Bill Maher: Comparing Islamist violence to Christianity is "Liberal Bull****"

No...

 

You don't really need to address ATW, he's imploding so fast he's going to start insulting his own posts soon enough.

 

Maher was being a dick, par the course. Sometimes he gets a pass when he knows his game but this is beyond his understanding. The prof could've boiled it down to the West having more to lose than Muslims living in those volatile authoritarian regimes.

He tried to tie the history element. There are several examples, such as when the Crusaders were dicking around in the ME, their nations were a lot poorer than their Muslim counterparts, but the prof couldn't break his nuance into regurgitated pink slime for Maher to consume.

Socio-economic disparities, plus living under iron clad despotism which causes religious extremism to fester is not liberal bull****. It's a cold hard reality of the world that the West prefers to ignore because of our complicit role in the evil.

Does acknowledging this mean I give fanatics a pass? No, I rather the terrorists die under hellfire from someone pushing a joystick. If that makes me evil, there are worse things. But for a self-proclaimed truthist as Maher would like you to believe, he's the one that's full of it for not even considering his guest's points while holding his simple preconceived notions.

 

Greenwald video post just shat all over ATW... :grin:

 

So he's like Bill O'Reilly and gets someone on air to bully. Great.

 

My 2 cents as a relative rookie to debating: (please excuse the disjointed nature of the post)

Basically, Christianity sucks as hard as Islam does, it's just progressed a few hundred years. Both religions have violent aspects and people of both religions were/are violent, one has just dismissed the importance (Maher's christianity perspective) given to that aspect.

The best way to move forward? Be like a Hindu or Buddhist. No need to terrorize anyone - just do your job, chill and that's enough happiness for anyone. :grin:

JK I'm not preaching conversion or anything similar in the slightest, but continuing to use it as an example: It's not that there isn't violence in Hinduism's past, but people have moved past the monarchy era where it was the king/warrior's 'dharmic' duty to be violent/conquer as much area to accumulate the best resources for their people. (Sound familiar?) Except it was moralistic violence in that both the attacking & defending sides are aware of the need for that violence - survival of the fittest - the opposite of today's terrorism. In these times where the warrior's position doesn't exist, the violent aspect of the religion has faded and disappeared (not that people are dismissing this aspect, but that it is no longer 'dharmically' required from anyone).

Of course you can pick violent events in the religion's recent past e.g. the Sikh killing triggered by Indira Gandhi's assassination, but that is a very particular case. The recent Gujarat riots against muslims though, showcased this fundamental issue: the Indian muslim community has great difficulty integrating with the rest of the Indian communities. This is the aspect that Maher, ATW are getting at as far as I can discern, and this is being derived from the Islamic 'brainwashing' - there seems to be some major aspect in Islam's holy book that does inherently turn muslims against other communities, either by playing the victim compared to those communities or being aggressive in denying the validity of the other religions - which is it? I don't know but my bet is on the latter. The Golden Rule which everyone claims to follow, is not being followed.

There are violent fundamentals in both Christianity & Islam and to be blind to one or the other is severe bias. Christian's today are just lucky to have gotten past the crusades period to today's significantly less violent state.

Ultimately: the Golden rule is being disregarded by too many groups. As simple as that

 

What is the Golden rule? Where did that come from?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

Do to others as you would have them do.

 

Oh I'm learning more all the time. Thanks, and keep it up

 

If the #1 economic/military power in the world was Islamic instead of Christian
would this Christian nation be as passive and docile as it is now?
If that country was constantly interfering and manipulating us and yes threatening us . .. would be so forgiving and calm?

Rocket River

 

Ah the Crusades... and how many people did the scary Crusaders kill during their horrific period of terror? You can stop by the inquisition on your way to the realizasion that 911 is on par with either. Man has invented too many ways to kill massive groups of inocent people for us to put up with a religion that preaches domination and hate.

 

What if a person is a sadist?

 

Practitioners of the religion may do many horrible things in the name of that religion. But to say the religion itself teaches domination and hate isn't accurate.

Any religion that did teach that would be one, I'd be fully against.

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dEYv_EpADe8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Muslims in Myamar are literally having to seek shelter in temples now to avoid being stoned to death by Buddhists. Just read this yesterday: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/world/asia/religious-violence-myanmar.html?_r=0

Hinduism has been the motivation for attacks on Christians, Muslims and Sikhs in India and Pakistan.

People will use virtually any reason to congregate in groups for identity...and they will lash out. Part of finding identity within a group is pointing to others who aren't in it and labelling them...that helps build the exclusivity. Throw in some leaders who inspire others to violence using a common cause, and you're done.

As an attempting follower of Jesus, I recognize that Christian leaders have twisted the Bible for all sorts of violent purposes. It's hard for me to imagine, though, that anyone who bothered reading the words of Jesus or the story of his life would ever be inspired to violence. I get the inspiration to non-violence (MLK, for example) because literally the New Testament tells you to love your enemy..to pray for him...to bless him...anything but violence. Jesus, himself, prayed for those who crucified him while he was on the cross. But church leaders, particularly in the middle ages, have used it to sanction violence. Crazy.