Bill Maher Destroys The Liberal Utopian Vision of Islam

[cybercoma]

I would have to disagree with this statement. Many, many religious people I meet from various sects, Jehovah's Witness, Born Again, Baptists, etc are not tolerant and are not rational at all. It's actually pretty scary having conversations with them.

Yeah, but there's non-religious folks who are just as irrational and intolerant. Theists don't have the market cornered on being idiots.

[WestCoastRunner]

Yeah, but there's non-religious folks who are just as irrational and intolerant. Theists don't have the market cornered on being idiots.

Well, I agree with you there but I was specifically addressing his statement.

[cybercoma]

Well, I agree with you there but I was specifically addressing his statement.

it goes the other way, right? That's what I mean. There's equalky tolerant and rational people too. Edited October 22, 2014 by cybercoma

[WestCoastRunner]

it goes the other way, right? That's what I mean. There's equalky tolerant and rational people too

Well, to be honest, I've met more irrational, hypocritical religious folks than irrational, hypocritical athiests. But of course, that's only coming from my personal experiences. And I probably interact more with non-religious and like minded folks.

[Mighty AC]

Yeah, but there's non-religious folks who are just as irrational and intolerant. Theists don't have the market cornered on being idiots.

Agreed, but not in equal amounts...at least in a publicly vocal way. If you think about intolerance in the public sphere, opposition to equality and choice always seems to be spearheaded by the religious.

[Mighty AC]

A friend of mine argued that the faithful generally cannot be held accountable for religiously motivated, irrational or immoral beliefs and actions, because they are essentially force fed those ideas from birth. In his mind it is completely rational for, say an evangelical Christian, to be anti-science, homophobic, misogynistic, etc. In short, he feels they are acting appropriately based on their upbringing.

As expected though, he makes a special case for the religious because he doesn't think the same argument applies to racists or abusers, even if taught those traits from birth. In my opinion, we have to stop granting special respect to religious ideas. Just because we understand the source of the intolerance or irrationality doesn't make it acceptable or rational.

Many sects have chosen to ignore and hide the unsavory aspects of their religion and operate according to modern ethical constructs. That's great, but it still doesn't make belief in magic men rational and it doesn't help to excuse the significant pockets of the religious population who perform, condone or lobby on behalf of immoral and discriminatory acts. We certainly have to be careful not to label all religious folk with the misdeeds of their brethren, no matter how widespread, but nor can we turn a blind eye to the perpetrators and supporters.

[GostHacked]

I'd like a cite for that.

I've never heard anyone use 2.

I think it's apparent to most people that the problems with Muslims are largely cultural and not really direct edicts from the Quran.

What troubles people in the west is idea of normalizing Sharia Law. Many aspects of Sharia Law fly wholeheartedly in the face of the values of Liberal Democracies and anyone that shows some acceptance of it should be rejected.

It's not racist to reject ten tents of Sharia Law because, as mentioned, it's used by people of many races and cultures.

Sharia Law even flies in the face of Islam. It is not compatible with Islam or the Quran. Those who are trying to get Sharia Law in place are not truly following Islam, but their own screwed up idiotic interpretation of the Quran and Islam.

Sharia Law is not compatible with ANY religion or civilized society.

[GostHacked]

Ben Stein is a terrible example of a reasonable theist.

Anyone who has seen Ben Stein's movie 'Expelled' makes one believe it is pure satire. Sadly it is not. Stein is a smart man in many areas, but he just failed miserably with that movie and the attempt to keep creationism aka intelligent design in schools, specifically in science class. Even if he sticks with things related to the economy, of which he is knowledgeable, he has failed many times.

[Mighty AC]

Sharia Law even flies in the face of Islam. It is not compatible with Islam or the Quran. Those who are trying to get Sharia Law in place are not truly following Islam, but their own screwed up idiotic interpretation of the Quran and Islam.

I think you are mistaken here. Sharia is a group of laws based on the Quran and the Hadith. I think the idea that it is incompatible with Islam comes mainly from apologists.

[carepov]

I think you are mistaken here. Sharia is a group of laws based on the Quran and the Hadith. I think the idea that it is incompatible with Islam comes mainly from apologists.

Surely many of Saria laws are mis-interpreations or purposely warped interprétations of ancient texts.

I am no apologist - there is no excuse (religious, cultural, etc...) for violating human rights.

[Mighty AC]

Surely many of Saria laws are mis-interpreations or purposely warped interprétations of ancient texts.

Could be, yet some of the gruesome punishments (stoning, flogging, amputation) are very clear and directly from the texts.

I am no apologist - there is no excuse (religious, cultural, etc...) for violating human rights.

Indeed!

[Argus]

"Transformed into Jesus" is my non-religious, slightly facetious version... Jesus is considered to be God.

No, he is not.

But to ask me "who raised me anyway" and then to proceed to claim that "no one presents the bible as the word of God" is actually quite hilarious.

The Bible, as even the pope will tell you, was written by men. It is not the literal word of God or Jesus Christ. It is an account of biblical times as written by men. The Old Testament was written by a number of prophets and men of God long before Jesus came along and, if I can recall my old Catholic school days, the New Testament was written by several of the apostles and other Christian disciples decades after Jesus' death.

The Koran is presented as the literal and eternal and unchangeable and undeniable word of God. The interpretaton of the Koran is also considered infallible, and it is blasphemous to suggest changes to it.

[cybercoma]

Agreed, but not in equal amounts...at least in a publicly vocal way. If you think about intolerance in the public sphere, opposition to equality and choice always seems to be spearheaded by the religious.

There's very few tolerant and rational people who are publicly vocal.

[-1=e^ipi]

Sharia Law even flies in the face of Islam. It is not compatible with Islam or the Quran.

Proof?

[Boges]

How can it not be damning to Muslims, in THIS country, that two people who weren't raised as Muslims converts and in short order are radicalized and commits acts of terror.

Who's radicalizing these people? Is it just the internet or are there Mosques in Canada that are fostering this behaviour. Similar to the one JT went to a few years back.

Also was this not preventable? Both were known to the police and this dude yesterday had a criminal record.

[Argus]

How can it not be damning to Muslims, in THIS country, that two people who weren't raised as Muslims converts and in short order are radicalized and commits acts of terror.

I don't think it necessarily is.

Who's radicalizing these people? Is it just the internet or are there Mosques in Canada that are fostering this behaviour.

I think a lot of it is the internet. But I think you have to be stupid to begin with if you fall for that. Unfortunately, the world is not lacking stupid people. But it could also be local religious schools and mosques. I remember reading Irshad Manji's description of her Muslim school in BC, and how she got in trouble and expelled for questioning all the anti-Jewish and anti-western stuff they were being taught.

Also was this not preventable? Both were known to the police and this dude yesterday had a criminal record.

Tons of people have criminal records. I think the police are probably monitoring the people on their watch list a lot more carefully this morning, though. And I think we need to look at some laws, if the courts will let us, to restrict the movements of such people. For example, if you're on the list, and don't live in Ottawa, you're not allowed to come to Ottawa without seeking permission for a specific reason.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Argus

[Black Dog]

God didn't transform into anything. Who raised you anyway? God, as presented in all the religions I'm aware of is this mysterious being whose purpose we cannot know.

The bible is never presented as the word of Jesus, or the word of God. The Koran is. Jesus and Muhammad are presented as the model for people to live their lives. And as I said, a model who is a warrior prince who converts people by the sword and takes slaves (and rapes them) presents quite a different model than Jesus.

Then why, for the 18 years I attended Catholic Mass, did the priest conclude every reading of the Gospel with the phrase "This is the Word of the Lord?"

No, he is not.

The central tenant of the Christian faith is Christ is both the son of God and God himself.

[cybercoma]

I'm not really sure where Argus is on this one. BD is of course right. At the very least Catholics, and likely other denominations, believe the Bible is the word of God, written by man but through God's divine grace. There is also the Holy Trinity in Catholicism, again at the very least, which posits that God, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit are three separate beings but one entity.

[Argus]

I'm not really sure where Argus is on this one. BD is of course right. At the very least Catholics, and likely other denominations, believe the Bible is the word of God, written by man but through God's divine grace. There is also the Holy Trinity in Catholicism, again at the very least, which posits that God, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit are three separate beings but one entity.

The difference, though, is that Jesus was decades gone before the New Testament emerged. Muhammad wrote the Quran, or at least, produced it, dictating to scribes, and helped interpret its meaning at the time. And Muhammad was a brutal warrior prince.

I think the more important aspect is how Christians treat the scripture. Maybe hundreds of years ago the interpretation was as harsh and draconion as what we see from so many Muslims today to the Koran. But many times over the centuries biblical scholars have have reinterpreted what these words mean, softening that interpretation considerably as these same biblical scholars have grown more sophisticated and educated (I don't think anyone would argue a 15th century biblical scholar had the same level of understanding as one does today, or had access to the same breadth of knowledge). This has not happened with the Muslims. Their interpretation of what the Koran means, of its orders for the faithful have not changed in many centuries.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Argus

[Black Dog]

The difference, though, is that Jesus was decades gone before the New Testament emerged. Muhammad wrote the Quran, or at least, produced it, dictating to scribes, and helped interpret its meaning at the time. And Muhammad was a brutal warrior prince.

That's the belief. At one point, the Gospels were regarded as first person accounts as well.

I think the more important aspect is how Christians treat the scripture. Maybe hundreds of years ago the interpretation was as harsh and draconion as what we see from so many Muslims today to the Koran. But many times over the centuries biblical scholars have have reinterpreted what these words mean, softening that interpretation considerably as these same biblical scholars have grown more sophisticated and educated (I don't think anyone would argue a 15th century biblical scholar had the same level of understanding as one does today, or had access to the same breadth of knowledge). This has not happened with the Muslims. Their interpretation of what the Koran means, of its orders for the faithful have not changed in many centuries.

On the contrary: there's multiple interpretations of the Koran out there. That's part of the problem as there's no central interpretations, which allows local cultural practices to seep into the religious stream; the prevelance of female genital mutilation in Central African Islamic countries being a notable example.

[Michael Hardner]

I think the more important aspect is how Christians treat the scripture. Maybe hundreds of years ago the interpretation was as harsh and draconion as what we see from so many Muslims today to the Koran.

This is true... because of other factors, not because of the religion itself.

[dre]

Finally, why are you shifting the goal posts to just North America? Christians fighting to oppress homosexuals and insert their delusional beliefs into science classes are certainly a problem, and one that I regularly denounce. However, it doesn't compare to the extreme oppression faced in the many Islamic states around the world.

To be fair that doesnt necessarily mean that Christianity is inherently more moderate.

Canada and the US are nations of laws that emerged from part of the human population where churches were stripped of their capacity as a civil authority, and relegated to "private club" status.

Christians behave in part because they have lived in secular nations for hundreds of years that dont hesitate to toss followers in jail for acting out some of the more extreme tennets of their religion. And muslims that come over here behave better for the same reason. Sure theres problems... but they are nowhere near as big as they are in some muslim countries.

I think the more relevant distinction is one between secular countries and theocratic countries. Not between christianity and Islam.

[Guest]

That's very true, but the distinction is most glaring when comparing Islamic countries to secular countries.

[Michael Hardner]

No, in fact, you have failed to do so.

Once again, I pointed out that by changing the country of focus you get attitudes differentiated by a factor of 10. That's enough to show that country is a significant factor. You have nothing that can prove being Muslim causes bad behavior - however you want to frame the language around that causative relationship. I haven't ever seen an argument on here that has achieved that proof.

[Michael Hardner]

That's very true, but the distinction is most glaring when comparing Islamic countries to secular countries.

Again.... countries.

If you take two people from the same background, socioeconomic, educational background... say in Canada and measure differences in attitudes due to religion, then take the differences between them and a citizen of another country you will see that religion is not a significant causative relationship.