Bob is posting Christopher Hitchens videos?!? Have the wolves begun living with the lambs!?!
Do you know what he said about Christian fundamentalism @bobknight33? It’s not flattering.

As a side note, and on topic with the video, every terrorist act perpetrated in America since 2017 has been committed by a right wing “Christian”.
The United States Department of Homeland Security reported in October 2020 that white supremacists (all right wing Christians) posed the top domestic terrorism threat, which FBI director Christopher Wray confirmed in March 2021, noting that the bureau had elevated the threat to the same level as ISIS.
A 2017 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that out of the 85 deadly extremist incidents which had occurred since September 11, 2001, white supremacist extremist groups were responsible for 73%, while radical Islamist extremists were responsible for 27%. The total number of deaths which was caused by each group was about the same, though 41% of the deaths were attributable to radical Islamists and they all occurred in a single event — the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting in which 49 people were killed by a lone gunman. No deaths were attributed to left-wing groups.
-wiki

A lot of people probably don't remember that this guy was convicted of fraud and conspiracy by a federal grand jury in 1989 and sentenced to 45 years in prison, not to mention the allegations of drugging and rape by Jessica Hahn. This is the man whom Jerry Falwell (another televangelist crook) called "the greatest scab and cancer on the face of Christianity in 2,000 years of church history."

And yet here he is today, sitting in his white satin throne surrounded by sycophants and fellow charlatans, peddling salvation from a fake apocalypse to the poor and gullible one $175 survival bucket at a time. Chris Hitchens was right... "you can get away with the most extraordinary offenses to morality and to truth in this country if you will just get yourself called 'reverend'."

I think Sam Harris is awesome, so there was a lot of interesting stuff in there even though it came from before the election.

I agree with everything he said about who Trump is; his motivations (or lack thereof), narcissism, potential psychological issues, etc. Yet I disagree with his threat analysis. I still think that Trump's "balloon flying around randomly" presidency seems like it could easily be better than a Clinton presidency.

Trump will cause some incidental damage with his chaotic randomness. But basically, it will be 4 years (please) of loud noises and flashing lights that mostly goes nowhere. Hillary, with all the baggage and rumors etc. that may not true, is still in general the kind of person that people like Hitchens said she was. She's savvy, subtle, and frankly dangerous. And she's extremely well connected. When Trump randomly bungles his way into some big screw-up, we're going to hear about it. If Hillary weaseled into some dirty back-door stuff that could cause real long-term problems, there's a good chance we'd never find out about it.

Then he mentioned the "Trump vs random US citizen" argument. Jesus, I'd have taken random US citizen in a heartbeat over Trump or Clinton. Hell, I think that would be a fantastic way to call a mulligan and replace every last member of our corrupt, incompetent, and entrenched congress...

Hitchens attacks the left, as well. In case you conservatives feel like shying away from his bias. His bias is history, as difficult as that is to swallow. History is filled with inconvenient truths.

Interesting what he says about the war in Iraq... If only he had lived a little longer to see what it lead to. Will it turn out well in the end?

*promote

https://videosift.com/video/Thomas-Paine-Christopher-Hitchens-Lecture-Full
https://videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-On-NPR-discussing-Thomas-Paine-2007

@transmorpher
so when i point out the historical implications,i am somehow automatically disregarding the inherent problems within islam itself?

and your counter is to not only NOT counter,but refuse to acknowledge the historical ramifications,because that is some political,agenda driven-drivel.

that the ONLY acceptable argument is to focus on the religion itself,and ignore all other considerations,because,again..just tools to be used and abused by the left to fuel the far right.

am i getting this right so far?

that to include history is actually the path that stops that path to move forward?

and here i was still hanging on to that tired old adage "those who refuse to recognize history,are doomed to repeat it".

i am glad that you found those authors so respectful and admired their analysis and dedication to research,but you didn't even bother to use one of THEIR arguments.you simply made claims and then told us you read some books.

dude..now i am just kinda...sad for you.

i am sorry that you are oblivious to your own myopia,and that you are coming across as condescending.yet really haven't posted anything of value that you have to contribute.

you are just pointing the finger and accusing people of their arguments being dishonest,when it appears to me that everyone here has taken the time to try to talk to you,and your replies have been fairly static.

hitchens tried to make the case,and failed in my opinion(i am not the only one),but a case i suspect you are referencing.that even if we took the history of neoliberalism,colonialism and empire building OFF the table.islam would STILL be a gaggle of extremist radicals seeking a one world caliphate.

which is why i referenced dearborn michigan.
it is why i mentioned kabul afghanistan.

we are talking about the radicalization of muslims.
why are they growing?
where do they come from?
why do they seem to be getting more and more extreme?

which many here have attempted to answer,including myself.

but YOU are addressing and entirely different question:
'what is wrong with islam as a religion"

well,a LOT in fact and i already mentioned islams dire need for a reformation,but it goes further than that.you see the epistemology of both judiaism and christianity have been thoroughly argued over and over....and over..that what you find today is a pretty succinct refinement of their respective theologies.

agree/disagree..maybe you are atheist or agnostic,that is not the point.the point is that the so-called "finished' product has pretty clear philosophies,that adherents can easily follow.

for judaism this is in large part to the talmud,which is a living document,where even to this day rabbis debate and argue the finer details.not to be confused with holy scripture the torah.

christianity was forced to acknowledge its failings and flaws,because the theology was weak,and was becoming more and more an amalgamation of other religious beliefs,but most of all,and i think most importantly,the in-fighting with the vatican and the church of england had exposed this weakness,and christianity was on the brink of collapse due to its own hubris and arrogance.

they had no central authority.no leadership that the people could come to in order to clarify scripture.

so thanks to the bravery of martin luther,who risked being labeled a heretic,challenged the political power,which in those days was religious,and so began the process of reformation.

and also ended the dark ages,and western civilization stepped into the "age of enlightenment".

islam has had no such reformation,though is in desperate need of one.they had no council of nicea to decide what was holy canon and what was not,which is why you have more gospels of jesus in the quran than you do in the actual bible.

the king james bible has over 38,000 mis-translations in the old testament alone,whereas the quran has....well...we don't know,because nobody challenges the veracity of the quran.

am i winning you over to my side yet?
still think i am leftist "stooge' and "useful idiot"?

look man,
words are inert.
they are simply symbols.
they are meaningless until we lay eyes on them and GIVE them meaning.

so if you are a violent,war-loving person-------your religion will be violent,and warmongering.

if you are a peaceful and loving person----then your religion will be peaceful and loving.

the problem is NOT religion itself,and i know my atheists really don't want to hear that,but it's true.religion is going nowhere.

the problem is fundamentalist thinking.
the problem is viewing holy scripture as the unerring word of god.
which is why you see creationists attempt,in vain,to convince the rest of us that the earth is only 6,000 yrs old,and their only proof or evidence is a book.

so we all point and laugh.....how silly..6,000yrs old.crazy talk.

but WHY is the creationist so adamant in his attempts to defend his holy text?
because to accept the reality that the earth is not 6,000 yrs old but 14 billion yrs old,is to go against the word of god,and god is unerring,and if the bible is the word of god....and god is unerring.........

now lets go back to dearborn michigan.
if hitchens and harris are RIGHT,then that relatively stable community of muslims are really just extremists waiting for the angels to blow their horn and announce the time for JIHAD!!!

and,to be fair,that is a possibility,but a small one.

why?
because of something the majority of christians experience here in the states,canada,europe,australia...they experience pushback.

does this mean that america does not have radical christians in our midst?

oh lawdy do we ever.

ok ok..i am doing it again.
me and my pedantic self.

suffice to say:
islam IS a problem,even taken as a singular dynamic,that religion has serious issues.
but they are not the ONLY problem,which is what many of here have been trying to talk about.

ALL religions have a problem,and that problem is fundamentalism.which for christianity is a fairly new phenom (less than 100 yrs old) whereas islam has suffered from this mental malady pretty much since its inception.

ok..thats it..im done.pooped,whipped and in need of sleep.

hope i clarified some things with ya mate,but i swear to god if you respond with a reiteration of all your comments.i am going to hunt you down,and BEAT you with a bible,and not that wimpy king james either!
the hefty scofield study bible!

@transmorpher
i would say we disagree but i cant even say that.
you didn't counter ANYTHING i said,you just accused me of being dishonest.

which has been pretty much your position this entire thread.i thought i was doing you a solid by laying down some history,which helps explain some facets of radical islam.

notice my wording:facets.

do you realize that i taught comparative religion and cultural religious history?
do you realize just how foolish you appear to me right now?

you want to counter my argument....by not countering my argument,and implying i am being dishonest.

ok sweetheart,
i think i see the problem here.
YOU are seeing the dynamic through a singular lens.

you want to ignore the historical implications and simply focus on islam itself?
ok,that's fine.
i find it stupid,short sighted and incredibly biased,but whatever..

yoooou have an agenda to get to don't ya?

ok.
then let us just strip the dynamic of ALL historical implications and focus solely on islam itself.
(which is why you mentioned Maajid Nawaz, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, Hitchens )
you clever clever boy...
i see what you did there../ruffles hair.
you are SO adorable when you are being myopic and lazy!

so what would you like to discuss?
how islam is in desperate need of a reformation?
or maybe how the original intent of islam from a spiritual perspective was hi-jacked by his cousins and turned into a political conquest machine,that subjugated ...

you know what?
why am i bothering?
you have revealed yourself to be a condescending,sanctimonious know-nothing.who read a couple of books and thinks he 'get's it".

no dude..you read sam harris.

look man,
i am not here defending islam,because as religions go,islam is kinda shit.
but to ignore how neoliberalism and american interventionism have amplified,and worsened and already crappy situation.

that's not even intellectually dishonest.
that is just plain lazy.

whats next?
you gonna do some 'thought experiments" and try to argue that at least america's "intentions" were nobel?

you WERE! weren't you!!

and this little revisionist nugget "Those countries have had problems long before any western intervention."

oooh really?
because,unlike YOU,i actually know the history of that region.
so if you want we can compare how some cities and countries were considered "progressive" and even "liberal",and even some (granted,only a few) that were considered "secular" *gasp*.

how about this,instead of me repeatedly taking you to the woodshed to give ya some of that "learnin",how about you just go look up the history of kabul,afghanistan.

that's it.just one city.

and then come back and tell me that neoliberalism,colonialism and good old fashioned empire building hasn't been a major force in the rise in fundamentalism and radicalization in the middle east.

it looks like you really ARE going to make go all the way back to the dark ages!

and dude..seriously..hitchens ROCKED,but sam harris?
no..juuust no.
i don't do apologists as a counter argument.

edit:i will say that i agree with this "There are actual muslims (such as Maajid Nawaz)that say islam has a problem(especially particular strands of it), and it needs reform. Embracing the muslims who want reform is the only way forward."

you mean that islam may need a reformation?
*gasps*/clasps hands to face.
didn't i fucking already SAY that?

ah well,foiled by my pedantic ways.

Those countries have had problems long before any western intervention.

Again, this is the left being dishonest. Please stop doing it, you're only making things worse for the refugees by fueling the far right.

There are actual muslims (such as Maajid Nawaz)that say islam has a problem(especially particular strands of it), and it needs reform. Embracing the muslims who want reform is the only way forward.

EDIT: Everything you've said has been rebutted by Maajid Nawaz, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, Hitchens and so on.

I'm really only regurgetating what people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, Maajid Nawaz, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have said in their books and podcasts. So I'll direct you there, as they articulate it way better than me.
There is also http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/muslims-and-islam/ which the statistics are quite alarming, and the left choose to ignore many of these. They assume that everyone in the world is a good person, and that they would do good if they had the same opportunities. It's simply not the case.
All religions are not equal either (and I'm a staunch atheist), and neither are all cultures.

We might not have a perfect world, but it's dishonest to try to claim that everything and everyone is the same. It's dishonest to ignore that the majority of the world has decided to stop stoning gays, crucifying human rights protesters, and treating women worse than dogs. Just to name a few things.

I can't name any organisation anymore that seems to hit it consistently. Frontline is still pretty consistently good. The few print papers like NYTimes are more likely to host real journalists in amongst everything else needed to keep sales going.

Largely it's individuals, and they are running short. Some of the best access to news is stuff like Charlie Rose, and the Daily Show in Stewart's day when they would have on knowledgeable or important guests on air. Neither Charlie Rose, Jon Stewart or their guests counting strictly as journalists, but they provided great access to individuals with good or unique perspectives. Neil McDonald on CBC seems good at staying balanced, one of the few names I can throw out as having a real journalistic credibility.

For the most part though, news paper journalism seems dead. The best sources of information on subjects seems to have become relegated to authors of old fashion books. There you can still find guys like Peter Galbraith writing good insightful and informed stuff.

And of course, the late Christopher Hitchens, now you've gone and made me sad...

For as much dislike of Hitchen I have I must say this was very interesting and worthy of the watch.

*promote

Yeah, keep changing the topic and ignoring my statements.
Ours is not a pure secular democracy, even though it was intended to be one, so not as different from a theocracy as you suggest by far. (that does not mean there's no difference, it means you imply they are near opposites) Perhaps if the clear intent of the founders was the rule, we would be, but it's not.

Try having a religious discussion in the deep south as an atheist and see if you don't feel at risk for your life. In public, maybe surviveable, but get religious people together where they feel 'safe', you'll see the bile and vitriol for the 'other' come out in spades. Hitchens knew full well it was not gone, and that the 'other' was not safe, and that religion doesn't always wear the smiley face even today.
Bye.