Where do you stand on the Bill Maher/Ben Affleck argument?

Great Debates
301

No, the first time you hedged you initial denunciation with the disclaimer that you didn’t think anything like that would be a real religion (which was hilarious considering the context of this conversation).

Okay, so now you’ve denounced that religion. Congratulations, you’re a bigot! How does it feel? :wink:

Okay, then you’re redefining words. Such treatment is bigoted and an example of a manifestation of bigotry. But that treatment isn’t bigotry in and of itself. The bigotry is the fact of the intolerance, not the manifestation of it.

Huzzah! :smiley:

Nope, you are trying to shut the conversation down. You wielding “bigotry” like I’ve seen people wield “harassment” or “negative attitude” or “rape enabler”.

Look, try this: stop using the concept of “blind unreasoning hatred” as a filter for people who are criticizing Islam (that’s what you seem to be doing, to me anyway). Instead consider the concept, that you yourself engaged in at the start of this post, of “reasoned rejection”.

And then ask yourself why someone would follow as literal instructions that included maiming and killing everyone on the planet that doesn’t at least claim and pretend to believe the same things you do? Would you “reasonably reject” such words or would you follow them? And could you reasonably reject anyone who followed them if you decided not to, or would that be “bigotry” and as such, something to be avoided?

Cool.

302

I will agree that all specific forms of Islam are, in fact, Islamic.

I definitely don’t think anyone who believes that God commands them to kill and die a martyr should be “given a pass”. All such people are wrong.

I think they’re wrong that death is an appropriate punishment for apostasy. I believe that is morally wrong and unjust.

303

If I’m a bigot, I need to improve myself. I don’t believe that denouncing a religion that advocates murder is bigotry – I denounce many such religious beliefs.

I don’t understand how the treatment can be bigoted but isn’t bigotry. You’re second and third sentences seem to directly conflict here.

I am enjoying this conversation and learning a lot. I do not wish to shut it down.

I don’t think I’m using this concept as a filter, whatever that means. Reasoned rejection sounds fine to me. It’s unreasoned rejection that I object to.

I certainly “reasonably reject” anyone who believes their God and/or holy book instructs them to maim and kill. I don’t believe such reasonable rejection would be bigotry.

304

Okay, cool.

Cool again. So would you tolerate a few instances of this, as long as there weren’t too many, or is even one too many?

Ah okay, but you don’t question that they have this belief, do you? You acknowledge that some people do think that, right? Would you also acknowledge that some of them would act based on those beliefs?

305

Actually, this makes iiandyiiii’s point very well.

When the society has established various levels of democracy and an advanced economy, the people living in it tend to behave in less barbarous ways, regardless of the religion.

This is why women are still subjugated, with few rights, and a constant threat of honor killings in Hindu India in those regions where poverty and governmental corruption persist, even though India has actually had a woman as the head of state. This is why women in primarily Christian and animist countries in Africa tend to have no more rights than the women in neighboring majority-Muslim nations. This is why “peaceful” Buddhists engaged in violence toward their Christian and Hindu neighbors after the January 1 tidal wave wreaked havoc on their world. It is why Christians carried out such brutal genocide in Rwanda. This is why Muslims have been brutally attacked by Christians in Central African Republic, Nigeria, and Cote d’Ivoire.

Your list of places where women have no rights would be more impressive if you had actually discovered what rights they did or did not have instead of simply “betting” that they lack them in all or most of those countries.

You have cherry picked a list of nations that are in one contiguous region that happens to be majority Muslim, ignored the ways in which those regions were first suppressed by the declining Ottoman Empire or the warlords who filled the vacuum as it retreated and then subjected to European interference for the last two hundred years and draw the conclusion that the religion is to blame for any problems. Your argument is not persuasive.

306

I’m not sure what you mean. I will criticize them even if it’s just one.

Nope, yep, and yes*, with the * meaning that I understand some would act on these beliefs, but I hope that most of them would not actually act on those beliefs were they actually in such a situation.

307

Okay, that’s another disagreement we have: you use the word “bigot” as an epithet. To you, it seems, “bigotry” is an inherently evil thing. It’s not. It’s a part of life. All of us are intolerant of some things. I earlier spoke of my absolute intolerance for klezmer filking. How is that evil or bad? What moral failing am I exhibiting by utterly rejecting klezmer filking?

It’s a semantics thing. Bigotry is simply the intolerance. The treatment is described as “bigoted”, which means it was caused by the bigotry. It is an example of bigotry, but not the bigotry itself.

Cool. To be specific, tho, I meant that it appeared that you were using the cry of “bigotry” to shut down the conversation where you were accusing people’s post of exhibiting bigotry or bigoted statements. To you, bigotry is ALWAYS evil, it’s ALWAYS bad, there is no instance of “good bigotry”. That’s simply not true for what the word means.

Bigotry against things that are no fault of the people you’re intolerant of is wrong. No one has control of their skin color, their place of birth, what family they were born into, etc. To dislike people based on those reasons is wrong, and evil.

Disliking people for the choices they have made is fine, IMO. I can be intolerant of OJ Simpson, Pol Pot and Debralee Scott all I want. I can hate them with the molten fury of a thousand suns and it won’t affect the universe one iota. My bigotry with regards to them is neither bad nor good, it’s simply intolerance. But acting based on that hatred is where it becomes good or bad.

What you’ve seemed to be saying is that you feel that you should never, ever, NOT be tolerant. Then you showed that you wouldn’t tolerate skinning children alive as a religious ritual. Why would anyone want to be tolerant of that? I don’t. You don’t. I don’t think most people would. Well, now you’re bigoted. And so what, in this instance? Being intolerant of someone or something is fine; we all do it all the time. Who wants to hang out with their ex-? Everyone want in on this? Does anyone want in on this?

When you use “bigot” to only mean “hateful hater of people because of their skin color or gender or sexual preference”, you lose sight of the fact that the word doesn’t mean “evil intolerance for people, things & opinions different from your own”, it just means “intolerance for people, things & opinions different than your own”.

By using it to constantly invoke “evil intolerance” you’re engaging in a type of ad hominem attack and attempting to demonize your opposition.

I’ve seen other definitions for “bigot” and “bigotry” that include “unreasonable intolerance” but even that isn’t the case here, as I think you’ll agree that being intolerant of people threatening to kill someone isn’t unreasonable.

I think I addressed this in the long rambling bit above. I hope I did.

No, you wouldn’t because you’ve attached all this baggage to the word “bigotry”.

308

“Bigotry” from my understanding (and the definitions googled that fit best to me) requires ignorance and/or unfairness. So what you describe, from my understanding, is not bigotry.

I don’t think simple dislike, as you describe here, is bigotry. If you assert that people who choose to date outside their race are morally/intellectually inferior, then I believe that’s a bigoted statement based on my understanding of the definition of the word “bigotry”.

No, there are many things that should not be tolerated.

Again, this doesn’t fit the definition of bigotry as I understand it.

309

So would you agree that you would not tolerate their acting on their beliefs? That you disagree with them so vehemently and so vociferously that you would not only denounce them but act to prevent them from exercising their religious belief?

Congrats! You’re a bigot. Seriously, we all are. It’s not evil, in and of itself, to dislike things, not even intensely, like with the molten fury of a thousand suns. Heck, some things, like a belief the necessity of skinning a child alive, are good things to be intolerant of.

Well, is wishes were fishes we’d all swim in riches.

I’m sorry but I’m getting tired and I’ve lost my train of thought with regards to those questions. I know it had something to do with the fact that many people not only believe those words but act on it, perhaps not with violence themselves but to explicitly support the people and organizations that do. And those people are deserving of my bigotry. I will not tolerate actions undertaken because of those beliefs, nor will I allow anyone to make me feel guilty or ashamed of this bigotry.

I hope that was the point I was trying to get to there. :slight_smile:

310

The difference here (or at least the main one), as we’ve demonstrated, is our understanding of the word “bigot”.

311

Do you think the KKK cracker under the white sheet thinks that another white person’s hatred of the KKK is fair or unfair? Do you think he thinks the other white person really has all the facts?

Even if you want to use that definition (and it’s contradicted by the earlier link I gave from when I simply [googled “bigotry”:

]( bigotry - Google Search )
[

](Bigot Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster)
[

](BIGOTRY Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com)
[

](BIGOT | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary)
Even if you want to impute that “unreasonable” stipulation, it simply doesn’t apply to Mr. Maher, Robert and others in this thread. They have very good reasons to be intolerant of people who wish to harm or kill them. And they have very good reasons to be intolerant of a book that offers possible justification for said violence. And they have very good reasons, IMO, to be intolerant of people who say that they think the words of said book should be read and followed as written.

So you tell me now: are they bigots and it’s okay, or are they not bigots because their intolerance is not unreasonable?

Simple dislike isn’t bigotry, no. I assure you, however, that my dislike for klezmer filking isn’t simple. It’s direct, but not simple. :smiley:

And yeah, I’d agree that any assertion about a person’s intelligence formed as a result of the discovery that they were dating someone of a different skin color is stupid and most likely bigoted. Unless cross-racial dating was rewarded with immortality, in which case it would be about the smartest thing anyone could do, I’d think.

If you want “bigotry” to mean “evil, unreasonable irrational hatred” then sorry but using it over and over is an attempt to demonize, as I said earlier. It absolves you from having to listen to someone else’s position or having to consider their viewpoint. Further, it comes across as a signal to others: Do not engage! Crazy person here!

Mr. Affleck kept repeating it in an attempt to shame and silence Mr. Maher; to a large degree, ISTM, you’ve been attempting to do the same thing by using it here.

Woot! Common ground!

312

Hogwash. You’re playing the “why don’t you tolerate the intolerant” game, and it’s a dumb game.

I don’t tolerate murder, rape, arson, etc. That doesn’t make me a “bigot” toward murderers, rapists, or arsonists. It means I don’t have to tolerate people who do evil things.

Bigotry is when one shows intolerance for ordinary, non-harmful things. When one hates Jews, that’s bigotry. If a local street gang of Jewish boys goes on a rampage, it is not bigotry to denounce them – so long as one denounces them for their criminal activity, and not for being Jewish.

313

In this instance, the KKK guy is wrong.

I think there have been some bigoted assertions in this thread. This post, for example, includes bigoted assertions, in my view – the assertion that “true” Islam leads to oppression, beheadings, etc.

I’m intolerant of such people as well. As far as the book, to me it’s the same as the Bible or any other holy text. There’s nothing special about the words in the Koran – only in certain interpretations.

I don’t know. I’m trying not to judge people, just statements. I think statements asserting that “peaceful” Muslims are somehow less “real” in their religious practice than violent Muslims are bigoted and unreasonable statements.

This is not what I mean by bigotry. I mean unfair dislike/hatred based on ignorance, or something like that.

314

Could you cite the dictionary that includes your definition of “bigotry”? I’ve cited some to support the definition as I understand it; could you do the same and educate me on your definition?

And no, I’m not at all playing the “why won’t you tolerate my intolerance?” game. I’m citing the definition of the word and questioning iiandyiii’s use of it, since AFAICT it doesn’t apply to Mr. Maher or to the people that he kept using it towards.

315

Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there I agree, but do you think he thinks he’s wrong? No. He thinks he’s right and he thinks that you’re intolerance for his ideas is unreasonable. So “bigot” can be applied by both sides of the same situation at times. Therefore, it’s not a useful qualifier, IMO.

I’m intolerant of such people as well. As far as the book, to me it’s the same as the Bible or any other holy text. There’s nothing special about the words in the Koran – only in certain interpretations.
[/quote]

How should we describe people who devoutly follow the word of their god exactly as written? How should we describe people who don’t really follow the word of their god much at all, but don’t transgress it much either?

“Peaceful” Muslims are not doing all of the things that their holy book, which is the infallible word of their god, tells them to do. The Quran, as noted above, DOES command that thieves shall have a hand cut off. How can a Muslim who refused to do this or condone it be as accurate in their adherence to scripture as a Muslim who is willing to administer the proscribed punishment?

What term(s) would you use to describe the difference between their practices?

Well, when you know what you mean, exactly, lemme know.

316

Easy. Here’s one from Merriam-Webster online.

“A person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group.)”

Note the keyword “unfairly.”

Disliking someone who is a murderer is completely fair. Disliking someone solely because they practice the Islamic faith is not fair.

317

Cool, you found one. I found 5. I’d say then, that the qualifier, like “unreasonable” isn’t worth anything here.

AFAIK, most racists think their views are totally reasonable and fair.

I’d say then, that the qualifier, like “unreasonable” isn’t worth anything here.

I notice that your cite doesn’t say “ordinary, harmless things”.

Anyway, even if I grant that bigotry must be “unfair” do you think that hating on people who want to kill a person because they are “infidels” is unfair? How about rejecting their holy book that contains passages commanding them to kill infidels; is that unfair? What about expressing disgust at people who use the same book with the same words and passages and offer support for the people who help the people who kill (or try to kill) infidels; is that unfair?

318

Again, I ask, how is that any different from Christianity? Or any other religious texts with oogy bits that decent people ignore?

319

The difference is that this book is being used right now by many people to try and justify all kinds of violence that most of the rest of us don’t like.

As soon as you have a group of Christians doing unsavory things and citing Bible passages as justification, I’ll happily condemn them for that, too.

Jews, Bahá’ís, Pastafarians, Subgenii, Scientologists… any of them wanna harm people and then say “my holy book told me to”, well, I’ll criticize them and their holy book and their religion, all at once if possible. I’ll denounce the shit outta them. And I expect that Jews, Bahá’ís, Pastafarians, Subgenii, Scientologists, etc. would too, if they were perverting some passage from their holy book. And they’ll say “that isn’t real --------” and they’ll be right.

But AFACT, the Muslims committing these atrocities aren’t perverting the Quran. They are reading the words that are written and doing what the words say to do. So if the words themselves describe atrocious practices, who is perverting the faith: the people who do what the book says, or the people who don’t?

320

That’s still confusing correlation with causation.