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

Great Debates
141

How many do you need? What significance do you find in one number as opposed to another?

There you go. That was my point: the proper response to a misappropriation of religion as justification for violence, is opposition. It’s important to say ‘this is not what our religion stands for’ when the religion is being used to excuse brutal, thuggish violence.

A couple of references:
***in the 1999 book linked in my previous post, page 170:

Legacy of Hate: A Short History of Ethnic, Religious, and Racial Prejudice ... - Philip Perlmutter - Google Books

***in that Jackson book, page 47:

Citation? (I’m intrigued by this claim, and would like to look at your evidence.)

Of course I made no claim of this kind (that what “brought down” the KKK was opposition by church groups).

This is an excellent point, and deserves to be highlighted (and discussed).

142

I think there are a several layers of issues that get conflated in these kinds of conversations. For instance, let’s discuss the current relationship between Islam and subjugation of women.

Assuming that women in Islamic-dominated countries (whether true theocracies or not) have, on average, fewer rights than women in other countries (although of course it’s not a perfect correlation), why might that be? Well, there are four general answers I can see:
(1) It’s just a fluke of statistics
(2) It’s purely due to things like geography and history and non-religious culture. There are countries that are likely to be hostile towards women’s rights for historical reasons, and those countries, purely by chance, happen also to be Islamic-dominated
(3) Islam, as it is generally practiced at present, is hostile towards women’s rights. So if you visited every Islamic place of learning in the world right now and sampled their attitude towards women’s rights, they would get a worse score than the same survey conducted of every Christian place of learning in the world right now. However, that’s not due to any actual words in the Koran, it’s just due to the way people currently choose to interpret Islam - much as Christianity and Judaism have, at various times in history, been far more sexist than they are now. This non-inherent sexism affects the countries that are Islam-dominated
(4) Islam is, by its very nature, sexist. Following the teachings of the Koran is likely (although not certain) to lead to sexism.

(Plus of course the “truth” could contain aspects of more than one of the above.)

I’m not knowledgeable enough to really proffer an opinion about where the truth lies on that scale, but I feel like a lot of people are presenting the situations as being much more binary than it is, in either direction.
In addition, as others have pointed out, focusing solely on the fact that there are a few tens of thousands of people who identify as Islamic who are currently running around beheading Westerners makes it easy to ignore lots of other issues. Is beheading Westerners representative of mainstream Islam as it exists today? Clearly not. But what about subjugation of women? What about plenty of other social issues?

143

Christians have never had much difficulty in defining “help” as war, torture and tyranny. For their victims own good, of course. For example, the slavers of the Old South often claimed they enslaved blacks for the good of their souls, and to promote Christianity. Or more recently we made lots of noises about how our conquest of Iraq was for the Iraqis’ own good.

If anything I’d call the colonial wars much, much more violent. Iran and Iraq fought a war, but both are still there; you can’t say the same of most of the targets of colonialism. The colonial wars are better compared to the extermination campaigns of the Nazis (which was really only an extension of them IMHO) than to the religious violence of modern Islam.

144

Well, to quote from the explicit links that you provided:

As to Jackson’s claim, who does he identify as “virtually every” denomination when the three very large denominations mentioned above are removed? And how often did they issue such condemnations? Every year at their annual meeting? One time after the Indiana KKK imploded in scandal, jumping on the bandwagon when it was safe? That we can find some condemnations by some member of every denomination is hardly evidence that Christians then, (somehow unlike Muslims, now), were “publicly” and “repeatedly” condemning the KKK as not living up to the Christian ideal.

145

Not sure if it has already been mentioned, but the denunciation of violence and terrorism within Islam is as widespread as this sort of thing ever gets. It isn’t well-reported by American media, especially conservative media, but it’s hard to find a Muslim-majority country or prominent Muslim scholar or leader who has not denounced ISIS, for example.

A very incomplete list of denunciations includes:

[ul]
[li]Organization of Islamic Cooperation which represents 1.4 billion Muslims in 57 countries around the world. Some member countries went as far as further tightening anti-terrorism laws focused on ISIS and al-Qaeda, such as Indonesia.[/li]
[li]The two largest Muslim groups in North America, ISNA and CAIR, as well as the Muslim Council of Great Britain.[/li]
[li]The Arab League, representing 22 Muslim-majority countries.[/li]
[li]The Grand Muftis of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt.[/li]
[li]At least two separate open letters separately containing over two hundred signatures of Islamic scholars.[/li][/ul]

I would be VERY surprised if there were that kind of international denunciation of the KKK. I imagine most Christians regarded it as an American problem. But we uniquely impose on, say, Indonesian Muslims the obligation to denounce whackos in the deserts of Iraq.

146

It’s certainly reasonable to question the scholarship behind a particular book. But I am not Jackson and I’m not his editor (or connected with him in any way).

I’m a bit puzzled by the force of what seems to be your drive to assert that American Christians failed to condemn the KKK, or to quote your post #123, “The vast majority of Christian denominations, however, said nothing.” (I’m still looking forward to your posting a citation in support of your claim, which I asked for back in #141.)

It’s difficult to understand why you are going so far as to, apparently, demand that a message board poster undertake some sort of substantial original research project, which would prove that published authors (Jackson and Perlmutter) didn’t invent their findings. (Is that what you’re suggesting? That the authors of the books to which I linked, invented their findings?)

It’s a baffling position for you to take.

The only thing I can come up with in possible explanation, is that you failed to see that I was making this contention:

… and instead misread my posts to such an extent that you assumed what I was saying was something like “Muslims have never condemned extremists who use Islam to justify their violence” (check my posts: there’s nothing like that in any of them) or even “Christians are better than Muslims, nyah nyah nyah!” (even more ridiculous).

Read the posts: there is nothing in them that even remotely matches such claims.

147

Maher and Harris’s point was that many of these Muslims condemning ISIS still believe in death for apostacy, stoning for adultery, and other unconscienable punishments for non-crimes. It’s easy to condemn ISIS, but they don’t go so far as to condemn these barbaric practices because they agree with them. And, to use Maher’s analogy, many of them can’t publicly condemn these things because of the Mafia nature of being a Muslim: once you’re family, you’re always family.

148

Thank you for this list. The more often it’s mentioned and discussed, the better.

I’m not sure that this is true. As one example, Christian leaders and councils were called upon to condemn the 2009 Ugandan law against homosexuality:

http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2009/12/07/ugandas-anti-gay-law-rile-us/5083

http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/newsroom/press/top_us_christian_leaders_denou/

Some of these calls for condemnation generated responses, and some did not.

The point I’m trying to make, here, is that calls for religious people to condemn the misappropriation of religion (Islam, Christianity, or anything else) as justification for brutality, are something that the religious people themselves are likely to want to make and answer. People who care about their religion surely want to defend it against being used as an excuse for violence.

I agree that some people ARE saying things like *‘why should we do anything when the Muslims themselves are not condemning the atrocities committed in the name of Islam’ *------and such remarks are inaccurate and wrong and (probably, in many cases) the product of hatred and intolerance. It’s only by frequent highlighting of lists such as the one you offered here, that such ignorance can be exposed.

149

Many Muslims don’t have these beliefs and even condemn them. Again, what’s being described is some group of people who are Muslims, but it doesn’t apply to all Muslims. Same with the “Mafia” analogy – this only applies to some Muslims.

Saying “Muslims believe that you should be killed for leaving Islam” is not only not true (because there are millions of Muslims who don’t believe this), but it’s also bigoted. Saying “some Muslims believe…” is not bigoted.

150

Maher and Harris would agree precisely with this, and did so. Those that actually listened to what they said would have heard this clearly. Affleck did not listen at all and embarrassed himself with his childish screeching and inane comments.

So yes, many Muslims do not agree with harsh punishments. But let’s just have a little look at what happens in practice shall we?

Let us see which countries in the world have punishments for those most heinous of crimes….apostacy and blasphemy. and homosexuality

Read those links and tell me which countries are the most severe in their punishment. Are they Islamic or not? Would they describe themselves as Islamic? Would their citizens describe those countries as being organised on Islamic principles?

I rather think that they would indeed consider themselves true muslims and yet have no problem (where they are even allowed to) in voting in governments that criminalise blasphemy, thought crimes, homosexuality and advocate misogynist policies.

That was the point and truth of Maher’s and Harris’s comments. There are hundreds of millions of peaceful muslims who wish no harm to anyone and live their worshipful lives in full respect of modern liberal societies.

Equally, there can be no argument that there are hundreds of millions of equally “true” muslims that are perfectly willing to sustain the types of society that promote such draconian laws as laid out above.

151

I’ve been reading this thread and trying to stay out of it because, frankly, it’s so politically and emotionally charged and I don’t have a whole lot of objective information, but dammit, I do have some! I throw out the following comments if anyone wants to comment on them. I have a point of view but an open mind and I’m willing to be convinced otherwise.

It’s a complicated question but I have to say that in my view Maher and Harris had the facts on their side, and Affleck was just naively playing the politically correct liberal refusing to side with what some perceive as religious prejudice. Sadly, anti-Muslim tirades have become a trademark of the rabid right, which tends to discredit them (and some of the tirades certainly deserve to be discredited) but it doesn’t change the kinds of truths that Maher was talking about.

For instance Maher mentioned a poll that showed a majority of Egyptian Muslims favored the death penalty for anyone leaving the Muslim faith – and indeed it’s true – in Egypt, Pakistan, and significant percentages in at least ten other countries.

Christianity may have been brutal, too, but it has evolved whereas Islam has not. Large parts of the Qur’an (not all) are explicitly a manual of war, written by Mohammed as a code of conduct for his armies in the wars against the Meccans in the 7th century. Passages in it urge the believers to make war on the infidels, decapitate them, drive them from their homes, and “slay them wherever you find them”, and warn believers to never be friends with a Christian or a Jew, lest he become one of them. Deceptions like taqiyya and kitman reflect its warfaring roots, as do passages like “The Punishment for those who oppose Allah and his messenger is Execution or Crucifixion or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides or exile from the land.” (Qur’an 5:33).

The hadiths are no better. Many including Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim give proof that cutting of hands was ordered by Mohammed, for example, Book 38, Number 4396, as narrated by Jabir ibn Abdullah: “A thief was brought to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). He said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said: Cut off his hand. So his (right) hand was cut off.” Actually a scan through all the passages in that previous link is extremely chilling, abounding in exhortations for amputations and stonings.

To be sure, as others have said, westernized Muslims generally don’t reflect these beliefs, and I certainly know a number of Muslims who are pretty much the most peaceable people you could hope to meet. Yet westernization alone is not always sufficient. Now granted, that last link seems to be a right-wing site of dubious repute, but in this particular case it’s just a convenient reference for an article that appeared a few years ago in the highly reputable Globe and Mail but has since been archived and not available as a freebie. I specifically remember reading that article in the Globe, including the quotes at the beginning, and the wives of suspected Canadian jihadists saying things like “There’s no one out there willing to rule the country by the laws of Allah, rather they fight to rule the country by the laws of democracy”, quotes wishing death on “the Jews”, and one, when asked what she thought of her country, replied “Who cares? We hate Canada”.

It’s a really, really complicated question. Maher may have been over the top, as he sometimes is, but perhaps Affleck was just being naive.

152

That’s a good summary, wolfpup. I too, am not eager to side with either one of them as I can see fault on both sides, but Maher is, I think, more on the money than Affleck is. And this is nothing new for Maher. He has been going on about how his fellow liberals are too forgiving of Islam for years.

153

Correlation does not imply causation. There are Muslim countries that aren’t high on those lists, and countries in which those things are illegal but not actually prosecuted.

So what? Every Muslim probably thinks they’re “true Muslims”.

154

Im certainly on the side of Maher. It’s quite obvious Islam is more intolerant than Christianity. It would be wrong to say that Islam does not have tolerant believers, but its default setting at the moment is not on the tolerant side imo. This doesnt mean that Islam is inherently more intolerant than Christianity. However, at this stage in its history Islam is more intolerant. Also, Muslim individuals & groups holding these intolerant views have more power in their communities than their Christian counterparts.

Assuming all societies have their fair share of intolerant nutcases. Any society where these intolerant nutcases have more power will naturally result in it being more intolerant.

155

Where the laws of the land are explicitly based on religion…it really sort of is. How can it not be? Are you saying that the teachings of Islam have no causal effect on the laws of those countries?

That wasn’t my question and wasn’t my point as my post makes perfectly clear.

On what basis then do we say who is and who isn’t? If they say they are muslims they are muslims. I’m willing to accept that such a definition will cover a wide range of views and behaviours.

So, do you accept that the countries with the harshest laws on apostasy, blasphemy and homosexuality are majority muslim countries? If it could be shown to you that exactly the same situation arose but they were communist countries, and not muslim, what would your response be? Would you be more comfortable in criticising communism? if so…why?

156

The teaching of that particular branch of Islam have an effect on those countries. But the branches vary widely in their teachings.

So what? They’re also majority non-white. They’re majority hot-climate. They’re majority poor, by western standards.

Religions are different than political ideologies like communism.

157

Your original claim was that Christian denominations “publicly” and “repeatedly” attacked the KKK as not Christian. You have provided no evidsence that either of those claims are true.

Instead, you have relied on one vague reference that may be a paraphrase claiming that Jackson said the “virtually all” of the Christian denominations criticized the KKK for their lack of Christian values. We have seen no evidence that their criticism was widely disseminated, (my interpretation of “publicly”), or that they did so on many occasions. Hence my questions.

I am curious why you made your claim when it does not appear to have any genuine support. I have never denied that some Christian groups criticized the KKK, but your “publicly” and “repeatedly” adverbs seem to be an inference that are not justified. You keep demanding that I provide evidence for my positions. I already quoted your sources demonstrating that the KKK had a lot of support in the Christian community. I am simply asking why you threw out your claim and have failed to support it.

158

Who is claiming otherwise? Seriously, are you Ben Affleck in disguise? You must admit that those branches of Islam in those countries are legitimate yes?

Some are, some aren’t. But I struggle to see how being mostly non-white causes a country to adopt a law that stones people to death for apostasy. Whereas obeying a certain interpretation of their holy book leads…in a very neat straight line…to such an horrific outcome (I hope you agree it is horrific)

You are avoiding the question.

The concept of communism can be the organising principle for a country and it is open to interpretations and can lead people to do good or bad. I ask again. If a majority communist country decided to interpret the concept to bring in capital apostasy, blasphemy and adultery laws would you feel more comfortable with criticising communism?

159

First of all, I’d just like to point out that the ritual was introduced into South East Asia with the spread of Islam. There is no evidence that such rituals were carried out in that region prior to Islam. So, yes, this is an Islamic tradition.
Secondly, and most importantly, I am disturbed by the fact that you seem to be defending this practice. And you compare it to being tattooed. In that scenario, you are basically saying you would be okay with tattooing babies. Frankly, comparing it with genital piercing would be more similar, but again there is a huge difference in that like tattoos, genital piercings are done voluntarily by adults to themselves. There is no defending FGM on babies or children regardless if it’s a less extreme form. And yes, the whole concept disgusts me, but I don’t feel hatred, I feel pity. Because this barbaric act is carried out through ignorance and superstition flamed by religious belief, and I can only feel pity for those duped by their religion in believing they are doing right. As noted by Steven Weinberg: Good people do good things and bad people do bad things, for good people to do bad things, you need religion.

160

I don’t want to dissuade you from commenting but I did want to address this point. ISIS, Boko Haram, al-Qaeda, they are evolutions. Just as much as the liberal Muslim in all those Pharrell knockoffs. They are responding to modern trends in new ways, and they are not necessarily similar in any particular way to their Islamic ancestors, just like how you will find that the Christian world during the Middle Ages and before was much different than what both Christianity and Islam are now in many places.

Do you think male circumcision is similarly barbaric? If you are denouncing that with the same vigor that you denounce any form of female circumcision, then I don’t think tom~ was talking about you. Personally, I tend to think that any type of circumcision should be forbidden to be performed on minors. I’m willing to hear arguments about pierced ears, though.

I’ve seen that Steven Weinberg quote bandied around before. I wonder where he is from that they don’t have money. Or sex. Or sports. Or Housing Associations. Or the Internet.