Richard Dawkins & Bill Maher Still Baffled Why So Many Liberals Think They're Bigots - Alternet

[flamingdem]

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/richard-dawkins-bill-maher-still-baffled-why-so-many-liberals-think-theyre-bigots

Bill Maher and his good friend, Richard Dawkins, sat down on his show Real Time last night for the fifth time in almost eight seasons. Their discussion, per usual, was an agreeable, tedious mix of self-victimization and indignation about why so many on the left - specifically the Twitter left - think their obsession with "radical Islam" makes them bigots.

"It's so dumb, because all the people who are accused of being Islamophobes like you and me and Sam [Harris], we're liberals." Maher said perplexed. "When I was a child in my home, I was seven and my parents said 'we're for Kennedy, we're for him letting black people go to college in the south" Maher fumed, as Dawkins nodded enthusiastically along with Maher's notoriously sycophantic audience.

"Why don't liberals love us?", they ask. "We're so goddamn liberal but for some reason our critiques of Islam are seen as hateful". And while Maher is correct that he's generally good on taxes and calling out Republican bigotry, this doesn't give him a free pass on his rank Islamophobia (a term he thinks is "meaningless".)

Firstly, no one thinks "Islam is a protected species" as Maher put it. This is a typical strawman New Athiest employ. Dawkins doesn't go after "all religions" equally. Quite the opposite, he has said that Islam is uniquely sinister, referring to it as "unmitigated evil", on numerous occasions. Accusations of bigotry against Dawkins, therefore, are not selective in favor of Islam, they are a reaction to his selective, repeated highlighting of it - fair or not. Secondly, this position is dripping with libertarian false equivalency. The "I criticize all religions equally" is the close cousin to "I criticize all races equally" -- a principle that sounds cute in theory but willfully ignores the burden of history and imperialism.

To the Mahers and the Dawkins of the world, the connection between America's wars in the Middle East is cosmetic at best, and "silly liberal" relativism, at worst. That President Obama - who Maher gave $1 million to in 2012 - has bombed seven Muslim countries in as many years is seen as irrelevant. Western panic and outrage over "women in beekeepers suits" (what Maher calls burkas) is entirely divorced from the convenient "civilizing mission" of America's wars in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. America is always the reluctant warrior who is forced to bomb, occupy, and invade those hot-headed Muslims, the inverse - that Muslims may become radicalized because of our bombing, occupying and invasions - is never truly entertained much less factored in. It was fitting that around the time their self-indulgent interview was being recorded, the US was shelling a hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, killing 19 - including three children.

[LAGC]

1. *yawn* Yet another anti-atheist, anti-Obama hit piece.

You know, when I watched the whole interview on Mediaite yesterday, I didn't see anything that objectionable in Dawkins' or Maher's words.

The truth is: many on the left DO tend to apologize or make excuses for Islam (an authoritarian religion that literally demands you SUBMIT to God) way too often, despite the fact that only one major world religion these days seems to be cranking out the burqas and the suicide vests.

Liberals can be just as irrational and knee-jerk emotional as those on the right, especially in matters of science. Look how many so-called "liberals" oppose vaccination programs and GMOs, for Goddess sakes, even though they've all but vanquished so many communicable diseases and made it even possible to feed this overpopulated world of ours.

Yeah, those "mean" atheists daring to speak their minds again...

[flamingdem]

3. I hear you

The arguments get convoluted on their Facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/AlterNetNews

I don't mind if they call out the Elephant in the room.

[smirkymonkey]

9. +1000

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

2. So to sum it up.....

Islamists have a reason to be total assholes.

Whatevs, Adam.....

[ladyVet]

4. I despise all organized religion, and I am a liberal.

Far too many use "belief" to control and profit off others, especially women. It's been used to justify all manner of horrors throughout history, and with the rise of the modern "right wing" brands of faith, it's only getting worse.

We have nuclear weapons now. Enough to completely destroy this entire planet. We're awfully close to doing it.

Any why? Profit and control. And a deep-seated fear of women.

I make no distinction between Christian, Jew, Muslim, Mormon, Scientologist, or any other religion that claims to be a religion of peace. It's all lies. Sure, there are believers who are not out to kill everyone that is different or doesn't kowtow to their particular brand of crazy. But they're drowned out by the others, and I think they don't need religion to be good people anyway.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. He ends by describing why Islam should be a protected species, having denied that anyone says that

Firstly, no one thinks "Islam is a protected species" as Maher put it. This is a typical strawman New Athiest employ.
...
The ignoring of these power dynamics is dripping with the same type of reductionist handwringing one sees among the right's obsession with "black on black" crime. It's an appeal to objective standards that willfully ignores that history did not begin in 1970 and Islam's relationship with the United States isn't limited to light panel chats with Aspen Institute-vetted token Muslims. Without directly addressing American empire and its relationship to radical Islam their analysis will invariably be superficial. Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins have walked into a game between a Division III college football team and the New England Patriots and feel good about themselves for calling holding on both sides. In a very limited, morally O.C.D. way, they're correct, both sides are technically in violation given the rules of the game. But without addressing these rules or the broader power asymmetry at work, they're party to a farce, a rigged discourse that mistakes "consistency" for fairness and posturing for principle. In doing so, they help prop up a fundamentally uneven relationship between the west and the Muslim world that in effect, if not in intent, spreads bigotry every time it ignores this imbalance.

So he admits that Maher and Dawkins are technically correct, but wants Islam to have special treatment since the USA is more powerful than it. He's more concerned with getting 'the west' and 'the Muslim world' in an even relationship than about good behaviour.

[Marr]

13. Yeah-- it's absurd. Not to mention...

Last edited Sun Oct 4, 2015, 10:50 AM - Edit history (1)

... he seems to thoughtlessly lay all Islamic antagonism towards the west on western foreign policy. No doubt that's a big piece of the puzzle, but it's not the only one. We're talking about religious absolutists here, and the west's-- particularly the United States'-- chief export is culture, in the form of movies and television.

The hatred isn't just of the Che Guevarra variety, as this author seems to argue. It's largely Kim Davis, too, if you know what I mean.

[npk]

7. Sorry you don't get to treat women like slaves, hide them away and rape and kill them at will

and then cry you are being persecuted. This is what "radical islam" has been doing or allowing to be done in their name. That is what Maher is talking about.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Bill and Richard are correct. Why is Alternet promoting a religion that allows the stoning of gay

people? 10 Islamic countries have the death penalty for gay people and every other Islamic country has punitive laws against us.
I'd like to know why the OP feels that stoning of minorities to death is something that should not be criticized.

[smirkymonkey]

10. +1000

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Thanks, but I'd really like to hear what the OP has to say about that. People should not criticize

stoning gay people do death. Well why is that? I'd like a clear, direct expression of thought from our esteemed OP.
I'm sick of these mendacious characterizations of Maher. These defenders of religion are hugely dishonest in their reactions to what is said. It is high time that this community demand that people like this OP speak their minds. He does not want me to object to the stoning of my people, and he needs to say why that is.

[smirkymonkey]

12. I agree with you and I would like to hear it as well. In my opinion, there is no defense.

Oppressive, homophobic, sexist beliefs should be criticized no matter what culture is promoting them.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. It is time to draw attention to their weasle words and make them clearly defend exactly what they

are defending. The OP needs to clearly state why he or she thinks it is wrong for LGBT people to object to the stoning of LGBT people. Why does the OP claim that those who object to the murder of LGBT people are 'bigots'? In short, does the OP actually support the stoning? If the OP says it is racist and bigoted to criticize those actions, the OP is in fact supporting the actions. The OP needs to stand up like an adult member of society and speak their own mind in no uncertain terms.

[Marr]

14. I'd like to hear an answer to this as well. /nt

[cpwm17]

16. From the comments, it appears that most on DU have no problem

supporting bigots that promote unprovoked wars against Muslims. What can account for such radicalism and indifferent to violence? It's imperial privilege I guess.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Maher and Dawkins were both against the invasion of Iraq

Feb 26th, 2003:

MAHER: ... I just don't think this is the right war.

KING: Why not?

MAHER: Well, as I said on my show the other night, I think you have to buy three things to buy this war. One, that Saddam Hussein has bad weapons, and I do say -- I agree, he has chemicals. I bet you he has chems and nukes -- and bios. I don't think he has nukes.

But the other two things you have to buy to buy the war are -- is that he's in league with bin Laden. Let's not forget that's who we're really after, is the people who attacked us.

KING: Bin Laden. Whatever happened to him?

MAHER: Exactly. Whatever happened to bin Laden? This looks to me, and it looks to a lot of the world, like we couldn't get bin Laden. We lost our keys in the garage, but we're look for them in the living room because there's better light.

Or to make another analogy, it's like we're the big kid on the block and this little kid Osama came by and threw a rock through our window. So we went over to his house and we kicked his butt in Afghanistan, and on the way home, we kicked his cousin's butt for no reason.

KING: So there's no logic. And what's the third thing?

MAHER: The third thing is that you have to buy that he not only has these weapons, but that we have to preemptively take the weapons away from him.

KING: For the first time in our history, I think.

MAHER: First time, this is a very new doctrine. And I agree with the doctrine if it's applied to the people who attacked us. That is not Saddam Hussein.

This linking of him with al Qaeda and this idea that he is about to strike, that his claws were up there -- I just don't buy that.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/26/lkl.00.html

March 6th, 2003:

The signatories include Professor Richard Dawkins, who said on signing the statement: "The first Gulf War was provoked by a specific aggressive act by Iraq. Not to have retaliated in Kuwait could legitimately have been compared to Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler at Munich. Nothing of the kind applies to the present proposal for war. The timing gives the game away. It comes from America, not Iraq."

He went on: "Bush is the aggressor. Britain has no business following the lead of this unelected bully. Regime change in Iraq would be nice for Iraqis. Regime change in Washington would do more good to the world in the long run."

In a letter to the Guardian today, Professor Dawkins made a further attack on the American president, saying his comparison to Winston Churchill was "vain".

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/mar/06/highereducation.uk

[cpwm17]

19. Real Time with Bill Maher started on February 21, 2003

and the Iraq invasion started on 20 March 2003. On one of his first shows just before the invasion he said he didn't care if we invaded. I was taken aback, since he said that in front of an anti-war audience.

He strongly supports Netanyahu and Israel's wars. He has said that Muslims (or Arabs) only know violence and the way to deal with Muslims is with violence. I wish there were transcripts for all of his shows available to get accurate quotes.

I haven't known Dawkins to support war, he just doesn't understand the significance of US/British war making.

[hunter]

17. Two conformist corporate monkeys wearing suits and ties while spewing lies.

That's what I see.

Radical Islam actively recruits the violent nuts. Sanitized corporate society has evolved past that; they simply shake the violent nuts lose from the trees, and then deny any association with them. It was a "bad cop." It was a random Christian psychopath.

Both groups employ fear and intimidation as a means of achieving political power and controlling the political process.

[LuvNewcastle]

20. Just because America has been wrong

in the way we have waged this war on terror doesn't absolve the Muslim countries who kill gay people and subjugate women of their atrocities. If countries like Saudi Arabia truly want to enter the global community, they are going to have to make a secular society that is tolerant of all people. I think it's our duty to criticize the cultures of the Muslim countries who murder and torture and imprison people just for being who they are. I think it's the whole world's responsibility to speak out about their hideous, backward behavior.