Ben Affleck on Real Time: Islamaphobia

[Len Cnut]

I'd like to know why these things are being discussed. Lets say for arguments sake that the majority of muslims did agree will all those horrible things. Then what?

[Johnny Drama]

Tell your relatives to calm the fuck down Lenny. There's only so many American flags my factory can make every month for them to burn.

[wasted]

They could just start burning people.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Islam just needs to grow up like Christianity. Most Christians have moved on from the burnings of the steak, to the killing and force conversion of non-believers. There are fundamentalists who want to change laws in favor of Christian values but they are mostly endtimes Christians. They just want to pray until the world ends. There are Muslims who condemn ISIS and other fanatical groups. They are just rarely reported on.

There are moderate Muslims who want to live in the real world. Eventually they will reduce the fanatics and conservatives to such a minority they won't have much of a voice. Took a long time for the Catholic Church to move on.

[Len Cnut]

They could just start burning people.

On first sight i thought that said bumming

[Apollo]

Two multi-millionaire entertainers chatting about world affairs. No different than watching any two people on this forum debate it.

Just because one is an actor and one is a comedian doesn't mean that they know d*ck or that their opinion is important. Maher is no different than Limbaugh or Maddux. Extremely biased with no critical thought going on, everything he says is agenda based to get ratings.

I'd rather listen to downzy and shades go at it than these two arrogant douches.

Well thanks for the compliment (I think?).

But in all fairness, as someone who routinely blasts others on this forum for debating the person through their personal attacks rather than the points their making, I'm surprised by your post. Why not at least address the issues they're raising as opposed to your incrimination of who they are as people?

Also, before you start lumping all partisans together, understand that they're not all equal. Maddow has a doctorate from Oxford and is a Rhode Scholar. Limbaugh dropped out from his undergraduate program after a year. That doesn't necessarily render everything Limbaugh has to say as invalid (as the old saying goes, a broken clock is right twice a day), but please, let's not falsely equate two individuals with grossly different backgrounds and perspectives.

As for the topic at hand, I think both have some valid points. For me, though I think I side with Affleck on this one. Mahr is a little too quick to generalize all of Islam. If Mahr and Harris limited their argument to the middle east/Africa, where education and civil society is severely lacking, they'd have a stronger case. When there exists a vacuum of civil society and institutions where religion fills the void, chaos, violence and fundamentalism will reign. It happened with Christianity centuries ago (and in some spaces of the world, it still exists). If this conversation were to have happened 400-500 years ago, we'd likely be talking about a different religion.

Also important to consider is that the Western world has been blessed with abundance in a way that the Muslim world has not. Fundamentalism is often a by-product of misery and domination. In these desolate territories, Islam is often unfortunately used as the vehicle by which the resulting anger, hate and fear gets channeled. Harris quotes one poll of British Muslims, but how many of those polled are from several generations of landed immigrants/nationals? My guess is that a majority of those polled were likely new to the U.K.

Two reasons.

First is based off your first two paragraphs. Just because Maddow has more college experience doesn't mean that she is more informed as a reporter. She is probably 50 IQ points smarter than me. And Rush. But with all that knowledge, she is still a complete spin-master for the left side. Just like Rush is for the right. I'll take a college drop out who forms their opinions based on the facts of a situation instead of a Rhodes scholar who would rather drink their own urine than say the dems failed at something and republicans were 100% correct.

Second, I don't know enough about the discussion to voice a valid viewpoint. I'm not throwing an opinion in just based on where I sit politically or where the people involved sit politically. Any opinion I through into this specific discussion wouldn't be something worthwhile for you guys to read. I'd rather read posts from people who know more about it. When I go into a debate/discussion, my end-goal is that I LEARN more about it. Lots of people's end-game is that they hope to educate, ridicule and win the debate. I hope to leave the discussion knowing more about it, especially from the side/people that I initially disagreed with.

And it was a compliment.

I'd rather hear you and Shades argue. You both are really really tied to your "sides" of the coin. But at least I know you both are usually pretty knowledgeable on the subject. Affleck - seems like a cool guy and a decent actor in some roles, pretty great director imo......but I don't really care about his views on world issues. And Maher is a blow-hard who seems way too arrogant and like he is trying way too hard to be cool and intelligent. Him and the other comedian that's a die-hard republican, can't think of his name right now. Both those guys can be funny, but it seems like they try way too hard to be taken seriously. But ya. A failed comedian/actor and another actor talking about world events.....I'd rather talk about baseball.

Fair enough, it is the playoffs after all.

But I find it humorous that you'd rather listen to people like Shades and I discuss matters of politics considering both of us are generally highly entrenched in our positions. Isn't this the same reason you cast dispersions towards Maddow and Limbaugh? And not to draw the parallels too sharply, but much like I attempt to do in my posts on political matters, Maddow at least gives statistics, evidence, and arguments based in logic to support her positions (though she's much better at it than I am). You may not agree with her conclusions (I don't agree with everything she says either), but let's not pretend that Limbaugh lives up to the standards that most doctorate and Rhode Scholar graduates seek to achieve when arguing their perspectives. In that respect, Shades is much like Limbaugh in that a majority of the arguments he makes are difficult to substantiate. Simply holding a position does not render that opinion valid if you're unwilling to support it with evidence. Which is why you'll often see arguments made by Shades and Limbaugh follow the same pattern of ad hominem. Every response by Shades to my post is to deride my use numbers, constantly calling me Mr. Google, rather than addressing the arguments themselves. Suggesting that both Shades and I know politics is akin to the suggestion that Limbaugh and Maddow are one-in-the same. Shades knows one side of the argument, but often times it appears he doesn't know enough on whether it stands up to scrutiny. When scrutiny is applied, he resorts to ad hominem.

If you enter a discussion to learn more about it, then why not at least listen to what they have to say? No one posts their opinion without thinking that they might make a difference in other people's opinions. It's why people put forward arguments. It's through contesting different opinions and ideas that generally the best come to reveal themselves. So I'm not sure why you would enter a thread on what Bill Maher and Ben Affleck have to say on the tenets of Islam if you have no interest in what either of them have to say? Moreover, why post in such a thread if you having nothing to contribute to the conversation other than your need to tell people how much you dislike either celebrity? It's one thing to say, "I don't like that person's perspective and here's why," It's another to post about why you just don't like that person and anything they have to say is inconsequential to you. If they're just a dumb celebrity who tries too hard to look cool, then shouldn't their arguments be easily refuted? That is what I don't understand about your post, especially from someone who routinely criticizes others for debating the person and not the point they make.

Oh Downzy. I'll play along.

I don't know how to do the multiple quote thing, so I'll try and respond in order.

I have a vested interested in you and Shades. I've interacted with both of you for years and years. If I personally knew Rachel and Ben and Rush and those guys, then I'd care more about what they said. I care about you Downzy. You need to pull down your guard and let the rest of us in.

I find it humorous that you let Shades bother you so much. If you don't respect what he says or his knowledge on politics, then why let him get to you so easily?

Why enter a topic that I don't know much about? Seriously? I don't like oatmeal, Iggy Azaels, Coldplay, Kayne West, Keith Olberman or Peyton Manning. But if there is a topic that says "Peyton Manning injured in oatmeal incident with Iggy Azaels at a Coldplay concert. Kayne West breaks down what happened on Olberman show." Why wouldn't I click on the topic to see what actually happened? This is a FORUM, a place where people come to chat with others.

I clicked on this topic because I was curious why it was a topic. Surely you click on topics just to see what the fuss is?

""""" Moreover, why post in such a thread if you having nothing to contribute to the conversation other than your need to tell people how much you dislike either celebrity? It's one thing to say, "I don't like that person's perspective and here's why,"""""" I almost spit my chocolate milk out while reading that one. I'll show you 25 posts a day that specifically do this, as well as give you names of posters who do this in topic after topic. You can get started in the music and religion topics and go from there. Why call me out on something that SO MANY other people do on a daily basis? Now that you are a mod you need to hold everybody to the same standard. Should I start reporting it every time I see this happen? Like I said, go to every music topic and every religion topic.

""""especially from someone who routinely criticizes others for debating the person and not the point they make."""

Again, as a Mod, if you are going to call me out on this, then why aren't you calling out everybody else that does this on a daily basis (including you in your very response to me)? And I'm not sure if you are purposely missing the point or not. You do realize that Bill Maher is not posting on the forum, right? So I can't have a debate with him. You honestly don't think there is a difference between saying that Rush Limbaugh is an idiot....(whoops).......I mean saying that Bill Maher is a condescending arrogant jerk and calling another FORUM MEMBER a condescending arrogant jerk while in the midst of an argument with that person? You are a smart guy, surely you can see the difference.

Obviously posts I've made in other topics have led you to this little rant. And that's cool, I don't mind answering questions. But as a Mod you should probably not carry grudges around from topic to topic. And if somebody does things that really bother you, maybe you should address them via PMs instead of us hijacking topics with long responses that have nothing to do with the actual topic.

[Len Cnut]

Oatmeal, yeuck, agreed Groghan, horrible sludgey shit.

[Apollo]

Oatmeal, yeuck, agreed Groghan, horrible sludgey shit.

I could see if we were still in the trudges of the great depression.....but it's 2014, no need to eat that gross vomit-textured crap!!!!

[Len Cnut]

'Put some honey in it, it's manageable then!'...covering a turd in sugar probably makes it manageable!

Sorry, completely pointless Oatmeal related tangent there!

[Apollo]

'Put some honey in it, it's manageable then!'...covering a turd in sugar probably makes it manageable!

Sorry, completely pointless Oatmeal related tangent there!

I've always found that interesting with food.

People do it with coffee - here, put three spoonful's of sugar and 8 ounces of milk in it and sprinkle some cinnamon in it and you'll like it!

Or with herring eggs. People here eat them raw. I can't even get past the smell. But I was at a buddy's house and he was just raving about them. So I watched him prepare them and he put them through like 8 different things including hot sauce and soy sauce. By the end he said you could barely taste the eggs. Now think about that. He paid big money for this one item and then soaked/dipped it in so many different things that by the time he ate it, he even said "you can barely taste the fish." Seems like it sort of defeats the purpose.

But I put ketchup on my Lasagna and on prime rib or filet mignon so I probably shouldn't talk!

*****

Oatmeal has the texture of vomit. I'd rather pay $5 more and have eggs, toast and some bacon!!!

Edited October 7, 2014 by Groghan

[Len Cnut]

'Put some honey in it, it's manageable then!'...covering a turd in sugar probably makes it manageable!

Sorry, completely pointless Oatmeal related tangent there!

But I put ketchup on my Lasagna and on prime rib or filet mignon so I probably shouldn't talk!

Can you tell that to Johnny Drama so i can watch his head explode please?

[Apollo]

'Put some honey in it, it's manageable then!'...covering a turd in sugar probably makes it manageable!

Sorry, completely pointless Oatmeal related tangent there!

But I put ketchup on my Lasagna and on prime rib or filet mignon so I probably shouldn't talk!

Can you tell that to Johnny Drama so i can watch his head explode please?

Ketchup isn't just for kids!!!!

Today, instead of oatmeal for breakfast, I had six pieces of sugar toast with hot chocolate. You take bread and smother it with butter, then add a thick layer of sugar on top. Throw it in the oven on BROIL. When you pull it out the sugar/butter part is nice and crisp, but the bottom of the bread is still soft. Then you dip that into your hot chocolate...........I'm a sugar high! Maybe that's why I don't drink coffee or need the coffee caffeine that so many people are addicted to.

When I was in middle school I would eat 8-10 pieces of sugar toast/hot chocolate. But in my old age now I only can do six.

[Amir]

In action, a Christian society will say that if you are gay, you cannot get married. An Islamic one will say that if you are gay, you cannot live.

A Christian society had one of the greatest men of the 20th century chemically castrated in 1952 for being homosexual (it was that or hanging): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

In Islam it is not the homosexual thoughts, but acting upon them (i.e. gay sex) that is haram. Transsexualism is in fact approved of in the Islamic Republic of Iran of all places, the first male-to-female transsexual having her operation condoned by Ayatollah Khomeini himself. The problem with this, though, is that a lot of gay men who are not transsexuals in Iran will get sex change operations just so they can legally be with their partners.

I'm no fan of Islam, or any religion for that matter, but it seems we've forgotten how recently we had these same barbaric attitudes in the West. Hell, best-selling Mormon author Orson Scott Card still preaches the "only homosexual acts, not desires, are sinful" line that Islam does.

Still need to watch the video, but the impression I get is that Affleck shouts out accusations of racism, Maher is facetious, and Harris tries to make reasoned if narrow points.

Reza Aslan makes a good point in the face of idiocy:

[Georgy Zhukov]

"Well hold on." Aslam has been putting them down. Respect.

I like how they are not listening to him. I guess that is what happens when you go by bias reporting to someone who actually researches the religion and all the countries where the religion is majority. Sadly most people will take sides of the news anchors because they are more "trusted"

[downzy]

Two multi-millionaire entertainers chatting about world affairs. No different than watching any two people on this forum debate it.

Just because one is an actor and one is a comedian doesn't mean that they know d*ck or that their opinion is important. Maher is no different than Limbaugh or Maddux. Extremely biased with no critical thought going on, everything he says is agenda based to get ratings.

I'd rather listen to downzy and shades go at it than these two arrogant douches.

Well thanks for the compliment (I think?).

But in all fairness, as someone who routinely blasts others on this forum for debating the person through their personal attacks rather than the points their making, I'm surprised by your post. Why not at least address the issues they're raising as opposed to your incrimination of who they are as people?

Also, before you start lumping all partisans together, understand that they're not all equal. Maddow has a doctorate from Oxford and is a Rhode Scholar. Limbaugh dropped out from his undergraduate program after a year. That doesn't necessarily render everything Limbaugh has to say as invalid (as the old saying goes, a broken clock is right twice a day), but please, let's not falsely equate two individuals with grossly different backgrounds and perspectives.

As for the topic at hand, I think both have some valid points. For me, though I think I side with Affleck on this one. Mahr is a little too quick to generalize all of Islam. If Mahr and Harris limited their argument to the middle east/Africa, where education and civil society is severely lacking, they'd have a stronger case. When there exists a vacuum of civil society and institutions where religion fills the void, chaos, violence and fundamentalism will reign. It happened with Christianity centuries ago (and in some spaces of the world, it still exists). If this conversation were to have happened 400-500 years ago, we'd likely be talking about a different religion.

Also important to consider is that the Western world has been blessed with abundance in a way that the Muslim world has not. Fundamentalism is often a by-product of misery and domination. In these desolate territories, Islam is often unfortunately used as the vehicle by which the resulting anger, hate and fear gets channeled. Harris quotes one poll of British Muslims, but how many of those polled are from several generations of landed immigrants/nationals? My guess is that a majority of those polled were likely new to the U.K.

Two reasons.

First is based off your first two paragraphs. Just because Maddow has more college experience doesn't mean that she is more informed as a reporter. She is probably 50 IQ points smarter than me. And Rush. But with all that knowledge, she is still a complete spin-master for the left side. Just like Rush is for the right. I'll take a college drop out who forms their opinions based on the facts of a situation instead of a Rhodes scholar who would rather drink their own urine than say the dems failed at something and republicans were 100% correct.

Second, I don't know enough about the discussion to voice a valid viewpoint. I'm not throwing an opinion in just based on where I sit politically or where the people involved sit politically. Any opinion I through into this specific discussion wouldn't be something worthwhile for you guys to read. I'd rather read posts from people who know more about it. When I go into a debate/discussion, my end-goal is that I LEARN more about it. Lots of people's end-game is that they hope to educate, ridicule and win the debate. I hope to leave the discussion knowing more about it, especially from the side/people that I initially disagreed with.

And it was a compliment.

I'd rather hear you and Shades argue. You both are really really tied to your "sides" of the coin. But at least I know you both are usually pretty knowledgeable on the subject. Affleck - seems like a cool guy and a decent actor in some roles, pretty great director imo......but I don't really care about his views on world issues. And Maher is a blow-hard who seems way too arrogant and like he is trying way too hard to be cool and intelligent. Him and the other comedian that's a die-hard republican, can't think of his name right now. Both those guys can be funny, but it seems like they try way too hard to be taken seriously. But ya. A failed comedian/actor and another actor talking about world events.....I'd rather talk about baseball.

Fair enough, it is the playoffs after all.

But I find it humorous that you'd rather listen to people like Shades and I discuss matters of politics considering both of us are generally highly entrenched in our positions. Isn't this the same reason you cast dispersions towards Maddow and Limbaugh? And not to draw the parallels too sharply, but much like I attempt to do in my posts on political matters, Maddow at least gives statistics, evidence, and arguments based in logic to support her positions (though she's much better at it than I am). You may not agree with her conclusions (I don't agree with everything she says either), but let's not pretend that Limbaugh lives up to the standards that most doctorate and Rhode Scholar graduates seek to achieve when arguing their perspectives. In that respect, Shades is much like Limbaugh in that a majority of the arguments he makes are difficult to substantiate. Simply holding a position does not render that opinion valid if you're unwilling to support it with evidence. Which is why you'll often see arguments made by Shades and Limbaugh follow the same pattern of ad hominem. Every response by Shades to my post is to deride my use numbers, constantly calling me Mr. Google, rather than addressing the arguments themselves. Suggesting that both Shades and I know politics is akin to the suggestion that Limbaugh and Maddow are one-in-the same. Shades knows one side of the argument, but often times it appears he doesn't know enough on whether it stands up to scrutiny. When scrutiny is applied, he resorts to ad hominem.

If you enter a discussion to learn more about it, then why not at least listen to what they have to say? No one posts their opinion without thinking that they might make a difference in other people's opinions. It's why people put forward arguments. It's through contesting different opinions and ideas that generally the best come to reveal themselves. So I'm not sure why you would enter a thread on what Bill Maher and Ben Affleck have to say on the tenets of Islam if you have no interest in what either of them have to say? Moreover, why post in such a thread if you having nothing to contribute to the conversation other than your need to tell people how much you dislike either celebrity? It's one thing to say, "I don't like that person's perspective and here's why," It's another to post about why you just don't like that person and anything they have to say is inconsequential to you. If they're just a dumb celebrity who tries too hard to look cool, then shouldn't their arguments be easily refuted? That is what I don't understand about your post, especially from someone who routinely criticizes others for debating the person and not the point they make.

I find it humorous that you let Shades bother you so much. If you don't respect what he says or his knowledge on politics, then why let him get to you so easily?

Why enter a topic that I don't know much about? Seriously? I don't like oatmeal, Iggy Azaels, Coldplay, Kayne West, Keith Olberman or Peyton Manning. But if there is a topic that says "Peyton Manning injured in oatmeal incident with Iggy Azaels at a Coldplay concert. Kayne West breaks down what happened on Olberman show." Why wouldn't I click on the topic to see what actually happened? This is a FORUM, a place where people come to chat with others.

I clicked on this topic because I was curious why it was a topic. Surely you click on topics just to see what the fuss is?

""""" Moreover, why post in such a thread if you having nothing to contribute to the conversation other than your need to tell people how much you dislike either celebrity? It's one thing to say, "I don't like that person's perspective and here's why,"""""" I almost spit my chocolate milk out while reading that one. I'll show you 25 posts a day that specifically do this, as well as give you names of posters who do this in topic after topic. You can get started in the music and religion topics and go from there. Why call me out on something that SO MANY other people do on a daily basis? Now that you are a mod you need to hold everybody to the same standard. Should I start reporting it every time I see this happen? Like I said, go to every music topic and every religion topic.

""""especially from someone who routinely criticizes others for debating the person and not the point they make."""

Again, as a Mod, if you are going to call me out on this, then why aren't you calling out everybody else that does this on a daily basis (including you in your very response to me)? And I'm not sure if you are purposely missing the point or not. You do realize that Bill Maher is not posting on the forum, right? So I can't have a debate with him. You honestly don't think there is a difference between saying that Rush Limbaugh is an idiot....(whoops).......I mean saying that Bill Maher is a condescending arrogant jerk and calling another FORUM MEMBER a condescending arrogant jerk while in the midst of an argument with that person? You are a smart guy, surely you can see the difference.

Obviously posts I've made in other topics have led you to this little rant. And that's cool, I don't mind answering questions. But as a Mod you should probably not carry grudges around from topic to topic. And if somebody does things that really bother you, maybe you should address them via PMs instead of us hijacking topics with long responses that have nothing to do with the actual topic.

Shades doesn't bother me. If he did, my posts would be directed at him rather than what he writes. What bothers me is when people equate my knowledge of politics with Shades the same way it bothers me that people group people like Maddow and Limbaugh. Having strong opinions on something doesn't make you knowledgable on that topic. It generally means you were exposed to one side of the argument and never bothered to investigate anymore on the issue. People who know their shit can debate the matter without getting personal, who welcome scrutiny of their positions, and do not slink off when their position has been thoroughly refuted. If someone can show me how my position is based on false data or misplaced assumptions I'll happily acknowledge the errors in my ways (i've done it several times on here). But just because one has a position on a particular matter does not equate to them knowing much about it.

Sorry, when I wrote, "when I enter a topic you don't know much about," I used the wrong term. I should have said, "enter a topic you don't much care anything about." So my apologies for that.

And I'm not coming at you as a Mod. You're not breaking any of the forum's rules and I thought this conversation was under the pretence of two members having a discussion. The only reason why I guess I'm harping on this is the fact that you're often bemoaning others for doing the very same thing you're doing in this thread (remember the Motley Crue thread?). It's not a matter of disagreeing with Bill Maher (since there's often many things to disagree with him over), but that you're contributing to a topic in which you're discounting what it's about only because you think Maher is a jerk. Like I said, if you have a particular reason to disagree with Maher on this topic, then state it. But posting nothing more than a diatribe on how you think the guy is an asshole isn't much different than when others do the same in topics that you hold dear.

I don't carry any grudges with really anyone on here. Despite what you might think as a result of our discussion here, I do enjoy your posts and think you contribute greatly to this forum. And I don't write this with my Mod cap on. All I'm saying is that I personally, as a member of this forum and not as a mod, find your comments in this thread somewhat hypocritical relative to some of the complaints you label against other posters who act similarly on topics that matter to you.

[TeeJay410]

In action, a Christian society will say that if you are gay, you cannot get married. An Islamic one will say that if you are gay, you cannot live.

A Christian society had one of the greatest men of the 20th century chemically castrated in 1952 for being homosexual (it was that or hanging): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

In Islam it is not the homosexual thoughts, but acting upon them (i.e. gay sex) that is haram. Transsexualism is in fact approved of in the Islamic Republic of Iran of all places, the first male-to-female transsexual having her operation condoned by Ayatollah Khomeini himself. The problem with this, though, is that a lot of gay men who are not transsexuals in Iran will get sex change operations just so they can legally be with their partners.

I'm no fan of Islam, or any religion for that matter, but it seems we've forgotten how recently we had these same barbaric attitudes in the West. Hell, best-selling Mormon author Orson Scott Card still preaches the "only homosexual acts, not desires, are sinful" line that Islam does.

Still need to watch the video, but the impression I get is that Affleck shouts out accusations of racism, Maher is facetious, and Harris tries to make reasoned if narrow points.

Reza Aslan makes a good point in the face of idiocy:

The core of my point is that many on the left a reluctant to level the same criticism at Islam that they wouldn't have a second thought of leveling at Christianity. It's a matter of consistency and intellectual conviction. Out of fear of appearing racist, many are reluctant to criticize the prejudice and violence in Islam with the same fervor that they would criticize Christianity. It's an almost

implicit tolerance, and if stronger criticisms were levied against the violence in Islam then maybe there would be a real impact in efforts towards peace.

Sam Harris is a G doe.

[magisme]

Can we please stop pretending that the US has anything resembling a "left"?

[AxlisOld]

I pooped today.

[wasted]

They could just start burning people.

On first sight i thought that said bumming

Beheaded or Bummed? That is the question.

I reckon in a place that is such a shambles basically all the psychos we have locked up just join these fanatical groups. It must be like Con Air gone wild. Do something constructive, work together? No! Rocket Launchers n Beheadings.

[downzy]

Reza Aslan makes a good point in the face of idiocy:

Finally got around to watching this clip. In my opinion, it's bang fucking on. I think it's the point that Affleck was trying to make but did so ineffectively.

Also enjoyed Aslan's dig at CNN's co-hosts at the end of the clip.

[Amir]

The core of my point is that many on the left a reluctant to level the same criticism at Islam that they wouldn't have a second thought of leveling at Christianity. It's a matter of consistency and intellectual conviction. Out of fear of appearing racist, many are reluctant to criticize the prejudice and violence in Islam with the same fervor that they would criticize Christianity. It's an almost

implicit tolerance, and if stronger criticisms were levied against the violence in Islam then maybe there would be a real impact in efforts towards peace.

Sam Harris is a G doe.

Yeah, I agree on those points.

Reza Aslan makes a good point in the face of idiocy:

Finally got around to watching this clip. In my opinion, it's bang fucking on. I think it's the point that Affleck was trying to make but did so ineffectively.

Also enjoyed Aslan's dig at CNN's co-hosts at the end of the clip.

Then Chris Cuomo comes around and says that Aslan was hostile (5:00):

[downzy]

Then Chris Cuomo comes around and says that Aslan was hostile (5:00):

Completely misses the point Aslan was making. "That part of the world." Turkey is an Islamic country, so too is Indonesia. But you likely wouldn't suggest that Turkey has the same culture as Egypt or Somalia.

And I give another to the blonde co-host who thinks she's on to something by reminding viewers that a province of Indonesia allows for caning of homosexuals. It's as though Aslan's point completely flew over their heads. The only mistake Aslan made, in my opinion, is for his apology on twitter for inferring that they were being dumb because it seems as though his inference was right on the money.

[MB.]

I agree with Reza Aslan as well, however he forgets something imo.

Yes, culture influence a lot of how people live, but also how they practice their religion. So you can say it's not the Islam or Christianity which causes all these horrible things to happen. But that's not exactly true. Yes culture is of influence, but it's also of influence of how they practice their religion. It's often not how it's described in the books, but many people there think it is. So the cause is still religion. And let's be real here, the old testement, where all three major religions believe in, isn't exactly all that peaceful either.

To be clear, I criticise christianity as much as the islam . For instance, some African countries were not that homophobic at all and the laws are a colonial import brought in the 19 th century. The last century some US preachers/missioners, with all their money, kept on preaching homophobia in many African countries. But their culture wasn't homophobic or at least a lot less and now it is. Just cause some overseas Christians started to preach it there. And that is still all about religion as well.

Cuture and religion mix up often, unfortunately many people in those countries don't know that, for them it's religion.

Edited October 8, 2014 by MB.

[wasted]

We probably need to stop selling them weapons until they learn to chill out.

[streak]

I personally think religion has got fuck all to do with it, and more to do with the foreign policies of certain governments.