General News Ben Afflack calls out Bill Maher and Sam Harris on Islam

It is a cause if the holy book of that religion contains lines condemning homosexuality. If it did not contain those lines, there would not be as high of an incidence of homophobia in those countries. You really do not think religion is ever responsible for homophobia? I once knew someone who said "I don't want to be homophobic, but my religion is against it, so I can't support homosexuality." Im not saying every homophobic religious person thinks that way, but for a lot of these people, their homophobia is rooted in religion.

 

Marxism according to Marx was an evolution of society, inescapable as a natural law. As for homophobia it is more like homogenocide, but why would they be anti-gay what one factor in the Middle East do they have in common hmm seems like Islam.

 

Im not sure that they are all Homophobic, actually im certain that they arent as some of them need to be gay in order for the problem to exist, if some are gay then statistically some must be indifferent.

 

I saw the show you're referring to and again , I feel the conversation is moot and pointless ,regarding Islam, or any major religious belief system ,and trying to work out its flaws to somehow show it in a more positive light. No person should be judged by the "faith" they may be associated with especially since certain cultures are interconnected with their religions, i e , Islam , even down to your last name in some cases . They're all ingrained with inherent prejudices that cancel out any positives that defending them would warrant . So if we're talking about Islam , Christianity , Judaism , Hinduism and their tenets it makes no sense , to me , to even engage in the conversation < oops, I said that already . One does not just flaunt the sweet verses of the " Song of Solomon " without realizing there's the book of Leviticus( pardon me christianity but it's easier to use you for examples than the Surahs of Islam or other " sacred" texts .

 

This is the way I see it:

If religious extremism keeps showing up, again and again, and it is always the same religion and the same type of justifications, it is worth examining the religion.

It doesn't mean that the next logical step is to say "Islam is evil and violent", but the next logical step is to say "does Islam actually support these extremists? Are their actions justified?"

We cannot just ignore the religion and say "it could be anyone". Because it isn't just anyone. Time and time again, it is the Islamic extremists. Wanting to understand how the religion justifies violence and where the extremists get their justifications from is not wrong. Claiming that a religion might have some flaws is also not wrong. Religions are human-created; they can absolutely have flaws.

No, saying "all Muslims are [negative thing]" is pretty much always going to be wrong. But saying "Islam is problematic because [x]" is not necessarily wrong.

 

I think Islam Christianity and Judaism are awful things for the world but it's one thing to condemn a religion as a whole and another to condemn individuals since there's so much diversity in opinion within each religion. Religious people as a rule hold much more conservative social views than non religious, but not all

Reason why liberals are so defensive about real or perceived islamophobia is that muslims are a minority in western countries like US or UK and they get a lot of flak which they often don't deserve. Buut we can simultaneously support muslims with moderate views of which there are many and condemn the unnacceptable views which are tbh too prevalent within the religion

In news today: Officers were called to reports of disorder at Welford primary in Birmingham after a group of parents allegedly attacked the efforts headteacher Jamie Barry is making to improve diversity and inclusiveness at the school. AKA some muslim parents don't like that the headteacher thinks being gay is okay. Wouldn't have happened at my CofE primary but we are still talking about a small minority of parents

Basically, I think it's wrong to argue that islam isn't responsible for some pretty appalling views being held by many adherents, it's not a coincidence that these views are held more commonly by muslims than others and I don't know why a lot of people just like to ignore this fact especially if they're the type to condemn catholicism at the same time

 

I'd say that you are safe being gay in countries in which state and religion does not have an incestuous relationship.

 

Having watched the exchange, I think Maher, Harris, and Afflack were actually speaking past one another.

Sam Harris is correct that the Muslim community world wide can essentially be broken down into broad groups. You have a very tiny (but loud) group of individuals which are Jihadies, and they believe in working outside the system to force their radical religious beliefs on others. This group are the terrorists. Then you have another group outside of that group which are the Islamists, and the main difference between them and the Jihadis is that they want to work within the system but share the fundamentalist values of the Jihadis. Then outside of that group you have the Conservative Muslims, which are appalled at the extremism of both the Jihadis and Islamists, but still hold abhorrent views toward women and LGBT people and other such groups--these are the functional equivalent of the radical Christian Right in the United States. Then you have another group of Muslims, likely making up a sizable majority, who just want to practice their religion in peace--these are the real moderates. Then you have another tiny group of Muslims who are the reformers, these are people who want to radically overhaul Islam to incorporate values such as human rights, secularism, democratic values, etc. The reformers are basically the equivalent of Christian enlightenment thinkers during the Renaissance and after--they are people making a clear break away from religious fundamentalism.

I think that is pretty accurate. What Sam Harris is saying is that we should be empowering the Muslim reformers, who could then go back into Muslim communities and fight back against the Jihadis, Islamists, and Conservatives. I agree with that.

As I said in the other thread, this is not a war between Islam and the West. It is a culture war within Islam itself. The only people who can fight and win this culture war are other Muslims. We need to empower the Muslims that share our values, so that they can spread those values and radicalize moderate Muslims behind them so that they can in turn take the fight to the Jihadis, Islamists, and Conservatives. That way they can be socially and culturally marginalized within the Muslim world, much like we are actively fighting to marginalize the radical Christian Right here in the United States.

In a culture war one side wins and the other loses. It is a battle over ideas, beliefs, and values. Because what the Islamic State does is so abhorrent, and offends the sensibilities of even Conservative Muslims; this is the ideal opportunity to begin empowering the reformers.

 

And I think it can be the prime motivator. I think there are people who would not have negative feelings about homosexuality or be homophobic if it weren't for their religion. As I've said, I've met them, but go ahead and disregard if you want. It doesn't prove that religion cannot be the prime motivator for homophobia. I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

It is more often than not. I am not saying all terrorist attacks are Islamic--that would be stupid. But in today's society, most religious-based terrorist attacks are Islamic in nature.

And I am saying that without the religion they could NOT be justified and they might not even be committed. The reason they are committed with such frequency and the reason the terrorist gain power is because they have their religion behind them. That is what I mean by "blame the religion". If you have a religion that cannot be used to justify violence or cannot be easily used, that sets it apart from a religion that contains numerous violent passages and can easily be used to support a violent interpretation.

 

Maher has always been a bit of a pig, but he's nothing compared to the racists who have made it their business to turn EC into a very anti-Muslim place over the past week or so.

Make a dozen unsubstantiated claims, then cry for everyone to prove that Islam isn't guilty of it.

---------- Post added 5th Oct 2014 at 08:47 AM ----------

You show remarkable subtlety and sophistication, as always.

 

I am not saying extremism cannot exist without religion. I am saying that this type of extremism would not exist without it. I am also saying that extremism in the name of religion is a special brand, a more powerful variety, because claiming that you have support of an all-powerful being provides a special type of motivation, especially for those are prepared to die for it. Suicide bombings, for example, are probably more common in religious-based extremism.

Yes, people who already have a problem with homosexuality look for a justification somewhere and often find it in religion. Not denying that.

But some people do not have a problem with it at first and their problem comes from their religion’s condemnation of it.

 

interesting, thanks for the link op, might watch it laters...bill maher is very intelligent those sometimes "not that much".

 

Now we're getting into definitions of religion. What is religion, then? Does it exist independent of human thought and activity or is it fundamentally human-created? Obviously the religious would believe that it exists independent of human thought, but that isn't something that can be proven.

For the people that believe their religion condemns homosexuality, they believe this condemnation comes from God or from something beyond their comprehension, so to them, it does exist independent of human thought. I can't prove that it doesn't.

And about suicide bombings, again, we come to the issue of motivation. Do suicide bombers have chosen suicide bombing without religion? Yes. But would Islamic suicide bombers be doing it at the rate they are doing it without the religious motivation, the prospect of becoming a martyr? Probably not.

While suicide bombings are not confined to religious motivations, again, religious motivations play a powerful role. When you tell someone they will be rewarded in heaven for what they do, it's hard to find a more powerful motivator.

 

Excuse me, but you are the one who started questioning the origin of religious condemnation of homophobia. Since you refuse to define "religion", I can ignore everything you said about religion not being the originator of homophobia. For some people, it is. It doesn't matter what the people who wrote the Bible thought about homosexuality. For the people whose homophobia originated with their religion, the religion itself is the only cause of their homophobia.

 

Did I call you a piece of shit? You are the one taking things personally and getting uppity. Do not read insult where there is none.

You said "religion is not the primary motivator of homophobia". When I provided some examples of how it can be for some people, your response was "it can't be the religion itself, it must be what was codified into religious law", in other words, you were re-defining "religion" to not include what was codified into religious law. I am saying they are one and the same. Religious law is a foundation. Where it comes from doesn't matter for people whose homophobia comes from religion--it doesn't go any further for them. When their religion condemns it, that is all the information they need.