I think their (Harris and Maher) point was that liberals tend to give a pass to non-Christian groups on human rights abuses, because of a conflict in the liberal mind between liberal values, such as equal rights, and multi-culturalism, PC, etc. I think they're correct, and I think Aflack puts this conflict on plain display.
However, its pretty clear Aflack was high on something or sick (have a look at him). He was rudely interrupting, and countering by arguing against points that nobody even made.
I think that Sam Harris and Bill Maher are right, Christianity is constantly criticized in the secular western world for its archaic beliefs, but Islam is centuries behind Christianity when it comes to gay rights, and women's rights and tolerance towards other religions (or even different sects within Islam itself) and its generally given a free pass in the same circles that criticize Christians so hard.
The reason why I think that this happens is best demonstrated by Ben Afleck's reaction when his first reflex was to instantly shout: "racism"! Because Islam isn't perceived as being a "white man" religion (and yes I know that Islam is universal and this is a false perception), there is a very real fear to be painted by the "racist" brush simply for criticizing it...
cincydooley wrote: You know, it's really interesting lately that Maher, the liberaliest of all liberals, has been a lot more moderate in his viewpoints on the show.
I do appreciate, however, how mortified Affleck looks
He's always been anti-religion in all forms, and has professed to be a libertarian on social issues. He's certainly not the best spokesman for either cause, but his stance on both issues has never really changed, at least as long as I've been aware of him.
Additionally, I think it's pretty amazing how spectacularly Affleck misses the point they're trying to make (and the point which Sam Harris, obviously exasperated, gave up on trying to make)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PhantomViper wrote: I think that Sam Harris and Bill Maher are right, Christianity is constantly criticized in the secular western world for its archaic beliefs, but Islam is centuries behind Christianity when it comes to gay rights, and women's rights and tolerance towards other religions (or even different sects within Islam itself) and its generally given a free pass in the same circles that criticize Christians so hard.
That's the craziest thing to me about the interaction. Affleck seems to not realize he does exactly that.
I watched that episode in real time (ha!) and I think Affleck completely missed Harris' and Maher's argument, and came off as an idiot with his "counter argument" of trying to shout over H & M.
H & M's argument that tenets of Islam run counter to liberal ideas isn't racist as Affleck claimed. Liberal ideas of equality and liberty are anathema to the teaching of not just Islam but Christianity and many other faiths as well, if you take those religions at face value. If your religious doctrine places men above women, or certain groups over other groups, it isn't a liberal doctrine. H & M aren't saying that ALL Muslims are fundamentalists, Harris even admits that "100's of millions" of Muslims around the world give lip service to their faith and don't adhere to the strict tenets of the faith. But H & M's point is that those moderate Muslims are in the minority, and the popular argument that the minority of Muslims are the ones who commit atrocities or support the subjugation of women and minorities is the actual a falsehood. The fundamentalist Muslims who will wage jihad may be a minority, but there is an acceptance of the policies of Muslim laws by conservative and even some moderate Muslims that run counter to liberal ideals. That is the argument. The argument is NOT that all Muslims are evil and should be bombed, but instead that if you are liberal and believe in liberalism, you should not buy into the idea that Islam is all peace, love and equality. It isn't, as demonstrated by the Muslim countries that still commit humans right violations against women and minority groups, or the Muslims themselves that believe apostasy should be punishable by death (what was the stat from Egypt that was trotted out? Something like 90% of Egyptians believe apostasy should result in death... that is crazy!).
Another thing that was frustrating to watch...in the very begininning , Sam Harris mentions that its not correct to conflate dislike of religious ideas and doctrines with dislike of the people who hold them.
Then in no time flat, Affleck conflates dislike of religious ideas with dislike of religios people. He just wasn't listening.
Its really interesting, because I know a number of "white" Muslim women from Bosnia and Azerbaijan, and they are some of the most empowered, intelligent women I've ever met (they all happen to be beautiful and like, quad-lingual, which just makes them even more impressive). But sadly, as I believe Harris and Maher were TRYING to point out, the idea of empowered women isn't exactly the majority or norm in the Muslim world, especially the Middle East.
I think thats a really good video, Ahtman, and I think the point regarding the genital mutilation is a good one because, as Aslan said, it's an African problem and not simply a Muslim problem (as supported by the fact that the practice is not solely performed by Muslims).
I think his other arguments, while they do make sense, are a bit harder to support, especially when coupled with the Pew finding Scooty linked. The question as to whether it's a "Muslim problem" or a "Saudi Arabian/Iranian problem" gets a little bit fuzzier.
Obviously, I think the problem with any religion is the dogmatic following of it; for my family, our Catholicism serves more as a moral barometer/compass, and I think anyone that can't apply some critical reasoning to their faith is simply ignorant. The biggest difference, as I see it, is that with Christianity there aren't any countries dogmatically following Christianity as a whole, whereas there are multiple countries that govern by dogmatic Muslim principles. It's really an interesting discussion, and I think an important one.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I agree with Harris and Maher. There are parts of Islam that are deplorable and need to be called out. Yet we do not.
Well, it's not just that, HS, that Harris and Maher are saying. They're trying to point out the hypocrisy that exists in popular liberalism that allows it to decry the bigoted parts of Christianity but not of Islam.
This is because of people like Ben Affleck that even here on Dakka, when I (and other) criticize Christianity, someone comes to tell us “You would not say the same if it was Islam”, and when I criticize Islam, I get people telling me “But Christianity is bad too, you should criticize Christianity instead”…
Whether or not a person is telling a lie turns on intent, and I'm not sure Aslan intended to promulgate incorrect information.
In your opinion what was Aslan doing? Is he just uninformed? If so that would call into question his authority as a scholar, instructor and talking head.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I agree with Harris and Maher. There are parts of Islam that are deplorable and need to be called out. Yet we do not.
I have to wonder what kind of sheltered life you live, because Islam is constantly called out. The only time anyone really defends it is when criticism of religious beliefs turns into racism about the people who hold them, or when Islam is singled out for criticism over issues that are ignored when white Christians do the same things. Sure, you can find a few "liberals" saying stupid stuff about how "it's their culture and we can't criticize them" or whatever, but they're a minority that doesn't get anywhere near as much attention or respect as the culture war conservatives seem to think.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I agree with Harris and Maher. There are parts of Islam that are deplorable and need to be called out. Yet we do not.
Much the same can be said of Christianity...you know if you read the bible and see all the mandates to kill each other in God's name. Seeing as Islam is derived from the Judeo-Christian mythos, it's not really surprising. Also take into account the historical circumstances from which Islam arose and it's even less surprising how violent it is. Meanwhile, how many millions have Christians killed over the last several hundred years? My opinion is that any organized religion is wrong as it leads towards someone writing "holy" documents which supposedly provide directions for people to live by, from their God, then morons come around a thousand years later and take the writings out of historical/language context and twist it to mean what they want. The end result of organized religion is that dillweed on duck dynasty, pat roberts and fox news.
dogma wrote: Whether or not a person is telling a lie turns on intent, and I'm not sure Aslan intended to promulgate incorrect information.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you assessment of Aslan.
Nearly everything he said is outright wrong. Period. If he is as much of a "scholar" as he claims to be, he would know that is the case. To me this says that he knows damn well what he is saying is bs and yet says it anyways to prove his point.
Peregrine wrote: Sure, you can find a few "liberals" saying stupid stuff about how "it's their culture and we can't criticize them" or whatever, but they're a minority that doesn't get anywhere near as much attention or respect as the culture war conservatives seem to think.
Despite the bald-faced attempt to turn "liberal" into a brand.
Peregrine wrote: Sure, you can find a few "liberals" saying stupid stuff about how "it's their culture and we can't criticize them" or whatever, but they're a minority that doesn't get anywhere near as much attention or respect as the culture war conservatives seem to think.
Despite the bald-faced attempt to turn "liberal" into a brand.
I think far too often folks conflate "liberal" to "leftism".
Peregrine wrote: Sure, you can find a few "liberals" saying stupid stuff about how "it's their culture and we can't criticize them" or whatever, but they're a minority that doesn't get anywhere near as much attention or respect as the culture war conservatives seem to think.
I disagree, at least in France. I do not know about the U.S. The problem is basically that there is also a lot of bad, illegitimate, and sometime racist criticism of Islam too, that blur the lines and tend to train people to react to criticism of Islam by saying “You are wrong/a racist/attacking innocent Muslims”. That, and the Muslim identity have been overblown. People are not considered Egyptians, Arabs, Pashtun, etc, they are just considered Muslims now, and this is always presented as a fundamental part of their identity that they have no control about rather than an opinion they hold.
Look, I wasn't trying to ambush you, I am curious if you don't think he was intending to lie, yet his information is incorrect, what do you think that means? Is he just misinformed (which again, someone with his education and career focus shouldn't be), or is he not representing the full truth aka lying as Scooty is claiming? Or something else? You're rejecting Scooty's claims without offering any insight into your position.
But yeah, he was doing an interview. Thanks for that keen observation.
dogma wrote: Whether or not a person is telling a lie turns on intent, and I'm not sure Aslan intended to promulgate incorrect information.
Given his position as a "leading authority" on Islam, and constant apologism on its behalf, as well as the fact that, well, HE'S a Muslim, it seems fairly obvious that he intentionally deceives people in order to deflect criticism. This is actually a core component of the Islamic faith, and is called taqiyya, which allows for and in some cases encourages Muslims to lie about their faith or attitudes derived from their faith in order to avoid persecution by non-Muslims. Of course, persecution can mean simple logical critiques as well as burnings at the stake, and in today's world we see a lot more of the former than the latter.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I agree with Harris and Maher. There are parts of Islam that are deplorable and need to be called out. Yet we do not.
I have to wonder what kind of sheltered life you live, because Islam is constantly called out.
By the right, who are then called bigots by the left.... Which is the point Maher is trying to make. Liberals (using Maher's nomenclature) are just fine "calling out" Christians like Phil Robertson, but they're (seemingly) unwilling to denounce the same when it comes to Islam.
cincydooley wrote: By the right, who are then called bigots by the left.... Which is the point Maher is trying to make. Liberals (using Maher's nomenclature) are just fine "calling out" Christians like Phil Robertson, but they're (seemingly) unwilling to denounce the same when it comes to Islam.
And "the left" has a lot of people saying the same things about Islam. Does their criticism tend to focus on Christianity? Yes, but that's what happens when Christianity is the majority religion in their country and has far more influence than Islam. But focusing on domestic issues over foreign ones is not at all the same thing as excusing the offenses committed by Islam, which is something very few people are doing.
. That, and the Muslim identity have been overblown. People are not considered Egyptians, Arabs, Pashtun, etc, they are just considered Muslims now, and this is always presented as a fundamental part of their identity that they have no control about rather than an opinion they hold.
I'm trying to figure out what this means.
If you're saying that "Muslim identity [has] been overblow" I hope you have some sort of substantiation to go along with it.
cincydooley wrote: By the right, who are then called bigots by the left.... Which is the point Maher is trying to make. Liberals (using Maher's nomenclature) are just fine "calling out" Christians like Phil Robertson, but they're (seemingly) unwilling to denounce the same when it comes to Islam.
And "the left" has a lot of people saying the same things about Islam. Does their criticism tend to focus on Christianity? Yes, but that's what happens when Christianity is the majority religion in their country and has far more influence than Islam. But focusing on domestic issues over foreign ones is not at all the same thing as excusing the offenses committed by Islam, which is something very few people are doing.
I think it has more to do with the fact that "liberals", at least the ones Maher is referring to, seem to be 'afraid' to criticize Muslims for those beliefs (whereas they're more than happy to criticize Christians for the same, and often less pervasive, beliefs) because 'liberalism' means PC acceptance of 'minority' culture.
The fact remains that we are very comfortable ridiculing and criticizing Christians in this country, and very uncomfortable doing the same when it comes to Islam.
People like to keep to certain faiths due to upbringing or core tenets they agree with.
Bill I think truly believes that religion is the source of most evil in the world, in many instances I would be hard pressed to disagree.
This would be the source of misunderstanding where Ben was getting all excited: liberalism was being pointed to as being devoid of any religious background.
This gets into the divides between the "fanatics" and the "moderates", really does not matter on what faith.
I read the Koran quite a few times (English translation which could be argued as not being a "true" experience all it's own) a core clear "command" I just cannot wrap my head around fanatics ignoring is: " [026:113] “My Lord alone has the prerogative to judge them, if only you could realize." Most statements point to Allah as being the only true proper judge it is pointed out that many forms of assumption is sin. To presume to judge others is to start placing oneself at the level of Allah and is guilty of extreme pride and bordering on blasphemy.
Well, Christian faiths have all manner of water under the bridge as well. Got 10 commandments we tend to view as "guidelines" so casting stones are rather pointless.
We all choose our ground of how to operate as individuals that decides the level of acceptance or prejudice we operate at.
What is the core "problem" is that larger portions of Muslim faith will not recognize a difference in law and faith.
Belief is reinforced by law that can take away your life.
Here is to hoping the more moderate Muslims can enforce interpretations of Allah's will as the kinder gentler God.
Talizvar wrote: I read the Koran quite a few times (English translation which could be argued as not being a "true" experience all it's own) a core clear "command" I just cannot wrap my head around fanatics ignoring is: " [026:113] “My Lord alone has the prerogative to judge them, if only you could realize." Most statements point to Allah as being the only true proper judge it is pointed out that many forms of assumption is sin. To presume to judge others is to start placing oneself at the level of Allah and is guilty of extreme pride and bordering on blasphemy.
The thing you are missing is Allah is the judge, that does not mean lawful Muslims should not be his “law enforcement agency”.
Allah judge what is good and wrong, and then they apply Allah's judgments.
SPOILER ALERT: Ben Affleck was acting like a total douche (which is obvious if you watched the show).
Here is the full text for the work blocked (I highlighted some stuff I found interesting):
Sam Harris wrote:My recent collision with Ben Affleck on Bill Maher’s show, Real Time, has provoked an extraordinary amount of controversy. It seems a postmortem is in order.
So what happened there?
I admit that I was a little thrown by Affleck’s animosity. I don’t know where it came from, because we hadn’t met before I joined the panel. And it was clear from our conversation after the show that he is totally unfamiliar with my work. I suspect that among his handlers there is a fan of Glenn Greenwald who prepared him for his appearance by simply telling him that I am a racist and a warmonger.
Whatever the reason, if you watch the full video of our exchange (which actually begins before the above clip), you will see that Affleck was gunning for me from the start. What many viewers probably don’t realize is that the mid-show interview is supposed be a protected five-to-seven-minute conversation between Maher and the new guest—and all the panelists know this. To ignore this structure and encroach on this space is a little rude; to jump in with criticism, as Affleck did, is pretty hostile. He tried to land his first blow a mere 90 seconds after I took my seat, before the topic of Islam even came up.
Although I was aware that I wasn’t getting much love from Affleck, I didn’t realize how unfriendly he had been on the show until I watched it on television the next day. This was by no means a normal encounter between strangers. For instance: I said that liberalism was failing us on the topic of Islamic theocracy, and Affleck snidely remarked, “Thank God you’re here!” (This was his second interruption of my interview.) I then said, “We have been sold this meme of Islamophobia, where every criticism of the doctrine of Islam gets conflated with bigotry toward Muslims as people,” and Affleck jumped in for the third time, more or less declaring the mid-show interview over: “Now hold on—are you the person who understands the officially codified doctrine of Islam? You’re the interpreter of that?”
As many have since pointed out, Affleck and Nicholas Kristof then promptly demonstrated my thesis by mistaking everything Maher and I said about Islam for bigotry toward Muslims. Our statements were “gross,” “racist,” “ugly,” “like saying you’re a shifty Jew” (Affleck), and a “caricature” that has “the tinge (a little bit) of how white racists talk about African Americans” (Kristof).
The most controversial thing I said was: “We have to be able to criticize bad ideas, and Islam is the Mother lode of bad ideas.” This statement has been met with countless charges of “bigotry” and “racism” online and in the media. But imagine that the year is 1970, and I said: “Communism is the Mother lode of bad ideas.” How reasonable would it be to attack me as a “racist” or as someone who harbors an irrational hatred of Russians, Ukrainians, Chinese, etc. This is precisely the situation I am in. My criticism of Islam is a criticism of beliefs and their consequences—but my fellow liberals reflexively view it as an expression of intolerance toward people.
And the tension on the panel only grew. At one point Affleck sought to cut me off by saying, “Okay, let him [Kristof] talk for a second.” As I finished my sentence, he made a gesture of impatience with his hand, suggesting that I had been droning on for ages. Watching this exchange on television (his body language and tone are less clear online), I find Affleck’s contempt for me fairly amazing.
I want to make one thing clear, however. I did not take Affleck’s hostility personally. This is the kind of thing I now regularly encounter from people who believe the lies about my work that have been sedulously manufactured by Reza Aslan, Glenn Greenwald, Chris Hedges, and many others. If I were seated across the table from someone I “knew” to be a racist and a warmonger, how would I behave? I don’t honestly know.
Kristof made the point that there are brave Muslims who are risking their lives to condemn “extremism” in the Muslim community. Of course there are, and I celebrate these people too. But he seemed completely unaware that he was making my point for me—the point being, of course, that these people are now risking their lives by advocating for basic human rights in the Muslim world.
When I told Affleck that he didn’t understand my argument, he said, “I don’t understand it? Your argument is ‘You know, black people, we know they shoot each other, they’re blacks!” What did he expect me to say to this—“I stand corrected”?
Although I clearly stated that I wasn’t claiming that all Muslims adhere to the dogmas I was criticizing; distinguished between jihadists, Islamists, conservatives, and the rest of the Muslim community; and explicitly exempted hundreds of millions of Muslims who don’t take the doctrines about blasphemy, apostasy, jihad, and martyrdom seriously, Affleck and Kristof both insisted that I was disparaging all Muslims as a group. Unfortunately, I misspoke slightly at this point, saying that hundreds of millions of Muslims don’t take their “faith” seriously. This led many people to think that I was referring to Muslim atheists (who surely don’t exist in those numbers) and suggesting that the only people who could reform the faith are those who have lost it. I don’t know how many times one must deny that one is referring to an entire group, or cite specific poll results to justify the percentages one is talking about, but no amount of clarification appears sufficient to forestall charges of bigotry and lack of “nuance.”
One of the most depressing things in the aftermath of this exchange is the way Affleck is now being lauded for having exposed my and Maher’s “racism,” “bigotry,” and “hatred of Muslims.” This is yet another sign that simply accusing someone of these sins, however illogically, is sufficient to establish them as facts in the minds of many viewers. It certainly does not help that unscrupulous people like Reza Aslan and Glenn Greenwald have been spinning the conversation this way.
Of course, Affleck is also being widely reviled as an imbecile. But much of this criticism, too, is unfair. Those who describe him as a mere “actor” who was out of his depth are no better than those who dismiss me as a “neuroscientist” who cannot, therefore, know anything about religion. And Affleck isn’t merely an actor: He’s a director, a producer, a screenwriter, a philanthropist, and may one day be a politician. Even if he were nothing more than an actor, there would be no reason to assume that he’s not smart. In fact, I think he probably is quite smart, and that makes our encounter all the more disheartening.
The important point is that a person’s CV is immaterial as long as he or she is making sense. Unfortunately, Affleck wasn’t—but neither was Kristof, who really is an expert in this area, particularly where the plight of women in the developing world is concerned. His failure to recognize and celebrate the heroism of my friend Ayaan Hirsi Ali remains a journalistic embarrassment and a moral scandal (and I told him so backstage).
After the show, a few things became clear about Affleck’s and Kristof’s views. Rather than trust poll results and the testimony of jihadists and Islamists, they trust the feeling that they get from the dozens of Muslims they have known personally. As a method of gauging Muslim opinion worldwide, this preference is obviously crazy. It is nevertheless understandable. On the basis of their life experiences, they believe that the success of a group like ISIS, despite its ability to recruit people by the thousands from free societies, says nothing about the role that Islamic doctrines play in inspiring global jihad. Rather, they imagine that ISIS is functioning like a bug light for psychopaths—attracting “disaffected young men” who would do terrible things to someone, somewhere, in any case. For some strange reason these disturbed individuals can’t resist an invitation to travel to a foreign desert for the privilege of decapitating journalists and aid workers. I await an entry in the DSM-VI that describes this troubling condition.
Contrary to what many liberals believe, those bad boys who are getting off the bus in Syria at this moment to join ISIS are not all psychopaths, nor are they simply depressed people who have gone to the desert to die. Most of them are profoundly motivated by their beliefs. Many surely feel like spiritual James Bonds, fighting a cosmic war against evil. After all, they are spreading the one true faith to the ends of the earth—or they will die trying, and be martyred, and then spend eternity in Paradise. Secular liberals seem unable to grasp how psychologically rewarding this worldview must be.
As I try to make clear in Waking Up, many positive states of mind, such as ecstasy, are ethically neutral. Which is to say that it really matters what you think the feeling of ecstasy means. If you think it means that the Creator of the Universe is rewarding you for having purged your village of Christians, you are ISIS material. Other bearded young men go to Burning Man, find themselves surrounded by naked women in Day-Glo body paint, and experience a similar state of mind.
After the show, Kristof, Affleck, Maher, and I continued our discussion. At one point, Kristof reiterated the claim that Maher and I had failed to acknowledge the existence of all the good Muslims who condemn ISIS, citing the popular hashtag #NotInOurName. In response, I said: “Yes, I agree that all condemnation of ISIS is good. But what do you think would happen if we had burned a copy of the Koran on tonight’s show? There would be riots in scores of countries. Embassies would fall. In response to our mistreating a book, millions of Muslims would take to the streets, and we would spend the rest of our lives fending off credible threats of murder. But when ISIS crucifies people, buries children alive, and rapes and tortures women by the thousands—all in the name of Islam—the response is a few small demonstrations in Europe and a hashtag.” I don’t think I’m being uncharitable when I say that neither Affleck nor Kristof had an intelligent response to this. Nor did they pretend to doubt the truth of what I said.
I genuinely believe that both Affleck and Kristof mean well. They are very worried about American xenophobia and the prospects of future military adventures. But they are confused about Islam. Like many secular liberals, they refuse to accept the abundant evidence that vast numbers of Muslims believe dangerous things about infidels, apostasy, blasphemy, jihad, and martyrdom. And they do not realize that these doctrines are about as controversial under Islam as the resurrection of Jesus is under Christianity.
However, others in this debate are not so innocent. Our conversation on Real Time was provoked by an interview that Reza Aslan gave on CNN, in which he castigated Maher for the remarks he had made about Islam on the previous show. I have always considered Aslan a comical figure. His thoughts about religion in general are a jumble of pretentious nonsense—yet he speaks with an air of self-importance that would have been embarrassing in Genghis Khan at the height of his power. On the topic of Islam, however, Aslan has begun to seem more sinister. He cannot possibly believe what he says, because nearly everything he says is a lie or a half-truth calibrated to mislead a liberal audience. If he claims something isn’t in the Koran, it probably is. I don’t know what his agenda is, beyond riding a jet stream of white guilt from interview to interview, but he is manipulating liberal biases for the purpose of shutting down conversation on important topics. Given what he surely knows about the contents of the Koran and the hadith, the state of public opinion in the Muslim world, the suffering of women and other disempowered groups, and the real-world effects of deeply held religious beliefs, I find his deception on these issues unconscionable.
As I tried to make clear on Maher’s show, what we need is honest talk about the link between belief and behavior. And no one is suffering the consequences of what Muslim “extremists” believe more than other Muslims are. The civil war between Sunni and Shia, the murder of apostates, the oppression of women—these evils have nothing to do with U.S. bombs or Israeli settlements. Yes, the war in Iraq was a catastrophe—just as Affleck and Kristof suggest. But take a moment to appreciate how bleak it is to admit that the world would be better off if we had left Saddam Hussein in power. Here was one of the most evil men who ever lived, holding an entire country hostage. And yet his tyranny was also preventing a religious war between Shia and Sunni, the massacre of Christians, and other sectarian horrors. To say that we should have left Saddam Hussein alone says some very depressing things about the Muslim world.
Whatever the prospects are for moving Islam out of the Middle Ages, hope lies not with obscurantists like Reza Aslan but with reformers like Maajid Nawaz. The litmus test for intellectual honesty on this point—which so many liberals fail—is to admit that one can draw a straight line from specific doctrines in Islam to the intolerance and violence we see in the Muslim world. Nawaz admits this. I don’t want to give the impression that he and I view Islam exactly the same. In fact, we are now having a written exchange that we will publish as an ebook in the coming months—and I am learning a lot from it. But Nawaz admits that the extent of radicalization in the Muslim community is an enormous problem. Unlike Aslan, he insists that his fellow Muslims must find some way to reinterpret and reform the faith. He believes that Islam has the intellectual resources to do this. I certainly hope he’s right. One thing is clear, however: Muslims must be obliged to do the work of reinterpretation—and for this we need honest conversation.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: You don't think he intended to deliberately spread false information.
No, I do not. I am also not entirely convinced all of the information Aslan presented was false.
Then I'm guessing you haven't followed much of Aslan's work then.
This tells me you didn't read the article that shows, in plain English, that Aslan was wrong. So to save you the trouble of clicking on the link, I put it right here for your reading pleasure:
Muhammad Syed and Sarah Haider wrote:Maher stated (among other things) that “if vast numbers of Muslims across the world believe, and they do, that humans deserve to die for merely holding a different idea or drawing a cartoon or writing a book or eloping with the wrong person, not only does the Muslim world have something in common with ISIS, it has too much in common with ISIS.” Maher implied a connection between FGM and violence against women with the Islamic faith, to which the charming Aslan seems to be providing a nuanced counterbalance, calling Maher “unsophisticated” and his arguments “facile.” His comments were lauded by many media outlets, including Salon and the Huffington Post.
Although we have become accustomed to the agenda-driven narrative from Aslan, we were blown away by how his undeniably appealing but patently misleading arguments were cheered on by many, with the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple going so far as to advise show producers not to put a show-host against Aslan “unless your people are schooled in religion, politics and geopolitics of the Muslim world.”
Only those who themselves aren’t very “schooled” in Islam and Muslim affairs would imply that Aslan does anything but misinform by cherry-picking and distorting facts.
Nearly everything Aslan stated during his segment was either wrong, or technically-correct-but-actually-wrong. We will explain by going through each of his statements in the hopes that Aslan was just misinformed (although it’s hard for us to imagine that a “scholar” such as Aslan wouldn’t be aware of all this).
Aslan contends that while some Muslim countries have problems with violence and women’s rights, in others like “Indonesia, women are absolutely 100 percent equal to men” and it is therefore incorrect to imply that such issues are a problem with Islam and “facile” to imply that women are “somehow mistreated in the Muslim world.”
Let us be clear here: No one in their right mind would claim that Indonesia, Malaysia, and Bangladesh are a “free and open society for women.” Happily, a few of them have enshrined laws that have done much to bring about some progress in equality between the sexes. But this progress is hindered or even eroded by the creeping strength of the notoriously anti-woman Sharia courts.
For example:
Indonesia has increasingly become more conservative. (Notoriously anti-women) Sharia courts that were “optional” have risen to equal status with regular courts in family matters. The conservative Aceh province even legislates criminal matters via Sharia courts, which has been said to violate fundamental human rights.
Malaysia has a dual-system of law which mandates sharia law for Muslims. These allow men to have multiple wives (polygyny) and discriminate against women in inheritance (as mandated by Islamic scripture). It also prohibits wives from disobeying the “lawful orders” of their husbands.
Bangladesh, which according to feminist Tahmima Anam made real advancements towards equality in its inception, also “created a barrier to women’s advancement.” This barrier? An article in the otherwise progressive constitution which states that “women shall have equal rights with men in all spheres of the state and of the public life” but in the realm of private affairs (marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody), “it acknowledges Islam as the state religion and effectively enshrines the application of Islamic law in family affairs. The Constitution thus does nothing to enforce equality in private life.”
And finally we come to Turkey, a country oft-cited by apologists due to its relative stability, liberalism, and gender equality. What they consistently choose to ignore is that historically, Turkey was militantly secular. We mean this literally: The country’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, created a secular state and pushed Islam out of the public sphere (outlawing polygamy, child marriages, and giving divorce rights to women) through (at times, military) force. He even banned the headscarf in various public sectors and is believed by some to have been an atheist.
Only apologists would ignore the circumstances that led to Turkey’s incredible progress and success relative to the Muslim world, and hold it up as an example of “Islamic” advancement of women’s rights. In fact, child marriages (which continue to be widespread in rural Turkey), are often hidden due to the practice of “religious” marriages (Nikah) being performed without informing secular authorities. Turkey was recently forced to pass a law banning religious marriages with penalties imposed on imams for violations.
Aslan’s claim that Muslim countries “have elected seven women as their heads of state” is an example of “technically true, actually false” — a tactic we have often noted among religious apologists.
It is true that there have been seven female heads of state in Muslim-majority countries, but a closer inspection would reveal this has little to do with female empowerment and often has much more to do with the political power of certain families in under-developed parts of the world.
It is well-known that Benazir Bhutto, a woman, was democratically elected in Pakistan. What is not as well-known is that her advancement had much to do with her family’s power in her party (Pakistan People’s Party) and little to do with female empowerment. Her father was once Prime Minister of Pakistan, and she was elected to the position fresh from her exile in the West with little political experience of her own. After her assassination, her nineteen year old son assumed leadership of her political party — as was expected by many familiar with the power their family continued to hold.
Similarly, Sheikh Hasina (the current Prime Minister of Bangladesh) is the daughter of the founding father of the country, Sheikh Mujibur-Rehman. Khaleda Zia, the predecessor of Sheikh Hasina, assumed power over her party after the assassination of her husband — the second Prime Minister of Bangladesh.
In addition, Megawati Sukarnopotri, former President of Indonesia, was the daughter of Sukarno, the founding father of Indonesia.
To anyone familiar with women’s rights around the world, neither Pakistan, Bangladesh, nor Indonesia can be considered states with a stellar track record. It is likely that in these cases, the power of political dynasties was the key factor in their success.
Furthermore, female heads of state were elected democratically in Turkey, Kyrgyzstan, and Kosovo. But, as before, a closer inspection reveals a complicated reality. All three states are secular, where religion was forcibly uprooted from the government — due to Atatürk (in the case of Turkey) or Communism (in the cases of Kyrgyzstan and Kosovo).
Predictably, Aslan fails to mention any of this.
Finally, we get to Aslan’s claim that it is “actually, empirically, factually incorrect” that female genital mutilation (FGM) is a “Muslim-country problem.” Rather, he believes it is a “central African problem.” He continues to state that “nowhere else in the Muslim, Muslim-majority states is female genital mutilation an issue.”
This is an absolutely ridiculous claim.
The idea that FGM is concentrated solely in Africa is a huge misconception and bandied about by apologists with citations of an Africa-focused UNICEF report which showed high rates of FGM in African countries. Apologists have taken that to mean that it is *only* Africa that has an FGM problem — even though FGM rates have not been studied in most of the Middle East or South and East Asia. Is it an academically sound practice to take a lack of study as proof of the non-existence of the practice? Especially when there is record of FGM common in Asian countries like Indonesia (study) and Malaysia? It is also present in the Bohra Muslim community in India and Pakistan, as well as in the Kurdish community in Iraq — Are they to be discounted as “African problems” as well?
We do not yet have the large scale data to confirm the rates of FGM around the world, but we can safely assume that it is quite a bit more than just an “African problem.” It is very likely that FGM *did* originate in the Middle East or North Africa, but its extensive prevalence in Muslim-majority countries should give us pause. We are not attempting to paint FGM as only an Islamic problem but rather that Islam does bear some responsibility for its spread beyond the Middle East-North Africa region and for its modern prevalence.
So is there any credence to the claim that Islam supports FGM? In fact, there is. To name two, the major collections of the Hadith Sahih Muslim 3:684 and Abu Dawud 41:5251 support the practice. Of the four major schools of thought in Sunni Islam, two mandate FGM while two merely recommend it. Unsurprisingly, in the Muslim-majority countries dominated by the schools which mandate the practice, there is evidence of widespread female circumcision. Of particular note: None of the major schools condemn the practice.
This isn’t the first time Reza has stated half-truths in defense of his agenda. In his book No God But God, he misleads readers about many issues including the age of Muhammad’s child-bride Aisha. Scripture unanimously cites Aisha’s betrothal at age 6 or 7 and consummation at 9. Similarly, he quotes Mariya the Copt as being a wife of the prophet when overwhelming evidence points to her being Muhammad’s concubine.
We believe that Islam badly needs to be reformed, and it is only Muslims who can truly make it into a modern religion. But it is the likes of Reza Aslan who act as a deterrent to change by refusing to acknowledge real complications within the scripture and by actively promoting half-truths. Bigotry against Muslims is a real and pressing problem, but one can criticize the Islamic ideology without treating Muslims as themselves problematic or incapable of reform.
There are true Muslim reformists who are willing to call a spade a spade while working for the true betterment of their peoples — but their voices are drowned out by the noise of apologists who are all-too-often aided by the Western left. Those who accept distortions in order to hold on to a comforting dream-world where Islamic fundamentalism is merely an aberration are harming reform by encouraging apologists.
jasper76 wrote: I think their (Harris and Maher) point was that liberals tend to give a pass to non-Christian groups on human rights abuses, because of a conflict in the liberal mind between liberal values, such as equal rights, and multi-culturalism, PC, etc. I think they're correct, and I think Aflack puts this conflict on plain display.
However, its pretty clear Aflack was high on something or sick (have a look at him). He was rudely interrupting, and countering by arguing against points that nobody even made.
Pretty sure that's just the disease that is modern militant "liberalism."
Is he just misinformed (which again, someone with his education and career focus shouldn't be), or is he not representing the full truth aka lying as Scooty is claiming?
The line of attack you should be using is "He is bad at being on TV?".
dogma wrote: I don't think people can lie absent intent.
It isn't absent intent. He's a religious apologist trying to gain sympathy from his audience.
For the third time, please read the information I presented showing where he deliberately says things that run contrary to known facts. He is a religious scholar (something he loves to remind people of), and yet he tends to say a lot of things are just downright aren't true.
Doing that is called "lying." People that do it are "liars."
Reading through Sam Harris' post-mortem, I am immediately reminded of Christopher Hitchens, and how, unlike Harris, he would have mercilessly ripped Affleck to shreds .
Harris is a pretty cool customer considering what an ass Affleck was to him.
Aslan is not bad at TV. He has plenty of experience speaking in front of a camera, and in front of audiences, so if he failed to supply information pertinent to the discussion I don't think you can chalk it up to stage fright or being ambushed.
Maher and Harris remain two of my favourite people, despite disagreeing with them on some things. The left (which I've always identified with) is increasingly radicalising and censoring debate which is hurting the causes they want to champion. Affleck was doing exactly what they were saying was problematic, and is a huge problem elsewhere - we're getting a similar thing with radical feminism in gaming atm where you cannot argue with them or you're a misogynist.
re. Aslan calling Maher not sophisticated re. religion, that's expected for two reasons: 1. Maher is a comedian. He just happens (along with Stewart, Colbert and Oliver) to give better news than the "news". 2. Aslan has masters in religion studies - *everyone* is unsophisticated compared to him.
Being unsophisticated doesn't mean you're wrong, just that your points lack finesse. Aslan is a cool dude, very well spoken and very moderate. I like seeing him on Real Time and he was great on Fox ; )
Yonan wrote: Maher and Harris remain two of my favourite people, despite disagreeing with them on some things. The left (which I've always identified with) is increasingly radicalising and censoring debate which is hurting the causes they want to champion. Affleck was doing exactly what they were saying was problematic, and is a huge problem elsewhere - we're getting a similar thing with radical feminism in gaming atm where you cannot argue with them or you're a misogynisM ; )
It's not just in gaming. I was recently told dismissively that I was "mansplaining" something In a discussion, pointed out that it was dismissive and offensive, and was told because I was a white male I couldnt be offended by anything.
dogma wrote: I don't think people can lie absent intent.
It isn't absent intent. He's a religious apologist trying to gain sympathy from his audience.
For the third time, please read the information I presented showing where he deliberately says things that run contrary to known facts. He is a religious scholar (something he loves to remind people of), and yet he tends to say a lot of things are just downright aren't true.
Doing that is called "lying." People that do it are "liars."
I don't think Aslan is a liar. You might not agree with him, which is fine, but that's not the same thing as him lying. I read the article. A lot of those details are significant (particularly the information about the political situations in Indonesia, Turkey, Kosovo, etc.) but I don't expect someone to go in depth into the socio-political and religious history of every country that gets mentioned in the course of a five minute interview. However, like dogma, I don't agree that everything he said was wrong, and in addition, I take issue with some of the interpretations put forth in that article.
dogma wrote: I don't think people can lie absent intent.
It isn't absent intent. He's a religious apologist trying to gain sympathy from his audience.
For the third time, please read the information I presented showing where he deliberately says things that run contrary to known facts. He is a religious scholar (something he loves to remind people of), and yet he tends to say a lot of things are just downright aren't true.
Doing that is called "lying." People that do it are "liars."
I don't think Aslan is a liar. You might not agree with him, which is fine, but that's not the same thing as him lying. I read the article. A lot of those details are significant (particularly the information about the political situations in Indonesia, Turkey, Kosovo, etc.) but I don't expect someone to go in depth into the socio-political and religious history of every country that gets mentioned in the course of a five minute interview. However, like dogma, I don't agree that everything he said was wrong, and in addition, I take issue with some of the interpretations put forth in that article.
So the self-proclaimed religious scholar makes a demonstrably false statement and he gets a pass because... Reasons?
dogma wrote: I don't think people can lie absent intent.
It isn't absent intent. He's a religious apologist trying to gain sympathy from his audience.
For the third time, please read the information I presented showing where he deliberately says things that run contrary to known facts. He is a religious scholar (something he loves to remind people of), and yet he tends to say a lot of things are just downright aren't true.
Doing that is called "lying." People that do it are "liars."
I don't think Aslan is a liar. You might not agree with him, which is fine, but that's not the same thing as him lying. I read the article. A lot of those details are significant (particularly the information about the political situations in Indonesia, Turkey, Kosovo, etc.) but I don't expect someone to go in depth into the socio-political and religious history of every country that gets mentioned in the course of a five minute interview. However, like dogma, I don't agree that everything he said was wrong, and in addition, I take issue with some of the interpretations put forth in that article.
So the self-proclaimed religious scholar makes a demonstrably false statement and he gets a pass because... Reasons?
I already posted an entire article highlighting what was wrong with his what he said in response to Maher's charges. I also posted a Pew Research poll that laid bare how Muslims in Muslim-majority countries feel about their religion (it backs up Maher much more than Aslan).
If you disagree with anything I used to prove my point, feel free to offer up some of your own proof.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I already posted an entire article highlighting what was wrong with his what he said in response to Maher's charges.
And I read that article. I take issue with much of it. So I'm asking you to articulate specifically what was demonstrably false about his statement, and we can go from there. If there are specific issues of particular concern you'd like to cite from the article or otherwise, I would be happy to discuss them, but I would prefer we start with whatever you find particularly pertinent in order to facilitate the actual discussion, rather than you post an article and I just list everything that I think is wrong with it.
Whatever the root cause of Aslan's difficulty with the truth, one thing is clear...the dude could use a couple semesters in charm school. The dude is oozing pomposity from every pore of his body. Maybe thats his schtick, but it makes it hard for me to take him seriously.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I already posted an entire article highlighting what was wrong with his what he said in response to Maher's charges.
And I read that article. I take issue with much of it. So I'm asking you to articulate specifically what was demonstrably false about his statement, and we can go from there. If there are specific issues of particular concern you'd like to cite from the article or otherwise, I would be happy to discuss them, but I would prefer we start with whatever you find particularly pertinent in order to facilitate the actual discussion, rather than you post an article and I just list everything that I think is wrong with it.
If you want me to retype my issues what he said just for your sake, you can keep waiting. I've expressed my concerns with his rant; what he said isn't true as I have shown with my evidence (multiple articles stating as much, including parts I highlighted as the best points backing my case).
All you have said is you disagree with it but haven't elaborated at all on that point. So again, feel free to tell me what is wrong with the criticism I've presented.
Don't worry, I'll wait.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Okay, I'll humor you for a moment.
His list of Muslim countries where women have the same equality as men is laughably wrong.
His use of women heads of sate as proof that they have equality is laughably wrong (as evidenced in one of the articles I linked).
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I already posted an entire article highlighting what was wrong with his what he said in response to Maher's charges.
And I read that article. I take issue with much of it. So I'm asking you to articulate specifically what was demonstrably false about his statement, and we can go from there. If there are specific issues of particular concern you'd like to cite from the article or otherwise, I would be happy to discuss them, but I would prefer we start with whatever you find particularly pertinent in order to facilitate the actual discussion, rather than you post an article and I just list everything that I think is wrong with it.
If you want me to retype my issues what he said just for your sake, you can keep waiting. I've expressed my concerns with his rant; what he said isn't true as I have shown with my evidence (multiple articles stating as much, including parts I highlighted as the best points backing my case).
All you have said is you disagree with it but haven't elaborated at all on that point. So again, feel free to tell me what is wrong with the criticism I've presented.
Don't worry, I'll wait.
I think I missed your highlights of the Aslan article (I thought you had only done the Maher interview), my bad. I wasn't expecting you to retype anything, I didn't realize you'd highlighted the Aslan article initially.
So, to discuss some of your highlights. It's a five minute interview, and Aslan seems to be discussing a lot of big picture ideas. The article, in contrast, picks out specific examples of where Aslan's very general statements don't apply. The bit about Indonesia, for example, mentions that it has been becoming increasingly conservative, and mentions a problem with Sharia courts in a specific state. The existence of problems within the system, while it could be said to raise a legitimate issue with Aslan's statement, doesn't make him a liar (or even necessarily wrong). It'd be like making a statement like "In the US, women are equal to men," which, while generally true, we all know some significant caveats exist in terms of employment and earnings and things like that. If someone made the statement that women are equal to men in the US, I wouldn't necessarily think they were lying just because they didn't immediately mention the gender gap. Just as I wouldn't think someone was lying if they said "In the US, everyone is equal" if they didn't immediately start talking about white privilege and that sort of thing. But that also, of course, doesn't negate the fact that reality is often more complicated than what general statements provide. The article admits that Bangladesh has a progressive constitution with the caveat that it utilizes Islamic law in private life. I don't think think the existence of imperfections within progress completely negates that progress, and I doubt Reza Aslan would claim that those countries don't still have room for improvement.
I also don't think Aslan's use of Turkey as an example is a problem because Turkey has secular past. I think it actually strengthens his argument, in the sense that a primarily secular nation of Muslims is actually a thing.
In addition, I don't find Aslan's mention of female heads of state in Islamic countries to be particularly troubling either. Why should anyone be surprised that they all had political connections? Every head of state in every country, male or female, has political connections. One of our most likely options for a female head of state, namely Hillary Clinton, has an incredible amount of political connections and influence.
In regards to the genital mutilation issue, no, it is not academically sound to take lack of study for proof of non-existence. That said, it's equally spurious to take lack of study for proof of existence. I would argue that Aslan's point that two primarily Christian nations have some of the worst issues with female genital manipulation would lend some weight to his assertion that it is more of a African problem rather than an Islamic problem - or at the very least that it's more than just a "Muslim country problem" as they put it in the interview.
As far as Mariya the Copt being a concubine or wife of Muhammad goes, it seems like there is evidence on both sides, although to be honest I'm not really sure why that distinction is particularly important.
Anyway, that's a start. Again, I'm not saying he's right about everything, but I don't think he's a liar and I don't think that article effectively supports the claim that he is.
Yonan wrote: Maher and Harris remain two of my favourite people, despite disagreeing with them on some things. The left (which I've always identified with) is increasingly radicalising and censoring debate which is hurting the causes they want to champion. Affleck was doing exactly what they were saying was problematic, and is a huge problem elsewhere - we're getting a similar thing with radical feminism in gaming atm where you cannot argue with them or you're a misogynisM ; )
It's not just in gaming. I was recently told dismissively that I was "mansplaining" something In a discussion, pointed out that it was dismissive and offensive, and was told because I was a white male I couldnt be offended by anything.
I was an little shocked.
Yeah it's becoming endemic. Males not allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children on planes, being assumed to be predators in public, supporting "rape culture" if they argue against guilty until proven innocent US college rules and so on. I can't say I'm turning right wing because of all this, but I just think we need to clamp down on the radicals on the left. How? Hard to say. In the gaming part, we're trying to remove the support base for their platform by pulling their advertisers as it's the only way we can with no other voice. In public we're you're scum for discussing these things... I don't even think getting conservatives in government would help, not to mention the collateral damage from that too.
I'm proud of Bill for using his platform to stand against the extreme left whilst remaining left himself. We do need equality for all - but the radicals are hurting that more than they're helping it without realising it, they're alienating those who would help them by creating a culture of fear of speaking out because of exactly what Affleck was doing. "Listen and believe" is far too Owellian for comfort. I read a good post from a "social justice activist" calling out similar things from the extreme crowd with a very good inside take on what some of the causes of the problems are.
So, to discuss some of your highlights. It's a five minute interview, and Aslan seems to be discussing a lot of big picture ideas. The article, in contrast, picks out specific examples of where Aslan's very general statements don't apply. The bit about Indonesia, for example, mentions that it has been becoming increasingly conservative, and mentions a problem with Sharia courts in a specific state. The existence of problems within the system, while it could be said to raise a legitimate issue with Aslan's statement, doesn't make him a liar (or even necessarily wrong). It'd be like making a statement like "In the US, women are equal to men," which, while generally true, we all know some significant caveats exist in terms of employment and earnings and things like that. If someone made the statement that women are equal to men in the US, I wouldn't necessarily think they were lying just because they didn't immediately mention the gender gap. Just as I wouldn't think someone was lying if they said "In the US, everyone is equal" if they didn't immediately start talking about white privilege and that sort of thing. But that also, of course, doesn't negate the fact that reality is often more complicated than what general statements provide. The article admits that Bangladesh has a progressive constitution with the caveat that it utilizes Islamic law in private life. I don't think think the existence of imperfections within progress completely negates that progress, and I doubt Reza Aslan would claim that those countries don't still have room for improvement.
Why I am saying he is wrong comes mainly from the comprehensive Pew Research poll I posted a while back. It shows beyond a reasonable doubt that nearly all Muslim-majority countries support Sharia law for all Muslims (and some for everyone, regardless of faith). That shows that they do not view nor would allow a women to have equal rights in their society. Like the anchors said directly to Aslan, this isn't the scary extremists that want this, it's the so called "moderates" that my fellow liberals love to talk about and defend. That is a serious issue that Aslan purposefully skirts because he has to know there is no just defense against it.
I also don't think Aslan's use of Turkey as an example is a problem because Turkey has secular past. I think it actually strengthens his argument, in the sense that a primarily secular nation of Muslims is actually a thing.
Turkey is secular, which is why it is an outlier. That alone makes it extraordinarily weak for Aslan to use as an example; it's an anomaly. Islam was forced out of government with actual force. And guess what, Turkey's hands are far from clean when it comes to human rights violations (which is probably why it won't join the EU any time soon).
In addition, I don't find Aslan's mention of female heads of state in Islamic countries to be particularly troubling either. Why should anyone be surprised that they all had political connections? Every head of state in every country, male or female, has political connections. One of our most likely options for a female head of state, namely Hillary Clinton, has an incredible amount of political connections and influence.
Sorry, that is the biggest cop out you could have come back with. Besides, there is a big difference between political connections and being put in power by what is more-or-less a dynasty.
In regards to the genital mutilation issue, no, it is not academically sound to take lack of study for proof of non-existence. That said, it's equally spurious to take lack of study for proof of existence. I would argue that Aslan's point that two primarily Christian nations have some of the worst issues with female genital manipulation would lend some weight to his assertion that it is more of a African problem rather than an Islamic problem - or at the very least that it's more than just a "Muslim country problem" as they put it in the interview.
He deflected the issue entirely though through his whataboutism, which is typical of apologist like him. Yes it happens in other countries (even ones not in Africa), but he completely deflects it because Christian majority nations do it too so it can't be a Muslim issue... which is absurd.
As far as Mariya the Copt being a concubine or wife of Muhammad goes, it seems like there is evidence on both sides, although to be honest I'm not really sure why that distinction is particularly important.
Again, the scriptures are quite clear on the subject.
Anyway, that's a start. Again, I'm not saying he's right about everything, but I don't think he's a liar and I don't think that article effectively supports the claim that he is.
Like I said before, he is either lying and isn't scholarly background isn't as firm as he suggests. Since I believe his credentials are sufficient (it should be noted that it's an issue raised by his critics in the past), I'm going to say that he is deliberately choosing to defend himself with incorrect information.
All of this explains why I've said numerous times that he both outright lies or is just wrong. He's an apologist, plain and simple.
cincydooley wrote: To be fair, Scooty. I think a few of those heads of state at least fall into the "technically true but..." Camp as dynastic leaders. ;-)
That's exactly what it is... Which is why I said he is wrong to use that as an example of female equivalence.
jasper76 wrote: Holy crap. I had to double-check that wasn't from the Onion.
Today Tonight is far from the best news reporting in Australia, but they were pretty spot on here. The guy was forced to change seats, the companies did (do?) have those policies, and the test at the pool did happen with those results. It's ridiculous.
Very much so, and it's not slowing down, the more you look into it the worse you see it's gotten with hotbeds of it in academia now and college courses that reward students for slanting wikipedia articles to their radical ideals. The huge outcry against it in gaming atm will hopefully get some traction. Actors like Adam Baldwin (from Firefly) and feminists like Christime Sommers are speaking out against it but with the entire games media (and most mainstream media coverage of it) toeing the party line it's an uphill battle.
edit: not to sideline with the gaming thing. Just showing that what Maher and Harris are saying is happening in many places. The left really needs to control their own radicals before they force people to the right and harm leftist ideals.
In addition, I don't find Aslan's mention of female heads of state in Islamic countries to be particularly troubling either. Why should anyone be surprised that they all had political connections? Every head of state in every country, male or female, has political connections. One of our most likely options for a female head of state, namely Hillary Clinton, has an incredible amount of political connections and influence.
Sorry, that is the biggest cop out you could have come back with. Besides, there is a big difference between political connections and being put in power by what is more-or-less a dynasty.
You don't think that families like the Bushes, the Clintons, and the Kennedys aren't more-or-less dynasties as well?
In regards to the genital mutilation issue, no, it is not academically sound to take lack of study for proof of non-existence. That said, it's equally spurious to take lack of study for proof of existence. I would argue that Aslan's point that two primarily Christian nations have some of the worst issues with female genital manipulation would lend some weight to his assertion that it is more of a African problem rather than an Islamic problem - or at the very least that it's more than just a "Muslim country problem" as they put it in the interview.
He deflected the issue entirely though through his whataboutism, which is typical of apologist like him. Yes it happens in other countries (even ones not in Africa), but he completely deflects it because he is an apologist and therefore, his religion cannot be wrong.
Mentioning that the problem of female genital mutilation is primarily found in central African nations rather than specifically Muslim nations doesn't really count as whataboutism. Him being an apologist doesn't mean that his religion cannot be wrong either. He certainly does not hesitate to criticize elements of Islam and the extremists that are produced by it. Whataboutism would be like the interviewer asking about female genital mutilation in Muslim nations and him responding with criticism of anti-abortion extremists in the US, or something else unrelated to genital mutilation.
As far as Mariya the Copt being a concubine or wife of Muhammad goes, it seems like there is evidence on both sides, although to be honest I'm not really sure why that distinction is particularly important.
Again, the scriptures are quite clear on the subject.
I admit this is an issue I'm not that familiar with, but I'm not sure why the distinction is a particularly huge issue in this case.
Anyway, that's a start. Again, I'm not saying he's right about everything, but I don't think he's a liar and I don't think that article effectively supports the claim that he is.
Like I said before, he is either lying and isn't scholarly background isn't as firm as he suggests. Since I believe his credentials are sufficient (it should be noted that it's an issue raised by his critics in the past), I'm going to say that he is deliberately choosing to defend himself with incorrect information.
All of this explains why I've said numerous times that he both outright lies or is just wrong. He's an apologist, plain and simple.
An apologist who has also criticized aspects of Islam?
article wrote:
The problem that recurs in both of these historic examples of game systems is one that elevates the ideology of simulation above values of inclusivity, plurality, and compassion.
makes me want to retort with what are likely asinine things.
Instead I will just point that phrase out and let it hang out there.
Misquote threw me off, but yeah the problem with that quote should be self evident. I've got more game related examples but I think it'll be derailing so I'll try and leave it there.
In addition, I don't find Aslan's mention of female heads of state in Islamic countries to be particularly troubling either. Why should anyone be surprised that they all had political connections? Every head of state in every country, male or female, has political connections. One of our most likely options for a female head of state, namely Hillary Clinton, has an incredible amount of political connections and influence.
Sorry, that is the biggest cop out you could have come back with. Besides, there is a big difference between political connections and being put in power by what is more-or-less a dynasty.
You don't think that families like the Bushes, the Clintons, and the Kennedys aren't more-or-less dynasties as well?
Given that there is a total lack of them controlling the Presidency for any consecutive terms with multiple members. No.
They're certainly active politically, and win a lot of offices. But they're not Dynastys. A Dynasty would be son following right after father for several generations, and guaranteed succession through clearly rigged elections.
In addition, I don't find Aslan's mention of female heads of state in Islamic countries to be particularly troubling either. Why should anyone be surprised that they all had political connections? Every head of state in every country, male or female, has political connections. One of our most likely options for a female head of state, namely Hillary Clinton, has an incredible amount of political connections and influence.
Sorry, that is the biggest cop out you could have come back with. Besides, there is a big difference between political connections and being put in power by what is more-or-less a dynasty.
You don't think that families like the Bushes, the Clintons, and the Kennedys aren't more-or-less dynasties as well?
Given that there is a total lack of them controlling the Presidency for any consecutive terms with multiple members. No.
They're certainly active politically, and win a lot of offices. But they're not Dynastys. A Dynasty would be son following right after father for several generations, and guaranteed succession through clearly rigged elections.
I think the fact that some of these majority-Muslim countries even allow for a female head of state says something. I realize Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, but there are other examples who haven't been. I also think Aslan's point about different countries having different issues is pertinent. Saudi Arabia has issues that are Saudi Arabian issues, for example, and not necessarily "Muslim country" issues.
Grey Templar wrote: Perhaps, but it doesn't mean they're free and clear of issues with active discrimination against women.
The fact we have a Black president certainly doesn't mean we've outgrown racial issues.
And discrimination against women is definitely an issue with the general cultural traits associated with Islam.
Certainly not, and I don't think Reza Aslan would claim otherwise (although he might contest that your last point is a national or regional issue rather than a specifically Islamic one, but I don't know that I'd agree with him on that).
If a country strictly follows Islam as a legal code, it is going to be inherently treating anyone who isn't an Islamic male as second class citizens. That's just how it is.
And FGM is fairly widely reported in countries outside of Africa - a good chunk of them Islamic countries. The out and out statement that it only happens in Africa and is thus an African and not Islamic problem is nonsensical.
Bromsy wrote: If a country strictly follows Islam as a legal code, it is going to be inherently treating anyone who isn't an Islamic male as second class citizens. That's just how it is.
And FGM is fairly widely reported in countries outside of Africa - a good chunk of them Islamic countries. The out and out statement that it only happens in Africa and is thus an African and not Islamic problem is nonsensical.
Huh, apparently the Kurds are at least somewhat onboard with it... so yeah.
I don't think he actually said that it only happens in Africa, did he? Granted, he certainly claimed that it was more of an African issue than an Islamic issue though.
Yonan wrote: Maher and Harris remain two of my favourite people, despite disagreeing with them on some things. The left (which I've always identified with) is increasingly radicalising and censoring debate which is hurting the causes they want to champion. Affleck was doing exactly what they were saying was problematic, and is a huge problem elsewhere - we're getting a similar thing with radical feminism in gaming atm where you cannot argue with them or you're a misogynisM ; )
It's not just in gaming. I was recently told dismissively that I was "mansplaining" something In a discussion, pointed out that it was dismissive and offensive, and was told because I was a white male I couldnt be offended by anything.
I was an little shocked.
Yeah it's becoming endemic. Males not allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children on planes, being assumed to be predators in public, supporting "rape culture" if they argue against guilty until proven innocent US college rules and so on. I can't say I'm turning right wing because of all this, but I just think we need to clamp down on the radicals on the left. How? Hard to say. In the gaming part, we're trying to remove the support base for their platform by pulling their advertisers as it's the only way we can with no other voice. In public we're you're scum for discussing these things... I don't even think getting conservatives in government would help, not to mention the collateral damage from that too.
.
As an unmarried male with no kids, and a beard I do not look at kids in public, or interact with them in any way if possible. It just has the potential for too much trouble. The reaction to a man interacting with a strange kid these days reminds me of the old fashioned reaction to men in a female undergarment store/department. These actions do not always work as I had some energetic and friendly little kid at work stick her hands in my front pockets , I felt so awkward and my first thought was "what if a truck driver drives past and see this". This maybe says more about me than society however.
Bromsy wrote: If a country strictly follows Islam as a legal code, it is going to be inherently treating anyone who isn't an Islamic male as second class citizens. That's just how it is.
And FGM is fairly widely reported in countries outside of Africa - a good chunk of them Islamic countries. The out and out statement that it only happens in Africa and is thus an African and not Islamic problem is nonsensical.
Huh, apparently the Kurds are at least somewhat onboard with it... so yeah.
I don't think he actually said that it only happens in Africa, did he? Granted, he certainly claimed that it was more of an African issue than an Islamic issue though.
Aslan is not bad at TV. He has plenty of experience speaking in front of a camera, and in front of audiences, so if he failed to supply information pertinent to the discussion I don't think you can chalk it up to stage fright or being ambushed.
How much experience does he have interacting with hostile interviewers who have the benefit of teleprompters, earpieces, and production staff?
Though, to his credit, he did a decent job of pushing through the leading questions he was being repeatedly asked; which is what I was referring to when I used the term "ambushed".
My theory has always been that we, as a culture, have recently had this idea that Males spheres do not pertain to children or the raising or interest in them. That is the females sphere. So when a man does have interest in a child or things that pertain to child raising, it is considered weird.
hotsauceman1 wrote: My theory has always been that we, as a culture, have recently had this idea that Males spheres do not pertain to children or the raising or interest in them. That is the females sphere. So when a man does have interest in a child or things that pertain to child raising, it is considered weird.
Which is a horrible development if it gets any (more) traction. Fathers love their children just as much as mothers and are frequently discriminated against for example with child custody in a divorce. Radical feminism is pushing for female rights, when what's needed is a rational look at gender roles and how they should be revised in our current society. There's no longer a need for the "disposable male" to protect the "limited resource female" that was evolutionarily so important. There's no longer a need for women to stay at home and look after kids, and if males aren't "disposable" they don't need to be "rewarded with obedient wives". We can't have this dialogue when the radicals warp the conversation and censor dissenting viewpoints. Just as Affleck was doing by talking over and intentionally misconstruing Maher and Harris in this video in the discussion of Islam.
He claims it's an African problem, not a Muslim problem...
Indeed he does, but that does not indicate that female genital mutilation is limited to Africa.
Actually. No.
He specifically states that FMG is an African problem. He says it's empirically factually incorrect that FMG is a muslim problem. You are correct in that he doesn't specifically say that FMG only occurs in Africa. He just implicitly states it by denying that it takes place anywhere other than Africa, even in places where it is widely reported.
He specifically states that FMG is an African problem.
And then refers to it as a "...Central African problem..."while citing several Christian countries that have issues with that behavior, and noting several non-African countries as well. It is quite clear Aslan was not attempting to deny the existence FGM outside Africa.
I mean, when someone says "Murder is an issue in suburb X." are they denying the fact that murder happens outside suburb X?
He specifically states that FMG is an African problem.
And then refers to it as a "...Central African problem..."while citing several Christian countries that have issues with that behavior, and noting several non-African countries as well. It is quite clear Aslan was not attempting to deny the existence FGM outside Africa.
I mean, when someone says "Murder is an issue in suburb X." are they denying the fact that murder happens outside suburb X?
I seriously cannot grasp what you are arguing against/for.
DON LEMON, CNN: We're joined now by Reza Aslan, a scholar of religions, a professor at University of California, Riverside, and the author of "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth."
Let's talk about this because it's a very interesting conversation every time we have it. Before we get into this discussion, I want to play with you this clip from Bill Maher's show just this Friday night. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAHER: President Obama keeps insisting that ISIS is not Islamic. Well, maybe they don't practice the Muslim faith the same way he does.
(LAUGHTER)
MAHER: But if vast numbers of Muslims across the world believe, and they do, that humans deserve to die for merely holding a different idea or drawing a cartoon or writing a book or eloping with the wrong person, not only does the Muslim world have something in common with ISIS; it has too much in common with ISIS. There's so much talk -- you can applaud. Sure.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: He went on for a good five or six minutes about that, talking about how women are -- circumcision for women, not respecting the rights of women, not respecting the rights of gay people. And what's your reaction? And then we will talk.
REZA ASLAN, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE: Well, I like Bill Maher. I have been on his show a bunch of times. He's a comedian.
But, you know, frankly, when it comes to the topic of religion, he's not very sophisticated in the way that he thinks. I mean, the argument about the female genital mutilation being an Islamic problem is a perfect example of that. It's not an Islamic problem. It's an African problem.
(CROSSTALK)
CAMEROTA: Well, wait, wait, wait.
(CROSSTALK)
CAMEROTA: Hold on. Hold on a second Reza, because he says it's a Muslim country problem. He says that, in Somalia...
ASLAN: Yes, but that's -- yes. And that's actually empirically factually incorrect.
It's a Central African problem. Eritrea has almost 90 percent female genital mutilation. It's a Christian country. Ethiopia has 75 percent female genital mutilation. It's a Christian country. Nowhere else in the Muslim, Muslim-majority states is female genital mutilation an issue.
But, again, this is the problem, is that you make these facile arguments that women are somehow mistreated in the Muslim world -- well, that's certainly true in many Muslim-majority countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Do you know that Muslims have elected seven women as their heads of state in those Muslim-majority countries?
How many women do we have as states in the United States?
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: Reza, be honest, though. For the most part, it is not a free and open society for women in those states.
ASLAN: Well, it's not in Iran. It's not in Saudi Arabia.
It certainly is in Indonesia and Malaysia. It certainly is in Bangladesh. It certainly is in Turkey. I mean, again, this is the problem is that you're talking about a religion of 1.5 billion people and certainly it becomes very easy to just simply paint them all with a single brush by saying, well, in Saudi Arabia, they can't drive and so therefore that is somehow representative of Islam.
It's representative of Saudi Arabia.
(CROSSTALK)
CAMEROTA: But hold on. I think that Bill Maher's point is that these aren't extremists. We often talk about extremists and that we should crack down on extremists and why aren't Muslims speaking out about extremists?
In Saudi Arabia, when women can't vote and they can't drive and they need permission from their husband, that's not extremists. Why aren't we talking more about what...
ASLAN: Why?
CAMEROTA: That's not extremist. That's commonplace. Why don't we talk more about the commonplace wrongs that are happening in some of these countries?
(CROSSTALK)
ASLAN: It's extremist when compared to the rights and responsibilities of women, Muslim women around the world. It's an extremist way of dealing with it.
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: But it's not extremist in that country, in Saudi Arabia. That's the norm.
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: That's what she is saying.
ASLAN: Oh, no, it's not.
I mean, look, Saudi Arabia is one of the most, if not the most, extremist Muslim country in the world. In the month that we have been talking about ISIS and their terrible actions in Iraq and Syria, Saudi Arabia, our closest ally, has beheaded 19 people. Nobody seems to care about that because Saudi Arabia sort of preserves our national interests.
LEMON: OK.
ASLAN: You know, but this is the problem, is that these kinds of conversations that we're having aren't really being had in any kind of legitimate way. We're not talking about women in the Muslim world. We're using two or three examples to justify a generalization. That's actually the definition of bigotry.
LEMON: All right, fair enough.
Let's listen to Benjamin Netanyahu at the United Nations today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: So when it comes to their ultimate goals, Hamas is ISIS, and ISIS is Hamas. And what they share in common, all militant Islamists share in common.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: So, Reza, the question at the bottom of the screen that everyone is looking at, does Islam promote violence?
ASLAN: Islam doesn't promote violence or peace. Islam is just a religion, and like every religion in the world, it depends on what you bring to it. If you're a violent person, your Islam, your Judaism, your Christianity, your Hinduism is going to be violent. There are Buddhist -- marauding Buddhist monks in Myanmar slaughtering
women and children. Does Buddhism promote violence? Of course not. People are violent or peaceful. And that depends on their politics, their social world, the way that they see their communities, the way they see themselves.
CAMEROTA: So, Reza, you don't think that there's anything more -- there's -- the justice system in Muslim countries you don't think is somehow more primitive or subjugates women more than in other countries?
ASLAN: Did you hear what you just said? You said in Muslim countries.
I just told you that, Indonesia, women are absolutely 100 percent equal to men. In Turkey, they have had more female representatives, more female heads of state in Turkey than we have in the United States.
LEMON: Yes, but in Pakistan...
(CROSSTALK)
ASLAN: Stop saying things like "Muslim countries."
LEMON: In Pakistan, women are still being stoned to death.
ASLAN: And that's a problem for Pakistan. You're right. So, let's criticize Pakistan.
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: I just want to be clear on what your point is, because I thought you and Bill Maher were saying the same thing. Your point is that Muslim countries are not to blame.
There is nothing particular, there's no common thread in Muslim countries, you can't paint with a broad brush that somehow their justice system or Sharia law or what they're doing in terms of stoning and female mutilation is different than in other countries like Western countries?
ASLAN: Stoning and mutilation and those barbaric practices should be condemned and criticized by everyone. The actions of individuals and societies and countries like Iran, like Pakistan, like Saudi Arabia must be condemned, because they don't belong in the 21st century.
But to say Muslim countries, as though Pakistan and Turkey are the same, as though Indonesia and Saudi Arabia are the same, as though somehow what is happening in the most extreme forms of these repressive countries, these autocratic countries, is representative of what's happening in every other Muslim country, is, frankly -- and I use this word seriously -- stupid. So let's stop doing that.
LEMON: OK, Reza. Let's -- I want you to listen to Benjamin Netanyahu again. This is actually the one I wanted you to hear. ASLAN: Yes, the ISIS.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NETANYAHU: But our hopes and the world's hopes for peace are in danger, because everywhere we look, militant Islam is on the march. It's not militants. It's not Islam. It's militant Islam. And, typically, its first victims are other Muslims, but it spares no one.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: He's making a clear distinction there. He says it's not militants, it's not Islam; it's militant Islam. Do you understand his distinction there? Is he correct?
ASLAN: Well, he's correct in talking about militant Islam being a problem.
He is absolutely incorrect in talking about ISIS equaling Hamas. That's just ridiculous. No one takes him seriously when he says things like that. And, frankly, it's precisely why, under his leadership, Israel has become so incredibly isolated from the rest of the global community.
Those kinds of statements are illogical, they're irrational, they're so obviously propagandistic. In fact, he went so far as to then bring up the Nazis, which has become kind of a verbal tick for him whenever he brings up either Hamas or ISIS.
Again, these kinds of oversimplifications I think only cause more danger. There is a very real problem. ISIS is a problem. Al Qaeda is a problem. These militant Islamic groups like Hamas, like Hezbollah, like the Taliban have to be dealt with. But it doesn't actually help us to deal with them when, instead of talking about rational conflicts, rational criticisms of a particular religion, we instead so easily slip into bigotry by simply painting everyone with a single brush, as we have been doing in this conversation, mind you.
I mean seriously? He specifically says that FMG IS NOT AN ISSUE IN ANY OTHER MUSLIM MAJORITY COUNTRY OUTSIDE OF AFRICA is that true?
DON LEMON, CNN: We're joined now by Reza Aslan, a scholar of religions, a professor at University of California, Riverside, and the author of "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth."
Let's talk about this because it's a very interesting conversation every time we have it. Before we get into this discussion, I want to play with you this clip from Bill Maher's show just this Friday night. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAHER: President Obama keeps insisting that ISIS is not Islamic. Well, maybe they don't practice the Muslim faith the same way he does.
(LAUGHTER)
MAHER: But if vast numbers of Muslims across the world believe, and they do, that humans deserve to die for merely holding a different idea or drawing a cartoon or writing a book or eloping with the wrong person, not only does the Muslim world have something in common with ISIS; it has too much in common with ISIS. There's so much talk -- you can applaud. Sure.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: He went on for a good five or six minutes about that, talking about how women are -- circumcision for women, not respecting the rights of women, not respecting the rights of gay people. And what's your reaction? And then we will talk.
REZA ASLAN, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE: Well, I like Bill Maher. I have been on his show a bunch of times. He's a comedian.
But, you know, frankly, when it comes to the topic of religion, he's not very sophisticated in the way that he thinks. I mean, the argument about the female genital mutilation being an Islamic problem is a perfect example of that. It's not an Islamic problem. It's an African problem.
(CROSSTALK)
CAMEROTA: Well, wait, wait, wait.
(CROSSTALK)
CAMEROTA: Hold on. Hold on a second Reza, because he says it's a Muslim country problem. He says that, in Somalia...
ASLAN: Yes, but that's -- yes. And that's actually empirically factually incorrect.
It's a Central African problem. Eritrea has almost 90 percent female genital mutilation. It's a Christian country. Ethiopia has 75 percent female genital mutilation. It's a Christian country. Nowhere else in the Muslim, Muslim-majority states is female genital mutilation an issue.
But, again, this is the problem, is that you make these facile arguments that women are somehow mistreated in the Muslim world -- well, that's certainly true in many Muslim-majority countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Do you know that Muslims have elected seven women as their heads of state in those Muslim-majority countries?
How many women do we have as states in the United States?
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: Reza, be honest, though. For the most part, it is not a free and open society for women in those states.
ASLAN: Well, it's not in Iran. It's not in Saudi Arabia.
It certainly is in Indonesia and Malaysia. It certainly is in Bangladesh. It certainly is in Turkey. I mean, again, this is the problem is that you're talking about a religion of 1.5 billion people and certainly it becomes very easy to just simply paint them all with a single brush by saying, well, in Saudi Arabia, they can't drive and so therefore that is somehow representative of Islam.
It's representative of Saudi Arabia.
(CROSSTALK)
CAMEROTA: But hold on. I think that Bill Maher's point is that these aren't extremists. We often talk about extremists and that we should crack down on extremists and why aren't Muslims speaking out about extremists?
In Saudi Arabia, when women can't vote and they can't drive and they need permission from their husband, that's not extremists. Why aren't we talking more about what...
ASLAN: Why?
CAMEROTA: That's not extremist. That's commonplace. Why don't we talk more about the commonplace wrongs that are happening in some of these countries?
(CROSSTALK)
ASLAN: It's extremist when compared to the rights and responsibilities of women, Muslim women around the world. It's an extremist way of dealing with it.
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: But it's not extremist in that country, in Saudi Arabia. That's the norm.
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: That's what she is saying.
ASLAN: Oh, no, it's not.
I mean, look, Saudi Arabia is one of the most, if not the most, extremist Muslim country in the world. In the month that we have been talking about ISIS and their terrible actions in Iraq and Syria, Saudi Arabia, our closest ally, has beheaded 19 people. Nobody seems to care about that because Saudi Arabia sort of preserves our national interests.
LEMON: OK.
ASLAN: You know, but this is the problem, is that these kinds of conversations that we're having aren't really being had in any kind of legitimate way. We're not talking about women in the Muslim world. We're using two or three examples to justify a generalization. That's actually the definition of bigotry.
LEMON: All right, fair enough.
Let's listen to Benjamin Netanyahu at the United Nations today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: So when it comes to their ultimate goals, Hamas is ISIS, and ISIS is Hamas. And what they share in common, all militant Islamists share in common.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: So, Reza, the question at the bottom of the screen that everyone is looking at, does Islam promote violence?
ASLAN: Islam doesn't promote violence or peace. Islam is just a religion, and like every religion in the world, it depends on what you bring to it. If you're a violent person, your Islam, your Judaism, your Christianity, your Hinduism is going to be violent. There are Buddhist -- marauding Buddhist monks in Myanmar slaughtering
women and children. Does Buddhism promote violence? Of course not. People are violent or peaceful. And that depends on their politics, their social world, the way that they see their communities, the way they see themselves.
CAMEROTA: So, Reza, you don't think that there's anything more -- there's -- the justice system in Muslim countries you don't think is somehow more primitive or subjugates women more than in other countries?
ASLAN: Did you hear what you just said? You said in Muslim countries.
I just told you that, Indonesia, women are absolutely 100 percent equal to men. In Turkey, they have had more female representatives, more female heads of state in Turkey than we have in the United States.
LEMON: Yes, but in Pakistan...
(CROSSTALK)
ASLAN: Stop saying things like "Muslim countries."
LEMON: In Pakistan, women are still being stoned to death.
ASLAN: And that's a problem for Pakistan. You're right. So, let's criticize Pakistan.
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: I just want to be clear on what your point is, because I thought you and Bill Maher were saying the same thing. Your point is that Muslim countries are not to blame.
There is nothing particular, there's no common thread in Muslim countries, you can't paint with a broad brush that somehow their justice system or Sharia law or what they're doing in terms of stoning and female mutilation is different than in other countries like Western countries?
ASLAN: Stoning and mutilation and those barbaric practices should be condemned and criticized by everyone. The actions of individuals and societies and countries like Iran, like Pakistan, like Saudi Arabia must be condemned, because they don't belong in the 21st century.
But to say Muslim countries, as though Pakistan and Turkey are the same, as though Indonesia and Saudi Arabia are the same, as though somehow what is happening in the most extreme forms of these repressive countries, these autocratic countries, is representative of what's happening in every other Muslim country, is, frankly -- and I use this word seriously -- stupid. So let's stop doing that.
LEMON: OK, Reza. Let's -- I want you to listen to Benjamin Netanyahu again. This is actually the one I wanted you to hear. ASLAN: Yes, the ISIS.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NETANYAHU: But our hopes and the world's hopes for peace are in danger, because everywhere we look, militant Islam is on the march. It's not militants. It's not Islam. It's militant Islam. And, typically, its first victims are other Muslims, but it spares no one.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: He's making a clear distinction there. He says it's not militants, it's not Islam; it's militant Islam. Do you understand his distinction there? Is he correct?
ASLAN: Well, he's correct in talking about militant Islam being a problem.
He is absolutely incorrect in talking about ISIS equaling Hamas. That's just ridiculous. No one takes him seriously when he says things like that. And, frankly, it's precisely why, under his leadership, Israel has become so incredibly isolated from the rest of the global community.
Those kinds of statements are illogical, they're irrational, they're so obviously propagandistic. In fact, he went so far as to then bring up the Nazis, which has become kind of a verbal tick for him whenever he brings up either Hamas or ISIS.
Again, these kinds of oversimplifications I think only cause more danger. There is a very real problem. ISIS is a problem. Al Qaeda is a problem. These militant Islamic groups like Hamas, like Hezbollah, like the Taliban have to be dealt with. But it doesn't actually help us to deal with them when, instead of talking about rational conflicts, rational criticisms of a particular religion, we instead so easily slip into bigotry by simply painting everyone with a single brush, as we have been doing in this conversation, mind you.
I mean seriously? He specifically says that FMG IS NOT AN ISSUE IN ANY OTHER MUSLIM MAJORITY COUNTRY OUTSIDE OF AFRICA is that true?
No, hence he is a liar.
If anyone takes what he says and believe it is true and then you look at the actual facts and still believe he is right, you' e bought his lie and you're wrong.
I do not see the problem with the article, and furthermore, I do not see how you can put criticism of games on the same footing as oppression of women and religious minorities. Maybe it is just me, but one of them strikes me as many orders of magnitude more important than the other. Unless you think game developers are actually in danger of loosing their lives over the content of the games they make.
Yonan wrote: Fathers love their children just as much as mothers and are frequently discriminated against for example with child custody in a divorce. Radical feminism is pushing for female rights, when what's needed is a rational look at gender roles and how they should be revised in our current society.
You know that some feminists actually do push for a more equal distribution of paternity/maternity leave, and to fight against the stigma associated to being a househusband, right? That seems like a rational look at gender roles and how they should be revised to me.
To my surprise, there was a good article on Salon in support of Maher (typically, Salon is part if the outrage machine that gives true liberals a bad name). Check it out:
Salon wrote:Bill Maher’s recent monologue on “Real Time” excoriating self-professed liberals for going soft on Islam — hotly debated again last Friday with Ben Affleck and Sam Harris, and expounded on in this exclusive Salon interview — might well serve as a credo for atheist progressives the world over. He began by introducing a photo, originally posted on a social media site, showing a teenager in Pennsylvania mounting a statue of Jesus Christ in such a way as to create the impression that Jesus was fellating him. Noting that it “may not be in good taste,” Maher declared that “there’s no picture that makes my heart swell with patriotism quite like this one.”
Why? He explained that in the United States, with separation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution, the youth, on account of his sacrilegious prank, would not do jail time or face violence because “liberal Western culture is not just different, it’s better. . . . rule of law isn’t just different than theocracy, it’s better. If you don’t see that, then you’re either a religious fanatic or a masochist, but one thing you are certainly notis a liberal.”
(In fact, Maher proved too sanguine about the supposedly religion-free workings of the U.S. justice system. As punishment for the irreverent post, a court ordered the teen to do community service, observe a curfew, and stay off social media for six months. Hardly comparable to facing a fatwa for drawing a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad, but indicative nonetheless of the worrisome pro-faith bias infecting at least courts of law in our supposedly secular republic.)
Maher included Barack Obama among those unwilling to talk straight about Islam, and rebutted the president’s repeated statements that ISIS is “not Islamic” by pointing out that “vast numbers of Muslims across the world believe . . . that humans deserve to die for merely holding a different idea, or drawing a cartoon, or writing a book.” This means, said Maher, that “not only does the Muslim world have something in common with ISIS, it has too much in common with ISIS.”
Maher’s is no offhand opinion, but a blunt statement of fact. A wide-ranging 2013 Pew Research Center poll, conducted between 2008 and 2012 in 39 countries, offered a deeply disturbing, unequivocal overview of the faith-based intolerance prevalent across much of the Muslim world. Among other things, majorities of Muslims – varying somewhat according to region – favor putting to death apostates and adulterers, condemn homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia as immoral, and believe that “a wife must obey her husband.” Large minorities condone “honor killings.” It should be noted that for practical reasons, the Pew Center could not survey Muslims in the repressive, highly conservative Gulf States (including Saudi Arabia, the homeland of Wahhabism), so, if anything, these numbers provide an excessively moderate summary of Muslim positions on issues progressives hold dear.
There can be no doubt about the wellspring of these nevertheless profoundly illiberal results. Texts in the Koran and the Hadith (the sayings and teachings traditionally attributed to the prophet Muhammad) back every one of the retrograde, even repulsive, positions the Pew Center catalogued. There are also passages in these writings that appear more tolerant, but the point is, Muslims looking to back up hardline interpretations of Islam do not lack for scriptural support.
Maher did not cite polls on his show – he is, after all, a comedian – but had he done so, he would have given doubters a way to verify the veracity of his monologue. That left room for interpretation and dispute, or at least for what passes for such on cable news channels. To decode Maher’s pronouncements about Islam, “CNN Tonight’s” hosts Don Lemon and Alisyn Camerota called on Reza Aslan, the author of “No God But God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam” and “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.”
To start the discussion, Lemon asked Aslan what he thought of Maher’s performance. Jumpy and defensive from the start, Aslan quickly steered the discussion away from the gist of Maher’s monologue – that Islam does have a violence problem Western liberals need to be frank about – and toward Maher’s outrage at Female Genital Mutilation. FGM, was “not an Islamic problem, it’s an African problem . . . a Central African problem,” Aslan asserted. “Nowhere else in the Muslim, Muslim-majority states is [FMG] an issue.”
This is flat-out wrong. Though the barbaric practice predates Islam, FMG occurs, as far as is known, in at least twenty-nine countries (among them Egypt, Kurdistan, and Yemen) across a wide swath of Africa and the Middle East, and beyond. Muslims even exported the savage custom to Malaysia and Indonesia, where it is a growing problem. Those working locally to eradicate FGM have, understandably, a good deal of trouble making it an “issue,” given the lack on openness in discussing sex-related topics in the countries involved, so the situation may in fact be worse than is now recognized. And if it wasn’t originally Islamic, it has so been for fourteen centuries. The Prophet Muhammad, in the Hadith, condoned it, even encouraged it (calling it an “honorable quality for women”) and ordaining only that it not be performed “severely.”
Aslan’s erroneous dismissal of FGM as a “central African problem” will help none of the tens of millions of girls and women who have suffered mutilation across the Islamic world, but it will give comfort to those who hope to continue butchering their victims without scrutiny from abroad. Neither CNN’s hosts nor Aslan mentioned Maher’s call to liberals to stop ignoring the practice, nor did they bring up his pointed words about Yale’s craven, abrupt cancelation, earlier this year, of the invitation to speak sent to one of FMG’s most prominent victims, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the brave, Somali-born anti-Islam activist and writer. Maher blames a misguided attempt at evenhandedness by the school’s “atheist organization” for the disinvitation, but — surprise! — it was actually the Muslim Students Association that first asked for her event to be called off.
Lemon pressed Aslan to admit that mistreatment of women is nonetheless a problem in Muslim countries. Aslan misleadingly relegated the problem to Iran and Saudi Arabia, while declaring no such ill bedevils women in Turkey (where honor killings have increased in recent years), Bangladesh, and (FMG-riddled) Malaysia and Indonesia. Nor did he mention the salient fact about the status of women in his chosen “lands of enlightenment” — that women owe their well-being (at least in his eyes) there not to Islam, but to secularism and legal systems based on Western models curbing religious influence in jurisprudence. In Indonesia, however, Shariah law is advancing and may undo protections women now enjoy.
Camerota, however, insisted, wanting to explore “the commonplace wrongs that are happening [to women] in some of these countries.” She mentioned the Saudi prohibition on women driving, which gave Aslan the chance to browbeat both presenters for cherry-picking examples from one “extremist” country and using them to unjustly besmirch the entire Muslim world. He then kept on about Saudi Arabia, as though his hosts, not he, were harping on the country, and declared that their Saudi-centered approach was not a “legitimate” way to talk about Muslim women, but amounted to “bigotry” – a charge sure to intimidate his questioners and get them to back off.
It worked, at least for a moment. “Fair enough,” Lemon answered, though possibly less because he agreed and more because he wanted to move the interview along. After airing a clip of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu equating ISIS and Hamas at the United Nations, he asked Aslan straight-out: “Does Islam promote violence?”
“Islam doesn’t promote violence or peace,” said Aslan. “Islam is just a religion, and like every religion in the world, it depends on what you bring to it . . . . There are Buddhist marauding Buddhist monks in Myanmar slaughtering women and children. Does Buddhism promote violence? Of course not. People are violent or peaceful. . . .” He then dribbled off into generic blather about social, political and psychological reasons for violence, none of which, in his telling, had anything to do with Islam or any other faith.
Aslan was apparently trying to establish a false equivalency of moral turpitude among religions and their supposedly more or less identical propensity to incite slaughter – a tactic singularly ill-suited where Islam is concerned. After all, Muslim warriors spread their faith by the sword from Arabia west across Africa into Spain, and east to Indonesia. As for Myanmar, that even Buddhism can be used in such a way as to justify murder stands as evidence that religion per se is to blame.
In contrast, ISIS’s very name pinpoints its inspiration: whether ISIS or ISIL or IS, “Islamic” figures in each acronym its followers have used to designate it. Even the means of death it visits on its hostages – beheadings – finds support in the Koran (8:12), which commands its followers to “strike off [the] heads and strike off every fingertip of” unbelievers in wartime. If Western countries have abandoned religious rule for secular governance, and thus left confessional conflict behind, ISIS jihadis are striving to do the opposite, and seek to establish, or already have established, a theocracy (the Caliphate), with Islam as their stated justification for warfare. Why should we ignore their own words?
Camerota politely then asked Aslan for a definitive answer on whether the “justice system in Muslim countries . . . is somehow more primitive, or subjugates women more than in other countries.”
“Did you hear what you just said?” Aslan snapped back. “You said in Muslim countries,” but in (FGM-afflicted) Indonesia, “women are absolutely 100-percent equal to men. In Turkey, they have had more . . . female heads of state in Turkey than we have in the United States.” (The Turks have had exactly one female head of state, and she presided before the crypto-Islamist Reccep Tayyip Erdogan came to power and began rolling back the women-friendly policies the secular Republic of Turkey had been known for since Kemal Ataturk, who abolished the Ottoman Caliphate, founded it in 1923.) “Stop saying things like Muslim countries!”
Camerota tried to calm down her guest, and sought to find a “common thread” – that “somehow their justice system, or Shariah law, or what they’re doing in terms of stoning, and female mutilation is different than in . . . Western countries.”
Aslan dodged the question, condemning those practices (despite the Hadith’s prescription of stoning as a method of punishment) as “barbaric,” and retorted by once more mischaracterizing her question as an attempt to equate “what is happening in the most extreme forms of these repressive countries” – Pakistan and Saudi Arabia – with what is going on in Turkey or Indonesia. He then called the version of the question he himself put in her mouth “stupid,” strongly implying that Camerota herself deserved the insult as well.
Lemon segued to footage from Netanyahu’s U.N. address and his statement that the problem was “not Islam, but “militant Islam.” Was Netanyahu, correct, asked Lemon, in making such a “clear distinction?” Aslan wouldn’t say, but instead jumped back to the Israeli prime minister’s earlier comparison of Hamas and ISIS, which Aslan found illogical, irrational and propagandistic.
Aslan provided an inept coda to the tense interview, instructing his hosts that they present “rational conflicts, rational criticisms of a particular religion,” and not “easily slip into bigotry by . . . painting everyone with a single brush, as we have been doing in this conversation, mind you.”
“We appreciate your perspective in helping everyone understand your perspective,” concluded Camerota before moving on to the next subject.
But that wasn’t the end of it. In an on-air discussion the next day with CNN’s Chris Cuomo, Lemon and Camerota halfheartedly defended their benign attempt to get straight answers from Aslan. Camerota noted that Aslan had apologized via Twitter for using the word “stupid.” Cuomo commented, justifiably, that Aslan’s “tone was very angry, so he wound up kind of demonstrating what people are fearful of when they think of the faith in the first place.” And a couple of nights later, Bill Maher, with celebrity New Atheist Sam Harris at his side, brought up the topic again on his show, which provoked guest Ben Affleck to conflate race with faith and call Maher’s (and Harris’s) criticism of Islam “gross” and racist.”
What lessons are we to draw from all this televised shouting, name-calling, and unprofessional journalistic capitulation to PC scare tactics meant to deflect attention from what Maher was originally trying to highlight – liberals’ failure to stand up for the superiority of law-based societies over theocracy? CNN set itself up to fail by deploying hosts insufficiently knowledgeable about the Muslim world to deal with Aslan and his rhetorical ruses. They were also clearly too fearful of being labeled “bigoted” – specifically, racist or Islamophobic – to break through his obfuscation, if they indeed even perceived it as such.
As for Maher, he remains unrepentant.
Can President Obama be pardoned for denying the obvious link between Islam and ISIS’s atrocities? After all, if he told the truth, he would ignite a media firestorm, give terrorist recruiters material, and potentially endanger Americans at home and overseas. He would also cast himself into even deeper disfavor with his progressive electorate, where resentment of “Islamophobia” runs high. It would indeed be useful, though, in the interests of honest public debate, if Obama acknowledged that Islam had at least something to do with what ISIS has been up to; after all, hundreds of Westerners (including some Americans) have set off to join the terrorists in the killing fields of Iraq and Syria, motivated, one can justifiably assume, by religion. In the battle for ideas against Islamic extremism, frank talk from the president would be a big help.
The rest of us – I have in mind atheists of all political persuasions — must yield nothing to those advocating faith-based solutions for our ills. As Maher said, we should not be afraid to judge. We must never cede to misguided notions of civility and refrain from criticizing religion, which is, after all, nothing more than hallowed ideology expressed through fantastic fables. People deserve respect; ideologies do not. Doctrines deriving from allegedly divine revelation demand the closest scrutiny. The very concept of religious revelation – from which Islam, Christianity, and Judaism draw their validity — is an affront to rationalism and reasoned discussion. To further the latter, the word “Islamophobia” should be excised from the lexicon of every thinking individual as pernicious to free speech. It equates racism with criticism of religion, as though Islam, a universalist faith, had only adherents of a single skin color, and provides casuistic cover for those believers who would shield their words from judgment.
Moreover, we need to turn our critical irreligious gaze to what has been going wrong in the United States since the Reagan era as well. We herald the humanism allegedly inherent in the secular nature of our republic, while much of our Congress is in thrall to the religious right, with a House Science Committee that denies the reality of climate change, and, more broadly, a growing number of Republicans disbelieving the theory of evolution – 48 percent, according to recent data, up from 39 percent in 2009. Women are still paid less than men in the workplace, and the freedom to do as they chose with their bodies – as evidenced by, in some states, the offensive underway against abortion rights and compensation for birth control – is ever more under threat. Sexual assault against women remains a serious problem, with faith-based biases still imbuing, whether obviously or not, both the victims’ responses to the crime and the way our courts deal with the issue.
In talking about religion, Bill Maher has essentially been making some of these same points. Strange that it has fallen to a comedian to do so. But the more thoughtful controversy he provokes, the greater aid he provides to atheists. In the end, that will help the progressive cause domestically and abroad and hurt ISIS – with no shots fired.
Yonan wrote: Fathers love their children just as much as mothers and are frequently discriminated against for example with child custody in a divorce. Radical feminism is pushing for female rights, when what's needed is a rational look at gender roles and how they should be revised in our current society.
You know that some feminists actually do push for a more equal distribution of paternity/maternity leave, and to fight against the stigma associated to being a househusband, right? That seems like a rational look at gender roles and how they should be revised to me.
Did you miss the "radical"? That implies that yeah, I do know of non-radical (being one myself, although a more accurate term is egalitarian) and wasn't talking about them. You do know that there are radicals right, that *aren't* having a rational look at gender roles, and that it's causing substantial problems?
Bromsy wrote: And FGM is fairly widely reported in countries outside of Africa - a good chunk of them Islamic countries. The out and out statement that it only happens in Africa and is thus an African and not Islamic problem is nonsensical.
Its also the same exact kind of generalization that Aslan accuses Maher of. Africa is not a country.
So it would seem we could add 'hypocrite' to Aslan's resume.
Hopefully, this guys 15 minutes of fame after writing a book about Jesus and getting attacked by Fox News for it will soon be over. After all the fact checking articles have come in, there's really no other conclusion I can reach than he deliberately promotes untruths and distrotions of the truth....and if it looks like a liar, smells like a liar, and acts like a liar...
Yonan wrote: Fathers love their children just as much as mothers and are frequently discriminated against for example with child custody in a divorce. Radical feminism is pushing for female rights, when what's needed is a rational look at gender roles and how they should be revised in our current society.
You know that some feminists actually do push for a more equal distribution of paternity/maternity leave, and to fight against the stigma associated to being a househusband, right? That seems like a rational look at gender roles and how they should be revised to me.
Did you miss the "radical"? That implies that yeah, I do know of non-radical (being one myself, although a more accurate term is egalitarian) and wasn't talking about them. You do know that there are radicals right, that *aren't* having a rational look at gender roles, and that it's causing substantial problems?
And sadly, that "some" in the United States is in the absurdly small minority.
Parental rights in the US aren't even remotely on the same footing. It's actually a bit scary how imbalanced it is. (Hyperbole incoming) In order for a father to gain custody of a child, the mother basically has to be a multiple time felon or presently incarcerated. Paternity/Maternity leave is fething small potatoes compared to the gross imbalance with custody and, honestly, initial choice regarding having the child in the first place.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: To my surprise, there was a good article on Salon in support of Maher (typically, Salon is part if the outrage machine that gives true liberals a bad name). Check it out:
Spoiler:
Salon wrote:Bill Maher’s recent monologue on “Real Time” excoriating self-professed liberals for going soft on Islam — hotly debated again last Friday with Ben Affleck and Sam Harris, and expounded on in this exclusive Salon interview — might well serve as a credo for atheist progressives the world over. He began by introducing a photo, originally posted on a social media site, showing a teenager in Pennsylvania mounting a statue of Jesus Christ in such a way as to create the impression that Jesus was fellating him. Noting that it “may not be in good taste,” Maher declared that “there’s no picture that makes my heart swell with patriotism quite like this one.”
Why? He explained that in the United States, with separation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution, the youth, on account of his sacrilegious prank, would not do jail time or face violence because “liberal Western culture is not just different, it’s better. . . . rule of law isn’t just different than theocracy, it’s better. If you don’t see that, then you’re either a religious fanatic or a masochist, but one thing you are certainly notis a liberal.”
(In fact, Maher proved too sanguine about the supposedly religion-free workings of the U.S. justice system. As punishment for the irreverent post, a court ordered the teen to do community service, observe a curfew, and stay off social media for six months. Hardly comparable to facing a fatwa for drawing a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad, but indicative nonetheless of the worrisome pro-faith bias infecting at least courts of law in our supposedly secular republic.)
Maher included Barack Obama among those unwilling to talk straight about Islam, and rebutted the president’s repeated statements that ISIS is “not Islamic” by pointing out that “vast numbers of Muslims across the world believe . . . that humans deserve to die for merely holding a different idea, or drawing a cartoon, or writing a book.” This means, said Maher, that “not only does the Muslim world have something in common with ISIS, it has too much in common with ISIS.”
Maher’s is no offhand opinion, but a blunt statement of fact. A wide-ranging 2013 Pew Research Center poll, conducted between 2008 and 2012 in 39 countries, offered a deeply disturbing, unequivocal overview of the faith-based intolerance prevalent across much of the Muslim world. Among other things, majorities of Muslims – varying somewhat according to region – favor putting to death apostates and adulterers, condemn homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia as immoral, and believe that “a wife must obey her husband.” Large minorities condone “honor killings.” It should be noted that for practical reasons, the Pew Center could not survey Muslims in the repressive, highly conservative Gulf States (including Saudi Arabia, the homeland of Wahhabism), so, if anything, these numbers provide an excessively moderate summary of Muslim positions on issues progressives hold dear.
There can be no doubt about the wellspring of these nevertheless profoundly illiberal results. Texts in the Koran and the Hadith (the sayings and teachings traditionally attributed to the prophet Muhammad) back every one of the retrograde, even repulsive, positions the Pew Center catalogued. There are also passages in these writings that appear more tolerant, but the point is, Muslims looking to back up hardline interpretations of Islam do not lack for scriptural support.
Maher did not cite polls on his show – he is, after all, a comedian – but had he done so, he would have given doubters a way to verify the veracity of his monologue. That left room for interpretation and dispute, or at least for what passes for such on cable news channels. To decode Maher’s pronouncements about Islam, “CNN Tonight’s” hosts Don Lemon and Alisyn Camerota called on Reza Aslan, the author of “No God But God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam” and “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.”
To start the discussion, Lemon asked Aslan what he thought of Maher’s performance. Jumpy and defensive from the start, Aslan quickly steered the discussion away from the gist of Maher’s monologue – that Islam does have a violence problem Western liberals need to be frank about – and toward Maher’s outrage at Female Genital Mutilation. FGM, was “not an Islamic problem, it’s an African problem . . . a Central African problem,” Aslan asserted. “Nowhere else in the Muslim, Muslim-majority states is [FMG] an issue.”
This is flat-out wrong. Though the barbaric practice predates Islam, FMG occurs, as far as is known, in at least twenty-nine countries (among them Egypt, Kurdistan, and Yemen) across a wide swath of Africa and the Middle East, and beyond. Muslims even exported the savage custom to Malaysia and Indonesia, where it is a growing problem. Those working locally to eradicate FGM have, understandably, a good deal of trouble making it an “issue,” given the lack on openness in discussing sex-related topics in the countries involved, so the situation may in fact be worse than is now recognized. And if it wasn’t originally Islamic, it has so been for fourteen centuries. The Prophet Muhammad, in the Hadith, condoned it, even encouraged it (calling it an “honorable quality for women”) and ordaining only that it not be performed “severely.”
Aslan’s erroneous dismissal of FGM as a “central African problem” will help none of the tens of millions of girls and women who have suffered mutilation across the Islamic world, but it will give comfort to those who hope to continue butchering their victims without scrutiny from abroad. Neither CNN’s hosts nor Aslan mentioned Maher’s call to liberals to stop ignoring the practice, nor did they bring up his pointed words about Yale’s craven, abrupt cancelation, earlier this year, of the invitation to speak sent to one of FMG’s most prominent victims, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the brave, Somali-born anti-Islam activist and writer. Maher blames a misguided attempt at evenhandedness by the school’s “atheist organization” for the disinvitation, but — surprise! — it was actually the Muslim Students Association that first asked for her event to be called off.
Lemon pressed Aslan to admit that mistreatment of women is nonetheless a problem in Muslim countries. Aslan misleadingly relegated the problem to Iran and Saudi Arabia, while declaring no such ill bedevils women in Turkey (where honor killings have increased in recent years), Bangladesh, and (FMG-riddled) Malaysia and Indonesia. Nor did he mention the salient fact about the status of women in his chosen “lands of enlightenment” — that women owe their well-being (at least in his eyes) there not to Islam, but to secularism and legal systems based on Western models curbing religious influence in jurisprudence. In Indonesia, however, Shariah law is advancing and may undo protections women now enjoy.
Camerota, however, insisted, wanting to explore “the commonplace wrongs that are happening [to women] in some of these countries.” She mentioned the Saudi prohibition on women driving, which gave Aslan the chance to browbeat both presenters for cherry-picking examples from one “extremist” country and using them to unjustly besmirch the entire Muslim world. He then kept on about Saudi Arabia, as though his hosts, not he, were harping on the country, and declared that their Saudi-centered approach was not a “legitimate” way to talk about Muslim women, but amounted to “bigotry” – a charge sure to intimidate his questioners and get them to back off.
It worked, at least for a moment. “Fair enough,” Lemon answered, though possibly less because he agreed and more because he wanted to move the interview along. After airing a clip of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu equating ISIS and Hamas at the United Nations, he asked Aslan straight-out: “Does Islam promote violence?”
“Islam doesn’t promote violence or peace,” said Aslan. “Islam is just a religion, and like every religion in the world, it depends on what you bring to it . . . . There are Buddhist marauding Buddhist monks in Myanmar slaughtering women and children. Does Buddhism promote violence? Of course not. People are violent or peaceful. . . .” He then dribbled off into generic blather about social, political and psychological reasons for violence, none of which, in his telling, had anything to do with Islam or any other faith.
Aslan was apparently trying to establish a false equivalency of moral turpitude among religions and their supposedly more or less identical propensity to incite slaughter – a tactic singularly ill-suited where Islam is concerned. After all, Muslim warriors spread their faith by the sword from Arabia west across Africa into Spain, and east to Indonesia. As for Myanmar, that even Buddhism can be used in such a way as to justify murder stands as evidence that religion per se is to blame.
In contrast, ISIS’s very name pinpoints its inspiration: whether ISIS or ISIL or IS, “Islamic” figures in each acronym its followers have used to designate it. Even the means of death it visits on its hostages – beheadings – finds support in the Koran (8:12), which commands its followers to “strike off [the] heads and strike off every fingertip of” unbelievers in wartime. If Western countries have abandoned religious rule for secular governance, and thus left confessional conflict behind, ISIS jihadis are striving to do the opposite, and seek to establish, or already have established, a theocracy (the Caliphate), with Islam as their stated justification for warfare. Why should we ignore their own words?
Camerota politely then asked Aslan for a definitive answer on whether the “justice system in Muslim countries . . . is somehow more primitive, or subjugates women more than in other countries.”
“Did you hear what you just said?” Aslan snapped back. “You said in Muslim countries,” but in (FGM-afflicted) Indonesia, “women are absolutely 100-percent equal to men. In Turkey, they have had more . . . female heads of state in Turkey than we have in the United States.” (The Turks have had exactly one female head of state, and she presided before the crypto-Islamist Reccep Tayyip Erdogan came to power and began rolling back the women-friendly policies the secular Republic of Turkey had been known for since Kemal Ataturk, who abolished the Ottoman Caliphate, founded it in 1923.) “Stop saying things like Muslim countries!”
Camerota tried to calm down her guest, and sought to find a “common thread” – that “somehow their justice system, or Shariah law, or what they’re doing in terms of stoning, and female mutilation is different than in . . . Western countries.”
Aslan dodged the question, condemning those practices (despite the Hadith’s prescription of stoning as a method of punishment) as “barbaric,” and retorted by once more mischaracterizing her question as an attempt to equate “what is happening in the most extreme forms of these repressive countries” – Pakistan and Saudi Arabia – with what is going on in Turkey or Indonesia. He then called the version of the question he himself put in her mouth “stupid,” strongly implying that Camerota herself deserved the insult as well.
Lemon segued to footage from Netanyahu’s U.N. address and his statement that the problem was “not Islam, but “militant Islam.” Was Netanyahu, correct, asked Lemon, in making such a “clear distinction?” Aslan wouldn’t say, but instead jumped back to the Israeli prime minister’s earlier comparison of Hamas and ISIS, which Aslan found illogical, irrational and propagandistic.
Aslan provided an inept coda to the tense interview, instructing his hosts that they present “rational conflicts, rational criticisms of a particular religion,” and not “easily slip into bigotry by . . . painting everyone with a single brush, as we have been doing in this conversation, mind you.”
“We appreciate your perspective in helping everyone understand your perspective,” concluded Camerota before moving on to the next subject.
But that wasn’t the end of it. In an on-air discussion the next day with CNN’s Chris Cuomo, Lemon and Camerota halfheartedly defended their benign attempt to get straight answers from Aslan. Camerota noted that Aslan had apologized via Twitter for using the word “stupid.” Cuomo commented, justifiably, that Aslan’s “tone was very angry, so he wound up kind of demonstrating what people are fearful of when they think of the faith in the first place.” And a couple of nights later, Bill Maher, with celebrity New Atheist Sam Harris at his side, brought up the topic again on his show, which provoked guest Ben Affleck to conflate race with faith and call Maher’s (and Harris’s) criticism of Islam “gross” and racist.”
What lessons are we to draw from all this televised shouting, name-calling, and unprofessional journalistic capitulation to PC scare tactics meant to deflect attention from what Maher was originally trying to highlight – liberals’ failure to stand up for the superiority of law-based societies over theocracy? CNN set itself up to fail by deploying hosts insufficiently knowledgeable about the Muslim world to deal with Aslan and his rhetorical ruses. They were also clearly too fearful of being labeled “bigoted” – specifically, racist or Islamophobic – to break through his obfuscation, if they indeed even perceived it as such.
As for Maher, he remains unrepentant.
Can President Obama be pardoned for denying the obvious link between Islam and ISIS’s atrocities? After all, if he told the truth, he would ignite a media firestorm, give terrorist recruiters material, and potentially endanger Americans at home and overseas. He would also cast himself into even deeper disfavor with his progressive electorate, where resentment of “Islamophobia” runs high. It would indeed be useful, though, in the interests of honest public debate, if Obama acknowledged that Islam had at least something to do with what ISIS has been up to; after all, hundreds of Westerners (including some Americans) have set off to join the terrorists in the killing fields of Iraq and Syria, motivated, one can justifiably assume, by religion. In the battle for ideas against Islamic extremism, frank talk from the president would be a big help.
The rest of us – I have in mind atheists of all political persuasions — must yield nothing to those advocating faith-based solutions for our ills. As Maher said, we should not be afraid to judge. We must never cede to misguided notions of civility and refrain from criticizing religion, which is, after all, nothing more than hallowed ideology expressed through fantastic fables. People deserve respect; ideologies do not. Doctrines deriving from allegedly divine revelation demand the closest scrutiny. The very concept of religious revelation – from which Islam, Christianity, and Judaism draw their validity — is an affront to rationalism and reasoned discussion. To further the latter, the word “Islamophobia” should be excised from the lexicon of every thinking individual as pernicious to free speech. It equates racism with criticism of religion, as though Islam, a universalist faith, had only adherents of a single skin color, and provides casuistic cover for those believers who would shield their words from judgment.
Moreover, we need to turn our critical irreligious gaze to what has been going wrong in the United States since the Reagan era as well. We herald the humanism allegedly inherent in the secular nature of our republic, while much of our Congress is in thrall to the religious right, with a House Science Committee that denies the reality of climate change, and, more broadly, a growing number of Republicans disbelieving the theory of evolution – 48 percent, according to recent data, up from 39 percent in 2009. Women are still paid less than men in the workplace, and the freedom to do as they chose with their bodies – as evidenced by, in some states, the offensive underway against abortion rights and compensation for birth control – is ever more under threat. Sexual assault against women remains a serious problem, with faith-based biases still imbuing, whether obviously or not, both the victims’ responses to the crime and the way our courts deal with the issue.
In talking about religion, Bill Maher has essentially been making some of these same points. Strange that it has fallen to a comedian to do so. But the more thoughtful controversy he provokes, the greater aid he provides to atheists. In the end, that will help the progressive cause domestically and abroad and hurt ISIS – with no shots fired.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: To my surprise, there was a good article on Salon in support of Maher (typically, Salon is part if the outrage machine that gives true liberals a bad name). Check it out:
Spoiler:
Salon wrote:Bill Maher’s recent monologue on “Real Time” excoriating self-professed liberals for going soft on Islam — hotly debated again last Friday with Ben Affleck and Sam Harris, and expounded on in this exclusive Salon interview — might well serve as a credo for atheist progressives the world over. He began by introducing a photo, originally posted on a social media site, showing a teenager in Pennsylvania mounting a statue of Jesus Christ in such a way as to create the impression that Jesus was fellating him. Noting that it “may not be in good taste,” Maher declared that “there’s no picture that makes my heart swell with patriotism quite like this one.”
Why? He explained that in the United States, with separation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution, the youth, on account of his sacrilegious prank, would not do jail time or face violence because “liberal Western culture is not just different, it’s better. . . . rule of law isn’t just different than theocracy, it’s better. If you don’t see that, then you’re either a religious fanatic or a masochist, but one thing you are certainly notis a liberal.”
(In fact, Maher proved too sanguine about the supposedly religion-free workings of the U.S. justice system. As punishment for the irreverent post, a court ordered the teen to do community service, observe a curfew, and stay off social media for six months. Hardly comparable to facing a fatwa for drawing a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad, but indicative nonetheless of the worrisome pro-faith bias infecting at least courts of law in our supposedly secular republic.)
Maher included Barack Obama among those unwilling to talk straight about Islam, and rebutted the president’s repeated statements that ISIS is “not Islamic” by pointing out that “vast numbers of Muslims across the world believe . . . that humans deserve to die for merely holding a different idea, or drawing a cartoon, or writing a book.” This means, said Maher, that “not only does the Muslim world have something in common with ISIS, it has too much in common with ISIS.”
Maher’s is no offhand opinion, but a blunt statement of fact. A wide-ranging 2013 Pew Research Center poll, conducted between 2008 and 2012 in 39 countries, offered a deeply disturbing, unequivocal overview of the faith-based intolerance prevalent across much of the Muslim world. Among other things, majorities of Muslims – varying somewhat according to region – favor putting to death apostates and adulterers, condemn homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia as immoral, and believe that “a wife must obey her husband.” Large minorities condone “honor killings.” It should be noted that for practical reasons, the Pew Center could not survey Muslims in the repressive, highly conservative Gulf States (including Saudi Arabia, the homeland of Wahhabism), so, if anything, these numbers provide an excessively moderate summary of Muslim positions on issues progressives hold dear.
There can be no doubt about the wellspring of these nevertheless profoundly illiberal results. Texts in the Koran and the Hadith (the sayings and teachings traditionally attributed to the prophet Muhammad) back every one of the retrograde, even repulsive, positions the Pew Center catalogued. There are also passages in these writings that appear more tolerant, but the point is, Muslims looking to back up hardline interpretations of Islam do not lack for scriptural support.
Maher did not cite polls on his show – he is, after all, a comedian – but had he done so, he would have given doubters a way to verify the veracity of his monologue. That left room for interpretation and dispute, or at least for what passes for such on cable news channels. To decode Maher’s pronouncements about Islam, “CNN Tonight’s” hosts Don Lemon and Alisyn Camerota called on Reza Aslan, the author of “No God But God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam” and “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.”
To start the discussion, Lemon asked Aslan what he thought of Maher’s performance. Jumpy and defensive from the start, Aslan quickly steered the discussion away from the gist of Maher’s monologue – that Islam does have a violence problem Western liberals need to be frank about – and toward Maher’s outrage at Female Genital Mutilation. FGM, was “not an Islamic problem, it’s an African problem . . . a Central African problem,” Aslan asserted. “Nowhere else in the Muslim, Muslim-majority states is [FMG] an issue.”
This is flat-out wrong. Though the barbaric practice predates Islam, FMG occurs, as far as is known, in at least twenty-nine countries (among them Egypt, Kurdistan, and Yemen) across a wide swath of Africa and the Middle East, and beyond. Muslims even exported the savage custom to Malaysia and Indonesia, where it is a growing problem. Those working locally to eradicate FGM have, understandably, a good deal of trouble making it an “issue,” given the lack on openness in discussing sex-related topics in the countries involved, so the situation may in fact be worse than is now recognized. And if it wasn’t originally Islamic, it has so been for fourteen centuries. The Prophet Muhammad, in the Hadith, condoned it, even encouraged it (calling it an “honorable quality for women”) and ordaining only that it not be performed “severely.”
Aslan’s erroneous dismissal of FGM as a “central African problem” will help none of the tens of millions of girls and women who have suffered mutilation across the Islamic world, but it will give comfort to those who hope to continue butchering their victims without scrutiny from abroad. Neither CNN’s hosts nor Aslan mentioned Maher’s call to liberals to stop ignoring the practice, nor did they bring up his pointed words about Yale’s craven, abrupt cancelation, earlier this year, of the invitation to speak sent to one of FMG’s most prominent victims, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the brave, Somali-born anti-Islam activist and writer. Maher blames a misguided attempt at evenhandedness by the school’s “atheist organization” for the disinvitation, but — surprise! — it was actually the Muslim Students Association that first asked for her event to be called off.
Lemon pressed Aslan to admit that mistreatment of women is nonetheless a problem in Muslim countries. Aslan misleadingly relegated the problem to Iran and Saudi Arabia, while declaring no such ill bedevils women in Turkey (where honor killings have increased in recent years), Bangladesh, and (FMG-riddled) Malaysia and Indonesia. Nor did he mention the salient fact about the status of women in his chosen “lands of enlightenment” — that women owe their well-being (at least in his eyes) there not to Islam, but to secularism and legal systems based on Western models curbing religious influence in jurisprudence. In Indonesia, however, Shariah law is advancing and may undo protections women now enjoy.
Camerota, however, insisted, wanting to explore “the commonplace wrongs that are happening [to women] in some of these countries.” She mentioned the Saudi prohibition on women driving, which gave Aslan the chance to browbeat both presenters for cherry-picking examples from one “extremist” country and using them to unjustly besmirch the entire Muslim world. He then kept on about Saudi Arabia, as though his hosts, not he, were harping on the country, and declared that their Saudi-centered approach was not a “legitimate” way to talk about Muslim women, but amounted to “bigotry” – a charge sure to intimidate his questioners and get them to back off.
It worked, at least for a moment. “Fair enough,” Lemon answered, though possibly less because he agreed and more because he wanted to move the interview along. After airing a clip of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu equating ISIS and Hamas at the United Nations, he asked Aslan straight-out: “Does Islam promote violence?”
“Islam doesn’t promote violence or peace,” said Aslan. “Islam is just a religion, and like every religion in the world, it depends on what you bring to it . . . . There are Buddhist marauding Buddhist monks in Myanmar slaughtering women and children. Does Buddhism promote violence? Of course not. People are violent or peaceful. . . .” He then dribbled off into generic blather about social, political and psychological reasons for violence, none of which, in his telling, had anything to do with Islam or any other faith.
Aslan was apparently trying to establish a false equivalency of moral turpitude among religions and their supposedly more or less identical propensity to incite slaughter – a tactic singularly ill-suited where Islam is concerned. After all, Muslim warriors spread their faith by the sword from Arabia west across Africa into Spain, and east to Indonesia. As for Myanmar, that even Buddhism can be used in such a way as to justify murder stands as evidence that religion per se is to blame.
In contrast, ISIS’s very name pinpoints its inspiration: whether ISIS or ISIL or IS, “Islamic” figures in each acronym its followers have used to designate it. Even the means of death it visits on its hostages – beheadings – finds support in the Koran (8:12), which commands its followers to “strike off [the] heads and strike off every fingertip of” unbelievers in wartime. If Western countries have abandoned religious rule for secular governance, and thus left confessional conflict behind, ISIS jihadis are striving to do the opposite, and seek to establish, or already have established, a theocracy (the Caliphate), with Islam as their stated justification for warfare. Why should we ignore their own words?
Camerota politely then asked Aslan for a definitive answer on whether the “justice system in Muslim countries . . . is somehow more primitive, or subjugates women more than in other countries.”
“Did you hear what you just said?” Aslan snapped back. “You said in Muslim countries,” but in (FGM-afflicted) Indonesia, “women are absolutely 100-percent equal to men. In Turkey, they have had more . . . female heads of state in Turkey than we have in the United States.” (The Turks have had exactly one female head of state, and she presided before the crypto-Islamist Reccep Tayyip Erdogan came to power and began rolling back the women-friendly policies the secular Republic of Turkey had been known for since Kemal Ataturk, who abolished the Ottoman Caliphate, founded it in 1923.) “Stop saying things like Muslim countries!”
Camerota tried to calm down her guest, and sought to find a “common thread” – that “somehow their justice system, or Shariah law, or what they’re doing in terms of stoning, and female mutilation is different than in . . . Western countries.”
Aslan dodged the question, condemning those practices (despite the Hadith’s prescription of stoning as a method of punishment) as “barbaric,” and retorted by once more mischaracterizing her question as an attempt to equate “what is happening in the most extreme forms of these repressive countries” – Pakistan and Saudi Arabia – with what is going on in Turkey or Indonesia. He then called the version of the question he himself put in her mouth “stupid,” strongly implying that Camerota herself deserved the insult as well.
Lemon segued to footage from Netanyahu’s U.N. address and his statement that the problem was “not Islam, but “militant Islam.” Was Netanyahu, correct, asked Lemon, in making such a “clear distinction?” Aslan wouldn’t say, but instead jumped back to the Israeli prime minister’s earlier comparison of Hamas and ISIS, which Aslan found illogical, irrational and propagandistic.
Aslan provided an inept coda to the tense interview, instructing his hosts that they present “rational conflicts, rational criticisms of a particular religion,” and not “easily slip into bigotry by . . . painting everyone with a single brush, as we have been doing in this conversation, mind you.”
“We appreciate your perspective in helping everyone understand your perspective,” concluded Camerota before moving on to the next subject.
But that wasn’t the end of it. In an on-air discussion the next day with CNN’s Chris Cuomo, Lemon and Camerota halfheartedly defended their benign attempt to get straight answers from Aslan. Camerota noted that Aslan had apologized via Twitter for using the word “stupid.” Cuomo commented, justifiably, that Aslan’s “tone was very angry, so he wound up kind of demonstrating what people are fearful of when they think of the faith in the first place.” And a couple of nights later, Bill Maher, with celebrity New Atheist Sam Harris at his side, brought up the topic again on his show, which provoked guest Ben Affleck to conflate race with faith and call Maher’s (and Harris’s) criticism of Islam “gross” and racist.”
What lessons are we to draw from all this televised shouting, name-calling, and unprofessional journalistic capitulation to PC scare tactics meant to deflect attention from what Maher was originally trying to highlight – liberals’ failure to stand up for the superiority of law-based societies over theocracy? CNN set itself up to fail by deploying hosts insufficiently knowledgeable about the Muslim world to deal with Aslan and his rhetorical ruses. They were also clearly too fearful of being labeled “bigoted” – specifically, racist or Islamophobic – to break through his obfuscation, if they indeed even perceived it as such.
As for Maher, he remains unrepentant.
Can President Obama be pardoned for denying the obvious link between Islam and ISIS’s atrocities? After all, if he told the truth, he would ignite a media firestorm, give terrorist recruiters material, and potentially endanger Americans at home and overseas. He would also cast himself into even deeper disfavor with his progressive electorate, where resentment of “Islamophobia” runs high. It would indeed be useful, though, in the interests of honest public debate, if Obama acknowledged that Islam had at least something to do with what ISIS has been up to; after all, hundreds of Westerners (including some Americans) have set off to join the terrorists in the killing fields of Iraq and Syria, motivated, one can justifiably assume, by religion. In the battle for ideas against Islamic extremism, frank talk from the president would be a big help.
The rest of us – I have in mind atheists of all political persuasions — must yield nothing to those advocating faith-based solutions for our ills. As Maher said, we should not be afraid to judge. We must never cede to misguided notions of civility and refrain from criticizing religion, which is, after all, nothing more than hallowed ideology expressed through fantastic fables. People deserve respect; ideologies do not. Doctrines deriving from allegedly divine revelation demand the closest scrutiny. The very concept of religious revelation – from which Islam, Christianity, and Judaism draw their validity — is an affront to rationalism and reasoned discussion. To further the latter, the word “Islamophobia” should be excised from the lexicon of every thinking individual as pernicious to free speech. It equates racism with criticism of religion, as though Islam, a universalist faith, had only adherents of a single skin color, and provides casuistic cover for those believers who would shield their words from judgment.
Moreover, we need to turn our critical irreligious gaze to what has been going wrong in the United States since the Reagan era as well. We herald the humanism allegedly inherent in the secular nature of our republic, while much of our Congress is in thrall to the religious right, with a House Science Committee that denies the reality of climate change, and, more broadly, a growing number of Republicans disbelieving the theory of evolution – 48 percent, according to recent data, up from 39 percent in 2009. Women are still paid less than men in the workplace, and the freedom to do as they chose with their bodies – as evidenced by, in some states, the offensive underway against abortion rights and compensation for birth control – is ever more under threat. Sexual assault against women remains a serious problem, with faith-based biases still imbuing, whether obviously or not, both the victims’ responses to the crime and the way our courts deal with the issue.
In talking about religion, Bill Maher has essentially been making some of these same points. Strange that it has fallen to a comedian to do so. But the more thoughtful controversy he provokes, the greater aid he provides to atheists. In the end, that will help the progressive cause domestically and abroad and hurt ISIS – with no shots fired.
Bromsy wrote: And FGM is fairly widely reported in countries outside of Africa - a good chunk of them Islamic countries. The out and out statement that it only happens in Africa and is thus an African and not Islamic problem is nonsensical.
Its also the same exact kind of generalization that Aslan accuses Maher of. Africa is not a country.
So it would seem we could add 'hypocrite' to Aslan's resume.
No, it's not. Nothing that Aslan said implies that Africa is a country, and he specifically mentions it being a "central African" problem, denoting that he believes it to be a regional problem rather than a national one. He also specifically mentions multiple countries in the region. I can see how you could disagree with him, but I don't see how you could watch that interview and come away with the idea that he was implying Africa is a country.
Parental rights in the US aren't even remotely on the same footing. It's actually a bit scary how imbalanced it is. (Hyperbole incoming) In order for a father to gain custody of a child, the mother basically has to be a multiple time felon or presently incarcerated. Paternity/Maternity leave is fething small potatoes compared to the gross imbalance with custody and, honestly, initial choice regarding having the child in the first place.
In my experience, assuming both parties are reasonably competent and non-felons/drug users, if fathers actually want either shared custody or significant visitation time, they can get it easily. Most cases that I'm familiar with that involve fathers being denied either shared custody or visitation, it's been due to the fathers either being completely unaware of their parental rights and not pressing the issue, or actively choosing not to exercise them.
Grey Templar wrote: Sure, its easy for them to get visitation or shared custody. Nearly impossible to get full custody.
The inverse of that is you could just as easily claim that is it's nearly impossible for the mother to get full custody if the father wants shared custody. And as long as both parents are competent, I don't personally see a reason why one should get full custody over the other.
Yonan wrote: You do know that there are radicals right, that *aren't* having a rational look at gender roles, and that it's causing substantial problems?
I think at least some of those I was talking about, you would consider them radicals if you had for instance a discussion on the representation of female characters in video games .
Bromsy wrote: And FGM is fairly widely reported in countries outside of Africa - a good chunk of them Islamic countries. The out and out statement that it only happens in Africa and is thus an African and not Islamic problem is nonsensical.
Its also the same exact kind of generalization that Aslan accuses Maher of. Africa is not a country.
So it would seem we could add 'hypocrite' to Aslan's resume.
No, it's not. Nothing that Aslan said implies that Africa is a country, and he specifically mentions it being a "central African" problem, denoting that he believes it to be a regional problem rather than a national one. He also specifically mentions multiple countries in the region. I can see how you could disagree with him, but I don't see how you could watch that interview and come away with the idea that he was implying Africa is a country.
I see your point, but my larger point was that Aslan accuses Maher of painting Muslims with a broad bunch. But he does the exact same thing by saying that FMG is an 'African problem'. Pot meet kettle.
I mean seriously? He specifically says that FGM IS NOT AN ISSUE IN ANY OTHER MUSLIM MAJORITY COUNTRY OUTSIDE OF AFRICA is that true?
He should have attached the word "significant", but FGM is pretty well established as an African peculiarity.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: To my surprise, there was a good article on Salon in support of Maher (typically, Salon is part if the outrage machine that gives true liberals a bad name).
Someone that isn't afraid to criticize any ideology that runs contrary to the ideas of liberalism. People and organizations like Salon and Affleck just fire up the outrage machine any time someone says something they don't like and instantly resort to accusing them of racism, homophobia, etc.
As a liberal I support (amongst other things) fair elections, free trade, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, universal human rights, and the right to private property.
It might shock you to know this, but almost no Muslim majority (even Turkey) or Muslim theocratic government support that worldview, yet for some reason liberals are quick to defend them and accuse anyone who might dare criticize them as nothing more than racists.
People and organizations like Salon and Affleck just fire up the outrage machine any time someone says something they don't like and instantly resort to accusing them of racism, homophobia, etc.
I find it interesting that you didn't include Maher in that sentence, given that his monologues are clearly designed to produce outrage...and that you seem pretty outraged.
As a liberal I support (amongst other things) fair elections, free trade, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, universal human rights, and the right to private property.
Are you also claiming that your beliefs are definitive of liberalism?
It might shock you to know this, but almost no Muslim majority (even Turkey) or Muslim theocratic government support that worldview, yet for some reason liberals are quick to defend them and accuse anyone who might dare criticize them as nothing more than racists.
That is a serious problem.
No, it doesn't shock me at all. But I think the more serious problem is the tendency of atheists to blame all things on religion, regardless of which one it happens to be. Something which is compounded by a general, Western fear of Islam that media sources are happy to play up.
dogma wrote: But I think the more serious problem is the tendency of atheists to blame all things on religion, regardless of which one it happens to be.
Except, of course, there are hardly any atheists that blame all things on religion.
No, it doesn't shock me at all. But I think the more serious problem is the tendency of atheists to blame all things on religion, regardless of which one it happens to be. Something which is compounded by a general, Western fear of Islam that media sources are happy to play up.
I actually agree with this quite a bit.
There are a lot of things in Catholicism that I don't agree with, but I won't ever be ashamed of being Catholic and I'll raise my kids as Catholics.
I think Atheists need to be better about:
1 - Identifying the very large difference between 100% dogmatic practitioners of faith (of which, even for Islam, are a minority)
2 - Accepting that one can be of Science and of Faith.
3 - Misrepresenting the laughable few (Westboro, Young Earth Creationists) as indicative of the many.
1 - Identifying the very large difference between 100% dogmatic practitioners of faith (of which, even for Islam, are a minority)
2 - Accepting that one can be of Science and of Faith.
But that's just some of my opinion.
As for #1, first of all, atheists in general are completely aware that there are very few if any human beings alive who are 100% dogmatic practitioners of faith. Secondly, there is a valid point to be made that religious moderates provide cover for religious extremists. You need look no farther than the Aslan video or Ben Affleck's reactions in the Real TIme clip to get the gist of why many of us feel this way.
#2 - I doubt any atheist alive doesn't understand that somebody can be religious and accept science. Many of the most noted scientists, both in history and today, are religious. I would kind of doubt that there are too many relgious extremists who accept any science that they understand contradicts their religious beliefs though. Hence why biology is disputed by so many religious extremists, but gravity is not. They do not perceive gravity to contradict their religious beliefs, but they do perceive evolution by natural selection to contradict their creation myths.
Except, of course, there are hardly any atheists that blame all things on religion.
Oh, if they can, they do
It's my opinion that you are reacting to a charicature of atheists, rather than the truth. Most atheists I know really couldn't care less about any of this stuff...they just happen to be unconvinved that there are are any deities.
All of the things I listed and then some. Islam is not compatible with Western liberal thought. I've offered plenty of evidence to support that (mainly the Pew Research polls), and yet American liberals are quick to defend Islam out of fear that we might hurt their feelings. Islam can and should be reformed and the followers of it are going to be the ones that do it.
I find it interesting that you didn't include Maher in that sentence, given that his monologues are clearly designed to produce outrage...and that you seem pretty outraged.
That's funny, I'm not outraged in the least bit. You're absolutely right, Maher is a pot stirrer, of that there is no question. Aslan is also correct that Maher is not sophisticated in his criticism of Islam.
Are you also claiming that your beliefs are definitive of liberalism?
In the loosest sense, yes. The things I listed are pretty much the building blocks of liberalism. Do you disagree?
No, it doesn't shock me at all. But I think the more serious problem is the tendency of atheists to blame all things on religion, regardless of which one it happens to be. Something which is compounded by a general, Western fear of Islam that media sources are happy to play up.
You don't need to be an atheist to understand that religion can lead people to do horrible things. What I am expressing is not "fear" of Islam, it's criticism of the ideology. The hard numbers show that there is a serious gap between what the average Muslim believes and the idea of universal human rights. This doesn't mean that we should portray Islam as the scary boogeyman coming to kill us all (as some prominent conservative pundits do) and get on TV and bang to drums of war. Islam has to adapt and the way to do it is address it bluntly, not tuck our tails between in our legs and cower in fear at the idea we might offend someone.
It's my opinion that you are reacting to a charicature of atheists, rather than the truth. Most atheists I know really couldn't care less about any of this stuff...they just happen to be unconvinved that there are are any deities.
If I'm being honest, I'm reacting to my (very anecdotal, admittedly) experiences with those on my Facebook friends list.
#2 - I doubt any atheist alive doesn't understand that somebody can be religious and accept science. Many of the most noted scientists, both in history and today, are religious. I would kind of doubt that there are too many relgious extremists who accept any science that they understand contradicts their religious beliefs though. Hence why biology is disputed by so many religious extremists, but gravity is not. They do not perceive gravity to contradict their religious beliefs, but they do perceive evolution by natural selection to contradict their creation myths.
I think you'll find, at least with Catholocism, that's pretty wrong.
From the Catechism:
Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are
and from Pope JPII
Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I am saying that the more you paint following your dogma as a bad thing, the more you imply your dogma is bad.
I think adhering to ANY dogma, unquestioningly, be it Islam, Catholicism, Liberalism, or Conservatism, is a bad thing.
I'll provide you with an example:
I don't believe homosexuality is a choice. I'm inclined to believe (and I say inclined to believe because it can't be proven) that homosexuality is a genetic mutation designed by nature as a method of population control, my simple fact that a homosexual paring cannot naturally propagate the species. I don't believe people would chose to be part of an ostracized group. As such, I believe that nature/god intended for homosexuality to exist, and therefore don't believe it to be a sin because it IS what nature and god intended. In this instance, I believe our DOGMA is wrong as it has been, like anything historical in nature has been, coloured by humans over it's existence.
Conversely, I do believe abortion is wrong and is a sin because murder is wrong and is a sin. If science can unequivocally tell me that life doesn't begin until a certain place, then I'll adjust my views regarding whether or not abortion is wrong. What I will not do, however, is condemn or chastise others for their choices regarding it, as one of the most respected and devout philosophers of our faith tells us:
Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum, or: "With love for mankind and hatred of sins."
It's just one example, but IMO interpretation is an important and valuable tenet of faith.
cincydooley wrote: I think you'll find, at least with Catholocism, that's pretty wrong.
Oh, I never meant to imply that Catholicism is one of the 'usual suspects' when it comes to science denial.
My mom is Catholic, I was raised Catholic, so I know the score on that front.
However, you gotta admit there still are Catholics who think evolution is bunk, and Adam and Eve is the way to go. I even saw this view promoted on that Catholic cable TV station more than once or twice.
There are still Catholics who won't attend a wedding of a divorced person...even if they got an annullment. Some of them are still left in the oldest generation of my family. My mom's own uncle would not attend her second wedding, even though my mom's divorce was caused by my dad's alcoholism, and she went through the hoops of getting an annullment from the Church.
I understand that there's a spectrum of Catholic beliefs, from the hardcore right to the social justice left, to the people who just want to take their kids to church on Christmas and Easter.
However, you gotta admit there still are Catholics who think evolution is bunk, and Adam and Eve is the way to go. I even saw this view promoted on that Catholic cable TV station more than once or twice.
There are still Catholics who won't attend a wedding of a divorced person...even if they got an annullment. Some of them are still left in the oldest generation of my family. My mom's own uncle would not attend her second wedding, even though my mom's divorce was caused by my dad's alcoholism.
I understand that there's a spectrum of Catholic beliefs, from the hardcore right to the social justice left, to the people who just want to take their kids to church on Christmas and Easter.
Oh, of course, but A) I think thats a significant (and dying out) minority, and B) in regards to the evolution part, isn't even what the Catholic Church believes. The Catholic Church, pretty expressly, believes in theistic evolution.
You will find no further argument from me on Catholicism and science. We are on the same page here.
(Just to be clear, I don't believe in theistic evolution, or theistic anything, but I do think I have a pretty good grasp on the modern Catholic viewpoint on science)
cincydooley wrote: The Catholic Church, pretty expressly, believes in theistic evolution.
As always, there can be gaps between what the Church teaches and what the faithful actually think. I have met my fair share of Catholics (including priests) who dispute evolution in some form or another. I have also met a few Catholics who dispute the True Presence in the Eucharist. There's a lot of ignorance in society and the faithful are not exempt.
cincydooley wrote: The Catholic Church, pretty expressly, believes in theistic evolution.
As always, there can be gaps between what the Church teaches and what the faithful actually think. I have met my fair share of Catholics (including priests) who dispute evolution in some form or another. I have also met a few Catholics who dispute the True Presence in the Eucharist. There's a lot of ignorance in society and the faithful are not exempt.
This might be an amazing revelation to some people (not you Manchu, or anyone else in this thread specifically), but Islam is the same way.
cincydooley wrote: The Catholic Church, pretty expressly, believes in theistic evolution.
As always, there can be gaps between what the Church teaches and what the faithful actually think. I have met my fair share of Catholics (including priests) who dispute evolution in some form or another. I have also met a few Catholics who dispute the True Presence in the Eucharist. There's a lot of ignorance in society and the faithful are not exempt.
This might be an amazing revelation to some people (not you Manchu, or anyone else in this thread specifically), but Islam is the same way.
Yes there are lots of Muslims that would fall under that category (I know some personally).
The problem still remains that there is still large swaths of Muslims that we consider "moderate" because they aren't actively participating in violent jihad but still believe in things like the death sentence for apostasy and the repression of women under sharia law. I keep saying this and it seems that no one is doing it: look at the Pew Research polls on these subjects.
cincydooley wrote: The Catholic Church, pretty expressly, believes in theistic evolution.
As always, there can be gaps between what the Church teaches and what the faithful actually think. I have met my fair share of Catholics (including priests) who dispute evolution in some form or another. I have also met a few Catholics who dispute the True Presence in the Eucharist. There's a lot of ignorance in society and the faithful are not exempt.
This might be an amazing revelation to some people (not you Manchu, or anyone else in this thread specifically), but Islam is the same way.
I don't think anyone is disputing that here. However, I think the problem that arises, and the differences we see between that and Christianity is that there is state sponsored/approved oppression in the name of Islam in a lot of countries, whereas that doesn't so much exist for Christianity. Yet, as Maher and Harris are trying to point out, "liberals" are plenty okay acknowledging that oppression/hate from Christianity while (seemingly) being unwilling to do so with Islam.
jasper76 wrote: In my opinion, it all boils down to the following conflict of values in "liberalitude".
Valuing human rights.
Valuing other cultures.
What happens when other cultures don't value human rights?
BOOM....Ben Affleck's head explodes on live TV.
Thank you. That explains the point I've been trying to make pretty well.
We need to call on the people in those cultures that do value human rights to stand up and demand change and help them if need be, because they definitely exist.
cincydooley wrote: However, I think the problem that arises, and the differences we see between that and Christianity is that there is state sponsored/approved oppression in the name of Islam in a lot of countries, whereas that doesn't so much exist for Christianity.
We need to call on the people in those cultures that do value human rights to stand up and demand change and help them if need be, because they definitely exist.
Agreed; the problem is that, and it's emphasized BY AFFLECK in that video, is that those people literally put their lives at risk by doing so.....
cincydooley wrote: However, I think the problem that arises, and the differences we see between that and Christianity is that there is state sponsored/approved oppression in the name of Islam in a lot of countries, whereas that doesn't so much exist for Christianity.
I'd add to this that it is very important to note that to the extent to which this is true, it is only really true for modern, domesticated Christianity. Christian states throughout history have been extrememely oppressive. In the modern day, not so much, but I believe this has been in spite of Christianity....and by that I mean it has been Christianity reforming itself to become compatible with humanist and liberal Enlightenment and modern values, rather than the other way around.
We need to call on the people in those cultures that do value human rights to stand up and demand change and help them if need be, because they definitely exist.
Agreed; the problem is that, and it's emphasized BY AFFLECK in that video, is that those people literally put their lives at risk by doing so.....
Exactly.
Sam Harris brings this up in his response to the entire debacle; Kristof (and Affleck) failed to realize that by using this as an attack against Harris, he as proving Harris' point (there are fundamental flaws with the doctrine of Islam):
Sam Harris wrote:Kristof made the point that there are brave Muslims who are risking their lives to condemn “extremism” in the Muslim community. Of course there are, and I celebrate these people too. But he seemed completely unaware that he was making my point for me—the point being, of course, that these people are now risking their lives by advocating for basic human rights in the Muslim world.
And again here:
After the show, Kristof, Affleck, Maher, and I continued our discussion. At one point, Kristof reiterated the claim that Maher and I had failed to acknowledge the existence of all the good Muslims who condemn ISIS, citing the popular hashtag #NotInOurName. In response, I said: “Yes, I agree that all condemnation of ISIS is good. But what do you think would happen if we had burned a copy of the Koran on tonight’s show? There would be riots in scores of countries. Embassies would fall. In response to our mistreating a book, millions of Muslims would take to the streets, and we would spend the rest of our lives fending off credible threats of murder. But when ISIS crucifies people, buries children alive, and rapes and tortures women by the thousands—all in the name of Islam—the response is a few small demonstrations in Europe and a hashtag.” I don’t think I’m being uncharitable when I say that neither Affleck nor Kristof had an intelligent response to this. Nor did they pretend to doubt the truth of what I said.
Except, of course, there are hardly any atheists that blame all things on religion.
I wasn't speaking literally.
Of course there aren't many atheists that blame all things on religion, but many of them blame many things on it in a knee-jerk fashion; and quite a few famous ones have established careers on that basis.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: All of the things I listed and then some. Islam is not compatible with Western liberal thought.
Earlier, when you were speaking about your beliefs, you stated that freedom of religion was something you believed in. How do you reconcile that belief with an obvious disdain for Islam without defaulting to "Religion is bad!", a notion which is itself contrary to the beliefs you claim to hold?
dogma wrote: Earlier, when you were speaking about your beliefs, you stated that freedom of religion was something you believed in. How do you reconcile that belief with an obvious disdain for Islam without defaulting to "Religion is bad!", a notion which is itself contrary to the beliefs you claim to hold?
Freedom of religion needs to go. Freedom of conscience is okay.
dogma wrote: Earlier, when you were speaking about your beliefs, you stated that freedom of religion was something you believed in. How do you reconcile that belief with an obvious disdain for Islam without defaulting to "Religion is bad!", a notion which is itself contrary to the beliefs you claim to hold?
At no time have I ever claimed to have a disdain for Islam nor have I claimed that religion is bad in any way. I have done nothing more than state that current Islamic doctrine is not compatible with liberalism. That is a statement of fact (again, refer to the Pew polls I posted some time ago that you have time and time again ignored) and there is absolutely nothing you can offer to prove it otherwise. Every person deserves the freedom of religion, however Islamic doctrine does not allow that (hence why large numbers of Muslims support the use of execution for apostates). What does this mean? It means that the doctrine must change and it can only be changed by Muslims willing to do it, of which there are plenty.
Yes, because the building blocks of liberalism predate the things you listed, and that is before we get into matters of kind.
The things I listed are the foundation of liberalism. Since you disagree, please enlighten us why that isn't so.
No, you don't. What is difficult to understand is why religion, Islam in particular, is nominated as the causal variable in certain cases.
Because it is, as evidenced by what we see going on in the world.
There is a significant gap between what the average person believes and the idea of Universal Human Rights.
Average American? Average European? Average human? Please, define "average person." While you are doing that, please give me the evidence to prove that your claim that the average don't believe in universal human rights.
Keep on trying though, you're doing a somewhat admirable job at trying to "catch" me. I think you can do better though.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Let us agree to disagree on that then. I still believe freedom of religion need to be replaced by just freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.
So in your vision of a society without freedom of religion, what punishment do you propose for citizens who are caught by police practicing a religion?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Let us agree to disagree on that then. I still believe freedom of religion need to be replaced by just freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.
jasper76 wrote: So in your vision of a society without freedom of religion, what punishment do you propose for citizens who are caught by police practicing a religion?
None unless they any of the religious practice they took part in was a crime for any reason, and then the appropriate punishment. For instance, killing someone as part of a ritual will earn you the normal sentence for murder.
jasper76 wrote: So in your vision of a society without freedom of religion, what punishment do you propose for citizens who are caught by police practicing a religion?
None unless they any of the religious practice they took part in was a crime for any reason, and then the appropriate punishment. For instance, killing someone as part of a ritual will earn you the normal sentence for murder.
Okay, let me put it this way. There are laws in France that dictate how animals should be slaughtered, to avoid unnecessary pain. But then the Jews and Muslims have special permission to not follow them because of “freedom of religion”. I say this is a very good case about “freedom of religion” being something very, very wrong. You should not be exempted from following laws because you believe some omnipotent entity decided for you what is wrong and what is right and therefore every should accommodate your rules. You are free to believe in whatever you want, you are free to pray, you are free to express your beliefs… and anything else beyond that is in no way some right you are innately entitled to, but something that will be allowed as long as there are no reasons to ban it.
The expression “freedom of religion” gives people the impression that as long as there is some religious justification between some practice, it is something they are entitled to be allowed to do. No. They are allowed to do it only if there is no reason to ban it, irregardless of religion.
Okay, let me put it this way. There are laws in France that dictate how animals should be slaughtered, to avoid unnecessary pain. But then the Jews and Muslims have special permission to not follow them because of “freedom of religion”. I say this is a very good case about “freedom of religion” being something very, very wrong. You should not be exempted from following laws because you believe some omnipotent entity decided for you what is wrong and what is right and therefore every should accommodate your rules. You are free to believe in whatever you want, you are free to pray, you are free to express your beliefs… and anything else beyond that is in no way some right you are innately entitled to, but something that will be allowed as long as there are no reasons to ban it.
The expression “freedom of religion” gives people the impression that as long as there is some religious justification between some practice, it is something they are entitled to be allowed to do. No. They are allowed to do it only if there is no reason to ban it, irregardless of religion.
Puhhhlleease.
The manner in which animals are killed has no bearing on this thread, whatsoever.
Well, I agree with you that freedom of religion should end where breaking the law begins. That is a well understood concept in the US, however we do also have exceptions....like I think the Amish only have to comply with compulsory education through a lower grade than everyone else.
But in the US, these things are the exception, rather than the rule.
Further, and I know I've done this before, but I'd recommend you do at least a tiny bit of research in regards to the United States if you're going to generalize about our freedoms.
cincydooley wrote: The manner in which animals are killed has no bearing on this thread, whatsoever.
I have been asked to elaborate. I did.
And I said nothing about the U.S. here, so go play with yourself, you are not the center of the world.
jasper76 wrote: But in the US, these things are the exception, rather than the rule.
It is not a question of it being an exception or the rule. It is a question of how it shapes people mindset. Freedom of conscience do not give people the impression they deserve special treatment because of their supernatural beliefs.
Sam Harris posts a breakdown of his Collision with Ben Afleck - Can liberalism be saved from itself. An article he linked regarding needing reformers not moderates for muslims.
Reza Aslan @rezaaslan I shouldn't have used the word "stupid" in my interview with @CNNTonight I am really very sorry @donlemon and @AlisynCamerota
Yonan wrote: Did you miss the "radical"? That implies that yeah, I do know of non-radical (being one myself, although a more accurate term is egalitarian) and wasn't talking about them. You do know that there are radicals right, that *aren't* having a rational look at gender roles, and that it's causing substantial problems?
And sadly, that "some" in the United States is in the absurdly small minority.
Parental rights in the US aren't even remotely on the same footing. It's actually a bit scary how imbalanced it is. (Hyperbole incoming) In order for a father to gain custody of a child, the mother basically has to be a multiple time felon or presently incarcerated. Paternity/Maternity leave is fething small potatoes compared to the gross imbalance with custody and, honestly, initial choice regarding having the child in the first place.
Yeah I've seen numerous cases of it in the US, it's shocking. I'm pretty sure it's not as bad here but that could just be I haven't heard about it as much. That airline policy vid linked earlier was Australian so it may be just as bad, or just in different ways.
cincydooley wrote: The manner in which animals are killed has no bearing on this thread, whatsoever.
I have been asked to elaborate. I did.
And I said nothing about the U.S. here, so go play with yourself, you are not the center of the world.
As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about. Both Jasper and I have explained to you that this mythical society in which religious people arent exempt and still have religious freedom exists: it's called, amongst other places, the United States.
In every "argument" (and I use that very loosely here) you make, you seem patently unaware of how things actual work in other countries, and specifically the United States. Again, I encourage you to investigate our freedoms sometime If you're going to attempt to discuss them with us.
While I'm hesitant to get in bed with Hybrid, I think I understand what he's getting at. By making a specific "freedom of religion" law, which adds nothing over "freedom of conscience/speech" laws it sets religion on a pedestal that separates it as worthy of special attention. If you already have enough basic freedoms that allow you to practice whatever religion or lack of religion you prefer, does adding a "freedom of religion" law do more harm than good? In the US there are definitely some problems with religion, atheists are constantly fighting violations of your church and state (think the recent air force discussion here). Does separating religion as being a special form of speech worsen this? I don't think it's much a part of what's making Islam untouchable however, as christianity is certainly discussed.
Yonan wrote: While I'm hesitant to get in bed with Hybrid, I think I understand what he's getting at. By making a specific "freedom of religion" law, which adds nothing over "freedom of conscience/speech" laws it sets religion on a pedestal that separates it as worthy of special attention. If you already have enough basic freedoms that allow you to practice whatever religion or lack of religion you prefer, does adding a "freedom of religion" law do more harm than good? In the US there are definitely some problems with religion, atheists are constantly fighting violations of your church and state (think the recent air force discussion here). Does separating religion as being a special form of speech worsen this? I don't think it's much a part of what's making Islam untouchable however, as christianity is certainly discussed.
Disclaimer: atheist ; p
Yeah, I am hesitantly on Hybrid's side (just this once) because the Freedom of Religion deal can, with the right backing and drive be used for fairly crap results.
is one that jumps out at me. It makes abusing your child at least somewhat legal, because of your religion. I am pretty against the whole nanny state deal, but if someone says "No thanks, I don't need help dealing with my son's diabetes, we have the power of prayer on our side." they should be locked up before they kill their kid.
That is a statement of fact (again, refer to the Pew polls I posted some time ago that you have time and time again ignored) and there is absolutely nothing you can offer to prove it otherwise.
No, it isn't. It is a statement of opinion based on a series of collected opinions. The results of a poll are factual (10 people checked Y box), but anything derived from them (10 people checked Y box, ergo...) is not.
The things I listed are the foundation of liberalism. Since you disagree, please enlighten us why that isn't so.
The foundation of liberalism dates back to ancient Greece, which existed at a time when "universal human rights" was not something people thought about; let alone believed in.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Average American? Average European? Average human? Please, define "average person."
Are you implying that a person is only a person if they belong to a given nationality?
It is quite obvious that I was referring to human beings in general.
cincydooley wrote: In every "argument" (and I use that very loosely here) you make, you seem patently unaware of how things actual work in other countries, and specifically the United States.
Yep, totally sure you are much more aware of how things work in France than I am of how things works in the U.S.
But oh wait, I forgot, half of Dakka OT takes this song a bit too much literally. Why the hell do you believe I should have to look up to examples in the U.S. when I can point to examples in France and leave you the very easy work to think of similar event happening in the U.S.? Especially since France is really way less tolerant on religion than the U.S. anyway, so finding similar or better anecdotes from the U.S. should be pretty damn easy.
I mean, FFS, you did not even bother to check if you could just change France with U.S. and the argument would still work. Spoiler, yes it does! So now that it has been established that I apparently know more about how things work in your goddamn country than you do, can you just stop talking non-sense already?
dogma wrote: No, you've just claimed to be a liberal, and that:
Which may as well indicate that religion, Islam in particular, is bad.
Yep, my beliefs plant firmly in the on the liberal side of things.
Also, incompatible =/= bad; a distinction you are failing to understand in your increasingly comical attempt to get me to contradict myself.
No, it isn't. It is a statement of opinion based on a series of collected opinions. The results of a poll are factual (10 people checked Y box), but anything derived from them (10 people checked Y box, ergo...) is not.
That "series of collected opinions" is empirical evidence that that myself and others used to show that the current doctrine of Islam is incompatible with liberalism. It is a conclusion based on hard numbers, but please, keep trying to prove otherwise.
The foundation of liberalism dates back to ancient Greece, which existed at a time when "universal human rights" was not something people thought about; let alone believed in.
Oh it does, does it? Gee whiz, I don't know what I would have done without your vast insight on liberalism (or as I like to call it, "looking on Wikipedia"). So bringing up the fact that liberalism "dates back to ancient Greece" has to do with what again? Remind me again, what exactly is your point?
Are you implying that a person is only a person if they belong to a given nationality?
It is quite obvious that I was referring to human beings in general.
Oh yes, my friend, I know exactly what you were referring too... And I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence of your ridiculous claim.
Please feel free at any time to actually have a valid argument, because so far you seem to be having difficulty relaying a fully realized thought. If you can't do that, just move on. It is pretty obvious at this point it's pretty obvious you haven't brought anything to the discussion other than halfhearted semantics and conjecture.
As regards the thread subject, here is another opinion piece opposing Harris and Maher's views. This is from Fareed Zakaria, probably a more honest person than this Aslan guy, certainly a less pompous one.
jasper76 wrote: As regards the thread subject, here is another opinion piece opposing Harris and Maher's views. This is from Fareed Zakaria, probably a more honest person than this Aslan guy, certainly a less pompous one.
He raises interesting points and I agree that saying "Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas" is a bit too much, as there is plenty of proof that not everyone agrees with the extremists in their interpretation of Islam. The issue that comes up is that people want to reform Islam are under threat of violence for merely speaking their mind. The numbers show beyond a doubt that their ideas are supported by large numbers of their fellow Muslims. Of course, the promoters of violence and other extremism don't have to look far in their scriptures to find support for what they do (which was the case for ancient Jews and medieval Christians as well). The author Philip Jenkins talks about something called "holy amnesia" whereas a religion matures and adjusts over time to move past its violent roots (something all Abrahamic faiths share in their history) and I think there is some truth behind that.
No one can deny that followers of Islam have brought good into this world (except for algebra... because feth algebra!), but that doesn't change the fact that there are serious issues with some core tenements in their doctrine. Liberals, above all else, should be the ones to take issue with that and feel free to criticize Islam instead of worry about offending people (just for a little anecdotal evidence, no liberal I've met worries about offending Christians that denounce marriage equality).
If you haven't already, you should read Dan Dennet's book Breaking the Spell. I'm not a fan of his writing style, but it's an interesting book.
He talks about religions as being domesticated over time, which sounds somewhat similar to this "holy amnesia" perhaps. Similarly, I believe in this book iirc that he talks about humans being domesticated over time. So the violent ideas in religion are weeded out through selection, similar to wolves becoming dogs, and that the most violent genes in humanity are weeded out through the imprisonment or execution of the most violent people in society.
Pretty much this in a nutshell:
The need for "reform coupled with respect" since "...the places that have trouble accommodating themselves to the modern world are disproportionately Muslim".
"There is a cancer of extremism within Islam today. A small minority of Muslims celebrates violence and intolerance and harbors deeply reactionary attitudes toward women and minorities. While some confront these extremists, not enough do so, and the protests are not loud enough."
Pretty much the same problem that can happen with any group: an aggressive vocal minority taking a group hostage and getting them painted with the same brush, sounds like #Gamergate.
Wow, was hoping to get a nice short definition of what it means to be "Liberal", if interested, read the link, I like how involved this gets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism "Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property" This initial definition seems rather shallow in comparison with what is later mentioned.
What is interesting is that to prescribe to Liberalism is to align yourself with a philosophy, so I would find it difficult to treat this as a moral high-ground compared to a religion since it is based on thinking this is the "right thing to do".
I think the best litmus test for any belief is to think "if this group got into power, what would it force on me as law?".
jasper76 wrote: As regards the thread subject, here is another opinion piece opposing Harris and Maher's views. This is from Fareed Zakaria, probably a more honest person than this Aslan guy, certainly a less pompous one.
That is not how Christianity moved from its centuries-long embrace of violence, crusades, inquisitions, witch-burning and intolerance to its modern state.
Damn well, it is! Christianity was not beaten into submission by people that were praising its positive aspects and “giving devout Christians reasons to be proud”. It was changed by violent and repeated attacks on the awful or ridiculous part of it, until Christians were too ashamed and defensive to be self-righteous and base their opinion on scripture anymore.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: The author Philip Jenkins talks about something called "holy amnesia" whereas a religion matures and adjusts over time to move past its violent roots (something all Abrahamic faiths share in their history) and I think there is some truth behind that.
I say this is bullcrap. There is just no correlation between the time since creation and the level of violence of “Abrahamic” religions. Just draw the chart and check for yourself. Do not forget to add Bahaism on the chart. And, even though arguably not Abrahamic, other monotheistic religions like Sikh and Zoroastrianism.
And that is not even mentioning how Islam did the exact opposite of the described process during the last century, coming back to its violent roots.
cincydooley wrote: In every "argument" (and I use that very loosely here) you make, you seem patently unaware of how things actual work in other countries, and specifically the United States.
Yep, totally sure you are much more aware of how things work in France than I am of how things works in the U.S.
But oh wait, I forgot, half of Dakka OT takes this song a bit too much literally. Why the hell do you believe I should have to look up to examples in the U.S. when I can point to examples in France and leave you the very easy work to think of similar event happening in the U.S.? Especially since France is really way less tolerant on religion than the U.S. anyway, so finding similar or better anecdotes from the U.S. should be pretty damn easy.
I mean, FFS, you did not even bother to check if you could just change France with U.S. and the argument would still work. Spoiler, yes it does! So now that it has been established that I apparently know more about how things work in your goddamn country than you do, can you just stop talking non-sense already?
Humane slaughter has nothing to do with oppressed human rights, which is the primary topic here, so it is a moot point. But because you are, I'd like to point out this fairly important line: "or any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter hereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument and handling in connection with such slaughtering."
So, and I'll make this simple for you, if your ritual involves dismembering the animal and keeping it alive first before you kill it, it's still illegal. Dhabihah, the Islamic method for ritual slaughter, involves cutting the throat specifically to cause the least amount of suffering. Shechita , the Jewish form, is the exact same way. In Judaism, there are even forbidden tenets of how you slaughter livestock, and almost all deal with lessening the pain of the animal.
So again, if their form of slaughter involved being cruel to the animal or torturing the anmial, it would be illegal.
But again, that's not even the point of this thread, so it's moot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: And, even though arguably not Abrahamic, other monotheistic religions like Sikh and Zoroastrianism.
There's no "arguably" to be had here. They're not Abrahamic.
cincydooley wrote: Humane slaughter has nothing to do with oppressed human rights, which is the primary topic here, so it is a moot point.
So, uh, why did you not say so when I used the example about France? Was it because you had no idea how it worked in France? Damn hypocrite.
cincydooley wrote: But because you are, I'd like to point out this fairly important line: "or any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter hereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument and handling in connection with such slaughtering."
So, yeah, this all about setting an exception for religious faith, and only for religious faith. While telling us about how those are not cruel, how cute! Totally the reason it is allowed (but only for religious faith ).
Jihadin wrote: In a nutshell.
Where exactly is this thread currently at?
Man I have no idea.
That Bill and Sam were guilty on a few occasions of "gross generalization".
Ben was all fired up and was on the attack before anything came our of anyone's mouth.
There was little room for "honest" discussion when people's character is attacked rather than their views or ideas.
The show gave the initial impression Liberals had proclaimed a Jihad on Muslims. Fine entertainment.
Okay, let me put it this way. There are laws in France that dictate how animals should be slaughtered, to avoid unnecessary pain. But then the Jews and Muslims have special permission to not follow them because of “freedom of religion”. I say this is a very good case about “freedom of religion” being something very, very wrong. You should not be exempted from following laws because you believe some omnipotent entity decided for you what is wrong and what is right and therefore every should accommodate your rules. You are free to believe in whatever you want, you are free to pray, you are free to express your beliefs… and anything else beyond that is in no way some right you are innately entitled to, but something that will be allowed as long as there are no reasons to ban it.
The expression “freedom of religion” gives people the impression that as long as there is some religious justification between some practice, it is something they are entitled to be allowed to do. No. They are allowed to do it only if there is no reason to ban it, irregardless of religion.
Puhhhlleease.
The manner in which animals are killed has no bearing on this thread, whatsoever.
So, yeah, this all about setting an exception for religious faith, and only for religious faith. While telling us about how those are not cruel, how cute! Totally the reason it is allowed (but only for religious faith ).
Cutting an animals throat isn't cruel. I'd argue it's less cruel than electrocuting it or attempting to bash it in the head killing it with one blow, the methods that the Human Slaughter Act actually sets aside as accepted practices, neither of which are even guaranteed to kill. Whereas rapid exsanguination and depriving the brain of oxygen are certainly guaranteed to.
So again, the religious are NOT exempt from the law in this instance.
cincydooley wrote: Cutting an animals throat isn't cruel. I'd argue it's less cruel than electrocuting it or attempting to bash it in the head killing it with one blow, the methods that the Human Slaughter Act actually sets aside as accepted practices, neither of which are even guaranteed to kill.
Then why are those put forward as the humane way to go when there is no religion involved, and throat-slitting is only mentioned for religious rituals? Because those that wrote the law do not agree, and they made that exception solely to protect “religious freedom”.
Also still waiting for an explanation on why I needed to quote the US law rather than the French law for you to stop saying your “You do not know how it is in other countries” stupid non-sense?
Slitting animals throat should not be considered a protected right. Being allowed everywhere covered from head to toe should not be a protected right. Cutting your babies genital parts should not be a protected right. Killing people that leave your faith should not be a protected right. The religious logic behind some act should not come into consideration when determining if that act should be allowed.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: And, even though arguably not Abrahamic, other monotheistic religions like Sikh and Zoroastrianism.
There's no "arguably" to be had here. They're not Abrahamic.
Yep.
I should put the holy amnesia in to better context, as Jenkins uses it specifically to describe the evolution of the Abrahmaic faiths because that is what he studies (Philip Jenkins is the Distinguished Professor or History at Baylor University and co-Director of Baylor's religious studies program).
cincydooley wrote: Cutting an animals throat isn't cruel. I'd argue it's less cruel than electrocuting it or attempting to bash it in the head killing it with one blow, the methods that the Human Slaughter Act actually sets aside as accepted practices, neither of which are even guaranteed to kill.
Then why are those put forward as the humane way to go when there is no religion involved, and throat-slitting is only mentioned for religious rituals? Because those that wrote the law do not agree, and they made that exception solely to protect “religious freedom”.
Because its messy and people in the US equate messy with cruel. Its the same reason you can shot and stab whomever you want in a movie, but you can't have blood on the weapons or leaving the body if you want to remain less than R.
Also still waiting for an explanation on why I needed to quote the US law rather than the French law for you to stop saying your “You do not know how it is in other countries” stupid non-sense?
Because everyone else has been talking about US religions freedoms and US Liberals. That's actually what the thread is about.
Slitting animals throat should not be considered a protected right.
So I shouldn't be allowed to raise and kill my own livestock? Or hunt?
Being allowed everywhere covered from head to toe should not be a protected right. Cutting your babies genital parts should not be a protected right.
Assuming the latter is regarding circumcision, I think you're wrong on both counts.
Killing people that leave your faith should not be a protected right. .
Just slitting an animal's thought is not cruel. Unusual, but not cruel. Bludgeoning the animal to death, or stabbing it repeatedly is, however, because it causes undo pain.
It's pretty surreal to see so many folks saying slitting an animal's throat is not cruel.
I'm no vegetarian or anything, but come on.....slitting anybody's throat is cruel. Killing animals in general is cruel. You gotta eat to live, but let's not pretend that killing an animal for food is not cruel to the animal.
If you don't see the point, replace 'animal' with 'baby' and you'll find it.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Just slitting an animal's thought is not cruel. Unusual, but not cruel. Bludgeoning the animal to death, or stabbing it repeatedly is, however, because it causes undo pain.
If you can replace "animal" with "human" and it still not be cruel, then it is not cruel. Killing animals IS cruel, but it's delicious, so we justify it.
I can't wait for lunch in an hour, gonna go get a bacon hamburger. fething starving.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Just slitting an animal's thought is not cruel. Unusual, but not cruel. Bludgeoning the animal to death, or stabbing it repeatedly is, however, because it causes undo pain.
If you can replace "animal" with "human" and it still not be cruel, then it is not cruel. Killing animals IS cruel, but it's delicious, so we justify it.
I can't wait for lunch in an hour, gonna go get a bacon hamburger. fething starving.
BACON!
Thanks daedalus... now I have to find a burger joint (Five Guys is too far).
Ok... I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.
But you may want to look up cruelty in the dictionary. Intent really has nothing to do with whether an action is cruel or uncruel. In fact, the legal definition explicitly states that intent is irrelevqnt.
jasper76 wrote: Ok... I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.
But you may want to look up cruelty in the dictionary. Intent really has nothing to do with whether an action is cruel or uncruel. In fact, the legal definition explicitly states that intent is irrelevqnt.
cru·el (krl)
adj. cru·el·er or cru·el·ler, cru·el·est or cru·el·lest
1. Disposed to inflict pain or suffering.
I'm afraid I have to agree with Co'tor Shas on this one. Cruelty is specifically about intent to cause pain or suffering.
In terms of butchering livestock, I don't think cruelty has as much to do with intent as it does with method. There are methods of killing that are extremely cruel, and methods that are more humane.
I don't consider slitting a livestock animal's throat to be cruel, but it's best to stun it first (such as with a bolt gun). I could see why someone would have a problem with it if the animal wasn't stunned first, and I wouldn't do it myself if the animal hadn't first been stunned.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Being allowed everywhere covered from head to toe should not be a protected right. Cutting your babies genital parts should not be a protected right.
Assuming the latter is regarding circumcision, I think you're wrong on both counts.
Killing people that leave your faith should not be a protected right. .
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Being allowed everywhere covered from head to toe should not be a protected right. Cutting your babies genital parts should not be a protected right.
Assuming the latter is regarding circumcision, I think you're wrong on both counts.
Killing people that leave your faith should not be a protected right. .
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Being allowed everywhere covered from head to toe should not be a protected right. Cutting your babies genital parts should not be a protected right.
Assuming the latter is regarding circumcision, I think you're wrong on both counts.
Killing people that leave your faith should not be a protected right. .
Also, incompatible =/= bad; a distinction you are failing to understand in your increasingly comical attempt to get me to contradict myself.
No, it doesn't. But if you're saying that a particular religion is not compatible with an ideology you ascribe to, it is almost certain you believe it to be bad.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: That "series of collected opinions" is empirical evidence that that myself and others used to show that the current doctrine of Islam is incompatible with liberalism. It is a conclusion based on hard numbers, but please, keep trying to prove otherwise.
I never said your numbers weren't empirical, but any conclusion based on the interpretation of those numbers is not.
Oh it does, does it? Gee whiz, I don't know what I would have done without your vast insight on liberalism (or as I like to call it, "looking on Wikipedia"). So bringing up the fact that liberalism "dates back to ancient Greece" has to do with what again? Remind me again, what exactly is your point?
I studied politics and philosophy for nearly a decade. I have referenced the internet from time to time, but referencing sources is what honest scholars do; even if a citation isn't made.
Anyway, in Ancient Greece universal human rights were not a thing. Indeed, many of the key thinkers who underpin liberalism specifically differentiated between being a Greek citizen, and being a barbarian.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Oh yes, my friend, I know exactly what you were referring too... And I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence of your ridiculous claim.
Then why did you attempt to counter my argument by isolating persons by nationality and humanity while asking a question?
Average American? Average European? Average human? Please, define "average person."
Anyway, I don't believe the average person believes that humans have universal rights because I don't believe that an average person is capable of agreeing with another average person regarding who is a human, and what their rights are. This can easily be demonstrated by way of arguments made by people regarding Christianity, Islam, China, Russia, North Korea, any number of African or Middle Eastern countries, the US, Japan, Mexico, etc.
jasper76 wrote: Out of pure curiosity, which famous people are you referring to?
I missed this, apologies.
I was referring to Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, Stenger, and Myers.
Anyway, how are you going to make laws without taking into account religion. It is something that huge numbers of people believe is an important part of life, it cannot be ignored any more than other aspects of people's beliefs.
dogma wrote: No, it doesn't. But if you're saying that a particular religion is not compatible with an ideology you ascribe to, it is almost certain you believe it to be bad.
That's odd, I can't find where I said that Islam was was "bad"... oh wait, that's right, I didn't. Keep trying though, you almost got me!
I never said your numbers weren't empirical, but any conclusion based on the interpretation of those numbers is not.
Hold that thought for a moment.
I studied politics and philosophy for nearly a decade. I have referenced the internet from time to time, but referencing sources is what honest scholars do; even if a citation isn't made.
Honest scholar, you say? Even though you can't see it, I'm golf clapping for you right now.
Anyway, in Ancient Greece universal human rights were not a thing. Indeed, many of the key thinkers who underpin liberalism specifically differentiated between being a Greek citizen, and being a barbarian.
Exactly... and what does this have to do with anything I've mentioned so far? Nothing, maybe? Sounds about right.
Then why did you attempt to counter my argument by isolating persons by nationality and humanity while asking a question?
That wasn't a counter, it was sarcasm. Still waiting for evidence to back up your claim.
Anyway, I don't believe the average person believes that humans have universal rights because I don't believe that an average person is capable of agreeing with another average person regarding who is a human, and what their rights are. This can easily be demonstrated by way of arguments made by people regarding Christianity, Islam, China, Russia, North Korea, any number of African or Middle Eastern countries, the US, Japan, Mexico, etc.
And what exactly do you base this off of, your "feelings?" You have no numbers, polls, or evidence of any kind... you're literally pulling gak out of thin air and using it to back your argument (which is getting increasing difficult to figure out, seeing as how you're kind of all over the place). My conclusion based off empirical evidence is inherently flawed, but your counter to that is what you "believe?"
However, you feel that your, for all intents and purposes, completely baseless claim is somehow worth more than the facts that I have given multiple times pretty much sums up your entire position thus far: rejecting what I say without offering insight to your position. It's worth noting that your entire argument began over your attempt at pedanticism because I used both "wrong" and "liar" to describe someone who is often wrong and lies.
I'll give you credit though, you're trying awful hard...
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: That's odd, I can't find where I said that Islam was was "bad"... oh wait, that's right, I didn't.
I never said that you did. I arrived at that conclusion by way of your statements regarding Islam, your own beliefs, and Reza Aslan. And I did not do so empirically because a conclusion based on the interpretation of data is not empirical.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Exactly... and what does this have to do with anything I've mentioned so far? Nothing, maybe? Sounds about right.
You specifically stated that your beliefs, as a self-identified liberal, amounted to the foundation of liberalism. I am claiming that is false because the notion of universal human rights was not something which has ever been foundational with respect to liberalism.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: And what exactly do you base this off of, your "feelings?" You have no numbers, polls, or evidence of any kind... you're literally pulling gak out of thin air and using it to back your argument (which is getting increasing difficult to figure out, seeing as how you're kind of all over the place). My conclusion based off empirical evidence is inherently flawed, but your counter to that is what you "believe?"
What empirical evidence do you have to support the notion that the average person believes in the concept of Universal Human Rights, or can agree on what they are? I mean, you can put forth a survey of some kind, but that will almost certainly not be representative, and there is plenty of anecdotal and legal evidence to suggest that the average person does not believe in the concept of Universal Human Rights. Indeed, your own contention that Islam is not compatible with liberalism suggests that a large chunk of the global population is not so disposed.
...rejecting what I say without offering insight to your position. It's worth noting that your entire argument began over your attempt at pedanticism because I used both "wrong" and "liar" to describe someone who is often wrong and lies.
It is not pedantic to object to a person being called a liar when they are clearly not, and to suggest that "liar" and "wrong" are synonyms is ridiculous.
dogma wrote: I never said that you did. I arrived at that conclusion by way of your statements regarding Islam, your own beliefs, and Reza Aslan. And I did not do so empirically because a conclusion based on the interpretation of data is not empirical.
Trying to prove I said "Islam = bad" is an exercise in futility, because I have never and would never claim that. Feel free to keep trying to put words in my mouth though.
You specifically stated that your beliefs, as a self-identified liberal, amounted to the foundation of liberalism. I am claiming that is false because the notion of universal human rights was not something which has ever been foundational with respect to liberalism.
Yeah, and I still stand by that. My ideology is planted firmly in the basis of liberalism. Also, please show me where I said that universal human rights were the foundation of liberalism (spoiler alert: you can't because I never claimed that). Trying to wax intellectual about ancient Greece or whatever it is you are doing isn't impressing anyone.
A counter argument can be sarcastic.
Agreed, but it still wasn't a counter argument.
What empirical evidence do you have to support the notion that the average person believes in the concept of Universal Human Rights, or can agree on what they are? I mean, you can put forth a survey of some kind, but that will almost certainly not be representative, and there is plenty of anecdotal and legal evidence to suggest that the average person does not believe in the concept of Universal Human Rights. Indeed, your own contention that Islam is not compatible with liberalism suggests that a large chunk of the global population is not so disposed.
I never made the claim that the average person worldwide supports the notion of universal human rights; feel free to go back and look. I said there is a serious gap between current Islamic doctrine and universal human rights, you countered with there is a serious gap between what "the average person" believes and universal human rights, I then asked you for proof of that, you provided none, and since then you have argued that I made the claim the average human on Earth supports universal human rights.
You can't even keep track of your own arguments.
It is not pedantic to object to a person being called a liar when they are clearly not, and to suggest that "liar" and "wrong" are synonyms is ridiculous.
I didn't say they were the same thing. Aslan purposefully spreads misinformation and when he says things that are "true," he's still wrong (these fall under the 'technically-true-but-not-really-accurate' statements highlighted in one of the articles I shared earlier).
And yes, your being pedantic.
Again, when you have something to actually add to the conversation, feel free to do so. Because right now, as cute as it is, all you have is half-formed thoughts, arguments from nothing, and arguments over semantics.
I just stated that you did not specifically say that Islam is bad, but that I arrived at that conclusion because you stated it is incompatible with liberalism, happen to be a self-proclaimed liberal, and are attacking Reza Aslan for being a supposed liar.
This is not putting words in your mouth, it is arriving at a conclusion by way of an informed deduction. You exhibit many of the behaviors consistent with people who believe that Islam is bad, and specifically stated it is not compatible with the ideology you hold to.
Also, please show me where I said that universal human rights were the foundation of liberalism (spoiler alert: you can't because I never claimed that).
You stated that, as a liberal, you support...
...(amongst other things) fair elections, free trade, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, universal human rights, and the right to private property.
...after drawing a distinction between true liberals and, presumably, false liberals. Additionally, when I specifically asked you if your beliefs were definitive of liberalism you responded with...
In the loosest sense, yes. The things I listed are pretty much the building blocks of liberalism. Do you disagree?
...as one of the things you listed was "universal human rights" I think it is fair to draw the conclusion that you believe that to be a fundamental component of liberalism.
I said there is a serious gap between current Islamic doctrine and universal human rights...
Actually, you said this:
The hard numbers show that there is a serious gap between what the average Muslim believes and the idea of universal human rights.
Your usage of the phrase "average Muslim" is what caused me to use the phrase "average person", which I also clarified upon your request.
As to hard numbers: a poll with 38,000 respondents is not representative of a population of 1.6 billion. The only reason that 1,000 is industry standard in US polling is that many polls are taken at a high interval, and as such can easily be compared against one another; the same cannot be said of any poll of Muslims. I mean hell, nobody even trusts ANES enough to base a conclusion on their data without significant qualifications, and that's limited to a population less than 320 million.
The modern idea of human traces its roots to the Enlightenment Era; the same group of thinkers who laid the foundation for liberalism. So yes, the concept human rights are pretty ingrained in the liberal ideology. I mean, in your vast studies of politics you had to have come across that, right? And since you know so much about the topic, please explain it so all can bask in your wealth of knowledge.
Instead of trying to prove me wrong (which you really haven't) and that because I disagree with someone/something that means it's "bad" (it doesn't because I don't view the world in black and white like you apparently do), what exactly is your point?
I think the problem is more the people delivering the message than the message itself. I get what maher and harris are saying, at least I think I do. My problem is more with them than the message. I really like sam harris until he does politics, but he's really bad with bias and double standards, much like maher. Maher's never very consistent, he vacillates all over the place to have an edgy opinion, which is often hard to gauge because you can't tell if he really believes what he's saying or if he's just stirring the pot to make for a good debate/better tv. I think their message needs someone with less obvious bias. Maher hates religion, but also really hates a certain religion. Harris thinks jews can do no wrong, because, well, there's just so few of them. There's an optics problem here.
I don't like how a lot of liberals react to what they have to say and you saw that in affleck's response, it's the standard mo, accuse racism, bigotry, dislike of lgbt ect instead of really having the debate. With that said, the reason I am more concerned about generalizing about 1.5 billion people is it just seems incredibly facile and stupid. The other problem, sadly, is that conversion by the sword actually seems far more effective than secularism by the sword, does anyone really think the west liberated iraq? afghanistan? Do we even talk about libya anymore? All my conservative friends have been positively foaming at the mouth about the crtitical need for canada to send 6 cf-18's to bomb iraq, all I say to them is "I hear libya is a great place to raise kids".
We're pattern recognition machines with shoes, we make connections, often less than helpful ones. If a human is the victim of multiple crimes and each time it's a minority, they're going to start associating those behaviors with an entire race of people, perhaps discounting other massive factors past one's race, like say their socioeconomic status. If I can take anything from what aslan was saying is essentially you have to take things in context, just spewing out "muslim world" or "muslim country" does strike me as a pretty big brush and evokes sarah palin flashbacks more than memories of enlightening discussion. Aslan is a bit precious at times, but for someone of faith he's incredibly intelligent and even as an atheist myself I have to give the guy credit when it comes to theology, he knows his stuff.
The biggest plot hole here for me is using polls from 2012 to paint a very large swath of people, harris just pulling 20% out of his ass really doesn't help. Discounting any cognitive dissonance which is bound to occur isn't really possible, you have to take people at their word, are we really assuming muslims are more honest than the average human? My muslim friends probably would answer based on the doctrines of their faith, but that's just it, they barely follow their faith. They have sex out of marriage, they drink, they do drugs, they get into fights, they laugh, they cry, they're human, they're people, imperfect as always. If I asked any of them if they support sharia, they'll say yes, they feel obliged to, don't wanna piss off mom and dad or their imam. Do I think any of them have it in their hearts to stone someone to death? Hell no. They're also too busy having a life, they don't have time to plot to overthrow evil secular democracy. My point is simple, you could poll these guys who are incredibly "westernized" in pretty much every way and get answers that support maher and harris's views. I'm far more afraid of actions than professed beliefs. Hell, do a poll of the southern united states on the topic of supporting stoning or death penalty of homosexuality, the numbers will likely scare anyone. The problem is reality isn't that simple, stoning of gays are not at epidemic levels in southern states (I'm sure hate crimes are likely more prevalent) and in fact the south by and large has shown higher numbers of gay porn viewing, is it possible for a self hating closeted gay christian to answer yes that gays deserve death on a poll? My guess is yes. Religion is a factor, but it's not the only one. Imagine a scene in the movie taken where it's revealed liam neeson's character is a muslim, I doubt if one was being honest that it would affect their perspective of the character or the story, you wouldn't all of a sudden think his motivation is religious, when clearly given the context of the story, the guy loves his daughter and will kill to get her back.
I guess when maher and harris are out front of the white houses demanding we end all diplomatic relations with the saudi's I'll take them seriously.
I mean, in your vast studies of politics you had to have come across that, right?
The arguments you have made in this thread are not unfamiliar to me. I have simply been trying to allow you to make them, so as to avoid putting words in your mouth.
For the umpteenth time, trying to waxing intellectual about the entire history isn't proving anything to anybody nor has it proven anything I said to be incorrect. Also, you've put words in my mouth (or words from my fingers, as it were) by accusing me of this or that in order to prove... nothing?
Your entire argument began and has thus far has hinged on semantics.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: For the umpteenth time, trying to waxing intellectual about the entire history isn't proving anything to anybody nor has it proven anything I said to be incorrect.
It is proof that you don't understand what the foundations of liberalism are and, by extension, that you don't understand what liberalism is.
Also, you've put words in my mouth (or words from my fingers, as it were) by accusing me of this or that in order to prove... nothing?
No, that's plainly false. Arguing that someone's words indicate something else is not putting words in that persons mouth. If that were the case your decision to call Aslan a liar would involve you putting words in his mouth, and you could justly be called a hypocrite.
As to proof: I was never trying to prove anything to you, that would be a fools errand. You are clearly far too passionate to engage in rational argument, something people like Harris deliberately cultivate.
Harris talking about his personal security is getting a bit precious. He's correct in that he's being taken out of context, anything past that initial gripe seems like crocodile tears.
hole"
.
