Bill Maher Ignites Twitter Firestorm With Just 21 Words on Islam

[flamingdem]

Comedian Bill Maher faced some backlash on Tuesday after he expressed his disgust with radical Islamic groups following reports that Islamic State militants beheaded an American journalist on video.

Isis- “one of thousands of Islamic militant groups” (NYTimes) beheads another. But by all means lets keep pretending all religions are alike
— Bill Maher (@billmaher) August 20, 2014

Bill Maher on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/billmaher

Maher appears to have been making the point that there is a disproportionate level of violence in Islam compared to other religions, though he never said that all Muslims are terrorists or violent. Some Twitter users were apparently outraged by his comments.

you in your *** Maher,” one user replied. “What do you know about Islam? Where does it say in the Quran to behead ppl?”

http://www.dailynuze.com/2014/08/19/comedian-bill-maher-ignites-twitter-firestorm-with-just-21-words-on-islam-you-sound-like-a-right-wing-ftard/

[Cha]

1. :(

ISIS is showing the world what they are by their actions, flamingdem.

[Kalidurga]

2. I don't see the difference between Islamic Militant Groups

and our Robo Cops that will gun people down for jay walking, choke people to death over cigarette taxes, shoot elderly citizens in their apartments, and shoot tear gas canisters at peaceful protesters nearly killing one, not to mention all the unwarranted beatings that fell short of being fatal.

[Hooked_n_Looped]

3. Then you should look harder...

[leftynyc]

4. Look harder

because that is truly a comparison that cannot be made. You can say our police are sometimes out of control and quick to the trigger but that's a far cry from butchering everyone in sight - using beheadings and crucifixions, selling children into slavery all in order to create an Islamic caliphate. The lengths people will go to in trying to minimize what isis is doing doesn't help your argument at all.

[JaydenD]

85. Has ISIS butchered as many people as George Junior yet?

Last edited Thu Aug 21, 2014, 01:13 PM - Edit history (1)

I am by no means covering for their horrific actions - those actions are of sick and twisted minds.

because that is truly a comparison that cannot be made.
I think it can.

You can say our police are sometimes out of control and quick to the trigger but that's a far cry from butchering everyone in sight
My subject line: has ISIS yet butchered as many people as Christian George?

- using beheadings and crucifixions, selling children into slavery all in order to create an Islamic caliphate.
Slavery and botched up executions are no stranger to America.

The lengths people will go to in trying to minimize what isis is doing doesn't help your argument at all.
I am not minimizing, at all. I hate them to the extent I hate Bush and Cheny and the rest. My hate meter cannot go higher than that. I just don't like the bandwagon that 'those' people are eviler than any others. No one has a copyright on that - there is evil all over, and a large sum of it right at home, in our houses and in our so called free country.

[leftynyc]

89. Whatever

I think it's a ridiculous comparison and you haven't convinced me otherwise. I don't use a barometer of bush/cheney to make up my mind on what is and what is not heinous.

[JaydenD]

92. So when/if Hillary gets to be President - edited

and we know she likes to get her war on, she will send other people's children to clean up the ISIS scum while the Chelseas of the 1% lounge in safety at home. We've been through that play more times than the George one.

This is what I am most afraid of - the fear mongering and the evil 'others' to vanquish setting a stage for what we well know the neocons are itching for.

edit to add:
There was talk that some of these guys with McCain were actually ISIS, I don't know if that is true, I could believe it. See what I mean? McCain would love to get that war on too, with his bud Hill. They understand each other.

[leftynyc]

97. You know what I don't understand

and have asked this question on 2 different comments and nobody has responded. I remember very well the heat Pres Clinton took for sitting on his hands during the Rwanda massacres. And it was well deserved heat - people getting butchered left and right. Here we have the same thing happening and these same so called liberals want the President to stay out of it. What the fuck is the problem here?

[JaydenD]

102. It's a good question, and I don't know the answer.

I have a deep distrust of the Clintons, so I can hazard some guesses why, but they would only be subjective ones.

[leftynyc]

107. Forget the Clintons

I want to know why the same liberals that blasted Clinton for not doing anything about Rwanda don't want to help people who are getting massacred today.

[JaydenD]

121. I don't know, but I do know you can't leave out Clinton when you ask that question.

I will give you my subjective guess then. Because I don't trust Clinton I think his reasons were probably more on the selfish side, protecting himself, his legacy, listening to the wrong people, whichever of those reasons or all of them or more than mentioned, or none.

I don't think the two scenarios are to be compared, but even so, I think Obama thinks before he acts and acts according to his best judgement of doing the best possible thing considering all factors. I don't see him as self serving and narcissistic at all.

[leftynyc]

125. You're deflecting

Why are the same liberals (FORGET the Clintons, they have nothing to do with what liberals were saying) who wanted us to send our military to Rwanda because of massacres now screeching about sending our military to people who are getting massacred. The situations are completely the same. Military use to stop massacres. It's not a complicated question and you're twisting yourself into a knot NOT answering it.

[JaydenD]

126. I have no idea why other people say their things.

you will have to ask them, and by your earlier post I guess you did, and no one will answer you.
It's a very good question and I hope you get some serious answers.

My answer wasn't very good, I know.

[JaydenD]

129. Wait, I might have a reason for the differentiation...

Rwanda is not the middle east. Back then if Clinton did go in boots first to help, that action would not have likely stirred up trouble from the neighboring countries, so what his reasoning was at the time, I don't know. Maybe you do. I know he has regretted his non action way after the fact, but that is what the Clintons do.

What is very different between the two cases is that the ME and Syria are like tinderboxes crouching in wait for that match to strike that is held over everyones heads. The Domino effect in wait. Going into Syria full military will affect the whole region negatively just as bad or more so than what that idiot George the Pappa did to Iraq, and what his adopted son Bill did to Iraq and what his spawn of his groin did in 2003.

Very different scenarios, risk factors and possible outcomes.

[leftynyc]

131. Finally

I disagree but finally someone has tried to answer my question and I thank you for that. Clinton was cowardly and knew the right wing wouldn't have supported going to Africa with our military. He still should have done it. I disagree about the tinderbox thing though. I don't think isis has the kind of support you think they do and frankly, I think going in and killing them will bring us the kind of goodwill we are sorely lacking in the region. They would see us doing something humanitarian instead of for things like stealing resources.

[JaydenD]

135. If it was only to go in and kill the fuckers of ISIS, I would be all for it.

but these things get complicated with all sorts of hidden devious players and agendas so I wear the Buyer Beware sign on me for now.

[leftynyc]

138. Fair enough

I wouldn't mind doing something positive in that region for a change.

[tblue37]

164. I think the fact that we have so recently pulled out of the area (kinda) after

more than a decade of fruitless, ill-conceived, illegal wars, based on delliberate lies and costly in both lives and treasure, makes people freak out at the idea of returning to the same part of the world.

Those wars are so recent that people are also still leery of mission creep and suspicious of the reasons offered for any military action.

Those are my guesses, anyway.

[roguevalley]

153. clinton hasn't spoke to ferguson. i am tired of it all

[tblue37]

162. That guy on the left sure looks like Abu Mosa, the ISIS PR officer who was just killed.

The facial features and beard, and especially the eyebrows are pretty darned similar.

[Marr]

93. Junior was expressing his devotion to the Almighty Dollar and the 1%...

...not a religion.

[JaydenD]

95. I believe he mentioned God a few times in regards to his murderess run in Iraq:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'


George Bush believes he is on a mission from God, according to the politician Nabil Shaath. Photograph: Charles Dharapak/AP

George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month.

Mr Bush revealed the extent of his religious fervour when he met a Palestinian delegation during the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egpytian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, four months after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

[Marr]

116. Well, that's very true.

And in the sense that he used religion to drum up support from 'holy warriors', the two are the same. I do think there's a big difference in how much sway such militant religiosity has on the two societies, however. I mean, Junior had to use dog whistles and coded language in summoning the 'righteous'.

[NaturalHigh]

5. Well, you're wrong then.

I'm just going to leave it at that.

[CJCRANE]

6. I think there is a force or a mentality that is driving both

and also other things we see around the world.

[cwydro]

7. Oh please.

[NuclearDem]

11. Not the same thing.

[maced666]

14. Then u need some assistance.

Not educational but more...therapudic. somehow you have to bridge a....concept gap that is hampering you.

[Renew Deal]

18. Then you need glasses

[Mojo Electro]

47. You don't?

With respect, I don't believe you're being honest with that statement.

[samsingh]

66. or making the point precisely

[840high]

60. Really?

[samsingh]

65. the robo cops are racists who are not supported by religious groups

this is unlike the Sunni's supporting isis in Iraq as they kill minorities by the thousands.

[stevenleser]

71. The difference is...

I see the police as a group whose goals are benevolent that has allowed power to corrupt them.

I see ISIS and other militant Islamic groups as groups whose goals are completely evil, unDemocratic, misogynistic, homophobic and murderously violent and cruel.

Its possible, albeit difficult and challenging, to reform the police.

It is not possible to reform ISIS and similar groups like Al-Qaeda and Boko Haram.

[samsingh]

79. you are right

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

104. Why can't we unilaterally condemn ISIS without being required to mention every other

ill in the world? I don't get it.

[Anansi1171]

108. I am angry at US cops for breeding and inculcating a racist, right-wing...

...good ole boy gun culture and for the American main streams resistance in changing it.

But having fought alongside both Shia forces and "the Pesh" and against these disaffected Sunnis now swelling ISIS' ranks; it is extremely wrong to compare the FPD or any US police force...yet.

ISIS are mass murderers and greedy thieves who kill to take their neighbors lands and simply because they can. Cars with women and childrem riddled with bullets for fun. The Wahabbism is, like Teabagger conservatism, a reactionary movement by definition.

Maybe all humans have that capacity - and I think the FPD support a culture that supports black murder and rife with formal white supremacist ideology. They need to be recalled and replaced.

The Islamic State needs to be extinguished, buried, exhumed and snuffed again.

[Fla_Democrat]

8. Shouldn't that be a question for........

“What do you know about Islam? Where does it say in the Quran to behead ppl?”

Kinda crazy, I know.... but shouldn't that be a question asked of, oh, I don't know... the people who are beheading ppl, as self proclaimed representatives of... Islamic State?

Do people really think that was Bill Mahr in the black ninja suit with the English accent?



'Hey, you Wiccans... what do you know about Christianity, show me here in the KJV bible where it says to shoot abortion doctors..... '

[samsingh]

67. actually it says a lot in how non muslims should be treated and it is not pleasant

are minorities treated well in Islamic nations?

[former9thward]

105. There are dozens of verses in the Quran calling for death.

Here is just one:

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

[Blue_In_AK]

122. Have you read the Old Testament lately?

Just saying...

[former9thward]

137. Does ISIS do their things in the name of the Old Testament?

I did not know that.

[Blue_In_AK]

145. I'm just saying that Yahweh was fairly bloodthirsty, as well,

ordering the Israelites to slaughter everyone in their path as they conquered Canaan. The Quran does not have a monopoly on violent rhetoric.

[former9thward]

147. Yes both have violence.

Both reflected the world when they were written. But ISIS wants to go back to the 600s. That said I am opposed to any U.S. intervention, bombing or otherwise.

[deaniac21]

134. At least they get to keep

the thumbs.

[BaggersRDumb]

154. What is the context? Are there similar passages in the Bible? Do modern day

non extremist Muslim's believe this is appropriate (I know the answer to the last one, NO)

I am torn with Maher because I despise all religions as he does, and such a voice is important, but I part with him when he singles out one.

[former9thward]

156. Yes, there are violent passages in the Bible.

But that is not the current problem, now is it?

[kelliekat44]

9. Yeah, the Crusades taught them well. nt

[KittyWampus]

10. 500 years ago. And all the while TRIBALISM has always been a force in behavior in the ME

[JaydenD]

96. Tribalism is a force in behavior all over the world.

The super rich and powerful of the west are very tribal as well.

[leftynyc]

12. Spare me

That was hundreds of years ago. Are the people in the middle east responsible for NOTHING? Don't you find it insulting to continually treat them as children who have no minds of their own and who are incapable of dealing with the world today?

[Puzzledtraveller]

25. It's weird isn't it?

What is it that prevents some people from calling a spade a spade?

[leftynyc]

29. If you're not aware

that is a very racist turn of phrase let me be the first to tell you that.

[cwydro]

35. A spade is a shovel

or a suit in cards.

Not everything is race based

[leftynyc]

38. I understand that

but when I used that phrase innocently I got handed my head. I wasn't trying to bash you, just letting you know what I've been told.

[Jim Lane]

74. You got handed your head? You mean you were criticized in spades?

I'm not surprised you were told that "call a spade a spade" was racist. It's like that poor guy (Washington, D.C. municipal government, IIRC) who used the word "niggardly" and drew the wrath of the dimwits.

There's something to be said for just avoiding such problems, as you suggest. Say "personnel entrenching implement" (which I've heard is the military's term) if you think that "spade" might be misunderstood. Sometimes I take that course. Often, though, I choose to stand up to the stupidity and use the words correctly.

[leftynyc]

88. Usually it's because they're looking

to change the subject of the thread - of that I'm very well aware. So I simply apologize and move on. They don't get the argument they're looking for from me.

[Go Vols]

90. +1

[cwydro]

39. Look up the history

of that phrase.

Your ignorance is showing.

[leftynyc]

41. Sigh

think what you want. I was only trying to help.

[SwampG8r]

72. when you used it and someone jumped you

you were correct and they were wrong
likely hoping to score an easy win in a discussion so they got you with a false definition
the phrase has to do with hardware
im sorry someone was able to bully you by falsely saying the phrase is racist

[leftynyc]

86. Whatever

If someone tells me they feel insulted (unless it's a right winger and then I don't give a shit), I try an oblige them. And that's because I wont let them steer the thread into a side issue that has nothing really to do with whatever the discussion is about. I thought it had to due with cards.

[samsingh]

69. maybe self-interest or buying into the ideology at some level

anyone who is an apologist should go live in a Islamic country and try to spread the word of Christianity (or any other religion) and see what happens.

[leftynyc]

98. The very least thing would be jail

but I wouldn't be surprised if their bodies were shipped home in pieces.

[samsingh]

101. after being stoned for the smallest transgression

[Jim Lane]

144. You can't lump all Islamic countries together like that

They're not uniformly oppressive. Turkey is more than 90% Muslim but has comparative freedom of religion.

Not only are there differences between countries, but the same country can be different at different times. In an ironic example, one Christian source reports that religious freedom for Christians in Iraq is now less than it was under the dictatorial but secular regime of Saddam Hussein: "Iraq: Worse for Christians Now Than under Saddam Hussein".

[samsingh]

149. the oppression in countries like pakistan, saudia arabia, yemen, iran, iraq

and Syria is very awful.

[Nina7777]

155. secular Turkey

Every Muslim majority country in the world where there is not a serious human rights problem has been through a long period of secular dictatorship that forcibly suppressed Islam. Albania and other former USSR Muslim majority nations tend to be secular, but it is erroneous to claim that the secular nature of the law is because of some tolerant version of Islam. It is not. It is that a westernized secular dictatorship suppressed every existing version of Islam. Same for Turkey. Turkey was forcibly de-Islamicized by rulers who saw the folly of Islamic rule. Now that is regressing back though.

[Hugabear]

94. The Crusades never ended.

The West has continually been trying to remake the Middle East to their own liking, carving up national boundaries as if they were merely pieces on a boardgame.

[Nye Bevan]

61. Funny how the Crusades often come up in these threads.

I guess this is often the most recent example DUers can think of in attempting to counter the OP's premise.

[samsingh]

68. that was a long time ago

Christianity is not driving adherents to kill thousands of minorities - see Pakistan, Iraq, yemen, ...

[closeupready]

13. Bill Maher's Islamophobic bigotry is well-established.

There is no news here, IMO.

[Chathamization]

24. True, but apparently he's not alone in his ignorance and bigotry. N/T

[closeupready]

36. Sadly not - it's a cheap shot, pushing muslims around.

But as with Andrew Sullivan or Rush Limbaugh, these kinds of slights are remembered - 'never forget.' So I value Maher's opinions about current events on the same level as ... well, Andrew Sullivan.

[Chathamization]

53. It’s disturbing how prevalent anti-Muslim bigotry is

I imagine that if the Israeli bombing of a UN refugee center elicited remarks like these there’d be much more pushback; likewise if someone wanted to bring up the old conservative canard that communism has killed more people than anything else. The idea that we have to stop pretending people are equal and acknowledge that one group is more savage and inferior is a favorite rightwing talking point (I’m sure if anyone checked freeperville right now they’d find such sentiment expressed in under two minutes). It’s disturbing to see such bigotry and ignorance expressed here. It’s a bigotry that has led to numerous hate crimes and violent attacks on Muslims in the US in recent years (and the US government targeting of Muslims).

I’m with you on Sullivan. He’s also been a proponent of race-based intelligence testing, which goes to show what this kind of thinking leads to.

[closeupready]

57. Exactly.

(And welcome to DU.)

[JaydenD]

100. Thank you, and fully agree.

It's seems so easy to get people in a massive hate-on, then capitalize on that by the ones who would benefit from a full bore war.

[CrawlingChaos]

143. Plenty of anti-Muslim hate-speech right here on this "liberal" forum

I have not yet fully waded through this thread, but I'm confident when I do I will find posts clearly implying that Muslims are primitive, savage, backward, barbaric, etc. I can see from a cursory glance there are, indeed, people defending that shitstain Bill Maher.

And yes, these same Muslim-bashers usually have no trouble identifying anti-Semitism and appear to grasp why it's horribly wrong and leads to terrible things. The hypocrisy is truly sickening and more than I can stomach most days.

[LordGlenconner]

49. And so is his disdain for christianity and all oither forms of religion.

He thinks they're all dumb.

And on that point I agree with him.

[closeupready]

56. Like you, I share that disdain; unlike Maher, Islam is no worse

in theory than other religions, I feel.

Peace.

[LordGlenconner]

62. Agreed.

[Jim Lane]

75. Historically, there may be a case for not considering all religions equal.

Maher was commenting in the specific context of the extent to which a religion's adherents are prone to use violence in support of their beliefs. My offhand reaction is that Islam and Christianity are head and shoulders above other major religions in that respect. (This is not just violence against other religions or against non-religion. You have to include the deaths arising from Protestant versus Catholic and Sunni versus Shiite.)

I'm not talking about either religion's stated doctrines, but about the actual practices of self-professed adherents.

I wouldn't hazard a guess as to whether Christianity or Islam has the higher total body count. I will hazard the guess that no other religion would be in the running for this shameful title.

[closeupready]

109. These are good points, Jim. How muslim would Spain be, for example,

if Catholic Queen Isabella had never aided and abetted their expulsion from Spain? Probably significantly.

"That happened a long time ago?" Well, it happened, Christians. As did the Inquisition.

Naturally, the official doctrine from the Vatican is that the Inquisition did NOT happen.

But of course, we all know it did.

[Nina7777]

152. lol, ok

How Muslim would Spain have been if Muslims never violently conquered it through warfare in the first place? That happened a long time ago? Well, it happened. Naturally, the official doctrine of Islam is that world conquest of non-Muslim lands is their right.

[closeupready]

158. But wait! That was a long time ago! Doesn't count!

It only counts when the cutoff serves my argument. Muslims 'violently conquered' (disputed) Spain centuries before Isabella expelled them, and we are going to draw the line at the 14th Century.



See how that works? Simply claim that history only counts when you want it to. On the other hand, when history is inconvenient, 1) remain silent; 2) claim 'but that's different!'; 3) argue in a circle in response; 4) answer the question you want to be asked rather than the one you were asked but wished you hadn't been; 5) Sure I'm missing some sophistry here, so this will be a placeholder.

[Violet_Crumble]

163. Islam has an official doctrine that says that? n/t

[samsingh]

82. u are totally wrong

[closeupready]

106. In truth, you are.

Last edited Thu Aug 21, 2014, 02:29 PM - Edit history (1)

It's obvious why you applaud those who seek to disaparage Islam vs. all other religions, including those that, in modern times, fail to stem human slavery and debt bondage.

[samsingh]

141. wtf do human slavery and debt bondage have to do with everything.

is it true or not that tens of thousands of islamists are killing non-muslims in Iraq under isis?

[Violet_Crumble]

165. Correction. ISIS is also killing Muslims.

There's so much you appear to be unaware of. Either that, or the fact that ISIS is killing Muslims as well just doesn't fit into yr narrative...

[samsingh]

170. that's a good point - but they are killing Shias or moderate Sunnis

[whatchamacallit]

87. Watch Religulous again

Last edited Thu Aug 21, 2014, 02:40 PM - Edit history (1)

You'll notice his criticisms of Judaism are significantly different than other religions he bags. He points out how batshit crazy Christian and Islamic religions are, but limits his comments on Judaism to poking fun at some their silly but harmless rituals. His tweet reinforces his religious bias.

[closeupready]

124. He thinks he's Mel Brooks, when in reality,

he's just a hack-for-hire.

A comedic genius, Brooks never shied away from even the most un-PC humor, even about Judaism.

[samsingh]

81. maher is being a brave realist

[closeupready]

111. If racism is your thing.

[samsingh]

139. it's not racism to know what a religion is truly espousing

[Violet_Crumble]

166. It's bigotry to broadbrush adherents of a religion....

And don't take this the wrong way, but I'm doubtful you could tell a Sunni from a Shia, so when it comes to announcements of what a religion truly espouses, I'll do the smart thing and go to a scholar of that religion...

[samsingh]

169. actually i can tell the difference

and I used to be very tolerant believing all religions were the same. I changed after 911.

[samsingh]

140. also, the comments are not about culture or skin color

but rather about the facts of the religion itself. That means he actually understands islamists and their religion, rather than mouthing general 'every religion is the same' line that people who don't understand a religion will say.

Maher is a brave man.

[JaydenD]

99. He sure likes to stir the shitpot with his Islamophobia.

Truly disappointing from a relatively intelligent guy on most matters.

[closeupready]

112. It's good for ratings - 'no such thing as bad publicity' school

of PR.

[JaydenD]

123. That would be very irresponsible of him if that is the case.

Which I can see now that you mentioned it.

People are easy to get all riled up and ready for bear, and war, and I sadly see that is happening right here. A real shame the learning curve on this sort of tactic (Maher's reasons are different thatn the PNACers and the neocons reasons I would hope, yeh, I believe that) is so steep. That curve started a very long time ago and people still just don't get it, how manipulated they can be.

[CBGLuthier]

15. Bill Maher being a racist is not really news.

Seen his shtick enough times to call him out for the racist misogynist he is. Main reason I have not watched his show for years.

[hifiguy]

19. A religion is NOT a race:

Lordy Lu....

[jobycom]

52. Incorrect.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/race#race-2

1.2 A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group:

(I think the Oxford Dictionary should be an acceptable source for the meaning of a word.)

Interestingly enough, the word "Race" was originally used to differentiate between speakers of different languages, not skin color. Nowadays, most experts consider "race" to be a social construct based on differences one group sees between themselves and others. Those differences are usually much more than physical. I'm sure you know of the "one drop" rule used in the US to determine who was "negro" and who was white. A white-looking person whose great-great-grandfather was black was still considered "negro." The distinctions aren't based on any genetic differences, but are based on cultural assumptions of skin color, ancestry, language, culture, and ethnic background.

Maher's statement is racist.

If you don't believe me, go ahead and google. You'll get enough information to explain it. I don't feel like cutting and pasting all morning.

[cleanhippie]

37. Islam in not a race, it's a religion.

Come on, man, this is basic stuff.

[jobycom]

54. It is both.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5423121

[cleanhippie]

118. So you're saying a Middle Eastern person and a Caucasian that both follow Islam are the same race?

Bzzzzzt. Wrong.

[get the red out]

127. Agree!

And what about the non-Islamic religions in majority Muslim countries? Aren't they the same "race" as the Muslim people?

And are the Muslim people in China not Asian? I missed that somehow.

People want to equate race with religion in order to make some religions untouchable by throwing out accusations of racism.

[smirkymonkey]

160. "People want to equate race with religion in order to make some religions untouchable by throwing

out accusations of racism". Great last sentence there! It deserves its own post.

[Behind the Aegis]

161. And some use it to make false claims of racism.

It becomes useful for their hate filled propaganda.

[MindPilot]

16. Well, it ain't agnostics and atheists slaughtering each other. n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

43. No, not this time. n/t

[jobycom]

63. Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot slaughtered a few in the name of atheism.

Atheists, of which I am one, can be just as bloody as religious people.

The thing is, religion never really causes these wars and slaughters. It's all about ethnic identity, and really, it's all about money. People who don't have something or feel that others have what they want find some way to justify taking it from those who have it. Race, religion, borders, immigration status, etc, are always blamed, but they are just excuses. I guarantee you that if the people sitting on the oil we want in the Middle East were white Christians, we would find some way to demonize them, rob them, and slaughter them, unless it enriched us more to identify with them. Wars are never really caused by religion. Even the Crusades and the Religious Wars were about money, land, and power. I'm sure religion was a useful tool of the leaders, and I'm sure a lot of the foot soldiers and atrocity supporters drank the "us versus them" koolaide enough to use religious ideals to fuel their hatred, but wars aren't started by angry people. Wars are started by greedy leaders.

The Khmer Rouge and the Stalinist Soviets believed that religion was a cause of the problem, and tried to eliminate it, often by killing believers. But they wound up doing the same thing they were trying to end. The real problem wasn't the religion, it was the power of the classes who had been using religion to control the masses. Blaming religions can lead to the same horrors that following religions does.

[Jim Lane]

83. I think you're wrong about the Crusades.

You write:

Wars are never really caused by religion. Even the Crusades and the Religious Wars were about money, land, and power.

From what I've read of the Crusades, they were the exception. It was not actually in the economic or political interests of Western Europe to invest resources into trying to establish and maintain the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Oil wasn't a factor then. Control of a small and distant patch of desert that had no particularly important commodities just wasn't worth it in terms of self-interest. If you were an amoral ruler willing to wage aggressive war for your own benefit, there were better and closer targets.

You're certainly right that the foot solders were motivated by religion. I think the leaders were, too. Christianity was much more important and much more pervasive in medieval Europe than it is today (even in the United States, let alone Europe). Even the people at the very top sincerely believed that it was their right and their duty to wage war to free the Holy Land from the infidels, and that God would reward them in the afterlife.

[jobycom]

103. It was about control of the trade routes and of Byzantium

The Crusades are rather poorly taught most of the time, and even a lot of historians get them wrong. The sources describing the Crusades were all written by priests and monks, and all after the Crusades had begun, so the sources are all biased (imagine if the history of the Iraq invasion was written only by Bush supporters). They all try to make it sound religious because that's all most of the writers understood.

Urban II called for the Crusade in 1097 after the Emperor in Byzantium asked him to send some forces and resources to help them out. Instead, Urban just called for an invasion under his own authority, and bypassed Byzantium. He gave a speech in Clermont, and while the speech isn't recorded, several sources write about it. They say he called for a Crusade to free the Holy Land, and he filled it with atrocities that Muslims committed against Christian (Yeah, wars use the same rhetoric, every time), but he also said that nobles could claim the land they captured, and that this would help increase their wealth and glory, etc. So even in the speech, there was an appeal to money interests.

But the bigger goal needs the full context. Europe was just becoming wealthy again. The three major trade routes of the era went through Palestine (one through the Red Sea, one across Arabia, and one north through Syria and Iraq). Islamic states controlled the region that was essentially the mouth of the Mediterranean trade, and of course, they charged for access. Byzantium wanted to retake this land, partly because an enemy was on their doorstep, but mostly because it would put them in control of the wealth of this route. Trade was the oil of that era.

Urban knew this, being an Italian and therefore from the part of Europe most involved in trade, so rather than helping Byzantium he rerouted the efforts to conquer the land for Europe. This would mean that the new nobles in Palestine would be directly beholden to him, which would strengthen his claim in Europe and his claim with Byzantium. So he encouraged the nobles to take the land and set up their own kingdom.

And the actions prove the leaders knew it, too. They allied with Muslims against other Christians when it suited them, building a kingdom perfectly placed to control trade. Over the century, as they fought battles and had to negotiate settlements, they always kept the land that gave them control of trade. The famous battle at Hattin was fought largely because one of the Crusaders, Raynald of Chatillon, tried to violate all the truces and capture the trade routes himself.

Anyway, to sum up so I don't go on longer, the Pope and the leaders whipped the populace into a religious frenzy by telling terrible tales, as Bill Maher seems to want to do, of how horrible Muslims were and how they had to be destroyed, but the leaders were using this public attitude for very concrete political economic goals. Again, same as we do now.

One day I've got to finish writing that book.

[conservaphobe]

17. As an atheist, I agree with Bill Maher.

I understand why Islamic extremists continue to get a free pass from us, though.

There was rampant Islamophobia after 9/11, fueled much in part by the Bush administration and right-wing media.

That's when we got caught up in making excuses for them. Because a lot of innocent people, who practice real Islam, got hurt as a result of that fearmongering.

Eventually the "they're not all like that" argument becomes full-blown, head-in-sand, dismiss-the-facts naivety.

[hifiguy]

20. This. A thousand times.

[Puzzledtraveller]

23. Spot on.

[Yavin4]

27. I think that we can all agree that Islamic extremists are among the worst religious extremists

on the planet. I'm not attacking the religion as a whole, only the extremist elements of it. Islamist extremists are more willing to kill innocent people than any other religious extremists and that includes people who bomb abortion clinics.

[whatchamacallit]

91. Worse than the Crusaders of yore?

Or what Skinhead Christian Dominionists would do now if enabled?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

117. What about the Islamists of yore?

The ones in the latter 7th century who cut a bloody swatch across north Africa where Christianity predominated, establishing caliphates wherever they went, forcing "infidels" to convert to Islam or die, butchering the native Berber tribes, invading Spain and conquering 90% of it, and twice trying to take France by the sword? The ones that ISIS is currently holding up as a model for their behavior.

[JaydenD]

159. you are way wrong. I don't have the patience to tell you why

Hopefully you will read this entire thread and actually learn something other that pegging a certain group with extra special evilness like it is inherent in only certain peoples.

[leftynyc]

40. Excellent post

The pendulum swung waaaaaay to far the other way.

[Greybnk48]

42. Ditto. n/t

[redqueen]

45. It is sad that this phenomenon is so common.

We need to reach critical thinking starting in grade school.

[NYC Liberal]

46. Yep.

[Iron Man]

58. You're absolutely right.

I agree with your post.

[MinneapolisMatt]

59. Yup.

[arcane1]

84. That rational frankness has no place here! Here, it's all or nothing!

[Marr]

119. I almost never agree with you, but here I do.

It's counterproductive to pretend there's no difference between these two religions, at least as they're being employed today. Militant religion actually holds power in much of the middle east-- in the west such types tend to be kept away from any real control. We have violent religious nuts, to be sure-- but they don't run the show.

[get the red out]

128. Agree with you

That's exactly how it evolved.

[Rhinodawg]

167. So true.

And the truth can be suppressed by political correctness.

[WinkyDink]

21. I think the offended ought to direct their Quran questions to ISIS.

[Puzzledtraveller]

22. Calls them as he see's them.

[Yavin4]

26. ALL Religions contain an element of backwards thinking. Islam has more than most.

Islam has a really regressive view of humanity. It does not incorporate modernity into its philosophy. It is folly to not judge the religion on this, as we should judge all religions.

[philosslayer]

28. Your post is a broad-brush smear of Islam

With absolutely no facts to back it up. Islam is a religion of peace, and 95%+ of Muslims are peaceful people. Please take your smears elsewhere.

[Yavin4]

30. You can be a religion of peace and still be regressive.

Christianity and Catholicism are also religions of peace, but they are also regressive, just look at their stands on Homosexuality.

Islam is more regressive than most mainstream religions. That's a simple fact.

[randome]

32. And guns are just for personal safety. 95% of gun owners cause no problems so...

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[Nye Bevan]

55. LGBT in Islam:

Today in most of the Islamic world homosexuality is not socially or legally accepted. In nine Muslim countries, Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, the UAE, and Yemen, homosexual activity carries the death penalty.[3][4][5][6]

Alternatively, same-sex sexual intercourse is legal in five Muslim-majority nations (Albania, Turkey, Bahrain, Jordan, and Mali). In Albania there have been discussions about legalizing same-sex marriage.[7][8] Homosexual relations between females is legal in Kuwait (but homosexual acts between males are illegal). Lebanon has had recent internal efforts to legalize homosexuality.[9] Even in regions were homosexuality is not illegal it is seen as a shame by most families,[who?] and privately executing the punishments required by Islamic law[which?] may be seen as morally justified.

Most Muslim-majority countries have opposed moves to progress LGBT rights at the United Nations, in the General Assembly and/or the UNHRC. However, Albania and Sierra Leone have signed a UN Declaration supporting LGBT rights.[10][11] OIC member-state Mozambique provides LGBT rights protections in law in the form of non-discrimination laws, and discussions on legally recognizing same-sex marriage have been held in the country.[12][13]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam

[randome]

31. Culturally speaking, much of the Eastern hemisphere is still mired in previous century thinking.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[gollygee]

33. I don't think there's anything about Islam that is violent

I think all religions have groups that are more and less violent, and the more violent groups in any given religion might have more control, power, and/or popularity some times than others.

[Niceguy1]

34. he has a point

[treestar]

44. Ignorant statement, since it is their situation at the moment

that brings it out, but all religions have the potential for this savagery.

[Ratty]

48. Have to disagree with Maher

It's not the religion that's fucked up, it's the culture - and it's royally fucked up. I am convinced that all things being equal if it were Western civilization that was Muslim and the Middle East Christian, things would be exactly the same. People will use any religion to justify their basest and most violent urges:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

I was recently surprised to discover just what ISN'T actually in the Koran. The Bible is way more violent and unforgiving of transgression. And yet we're not the ones blowing up buses and temples and schools and teaching our kids it's noble to die and take as many innocent lives with you as you can.

[Nina7777]

110. reconsider

Last edited Thu Aug 21, 2014, 07:12 PM - Edit history (1)

"I am convinced that all things being equal if it were Western civilization that was Muslim and the Middle East Christian, things would be exactly the same. People will use any religion to justify their basest and most violent urges: "

If you are so convinced, then you should seriously reconsider your position. I am completely unreligious and have never been a Christian for a day in my life, but you should recognize that it is nonsensical to claim that random quotes in the Bible equal Christianity. They do not. Christianity has had immense power and influence in certain periods over the last thousands of years, and the fact is, the structure of Christianity does not now and has never encouraged its followed to strive to take the whole Old Testament literally.

In the Old Testament, it says to stone adulteresses and kill children who disobey their parents, but it is a poor argument to claim that because the Old Testament encourages such things, Christianity encourages such things. The fact is that even when Christian theocrats has nearly absolute power over their kingdoms, there has never been any mainstream branch of Christianity that requires adhering to the draconian rules of the Old Testament. Now, you might have some microscopic number of Reconstructionists who do want to take the OT literally, but there are very few of them and thus far, no such denomination has ever held any power or lasted for a long period of time.

On the other hand, every single mainstream branch of Islam has required Shariah law and has required that its 7th century barbaric laws be followed to the last letter. All agree that apostates should be beheaded and that women should be executed for crimes of sexual impropriety. (and yes, in Islam it is permissable to execute ONLY the woman! Her male lover does not need to be executed with her). On the other hand, Christianity has been very consistent in forbidding mass scale executions for sexual crimes. Your belief that if Christians held power in the ME, the ME would be just as filled with stonings and beheadings as it is now makes no sense based on historical evidence. It is not Christians who stone for adultery- not now and not ever, but Muslims require violent and often fatal punishments for adultery in nearly every country where they are a majority and they have done so for all of recorded history.

Christianity has generally corrected itself in terms of human rights violations. The Catholic Church sanctioned the African slave trade, but fervent Christians were foremost among those who opposed slavery and brought it to its end. In the case of Islam, Islam introduced the idea of the African slave trade to the Christian world and to this day has barely made any effort to end arab enslavement of Africans, which still goes on in Suda and Maurutania.

Ultimately, it makes no intellectual sense to equate religions. If ideologies are not identical, then the a priori assumption should be that they are not equal. Islam and Christianity are not identical. They have different primary prophets, were developed in different timeframes and for the most part, were developed in different parts of the world under different historical and environmental pressures. Hence, even if you knew nothing of either of these faiths, why on earth would your starting assumption be that the two are morally equal?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

50. let's also pretend that years of imperialism, of western interference in domestic affairs of the

middle east should have no lasting effects.

[Nye Bevan]

51. Certainly not politically correct. But true.

I don't recall any Episcopalians beheading anyone recently. Or Methodists stoning women to death for adultery. Or Mormons executing men for being gay. Or Pope Francis issuing fatwas on anyone.

Yes, hundreds of years ago Christianity was violent and bloody. But that does not justify Islamic extremism today.

[0rganism]

73. key word: "recently"

Islam is, among other things, several hundred years younger than Christianity.

[get the red out]

130. Thank you

[samsingh]

64. Bill Maher is absolutely right and more courageous than people like me for liking

the Islamic militant groups out.

all religions are not alike and let's stop pretending before its too late

[get the red out]

132. Literal truth

Sparing around trying to deflect this with bringing up Misdeal times doesn't face anything. "Yea, but what about....." faces nothing.

[Rex]

70. Disproportionate level of violence?

[stone space]

76. Muslims did that, right? (nt)

[Rex]

78. Not that I know of.

I really don't know if there were any Muslims working on the Manhattan Project.

[JaydenD]

77. Bill is wrong, Christianity has slaughtered millions and are still raping children

Don't get sucked in the 'my god is better than your god' nonsense, Bill - even though I know you don't believe in any of them, still, shut up with the bigotry, asshole.

[Jim Lane]

146. He might well agree with you that Christianity, like Islam, is especially violent.

That doesn't mean that ALL religions are the same. I also don't consider it bigotry to discuss the historical record of who's been slaughtering whom.

[LittleBlue]

80. Ask the Bosniaks and the Rwandans about Christianity

Ask the Gazans about Judaism. Hell, ask the Chinese and Russians what atheists are capable of doing.

No belief system has a monopoly on brutality. Maher is an Islamophobic loudmouth.

[Blue_In_AK]

113. Bill is hell-bent on alienating a couple billion

of his fellow human beings. Whatever. I know he's wrong on this, but everybody's got to have their prejudices, I guess.

[Nina7777]

114. What is the difference between Islamic State and Islam?

Seriously, I would like someone to provide a coherent explanation of this. How is it that people can believe that ISIS it the most evil thing in the world while Islam is somehow benign? Do you not comprehend that damn near everything ISIS does was directly and explicitly done by the Prophet Mohammad and encouraged by the Prophet Mohammad?

ISIS is evil because they aggressively take over new territories, loot their captives resources and sell women and children into slavery? Now, which of these things did Mohammad not do *repeatedly*???? Mohmmad was a warlord that came to power and expanded his territory through beheading everyone who disagreed with him, looting resources and enslaving people and trading them for weapons. Just read the freaking Quran and Hadiths if you think that is an inaccurate characterization.

Here is an example of Mohammad encouraging the rape of female captives:

Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period." [The Quran verse is 4:24]

Here is an example of Mohammad encouraging violence against people WHO HAVE NEVER ATTACKED HIM:

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

That verse is prescribed by Mohammad to his followers so they raid caravans going to Mecca. These caravans are totally innocent and contain people unknown to Mohammad. Yet, here Mohammad encourages the plundering of these things.

Explain to me, if you lived in 7th century Arabia and witnessed Mohammad's ascendancy, how exactly this would have looked different from modern day ISIS??? How can it be that ISIS is evil and Islam is good or even neutral????

And yes, I know that all Muslims are not bad. Of course not. But what if ISIS won? What if ISIS took over half the world and wrote a book of rules for all time and brainwashed everyone into believing this was the only book of rules that should be followed. How exactly would that be different from Islam? Sure, most people would be good empathizing people even if brainwashed since birth, but how exactly would the above scenario differ from the reality of Islam?

[get the red out]

133. agree

You've got guts posting this. Thanks though.

[rollin74]

136. +1000

I have to agree with Maher on this

[Dems to Win]

157. Agreed. I'm an infidel, and the Koran has nothing good to say about me

[sagat]

115. He's correct, as usual.

[cpwm17]

120. Fuck Bill Maher

He cheered on Israel's mass slaughter against the Gaza Strip. He needs to look in the mirror.

30 Worst Atrocities of the 20th Century:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm

Not one Muslim nation in the top ten of the worst atrocities in the 20th Century. The worst atrocity so far this century is the Iraq War, started by the US.

Bill Maher didn't oppose the Iraq War before it started. He may have only opposed it after it started.

[Ikonoklast]

142. Maher is a Libertarian douchebag. Fuck him.

He riles people up by saying stupid shit in order to make MONEY.


No different from the ranting right wing radio shouters or Fox carnival barkers.

[Karmadillo]

148. Bush's Shocking Biblical Prophecy Emerges: God Wants to "Erase" Mid-East Enemies

Before a New Age Begins.

http://www.alternet.org/story/140221/bush's_shocking_biblical_prophecy_emerges%3A_god_wants_to_%22erase%22_mid-east_enemies_%22before_a_new_age_begins%22

Bush's Shocking Biblical Prophecy Emerges: God Wants to "Erase" Mid-East Enemies "Before a New Age Begins"
May 24, 2009

The revelation this month in GQ Magazine that Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary embellished top-secret wartime memos with quotations from the Bible prompts a question. Why did he believe he could influence President Bush by that means?

The answer may lie in an alarming story about George Bush's Christian millenarian beliefs that has yet to come to light.

In 2003 while lobbying leaders to put together the Coalition of the Willing, President Bush spoke to France's President Jacques Chirac. Bush wove a story about how the Biblical creatures Gog and Magog were at work in the Middle East and how they must be defeated.

In Genesis and Ezekiel Gog and Magog are forces of the Apocalypse who are prophesied to come out of the north and destroy Israel unless stopped. The Book of Revelation took up the Old Testament prophesy:

"And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."

Bush believed the time had now come for that battle, telling Chirac:

"This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people's enemies before a New Age begins".

more...

[hrmjustin]

151. Bill Maher should know better.

The fact is when a state does not have liberal democracy and a strong rule of law a nd a mix of fundamentalist religion bad things will happen.

We have 2000 years of Christian history to show that a theocracy leads to horror.

[randome]

168. flamingdem ignites a firestorm on DU with just one post.

It's an interesting read, that's for sure.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]