Sam Harris on "Islamophobia"

[eight bits]

Craig B

Well, of course, I cannot speak for Octavo.

Thank you for the link to the story about the Glasgow attacks. I agree that reprisals against, or "education" of, people who have not committed violent acts would be ill-advised. Actually, leaving people alone who leave me alone has some attraction as a component of a "strategy" to deal with the threats Dr Harris has identified.

There is no possibility of government religious education, pro or con, here in the United States. Occasionally there have been efforts to enlist schools in efforts to "fight crime" of the secular sort by giving special attention to pupils identified as "potential criminals." These efforts are very difficult to design and implement, since our federal Fifth Amendment provides

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...

(and the Fourteenth Amendment extends that to all levels of American government, while the various state constitutions may contain more restrictive language still). Thus, any sort of mandatory participation in "treatment" based on a perceived "propensity" to commit a crime which you haven't actually committed "yet" (shades of Minority Report) will not fly.

Once a threat has been identified, the question is raised, What is the best way to handle it? There are things I would not do, and would not advocate be done by others, to "protect" me. For example, many of us here, especially those of the libertarian bent, oppose the "Patriot Act" and its various renewals and expansions.

 

[Polaris]

Everyone has beliefs.
When someone's beliefs lead him to wrap himself in explosives and blow up folk he never met, I have to wonder how useful his beliefs are.

When someone's beliefs lead him to fire high-tech ordnance at people he never met, I also wonder.
There seems little difference here, but for the state of the weaponry.

It seems to me that many beliefs are profoundly silly and it might be better if we all sat down and examined them objectively.

The difference is the latter is targeting the former, and the former is targeting the innocent.

 

[Craig B]

Craig B

Well, of course, I cannot speak for Octavo.

Thank you for the link to the story about the Glasgow attacks. I agree that reprisals against, or "education" of, people who have not committed violent acts would be ill-advised. Actually, leaving people alone who leave me alone has some attraction as a component of a "strategy" to deal with the threats Dr Harris has identified.

Then we are in agreement, and may await Octavo's comments.

There is one feature of the attack, which made it singularly heinous, not mentioned in the linked report, unless I've missed it. The outrage happened, as was surely designed by the terrorists, on the first day of the Scottish school holidays, a day when the airport is more than usually full of children. It was a vile deed. But, because nobody was panicked into precipitate action against the tenets of any faith (that is, the adherents of any faith), no harm was done to intercommunal relations, and people remained both un"educated" and at peace.

Separating ordinary Muslims from terrorism, not seeking to remind them that they allegedly share, as indelible dogmas, the beliefs of terrorists, seems to me to be the most sensible course.

 

[Tony]

So if I want to shut off debate all I have to do is say "I feel insulted" and that's the end of the discussion?

Only if the target is Islam. And then you will have a flock of limp-dicked pseudo-liberals defending your delicate feelings. If the target is Christianity, Atheism, gay rights or anything else really, you have no right not to be insulted.

 

[A'isha]

Only if the target is Islam. And then you will have a flock of limp-dicked pseudo-liberals defending your delicate feelings. If the target is Christianity, Atheism, gay rights or anything else really, you have no right not to be insulted.

I think back to my own participation in threads here about Catholicism, and all I can do is wonder what you are talking about.

 

[Craig B]

Only if the target is Islam. And then you will have a flock of limp-dicked pseudo-liberals defending your delicate feelings. If the target is Christianity, Atheism, gay rights or anything else really, you have no right not to be insulted.

Dear me! When you target these other things, don't you have hard-dicked real conservatives defending your manly feelings against being insulted? What's wrong with these macho guys?

 

[Chaos]

The difference is the latter is targeting the former, and the former is targeting the innocent.

Correction: the latter is targetting whoever the hell they somehow assume are the latter. They´ve killed more innocents than the latter, and while they didn´t do it on purpose, the point remains that they did kill them and see no reason to stop killing them.

 

[Tony]

I think back to my own participation in threads here about Catholicism, and all I can do is wonder what you are talking about.

See the post to which tsig was responding.

 

[Tony]

Dear me! When you target these other things, don't you have hard-dicked real conservatives defending your manly feelings against being insulted? What's wrong with these macho guys?

??

 

[angrysoba]

Only if the target is Islam. And then you will have a flock of limp-dicked pseudo-liberals defending your delicate feelings. If the target is Christianity, Atheism, gay rights or anything else really, you have no right not to be insulted.

I am trying hard not to think about the corrollary here about the state you're in when you're giving those Muslims a pounding.

 

[Octavo]

Then we are in agreement, and may await Octavo's comments.

I'm afraid I will not be making any further comments

My only reason for posting was to express my opinion that Dr. Harris' view is not necessarily bigoted. I then added further nuance to my position as the thread progressed. As you can tell by my post count, I'm generally more of a lurker than a poster

I think I'll go back to lurking for a while Carry on...

If anyone wishes to address my assertions posted up-thread and debate those, I'll be happy to engage.

 

[Craig B]

I'm afraid I will not be making any further comments

That's a pity.

If anyone wishes to address my assertions posted up-thread and debate those, I'll be happy to engage.

Thanks, but how do you intend to engage in the debate if you're not going to comment?

 

[Octavo]

That's a pity. Thanks, but how do you intend to engage in the debate if you're not going to comment?

You see, this is why I lurk. Needless nitpicking. I thought it would have been clear to anyone I was declining to continue debate regarding "what you plan to do to educate/liberalise" etc. I'm afraid I don't have the time or the interest to give that topic the rigour it deserves - nor do I feel like having my next several posts picked to death and then have to spend hours explaining each point and so forth.

What I am willing to continue debating is the question of whether the tenets of Islam contain ideas that are harmful to society and if that opinion is necessarily bigoted. Similarly I would be willing to discuss whether people feel that the label Islamaphobia is being used to stifle debate.


Either way, I hope you have an awesome weekend!

 

[Craig B]

You see, this is why I lurk. Needless nitpicking. I thought it would have been clear to anyone I was declining to continue debate regarding "what you plan to do to educate/liberalise" etc. I'm afraid I don't have the time or the interest to give that topic the rigour it deserves - nor do I feel like having my next several posts picked to death and then have to spend hours explaining each point and so forth.

What I am willing to continue debating is the question of whether the tenets of Islam contain ideas that are harmful to society and if that opinion is necessarily bigoted. Similarly I would be willing to discuss whether people feel that the label Islamaphobia is being used to stifle debate.


Either way, I hope you have an awesome weekend!

Thank you! However you would appear to be suggesting that debate should include you ventilating ideas about Islam being harmful to society, but declining to respond to questions about how that would be dealt with in practice. I don't know how useful discussion in these terms would be. But enjoy your weekend.

 

[Octavo]

Thank you! However you would appear to be suggesting that debate should include you ventilating ideas about Islam being harmful to society, but declining to respond to questions about how that would be dealt with in practice. I don't know how useful discussion in these terms would be. But enjoy your weekend.

I'm not suggesting other participants shouldn't respond to such questions, just that personally I would be unable to adequately address the topic

[I have a major code refactor due on Monday for a new E-Commerce site]

 

[Belz...]

[IMGw=640]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BeQupAICEAASqGa.png:large[/IMGw]

A very well-made point. There should be no limits to skeptical inquiry.

I challenge anyone to find anything objectionable in the quote.

So he basically admits that it exists, but not always, so it doesn't. Weird.

 

[quadraginta]

No, if that were the case, we might be arguing that Orthodox Christianity poses a threat to civil society and that such a view is not necessarily bigoted.

This is not an argument attacking Islam for the sake of attacking Islam. It's a pragmatic view that says, lets first attempt to liberlise and educate the most serious threat, before going after less serious threats. The evangelical right in America is also a threat, but it's not likely that Texas will suddenly decide to go rogue and nuke Iran.

Maybe not, but California might get a bit nervous.

"We'll try to stay serene and calm
when Alabama gets The Bomb."

 

[Polaris]

Correction: the latter is targetting whoever the hell they somehow assume are the latter. They´ve killed more innocents than the latter, and while they didn´t do it on purpose, the point remains that they did kill them and see no reason to stop killing them.

Intent is everything.

 

[Chaos]

Intent is everything.

Really? (Extreme example) If I nuke your hometown with the extent of killing a terrorist who is hiding there, is that the same as sending special forces team to eliminate him and only him? Or are a lot of innocent people just as dead as if I´d intended to wipe out the town, innocent people and all, for the lulz?

 

[ApostateltsopA]

No, in fact, I believe I have addressed this point already. Evangelical (or fundamental if you prefer) Christianity in the US is also a threat, but I do not believe it outweighs the threat of Islam generally.

The US has shown that even with one of the most religious right-wing nut in control (Bush II), there are too many checks and balances in place for America to plausibly go off the deep end and start nuking the Middle East.

Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and several other Islamic theocracies either already posses nuclear weapons or are theoretically capable of getting their hands on them in fairly short order.

If however you can convince me that the Evangelicals in the US present a more immediate threat, then I'm willing to listen.

Nuking? Do you recall that your example dragged us into the longest war in US history? How many people are dead or mangled because of his actions and those of his regime? Not just over here either, there are many, many people directly harmed over there.

So now you are blathering about Islamic theocracies and nukes, as if nukes are the most credible threat to your well being. That is patently absurd. It's like calling Zeus the threat because of the proliferation of lightening.

Christians are here, they are messing with the government that has a direct effect on you daily, assuming you are in the US, and a strong indirect effect if you are in Europe or Canada.

Iran? How is Iran credibly going to threaten you? Because they might maybe have nukes? Do they have small ones? Do they have any kind of delivery system at all? Are you personally in a place they are likely to use their nuke that they might have?

We are not nuking the middle east, but we are killing people there, a lot of people, regularly. We are also seeing attacks on American civil liberties, regularly, and attacks on our educational system. However these problems aren't nukes. So instead of recognizing the very real threats that are actually at hand and capable of harming you, you are going to focus on flashy but highly unlikely threats.

That isn't rational.