Sam Harris and the Mosque

[realisticphish]

(which is not a mosque, but you know)

I assume that most people have read his comments criticizing the whole thing. Frankly, some of his comments got to the point of total insanity (erecting a monument to Satan?).

I have been frustrated to hear a few other atheists, though none as big-name as Harris, taking this opportunity to criticize Islam and its (current) connection to terrorism.

Well, yeah. But is that relevant? As atheists, we are a severe minority in this country. Now is not the time to be supporting anti-constitutional actions on the basis of emotion and differences in belief. Harris even uses the (by now) classic line of "I believe in freedom of religion, but..." WHY IS THERE A BUT? I think Islam is as pointless and archaic as any other faith, and it has certainly spawned its share of barbarities. But there is a time and place for that criticism, and I refuse to join the right-wing religious crowd in spreading ignorance, racism, and demagoguery. Not to mention that I am a civil libertarian before I am an atheist, at least in legal issues, and for the moment, what's in the Constitution is more important than what's in the Qur'an


Plus, IT'S NOT A FUCKING MOSQUE AND IT'S NOT AT FUCKING GROUND ZERO. GAH.

[immoderate]

1. Right.

I suggested to my atheist's group that we publicly support the Park 51 project of the opportunity presents itself. Two reasons, we support the 1st Amendment, and it would get us some publicity. "Atheists Support Muslims" the headlines would scream.

Let's face it, we can't treat everyone who believes something crazy as an enemy. We can't allow thinking to become a crime.

--imm

[dmallind]

27. An unwise move IMO

Atheists in the US are already often accused of simply being anti-Christian rather than equally without all religions. It's certainly not unheard of for atheists to be "taunted" that they dare not criticize Islam the same way. If an atheist group unasked issues a statement of support for a Muslim building it makes disproving these absurd claims that much harder.

Muslims neither need nor probably want our help either. They are unpopular enough without seeming to be in an alliance with the least popular religious group of all.

I am of course perfectly fine with Muslims building community centers or mosques or whatever wherever zoning laws permit. It's their money and property. I feel the same way about any religion at all from animism to Zoroastrianism. I also believe they are all based on superstition, wishful thinking, fear of death and an inability to accept uncertainty with not a single shred of truth between them. I don't think atheists need to pick sides, especially when it won't help the side picked and will hurt atheists in the bargain.

[darkstar3]

2. I personally am against it, but I believe my take is reasoned.

Site selection is as important for a religion as it is for a business, and no one has yet to tell me why they chose THAT building. They spent two years and a considerable amount of funds to acquire that building, which means they most certainly had a reason for doing so. I'd be interested in hearing it. Why? Because this community center, while not being a mosque, will have a prayer house inside and will broadcast a call to prayer 5 times a day. I wonder if that call to prayer will be heard at the 9/11 memorial?

In short, even for reasons I haven't thought of, I wonder if the proximity is planned?

It seems a lot like territorial pissing to me, and it won't stop with the community center either.

You see, they have a right, an ironclad constitutional right to build there. And others have rights to open BBQ joints, kennels, and strip clubs right next to that community center (assuming the zoning works out). Every one of the people interested in exercising their constitutional rights in that way is an insensitive prick. They care nothing about propriety or the offense they might give others and simply wish to mark their territory with bravado.

And speaking of ironclad constitutional rights, everyone who says this center is a bad idea, in poor taste, or unwelcome, is exercising their own 1st Amendment right. Anyone who states that opposing the community center/mosque is unconstitutional hasn't studied, considering that free speech is one of the most constitutional things one can do.

I have the right to walk outside with my 12 gauge shotgun slung over my shoulder. I have the right to stand on a rooftop in Wasilla, AK and shout into a megaphone repeatedly that Sarah Palin is an idiotic c***. I have the right to wear a Speedo and visit businesses with drive-thru windows. I have these and many more rights that are protected under the constitution, but that doesn't make exercising any of those rights a good fucking idea, and it doesn't make those actions any less tactless, tasteless, and annoying to the people around me.

As John Oliver said on The Daily Show, "You can build a Catholic Church next to a playground. Should you?"

[iris27]

3. Right - opposing the center is only 'unconstitutional' if you are advocating

that we pass a law preventing them from building it.

[realisticphish]

5. which

is exactly what groups like the ACLJ are doing...

I'm not saying that Sam Harris, or any other critics, are racist, or automatically wrong, or being unconstitutional, or whatever. I just have zero emotional reaction to the issue. I really and truly do not care what is around Ground Zero. And I don't understand why someone who isn't from the area, or lost someone in 9/11, is up in arms about it (well, except for the bandwagon reactionaries ala Palin, etc). I can understand SOME emotional impact, I suppose, but I don't get the militancy.

[iris27]

9. Wow. I hadn't heard that. That's stupid, but not surprising from someone like Pat

Robertson (ACLJ founder). These are the same people who want to amend the 14th to remove birthright citizenship, after all... :eyes:

I don't doubt that some of the militancy, especially from people on the right, is based in racism and religious dick-waving (my Jesus is better than your Allah) nonsense. To me, though, I look at it the same (but on a larger scale) as if an area plagued with cases of child molestation by priests was being asked to have another parish built.

[realisticphish]

11. well

in some ways, but it's not like this is a group that is moving in from the outside to build this. They've been in Manhattan for 30 years. It's like Catholics in that area saying, "we need a bigger church" and the property they buy is nearer to a school.

Ok, I think my adaptation of the analogy is starting to fall apart, lol, but maybe you see what I'm saying

[iris27]

13. In Manhattan, yeah. In PA earshot of

ground zero? Not so much.

And yeah, I think it would be insensitive and a case of "probably shouldn't do this, or should expect criticism if we do", for our analogy-Catholics to pick such a property.

[realisticphish]

15. my response

to your other post deals with the first part

Obviously, in the case of the Catholics, there would be criticism. But I do not think that it would in any way rise to the level it has in regards to brown people. To be fair, though, I think it's safe to say that child molestation, even when covered up by the whole church, and not just perpetrated by an individual faction, is != to terrorism.

[iris27]

18. I would never suggest that racism isn't playing a role in most right-wingers' objections

here. Just that there are non-racist reasons to think this is a bad idea, even if it makes some of us uncomfortable to be agreeing with Palin et.al.!

I'd absolutely agree that the Catholics wouldn't face as much criticism in that scenario, both because child molestation != killing 3,000 people, but also beause it would lack the OMGscaryfurriners!1! factor. But both scenarios carry the same sense of "...ugh...you're *really* going ahead with this?" to me.

[realisticphish]

21. yes

maybe I didn't make it clear in my post (I've posted about this on Facebook too, so I might get what I've posted where mixed up), but when I first heard about a "mosque at ground zero" I definitely raised an eyebrow. When I heard it was a community center several blocks away I thought "meh" and moved on. But the explosion over this pulled me back in, and put me in the always-uncomfortable position of defending a group that I dislike (it's like explaining a defense of the KKK by the ACLU).

THAT'S what I'm most bothered by. Not the mosque itself, but the direction and tone of the criticism. I'm not a believer that the enemy of my enemy is always my friend... this isn't something that the RW Christians and atheists are joining together on, it's just that their hate is momentarily focused on Muslims.

I've probably made this thread more complicated than it needed to be... as I said somewhere else, my civil libertarianism has always trumped my atheism (after all, I've been the former longer than the latter)

[realisticphish]

4. .

http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/frequently-asked-questions

-Why are you building a mosque at Ground zero?

The community center is not located at Ground Zero.

It will be a multi-floor community center open to all New Yorkers, much like a YMCA or Jewish Community Center (JCC) with a designated prayer space (mosque) in one area to serve the needs of the large existing community of American Muslims in the neighborhood.

The community center will provide a place where individuals, regardless of their culture or background, will find a place of learning, arts and culture, and, most importantly, a community center guided by the universal values of all religions in their truest form – peace, compassion, generosity, and respect for all.

-Why did you choose this site so close to Ground Zero?

We were always close to the World Trade Center. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has been the Imam of a mosque twelve blocks from the Twin Towers for the last 27 years.

......

-Why so close to Ground Zero?

We have been residents and neighbors who are deeply committed to the neighborhood for the last 27 years. American Muslims have been peacefully living, working and worshipping in this neighborhood and were also terribly affected by the horrific events of 9/11.

As Muslim New Yorkers and Americans we want to help and be part of rebuilding our neighborhood in lower Manhattan. It is important for all of us to show the world that Americans will not be frightened or deterred by the extremist forces of hatred.

-Isn’t this insensitive given that the 9/11 attackers were Muslims?

The events of 9/11 were horrific. What happened that day was terrorism, and it shames us that it was cloaked in the guise of Islam. It was inhumane, un-Islamic and is indefensible regardless of one’s religious persuasion. Not only Americans but also all Muslims are threatened by the lies and actions being perpetrated by these self-serving extremists and their perverted view of Islam.

The community center will be a platform to amplify the voices of the overwhelming majority of Muslims whose love for America and commitment to peace gets drowned out by the actions of a few extremists. It will become a platform where the voices of those who resist religious extremism and terrorism can be amplified and celebrated.

-But, why not build it a little bit farther away? Let’s say a mile away?

No one should be driven out of his or her own neighborhood – especially for religious reasons. It is unconstitutional and un-American. Our congregation has been peacefully worshipping in this area for almost three decades. Our neighbors have encouraged us to remain here and the City and the Community Board have encouraged our continued presence here. The community has backed up their support by approving every resolution and challenge in the community center’s favor.

-What about the 9/11 families? Don’t you see their pain?

Like all New Yorkers and Americans we were too devastated by 9/11. We share and respect the incredible pain and loss suffered by the victims of 9/11. We fully recognize their legitimate concerns and sensitivity to the community center. It shames us that extremists who profess to be Muslim perpetrated murder on such a horrific scale for political and financial gain in the name of Islam.

We look forward to actively engaging with leaders of the victims of 9/11 to respond to their concerns and obtain their support for our efforts.

-Will the extremists take over the Community Center once it’s built?

Extremism on both sides is the danger – it’s what we’re working against. A community center that celebrates diversity and multi-faith collaboration is antithetical to the extremists’ worldview. This center will be a blow to all extremists.

In addition, the multi-faith Trustees and Board of Advisors will also help assure that our good intentions are not hijacked by extremist elements who are against our vision of peace, tolerance and understanding."

[darkstar3]

7. None of which answers my point.

"Should you?"

They can claim that the attackers were "un-Islamic" all they want, but it doesn't change the facts, and it doesn't stop what they're doing from being insensitive and in bad taste.

Oliver's analogy was dead on, especially in light of the fact that Imam Rauf is playing Scotsman Shuffle.

[realisticphish]

10. to make myself clear

I don't "support" the building. I just don't oppose it.

I don't think that there is anything ethically or morally wrong with building it. I don't think it's offensive, or anything like that.

A bad PR move? Probably. I just think that this is an example of picking the wrong battles. To me, it's not a big deal, and I don't see the point in siding with the religious right over something that I don't care a great deal about.

[darkstar3]

17. Apathy is your right.

However, I think you've gone beyond apathy in this thread.

You personally may not find the community center location offensive, but you see that others do or you wouldn't admit that it's a bad PR move.

As for the religious right, we should all realize that the source of an argument isn't nearly as important as the content or sound nature of an argument.

In short, your concern is noted.

[realisticphish]

19. I'm apathetic to the community center

not apathetic to the anti-arab/anti-muslim sentiment that seems to be the public mood right now (not saying in this thread).

Of course, I AM anti-muslim, in the since that I am against their religion, but the discussion in the mainstream media has tapped into a racist element that makes me more uncomfortable than the mosque does :shrug:

[dmallind]

28. Help me out here. WHY should this be insensitive?

I know a lot of people get upset by it, but that's because they are either misinformed or easily roused to being upset. I have never been of the opinion that something IS offensive if a person or X number of people are offended. By that standard everything is offensive and therefore nothing should be done.

So explain why it really is offensive or insensitive to move a mosque/community center a few blocks from its current position near the WTC to one even nearer? Why is it insensitive to have prayer calls in this area? Because the hijackers were Muslim is not enough. I'm not exactly a fan of any religion of course but I don't think it's offensive or insulting to have a church next to the Atlanta bombing site with ringing bells. Would you? What's the difference?

[darkstar3]

37. I'll say the same thing I said at lunch today with a co-worker.

Those towers were knocked down by Muslims, in the name of their God and in what they saw as a defense of their land, their culture, and their faith. The crushing of the infidel. The halting and wounding of the Great Satan. These motivations and many more were purely religious in nature, and now followers of that same religion want to build a house of worship close enough for people to hear their call to prayer?

Lemme see if I can find an appropriate analogy...

It would be like you punching your neighbor in the face today, and then coming over tomorrow to raid his fridge and watch his cable.

That's why it's offensive.

[dmallind]

39. Only if you assume a Muslim = all Muslims

The correct analogy is if A neighbor punched me in the face because he could not park on my driveway and then ANOTHER neighbor wanted to build a garage I did not like on his property(your analogy is false even if we DO assume any Muslim = all Muslims as there is absolutely no taking from "us" here at all - these folks just want to use their own property). It would be asinine of me to blame all neighbors for the actions of a tiny minority of neighbors, and get upset when a completely different group of neighbors wanted to do something only vaguely connected with the motivation of the tiny minority.

I ask again - what is the difference between this and a church near the site of Rudolph's bombings, put up by an entirely different sect of Christians who had nothing to do with him and in fact condemned him?

[cleanhippie]

30. Is "should you" even a valid question?

My lack of belief comes second to my support of the Constitution, so why is "should you build it there?" even a valid question.


At best, I see see this as an opportunity to call for the end of the construction of ALL places of worship as inflammatory and unnecessary, but I know that is unrealistic.

I do not support the (not a) mosque, but I do support the right for the (not a) mosque to be built.


To me, this is a non-issue, or at best, a chance to teach the wing-nuts about Constitutionals equality.

But maybe I am missing something.

[darkstar3]

38. It IS a valid question.

As I have stated elsewhere, I recognize their iron-clad constitutional right to build a house of worship wherever zoning allows.

I'm saying that just because someone has the right to be a dick doesn't make exercising that right a good idea.

[laconicsax]

41. IMHO "Should" is more about ethics.

Can you make a case for why building the South Manhattan community center (let's stop calling it what it isn't) would be unethical?

I can think of a handful of reasons why it could be thought unethical, but none of them have to do with the location.

[cleanhippie]

47. And ethics really boil down to personal opinion.

[cleanhippie]

46. But why?

And who gets to decide what is and is not a "good idea"? We do not like it when a beleiver tells a non-believer that "putting up that sign saying there is no god, while it is your right, its just not a good idea because its inflammatory......"

Darkstar, you and I are firmly on the same side of the god/no god debate, make no mistake about that. I just want us to be consistent, thats all. Maybe I am not seeing the bigger picture, so if there is good reasoning behind your thought, please explain.

[iris27]

6. Islam in its current incarnation is absolutely more archaic than other faiths in their

current state. I am the last person who'd try to whitewash things like the Inquisition or the attitudes behind the Salem Witch Trials, but you can't tell me there's no difference between modern Islam and modern Christianity or Judaism.

I guess I get a little bit Hirsi Ali on this one, but as much as the YEC, anti-gay Christians in my family drive me up the wall, at least I do not have to worry about them stoning me to death. Western Muslim girls http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24329">cannot say the http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1244406,00.html">same about their http://www.stophonourkillings.com/?q=node/4944">own http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=d05e437f-4661-4965-9455-ff30c6b9d4a5&k=20265">families.

[realisticphish]

8. absolutely

but how does making them stay farther away from Ground Zero change that?

I totally agree that modern Islam is far more archaic than modern Christianity or Judaism (at least in the west). And I would be thrilled if tomorrow, every single Muslim said "screw this, we're done with religion." But they aren't going to. And continuing to treat them as "the other" isn't going to modernize their beliefs.

[iris27]

12. Making them stay farther away means that visitors to the memorial will not

have to hear a broadcast call to prayer for the same faith that the attackers claimed as their motivation. That's my main concern. I don't think this is treating them as "the other", either.

My outrage at the Muslims' treatment of women is exactly the same as my outrage at the FLDS and their treatment of women, which is exactly the same as my outrage at Catholic under-rug-sweeping of child rape. All need to have attention called to them, with a loud "We will not stand for this in America". I doubt it will modernize their beliefs, but I honestly don't care about that as long as the message is clearly sent that criminal actions are unacceptable, no matter how your faith may excuse it or give you a veneer of respectability.

[realisticphish]

14. yes

I don't want to give the impression that we shouldn't criticize Islam at all. Quite the opposite. I just don't like using this as the chance to do so.

As an aside, will there indeed be audible calls to prayer? Obviously it hasn't even begun to be built, or the old building to be torn down, so it's all academic. But I've heard that a couple times, and I'm curious as to whether it would be the case.

Perhaps that would be a bone to throw to the protestors. Not broadcast a call to prayer outside the building :shrug:

[iris27]

16. Sounding the call is tradition, and is the usual thing done with Muslim places for

prayer, so I'd assume it would be the same here. I could be wrong...we all know what assuming can do at times. :) But it's the typical thing, kinda like a Lutheran church playing an organ during each service. I'd think, if they weren't planning to broadcast the call, with all the media furor, someone would've mentioned it by now.

[realisticphish]

20. I'm kind of curious

since they're going to be allowed to build there (I don't think there's any doubt of that), and assuming they go ahead, I wonder how long this will stay in the spotlight? Especially if they don't broadcast the call to prayer (frankly, I think having a call to prayer blasting 5 times a day would piss me off regardless of where I was located). Will the public stay incensed, or will it just become another thing that RW churches rant about in sermons, but the average person doesn't think about?

[iris27]

34. Well, I think "if they don't" is a pretty big if...but I think that would be the

deciding factor in whether or not this fades out of the spotlight or remains contentious. Yeah, the planned site is close, but out of sight, out of mind, you know?

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. I think many mosques in countries where Muslims are a minority don't have an audible call

It's not a fundamental part of the religion, and they can believe in being good neighbours too. And these days, I think some have opted for broadcast by radio - they get a licence for a short range transmitter so that Muslims who want to hear it can tune a radio to the right frequency.

Unless the community center has said they will have an audible call, I think it's more likely that they won't.

[JI7]

22. But there is already a Mosque near Ground Zero

[iris27]

32. Within earshot? Usually the distance limit on electronic

PA systems is about 2-3 blocks.

[laconicsax]

43. It's basically 2 blocks north of the proposed community center.

http://www.masjidmanhattan.com/

It's the basement of 20 Warren St. That's less than a quarter mile away from the "controversial" site.

[Deep13]

25. +1

[dmallind]

29. But analogies exist for all these behaviors

How many Xians killed their kids for their faith last year? Surely not zero. From beatings to withholding medical care to exorcisms gone wrong (not sure how they could go right but hey), we all know the stories. Modern day Islam to me is different only in a geopolitical sense, in that it has political power in largely impoverished and oppressed areas. Whereas Xianity has political power largely in developed and independent nations. Exceptions on both sides of course, but that's teh main split. Terrorism, tribalism and authoritarianism tend to flourish most in the former type of society. Turkey has little problem with such shenanigans, and Christianized areas in Africa (Uganda anyone?) have plenty. The difference is in the sociopolitical realm not the theological.

[iris27]

33. I don't agree that theology doesn't make a difference...having a faith tradition

that generally allows followers to interpret their own holy text vs. having one that insists on original-language, literal interpretation only is going to naturally lead the former to be more flexible than the latter.

But where sociopolitical stuff does make a difference, we can also see that where a religion's center of political power is located, and how that religion is practiced there does extert influence on followers across the globe. There are liberal American Christian groups loudly protesting (and even conservative Am. Christian groups reluctantly condemning) Uganda's treatment of gays. The influence within Islam similarly flows out from their center of power to other areas...so instead of American Muslims protesting and working for recognition of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, for instance, we see Western Muslims (with SA's backing) work to get Sharia family law implemented in places like the UK.

[realisticphish]

36. this is an interesting point

the idea of the socio-political center of a faith. For protestantism, I don't think there really IS one, except for "Europe and North America." I suppose that homogenous enough in its political liberalism to lean that direction. And when the Islamic political powers are focused in highly conservative, second or third world countries...

[LeftishBrit]

23. Interesting. I agree with you.

Of course I don't live in New York; but for what it's worth, here are my views.

I am a devout atheist myself, but don't really care what others believe, any more than about other things that they think and do in their private lives, so long as they don't harm or coerce others. The biggest harm of organized religion is that it so often leads to social conservativism of an intolerant and bigoted nature, and to warmongering, violence or at least discrimination against others of the 'wrong' religion or none. The Religious Right is evil not so much because it is Religious, as because it is Right; and because religion is used as fuel for the right-wing fire.

If atheists join in socially conservative infringement of others' liberties, or in sectarian bigotry, or warmongering against particular cultures and religions, then they are making themselves no better than the religious right, as far as I am concerned. Atheist socially-right-wing crusaders and culture-warriors are less common than their religous counterparts but they exist: e.g. Geert Wilders.

(Note: this is NOT saying that when atheists argue for their views, or demand tolerance for secularism, they are 'fundamentalists', or 'intolerant of religion'. I am only saying that even atheists can be homophobic or racist or warmongers or prepared to kick minorities, and that when they are they are just as Right, i.e. Wrong, as the Religious Right.)

Muslims as Muslims did not 'do 9-11'; terrorists 'did 9-11'. It is like refusing to have Christian churches near places in the UK where the IRA or Protestant paramilitary groups committed acts of terrorism.

As regards calls to prayer, these tend at least in the UK to be assessed on an individual basis, in terms of how much noise and disturbance they are likely to cause in a given neighbourhood. Not all mosques are permitted to broadcast loud calls to prayer.

[iris27]

35. Protesting isn't an infringement of another's liberties.

Just saying.

[LeftishBrit]

44. No, but in this context it's the second one - sectarian bigotry.

Lumping all Muslims in with terrorists, in this case.

'Socially conservative infringement of others' liberties' referred to a separate issue: those right-wingers who do not believe in a God, but who nevertheless oppose gay rights, feminism, various types of socially unconventional or untraditional behaviour, etc. on the grounds of 'culture','national identity', 'social cohesiveness', etc. Such attitudes are far less common in atheists than in strongly religious people; but they still exist - at least in the UK, where atheist politicians are commoner than in the USA and include some Conservatives.

ETA: I am NOT saying that atheists are in general right-wing. And we should be fighting against any religious-right intrusion, or anti-secularist campaigning, in politics. (Although not nearly as great a problem in England as in America, it is raising its ugly head here more now than it has in a very long time!) I'm just saying that right-wing views should be condemned wherever seen, whether in Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews or atheists.

[Odin2005]

24. IIRC the folks behind Cordoba House are Sufis, which are very liberal.

Bashing Sufis is like bashing Unitarians or Quakers for the Fundies.

[Deep13]

26. How are they "very liberal?" Just asking. nt

[onager]

40. Stomping in uninvited, please forgive...

Sufism is the mystical branch of Islam. A big part of their rituals involve music and dancing, often fairly wild dancing.

Ever hear of the 19th-century warriors called "whirling dervishes?" Those were Sufis. The whirling was one of their dances, used to whip themselves into a frenzy before battle.

Their most famous battle was Khartoum in 1885 - where the Islamic religious fanatic Muhammad Ahmad bin Abd-Allah defeated the British religious fanatic Gen. Charles Gordon. Then decapitated him.

Muhammad Etc. was a Sufi sheikh who pronounced himself the Great Mahdi.

Sufis often make all sorts of woo-woo claims that they can levitate, have magical powers, etc. etc. IIRC, the Great Mahdi pronounced his soldiers bullet-proof, which turned out as all such claims do. i.e., with a lot of ventilated fanatics.

Many mainstream Sunni Muslims dismiss the Sufis as (among other things) "ancient frauds."

When I was in Egypt, every year there was a giant moulid (festival) in honor of a famous Sufi sheikh, Sayyed El-Badawy. Three days of music, dancing and feasting at his shrine in the city of Tanta, which wasn't too far from Alexandria, where I lived. It was even closer to my job site.

Boy, did I get an EARFUL about that festival from my non-Sufi Egyptian acquaintances! "They have dancing and liquor and sex RIGHT IN THE MOSQUE!!! They are EEEEEvil people! Yadda-yadda-yadda."

Well! Naturally I tried to re-arrange my work schedule to make the moulid. Then I found out that Bush's ambassador to Egypt also went to that festival. So I was pretty sure all the fun I heard about was pure B.S.

Just the usual M.O. of religion - "We're the Chosen People. And you're not!"

(Pop culture reference: the movie Hideous Kinky, with Kate Winslet as a goofy hippie mom who traipses all over Morocco looking for Sufis who can teach her how to fly.)

[Deep13]

48. I know who they are. ...

And I guess they are not as hypocritical as most religions. I still don't see in what way they are "very liberal." Do they support the equality of women and homosexuals? Do they support social and economic justice? What about freedom of expression and freedom of religion? Are they pro-labor union? Are they in favor of controlling greenhouse gases?

[Flipper999]

49. I read a book about them a few years ago...

'The Way of the Sufi' by Indries Shah. The impression I got is that they tend to be liberal relative to other forms of Islam. They don't follow quite as strict an interpretation of the Koran and they haven't instigated much violence in modern times (with exceptions, I'm sure). The book even said that in times past, members of other religions (Christian, Jewish, Buddist, etc.) would come to study meditation and related practices at Sufi schools, so they have some history of religious tolerance. I don't know about womens' rights, but the sect's opinion of homosexuality is probably about as conservative as most old school religions. :(

At one of my employer's big all-hands retreats, they once invited this batshit insane guy from the Department of Homeland Security to come give us a lecture on the dangers of "TERRA, TERRA, TERRA!!!" He was so worked up that he was almost jumping up and down about the threat of islamic terrorism. However, when he got to part of his rant about the Sufi sect, he basically calmed down and said that they're mostly harmless.

As far as their sect's overall opinion of things like labor unions and greenhouse gases, I doubt it has a default opinion on them. It's probably up to the individual members to make up their minds.

[mr blur]

45. The great Richard Thompson is a Sufi-

which is odd as he's far from bonkers.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

31. Being a famous smart atheist doesn't prevent one from being a dick.

Sam Harris is a dick.

[Twillig]

42. Ah, bullshit.

Here's the link:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-13/ground-zero-mosque/


Where did Harris support 'anti-constitutional actions?'

He fucking doesn't.

This is clear in the first fucking paragraph where he writes:

"This is not to say, however, that I think we should prevent our fellow citizens from building “the ground zero mosque.” There is probably no legal basis to do so in any case—nor should there be. But the margin between what is legal and what is desirable, or even decent, leaves room for many projects that well-intentioned people might still find offensive."

"our fellow citizens" "probably no legal basis--nor should there be." Put that in your libertarian pipe and smoke it.

Consider your 'total insanity' comment referral to his mentioning Satan:

"If you can raise the requisite $100 million, you might also build a shrine to Satan on this spot, complete with the names of all the non-believing victims of 9/11 destined to suffer for eternity in Hell."

Well, that is ludicrous, as is the further mentioned 9/11 truther institute.
In case you haven't noticed, Islam is ludicrous. That is the God-damn point. FFS.

But they all have the right to build there. Ludicrous or not.

Nobody has to like it or not say that maybe it's not the greatest idea.



You, the OPoster said: "Harris uses the (by now) classic line of "I believe in freedom of religion, but..."

No he fucking doesn't. No he fucking doesn't.

Not literally, which is what I believe you meant-- nor by implication--which is what someone might say if shown to be wrong in the first instance.

Please summarize and use quotes to convince me where I could be wrong in this.

To my mind this piece is another Harris criticism of the stupidity of ignoring the danger of genuinely dangerous religious beliefs that are truly believed and that really motivate behavior of the worst sort.



Harris again:

" ...Such failures of secular nerve can be given a general description: Tolerance of religious stupidity has a way of making liars and cowards of people who should have nothing to fear from the fruits of honest reasoning.

And honest reasoning declares that there is much that is objectionable—and, frankly, terrifying—about the religion of Islam and about the state of discourse among Muslims living in the West, and it is decidedly inconvenient that discussing these facts publicly is considered a sign of “intolerance” by well-intentioned liberals, in part because such criticism resonates with the actual bigotry of not-so-well-intentioned conservatives. I can see no remedy for this, however, apart from simply ramming the crucial points home, again and again."

Did you see that?

"such criticism resonates with the actual bigotry of not-so-well-intentioned conservatives."
As it does, somehow, in a negative way, with well-meaning liberals, religious moderates, accomodationists, and faitheists.

How about the state of discourse?
( Google "pew poll islam non-combatants" and pick and choose. I did.)
http://www.freedomszone.com/archives/2007/05/twenty_five_percent_of_young_a.php

"The survey(2007) by the Pew Research Center found that 78 percent of U.S. Muslims said the use of suicide bombings against civilian targets to defend Islam is never justified. But 5 percent said it is justified "rarely," 7 percent said "sometimes," and 1 percent said "often"; the remaining 9 percent said they did not know or declined to answer."

Civilian targets. Defend Islam.
Civilian.
Islam.

That's U.S. Muslims. How's that for the state of discourse?

That's 22% in the objectionable category. Cut it in half, does it make it any less worrying? How about a fourth?

That's U.S. Muslims, in case that didn't sink in.


But you know that shrill, strident "dick" Harris just keeps "ramming the crucial points home, again and again" because well-intentioned hand-wringing liberals/moderates/accomodationists/faitheists just keep construing any criticism of Islam as ignorant, racist or demagoguery.

The fact that shit-for-brain tea-bagged 'actual bigot' morans are acting up in the worst possible way doesn't mean that this time--or any time--is not appropriate to criticize Islam and it's current connection to terrorism.

Nor is it the time to, even, especially in this thread, to equate the ills of Islam--at this time in history--to that of the other faiths, like--at this time in history--Xtianity.

Our world, full of religious belief, is insane.

[realisticphish]

50. .

edited because I don't care enough about this to reply to a message which I just realized is a week old. Move along, nothing interesting contained within this post.