What a horrible moderator

Hedges is certainly a well-intentioned and decent man and I listed his book on war in the bibliography of the just war section of the ethics course I teach.  However, he often, here included, substitutes eloquence and appeals to personal experience as an inadequate substitute for argument. 

This would have been a much better discussion if there were some structure, a few propositions regarding religion which were established as its subject, and the moderator moderated rather than advocated.

He claims that families in Gaza only grieve and do not celebrate the death of their children as martyrs but this is simply false.  There is an abundance of evidence from reliable journalistic sources that many do so and even lament that they have no more children to surrender to this suicide fetish.  Robert Graves included in his classic work on WWI, “Goodbye to All That” a very popular letter by an English mother who regretted that she didn’t have more sons to give to the war effort.  It is a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless, that ideology and foremost religious ideology devalues life on this earth in a way that no rational view ever could. 

Normally the role of a moderator is to moderate not to take sides and Robert Sheer came across as a biased halfwit to me.  He chastised the audience by reminding them that no Muslim had ever used a nuclear weapon against another nation but the United States has.  Never mind the fact that the United States was engaged in a just war against an imperialist nation that had attacked it and pillaged half of Asia.  A belligerent nation whose “imperial” army had tortured and mutilated the bodies of captured wounded soldiers, raped and killed thousands of civilians, and refused to acknowledge any of the rights of the Geneva convention.  I think in the end, when all is said, that the attacks on Japanese civilians were unjustified, but holding this example up, as some people are wont to do, as if it is some sort of clinching point, or moral knockdown argument is simplistic beyond belief and should be refuted every time any half asleep moralizer like Sheer comes forth with it.

And Sheer is so naïve that he believes that Iran, Iraq, Syria, and such nations wouldn’t use nuclear weapons against Israel or the United States or Europe if they had them.  They don’t have them and we can be thankful that they don’t and we need to keep that status quo.

Lastly, Sheer is stunningly ignorant when he attributes the rise of Islam in Iran and Iraq to Western intervention.  They have always been intensely religious cultures and that was never the result of any Western action.  And Harris refuted him on this point.  I see in Hedges and Sheer the kind of political correctness towards Islam which really flies in the face of evidence.  And evidence is the final word here.

Hi BF: 

You said, “It’s baffling.  That’s all.  As far as I can tell, it is a demonstration of the “open minded” and sympathetic powers of a good liberal.  To bash ourselves, and then defend the “cultural views” of others is a sport among the left.”

I usually consider myself one of those open-minded and “good liberals” minus the “Christian” label that often is attached to it.  Sometimes “liberals” don’t ponder what “liberal” views mean. They are going along for a joyride because “liberalism” sounds good--a warm fuzzy, or it was the way they were raised.  Plus who wants to think of themselves as a “conservative” this day and age?  A liberal mantra “Defend the underdog” kind of mentality is what they cling to without really looking at what defending the underdog entails (especially if it is violent, religious “mad” underdogs.) Like Timmy said, the heart is in the right place, but heart without reasoning is stupidity. 

You “I often say that if you hate Jerry Falwell, you’d blow a vein if you knew the beliefs of even the most moderate Islamic cleric.  Of course, that doesn’t matter… because Islamist, apparently, have a “culture” that we couldn’t understand.”

That indicates to me the ignorance in those who coddle the Islamic extremist.  They don’t understand what they are coddling and they want to believe it can be wiped out with more education and wealth.  Even Obama (whom I support) has made some allusions to this in his speeches about diplomacy. As if simply talking to these nuts is going to change their views (I am not opposing diplomacy, only the belief it will change religious beliefs.)

The icing on the cake is when Liberals vent at Sam Harris when he calls a spade a spade. Hedges is right up there with the rest of them. He has a blind spot bigger than an elephant.

You’re right. It is baffling.

Linda

“Guys are just easy. They say what’s on their mind.” Rashida Jones

Hi Timmy:

You said: “ They take a wonderful, essential right (the freedom of religion) and they take that to heart as they should. And they protect it with mighty vigor. As they should. But they confuse it with a protective cloak against criticism for having wacko dangerous ideas. And then of course they end up defending that with a mighty vigor.
Their heart is in the right place. Their head is I don’t know where?”

Yes, that makes sense but it doesn’t explain why he ignores the Islamic wackiness and he criticizes the Christian wackiness.  He is protecting the right to believe (which we agree is a good thing to do) but why does he have this protective cloak against criticism for Islam but not for Christianity?  I don’t know if you have read his book American Fascists.  I thought it was very good (not as good as Sam, of course) and I thought to myself, “I’m down on this Hedges guy!” And then I saw him in the debate with Sam (not knowing anything about his views on Islam) and it blew me away. I thought how can two people (Sam and Hedges) oppose Christian fundamentalism with such force and then he comes out defending Islam? 

If you look at it from a logical point, one would think Hedges would defend Christianity over Islam because at least the violence in Christianity is more benign (Christians just kill abortionists they don’t fly planes into building.) Hedges’ whole argument is that Islamic fundamentalism is caused by poverty and lack of education which obviously is a blind spot and a way to rationalize it in a popular and “moderate” kind of way.

And he thinks America is moving towards Christian fascism (something he fears and loathes) but doesn’t seem bothered by Islamo-fascism (or whatever word you want to ascribe it.) And to be honest, I don’t agree his heart is even in the right place. How can it be?

Linda

“Guys are just easy. They say what’s on their mind.” Rashida Jones

Phil Dirt:
Your comment raises a question (I’ve often asked myself) and that is what is the deal with Hedges?  The guy is obviously intelligent and he has the Christian Right figured out to a “T”. He is more concerned about the rhetoric spewing from the Jerry Falwells of the world than the lethal, murderous killings of Islamic fundamentals. 

I don’t get it.

Hedges, having “traveled in the Muslim world after 9/11” cites “universal revulsion.” I cannot speak for the mood in places such as Cairo, but I was in Pakistan on Sept. 12, 2001. I can tell you that in places such as Quetta and Peshawar, there was glee. I wouldn’t claim it was “universal,” but it was widespread. Osama bin Laden t-shirts were sold in the streets were paired with publicly exhorted conpiracy theories about Mosad’s involvement in the WTC collapse. And these were NOT just fanatics, but educated people as well.

As a journalist, you’d expect Hedges to have done his homework. Instead he passes along an old saw of the religious apologists, i.e., that the nominally secular Tamil Tigers (who are in fact nearly 100% Hindu Tamil aligned against the Buddhist Sinhalese majority and Muslim minority), “pioneered suicide bombing long before Hezbollah.” The truth is not even close to that.

Hezbollah’s first suicide bombing occurred in 1983:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-150356900.html

The Tamil Tigers didn’t begin until four years later:
http://www.tamilnation.org/ltte/00suicide.htm

Chris, please check your facts!

Linda:

It’s good to know that I am welcome, for that’s not what I thought certain posts indicated. It doesn’t help anyone to spread ideas as if one is blinded by totalitarianism. For it is totalitarianism which does not listen to facts or new information but holds tight to some of its dogmas and wishful thinking, hoping that remaining firm in this way is the only route to winning more adepts.

Let me ask again a question that has been asked before: What happened in Stalism, Chinese Cultural Revolution (should I add Nazism and many instances of Imperialism)? Was that certain religious extremists trying to take over the world?

And to Timmy, there is nothing that makes me believe that you don’t know the Kosova case. Just as there is nothing that makes me believe that you do.

And I did not call Harris a racist. I just think some of his statements are. And unlike you, I don’t easily classify people by what they say; I look at the bigger picture which is bigger than Sam Harris. That is, I owe him no apologies or retractions.

Timmy, this was my initial post (notice that I say “racist statements” and that’s not a euphemism because I don’t believe, until proven wrong, that Mr. Harris is racist):

“The problem with all the praise Sam receives is the inability to realize how non-rational the assumptions on which he bases his arguments are. His conclusions should make it obvious. And that he receives so many uncritical praises vis-a-vis what many anthropologists would agree are racist statements--his logic and rationality did not allow him to take into consideration the non-religious arguments offered by Edward Said in Orientalism--is surprising when it comes from so-called rational thinkers. I really see how so many things we do are not rational. It is sometimes ridiculous to reject what you call irrationality while at the same time offering policy recommendations that suggest something not so different from the irrationality you reject. That to me is the right definition of irrational actions!!”

Peace.

HI TIMMY:

Of course it was easy for me to make the connection since you use the same name. I’m just giving you a hard time. (And no, I don’t think you are lying).  I just think it is kind of funny, that’s all!

I never even thought about the situation (that you hadn’t made the connection) until you sent that last email (making the connection). It surprised me because like I said I had not given it any thought.

Anyways, it is kind of a small world isn’t it.

Quetzalcoatl said:

“I look at demographic trends in the US and Europe and smile knowing that the era of the pale dinosaurs is rapidly drawing to an end. Enjoy the last days of your “civilization”, oh hypocrites without peer.”

You failed to disclose where you live and under what regime you prosper.  No civilization in the history of mankind has been without its wars and fighting over ideologies.  If you prefer to live in a jungle, a place where it consists of dog-eat-dog, with an absence of democratic ideals and values then you are free to do so.  But I would guess most people who live in such a place are not free to do so.

With the demise of “pale” dinosaurs it is possible the demise of all the freedoms, liberties and equality will go the way of the dinosaurs themselves.  I don’t want to live in a world without. To do so will thrust me ( a female) back into a form of slavery, torture and a misogynistic nightmare.  I’ll take the pale dinosaur life over your love for a repressive and hubristic authority any day. And my guess is the majority of the world’s population, given a free choice, would do the same.

Timmy said:

“You’re Lindajean?
I had no idea.”

Come on.  Get real. That is just BS.

I knew you were “Timmy” all along.

Peckerwoods are such funny creatures. So full of self-righteousness, self-pity, self-delusion, hubris and bloodlust.

They spill oceans and oceans of blood, conquer and subjugate nation after nation, continent after continent (usually using the excuse of “civilizing the natives” to give a pseudo-moralistic veneer to what amounts to a project that is little different than that undertaken by Augustus), and then wail and whine about how they’re hated and how those guys over there are “trying to take over the world!!!”

I’m glad you guys have found your messiah in this ethnic chauvinist rootless cosmopolitan-cum-buddhist.

I look at demographic trends in the US and Europe and smile knowing that the era of the pale dinosaurs is rapidly drawing to an end.

Enjoy the last days of your “civilization”, oh hypocrites without peer.

Viva Aztlan

Hi JT:

It is nice to read your words on here as well.  It is unfortunate that GP seems to think this is an “exclusive” Sam Harris blog and his thoughts are not welcome. I make no judgments about who ought or ought not be blogging on here and I don’t see any indication that others are making such judgments either.  Perhaps he simply feels outnumbered by our passion and fortitude.

Be that as it may, I would suggest to GP that he not be intimidated by the likes of us.  And that if the GP’s of the world refuse to blog with us, then we will have no no but oursleves to talk to and that does not do us much good.  It takes the GP’s of the world to help us get our message and words out.

So bring on the GP’s of the world!  Without you our conversations will only go in circles and dead-end into obscurity.

BTW:  I do blog on some other SH forums.  I usually go by the name of “lindadugan”, “lindajean” and once in a blue moon “doggirl”. So if you come across those monikers, you are talking to me!

Timmy:
part 2 of 2.......

If we look at this pragmatically, by analyzing world population growth statistics, I think my point will be well taken.

In the year 1500 AD (500years ago) the approximate population was less than 1/2 billion people (around 450,000,000). There were (at best) less than 1/2 billion people who held religious beliefs.

Contrast that with today’s population of over 6 billion and growing.  If we (conservatively) claim 75% of the world’s population today is religious (it is quite possibly higher), then 4.5 billion people in the world are religious.  We ought to also consider that within the 25% who are not religious, there will be a large number of non-believers who defend the beliefs and actions of those who are, just as our blogger GP so steadfastly has done.

So, I beg to differ with you on this, Timmy.

Future trends will tend to favor more and larger numbers of religious people and disfavor the non-religious as long as population numbers continue to grow.  And currently, I have no reason to believe populations will drastically decline or stabilize any time soon (although I certainly hope they do.)

While I share your desire for a future with less religiosity I am not comfortable claiming it will be a reality.

end part of 2 of 2

part one of 2

Hi Timmy:

It is always a pleasure to read your ideas (as provocative as some of them can be...)

You said, “I wish oh wish that I was born 500 years from now, when God belief is a fringe cult that everyone looks at the same way they currently look at the Branch Davidians. Unfortunately I will not see this in my lifetime, which is so sad, given that we currently have enough knowledge to do away with this trouble making sky ferry cult.”

I think you are assuming that future “GP’s” of the 26th century are going to take a logical leap and understand the words that you, I and the Sam Harris(es) of the world speak of.

What makes you inclined to believe this will be the case?  Just wishful thinking, or hope?

As you know, for centuries religion has held an ironclad grip on denying “reasonableness” across the globe.  And as you have so determinedly stated, “Religion poisons everything.”

I don’t have any real optimism this will change.  If we’re all genetically and culturally inclined to believe and subscribe to such nonsense, how do the masses (who obviously need the opium-fix of nonsense or need to defend those who need such a fix) get beyond these beliefs?

If we look backwards 500 years, we can clearly see how religious atrocities were perpetrated and one can argue religion was even more hideous then, than it is now (at least in Western culture).  One could also argue that even the most ignorant and illiterate among us in today’s world are more scientifically informed and sophisticated than our 500 year old predecessors.

Yet, the nonsense continues.

So, we cannot ignore the reality that in spite of our great scientific and technological feats and knowledge, ignorance and fallacious beliefs continue to permeate much of the world today.  It’s as though for every 2 steps taken forward, there is 1.75 steps taken backwards.  Will this pattern continue into the 26th century?  We will never know.

end of part one of 2.......

lindadugan 2/29/08

GP:
In reference to our conversations about Darfur (and your comments that I am wrong), I have a few words of my own to add.

You and I can agree that Darfur is a complicated situation. But it is very obvious, from historical facts, that the civil war in Sudan, beginning in the 1980’s and lasting about 20 years, between the North and South was a war explicitly about religion. The North is populated with Arab Muslims and backed politically by a (mostly) Islamic government and the South is populated by black Christians.

Its current President, al-Bashir has basically hand-appointed the “Congress” over the years, which is made up mostly of members of Sudan’s National Islamic Front known as a fundamentalist political group that was formed under the auspices of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1986.

The war was instigated by al-Bashir’s et al, views of intolerance towards infidels (Christians in the South.) Around 2003 after almost 20 years of war a “peace-treaty” was ensured between the two groups, but almost simultaneously violence began in Darfur.  This violence was instigated from the Northern government who is basically still in power. The law in Sudan is based on both English common law and Islamic law.

Can one deny this fascist-like government has no religious or philosophical agenda to prop up Islam?  To deny its religious history and violence seems blindsided.

While Darfur is not exclusively a religious war, it is brimming with religious ideologies from it Islamic base with a history of brutality to quell dissension.

The Janjaweed is the government’s mercenary army and are hired to do its dirty work.  They kill indiscriminately because their compensation as hired killers is the spoils of war: raping, pillaging, killing, burning, stealing whoever. So they are not savvy enough to kill with any purpose or selection.  They kill Muslims, Christians,etc....as they deem fit. And meanwhile, the Islamic government hides behind denials of this heavy-handedness.

So yes, it is not exclusively a war of Muslim against Christian in Darfur. But I used the word “precisely” in a past comment because it is precisely the Islamic government who is creating this genocide and horror.

To ignore this obvious fact is like ignoring that Shias and Shites who are all Muslims and who kill each other in Iraq are not fighting over religious ideologies.  Muslims kill Muslims quite frequently for religious purposes.  And Sam Harris understands this point clearly when he says Muslims treat each other worse than they treat any other religious group.  It is Muslims who are suffering at the hands of Muslims.

Timmy:

When I write here, I am not trying to win an argument. I am not competing with anyone. I am trying to be enlightened. Considering your two posts, I refrain from arguing with you at this point because I don’t know where to start or if you’re interested in enlightening me. Maybe I am way far off the truth so, let’s end my exchange with you in peace.

GP

Linda:

Don’t worry, I sorted them out. It only took a moment. Thanks,

GP.

GP:  I trust you (and others) could sort through my disorganized posts.  It was more my fault than truthdigs.  I was cutting and pasting from a word document and it went awry.  Anyway, I will comment on the latest posts when I have a little more time.

Just to simplify.  The ones (2 of them) labeled Linda Dugan are mixed up.  The ones labeled lindadugan are not!

Linda:

I am sure we will disagree completely on Sudan and may not even have a common starting understanding on the subject.

On the question of Darfur, I will tell you that you are wrong because I’ve been with survivors from Darfur. The vast majority of Darfurians are Muslim as I mentioned, and the factions fighting there are led by Muslims. You may raise the issue of Arab-Fascism and I will be happy to discuss it, but not religion (certainly not Islam).

Perhaps the other Sudanese conflict (the North/South conflict) had an Islam/Christian dimension but not this one. I recommend a book on the subject by Ruth Iyob and Gilbert Khadiagala. You may also read Gerard Prunier’s. Both of their books on the Darfur crisis and the Darfur survivors I’ve talked to make it very clear that it’s not Muslims killing Christians as you have suggested. It’s Muslims killing other Muslims (and it’s not because they are Muslims that they kill each other, I have to add).

GP.

Linda:

Thank you. I will check the links.

GP

JT:

I agree with you when you state that “the answer is:fear”. So why don’t you fight fear instead of religion?

As to your question of what makes me think that these problems become a problem when people attack Western targets, I don’t think you read the context in which you took that statement. I think you should read first what I wrote before you respond. Also, please inform me if this blog is supposed to be for supporters of Sam Harris and I will happily stop posting!

My argument was not that the issues I listed are not a problem or become a problem sometimes and not other times. My argument was that you should ask yourself why these issues tend to become a problem/threat only when a Western target is attacked. So, for instance, militant political Islam won’t be an issue when it is fighting the Soviet Union and, in fact, it is encouraged! Women oppression won’t be a problem in Wahabbism as long as Wahabbism helps to provide needed oil, etc etc!

As to having Western influence stay out, I think it is impossible. The world is one. What should stay out is the belief that somehow the West has something to teach the Muslim world which people inside the Muslim world are incapable of teaching themselves. People inside that world are capable of picking what they need from the West and also to call for help when they need to. But only when they need to.

In my opinion, criticism of religion will succeed only when it exists without double standard. While I don’t like to involve myself in problematic moral equivalence, I would not be surprised if I find that a larger number of human right abuses committed after World War II were a result of either Western policy or Godless communism and not Islam, even political Islam.

GP.

Timmy,

I disagree completely with your analysis that there are people who hate to live in freedom. That’s a statement you cannot be certain about except by faith. People may prevent others from living in freedom for their own interests, but they themselves want to live in freedom.

Bush did not attack Iraq because God told him to do so. Haven’t you heard Greenspan talk about this war? What was the reason he gave: oil. Do you think the Cheneys, the Wolfwitzs and the like care about religion? Do they really base their policies on religion? Aren’t they the architects of this war, too (if not the only architects).

And no, I don’t give reason to Bin Laden tactics, but I don’t think the hypocrisy and double standards most people use to respond to his tactics will solve any problem. I just think many hawks, and even some people who think they are liberal like Bill Maher, give Bin Laden more reason and sometimes make him look like a saint.

Before you call one of my statements a “joke,” I would want you to read history. Think about rights to inheritance, the history of Indian Islam, etc. Don’t we have Biblical statements saying that women are to remain submissive to their husbands and that they are to learn from their husband only when they get at home? Don’t we have women preachers leading megachurches today? I think it’s important to differentiate between the use of religion and the problem religion is used to address. I have the impression that where you and others see religion as the problem, I see religion as a tool.

If the war on Iraq was about oil, then I don’t see why I will want to condemn religion as the poison of everything after religion inspired anti-slavery movements, civil rights movements, scientific discovery, etc. As a non-religious person, your statements about religion sound to me extremely religious.

You may want to answer the following questions: In the name of what kind of freedom was US foreign policy fighting against liberation theology? In the name of what freedom was the West sponsoring Saddam Husein and Iran at the same time? GIVE ME A FEW EXAMPLE OF WHERE WESTERN POLICY HAD BEEN FREEDOM as you say and I will refrain from calling your statement that Western policy is “freedom” a joke.

I don’t think I made the equivalence you assign to me. I cannot compare an entire country to a person such as Bin Laden. By doing so, I would have wrongly included people such as Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Senator Hagel and many others who understand better what I am talking about. Nor do I make moral equivalence between Bush and Bin Laden: they are different and harmful in different circumstances.

And yes, you can use Kosova after you learn what exactly happened there (not from CNN or Fox or even Bill Maher).

GP:

A few more sites to check out about Darfur.  These come from the PBS show Frontline.  If you haven’t seen the episode on Darfur I highly recommend it.  You can watch the video of it online.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darfur/intervi ews/traub.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darfur/

Linda:

I noticed the problem. I did not see some of your posts and I kinda got lost a little bit before I saw the other part. My email told me that you posted something, but I couldn’t find one; I thought there maybe a problem with truthdig blog!!! I hope it works fine and that I am some kind of unregistered member or something!!

part 2 of 2

GP, to continue....

2.  This is from /www.religionlink.org/tip_061024.php:

* The problems in Sudan and Darfur include religion but are inextricably bound up with ethnicity, race and abuse of government power, as religious conflicts throughout the world tend to be. Sudan has endured a two-decade civil war between the Arab Muslim north and the south, where mostly black Africans who practice Christianity or animism live. Violence escalated in Darfur in 2003 when rebels increased attacks and the Sudanese government sent militias to stop.....

3. This one comes from Frontpage Magazine ( a very conservative medium) but please note the degree of expertise these men have and their qualifications.  These men have superb credentials. (Including a very moderate Muslim).  I will quote a very short passage to get you started…

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=65 60F4B3-DCE5-4609-8845-4CD1BF0FE115
Why is it that—yet again—another Arab League member is massacring its minority populations? Why is the Western media reluctant to identify the religion and ethnicity of the mass murderers and rapists?

To discuss these and other issues on Frontpage Symposium today, we welcome:

Thomas Haidon, an advisor to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in Khartoum, Sudan in 2003. An American lawyer who was raised in the Catholic faith but converted to Islam, he is a member of the Board of Advisors and President of the New Zealand Chapter of the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism;

Jon Lewis, a Mid-East expert whose works on the Arab world’s persecution of minorities have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Forward, In the National Interest, Middle East Quarterly and other prestigious publications;

and

Walid Phares, Professor of Middle East Studies and Religious Conflict at Florida Atlantic University and a Senior Fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. He serves as an Analyst on Terrorism and Conflicts with MSNBC;

FP: Walid Phares, Thomas Haidon and Jon Lewis, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.

Mr. Lewis, let me begin with you. I would like to start with something that has puzzled me: many of the roots of the Darfur genocide reside in Islamic jihad. On many fronts, this is a holy war led by Muslims. How come we almost never hear about this in the mainstream media?

Lewis: Hi Jamie, Walid and Thomas. 

The media in the United States is very uncomfortable in attributing religious motivations to violence. We see this in the case of the Palestinian suicide bombers who are often described as motivated by poverty and frustration, rather than by religious ideology.  In Darfur, there is indeed a religious component to the violence; after all, the Khartoum government is an Islamo-fascist one.

What bothers me more about the media coverage of Darfur is its lack of historic context -Darfur is but one example of Arab racism toward non-Arabs within the broader “Arab world.” The Darfur genocide, I believe, must be viewed not solely as a case of an Islamic jihad, but also as a case of Arab racism and should be seen as parallel to Saddam Hussein’s genocide against Kurds and the Algerian government’s repression of the Kaybles. ......................

end quote.

part one of 2

Hi GP:

You and I are obviously going to differ on aspects of Darfur. While you may be correct about Congo (I do not have much knowledge about the cause of its wars--only an understanding of the sheer brutality that is occurring there), Darfur is indeed a war at least in part about Christian and Muslims. it is also a war pitting black against black and African against African, and government against its people. But religion is a decisive factor in the conflict and to ignore that is to simply ignore facts.  If you do a google search with the words “darfur religious war” you will find articles explaining this dynamic.

I will say it is controversial and you will find in your google search that people are not agreeing on this. It is unfortunate that the “left” tends to deny the religious wars and the “right” does not.  I tend to be a “lefty” on most political discussions, but I do not agree with the Left’s analysist of this (or lack of).

Here are some sites I posted.  Numbers 2 and 3 will be posted in part two of 2:

1.  This is from Wikipedia: The current crisis in Darfur began in 2003. After decades of neglect, drought, oppression and small-scale conflicts in Darfur, two rebel groups - the Sudanese Liberation Army/Movement (SLA/M) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) - mounted a challenge to Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir. These groups represent agrarian farmers who are mostly non-Arab black African Muslims from a number of different tribes. President al-Bashir’s response was brutal. In seeking to defeat the rebel movements, the Government of Sudan increased arms and support to local tribal and other militias, which have come to be known as the Janjaweed.[1] Their members are composed mostly of Arab black African Muslims[2] who herd cattle, camels, and other livestock. They have wiped out entire villages, destroyed food and water supplies, and systematically murdered, tortured, and raped hundreds of thousands of Darfurians. These attacks occur with the direct support of the Government of Sudan’s armed forces.

end of part 1 of 2

Hi GP:

You state:  “....But I also think that honesty starts at home. As long as American weapons continue to kill more than religion, his message will be lost. For instance, most small weapons sold around the world come from here. Most dictators who kill more people than “terrorists” have been supported by the US (It was funny to see Bush calling for openness in Cuba while congratulating Rwandan dictator Paul Kagame!).”

Very good points and I agree that the US policy on this is egregious.  The public ought to be raising holy hell for the way our government and corporate America conduct their sleazy business deals often at the expense of innocent people under the thumb of ruthless dictators.  You seem to suggest that Harris is in cahoots with this policy, supports such policies and does not question such shenanigans.  But if you read his first book, EOF he goes to great lengths to deconstruct and criticize American foreign policy.  He just does not go so far as to say we are the “terrorists” in this scenario.  Allow me to quote his exact words:

“There is no doubt the US has much to atone for, both domestically and abroad........[We can] start with our genocidal treatment of the Native Americans, add a couple hundred years of slavery, along with our denial of entry to Jewish refugees fleeing the death camps.....stir in our collusion with a long list of modern despots and our subsequent disregard for their appalling human rights records, add our bombings of Cambodia and the Pentagon Papers........We (USA) have surely done some terrible things in the past.  Undoubtedly we are posed to do terrible things in the future.  Nothing I have written in this book should be construed as a denial of these facts or a defense of state practices that are manifestly abhorrent.  There may be much that Western powers , and the US in particular should pay reparations for. And our failure to acknowledge our misdeeds over the years has undermined our credibility in the international community.  We can concede all of this, and even share [Noam] Chomsky’s acute sense of outrage, while recognizing that his analysis of our current situation in the world is a masterpiece of moral blindness.”

And when you claim, “His message gets lost in what is called hypocrisy. I think he should start by cleaning his own house before trying to clean others’. He should read the definition of a hypocrite given in the Bible.”.......

....his words do not sound like those of a hypocrite to me.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by wanting him to “clean his own house...”

This implies he is being disingenuous.  I do not see that at all.

You say, “You know . . . my alarm goes off when he starts to offer policy recommendations such as his approval of and proposal for what I call modernization by force. I start to see a person using an anti-religion ideology to advance imperialism...”

This seems inflammatory.  What is this “modernization by force” you speak of?  How is he advancing imperialism?

You say, “ And his science is a little bit of extreme positivism by the way. He seems not to see the recent advance in complexity studies, which, to a certain extent, may help sharpen his arguments.”

What is “extreme positivism” in regards to science?

And explain his lack of understanding “complexity studies.”

Sorry, GP, but this is all very vague and ambiguous.  If you can shine some light on these words and give some specific examples of what Harris has said to justify your criticism of him, I would find that very helpful.

You say, “I must say that I enjoy this and his discussions!”
I agree with you on that one.

Linda:

Thanks again. Before I answer your other questions (or attempt to do so) I wanted to point out something that shows how people confuse religion with other issues. It shows, in my opinion, unacknowledged bias against Islam.

You stated:

“Well, wrong! They would have died for nothing but not because religion isn’t the issue.  Religion is most definitely the issue.  Just look at the circumstances in Darfur, Sudan for example.  You have Islam massacring Christians, killing their own Sudanese people, and this is the precise reason they are killing them (because they are Christians).”

That’s not true and, in fact, I am very surprised by your use of “precise”. If you check Darfur, you’ll find that all groups fighting are virtually all Muslim groups. So it is Muslims killing other Muslims but political propaganda has made it seem different. I believe I mentioned that in the Congo, where, by many accounts, more people have died of war than in any other conflict since world war II, the killers and the victims share religion.

As to where religion becomes a problem against progress, I think you have touched upon the main points. Most religions are against women, lesbian/gay rights. Some are against scientific improvement (although, if I was an inhabitant of Nagasaki or Hiroshima I would be confused of what’s better, science or religion). These problems are NOT benign. They certainly lead to deadly conflicts, but what is interesting is that they become a problem only when they attack Western targets often in response to Western policy.

But it’s interesting to also realize how religious people have contributed to progress, especially in the area of human rights. (By the way, Islam advanced women rights long before Christianity.) I am amazed when I read about US foreign policy against religion in Latin America especially because religion (Liberation theology) was leading to progress and human freedom.

There is a need to shift the focus away from religion and towards certain foreign policies that favor militant religion and ethnocentrism. Otherwise, I always argue, it would be like fighting Tuberculosis in an AIDS patient when you have an AIDS cure. It’s true that Tuberculosis is a serious problem to be cured, but it would be a waste of time and resources to try to cure it without curing AIDS. I’ve seen, in the case of AIDS, that other maladies pop up.

The comparison between Bush and Saddam Hussein or Hitler. . . umm there can be no equivalence in such matters. This doesn’t mean that one is better than the other. To think about it, I quoted a short passage on Alexander and a Pirate in my previous post. Now let me quote Mark Twain to tell you what I think about the difference between those three men:

“Civilization largely consists in hiding human nature. When the barbarian learns to hide it we account him enlightened.”

“The only very marked difference between the average civilized man and the average savage is that the one is gilded and the other is painted.”

“There are many humorous things in the world; among them, the white man’s notion that he less savage than the other savages.”

Certain criminals among us are lucky because they have so many other criminals, states, and technology doing their dirty businesses, so much so that, even in their honest belief, they remain convinced that they are better than Saddam or Hitler. If one would attach to many Western Presidents every weapon sold around the world (you wouldn’t say that they don’t know what those weapons are for), every dictator that they support, etc . . . at that point you may end up even more confused than the Nagasaki inhabitant I briefly discussed.

GP.

(excuse any mistakes. I am running!)

(this is the 2nd of 2 parts of the revised version---see below)

to GP:

You stated: “Could it be that religion is becoming a serious threat because some young fundamentalist....killed about 3500 people?”

Yes, it could very well be the case and that is the nature of powerful countries such as the US.  We tend to open our eyes (at last) when the atrocities hit close to home. To heck with the rest of the world’s problems.  But don’t come knocking on my door.

It may seem cruel to turn our eyes away from all the suffering in the world, suffering that we may be directly or indirectly responsible for in some cases, but the times we live in.  But we live in precarious times. With the use of WMD at the possible fingertips of some not-so-stable religious nuts, such as the fine gentlemen types who believe it is God’s will to blow us all to smithereens, then perhaps it is time that we open our eyes a little bit wider.

You said, “I certainly agree that religion has sometimes been a problem opposing progress but I don’t think it’s what someone who claims to be heroic should make a priority (In fact religion helped progress, perhaps more progress than secularism). I just think it’s easy to attack the weak evils while leaving out the more powerful evils.”

Perhaps you would care to expand on that.  What benign problems has religion been responsible for?
Because this is not about poverty, race, illiteracy.  It is about the power and the delusion of a religion that believes martyrdom will bring you to the beds of 72 virgins.  And it is not about why people go to war and die and how their deaths are “celebrated” for people have been going to war forever and acknowledging the deaths of their own flesh and blood. It is about fanatical beliefs which suppose that God is on your side and God wants infidels eliminated.  Killing us is what it is all about.

How is it that religion may be a “problem” to world peace, but in its most extreme , exaggerated and delusional forms it is not a danger to world peace. Please explain this to me......

GP:

Those last two posts got mixed up in content.  I am going to try this again and see if it improves.  Sorry for that.  Somehow when I hit the submit button it mixed up some of my words....

this is part one of 2 again.

You stated, “I am sorry if I misunderstood the purpose of the debate. I am assuming that I did not because I think both sides of the debate agree that religion is a problem (as I do). I think the difference between you and me, and Harris and Hedges is on what is more dangerous.”

You are obviously not missing the point of the debate, just the points Sam Harris is trying to make about religion.

You stated, “I maintain that religion is not [more dangerous] and that a certain certainty, which certain hawks tend to steal from religion while thinking that they are propagating ideas from secular freedom, makes their side (that is, the self-proclaimed side of reason) more dangerous.’

Well, I am not in alignment with “hawks.” I opposed the Iraq War even before it began and I still do not support it, so if you want to make statements about US foreign policy I will most likely agree with you to some degree.  I think the Bush Administration is arrogant, dangerous and a disaster.  But I would not equate him with Saddam or Hitler as many “lefties” have been known to do.

You stated, “If religion was THE problem, the president of the United States wouldn’t be calling Saudi Arabia its main ally. If religion was THE problem, the United States wouldn’t have helped recruit and encourage fundamentalist young Muslims who had nothing in common with the beliefs espoused by many in the United States.....

That is a simplistic view of US policy overseas. Our relationship with the Sauds is based on oil not any religiosity or criticism of it.  It is difficult to bite the hand that feeds you (with oil resources and revenues.) Saudi Arabia is a country we are figuratively in bed with and they have a long record of human rights violations and ignoble treatment of women.  It shows you how pervasive our “addiction to oil” (Bush’s words not mine) and what extreme behaviors we will tolerate to fuel ourselves.  So we continue to close our eyes to their own intolerance of our tried and true values of liberty, freedom, separation of church and state and equality because to criticize them or boycott them would be economic suicide. And we (Americans) all seem to go along with it complicity as we fill up our gas tanks, drive gas-guzzling vehicles and complain about “high” fuel prices.

You said, “Could it be that religion is becoming a serious threat because some young fundamentalists, some of whom Christian money helped train, managed to penetrated the US and killed about 3,500 people?”

Well, wrong! They would have died for nothing but not because religion isn’t the issue.  Religion is most definitely the issue.  Just look at the circumstances in Darfur, Sudan for example.  You have Islam massacring Christians, killing their own Sudanese people, and this is the precise reason they are killing them (because they are Christians). That the US and the rest of the world is yawning through this war and ignoring the tragedy of it only indicates our own lack of interest in what happens to people in far away places, who live in poverty, are people of color and who have no natural resources that we value.  If Sudan had a rich oil reserve would we not be sending military to “protect our interests?” So instead the victims of the war succumb to Islamic barbarism because their oppressors can get away with it, they know they can get away with it and they will continue to get away with it. There is really no reason for them not to get away with it. And this is a big surprise to anyone?

end of part 1 of 2

to continue, part 2 of 2

You stated: “Could it be that religion is becoming a serious threat because some young fundamentalist....killed about 3500 people?”

Yes, it could very well be the case and that is the nature of powerful countries such as the US.  We tend to open our eyes (at last) when the atrocities hit close to home. To heck with the rest of the world’s problems.  But don’t come knocking on my door.

It may seem cruel to turn our eyes away from all the suffering in the world, suffering that we may be directly or indirectly responsible for in some cases, but the times we live in.  But we live in precarious times. With the use of WMD at the possible fingertips of some not-so-stable religious nuts, such as the fine gentlemen types who believe it is God’s will to blow us all to smithereens, then perhaps it is time that we open our eyes a little bit wider.

You said, “I certainly agree that religion has sometimes been a problem opposing progress but I don’t think it’s what someone who claims to be heroic should make a priority (In fact religion helped progress, perhaps more progress than secularism). I just think it’s easy to attack the weak evils while leaving out the more powerful evils.”

Perhaps you would care to expand on that.  What benign problems has religion been responsible for?
Because this is not about poverty, race, illiteracy.  It is about the power and the delusion of a religion that believes martyrdom will bring you to the beds of 72 virgins.  And it is not about why people go to war and die and how their deaths are “celebrated” for people have been going to war forever and acknowledging the deaths of their own flesh and blood. It is about fanatical beliefs which suppose that God is on your side and God wants infidels eliminated.  Killing us is what it is all about.

How is it that religion may be a “problem” to world peace, but in its most extreme , exaggerated and delusional forms