The End of Faith by Sam Harris, continued
Mon, 2007-08-06 05:54
#1
The End of Faith by Sam Harris, continued
Mon, 2007-08-06 05:54
#2
I know the other thread got ugly, but I'm reading the book now and I wanted to pick up the discussion from this post of Stargazer's, which happened before the other thread turned into a mess, so I'm hoping I won't be dragging us into another screaming match.
Here's what Stargazer thought of the book:
quote:
I addressed Sam Harris in another thread here not too long ago. I read his book, The End of Faith and let me tell you, the man may be an atheist but he sure does give Bush and the US excuses while sermonizing Islam above all religions. I was frankly surprised to see him and Dawkins team up together, as Dawkins in much more balanced. Sam Harris quoted pages upon pages from the Koran, showing it's murderous ways to heathens and Christians, but did not do the same thing with Christianity. In fact, he says that Islam is by far the most dangerous religion - based upon his cherry picked quotes and his non admission of any from the Christian bibles. I'm a lefty and I was not impressed by his book at all.
I'm about half-way through the book, and this is the impression I'm getting, too. My first impressions were mixed, but I'm finding myself getting annoyed. He does focus on other religions as well, but he seems to be claiming that while all religions HAVE BEEN dangerous, Islam is the most dangerous one right now. He talks about the danger of fundamentalist Christianity as if it somehow stopped being dangerous when the Inquisition ended, or once the Holocaust was over.
There have been tons of places in the book where I've wanted to rebut his arguments. It's true, there aren't Christian nations where people are stoned to death for adultery and stuff like that. But he talks about Islamists doing suicide bombing of civilians for religious reasons because of their religion as somehow different than Americans doing aerial bombing of civilians for religious and ideological reasons.
He cites that poll of Muslims where they were asked whether suicide bombings against civilians are ever justified.
But strangely enough, no one has done a poll of Americans and Canadians, asking them whether the mass killing of civilians in Dresden, Germany during the second world war, or the bombs on Hiroshima or Nagasaki which was a mass killing of civilians, was justified. I'll bet you'd get some similar numbers. And all those wars were sold to the people as not just secular wars, but also wars where God was on our side.
Another thing that really annoyed me is that he justifies nuclear first strikes in the book. His claim appears to be that because Muslims are so delusional that they would be willing to nuke the entire world and would not be deterred by mutually assured destruction, that a first strike against them would be justified.
This is not a book that is against religion. This is a book that centres out Islam and gives the PRESENT Christian and other religious fundies a free pass. I agree with him that fundamentalist Muslims are dangerous. I don't agree with him that they're any more dangerous than fundies from any other religion.
[ 06 August 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Mon, 2007-08-06 06:23
#3
N.Beltov
Michelle, the critique you make of Harris is similar to the critique I would make of Dawkins. Based on interviews and programs with Dawkins that I've seen or read, he seems to make generalizations about religion based on three monotheistic religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. I find myself agreeing with most of his observations and yet disagreeing with (some of) his conclusions.
Then again, it's very difficult to make [i]all[/i] religions the subject of a study. I would recommend having a look at Daniel Dennett's [i]Breaking the Spell[/i] when you're finished with the Harris book.
Mon, 2007-08-06 08:00
#4
quote:
This is not a book that is against religion. This is a book that centres out Islam and gives the PRESENT Christian and other religious fundies a free pass. I agree with him that fundamentalist Muslims are dangerous. I don't agree with him that they're any more dangerous than fundies from any other religion.
Exactly Michelle. I felt guilty afterwards for actually spending money to read this book. It is not against religion. This guy has an entire anti-Islam angle, and he tries to sell himself as an intellectual. What a waste of money.
Mon, 2007-08-06 08:07
#5
Agree with Stargazer - but I borrowed the book from a friend, so I didn't feel guilty about not finishing it.
Mon, 2007-08-06 08:10
#6
Frustrated Mess
I haven't read his book, but from what I have read it seems he comes from the same perspective of Christopher Hitchen's who seems to be buy into the entire "war of civilizations" scenario which is really a call for war against the largest part of the planet. And I think underneath that, if entirely unstated, is the realization that that we are reaching a point of unprecedented scarcity and we, the Western world, have a greater entitlement to what remains of the rest of the planet than anyone else including those who live where the wealth is located.
Mon, 2007-08-06 08:56
#7
TemporalHominid
I agree with all the above criticims.
While Hitchens, and to some extent Harris, do promote neo-con ideas and a western sense of entitlement, they are broaching a topic that needs to be discussed.
Hitchens and Harris promote a new imperialism and do not see that economic hardship and inequity help create an environment that aids in the recruiting for extreme Islam. The books are limited by a lack of investigation into context, but I don't think was the goal of these authors. It does illustrate that the authors may be naive or have an agenda, and Hitchens and Dawkins will be honest about their agendas.
Having said that,
the Pope-directed Inquisitions and the contemporary consequences have been discussed a lot, and I don't think these authors had to revisit the Inquisition themes.
The inquisition would be a safe topic, but criticising Christianity, Judaism, and Islam is not politically correct. Few people want to publicly talk about and criticise the irrational Monotheistic religions for fear of being labelled intolerant, racist, and bigots.
I think the best points they bring up is that these hate filled religions, that bolster their bigotry and hate through the Talmud, Torah, Koran, and Bibles; have access and influence to governments around the world. In the west they are often tax exempt. In the United States, the Bush admin (which invokes god when it talks about Iraq and the war on terrorism) has given these faith based interest groups access to public institutions via the Faith Based Inistiatives.
Bill Maher, George Carlin, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc are uncomfortable with these relationships faith communities have with governments and how these interest groups have shouted and threatened to shut up dissent. These groups can shout out "Kill fags", but if Hitchens or Maher say "fuck religion" society is more uncomfortable with Hitchens and Maher than with the religious leaders that shout hate and intolerance from a pulpit.
Mainstream versions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are culpable, as are secularists who give the interest groups a platform to spew their hate. The authority of the bible and the religious leaders have to be challenged, just as we challenge the authority of politicians and secular institutions.
I don't agree with everything Hitchens and Harris state or their biased world outlook, but I do think they are needed to start a discussion about the secular and the faith based and how secular institutions are being influenced and often held hostage by the big 3 monotheistic religions. Nations like Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Canada, England, France, and United States are threatened by a pro-ative religious minority that have a lot of political savvy and are positioning themselves, or all ready have, to determine foreign policy an social agendas.
After the environment, the next biggest challenge
Mon, 2007-08-06 09:28
#8
I've posted this before, but it merits posting again. The evangelical atheism that Harris and Hitchens are purveying has the underlying structure of a fundamentalist religiosity predicated on the demonization of the "irrational" or "mystical" Other. Incidentally, this religiosity seems to be rather popular these days--check out the neo-Fascist movie "300" for an example of this trend in popular entertainment.
Here, once again, is Chris Hedges' review of Christopher Hitchens “God is NOT Great”. Hedges makes the point better than I can.
[url=http://www.newstatesman.com/200706040045]http://www.newstatesman.com/200...
Here’s an excerpt:
“This is the greatest failing of Hitchens's book. He, like Harris, externalises evil. And when such writers externalise evil, all tools, including violence and torture, become legitimate in order to eradicate an evil outside of them. This world-view - one also adopted by the Christian right - is dangerous. It fails to acknowledge the impulses within us, both dark and seductive, that permit us to carry out evil, often in the name of good.
“This externalisation of evil is what allows Hitchens to continue as an ardent supporter of the occupation of Iraq. He, of course, deludes himself into believing that it is reason that requires us to waterboard Muslim detainees in the physical and moral black holes that we have set up to make them disappear. It is reason that gives us the moral right to wage a war that under international law is illegal, indeed a 'crime of aggression'.
“His assault on what he defines as the irrational force of religion permits Hitchens to sanction the abuse and subjugation of others. This is done in the name of his particular version of goodness, which he calls, repeatedly, 'reason'. But this, too, is a false god: more particularly, the god of death. For once you wage unprovoked wars and embrace torture, for whatever reason, you unleash sadists and killers. You become no better than those you oppose. And as an apologist for the war in Iraq, Hitchens not only has the blood of American and British soldiers on his hands, but the blood of a few hundred thousand Iraqis, too. He is no better than the apologists for radical Islam he so ardently seeks to discredit. His moral certitude is no different and the consequences are as dangerous.
“Hitchens's arguments are the mirror image of those used by the fundamentalists he despises. He embraces a self-serving and simplistic view of the world. This allows him to create the illusion of a dualistic world of us and them, of reason versus irrationality. And once this vision has been adopted, as the events of the past six years prove, it is possible to view military intervention, occupation and even torture - anything that will subdue the 'irrational' or 'dangerous' - as necessary."
Mon, 2007-08-06 10:01
#9
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]Exactly Michelle. I felt guilty afterwards for actually spending money to read this book. It is not against religion. This guy has an entire anti-Islam angle, and he tries to sell himself as an intellectual. What a waste of money.[/b]
Well, I didn't spend money. I borrowed it from the library. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
I guess my first clue, once I got the book home, should have been the glowing review on the back of the book by Alan Dershowitz.
I would have been fine with his skewering of Islam had he given equal time to other religions and recognized the imperialism of fundamentalist Christians (who, after all, are armed to the teeth in the world's biggest superpower) and other religions.
I was even fine with his thesis that "moderate" Christians and Muslims are responsible for creating a climate where religion is this big taboo subject which can never be challenged by non-believers on a rational level, otherwise you get the whole "oh, you're persecuting me and you should never ever question any of my beliefs even though I don't have one shred of real evidence for believing it" hissy fit, which in turn makes it difficult to expose extremists because they can then accuse you of "religious intolerance" when you expose the stupidity behind, say, killing people over cartoons that skewer religious ideas, or trying to get stupid bible bullshit taught in school as science and history. I get the argument, and to some degree I agree with it.
But that's not what I'm getting from his book so far. What I'm getting from his book is that he's justifying "war against Islam" and "clash of civilizations" crap, painting Americans as the good guys and the Muslim world as the bad guys. He even says that "The War On Terror" is inaccurate and we should be recognizing that it is a War on Islam. Well, I agree with him on that. Where I don't agree with him is that he thinks a war on Islam is justified. I don't. And where I also don't agree with him is that he refuses to recognize that this war on Islam is being perpetrated by fundamentalist Christians primarily, as a latter day crusade. He is trying to paint it as a war between secular forces and the forces of Islam. Nuh-uh.
He's blind to the religious extremism on "our side" and that completely undercuts what might have been a good argument against all religion.
[ 06 August 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Mon, 2007-08-06 10:44
#10
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]My first impressions were mixed, but I'm finding myself getting annoyed. He does focus on other religions as well, but he seems to be claiming that while all religions HAVE BEEN dangerous, Islam is the most dangerous one right now.[/b]
I'm not sure there are many Christian regimes today like this [url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010434]Islamic regime[/url].
Mon, 2007-08-06 11:02
#11
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]this war on Islam is being perpetrated by fundamentalist Christians primarily, as a latter day crusade. He is trying to paint it as a war between secular forces and the forces of Islam. Nuh-uh.He's blind to the religious extremism on "our side" and that completely undercuts what might have been a good argument against all religion.
[/b]
Actually, I used to think it was just extreme fundamentalist Christians that were driving the war against Islam. However, really that is not the case. And you actually touched on it in your "Nuh uh", about his trying to portray it as secular forces.
It is actually the "secular humanists" that are against wars, and the "passive" Christians and extremists who are supportive of the war, either overtly, covertly, or unconsciously.
By passive, I mean those who ascribe to believing in God/Jesus, and who are not active against wars and eroding of human rights. They are those o participate in church going activities, or label themselves as "Christians" and only go to church for special occasions, but they are not involved in the extreme nature of the evangelical and Opus Dei types.
However, by their passivity, they are quietly supporting the evangelicals/Opus Dei types. They want the status quo to remain the same, as they understand they live in a position privilege and if a war against Islam, or whomever, will assure things stay the same it is fine with them.
Mon, 2007-08-06 11:49
#12
Well, I wouldn't generalize like that. There are lots of "moderate Christians" who are against the war. I would have been one of them had I not lost my religious beliefs a while before The War Against Terror began.
All Christians and all Muslims do not think the same way. Neither are monolithic religions. I think it's far too easy, especially for an extremely disillusioned ex-Christian like me, to fall into the same trap that Harris has fallen into regarding Muslims, pigeonholing everyone who is a Christian with the same beliefs and politics. It's just not true.
Lots of Christians, nominal, religious and otherwise, are against war and are active about it. Lots of religious people recognize the Us Vs. Them rhetoric, and the religious war aspect to current world politics.
I would just argue, however, that by trying to make preposterous and unprovable religious beliefs and dogma exempt from inquiry and criticism by labeling people bigots when they attempt to do so, religious moderates give extremists a place to hide, even if they don't mean to.
One thing Harris says, and I think he has a point, is that the more "perfect" a person's faith is in their religious beliefs, most of which come out of books full of barbarity, religious extremism and calls to murder and martyrdom, the more likely they'll be to hold an extremist and violent outlook. And that the less "perfect" a person's religious beliefs are, or the less observant they are to strict adherence to religion, or the less CONSISTENTLY they adhere to their religion's dictates, the less they will be inclined towards religious violence. In other words, the more a religious person tempers their religious beliefs with doubt and reason, the less likely they're going to be to think that killing and dying in the name of God is a good idea. Makes sense to me.
I can see where he's coming from there. I just don't understand why he can't see the extremism on our side, with some idiot fundy flake running the White House, and convincing way too many Americans that they're killing Muslims in the name of God, and that God supports the war. Heck, God even gave Bush the presidency. Can't argue with that.
[ 06 August 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Mon, 2007-08-06 13:55
#13
Frustrated Mess
quote:
I'm not sure there are many Christian regimes today like this Islamic regime.
Perhaps, not, but given the opportunity it is exactly the type of regime some Christian fundamentalists would like to establish. And they have power.
And, BTW, the Shah's regime, trained by the US and Britain, would have made the current Iranis look like pikers when it comes to repression and terror.
quote:
the CIA sent an operative to teach interrogation methods to SAVAK, the Shah's secret police, that the training included instructions in torture, and the techniques were copied from the Nazis
[url=http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8310]ZNet[/url]
In his book, The Great War for Civilization, Fisk describes how a Savak agent had, in the basement of his home, a device into which a victim's hand would be placed and fed into a bacon slicer. There was a bed under which was placed domestic cookers. The victims would be lowered over them.
This house of horrors, according to Fisk, was discovered and photographed by Derek Ive of AP.
Let's not pretend that Iran as an Islamic state has some sort of corner on barbarity.
Mon, 2007-08-06 14:00
#14
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
[b]Perhaps, not, but given the opportunity it is exactly the type of regime some Christian fundamentalists would like to establish. And they have power.[/b]
If that is what they want and "they have power" to accomplish it now, why haven't they?
Mon, 2007-08-06 15:18
#15
Frustrated Mess
I didn't say the [i]have the power[/i], if you read it again. I said they [i]have power[/i]. They have political power in terms of voters they can pull out giving them leverage (in case you haven't noted both Bush and Harper cater to them), and they have financial power. They are seeking to [i]have the power[/i]. And throughout history, religious dogma has only ever found universal application of political rule through a single means.
Mon, 2007-08-06 18:20
#16
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Well, I wouldn't generalize like that. There are lots of "moderate Christians" who are against the war. I would have been one of them had I not lost my religious beliefs a while before The War Against Terror began.[/b]
Actually, I did not generalize, I specifically excluded those "Christians" who were/are active against wars and who want to uphold, and extend human rights.
Which leaves those who passively accept war and who want to keep things the "same", and the extremists. They are not willing to halt the extremists in their pushing for wars, and erosion of rights, as truthfully they want to keep their privileged lifes.
Mon, 2007-08-06 18:51
#17
I listened to the CBC interview with Mr. Harris a couple of weeks ago. To me, he basically reconfirmed that there is a significant minority in the US who consider war against anyone who doesn't subscribe to the "American way" logical and necessary.
It may appear incongruous,coming from a neocon warmongering (insert personal pejorative here and spit on floor) but after reading a few books and numerous articles,I can't mock the conspiracy theorists with any sort of relish.
Tue, 2007-08-07 12:22
#18
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]He does focus on other religions as well, but he seems to be claiming that while all religions HAVE BEEN dangerous, Islam is the most dangerous one right now.[/b]
[b][i]Radical[/b][/i] Islam probably is the most dangerous religion being practiced right now.
[url=http://www.slate.com/id/2171745/nav/tap3/]Your Black Muslim Bakery[/url]
Tue, 2007-08-07 12:24
#19
Really? I think the tens of thousands of people getting killed by bombs sent with love from the Christian fundamentalist whackjobs running your government would beg to differ, Sven.
Tue, 2007-08-07 12:41
#20
Sven
[url=http://www.slate.com/id/2171371/]Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?[/url]
Tue, 2007-08-07 12:44
#21
Is that the way you debate, Sven? You say something, someone responds, and then you change the subject?
I'll consider that a concession to my point.
Tue, 2007-08-07 12:52
#22
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Is that the way you debate, Sven? You say something, someone responds, and then you change the subject?I'll consider that a concession to my point.[/b]
When Hillary Clinton is president, you’ll see more of the same foreign policy, I’m quite certain of that. But, in that case, in stark contrast to GWB, you won’t be able to label her as an extremist Christian fundamentalist.
The point is, it’s not extremist Christian fundamentalism that’s driving USA foreign policy, as much as many here may wish to believe in the interest of ensuring that criticism of Islamists and Christian fundamentalists is meted out with the utmost sense of neutrality and even-handedness.
Tue, 2007-08-07 12:53
#23
Sven
[url=http://www.slate.com/id/2169020/]Rage Boy[/url]...and why you should be concerned about Islamists.
Tue, 2007-08-07 12:56
#24
Sven
With all of this discussion of the Harris book, I’m going to have to move it closer to the top of my reading pile. It’s been languishing near the bottom for some months now...
Tue, 2007-08-07 13:04
#25
I am concerned about Islamists. All those examples Hitchens comes up with in that other article of Islamic extremism are very scary.
[url=http://www.walrusmagazine.ca/print/2006.10-politics-stephen-harper-and-t.... Here's why you should be concerned about Theo-cons.[/url]
Get back to me once you've read the whole thing.
[ 07 August 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Tue, 2007-08-07 13:33
#26
Sven
Michelle, I agree with you that there are legitimate reasons for concern about the Theo-Cons, as you call them (never seen that term before!). Particularly, from my perspective, as they relate to things like abortion rights, school prayer, “intelligent design”, SMS, and the like.
But, look at the means by which Western Theo-Cons advocate change. They are generally peaceful and are trying to effectuate change through the legislative process. I may disagree with their objectives (and strongly) but I support their right advocate their positions in such a manner.
In contrast, you have a country like Iran that is run by Islamist “Theo-Cons”. Need I detail the hideous conduct they routinely engage in?
So, while criticism of extremist adherents of both religions may be warranted, the Islamic extremists deserve a much higher degree of criticism. To me, it makes no sense to lump them all (extreme Xians and Muslims) together as though they were equally evil in their actual conduct (they are not) or to make sure that they are both treated “fairly” by criticizing them equally (nothing justifies that).
Tue, 2007-08-07 13:42
#27
TemporalHominid
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]... it’s not extremist Christian fundamentalism that’s driving USA foreign policy.[/b]
Are you sure?
Bush (who invokes god at almost every opportunity) and the neo cons' moral absolutism (good vs evil) and faith based decision making is driving USA and domestic policies, as well as Cheney's dream of reinstating the glory and power of the Executive office pre-Watergate.
The neo-cons see the world as their military, political, moral and social battleground.
quote:
To me, it makes no sense to lump them all (extreme Xians and Muslims) together as though they were equally evil in their actual conduct (they are not) or to make sure that they are both treated “fairly” by criticizing them equally (nothing justifies that).[/QB]
the neo-cons and their moral absolutism is very simliar to Radical Islam.
Fortunately 74% of Americans see this now, it took 6 years for them to see what Bush and the neo-cons were, and they now doubt governance and leadership via moral absolutism.
Bush and his admin interfered in State jurisdiction re: abortion, gay rights, individual choices over their own death... imposing their moral absolutism on the individual states and on citizens.
[ 07 August 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]
Tue, 2007-08-07 13:45
#28
N.Beltov
Hey, Sven. The US and its Canadian military ally has access to nuclear weapons and has actually used them against civilians a couple of times already. Furthermore, the history of threatening to use these weapons by the US is well known. Moreover, the number of countries bombed, invaded, occupied, overthrown, etc. by the US is far too many to count.
Iran, on the other hand, has been involved in one major war in the last number of years; in case you "forgot" that was the war against the then US-proxy (and buddy!) of Saad'am Hussein's Iraq.
Give your head a shake. The biggest threat to peace on planet earth is the USA. And our current Prime Minister can't stuff his head up the ass of the US President far enough. Iran and the USA are different [i]orders of magnitude[/i] here.
Tue, 2007-08-07 13:49
#29
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by TemporalHominid:
[b]
Are you sure?
Bush (who invokes god at almost every opportunity) and the neo cons' moral absolutism (good vs evil) and faith based decision making is driving USA and domestic policies, as well as Cheney's dream of reinstating the glory and power of the Executive office pre-Watergate.The neo-cons see the world as their military, political, moral and social battleground.[/b]
It’s common to waive a red flag about GWB and his Xian beliefs as being the cause of USA foreign policy. But, that’s mistaken. As I said above, when Hillary Clinton becomes president in 2009, the USA foreign policy is going to change very little. To claim that Hillary is part of the Christian right would be ludicrous.
The place where Hillary will be significantly different that GWB will be in domestic areas, such as abortion rights. And, as I also said above, the difference between how the Theo-Cons push their social domestic issues couldn’t be more different than how the “Theo-Cons” of Iran push their social domestic issues.
Tue, 2007-08-07 13:51
#30
N.Beltov
Excellent link, Michelle. Is that the same author who wrote about the Straussians in Canada?
Tue, 2007-08-07 13:53
#31
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]Hey, Sven. The US and its Canadian military ally has access to nuclear weapons and has actually used them against civilians a couple of times already. [/b]
Again, this has zero to do with religion. We bombed the bejezuz out of Dresden, too (and fellow Christians, no less). The point being discussed here is whether Islamists and extremist Christians should be criticized as being equally dangerous.
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]Furthermore, the history of threatening to use these weapons by the US is well known. Moreover, the number of countries bombed, invaded, occupied, overthrown, etc. by the US is far too many to count.[/b]
Ditto.
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]Give your head a shake. The biggest threat to peace on planet earth is the USA. And our current Prime Minister can't stuff his head up the ass of the US President far enough. Iran and the USA are different [i]orders of magnitude[/i] here.[/b]
If you want to criticize American foreign policy, you’re obviously welcome to do that. But, to keep tying that policy back to Christian extremism is silly. You’ll see that when Hillary is president starting in 2009.
Tue, 2007-08-07 13:54
#32
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by TemporalHominid:
[b]the neo-cons and their moral absolutism is very simliar to Radical Islam[/b]
In theory, yes. In practice, no.
Tue, 2007-08-07 14:18
#33
In practice, yes. George Bush sells this war as a Holy War. God is on his side and everyone else's.
And you know what? Hilary's a religious Christian too, and if she gets elected and panders to the religious fundies in the US who want to kill as many Muslims overseas as possible because of their Holy War against Islam, then yes, that will make her a theo-con too. Because even if you don't believe it yourself, if you're pandering to the theo-cons who do believe it, and you're invoking God at the end of your speeches (God Bless America!) then you're just as bad as they are, and you're using religion as an excuse to murder people.
Tue, 2007-08-07 14:24
#34
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]In practice, yes. George Bush sells this war as a Holy War. God is on his side and everyone else's.And you know what? Hilary's a religious Christian too, and if she gets elected and panders to the religious fundies in the US who want to kill as many Muslims overseas as possible because of their Holy War against Islam, then yes, that will make her a theo-con too. Because even if you don't believe it yourself, if you're pandering to the theo-cons who do believe it, and you're invoking God at the end of your speeches (God Bless America!) then you're just as bad as they are, and you're using religion as an excuse to murder people.[/b]
Michelle, you can't be serious. You believe that Hillary Clinton's foreign policy views are motivated by Christian fundamentlist views that she holds??
Tue, 2007-08-07 14:24
#35
Anyone here read Charlie Wilson's War by George Crile? Very compelling account of how the Afghans were supported by anti-Communists in the US.
I have not yet read his book but from the CBC interview I heard,Sam Harris raises some scary issues that to me point toward a new Reich arising that the next US president will not be able to rein in.
The present US administration skirts US law to detain,torture,illegally wire-tap its own citizens as well as anyone else they choose to.
This administration also uses its own praetorian guard in the form of Blackwater to provide private military services to the administration. While the US military is prohibited from acting on US soil, Blackwater mercenaries are simply deputised as peace officers (eg: Hurricane Katrina) Since 2004, Blackwater has recieved $750M from providing diplomatic security in Iraq alone,not to mention commanding US Marines to open fire in Najaf.
So,here we have a US administration that goes outside the law with its own law enforcement agencies AND has private mercenaries at hand in case the legitimate authorities baulk at doing its bidding.
Whos the scary one here? The nutter hiding in a batcave in Asia or the stooge in the White House, having his strings pulled by Cheny?
Tue, 2007-08-07 14:32
#36
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Michelle, you can't be serious. You believe that Hillary Clinton's foreign policy views are motivated by Christian fundamentlist views that she holds??[/b]
Why don't you try reading my posts instead of twisting what I write?
I'm through discussing this with you.
Tue, 2007-08-07 14:35
#37
Sven
Next thing ya know, people will be calling Christopher Hitchens a "Christian fundamentalist" because of his scathing critique of Islamists.
Tue, 2007-08-07 14:43
#38
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Why don't you try reading my posts instead of twisting what I write? [/b]
I did. Here’s what you wrote:
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Hilary's a religious Christian too, and if she gets elected and panders to the religious fundies in the US who want to kill as many Muslims overseas as possible because of their Holy War against Islam, then yes, that will make her a theo-con too. Because even if you don't believe it yourself, if you're pandering to the theo-cons who do believe it, and you're invoking God at the end of your speeches (God Bless America!) then you're just as bad as they are, and you're using religion as an excuse to murder people.[/b]
Just because her foreign policy views happen to coincide with those of Christian fundies (and she may pander to that politically), that doesn’t mean she’s [b][i]motivated[/b][/i] by Christian fundamentalism to adopt those foreign policy views. Don’t you see that distinction?
In other words, many appear to be arguing here that USA foreign policy is what it is [b][i]because of[/b][/i] Christian fundamentalist views, thus warranting an equal criticism of Islamists (who execute gays because they are gay) and Christian fundamentalists (who bomb civilians). But, when a non-Christian fundamentalist happens to hold the same foreign policy views as Christian fundamentalists, that severs the direct link between Christian fundamentalism, on the one hand, and the bombing of civilians, on the other hand, which appears to be the whole justification for equating Christian fundamentalists with Islamists.
Tue, 2007-08-07 14:54
#39
Sven
To claim that the USA is bombing a country because of Christian fundamentalists (thus justifying equating them with Islamists) is to not understand American foreign policy motivations.
What Christian fundamentalist regime in the world does the following:
Kills women for having sex out of wedlock?
Kills gays for being gay?
Executes “anti-Christian hooligans”?
“Disappears” trade unionists, student activists, and journalists who oppose the Christian regime?
Shuts down newspapers because the editor argued for gender equality?
Well?
Now, look at an Islamic regime such as Iran and you can find those things in spades. And, they do those things [b][i]because[/b][/i] they are Islamists. Those leaders are [b][i]motivated[/b][/i] to do those things [b][i]because[/b][/i] they are Islamists.
Yet, people argue that extreme Christians, in practice, are just as evil as extreme Muslims, in practice?
That would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.
Tue, 2007-08-07 15:06
#40
Sven
[url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010434]Domestic Terror in Iran[/url]
Tue, 2007-08-07 15:42
#41
Yer right, sven. We gotta nuke them Iranians now, before they get too uppity.
Tue, 2007-08-07 15:50
#42
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Jingles:
[b]Yer right, sven. We gotta nuke them Iranians now, before they get too uppity.[/b]
Very thoughtful counter-argument. Not.
Tue, 2007-08-07 16:00
#43
I think it's too bad that Sam Harris doesn't recognize that killing tens of thousands of people in aggressive, unprovoked wars is just as immoral as killing them through insane religious domestic policies.
Without the US and other western countries propping up "evil" dictators and meddling in the affairs of countries like Afghanistan and Iran, and installing puppet regime dictators, the people of those countries just might have a fighting chance at getting rid of those dictators.
The reason the US keeps meddling, though, is because they have this weird religious belief that they are superior to all the other nations on earth, and they have the right to everyone else's resources, and that their god is far superior to everyone else's god, whether they're worshipping god or money. So, they cynically prop up religious dictators who will oppress their people and hand over the country's commodities in exchange for US financial and military support, and then when the religious dictators no longer jump through US hoops, the US claims that they have to fight a holy war against them in order to depose the "evil-doers" in a "clash of civilizations". Oh, and murder tens of thousands of civilians along the way, but that's okay, because at least they're not stoning them to death. They're bombing them to death instead.
The US doesn't give two fucks about the rights of Muslims being violated by the dictators they spend so much money propping up. They only care when it's a way to sell their oil wars to the idiots who are too busy stuffing their faces with doritoes and washing it down with big gulps while watching American Idol and COPS, and listening to every fucking Republican and Democratic candidate in every fucking election talk about how they talk to God regularly while they drape themselves in the flag.
But no, none of that is dangerous. Certainly that doesn't pose as great a danger to the world as a bunch of backwards idiot mullahs stoning people to death and forcing women into hijabs. Because hey, that's a-okay if you're an American ally like Saudi Arabia. Or if you're selling weapons to the Iranians. Or arming religious nutcases like Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. Then it's okay for people like that to murder their people out of a desire to get back to the good old days of the 8th century. Because they may be murderous religious assholes, but they're YOUR murderous religious assholes, murdering their people with YOUR weapons and YOUR tax dollars with the approval of YOUR politicians. But that suddenly becomes the most dangerous thing in the world when those dictators stop sucking American ass while doing it.
[ 07 August 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Tue, 2007-08-07 16:47
#44
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]I think it's too bad that Sam Harris doesn't recognize that killing tens of thousands of people in aggressive, unprovoked wars is just as immoral as killing them through insane religious domestic policies.[/b]
Who said it isn’t?
But, isn’t the question here: Is radical Islam more or less dangerous, or just as dangerous, as radical Christianity?
Your whole argument of equating radical Islam with radical Christianity rests on the premise that American foreign policy is dictated by Christian fundamentalists (I think your logic goes something like this: Christians are just as bad as the Neanderthals running Iran because Christian fundamentalists dictate American foreign policy and American foreign policy is evil). And, here’s your premise in your own words:
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]The reason the US keeps meddling, though, is because they have this weird religious belief that they are superior to all the other nations on earth, and they have the right to everyone else's resources, and that their god is far superior to everyone else's god, whether they're worshipping god or money.[/b]
I don’t think I could say it clearer myself that you think that Christian fundamentalism drives American foreign policy.
Your view trivializes the complex motivations that actually drive our foreign policy. In reality, that policy is driven by a desire to obtain oil (that may be greedy, evil, or whatever other term you may want to use—and you may disagree with that policy vehemently—but it has fuck all to do with religion) and a perceived need to enhance its security (again, you may think it’s a stupid way of going about that, and perhaps it is, but religion is not driving it).
Tue, 2007-08-07 16:50
#45
Sven
Michelle, because you seem to think that America is a radical Christian regime similar to the radical Muslim regime of Iran (no worse, no better—just the same), I think you should take a close look at the two countries’ respective [b][i]domestic[/b][/i] policies and then tell me, with a straight face, that you think the rights of the citizens in those two countries are equally oppressed.
Tue, 2007-08-07 17:01
#46
Cueball
Twaddle. Foreign policy is an extension of domestic policy. Sure as shit, living in Rome was a lot more civilized than living in Gaul, but it is not as if Ceasars legions were not Roman. The trappings of Romes more tollerant culture, were entirely bought and paid for by its tyrranical wholesale robbery and slaughter of those outside its own borders.
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Michelle, you can't be serious. You believe that Hillary Clinton's foreign policy views are motivated by Christian fundamentlist views that she holds??[/b]
Because you live in a Christian society, you are completely unable to see its christianess because you are so normalized to it. Compare Amedinejad to Khatami. All and sundry in the main stream press agree that Khatami is the moderate, Amedinejad the extremist, yet, as likely as not Khatami would still be labelled as some kind of Muslim fundamentalist.
It is just that you, and other xenophobes like you, pick up on the "otherness" (in this case the muslimness) of the Iranians, but when you are snug inside the warm confines of the standards which ease your paranoia, you are oblivious, and see nuance in the familiar, while seeing none whatsoever, in that which you fear.
[ 07 August 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Tue, 2007-08-07 17:22
#47
Frustrated Mess
quote:
It is just that you, and other xenophobes like you, pick up on the "otherness" (in this case the muslimness) of the Iranians, but when you are snug inside the warm confines of the standards which ease your paranoia, you are oblivious, and see nuance in the familiar, while seeing none whatsoever, in that which you fear.
Exactly right. And if Sven was Muslim in a Muslim country he would believe the Christian Crusaders were the most dangerous people on earth and he would have at least two million dead Muslims to point to for proof.
Tue, 2007-08-07 18:01
#48
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Because you live in a Christian society, you are completely unable to see its christianess because you are so normalized to it...It is just that you, and other xenophobes like you, pick up on the "otherness" (in this case the muslimness) of the Iranians, but when you are snug inside the warm confines of the standards which ease your paranoia, you are oblivious, and see nuance in the familiar, while seeing none whatsoever, in that which you fear.[/b]
That is exactly what I said above about the passive "Christians who are not activists against war,nor those who stand up for human rights in any great measure, they give their tacit support to the Christian extremists, and thus they give their tacit suppost to the destruction of Muslims, no matter their stripe.
Wed, 2007-08-08 03:16
#49
Not only did Michelle answer your post, she answered it brilliantly. (Way to go Michelle! That was perfect!). That you fail to see that answer? Now that we need to be worried about.
Wed, 2007-08-08 06:07
#50
There is one point that Sven made that hasn't been answered. Is Christopher Hitchens' hatred of Islam (or Sam Harris' hatred of Islam, for that matter) in any way rooted in Christianity? I haven't seen any evidence of this. I also haven't seen any evidence that their hatred is rooted in nationalist sentiments. While I agree with Michelle that money is a god for many people, I don't think its the god that Harris and Hitchens worship. Instead, I think we should--as Harris so often recommends when it comes to Muslims--take them at their word. It's not the nation or money that they've turned into a religious fetish, its "rationality", which they explicitly define as atheistic.
Their reasoning goes like this:
Religion is bad. They see Islam as a sort of uber-religion. Therefore Islam is really, really bad.
They believe that religion encourages irrationality, and they believe that irrationality is dangerous. Because they see Islam as an uber-religion, they believe that Muslims are extremely irrational and dangerous.
What they're doing is offering the growing number of American atheists a non-theistic rationale for religious bigotry. Like all religious bigots, they misrepresent the religions they're attacking, they ignore the most powerful arguments presented by the defenders of those religions, they obsessively focus on literalistic interpretations of those religions rather than acknowledging the roles that metaphor and allegory play in their theologies, they ignore the diversity in the religious traditions they condemn, they assume that fundamentalists are the only religious people who take their religions seriously, and they dismiss analyses of religion that address economic and political and cultural factors.
I believe that many progressive atheists have a hard time seeing this because they assume that atheism is inherently progressive. It's therefore rather bewildering for them when the people who are currently atheism's most public spokespeople use atheism to justify foreign policies similar to those promoted by the 700 Club.
[ 08 August 2007: Message edited by: Michael Nenonen ]
Wed, 2007-08-08 06:25
#51
Frustrated Mess
I don't agree at all. I think Hitchens and and Harris view Islam as a threat because it represents a single point of organization and opposition to Western hegemony from which both men have benefited handsomely. I think they use atheism and what they term rationality to justify their attitudes to a people. But, rather than express fear and loathing of a people, they instead express fear and loathing of a cultural practise, Islam.
Harris' and Hitchen's fear and fear mongering of Islam is by no means restricted to atheists and liberal intellectuals. It is shared and promoted by fundamentalist Christians, Zionist Jews, and neo-conservative ideologues.
And the amazing thing is, in modern history Islamic nations have always been willing to trade with Western nations and engage with Western civilizations on an equal and respectful footing.
The threat has always been in the other direction as Western civilization has pursued winning on "the great chess board" or acquiring the "great prize". And the West has done so with complete disregard of Islamic culture and life for the past one hundred years or more.
[ 08 August 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]