Atheists Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris face Islamophobia backlash

[rug]

Dawkins surprised his fans and critics when he admitted he had not read the Koran

Jerome Taylor
Friday 12 April 2013

They are often described as “The Unholy Trinity” – a trio of ferociously bright and pugilistic academics who use science to decimate what they believe to be the world’s greatest folly: religion.

But now Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are on the receiving end of stinging criticism from fellow liberal non-believers who say their particular brand of atheism has swung from being a scientifically rigorous attack on all religions to a populist and crude hatred of Islam.

In the last fortnight a series of columns have been written denouncing the so-called New Atheist movement for, in one writer’s words, lending a “veneer of scientific respectability to today's politically-useful bigotry.”

The opening broadside began earlier this month with a polemic from Nathan Lean on the Salon.com website. Lean, a Washington DC native and Middle East specialist who has recently written a book about the Islamophobia industry, was prompted to pen his attack following a series of tweets last month by Professor Dawkins attacking Islam in snappy 140 character sound bites.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/atheists-richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-and-sam-harris-face-islamophobia-backlash-8570580.html

[Phillip McCleod]

1. i love all these stories on the new new atheists..

listening to atheists debate other atheists is really raising the level of discourse on the subject of religious-state relations.

[rug]

2. I grant you it's not as entertaining as posting cartoons.

Yet it is a phenomenon to be duly noted. The price of placing one's views in the public domain.

[Phillip McCleod]

3. mm. i agree, and heartily approve.

more atheists speaking publicly is a good thing, even and perhaps especially when they are debating the tactics and attitudes of other atheists. it raises the profile of atheism and exposes perhaps greater diversity of opinion than most of the media has in general been willing to grant.

[longship]

6. I like your post.

I agree wholeheartedly that the diversity of atheists is just like that within any other faction or group.

But, of course, this comes with the downside of media portraying it as infighting which may not be a good thing for the non-believer movement.

I don't worry too much about these things though.

[Phillip McCleod]

7. thx! and, true no doubt it will be spun that way..

..as it was when 'thunderbutt' or whatever was booted off FTB wayy back a year or so ago. truth is we're so wildly unpopular already, and so wearily used to a certain dynamic in the dialogue that at least some of us have grown rhino hides.

translation.. it washes off.

[Starboard Tack]

8. +100 We may share a lack of belief, but tactics and attitudes vary tremendously.

Most of my friends and family are either atheist or agnostic, yet I know of none that support the stridency of Dawkins or Harris, though they appear to have a handful of disciples here on DU. I find it sad that a handful of intolerant reactionaries manage to give all atheists a bad name, in the same way that the right wing fundies manage to give Christians a bad name. The irony of it is classic. I may agree with Dawkins and Harris on an intellectual level, but their bigotry is loathsome.

[Phillip McCleod]

9. i don't think dawkins or harris give all atheists a bad name.

i think some believers try very very hard to make the names 'dawkins' and 'harris' out to be 'lucifer' and 'beelzebub', so that they can then *use* them to smear and dismiss atheism. my point is it's having the opposite effect of raising the profile of atheism and exposing a diversity of opinion.. including those of dawkins and harris.

[Starboard Tack]

17. I agree that they didn't give all atheists a bad name.

But they certainly don't represent all atheists. Most of us are quite content living alongside people of faith, provided they don't try to impose their beliefs on us. There are extremists on both sides, but they are not representative of the majority of those who share their beliefs.
These same intolerant extremists are the "smearers", whether they are atheists like Harris, Pat Robertson, or the Taliban. Nobody has the right to judge another based solely on religious belief, or lack thereof.
It's good that there is a diversity of opinion. Religion and it's place in society is a complex issue. Atheism is no different. Those who think they have the answers to the meaning of life are conceited fools.
I guess I fall into the category of "old atheist". I look at the opulence of the Vatican and it makes me want to puke, but I feel no hostility toward those parishioners who subscribe to Roman Catholicism. I may feel anger toward the institution that systematically exploits it's flock, but I feel only compassion for the members of the flock.

[skepticscott]

24. It is not judgement "based solely on religious belief"

that's at issue here. It is judgement of actions motivated by and carried out in furtherance of religious belief, and of the religions behind those actions. Quite a different thing.

[Starboard Tack]

27. Judgement of actions is totally valid.

Dawkins saying stuff like “Haven’t read Koran so couldn’t quote chapter & verse like I can for Bible. But often say Islam [is the] greatest force for evil today" doesn't help his cause. Makes him appear to be a bigot.

Harris, OTOH, has completely lost his credibility and is in a state of denial.

These guys have evolved from being non-believers into hate mongering bigots. Their actions are disgusting.

[cpwm17]

29. Dawkins wrote "Islam greatest force for evil today" – wow!

He's lost touch with reality. Selfishness is the greatest force for evil in the world, which includes the selfishness that drives anyone to promote aggressive war and hatred againt Muslims.

Greenwald wrote it well:

“When criticism of religion morphs into an undue focus on Islam - particularly at the same time the western world has been engaged in a decade-long splurge of violence, aggression and human rights abuses against Muslims, justified by a sustained demonization campaign - then I find these objections to the New Atheists completely warranted,” Greenwald concludes. “In sum, [New Atheism] sprinkles intellectual atheism on top of the standard neocon, right-wing worldview of Muslims.”

[Starboard Tack]

39. Couldn't agree more.

They share nothing with me, beyond a lack of belief in a deity, if it can be said that "all of us not having something" is the same as "all of us having something".
I do not share their virulent attitude toward believers, nor do I share their desire to convert believers to atheism. IMO, they come across as pompous elitists and neo-fascists, who like to hear themselves rant about their intellectual superiority over those who dare to believe in anything not scientifically proven. They are loud, but empty vessels. Kinda sad.

[skepticscott]

32. Why does it make Dawkjns a bigot

If he is judging actions and the outward manifestations of belief, rather than just beliefs themselves?

[Starboard Tack]

34. Because he says "But often say Islam greatest force for evil today"

Islam is a belief, not an institution, not an action, not a manifestation of belief. I know many Muslims, some more devout than others, I have lived among Muslims and have family members who are Muslim. My experience with them has been extremely positive. I have found them to be generous, non-judgmental, humble people. I have also known a few Muslims who were assholes. They weren't assholes because they were Muslims, though, they were just assholes. I can say the same about Christians I have known, and Jews and atheists. The assholes were assholes, regardless of any faith or belief system they claimed.
So, I suggest you ask Mr. Dawkins why he is a bigot, because it sure as hell isn't because he's an atheist.

[skepticscott]

40. Islam is a motivator and justifier of actions

just as all religions are, and some of those actions are evil.

That seems to be a difficult concept for you.

[Starboard Tack]

41. Wrong. Islam is used as a motivator by extremists.

As is Christianity, as is Judaism, as is atheism.
You use a misplaced definition of atheism as a motivator to insult those who don't share your view. You hold a bigoted view of religion. That's why you are often accused of bigotry toward people of faith and atheists who espouse a tolerant view.
Where do you get your notion of evil from?

[skepticscott]

42. Ah, so all of those people who claim

that their Christian faith has motivated them to do charity work and to lead great social movements are extremists?

Too funny. And the rest of your post is the same incoherent, unsupportable horseshit. But you just keep playing the "bigotry" card...it's about all you and your ilk have.

[Starboard Tack]

44. Do you sit around all day making this shit up?

I don't play the "bigotry" card. Pointing out the bigotry of Harris and Dawkins is not playing a game and neither is calling you out on your endorsement of their bigotry. I'm still waiting for you to explain where your belief in evil comes from. And what do you find funny about any of this?

[skepticscott]

48. Try again

Are all of those people who claim that their Christian faith has motivated them to do charity work and to lead great social movements extremists? Can't have it both ways...if religions can motivate good without being "extremist" then then can motivate evil just the same. Unless you're going to trot out NTS again.

And resorting to smearing people as "bigots" or claiming that they "endorse" bigotry when you simply can't answer their factual arguments is absolutely playing the "bigotry" card. Your argument for Dawkins being a "bigot" crashed and burned, just as the one by a famous lying asshole on this board did. Unless you think that calling Islam a source of evil when it really is a source of evil makes someone a bigot.

I find you and your lame, unsupportable, self-contradictory, horseshit arguments very amusing.

[Starboard Tack]

49. You just exposedyourself for the hate mongering bigot that you are

Do you really believe that Islam is a source of evil, or do you want to apologize and retract that statement?

[skepticscott]

43. In case you were wondering

that was indeed the sound of your whole argument crashing and burning.

[dimbear]

25. "But I feel only compassion for the members of the flock..........."

Never tempted to shake them awake?

[Starboard Tack]

28. Of course, and sometimes I do, but not by attacking and insulting them.

I find the best way is to first gain their respect and then let them question me about my lack of participation, if they are curious. If they don't question, or challenge me about my lack of belief, then I don't challenge them. I f they get some kind of comfort or gratification from their faith, then good for them. It's no skin off my nose and, quite frankly, none of my business. I certainly don't want them preaching to me and I have no desire to preach to them.

[dimbear]

4. If in fact Allah is as imaginary as Yahweh, then killing people in His name loses its attractive

sheen. I think that's the gist of it.

[rug]

5. That's how I feel about Nationalism.

[skepticscott]

10. Is Dawkins any more bigoted against Muslims

Than the people populating this site are against Republicans? Why does one get a pass and not the other?

[rug]

12. You think Democrats are bigoted against republicans?

Definition of BIGOT: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

Do you see no difference between political opposition and trashing an entire group?

[skepticscott]

13. Are you saying no one on this site

has ever trashed Republicans as a party or a group? No one here has ever said.... Republicans...followed by something derogatory or insulting, without qualification? Of course they have. Too many times to count. Do people here treat Republicans with hatred? Of course they do. Are they intolerant of Republican philosophies, policies and actions? Of course they are. Sure sounds like bigotry to me.

Fail. Try again.

[rug]

15. I'm saying anyone who calls opposition to republicans bigotry has a problem with the term.

[eomer]

19. How about opposition to leftists that manifests in massive campaigns to murder and malign them?

I do think there have been examples of bigotry against political groups. The dirty wars in Latin America seem to me to fit the definition.

[skepticscott]

21. I have no problem with the term

I have a problem when it is applied with hypocrisy, rather than objectively, to do nothing more than smear people whose arguments can't be answered legitimately. You're the one who posted the authoritative definition, not me. And now you're brought up short when you discover that it applies just as well to the way people on this site act towards Republicans as it does to what Dawkins allegedly says about Muslims? Tough shit.

Here's a classic example (only one of a multitude, btw):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6477614

"REPUBLICANS ARE ASSHOLES" This sentiment is greeted with praise. But imagine Dawkins or some atheist here posting the sentiment "Muslims are assholes", or "Catholics are assholes". Somehow THAT would be labeled with the smear of "bigotry", but not the other. Why would that be? Is it because one is more objectively true as a blanket statement than the others? Is it because ALL Republicans ARE assholes, but no Muslims or Catholics are? No. Is it because Republicans as a group and as individuals have done destructive and despicable things, but Muslims and Catholics never have and never do? No. Is it because one is less "hateful" or "intolerant" than the others? No.

If you're having trouble, here's a hint. It's because religionists expect and demand that their opinions, beliefs, practices and faith be given a special degree of deference and immunity from criticism or ridicule that is afforded no other system of thought or belief. It's because they as a group feel they're entitled to special protection from anything bad that anyone might say about them.

So tell us again...why is anything that Dawkins has said about Muslims worse in any objective way than what people here say about Republicans every day? Why does one deserve praise and the other a smear? Other than that religious folk feel entitled to special complaining and a special word to label their critics.

[Starboard Tack]

18. What does Islam have to do with politics.

Politics is up for discussion. It's about government. Religion is about personal spiritual belief. Why do you defend bigotry?

[eomer]

20. You are slicing it the wrong way.

Bigotry is a certain type of opposition to a group. Among the criteria for calling opposition bigotry are hatred, violence, and broad-brushing. The defining characteristics of the group have nothing to do with whether opposition to it is bigotry or not. If someone expresses hatred, violence, and broad-brushing against a group defined by politics, or by ethnicity, or by nationalism, or by religious belief, or by soup preference, it is bigotry.

Your approach, saying essentially that opposition to a religion is always bigotry while opposition to a political category is never bigotry, is wrong; you're slicing it vertically when the definition of bigotry clearly requires you to slice it horizontally.

Inciting hatred and violence against people because they prefer beef minestrone instead of chicken noodle would be soup bigotry.

[Starboard Tack]

30. Bigotry is a state of mind based on prejudice.

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

If I say I hate all Republicans, then I am a bigot. If I say I hate Republican politics, I am expressing a political opinion.

[skepticscott]

33. Has Dawkins said that he hates all religious people

simply because they have religious beliefs? No. If he is critical of certain despicable actions and attitudes that are the result of religious beliefs (and he has delineated those at great length), why does THAT make him a bigot?

Do you treat child rapists with hatred, contempt or intolerance (any or all of the above), simply because of their "status" as child rapists?

[Starboard Tack]

36. What do child rapists have to do with religion or Dawkins?

[skepticscott]

22. If religion were only about "personal spiritual belief"

then there would be no problem and no need level harsh criticism at it. But you know perfectly well that in the real world most of us live in, religion is about much more than that. It's also about imposing "personal belief" on those who don't share it, through law and public policy, among other things, and about enriching one's "personal belief" at public expense.

[Mosby]

31. more to the point Islamism and Jihadism are political concepts.

Last edited Mon Apr 15, 2013, 10:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Islam has a political component, just ask the Shia of Iran or the Muslim Brotherhood.

[Starboard Tack]

38. I agree.

I have no problem criticizing religion when it interferes with public policy or intrudes on our legal system, but insulting all adherents to a particular religion only creates hostility and accomplishes nothing positive. Calling Catholics supporters of child rapists and Dawkins' resort to Godwin's Law does little to support the "cause" (whatever that means) of atheism.
Seems to me that Dawkins/Harris are playing the evangelical game of trying to convert the masses to atheism, when their goal should be to spread the notion of tolerance throughout the world.

[eomer]

35. Religion is up for discussion too.

Last edited Tue Apr 16, 2013, 12:50 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm sure you didn't intend the implication that it isn't (having posted it in the Religion discussion group). But you must have meant something; I'm curious what it was.

I'm in favor of a vibrant, but civil, discussion of religion, including critiquing and analyzing personal beliefs. If promoting beliefs is allowed then critiquing them should also be.

[Starboard Tack]

37. It was in response to post#10

Of course religion is up for discussion, especially in regard to its effect on politics. I'm also in favor of critiquing personal beliefs if they are presented. What I am not in favor of is broad brushing all people who subscribe to a belief, based on the actions or statements of a few adherents to that belief, even if they are so-called religious leaders like the pope or some crazy mullah or some extreme atheist like Dawkins.

[Humanist_Activist]

45. Evidence that Dawkins is an extremist?

Also, can you define an "extremist atheist" for the class?

[Starboard Tack]

46. Sure. Those who are intolerant of believers

[Humanist_Activist]

47. OK, and evidence that Dawkins is like that? n/t

[MellowDem]

11. It's a predictable strategy...

when someone asks you a critical question about your belief system that you can't answer, it's time to bring out the ol' bag of logical fallacies.

This quote from Sam Harris is GOLD: “There is no such thing as “Islamophobia.” This is a term of propaganda designed to protect Islam from the forces of secularism by conflating all criticism of it with racism and xenophobia. And it is doing its job, because people like you have been taken in by it.”

Which makes so much sense to me. Islam is a belief system, conflating criticism of it with something like "homophobia" or "xenophobia" is stupid. People who hate Muslims because of race or ethnic or foreign reasons don't do it on the basis of their belief system, so it's not really Islamophobia. It's a ridiculous term. I can imagine right-wingers here coming up with the term "Christophobia". The whole war on Christmas, wailings of persecution of Christians here in the US rings all too familiarly with many Muslims crying wolf on ANY relevant criticism of Islam. It gets dull.

[rexcat]

14. Excellent response...

[rug]

16. I presume you're using a rhetorical "you".

[Jim__]

23. “There is no such thing as “Islamophobia.” Really?

From The Raw Story:

Despite her concerns about the “libel” of such statements about her motivations, Geller used her time to explain more about her suit against the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority, which first denied her the ability to run anti-Islam subway ads and then were forced to do so by a lawsuit she brought based on the First Amendment. “You know why I had to sue?” she asked the audience rhetorically. “Because I’m insulting the savages, that’s why,” she finished to nervous titters.

I guess that's just a rational comment about a belief system.

[MellowDem]

50. Really...

Xenophobes and racists can also criticize religion, and often do. You can have a racist that criticizes relevant aspects of a belief system AND hates them because of irrational beliefs about those who generally hold that belief system.

Rational and irrational criticism mix together all the time. One is often used as cover for another.

But until irrational criticism comes into the mix, you can't just say all rational criticism is a pretext automatically because some use it that way. It's not.

[Jim__]

52. Calling muslims savages qualifies as Islamophobia.

So, her statement alone is sufficient to refute Harris' claim. Trying to dress it up is just pathetic.

[MellowDem]

53. It's simply bigotry, it has nothing to do with the belief system...

it's an ad hom attack, if you will. It's a logical fallacy. Calling it "Islamophobia" is a rather transparant way to somehow set it apart from simple bigotry against a group of people. If anything, it's "Muslimophobia", since Islam is simply a set of beliefs. Calling Islam, that is to say, a belief system, "savage" "repressive" "barbaric" etc., is rather different than calling all Muslims "savages" or "barbarians". That is the distinction that is not made, and which makes people who harshly criticize a belief system lumped in with simple bigots by this term. It's a stupid term.

[Jim__]

54. You can keep putting lipstick on that pig; it ain't getting any prettier.

[MellowDem]

55. You can keep being intellectually dishonest, I'll keep smacking down your non-arguments nt

[backscatter712]

56. The whole point is to stop conflating legitimate criticism of religion with ethnic animus.

Apologists frequently conflate the two, so anyone that criticizes the religion gets tarred with the bigot brush.

But the point I'm making is that it is perfectly reasonable to criticize the religion of Islam (or Christianity, or Judaism, or Hinduism) as being based on assertions that are unsubstantiated, and nonsensical on their face, yet expected to be believed and observed without question.

Criticizing religion and belief is completely different from attacking people because of their ethnicity, language, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

[cpwm17]

26. Sam Harris is the poster child for an Islamophobe

He promotes aggressive war against Muslim countries. He doesn't consider them fully human.

He has a very selective memory such that Muslims are more responsible for their alleged misdeeds than other groups.

[MellowDem]

51. He doesn't consider them fully human?

Well then that would be irrational, but that has nothing to do with Islam as a belief system, that would be going into xenophobia/racism/ethnic bigotry etc.

Neither does believing in certain policies like neoconservatism or even imperalism. That has nothing to do with Islam as a belief system.

Of course, I'm sure you have evidence that he doesn't think they're fully human. If you present it, I'll believe he's a xenophobe/bigot of some sort. Islamophobe though? I mean, is there a capitalismophobe? How about a flattaxophobe? It's a ridiculous concept meant to stifle any relevant criticism of a belief system, of ideas. Not of someone's ethnicity or skin color or sexual orientation, which, by my definition at least, are always based on irrational ideas. Can criticism of Islam be irrational? Yes. But it can also be rational as well, and it is nothing like xenophobia or homophobia in that sense.

Religion wants their belief system to have a special privilege no other ideas get. That's bullcrap.