Bill Maher: Islam is inherently worse than other religions.

[Felch]

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

To clarify, I regard a la carte Christians as those who fail to uphold Christ's commandments, like the anti-immigration *******s. Far too many people are out there claiming to be Christian and not loving their neighbors.

[Bereta_Eder]

If Islam is problematic how do you call a religion that invented the most brutal torture mechanisms that proceeded in vandalizing ancient works of art just because they were "indecent" etc etc
Not only that but is probably responsible for the largest anihilation of peoples in the history of mankind.
Islam is not monolithic and some of the world's most amazing cultures AND people can be found in it.
It's just having a hard time right now.

[Fake Boris]

The major atrocities of the 20th century have been committed by Christians anyway.

We should start a thread: "Does christianity make people forgetful and retarded?"

[DinoDoc]

Has anyone said, 'All religions suck' yet?

Bill Maher. Years ago.

[Felch]

The major atrocities of the 20th century have been committed by Christians anyway.

We should start a thread: "Does christianity make people forgetful and retarded?"

If Islam is problematic how do you call a religion that invented the most brutal torture mechanisms that proceeded in vandalizing ancient works of art just because they were "indecent" etc etc
Not only that but is probably responsible for the largest anihilation of peoples in the history of mankind.
Islam is not monolithic and some of the world's most amazing cultures AND people can be found in it.
It's just having a hard time right now.

You both are fixating on the past, which is not what Maher is talking about. His concern is present day ideological evil. He would certainly agree with you about past Christian atrocities.

Furthermore, we know that Islam isn't monolithic. We've discussed that at length. But the existence of decent, moderate Muslims does not excuse the hundreds of millions of Muslims who put their religion above the cause of universal human rights.

"It's just having a hard time right now." What does that even mean? Do we excuse the Khmer Rouge because Cambodia was having a hard time in the 70s? Respecting human rights isn't a challenge to be put off for another day, it's a solution for the problems of today.

[Sava]

America (or MURICA), a God-fearing (supposedly) Christian (supposedly) nation bombed German and Japanese cities. Germany killed millions. Russian Orthodox killed millions.

I don't see how Islam can even compete with that. Iran/Iraq was an American war. They just don't have the bodycount to compete with Christianity. It's not even close.

[Fake Boris]

You both are fixating on the past, which is not what Maher is talking about. His concern is present day ideological evil. He would certainly agree with you about past Christian atrocities.

It's not about the past. It's about now. The Iraq war was an atrocity. Colonialism is still rampant in Africa. This is an atrocity.

Furthermore, we know that Islam isn't monolithic. We've discussed that at length. But the existence of decent, moderate Muslims does not excuse the hundreds of millions of Muslims who put their religion above the cause of universal human rights.

Hundreds of millions? Come on. The immense majority of Muslims are just people like you and me trying to earn a living. If hundreds of millions of Muslims were as militants as you claim, the whole world would turn Muslim.

"It's just having a hard time right now." What does that even mean? Do we excuse the Khmer Rouge because Cambodia was having a hard time in the 70s? Respecting human rights isn't a challenge to be put off for another day, it's a solution for the problems of today.

We're agreed on this. If you're so concerned about human rights, look at your own backyard. It's full of skeletons.

[Felch]

America (or MURICA), a God-fearing (supposedly) Christian (supposedly) nation bombed German and Japanese cities. Germany killed millions. Russian Orthodox killed millions.

I don't see how Islam can even compete with that. Iran/Iraq was an American war. They just don't have the bodycount to compete with Christianity. It's not even close.

America is secular, not Christian. Saudi Arabia is explicitly Islamic, as in, its code of laws is derived straight from the Koran. See the difference?

This isn't a question of body counts. It's a question of "What does the religion preach?" Christianity preaches peace, Islam preaches violence.

It's not about the past. It's about now. The Iraq war was an atrocity. Colonialism is still rampant in Africa. This is an atrocity.

The Iraq War is over, and how many colonies are there in Africa today?

Hundreds of millions? Come on. The immense majority of Muslims are just people like you and me trying to earn a living. If hundreds of millions of Muslims were as militants as you claim, the whole world would turn Muslim.

There are 1.6 billion Muslims. If one out of eight believe that apostasy should be a crime, then hundreds of millions is the correct figure. Looking at the PEW Poll, I am confident that I am right.

We're agreed on this. If you're so concerned about human rights, look at your own backyard. It's full of skeletons.

America definitely has problems. That's why I oppose the War on Drugs, the militarization of police, civil asset forfeiture, and a host of other human rights violations perpetrated by the American governments (Federal and State). When will you stop making excuses for Saudi Arabia?

[Lorizael]

Can't we all just agree that humans are terrible and will use any excuse they can find to do terrible things?

[Imran Siddiqui]

This isn't a question of body counts. It's a question of "What does the religion preach?" Christianity preaches peace, Islam preaches violence.

Once again, you are trying to have your cake and eat it to. Christians for centuries have used the faith, including the Scriptures, for atrocities, whether its inquisitions, colonialism, massacring people of other faiths, etc. Saying 'that was in the past is irrelevant' when you are talking about the basic nature of those faiths (which, btw Maher would agree with - he hates Christianity almost as much as he hates Islam).

[Felch]

Once again, you are trying to have your cake and eat it to. Christians for centuries have used the faith, including the Scriptures, for atrocities, whether its inquisitions, colonialism, massacring people of other faiths, etc. Saying 'that was in the past is irrelevant' when you are talking about the basic nature of those faiths (which, btw Maher would agree with - he hates Christianity almost as much as he hates Islam).

Does the ELCA reject the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Saudi Arabia has refused to ratify it claiming it conflicted with Sharia. That's what I'm talking about, and that's what Maher is talking about.

Past violence and atrocities were rationalized by corrupting Christianity. Saudi Arabia rejects human rights today because it explicitly contradicts the Koran. That's a big difference.

[MRT144]

I think what ever religion I have to deal with on a regular basis is the worst - so that means non denominational Christianity with a bent towards prosperity faith. That is the worst.

[Elok]

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.

What if one justifies burning people alive, but opposes sexual harassment, while another only justifies relatively humane decapitation but is cool with butt-slapping, cat-calling, etc.? Which is better, and how do you decide?

(Real answer: there are no Muslims here to defend Islam, so such an argument would devolve into atheists defending stuff they don't believe in to spite the Christians attacking it. If anything. Also our society is overly prone to hysterical and idiotic attacks on Muslims; cf. "Ground Zero Mosque," "Dubai Ports." So we hasten to discourage further idiocy by default.)

[MRT144]

What if one justifies burning people alive, but opposes sexual harassment, while another only justifies relatively humane decapitation but is cool with butt-slapping, cat-calling, etc.? Which is better, and how do you decide?

(Real answer: there are no Muslims here to defend Islam, so such an argument would devolve into atheists defending stuff they don't believe in to spite the Christians attacking it. If anything. Also our society is overly prone to hysterical and idiotic attacks on Muslims; cf. "Ground Zero Mosque," "Dubai Ports." So we hasten to discourage further idiocy by default.)

The burning one alive one, obviously. You can at least work on getting more humane methods of execution, good luck trying to convince a society where sexual harassment is an issue that it's even an issue.

[Bereta_Eder]

If syria or iraq or albania or bosnia or turkey could maintain a secular country (despite severe for the time being human rights issues) that means that other muslim countries can do it too.
That pretty much solves the equation.

and this

The immense majority of Muslims are just people like you and me trying to earn a living.

during the middle ages western europe was considered something like a dark dirty backwater no man's land whereas arabia was shining.