b) it was 4 minutes of an hour and forty minute lecture.
I’m sorry, I missed the part where he even brought up Christianity, let alone attempted to “justify” anything about alleged followers of Christianity. Could you direct me to the timestamp please?
I still haven’t seen any refutation of anything Harris stated.
P.S.
For what it’s worth, do a simple youtube search for Sam Harris and you’ll find plenty of [for lack of a better word] attacks on Christianity, which I would argue are much more damning, much more crude than anything in that clip. Like this one, perhaps. So I’m not sure this “well where’s his condemnation of Christians and Jews and their evil deeds? What a hypocrite” path is one you really want to take.
I think you should take your own advice. My comment about relevance was in reference to the passage quoted directly above it…as in your goings on about the anti-historical anti-critical thinking tendencies of the “Reason” crowd. I fail to see what this has to do with anything else we’ve been discussing.
Perhaps you should define “Reason” crowd, as it sounds like you’re talking about the people who are associated with and [for lack of a better word] fans of the Reason Foundation.
Again, 4 minutes of a 100 minute talk.
Again, I’m sorry, but I don’t see the relevance of any of that. It’s as if you’re suggesting that anything that can be used to help the state or put a positive light on things done by agents of the state is inherently bad or factually wrong.
And once again, I find it interesting how you completely avoid addressing my direct responses to your comments, and my implied requests for actual rebuttal regarding the subject.
That seems like a bad argument. Let’s say it is not possible to find such a Muslim. Why should this prove your point? So they’re particularly tribal and therefore unwilling to say anything negative about Hamas lest it potentially hurts the cause of fellow Muslims.
Or it could be the book burning and the Mohammed cartooning is the final straw on top of occupation and violence associated with it.
Maybe not outright, but it would certainly support it. The argument that seems to have been made here is that the atrocities committed by muslims in the name of or in defense of their religion do not have a real rooting in the religion…that these people are simply distorting their religious teachings, and you have to find a “reputable mullah” to get “the real story” of the fundamentals of Islam…(nevermind what former muslims say, or even what current muslims say…and won’t say.)
The sentiment seems to be that Islam has been “hijacked” and that the Qur’an has contradictory passages and things that are open to interpretation (just like the Bible and the Torah), and people can pick and choose what pieces they like and use them to support their actions. So these people committing all these acts of violence aren’t actually following the teachings of Islam.
This is not the case at all.
So they don’t want to condemn a a genocidal organization, lest it hurt the organization’s stated cause of genocide? And you’re defending this?
Not to mention, how is it there exists this “tribal” sentiment of brotherhood, when others (including some here) maintain that those who commit acts like those of Hamas do essentially aren’t real muslims?
The final straw. That broke the camel’s back, so to speak, huh? So, if we go back before the book burning and the cartooning, we’ll see a largely peaceful existence, no real disturbances whatsoever, right?
In general, we have Muslim communities here, I’m sure we have devout “fundamentalist” Muslims living here, how come the acts we see in Europe or the Middle East (which I’m not denying they happen) don’t happen here?
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?
There is nothing you can say - and that “Which one can not speak, one must pass over in silence” (Ludwig Wittgenstein). I suppose you can take comfort that silence is a sufficient answer in it’s own way, and usually it’s a fool who goes on and on about things he ought not go on about. Sometimes words simply aren’t good for anything - like any other tool, they can only be used for the right things at the right time.
And something tells me abstracting long complex human phenomena with much history that one is not an expert on but one speaks on and on about can be wrong, not by the words used (which is a game the person has set up for themselves to win), but by the actions used to put the words down.
If we do that we see a continuity of violence, which points to the possibility this isn’t solely about burning and cartooning, but about burning and cartooning coupled with invasion and occupation all the more.
I’m not defending anything, thank you for asking. I’m in a very value-neutral mode at the moment. What do you mean by a genocidal organization? I mean they may not want to acknowledge some of what Hamas does is terrorism lest it hurts its work for the Palestianian cause.
The heck do I know. In my part of the woods the less secular of a Muslim you are the more likely it is you’re down with Hamas and the more likely you are to follow news about various hotspots involving Muslims. It’s not as if there’s a huge segment of devout Muslims whose interest in the world stops strictly at the national border and who would be very open to taking a non-Muslim side in a conflict.
At the least it seems like a religion that is a lot easier to ‘distort’ than some of the others. Say what you want about Christianity, but you don’t really get advice from Jesus on how to treat a conquered populace.
Now you could be cool about that and say it is a badass, not-at-all-violence-renouncing religion, but for some reason nobody does. It’s either alarmism or refusal to acknowledge differences between it and other faiths, which is strange to me because both these reactions would seem to be in agreement that if Islam were not just as peacenik as all the other creeds then that would be cause for concern. But that is not the case at all, I don’t necessarily buy this but I’m not scared. I wouldn’t think it cause for alarm if we had hordes of people following whatever the Klingons go for, so why should I fear Muslims? This Harris person is a straightout aswipe, I saw he has this other video where he is telling his audience they should be afraid because some people believe the world is 6000 years old. LOL, so what? What’s the relevance? The problem with stopping at denying Islam is one of the more badass religions conflict-wise is the approach is not nearly radical enough, it leaves out the more pertinent objection, the SO WHAT question. This leaves alarmists and Islamophobes off the hook in regard to showing relevancy of the factoids they talk about and creates space for them. It’s like what happened to just not being a weenie? So there’s creationists and Muslims in the world, boo-hoo-hoo.
*To say nothing of his idiotic oh-I-think-I’m-going-to-feint act.
Yes, the Bible/Torah is a model of peace and brotherly love.
You completely missed my point above. Islam is what Muslims say it is, just like chess is what chess-players say it is. Hockey players don’t get to come into an international chess match and assert that the chess pieces are “really” meant to slide across the board like a hockey puck. Neither do you (non-Muslim) get to waltz into Islam and assert that Islam “really” teaches this or that. Quote their reputable scholars who are recognized authorities in the Muslim community and who can trace their pedigree back to the Prophet or GTFO.
And since when did violence qua violence become verboten? The NAP isn’t the NVP. Every libertarian acknowledges the right of individuals and, yes, groups of people to defend themselves using violence. That such defense is often drawn along the lines of tribal/racial/cultural boundaries is just a part of human nature.
As for who knows what about Islam, I think you need to read up on the history of Islam, JJ. The Muslims presided over nearly 1,000 years golden age of culture, commerce, innovation and growth in mathematical, philosophical and scientific knowledge while Europe languished in ignorance, darkness and serfdom.
Islam is what Muslims say it is, just like chess is what chess-players say it is
Well said, it is for those who actually “Are in practice” - these are customs that are simply out of our scope (assuming we aren’t muslims or chess players).
So when one of us (non Muslims) say “Islam is a religion of war/peace” What is being said is “MY Islam is a religion of war / peace”. It’s the same thing as calling Coke better than Pepsi - it simply has no authority of any imperative of thinking or acting.
Those who say otherwise are just creating a language to suit their needs. This shouldn’t be too hard a concept to grasp. It’s the same type of concept that is customary law - or why monopoly isn’t stratego, etc
That doesn’t make any sense. You’re the one who just said “book burning and the Mohammed cartooning is the final straw”…as in a tipping point of a boiling pot that was just waiting to burst its lid.
So again, according to you, if we go back and look before the book burning and the cartooning, we should see peace (albeit with “violence boiling up” underneath, just waiting for a final straw, but peace nonetheless)…which of course you freely admit here is not what we in fact see.
By “genocidal organization” I mean an organization whose goals include genocide. (Of course I include Hezbollah in this too).
“Not want to acknowledge some of what Hamas does”? As in, pretend certain things didn’t happen? If they can do that, why do they have any problem simply admitting they support the group, then? Or at least outright saying “No, I won’t condemn the organization because I don’t acknowledge anything they have done that I disapprove of.”
Well, you’re the one who suggested such a sentiment. So one would think you would be able to explain such a discrepancy.
Doesn’t that largely support my point?
First of all, I have no idea what you mean when you constantly invoke the phrase “badass religion”.
Second, I don’t think anyone said you should “fear muslims”. Even Harris states he doesn’t consider a “war with Islam” meaning the same thing as a “war with all muslims”. His point seems more to be that the discourse is severely lacking and needs to be elevated beyond the level where it currently is. It sounds like his concern is more with the acceptance of muslim practices, such that things that would otherwise be called out as cruel, and/or morally reprehensible (among other things) are not only allowed and tolerated, but are offered respect and reservance and obediance, simply because they are recognized as in accordance with “religious” beliefs…when in any other context they would be called out for the atrocities they are and shunned.
It sounds like Harris’ fear is more of the so-called “creeping Shari’a”…the slow progression of Shari’a law into secular areas of life, (which is essentially life of non-muslims, as there is no such thing as secular life for followers of Islam).
…Which makes it ironic that Clayton would attack Harris as being pro-state, and helping the state, etc., (which he may very well be), but it’s ironic that Harris’ fear of the slow, creeping progression of Islamic law into non-muslim areas, so accurately parallels the slow, creeping progression of the state into more and more areas of the individual’s life…such that Clayton’s fears are fundamentally no different than Harris’s…just the established authority is different.
I would say it is you who missed my point. I said nor even suggested anything about the Bible/Torah being a model of anything. Once again you put words in my mouth to create a strawman with which to divert focus from the topic at hand. But I still can’t be sure why. I can only figure it’s because you want to demonize the state so badly that it helps your case to paint the Islam religion as just as fundamentally peaceful as any other, and the muslims who follow it are just innocent, peaceful people who were driven to “radicalization” by outside forces.
Yes. I fully understood this the first time you said it. And my point is
a) You have no idea who I am, where I’m from, and what my religious background is, so you have no place to say I have no ground to assert what Islam is.
b) It’s not like “non-muslims” are the only ones who have said what I am saying. (As I stated earlier).
So basically, unless someone traces their pedigree back to the prophet, they aren’t a real muslim and can’t speak to what the religion they devote their life to teaches?
I suppose that means only chess players who can trace their roots back to the inventors of the game can truly say what chess is, yes?
What does this have to do with random attacks on uninvolved people?
a) Kinda makes one wonder why the country of Spain translates more of the world’s literature and learning into Spanish every year, than the entire Arab world has translated into Arabic since the 9th Century. I guess they were just so advanced that they didn’t need to read what most of the rest of planet Earth discovered since then?
b) I fail to see what any of that has to do with what we’re talking about.
And what do random attacks on uninvolved people have specifically to do with Islam as opposed to, say, modern social democracy (which, yes, bears all the hallmarks of a religion)?
That’s the link you provided. I think we have to agree that my statement, “he doesn’t actually provide any “facts” in that clip,” is correct. Unless of course you can direct me to a timestamp that shows otherwise.
You gave the link yourself saying it “described” why making generalizations about Christianity on the basis of Christian terrorists (KKK was the example given) is different from making generalizations about Islam based on Islamic terrorists, and in response I am saying the video does not describe why such a double-standard is justified. Are you now disputing your prior statement?
Anyway, while the video didn’t give any justification for that attitude, the speaker clearly encourages his audience to accept it. Start at about 3:00 with the statement “the only thing wrong with Islamic fundamentalism are the fundamentals of Islam” and continue until the end of the clip where he says “to say that Osama Bin Laden is David Koresh is just a lie and it’s a dangerous lie at this point.”
I think you are inferring a bit too much about my position - I am aware of his general anti-religion agenda and I am not demanding he condemn them all equally. I think the focus of this lecture is persuading as many people as possible to be ok with condemning all of Islam based on Islamic terrorists - and he wants to persuade more than just atheists so he casually assures anyone who might practice a non-Islamic religion that they needn’t worry about that standard being applied to them (yet).
No. I will admit the clip doesn’t go into Christianity (as I said it didn’t), so it is not the best resource to give a response as to why attempting to balance a discussion of Islam with a discussion of “extremist Christianity”, but my point in offering it was to bring forward the point that people like the three men mentioned in the clip are offering “a very plausible version of the faith” and you would “have to be an acrobat to figure out how [Osama bin Laden] is distorting the religion.”
And again, while he doesn’t delve into Christianity, he does mention specific Christian faiths (including that of the Quakers and the Amish) and makes the point that it would be patently obvious how they would be distorting their faith, were these three men ascribing to those religions and committing the same acts.
If you would like a clip where he mentions this “balance” point directly, I stumbled across this one.
Again, in 4 minutes of a 100 minute lecture.
I fail to see how you can claim that first sentence and then proceed with the second. How exactly is Harris supposed to suggest that the fundamentals of Islam are less peaceful and more dangerous than those of other religions like Christianity without you alleging he’s simply placating to Christians without condeming them all equally?
