Video: Sam Harris on Islam and the left
posted at 2:36 pm on January 7, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
He’s not saying anything you don’t already know (or that you haven’t heard from him before) but I get so few chances to feature prominent nonbelievers in a light agreeable to the HA faithful that I can’t let the opportunity pass. Harris, Hitchens, and Hirsi Ali — liberals all, but unusually clear-eyed about Islamic fundamentalism thanks to their atheism. Or, in Hirsi Ali’s case, is it that she’s an atheist thanks to her unusually clear-eyed view of Islamic fundamentalism? Follow the link and see what she has to say about what Noam Chomsky and Paul Wolfowitz have in common. The possibility of Iraqi democracy is where she and Hitch diverge.
My one quibble here: Do liberals really regard jihadi rantings as “propaganda” meant to mask deeper class or colonialist grievances? They may believe that Bin Laden et al. are unconsciously channeling those latent resentments into religious fanaticism, but “propaganda” implies a deliberate, conscious deception. I can’t picture Osama surreptitiously cribbing from Das Kapital. Although…
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I just had a conversation about this VERY thing. I had a Obama supporter telling me that Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists are the same…ugh. I gotta pick up this book.
spacekicker on January 7, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Harris is a droning, self-important tool with no imagination. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Vote Sauron 08 on January 7, 2008 at 2:43 PM
From the AHA article:
Like the religious equivalent of the Selfish Gene. (The Selfish Meme.)
Tzetzes on January 7, 2008 at 2:46 PM
I have to agree with Harris. I will never forget a conversation with a European friend 5 years ago. She asked her secular Muslim friends whether they would have voted for Pim Fortuyn. “Of course,” they said, “we know what the radicals can do!”
My friend could not understand it, how they could be so “conservative.” She still doesn’t understand it.
PattyJ on January 7, 2008 at 2:50 PM
I’d rather listen to Hitch then Harris any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Easily. I don’t think Harris is necessarily correct in that liberals should be more able to recognize it, but he’s got his finger on the problem at least.
lol.
Spirit of 1776 on January 7, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Liberals are funny. Does anyone actually watch MSNBC? Do they pay the staff?
“Spade” seems to be getting tossed around lately by Liberals.
Hening on January 7, 2008 at 2:52 PM
One thing I like about Harris is that he somehow manages to make that used car salesman look work.
Darth Executor on January 7, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Finally, a liberal who gets it.
vcunn22 on January 7, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Hahaha so funny you linked to that transcript because I remembered Osama railing against capitalism before. Al Qaeda are a bunch of thugs, but maybe they’re also commies. Jihadis of the World Unite…
mattyj86 on January 7, 2008 at 2:53 PM
The idea that our liberal overlords regard islamic fundamentalism as propaganda is insane.
The truth, which is much more horrifying, is that they have the arrogance to believe themselves powerful enough to use jihadism against their political opponents *without* getting themselves killed in the process.
Given what the ancient greeks have taught us of hubris, liberalism will end up paying a very dear price for its arrogance.
unamused on January 7, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Islam is not a religion. It is a political movement. It’s stated goal is to dominate the entire world.
I’d say they are getting closer each day to realizing that goal, if what is left of Western Society doesn’t wake up really soon.
If you don’t believe me, just ask the Spaniards, French and British.
Dave R. on January 7, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Sam Harris knows little about Christianity (no more than the average churchgoer. He’s certainly not an expert.)
His knowledge of Islam, by his own admission, is insuficient to speak on it, yet here he is.
A fool.
mofo on January 7, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Islamists including OBL hate capitalism, so they have that in common with the nutroots on the left. They both dream of state directed economies. Unfortunately, western liberals think they will be able to control/negotiate with terrorists once they put capitalism down. Take a look at a lot of the posts you see on European lefty sites, such as the Guaridan’s Comment is Free. Basically, many of them have no problem with Islamic terrorism, as long as it doesn’t kill lefties.
doufree on January 7, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Harris said that since liberals don’t believe in god they simply cannot understand how people can be motivated by religion. Well put and not just true for liberals. Even nominally religious people have a hard time with that.
I was extremely pleased when he said the number of Muslims who are essentially against civilization is not 1% but of an order of magnitude higher. We all know that but it’s great to hear a notorious atheist say so in the MSM. Kudos to Harris. There may be hope for him yet.
Vote Sauron 08 on January 7, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Insert “religion of peace!” mocking here… barf
Drunk Report on January 7, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Remember, the key to understanding the liberal mind is knowing that liberals are 100% convinced of their superior intellect and point of view.
It’s not that they don’t believe that we believe in God, it’s that they pity us for doing so. Conservatives, jihadists, and all manner of believer in-between are little more than useful idiots and labor to them.
unamused on January 7, 2008 at 2:58 PM
The numbers in absolute terms of people who hate us are (shall we say it?) Biblical in nature…
Tzetzes on January 7, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Leftists think that religious extremism steals its strength from “conditions” — economic, social, whatever.
Leftists also tend to think that criticizing Muslims for extremism merely radicalizes them.
So, the leftist plan is to be “welcoming” of Islam and to act vaguely in tandem (or occasionally in open alliance) with the jihadists, bring global capitalism to it knees, then declare free cheese and thereby cause the islamofascist threat (which arises merely from “conditions”) to evaporate forever. It worked so well in Iran! /sarcasm off.
ForNow on January 7, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Tucker being the usual tool he is at the end-
“I disagree with a lot of what you say (about my religion), but I think you’re a brave man (when you talk about the religion of others).”
mofo on January 7, 2008 at 2:59 PM
The parallel I see with the Greek example is that of calling upon the Persians, enemies to Greece as a whole, in order to score against one’s fellow Greeks.
Happens again and again, till Alexander finally puts a stop to it.
Tzetzes on January 7, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Great handle, Oedipus!
Tzetzes on January 7, 2008 at 3:03 PM
LOL
mofo on January 7, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Harris should really lawyer up. CAIR is about to come calling.
Les in NC on January 7, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Hah, so true. “They can do and say what they want as long as they leave us alone.” They honestly think that if we changed our policies to pacifistic, appeasing, socialistic, or even Ron Paul-esque, that the problem of Islamic fundamentalism would just *dry up* because it’s wellspring (america/our policies/dick cheney) will be out of the picture. It seems they really lack any genuine understanding of the threats we face.
mattyj86 on January 7, 2008 at 3:07 PM
The only thing that scares my more than the Clintons are the liberal lefties who think Islam is “just another way to worship God”. This is scary stuff!
Gartrip on January 7, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Sam Harris is one of the greatest thinkers of our time. He is not always right as, he is a lib. But I think he will grow as Hitchens has.
TheSitRep on January 7, 2008 at 3:11 PM
This reminds me of the Michael Moore quote from post 9/11 concerning his belief that the terrorists biggest mistake was NOT that they attacked us, BUT that they attacked the wrong cities (ie: NYC went for Gore!).
Gartrip on January 7, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Oh and I hate to say it but Harris looks like a funeral director. “Now if you look here at our newest casket model, the Body Box, it comes with a free satin pillow to rest your head on during that eternal sleep.”
mattyj86 on January 7, 2008 at 3:12 PM
This message needs to be repeated every day by more Liberals. It is they with their utopian adherence to the Leftist dogmas of political correctness, multiculturalism, environmentalism, et al that are the root cause of so much of the world’s strife. Every time I hear someone spout off about the benefits of diversity I want to bitch slap ‘em.
DerKrieger on January 7, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Care to give a specific example, or do you plan to just drone on with your unsubstantiated ad hominem pot shots?
Mofo indeed.
peski on January 7, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Talk about question-begging. Would Robert Spencer be a more “clear-eyed” critic of Islam for renouncing theism?
“The atheist must climb up on his father’s lap to slap his face.” -Cornelius Van Til.
Akzed on January 7, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Political Islam.
“…everyone wants to be treated as a human being. In particular, we all want to be equal under the law and be treated as social equals. On the basis of the Golden Rule—the equality of human beings—we have created democracy, ended slavery and treat women and men as political equals. So the Golden Rule is a unitary ethic. All people are to be treated the same. All religions have some version of the Golden Rule except Islam.
.
and there’s this:
.
FP: So summarize for us why it is so crucial for us to learn the doctrine of political Islam.
Warner: Political Islam has annihilated every culture it has invaded or immigrated to. The total time for annihilation takes centuries, but once Islam is ascendant it never fails. The host culture disappears and becomes extinct.
shooter on January 7, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Very nice explanation from a liberal on liberals and seculars. Hopefully, some will listen!
Oxybeles on January 7, 2008 at 3:22 PM
I’m just 50 or so pages from finishing Infidel, and in my opinion, that’s exactly the reason she gives for becoming an atheist.
She didn’t seem to question (or at least didn’t write it down in the book) the concept of God in general but more the question of the contradictions in Islam. She wrote frequently that how can men and women be equal when a man’s testimony is worth more than a woman’s and a woman must ask permission to leave the house, etc…
Other reasons are also mentioned in the chapter where she discusses becoming an atheist, but they’re not given near as much time.
Esthier on January 7, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Watching Harris had me thinking the nearly unthinkable. Is the day coming when liberals’ tacit endorsement of these threats to civilization will make them a real and present danger to the average American? And, if that day arrives, what is to be done?
snaggletoothie on January 7, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Harris is dead on. I had never heard of him before but i came to the same conclusions over a year ago after i finished writing a thesis paper an exegesis on the legal justifications for jihad according to Sharia for law school. The Takfirist/Salafist school of thought is a supremacist and imperialist political ideology not because it is a perversion of any part of islam but because it is pure islam as it was meant to be during the first three generations of original muslims (the salaf). The problem for us is that it is an irresistible draw for passive muslims because beakons them to become tue muslims. “Join the Caraven” is the call to the passive muslim and they will at the very least identify with the salafist at worst they become “active” muslims. If anyone is interested Raymond Ibrahim wrote a book called the Al Qaeda Reader last fall which is essentially the paper I produced last spring.
elduende on January 7, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Good for Harris. His book might now shine a light so that liberals will now get the fact that Islamic Fascists ARE actually trying to do us harm. With their heads in the sand for the past seven years and constantly aiding and abetting the terrorists, maybe now liberals will know this truth. Here’s hoping.
Travis1 on January 7, 2008 at 3:46 PM
I love how it’s perfectly acceptable for conservatives to align themselves with lunatic, abortion-loving liberals when it comes to “Islamic fundamentalism,” but groups like Vlaams Belang, who’s overall message is much, much more in line with that of American conservatives, are to be avoided at all cost. Why? Because some left-liberal-turned-right-liberal-after-the-towers-fell blogger thinks they’re a bunch of Nazis, despite having no evidence to support his claims? Brilliant.
The “logic” of the neoconservative never ceases to amaze me.
—–
Oh, right. Go Hitchens! Go Hirsi Ali!
2Brave2Bscared on January 7, 2008 at 3:49 PM
You forgot to mention that Islam is also the world’s biggest street gang.
thejackal on January 7, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Keep dreaming, Allah. The only thing they believe themselves to be clear-eyed about is that they hate religion, and fanatical Muslims happen to be the best targets of their foolish and skewed perspective. I can’t say that they don’t have a point. Nonetheless, atheism is no intellectual and moral virtue, sorry to say. At present it is simply a lucky coincidence that the two have met. Enjoy.
Drum on January 7, 2008 at 3:55 PM
James Burnham asked and answered that question years ago.
Drum on January 7, 2008 at 4:02 PM
New Liberal Pasttime: Spade Tossing
The ideologically-driven view others as a set of issues/beliefs to accept or reject regardless of the merit of each individual issue/belief. If one or two issue/belief is deemed to be incorrect, the ideologically-driven view the advocate as being unable to ever “get it right” in the future.
Conversely, the individualists take each issue/belief and examine it for merit.
This is why the ideologically-driven view agreement on a single issue/belief as “alignment” with the person taking a stand on that issue/belief.
The split isn’t a Left/Right one. Both types can be found on both ends of the political spectrum.
Does that help?
baldilocks on January 7, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Cheers, the key to winning an argument is not ad hominen attacks.
FLcapitalistthug on January 7, 2008 at 4:04 PM
I just flipped through the appendices of Lewis’s The Abolition of Man to see if Islam comes down in any of the so-called tao — natural law, golden rule, etc. — that he sets forth. Unless I missed it, I see nothing.
Drum on January 7, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, et al, are so much college bull-session diversions. Gladly, the better of us got it out of our systems before college. It’s so silly that these men are taken seriously. These things should have been handled in grade school. At some point, ya gotta grow up, no?
Drum on January 7, 2008 at 4:10 PM
Exactly right.
What’s always left out of these discussions, of course, is that the liberal is just as much of a threat to western civilization as Islam; for in many ways the rise of secular liberalism in the west has created an anti-religious vacuum that Muslims are so eager to fill. This is especially true in Europe.
Liberalism is the underlying disease. And the Islamification of Europe and the Hispanicization of America are merely symptoms of the liberal sickness that has so plagued the West.
2Brave2Bscared on January 7, 2008 at 4:11 PM
I think I hear his ideological gears grinding a bit trying to follow such a reasonable line of thought.
2Brave2Bscared on January 7, 2008 at 3:49 PM:
The label meister.
Perhaps thin, but not non-existent evidence.
Label Meister strikes again.
peski on January 7, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Absolutely, and a tiresome one at that too.
The irony is that Hitchens and Harris are as much of a threat to the West as is Islam. In better days these fools would have been relegated to the lunatic fringe, paid attention to only by political deviants, homosexuals, and pedophiles. Now they make it into the MSM. How wonderful.
Drum on January 7, 2008 at 4:15 PM
And who should we take seriously?
Pat Robertson?
Jerry Falwell?
James Dobson?
Rick Warren?
Mike Huckabee?
Just looking for some guidance.
peski on January 7, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Wow, an ad hominem attack in support of an earlier ad hominem attack. Very effective. Well argued. I especially like the specific examples of…
Oh well, I guess open registration has it’s drawbacks.
peski on January 7, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Surely you’re not suggesting that they are the only alternative?
Some guidance? Start with Voegelin.
Drum on January 7, 2008 at 4:20 PM
OK, peski, since you probably couldn’t handle Voegelin (and because my “attack” was not ad hominem, but historical), start with James Billington’s Fire in the Minds of Men.
Drum on January 7, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Why must pundits always tell atheists guest before they leave “I don’t agree with everything you say but….” as to make sure the audience they themselves are not atheists.
terryannonline on January 7, 2008 at 4:26 PM
I fail to see how that excludes the BNP and Vlaams Belang as legitimate partners in the fight against Islam. After all, your logic suggests that two competing worldviews can share a common goal on a specific issue without one or both parties endorsing the other’s full catalog of political beliefs.
2Brave2Bscared on January 7, 2008 at 4:31 PM
For the same reason one would qualify that even though one’s uncle is having sex with sheep, one’s uncle is still “a good guy,” notwithstanding.
Can we move on?
Drum on January 7, 2008 at 4:32 PM
I would have the inclination to do the same, but in reverse, should I interview a believer.
TheSitRep on January 7, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Where have Dawkins, Hitchens and Hirsi Ali looked for God, everywhere? Did they divide the universe into three parts and perform an exhaustive search?
Is this ad hominem?
Akzed on January 7, 2008 at 4:34 PM
What did you say?
Jim Treacher on January 7, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Well I don’t agree with you on everything but I see your point.
terryannonline on January 7, 2008 at 4:39 PM
And no doubt this would presumably be “edgy.”
Drum on January 7, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Historical only in that you used the phrase “in better days” to link them with “political deviants, homosexuals, and pedophiles”. An interesting triad, in that it opens a window into your mind, although I have no freaking clue what a “political deviant” is.
One of the stupidest comments I’ve read on this board in months. Agree or disagree with them, their just talking and writing, not chopping peoples heads off, killing their daughters for showing their hair, raping and stoning women for sitting in cars with men, torturing and hanging homosexuals and the claiming that homosexualism doesn’t exist in their society.
Would you care to actually back up the statement somehow, or just lob another?
As for Voeglin, I really have no interest in self-absorbed philosophical circle jerks. Give me some facts, not intellectual self serving claptrap.
peski on January 7, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Sorry, but beware of proving yourself as subliterate as our president. I said that those deviants, etc, in better days were relegated to the fringe.
Drum on January 7, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Indeed. But they are denying the very foundation of what keeps us from chopping people’s heads off, etc.
Got it? Good.
Drum on January 7, 2008 at 4:51 PM
Eggzagly. God (oops, did I say that?) forbid you experience some truth.
Class dismissed.
Drum on January 7, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Liberal moonbattery suffers from a group dynamic of preserved victim hood and excuse all bad actions based on that mind set.
And if you refuse to succumb to their mind set you will be labeled a fascist or worse.
And to anyone that wants to make the claim christen fundamentalist are the same as islmosfacit perhaps they need to take a look at some of the secular fundamentalist {Read chapter 3 of the new thought police by Tammy Bruce}
Mojack420 on January 7, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Yeah I get it. Believe in God or be relegated to the fringes with pedophiles.
peski on January 7, 2008 at 4:59 PM
doufree on January 7, 2008 at 2:56 PM
The lefties and commies in Iran thought the same in 1979. that didn’t and hasn’t seemed to work for them. The very few that are left in Iran now walk and talk very quietly.
unseen on January 7, 2008 at 5:06 PM
I can’t picture Osama surreptitiously cribbing from Das Kapital.
Perhaps not Osama himself, but some of his savvier underlings? Definitely. If you go back and look at some of the early writings of Rashid Rida or other modern Islamist ideologues you’ll see how heavily they were influenced by Marx, and subsequently, the rise of Bolshevism.
As for the anti-American, international left I don’t think there’s any question that its adherents-if not leaders-are operating under the delusion that Osama & Co. are just another avatar of the People’s Liberation Army, or the NLF.
I recall a discussion on The Guardian’s execrable CiF where one of these numbskulls analogized the IRI-created Hezbollah to the Wobblies.
Gerard on January 7, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Correct. Caveat: not in a cases. :-)
I think I’ve been reading too much Sowell.
baldilocks on January 7, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Pretty much, yeah.
Drum on January 7, 2008 at 5:23 PM
That’s a tad fascist, don’t you think? And by “a tad” I really mean “completely.”
Esthier on January 7, 2008 at 5:38 PM
I have to echo an earlier commenter who recommended The Al Qaeda Reader, which is an invaluable resource for those who want to explore this subject further.
The treatises devised by Al Qaeda’s theoretician, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the screeds written by its corpulent Lord Haw-Haw, demonstrate how heavily it draws upon neo-Marxist semiotics and language, or the tropes of “anti-imperialist” authors.
If you exclude the perfunctory condemnations of our culture’s alleged licentiousness, nearly all of the appeals to Americans are cast in terms that would be embraced by Eric Foner or the late Edward Said.
I’m sure some leftists have the faculties to discern the difference between OBL and genuine socialists, but many of them don’t see why that should stop the two from working towards a common goal, i.e. the destruction of the West.
Gerard on January 7, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Fascist? Define “fascist.” If you’re suggesting that I might be intolerant of atheists, you’re wrong. You believe what you believe, and if it’s atheism, I will relegate it to where it belongs — on the fringe. Or will that not be allowed? Not democratic enough for you? Maybe you’re the fascist?
Drum on January 7, 2008 at 5:56 PM
You’re right; they prefer killing them before they even have a chance to grow hair in the first place. So much more humane that way.
You act as if the actions of liberals have no ill effects on the culture around them. Liberals control our government, our academia and much of our media. To say that “their (they’re) just talking and writing” suggests that words and ideas have no influence on the populace to which they’re directed. Reality says otherwise.
You fail to realize that the primary reason we in the West have this problem of Muslim violence in our streets is because we have been practicing liberal immigration policies for the last 40+ years. We open the floodgates to every Third World people/culture that wants to walk through it, regardless of how dangerous and incompatible they may be with Western civilization at large, and then we turn around and wonder in oblivious disbelief at just how we got ourselves into such a precarious predicament.
Muslims can’t compete with the West militarily. They can’t compete with us economically. We’re smarter than they are, and our civilization is much more advanced. If not for the prevailing multicultural and egalitarian liberal thought that has allowed them a strong foothold within our societies, they would be a manageable, yet still somewhat dangerous, outside threat. But as it stands now, Europe is but a mere generation or two from being completely overtaken by Muslims, simply through sheer numbers — and all with nary a single shot being fired.
And yet to you, the very notion that liberalism (the disease) is just as dangerous, if not more so, to the survival of Western civilization as Islam (the symptom), is “stupid.” Perhaps you should try expanding your horizons.
2Brave2Bscared on January 7, 2008 at 6:10 PM
I agree with you,but I suspect the problem goes even deeper into the “progressive” psyche than that.
Over the years I’ve spent observing Homo Sapiens Liberalis in its natural habitat (I turn 50 this month), I’ve evolved two hypotheses to attempt to explain the progressives’ seeming determination to wreck Western Civilization. They are;
1. The Nomad Syndrome; This hypothesis postulates that progressives believe that our society could be made perfect, if we (everyone else) simply (a) gave them absolute, unchallengeable, and irrevocable power over us, (b) did exactly what they told us to when they told us to do it, and (c) never, ever talked back to them. Instead, we rarely grant them even limited power, and we are constantly “talking back”, telling them they’re wrong, etc. From which they have concluded that we are consciously refusing to become “perfect”. And since we are refusing perfection, we must be destroyed to make way for a truly perfect culture- which they are certain they can build on the ruins of, well, the rest of us. (Syndrome name derived from the Original Series Star Trek episode, “The Changeling”.)
2. The Manson Syndrome; In Helter Skelter, his book on the Manson “family” and the Tate/LaBianca mass murder case, prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi described Charles Manson’s “plan”, of which the murders were part. Manson, a schizoid personality case if there ever was one, believed that the murders would be blamed on “black radicals”, resulting in oppression of African-Americans. Who would then rebel, and destroy the “white power structure”. But then, Manson (being a thoroughgoing racist in addition to everything else) believed that African-Americans would be intellectually incapable of running the world. At which point Manson would appear out of the desert as a new Messiah and run it for them. And that they would recognize his “innate superiority” and immediately obey his every whim.
Yes, Manson was (and is) a narcissistic egotist with a serious problem maintaining contact with objective reality. But the point is that modern-day “progressives” suffer from as similarly delusional set of beliefs about the Islamists. They believe that after the “Islamist Triumph”, said “holy warriors” will literally be too stupid to run the world- and will be very grateful to the “enlightened progressives” who will magnanimously offer to do that little job for them.
They also believe that they will be able to exercise such fine control over the events leading up to said Triumph that they will survive it, even if the rest of us do not- as quite a few of the more radically-nihilistic ones hope we do not.
To judge from Harris’ interview, I suspect he may be one of the few “progressives” who may dimly realize the innate fallacy of the cherished dreams of some of his more radical fellow “philosophers” on the left.
And the actual size of the abyss which, even now, may be yawning at the feet of Western Civilization as a consequence of their actions.
clear ether
eon
eon on January 7, 2008 at 6:13 PM
I have no doubt that Harris could out quote you on the bible and squander any attempt that you could muster to defend it’s message and context. The plain truth is that all religions are premised on fallices and contradict themselves on a multitude of levels. Yes, Harris is monotone.. I’d take that over a charismatic charlatan anyday.
whiskeytango on January 7, 2008 at 6:17 PM
Drum, are you even old enough to be drinking?!
AP/UPI (New York) PANDEMONIUM has broken out today as the streets of NY fill up with revellers on hearing the news that Radical Islam has finally been defeated. Regrettably, ten seconds later it was revealed that Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris have declared war on Western Civilization.
Mr. Hitchens, who now calls himself Bartender-For-Life, claimed that “until all people everywhere divest their religious views, I will remain half-plastered, and the other half will write erudite books for sofa-ridden intellectuals who likewise gargle with Russian mouthwash and potato-juice for breakfast. There. I have decreed it (hic!).”
Mr. Harris was not available for comment as he was too busy pumping paintballs into St. Christopher’s Cathedral.
********
Eeeeeeeeeek! Atheists! Somebody get me a chair to climb up on!
thejackal on January 7, 2008 at 6:17 PM
That’s exactly it. Again, James Burnham laid it out years ago. Liberalism always ends with suicide. It has no other destiny. And the “intolerance” (or “fascist”) card will always be played as Esthier and peski try above. The left also uses this as their MO. Strange bedfellows? Not at all in a political culture that sees the state as being omniscient and omnipotent. Things are playing out exactly as better minds predicted they would.
But Harris is a good guy, no doubt.
Drum on January 7, 2008 at 6:23 PM
You presume they frighten me. Not at all. They’re mostly effete — intellectual and moral castrates. Those who frighten me are the dupes who assume there is wisdom residing in the minds of those who, again — in a better age, were known as fools.
Drum on January 7, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Thanks for a link to the most profound article
There is no such thing as a universal statement of ethics in Islam. Muslims are to be treated one way and unbelievers another way. The closest Islam comes to a universal statement of ethics is that the entire world must submit to Islam. After Mohammed became a prophet, he never treated an unbeliever the same as a Muslim. Islam denies the truth of the Golden Rule.
By the way, this dualistic ethic is the basis for jihad. The ethical system sets up the unbeliever as less than human and therefore, it is easy to kill, harm or deceive the unbeliever. Warner from the article
A brilliant analysis of the European immigration invasion disastor. The western cultures honor the Lamb yet they import, protect and unleash the prolific Lion. The Lamb devours only its own, while the Lion devours everything outside the pride.
Should the law protect a religion that requires the murder of all other religions?
Our problem is lies, lies and more semantics and until we are honest about this conundrum, we are in grave danger of extinction
entagor on January 7, 2008 at 6:50 PM
I like the Charles Manson analogy-this is the first time I’ve come across it.
The modern incarnation of the left will share the fate of its antecedents the Girondists.
It’s simply a question of when they’ll be separated from their heads.
Gerard on January 7, 2008 at 7:11 PM
Wow a lib bashing other libs. I’m speechless.
limowilliam on January 7, 2008 at 7:18 PM
Harris is wrong again. His political religion is liberalism and even there he is wrong. He thinks that liberalism equals atheism. Well in the 2 countries that I know best, Canada and Holland, the churches are overwhelmingly liberal!
CanadaCees
Vancouver, BC
Canada
canadacees on January 7, 2008 at 7:38 PM
Allah, this guy is an asshat: He calls Christian believers (by inference), “our own religious lunatics,” for instance.
I wonder, is that how you also refer to readers like me when you get alone with your atheist friends? (I’m shocked, SHOCKED!)
Still, I give him very high marks for clearly seeing the real and present danger posed by radical Islam.
Perhaps some liberals will listen to him!
sanantonian on January 7, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Inference, yes. Yours!
We most certainly have had our own religious lunatics, unless you thought David Koresh was a sweetheart.
Leave being prickly and inflammatory to the Muslims. They’re better at it.
thejackal on January 7, 2008 at 9:34 PM
Drum, well said.
kyarnes on January 7, 2008 at 9:36 PM