Reza Aslan, Ben Affleck, Bill Maher and Sam Harris walk into a bar... (Atheism, Islam and liberalism: This is what we are really fighting about)

[untermensche]

I don't think beat up on people gets us anywhere.

Yes, Affleck was trying to be intimidating with his pumped up Batman body.

But I still think Harris neglects the real problems which are economic and political and focuses on his hobby horse, religion itself.

 

[Perspicuo]

But why do the fundamentalists have such power? Enabled by the religion, of course. Once you elevate a medieval Mein Kampf to the level of the sacred and of the oh-so-fcking-true-my-balls-just-fell-off, prepare for all hell breaking loose.

They don't have power just because they have this amazing religion that gets it for them.

Ever since oil was found in the region the West has carried out activities that have fueled and enabled fundamentalism. From supporting the Saudi dictatorship, to installing the Shah, to supporting fundamentalists in the fight against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, to the diplomatic cover of Israeli crimes and theft at the UN, to the invasion of Iraq, and countless other things, all these things have greatly increased the power of fundamentalists.

Look at the hysteria in the US after 911.

Iraq underwent hundreds of 911's. The violence did nothing but strengthen extreme fundamentalists.

The problem is the power of fundamentalists and the power of religion in general. The problem is not any particular religion.

Sure, there has been oil for millions of years. That's why the Muslims conquered 90% of all the Christian Mediterranean, steamrolled northern India, etc. Oil! Let's not forget the Esso Standard Oil-financed Crusades!

That's quite a tired old discourse, blaming all evil in the world on one portion of it. It's the modern, Communist-inspired version of the noble savage. The West is to be blamed for everything. No one is responsible for their assholery because it's all imported from the Prime Mover of all wickedness in the world.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

All the evil in the world is not in nor does it flow from the West.

And at the same time, the West doesn't get to be the bully on the block, take all the benefits from being the bully on the block, and then not own how it got to be the bully.

 

[untermensche]

Sure, there has been oil for millions of years. That's why the Muslims conquered 90% of all the Christian Mediterranean, steamrolled northern India, etc. Oil! Let's not forget the Esso Standard Oil-financed Crusades!

That's quite a tired old discourse, blaming all evil in the world on one portion of it. It's the modern, Communist-inspired version of the noble savage. The West is to be blamed for everything. No one is responsible for their assholery because it's all imported from the Prime Mover of all wickedness in the world.

You do understand that the modern history of Western encroachment into the region begins in about 1938 with the discovery of large amounts of oil in Saudi Arabia?

What I am claiming is that fundamentalists have gained extreme power following these encroachments, like installing the Shah and invading Iraq and supporting a monarchy in Saudi Arabia.

This isn't about blaming all the evils in the world on US. It is about assigning the US the blame for the rise in fundamentalist power that happened following it's misguided attempts to use force to control oil in the region.

The fact that Islamic fundamentalists exist is not the fault of the West. The fact they have so much power in the region is.

 

[dystopian]

You do understand that the modern history of Western encroachment into the region begins in about 1938 with the discovery of large amounts of oil in Saudi Arabia?

Really? What history book did you take that from? The west has a *long* history in the middle-east, that far predates the 20th century. Even looking at just Saudi Arabia, western encroachment clearly predates 1938; Britain and France intervened in 1916 to help create a pan-arabic state as part of their efforts to undermine the Ottoman Empire. When the Ottoman Empire was partitioned in 1918, the British and French reneged on their promises to the people they were backing, and instead backed the Saudi dynasty just a few years later. The lack of large-scale involvement in Arabia prior to the 20th century has nothing to do with oil not having been discovered in quantity and everything to do with the fact the Ottomans were in the way.

The fact that Islamic fundamentalists exist is not the fault of the West. The fact they have so much power in the region is.

I wouldn't say they're entirely to be blamed for that; though they certainly haven't helped matters.

 

[untermensche]

Really? What history book did you take that from? The west has a *long* history in the middle-east, that far predates the 20th century. Even looking at just Saudi Arabia, western encroachment clearly predates 1938; Britain and France intervened in 1916 to help create a pan-arabic state as part of their efforts to undermine the Ottoman Empire. When the Ottoman Empire was partitioned in 1918, the British and French reneged on their promises to the people they were backing, and instead backed the Saudi dynasty just a few years later. The lack of large-scale involvement in Arabia prior to the 20th century has nothing to do with oil not having been discovered in quantity and everything to do with the fact the Ottomans were in the way.

I said the MODERN history of Western encroachment.

Once oil was found the encroachment had an overarching and definitive purpose and goal.

The fact that Islamic fundamentalists exist is not the fault of the West. The fact they have so much power in the region is.

I wouldn't say they're entirely to be blamed for that; though they certainly haven't helped matters.

Worse than not helped.

The imposition of the Shah directly led to fundamentalists gaining control of Iran. Before that encroachment to save control of oil Iran was moving away from fundamentalism.

Saudi Arabia is a huge fountainhead of support for fundamentalism.

The invasion if Iraq has increased the power of fundamentalism in that country dramatically considering there was next to none before the invasion.

The lust to control oil and profit off the sale of oil in any way has directly led to a huge amount of power in the hands of fundamentalists.

The problem is not Islam. If US Christian fundamentalists had any real power they would cause all kinds of problems too. We would have a modern Inquisition.

 

[Perspicuo]

Sure, there has been oil for millions of years. That's why the Muslims conquered 90% of all the Christian Mediterranean, steamrolled northern India, etc. Oil! Let's not forget the Esso Standard Oil-financed Crusades!

That's quite a tired old discourse, blaming all evil in the world on one portion of it. It's the modern, Communist-inspired version of the noble savage. The West is to be blamed for everything. No one is responsible for their assholery because it's all imported from the Prime Mover of all wickedness in the world.

You do understand that the modern history of Western encroachment into the region begins in about 1938 with the discovery of large amounts of oil in Saudi Arabia?

What I am claiming is that fundamentalists have gained extreme power following these encroachments, like installing the Shah and invading Iraq and supporting a monarchy in Saudi Arabia.

This isn't about blaming all the evils in the world on US. It is about assigning the US the blame for the rise in fundamentalist power that happened following it's misguided attempts to use force to control oil in the region.

The fact that Islamic fundamentalists exist is not the fault of the West. The fact they have so much power in the region is.

I'm glad you reconsidered on it not being the fault of the West. I still see you blame Washington DC and not on faith.

I'm sorry, I don't see any historians blaming the fanaticism of the Inquisition on Islam, even though the damage done to Christendom by Islam was immensely worse.

And how do you explain no Mexican intifada or Mexican ISIS even if the US took 50% of Mexican territory. Which is only one item of a long list of conquests with no intifadas.

The ingredient is blind faith. Islam is the reason for ISIS as much as Christianity is the reason for bombing abortion clinics and beating up gay kids.

 

[untermensche]

I'm glad you reconsidered.

I didn't. My first position is that power in the hands of fundamentalists is the problem.

That is still my position.

And the fact that fundamentalists have so much power is directly related to violent and other kinds of incursions to control oil and make profits from selling oil.

The US government is the muscle and protection force of big oil.

 

[Perspicuo]

Based on what evidence?

I have mine: Islamic fundamentalism (which has always been very political, and very scripturally so) is many centuries older than 1776.



Your turn.

 

[untermensche]

Based on what evidence?

I have mine: Islamic fundamentalism (which has always been very political, and very scripturally so) is many centuries older than 1776.



Your turn.

We are not talking about the existence of Islamic fundamentalists.

We are talking about the real world power of Islamic fundamentalists.

Remember when Christian fundamentalists had power. We call it the Dark Ages.

The problem is Islamic fundamentalists have too much real world power in the region.

The fundamentalist states of Iran and Saudi Arabia represent a lot of real world power.

And this is largely due to Western interference since about 1938.

 

[Perspicuo]

Based on what evidence?

I have mine: Islamic fundamentalism (which has always been very political, and very scripturally so) is many centuries older than 1776.



Your turn.

We are not talking about the existence of Islamic fundamentalists.

We are talking about the real world power of Islamic fundamentalists.

Remember when Christian fundamentalists had power. We call it the Dark Ages.

The problem is Islamic fundamentalists have too much real world power in the region.

The fundamentalist states of Iran and Saudi Arabia represent a lot of real world power.

And this is largely due to Western interference since about 1938.

I'm still waiting.

But while I wait, a counter-argument: the difference ISIS is that it's modern, which goes well with it's surroundings in a modern world. This is just an iteration. It's success is far greater than Al Qaida which is an improvement over Hamas and so on. One more step in the cultural arms race powered by faith. Before that the Ottomans, before that the crusaders, before that... Nothing new. I find the fact you are deciding on one of those causes as the prime mover of this mess --a cause which is very recent in a long history of fundamentalist religion gone political-- quite capricious.

 

[untermensche]

We are not talking about the existence of Islamic fundamentalists.

We are talking about the real world power of Islamic fundamentalists.

Remember when Christian fundamentalists had power. We call it the Dark Ages.

The problem is Islamic fundamentalists have too much real world power in the region.

The fundamentalist states of Iran and Saudi Arabia represent a lot of real world power.

And this is largely due to Western interference since about 1938.

I'm still waiting.

But while I wait, a counter-argument: the difference ISIS is that it's modern, which goes well with it's surroundings in a modern world. This is just an iteration. It's success is far greater than Al Qaida which is an improvement over Hamas and so on. One more step in the cultural arms race powered by faith. Before that the Ottomans, before that the crusaders, before that... Nothing new. I find the fact you are deciding on one of those causes as the prime mover of this mess --a cause which is very recent in a long history of fundamentalist religion gone political-- quite capricious.

It has been answered. You just don't like the answer.

What is your answer to the US support of Saudi Arabia? A major contributor to Islamic fundamentalists in the region.

ISIS grew from the violence upon the region incurred by the US.

No US invasion of Iraq, no ISIS.

The fact that US slave traders fought with Muslim slave traders a long time ago has nothing to do with the level of power of Islamic fundamentalists today. That is directly related to incursion by the West.

 

[Perspicuo]

I'm still waiting.

But while I wait, a counter-argument: the difference ISIS is that it's modern, which goes well with it's surroundings in a modern world. This is just an iteration. It's success is far greater than Al Qaida which is an improvement over Hamas and so on. One more step in the cultural arms race powered by faith. Before that the Ottomans, before that the crusaders, before that... Nothing new. I find the fact you are deciding on one of those causes as the prime mover of this mess --a cause which is very recent in a long history of fundamentalist religion gone political-- quite capricious.

It has been answered. You just don't like the answer.

What is your answer to the US support of Saudi Arabia? A major contributor to Islamic fundamentalists in the region.

ISIS grew from the violence upon the region incurred by the US.

No US invasion of Iraq, no ISIS.

The fact that US slave traders fought with Muslim slave traders a long time ago has nothing to do with the level of power of Islamic fundamentalists today. That is directly related to incursion by the West.

Again, you state it, but you give nothing that would serve as evidence.

I do. My conception better explains the evidence that:
(1) Islamic political, conquest-oriented fundamentalism predates AD 700 and continues today: the Abbasids, Fatimids, Almoravids, Seljukids, Ajuuraan, Mughals, Safavids, Ottomans, Hamas, Al Qaeda and ISIS;
(2) That they cite religious motives and use religious motives to incite fanatical adhesion in their fighters;
(3) That their policies applied where they govern are sharia-based;
(4) That they are intollerant with every religious group (convert or die) that are not Islamic.

That did not come from the US.

And good luck showing that it is not both Islamic and faith-based.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

It has been answered. You just don't like the answer.

What is your answer to the US support of Saudi Arabia? A major contributor to Islamic fundamentalists in the region.

ISIS grew from the violence upon the region incurred by the US.

No US invasion of Iraq, no ISIS.

The fact that US slave traders fought with Muslim slave traders a long time ago has nothing to do with the level of power of Islamic fundamentalists today. That is directly related to incursion by the West.

Again, you state it, but you give nothing that would serve as evidence.

I do. My conception better explains the evidence that:
(1) Islamic political, conquest-oriented fundamentalism predates AD 700 and continues today: the Abbasids, Fatimids, Almoravids, Seljukids, Ajuuraan, Mughals, Safavids, Ottomans, Hamas, Al Qaeda and ISIS;
(2) That they cite religious motives and use religious motives to incite fanatical adhesion in their fighters;
(3) That their policies applied where they govern are sharia-based;
(4) That they are intollerant with every religious group (convert or die) that are not Islamic.

That did not come from the US.

How many Muslims subscribe to and actively practice this ancient form of fundamentalism?
Has this fundamentalism changed any over the years?
Is it a threat to the stability and future of the non Muslim fundamentalist world?
What, if anything, should we infidels do about this fundamentalism?

 

[untermensche]

(1) Islamic political, conquest-oriented fundamentalism predates AD 700 and continues today: the Abbasids, Fatimids, Almoravids, Seljukids, Ajuuraan, Mughals, Safavids, Ottomans, Hamas, Al Qaeda and ISIS;

Political conquest-oriented fundamentalism predates Islam. It wasn't invented by Muslims.

And European Christians were doing a bit of violent conquering themselves in AD 700.

(2) That they cite religious motives and use religious motives to incite fanatical adhesion in their fighters;

Most definitely. That is how fundamentalists behave. That is how white Christians used the Bible to justify slavery of blacks. If white Christians gained any real power that wasn't checked, they could easily do it again.

(3) That their policies applied where they govern are sharia-based;

Fundamentalism is not being defended. An idea is being attacked.

What is being attacked is the idea that Islam is the leading cause of the level of power of Islamic fundamentalism. You could only make that claim if Muslims had lived unmolested for the past 80 years.

(4) That they are intollerant with every religious group (convert or die) that are not Islamic.

Yes, this is fundamentalism. It is the same for Christian fundamentalists. They are extremely intolerant.

That did not come from the US.

Nothing in your argument addresses any of the history of the region over the last 80 years.

When you start looking you will see that many actions taken by the West and the US have directly caused huge increases in fundamentalism and the power of fundamentalists in the region.

You completely ignore these factors like Harris.

 

[RavenSky]

I don't think beat up on people gets us anywhere.

However critique of ideas is a necessity when engaged in social commentary.

I don't feel Affleck was the best spokesman for the cause, but he did have a point. Islam is not some super religion that is just so much worse than any other and to believe so can lead a person down a very dangerous path.

Maher was also right that liberals must not fall silent about human rights abuses just because an out group is perpetrating the abuse.

These two things are not mutually exclusive. And yet if you listen to the debate noted in the OP, you would think they were.

You can critique the religion and still treat the people like, well, people and not incarnations of evil.

^^^ that

 

[Warpoet]

Again, you state it, but you give nothing that would serve as evidence.

I do. My conception better explains the evidence that:
(1) Islamic political, conquest-oriented fundamentalism predates AD 700 and continues today: the Abbasids, Fatimids, Almoravids, Seljukids, Ajuuraan, Mughals, Safavids, Ottomans, Hamas, Al Qaeda and ISIS;
(2) That they cite religious motives and use religious motives to incite fanatical adhesion in their fighters;
(3) That their policies applied where they govern are sharia-based;
(4) That they are intollerant with every religious group (convert or die) that are not Islamic.

Your list suggests that you need to do a lot more reading before trying to explain the goings-on of the Muslim world. For one, comparing al-Qaida to the Ottoman Empire is ludicrous on its face for reasons that really shouldn't need explaining; "intolerant" can mean many things to many people, but no, the Muslim empires and dynasties did not force all infidels to "convert or die." They realized very quickly that it made far more sense to tax nonbelievers than it did to slaughter them. And for fairness' sake you can go ahead and compare the treatment religious minorities were receiving in Europe within a corresponding timeframe.

Or for that matter, have a look at the vastly more successful campaigns by Christian countries to impose their will on the rest of the world, which far outstrips anything the Muslims did and which consistently called on "religious motives to incite fanatical adhesion in their fighters." Unless you are going to similarly chalk all of that up as strictly religious in nature and not driven by expansionism and calculated greed, you don't really have much of a leg to stand on.

That did not come from the US.

Your explanation does not account for why there has been such a surge in violent fundamentalism within the last 40 years or so, and why it is directed almost exclusively at the United States and its allies rather than countless other countries that would be legitimate targets on religious grounds.

As untermensche said, you are doing exactly what Harris does: selectively parsing only the evidence that fits a preconceived narrative (it's Islam's fault) and waving away or ignoring evidence that doesn't fit said narrative.

 

[Perspicuo]

Political conquest-oriented fundamentalism predates Islam. It wasn't invented by Muslims.

And European Christians were doing a bit of violent conquering themselves in AD 700.

(2) That they cite religious motives and use religious motives to incite fanatical adhesion in their fighters;

Most definitely. That is how fundamentalists behave. That is how white Christians used the Bible to justify slavery of blacks. If white Christians gained any real power that wasn't checked, they could easily do it again.

(3) That their policies applied where they govern are sharia-based;

Fundamentalism is not being defended. An idea is being attacked.

What is being attacked is the idea that Islam is the leading cause of the level of power of Islamic fundamentalism. You could only make that claim if Muslims had lived unmolested for the past 80 years.

(4) That they are intollerant with every religious group (convert or die) that are not Islamic.

Yes, this is fundamentalism. It is the same for Christian fundamentalists. They are extremely intolerant.

That did not come from the US.

Nothing in your argument addresses any of the history of the region over the last 80 years.

When you start looking you will see that many actions taken by the West and the US have directly caused huge increases in fundamentalism and the power of fundamentalists in the region.

You completely ignore these factors like Harris.

No I don't ignore them. Oh, wait, I see what you're doing!

Then yes, I totally ignore them. I totally ignore anything and everything in order to promote the naive idea that there is only one dimension to everything!

Happy? Now I can go back to having adult discussions that don't misrepresent the other side because I'm damn tired of that.

 

[untermensche]

No I don't ignore them. Oh, wait, I see what you're doing!

You don't say a word about them but you are not ignoring them? Fine.

What is your feeling about the US support of the Saudi dictatorship and the effect this has on the level of fundamentalism in the region.

I can't stop you from expressing adult opinions.

 

[dystopian]

I said the MODERN history of Western encroachment.

Well, then you're still wrong because the Modern Era began in the 16th century.