Around 4:30 mark, Bill Maher
"Mormons. The Book of Mormon is a huge hit on Broadway, that is a scathing parody of Mormonism. Imagine trying to stage a Koran musical like that. Like Sam Harris said, 'Imagine the security you'd need around that theater.'"
https://youtu.be/7jH8z8ec_RU

I second this type of reasoning!

In my opinion there are major differences and some similarities between Morontology (MormonCult) and Islam. Both want their religion to rule the world and after-world (you say, what?), believing that only a THEOCRACY is capable of being in charge.
Both believe in prophets, only Islam teaches that Mohammed is the last prophet (and the bestest of all the restest) while Morontology has prophet at a time and plans on keeping this up until Jesus returns to rule.

Morontology has killed in the name of its religion but not on half the scale as Islam. Would Joseph's cult have gotten to the point of much more overt action against non-believers and apostates if he had lived and reigned longer? I personally think his formation of the Council of the Fifties and the Danites gives a good indication of what he was capable of doing and having done. Joseph was just getting started.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2018 02:40PM by presleynfactsrock.

I
> personally think his formation of the Council of
> the Fifties and the Danites gives a good
> indication of what he was capable of doing and
> having done. Joseph was just getting started.

America 1840s was a very different place from Arabia in the 700s.

But he doesn't know more than an average exmo on this board.

I'd like to encourage exmos to use their own brains to come up with logical conclusions. TV personalities are good at being entertaining which doesn't mean we need to look to them to do our thinking.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2018 02:52PM by Cheryl.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But he doesn't know more than an average exmo on
> this board.
>
> I'd like to encourage exmos to use their own
> brains to come up with logical conclusions. TV
> personalities are good at being entertaining which
> doesn't mean we need to look to them to do our
> thinking.

I do. Bill Maher is a Post 9-11 Liberal, like Ayan Hirsi Ali, Salmon Rushdie and Sam Harris, all of whom would be considered Liberals, except for their positions on Islam in the wake of 9-11, which they all four view as a threat to civilized societies, which allow free speech and outlaw violence against those who excercise their freedom of speech to criticize religion.
That and he made Religulous, which is a better criticism of Religion in general than anything Ive ever seen produced by an ExMo.
Personally I think comedians are our best social commentators, because they can joke about things nobody else wants to talk about out of fear of repercussions, like those suffered by Ayan Hirsi Ali, Theo Van Gogh, Malala and Salmon Rusdie, when they exercised their freedom of speech.

If depending on entertainers falls short, you might eventually try using your own god given intellect.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If depending on entertainers falls short, you
> might eventually try using your own god given
> intellect.

Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. Like I said, I agree with Maher, and other Post 9/11 Liberals, like Ayan Hirsi Ali, Salmon Rushdie and Sam Harris.
If you equate them with singers, dancers & jugglers, youre an idiot.

Well you put me in my place.

I'm an educator and novelist.

You must be a credentialed reading specialist with access to extensive tests I can't recall and who looks to entertainers for additional wisdom. I see.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well you put me in my place.
>
> I'm an educator and novelist.
>
> You must be a credentialed reading specialist with
> access to extensive tests I can't recall and who
> looks to entertainers for additional wisdom. I
> see.
Salmon Rusdie, Sam Harris and Ayan Hirsi Ali are novelists, among other things. I agree with them.

You have to admit, Cheryl threw some nice shots.

Makes me want to write a book. I'm a novelist has a nice ring to it right before a body shot. :)

Might be better off asking their writers. Funny how Mahr and Stewart used to do bit parts on sit-coms then got their own shows. Didn't hear much from them during a writers' strike.
Those guys aren't wingin' it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2018 11:25PM by verdacht.

Agreed.

"Not all religions are the same."

To which I'd rely:

"Well, duh."

I'd go one further and say that not all religious people are the same.

There are wide variations among people in every faith. Stereotyping a person because of their religion is silly.

What is even sillier is stereotyping a person because of their faith when that particular faith has no central ruling body that ensures a uniform set of beliefs, and different factions believe different things. Good examples of faiths without a central ruling body are Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.

Some faiths do have a central ruling body (CoJCoLDS, Roman Catholicism, JWs, etc.), but even in these groups, belief can vary widely.

Telling someone else what they believe, based on what you assume others related to their faith believe, is not going to be productive.

"I'd go one further and say that not all religious people are the same."

COMMENT: To point out that not all religious people [within the same religion] are the same, does not undermine Maher's point whatsoever. People within a religion may have nuanced views and interpretations of religious dogma, but there is necessarily a core substance that identifies such people with the religion. In Islam, I suggest that core substance is minimally, (1) belief in a god called "Allah" who dictates and rewards certain behavior; (2) Belief in the divine calling of Mohammad the prophet, who is the spokesperson for Allah; and (3) Belief that the Koran is Allah's teaching and direction as delivered to Mohammad. All of Maher's criticisms come down to the effects of these core beliefs, whether any given Muslim believes in violent jihad or not.
_______________________________________

"There are wide variations among people in every faith. Stereotyping a person because of their religion is silly."

COMMENT: Maher is not stereotyping Muslims. That is not the point. He has never said that all Muslims are violent, or that all Muslims support jihad. He is pointing out that the core beliefs of Islam--which all Muslims subscribe to, and as identified above--are dangerous such as to encourage violent intolerance. Such violence occurs within a context of religious dogma that is perpetrated by the religion's core beliefs.
____________________________________

"What is even sillier is stereotyping a person because of their faith when that particular faith has no central ruling body that ensures a uniform set of beliefs, and different factions believe different things. Good examples of faiths without a central ruling body are Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc."

COMMENT: A central ruling body has nothing to do with it. What matters, as indicated above, is the religion's core beliefs; i.e. beliefs which are in general necessary for identifying with that religion. If such core beliefs inspire "factions" that promote violence, then the core beliefs, i.e. the religion itself, is dangerous. I think that is all Maher is saying, while noting that the core beliefs of Islam inspire more violence that the core beliefs of Christianity, which is just an empirical fact of the present social context.

______________________________________________

"Some faiths do have a central ruling body (CoJCoLDS, Roman Catholicism, JWs, etc.), but even in these groups, belief can vary widely."

COMMENT: So what? How does this undermine Maher's point?
______________________________________________

"Telling someone else what they believe, based on what you assume others related to their faith believe, is not going to be productive."

COMMENT: Quite the contrary. Telling (non-violent) Muslims that their core beliefs inspire violence, as evidenced by the actions of other Muslims, might well be productive in suggesting they reconsider such beliefs. What is non-productive is allowing non-violent Muslims to distance themselves from such violence in the name of religious liberalism. They can, of course, believe what they want. But please do not tell me that the core beliefs of Islam do not promote and inspire violence.

There is a wide variety of beliefs in Islam and most do not support terrorism. Those who do support terrorism have political motives as well as religious motives.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2018 11:15PM by janeeliot.

In the U.S. there have been 233 mass shooting as of August 23 in 2018 alone, Just. *2018.* The Jacksonville gamer makes 234.

You wanna hear something really weird? Not ONE of them was carried out by a Muslim.

There is, in fact, no pattern of religious belief to these shootings -- or the tens of thousands other shootings in this country -- which I find VERY reassuring and comforting -- because if I or someone I love is shot by a -- just some dweeby white guy who doesn't fit in, we won't be nearly as dead?

Most of the shooters, however, are young white males -- which isn't a religion -- so let's shine THAT on.

Y'all are SERIOUSLY worried about *Muslims* inspiring violence, but not -- like -- your OWN culture?


Project much?

I'm concerned about the mass shootings. Why wouldn't I be?

I do like that the mass shootings aren't State sanctioned. I'm glad they aren't codified in law. I'm glad they aren't carried out by State officials.

I'm also concerned about journalists being caned or killed, people who criticize Islam or Allah in certain countries being imprisoned or killed, gay people being killed or imprisoned, women being denied rights and forced to cover their entire bodies . . . .

Why the fake argument?

Maher is intelligent and witty. Does he overstate the Muslim threat? Could be, but I agree with him that a play mocking Mohammed would require Soviet-era security.

donbagley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maher is intelligent and witty. Does he overstate
> the Muslim threat? Could be, but I agree with him
> that a play mocking Mohammed would require
> Soviet-era security.

Exactly.
And there's a reason why nobody would stage a Muslim version of the Book of Mormon on Broadway, when more than 50 people died and 700 people were injured in response to "The Innocence of Muslims"

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

And the list of Islamic Terrorist Acts is long and widespread.

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

Like Bill Maher says, "Liberals are fond of saying, 'All religions are the same.' No. No they're not! Some inspire more violence than others."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2018 08:57PM by koriwhore.

Aren't the alleged potential terrorists just defending against misogynists who want to deny women the right to wear the full body cover?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2018 10:28PM by jay.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Like Bill Maher says, "Liberals are fond of
> saying, 'All religions are the same.' No. No
> they're not! Some inspire more violence than
> others."

Yeah, but see, here's the thing: I'm a liberal. I know tons of liberals. I've never heard a single one say that.

Bill Maher is funny sometimes. Poignant other times. I don't, however, always agree with him...

I think he's right that the core of Islam encourages/supports violent acts. I think he's wrong about the above.

"Yeah, but see, here's the thing: I'm a liberal. I know tons of liberals. I've never heard a single one say that."


from your post below:

"I just like to point out that the things you're saying about muslims were said in the US about catholics not that long ago. How about that."


This is sort of what Maher is pointing out about some liberals. They don't want to criticize Islam. They take the position its like other religions - (muslims = catholics - how about that). They think they are somehow being tolerant and accepting - yet they do seem more comfortable critisizing christianity. (remember, "they" means "some).

Can it be overstated ? No. it cannot be stated enough . THere are Muslim countries where you can be put to death for homosexuality . put to,death for apostasy.Tortured for speaking out . have acid thrown in your female child face for wanting an education .islam is The Waestboro Baptist on steroids . I do not want large numbers of Muslims immigrating to the USA. They in so many ways do not show or believe in our democratic values . look at the United Kingdom.Over half of Muslims living in the UK say homosexuality should be a crime . They are a threat to our culture . Simple as that

Agreed, Islam on it’s best day is more dangerous than ny other belief system.

Jimbo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Over half of Muslims
> living in the UK say homosexuality should be a
> crime . They are a threat to our culture . Simple
> as that

Until 2007, over half of the christians in the US said homosexuality should be a crime. Even now, it's nearly the same (about 42% say that).

Was the US a threat to your culture until then?

Look, I'm no fan of islam. Or any religion.
I just like to point out that the things you're saying about muslims were said in the US about catholics not that long ago. How about that.

There have not been any homosexuals put to death by the government in any majority Catholic country that I am aware of . In fact majority Catholic countries do not have the death penalty

Islam is at a stage that christianity (most of it) passed through, ending about 150 years ago.

You wouldn't have wanted to be a 'free thinker' in a christian nation a few centuries ago..

I thought it interesting how he noticed that, and yet he seems to share this idea that Mormonism is harmless or maybe just less dangerous than Islam. I disagree! I think it's about equal with regular, non-militant Islam.

A majority of Mormons would say nutty-sounding things, too, if you asked them very specifically and they felt like being honest. Maybe not that it's OK to kill someone who criticizes the prophet, but you could get some weird, wild stuff with a shot of truth serum. Unfortunately, that's probably about what it would take to get honest answers.

"I thought it interesting how he noticed that, and yet he seems to share this idea that Mormonism is harmless or maybe just less dangerous than Islam. I disagree! I think it's about equal with regular, non-militant Islam."

COMMENT: He is talking mainly about physical violence, and related threats. I do not think he would discount the idea that Mormonism is ideologically harmful.

Note also that you are equivocating between Islam, on the one hand, and "non-militant Islam" on the other. When making a "fair" comparison of the relative "harm" of Mormonism and Islam you cannot segregate out the violent segment of Islam, calling it "irregular," and still expect a meaningful comparison. With each religion you consider the sum total of the effects of the core ideology, both the "good" and the "bad." Your suggestion is like saying, "I think Catholic clergy is more moral than Mormon "clergy"--if you take out the pedophiles." Or worse, saying "The Nazis weren't that bad--if you don't consider the extermination of the Jews." This is a kind of moral cherry-picking that smacks of apologetics; i.e. the attempt to salvage goodness (or truth) by discounting evil (or falsehoods).

if you insist on tossing Islamic fundamentalists in with the rest, then we'll do the same with Mormons. Still about equal, imo—unless you want to argue about whether and how much of one kind of damage is worse than another, which I'm guessing you do. :)

That's what I was thinking.

I'd divide Islam into three categories: violent fundamentalists, indoctrinated and fervent pacifists, and secularists.

Mormonism almost fits those categories: polygamist fundamentalists, fervent believers who aren't violent or polygamist, and cultural Mormons.

If we had to rank those six groups in terms of odiousness, I'd put the violent Moslems at the top; followed by Mormon fundamentalists; then probably Mormon TBMs (Islam doesn't demonize sex as much as Mormonism and hence doesn't do as much lasting damage); then fervent but peaceful Moslems; and finally secular Moslems and Mormons in the same bucket at the reasonable end of the spectrum.

I'm ignoring the geographical component of the religions, of course, which would change the mix a bit. Otherwise, it's remarkable that secular Mormons are probably rarer than secular Moslems since the LDS church tries so hard to drive the cafeteria types away.

But with those caveats, it seems tentatively to me that excluding the militant parts of the two religions, Mormonism is probably more damaging to its believers than Islam in the fervent but peaceful and secular categories.

The minute you start to apply your select categories you water down the comparison and invite further categories, ad infinitum, until you eventually are left with comparing the beliefs of individual adherents. Your comparison, as applied to religion, thus becomes meaningless.

At some point you have to define what it means to be affiliated with a religion, in this case Mormonism and Islam. If you want to divide this further, then further definitions are necessary for each such division. Of course you can still make comparisons, but you are not longer comparing Islam and Mormonism. You are comparing something else.

That is true, Henry. But by sticking with a single category for each religion, you run the opposite risk of treating as identical things that are radically different.

The secular Iranian, who sincerely believes he is Moslem but sips wine while reading the Koran and has a girlfriend while his wife is studying in Canada, where she also has a lover, is very different from the Mullahs whom they both would love to see overthrown. It doesn't make sense to treat the Iranian "civilians" and the Mullahs alike. Nor does it make sense to treat the LeBarons as if they are inseparable from Robert Kirby and Sam Young.

The question is whether there are clusters along the distribution such that they deserve somewhat separate analytical treatment. I assert that your comparison of unitary Islam with unitary Mormonism obscures a lot, possibly even more than it reveals.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2018 10:24PM by Lot's Wife.

That's what I was doing. But none of this was even my point. My point was about regarding Mormonism as harmless, making the comparison as if it's so obvious that no one could possibly disagree.

I think you and I are pretty much on the same page.

We both want to split off Islamic terrorists, which skew the results of the comparison. What I was suggesting is that Mormonism may be more destructive than Islam for TBMs and for cafeteria types since Islam (viewed broadly) has more tolerance for such.

Stepping back for a minute to note something that may be marginally relevant, there is a fundamental flaw in the comparison between Islam and Mormonism. Islam comprises more than a billion people in scores of sects. The natural comparison is therefore between Islam and Christianity, with nearly as many adherents in similarly multitudinous and diverse subordinate sects. Mormonism is a few million people who comprise one of the smallest of those sects.

Comparing a minuscule sect with the largest family of religions in the world is not likely to produce meaningful results. That doesn't surprise me, though, since Bill Maher is just an entertainer. He spouts the party line from West Hollywood and pretends it is profound. But it usually isn't.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2018 10:56PM by Lot's Wife.

Clusters?

Clusters of dead homosexuals? Clusters of women owned by men? Clusters of cowering apostates afraid to criticize Allah?

I think there are clusters. If one doesn't see clusters, then one finds no need to speak out against a particular ideology or join online discussion groups.

Let no one say that you are incapable of understanding nuance.

I haven't run into that yet.

After all, I was working on digging my way out of nuance while you were still talking about the golden plates. :)

Really? You know when I left the church?

I'm sorry you felt it necessary to dig your way out of an understanding of nuance, since that is usually where the truth lies.

You forgot your own advice about close reading.

I didn't say I was digging my way out of an understanding of nuance. I said nuance. I chose that word to return the volley.

When you've deconstructed your world view repeatedly, you pass through the world of nuance (I did). Just getting back to half-crazy is a major accomplishment.

I don't know when you left the church, and it's not fair for me to throw that punch. But, if you want to throw a few at me, I don't mind going low. I've only ever laughed at the idea of golden plates and prophets. But, in all fairness, I've got my own set of golden plates that I'm still chipping away at.

We all have our limitations that we struggle to overcome. I would only suggest that you don't know where other people are in their intellectual and moral trajectories--and that statistical training is a pretty good background from which to evaluate broad assertions.

Honestly, I cracked the nut of broad assertions at a young age. It's a given that broad assertions fall apart. In my view, it's easy to pick them apart. That's what Hie likes to do. I understand. I lived in that world for a long time. And I frequently revisit it.

But I also like to sometimes try to understand another person's point, rather than to simply point out how it could be wrong.

Anyways, broad assertions. Easy pickings.

edit:

"statistical training is a pretty good background from which to evaluate broad assertions."

Notwithstanding my comment herein, I'm in full agreement with you. : )



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2018 01:24AM by jay.

I like a devil's advocate, also someone who will take me on and force me to reconsider my views. I learn through the process.

My only point here is that it's really hard to get meaningful results from a comparison of such vastly different groups. I think there are comparisons to be made (I learned a ton about Mormon polygamy, for instance, from studying Arab polygamy). But to get to those points of insight, I think we have to get beyond the monstrously broad assertions implicit in the comparisons between Islam and Mormonism.

ificouldhietokolob,

Above is another example of what Maher is talking about - whether he's right or wrong regarding Islam - his observation about some liberal's position seems to be accurate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2018 06:41PM by jay.

I think if you go back and read really, really closely, you will discover that Hie is saying much the same thing as I am.

But hey, if it makes you feel warm and cuddly to act as if 1.2 billion people are morally and behaviorally identical, go for it.

Let no one say that you are incapable of understanding nuance.

<<I think if you go back and read really, really closely, you will discover that Hie is saying much the same thing as I am.>>


I think if you go back and read really, really closely, you'll see that exactly what I was pointing out to Hie.

I said to Hie "Above is another example of what Maher is talking about . . . ." Note how I said "another example"?

The first example I pointed out in a prior comment in this thread was Hie's comment.

I was pointing out that Hie's comment and your comment were similar and that both comments were an example of what Maher was talking about.

What was that about nuance and close reading? :)


Sometimes being a bit snide and a bit of a smart aleck bites one in the backside. You've got company. I do it myself all of the time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2018 12:54AM by jay.

Thank you for enlightening me. I didn't understand your point.

I am entirely comfortable being in the same camp as Hie, who is an intelligent and perceptive man. And I am happy to be in disagreement with Maher, who is nothing more than an entertainer. He spouts the liberal/libertarian mix that he encounters daily in West Hollywood and very little more.

Hie is much more intelligent and he applies logic to problems, meaning that he doesn't fall for false equivalencies like the idea that Mormonism is reasonably comparable to Islam.

"meaning that he doesn't fall for false equivalencies like the idea that Mormonism is reasonably comparable to Islam."

And I think Maher would say Hie's comments and your comments do, in fact, make his point. I think so.

Of course, I might not understand Maher and I might not understand you or Hie. But I certainly see you and Hie making the equivalency argument. Perhaps not a full-throated equivalency argument but leaning that direction.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2018 01:09AM by jay.

No, Jay, I am not trying to assert equivalence but to get a more precise argument in order to avoid equivalency.

What I mean is that comparing 1.2 billion people who span a huge range of opinions and experiences to some 3 million is a really bad analytical idea. To begin with, there is a false equivalency in the notion that all those Moslems are significantly similar. If we can be more precise, we can get closer to meaningful comparisons.

For example, if one insists on including terrorism and its advocates, then of course Islam is worse than Mormonism. But isn't that obvious? If we concede the fact that terrorism is horrible (as also, perhaps to a different degree, fundamentalist polygamy)and then proceed to look at the vast majority of Moslems who are not terrorists or terrorist supporters, we can then compare those people with Mormons.

At that level, as I wrote above, I think Mormonism may be more destructive than Islam. I'm not entirely sure of that, but I know a lot of Moslems who are better adjusted than a lot of Mormons are.

So what I am trying to do is go beyond the top-line fact that terror is bad, which is true but not profound, and then to see what else we can glean from a comparison between the two peoples.

Maher might find fault with that, but it is important to remember who he is and what he does. As he once said, his show is about putting together pop celebrities with one or two people "who actually do this stuff for a living" in an entertaining format. His monologues are much the same.

He is glib because that is what his audience wants.

"No, Jay, I am not trying to assert equivalence but to get a more precise argument in order to avoid equivalency."

I understand you are taking the position that you're not asserting equivalence. But, I think you are asserting equivalence - at least in the prism of how Bill Maher is discussing the issue.

Maher talks about liberals diminishing / ignoring the harm of Islam (and amplifying the harms of christianity). I think that's what Maher means by equivalency. And, I think you and Hie are in fact diminishing the harm of Islam (in comparison to other religions). You do it by deconstructing the broad assertions about Islam. I can appreciate your approach. I can appreciate Hie pointing out the Catholic church was also a source of great harm.

I'm fairly sure you and Hie could make some pretty good arguments in the opposite direction. I'd love to see either of you take a shot at that. But, as you (and everyone on this board) knows, it's hard to get someone to utilize their thinking skills to argue against their current views.

I obviously see Islam as a mental prison that does great harm to many individuals. Even though there is a muslim lady somewhere telling her boyfriend dirty jokes while doing shots in an upscale bar in Pasadena. I've been there.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2018 01:40AM by jay.

I'm not sure whether you want me to agree with you or not; the truth is that I probably do both.

I'll state up front that I consider Islam a big threat in terms of terrorism, geopolitical danger (Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, Turkey in a somewhat different way, several others), and as underclass concentrations in certain parts of Europe. I also think religion in general is damaging, and that includes Islam.

In the Christian world, which I do not think rivals Islam in terms of terror or geopolitical instability at this particular point in time, I am agnostic about whether extremism as one would find in parts of Mormondom or the Catholic Church's systematic child abuse and corruption is the greater problem. I would hope, however, that (what I think is my) agreement with you that Islam is a more serious problem would free us to discuss the other elements of the comparison between Mormonism and Islam.

That is what I tried to do by suggesting that we might usefully compare the (non-terroristic, non-geopolitical) spectra of Islam with Mormonism. There I surmise, again tentatively, that Mormonism may be a more harmful form of ideological indoctrination for a higher percentage of its population than Islam.

But returning to Islam, the realization that that phenomenon is a bigger threat than Christianity leads me not to a desire to condemn the entire ecumene but rather to the hope that we can understand the religion and people in more detail. To put the point in brutally (and deceptively) simple terms, a strategy of divide and conquer, of identifying and working together with allies within Islam, is wiser than simply branding the religion the enemy and fighting the whole damn thing. The issue isn't whether Islam is minatory but how to stop the danger it represents from spilling over and hurting the West.

Returning to Maher, I do find the comparison stupid. How could a risible little cult whose most militant representatives are people like Ammon Bundie* rival Islam in terms of international influence and danger? I seriously don't know a single liberal who would assert that Mormonism is comparable in importance, let alone as a strategic rival, to Islam. The interesting parts of the comparison (both political and psychological/sociological) arise if, and only if, we move beyond that canard about liberals, which Maher's liberal friends and followers think "edgy," and look at the two phenomena in more detail and with more nuance.

Seeking to understand a threat is not liberal weakness: it can be that, but it is also the basis of realpolitik.



*"Bundie" used to pacify the gods of banned words.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2018 03:20AM by Lot's Wife.

"How could a risible little cult whose most militant representatives are people like Ammon Bundie* rival Islam in terms of international influence and danger? I seriously don't know a single liberal who would assert that Mormonism is comparable in importance, let alone as a strategic rival, to Islam."

I haven't met a liberal who says that. I have heard many liberals say Islam is no more oppressive or violent than various christian groups (or disenfranchised white mass shooters). Again, I think Maher is simply saying some liberals minimize the harm of Islam - I think they feel enlightened and accepting - they dig tattoos and Islam and Beyonce.

I laugh at Maher's jokes, but I haven't seen his show in years (other than a few clips) and never saw religiosity. So, I'm not a big fan. I'm just using him as a reference since someone brought him up.

Maher aside and forgetting equivalence or non-equialency, I'm not sure why many liberals seem oblivious to the suffering caused by Islam.

I agree with the bulk of the rest of your comment. How to fight it? Divide and conquer may be the best approach. But do we extend respect to the dogma? I kind of like the idea of staying out of the way while the various sects discuss it amongst themselves.

jay Wrote:


-------------------------------------------------------
> I have
> heard many liberals say Islam is no more
> oppressive or violent than various christian
> groups (or disenfranchised white mass shooters).

If you forced me to treat Islam and Christianity as unitary entities, I would say that Islam is more oppressive and violent at this point in history than Christianity. But again, I find that statement too general to be of use in any way but as a cudgel to bludgeon one's ideological opponents.



--------------
> Again, I think Maher is simply saying some
> liberals minimize the harm of Islam - I think they
> feel enlightened and accepting - they dig tattoos
> and Islam and Beyonce.

Such liberals would, in my estimation, be mistaken. There is nothing surprising in that: politics for most people is more fashion statement than discipline.



---------------
> Maher aside and forgetting equivalence or
> non-equialency, I'm not sure why many liberals
> seem oblivious to the suffering caused by Islam.

See above.



--------------
> I agree with the bulk of the rest of your comment.

You should probably see a doctor for that.




--------------
> How to fight it? Divide and conquer may be the
> best approach. But do we extend respect to the
> dogma?

I find the dogma fascinating in the same way that I enjoy Old Testament mythology, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, and shopping for household appliances. I do not, however, respect Islamic doctrine as it is taught and enforced in Wahabi, Deobandi, and other extremist traditions.

More broadly, I don't care what people think about Islamic dogma. The risks posed by Islam, however defined, need to be addressed. To some extent that requires an understanding of the culture and doctrines, but an objective observer would surely aim for emotional indifference.



----------------------
> I kind of like the idea of staying out of
> the way while the various sects discuss it amongst
> themselves.

I would agree if the "discussions" did not keep extruding from the Islamic world. To the extent that the parts of that world are inextricably entangled with Western interests, leaving it to the Moslems to sort out by themselves may not be a great idea--although I hasten to acknowledge the 1953 danger at the other end of the spectrum of "engagement."



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2018 04:53AM by Lot's Wife.

Please don’t bring up 1953. I’ve only recently gotten past the nightmares.

"if you insist on tossing Islamic fundamentalists in with the rest, then we'll do the same with Mormons. Still about equal, imo—unless you want to argue about whether and how much of one kind of damage is worse than another, which I'm guessing you do. :)

COMMENT: If *I* insist? They (Islamic fundamentalists) are part of Islam, just as Mormon fundamentalists are part of Mormonism. The criteria is an adherence to the core religious beliefs of the religion. Are you inclined to let modern LDS Mormonism off the hook for the polygamy of fundamentalists who derived their practices directly from the founding prophet and his doctrines?

You can have your own opinion as to which religion is the most harmful. But you cannot legitimately base this opinion upon applying your select categories as to what counts as a member of a religion and what does not, particularly when you wish to rule out a whole group that clearly identifies as Islam, and believes the core Islamic doctrines.

It makes no sense to claim that only one segment of the faith is mormon and the rest are not.

but members of the mainstream Mormon and Islamic faiths both say the fundamentalists are not practicing the same religion, and there *are* differences. I was merely recognizing those. I did not say or think one group is and the other is not. Beyond that, I don't care enough to argue with Henry Bemis or anyone who thinks I'm making Bill Maher's case.

I may be a liberal, but I'm also an atheist, if anyone remembers. I wholly disapprove of all religions. They're equally stupid, if not equally dangerous and destructive.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2018 10:14PM by munchybotazv2.

munchybotazv2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> I wholly disapprove of all religions. They're equally stupid, if not equally dangerous and destructive.



I have to agree with that.

They have primary residual stupid premises that the adherents of the religion ALL support (or they wouldn't be classified as that religion). These usually involve faith based unsupportable claims.

The adherents vary in what they cherry pick to support their personal biases. One might kill if they see a cartoon drawing of their god or prophet. Another might not.

Bill is a mixed bag for sure. There's something about him everyone can find to be pissed off about. But, he is entertaining and (like it or not) a talented comedian.