Edit: The post is long and I cared not read it through because of tired, so please forgive if something is unclear or poorly written.
@fairbanks:
Disclaimer: I focus mainly on the criticism of Sam Harris in the original article, and as such also the issues Sam Harris is concerned about. This was also the starting point of our debate that got interrupted.
My first question to you is if you have ever read some of Sam Harris's work? I am not talking about skimming through some pages or look at excerpts from his lectures/debates, but actually reading or listening, whilst paying attention. I suspect you have not, as you should then have been able to formulate your own thoughts on his work, and introduced debate based on these, instead of just quoting a large block of text from the internet. In addition to this, I claim that you would never have chosen to quote that article in the first place, as you would have seen that the criticism is completely misplaced, and that the author clearly have misunderstood or intentionally distorted Harris's writing (as is the case with all of his critics that make such outrageous claims).
It is simply not true that Sam Harris is a supporter of fascism, racism or genocide. This is, and I cannot stress this enough, not what anyone not ignorant, dishonest or insane would reach as a conclusion if his work was read with attention. And I might of course tell you right away that I have read Sam Harris's work and followed him closely for some time, and I think racism, genocide and fascism are things not to be supported at all, so if Sam Harris really supported any of these things I would definitely notice, wouldn't I? So, let us look at some of these claims that your author makes. These claims are in fact quite serious to make about influential public figures, and should not be swallowed easily.
1. Sam Harris supports torture of Muslims.
This is completely off the bat. Sam Harris has nowhere claimed that he supports torture of Muslims. What Sam Harris has said about torture concerns general ethical theory, he simply doesn't support torture of any group of individuals. In fact, he has said that known cases of torture were "sadistic", "stupid" and "patently unethical". His views on this are complicated, so, as with the rest of his work, you should take your time to read what he actually has to say about this and form your own opinion without the distortion of others. I will summarize some of it for you, though; he retains that in certain, very extremehypothetical scenarios that torture might be justifiable, at least in principle, but he remains positive to keeping torture illegal. In other words, what you have quoted is just wrong and, I am afraid, plain stupid.
2. Sam Harris is a racist.
Of course, this is also wrong. What Sam Harris is concerned about is not race, gender, ethnicity etc, but about faith-based religions, or more specifically bad or even dangerous ideas held for bad reasons and the consequences these beliefs have in the world, i.e. the behavioural effects of them. In his work he does not only single out Islam, but goes hard on for example Christianity as well. As a matter of fact, he attacks irrational beliefs and dogmas in general throughout his work, as you should know if you have followed it. What is true, and what neither he or I will deny, is that he doesn't treat every religion the same. This is most clearly shown in his treatment of Islam, which he sort of singles out. There are, however, very good reasons for this.
Let's first acknowledge that there is a difference between dogmatic beliefs about the complete necessity of living in total love and compassion with everyone on the one side, and dogmatic beliefs about using violence to defend your faith, whatever it may be, on the other. I am sure you, as a sane person, can agree that the behavioural consequences across individuals of these faiths will be different, which is an important issue in the world. To put it another way, you probably wouldn't hesitate to discuss a child's belief in Santa Claus and the schizophrenic's belief that someone tells him to kill on different merits.
So now, Sam Harris singles out Islam for reasons I shall mention, and because of this singling out some of his critics calls him a racist. What misses is that his criticism of both the logical and behavioural consequences of certain strong held beliefs applies equally well to anyone that holds them, no matter what their gender or color etc is. If he really were a racist, then he should have singled out religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and others whose followers generally are not of the same color as he is. Does he? No. He focuses on Islam because of, you guessed it, Islam is Islam. It is the beliefs, dogmas and doctrines that are under primary focus. It is not the people themselves, but the behavioural consequences the faith have on these people. This is an important distinction that you, and your author, have missed completely, and consequently makes a discussion pointless. Islam is, after all, not a race.
Why, you say, single out Islam then? Well, take a look at the actual doctrines of Islam and check it with the world. What you will find is that these doctrines and beliefs reliably produce very bad behaviour that is belligerent and very hostile to civil discourse. This is because the worst of these behaviours, namely the behaviours of jihadists, apostate murderers, the men that treat their women like piece of shit and so on and so forth, are exactly those individuals that represent the doctrine in practice in the most explicit way. These are the individuals that adhere to the faith of Islam, the actual teachings of it, in the most honest and strict way.
In the Muslim parts of the world you risk to be killed if you leave the teachings of Islam for example, as the penalty of apostasy is explicitly stated, both by Muslim jurists and mob, as well as in the hadith, to be death. May I also remind you of the Shiites that have their weddings, homes, funerals and mosques bombed by Sunni extremists, the victims of rape that are beaten up, imprisoned and in some cases even killed as a result, the young girls that risk their lives simply learning to read, having acid thrown in their faces, the women and homosexuals having their rights shit at among many other things that are very explicitly happening in Muslim societies. Or what about the fact that from 2003 to 2010 about 1000 suicide bombers killed at minimum well over 12 000 civilians in Iraq, both women and children, old and young alike. If you happen to ask one of these extremists why they did it, they will, unsuprisingly, talk about the teachings of Islam. Consider also, for example, your response if I challenge you to burn a Quran in public. Would you do it? Probably not. What if I asked you to burn a Bible in public? Perhaps you wouldn't do it anyway, but the reasons I suspect is not because you were afraid of mobs all over the world going into a frenzy, getting people killed in the process.
These issues, and many more, are very Islam specific issues, and while you sit comfortably at your computer criticizing people who publicly encourage us to think and debate these issues, calling them racists, people are dying and suffering because of them. Great priority.
It simply can't be shoved under a stone that there are clear religious roots of Muslim violence, as can be found in the teachings of Islam, and two very persistent myths pertaining to Muslim violence is that it is nearly exclusively performed by people coming from war-ravaged areas, poor economic conditions, with no chance of getting an education and with hopeless future outlooks, and/or that this violence is a reaction to Western occupation. Both of these claims are simply false. The first is addressed simply by looking at statistics, where you will find that most of these people have good resources, education, a good economy and live in stable areas; for example the 9/11 terrorists. The other one is simply not true when you look at what the terrorists themselves says, as they justify their actions solely on Islam teachings. Furthermore, most of the violence committed by Muslims are against other Muslims, not against the West, which would be strange if this violence was a result of Western influence and occupation. So a question arises, if Sam Harris hates all Muslims, why does he care so much about Muslim violence when it is primarily focused on other Muslims?
Another thing to note is that many other nations and countries have been subjugated to occupation by foreign powers or otherwise mistreated, but these show no such consistent acts of violence and atrocities that can be seen in Muslim parts of the world. Look for example at the Tibetans. Also, for sake of argument, the fundamental doctrine of Al-Quida is Qutbism, after the man Sayyid Qutb, where the fundamental ideology is that a strict interpretation of Sunni-Islam is the only correct interpretation, and strict Sharia is the only law that shall exist. Qutb meant that the Arabic world, and all of the world for that matter, is in a perpetual state of Islam ignorance (Jahiliyya), and that the only way to resurrect Islam is to wage holy war against all non-Islamic influences and elements in society. This can be justified by passages in the Quran. A central part of the ideology is also that apostates could, and should be killed. After the traditional Islamic part of the world has been subjugated to Islam resurrection, the rest of the world is at hand. So as you can see, there is nothing about Western occupation here, and as said, these people and others similar to them do not justify their actions in general outside of the teachings of Islam.
Humans simply have a potential for violent behaviour, and ideas, beliefs, convictions, religious doctrines and so on in many ways cultivate and determine the actions of individuals. When Islam is such a good justification for violent behaviour, and we see violent behaviour, behaviour not easily comparable to other behaviour done by other people, all over the Muslim world, there is absolutely room for concern and debate. Can't you see this is why Harris discusses these things? He is, believe it or not, highly concerned with the well-being of humans and civil society, and is not a racist.
3. Sam Harris supports pre-emptive nuclear strikes on the Muslim world.
This is insane and completely wrong. He talks about nuclear war only in "The End of Faith", and if you had read it, you would easily see that this is not at all what he is saying he supports. Let's look at the relevant quote on page 128-129.
Quote:It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side.
As you can see, your author's criticism is misplaced, extremely misplaced (The highlights in the quote are Harris's own).
Anyway, I am done for now, but I think you have not understood these matters, thought them through very hard or read Harris' work, since you adopt criticism that is completely false, as it is critique of words not spoken. The other things, such as those about profiling, can also seen to be wrong simply by reading Sam Harris. All of what I have said could thus have be seen by reading and understanding him properly. So next time, when wanting to discuss such crucial topics, I highly suggest you inform yourself properly and understand the debate properly before proceeding.
Good night.