Bill Maher Absolutely Crushes Charlie Rose For Comparing Islam To Christianity

[Bush92]

It's better to go to the link and watch the short video.

Bill is correct, as always.

BTW - that link, and that headline is from....FOXNATION.com!

Actually Maher is wrong on this, Rose's poor performance notwithstanding; Maher's argument fails as a fallacy, a gross over-generalization of a complex religious, cultural, and social issue.

The vast majority of Muslims do not support the radical extremism practiced by the criminals and terrorists who are incidentally Muslim, nor does Islamic doctrine or dogma condone such practices – as indeed Islamic leaders around the world have condemned the violence.

Moreover, most of the practices that exist in the 'Islamic world,' such as the treatment of women and criminals, predate Islam, and reflect ancient cultural and social practices that are not necessarily Islamic.

The fact that there are millions of Muslims in North America, Europe, the Indian Subcontinent, and Southeast Asia who do not practice the violence and extremism of the radicals renders the notion that Islam is an 'evil religion' objectively incorrect.

Excellent!!!

You quote Cat Stevens.

 

[aaronleland]

Maher was spot on. Islam is all about hate.

I wouldn't call it hate, as much as irrationality. Christianity went through it's own period of that. The difference is that Christianity altered it's beliefs as they discovered more about the world. Many Muslims seem to have no problem with remaining in the Dark Ages.

 

[Carla_Danger]

It's better to go to the link and watch the short video.

Bill is correct, as always.

BTW - that link, and that headline is from....FOXNATION.com!

Actually Maher is wrong on this, Rose's poor performance notwithstanding; Maher's argument fails as a fallacy, a gross over-generalization of a complex religious, cultural, and social issue.

The vast majority of Muslims do not support the radical extremism practiced by the criminals and terrorists who are incidentally Muslim, nor does Islamic doctrine or dogma condone such practices – as indeed Islamic leaders around the world have condemned the violence.

Moreover, most of the practices that exist in the 'Islamic world,' such as the treatment of women and criminals, predate Islam, and reflect ancient cultural and social practices that are not necessarily Islamic.

The fact that there are millions of Muslims in North America, Europe, the Indian Subcontinent, and Southeast Asia who do not practice the violence and extremism of the radicals renders the notion that Islam is an 'evil religion' objectively incorrect.

Excellent!!!

You quote Cat Stevens.

There's nothing wrong with (Cat Stevens) Yusuf Islam, and it's a beautiful song.


.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I know who John Locke is.

I'm a life long liberal.

I'm sorry. I made a mistake. I misread your post. I thought you were saying that America was founded on christianity.

I was pointing out that the colony that the pilgrims founded was a theocratic monarchy. That the United States isn't.

No problem. The United States was not founded on Christianity as such, but the theory of legitimate government espoused in the Declaration of Independence, the foundational doctrine for the Constitution of the United States, was extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought. Divorce the Constitution from the construct of the inalienable rights of nature and nature's God, you can make the Constitution mean just about anything you please, as leftists, or progressives, have been demonstrating since the 1920s especially. The mistake that many make regarding this truth is to imagine that the Deists among the Christian Founders were at odds with the notion that the United States was founded on Judeo-Christianity . . . in this sense. Wrong. The Deists and the Christians of the Anglo-American Enlightenment almost universally embraced the ethical teachings and, consequently, the sociopolitical ramifications thereof. They just didn't universally embrace the mystical teachings of Judeo-Christianity. That's all.

Also, bear in mind that the various colonial theocracies of the Pilgrims were essentially organized communities of free-association amongst other colonial charters. With regard to the collective body politic, Judeo-Christianity, relative to the sociopolitical ramifications of free will, asserts universal religious liberty, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, free-association and so on. . . . In other words, beyond the government's duty to uphold the imperatives of natural law as it promotes the liberty and provides for the general welfare of the people, defends the people against the violations of the social contract perpetrated by domestic renegades and/or the assaults perpetrated on the same by foreign enemies, Judeo-Christianity holds that the government is to be ideologically neutral.

Let me share something with you recently posted by PoliticalChic on another thread regarding the essence of Judeo-Christianity's sociopolitical ramifications:

Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America.

Tocqueville compared this aspect to Islam:​

Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods (Tocqueville, "Democracy in America," vol.2, p. 23.).​

This is the very same understanding that Locke, Carlyle, Burke, the Founders, both Deists and Christians, the American people and many others had about the teachings of Judeo-Christianity relative to limited, republican government.

 

[Jroc]

Christianity had its periods of murder and genocide to help it get to where it is now.

And yet, Christians mock Islam for doing the same.
​

it's the 21 century genius not the middle ages....You liberals are so pathetic

Islam is only 1500 years old.

How were Christians behaving 1500 years after Christ?

It's not 1500 years after Christ ..Get a grip genius

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Even most Christians do not consider Jefferson a Christian. In many of his letters, he denounced the superstitions of Christianity. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Although Jefferson did admire the morality of Jesus, Jefferson did not think him divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus. In a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."

So?

His beliefs regarding the mystical teachings of Judeo-Christianity are not relevant to the ethical teachings of Judeo-Christianity and to the sociopolitical ramifications thereof, which both Deists and Christians of the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism embraced. That's the only thing that matters here. Those who wish to estrange this nation from its founding ethos routinely imagine a mountain out of this molehill, this utterly moot historical observation. It simply has no bearing on Lockean political theory, the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism or to the Augustinian line of natural law.

Many years ago, fed up with the baby talk of a leftist professor of history, I raised my hand and told him flat out that if Jefferson were alive today and heard his claptrap regarding the supposed irrelevancy of Judeo-Christianity to the founding ethos of this nation, Jefferson would slap him silly and send him to his room. I got a C from that guy in spite of the fact that I gave him A work. That was one of the three Cs I got at university. The others I got in advanced calculus and trig, as I reached the limit of what my cerebral genetics could do in that arena.

On the other hand, I don't agree with the assertion that America is a Christian nation or was founded on Christianity as such. The assertion that America was founded on the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought is not exactly the same idea. To understand what I mean by this, see post #84 and my post below this one.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Good catch...it's a shame that "property" was replaced by "pursuit of happiness". That wordsmithing has caused a lot of mischief.

The ideologues of Hegelian progressivism—the so-called liberals of post-modern political culture—have erased virtually all traces of this nation's founding ethos from the history books in the state schools.

This is disastrous!

I know that some of you, no doubt, are weary of my incessant reiterations regarding the tangible limits of legitimate governmental power and the origins of this nation's founding ethos, but it is due to the widespread ignorance in American today of these things that we are losing our freedom. Ultimately, the people are responsible for checking overweening governmental power. Erase these imperatives from the American consciousness and the Republic of limited government will be lost to us.

That's why I do it, as even a number of conservatives and libertarians on this forum have lost their way, and a few of them have even thought to challenge me concerning the tangible realities of natural law . . . even though they known when their life, liberty or property are being violated. In practical terms, that's all it comes down to. Lockeans don't do ethereal philosophizing. Folks who violate the life, the liberty or the property of others know damn well they had better be prepared to fight or flee.

Locke's triadic construct regarding the essence of the inalienable rights of natural law—life, liberty and private property—was common knowledge in Great Britain and America for decades before and after the Revolution. That pursuit of happiness was a term of art alluding to Lock's foundational labor theory of property was common knowledge. As I said in the above, Jefferson is not the origin of that term of art! That Jefferson was merely paraphrasing Locke's triadic construct and reiterating Locke's assertion that God, not the state, is the Source and Guarantor of human rights was common knowledge. That's why they're inalienable! And of course, in his turn, Locke was merely reiterating what Augustine and the Protestant Reformationists declared about the imperatives of natural law and those of nature's God.

Allow me to clarify a few more items as well.

Christianity didn't have to go through any reformation in order to serve as the foundation for the democratization of the West, and the political thought of the Enlightenment is not monolithic. The Reformation, which made the Enlightenment possible, was merely the second breakout of biblical Christianity that had been suppressed by the by the Roman Catholic Church for centuries.

Aside from the constructs of Le Gendrean laissez-faire, popularized by Vincent de Gournay, and Montesquieu's theory of separation of powers, there's not much more to recommend about the sociopolitical theory of Continental Europe from the Enlightenment relative to the constructs of limited republican government and the inalienable rights of natural law, except, of course, for the Augustinian-Calvinist tradition of natural law handed down to Locke who perfected it in terms of civil government, albeit, as directly extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought as well, which served as his ontological justification for the following:

(1) The inalienable rights of the people under natural law and the concomitant principle of limited government.

Conservatives and libertarians of classical liberalism stop repeating Lefty's nonsense about how these rights are not absolute when talking about the exercise of legitimate governmental power relative to the collective interactions of the body politic under the terms of the social contract and the inherent boundary of the people's inalienable rights. I don't recall the leftist Senator's name, but he claimed in a dispute with Senator Cruz, "Everybody knows these rights aren't absolute."

Bull!

Inalienable rights are absolute! Period. The boundary of their expression merely goes to the fence that marks the territory of your neighbor's inalienable rights. In other words, there's no such thing as an inalienable right to violate the rights of others. Analogy: I can shout "Fire!" anywhere and at anytime I please, except, of course, when doing so would constitute an imposition on the life, the liberty or the property of others. That's all.

(And the government sure as hell has no legitimate right to prohibit the ownership of or limit the number of militia-grade weapons, i.e., semi-automatic long rifles, the people may own, let alone limit the amount of ammunition the people may own or the size of the magazines the people may use, which was the issue in the aforementioned dispute.)

The legitimate cultural/sociopolitical expressions of human nature do not and cannot violate the rights of others. As natural rights are inalienable and, thus, absolute, they do not cease to exist when one steps into the public arena.

Cultural Marxists, pc space cadets and multiculturalists, don't have the right to not be offended. There's no such thing. The essence of liberty is ideological discrimination/dissent. The only right leftists, especially the atheists among them, exercise when they vie to suppress the legitimate cultural/sociopolitical expressions of human nature via governmentally imposed civil rights/protections beyond the fundamental concerns of political rights is that of might.


(2) The right of the people, indeed, the duty of the people, to overthrow usurpative government.

The latter is an idolatrous usurpation of God's rightful place and the prerogatives of free will. Judeo-Christianity emphasizes the dignity of the individual over the mundane concerns of the collective. The right of revolt is the ultimate expression of the inalienable rights of the people and the ultimate check, backed by an armed citizenry, against usurpative government.


(3) The repudiation of the divine right of kings.



(4) The separation of church and state.

Surprise! The only legitimate rendition of this construct from the Reformation, carried over to the Enlightenment, is that of the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism extrapolated from the New Testament of the Bible! This constraint is exerted by the people against the state. It's not the other way around, as the bulk of the Continental European thinkers of the Enlightenment would have it.

Rousseau's/Hegel's bastardized, collectivistic construct of separation (that espoused by the pitchfork-wielding Jacobins of the French Revolution and the mindless Bolsheviks of the Russian Revolution) and the Anglo-American construct of separation of the Republic of the United States of America are not the same thing.

Lefty doesn't separate church and state. Rather, Lefty vies to impose his "church" as he conflates the distinction between the common/neutral concerns of civil government with his collectivist penchant for the mobocratic rule of normative relativism/secular humanism. Essentially, Lefty's church is the state schools, and the leftward-leaning teachers and professors thereof are his church's priests and priestesses. Further, Lefty's construct of public accommodation, which conflates the distinction between the benign morphological traits/features of nature with the ideological/behavioral inclinations of some is his missionary outreach, the program by which he vies to condition Americans to accept the suppression of the prerogatives of free-association and private property.​

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I virtually never agree with Maher, but I appreciate his opinion. He is not afraid to call out his own. Your comment about it being on Foxnation. Why so surprised? Fox is more tolerant of differing opinions than you think.

Yes. In this instance Maher has it right, sans his nonsense about science and Judeo-Christianity's historical claims regarding miraculous events. It's always fun to observe the atheist's denial of the very things that go to the demonstration of God's existence, i.e., His power, as Creator, to integrate new things into the fabric of His creation that are thereafter subject to the physical laws of nature. Think about that for a moment. The atheist demands proof, but then scoffs at the possibility of the very kind of things that constitute the proof he's demands. The atheist is a ridiculous creature. Hello! The miraculous events of biblical history are child's play next to the creation of the universe. Atheists are just too dense, addled by their faux sense of intellectual sophistication, to see the universe for what it is: a miracle.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I know who John Locke is.

I'm a life long liberal.

I'm sorry. I made a mistake. I misread your post. I thought you were saying that America was founded on christianity.

I was pointing out that the colony that the pilgrims founded was a theocratic monarchy. That the United States isn't.

By the way, Dana, I wasn't laughing at you in the above. I was just amused by the mention of Pilgrims given what I actually had in mind, and what is now even more funny is that your post received 2 Agrees, 1 like and 1 informative. That adds up to four confused people, who unlike you, probably do not know their history or the pertinent relationship between Judeo-Christianity and this nation's founding ethos.

 

[Esmeralda]

It's better to go to the link and watch the short video.

Bill is correct, as always.

BTW - that link, and that headline is from....FOXNATION.com!

Maher is completely wrong.

I like Bill Maher, but I don't agree with him on this issue. I don't think it's reasonable to lump over a billion people into one group.

Crazy Evangelicals certainly don't represent all Christian's.

.

He's a Jew. He's obviously prejudiced against Muslims, as Muslims are prejudiced against Jews. It's a two way street. I doubt he's spent much time, if any, living and working in a Muslim country, having them as neighbors, colleagues, friends, etc. That's my experience, 7 years of it, living and working in Muslim countries with the vast majority of my colleagues and clients being Muslim, with my neighbors being Muslim, with my acquaintances and friends being Muslim. His sweeping generalization that deep down, they are all violent and that Islam is a violent religion displays his intellectual dishonesty. He's dead wrong.

 

[Bush92]

It's better to go to the link and watch the short video.

Bill is correct, as always.

BTW - that link, and that headline is from....FOXNATION.com!

Maher is completely wrong.

I like Bill Maher, but I don't agree with him on this issue. I don't think it's reasonable to lump over a billion people into one group.

Crazy Evangelicals certainly don't represent all Christian's.

.

He's a Jew. He's obviously prejudiced against Muslims, as Muslims are prejudiced against Jews. It's a two way street. I doubt he's spent much time, if any, living and working in a Muslim country, having them as neighbors, colleagues, friends, etc. That's my experience, 7 years of it, living and working in Muslim countries with the vast majority of my colleagues and clients being Muslim, with my neighbors being Muslim, with my acquaintances and friends being Muslim. His sweeping generalization that deep down, they are all violent and that Islam is a violent religion displays his intellectual dishonesty. He's dead wrong.

He is correct.

 

[Bush92]

ISIS execution videos strikingly similar - CNN.com
Such a peaceful religion.

 

[September]

Why do you Mundanes make it seem as if religions have to be about "peace"? Fuck peace.

​

 

[Esmeralda]

It's better to go to the link and watch the short video.

Bill is correct, as always.

BTW - that link, and that headline is from....FOXNATION.com!

Maher is completely wrong.

I like Bill Maher, but I don't agree with him on this issue. I don't think it's reasonable to lump over a billion people into one group.

Crazy Evangelicals certainly don't represent all Christian's.

.

He's a Jew. He's obviously prejudiced against Muslims, as Muslims are prejudiced against Jews. It's a two way street. I doubt he's spent much time, if any, living and working in a Muslim country, having them as neighbors, colleagues, friends, etc. That's my experience, 7 years of it, living and working in Muslim countries with the vast majority of my colleagues and clients being Muslim, with my neighbors being Muslim, with my acquaintances and friends being Muslim. His sweeping generalization that deep down, they are all violent and that Islam is a violent religion displays his intellectual dishonesty. He's dead wrong.

He is correct.

No he isn't. You don't know anything about it.

 

[Esmeralda]

ISIS execution videos strikingly similar - CNN.com
Such a peaceful religion.

This does not have to do with the religion: it has to do with extremists, terrorists, fanatics, and horror. Not anything to do with religion. These people have hijacked Islam.

 

[gipper]

I know who John Locke is.

I'm a life long liberal.

I'm sorry. I made a mistake. I misread your post. I thought you were saying that America was founded on christianity.

I was pointing out that the colony that the pilgrims founded was a theocratic monarchy. That the United States isn't.

No problem. The United States was not founded on Christianity as such, but the theory of legitimate government espoused in the Declaration of Independence, the foundational doctrine for the Constitution of the United States, was extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought. Divorce the Constitution from the construct of the inalienable rights of nature and nature's God, you can make the Constitution mean just about anything you please, as leftists, or progressives, have been demonstrating since the 1920s especially. The mistake that many make regarding this truth is to imagine that the Deists among the Christian Founders were at odds with the notion that the United States was founded on Judeo-Christianity . . . in this sense. Wrong. The Deists and the Christians of the Anglo-American Enlightenment almost universally embraced the ethical teachings and, consequently, the sociopolitical ramifications thereof. They just didn't universally embrace the mystical teachings of Judeo-Christianity. That's all.

Also, bear in mind that the various colonial theocracies of the Pilgrims were essentially organized communities of free-association amongst other colonial charters. With regard to the collective body politic, Judeo-Christianity, relative to the sociopolitical ramifications of free will, asserts universal religious liberty, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, free-association and so on. . . . In other words, beyond the government's duty to uphold the imperatives of natural law as it promotes the liberty and provides for the general welfare of the people, defends the people against the violations of the social contract perpetrated by domestic renegades and/or the assaults perpetrated on the same by foreign enemies, Judeo-Christianity holds that the government is to be ideologically neutral.

Let me share something with you recently posted by PoliticalChic on another thread regarding the essence of Judeo-Christianity's sociopolitical ramifications:

Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America.

Tocqueville compared this aspect to Islam:​

Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods (Tocqueville, "Democracy in America," vol.2, p. 23.).​

This is the very same understanding that Locke, Carlyle, Burke, the Founders, both Deists and Christians, the American people and many others had about the teachings of Judeo-Christianity relative to limited, republican government.

When the idea of Natural Rights is completely discredited, which the Left has long been a proponent of with their insistent ridicule and condemnation of Christianity, the concept of individual liberty and limited government can no longer exist.

 

[Stephanie]

What I don't get is why anyone would take what that sanctimonious little jerk has to say about anything

I see he's again spewing how a lot of the people don't like Obama and it's definitely because of his skin color. Who made him the king of knowing what everyone in this country feels? He sits in his ivory tower and cast stones about people he hasn't mingled with for years.

 

[Stephanie]

Here's more of the sanctimonious jerk the knower of all things as he's spew from his Ivory Throne and laughs all the way to bank. while saying, man that P.T Barnum was so right

SNIP:
Imagine how much we’d hate him if he wasn’t half-white?
Transcript via Newsbusters


MAHER: Absolutely. Every president, of course, at the time, and he’s dealing obviously with things that no other president had to ever deal with.
CHARLIE ROSE: First the economy and now…
MAHER: Right.
ROSE: …ISIS.
MAHER: And the first black president. They hate him in a way they never hated before.
ROSE: How much of it do you think is that?
MAHER: A considerable amount. They’ll never recognize it or admit it, but it is that. There’s a certain in your face, in your space disrespect that this president has had to put up with. Like being hackled at the State of the Union or the governor of Arizona when she stuck her finger in his face or when Bill O’Reilly interviews him and he interrupts him every two seconds. You don’t do that to a president. And they just hate him from the get-go, you know.

Keep reading…

all of it here:
Far-Left Douche Bill Maher Obama 8217 s Foes 8220 Hate Him In A Way They Never Hated Before 8221 Because He 8217 s Black 8230 Weasel Zippers

 

[Carla_Danger]

Islam is only 1500 years old.

How were Christians behaving 1500 years after Christ?

Using your retard logic, Scientologists should be totally justified if they want to go start crucifying people in public. You are fucking stupid.

Where did I say Muslims were justified in their barbarism, dope?

You didn't. And no one here is justifying terrorism.


.

 

[Carla_Danger]

What I don't get is why anyone would take what that sanctimonious little jerk has to say about anything

I see he's again spewing how a lot of the people don't like Obama and it's definitely because of his skin color. Who made him the king of knowing what everyone in this country feels? He sits in his ivory tower and cast stones about people he hasn't mingled with for years.

Surely you don't deny that racism runs rampant in your party??? Hell, it's all over this forum.