Does This Society Permit Criticism of Christianty, Mormonism, Judaism, and Islam? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 05-09-2008, 12:39 AM

I have posted more words on this forum critical of evangelical christians and of zionists, than probably anyone else. I read the following piece and I had to agree that we have made the mistake of not embracing the idea that we are all Salmon Rushdie. What was done to him can be done to any of us. I am an American. No one can take away my right to say and write what I think, unless I allow them to. I was struck by the courage of this author, and by the huffingtonpost.com site. I wish I wasn't....I wish it was a commonplace to discuss the opinions of Sam Harris (below), as it is to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of any other religious believes, today in the USA. The point is that there is safety in numbers. If many will publicly state that no religion, religious practice, or religious belief, in the United States, is on a level where criticism is not permitted, it can be so.

It is important to talk about this, but, at the same time, the present state of affairs puts those who post these ideas and opinions at some level of risk, as well as those who provide a venue for the posts to be exhibited.

This must change. I anticipate objection to my opinion, but I am prepared to be surprised about the form(s) that it takes. I should not have to, but I want to apologize, anyway....to anyone who reacts as if I have made decisions here that they think puts them at any level of discomfort.

This worldwide intimidation is bullshit, IMO. Let's put a stop to it, with a message that "names will never hurt me"!

Quote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-ha..._b_100132.html
Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Sam Harris

Posted May 5, 2008 | 10:13 AM (EST)

....Wilders, like Westergaard and the other Danish cartoonists, has been widely vilified for "seeking to inflame" the Muslim community. Even if this had been his intention, this criticism represents an almost supernatural coincidence of moral blindness and political imprudence. The point is not (and will never be) that some free person spoke, or wrote, or illustrated in such a manner as to inflame the Muslim community. The point is that only the Muslim community is combustible in this way. The controversy over Fitna, like all such controversies, renders one fact about our world especially salient: Muslims appear to be far more concerned about perceived slights to their religion than about the atrocities committed daily in its name. Our accommodation of this psychopathic skewing of priorities has, more and more, taken the form of craven and blinkered acquiescence.

There is an uncanny irony here that many have noticed. <h4>The position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be:</h4> Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we will kill you. Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: <h4>Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do.</h4> When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for "racism" and "Islamophobia."

Our capitulations in the face of these threats have had what is often called "a chilling effect" on our exercise of free speech. I have, in my own small way, experienced this chill first hand. First, and most important, my friend and colleague Ayaan Hirsi Ali happens to be among the hunted. Because of the failure of Western governments to make it safe for people to speak openly about the problem of Islam, I and others must raise a mountain of private funds to help pay for her round-the-clock protection. The problem is not, as is often alleged, that governments cannot afford to protect every person who speaks out against Muslim intolerance. <h3>The problem is that so few people do speak out. If there were ten thousand Ayaan Hirsi Ali's, the risk to each would be radically reduced.</h3>

As for infringements of my own speech, my first book, The End of Faith, almost did not get published for fear of offending the sensibilities of (probably non-reading) religious fanatics. W.W. Norton, which did publish the book, was widely seen as taking a risk--one probably attenuated by the fact that<h4> I am an equal-opportunity offender critical of all religious faith. However, when it came time to make final edits to the galleys of The End of Faith, many of the people I had thanked by name in my acknowledgments (including my agent at the time and my editor at Norton) independently asked to have their names removed from the book.</h4> Their concerns were explicitly for their personal safety. <h4>Given our shamefully ineffectual response to the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, their concerns were perfectly understandable.</h4>

Nature, arguably the most influential scientific journal on the planet, recently published a lengthy whitewash of Islam (Z. Sardar "Beyond the troubled relationship." Nature 448, 131-133; 2007). The author began, as though atop a minaret, by simply declaring the religion of Islam to be "intrinsically rational." He then went on to argue, amid a highly idiosyncratic reading of history and theology, that this rational religion's current wallowing in the violent depths of unreason can be fully ascribed to the legacy of colonialism. After some negotiation, Nature also agreed to publish a brief response from me. What readers of my letter to the editor could not know, however, was that it was only published after perfectly factual sentences deemed offensive to Islam were expunged. I understood the editors' concerns at the time: not only did they have Britain's suffocating libel laws to worry about, but Muslim physicians and engineers in the UK had just revealed a penchant for suicide bombing. I was grateful that Nature published my letter at all.

<h4>In a thrillingly ironic turn of events, a shorter version of the very essay you are now reading was originally commissioned by the opinion page of Washington Post and then rejected because it was deemed too critical of Islam.</h4> Please note, this essay was destined for the opinion page of the paper, which had solicited my response to the controversy over Wilders' film. The irony of its rejection seemed entirely lost on the Post, which responded to my subsequent expression of amazement by offering to pay me a "kill fee." I declined.

I could list other examples of encounters with editors and publishers, as can many writers, all illustrating a single fact: <h3>While it remains taboo to criticize religious faith in general, it is considered especially unwise to criticize Islam. Only Muslims hound and hunt and murder their apostates, infidels, and critics in the 21st century.</h3> There are, to be sure, reasons why this is so. Some of these reasons have to do with accidents of history and geopolitics, but others can be directly traced to doctrines sanctifying violence which are unique to Islam.

A point of comparison: The controversy of over Fitna was immediately followed by ubiquitous media coverage of a scandal involving the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). In Texas, police raided an FLDS compound and took hundreds of women and underage girls into custody to spare them the continued, sacramental predations of their menfolk. <h4>While mainstream Mormonism is now granted the deference accorded to all major religions in the United States, its fundamentalist branch, with its commitment to polygamy, spousal abuse, forced marriage, child brides (and, therefore, child rape) is often portrayed in the press as a depraved cult. But one could easily argue that Islam, considered both in the aggregate and in terms of its most negative instances, is far more despicable than fundamentalist Mormonism. The Muslim world can match the FLDS sin for sin--Muslims commonly practice polygamy, forced-marriage (often between underage girls and older men), and wife-beating--but add to these indiscretions the surpassing evils of honor killing, female "circumcision," widespread support for terrorism, a pornographic fascination with videos showing the butchery of infidels and apostates, a vibrant form of anti-semitism that is explicitly genocidal in its aspirations, and an aptitude for producing children's books and television programs which exalt suicide-bombing and depict Jews as "apes and pigs."

Any honest comparison between these two faiths reveals a bizarre double standard in our treatment of religion. We can openly celebrate the marginalization of FLDS men and the rescue of their women and children. But, leaving aside the practical and political impossibility of doing so, could we even allow ourselves to contemplate liberating the women and children of traditional Islam?</h4>

What about all the civil, freedom-loving, moderate Muslims who are just as appalled by Muslim intolerance as I am? No doubt millions of men and women fit this description, but vocal moderates are very difficult to find. Wherever "moderate Islam" does announce itself, one often discovers frank Islamism lurking just a euphemism or two beneath the surface. The subterfuge is rendered all but invisible to the general public by political correctness, wishful thinking, and "white guilt." This is where we find sinister people successfully posing as "moderates"--people like Tariq Ramadan who, while lionized by liberal Europeans as the epitome of cosmopolitan Islam, cannot bring himself to actually condemn honor killing in round terms (he recommends that the practice be suspended, pending further study). Moderation is also attributed to groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an Islamist public relations firm posing as a civil-rights lobby.

Even when one finds a true voice of Muslim moderation, it often seems distinguished by a lack of candor above all things. Take someone like Reza Aslan, author of No God But God: I debated Aslan for Book TV on the general subject of religion and modernity. During the course of our debate, I had a few unkind words to say about the Muslim Brotherhood. While admitting that there is a difference between the Brotherhood and a full-blown jihadist organization like al Qaeda, I said that their ideology was "close enough" to be of concern. <h4>Aslan responded with a grandiose, ad hominem attack saying, "that indicates the profound unsophistication that you have about this region. You could not be more wrong" and claiming that I'd taken my view of Islam from "Fox News."</h4> Such maneuvers, coming from a polished, Iranian-born scholar of Islam carry the weight of authority, especially in front of an audience of people who are desperate to believe the threat of Islam has been grossly exaggerated. The problem, however, is that the credo of the Muslim Brotherhood actually happens to be "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

The connection between the doctrine of Islam and Islamist violence is simply not open to dispute. It's not that critics of religion like myself speculate that such a connection might exist: the point is that Islamists themselves acknowledge and demonstrate this connection at every opportunity and to deny it is to retreat within a fantasy world of political correctness and religious apology. Many western scholars, like the much admired Karen Armstrong, appear to live in just such a place. All of their talk about how benign Islam "really" is, and about how the problem of fundamentalism exists in all religions, only obfuscates what may be the most pressing issue of our time: <h3>Islam, as it is currently understood and practiced by vast numbers of the world's Muslims, is antithetical to civil society. A recent poll showed that thirty-six percent of British Muslims (ages 16-24) believe that a person should be killed for leaving the faith. Sixty-eight percent of British Muslims feel that their neighbors who insult Islam should be arrested and prosecuted, and seventy-eight percent think that the Danish cartoonists should have been brought to justice. And these are British Muslims.</h3>

Occasionally, however, a lone voice can be heard acknowledging the obvious. Hassan Butt wrote in <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jul/01/comment.religion1">the Guardian</a>:

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy. By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

It is astounding how infrequently one hears such candor among the public voices of "moderate" Islam. This is what we owe the true moderates of the Muslim world: <h4>we must hold their co-religionists to the same standards of civility and reasonableness that we take for granted in all other people. Only our willingness to openly criticize Islam for its all-too-obvious failings can make it safe for Muslim moderates, secularists, apostates--and, indeed, women--to rise up and reform their faith.

And if anyone in this debate can be credibly accused of racism, it is the western apologists and "multiculturalists" who deem Arabs and Muslims too immature to shoulder the responsibilities of civil discourse.</h4> As Ayaan Hirsi Ali has pointed out, there is a calamitous form of "affirmative action" at work, especially in western Europe, where Muslim immigrants are systematically exempted from western standards of moral order in the name of paying "respect" to the glaring pathologies in their culture. Hirsi Ali has also observed that there is a quasi-racist double-think on display whenever western powers trumpet that "Islam is peace," all the while taking heroic measures to guard against the next occasion when the barbarians run amok in response to a film, cartoon, opera, novel, beauty pageant--or the mere naming of a teddy bear.

Have you seen the Danish cartoons that so roiled the Muslim world? Probably not, as their publication was suppressed by almost every newspaper, magazine, and television station in the United States. Given their volcanic reception--hundreds of thousands of Muslims rioted, hundreds of people were killed--their sheer banality should have rendered these drawings extraordinarily newsworthy. <h4>One magazine which did print them, Free Inquiry (for which I am proud to have written), had its stock banned from every Borders and Waldenbooks in the country. These are precisely the sorts of capitulations that we must avoid in the future.</h4>

The lesson we should draw from the Fitna controversy is that we need more criticism of Islam, not less. <h3>Let it come down in such torrents that not even the most deluded Islamist could conceive of containing it.</h3> As Ibn Warraq, author of the revelatory Why I Am Not a Muslim, said in response to recent events:

It is perverse for the western media to lament the lack of an Islamic reformation and willfully ignore works such as Wilders' film, Fitna. How do they think reformation will come about if not with criticism? There is no such right as 'the right not to be offended; indeed, I am deeply offended by the contents of the Koran, with its overt hatred of Christians, Jews, apostates, non-believers, homosexuals but cannot demand its suppression.

It is time we recognized that those who claim the "right not to be offended" have also announced their hatred of civil society.

Uh-oh.... I just read this when I searched for blogs talking about Sam Harris:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...-weakness.html

I was uncomfortable about doing this OP for other reasons than the concerns it might raise, in and of itself.....the "I told you so...." 'tude at the gatewaypundit blog confirms that my other reservations were valid. Too late now to go back....this needs to be discussed here, and everywhere, but without the "I told you so-s". Sam Harris's point is that it doesn't take military might to change this. The spoken and written word, in overwhelming numbers, will be quite sufficient to bring change.

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-09-2008, 02:02 AM

To be honest I'm not sure I get this... I think I agree with Host on this one...?

I don't really know where I am going with this, trying to leave my personal feelings on the whole Islamic issue out of the discussion, even though that in of itself might be missing the point. At any rate this topic is surely a hot button issue.

Lets see if I am even ball park with where you are going with this Host...

I don't get why "criticism" of Islam (specifically due to the context of this post) would not be permitted. All the acts of violence are real, the Rushdie/Satanic verses fiasco was real, Theo Van Gogh did get clipped because he spoke out against treatment of women in Islamic culture...

It's not like this stuff is being falsified. Trying to be objective and taking it with a grain of salt, but a lot of messed up shit happens in that religion, the level of unnecessary violence is exponential compared to that of any other religion. I'm sure its not always religion specific, I'm sure there are cultural factors outside of Islam at play, even various political factors. Still the bottom line is I don't need to go to http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ to give me examples of the reality of the state of Islam in the modern world, reading the news will suffice. You have to be naive to honestly chalk it all up to coincidence and not see alot of this stuff for what it truly is. Oh and guess what it doesn't make you racist or xenophobic for saying as much.

This seems like one of those issues of political correctness. Guess what, I'm not sorry if the truth offends you, deal with it. Host you shouldn't apologize if this puts people at discomfort. You are not being uncivil, I think you are bringing up a valid argument, it's people's own damn fault if they can't deal with it.

Why would you even consider apologizing for bringing this up? It seems pathetic you did, even more pathetic that you felt compelled and even considered it in the first place (I'm not saying that as an attack against you Host).

I really hope I am even remotely in the realm of what you wanted to discuss as this is the first time I actually read one of your entire articles, not just the highlighted areas. If not I apologize for wasting your time, it's 5am and I can't sleep.

The_Jazz · 05-09-2008, 04:27 AM

Thread retitled for clarity.

loquitur · 05-09-2008, 04:45 AM

Host, Harris happens to be right about this particular issue IMHO, and though he does have an axe to grind about religion generally, I have found that he's not horribly obnoxious or intolerant about it, and he recognizes that many good people have found meaning and inspiration in religion (even though he wishes they would find it somewhere else). I have my own issues about religion, which aren't especially germane here.

My beef in general is with intolerance. I continue to believe that each person deserves to be free (within the confines of civilization and law) to seek out his/her own opportunities, loves, desires, goals -- so long as s/he does no violence or fraud to others, and that others should respect that freedom. How I think religion should be treated fits squarely into that framework, which is why I agree with Harris on this issue.

Ustwo · 05-09-2008, 05:27 AM

Terrorism has won to an extent in the 'free' press, especially in Europe, but also more limited in the states.

They are afraid to speak freely about Islam, thats about as solid a victory you can hope for with violence.

But this is not new, this article might have was have been written in 2004.

RetroGunslinger · 05-09-2008, 09:58 AM

I can't imagine anyone on this board disagreeing with Harris' opinion. Hell, I've been telling people the same thing (in fewer words) for quite a while. As Ustwo said, this is not new.

The thing that bothers people like Host and everyone else who thinks more people need to speak out about the taboo of such speaking out is that it is a very slow journey. While everyone might laugh when South Park or any other comedians make fun of religious radicals, and they might criticize the stranglehold Muslims seem to have on the media, not many of them will openly, publicly say anything. However, the numbers are growing, albeit slowly, and I can see a large backlash to religious terrorism taking place within a decade, though it's not exactly a measured science.

loquitur · 05-09-2008, 10:10 AM

Retro, I think part of it is that most Americans are pretty fair-minded, and they really don't want to start criticizing other people's religions. What people DO, yes, but not what they believe. Sure, there are some jerks out there who make distasteful cracks, but by and large, most people don't react well to criticism of other people's religion - it makes them think of the Inquisition. What Harris is getting at, for the most part, is that if the religion is being misused by some creeps, it's the duty of the people who aren't misusing it and adhere to it peacefully to strongly repudiate the creeps and help bring them to justice -- and we should be very concerned that that isn't happening. It's THAT that people are waking up to. Although, I have to tell you, most of the Muslims I know are perfectly nice people.

host · 05-09-2008, 10:37 AM

Mojo_PeiPei, the "apology" I was writing about, had to do with suspecting that the owner of this site might not want to be bothered with the kind of trouble hosting an article like Sam Harris's might bring....which is the whole point of attempting to discuss a "religion of peace" whose members (not all it's members, but enough that it is a problem, and intimidates even members who object to the threats, into not actually objecting to the threats....) respond to criticism of the religion by issuing death threats.

If it is so difficult to criticize Islam, that the Washington Post even shies away from printing such criticism, why do so many in the US argue that there is not enough criticism and protest of islamic extremism, "from the inside"? The intimidation seems strong enough to silence powerful US corporate media. Why then, are individual muslims expected to publicly object to islamic extremism?

RetroGunslinger, would you be okay with a thread like this:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=131429&highlight=cos">The Anonymous war on Scientology hits the streets</a> , that instead of protesting coS, protests islam, on it's merits and practices? Doesn't it seem that coS has been much less provocative than some who speak for islam have been, but has received a much more organized, grassroots backlash than islam has? Isn't one of the prime motivators in protesting against coS, the intimidation tactics it is known to use against it's critics?

Why does the spell checker here "red line" the word "christian" if the "C" is not capitalized, and the word "muslim" , if the "M" is not capitalized? It's 2008, hasn't enough blood been shed in the names of these "organized" religions, for a lot of us to take stock of their actual "helpfulness" in our own lives, and in the context of our societies, vs. the "trouble" that they bring to our lives?

The_Jazz · 05-09-2008, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Mojo_PeiPei, the "apology" I was writing about, had to do with suspecting that the owner of this site might not want to be bothered with the kind of trouble hosting an article like Sam Harris's might bring....which is the whole point of attempting to discuss a "religion of peace" whose members (not all it's members, but enough that it is a problem, and intimidates even members who object to the threats, into not actually objecting to the threats....) respond to criticism of the religion by issuing death threats.

Please, host. This thread's not about TFP, nor is it about board policy. We've never avoided difficult or unpopular topics, with the only exceptions being folks who can't have mature, respectful discussions. The charter of this board is personal evolution. You're to be commended for posting something that furthers the goals of the board.

And it's not like this is THE MOST INFLAMATORY THING EVER POSTED ON TFP. This isn't even the most inflamatory thread on the subject of religion on the board. It doesn't even register on my internal flame sensor. Is this a potential source of friction among members? Sure. Is it possible that some radical Islamist will come along and take exception to something posted here? Sure. If they can't have the discussion without doing so in a respectful manner, they'll be the staff's problem, not yours. And they won't last long - I'll personally promise you that. So long as everyone conducts themselves in a mature manner, the staff is always going to allow discussions to develop.

So let's get back to discussing the acceptability of critisizing Islam and stop it with making this about TFP, ok?

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Why does the spell checker here "red line" the word "christian" if the "C" is not capitalized, and the word "muslim" , if the "M" is not capitalized? It's 2008, hasn't enough blood been shed in the names of these "organized" religions, for a lot of us to take stock of their actual "helpfulness" in our own lives, and in the context of our societies, vs. the "trouble" that they bring to our lives?

The spell checker is imbedded in your computer, not the TFP server. Take it up with whoever made it.

RetroGunslinger · 05-09-2008, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

RetroGunslinger, would you be okay with a thread like this:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=131429&highlight=cos">The Anonymous war on Scientology hits the streets</a> , that instead of protesting coS, protests islam, on it's merits and practices? Doesn't it seem that coS has been much less provocative than some who speak for islam have been, but has received a much more organized, grassroots backlash than islam has? Isn't one of the prime motivators in protesting against coS, the intimidation tactics it is known to use against it's critics?

Frankly, yes. While I advocate free speech, and enjoy knowing anyone can believe anything without persecution, I think that a good number of Muslims are taking it too far. I would like to add, however, that I have yet to see anything especially offensive (though I haven't really looked for it) about American Muslims, but rather those in the Middle East and Europe, mainly the Netherlands.

I'm not sure, based on your wording, if you think it's a very negative outlook, but I just don't like many Muslims. Heck, I don't like any person who says I can't criticize their beliefs, I think that's just being childish. If you can't prove it, don't be mad when I say it makes about as much sense as a squirrel raping a hippo.

Loquitor, thanks for mentioning that. I have this terrible tendency to make my point while missing some steps that really should be taken. I totally agree with you, even on the friendly Muslims part.

On that note, I'd like it to be known that in these sorts of discussions, I tend to not put "radical" in front of "Muslim" when I speak negatively, but I hope that everyone knows that it's what I mean. I'm not quite THAT close-minded.

Willravel · 05-09-2008, 03:40 PM

Does This Society Permit Criticism of Christianty, Mormonism, Judaism, and Islam? Yes. If it didn't I would have been crucified long ago.

percy · 05-10-2008, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Does This Society Permit Criticism of Christianty, Mormonism, Judaism, and Islam? Yes. If it didn't I would have been crucified long ago.

Yes to an extent. Continually criticize the religions of Christians, Mormons, Jews and Islam and you will be labelled anti-Christian, intolerant against Mormons, anti-semitic toward Jews and islamophobic toward Muslims. Why? Because each religion think their religion is superior. Meaning they think they are superior beings because of it.

Hogwash I say. The world would be a better place if religion were kept where it is meant to be. On the shelf besides Alice in Wonderland, The Brothers Grimm and other assorted fairy tales.

Sticky · 05-15-2008, 11:40 AM

Well I was definately surprised by this thread.
I am not sure that I have ever even been close to agreement with host on anything.

The main point that I take out of this article is:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Harris

The point is that only the Muslim community is combustible in this way

This is so true.

I think this has an effect, consiously or subconsiously, on how people act, what we write, what we discuss, what we put on TV, what we report in our newscasts...

I remember seeing this a while back

Quote:

Originally Posted by exchange between filmmaker Martin Himel and Dr. Tim Benson, founder of the British editorial cartoonists' society that honored the Sharon-eating-babies cartoon with its 2003 'Cartoon of the Year' - from Himel's documentary

Benson [holding cartoon]: This will go down in history as one of the famous cartoons. Here we have a cartoon. It's certainly anti-Sharon, but in no way is it anti-Israel or anti-Jewish.
[Cuts to comments by Professor Alan Dershowitz, in which he argues strongly that the cartoon evokes the 'blool libel' of which Jews have long been falsely accused, then returns to interview]

Benson: I believe it was chosen by our members mainly because of the impact it had above all the other cartoons in the competition. Because the impact it initially had in January. We have had a hysterical response from all around the world. Our website, the day after the awards, got 73,000 hits. We've been receiving over 400 hate mails a day.

Himel: Talking about impact, here we have Sharon eating Palestinian babies [holding Dave Brown cartoon]. Here's an impact, too, that's out of reality. [Hands over photographs.] This is a dead Israeli girl, one of five children from the same family, who was blown up by a suicide bomber. And this is a soon-to-be-dead Israeli boy who was blown up by a suicide bomber. Now obviously these pictures have impact. And my question to you is why, in all these paintings, don't we see maybe Sharon and Arafat eating babies?

Benson: Maybe Jews don't issue fatwas.

Himel [long, long pause, then quietly]: What do you mean by that?

Benson [amused sniff]: Well, if you upset an Islamic or Muslim group, as you know, fatwas can be issued by ayatollahs and suchlike. And maybe it's at the back of each cartoonist's mind that they could be in trouble if they do so.

Himel [even quieter]: If they do what?

Benson: If they depict, ah, say ah ah an Arab leader, in the same manner.

Himel: Then they could suffer?

Benson: Nya [my rendering of a non-word], they could suffer death, couldn't they? Which is rather different.

percy · 05-16-2008, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticky

This is so true.

Actually, every culture is combustible. The difference is in how they execute their revenge.

Some cultures do it publicly with feverant outrage and destruction. Others do it silently and vengefully as to make sure their target is ruined or rendered useless. And everything in between. Adds up to the same thing at the end of the day.

Personally if I offended a cultural group enough that they took action against me, I rather they break windows in my house that are replacable than having my career and reputation ruined while forever being labelled something because someone doesn't like what I said or did.

Charlatan · 05-17-2008, 02:14 AM

I think what is missing here is that Christianity also went through a volatile period where heretics were strung up. I am not trying to defend Islam just add a little perspective.

If the reformation hadn't happened, I wonder what flavour a Christianity dominated by orthodox Catholicism would have?

loquitur · 05-18-2008, 05:37 PM

I'm curious about why people think the Reformation is what is responsible for Christianity become more pacific and less aggressive - as opposed to the influence of the enlightenment. Honestly, I don't see where Protestantism is inherently more tolerant than Catholicism. To the contrary: there are dozens of Protestant sects, each based on some nuance that the others don't buy into, so they had to go off on their own. Methinks the influence of the Enlightenment is what calmed western religion down in general.

Charlatan · 05-19-2008, 01:38 AM

I don't think you can separate the two. The reformation weakened the Catholic church enough to allow the sorts of enquiry that inspired the enlightenment. The enlightenment accelerated that growth.

05-09-2008, 02:02 AM	#2 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	To be honest I'm not sure I get this... I think I agree with Host on this one...? I don't really know where I am going with this, trying to leave my personal feelings on the whole Islamic issue out of the discussion, even though that in of itself might be missing the point. At any rate this topic is surely a hot button issue. Lets see if I am even ball park with where you are going with this Host... I don't get why "criticism" of Islam (specifically due to the context of this post) would not be permitted. All the acts of violence are real, the Rushdie/Satanic verses fiasco was real, Theo Van Gogh did get clipped because he spoke out against treatment of women in Islamic culture... It's not like this stuff is being falsified. Trying to be objective and taking it with a grain of salt, but a lot of messed up shit happens in that religion, the level of unnecessary violence is exponential compared to that of any other religion. I'm sure its not always religion specific, I'm sure there are cultural factors outside of Islam at play, even various political factors. Still the bottom line is I don't need to go to http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ to give me examples of the reality of the state of Islam in the modern world, reading the news will suffice. You have to be naive to honestly chalk it all up to coincidence and not see alot of this stuff for what it truly is. Oh and guess what it doesn't make you racist or xenophobic for saying as much. This seems like one of those issues of political correctness. Guess what, I'm not sorry if the truth offends you, deal with it. Host you shouldn't apologize if this puts people at discomfort. You are not being uncivil, I think you are bringing up a valid argument, it's people's own damn fault if they can't deal with it. Why would you even consider apologizing for bringing this up? It seems pathetic you did, even more pathetic that you felt compelled and even considered it in the first place (I'm not saying that as an attack against you Host). I really hope I am even remotely in the realm of what you wanted to discuss as this is the first time I actually read one of your entire articles, not just the highlighted areas. If not I apologize for wasting your time, it's 5am and I can't sleep. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 05-09-2008 at 02:09 AM..

05-09-2008, 04:27 AM	#3 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Thread retitled for clarity. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-09-2008, 05:27 AM	#5 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Terrorism has won to an extent in the 'free' press, especially in Europe, but also more limited in the states. They are afraid to speak freely about Islam, thats about as solid a victory you can hope for with violence. But this is not new, this article might have was have been written in 2004. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

05-09-2008, 09:58 AM	#6 (permalink)
RetroGunslinger eats puppies and shits rainbows Location: An Area of Space Occupied by a Population, SC, USA	I can't imagine anyone on this board disagreeing with Harris' opinion. Hell, I've been telling people the same thing (in fewer words) for quite a while. As Ustwo said, this is not new. The thing that bothers people like Host and everyone else who thinks more people need to speak out about the taboo of such speaking out is that it is a very slow journey. While everyone might laugh when South Park or any other comedians make fun of religious radicals, and they might criticize the stranglehold Muslims seem to have on the media, not many of them will openly, publicly say anything. However, the numbers are growing, albeit slowly, and I can see a large backlash to religious terrorism taking place within a decade, though it's not exactly a measured science. __________________ It's a rare pleasure in this world to get your mind fucked. Usually it's just foreplay. M.B. Keene

05-09-2008, 10:37 AM	#8 (permalink)
host Banned	Mojo_PeiPei, the "apology" I was writing about, had to do with suspecting that the owner of this site might not want to be bothered with the kind of trouble hosting an article like Sam Harris's might bring....which is the whole point of attempting to discuss a "religion of peace" whose members (not all it's members, but enough that it is a problem, and intimidates even members who object to the threats, into not actually objecting to the threats....) respond to criticism of the religion by issuing death threats. If it is so difficult to criticize Islam, that the Washington Post even shies away from printing such criticism, why do so many in the US argue that there is not enough criticism and protest of islamic extremism, "from the inside"? The intimidation seems strong enough to silence powerful US corporate media. Why then, are individual muslims expected to publicly object to islamic extremism? RetroGunslinger, would you be okay with a thread like this: <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=131429&highlight=cos">The Anonymous war on Scientology hits the streets</a> , that instead of protesting coS, protests islam, on it's merits and practices? Doesn't it seem that coS has been much less provocative than some who speak for islam have been, but has received a much more organized, grassroots backlash than islam has? Isn't one of the prime motivators in protesting against coS, the intimidation tactics it is known to use against it's critics? Why does the spell checker here "red line" the word "christian" if the "C" is not capitalized, and the word "muslim" , if the "M" is not capitalized? It's 2008, hasn't enough blood been shed in the names of these "organized" religions, for a lot of us to take stock of their actual "helpfulness" in our own lives, and in the context of our societies, vs. the "trouble" that they bring to our lives? Last edited by host; 05-09-2008 at 10:54 AM..

05-09-2008, 04:45 AM	#4 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Host, Harris happens to be right about this particular issue IMHO, and though he does have an axe to grind about religion generally, I have found that he's not horribly obnoxious or intolerant about it, and he recognizes that many good people have found meaning and inspiration in religion (even though he wishes they would find it somewhere else). I have my own issues about religion, which aren't especially germane here. My beef in general is with intolerance. I continue to believe that each person deserves to be free (within the confines of civilization and law) to seek out his/her own opportunities, loves, desires, goals -- so long as s/he does no violence or fraud to others, and that others should respect that freedom. How I think religion should be treated fits squarely into that framework, which is why I agree with Harris on this issue.

05-09-2008, 10:10 AM	#7 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Retro, I think part of it is that most Americans are pretty fair-minded, and they really don't want to start criticizing other people's religions. What people DO, yes, but not what they believe. Sure, there are some jerks out there who make distasteful cracks, but by and large, most people don't react well to criticism of other people's religion - it makes them think of the Inquisition. What Harris is getting at, for the most part, is that if the religion is being misused by some creeps, it's the duty of the people who aren't misusing it and adhere to it peacefully to strongly repudiate the creeps and help bring them to justice -- and we should be very concerned that that isn't happening. It's THAT that people are waking up to. Although, I have to tell you, most of the Muslims I know are perfectly nice people.

05-09-2008, 03:40 PM	#11 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Does This Society Permit Criticism of Christianty, Mormonism, Judaism, and Islam? Yes. If it didn't I would have been crucified long ago.

05-17-2008, 02:14 AM	#15 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I think what is missing here is that Christianity also went through a volatile period where heretics were strung up. I am not trying to defend Islam just add a little perspective. If the reformation hadn't happened, I wonder what flavour a Christianity dominated by orthodox Catholicism would have? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

05-18-2008, 05:37 PM	#16 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I'm curious about why people think the Reformation is what is responsible for Christianity become more pacific and less aggressive - as opposed to the influence of the enlightenment. Honestly, I don't see where Protestantism is inherently more tolerant than Catholicism. To the contrary: there are dozens of Protestant sects, each based on some nuance that the others don't buy into, so they had to go off on their own. Methinks the influence of the Enlightenment is what calmed western religion down in general.

05-19-2008, 01:38 AM	#17 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I don't think you can separate the two. The reformation weakened the Catholic church enough to allow the sorts of enquiry that inspired the enlightenment. The enlightenment accelerated that growth. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke