“Let me unpack this for you…” ugh. What a smug prick. Harris always sounds like he’s charitably acquiscing to a remedial student’s request for advice on how to understand a given concept.
4 Likes
Affleck was out of line for talking over Harris. And Harris was just as out of line for doing the same to Kristof. Period.
Not seeing it does not mean it’s not there. Steele’s big contribution here was that media coverage didn’t show him what he wanted to see. That’s a criticism of the media, not of Islam itself. You can inform yourself using media coverage; however, you can’t do it passively, you have to work at it.
You are absolutely right. Shia societies are also more educated and value knowledge and critical thinking much more than the Sunni, particularly Wahabbi Sunni. Unfortunately, US foreign policy is vehemently pro-Sunni.
Totally wrong.
2 Likes
Really? We should have to work at finding Islamic leaders that denounce terrorism? Maybe I’m not understanding what you’re saying.
Is it that they are not speaking out or that it’s not getting reported by the media? Check out the #notinmyname campaign. I think the condemnation of Muslim extremism is louder than you think.
1 Like
Well he is a trust fund kid from Hollywood.
There is no doubt that terrorists thrive in the midst of moderate Muslims. There are countries like Pakistan where the political leaders, the military, the mullahdom, the judiciary and many social, cultural and religious institutions are infiltrated by Sunni terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. I am sure that not all of the people in the entire country are bad. I am sure there are those would be considered moderates by any civilized standard and there those who would be considered moderates by standards of terrorists. For example, DASH and Boko Haram consider al Qaeda to be too moderate.
Not really. America’s foreign policy has been vehemently pro-Sunni for over 75 years. This was guided by its interests in Middle Eastern oil and Israel’s security interests. The Saudis were our allies in the Cold War because the Communists were opposed to organized religion. The Saudis also pay our military very well for providing them military security forces. The problem is that there are fundamental structural, ethical, and virulence problems with Wahabbi islam. Remember the Saudi flag has a beheading sword on it. Do the amoral actions of DASH surprising given this social, political, economic and religious context?
We should re-assess our pro-Sunni foreign policy. Instead, Middle Easter foreign policy should include terrorism as a key consideration in the calculus.
1 Like
Has anyone mentioned recently that you’re a drooling moron?
1 Like
Excellent analysis!
Religious nuts are just that, nuts, no matter which fairy tale they believe in . . . . .
Mmm hmm. Yeah. Might want to go take another look at that “Christians living with Jews” thing. Shinto and Christianity, don’t exactly have a history of harmony and tolerance either. For that matter, Christians haven’t distinguished themselves through history by their outstanding tolerance for any other religion in any country where they are the majority or hold all the power.
And how the hell you concluded that all has been roses and love between Hindus and Sikhs or that Muslims have been the main instigators of Hindu on Muslim violence in India is beyond me.
You’ve perhaps heard of the Inquisition, the systemic pograms against Jews throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, the routine anti-Semitic violence associated with Passion Week throughout most of European history until the Holocaust mooted the point, the efforts of various Christian missionaries to suppress local religions across the globe, and the near war with the Mormons in the U.S. through the 1850s?
The urgent need of people who call themselves Christians to portray their religion as somehow uniquely exempt from the sad, tragic parade of religiously based violence and persecution and Islam as somehow having a far more savage history in that regard than Christianity is symptomatic of the real problem.
Oh yeah, because “taking on” religions has always worked so well in the past. Like the way the Romans managed to uproot those intolerant Christians and their crazy beliefs once and for all. Always works great.
@NCSteve: You are right. Organized religion has been incredibly powerful through the ages.
However, bigotry and violence can be reduced by eliminating organized religion’s influence on health care and education and by removing structural incentives such as tax breaks, welfare schemes and government funding of religion across the world.
There is also a known nexus between conservatism, religulousity, bigotry and authoritarianism. Politicians know it is easily to manipulate unthinking religious folk into voting en bloc. This creates an incestuous marriage between religion, wealth and power even in secular democracies that is toxic to society at large.
As the anti-smoking and gay marriage campaigns show, it is possible to take on cherished social and cultural beliefs carefully and win over the long term. The tide for organized religion has changed because of barbaric Sunni terrorists and the Catholic child rape, molestation and abuse incidents.
Boy. That’s a great video of Reza Aslan. The most striking thing about it, though, is how utterly STUPID the two CNN hosts are.
Funny, when I share Bertrand Russell’s famous lecture (easily accessed on the intertubz), “Why I Am Not A Christian,” liberals applaud it. Were I to share something along the same lines concerning Islam, I would be condemned as a bigot.