First, a clarification: I am not saying that Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris are actually Catholics, or have any interest in being Catholics. What I am saying is that a commitment to the truth, whatever it may be and wherever it may lead, is or ought to be a hallmark of the Catholic faith, as per Jesus himself: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). The Second Vatican Council says: “All men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth” (Dignitatis Humanae 2). And in their willingness to tell the truth about Islam and jihad, Dawkins and Harris are showing themselves to be much more willing to face reality, which is supposed to be a Catholic value, than the Catholic publication Aleteia.
Truth, of course, and particularly the truth about Islam, is at a premium these days, and if you dare to tell it you’ll be subjected to a barrage of abuse, but that’s no excuse. I published a few pieces in Aleteia a few months ago, but unless there is a sea change in their editorial policy, I will never publish there again, as they have lately given their pixels over to not one, not two, but five willfully ignorant and misleadingly false articles about Islam (and there are probably more that I missed) — articles that will do nothing but foster a foolish and, in these increasingly perilous times, dangerous complacency about the jihad threat among their readership.
I’ve already written here and here about Fr. Dwight Longenecker’s two resoundingly counter-factual pieces in Aleteia claiming that the Qur’an doesn’t justify beheading, in the second of which he condescendingly dismissed his critics as “those who have a taste for denunciations and imprecations against Islam,” when the point is not “denunciations and imprecations,” but a desire to understand the root causes of the problem and challenge we face, so that we can respond properly.
It was telling that when I asked Aleteia’s editors to run my responses to Fr. Longenecker at their site, they said they’d consider running the whole exchange as a dialogue — and then never got around to getting back to me. But they did find space for a piece by Tom Hoopes claiming that the Islamic State was made up of “bad Muslims,” and quoting no less a luminary than the deceptive Islamic supremacist Mehdi Hasan, whose disingenuous claims that Islam is a Religion of Peace I debunked here and here (the second link exposes the falsehoods in the Hasan piece that Hoopes uncritically accepts at Aleteia).
Then came a piece by Jennifer Bryson, a Distinguished Visiting Professor at the U.S. Army War College — that is, a member of an institution that is committed as a matter of policy to ignoring and denying the Islamic character of the jihad threat. The piece was entitled “Why Should We Call Them ISIS? Don’t grant the radicals the religious credibility they crave,” and crossposted (again, tellingly) from the blog Arc of the Universe, hosted by The Center for Civil and Human Rights at the University of Notre Dame. Bryson’s article retails the tired claim that to acknowledge the Islamic justifications for jihadist behavior is to “validate” that behavior and grant the jihadists “legitimacy,” as if Muslims anywhere, of any perspective, sought legitimization for their actions from what non-Muslims think. In any case, is there Islamic justification for the Islamic State’s actions? Unfortunately, yes, there is — see my articles here and here. Ignoring this unpleasant fact will not make it go away.
The same day (last Monday), Aleteia crossposted another piece from Arc of the Universe, the blog hosted by the Center for Civil and Human Rights and the University of Notre Dame — this one by Anas Malik, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Xavier University: “Islamic Scholars to ISIS: Islam Forbids Your Actions: 100 Muslim Scholars sign letter condemning extremists.” That letter is not actually a statement of moderate Islam, but a cynical piece filled not only with falsehoods and deceptions, as I showed here, and actual endorsements of the ideas of violent jihad against non-Muslims and their subjugation as dhimmis, denied basic rights under Muslim hegemony, and of the principle of the caliphate, as I showed here.
It seems likely that in disseminating all this dangerously misleading nonsense, Aleteia is following the party line articulated by Pope Francis when he said, “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.” The Bishop of Rome, by virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, can, according to Catholic teaching, speak authoritatively about Catholic doctrine: he has the authority to delineate what is authentic Catholicism. But this is a statement about “authentic Islam,” about which nothing gives the Pope the ability or power to speak authoritatively. Aleteia’s uncritical following of the Pope’s line on this reflects the much larger problem of the creeping papalolatry of the Roman Catholic Church, in which everything the Pope says is taken as a divine oracle and accepted without question, in flagrant disregard of the Church’s actually quite precise and careful delineation of the extent and limits of his authority.
Of course the Pope should be accorded respect by Catholics, but respect is not the same thing as calling white black just because he says it is black. Aleteia, of course, is by no means alone either in their false understanding of papal authority or their energetic propagation of willful ignorance and complacency about the jihad threat, and by writing about them here I don’t mean to suggest that they’re either singular or outstanding in any of this. They’re just an example that was ready to hand of what is so wrong with the Church and the West today in their response to the jihad threat, and why I as a Catholic (albeit not a Roman Catholic) readily stand with the atheists Dawkins and Harris in their willingness to be honest about what we’re up against (which is not to say that they stand with me, as I have found Harris in particular to be too airily dismissive of those who have previously been subjected to the smear campaign of spurious charges of “bigotry” to which he is being subjected now, but that’s another story). Harris has a fine piece today about another group befogged by willful ignorance about the jihad threat: American liberals. I hope to get the chance to comment on it in detail later. Suffice it to say now that I’ll take Dawkins and Harris over the falsehoods, however comforting, favored by both the Left and all too much of the Catholic Church.
Jay Boo says
For all the clever mirages built upon the slowly drifting sands of Islamic illusion there is the relentless entropy of truth that reveals corpse of Islam rotting beneath its own stink.
Emilie Green says
Yep. We should be glad that this Maher/Harris versus Affleck the Dunderhead thing has happened. There will be more, and the more that there is, the more Islam will be examined.
And found wanting.
We have the truth. They don’t.
The issue is the ideology of Islam, not Muslims per se. It is Muslim behaviors based on those ideological tenets. As recently stated, “Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas.”
mariam rove says
I am wondering if Bill Mahr had received any threats yet form the so called religion pf peace!! M
voegelinian says
I disagree; the issue is both Islam and those who put it into hateful, unjust, and blood practice all over the world. Without the latter, Islam would be merely books and ideas, and millions of men, women and children would have (and would have had) their lives and limbs intact. Surely that’s no small matter.
dumbledoresarmy says
That line – “Islam is the mother-lode of bad ideas” – is a quotable quote, worthy to be put on the list of “memorable things that sensible people have said about Islam”, along with such bon mots as, for example, Churchill’s definition of Islam as “the religion of blood and war” or John Quincy Adam’s nicely-alliterative summing up of the fruits of Islam as “desolation and delusion”.
Here’s Serge Trifkovic in “The Sword of the Prophet” going into detail on the list of bad ideas (which have all been put into practice assiduously by many Muslims throughout history, the more devout the Muslim the more assiduous the practice):
“The fruits of attempted escape from the shackles of natural morality are as predictable as they are grim, for the Muslims no less than for their victims: both are enslaved, brutalized and dehumanized by Islam.
“The all-pervasive lack of freedom is the hallmark of the Muslim world.
“Discrimination against non-coreligionists and women of all creeds,
“racism,
(p.208)
“slavery,
“virulent antisemitism
“and cultural imperialism can be found – individually or in various combinations – in different cultures and eras.
“**Islam alone has them all at once, all the time, and divinely sanctioned at that** {my emphasis – dda}.”
There is no presumed equality of different people’s claim to life, liberty or any pursuit at all in Islam.”
Julian says
Let’s not forget that for many many years, these same professional atheists routinely avoided discussing the subject of Islam for fear of Islamophobia. For years, they have expressed moronically (on both counts) utter contempt for Christianity yet expressed silence over the Quran and Islam. They did this because they knew many Christians have a tendency to be non-confrontational (i.e. they won’t cut your head off), sorely lacking among many Muslims. I do appreciate that Maher, Dawkins, Harris and others are now beginning to speak out about the truth regarding Islam, especially when those who represent the very people who are being killed daily by Muslims (especially those in the Church) are silenced by fear of Islamophobia themselves. Although it does appear to be bandwagoning on the part of these atheists, and another excuse to push their ideas that all religion is bad and secularism is the solution, etc, their efforts on the anti-jihad anti-Islam warfront are welcome at a time of grave immediate danger of Islamic domination.
Julian says
Having said that, it’s probably a bit much Robert to say that they “are better Catholics”. Regarding Catholics, Dawkins is quoted as saying that physical child abuse is better than being raised Catholic, and has called for the routine public mockery of Catholics and other Christians many times over. Harris is a close friend of Dawkins and doesn’t appear to distance himself from Dawkins’ atheist militancy and the secularist mindset (responsible for more deaths than any other ideology on the planet – yes even more than Islam). Granted, they are at least speaking about Islam and its grievous problems therein and Dwight Longenecker is an intransigent individual I agree. I don’t think their pronouncements on Islam calls for the qualifier “better Catholic”, but that’s my opinion.
wakeup333 says
re: Julian.
Atheist Bill Maher slammed Islam (along with Christianity & Judaism) in his 2008 film Religulous. For years, American Atheists have run billboards (“You know it’s a myth”) claiming all 3 (Islam, Christianity & Judaism) share a firm belief in invisible beings.
re: “Militant atheism” “responsible for more deaths than any other ideology”. Atheism isn’t an ideology. It means “no god(s)”. Doesn’t say to hate or kill. Says nothing about politics or statecraft. Just says what someone DOESN’T believe in: invisible beings.
The so-called megadeaths you heap on “atheism” are actually due to Marxism — Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, Pol Potism, which pit class against class and say the end justifies the means. The fact that these people were atheists is irrelevant. It wasn’t a lack of belief in invisible beings that told them to kill. It was belief in the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” Marx’s basic law that says the underclass should wipe out their oppressors (ie, the rich, land owners & industrialists).
Bottom Line — Robert is right: Counter Jihad must be a big tent. All who speak the truth about Islam are welcome.
Julian says
That film was bandwagoning to try to show that all religion and that religious people are stupid by duplicitously organising spot interviews with uneducated unprepared religious people. It did not differentiate Islam to say that Islam is by far a more destructive ideology than any other that exists in any other religion today, but launches attack on all the “fairy tales”, as if some aren’t more dangerous than others, no?
The secularist ideology (to which many atheists are inclined) is responsible for 1.3 billion deaths in the last 34 years due to abortion, and it is Christianity, chiefly the Catholic Church who has been calling out the secularists on this. This is way more than those killed by Islamic jihadis throughout the 1400 years of Islam (approx 270 million). Add to this the 100 million killed by atheist secular communists in only 100 years and aggressive secularism doesn’t look too welcoming to put it lightly.
Without God, there are no objective moral values, so what it moral to you may not be moral to me, and we are both right. This idea is what encouraged the atheistic secular communists to butcher so many… because what they felt they were doing was moral to them, although it objectively was not, but that idea would be irrelevant if one believes God does not exist.
I agree with your bottom line.
RodSerling says
Julian,
“The secularist ideology (to which many atheists are inclined) is responsible for 1.3 billion deaths in the last 34 years due to abortion, and it is Christianity, chiefly the Catholic Church who has been calling out the secularists on this.”
There are a number of problems with this claim. Even if we accept your assumption that abortions within the legal time limits are equivalent to murdering men, women, and children, there are many religions and sects that do not forbid abortion; it’s not the exclusive domain of secularists to support abortion. (For that matter, Catholics also have abortions, regardless of what the Church instructs. And I don’t see the Catholic Church demanding that women who have abortions be punished for murder). Also, some non-religious people do not support abortion.
Also, consider: “Only 30% to 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester.[22] The vast majority of those that do not progress are lost before the woman is aware of the conception,[16] and many pregnancies are lost before medical practitioners can detect an embryo.[23] Between 15% and 30% of known pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman.[24]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
If you believe God controls the life or death of the embryo/fetus, then you believe God is responsible for all of those deaths, which surely exceed the number of deaths due to human-induced abortions.
If you do really believe what you are suggesting, re secularism and abortion, then you believe that secularism and abortion are far larger problems than Islam:
“This is way more than those killed by Islamic jihadis throughout the 1400 years of Islam (approx 270 million). Add to this the 100 million killed by atheist secular communists in only 100 years and aggressive secularism doesn’t look too welcoming to put it lightly.”
That method of tallying would lead to higher numbers of people “killed” due to religion, because to get a high number like 100 million you are using deaths from a broad range of causes including things like famine, plus taking the highest estimates you can probably find.
voegelinian says
A drastic oversimplification of history and the history of ideas. In fact, anti-theism was a powerful influence and intoxicant from the French Revolution to the Russian Revolution, and the consanguinity of modern Western atheists with those movements cannot be denied or prevaricated. Shame on any atheists who don’t have the intellectual integrity to shine the light of criticism wherever it should be shone.
RodSerling says
Voeg,
Shame on you for, once again, suggesting something I never assumed or claimed.
Julian says
@RodSerling
You’ve hit the nail on the head. It is absolutely legalised murder, and we as a society first have to recognise that it is so and recognise that it is wrong before we can start punishing individuals. You are correct that some non-religious people do not support abortion and I salute those people. However secularism as an ideology allows for supporting abortion as a “women’s right”. Catholicism as an ideology does not allow for abortion, seeing it as child murder. Catholics that do so act in direct contravention with their faith, but the same cannot be said of secularists.
Aggressive secularism and Islam are both huge problems that need to be tackled. Not either or.
We should be using our scientific knowhow to try to save the lives of those souls lost close to conception. Hospitals are for saving lives, not destroying them. God has given us a brain and free will and we need to use those to help save lives and preserve his creation.
100 million is from adding up all the atheistic secular communists of the 20th century.
voegelinian says
RodSerling wrote:
“Voeg,
Shame on you for, once again, suggesting something I never assumed or claimed.”
I was responding to wakeup333 (though it seems you agree with his revisionist history).
wakeup333 says
voegelinian,
I never denied that Marxists were atheists. Nor that some modern atheists may be Marxists. Nor that the French Revolution, which predated Marx, was atheist.
So what? My point still stands: From the French Revolution to the Russian to Mao to Pol Pot, atheism isn’t what made those zealots kill. What did? Hatred of the “exploiting class,” ie, royalty, the rich, landowners & (later) industrialists. Insofar as the Church believed in “Divine Right of Kings,” it was natural for atheists to hate the church for propping up royalty, the apex of feudalism. Do you deny we’re better off for ending feudalism?
I know Marxism well: lived next to a U.S. commie from the ’30s. Was part of the left during Vietnam. My history isn’t “revisionist.” I’ve read Marx, Lenin & 10 Days that Shook the World. Have you?
I still say atheism can’t harm a fly. Not believing in invisible beings draws no blood. You need political or religious ideology for that.
RodSerling says
Voeg,
What agreement, what revisionism?
Slumbersoundly says
Wakeup, you said:
“It’s enough for us to simply not believe anything for which there is no proof”
“. Yet I firmly believe in the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you “
You contradict yourself. There is no proof that the “Rule” do unto others as you would have them do unto you is Golden. Assuming that by Golden you mean the best there is. How would you prove that empirically?
Put another way, Please, if you can be bothered, cite how the golden rule is both golden and a rule, without resorting to metaphysics.
I am not being a pain, genuinely want to know.
Jovial Joe says
If I may interject here: first, that the empirical evidence for absolute values is zero since a personal belief or feeling that there are such absolutes does not count as evidence. Secondly, there is a plethora of empirical evidence which points to the benefit of enlightened self interest (‘do unto others as you would be done by’). When some form of communal values are adopted, as opposed to all out anarchy, the survival benefit conferred entails the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
wakeup333 says
Slumbersoundly,
You say there’s no proof that the Golden Rule is golden. If you believe that, you must believe there’s no such thing as morality — of any kind!
In a way, you can say that. In India, an old tradition says brides should be burned on the funeral pyre of their dead husbands. This still happens, as does child marriage throughout the Muslim world, where adulterers are sometimes buried up to their chests and stoned to death.
My reference to a Golden Rule is based on Western Civilization, my own observations & viewings of newsreels of Pakistanis & Mali Africans who reject harsh sharia law, like anyone I’ve known would.
Would you stone an adulterer to death? Cut off the hand of a thief? Marry a 6-year-old child? Throw acid in a woman’s face if she rejected you?
All this happens in today’s world. Yet wherever this happens, there are also peeps who disapprove. That disapproval supports the idea that a Golden Rule exists, is universal and is BETTER than traditions that violate it.
If you disagree, prove to me why mayhem is better than the Golden Rule.
wakeup333 says
Don’t blame Stalin, Lenin, Mao & Pol Pot on atheism. Atheism isn’t an ideology. It just means “no god(s).” Marxism killed millions, not atheism. Atheism is an ideology like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Julian says
Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. It posits that the statement “God exists” is false. This is an idea, and those who agree with it accept this ideology. Atheism is not a religion (like not collecting stamps is a hobby). Atheism however definitely is a belief and definitely is an ideology.
wakeup333 says
Julian,
You’re no atheist. Don’t tell one (like me) what atheism is!
Atheism is NOT “the belief that God does not exist.” Atheists demand proof (evidence) for any belief. Since there is no proof of invisible beings (a.k.a., gods, angels, demons, ghosts), atheists don’t believe in them. We don’t waste time “proving” the negative (that god doesn’t exist). It’s enough for us to simply not believe anything for which there is no proof. Period.
re: religion being necessary for objective moral values. I’m proof it isn’t! I was raised by non-religious parents. Never went to church or synagogue. Yet I firmly believe in the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Proof belief in invisible beings is NOT necessary for good morals.
Julian says
One must be a proponent of an ideology to know what it is? Do you think that you understand Islam despite not being a Muslim?
Interesting that you can tell me what atheism is not, but you cannot tell me “Atheism is…”. Friend, do you not realise that by saying that you “don’t believe” in God, it logically follows that you believe God does not exist, whether or not you can prove that. That’s a belief, my friend. That’s an idea that some share, some don’t.
I haven’t said that atheists are immoral, by any means. Many are moral people, despite what their ideology allows for. But if God doesn’t exist, moral values are illusory. So what if you live by the Golden Rule? Under atheism, you will die and your corpse will rot as the universe expands into a cosmic nothingness in ruins and that’s that. Your morality does not matter “objectively”, if atheism is true. If God does exist, we know that there are consequences in the afterlife for our actions thus granting us reason to behave morally. This life is not all there is.
Jovial Joe says
Your point about ‘objective’ values is entirely moot. Even if there was such a thing, you are limited to your own subjectivity and what you regard as ‘objective’ (i.e., true independent of your own opinion of the matter) is open to denial by anyone who regards THEIR truth to be truly objective and yours mere personal opinion. In other words there are no absolute standards by means of which the objective truth can be judged. You’d have to be a god yourself to do that. What this implies is that human beings should be humble as regards what it is and isn’t possible to know, such humility being the opposite of dogmatism. Now there are certainly dogmatic atheists but the true, negative definition of such is one who has no belief that gods exist, not the positive belief ‘gods don’t exist’. This is not to deny that humans can have shared values based on our shared natures (empathy for others who’s shoes we ourselves can envisage standing in, an appreciation of companionship, love of art, music, etc) but to declare these shared values absolute or objective is taking things an epistemological step too far and, what’s more, it’s entirely unnecessary.
wakeup333 says
Julian,
Atheism is defined by what it’s not — ie, no god(s). There is no “Atheism is…”!
Atheism lets atheists fill in that blank! And we’re as different as snowflakes or fingerprints. The only thing that unites us? We don’t believe things without proof. Period. Calling that an “ideology” is wrong. Ideologies state what they believe. Atheism states what it DOESN’T believe. And nothing more!
We enjoy life to the fullest. And don’t worry about what happens after death. For the same reason we don’t worry about what preceded life. I assume that, wherever “I” was prior to birth is where “I’ll” be after death.
I reject your certainty that you know more about that than me! I say all books on earth (including religious texts) were written by fallible, flesh-and-blood humans, with all the prejudices, fears and agendas humans have. Until a human returns from death with evidence of what it’s like, I won’t be threatened by religious condemnation while I live — and enjoy — the only life for which there is proof.
John C. Barile says
Re: Better Catholics–it’s clear to me that Robert is speaking hyperbolically, he’s deliberately exaggerating to drive home his point; he’s emphasizing that truth is paramount.
wakeup333 says
re: Julian.
Atheist Bill Maher slammed Islam (along with Christianity & Judaism) in his 2008 film Religulous. For years, American Atheists have run billboards (“You know it’s a myth”) claiming all 3 (Islam, Christianity & Judaism) share a firm belief in invisible beings.
That said, Robert is right: Counter Jihad must be a big tent. All who speak the truth about Islam are welcome.
voegelinian says
Slamming Islam “along with” other religions tends to reinfornce to Equivalencism, which in turn only tends to reinforce the PC MC paradigm which is the main reason for Western misapprehension of the nature of the problem of Islam. A rational person would see that Islam is unique and sui generis and would refrain from dragging in other religions in his critique & condemnation (except where it is clearly specified he is talking only about abstract ideas and vaguely amorphous sociology, and not about the human rights and international security catastrophe that is metastasizing all around the Allahdamned world, whose sole cause is Islam and whose sole agents are millions of Muslims following Islam).
voegelinian says
– “to”
Julian says
Agreed.
wakeup333 says
voegelinian,
What you miss about Maher’s film: the three major faiths have killed 100s of millions. All share the same belief in invisible beings. Maher doesn’t deny Islam holds the record for god-invoked death.
But because, in all human history, there isn’t one shred of proof that invisible beings exist, atheists have the strongest argument against jihad: There is no invisible Allah telling Muslims to kill!
All Catholics & Jews can say is: our invisible being is better than your invisible being!
Atheists don’t carry that baggage! We don’t have to defend Old Testament savagery. We simply say, that’s what happens when you believe in invisible beings!
If Abraham were alive today, for nearly gutting his son with a butcher knife because an invisible voice told him to, he would lose custody and probably wind up in prison. So would Muhammad for pedophilia and war crimes.
All due to belief in invisible beings! Islam is the worst current threat, but belief in invisible beings is why.
Slumberssoundly says
Hi Wakeup,
You said:
“It’s enough for us to simply not believe anything for which there is no proof”
“. Yet I firmly believe in the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you “
How do you prove that the “Golden Rule” is both Golden and indeed a Rule?
You firmly believe it, so your evidence must be irrefutable.
wakeup333 says
Slumbersoundly,
I answered you. Scroll north.
I didn’t say my evidence is irrefutable. I’m painfully aware that majorities in Muslim countries approve of human behavior that revolts me (death for apostates, critics of Islam & adulterers, child marriage, honor killings, etc).
The Golden Rule may be Western, but I say it’s better than the competition.
RodSerling says
Julian,
“Let’s not forget that for many many years, these same professional atheists routinely avoided discussing the subject of Islam for fear of Islamophobia.”
That’s false. Criticizing Islam is nothing new for any of the three. Each of them has been criticizing Islam for several years. Each of them insists that Islam is the biggest problem. Harris has been attacking Islam ever since he started publishing his criticisms of religion, his first book being The End of Faith (2004), a project that was motivated by his reaction to the 9/11 2001 attacks. Maher and Dawkins were criticizing Islam publicly shortly after 9/11 2001.
They have also attacked the Islamophobia construct.
” yet expressed silence over the Quran and Islam.”
That’s almost entirely incorrect, except that while Dawkins has attacked Islam (e.g., calling it the greatest evil in the world today), he hasn’t had much to say about the Qur’an because he hasn’t read it–something he definitely ought to do.
“Dawkins’ atheist militancy and the secularist mindset (responsible for more deaths than any other ideology on the planet – yes even more than Islam).”
You’re mixing categories there. The fact that Dawkins is an atheist doesn’t mean that he agrees with Stalin and Mao, anymore than the fact that someone is a theist means they agree with Muhammad and believe in Allah.
Islam as a belief system has motivated more killings than any non-religious ideology. But the key factor is not religion or non-religion, theism or non-theism, but rather the ethical contents of the motivating ideology.
Julian says
Ok. I’m wrong where I said they expressed silence over Islam. What I should have said is that they expressed silence regarding Islam “comparatively” to the voluminous amount of effort they spend lambasting Christianity and Christians, or “stupid religious people” in general, but rarely specifically Muslims. A clear false sense of priority on their part. I’m not sure how long they have “insisted that Islam is the biggest problem” regarding, firstly that attacking creationism and Christianity is mostly what they are known for, and secondly seeing as Sam Harris believes that Islam is reformable.
They were criticising religion in general after 9/11 with their silly uneducated meme that “science flies you to the moon; religion flies you into buildings” which is just stupid. It’s almost always criticising religion in general when it comes to Islam, but specifically Christianity when it comes to that, and there can be no doubt that they spend the majority of their time criticising the latter in particular, even though Islam has always posed the biggest threat.
The secularist ideology (which many atheists subscribe to) is responsible for 1.3 billion abortions and I will never miss an opportunity to remind secularists of that. That is more than all the genocides in world history combined (Islamic or otherwise)… so there are problems as bad/worse than Islamic fundamentalism in the world.
wakeup333 says
Julian,
People who have abortions are 100% female. Are female hordes threatening you physically? Anywhere on earth?
We can argue over whether an embryo is a person or simply tissue in a female’s body. But to equate abortion with the cold-blooded murder of born humans by religious fanatics is wrong. The former is an individual woman’s prerogative, not yours. The latter threatens life on earth. Big difference.
Besides, overpopulation, chiefly by the least educated, is the engine of irreversible world poverty, an assembly line for jihad that threatens us all.
RodSerling says
Julian,
“Ok. I’m wrong where I said they expressed silence over Islam. What I should have said is that they expressed silence regarding Islam “comparatively” to the voluminous amount of effort they spend lambasting Christianity and Christians, or “stupid religious people” in general, but rarely specifically Muslims.”
That’s incorrect. Their criticisms of Islam and Muslims are not rare.
“A clear false sense of priority on their part. I’m not sure how long they have “insisted that Islam is the biggest problem” regarding, firstly that attacking creationism and Christianity is mostly what they are known for,”
No, that Dawkins, though he has also criticized Islamic creationism. All three do criticize creationism.
“and secondly seeing as Sam Harris believes that Islam is reformable.”
He never said Islam overall would likely be significantly changed overall in the forseeable future.
“They were criticising religion in general after 9/11 with their silly uneducated meme that “science flies you to the moon; religion flies you into buildings” which is just stupid. It’s almost always criticising religion in general when it comes to Islam, but specifically Christianity when it comes to that, and there can be no doubt that they spend the majority of their time criticising the latter in particular, even though Islam has always posed the biggest threat.”
Again, that’s not true regarding Harris. Moreover, all three have actually defended modern Christianity in comparison to Islam, e.g., regarding free speech. Dawkins has even toyed with the idea of helping convert Muslims to Christianity if they will not otherwise adopt a non-religious set of beliefs. Hirsi Ali has advocated this explicitly.
“The secularist ideology (which many atheists subscribe to) is responsible for 1.3 billion abortions and I will never miss an opportunity to remind secularists of that.”
If you believe that, and given your other comments above, then you believe God is responsible for the deaths of far more embryos and fetuses than secularists.
Julian says
Ever wondered the significance of the fact that abortion and Islamic jihadism both involve beheadings?
http://liveactionnews.org/abortionist-rips-off-leg-of-another-womans-child-while-her-own-kicks-inside-of-her/
Maxilo says
Read carefully Julian:
You are right, there are no objective moral values if God in the skies doesn’ t clearly says what they are. But the irony is that once morality becomes objective it ceases to exist. What makes an action morally valuable is the very fact that it wasn’t an obedience to a moral code but something done because it felt like the right thing to do, not because it IS the right thing to do. It is when morality isn’t objective that it expresses its real beauty.
Western Canadian says
Don’t waste your time with wakeup333, his mind is as closed and full of drivel as any imam….. His defense of atheism is rather childish, to put it politely, and harris etc. are without exception, very badly informed about the state of argument between belief systems….. just as wakeup333 is…..
“but belief in invisible beings is why.” and what ‘invisible beings’ did atheistic communists believe in? Hoist by your own ignorant petard.
wakeup333 says
Western Canadian,
You apparently didn’t read my detailed discussion of what drove communists to kill. Scroll north.
Atheism isn’t an ideology or “belief system.” It’s a clean slate, free from superstition, on which theories stand or fall based on evidence. No evidence? No belief! Lack of belief is not a “belief system.”
Belief WITHOUT evidence (a.k.a., faith) is a “belief system,” since it requires acceptance of ideas which contradict what we see (ie, that the dead can rise, man can walk on water, virgins can give birth, horses can fly, insults are worse than murder). You have to force yourself to accept these myths, which contradict what we see. That denial of common sense is a “belief system.”
Religious people say faith is good. Atheists say faith is bad! We demand proof. Like courts. Like science, which rejects faith and advances by evidence.
Name-calling doesn’t win debate points. A more convincing argument does.
Western Canadian says
I would suggest that wakeup333 actually try to wake up…. but I won’t hold my breath. Your childish effort to pretend that your crude and underdeveloped re-definition of atheism is some kind of magic ‘get out of guilt for mass murder’ card is hardly impressive. And your habit of pretending that you hold yourself to some kind of intellectual or ethical standard, is frankly funny…. in a sickening sense. Don’t try to pretend that you speak for all atheists, as you do not, and frankly, your childish efforts are among the most pathetic I’ve seen in several decades. I would put the threat from militant atheists to be almost on par with the threat from islam…. as both groups are ignorant of even their own history and belief systems….. A former atheist on this board was rather fond of alluding to the violence that he approved of, when it was directed against those who have chosen a belief system he did not himself approve of. Your efforts are pathetic, perhaps 20 or 30 years of study might give you some basis to make statements that are not as pathetic as the ones you have offered up so far.
Champ says
wakeup33,
Western Canadian is right, you do need an education–and stat!
You wrote:
“Belief WITHOUT evidence (a.k.a., faith) is a ‘belief system’, since it requires acceptance of ideas which contradict what we see (ie, that the dead can rise, man can walk on water, virgins can give birth, horses can fly, insults are worse than murder). You have to force yourself to accept these myths, which contradict what we see. That denial of common sense is a ‘belief system.'”
Oh dear, your arrogance and blind foolishness is indeed quite amusing, so here’s some food for thought for you to munch on …
Romans 1:20: “For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.”
Psalm 14:1: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’ …”
Evidence that God exists is everywhere …just look around you! God created the heavens, the earth, and everything on the earth. Ever study the human body? It’s an amazing machine and a *miracle* of creation–and there is no machine that man could ever make that could even come close to the human body!
Or have you ever studied astronomy? Again, the fact that earth spins on an axis is an absolute miracle in, and of, itself! So it isn’t hard to believe in other *miracles* when life itself is a miracle. It’s a simple thing, really, to believe that God chose to bring His Son (God in the flesh) through a virgin, Mary, and conceive His Son through the Holy Spirit; and for Jesus to walk on water is equally plausable when you consider the miracle of life itself! God can do anything–look around you!
So don’t you dare presume that Christians go on blind faith–that’s absurd and insulting!! The evidence that God exists is everywhere, and I see it as plain as day. Why can’t you, eh?
And the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead is there, too …
Question: “Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ true?”
Answer: http://www.gotquestions.org/was-Jesus-resurrected.html
E. Alexandra Pierce says
“Let’s not forget that for many many years, these same professional atheists routinely avoided discussing the subject of Islam for fear of Islamophobia. For years, they have expressed moronically (on both counts) utter contempt for Christianity yet expressed silence over the Quran and Islam.”
Julian, that’s completely untrue. Harris and Dawkins have both criticized Islam for years – ever since they started to criticize religion publicly, and Harris especially has tried to take down false equivocations of Islamic extremism with Christian extremism. Take this quote, for example:
“Consider how we, as atheists, are constrained to talk about Islam. Christians often complain that atheists, and the secular media generally, balance every discussion of Islam with a discussion of extremist Christianity. The usual mode is to say, ‘Okay, so they have their Jihadists, but we have people who kill abortion doctors.’ I think our Christian neighbors, even the craziest of them, are right to be outraged by this pretense of evenhandedness. The truth is that Islam is far scarier and more culpable for needless human misery in the world at this moment than Christianity has been for a very, very long time, and we have to point this out…”
That’s from a speech he gave at AAI seven years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMa-0Fjn2sU (relevant part of the speech starts at 15:09)
One of the reasons it’s finally been brought to mainstream attention is that Islamophiliacs (thank you, Douglas Murray) are trying to discredit them. And why? Because criticism of Islam from the likes of Harris, Dawkins, and the late Hitchens is starting to be heeded by some on the left.
voegelinian says
“The truth is that Islam is far scarier and more culpable for needless human misery in the world at this moment than Christianity has been for a very, very long time, and we have to point this out…”
Not good enough. An anti-theist like Harris has to go further, and say:
“The truth is that Islam is the only ideology today, uniquely causing a global human rights and international security catastrophe that is metastasizing and getting worse, whose sole cause is Islam and whose sole agents are millions of Muslims following Islam), while Christians by and large are doing positive good throughout the world.”
E. Alexandra Pierce says
That makes no sense, voeglinian. First, Harris hasn’t described himself as an anti-theist. You’re probably confusing him with Christopher Hitchens, who loudly proclaimed himself as such. Second, Harris is under no obligation to prop up Christianity, let alone do so while boneheadedly declaring that Islam’s doctrines are the sole cause of human rights abuses and warmongering the world over.
The point of the quote was to demonstrate to Julian that Harris has often unequivocally stated that Islam is far more responsible for human misery than Christianity has been for a long time, no more. And what Harris said is not only good enough, it’s more accurate and truthful than the words you want to put in his mouth.
Jovial Joe says
As an atheist I subscribe to Harris’ blog in the belief that, if anyone is, members of the atheist community ought at least be in the vanguard of jihad opposition. As Douglas Murray, another fine upstanding atheist recently highlighted, however, the leftist nonsense has permiated academia to such an extent nowadays that even atheists at Yale are apologising for Islam. Here is the link to Murray’s piece: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4729/hirsi-ali-yale
Murray, Harris, et al, should of course be honoured to have Robert join their ranks and it’s disheartening to hear of Harris’ qualms about the latter; hopefully he knows better now since the Affleck incident and the lefty backlash he’s received as discussed in his blog.
RKM says
“What I am saying is that a commitment to the truth, whatever it may be and wherever it may lead, is or ought to be a hallmark of the Catholic faith, as per Jesus himself: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). ”
Indeed, yet this flies in the face of so much dogma coming out of the monotheistic faiths of the ME. Admittedly, clearly, as even Harris and Dawkins would admit, the Judeo-Christian world is light years ahead of Islam.
But I think there’s insight and truth well beyond these philosophies and dogmas.
mortimer says
Sometimes THE POPE needs to hear a good, truthful, upsetting sermon!
This is the time.
Pope Francis needs to hear THE TRUTH ABOUT TOTALITARIAN, PREDATORY ISLAM from his clergy, theologians and laity who are LEARNED EXPERTS in the matter of ISLAM.
Robert Spencer is such an EXPERT.
YOUR HOLINESS, PLEASE LISTEN TO ROBERT SPENCER.
Salah says
Commitment to the truth and the Catholic Church in the 14th century:
The Last Judgement fresco – Giovanni di Modena
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.ca/2010/07/last-judgement-le-jugement-dernier.html
Jay Boo says
Off Topic
The Kenyan President called before Hague
Supposedly The Hague is to seek the truth.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/kenyan-leader-to-appear-at-icc-for-landmark-hearing/ar-BB87Niq
The Hague
Is The Hague just a sharia district about 10 miles from one of the largest mosques in Europe?
Is Modi of India to be called next
Louis says
The survival of Western civilization depends on having a clear and united understanding of the threat against it. Otherwise we cannot effectively defend against that threat. The liberal world view on the Islamist threat divides us and cripples the defense of the West. Therefore the most important challenge we face is to bring liberalism to understand and accept the truth about Islam and the advancing global jihad. The fantasies so widely held by Ben Affleck liberals must first be thoroughly debunked before we can truly defeat the Islamists. But few liberals will pay any serious attention to what they consider “right wing” blogs, books and articles.
Our best hope for changing liberal views on the Islamist threat comes from those liberals with the courage to speak the truth such as Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. There are many more respected and well known liberals who also know the truth, but are kept silent by political correctness. Just maybe some of those voices will also begin to be heard, following the example and courage recently shown by Maher and Harris.
All of us who care about defeating the Islamists must do all we can to encourage and support those liberals willing to speak out. One thing we can do is draw attention to liberals everywhere of the truths being said by “their people”.
Louis says
To win against the Islamists it is essential that many more non-Muslims know and speak the truth about Islam. But it is not necessary for everyone on our side to also believe in Christ. There are many liberal atheists currently on the wrong side, but who can probably be moved to the truth of Islam in the right situation and with the right arguments, provided the truth teller is a person they are open to. The best person for that job is another atheist liberal. In fact for many of these people there will be no chance at all with anyone else.
In this struggle we must be tolerant of all non-Muslims who are on the side of truth about the Islamist threat, even the non-believers.
Louis says
The survival of Western civilization depends on having a clear and united understanding of the threat against it. Otherwise we cannot effectively defend against that threat. The liberal world view on the Islamist threat divides us and cripples the defense of the West. Therefore the most important challenge we face is to bring liberalism to understand and accept the truth about Islam and the advancing global jihad. The fantasies so widely held by Ben Affleck liberals must first be thoroughly debunked before we can truly defeat the Islamists. But few liberals will pay any serious attention to what they consider “right wing” blogs, books and articles.
Louis says
Our best hope for changing liberal views on the Islamist threat comes from those liberals with the courage to speak the truth such as Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. There are many more respected and well known liberals who also know the truth, but are kept silent by political correctness. Just maybe some of those voices will also begin to be heard, following the example and courage recently shown by Maher and Harris.
All of us who care about defeating the Islamists must do all we can to encourage and support those liberals willing to speak out. One thing we can do is draw attention to liberals everywhere of the truths being said by “their people”.
nuvaslacker says
Personally I would never trust an organisation/publication that can’t even spell its name correctly; it’s Aletheia, Greek for truth. They probably don’t even understand why the early Christian symbol was a fish; clue: it’s a Greek acronym. Surely any Christian scholar should be able to read he Kaine Diatheke in the original language!
Champ says
“Truth, of course, and particularly the truth about Islam, is at a premium these days” …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sadly, this is the case, and Proverbs 12:17 & 19 states this:
17: “When you tell the truth, justice is done, but lies lead to injustice.” … 19: “A lie has a short life, but truth lives on forever.”
We probably all agree that these Proverbs are true; yet people continue to lie, and to be lied to, about islam & company–when the truth is everlasting and should be our common goal.
Robert, thank you for bringing us the truth about islam and company!
Champ says
What I am saying is that a commitment to the truth, whatever it may be and wherever it may lead, is or ought to be a hallmark of the Catholic faith, as per Jesus himself: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So true, Robert …
And as aside: what Jesus was actually stating here, is that *He* is “the truth”!
Question: “What does it mean that ‘the truth will set you free’ (John 8:32)?”
Answer: http://www.gotquestions.org/the-truth-will-set-you-free.html
“Jesus said, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me’.” — John 14:6
Maxilo says
What a shameful narrow minded horrible interpretation of that great phrase by Jesus.
The Truth is not knowing the truth about someone’s identity, even Jesus’, nor is being right about some myth or historic fact. The Truth is seeing the reality of the reality. It is perceiving things as they are. It is possessing Wisdom. Truth is life as it is. And Truth existed just the same before and after Jesus appeared on Earth. Truth is knowing oneself in the Socratic sense and “know yourself and you will know the universe and the gods” is what is meant by “The Truth will set you free”.
Champ says
No, please learn about Jesus and what He meant …
Question: “What did Jesus mean when He said ‘I am the way and the truth and the life’ (John 14:6)?”
Answer: http://www.gotquestions.org/way-truth-life.html
Excerpt:
“The truth – Again Jesus used the definite article to emphasize Himself as “the only truth.” Psalm 119:142 says “Your law is the truth.” In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus reminded His listeners of several points of the Law, then said “but I say unto you…” (Matthew 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44), thereby equating Himself with the Law of God as the authoritative standard of righteousness. In fact, Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17). Jesus, as the incarnate Word of God (John 1:1) is the source of all truth.”
Lea says
Robert Spencer, you, sir, are a giant among us. Thank you so much for your tireless and relentless rebuttals and debate with the trolls that control the accepted dogma about the state of the world and for telling the truth about the actual reality-based threats that we face together. Love the direct quote from the Man: “the truth shall set you free.” Keep on, keepin on, please! Hope you are well and well-rested for the long journey ahead. We love you!
Also want to extend the thanks to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris too. Brave voices for freedom, and from towering intellects is powerful stuff.
TH says
As a Catholic, I am against “papolatry” and it clear in -Catholic theology that papal statements have to be weighed in accordance with criteria which are caled “theological notes”. As for Pope Francis’s statements on Islam, they are simply false and mistaken. They are in a document which is one of the possible “weighty” ones which Popes can put out. Everything in it is not necessarily to be accepted as gospel truth by Catholics, as some of it consists in opinions or positions adopted by the Pope, which in this case are mistaken. It seems to me, however, that such a document should be properly vetted and there those in the Vatican and in Roman universities who are well versed on the nature of Islam, not to mention many bishops especially those who live in countries dominated by Islam. Wisdom involves correcting errors, so he should be told about this error and the matter explained to him and he should correct it. However, there doesn’t seem to be any way for that to happen. Making such statements only reduces his credibility. The nature of Islam is not divinely revealed truth and the Church doesn’t consider itself to have any particular gift or capacity for deciding that question other than studying Islamic sources which would enlighten him. Of course, it is a lack of responsibility on his part not to have done this or have others do it for him before writing what he wrote.
He seems to be pretty good at criticizing bishops and Vatican officials. It seems that there are too many yessmen in the Vatican and unwilling to engage in fraternal correction, which is part of charity. Other things which Pope Francis has said have left many catholics upset, but the Church is more than the Pope or the Vatican. However, others follow its lead, but in what is correct and what is erroneous.
Pope Benedict wrote a lot about truth and also charity , and he also did quite a bit to reduce the papacy to size, among other the fact of having resigned.
JIMJFOX says
Much debate here on the tired canard of “Evil atheists” promulgated by offended christians- all the usual bulldust, Stalin/Hitler/Mao=atheists=mass murderers.
It won’t fly, religious rednecks! You are SO similar to muslims in your readiness to take offence, defend your particular Faith when threatened by facts and (lack of) evidence.
FAITH itself is a big problem, whether Islamic or any other bogus belief system; how long must we wait for reason to be acceptable?
lmk says
but my guy is so much better than his. Jesus is a standup for realness, authenticity ( the same, I know) and general badassness – (as directed to living life to the fullest, and enjoying, making the most of the now) versus, complete lust and unfaithfulness (God talks lot about faithfulness). Who is this “prophet” as a man? tell me, what is that? I am a woman speaking/writing now – but it sounds like so much of a frustration at the dividdm of gender tyrant. .. hates women? xo
citycat says
There’s a difference between believing there’s on god, and not believing there is god.
Show me god then i’ll believe, otherwise keep your false accusation to your prejudiced self.
Tommo says
The Catholic churches claim to be the one true faith guided by the hand of God in its teachings on Christianity and doctrine are deeply flawed. A church that denies the extent of child abuse in their midst then goes to extraordinary lengths to cover it up are not practising the teachings of Christ. A Church which fails to acknowledge the truth about Mahommedism while it’s members are being slaughtered and churches destroyed by Muslims are not concerned with the truth but only in preserving their buddy status with Islam. This is a church which doesn’t recognise how far removed they are from Christianity but arrogantly proclaim that they are the ‘one true church’.
Kepha says
Sorry, but the Dawkins-Harris show doesn’t impress me. They and their cohort have done their d@mndest to establish relativism as America’s official religion, and softened us up for things like 9/11 in the process. Dawkins’ attack on Christianity was as full of straw men as any college sophomore’s dorm room debate (McGrath pointed that out well in his book). As for atheists in general, they believe their flying spaghetti monsters of Historical Necessity, Progress, and the like are bigger than someone else’s YHWH of Hosts. I’m old enough to know that they’ve been a lot more credulous than anyone else. Just tell them “simon says–oops, science says”, and you’ve got them by the nose.
R Davis says
Waving Richard Dawkins at me is like waving a red rag at a bull.
I will now read the article.
R Davis says
Richard Dawkins says is a scientist & a seeker of truth.
Because he is a scientist & having an open, questioning & analytical mind is of the essence.
To describe him as Catholic like, in his performance as a seeker of truth, may be correct in his case, when you think how narrow & set in antiquity the catholic Faith is.
R Davis says
I am Roman Catholic – I know all about the R/C’s.
It is my puddle of mud, I can speak about it as I so choose.
Betty says
Thank you Mr. Spencer for your honest comments regarding Islam. I have read a few of your books and appreciate your efforts (which may be harmful to you someday) to inform us all in the facts. I am Roman Catholic and have to say that Pope Francis seems to be in the wrong place on many issues. I practice my faith and love the Pope but he has worried many other Catholics and me more than once since taking up the Chair of Saint Peter. I just have to compare what he said with the small quote Pope Benedict made at the beginning of his pontificate even though Benedict was only quoting someone else and his remarks were taken out of context there was a big difference. Per the writer above Pope Benedict wrote often and well about the cult of relativism. This false religion has been taken up by many progressives in the Catholic Church and particularly many in the Jesuit order who have succumbed to the very evil ideology of Liberation Theology. Pope Francis seems to show a bend toward this kind of thinking at times. The church has endured many Popes through the ages who have been wrong in their thinking. To think that a Pope can not be wrong because if so the gates of Hell would prevail against the Church is non-sense. Saint Paul questioned Saint Peter and Paul was right. Peter came to the truth eventually and the Church continues today. The Doctrine of Infallibility refers only to statements regarding Church Doctrine when referred to as having been spoken and stated as Infallible and nothing more. As the writer above stated the church has produced much accurate documentation about Islam which would contradict what Pope Francis recently stated. Also bare in mind that it was the Catholic Church who fought the Jihad of old during the Crusades. The Catholic Church did so at the request of their fellow Christians who were being slaughter in the name of Allah many years ago. The Muslims of that time were following the same Prophet using the same Qur’an as they follow today.
NEC says
Common people, believers cant proof anything, thats why they stick to the faith. let them have it, if they wont threaten the society
Joseph says
“…but respect is not the same thing as calling white black just because [the pope] says it is black.”
Exactly correct. As a Roman Catholic, I have always felt ill at ease when something the pope says which is evidently false is taken as ‘gospel’ by the faithful just because it was the pope who said it. The truth trumps the pope, to coin a phrase, when he is not speaking infallibly on matters of Catholic faith and morals.
The statement “…authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence” [Evangelii Gaudium #253] could not be more demonstrably false, as any faithful JW reader would know. And it is not a problem to say flatly that the pope is wrong when he says this. For the simple reason that…he is wrong.
jitskesez says
To the atheists here — all atheists must believe in Evolution, for which there is not one shred of evidence. people who believe in millions of nonexistent common ancestors and missing links, are not the intellectual superior of those who believe in just one invisible God.