I don’t think so. Hatred and mistreatment of homosexuals is bigoted regardless of whether homosexuality is a choice. It doesn’t matter if something is a choice in that regard, in my opinion.
If someone asserts “black people are less intelligent”, then that’s a bigoted statement regardless of context.
That’s far from clear. Non-majority Muslim nations that share other characteristics that many majority-Muslim possess (such as a history of colonialism, poverty, corrupt and authoritarian governments, lack of literacy and education, and tribalism) exhibit similar problems, such as the oppression of women and terrorist violence. On what basis do you conclude that the popular religion, as opposed to those other factors, is what causes these issues?
You know how you keep saying we “don’t get” what you are saying. Here is what we are saying, or, at least what I am saying. When you have a country that is predominately Muslim, bad things happen. Now, you want to say, well, some groups in those countries are treated poorly, but that is just rationalization and BS.
I reject the idea that there are different “forms” of Islam. What there is, are laws and customs in the USA and Europe that make it pretty much impossible for Islam to function the way it does in the Middle East. Muslims in the USA and Europe WILL BE more open minded and tolerant, BUT, that is a function of them growing up in the USA or in Europe, in a more tolerant society. It’s not like they have a different copy of the Koran than the one that is used in Saudi Arabia!!! Same book, both places.
Find me some examples of people being stoned to death in a non Muslim country. Find me an example of a non Muslim country where women can’t drive, own property, have jobs or get an education.
I’ll hold this up as an example of the type of bigoted assertions that I am arguing against.
You know, if you weren’t so concerned about making sure I wasn’t a bigot, you might be able to actually comprehend and debate the points I am making. Because thus far you haven’t responded to any, apart from hand waving and semantics.
That’s a non-answer. Honor killings over spurious non-crimes like adultery occur in non-majority-Muslim cultures, such as amongst Hindus and Sikhs in India. The precise method of killing isn’t particularly meaningful.
At least as of 2003, women in majority-Christian Kenya couldn’t own property.
How do you explain majority-Muslim nations like Turkey where women can do all those things, in light of your “only one form of Islam” stance?
Nobody wants to live in Somalia, Libya, or Afghanistan, regardless. They’re failed states. And what’s so bad about Turkey?
What you’re overlooking is the fact that the populations of these countries are not homogenous. There are more cosmopolitan areas in, say, Iran, that a homosexual female atheist manic pixie dream girl could probably exist in and be more or less satisfied with life. The same dynamic exists anywhere you go in the world. A homosexual female atheist probably would prefer not to live in Odessa, TX, when she could live in Austin.
Also, many of those states are in and around the Middle East, a region that seems to be going through its own version of the Thirty Years War. Is that happening solely because of the malign influence of Islam?
Yes but do they have public stonings??? And you found one example, ten years old, of a country where women can’t hold property. I bet women can’t hold property in at least HALF of these countries:
Libya
Somalia
Tunisia
Yemen
Oman
UAE
Saudi Arabia
Jordan
Lebanon
Turkey
Syria
Iraq
Iran
Afghanistan
Pakistan
And to answer your point about Turkey, Turkey is heavily influenced by it’s proximity to Europe. Which strengthens my case, not yours. Also, I never said bad things happen only in Muslim countries and no where else. I’m saying when you add the religious influence it makes it worse.
I don’t know if you’re a bigot. I try to avoid labeling people as such. I think you’ve said some bigoted things. I probably have too, at some point in my life. I strive to not say bigoted things, as I think all people should.
No, I don’t. I think he, like Bill Maher, has been clear that he only has a problem with Muslim who wish to kill apostates, blashpemers, infidels, etc.
I don’t think anyone has disagreed with that sentiment; it’s possible I skipped over a post, tho so I’m open to being shown that I’m incorrect.
Ok. 
So which versions of the Koran have had the passages about killing all infidels removed and denounced?
The bible does command followers to do a bunch of shitty things. IMO it’s fair to say that the things in the bible are Christian writings. Would you agree with that statement? If not, why not?
Dude, you just handwaved it away right there.
Alvin: “Would you kill an infidel or support people who were killing infidels?”
Bill: “Yes.”
Calvin: “Well, clearly this man isn’t a murderer or someone who supports murder for people who do not choose to follow Islam.”
David: “WTF???”
Why do you choose to discount or ignore statements of intent or desire here? Is it because they contradict they way you wish that things would be? That’s how it’s coming across.
Well, you’re ignoring or denying what all those Egyptian poll respondents said. Why?
So how is the statement “police officers shoot and kill innocent people” invalidated by the fact that not all police officers shoot and kill innocent people? I can’t even wrap my head around what semantic leaps and contortions you seem to be going through to reach your desired conclusion.
For the record, it’s NOT FALSE that police officers shoot and kill innocent people. And the fact that not all police officers shoot and kill innocent people DOES NOT invalidate the statement.
Muslims kill people. Muslims are terrorists. The fact that the number of Muslims who do those things is less than 100% has no bearing on the accuracy of the statement.
Okay, if you’re going to seriously write the phrase “Islam is not an idealogy”, you’re going to have a difficult time communicating effectively in this discussion, IMO. The qualifier you placed after that doesn’t mitigate the phrase’s illogic in any way.
Could you tell me where you get this idea from? I can’t say 100% you are wrong but I am very skeptical.
Well, IMO, bigotry against choices people make is fine. Do you disagree with that?
Not the point!!!
How do you account for the fact that in Westernized countries, with human rights and democracy, Islam is a relatively benign entity, BUT, in places where Muslims are the majority, they, as you say, “treat some groups of people badly very much of the time”. Where they can exercise such excessive, violent power, they do. How is this not indicative of a very, very, very, very bad system of thought?
Persian culture has existed longer than Islam. Do you think the whole country is just angry dudes waving scimitars in the air?
Have you read his most recent posts?
I’ll repeat what I said earlier: I think this is the big point of contention here. There’s nothing in the Koran that’s worse than some specific text in the Bible. The holy texts and religious practices could be swapped wholesale, and people could just as easily find religious justification in the Bible for terrorism, oppressing women, death to apostates, etc., as in the Koran. The Koran is not special. The geopolitical circumstances of the Middle East are special.
No, they definitely said it, according to the poll. And they’re very troublingly wrong.
Maybe it’s inflection and context. Sometimes “some” is probably implied and I just miss it.
These are examples of the implied “some”, I believe. If “some” is implied, then it’s probably not false and bigoted. Bill Maher (and others) have said it in a way that I believe did not include that implied “some”.
It’s a religious ideology, and there are definitely political ideologies that spring up from certain forms if Islam, but Islam is not a politicial ideology like communism. Comparing them sounds like those Oklahoma wackjobs who say “Islam is not a religion, it’s a political ideology, therefore it doesn’t deserve 1st amendment protection”.
I absolutely disagree, if those choices include things like religious beliefs or adult sexual partners. Bigotry against people in interracial couples, which is definitely a choice, is definitely wrong.
I don’t mean choices like murder and rape, obviously.
1- I meant, have you visited the country or have you read up on cosmopolitan life in Iran.
2- If there are a few areas in the country where an Atheist, homosexual, female could live openly, what that really means is, that in most of the country, they couldn’t. which kind of proves my point to begin with.
Well, your criticism would likely be wrong, as I demonstrated in my previous post.
Right, and one of the geopolitial circumstances of the Middle East is that a large number of people are followers of a book with some nasty instructions that they believe and are willing, even eager, to follow.
The fact that there is another book that also urges people to do bad shit doesn’t mean the Koran doesn’t exhort followers to do bad shit. And the immediate problem is that too many people, IMO, are trying to do the bad shit they are directed to do by the Koran. And to them, they are directed by the single most powerful force in all of existence to do these things, since the Koran is, like the Bible is to Christians, the words of their god.
So the Koran is special, in that at this moment in history, it’s the only book with those instructions to followers that has large numbers of followers willing and eager to carry out those instructions.
The Koran is being used to justify political recriminations; politics isn’t being used to justify Islamic recriminations.