Maybe. Or maybe the peaceful Christians of today are distorting their faith. I don’t know what Harris’ response to the actions of Christians a millienium ago is.
But I’m also not sure that’s relevant…as:
a) You cannot point to a period of time in which Muslims were by and large as peaceful as the vast majority of Christians are today
b) Christians by and large aren’t behaving like these Muslims are today, and even less are claiming to be doing so in the name of and/or in defense of their religion, and/or in reaction to some sort of denigration of it.
It sounds to me that Harris’ entire point is, (1) Islam and the actions of its followers appear to be cause for concern much more so than many other dangers, and certainly more than any other religions and religious followers, and (2) To allege that Islam is a religion of peace that has just been “hijacked” by a small handful of random crazy people who have misinterpreted the faith, is misguided and dangerous.
I have yet to see anything that really refutes those assertions.
All I have seen are finger pointings and “me too” arguments, essentially alleging there is no difference between Christians/Jews and their respective religions, and Muslims and their religion…when the evidence obviously says otherwise.
If you want to continue to play this game, and will not provide me with a Muslim who will make any of the statements I offered, perhaps you can provide me with a Christian who will not condemn any acts of terrorism committed by people alleging to be Christians and committing the act in the name of their religion (outside of those who actually commit those acts, of course).
If you could do this, I would be at least somewhat more inclined to listen to assertions about how there is essentially no difference between the two religions.
Of course there are differences and, yes, those differences matter. The tendency toward communism and socialism within Western culture, for example, is a clear consequence of the communistic ideology embedded in first and second century Christianity, much of which is preserved in the New Testament. By comparison, Islam has always had strong property rights. No Muslim country has ever been communistic.
But for all their differences, the major religions of today all share one very important attribute in common: they are monotheistic. And it is no accident that monotheism has become the predominant form of religion - it is the inevitable consequence of State monopolization of religion. How can the territorial monopolist of law and security monopolize a religion that acknowledges the gods of many other religions? The answer: wipe out all the priests who acknowledge any but the one, true god.
Christianity is as suitable for the enslavement of Christians as Islam is for the enslavement of Muslims. Scaremongering about “Islamicization” and “creeping Sharia law” is being driven by the same, nefarious cabal that is responsible for 9/11 and has invaded or toppled the regimes in all but a few countries in the Middle East. It’s so absurd, it’s laughable.
So peaceful, those christians.
IOW, yes, muslims have been about as peaceful as the “majority” of christians for the last 100 years. (Ie, the majority of christians and the majority of muslims aren’t involved in these stupid escapades.)
b) Which muslims? Some specific once, or the general muslim populace? If it’s the general populace, then they are most certainly similar; living their lives as best they can.
Why should any muslim want to condemn hamas? Why should any muslim want to condemn arabic freedom fighters? Are you going to condemn a woman for defending herself against a rapist? A man for fighting off a mugger?
Why should muslims bend over and let themselves be fucked because people like you have a hard-on for domination?
@excel: Well, I don’t think JJ has a “hard-on for domination”, I think he’s just (unwittingly) drinking a little of the anti-Muslim hysteria Kool-Aid.
There has been a very long-running tug-of-war between Islamic and Christian powers. The Ottoman Empire reached its apex four centuries ago and was in continuous decline until WWI when all vestiges of it were destroyed. If Islam is so dangerous today, it must have been 1000 times more dangerous four hundred years ago, but they didn’t have to pat-down or strip-search everyone riding in a carriage (the equivalent of traveling by airplane at that time) in order to defend the frontiers. As a secular force, Islam has been a non-entity for over a century.
The “threat” of Islam is a boogey-man created by a nefarious cabal for the purpose of rationalizing major clamp downs. They need perpetual war (Republicans vs. Democrats, Jews vs. Palestinians, Christians vs. Muslims, China vs. US, etc. etc.) to keep everyone too busy to notice who’s really running things. The myth of Islam-brainwashed, suicidal Palestinians has been an infinitely flexible and useful narrative for the wholly alien Israeli state which I view as basically a sociological R&D laboratory for the Elites. This narrative is now being rolled out on a global scale.
Now there is a global threat of maniacal Islamic suicide killers… people so crazy that they will fly planes into buildings and kill themselves just in order to kill “the infidels.” So now we need Israeli-style security (a phrase which has long been used as a synonym for police-state security) and that’s precisely what the TSA is. We will soon have to have a finger up the butt in order just to fly from one place to another. All of this can be traced right back to 9/11 - the “new Pearl Harbor” as they described it in the Project for a New American Century.
If you think Islam qua Islam is some kind of threat, you’re drinking Kool-Aid (pun intended). The idea that any of this is some kind of organic outgrowth of some kind of inherent violence within Islam is magical thinking. As Joe Rogan notes, it’s like a comic book and should be taken as seriously.
Nazi Germany wasn’t “communistic” either. So what? This is really where you want to take this?
Okaay…and?
So you’re saying there isn’t a duty within Islam to institute worldwide Shari’a law?..That people of the muslim faith have no interest in having the laws of the land directly reflect the dictates and commands laid out within their religion…(including punishments and behaviors relating to simple transactions)?..that this is all just a made up concept by some small elite?
Again, please find me a muslim who will attest they believe in, want, and would work for/defend/strive to maintain a separation of church and state.
I’m actually quite surprised that as cautious and scared of the state as you are, you seem to have no problem with a religious ideology that openly professes to strive for a virtual totalitarian order.
a) Perhaps you missed the title of the article you linked, but those were “United States military” operations…not Christian operations. There were many more religions than Christianity represented in those ranks.
b) More importantly, those were not operations perpetrated in the name of the religion, let alone in response to some denigration of it.
Marko alleges these acts committed by Muslims were in response to “the final straw” of book burning and the Mohammed cartooning. So please find me the list of operations carried out by 100% Christians who alleged to be waging a “holy war” in response to denigration of their sacred religion, as that would actually be relevant.
As I said, aside from the ones committing these acts, the general populace doesn’t seem to be reiterating the sentiments implied by Clayton about the nature of the religion and its holy book, let alone speaking out against these acts of violence that others seem to have no problem identifying as horrible and wrong.
“Mostly similar”…you mean save for the difference of not condemning acts of violence perpetrated in the name of their religion as being against the teaching of their religion, and condemning those that would commit those acts as murderers and distorters of the religion?
Because it is a murderous organization of people who commit acts that you would seem to allege are against the teachings of the religion they claim to ascribe to and honor.
I would say any Muslim should want to condemn Hamas for the same reason any Christian should want to condemn the KKK.
Because there is not much of an argument to be made that bombing random civilians and children is just or legitimate “fighting for freedom”.
Again, I fail to see the parallel between bombing random civilians and fighting off a mugger.
Islam is definitely not libertarian… it prohibits all sorts of non-aggressive behavior on threat of violence. That said, Islam was born in Arabia - Arab culture at the time was heavily influenced by Bedouin culture which is arguably the most anarchic culture in history. As a result, there are some libertarian streaks within Islamic culture - they just don’t happen to align with Western conceptions of what libertarianism looks like.
Sorry to be slightly off-topic but to Clayton - why do you link the initial Arab conquests so closely with the 800 year later rise of the Ottoman Empire? I saw you do this in another thread and I was baffled but didn’t have time to respond and have since lost the thread. To put things very simply, the foundations of the power of the Ottoman Empire were the militarism of the Turkic tribes and the wealth and population centres of Anatolia, built up over the long Graeco-Roman period.
@Aristippus: I did a quick search on Wiki and it appears I should be saying the Caliphates, which includes the Ottoman Empire as well as the older Caliphates.
0:37 - 0:50 - “Religion” can be an ambiguous concept.
1:08-1:16 - In sports, Thai boxing injuries tend to be much more severe than those that occur in badminton.
1:46-2:40 - An assertion that it is “delusional” to call Islam a religion of peace followed by a humorous imagining of Jainism being taken to the extreme.
3:07-3:14 - Three of the most famous terrorists of the 21st century had the same religious beliefs.
Obviously I’m paraphrasing and I admit a few of those could be facts, but what proves Islamic religion causes terrorism? And if it does, how is it that with a billion and a half adherents around the world, we are not awash in thousands of “terror attacks” every day?
Yes I did, the final straw for whatever the specific incidents you had in mind when you said they were caused by burning & cartooning. Not the final straw for all violence in the world by Moslems ever. That’d be stupid.
No. According to me the specific incidents you had in mind when you said they were caused by burning & cartooning would not necessarily happen if Moslems weren’t already pissed off about occupations, invasions, bombings.
And can you offer proof?
I didn’t say they do. Indeed why would they? The point of not admitting something is terrorism is so that you don’t have to refrain from supporting the institution involved in it.
I offered a plausible alternative explanation for the behaviour you brought up, to show it’s a lazy one seeing your larger point doesn’t necessarily follow from it. An explanation by the way which you have done nothing to dispute the plausibility of. Instead you’re countering by asking me to explain why other people don’t argue like me? The heck do I know, they usually don’t, and why should I even care, but what is this, an appeal to public opinion? I can’t be right because people I’m not of a mind with won’t argue in the same way?
Maybe it does, your larger point, but I’m not invested in that. I said you used bad arguments in support of it.
If it doesn’t outright prove your point then saying what you did (you essentially said unless you can find such a Moslem, this debate is over and I win) was uncalled for.
0:37 - 0:50 - “[the term ‘religion’] names a truly diverse spectrum of facsinations and ideological commitments.” Fact.
1:08-1:16 - “There are sports that are just synonymous with the risk of physical injury or even death.” Fact.
1:46-2:40 - “Jainism actually is a religion of peace. The core principle of Jainism is nonviolence. Gandhi got his nonviolence from the Jains.” Fact. Fact. Fact.
3:07-3:14 - “Mullah Omar, Osama bin Laden, and KSM…these guys agree about the nature of reality and how to live within it.” Fact.
If you would care to attempt to refute any of these, I would be happy to hear it.
That’s a bit of a stretch. I would not be surprised if Harris would take issue with that characterization of his argument.
Again, I don’t believe anyone has argued that “Islam causes terrorism”…as if it were some kind of affliction…“become a muslim, commit acts of terrorism”. The argument is that Islam is not fundamentally a “religion of peace” as many have alleged…and that 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, this is supported by the fact that you will be hard pressed to find a muslim who will make any of the statements I offered. One does not have to actually commit these acts to agree with them, and believe that they are righteous and holy and in line with the religion’s teachings.
If what Clayton is asserting were true, you wouldn’t have any trouble finding roughly “a billion and a half” muslims fully willing to denounce such acts.
Islam is the most free market of all faiths. This is why I don’t support anti-Islam. Islam isn’t perfect but it has a history of being way more libertarian then any other religion.
Are you serious? The obliteration of Israel is in their damn charter. They’ve taken credit for multiple acts of terrorism. The head of Hezbollah said that he hopes the Jews will gather there so he doesn’t have to hunt them down globally.
The ignorance here on this subject is apparently worse than I thought.
So why don’t they admit they support it then?
Well, then, if that’s the case, it would mean the cornerstone of Clayton’s and other’s assessment has been taken away. shrug
Well, if the other person can’t even begin to provide a shred of support for their claim, how is an actual debate supposed to take place? I’m not saying their lack of support for their assessment proves my assessment, I was simply saying that until there is some kind of support offered, there isn’t really a conversation to be had. He was the one who said something about dismissing “assertions made without evidence”.
