Ben Affleck vs. Sam Harris & Bill Maher on Real Time

Michael OBrien

Guest post written by Muhammad Syed and Sarah Haider that disputes Reza's claims about Islam. They are co-founders of Ex-Muslims of North America. It's very good.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/10/05/reza-aslan-is-wrong-about-islam-and-this-is-why/

joseph brand

Nodin wrote: »

Unfortunately Harris has so much baggage attached, using any statement of his to start a discussion is doomed from the start.

Harris' views on Islam appear to null and void, since he supports Israel. Hitchens was pro-Iraq war invasion, so his views can also be brushed aside.

Perhaps you agree that it would be better for Dawkins or Krauss or Dennett to criticise Islam? I can't remember any of them professing zionist, hawkish tendencies, only scientific, philosophical and atheist viewpoints.

The only problem I can see for some Islamic apologists (BB), is their white skin and western residence.

jank

This is exactly what Harris was on about.
http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/nus-motion-to-condemn-isis-fails-amidst-claims-of-islamophobia-9796193.html

Michael OBrien

Here is a taste of the quran being read by YT atheist darkviper8888 as he works his way through the quran.
It clearly demonstrates alarming messages that have timeless ramifications for building a cohesive partnership that is stable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8alv2R9lgFw

He also makes commentary on the Sam vs Reza issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrLuYF47xSI

jank

Nodin wrote: »

She is a chancer because there is no small doubt about her story. She also seems to take a hard line on illegal immigrants when she arrived in the states, which is rather amusing, given her own efforts in the Netherlands. One might wonder whether or not this was adopted to please her new neo conservative American friends in the "American Enterprise Insitute".

Please do elaborate on her 'story'. As in the story of her upbringing that her brother disputes, who is still a devout Muslim in a culture dominated by men....?
You do love playing the man or in this case the woman when it suits yet cry foul when others do it to you.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

I'm not getting dragged into this. If you think you can come up with a few legitimate issues with Islam (can't be that difficult) just fire them out there and forget about the Trick Question Championships.

Maybe this will make up your mind.

jaffusmax

I find Harris completely ignorant of the geopolitical reasons why Islam is being used as a tool and banner for people to rally around.

marienbad

jaffusmax wrote: »

I find Harris completely ignorant of the geopolitical reasons why Islam is being used as a tool and banner for people to rally around.

Is that just an opinion or do you have something to back it up.

jaffusmax

The start of my sentence suggests it is my opinion does it not?

Harris focuses on Islam as the main cause for radicalizing people yet he does not raise US policy in the middle east, which has alienated many and forced them into the arms of radical imams.

marienbad

jaffusmax wrote: »

The start of my sentence suggests it is my opinion does it not?

Harris focuses on Islam as the main cause for radicalizing people yet he does not raise US policy in the middle east, which has alienated many and forced them into the arms of radical imams.

That is not the main trust of his argument at all in vis a vis the tv debate

jaffusmax

marienbad wrote: »

That is not the main trust of his argument at all in vis a vis the tv debate

Would explaining why so many are attracted to an extreme interpretation of Islam not better get to the root of the issue then saying Islam is the cause?

We all know Drugs are bad for us (some drugs more then others) but generally there is a reason why people take them initially and keep on doing so.

Focusing on Islam as the main driver is putting the cart before the horse in my opinion!

marienbad

jaffusmax wrote: »

Would explaining why so many are attracted to an extreme interpretation of Islam not better get to the root of the issue then saying Islam is the cause?

We all know Drugs are bad for us (some drugs more then others) but generally there is a reason why people take them initially and keep on doing so.

Focusing on Islam as the main driver is putting the cart before the horse in my opinion!

There has always been a radical strain of Islam long before the west ever became involved.

But this is not the point , the issue under discussion is do the liberel left give a free pass to Islam that they wouldn't give to Christianity etc.

We are either for certain rights or we are not - it is not a pick and choose menu.

jaffusmax

marienbad wrote: »

There has always been a radical strain of Islam long before the west ever became involved.

But this is not the point , the issue under discussion is do the liberel left give a free pass to Islam that they wouldn't give to Christianity etc.

We are either for certain rights or we are not - it is not a pick and choose menu.

I agree with you on are we for certain rights or not. I don't think liberals give Islam a free pass, I think they don't want to offend followers of Islam so their judgment is clouded!

I find that Harris can be seen to pick and choose the facts to suit his own view that Islam is a uniquely dangerous religion. I am of the view that all religions are equally dangerous! It says nowhere in the new testament to burn to death those accused of heresy, but it still occurred!

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Please do elaborate on her 'story'. As in the story of her upbringing that her brother disputes, who is still a devout Muslim in a culture dominated by men....?
You do love playing the man or in this case the woman when it suits yet cry foul when others do it to you.

When somebodys career consists of telling their own story and sectarian hatred, it becomes hard not to play the man, rather obviously. Her marring yer man Ferguson is the kind of comedy gold ye couldn't make up though.

Nodin

marienbad wrote: »

..................

So again to the basic premise - do Western Liberals bottle it when it comes to Islamic Theocracy ?

We won't have a productive thread on the subject with Harris name attached. Nor do I know why such a discussion needs any name associated with it to start.

Not at all. We just don't discuss it in terms the right would like.

Michael OBrien

jaffusmax wrote: »

I agree with you on are we for certain rights or not. I don't think liberals give Islam a free pass, I think they don't want to offend followers of Islam so their judgment is clouded!

I find that Harris can be seen to pick and choose the facts to suit his own view that Islam is a uniquely dangerous religion. I am of the view that all religions are equally dangerous! It says nowhere in the new testament to burn to death those accused of heresy, but it still occurred!

An interesting read as to why burning heretics was considered reasonable by the Church.
http://biblelight.net/burn-heretics.htm

Dave!

Nodin wrote: »

We won't have a productive thread on the subject with Harris name attached. Nor do I know why such a discussion needs any name associated with it to start.

Not at all. We just don't discuss it in terms the right would like.

You've made it clear that you won't allow that, and would rather resort to ad hominems rather than address the actual points that he has raised.

Nodin

Dave! wrote: »

You've made it clear that you won't allow that, and would rather resort to ad hominems rather than address the actual points that he has raised.

I've addressed his "points". Sectarian demagoguery and dehumanising crap. A man who denies the muslim population of the world can be motivated by politics is not one worth entertaining. We might as well get Pamela Geller or the like involved as entertain that kind of bollocks.

Brown Bomber

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Well SA Sharia keeps close to the quran. Surah 5:32.
"Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allah by committing the major sins) in the land!."
I note in bold what apologetic tell you, once again in support of my earlier post, not that I expect it will do much good, but I find it eyeopening.
I italicized the part about spreading mischief which can be interpreted as any form of fit'na or disturbance to Islamic ideas.

Simply liking a post on facebook that says something mildly negative about muhammed can lead to your arrest (plus the poster of course).

So, that is basically capital punishment by the state for people convicted through the courts of treason and murder? The objective being to safeguard human life and society as a whole. What am I missing here? What does "Simply liking a post on facebook that says something mildly negative about muhammed can lead to your arrest " have to do with this? And is your primary issue with House of Saud tyranny or Islam itself? They are two entirely different entities.

Brown Bomber

marienbad wrote: »

I personally don't believe he is racist ,but he believes we should apply the exact same scrutiny to Islam that we do to Christianity or any other belief system. How can that be wrong ?

I think nodin put it best with their description of him as a "sectarian bigot" and since race is a social contruct it's really only shades of grey anyway.


If he really believes "we should apply the exact same scrutiny to Islam that we do to Christianity or any other belief system." then why doesn't he do this himself? He devotes tremendous energy to his the expression of his seething and irrational hatred of Muslims, has the kid gloves on when it comes to Judaism, Christianity falls somewhere in between and of course he speaks favourably about his woo of choice the mystical Hindu stuff.

Michael OBrien

Nodin wrote: »

I've addressed his "points". Sectarian demagoguery and dehumanising crap. A man who denies the muslim population of the world can be motivated by politics is not one worth entertaining. We might as well get Pamela Geller or the like involved as entertain that kind of bollocks.

He never said that. Even if I disagree with the degree Islam plays into radicalising certain muslim factions, he never said that it is the ONLY factor (primary is not solely).
Also Islam includes social, economic, legislative and political elements so they can merge with nonIslamic factors and STILL have problems due to Islamic doctrines.

However I do agree with you that Sam may be putting too much emphasis on Islamic religion vs US involvement for radicalising certain groups of affected Muslims. However its not either/or but a massive mix of both similar to when the Catholic Church as dominant in Europe in the middle ages. Catholics were influenced by secular politics of kings AND religious influenced politics that often worked hand in hand.

I am no fan of the US Gov but it should be noted that such radicalisation is not one sided, there are political and religious groups not related to the US government that capitalise on hating the west too to further their own ends.
Your average muslim gets the position of pawn on a chess board, not a nice place to be.

Brown Bomber

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Guest post written by Muhammad Syed and Sarah Haider that disputes Reza's claims about Islam. They are co-founders of Ex-Muslims of North America. It's very good.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/10/05/reza-aslan-is-wrong-about-islam-and-this-is-why/

Infinitely more important for you to read is this open letter to Baghdadi from World Islamic leaders who condemn him and his movement and debunk his claims in depth through the teachings of Islam.
http://lettertobaghdadi.com/

Michael OBrien

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So, that is basically capital punishment by the state for people convicted through the courts of treason and murder? The objective being to safeguard human life and society as a whole. What am I missing here? What does "Simply liking a post on facebook that says something mildly negative about muhammed can lead to your arrest " have to do with this? And is your primary issue with House of Saud tyranny or Islam itself? They are two entirely different entities.

Wow, "entirely different entities"? They are tied to implimenting Sharia law (Which is primarily sourced from the quran). Even royal decrees are seen as below the Sharia (as is fitting in Islam) in SA.
Treason can mean ANYTHING that disrupts Islamic beliefs. They have classified BEING an atheist as a terrorist act, and any form of proselytising any religion other than Islam as illegal. Leaving Islam is classed as treason in some places.
You are using the most extreme terms as if those terms have the same meaning to fundamentalists vs everyone else.

Its not just restricted to SA either. The more fundamentalist an Islamic country becomes (the closer it adheres to the quran) the more abuses in human rights are involved for religious reasons. One such example of a connection between facebook postings and falling fowl of blasphemy law.
http://rt.com/news/coptic-arrest-islam-facebook-484/

It is shocking how you can shrug this off as if its perfectly acceptable behaviour.

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

We won't have a productive thread on the subject with Harris name attached. Nor do I know why such a discussion needs any name associated with it to start.

Not at all. We just don't discuss it in terms the right would like.

The only posters continuously bringing Harris back into it are you and BB, as far as I am concerned he is just kicking off the discussion with his contention that the Liberal Left have folded in holding Islamic Theocracy to the same standards as the other mass religions-

i.e defending freedom of speech, of religion, to leave a religion, equality for women and minorities including gays and so on .

As we speak there is a young man awaiting 450 lashes in a case that anywhere wouldn't be a crime else would be entrapment in any case,and this is 2014.

If a catholic priest raised his hand in an Irish classroom today he would be gone before the day is out and we would all cheerlead his departure .

But why is that ok and this barbaric assault on a young man isn't being shouted from the rooftops

robindch

Mod: I have yet to be convinced in any way that all this "Harris is a racist" stuff is anything more than gratuitous name-calling.

If there's a point to any of it, then please say what it is.

Nodin

marienbad wrote: »

The only posters continuously bringing Harris back into it are you and BB, as far as I am concerned he is just kicking off the discussion with his contention that the Liberal Left have folded in holding Islamic Theocracy to the same standards as the other mass religions-

I've bolded the problem. If you start a thread with certain parties in the title, the result is inevitable.

marienbad wrote: »

...............

But why is that ok and this barbaric assault on a young man isn't being shouted from the rooftops

There are many things that are not being shouted from the rooftops. theres a Pakistani woman whose death sentence for blasphemy has just been upheld. A Shia imam has been sentenced to death in Saudi under dubious circumstances. A Rabbi has been caught filming women ritually washing via a hidden camera. The lack of comment on these where you might look is not some sign of tacit acceptance.

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

I've bolded the problem. If you start a thread with certain parties in the title, the result is inevitable.



There are many things that are not being shouted from the rooftops. theres a Pakistani woman whose death sentence for blasphemy has just been upheld. A Shia imam has been sentenced to death in Saudi under dubious circumstances. A Rabbi has been caught filming women ritually washing via a hidden camera. The lack of comment on these where you might look is not some sign of tacit acceptance.

So why is that ?

marienbad

jaffusmax wrote: »

I agree with you on are we for certain rights or not. I don't think liberals give Islam a free pass, I think they don't want to offend followers of Islam so their judgment is clouded!

I find that Harris can be seen to pick and choose the facts to suit his own view that Islam is a uniquely dangerous religion. I am of the view that all religions are equally dangerous! It says nowhere in the new testament to burn to death those accused of heresy, but it still occurred!

But of the main religions Islam is uniquely dangerous ! Surely that is undeniable ? It wasn't the Pope or the Dalai Lama that issued a fatwas against Rushdie and the Danish cartoonist.

There is absolutely no doubt the Christianity in its day was every bit as violent and centuries of secular opposition ( and religious it must be said) has made that a thing of the past . Not so with parts of Islam

How can this be denied ?

Nodin

marienbad wrote: »

So why is that ?

emm....why is what?

jaffusmax

marienbad wrote: »

But of the main religions Islam is uniquely dangerous ! Surely that is undeniable ? It wasn't the Pope or the Dalai Lama that issued a fatwas against Rushdie and the Danish cartoonist.

There is absolutely no doubt the Christianity in its day was every bit as violent and centuries of secular opposition ( and religious it must be said) has made that a thing of the past . Not so with parts of Islam

How can this be denied ?

In my view all Religion has the potential of being equally dangerous, it does not matter what type of Gun person a wields but it is the type of person that wields it!

Here I think is the problem, Maybe Christianities evolution took a certain route in the West but will it or should it follow the same route in the Islamic World?

Much of Christianities grip on the West was lifted when people were raised up out of poverty. The Islamic world is riddles with poverty and strife and this drives people in to the embrace of Islam. The West's policies in the Islamic World does very little to combat oppression rather it exacerbates it!

The Islamic world was once a cradle of Free Thought and Expression at a time when Christian Europe was in the Dark Ages!

Brown Bomber

marienbad wrote: »

The only posters continuously bringing Harris back into it are you and BB, as far as I am concerned he is just kicking off the discussion with his contention that the Liberal Left have folded in holding Islamic Theocracy to the same standards as the other mass religions-

i.e defending freedom of speech, of religion, to leave a religion, equality for women and minorities including gays and so on .

As we speak there is a young man awaiting 450 lashes in a case that anywhere wouldn't be a crime else would be entrapment in any case,and this is 2014.

If a catholic priest raised his hand in an Irish classroom today he would be gone before the day is out and we would all cheerlead his departure .

But why is that ok and this barbaric assault on a young man isn't being shouted from the rooftops

All things being equal why then isn't Sam Harris shouting from the rooftops about Palestinian children being tortured by actors of the Jewish State, why is silent on the women in Israeli prisons -- where 9 out of 10 all Palestinians are held without trial -- who are forced to give birth chained to their beds? If he is so concerned about gay people has he spoken out about Israelis illegally spying on innocent Palestinian homosexuals to use this as leverage to coerce them into risking their own lives by becoming informants?

marienbad

Brown Bomber wrote: »

All things being equal why then isn't Sam Harris shouting from the rooftops about Palestinian children being tortured by actors of the Jewish State, why is silent on the women in Israeli prisons -- where 9 out of 10 all Palestinians are held without trial -- who are forced to give birth chained to their beds? If he is so concerned about gay people has he spoken out about Israelis illegally spying on innocent Palestinian homosexuals to use this as leverage to coerce them into risking their own lives by becoming informants?

Ask Sam Harris - doesn't invalidate the point I am making

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

emm....why is what?

All those things you stated in your post that are not being shouted from the rooftops.

marienbad

jaffusmax wrote: »

In my view all Religion has the potential of being equally dangerous, it does not matter what type of Gun person a wields but it is the type of person that wields it!

Here I think is the problem, Maybe Christianities evolution took a certain route in the West but will it or should it follow the same route in the Islamic World?

Much of Christianities grip on the West was lifted when people were raised up out of poverty. The Islamic world is riddles with poverty and strife and this drives people in to the embrace of Islam. The West's policies in the Islamic World does very little to combat oppression rather it exacerbates it!

The Islamic world was once a cradle of Free Thought and Expression at a time when Christian Europe was in the Dark Ages!

Indeed all religions have that potential but only one is if following through.

Brown Bomber

marienbad wrote: »

Ask Sam Harris - doesn't invalidate the point I am making

It invalidates the point Sam Harris is making if he is a hypocrite. Is he?

"his contention that the Liberal Left have folded in holding Islamic Theocracy to the same standards as the other mass religions"

Brown Bomber

marienbad wrote: »

Indeed all religions have that potential but only one is if following through.

I assume you aren't familiar then with the LRA and ignoring recent mass-slaughter of innocents carried out by actors of the Jewish State?

And we really can't ignore the fact that much if not virtually all of this violence albeit indirectly is a reaction of victims of oppression, violence and destruction from outside forces.

If there was no such thing in existence as religion do you think an oppressed and desperate people bound together as victims through another tribal identity would have behaved any differently?

marienbad

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It invalidates the point Sam Harris is making if he is a hypocrite. Is he?

"his contention that the Liberal Left have folded in holding Islamic Theocracy to the same standards as the other mass religions"

This makes no sense what so ever to the point in hand.

Brown Bomber

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Wow, "entirely different entities"? They are tied to implimenting Sharia law (Which is primarily sourced from the quran). Even royal decrees are seen as below the Sharia (as is fitting in Islam) in SA.
Treason can mean ANYTHING that disrupts Islamic beliefs. They have classified BEING an atheist as a terrorist act, and any form of proselytising any religion other than Islam as illegal. Leaving Islam is classed as treason in some places.
You are using the most extreme terms as if those terms have the same meaning to fundamentalists vs everyone else.

Its not just restricted to SA either. The more fundamentalist an Islamic country becomes (the closer it adheres to the quran) the more abuses in human rights are involved for religious reasons. One such example of a connection between facebook postings and falling fowl of blasphemy law.
http://rt.com/news/coptic-arrest-islam-facebook-484/

It is shocking how you can shrug this off as if its perfectly acceptable behaviour.

I never said it was "perfectly acceptable behaviour". Both you and the Saudi Fascists are using the same interpretation and treating it as the only interpretation to suit your own ends. I don't know enough about the internal politics of states worldwide but I think I can safely assume that the Saudi dictatorship is one of the most vile ( I think 5 million people have been killed in Angola in the last 10 years alone, for example). I also would have the atheist CPC right up there too. Tyrant dictators are going to crush dissidents however they can, the House of Saud uses Islam as it's means to do so - that doesn't mean that they are representative of Islam as a whole.

This is even according to a Member of the Saudi Royal family.

“This regime in Saudi Arabia does not stand by God’s rules or even (country’s) established rules and its policies, decisions, and actions are totally based on personal will of its leaders.”

“All that is said in Saudi Arabia about respecting law and religion rules are factitious so that they can lie and pretend that the regime obeys Islamic rules.”
- See more at: http://en.alalam.ir/news/1499049#sthash.h1nQ4q32.dpuf

joseph brand

In case anyone is wondering why there's little criticism of Judaism from Harris, here's a quote from his own website:

I’ve debated rabbis who, when I have assumed that they believe in a God that can hear our prayers, they stop me mid-sentence and say, “Why would you think that I believe in a God who can hear prayers?” So there are rabbis—conservative rabbis—who believe in a God so elastic as to exclude every concrete claim about Him—and therefore, nearly every concrete demand upon human behavior. And there are millions of Jews, literally millions among the few million who exist, for whom Judaism is very important, and yet they are atheists. They don’t believe in God at all. This is actually a position you can hold in Judaism, but it’s a total non sequitur in Islam or Christianity.
So, when we’re talking about the consequences of irrational beliefs based on scripture, the Jews are the least of the least offenders. But I have said many critical things about Judaism. Let me remind you that parts of Hebrew Bible—books like Leviticus and Exodus and Deuteronomy—are the most repellent, the most sickeningly unethical documents to be found in any religion. They’re worse than the Koran. They’re worse than any part of the New Testament. But the truth is, most Jews recognize this and don’t take these texts seriously. It’s simply a fact that most Jews and most Israelis are not guided by scripture—and that’s a very good thing.
Of course, there are some who are. There are religious extremists among Jews. Now, I consider these people to be truly dangerous, and their religious beliefs are as divisive and as unwarranted as the beliefs of devout Muslims. But there are far fewer such people.

Here's a surprising/ controversial quote, for anyone who views Harris as zionist:

I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish state. I think it is obscene, irrational and unjustifiable to have a state organized around a religion. So I don’t celebrate the idea that there’s a Jewish homeland in the Middle East. I certainly don’t support any Jewish claims to real estate based on the Bible.

I found this quote interesting:

The charter of Hamas is explicitly genocidal. It looks forward to a time, based on Koranic prophesy, when the earth itself will cry out for Jewish blood, where the trees and the stones will say “O Muslim, there’s a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.” This is a political document.

Basically, Harris 'dislikes' religion. If one wants to attack religious faith, better go after the big ones first. So he's had many lectures and debates on atheism where he has attacked the basic foundations of Christianity, and highlighted the brutal savagery evident in its past. He has also thoroughly exposed the ludicrousness of the current evangelicals in the US and any other christians he wished/ s to denegrate. (YouTube is your friend)

So, onto Islam. [Alarm bells!] Theological and political expert Ben Affleck steps up to duke it out with Harris, but Ben is quickly exposed as an amateur and a reactionary. Ben gets hysterical. He immediately regrets smoking that blunt before going on stage and wishes he was back home, away from the scary but calm Maher and Harris.

The media absolutely loves it.

marienbad

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I assume you aren't familiar then with the LRA and ignoring recent mass-slaughter of innocents carried out by actors of the Jewish State?

And we really can't ignore the fact that much if not virtually all of this violence albeit indirectly is a reaction of victims of oppression, violence and destruction from outside forces.

If there was no such thing in existence as religion do you think an oppressed and desperate people bound together as victims through another tribal identity would have behaved any differently?

That is just a rabbit hole you are welcome to go down if you wish but you won't find me joining you.

As for ignoring facts as to the causes- I would direct you my post no 159 where I said so . One can be opposed to Western adventurism in all its forms and history and opposed to fundamental Islam ,Judaism , Christianity, the lot.

AS for their being no such thing as religion I have no idea what would happen , it adds nothing to the conversation.

The simple basic point being made is that their is a sizeable version of fundamental Islam that finds justification and confirmation for the most violent and savage acts within the faith.

And for what it is worth I don't believe the likes of ISIS and such pose even the remotest creditable threat to the Western world , just more hogwash like the notion that the 'muslims' are outbreeding us in Europe .

jaffusmax

marienbad wrote: »

And for what it is worth I don't believe the likes of ISIS and such pose even the remotest creditable threat to the Western world , just more hogwash like the notion that the 'muslims' are outbreeding us in Europe .

Muslims have more to fear from within their own religion then the West does. All the West is concerned about is their "interests" in the Muslim World......Oil

marienbad

jaffusmax wrote: »

Muslims have more to fear from within their own religion then the West does. All the West is concerned about is their "interests" in the Muslim World......Oil

Without question.

Nodin

marienbad wrote: »

All those things you stated in your post that are not being shouted from the rooftops.

People don't pick up on things betimes. I'm one of the few here who ever post about the problems within Hinduism. I've never seen anyone else mention the treatment of women within parts of Latin America - Guatamala in particular. It's not some fear of criticising within liberalism that's responsible.

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

People don't pick up on things betimes. I'm one of the few here who ever post about the problems within Hinduism. I've never seen anyone else mention the treatment of women within parts of Latin America - Guatamala in particular. It's not some fear of criticising within liberalism that's responsible.

Then what is responsible ?

Nodin

marienbad wrote: »

Then what is responsible ?

"people don't pick up on things betimes". That would include me and you.

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

"people don't pick up on things betimes". That would include me and you.

I don't follow your train of thought

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

Mod: I have yet to be convinced in any way that all this "Harris is a racist" stuff is anything more than gratuitous name-calling.

If there's a point to any of it, then please say what it is.

There is a good explanation here: http://www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/26808-being-wrong-about-islam-is-not-progressive

Michael OBrien

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is even according to a Member of the Saudi Royal family.

“This regime in Saudi Arabia does not stand by God’s rules or even (country’s) established rules and its policies, decisions, and actions are totally based on personal will of its leaders.”

“All that is said in Saudi Arabia about respecting law and religion rules are factitious so that they can lie and pretend that the regime obeys Islamic rules.”
- See more at: http://en.alalam.ir/news/1499049#sthash.h1nQ4q32.dpuf

Heck you could replace Saudi Arabia with the Vatican Cardinals and get the same message.
This does not change the fact that Islamic laws are used to maintain such corrupt people. SA is not exclusive, they simply enact the rules in the quran with more heavy handedness than others.
There is a difference between how the princes act, and how the people act.
Its hardly a surprise that the ones in power use religion to keep the masses in order. My criticism of the rules in the quran that are open to such abuse still stand.

Brown Bomber

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Heck you could replace Saudi Arabia with the Vatican Cardinals and get the same message.
This does not change the fact that Islamic laws are used to maintain such corrupt people. SA is not exclusive, they simply enact the rules in the quran with more heavy handedness than others.
There is a difference between how the princes act, and how the people act.
Its hardly a surprise that the ones in power use religion to keep the masses in order. My criticism of the rules in the quran that are open to such abuse still stand.

Right, but if you could remove Islam from the Middle East the tyrant dictators don't become benign dictators. You would be left with regimes like Mubarak's and Gadaffi's and whichever general can best prove his loyalty to Washington. The tyranny would just be wearing a different mask. Iran, Algeria, Palestine and Egypt have proven that democracy and a degree of independence will not be tolerated and will be violently dealth with.

Michael OBrien

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right, but if you could remove Islam from the Middle East the tyrant dictators don't become benign dictators. You would be left with regimes like Mubarak's and Gadaffi's and whichever general can best prove his loyalty to Washington. The tyranny would just be wearing a different mask. Iran, Algeria, Palestine and Egypt have proven that democracy and a degree of independence will not be tolerated and will be violently dealth with.

The key element here is that removing religion would make it more difficult for dictators to manipulate its people. Islam at its core has some extremely distasteful doctrines that cry out to be abused by those that seek it. Muhammed being one such guy, and his legacy has a lot of blood tied to his alleged statements about Allah's will.

When someone says, which I encounter a lot, that "removing religion will not make the world peaceful, but simply remove one tool used to oppress people, and another will take its place," as if religion is therefore not worth removing at all (or worth criticising), I find their reasoning flawed. No religion is 'true', they are all tools, much like any idealogy can be, but the issue with religion is that it proclaims that it cannot be questioned and is ultimately untestable. This is why religions outlive their time and stagnate. Islam was a fairly 'good' religion 1400 years ago, better than the alleged Arab pagan religions of that time (at least according to Islamic scholars). But it is stagnant, because of its claims of divine revelations that anchor it to the past.

That letter to IS from Islamic leaders (an admirable effort to stop them through theological reasoning) was an example of that, a nice gesture but problematic in its reasoning as it is tied to its religion rather than humanity. Perhaps that is the only way one fundamentalist can talk with another, but that just highlights the issue further, not diminishes it. Relying on ancient prophesies to combat terrorism is not exactly reliable.

It is good that Islam is being scrutinised both in its historical/scientific claims (and having them debunked) and theological moral claims, and more the better. Perhaps it will force it to reform, as many genuinely sincere secular muslims would like to see. But as long as the quran remains largely unquestioned as its root, it will be a source of constant discord much like the way creationists constantly go back to the literalistic view of the bible to validate their anti-science movement.