Is Sam Harris becoming a pariah for the anti-religious cause?

[Brian37]

There are enough people in both camps who hate the violence and division, those people are the ones who need to be the loudest.

[Mudhammam]

Regardless of his opinions on Israel I have never really liked Sam Harris. He's always struck me as someone who doesn't really read opinions other than his own. There is also all his pretentious spiritual Buddhist mumbo jumbo. He should stick to talking to subjects he actually knows something about.

I am a bit miffed at his argument for blindly supporting Israel and his Buddhist woo does give me a lip twitch, but his books "The End Of Faith" and "Letter To A Christian Nation" do give lots of insight to the religious motivations of theists.

According to this blog post, "Generally, I have supported President Obama’s approach to waging our war against global jihadism, and I’ve always assumed that I would approve of his targets and methods were I privy to the same information he is. I’ve also said publicly, on more than one occasion, that I thought our actions should be mostly covert."

His mindset is to naively trust the powers controlling the media message. In other words, to disavow his principles of skepticism when it comes to trusting the USG (and isn't Israel in various ways, especially politically, basically that?).

Again, on Iraq he has recently written: "The truth is, I have never known what to think about this war, apart from the obvious: 1) prospectively, it seemed like a very dangerous distraction from the ongoing war in Afghanistan; 2) retrospectively, it was a disaster. Much of the responsibility for this disaster falls on the Bush administration, and one of the administration’s great failings was to underestimate the religious sectarianism of the Iraqi people."

So, in other words, ignore the Iraqis killed in any hypothetical or actual US excursion (hundreds of thousands, possibly million+), how bad did it make Bush and the U.S. look omg!

And of course, shift blame from our imperialist foreign policy onto the victims themselves:
"Whatever one may think about the rationale for invading Iraq and the prosecution of the war, there is nothing about the conflict that makes Islam look benign—not the reflexive solidarity expressed throughout the Muslim world for Saddam Hussein (merely because an army of “infidels” attacked him), not the endless supply of suicide bombers willing to kill Iraqi noncombatants, not the insurgency’s use of women and children as human shields, not the ritual slaughter of journalists and aid workers, not the steady influx of jihadis from neighboring countries, and not the current state of public opinion among European and American Muslims. It seems to me that no reasonable person can conclude that these phenomena are purely the result of U.S. foreign policy."

It's the neo-con mentality at play, same in his arguments for torture, racial profiling at airports, etc.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's hard to imagine how he couldn't see the immorality of our Iraqi invasion a priori. The shifting reas -- er, excuses given (before the war started) for prosecuting it reminded me of my son trying to fib his way out of trouble by throwing shit against the wall to see what stuck.

Sadly enough, dribs of this and drabs of that stuck, and the majority of American people are too stupid to see that we have blood on our hands, by way of our votes. If the only thing Harris can muster against the Iraq invasion is "it didn't work", he's lost a hell of a lot of credibility with me -- never mind his stance on your OP topic.

Forgive my digression.

[Zack]

I don't think Mr. Harris is at risk of becoming a pariah. I will still enjoy his speeches and writing, while disagreeing with the conclusion in that link. He explains his reasoning for not "criticizing" Israel. Meanwhile, several of his paragraphs end with admonishments of Israeli actions. I agree there is plenty of blame to go around. Israel is complicit in the fracturing and marginalization of the more secular parties within the PLO. Appearing to overreact and/or consider disproportionate civilian casualties acceptable when dealing with the various groups that filled the vacuum such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. I also think Israel has a responsibility to the people living in the occupied/disputed territories. Restricting access to water, medicine, electricity, and education only bolsters the ranks of those groups willing to blow up buses and pizza parlors full of children. Again I agree with Mr. Harris, that Israel has every right to protect itself from these criminals. I find fault in his lesser of two evils evaluation. Why take a side at all if you are Sam Harris? I don't want to compare and contrast Islam with Janism, Tibetan Buddhism, and Judaism when I've already come to the conclusion religion is bad. Belief is still the lowest common denominator.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Israel is complicit in the fracturing and marginalization of the more secular parties within the PLO.

I'd be interested in learning more about this view. Can you direct me to some reputable source material?

[Zack]

You mean the secular parties?

These organizations would be more agreeable than Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, etc:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Democratic_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian...%27s_Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_..._Palestine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian...Initiative

I think the Palestinian National Authority or even Fatah would be preferable over Hamas' governance of Gaza the past 7 years. The West Bank isn't Shangri la, but appears far more stable. In my opinion the religious fundamentalist groups are far more dangerous than the Marxist - Leninists organizations of yesterday. Israel's failure to recognize the consequence of not doing more to reach an agreement with the latter, allowed the former to present themselves as a viable alternative. I didn't mean to imply Israel is to blame for everything ( policies such as "Iron Fist" certainly don't help) that happens in the territories, just given the alternative, they probably could have tried harder.

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict by Stewart Ross isn't bad and covers some of the history, but doesn't dwell long on any particulars.

Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the service of Jihad by Matthew Levitt
Hezbollah by Augustus Richard Norton
I thought these were good. They do a competent job illustrating how groups like Hezbollah and Hamas become socially acceptable, while at the same time undermining the peace process and their more moderate secular political rivals.

Unlike Mr. Harris, I don't care to take a bite of the sandwich Israel and the Palestinians smeared shit on.

[Dystopia]

I'm not responding to the Palestine V Israel conflict, but to the original intention of the thread. I think Sam Harris has already become an anti-religious 'pariah', the same way it happened with Hitchens and Dawkins, that's just how things tend to go. The fact he is anti-religion (or an anti-theist for that matter) doesn't influence my evaluation of his contribution to both atheism as a 'worldview' and secularism, which are greatly positive. Of course people like those will always affect citizens' beliefs and offend their hearts, but at the same time they automatically de-convert thousands from religion. You can't please both sides.

[Brian37]

I'm not responding to the Palestine V Israel conflict, but to the original intention of the thread. I think Sam Harris has already become an anti-religious 'pariah', the same way it happened with Hitchens and Dawkins, that's just how things tend to go. The fact he is anti-religion (or an anti-theist for that matter) doesn't influence my evaluation of his contribution to both atheism as a 'worldview' and secularism, which are greatly positive. Of course people like those will always affect citizens' beliefs and offend their hearts, but at the same time they automatically de-convert thousands from religion. You can't please both sides.

What the fuck? I do not think any of them lost their punch at all. Hitchens may be dead but he still lives on and his books are still relevant today. And Dawkins as well.

I do not think Harris or Dawkins are really worried about how the public views them. The still have audiences and will continue to write and will still sell books.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You mean the secular parties?

No, I meant more the role Israel may have played in marginalizing them. But I do appreciate you taking the time to supply the information you did, thank you.

[Dystopia]

I'm not responding to the Palestine V Israel conflict, but to the original intention of the thread. I think Sam Harris has already become an anti-religious 'pariah', the same way it happened with Hitchens and Dawkins, that's just how things tend to go. The fact he is anti-religion (or an anti-theist for that matter) doesn't influence my evaluation of his contribution to both atheism as a 'worldview' and secularism, which are greatly positive. Of course people like those will always affect citizens' beliefs and offend their hearts, but at the same time they automatically de-convert thousands from religion. You can't please both sides.

What the fuck? I do not think any of them lost their punch at all. Hitchens may be dead but he still lives on and his books are still relevant today. And Dawkins as well.

I do not think Harris or Dawkins are really worried about how the public views them. The still have audiences and will continue to write and will still sell books.

All of them have people who hate them and people who love them. I might be confusing the meaning of the word pariah here, because I didn't intend to say they lost their guts and punch...

---

I'm not responding to the Palestine V Israel conflict, but to the original intention of the thread. I think Sam Harris has already become an anti-religious 'pariah', the same way it happened with Hitchens and Dawkins, that's just how things tend to go. The fact he is anti-religion (or an anti-theist for that matter) doesn't influence my evaluation of his contribution to both atheism as a 'worldview' and secularism, which are greatly positive. Of course people like those will always affect citizens' beliefs and offend their hearts, but at the same time they automatically de-convert thousands from religion. You can't please both sides.

What the fuck? I do not think any of them lost their punch at all. Hitchens may be dead but he still lives on and his books are still relevant today. And Dawkins as well.

I do not think Harris or Dawkins are really worried about how the public views them. The still have audiences and will continue to write and will still sell books.

All of them have people who hate them and people who love them. I might be confusing the meaning of the word pariah here, because I didn't intend to say they lost their guts and punch...