Mr. Scheer wasn’t exactly neutral, was he?

This was an interesting debate, although I think Sam Harris deserves a tremendous amount of credit for not walking away from what appeared to be a pre-arranged tagteam, whether it actually was or not. Scheer’s shameful moderation made a mockery of the debate somewhat, but Sam Harris’ composure did him great credit.

Although Hedges had some salient points to make, he discredited them with ad hominem attacks on Harris and clearly approached this discussion with an axe to grind. His leather jacket and “pulpit” did him no favours either. Combined with Scheer’s meddling it was hard to give credit to their arguments against Sam’s relaxed, confident, articulate and dispassionate arguments.

I didn’t feel, by the end, that they had really enlightened me as to whether the events in the middle east and 9/11 are the results of social and economic factors or if they are religious factors, but I did decide that I am going to buy Sam Harris’ book and not Hedges’ or Scheer’s. They did themselves a great disservice.

Thank you Thruthdig for web-hosting this debate, although perhaps in future you should choose the impartial hosts of your debates a little more carefully.

Thank you truthdig, for publishing this outstanding debate.

Sam Harris gave a superb opening speech, and was calm and coherent throughout.  Hedges and Scheer were outclassed.

Harris is right.  Look at the “holy” texts, look at the behaviour of the religious believers, and then judge.  Why look to poverty for an explanation for trouble in the middle east when the holy text instructs believers to fight infidels, and the terrorists explicitly say they are following their religion.

Religion amplifies and perpetuates all other causes of dispute.  It is an atavistic force which is a highly dangerous presence in today’s world.

I’d like to add my disappointment over the poor moderation. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing when he slams his hand on the table and throws a hissy-fit without even hearing Mr Harris out.

Ridiculous! I hope Mr Harris finds another forum for his article. Mr Scheer can then sit around with his like-minded friends and pat each others backs all they want.

There is a difference between Tribalism and Religion, but it is not clear, thus I can’t agree with Chris Hedges.  The ideal morality or humane differences of members of tribes (or organized religious institutions) and thinking individuals is blurred, but it always results in :“us” and “them”, and leads to intolerance.  Not so in individual anecdotal cases but in the set of all humans.  People are said to be free to make free choices, but can’t make them free of religious prejudices. Some of those tribal prejudices may be based on the desire for revenge other groups, or even the entire world for what was done to their religious forefathers. Atrocities of the past were originally based on religious differences, particularly to people who neglected graceful assimilation, national loyality or refused to hide or convert.

Men of Jewish heriotage wrote most of anti-religious philosophy in the U.S.  America Jews are among the frustrated, when they believe that they can never be fully assimilated in the culture of the USA, even where they legally suffer from no unfair practices.

Sympathy for Israel, has invaded the culture of American Christians.  It started with the holocaust, that most Americans were unaware of during WW2, and were shamed by not helping more Jews escape from the Nazis.  Most of the Jews who suffered in Europe and survived are now dead or dying, but their children still seek revenge, and want to remind their grandchildren and all of Americans to: “Never forget”.  To them, all non Jews may be at fault for the plight of their helpless ancestors.  Those who have read the history books blame everyone for what occurred back to the Spanish Inquisition..at least subconsciously.

Many American Jews have prospered in spite of living in a Christian American nation because their mothers told them to work harder, but Zionists also work harder in Israel (unless they are the ultra orthodox Hasids, who are excused from worldly work) and they believe that they have a God given theocracy in the modern world. While Catholics only want a Vatican CITY; Jews want a theological NATION,and billions of dollars (that the guilt laden Americans of all “faiths” [including all US taxpayers] send them) so that they can prosper in their “promised land”. They revenge every “terrorist” attack on them by killing at least three times as many Muslim Palestinians or Lebanese, as the Jews who get killed by the desperate displaced and terrorized or virtually imprisoned Palestinians.

Indeed in this debate neither party explains the more than slightly religious based credos of many American born Jews….both groups and individuals.
 
Hitler blamed the Jews for forming a “state within a state.”  No American politician dares to do that today…but Jews who are supporting Israel either directly or indirectly may do so in order to take revenge on the world or even for their frustrations of not being are fully accepted socially by American Christian groups, who see Jews, not as they are today, but as Biblical Israelites…. They must come to grips with the fact that regardless of separation of church and state the USA remains a “Christian Nation”.... They can not.
 
Until Sam Harris is willing to writea book dedicated to Israel and call it “Letter to a Jewish Nation”, I feel that he can not fully justify his avoidance of a detailed discussion about the primary cause of unrest and murder in the middle east today and how Zionist lobbies have influenced both church and state in the USA to foster a nation within our nation.  Israel is not just a colony of the USA…In my humble opinion, the USA is politically a colony of Israel.  In my opinion this was the prime reason for 9/11.

And this is my opinion about a debate, that has avoided the prime cause of real problems caused by secular to extremist; tribal and individials and all who fear the truth.

A great debate ruined by lack of a serious moderator.  Should have advertised as Harris vs Scheer/Hedges.  Really bad!

Scheer should be ashamed.  I’ve been excited to watch this debate for weeks now, and am soundly dissapointed that he felt the need to inject himself.  That said, I think Harris handled the situation well.

For a real debate, I definitely recommend Sharpton vs. Hitchens at the NYPL.  This is what a debate should be…  (Though I was cheering for Hitchens, I really think Sharpton bests him…)

This Moderator should never be allowed to do that job again. What a bushwack job they tried to do on Sam Harris. SHAME on you Truthdig. You don’t seem too much to care about what is True, but what feels nice.
Sickening to behold, truely.

Thanks to Truthdig for having this debate.
For all the people who complain about sheer’s moderation, you can’t deny that it sure did provide some entertaining footage. Sam showed that he was very well capable of handling both, it only made his case stronger.

Two quotes that I found enjoyable:
Sam Harris (about the dismissal of religious belief influencing human behaviour):
“This kind of analysis is like seeing people lined up to receive the eucharists and asking them why they’re doing this. And they tell you about the transsubstantiation and their love for jesus. To discount all of that, that we cant trust what they’re saying, actually, ‘this is just cracker eating behaviour’, and ‘it is witnessed by the fact that it happens in other contexts’. I mean ‘people eat crackers in other contexts’, and ‘there’s a general love of crackers’. You can’t say that people aren’t motivated by their religion.”

Sam Harris (after chris hedges’ strawman attacks and ‘expert’ opinion on the measure of he muslim world):
“Happily we do not asses public opinion by having New York Times journalists go out and live in the muslim world and make friends and get a vibe.”

I have a CD of Sam Harris reading his book “Letter to a Christian Nation.”  Good, but not great as he was in the debate.  Since the Truthdig debate, I consider Sam Harris just as powerful a teacher as Professor Dawkins, if not better to the American ear.
Regarding the moderator siding with the New York Times journalist, it seemed to me that they were bonding as two people in the same field, forgetting that the debate was about the dangers of mythology in today’s politics.

Mr. Hedges bothered me with his constant referral to his Mid-east visits. I loved Sam. His logic was impeccable. Both the moderator and Mr. Hedges should have listened more closely to Sam Harris.

apparently i was watching a different debate than eveyrone else

harris refused to acknowledge a single proposition of hedges (it was as if harris believed he transcended the debate)

hedges was right in his assertion that most of what harris finds offensive about religion is due to manipulations of religion and not the belief or systems of belief themselves

this is true everywhere. it is not the “christian right” molding the republican party, it’s the conservatives manipulating the christians to their own gain (the same can be said of the ayatollah in iran and of the taliban in afghanistan)

however, harris was on the right side of the debate (he just refused to actually debate it)

had harris been a better debater (meaning, had harris been richard dawkins), he would have noted that hedges neglected to show any intrinsic good or value of religion, and argued that religion is extremely vulnerable to manipulations and zealotry (by even the centrists). with no inherent good yet vast potential for evil, how can one stand in defense of religion?

sadly, harris is not dawkins, and only embarrassed himself.

Dear Sam,

I have family membership in the Center for Inquiry (CFI)- Long Island, NY chapter.  This group was originally the Long Island Secular Humanists (LISH), but it joined the CFI national organization a few years ago.

Recently our coordinator has been fired by CFI, which claims that there are not enough contributing members from Long Island.  He can no longer get money from CFI to print and distribute our excellent newsletter.
Although it has not been officially stated, I believe that there has been a loss in membership, particularly among Jewish “Inquirers”.  This is because I have brought up the hypocrisy of what some have accepted about “Jewish Humanism” and Zionists who claim that land in the middle east was willed to them by God.  I myself am of Jewish ancestry, but I am a true Atheist Humanist.  At any rate former Jewish members of our organization, had joined to enjoy social coffee and cake while bashing Christians and Muslims…but forget that Zionists are equally to blame for current world problems based on Israel, a “Godly theocracy”.

Sam…Must we form coalitions with Jewish Humanists and other “New Humanists” who can agree with you when you only writeto a Christian nation?

Sincerely,
Bob Wexelbaum, W2ILP

Should a moderator slam his fist on the table and yell “wrong, wrong, wrong?”  Just ridiculous.  It’s a perfectly reasonable statement: “One well done Pew Poll is worth a thousand hours of you wandering around over there.” 

PLEASE POST THE ENTIRE VIDEO FOR DOWNLOAD, then we can see all of Scheer’s objective antics.

I feel sorry for Scheer, because the because the people who are commenting here are ganging up on him, as much as Scheer joined Hedges in ganging up on Harris. 

But, he has it coming.  The moderator role should be impartial, moderating the debate, not participating in it, especially not by taking the side of one of the debaters. 

Not only that, but Scheer spoke excessively;  few went to the debate or came to this site to hear Scheer’s opinion, of which they were forced to hear a lot. 

Someone said earlier “Scheer couldn’t moderate a game of rock, scissor, paper,” and that is a criticism that Scheer deserves.

First, thank you to TruthDig for hosting this fascinating debate. However, my enjoyment of the debate was somewhat spoiled by Editor-in-chief Scheer’s lack of impartiality toward the end. It’s a credit to Harris that he remained so calm in response to being so unfairly ganged-up on.

It was interesting to note how Hedges failed totally to address ANY of the major points Harris raised in his brilliant opening speech. It was also interesting to contrast the way Hedges read stiffly from a scriptwhilst Sam spoke eloquently and freely. Hedges did nothing to defend the usefulness of religion; instead, he simply took passages from Harris’s books (often out of context) and used them to construct ad hominem attacks against Harris. Only in one instance Hedges did have a good point - Harris’s defence of torture in ‘The End Of Faith’ was badly thought through (though this seemed to be a mere diversionary tactic by Hedges).

Hedges was also right to highlight that factors such as poverty and injustice help to fuel extremism (though Harris has never denied this). It seems the majority of Hedges case seemed to revolve around a collection of straw men arguments backed up by his constant mention that, “Hey, in case you didn’t know, I’ve been to the Middle East!” (As if people there are going to reveal their true inner-feelings to a white, American journalist of a rival faith). However, Hedges did nothing to address Harris’s central point that religious dogma often underpins violent behaviour in the Middle East. This is so obvious as to be hardly worth mentioning apart from the fact that religious apologists, like Hedges, seem to close their eyes to this.

It seems people like Hedges don’t understand that just because they follow a wish-washy, dilute form of Christianity-Lite that other people actually take their beliefs deadly seriously. It is these bronze-age, irrational beliefs that cause so much damage, whether be in the form of violence, the subjugation of women or the lack of economic progress. Harris showed this clearly and lucidly, whereas Hedges skirted around the issue and appealed to the political emotions of the audience.

One reality wasn’t mentioned.  Every country where Islam has entered has eventually fallen to Islam, just as at one point in time, countries fell to Christendom like dominoes.  Some are quickly dispatched through bloodshed, while others succumb very slowly or subtly, like the U.K., where Muslims seek to create a parallel government, beginning with a court system based on Islamic law.

Mr. Harris has spoken the ultimate taboo:  It’s time for us to examine belief itself in the public domain.  Ancient religions are just too dangerous to continue to treat as innocent practices that provide hope and comfort.  Just below the surface, rigid doctrine sits, waiting for something to trigger it into all its fundamentalist glory.

Modern religion is the product of cultural indoctrination passed down from ancient times when humankind created stories to explain mysteries.  What we see in fundamentalism is the ancient reasserting itself under the control of powerful manipulators, for various reasons, some of which were described by both Mr. Hedges and Mr. Harris.

I was disappointed that the moderator sided with Mr. Hedges.  Mr. Harris kept his focus, however, and he clearly expressed what a lot of people have been thinking—but not speaking aloud out of fear of reprisal.

Thank you, Mr. Hedges, for presenting a thoughtful view of religion.  Thank you, Mr. Harris, for your courage and scholarship.  And thank you, truthdig for the debate!

Sorry, but the moderator makes a mockery out of the moderator role. His obvious bias definately discredits truthdig. In my eyes this debate robs truthdig of credibility, in particular because the moderator is also a cofounder.

Islam has been using suicide bombers since Muhammad which goes back a long way before any Tamil terrorists. Also after 9/11 the Palestinians took to the street to celebrate the event and were only stopped when Arafat realized where his financial support was coming from. The idea from Chris Hedges that the Arab world was shocked and sympathetic to the USA was baloney to say the least.

I was very disappointed in Robert Scheer’s “moderating”.

Thank you, Truthdig, for posting this debate. Except for Robert Sheer’s interviews with Gore Vidal, I’ve never seen any of these three men live for an extended period, much less discussing a subject of such vital global importance. A wonderful experience for me, and thank you again, Truthdig. Well done.

What’s fascinating, aside from the subject at hand, is the subtext among the three players and the audience.

Sam Harris is asked to open the debate. He uses no notes. His body language (hand gestures, crossing his legs to “include” rather than “exclude” his colleagues and the audience) and his tone of voice are calm, steady, quietly confident. His clearly considered extemporaneous remarks are as well-thought-out as a PowerPoint presentation. “Point One.” “Point Two.” “Point Three.” He covers each of his points succinctly, factually, intelligently and communicatively.

Chris Hedges, for HIS opening remarks, rises and crosses to a podium, carrying pages of his text, which he then proceeds to read. First, he’s the only one NOT in a sports coat or suit. He’s in a leather jacket. A fashion choice for this occasion apparently meant to convey Brando-esque “rebellion.” With the podium protectively between him and his audience (us), he actually “reads” his prepared text to us. Like a, uh, preacher in the pulpit quoting scripture to the flock.

And so it goes throughout the debate. Chris Hedges is virtually NEVER without a stack of notes on his table, or a book in his hand or lap, or a pencil in his hand, or his ever-present reminders that, “I was there!” (meaning he was a correspondent in the Middle East for the NYT and therefore knows more about this than anybody). Hedges, in other words, is never without a security blanket of some kind.

Robert Sheer, as Moderator, justifiably has notes and cards on the table he shares with Harris.

Sam Harris has nothing. No props, no notes, no defenses. Once, it appears, he casually picks up a notepad, then returns it to the table.

Hedges is wonderful and makes many insightful and valid points. Mostly about the horrors of Islamic theocracy on families and women and children in the Middle East. (Thus validating Harris’ point.)

Finally, in Part 4, Sam Harris blasts both Hedges and Sheer out of the water without breaking a sweat (whilst Sheer frantically searches his index cards for rebuttals) with his “moderate Nazi” analogy that simultaneously deconstructs Hedges previous religious apologisms and reveals a side of Sheer, in a sudden eruption of emotional bullying, that we’ve never seen before.

Throughout, Sam Harris remains Sam Harris. Informed, calm, assured, focused, impressive.

Thank you again, Truthdig, for invaluably fascinating and informative journalism.

Great debate. Congrats to Sam for not only taking on Mr. Hedges but the moderator. Two against one, and Sam still came out the winner. Nothing Mr. Hedges said disproved anything Sam said in his book or in the debate.
This should have been called ” A debate on the war in Iraq”. It seems thats all hedges and the moderator wanted to talk about.

Wow. Why is does this moderator keep injecting his own opinion?  I have lost alot of respect for Truthdig after watching this.

Comment from Sam (not Harris) above:” But we have to recognize the role that Western imperialism has played in impeding modernity, specifically in countries like Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and even arguably Israel.  We have to understand that modernity will come when we stop occupying Middle Eastern countries and exploiting their people for our own economic interests.”
This is a hypothesis, not a fact - where is the evidence? Colonialism ended after WWII, and that does not seem to have resulted in much modernity. I agree that western countries should let these countries go their own way, but I think it will take centuries for them to modernize, and in the meantime they will be exploiting their own populations more than western countries have.

Sam Harris basically just weathered a massive storm of ad hominem. Thank you, Chris, we KNOW “you were there,” please say something relevant. As far as I gathered, not only did Sam Harris go unrefuted, he went virtually unchallenged.

I think previous commenters accurately sum up the position of the moderator: there was none. Truthdig should shop around a little bit more thoroughly for a moderator next time. What a joke.

By the time Chris was done onanating over his own travels, he had barely enough time to try to call Sam Harris racist. He completely failed across the board.

This is the first time I have visited Truthdig, and it will be the last. Apparently, by “truth” you mean having hack Robert Scheer, who is unable, even in his introduction, to disguise his disdain for Sam Harris, “moderate” a two against one debate. A setup that would make anyone at FOX news proud. Truthdig obviously tried, for some reason, to make the debate blatantly unfair, (and took very few steps to hide it) and still Harris remained the only rational, calm person on the panel of three (or should we count Sheer twice, as both moderator and table slamming provider of “he lived there for fifteen years!”-type common sense debater?). There are so many other sites that are addressing these issues intelligently and fairly that no one should waste any more of their time on this one.

There is a lot of truth in what both Sam Harris and Chris Hedges said.  Yes, it matters very much what people believe in their despair.  But it also matters very much that they are IN despair, and the reasons for that despair.  Religion is a problem. So is social, economic, and political injustice.

Excellent debate. I enjoyed it immensely.  I find one major flaw in your assessment of the Moslem faith, Sam. Islam, Judaism, as well as Christianity, have always been violent faiths, especially in imposing their orthodoxies upon their kind. But Christianity has always been militaristic. That is why the Christian Right is expending so much of its effort in infilterating and controlling the military. You are also losing sight of the fact that it has been the instigations of the Christian west that have been the bane of the existence of middle East, as well as much of the rest if the non-white world. I know of no nations colonized by Islam. It is Christianity, not Islam that is calling for a ten trillion dollar defense budget with the announced goal of global domination. The essential truth that underlines the enimty between Islam and Christianity is that rarely has been the time that whites did not cross the sand dunes without an Army behind it.
http://www.charlestwilliams

This is my first exposure to TruthDig and I must say it has been quite an embarrassing one. Editor-in-chief Scheer was amazingly one sided and, frankly, closed minded. The evidence is right in front of us! While Scheer and Hedges rant about Bush’s foreign policy, Harris stays focused on debating atheism versus religion. Hedges and Scheer veer off course and ‘argue’ points that Harris doesn’t disagree with. Scheer’s outbursts make me really rethink my commitment to being a liberal.  Hedges and Scheer seem emotionally out of control, which makes me question how much they truly believe what they say. Sam, you continue to calmly articulate so well what I am thinking, and I thank you!

As was the case in the Reza Aslan debate, Harris was ganged up on by the moderator.

And still, he made the most impressively logical arguments hands down.

As was the case in the Reza Aslan debate, Harris was accused of being “profoundly naive” about the quality of the emperor’s fine fabrics and tightly threaded pantaloons.

And still, Harris makes points which are so irrefutable they are met with emotional tantrums and lazy moderator gang-raping.

This is why debates work best when they are structured and timed. Not this “okay I guess it’s your turn” business.

Thanks for showing this Truthdig. I found your site because of this page, and now I’m going to visit it frequently.

Robert Sheer should never be allowed to moderate another debate as long as he lives.

Hedges states that honor killing is not all that common in the Middle East.

Thanks for this assurance Chris.  You’re really razor sharp.

Are we simply to trust you on this one because you actually lived in the region?  Or do you have the power of omniscience?  Don’t you think most honor killing is done covertly, not advertised openly to Caucasion war correspondents who happen to be visiting? 

Just another example of how the defense of moderate religion leads good people astray by misevaluating evidence and in the extreme, defending surprisingly immoral stances on important issues

Nahida:

Islam has a large following for many reasons, not the least of which is that for hundreds of years as Muslims conquered land and expanded their influence through the Mediterranean and Indo-Asia, they gave Jews, Christians and pagans the choice to convert to Islam, self-exile or DIE.  Countries where a majority of the population is Muslim also tend to have the most repressive governments and harshest penalties for religious infidelity, tied to strict interpretations of Islam and lack of religious freedom.  Like all religions, Islam preys on fear and suffering, and as there is such poverty and desolation in southeast Asia, the middle east and sub-saharan Africa, the areas are ripe for religious intervention. 

I’d love it if we could all get along.  Hey, could someone pass on the message to Muslims to stop all that suicide bombing, and to stop honor killings and female genital mutilation?  Oh, and while you’re at it, if you wouldn’t mind telling the christofascists to stop bombing abortion clinics and assassinating doctors, I’d appreciate it.

Criticism of religion isn’t prejudice.  It’s common sense.

Thanks Sam for being honest, truthful and for speaking out with the intention of making our planet safer and better!

I simply do admire you for your work!

Wishing you the best,

With love to all,

DSA

My sincere thanks to Sam Harris for being honest, truthful, and for speaking out with the intention of making this world safer and better!

Good luck to you Sam!

With love & best wishes to all,

DSA

What Sam Harris says about Bible and Christian evangelists, is equally true with Koran, Vedas, Hindu, Muslim preachers,and fundamentalists. The Human values are gradually killed by all religions.Sam Harris is doing great service to restore human values, quest for truth, search for knowledge.
we wish the present generation youth to follow Sam Harris example.
Let parents learn not to make religion heriditary and let them not abuse children by dragging them to their faith.Let children be free to choose or reject religion when they attain adulthood.

Hedges,
Get your heads out of the Bible.
Scheer,
next time your going to “moderate” please get another “moderator” to add some fairness to the debate.

There seemed to be a lot of confusion concerning the point(s) of contention. Mr. Harris was repeatedly denying accusations from Hedges and scheer. The moderator should have aimed his two cents at clearing up the confusion and letting the guests duke it out. It seemed more like a double-team against Mr. Harris than a one-0n-one debate.

“The Lords Prayer!”
Within its contents lies the Solution to the entire Worlds’ Problems. It is such “Good News” and it is soooo seldom that we hear “Good News.”

In all its simplicity “The Lord’s Prayer” or “Our Father Prayer,” answers “three” of the most catastrophic problems facing humans today. Jesus provided the Solution to all the World’s problems (in just three sentences.) Problems such as; Will there ever be “World Peace?” Will the earth be destroyed by “Weapons of Mass Destruction” or possibly an “Asteroid from Outer Space?” Or will there ever be a time when “Sickness, Sorrow and Death” is done away with?

We pray in modern English, “Let your Kingdom come.” God’s Kingdom is a Spiritual Government, I am sure that you are familiar with the terms “Prince of Peace and King of kings,” referring to Jesus Christ It is Jesus’ Spiritual Government that is going to bring permanent Peace to the Earth.

Then we continue; “Let your Kingdom come and let your will be done on earth.” In order for God’s will to be done on earth the earth has to remain and there will have to be people on earth to do God’s will. So we don’t have to worry about the earth being destroyed! But you may be wondering now will we always have to live with the tragedy of “Sickness, Sorrow and Death?” Jesus said NO!

“God’s will will be done on earth as it is in heaven” heaven is perfect! So in essence we are asking God to please rule this earth in Perfection as He once did in the Garden of Eden.

Wouldn’t you agree that this is “Good News?” That is why Jesus stated at Matthew 24:14, “And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.”

Thank you so much for your time and attention. I do hope that this is “Good News” for you also.

Sincerely,
Marilyn

*** pc pp. 5-8 Can Religion Satisfy Mankind’s Needs? ***
THE major religions in the world have vast numbers of followers and many magnificent churches, cathedrals, synagogues, and temples. Despite all of this, have these religions taught the truth about God? Have they helped people to lead happier and more meaningful lives? Do they practice what they preach?
2 History clearly shows that the Western religions have proved disappointing in these areas. For example, some of the most horrible conflicts and massacres in history took place in lands professing to be Christian. Among them were the Crusades, launched by the churches of Christendom from the 11th to the 13th century. The wars during this period took innocent lives by the thousands.
3 In the early 19th century, the churches openly supported many Western powers in the expansion of their spheres of influence in less-developed lands and the wanton exploitation of the resources of their colonial territories. Church and State acted in collusion. Hand in hand, they brought distress and misery to people in many lands.
4 In the two world wars of the 20th century, most of the belligerent powers on the opposing sides were Catholic or Protestant nations. Thus, with the approval of their religious leaders, Catholics killed Catholics and Protestants killed Protestants. In more recent times, the conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland has resulted in heavy casualties. Leaders of these religions love to talk about peace and brotherhood, and all of them profess to serve the same God. But in view of the facts, we must ask: Do they really have a genuine love for peace? Do they truly love their neighbors as themselves?
5 Additionally, are the religious leaders and their flocks known for their adherence to high moral standards? Others with radical views advocate the violent overthrow of what they consider to be unjust systems, some clerics even taking part in guerrilla warfare and riots.
6 As regards helping people to gain an accurate knowledge of God, all major religions of the West have failed miserably. Their doctrines are mainly based on traditional beliefs rather than on the teachings of the Bible. 7 Clearly, the religions of the West have not brought lasting peace and happiness for mankind, nor have they provided the right spiritual guidance. What, then, about the religions of the East? In China, for example, the three major religions are Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism. Have these religions brought lasting peace and happiness for the Chinese?
8 9 At the outset, Confucianism was a school of ethics and morality based on the teachings of its founder, Confucius. Through the centuries Confucian concepts have wielded a strong hold on Chinese culture and way of thinking. Still, being a philosophy of life, Confucianism has neither helped the Chinese to learn about the Creator nor encouraged them to cultivate a close relationship with him.  Confucianism fails to satisfy one’s spiritual needs; nor has it brought lasting peace and happiness.
10 Has Buddhism helped people to learn about the Sovereign of the universe? Have the teachings of Buddha satisfied the spiritual needs of mankind? 11 If a person’s faith is misplaced, how could he ever find the truth that brings real satisfaction?  As a result, the concept of a personal God, or Creator, is something completely foreign to the Chinese. Yet, as discussed earlier, to satisfy our spiritual needs, we must come to know not only who the Most High God is but also what his purpose for mankind is. By so doing, we will be able to act in harmony with that purpose and gain lasting happiness. We therefore invite you to investigate and find for yourself the reasonable, objective, and satisfying answers to these questions: Is there a creator? Does he care about mankind? Can he really bring lasting peace and happiness for mankind, which is so beset with problems and difficulties?

Why did truthdig host a debate between an ardent atheist and a theist who describes god as “love”, “hope”, and “something bigger than ourselves” and other such nonsense?  Only a fraction of the American population agree with such a definition.  What exactly was Hedges defending?  Love?  Ohhh…  The best debate I’ve seen recently was between Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens on YouTube.  At least Sharpton didn’t have to read his prewritten argument like Hedges had to.

And if this was meant to be a debate between Harris and Hedges, then Robert Scheer should keep his mouth shut.  He spent more time rambling than either Harris or Hedges.

Thank you TruthDig for an excellent debate. I have a great deal of respect for both Mr. Harris and Mr. Hedges. Having had a long and extensive background in religious belief, I can understand where Mr. Hedges is coming from. I share with Mr. Hedges an opinion that religion still has a role to play in today’s society if religious myth can be cleansed of their tribal qualities.
However, Mr. Harris appropriately calls religion to task especially those that claim infallible truth concerning mundane matters. This encompasses both the moderates and the extremists. Religious beliefs should have no impact on public policy unless rational arguments can be put forward for their justification. Otherwise beliefs should be personal.

I agree more with Mr. Harris. Religions should be studied in the same way that ancient literature and philosophy are studied, and religious beliefs should not be allowed to influence public policy on their own merit. It is time to call believers to task who justify atrocious beliefs and practices enshrined in their Holy Books that they accept as divine in origin.

Thanks, again.

There is a gigantic elephant in the living room which Mr Harris will not see-Israels’ right to the occupied Lands because their god gave it to them 3000 years ago.

There is a gigantic elephant in the living room which Mr Harris won’t acknowledge-the occupied terroritories(spelling intentional)given to Israel by God 3000 years ago.

There is a gigantic elephant in the living room which Mr Harris won’t acknowledge-the occupied terroritories(spelling intentional)given to Israel by God 3000 years ago.

I think the question of this debate is not whether religion is bad or not; if you really understood the arguments, none of the three men on stage were defending religious fundamentalism, tribalism, superstition, etc.  It’s a question of why these beliefs and ideas remain relevant in the Islamic world to a greater degree than in the non-Islamic world.  Harris argues that religion is at fault; that Islam itself is what keeps the Middle East and other Muslim societies from embracing modernity.  Scheer and Hedges argue that it is colonialism, interventionism, corporate exploitation, and other non-religious factors that forment a type of desperation in people that drives them to those extremist ideologies, which in turn gives those ideologies enough popular support to remain relevant.

It seems that each time this question was raised by either Hedges or Scheer, Harris seemed to dodge the question and instead persisted in criticizing the religion itself.

On the analogy Harris used that suggested Hedges’ defense of the average Muslim was the intellectual equivalent of defending Nazism as an ideology: the question is not whether Nazism was an ideology worthy of defending, but what about German society and history allowed that ideology to gain popular support.  I think most people who’ve studied history understand that the appeal of Nazism was not the ideology itself, but the certainty it brought to a disenfranchised population who had become increasingly alienated from the rest of Europe after the fall out of WWI.  This has occured throughout history: repression, exploitation, and hopelessness drive people to embrace extremism.

To say that Islamism persists soley on the basis of its ideology is to paint an overly simplistic picture.  I don’t disagree that Islamic fundamentalism is particularly barbaric, and that suicide bombers are beyond defense.  But we have to recognize the role that Western imperialism has played in impeding modernity, specifically in countries like Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and even arguably Israel.  We have to understand that modernity will come when we stop occupying Middle Eastern countries and exploiting their people for our own economic interests.

Bob Scheer,

From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli…

You can continue singing the Marine Corp song if you like, but the part about the shores of Tripoli was when the marines were ordered into Tripoli by Thomas Jefferson.  This was because the Muslims were kidnapping our sailors and placing them into slavery.  The Islamic leaders of the Barbary States quoted the Koran as defence, saying that they were required to convert, enslave, or murder any non-belivers.  Old-Ironsides (The USS Constitution) made it’s mark in this conflict.

The Muslim conflicts on their borders are continuous through history as far back as the 7ty & 8th century’s.  (This is not to say that Christians were any better, becasue they were not).  Just because the Islamic conflict seems worse right now, doesn’t mean that it never happened before.