What guys
Everything Sam Harris says of radical Islam could be said - and much more so - of Satanism or even Discordianism. They are religions which explicitly call for violence and the destruction of social order. But the fact is that the “beliefs” of Discordianism and - to an extent - Satanism are somewhat tongue-in-cheek, somewhat satirical commentary on life and the human condition. Woodenly literal reading of a text does not convey its intended meaning. This is as true of Greek myths as it is of the Bible or the Q’ran. So, there is always an element of subjectivity involved in understanding religious texts (or any text, for that matter).
It is true that Mohammed united the Arabs with Islam and created - in one fell swoop - the raw material from which the Ottoman Empire would be built. Islam is undoubtedly imperial. But so are the fragments of the Old Testament that call for the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites, and so on. The same can be said of almost any monotheistic religion.
But what really matters are not Sam Harris’s ideas about what Islam “obviously means”, what matters are the schools or pedigrees of Islam. There are radicalized schools of Islam. There are more radicalized schools of Islam than there are radicalized Christian sects.
I am not aware of any reputable mullah who can trace his pedigree back to the prophet giving Osama bin Laden the authority to act as he did with the stamp of approval of Islam. So, Harris is being extremely disingenuous in substituting his own judgment of what Islam “obviously is” for what Muslim scholars and leaders - who can trace their pedigree back to Mohammed and who are not just fly-by-night radicals - actually teach.
Religion is a human activity. I don’t think I get to substitute my judgment for what constitutes a “proper chess match” for the judgment of the World Chess Federation. Similarly, I don’t get to substitute my judgment that Islam is “not a religion of peace” because of ancient history, that is, that it was founded on blood and conquest (no different than Mosaic Judaism or, much later, Roman Christianity). The upsetting of Muslim moderation and the radicalization of Muslims is, in fact, a response to their betrayal by their own secular leaders into the hands of the West. We (the West) are bombing, torturing, occupying and pillaging them. And then we blame their religion when they become radicalized.
Clayton -
You obviously know very little about Islam.
Find me a Muslim who will claim “The Qur’an is not to be taken literally”, “The Qur’an needs interpretation and subjectivity to be honestly understood”, “The Qur’an includes passages that are less than perfect, and need to be taken in context”, and we can talk.
Blah blah blah. This “no true Scotsman” nonsense has gotten quite old. Again, find me a Muslim who will make any of the statements above, or even one who will publically condemn Hamas and we can have a conversation.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. This is just nonsense. This idea that there isn’t any blame at all to go around.
It either suggests that Muslims are just mindless zombies that have no choice in the matter…they just react like Pavlov’s dog.
Or that they respect and revere this religion they live by…that virtually every single aspect of their lives is in some way dictated or at least regulated by, and that they voluntarily submit to…that they have this religion of peace that they are guided by so much, that they are willing to defy it’s very principles not only in everyday life, but in reaction to “infidels” denigrating it.
Someone burns a book halfway around the world, and they cut people’s heads off. Either because they just can’t help themselves, or because their passion for their religion of peace is just so great that they can’t sit peacefully by while someone speaks ill of it.
and much more so - of Satanism or even Discordianism. They are religions which explicitly call for violence and the destruction of social order. But the fact is that the “beliefs” of Discordianism and - to an extent - Satanism are somewhat tongue-in-cheek, somewhat satirical commentary on life and the human condition.
One of my friends is a Satanist, one of the most peaceful people I know. I never met a Discordian in real life, but neither the Satanist (in it’s true form, not some teenagers/pscyopaths killing people and using their own insanity/Satan as a scapegoat) or the Discordian are violent or push the aspect of a chaotic order, there simply is chaos and there simply is order, and functioning within the two.
As far as Muslim scholars, I highly doubt Schuon or Guenon were violent or “extremists” in any sense.
But on the propaganda aspect, months back my brother made a remark about Islam being violent or to that degree, I didn’t question him I just listened to what he said. It was odd, because it’s coming from my brother, but there was no real evidence, no historical or religious analysis, and for himself to claim Christian and condemn another religion for being intolerable or violent is just a bit ironic. The people who have absorbed this nonsense in don’t realize it, they won’t question, they think it’s a legitimate belief or view they are holding, but they have not done their own non-bias research on the matter.
Another thing that gets me is the culture aspect, and Islam and it’s cultural identity is the target that our military must expel to release oppressed peoples. Recently I had read an article about a woman who lived in a very culturally (and sexually) oppressed neighborhood, and from reading how bad it was you’d think it was from another country, but in reality it was a Hasidic Jewish neighborhood in New York City. Their forms of cultural oppression are no different than any other, so why are they not the target?
@Bert: I’m glad to see there is one other sane person on these boards!
This is the problem with Dawkins-Dennett-Harris anti-theism, they are so anti-religious that they will demonize just about any religion. The obvious point that seems to be being missed is that beliefs - no matter how violent their content - cannot hurt anyone. It is true that beliefs have a way of being put into action but the point is that until they are, there’s nothing wrong with holding them in terms of peaceful social order. Except for ritual human sacrifice or other ritual abuses, the same is true of religious rituals.
Contrary to Harris, I think it’s fairly easy to define what we mean by religion: a venerated set of beliefs and practices (or rituals). As I pointed out already, beliefs in and of themselves can never aggress against anyone and practices/rituals have to involve actual abuse in order to be tortious.
People believe all sorts of extremely dangerous myths - such as the myth that the US government is seeking to advance freedom in the world or the myth that the Federal Reserve is acting to protect the US economy or the myth that the TSA is looking out for our safety. We can go on and on. These myths are much more consequential in the modern world than the myths surrounding the Biblical Creation narrative or Jesus or even Mohammed. Belief in these myths is bad in the sense that they enable all sorts of evils but belief alone is not actionable.
Where it gets really subjective is the inane debate over whose beliefs are more dangerous or false than whose. Most people believe so many economic and political fallacies whose consequences are far more momentous than anything they might believe about who the Jews descended from and who the Muslims descended from. Correcting the former is a much higher priority, in my view, than correcting the latter.
Clayton -
Probably because they don’t make as good patsys.
No one said there was anything wrong with holding violent beliefs. All Sam Harris said was that to assert that “Osama bin Laden is [essentially] David Koresh” is not only a lie, but a dangerous one.
Right. And a “sport” is a diversion or recreation or pleasant pastime.
Again, you are misrepresenting what Harris said. He said nothing about religion being difficult to define. He said it is a useless term.
I’m quite surprised at the level of argumentation you’re bringing here, and in particular the distortion of the argument in question. I did not expect this.
Probably because they don’t make as good patsys.
They’ve been all patsy’d out, but on top of that Israelie atrocities go under the news/military radar it seems, put all interest towards targeting the non-Judea-Christian people.
Labels like “war criminal” and “atrocities” are a way of exercising social control. Its an ideological weapon, we wouldnt want to fire it all willy-nilly, would we?
I don’t like Dennett-Dawkins-Harris. I don’t think they are pro-liberty people at all and it is my view that their rabidly anti-religion views serve the secular Establishment quite well. These people will on the one hand mock religious belief then turn around and apply the same mockery to anyone who suggests that the government might not have your best interest at heart when it passes a law or enacts a policy or goes to war. The “Reason” crowd is anti-historical and seeks to lobotomize critical thinking (aka revisionism) about accepted, orthodox history as handed down to us by the court historians. They label revisionism as “conspiracy theory” and finger it as another manifestation of the human brain’s tendency to “see patterns where there aren’t any” just like the superstitious religionists of yore.
Islam is the Establishment’s new whipping-boy/scapegoat and Harris is either a useful idiot or a dangerous mouthpiece of the Establishment.
Clayton -
What I mean is these other “forms of cultural oppression” aren’t able to be as easily used (if at all) to further the agenda of the powers that are benefitted by the “targeting” as you put it.
In other words, there isn’t a dedicated effort to call out these “atrocities” (or at least not as large of one) for the same reason there isn’t a “war on homelessness”, or a “men’s movement” of any significance. There isn’t virtually anything for the powers that be to gain from it.
Of course, but targetting culturally oppressive people who are “our allies” doesn’t work so well, thus we target something foreign to us (figuratively and realistically). Buddy up with Israel (who I’ll even consider “Western” in the political/imperialistic sense) and attack everyone else in the Middle East/Northern Africa who’s Muslim.
Okay…so Harris is wrong about what he says in that clip because he would mock someone who suggests the government doesn’t have your best interest at heart?
I have no idea why any of this is relevant.
So basically because what Harris says allegedly “helps the establishment”, that makes him wrong. You really want to go down this road?
And I find it interesting you neglected to offer any response to my challenges above.
That’s my whole point. What the heck did you think I was saying that whole time?
I was sort of explicitly making a reference to my reference of orthodox Jews I made above.
Overall, it seems like simple propaganda since he only used analogies and made assertions - if you watch carefully you’ll notice he doesn’t actually provide any “facts” in that clip - particularly anything to justify the psychos of Christianity being dismissed as not true Scotsmen, while the psychos of Islam are regarded as pious observers of a fundamentally evil faith.
It’s clearly meant to be a persuasive speech (as opposed to informative), and he is trying to persuade his audience that it’s rational and good to fear and distrust Islamic people because of their religion. I’ll be charitable and say that could be because he had some of the same Kool-Aid millions of others drank in the aftermath of 9/11… even though he uses rhetoric like this:
How many more architects and mechanical engineers must hit the wall at 400 miles an hour before we admit to ourselves that jihadist violence is not merely a matter of education, poverty, or politics? The truth, astonishingly enough, is that in the year 2006 a person can have sufficient intellectual and material resources to build a nuclear bomb and still believe that he will get 72 virgins in Paradise. Western secularists, liberals, and moderates have been very slow to understand this. The cause of their confusion is simple: They don’t know what it is like to really believe in God. [source]
+1 Groucho
Try to keep up. You expressed surprise that I would be unhappy with Sam Harris’s condemnation of Islam and I explained that I don’t like Sam Harris. He isn’t wrong for that reason but I knew he would be spouting unsupported assertions before I even clicked on the link. Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
This isn’t my first rodeo - in a past life, I was a devout Christian and debated atheists online, who frequently quoted Dawkins/Dennett/Harris. As a group, you won’t find a more rabid bunch of statists than the secular humanists. The Dawkins/Dennett/Harris brand of anti-religionism plays right into the hands of the State which is perfectly happy to end its multi-millenium long power-sharing arrangement with the priestly class and centralize all power and moral legitimacy completely within itself.
Clayton -
Groucho, the is plenty of facts that show Islam is not a peaceful religion. Since the very beginning, Islam expasion was a militartistic one. When Muhammad was expelled from Mecca and went to Medina, he converted enough men in Medina to gather a small army to take over Mecca.
The convertion of persians, nothern african and turks into islamism were all a matter of militar expansion.
I come across this frequently. It is so intensely frustrating to me that I feel unable to devise a response. What do you say to someone who fundamentally doubts what you say and your sanity on the basis that it is unpopular?