Bill Maher is a great liberal and he's unbelievably courageous about criticizing the fascistic tendencies of Islamic extremists.

OP do you still beat your dog?

Well conservatives armed Bin Laden. They hate America enough to funded and armed our enemies. OP why do you hate America?

Yes liberal are bad people. There you happy OP. What a fucking straw man argument.

We should all rush to defend Islam because we need to show to terrorists that we consider them criminals and not religious zealots. Defending (and understanding) Islam and finding terrorists Un-Islamic removes all legitimacy from them.

The terrorists gain support for their activities by saying that they are defending their faith from attacks, and many muslims believe that. They take some genuine grievances of the community and pretend that their criminal activity is a form of Zihad.

So, they want the world to get angry with Islam and muslims. This casts them in the roles of the leaders (or warriors) of their religion and martyrs and heroes in the eyes of the muslims who are fooled by them.

If we refuse to equate them as muslims then they are nothing but common criminals.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as liberal as you can get, and I do not defend Islam. I agree with Sam Harris that Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas. No matter how you turn it, the basic principles of Islam are not those of a tolerant religion.

I don't defend fundamentalist Christianity either. Both religions have, at their very base, very bad ideas. That doesn't mean that you can't water them down, edit them or ignore the ideas/commandments that you don't like and consider yourself a member of that religion.

What it does mean is that, with very little effort, you can find in both religious texts plenty of justification to enslave, murder or obliterate anyone that disrespects you.

Why do you qualify Christianity in a manner that you don't for Islam?

I'm not that poster, but I could have written that post. I think fundamentalist Christianity is intolerant in a way that's inconsistent with a straight reading of the gospels. Jesus never talked about homosexuals, he encouraged Martha to leave the kitchen and come hear his teachings, and so on. Fundamentalist Christianity relies on Old Testament attitudes towards women and gays that I consider the gospels to have abandoned at the same time they abandoned dietary laws. Also, the gospels are all about avoiding war, loving your enemy, and so on. I've read the Quran from front to back (in translation, but no help for that), and I saw very different messages about the umma versus everybody else.

So, you are saying that there is no version of Islam that you would ever defend? You and I have had this discussion a number of times and it is pretty useless to repeat everything. But, I am still astonished that you put so much faith in something you have read while ignoring actual practices (which includes how those words are interpreted by believers of the religion). As your distinction between "fundamentalist Christians" and non-fundamentalist Christians shows, two groups can read the same words but practice what they read much differently. I'm surprised that you can't acknowledge that the same is true of Islam.

It's tougher with the Quran, which is God's literal word transmitted to Mohammed by the angel. You know that.

That's what Muslims believe. It is not something that I believe. At any rate, the words can be interpreted a number of ways -- and are. Not only the literal meaning is often in dispute, but there are often debates over whether the words are meant to be literal or metaphoric. As I've said before, even something relative simple like the US constitution is interpreted several ways -- just look at the 2nd Amendment. The Quran is far more subject to interpretation given the style in which is is written and the type of Arabic used.

It's like you want to challenge everything that even slightly goes against your positions, but you can't challenge the statement itself about the Quran being said as God's word. So you insinuate that my "you know that" was referring to your beliefs not to your knowledge.

Anyway. Of course there are endless debates about the meaning of God's word. E.g., what does the injunction for women to cover their beautiful parts really mean, anyway? The lack of diacritical marks makes it tough in places. But many parts are straightforward.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as liberal as you can get, and I do not defend Islam. I agree with Sam Harris that Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas. No matter how you turn it, the basic principles of Islam are not those of a tolerant religion.

I don't defend fundamentalist Christianity either. Both religions have, at their very base, very bad ideas. That doesn't mean that you can't water them down, edit them or ignore the ideas/commandments that you don't like and consider yourself a member of that religion.

What it does mean is that, with very little effort, you can find in both religious texts plenty of justification to enslave, murder or obliterate anyone that disrespects you.

Why do you qualify Christianity in a manner that you don't for Islam?

I'm not that poster, but I could have written that post. I think fundamentalist Christianity is intolerant in a way that's inconsistent with a straight reading of the gospels. Jesus never talked about homosexuals, he encouraged Martha to leave the kitchen and come hear his teachings, and so on. Fundamentalist Christianity relies on Old Testament attitudes towards women and gays that I consider the gospels to have abandoned at the same time they abandoned dietary laws. Also, the gospels are all about avoiding war, loving your enemy, and so on. I've read the Quran from front to back (in translation, but no help for that), and I saw very different messages about the umma versus everybody else.

So, you are saying that there is no version of Islam that you would ever defend? You and I have had this discussion a number of times and it is pretty useless to repeat everything. But, I am still astonished that you put so much faith in something you have read while ignoring actual practices (which includes how those words are interpreted by believers of the religion). As your distinction between "fundamentalist Christians" and non-fundamentalist Christians shows, two groups can read the same words but practice what they read much differently. I'm surprised that you can't acknowledge that the same is true of Islam.

It's tougher with the Quran, which is God's literal word transmitted to Mohammed by the angel. You know that.

That's what Muslims believe. It is not something that I believe. At any rate, the words can be interpreted a number of ways -- and are. Not only the literal meaning is often in dispute, but there are often debates over whether the words are meant to be literal or metaphoric. As I've said before, even something relative simple like the US constitution is interpreted several ways -- just look at the 2nd Amendment. The Quran is far more subject to interpretation given the style in which is is written and the type of Arabic used.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as liberal as you can get, and I do not defend Islam. I agree with Sam Harris that Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas. No matter how you turn it, the basic principles of Islam are not those of a tolerant religion.

I don't defend fundamentalist Christianity either. Both religions have, at their very base, very bad ideas. That doesn't mean that you can't water them down, edit them or ignore the ideas/commandments that you don't like and consider yourself a member of that religion.

What it does mean is that, with very little effort, you can find in both religious texts plenty of justification to enslave, murder or obliterate anyone that disrespects you.

Why do you qualify Christianity in a manner that you don't for Islam?

I'm not that poster, but I could have written that post. I think fundamentalist Christianity is intolerant in a way that's inconsistent with a straight reading of the gospels. Jesus never talked about homosexuals, he encouraged Martha to leave the kitchen and come hear his teachings, and so on. Fundamentalist Christianity relies on Old Testament attitudes towards women and gays that I consider the gospels to have abandoned at the same time they abandoned dietary laws. Also, the gospels are all about avoiding war, loving your enemy, and so on. I've read the Quran from front to back (in translation, but no help for that), and I saw very different messages about the umma versus everybody else.

So, you are saying that there is no version of Islam that you would ever defend? You and I have had this discussion a number of times and it is pretty useless to repeat everything. But, I am still astonished that you put so much faith in something you have read while ignoring actual practices (which includes how those words are interpreted by believers of the religion). As your distinction between "fundamentalist Christians" and non-fundamentalist Christians shows, two groups can read the same words but practice what they read much differently. I'm surprised that you can't acknowledge that the same is true of Islam.

It's tougher with the Quran, which is God's literal word transmitted to Mohammed by the angel. You know that.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as liberal as you can get, and I do not defend Islam. I agree with Sam Harris that Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas. No matter how you turn it, the basic principles of Islam are not those of a tolerant religion.

I don't defend fundamentalist Christianity either. Both religions have, at their very base, very bad ideas. That doesn't mean that you can't water them down, edit them or ignore the ideas/commandments that you don't like and consider yourself a member of that religion.

What it does mean is that, with very little effort, you can find in both religious texts plenty of justification to enslave, murder or obliterate anyone that disrespects you.

Why do you qualify Christianity in a manner that you don't for Islam?

I'm not that poster, but I could have written that post. I think fundamentalist Christianity is intolerant in a way that's inconsistent with a straight reading of the gospels. Jesus never talked about homosexuals, he encouraged Martha to leave the kitchen and come hear his teachings, and so on. Fundamentalist Christianity relies on Old Testament attitudes towards women and gays that I consider the gospels to have abandoned at the same time they abandoned dietary laws. Also, the gospels are all about avoiding war, loving your enemy, and so on. I've read the Quran from front to back (in translation, but no help for that), and I saw very different messages about the umma versus everybody else.

I guess I'll add what I see as problematic about Islam. I'm still thinking about this, but at the moment my concerns have little to do with banning religious expression like the niqab, and little to do with divorce or other laws, if that's what people freely decide to live by.

Instead it's this idea of theocracy: that a good Muslim needs to live by sharia law, and for that you need a Muslim government. Wanting to implement sharia law opens the door to theocracies, and there is nothing good about theocracies IMO. The problem with the CH assassinations was partly a reaction to bigotry, poverty, and the rest. But the CH attack was also based partly this idea that France's secular values are meritless just because they're not sharia law. (Along with the romanticism of a caliphate that never existed like they think it did, but that's a digression.) Of course, Christianity had horrible theocracies for much of history, but the Enlightenment saw a move towards taking the "render unto Caesar..." line as calling for a separation of church and state, and you saw this 200 years ago in the US constitution, even if we're still fighting conservatives for gay marriage.

I know that millions of Muslims area already there, and that they appreciate democracy and secular values. But the caliphate/theocracy/caliphate idea persists, and whatever you think of religious expression like the niqab, the idea that there's only one valid form of government, and that's a theocracy with sharia law, seems pernicious to me. I can't remember what's in the Quran about establishing an Islamic government, apart from various elements of sharia law itself. So I guess that's my next line of inquiry as I think about this.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as liberal as you can get, and I do not defend Islam. I agree with Sam Harris that Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas. No matter how you turn it, the basic principles of Islam are not those of a tolerant religion.

I don't defend fundamentalist Christianity either. Both religions have, at their very base, very bad ideas. That doesn't mean that you can't water them down, edit them or ignore the ideas/commandments that you don't like and consider yourself a member of that religion.

What it does mean is that, with very little effort, you can find in both religious texts plenty of justification to enslave, murder or obliterate anyone that disrespects you.

Why do you qualify Christianity in a manner that you don't for Islam?

I'm not that poster, but I could have written that post. I think fundamentalist Christianity is intolerant in a way that's inconsistent with a straight reading of the gospels. Jesus never talked about homosexuals, he encouraged Martha to leave the kitchen and come hear his teachings, and so on. Fundamentalist Christianity relies on Old Testament attitudes towards women and gays that I consider the gospels to have abandoned at the same time they abandoned dietary laws. Also, the gospels are all about avoiding war, loving your enemy, and so on. I've read the Quran from front to back (in translation, but no help for that), and I saw very different messages about the umma versus everybody else.

So, you are saying that there is no version of Islam that you would ever defend? You and I have had this discussion a number of times and it is pretty useless to repeat everything. But, I am still astonished that you put so much faith in something you have read while ignoring actual practices (which includes how those words are interpreted by believers of the religion). As your distinction between "fundamentalist Christians" and non-fundamentalist Christians shows, two groups can read the same words but practice what they read much differently. I'm surprised that you can't acknowledge that the same is true of Islam.

Anonymous wrote:The same people that time and time again love to bash Christians are so quick to stand up for a religion that is the polar opposite of everything liberal. It's anti women, anti free speech, anti integration etc. I never understood this.

OMG are you serious?!! Liberals do this? All liberals? Really?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as liberal as you can get, and I do not defend Islam. I agree with Sam Harris that Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas. No matter how you turn it, the basic principles of Islam are not those of a tolerant religion.

I don't defend fundamentalist Christianity either. Both religions have, at their very base, very bad ideas. That doesn't mean that you can't water them down, edit them or ignore the ideas/commandments that you don't like and consider yourself a member of that religion.

What it does mean is that, with very little effort, you can find in both religious texts plenty of justification to enslave, murder or obliterate anyone that disrespects you.

Why do you qualify Christianity in a manner that you don't for Islam?

I'm not that poster, but I could have written that post. I think fundamentalist Christianity is intolerant in a way that's inconsistent with a straight reading of the gospels. Jesus never talked about homosexuals, he encouraged Martha to leave the kitchen and come hear his teachings, and so on. Fundamentalist Christianity relies on Old Testament attitudes towards women and gays that I consider the gospels to have abandoned at the same time they abandoned dietary laws. Also, the gospels are all about avoiding war, loving your enemy, and so on. I've read the Quran from front to back (in translation, but no help for that), and I saw very different messages about the umma versus everybody else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same people that time and time again love to bash Christians are so quick to stand up for a religion that is the polar opposite of everything liberal. It's anti women, anti free speech, anti integration etc. I never understood this.

That's simply not true. Islam's establishment is what put an end to the killing of female children in much of Arabia. Also the end of the use of rape during war.

I know it's not perfect nor does it give women equal rights (in terms of inheritance). But the teachings establish dignity and respect for women. They are not practiced by Islamic governments. That is not a flaw in the teachings, but rather a flaw in humans and human establishments.


And there is no such thing as anti-integration in Islam. Nor anti-free speech. I just don't even know where you are getting this.

Not exactly. Women prisoners of war become the "women of your left hand," which basically means slaves or concubines. He's supposed to receive her consent for sex. If she consents and subsequently has a child with her Muslim captor, then she is freed upon his death.

I dislike generalizations of an entire group based on the actions of a small minority.

To paraphrase Nicholas Kristof, these terrorists are one face of Islam. Malala Yousafzai is another.

Anonymous wrote:The same people that time and time again love to bash Christians are so quick to stand up for a religion that is the polar opposite of everything liberal. It's anti women, anti free speech, anti integration etc. I never understood this.

That's simply not true. Islam's establishment is what put an end to the killing of female children in much of Arabia. Also the end of the use of rape during war.

I know it's not perfect nor does it give women equal rights (in terms of inheritance). But the teachings establish dignity and respect for women. They are not practiced by Islamic governments. That is not a flaw in the teachings, but rather a flaw in humans and human establishments.


And there is no such thing as anti-integration in Islam. Nor anti-free speech. I just don't even know where you are getting this.