Sam Harris on "Islamophobia"
- Thread starter Humes fork
- Start date
-
- Tags
- islamophobia sam harris
Correction.
The comment. "Let's remember, those are just the Muslims prepared to own up to their views IN PUBLIC POLLS. The actual figures of British Muslims supporting 9/11 and 7/7 might be even higher." Was not made by Dawkins.
It was a response to Richard from another user. It goes like this.
"Let's remember, those are just the Muslims prepared to own up to their views IN PUBLIC POLLS. The actual figures of British Muslims supporting 9/11 and 7/7 might be even higher.
As for what the figures are: Even back in 2004, 13% of British Muslims explicitly supported "further attacks by Al Qaeda or a similar organization". An additional 13% "didn't know", and an additional 2% refused to answer.
Using present figures, 13% of British Muslims means around 260,000 people at least. So, under the best of circumstances, we have 260,000 people walking around in the UK, who support terrorist attacks on innocent civilians."
The comment. "Let's remember, those are just the Muslims prepared to own up to their views IN PUBLIC POLLS. The actual figures of British Muslims supporting 9/11 and 7/7 might be even higher." Was not made by Dawkins.
It was a response to Richard from another user. It goes like this.
"Let's remember, those are just the Muslims prepared to own up to their views IN PUBLIC POLLS. The actual figures of British Muslims supporting 9/11 and 7/7 might be even higher.
As for what the figures are: Even back in 2004, 13% of British Muslims explicitly supported "further attacks by Al Qaeda or a similar organization". An additional 13% "didn't know", and an additional 2% refused to answer.
Using present figures, 13% of British Muslims means around 260,000 people at least. So, under the best of circumstances, we have 260,000 people walking around in the UK, who support terrorist attacks on innocent civilians."
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Octavo
Illuminator
Well, at least with Dawkins you are dealing with a reasonable, intelligent guy...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-399352/Almost-quarter-Muslims-believe-7-7-justified.html
http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ls-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Innocent?
In 2003 the UK Labour government gave full military support to the US's illegal 'Shock and Awe' invasion of Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of up to 1 million civilians (mostly Muslims). In 2005 the British Labour Party was reelected with 35% of the popular vote.
Using present figures, 35% of British voters means around 14,000,000 people at least. So, under the best of circumstances, we have 14,000,000 people walking around in the UK, who support terrorist attacks on innocent civilians.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
A'isha
Any reasonable argument can be transformed into a foolish one by exaggerating what it asserts and portrayng its advocates as incapable of controlling their bodily functions. If the original argument actually was so unreasonable, then you wouldn't have needed to exert yourself crafting a silly parody of it to rebut.
Not an isolated lapse, either.
But the issue in this thread, based upon the comments of Dr Harris, is whether some specified ideas pose a threat to civil society. It suffices for the truth of Dr Harris' report that the ideas manage to find a congenial home in some heads and inpire in those heads observable uncivil behavior. If so, then one expected consequence would be that some ohers modify their behavior in order to mitigate a rationally perceived threat to themselves or their families.
Any reasonable argument can be transformed into a foolish one by exaggerating what it asserts and portrayng its advocates as incapable of controlling their bodily functions. If the original argument actually was so unreasonable, then you wouldn't have needed to exert yourself crafting a silly parody of it to rebut.
Not an isolated lapse, either.
I would ask whom are you quoting, but that's where I came in. I've seen the show. Thanks for your time.
Octavo
Illuminator
I suspect she is playing on the old "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" claim that fundamentalists tend to use, implying that the posters faith in Richard Dawkins is comparable to the faith of biblical literalists. A rather unfair attack, I'd say.
My point is that it is not the existence of these ideas in holy texts (for equally deplorable ideas exist in other texts) that poses any threat, but the occurrence of behaviour inspired by these texts. My observation of local practices of Muslims here indicates to me that they no more pay practical attention to hadiths about marrying nine year olds and killing heretics that Jews here pay to Talmudic allusions to marrying three year old widows by coition, or killing heretics. I would no more say to Muslims that they're not "real" Muslims because they don't do these horrible things than I would say the same to Jews.
At present there is a war going on between the USA and its allies, and various forces in the Muslim world, many legitimately concerned about real events. Others mad and cruel. On both sides insane dervish-like maniacs have appeared spouting exaggerated views, and demanding the annihilation or total subjugation of their enemies. It is this that is to be resisted. The Muslim citizens of western countries should not be made into targets in this war, as - vastly more harshly, of course - European Jews were demonised and persecuted during the Crusades.
The point is there is a war going on within Islam that is part of a long narrative.
It is for the soul of Islam and it is between modernity and conservatism. It was inevitable that it would come onto conflict not only with the 'West' but with the rest of the non Muslim world.
That you know, as I do, many 'local' Muslims who do not feel the need to act out the more violent exhortations is neither here nor there. You are extrapolating personal experience to characterize a whole group of people.
It is in effect saying, 'There is nothing to see here , move along ''.
It is for the soul of Islam and it is between modernity and conservatism. It was inevitable that it would come onto conflict not only with the 'West' but with the rest of the non Muslim world.
That you know, as I do, many 'local' Muslims who do not feel the need to act out the more violent exhortations is neither here nor there. You are extrapolating personal experience to characterize a whole group of people.
It is in effect saying, 'There is nothing to see here , move along ''.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
Craig B
Perhaps you and I understand threat differently. Threat, as far as I know, refers to the seriously possible occurrence of future destructive behavior. The actual occurrence of causally related destructive behavior is the realizaton of a threat when it occurs, and becomes experience afterwards, a basis upon which one may assess the gravity of the threat for consideration in future decision making.
Example The idea in the Old Testament that appears to counsel that Jews should kill gay Jews is deplorable. At the present time, I assess the threat from observant Jews to a Jewish lesbian friend of mine as failing to meet the threshhold of a serious possibility of realization, consistent with my (lack of) experience of the threat's enactment by living Jews.
On the other hand, the idea poses a threat. It has, from time to time during my life span, found a congenial home in the minds of some Gentiles, and has been realized, with fatal consequences. Now, a full threat analysis includes many factors, and I do not greatly fear for my friend's life from this quarter. Nevertheless, if I were asked, then I would advise her not to display overt affection for her spouse when walking through certain neighborhoods.
In a civil society, as I understand and use the term, any married couple may show moderate affection for each other when in public, without fear of mayhem. The idea in question infringes on this. The idea, then, poses a special threat to civil society, as I understand the terms used. ("Special" means specific to the idea, in this case because the idea counsels a course of beahvior, and despite being overtly directed to an audience largely uninterested in implementing the idea.) Fortunately, the gravity of the threat is small (in my estimation), based on where my friend lives, works and ordinarily visits - all factors unrelated to the content of the idea itself.
Questions Am I fairly described as antisemitic because I profess in public that one or more ideas in the Jewish Bible pose a special threat to civil society?
Suppose I were now accused of antisemitism for what I said in the example. Suppose I replied, after first making remarks showing my awareness that Jews have been discriminated against for being Jews, "There is no antisemitism." Would it be more reasonable to say that I contradicted myself, or that the scope of my statement was solely in reference to my earlier remarks, which I am now defending against what I believe to be an undeserved criticism?
I missed the part where Dr Harris denied that equally deplorable ideas exist elsewhere.
Perhaps you and I understand threat differently. Threat, as far as I know, refers to the seriously possible occurrence of future destructive behavior. The actual occurrence of causally related destructive behavior is the realizaton of a threat when it occurs, and becomes experience afterwards, a basis upon which one may assess the gravity of the threat for consideration in future decision making.
Example The idea in the Old Testament that appears to counsel that Jews should kill gay Jews is deplorable. At the present time, I assess the threat from observant Jews to a Jewish lesbian friend of mine as failing to meet the threshhold of a serious possibility of realization, consistent with my (lack of) experience of the threat's enactment by living Jews.
On the other hand, the idea poses a threat. It has, from time to time during my life span, found a congenial home in the minds of some Gentiles, and has been realized, with fatal consequences. Now, a full threat analysis includes many factors, and I do not greatly fear for my friend's life from this quarter. Nevertheless, if I were asked, then I would advise her not to display overt affection for her spouse when walking through certain neighborhoods.
In a civil society, as I understand and use the term, any married couple may show moderate affection for each other when in public, without fear of mayhem. The idea in question infringes on this. The idea, then, poses a special threat to civil society, as I understand the terms used. ("Special" means specific to the idea, in this case because the idea counsels a course of beahvior, and despite being overtly directed to an audience largely uninterested in implementing the idea.) Fortunately, the gravity of the threat is small (in my estimation), based on where my friend lives, works and ordinarily visits - all factors unrelated to the content of the idea itself.
Questions Am I fairly described as antisemitic because I profess in public that one or more ideas in the Jewish Bible pose a special threat to civil society?
Suppose I were now accused of antisemitism for what I said in the example. Suppose I replied, after first making remarks showing my awareness that Jews have been discriminated against for being Jews, "There is no antisemitism." Would it be more reasonable to say that I contradicted myself, or that the scope of my statement was solely in reference to my earlier remarks, which I am now defending against what I believe to be an undeserved criticism?
Rightly so, and you don't go round telling your lesbian friend's co-religionists that in sparing her life they are revealing themselves as not real Jews, an idea suggested from time to time in these threads. If you did, by the way, these Jews might well respond that
let alone that such women must be put to death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Judaism
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Skepticism about Dawkins' claims is pretty much a requirement.
Not to mention the fact that even ex-Muslim atheists living in countries with the death penalty for blasphemy have called out Dawkins for his support of that bigoted **** Condell.
I've had New Atheists quote Richard Dawkins' every word, deed, and even tweet at me as if they were unquestioned holy scripture (particularly here at JREF) far, far more than evangelical Christians have ever quoted the Bible at me or tried to tell me about Jesus.
And I live in Alabama.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
Craig B
Oddly enough, I have discussed the absence of a direct reference to lesbians in Torah. As my example here showed, however, what actual threat to my friend is posed by the idea comes not through Jewish readers, but Christian ones. It may be a bad interaction between Torah and a famous (no doubt vestigial) Christian principle of righteous living, "Kill them all, and let God sort them out."
I can't remember an observant Jew ever asking for my personal assessment of whether they were doing Jewishness right. Just as well, I am not Jewish, and not observant anything else, so I'd probably be the worng person to ask. On the other hand, I can read. I have exchanged views about the Jewish scriptures with Jews. I guess it's that ideas vs. people thing again.
Oddly enough, I have discussed the absence of a direct reference to lesbians in Torah. As my example here showed, however, what actual threat to my friend is posed by the idea comes not through Jewish readers, but Christian ones. It may be a bad interaction between Torah and a famous (no doubt vestigial) Christian principle of righteous living, "Kill them all, and let God sort them out."
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Fortunately, even most of the die-hard atheists stopped promoting Condell once he threw his support behind the racist/fascist UKIP. Dawkins and his acolytes are the only ones still pretending that Condell is a paragon of reason.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Some do it therefore all do it, painting with that broad brush again I see. Why is it OK for you to bash all New Atheists for what Dawkins says yet it's Islamophobia to bash all Muslims for what some Imams say?