Maher / Affleck, Islam debate. I think both sides have valid points but side with Affleck a bit more

[Quixote1818]

Last edited Sun Oct 5, 2014, 05:21 AM - Edit history (3)

This was a fascinating debate for so many reasons! I found myself instantly on Affleck's side and yet something deep inside of me made me wonder if I wasn't being completely honest with myself? Why is it that as liberal who detests the religious right I find myself defending Islam which has adherents just as bad and worse? After some thought I determined both sides had a point but I still fall on Affleck's side a bit more than Maher's side on this issue and here is why.

It's not easy to explain and I suspect a lot of free-thinking, less than religious, liberals will understand where I am coming from. Or maybe not? The fact is I am totally cool with Christians believing their thing as long as it doesn't impact me and the rights of others here in the US and abroad. Unfortunately, a lot of lawmakers are making laws doing just that which makes the conflict at home more personal with Christians than with Muslims who are not the ones making things like abortion more difficult and preventing any action on things like climate change. At least not in the US, though I am sure many Muslims would if they were elected to office here.

For the most part I am also cool with Islam as long as it doesn't impact me and others rights here or abroad. Currently, Islam does seem to have a higher percentage of nut jobs than Christians and other religions but Affleck is correct that we cannot pigeon hole all Muslims into the extremist block and many Muslim countries do have more female leaders than we have in the US.

Let me be clear, because I would be lying if I didn't say that I hope eventually the world's population ends up rejecting most ancient religions to become free-thinkers and believers in the scientific method and reason. I simply think it would be a more peaceful, tolerant world with folks making much better decisions on things like climate change and human rights etc, etc. Just look at Norway and most other primarily non-religious country's. They are the most peaceful, have the least crime and have the least human rights violations. I however DO NOT believe anyone should be forced out of their religion. As the founders often said, probably not in these exact words: "Let a Religion thrive or perish on it's own merits without the help from the Gov."


I side with Maher on the idea that I do think radical religious adherents and even a lot of moderates are extremely harmful to this world but I think he is mistaken when he takes a side "against" one of these religions over another when both have texts have good and bad in them. I also think a lot of our current problems with Islam are "blow back" from dumb policies. All adherents of religions should be respected when they keep their religion to themselves. The current problems with Islam are more related to the leaders of the countries or small fanatical factions and what they decide to embrace in the Quran usually for personal gain. Don't get me wrong, there is some crazy shit in the texts of the Quran, and had those values not been there to begin with, the problems never would have had a chance to exist, but it's the leadership in each individual country that picks and chooses what parts they like and don't like. The Bible probably has just as many issues (not a religious scholar so I won't get into a point by point comparison) but I think periods like the Age of Enlightenment have helped carve out a larger, positive handhold on more, primarily Christian countries than Muslim countries AT THIS TIME! However, there were times in the past when it was just the opposite and Persia was much more enlightened than the Christian countries. So the current situation and issues with Islam vs Christianity is just a snapshot in history that can volley back and forth. Both Religions have had very bloody times and both bring some good to the table. Taking sides does no good but to divide even more. That may sound strange coming from someone who just admitted both religions have some major issues. The key point is respecting people's inherent rights to their religious freedom.

Because of philosophies like the Age of Enlightenment we in the US tend to value a live and let live attitude. People absolutely should be free to worship or not worship the way they like but it's when those religious beliefs start impacting science and civil rights or bring war is when the line is crossed. I think this is the value Affleck and most liberals connect with and why we defend "Islam" as having a right to exist even if we disagree with so much of what it stands for. It's the same reason I find myself defending the Mormon's from the Christians even though I think most of the beliefs the Mormons have are wrong. To me the Mormon's beliefs are no more unbelievable than the Christians, so I find it kind of funny when Christians laugh at Mormons. If I lived in a primarily Muslim country and heard Muslims disparaging Christians I would be arguing that Christians should be respected and allowed to live un-molested.

I found this debate an interesting one because quite frankly I can see both sides. I love Bill Maher and usually agree with him. This and the Israel / Palestinian conflict are about the only issues I don't see eye to eye with him on. I however don't think Affleck was being disingenuous and I think his stance is the more peaceful, responsible, intellectual one. It's rooted in the idea of believing unwavering in our unalienable right to believe what one wishes and be left alone by society as long as you don't stick your nose in other folks business. My guess is that Affleck also would like to see the world move away from ancient religions to value reason, science and free-thought, but he also understands very well that people have a right to believe as they wish. The track record of both Religions are bloody with a fair amount of good mixed in as well, but we all live together and we need to try our best to respect and love one another and get along. However, it would not break my heart to see more and more folks from both religions become more Unitarian and embrace free-thought. Attacking beliefs in an angry, prejudice sounding manor likely won't speed up that process.

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. I cannot get past female genital mutilation....

countries where 90+%? of the women have had that done to them....I just cannot get past that...

[Quixote1818]

2. Agree, extremely messed up! However, here is some insight on that

There is no mention of it in the Quran or the Bible and it pre-dates both Religions but it's generally more associated with Muslim groups today. Primarily a central African problem that occurs in both Muslim and Christian countries in central Africa.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/oct/02/reza-aslan/fact-checking-reza-aslans-retort-bill-maher/

It's a fucked up practice and no doubt was put in place to control women. Snip:

Antiquity

The origins of the practice are unknown.[109] Gerry Mackie has suggested that it began with the Meroite civilization in present-day Sudan.[110] He writes that its east-west, north-south contiguous distribution in Africa intersects in Sudan, and speculates that infibulation originated there with imperial polygyny, before the rise of Islam, to control access to women and increase confidence in paternity

On the other hand there is this:

Snip>Support from women



Molly Melching of Tostan, celebrating the 10th anniversary of the abandonment of FGM by Malicounda Bambara, the first village in Senegal to do so.
Dahabo Musa, a Somali woman, described infibulation in a 1988 poem as the "three feminine sorrows": the procedure itself, the wedding night when the woman is cut open, then childbirth when she is cut again.[88] Despite the evident suffering, it is women who organize the procedure. Anthropologist Rose Oldfield Hayes wrote in 1975 that educated Sudanese men living in cities who did not want their daughters to be infibulated (preferring clitoridectomy) would find the girls had been sewn up after their grandmothers arranged a visit to relatives.[89]

Fadwa El Guindi argues that FGM is not simply a matter of male control of women, and is neither initiated by nor intended to appeal to men. She writes that across Africa male circumcision is viewed as defeminizing men and FGM as demasculinizing women, and that FGM is chosen by women for women, to reduce sexuality before marriage and to enhance it afterwards.[90]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

I would like to point out that I was circumcised and really wish I had not been since it evidently cuts down the the amount of pleasure in a substantial way. Just more stupid ancient beliefs fucking up peoples lives.

[VanillaRhapsody]

19. i will point out

That your cicumcision is not meant to subjegate you and render you incapable of ever enjoying sex for your lifetime. Nor was it done by some old lady behind a curtain with dull and unsanitized implements while you are elementary school age without anesthesia.....NO comparison! The equivalent would be having your entire penis removed.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. Your "as long as" is misplaced.

"For the most part I am also cool with Islam as long as it doesn't impact me and others rights here or abroad."

I *would be* "cool with Islam" if it didn't impact the rights of others.

But it *does* do so, massively and appallingly, absolutely everywhere it's a majority religion, and in many places it isn't.

So I'm not; I think we have to recognise that Islam as interpreted and practiced by a very large majority (not all) of its followers is a very bad, very right-wing, inherently repressive religion - significantly more so than any other major world religion (although there do exist minor branches of other religions as bad as or worse than most branches of Islam).

[CJCRANE]

4. How is it different from the interpretation of Christianity we see in the GOP and Tea Party

except by degree?

There is the exact same desire to take away people's rights, to repress and to put religion ahead of secular values.

Fundamentalist religion is the problem.

Just as we see in Burma with fundamentalist Buddhism gaining strength and in India with fundamentalist Hinduism.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. "Except by degree" here is a matter of many orders of magnitude.

If you want to get right down to it, "the problem" is opposition to gay rights, womens' rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.

There are some Christians who interpret their religion as being somewhat opposed to those things.

There are a great many more Muslims who interpret their religion as being much, much more opposed to those things.

A significant fraction of American Christians want to prevent gay couples being allowed to marry, and women from being allowed to get abortions, and want prayer in schools.

The majority of muslims (although by no means all, and probably not even a majority among western Muslims) want homosexuality criminalised (often punishable by death) and women treated as second-class citizens. There are practically no muslim-majority nations with full legal freedom of religion (the only one I know of is Bangladesh, and even there there are significant unofficial restrictions).


So "except by degree" in this context is like saying "but apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?"

[CJCRANE]

6. The GOP base was a big part of support for the War against Iraq

because they thought it was a religious war.

Bush made reference to this several times although he tried to dial it back but other RWers made this very clear.

Christian fundamentalism just like islamic fundamentalism has gained in strength exponentially over the last decade.

We see extreme statements made on the religious right today that would have been considered crazy a decade ago which are commonplace and mainstream. Back then only conspiracy theorists would claim that the "Handmaid's Tale" is their blueprint but now that doesn't seem so far-fetched.

Even popular figures like the Duck brothers look like Bin Laden and KSM! The similarity couldn't be more striking.

If the PTB so desires there will be christian jihadis in a few years, we can already see the outliers of this mentality.

Christian and muslim fundamentalism are two sides of the same coin. Oil money contributes to both. Fox News is owned by a prominent neocon and a muslim prince.

Religious fundamentalism of whatever flavor is the problem IMO.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. Wait, what the hell?

"Even popular figures like the Duck brothers look like Bin Laden and KSM! The similarity couldn't be more striking."

*Charles Darwin* looked like bin Laden; so do I. Are you seriously citing long beards as evidence of similarity of views? Their *opinions* do not resemble bin Laden's; except very superficially.

[CJCRANE]

9. They are religious literalists, that's not in doubt. It's not an original thought

to point out that they look like the islamic fundies that RWers claim to hate.

That's a common joke right here on DU and other discussion boards.

(FWIW Darwin didn't wear a headscarf and combat fatigues).

[BlueMTexpat]

10. Radical "Islam" is NO different

from ANY radical religious - or non-religious, for that matter - movement.

Most, if not all, of what is abhorrent in ISIS or other supposedly "Islamic" groups/practices does not conform to mainstream Islamic belief. Maher rightly is - and should be - called a racist bigot for his views on Islam, however "sincere" those beliefs may be. He's using dog whistle politics to incite against a group and should not be allowed to get away with it.

A pox on ALL radical fundamentalist movements, IMO.

I respect those who sincerely practice the precepts of any religion with tolerance for all others, whether they are religious or not.

All of us have spiritual needs beyond the material sense. But not all of us necessarily need religion to satisfy those spiritual needs. One can find spiritual meaning in philosophical works and/or in natural symbolism or in other things that have personal meaning.

[yeoman6987]

18. Christian Tea Partiers haven't beheaded anyone

To my knowledge. They are over the top, but no be headings. That is a pretty significant difference.

[CJCRANE]

22. Anders Breivek is an outlier of the same philosophy.

Isis has received hundreds of millions of dollars in aid including weapons, training and social media propaganda. Without that help their recruits would be still back in their home countries scraping by like the rest of us.

The seeds are there in any creed.

[CJCRANE]

7. And that's not to mention the Religious Right's support for antigay movements in Uganda and Russia

(and probably other places in Africa).

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Not just the regular religious right, the RCC's Bishops and Pope bait that anti gay movement BUT

that in no way mitigates the hateful bigotry of others. I'm very sorry CJ but 'everyone attacks gays' does not excuse any of them for doing so. 'They are no more shitty than other shitty bigots' is not much to blow your horn about.

[CJCRANE]

24. I'm not excusing them. They are the same thing IMO.

We can't fight religious fundamentalism with another brand of the same thing.

That's why I support secular universal values.

[Quixote1818]

12. Islam's biggest obstical is the fact that Islam is declared to be incompatible with secularism

because in a secular state there is no place for divine laws, and secular laws are unacceptable to Islam. Also it is believed that in Islam religion and politics cannot be separated. On these grounds secularism is totally rejected by orthodox Muslims.


However...



Snip>

As there is no organised church in Islam the 'Ulama are divided on the issues of modernisation and change. In Iran too intense struggle is on between the conservatives and the reformists. In Saudi Arabia too the process of change is for anyone to see though the monarchy is quite cautious and wants to carry the orthodox `Ulama along. But social pressures are building up in the Saudi society in favour of change and modernisation. Even in Afghanistan the Taliban rule is more coercive than consensual. The Taliban enjoy political and not social hegemony.

Snip>


"The other characteristic of secular democracy is a respect for human dignity and human rights. The Qur'an expressly upholds both. It is true some rulers in the Islamic world reject the concept of human rights as Western in origin and not fit for their society. But it is to preserve their own absolute and unchallenged rule rather than upholding Islamic doctrinal position. It is cultural and political rather than religious problem. There are different political systems in different Islamic countries from monarchy to military dictatorship to limited democracy to democracy. But it will be naïve to blame Islam for this. One has to look into the political history of the country rather than search for its causes in to Islamic doctrines. Islamic doctrines do not nurture any concept of absolutism as perhaps no other religion does. In fact the Qur'an's emphasis is on consultation (shura), and even the Prophet used to consult his companions in secular matters."

Snip>

"It will thus be seen that Islam is not incompatible to secularism if it does not mean rejection of religious faith...."

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~rtavakol/engineer/secular.htm

What I take from this is that Islam is probably always going to lag behind most other religions when it comes to human rights because it's perceived to be incompatible with secularism even though if you dig deep enough into the texts it can be compatible. Repressive Governments like the Taliban are not respected by the average folks. They hate them! Some Islamic countries are secular and those countries have the best record for civil rights. In those places, for the most part I am okay with Islam. But as I said above, it would not break my heart to see most Muslims shift away from their religion to value reason over faith or at the very least reject the fundamentalists. In the meantime we need to be respectful to the moderates and understand there is room for goodness in the religion when the adherents are good at heart. The biggest problems occur when the state uses the religion to control people. That's the biggest problem in Christian countries too, it's just a more common problem with Islam.

[CJCRANE]

23. But people like Ted Cruz, Michele Bachmann

and other Tea Partiers use the same justification to promote Biblical Law. The Tea Partiers believe that God's Law supercedes manmade law.

The Christian Dominionists are a mirror image of the Islamists. In fact they're probably bankrolled by some of the same people.

[ProfessorGAC]

14. Thanks, Donald

You summed up my feelings. I think it naive to suggest that this isn't endemic to the religion and the voices of the moderate, truly faithful, Muslims are essentially ignored by both the radicals and the masses.

It is far too common for Islamic people to, at the least ignore, and at the worst, support the behavior of the thugs who use Islam as an excuse to be brutal gangsters.

[JaneyVee]

13. They both made great points, but...

I feel like Bill is battling a strawman with most of his argument. I've never met anyone on the left who defends Islamic extremism or for that matter, any type of religious extremism. I think everyone on the left agrees that ALL religious extremism is dumb. Then he blames Muslims for not standing up to religious extremism even though 90% of those fighting ISIS are Muslims themselves. His argument is like saying "why don't white people constantly try to eradicate America of the KKK?" The answer is: You don't hate all white people, you hate those personally responsible for being in the KKK.

That's why I think Ben edged out Bill, because another tenet of liberal principle is nuance, and not broadbrushing entire groups of people to perpetuate stereotypes.

[Quixote1818]

15. Nicely stated. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

17. And yet 'only whites can end the injustice of white privilege' is said here and said true....

Do you disagree that white people have a huge part in any changes that bring us to an end of such injustices? I'd say white people have responsibility in that area. Sure many whites are already opponents of racism and bigotry, but does that really mean the principle is different?

Why the hell did he start raving about gays eating each other?
Do not exploit an oppressed minority in order to defend those who oppress them, Ben.

[OneGrassRoot]

20. Yes indeed. Nicely stated. :) n/t

[OneGrassRoot]

21. THANK YOU SO MUCH...

I meant to put that in all caps, because your post and the subsequent replies are THAT GOOD. I agree completely.

K&R