When I read that I see Sam Harris attributing things like "honor killings" to the doctrine of Islam as if Islam is a monolithic entity. He's equating the extremists with the mainstream and that is exactly what the islamaphobes do - insist that the crazies are the ones who have the true interpretation of islam and that the vast majority of regular muslims don't count because they aren't crazy. It is kind of like saying that all christians should be judged by the actions of the Westboro Baptists. The crazies get the headlines but they only define the fringe, not the mainstream.
FWIW, the one thing I can agree with Sam Harris on is that European integration of muslims (and other minorities) is slow compared to the US because they have less of a commitment to freedom of speech. For all of our racial problems, the US does a better job of integrating immigrant communities because we have a culture of airing our dirty laundry, of hashing out our feelings - bigotry and all - and thus working through the differences rather than sheltering people from possibly being offended. Its ugly and frequently unpleasant but in the long run I think we reach a level of accommodation a lot sooner.
FWIW, I'm an atheist who married a woman from an immigrant muslim family although I've probably been in more mosques than she has.
That survey is flawed because it's based on culturally influenced beliefs of Muslims in tribal-based societies where the concept of honor has a higher precedence than religion itself. I believe you would find similar results among Christian and Jewish populations in the Middle-east. For instance, in Egypt, where I've lived for a considerable time, Christians and Muslims share practically the same family values with varying degrees. If a Christian woman and Muslim man, or vice-versa, decide to elope then either of them risk being honor-killed or at the very least disowned.
And similar concepts in certain parts of the US, e.g. the South. "Honor cultures"; correlates with nomadic heritage. Why you can call someone an asshole in NYC and they shrug it off, but south of Mason-Dixon they have to make something of it.
I think it's fair to say "religion X causes honor killings" if and only if X's teachings encourage them (by explicitly saying there's no spiritual punishment for them, for example). It's also fair to say that "religion X doesn't cause honor killings" if there's no correlation between religion X and honor killings. I agree that correlation on its own is never enough.
So: do the teachings of those with a mantle of religion-X authority, on average, encourage or discourage honor killings? This is not a question we should avoid asking just because we want to be nice.
I don't see any evidence that Sam Harris has got this wrong.
Good point about being nice vs. reaching a permanent accommodation.
Greenwald has written many things, most extremely valuable. I also am critical of his exchange with Sam Harris but that's one discussion in hundreds or thousands.
Thanks for bringing that up. I'd have to agree that Glenn Greenwald is an intellectual rotten apple. You don't accuse intelligent atheists of "racist islamophobia" if you're a good actor.
That said, he might just have an irrational us vs. them "liberals vs. racists" complex and be able to speak sensibly on other matters.
