It has nothing to do with how many or which people believe them. It has to do with the lack of tolerance, humility, or nuance.
Pam Gellar and Frank Gaffney style views – that Islam and all Muslims are an existential threat to America and the west, and that it’s not possible for Muslims to live as peaceful people in the west, and similar views, are “extreme”, and Hirsi Ali shares some of these views, IIRC. She broad brushes and doesn’t confine her criticism to extremist Muslims – she puts all Muslims and Islam as a whole into this threatening, “evil” category.
How many Muslims have you actually talked to in your life?
I can read just fucking fine, and I read in your OP your counterfactual claim that these people were added to the list of hate groups. This is not a claim that was made in the Atlantic article, though I can’t speak for Harris’s Podcast, and I don’t really care to listen to find out whether that was where you got it from. I know very little of Sam Harris, other than he is an atheist that people like to complain about.
Do you refuse to acknowledge that there is a difference between a hate-group and a Anti-Muslim speaker? Do you refuse to acknowledge that you claimed that the SPLC put them onto the “hate-group” list, when in fact, it was a completely different list, kept for entirely different reasons? Do you continue to claim that that is correct?
As you claim that your information did not come from right wing sources, I ask you where you did in fact get this information that is incorrect and misleading? It could have come from the harris broadcast that you listened to, but that would mean that that sources of news (though not right wing) is lying to or at least misleading you. If it did not come from the podcast, then that means that you just made it up yourself. I don’t know that that is all that much better.
I have seen this reported with a “look how silly atheists and the SPLC” are vibe at Christian Times . com, I have seen it also on atheistic groups, but the one I did see in Patheos willfully ignored several reasons the SPLC gives and concentrated on the weakest point.
I do doubt a lot about claims that you figured this out on your own, and you are still missing the point: the SPLC did not put the ones you are talking about in the list of hateful organizations, only that they are individually saying stuff that besides being nonsensical as well as hateful.
And again, there is nothing more discrediting than putting one’s opinion in the Daily Mail.
I’ve met plenty. But I don’t project my personal experience drawn from a small sample size onto what’s going on in the world, or the large population clusters of them.
Jesus. The reading comprehension deficits around here are truly pitiful. I learned about it on Sam Harris’s podcast. Just like I said in the first sentence of my OP. I learned about it on Sam Harris’s podcast. I learned about it on Sam Harris’s podcast. I learned about it on Sam Harris’s podcast. What does it take to get this through to you guys? And what would it even mean for me to have “learned about it on my own”? Like, through a psychic vision or something? 
That is a misuse of the word “extreme”. You are using it as a synonym for “ideology I strongly oppose, and consider odious”. But that is not what the word means. If it were, I could call the Texas Legislature’s cuts to Medicaid for disabled children “extreme”. But they are not. They are awful, but hardly extreme in American politics.
Then you should stop listening to Harris’s podcasts, because he lied to you.
OK so not only does the Global Gender Gap Report make the bottom 10 countries all Islam countries, the Gender Inequality Index has 7 of the bottom countries as Muslim, the SIGI from OECD has 8 of 10 of the bottom being Muslim, this could go on forever. Stop defending the indefensible.
I still want to see someone claim with a straight face that any more than a tiny fraction of the world’s Muslim-born women can live as single gals on their own, and be sexually active atheists and not shy about it (basically, being like your average female Bernie Sanders supporter), without putting themselves in very serious danger.
You just project your bigotry onto millions and billions of people.
That’s actually worse.
:sigh:, again: Read the list again, the SPLS is not putting them in the hate groups list, but in an article about Anti-Muslim Extremists, Not hate groups as your OP insisted, that line BTW did come from Harris and others, not you.
That is called a red herring BTW.
That one can be threatened by the Muslim radicals does not take away the main point, hateful language can come from people that claim to have a reason for saying so, but it does not give one the power of making those words to be logical or good.
It’s not a red herring, it’s the central point. The reason modern day Muslim women cannot live the way Western women can is not because of “radicals”, but because of the hoi polloi who make up the majority of the world’s Muslims. This is what Hirsi Ali points out, and gets demonized for. It’s no different from a Western feminist pointing out “rape culture” all around us, except that the oppressive patriarchal and misogynystic culture in the Islamic world is far, far more pervasive and egregious.
How often is Christianity as a whole, and all practicing Christians blamed for rape culture?
If someone makes the claim that Christianity promotes rape, how long do you keep listening to them? How long before you have to say, no, that’s not what we believe?
Except that in many Islamic communities, modern day women can indeed live how western women do. In many communities they cannot. Why not just be specific, rather that tar them all?
Which is just another example of the broad brushing that is a big part of this.
“We”? Wow, I guess you really don’t know who Sam Harris is, or even Irsi Ali for that matter. I, like the two of them, am not a Christian but an atheist. And I consider all religions, including Christianity, fatuous at best. The evidence is clear, however, that in the West, even if you are raised by fundamentalist Christians or Mormons or conservative Catholics with a sexually repressive and misogynistic ideology, you can turn 18, give your parents the finger, and go move to a big city (without having to move to a different country–an important distinction) and let your freak flag fly, without a serious risk of violence or repression.
So even the most conservative Christians are relatively toothless in terms of inflicting their backwards values on consenting adults–and getting more and more so all the time. They haven’t lost all power, of course; and when they push back a bit with things like the “bathroom law” or the one in Indiana, progressives rightly read them the riot act. However, the same progressives commit severe hypocrisy by turning a blind eye to the far, far greater level of oppression and misogyny in the Muslim world. If Muslims had the exact same ideology and practices but were generally blue-eyed and found across the north–say, in Scandinavia and northern Russia–there’s no way Western progressives would give them a pass.
I think you need to be more specific. First of all, let’s get more specific than “live how western women do”. If we’re talking about a typical married woman with kids in Provo, then sure: plenty of women in predominantly Muslim countries can live that way.
But how about a tattooed, pierced 25 year old Wiccan polyamorous lesbian who frequents GLBT bars? Can women in the Islamic world live that way? What percentage of them, would you say?
And what would Western progressives say about a social movement in our country that made it so you could *maybe *live a Mary Tyler Moore type single gal life, but you could certainly not get by with this tattooed lesbian lifestyle? Would that be good enough, moderate enough, for progressives? 'Tis to laugh. What a double standard.
No, I meant just what I said. I do not find all extreme positions odious.
There are plenty of Islamic communities in which women can live that way. Maybe not the majority, but that’s the fault of specific interpretations of Islam, not Islam as a whole. We should be championing progressive Muslim communities like Dearborn, MI, to show that we don’t see the entire religion as our enemy - just those individuals and interpretations that are violent extremists.
So, just to be clear: by “maybe not the majority”, you mean “a tiny minority, way less than one percent of the world’s Muslims”? Also, I was asking what percentage of women born to Muslim families in predominantly Muslim countries could live the way I described. Since the U.S. is very far from being a predominantly Muslim country, and the example you gave was Dearborn, I take it you are implicitly acknowledging that the real answer to my question is “0.0%”.