Bill Maher: Islam is inherently worse than other religions.

[Felch]

I thought the death penalty for homosexuality used to be the norm in Christendom?

Bill Maher is talking about Islam in the present tense. If Muslim countries used to have laws against apostasy, or used to have laws that made women second class citizens, but had moved beyond that, things would be different.

[Boris Godunov]

And yet, the Vatican does not proscribe the death penalty for apostasy..............

The Catholic Church used to have people burned alive because they dared own bibles in their own language. The killing of heretics wasn't exactly uncommon.

Islam is just a few hundred years behind Christianity in terms of its moral outlook. Since they didn't get started until 600+ years later, we can give them a few more centuries to catch up before trying to make any comparisons.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Bill Maher is talking about Islam in the present tense. If Muslim countries used to have laws against apostasy, or used to have laws that made women second class citizens, but had moved beyond that, things would be different.

It sounds like almost all Christians are now a la carte Christians.

[Felch]

Islam is just a few hundred years behind Christianity in terms of its moral outlook. Since they didn't get started until 600+ years later, we can give them a few more centuries to catch up before trying to make any comparisons.

That's a disturbingly patronizing outlook. Do you regard all Muslims as child-like retards, or just some of them?

[Boris Godunov]

If I'm being "patronizing" for supposedly insinuating Muslims are "child-like retards," what does that make someone who insinuates they are morally inferior human beings? Do you honestly think Muslims would be more offended by such an insinuation than the one that says their ideology is intrinsically evil?

Of course, that's ignoring the fact that my point went WOOSH over your head.

[regexcellent]

I wouldn't rule out the possibility that an ideology or religion could be more violent or evil than another. Communism is inherently more evil than the free market.

[Boris Godunov]

Of course they can be more evil. That's one of the things I'm scratching my head at in this thread... some people seem completely resistant to the idea that one religion could even possibly be morally inferior to another. Certainly a religion that includes human sacrifice as part of its ritual is morally inferior to one that doesn't. Certainly a religion that justifies burning people alive is morally inferior to one that doesn't.

[Felch]

If I'm being "patronizing" for supposedly insinuating Muslims are "child-like retards," what does that make someone who insinuates they are morally inferior human beings? Do you honestly think Muslims would be more offended by such an insinuation than the one that says their ideology is intrinsically evil?

Of course, that's ignoring the fact that my point went WOOSH over your head.

It's not patronizing to say that an ideology is intrinsically evil. An ideology that denies human rights is evil. It is patronizing to say that they are incapable of knowing right from wrong, because they're 600 years behind Christianity.

What's this so called point that went WOOSH over my head?

[Boris Godunov]

It's not patronizing to say that an ideology is intrinsically evil. An ideology that denies human rights is evil. It is patronizing to say that they are incapable of knowing right from wrong, because they're 600 years behind Christianity.

If you're saying that hundreds of millions of people are willingly following an intrinsically evil ideology, then you're either patronizing them for being too dumb to know it's evil or just calling them evil people. Which is better?

What's this so called point that went WOOSH over my head?

Oh, perhaps that the entire comment was stated with tongue firmly in cheek in the first place.

[Felch]

If you're saying that hundreds of millions of people are willingly following an intrinsically evil ideology, then you're either patronizing them for being too dumb to know it's evil or just calling them evil people. Which is better?

Oh, I'm calling them evil. The serious hard core ones at least. The a la carte Muslims who respect human rights, and the mellowed out Sufis, they're cool people. But the hard core Wahhabists are evil.

Here's my rule. If you deny basic human rights to people, then you are evil. I don't care about offending evil people.

Oh, perhaps that the entire comment was stated with tongue firmly in cheek in the first place.

Sorry, I didn't pick up on that.

[Uncle Sparky]

Has anyone said, 'All religions suck' yet?

[Boris Godunov]

Oh, I'm calling them evil. The serious hard core ones at least. The a la carte Muslims who respect human rights, and the mellowed out Sufis, they're cool people. But the hard core Wahhabists are evil.

Here's my rule. If you deny basic human rights to people, then you are evil. I don't care about offending evil people.

Yeah, I know. Which is why it is illogical--not to mention a bit hypocritical--that you were engaging in vicarious moral outrage at someone for suggesting such Muslims were "child-like retards" rather than evil. Why would the former be a worse insinuation than the latter?

Sorry, I didn't pick up on that.

Huh, I thought that I was trolling Catholics was painfully obvious...

[Imran Siddiqui]

It sounds like almost all Christians are now a la carte Christians.

Bingo (under Felch's description of what makes a good practitioner of religion)

[Uncle Sparky]

Allah cart?

[Felch]

Which is why it is illogical--not to mention a bit hypocritical--that you were engaging in vicarious moral outrage at someone for suggesting such Muslims were "child-like retards" rather than evil. Why would the former be a worse insinuation than the latter?

Because the former denies agency to human beings, while the latter leaves open the possibility of change. In order to be evil, you have to be able to make meaningful choices. A child-like ****** might hurt or even kill people, but he wouldn't be evil if he didn't understand his actions or their consequences. He would be no more culpable than a dingo eating a baby. Someone who is severely impaired and incapable of making moral judgements can't be made to understand right and wrong. There's no hope for improvement.

An evil person might just be misguided. Maybe they are committed to being evil, but probably they're just confused. They might just have a mistaken view of the world, one that can be corrected through persuasion or through new experiences. Evil is contestable and correctable. When we accept that people are morally culpable for their actions, we can treat them like adults. When we make excuses for them, we treat them like toddlers. Adults can take responsibility. Toddlers are somebody else's responsibility.