> > -- <mjackson74@...> wrote : > > The fact that Harris says this "—but it may be the only course of action > > available to us, given what Islamists believe" is more revealing than his > > assertion that he is "against" it. > > His assertion that some Islamists are extremists is true, but that > > obviously does not cover all Muslims. The religion of Islam has been > > hijacked by a minority of very violent and more importantly greedy power > > hungry people. Harris's belief that all the Islamic violence is based on > > religion is naive. I assure you the mullahs and imams who exhort the young > > people to become terrorists and suicide bombers do so in the main because > > it furthers their agenda to gain or maintain wealth and power.
> --- <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : > C: I can't remember if he addresses your point about the religious sincerity > of the Mullahs. You may be right about that. But it is tangential to his > point about the issues with religious beliefs. All countries act in their own > self interest but the ideology of Islam was a game changer at that time. > Their confidence in what happens after death was instrumental in allowing the > guys who flew the planes into the twin towers to act that way. So although > their ultimate motivation at the leadership level may be just as you say, the > followers are being guided by an ideology that allows for women to hide bombs > under burkas at military checkpoints and blow themselves up along with our > solders at that time.It is s direct result of religious ideas about how life > works including a reward system in the afterlife for such behavior. > The other thing religion adds to the human tendency to power grab is to > deflect criticism about the ideas they are spreading because it is shielded > by the "don't criticize religious ideas directly" ban. Harris agrees with > your analysis of the extremists but he places the blame on the moderates for > shielding them behind the odd way we treat religious ideas. If they came out > and said that this part of the Koran is wrong, or if Christians did this with > the Bible we could have a discussion of ideas like we do with everything else > in human knowledge. But both of these books are shielded from direct > criticism by the idea that they are different from all other human produced > literature containing ideas. There are scripture and God's hand was in their > production. And the weird thing is that each religion only accepts their own > god book as authoritative, not the other guy's. But they still protect the > other guy's divine right of non criticism so that people wont challenge the > absurd claim they are making about their own god book. Harris is against this > collusion of ignorance. > If you take out a section of the Bible that advocates slavery and say, this > is stupid and wrong you will be accused of being religiously intolerant > rather than just pointing out a stupid and wrong idea some man wrote. This is > the battle Harris is picking, not the ultimate cynicism about the leader's > motivations. Karl Popper talks about the 'paradox of tolerance'. "If we are tolerant towards everything including intolerance, then tolerance itself will be destroyed. Therefore, we should be tolerant only towards tolerance, and we should be intolerant towards intolerance." "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/ conversations/messages/373838 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/373838
