My god is better than your god. Lets kill each other over it.

Religion of all kinds.. Christianity and Islam are both equally deluded and ridiculous.

Sounds like a man trying to sell some books to me... not sure i hear anything beyond that...

What drives these people to blow themselves up is not rooted in Islam, it's rooted in conflict and it's driven by a quest for social justice. Suicide bombing and terrorism would still exist in a world devoid of any religious belief as long as military oppression/agitation/social injustice persists.

To scapegoat religion as the primary driving force for these brutal acts is shallow. Sam's argument is so devoid of any sense of Middle Eastern history or social and political context that it reeks of the same dogma he's so disgusted by.

I couldn't agree with you more SpeveO. I was thinking the same thing while watching the video.

I just can't see religion at the centerpoint of this thing. I can see religion as a means of blindly justifying the "cause" and to perpetuate it all, but not as the sole reason.

What exactly is "social justice" as opposed to regular ol' justice... can someone enlighten me?
If i had to guess from the context i mostly hear it used it, it seems to be interchangeable with "envy".

^communism.

Good positions expressed in the video. All this stems from the plague of tolerance infecting the otherwise more enlightened communities of the world. Simple minds look at the bad effects of misdirected intolerance in the past and blame the wrong part of the equation.

Intolerant fuckheads fuck everything up because they're fuckheads, not because they're intolerant.

"Suicide bombing and terrorism would still exist in a world devoid of any religious belief as long as military oppression/agitation/social injustice persists."

Perceived social injustice will always exist, but there's a stark difference in outcomes between the cultures that value violence as a means of making their situation more agreeable, vs. those that value economic development (e.g. India, Singapore).

Just as much social injustice (your term) exists in India as exists in Pakistan.

The point is not to defend abhorrent behaviors and violence, they are indefensible. But one should not abdicate other factors that heavily contribute to their being in the first place. It's a question of responsibility, and far more complex forces are responsible for the conflict with the 'Islamic' world than religion alone.

>> ^honkeytonk73:
My god is better than your god. Lets kill each other over it.
Religion of all kinds.. Christianity and Islam are both equally deluded and ridiculous.


While I agree they're both false, it's possible for some false ideas to be more dangerous than others. Maybe they're not equal in that manner. While we need to get over all religion and superstition eventually, I think it's fine to focus on one sometimes.

agreed speveO.
the first thing thing that should have given anyone pause before watching this video----tucker carlson.
while i found mr harris argument as a whole vapid and totally lacking imagination,he did bring up an interesting point that maybe guitarwolf was trying to point out to us all.and that is many "liberals" don't understand religious fundamentalism.that there is a percentage of the human population that
believes the "bible" "torah" or the "quran" are the literal words of the creator,
and that the dogma of the semetic triad is absolute in it's perfection and righteousness.
this kind of zealotry may explain the execution of a cartoonist,or an abortion clinic doctor,these incidents,while getting huge amounts of attention,are fairly small in scope relative to the bigger picture.
religious fundamentalism may be the rationalization of suicide bombers and other geurrilla war tactics,but it is the seeking of social justice for those who have been given no other option.for those who have been oppressed,brutalized,tortured while the world largely looks the other way.
religion is not the REASON,its the rationalization.
fundamentalism at its core is a stagnation of the mind,stifles growth as a society and leaves people open to manipulation and exploitation.
and as long as the world looks the other way and dismisses the impoverished,these people will always be vulnerable to indoctrination of many forms,religious fundamentalism being only one facet.
take away the voice of those who are being exploited,oppressed and abused.
they WILL find a way to fight back,and be heard.
religion is only one small part of the dynamic,take it out of the equation and there STILL will be violent reactions from those who have had hope stripped from their lives.
mr harris quantifying his argument on "liberals" misunderstanding of "fundamentalism" by premising his entire argument on religion is laughable.
because his argument is one big straw man,and totally ignores the very REAL threats of the world today.
mr harris should hang his head in shame for such a pathetic argument.
that being said,and those being my feelings.
mr harris is selling his book,and he really just echoing a premise that has been used by many,for many years.
this fact is something i find saddening,because it just re-iterates a faulty premise to excuse those who have allowed the silencing of so many and are the ones truly responsible.
truly heartbreaking,and mr harris is guilty of keeping the "status-quo" narrative going.
and so the cycle continues........................................
till next time...peace

The flawed reasoning based on religious axioms is at the heart of this conflict. But of course, that is not the only reason there's a war.

Religion is laughably false, but only laughable from an intellectual standpoint. The effects of religion are not laughable at all.

>> ^enoch:
take away the voice of those who are being exploited,oppressed and abused.
they WILL find a way to fight back,and be heard.

That's exactly the kind of deaf irrationalism Harris is talking about.

In 50 years, India is going to have made enormous progress, just as Singapore did in the last 50 years, while the countries that listen to bleeding heart liberals who say violence is their birthright if they're not as well off as other nations will be just as undeveloped as they are today.

Good sift or not, why MUST it be that i SEE this? Am I the 1,000,000th visitor to the site or something?

Sorry, but that "MUST SEE" bit in the title bugged me, even before I watched the video.

I'll shut up now and go watch it.

Singapore ? Is this the best example you could come up with ? Come on

You think that violence is much more of a culture in the Muslim world then in Orient as opposed to economic prosperity. Their "cultural" difference may as well be the result of history as opposed to being it's cause. Ain't the tradition of commerce and trade ingrained in the Muslim culture ? Wasn't Mohammed itself a trader ? Ain't violence really NEVER a means of (national) economic prosperity ? Talk of this to the U.S. and it's neo-colonial warfare or of those country that seeks their national independence like... well the U.S. What? You want to nail down economic progress in their mind with an hammer ? Economic opportunity may as well been the factor to explain this cultural difference as giving them economic opportunity may be the solution.

What could be a better example then... well Singapore the trading port of Asia.

And how the heck WAR on terror is supposed to help this culture of economic prosperity. And ain't Malaysia the best example above India, Thailand, ... of peace and prosperity, a Muslim country.

I'm not sure where your scorn for Singapore comes from. It's used as an example because when it declared independence in 1965 it was the ultimate underdog, lacking all assets considered necessary to form a viable nation-state.

Under the far left's view of the world, they should have begged for western charity and taken up arms against whatever historical forces resulted in their situation. Because they didn't, today they're wealthier per capita than the US and their former colonial ruler, Britain. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Human ingenuity. Go figure.

«Singapore would become one of the most important commercial and military centres of the British Empire, and the hub of British power in Southeast Asia.»

« When the Communist Party of Malaya tried to take over Malaya and Singapore by force, a state of emergency was declared in June 1948. The emergency lasted for 12 years. Towards the end of 1953, the British government appointed a commission under Sir George Rendel to review Singapore's constitutional position and make recommendations for change. The Rendel proposals were accepted by the government and served as the basis of a new constitution that gave Singapore a greater measure of self-government. »

«The PAP had come to power in a united front with the communists to fight British colonialism. The communists controlled many mass organizations, especially of workers and students. It was an uneasy alliance between the PAP moderates and the pro communists, with each side trying to use the other for its own ultimate objective--in the case of the moderates, to obtain full independence for Singapore as part of a non-communist Malaya; in the case of the communists, to work towards a communist take-over.»

The PAP finally struck an independence deal with the British. Go figure. (S'pore is since a member of the Commonwealth.)

«Singapore's strategy for survival and development was essentially to take advantage of its strategic location and the favourable world economy. »

Not to mention that Singapore as an HEAVILY interventionist government - which practice eugenics o_0.

Non-violence ? Yearn for economic success? Ingenuity ? or History ?

reference
http://asnic.utexas.edu/asnic/countries/singapore/Singapore-History.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore

... i cant seem to make it to the arrows... too much pompous ass in the way...

Tell me that this was taken from the archives, cause I don't think I could stomach it to know that Tucker is back on the air.

>> ^SpeveO

I take it from your downvote that you think I'm wrong in guessing it means "envy". It would be nice if you'd explain a bit further than that though.

Social justice is a concept of justice, envy is an emotion. In my original context 'envy' doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If what you are implying is that a small portion of the Islamic world resorts to violence because they are envious of western countries, it smacks of George Bush's "They hate us because we are free" and it's naive and flat out wrong.

And no I'm not saying that suicide bombing and terrorism are an attribute of social justice movements either, but that the acts are rationalised by the perpetrators as a form of social justice, albeit a perverted version of it. They are not purely questing to fulfill some distorted interpretation of the Koran, social and political conditions also contribute heavily to fermenting their behavior.

Sam Harris's myopic view on this issue doesn't advance the discourse on this subject at all. I understand where Sam is coming from, but it's culminated in a knee jerk reaction to a far more complex affair than his ranting ever seems to allude to.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'sam harris, religion, islam, liberals, dogma' to 'sam harris, religion, islam, liberals, dogma, tucker carlson' - edited by doogle

I don't think Bush's statement is THAT wrong & naive. The Muslim fundamentalists certainly hate the cartoonist Kurt Westergaard because he is free, ie, free of Muslim dogma regarding cartoons. The Palestinians hate the Israelis for a completely different reason though.

I agree that social & political aspects play a huge part as well as religion in the Gaza troubles, I just want to point out that there are subtle distinctions between "justice", "social justice" and "fairness" and so on, but that these terms are used more or less interchangeably in the media.

Fairness, for one, belongs in games & sports. Despite this, It's often heard in regard to the Israel-Palestine conflict as the argument "The Israelis are evil because they have such powerful weapons. The Palestinians don't stand a chance". Clearly a silly argument.

Social Justice, as I've so far understood it, carries overtones of a sense of justice extraneous to the legal system, but by which people somehow are entitled to be treated. Usually this is heard in the context of social inequality, as an argument for redistribution. This is why I call it envy.

I don't understand it the way you use it though.

It's reasonable to say that they're acting violently out of poverty & desperation, but how does that have anything to do with justice?

Sam Harris needs to bring something new to the table. It has been like 5 years since 'The End of Faith' and whenever he talks about Islam is the same thing over and over. Boring.

PS: There are other atheists and philosophers other than Harris and Hitchens (*gasp) may we please bring more variety?

^But Islam and other religions haven't changed at all. Why does the critiques have to "ring more variety"? It's not that the arguments are bad, it's that they are not heard.

How many times can you say that 2+2 is not 73?