But if Harris wants us to just give up our faith entirely just so we can help oppose fundamentalists, then he shouldn’t hold his breath since I’m not inclined to oblige him anytime soon.

Frankly, if that’s his argument then I find his statements pretty disingenuous. He’s not really complaining about fundamentalists is he? He couldn’t care less about the distinctions between types of belief. He’s just lumping us all in together. In that case he might as well talk about the fundamentalists providing cover for the liberals. If his real problem is with any kind of religious belief then what does it matter who’s providing cover for whom?

Harris is welcome to his views, but personally I wouldn’t want to live in a society that judges people based more on their metaphysical beliefs than on their ethics and actions in the world. I came out of a sub-culture that judged people the way Harris does, and it wasn’t life-giving, loving or healthy.

While it’s an important distinction that your trying to clarify, I’d say that in the case of the more extreme religious right the social/political views and the religious views have become inextricably mixed together. It’s a confusing and confused mess.

Richard is also right to point out however that many progressive Christians are more interested in living out their faith and making a difference on the grassroots level than in controlling political parties and structures.

Interesting discussion, but let me interject a question:

Is Harris talking about moderate/liberal Christians giving cover to fundies and theocrats for their social and political views and activities?

Or is he talking about giving cover to their religious views?

I always thought he was talking about the latter. Sam Harris wants to see “The End of Faith” – totally. He would like religion to evaporate.

His beef, as I understood it, is that moderates and liberals may not hold to notions of infallible, literal scripture interpretations and the exclusivity of Christianity. But because they are loathe to criticize the more fundy beliefs of their “brothers and sisters in Christ,” those fundamentalist beliefs don’t get discredited as strongly as they might otherwise be.

But maybe I’m reading him wrong?

But I think more progressive Christians are starting to adapt better to the “new” media of our day, i.e. the internet and grassroots organizing. Probably the most influential voice right now for the “Christian Left” is Jim Wallis, and he has started to get noticed by even the mainstream media. His organization, Sojourners, is kind of a collection point for politically progressive Christians, whether they are conservative or liberal in their theology.

There’s also been talking of Wallis and others syndicating a progressive Christian radio network, but right now the funding just isn’t there.

Richard is also right to point out however that many progressive Christians are more interested in living out their faith and making a difference on the grassroots level than in controlling political parties and structures. A lot of us have been turned off by the heavy-handed power hungry tactics of the RR and so we’re leery of becoming too identified with a political party. We’d rather be known for our actions than for our agenda. That’s why even though you’ll occasionally see us on Larry King or Chris Matthews, more often you’ll find us in the trenches making a difference in the lives of real people – e.g. feeding the poor, rebuilding New Orleans, holding local anti-war vigils, building bridges between ethnic communities, speaking out against homophobia on college campuses, raising awareness about global AIDS and extreme poverty, building hospitals in Haiti, educating people about how to care for the environment, etc. (and this is all just the stuff my own church has been involved with this past year – larger and more financially solvent churches are probably doing more).

I guess maybe we’re just cynical about how much good it will do just to try shouting as loud as the guys from the RR. They’re increasingly marginalizing themselves within the Christian community (there’s more and more conservative Christians who do not at all want to be identified with Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, or even James Dobson anymore). We worry about being labeled and marginalized as the “Christian Left” just as they’ve done to themselves as the Christian Right. We’d like our actions to speak for themselves, and for people to be attracted to that, not to our rhetoric. In the long run I think it may be a more effective strategy.

If we were to apply Harris’ and Dawkins’ denunciation of moderates to politics, then one might say that middle of the road political moderates are guilty of providing safe harbor for extreme left and extreme right parties. I don’t think that makes much sense. The only people who would agree are those in the extreme camps who want to see all the other parties swept away.

I too wish I could directly hear the loud voices of liberal and moderate Christians denouncing the RRR, rather than being reassured by people like Mike C that they are out there somewhere. But I can’t assume there isn’t any forceful objection at all. You and I live on the west coast, pretty far from the hot spots of the fight. I can’t pick up Midwest radio very well, and I think that’s where the controversy may be raging.

I agree that bigotry must be objected to every time it is expressed. But we can’t stand around wishing Christian mods were doing more about the fundies while we’ve got bigots in our own midst. They’re the bigots who say all religious folks are assholes, and degrade the dialogue down to the two extreme ugly stereotypes. We need to clean up our own side of the street before we talk about the mess on the other side of the street. So I’m going to get in the face of anybody, atheist or theist who makes condemning remarks about others without offering convincing evidence. We’re supposed to be the skeptics, let’s start applying that at home. You and I have the gumption to speak up against any kind of prejudice, not just the kind that push our buttons, and the more we do it the more others will too.

I actually think it would be a good idea for some enterprising grad student in sociology or similar field to undertake some sort of study or survey and let us know whether the issue actually exists. I suspect that it could be difficult to design such a study but that’s a problem common to much social research.

I do have to say, though, that my own personal experience with other sorts of political / cultural disputes has been just about entirely consistent with what Dawkins has proposed for moderate believers acting as, if not a shield, a buffer for the fundamentalist literalists.

Of course it’s just my own experience, which may not be typical at all. But too often I’ve called bigots on their racist comments, only to have people come up to me afterwards to tell me that they aren’t bigots themselves, don’t agree with the idiot who was spouting off, and are glad that I said something.

See, I just don’t understand silence in the face of bigotry (although I’d make an exception for those facing armed racists). Yet it was often well intentioned, non-racist whites who wanted “uppity nWords” to be more polite about their plight and tolerated denigrating comments because they disliked social conflict. This is my own personal, anecdotal “evidence” and perception, which is not worth much as valid scientific analysis.

A lot of people understandably don’t like it when parallels are made between racial discrimination (which is no longer legal or acceptable) and a bunch of accusatory, whining atheists who have more education and gall than they need. But unless I can hear the moderating voices of rational believers, I’m not going to know they exist.

What has surprised me, though, is that the religious right responds to these books by making the same ludicrous arguments that the books accuse them of. In other words, the loudest believers make Dawkins’ & Harris’ assessment sound right on target for all believers. And major media plays the same game.

If you mean that the religious right ends up fulfilling the stereotype portrayed by Harris and Dawkins, and thereby gives credence to all their assertions including those about the moderates and liberals, I’m afraid you’re right. The lesson for us is to not allow Harris and Dawkins to become in the same way the stereotyped representatives for the rest of us non-believers. We must somehow be heard that while we agree with some of their points, H and D don’t speak everything for all of us. It’s not easy to compete with best sellers, but we can at least start with their devoted fans. I intend to not let a single mention of the Domino Theory get by without a demand for evidence. Forgive me if you get tired of having to read my challenges to others. Who knows, maybe somebody will come up with actual convincing data, but until then I will continue to consider moderate and liberal Christians to be allies against what I see as a serious menace.

Reading it I get the impression that while he argues well for the most part they are old arguments

.

You are definitely right about these arguments being old stuff. And basic stuff too, though I’m not sure that what we need is more “sophisticated” argument. I think what is needed is a true dialogue that allows non-believers to be heard rather than simply being shouted down or villified as “satanists” or perverts.

That sort of public dialogue doesn’t happen very often, even when supposedly “moderate” media interviewers are the ones doing the “dialogue.”

Dawkins’ & Harris’ books held no interest for me until I started reading all the name-calling and cries of “militant atheists.” Imagine my (lack of) surprise when I read these very light weight but timely books.

I was quite glad that they were getting so much attention as best-sellers. But I was also disappointed that they were called “militant” or “fundamentalist”, or “new atheists” when there was basically nothing in the books that was new or surprising.

What has surprised me, though, is that the religious right responds to these books by making the same ludicrous arguments that the books accuse them of. In other words, the loudest believers make Dawkins’ & Harris’ assessment sound right on target for all believers. And major media plays the same game.

I see some atheists who seem motivated mainly by their concern about practices by the extreme religious right that are dangerous to world peace, to our constitutional rights and to the environment. I am in that category. I also see other atheists who seem motivated mainly by their disdain or anger or even naked hate of religion in general. Dawkins and Harris by including their blanket anti-religious arguments in their works leave themselves open to criticism that they fall into that latter group, and I think they lose credibility with people who might otherwise have been coaxed toward a more rational world view.

I think you’re correct about the fundies getting a disproportionate slice of the press, and I think it’s for two reasons. Firstly, the moderates may be more interested in practicing their religion in their daily lives while the RRR is focused on affecting public policy and politics. So they’re bigger loudmouths. They have many mass media forums on TV and radio. I’m not aware of such outlets for liberal or moderate Christians giving counterpoint to the rabid fundies. (Mike, do you know of any?) The second reason is that extreme statements and extreme actions get the news attention. So even if there were an equal number of fundie and moderate radio commentators the extremists making the outrageous statements would still get the front page stories. Do you think that argument makes sense?

As you say, if that’s so we don’t know what to do about it other than perhaps encourage our moderate and liberal allies to speak up as incessantly as the right-wing nut cases do. If they could spend less time defending themselves from attacks by anti-theist atheists, they could spend more time attacking the fundies.

In the meantime we atheists should challenge our more “bad boy” brothers to either back up their overarching anti-theist assertions with real evidence or shut up and help us all fight the fundies while we still have the freedom to do so.

Your invoking Dover, PA is very appropriate and I agree that it was a good representation of the various factions at play. I hope the happy outcome at Dover is also an accurate portent of things to come.