Interesting podcast conversation between Sam Harris and Charles Murray (of "Bell Curve" fame)

[SlackerInc]

Here’s what Sam Harris had to say on this very topic (I transcribed it myself from a “Waking Up” podcast episode in 2016):

“They’re not religious, they’re perverting a great religion, they’re distorting a great religion." I understand why someone may think it’s pragmatic to talk that way, but if in fact we need to talk that way–otherwise we’re going to produce millions of radicals who think that their religion needs to be defended against the West–that is a statement of a terrifying problem that we need to be thinking about clearly. But otherwise, this is just a lie. The problemis deeper than that. The problem is an all too plausible interpretation of Islam: the “great religion” is yielding this behavior for reasons that are not in the least bit mysterious. The problem is that you can have an imam in an ordinary mosque in Orlando right before this attack preaching the murder of gays (which in fact happened, right: this video is now circulated) and you lie about this reality at your peril–politically, yes: but in every other way–but to continue to obfuscate this issue is simply preparing the ground for ISIS to have a vote in our presidential election.

[…]

I’ll tell you what harms the vast majority of Muslims that love freedom and hate terror: Muslim theocracy does. Muslim intolerance does. Wahabism does. Salafism does. Islamism does. Jihadism does. Sharia law does. The mere conservatism of traditional Islam does. We’re not talking about only jihadists hating homosexuals and thinking they should die, we’re talking about conservative Muslims. The percentage of British Muslims polled who said that homosexuality was morally acceptable was zero. Do you realize what it takes to say something so controversial in a poll that not even 1% of those polled would agree with it?

There’s almost no question that extreme that you will ever see in a poll that gets a zero, but ask British Muslims whether homosexuality is morally acceptable, and that’s what you get. And the result is more or less the same in dozens of other countries. It’s zero in Cameroon, zero in Ethiopia. 1% in Nigeria, 1% in Tanzania, 1% in Mali, 2% in Kenya, 2% in Chad. 1% in Lebanon, 1% in Egypt, 1% in the Palestinian territories, 1% in Iraq, 2% in Jordan, 2% in Tunisia, 1% in Pakistan. But 10% in Bangladesh.

Bangladesh: that bright spot in the Muslim world where they are regularly hunting down and butchering secular writers with machetes.

The people who suffer under this belief system are Muslims themselves. The next generation of human beings born into a Muslim community who could otherwise have been liberal, tolerant, well-educated, cosmopolitan productive people are to one or another degree being taught to aspire to live in the Middle Ages, or to ruin this world on route to some fictional paradise after death. That’s the thing we have to get our heads around. And yes, some of what I just said applies with varying modifications to other religions and other cults. But there is nothing like Islam at this moment for generating this kind of intolerance and chaos.

And if only a right wing demagogue will speak honestly about it, then we will elect right wing demagogues in the West more and more in response to it. And that will be the price of political correctness: that’s when this check will finally get cashed. That will be the consequence of this persistent failure we see among liberals to speak and think and act with real moral clarity and courage on this issue. The root of this problem is that liberals consistently fail to defend liberal values as universal human values. Their political correctness, their multiculturalism, their moral relativism has led them to rush to the defense of theocrats and to abandon the victims of theocracy. And to vilify anyone who calls out this hypocrisy for what it is, as a bigot.

But to be clear, right, and this is what liberals can’t seem to get: speaking honestly about the ideas that inspire Islamism and jihadism–beliefs about martyrdom and apostasy and blasphemy and paradise and honor and women–is not an expression of hatred for Muslims. It is in fact the only way to support the embattled people in the Muslim community: the reformers and the liberals and the secularists and the freethinkers and the gays.

[…]

The words we use matter here because in place of conceptual clarity and moral courage what we are getting from the left is just sanctimony and charges of bigotry.

[…]

And this leaves everyone who’s appropriately worried about jihadism and stealth theocracy, and the way in which our freedom of speech is already being abridged by “the religious sensitivity of a single community the world over”…it leaves these people with nowhere to turn but toward the right, toward their own bullies and even theocrats. And this is happening across Europe and it is happening in the US.

[GIGObuster]

@SlackerInc

Here’s what Sam Harris had to say on this very topic (I transcribed it myself from a “Waking Up” podcast episode in 2016):

I’ll tell you what harms the vast majority of Muslims that love freedom and hate terror: Muslim theocracy does. Muslim intolerance does. Wahabism does. Salafism does. Islamism does. Jihadism does. Sharia law does. The mere conservatism of traditional Islam does. We’re not talking about only jihadists hating homosexuals and thinking they should die, we’re talking about conservative Muslims. The percentage of British Muslims polled who said that homosexuality was morally acceptable was zero. Do you realize what it takes to say something so controversial in a poll that not even 1% of those polled would agree with it?

Of course the first impression is that Sam is wrong or got a very lousy source:

Half of all British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal, poll finds

British Muslims are more likely to feel a stronger connection to Britain than the population at large, according to polling, which also found that more than half think that homosexuality should be illegal.

Extensive polling conducted by ICM suggests that in most cases attitudes held by the British Muslim population do not broadly differ from those held by the population at large, but there are significant differences when it comes to some issues such as homosexuality and women’s rights.

Trevor Phillips, the former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said the findings were “extremely worrying” as they suggested on many issues Muslims were “nation within a nation”.

He called for a more “muscular approach” to integration.

The research suggests that 86% of British Muslims feel a strong sense of belonging in Britain, which is higher than the national average of 83%. A large majority (91%) of the British Muslims who took part in the survey said they felt a strong sense of belonging in their local area, which is higher than the national average of 76%.

Of those questioned, 88% said Britain was a good place for Muslims to live in, and 78% said they would like to integrate into British life on most things apart from Islamic schooling and some laws.

However, when asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed and 52% said they disagreed, compared with 5% among the public at large who disagreed. Almost half (47%) said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher, compared with 14% of the general population.

While the numbers are bad, it actually does make Sam look like an educated ignorant.

And it ignores that there has been progress among Muslims in Britain.

Half of all British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal, poll finds

Shaista Gohir, the chair of the Muslim Women’s Network UK, said interviews with other religious groups such as devout Jews and Christians would probably reveal similar social attitudes to those thrown up by the polling. She said that although any prejudice against gay people was unacceptable, the fact that nearly 50% of Muslims did not think homosexuality should be illegal was a sign that attitudes were shifting.

“Although they may not accept it from a religious point of view, [Muslims] accept that people should be able to have the freedom and right not be discriminated against and and live their lives,” said Gohir, adding that LGBT Muslims were beginning to speak out publicly and increasing numbers of Muslim families were having to come to terms with family members coming out as gay.

She said the findings on women’s issues did not reflect changing attitudes among younger generations of British Muslims, arguing that younger Muslim women were coming to better understand what their rights were according to the teachings of Islam.

Gohir said the findings went against the portrayal in the media of Muslims not feeling proud to be British. “These stereotypes do not reflect the reality of Muslims in Britain,” she said. “It is important to also display these positive attitudes … because that represents the British Muslim majority.”

[iiandyiiii]

Harris actually uses some specifics and isn’t so lazy as to use ignorant broad-brushing, but he still ignores a lot of relevant facts – like that American Muslims are significantly more tolerant of homosexuality than American evangelicals and Mormons. He also gives far too much credit to right-wing demagogues, who don’t speak “honestly” about Islam – rather, they speak ignorantly and hatefully.

The way to “win” this conflict is to ensure that most Muslims see us as welcoming friends rather than fearful of us as enemies. The strategy of the right-wing demagogues ensures that Muslims who value their faith can’t possibly see America and the West as allies, since those demagogues leave no room for Muslims who want to live out their faith peacefully and neighborly. When we welcome Muslims into America, we get cities like Dearborn MI – prosperous and very Americanized communities of immigrants who cooperate with broader society if any hints of violent strains of Islam appear. When we do as Harris (or Trump or Slacker) wishes, we get segregated ghettoes filled with disadvantaged and rightfully bitter immigrants, whose kids are reasonably aggrieved and might see jihadists as far more welcoming than broader society.

I want to defeat the terrorists and jihadists, and thus I’ll reject this obviously counterproductive and foolish strategy of the hateful and ignorant.

[SlackerInc]

I love that a supposed rebuttal contains this paragraph:

Trevor Phillips, the former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said the findings were “extremely worrying” as they suggested on many issues Muslims were “nation within a nation”.

:dubious:

[iiandyiiii]

@SlackerInc

I love that a supposed rebuttal contains this paragraph:

:dubious:

If only they were as welcoming to Muslims as America, they might end up with progressive and tolerant Muslim communities like Dearborn MI. It’s not an accident or random chance that American Muslims are so progressive and tolerant. It’s because (for all the massive faults of America) we’ve done a relatively good job of welcoming Muslims immigrants into broader American society.

[SlackerInc]

Andy is always quick to accuse me of “broad brushing”, but then he blithely lumps me and Sam Harris in with Trump. All of us are the same in his eyes because we don’t share his view of immigration in every respect. That’s not broad brushing? It makes no difference that, for instance, I think the ICE treatment of families is beyond the pale (and Sam probably does too)? Or that I think the demonization of the “caravan” is disgusting demagoguery, and Sam probably feels the same?

[SlackerInc]

@iiandyiiii

If only they were as welcoming to Muslims as America, they might end up with progressive and tolerant Muslim communities like Dearborn MI. It’s not an accident or random chance that American Muslims are so progressive and tolerant. It’s because (for all the massive faults of America) we’ve done a relatively good job of welcoming Muslims immigrants into broader American society.

I think it’s more likely that it’s because we got a different group of Muslims than Europe did, by and large. But I don’t have any data on that. Do you? You haven’t offered any.

ETA: I’d bet dollars to donuts that your “so progressive and tolerant” American Muslims are only those adjectives in relative terms, compared to other Muslims around the world. I doubt that on average they are as progressive as the average resident of Vermont.

[iiandyiiii]

@SlackerInc

Andy is always quick to accuse me of “broad brushing”, but then he blithely lumps me and Sam Harris in with Trump. All of us are the same in his eyes because we don’t share his view of immigration in every respect. That’s not broad brushing? It makes no difference that, for instance, I think the ICE treatment of families is beyond the pale (and Sam probably does too)? Or that I think the demonization of the “caravan” is disgusting demagoguery, and Sam probably feels the same?

We’re talking specifically about Muslim immigration.

But apologies; I always forget how much of a little snowflake whiner you are sometimes… here’s your special credit for being not as utterly abominable a human as Trump.

[iiandyiiii]

@SlackerInc

I think it’s more likely that it’s because we got a different group of Muslims than Europe did, by and large. But I don’t have any data on that. Do you? You haven’t offered any.

So Muslims can have widely varying beliefs, and shouldn’t be broad-brushed? Hallelujah! Maybe you are capable of learning!

[GIGObuster]

@SlackerInc

I love that a supposed rebuttal contains this paragraph:

:dubious:

I remember that when they found that Obama mentioned a rate of bankruptcies that was actually half of what he mentioned, it was taken by the fact checkers then as a being a lie.

It is a worse lie indeed when Harris has to harp on a number being zero, when the actual numbers are way off of what he is trying to demonstrate.

[tomndebb]

@SlackerInc

So the 1/3 of the wall already built has destroyed a third of the environment? I find it doubtful this would hurt as much as all the subdivisions and parking lots built in your average week.

This is more silly nonsense. I simply declared it disastrous. You have changed that to imply that I claimed that it would destroy the environment. I would consider the sort of events and effects that scientists have addressed disastrous. And while I would not claim that it has destroyed the environment, it has already caused great (disastrous) harm.

@SlackerInc

That too seems unlikely. Do you really think the U.S. in 2018 cannot build a border wall as well as East Germany nearly 60 years ago? Theirs was quite effective, even if the direction of movement was the opposite.

“Quite effective” is simply weasel words. Neither the much shorter East German wall nor the even shorter Israeli wall has successfully stopped border crossings and the wall that is being built has no mysterious super power to prevent crossings.

Since you are simply posturing with no serious effort at a genuine discussion, I will leave you to the trolling on this subject that you seem to enjoy.

[SlackerInc]

Balderdash. I posted substantive responses to your claims, and you dismiss them as not being a “serious effort at a substantive discussion.” :rolleyes:

I’ll note that the East German wall went across the whole border with West Germany, not just in Berlin; and that the Israeli wall has actually been effective (though I don’t believe it was right to annex the territory they effectively did).

[rat_avatar]

Yet the white terrorists in this country feel like “heros” going on their jihad, and Trump is calling for a jihad against immigration right now.

‘Saviors of the white race’: Perpetrators of hate crimes see themselves as...

Maybe ignorant bigots are just the same despite what got they pray for.

[rat_avatar]

@SlackerInc

Balderdash. I posted substantive responses to your claims, and you dismiss them as not being a “serious effort at a substantive discussion.” :rolleyes:

I’ll note that the East German wall went across the whole border with West Germany, not just in Berlin; and that the Israeli wall has actually been effective (though I don’t believe it was right to annex the territory they effectively did).

Manned by up to 50,000 armed East German guards over 866 mi or about 60 guards per mile or one guard for about every 90 feet.

A simple guest worker program would get rid of almost all of our southern illegal immigration at a much lower costs.

But that wont’ help with your “scary Muslim” fears.

[SlackerInc]

Let’s not lose the plot. If I were Senate Majority Leader, I wouldn’t bring up a wall project for a vote. ** I oppose the idea.** I’m only saying that one has to pick one’s battles, and that’s a poor choice of a hill to die on. It’s a relatively harmless waste of money that won’t ever get finished. Or if it does, that means we have a lot of other much worse problems (because it will mean that Democrats failed to take back the House or any branch of government over the next decade or more).

[rat_avatar]

@SlackerInc

Let’s not lose the plot. If I were Senate Majority Leader, I wouldn’t bring up a wall project for a vote. ** I oppose the idea.** I’m only saying that one has to pick one’s battles, and that’s a poor choice of a hill to die on. It’s a relatively harmless waste of money that won’t ever get finished. Or if it does, that means we have a lot of other much worse problems (because it will mean that Democrats failed to take back the House or any branch of government over the next decade or more).

Except that it legitimizes the “white genocide” myth and perpetuates stereotypes against people who happen to be Hispanic.

As a white dude I am not surprised that you don’t get why this is an issue, heck I didn’t know until Hispanic friends were willing to be honest with me about it.

In general it is easy to be “OK” with bigotry when you aren’t the target of it.

[MrDibble]

@SlackerInc

try to dress it up in this grandiose, self-righteous Manichaean verbiage.

Well, someone does that, that’s for sure.

[MrDibble]

@Alessan

Correlation may not prove causation, but that stated, I have a rule of thumb: anyone who hates anyone, also hates Jews. Hates blacks? Anti-Semite. Hates immigrants? Anti-Semite. Hates gays? Anti-Semite. Hates Muslims? Also probably anti-Semite. It’s not true in 100% of the time, but it’s close enough.

Well, obviously, “hates Nazis” is the big exception

[MrDibble]

@Kimstu

It wasn’t the mere physical existence of the Berlin Wall itself that provided an effective (although still not 100% effective) barrier to movement. It was the fact that the wall was so heavily guarded 24 hours a day, with several guard towers per mile and a total force of some ten thousand guards, along with landmines and other barrier reinforcements.

Also, apervasive secret police presence on the Eastern side, to get to people before they could even try. “One agent per 6.5 people” gets you quite a bit of advanced warning.

[MrDibble]

@MrDibble

Well, obviously, “hates Nazis” is the big exception

Except for Stalin…