Comments by "" (@A86) on "Glenn Greenwald on Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, Tribalism, and “The Resistance”" video.

@Maximus Desimus - You suffer from the same problem as Maher. The central foundation of Islam is the Five Pillars. That's it. Beyond that, it's up to interpretation, sect, denomination, etc. Some Muslim sects are basically hippies, like the mystic Sufi sect who are as liberal as Wiccans and get killed by Islamists like ISIS as "heretics". You're conflating radical conservative Islamism as ALL OF ISLAM, or acting as if their interpretation is the "true" interpretation which you can't prove any more than a Fundie Muslim could. Their interpretation is no more valid than liberal and progressive Muslims. There are plenty of Muslim Leftists like Malcolm X (he was a self-identified Muslim SOCIALIST), Mustafa Kemal Attaturk (the founder of modern Turkey), Keith Ellison, Majid Nawaz, etc. Islam is no more incompatible with Progressivism than Christianity or Judaism. As long as you don't have a conservative Fundie interpretation of the Koran and don't follow the regressive stuff in the Hadith (different sects of Islam differ on the Hadith, some sects don't view it as valid at all).
11
@Maximus Desimus - Keith Ellison is a Muslim and is pro-Gay Marriage, pro-Choice and pro-Transgender. There are organizations for LGBTQ Muslims. That's the problem with "New Atheists" like yourself. In your post you can somehow understand nuance when it comes to Christianity, even though anti-gay Christians are as prevalent the in the non-Western world as anti-gay Muslims and African Christians have "Kill the Gays" laws on the books, kill witches and South Africa has a huge problem with churches approving of "curing" Lesbians by raping them. But, you become curiously blind to nuance when it comes to Islam and treat it as a blank monolithic slab. As if Islam = inherently conservativ/regressive. It's no more inherently anti-gay or conservative than Christianity or Judaism is. To be honest, I think this bias is because many "New Atheists" see Christianity and Judaism as part of "Western civilization" and see Islam as "foreign" or "Eastern barbarism".
11
I agree, but Bill DOES take it to the point of bigotry. Like trying to act like the fact that many Muslims in the Third World hold backwards views somehow implies Muslim Americans are the same way, or when he immediately sided against "Clock Boy" and said because other people have been treated worse than him, what happened to hom is acceptable. Bill is also a Zionist who is almost completely silent on Israel, openly likes Bibi Netanyahu and doesn't criticize Jewish Fundamentalism on Israel and AIPAC. He's a hypocrite just like Sam Harris who openly said he refuses to criticize Israel or Zionism.
10
@Lovely Candice - Bill, like many New Atheists is a moderate Neoconservative on foreign policy. He even self-identified as a "9/11 liberal", which is the 21st century equivalent of "Cold War liberals": people who were liberal on domestic issues but rabid anticommunist pro-war hawks. That about sums up New Atheists. They share Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" worldview where they see "the West" as inherently good and "progressive" and the peak of Human Enlightenment and see the rest of the world as "barbarians". Kind of how Romans and Greeks viewed non-Romans and non-Greeks (except for a few choice non-European Civilizations like Egypt, Nubia, Phoenicians, Persians and Scythians). This is why they have a special animus against Islam. They identify it as a "foreign" faith, unlike Christianity and Judaism, and identify it with "Eastern despotism and barbarism" and see it as a huge threat since it's the world's 2nd largest religion and therefore the main competition to Christianity and Judaism. Islam does have a HUGE legitimate problem with Islamism but they go an extra step and suggest the entire religion is evil and irredeemable and somehow "more evil" than other religions. They dislike all religions but view Islam as a special evil with no good or redeeming features while viewing Christianity and Judaism as annoying but "Western" (therefore "more civilized"). Islam is somehow more religion-y than other religions in their mind or they believe Muslims somehow believe harder somehow than other religious people. Basically, they view Islam the way Cold War Neocons view Communism: pure world-destroying evil and ineffable Eastern despotism with which there can be no compromise. They view the other Abrahmic faiths the way Cold War Neocons view Fascism: not preferable but an acceptable temporary bulwark against Communism. Like Nixon said: "A bastard, but OUR (the West's/Capitalism's) bastard." Basically, they're Western Supremacists who have replaced Communism with Islam as the big Eastern "Great Satan" now that the Soviets are gone. That and many New Atheists are hardcore Zionists, like Maher, Harris, Condell, Krauss, etc. When you press them on this stuff they'll try to do a "motte and bailey" retreat to make their position seem less controversial or extreme. lol
10
@WikkedTung - Exactly. If you see elsewhere on this page I'm arguing with some New Atheists who lumped me in with Ben Affleck and SJWs just because I disagreed with the notion that Islam is pure evil incompatible with Western civilization and more evil than all other religions. They literally argue that religions conservatives are less hypocritical than religious liberals because, they argue, that somehow religious liberals are cherry-picking while religious conservatives are "consistent". Religious conservatives are anything but "consistent" in my personal experience. New Atheists seem to believe that religion extremists are "correct" about the religion while they view religious moderates and liberals with more contempt and see them as dishonest people legitimizing the faith. I think that's because religious extremists are cartoon characters that any junior sceptic can easily make a fool of while educated religious moderates and liberals can make very good arguments for their religion and give sceptics a much harder time arguing back or refuting them. So, New Atheists hate the latter more because they aren't strawmen who can very easily be maee fools of like Westboro Baptist Church types. I view New Atheists as fanatics or extremists of Secularism and Atheism. Like all fanatics, they hate moderate and liberals more than they hate extremists of the opposite ideology.
7
I grew up around religious conservatives, they are anything but consistent. So I DEFINITELY disagree with you that religious conservatives, literalists, Fundamentalists and extremists are more consistent than religious liberals and religious moderates. Try quoting the red letter verses in the New Testament (the words of Jesus) and ask a Christian conservative to square the words of Jesus with their social, political and economic conservatism. Watch the inconsistencies, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance right before your eyes.
6
That's quite typical of New Atheists. They're the 21st century equivalent of "Cold War liberals. Just replace "Communism" with Islam. They share the same Samuel Huntington "Clash of Civilizations" worldview. They hate all religions but specially hate Islam and are willing to put up with Christianity and Judaism to counter it. Much like Neocons and Cold War liberals are rabid anticommunists who viewed Communism as the height of "Eastern barbarism and despotism" and also dislike Fascism but are willing to support Fascism as a bulwark against Communism. Like Nixon said, "They're bastards but they're OUR (the West's/Capitalism's) bastards."
5
jure hehe - And what do you mean that's how I lost? I'm not a Hillary supporter, I voted for Bernie, then Jill Stein. Your Zionist Hasbara is abundantly clear in your post, and it's rejected by even most Western nations. That's why Israel is on the UN's shit-list and why most European countries either condemn them or have very limited trade with Israel. Only Zionists and right-wingers in the US bother defending the Likud or the current Israeli government. The Likud is every bit as bad as Hamas and you're no better than an Islamist, sitting here defending radical Zionism. You're just supporting extremists of the opposite side. It's like trying to claim a moral high ground repudiating Nazis while defending Stalinists.
5
@Maximum Desimus - After reading your post, my opinion hasn't changed much. You can only speak for your experiences with your family, that's not all Muslims or Christians. Your thought process starts from the assumption that religion conservatives are somehow following the faith more "correctly" than religious liberals which you cannot prove. You cannot prove what the "proper" way to practice a faith is or what the "correct" interpretation of a faith is, so the form followed by conservative Fundamentalists is no more correct or valid than religiously liberal followers. So, I see no hypocrisy in being a Progressive Christian or Muslim since the Bible and the Koran both have have tons of stuff that supports progressive ideology. Or appears to. It has tons of stuff that is or seems regressive as well and progressive religious people have their own interpretations that interpret it in a less sinister way or why it is dispensational or not important. Same with religious conservatives. They cherry-pick and ignore all the progressive stuff in the Bible and the Koran and have interpretations for why they should basically ignore it. Religious Fundies are actually no more literal followers at the end of the day than non-literalists. Biblical literalists don't generally give 10% of their income to the poor or turn the other cheek, do they? Religion is a man-made way to get in touch with the divine and Religion evolves like everything else. Are you a hypocrite for being a "liberal, but holding what most liberals view as a very illiberal view on Islam? Do you have to be 100% liberal on all issues to be a liberal? No. Likewise, you don't have to be a 100% literalist to be a "true follower" of a Religion. Lastly, Christianity outside of the Industrialized World is just as regressive and backwards generally as Islam. I fail to see how Islam is "worse" than other religions. How would you quantify that? India has a HUGE problem with Hindutva and Hindu Fundamentalists killing Muslims and Christiansand Buddhists and Hindu men raping women for "dressing improperly". Africa has a HUGE problem with corrective rape, killing gays and witches. Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and Thailand have Buddhist terrorists. You perceive Islam as worse because they're "foreigners" attacking the West. Those other religious Fundamentalists are every bit as dangerous as Muslim ones, but since they're not attacking the West you see them as less of a problem. Christian Fundamentalists pass laws, hold office, control the US military and have access to nukes but you see them as less bad because they're "Western", therefore "less evil". Even though Muslim Fundamentalists hold no power in the US and pass no laws.
5
@Aaron Gaden - Ah, here comes the old "Motte and Bailey" tactic of retreating to a lesser controversial opinion and pretending you don't understand why I object to the less controversial opinion, even though that's not all you originally said. 1) I have no problem with criticizing Religion. Criticize it as much as you like as long as your criticism is based on fact. What I took issue with is Maximus specifically claimed Islam is a special evil MORE inherently evil than other religions and more irredeemable or incompatible with Western values. I challenged him on that because the Bible is every bit as violent as the Koran and the Bible is also littered with verses that appear to encourage killing or forcefully converting nonbelievers. So, I challenged him to quantify how Islam is supposedly worse or less compatible with Western values than other faiths or the other Abrahmic religions. 2) Had you read my (admittedly long) posts, I said religious conservatives are no less hypocrotical and don't suggest from any less cognitive dissonance than religious liberals. There are tons of liberal and progressive Biblical and Koranic verses that Christian conservative Fundamentalists and Muslim conservative Fundamentalists cherry-pick to ignore or explain away as "allegorical". How many conservative Christians give 10% of their earnings to the poor, turn the other cheek as a political policy or view becoming rich as a spiritual impediment like Christ taught? How many Conservative Muslims leave non-Muslims not bothering them in peace or go away if people aren't interested in converting to Islam like Muhammad said? You're arguing on the assumption that conservative and literal Istanbul and Fundamentalistinterpretations are the "correct" ones. Just like I would any Fundie, or challenge you to prove to me that Fundamentalists practice the correct version and that Fundamentalists are somehow cherry-picking any less than religious liberals. I assert there is no objectively correct the version of a faith. They're down to interpretation. 3) Christian Conservatives are as big of hypocrites as Islamists. I really don't care if they're offended since they're even bigger hypocrites than Liberals. Christian conservatives are every bit as homophobic, transphoic and regressive as Muslim Conservatives. The only thing going keeping them from killing them like their African brethren is Secular Rule of Law in the West. That's it. Christian Fundie are trying to outlaw abortion and ramp up out drone bombing overseas as we speak. That's no better than an Islamist.
4
Maximus Desimus - I'm not even religious, you dumbass. I'm an Ignostic (look it up) Apatheist. I have no dog in the fight of which interpretation is right. You can indeed be a liberal and a Christian or Muslim at the same time simply because there is no one correct way to be a Christian or a Muslim. Religious =/= Conservative. There are differing interpretations and you have yet to proceed that religious Fundamentalists and conservatives have the "correct" or "consistent" interpretation any more than the religious moderates or liberals. That's the problem with your argument - you are making an assertion you have failed to prove: that Christianity and Islam are inherently anti-progressive and that religious funnies are more consistent than religious liberals. I cited an example earlier: ask a Christian Republican to square the teachings of Jesus with their social and political ideology. They'll be no more consistent than a religious liberal. Ask an Islamist why it's okay to do a suicide bombing when the Koran says Suicide is a sin. Watch the inconsistencies and dissonance pile up.
4
@Bill T - They go a step further: they argue literalists have the "correct" interpretation and claim religious moderates and liberals are cherry-picking and not practicing it "properly". They essentially argue: Religion is evil because the Fundamentalists are right about their faith. Religious moderates and religious liberals are sneaky, seditious agents trying to legitimize the faith and they are even more the enemy (or at least as much so) as religious extremists. Harris and Maher believe Religion is completely incompatible with a civilized society and anyone who believes otherwise, that you can be religious and progressive, is a delusional idiot or a subversive enemy. And Islam in particular is "the Great Satan". Zionists is somehow alright though, lol.
3
Bill T - I'm not arguing that Atheists believe in a religion. I'm only saying that Maher and Harris specifically make that argument. Not all Atheists in general. They argue that not only are extremists dangerous but that they represent "true religion". They argue that non-extremist religious people are practicing a false form of religion to fool others and themselves. They see extremists as the true representatives of Religion and view progressive like religious people as propaganda to fool people into thinking religion can be compatible with a modern society. They're Secularist extremists.
3
Mitchell Carnevale - You don't have to only talk about positive stuff in religions, but arguing that religious people by definition are incompatible with a modern society is not helpful or even factually true. Harris is doing the opposite extreme of pretending Religion is all sweetness and light.
3
John Smith - Calling Islam Christianity's evil twin is like calling Maoism Stalinism's evil twin....
3
John Smith - In defense of Muslims who are under attack. Not just killing random citizens who aren't bothering you. Not really much different than what Americans believe about soldiers who fall in battle.
3
Charlie Rohlf - It depends. Turkey, Albania, Indonesia and Malaysia are majority-Muslim and religious minorities there have quite a lot of freedom. Syria and Iran have very large religious minorities who aren't being killed for having non-Muslim beliefs. Iran has the world's 3rd largest Jewish population and before ISIS Syria was almost 1/3 Christian. Lebanon is 20-25% Christian. During medieval times the Muslim world was much more tolerant of Christian and Jewish minorities than Christian Europe was of Muslims and Jews. You're conflating Islamism with all of Islam. Islam is not monolithic. And what the hell does sending death threats to mosques and shooting people you think are Muslims and telling them to "Get the hell out of my country" have to with honest questioning of the religion? Threatening to kill and trying to kill random Muslims is not questioning a religion, that's no better than how Islamist extremists behave. That's terrorism.
3
Bill T - When Sam and Bill said they defend Bibi Netanyahu and Harris refused to criticize the Israeli government, especially the Likud, it made them hypocrites of the highest caliber. It's like criticizing the Nazis for human rights violations but refusing to condemn the Soviets for the same. Zionists are extremists just like Islamists.
2
Sylvia Foster - Muhammad wasn't a rapist AFAIK and marrying young girls was pretty common in those days. In Europe too, not just the Middle East. Look at Ancient Greece and Rome with their Pederasty, yet we view them as "civilized". Not saying that was a good thing. Muhammad was a warlord but to be fair, so we're his enemies. Not really much different than Moses, yet we don't have a problem with moderate and liberal Observant Jews.
2
Maximus Desimus - Unless you're a religious scholar or expert, I think you're really in no position to say what the "consistent" interpretation of any religion is. It'd be like trying to tell people what a "true Communist" is if you've never read Socialist literature or only have a superficial understanding.
2
Maximus Desimus - Unless you're a religious scholar or expert, I think you're really in no position to say what the "consistent" interpretation of any religion is. It'd be like trying to tell people what a "true Communist" is if you've never read Socialist literature or only have a superficial understanding.
1