So Reza Aslan made a comment on Chris Hayes that we shouldn't condemn beliefs, only actions. The

[still_one]

example he used was that it doesn't bother him if someone believes gays should be executed, as long as they don't act on that.

Personally, I have a problem with that. If someone believe something bad, such as human rights violations, they should be condemned.

Perhaps he misspoke, or I misheard, but it sure did not sit well with me

[The Magistrate]

1. I Disagree, Sir, Strongly

Beliefs often deserve condemnation, even if no action results from them. This is particularly the case where a belief roots in religious doctrine, since there is a greater chance a person may feel impelled to act on a belief he or she considers a command from a deity and never any surety a person will not one day be moved to take the belief seriously and act on it, even if they seem reasonably calm about it to date.

[still_one]

2. I agree, except you articulated it far better than I did.

[Whiskeytide]

22. Well, he's the Magistrate, after all!! ...

... I agree as well. But a lot of it has to do with how you define "acting upon your belief". Merely exposing intolerant, violent, etc... views is still "acting" - even if its only speaking the words. That is definitely worthy of condemnation. Free speech does not guarantee you absolution from criticism.

But merely having a vile thought and nothing more is 1. probably human nature at times, and 2. impossible to monitor anyway. Hopefully, that's what he meant.

[still_one]

31. A perfect example would be a belief in dietary laws. That doesn't affect anyone else, so while

someone may disagree with a person's belief on those dietary laws, there is no way that I can see someone condemning that belief

Anyone, I get your point

[The Magistrate]

40. Thank You, Sir

I agree with your comments; the last one is particularly apt.

"I know of nothing against him except that he is human being --- and that ought to be enough to hang anyone."

[DavidDvorkin]

3. We shouldn't outlaw beliefs, but we can certainly condemn them.

[TeamPooka]

7. Exactly. When people espose animosity and intolerance one must stand against the forces of hate

or risk allowing them to become comfortable in civilized society.

[still_one]

13. absolutely, and maybe that is what he meant, and he just mis spoke

[WinkyDink]

37. We can't outlaw beliefs; it is humanly impossible without a frontal lobotomy.

[DavidDvorkin]

46. The expression of beliefs

I thought that was implied.

[Tikki]

4. And there are those who do actions that I cannot condoned but say their beliefs led their actions.

Tikki

[Marr]

5. That's kind of the crux of the argument he's denying.

In the Islamic parts of the world, religious extremists have tended to enjoy easier access to actual power than they do in the west. It's easier for the religious nuts in some places to turn their beliefs into actions.

[YoungDemCA]

27. Which begs the question...why is it easier for religious extremists to attain power in some places?

Than in others?

[haele]

39. Religion is just another tool to gangsters and petty mob bosses.

If your culture is depressed or unstable, with a lot of young people who have little education, nothing to do and few options available if they worked as hard as they could to get somewhere, it's easy to pick up religion as a tool to gain a following and establish control over both your followers and any other group they can intimidate.

If you don't have a ton of money to buy your army, the social stability and "specialness" religion brings is the next best attraction for the desperate, dispossessed and disaffected.

Haele

[Quixote1818]

6. Extremely stupid comment by Aslan who I generally respect.

Fact is, once that belief becomes the majority, especially in a theocracy which most Muslim countries are, then heads begin to roll. And it just leads to others committing violence even if it's not the law of the land. Look at abortion clinic bombings for example.

Are you sure he didn't say something like: "We shouldn't prosecute beliefs, only actions." If so then I agree with him but it's PERFECTLY okay to condemn dumb and dangerous beliefs. Sending someone to jail for evil thoughts is big time wrong however.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. I found the interview. That wasn't exactly what he said...

http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/reza-aslan-responds-to-critics-341916739974

The example he used wasn't about gays being executed, but of an ultra-orthodox fundy type who believes gays will go to hell. In the interview he was talking about how taking the beliefs of a small number of extreme types and broadbrushing everyone of that religion as holding those same beliefs is wrong. The interview's really interesting, especially the first bit where they show a clip from some other show where the tone card gets played on him because he spoke out against bigotry.

btw, most Muslim countries aren't theocracies. There's probably about five or six, with Saudi Arabia leading the way that are theocracies.

[cali]

11. here's exactly what he said

"if you're some kind of an ultra-orthodox Muslim who believes every work of the Koran is literal and that gays are going to hell and that anyone who converts should be killed, I don't really have a problem with you as long as it's just your belief. I don't care what you believe. It's actions that we should be focusing on. We should condemn actions, not beliefs."

With all due respect, I think he's profoundly mistaken. Actions often come out of beliefs. And I have no problem condemning the beliefs- whether it's the belief that climate change doesn't exist or the belief that converts should be executed.

He fucked up.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Yeah, I get what yr saying...

I had a think about it and not ever being shy about condemning beliefs I find extreme and/or bigoted, I think he is wrong on that. I was thinking more of the blanket condemning of most or all Muslims with the assumption that they must hold all the same extreme beliefs.

[still_one]

16. I am assuming he didn't think about what he was saying, which kind of surprises me that Chris Hayes

did not re clarify it with him.

I agree with you that blanket condemning of a entire group that they all hold a particular belief is wrong. In this specific case there are different sects of Islam, some more conservative and some more liberal. Even with in the same sects their are different levels of tradition.

An example would be one who follow dietary laws to the letter, and one who doesn't. In that case, since the belief only affect the particular subscriber, and not others in a harmful way, that should not be of concern to others.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

43. "Don't condemn people for holding beliefs they don't actually hold" is a no-brainer.

It's condemning people for beliefs that they do hold that's slightly more controversial.

[still_one]

15. Thanks, the transcript isn't up yet, or I could not find it.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. He also, of course, does not bother to condemn any actions either.

He sure as hell could have, there are many shitty actions to pick from, dozens in jail, hundreds awaiting trial. Lashings. Executions. Laws which allow these things. The laws themselves are actions taken, warrants created to allow hate to rule.
Where is his criticism of these human rights abuses? Absent. What concerns him is criticism of his group, not actions taken which abuse others. A supremacist. 'We get to abuse you, you must not object'.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. If there are only 5 or 6 theocracies and yet 10 countries that have capital punishment for gay

people on their books what does that say? Because you do dig that making law is in itself an action right? Putting people to the lash, or in jail, also actions. Right now at least 99 gay people are in jail in these countries, another 150 or so await trial. The jailers say they have done this because of their faith.

[still_one]

14. I am pretty sure, which was why I was surprised. It does not appear that the transcript is up yet

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3719710

This was from yesterday's show on the 13th of October

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. In this case beliefs are the variable. It's the power of government that is the constant. nt

[mr_liberal]

8. Beliefs can lead to laws that take away

people's rights. Its not just about violence.

He needs to have Sam on now to rebut. Ill bet he doesn't though.

[freshwest]

10. +1

[Ilsa]

17. Precisely. Look at the twisted beliefs about abortion in the

US and where it has led us: to the point where many women struggle to even get safe birth control.

People speak of abortion as if it is the greatest evil ever. "Oh, he wanted her to get an abortion!" It wasn't always such a polarizing issue. Religious manipulation created this so-called "pro-life" movement that keeps women repressed.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. "Beliefs can lead to laws that take away people's rights. Its not just about violence."

All law is violence.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. He's a bigot.

'To want you beaten is acceptable but it is not acceptable for you to object to that desire of my heart'.

[edhopper]

23. Things don't change

until we change beliefs.
The advances in Gay Rights in this country happened only after the majority no longer thought homosexuality was wrong.

And religious beliefs are both the most pernicious at times and the hardest to change. Convincing people they are wrong about their God is an uphill battle. But it is important to always challenge those beliefs and not give them a special exemption.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. The problem with his theory is that in order to know another's claimed belief it is necessary for

that person to communicate those ideas to you. That communication is an action. An unspoken idea or belief is private and thus not visible to the critic. To express that idea or belief is an action. Telling others about that belief is in itself taking action upon that belief.
Once an idea is expressed, the action of expressing a malicious idea is open to criticism by opposing ideas.

[WinkyDink]

38. Perzackly.

[uponit7771]

42. Good point, communication is action.... words do have meaning and consequences

[CanonRay]

26. If Aslan is correct, then we shouldn't condemn

the KKK if all they do is wear white hoods, hold rallies, and burn crosses. That's why he's wrong.

[YoungDemCA]

28. If they express a hateful belief, then they should be criticized

nt

[CJCRANE]

29. My own take is that personal morality

should be up to the individual.

What consenting adults do behind closed doors is up to them.

And what an adult chooses to eat, drink or smoke in private is up to them.

That applies in both a secular and religious system. In a religious system God is the judge of your moral choices. There should be no need or justification for government enforcement of religious laws. That takes away free will which is a primary component of God's judgment.

I think it's reasonable for traditional societies to legislate public modesty to a certain extent but not private morality.

I personally prefer a secular system which allows people to worship as they see fit but not base laws on religious imperatives.

[flamingdem]

30. Luckily Chris countered him immediately

and he was right.

[arcane1]

32. If that's so, then DU should shut down. We condemn conservative beliefs all day long.

[randome]

33. We wouldn't know someone's personal beliefs unless they were stated in public.

And doing so is an act of discrimination in itself. So Aslan is wrong, IMO.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[RadicalGeek]

34. OR Might You Just be Misinrepreting It

Aslan may be trying to say that we should condemn a religion because of actions committed in the name of it?

Though his example could be seen as a poor one.

[The2ndWheel]

35. I guess the word should is the problem

There's condemning, or not condemning. Should or should not is the moral dynamic to it. That's where opinion goes in all sorts of directions. That's why morality is subjective.

[still_one]

45. Not all issues of morality are subjective.

[The2ndWheel]

47. Like what?

Right and wrong, good or bad, these are human created concepts. Subject to the vagaries of the time and place they were thought up. As well as who thought them up.

[still_one]

48. murder as an obvious one. you can argue that it is just the norms of society, but that does not cut

It, and it distinguishes the human life for from other life forms on earth. We have evolved with higher brain functions to discern that for our continued survival murder is not good for the species

The academic mind game that academics play concerning subjective morality is without conscience and has been the fall of many civillizations

[The2ndWheel]

50. We kill life all the time for our survival

We have different words for it. Killing, or murder. Same thing, but different, because we define it differently to fit a given situation. Murder is only human on human. We can't murder a cow, a pig, a chicken, or a tree. Why? Because we defined it that way. That's like Wal-Mart writing the legislation that governs them. Of course the rules will be in their favor.

We try to penalize it when it's human on human. Sometimes. ISIS is murdering people. We're trying to murder the people in ISIS. We don't call it murder when we try to do it, because it's lawful. Although, lawful under what authority? Whoever made the rules. Who makes the rules? Whoever can. Not very objective.

[still_one]

51. bullshit. I am not going to argue with the ethics of murder. Have a good day

[WinkyDink]

36. We are certainly free to praise or condemn stated opinions/beliefs! Reza is a dope!

[Arkana]

41. With respect to Aslan, he's wrong.

I will condemn to my last breath the freaks who believe that women are second-class citizens, that minorities are subhuman monsters, that gay people are animals who are incapable of controlling their sexual desires, and the jerks who "believe" trickle-down economics works? Yeah, I'll fucking condemn them too.

Wrong beliefs lead to wrong actions, regardless of religion.

[trotsky]

44. Well if we go by the first definition of "condemn"

con·demn verb \kən-ˈdem\
: to say in a strong and definite way that someone or something is bad or wrong

What exactly is so horrible about that? Are we not allowed to disagree with someone anymore? I think it's completely wrong to view homosexuals as sinful. Is it OK for me to say that?

[HuckleB]

49. Aslan garnered a lot of sympathy for his interviews on Fox, but...

... since then, he's basically gone off the deep end.

Before You Sympathize with Reza Aslan, Remember What He Said About the ‘New Atheists’

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/29/before-you-sympathize-with-reza-aslan-remember-what-he-said-about-the-new-atheists/