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

We should stop this now. It could lead to people posting random acts of criminality from people of various religions. It gets annoying and proves no point at all.

I could post the story of the Christian rock singer(also a steroid user) arrested for hiring someone to kill his wife.

 

I'm telling you there are numerous types of Sharia law practiced and not practiced in different places.

Can catholic women be priests? Can women be pastors in Pentecostal church? Are women supposed to wear jeans according to the Pentecostals?

My point is that the way some folks practice things doesn't mean the whole religion is a certain way.

 

So you say we should stop it then you tell another story.

Thank you Lois Lerner!

 

Sharia law affects all the citizens of a certain locality.

If someone doesn't agree to a church's polity they can just not go to church there or choose another that they do agree with, instead of have to move or fear for their life.

Good job.

 

Yes it is accurate to say that most religions to date, especially monolistic religions, promotes submission and hate.

Buddhism is the only religion that there is no God and people are judged by their own conscience, though it promotes sacrifices in some chapters.

 

Yeah, I can't counter that.

I won't defend violent Buddhists (oxymoron to me) but I'll just say that I don't fully accept Myanmar as a counter example because that country is unfortunately a mess right now and has been since its independence. I'm not even close to being an expert, but I know that no group religious or race is tolerant of any other in that region. The situation is analogous to India partitioning after the British left, except that there are more groups at loggerheads. Christians Karens, Muslim Rohingya, Kachins, a couple of more, each have their own insurgency groups funded by parties from their respective countries (UK, Bangladesh, Kachin I don't know but so on). Obviously there's threshold tolerance to terrorism after which the community is forced to look out for themselves, or go on the offensive in this case.

At the least, I would guess that the instigators from 50 years ago were not the Buddhists.

I hold a very similar point of view and agree with this part

 

And I'm sure an non secular Christian government would too... Thank god there ain't those anymore.

 

Religion sucks.
Conservatives love talking to liberals as if they were sheeple, oblivious to the oh so apparent lies and deceit of the government. Oh the irony.

 

I have never been to a church that promoted submission and hate. I see an assload of hospitals and charities established in the name of various monotheistic faiths. I read "pray for your enemy" and about love being the most important virtue.

I just can't get to the idea that most religions promote submission and hate. I just don't have any personal experience to verify that.

I can certainly agree that some people use it to promote submission and hate, though.

 

Most churches I've been to never promoted hatred too, but religion itself, especially documented religious books have been. Keep in mind I'm not saying there aint any good teachings in the Bible, but I tend to look at where it contracts itself....for example: Zephaniah 3:6-10 ,Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Leviticus 25:44-46 (New Living Translation).

There are so many of them yet there are so many of inspirational quotes from Bible as well.

 

People do not understand the inherent nature of religion causes segregation and violence. As long as that certain religion has the general teaching of "This is the only correct belief system, all others are wrong" (your monotheistic religions), violence will EVENTUALLY erupt no matter how "peaceful" followers say their scripture is. Humans are tribal in nature. Religion is another element that multiplies the tribal instinct of man. Ultimately all religion accomplishes is another way for people to differentiate from others. It creates division. Unfortunately, just being "different" is enough for man to start war. Religion has accomplished dividing mankind even more.

 

Submission to who one thinks God is, is different than dominating others.

 

Well man has proven time and again that he lies and decieves.

Since we can't prove God exists, you can't prove he lies and decives.:grin:

 

I'm going to have ask this, srrm. Do you actually know anything about Buddhism?

I hate Said and everything he wrote, but "Buddhism is a peaceful religion and is different from other religions blah blah" just utterly reeks of Orientalism and standard pop culture bull.

 

I don't agree with blacks having civil rights or interacial dating, but it does not mean that I hate blacks. I also do not think that women should be able to own property or be able to vote.... but I do not hate women.

 

Certainly not defending violence by Buddhists but I have a hard time believing this isn't more based on ethnic divisions, nationalism, or something of that nature. Buddhism is completely anti group think and it's consistently pacifist in nature. I've never read anything in Buddhism that could be construed as some call to naked violence.

 

I think you're taking my post too literally. What I mean is what CometsWin just wrote:

That is what is the oxymoron to me. The nytimes article posted only talked about the buddhists being violent without background on the situation.

 

Not a question.

 

Given the fact that Buddhism has a ridiculous amount of sects (I've never read anything in the Quran that calls for violence - because I've never completely read the Quran), as well as the fact that the variance of Buddhism I'm the most familiar with was used fairly extensively both by the samurai and the IJA, I seriously have to disagree with that idea. Heck, even in the modern day, the Aum Shinrikyo cult was basically Buddhist. The idea that Buddhism is some inherently peaceful religion is just as empty of nuance as the idea that Islam is some crazed warlike religion.

 

Cults exist in any religion and they're a lot more about power, delusion, and manipulation than religion. Any unstable person can make religion into whatever they want however I've never seen anything from the Buddha advocating anything other than the interconnectedness of life and how anger, hatred, and violence result in self-injury as much as anything. Buddhism doesn't advocate an eye for an eye or eliminating infidels or non-believers or that you are somehow better because you believe in god or what have you. It literally wants you to live the best life possible while doing no harm in the process. Of course I'm biased because its what I try and frequently fail at following but if you have a different message given by the Buddha then I'd love to read it. Buddhists are encouraged to think for themselves and evaluate things to find the truth as we experience and see it. There's no blind adherence.