CJ Werleman tweeted “Sam Harris is the Pat Robertson of atheism” to his 10,000 followers and linked to a libelous article entitled “Sam Harris Slurs Malala” (I had actually written that Malala deserved the Nobel Peace Prize and that she was the best thing to come out of the Muslim world in a thousand years).  So I contacted Werleman, initiating the following exchange:

October 21, 2013 9:24 AM

Interesting, CJ. Did you actually read my blog post, or just the Salon hit piece?

Sam

****

Oct 21, 2013, at 9:46 AM

Hi Sam,

No, I didn’t read your blog. Having said that, I actually disagreed with much of the Salon piece. In fact, I think it spun your words to serve its own agenda.

My disagreement is with your broader position on Islamic terrorism. I believe it’s motivated purely by political objective. You believe it starts and ends with religious fundamentalism, and whether you intend to or not, it makes us atheists sound eerily similar to those who speak from the right wing echo chamber.

Obviously, that’s harsh criticism given your service to atheism. You have liberated millions of minds, and I count myself as one of your fans. But on the subject of Islam, I believe you miss the point. It’s a travesty, because you have the influence to change minds and foreign policy….but your comments get used to justify neo-conservatism.

I appreciate your note.

Cheers

CJ

****

October 21, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Incredible… You brand me the “Pat Robertson of atheism,” linking to this drivel on Salon and forwarding to thousands of people, without ever checking to see if the writer has misrepresented my views (which he has, in every relevant respect).

And then you want me to debate you?

****

October 21, 2013 at 11:18:30 AM

Ha, I see your point : )

I often err on the side of extreme rhetoric to make a point. Do I think you’re the PR of atheism? No. And I owe you an apology on that, and I have deleted that tweet. But the rhetoric that comes from those who lean towards an anti-Islam position over an anti-foreign policy position sounds a little PR/FOX/Coulter like, which ultimately serves to keep the country making poor errors of judgment when it comes to our use of the military.

CJ

****



Werleman subsequently wrote an article entitled “Atheist Authors Feud Over Islamic Extremism” based on the previous email exchange. He then wrote another piece suggesting that I and other atheists were oblivious to the problem of wealth inequality. Having written a fair amount about wealth inequality, I contacted him again:

October 26, 2013 11:06 PM

So I’ve been oblivious to the problem of wealth inequality? Really?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-har...

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/ho...

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/ho...

****

Oct 27, 2013, at 4:31 PM

Hi Sam,

If you read the piece again, you will see I was specifically referring to the atheist movement’s lack of attention given to wealth inequality. Moreover, I defined the atheist movement not as individuals, authors or thought leaders, but rather as the 2,000+ atheist groups/organizations.

Cheers

CJ

****

October 27, 2013 5:13 PM

Oh, so you would expect readers of your piece to come away thinking that I’ve done my part on the problem of wealth inequality?

****

Oct 27, 2013, at 5:30 PM

Mate, the piece wasn’t about you. I didn’t say you hadn’t done your part on the problem of wealth inequality. I honored you for being one of the three luminaries whose books were the catalyst for launching the AM. My only other mention of you was in criticizing what I perceive to be your myopic view on the roots of terrorism.

CJ

****

October 27, 2013 at 7:14:30 PM

It’s remarkable that you think I’m being prickly and self-absorbed here. First, you retweet a libelous attack on me and brand me the Pat Robertson of atheism. When I confront you about this, you admit that you never took the time to read my original blog post. You then write an astonishingly self-serving piece in which you divulge the contents of my private email to you without my permission (do you really not know how uncool that is?) titled, “Atheist Authors Feud Over Islamic Extremism.” We’re feuding? I never heard of you until I read your tweet. And we’re not debating Islamic extremism—we’re talking about how callowly you’ve been sniping at me. (From what I can tell, you are completely deluded about Islamic extremism.) You then write another piece in which you again attack me by name, “honoring” me as one of the founders of the movement that has so scandalously ignored the problem of wealth inequality. When I show you that I’ve written three long articles on the topic, you dodge and put the onus on me: “Mate, the piece wasn’t about you.” Oh, I’m sorry. There goes my narcissism again.

My only purpose in engaging you has been to try to get you to recognize how unprofessional your behavior has been. This is a lesson you don’t seem willing to learn.

In any case, I’m done. Good luck. At this rate, you will need a lot of it.

Sam