Religion
Related: About this forum'New Atheist' Spokesperson Sam Harris Featured in Explicitly Anti-Muslim Hate Video
Far-right Clarion Project releases viral video based on Harris' dubious concept of radicalization.
February 16, 2016
By Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare is a staff writer for AlterNet. A former staff writer for Common Dreams, Sarah co-edited the book About Face: Military Resisters Turn Against War. Follow her on Twitter at @sarahlazare.
From far-right presidential candidates to overt hate groups, the spike in anti-Muslim incitement and real violence during the 2016 election cycle has generated widespread concern.
Though they are at least as strident in their denunciations of Islam as any Republican candidate, public figures associated with the New Atheist movement still receive some level of acceptance within liberal circles. The virulently Islamophobic comedian Bill Maher, who engages in regular sessions of trashing Muslims with fellow New Atheist Richard Dawkins, has managed to find defenders at progressive publications like Salon.com.
A convergence of New Atheists and right-wing militarists seems inevitable. Many adherents of both political currents share an agenda focused around antagonizing Muslims, supporting Benjamin Netanyahu's Israel and full throated backing for U.S. military campaigns in the Middle East.
While many New Atheists remain relucatant to openly ally with forces associated with the Republican Party's evangelical base, a right-wing organization with ties to GOP mega-donors is adapting the anti-Muslim concepts of New Atheist spokespeople into its own propaganda.
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/new-atheist-spokesperson-sam-harris-featured-explicitly-anti-muslim-hate-video
The video:
The pigsty that produced it:
http://www.clarionproject.org/
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)And it has to be defeated before it starts any more killing.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)islamophobia
but I suppose we should expect people to wait around and be blown up by a muslim radical - wearing a smile on our faces
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)About the Clarion Project:
Also:
And the seeds of Muslim hate are growing at DU also, as witnessed by the far too many posts purporting to discuss the problem with Islam and the supposed incompatibility of Islam with Western values.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Being an atheist that publishes does not make one a spokesperson for anyone but himself.
Beyond that, this article is full of fail.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Never mind there not being a "spokesperson". Just lame attempts at smear tactics by those who can't even make a shred of an intellectual case for the existence of their "gods".
The last smear attempt is particularly ironic, since the "convergence" of Christians and right wing militarists has been a prominent reality for decades, not just an idiotic prediction.
rug
(82,333 posts)Odd you consider that a"smear".
And you're not still spreading that canard that there is no new atheist movement, no new atheist leaders, no new atheist spokespersons, are you?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218223481
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218221798
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)calling themselves "New Atheists". Feel free to point us to their appointing or electing anyone as a "leader" or a "spokesperson".
We both know you can't. But amuse us by trying. Your links didn't even come close.
And yes, attempting to conflate the political views of individual atheists with those of atheists who don't support those people in any way, or with atheism itself, is a smear by (attempted) association.
rug
(82,333 posts)And BTW, this is about antitheism, hate, and Islamophobia, not atheism. Do learn the difference.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Because we both know there is no such group, and hence no "leaders" or "spokespeople". Nice, conspicuous fail, dude.
And if this isn't about atheism, why all the references to "New Atheists"? Since they don't call themselves that, there's no other reason to do so other than to smear all atheists and atheism by association (since it can't be done on any intellectual basis). Seems like you and the author are the ones who have no idea about the difference.
As far as NTS, it doesn't even apply, since no one has claimed that Harris is not a "true" atheist. Do try to keep up.
rug
(82,333 posts)You may like to imagine a world full of monads, blissfully making their paths through this wondrous, indifferent universe of ours, but the fact is atheist organizations are as much a political movement as any other. Reality is harsh.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)That is totally surprising and shocking, dude! In that case, you'll have no trouble pointing us to the web site for the New Atheists organization, right?? And I'm sure it'll have Sam Harris listed as Chief Spokesperson, right??
Oh, wait. You already tried. And failed miserably. Reality is harsh, dude. Lent and all.
rug
(82,333 posts)But any port in a storm, eh?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Here's one.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)But whatever floats your boat.
Difference between your cartoon and the OP is that there is an actual thing call a "duck."
rug
(82,333 posts)That's not the only difference.
rug
(82,333 posts)Does it cross your mind to wonder why Harris is picked to illustrate theirs?
Oh, it's not about Bill Maher either, much as you may admire him.
It's about a hate group. Maybe you're simply more interested in sheltering Harris, Maher et al.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Harris has said many things that are horrible.
Does it cross your mind why they picked Harris and appointed him "spokesperson for New Atheists"? Perhaps it has something to do with furthering their own agenda. And, as such, I read the rest of the article through that lense.
rug
(82,333 posts)Admirable how you dance away from the observation, regardless of motive, of how well his words match theirs.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)As was done in the hit piece you posted. Though that's just old hat for you and nobody is surprised to see it.
I have no idea what I'm "dancing away from." I have stated I have no desire to shield Harris.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)as much as some unfailingly defend the bigoted, sexist pope and his bigoted, sexist church.
rug
(82,333 posts)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/in-defense-of-profiling
The links are all in the article. Oh wait, you say it's a "hit piece".
For someone who's stated "I have no desire to shield Harris", you're doing a damn fine job.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Please use small words and quotations because I'm really stupid. Thanks.
rug
(82,333 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)You aren't interested in dialog, you only want to attack.
I'll give you one more chance: please explain how anyone here is "shielding" Harris. That's your claim. Back it up.
rug
(82,333 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Once again.
rug
(82,333 posts)Sorry, trotsky, I have noted for a long time what you do and do not note. I am not impressed.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)and see just how much you really do care what I note. Wow. I'm flattered. Not enough to actually read any of it, but just impressed with the volume.
rug
(82,333 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)LOL that you think it's "alleged." But perhaps you'll take care of things for me (and everyone else) soon enough.
rug
(82,333 posts)Here's some traveling music. But I expect you already have it.
I'll look forward for your coded comments about me to others.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)No rug, your behavior is just that predictable. Sorry to disappoint you. I do get updates about some of your latest exploits in PMs, but that's more than enough to know exactly what you're up to.
So, one last chance - any attempt to demonstrate who here is "shielding" Harris? If you, as I fully expect, do not provide anything but instead answer with yet more snark, it should be clear to everyone here you've got nothing.
Please proceed.
rug
(82,333 posts)They'll keep you posted, trotsky.
Enjoy Lethe.
Response to trotsky (Reply #14)
Post removed
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)that Harris has said horrible things about Islam and Muslims. I am not defending him.
I am saying that this is a hit piece because it wants to make Harris the spokesperson for New Atheism. Problem is, there is no "New Atheism" as a formal group and, if there were, nobody has been made the "spokesperson."
But you know that.
Your deflection and obtuse act gets old. Do you really think it plays with those that don't know you?
rug
(82,333 posts)If you are indeed distancing yourself from Harris, it should not be such an uncomfortable observation.
I'll ignore your personal snark. Try to get a grip on it.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I'll even number my points for you so it is easy.
1. I am not defending Harris in any way.
2. The reason it is a hit piece doesn't have anything to do with Harris.
3. The reason it is a hit piece has to do with the concept of "New Atheists."
4. The author wants to make Harris the "spokesperson" for "new atheists," which is
5. total and utter bullshit, because
6. "New Atheists" isn't a real group but something often made up as a strawman (from YOUR source), and
7. even if you go with the other description in your source, there is no way he has been made the "spokesperson." So
8. this is a hit piece on vocal atheists by
9. fallaciously linking Harris to being the leader of atheists.
As for personal snark and getting a grip, I'm not the one sitting on 4 jury hides.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)My guess is you'll get snark and a veiled insult as a response.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Whatever that means. Even though I have said 3 times I have no desire to do that.
rug
(82,333 posts)1. That defies credulity.
2. There must be a body double in the video.
3.4.5. The evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary.
6. This statement is beyond snark - or reality.
7. You don't need to be elected a press secretary to spread the word.
8.9. Logic, and reality fail.
10. How many were your alerts?
Say hi to trotsky above. I understand he gets updates.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)1. Then please, point specifically to where I am defending Harris in this thread. Shouldn't be hard.
2. I know this might be confusing: yes, the video is about Harris; the reason it is a hit piece isn't.
3.4.5. So please do show me where Harris has been made the spokesperson for a group that calls itself the "new atheists." I'll wait patiently.
6. YOUR OWN SOURCE says that, at best, it's a general reference to some people but that it is used as a straw man. As it is in the article you post.
7. First, show me the official group call "New Atheists" and then we'll go to the next step.
8.9. Keep defending it.
I wish they were my alerts. Can't take credit on this one.
It's kind of sad that you think trotsky has only one friend.
rug
(82,333 posts)Best to avoid embarrassment.
And, it only required one response.
It's kind of sad that you read that post as implying trotsky has one friend. Either gross dishonesty or gross reading miscomprehension is at play.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)of the issue and deflected this away to something else. Good to see things never change.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)New Atheism's a candy coating to get reaction out to the same types who'd condemn the same statement in the mouth of a creationist or whatever
rug
(82,333 posts)They're scum.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)They're also linked to several front groups.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Is the "Clarion Project" a New Atheist group?
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)A different thing entirely.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)keeps referring to them as "New Atheists"
You really need better writers, ruggie. Maybe the retired yacht club can help.
rug
(82,333 posts)"clueless".
Here's one for you scottie:
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)And writes on blogs. I am SO fucking impressed. Would you like a list of completely clueless, brainless, morons who have done both?
And what's even funnier is, YOU'RE the one who said she's calling these people something completely different than what they actually are.
So yeah..at least one of you is clueless. I'll let you pick which one.
rug
(82,333 posts)With a smiley!
Ok, I've now picked who is clueless, scotttie.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)You look worse every exchange...keep it coming!
rug
(82,333 posts)Excuse me while I step back a bit.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)in the whole thread.
(nope, a little more . . . .)
(ok, that hould do it.)
What did you say, scottie?
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Put the anti Muslim thing aside, that stuff is ugly and many christians have exact same attitude.
rug
(82,333 posts)Let me ask you if you agree with your statement, with one word changed.
"that stuff is ugly and many atheists have exact same attitude."
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Sorry, just isnt.
Being pissed off anytime a non believer says something will someday be a full time job, as evolution proceeds less and less are believing in make believe.
rug
(82,333 posts)And your "news" is centuries old.
What website did you come from?
rug
(82,333 posts)There is nothing in it that compels anyone to attack or hate Islam or any other religion.
Contrary to what's on display here.
fleur-de-lisa
(14,628 posts)On Tue Feb 16, 2016, 03:16 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
BYW, the difference is that atheism is simply nonbelief in god(s),
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=223793
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This poster is claiming that Atheists on DU "attack or hate Islam or any other religion."
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Feb 16, 2016, 03:19 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Silly alert.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Grasping at straws because of a personal rage against the poster personally. Nothing out of line in this post.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh FFS! This is the SILLIEST. ALERT. EVER.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
rug
(82,333 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Couldn't find a better distraction from the Pope's bigotry?
bvf
(6,604 posts)just brings RCC bigotry into focus.
katsy
(4,246 posts)As a feminist atheist I dislike all fundie religious beliefs. All of them and that includes Islamic nutbaggery so what?
I don't condone killing anyone for it. I just don't want their stupid fucking insanity touching my life at all ever in any way shape or form. Fuck no.
What in that video can be refuted by the #s and undisputed fact? I'm all ears. Why is that a pigsty? I'm inclined to listen to a Muslim woman who's laying down some #s, and yet open to contrary facts.
As to Sam Harris... He's entitled to his opinion. So what? I'm against curtailment of free speech.
I am a vocal opponent to Islamic law and find it offensive in every way. Sharia law is misogynistic, homophobic, anti-secular, anti-science, pro-slavery and ok with killing atheists. So yeah basically every value I hold dear, Islam opposes my right to exist without fear of punishment.
rug
(82,333 posts)You're making her point.
katsy
(4,246 posts)where's the contrary study?
I looked at the SPLC website for info on the clarion project and it's not listed as a hate group.
Beyond "shooting the messenger" bs that is expected... Can you show me where that Muslim woman was lying or making up stats?
Simple question.
rug
(82,333 posts)Scroll down to Clare Lopes.
Here's some background on Raheel Raza.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mmw/2008/11/truth-or-scare-raheel-razas-fear-mongering/
Alex Jones - and others - love her.
http://www.infowars.com/by-the-numbers-the-untold-story-of-muslim-opinions-demographics/
Seriously, poke around. You'll find what you want.
katsy
(4,246 posts)And I don't give a fuck about CTers or their opinions.
That pew research study has been published independently and that's the focus of that film. I've seen the study outside of the clarion project.
So,,, has the pew research study been discredited? If not then why your hysteria over who the messenger of the study is.
Shall I retrieve the study straight from the pew research website for you? Would that help you better focus on the message and not the messenger?
I don't care who is commenting on the message... I don't like the message.
There isn't any amount of poo flinging by you that will change my mind about an archaic, barbaric, misogynistic, homophobic, anti-secular, anti-science, tribalistic religion no matter if xtian or islamic. Their kind of indefensible doctrines offend me and should offend any modern society and democratic, progressive people.
rug
(82,333 posts)katsy
(4,246 posts)So that pew study has not been discredited.
Sam Harris still has freedom of speech.
SPLC still hasn't listed the clarion project as a hate organization.
I still don't care who the messengers are and Islam is still a douche of a religion.
Check 👍🏼
rug
(82,333 posts)katsy
(4,246 posts)You are critical of the messenger but don't address the stats by the pew study. Have they not been discredited? Is that why you point out the messengers' bkgd and ignore the stats?
We know the anti-muslim players. So what in that video you posted by the clarion project was anti-muslim? Because all I saw were stats. A restatement of stats by pew research. You must have something discrediting the pew research. Because shooting the messenger lacks substance.
You are critical of Sam Harris and yet give islamic douchebaggery a pass. Fail.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)The absence of any 'spokesperson' for 'New Atheism' has already been proved, at length, in this thread. But we also have "they are at least as strident in their denunciations of Islam as any Republican candidate"; no-one who knows who Donald Trump is, and how he advocates banning Muslims from entering the USA, could write that. Why has Alternet got such an ignorant writer posting stuff there?
rug
(82,333 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Try again, ruggie. Lent still has, what, 30+ days?
rug
(82,333 posts)How do you like The Clarion Project, scottie?
You do realize that's part of the article. The other part being Sam & Co.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Guess that wasn't true either
rug
(82,333 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)The Clarion Project, after all, doesn't appear in the title. She imagines an organisation that has 'spokespeople', and then imagines that it will unite with right-wing militarists. And "many New Atheists remain relucatant to openly ally with forces associated with the Republican Party's evangelical base" shows this to be, frankly, a paranoid conspiracy theory - she's imagining an organisation, and since there's no evidence of it, let alone an alliance with right wing evangelicals, she has to say it's hidden its true position.
She's full of shit.
rug
(82,333 posts)They're full of shit.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)While you're asking questions in evasion how about you answer one for once?
rug
(82,333 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Now your answer?
Response to Lordquinton (Reply #100)
Post removed
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)All things must pass away.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)seems avoiding it has caused him more trouble than it's worth.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)An atheist is simply someone who doesnt believe in make believe.
If this particular person has ugly views on Muslims, so be it, that is wrong, but it has nothing to do with the fact that he does not believe in make believe.
rug
(82,333 posts)It has nothing to do with disbelief or make believe.
Meanwhile, read #39 and #53 and get back to me.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)good for you. Too bad you keep posting articles by people who haven't a clue about it.
rug
(82,333 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)But when those same atheists start to criticize Islam, then the protective circle forms.
Now there is a genuine Islamophobia out there, and it comes from many parts of the political spectrum. Islamophobia is wrong no matter what, but please, just be consistent.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)"People here cheer on athiests when they bash Christians (even liberal Christians)"
well, when there's something worth bashing, eg opposition to LGBT rights, yes.
"when those same atheists start to criticize Islam, then the protective circle forms"
so they're on the side of those atheists, whether criticizing Christians or Islam. Why do you use the conjunction 'but'? They are being consistent.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)It must be horrible being the dominant religion.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)... "new atheist" is a meaningless term.
and it has no "spokesperson".
So the 1st 3 words of the title mean nothing..... why continue?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Albertoo
(2,016 posts)I listened to the whole video. All I saw was a moderate Muslim lady presenting the fact a strong minority of Muslims hold views which are antithetical to those of Progressives. She mentions high percentages believing in honor killings and that apostates should be executed.
Where is the hate in that video? PS: and when did Bill Maher insult a Muslim?
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...facts don't matter.
by analogy, to quote Nixon "If the the president does it, that means it's not illegal"