Berkely students petition to stop Bill Maher from delivering commencement addres

[Martinus]

Maher's politics and personal hatreds aren't the reason he's a lousy comic, it's that being a smug, condescending son of bitch isn't particularly funny.  Turning on his show is like having Grumbler come over to your house and insult your cooking for an hour.

Raz: I made Lasagna...
Grumbles: WHOOSH

I didn't get it. Can you explain the joke to me? 

[The Brain]

Maher's politics and personal hatreds aren't the reason he's a lousy comic, it's that being a smug, condescending son of bitch isn't particularly funny.  Turning on his show is like having Grumbler come over to your house and insult your cooking for an hour.

Raz: I made Lasagna...
Grumbles: WHOOSH

I didn't get it. Can you explain the joke to me? 

Sure.

[Martinus]

Is there so much Islamic violence because Islam is a violent religion, or is there so much Islamic violence because Islam is the religion that happens to be followed by parts of the world that are completely fucked up?

It is a valid question for an intellectual debate, indeed, but in practical terms, when talking about socio-political impact of either, does the distinction really matter? The fact that you have "normal" Westerners converting to Islam and then travelling to Middle East to kill unbelievers - whereas the same is, generally, not true for converts to Christianity (not to mention, Buddhism) seems to be telling, though.

[The Brain]

I'm sure God can sort them out.

[Viking]

Odd that you classify sub-Sahran Africa as having a lot of Islamic influence but not Europe.  I'm not clear what you wish to show here.  That the Arab states are improving at a faster rate then Europe does and at the same speed as East Asia?  That doesn't seem to be reinforce arguments that the Islam is uniquely bad.

Because, y'know, hundreds of millions of muslims as opposed to about 10 million; dozens of muslim majority countries as opposed to 2 in europe.

Odd you ignore the argument being made, but then again your position has no merit.

[Martinus]

In a sense, you could draw similarities to certain other behaviours that we try to curb or prohibit even if they are not harmful (or at least not as harmful) in themselves, but can serve as a gateway to more harmful phenomena.

Take virtual child pornography or cruelty to animals, for example. The first clearly does not have anyone who is being harmed. The second harms animals, but not human beings (and we, generally, allow animals to be harmed e.g. when they are slaughtered for food or fur).

Yet, as a society, we recognise each as something that should at least be frowned upon or prohibited outright (depending on jurisdiction), because we see them as potentially leading to more harmful behaviours.

Now, I recognise that the freedom of religion has, historically, been given a much wider breadth than most other liberties, so we should proceed with caution before we ban, say, the practice of Islam, but surely it should at least be possible to discuss some religions as being more harmful than others.

[Martinus]

We could just, you know, ban murder. AND ENFORCE IT. No more Islam.

The problem with (just) banning murder and enforcing it is that it usually takes place after someone has been killed, though.

This is a reason why we try to catch and prevent a number of actions that could lead to murder, before it happens. But you know that.

[CountDeMoney]

Islam is an immature religion.  Still needs a few more centuries to settle down.

[Martinus]

Islam is an immature religion.  Still needs a few more centuries to settle down.

I don't think this argument works any more in the age of globalisation and 24 hour media coverage. As a civilization we have reached the point when we are unable to ignore atrocities happening on the other side of the globe.

[CountDeMoney]

Islam is an immature religion.  Still needs a few more centuries to settle down.

I don't think this argument works any more in the age of globalisation and 24 hour media coverage.

Which have been, what, the last 20 or so years?  Nigga, please. You don't just to Tweet the evolution of doctrine.

[The Brain]

The Catholic Church is still an international pedophile ring. How many more centuries can we afford to let it exist? Won't someone other than the priests please think of the children.

[Martinus]

The Catholic Church is still an international pedophile ring. How many more centuries can we afford to let it exist? Won't someone other than the priests please think of the children.

I would gladly accept the destruction of the Catholic Church as the price for the destruction of Islam. 

It is actually quite funny, because when I get into discussions on religion on Polish websites and forums, the usual retort from right wing conservatives I get is "why don't you go ahead and criticise Islam instead of Catholicism". 

[CountDeMoney]

You'd probably get more traction if you weren't such a one-note songbird.

"Starving children in Guatemala?  Are they gay?  Meh."

[The Minsky Moment]

Is there so much Islamic violence because Islam is a violent religion, or is there so much Islamic violence because Islam is the religion that happens to be followed by parts of the world that are completely fucked up?

To paraphrase Martinus, the empirical evidence would strongly suggest the latter.  Because the same kind of violence was going on in the same parts of the world in the recent past, only under the rubric of socialist liberationism, or Arab Nationalism.  Instead of medieval-style beheadings, they would hijack airplanes and execute people, or through them off cruise ships, or machine-gun people at the Olympic Games.  Islam is the flavor now because all politically-based ideologies have been discredited, and "Islam" can fill whatever meaning one wants to propogate.

The religious differences between the Saudi monarchy and its followers on the one-hand, and ISIS jihadists on the other hand, are pretty minor.  But they are mortal foes in the political realm.  That is a big hint that religious doctrine is not really at the heart of what is going with these movements.  I'm sure the leaders do believe much of what they say, but the existence and success of radical Sunni jihadism as a political phenomenon is not because it represents a logical and compelling working out of religious commandments; it is because it is a useful and effective rallying point for frustrated and angry young men to find political efficacy and to have an outlet for violence.

[The Brain]

Yeah the angry violent young men could just as easily have rallied around liberal democracy.