Harris is correct to identify the threat posed by religious extremism. He did so with his book and he does so again in this article. The outstanding question is how to address these threats. Racial prejudice may not be perfectly analogous, but I think it offers some insight into the perils of unbridled extremist ideologies on both sides of a conflict. Our own Civil War points out the potential for ideology to lead to violent conflict. How we address religious extremism may well demonstrate what we did or didnÂ’t learn from our own experience.
However, identifying the threat and crafting the solution are two distinct endeavors. Harris clearly identifies the threat but seems more inclined to then pivot and blame liberalism for our inability to confront the issue rather that offer any reasoned solutions. By acknowledging that liberalism is "generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity" and at the same time blaming it for not combating religious literalism is incongruent logic. In reality, liberalism clearly understands the dangers of religious literalism which is exactly why it promotes reasonability and tolerance. Further, that understanding is why liberals believe that the war in Iraq and the war on terror will ultimately require political solutions rather than an ever expanding military strategy.
As world population and a world economy continue to expand, our abilities to prevent the inherent racial, cultural, and religious clashes that come with proximity will become more challenging. Succumbing to the absolutism that accompanies any us/them equation is certain to trigger accelerated conflict. It is essential we refrain from adopting a broad brush strokes mentality. A reactionary strategy is nothing more than the fuel for escalation. In the end, it is individuals who define the differences upon which conflict is predicatedÂ…whether they be Islamist, Liberal, or otherwise. It will be the politics of leadership that will eventually bridge the divide.
It seems to me that the key point is liberalism's inability to deal with intolerant enemies. The Islamo-fascists would take away the liberties we enjoy in liberal democracies, and in the face of that threat the liberals insist on being tolerant of intolerance. That's never going to fly, of course.
And liberalism also fails to confront this enemy fully and correctly because it wants to attribute its discontent to purely materal factors. The familiar refrain is "with more jobs, healthcare, and education and the Middle East will love America" but that's not really the case. Many of the leaders of the Islamofascist movement are very well educated and economically privileged, so it's not simply about money and power, it's about values.
stuberman
· 3 years ago
In Harris' 'The Future of Ideas' podcast he advocates being intolerant of religion. This seems to contradict the ideals of classic liberalism even if it is gaining acceptance in more modern versions.
Nonetheless it is hard to disagree with his conclusion in this excerpt even if our religious 'lunatics' are far more reasonable and civil then 'their lunatics'.
All Comments
However, identifying the threat and crafting the solution are two distinct endeavors. Harris clearly identifies the threat but seems more inclined to then pivot and blame liberalism for our inability to confront the issue rather that offer any reasoned solutions. By acknowledging that liberalism is "generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity" and at the same time blaming it for not combating religious literalism is incongruent logic. In reality, liberalism clearly understands the dangers of religious literalism which is exactly why it promotes reasonability and tolerance. Further, that understanding is why liberals believe that the war in Iraq and the war on terror will ultimately require political solutions rather than an ever expanding military strategy.
As world population and a world economy continue to expand, our abilities to prevent the inherent racial, cultural, and religious clashes that come with proximity will become more challenging. Succumbing to the absolutism that accompanies any us/them equation is certain to trigger accelerated conflict. It is essential we refrain from adopting a broad brush strokes mentality. A reactionary strategy is nothing more than the fuel for escalation. In the end, it is individuals who define the differences upon which conflict is predicatedÂ…whether they be Islamist, Liberal, or otherwise. It will be the politics of leadership that will eventually bridge the divide.
Read more here:
www.thoughttheater.com
And liberalism also fails to confront this enemy fully and correctly because it wants to attribute its discontent to purely materal factors. The familiar refrain is "with more jobs, healthcare, and education and the Middle East will love America" but that's not really the case. Many of the leaders of the Islamofascist movement are very well educated and economically privileged, so it's not simply about money and power, it's about values.
Nonetheless it is hard to disagree with his conclusion in this excerpt even if our religious 'lunatics' are far more reasonable and civil then 'their lunatics'.