The irony (nah, hypocrisy) of the Sam Harris hub-bub

[Goblinmonger]

Melinda Barton publishes an editorial on rawstory that defines all atheists as secular whackjobs and then asks for their removal from the party because we are dragging it down. Most atheists on here, rightfully I would add, were a tad pissed off about that. People came to her defense in droves. There was a big to do about it--some of you might remember it.

Sam Harris publishes an editorial in which he says some liberals (he pretty clearly says it is not all liberals) are being stupid. People on here want him burned at the stake because he is "attacking liberals."

The funny thing is that many of the same people that came to Barton's defense are the ones that are attacking Harris. Let me see, what is the common denominator that would cause that apparent hypocrisy? Oh, yeah, the "atheists are bad" meme.

Now, my caveats:

I like Sam Harris but I do not believe everything he says. He makes me think and about as many times as he causes me to think like him, he also causes me to think he is full of it.
I don't know where I fall on his current position. I think he was too easy on Israel given his stance on religions. I know that Muslims aren't all evil and some of his stuff does sound kind of like he is believing the Bush hype, but it was a small piece and I would need to read more.

On edit: Couple spelling errors--I should have drank my coffee BEFORE typing.

[Warpy]

1. The problem, as always, is the party conservatives.

They thought thirty years ago that if they just stopped talking about fair wages, supporting abandoned women and children, decent housing for all, and maintaining the New Deal, that Republicans would like the party better and desert their own.

Having failed to learn that lesson, they've gone on to package the last two candidates as bland, unchallenging men who would support the Reagainite status quo and that Republicans, alarmed at the religious zealotry in their own party, would like ours better and desert their own.

Having failed to learn that lesson, they now think they need to run antichoice candidates because party women don't really matter and where else will they go anyway and besides, Republicans would like our party better and desert their own.

They're still failing to learn that lesson, so now they think if they can rid the party of secularists, freethinkers, and atheists, the Republicans will like our party better and desert their own.

My question has always been why they don't just join the Republican party instead of ejecting all the Democrats from the Democratic Party.

Oh, right. They're conservatives. 'Nuff said.

[Dhalgren]

2. Where Harris missed the mark is that the problem isn't with

Muslims or Islam, itself, as so many commentators like to say. The problem is with fundamentalism in any of the major religions. To say that Muslim fundamentalist are violent and, with silence, imply that Christian fundamentalists aren't is a lie. Christian fundamentalists murder doctors, plant bombs, support and even demand the murder of innocent people around the world.

Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, or any other believers in the truth of their various mythologies are generally harmless, decent people who just want to live their lives as they see fit. But when people of any of these religions turn fanatically fundamentalist they become a danger to themselves and everyone else. It is wrong to single out the Muslim version of this phenomenon as though it were the sole problem...

[greyl]

4. He didn't miss that mark.

The focus of the piece was Islamicism, but he didn't neglect inclusion of fundy Christians:

"Religious dogmatism is now playing both sides of the board in a very dangerous game."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

[Dhalgren]

5. The focus was where he missed it. He castigated "liberals" for

not recognizing that our war is with Islamic fundamentalists. But the US government is an organ of Christian fundamentalists - that is clearly apparent to anyone who cares to look. Now it may be that the Bush fascists are only using Christian Fundamentalism as a tool, but if it weren't a viable tool, it wouldn't be used.

To throw in this sop, "Religious dogmatism is now playing both sides of the board in a very dangerous game", is out of context with the rest of his piece. Fundamentalism is the problem, but to say that the current US government is on the right approach (which is the implication of his "soft on terror" remarks) is simply siding with one brand of fundamentalism against the other. Kerry was right, this "war on terror" should be downgraded to a police matter and we should try to grow a little backbone and get on with the job of restoring our country. There is no "war on terror" and there doesn't need to be one; the "WOT", right now, is just a murderous marketing ploy - and Harris should know this...

[greyl]

7. I don't think so.

He never says the US government is on the right approach. In fact:

Given the mendacity and shocking incompetence of the Bush administration — especially its mishandling of the war in Iraq — liberals can find much to lament in the conservative approach to fighting the war on terror.

[Dhalgren]

9. Right, but then he turns around and says that liberals should

support the WOT. He says that the Bush fascists are liars and incompetents, but that the liberals have to agree to fight the WOT in a way that is consistent with the fascists' approach. He is simply dead wrong in his analysis of the threat, by his emphasis on Islamic fundamentalism. What he seems to misunderstand is that fundamentalism is a threat to everyone - Muslims included. He said that "liberals" were "soft on terrorism" - and in that he was either wrong or lying. For him to give scant, lip-service, asides to how bad the current administration is does not negate his "carrying water" for them with his op-ed piece...

[greyl]

10. No, he does not say liberals should support the war on terror.

He says we shouldn't keep our heads in the sand about Islamism.

Btw, what do you think of this?:

BILL MOYERS: Fundamentalism?

MARTIN AMIS: Yeah.

BILL MOYERS: That's what it is.

MARTIN AMIS: Radical fundamentalism, Islamism. That's what it means.

BILL MOYERS: And you say it's a modern phenomenon?

MARTIN AMIS: Yes. Islamism should be thought of as a wave. And it's the latest wave. And it has made stupendous gains over the last five years and ten, 15 years. And this is its central twist is the reward of suicide bombing. The other great theme is when Islam was expanding, and it had an absolutely fantastic 500 years of nation after nation coming under Islam. And they could always point to that. And it has been called the argument for manifest success, where you have God's blessing because look at this extraordinary victory story that you're living through.

So if what you believe in is the argument for manifest success, you're suddenly confronted by the argument for manifest failure. "And then what? Why has God apparently favored the infidels?" And this is a conundrum wrapped in an enigma for the Islamic soul.

BILL MOYERS: I told you when I reached out to you and asked you to join me that I kept on my bulletin board at my office an essay you wrote one week after 9/11. You wrote, "Weirdly, the world suddenly feels bipolar. All over again, the West confronts a way of thinking that is essentially and unappeasably opposed to its existence." So they're never going to rest until we are eliminated?

MARTIN AMIS: That's the program. They say it's a cosmic war and an eternal war. They're going to war forever against us. Norman Mailer again has another phrase, "A tolerable level of terrorism." And that's sort of jumped out at me rather. And I can quite imagine in 15 years' time, Western politicians in some countries praising themselves for reducing terrorism to a tolerable level. But eradicating I don't think is a possibility.

BILL MOYERS: In the end, the Soviet Union was brought down by its own inner contradictions.

MARTIN AMIS: Right.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/print/faithandreason106_print.html

[Dhalgren]

11. I don't really think too much of it.

You could replace "they" (by which he means Islamic Fundamentalists) in this exchange with "Irish Catholic" and it could be an exchange from the British side of the "Troubles". Just as the IRA was Catholic, but not representative of Catholicism (at least "modern" Catholicism), you cannot do likewise with Islam.

The problem with people like Harris and Amis is that they do not adequately distinguish between extremist Muslim fundamentalists and Muslims in general. They speak of what "Islam" teaches as though the violence is somehow at the core of Islamic faith and that isn't true.

You simply cannot, successfully, tar an entire religion with the brush used for its brand of fundamentalists - the Christians on this board make that statement all of the time.

[greyl]

12. Thanks, that gives me a better idea where you're coming from.

How can you say: "The problem with people like Harris and Amis is that they do not adequately distinguish between extremist Muslim fundamentalists and Muslims in general." having just read this? :

BILL MOYERS: Islamist. Help us to understand the distinction you make between Islam and Islamism.

MARTIN AMIS: Well, Islam is the great religion that has been the donor of countless benefits to mankind, that led the world in civilization throughout the Middle Ages, gave us algebra and all kinds of intellectual breakthroughs of all kinds, plus an example of tolerance that nowhere else in the world could offer at that time. A level of tolerance and respect for justice. That is Islam.

Islamism started after the First World War when the last empire was lost, the Ottoman sided with Germany in First Wor...

[Dhalgren]

13. Now I see where you're coming from. Nice deception...

[greyl]

14. ? What are you talking about? nt

[acmejack]

3. Indeed, I am so tired of being told I need to move to the center.

Bullshit! We should stop trying to not be Democrats and stand up for what sets us apart from the Republiclowns not for what makes us the same as them. Thanks Warpy, for putting it so well.

If I wanted to be a Republican, that is exactly what I would be. I get so sick of people in my own party telling me I am a radical leftist, when nothing could be further from truth.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Do I get extra credit for attacking both Barton and Harris?

I'd be fascinated to know why you think "he pretty clearly says it is not all liberals". I can come up with multiple quotes fro his article when he attacks "liberals" as one group. And one where he supports fascists.

[Finder]

8. supports fascists is a stretch...

he only stated they understood better than others.

As they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day...