Ben Affleck in passionate defence of Islam on Bill Maher show

[cbayer]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11141733/Ben-Affleck-in-passionate-defence-of-Islam-on-Bill-Maher-show.html

Ben Affleck became embroiled in a furious debate about Islam on an American television show, accusing the host of being racist and the guests of being ignorant


Ben Affleck appeared on HBO’s television show Real Time with Bill Maher to promote his latest film, Gone Girl Photo: HBO

Harriet Alexander By Harriet Alexander
1:56PM BST 05 Oct 2014

Ben Affleck, the Oscar-winning actor and director, has launched a ferocious defence of Islam, after becoming involved in a heated argument when he appeared on an American chat show.

Affleck, the star of Good Will Hunting and director of Argo, appeared on HBO’s television show Real Time with Bill Maher to promote his latest film, Gone Girl.

But instead of talking about the film, the 42-year-old found himself in a furious discussion with both Maher and Sam Harris, the author of a series of books on religion.

Maher, an outspoken atheist and critic of Islam, said last week in his show that “vast numbers of Muslims around the world believe that humans deserve to die for merely holding a different idea, or drawing a cartoon, or writing a book, or eloping with the wrong person.”

more at link

[Heddi]

1. Passionate? I thought he seemed drunk

Yelling over everyone, constant interruption. If he was trying to make a point, he failed miserably. He came off as a loud-mouth who was unable to discern nuance, and wouldn't even let his fellow debaters speak. He was an asshole.

[rug]

2. Unlike Harris, he didn't refer to liberals in the third person.

He doesn't write opinion for the Washington Times either.

It is time we admitted that we are not at war with "terrorism". We are at war with Islam.It is time we admitted that we are not at war with "terrorism". We are at war with Islam.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/1/20041201-090801-2582r/

Harris was, and is, an ass.

[okasha]

3. World without end, amen.

Though the real-life donkeys I've interacted with are intelligent, reasonable beings.

[Starboard Tack]

5. Right Heddi. Those damned liberals are to blame.

Affleck must've been drunk. Why else would he stand up against such bigotry?
Harris: "Islam is the mother load of bad ideas"

and wouldn't even let his fellow debaters speak

Try watching it again and see who spoke the most and who controlled the show.

[Goblinmonger]

6. Who's show is it? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

12. Exactly! Thank you

[Heddi]

8. word salad is tasty

I like goats

[Starboard Tack]

14. What a delight you are, dear Heddi.

Your wonderful sense of humor is equaled only by your contribution to each and every conversation. Such depth of wit is but a testament to your unparalleled intellect. Thank you for your guidance and leadership, for lost little lambs we would surely be without you.

[cleanhippie]

19. Perhaps you should take notes.

Since no one can say the same about your contributions.

[Starboard Tack]

21. Your devotion is truly touching.

[cleanhippie]

22. Not nearly as much as yours.

Please, keep doing what you do. We need more of that here, and it's what makes DU suck less.

[Starboard Tack]

24. Thanks! I try.

[Behind the Aegis]

37. I thought so before his outburst.

To be honest, I thought he said something about being on the east coast earlier that day, so I was thinking drug-induced jet-lag. I know lots of people take something to sleep when they travel that distance and given the earlier hour in LA, he may have been a bit "hung over." The reason I think jet lag is because he looked a bit peaked. His "retorts' were strange, out of place, and didn't make sense. But, the fallout is exactly what I expected.

(BTW...GLBT can get married here now, in case you hadn't heard!!! Wanna come to a wedding?!)

[Heddi]

42. yes I have heard and I am so very happy!!

Always up for a wedding!! Send me an invite :hugs:

[MellowDem]

4. Weird title...

If he was defending Islam, then he'd be defending bigotry of all sorts. He also doesn't seem to understand that Islam isn't a race. It's a very conservative, bigoted religious dogma, and it's all laid out right in its own texts.

Nope, he's just a fucking idiot upholding religious privilege.

[Promethean]

7. Too right.

Another case of someone caught up in the 'you can't challenge religious ideas' bull. Bad ideas don't go away unless you challenge them and show them for what they are. The nail was hit on the head in the interview. Islam is a 'motherload' of bad ideas.

[rug]

9. Let's.

Start with this steaming pile of shit.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/1/20041201-090801-2582r/

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Racist?

Funny. Most of the muslims I know are white.

That said, there's some truth to what Affleck is saying here. If you look hard enough, you can find areas in the world where catholicism is engaged in many civil rights abuses, in very similar ways. And if you look even more carefully, a lot of things are attributed to Islam, that aren't actually Islamic things, are localized cultural issues. I use Reza Aslan's test now; does Turkey or Indonesia do it? If they don't, then there's a good chance it's not an 'islamic' thing.

And some of the things that Harris calls out are things that America itself is either just getting over, or has only recently gotten past. Blasphemy laws, abortion andOH FUCK WHO LET MICHAEL STEELE IN THIS INTERVIEW WHTA THE FUCK

[Leontius]

11. I'll bet in ten years or less that test is worthhless.

I do hope I'm wrong but both countries seem to be marching toward a deep dark hole.

[Promethean]

13. Turkey and Indonesia are gradually going the way of the fundy as well.

Just follow recent elections and see some of the most recent laws proposed/passed. It isn't hard to find an article on the subject as well. Funny thing is Iran may actually end up becoming one of the most progressive muslim nations in a couple generations. They let too many kids become educated and now there is a growing secular movement and growing discontent with religious rule.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Ok, that's scary.

I didn't know that about Turkey. Indonesia seems to ebb and flow, at least, that was my impression.

[littlemissmartypants]

15. Do the words pseudo intellectual come to mind? Anyone? nt

[cbayer]

16. Who? Maher? Harris? Affleck?

[AtheistCrusader]

17. I counted at least three at that table.

[amuse bouche]

20. Poor Ben sounded like he was babbling a movie script. Rote and devoid of thought

Ben has been to Turkey, where there are many non-strident Muslims and he was shown a good time in a pretty country. Sucker!

Bill and Sam were calm and intelligent as usual. Ben was sadly, unhinged and incoherent.

[Ampersand Unicode]

26. I think you mean Ben has been *a* turkey.

He's also been a duck, apparently. Or is that a silly goose?

[amuse bouche]

30. That's pretty funny

[cleanhippie]

23. Like many, some even right here, he forgets that Islam is not a race.

It's an idea, a concept, an ideology. And as such, is open to as much criticism, rebuke, and ridicule as it deserves. Doing so does not make one a racist OR a bigot.

Ben Affleck appears to be a no-nothing with a celebrity plaform.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. I'd put celebrity in scare quotes, honestly.

[cleanhippie]

28. Well, you know what I mean.

But I get your point.

[Ampersand Unicode]

27. If Affleck is a budding convert he makes Tom Cruise look sane.

Was waiting for him to bow to Allah on Bill's couch. Maybe there's still a chance that he won't go full-on whack job --

Oop, look. Too late, he's already started the Cruise running game. And is that Matt Damon I see next to him?

[cbayer]

32. Bow to Allah?

Do you equate defending Islam to some kind of "full whack job" conversion?

And you are throwing Matt Damon under the bus as well.

This is, well, interesting.

[rug]

34. Convert to what?

That's as senseless as the gif.

[cbayer]

35. But not as annoying.

[rug]

36. Stupidity is annoying.

[thelordofhell]

29. Affleck is more qualified to talk about this than anyone here...............

He was majoring in Middle Eastern Studies before he left college to become a full time actor

He has visited many Islam dominated countries and talked to many of the natives, all the while supporting our troops there

But yeah, you keyboard commandos keep talking about how stupid and naive he is......makes for a better debate, right??

He only let his passion get the best of him and reacted in a hysterical way..........

[amuse bouche]

31. Like Ben...you missed the point

[cbayer]

33. I agree with you and I was glad to see someone take these two on.

It is easy to damn all of Islam for the actions of a small group. It is clearly bigotry and he was right to be appalled by it.

Those who defend the islamophobia of the host and his guest have blinders.

[trotsky]

38. Question.

Is saying “vast numbers of Muslims around the world believe that humans deserve to die for merely holding a different idea, or drawing a cartoon, or writing a book, or eloping with the wrong person" a condemnation of all of Islam?

Perhaps we should address what Maher actually said? Just a thought. Let's take those blinders off.

[rug]

39. Answer.

It is a condemnation of "“vast numbers of Muslims", broadly and indiscriminately.

[Jim__]

40. Cenk Uygur's response to Maher and Harris, and a little bit more.

Cenk Uygur, an ex-Muslim, responds to Maher and Harris:

One of the things Cenk takes issue with is Maher's claim about the percentage of Egyptians who advocate killing Islamic apostates. Egypt, while its population is about 95% Islamic, only accounts for 4.9% of the world's Muslim population - so it really can't be cited to prove that a billion Muslims hold this view. About 62% of the world's Muslim population reside in South & Southeast Asia, as documented in wikipedia:

Egypt 80,024,000 94.7 4.9

South & Southeast Asia 1,005,507,000 24.8 62.1

I tend to agree with John Gray's opinion as stated in his review of Armstrong's Fields of Blood. The fault lies not within our religions, but within ourselves. An excerpt from his review:

...

Applying this humane and pluralistic approach, Fields of Blood presents a refreshingly uncluttered view of the history of violence in the service of faith. Ambitious in scope, the book ranges from Zoroaster through biblical Judaism, the rise of Buddhism and the cult of the gentleman in China through to Renaissance humanism, the development of Christian fundamentalism in America and its role in politics, the emergence of Hindu nationalism and today’s jihadist movements. This is in no sense an apology for faith. It is an exploration of religion as it has been and is – warts and all. Even so, this book will make uncomfortable reading for exponents of secular conventional wisdom.

The Renaissance is just one of several secular icons that Armstrong demolishes. Nothing is more commonplace than to read that Renaissance thinkers introduced a novel understanding of universal humanity. But Renaissance humanists were actually less sympathetic to the plight of indigenous peoples such as the Mesoamericans who had been violently subjugated than churchmen such as the Dominicans, who condemned the predatory behaviour of the conquistadores. “The philosophy of human rights,” Armstrong notes, “did not apply to all human beings.” In some ways, modern conceptions of rights were more inhuman than medieval religion. One of the founders of liberalism, John Locke, found it intolerable that the “wild woods and uncultivated waste of America be left to nature, without any improvement, tillage and husbandry”. Involved in his own right in the colonisation of the Carolinas, Locke “argued that the native ‘kings’ of America had no legal jurisdiction or right of ownership of their land”.

Again, the Spanish Inquisition is a notorious example of the violence of religion. There can be no doubt that it entailed hideous cruelty, not least to Jews who had converted to Christianity, often in order to save their lives, but who were suspected of secretly practising their faith and consequently, in some cases, burnt. Yet in strictly quantitative terms, the Inquisition pales in comparison to later frenzies of secular violence. Recent estimates of the numbers who were executed during the first 20 years of the Inquisition – “the most violent period in its long history”, according to Armstrong – range from 1,500 to 2,000 people. By contrast, about a quarter of a million people were killed in the Vendée (out of a population of roughly 800,000) when a peasant rebellion against the French Revolution was put down by republican armies in 1794. And some 17,000 men, women and children were guillotined in the purge that ended in July that year, including the man who had designed the new revolutionary calendar. It is indisputable that this mass slaughter had a religious dimension. In 1793 a Goddess of Reason was enthroned on the high altar at Notre Dame Cathedral; revolutionary leaders made great use of terms such as “credo”, “sacrament” and “sermon” in their speeches. As Armstrong puts it, “No sooner had the revolutionaries rid themselves of one religion than they invented another.”

...

Conventional distinctions between religious and secular belief pass over the role that belief itself plays in our lives. “We are meaning-seeking creatures,” Karen Armstrong writes wisely, “and, unlike other animals, fall very easily into despair if we fail to make sense of our lives.” We are unlike our animal kin in another way. Only human beings kill and die for the sake of beliefs about themselves and the nature of the world. Looking for sense in their lives, they attack others who find meaning in beliefs different from their own. The violence of faith cannot be exorcised by demonising religion. It goes with being human.

[trotsky]

41. The crucial thing that religion brings to the table...

is the ability to "justify" ones beliefs by assuming there is special, divine meaning to them. And that they are completely valid even if there is no observable, logical evidence to support them. (Worse, even if the evidence CONTRADICTS them.)

Religion makes it worse.