This is revealing? I’ve spoken to many Muslims and Arabs about this, and they all feel this way. I figured this was common knowledge.
I really don’t think it is. Do you see why it is the opposite of reassuring?
The real problem is the underlying cause, whether it’s cancer or Muslim extremism. Most cancers are caused by things people ingest or expose themselves to. Most extremism is caused by beliefs and attitudes coming from what the extremists’ brains have ingested or been exposed to.
Let’s take apostasy, for example, where approximately 720,000,000 people believe that if you choose to no longer be a Muslim you deserve to die. It’s a short hop from there to arriving at the conclusion that if you don’t choose to be a Muslim in the first place you deserve to die. So you start killing “infidels” and get labeled an extremist. But you almost certainly wouldn’t have come to that extremism on your own; it grew out of what you were taught by mainstream Islam as it’s practiced in its most heavily populated areas of the world.
No – the statistics are disproportionate, as are crime statistics (and I hear comparable things from many black people every time a cop is killed, for example) and many other statistics.
It’s neither reassuring nor the opposite – it’s simply a natural consequence of statistical differences.
I missed this bit of news. Perhaps you will cite it for us, that we may examine it more clearly? Or offer your Certificate of Telepathy for our inspection.
You continue to post proof that you are not intelligent at all. That individual said “Let it not be the name” of their child. That’s because bigots like you love to take a “foreign sounding” name as evidence of complicity if that name happens to match the name of a terrorist. Of course, you don’t tar everyone named Timothy. If you really were smart, you would understand the point.
And when you consider how restrictive abortion laws are in Ireland, that should give you pause.
Maher’s not someone I’d take seriously either. The fact that he’s an anti-vaxxer is enough for me.
It’s because of people like you, who assign blame and act like shit towards all Muslims when it is only a few whackos who do bad things. You should be ashamed.
Except for atheists of course not, since they know the religion of the attacker will be left unmentioned and the words “terrorist” and “terrorism” carefully avoided. The media is pushing the demonization of the Islamic hard, and would likely do the same for atheists if there were a significant amount of us making the news.
When my cousin died of brain cancer when he was six what do you think he might have been ingesting or exposed to to get that cancer? Stupid ideas?
Let’s hope so.
Wouldn’t shame require some smarts?
Slackerinc wrote:“When they hear about a terrorist attack, does it occur to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, or atheists to worry that it may be their son or daughter who carried out the attack? I don’t think so.”
If the Christians in question happen to be black…
When I was growing up and there was some big crime committed, my black friends were all: “Please don’t let it be a black guy”. Same dynamic.
More denial and sour grapes from Monty. yawn
This is absurd. The media have swallowed this whole “Islamophobia” meme hook line and sinker. I don’t know what version of reality you are somehow perceiving. Although I suppose we may inhabit different media landscapes. I don’t watch network news or cable news. I listen to NPR and read the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Atlantic.
That’s pretty slippery, but I really don’t believe that’s what she was saying. I interpreted that, and still interpret it, as being a fear that it she will learn that it was her actual child who committed the terroristic act.
And even if she meant what you say she did, her child’s name is probably so uncommon relative to others in the US, it’s still damning.
You probably also like to smugly cite misleading statistics about how the majority of mass murderers are not Muslim. Never mind the fact that Muslims are only a very tiny fraction of the population, yet commit mass murders out of proportion to their numbers.
But that’s the thing, and where you’re making a blunder. Mainstream Islam doesn’t teach this, and it certainly doesn’t practice it. Apostates aren’t executed in large numbers. That isn’t what’s preached or practiced, and if it is believed by many that it should be, well, yeah, that’s awful. But it isn’t actually happening.
You probably don’t see the problem you have manipulating stats that way. Timothy, while being such a small percentage of white male American non-Muslims, managed to kill a lot of people in one fell act. So it looks like WMNMs are more efficient, out of proportion to their numbers, at killing than the Muslims you demonize, you un-American scum.
Gotta wonder at the supernormal power of Islam, to warp ordinary people into bloodthirsty terrists. Is it some diabolical power of the Koran, does it radiate darkness into the souls of its victims? The rationalist Mr. Harris certainly couldn’t accept that. Having some trouble with that, myself.
Doesn’t happen with the Jewish holy texts, even with all those gory stories about Amorites being smited, and so forth. Nobody studying those texts develops an insatiable desire to smite some Amorites.
By contrast, Christian scripture is largely free of violent imagery, save for the central drama. But Christians are not noticeably pacific, so maybe we may safely conclude that the foundational texts of a religion may not have much sway.
Even the universality of Islamic savagery doesn’t quite hold together, there is nothing especially blood crazed about Indonesian Muslims, for example.
But we are expected to accept as a given that Islamic adherents are inexplicably prone to violent terrorism, but no one seems to be able to tell us why, perzackly.
Could it be…Satan? (dun-dun-DUN!)
That has some of it, but most of what I was going off of was based off what the guy in the video was commenting on.
For general interest. Here is one of the ex muslim youtubers I discovered recently, worth listening to when you have time.
Insights from the horses mouth living in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon and his experiences growing up, the universal hatred of Jews (not Israel, JEWS). What started his change in views. This is what I want for more people in the Islamic world, I want then to break free of the shackles of their theology.Basing your opinion of someone’s entire political philosophy on a single exaggerated allegation is a spectacularly uninformed and lazy way of doing so. Maher is intelligent, funny, and above all, honest. He is opinionated and not always right, although he’s usually both right and insightful. We are all wrong sometimes (except for the OP, of course, whose staggering intelligence renders him faultless and all-knowing ;)). What is most impressive to me about Maher is his honest willingness to admit to being wrong. From what little I’ve seen of Sam Harris, he seems more intent on winning arguments and if facts have to be manipulated a little or a lot in order to do so, he seems fine with it.
Here’s another example of Maher’s respect for accuracy. I wrote in another thread about the time the insufferable moron Rick Santorum was on Maher’s show and made the obviously ridiculous claim that 57% of scientists don’t believe CO2 is the dominant cause of global warming. I explained the origin of this piece of garbage and why it was so egregiously wrong. Maher at the time didn’t have this information and could only offer his opinion that Santorum was spouting denialist bullshit again. But Maher and his staffers researched the issue and on his next show, Maher took the time to educate his viewers with an update on the matter and set the record straight. In fact it was almost word for word what I had written so I’d like to believe that Bill Maher read my post. 
I agree with the sentiments in your post but this is actually far from accurate. The Bible is full of killings, smitings, stonings, and exhortations to engage in such. Leviticus 20, just for an example, is comprised of no fewer than 27 verses of non-stop exhortations to violence, like this gem that fundies use to condemn gays: “Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
Indeed some have suggested that the Bible is more violent than the Quran, and that much of the violence prescribed by the Quran can be historically interpreted as essentially defensive.
That said, a major difference between the Bible and Quran is that the Bible is less emphatic about defining a specific enemy whereas the Quran tends to rail against non-Muslims and, for historical reasons, especially Jews. All religions have an underlying sociopolitical ideology but my understanding is that the Quran is more directly an ideology of warfare. Yet the Bible, as I noted, is not lacking in calls to violence for a plethora of offenses, and is not without its own taint of anti-semitism. Pontious Pilate, for instance, is regarded by scholars as a bloodthirsty tyrant who would not have hesitated for a second to condemn Jesus to crucifixion as just another rebel and threat to the regime. Yet the Gospel writers chose to depict him as fair and even-handed and to cast all the blame on the Jewish high priests.
Oh, so it doesn’t actually say this. Says something else, which you inferred to mean this. Making stuff up, I believe is the common parlance.