smarty pants

All three of them are liberals, dumbass. Also, the man on the right is Sam Harris - who isn't exactly an idiot. He's actually quite brilliant.

Oh please you know we're all the same.

But Bill Maher and Sam Harris are the worst kind of smug liberals.

oh hey you're still alive

Ben Affleck refused to wear a Yankees cap in a movie because he's from Bawlston. Ben Affleck is too busy being Ben Affleck to be anything else, not a liberal, especially not an actor.

Enjoy is still with us.

I think I can help you , the key to understanding this type of liberal is that they believe all humans are equal. All people of all races are just like us on the inside and should live in societies exactly like ours. Its our job to bring our type of society to them because ours is the best. Thinking people aren't exactly alike is bad, and any facts to the contrary must be dismissed as racist.

I don't know if I believe that. That sounds a bit like the Islamophobia that Sam Harris sells way too often. For all his fancy book learning, Harris is more often than not a simple bigot.

I know it's hard separating the race from the religion, but it's not that hard. Just try.

You're full of racist shit ROUS

while some countries do have a death penalty for apostasy, many don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy#Countries

and there are many Muslim countries that are politically secular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world#Secular_states


example; Turkey is 99.8% Muslim and has laws protecting freedom of religion.

while Bangladesh has Islam as its state religion, its laws and government operate in a secular matter.


Also; a SHITLOAD of western countries have laws against defaming religion, including Canada, Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, etc etc etc.

Ben Affleck denies that there's a problem with Islam when it's clear it hasn't been liberalized as much as Christianity, which is a problem for human rights globally, and Sam Harris and Maher are right to criticize the frequent capitulation to and lack of vocal opposition to radical Islam and the statistics that indicate Muslims aren't as liberal as them, but it's also true that moderate Muslims hardly have a voice in western media.

Muslims get a lot of flack for being Muslim in the USA. Not to mention Muslims are a tiny percent of the population. Muslims are also from a lot of countries that were colonized, and are continually bombed by western nations; this goes back over a century.

There's not just a principled critique in the west leveled against Muslims. Sam Harris wants there to be military action in defense of the Christians in Iraq; he didn't mention anyone else. It's also important to note that the only time he mentioned military action was in defense of people from Muslims. Does he care about anyone else being massacred for their beliefs? If he does, it follows that we should be using military intervention in a lot more places, which I'm sure he'd agree is impossible and stupid.

I think to Harris and Maher Islam is a unique threat. They don't really draw specific guidelines for how it should be dealt with, but military force is apparently not off the table. Until it is, they probably won't make any progress convincing moderate Muslims they're just criticizing their religion and rallying for their freedom.

They'd be a lot less hypocritical if they were demanding military intervention in Africa...but those are blacks...they're not really human, so they don't have any basic human rights.

Don't bother ROUS. If you dare say anything bad about Islamic culture's complete failure to even remotely challenge itself to move beyond itself you are an Islamophobe, a fascist, and probably Hitler himself.

except above I listed countries that have "Islamic culture" that are secular and get along with other religions.


just because your favorite xenophobic/racist blog doesn't cover that, doesn't mean it does not exist.

Is ROUS one of those people kept up at night by "creeping Sharia"?

"Ben Affleck denies that there's a problem with Islam when it's clear it hasn't been liberalized as much as Christianity"

I didn't get that sense, so much as Ben was objecting to the caricature of Muslims as sword-wielding savages who can only be stopped by an army of diarrhea-stricken Harrison Fords. If Harris and Maher had just said that Muslims tend to be socially conservative, Affleck would have been more likely to agree, though it probably still varies a ton and is best addressed on a culture-by-culture basis. It's rarely religion that drives the mores of a people, but rather that religion will be adapted to serve the ends that the people approve of.

"Is ROUS one of those people kept up at night by 'creeping Sharia'?"

That sounds like a nightmare Ben Affleck is having, where Sam Harris and Bill Maher have contractually obligated him to do a sequel to "Chasing Amy" called "Creeping Sharia", in which he falls in love with a Muslim girl who wants to kill every non-Muslim in Jersey.

What keeps me up at night is the woman who was stoned to death for having sex outside of marriage.

I find it really annoying I can criticize Christianity here all I want and no one cares but everyone is so used to equating the criticism of Islam with racism that the minute I do so, or Bill Maher does, people jump to conclusions. I can separate race from religion. But most Muslim countries don't really give people a choice. You are born there you are raised in a brainwashing culture. Imagine if every single person by law in the US had to be raised evangelical Christian.

The problem is indeed in percentages. A MAJORITY of Muslims believe that you should physically injure people who disagree with you. So sorry to rain on your parade with the truth. And yes, different Muslim countries have different laws. Indonesia and Malaysia are a little less strict. But those countries had other populations of other religions already in place before Islam.

The thing about Islam is that at its root, it endorses violence. Mohammad killed people with the sword all the time. It's the only religion to equate violence with the sacred on the level that it does. It's right up there with the worst parts of Leviticus only their idiot laws are still going.

The point is not that there aren't Muslims who believe in being calm and tolerant. The point is that a disproportionately large number of Muslims are raised in societies which advocate large scale violence.

Which is why they support the death penalty for not believing a man flew up to heaven on She-Ra's unicorn.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-d ivided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

It is absolutely true that Islamic ideology is responsible for some fucked up shit. It is also absolutely true that we should oppose those bits of Islamic ideology.

However, in discussions like these, care should be taken to separate the fucked up bits from the non-fucked up bits, and the people who subscribe to the fucked up bits from the people who do not. Sam Harris isn't always good at doing that. Bill Maher is *never* good at doing that.

Now, it is perhaps true that more Muslims murder in the name of God than Christians. But this shouldn't be taken as a fundamental facet of Islam -- both Christian and Muslim texts give us dispensation to murder in the name of God.

Rather, this should be taken as reflective of the quality of life these people experience. When you live in a place where you and your family are comfortable and safe, it is easy to ignore the tenets of your faith that call for violence. When you live in a place where violence is a daily part of your life, it becomes significantly harder.

I am all for criticizing horrific acts and the bizarre religious culture that condones them. But in doing so, we should take care to remember that the real enemy is never Islam -- it's violence and human suffering. If you want the help of Muslims in opposing extremist Islam (and trust me, you really, really do), you start by attacking extremist Islam -- not Islam itself.

"Now, it is perhaps true that more Muslims murder in the name of God than Christians. But this shouldn't be taken as a fundamental facet of Islam -- both Christian and Muslim texts give us dispensation to murder in the name of God."

This, exactly. Religion isn't what's in the books, but whatever is practiced.

ROUS says a majority of Muslims support violence against people who disagree with them but then links a poll showing support for three extremist groups. The only ones who are in a clear majority there is Hezbollah and Hamas in two countries, as if their support is not part of the greater reaction to Israel's atrocities in that region.

"At least three-quarters of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan say they would favor making each of the following the law in their countries: stoning people who commit adultery, whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery and the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion. Majorities of Muslims in Jordan and Nigeria also favor these harsh punishments."

That's really just the tip of the iceberg. I don't hate Arabs. I've actually tutored people from Saudi Arabia and many of them were lovely people.

I'm zeroing in on the fact that a majority hold viewpoints that I think are disgusting in that they not only have those views, they want everyone to have those views.

I have a lesbian friend who once challenged me to go to a march and protest in favor of Muslim rights. I told her she didn't understand that those same people would entirely deny her any and all rights if they could. She said that wasn't true. But you know, it is. Islam suppresses any voices that disagree with Islam. Muslim countries abhor the idea of allowing people to actually choose their faith. Then they come to the West. And some of them like the fact that you can choose your own way of life here. Others want everyone to be just like them and they are perfectly comfortable with this as an idea.

I don't understand why more people do not jump on this as being inherently wrong. How exactly is it racist or bigoted to point out the utter hypocrisy of the rather large segment of Muslims that hold these beliefs? Why not call them out on it?

The Westboro Baptist church is full of shit but they aren't 50% to 80% of the population. Try imagining if the US were 80% Muslim and think of all the misery that would mean legally for everyone else.

Except you're stupid and wrong.

You're being willfully stupid by ignoring evidence of moderate Muslim countries with your "all Muslims" hate speech

I never said anything about all Muslims being evil, SolRo, and you are just making it that much easier for me to call you out for exaggerating everything.

"That's why every Muslim country is okay with legally killing someone like me"

That's not the same as saying all Muslims are evil -- but it's still a pretty fucking hardcore statement to back up.

ROUS, do you even know the *names* of all the countries that are predominantly Muslim? Try listing them right now. Don't look anything up beforehand.

In fact, I'll make this easy on you, ROUS: We'll define 'predominantly Muslim' to mean 'more than 90% of the population is Muslim'. That means, according to wikipedia, you've only got to list the names of 33 countries.

Clearly you should know the names, since you're familiar enough with them to know who they are and aren't comfortable with killing.

I will amend what I said by adding most Muslim countries just torture and jail homosexuals. Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Yemen and Mauritania will execute you for it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/12/11/a -map-of-the-countries-where-homosexuality-is-criminalized/

What about atheism? What about turning away from Islam?

If you think I'm being overly literal regarding what you said, keep in mind: This is a discussion about Islamophobia. Saying things like 'every Islamic country will happily execute you for being homosexual, atheist, or turning from Islam' -- without even bothering to fact-check that statement before you make it -- is pretty much a clear and indisputable expression of Islamophobia.

I'm not saying you should feel bad or that you're a terrible person, but I do think you should pause for a moment and evaluate what you are doing: You are making sweeping generalizations about countries you clearly know very little about.

Maybe you're right in the majority of those cases: That doesn't matter. You said *all* of them. Unless you're willing to do the legwork to prove your case, you should avoid making sweeping generalizations about people and places you know so little about.

Also, regarding this statement:

'The Westboro Baptist church is full of shit but they aren't 50% to 80% of the population. Try imagining if the US were 80% Muslim and think of all the misery that would mean legally for everyone else.'

It would probably end up looking very similar to what we deal with right now: A religious majority who banned gay marriage, criminalized gay sex (it was pretty much universally illegal up until the past few decades), and insists on trying to inject their bizarre theistic doctrines on every government level.

When you get right down to it, Christianity is a pretty fucked up religion. The only reason it isn't even more fucked up -- here in the States -- is because the majority of Christians aren't dying of starvation, getting blown up by drones, or experiencing violence as a daily occurence.

You can bet your bottom dollar if they *were*, then the Christian majority in this country would be searching for scapegoats -- and nothing makes a better scapegoat than minorities. IE: Atheists, homosexuals, and non-Christians.

Really, do you think it's a coincidence that the more extreme sects of Christianity in this country (evangelicalism, for example) are more popular among the disempowered (the poor, for example)?

The more terrible our situation gets, the more attention we pay to the terrible parts of our religion.

I believe Sam Harris is wrong for a lot of reasons, here -- but in no way is he trying to convince the world that all Muslims are radical murderers. Neither is Bill Maher. If you believe otherwise, then all I can say is that you're not very good at listening. You seem to have this problem a lot: You make it very hard to agree with you because you insist on (consciously or unconsciously) misrepresenting anyone who disagrees.

I think 'Islamophobic' is a very fair dig on Harris' statements -- but I wouldn't trust you to be part of that dialogue, because your inability to articulate your points without resorting to gross misrepresentations and hyperbole poisons the discussion, making it impossible to explain to people *why* Sam Harris' statements actually *are* Islamophobic -- without coming off as oversensitive PC liberal wankers. It's kind of like how Scientologists ruin the very-important discussion about psychiatric abuses by running into the room shrieking about 'mind control rays'.

Basically, I'm saying that until you learn how to treat a subject like this with the intellectual rigor it deserves, you should shut the fuck up and let the adults do the talking.

No, just tell me, what's the next step after they convince the world (or just "liberals") that Muslims are a huge threat and don't deserve any defense?

Conservatives often complain that liberals don't protests against (insert thing conservatives don't like) instead of (thing conservatives dismiss), so is that it? These guys want liberals to protest for them, to prove their liberalness or something?



(the phrasing i'm referring to is along the lines of 'If liberals are so worried about human rights, why aren't they protesting against islam instead of that global warming scam?!')

8:30 - Sam Harris confesses to being a bigot, when he says that it's just "nominal" Muslims who don't want to kill infidels.

Dear Bill Maher and Sam Harris: you just got out-reasonabled by Michael Steele.

SolRo: If you think Sam Harris believes that Muslims don't deserve any defense, all I can say is that you're not very good at listening.

Discussions like this deserve far more rigor than you're providing. When you take someone who said something that's wrong -- and you proceed to misrepresent their wrongness, producing a caricature -- the ensuing discussion ceases to be about the wrong thing they said, and becomes a discussion about the caricature you created. Or, in other words: Sam Harris could quite correctly respond to you by pointing out that he never said Muslims don't deserve our defense.

Until you're capable of addressing what Sam Harris *actually* said -- and how it's *actually* wrong -- you'll continue to do issues like these a gross disservice. Muslims under threat in America are not served by misrepresenting statements that help put them under threat.

Again: If you're not capable of treating these issues like an adult, then shut the fuck up and let the adults do the talking.

Also, Bort: The nominal bit actually made me wince. I hope it was a failure on Harris' part to understand what 'nominal' means (maybe conflating it with moderate?), but I sincerely doubt that; Harris never struck me as the sort to use a word without knowing precisely what it means.

Hippo you going to just keep bitching out like a pussy?

How about you give an answer for once instead of blanket bullshit?

THE NEXT STEP IS FEMA CAMPS!

Honestly, I have no idea what Sam Harris thinks "the next step is". I can speculate that, for many people, the "next step" is a fullscale invasion of ISIS-held territory, as well as further concessions to the national security state here at home for the sake of keeping us safe from Muslims. But! We should be careful not to put words into people's mouths. We don't see Mr Harris making that argument here. We don't see Mr Maher making it, either (even if, judging by Bill's track record, such a proposal seems inevitable from him). Furthermore, even if Mr Harris DID come out in favour of expanding our military occupation, that is a separate issue from the one they are discussing here; it is still possible that he's right about the nature of Islam. It is even *possible* (note the emphasis) that he would be right about the need for military action, again, assuming he'd even support that agenda in the first place (he has not done so, at least not in this clip; you are welcome to cite any other evidence of his agenda).

I think what Mr Hippo is trying to say to you, is that understanding motives, or thinking we understand motives, is only part of the battle.

Broadly speaking, though, I do agree with you. The thing that strikes me most about this episode is how very pointless it all is. Both sides raise valid points! It is unfair (maybe even a little hypocritical) to paint all Muslims as imminent threats to "liberalism", assuming liberalism still exists. It is also true that the Islamic world is even less liberal than the West, and that Islam has a tendency to be both less tolerant and more quickly defended by certain Western observers than Christianity and Judaism. Ben Affleck is right. Sam Harris is right.

So what?

The real question is, what do we about it? What policies should America adopt - or rather, since the elites will do what they will do regardless of our input, what policies should the American public support? That's the real question. That's the question that matters, the question that all of these talking heads should be setting themselves up for, but it isn't being addressed, at least not here.



It's like two dorks arguing over whether Rainbow Dash or Applejack is the tougher pony, when they should be discussing whether Dashie and AJ should go kick the crap out of a monster ramping through downtown Ponyville.

SolRo: The answer to your question is 'Sam Harris didn't say he doesn't think Muslims deserve no defense, so your question is invalid'.

If you want me to answer your question for cases of people who *do* legitimately believe Muslims deserve no defense, then sure, I can do that: The next step is probably forbidding the practice of Islam -- or, in the worst case scenario, genocide against Muslims. And I've certainly met people who hold that belief.

Of course, that isn't what Sam Harris said, so it's not really applicable here. But your insistence that the question is relevant is a solid tactic to paint Sam Harris as wanting that -- of course, it ignores the actual stupid shit that Sam Harris said, for the sake of making some shit up to get indignant about.

But that's okay: You clearly would rather express your indignation over bullshit you imagined rather than actual things that are actually terrible. So please, by all means: Continue to make these discussions about *you* and your inability to understand words, rather than the actual issue itself. Your manufactured indignation over imaginary offenses is really what the Muslim world needs right now!

(In your vague defense, I actually *could* see Bill Maher being stupidly smug enough to argue that Muslims deserve no defense. But he didn't actually say anything to that effect, so it's not relevant.)

(But hey, don't let little things like 'facts' get in the way of your one man race to outstupid yourself.)

You know what, SolRo? I apologize. There are people who say things like that, and maybe you're just shifting the discussion toward them, because the things Sam Harris says supports their way of thinking.

Or maybe you're just angry and frustrated at people like Sam Harris who say stupid shit, and how no one really seems to notice, and in that frustration people like Sam Harris blur together with people who say things like 'Muslims do not deserve our defense'.

Either way, at least you're pissed -- and that's a lot more than I can say for most people.

I think a great first step would be banning immigration from Muslim countries where the majority of the people hold opinions on supporting terrorism, killing apostates, and support honor killings. Because why would we want that in our own society?

ROUS, are you prepared to deport 50 million Christians for holding those exact beliefs? Who would take them? Who should? Otherwise, you're just saying ice cream is bad, but only refusing to eat strawberry while jamming chocolate into your eyes. Christians here don't slaughter people in the streets because we'd kill them for it in America, period, but it's still no solution. The human religion is war and violence and there is no society, secular or otherwise, that doesn't worship at that altar. The Judochristoslam megacult is just a modern interpretation of a 250,000 year old human cult of homicide, and a billion year old animal instinct for territory to fuck in. The only solution I can even begin to frame is maybe a thousand year long effort to breed or engineer violence out of our society and genome. Otherwise, you just treat the symptom religions, making way for a new one to come take its place. Scientology already kills people, and you know the UFO reptoid schizotards would do it too if they could.

The only reason I took the time to question this plan of yours is that I immediately liked it a lot, which is a bad sign because I am an anti-religion bigot, and I do state that explicitly. Sam Harris got nothin' on me, and I am terrible for it. Life's too short to hate like I do.

But ROUS people in America already support terrorists, did you see how many people went to the defense of Darren Wilson and the police?

ROUS: You do realize that by doing so, you would be blocking the people who want to *flee* from such a culture? What would you say to a woman who wants to escape from a country where she'll be murdered for having the audacity of being raped? 'Sorry, your country's all fucked up and we don't want any part of that shit, good luck getting murdered by your family'?

*I* think a better first step would be to offer anyone who wants to leave such a country a chance to do so.

I don't think we can absorb the numbers of people already entering America as it is. I favor a compete halt to immigration except for genius scientists and other notable exceptions.

also it is really hyperbolic to conflate 50 million Americans (by whom you mean conservative Christians) as people that support honor killings and the killings of non believers who leave the church. That is not common in America. That is common in Islam.

I know that toys with your precious sense of entitlement in pointing figures and saying all religions are the same but they aren't.

I mean, I think they are equally likely in that I don't believe they are at all rooted in reality but Christianity, even the evangelical form I was raised with (and I have a lot of insight into, especially since I went through an intense period of self doubt and debate between being born again and walking away) is just not something you can conflate in average terms with the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism. They are totally different mindsets.

And yeah, Eric Prince and his like. I know all about that. I'm taking about average beliefs. But I digress.

ROUS says a ton of hyperbolic shit, then gets defensive when his chosen religion is mentioned.

I'm not at all surprised.

It's funny that ROUS thinks muslims immigrating will bring honor killings and violence against women en masse, when already in the US three women a day are murdered by their husbands.

I didn't know you were a member of the megacult persuasion of the homicide religion, ROUS, or I wouldn't have bothered to address it. I apologize for challenging your icecream and will now leave you alone to live your life with it.

I wont be at the altar this Sunday, I got shit to do that isn't hate.

To be fair to ROUS, they specified that they had *left* Christian evangelicalism. Also, I think it is true that Islam and Christianity are significantly different creatures. That being said, ROUS' argument seems to be that Islam is *particular*; that under the similar conditions, Christians would not engage in the same vile nonsense.

I call bullshit. Replace all the Muslims in Afghanistan with Christians. I'll bet a dollar that in two or three generations, they'll start killing each other while quoting Leviticus.

It's very, very easy to be moral when you live in comfort. Try it when your family's dead, you live in a cave, and drones are coming to murder you.

If you think Christianity would deal with this any better than Islam, then I don't know what to say: You think Islam is a magical spell that makes people want to behead each other.

Every so often I get to thinking that Christians are somehow more given to decency than Muslims, but then I remember the KKK, and suddenly it all snaps back into place. Even the objections sound familiar:

"But the KKK is only a tiny subset of" -- same thing with Muslim terrorists.

"But Christianity includes messages of peace and" -- same thing with Islam.

"But the KKK aren't really Christians because" -- their symbol is a burning cross; if they're not Christians, they're not aware of it. Same as the lunatic Muslims.

"But the KKK doesn't accurately represent the theology of" -- no more so and no less so than Muslims who blow up marketplaces of whatever size (from farmer's markets to world trade centers).

I just want to clear up Solro's ridiculous misconception that I am Christian. Indeed I am not Christian. Not by a long shot.

"white panel" tag.

yes, i saw steele.

Oh man, the Full Rush Job is the sequel to the Full Monty that no one wants. This gets mah stahs!

Now that I've seen this, Ben Affleck is dumb as fuck.
The left side of that panel has stuff to say. Affleck, not so much.

If Ben Affleck had actually said that, I'd forgive him for Gigli.

Well, there are wealthy, educated sorts who get into terrorism. Osama bin Laden is a prime example. But those guys tend to leave the suicide bombing to someone else, someone who's probably a little more desperate.

Osama would be Westburrow Baptist Church without an army of desperately poor soldiers, and CIA startup funds.

It isn't.

Using termed like "all" and "every" does.

For many racists, Muslim is just another word for Arab.

Like immigrant is code for mexican

Or "Nazi" is a code word for Ukrainian!

Oh sure, I know there are people who are racist against Arabs and use "Muslim" and "Arab" interchangeably, but I keep hearing people who state facts about Islam being called racist.

because they're rarely stating facts, and often trying to argue that all Muslims are violent and sub-human.

It's kind of like when Bill O'Reilly was on "The View" and stated that Muslims caused 9/11. If you take the driest possible interpretation of that statement -- that the 9/11 terrorists happened to be Muslims -- then it's a pretty benign statement. But sometimes it's how you say it, and in Billo's case, he seemed to be saying that any particular group of Muslims would have done the same, given the opportunity.

Sort of reminiscent of saying that Jews control Hollywood -- you'll probably find a disproportionate number of Jews in Hollywood but that doesn't mean there's a Jewish cabal at work.

Anytime you generalize about a billion people (spread out across all over the globe) based on familiarity with a few cases, you are engaging in the logic of prejudice. Whether or not this counts as "racism" seems to be an exercise in missing the point. It's prejudicial thinking. The logical framework is identical.