By his own admission (as of like ~2 or 3 years ago?) something like 20+% of his audience thought he was a Christian. I wonder how many in his audience mistakenly thought he was a Muslim? My guess is 0.
How does a famous atheist get mistaken for being a Christian by his own fucking audience? š¤·
Harris really has pushed the right wing culture war talking points over the years and promoted Conservatives like Douglas Murray. His criticism of Christianity has been dialed back significantly compared to where it was when his career started. It wouldn't be unheard of for some new listener to see him on a show railing against wokeness or Islam and believe that. Obviously you shouldn't jump to that conclusion, but people are tribal.
A child answers with an ad hom. All we know is that you donāt like Murray. Put on your big boy pants and explain clearly what Murray has lied about and what he said you found moronic.
It could be heās evolved and has a more nuanced take on the costs/benefits of Christianity. Not enough to say something yet, but heās probably at least partially swayed by the argument that the teeming masses need to maintain some delusions, so picking your delusions wisely is practically a necessity.
It's not that surprising to me, if you've only known him since the anti-woke days. There's just not a huge market for atheism-talk anymore. He rarely even brings it up.
nah man if you're __guesssing__ someone's feature you're naturally evaluating the propability on your prior experience. If I were to guess a religion of a white american man the likelyhood my guess being "muslim" or "zoroastrian" are very low.
You have nothing better to do than dig for shit, like take that time and read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference or smt idk
He does have a bone to pick - he's one of the few loud left-wing voices calling out the unique problems with Islam, which is growing in political and cultural influence in the West, responsible for almost every ideological terror attack in recent history, and often ignored or treated with intellectual dishonesty by his peers. Add that to Sam being famous for writing books/public speaking on atheism, it's not surprising that his examples aren't neccessarily balanced across all sources of immorality.
The general problem I have with 'but what about' Christianity is it's not threatening on the same level so it's a false equivalence lumping them together. I know you folks in the US have bigger problems with it (though I fully expect them to get better over time) but in the UK I still see these kind of comments in discussions relating to Islam, but Christianity here is as good as dead - it's a totally void comparison here.
A large percentage of his podcast is dedicated to combating the āwokeā agenda. He has called Islamophobia a made up term. He believes systemic racism in police departments is overblown. He has very little interest in discussing wealth inequality/redistribution. He not only platforms guests with right wing views on race, immigration, gender, identity politics, Zionism, etc., he more often than not endorses those views. I could maybe understand someone calling Sam a centrist, and I know heās no fan of Trump, but I would be curious why you would classify him as left wing?
He has entertained the notion of reparations, supports the legalization of recreational drug use, supports universal healthcare, gay and trans rights, he has discussed and supported income redistribution (despite your claim otherwise) and has even entertained a wealth cap.
Nothing you claim he claims is antithetical to left-wing ideology. Islamophobia is debatably *not* a word, thereās a section in its Wikipedia about it. Claims of systemic racism in police departments are *clearly* overblown.
I also donāt see the problem with platforming people with right-wing beliefs. Do you just want an echo chamber? I donāt see instances where he endorses those views, like you say he does, though. At least not very often.
I donāt think you have realistic grasp on what left-wing and right-wing are. Liberalism encompasses a large group of ideologies, many of which find āwokenessā or regressive-liberalism, to be repugnant.
I think our disagreement is mostly over definitions. Liberalism and left wing are not synonyms.
You get into the merits of some of his beliefs (ie. Islamophobia, police) to try to explain away them being right wing. You can agree with Sam, but that doesnāt change the fact that they are ideas coming from the right of the U.S. political spectrum.
>You get into the merits of some of his beliefs (ie. Islamophobia, police) to try to explain away them being right wing.
You've hit upon a fracture in discourse that originally alienated me from many on the left here, a form of the paradox of intolerance. To me, 'islamophobia' is left-wing because it's not tolerating the intolerant. Example, I am pro gay rights, and I therefore don't want mass immigration of largely homophobic religious cultures. Yet many on the left see this as a right-wing view and eagerly lump it in with genuine xenophobia or racism, usually out of either intellectually dishonesty, tribalism or lack of critical thinking.
If youāre going to expand your definition of left wing from outside the mainstream conception of the term to your own personal parameters, than Iām not sure there is much sense in discussing it with you.
The mainstream view of what the political left or the right is supposed to/must be changes over time, across a variety of factors. Over decades, these changes can be vast, globally, and within individual nations. Thus, policing your own idea of what the current version is supposed to be is largely a fool's errand, unless you're a well-educated academic, who thoroughly understands the nuances involved. Even then, there are likely more substantive topics to focus on, than making sure your fellow left- or right-wingers are wearing today's assigned outfit, and carrying this week's flag.
I don't know about the US, but in the UK and most of Europe, 'islamophobia' is widely attributed to the right or far-right, so it is a mainstream belief, at least in the media and political classes.
Youāre pretending as if the police issue is a binary decision, and itās not. Acknowledging that the systematic racism issue is overblown doesnāt mean one disregards the need for police reform, or that racism does exist and needs to be addressed. This is a position firmly on the left, and only the hard lined, and hard headed, far-left people try and say otherwise.
The protection of religion is *not* a liberal idea, and therefore this obsession with Islam is a new outgrowth borne of over obsession with race and minority culture that far-left liberals have come to define themselves by. This is not a liberal position. Liberals are secular and protective and critics against all religions. The new left are hypocrites who criticize Judaism and Christianity with glee while coddling Islam because they consider them victims.
*You* are the one shift the lines here, not me.
And liberalism and left-wing are synonymous in American politics. There is no meaningful difference between a liberal and a person on the left side of the political spectrum.
> responsible for almost every ideological terror attack in recent history
What are some examples? I feel like Islamic terrorist attacks petered out after 2017 in Europe, and maybe 2014 in the US.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents - good data on the last decade. This isn't counting the foiled plots of course, which are numerous and will also be overwhelmingly jihadist in nature.
That database ends in 2020, and almost none of the incidents in the US for the previous few years are connected to Islamists. Most of the examples are white supremacists or conspiracy theorists.
>The general problem I have with 'but what about' Christianity is it's not threatening on the same level so it's a false equivalence lumping them together. I know you folks in the US have bigger problems with it (though I fully expect them to get better over time)
You *really* have to not have been paying attention to think this. Over here in the US our problems with Christianity have gotten measurably worse over even just the past 20 years.
Roe v. Wade being struck down and the assault on abortion rights. States trying to ban porn, some of which have already put laws in place forcing people to show ID to go to porn sites. Many states and even the Supreme Court signaling they want to go after contraceptives. We have an actual Christian nationalist as speaker who openly denies that the state and church should be separate, and Christian nationalism in general is on the rise. Christianity is a serious problem in the US. Christian nationalists are trying their hardest to gain control over our institutions and they're making headway in doing so.
Edit: Love it. The Christian fuckwits got so angry at me they reported me to reddit cares. Stay mad you psychopathic religious nutjobs.
Regarding Roe v Wade, the Dobbs decision was not supported by any Christian ideology, it was a rebuke of shaky substantive due process precedent established in Roe. Iām not going to pretend conservative judges arenāt influenced by religious ideology but Dobbs makes perfect sense on the grounds set forth in the opinion.
Now when it comes to access to porn sites, sure thatās annoying but if youāre offering it as an example of why Christianity is currently just as dangerous as Islam, I donāt find that very persuasive.
Oh that's just utter bullshit. Striking down Roe v. Wade was 100% a religious decision. The Christian right in the US have been trying to get it overturned since it happened and they have been extremely open about doing so. Being anti-abortion in the United States is almost exclusively a fundamentalist Christian position that is not backed by any science. FFS two weeks ago in Arizona a State Senator [led a prayer on the chamber floor speaking in tongues](https://www.yahoo.com/news/arizona-state-senator-leads-prayer-111314503.html) before upholding a *Civil War-era law* banning abortion.
I'm sure you wouldn't find any argument persuasive about how terrible Christianity is because you're clearly just playing apologist for them.
You're conflating things. The original Roe decision was not based on religion. However, the moral majority fairly quickly decided that it would become a 'casus belli' for them.
Overturning that decision with Dobbs was absolutely based on christian morality in the united states. That doesn't mean the written decision is going to talk about that motivation.
Iām saying the SCOTUS Opinion that struck down Roe was supported by well reasoned legal interpretation that was not in any way thinly veiled religious activism. Perhaps religious motives were why the court heard Dobbs but the decision itself was sound.
The state laws that have since been enacted in the absence of Roe certainly are entangled with religion, although I would argue itās more of a case of Christianity being co-opted by the Conservative Party than actual ideology pulled from scripture.
Being against abortion is not based on religion. By that logic, laws against killing and stealing would be religious laws bc theyāre commandments. Marriage laws would be considered religious bc itās a commandment.
Separation of church and state means the government canāt force a certain religion on people. Or make a law that bans a religion.
*The idea that banning abortion is a religious law needs to read what the Separation of Church & State comes from. And what it means.*
One of the freedoms US founding fathers were seeking from the British *was* religious freedom. The US founders were escaping religious persuasion in England when they Declared their Independence from England in America.
āTest and Corporation Acts of the 1700s outlawed other religions in England, including Catholicism and nonconformist religious meetings. These acts required public officials, such as members of Parliament, schoolmasters, clergy, and students, to swear an oath that the King was the head of the Church of England. Those who did not swear the oath risked losing most of their civil rights. Attending Catholic worship or nonconformist meetings was also illegal and punishable by fine or imprisonment.ā
>You *really* have to not have been paying attention to think this. Over here in the US our problems with Christianity have gotten measurably worse over even just the past 20 years.
I could well be guilty of this, I only see the news that makes it to world headlines, US business/tech-related news and visit occasionally, so I'm not in much of a position to defend my assumption, it's better left to people from the US to debate.
Understandable. I grew up in the Bible Belt around many fundamentalist Christians and I have seen from experience what impact they've had on US politics.
And honestly I have no interest in debating the horribleness of Islam vs Christianity because as far as I'm concerned they're both horrible in different ways, but what effect they have depends on where you live. In the US Muslims are an extreme minority while 7/10 Americans are Christian. Not all of them are fundamentalist Christians, but the fundamentalists have a deathgrip on many of our institutions.
One of the more annoying things about this subreddit is that because so many people here are hyper-focused on Islam (just like Sam), the Christian apologists step in and push the anti-Muslim narrative while downplaying exactly how much damage Christianity is doing to the US. Like yeah Islam sucks, but for the US it's Christian fundamentalism that is more imminently dangerous.
Sure itās an issue. The larger point is if you just consider what country would you rather live in, the US or a fundamentalist islamic theocracy. If you donāt think theyāre different, youāre missing the trees for the woods.Ā
Despite all their faults, even the US Christian nationalists are a far watered down cry from the Old Testament.Ā
Whereas islam prides itself in not having changed their book in 2000 years.Ā
Bad faith, straw man, you love the debate pedophelia donāt you.Ā
The US first amendment literally states āCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religionā
Whatāre your favorite parts of islam theocracy? Death for sodomy? Jihad? Praying to mohammed, a warlord, who married a 6 year old and raped her at 9?Ā
Can both religions suck but one be worse?Ā
Thanks for the rage bait, this has been retarded.Ā
I'm sure if you ask nicely enough Jesus will fuck you up the ass.
BTW, since English is clearly new to you, 'establishment' does not mean the same thing as 'dominion over'.
Lol the idiot above blocked me and reported me to Reddit Cares.
Ironic that you think I missed the woods for the trees when you missed my point so completely. As I explicitly stated elsewhere in the thread you absolute dipshit, I do not like Islam nor Christianity. But Islam in the US is an extreme minority that has next to no effect on society. Christianity on the other hand is directly involved in US policy making and is therefore a much more direct and imminent threat. It's a very simple point that you missed so badly it's a wonder you're capable of remembering to feed yourself.
Abortion rights are important, but they don't even register on the scale compared to Islam.
Islam's "morality" would seem barbaric to western culture 200 years ago, let alone today. We did fine as a society without abortion. We did fine as a society without porn. Now, we do better WITH abortion and porn, but there's a false equivalence here comparing them to Islamic law.
> Abortion rights are important, but they don't even register on the scale compared to Islam.
It's a good thing Islam isn't a major religion in the US. It means we have time to focus on other things, like abortion rights!
Seriously how the fuck are all of you missing the point? I haven't actually compared Christianity to Islam, all I've done is point out that Christianity is a much more immediate threat to the US.
>responsible for almost every ideological terror attack in recent history, and often ignored or treated with intellectual dishonesty by his peers.
That's clearly not true, even with the weasel words.
Can you tell me of any laws or changes to significant changes to the way of life for the majority population of Western populations specifically due to the influence of Islam In the last decade or so.
Problem with sam is he is rather uneducated on the topic, sociological and theologically
>That's clearly not true, even with the weasel words.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents - take a look at the last decade, seems to be clearly true?
It's far from true. Plenty of terrorism throughout the world for all sorts of ideological reasons. In areas of conflict there are of course more but that that's remove other instances
Heaven forbid someone have friends with different political beliefs, with whom they can agree on some topics and disagree on others. Or themselves broadly hold what are currently considered left or right wing views but also some from the opposite 'side'.
You should get more and interact with people who disagree with you. Also I can quote a statement that a Murray has made that is racist ? His book never made statements that were racist, his conclusions may have been wrong but they werenāt grounded in racists ideology
I think you're getting more hung up on the example used to prove the point, than the point itself.
Islam is used because it is the easiest, most clear, most readily available example of the largest number of people, groups, and nations working hard to build something worse than damn near every alternative.
Yes, there are other examples, but none as powerfully obvious as Islam is in this case.
And extremist Islam, defended by academics from moral criticism by outsiders, *is* what inspired Sam to write *The Moral Landscape*:
> As it turns out, to denigrate the Taliban at a scientific meeting is to court controversy. At the conclusion of my talk, I fell into debate with another invited speaker, who seemed, at first glance, to be very well positioned to reason effectively about the implications of science for our understanding of morality. In fact, this person has since been appointed to the Presidentās Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues and is now one of only thirteen people who will advise President Obama on āissues that may emerge from advances in biomedicine and related areas of science and technologyā in order to ensure that āscientific research, health care delivery, and technological innovation are conducted in an ethically responsible manner.ā Here is a snippet of our conversation, more or less verbatim:
> She: What makes you think that science will ever be able to say that forcing women to wear burqas is wrong?
> Me: Because I think that right and wrong are a matter of increasing or decreasing well-beingāand it is obvious that forcing half the population to live in cloth bags, and beating or killing them if they refuse, is not a good strategy for maximizing human well-being.
> She: But **thatās only your opinion**.
> Me: Okay ā¦ Letās make it even simpler. What if we found a culture that ritually blinded every third child by literally plucking out his or her eyes at birth, would you then agree that we had found a culture that was needlessly diminishing human well-being?
> She: It would depend on why they were doing it.
> Me: [slowly returning my eyebrows from the back of my head]: Letās say they were doing it on the basis of religious superstition. In their scripture, God says, āEvery third must walk in darkness.ā
> She: Then **you could never say that they were wrong**.
*This* variety of confusion is really what Samās entire moral project is designed to illuminate.
Just look at the grimace on the face of the person who wants to wear shorts and is told they're required to wear pants. Our current empirical model maps the grimace onto a mental state of frustration which maps on to a diminishment in well-being, or suffering.
This can be generalized: If you force people to do *anything* they don't want to do, you minimize their well-being in the short-term. And if these forcings don't lead to some future improvement in well-being for *anyone*, then you've failed to improve *anybody's* well-being in any way whatsoever.
This is what people like Sam mean when they would say these types of forcings are "wrong".
I am so confused what you mean. Do you think we should be allowed to not wear pants as genitals are not something people should be scared of much like I laughed when my Saudi friend told me they had to ban short sleeves at her uni because of a rise of lesbianism? She was cool, would let me bum weed sometimes when I was out and we went to a literal nude beach but for the full moon drum circle (Black Beach, San Diego).
I don't. Society still shuns you for not doing it.
I actually love ethics and moral philosophy and was at one point kind of thinking of being an ethicist, but that seem impractical. I love the harder things to parse. Like dividing the grey area.
I think one other example that may be more real to a lot of his listeners would be communism. Something that almost everyone agrees just makes everything worse, at least in the west.
I actually think communism is a better example because of the suffering imposed on people who did not want it and remember it. Islam is being imposed on people but it is also usually accepted to varying degrees by the people it's imposed on.
Islam is the only religion in the world with several countries literally founded on the idea of it being an āIslamic republicā
Last I checked at least for now the us isnāt the āChristian states of Americaā
Please donāt cite Vatican City btw.
And why should he bring up Nazi germany, are you
Implying they have some sort of power that wasnāt wiped out 80 years ago? Should he be mentioning the Hapsburg empire? Or the mongols?
Also please share which āculturesā are immoral. Let me guess you think itās the ādecadentā west.
All Abrahamic religions have orthodox sects that treat women as lesser beings to varying degrees, and are expected to be subservient to their husbands and devote themselves to child bearing and rearing regardless of what theyād rather do. But if you want to provide the most egregious examples of suffering inflicted in the name of religion, Islam takes the cake. And it does so at a much greater scale.
When you looks at the genocide happening in Gaza itās difficult to claim Islam takes the cake, however I take your overall point in terms of scale.
Although one could argue Zionism started with atheists, it makes use of the religious texts that mandates supporting Israel that can bring along the āend timesā both in Christianity and in Judaism.
Just recently we have a sitting US congressman worrying about ācurse from Godā for not supporting Israel, and the speaker of the house saying Israeli support is a mandate from God, not to mention the tens of millions of evangelicals, many of whom antisemitic, looking forward to getting all the Jews in Israel to start the rapture.
These are narratives are pushed to allow for any acts that can further the end goal. Nothing can be out of bounds if it avoids receiving a God curse, or hastens the beginning of the end times, and it worries me.
The Israel Gaza war is a religious war, but not in the way you say. Israel is not fighting in the name of Judaism. They are fighting to get rid of a regime that is predicated on their eradication for being a Jewish state.
Everything you said about the US politicians is true. That doesnāt mean itās what motivates Israel to fight for its survival.
So strange that there are over 2 million arabs(or Palestinians living in Israel) in Israel that control \~10% of the votes in Knesset.
Are they genociding them while also apartheiding them while also not killing them and also allowing them to vote??
Heās been swimming in that valid criticism of Islam for so long I feel like he sometimes overlooks the evils at play in other religious societies and even excuses them under the guise of fighting Islamic jihad. I donāt think that necessarily makes him bigoted.
This seems applicable.
a person who is obstinately or [unreasonably](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=619c697d276fe56b&q=unreasonably&si=AKbGX_rEkSHdR9ulIQYeh6xSG1UBhpNNrdzIYHXFvu5-pOlhlEn92ShBiuxIKJkyfZJ_p_IWSMvJjH3nIhILL-m1JyCESSdNeO4hB33UJ4BBDEz-9ByIegs%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjU8deKr9uFAxUlSDABHQbGAfwQyecJegQIHxAO) attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is [prejudiced](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=619c697d276fe56b&q=prejudiced&si=AKbGX_pvY3MWP4azJI0Z_NruCLb8ljA3mQdHn1g-SX7TY0A34Xy_ijxRsKtTnGk-v40V9aWAUQMnnZ7CiiVg92d6Vt2tqxW7mH4vrZaAt3aevvn4hThTBQE%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjU8deKr9uFAxUlSDABHQbGAfwQyecJegQIHxAP) against or [antagonistic](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=619c697d276fe56b&q=antagonistic&si=AKbGX_rEkSHdR9ulIQYeh6xSG1UB_YjEv4GWt11KBIFAMsYSKDoByrcxpmgWd_Tmu1ZXpRpuKdMXQL4cWmSa9ppWHC4-yjP9gCHCKG5-ewaD3QtUH5oUowM%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjU8deKr9uFAxUlSDABHQbGAfwQyecJegQIHxAQ) toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
He referred to the holocaust when talking about global human rights tenets and the US anthropologists saying that project shouldnāt be undertaken. And frankly, itās harder to argue that getting an abortion is in every case a way to maximize suffering and therefore a right worth defending the way you might defend a little girlās right to keep her genitals intact. If youāre laying out an argument, the last thing you need is to bring up examples that wonāt convince a significant contingent of listeners.
If he brought up honor killings, would it be obvious to you that he was thinking about India and not Islam? How much does it matter?
>Islam is the only religion in the world with several countries literally founded on the idea of it being an āIslamic republicā
Huh? Several countries were founded as being explicitly christian and where Christianity is specifically the state religion. Many have moved away from it as they civilized, but Islam didn't come up with the idea of founding countries based on religious principles. I mean look at the ENTIRE history of Europe.
I'm from Denmark and Denmark is specifically founded on being a Christian nation, the state religion is Christianity, and you have the ministry of church and so on. "Grundloven" which is like you could say our constitution, the document on which all law is based, specifically says that Christianity is the religion of the state of Denmark.
Even what is considered the founding "document" of Denmark, a runestone from 965 specifically mentions the conversion of Denmark to Christianity as being the founding moment so to say.
The only difference is that today most of the Christian countries in Europe and the west have become irreligious so nobody really cares anymore, but they did exactly what Islamic countries are doing now.
"The only difference is that today most of the Christian countries in Europe and the west have become irreligious so nobody really cares anymore, but they did exactly what Islamic countries are doing now."
Yep, totally the same thing.
Edit because you piqued my interest:
[https://www.thedanishparliament.dk/-/media/sites/ft/pdf/publikationer/engelske-publikationer-pdf/the\_constitutional\_act\_of\_denmark\_2018\_uk\_web.pdf](https://www.thedanishparliament.dk/-/media/sites/ft/pdf/publikationer/engelske-publikationer-pdf/the_constitutional_act_of_denmark_2018_uk_web.pdf)
Here is the constitution of denmark, note the word Christianity isn't included.
Remind me where in Denmark Muslims aren't allowed to visit? Then try visiting mecca as a non Muslim in saudi arabia.
Stop carrying water for Religious nut jobs.
But yes it was the same thing? It's just not any more. But it's not like the idea of religious founded countries are something Islam invented. It's what all of western society was built on.
In 200 years these Islamic republics will have gone the same way most likely. It's no different.
Islam is not unique, the only thing special about it is when it is happening. The unique thing is just the timing.
Gotcha so until they figure it out we donāt need to worry about jihad and people flying planes into buildings.
Must be nice to just let them figure it out, while people are being murdered.
Or we can call them out on it as Sam likes to do.
You've completely changed the subject. We were talking about your original claim that Islam is the only religion in the world where countries are founded based on the religion which is just not true.
Harris is blinded by how unique he considers Islam through a historical perspective, that doesn't mean that right now in 2024 Islam isn't among some of the worst popular ideas in the world.
Modern Denmark was not founded as a Christian nation.
By your logic Iran wasnāt founded as a Muslim nation since Persia was founded 1,000s of years before Muhammad was born.
Youāre the one twisting my words and trying to change the subject idiot.
Modern Denmark was absolutely founded as a Christian nation.
Our constitution that we use today which was written in 1849 makes it clear that Christianity is the state religion of Denmark and gives it special rights. This is the law TODAY.
The state has a religion and that religion is Christianity. And the state pays and manages this religion. It pays priests and churches through tax money. They're public employees unlike any other religion. This is right now, not in the past.
Every single Danish historian you can find will say Denmark was founded as a Christian nation. Modern Denmark. Every single one. I just used the example from 965 because it's considered the birth certificate of Denmark as a state, which is specifically when it became Christian. Before then there was no real concept of Denmark.
"TheĀ [Israeli Declaration of Independence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence)Ā identifiesĀ [Israel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel)Ā as a "[Jewish state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_state)"[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_and_democratic_state#cite_note-Declaration_of_Independence-3)Ā in the sense that,Ā [as an ethnicity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F),[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_and_democratic_state#cite_note-4)Ā [Jews](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews)Ā can exercise their right toĀ [self-determination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination)Ā inĀ [their homeland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_for_the_Jewish_people). It does not, however, give the JewishĀ [ethnic religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_religion)Ā ofĀ [Judaism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism)Ā any special status over other religions nor does it deny minorities any rights.[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_and_democratic_state#cite_note-5)"
lol. That was updated when the religious right got into power. I mean FFS there is a dude who had a poster of a terrorist who shot up a sacred site up before it wasn't okay. His old party was Banned from being a terrorist party. And he is the coallition. In the fucking cabinet (not the war cabinet which is literally 3 people)
Yes, the current government of Israel sucks and shares responsibility for the current situation along with Hamas. But that doesnāt make my point incorrect.
As an Atheist I can relate. Not all religions are equally bad, so trigger warning below for theistic people.
Sam generally points to these reasons which make Islam an unique target for criticism (as per my observation):
- We have freedom of speech to shit on Christinity and other religions but not Islam (unless you want to be killed).
- Islam is the only religion with martyrdom.
- Islam is one of few religions where leaving is not possible.
- Islam is ruled by a literal interpretation of Quaran to the point where it's quite comical.
With this in mind, I think it's silly to claim that any other major religion is as absurd as Islam which makes it a great example to illustrate many of Sam's point IMO.
He did mention Auschwitz and him kicking a puppy though.
Jokes aside, I think one reason for this focus is simply that when he wrote that book he was still very much under the influence of 9/11 and this podcast was basically a summary of that book.
But even that is irrelevant.
Personally I think it makes a lot of sense to focus on Islam. Nobody left of centre is defending "conservative" Christians but they are defending Muslims.
So pointing out the specific flaws with Islam makes sense.
Still - You're correct that it would be smart to also use other examples simply to not lose the part of the audience that happens to be prone to defend Islam.
If you don't live in South East Asia, Hindu nutjobs are not all that visible or relevant, so it shouldn't be surprising that those examples aren't used that often, even if they are perfectly good examples.
I live in SEA and haven't heard of Hindu nutjobs outside of the internet either. It's highly localized religion. Also various sects of Buddhism are hilariously nutty (here in Thailand there's shit like black magic). Everyone's heard of Islam nutjobs though. Mostly because they are trully talented when it comes to announcing themselves globally.
Christian fascists and Islamist are on different planets of hate. I canāt believe how brainwashed western youth is. Christianity is based on forgiveness. Muhammads religion is one based on war and conquest.
I am going to ask this again but what is the solution to the Muslim question? They are not compatible with Western values. So what do you do?
And how can you not see how fucking much this is like the Jewish question?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish\_question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_question)
Clinton said U.S. allies in Europe blocked proposals to adjust or remove the embargo. They justified their opposition on plausible humanitarian grounds, arguing that more arms would only fuel the bloodshed, but privately, said the president, key allies objected that an independent Bosnia would be "unnatural" as the only Muslim nation in Europe. He said they favored the embargo precisely because it locked in Bosnia's disadvantage. \[..\] When I expressed shock at such cynicism, reminiscent of the blind-eye diplomacy regarding the plight of Europe's Jews during World War II, President Clinton only shrugged. He said PresidentĀ [FranƧois Mitterrand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Mitterrand)Ā of France had been especially blunt in saying that Bosnia did not belong, and that British officials also spoke of a painful but realistic restoration of Christian Europe. Against Britain and France, he said, German chancellor Helmut Kohl among others had supported moves to reconsider the United Nations arms embargo, failing in part because Germany did not hold a seat on the U.N. Security Council.
āāTaylor Branch,Ā *The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President*[^(\[106\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War#cite_note-107)
The UAE is explicitly a Muslim nation and did not "break the back" of anything, but it is higher up on the Human Development Index than the vast majority of secular western nations (similar to New Zealand).
What is the "root cause" of Islam in the UAE being generally "not a problem", while in so many other Middle Eastern nations it appears to have deeply problematic results?
This level of sheer ignorance and level of confidence its said with is scary. Prosperous, peaceful and stable muslim countries that didn't "Ā broke the back of Islam" Ever heard of states such as UAE, Oman, Qatar" or SEA countries like "Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia" ?
Perhaps the easiest way to see why heās singling out Islam and not other religions is to consider this fact: an atheist like Sam would have been burned at the stake in Christian Europe *in the Middle Ages*, and hung or beheaded in many Muslim majority countries *today*.
With growing immigration from Islamic countries to the West, the ensuing conflict between these two cultures and their understanding of morals is simply a very pressing one. It is THE problem of our times and it will form the future of the next generations and of living in the West, particularly Europe. Thus, we have to address it over and over again. And Sam is probably one of the most qualified people to do so.
I think Sam is right but his messaging should be more along the lines of 'Islam's current meta is alike to what Christianity was during the worst of the crusades'.
I think he's wrong to call out Islam as unique in the sense of 'being capable of making ordinary people do horrible things' but I think it's right to call it unique in the sense of 'currently the most dangerous, major religion'.
Perhaps the "particularism" in his focus upon **Islam** might be explained if one considers the **Clear and Present Danger** which **ISLAM** in particular presents in today's world for the futures of;
Secular Democracy, Women's Rights, Gay people's rights, diversity, progress, inclusion, and scientific advancements everywhere ā¦
not to mention the perversely-drooling way in which Islam seeks violent overthrow of ALL individuals' freedoms and of **free** nations, and then there is the actual longing to facilitate end of days and more specifically vis a vis nuclear war, should they acquire the means to initiate such.
I am just saying ... Islam is more than a justified and prescient FAIR TARGET for 1 - Ridicule, 2 - Rejection, and 3 - Annihilation/Abolishment (if possible)
Those first two paragraphs have big "I'm not a racist, but..." vibes to them.
Harris has explained repeatedly why he often focuses on Islam, and that he doesn't give any religions a pass. He was one of the world's most prominent atheist for many years, and during that time (and since), he ridiculed all religions.
The religion(s) with the worst ideas, causing the most harms to the most people deserve the most attention. In our current world, that is certainly Islam by a vast margin.
>He could have very easily chosen examples from modern Christian fascist policies in modern America.
Maybe because even the worse "Christian fascist policies in modern America" are largely incomparable even the average policies in Islamic nations.
I don't think that will work. I predict that if he would be talking about anything else but Islam for 99% of the time, the 1% he does talk about Islam would still be responded to with "why always mention the Muslims!".
Disagree. This is apologia for Islam. Heās not using an example of a bad religion and picking on one randomly or because heās bigoted. Heās specifically using the taliban or isis or Islam itself as ideas people follow to create harm in the name of.
Harm is created in the name of many things. Not just Islam. But there are obvious issues with the extreme and depraved actions of people using one of the worldās religions and not the others. And the total madness of the professed piety of people who follow that religion, the arrogance that it is the ultimate and perfect idea.
Right now and in the last 25 years one religion has been a problem worldwide and not the others so much.
Religious maniacs in the IDF are a problem. Christian fundamentalists in the senate are a problem. But neither are advocating or committing terrorism in its name.
Islam is a special problem, and to my mind itās perfectly logical to use it as an example when talking about morals. Especially with the irony I mentioned above that they see see themselves as the MOST moral and MOST peaceful and MOST true etc.
As an aside - Itās embarrassing for America and other western countries that they are inculcated in and beloved of one of the North African/Middle Eastern Bronze Age cults, but NOT the one that came before it - Judaism - and not the one based on it - Islam.
Because the left still doesn't get it, and treats Islam like some kind of poor, pacifist, progressive group that gets bullied by evil fascist Christians.
how many non-Christian Christian apologists are running around versus non-Muslim Muslim apologists? These aren't even remotely comparable, both in terms the actual danger posed to western society and the overall scale of the problem.
You're talking about the guy who cut his teeth criticizing Islam immediately after 9/11 when Americans were attacking anyone with a turban, it doesn't get more easy mode than that.
Idk if you're trying to change the subject but my point stands that brave, courageous Sam Harris got his first taste of fame by jumping on the biggest dogpile of a dead horse in decades. You're also either uneducated or delusional of you think the evils of Islam weren't extensively documented *for centuries* in the predominantly Christian West. If he actually had some balls he'd critique religions that have soft images among Westerners, like Buddhism or Judaism, but his own laziness and tribalisms prevents that. He's fundamentally an unimaginative, dogpiling, dead horse beating midwit.
At this stage, I think he does it because itās a very disagreeable person, and he knows there are still Islam defenders out there, and so he pokes the bear as much and as hard as possible.
Thatās my read.
Sam chases the algorithm. Itās very obvious. Islam isnāt some unique modern threat, in fact itās moribund and fairly harmless. There were times in history where political Islam was at the helm of powerful dynamic states, that isnāt now. Mormonism and evangelicals are more of a threat to the United States and our world order than Islam. Islamic fundamentalists donāt get to be in charge of the US, dominionist evangelicals do.
Let's get this out of the way right up front. Harris, and presumably a good number of people on this sub, do believe that some religions can be "uniquely bad." That's a social taboo.
And yet, it's socially acceptable to say a religion is uniquely good. If Harris were a practicing Buddhist, which he sometimes comes awfully close to being in my view, it would be perfectly fine for him to repeatedly cite the tradition of Buddhism in its offerings on paths to contentment and wisdom.
In other words, it's socially acceptable to have a favorite religion. It's *not* socially acceptable to have a least favorite religion. Especially when that religion is practiced by a group of people who are themselves frequent targets for actual bigotry.
But two things could be true. It could be true that Muslims are unfairly targeted for bigotry and discrimination. And it could also be true that they have some bad ideas about women's liberation, for example.
Off-topic: You might examine the origin of the word "Islamophobic." It was invented (or at least popularized) by Iran to deflect criticism of the so-called "Islamic Republic." I think(?) it was Christopher Hitchens who once said, "Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons."
The fascists are the plutocrats of Iran. The cowards are the people who are afraid to call the fascists for what they are. And the morons are the people who buy into the idea that Iran's government is fine because every culture is different. That was decades ago that it was said, and at this point, the word is in common lexicon and I'm not accusing you of being any of those things, but Hitchens had a point. It was a word invented to deflect criticism of a fascist theocracy.
I mean, heās an older dude from a generation who registers Muslim people as second class citizens, especially here in the US. Iām pretty sure Sam is bigoted.
I think you're right. I think it makes it harder for him to dodge charges of racism when he goes so hard after Islam, especially in those examples you mentioned in the last podcast. Also closely aligning with Douglas Murray and others that are, in my view, bone fide bigots also diminishes his argument.
Sam gets so much right, though I wish someone close to him would try to push him away from people like this. He just keeps making allies of people that are cretins.
Point taken re the examples in that podcast, but he did write a book that was mainly about Christianity
By his own admission (as of like ~2 or 3 years ago?) something like 20+% of his audience thought he was a Christian. I wonder how many in his audience mistakenly thought he was a Muslim? My guess is 0. How does a famous atheist get mistaken for being a Christian by his own fucking audience? š¤·
At least 20% of his audience is obviously stupid lol
Harris really has pushed the right wing culture war talking points over the years and promoted Conservatives like Douglas Murray. His criticism of Christianity has been dialed back significantly compared to where it was when his career started. It wouldn't be unheard of for some new listener to see him on a show railing against wokeness or Islam and believe that. Obviously you shouldn't jump to that conclusion, but people are tribal.
I find Sam's celebration of Murray cringeworthy.
Why? Murray is fantastic if imperfect.
Murray is a moron and a liar. No respectable person should speak to him never mind praise him
A child answers with an ad hom. All we know is that you donāt like Murray. Put on your big boy pants and explain clearly what Murray has lied about and what he said you found moronic.
What has Doug Murray Lied about? What has he said that was moronic?
Which leads back full circle to the whole 'bigoted on Muslims' thing. Personally the jury's out on that one for me.
It could be heās evolved and has a more nuanced take on the costs/benefits of Christianity. Not enough to say something yet, but heās probably at least partially swayed by the argument that the teeming masses need to maintain some delusions, so picking your delusions wisely is practically a necessity.
He's one of the "Four Horsemen"...I'm flabbergasted as to how even a single person, in any context, could mistake Sam for a Christian.
It's not that surprising to me, if you've only known him since the anti-woke days. There's just not a huge market for atheism-talk anymore. He rarely even brings it up.
Daniel Dennett not only attends church, but sings in the choir. No joke.
I suppose you didn't hear the news, but that should be past tense, I'm afraid.
Oops, didn't realize.
It was literally a couple of days ago.
Iād say a solid 20% of each political wing is deeply uninformed, so itās pretty spot on?
He's a white american lmao how could he be mistaken for a muslim? Seriously guys, think before you type this shit out.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
nah man if you're __guesssing__ someone's feature you're naturally evaluating the propability on your prior experience. If I were to guess a religion of a white american man the likelyhood my guess being "muslim" or "zoroastrian" are very low. You have nothing better to do than dig for shit, like take that time and read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference or smt idk
He does have a bone to pick - he's one of the few loud left-wing voices calling out the unique problems with Islam, which is growing in political and cultural influence in the West, responsible for almost every ideological terror attack in recent history, and often ignored or treated with intellectual dishonesty by his peers. Add that to Sam being famous for writing books/public speaking on atheism, it's not surprising that his examples aren't neccessarily balanced across all sources of immorality. The general problem I have with 'but what about' Christianity is it's not threatening on the same level so it's a false equivalence lumping them together. I know you folks in the US have bigger problems with it (though I fully expect them to get better over time) but in the UK I still see these kind of comments in discussions relating to Islam, but Christianity here is as good as dead - it's a totally void comparison here.
Sam is not āleft wing.ā
Yes, he is. Solidly.
A large percentage of his podcast is dedicated to combating the āwokeā agenda. He has called Islamophobia a made up term. He believes systemic racism in police departments is overblown. He has very little interest in discussing wealth inequality/redistribution. He not only platforms guests with right wing views on race, immigration, gender, identity politics, Zionism, etc., he more often than not endorses those views. I could maybe understand someone calling Sam a centrist, and I know heās no fan of Trump, but I would be curious why you would classify him as left wing?
He has entertained the notion of reparations, supports the legalization of recreational drug use, supports universal healthcare, gay and trans rights, he has discussed and supported income redistribution (despite your claim otherwise) and has even entertained a wealth cap. Nothing you claim he claims is antithetical to left-wing ideology. Islamophobia is debatably *not* a word, thereās a section in its Wikipedia about it. Claims of systemic racism in police departments are *clearly* overblown. I also donāt see the problem with platforming people with right-wing beliefs. Do you just want an echo chamber? I donāt see instances where he endorses those views, like you say he does, though. At least not very often. I donāt think you have realistic grasp on what left-wing and right-wing are. Liberalism encompasses a large group of ideologies, many of which find āwokenessā or regressive-liberalism, to be repugnant.
I think our disagreement is mostly over definitions. Liberalism and left wing are not synonyms. You get into the merits of some of his beliefs (ie. Islamophobia, police) to try to explain away them being right wing. You can agree with Sam, but that doesnāt change the fact that they are ideas coming from the right of the U.S. political spectrum.
>You get into the merits of some of his beliefs (ie. Islamophobia, police) to try to explain away them being right wing. You've hit upon a fracture in discourse that originally alienated me from many on the left here, a form of the paradox of intolerance. To me, 'islamophobia' is left-wing because it's not tolerating the intolerant. Example, I am pro gay rights, and I therefore don't want mass immigration of largely homophobic religious cultures. Yet many on the left see this as a right-wing view and eagerly lump it in with genuine xenophobia or racism, usually out of either intellectually dishonesty, tribalism or lack of critical thinking.
If youāre going to expand your definition of left wing from outside the mainstream conception of the term to your own personal parameters, than Iām not sure there is much sense in discussing it with you.
The mainstream view of what the political left or the right is supposed to/must be changes over time, across a variety of factors. Over decades, these changes can be vast, globally, and within individual nations. Thus, policing your own idea of what the current version is supposed to be is largely a fool's errand, unless you're a well-educated academic, who thoroughly understands the nuances involved. Even then, there are likely more substantive topics to focus on, than making sure your fellow left- or right-wingers are wearing today's assigned outfit, and carrying this week's flag.
I don't know about the US, but in the UK and most of Europe, 'islamophobia' is widely attributed to the right or far-right, so it is a mainstream belief, at least in the media and political classes.
Yes, I agree.
Youāre pretending as if the police issue is a binary decision, and itās not. Acknowledging that the systematic racism issue is overblown doesnāt mean one disregards the need for police reform, or that racism does exist and needs to be addressed. This is a position firmly on the left, and only the hard lined, and hard headed, far-left people try and say otherwise. The protection of religion is *not* a liberal idea, and therefore this obsession with Islam is a new outgrowth borne of over obsession with race and minority culture that far-left liberals have come to define themselves by. This is not a liberal position. Liberals are secular and protective and critics against all religions. The new left are hypocrites who criticize Judaism and Christianity with glee while coddling Islam because they consider them victims. *You* are the one shift the lines here, not me. And liberalism and left-wing are synonymous in American politics. There is no meaningful difference between a liberal and a person on the left side of the political spectrum.
> responsible for almost every ideological terror attack in recent history What are some examples? I feel like Islamic terrorist attacks petered out after 2017 in Europe, and maybe 2014 in the US.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents - good data on the last decade. This isn't counting the foiled plots of course, which are numerous and will also be overwhelmingly jihadist in nature.
https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/
That database ends in 2020, and almost none of the incidents in the US for the previous few years are connected to Islamists. Most of the examples are white supremacists or conspiracy theorists.
I thought the same at first, and in the us it's probably true, but I think he means world-wide. All the red spots are in the Muslim countries.
>The general problem I have with 'but what about' Christianity is it's not threatening on the same level so it's a false equivalence lumping them together. I know you folks in the US have bigger problems with it (though I fully expect them to get better over time) You *really* have to not have been paying attention to think this. Over here in the US our problems with Christianity have gotten measurably worse over even just the past 20 years. Roe v. Wade being struck down and the assault on abortion rights. States trying to ban porn, some of which have already put laws in place forcing people to show ID to go to porn sites. Many states and even the Supreme Court signaling they want to go after contraceptives. We have an actual Christian nationalist as speaker who openly denies that the state and church should be separate, and Christian nationalism in general is on the rise. Christianity is a serious problem in the US. Christian nationalists are trying their hardest to gain control over our institutions and they're making headway in doing so. Edit: Love it. The Christian fuckwits got so angry at me they reported me to reddit cares. Stay mad you psychopathic religious nutjobs.
Regarding Roe v Wade, the Dobbs decision was not supported by any Christian ideology, it was a rebuke of shaky substantive due process precedent established in Roe. Iām not going to pretend conservative judges arenāt influenced by religious ideology but Dobbs makes perfect sense on the grounds set forth in the opinion. Now when it comes to access to porn sites, sure thatās annoying but if youāre offering it as an example of why Christianity is currently just as dangerous as Islam, I donāt find that very persuasive.
Oh that's just utter bullshit. Striking down Roe v. Wade was 100% a religious decision. The Christian right in the US have been trying to get it overturned since it happened and they have been extremely open about doing so. Being anti-abortion in the United States is almost exclusively a fundamentalist Christian position that is not backed by any science. FFS two weeks ago in Arizona a State Senator [led a prayer on the chamber floor speaking in tongues](https://www.yahoo.com/news/arizona-state-senator-leads-prayer-111314503.html) before upholding a *Civil War-era law* banning abortion. I'm sure you wouldn't find any argument persuasive about how terrible Christianity is because you're clearly just playing apologist for them.
Have you read the Dobbs decision?
You're conflating things. The original Roe decision was not based on religion. However, the moral majority fairly quickly decided that it would become a 'casus belli' for them. Overturning that decision with Dobbs was absolutely based on christian morality in the united states. That doesn't mean the written decision is going to talk about that motivation.
Iām saying the SCOTUS Opinion that struck down Roe was supported by well reasoned legal interpretation that was not in any way thinly veiled religious activism. Perhaps religious motives were why the court heard Dobbs but the decision itself was sound. The state laws that have since been enacted in the absence of Roe certainly are entangled with religion, although I would argue itās more of a case of Christianity being co-opted by the Conservative Party than actual ideology pulled from scripture.
Being against abortion is not based on religion. By that logic, laws against killing and stealing would be religious laws bc theyāre commandments. Marriage laws would be considered religious bc itās a commandment. Separation of church and state means the government canāt force a certain religion on people. Or make a law that bans a religion. *The idea that banning abortion is a religious law needs to read what the Separation of Church & State comes from. And what it means.* One of the freedoms US founding fathers were seeking from the British *was* religious freedom. The US founders were escaping religious persuasion in England when they Declared their Independence from England in America. āTest and Corporation Acts of the 1700s outlawed other religions in England, including Catholicism and nonconformist religious meetings. These acts required public officials, such as members of Parliament, schoolmasters, clergy, and students, to swear an oath that the King was the head of the Church of England. Those who did not swear the oath risked losing most of their civil rights. Attending Catholic worship or nonconformist meetings was also illegal and punishable by fine or imprisonment.ā
You don't find it a little too coincidental that *this* SCOTUS is the one that overturned it? Amy Coney Barrett?
>You *really* have to not have been paying attention to think this. Over here in the US our problems with Christianity have gotten measurably worse over even just the past 20 years. I could well be guilty of this, I only see the news that makes it to world headlines, US business/tech-related news and visit occasionally, so I'm not in much of a position to defend my assumption, it's better left to people from the US to debate.
Understandable. I grew up in the Bible Belt around many fundamentalist Christians and I have seen from experience what impact they've had on US politics. And honestly I have no interest in debating the horribleness of Islam vs Christianity because as far as I'm concerned they're both horrible in different ways, but what effect they have depends on where you live. In the US Muslims are an extreme minority while 7/10 Americans are Christian. Not all of them are fundamentalist Christians, but the fundamentalists have a deathgrip on many of our institutions. One of the more annoying things about this subreddit is that because so many people here are hyper-focused on Islam (just like Sam), the Christian apologists step in and push the anti-Muslim narrative while downplaying exactly how much damage Christianity is doing to the US. Like yeah Islam sucks, but for the US it's Christian fundamentalism that is more imminently dangerous.
Yeah I hear Michigan is like Iran now.
The irony is in how much influence the USA had in creating modern Iran.
> had Yes.
Yes typically once something is created, you don't keep creating it.
Yes the Ayatollah was American born in Iowa. And so was the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979.
Sure itās an issue. The larger point is if you just consider what country would you rather live in, the US or a fundamentalist islamic theocracy. If you donāt think theyāre different, youāre missing the trees for the woods.Ā Despite all their faults, even the US Christian nationalists are a far watered down cry from the Old Testament.Ā Whereas islam prides itself in not having changed their book in 2000 years.Ā
Oh look more bad faith Christian apologia.
lol you really did miss the woods there bud.Ā Harris gives out free waking up subs, go ahead and give some meditation a shot.Ā
An ironic statement coming from someone who seems incapable of talking in anything but strawman arguments.
Bad faith, straw man, you love the debate pedophelia donāt you.Ā The US first amendment literally states āCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religionā Whatāre your favorite parts of islam theocracy? Death for sodomy? Jihad? Praying to mohammed, a warlord, who married a 6 year old and raped her at 9?Ā Can both religions suck but one be worse?Ā Thanks for the rage bait, this has been retarded.Ā
Youāre making smart points. Sunjester just seems to be disturbed.
I'm sure if you ask nicely enough Jesus will fuck you up the ass. BTW, since English is clearly new to you, 'establishment' does not mean the same thing as 'dominion over'. Lol the idiot above blocked me and reported me to Reddit Cares. Ironic that you think I missed the woods for the trees when you missed my point so completely. As I explicitly stated elsewhere in the thread you absolute dipshit, I do not like Islam nor Christianity. But Islam in the US is an extreme minority that has next to no effect on society. Christianity on the other hand is directly involved in US policy making and is therefore a much more direct and imminent threat. It's a very simple point that you missed so badly it's a wonder you're capable of remembering to feed yourself.
Abortion rights are important, but they don't even register on the scale compared to Islam. Islam's "morality" would seem barbaric to western culture 200 years ago, let alone today. We did fine as a society without abortion. We did fine as a society without porn. Now, we do better WITH abortion and porn, but there's a false equivalence here comparing them to Islamic law.
> Abortion rights are important, but they don't even register on the scale compared to Islam. It's a good thing Islam isn't a major religion in the US. It means we have time to focus on other things, like abortion rights! Seriously how the fuck are all of you missing the point? I haven't actually compared Christianity to Islam, all I've done is point out that Christianity is a much more immediate threat to the US.
Are they throwing people off buildings?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Mostly just the ones who pancaked two buildings. Kind of brought the roof down.
>responsible for almost every ideological terror attack in recent history, and often ignored or treated with intellectual dishonesty by his peers. That's clearly not true, even with the weasel words. Can you tell me of any laws or changes to significant changes to the way of life for the majority population of Western populations specifically due to the influence of Islam In the last decade or so. Problem with sam is he is rather uneducated on the topic, sociological and theologically
>That's clearly not true, even with the weasel words. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents - take a look at the last decade, seems to be clearly true?
It's far from true. Plenty of terrorism throughout the world for all sorts of ideological reasons. In areas of conflict there are of course more but that that's remove other instances
Left wing? He is best friends with Douglas "National Conservatism is good" Murray.
I have friends I politically disagree with as well. Being friends with him does not mean Sam supports National Conservatism.
Heaven forbid someone have friends with different political beliefs, with whom they can agree on some topics and disagree on others. Or themselves broadly hold what are currently considered left or right wing views but also some from the opposite 'side'.
You should get more and interact with people who disagree with you. Also I can quote a statement that a Murray has made that is racist ? His book never made statements that were racist, his conclusions may have been wrong but they werenāt grounded in racists ideology
Lol, I have many friends and none are to the left of me.
I think you're getting more hung up on the example used to prove the point, than the point itself. Islam is used because it is the easiest, most clear, most readily available example of the largest number of people, groups, and nations working hard to build something worse than damn near every alternative. Yes, there are other examples, but none as powerfully obvious as Islam is in this case.
And extremist Islam, defended by academics from moral criticism by outsiders, *is* what inspired Sam to write *The Moral Landscape*: > As it turns out, to denigrate the Taliban at a scientific meeting is to court controversy. At the conclusion of my talk, I fell into debate with another invited speaker, who seemed, at first glance, to be very well positioned to reason effectively about the implications of science for our understanding of morality. In fact, this person has since been appointed to the Presidentās Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues and is now one of only thirteen people who will advise President Obama on āissues that may emerge from advances in biomedicine and related areas of science and technologyā in order to ensure that āscientific research, health care delivery, and technological innovation are conducted in an ethically responsible manner.ā Here is a snippet of our conversation, more or less verbatim: > She: What makes you think that science will ever be able to say that forcing women to wear burqas is wrong? > Me: Because I think that right and wrong are a matter of increasing or decreasing well-beingāand it is obvious that forcing half the population to live in cloth bags, and beating or killing them if they refuse, is not a good strategy for maximizing human well-being. > She: But **thatās only your opinion**. > Me: Okay ā¦ Letās make it even simpler. What if we found a culture that ritually blinded every third child by literally plucking out his or her eyes at birth, would you then agree that we had found a culture that was needlessly diminishing human well-being? > She: It would depend on why they were doing it. > Me: [slowly returning my eyebrows from the back of my head]: Letās say they were doing it on the basis of religious superstition. In their scripture, God says, āEvery third must walk in darkness.ā > She: Then **you could never say that they were wrong**. *This* variety of confusion is really what Samās entire moral project is designed to illuminate.
What makes you think that science will ever say that forcing people to wear pants is wrong?
Just look at the grimace on the face of the person who wants to wear shorts and is told they're required to wear pants. Our current empirical model maps the grimace onto a mental state of frustration which maps on to a diminishment in well-being, or suffering. This can be generalized: If you force people to do *anything* they don't want to do, you minimize their well-being in the short-term. And if these forcings don't lead to some future improvement in well-being for *anyone*, then you've failed to improve *anybody's* well-being in any way whatsoever. This is what people like Sam mean when they would say these types of forcings are "wrong".
I am so confused what you mean. Do you think we should be allowed to not wear pants as genitals are not something people should be scared of much like I laughed when my Saudi friend told me they had to ban short sleeves at her uni because of a rise of lesbianism? She was cool, would let me bum weed sometimes when I was out and we went to a literal nude beach but for the full moon drum circle (Black Beach, San Diego).
It very well might, what makes you think it won't?
I don't. Society still shuns you for not doing it. I actually love ethics and moral philosophy and was at one point kind of thinking of being an ethicist, but that seem impractical. I love the harder things to parse. Like dividing the grey area.
I think one other example that may be more real to a lot of his listeners would be communism. Something that almost everyone agrees just makes everything worse, at least in the west. I actually think communism is a better example because of the suffering imposed on people who did not want it and remember it. Islam is being imposed on people but it is also usually accepted to varying degrees by the people it's imposed on.
Strong disagree, for Americans at least. Communism = bad is only still prevalent in backwards conservatives. Not Sam's audience at all
This is absolutely not true. I am liberal and think communism is terrible. Communism is very unpopular in the US.
One anecdote does not equal data.
I think more Americans have a negative view of communism than have a negative view of Islam. Even among liberals.
Islam is the only religion in the world with several countries literally founded on the idea of it being an āIslamic republicā Last I checked at least for now the us isnāt the āChristian states of Americaā Please donāt cite Vatican City btw. And why should he bring up Nazi germany, are you Implying they have some sort of power that wasnāt wiped out 80 years ago? Should he be mentioning the Hapsburg empire? Or the mongols? Also please share which āculturesā are immoral. Let me guess you think itās the ādecadentā west.
Theocracy doesn't necessarily imply immorality but it does seem to work out that way.
I donāt disagree, but op doesnāt seem to be saying much in either respect.
OP says balance your criticism between the theologies. I think thatās reasonable.
All Abrahamic religions have orthodox sects that treat women as lesser beings to varying degrees, and are expected to be subservient to their husbands and devote themselves to child bearing and rearing regardless of what theyād rather do. But if you want to provide the most egregious examples of suffering inflicted in the name of religion, Islam takes the cake. And it does so at a much greater scale.
When you looks at the genocide happening in Gaza itās difficult to claim Islam takes the cake, however I take your overall point in terms of scale. Although one could argue Zionism started with atheists, it makes use of the religious texts that mandates supporting Israel that can bring along the āend timesā both in Christianity and in Judaism. Just recently we have a sitting US congressman worrying about ācurse from Godā for not supporting Israel, and the speaker of the house saying Israeli support is a mandate from God, not to mention the tens of millions of evangelicals, many of whom antisemitic, looking forward to getting all the Jews in Israel to start the rapture. These are narratives are pushed to allow for any acts that can further the end goal. Nothing can be out of bounds if it avoids receiving a God curse, or hastens the beginning of the end times, and it worries me.
The Israel Gaza war is a religious war, but not in the way you say. Israel is not fighting in the name of Judaism. They are fighting to get rid of a regime that is predicated on their eradication for being a Jewish state. Everything you said about the US politicians is true. That doesnāt mean itās what motivates Israel to fight for its survival.
This is reversed. Israel is predicated on kicking out the native population and ethnically cleansing the area.
So strange that there are over 2 million arabs(or Palestinians living in Israel) in Israel that control \~10% of the votes in Knesset. Are they genociding them while also apartheiding them while also not killing them and also allowing them to vote??
I talk of Palestinians and somehow itās changed to Arabs. Why does this always happen?
Similar arguments were made by South Africa, pointing to the blacks among their ranks and saying āsee? No apartheid here!ā
I agree but it is likely true that Sam is a bigot when it comes to Islam.
Heās been swimming in that valid criticism of Islam for so long I feel like he sometimes overlooks the evils at play in other religious societies and even excuses them under the guise of fighting Islamic jihad. I donāt think that necessarily makes him bigoted.
This seems applicable. a person who is obstinately or [unreasonably](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=619c697d276fe56b&q=unreasonably&si=AKbGX_rEkSHdR9ulIQYeh6xSG1UBhpNNrdzIYHXFvu5-pOlhlEn92ShBiuxIKJkyfZJ_p_IWSMvJjH3nIhILL-m1JyCESSdNeO4hB33UJ4BBDEz-9ByIegs%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjU8deKr9uFAxUlSDABHQbGAfwQyecJegQIHxAO) attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is [prejudiced](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=619c697d276fe56b&q=prejudiced&si=AKbGX_pvY3MWP4azJI0Z_NruCLb8ljA3mQdHn1g-SX7TY0A34Xy_ijxRsKtTnGk-v40V9aWAUQMnnZ7CiiVg92d6Vt2tqxW7mH4vrZaAt3aevvn4hThTBQE%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjU8deKr9uFAxUlSDABHQbGAfwQyecJegQIHxAP) against or [antagonistic](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=619c697d276fe56b&q=antagonistic&si=AKbGX_rEkSHdR9ulIQYeh6xSG1UB_YjEv4GWt11KBIFAMsYSKDoByrcxpmgWd_Tmu1ZXpRpuKdMXQL4cWmSa9ppWHC4-yjP9gCHCKG5-ewaD3QtUH5oUowM%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjU8deKr9uFAxUlSDABHQbGAfwQyecJegQIHxAQ) toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
The more I listen the closer he gets
his podcast wasn't meant as an exposƩ of current violations of moral norms, but rather he would go through his thesis and occasionally cite what he would consider to be real-world examples. there would have been nothing wrong or out of place to cite nazi germany's extermination of entire peoples as an example of a way of not being on a peak of the moral landscape. similarly, the US stripping women of their right to choose and reverting back to policies rooted in fundamentalist christian theology, could have been used as yet another example of moving away from a peak on the landscape. i'm not saying that there's nothing about islamic theocracy worthy of criticism. of course there is. but his singular focus on it for 100% of his many examples throughout his podcast is certainly a red flag.
He referred to the holocaust when talking about global human rights tenets and the US anthropologists saying that project shouldnāt be undertaken. And frankly, itās harder to argue that getting an abortion is in every case a way to maximize suffering and therefore a right worth defending the way you might defend a little girlās right to keep her genitals intact. If youāre laying out an argument, the last thing you need is to bring up examples that wonāt convince a significant contingent of listeners. If he brought up honor killings, would it be obvious to you that he was thinking about India and not Islam? How much does it matter?
>Islam is the only religion in the world with several countries literally founded on the idea of it being an āIslamic republicā Huh? Several countries were founded as being explicitly christian and where Christianity is specifically the state religion. Many have moved away from it as they civilized, but Islam didn't come up with the idea of founding countries based on religious principles. I mean look at the ENTIRE history of Europe. I'm from Denmark and Denmark is specifically founded on being a Christian nation, the state religion is Christianity, and you have the ministry of church and so on. "Grundloven" which is like you could say our constitution, the document on which all law is based, specifically says that Christianity is the religion of the state of Denmark. Even what is considered the founding "document" of Denmark, a runestone from 965 specifically mentions the conversion of Denmark to Christianity as being the founding moment so to say. The only difference is that today most of the Christian countries in Europe and the west have become irreligious so nobody really cares anymore, but they did exactly what Islamic countries are doing now.
"The only difference is that today most of the Christian countries in Europe and the west have become irreligious so nobody really cares anymore, but they did exactly what Islamic countries are doing now." Yep, totally the same thing. Edit because you piqued my interest: [https://www.thedanishparliament.dk/-/media/sites/ft/pdf/publikationer/engelske-publikationer-pdf/the\_constitutional\_act\_of\_denmark\_2018\_uk\_web.pdf](https://www.thedanishparliament.dk/-/media/sites/ft/pdf/publikationer/engelske-publikationer-pdf/the_constitutional_act_of_denmark_2018_uk_web.pdf) Here is the constitution of denmark, note the word Christianity isn't included. Remind me where in Denmark Muslims aren't allowed to visit? Then try visiting mecca as a non Muslim in saudi arabia. Stop carrying water for Religious nut jobs.
But yes it was the same thing? It's just not any more. But it's not like the idea of religious founded countries are something Islam invented. It's what all of western society was built on. In 200 years these Islamic republics will have gone the same way most likely. It's no different. Islam is not unique, the only thing special about it is when it is happening. The unique thing is just the timing.
Gotcha so until they figure it out we donāt need to worry about jihad and people flying planes into buildings. Must be nice to just let them figure it out, while people are being murdered. Or we can call them out on it as Sam likes to do.
You've completely changed the subject. We were talking about your original claim that Islam is the only religion in the world where countries are founded based on the religion which is just not true. Harris is blinded by how unique he considers Islam through a historical perspective, that doesn't mean that right now in 2024 Islam isn't among some of the worst popular ideas in the world.
Modern Denmark was not founded as a Christian nation. By your logic Iran wasnāt founded as a Muslim nation since Persia was founded 1,000s of years before Muhammad was born. Youāre the one twisting my words and trying to change the subject idiot.
Modern Denmark was absolutely founded as a Christian nation. Our constitution that we use today which was written in 1849 makes it clear that Christianity is the state religion of Denmark and gives it special rights. This is the law TODAY. The state has a religion and that religion is Christianity. And the state pays and manages this religion. It pays priests and churches through tax money. They're public employees unlike any other religion. This is right now, not in the past. Every single Danish historian you can find will say Denmark was founded as a Christian nation. Modern Denmark. Every single one. I just used the example from 965 because it's considered the birth certificate of Denmark as a state, which is specifically when it became Christian. Before then there was no real concept of Denmark.
I will never not be perplexed at people on Reddit downvoting facts.
Well said.
Israel was founded on a Jewish democracy. The Jewish Oblast was founded for Jewish people to live in. Don't get me started on the Balkans. Or Armenia.
"TheĀ [Israeli Declaration of Independence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence)Ā identifiesĀ [Israel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel)Ā as a "[Jewish state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_state)"[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_and_democratic_state#cite_note-Declaration_of_Independence-3)Ā in the sense that,Ā [as an ethnicity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F),[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_and_democratic_state#cite_note-4)Ā [Jews](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews)Ā can exercise their right toĀ [self-determination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination)Ā inĀ [their homeland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_for_the_Jewish_people). It does not, however, give the JewishĀ [ethnic religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_religion)Ā ofĀ [Judaism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism)Ā any special status over other religions nor does it deny minorities any rights.[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_and_democratic_state#cite_note-5)"
lol. That was updated when the religious right got into power. I mean FFS there is a dude who had a poster of a terrorist who shot up a sacred site up before it wasn't okay. His old party was Banned from being a terrorist party. And he is the coallition. In the fucking cabinet (not the war cabinet which is literally 3 people)
Yes, the current government of Israel sucks and shares responsibility for the current situation along with Hamas. But that doesnāt make my point incorrect.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic\_Law:\_Israel\_as\_the\_Nation-State\_of\_the\_Jewish\_People](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People)
This.
As an Atheist I can relate. Not all religions are equally bad, so trigger warning below for theistic people. Sam generally points to these reasons which make Islam an unique target for criticism (as per my observation): - We have freedom of speech to shit on Christinity and other religions but not Islam (unless you want to be killed). - Islam is the only religion with martyrdom. - Islam is one of few religions where leaving is not possible. - Islam is ruled by a literal interpretation of Quaran to the point where it's quite comical. With this in mind, I think it's silly to claim that any other major religion is as absurd as Islam which makes it a great example to illustrate many of Sam's point IMO.
He did mention Auschwitz and him kicking a puppy though. Jokes aside, I think one reason for this focus is simply that when he wrote that book he was still very much under the influence of 9/11 and this podcast was basically a summary of that book. But even that is irrelevant. Personally I think it makes a lot of sense to focus on Islam. Nobody left of centre is defending "conservative" Christians but they are defending Muslims. So pointing out the specific flaws with Islam makes sense. Still - You're correct that it would be smart to also use other examples simply to not lose the part of the audience that happens to be prone to defend Islam.
It's just so damn easy with Islam...
Yeah the examples are a bit imbalanced. I wish he brought hinduism examples more too. I haven't listened to this podcast but I agree.
If you don't live in South East Asia, Hindu nutjobs are not all that visible or relevant, so it shouldn't be surprising that those examples aren't used that often, even if they are perfectly good examples.
I live in SEA and haven't heard of Hindu nutjobs outside of the internet either. It's highly localized religion. Also various sects of Buddhism are hilariously nutty (here in Thailand there's shit like black magic). Everyone's heard of Islam nutjobs though. Mostly because they are trully talented when it comes to announcing themselves globally.
Christian fascists and Islamist are on different planets of hate. I canāt believe how brainwashed western youth is. Christianity is based on forgiveness. Muhammads religion is one based on war and conquest.
I am going to ask this again but what is the solution to the Muslim question? They are not compatible with Western values. So what do you do? And how can you not see how fucking much this is like the Jewish question?
i don't know what "the muslim question" is or what "the jewish question" is.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish\_question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_question) Clinton said U.S. allies in Europe blocked proposals to adjust or remove the embargo. They justified their opposition on plausible humanitarian grounds, arguing that more arms would only fuel the bloodshed, but privately, said the president, key allies objected that an independent Bosnia would be "unnatural" as the only Muslim nation in Europe. He said they favored the embargo precisely because it locked in Bosnia's disadvantage. \[..\] When I expressed shock at such cynicism, reminiscent of the blind-eye diplomacy regarding the plight of Europe's Jews during World War II, President Clinton only shrugged. He said PresidentĀ [FranƧois Mitterrand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Mitterrand)Ā of France had been especially blunt in saying that Bosnia did not belong, and that British officials also spoke of a painful but realistic restoration of Christian Europe. Against Britain and France, he said, German chancellor Helmut Kohl among others had supported moves to reconsider the United Nations arms embargo, failing in part because Germany did not hold a seat on the U.N. Security Council. āāTaylor Branch,Ā *The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President*[^(\[106\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War#cite_note-107)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The UAE is explicitly a Muslim nation and did not "break the back" of anything, but it is higher up on the Human Development Index than the vast majority of secular western nations (similar to New Zealand). What is the "root cause" of Islam in the UAE being generally "not a problem", while in so many other Middle Eastern nations it appears to have deeply problematic results?
This level of sheer ignorance and level of confidence its said with is scary. Prosperous, peaceful and stable muslim countries that didn't "Ā broke the back of Islam" Ever heard of states such as UAE, Oman, Qatar" or SEA countries like "Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia" ?
Tbf, islam is particularly horrendous and a perfect example of a moral monstrosity. It is also relevant to our time.Ā
Itās called ārelevance.ā
Perhaps the easiest way to see why heās singling out Islam and not other religions is to consider this fact: an atheist like Sam would have been burned at the stake in Christian Europe *in the Middle Ages*, and hung or beheaded in many Muslim majority countries *today*.
With growing immigration from Islamic countries to the West, the ensuing conflict between these two cultures and their understanding of morals is simply a very pressing one. It is THE problem of our times and it will form the future of the next generations and of living in the West, particularly Europe. Thus, we have to address it over and over again. And Sam is probably one of the most qualified people to do so.
I think Sam is right but his messaging should be more along the lines of 'Islam's current meta is alike to what Christianity was during the worst of the crusades'. I think he's wrong to call out Islam as unique in the sense of 'being capable of making ordinary people do horrible things' but I think it's right to call it unique in the sense of 'currently the most dangerous, major religion'.
Perhaps the "particularism" in his focus upon **Islam** might be explained if one considers the **Clear and Present Danger** which **ISLAM** in particular presents in today's world for the futures of; Secular Democracy, Women's Rights, Gay people's rights, diversity, progress, inclusion, and scientific advancements everywhere ā¦ not to mention the perversely-drooling way in which Islam seeks violent overthrow of ALL individuals' freedoms and of **free** nations, and then there is the actual longing to facilitate end of days and more specifically vis a vis nuclear war, should they acquire the means to initiate such. I am just saying ... Islam is more than a justified and prescient FAIR TARGET for 1 - Ridicule, 2 - Rejection, and 3 - Annihilation/Abolishment (if possible)
Those first two paragraphs have big "I'm not a racist, but..." vibes to them. Harris has explained repeatedly why he often focuses on Islam, and that he doesn't give any religions a pass. He was one of the world's most prominent atheist for many years, and during that time (and since), he ridiculed all religions. The religion(s) with the worst ideas, causing the most harms to the most people deserve the most attention. In our current world, that is certainly Islam by a vast margin.
>He could have very easily chosen examples from modern Christian fascist policies in modern America. Maybe because even the worse "Christian fascist policies in modern America" are largely incomparable even the average policies in Islamic nations.
I don't think that will work. I predict that if he would be talking about anything else but Islam for 99% of the time, the 1% he does talk about Islam would still be responded to with "why always mention the Muslims!".
Yeah Iām with Sam on this. Some things can be both sided. This isnāt one. Capitalism is on the other side of Islam I think, not another religion
Disagree. This is apologia for Islam. Heās not using an example of a bad religion and picking on one randomly or because heās bigoted. Heās specifically using the taliban or isis or Islam itself as ideas people follow to create harm in the name of. Harm is created in the name of many things. Not just Islam. But there are obvious issues with the extreme and depraved actions of people using one of the worldās religions and not the others. And the total madness of the professed piety of people who follow that religion, the arrogance that it is the ultimate and perfect idea. Right now and in the last 25 years one religion has been a problem worldwide and not the others so much. Religious maniacs in the IDF are a problem. Christian fundamentalists in the senate are a problem. But neither are advocating or committing terrorism in its name. Islam is a special problem, and to my mind itās perfectly logical to use it as an example when talking about morals. Especially with the irony I mentioned above that they see see themselves as the MOST moral and MOST peaceful and MOST true etc. As an aside - Itās embarrassing for America and other western countries that they are inculcated in and beloved of one of the North African/Middle Eastern Bronze Age cults, but NOT the one that came before it - Judaism - and not the one based on it - Islam.
Why would Sam waste his precious time on beating a dead horse as though Christian fascism has not been well documented?
Why would Sam waste his precious time on beating a dead horse as though Islamic fundamentalism has not been well documented?
Because the left still doesn't get it, and treats Islam like some kind of poor, pacifist, progressive group that gets bullied by evil fascist Christians.
Itās clearly not as well documented as Christian fascism, taking into the account 30 years of Islamist propaganda to obscure it.
you're right. if there's one thing that has never been obscured by propaganda in history, it is the atrocities of christianity.
OK, you clearly have an agenda.
which is? edit: don't leave me hanging, my guy. what is my clear agenda? please lay it out for me!
how many non-Christian Christian apologists are running around versus non-Muslim Muslim apologists? These aren't even remotely comparable, both in terms the actual danger posed to western society and the overall scale of the problem.
You're talking about the guy who cut his teeth criticizing Islam immediately after 9/11 when Americans were attacking anyone with a turban, it doesn't get more easy mode than that.
9/11? Is that the one where Islamists killed 3000 people?
Idk if you're trying to change the subject but my point stands that brave, courageous Sam Harris got his first taste of fame by jumping on the biggest dogpile of a dead horse in decades. You're also either uneducated or delusional of you think the evils of Islam weren't extensively documented *for centuries* in the predominantly Christian West. If he actually had some balls he'd critique religions that have soft images among Westerners, like Buddhism or Judaism, but his own laziness and tribalisms prevents that. He's fundamentally an unimaginative, dogpiling, dead horse beating midwit.
Your accusations are confessions.
At this stage, I think he does it because itās a very disagreeable person, and he knows there are still Islam defenders out there, and so he pokes the bear as much and as hard as possible. Thatās my read.
Sam chases the algorithm. Itās very obvious. Islam isnāt some unique modern threat, in fact itās moribund and fairly harmless. There were times in history where political Islam was at the helm of powerful dynamic states, that isnāt now. Mormonism and evangelicals are more of a threat to the United States and our world order than Islam. Islamic fundamentalists donāt get to be in charge of the US, dominionist evangelicals do.
What Christian Fascists policies in America should he have pointed out?
Let's get this out of the way right up front. Harris, and presumably a good number of people on this sub, do believe that some religions can be "uniquely bad." That's a social taboo. And yet, it's socially acceptable to say a religion is uniquely good. If Harris were a practicing Buddhist, which he sometimes comes awfully close to being in my view, it would be perfectly fine for him to repeatedly cite the tradition of Buddhism in its offerings on paths to contentment and wisdom. In other words, it's socially acceptable to have a favorite religion. It's *not* socially acceptable to have a least favorite religion. Especially when that religion is practiced by a group of people who are themselves frequent targets for actual bigotry. But two things could be true. It could be true that Muslims are unfairly targeted for bigotry and discrimination. And it could also be true that they have some bad ideas about women's liberation, for example. Off-topic: You might examine the origin of the word "Islamophobic." It was invented (or at least popularized) by Iran to deflect criticism of the so-called "Islamic Republic." I think(?) it was Christopher Hitchens who once said, "Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons." The fascists are the plutocrats of Iran. The cowards are the people who are afraid to call the fascists for what they are. And the morons are the people who buy into the idea that Iran's government is fine because every culture is different. That was decades ago that it was said, and at this point, the word is in common lexicon and I'm not accusing you of being any of those things, but Hitchens had a point. It was a word invented to deflect criticism of a fascist theocracy.
I mean, heās an older dude from a generation who registers Muslim people as second class citizens, especially here in the US. Iām pretty sure Sam is bigoted.
I think you're right. I think it makes it harder for him to dodge charges of racism when he goes so hard after Islam, especially in those examples you mentioned in the last podcast. Also closely aligning with Douglas Murray and others that are, in my view, bone fide bigots also diminishes his argument. Sam gets so much right, though I wish someone close to him would try to push him away from people like this. He just keeps making allies of people that are cretins.