# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Sr\_Siete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Sr\_Siete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sr_Siete)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/81 "2014-10-07T18:24:11Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > How do you criticize Islamic extremists without pointing out that they are Islamic? > > I think this is the question Maher and Harris wanted to ask Affleck. Of course, Affleck was too busy calling them racists and bigots to offer a reply. You can always condemn extremism without implying that belonging to a race or a religion is the cause of it. More or less like you can condemn all murders and not be racist, but when you imply that people of a race are predisposed to murder, then you are being racist. ---
**Author:** ![Lemmytheseal2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/82dd89/32.png) [@Lemmytheseal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemmytheseal2)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/82 "2014-10-07T18:26:26Z")
> [@Sr\_Siete](#): > > You can always condemn extremism without implying that belonging to a race or a religion is the cause of it. More or less like you can condemn all murders and not be racist, but when you imply that people of a race are predisposed to murder, then you are being racist. Indeed, but religion is not race. ---
**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 7, 2014, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/83 "2014-10-07T18:29:35Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Notice what you wrote above, “Extremist Islamic beliefs”. So, they are _both_ extreme and Islamic. No, they’re “extremist Islamic” beliefs. Just like killing abortion doctors is an “extremist Christian” belief. It’s not a Christian belief, and suicide bombing is not an Islamic belief. The “extremist” tells us a lot more. The Islamic/Christian/etc. only tells us what flavor of extremism it is. Extremism is the problem here, not Islam. > [@](#): > > As I mentioned in another post, ignoring the Islamic component of these murderous barbarians is akin to trying to fight the violence in places like LA while refusing to acknowledge the role that gang membership plays in that violence. I’d love to hear your response to that point. What point? What am I ignoring? They’re Muslims, and that tells us nothing. They’re extremist and radical, and that gives us useful information. > [@](#): > > You’re attempt to draw a parallel between extreme Islam and extreme Christianity is ridiculous. as has been pointed out, how many abortion doctors have been killed by Christians? Or how many Christians have killed abortion doctors? Feel free to control for the respective number of Muslim and Christian adherents. Then please point me to any evidence that shows the percent of Christians who support the murder of abortion doctors. Then we can compare that to the findings of the Pew poll that shows that percent of Muslims who support the killing of infidels, the stoning of adulterers, the murder of homosexuals and the mutilation of young girls. > > I’ll wait. I’ve already addressed these issues. More terrorists happen to be Muslims. This still doesn’t tell us anything about Islam or Muslims in general, since the vast majority are not terrorists. And answering “yes” on a poll doesn’t make someone a threat to us. ---
**Author:** ![Sr\_Siete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Sr\_Siete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sr_Siete)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/84 "2014-10-07T18:31:00Z")
> [@Lemmytheseal2](#): > > Indeed, but religion is not race. Of course not, but hating somebody because of their religious affiliation is still discrimination. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/85 "2014-10-07T18:35:00Z")
I must say I’m a bit mystified by the notion that Christianity hasn’t been a violent religion for the last 400 years. What about “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland, for example? Certainly, there were also other factors at play, but the conflict definitely had a large sectarian component. Likewise the Yugoslav wars in the 90s. Plus, Christian views have served as a pre-text to much anti-semitism in the 20th century. I’m sure one can find more examples. Then there’s also isolated acts of violence motivated by Christian ideas, at least nominally—Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people in 2011, considered himself to be a ‘Christian crusader’. The National Liberation Front of Tripura has killed hundreds in terrorist attacks in order to establish the kingdom of God and Jesus Christ in Tripura, India. The wikipedia pages on [Christianity and violence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_violence), [Christian terrorism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism), and [sectarian violence among Christians](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_violence_among_Christians) list many more contemporary or roughly contemporary examples. So while I don’t know how the numbers stack up, I wonder how much of it is just that typically, Christian violence is differently contextualised in our media—a conflict with Islamist background is more readily considered to be explicitly due to religious reasons, while violence with a Christian background is viewed in a more differentiated way, since it’s the same background we live in—we tend to see it as just being part of ‘the culture’, while more readily stereotyping influences external to it. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/86 "2014-10-07T18:41:26Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Tell that to all the Muslims we’ve bombed over the decades in a thinly veiled Christian crusade. Christianity isn’t less violent; it’s just usually less honest about it these days, and not as powerful. Not to mention the actual crusades and the inquistion, etc. I’m sure that the muslims thnk that christians ae a particularly blodthirsty lot killing millions while they fight back with the murder of dozens at a time (a couple of thousand in one instance). > [@](#): > > Religion is “peaceful” where it is weak, and violent where it is strong. Just look at Buddhism for example; here in America it has a peaceful reputation, but that’s because it’s powerless. In Burma it is powerful, and rather than it being peaceful the Buddhists there persecute and kill Muslims. Why? Power. One difference is that there aren’t a whooe lot of Buddhist religious leaders that are exhorting their folowers to go kill muslims while there are muslim leaders that are declaring jihad with as much fervor as Christians leaders used to declare crusades. > [@](#): > > Oh, come on; there’s plenty of enthusiastic Christian oppression of women, minorities and so on. It’s in the news fairly often, it’s not some secret. Its even mre comparable if you are willing to look back a few generations. Not really recent but not ancient hisory either. > [@](#): > > And here’s another problem - the anti-Islam campaign has a strong racist aspect; it’s often just a more politically acceptable means of expressing racism, like the Republicans who claim Obama is a secret Muslim. That’s what i don’t get. Bill Maher didn’t strike me as a racist before this. I thought he was just being anti-religious. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/87 "2014-10-07T18:45:51Z")
> [@Sr\_Siete](#): > > You can always condemn extremism without implying that belonging to a race or a religion is the cause of it. Certainly. But if you ignore the fact that the extremists are loudly and explicitly _ **using religion to justify their actions** _, then you are never going to be able to deal with that extremism. When the KKK used Christianity to justify their murderous conduct in the USA–and at the peak of their activity, in the 1920s, they were doing precisely that–genuinely Christian organizations denounced them publicly and repeatedly\*. This is an important and necessary step in combatting extremism. To pretend that the rationalizations and pretexts on which extremists base their actions are irrelevant, or to claim that the pretext should be taboo to mention, is to abdicate moral responsibility. \*One source describing these denouncements: Philip Perlmutter. _Legacy of Hate: A Short History of Ethnic, Religious, and Racial Prejudice in America_. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1999 [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=4910](http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=4910) ---
**Author:** ![hieroglyphics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/d6d6ee/32.png) [@hieroglyphics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hieroglyphics)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/88 "2014-10-07T18:50:27Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > I must say I’m a bit mystified by the notion that Christianity hasn’t been a violent religion for the last 400 years. What about “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland, for example? Certainly, there were also other factors at play, but the conflict definitely had a large sectarian component. Likewise the Yugoslav wars in the 90s. Plus, Christian views have served as a pre-text to much anti-semitism in the 20th century. I’m sure one can find more examples. > > Then there’s also isolated acts of violence motivated by Christian ideas, at least nominally—Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people in 2011, considered himself to be a ‘Christian crusader’. The National Liberation Front of Tripura has killed hundreds in terrorist attacks in order to establish the kingdom of God and Jesus Christ in Tripura, India. The wikipedia pages on [Christianity and violence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_violence), [Christian terrorism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism), and [sectarian violence among Christians](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_violence_among_Christians) list many more contemporary or roughly contemporary examples. > > So while I don’t know how the numbers stack up, I wonder how much of it is just that typically, Christian violence is differently contextualised in our media—a conflict with Islamist background is more readily considered to be explicitly due to religious reasons, while violence with a Christian background is viewed in a more differentiated way, since it’s the same background we live in—we tend to see it as just being part of ‘the culture’, while more readily stereotyping influences external to it. The troubles were a localized conflict that was more about politics and less about religion. Politics being the loyalties to either Britain or Ireland. It just so happened that the two were Catholic and Protestant. They weren’t killing each other exclusively because one was Catholic or one was Protestant, but because of where their loyalties were. And the Troubles as far as violence goes, were unbelievably minor compared to the absolute death and destruction that Islamic Extremism has waged across the Middle East. The Troubles killed something like 3,500 people over a 30 year period of time, ISIS has killed more people in the past 24 hours, quite possibly. Its just not even in the same ballpark of violence. ---
**Author:** ![Sr\_Siete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Sr\_Siete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sr_Siete)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/89 "2014-10-07T18:51:41Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Certainly. But if you ignore the fact that the extremists are loudly and explicitly _ **using religion to justify their actions** _, then you are never going to be able to deal with that extremism. > > When the KKK used Christianity to justify their murderous conduct in the USA–and at the peak of their activity, in the 1920s, they were doing precisely that–genuinely Christian organizations denounced them publicly and repeatedly\*. > > This is an important and necessary step in combatting extremism. To pretend that the rationalizations and pretexts on which extremists base their actions are irrelevant, or to claim that the pretext should be taboo to mention, is to abdicate moral responsibility. > \*One source describing these denouncements: Philip Perlmutter. _Legacy of Hate: A Short History of Ethnic, Religious, and Racial Prejudice in America_. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1999 > [H-Net Reviews](http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=4910) Well, yes, exactly. I love your example because I think it absolutely makes my point. Maher and Harris are saying _“being a white Christian leads to things like the KKK, and if we say that, we are called racist.”_ and Affleck is saying (or trying to say) _“Well, yeah. That’s because that’s a very racist point of view.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/90 "2014-10-07T19:08:00Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > What point? What am I ignoring? They’re Muslims, and that tells us nothing. They’re extremist and radical, and that gives us useful information. What you’re ignoring is that it is Islamic religious leaders who are encouraging the violence and extremism, in the name of Islam. They are preaching hate and declaring jihads in the Mosques and on the radio and internet, and they explicitly say it is to be done in the name of Islam. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/91 "2014-10-07T19:13:51Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > … Neither Turkey nor Indonesia have been hotbeds of Islamist unrest or Islamist philosophy and the locations in Indonesia where such attitudes do prevail are the areas subjected to forced modernization and suppression of their religion during the anti-Communist hysteria. As long as Maher and his ilk continue to pound the drum beat of “Islam,” we are likely to see conflict prolonged. > > It also does not help the situation when people fail to take the time to educate themselves so that they continue to spout these errors as if they were Muslim issues:Both honor killings and genital mutilation are phenomena that occur in specific cultures crossing religious boundaries. They are not “Muslim” in any sense of the word. Proclaiming them “Muslim” out of ignorance or malice is nothing more than rhetoric that pointlessly inflames the discussion. The unsound remarks in this post have been successfully countered in posts 39 and 46, so I won’t repeat what was well-expressed there. Your insulting remarks, here, were both inappropriate and unjustifiable. I do agree that the message of many discussions of extremists who use Islam to justify violence often _is_ “Islam is a religion of violence”–and that message is incorrect and dangerous. People use such messages to justify their own indefensible conduct, and that should be called out and condemned. However, I don’t think the solution is to stop mentioning that some extremists are using Islam to justify their violence. To impose silence on the fact that Islam is being misused in this way is to behave like the proverbial ostrich, head-buried-in-the-ground. Instead, the solution is to point out–loudly and often–that extremists are misusing Islam as justification for their violence. And then, to point out that this is unacceptable. Just as American Christians of the 1920s denounced the KKK for misusing Christianity to justify their violence, Muslims today should let extremists know that their cloaking brutality in a show of Islamic faith is deplorable and irreligious. > [@tomndebb](#): > > As to Female “mutilation” as an aspect of Indonesian or Malaysian culture it has traditionally involved a slight nick to the genitals, (which is, indeed, an ancient Islamic practice. Note, however, that as practiced in Indonesia, (following actual _hadiths_ dating back at least as far as the eighth century): [The amount of flesh removed, if any, was alternately described by circumcisers as being the size of a quarter-grain of rice, a guava seed, a bean, the tip of a leaf, the head of a needle.](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20circumcision-t.html?_r=3&ref=magazine&oref=slogin&) This is less destructive than and less painful than a standard male circumcision and is not the clitorectomy or infibulation that most people presume is meant by FGM. To the extent that anyone in Indonesia has taken the matter further, they are part of the radicalized groups created by the anti-Muslim actions of the government. Frankly, anyone making a claim about “Muslim FGM” who includes Indonesia who has not been equally vocal protesting routine male circumcision in the West is a hypocrite… Clearly this thread is not the place to debate the various research studies on the benefits (or lack thereof) of removal of a baby’s foreskin. That there are many such studies that do find benefits is, of course, incontestable.\* But I would certainly like to challenge you to provide reputable research giving evidence of health benefits provided by slicing a piece of flesh (whether rice-sized or bean-sized) from a clitoris. Citations, please. \*Again, it’s stipulated that controversy _does_ exist over whether foreskin-removal’s health benefits exceed any psychological or physiological costs. The claim here is simply that _reputable studies exist_ which do find health benefits to foreskin removal. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/92 "2014-10-07T19:14:16Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > Good point - just look what they did when the had the chance to write a Constitution. This. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/93 "2014-10-07T19:15:44Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > Yes,. but so what? If you appealed to their Christianity with fire and brimstone, you _would not succeed._ Because even the most fanatic fundie Christians don’t believe in beheading everybody who dares to ,say, draw a cartoon of their prophet.There aren’t enough “locals” to support you. No, it’s because the governments in Christian dominated nations are more firmly in control. The “most fanatic fundie Christians” would cheerfully kill people for drawing a cartoon they didn’t like. Many of them openly advocate the destruction of all of humanity except their own little sect, or condemning most of humanity to eternal torture; they’d hardly balk at executing one guy if they could get away with it. I hear Christians on a regular basis call for _the extermination of every Muslim in the world;_ pretending that Christianity isn’t interested in religious violence is just silly. ---
**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 7, 2014, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/94 "2014-10-07T19:17:58Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > This. They weren’t “Christian leaders”. They were “leaders”, a few of them were “Christian”, but they explicitly tried to separate religion from their political advocacy. ---
**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 7, 2014, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/95 "2014-10-07T19:19:00Z")
> [@Lamar\_Mundane](#): > > What you’re ignoring is that it is Islamic religious leaders who are encouraging the violence and extremism, in the name of Islam. They are preaching hate and declaring jihads in the Mosques and on the radio and internet, and they explicitly say it is to be done in the name of Islam. Those are the extremists. Most Islamic religious leaders are not doing this. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/96 "2014-10-07T19:20:51Z")
> [@hieroglyphics](#): > > The troubles were a localized conflict that was more about politics and less about religion. Politics being the loyalties to either Britain or Ireland. It just so happened that the two were Catholic and Protestant. They weren’t killing each other exclusively because one was Catholic or one was Protestant, but because of where their loyalties were. And in that the Troubles are completely different from most Muslim conflicts/terrorism hotbeds because… um… well… you know, like, I mean… ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/97 "2014-10-07T19:21:41Z")
I’m completely with Bill on this. Our PC attitudes won’t allow us to call,a spade a spade. ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/98 "2014-10-07T19:23:40Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > I’m more on Affleck’s side, and think the West can only do worse if the current struggle against Islamic extremism comes to be seen as “a war on Islam” by the average Muslim. There are plenty of peaceful, friendly Muslims in the world; we need allies or at the very least neutrals in the Middle East, and don’t want to alienate and/or radicalize any more of them. Christianity is responsible for the Crusades, the Inquisition, anti-Jewish pogroms, the Salem witch trials, etc., but the faith has largely outgrown those violent, oppressive impulses. In time, I hope Islam does the same. > Well, there is Vatican City… They don’t seem to be in any hurry to modernize. We need to protect ourselves in the meantime. ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/99 "2014-10-07T19:26:40Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Those are the extremists. Most Islamic religious leaders are not doing this. Yes, most are not. But you refuse to acknowledge that this one particular religion has a LOT of extremists. Pointing that out and denouncing it is in no way racist or Islamaphobic. ---
**Author:** ![Lemmytheseal2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/82dd89/32.png) [@Lemmytheseal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemmytheseal2)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/100 "2014-10-07T19:30:45Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Those are the extremists. Most Islamic religious leaders are not doing this. The ones who are doing it are the ones acting in good faith. That’s what their holy book tells them to do, and it either means what it says or it doesn’t. Christianity is the same. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589.md?page=6)