Bill Maher to Muslims: Go away.

[Ozmar]

HBO's Bill Maher had a message for Muslims on his show Friday night: Get out of "the Western world."

Maher noted the news that Mohammed (when its various spellings are combined) is the year's most popular baby name in the United Kingdom. He said:

Am I a racist to feel alarmed by that? Because I am. And it’s not because of the race, it’s because of the religion. I don’t have to apologize, do I, for not wanting the Western world to be taken over by Islam in 300 years? ... I should be alarmed, and I don't apologize for it.

One guest, MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell, responded that Maher's statement was "worse" than Juan Williams' admission of his fears of people wearing Muslim clothes on airplanes. And the writer Reihan Salam responded:

As a Reihan Salam, I'm pretty comfortable with Mohammeds. I have some uncles named Mohammed and I think that they're pretty decent guys.

None of this is particularly surprising coming from Maher, who, while he likes to present himself as an equal opportunity religion-basher (see his movie "Religulous"), has long singled out Muslims (and, for that matter, Arabs).

Bill Maher to Muslims: Go away - War Room - Salon.com

I may not be fond of Bill Maher, but on this I totally agree with him.

 

[Tank]

How long till Hussein is the #1 name in America?

 

[Ozmar]

If it means shutting up the likes of morons like you, I hope it's tomorrow.

 

[topspin]

He feels the same way about christians.

 

[hipeter924]

HBO's Bill Maher had a message for Muslims on his show Friday night: Get out of "the Western world."

Maher noted the news that Mohammed (when its various spellings are combined) is the year's most popular baby name in the United Kingdom. He said:

Am I a racist to feel alarmed by that? Because I am. And it’s not because of the race, it’s because of the religion. I don’t have to apologize, do I, for not wanting the Western world to be taken over by Islam in 300 years? ... I should be alarmed, and I don't apologize for it.

One guest, MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell, responded that Maher's statement was "worse" than Juan Williams' admission of his fears of people wearing Muslim clothes on airplanes. And the writer Reihan Salam responded:

As a Reihan Salam, I'm pretty comfortable with Mohammeds. I have some uncles named Mohammed and I think that they're pretty decent guys.

None of this is particularly surprising coming from Maher, who, while he likes to present himself as an equal opportunity religion-basher (see his movie "Religulous"), has long singled out Muslims (and, for that matter, Arabs).

Bill Maher to Muslims: Go away - War Room - Salon.com

I may not be fond of Bill Maher, but on this I totally agree with him.

Yep I was surprised when Maher took a different stance to his fellow liberals on the 'peaceful muslim majority' theory.

 

[sassmcghee]

This is one of the only times I have agreed with him. And why is it "racist" to not want your country (AMERICA) to turn into a muslim middle eastern type society? It wasn't founded with those principles in mind and the constitution and sharia law are very different. I am getting really tired of the thought police calling everyone racist when they express their concerns or fears.

 

[Mr Natural]

He feels the same way about christians.

No he doesn't.

He considers Moslems dangerous whereas Christians are just amusing.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

He is right, bill maher that is.

HBO's Bill Maher had a message for Muslims on his show Friday night: Get out of "the Western world."

Maher noted the news that Mohammed (when its various spellings are combined) is the year's most popular baby name in the United Kingdom. He said:

Am I a racist to feel alarmed by that? Because I am. And it’s not because of the race, it’s because of the religion. I don’t have to apologize, do I, for not wanting the Western world to be taken over by Islam in 300 years? ... I should be alarmed, and I don't apologize for it.

One guest, MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell, responded that Maher's statement was "worse" than Juan Williams' admission of his fears of people wearing Muslim clothes on airplanes. And the writer Reihan Salam responded:

As a Reihan Salam, I'm pretty comfortable with Mohammeds. I have some uncles named Mohammed and I think that they're pretty decent guys.

None of this is particularly surprising coming from Maher, who, while he likes to present himself as an equal opportunity religion-basher (see his movie "Religulous"), has long singled out Muslims (and, for that matter, Arabs).

Bill Maher to Muslims: Go away - War Room - Salon.com

I may not be fond of Bill Maher, but on this I totally agree with him.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Just confirmed: Bill Maher has bigger balls then most liberals and even some conservatives

Bill Maher to Muslims: Go away - War Room - Salon.com

 

[Sunni Man]

This is one of the only times I have agreed with him. And why is it "racist" to not want your country (AMERICA) to turn into a muslim middle eastern type society? It wasn't founded with those principles in mind and the constitution and sharia law are very different. I am getting really tired of the thought police calling everyone racist when they express their concerns or fears.

The Constitution and Sharia Law are totally compatible.

The Constitution deals with the Rights of citizens in reguards to an oppressive Government.

Sharia Law is mainly about Civil and Criminal laws.

 

[Mini 14]

Well, call me an old dog, because I still say "fuck Bill Maher" and hope he gets hit by a rusty bus the next time he's on the street.

 

[blu]

This is one of the only times I have agreed with him. And why is it "racist" to not want your country (AMERICA) to turn into a muslim middle eastern type society? It wasn't founded with those principles in mind and the constitution and sharia law are very different. I am getting really tired of the thought police calling everyone racist when they express their concerns or fears.

The Constitution and Sharia Law are totally compatible.

The Constitution deals with the Rights of citizens in reguards to an oppressive Government.

Sharia Law is mainly about Civil and Criminal laws.

Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

how is sharia's punishments comparable to this?

 

[Sunni Man]

This is one of the only times I have agreed with him. And why is it "racist" to not want your country (AMERICA) to turn into a muslim middle eastern type society? It wasn't founded with those principles in mind and the constitution and sharia law are very different. I am getting really tired of the thought police calling everyone racist when they express their concerns or fears.

The Constitution and Sharia Law are totally compatible.

The Constitution deals with the Rights of citizens in reguards to an oppressive Government.

Sharia Law is mainly about Civil and Criminal laws.

Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

how is sharia's punishments comparable to this?

Are you talking about the death penalty?

If so, the Constitution doesn't address methods to be used.

That is a decision that basically has been left to the state courts.

 

[blu]

The Constitution and Sharia Law are totally compatible.

The Constitution deals with the Rights of citizens in reguards to an oppressive Government.

Sharia Law is mainly about Civil and Criminal laws.

Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

how is sharia's punishments comparable to this?

Are you talking about the death penalty?

specifically the punishments for a wide range of behaviour including lashes and stoning.

the other issues as well including needing multiple witnesses to adulerty if the man does it or rape / abuse of a women etc that aren't compatible.

also sharias restrictions on drinking, gambling, and sex both inside and outside of marriage are not compatible.

there are a bunch more but i think those can stand for now

 

[hjmick]

Does anyone else remember when Maher was funny?

 

[Sunni Man]

Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

how is sharia's punishments comparable to this?

Are you talking about the death penalty?

specifically the punishments for a wide range of behaviour including lashes and stoning.

the other issues as well including needing multiple witnesses to adulerty if the man does it or rape / abuse of a women etc that aren't compatible.

also sharias restrictions on drinking, gambling, and sex both inside and outside of marriage are not compatible.

there are a bunch more but i think those can stand for now

Non of those are addressed in the Constitution.

These are all items that both Federal and State courts decide on.

 

[blu]

Are you talking about the death penalty?

specifically the punishments for a wide range of behaviour including lashes and stoning.

the other issues as well including needing multiple witnesses to adulerty if the man does it or rape / abuse of a women etc that aren't compatible.

also sharias restrictions on drinking, gambling, and sex both inside and outside of marriage are not compatible.

there are a bunch more but i think those can stand for now

Non of those are addressed in the Constitution.

These are all items that both Federal and State courts decide on.

cruel and unusual punishment, which both lashing and stoning would fall under, is certainly a constitutional issue.

the multiple witnesses law falls under the guise of the 5th and 6th amendment as well

 

[California Girl]

This is one of the only times I have agreed with him. And why is it "racist" to not want your country (AMERICA) to turn into a muslim middle eastern type society? It wasn't founded with those principles in mind and the constitution and sharia law are very different. I am getting really tired of the thought police calling everyone racist when they express their concerns or fears.

The Constitution and Sharia Law are totally compatible.

The Constitution deals with the Rights of citizens in reguards to an oppressive Government.

Sharia Law is mainly about Civil and Criminal laws.

Mainly doesn't cut it.

This is the United States of America. We live under one system and one system only. No one wants to stop you from worshiping as you see fit. We have freedom of religion.... RELIGION. Not legal systems. OK? Don't ask us to support Sharia Law in the US.

Build your mosques - anywhere you choose - including GZ - and ignore the moral arguments against that particular building in that particular place.... if that is what you choose... but be clear. Sharia law is not, nor will it ever be, acceptable to us as your fellow countrymen. I don't 'tolerate' Muslims - I accept them. In return, you accept the laws of this country.

 

[Sunni Man]

specifically the punishments for a wide range of behaviour including lashes and stoning.

the other issues as well including needing multiple witnesses to adulerty if the man does it or rape / abuse of a women etc that aren't compatible.

also sharias restrictions on drinking, gambling, and sex both inside and outside of marriage are not compatible.

there are a bunch more but i think those can stand for now

Non of those are addressed in the Constitution.

These are all items that both Federal and State courts decide on.

cruel and unusual punishment, which both lashing and stoning would fall under, is certainly a constitutional issue.

the multiple witnesses law falls under the guise of the 5th and 6th amendment as well

Both of these items would have to be ruled on by the Courts.

We currently have executions by lethal injection, with Utah allowing firing squad and hanging.

So stoning or beheading are within bounds of current capital punishment.

Again, the Constitution doesn't address methods of punishment.

Fed and State Courts decide what is cruel and unusual.

 

[blu]

Non of those are addressed in the Constitution.

These are all items that both Federal and State courts decide on.

cruel and unusual punishment, which both lashing and stoning would fall under, is certainly a constitutional issue.

the multiple witnesses law falls under the guise of the 5th and 6th amendment as well

Both of these items would have to be ruled on by the Courts.

We currently have executions by lethal injection, with Utah allowing firing squad and hanging.

So stoning or beheading are within bounds of current capital punishment.

Again, the Constitution doesn't address methods of punishment.

Fed and State Courts decide what is cruel and unusual.

no they wouldn't, there is already precendent for both not to be allowed.

that men routinely go to jail on rape charges with no witness to a rape but the women being raped shows that the idea of multiple witnesses of sharia is incompatible.

similarly, cruel and unusual involves deaths that are meant to be painless and instant. stonings are certainly not that and lashes for non-capital punishment is unacceptable as we have no allowance for physical punishment for non-death penalty sentences.