Son of Sam
Banned
No. In regards to ISIS we have not seen that.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Cenk Uygur (The Young Turks) interviews Sam Harris for 3 hours (Religion & Islam)
- Thread starter Duji
- Start date
- Status
No. In regards to ISIS we have not seen that.
What. Trust me. They are not integrated into american society the way you think they are.
Also are you implying that we use genocide on Muslims so they can be better integrated into American society?
Let alone the fact that Europeans came to North America and systematically wiped out almost all Native Americans. Are we implying that the Natives in 1500 were radicals?
Well yes.
But they are so few and relatively pacified that America was comfortable in giving them their own little states and some sovereignty.
What, no, that's stupid.
That's an interesting question, though. Not all of them, probably not most of them, but some of the existing cultures had quite the extreme practices around human sacrifice; maybe today that is just a footnote, but if there was, say, a mayan uprising and then they started sacrificing humans to their old gods, that surely would be blamed on their religion / culture.
So genocide is okay if only you give the original inhabitants shit land, force them to live far away from everybody else, and then force their children to go to residential schools so their future generations forgot their language, culture, and religion.
Effectively nutering a whole fucking group of people.
Why are you defending genocide now?
Son of Sam
Banned
Yes because there's people purposely cherry picking his words to make it look a certain way. Complex issues can't be described in one sentence.
Maninthemirror
Banned
I believe the word you are looking for is 'Nuanced' its a favorite word
Holy...wow....the Irony in this very quote is staggering. Think about it everyone. Go over this very quote and look at the historical perspective of all arguments on this issue by looking at this
Son of Sam
Banned
Yes, think about it. Harris has always said there needs to be open and honest discussion about the effects of dangerous and dogmatic ideas. This isn't a simple issue, has anyone claimed it to be?
Problem is you can't speak about it in the middle east, you'll die.
vas_a_morir
Banned
Cenk always strikes me as a closed-minded character akin to a politically active college freshman. The type who lets political affiliation dictate his advocacy. Although, I have heard he's a bit of a genocidal holocaust denier., so if true, I stand corrected. I do think he's an interesting character,. regardless.
Maninthemirror
Banned
You don't get it did you. ok
Son of Sam
Banned
Then please by all means, elaborate.
Dreams-Visions
Member
I really didn't get that impression at all. Quite the opposite, really. He was resistant to the idea at every turn. He went on and on with the "if someone says they're doing it for religious reasons, why don't libs believe them?" angle. It seemed that he felt like clearly underlying political/socio-economical issues were the least of the reasons; the least significant of factors. To me, that's a failure to appreciate the significance of poverty and anger or simple mental derangement of sociopaths. The religion just becomes the outlet to vent anger that otherwise has nowhere to go rather than simply the religion being essentially the beginning and end of the conversation.
No, he was very resistant to that to the degree of chastising people who suggest otherwise. This is not to say religion doesn't play a significant role in this case. It does, as it is the weapon that is being wielded and wildly swung in an effort to make people with no power feel powerful. It is also a fair critique to say that the anger these people have would not take the form of suicide bombings and beheadings and other barbaric shit if not for the texts that can be twisted by naives to make a trap for fools. But to be sure, the source of their anger would have simply manifested itself in a different but still destructive way (though I'd also agree that it would probably have been a less organized and less dangerous way).
When your inputs are faulty I don't care how well you can argue or defend your outputs. Thats my issue with Harris.
Reading tripe of his that misrepresents Islamic actors or relies upon faulty assumptions such as his defense of Israel during the recent collective punishment of Gaza reflects a man that has established some poor inputs and as a consequences has outputted some poor and somewhat dangerous conclusions.
I'm not sure why Harris has earned this infallible reputation recently from so many but its rather baffling.
Haha. wow guy, just wow!
Reading tripe of his that misrepresents Islamic actors or relies upon faulty assumptions such as his defense of Israel during the recent collective punishment of Gaza reflects a man that has established some poor inputs and as a consequences has outputted some poor and somewhat dangerous conclusions.
I'm not sure why Harris has earned this infallible reputation recently from so many but its rather baffling.
Haha. wow guy, just wow!
I'm not the one who brought in genocide and linked it to integration to western society, Which this thread isn't about.
Son of Sam
Banned
He says this because it is an on going problem with liberals. Why don't we believe them? Every single time someone does something because of a faith people come in and claim "nah, that can't be the reason" or the only reason. Why? That's ridiculous. He made the example "when someone says i killed someone to take their stuff" do we not take them at face value?
These types of circumventions are always granted to religion. It can never just be because of the faith, ever. And that's utterly ridiculous. We know in areas of poverty, socio-economical upheavals, low educations, etc religion can take a hold easier. We know this, does it need to be repeated at every turn? It doesn't excuse the fact that when religion manifests in these situations by praying on these circumstances it leads to violence.
The distinction he makes is that with this particular religion there is direct line there is a direct line between things like beheadings and Islam. Like he says with Catholicism, there is a direct line between anti-contraception movements in South Africa and Catholicism.
Maninthemirror
Banned
staggering isn't it? the words are out for everyone to see and observe. absolutely ridiculous
I am answering to the old post of a guy who said why imperialism in america didn't lead to radicalization like it did with islamic nations.
Part of the answer is, because what happened in america was way worse.
You are the one trying to misconstruct that as a defense of genocide. I am sorry the point went over your head.
RustyNails
Member
...says the guy purposely cherry picking Quran verses out of context to make it look a certain way.
He won't be using the interview as an example of his best work, but If you watched the show and have a progressive viewpoint, the TYT team, with Cenk and Ana etc, are usually spot on with their views and Cenk is a very natural orator (but I agree, not the best interviewer).
Son of Sam
Banned
Who is he misrepresenting? Are we going to continue to play this ridiculous game that a faith based on an ancient doctrine filled with some pretty poor ideas doesn't hold any accountability in this? Now that's wow.
Yes, we are observing. Beheadings, shooting guards in a peaceful ceremony, running soldiers over, sentencing people to death for insulting the prophet all in the last month.
what else would you like to observe?
Yes, to look a certain way.....You shouldn't have to interpret the word of god. If you have to interpret the divine wishes of your deity then you should probably throw the whole thing out.
Red Mage
Member
A bit off topic, but you can only claim that God from the OT and NT seem unrelated if you only focus on certain passages/sections. People love to focus on the Conquest of the Holy Land by the Hebrews, but in Genesis 15 God makes it clear to Abram that his offspring will not inherit the land for another 400 years "because their iniquity was not complete." Jonah also shows us that God did not just ignore the surrounding nations but sent messangers to them to call for repentance and various prophets include the gentiles in the blessings of the Messiah.
At the same time, Christ is not a "peacenik" kind of God, at all. Even if you discount Revelations, which makes it really obvious, Jesus himself said: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law---a mans enemies will be the members of his own household." Often times in His parables, Christ also disproves this with many of His parables. For example, he ends the parable about the ten minas with: "'But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over thembring them here and kill them in front of me.
Anyhow, back to regularly scheduled thread
Harris himself does it all the time as well. Invariably, the follow-ups to articles he writes are filled with caveats, qualifications, and empty rationalizations.
You'd think he'd strive to make himself come off as clear and lucid the first time around, yet this appears to consistently pose great difficulties for him.
Maninthemirror
Banned
yes you don't need to even interpret if you either read the next 2 verses before it and/or after it OR Read when and where it was revealed. but go ahead, continue digging the hole
RustyNails
Member
"You cannot quote Sam Harris out of context! But I will quote a big book written over 23 years out of context"
Hypocrit.
AlteredForms
Banned
Sam Harris stands on the shoulders of giants such as Hitchens and Darwin.
Man can't keep his own against great minds.
Man can't keep his own against great minds.
Son of Sam
Banned
Some readers need clarification, and at times he to needs to clarify. This is common amongst anyone continuously engaged in the forum of debate.
Apparently, if he was a divine being he would be afforded more leeway.
njean777
Member
Thats my main problem with him. I agree with him in this interview, but in his writing he could learn from that BA in Philosophy he has and learn to be far more clear. In most philosophy it is paramount that you be as clear as possible (almost to the point of boredom). I guess he skipped that part of essay writing in philosophy. Some philosophy is ambiguous, but mostly that comes from the realm of metaphysics which itself is ambiguous.
RustyNails
Member
He has quite a big beef brewing with Glenn Greenwald. The way he snipes at Greenwald in his follow up "clarifications" is just juvenile. I think Glenn called him a Neocon at one point.
Maninthemirror
Banned
What is the leftist version of a neocon?
My bad. Didn't know you were replying to somebody else.
Son of Sam
Banned
Yes, hypocrite. This is why i asked what your belief was. If you believe as others do that this is the word of god then interpretation shouldn't be a factor. If it is then either your god was poor at picking a prophet or your prophet was bad at communication and you have a bigger problem. Your god is a buffoon.
If you don't then who is to say your interpretation is anymore justified than fundamental Muslims' interpretation of the text? You're both right. You may take the passage I quoted as self-defense, radical islamist may even take it as self-defense as well, but their interpretation of who is offending them can be vast, and they can claim jihiad on anyone. Who are you to say they are wrong? Insult the prophet by drawing a cartoon? Death. Slander? Death. Promote democracy and equality for all? Death. Jihad therefore can be justified very loosely.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Aparently the nearly billion moderates who believe in the word of Quran as the word of God are fundamentalists as per that view of thinking.
There are 3 flavors of Muslims:
1. Liberal Muslims who are casual muslims who are not serious about their faith (who Sam Harris describes as True Moderates) *Minority
2. Moderate Muslims who are serious about their faith (Who Sam Harris says are hard to find if existing or if he meets one says are delusional and lying) *Majority
3. Fundamentalist Muslims who follow maudoodism/Wahabbism (modern concepts of conservatism) (Who Sam Harris rails against) *Minority
There are 3 flavors of Muslims:
1. Liberal Muslims who are casual muslims who are not serious about their faith (who Sam Harris describes as True Moderates) *Minority
2. Moderate Muslims who are serious about their faith (Who Sam Harris says are hard to find if existing or if he meets one says are delusional and lying) *Majority
3. Fundamentalist Muslims who follow maudoodism/Wahabbism (modern concepts of conservatism) (Who Sam Harris rails against) *Minority
Son of Sam
Banned
Maninthemirror, where's the uproar from the Muslim community both here and in the Middle East over what just transpired in Canada? Where is it? Where's the marches on the streets?
How come if majority of Muslims disagree with radicalism are there only burnings of embassies and marches in public with supposed offenses to the faith that involves cartoons or some silly movie. I would think murdering an innocent man at a ceremony would be the most offensive slander to the faith of all.
I'm observing, and I don't see it.
Maninthemirror
Banned
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-shooting-canadian-muslims-denounce-attacks-1.2810489
there is a difference between denounces and then a difference when it comes to protesting politically in front of embassies. Two are separate, one is religious condemnation and one is political condemnation. next you will tell me the protest against Israeli embassies or against occupation is primarily religious
Lamel
Banned
Why should the billions of Muslims in the world have to answer for the actions of that crazy in Canada?
Where is the uproar over all the innocent Muslims killed in drone strikes and wars in Asia?
Maninthemirror
Banned
Yeah wait. where are the protests in US for the Drone attacks which were the primary recruiting tool for pakistani taliban? Where is the protest of Americans when the soldier in Afghanistan killed 12 people in a family in 2012 ? List can go on and on and on. it works both ways but realistically there doesn't need to be a protest for everything
Maybe if you bothered reading past that first sentence you would find an example I was referring to with my statement.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I can't think of anyone more pedantically enunciate than Harris. Of all people to criticisize for a lack of clarity!
It's clearly that because he weighs in on big topics, he is forced to address a myriad of rebuttals and attacks. In fact it's his inner philisopher geek that wants to respond to every counter-point in great detail that leads to this perception that he's "always clarifying". He could probably leave a lot of it alone.
personal interpretations vs literal interpretations of the Qur'an in this thread
At this point I really want you to cut the bullshit and just give us your thesis statement because reading these posts it's hard not to conclude you have a complete disdain for not only Islam but most of those practicing it.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I do think towards the end Harris ends up coming somewhat worse off. Cenk eas not the best at articulating disagreements, but i still found myself disagreeing with harris.
I think what he really did not show was that the Abrahamic religions were all that different really when it comes to doctrine. it really is just how they are used today which always goes back to the geopolitical context they are in.
and I guess I agree with cenk that even if they are different they are similar enough and other factors so much more dominant that is almost irrelevant.
and as I have said before in the thread I think Harris has a strange inability to see the long term effects of discrete actions. Profiling , nuclear strike ,occupation, torture etcetera don't happen in a vacuum. We have to factor in both short term gains of those actions as well as the long-term losses. I don't know why he fails to see this.
Son of Sam
Banned
There's roughly 1.5 billion muslims in the world. So, no not billionS. And i never said they should answer for it, i said why isn't there as large of an uproar for that then for someone depicting Muhammed in a cartoon? Muslim organizations in Denmark called for the cartoonist to be fired, to be imprisoned, riots erupted in Muslim countries, the list goes on.
Where is this outrage for what just happened in Canada? I haven't heard of any. If you have please point me to it.
Are you about to call me a bigot?
boiled goose
good with gravy
Smh... seriously? you are buying into this Fox News level talking point?
I don't even know what the purpose of it is? even if 90% of Muslims supported the action I don't think we are justified in generalizing to the point where we punish the 10% that don't. doing so is the definition of bigotry
speculawyer
Member
I find your post far more ironic.
ecnal
Member
although it may seem like a rational and well meaning assumption to believe economics and education are a major contributor to the problem, it's incredibly difficult to make that link as clear as initially assumed with real world data.
there are a number of studies on this matter, but this study is the one that's most commonly cited (and presumably the one harris mentioned briefly in this interview): http://www.nber.org/papers/w9074
and to clarify, this isn't to suggest that islam is then the obvious and primary factor. these studies suggest that the political and cultural environments are more than likely the predominant influences -- most of which are now so intertwined with islamic doctrines that it's difficult to distinguish and compartmentalize these factors.
Son of Sam
Banned
Whose talking about punishment here? The purpose is to show that "radical" Islam isn't just some fringe group in the Muslim world. It's far larger than people like to pretend it is. And moderates aren't what people here in the west associate with moderate. Moderates in the muslim world still think you should die for insulting the prophet.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/10/17/pakistan-blasphemysentence.html
speculawyer
Member
You completely miss the point. Democracy IS A SOLUTION to conflicts when the sides are rational. The sides present their views, run their candidates, and a majority votes. This is repeated regularly to ensure the government continues to reflect the will of the people.
But we can't use that system here because the sides are deeply divided with irrational religious dogma.
- Status