What Sam Harris got wrong about the mosque

August 16, 2010 | Filed under: Columnists,Featured Block | Posted by: Mike Daniels

Sam Harris

In today’s Daily Beast, atheist activist and author Sam Harris takes a page from the Christian Right, declaring Islam a “threat to civil society” and condemning those who would uphold Constitutional principles of freedom of religion and equal protection.

Sam Harris is well known, and generally respected, for his strong opinions. The content of his column, “What Obama Got Wrong about the Mosque“, is no exception. Harris, one would assume, takes objection to President Obama’s recent remarks about freedom of religion.

Oddly, despite the title, Harris doesn’t describe or quote anything Obama said on the subject. So, what did our President say? Obama’s remarks (in full):

Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities -– particularly New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

But let me be clear. As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. (Applause.) And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.

We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who led the response to that attack -– from the firefighters who charged up smoke-filled staircases, to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan today. And let us also remember who we’re fighting against, and what we’re fighting for. Our enemies respect no religious freedom. Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam -– it’s a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders -– they’re terrorists who murder innocent men and women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion -– and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.

So that’s who we’re fighting against. And the reason that we will win this fight is not simply the strength of our arms -– it is the strength of our values. The democracy that we uphold. The freedoms that we cherish. The laws that we apply without regard to race, or religion, or wealth, or status. Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect towards those who are different from us –- and that way of life, that quintessentially American creed, stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today.

In my inaugural address I said that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus —- and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and every culture, drawn from every end of this Earth. And that diversity can bring difficult debates. This is not unique to our time. Past eras have seen controversies about the construction of synagogues or Catholic churches. But time and again, the American people have demonstrated that we can work through these issues, and stay true to our core values, and emerge stronger for it. So it must be -– and will be -– today.

Where is Obama wrong? Can someone please enlighten me where his comments are off base?

Update: It turns out that Harris did not choose the title of his column, and wrote the column before Obama’s remarks. However, this does not alter the validity of the remainder of this article, which focuses on Harris’s comments, not Obama’s. -MD

Harris levels his charges not against Obama’s support of religious freedom, but against the assertion that al Quaida is not the only, or even primary, face of Islam. He declares Islam “different from other faiths”, noting that even if multiple generations of moderate Muslims ignore the violent passages of the Koran and focus on more peaceful messages, “the holy books remain forever to be consulted, and no one will dare to edit them. Consequently, the most barbarous and divisive passages in these texts will remain forever open to being given their most plausible interpretations.”

Anticipating a common response, he correctly notes that “the Old Testament contains even greater barbarism,” but insists that “there are obvious historical and theological reasons why it inspires far less Jewish and Christian violence today,” asserting that anyone comparing the mass-murders of the Crusades or Israel’s bombing of civilian areas of Palestine to Islamic jihadists “is simply not thinking honestly about the problem of Islam.”

That’s right. According to Harris, you’re intellectually dishonest if you recognize that the fundamental texts of the Old Testament, which Harris declares to contain “even greater barbarism” and which “no one will dare to edit,” leave Christians with the same potential for barbarism as modern fundamentalist Islam.

Harris never describes the “obvious historical and theological reasons” he mentions, and conveniently forgets the domestic Christian terrorists of recent years — the Oklahoma City bombers of 1995; this year’s Hutaree, who hoped to spark a civil war by murdering policemen; the rise of the “sovereign citizen” movement; and the upswing in Christian Dominionist groups, like American Vision, classed as “hate groups” by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Harris, in his fear and anger, plays directly into the hands of the Christian right, even repeating their arguments.

“There is no such thing as Islamophobia,” he declares. “. . . it is not a form of bigotry or racism to observe that the specific tenets of the faith pose a special threat to civil society.” While Harris stops short of demanding that the government prevent the community center/mosque from being built, he echoes all the sentiments of those who do . . . while keeping his own hands clean.

Harris fails to realize — or, at least, to acknowledge — that the Christian right has two goals in this case, and neither has anything to do with Islam per se: To inflame Nativism, that “Us/Real Christian-Nation Americans” vs. “Them/Invaders” dichotomy; and to weaken respect for the First and Fourteenth Amendments so they may be either disregarded or amended in the Right’s favor.

If the community center/mosque were forced off the legally-acquired land and such action supported by the courts, it would set a legal precedent stating that land use law, and the rights of the minority, may be determined by the sensibilities of the majority. Equal protection and freedom of religion would be irrevocably damaged. The First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause, and the Fourteenth’s Equal Protection Clause, would be rendered judicially impotent.

This is exactly what the Christian Right wants. Both Liam Fox and Luis Granados have recently addressed the Right’s complete disinterest in — nay, hostility toward — democracy except when “the will of the people” serves their needs, and have commented on their hostility toward the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Sam Harris is playing directly into the Right’s hands, bringing thousands of liberal-minded folk along for the ride . . . willingly herding themselves onto the train toward Christian theocracy, a ride gathering strength and speed daily.

Harris openly condemns the construction of an Islamic center, mosque, what-have-you in this vicinity, warning that “the erection of a mosque upon the ashes of this atrocity will also be viewed by many millions of Muslims as a victory—and as a sign that the liberal values of the West are synonymous with decadence and cowardice.”

Andy McCarthy, author of a paranoid screed about how American liberals are consciously handing America over to the Muslims, recently professed that there are 2,300 mosques in the US, but no churches in Saudi Arabia. Is he suggesting that the United States should behave like Saudi Arabia? Is Harris?

If there were evidence that this project were a “conquest mosque”, Harris might have something. Not a legal basis, but a reason to be offended. A reason to question the motives of the sponsors. So, why are these Muslims so intent on moving into lower Manhattan?

Because they’ve been there nearly three decades, that’s why.

Like Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Fischer, et al, Harris ignores the fact that the congregation has been located a few blocks away in TriBeCa for twenty-seven years, and has outgrown its space.

Twenty-seven years.

This is not a “conquest mosque”. What is it?

It is not a mosque, although it will include a space for Muslim prayer services. It will have a swimming pool, basketball court, meeting rooms, a 500-seat auditorium, banquet facilities and many other things a community needs to be healthy. The center will offer theatrical programming, art exhibitions and cooking classes. These are amenities missing now from this part of the city.

And, yes, the center will have a public memorial to the victims of 9/11 as well as a meditation room where all will be welcome for quiet reflection. The center will support soul and body.

The center will be open to all regardless of religion. Like a YMCA, the 92nd St. Y or the Jewish Community Center uptown, it will admit everyone. It will be a center for all New Yorkers.

Some say that the Imam, moderate Feisal Abdul Rauf, should have the sensitivity not to locate there. Maybe he should move his congregation to a different borough at taxpayer expense, as New York Governor Paterson suggested, instead of just a few blocks from their existing, undersized space. However, it is not for the government, or anyone else, to direct — or pay — him to do so. We either have religious freedom and equal protection under the law in this country, or we do not.

Religious freedom does not mean allowing Sharia courts, like the UK and some other European nations have in some cases done. It means expecting everyone to follow the same laws, and according them the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else.

That includes the right to be insensitive and putting your own rights and desires above the sensibilities of others. Regardless of how we feel about the sponsors’ choice of location for this facility, we should not be attacking our own people for supporting the basic freedoms that set the United States apart from other nations; we should not allow the Right to lead us into condemning and invalidating our own Constitution.

That is the last thing we can afford to do.

Mike Daniels is co-editor of Secular News Daily.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry.

16 Responses to What Sam Harris got wrong about the mosque

DavidB August 16, 2010 - 10:53 pm

And of all the 365 days of the year that they could have chosen to open the victory mosque, they chose September the 11th. What an amazing coincidence.

Mike_Daniels August 16, 2010 - 11:29 pm

Got a reference for that, David?
http://mediamatters.org/research/201008100011

Glenn Beck and Pamela Geller advanced the false claim that the New York City Islamic cultural center will open on September 11, 2011. In fact, both the executive director of one of the groups spearheading the project, as well as the Imam involved, have flatly denied that the center is slated to open on September 11.

It would be virtually impossible to get through design and permitting of a 13-story building by September of 2011, much less construction.

DavidB August 17, 2010 - 12:32 am

"Got a reference for that, David?"

No.

" In fact, both the executive director of one of the groups spearheading the project, as well as the Imam involved, have flatly denied that the center is slated to open on September 11."

Never heard of Al-Takeyya?

Lets not kid ourselves though shall we, Islam is not a religion, it is a totalitarian ideology, completely incompatible with a modern western democracy. If you cannot see that, then I suggest educating yourself on Islamic Sharia law.

- Mike_Daniels August 17, 2010 - 9:06 am
  
  "Got a reference for that, David?"
  
  No.
  
  Why are you stating something as a fact when you don't have a reference?
  
  Islam is not a religion, it is a totalitarian ideology, completely incompatible with a modern western democracy. If you cannot see that, then I suggest educating yourself on Islamic Sharia law.
  
  Judeo-Christianity is also a totalitarian ideology, completely incompatible with a modern western democracy. There is no concept of "democracy" in those religions. Yet in spite of them, here we have a modern western republic (technically, not a democracy). How'd that happen?
  
  Never heard of Al-Takeyya?
  
  Never heard of construction schedules, design, permitting, traffic control plans, traffic impact analyses? It is not possible to go from conceptual design to a completed 13-story building in 13 months. Beck is the one lying, to inflame his ratings. I guess that's OK, since he's not a Muslim but a Mormon, right?
  
Matt Friedman August 17, 2010 - 1:51 pm

Mr. Daniels may be misunderstanding, but in any case is certainly misrepresenting, Sam Harris. Daniels claims Harris is "condemning those who would uphold Constitutional principles of freedom of religion and equal protection." Maybe he just skimmed the article, or didn't get as far as page 3, where Harris states "American Muslims should be absolutely free to build a mosque two blocks from ground zero."

I'm going to repeat that because of the importance of this statement in contradicting Daniel's assertions here and the erroneous equivalency he makes between Harris and right-wingers: Harris wrote, "American Muslims should be absolutely free to build a mosque two blocks from ground zero."

Daniels also failed to continue Harris' "Islamophobia" quotation to its important conclusion: "prejudice against Muslims or Arabs, purely because of the accident of their birth, is despicable." In failing to do so, the author has misread Harris badly, and I advise other readers to avoid following his example.

Harris' ACTUAL complaints in the article went to the larger context in which the "Ground Zero Mosque" issue is being argued. His complaints are familiar to anyone who's read his books or other articles: that Islam is a religion comprised of written instructions and proscribed beliefs, and these instructions and beliefs if followed as proscribed are not compatible with what we consider civil societies. He also states that it is not bigotry to make this observation. (Perhaps the fact that this observation is so trivially easy to defend is what makes many liberally-minded people so uncomfortable being challenged with it.)

In any case, making a larger cultural argument about the dangers of an explicitly intolerant religion is not intolerance. Arriving at a position through reasoned consideration of history and observed evidence, accepting it in spite of public opinion to the contrary, and defending it with clear logic and reverence for the facts, is about as far as you can get from taking "a page from the Christian right."

- Mike_Daniels August 17, 2010 - 5:09 pm
  
  Matt, while Harris does indeed say that Muslims should have the right to build their community center where they like, he aligns himself with and repeats the arguments of the religious right. Perhaps you were skimming, and overlooked above, "While Harris stops short of demanding that the government prevent the community center/mosque from being built, he echoes all the sentiments of those who do . . . while keeping his own hands clean."
  
  You appear to be misrepresenting or misunderstanding the "Islamophobia" quotation. Harris' conclusion is not about "prejudice based on birth"; this is an intermediate clause. His conclusion is that Islam is a "special threat to civil society", followed up with the implication that moderate Muslims are liars:
  
  it is not a form of bigotry or racism to observe that the specific tenets of the faith pose a special threat to civil society. Nor is it a sign of intolerance to notice when people are simply not being honest about what they and their co-religionists believe.
  
  Harris' "actual complaints", as you call them, are not relevant to the facts of the "actual case". He repeats the right's rant that this community center will be seen as a "conquest mosque". He ignores the fact that the congregation sponsoring it has been in the neighborhood for nearly three decades, with a leader openly dedicated to improving relations between Muslims and the rest of America. He selectively ignores (or perhaps is simply ignorant of and uninterested in researching) facts surrounding the matter, and instead reacts to the "ground zero mosque" with a rant about the evils of monolithic Islam. This course of action is, by definition, a demonstration of prejudice.
  
free BORF August 17, 2010 - 2:02 pm

Attack of the idiotic strawman in 3D

ALan Paine August 17, 2010 - 8:01 pm

Maybe Sam was having a bad day.

F. Andy Seidl August 17, 2010 - 10:00 pm

I've enjoyed Harris's books and generally agree with him on most things, but I do think he's on the wrong side of this one. While he makes some valid points (which are tangent to the current "nontroversy", as Chris Hayes so aptly put it), those are greatly overshadowed by the fact he has allowed himself to get sucked into using wing nut terminology put forth by Limbaugh, Beck, and various other kooks or principle-less politicos: "victory mosque", "ground zero mosque", etc. Those manufactured terms are designed specifically to inflame, not to enlighten.

trog69 August 19, 2010 - 1:08 am

I am one of those liberals who finds themselves torn over this issue. As a nonbeliever, I see nothing more than one bunch of fanatics trying to battle another set. The problem is, I don't trust those of the Islamic faith any more than I do the Christians, and after seeing how much lies and obfuscation arising out of the Dominionists/Fundamentalist Christian right, that means I don't trust the majority of Muslims at all. Yes, there are many US citizens who are also Muslim who are just as concerned about the fanatics as I am. Yet millions of Islamic followers are willing to protest in the streets, calling for the deaths of those who they feel are disrespecting their beliefs.

Add to this the fact that Mr. Harris brings up, that Muslims are much more likely to embrace all of the text of the Koran, not just the PC-parts than Christians/Hindus are to follow their more bloodthirsty scriptures.

Back to the mosque, I believe they should be allowed to build the center, and the knuckledraggers protesting should go find another hobby free from hypocrisy.

Cccccc August 26, 2010 - 1:27 pm

"What Mike Daniels Got Wrong About Sam Harris"

Sam Harris in his piece was not responding directly to Obama's statement. From Sam Harris' twitter:

P.S. Editors generally write article titles. I actually wrote my mosque piece before Obama made his statement.
3:18 PM Aug 14th via web http://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg

- Mike Daniels August 26, 2010 - 12:23 pm
  
  Thanks for sharing that, C6! Fortunately, the bulk of my article doesn't rely upon Harris's perceived take on Obama's words, but rather his willingness to buy into right-wing rhetoric and toss American values of religious freedom for all out the window.
  
pastafarian August 27, 2010 - 4:31 am

"This is not a “conquest mosque”. What is it?"

The Mohammed Atta Islamic Community Center.

Cccccc August 27, 2010 - 9:21 am

"…moderate Feisal Abdul Rauf"

So, Mr. Daniels, how do you address the point Hitchens has recently made about the not-so-moderate nature of Feisal Abdul Rauf? http://www.slate.com/id/2264770/
As Hitch points out:
"…Imam Rauf publicly endorses the most extreme and repressive version of Muslim theocracy."
Has cultural relativism redefined what "moderate" means?

David Eller December 1, 2010 - 1:10 pm

Mike, I agree with your analysis and share your exasperation with Harris. I wrote my own critique of his opinion in the most recent issue of "American Atheist" magazine. I think that atheists need to get over their star-struck relation with Harris and see him as the crypto-conservative that he is.

- Mike_Daniels December 1, 2010 - 5:59 pm
  
  Thanks, David. Is your article available online? I'd like to read it.
  
  To be clear, I take no issue with an atheist not subscribing to all liberal-left viewpoints; I don't myself. Harris is definitely conservative in some areas, and that's certainly his right.
  
  Where I do get riled is when an outspoken and respected atheist steadfastly supports church-state separation, except where it's not convenient . . . and then hops in bed with the Religious Right in condemning foundational American values out of fear or for political gain. This helps to invalidate the First Amendment in the eyes of nonbelievers and gives ammunition to the Religious Right who can say, "even one of the Four Horsemen thinks it's wrong!"

Secular News Daily News & Views from a Secular Perspective

Socialize

Interact

What Sam Harris got wrong about the mosque

16 Responses to What Sam Harris got wrong about the mosque

Leave a Reply Cancel reply