# Where do you stand on the Bill Maher/Ben Affleck argument? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 6, 2014, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589 "2014-10-06T21:01:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/361 "2014-10-10T19:44:33Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Of course it’s related! But there’s nothing intrinsic about the tenets of the two religions that lead one to separation and one to church/state overlap. It’s geopolitics, not religion, that have led much of the Middle East towards church/state overlap. Stop just saying “geopolitics”. Be specific. > [@](#): > > These facts do not contradict anything I’ve said. I’m sorry, but that’s bullshit. You said, “Had the attempted conquerors been of some other religion, there’s no reason to believe that they would have been more or less likely to succeed (and to succeed **in such a bloody manner** ) than they were as Muslims” [emphasis mine] Any objective examination of the conquest reveals this to be false - _as does the comparison with how Muslims themselves treated the dhimmis to the West_. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/362 "2014-10-10T21:55:26Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > If you’re correct that **iiandyiiii** ’s point is that “Islam is not uniquely horrible,” then I fully agree. I don’t think that’s the gist of his argument, though. I think he really sees religions as interchangeable belief systems, pretty much all the same. I cannot disagree strongly enough with this line of thought. Not quite. They’re not interchangeable – there are definitely differences. But these differences in tenets, texts, and the like, are not better or worse on either side (other than the extremist varieties of various religions) – they’re just different. > [@](#): > > I agree partially (“[The Koran]'s not special or unusual that it’s being used to justify bad stuff”), but I think this is nonsense: “… [R]eligious practices could be swapped wholesale, and people could just as easily find religious justification in the Bible.” Perhaps the texts are extremely similar (as previously stated, I’ve not read the Koran), but it’s preposterous to claim that swapping Islamic religious practices (in _some_, not _all_ circumstances) with non-Islamic ones would result in similar societal outcomes. The outcomes would probably be different. My point is that they wouldn’t necessarily be better or worse, or more or less violent. Especially if we’re talking about switching the 15th century (or whatever) version of the religions. > [@](#): > > As I noted, there have been many conquerors of India over the millennia. None have behaved with the sustained brutality and zealotry that the Muslim conquerors did. Whether this is true or not, it doesn’t mean that the brutality was caused by their faith. And if it was, it’s only an indictment of the specific form of Islam they practiced. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/363 "2014-10-10T21:58:37Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > Stop just saying “geopolitics”. Be specific. The Sunni-Shia split, the conflict between various Arab tribes, between Arabs and Persians, between Turks and Arabs (and Persians), the fight over various resources. > [@](#): > > I’m sorry, but that’s bullshit. You said, “Had the attempted conquerors been of some other religion, there’s no reason to believe that they would have been more or less likely to succeed (and to succeed **in such a bloody manner** ) than they were as Muslims” [emphasis mine] Any objective examination of the conquest reveals this to be false - _as does the comparison with how Muslims themselves treated the dhimmis to the West_. Again, this isn’t necessarily an indictment of the conquerors religion – and if it is, it’s only an indictment of the specific variety they practiced. And when we’re talking about the brutality of conquering powers, Christian colonizers (like the Belgians in the Congo) aren’t topped by anyone in my made-up measurement of cruelty-and-brutality-per-year. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/364 "2014-10-10T23:16:31Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Religion, specifically the Muslim religion, most definitely makes conditions worse in Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. To assert that it doesn’t is such an absurd proposition that I feel I no need to waste any more time talking to you about this topic. So. Yougot nothin’. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/365 "2014-10-11T00:42:37Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Not quite. They’re not interchangeable – there are definitely differences. You’re almost there… > [@](#): > > But these differences in tenets, texts, and the like, are not better or worse on either side (other than the extremist varieties of various religions) – they’re just different. :smack: D’oh! And here’s where I think you blow it. If you can’t recognize the cognitive dissonance here, then I’m afraid we’re at an impasse. > [@](#): > > The outcomes would probably be different. My point is that they wouldn’t necessarily be better or worse, or more or less violent. Especially if we’re talking about switching the 15th century (or whatever) version of the religions. And _my_ point is that, we don’t need to resort to hypotheticals here, because history. If you’re alluding to the Iberian conquest of the New World, again, you are simply wrong if you examine the historical record. Rapacious scumbags though they were, Cortez and his ilk eventually, through the institutions of the Crown and the Church, were tamed. There is no analogue in South Asia. > [@](#): > > Whether this is true or not, it doesn’t mean that the brutality was caused by their faith. And if it was, it’s only an indictment of the specific form of Islam they practiced. I won’t bother to recite the myriad of religious pronouncements that explicitly referred to the Islamic faith as primary justification for conquest and slaughter in India, but you really ought to brush up on your history. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/366 "2014-10-11T00:48:39Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The Sunni-Shia split, the conflict between various Arab tribes, between Arabs and Persians, between Turks and Arabs (and Persians), the fight over various resources. Okay, that’s a bunch of interesting nouns. And…? > [@](#): > > Again, this isn’t necessarily an indictment of the conquerors religion – and if it is, it’s only an indictment of the specific variety they practiced. And when we’re talking about the brutality of conquering powers, Christian colonizers (like the Belgians in the Congo) aren’t topped by anyone in my made-up measurement of cruelty-and-brutality-per-year. Leopold II of Belgium was an awful man, who deserves scorn and calumny. A true sack of shit, in a moral sense. However, you’re comapring apples to oranges here. Find me a parallel in the historical record for the Muslium conquest of India. Colonization is one thing (that weasely shitbag Leopold certainly didn’t earn control of the Congo via traditional means); religiously motivated conquest is entirely another. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/367 "2014-10-11T00:51:44Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > :smack: D’oh! And here’s where I think you blow it. If you can’t recognize the cognitive dissonance here, then I’m afraid we’re at an impasse. What a shame. I’d certainly love to figure out if I’ve gone wrong some where. > [@](#): > > And _my_ point is that, we don’t need to resort to hypotheticals here, because history. If you’re alluding to the Iberian conquest of the New World, again, you are simply wrong if you examine the historical record. Rapacious scumbags though they were, Cortez and his ilk eventually, through the institutions of the Crown and the Church, were tamed. There is no analogue in South Asia. Tamed? How? In the New World, at least, the continuation of the slave trade, the continuing exploitation and murder of native peoples, etc., well into the 19th century, doesn’t sound like “tamed” to me. > [@](#): > > I won’t bother to recite the myriad of religious pronouncements that explicitly referred to the Islamic faith as primary justification for conquest and slaughter in India, but you really ought to brush up on your history. How does this distinguish it from Christianity? Are you just saying the body count is higher? Considering how brutal various Christian colonizers were at various times, you haven’t convinced me yet that Islam is inherently and necessarily worse. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/368 "2014-10-11T00:55:37Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > Okay, that’s a bunch of interesting nouns. And…? And I hold that it’s these circumstances, among others, rather than some unique tenets of Islam that separate it from Christianity and other religions, that are responsible for the prevalence of theocracies and convoluted church/state relationships in that part of the world. > [@](#): > > Leopold II of Belgium was an awful man, who deserves scorn and calumny. A true sack of shit, in a moral sense. > > However, you’re comapring apples to oranges here. Find me a parallel in the historical record for the Muslium conquest of India. Colonization is one thing (that weasely shitbag Leopold certainly didn’t earn control of the Congo via traditional means); religiously motivated conquest is entirely another. The Crusades, Spanish conquest in the Americas, etc. And religion was certainly used as part of the justification for various other colonial actions, including in Africa. Further, from what I understand of the various conquests of India, “religiously motivated conquest” doesn’t come close to portraying the complexities and details of the various conflicts. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/369 "2014-10-11T01:01:22Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > What a shame. I’d certainly love to figure out if I’ve gone wrong some where. I’m trying here… > [@](#): > > Tamed? How? In the New World, at least, the continuation of the slave trade, the continuing exploitation and murder of native peoples, etc., well into the 19th century, doesn’t sound like “tamed” to me. :dubious: You’re going to bring up the African slave trade in a cultural comparison with traditional Islamic societies? Really? Also, there were people like [de las Casas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolom%C3%A9_de_las_Casas) who were contemporaneously, within the existing framework of the Church, expressing dissent at the treatment of the natives at the hand of the _conquistadores_. Do you have a parallel example from the Muslim conquest of India? > [@](#): > > How does this distinguish it from Christianity? Are you just saying the body count is higher? Considering how brutal various Christian colonizers were at various times, you haven’t convinced me yet that Islam is inherently and necessarily worse. I’m not trying to convince you of anything - I’m just asking you to open your eyes. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/370 "2014-10-11T01:05:52Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > :dubious: You’re going to bring up the African slave trade in a cultural comparison with traditional Islamic societies? Really? Sure. We’ve already turned the brutality/cruelty meter up to 11. It doesn’t really get any higher. They did some bad stuff, probably as bad as the slave trade (including their own slave trades) and various genocides. It doesn’t really get any worse than that. > [@](#): > > Also, there were people like [de las Casas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolom%C3%A9_de_las_Casas) who were contemporaneously, within the existing framework of the Church, expressing dissent at the treatment of the natives at the hand of the _conquistadores_. Do you have a parallel example from the Muslim conquest of India? I don’t know. But it doesn’t really matter, since we agree that the specific variety of Islam that those conquerors practiced was probably pretty vile – just like the religious practices of the conquistadores. > [@](#): > > I’m not trying to convince you of anything - I’m just asking you to open your eyes. To what? That these conquerors were bad folks? They certainly were. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/371 "2014-10-11T01:17:26Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The Crusades, Spanish conquest in the Americas, etc. And religion was certainly used as part of the justification for various other colonial actions, including in Africa. This is _nonsense_. [Learn](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_of_Ghazni#Attitude_towards_religious_freedom) some [history](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurangzeb#Establishment_of_Islamic_law). As already noted, in regard to counterexamples, there is de las Casas, and others. Christian busybody do-gooders actually did make the world a nicer place than it might have been, as stupid in their reasoning as they might have been. > [@](#): > > Further, from what I understand of the various conquests of India, “religiously motivated conquest” doesn’t come close to portraying the complexities and details of the various conflicts. As ignorant as I am, this statement still takes me aback. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/372 "2014-10-11T01:20:26Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > This is _nonsense_. > > [Learn](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_of_Ghazni#Attitude_towards_religious_freedom) some [history](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurangzeb#Establishment_of_Islamic_law). Bad people. I agree, those guys suck. > [@](#): > > As already noted, in regard to counterexamples, there is de las Casas, and others. Christian busybody do-gooders actually did make the world a nicer place than it might have been, as stupid in their reasoning as they might have been. If you’re saying the Christians in past centuries were a _positive force_ in places like the Americas and Africa, then I’m going to have to strongly disagree with you, even though there were some decent folks in there fighting against the massive amounts of injustice. > [@](#): > > As ignorant as I am, this statement still takes me aback. How? Are you saying the Muslim conquest of India was _not complicated_? ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/373 "2014-10-11T01:29:08Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Do you consider transgenders to be homosexuals? > > If so, you could make a case that other than being a dictatorship, Iran, where they have equal rights and surgery is free, would be preferable than the US. We’re not “transgenders”, we’re transgender persons. Just because Khomeini issued his fatwa doesn’t mean transgender persons are not discriminated against in the workplace and society on a daily basis. Or the victims of brutal transphobic attacks, and reporting these to the police typically results in no action whatsoever. I’ve talked to MANY transgender refugees from Iran. You might also want to read this article, which gives a somewhat happier spin on it which still isn’t as rose-colored glasses as you put on it. [http://www.worldpolicy.org/transition-iran](http://www.worldpolicy.org/transition-iran) Seriously, I’ve seen you post about my people in Iran a few times before. What’s your actual experience with the transgender community in Iran? I’m willing to be proven wrong, but your understanding is not what my research has shown. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/374 "2014-10-11T01:34:08Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Sure. We’ve already turned the brutality/cruelty meter up to 11. It doesn’t really get any higher. They did some bad stuff, probably as bad as the slave trade (including their own slave trades) and various genocides. It doesn’t really get any worse than that. Just numbers here. I have my copy of [Matt White](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Big_Book_of_Horrible_Things)’s book handy. Mideast Slave Trade: death toll of 18.5 million Atlantic Slave Trade: death toll of 16 million This really doesn’t flatter Islamic societies. > [@](#): > > I don’t know. But it doesn’t really matter, since we agree that the specific variety of Islam that those conquerors practiced was probably pretty vile – just like the religious practices of the conquistadores. Sure - Mahmud of Ghazni and Cristoforo Colombo were both despicable bastards. But - and again you are glossing over the point - within the Christian societies of the time, there were actors who with varying degrees of success curbed the worst excesses of conquest. This did not happen over the course of centuries in India - there was no effective opposition from within Islamic ranks to deter Aurangzeb from acting as wretchedly as Mahmud, centuries earlier. And do not take Aurangzeb for an opportunist cloaking himself in Islam. From all accounts he was a particularly devout man who led an ascetic lifestyle. > [@](#): > > To what? That these conquerors were bad folks? They certainly were. That the degree of acceptance within their respective societies for acts of plunder and destruction committed in the name of the dominant religion was not equivalent between Christian and Islamic societies. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/375 "2014-10-11T01:40:27Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > Just numbers here. I have my copy of [Matt White](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Big_Book_of_Horrible_Things)’s book handy. > > Mideast Slave Trade: death toll of 18.5 million > > Atlantic Slave Trade: death toll of 16 million > > This really doesn’t flatter Islamic societies. I’m not interested in flattering Islamic societies. I think most human societies have been, until recently, pretty awful and unjust, and religion (all religions!) bear a big part of this blame. Only recently have we had a few decent and close-to-just human societies on earth, and even these have lots and lots of problems. > [@](#): > > Sure - Mahmud of Ghazni and Cristoforo Colombo were both despicable bastards. > > But - and again you are glossing over the point - within the Christian societies of the time, there were actors who with varying degrees of success curbed the worst excesses of conquest. This did not happen over the course of centuries in India - there was no effective opposition from within Islamic ranks to deter Aurangzeb from acting as wretchedly as Mahmud, centuries earlier. And do not take Aurangzeb for an opportunist cloaking himself in Islam. From all accounts he was a particularly devout man who led an ascetic lifestyle. I’m certainly much less knowledgeable about the details of Muslim society in India as I am about various Christian-led societies in the west. I’ll note that, at various points and places in history, there was also no “effective opposition” in many of these Christian societies (which were, after all, pretty diverse in policies and practices). I would find it hard to believe, though, that there were zero Indian Muslims who were not decent people, and didn’t at least take some actions to try and curb some of the most awful stuff that went on. I don’t buy that there’s any human society in which _all of the people_ were bad. > [@](#): > > That the degree of acceptance within their respective societies for acts of plunder and destruction committed in the name of the dominant religion was not equivalent between Christian and Islamic societies. At various times in history I think it absolutely was equivalent. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/376 "2014-10-11T01:40:56Z")
> [@Lamar\_Mundane](#): > > … I stand with Maher on this. Despite the rare killing of abortion providers, Christianity is not a violent religion. Maybe 400 years ago it was, but not now and not for a long time. The same goes for freedom of speech, treatment of women, treatment of minorities, etc. Islam is the only major religion that openly practices this sort of repression. Not all Muslims, of course, … I’m with Maher too, but I think had the discussion been some kind of side by side comparision about Christianity vs. Islam, Maher and Harris would have bashed Christianity almost as much. Personally, I don’t see Islam as any worse than old testament Christianity. But even with a kinder, gentler, Jesusier version of Christianity, it remained a brutal institution until civil society rebelled against it. And I think that’s their argument. Islam is going to have to change it’s dogma and doctrine from within, and the West has to figure out how to encourage it. And the West pretending that the religion has nothing to do with the problem is to almost guarantee failure in whatever attempts it makes. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/377 "2014-10-11T01:45:55Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Bad people. I agree, those guys suck. They don’t just suck - they _explicitly_ state from where their motivations arise. You think Aurangzeb was frontin’? I haven’t even mentioned Timur. He slaughtered millions in India in the name of Islam, but I don’t take him seriously because he did the same thing in Muslim Central Asia, Iran, and Iraq. Now _that’s_ someone you can point to who attempted to use religion as a cloak for their misdeeds. > [@](#): > > If you’re saying the Christians in past centuries were a _positive force_ in places like the Americas and Africa, then I’m going to have to strongly disagree with you, even though there were some decent folks in there fighting against the massive amounts of injustice. Yes, I am saying that. After all, there were _some_ conscientious people like de las Casas. You have repeatedly asserted that various branches of Islam are not representative of the faith as a whole. Why do you focus on the soldier and not the priest when discussing Christianity in the New World? This appears disingenous to me. > [@](#): > > How? Are you saying the Muslim conquest of India was _not complicated_? Back on Page 7 I [said](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17804949&postcount=350): _" I also recognize that the conquest was extremely complex and at various times political concerns waxed and waned relative to religious ones."_ ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/378 "2014-10-11T01:50:01Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > They don’t just suck - they _explicitly_ state from where their motivations arise. You think Aurangzeb was frontin’? No, I just don’t think that’s particularly unique, surprising, or special. > [@](#): > > Yes, I am saying that. After all, there were _some_ conscientious people like de las Casas. You have repeatedly asserted that various branches of Islam are not representative of the faith as a whole. Why do you focus on the soldier and not the priest when discussing Christianity in the New World? This appears disingenous to me. So we disagree here. I think they both suck. Most of the Christian priests in the New World during the periods of colonization sucked as well. I don’t think highly of most Christian colonizers, whether priests or soldiers, even though there were a few decent folks sprinkled among both categories. > [@Fuji](#): > > Back on Page 7 I [said](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17804949&postcount=350): > > _" I also recognize that the conquest was extremely complex and at various times political concerns waxed and waned relative to religious ones."_ So what was the problem with what I said? It was extremely complicated, and not just religiously motivated conquest. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/379 "2014-10-11T01:59:29Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m not interested in flattering Islamic societies. I think most human societies have been, until recently, pretty awful and unjust, and religion (all religions!) bear a big part of this blame. Only recently have we had a few decent and close-to-just human societies on earth, and even these have lots and lots of problems. That’s not the point. You were the one who brought up the slave trade in an attempt to mitigate historic Islamic excesses. My stats (feel free to bring your own) show that there is _no_ moral high ground from which defenders of Islam can legitimately declaim their superiority. > [@](#): > > I’m certainly much less knowledgeable about the details of Muslim society in India as I am about various Christian-led societies in the west. I’ll note that, at various points and places in history, there was also no “effective opposition” in many of these Christian societies (which were, after all, pretty diverse in policies and practices). I would find it hard to believe, though, that there were zero Indian Muslims who were not decent people, and didn’t at least take some actions to try and curb some of the most awful stuff that went on. I don’t buy that there’s any human society in which _all of the people_ were bad. :smack: Oh, for fuck’s sake, I already [said](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17805307&postcount=360): _“I have no stomach for absolutists of any stripe, those who say “All X is \_\_\_\_\_” or “All X is not \_\_\_\_\_\_”. Of course, immediate contingencies have governed the vast majority of human actions through the ages.”_ > [@](#): > > At various times in history I think it absolutely was equivalent. This is simply not true. Please read some more. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/380 "2014-10-11T02:03:48Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > That’s not the point. You were the one who brought up the slave trade in an attempt to mitigate historic Islamic excesses. My stats (feel free to bring your own) show that there is _no_ moral high ground from which defenders of Islam can legitimately declaim their superiority. Well that’s a relief, because I’ve never tried to claim any moral high ground. A pox on all their houses. I certainly wasn’t trying to mitigate anything – rather, to demonstrate that Christian governments and forces have been responsible for atrocities that were as bad as anything ever done to anyone (which your stats support). > [@](#): > > :smack: > > Oh, for fuck’s sake, I already [said](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17805307&postcount=360): > > _“I have no stomach for absolutists of any stripe, those who say “All X is \_\_\_\_\_” or “All X is not \_\_\_\_\_\_”. Of course, immediate contingencies have governed the vast majority of human actions through the ages.”_ Okay, so there’s no disagreement here. Apologies if I misunderstood you. > [@](#): > > This is simply not true. Please read some more. I will continuing reading until I’m dead. But based on what I’ve read so far, there were definitely times and places in which there was no significant internal opposition to certain atrocities committed by Christian forces. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589.md?page=20)