HARRIS: It appears that one of the most urgent tasks we now face in the developed world is to find some way of facilitating the emergence of civil societies everywhere else.  Whether such societies have to be democratic is not at all clear.  Zakaria has persuasively argued that the transition from tyranny to liberalism is unlikely to be accompanied by plebiscite.  It seems all but certain that some form of benign dictatorship will generally be necessary to bridge the gap.  But benignity is the key--and if it cannot emerge from within a state, it must be imposed from without.  The means of such imposition are necessarily crude:  they amount to economic isolation, military intervention (whether open or covert), or some combination of both.

Thank you for posting these quotations, Trish. This one in particular really says it all. With ‘friends’ like Harris the cause of rationalism and humanism hardly needs enemies.

HARRIS: “We are at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran, and further elaborated in the literature of the hadith, which recounts the sayings and actions of the Prophet.  A future in which Islam and the West do not stand on the brink of mutual annihilation is a future in which most Muslims have learned to ignore most of their canon, just as most Christians have learned to do.  Such a transformation is by no means guaranteed to occur, however, given the tenets of Islam. ”

Yes, Harris is definitely advocating the need for forceful intervention, but I would say this intervention is of the type that we expect our police to impose in order to combat ANY sufficiently entrenched anti-liberal institution: as was the case of “Jim Crow” and segregated schools in the Southern U.S.. Would anyone here argue that the forceable action of the U.S. federal government against select Southern States was imperialistic or bigoted? ... there are/were certainly those in the South that thought so.

HARRIS:"Zakaria has persuasively argued that the transition from tyranny to liberalism is unlikely to be accompanied by plebiscite.  It seems all but certain that some form of benign dictatorship will generally be necessary to bridge the gap”

Harris is not advocating hatred for “other” and he certainly isn’t advocating imperialism.  Turkey provides I think an example of the type of action that Harris sees as lamentable but necessary. Turkey stands out among Middle Eastern Islamic states because of a “benign dictator” ( Attaturk ) acted forcefully to create a secular government. It’s hard to see how Attaturk could have succeeded without the use force (both the threat and reality). Islam was a powerful anti-liberal anti-secular power that stood squarely in the way of progress toward Turkey’s successful transition into what is now a relatively liberal democracy. 

Islam is traditionally structured to be an all pervasive part of the community. One small but significant example of this are the prayers that are broadcast on loud speakers 3-5 times a day - Mosques are situated in communities such that no matter where you are, you can hear the prayers .. even in the privacy of your house.  Many Islamic practices perpetuate child indoctrination by isolating children and forcing them to bare public markings of membership, for instance: boys are circumsized at a late age in highly public ceremonies (they are typically paraded down the street in a gown as conspicuous as a wedding gown, and for weeks after the circumcision they wear a dress of sorts (because they can’t wear pants)) and girls of course are forced to cover themselves. Islam is designed to be intense. It is a sufficating experience for those who would resist submission.

You can disagree with Harris of course. You can put forth your own arguments as to why you think he is wrong, but it is entirely unfair and unreasonable to attack him as immoral and/or bigoted and/or a “fundamentalist” because he makes this argument. His arguments are not personal attacks against a people, they are attacks against a philosophy (Islam).

.

Trish - 22 May 2008 01:08 PM

seth manapio, you said:

As far as I know, no new atheist has suggested curtailing any behavior that doesn’t involve coercing people into participating in religious activities against their will.

Part of the problem with this discussion is lumping these guys together under one label, implying that they all think the same thing.  Actually, I was thinking of Sam Harris’s THE END OF FAITH, in which we find passages like these:

I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance--born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God--is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.
.........
We are at war with Islam.  It may not serve our immediate foreign policy objectives for our political leaders to openly acknowledge this fact, but it is unambiguously so.  It is not merely that we are at war with an otherwise peaceful religion that has been “hijacked” by extremists.  We are at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran, and further elaborated in the literature of the hadith, which recounts the sayings and actions of the Prophet.  A future in which Islam and the West do not stand on the brink of mutual annihilation is a future in which most Muslims have learned to ignore most of their canon, just as most Christians have learned to do.  Such a transformation is by no means guaranteed to occur, however, given the tenets of Islam.
........
It appears that one of the most urgent tasks we now face in the developed world is to find some way of facilitating the emergence of civil societies everywhere else.  Whether such societies have to be democratic is not at all clear.  Zakaria has persuasively argued that the transition from tyranny to liberalism is unlikely to be accompanied by plebiscite.  It seems all but certain that some form of benign dictatorship will generally be necessary to bridge the gap.  But benignity is the key--and if it cannot emerge from within a state, it must be imposed from without.  The means of such imposition are necessarily crude:  they amount to economic isolation, military intervention (whether open or covert), or some combination of both.

Quote one, never mentions any sort of legal or structrual impediments to belief. Quote two, states explicitly that if Islam will learn to get along with us and allow us to not be Muslims, we can all get along. Quote three, Harris again is talking about creating states in which people are not forced to participate in particular religious activities against their will.

As I stated, Harris does not imply or state that anyone should be curtailed from any behavior: EXCEPT forcing other people to participate in religious activities against their will.

Balak - 22 May 2008 01:46 PM

Thank you for posting these quotations, Trish. This one in particular really says it all. With ‘friends’ like Harris the cause of rationalism and humanism hardly needs enemies.

I believe that Harris is wrong in that military force is a lousy way to facilitate the emergence of civil societies, and so is economic isolation. But it is a neccessary goal. As a species, we have to all be sort of grow out of our superstitions and prejudice in order to share the planet.

You probably think you share that goal, too.

Balak:

HARRIS: It appears that one of the most urgent tasks we now face in the developed world is to find some way of facilitating the emergence of civil societies everywhere else. Whether such societies have to be democratic is not at all clear. Zakaria has persuasively argued that the transition from tyranny to liberalism is unlikely to be accompanied by plebiscite. It seems all but certain that some form of benign dictatorship will generally be necessary to bridge the gap. But benignity is the key--and if it cannot emerge from within a state, it must be imposed from without. The means of such imposition are necessarily crude: they amount to economic isolation, military intervention (whether open or covert), or some combination of both.

Thank you for posting these quotations, Trish. This one in particular really says it all.  With ‘friends’ like Harris the cause of rationalism and humanism hardly needs enemies.

Yes, your reaction is exactly why I was alarmed when I read this.  Harris presents a rationale for a preemptive strike against Islamic nations.  In Harris’s defense, he goes on to say that it be must done by a world government, and not by the U.S. alone.  However, given that the U.S. government has already declared its intention to maintain its military supremacy over the world, and given its unwarranted invasion of Iraq, it is easy to see how Harris’s subsequent qualification can easily be dismissed.  While I do not agree with Harris, I also do not agree that Jihad (however it is defined) is justified by history.  We are all the heirs of atrocities and violence.  Imperialism, tribal warfare, genocide, and wars are not unique to any people or culture or race or religion.  They are our common heritage, and every human being that exists today is the descendant of both victims and predators in these constant atrocities that have gone on for thousands of years.  The population of our planet has grown to the point that it now demands that we either learn how to live together or we exterminate each other trying to prove that “we” were right and “they” were wrong (whoever “we” and “they” may be).  Learning to live together cannot be accomplished by force or violence.  Force and violence always generate misery, anger, and retaliation.  While I can understand the anger of both sides, I cannot excuse either side for the infliction of still more human suffering in this so-called war on terror.

Riley:

Yes, Harris is definitely advocating the need for forceful intervention, but I would say this intervention is of the type that we expect our police to impose in order to combat ANY sufficiently entrenched anti-liberal institution: as was the case of “Jim Crow” and segregated schools and in the Southern U.S.. Or are you saying that you think that such actions were imperialistic and motivated by bigotry? ... there are/were certainly those in the South that thought so.

I see several distinctions here to the comparison with the overthrow of “Jim Crow” laws and school integration.  First of all the those actions targeted the behavior, and not the beliefs, of the perpetrators.  And in those cases the actions were imposed, with discretion, by duly elected representatives of the people who were subject to the sanctions.  And finally, any punishment handed out as a result targeted the people who actually commited crimes, not at people who approved of their reasons.

Riley:

Harris is not advocating hatred for “other” and he certainly isn’t advocating imperialism. I would imagine that Turkey provides an example of the type of action that Harris sees as lamentable but necessary. Turkey needed a “benign dictator” ( Attaturk ) in order to combat the anti-liberal power of Islam and make the transition into what is now a relatively liberal democracy, needed to crack down against certain Islamic practices which indoctrinated children and pressured politicians.

Compare this to the intervention in Iran to put the Shah on the throne, another intervention seen as lamentable but necessary, and look at the long term results.  The problem I see with this is that arrogantly deciding what is “necessary” for another culture is always colored by self-interest, just as the intervention in Iraq was.  It’s never really for the good of the other society, no matter what rationalization is propounded.  If surveys are to believed, most of the young people in Islamic countries are attracted by western values and life styles, despite all their culture’s propaganda, and they are the force that will liberalize their cultures.  The surest way to turn them against liberalization is to use aggression against them. 

Riley:

You can disagree with Harris of course. You can put forth your own arguments as to why you think he is wrong, but it is entirely unfair and unreasonable to attack him as immoral and/or bigoted and/or a “fundamentalist” because he makes this argument. His arguments are not personal attacks against a people, they are attacks against a philosophy (Islam).

I do not attack Harris as being immoral or bigoted or a fundamentalist.  My argument is that he is intolerant.  And my reason for that accusation is not that he attacks a philosophy; debate about ideas is the way we advance.  My concern is that he seems to use his opposition to a philosophy as a reason to justify aggression (economic and military) against real people.  Freedom of belief has long been considered a fundamental human right.  Our concept of justice normally advocates punishing behavior, not belief.  While there are fanatics (Eric Hoffer’s “True Believers” ) who cling to every dogma, and, indeed, Islam encourages and produces more than its share, the vast majority of the human race care a lot more about day-to-day life than they do about any dogma or religion.  While this majority may get out their prayer rugs three times a day, or bow their heads over their food, or float little boats for their ancestors, they are no great threat to world peace.  They go along and get along with whatever dogma is least controversial in their culture, and beyond that want to be left in peace themselves.  My experience traveling in Islamic countries is that the people there are good-hearted and generous.  That seems to be verified by most non-political travel writers (the current NY Times bestseller “Three Cups of Tea” is a case in point).  To declare these people our enemy because they submit to a culture that is intolerant would be a grave mistake.  Harris avoids this by declaring them hostages in need of rescue.  All we need to do is read the reports of civilians in Iraq to see what befalls the hostages in these “rescues.” Invading their country is a very good way to turn hostages into fanatics.

There is no need to try to change how Muslims feel, or change their culture.  I see it as analogous to a group of families in a neighborhood.  I have neither the time nor inclination (nor perhaps, arguably), the right, to go into my neighbor’s home and tell them how NOT to indoctrinate their children, how to stop hating women, children, gays, how to consider, for a change, critical self-analysis (something almost completely absent from the Muslim world).

What I do have the time for, is that if you come over to my yard, or send your child to my yard, to kill my child or me, is to take you out completely.  You don’t get to say that is it due to your belief system, or that Allah told you, or that I’m an “infidel”, and conversely, I don’t have to tell you how to change, why you should change, or where you are wrong.  I get revenge in this multiple-move iron game, which teaches you, and/or your relatives that this is what you can expect in the future. 

Primitive cultures, of which Islam is, beyond any doubt, only respond to power, precisely BECAUSE they lack the cultural intellectual capacity to be reasoned with.  It isn’t just a functional matter, that one can only use force ultimately to end their aggression against you, it is that in their manner of thinking, force is the only thing they respond to, or respect.

I am not advocating anything proactive (necessarily, although there may be a time for that, and Iraq, according to the UN was, how about we get out of the UN then we don’t HAVE to care about toothless “inspections” and “resolutions).  However, I am advocating a muscular response to any group that seeks to impose their belief system on me (us), or seeks to kill me.

And by the way, if that isn’t moral, then what would be?  If responding to Afghanistan after 911 by devastating at least the ORIGINAL Taliban was immoral, then what would ever be moral, as far as a response?  Then why don’t you (whomever disagrees), give up your life as a sacrifice to those who would kill and satisfy their need so that the rest of us can live, and avoid the ‘wars’ you think are too immoral?

Overall Trish, I think your comments are sensible and thoughtful, but I don’t see how they apply particularly to Sam Harris.

Based on my reading of Sam Harris and listening to him speak, he has not advocated any forceful intervention in particular, rather he has simply made the argument that:

1) Forceful intervention can be moral
2) Forceful intervention is sometimes necessary
3) The stakes are high (read: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-end-of-liberalism/)

Sam’s arguments have been made in response to those who claim that force is NEVER an option in such matters, both because (as you have argued) that forceful interventions are either immoral and/or can never be effective. This is an essential context in which to understand the thrust of Sam’s comments. —and it’s an important context! He is arguing that forceful intervention (whether they originate internally or externally) CAN BE the morally right course of action.

To state flatly, as you have, that forceful intervention is “never really for the good of the other society” is not an argument. It’s your statement of opinion and that statement begs a defense in the face of counter evidence. I can cite many examples where force was effectively used to change behavior, and I can cite many examples where the use of force appeared to be the only available resolution. The American civil war is an example of both. To support your position, maybe you can explain how slavery in the United States might have been ended without the forceful intervention of the North imposing itself on the South? 

TRISH:

I see several distinctions here to the comparison with the overthrow of “Jim Crow” laws and school integration.  First of all the those actions targeted the behavior, and not the beliefs, of the perpetrators.

Distinctions compared to what? What has Sam harris advocated that is not consistent with the idea that (at least where force is concerned) only *behaviors* should be targeted? Sam Harris does not advocate the use of force to change anyones beliefs. He advocates outspoken activism in calling a spade a spade (i.e.  publicly vetted religious claims) but he *definitely* does not advocate a “thought police” to clamp down on belief.

TRISH:

And in those cases the actions were imposed, with discretion, by duly elected representatives of the people who were subject to the sanctions.

I’m not sure why this matters. It was the actions of “duly elected representatives of the people” who were imposing segregating on “the people” in the first place. If the issue is simply one of soveriegnty and representational government, then Arkansas should have been given the right and option to secede from the union and continue the practice of segregation as its people saw fit.  In the case of Ataturk (Mustafa Kemal) and Turkey, Ataturk was not duly elected (at least not at first - at first it was a single party system which he controlled completely); Ataturk was a dictator. He happened to be acting (in most cases) in a way that was consistent with promoting a liberal society, most significantly he established equal rights for women (today the proportion of Turish born women with PhDs is among the highest per capita in the world). It’s highly unlikely that this could have been achieved in a country that was 90% Muslim without the government imposing an integrated school system for women by force.  As his government was not initially a government of representatives duly elected by the people, would you argue that his use of force was immoral or wrong?

TRISH:

And finally, any punishment handed out as a result targeted the people who actually commited crimes, not at people who approved of their reasons.

But in the case of the American Civil war, everybody suffered, not just those who were guilty of being slave owners.

TRISH:

deciding what is “necessary” for another culture is always colored by self-interest, just as the intervention in Iraq was.

This might be true, but I don’t see where it is particularly relevant as a criticism of anything Sam Harris has said. Your statement supplements what Sam Harris has said; it doesn’t contradict anything that he has advocated. 

TRISH:

It’s never really for the good of the other society, no matter what rationalization is propounded.

This is a dogmatic statement. Of course power-grabs often get wrapped in a patina of “doing good of the other society”, but on what basis do you claim that they’re NEVER for the sake of the good of another people? Do you really not see any evidence of people fighting for the good of others? or that the good of others is never ultimately served by such fighting?  Again, the slaves in the United States were freed. Force appeared to be the only solution, and a substantial number of people fighting in that war were by all accounts primarily motivated to fight for the cause of freeing the slaves (i.e. fighting for their “good"). 

And again, if the sovereignty of a people is a basis for distinction, why shouldn’t it have been the right of every one of the slave-owning states to secede from the union, if a majority of the voters in those states chose to do so (and in doing so expect to be left alone by the Northern states)? The Southern states believed that owning slaves was moral and a right - many considered the right sanctioned in the The Bible. This is very similar I think to the situation we have with Islam and people who would justify government sanctioned oppression based on religious beliefs.

TRISH:

If surveys are to believed, most of the young people in Islamic countries are attracted by western values and life styles, despite all their culture’s propaganda, and they are the force that will liberalize their cultures.  The surest way to turn them against liberalization is to use aggression against them.

This is a relevant argument for a non-forceful approach. Yes. But just as the argument for force should not be accepted simply on its face, the argument for non-forceful change should not be accepted on its face. Given that, left to themselves, things often do not get better, you need to defend this position with evidence and good reason. I think such surveys of public opinion are probably unreliable, extremely difficult to interpret, and at a minimum limited in scope.

TRISH:

I do not attack Harris as being immoral or bigoted or a fundamentalist.

But there are those on this thread that do, and Hedges definitely has accused Harris of being a fundamentalist.

TRISH:

My argument is that he is intolerant.  And my reason for that accusation is not that he attacks a philosophy; debate about ideas is the way we advance.  My concern is that he seems to use his opposition to a philosophy as a reason to justify aggression (economic and military) against real people.

I think you’ve overly simplified his position. He attacks a specific philosophy.  That philosophy is one that has advocated killing “apostates” . Harris as such is being intolerant of intolerance. And what’s wrong with that?

SAM HARRIS:

A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world — for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a “war on terror.” We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise.

This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims. But we are absolutely at war with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good, that cartoonists should be killed for caricaturing the prophet and that any Muslim who loses his faith should be butchered for apostasy.
source:http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-end-of-liberalism/

TRISH:

Freedom of belief has long been considered a fundamental human right.  Our concept of justice normally advocates punishing behavior, not belief.

Sam Harris advocates verbally attacking belief, and acting with force if necessary (applying a utilitarian moral consideration) to protect human rights. 

TRISH:

My experience traveling in Islamic countries is that the people there are good-hearted and generous.

Mine too. But isn’t that part of the point that Harris is making? These are good people. The extremists (i.e. militant jjihadists) think that they are especially good people, doing good.

TRISH:

To declare these people our enemy because they submit to a culture that is intolerant would be a grave mistake.  Harris avoids this by declaring them hostages in need of rescue.

Never have I ever heard Harris declare Muslims in general as our enemy.  He often in fact goes out of his way to make the distinction between Muslims in general and “ those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good”. He does condemn those who would be apologists for Islam however.

Here is Sam Harris statement on this:
SAM HARRIS:

As I regularly point out when attacking Islam, no one is suffering under the doctrine of Islam more than Muslims are--particularly Muslim women. Those who object to any attack upon the religion of Islam as “racist” or as a symptom of “Islamophobia” display a nauseating insensitivity to the subjugation of women throughout the Muslim world. At this moment, millions of women and girls have been abandoned to illiteracy, forced marriage, and lives of slavery and abuse under the guise of “multiculturalism” and “religious sensitivity.” This is a crime to which every apologist for Islam is now an accomplice.

TRISH:

All we need to do is read the reports of civilians in Iraq to see what befalls the hostages in these “rescues.” Invading their country is a very good way to turn hostages into fanatics.

What does Iraq have to do with Sam Harris?  Sam Harris has never written or spoken in support of the war in Iraq. Iraq was a secular country at the time of invasion.

It is true that the use of force must be chosen carefully, yes. And it’s limitations taken into account.  Pointing out this case, as you have, of a military invasion and occupation that has been a disaster (for the most part because post-occupation planing was practically non-existent and the invasion occurred without support from the United Nations) does not contradict Harris’s position.

UlsterScots432:

I have neither the time nor inclination (nor perhaps, arguably), the right, to go into my neighbor’s home and tell them how NOT to indoctrinate their children, how to stop hating women, children, gays, how to consider, for a change, critical self-analysis (something almost completely absent from the Muslim world). What I do have the time for, is that if you come over to my yard, or send your child to my yard, to kill my child or me, is to take you out completely.

I would argue that all children have the right to access of the world’s knowledge. If a parent is isolating a child or otherwise preventing them from access to knowledge, then I think neighbors have an obligation to step-in to protect the child’s rights n that regard. It’s not the rights of the parents, it’s the rights of the children.

UlsterScots432:

Primitive cultures, of which Islam is, beyond any doubt, only respond to power, precisely BECAUSE they lack the cultural intellectual capacity to be reasoned with.

This I would call a biggotted characterization. People are people. The teachings of Islam deserve attack (as do the teachings of any religion - some more than others) but there is no reason to believe that the people who affiliate with islam have any less intellectual capacity than any other people (in fact, my personal experience has been that they have more). Most members of any ideologically based belief system tend to pick and choose among the teachings and beliefs of the system they belong; Muslims appear to me to be no different in this regard.

Riley,

Wow!  You made a lot of points--some of which I agree with, some I disagree with, and some in which I believe we are simply talking past each other.  Rather than going line by line, I’m going to attempt to consolidate and summarize our discussion so far, and to clear up what may be some misapprehensions:

As to my position vis-à-vis the “New Atheists:” I am not agreeing with nor defending Chris Hedges or any of the other contributors to this discussion.  I admire the “New Atheist” authors for challenging the religious ethic that is taken for granted across most of the American Continent.  I agree with almost everything they say.  Where I disagree with Sam Harris is on two points:
1) His condemnation of religious moderates, and
2) His aggressive position towards the religion of Islam.
Given the natural human inclination towards us-them thinking, I think it is extremely important that we attempt to moderate rather that inflame those sentiments.

As to my position vis-à-vis the use of force:  I agree with you that force is sometimes justified.  But I am more conservative about what constitutes justification.  Specifically,
I think force is only justified to counter force.  (Examples:  Force was justified, in my opinion, to free people being held by force in slavery.  Force is always justified to prevent genocide.) When force must be used, I think it should be limited as much as possible to the actual perpetrators of violence against others and not allowed to generalized to characterizing an entire population as “the enemy.” Secondly, I don’t believe it is ever justified to escalate the level of force.  I don’t believe force is justified on the basis of what we think someone might do, what they say they advocate doing, or any other general saber-rattling.  As long as people are waging a war of words and ideas, I believe the only justifiable response is with words and ideas.

UlsterScots432,

I completely agree with Riley’s comments.

Trish - 26 May 2008 05:01 PM

I agree with almost everything they say.  Where I disagree with Sam Harris is on two points:
1) His condemnation of religious moderates, and
2) His aggressive position towards the religion of Islam.

I think it’s important to note that Harris does not condemn religious moderates as people, rather he condemns the practice of honoring/respecting the beliefs of religious moderates as a matter of practice and a cultural norm. Harris argues that the beliefs of “moderates” and the impact such beliefs have on the problem of “extremism” should not be spared from criticism - as many have argued that they should. Most significantly however, Harris has an argument for this stance with regard to “religious moderates” and I think it’s wrong for people to focus their criticism on Harris specifically or on his stance in general, rather than addressing his argument itself.

It’s the responsibility of someone who disagrees with Harris to not simply assert that Harris is wrong, but to point out where his argument is wrong.

The Harris Argument: Those who act in accordance with the teachings of a “holy” book, receive tacit support from those who uphold the book as “holy” and act to shelter the book and its teachings from public criticism.

So, if Deuteronomy 22:13-21 dictates that a woman should be stoned to death on her father’s doorstep if she is discovered not to be a virgin on her wedding night (as it does), and a man or a community of people act in accordance with the dictates of that book, we should hold all people who promote that book as being a “holy” at least partly responsible, if not for any one act in particular, than for the pattern of such horrible acts. Those who assert that their book contains commandments and moral teachings of the highest authority (i.e. “God") and demand respect for that belief are providing a foundational basis (and arguable a logical justification) for the acts of religious “extremists”.

As far as Islam goes, doesn’t Islam deserve our special attention? As substantially practiced throughout the world, what other ideology is as intolerant of criticism (leaders encouraging followers to kill those who are critical of belief-system), more demanding of universal conformity (it’s not enough that a woman who chooses to follow Islam be covered, all women in an Islamic country are expected to be covered), or more responsible for the widespread suppression of women’s rights? Certainly Islam as practiced world-wide is among the world’s worst in each of these categories.

It’s worthy to note that a significant number of Muslims practice what might be termed a “reformed” version of Islam (official and unofficial), but nonetheless, the vast majority of these “moderates” still choose to worship the exact same “holy” book as the “extremists” and they leave that same “holy” book and all it’s misogynistic laws wholly intact, and worse, they still insist that this “holy” book be held universally above reproach.

We don’t need to stop being friends with these people to point out to them that: “Hey, this book of yours promotes horrible things.”

Trish - 26 May 2008 05:01 PM

Given the natural human inclination towards us-them thinking, I think it is extremely important that we attempt to moderate rather that inflame those sentiments.

I agree that great care should be taken. But still, we should not be reluctant to to criticize an idea, any idea, even if the idea is essential to a group’s identification. The fact that people are inclined to take criticism of an idea personally is their problem. Rather than kowtow to those who cry-out “bigotry” when the ideas of their group get criticized, I think we need to heighten awareness to the fact that such criticism should be expected.

Trish - 26 May 2008 05:01 PM

As to my position vis-à-vis the use of force:  I agree with you that force is sometimes justified.  But I am more conservative about what constitutes justification.  Specifically, I think force is only justified to counter force.  (Examples:  Force was justified, in my opinion, to free people being held by force in slavery.  Force is always justified to prevent genocide.) When force must be used, I think it should be limited as much as possible to the actual perpetrators of violence against others and not allowed to generalized to characterizing an entire population as “the enemy.” Secondly, I don’t believe it is ever justified to escalate the level of force.  I don’t believe force is justified on the basis of what we think someone might do, what they say they advocate doing, or any other general saber-rattling.  As long as people are waging a war of words and ideas, I believe the only justifiable response is with words and ideas.

I agree with you on these points. definitely.

Riley - 24 May 2008 12:03 PM

UlsterScots432:

I have neither the time nor inclination (nor perhaps, arguably), the right, to go into my neighbor’s home and tell them how NOT to indoctrinate their children, how to stop hating women, children, gays, how to consider, for a change, critical self-analysis (something almost completely absent from the Muslim world). What I do have the time for, is that if you come over to my yard, or send your child to my yard, to kill my child or me, is to take you out completely.

I would argue that all children have the right to access of the world’s knowledge. If a parent is isolating a child or otherwise preventing them from access to knowledge, then I think neighbors have an obligation to step-in to protect the child’s rights n that regard. It’s not the rights of the parents, it’s the rights of the children.

UlsterScots432:

Primitive cultures, of which Islam is, beyond any doubt, only respond to power, precisely BECAUSE they lack the cultural intellectual capacity to be reasoned with.

This I would call a biggotted characterization. People are people. The teachings of Islam deserve attack (as do the teachings of any religion - some more than others) but there is no reason to believe that the people who affiliate with islam have any less intellectual capacity than any other people (in fact, my personal experience has been that they have more). Most members of any ideologically based belief system tend to pick and choose among the teachings and beliefs of the system they belong; Muslims appear to me to be no different in this regard.

Islam is a primitive culture.  The teachings of Islam ARE Islam.  Confused on what your disagreement is.  Although everyone loves to talk of those obscure “moderates”, the reality is that Islam is a highly ignorant, highly intolerant religion (which has produced a “culture” as much as early Christianity produced much of European culture).  Islam prevents the expression of free thought, free inquiry and any form of skeptical or critical thinking.  This is why the majority of nations and people within the grip of Islam lack the intellectual capacity to be reasoned with.  Their culture does not allow for even basic reason within the family unit.  While I have not traveled nor lived there as much as Hedges, having been to the Middle East and having been in a relationship with a Muslim Infidel (if you ever want the truth talk to someone who left Islam), it is pretty clear that their culture is incapable as an aggregate of using reason as a guide for nearly anything.

This is why our “culture” (the “Western Culture” for lack of a better descriptor) has produced everything from Mozart, to Adam Smith, to Jefferson, to the Beatles, to the Human Genome project to laptops to putting a man on the moon, and to, (gasp) the heavy use of cartoons to express a thought or idea cleverly.  Theirs is the culture of hanging gays by construction booms, throwing acid in the face of women, placing bombs on children, honor killings and lest we forget, killing people over cartoons.

How dare you call my point bigoted in the face of a culture which has been MORE bigoted, hateful and destructive than Christianity could ever hope to have been, as bad as it was during the Dark Ages.  The word for a black person in Arabic is, to this day “Abid” (slave).  You are exactly the problem.  Instead of calling out the class bully, you call out the kids in class that call out the class bully.  Islam is a destructive belief system, as much as ‘old time’ Catholicism (which suppressed human freedom and thought), and MORE ignorant than backwoods Protestant Christianity (which regularly feeds fairy tales to children and adults alike). 

Islam and it’s followers, culturally incapable of reason as they are, have a right to do or be whatever they want, but when they bring it to my doorstep, I am with Harris--get the bombers in the air.  One wonders, at the risk of generalizing your response, what action you would EVER find reasonable in the face of true hatred and murder?  You do realize, Muslims murder muslims, brown-skinned people, straights, gays, women, children, whomever. 

They cannot be reasoned with, and they have shown that, and that is why their culture looks today, like what you would EXPECT of a culture that lacks reason, versus our culture (although we are not perfect, nor shall I argue that).  Our culture looks and acts like a culture, as one would expect, where skepticism and free thought, inquiry, critical thinking, etc, allow us to continually challenge each other and ideals...even on places like this internet board. 

The glorious western culture- castrati, slavery, Nazis, The Inquisition, others..

While Europe was in the Dark Ages, the Muslims were developing Medicine, algebra and Astronomy, they were also the victims of religious zealotry that squelched knowledge ( watch Neil deGrasse Tyson on Beyond Belief 1)

Some of these threads stink of prejudice and racial/ethnic discrimination.

Personally, I believe most of us are the same overall, until we develop true Humanitarian Universality, we are doomed to repeat catastrophe.

A first step is to accept all other Humans as brothers and sisters deserving of equal respect.