Sam Harris: Can Liberalism Be Saved?

[RussBLib]

I imagine that many of you subscribe to Sam Harris' blog, but in case you don't, Sam had some good things to say after that Affleck/Maher/Harris dust-up on Real Time recently. IMHO, Affleck came off as a knee-jerk fool, misinterpreting and misunderstanding, perhaps on purpose. Disappointing.

My recent collision with Ben Affleck on Bill Maher’s show, Real Time, has provoked an extraordinary amount of controversy. It seems a postmortem is in order.

For those who haven’t seen the show, most of what I write here won’t make sense unless you watch my segment:

#action=share

The rest is here.

[trotsky]

1. Harris sometimes makes lousy points. But far more often, he makes great ones.

Kristof made the point that there are brave Muslims who are risking their lives to condemn “extremism” in the Muslim community. Of course there are, and I celebrate these people too. But he seemed completely unaware that he was making my point for me—the point being, of course, that these people are now risking their lives by advocating for basic human rights in the Muslim world.

and

Although I clearly stated that I wasn’t claiming that all Muslims adhere to the dogmas I was criticizing; distinguished between jihadists, Islamists, conservatives, and the rest of the Muslim community; and explicitly exempted hundreds of millions of Muslims who don’t take the doctrines about blasphemy, apostasy, jihad, and martyrdom seriously, Affleck and Kristof both insisted that I was disparaging all Muslims as a group.

[Lordquinton]

2. Your phraseology brings up an interesting point

Kinda off topic, but something that we do that we don't really even realize is that every time we talk about a prominent atheist we have to put in a disclaimer that they aren't perfect. I think everyone here can see that that's a disclaimer that could be put in for anyone, and is rarely included in talks, for a bad but obvious example, The pope, or the Dhali Llama Atheistcrusader, or cbayer, or that lordquinton asshat.

No one says the right thing all the time, we all chew on leather every so often, and we all occasionally double down on the stupid, but it's only one side that has to remind everyone they are human, let's keep that in mind next time we post about something an atheist says to not introduce it as "This guy says some stupid things, but this one is great!" let's say "Here's something great this person says"

(We all know that the Dali Llama sometimes says some bone headed things but get this...)

[trotsky]

4. That's a damn fine point, Lq.

I've internalized it so much I don't even notice it. We have to include that disclaimer when talking about any prominent atheist lest we be accused of hero-worshiping them.

But believers can go on and on about the pope with no reservations.

[Gelliebeans]

7. We wouldn't have to

If we didn't have to remind everyone that we are not "organized atheists"
I know I have a knee jerk reaction when I'm told that over and over. It's the idea not the guy or girl from where the idea came from.

[AlbertCat]

13. But believers can go on and on about the pope with no reservations.

They know they are a majority, and they also know (and do this themselves) that you are 1st assumed to be religious somehow until you declare your atheism.

It's not unlike in the late 80's and 90's how often I'd heard "He's gay, but he's alright." "He's gay but a hoot!" "He's gay but so funny!"......

[trotsky]

15. Say "gay marriage is from Satan" and you're A-OK.

Say "Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas" and you're a racist. WTF?

In the first one you're denying rights to a sizable group of human beings. In the other, you're criticizing fucking IDEAS.

Doesn't matter, bashed a New Atheist.

[Pike Bishop]

3. Affleck wasn't a fool, just not particularly articulate.

Affleck was not a fool; he just didn't articulate his very accurate and important points well. Both Harris and Maher were trying to particularly isolate Islam--as opposed to Christianity and Judaism--as a dangerous religion/discourse that needs to be criticized/addressed/feared beyond its fundamentalist branches and members.

Harris' loathsome "Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas" was particularly hostile and dangerous. If we are to believe Harris and Maher--and Maher has said many ugly things about Islam and Arabs--then all Muslims (including American ones) should be viewed with suspicion since they subscribe to this "motherlode." We could also never fully reconcile ourselves to co-existing with the one Billion Muslims in the world, and we have seen where that view has led us. As Affleck cogently asked, and neither Harris or Maher answered, what do they suggest we "do" with such an attitude? Are we to perennially look at all Muslims (domestic and foreign) as dangerous and conceptually unsound as long as they adhere to their "Mother Lode"? Affleck correctly would prefer a different, more humane and rational approach.

Also, Harris, himself, has a history of denigrating Islam more than the equally-fundamentalist prone Christianity and Judaism. He has extended that into his "analyses" of the Israel-Palestine conflict, where he has continually and ironically defended Israel's brutal bombings/possible war crimes against the Palestinian civillians:

"Needless to say, in defending its territory as a Jewish state, the Israeli government and Israelis themselves have had to do terrible things. They have, as they are now, fought wars against the Palestinians that have caused massive losses of innocent life. More civilians have been killed in Gaza in the last few weeks than militants. That’s not a surprise because Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on Earth. Occupying it, fighting wars in it, is guaranteed to get woman and children and other noncombatants killed. And there’s probably little question over the course of fighting multiple wars that the Israelis have done things that amount to war crimes. They have been brutalized by this process—that is, made brutal by it. But that is largely the due to the character of their enemies."

So, according to Harris, the bombings of Palestinian civilians was all the fault of the "character" of the Palestinians. Their inherent "character" flaws apparently invited such violence and death. So, Harris can try to unpack his "motherlode" comment all he wants. Couple it with racist militaristic comments about Muslim Arabs like the one above, and Affleck was absolutely right to call out Harris on his dangerous views.

[trotsky]

5. Are we in agreement that there are some particularly loathsome ideas found in the Koran?

The stuff about killing non-believers, apostates, etc. - do we agree that it's found right there in the text?

I have no dog in the I/P conflict. I think if all parties involved could just fucking check their religion at the door we'd have a reasonable chance for peace. But when many Muslims (including Palestinians) find the very existence of Israel to be an affront to their religion, can you see why there might be problems?

[Pike Bishop]

6. There are problems in all of the Big three.

Yes, there are loathsome things found in the Koran. There are also many loathsome things found in the Bible. Go read Leviticus, Exodus, and Deuteronomy, they're loaded with violent advocacies, particularly against women, children, and the "unclean." Read the Gospel of John for some lovely presentations of Jews, and read anything written by Paul for some very backwards views of women. I say this as a Catholic: fundamentalism in all three monotheistic religions is the problem, not one of the religions by itself in itself.

And yes, Muslim/Palestinian hatred of Israels is a significant problem, as is Hamas. However, many Palestinians just want to live their lives in their own country, as all of us do, and not get bombed or be unfairly restricted or harassed by an occupying force. Also, many Palestinians are Christian.

You also neglect to mention the problem of some Jews and/or Israelis actually thinking that God gave them their land, and that their human rights trump non-Jews' rights in disputes over that land. There is no place for any religion to exert itself over political or civil disputes, including Judaism and Christianity. Also, the current reactionary Netanyahu government--which progressive Israelis decry--has almost as little respect for the Palestinians' well-being as Hamas does of Israeli's. That's shown in both his military and settlement policies. The NY Times has also reported that the Government has either stifled Israeli protests of the bombings or allowed thugs to beat up Israeli protesters. So the problem is not just a Muslim or a Muslim-Jew one.

[trotsky]

8. I'm in total agreement. There is much in the koran and the bible that is just repulsive.

Including direct commandments from god to kill unbelievers.

You also neglect to mention the problem of some Jews and/or Israelis actually thinking that God gave them their land, and that their human rights trump non-Jews' rights in disputes over that land. There is no place for any religion to exert itself over political or civil disputes, including Judaism and Christianity.

Again, no disagreement from me. There is so much blame to go around - and religion sits right at the core of the conflict.

[Lordquinton]

11. Why do we have to throw in that the bible is bad when talking about the koran?

Why do we have to talk about every religion when talking about Islam? We can say "Hey, there is some pretty horrible stuff in this book" without the conversation being diverted away from the topic just to make it seem even handed, like we're not picking on one religion, even though 90%+ of this board is discussing Christianity.

Kinda ties into my above point, about having to couch our words in ways to make other people feel better and to lessen the strength of what we're saying. By interrupting the thought processes with "Well, aren't all religions just as bad?" you're diminishing the points being made against one.

[Act_of_Reparation]

14. Habituation

I think most people are so used to criticism of Islam coming from right-wingers who are, without a doubt, bigots, that they just assume anyone criticizing Islam is a right-wing bigot. It's as if you have to make to clear from the get-go that you're not a warmongering Christian soldier pushing to profile people at the airport or "nuke the entire Middle East", and even then you'll be lumped in with those clowns most of the time anyway.

[Brainstormy]

9. I continue to find Sam Harris

among the greatest, and certainly among the most genuinely moral, intellectuals living today