "apes and pigs."

:confused: It's quite OK to separate FLDS from Mormonism, but Islam is not to be treated the same, they all pay for the excesses of the extremists.

As for a fascination with goreography, what's that I see on our cinemas and TV?
 
:confused: It's quite OK to separate FLDS from Mormonism, but Islam is not to be treated the same, they all pay for the excesses of the extremists.

In this context, where do you find that the treatment of women, and the abuse that you seldom hear of except from a few brave people who risk their lives, within Islamic culture, is a matter of "extremists"?

Please answer without apologizing for the silent majority.
 
:confused: It's quite OK to separate FLDS from Mormonism, but Islam is not to be treated the same, they all pay for the excesses of the extremists.

As for a fascination with goreography, what's that I see on our cinemas and TV?
As an atheist Mormon I'm more than happy to lay much of the blame of the FLDS at the feet of historical Mormonism. Still it would be dishonest not to admit that the Mormon Church excommunicates those who practice polygamy and that church members take a dim view of the practice.

If Islam was largely intolerant of the hatemongers and fringe element then I would happily acknowledge that fact. I just don't see Muslims speaking out in favor of women's rights and gay rights with but very, very few exceptions. In fact I can only think of one at the moment but I'm sure that there are a handful of others. And you can be sure that those who do will very likely have legitimate death threats issued against them.
 
Last edited:
I finally read the article. I liked it and agree with Harris.

JoeEllison - I was disappointed in your reaction and comments.

There are more Abrahamic religions that you seem to be aware of. At least one of these contradicts your point.

I don't think that Islam is different in kind from other religions that you're discussing, but it sure is up there on the degree side.

I wish you could reread the article without your apparent bias against Harris distracting you. I think you're reacting to things that are in your head rather than in the article.
 
Last edited:
Generally speaking, I've heard massive amounts of criticism of Islam, and have added some of my own. It seems idiotic to me, in the face of the piles of valid criticism out there, plus the mountains of less than valid criticism, to claim that part of the problem is that no one dares criticize Islam. :rolleyes:

Sorry, but I need to see evidence of the bolded part.
 
Thank you for that excruciatingly good example of what appeasement is all about. Have you ever considered submitting it to Wikipedia?

If appeasement means not looking at conflicts in black and white terms and weighing the positive and negative reactions of various courses of actions, then I'm somewhat baffled as to why appeasement has a bad rap. Appeasement is bad if and only if the costs exceed the benefits. In many situations they do, but nothing is black and white, not even good versus evil.
 
Appeasement is what you do if you think that one thing is much worse than another and don't have the conviction to make the distinction, and instead move the parameters to make yourself look reasonable.

Eventually you will run out of room to move anything, but by then you won't know the difference anyway.
 

Back
Top Bottom