An Open Letter
Dear Mr. Glen Greenwald
In November of 2015, you published an article in the Guardian, “Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus.” You made multiple ad hominem attacks against many people I consider my favorite writers, such as Harris and Christopher Hitchens, but your point of view is very well summarized in this article. You are very adamant in the denial of any link between the doctrine of Islam and terrorism of any kind. However, you seem to go much further than that. I am directly quoting one of you reasons for the unrest in the Muslim world, “...the western world has been engaged in a decade-long splurge of violence, aggression and human rights abuses against Muslims....” I truly think it is an accurate summary of your views to say that you condemn anyone who takes the other side of this issue, saying they are damaging, making the problem worse, and in some cases simply racist and bigoted.
While I respectfully disagree in your main assessment on this issue, there is a lot of common ground to find. First and foremost, every party involved is simply trying to make a world a safer place, and doing what they think is right to eliminate this problem. Additionally, and more substantively, you acknowledge that criticizing Islam does not make one a bigot. We agree that ideas have to be subject to criticism, and criticizing ideas in a reasonable and rational way is not a bad thing. you even go so far as to criticize Christianity and Judaism for the barbarism committed in its name, which is certainly warranted. These points amount to a reasonable degree of agreement on both sides, however I must say I think you must go one step farther and talk seriously about Islamic doctrine and the way a small but passionate minority of the faith interpret it.
Put simply, I think you are wrong to look for any other motive for this violence other than the reasons the fanatics give themselves. Of course many factors are in play, but to unequivocally deny a rational link between doctrine and behavior (while making ad hominem against those who draw it) is wrong. What is more, it seems disingenuous to bend over backwards naming every possible excuse for this small group of religious fanatics, rather than naming what is arguably the most intellectually honest reason for their mayhem.
While the issue in question is very sensitive, and it is very easy to walk into territory many would strongly disagree with, I think I found a surprising amount of common ground with you and your views. Finding common ground is so critical in an intellectual debate, especially when the issue in question is toxic. Hopefully finding points of agreement and disagreement in this way is beneficial to a complex and identity-driven topic. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Thomas Urrutia
In November of 2015, you published an article in the Guardian, “Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus.” You made multiple ad hominem attacks against many people I consider my favorite writers, such as Harris and Christopher Hitchens, but your point of view is very well summarized in this article. You are very adamant in the denial of any link between the doctrine of Islam and terrorism of any kind. However, you seem to go much further than that. I am directly quoting one of you reasons for the unrest in the Muslim world, “...the western world has been engaged in a decade-long splurge of violence, aggression and human rights abuses against Muslims....” I truly think it is an accurate summary of your views to say that you condemn anyone who takes the other side of this issue, saying they are damaging, making the problem worse, and in some cases simply racist and bigoted.
While I respectfully disagree in your main assessment on this issue, there is a lot of common ground to find. First and foremost, every party involved is simply trying to make a world a safer place, and doing what they think is right to eliminate this problem. Additionally, and more substantively, you acknowledge that criticizing Islam does not make one a bigot. We agree that ideas have to be subject to criticism, and criticizing ideas in a reasonable and rational way is not a bad thing. you even go so far as to criticize Christianity and Judaism for the barbarism committed in its name, which is certainly warranted. These points amount to a reasonable degree of agreement on both sides, however I must say I think you must go one step farther and talk seriously about Islamic doctrine and the way a small but passionate minority of the faith interpret it.
Put simply, I think you are wrong to look for any other motive for this violence other than the reasons the fanatics give themselves. Of course many factors are in play, but to unequivocally deny a rational link between doctrine and behavior (while making ad hominem against those who draw it) is wrong. What is more, it seems disingenuous to bend over backwards naming every possible excuse for this small group of religious fanatics, rather than naming what is arguably the most intellectually honest reason for their mayhem.
While the issue in question is very sensitive, and it is very easy to walk into territory many would strongly disagree with, I think I found a surprising amount of common ground with you and your views. Finding common ground is so critical in an intellectual debate, especially when the issue in question is toxic. Hopefully finding points of agreement and disagreement in this way is beneficial to a complex and identity-driven topic. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Thomas Urrutia
The Regressive Left. Digital image. American Dreaming. DeviantArt, n.d. Web. 8 Dec. 2016