Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: November 20 2015 at 14:08
I understand and even defend your right to criticize Maher. I'm kind-of defending him (kind-of only because in a way I agree he is kind of a religion-phobe). Again, being a religion-phobe doesn't necessarily make you intolerant, abusive, or a bigot. If you purposefully try to stop people from having their religious beliefs, then yes you may be one of those things.
Joined: November 02 2015
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 171
Posted: November 20 2015 at 13:33
Dean wrote:
RayRo wrote:
To get off the PC train for a moment, religions do have, and have had, socially redeemable values. Mr. Maher, for all his enlightened views, fails to even acknowledge that. His dislike of religions strays too far into fanaticism at times and it's religious fanaticism that Maher constantly attacks.
On these grounds, I feel that my criticism of Mr. Maher is justified.
You don't have to acknowledge a things good points to attack its bad points. When a set of beliefs interferes with someone else's beliefs (i.e., it show intolerance) then being critical of that intolerance can in turn look like intolerance.
I agree with you. However, if someone's views are not challenged, then how does one enact change?
There are two ways Maher can go with his views. He either see that his views are extreme and change them, or he can simply continue to hold and express them.
Questioning someone's views is not fanaticism if based on the actions of that individual. Fanaticism would only manifest itself in censoring Mr. Maher. Mr. Maher has the right to say what he wants. Just as I have the right to question what he says.
This is not fanaticism. This is the cornerstone of the rights of individuals to act in a free society.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: November 20 2015 at 13:13
RayRo wrote:
To get off the PC train for a moment, religions do have, and have had, socially redeemable values. Mr. Maher, for all his enlightened views, fails to even acknowledge that. His dislike of religions strays too far into fanaticism at times and it's religious fanaticism that Maher constantly attacks.
On these grounds, I feel that my criticism of Mr. Maher is justified.
You don't have to acknowledge a things good points to attack its bad points. When a set of beliefs interferes with someone else's beliefs (i.e., it show intolerance) then being critical of that intolerance can in turn look like intolerance.
Joined: November 02 2015
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 171
Posted: November 20 2015 at 12:54
Dean wrote:
RayRo wrote:
The T wrote:
RayRo wrote:
Absolutely, and I will pay more attention to the Maher show to get a better insight to his views on Islam, as it seems that I may be mistaken.
I'm not going to say he loves Islam. And a quick watch of a program might give one the idea that he is an islamophobe,. I just think he is a religion-phobe in general and Islam is the current (of the last few years I mean, not just recently) target because of, well, obvious reasons.
I would like to add that Maher has shown little tolerance for religions as a whole. It is the right of an American citizen to hold religious beliefs and to practice them. Even though I am a staunch atheist, I defend any citizen's right to hold these beliefs.
Hmm. You don't need to have tolerance for someone's beliefs to defend their right to hold said beliefs; conversely you don't have to defend anyone's right to hold religious beliefs to have tolerance for those beliefs. Similarly, you don't have to respect those beliefs to have tolerance of them or to defend anyone's right to hold them. Also, tolerance of someone's beliefs does not validate their beliefs. Tolerance simply means non-interference in someone's right to hold a belief, it does not mean you cannot be critical of them.
To get off the PC train for a moment, religions do have, and have had, socially redeemable values. Mr. Maher, for all his enlightened views, fails to even acknowledge that. His dislike of religions strays too far into fanaticism at times and it's religious fanaticism that Maher constantly attacks.
On these grounds, I feel that my criticism of Mr. Maher is justified.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: November 20 2015 at 12:45
RayRo wrote:
The T wrote:
RayRo wrote:
Absolutely, and I will pay more attention to the Maher show to get a better insight to his views on Islam, as it seems that I may be mistaken.
I'm not going to say he loves Islam. And a quick watch of a program might give one the idea that he is an islamophobe,. I just think he is a religion-phobe in general and Islam is the current (of the last few years I mean, not just recently) target because of, well, obvious reasons.
I would like to add that Maher has shown little tolerance for religions as a whole. It is the right of an American citizen to hold religious beliefs and to practice them. Even though I am a staunch atheist, I defend any citizen's right to hold these beliefs.
Hmm. You don't need to have tolerance for someone's beliefs to defend their right to hold said beliefs; conversely you don't have to defend anyone's right to hold religious beliefs to have tolerance for those beliefs. Similarly, you don't have to respect those beliefs to have tolerance of them or to defend anyone's right to hold them. Also, tolerance of someone's beliefs does not validate their beliefs. Tolerance simply means non-interference in someone's right to hold a belief, it does not mean you cannot be critical of them.
Joined: November 02 2015
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 171
Posted: November 20 2015 at 12:29
The T wrote:
RayRo wrote:
Absolutely, and I will pay more attention to the Maher show to get a better insight to his views on Islam, as it seems that I may be mistaken.
I'm not going to say he loves Islam. And a quick watch of a program might give one the idea that he is an islamophobe,. I just think he is a religion-phobe in general and Islam is the current (of the last few years I mean, not just recently) target because of, well, obvious reasons.
I would like to add that Maher has shown little tolerance for religions as a whole. It is the right of an American citizen to hold religious beliefs and to practice them. Even though I am a staunch atheist, I defend any citizen's right to hold these beliefs.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: November 19 2015 at 17:00
RayRo wrote:
Absolutely, and I will pay more attention to the Maher show to get a better insight to his views on Islam, as it seems that I may be mistaken.
I'm not going to say he loves Islam. And a quick watch of a program might give one the idea that he is an islamophobe,. I just think he is a religion-phobe in general and Islam is the current (of the last few years I mean, not just recently) target because of, well, obvious reasons.
Joined: October 21 2007
Location: n/a
Status: Offline
Points: 8052
Posted: November 19 2015 at 16:56
The refugees are fleeing ISIS. The same idiots and bullies who wanted to close borders for 'economic' reasons of being paranoid bigots will now want to close them for 'security' reasons of being paranoid bigots.
Now, this post is a case in point:
sukmytoe wrote:
To me it boils down to a numbers game. If 2 million people enter Europe as refugees and as little as 1 in a hundred of those people is a plant then I end up with 20000 potential terrorists in Europe. That is horrific when you think of the potential danger to us people loving, peace loving, love your brother. help your brother individuals. When Western children are murdered, Western homes are torched and Western ideology is made irrelevant then who will we all blame?
Further than that - not now but in 50 years time - our grandchildren could well be living in an Islam dominated Europe because they will and do procreate more children than the typical Western family does. If I can have more than 1 wife because my culture tells me that I can then I will have more children than you will. My question in that possible future scenario is where is Israel then and because of that where is everything that I have held dear and believed in then? The refugees couldn't have been taken in by other Moslem dominated countries? Ask yourselves some serious questions and you may arrive at some serious answers perhaps.
One in a hundred refugees being terrorists is an extraordinary statistic to pull out of your arse. I see your loving semantics are couched in how the good people are 'Western'. I know a lot of British c**ts. Some of them are in parliament.
The breeding rates argument is peculiar as anything. Bigamy is still illegal in the UK, so that doesn't hold up. The same arguments about bigger families apply to the British working class (and have usually been used to justify eugenics programs of one sort or another historically) and are continually used to strip away the rights and privileges of British citizens.
The Europe and in particular the Britain I'm proud of is the one that's opened itself up and is multicultural and has wonderful people from all over. f**k people like you who want to destroy that every bit as much as ISIS do (and incidentally, who have a far better chance of doing so).
(Where's Israel? You know that Israel was founded by extremists, its political leaders had a long history of being drawn from former terrorist groups and it still has a national day of celebration for a terrorist bombing in which British, Arab and Jewish civilians were murdered... I may not be a fan but I don't feel the need to lash out at people who aren't part of that political state)
Joined: November 02 2015
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 171
Posted: November 19 2015 at 16:42
The T wrote:
RayRo wrote:
The T wrote:
I don't think Maher is an islamophobe. He probably exaggerates the Islamism of terrorists but it's his contempt for all religions showing through, nothing more.
Maher's non stop OTT rhetoric about Muslims as has been countered by many people aside from Aslan, with actor/activest Ben Affleck being the most vocal both on Maher's show and off. If enough people start saying that you quack like a duck, then you're a duck.
No, it doesn't work that way. I watch Maher every Friday and yes he's consistent in his attacks on religions (and lately especially on Islam) but he clearly stresses that he's not attacking all muslims.
Also, even though you didn't say it, but some people do, so let's just clarify again: even if a person was an islamophobe (which I don't think is a good thing to be) thatdoesn'tmakesaidpersonaracistsinceIslamisNOTarace. Youareattackingasetofbeliefs.
Well, we may disagree on the extent of Mr. Maher's views on Islam, but we are in complete agreement vis a vis race and religion. I yield to your council.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: November 19 2015 at 16:37
RayRo wrote:
The T wrote:
I don't think Maher is an islamophobe. He probably exaggerates the Islamism of terrorists but it's his contempt for all religions showing through, nothing more.
Maher's non stop OTT rhetoric about Muslims as has been countered by many people aside from Aslan, with actor/activest Ben Affleck being the most vocal both on Maher's show and off. If enough people start saying that you quack like a duck, then you're a duck.
No, it doesn't work that way. I watch Maher every Friday and yes he's consistent in his attacks on religions (and lately especially on Islam) but he clearly stresses that he's not attacking all muslims.
Also, even though you didn't say it, but some people do, so let's just clarify again: even if a person was an islamophobe (which I don't think is a good thing to be) that doesn't make said person a racist since Islam is NOT a race. You are attacking a set of beliefs.
Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20666
Posted: November 19 2015 at 16:36
RayRo wrote:
dr wu23 wrote:
RayRo wrote:
Without going outside of the context of these immediate discussions that concern Bill Maher, he is this:
Islamophobia
(ˌɪzlɑːməˈfəʊbɪə)
n
1. (Psychology)hatred or fear of Muslims or of theirpolitics or culture
2. (Government,Politics & Diplomacy)hatred or fear of Muslims or of theirpolitics or culture.
So then IYO he hates all Muslims and not just the radical element that are killing people...?
If not, then is the poorest expression of someone liking all Muslims that I've ever heard. Let the first minute of Maher's words roll over you again.
I hear him commenting on Isis and the fact that 'large numbers' of Muslims, IHO, might support some of that ideology. I don't hear him saying that about all Muslims.
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin
Joined: November 02 2015
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 171
Posted: November 19 2015 at 16:32
The T wrote:
I don't think Maher is an islamophobe. He probably exaggerates the Islamism of terrorists but it's his contempt for all religions showing through, nothing more.
Maher's non stop OTT rhetoric about Muslims as has been countered by many people aside from Aslan, with actor/activest Ben Affleck being the most vocal both on Maher's show and off. If enough people start saying that you quack like a duck, then you're a duck.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: November 19 2015 at 16:24
I don't think Maher is an islamophobe. He probably exaggerates the Islamism of terrorists but it's his contempt for all religions showing through, nothing more.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: November 19 2015 at 16:23
dr wu23 wrote:
The T wrote:
Unlike others, I have read his book There is No God but God and I don't see neither an excuse for terrorims nor the complete opposite. Azlan's book has a pretty fair down the middle vision Of Islam and it's history. I don't know why he has to provide solutions. Other people are the ones in charge (if possible) of that.
What 'other people'...? If he's an expert in Islam shouldn't he have some insight into this problem..?
If not people like him then who?
For starters... governments? Politicians? Military experts? A writer/journalist is far lower in the list of people who should provide answers.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.170 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Protect the UK, please sign.
Topic Options
Dean wrote:
