Yes I do think male circumcision is barbaric. It is claimed it has to do with hygiene, but this has not been scientifically proven to be true. Completely unnecessary and with origins in religion.
I’m not sure what you mean here, what does his location, lack of activities or possesions got to do with an insightful quote?
Suits spread to Africa via Christian missionaries, therefor suits are clearly Christian dress.
You said the laws of those countries are explicitly based on religion. This is true – but they’re not explicitly based on “Islam”. They’re specifically based on a specific form of Islam.
It’s not a “very neat straight line” – if it was, then all Muslim countries would have such penalties. It’s a straight line from a specific form of Islam.
I already criticize communism. Communism sucks and is bad in many ways. I would criticize it whether or not a communist country had such laws.
So, in other words, countries where it is legal to stone people to death or forbid women from driving cars or having jobs, the Muslims in that country don’t stone people to death and women can have jobs and drive cars. But in countries where it’s not illegal to stone people to death and it is illegal for women to have jobs or drive cars, well, in THOSE countries the Muslims choose to stone people to death and prevent women from having jobs and driving cars.
I don’t understand at all what you’re saying here, and in any case it does not appear to have anything to do with what I said.
Yes, a legitimate form of Islam. You aren’t rebutting any of my points here and you keep dodging the question, I can’t think why.
Will you at least admit that the form of Islam as practiced in such countries, can be considered legitimate and that draconian laws spring directly from the religion and the the population are in agreement with it.
So you agree with me, it is a straight line from certain, legitimate interpretations, of the Koran to draconian laws. That is precisely my point. Maher, Harris, Hitchens etc. Have never, and would never claim that Islam is bad in all ways and for all interpretations. They all, repeatedly and specifically, make the point that many millions of Muslims interpret it in a peaceful way.
If you know why you feel free to criticise communism then you must surely understand why I feel free and justified in criticising religious practices.
And I hope you’d have no problem with the many, many peaceful communists around the world?
You want to pretend their is a “specific” form of Islam, a bad Islam and a good Islam. But it is all based upon the exact same source material. What separates bad Islam and good Islam is the number of Muslims living in the country or region. The larger the population, the worse it becomes. It is only in places where the population is small that the good Islam is practiced. So, if you remove all legal and political restraints, you have, consistently, bad Islam emerge, stonings, beheadings, oppression of women, oppression of homosexuals, then that must be the “real” Islam. Because that is what happens every time they get to practice their religion without restraint.
Sure, though I don’t know how it matters. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who claims they’re Muslim can be called “legitimate” Muslims, whatever that means.
I don’t even know what “legitimate” means here. It’s certainly a straight line from certain interpretations of the Koran (or any holy book) to draconian laws.
They say this, and then Maher at least (and possibly the others, though I’m not sure) still makes blanket negative statements about Islam. I like Maher and watch his show, but his blanket negative statements about Islam, and not about specific forms of Islam, are bigoted.
Of course. I criticize certain religious practices. I just don’t blanketly criticize big groups of millions/billions without specifying what individual practices and actions I’m criticizing.
There are many forms of Islam – way more than just two. The Islam of most Dearborn, MI Muslims, for example, is no threat to anyone.
There’s some different source material for different forms. The Koran is not the only text various forms of Islam use.
This is factually false, considering that the largest Muslim country in the world (Indonesia) is considerably more peaceful than many smaller Muslim and non-Muslim countries.
So, in all other countries except Indonesia, it’s true?
Yes, that source material is that it’s an Abrahamic religion, just like Judaism and Christianity. Should we forbid them all?
Bangladesh is also pretty peaceful - certainly more so than its Indian and Burmese neighbours.
Bangladesh is not really comparable to India or Burma (or Pakistan, for that matter). It’s essentially composed of one ethnolinguistic group, for one thing. It’s more comparable to a single Indian state (though more populous than any of the Indian states). Point taken, though.
I was referring to the Koran. But, if religion disappeared all together that would be fine with me.
Blanket negative statements about Islam, not individual muslims. I can criticise a party’s political manifesto or its founding principles without it being a criticism of all party members.
They were criticising the hundreds of millions of muslims who hold, practice or condone such views or punishments (that come directly from certain flavours of Islam). There simply is no getting away from the fact that hundreds of millions of such people exist. And that amount of people holding those sorts of views is a ready source of intense extremism.
Unless you are gay of course, and that goes for Indonesia too.
(bolding mine)
Those two passages, alone, make your arguments seem evasive and ridiculous. I’m not sure what you’re thinking, iiandyii, but your posts aren’t coming off as coherent or rational at all. And it’s odd because I generally think that you have some of the clearest and best-reasoned posts on the Dope.
And your last sentence is particularly ridiculous in that you seem to be pointing a finger at someone who hasn’t done what you seem to be passively accusing someone of doing.
I think it’s different with religion, considering how diverse religions usually are (and this one in particular is).
If they’re saying “conservative Muslims who believe women should be oppressed are wrong” then that’s fine, to me, and not bigoted. But, IIRC, I’ve heard Bill Maher say things like “Muslims are more violent”, or “Muslims oppress women”, or “Islam oppresses women”, which is a blanket negative (and false, because there are obviously exceptions) statement, and a bigoted one.
My point, by the way, has nothing to do with who or what can be considered “legitimately” Muslim. That doesn’t matter at all to me. The problem I have is with blanket negative statements that malign millions when there are numerous exceptions within those groups. Just like “blacks are more violent” is a bigoted statement, “Muslims are more violent” is also a bigoted statement. “The statistics show that black people have a higher representation among those convicted of crimes” is not a bigoted statements, and neither is the same about Muslims and terrorism, for example. But those are different statements.
Just like “black people are less intelligent on average” is a bigoted statement, but “the statistics show that black people score lower, on average, on some academic tests” is not bigoted. The first does not follow, necessarily, from the second, in addition to being one of those blanket-negative-statements that is always bigoted, in my view.
But it’s always possible I’m not doing a good job of making my point. I’d be happy to try and explain better if you show me exactly where you think I’m going wrong.
At the risk of oversimplification, it seems that Maher had facts, and the counter-retort to Maher’s facts was to the effect of…presenting-those-facts-is-intolerant.