# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/121 "2014-10-07T20:14:54Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > They don’t seem to be in any hurry to modernize. We need to protect ourselves in the meantime. I never said we shouldn’t. Any person, and any nation, has the right of self-defense. ---
**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, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/122 "2014-10-07T20:16:07Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m well acquainted with Deism and The Founders. My point stands. How? It invalidates your point. If they had all been Christers like Patrick Henry, the result would have been much different. Instead, the Deist influence made a world of difference, separating church and state, to the chagrin of people like Patrick Henry ever since. [quote=“Sr\_Siete, post:118, topic:700589”] It made wonders for the Communist countries, did it? If you’re referring to repression carried out by such regimes, remember what I wrote earlier. At least secular violence is about something real. Also, that’s a canard in any case, as if all atheists share Mao’s politics. Also, a century before Mao, tens of millions of people died in China’s Taiping Rebellion, because one man thought he was Jesus’s younger brother, and millions believed him. See? It’s violence for nothing. > [@](#): > > Face it, the problem is not religion, is people. People will always find some excuse to be monsters to each other. Bronze age mythology, money, tribalism… you will never get rid of the basic human need to be jerks… and least of all becoming a jerk against a particular group yourself. That’s false equivalency. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/123 "2014-10-07T20:16:48Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > 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\*. > > \*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) Publicly and repeatedly? How many such “genuinely Christian organizations” and how often. That some Christian groups opposed the KKK is most likely true, (although Catholics, as targets of the KKK hardly count). The vast majority of Christian denominations, however, said nothing. The KKK of the 1920s was brought down when their own internal corruption, (embezzlement, bribes to politicians, sex crimes, etc.), became public knowledge, not because church groups opposed them in any number. For that matter, one complaint against Muslims is that they are not speaking out against terrorism and other acts, yet it is not difficult to find their condemnation of such behavior. Unfortunately, such statements are rarely carried by news media. Even the recent world-wide joint condemnation of ISIS by Imams from every Muslim nation rarely got more than a couple of lines in newspapers and I only heard it broadcast on NPR. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/124 "2014-10-07T20:20:29Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > If I believed that the creator of the universe was going to torture me forever if I didn’t do X, Y, and Z. I’d be up early doing them. > > Extremists believe that, so they go balls to the wall. > > I’d say that moderate believers don’t believe that X, Y, and Z are actually necessary. You just need to do X when you can, and Y as your conscience dictates. And Z is just silly. They can still believe hard, and even be extremist, but their beliefs are mushier and easier to live with. > > Those idiot Mega-Church Christians that live here can be extremists, it’s just their beliefs are mushy pap designed to be easily salable in today’s market. They don’t get the “stone adulterers” stuff fed to them. They get treacly nonsense about love, and hating abortion. Yep. The difference is that when you get an Extremist Christian, they may want to pray a lot, outlaw abortion or if really extreme, not use electricity, like the Amish. When you get an extremist Islamist, you get the murder of innocents and beheadings, in the name of Allah. ---
**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, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/125 "2014-10-07T20:21:44Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > I don’t think it’s quite that unequivocal. Look at the quote: Harris does call those people (who don’t want to kill apostates, etc.) “Muslims.” (He says “hundreds of millions of Muslims,” in fact, fall into this category of being against killing apostates and of being horrified by ISIS.) > > So he’s saying you can be Muslim (albeit nominal) and not extremist. That’s not the same thing as saying, as you alleged Harris and Maher were saying, that simply being Muslim “leads to” being extremist. I think that the use of the word “nominal” heavily implies the opposite, the you can’t be a “true” Muslim and oppose extremists. therefore the more of a “real” (according to their definition) Muslim you are, the more you are a violent extremist. I stand by my interpretation. ---
**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, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/126 "2014-10-07T20:24:18Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yep. The difference is that when you get an Extremist Christian, they may want to pray a lot, outlaw abortion or if really extreme, not use electricity, like the Amish. When you get an extremist Islamist, you get the murder of innocents and beheadings, in the name of Allah. Or they invade Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands of people, and actually shatter the country’s Christian community in the process. Remember, Xians are apparently the staunchest backers of American imperialism. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/127 "2014-10-07T20:26:53Z")
> [@Lemmytheseal2](#): > > How? It invalidates your point. If they had all been Christers like Patrick Henry, the result would have been much different. Instead, the Deist influence made a world of difference, separating church and state, to the chagrin of people like Patrick Henry ever since. You may want to reread my post. And I will state that even if they were all devout Christians, they still would have wound up wanting to NOT have the federal government be able to establish a religion. The founding of the country lis largely based on religious freedom, going back to the Pilgrims in 1620. Keep in mind that in the 1770s, some states had official religions. They weren’t afraid of religion, they were afraid that the new country would be entwined with one specific religion, like England. And even most of the Deists followed Christian beliefs. Most notably, Jefferson, who ascribed to the teachings and philosophy of Christ but drew the line at things like miracles. ---
**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, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/128 "2014-10-07T20:27:44Z")
[quote=“Lemmytheseal2, post:122, topic:700589”] How? It invalidates your point. If they had all been Christers like Patrick Henry, the result would have been much different. Instead, the Deist influence made a world of difference, separating church and state, to the chagrin of people like Patrick Henry ever since. > [@Sr\_Siete](#): > > It made wonders for the Communist countries, did it? > > If you’re referring to repression carried out by such regimes, remember what I wrote earlier. At least secular violence is about something real. Also, that’s a canard in any case, as if all atheists share Mao’s politics. Also, a century before Mao, tens of millions of people died in China’s Taiping Rebellion, because one man thought he was Jesus’s younger brother, and millions believed him. See? It’s violence for nothing. > > That’s false equivalency. I don’t really feel that belief in an utopian political system is that much better than repression caused by religious beliefs. I don’t see how you can find one better than the other. And it’s not a false equivalence at all, since I state that “being human” is the cause of the same violence we were discussing, not another kind of violence completely separated. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/129 "2014-10-07T20:30:23Z")
> [@Lemmytheseal2](#): > > Or they invade Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands of people, and actually shatter the country’s Christian community in the process. Remember, Xians are apparently the staunchest backers of American imperialism. They only way to reasonably argue that is to take that part of Christianity, the part that believes that you help people who need it, and divorce it from the secular American belief that states the same. Trying to tie it exclusively to a Christian expression of faith exhibits an argument from desperation. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/130 "2014-10-07T20:30:35Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yep. The difference is that when you get an Extremist Christian, they may want to pray a lot, outlaw abortion or if really extreme, not use electricity, like the Amish. When you get an extremist Islamist, you get the murder of innocents and beheadings, in the name of Allah. I will grant that Islam and Christianity aren’t identical. However, Islam today is as violent as Christianity was, say 500 years ago. What does that tell you? Christianity hasn’t changed. The countries that practice it have changed. Most of them, anyway. Christianity isn’t immune from being shitty and violent. It’s just that nobody who is saving up for a boat blows themselves up on a school bus. Christian societies are by and large soft, and comfortable. Islamic societies are, largely, poor and primitive. Just like Christians were five hundred years ago. Get the Islamic world worried about buying affording a boat, and a trip to EuroDisney, and they’ll be as fat and soft as Christians are today. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/131 "2014-10-07T20:32:41Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > 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. No. The assertions made in posts 39 and 46 are in error, as I have noted. I have also posted no insults to any poster, so I do not know what you are on about, here. > [@Sherrerd](#): > > 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. _meh_ Few Christian groups did any such thing and we, as a society, are ignoring similar efforts by Muslim leaders. > [@Sherrerd](#): > > 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. Since I have made no such assertion, I have no need to provide a citation to support what I have not said. The form of ritual traditionally carried out in Southeast Asia is strictly a cultural artifact with no medical purpose. However, it is also no more injurious than tattoos or similar activities practiced around the world and its inclusion lists of places engaging in FGM is simply a way to stir up hatred or disgust by associating it with clitorectomies and infibulation when it is clearly no such thing. ---
**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, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/132 "2014-10-07T20:36:57Z")
> [@Sr\_Siete](#): > > I don’t really feel that belief in an utopian political system is that much better than repression caused by religious beliefs. I don’t see how you can find one better than the other. > > And it’s not a false equivalence at all, since I state that “being human” is the cause of the same violence we were discussing, not another kind of violence completely separated. Marx had no tolerance for utopians, and Marxists follow that lead. I do find it much worse to fight over a nonexistent deity than for a real and tangible ideology. Also, are you trying to say that all societies are more or less equally violent? Is Finland not preferrable to Jamaica? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/133 "2014-10-07T20:38:27Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I will grant that Islam and Christianity aren’t identical. However, Islam today is as violent as Christianity was, say 500 years ago. > > What does that tell you? > > Christianity hasn’t changed. The countries that practice it have changed. Most of them, anyway. > > Christianity isn’t immune from being shitty and violent. It’s just that nobody who is saving up for a boat blows themselves up on a school bus. Christian societies are by and large soft, and comfortable. > > Islamic societies are, largely, poor and primitive. Just like Christians were five hundred years ago. Get the Islamic world worried about buying affording a boat, and a trip to EuroDisney, and they’ll be as fat and soft as Christians are today. While I certainly grant that Christianity in the 17th century was guilty of a lot of violence and stupidity born of ignorance, I think it a stretch to say it is as violent as Islam is today. Even so, if this were 500 years ago I’d join in the condemnation of the barbarism of both religions. But here we are in the 21st century, and the the people acting like murderous savage assholes in numbers are Muslim, not Christians. I do agree that the more prosperous people generally become the more apt they are to leave the nutty (seeming) dictates of religion. Then again, Saudi Arabis is pretty wealthy. And Osama bib Laden came from a very wealthy family. ---
**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, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/134 "2014-10-07T20:41:43Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You may want to reread my post. And I will state that even if they were all devout Christians, they still would have wound up wanting to NOT have the federal government be able to establish a religion. The founding of the country lis largely based on religious freedom, going back to the Pilgrims in 1620. Keep in mind that in the 1770s, some states had official religions. They weren’t afraid of religion, they were afraid that the new country would be entwined with one specific religion, like England. > > And even most of the Deists followed Christian beliefs. Most notably, Jefferson, who ascribed to the teachings and philosophy of Christ but drew the line at things like miracles. Didn’t Rhode Island (for example) emerge as a distinct settlement because the Puritans only wanted freedom for themselves, and not for any heretics? Also, Deists like those you mention identified with Christian messages, but removed all the supernatural nonsense, which is really my point. > [@magellan01](#): > > They only way to reasonably argue that is to take that part of Christianity, the part that believes that you help people who need it, and divorce it from the secular American belief that states the same. Trying to tie it exclusively to a Christian expression of faith exhibits an argument from desperation. I don’t follow you here. ---
**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, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/135 "2014-10-07T20:44:48Z")
> [@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. > [@tomndebb](#): > > The form of ritual traditionally carried out in Southeast Asia is strictly a cultural artifact with no medical purpose. However, it is also no more injurious than tattoos or similar activities practiced around the world and its inclusion lists of places engaging in FGM is simply a way to stir up hatred or disgust by associating it with clitorectomies and infibulation when it is clearly no such thing. Perhaps you could make a poll, asking women who post on the SDMB whether they think having a bean-sized chunk of their clitoris removed would be aptly characterized as “no more injurious than tattoos.” The results might be illuminating. ---
**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, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/136 "2014-10-07T20:46:18Z")
> [@Lemmytheseal2](#): > > Marx had no tolerance for utopians, and Marxists follow that lead. I do find it much worse to fight over a nonexistent deity than for a real and tangible ideology. > > Also, are you trying to say that all societies are more or less equally violent? Is Finland not preferrable to Jamaica? Marxism was an utopian concept. No matter how much he wanted to distance himself from it. It never was more tangible than any old man in the sky. And no, of course societies from first world countries are less violent than those in third world countries. Nobody is arguing otherwise. (Well, I’d go live in Jamaica before Finland, but that’s not the point you were trying to make) What I’m saying is that extremism happens in poorer, less educated places because of human nature, not because of a religion or a 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, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/137 "2014-10-07T20:49:28Z")
> [@Lemmytheseal2](#): > > I’m an atheist also, and I’m flabbergasted at all the cognitive dissonance displayed by those who don’t seem to see their holy books as actually holy when they find it inconvenient. Most believers, from any religion, do indeed cherry-pick, and I think that pointing this out is crucial to breaking the power of religion, hence my calls for them to put up or shut up. The extremists are certainly equally as guilty of this (if not more so). There are plenty of passages in the Koran that contradict suicide bombing, killing children, rape, etc. ---
**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, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/138 "2014-10-07T20:53:28Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Oh, really? It’s “just like” “extremist Christian” belief. Well, you’ll have to back that up. Like with a poll that shows that the same proportion of Christians see their religion as mandating or supporting the killing of abortion doctors as the proportion of Muslims who see their religion mandating or supporting the killing of innocents, murdering gays, stoning adulterers, mutilating girls, killing those who leave the religion, etc. > > Still waiting for that. Why? That has nothing to do with what I’m saying. > [@](#): > > You’re ignoring that these murderous savages are not just random individuals. They are not Charlie Mansons or Malcolm McDowell’s character from A Clockwork Orange. They share something deeply: a religion. Explicitly. Not only do they share it, they point to it as the reason for their fucked-in-the-head savagery. They TELL us the reason. I think they’re pretty similar to Manson and other psychos, actually. The extremism is an excuse, for many, I believe. And whatever religion they share – their beliefs are much farther from your average Dearborn Muslim than the Dearborn guy is to an American Catholic or Jew. > [@](#): > > As some one else brought up, it’s akin claiming that a bunch of good old boys from 1940s Alabama who donned white sheets and separately killed a bunch of black people did so just because, well, any reason at all…as long as you don’t dare think their KKK membership had anything do do with it. I think they joined the KKK because they wanted to do racist stuff. The KKK doesn’t inspire people to do racist stuff, for the most part – it’s a bunch of idiot racists. > [@](#): > > Nonsense. It raises the degree of the threat. Significantly. Just imagine if the poll showed that only .0001% agreed with the outlook of the savages. The fact that so many do agree with them means that the religion writ large is way too accepting of murderous savagery. And it increases the likelihood that another innocent Muslim will be the next radical savage asshole. I don’t think this is the case. There are plenty of Muslim countries in which the polling is very different – and in most cases, the differences is the openness of their educational system and society in general. It’s not the Islam that drives these opinions – it’s other factors. ---
**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, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/139 "2014-10-07T20:56:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > While I certainly grant that Christianity in the 17th century was guilty of a lot of violence and stupidity born of ignorance, I think it a stretch to say it is as violent as Islam is today. This doesn’t seem like a stretch at all. Various colonial wars of the time were just as bloody, if not more so, comparatively speaking, as middle-eastern conflicts today. ---
**Author:** ![JesterX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JesterX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JesterX)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589/140 "2014-10-07T21:14:44Z")
You have to admit, if one feels they and their people are being persecuted and oppressed by a seemingly all-powerful enemy like the ancient Roman Empire, Soviet Union in Afghanistan (and subsequently the U.S.), or Moahmar Khaddafy in Libya, or Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, etc. and you want to take up arms to fight such oppression - it sure helps **A LOT** if the prospect of death holds no particular fear for you. Devout religion (Islam or otherwise) is pretty much UNPARALLELED in it’s power to temper a person’s fear of death. So for a group like ISIL or the Taliban, or the Mullahs of Iran, etc., it’s their very fanaticism that enabled them to rise to power, or at least pose a challenge, against almost insurmountable enemies. I’m not defending these nuts by any means but clearly these are groups that were BORNE of some form of tyranny. Bill Maher, and a lot of his defenders in this thread, seems to ignore that fact. I’m with Affleck, it’s not Islam that’s the problem. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-do-you-stand-on-the-bill-maher-ben-affleck-argument/700589.md?page=8)