Big fan of Wright. He is a great thinker on a host of issues, his writing on evolutionary biology and in support of the study of evolution are some of the clearest and most well written works that can be found. The Moral Animal can change one’s view of human evolution as much as anything Dawkins has written, and I personally prefer Wright’s prose. I especially enjoy his dialogs on http://www.bloggingheads.tv Those wishing to ostracize a thinker of Wright’s magnitude should be well informed of his views. YES, he is the kind of liberal moderate that Harris so effectively destroys in the End of Faith, and he probably falls into the category of “Self Hating Atheist”, but he isn’t making any extraordinary claims by saying that foreign policy has upsides and downsides and that certain aspects of the war on terror push Muslims who would otherwise be described as “moderate” (ie: American Muslims) right into the hands of religious zealots who will exploit their secular outrage. Please do NOT caricature Wright as someone like Chris Hedges, or other leftist obscurantists. I look forward to seeing Harris and Wright’s dialog at the Center For Inquiry’s 30th Anniversay conference this October in LA. I just got my tickets.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

You’d think he would realize that while this particular jihadist might fit his idea of the multi-ingredient bomb to try and support his argument, too many others do not.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Humanitarian

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I really do not think this article deserves a place in the hall of shame.  All Wright is acknowledging is that we need to be aware of the many possible effects, positive and negative, that our foreign policy may have.  I do not see anywhere where Wright absolves jihadists of all responsibility, only that he recognizes the fact that aggressive foreign policy may have the unintended consequence of stirring up even more jihadist fervor.  It would be nice if we could wake up tomorrow and find all the followers of Islam to be apostates, but that is highly unlikely to happen, and since it won’t happen, we have to deal with the real world, and be cognizant of all effects of our particular foreign policy actions.  Since Wright is striving to present a real world circumstance in his piece, I don’t think this deserves the dishonor of the hall of shame.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

i think it belongs. Why is it that Wright seems more concerned by the possibility that Sam Harris or Dan Dennett might go a step too far in their critiques than by the millions of religious people who think murder in the name of faith is at least a matter of indifference if not endorsement. The possibilty that we might ascribe slightly too much weight to religion as motivation is what moves him most immediately. Watch the discussion between he and Hitch on youtube to see how firmly is he in the camp of those who blame terrorism on the opposition to it..(Project Reason should post that discussion.) He also attacks harris bitterly though curiosly he clearly hasn’t read his work. A nice addition to the hall.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I agree that this is not deserving of the “shame” label for the reasons described above. I’ll take it a step further and say that there should not even be a “Hall of Shame” section on a site dedicated to spreading reason. Let such labels be declared through discussion (in the comments) rather than assigning them a priori.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@John Wilkinson

Where does Wright, in THAT article, attribute any responsibility for jihadist terrorism to Dennet or Hitchens’?  The act he offers as a possible straw that broke the camel’s back is,“He stays in touch with people and events back home in Pakistan, and this gives him another reason to dislike America: American drones are firing missiles into Pakistan, sometimes killing women and children.”  I do not see why it is ridiculous to recognize the possible effects that collateral damage may have, and this recognition does not temper my disapproval of Islamic dogma to recognize that we need to deal with the real world in a realistic way.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Jonathan:
I don’t think Wilkerson is claiming that anything like that appears in the article; rather, simply that Wright seems to think the most important thing is “rectifying” the positions held by writers like Harris, Dennett, Hitchens -that they may be overly critical, or their criticism slightly mis-aimed.  I think it bothers Wilkerson (as it does me) that this is what concerns Wright, more than the host of terrorist actions which ARE committed primarily, if not solely, in the name of religion.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

There is simply no reason for this article to be in the Hall of Shame. The piece makes perfect sense. But Harris won’t have it because it, uh, let’s see, uh, suggests that a statement he has made might not quite be correct. Like, for example, the fact that acts of Jihadist terrorist can be solely attributed to the tenets of Islam.

Yep, that’s the reason. The article is in the Hall of Shame because Wright effectively argues against one of Harris’ silly beliefs.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The 800 lb. gorilla in the room that so many people want to ignore is the fact that Islamic violence (for the last several decades) has not been limited to the U.S. or its allies.  It is a global pandemic - obviously in the Middle East itself, but also throughout Africa, the Indian subcontinent, Indochina, Indonesia, Russia, Europe - as well as the U.S..

This is because Islamic violence is not, at its core, about U.S. foreign policy, Israel, British colonialism, socioeconomics, or any other PC excuse.  It is about religious conquest, pure and simple.  Jihad, martyrdom, and the conquest of the non-Muslim world are all core tenants of mainstream Islam.  Don’t believe it?  Then you haven’t read the Qur’an.  “If Muhammad did it, so should you!”

Islam is NOT a religion of peace.  Islam is a religion of war and brutality.  It saddens me to imagine how many people will die before this becomes clear.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

WHAT IF…...Faisal Shahzad who had decided to return home, where he had already moved his family, was seen by members of the terrorist movement as a person of “opportunity?”
In other words, Shahzad was never coming back to the US. No home no job. Nothing to keep here there. So he was leaving so what’s the big problem if he blows up a car bomb in Times Square?
He already had his ticket. He was on the jet when they got him.
  So what if the only intent he had was maybe to get a few extra dollars to help settle his family in?  What if he wasn’t bing on the religious aspect of the terrorist group involved?
  What of that option?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Liza Let there be peace on earth.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.