The same can be said for Chris Hitchens. He was and remains a hero of mine, but he was a misguided rabid supporter of the war in
I disagree with Sam Harris on a few things, not the least of which is his demonization of liberal Xtians. You’d think a man of letters who firmly accepts evolutionary theory, would see liberal Xtians as part of, a stage in, the evolution of religion - leading ultimately to reason and the demise of religion over the long haul. Sam, it seems, isn’t satisfied with that.
To Harris liberal Xtians are cherry picking doctrine (and they are); accommodating myth with reality (which they do); creating a hybrid or bastardization of Christianity which prolongs religious belief (and it does) and enables fundies. It seems that to Sam anything short of the immediate self extinction of fundamentalist belief, with no stage between total belief in myth and fable and complete atheism, is unacceptable and unworthy of nurturing or acceptance, but worthy only of disdain. This is my summary interpretation of his perspective, not his precise words.
To me this is tantamount to despising Australopithecus for standing between his arboreal ancestors and the development of Homo sapiens. Heck, Australo was just delaying the inevitable.
Sam’s not much of a pragmatist in that regard, nor is he a diplomat nor politician if his latest screed is any indication.
But where Sam sees this as weakness I see it as diplomacy, civility, and an attempt to establish credible arms length distance between government involvement and private citizen's action; not at all indicative of an offer to relinquish our rights and freedoms or an admonishment against free speech by anyone of any kind.
Unfortunately, some Americans, Sam included, seem not to understand that every Muslim who lives in the
If establishing that the US government does not endorse specific speech antagonistic to a billion or so foreigners, and seeks to maintain an arms length between a private citizen’s inflammatory speech and our body’s politic is some how weakness, it is only so in the minds of those who fail to understand this difference (or prefer to reject the difference ). It speaks more to those Americans' knee jerk ethno-centric ignorance, or political agenda, than to an administration kowtowing to Muslim indignation.
No...the private citizen does not speak for the
That said: Phuque the Profit Muhammad.
(Note: I was criticized by a fb friend for referring to Christopher Hitchens as "Chris" in this article, an abbreviated name Hitch despised. A thoughtless oversight on my part. But I doubt "Hitch" is going to object. After all, I've never received a complaint from Chuck Darwin)