This post is about the fundamentalist atheist (who's a bit sweet on Buddhism - "I don’t call myself a Buddhist. and yet, if you asked me ... I’d point you in the direction of Buddhist techniques of meditation, and to the Buddhist literature") Sam Harris. Before I even start, let me say, this is the post Sam Harris, self-promoter and shill for his own self, wants to have written - He's all about getting his name out there. He just loves drawing the debate away from the rational conclusion that what's out there can't yet be explained by science, but might be, and that belief in the possibility of explanation is faith, itself. He'd rather have it faith vs. "science" or whatever he's masquerading his faith as. When people, such as the Pope (even with his appearingly intentional stumbles), call for a dialog between faiths, Sam Harris isn't having it. His faith in his extremist anti-faith beliefs are making him almost as popular as Keith Olbermann, firefly of the left's popularity.
In Harris's droolings on the Pope's speech (Truthdig:
'God's Rottwieler' Barks) he does his own trite old hat tricks and pulls out some abused and weary rabbits, banging on the drum at the back of the bandwagon of Islam hatred while also showing a disdain for religion that really calls into question :
“Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today....”
It is ironic that a man who has just disparaged Islam as “evil” and “inhuman” before 250,000 onlookers and the world press is now talking about a “genuine dialogue of cultures.” How much genuine dialogue can he hope for? The Koran says that anybody who believes that Jesus was divine—as all real Catholics must—will spend eternity in hell (Koran 5:71-75; 19:30-38). This appears to be a deal-breaker. The pope knows this. The Muslim world knows that he knows it. And he knows that the Muslim world knows that he knows it. This is not a good basis for interfaith dialogue.
The passages in the Quran he references in Sura Al Maedah (the Feast) say that idolaters will go to hell and that today's Christianity isn't the Christianity of Jesus. God isn't the Messiah, God isn't three, there's only one God. Christians have their own beliefs about the Trinity, but they won't say God is the Messiah or three or that there isn't just one God. Further, John 20:17 has Jesus saying to Mary Magdalen "I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." He's not going to himself. Sura 19, Mary, (that's right, haters, that chapter's called "Mary"), repeats a saying of Jesus similar to John 20:17 - "God is my Lord and your Lord; you shall worship Him alone. This is the right path."
Regardless, Harris is baiting not only the Pope, but also Muslims, and further, his cheering ignorant followers. His persistence in a superficial reading and understanding of faith shows that he's got an inability to apply critical thinking skills to texts of faith. Or, he doesn't, and he's simply trying to be a dick.
He goes on and pops off some of his little buzzwords and tropes about Islam - "martyrdom" and "jihad" along with the herring "treatment of Muslim women throughout the world," how Muslims have an "inclination to breed themselves into a state of world domination" (a student of Eastern philosophies, doesn't he know about India or China?) and his favorite apostasy case which he blithely tosses around not bothering to define or explain, since we all of course know how evil Muslims are. Again, I'm sad at Stanford. This type of critical sloppiness in my philosophy classes at Washington University would've gotten me an 'F' whereas I'm sure he shaved an "S" into his chest hair, dyed it red, and beerbonged all night after receiving some hummer for a 'bold' paper on justifying facistic secular rationalism.
This one really got me, especially from a closet Buddhist like Harris, right after he criticises the Pope for thinking every natural process and every mystery can be reduced to God:
Nearly a billion Hindus place three gods—Brahma (the Creator), Vishnu (the Preserver) and Shiva (the Destroyer)—in the space provided. Just how intellectually illuminating should we find that?
I'm sure he knows, but for some reason think his readers don't know (that's intellectually illuminating): Hindus believe that their gods are manifestations and aspects of the (single) universe. Facets, just as the Buddah would have you believe, Samuel. If you think about it for a second, that's what you think science is - fragments and bits of the universe in little logical bites, just waiting to be put together, or not.
He says this, too, on the lead up to the Pope's unfortunate (un)intentional statement about Islam:
“The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur—this is the program with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. “Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God”, said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor....”
Please read that first sentence again. I hope it doesn’t seem peevish to point out that the West faces several dangers even greater than those posed by an incomplete epistemology. The West is endangered, primarily, by the religious fragmentation of the human community, by religious impediments to clear thinking, and by the religious willingness of millions to sacrifice the real possibility of happiness in this world for a fantasy of a world to come. We are living in a world where untold millions of grown men and women can rationalize the violent sacrifice of their own children by recourse to fairy tales.
I think that last sentence refers to Masada, the fort where Jewish Zealots killed themselves and their children in 73 CE instead of surrendering to the Romans, a highlight in Zionists belief in their righteousness. While not a "fairy tale," I think he's saying that religion kills children. He could've well said something about Waco. When I read that, I thought the guy had no balls. He hates Islam, and loves to piss on it by association, why annoy evangelicals and Jews?
So, there you go, Samuel. You've got your name in bits. Enjoy the profit from your intellectual dishonesty. When you've got your 501(3)c set up to embarass religions, give me a call.
As a last bit, Mohammed Khatami, a religious scholar and former president of Iran spoke a few weeks ago in Chicago. I was fortunate enough to hear him speak on the very same topic the Pope would take up and Harris wants to be a dickrider of: dialog between faiths. Here's a snippet (apologies for the awful translation):
... there is a great opportunity of dialog and cooperation of working among people of faith, people of religion, the religious community and the people of faith - truly people of faith and people of true religion, not the extremists or terrorists or people who exploit religion and they use the name of religion, those getting involved in the terrorist or extremist activities but the balanced view, the people who understand this, and then those on the other side - the people who have pain of humanity in their heart the secular people [haters], the leadership on the other part on who are not known as the leadership of the religious - these two communities can work together and can communicate to one another for the betterment and better understanding of the cause of humanity. Here is the time when dialog among civilizations can come in, the dialog among civilizations can help to bring these two communities or segments together – the people of true faith and the people who are truly concerned about humanity.
Ted Koppel
09/15: What's he doing in Iran? And why's he reporting for NPR? Didn't he retire already? (Could he, please?) Further, why's it take him, going to Iran to talk to Iranians to find out what millions of people in the US already know: Iran's elites think that Ahmedinjad's a kook, the poor people like his reforms but think he's flirting dangerously with radical religion, much like they see Bush doing with evangelicalism, and Iran doesn't have any intention of using nuclear power for military purposes. I don't get this, honestly. Ted Koppel, gravitas; me, when I say similar stuff: biased, without basis, and America hater. Wonderful.
The Pope
09/08: God knows guarding a BMW factory doesn't make one evil, just a Nazi who likes BMWs - I've got nothing against the man, but when he goes around saying things like this:
In his speech at the University of Regensburg, Benedict quoted criticism of Islam and the Prophet Mohammed by 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, who wrote that everything Mohammed brought was evil and inhuman, "such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".
He's asking for some sort of queer looks and shakes of the head. Why someone who's purportedly the foremost religous scholar in the Christian world would go around saying things that are
potentially incendiary, I just don't get. I don't think it's a big deal, really, it's just a blip. I know some people will see it as a big setback, especially in contrast with JP2's outreach to other faiths, including Islam, but honestly, it's a great thing for the Pope to display this sort of view - it's an opening for dialogue. A dialog not only within the Catholic Church for the Crusades, but also a Catholic-Muslim dialogue and an interfaith dialogue. The best way to take it is that he's pushing for Catholics to engage Muslims in their struggle against extremism in Islam. A slightly less "best way" is that he's indirectly addressing the Church's role in spreading the faith via the sword during the Crusades. The worst way would be that he's purposefully condemning Islam as a violent religion. Strangely enough, statements like this can also be seen as the Pope trying to reassert the relevance of both himself and the Church in modern religious dialog.
I mention this today because, even though I cringed about it on Friday, there seem to be reports of people getting wound up about it as if the Pope were some Danish publisher pissing on freedom of speech and publishing intentionally goading cartoons. My second interpretation of Benedict's statement would be an indelicate attempt to have a Crusade catharsis. (My first was horror at the impending conflagration Benedict's going to cause, as evidenced by said cringe. I also cringe to think that he's bought into the new modern Crusade. Is he the next Urban? I thought that was Bush.) I think he's trying to goad Muslims into proving his
ignorance face-saving statment wrong.
Benedict may be a "hard ass" but his past shows something else: If there's anything this Pope's life stands for, it's for correcting past mistakes. Time to man up, Benedict.
Contrast this with Khatami, admittedly not analogous the Pope, but a learned Islamic scholar in his own right, even if a politican, who said things like this last week during his US tour: 'It's about time people of all faiths get together and try not to allow extremist thinking to deny the morality of modern civilization' [I'll get an exact quote for you people]. Again, wonderful.
The Media and Islam 
There's state senator in Minnesota running for a federal seat in congress. He's a Democrat and a peace activist who invokes Paul Wellstone and talks about immediate Iraq withdrawal. What he doesn't talk about is that he's a Muslim. What the media talks about is how a Muslim's running for congress, not that he's continuing to ride the wave of anti-Bush Democrats. Makes me throw up a bit in my mouth about the media's sensationalism (that means being a Leftist is less threatening than being a Muslim, wheee) and also how whatever his views are will be tagged as a "standard" Muslim view. It's not, nor is there anything to the implication that Muslims or Islam aren't compatible with democraciy. Wonderment.
I've got more on Islam and democracy that requires some polish, but I thought a little threesome sampler would tide dear readers over.
<jack> Later today, I think you should punch me in the cock, and then I'll sue John Kerry.
<jack> I'll be like 'who the hell did that? JOHN KERRY!!!'
<jack> And later, you'll admit it was you, and nothing will change.
What inspires such vicious violence to a man's vagina? Well, things like this, of course:
End of an Affair, Washington Post editorial 09/01/2006 which (under)states things like this: 'It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.' and 'our oft-stated belief that far too much attention [was paid to this event]' and 'But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.' It's like they're writing to themselves, but not.
They couldn't do this (from
The Plame Blame Game's Real Culprits, David Brooks, Weekly Standard 09/02/2006) and call themselves out: 'The media — especially the Washington Post and New York Times — relied heavily on Wilson's reckless and unfounded charges to wage journalistic jihad against the White House and Bush political adviser Karl Rove. Reporters and columnists, based on little more than Joe Wilson's harrumphing, bought the line that the White House "leaked" Plame's name to discredit her husband.'
It's too bad the complicity'll be drowned out in calls for Rumsfeld's beheading and Bush's scaremongering about a "caliphate" - a word I bet he had to practice pronouncing and then practicing again looking all serious.
Bad news...
I no longer have power to save Iraq from civil war, warns Shia leader
By Gethin Chamberlain and Aqeel Hussein in Baghdad
(Filed: 03/09/2006)
The most influential moderate Shia leader in Iraq has abandoned attempts to restrain his followers, admitting that there is nothing he can do to prevent the country sliding towards civil war.
Aides say Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is angry and disappointed that Shias are ignoring his calls for calm and are switching their allegiance in their thousands to more militant groups which promise protection from Sunni violence and revenge for attacks.
"I will not be a political leader any more," he told aides. "I am only happy to receive questions about religious matters."
more