patrick.net

deepcgi says

Why isn't the common liberal disgusted by this one fact alone?

Speaking as a common liberal I'd have to say that I am disgusted by lots and lots of things! But truthfully, I think the problem here is the so-called guilt complex many liberals have. And to be truthful, we have lots of good reasons to feel guilty - not personally guilty - but guilty of electing assholes who do some pretty fucked up stuff.

But the guilt complex combined with the right's constant use of the "other" as the reason for all the world's problems leads to liberals sometimes being too timid to call out this kind of shit.

rdm says

You wish to change the argument that was taking place. Your assertion may well have validity but it wasn’t the question at hand.

So you acknowledge that the group we may identify as American Judeo-Christians are killing Muslims in much higher numbers than Muslims are killing Judeo-Christians (American or otherwise). But you also say that pointing this out constitutes "changing the argument that is taking place". Well, duh.

Yes, I am pointing out the fact that it is misleading, morally wrong and intellectually dishonest to exaggerate the number (percentage) of Muslims that are "radical", in order to justify killing Muslims in large numbers (the Iraq war comes to mind).

Bonus questions: Who are more radical, Shiite or Sunni muslims? Why do we want to kill one kind but not the other? And how come that we (=US foreign policy as currently practised) act according to the principle that Shiites are good if they live in Iraq, but when they live in Iran they are baaaad?

One more bonus question: In 2002, some 80% of the American public supported going to war against Iraq, a country that had NOTHING to do with the deaths of 2996 Americans on 9/11 2001. What percentage of Americans should then be deemed "radical Judeo-Christians" and terrorism supporters, and would that justify Muslims going to war against us and trying to kill us?

Americans are so steeped in the illusion that "we are the good guys" that there is no limit to what evil we will do in the world. We have completely forgotten what being "the good guys" means. First and foremost, it means NOT going around killing a lot of people for no good reason.

justme says

Americans are so steeped in the illusion that "we are the good guys" that there is no limit to what evil we will do in the world.

I don't disagree at all, but the Muslims did kill 3000 people on our ground at 9/11. Yea if you use logic being at war in the middle east makes no sense. But at the same time 9/11 definitely left a mark.I suppose similiar to the mark left by japan in 1941.

When looking at real causes always follow the money trail, in this case straight to the defense contractors.

indigenous says

the Muslims did kill 3000 people on our ground at 9/11

Please keep in mind that it was not "the Muslims" that killed 3000 people. it was 20 crazed terrorists. Your statement is less true than making the statement that it was "the Judeo-Christians" that killed 100,000 Iraqis. Perhaps just a slip of the tongue, but these kinds of dangerous oversimplifications is exactly what the present discussion is about.

The rest of the post is I like'ed. Thanks.

justme says

Please keep in mind that it was not "the Muslims" that killed 3000 people. it was 20 crazed terrorists. Your statement is less true than making the statement that it was "the Judeo-Christians" that killed 100,000 Iraqis.

And that makes my point, that is the way think of it, perhaps Edward Bernays type PR/brainwashing? The tail wags the dog?

deepcgi says

Forget the murderous terrorist acts for a moment if you can. What percentage of Muslims worldwide believe that apostates from Islam living within Islamic states are guilty of a crime deserving of serious legal punishment? A majority.

Only a minority feel the death penalty is warranted, but a majority is far from fringe thinking.

Why isn't the common liberal disgusted by this one fact alone?

Because liberals like labels, and dislike those labels to change. Once someone is deemed a Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, black person, or white person (as Zimmerman was), they hate having to reclassify for any reason (except gender reassignment, that's cool).

indigenous says

And that makes my point, that is the way think of it, perhaps Edward Bernays type PR/brainwashing? The tail wags the dog?

Yup.

justme says

indigenous says

the Muslims did kill 3000 people on our ground at 9/11

Please keep in mind that it was not "the Muslims" that killed 3000 people. it was 20 crazed terrorists.

It was the Muslims. All you have to ask is if the 19 terrorists were not Muslims, would 911 have taken place? The answer is an easy NO.

justme says

Bonus questions: Who are more radical, Shiite or Sunni muslims? Why do we want to kill one kind but not the other? And how come that we (=US foreign policy as currently practised) act according to the principle that Shiites are good if they live in Iraq, but when they live in Iran they are baaaad?

They are all equally radical. Just practicing Shariah laws makes you a radical.
It's been 1400 years, and they still haven't stopped killing each other. How can we expect them to make peace with us?

justme says

Yes, I am pointing out the fact that it is misleading, morally wrong and intellectually dishonest to exaggerate the number (percentage) of Muslims that are "radical", in order to justify killing Muslims in large numbers (the Iraq war comes to mind).

We don't want to kill "Muslims" we want to kill radical Islamic terrorists. We also want to prevent moderate Muslims from being radicalized.

rooemoore says

But the guilt complex combined with the right's constant use of the "other"
as the reason for all the world's problems leads to liberals sometimes being too
timid to call out this kind of shit.

Excellent observation. From the SWOT analysis in marketing, that is definitely a weakness (W) of a good amount of liberals. Unfortunately and dangerously, that is a weakness that can be exploited by politicians and demagogues who know what they are doing.

I have fundamental respect for all religions. However, we should fear those who do evil things in the name of goodness for the promise of a decadent afterlife. Stupidity and brutality is a horrifying combination.

Ben Affleck said nothing, NOTHING, of substance. He wanted to play the good cop, which is frankly the lazy and easy thing to do. Might he also be interested in keeping his reputation clean---an agent no doubt would not have recommended that he take a controversial stance on this, for fear of turning into a Mel Gibson. He hemmed and hawed about the injustice of stereotyping, but made no counter argument to Harris and Maher.

If fear of stereotyping means we cannot discuss societal patterns and beliefs and values associated with religious or other groups, than we have no way of striking a meaningful dialogue. Religions of all stripes, not just islam, bleed into civic life way more than they should, and that, my friends, is a huge problem. Hobby Lobby, Palestine/Israel, Gay marriage in places like Utah. I think it's ok to look askance at Islam these days and wonder if it hasn't turned into something scary. For example, Muslims in Bangladesh mourn the fact that extremism is on the uptick in their country.

I think the thing is that being Muslim is an ethnic identity much like Judaism--and hey, what can we do about it? Muslims in many countries call themselves such because they have been pitted against other religions (Hindu, Buddhism, etc) and been made to stand their ground. I think it's a pity that identity requires even the faintest allegiance to a religion, but tradition is hard to break, I guess. I'm glad that my family left Ireland generations ago or else I'd probably feel compelled to identify more with my Catholic heritage. Thank SOMEONE that I no longer have that pressure.

FYI, my husband ethnically identifies as Muslim.

lahossain says

an agent no doubt would not have recommended that he take a controversial stance on this

Then he should have made no stance.

I would simply reiterated my respect towards all religion and wish for world peace.

Strategist says

It was the Muslims.

Strategist says

They are all equally radical.

Strategist says

We don't want to kill "Muslims" we want to kill radical Islamic terrorists.

Can anyone else see how logic does not quite apply here?

justme says

Strategist says

It was the Muslims.

Strategist says

They are all equally radical.

Strategist says

We don't want to kill "Muslims" we want to kill radical Islamic terrorists.

Can anyone else see how logic does not quite apply here?

Out of context.

Strategist says

Out of context.

[Smile]

justme says

Strategist says

Out of context.

[Smile]

Out of context! :) :)
[smile] [smile]

Strategist says

justme says

indigenous says

the Muslims did kill 3000 people on our ground at 9/11

Please keep in mind that it was not "the Muslims" that killed 3000 people. it was 20 crazed terrorists.

It was the Muslims. All you have to ask is if the 19 terrorists were not Muslims, would 911 have taken place? The answer is an easy NO.

Justme, you forgot to address the above.

Bill mahr is an ass

one timer says

Bill mahr is an ass

and an asshole

lahossain says

Religions of all stripes, not just islam, bleed into civic life way more than they should, and that, my friends, is a huge problem.

Good point the US is not an theocracy. Far too often religion gets conflated with the country by politicians seeking approval. This goes back to the beginning.

indigenous says

one timer says

Bill mahr is an ass

and an asshole

Ah, conservative hatred. Why do conservatives hate Bill Maher so much? Because he makes them look like the assholes and idiots they are.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/wVoZUo17PLg

http://www.youtube.com/embed/HMkerqSnjVU

Yep, idiots who believe in creationism but not climate change cannot be reasoned with or even talked to at an adult level.

Call it Crazy says

Ahhh... A Youtube video..

And here's another showing you conservatives in their natural habitat.

Funny thing about video. It doesn't lie.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/E48QqcTOXeY

Dan8267 says

Why do conservatives hate Bill Maher so much?

2 out the 3 vids are disabled?

I don't hate Maher? I don't think about him at all...

indigenous says

I don't hate Maher? I don't think about him at all...

If Bill Maher were your tail, you'd be this dog.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/EpHbwGRhf4A

Dan8267 says

If Bill Maher were your tail, you'd be this dog

Not everything can be explained by youtube videos, I don't give a fuck about Maher.

Strategist says

Strategist says

justme says

indigenous says

the Muslims did kill 3000 people on our ground at 9/11

Please keep in mind that it was not "the Muslims" that killed 3000 people. it was 20 crazed terrorists.

It was the Muslims. All you have to ask is if the 19 terrorists were not Muslims, would 911 have taken place? The answer is an easy NO.

Justme, you forgot to address the above.

Not speaking for justme, but was Timothy McVeigh Muslim?

one timer is a "conservative"

It was more an exchange of Liberal bodily fluids than an argument.

Dan:

Your comments about conservatives may also apply to Muslims practicing Sharia. Are they also "idiots...who can't be reasoned with or even talked to at an adult level"?

If you don't give equal time, by your own standards, Maher just slapped you.

deepcgi says

Your comments about conservatives may also apply to Muslims practicing Sharia.

Yes. Muslims practicing Sharia are conservatives, just with a different set of false myths.

deepcgi says

Are they also "idiots...who can't be reasoned with or even talked to at an adult level"?

Yes.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/r25alb0_xUk
I think this guy is a member of the Tea Party.

By the way, Dawkins nails it as usual.

deepcgi says

If you don't give equal time, by your own standards, Maher just slapped you.

Bullshit.

I am under no obligation or rational reason to give equal time to two different problems. Nor would Bill Maher say I am.

Christianity, not Islam, is the by far greater threat in the U.S. Therefore, it makes sense that I would devote more time to the problem that is more relevant to my society. If Islam were the greater threat, then I'd devote more time to it.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Mathews 7:3-5

Oh, the irony of an atheist using the Bible to point out the hypocrisy of the Christian right...

CaptainShuddup says

It was more an exchange of Liberal bodily fluids than an argument.

Translation: A debate amongst liberals is as beautiful and delightful as making love on a midsummer night, whereas conservatives arguments are like flaccid and impotent.

Dan8267 says

A debate amongst liberals is as beautiful and delightful as making love on a midsummer night

A debate amongst liberals is like two cats fighting on a midsummer night

Fixed it for you

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

A debate amongst liberals is as beautiful and delightful as making love on a midsummer night

A debate amongst liberals is like two cats fighting on a midsummer night

Fixed it for you

Have you seen cats mating? Not much difference.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/wotlhsrveSM
Btw, that's the same reaction women have to Call It Crazy.

Good article on this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/opinion/bill-maher-isnt-the-only-one-who-misunderstands-religion.html

Heraclitusstudent says

Good article on this:

I disagree. The article makes incorrect assumptions about what Maher was stating as wall a fallacies like it's ultimate conclusion:

But failing to recognize that religion is embedded in culture — and making a blanket judgment about the world’s second largest religion — is simply bigotry.

There are several problems with the thesis of that article.

1. Islam is not a religion. Neither is Christianity or Judaism. It's a family of religions -- note the plural -- and a mythology. Big, big difference.

2. Maher was talking about Middle Eastern Islamic religions like Shi'ism and Sunnism as opposed to Western Muslims like Malcolm X. The article completely misses Maher's point which is that it's the Middle East Muslim culture, not Islamic mythology, that is the problem. And yes, a culture that causes people to burn girls' faces with acid because they attend school is a bad culture.

3. Just because religions are embedded in culture does not mean they have to be. The entire march of humanity towards greater social justice has been a intrinsically linked to the removal of religion and superstition from our culture and our individual lives. One cannot have a rational discussion of any issue when religions prevent the questioning or outright rejection of dogma. Just look at people like Marcus who believe that atheists should never discuss the non-existence of any god least they offend the religious.

Actually I didn't listen to Maher's rant, so I won't comment.

But the article rightly points out that people don't really believe their religions anyway and that it's an identity problem, like so many propaganda driven ideology. Saying that it is a problem of identity doesn't mean religion is not bad. It doesn't mean no evil is done based on superstition. What it does however is point the finger to culture, something that is malleable and ever-changing, instead of raw beliefs in a fixed dogma that by definition don't change.
i.e. It offers a more hopeful perspective for the adversaries of religion.

Dan, we take out over 1.2 Billion dollars per day in new credit cards to continue our military actions in the Middle East. Those Muslims have the oil money and the religious inclinations to take flying lessons only for the take off experience but with no landings required. Keynesians who think this debt will never actually come due are a greater threat than the Christians. You are honestly intellectually dishonest enough to insinuate that flooding from global warming, prayer in schools, or Judeo-Christian morality in the judicial chamber are more deserving of predictable, politically-correct liberal derision than forced genital mutilations, limited or no voting rights for women, inadmissible female testimonies in court, or death penalties for peaceful religious beliefs? Sit your ass down. Those are the very reasons why Dawkins and Maher make the arguments they do. Hats off to you for displaying some few examples of Muslims as nutcases. I obviously agree. but shame on you for taking three steps back to lean on the increasingly agnostic Christians of America in contrast to those evil bastards in the Middle East who are taking all of the proceeds of our bottomless mountains of treasury debt.

Keynesianism is a religion and you bow lower to it with every passing day. Millions of dollars in debt wasted on those evil sexist bastards just in the space of time you been reviewing this thread - and all of it due back with interest. Maher has the guts to include Muslims in his Religilous Rants. Good for him. But more importantly, he called the liberals here to task for not doing the same.

deepcgi says

Dan

Wow that's a lot of b.s. to handle at once. Well, here goes...

1. Where the hell did you get the idea that I ever stated anything remotely like the Middle East isn't violent because of its religion (assuming that I translated your rant correctly)?

2. There is no such thing as an agnostic Christian by definition of agnostic and Christian. It's a contradicting term.

3. About a third of Americans are religious nuts who promote bad policies because of their religion including, but not limited to, advocating torture, starting wars, and committing genocide. That's not insignificant.

4. If you actually read anything I've written on economics on this site, you wouldn't call me a Keynesian.

5. WTF are you complaining about me for anyway? What, I'm not anti-Islam enough for you since I call for the end of all religion and not singling out just Islamic religions?

tatupu70 says

It was the Muslims. All you have to ask is if the 19 terrorists were not Muslims, would 911 have taken place? The answer is an easy NO.

Justme, you forgot to address the above.

Not speaking for justme, but was Timothy McVeigh Muslim?

You have to go back decades to find non Muslim terrorists. With Islamic terrorists you just have to go back minutes.
That is the difference. :)

deepcgi says

Keynesians who think this debt will never actually come due are a greater threat than the Christians.

I don't like Keynesianism either but what you are saying here reveals a deep misunderstanding of what a fiat currency is and what Keynesianism is trying to do.

The government can inject more money where it wants, when it wants, and it can take back the same money at will too. Given that this is the case, the gov debt is never a problem in a fiat system. It is not like a family or a business. Gov debt is not the problem with Keynesianism.

There are too many people, web sites and politicians who criticize this system without even trying to understand how it works (or in the case of politicians, in spite of understanding how it works).