Skip to main content

View Diary: HR 2679, "Christian Supremacy Act", Up For House Vote Tuesday (139 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sam Harris (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aitchdee, corvo, greenearth, Pandoras Box

    probably the single most cohesive voice on how theocracy is darkening our doors even now - was Al Franken's guest today on Air America Radio.

    GAWD it's times like this I wish I had a subscribe so I could steal the podcast and post it here.

    He was so clear, so eloquent, and so god damn RIGHT about everything he talked about it was stunning.

    And a perfect day for him to hock his new book, apparently.

    "Hell, I'll say it, gimme that fuckin' microphone!!" (imaginary Keith Olbermann quote)

    by Detroit Mark on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 03:26:46 PM PDT

    •  I have a sub (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenearth

      I could get you the mp3, but how should I post or send it to ya?

    •  Here it is (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eternal Hope, corvo, Detroit Mark

      The interview itself.  Compressed it a bit but the talking comes through clearly.

      Here (mp3)

    •  Sam Harris' voice is not 'cohesive'...... (0+ / 0-)

      Harris voice is politically incoherent : "religion must be destroyed" ?

      Anyone who speaks of the destruction of the beliefs of billions of humans, and who has no clear program for doing so, advances, in my opinion, an incoherent agenda.

      •  It's a new version of the Neocons. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Troutfishing

        What that school of thought advocates is the destruction of religion, the advancement of GMO science and human engineering, and the splitting of the human race into two different species that would not be sexually compatable. One would be the haves and the others the have-nots. Lee Silver is the chief promoter of this theory.

      •  If That's The Understanding You Have Of Harris (0+ / 0-)

        You've been basing your opinion on heresay.  Because he's never once made that ridiculous assertion.

        Besides, religions don't need to be destroyed.  They eventually destroy themselves, each and every one.

        All Harris asserts is that the time has come for society to be permitted to openly question the nonsensical; to put it to the same test as anything that is to be held up as truth or fact.

        The only one who might be frightened of that prospect is the one who really knows inside that given a good, honest, clean look at their beliefs - they might just come apart at the seams in the face of reality.

        Furthermore, he explains that its religious apologists that make it impossible to get at the root of the destruction of fundamentalist zealotry that's such a cancer on our entire planet - the root of every thing horrible that has ever befallen mankind.

        It just happens to resonate with me.

        "Hell, I'll say it, gimme that fuckin' microphone!!" (imaginary Keith Olbermann quote)

        by Detroit Mark on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 06:57:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  His exact words: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Troutfishing

          Science must destroy religion.

          Religion is fast growing incompatible with the emergence of a global, civil society. Religious faith — faith that there is a God who cares what name he is called, that one of our books is infallible, that Jesus is coming back to earth to judge the living and the dead, that Muslim martyrs go straight to Paradise, etc. — is on the wrong side of an escalating war of ideas. The difference between science and religion is the difference between a genuine openness to fruits of human inquiry in the 21st century, and a premature closure to such inquiry as a matter of principle. I believe that the antagonism between reason and faith will only grow more pervasive and intractable in the coming years.

          Iron Age beliefs — about God, the soul, sin, free will, etc. — continue to impede medical research and distort public policy. The possibility that we could elect a U.S. President who takes biblical prophesy seriously is real and terrifying; the likelihood that we will one day confront Islamists armed with nuclear or biological weapons is also terrifying, and it is increasing by the day. We are doing very little, at the level of our intellectual discourse, to prevent such possibilities.

          In the spirit of religious tolerance, most scientists are keeping silent when they should be blasting the hideous fantasies of a prior age with all the facts at their disposal.

          The problem with that view is that it is a dogmatic orthodoxy just like the religious people he says he is against. It is people like that who repeatedly come into PD's diaries and hijack them with their narrow-minded views.

          •  Threads can't be "hijacked" (0+ / 0-)

            because someone posts an opinion.  What a completely trademark christian-as-victim point of view.

            Precisely the kind of religious apologist tone that Harris talks about.

            I appreciate the fact that you posted the link as well so that people can read the full context of his essay at Huffington Post.  Because when it's read in its entirety your implied plea that the disease of religious dogma should be left to run rampant in a civilized society is not supported.

            But your closing notes do, however, shed light as to the origin of your appeasement of the fundamentalism that is slowly killing every one of us.

            "Hell, I'll say it, gimme that fuckin' microphone!!" (imaginary Keith Olbermann quote)

            by Detroit Mark on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 03:51:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I suggest you take that back. (0+ / 0-)

              But your closing notes do, however, shed light as to the origin of your appeasement of the fundamentalism that is slowly killing every one of us.

              He doesn't attack fundamentalism. He attacks religion. He uses the word "religion" instead of "fundamentalism." Big difference. If he had used "fundamentalism" or "religious fundamentalism," then you would have a point.

              I don't have much use for religion myself, but I know intolerance when I see it. It's not a matter of appeasing fumdamentalism, its a matter of speaking out against intolerance. So, I suggest you take that remark back. And if I catch you hijacking any diary in which someone exercises their right to express their religious beliefs, I will troll-rate you. That includes Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, whatever.

              As Democrats, we believe in the equality of all people. That means allowing people to practice whatever religion they want in any way, shape, or form. The problem with that article is that it expresses hostility to religion. And by lumping people like me in with the fundamentalists, you fall into the same trap that the fundies do by creating fundamentalist beliefs of your own which all people must follow or else.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site