Late Night Video — NYPD #PMS
This is Bill Maher hilariously commenting on the NYPD snit over accountability:
Post by Bill Maher.
Tags: Bill Maher, Late Night Video
Connect
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.
This is Bill Maher hilariously commenting on the NYPD snit over accountability:
Tags: Bill Maher, Late Night Video
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.
That’s sexist.
Bill Maher is a sexist Islamophobe.
Do you understand comedy? They’re called jokes. It isn’t a policy paper.
Oh, and for the record, if in the USA Islam was used to codify laws that get bloggers publically flogged for writing (Saudi) or people executed for blasphemy (Pakistan) or thrown in prison for taking a sip of beer (Iran), you’d be scared of Islam as well.
The fact that most Muslim in the US and elsewhere reject these laws and views is good but really irrelevant. Islam deserves serious criticism and I’m glad some public figures have the balls to say so.
The fact that most Muslim in the US and elsewhere reject these laws and views is good but really irrelevant.
This is pretty ignorant. There are a billion and a half Muslims in the world and the handful of folks who use their religion to grab power and justify their own resentments are the ones who get to define this religion. We don’t do that to Christians, certainly. Who — in this country — are using their own religious beliefs for similar reasons. Without killing people (yet). But the KKK was a Christian organization and no one called for “serious criticism” of Christianity when they are terrorizing people of color.
“There are a billion and a half Muslims in the world and the handful of folks who use their religion to grab power and justify their own resentments are the ones who get to define this religion.”
Define “handful.” The Pew research puts support for jihadists at 4% of the Islamic population. That’s 60 million people, which adds up to many, many hands.
“We don’t do that to Christians, certainly.”
Speak for yourself. Last time I checked it was fundie Christians killing abortion providers, and yes, I blame their religion, too.
Religion, like guns, can kill if used improperly. If you’re for banning guns, why not religion? (No, that’s not a serious suggestion).
DG do you understand comedy? it’s called snark, it isn’t actual outrage.
However, What Bill Maher is doing isnt “having balls” (which is also sexist, and inaccurate to describe strength … balls are weak, sensitive and easily hurt… h/t Betty White) It’s buying into the Fox News narrative that we should be at war with a whole people because of the worst among them.
“That’s sexist.”
I think it’s actually genderist.
4% is a minority of the Islamic population no matter what math gets used. And of those claiming to be part of the jihadists, there are even fewer who take up real arms. Even so, the actions of the few are not reason to tar the many.
Unlike with Islam, Christians are not typically subject to broad brush assignments of responsibility for the folks killing and terrorizing in God’s name. Which was my point about the KKK.
I apologize for missing the sarcasm in the sexist comment. As far as saying “balls” to signify strength, if you think it’s sexist, I don’t care. It’s like using “Faggot” in the South Park sense.
On the other issue it is absolutely not buying into a Fox News narrative. If you believe it is you don’t understand it. It’s been explained dozens of times, but the knee-jerk Affleckian “liberal” reaction is to call it racist.
It’s not about Muslims the people it’s about Islam the philosophy. So no we’re not advocating a war on Muslim/people. We’re critical of a religion that is used to radicalize people, hang apostates, flog journalists and deny women the right to leave the house without their heads covered and a permission slip signed.
I’m so fucking tired of hearing that I’m aligned with Fox fucking News because so-called liberals can’t parse complicated argument.
Which is genderist… Maher’s comment linking unprofessional and child-like (now Im being ageist) behavior of armed public-servants to women going through a totally unavoidable few days of pain and hormones….. or am I being genderist by assuming it’s sexist, since Im a man and cant really make that call? (monday fun-day)
Cass – Unfortunately some of the most vile tenets of Islam are codified law in Saudi and Egypt and Afghanistan (our “allies”) as well as Pakistan and Iran. So to say it’s a minority view is very funny to me. And I don’t think it is racist to say this out loud.
I do believe that most Muslims ignore these ideas and that’s great. But simply saying that there’s a big fucking problem in the philosophy to allow it to be used this way is not offensive or racist or Islamophobic. And I intend to continuing saying it.
so called “liberals” need to have thicker skin. I didnt even say you were like fox news, i said Mill Maher was.
Christians did all these things up until a hundred or so years ago. The only difference is there are less desperately impoverished Christians than there are Muslims. There is nothing wrong with their basic philosophy… there is something wrong with the current world in which they live, and their religious is an easy excuse to do what all desperate people eventually do. Make life better in these countries and the allure of dying for a chance to escape a living hell will start to go away.
“I do believe that most Muslims ignore these ideas and that’s great.”
like how most Christians and Jews ignore that bit about putting men to death who lay with other men.
Yeah exactly. If Israeli law codified the laws in Leviticus I think it’d be fair to be very critical of it. My problems with Israel have nothing to do with Judaism.
Religious nuts everywhere use religious dogma to justify their psychotic nature
I watched the clip, it was pointed and funny.
Then I read the comments. Sexist vs genderist, funny.
But then, I thought the clip was about NYPD crybabies, how did the comments get on Islam?
Maher was called an Islamaphobe and I defended his view.
Unfortunately some of the most vile tenets of Islam are codified law in Saudi and Egypt and Afghanistan (our “allies”) as well as Pakistan and Iran. So to say it’s a minority view is very funny to me.
That would be fine if these were the only places Muslims lived, which they don’t, not by a long shot. And the most vile tenets of Islam are codified in places without a functioning democracy — places where governments are run by ideologues who need every opportunity to control populations they can.
Whether or not it is racist is your problem. *I* said it was ignorant. You can deal with your racial baggage someplace else.
Wait… it would be fine to have laws that treated women like non-valuable property as long as all the effected women were Muslim?
Not by a long shot, eh? Would you like to educate us on the non-Muslim population of Egypt for example (it’s 9-10%)? That to me is overwhelmingly Islamic.. They vote, right? Our great allies… who recieve tons of our money… who a few weeks ago had 26 men arrested for being gay…
What is it about Islam that allows it to be used by Ideologues in the way you describe? You can argue your way round and round if you want to… but whatever it is, I’m calling it out.
The argument isn’t ignorant either by the way. The idea that we shouldn’t make factual statements because of some so-called cultural “ignorance” is disgusting.
By the way, I understand that these countries are barely democracies, but I fail to see what that has to do with it. Iran is run by an ayatollah, but that has nothing to do with Islam? Nonsense.
The idea that we shouldn’t make factual statements because of some so-called cultural “ignorance” is disgusting.
When you are in possession of some facts, then you might have a point. 60% or so of the world’s Muslims live in Indonesia. And then another big chunk of them live is India. The lack of an ability to control their governments or even their own lives is at the root of the jihadist project, not their religion as most Muslims would point out to you.
Ayatollahs mean something to those in the Shia sect (and then to Twelvers) and mean little to Sunnis, or Sufis or other sects.
Yeah, on 2nd thought, you’re right. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. I’ll stop criticising the tool straightaway. There’s nothing about the gun that’s inherently dangerous. Just these fanatics who use them “wrong.”
For a guy who like to pose as a smart guy, you’ve got alot more work to do on your pose to be convincing.
Perhaps we can try looking at this from another angle: How many of the anti-Western terrorists are non-Muslim?
It’s simple to pose as a smart guy when you are one.
It’s actually not my problem. It’s yours. It’s abundantly clear that there is a problem with Islam. It’s called “Islamic” fundementalism. Do you disagree with this term?
The fundementals are fucked up. Same with all religions really and I’m equal opportunity critic on this. I’m not saying all Muslims are responsible and I never have. But there is a problem deep within the Islamic philosophy and people don’t want to say it because they feel like it offends people.
To try to excuse it or make apologies for it is absolutely out of bounds. I guess the fact that the terrorists yell “God is Great” and the prophet has been avenged is just a big coincidence? I’d actually appreciate the pretzel logic and yoga moves required to explain this away if it weren’t so fucking dangerous.
There really isn’t any argument you can make. It’s obvious on its face. It’s like saying the Inquisition had nothing to do with Christianity. It’s nonsense.
I do agree that Muslims are not homogeneous. There are many different levels (from devout to casual), customs and beliefs. But how convenient it is to say, well, the radical wing doesn’t count. That’s actually not “real” Islam at all but something else. Bullshit apologist argument.
All religions are nonsense and I am stridently critical of the Israeli settlers and the Westboro “Baptist” Church. Luckily there aren’t too many of those lot. But to pretend that Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, Boko Haram, el Shabaab, et al aren’t Islamic is factually incorrect. Islam needs some sort of new enlightenment and it’s not going to happen unless we start to accept that deep within the tenets are the seeds to illiberal, undemocratic thought.
right now, not many. 30-50 years ago when they were all Godless Commies.. (and we were arming the Muslims) different story. At the EXTREME risk of giving Bush ANY credit….. Fascism has taken hold of Islam (see Iran) and we need to help. Not by faux liberals making the hard decision that there is an inherent problem with Islam)… what are ya gonna do? kill em all?…..) but by changing a global economic policy that keeps their part of the world under gallons of oil.
ben – I can’t disagree with you there. The US and the West is complicit. From the division of India and Iraq to acting as Israel’s sugar Daddy. Funding the talib… I mean the mujahadeen… You name it. Plus the US is by far the most violent player. We worry about Iran’s nuclear capacity… we already dropped two big ones. We have no problem incinerating a cafe in Yemen to kill one guy. We suck…
…but the fact remains, religion poisons everything. And we get nowhere pretending that radical ISLAM and ISIS and the rest have nothing to do with ISLAM. That’s just not so.
This idea that critics are painting Muslims (people) with some nasty broad bruch is a rhetorical trick. To scutinize the philosophy is not to demean particular people. Perhaps many Muslims would leave the faith. It is a choice after all. Except in 36 counties that’s grounds for your execution… so..
And the fact remains that I can say all this without fear. That little fact never escapes my attention either.
If you’re problem with religion, that’s one thing (a thing i would agree with) I just disagree that Islam is MORE problematic at it’s basic core than Christianity or Judaism.
aww look at us having a civil discussion and not insulting each other. What kind of Interwebz fail is this?
I think is patently obvious that today, 12 January 2015, elements of Islam are far more dangerous than any other religion. I can’t see how that can be denied.
It certainly hasn’t always been this way. It very likely will change over time. But today, it’s very clear that what you wrote isn’t true.
It’s simple to pose as a smart guy when you are one.
Delusional, really. A smart guy would have known that there are many sects of Islam and that invoking the Ayatollah wouldn’t do anything to help his argument.
A smart guy wouldn’t double down on continuing to profile a billion and a half people based on the delusions of a minority of them. A smart guy wouldn’t say this:
There really isn’t any argument you can make. It’s obvious on its face. It’s like saying the Inquisition had nothing to do with Christianity.
Because the Inquisition had everything to do with *Roman* Church leadership looking to increase its temporal power. The Eastern Church (also Christian) wasn’t involved with that Inquisition. They are both *Christianity* (at least at that point in history) but it was only one set of Church leaders brutalizing a population.
More smart guy BS:
To try to excuse it or make apologies for it is absolutely out of bounds.
Now what I’m doing, but hey.
But how convenient it is to say, well, the radical wing doesn’t count. That’s actually not “real” Islam at all but something else. Bullshit apologist argument.
Not what I’m saying, but what can you expect from someone who is relying on bullshit to get to his smart guy cred.
I don’t have much truck with religion of any kind any more. But I still call out profiling when I see it, because I *do* know what that’s like. Your argument about Islam being a core problem is not far from the folks on the NJ blaming crime on hip hop.
Well, I’m not characterizing people I’m critising a philosophy, but hey, you hear what you what to hear. Like I said, I do real enjoy all the twists and turns and bends and non sequitars you make… it makes your argument not only wrong, but incredibly entertaining.
You are characterizing a philosophy you very pointedly don’t know much about. I don’t care if you want to trash all religions. But if you are going to rear up on your hind legs and talk about Ayatollahs and Inquisitions, you need to have your details in order. Fun that demonstrating that you have no idea what you are talking about characterized as a “non-sequitar [sic]”.
The pompousness of pointing out I misspelled a word in a blog comment section aside, you seem to believe that a thorough analysis and deep understanding of the diversity of Islam is needed to make my argument. Absolutely not true. All the differences between Shia and Sunni, the esoteric details of Wahhabism, the history of Christianity in Europe, &c., &c… I actually do know these things, but in the argument I am making there are all irrelevant.
What about Islam allows maniacs to use it to further a violent fascist world view? Whatever it is I don’t think it matters what sect believes which is the true descendent of the prophet. What about the faith allows calls for disgusting savagery?
Perhaps you think it has nothing to do with the faith of over a billion people. I disagree. I think it’s blatantly clear that Islam plays a big part in the terrorist worldview. It’s so clear it’s almost ridiculous. The fact that most Muslim don’t share these beliefs again makes no difference. If you don’t think so than I guess we just disagree. I think you’re over-thinking it though.
What allows religious people, no matter what their faith, to be so stridently wrong is the rational fallacy of Appeal to Authority.
“rational fallacy of Appeal to Authority”
I am of the opinion that Appeal to Authority is the real crux of the problem. In Islam, there is no authority save that of some self styled cleric (who declared himself a cleric) or an imam who was selected by the community that believed him to be knowledgeable and wise (usually on the basis of being able to quote the Quran). With no central governing authority, each group/community can believe what they want, respect whatever authority they want (or none) and adhere to their own brand of their religion.
Essentially there is no control mechanism in place to direct, guide, or force adherence to any common set of principles, values, or behaviors. Without a hierarchy, there is anarchy. Without a unifying force each individual is left to their own devices.
When many of the religion’s adherents are uneducated, they are easily influenced and manipulated by the Jim Joneses and David Koreshes of the Muslim world. In essence Islam is less a unified religion than a large number of cults which share some common beliefs and philosophies. I started to refer to them as tribes, but settled on cults because tribes usually have an interest in self preservation. Cults are more interested in apocalyptic ends.
That shouldn’t imply that I believe in some sort of Islamic caliphate as a solution, because I do believe in separation of church and state, but Islam itself needs a hierarchy. The problem is that because many of its members are members of other sects and actual tribes, thus the concept of a unifying authority is nothing more than a interesting notion.
@Dave: The authority I’m talking about is God, or Allah, or Yahweh, or Zoroaster, or Ba’al, or whomever. The problem with religion in the marketplace of ideas is that, while believers won’t cross their supreme being, others don’t even recognize that being’s existence. Even those who do disagree on what that supreme being “says.”
The pompousness of pointing out I misspelled a word in a blog comment section aside, you seem to believe that a thorough analysis and deep understanding of the diversity of Islam is needed to make my argument. Absolutely not true.
No more pompous than a self-declared smart guy arguing for why he doesn’t need to be smart to make this argument. What’s key here is that Islam is not monolithic, much like Christianity is not monolithic. Every religion (and its various schools or branches) exists in an ideal form (aspirations and foundational teachings) and it’s lived form. Religions of The Book also exist in their book form. While there may be places where these intersect, it is meaningless to talk about a failed philosophy without knowing said philosophy as defined by that school or branch. So you don’t know that it is the Wahabis and Selafis that are the source of much of the terror jihad, not so much for Ismalis. Interrogating why one school or movement is more violent than the rest would be more honest than an uninformed condemnation of all who clearly don’t share the same values as the violent ones. And we’re back at Hip Hop = Crime on your part.
The problem with religion in the marketplace of ideas is that, while believers won’t cross their supreme being, others don’t even recognize that being’s existence.
My problem with religion is in the people who practice them — clear rules and concepts of not killing others or not lying or treating your neighbors with respect are routinely subordinated to whatever the delusion of the day is. If you are going to be a believer, then live your life accordingly, otherwise your appeals to religion are meaningless.
Without people who practice them, religions don’t exist except as concepts or historical artifacts.
The problem attaches to the notion of “respecting” religion. Despite constant claims to the contrary, we are under no obligation to do so. I am under no obligation to believe unsubstantiated claims no matter their source, especially when that source is an imaginary entity. Indeed, I feel an obligation to object to demands to respect religions, for such demands seek to protect irrational thought from rational analysis. Further, such demands are linked to the popularity of established religions: If I invent my own, it will not be accorded equality with those already established.
http://www.cato.org/blog/charlie-hebdo-murders-real-atrocity-religious-persecution-not-free-expression?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Cato-at-liberty+%28Cato+at+Liberty%29
“Western governments must protect the liberties of their peoples. Members of no group, Muslim or other, should be treated as enemies. However, the problem of violent religious intolerance is almost uniquely Muslim….
…There is no disguising reality. If you are a Baha’i, Jew, Ahmadi, Christian, Yazidi, Hindu, wrong kind of Muslim, or atheist you likely will find life always difficult and often threatening in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Indonesia, Brunei, Malaysia, Sudan, Yemen, Maldives, Syria, and others.”
And for the record, you started it with accusing me of posing as a smart person. If you want to insult and name call you probably picked the wrong guy. I can get them up as fast as you can censor them… and I’m a dirty, vile fucking rat in a street fight… but I won’t out of respect for some of the other contributors.
You’re clouded by high minded pseudo-liberal ideas like we need to dissect every difference between sects for a full understanding or that it’s rude or intellectually lazy to make an obvious generalisation. Capital punishment for blasphemy and apostasy is rampant across the Islamic world, but I can’t argue that it has anything to do with “Islam” unless I parse every fucking twist and turn? That’s really outrageous.
I fail to see why Islam deserves such a strident defense. And your overly intellectual flowery nonsense in wholly unconvincing.
“You’re clouded by high minded pseudo-liberal ideas like we need to dissect every difference between sects for a full understanding or that it’s rude or intellectually lazy to make an obvious generalisation.”
Yes intellectualism, facts and full understanding are all highly overrated. Generalizations are the future!
An appeal to *Cato* as an authority! That is awesome sauce, right there — the people who have taken the pseudo-philosophy of Ayn Rand and made their own religion out of it.
I fail to see why Islam deserves such a strident defense.
I’ve also taken you to task for painting Christianity with too broad a brush here too. The deal is that you know what you are talking about or you don’t. What is abundantly clear here is that you don’t know enough about Islam (besides what your cable TV is telling you, perhaps) to claim that there is a deep problem with Islam. And I’ll note that you’ve yet to discuss in any detail what that deep problem is. Because you can’t. You can deal with the real problems that some of the jihadist schools and offshoots support, but you don’t know enough about Islam to critique the thing as a whole. It is the wingnut problem, really. You can see it in the posts of Rusty Dils. He’s got an outrage, but doesn’t know enough to be able to discuss either its source or its solutions — besides what his TV tells him.
OK, so he’s doing it wrong. Now tell us why some versions of Islam, alone among major religions, condemns blasphemers and apostates to death.
“The authority I’m talking about is God, or Allah, or Yahweh, or Zoroaster, or Ba’al, or whomever.”
I knew that, but remember that since none of them have a direct interface to their respective Authority, they have no choice but to rely upon those who they hold in some esteem, as interpreters or diviners of that Authority. Figuratively they are sheep who must herded whether by books of questionable provenance or by those who profess some divine wisdom (Jesus loves me this I know, cause the bible tells me so). Cult behavior. Every herd needs a herder.
I reject the idea that someone needs to present all the nuances of each Muslim community to criticise Islam. (I actually know far more about this that you seem to think. I just don’t find it relevant or helpful.)
I reject the notion that because each of the world’s 1 1/2 billion Muslims is a unique human being no generalizations can be made about Islam.
I absolutely resent the idea that that because the faith as practiced is so diverse I’m not permitted to make blatantly obvious observations.
I never, as some have done, blamed “Muslims” for terrorism. Dr Mehmet Oz or my cricket captain from Pakistan have as much to do with terrorism as I do. But to dismiss the idea that there seems to be something genuinely sinister in a philosophy used to inspire people to slaughter artists who insult them is disgusting.
It seems like Political Correctness run amok. Anyone who espouses these ideas is immediately dismissed out of hand as someone who doesn’t understand the nuance.
Cass – I reject your entire premise and I am wholly unconvinced by your argument. If you think that makes me a Rusty Dilian “wingnut” I don’t know what to tell you. I think enough people here know me personally and know that that isn’t even close to the case.
@DG: If you’re expecting her to acknowledge error, or even her condescending attitude, don’t hold your breath.
Ha. I can be a condescending little prig myself so I’ll cut her some slack. But I appreciate the sentiment.
Here’s my quote of the day.
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2015/01/14/charlie-blasphemer/
“Then the deeper disappointment. Even now, many will not concede that religion was the root cause of the attack, and that the name of that religion is Islam. Reading the cartoonishly liberal Nick Kristof was like watching a Monty Python Piranha Brothers sketch. Yeah, they have murdered thousands of Westerners and far larger numbers of Middle Eastern and Nigerian and Pakistani Muslims. Yeah, they did that. They also declared at every one of their slaughters that their motivation is Islam. They have beheaded people, mass murdered school children, flown planes into buildings, cut women’s genitals, employ sex slaves, commit mass rape, and on and on. They have taken over a large part of the Iraqi and Syrian deserts to advance their desire for religious purity.
But Islam has nothing to do with this. There are just a few loonies who are suffering from false consciousness, and their real motivations are economic or personal or secular or just purely violent. You can believe that, if you want. Or you can pretend to believe it because it might be more pragmatic to do so. Or you can open your eyes. This is not to say that most Muslims support this kind of mass murder – and the global Muslim response was particularly encouraging. But it is to say that it is not a coincidence that so much terror and violence all over the world is currently being committed in the name of Islam. Some core parts of it are, quite simply, incompatible with post-Enlightenment thought and practice. And those parts have all the energy right now.” —Andrew Sullivan
“some versions of Islam, alone among major religions, condemns blasphemers and apostates to death.”
@Geezer, I doubt you’ll get any sort of cogent response to that.
Yeah, you won’t get far here quoting Andrew Sullivan, either.
All I wanted to point out that “a few” is one way to describe this small percentage; “60 million people” is another. Not only are both true, they are the same truth.
@Dave: I tried to explain this to conservatives by comparing the radical Muslim reaction to “offensive” cartoons to conservative reaction to burning the American flag. Conservatives have for years pushed for a Constitutional amendment to ban burning the flag as a protest. The emotion springs from the same part of the lizard brain.
Oh, look — another story religion has nothing to do with:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/syria-jihadists-tie-up-woman-in-a-public-square-and-execute-her-for-adultery/
Religion didn’t “make” them do it, it just gave them justification.
Andrew Sullivan has a very interesting take on this.
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2015/01/14/charlie-blasphemer/
There isn’t much condemnation of Catholicism just because a minority raped and abused children over the years. What’s so problematic at the basic core of Catholicism that allows this kind of violence against children?
There isn’t much condemnation of Hindus for their recent and current violent targeting of Christians in their country. What’s so problematic at the basic core of Hinduism that allows violence to force conversions and death if refused? And how about those Hindus who still insist on the practice of sati — forcing widows to burn to death on the pyres of their dead husbands?
Buddists and Hindus ranged against each other for 25 years or so in Sri Lanka — what was it about Buddism that engendered such radical nationalism and codified discrimination and violence against Hindus?
And how about the LDS (hold still LDS readers, I’m making a point here) that could create people like Warren Jeffs who would systematically rape and abuse young women and facilitate the rape and abuse of others? What’s so problematic at the basic core of this religion that makes the rape, abuse and forced marriage of children OK?
There’s an entire movement here in the US supported by the Chalcedon Foundation that works towards Christian dominion over government and business, based entirely on biblical law. Their founders openly call for the execution of homosexuals (and have been very supportive of the harsh laws passed and enforced in places like Uganda and Nigeria), abortion providers, blasphemers. They are one of the major sources of the canard that US laws are based on the Ten Commandments. You can hear their ideas and goals carried forward by people like Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum. Rick Perry among others. The modern right is highly steeped in this very anti-Enlightenment school of thought and yet where is the question about what it is about Christianity that provides these people such a throwback answer to modernism?
The world is filled with religious atrocities. Perhaps not all of them being hyped on your TV set as somehow more awful than the rest. This argument (such as it is) started when Dorian Gray decided to make a broad brush condemnation of Islam. One that he can’t support with any argument other than “it’s obvious”. Sully does slightly better, but he can’t support his claim that Islam is not compatible with Enlightenment Values either. If you have something to support this argument, then make it. At least explain how it is that 95% of Muslims can live their lives without the radical, nationalist (and man-made) form of Islam that is, frankly, hurting more Muslims than anyone else.
Just saying “it’s obvious” isn’t an argument, and insisting on that is just insulting. I’m not the one who needs to do more work here. If you don’t have anything to add to the discussion, then just shut up.
French President Francois Hollande speaking yesterday.
Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy
@DG: If you’re expecting her to be bullied into your own position just because you yell louder, or even her insistence at countering said bullying, don’t hold your breath.
Fixed that for you.
Either be in this conversation, addressing my points or go away. I’m not available to be bullied into whatever your faux contrarian BS position is today.
“There isn’t much condemnation of Catholicism just because a minority raped and abused children over the years. What’s so problematic at the basic core of Catholicism that allows this kind of violence against children?”
I think this is untrue. The papers and internet have been full of stories relating to the problems raised by having a nominally celibate priesthood that won’t allow females to serve or for priests to marry. There are literally hundreds of thousands of such pieces to choose from.
“How about the LDS (hold still LDS readers, I’m making a point here) that could create people like Warren Jeffs who would systematically rape and abuse young women and facilitate the rape and abuse of others? What’s so problematic at the basic core of this religion that makes the rape, abuse and forced marriage of children OK?”
You can’t be serious. I have seen at least tens of thousands of pieces by Mormons, ex-Mormons and fundamentalists making the point that it is, indeed, the writing and behavior of the church’s founders that facilitate this.
“The world is filled with religious atrocities. Perhaps not all of them being hyped on your TV set as somehow more awful than the rest.”
Again, how disingenuous. Sri Lanka has no bearing on most Americans, so it isn’t covered here. Sometimes the answer is staring you right in the face.
The only thing you have fixed — as in “cemented in place” — is your image as someone incapable of discourse because you think you’re always right. Just like a religious extremist.
Sullivan’s argument above is my argument. You demand I address all your contortions and fancy fake-out moves. Trying to change the subject and bring up the fucking Tamil Tigers and Sri Lanka and shit. If you want to discuss that we can discuss that, but I’m not going to “shut up” because you say so. Who the fuck are you anyway? (I let that one personal insult slide, but don’t fucking tell me to “shut up” again or we’re going to have big fucking problems, you and I. I even said yesterday that I was cutting you some slack. Don’t fucking squander my good will.)
If you don’t think Islam is at the root of this terrorism then good for you. Avenging the prophet was some clever cover story then? I guess I’ve been duped… What a joke! You appear to be an irrational lunatic burying your head in the sand. I can’t convince you of something you don’t want to believe. I don’t know if you’re afraid of it or you think it isn’t fair or you think there’s a double standard or what. I guess those school children in Pakistan were cut down for economic reasons. And Boko Haram wiped out that Nigerian village to score political points.
The fact that Islamic fundamentalism/extremist/terror hurts more Muslims than others doesn’t impact my position one bit. The fact that certain scholars can parse the Qu’ran to make theological points doesn’t matter because that’s not what the actual terrorists believe. The terrorists believe they are doing it for Islam so I think what they say their motivation is actually is what it is. Why would I think you would understand they motivation more than they do? It’s silly. Of course moderate Muslim will run from this like mad. Ulterior motives.
And the Hollande quote! That’s fucking hilarious! Clearly a politician like Hollande has every reason (the pragmatic reasons Sullivan referred to) to play down on even dismiss the religious aspect. He needs to keep the peace. Ulterior motives.
As far as the other religious crimes, the Catholic pedophiles and rapists never used Catholicism as a rationale for rape. That’s a big difference, no? On the LDS/Warren Jeffs deal, that was extremely isolated. What did it impact maybe 500 people, 1,000… 2,000? I suppose if his followers took up arms and started a new autonomous region in parts of Utah, Idaho and Alberta, Canada and started beheading people perhaps we could argue it was a widespread a problem as say, ISIS… but alas it isn’t.
I miss Hitchens everyday… he wouldn’t stand for this nonsense.
Another thing: We’re not saying the Islamic atrocities are “more important than the rest” of the situations involving religious strife. That’s your caricature of the position. I believe the Maher position is that religion, on balance, causes more problems than it solves, and that Islam is the current leader on the debit side of the ledger.
What are your positions? I can’t make them out, other than you don’t want to insult Islam, so I can’t address them.
Your only point seems to be that because most Muslims don’t practice terrorism, Islam must be OK.
And fuck you when you start pretending to understand the motivations of others. You’re too self-involved to understand what motivates other humans.
If you want to address this in a clash of cultures sense, which I most definitely think it is, you must first properly identify the West’s supreme being: “the market.” Islam is not fighting against Christianity, it’s fighting against capitalism. The West has occupied the region for decades with mineral extraction firms, and while they didn’t kill people with drones, the presence of Western corporations certainly has undermined their culture/s.
In that sense, Islam is merely the organizing principle for resistance, just as “the market” is our organizing principle for hegemony.
Trying to change the subject and bring up the fucking Tamil Tigers and Sri Lanka and shit.
On behalf of everyone reading this thread, I’m thanking you for being so disengaged with this conversation that you missed the question I was responding to. Here’s hoping you get the same level of disrespect today.
I miss Hitchens everyday… he wouldn’t stand for this nonsense.
A lament for a missing authority, it seems. I think I may have read every word Hitchens published. And while I may not have agreed with everything he had to say, he said it with wit and intelligence (mostly). *This* was someone who wouldn’t be interested in the fact that you need him to make your argument for you.
What are your positions? I can’t make them out, other than you don’t want to insult Islam, so I can’t address them.
And here’s another party trying to have an argument not on the table. I will, however, note that we have some progress in that I am being *asked* for my position. The only position that I am arguing here is that blaming Islam for the existence of Muslim extremists is misguided. And since no one can explain to me how the actions of the 4% taint the rest and taint *their* beliefs (which are pretty clearly not those of the extremists), I’m thinking we are working with Islamophobia here. And interestingly, Ezra Klein writes today that even though Vox did publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons without a peep, it is only when they criticize Islamophobia that they get any blow back. But somehow the FLDS (about 10-20K people in the US), which is a 2-4% minority offshoot of LDS (6M or so in the US) gets a pass for being a minority offshoot that its leadership denounces. Even though there are plenty of Muslim leaders who do denounce and write against the extremists. Muslims here suffer from the fact that they don’t have a single authority, or at least one the media can latch onto. Google is your friend here.
Your only point seems to be that because most Muslims don’t practice terrorism, Islam must be OK.
The point is that because most Muslims don’t support the extremist or radicalized agenda, there is no rationale to locate the cause of said extremism or radicalization in Islam. There are not many religions that don’t have their extremists. Radicalization is a response to social and political issues, a way to belong for those who can’t join community in the usual ways and a throwback vision of theocracy is not about a spiritual life, it is about a play for fascist temporal power by its leaders. Many of the world’s Muslims wouldn’t recognize what these extremists claim in the name of their religion, yet the world’s Muslims are the most hurt by these extremists.
And fuck you when you start pretending to understand the motivations of others.
When you stop, I’ll stop. Not before.
For anyone actually interested in the topic of Muslim radicalization, Terry Gross did a riveting interview today with Maajid Nawaz, a British Pakistani who became a Muslim extremist, spent 13 years in, abandoned the extremism and the group he belonged to, then created a think tank to try to counter the extremism. This is a great perspective from multiple sides here. The interview is about 45 mins long.
“There are not many religions that don’t have their extremists.”
Seriously, though, at this point in time, which religious extremists are currently going around the world setting up terrorist training camps to train individuals to wage a holy war? Is it Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Seeks, or Muslims?
While there may be religious extremists present in many religions, Muslim extremists are by orders of magnitude a larger problem in the world today. Right now. If I am wrong, please site some examples of other religious extremists doing what Muslim extremists are doing right now.
🙄
At the time of the Crusades and the….. well, pretty much clear through to the Holocaust, it was mostly Christians, The Jew’s own holy book is filed with tales of us committing hate crimes for GoD.
This very day right now, Muslims are probably leading the running in people who have used their religion to go crazy and to justify violence. That isnt the fault of Islam (because it isnt even close to most Muslims). That is the fault of economic conditions in countries that are predominantly Muslim. They are economic conditions created by America and the West. Fact. If you cant see that, no one can help you. It looks like you’re willing to overlook the horrific history of violence in Christianity… and further back (and really, thanks to the IDF, today) Judaism … AND the glorification of holy war in those religions just to say “LOOK EVERYONE! THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH ISLAM”
Im sorry dude, but that makes you a bigot. You probably arent TRYING to be a bigot, you probably think it’s rooted in rationality and pragmatism and you have “no choice” but to see things that way. You do have a choice, there ARE facts you are over-looking or ignoring and it’s bigoted.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html
more food
I have followed this thread and have hesitated on jumping in because…
1. I don’t like Bill Maher. I find his “humor” to be lazy and cheap. That doesn’t mean I disagree with him on everything. I do think ALL religions are a problem.
2. As far as the “Pew research puts support for jihadists at 4% of the Islamic population” I’d say you’d find more support from the pro-life community over the killing of abortion providing doctors and bombing of clinics. Oh, they’d say something like, “While I’d never kill a doctor or bomb a clinic, I understand why that’s happening.” That. Is. Support. It’s also heavily documented by these very supporters.
3. The problem is extremists and fundamentalists of ALL religions and causes. Singling out one, at only one point in history, doesn’t address the problem. I see very little difference between extremists/fundamentalists of all stripes. It’s just that we give certain groups “lone wolf” status, and that’s probably because we know a lot more Christians and Jews than we do Muslims, so it’s harder for us to lump the people we know in real life with the violence and hatred perpetrated by members of their flock.
Ben correctly points out the economic situation. People with nothing to lose are easy recruits. It’s why it’s news when an affluent kid joins a cult but not news when a poor kid joins a gang.
1. “which religious extremists are currently going around the world setting up terrorist training camps to train individuals to wage a holy war?”
Muslims
2. “Pew research puts support for jihadists at 4% of the Islamic population”
Which as a percentage of the 1.6 billion Muslims is really very few, unless you convert that percentage into an actual number of 64 million, which does not sound very much like a few. Since I don’t know the size of the pro life community it is difficult to make any comparisons, but really 64 million is kind of a whole bunch of people.
3. “That is the fault of economic conditions in countries that are predominantly Muslim.”
Sure. Along with other factors, such as lack of education, non-democratic societies, paternalistic culture threatened by “Western” liberties, tribalism, etc. When 60 million people tacitly or otherwise approve of certain actions, there is no need to find a different rallying cry from “Allahu Akbar.” We should not disregard or downplay the effectiveness of faith (blind or otherwise) as a tool.
In general I find little difference between biblical literalists and those who rely upon the Quran to justify their actions, except – and this is the big difference – there are vastly more of those who use the Quran for those nefarious purposes. Also, one can criticize the Christians without criticizing Christianity. Ditto Islam. Islam is no worse, nor better than any other religion. But there is a difference in how the adherents respond to their faith and to criticism for that matter.
The fervor of Christians is generally (but not absolutely) tempered by rule of law. Islam is (generally) the primary rule of law, to their adherents. What is permitted (justified) under Christianity is constrained by law. More often than not, there is no such constraint under Islam.
This is like saying black people are more prone to violence because of rap and gangs. You’re dealing with a population who is being intentionally kept poor and uneducated. What do you think is going to happen. Islam is the excuse not the problem.
I can give you that the numbers support your assertions, but it’s just a correlation. The root problem is the distribution of power and wealth. The number of terrorists who use Islam as the reason they are terrorists is a relatively new thing. Their focus on America (as opposed to the USSR) is a relatively new thing. Islam is a religion almost 2000 years old and while European Christians were living in literal shit because bathing was an affront to God, they (Muslims) had peaceful and prosperous societies.
I was thinking the same thing, Ben. This is the same thing as saying, “What is wrong with the black community?” – “There’s something about black culture” – “Black communities need to police themselves and speak out against black on black crime”.
“Radicalization is a response to social and political issues … and a throwback vision of theocracy is not about a spiritual life, it is about a play for fascist temporal power by its leaders.”
Agreed. But I doubt that the radicalized, or whatever you want to call them, would agree that their spirituality is not involved. I agree that it is not “Islam” that creates radicals, but I disagree that it plays no role at all. Any religious extremist is acting out of a false certainty that religion confers. I’m not arguing that Islam is particularly pernicious in this regard; any religion that proclaims itself the sole route to spiritial reward and separates humanity into believers and infidels can fulfill the same role. The Europeans who wiped out the indigenous people of North America and subjugated Africans did not do so solely in the name of Christianity, but the religion certainly was one of the tools used.
I understand that Islam is a stand-in for what might be expressed as nationalism in countries that defined their own borders. Perhaps its my own bias that hanging these actions on religion is worse than hanging them on patriotism; I suppose there is no reasoning with either mindset, but the certainty of religious fanatics seems more entrenched.
But how much of “Islamophobia,” as some people insist on calling it, is simply venting frustration at an alien set of ideas? I have seen very little serious writing attacking the tenets of Islam; most of it is focused on practices, not the underlying set of beliefs. From the standpoint of the average Jane or Joe on the street, why shouldn’t they fear a religion whose most apparent manifestation in their lives involve bombings and beheadings? If you can accept that our actions in the Middle East create more terrorists, why can’t you accept that terrorists’ actions create Islamophobes?
I don’t presume to know your motives — not something you can say in regard to mine. You keep insisting that I take positions for the sake of being contrary, which I interpret as an attempt to minimize them.
@Pandora: The pro-life community is a minority of Christians, just as any sect of Muslims is a minority within the larger community. To judge the depth of that set of beliefs you would have to poll Christians around the world, and I’m not aware that has ever been done.
It’s worth noting that some Latin American countries are or were so church-dominated that they outlaw abortion, so there are places in which Catholic doctrine has been drafted into civil law.