Sam Harris vs Tvash/Prole

[tvashtarkatena]

Thank's Prole, that Harpers article in your first link is what I had in mind when I made my statement. K-guy, it's worth taking the time to read. I stand by my statement.

 

Yeah, "proof positive" that (the majority) of our military volunteers do so to partake in a holy war and kill muslims. Any flimsy "evidence"/excuse to prop up liberal moral relativism and self-hate.

 

Finally, a post form tripK worth dissecting:

 

Strawman alert! "(the majority)"...strawman, no one claimed this. A majority isn't necessary to violate separation of church and state. One instance is enough. No instances, particularly in the military during a time of war, should be tolerated...ever.

 

Strawman alert! You made up the part about a 'holy war to kill muslims'.

 

The evidence of Prole's posts is hardly flimsy. On the contrary, we see soldiers directly violating their oath to the constitution, and their orders by distributing bibles in Afghanistan. They do not share our most fundamental value of freedom to worship...or not, and are actively undermining it. What's even more incredible is that our military leadership tolerates it.

 

Strawman alert! "Self hate". Right off any Right wing blogs list of phrases to insult libruls with. We hate ourselves and our country, blah blah. Very, very old trick. KKK uses this term almost as frequently the one we've all come to associate him with. When one doesn't care about something, one neglects it. When one loves something, like a country, one works to improve it. It would seem that KKK's self described lack of political involvement would qualify for the former condition.

 

Strawman alert! "Morale relativism" - ThumperSpeak for "No morals with the Christian God". If morality is defined by action rather than self image, and we all choose our actions, then we all choose our morals, whether or not we believe they come from God or from within the human heart. Furthermore, American morals are anything but relative...one can read them in our Bill of Rights. The problem is that Evangelicals neither respect nor believe in the authority of our Bill of Rights - they have a direct line to God.

 

[Kimmo]

Yeah, "proof positive" that (the majority) of our military volunteers do so to partake in a holy war and kill muslims. Any flimsy "evidence"/excuse to prop up liberal moral relativism and self-hate.

 

did you read the Harper's article? i am curious, in the interest of furthering this discussion, if you did read it.

 

i don't think the article asserts (nor does off white) that a "majority" of the military is composed of christian evangelicals, but that an increasing number are in positions of power.

 

would you not agree that having evangelical christians creating military protocol based on their religious beliefs might be an undesirable event?

 

and i honestly don't know what you are referring to with the "liberal self-hate moral relativism" charge. maybe you could explain that.

[JayB]

When and if the day ever comes that the only outlet for Muslims who want to engage in holy war against the infidels is a participation in a uniformed military fielded by a liberal democratic republic that'll be an immensely happy day for all of mankind.

[tvashtarkatena]

Strawman Alert! Yawn.

 

Having your country torn apart by a highly mechanized army of 300,000 is WAY better than the risk of a terrorist attack...but hey, Iraq's enjoyed both, baby!

Edited February 3, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

Such xenophobic comparisons have an agenda: our cult is better (more reformed, is it?). In reality, theism promotes repression by squelching individual self determination. Only liberal secular humanist beliefs and institutions, such as our wholly secular constitution, protect us from the tyranny of god-based absolute authority.

 

The claim that all moral systems that ground some of their precepts in supernatural claims are equally likely to promote violence and repression is every bit as ridiculous as the claim that all political ideologies are equally likely to do so.

 

No one in their right mind would blather on about the fundamental equivalence between fascism and pacifism, but there seems to be a surfeit of erstwhile progressives that are willing to indulge this kind of patent nonsense when it comes to religions.

 

Their fundamental doctrines are not all the same, they promote vastly different ethical norms and behaviors, and these have an enormous impact on the way that people who subscribe to them behave.

 

It's not ridiculous given the historical evidence. Take our own history. Our Christians were the strongest supporters of slavery. They continue to this day to be the strongest supporters of the repression of women, denigration of science, suppression of free expression, discrimination against gays...in general, the violation of our fundamental principle of the separation of church and state. They have been THE largest and most active enemy of the secular principles on our Constitution.

 

That's true - but they were also the most numerous and ardent supporters for virtually all of the liberal reforms from the founding onwards.

 

I'm not sure what percentage of the population atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers has been over time, but I'm quite confident that no social movement composed exclusively of atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers would have gone anywhere in the US, ever.

 

It's quite clear that one can hold liberal political beliefs and firm religious convictions simultaneously. What's also clear is that that's far more common in some religious traditions and others because of the specific religious beliefs and ethical norms that prevail within those religious traditions.

 

There's a reason why there were far more Quaker abolitionists than there were Baptist abolitionists, and there's an equally compelling set of reasons why Arab christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, etc seems far less disposed to detonate themselves inside a Belgian disco than their Muslim peers.

 

There are certainly strains of Islamic theology and sets of moral and cultural traditions that are more congenial to the advancement of liberal ideas and less likely to manifest themselves in everything from stoning adulteresses to slaughtering European commuters to waging jihad against western cartoonists why breech Muslim religious taboos - but it's hard to discern any evidence that it's those strains which are becoming more politically or culturally influential over time.

[JayB]

Strawman Alert! Yawn.

 

Having your country torn apart by a highly mechanized army of 300,000 is WAY better than the risk of a terrorist attack...but hey, Iraq's enjoyed both, baby!

 

I think your argument that the US military is the moral equivalent of Al Queda, etc is an interesting one that encapsulates quite a number of unspoken tropes that seem to prevail amongst a surprising number on the left, and I'm glad to see that you and others are finally articulating it in public.

 

I'd like to invite you to expand on that idea at length. Take all of the time that you need.

[tvashtarkatena]

Strawman Alert!

 

No, in fact, I've never made that comparison. At all.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Morale Equivalence. Let's examine that. How does one measure it? From who's viewpoint? From a Palestinian's viewpoint, Osama is a hero. After all, the US buys the guns that kill his people. What about an Afghan wedding party wiped out by drone strike. Are we heroes to them?

 

Oh, we don't TRY to kill those people. But we're certainly willing to, and we do, in some pretty large numbers.

 

In the end, the result is the same.

 

We're led to believe Al Qaeda is pure evil, nothing more. In reality, Al Qaeda is more of a distributed idea than an organization. On the whole, it seeks both a political agenda (the West out of the Middle East) as well as a religious one (the Caliphate), but what is important to any one faction varies as much as the motivations of its members. Some of its members just want repel a foreign invader that openly threatens its main sources of income: poppies. Is it absolutely immoral to believe or fight for that?

 

Jay's clear implication is that We're Right and They're Wrong. Any attempts to understand the conflict from a more objective position is the act of an apologist. It's a Texan's argument. In Egypt, we've supported a brutal, lying thug for 30 years. Superior morality? The history of grievances from both sides doesn't yield such a clear proclamation.

[tvashtarkatena]

Such xenophobic comparisons have an agenda: our cult is better (more reformed, is it?). In reality, theism promotes repression by squelching individual self determination. Only liberal secular humanist beliefs and institutions, such as our wholly secular constitution, protect us from the tyranny of god-based absolute authority.

 

The claim that all moral systems that ground some of their precepts in supernatural claims are equally likely to promote violence and repression is every bit as ridiculous as the claim that all political ideologies are equally likely to do so.

 

No one in their right mind would blather on about the fundamental equivalence between fascism and pacifism, but there seems to be a surfeit of erstwhile progressives that are willing to indulge this kind of patent nonsense when it comes to religions.

 

Their fundamental doctrines are not all the same, they promote vastly different ethical norms and behaviors, and these have an enormous impact on the way that people who subscribe to them behave.

 

It's not ridiculous given the historical evidence. Take our own history. Our Christians were the strongest supporters of slavery. They continue to this day to be the strongest supporters of the repression of women, denigration of science, suppression of free expression, discrimination against gays...in general, the violation of our fundamental principle of the separation of church and state. They have been THE largest and most active enemy of the secular principles on our Constitution.

 

That's true - but they were also the most numerous and ardent supporters for virtually all of the liberal reforms from the founding onwards.

 

I'm not sure what percentage of the population atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers has been over time, but I'm quite confident that no social movement composed exclusively of atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers would have gone anywhere in the US, ever.

 

It's quite clear that one can hold liberal political beliefs and firm religious convictions simultaneously. What's also clear is that that's far more common in some religious traditions and others because of the specific religious beliefs and ethical norms that prevail within those religious traditions.

 

There's a reason why there were far more Quaker abolitionists than there were Baptist abolitionists, and there's an equally compelling set of reasons why Arab christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, etc seems far less disposed to detonate themselves inside a Belgian disco than their Muslim peers.

 

There are certainly strains of Islamic theology and sets of moral and cultural traditions that are more congenial to the advancement of liberal ideas and less likely to manifest themselves in everything from stoning adulteresses to slaughtering European commuters to waging jihad against western cartoonists why breech Muslim religious taboos - but it's hard to discern any evidence that it's those strains which are becoming more politically or culturally influential over time.

 

I suppose the secular ideas spawned during the Age of Enlightenment that became our Bill of Rights don't count. Nor the largely secular beginnings of the women's suffrage, anti slavery, labor, and gay rights movements, to name a few. Nope. None of that went anywhere. You're already sure, so as you say, you're good. You FEEL what's right.

 

If you ever bother to go back to the beginning of all of these movements, you'll find freethinkers. That, and Quakers I can already predict your response. "When the movement was won, there were lots of churches involved."...omitting the overwhelming larger number of churches who fought reform. Also...freethinkers know they're in the minority - and that coalitions win the day. Duh. Look at the beginning of movements, however, and church goers are seldom to be seen.

 

 

[prole]

There are certainly strains of Islamic theology and sets of moral and cultural traditions that are more congenial to the advancement of liberal ideas and less likely to manifest themselves in everything from stoning adulteresses to slaughtering European commuters to waging jihad against western cartoonists why breech Muslim religious taboos - but it's hard to discern any evidence that it's those strains which are becoming more politically or culturally influential over time.

 

They're called allies and you've just hit on the the foreign policy paradigm for the next 30 years. Time to get to work.

[prole]

Better late than never I guess. Working toward dismantling the authoritarian monarchies and other assorted hench-states we've built up over the past sixty years while building capacities amongst secular and moderate elements within those civil societies (you know, instead of undermining them in the interests of "stability") would be a great step in the right direction. Don't think our own fundamentalist are going to like that though.

[tvashtarkatena]

 

There are certainly strains of Islamic theology and sets of moral and cultural traditions that are more congenial to the advancement of liberal ideas and less likely to manifest themselves in everything from stoning adulteresses to slaughtering European commuters to waging jihad against western cartoonists why breech Muslim religious taboos - but it's hard to discern any evidence that it's those strains which are becoming more politically or culturally influential over time.

 

Two major secular revolutions in Islamic country in as many months? Hello?

[prole]

Had successive American administrations been focused on building capacities the of secular elements and groups within Egypt rather than shoveling money and guns at Mubarak, they wouldn't be nearly as worried about "power vacuums" and the Muslim Brotherhood as they are now. I'd say hindsight is 20/20, but the fact is that experts in and on the region have been saying this for years.

[prole]

Of course the problem is that educated, secular movements tend to have their own ideas about their own countries...

[tvashtarkatena]

Yes, that IS the problem. There is nothing an asset stripping wealth concentrator hates worse than people doing their own thing.

[prole]

 

TEN CENTS MORE A GALLON?!

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

The USA is rapidly headed for Just Another Nation status where we no longer call the shots, so events like this one, where a previously owned people gets loose from its cement tire, tend to freak out the head-in-sanders on the Right. Their entire universe is based on an assumption of authoritarian control.

 

Nature, human and otherwise, occasionally begs to differ.

[tvashtarkatena]

Regardless of what one believes about any religion, religion is here to stay - as a species, we're apparently genetically predisposed to believe in The Kitty - no small irony there. Secular democracies that determine their own future, not an inter-religious or inter-cultural war, are the solution to the problem.

 

 

[j_b]

there's an equally compelling set of reasons why Arab christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, etc seems far less disposed to detonate themselves inside a Belgian disco than their Muslim peers.

 

Here goes the usual canard. JayB and Harris are really upset that Muslim fundamentalists are willing to commit suicide while perpetrating acts of terror, not so much that people of all kind are ready to use terror to advance their cause. Why is it more morally reprehensible to blow up civilians and commit suicide than solely blow up civilians and get away with it, nobody knows.

[j_b]

I think your argument that the US military is the moral equivalent of Al Queda, etc is an interesting one that encapsulates quite a number of unspoken tropes that seem to prevail amongst a surprising number on the left, and I'm glad to see that you and others are finally articulating it in public.

 

I'd like to invite you to expand on that idea at length. Take all of the time that you need.

 

JayB pretends to believe that when central command and politicians decide to drop bombs in cities or put stressed soldiers armed with overwhelming firepower at check points, they couldn't have forecast that score of innocents civilians would die. Is it hypocrisy or blindness?

[j_b]

btw the Tamil tigers who committed numerous suicide bombings over the last 30 years follow the Hindu religion. The kamikaze of WW2 were Shintoist or Buddhist.

[Kimmo]

btw the Tamil tigers who committed numerous suicide bombings over the last 30 years follow the Hindu religion. The kamikaze of WW2 were Shintoist or Buddhist.

 

i whole-heartedly, unequivocally and completely disagree with the above assertion regarding kamikaze being buddhist. their actions (and probably lives) had nothing NOTHING to do with buddhism.

 

i'd also wager that most "christians" have very little in common with the teachings of jesus.

 

and a guess: islam doesn't teach peeps to blow up civilians and their structures.

 

 

[j_b]

Right, I agree but we are discussing what these people claim to be their religion. To be honest, I have no data showing how many kamikaze would have declared Hinduism as their religion but it seems very likely that some of them would have done so.

 

edit: i mean to say Buddhism (and not Hinduism) of course, but I am sure kimmo got it.

Edited February 4, 2011 by j_b

[Kimmo]

well, i do think the discussion encompasses a little more than what people "claim" to be their religion.

 

jayb's point is that islam specifically teaches people to be suicide bombers, without any context to their situation. You may find this reading of islam to be somewhat retarded, but buddhism specifically teaches people to be non-violent. i think hinduism might also, but i step outside of any actual studies.

[Kimmo]

When and if the day ever comes that the only outlet for Muslims who want to engage in holy war against the infidels is a participation in a uniformed military fielded by a liberal democratic republic that'll be an immensely happy day for all of mankind.

 

because a "liberal democratic republic" assures a more just war than what the "terrorists" presently execute?