i remember when i too used to care what bill maher had to say

 

those were dark times.

Even if the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people (which they are) it's plainly obviously that the violent minority is a much larger group than in any other religion.

 

It's not politically correct to say so, sure...but what is political correctness good for if all it does is obscure fact?

It's not politically correct to say so, sure...but what is political correctness good for if all it does is obscure fact?

It might also leave out social and economic factors that have more an impact than the religion itself (Or are made worse by it). It's easier to say the religion is violent and stop there than it is to dig for other causes (Especially if you don't like religion to begin with).

Correlation doesn't mean causation. I'm not denying Islamism as fundamentally evil and deeply flawed, I just don't understand the significance of claiming it's 'worse than fundamental [religious sect Y]'. It isn't useful or particularly informative as a stand-alone statement. How about we do some research into why apparently moderate Muslims feel a need to turn themselves into religious zealots by strapping a bomb to themselves and killing as many people as possible in the ultimate act of cowardice.

 

I don't think he has a leg to stand on and I don't sympathise with claims that he was set-up. I also know he does not represent the values of a vast majority of Muslims.

 

That isn't "liberal bullshit". That's 20 years of experience living in a community where around half of the population were Muslim. I know it has its problems, as does any religion, but making some kind of logical somersault and stating that Jahar is an example of how Muslims around the world want to kill non-believers, or anyone who has anything bad to say about the prophet Muhammad is tenuous and blown out of all proportions. I suppose next you'll suggest all Catholics are murderous and dangerous because of the IRA, or paedophilic because of a minority of its clergy.

Maher's point wasn't that all Muslims share that same world view, his point was that Islam is the religion that has a monopoly on violence.

When Piss Christ debuted, you didn't have Christians attempting to assassinate the artist, burn down the gallery, or even riot in the street and kill atheists.

http://www.nationalr...arles-c-w-cooke

 

When Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons of the prophet, there was large scale rioting and attacks on Christians and Danish people everywhere in the middle east, and eventually the attempted assassination of one of the artists.

 

https://en.wikipedia...ons_controversy

http://en.wikipedia....urt_Westergaard

"Because I've not seen it, it doesn't exist."

 

There are many examples of non-Muslims carrying out acts of extreme violence in the name of their own beliefs and you're really insulting all of our intelligence by claiming otherwise. Nazi propaganda once held that God himself had created the Master Race, and that this was papal justification for rampant and bloody anti-Semitism. We're not exactly going back as far as the Middle Ages here. If you're going to go down this route, then at least support Maher's actual position on religion and argue it as an atheist.

"Because I've not seen it, it doesn't exist."

 

There are many examples of non-Muslims carrying out acts of extreme violence in the name of their own beliefs and you're really insulting all of our intelligence by claiming otherwise. Nazi propaganda once held that God himself had created the Master Race, and that this was papal justification for rampant and bloody anti-Semitism. We're not exactly going back as far as the Middle Ages here. If you're going to go down this route, then at least support Maher's actual position on religion and argue it as an atheist.

I'm not claiming otherwise, but it's worth pointing out how the immediate reaction to the bombing is "I hope it's not a Muslim!" After we learn it's a Muslim, the reaction is, "Well, there are religious fanatics under every denomination."

 

Bullshit.

 

When the bomb goes off on April 15th, tax day and patriots' day, typical liberal speculation was, "It's probably some tea party right wing nut job protesting the federal government." When we find out the perpetrators are Muslim, the liberal response was, "We need to look deeper than their religion to find their motivation for doing this."

 

Bullshit.

 

Trying to be politically correct and "sensitive" about the issue while covering our ears screaming "na na na na i'm not listening na na na" isn't going to solve any problems in about the same way that claiming all Muslims are evil won't solve any problems. Tarring all religions with the same violent fanaticism brush isn't helping either, because not all modern religions are the same.

Nazi propaganda once held that God himself had created the Master Race, and that this was papal justification for rampant and bloody anti-Semitism.

 

Conveniently forgetting that the Nazi regime sent thousands of catholic priests to concentration camps. The third Reich was not a religious regime, it was simply convenient for them (as for anyone) to claim that "God is on their side".

I suppose you'd define me as a 'liberal', sees. Did I ever once think it was a tea party nut job? Nope. Was I aware that, given recent history, there was a significant chance of the perpetrators being Muslim? Yes.

 

I'll carry on debating after you've stopped presenting Straw Man proposals.

 

Nazi propaganda once held that God himself had created the Master Race, and that this was papal justification for rampant and bloody anti-Semitism.

 

Conveniently forgetting that the Nazi regime sent thousands of catholic priests to concentration camps. The third Reich was not a religious regime, it was simply convenient for them (as for anyone) to claim that "God is on their side".

Thank-you for arguing my point for me. Somebody referencing God as a justification for their own callous actions. I'm not sure how you cherry-picking one line from a much bigger point really contradicts what I was trying to say.

I suppose you'd define me as a 'liberal', sees. Did I ever once think it was a tea party nut job? Nope. Was I aware that, given recent history, there was a significant chance of the perpetrators being Muslim? Yes.

 

I'll carry on debating after you've stopped presenting Straw Man proposals.

I'm not defining you as anything, I'm explaining why I thought Bill Maher's point was relevant.

And I'm explaining why it is not.

Thank-you for arguing my point for me. Somebody referencing God as a justification for their own callous actions. I'm not sure how you cherry-picking one line from a much bigger point really contradicts what I was trying to say.

 

I was taking issue with the "Papal justification" bit. Should have made that more clear.

i feel we can all agree that the better comparison would be between islamic violence and the violence of US imperialists

i feel we can all agree that the better comparison would be between islamic violence and the violence of US imperialists

I was about to bring that up.

 

Imperialism is what makes these guys hate USA. Islam is part of the mainstream Arabic culture, so they use that as a support. To preserve their independence, they persue Islam. Very much in the American revolution, where they were fighting against British imperialism, they used the colonial liberty to support them. Instead of fighting "for freedom" these radical Islamists fight "for Allah".

 

To say Islam is more violent than Christianity is irreveleant. It's not really an religious war, as all "religious" conflicts never were. It's a support, a morale and recruitment tactic, for the bigger goal: end to American-European imperialism.

 

Before anybody takes me out of context, I'm merely explaining their rationale. I'm not defending terrorism or proposing an end for imperialism. That's a different discussion.