-
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
- Thread starter Debater Slayer
- Start date
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
He does have some impressive credentials and background.
Evidence?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Unless you believe in "alternative facts" saying so doesn't make it so.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Well I should have said, radicals, which Trump doesn't like also.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Yes and that goes for you also.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Except Harris would not have signed this unreasonable policy.
I've read some of his books and have watched several interviews he's been in. He has given me no reason to assume he hates Muslims.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Well as I said, radicals, he certainty has no time for them, and who would in their right mind ?.
निताइ dasa
Nitai's servant's servant
I really think, in the midst of all this partisan smoke, both sides really want the same thing. Both sides do consist of human beings, and both therefore both sides want the same goals: peace, safety and happiness. They just differ a bit on the means to achieve that goal.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
They certainly do lol.
Pretty good OP. I agree almost entirely.
I would need some time to study the implications of the #7 given by Harris (not quoted in the OP). Reza Aslan, specifically, seems at first glance to be a bit more aware than Harris gives him credit for.
#3, though is entirely misguided and short sighted, despite and to a large degree because it seems to be a fairly good explanation of how Trump came to power.
It fails to be bold enough to acknowledge that "defending borders" is a counterproductive goal in the first place and much of the reason why we keep repeating the same pointless, wasteful mistakes of global policy. We all need not to learn to defend borders, but to stop regarding them as worth defending at all. Or, for that matter, of taking seriously in any way. Borders are an unwelcome distraction from the true issues at hand, which definitely include defending the secularism that the current POTUS disregards so openly.
Edited to add: here is a brief impression of the names discussed by Harris in his #7.
The group he warned against
Linda Sarsour - I agree with Harris about her. She means well, but her stances are far too timid not to be overall destructive.
Dalia Mogahed - Ditto.
Reza Aslan - Somewhat more ambitious than the previous two, which is very much a good thing. But still not bold enough, as illustrated by How strong is link between faith, terrorism? (Opinion) - CNN.com
(representatives of the) CAIR - I am not sure who he is talking about exactly, so for the time being no comment from me.
The group he supports as true secularists and reformers
Maajid Nawaz - I think he is spot on on this quote from his Wikipédia article: "He warned against the illiberal approach of seeking new powers to intercept communications, or banning non-violent groups, and asserted that liberalism will kill totalitarianism softly, not by mimicking it.[33] He advocates a civil society push back against extremism, just like it was done against racism and homophobia, by seeding grass-roots initiatives and making extremist narratives a taboo.[33]"
Ayaan Hirsi Ali - I like what I glimpse on her WIkipedia article.
Raheel Raza - Ditto.
Sarah Haider - Aye. Sarah Haider on Leaving Islam, Changing Liberals’ Minds, and Ex-Muslims of North America is a good glimpse of why she should be supported.
Last edited:
But the ability to see the "other side" as human is exactly what this issue is about. The policies that Trump is enacting show that he is following a philosophy of dehumanising the "other". "They" are dangerous, terrorists, rapists, drug runners etc. We all need to understand that the immigrants, the refugees are also humans, wanting peace, safety, and happiness.
निताइ dasa
Nitai's servant's servant
I could not frankly care less about specific politics,but one general thing I've noticed a lot on the rise this election cycle is that often people from both sides want to approach the problem in an almost dogmatic way. "The other side is evil, I'm the epitome of virtue, I don't care about your position because it's obviously wrong and therefore does not warrant any serious concideration" Sort of thing.
Mutual understanding comes a long way in understanding why people are motivated to support ideologies one may personally find abhorrent, and also allows us to bridge that gap through understanding of opposing positions. Seriously guys stop towing party lines and evaluate each position critically yourselves. Only then will people be able to truly unite.
I think this is a good long term goal. That said, today there are too many people who take more than they give. No society can survive when too many people take more than they give back. Luis how do you bridge the gaps without destroying your own society? Do you compromise your values? I don't think so.
This is a sincere question, how do you open your borders and survive visitors whose values you abhor? How do you tolerate the intolerant and keep your society intact?
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Call Trump busters.
tytlyf
Not Religious
Exactly, rational people understand that the recent attacks in the states aren't from immigrants. So this ban does nothing but further empower ISIL.
America seems to do a fairly good job assimilating people from diverse backgrounds. That's a start.
Sorry. I can't agree. It is an immediate, urgent matter. We can't afford nationalistic legalism any longer. It was never a good idea in the first place.
Every generation "destroys" their own societies to some extent, and that is both necessary and welcome. That comes with being allowed to have offspring and having the need to do so in order to keep societies vital.
We must aim higher and more realistically than just "protecting our societies". We always did.
As a matter of fact, in order to survive we must take charge of how exactly to destroy our (current) society in favor of something capable of dealing with the unavoidable changes inflicted upon it. That is a terrible responsibility, one that can't afford to be distracted by nationalism and borders.
I guess this period with Trump as POTUS is pretty much a crash course on this very matter. We all are now living with the enemy, sometimes literally married with it, mainly because we tried too hard and for far too long to believe that the enemy would come to our ways if we just waited for long enough.
The short answer is: you do not. The borders are not real enough to need to be opened, the society was never stable enough to be kept intact even hypothetically, and we do not survive in the long run, although hopefully there will be other generations beyond us.
What we can and should do is dive deep into the Maelstrom and speak frankly on what is Worth pursuing and what is not. Expose both the fascism of Trump and the Islamists and the naivety that enables those. Accept the world for the rather unsafe place that it may well have always been and operate with the necessary boldness and open speech about its dangers and unfairness.
That involves a change of perspective of the masses that may well be beyond our actual abilities, if Trump's election and the rise of the alt-right are any indications. But that matters little. We must try anyway, if for no other reason out of awareness of the alternatives. An early part of it is letting go of national goals and expectations so that they do not get in the way. We must strive to integrate, not avoid, diversity. To have the best possible understanding of other people. To actively pursue immigrants and refugees and learn from them and encourage them or their descendents to return to their places of origin if they feel confortable to do so.
We can't afford any less, and run a serious risk of major, very destructive conflict if we fail such an effort.
DS, whilst I appreciate the good intentions behind his remarks, I find it difficult to swallow. Its perplexing as for me it reads more like this:
"Whilst I campiagned against channcellor Hitler in the election I continue to believe that germany will be a democratic country and that our rights as german citizens are not endangered. I therefore think I should continue to criticise the jewish religion as the ideological root for bolshevism and the necessity of reform of the jewish faith without lapsing into bigotry or ignoring the plight of jewish refugees and business destroyed during kristallnacht. The failure of the "left" social democrats to speak out against the threat of judeao-bolshevism will only empower the nazi party. When social democrats say that only nazis will defend their borders, the people will hire nazis to do so. We must continue to criticise Radical judaism inorder to protect germany from the nazis."
I don't know what to think honestly (as you know my position on the Islam question is evolving) but part of me is just staggered at the audacity of the man. There is a real "dissconnect" from reality here.
I know I'm one of the "usual suspects" for defending Islam on RF but harris just seems to be basing his views on a kind of magical thinking that if he comes up with the right idea and goes on a public speaking tour everything will be ok. what does he even want to do about Islamic fundamentalism? Sell books to ISIS?
The US is a hairs breadth away from fascism. Whilst that is not an ideal time for anyone to think clearly because we don't know how this will unfold or the full implications of the Trump Presidency, his position feels rather...bizzare.
Agreed, and we've had quota systems, and strict entrance standards for decades.