Except Videosift is not just for Americans.

When you look at the majority opinion of the western world and especially the subset that speaks english, it is majority liberal by your standards.

America is remarkably ass backwards in comparison, so much so that your Liberal candidates appear moderate, and your Conservatives appear batshit insane.

You have to go to the middle east to a Muslim theocracy to find people more conservative than right wing America.

So don't feel that you're somehow under-represented in the developed world.

Yep. One of the keys for me too. What good is He if the only thing He provides is salvation from the Hell He created to punish us for not loving Him to His satisfaction? What else have You done for me, or anyone else I know, in this present day life on Earth God? Nada, and sure some would say God saved so and so from an accident... then but then millions of good Christians die every year from accidents... it's almost like it's random who He helps or not... In fact, He indeed doesn't help any more than any other god does... He at one point had a better army, which allowed Him to spread around to Europe and force them to convert or integrate their holidays into His to make it seem better to those forced to convert.

Okay He created Hell for Lucifer and the angels who chose not to praise Him for a moment... which proves that angels do have free will... which goes against the teaching He created us to love Him of our own free will as the angels had no choice... so either He forced Lucifer and the third of all the angels to rebel, or they have free will. Then we get all those people in Asia, Africa and the Americas and all over the glove who are going to Hell before they heard about the gospel of Jesus as they never had a chance... but wait many Christians say, they won't go to Hell because they didn't know, they'll be judged on if they lived morally... which begs the question, if you are basically fully guaranteed of life in Heaven without the knowledge of Jesus, then why spread the message? Oh, the Great Commission... that command they apparently listen to, while the people like this ignore His command to Love and treat others as you'd have them treat you. How He hung around sinners and tax collectors and talked badly about those who were showing off how holy they were and prayed openly, trying to shame those who didn't do as they did. How He told the crowd who was about to stone a woman at the well "let those without sin toss the first stone" and then importantly doesn't toss any stones Himself, not because He's sinned, but because He's operating on a new covenant. Yet they love to toss stones of discrimination and hate towards those who sin differently than them. He commands us to heal the sick, and yet it is the Christians of this Nation that oppose guaranteeing everyone a minimum degree of universal health insurance, preferring only people with good jobs have affordable health care. And on and on...

And the Jesus is coming soon folks... Seriously I've head from family that even if Climate Change is real, the real damage doesn't come for hundred years or more, and Jesus will have come by then. Just look at the world, gay people can get married now. Clearly Jesus is coming soon. I had another family member note how after the election of Obama the first time that just means Jesus will come sooner now... as if the Bible doesn't say there's an appointed time, let alone that He appoints the leaders...

And then the whole help help we're being repressed attitude... when basically they are being denied special rights and privileges and just coming to equal legal ground with others. Basically they are coming into the situation that forced the Pilgrims to leave a Christian Nation to move to what would become America because they couldn't persecute others as they wanted to, as the theocracy that ruled that Nation didn't agree to go that far.

I could go on for ages. I covered the topic a billion times though... well not a billion...

This is exactly what racist old tea party members say Lantern.

Who cares what holidays the White House acknowledge.
It's called extending an olive branch. A sign of peace.

Do you realize that the Iranian people dislike their leadership waaay more than you dislike Obama.

The difference: They are oppressed by a theocracy.
You are oppressed by your unwillingness to work with Democrats.

Admit that the only real reason you don't like Obama is because of his party affiliation.

It's a shitty reason, but at least it's honest.

Also, it's rude to call him an son-of-bitch. You never knew his mother.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's definitely an important nuance that Maher is anti-religious in general. Though I think he's got the wrong end of the stick on this issue. Better to rail against theocracy than Islam.

To a certain extent, but unfortunately a charismatic (or dictatorial) leadership, or even parents passing on their belief systems to their children, can create or enforce ideals that can shape society. Many people still adhere to religion because "that's the way it's always been", not because the religion actually fits their personal ethics...

In general, I do actually agree with you in regards to the concept that secularity tends to lead to enlightenment, but there are plenty of secular countries that are authoritarian/despotic (North Korea being a shining example), violent and considerably backwards compared to countries which have a high proportion of religious people and freedom. Unfortunately, enlightenment leads to arrogance as well.

The continual push by the media/politicians etc to classify Muslims as a homogenous whole smacks more of an attempt to play on xenophobia and racism than any factual evidence.

Particularly when the enlightened country making the most noise about it has "In God We Trust" printed on their currency. Compound that with provoking and polarising moderate Muslims by marginalising and insulting them? Enlightenment does not preclude gross stupidity.

A simple look at the US (secular mind you) shows stark differences between the north and the south, red states and blue states etc. You're proposing that 1.5 bn people (that would be ~5 times more people than the entire population of the US) spread across most countries in the world are somehow tightly aligned purely because they share a religion that is as varied as any other in the world?

And the mean truth? The arrogance and presumption of "enlightened neighbours" are part of the reasons why certain countries are as they are...

Iran is a classic example. The US (all enlightened and shit) engineers the coup that deposes a democratically elected Prime Minister hailed as a leading champion of secular democracy. And when the Shah was overthrown, it was by fundamentalists lead by Ayatollah Khomeini, ushering in an era of strict theocracy and an abiding hatred of the US.

Your last paragraph highlights the problem perfectly. We have two media reporters, deliberately or ignorantly, disseminating false information which would probably lead to discrimination against Muslims. How ethical is it to incite an entire country to hate over the actions of a tiny percentage of the whole? How ethical is it to ignore humanitarian disasters in countries which have no strategic or natural resource value (and places where no white people have been beheaded)?

And when presented with empirical truth, how ethical is it to refuse to accept it?

I feel like the problem isn't necessarily religion, but rather dogma. It just so happens that religion is full of dogma. The fact that Islam contains an attempt to immunize itself against reform serves to make it more dogmatic, as reformists can be shown, in black and white, to not be observing the religion as it was intended.

Dogma creates incredibly extreme behaviour. Once people believe they hold an absolute truth, almost anything becomes justifiable. It isn't limited to religion, as evidenced by the 20th century's forays into communism, but it is clearly present in religion, and particularly in Islam.

Comparing Canadian Muslims with Saudi Muslims is a false comparison, as I expect everyone can see. There really is a difference between living in a country as an extreme minority, versus living in a country as a member of the extreme majority. Nevermind living in a theocracy based on the religion. It's a completely different environment, and if people didn't behave differently, they wouldn't be tolerated very long.

You talk like Iran is a person. Last time I checked it was a country which, like most countries contains a diverse mix of beliefs and personalities.

Your not entirely wrong to suggest that Iran is ruled by people who appear to espouse the hard-line apocalyptic interpretation of Islam in much the same way as significant aspects of the US and Israeli ruling classes are into the Zionist/revelations side of Christianity and Judaism.

And for what it's worth a really serious Christian, Muslim or Jew would take that position. Why would you take a half arsed attitude if you truly believe our eternal souls are at stake!!!

But crucially, not everyone is an extremist. In fact most people aren't extremists they are just conformists. Iran is no different and the uprising a few years ago was mostly fuelled by the younger generation rebelling against the oppressive theocracy you are referring to.

There is a purist aspect to all Abrahamist religions that will never be appeased but Iran & by extension Islam is only one of the three pillars (of satan) and much like has happened in the west the rise of free communication via the internet etc. is causing to to start to be outgrown by its people.

In short: there are nutters (such as yourself) on both sides and not every (or even perhaps most) Iranians hate the west just like not all westerners hate Iran. Don't buy into the us vs them propaganda, there is a 3rd side here and its not restricted by nationality or culture, nor does it celebrate death over life. Only knowledge, evolution and temperance


You all seem dangerously delusional far as I can tell. Unless the basic concept of "I might be totally wrong about all this" isn't built into your religion/belief system you can go and get stuffed....(and you will be as a relic/warning to the kids of the future)

The reason ISRAEL hates us is because its leaders are part of a radical JEWISH cult looking to usher in the age of their messiah, the "JAHWAY". As middle easterners, traditionally perceived as Muslim, they see us as the evil that stands in the way of their plans. Their goal is to create the conditions necessary in the world for their messiah, "Yahway", to come to earth. They believe that when the Yahway comes he will subjugate all nations to JUDAISM and institute worldwide JEW law (slavery of the GOYIM ie. everyone else).

Looking at ISRAEL through the lens of global politics will not yield the truth about why ISRAEL is pursuing (HAS) the bomb. It is only when you understand that ISRAEL is a theocracy headed by a man who believes he is being directed by his god to usher in the end times will you begin to understand their motivations. This video is a propaganda video that was produced by people inside the regime to indoctrinate people into their cult.

Ah ahahahaha. Fuck off you propagandist racist pigs.
PS. Never watched your shit video either
Israel, an apartheid country fueled by hate.

To understand Iran you have to understand that it is a theocracy, and everything its leaders do is driven by their radical interpretation of the Qurans end time scenario. The supreme leader believes he is appointed by allah to usher in their version of the Messiah, a figure they call the "Mahdi". They believe that when the Mahdi comes he will conquer the world and institute worldwide shariah law. Iran will never negotiate; it is preparing for armeggedon.

http://videosift.com/video/Why-Iran-hates-us

The Iranian leadership and the overwhelming majority of all Iranians would be offended and upset at being called a democracy, even the moderates. They are proud of being an Islamic theocracy and the Iranian constitution since the revolution and overthrow of the Shaw has been that way.

The supreme leader doesn't go around with a heavy hand visibly running everything because he's smart enough to play the more subtle role he does. Picking and choosing who gets to lead this or that is the game. If you remember back a couple of years to the last Iranian elections you saw several of the would be candidates arrested or jailed. You saw their followers arrested, jailed and intimidated. The elections were still held though none the less. Iranian politics are way more complicated than all that, but it's a start.

Don't correct my inaccuracy with another one. Iran is NOT a democracy, it is an Islamic theocracy. My referencing Ahmadinejad as a 'dictator' was only used in the same sense that folks use when referring to Bush, Cheney or Obama as 'dictators'. None of them came to power through a coup or by birth right, and each stepped down in normal course.

Calling Iran a democracy though is just wrong, and is about as accurate as referring to America as a dictatorship, In Iran the presidential candidates must ALL be approved by the Islamic council or nobody gets to even try to vote for them. The highest position of power in the country is not the President, but the Supreme Leader who is appointed by a small group of Islamic 'experts'. There is no room in the Iranian system for the election of an non-Muslim, or even a Sunni muslim, to even attempt to hold the position of President let alone Supreme Leader.

@Trancecoach @enoch

Enoch's questions:

1. People should be producing something if they are getting paid for it - whether that is a good, service, etc. If someone else pays them to create or perform they are owed exactly what they have been promised to be compensated.

2. Enoch I think you are misunderstanding what a free market is. A free market is not a marketplace without regulations. A free market is not anarchy - there are still rules. Instead a free market is a market without a centralized or directing authority. To clarify a free market is one in which government policy does not set pricing.

3. You don't believe or disbelieve in democracy. It isn't a religion, it is a form of government. There is nothing inherently wrong with regulations. The devil is in the details. Regulations can be good or bad for a marketplace.

4. Enoch, I think that is a gross oversimplification of why corporate profits have been as high as they are. Many things have led to large corporate profits including globalization, expanding markets, etc. Yes, here in the USA corporations exercise influence on government, but its only one part of the bigger picture.

5. Completely incorrect. A free market has nothing to do with the existence of copyrights or patents.

6. Democracy is a form of government. A Free Market is a type of market structure. You could have a dictatorship and a free market. A monarch and a free market. A republic and a free market. A Theocracy and a free market.

Furthermore you could have a "Free Market" for automobiles but a "regulated" or "controlled" market for electricity within one country.

For example:

In the USA I would argue automobiles operate in a "Free Market". Yes there are certain standards the government sets (safety, fuel efficiency, etc) but the pricing is determined by the automakers. You can argue about the restrictions. Do they go far enough? Do they go too far? etc.

Conversely, most electric companies prices are regulated by the government and they are required to provide services to certain areas.

Lastly, a free market does not mean the market operates without laws. Copyright and patent law being just a small part of those laws.

I hope this clarifies some of these questions for you.


Best,

Kgrr

@bcglorf
thanks for the thoughtful response my friend.

since i wrote my comment i have come across a few more pieces of information that implicate assads regime but not assad himself.it has become apparent that chemical weapons were used but still no conclusive evidence WHO authorized the use.

so right now,in regards to who is to blame for the usage of chemical weapons is still conjecture.

my friend,syria is an awful situation.
two millions people displaced and flooding into neighboring countries.innocent people are dying.the political situation is a hornets nest of privileged power,theocracy and religious dissidents.

but you skipped over (much like the obama administration is doing currently) my questions regarding diplomacy.
why are we not searching with vigor a multi-lateral diplomatic solution?
what would a limited strike on damascus actually produce besides continued violence in which the innocent will pay in blood and only succeed in prolonging a violent civil war?
already the civil war had been prolonged due to outside interference (many countries bear that shame,including the US).

now let us consider if we DO go in to "punish" assad.which i think is likely.
what are the possible consequences?
could it be possible that russia,china and iran react?
what then?

do you see where i am going with this?
a diplomatic resolution may take more time.it may take some..you know..talking and patience,but the final outcome will benefit those innocents both you and i (and pretty much the world) AND the political stability in that region and all outlying players.

while a military resolution will create more casualties and deaths,many of them innocent civilians,and may possibly create a conflaguration of a world powers conflict.where the innocent body bags will begin to be counted in the millions.

am i being overly-dramatic?
possibly.
my point is the diplomatic resolution keeps innocent death counts low while a military resolution will only raise the death count and create more refugees.

so maybe i was not clear in my commentary because i guess i appeared that i didnt want the united states to do anything.
this is untrue.
i was just pointing to the utter hypocrisy of the political rhetoric.
and whatever moral credit america once possessed,it was spent many years ago.

so the best route to take BEFORE there is even talks of military action is diplomacy.even our staunches allies have refused to engage militarily,and yet what are we seeing?obama traveling the political circles to promote the march to further violence.

syria is no threat to the united states.
the humanitarian argument to fight violence with violence is a canard,its bullshit.
this has nothing to do with saving lives nor preventing further violence.

the international community needs to band together and put pressure to cease and desist.this is the moral path to take.
this is the path that will garner results quickly with far less bloodshed.


i fear this is not what is going to happen.
right now as i wrote this the obama administration is putting political pressure on all fronts.
i fear this is going to end badly.
i fear that this may domino and drag opposing nations to a conflict where the death toll will be catastrophic.

i hope i am wrong.

thanks for responding bc.i know we disagree politically on some issues and its always a pleasure discussing issues with you so i can see things from a different vantage point.

I stand by my comment. You don't need to wait and see what life under a theocracy will be like, all you need do, instead of being a pedant, is go to any muslim country where you think you would be free from their religion of "peace," and live there. Alternatively continue to bury your head in the sand, and hope that when islam has the majority, they will be as tolerant to woman, homosexuals, other faiths, apostates, and western philosophy as you naively believe.

48 - and counting - sharia courts in the UK, and muslims recently given the right to conduct their own divorces. They have no intention of integrating into the society or the laws/practices of the host country. A birth rate outstripping that of the indigenous populace of countries they have "settled" by so much, that it is estimated the whole of Europe will be muslim in 50-75 years (Gaddafi himself said; "All we have to do is wait"). Islam is not simply a religion, it is a theocracy, and its followers are intent on inflicting its medieval practices on the world. As for "moderate" muslims; when was the last time they marched en-masse to denounce the barbaric practices carried out in their name? Is islam something to fear? Damn right it is.Christopher Hitchens said, many times, that if we don't wake up soon, it will be too late.