Bill Maher Destroys The Liberal Utopian Vision of Islam

[Guest]

The distinction in the thread I was responding to was between secular countries and theocratic countries.

Given that religion is the basis for the law in those theocratic countries, so it's difficult to see how religion is not significant.

[Michael Hardner]

The distinction in the thread I was responding to was between secular countries and theocratic countries.

Ok - I saw something that compared Muslim responses from country to country.

Given that religion is the basis for the law in those theocratic countries, so it's difficult to see how religion is not significant.

"Religion is/isn't significant" is ambiguous in this context. The question we're looking at, specifically, is whether religion represents a significant causative or correlative relationship to certain behaviors. By looking at attitudes across countries, you can see that they change very much from country to country. That tells me that national culture may be more of a defining factor, all other factors being controlled in the model.

[Guest]

National culture is developed over time, and one of the most significant influences in that development is religion. It's okay to say that having the death penalty for blasphemy in Pakistan is cultural because they do not have it for the same offence in another country where Islam is the prominent religion, but to say that was not the result of religious influences would be completely wrong. And those same influences are what is keeping that act a crime in a country in the 21st century.

[Michael Hardner]

National culture is developed over time, and one of the most significant influences in that development is religion. It's okay to say that having the death penalty for blasphemy in Pakistan is cultural because they do not have it for the same offence in another country where Islam is the prominent religion, but to say that was not the result of religious influences would be completely wrong. And those same influences are what is keeping that act a crime in a country in the 21st century.

All of what you said can be true, but you're looking more at a cultural examination - a historian's viewpoint rather than something that we could use to say (with some certainty) that "being in this religion causes you to behave this way". If we could say that, then you might have some grounds for banning Muslims from entering Canada - the holy grail of the argument, really.

[Guest]

I'm sorry, when did I ever mention banning Muslims from entering Canada?

In fact, when did anyone ever mention that?

[Michael Hardner]

In fact, when did anyone ever mention that?

You didn't mention it, but banning Muslims (or euphemistically using religion as a "consideration" when considering immigrants) comes up on here.

[Guest]

I think that the idea of considering abhorrent religious/cultural practices as criteria for allowing immigration comes up on here, and the practices themselves are not always agreed upon by those proposing the idea. I've read such, but not very often.

Even given that disagreement, I think the opposition to the idea doesn't ever come from anyone who would condone the practices in question.

[cybercoma]

I think that the idea of considering abhorrent religious/cultural practices as criteria for allowing immigration comes up on here, and the practices themselves are not always agreed upon by those proposing the idea. I've read such, but not very often.

Even given that disagreement, I think the opposition to the idea doesn't ever come from anyone who would condone the practices in question.

Nobody condones the practices. I don't think the practices themselves should even be screened. If someone commits illegal acts while in this country then they should face the judicial ramifications for those proscribed actions. It's my opinion that a lot of the discussion is underpinned by assumptions of immigration existing in a vacuum from our other social systems.

[Mighty AC]

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

...

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

Indeed. In times when Christianity had the same political power it behaved as badly...or even worse. However, currently Islam has political power in the Middle East and I don't think my fellow liberals should be excusing away the acts done in its name.

Society moderating the ugly acts of religion is just another reminder that morality does not come from the gods.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire

Edited October 27, 2014 by Mighty AC

[Boges]

He talked about this last night.

Quite ironic. It does appear Universities aren't a bastion of free speech anymore.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/bill-maher-berkeley-speech-controversy-745564

[Bob Macadoo]

He talked about this last night.

Quite ironic. It does appear Universities aren't a bastion of free speech anymore.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/bill-maher-berkeley-speech-controversy-745564

It's a bit more nuanced than that. Maher debating the topic at Berkley is one thing, the students don't want him to give a commencement speech. The board say its not an endorsement of his views but that's how it will be reported/used as propaganda. I support the petition. Bring Maher in later to debate "The Infotainment / 30 Sec Soundbite View of Islam", not a school function.

[Guest]

He talked about this last night.

Quite ironic. It does appear Universities aren't a bastion of free speech anymore.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/bill-maher-berkeley-speech-controversy-745564

I think that today, universities are the very antithesis of freedom of speech.

[Bob Macadoo]

I think that today, universities are the very antithesis of freedom of speech.

And you were last walking the ivy rows when?

[Guest]

1990, and then it was only BCIT.

I have opinions about the moon landing too.

[BC_chick]

The distinction in the thread I was responding to was between secular countries and theocratic countries.

Given that religion is the basis for the law in those theocratic countries, so it's difficult to see how religion is not significant.

Throughout the world the common denominator for violence, misogyny and ignorance is poverty, not religion. There are many cultural practices that are abhorrent to western societies but are very much a part of life in India and Sub-Saharan Africa, neither of which are Islamic.

Bill Maher's argument may have some facts but it's out of context and bigoted. As Ben affleck said, most Muslims don't wake up wanting to destroy the world, they want to feed their kids and go to work. Affleck was bang on with this one, Maher's stereotyping is not constructive, it merely breeds hatred.

[Guest]

Criticism of Islam is not bigoted. I have no exposure to Bill Maher's comments other than what I heard on here, and I'm not going back to listen to them again, but if he said all Muslims are the same then fair enough.

If he just criticised the bad ones, then he was right and Ben Affleck was wrong.

Edited November 2, 2014 by bcsapper

[Argus]

I think that today, universities are the very antithesis of freedom of speech.

I think Pat Condell's commentary on Islam and progressives would seem apropriate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz4PjxSmtoI

Edited November 2, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Criticism of Islam is not bigoted. I have no exposure to Bill Maher's comments other than what I heard on here, and I'm not going back to listen to them again, but if he said all Muslims are the same then fair enough.

Nobody ever says ALL. But when you read public opinion polls and surveys from Muslims across the world showing vast numbers of them, well over 50%, suppoting brutal, violent, mysogenistic social beliefs, and look at the amount of religious violence we see coming from Muslims, I think it's pretty fair to say there's something wrong with this religion today.

[Mighty AC]

A Muslim woman penned an open letter to Ben Affleck.

Dear Ben,

I am writing to you today as a woman who was born and raised in Islam. I saw your discussion with Bill Maher and Sam Harris, and I must say you did me a great disservice that day. Your heart was in the right place, of course, and it was lovely of you to step up and defend ‘my people’.

What you really did though, perhaps inadvertently, was silence a conversation that never gets started. Two people attempted to begin a dialogue and you wouldn’t even listen. Why should any set of ideas be above criticism, Ben?

Why are Muslims being ‘preserved’ in some time capsule of centuries gone by? Why is it okay that we continue to live in a world where our women are compared to candy waiting to be consumed? Why is it okay for women of the rest of the world to fight for freedom and equality while we are told to cover our shameful bodies? Can’t you see that we are being held back from joining this elite club known as the 21st century?

I recommend reading the full letter. It sends a powerful message to my fellow liberals, that by standing up to Islamophobes we may be assisting in the oppression of Muslim females and would be progressives. It seems that the protection some give to Islam stems from the desire to counter the prejudice and bigotry we have witnessed since 9/11. Though, the cause is noble it's important that we are careful and clear about what we defend so that we not inadvertently pile on the already oppressed.

Noble liberals like yourself always stand up for the misrepresented Muslims and stand against the Islamophobes, which is great but who stands in my corner and for the others who feel oppressed by the religion?

Edited November 10, 2014 by Mighty AC

[eyeball]

Speaking for myself, this lefty has long advocated that Islamic men who can't control themselves around women should be forced to wear blinders.

As for slack-assed politically correct liberals whining about liberal political correctness, I'll start paying attention when I see them back off pussyfooting around the impolitic issue of the root cause of Islam's radicalization - the West's interference in the region and the utterly depraved and disgusting practice of supporting dictatorships.

[Argus]

I'll start paying attention when I see them back off pussyfooting around the impolitic issue of the root cause of Islam's radicalization - the West's interference in the region and the utterly depraved and disgusting practice of supporting dictatorships.

So let me see if I have this clear. When Muhammed invaded other people's lands, putting all non-Muslims to the sword who refused to convert to Islam, raping and enslaving women - that was the West's fault, right? And now that ISIS is doing the same thing, that's also the West's fault?

[Michael Hardner]

Both of you are trying to explain causation that can't be explained to anyone's satisfaction. A fruitless exercise.

[eyeball]

So let me see if I have this clear. When Muhammed invaded other people's lands, putting all non-Muslims to the sword who refused to convert to Islam, raping and enslaving women - that was the West's fault, right? And now that ISIS is doing the same thing, that's also the West's fault?

No, I'm saying that if the west thinks its perfectly legitimate to support dictators and warlords in Muslim lands today because Muhammad invaded other people's lands in the Middle Ages it should say so.

The right wing needs to quit pussyfooting around and piss or get off the pot too.

[Argus]

No, I'm saying that if the west thinks its perfectly legitimate to support dictators and warlords in Muslim lands today because Muhammad invaded other people's lands in the Middle Ages it should say so.

By 'support' you mean what, exactly? We oppose them being overthrown by even nastier people, and supply them with advise to stop that happening?

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting everything the West has done in the middle east going back through the years is all sweetness and light. We act in a self-interested fashion just like everyone else. The Russians and Chinese do the same thing there we do. They're doing it now, propping up Sudan, Syria and others with arms and advisers. The Chinese are very active in Africa helping local dictators, for example, with absolutely no care about human rights violations.

And yet... here's the funny thing. Despite the fact they've been doing it for at least several generations, and are more active now than ever, nobody out there seems to be trying to blow them up. Nobody blames them for anything. Nobody is trying to fly planes into Russian buildings or shooting random Chinese. This despite the fact both countries have home grown Muslim minorities who they murder, torture and imprison with a fair degree of regularity.

Would you care to speculate on why that is?

[bush_cheney2004]

....The right wing needs to quit pussyfooting around and piss or get off the pot too.

Do you think support for dictatorships is/was limited to the "right wing" ?