Sam Harris says it like it is

[Tony]

Yep. He's been right on some things too... although even a broken clock is right twice a day. I think his bigotry and defense of bigotry as a sign of "toughness" is seriously wrong-headed.

The only ones defending bigotry is you and your anti-liberal ilk.

 

[RandFan]

Maybe I'm just disturbed by the tone of Harris's article, which strikes me as identical to that of the fundamentalist Christians who want to match bigotry with bigotry, extremism with extremism, in order to "win the war of cultures."

I'm not sure how.

I don't see Islam to be fundamentally more or less violent than any of the other Abrahamic religions.

Fortunatly Harris is an equal opportunity offender.

I don't see the usefulness of blaming the world's billion or so Muslims for the incredibly tiny amount of terrorism that exists in the world, or ignoring the cultural, political, and economic situations in favor of calling Islam a "terrorist theology".

What is behind the cultural, political and economic situations? Could religion have any bearing?

And, of course, there is the pathetic hypocrisy of Americans who complain about violence from any group.

So, no Americans are ever supposed to speak out against violence? What if of those who speak out against ALL violence? What of those who have consistently spoken out against American's violence? I think there is something specious in your logic.

 

[Wowbagger]

Maybe I'm just disturbed by the tone of Harris's article, which strikes me as identical to that of the fundamentalist Christians who want to match bigotry with bigotry, extremism with extremism, in order to "win the war of cultures."

Give an example of where Sam Harris is being a bigot, in that article.

Give me an example where he is proposing extreme measures, similar to those of fundamentalist Christians.

His tone seems more anti-murderous-intent, than anti-religious. He thinks moderates should do more to condemn the evils of extremists, but do you disagree with that?

I don't see Islam to be fundamentally more or less violent than any of the other Abrahamic religions.

Historically, you would be right. Except, in this century, it seems Islam has the biggest problem with extremeists.

I don't see the usefulness of blaming the world's billion or so Muslims for the incredibly tiny amount of terrorism that exists in the world,

Where does he make such blames? Maybe I missed that part.

or ignoring the cultural, political, and economic situations

Where does he ignore those things?

in favor of calling Islam a "terrorist theology".

So, "Die if you blaspheme Allah!!" is not indicitive of "terrorist theology"?

And, of course, there is the pathetic hypocrisy of Americans who complain about violence from any group.

So, I suppose Americans should never complain about violence, ever again. Is that your solution?

Maybe if Sam Harris didn't come off sounding like a snot-head, maybe more people would understand what he is actually trying to say, in this article. But, that is merely a criticism of his writing style, NOT its factual content or its overall message.

 

[Finnegan]

I shall butt in and bite.

I've distrusted Sam Harris since I read this:

The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I shall butt in and bite.

I've distrusted Sam Harris since I read this:

Uh, what is wrong about that other than its rather obvious alarmist tone in the last sentence. (Oooh, noooooooos, world coming to an end . . .)

Sam Harris is an anti-theist. He is big on liberalism as a good idea, in general, and it bugs him that a facet of theism, which in this case is a subset of Islamic theism, has as its primary opponents fascists and nationalists. He must thus get into bed with fascists and nationalists, as he sees it, in order to oppose Islamism. This does not please him.

At least he's consistent, after a fashion, since he likewise is anti-theistic when it comes to Christianity, and he has gone to some pains to explain why, and why some forms of Christianity are seen by him to be dangerous to the future of a society founded on the principles of liberalism. (Classical and modern, it seems.)

Distrust him? I am not a Sam Harris fan, but he's being honest. Sure, he's tossing in a bit of hyperbole. One can't be heard anymore without doing so, it seems.

However, I will grind an axe with Harris here:

Islam, as it is currently understood and practiced by vast numbers of the world's Muslims, is antithetical to civil society

Uh, no.

Islamic society is quite civil, consistent and structured in its own way. Indeed, one of the reasons Islam spread so quickly when it did was it's rational implementation of structure and coherence to a base patriarchical society. We frequently hear of Scholars of the medeival world, scholars in Damascus, Toledo, Cordoba, and so on. Well, all thanks to Al Gebra considered, that was an ordered, civil society in which wise men, scholars, and philosophers flourished. For another civil society example, my experiences in Japan revealed a structured, civil, and patriarchical social model underscored by nationalism and casual racism. The Japanese are still very much the practicers of a civil society.

Harris is playing a bit of bait and switch here, I think.

To him, civil society is a society based on Western Liberalism and post Enlightenment Western thought, mores, and norms. To presume that any other society cannot be civil strikes me as a bit arrogant, and even myopic.

Maybe he meant secular society, but was afraid that if he did so, he'd piss off a few more allies in his struggle against Islamism. Damnit, he'd now have to get into bed with Christians.

Sam, to you from me, what you are dealing with is politics. Politics makes for strange bedfellows. Get between the sheets, pal, if you want to win this fight.

DR

 

[JoeEllison]

The only ones defending bigotry is you and your anti-liberal ilk.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[dudalb]

Joe Ellison's attitude toward terrorism is a good example of solving a problem by pretending it does not exist.
I guess 3'000 people being slaughtered in New York by Islamic fundamentalist is no big deal to him.

 

[JoeEllison]

Maybe if Sam Harris didn't come off sounding like a snot-head, maybe more people would understand what he is actually trying to say, in this article. But, that is merely a criticism of his writing style, NOT its factual content or its overall message.

Interesting... so, I'm justified in viewing him as a "snot-head", but I should read between the lines so that I see him the way you do?

I don't know that you and I would disagree to a significant degree on the issue, minus the discussion of Harris... weird, huh?

 

[ravdin]

Criticism of Islam is not bigotry. I dislike Islam but I've met many Muslims who I like just fine- I hope everyone can see the distinction.

Secondly, fundamentalist Muslims enjoy a favored status with Allah and are infinitely morally superior to the rest of us. Therefore, they can't be victims of of infidels like you and me.

Why is it that you can criticize Republicans or fundamentalist Christians for what they believe, but it's off limits to criticize Muslims for what they believe?

 

[Finnegan]

As someone who has been called 'Islamaphobic' on numerous occasions, I nevertheless feel that Sam Harris is being unnecessarily crass. There are a number of excellent points in the article, but equally there are a number of unsubstantiated declarations, silly pomposities and gross simplifications.

Geert Wilders, conservative Dutch politician and provocateur, has become the latest projectile in the world's most important culture war: the zero-sum conflict between civil society and traditional Islam.

This is a simplification that betrays a clear lack of political and sociological nuance. Lambasting 'traditional Islam' is to generalise. Even the foremost (and most dangerous) Islamist groups have very different interpretations of the religious texts.

Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for "racism" and "Islamophobia."

This is ridiculously patronising towards Muslims. Only recently, the Quilliam Foundation was launched in order to 'Expose and challenge the weaknesses, inconsistencies, and failings of Islamist thought and actions'. Look, as well, at the Apostasy And Islam blog, which lists many prominent Muslims affirming the freedom of faith.

While it remains taboo to criticize religious faith in general, it is considered especially unwise to criticize Islam.

The first claim is ludicrous, and Harris should really consult the book sales of himself, Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennett. The second can often be true (to terrible results), but is still a generalisation. As somebody who only really follows British opinion media, there are numerous commentators who criticise Islam, including Johann Hari, Nick Cohen, Ed Husain, Peter Tatchell, Martin Amis, Melanie Phillips, Maryam Namazie and the Council of Ex-Muslims, the Harry's Place blog and the contributors to Democratiya.

Even the new London Mayor, Boris Johnson, said that 'the proposed ban on incitement to “religious hatred” make no sense unless it involves a ban on the Koran itself'.

 

[dudalb]

Why is it that you can criticize Republicans or fundamentalist Christians for what they believe, but it's off limits to criticize Muslims for what they believe?

Current Left Wing Orthodoxy,and that some elements of the Left see the Islamic Fundamentlists as "revolutionary comrades" in the struggle against the imperialist oppresors.

 

[Tony]

What the hell are you talking about?

Your ongoing and irrational defense of Islamic bigotry and intolerance against valid criticism and the demonizing of anyone who engages in said criticism as a "bigot".

 

[Wowbagger]

Interesting... so, I'm justified in viewing him as a "snot-head", but I should read between the lines so that I see him the way you do?

There is nothing "between the lines" to read. Just read, and comprehend, the lines themselves.

You did not answer my questions of where Harris said something bad, in this article. Perhaps your overall impression of the article was colored by your pre-disposed opinions of him as a person?

You can still criticize him, but in the future, make sure you:
A. try to provide constructive criticism.
B. read, and comprehend what is written, before commenting, if you can

I don't know that you and I would disagree to a significant degree on the issue, minus the discussion of Harris... weird, huh?

See? Discussing the issues is much more interesting, than discussing Harris, as a person.

 

[WildCat]

I shall butt in and bite.

I've distrusted Sam Harris since I read this:

I'm curious about the italicized part. Did you make the italics, and if so why?

 

[UserGoogol]

"Banning the movie might be going too far..." Really? You think?

Well, there is a line. I am not entirely opposed to the idea of hate speech legislation, (although I'm not exactly in favor of it either, since freedom of speech is important) and am not entirely sure where you draw the line. The fact that Islam is a belief system and therefore should be free to criticizes makes this less justifiable to ban, but there are still limits. Even criticism of rape should not go so far as to demonize and threaten rapists. Although I don't think that this movie is that much of a threat to Muslims (or non-Muslims), which pushes me to the side of not banning it, and if I was made to vote on the matter, I would vote against banning it, but it's a complicated issue and I can't jump to one conclusion too hastily.

An accusation of appeal to emotion has some merit. The truth is that is the coin of the realm of politics. I'm not excusing it but it is a fact. Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth was just such an appeal. A number of Michael Moore's movies have been such appeals. I'm jaded when it comes to politics and the populace but it is what it is. A movie shouldn't simply use emotion and I don't think Fitna does.

Perhaps it's going over my head or something, (and in which case please explain) but I really didn't find any sort of logical argument in Fitna. It's just a bunch of clips of terrorist attacks and angry Muslims with somber music. There is no argument being made, it's just "Hey, this sure does suck, eh?"

I mean really, the only difference between Fitna and this video is that Fitna plays sad music instead of inappropriately wacky music.

Now THAT is a dumb argument. Civil rights activists were often criticized for inflaming the prejudices of those who were against civil rights.

We are not inflaming Muslims to inflame them. We are speaking out against religion. That they are inflamed is not our fault anymore than the KKK being inflamed was the fault of civil rights workers and not speaking because someone might be inflamed is the one of the dumbest reasons not to speak.

Well, civil rights activists did inflame the prejudices of those who were against civil rights, and a responsible civil rights activist should have acknowledged that but then said that it's an acceptable cost to the long term goal of civil rights for all.

I really don't think intent matters much. If I kill a person without meaning to, I might not be as bad as a willful murderer, but it's not exactly a good thing either.

That is how bullies stifle speech in the first place and rely on otherwise reasonable people to assist them in their cause.

Yes, it is bad when bullies stifle speech, but that doesn't mean we should completely ignore them. To pick a somewhat hyperbolic example, if a person threatens to nuke seven major cities if you publish some book, it seems somewhat unpragmatic to publish the book for the sake of freedom of speech. The costs and benefits of an action need to be weighed.

 

[JoeEllison]

Your ongoing and irrational defense of Islamic bigotry and intolerance against valid criticism and the demonizing of anyone who engages in said criticism as a "bigot".

So, you're talking pure nonsense, and dishonestly attributing it to me.

 

[Finnegan]

I'm curious about the italicized part. Did you make the italics, and if so why?

Hi Wildcat,

I italicized that sentence, because I found it incredibly objectionable. There are varied fascist groups in Europe - from the National Front to Eastern-European nationalists, but all of them lambast Islam purely to add respectability to their racism and subsequent anti-immigration arguments. They are wildly bigoted and can only poison reasonable and critical debate.

Finnegan

 

[Tony]

Well, there is a line. I am not entirely opposed to the idea of hate speech legislation, (although I'm not exactly in favor of it either, since freedom of speech is important) and am not entirely sure where you draw the line. The fact that Islam is a belief system and therefore should be free to criticizes makes this less justifiable to ban, but there are still limits. Even criticism of rape should not go so far as to demonize and threaten rapists. Although I don't think that this movie is that much of a threat to Muslims (or non-Muslims), which pushes me to the side of not banning it, and if I was made to vote on the matter, I would vote against banning it, but it's a complicated issue and I can't jump to one conclusion too hastily.

I think you're needlessly over-complicating the issue. Banning the film would be totally against the idea and practice of free speech. That is reason enough to not ban the film. Do you disagree?

 

[Tony]

So, you're talking pure nonsense, and dishonestly attributing it to me.

Naw, you're simply projecting your own tactic of dishonestly labeling everyone a "bigot" onto me. Those of us not living in a fantasy see you for what you are.

 

[UserGoogol]

I think you're needlessly over-complicating the issue. Banning the film would be totally against the idea and practice of free speech. That is reason enough to not ban the film. Do you disagree?

There's no such thing as needless overcomplication! I'm not entirely opposed to "screaming fire in a crowded theater" type restrictions on freedom of speech, but banning a movie seems like a stretch that would have a rather crippling "chilling effect."