Sam Harris

I have no criticism.

Here’s my take on the situation in the Middle East (and I’m an Ex-Muslim):

_Why Most Terrorists Are Muslims_
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/2012/09/why-most-terrorists-are-muslims.html

_Why don’t Ex-Muslims go public?_
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/2012/09/why-dont-ex-muslims-go-public.html

_Is Allah real?_
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/2012/09/is-allah-real.html

Recent Video Offending Muslims

The perspective from those that have viewed this film is that, it is nonsense. It seems any re-action to this film therefore is grounded in nonsense and behavior emanating from nonsense is subsequently nonsensical.This commentary is not a reaction but rather an observation of reaction.
The film is the brainchild of just one person yet the reaction to it by many Muslims is that it is a United States government produced film and sanctioned by the American public. This is just more nonsense but what if we used the same logic for the nine eleven attacks and held all Muslims responsible? If we follow that through then we should have killed all the Muslims. That would have been like the response to this film, irrational. Yet it would be prudent to consider the sensitivities of the offended so we can deal with them.

Of course the film is just another reason for these people to manifest their frustration most of which arises from treatment by fellow Muslims, not the United States. It can also be argued that a society that mistreats its women, stones accused wrong doers, condones strapping bombs to children to blow-up other innocent Muslims, is a society that does not have any sensitivities about anything including of all things religion.
Now with all that said consider for a moment trading places with the people who say they are offended by the movie. Their minds are heavily conditioned to the point that they think they are right and that America is an evil place. If we are capable of such a transmutation then I think we would have to admit that we would be doing the same thing they are now doing.
If we care to pursue this exposure to common sense; then when it has been whittled down to basics the truth stands fully exposed. The truth being that we are fighting over things that we have invented not edification’s of God and Nature. We of course will shrug this off and go on pretending that the things we have invented are real and worth annihilating each other for.
God can only be one thing when this maniacal, egoistical human behavior is observed and that is shocked and bewildered.
In the Heartland,
Dung Teller

http://dungteller.blogspot.com/memoirs of a moron and the end of conflict

I have a minor quibble with what Sam said about Romney. I think Mittens only objected to Obama’s response because it was Obama’s response. If Mittens had been in the white house I think he would have had the same reaction as Obama—fear. Mitt will criticize Obama no matter what Obama does.

To be fair to Romney, and I’m not a fan, he and the right in general have consistently been criticizing Obama for his apologetic stance toward U.S. and western culture in general.  Since Obama took office, they refer to him as ‘Apologist-in-Chief.’

I think Sam is dead on and I wish his voice was heard more widely these days.  He got decent TV time when his first book came out.  Now I think the left and right are afraid of him because they can’t count on him to tow the party line.

The saddest part of this is my perception of the public, especially all of my facebook friends, so-called Americans.  They don’t blame terrorists and call for the imprisonment or execution of the YouTube filmmaker!  This is crushing.  The first amendment will not last long.  I also expect a slew of anti-blasphemy laws to be enacted both in the U.S. and among the U.N. slime.

Here’s some rare support for Sam: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php

Majority of One - 19 September 2012 11:30 PM

I have a minor quibble with what Sam said about Romney. I think Mittens only objected to Obama’s response because it was Obama’s response. If Mittens had been in the white house I think he would have had the same reaction as Obama—fear. Mitt will criticize Obama no matter what Obama does.

Mitt is a walking foreign policy nightmare.  But we can’t tell you guys that.  You don’t f*cking listen.  You were silly enough to elect Dubya TWICE! 

We just gotta sit back and watch.  It’s like watching Reno 911.  You guys are almost competent.

Obama is no better and possibly worse than George W.  Yes, you can think that Obama’s rhetoric is exactly what you want to hear but his foreign policy in action sucks the big ‘W’!

mormovies - 23 September 2012 12:48 PM

Obama is no better and possibly worse than George W.  Yes, you can think that Obama’s rhetoric is exactly what you want to hear but his foreign policy in action sucks the big ‘W’!

I don’t think Obama’s great either, but when he talks, we don’t look at each other wondering why the Americans would elect someone who’s obviously a little… slow.  Special.  Not quite intelligent enough to be as corrupt as the last half dozen or so.

Doesn’t matter what I think, really.  I’m not American.  But many of us up here like Americans, and travel to the States routinely.  Because we like it.  But it was amusing to watch a stranger in our golfing foursome in S. Carolina ask my dad what Canadians really think of Dubya, and watching him squirm, not wanting to answer honestly.  Dubya is an inspiration to students in Special Ed classes everywhere.

I don’t think Romney is slow.  I think he’s a bad actor trying to act like a politician.  I’m sure he’s pretty savvy in a boardroom.  In contrast, Obama is a slick career politician.

mormovies - 23 September 2012 11:33 AM

The saddest part of this is my perception of the public, especially all of my facebook friends, so-called Americans.  They don’t blame terrorists and call for the imprisonment or execution of the YouTube filmmaker!  This is crushing.  The first amendment will not last long.  I also expect a slew of anti-blasphemy laws to be enacted both in the U.S. and among the U.N. slime.

The problem is known as The Dark Logic of Moral Relativism.

Here’s a good explanation of it: http://www.settingtheworldtorights.com/node/468

> The Dark Logic Of Moral Equivalence
>
> The Anglican Consultative Council, whose President is the Archbishop of Canterbury, has voted to recommend that its member churches divest from businesses that support Israeli “occupation” of the territories. As Melanie Philips said, they did this in response to a report “full of the most inflammatory lies, libels and distortions about Israel”.
>
> In an attempt to ward off accusations of bias, they also recommended that churches divest from businesses that support Palestinian violence against innocent Israelis. With this attempt at formal ‘even-handedness’ the Council betrays its moral bankruptcy and ignorance of the situation in Israel and Palestine as much as with anything else in the report. Palestinian terrorist groups try to attack Israelis and fantasise about destroying Israel. So the Israelis run military operations to stop terrorism and take security measures to prevent murderers from coming into Israel.
>
> The Council are trying to be neutral between Palestinian terrorists on the one hand and Israel on the other. Their press release illustrates the dark logic of this moral equivalence. In it they do not mention terrorism. Nor do they mention that the Palestinian terrorist groups want to destroy Israel. Nor that their ideologies are based explicitly on wild antisemitic conspiracy theories, and that all the institutions of their society relentlessly transmit these to their children. Nor do they mention that Palestinian terrorist groups regularly murder Palestinians for “collaborating” with Israel, i.e. - for warning Israelis who are in danger of being murdered. However, they do manage to squeeze in a reference to “the draconian conditions of the continuing occupation under which so many Palestinians live.” The Council’s problem is that if they wish to remain neutral then they can’t mention the agenda or the crimes of Palestinian terrorists. If they did, then they would have to admit that the terrorists are evil and the Israelis are defending themselves from this evil. So they can only mention the Israeli government’s security measures while carefully refraining from putting them into context. And so their ‘even-handedness’ leads directly to their one-sided condemnation of Israel. The Church of England has sold its soul for the sake of appearing neutral.

It’s sad that Obama’s speech to the U.N. yesterday denounced the YouTube filmmaker again and seemed to imply that every religionist has a right to be shielded from blasphemy while condemning violence.  Why does a cheesy amateur YouTube filmmaker have less rights than a cartoonist or a novelist?  Their is no voice of reason to counter these arguments (other than Sam and a few others who don’t always have access to the mainstream media).  Hitchens would have been out front like an attack dog!