The Atheist Book Club discussion
Atheism + Skepticism
>
Are the "New Atheists" Bigoted Tools of Empire?
date
newest »
newest »
And a response from Sam Harris:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/de...
"Yes, I think we should publish this. It might be useful for our readers to see how difficult it is to have an honest conversation about these things, even in private."
BOOM.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/de...
"Yes, I think we should publish this. It might be useful for our readers to see how difficult it is to have an honest conversation about these things, even in private."
BOOM.
I'm not sure what to think. On the one hand, I do agree with Harris that there are legitimate criticisms to be made of Islam and that there are efforts to paint these criticisms as racist. On the other, if Harris supports torture, racial profiling of people who "look Muslim" (which is racist by definition), and military interventions like the Iraq invasion, I do not agree and can see that these may be signs of a problematic way of thinking.
Xox wrote: "Are you sure you are reading this. Sam Harris does not support torture, or racial profiling.
Are you reading Sam Harris books or articles, or some quote mining bullshit?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-har...
"I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror."
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/in...
"We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it."
Are you reading Sam Harris books or articles, or some quote mining bullshit?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-har...
"I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror."
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/in...
"We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it."
Xox wrote: "Well, if Muslims post as a threat, then it is good to target those who are most likely to be the persons who post as threat. From a efficiency view, that's just being effective."
So how will we visually determine who is Muslim?
If it would be by perceived race, then it's an inherently racist system, and race-based discrimination is illegal.
So how will we visually determine who is Muslim?
If it would be by perceived race, then it's an inherently racist system, and race-based discrimination is illegal.
Xox wrote: "Not race. But religious fuckheads of the Islam kind do dress differently, and wear long beard."
This seems like it will still lead to racial discrimination to me, not to mention it perpetuates the notion that all terrorists are Muslim/foreign. Also, correct me if I'm wrong but I think the Muslims who flew planes into the WTC did not wear beards like that or Middle Eastern clothing.
Edit:
How would you have singled them out, if not by race?
This seems like it will still lead to racial discrimination to me, not to mention it perpetuates the notion that all terrorists are Muslim/foreign. Also, correct me if I'm wrong but I think the Muslims who flew planes into the WTC did not wear beards like that or Middle Eastern clothing.
Edit:
How would you have singled them out, if not by race?
i don't like racial profiling either. however, i have two thoughts on this subject:1. how many times have you gone through airport security and they take your ID and your boarding pass and they don't even bother to look at you? this irritates me no end. sure, those two documents match but is it ME that's handing them to you? 80% of the time, the so-called 'security' agent wouldn't be able to tell you because he hasn't looked up.
2. stop pulling aside people like me: a white, middle aged woman is not the demographic of a terrorist. i'm tired of having my hands swabbed, my bags swabbed, my bag subjected to a manual search, and being patted down. i'm convinced that it's not random. they pull me aside for "additional screening" to prove that they are not profiling. it's a stupid waste of time -- not just my time, but theirs as well.
Xox wrote: "Fair or not fair is not the issue. When there is bird flu, everyone check Asians when they cross into the border. It is that kind of things."
Regardless of whether or not that is the case, it would make more sense to check people coming from Asia for whatever reason rather that Asian persons.
Xox wrote: "Is “Islamophobia” Real?"
I get it that Sam Harris' reasons for supporting profiling at airport are not racist, but I think that they would in practice be racist if they are to have the desired effect. As demonstrated above, the only reason the 9/11 hijackers would have been singled out is because of their race. They are not obviously Muslim in dress, which is what Harris suggests using as the basis for profiling for terrorists.
Regardless of whether or not that is the case, it would make more sense to check people coming from Asia for whatever reason rather that Asian persons.
Xox wrote: "Is “Islamophobia” Real?"
I get it that Sam Harris' reasons for supporting profiling at airport are not racist, but I think that they would in practice be racist if they are to have the desired effect. As demonstrated above, the only reason the 9/11 hijackers would have been singled out is because of their race. They are not obviously Muslim in dress, which is what Harris suggests using as the basis for profiling for terrorists.
Xox wrote: "The difficulty is on the implementation. But that's not Sam Harris fault that it is the case."
That is exactly the problem. While it may not be racist in theory (as, I agree, Sam Harris's reasoning was not racist) it would almost certainly become racist in practice.
That is exactly the problem. While it may not be racist in theory (as, I agree, Sam Harris's reasoning was not racist) it would almost certainly become racist in practice.
I read a tweet by Nathan Lean that I found very interesting and says a lot about how he thinks:Nathan Lean @nathanlean
Rep. Peter King says after Boston terrorist attack, all Muslims should be under surveillance. But after Columbine, not all teenagers?
As far as I am aware there are no books with any kind of authority that state that teenagers should kill people and generally I find that most teenagers are pretty well watched anyway.
Surely that is what parenting is mainly about? Watching out for your children as they grow, trying to teach and guide them toward not doing something stupid, and in the most part it seems to work.
I believe it is when vulnerable teenagers and young people are not being guided and supported by good parents and peers, when they are not shown how to behave socially and with respect to others, that thoughts of suicide, murder, terrorism and fundamentalism get a foot hold in their psyche.
But I do accept that sometimes, security has to pay special attention of Asians. Bird flu did affect us first.It may have affected Asians first but that doesn't mean that it won't affect others later, or that other people can't carry it. I agree with Donegal that, if Asians are "deemed worthy" to check, everyone coming from an area known to have an outbreak should be checked.
Also I just have to say that yeah, profiling "Muslims" IS racist. People besides Muslims can grow beards. Not all Muslims have beards. Not all Muslim women wear a chador, burqa, or even a scarf. Some women who are NOT Muslim DO wear the chador, there are men who are NOT Muslim who DO wear robes. There is no way to tell that someone is a Muslim just by looking at them. Why is it that Rep. Peter King wants to surveil ALL Muslims (my first thought upon hearing this is Japanese internment after Pearl Harbor) based on the Boston marathon attack; but Timothy McVeigh was raised Catholic, and says that science is his religion and no one called for the profiling all people who fit that description? Hint: Race has something to do with it. What about profiling all men, since it has been men who have across the board been the culprits of the mass murders of the last 20 years? They've ranged in color and religious beliefs across the spectrum but they've all been male. That's a great idea: surveiling and profiling all men... It makes as much sense as profiling Muslims.
But if Islamists post themselves as threat, it is good that they are being treated accordingly.
There are over a billion Muslims in the world. The vast (vast vast vast vast) majority of them pose no threat whatsoever to US security.
I recommend this to everyone (about Islamophobia): http://muslimreverie.wordpress.com/20...
And this (about race & sex in the athiest movement): http://gretachristina.typepad.com/gre...
Xox wrote: "Muslim is not a race."
I thought we had already established that in practice, if not in theory, profiling of Muslims would be racist? How, if not by race, would Muslims be singled out for special attention? I have already shown that garb and styling typically associated with Muslims are of no help.
I thought we had already established that in practice, if not in theory, profiling of Muslims would be racist? How, if not by race, would Muslims be singled out for special attention? I have already shown that garb and styling typically associated with Muslims are of no help.
New Atheism should be able to criticise Islam without being accused of Islamophobia:
http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/...
http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/...
Xox wrote: "Religious deluded of the Islamic kind is not limited to one race, that's why it is not racists."
Right, that's the "in theory" part. In practice, however, there is no way to distinguish possible Islamic terrorists other than by the traditional cultural garb (which, as demonstrated above, terrorists may not wear) or by their perceived Middle Eastern race. Sam Harris talks about white or otherwise non-Middle Eastern Muslims, but I do not recall him stating how these Muslims might be pulled aside for special scrutiny.
Right, that's the "in theory" part. In practice, however, there is no way to distinguish possible Islamic terrorists other than by the traditional cultural garb (which, as demonstrated above, terrorists may not wear) or by their perceived Middle Eastern race. Sam Harris talks about white or otherwise non-Middle Eastern Muslims, but I do not recall him stating how these Muslims might be pulled aside for special scrutiny.
Xox wrote: Islamophobia is a bullshit word. Not interested.I think that is a close-minded attitude. I read all the things in this thread even though some of them certainly set my BS detector off. I put that aside and tried to hear the underlying message. Which, to me, sounded (and still does sound) racist. Why don't you read the post and judge it on its merits instead of your knee-jerk reaction to the word "Islamophobia"?
Christians can be terrorists too. So can atheists or Hindus or people from any group or race. I'm not sure why you single out Muslims as the single most dangerous group. Most of the mass murderers in US history have been white men. And if you look at the entire world, again, the USA does much more damage to majority Muslim countries than they do to us. I'm betting some of that has to do with racism.
I'm not going to read the last link you posted because it's really easy to go from marginalization of ideas to marginalization of the people who hold those ideas. "Fundamentalists" aren't trying to marginalize gay PEOPLE, they're trying to marginalize gay BEHAVIOR! They're not trying to marginalize WOMEN, they're trying to marginalize the things women do that they don't LIKE!! I mean, seriously? Sure, make the call for rational, science-based viewpoints. I can't condemn that at all. But when you target a group that is already marginalized and single them out for "idea marginalization," if you are at all responsible or decent you will be honest about the consequences, the actual real-life repercussions and discrimination against the people who hold those views.
Xox wrote: "I think it is just common sense. Muslims are not of a single race. We could only tell if he or she is a Muslim if they wear any symbol or when they wear tradition dress."
But as I stated in the comment you were replying to, garb is not a reliable method for determining religion. I refer again to the above photo of the 9/11 hijackers. None of them are wearing the traditional clothing or beards associated with Muslim extremists. How would you have singled them out as Muslims, if not on the basis of their race?
But as I stated in the comment you were replying to, garb is not a reliable method for determining religion. I refer again to the above photo of the 9/11 hijackers. None of them are wearing the traditional clothing or beards associated with Muslim extremists. How would you have singled them out as Muslims, if not on the basis of their race?
I'm not closed minded. I just see thing as it is. A lot of Muslims and fundamentalists Christians say the exact same thing. You didn't want to read my link, but you throw hissy fit when I don't read yours--don't you think that's funny? I do. :D You're definitely right about one thing though--something about this conversation seems to be a waste of time.
Still, I see some harmful and wrong ideas floating around and I'm not going to just say silent about it.
This opinion is base on evidence, and it is not from internal thoughts and ideas. That's why it is not racism.
That doesn't mean it's not racism. Black men make up a hugely disproportionate chunk of US prison populations. This doesn't mean that "the black race" is more prone to criminality than any other race, although based on the "evidence" of the prison population you might assume that. It is in fact people (law enforcement, judicial system, etc. etc. going back to the system of slavery which considered blacks inferior and not even human)'s "internal thoughts and ideas" in the form of prejudice, plus the institutional power & privilege that they have, that build the system of racism as we see it. We live in a super duper complex world, and very rarely is something as simple as you make it out to be.
So, even knowing that Muslims terrorists are in the minority, you treated all Muslims with caution.
Okay, so you admit that Christians have been terrorists. We also know that many terrorists are white. Atheists have been terrorists. All major mass murderers from terrorists to serial killers in the last 20 years have been male. Let's apply your logic to those groups. Even knowing that Christian terrorists are in the minority, you should treat all Christians with caution. Even knowing that white terrorists are in the minority, you should treat all white people with caution. Even knowing that atheists who are terrorists are in the minority, you should treat all atheists with caution. Even knowing that males who are terrorists are in the minority, you should treat all males with caution. Why are you not calling for the profiling of other groups in which a few rogues claim membership? If it really is a security issue, if that is truly the reason you want to profile "Muslims," why aren't you calling for the profiling of atheists?
In the city I live in, I see and interact with Muslims every day. There is nothing in their behavior that sets them apart from any other group, except perhaps that they are more polite and seem happier than your average white US citizen. I see little girls wearing hijabs riding their bikes to school, I see Muslim children waiting for the school bus, I see Muslims shopping in stores. It breaks my heart to think of people profiling these kids. I feel sad and disappointed that that is the best we can do (but I know it's not; I guess I should say I'm disappointed that some people think it's the best we can do). And if I were those kids, not only would I feel sad and disappointed, I would also feel confused and angry. And rightfully so. I don't want to do that to those children or to their parents or to anyone, really.
PS:
Muslims posted a threat to human when they decided to harm human at peace time.
Muslims ARE human. It's not "humans" over here and "Muslims" over here. All Muslims are human, and statements like this, especially when calling for profiling and marginalization of "ideas," dehumanizes people. It's not cool.
Xox wrote: "As for telling them apart, you just cannot tell. So, even knowing that Muslims terrorists are in the minority, you treated all Muslims with caution."
For the umpteenth time, my point is that you can't tell Muslims from non-Muslims, other than on a presumption that Middle Eastern = Muslim. You talk about how white Muslims, but how do you propose to know they are Muslim? And don't say by their clothing, because I have explained several times how unreliable that notion is.
For the umpteenth time, my point is that you can't tell Muslims from non-Muslims, other than on a presumption that Middle Eastern = Muslim. You talk about how white Muslims, but how do you propose to know they are Muslim? And don't say by their clothing, because I have explained several times how unreliable that notion is.
Xox wrote: "For the nth time, you couldn't tell before you talk to them. But with communication, and you do know who they are. "
Nowhere have you suggested that security would ask people for their religion (which is what I assume you mean here), but that is not going to resolve anything. If Muslim extremists know that self-reported Muslims will be selected for extra scrutiny, I think they'll sooner or later figure out to lie about it.
Any other suggestions for sorting out the Muslims?
Nowhere have you suggested that security would ask people for their religion (which is what I assume you mean here), but that is not going to resolve anything. If Muslim extremists know that self-reported Muslims will be selected for extra scrutiny, I think they'll sooner or later figure out to lie about it.
Any other suggestions for sorting out the Muslims?
I think it's you who doesn't get it, Xox. You didn't actually respond to anything I posted. Try this one: Why are you not calling for the profiling of other groups (atheists, for example) in which a few rogues (Tim McVeigh, for example) claim membership?While I think it is the Muslims terrorists that the security professionals have to watch out for, they have more information like if they belong to any Islamic extremist groups.
Here let me fix that for you:
It is the terrorists that the security professionals have to watch out for, like if they belong to any extremist group.
Stop singling out Muslims. Muslims are part of society, not separate from it.
ISLAM isn't the problem, TERRORISM is. Muslims do not have it cornered, bro.
Also: Census information might help a lot for identifying specific groups, especially with random house visits.
Wow. Woooow. Could you clarify what you even mean by that? If you're saying what I think you're saying, it seriously and honestly makes me sick to my stomach.
So to answer the question posed in the title of this thread:YES!
Glad we cleared that up. :)
And actually, refusing to engage in a dialogue has done not one single thing to show me (or anyone else) that anything I've said is, in fact, "bullshit." It's really really easy just to be like, "OMG BULLSHIT," which is what you have done, but you have not shown me how I'm wrong. The fact that you won't even try to answer that one question shows me that that you don't got a leg to stand on.
LOL :D The point is not whether or not "Islam is fucking shit," the point is whether or not people who are Muslims should be profiled and whether or not that has a racial component; that's the discussion that was going on in this thread when I entered (honestly if you guys were sitting around talking about Islam is "fucking shit," I would've shrugged and walked away. Just don't care. I do care about the harm done by profiling groups of people). As an atheist, you probably think that Christianity is shit, too, although you are not calling for the profiling of all Christians, though some people who claim membership in Christianity have indeed committed terrorist acts. Do you see how that is inconsistent?
http://www.alternet.org/belief/are-ne...
What do you think? I don't necessarily agree with all the author's points, but I have found myself increasingly troubled by Sam Harris in the last couple of years.