SLEEPWALKING TOWARD ARMAGEDDON

[cronus]

http://m.samharris.org/blog/item/sleepw ... Armageddon

SLEEPWALKING TOWARD ARMAGEDDON

In his speech responding to the horrific murder of journalist James Foley by a British jihadist, President Obama delivered the following rebuke (using an alternate name for ISIS):

ISIL speaks for no religion… and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just God would stand for what they did yesterday and what they do every single day. ISIL has no ideology of any value to human beings. Their ideology is bankrupt…. we will do everything that we can to protect our people and the timeless values that we stand for. May God bless and keep Jim’s memory. And may God bless the United States of America.

In his subsequent remarks outlining a strategy to defeat ISIS, the President declared:

Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim…. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way…. May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America.

As an atheist, I cannot help wondering when this scrim of pretense and delusion will be finally burned away—either by the clear light of reason or by a surfeit of horror meted out to innocents by the parties of God. Which will come first, flying cars and vacations to Mars, or a simple acknowledgment that beliefs guide behavior and that certain religious ideas—jihad, martyrdom, blasphemy, apostasy—reliably lead to oppression and murder? It may be true that no faith teaches people to massacre innocents exactly—but innocence, as the President surely knows, is in the eye of the beholder. Are apostates “innocent”? Blasphemers? Polytheists? Islam has the answer, and the answer is “no.”

More British Muslims have joined the ranks of ISIS than have volunteered to serve in the British armed forces. In fact, this group has managed to attract thousands of recruits from free societies throughout the world to help build a paradise of repression and sectarian slaughter in Syria and Iraq. This is an astonishing phenomenon, and it reveals some very uncomfortable truths about the failures of multiculturalism, the inherent vulnerability of open societies, and the terrifying power of bad ideas.

No doubt many enlightened concerns will come flooding into the reader’s mind at this point. I would not want to create the impression that most Muslims support ISIS, nor would I want to give any shelter or inspiration to the hatred of Muslims as people. In drawing a connection between the doctrine of Islam and jihadist violence, I am talking about ideas and their consequences, not about 1.5 billion nominal Muslims, many of whom do not take their religion very seriously.

But a belief in martyrdom, a hatred of infidels, and a commitment to violent jihad are not fringe phenomena in the Muslim world. These preoccupations are supported by the Koran and numerous hadith. That is why the popular Saudi cleric Mohammad Al-Areefi sounds like the ISIS army chaplain. The man has 9.5 million followers on Twitter (twice as many as Pope Francis has). If you can find an important distinction between the faith he preaches and that which motivates the savagery of ISIS, you should probably consult a neurologist.

Understanding and criticizing the doctrine of Islam—and finding some way to inspire Muslims to reform it—is one of the most important challenges the civilized world now faces. But the task isn’t as simple as discrediting the false doctrines of Muslim “extremists,” because most of their views are not false by the light of scripture. A hatred of infidels is arguably the central message of the Koran. The reality of martyrdom and the sanctity of armed jihad are about as controversial under Islam as the resurrection of Jesus is under Christianity. It is not an accident that millions of Muslims recite the shahadah or make pilgrimage to Mecca. Neither is it an accident that horrific footage of infidels and apostates being decapitated has become a popular form of pornography throughout the Muslim world. Each of these practices, including this ghastly method of murder, find explicit support in scripture.

(continued)

[Hermit]

Sam Harris is an idiot. The Quoran is no more bloodthirsty than the bible. The difference between Christians and Muslims is that they differ in what they cherry-pick. Today many Muslims focus on the bloodthirsty bits of the Quoran while most Christians look at the lovey-dovey aspects of the Bible. In years gone by the roles were reversed. So, while Obama is wrong in saying that no faith teaches people to massacre innocents, he is right in invoking the no true Scotsman metaphor.

[JimC]

Sam Harris is an idiot. The Quoran is no more bloodthirsty than the bible. The difference between Christians and Muslims is that they differ in what they cherry-pick. Today many Muslims focus on the bloodthirsty bits of the Quoran while most Christians look at the lovey-dovey aspects of the Bible. In years gone by the roles were reversed. So, while Obama is wrong in saying that no faith teaches people to massacre innocents, he is right in invoking the no true Scotsman metaphor.

Hermit, I think that there are some differences, even though you are right about the blood-thirsty bits in the bible. Perhaps the differences are not so much in the writings, but the way that each religion spread. Islam has much more of a tradition of conversion via the sword, and many of its modern adherents are very comfortable with that tradition. Modern Christianity has had its teeth pulled by centuries of historical changes that emphasised the primacy of secular rule. Islam has not gone through the same process, and as a consequence, is a much more dangerous religion than others.

[Hermit]

Yes, Jim, all true. What I'm getting at is the tenor of the article: Let's blame the Koran's evil doctrine for the rampant Islamic terrorism. All the nice Muslims are only nice because they ignore their holy book's commands. Yeah, sure, but how is that so different to all the nice Christians? In what way is the Bible any less evil? Hasn't Harris read the fucking book? Even if you ignore the entire Old Testament, there's plenty shit left that's not entirely acceptable to polite society. How many crimes are to be punished by "surely stoned to death?" What about the son of God himself? [Luke 19:27]: Jesus said, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." There's more of that in the NT too.

Nice Christians don't ignore their scriptures any less than nice Muslims. There's just more of the former these days than the latter. This was not always so. So, what makes the difference? I've put it to you that it is not found in books. It lies in history/social and economic developments. Harris is yapping up the wrong tree.

[JimC]

Yes, Jim, all true. What I'm getting at is the tenor of the article: Let's blame the Koran's evil doctrine for the rampant Islamic terrorism. All the nice Muslims are only nice because they ignore their holy book's commands. Yeah, sure, but how is that so different to all the nice Christians? In what way is the Bible any less evil? Hasn't Harris read the fucking book? Even if you ignore the entire Old Testament, there's plenty shit left that's not entirely acceptable to polite society. How many crimes are to be punished by "surely stoned to death?" What about the son of God himself? [Luke 19:27]: Jesus said, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." There's more of that in the NT too.

Nice Christians don't ignore their scriptures any less than nice Muslims. There's just more of the former these days than the latter. This was not always so. So, what makes the difference? I've put it to you that it is not found in books. It lies in history/social and economic developments. Harris is yapping up the wrong tree.

I mostly agree, in the sense that there are plenty of bloodthirsty bits in the bible, although the majority are in the OT, and most modern christians, in practice, ignore it (as they also mostly ignore the occasional nasty bits of the NT you refer to). So, Harris should be looking at how christians and muslims relate to their holy writings more than the writings themselves. The key difference is that the vast majority of currently practicing christians have a very different relationship with the bible than muslims do to the Koran. Both may cherry-pick, but there are no islamic theologians that would dare to dismiss the Koran in the way that modern christian theologians effectively dismiss much of the bible, when they call it allegorical, and not to be taken literally.

So, in practice, islamic theology in the modern world is vastly more likely to be strongly connected to the "convert or die" sections of their writings than modern christian theology will connect to the "suffer not a witch to live" parts of the bible...

[Hermit]

Yes, Jim, all true. What I'm getting at is the tenor of the article: Let's blame the Koran's evil doctrine for the rampant Islamic terrorism. All the nice Muslims are only nice because they ignore their holy book's commands. Yeah, sure, but how is that so different to all the nice Christians? In what way is the Bible any less evil? Hasn't Harris read the fucking book? Even if you ignore the entire Old Testament, there's plenty shit left that's not entirely acceptable to polite society. How many crimes are to be punished by "surely stoned to death?" What about the son of God himself? [Luke 19:27]: Jesus said, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." There's more of that in the NT too.

Nice Christians don't ignore their scriptures any less than nice Muslims. There's just more of the former these days than the latter. This was not always so. So, what makes the difference? I've put it to you that it is not found in books. It lies in history/social and economic developments. Harris is yapping up the wrong tree.

I mostly agree, in the sense that there are plenty of bloodthirsty bits in the bible, although the majority are in the OT, and most modern christians, in practice, ignore it (as they also mostly ignore the occasional nasty bits of the NT you refer to). So, Harris should be looking at how christians and muslims relate to their holy writings more than the writings themselves. The key difference is that the vast majority of currently practicing christians have a very different relationship with the bible than muslims do to the Koran. Both may cherry-pick, but there are no islamic theologians that would dare to dismiss the Koran in the way that modern christian theologians effectively dismiss much of the bible, when they call it allegorical, and not to be taken literally.

So, in practice, islamic theology in the modern world is vastly more likely to be strongly connected to the "convert or die" sections of their writings than modern christian theology will connect to the "suffer not a witch to live" parts of the bible...

In short, Harris is yapping up the wrong tree.

[cronus]

From his perspective he has stepped into the shoes of Hitchens and continues the great struggle for man was born to battle his foes. He ain't no Hitchens though and carries neither emotional intensity nor intellectual rigour enough to bring the troops together into a fighting force. Also he is fighting the wrong enemy in foreign religion, when American educational standards are dropping into nowhere, fast. Leave the God fight to Obama and the politicians - concentrate on education which is the true guardian against religious brainwashing.