• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Sam Harris on Trump's Executive Order

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Sam Harris on Trump's recent anti-immigration executive order.

An excerpt from the article:

From the article said:
2. I think Trump’s “Muslim ban” is a terrible policy. Not only is it unethical with respect to the plight of refugees, it is bound to be ineffective in stopping the spread of Islamism. As many have pointed out, it is also internally inconsistent: It doesn’t include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, or Lebanon, any of which has been a more fertile source of jihadist terrorism than several of the countries Trump named.

3. However, most of what is being said in opposition to Trump’s order is thoroughly contaminated by identity politics and liberal delusion. The Left seems determined to empower the Right by continuing to lie about the problem of Islamism. As David Frum recently wrote, “When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won’t do.” I have been saying as much for more than a decade—and am vilified by my fellow liberals whenever I do.

4. It is perfectly possible—and increasingly necessary—to speak about the ideological roots of Islamism and jihadism, and even about the unique need for reform within mainstream Islam itself, without lapsing into bigotry or disregarding the suffering of refugees. Indeed, when one understands the problem for what it is, one realizes that secular Muslims, liberal Muslims, and former Muslims are among the most desirable allies to have in the West—and, indeed, such people are the primary victims of Islamist intolerance and jihadist terror in Muslim-majority countries.

The above points are so far the most realistic take on the issue I have read from a public figure, although I don't agree with them in their entirety.

Discuss.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I like all three of Harris' points as quoted, DS. Which do you have reservations about?
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Sam Harris on Trump's recent anti-immigration executive order.

An excerpt from the article:



The above points are so far the most realistic take on the issue I have read from a public figure, although I don't agree with them in their entirety.

Discuss.

In terms of the extracts, I would agree with all three points.
I often agree with some of Harris' points, and rarely agree with all, though, so perhaps the devil is in the non-extracted points?
Having read that (albeit quickly) it kinda seemed pretty good to me. The particular 'Leftist' figures he named are largely not known to me, so can't comment on the ones he has praised, although what I know about a couple he denigrated makes me think we're of like mind (at least to some degree).
 
Last edited:

tytlyf

Not Religious
I think #3 is off. Other than that, I agree. Too vague with #3.

The Left seems determined to empower the Right by continuing to lie about the problem of Islamism
What does that even mean? The left realizes that terrorists come in all religions and creeds. We're just not in the habit of painting every single muslim as a terrorist.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I think #3 is off. Other than that, I agree. Too vague with #3.

What does that even mean? The left realizes that terrorists come in all religions and creeds. We're just not in the habit of painting every single muslim as a terrorist.

For me, what he said has meaning, but I'd agree it's too vague, and over-generalising.
There are certainly people on the Left who would shut down border protection discussions. But not 'The Left'.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
There are certainly people on the Left who would shut down border protection discussions. But not 'The Left'.

Still, it's a major problem on the Left because those who would shut down discussion are highly vocal about it even if a minority.
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
Who cares what he thinks, he's not the president and he will never be, plus he hates Muslims, he would be the first to ban them from coming in.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I agree with the points he made. Liberals need to embrace freedom of speech while just accepting the fact that both the Bible and Quran have some aborrent teachings and instructions in them. I especially like this point:
What we need, above all, is a new center to our politics—one that defends secularism, science, and free speech against their enemies on both the Left and the Right. And now we each must choose between supporting that civilizing project or joining in the chaos to come.
What does that even mean? The left realizes that terrorists come in all religions and creeds. We're just not in the habit of painting every single muslim as a terrorist.
Neither does Sam Harris. In fact, some of the people who defend him against claims of Islamophobia are Muslim.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Who cares what he thinks, he's not the president and he will never be, plus he hates Muslims, he would be the first to ban them from coming in.
He wouldn't without also banning Christians also, he isn't bias toward a particular religion like Trump is.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
"What we need, above all, is a new center to our politics—one that defends secularism, science, and free speech against their enemies on both the Left and the Right. And now we each must choose between supporting that civilizing project or joining in the chaos to come." Harris is spot on.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Who cares what he thinks, he's not the president and he will never be, plus he hates Muslims, he would be the first to ban them from coming in.

You think the only voice that can influence social discourse and policy is the Trumpinator's? Seems a strange point of view. Pretty sure he's not running for President. The whole 'openly atheist' thing counts against him pretty severely.

And I suspect you're wrong on the 'banning Muslims' thing, but he would implement border protection policies. Hence (partially at least) his call for a new centrism. Which appears sensible, in a general sense.
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
You think the only voice that can influence social discourse and policy is the Trumpinator's? Seems a strange point of view. Pretty sure he's not running for President. The whole 'openly atheist' thing counts against him pretty severely.

And I suspect you're wrong on the 'banning Muslims' thing, but he would implement border protection policies. Hence (partially at least) his call for a new centrism. Which appears sensible, in a general sense.
So you say, if he had the same power as Trump it would be a complete different story, but he hasn't and never will.
 
Top