Sorry, I missed the part where you "declared tribal Pakistan as being ... a separate state from Pakistan". I didn't realise we could do that.

In that case, I declare tribal USA (aka Arizona or Texas, take your pick) in every meaningful way, a separate and independent state from the USA. They're insane right wing christian nations who pretty much share the goals of fundamentalist Islam. They just have better weapons.

When do the rest of us get to drone strike the Arizona State Legislature or the Texas Board of Education?

As for Pakistan or Yemen, what do you think would happen if they declared war on the US? It would be an open invitation to be curb stomped and have haliburton run their country. The fact is, the US are drone striking their citizens and there isn't a god damn thing they can do about it.

I have no doubt that some of the people killed were evil scumbags who the world won't miss. But the video on this very page shows how often civilians were killed.

Besides aren't there laws around declaring war in the US? I'm pretty sure this is not something that should be done away with lightly.

It's about the modifiers.

Is Radical Fundamentalist Islam the worst religion on the planet? Probably, only because the Radical Fundamentalist Christians are numerically inferior. Islam isn't the problem religion. Radical Fundamentalist Islam is the problem religion and when you leave off the modifiers, you get these long arguments back and forth.

Debate, yay! Let's take this in order:

@00Scud00 You don't actually disagree with me it seems. Christian fundamentalism is (almost) as dangerous as Islam fundamentalism imo, with the tiny caveat that Jesus' message was mostly pacific passive-aggressive, à la "be nice to everyone here, me and Dad will torture our enemies in the afterlife", whereas Muhammed's was very much "death to the infidel, by our hand and/or God's" (e.g. s2:191-3; s4:89; 5:33; 9:52, etc). As for nation-building, it is more rooted in Islam - if only by virtue of being what their holiest figure did, contrary to the "kingdom-of-heaven-is-not-on-earth" Jesus (of course, Christianity's inherent One Truth totalitarianism is, as history shows, a perfect backup ideology for colonizing and war-weilding as well.
Of course people growing up with Islam will, for the most part, adhere to the good and ignore (sadly, instead of revolting against) the evil, just like with any other religion. That does not change the inherent wrongness and dangerousness of the ideology itself.
"You're condemning an entire belief system and billions of Muslims based on a statistically small group of whackjobs, doesn't sound very scientific to me. the comparatively greater (observable and quantifiable) numbers of threats/acts of violence done in the name of Islam than those in the name of other religious ideologies in this point in history " FTFClarity. If I mention >100'000person-riots demanding the deaths of atheist bloggers, which religious beliefs are most likely to be at the source there? Proportionally, which religious beliefs have, today, the most negative effects on women? Which population of ex-"religion" is most likely to receive death threats and/or be killed for religious reasons? I could go on, but I think the point is made that, proportionally, Islam is the greatest cause of religious-fueled harm today.

@Yogi, apples and oranges dear, not to mention your very narrow definition of Islam's toll (the sunnis bombed by chiites and vice-versa, and all the honour-killing victims, to name only a couple, would not agree with you). The US-wrought massacres in the ME are unforgiveable, no doubt about it, but most of the excuses made to justify it were secular, not religious. Fundamentalist Islam is above all a threat to its immediate neighbours (usually other muslims). Islamist terrorism is only one aspect of the ideology's dangers, and takes its greatest toll in Africa and the ME. Counting only US victims is terribly self-centered.

@SDGundamX Hello old debate-buddy; I will freely admit that I do not want to spend days and days compiling exact numbers of "victims of Islam" vs "victims of other religions", and I think it is rather a dismissive tactic to demand such data. That is why I formulated the question differently in the response above to 00Scud00: take a look at the state of the world, and simply compare. Does this paint all of Islam in a broad brush? You think it does, I do not. I do not find it contradictory to accept the wide variety of "Islams" and Islamic practices/interpretations while arguing that the core fundamentals of Islam, i.e. the founding texts and exemplary figures, can and sadly often do lead to or are invoked to motivate violence and unethical behaviour, and that at this point in history it is the one that does so the most. I do not imply that there is "one" practice of Islam, that is you projecting. There are, however, a set of texts at the core of Islam, and with it a set of beliefs (as you yourself point out).
There is a reason why "moderate" Christians, Muslims, etc. are called "moderate": they only "moderately" adhere to that core. And yes, Muslims disagree with eachother about how to live/interpret that core, and sometimes (like the Christians and Jews etc. before them) kill eachother over their disagreements.

Is there good stuff to be found in those fundamentals? Yes, of course, but they are basics of human empathy and animal morality, and do not require holy validation (this applies for all religious fundamentals of course).

You and many others seem to be unable to dissociate "hating an ideology" from "hating every individual who adheres to it, no matter to what degree". It is noteworthy that the people who accuse others of painting Islam/Muslims "with one broad stroke" are often guilty of implying exactly that when they make that accusation: "you express dislike of Islam and/or the acts of certain Muslims, ergo you can only be expressing dislike for all of them, because one=all!"

As for equating Islam with danger, there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is to equate Muslim people with danger, and yes, there is a huge difference, one that people like myself think so obvious as to not have to spell it out until opposing voices accuse us of not making that difference, often because they themselves cannot. When the fundamentals say "believing something other than Islam is worse than murder" and "kill the non-believer", it is a dangerous ideology. Thankfully we know that the majority of individuals will eschew that part of the fundamentals, gaining the "moderate" achievement. This does not diminish the danger inherent in the fundamentals.

@Babymech It is not ignorant to say that Chechens have been bombed, massacred, and isolated, and are poor as all get-out. It is ignorant to suggest that these are the only possible reasons a culture might have violent strains running through it, and that one should by all means not look towards the beliefs that explicitly command killing people who don't believe what you do. Moreover, my history is pretty rusty, but of all the many places and peoples the US has bombed and massacred, I don't remember Chechnya being among them. The Boston bombing may have been political in nature, but suggesting that it can only be so and cannot have religious motivations is simplistic and counter to, well, reality.

I don't see Fundamentalist Islam as a threat simply taking into account the body count. I believe we're up to 3,400 or something people killed from "Terrorist attacks" in this country.

What's the body count up to in the countries that this one is attacking? If anything using the US's logic they're waging a war of self defense. They also have much firmer ground to stand on in most every case.

Have to disagree there, if you had said that fundamentalist Islam is a threat I would agree completely but by just saying Islam is a threat you end up insinuating that all followers of Islam are extremists. And yeah I do believe that at the heart of it most religions are pretty much the same in that they all promoted good and bad behavior. But ultimately it comes down to people I believe, people will either listen to their better angels or use the power of religion to serve their own selfish desires.
Evidence based? Factual truth? You're condemning an entire belief system and billions of Muslims based on a statistically small group of whackjobs, doesn't sound very scientific to me.
If a fundamentalist is only as dangerous as the fundamentals of their beliefs then fundamentalist Christians are every bit as dangerous as their Islamic counterparts. I didn't even know what a Jain was until I looked it up, and being based on non-violence "Spiritual independence", "equality between all forms of life"(*) and a highly literate people I would say that sounds pretty cool.
But these things aren't so cool if you're looking to build nations and empires and ultimately become a dominant world religion like Christianity or Islam, BOTH got to where they are today by not being very nice.

(*) taken from the Wikipedia page on Jainism.

>> ^messenger:

Buddhism is a religion. A religion doesn't have to have gods. Perhaps what you mean is Buddhism isn't a religion that requires total control. Jainism is another example of a religion without gods.
I didn't make clear my point about laws, etc. and control: I'm reading into your comments that anything that is about control is always a bad thing, or is always for nefarious purposes. I got this impression because you ended your argument with the conclusion that religions are all about control, as if that was a slam-dunk making them all cults. I pointed out a series of other instances where requiring control over a person wasn't evil, and was even benevolent. This should lead to the conclusion that a religion that asserts control over someone's life may be doing so with good intent. I also did this to highlight the difference between "control" and "excessive control" which you left out. Parental control is normally a good thing. Excessive parental control is a bad thing. Where's the line between control and excessive control? Dunno.
I think you overstated your challenge to me, as there is no religion that requires the relinquishing of free will. They either require or suggest self-control in certain areas, if that's what you mean, but none require relinquishing all decision-making, not even the extreme ones like Jainism, orthodox Judaism, or fundamentalist Islam.>> ^A10anis:
Buddhism is not a religion in the context of this discussion. Neither is the law etc! That said, I will gladly concede, if you can name me a religion/cult which does not require total submission and the relinquishing of free will. I'm done...>> ^messenger:
All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.

You are a moron, fond only of the nonsense you spout.You have nothing of intellect to convey, so be quiet and know your place...

Buddhism is a religion. A religion doesn't have to have gods. Perhaps what you mean is Buddhism isn't a religion that requires total control. Jainism is another example of a religion without gods.

I didn't make clear my point about laws, etc. and control: I'm reading into your comments that anything that is about control is always a bad thing, or is always for nefarious purposes. I got this impression because you ended your argument with the conclusion that religions are all about control, as if that was a slam-dunk making them all cults. I pointed out a series of other instances where requiring control over a person wasn't evil, and was even benevolent. This should lead to the conclusion that a religion that asserts control over someone's life may be doing so with good intent. I also did this to highlight the difference between "control" and "excessive control" which you left out. Parental control is normally a good thing. Excessive parental control is a bad thing. Where's the line between control and excessive control? Dunno.

I think you overstated your challenge to me, as there is no religion that requires the relinquishing of free will. They either require or suggest self-control in certain areas, if that's what you mean, but none require relinquishing all decision-making, not even the extreme ones like Jainism, orthodox Judaism, or fundamentalist Islam.>> ^A10anis:
Buddhism is not a religion in the context of this discussion. Neither is the law etc! That said, I will gladly concede, if you can name me a religion/cult which does not require total submission and the relinquishing of free will. I'm done...>> ^messenger:
All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Bill Bailey, AA, fundamentalist islam' to 'Bill Bailey, AA, fundamentalist islam, automobile association' - edited by xxovercastxx

good one!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
i withheld any comment i might have on this topic to see what reaction this video might incur and in what form.
i was not disappointed.

over the past 30 years we have seen the rise of the fundamentalist christian (there is a reason for that) conversely we have also seen the rise of fundamentalist islam (over a longer period).
there are many factors why this has happened which i will not get into but suffice to say that they exist.there are causality reasons for this rise and those reasons are not contended.

i am a man of faith but my faith puts me in a precarious cross hairs between the religious fundamentalist and the secular fundamentalist (yeah.i used the term.get over it because they exist).
i am reviled and ridiculed by BOTH sides of that equation.so i am in a unique position to comment on both schools of thought because both schools have harassed me.

those who admonish me usually practice a subtle passive aggressive form of rebuke but always with the intention of calling me stupid,unworthy and wrong.veiled insults disguised as a debate or discussion.

a typical discussion with a militant atheist:
"you are a man of faith enoch? wow..just wow.and i took you for a person of some intelligence"
and then they try to smooth over their overt insult by remarking "well,i guess thats your thing but i cant see how anybody with critical thinking skills could be a person of faith"
this is the epitome of sanctimonious self-righteous belief in ones own perfect understanding of everything based on their own limited understanding but they feel perfectly justified to project their own hubris upon me,even when i have not spoken ONE word on where my faith resides.they based their entire understanding on me simply on there formulated creation of their own imagination.

my conversations with a fundamentalist christian/muslims does not fare much better and oftentimes even worse.because i do not give authority to holy writ.this does not mean i do not find wisdom nor a certain poetry in sacred writings but rather through my studies it has become apparent that these books are not only man-made but borrowed from each other.
so i can appreciate the words within for their beauty and poetry (and brutal violence) but ultimately have to disregard the edicts within for the simple fact they are not only incomplete but rife with human corruption.

so the christian fundamentalist will revile me as an apostate or even worse:heretic and condemn me to hell,to be damned for eternity.while this self-righteous judgment is FAR more direct than a militant atheist may treat me,what i find most despicable and cowardly is how a christian will hide behind the bible and actually attempt a false compassion (pray for my soul) while simultaneously revile me as an unclean agent controlled by satan.

i find BOTH these positions weak and pathetic and here is why:
fundamentalism,in any form,is the stagnation of the mind and deadening of spirit.
it hinders our ability to question and wonder and to push the boundaries of our known perceptions.
the fundamentalist is convinced (by whatever means)that they are correct with a certitude that is immovable,unshakable and to even allow the possibility of a contrary ideology (very specific in relation to this conversation) is tantamount to admitting oneself to be../gasp..wrong.

now let me stop here for a moment and ask my atheist friends how my comment has made you feel?
are you getting angry with me? irritated? annoyed?
and if so.why?
have i specifically called YOU out?
no.i have not and the reason is most atheists i have had discussions with here on the sift are NOT militant.they are just atheists.normal regular people without an agenda nor a desire to purge me of my faith.

sam harris is a militant atheist and no matter how he may wish to paint it, his writings define him as such.
his attacks on the religious are painted with such broad strokes as to encompass anyone who may have a modicum of faith.he may attempt to smooth over his rough edges but the core message is still there.
and he also seem to be under the impression (falsely imo) that if everyone abandoned faith that somehow human society would miraculously be a better and more utopian world.
total.infantile.naivete'.
this is the reason hedges calls him out on his fundamentalism.harris tends to ignore not only human nature but the preceding centuries of history and thats why i find his arguments to be lacking.

now please understand i am vehemently against fundamentalism and religion is the main offender without a doubt.so when i call harris out as being a secular fundamentalist i do so with that truth in mind and i believe harris is totally unaware that he could be perceived that way (as revealed by many of his posts).

hitchens had it right from the get-go.
he didnt use that broad brush harris uses but rather was specific in his criticisms and rightly so.he understood the history and theology and exposed the wretched hypocrisy which dwelt in the underbelly of all fundamentalism.he went after the church.he went after those who would pervert the word in order to dominate and control the poor and un-educated and he was vicious in his admonishments.

the bible,torah,quran are all tangible books.doctrine is written down to be read and studied and they SHOULD be discussed and debated and not treated like some sacred cow that is untouchable.hitchens was the master of using the very doctrine put forth by the church (or imam) to eviscerate any argument in favor of said doctrine to expose the utter hypocrisy.

i have read hitchens and harris is no hitchens.

i withheld any comment i might have on this topic to see what reaction this video might incur and in what form.
i was not disappointed.

over the past 30 years we have seen the rise of the fundamentalist christian (there is a reason for that) conversely we have also seen the rise of fundamentalist islam (over a longer period).
there are many factors why this has happened which i will not get into but suffice to say that they exist.there are causality reasons for this rise and those reasons are not contended.

i am a man of faith but my faith puts me in a precarious cross hairs between the religious fundamentalist and the secular fundamentalist (yeah.i used the term.get over it because they exist).
i am reviled and ridiculed by BOTH sides of that equation.so i am in a unique position to comment on both schools of thought because both schools have harassed me.

those who admonish me usually practice a subtle passive aggressive form of rebuke but always with the intention of calling me stupid,unworthy and wrong.veiled insults disguised as a debate or discussion.

a typical discussion with a militant atheist:
"you are a man of faith enoch? wow..just wow.and i took you for a person of some intelligence"
and then they try to smooth over their overt insult by remarking "well,i guess thats your thing but i cant see how anybody with critical thinking skills could be a person of faith"
this is the epitome of sanctimonious self-righteous belief in ones own perfect understanding of everything based on their own limited understanding but they feel perfectly justified to project their own hubris upon me,even when i have not spoken ONE word on where my faith resides.they based their entire understanding on me simply on there formulated creation of their own imagination.

my conversations with a fundamentalist christian/muslims does not fare much better and oftentimes even worse.because i do not give authority to holy writ.this does not mean i do not find wisdom nor a certain poetry in sacred writings but rather through my studies it has become apparent that these books are not only man-made but borrowed from each other.
so i can appreciate the words within for their beauty and poetry (and brutal violence) but ultimately have to disregard the edicts within for the simple fact they are not only incomplete but rife with human corruption.

so the christian fundamentalist will revile me as an apostate or even worse:heretic and condemn me to hell,to be damned for eternity.while this self-righteous judgment is FAR more direct than a militant atheist may treat me,what i find most despicable and cowardly is how a christian will hide behind the bible and actually attempt a false compassion (pray for my soul) while simultaneously revile me as an unclean agent controlled by satan.

i find BOTH these positions weak and pathetic and here is why:
fundamentalism,in any form,is the stagnation of the mind and deadening of spirit.
it hinders our ability to question and wonder and to push the boundaries of our known perceptions.
the fundamentalist is convinced (by whatever means)that they are correct with a certitude that is immovable,unshakable and to even allow the possibility of a contrary ideology (very specific in relation to this conversation) is tantamount to admitting oneself to be../gasp..wrong.

now let me stop here for a moment and ask my atheist friends how my comment has made you feel?
are you getting angry with me? irritated? annoyed?
and if so.why?
have i specifically called YOU out?
no.i have not and the reason is most atheists i have had discussions with here on the sift are NOT militant.they are just atheists.normal regular people without an agenda nor a desire to purge me of my faith.

sam harris is a militant atheist and no matter how he may wish to paint it, his writings define him as such.
his attacks on the religious are painted with such broad strokes as to encompass anyone who may have a modicum of faith.he may attempt to smooth over his rough edges but the core message is still there.
and he also seem to be under the impression (falsely imo) that if everyone abandoned faith that somehow human society would miraculously be a better and more utopian world.
total.infantile.naivete'.
this is the reason hedges calls him out on his fundamentalism.harris tends to ignore not only human nature but the preceding centuries of history and thats why i find his arguments to be lacking.

now please understand i am vehemently against fundamentalism and religion is the main offender without a doubt.so when i call harris out as being a secular fundamentalist i do so with that truth in mind and i believe harris is totally unaware that he could be perceived that way (as revealed by many of his posts).

hitchens had it right from the get-go.
he didnt use that broad brush harris uses but rather was specific in his criticisms and rightly so.he understood the history and theology and exposed the wretched hypocrisy which dwelt in the underbelly of all fundamentalism.he went after the church.he went after those who would pervert the word in order to dominate and control the poor and un-educated and he was vicious in his admonishments.

the bible,torah,quran are all tangible books.doctrine is written down to be read and studied and they SHOULD be discussed and debated and not treated like some sacred cow that is untouchable.hitchens was the master of using the very doctrine put forth by the church (or imam) to eviscerate any argument in favor of said doctrine to expose the utter hypocrisy.

i have read hitchens and harris is no hitchens.

@JiggaJonson
really?
so a man makes a video pertaining to the republican debates in where ron paul tells the audience the real reason certain middle eastern countries have a problem with american foreign policy and your criticism is that it was too "over-generalized"?
the video is four minutes long!
should he have made it a documentary?
i guess i dont understand your position my friend because you dont seem to have a problem with the information just that it was over-generalized leading to distorted facts.which i am assuming you mean context.
that would be a mighty long video.
which leads me to @quantumushroom and his comment.
what bullshit?
were you aware that there are some estimates reaching as high as 5 million? and some as low as 700,000?
should this man have included the gulf of tonkin?
cambodia? east timor?
and what does fundamentalist islam have to do with what ron paul is stating?
i am not denying the horrors of radical islam and neither is this video and has nothing to do with the conversation.that is a wholly different discussion.you are free to be afraid of brown people and their mysterious "allah" character but you are NOT free to ignore historical facts.to do so is the epitome of 'willful ignorance".

the main reason i dont understand either of your positions is that ron pauls premise is quite simple:
they dont hate us for our freedom or because we are just chock full of awesome.
they hate us because we have been fucking with their shit for over 50 years.
bin laden was pretty upfront the reasons why and the defense department agrees.
this is where ron paul got his information.
he didnt just pull it out of his ass.
this video highlights some of the dire effects of american foreign policy over the last 50 years.
we may not like that information nor be proud of what our government did in our name but not liking something does not make it less true.

could either of you explain your position a bit further please?
maybe i am just misunderstanding.

@SDGundamX

There's clearly no point in arguing with you; you insist on attacking strawmen that you project as Harris' arguments and mine, disregard the statistical evidence (some of which could already be found in my html-mess post), refuse to comprehend that an ideology that regards women as only half as worthy of men - and that puts such high stakes on "purity" - will result in violence towards them, and continue to see things in an all-or-nothing way while accusing your opponents thereof and, cherry on the cake, provide the answer to your own arguments within them; I quote:

Radical fundamentalist Islam most certainly causes its followers to not just condone violence, but believe that violence is the only way to achieve the political aims for which radical Islam was created to achieve.

See this video on how it is not the fundamentalists that are a problem, but the fundamentals (thus the Qur'an quoting you keep disregarding). You keep trying to make it about some sort of homogeneous group called "the Muslims" that we are - according to you - unilaterally vilifying, but that only shows that the person who has a problem generalising is yourself.

If we were 700 years ago, Harris and the other "gnu atheists" would be arguing strongly against Christianity's effects on people's lives, not Islam's (not that Islam was any better, but it was hardly much worse).

You want evidence so badly? Why don't you go ask the Pakistani cops why they feel they have the right to rape and physical abuse their female visitors, see where that gets you.

The Pakistan vs. India stats come from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Pakistan

@hpqp

First off, thank you for taking the time to track down all of those links. And thank you for at least looking at the link I posted (though I hesitate to you say you actually "read" it as I explain below).

The title of the book is "Shattering the Myth: Islam Beyond Violence." The author states explicitly on page 4 the main premise of the book: "Islam is not violence, nor are Muslims intrinsically prone to violence." He then fills the rest of the book with economic, anthropological, and historical evidence to support his case.

And yet you are claiming the book doesn't go against anything you or Harris are saying... okay.

Next, you have mined all those quotes completely out of context and twisted their meaning to fit your agenda while completely ignoring the bulk of the work. To give just one example:

"Muslims, we often forget, do not always act as Muslims or members of a religious community; rather, they respond to economic, social and political needs that may direct conduct more than ideological signposts do."

This statement was directly addressing violence in the Islamic world--that Islam does not completely prevent people from being human and acting in violent ways when under extreme economic, social, and political pressures. Yet the Western media--and Harris in particular--would have us believe that these pressures are irrelevant... that there is something inherent within Islam that causes this violence. The rest of Lawrence's book shows this is not the case, and provides ample evidence to support the opinion. Yet, I've not seen Harris nor you provide ANY evidence for Harris's position.

Throughout our conversation, I have been asking you in good faith to make your case to me and for my part I was willing to change my mind if you were to provide some evidence that your position is correct.

You have not.

In your last post, you did finally start to list some statistics (with no sources given, I notice), but they don't really provide evidence of anything other than it is really shitty to live in a 3rd world country. I see no smoking gun there to show me Islam itself is the cause of these problems or that these problems are somehow unique to Islam. There are many other possible and indeed probable explanations (which clearly neither Harris nor you--having made up your minds already--seem willing to explore) for why, for instance, Pakistan is so fucked up other than "Islam made it that way." But even assuming for the sake of argument there weren't any other explanations, science demands evidence--as do I--because of a little problem known as "correlation versus causation." The fact that Pakistan is fucked up and is an Islamic nation does not suddenly make Islam the culprit.

You clearly feel very passionate about this. And I understand why. You genuinely believe Islam (but somehow not Muslims) is a threat to everybody (believer and non-believer alike). Did I finally state your argument correctly that time? What I still don't understand in spite of all you've written is how you came to that conclusion. From what you've written in these posts, all I can see is a lot of "correlation vs causation" fallacies mixed in with scary anecdotes followed by a bit of emphasizing the negative aspects of Islam (for example, verses calling for violence in the Koran) while ignoring the positive (verses extolling the benefits of reason, compassion, and love--including towards non-believers). Like I said before, I don't see the smoking gun and I don't understand why you do apparently see it.

Are there problems with certain interpretations of Islam? Yeah, absolutely. Radical fundamentalist Islam most certainly causes its followers to not just condone violence, but believe that violence is the only way to achieve the political aims for which radical Islam was created to achieve. But Harris isn't arguing against radical fundamentalist Islam, is he? He's arguing against the totality. He's arguing there is something inherently wrong with Islam. Okay, great. Make the argument. But for the love of science, please provide some proof. Reading selected passages from the Koran is not proof of how real Muslims in the real world interpret those passages and apply them to their daily lives (if they even do so at all). The actions of a unbelievably few individuals who choose to embrace radical fundamentalist Islam are not proof. The misadventures of nation-states which happen to be Islam are not proof. Proof will only be found through science--his argument is clearly empirically testable so I am still dumbfounded as to why he repeats the same talking points without actually taking the time to find the proof that would make his case convincing.

circular logic at it's best.
one mans brilliant attempt to rationalize his own sense of persecution.
highlighting hitler and the third reich and the horrors of world war 2 while ignoring the fact that the tactic used had been used for thousands of years....by the church.
how do you get people,whole communities...nations...to go out and murder/slaughter other people?
by demonizing them.
and nothing compares to the power of demonizing another culture than religion,but for the past century this has been due to nationalism.love of country and not so much love of god,but this has been a fairly new enterprise when put in historical context.in the past it was the church whipping its religious flock into a murderous froth.
in regards to germany,demonizing the jewish people is more understandable when we look at what happened to germany after world war 1.what happened to their economy and political and social structure..they were RIPE with fear and uncertainty..which hitler exploited to his radical benefit.

key word:fear

religion uses this emotion like a bully in the pulpit.yet this emotion is antithetical to what jesus taught,but fear will always be the best tool to control and manipulate the masses.the church dons the mantle of false authority and instills fear in order to subjugate and enslave.
saint patrick is given credit for clearing ireland of "serpents".yet when you realize that "serpents" represents "pagans" i.e:actual human beings and that tens of thousands were murdered and slaughtered for not leaving when given the chance,one can only come up with a more apt word:attempted genocide.
think on that the next time your enjoying a pint of green beer.

i always wonder how a true follower of christ reconciles putting on a uniform,picking up a gun and shooting another human being.america's current military has become more and more christian based.with evangelicals joining in such groups as "warriors for christ".while i am fully aware of passages in the bible that not only condone acts of war,but demand it,i do not recall jesus ever once stating that killing your fellow man is a godly and righteous thing to do.

this is hypocrisy incarnate and,in my opinion,one of the very powerful points atheists point to and with good reason.religious historical slaughtering aside,this is happening NOW.
radicalized fundamentalist islamic people being manipulated into jihad by those who pretend to have the authority of god.
fundamentalist christians taking up a "crusade" against the warriors of allah.
as if 1500 years of murder,rape and slaughter were not enough to teach both of these easily manipulated people in to the continued killing of each other.
these people are being deceived by those who wish to dominate using the very scripture these poor souls have deemed holy writ.

another good example is how a small and fringe political ideological group called the "neo-conservatives"(formerly known as neo-liberal) hi-jacked the evangelical religious folk in the late 70's and it was the LEADERS of that evangelical movement that sacrificed their own parishoners to the wolves.
jerry falwell,baker,swaggert,roberts.
all of them used their authority and charisma to convince their followers the righteousness of this radical political ideology.
war,empire,domination,dismissal of the poor and weak.
all put into biblical terms which the faithful bought.hook..line and sinker.

i could go on but suffice to say atheists have a few really strong points when it comes to the hypocrisy of religion and it always amazes me how many religious folk are totally unaware of their own hypocrisy and circular logic.accusing others of this or that while being totally unaware they are doing the exact same thing...very much like this man in the video.
cherry picking certain sound-bytes while ignoring historical context does not an argument make...
quite the opposite.

i am going to upvote this just so we can see this train wreck of logic exposed for what it is:a rationalization.

From Wikipedia:

The 2011 Egyptian protests are a series of street demonstrations, protests, and civil disobedience acts that have been taking place in Egypt since 25 January 2011. The demonstrations and riots began in the weeks after the successful Tunisian uprising, and many protesters are carrying Tunisian flags as a symbol of their influence. Specific grievances have centered around legal and political as well as economic issues: police brutality, state of emergency laws, lack of free elections, corruption, restrictions on freedom of speech, high unemployment, low minimum wages, insufficient housing, food price inflation, and poor living conditions. Mohamed ElBaradei, seen as the most likely candidate for an interim presidency, called for the ousting of President Hosni Mubarak as a possible objective.

As of January 29, at least 95 protester deaths had been reported (27 in Suez, 23 in Alexandria, 45 in Cairo), along with 10 policemen. 750 policemen and 1,500 protesters have been injured. The capital city of Cairo has been described as "a war zone", and the port city of Suez has been the scene of frequent violent clashes. The Egyptian government has attempted to break up and contain protests using a variety of methods. Anti-riot police groups have been responding to areas with shields, rubber bullets, batons, water cannons, tear gas and, in some cases, live ammunition. For the most part, the protest response has been non-lethal, although there have been fatalities. The government turned off almost all Internet accessand imposed a curfew, claiming that minimizing disruption from the protests is necessary to maintain order and to prevent an uprising of fundamentalist Islamic groups.

International response to the protests has generally been supportive with most governments and organizations calling for non-violent responses on both sides and peaceful moves towards reform. The protests have captured worldwide attention due to the increasing integration of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other social media platforms that have allowed activists and onlookers to communicate, coordinate, and document the events as they occur. As the level of publicity has increased, the Egyptian government has made increasing efforts to limit internet access, especially to social media. On the eve of major planned protests on Friday, 28 January, a nationwide internet and mobile phone "blackout" began, though before dawn the following morning it was reported that the blackout for cell phones had ended.