Religion
Related: About this forumBill Maher’s bigoted atheism: His arrogant shtick is just as ugly as religious intolerance
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/13/bill_mahers_atheism_is_just_bigotry/MONDAY, APR 13, 2015 08:31 AM MDT
His showdown with Fareed Zakaria shows how far he's fallen
MARY ELIZABETH WILLIAMS
Bill Maher (Credit: HBO/Janet Van Ham)
You know what you call someone who makes sweeping generalizations on billions of people based on the extreme actions of a few? A bigot. Bill Maher, for example, is a bigot. And if you’re a fan of his smug, dismissive shtick, you’re a bigot too.
On Friday’s “Real Time,” Maher, who has been openly atheist his whole career but has been increasingly vocal against organized religion in recent years, squared off against Fareed Zakaria, who gave a powerful rebuttal to Maher’s reiteration of the “Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas” assertion. “My problem with the way you approach it,” Zakaria said, “is I don’t think you’re going to reform a religion by telling 1.6 billion people — most of whom are just devout people who get some inspiration from that religion and go about their daily lives — I don’t think you’re going to change religion by saying your religion is the motherlode of bad ideas, it’s a terrible thing. Frankly, you’re going to make a lot of news for yourself and you’re going to get a lot of applause lines and joke lines.” Instead, he urged, “Push for reform with some sense of respect for the spiritual values.” And on behalf of Muslims, Christians, Jews and anybody else who prays to somebody sometimes, let me just say, thank you.
As the threats of terrorism and right-wing Christianity have risen in the past few years, Maher’s aggressive brand of atheism — also popularized by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris — has gained a strong following among a certain type of self-professed intellectual. Maher has famously said, “Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don’t have all the answers to think that they do” — which is pretty funny, given the know-it-all arrogance of the anti-religion big leaguers like Maher himself. As Zakaria very eloquently pointed out, that stance has given Maher more power and reach than he’s ever had in his long career. But whatever you believe or don’t, if you’re selling blanket intolerance, you don’t get to call yourself one of the good guys. You shouldn’t even get to call yourself one of the smart ones.
I’m a Christian, which in my urban, media-centric world is basically equivalent to self-identifying as a hillbilly. It also means that I have to accept that I apply the same word to myself that a lot of hateful morons do. But on Sunday at my little neighborhood church, our priest delivered a sermon in which he said, “I can’t understand how in places like Indiana, people are using Christianity as an excuse to close their doors, when we should be welcoming to everyone.” Guess what? That’s faith too. I am also keenly aware that in other parts of the world, people are being murdered for a faith that I am privileged to practice openly and without fear. And anyone, anywhere, who is openly hateful to others for their religion is part of a culture that permits that kind of persecution to endure.
more at link
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
underpants
(182,626 posts)Can't wait
cbayer
(146,218 posts)up.
phil89
(1,043 posts)He's great at pointing out the harmfulness
of and oppression of religion.
PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)...I've seen him a couple of times...enjoy!
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)being too politically correct.
But he is right on about religion....too harsh on the Muslims, for sure, but overall, right on
And good in person, I have seen him both on tour and Real Time taping/rehearsal
Joe Turner
(930 posts)and makes it funny. One thing for sure, he has this knack for sweeping out into the open all the issues that most in the media want securely left under the rug.
I'm pretty sure that the foulest thing Maher has ever said doesn't even come close to fucking chopping someone's head off.
rug
(82,333 posts)Logic!
clydefrand
(4,325 posts)Bill speaking out for Atheism (against religion> any different than
the response to speaking out for Religion and AGAINST Atheism?
It is the screaming religions (Christian, Islam, Budda, et. al.) that is beginning
to turn many people to Atheism!
You can believe what you want, and I cannot believe what you want to believe.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)He is speaking in a bigoted way about religious people. You are right, though, it's not any different than a religious person speaking in a bigoted way about non-religious people, as the author points out.
There is data that supports that people are leaving organized religion for a lot of reasons, including lack of agreement with some of the social/political positions that some churches are promoting. However, I don't think there is any data to support your claim that people are leaving the "screaming religions" (you included Buddhism here? really?) and turning into atheists.
I am glad that you think people can believe what they want.
safeinOhio
(32,641 posts)that are the other side of the same coin as the religious ones.
I'd hate to lumped together with Ayn Rand.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)goes out of her way to say that this pertains to only a subsection of people within atheism and not at all to atheism in general.
safeinOhio
(32,641 posts)of Ethical Culture. That fits.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and I suspect you would be hard pressed to identify bigots among those ranks.
PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)...
safeinOhio
(32,641 posts).
strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles
or, someone that will not listen to another point of view.
PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)How does one strictly adhere to NOT believe something?
"I must remember to not accidentally believe in religion today. .."
stone space
(6,498 posts)Having beliefs is a part of being human.
To say that we lack beliefs is to deny our very humanity.
PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)Atheism is the lack of belief that any deities exist. Period.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 14, 2015, 01:38 PM - Edit history (1)
Or if I believe that Fermat's Last Theorem is true?
Sorry, but we atheists have beliefs just like everybody else does.
This whole notion of atheists not having beliefs is as bizarre as the whole notion that atheists don't have morals.
Just because we may not have YOUR beliefs doesn't mean that we don't have ANY beliefs.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Theism is specifically the belief in god(s).
Some take things much further and develop dogma or the belief that they have the right and only answer and everyone else is wrong.
Thats when things become very fundamentalist.
PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)The "fundamental" point of atheism is that there are no gods. Nothing more, nothing less.
You can really, really, REALLY have that point of view, but that still doesn't make you a "fundamentalist" because that then suggests that there are levels of an atheists lack of belief. You are believe or you don't. You can't be a little bit pregnant.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)When one rigidly embraces a position and has little tolerance for views that are different than their own, that is fundamentalism. There are some that embrace an ideological purity that even excludes other non-believers as not really fitting the mold.
You may not like it and it may not apply to you, but it occurs.
There are most definitely levels in both belief and lack of belief.
I'm agnostic. I neither believer nor disbelieve. I am neutral on the issue of whether there is a god or not.
PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)I'd argue that looking at your posts this is not quite accurate. You attack atheists all the time, and bend over backwards to give relief to those that espouse a religious point of view. IIRC you were one of the people that suggested that religion had nothing to do with the murders at Charlie Hebdo, but Bill Maher is a bigot because he says things you don't like about radical islam and Richard Dawkins wore an anti-god t-shirt once so he's a bigot too...
Regardless, there is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist if for no other reason than the fact that there is nothing to be fundamental about. There are no degrees or levels to the amount to which you know that ALL gods are mythical constructs. You either think they are real, or you don't. You may voice that atheism to a greater or lesser degree, but that doesn't make you a fundamentalist based on the volume with which you say it, or how often you say it, or to whom you say it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I don't attack atheists, but I do challenge anti-theists and I do that frequently. I am very much on the side of defending religious people and groups when they are doing what I consider the right thing and object very strongly to those that attack all religion and the religious simply because it is religion.
I never said anything about religion not having anything to do with the Charlie Hebdo killings, but did recognize the the motivators were more complex than simply being about religion.
I do think Maher is a bigot, or at least playing one on TV. I've not called Richard Dawkins a bigot to my knowledge, though I object to many of his positions and there is a lot more to it than a t-shirt.
You might want to use some of that critical thinking and take another look at who I am rather than proceeding with your erroneous caricature. One thing fundamentalism tends to do is cause people to wear blinders and see things through distorted lenses.
PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)Defensive much?
Are you accusing me of being a fundamentalist?
(See - I can jump to bullshit conclusions too....)
Nothing erroneous about my statements. Your online history is ripe with attacks on atheists, and defenses of religion regardless of your protestations...
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Sounded to me like you were saying that I was not telling the truth when I made a statement about my position on the existence of god.
So yes, I was defending myself.
If you can back up your charge that my "online history is ripe with attacks on atheists" (not anti-theists), bring it on. You can't, because it's not.
I fully accept that I defend religion.
But you have made this personal (again) and I accept your white flag.
Please have the last word…. or not.
See you around.
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)just an FYI
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
phil89
(1,043 posts)For a god or gods, and most atheists will believe. So far, the people who claim God/s exist haven't met the burden of proof
cbayer
(146,218 posts)for the nonexistence of a god, most theists would not believe.
The burden of proof is on those making the definitive assertion. Those that say "There is a god" and those that say "there is no god" share an equal burden.
However, those that say "I believe" and those that say "I do not believe" have no burden at all.
PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)How do you prove that something is not real?
One of your more obtuse, and frankly tiring, attempts at a rebuttal...
The burden of proof is on the person that says something exists, not the other way around...
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Yes, you can prove a negative. Ask any logician or mathematician. There are several around or you could use the google.
The tired canard of "you can't prove a negative" has been discarded long ago. The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion.
If I say to you that this petri dish is sterile and there are no bacteria on it, the burden of proof is on me.
It's simple.
PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)We are talking about something that has NOT ONCE ever shown itself to exist.
Based on that fact alone it is easy, simple and logical to say he/she/it doesn't exist.
You are correct. The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. Prove god exists.
It's simple.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and have never made the assertion that a god or gods exist.
It is not logical at all to make an assertion that something does not exist when you have no evidence to support it.
Now, I really am going to let you have the last word. I'm about to lose my connection for quite a while.
See you around.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Militant Atheists (and Bill Maher is one) are as bad as militant fundamentalists.
He would be a little better off career wise if he toned down his disgust for the beliefs of other people.
I still watch his show as often as possible.
There is more good there than bad.
I'm a non-militant agnostic.
Believe what you want to believe about the spirit.
No one will ever prove anything one way of the other,
so it is simply a choice.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and murder thousands of people, or when they try to deprive an entire segment of the population of their equal human rights, then you'll have the right to say that. As it is, it's just a lame and disgusting false equivalency. I know some people here need desperately to peddle the meme that atheist extremists are every bit as as bad as religious extremists (and you're apparently one of them), but it's horseshit. And easily demonstrable as such.
safeinOhio
(32,641 posts)Ayn Rand and damage her ideas of the positive idea of greed, based on her militant atheist views have possibly brought about as much suffering to the masses of the 99% as crashing a plane into a building? Then Stalin caused a little pain to millions also. There are always examples of too much of anything.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)in the name of, or in furtherance of their atheism. No dictates of atheism (since their are none) motivated them to their actions. So this is just more bullshit false equivalency.
Seriously, is this what you want to bring up, as if you really had a "gotcha"? How many times does the tired old Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot meme have to be demolished before people like you stop flinging it?
safeinOhio
(32,641 posts)you want to use the actions of a couple of crazy people and blame it on a bigoted view of a culture of millions of peaceful people.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)A Humanist, with a UU background that feels " A free and responsible search for truth and meaning" is an individual right.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)safeinOhio
(32,641 posts)there are both. It is not important to me either way, just interesting.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Many people take the parts of the bible that you find offensive, to be the word of their god. We don't really have a way to prove they are wrong about that, do we?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)"a couple of crazy people"? 
They sure are managing to slaughter a lot of people in the name of their religion in spite of that. And the Charlie Hedbo massacre? Yeah, I know...just a few crazy people. How many more examples do you need? A few crazy people here and a few crazy people there, and pretty soon you're talking about some real killing.
And there is nothing "bigoted" about the view that Islam motivates people to extreme violence every single day. It's just a simple fact that you can't dispute, as much as you wish you could. That's yet another meme that the apologists for religious extremism like to peddle here, and (surprise!) it's even more bullshit.
safeinOhio
(32,641 posts)working along side many Muslims and because of that I may have a different view of that religion than you due to my experience with those individuals. My minor in college was Cultural Anthropology and one thing I took away from that is, without exposure to other cultures we tend to think of them as crazy, just as they do us.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and have instead resorted to feel-goody hand-waving. What a shock.
Substitute "Republicans" (a group routinely bashed and labeled as crazy on this site) for "Muslims" in your post, and see if you apply the same standard of apologetics, or if you're giving religion a pass, simply because it's religion.
And BTW, the people who died on 9/11 had very direct exposure to "other cultures". What do you think their opinion would be?
safeinOhio
(32,641 posts)I get along very well with people of a different political view than I have. I think I have, in some small way, helped them evolve by being a liberal that they can have a conversation with. I would hope you might reach out and make friends with people that different than you.
Don't be shocked there are people in this world like me. I find no benefit in being mad at anyone for what they think. I don't have to agree and I don't have to hate.
Some of those killed in 9/11 were Muslim, I doubt if their loved ones hate Muslims now.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)And are now peddling another favorite phony notion of religious apologists, that what people think and believe has no connection to their actions. Again, demonstrably and dangerously false.
And "hate Muslims" is such a silly strawman. Are you really dredging that up? Have I argued that people should hate "all Muslims" for the actions of a few?
PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)...I read that right here in this very forum iirc....
trotsky
(49,533 posts)but the people who died brought it upon themselves for insulting someone's religion. Oh wait... 
rug
(82,333 posts)When a political group imposes official atheism on a country (because it's corrupt evil, stupid, hateful, murderous, regressive, etc., positions you spew on a daily basis) you claim it has nothing to do with atheism.
Yet when people do horrible things, citing religion, you snarl No True Scotsman when it's pointed out how tenuous that claim is.
Hypocrisy is a poor debate tactic.
safeinOhio
(32,641 posts)is fun but not productive. As example of this are thrown at me, the opposite view tempers those ideas. I don't think either is correct when carried to the extreme. I'm in no way brilliant but am willing to look at all sides and learn from both.
rug
(82,333 posts)Does anyone really think that strengthens their argument?
safeinOhio
(32,641 posts)and it most likely doesn't.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Well, actually not. No one here has said that Stalin was not a "true" atheist, so your attribution of the NTS tactic to me or anyone else is just more of your bullshit.
The claim, which neither you nor anyone else here can actually dispute (hence your lame attempts to paint it as something else), is that Stalin did not do what he did because it was dictated by his atheism. He didn't starve millions of people in the Ukraine because his lack of belief in a higher power than himself mandated that he do so. He did not cite his lack of belief in god to support any of his murder and sociopathy.
rug
(82,333 posts)What motivated his destruction of churches and dismantling of the Orthodox Church?
Not being a simpleton, I will not say it was solely due his lack of beliefs. Any more than anyone other than a simpleton would say flying into a building was motivated solely by religious beliefs.
What you miss in your phobia about religion, is the many other motives at work.
Speaking of hypocrisy, what's happened to your much vaunted ignore list? Were you fibbing or simply parading a figment for popular acclaim?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)his dismantling of so many other things and his killing of so many millions of people. The need to eliminate any perceived threat to his power and authority. To argue that he was somehow singling out religious organizations, especially when he gave them a boost during the war, when he thought they could help more than threaten him, is just more of your intellectual bankruptcy.
Poor rug. After being gone 40 days and 40 nights, you're still flailing around with the same tired, discredited arguments.
rug
(82,333 posts)Is that it? The bizarro side of "religion had nothing to do with it"?
What's the bizarro term for the word "religionista" that you're so fond of using?
Now scottie, the fact that you're reduced to personal attacks, not that it's unusual, adds nothing to whatever diminishing credibility you may have had.
And you have yet to answer about your alleged ignore list.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)As did I.
rug
(82,333 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Read my posts 138 and 181. Then take your own advice from below and don't weary everyone's ears making up caricatures of them.
And if you can point out a "personal attack" in that post, as opposed to an attack on your tired, discredited arguments, feel free. Then feel free to link to quotes of Stalin declaring how his atheism motivated his actions.
Take all the time you need. Take until Lent next year.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Ignore takes away the fun.
rug
(82,333 posts)Oh, and here's the (completely gratuitous) personal attack.
Dovetails rather nicely with this:
Tsk, such a fetish about Lent. I wonder what's behind it.
No, scott, what you post needs no caricature from me.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)He still has me on ignore
rug
(82,333 posts)
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
rug
(82,333 posts) hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
Missed you. Please say hello.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Do I need to give you a course in History of the World since 1900?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)So what? Is there a point to either? Assuming there even were such a thing as a "militant atheist", I addressed this rather tired apologist talking point above in post 86.
Try again.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)
Susannah Elf
(140 posts)I am neither a fan of his or otherwise. I watched his movie Religulous and I had some very specific issues with it. Mainly it bothers me when people conflate a belief in God with the specific dogma and attitudes of a particular religion. Maher did this by attempting to counter a fundamentalist Christian who declared that the bible is literal truth, Adam andEve, the flood and all. Maher crosscut to a Jesuit priest working in the Vatican scoffing at this idea. But he never goes on to ask this priest if he believes in God. So Maher uses a believer, whom he displays as the voice of reason, to support his contention that these is no way hw can reasonably believe in God.
Sorry about the rant, but this has been bugging me since I saw the movie!
cbayer
(146,218 posts)religious people just for being religious.
It seems to be working out pretty well for him, but I find him more and more objectionable.
It is the generalizations, like the one you point off from the movie, that are really problematic.
PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)...but that's not surprising....
cbayer
(146,218 posts)personal insults.
Thanks.
PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)...'personal insults?' What the hell are you talking about? You need to bring the persecution complex down a notch or two...
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It's kind of hilarious that you respond to my request to refrain from personal insults with saying "You need to bring the persecution complex down a notch or two…".
PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)It's an observation....
rug
(82,333 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)
PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)... it was an observation based on your posts...
edhopper
(33,483 posts)that saying "Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas" is not a way to get more moderate Muslims on your side.
I don't know if Maher wants Muslims on his side.
Zakaria did see the need for a Muslim Enlightenment and said there were millions of Muslims who go about there lives deciding what part of Islam to follow.
Okay so far. But you have to wonder where and how long before an Enlightenment can arrise?
I also would ask him to show how many of those ideas within Islam aren't just bad, and what are the good ideas Islam has?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)He is making a career out painting them as the enemy.
PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)He does stand-up as well.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I love standup, but I don't think it's his strong suit.
Aziz Ansari is more my cup of tea. I wonder what he would say about Maher's take on Islam.
PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)...much better than his control as a host..he lets the republicans get away with far too much imho...
rug
(82,333 posts)He's a bigot too.
edhopper
(33,483 posts)but I don't think we can call it comedy anymore.
rug
(82,333 posts)I still find Bill Maher funny though.
edhopper
(33,483 posts)He's not Louis CK or Chris Rock but he gets laughs. And New Rules are usually funny.
Miller is pathetic. I think most of his gigs are corporate speaking stuff now.
Depending Dick Cheney just isn't funny.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)while visiting friends who like him.
Not much, but enough to know that I have no interest in ever seeing him again.
I find nothing funny about him at all.
Just an arrogant, self-righteous insulting prick who is laughing (?) all the way to the bank.
But millions of people like him. So, eh.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)yet the religious leader of 1 billion Catholics can call gay marriage "from Satan" and he's A-OK.
rug
(82,333 posts)PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)...but a comedian on HBO, well that requires a separate standard...
rug
(82,333 posts)PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)...
rug
(82,333 posts)#98.
PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)...that would be a comparison...
rug
(82,333 posts)Not that he doesn't mention the Pope whenever he can, regardless of topic.
PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)...but trotsky's was?
rug
(82,333 posts)By George you've got it!
rug
(82,333 posts)Don't let me stand in your way.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)You'll know. After all the Pope IS the head of the richest religious group on the planet..... even runs his own little country and millions of sheep and has since before the Renaissance.
When Maher does that, you can let us know.
rug
(82,333 posts)It's amusing that in a thread where there's so much squalling about broad-brushing atheists, you can glibly refer to a billion people as ovines.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)I venture to offer a rather black and white answer: zero.
(OK, let's say close to zero, in case I missed something)
Zero if I read your question as: what original positive idea did Islam contribute?
For anyone having read the Quran cover to cover without skipping lines or pages (as it is a very repetitive and self contradictory book), one thing should be obvious: the Quran contains very little moral advice. Mythological tales galore, endless repetitive praise of Allah, long promises of heaven for the believers and hell for the others, some judicial proceedings, some praise for Muhamad and edicts about his sex life, but very, very little about morality.
And the few snippets about morality can usually be traced to the Torah.
While about 5% of the verses preach violence.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)You know what you call someone who makes sweeping generalizations on billions of people based on the extreme actions of a few? A bigot.
Then DON'T watch his show, it's that simple.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)that fact at all.
Should we also just ignore those bigots?
pinto
(106,886 posts)They need to be countered in some context.
SamKnause
(13,088 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)That Islam is bad and the motherlode of bad ideas?
PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)Until these "moderate muslims" loudly and vociferously denounce the fundamentalists, they are going to be seen as being complicit...
Susannah Elf
(140 posts)I hear moderate Muslims condemn terrorism all the time. After a while it becomes redundant and a bit of a non-story. Yes, decent people abhor violence. And??
Not a headline grabber, is my point.
LTX
(1,020 posts)irks me no end, especially when it gets trotted out here as truthy confirmation of a patently pre-existing bias.
Just plug into your handy google a search for "muslim denunciation of extremism," or "muslim condemnation of violence," or "muslims condemn boko haram," or "muslims condemn ISIS," etc.
Ignorance and certainty tend to be head and hat.
Susannah Elf
(140 posts)Are you saying that my contention that many Muslim leaders condemn terrorism irks you? Or the belief that they haven't condemned it "strongly enough"?
I've never seen Fox news because I have a fair idea that it would make me angry.
LTX
(1,020 posts)I rather agree with what you posted.
Susannah Elf
(140 posts)because I wanted to see if my impressions were correct. I was heartened but not surprised by the unanimity of their voices in condemning ISIS' actions.
pinto
(106,886 posts)And I think Mary Elizabeth Williams is right on point with her review.
(aside) I probably vary from Fareed's politics on many issues, but his GPS show is the one Sunday morning TV piece I watch. The rest I take a pass on. I like his big picture take and range of issues he covers in one hour.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I have not seen the interview and can't at this time, but have read multiple reviews on it.
What is GPS?
pinto
(106,886 posts)It's excellent.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)like pretty much everything on TV.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)He is a nasty Islamaphobe.
Promethean
(468 posts)I am opposed to republican political ideology in almost all its forms. I believe following republican ideology will lead society to a much worse place. Republican ideology IS A MOTHERLODE OF BAD IDEAS.
oops...I crossed the line into bigotry at the end there I guess
When you don't give religion a special place of protection from criticism calling a religion a collection of bad ideas is hardly bigoted. In fact if we were to do a word replacement with Maher's quotes and fill in "republican ideology" in place of "islam" nobody would be calling him bigoted.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I am opposed to homosexuality in almost all its forms. I believe that following the homosexual ideology will lead society to a much worse place. The homosexual ideology (or if you prefer the codeword, agenda) IS A MOTHERLODE OF BAD IDEAS.
oops, I most definitely crossed the line into bigotry throughout the whole thing, didn't I.
If we were to do a word replacement with Maher's quotes and fill in "homosexual agenda" everyone one this site would be calling him bigoted.
Where do you draw the line when it come to special protections? On this site, religion is one of those areas.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Try again.
PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)You can CHOOSE your religion, you can CHOOSE which dogma to follow, your sexual preference? Not so much...
cbayer
(146,218 posts) PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)But I'm pretty sure no-one decides to become homosexual.
Your analogy still fails.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Of course you couldn't. I don't doubt that you might become convinced under the right circumstances, but it wouldn't be a choice.
My analogy is sound and there is growing evidence to support it.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)But given the right evidence, sure. A freely-made choice. I was once a believer, but chose to discard my religious beliefs once presented with evidence to the contrary.
No one is going to "convert" to being gay. They're born that way, cbayer. You're straining mightily to try and make religious beliefs the same as one's race or sexual orientation, but you're failing miserably.
Alittleliberal
(528 posts)Atheists could in theory choose to be a believer if presented with sufficient evidence. What that would be I have no idea but yes they are open to change in belief about not just god but all sorts of things. Yes anything you belief is your actively choosing to believe it. You could potentially stop believing in anything you do believe in.
Being gay isn't like that at all. It's about who they love.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)an atheist.
One might de/convert if presented with certain information or as the result of life experiences, but that's not a choice.
Being open to change and new information is a good thing and I understand that people find themselves on different paths at different times, but I don't agree that that is an active choice.
I couldn't choose believe if I wanted to, though I think I might become a believer under certain circumstances.
I think there is much more similarity between sexuality and religious belief than you do. But then it used to be widely held that sexuality was a choice, too.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Atheists choose to become believers every day. Believers choose to become atheists.
Sexuality isn't like that, and it's upsetting to see people like cbayer try to equate the two.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Yet I choose to be who I am. That is definitely a choice. I am a gay man who is agnostic. Being out is a choice. I am exactly who I am.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Atheists could in theory choose to be a believer if presented with sufficient evidence.
As a mathematician, I have quite a bit of experience with changing my own beliefs voluntarily to suit my immediate purposes. (That's why mathematicians are sometimes noted for "believing six impossible things before breakfast", like the White Queen from Alice in Wonderland.)
But that's a skill carefully honed over more than half a century because it is a valuable skill for folks engaged in mathematical research.
However, expecting the typical lay person on the street without such specialized training to do the same is a little unrealistic, even if it is, as you say, theoretically possible.
For the most part, people don't actively choose their own beliefs. People observe their own beliefs and then report on them (with varying degrees of accuracy).
PoutrageFatigue
(416 posts)...nonsense...
I did not choose to find the opposite sex attractive, that's just how i'm wired.
stone space
(6,498 posts)I chose to be an American.
My choice to be an American is mostly because I was born and raised in the USA, however.
All possible nationalities were not presented to me as options as a child, so I went with the one that I was familiar with growing up.
Lots of people do that.
And not just when it comes to nationality.
Lots of folks make the choice of religion that is as consistent with how they were raised as is their choice of nationality.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)Most people have their nationality because of who their parents were, or perhaps where they were born.
People's political outlook, on the other hand, is much more like religion - highly influenced by their upbringing, both in terms of the society they grew up in, and their parents' own opinions, but something you can change over time. And which, on the whole, doesn't have a legal meaning.
Promethean
(468 posts)Religions are literally just ideas. Nothing but ideas. Just like political ideologies. Your example doesn't fit the comparison. It also demonstrates your unwillingness to put religious ideas on the same level as any other idea. That special immunity that people insist religion has. No, no special immunity, all ideas are open to scrutiny and if they are bad ideas they should be called out for it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Is theism defined by an ideology or is it just a belief?
Now, which religion one embraces may be more of a choice, because that does become more about ideology.
What other ideas do you think I should put religion on the same level as? Political ideology?
In the laws of this country and the rules of this board, certain things are protected because they have similarities - race, sex, religious belief, etc. You may not like it and you may want to see religion removed from that list, but that's not going to happen.
There is indeed special immunity. That doesn't mean that ideas aren't open to scrutiny or above criticism, but condemning whole groups of people because of their religious beliefs is not liberal. It's bigotry.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)so you show that being a Republican and being a Muslim have definite similarities.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)He is not even funny anymore.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)to get a rise out of the general population.
He is now stacking his show with right wingers and really giving them a lot of air time.
I've been over him for awhile, because I think he's a misogynist, but his anti-muslim theme is really obnoxious.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...that's why he's still on the air and performs to sold out crowds on the road...
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Really boring.
He is no George Carlin.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)And no-one but George Carlin is George Carlin....
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I am talking about the one done in the past 6 momths.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)He's even better live....
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
Cartoonist
(7,309 posts)few
fyo͞o/
adjective & pronoun
determiner: few; adjective: few; comparative adjective: fewer; superlative adjective: fewest
1.
a small number of.
"may I ask a few questions?"
synonyms: a small number, a handful, one or two, a couple, two or three;
not many, hardly any
"there weren't many biscuits, but we saved you a few"
2.
used to emphasize how small a number of people or things is.
"he had few friends"
synonyms: scarce, scant, meager, insufficient, in short supply
-
If only. The problem is, ISIS is an army, not just a couple of guys with guns. The government of Saudi Arabia outnumbers the congregation of MARY ELIZABETH WILLIAMS. The legislature of Indiana and Luisiana comprise more than a FEW. The Supreme Court has a majority of religious assholes sitting on the bench. So enough of that "actions of a few" BS.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I'll give you a hint. It's going to be scarce, scant, meager, insufficient, in short supply. Everything is relative.
Lots of noise does not equal lots of members.
This is not to say that we should dismiss ISIS, Saudi Arabia, the legislature of Indiana and Louisiana or SCOTUS. We most certainly should not.
The point that she is making is that you can confront those factions without condemning or denigrating all muslims, all people who live in saudi arabia, Indiana and Louisiana or everyone that ever went to law school.
Cartoonist
(7,309 posts)Are watching their TV and cheering ISIS on? We don't know. How many are taking up arms to defend their religion against the atrocities of ISIS? I'm guessing: a FEW.
Also, there is a difference between condemning Muslims and condemning Islam. One is a philosophy rightfully subject to criticism. I don't think Maher has ever said everyone who is a Muslim is EVIL.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The numbers that may ideologically support them are all over the place and really hard to quantify, but there is data.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119857/polls-middle-east-about-islamic-state-have-surprising-results
The numbers committing the atrocities qualify as a few.
There is a difference, as you say. Maher crosses the line. He has said that muslims in general suffer from extremism and intolerance, and that is just one small nugget of his many statements. He is a bigot. The article is about him.
Susannah Elf
(140 posts)and injured 18,000 more. I would have a hard time believing that any Muslims watch this on their TVs and cheer.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
Do you think there were americans who cheered when the muslim students in N. Carolina were killed?
Evil is evil. It doesn't matter whether it is done in the name of some twisted religious ideology or a parking space. And people will cheer for evil because we are basically tribal.
What the author objects to is spreading hatred towards all people who wear a certain label because of the actions of a few.
Do you disagree?
Susannah Elf
(140 posts)Nor would there be Americans cheering for anyone killing Muslims if they were also targeting Americans at an exponentially higher rate. Muslims in the area have more to fear from ISIS than anyone on this side of the ocean.
I work in a public school in an ethnically diverse city in Canada. About half my students are Muslim both from Africa and the middle east. So I have no reason to lump all Muslims together because I know how different they are to each other. Any more than I would assume that a Christian from the southern U.S. is identical in thought and attitude as one born in Zimbabwe. Take people as they come. Labels are an illusion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Except when you force labels on others. *sigh*
LTX
(1,020 posts)Best not to take your talking points from Fox news.
Cartoonist
(7,309 posts)And your article didn't rebut it.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Why or why not?
Cartoonist
(7,309 posts)I was questioning the resolve of Muslims. So far, just a lot of talk and wringing of hands.
stone space
(6,498 posts)If you want people to take up arms, you should be leading by example.
Cartoonist
(7,309 posts)I was questioning the resolve of Muslims.
My resolve is just fine. My religion (none) is not being used to commit atrocities.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Cartoonist
(7,309 posts)Read my last post.
Response to Cartoonist (Reply #213)
Post removed
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I refuse to believe that you are so blisteringly illiterate as to have read Cartoonist's post as a call to arms. Your purpose here has become pretty clear, I think:
stone space
(6,498 posts)Man-made Gods of Metal.
Idols.
False Gods.
mike_c
(36,269 posts)Yes, I think supporting inclusion is a good thing (using the example in the OP), even when religious people do it. Perhaps ESPECIALLY when religious people are inclusive. But that doesn't earn their superstitions respect. It earns their behavior some respect, but not their magical thinking.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Do you think she is complaining that he doesn't respect religious belief?
Clearly your use of terms to describe what others believe indicates that you feel no need to respect anyone else's beliefs, rather you seem to feel a need to overtly insult them.
But Maher takes it much further than that. I may be the only one who reads what you have just said and it's really pretty tame.
Not the case for him.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)being spiritual? Why aren't secular ideas given the same respect?
I'm sorry, this is a person who wants to preserve some sense of religious/spiritual privilege that they feel is slipping in society. Religion should NOT be treated as sacrosanct, period.
Susannah Elf
(140 posts)and values should be shown respect? That doesn't make them immune to discussion and debate. But demonizing anyone's point of view is extreme and not indicative of good will and willingness to both speak AND listen.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)the beliefs and ideas themselves deserve no respect if they can't stand up under scrutiny.
Susannah Elf
(140 posts)If I'm not asking you to believe what I believe, or allowing my beliefs to justify myself in oppressing others, then I do think it would be disrespectful to someone who has no stake to criticize what I believe. Why would you want to do that?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)and if you were to state them as if they were fact, expect to get corrected unless you have some evidence on your side.
But that's as far as it will go with beliefs that aren't harmful.
Generally speaking, I don't care whether people believe Jesus was a god, Muhammad bodily rose to heaven, or that snake talked to Eve, I do care if they think that these myths should be taught as fact in secular schools, or that their religions should be afforded some privilege as a result of these beliefs.
Susannah Elf
(140 posts)That falls under the category of pushing one's beliefs on someone else, in which case I think it's perfectly acceptable to refute until they back off.
LostOne4Ever
(9,286 posts)[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]You don't think that should be demonized?
How about the belief that religions that condemn gay people to be executed or to hell do not deserve respect?
Should the belief that those religions should not be respected be respected because all beliefs should be respected even if it is the belief that not all beliefs should be respected?
I think I can respect your respect for my disrespect for the disrespectful with respect to how disrespect should be respected.
Respectively of course.[/font]
Susannah Elf
(140 posts)KKK and fundamentalists influencing school curriculum fall under the category "causing harm" and "pushing one's beliefs on others".
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)actual bigotry. For example, his views on Palestinians is openly bigoted, his criticism of collections of bad ideas is not.
Jim__
(14,063 posts)He's a comedian, he should have some sense of irony.
He continued: “Frankly, you’re going to make a lot of news for yourself and you’re going to get a lot of applause lines and joke lines.” But, he added, “push for reform with some sense of respect for the spiritual values.”
“You’re not persuading people with what you’re doing. You’re getting applause lines in the West,” Zakaria said.
“That’s insulting, that I’m doing this for applause lines,” Maher said.
Here's about 7 minutes of their exchange:
?feature=player_embedded
cbayer
(146,218 posts)That's pretty hilarious right there.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Saying the same things, over and over again ...
They are DU's theological police, and frankly, I get tired of seeing their faces ...
Bill Maher is free to say whatever the fuck he wants to say ... what he says isn't fucking GOSPEL!
The less religion in my life, the better .... I would be so pleased if 7 billion earthlings suddenly gave up religion and focused on human need instead, but no ... that isn't going to happen ....
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I don't know for sure, Trajan, but if I was tired of seeing some people's faces and felt that the less religion in my life, the better, I might avoid the religion group.
Of course Bill Maher can say whatever he wants and since he's a public figure, anyone is free to say whatever they want in response to him.
And religion isn't going to disappear, but we can align ourselves with the religious who are focused on human need.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Just a passing thought. But being out there is not the sole domain of religionists.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)He has always thrived on outrage and he definitely gets it with this routine.
He'll go as far out there as he needs to, as long as it is working for him, imo.
pinto
(106,886 posts) 
nil desperandum
(654 posts)I like Ingersoll's comment because to my mind my religion is slavery of thought, the difference being of course a slavery of thought willingly entered into by many seeking to understand their existence in a larger sense.
No one has ever changed the conventional wisdom by speaking quietly and politely to the necessity for change. Bill Maher is certainly not my favorite commentator but he has every right to speak his mind loudly and often in our society. Religious people need a shock to their system because like those before them who believed the earth was flat it takes a shock to advance reality from mystical fairy tale beliefs.
There is no god, there is no heaven and there is no hell. There is a complete and total lack of evidentiary support for the belief system required to sustain a deity. To speak those words quietly and politely among my friends who are believers is to be considered sort of an imbecile among those friends for failing to recognize my savior. If I ask if they believe in santa they say of course not, we're adults. I ask why not believe in santa? There is as much evidence of his existence as there is for their lord and savior, yet belief in one is acceptable and indicative of some level of normality while belief in the other is evidence of some sort of mental issue that requires treatment in an adult.
If it makes me hateful to point out that there is no god, I fear I must be considered hateful.
Religious people don't respect non-believers, not really in spite of their claims. They claim they are tolerant but the reality is they consider non-believes to be those poor souls who will never find ever-lasting life after death and consequently the kind of people to distance themselves from as a matter of conscience.
There is some back and forth regarding fundamentalists above, the reality is a fundamentalist atheist (whatever that means) poses no risk to society at large. Fundamentalist religious people however are quite another matter.
The news is filled with images of hatred and bigotry from religious fundamentalists of all stripes, christians, muslims, what ever....the Westboro Baptist Church uses children to hold up signs explaining to the rest of us how their god kills soldiers and causes planes to crash into the WTC building because some Americans are defending the rights of gays and lesbians. The people of ISIS, AQ, Boko Haram and countless other organizations believe that murdering infidels is the way to achieve heaven on earth.
I've been called a bigot because I find fundamentalists to be problematic to society at large, because I see their words and actions and express my disgust that anyone can justify death based on a religious principle.
Why? What respect am I shown for disagreeing with believers? Zero...
Those who point out what's true have always been those who are disliked throughout our history. The various churches of the world have all ridden those out who dare voice dissent, who dare question the absolute blind obedience to dogma and principle.
And so many who then choose to take their religion with the same level of faith they use in a take out menu by selecting items from column A and column B are upset with those who point out the unreality of such a system of beliefs. 2+2 always equals four, math isn't a take some, leave some proposition.
I know jews, muslims and christians who all tell me they don't actually believe everything in their respective foundation documents but I'm supposed to respect the idea they believe the parts they like and disregard those they don't based on nothing more than how they feel about it?
I'm sorry, but Bill Maher isn't a bigot on this. He's a realist. Religion is a control mechanism for society, it always has been and it always will be. In the hands of the fundamentalists that control is a dangerous violent thing. Calling that out for what it is isn't bigotry it's reality.
I believe I have remained inside these lines: Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted. Believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between are welcome.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If you are going to make definitive statements about god and heaven and hell, then the burden of proof is on you. It's not hateful to "point that out", it's just arrogant.
Fundamentalism is potentially dangerous no matter who embraces it. It is the firm belief that you are right and everyone else is wrong that makes it so. This is particularly a problem when you have no evidence to back your claim but just have faith in the belief that you are right.
Bill Maher is a bigot, not a realist. He extends the acts of the few to the total population and that is bigotry.
Your views on religion are clearly very negative, but, as you note, they are just your opinion. I don't know what your note to alerters and juries is all about. Are you concerned that you may walk too close to the line?
nil desperandum
(654 posts)yes had one hidden in the Atheist group....perhaps deservedly, so perhaps not...figured in the Atheist group a comment against a specific religion would be understood and I was clearly incorrect. I intend to place a quantifier at the end of every religious comment made from here on out to attempt to explain why I used the words I did.
If it works that's great, if not there are other sites to go to and discuss such things without the need to conform to a set of policies that are subject to the whims of those who happen to be online at the moment.
Been lurking a long time and keeping my mouth shut, but lately this business with RFRA's and the supposed attacks on religion are more than a little irritating as I see people using their belief system to attempt to legislate a defense for discrimination between individual parties instead of those cases covered by the 1st amendment where the government is in fact a party to the litigation.
My views are learned from time with the catholics and to a lesser extent the methodists. Both groups taught me the value of not believing in what I perceive to be fairy tales.
The absence of evidence may not be the evidence of absence but it is often the best indicator of what is real and what is not. There is no evidence of little green fairies who fly about the woods cultivating the forests yet I feel quite comfortable stating there are no fairies living in the woods, green or otherwise.
If that makes me a bigot to fairy believers, then I understand I must be considered a bigot.
I would note however that I am not supporting denying equal treatment under our constitutional law to those nice but misguided fairy believers.
If the people who believe in the fairies use that belief to deny equality under the law however I must ask who the real bigots are, because they are certainly not those who don't believe in the fairies.
Does that make all fairy believers bad people of course not, but it makes a belief in fairies suspect as a potential base cause of bigotry the same as someone who is naturally suspicious of those who believe in something they have zero ability to prove.
Most religions portray homosexuality as a sin, many supposedly religious people choose to ignore that component of their faith. How do they justify denying a portion of the foundation documents to suit their political views? Either your foundation documents are accurate or they are not.
Picking and choosing the parts that one wishes to believe indicates the overall nature of those documents and their purported veracity.
You don't get to choose which facts you like and which you don't facts are facts.
Religion, not so much thus disregarding large parts is acceptable to all manner of religious folks because a great many believers don't regard their foundation documents as the gospel they claim it to be.
I would encourage them to continue down that path and disregard all of it for the fantasy that it is.
There is no burden upon me to disprove the existence of god anymore than there is any burden on me to disprove the presence of luminiferous ether to transmit light waves. That there is no evidence to support the theory of luminiferous ether means it does not exist and never has. If you proclaim a theory to be true you are the one required to support your claims with evidence supporting your claim.
If you claim there is a god your theory remains untrue and unproven unless you can provide me with evidence of his existence. The same with those who proposed luminiferous ether to the world.
Susannah Elf
(140 posts)of what you call their foundation documents:
I think that there is a huge distinction between believing in god and following the dictates of a religion. After all, the scriptures of every faith were written by humans. So believing in god does not mean that I have to believe anyone who claims to speak for him.
I think that what are sometimes referred to as "cafeteria christians", choosing which doctrines they accept and which they don't, stay in their church for reasons other than the certainty that their religion is right and all others wrong. They appreciate the social milieu, or they find satisfaction in the rites they grew up with, or their church operates as an extended family. Since they believe in the existence of god, they're okay with attending services and then pursuing their relationship with god on their own terms.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)In fact, that's how science works. I know it serves your agenda of keeping religion credible and legitimate to keep mouthing that mantra, but it's dead wrong. It's wrong no how many Famous People you try to cite who have repeated it, btw.
LTX
(1,020 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 16, 2015, 05:47 PM - Edit history (1)
Absence of evidence acting against a hypothesis is only a probabilistic approach, and hence has the predominant effect of simply shelving a hypothesis as unsupported. In many analyses (for example those using microscopes, particle accelerators, and telescopes) the evidentiary base is restricted in volume, and confidence in any assertion that "nothing is there" is adjusted accordingly.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Saying that absence of evidence is absolute proof of absence would be an overstatement, and wrong, but that's not what I said. And all evidence in empirical scientific inquiry is probabilistic, so your point is rather a trivial one. Bottom line, the more you fail to find evidence in places that a hypothesis predicts it should be, the less likely it is that the hypothesis is true.
LTX
(1,020 posts)-"Actually, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.".
From a probalistic standpoint, this can be the case. Depending on the available evidentiary base, however, it can also be remarkably wrong.
- "In fact, that's how science works."
No, it's not. Science works through disproof. Not through half-assed assertion at the end of a long work-day.
- " A)ll evidence in empirical scientific inquiry is probalistic."
No, it's not. But I will say I'm somewhat surprised by this statement from you. You are, after all, the guy (I assume) who regularly conflates "science" with "proof."
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)or of what I think of it, feel free to start the discussion on that basis. Until then, please don't waste my time. Just for the record, I have regularly stated that science does NOT "prove" things in the way that mathematics does. I assume that anyone intelligent and with an understanding of science knows that scientists mean something different when they speak of "proof".
pinto
(106,886 posts) mr_liberal
(1,017 posts)Scientology or Christianity this woman would be ok with it. Its just because she imagines Islam as for brown people that she is offended. She's the bigot.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)It would be nice to think it is just a few bad apples making Islam look bad but it is not, it is the dogma itself. It was not until laws were enacted by intellectuals (with the huge help of science explaining things like hurricanes, lightening, earthquakes, that a person floating in water was not a witch but was floating due to air in the lungs) that basically began the neutering of Old Testament punishments spelled out in places like Leviticus (stoning a person to death for planting two different crops / talking back etc and other such non-sense.) punishments that were practiced for years. That most Christians evolved from a brutal past to a more civil standing.
The same needs to happen with Islam...but it wont until the root of the problem it is recognized and ownership is taken by the practitioners of the dogma who are more moderate and willing to stand up and say enough. Tacitly sitting back is just a culpable as actively taking part.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)This is tiring. What the column is ultimately saying, and what Fareed is saying, is this. Religions are powerful, many people feel strongly about these ideas, so go easy on these ideas, because you might offend people. What a bunch of privileged whining bullshit. I'm really sick it.
Yes, if Bill Maher wanted to "reform
Islam" then it wouldn't make sense to be honest about it. Reforming religion is a fundamentally dishonest task. And not really suited to nonbelievers, but to practical believers with no shortage of cognitive dissonance and compartmentalizations, and as Maher points out, many nonbeliever a are glad there is someone around to at least reign in the worst aspects of religion. But what Fareed and many other believers can't even entertain is that some people think these ideas are bad through and through, and "reform" is meaningless to them beyond being a modest step on the right direction. Being honest that ideas are bad usually is not big deal.
But not if your an uptight privileged asshole like the author, then anyone who criticizes religion is a bigot, not because they actually fit the definition of the word, but because these sorts of believers have no leg to stand on.
Islam is a fucking bigoted belief system, through and through. The attempts to make it progressive are about as honest as trying to make Mein Kampf really all about inclusion. It's bullshit. The abrahamic religions can't ignore there foundational texts that are filled with all sorts of bigotry, because they're religions, and yes, it's good to point out bullshit.
The apologists mewling and whining that these bigoted belief systems don't get enough respect can fuck off.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)I know I'm about to embark on a trip to wishful thinking.
Fareed writes quite well. There is no need to interpret it or attempt to twist it into something easier to deal with.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)And what he spake, was, well, sure Islam is terrible, but shhh, we're trying to change it so it's not as terrible, and your honest critiques ain't helping Bill! What Zakaria doesn't get is that some people don't want to reform religion, just like some people don't see much sense in reforming fascism to a friendlier fascism. A bad idea is a bad idea. But religious privilege prevents him and many others from seeing that, much less the ridiculous proposal they are making, that we respect this particular idea just enough to make it less bad.
Honestly, your posts are almost always substance free ad hominems and fallacies. This post was no different. I guess because Zakaria writes well in your opinion, this is relevant to my comment how?
rug
(82,333 posts)Why can't you just engage them instead of some caricature of what he's saying.? Admittedly, that is a common tactic in here. And elsewhere.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)It's a summary of it. If you think he said differently say what it was. I'm just sick of the privileged pomp surrounding these type of views and try to strip it away
rug
(82,333 posts)Calling what you wrote "a summary of it" is a generous view. There's no more need for me to say what he said than there is for yo to. For the most part, I agree with him. You don't. I don't feel though.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Or address any points, I thought as much, another completely useless exchange.
rug
(82,333 posts)Yes, if you can't take someone's words without masticating and regurgitating them, this is a completely useless exchange.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)How my interpretation is wrong.
Yes rug, the usual "self-evident" posts. So usual.
"I would have a discussion on a discussion board, expects all of my opinions are self-evidently right"
rug
(82,333 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)The author writes:
On Friday’s “Real Time,” Maher, ..squared off against Fareed Zakaria, who gave a powerful rebuttal to Maher’s reiteration of the “Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas” assertion. “My problem with the way you approach it,” Zakaria said, “is I don’t think you’re going to reform a religion by telling 1.6 billion people — most of whom are just devout people who get some inspiration from that religion and go about their daily lives — I don’t think you’re going to change religion by saying your religion is the motherlode of bad ideas
That's cute.
It's also a very convenient brushing aside of facts.
The Quran explicitly states that women are inferior to men, that unbelievers should be fought, and that adulterers, gays and blasphemers should be executed.
That is a mother-lode of bad ideas.
And the fact these bad ideas have 1.6 billion followers make these ideas even more dangerous. Case in point: worldwide, roughly half of all muslims believe these death sentences are valid and should be executed. That's literally hundreds of millions adult males ready to kill other humans for imaginary crimes.
But, hey, Bill Maher is a bigot..
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)to about half the bilge that is published over here. But people still love to link to it willy-nilly, without applying a grain of critical thought, and when they're called on posting unsupportable bullshit, they resort to "well, I just put it up for discussion, I don't have to agree with it".
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)But readership grows, so why care about content?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)They hand a soapbox to whomsoever is able to write a coherent piece, but make no effort whatsoever to vet them for content. And they don't exactly hide that, either.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)with a comment of "I don't know, I didn't conduct that poll". Here it is: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
As I pointed out 2 years ago:
84% of them think Sharia should be the law of the land; of those, 89% think the penalty for adultery should be stoning, and 76% of them support the death penalty for apostasy from Islam (ie 64% of all Pakistani Muslims). Only 34% of those wanting sharia law want it applied to non-Muslims too, but, with the death penalty for apostasy supported so strongly, anyone 'born a Muslim' doesn't have much of a way out in this worldview.
Overall, 60% of Egyptian Muslims support stoning. 35% of Indonesian Muslims. 52% of Malaysian Muslims (and 35% of them want sharia to apply to everyone, despite nearly 40% of Malaysians being non-Muslim; 53% of Malaysian Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy).
These are major countries. Malaysia would claim to be relatively advanced. But large proportions of them have had bloodthirsty fantasies installed in their heads as retribution for actions that don't harm society. By Islam.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121879248
Muslim population figures here: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/28/muslim-population-country-projection-2030 - interpolate between 2010 and 2030 to get a 2015 figure.
So, that's about 135 million in Pakistan, 75 million in Indonesia, 68 million in Bangladesh, 50 million in Egypt, 25 million in Afghanistan, 17 million in Iraq, and 9 million in Malaysia, who favour torturing adulterers to death. 379 million.
We don't have figures for Iran (Muslim population 75 million, where stoning is the legal penalty), or Saudi Arabia (Muslim population 26 million, where stoning is the legal penalty), or India (Muslim population 180 million). Could be another 40 million from the first 2 countries (about 40% of the population, where it's the actual law) and another 27 million in India (say 30% want sharia - about the same as in Lebanon, and of those, 50% want stoning for adultery - under the figures for Bangladesh, Pakistan, Thailand and Malaysia, and about the same as Indonesia). That's 446 million.
We do know that 71% of Nigerian Muslims think Sharia should be the law of the land (ie 55 million), 83% of Moroccan Muslims (27 million), and 86% of Nigeriens (15 million). If 20% of those 87 million (less than the Bosnia figure) support stoning, that's another 17 million. Add in other countries (Algeria, Somalia, Yemen ...) we don't have figures for, and I think we get to around 500 million Muslims who support torturing adulterers to death.
That is a problem. It is not "the extreme actions of a few" as Williams mischaracterizes it; it's the opinion of 500 million people. The figures for killing anyone who leaves Islam aren't that far behind the ones for stoning; at least 200 million, anyway. The 'religious intolerance' that is the heart of the argument between Zakaria and Maher is about hundreds of millions of Muslims wanting to torture and kill people for sexual unfaithfulness or changing their mind about religion. Maher's 'intolerance' that she tihnks is 'just as ugly' is calling Islam names.
Williams is an idiot, both intellectually and morally.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)I'm mindful of the fact that he's an ass.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)but thanks for posting it and making it seen.
I like BM's show alright, but he needs to quit with his broad-brushing of religion. He's not going to win many friends by disrespecting people's beliefs. This is one of the things that I have against what seems to be the modern Atheist movement: many of them are too busy trying to tell other people how to live their lives (just like the religious nuts do). Sometimes even when I'm on this site, I feel a bit out of place as a person of faith. It just seems like a number of posters here are (like you said) anti-theists rather than just being Atheists. There are always people equating religion with ignorance (such as that UPI poll in GD), and linking it to more strife in society. The viciousness and the smug attitude get tiring, and I'm glad that posters like you have the patience to entertain them and try to refute their dogma.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think there are many like you and I hope that you stand firm and don't let others bully you.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Unless the religious justification for it is ignored. We'll just pretend it isn't there.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)indicating otherwise?
arcane1
(38,613 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)That's a meme and a completely false one.
