Maher is an anti-religious bigot/troll. He shouldn't be taken seriously.

Independence for Scotland! Sean Connery and Billy Bragg can't both be wrong.

I recently stumbled upon this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Values_Survey
It is an attempt at scientifically studying the cultural differences in the world and in time. They have been doing huge surveys for decades now.

One of their conclusions is that cultural values can roughly be mapped along two axis, and it leads to this map:

As a country develops it tends to move towards the upper-right corner. A lot of islamic countries seem to have a long way to go.

They also say this about Islam:
My understanding is that someone who considers himself muslim and lacks critical thinking will tend to adhere to beliefs and values that emanate from places which are, from a western point of view, culturally backwards.

I dont think it has to do with "the essence of Islam", whatever that may be. There are ******ed things in the sacred texts of every religion. It's more about the history of the places where Islam happens to be most present.

I'd rather have more anti-religious bigots and less religious bigots.

its not like these numbers that high because they build these citys from the scratch. these numbers so high because they immigrate to these citys and have a higher fertility rate. and the districts they have the highest % are usually the worst parts of the town when it come to employment, education, crime, % of people living by welfare etc etc.


turkey is prime example of how a majority muslim state "can" develop. but thats based on history. Atatürk tried to transform the former Ottoman Empire into a modern and secular nation-state. thats unique in muslim countrys. also in modern turkey, there are huge differents between the european and the asian parts. u should check out christanity in the turkey

and all ur middle east countries, where would they be without the oil/gas?

Show me how their numbers are significantly different from other groups of people that immigrate with the same economic status.

Just off the top of my head (mainly because I just watched Gangs of New York recently), look at Irish Catholics immigrating to New York in the 1800s.

Very interesting. I'll need to read through it when I have more time. Skimming it this is the point that I'm trying to make:

Meaning people aren't in ****ty situations because of their religious beliefs. They have religious beliefs because they have ****ty situations.

Take a look at Iraq. It's been bombed by every US President since the first Bush. It's gone through a lot of different internal and external wars. Regardless of if its been justified or not, its not hard to understand why people in that country might not be feeling safe and stable.

And sure, its complicated. I'm sure religion has played a role in those conflicts as well - but I don't think there's any evidence that Islam is a particularly polarizing religion given the history of Christianity/Judaism/Others....

yeah, that movie is awesome. u want me to look at irish immigrants in new york and compare them to muslim immigrants in the late 20th and 21th century?
explaining life decisions based on economic status is the biggest **** possible imo. only because ur not raised in the top 10k doesnt gives ur any excuses. my family left their home after WW2 with nothing but there clothes, but i cant think of anyone with a criminal record. being raised relativly poor isnt a excuse in failure. or do u still see irish gangs terrorising new york.

No. I want you to look at Irish immigrants and see how irrelevant religion is as a causal factor of living conditions.

I'm guessing that you didn't study a lot of statistics in school, did you? I was going to make a joke about your writing ability but I'll assume that you're probably not a native english speaker.

There's something wrong here.

It's like you're saying that if Most American's approve, then most Christians approve.

Obviously you can't say that based on the poll. You can only say most American's approve.

The idea that Christians are more peaceful is not invalidated by your link.

75% of Americans are Christian, so it's probably a good proxy. I'd guess Christians are actually more likely to favor droning that other Americans. (Since Republicans support droning more and are more likely to be Christian.)

I'm not arguing that Christians are less peaceful, just that the majority of Christians support violence when it fits their political viewpoint.

Nearly Everyone supports violence when it supports their desire for security of liberty. How many people support killing in the name of their religion?

Just about everybody where I live.

FYP

FYP

I like how ITT Turkey was just dismissed as an example of the "Muslim world" because its too much like Europe or something. Yes, that's precisely the point!

Turkey is the 3rd largest country in Europe by population, and is 97% Muslim. Yet has a constitution which states "The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and social state governed by the rule of law..." It has been a loyal member of NATO for over 60 years. It has modern cities, universities, arts, etc.

Again--it is almost wholly Muslim with a population only behind Germany (which it will overtake in a couple years) and Russia in Europe.

But let's all ignore it when discussing whether the Muslim religion is incompatible with secular society and basic human values because that would just be more convenient to our thesis... or something.

This.

The Kurdish areas of Iraq are home to both Muslims and Christians, to see them taking up arms to fight ISIS is further proof that Muslims and non Muslims can live in peace.

Anyone who suggests that Islam is more violent then other religions is on a similar level to the folks of the 30s/40s who suggested that specifically Jews were a major problem for the world.

I can pull up arguments from folks of the past, from all around the world, who did suggest(and they claimed they had compelling evidence) that Jews, more then other groups, are a threat to the world.

btw, Bill Maher is critical of numerous religions, see his documentary, Religulous.

usa 19th century vs europe 20th/21th century. thats what u wanna compare?
the usa isnt a welfare state, never been. mid and northern europe are. people who immigrate for whatever reason arent forced to do anything and still have an okish life. and imo, thats the worst about the immigration here.

im obv not a native english speaker what statistics u talking about?
ur not living in europe do u?

I'm Christian. I do not like, nor support any killing. Period. Anywhere. Including in the Middle East.

I know of no other Christians that do, although I'm sure there are people as Bill says that do. I'm just saying that it's typical that people that are vocal to be counted as the majority when they're clearly not.

It's like saying West Boro represents all Baptists.

Not all Christians are Republican either. To me that's like saying Democrats are mostly non believers. I say that because saying that Christians are mostly Republicans is to indirectly say that Democrats must not be. By that same token, I could say that African Americans are mostly Dems, and Reps are mostly Christian so AAs must NOT be Christian. Clearly not true.

I'm just saying, don't lump us all together because as a poker player you deal with probabilities. It's just not the same.

It's not "probabilities." It's clear that most Christians support droning foreigners who might be terrorists and any collateral damage that might occur.

Your logic is way off here.

There are a lot of Christians who are anti-violence, just like there are a lot of Muslim who are anti-violence. Not enough of either, though.

I married a Muslim and am probably more entrenched in Muslim culture than anyone here (who isnt a muslim themselves obv), and I think this assessment is fairly accurate. And my experience has been with American Muslims.

Before someone attacks me, I understand the history of Christianity isn't any better, but being as objective as possible, obviously it has greatly progressed with the western world where as the Muslim world hasn't.

I don't think he hates Islam anymore than he hates Christianity being an atheist and all. He was actually donig some special hating on some of the practioners of Islam. When Charlie Rose tried to spout some moral equivalency BS to Christianity, Maher made it quite clear he was referring to some of the practitioners.

I think a good first step to convincing people you aren't stone age is to stop stoning people.

This is obviously true and yet for some reason many want to pretend it's all about failed states/education/poverty, as if Islam itself holds zero % responsibility for the horrifying atrocities being committed daily in its name.

The 9/11 hijackers were neither poor nor uneducated, and this is also true of many other Islamic terrorists.

Should be required reading on the subject.
http://pewresearch.org/files/old-ass...-americans.pdf

Christianity 'progressed' because so did its main followers. Not the other way around. It's not like the Vatican happily gave up power to secular governments as part of its 'progression'.

The 9/11 hijackers argument is bad and only valid to a simpleton.

Why are you so confident that casualty is as you assert and not at least in both directions? I have no expertise in this area and as casual observer it is hard for me to see 500 years of under performance in the Muslim world as unrelated to the religious power structure within.


Plus a bunch of this sort of stuff

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/op...is-crisis.html