Socrates and Californian, great posts. You’ve both shown aspects at how complicated and nuanced the Middle East is that much of the right (and now apparently Sam Harris) won’t delve into or take into account when thinking on our both historic and current relationship in the region.

Harris explains, “Indeed, it is telling that the people who speak with the greatest moral clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian right, whose infatuation with biblical prophecy is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies.”

Harris nearly says it, that the Christian right has been in on the Iraq War from the get-go. The Revelations crowd truly believes destroying the Middle East is good foreign policy in order to match the prophesies, (self-fulfilled prophecy). Who isn’t aware of the massive dollar contributons of the Christian right (CR) to the Republicans and particularily the Bush Administration? Quid pro quo has a part to play in the Iraq War. Both the Bush team and the CR agreed Iraq should be destroyed.

Harris tries to make it appear that the CR will be important as they will be “the only people hard-headed enough to fight the religious lunatics of the Muslim world..” AS if they save the day! Sam is ignoring the CR’s role in being an Iraq War active supporter as well as fully suporting Israel as Zionists. The CR makes friends with the Jews in order to fulfill the Biblical prophecy in the holy land, which is disengenuous as Revelations predicts that Jews all die as all other non-Christians. 

Can’t Sam see that bin Laden has a point, that the US is far too invasive to the Middle East and should leave.  Instead Sam somehow decides to support religious nuts on the right, the financiers of the Iraq War with both donations and votes from the Repugs in Congress on the war (voting our tax dollars to guns and corruption) as their promoting and trying to self-fullfill Revelations.

Sam, this isn’t conspiracy theory. There is nothing illegal with funneling money to politicians who will carry out some of the Biblical wishes. The Christian right has some control over our government in Washinton these days and “The Left” ( at least the progressive left) wants to end the source of anger of the Middle East and that is the US policies which coincides with CR dreams. Go to the source, not the result to solve a problem. 

You can’t discount American policy from the Middle East. bin Laden I’m sure knows about PNAC (The Project For a New America) and their neo-con dreams of Middle East empire. Why would he not want to defend the Arab world knowing that a combo of religious nuts and reality Risk game players were wanting war in the Middle East? And why would Sam Harris want to get in on the side that promotes conflict?

thank you, socrates, for your considered opinion and the temperance with which you express it. a well turned phrase is as a liberating thing, or so i am told. i derive some small hope from your rational description of that which seems ever more hopeless. and mid this tumult kubla heard from far, ancestral voices prophesying war.

To Denise Ward:

That’s right, I think religion is a red herring, and your fixation with it (a clear indication of a novice atheist, or at least one shackled to opposition of it rather than seeking a true understanding) is a problem for discussing the real issues that face humanity. Us vs. them mentality, and the belief that “they” will stop at nothing to destroy “us,” is the ultimate problem in the modern world, the ultimate obstacle to peace. I stand by that, 100%. Sure, you can define “us” and “them” in terms of religion…or nationality, or race, or politics, or shared history, or a number of other infinite possibilities. And you can endow “them” with whatever attributes you wish in order to employ a particular style of us vs. them-ism.

Bush’s cronies are adept at using “wedge issues” to divide us for their own political benefit. I can see clearly that Bush does this as much with his foreign policy as he does domestically. The kind of wedge he is inserting along religious lines is exactly the same tactic, though he is trying to corral the “Western world” to his cause by providing such a wedge. And now Sam Harris is trying to shame “liberals” for not falling in line.

For Sam Harris to come out in support of Bush’s wedge strategy, and his creation of an “us vs. them” in the form of Christian vs. Muslim and the always present “they” will stop at nothing to destroy “us” strategy is quite frankly a vast disappointment. And I don’t think I’m the only liberal (and/or atheist) reading this who shares these very concerns: Incitement to hatred and absolutism is dangerous and destructive to humankind, and particularly to its further development and enlightenment.

The knee-jerk “blame religion” (or now Sam’s peculiar “blame some religions more than others”) response is a very narrow filter through which to view the realities of the world and its citizens. In using such a filter, “religion” as such is given some awesome power over the lives of people. “Religion” is not an object, or a person, or even a set of people. When it comes down to it, religion itself is only a particular manifestation or mode of ways in which human interactions occur…nothing more. And nobody is going to be able to stop that from occurring in one form or another.

This brings up the further point: what if Sam Harris is right? Sam’s own writings indicate that he doesn’t think Islam is a peaceful religion, that its writings and doctrines are too clear and explicit (unlike the Bible) to allow for progressive interpretations, and they’re all bound to Jihadism sooner or later. Well, the only clear option is then to lay waste to most of the 1 billion Muslims in the world, or “convert” them in some fashion or another. Sounds pretty awful, much like the crusades.

In conclusion: I reject Bush’s attempt to divide the world against itself along religious lines. I reject Sam Harris’ attempt to divide the world against itself along religious lines.

I would recommend you spend some time abroad, make some Muslim friends, and get to know them. Same with everybody else. The more we know each other, the more we realize we’re all just the same.

Sam Harris is fun to read. He writes well and can do an excellent job exploring the contradictions and falacies of faith. In this op-ed piece, however, he exhibits some uncharateristically lazy thinking. First, who are these “liberals”? They sound like straw men. Second, and more important, he has lapsed into the habit of ignorant pundits who treat Islam as if it were monolothic rather than a vast mosaic of Muslim societs exhibiting enormous variation in traditions and interpretation of belief. It is both illogical and dishonest to make broad generalizations about Islam (or Christianity or Judaism) based on the actions of a few of its members. Should we conclude, based on the mass suicide of the Christian followers of James Jones, that all Christians are suicidal fanatics? Moreover Harris gives the impression that he belives that Muslims don’t make a move without first consulting the Koran. The great majorityof Muslims have not read it since childhood. And many have never read it. In short, Harris cannot make broad generalizations about contemporary Muslim life (which ones?) by reading the Koran. He has, in fact, no idea of how Muslims live, their hopes and aspirations, their daily struggles, in the vast and enormously varried region that is the Muslim world.

TO “Socrates” ( # 24490)

So religion has nothing to do with it huh ? What a pain people like you are ! And there are so many like you. As a matter of fact, Sam Harris has been trying to tell us what a mistake it is to think like YOU , in so many words.

Your attitude is in the category of “wishful thinking “. As Sam said people want to look all around the world trying to blame everything and everyone for any devastaion, misery, corruption etc.—-blame everything except religion ! This is especialy true when it comes to Islam. “No—No-Islam should’nt be blamed—that’s wrong—we must “respect” the religions of others ” YADA YADA YADA—have some GUTS—and come out and SAY IT :  there are some religions that are not respectable. It’s one of the biggest brainless attitudes in the world. Hell, NO—we don’t have to respect something just because it’s a religion . And the Islamic religion S-U-C-K-S !

I can hear you saying “Oh no—that’s not NICE of you to say such a thing ! How nasty of you ! How prejudiced ! ” And so on. Am I right ? Your type doesn’t even CARE to know the facts, because, just like the followers of the strict Islamic doctrine , your attitude has got you pickled—from your “innocent” brain right down to your toes.
The world needs Sam, especially right now. The most poisonous thing that can overcome a free society is a radical religious force. It’s happened before in the past, and if Islam had it’s way ( and they have what they think is thier destiny mapped out for them ) they would invade every country and “convert” them.

Clear your mind of wishful thinking and read Sam Harris again. He does’nt focus on Islam when he talks about religious problems for no reason. He knows Islam for what it truely is. Why don’t YOU find out ?

The biggest threat to world peace is the belief that “they” will stop at nothing to destroy “us.” With such a belief there are no options but to go and kill and/or isolate “them.” When you have this belief operating on both sides of a given conflict, there must inevitably ensue a run-away cycle of violence and death, with each barbaric act reinforcing this poisonous belief.

This applies equally well in every part of the world, and has nothing to do with religion. Those who blame religion are as seriously mistaken as those who would use religion to support their political extremism. Sam Harris’ views on the matter are not intellectually mature, since his thoughts are still shackled by an unreasonable fixation with religion.

a character in “ship of fools” considers her fellow passengers;
...she had always believed, so deeply, that human beings wished only to be quiet and happy, each in his own way. but there was a spirit of evil in them that could not let each other be in peace. one man’s good must always crowd out anothers and one must always take his own good at anothers expense, or so it seemed. god forgive us all…
i omit the quotation marks as i recall it from memory, and frequently. i recall as well the lines of coleridge and the tent maker. smarter people have long ago determined that humans are as other preditory animals. better to make art of the sad facts than shrill pronouncements. to the most shrill of my fellow contributors of these comments i would advise you, physicians; fu- i mean, heal thyselves.

To 24112 ( easy low bp liberal )

What ? You are blind enough to not understand that Muslim extremism is , indeed, the biggest threat to the peace and sanity of the world at this time ? If that’s all the understanding you have , what the hell are you doing on this message board ? What are you doing supporting Sam Harris ?

Ignorance of the Muslim-West ( free world ) situation is one of the major problems with society today. Wake up will you ? Get some reading done on the subject so you can develope some perspective !  Ignorance was an ongoing problem when the towers were bombed ! I was tuned in even then and plenty of people laughed at me. They had no idea what the Muslim thing was all about. Too bad it took 9/11 to halfway open thier eyes .
Don’t be one of those “well, Muslims don’t have any bad feeling about us” or “they have a beautiful religion ” people !  LEARN! Those radicals hate us ! Thier world is divided between the “believers” and the ” “unbelievers” . It may sound like foolishness to say they think the non-Islamists should die, but it’s as real as the sun rising in the East. As I said WAKE UP ! And spread the word .

Will the bunch of you “disappointed”  wimps shut up ?  You who rattle on the most and with such great indignance probably are all liberals.

Will you forget whether he’s talking about “Liberals” or “conservatives” for a minute ?
Consentrate on his message will you ? Remember, he said he was a liberal too ! Still, being as perceptive as he is, he will use whatever example that disserves to be mentioned for the sake of his point—and an effort to lay out the truth before the eyes of the public. The very ignorant and apathetic public ! They need to listen to him ! This L.A. Times article is one of the best he ever wrote.

Peace ! Peace ! Peace ! That’s the big cry coming from so many idealistic mouths today. Well wake up -will you ? There won’t be any peace if we don’t have the savy and courage to defend ourselves against an enemy that’s fanatical and thinks they’l go to paradise for killing the “unbeleivers “. As a matter of fact, the way people are in this country today ( and maybe the world) they would’nt see the enemy coming if was invading thier neighborhood ! That’s the way it is now, and it’s time someone like Sam came along and tried to make the public againt themselves with reality !

So shut your traps and THINK before you put him down.

Dee

“It reminds me of the examples we see, where Republicans attack Democrats for not having a solution to the problems that they (the Republicans) have created.” - James V

Good point James and probably the most important.
Lots of blame but no SOLUTIONS for now and tomorrow
from either camp.

Sam seems to win the debates but brings no specific
alternatives. Taking “In God We Trust” off our currency
is not going to make the Islamists “play nice”. And why
should they? They know as long as the world is addicted
to their oil they rule. Having nukes goes a long way to
keeping the US, Europe and (dare anyone say it) China
out of their hair. The Islamists do fear atheists, it just
happens that it’s the 1.4 billion atheists that live to their
Northeast and will one day soon take the oil.

Sam is absolutely right, and it’s about time someone got up the balls to say it.  Liberalism has ceased being progressive and has dissolved into a reactionary movement.  The right sets the agenda, and we balk in return. 

Every “action alert” in my inbox is ridiculously inane, like “Impeach Bush for not finishing his green beans!” or “Paul Wolfowitz is a bad tipper!”  Meanwhile fundamentalist Christians are taking over Washington because they’re the “sensible” fanatics that don’t slam planes into buildings.  How easy is it for radical Christians to congratulate themselves when the bar is set so low? 

(Religious Right)- “Look Liberals!  A butterfly!” *as they hijack the country*

Liberal America, let’s keep our eye on the ball.

Sam…you know I am with you on most of this stuff, but how did you get the jump from the liberal agenda to conspiracy nuts? As you have pointed out so eloquently before, the lunatic fringe exists in all ideology. Some are more fringe than middle, but conspiracy nuts exist in at all points on the political and religious spectrum.
While it is true that Islam is certainly more vocal and threatening right now….the reactions to Islamic rhetoric by the other major religions only fuels the fire of ignorance.
The ideology of reason must be extended all who cling to irrational belief systems: It is their interaction or lack thereof that threatens the existence of us all.
As you pointed out:

Astrologers don’t like “their most profound convictions” attacked either. Neither do people who believe that space-aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Happily, these groups do not take to the streets and start killing people when their irrational beliefs are challenged.

As the right slides more and more into the oblivion of intolorance, how can moral beings do any thing but cling to the only humanistic doctrine that is available? Right now..that certainly lives with the left.

Sam Harris has lost his cool and started smearing people. There are some dangerous liberals and some dangerous republicans. Bill Clinton is a liberal and he paid a lot more attention to terrorism threats than Conservative George Bush.

Sam Harris is just disapointing in this lazy op-ed. He tars fully 50% of the political spectrum and by implication half of Americans as naive children who don’t understand that bombers kill people, that they’re serious and that there are potentially a lot of them. DUH!

Most Democrats have been saying that Bush’s war is making us less secure because it’s creating more terroists. This is not confused and naive it’s sensible.

Please Sam, Wake up, scratch your eyes and start using intelligent language. You have a problem with a doctrinal slice of “liberalism”. The problem is not the one half of america that votest democratic and might call themselves liberal. You need to make that distinction. If you can’t then just quit faking it and hire on with some right wing think tank. They *love* defectors who can tell all about how they used to believe in clueless liberalism.

Please Sam. Please.

Maybe we are seeing the beginning of the end of Sam Harris worship on truthdig.  Whether he likes the term atheist or not, when one has read enough of his outpourings one begins to realize that he is nothing but an atheist fundamentalist, and shares with all other fundamentalists what makes them so dangerous in the first place: a blind faith that his basic assumptions about the world are the absolute truth.

I am deeply disappointed that you chose to give Sam Harris another forum at Truthdig to beat the drums for aggression and war.  His editorial in the LA Times reflects a philosophy that echoes our administration’s fascism and imperialism, and ignores the contributions that years of economic and political oppression by dictators, home-grown or supported by the CIA and its allies, to advance geo-political dominance strategies.  As a secular humanist, I believe that only through tolerance, respect, compassion, and, above all, non-violence can we help humanity escape from the barbarism of tribalism and religious and national chauvinism.

I purchased and read Sam Harris’ book “The End of Faith” and am quite sympathetic to an atheist point of view if not almost an atheist myself, but I as well had problems with his logic both in the book and now with this op-ed.

Essentially it comes down to—-Muslim extremism is worse than Christian extremism (or any other religious extremism) because in this small point in time the slight possibility that they might use a WMD is perhaps greater.

It really is all about what Harris perceives as the much greater threat to him (or his interpretation of the most important people in the world, the US) I’m estimating. The logic is, he lives in the US, Mulsim extremism might attack in the US with a WMD, thus Muslim extremism is worse than other religious extremism.

In other words, self preservation seems to be behind his attack on Liberals for somehow being the problem because we would rather address the main issues of the attack on Democracy here in the US by George Bush, the attacks on the Middle East by Bush that is increasing Islamic extremism, the use of weapons (see below) to acheive goals such as globalization, access to oil and as it looks creative destruction of the Middle East for our own selfish goals and finally the rise of Christian theocracy in America.

Liberals have identified the problems of religious extremism in the Arab world (to include ceaseless support of another religious state, Israel, at the depravation of Palestinians) that always can be traced to America’s long foreign policy of unthinking intervention with unintended (or unconsidered) consequenses. Until we begin to see that Islamic extremist blowback is the result of our foreign policy (for several decades) and then begin to alter our policies, it is America that can be blamed for the rise of Sam Harris’ paranoia.

Use of weapons: I’ve always wondered about this sense of WMDs as a greater fear than “conventional wepaons.” Ask an Iraqi or Afghani what they fear most, a WMD or bullets, tanks, aircraft bombs, napalm (used in the Iraq War) bomblets, land mines etc. As of right now, the US has killed far more with conventional weapons than Islamic extremists have with WMDs (which is a grand total of zero). As well should be mentioned or military industrial complex that sells weapons (or gives through our own government thanks to our tax dollars) all over the world including those Harris now fears, such as the Muhjahadeen back in the Afghan War against the Soviet Union or to Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran.

Harris’ problem is that he wants to demonize the Arab world when it is the cause of our policies that got us to this point in the first place.

Obviously Sam Harris writes from LA because he has absolutley no idea how life is in the Middle East.  Muslim fanatics are not our greatest threat, and will only be if we continue to kill thier women and children until they have no choice (see Iraq) but to be fanatics. Do not mistake religious fevor with religious fanatisism, a classic mistake by atheists who see all religion as feeble and weak-minded.  A violent religious nut would still be violent without religion, it just so happens he uses his religion to validate his violence.  Mr. Harris has crossed the line from rational atheist to nut atheist with this article.  His voice no longer holds sway in the court of public opinon.

Well, that’s it for me and Mr. Harris. I had thought him fairly astute before but not after reading this latest intellectual racist crap. Like Tom Cruise, we gave him too many accolades folks, and now he’s gone off, thinking he’s somebody. With this piece, he joins with the Pope, squirting lighter fluid on holywar.

Sam Harris has written a piece of complete, unadulterated bullshit. During the so-called Reformation centuries ago, the Pope’s proto-gestapo Jesuits called the crypto-fascist Martin Luther a “liberal.” Harris’s meat-axe stereotyping of “liberals” today for not swallowing reactionary Judeo-Christian propaganda against Muslims sounds just as ludicrous. Once America and Israel have removed themselves, their settlers, and their armies from Muslim countries, then perhaps the level of “terrorism” will subside long enough for us to determine just how much—and what kind—of it we truly face.

As for nuclear weapons, many nations have hundreds or even thousands of them. Few of these nations—perhaps only Pakistan—deserve the label “Muslim.” On the other hand, only one nation on earth has ever actually used nuclear weapons: precisely the Judeo-Christian one now screeching so obscenely at the Muslim world for even thinking about the subject. Sam Harris should worry less about Muslims setting off nukes than the crazy right-wing nutjobs in America and Israel who keep demanding the nuking of Iran every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Sam Harris sounds like a closet Zionist only masquerading as an atheist. And he sure doesn’t know doodley squat about us “liberals.”

The author sees Islam as the doomsday express.  We either stop i t or else.  And feel free to stop it, Mr President,  and by whatever means are necessary; short of nuking them, of course. 

But what if the above approach doesn’t stop the doomsday express?  Is there anything that for sure will?  We the people changing the world, that for sure will.

It’s undeniable that there’s a large and growing faction among Muslims that is dedicated to the destruction of everything and everyone it regards as a threat.  Unfortunately, it has a counterpart in the extremist Christians of the West, most notably those who define themselves as Dominionists.  This would all be perilous enough if we had wise leaders in a few key positions - in which case, there would be some reason to hope that major conflict could averted.  In this time of crisis, however, we are cursed with bad leadership on every hand: weak-minded, cruel, vain, ignorant, intolerant, incompetent, and consumed by rabid ideologies. 

If unreason is a plague, we are clearly on the verge of a pandemic.

Harris’ observation that our only salvation lies in pitting “our” savage lunatics against “theirs” may, regrettably, turn out to be true.  Whether one believes in the Biblical Armageddon or not (I don’t), the dire reality is that millions of people are longing for worldwide, bloody conflict, praying for it, donning suicide jackets and seeking to instigate it, flocking into war zones themselves, and goading others into violence.

If they are successful, the result will be much like a biological pandemic: a great dying-off, followed by strengthened immunity to religious mania among the survivors (if any).  Religion will doubtless persist, but advanced societies - assuming some remain - will cease to allow it any sway in political discourse, and hold all forms of zealotry to be a psychological disorder.

Why will that be?  Because there won’t be any leftover fanatics from the religious wars.  Ideologies that require absolute purity from followers always become fratricidal in the end - the stringently “pure” invent tests to expose the “less pure,” who must then be eliminated as an example to terrorize the rest.  Since all zealots have is the struggle to remain pure, there must always be a threat.

While there are a few worthwhile arguments put forth in this article, there are also some points to which I take exception. Over all, what I could not help but notice was the feeling that this was written by a conservative taking pains to sound like a liberal (I do so hate those broad labels). It reminds me of the examples we see, where Republicans attack Democrats for not having a solution to the problems that they (the Republicans) have created. It’s a madding slight of hand but it occurs quite often.

This op-ed certainly points to a real danger in the world today. Actually it points out two of them: rampant religious fervor and nuclear proliferation. And I think it’s obvious to all how dangerous mixing those two together will be. But to suggest that liberalism has wandered off course and, at a certain level, is hastening or seeking to hasten the slide into the abyss is it dangerous and imprecise.

What happened to reason and dialogue? I know that this current administration has relegated that form of international discourse to the history books but is that the path we are all now obliged to take? The problem is (and it is evident from this op-ed) that we need to be honest with the world and ourselves. We need to admit our mistakes and, much more importantly, stop making them. We need to abandon all bias in order to have meaningful and constructive conversations. And many of his points were sorely lacking in both of these critical areas. For example:

~ “In their analyses of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so. Muslims routinely use human shields, and this accounts for much of the collateral damage we and the Israelis cause; the political discourse throughout much of the Muslim world, especially with respect to Jews, is explicitly and unabashedly genocidal.”

The argument in this paragraph has several fundamental flaws which shine as examples of not only ignoring our own mistakes but also of using bias in the portrayal of realities. First he claims that liberals overlook (ignore?) noncombatant deaths. Secondly, he claims we and Israel (even he had to caveat Israel) seek to avoid it. This is demonstrably false. We did it in WW2. We did it in Vietnam. We did it in Iraq. As a matter of fact did our President not declare at the very onset of our aggression against Iraq that we would not be keeping track of civilian deaths? Not only is this a grisly admission that we would indeed be killing civilians but that they were not worth noting. And let us also not forget that we should never have invaded Iraq to begin with. So every bomb we drop there is tantamount to murder and no less calculated or evil than any suicide bomber. And finally he, like so many others, trys to paint Israel as the poor victim of “genocidal” Muslims… as if Israel itself is not embarked on a genocidal campaign of it’s own. That many of Israel’s casualties (and the subsequent “Defensive” retaliations) occur in occupied territory he seems think irrelevant. But he did use the (as a rule) there so maybe we can let that one slide.

And that was just one paragraph from this op-ed….

We do live in a more dangerous world today that is certain. There are many threats and problems that need to be addressed. But this op-ed does nothing but feed the flames and, to me, illuminate our own arrogance. To even suggest that “The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists” borders on insanity. We do need to find solutions. But we also need to think about what we are doing and why. There can be no healing while we are still hacking away with the sword. With every slice we further the gap between us all and it’s into these widening chasms that extremists find a home.

Frankly, I don’t know who to believe about how prevalent the extremist ideas are in the Middle East.  Once the Bush Inc. misrepresents the threat for their own political gain, it’s hard to regain footing.  Clearly it exists, but how much in our minds?

I applaud Harris’ ongoing dissection of religious fictions, but I have to wonder how often athiests are vulnerable to the same superstitious inflation as the pious.  His superlatives are eerily similar to the unsubstantiated rhetoric of Bush Inc., and only add to the emotionally charged call to arms.

No doubt Muslims everywhere are unhappy about the spotlight thrust on them, combined with the condescendingly paternal attitude of Americans throughout the Iraq occupation, and the “with-us-or-against-us” attitude overall.  I just can’t accept that our constant foreign meddling has nothing to do with it.  Now, some are even grouping muslim fanatacism with the occupation resistance.

The implicit question is, are we truly at a point beyond words, where violence is the only solution?  Clearly many believe so, and the tit for tat spiral may have irreversibly begun with the Iraq invasion.  I choose to hope that we can still foster trust with other nations and influential leaders, we just can’t do it with Rambo leading us.

I question your argument.  There are 1.4 billion professed Muslims in the world.  Making it up, let’s say 1,000,000 of them are militants.  Of those, some are psychotic, some are bored, some are looking for an identity, some are into 72 virgins, some seek group justification, some need a job - any job. 

The point is they don’t have the numbers.  True, they may set a bomb off here or there, they may make threats throwing people of your bent into apoplexy, but for a nation to design and devote an entire domestic and foreign policy conforming to their battle plan is absurd - and that’s the greatest threat they pose.

The American people and their government have to get with the fact that their days of isolation are over.  They’re part of the big, wide world now and as such they have to learn to deal intelligently within their new environment.

So far the Bush administration has shown itself to be only capable of react.

Sam here thinks that the American Empire is good, except for the kooky Christians. And all will be well if we can replace them with equally kooky atheists who can continue to terrorize the world plundering its resources, and make utterly sure that no one can defend themselves with their own nukes so we can create Kurdistan as the 51st state, but only for the next 30 years or when the oil runs out in the region (which is the same thing).

Sam fails to see that the democrats cannot come up with a different agenda because, as a corporate empire, we have none. It is too late to have a benign approach to feed the SUVs, the predominant lifeform hereabout.

Harris is correct to identify the threat posed by religious extremism. He did so with his book and he does so again in this article. The outstanding question is how to address these threats. Racial prejudice may not be perfectly analogous, but I think it offers some insight into the perils of unbridled extremist ideologies on both sides of a conflict. Our own Civil War points out the potential for ideology to lead to violent conflict. How we address religious extremism may well demonstrate what we did or didn’t learn from our own experience.

However, identifying the threat and crafting the solution are two distinct endeavors. Harris clearly identifies the threat but seems more inclined to then pivot and blame liberalism for our inability to confront the issue rather that offer any reasoned solutions. By acknowledging that liberalism is “generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity” and at the same time blaming it for not combating religious literalism is incongruent logic. In reality, liberalism clearly understands the dangers of religious literalism which is exactly why it promotes reasonability and tolerance. Further, that understanding is why liberals believe that the war in Iraq and the war on terror will ultimately require political solutions rather than an ever expanding military strategy.

As world population and a world economy continue to expand, our abilities to prevent the inherent racial, cultural, and religious clashes that come with proximity will become more challenging. Succumbing to the absolutism that accompanies any us/them equation is certain to trigger accelerated conflict. It is essential we refrain from adopting a broad brush strokes mentality. A reactionary strategy is nothing more than the fuel for escalation. In the end, it is individuals who define the differences upon which conflict is predicated…whether they be Islamist, Liberal, or otherwise. It will be the politics of leadership that will eventually bridge the divide.

Read more here:

[url=http://www.thoughttheater.com]http://www.thoughttheater.com[/url]

i disagree. there’s absolutely no threat to us from muslims. muslims sustain a pastoral, beautiful simple life for the most part. a life us
obese, mind chattering westerners can scarcely fathom.
all the violence ascribed to muslims that we’re s’posed to be scared of is black op CIA stuff, scripted and engineered by the same old nazi/bush shits who script all the bad parts of our lives.
get rid of bush, you’ll never hear about this jive again.