Hemant Mehta's Blog, page 1929

Third Time’s a Charm for the Least Offensive Atheist Ad Ever

More than two years ago, atheist Justin Vacula and the NEPA Freethought Society attempted to place the following ad on buses in the County of Lackawanna Transit System (COLTS) in Pennsylvania:

That’s almost literally the least offensive atheist ad ever. It says the word… and little else.

COLTS rejected the ad, calling it too “controversial.”

Justin appealed the decision with the help of American Atheists, but the COLTS leaders didn’t change their minds.

“We will not allow our transit vehicles or property to become a public forum for the debate and discussion of public issues, and since passing this policy in June, we have been very consistent in not allowing any ads that violate the policy. That’s why we didn’t permit Mr. Vacula’s ad promoting atheism,” said COLTS solicitor Tim Hinton.

Last year, Justin tried again. He submitted a similar ad without the mention of American Atheists.

Once again, he was rejected. In fact, COLTS voted on a new policy to prevent this “debacle” from ever happening again:

The amended policy, which the COLTS board approved without discussion by a 4-0 vote, clarifies and lays out in more detail the types of advertising the agency will not accept, including ads that promote the existence or nonexistence of a supreme being or deity or other religious beliefs.

“It’s our aim to be completely neutral on religious issues,” solicitor Timothy Hinton said.

He said the revised policy had been in the works “for quite some time” and was not prompted by the NEPA Freethought Society’s latest attempt to advertise on COLTS buses.

To be sure, you could argue that an ad simply reading “Atheists” is religiously neutral… but hey, they passed a policy that now prohibits religious and non-religious advertising. Equality for all, right?

Well, Justin didn’t give up. A revised ad, stripped of even the word “atheist,” was actually approved by COLTS. The only issue now is whether he can raise the money to put it on buses:

You can chip in right here:

$230 will allow for creation and one month of display. Additional funds raised past $230 will pay for Indiegogo fundraising fees and be used to benefit the NEPA Freethought Society including but not limited to upkeep on its meetup.com website. [$500 is the minimum for an Indiegogo fundraiser.]

Hats off to Justin for his persistence!

(Large portions of this article were posted earlier)

Having Been Denied the Chance to Deliver Invocations, Atheists Will Soon Protest a Rowlett (TX) City Council Meeting

In 2010, the Rowlett City Council in Texas changed their prayer policy. They used to have Christian prayers, then the Freedom From Religion Foundation warned them of the repercussions of doing that, so the council opted to go with non-sectarian prayers.

But since the town is predominantly Christian, those “non-sectarian” prayers turned out to be almost all Christian prayers, anyway.

Local atheists called them out on it last year:

“How would they like it if they were forced to pray to Muhammad or Allah or Ganesha the Hindu God — any of the others out there, because that’s what they’re doing to us,” said [atheist Chad] Aldridge. “They just don’t see the error that they are oppressing a smaller minority in us the atheists, the Hindus, any Muslims or even Jews in this town that don’t believe in Christ’s divinity and don’t want it enforced on us at the meetings.”

The atheists say they will keep fighting for the change.

…

“Just because there are more Christians in Rowlett, does not give them the right, in the United States, to leave others out,” said Terry McDonald from the Metroplex Atheists.

The atheists said they would accept a moment of silence, but the city council said they wouldn’t budge… because all the people who mattered were Christian:

“The established bodies of religion in Rowlett are Christians,” Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Michael Gallops. “There’s a Catholic church here, there are multiple denominations of churches but there aren’t any from other religions.

…

“There is no reason for us to change the policy, the policy is constitutional, the policy is neutral, it’s non-discriminatory we’re gonna stick with it,” said Gallops.

Yep, the policy was non-discriminatory… to everyone in the majority. And it was “neutral” to anyone who thinks religion is the default mode for government meetings.

But that was all before the Town of Greece v. Galloway decision came down. In June, Metroplex Atheists Rowlett said they had every right to deliver invocations — and that the law was on their side:

The organization, backed by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, is giving the city 10 business days to respond to a request to add two of its Rowlett members to the list of those who can give the invocation at council meetings.

“We would still rather see no invocation at all in government meetings, but if they’re going to have them, we want to push for equal time,” said Randy Word, president of the area group, which has been battling the city for four years.

Rowlett leaders said they were not changing their policy… which all but guaranteed a lawsuit:

City Attorney David Berman said Tuesday that Rowlett’s position was unchanged and that the city probably wouldn’t respond to the letter. Mayor Todd Gottel also reaffirmed his stance.

“As long as I’m mayor, we are going to pray,” Gottel said Wednesday.

And as long as Gottel was mayor, the taxpayers in Rowlett would be throwing away their money to cover FFRF’s legal fees.

This Tuesday, the Metroplex Atheists Rowlett group is planning a protest before the City Council meeting:

Metroplex Atheists Rowlett is calling for a protest at the city hall on 9/16 at 7PM, which is 30 minutes before the council meeting officially begins. The intent of the protest is to bring attention to the discrimination against atheists giving the opening invocation and not the fact that the meetings are opened with an invocation. Resident Rowlett atheists will then speak to the council during the citizens input portion of the meeting.

All they want is for two of their members to be added to the approved list of celebrants.

It’s a simple request, but for the stubborn Christianity of Rowlett city officials. FFRF is giving the city all the opportunities it can to avoid a lawsuit, but the city isn’t budging, even though it would lose this case. If you live in the area, please let me know they’re making a mistake.

(Large portions of this article were posted earlier)

Devout Jewish Prostitutes Forced to Have Sex With Clients to “Bring About Redemption,” Police Say

Maybe there’s a reason that sects and sex are (almost) homonyms. Via BBC News, we learn that Israeli police busted a prostitution ring that had a religious bent:

Jewish women were allegedly forced into having sex with non-Jews by a messianic sect… Police say the victims were brainwashed into believing that having sex with non-Jews would “save the Jewish people and bring about redemption.”

Presumably that refers to winning clients over to the cause of Yahweh.

[The women] also made to become dependent on alcohol and drugs, and have sex under their influence, police say.

The head of the police investigation, Superintendent Arik Mordechai, told the Haaretz newspaper that some 15 women had been recruited, some of whom were believed to be minors… Over the course of the investigation, police discovered that [the sect] was active throughout Israel.

The International Business Times elaborates:

In court, a police representative said, “This is an investigation of a messianic cult in which Jewish women were sleeping with non-Jews. The investigators discovered a shocking case in which they humiliated and trampled on these women – physically and emotionally – and it reached the lowest possible level.

“There are many people involved in this case and the investigation has only just begun.”

More on “sacred prostitution” here and here.

(Thanks to Scott for the link. Image via Shutterstock)

Days After Eliminating Invocations, Winter Garden City Commissioners (FL) Ask Their Lawyer for a Do-Over

You may recall that Mayor John Rees, the leader of the Winter Garden City Commissioners (in Florida), kicked atheist Joseph Richardson out of a meeting a couple of weeks ago after he refused to stand for the invocation and Pledge of Allegiance:

Rees singles out Richardson for not standing up

Several atheist members of the Central Florida Freethought Community said they would stage a silent protest by attending the city’s next meeting (which took place last night) and remaining seated during the invocation and Pledge in solidarity with Richardson.

But just after they announced that, the commissioners convened for a special meeting. They were considering three possible options: replacing the invocations with a moment of silence, opening up the invocations to everybody (including — *gasp* — atheists), or eliminating the invocation and Pledge altogether.

They decided to go with the moment of silence while also allowing people to stay seated during the Pledge of Allegiance.

Victory, right?!

Not quite. Yesterday, during their regular meeting, the commissioners asked their legal counsel for a do-over:

Before debating regular business Thursday, Rees asked city attorney Kurt Ardaman to bring the commission another policy. He did not specify his preference but he said last week he preferred to keep prayer as a part of the ceremonial opening.

Commissioner Kent Makin who had voted to replace the prayer with a moment of silence also said he has had second thoughts.

“I don’t feel satisfied with the vote I gave,” Makin said. “Let’s take some time and review this and come up with a different policy.”

The problem was solved! And now they want to go back to screw it all up?!

Given their previous options, if they went with having invocations again, two things would happen:

1) Non-Christian groups would have to be allowed to give those invocations. That means the commissioners would have to say yes to atheists, Wiccans, Pagans, Satanists, Scientologists, Muslims, Hindus, and every other group that makes them tense up.

2) People could still remain seated during those invocations, which means we’re right back to where we were a few weeks ago. I thought Rees was trying to avoid that.

I would love it if Ardaman just responded to them with a roll of his eyes and a sheet of paper that says, “There are no other alternatives. Just move on with real business.”

(Thanks to Brian for the link. Portions of this article were posted earlier)

Sam Harris Calls Out President Obama on the Falsehood in Last Night’s Speech That Islam Is Fundamentally Good

Last week, I riffed a little on the disingenuous ways in which U.S. presidents advance the idea that, despite reams of evidence to the contrary, religion is necessarily a force for good. This compulsion is especially great when it comes to Islam, the so-called religion of peace.

George W. Bush tried to make us believe that Islam is fundamentally kind, and Barack Obama has repeated the falsehood a hundred times. To hear the current president tell it, literally no religion desires anything but a world full of love and puppy dogs and pretty rainbows. At all cost, apparently, we must pretend that there is no elephant in the room. At the very least we should refrain from mentioning its presence.

Last night, in Obama’s ISIL speech on the eve of 9/11 (wasn’t the Twin Towers madness just about the best proof that religion is often anything but benign?), the president again went out of his way to deny the completely obvious link between Islam and violence.

He told two enormous lies in quick succession: that

ISIL is not Islamic

… and that

No religion condones the killing of innocents.

Wow.

I appreciate the predicament of those who hold the country’s highest office. For strategic reasons, they tell themselves they must sing the Islam-is-A-OK refrain. They do it, somewhat understandably, so as not to further alienate moderate Muslims at home and abroad, and also because we really aren’t fighting a war against all Muslims — only against the dozens if not hundreds of millions of Muslim fundamentalist militants and their supporters.

The fantasy that Obama advances time and again is that there is a clear line between what members of ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Boko Haram believe is “true” Islam, and what the rest of the world’s Muslims believe their religion is all about. As Sam Harris wrote last year,

In fact, [such] groups have as good a claim as any to being impeccable Muslims.

Harris, thank goodness, has plenty of timely things to say about last night’s presidential speech and about Obama’s absurd recasting of Islam as an overall force for good.

I cannot help wondering when this scrim of pretense and delusion will be finally burned away — either by the clear light of reason or by a surfeit of horror meted out to innocents by the parties of God. Which will come first, flying cars and vacations to Mars, or a simple acknowledgment that beliefs guide behavior and that certain religious ideas — jihad, martyrdom, blasphemy, apostasy — reliably lead to oppression and murder? It may be true that no faith teaches people to massacre innocents exactly — but innocence, as the President surely knows, is in the eye of the beholder. Are apostates “innocent”? Blasphemers? Polytheists? Islam has the answer, and the answer is “no”…

Martyrdom, hating infidels, and a penchant for violent jihad aren’t fringe, borderline tendencies in the Muslim world, Harris points out:

These preoccupations are supported by the Koran and numerous hadith. That is why the popular Saudi cleric Mohammad Al-Areefi sounds like the ISIS army chaplain. The man has 9.5 million followers on Twitter (twice as many as Pope Francis has). If you can find an important distinction between the faith he preaches and that which motivates the savagery of ISIS, you should probably consult a neurologist.

And:

A hatred of infidels is arguably the central message of the Koran. The reality of martyrdom and the sanctity of armed jihad are about as controversial under Islam as the resurrection of Jesus is under Christianity.

Harris bemoans the fact that

In any conversation on this topic, one must continually deploy a firewall of caveats and concessions to irrelevancy: Of course, U.S. foreign policy has problems. Yes, we really must get off oil. No, I did not support the war in Iraq. Sure, I’ve read Chomsky. No doubt, the Bible contains equally terrible passages. Yes, I heard about that abortion clinic bombing in 1984… Now can we honestly talk about the link between belief and behavior?

He’s right; we really should.

In the end, Harris brings back his argument to our Kumbaya-humming man in the White House:

[I]n response to the starkest conceivable expression of religious fanaticism, President Obama has responded with euphemisms — and missiles. This may be the best we can hope for, given the state of our discourse about religion. Perhaps one day we will do “everything that we can to protect our people and the timeless values that we stand for.” But today, we won’t even honestly describe the motivations of our enemies. And in the act of lying to ourselves, we continue to pay lip service to the very delusions that empower them.

We do so at our peril.

Biblical Marriage Isn’t About One Man and One Woman

This is a guest post written by Rachel Ford. She regularly blogs at Rachel’s Hobbit Hole.

…

Don’t fall out of your seat, but in an interview with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Duck Dynasty‘s Phil Robertson (below) had even more to say about homosexuality, premarital sex, and the Bible.

Most of it is his usual schtick of sex gives you cooties unless you’re married (presumably to a 15- or 16-year old?) and I won’t bore you with the details. What I do want to draw your attention to, however, is the blatantly false assertion he makes about what “God says” about marriage:

“God says, ‘One woman, one man,’ and everyone says, ‘Oh, that’s old hat, that’s that old Bible stuff,’” he said.

Robertson was kind enough to erase any doubt as to which “God” he might be referring to: naturally, the God of the Bible. And since that God doesn’t grant interviews, the Bible is our only source for what God (allegedly) said.

The problem is that the Bible never claims that God said marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

Christians often turn to the New Testament to justify that claim. Paul writes about marriage in a seemingly singular (and often decidedly disdainful) fashion, such as in 1 Corinthians 7, and Jesus refers to two people when discussing divorce in Mark 10 and Matthew 19 (which is to be expected, presuming a husband doesn’t divorce more than one wife at a time). Despite that, it’s worth noting that nowhere is a clear proscription against polygamy given — Jesus referred to — but did not “correct” — first covenant law, which clearly allowed polygamy. Corinthians — written in a time when Pagan culture had already introduced the concept of monogamy — might use singular language to describe spouses, but it doesn’t actually define marriage as being between one man and one woman. In fact, nowhere does the Bible declare, on behalf of God or anyone else, does it use that precise definition.

So Robertson gets his Bible wrong when he claims to know what “God says.” Even if he had meant to say “the Bible says” one man and one woman, he would have still been wrong.

But “wrong” is too generous. He, in fact, settles on the opposite of what the Bible tells us about marriage. The Bible is full of specific examples of marriage — some of them allegedly directly sanctioned by God — that contradict the fairytale version of marriage that Christians claim as “Biblical” nowadays.

What follows is a list of types of marriage defined in the Bible, often by God. I have purposely avoided examples or marriage in the Bible that were supposed to have ticked God off, so as not to misrepresent the joy that was true Biblical marriage:

Biblical marriage is a man arranging to buy a girl from her father for an agreed upon purchase price (Genesis 29:18)Biblical marriage is a wife “giving” her servant to her husband as a “wife” for sex and procreation, regardless of her maid servant’s wishes (Genesis 16:2-3, Genesis 30:3, Genesis 30:9, etc.)Biblical marriage is a raiding party murdering the fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters of a people but saving the young virgins because they want “wives” (i.e. women to capture and legally rape) (Judges 21:10-14)Biblical marriage is a raiding party lying in wait to capture more women as “wives” (Judges 21:20-24)Biblical marriage is God commanding the massacre of every male and non-virgin, and handing over the virgin women to his followers. Like the 32,000 women counted among the “spoils” in Numbers 31Biblical marriage is a victim being forced to marry her rapist with no hope of divorce (but don’t worry — her father is suitably compensated in cash for the trouble, and this is only valid if the woman is not already another man’s property… so relax! No property rights are violated by this arrangement) (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)Biblical marriage is selling your daughter as a slave to be given to her owner or owner’s son for sexual exploitation as a “wife” (though denied even minimal protections) (Exodus 21:7-11)Biblical marriage is one man taking multiple, even hundreds, of wives and concubines (see: David, Solomon, Jacob, Abraham, etc)Biblical marriage is a woman as property whose own happiness is inconsequential, but whose property status is absolute (see: David and Michal)Biblical marriage is for those who “cannot control themselves” and so must opt away from what is “good for them”: unmarried celibacy (1 Corinthians 7:1-9)Biblical marriage is a woman marrying her dead husband’s brother (whether either party wishes it or not) so that she can have a kid in the dead husband’s name (Deuteronomy 25:5). Sometimes, it manifests as a woman seducing her former father-in-law in the guise of a prostitute in order to fulfill her God-ordained obligation (Genesis 38, Judah and Tamar). Sometimes, it manifests as a husband getting struck down by God, for refusing to impregnate his dead brother’s wife (Genesis 38, Onan and Tamar). Even according to the Bible, it doesn’t seem to have been a very happy implementation of the institutionBiblical marriage is neither partner being able to refrain from sex without the consent of the other (1 Corinthians 7:4-5)

That’s what the Bible actually says about marriage. In fact, when it comes right down to it, Biblical marriage is almost always two or more men deciding between themselves what woman an individual will take as a wife — be it a father selling his daughter into sexual slavery, a husband-to-be arranging with a father an agreement suitable to both parties (irrespective of the wife-to-be’s wishes) on how to dispose of/acquire the female in question, a party of soldiers or raiders murdering a woman’s entire family in order to claim her (sometimes supposedly at the direct command of God), a rapist grabbing an unattached female and at the same time getting himself a new wife, etc.

Marriage according to the Bible isn’t love and romance and butterflies in the pit of your stomach. It’s very, very far from it. You have to wonder whether Robertson ever reads the book he holds in such high esteem.

(This article was adapted from an earlier post on the topic.)

Victor Valley College (CA) Board of Trustees Votes for Prayer at Meetings so They Have a More “Serious Tone”

The Board of Trustees for Victor Valley Community College in California just voted on a new policy that they think will benefit everyone: Prayer at all future board meetings:

The legislation was first proposed by Trustee Joseph W. Brady in May and received support from fellow Trustees Lorrie Denson and John Pinkerton.

…

Denson is the first lady of Burning Bush Baptist Church in Victorville and said the spiritual gesture would add to a more serious tone at the meetings, despite the fact that it could open the college up to lawsuits.

…

Pinkerton, who is a high school counselor, cited the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance as evidence that religious speech was welcomed in schools.

“Serious tone”? What do they do at these meetings normally? Throw around confetti and blast music?

Here’s the kicker, though:

According to board documents, a variety of religious leaders and clergy members from the local area will be invited to offer the invocation. It will occur after the Pledge of Allegiance and cannot be longer than three minutes.

As it stands, it doesn’t sound like atheists will be invited. I have serious doubts whether they’ll go out of their way to bring in minority religious groups, too. But maybe they just need a Satanic Temple representative to speak at a future meeting to realize their attempt at a more “serious tone” is much more of a distraction than they think.

I would be pissed off if I were a student there. The board wants to use my tuition money to defend themselves against a lawsuit of their own making instead of putting it back to use within the school? It’s irresponsible and completely unnecessary.

At least one trustee had the right idea:

“If we have to spend 10 cents fighting this I’m going to be very upset about that,” [Board President Dennis] Henderson said. “I pray in church and I don’t wave it around in here. What you do on your time, to whomever, it’s your decision and I don’t want to jam anything down anyone’s throat.”

Henderson doesn’t seem to understand that Christian prayers don’t count unless everyone watches you say them…

So there you have it: The leaders of an institution of higher education hastily voted to punish themselves (and the students) in the future. Maybe they should take some classes and learn something instead of going to these meetings.

(Thanks to Brian for the link)

Proposed Texas Social Studies Textbooks Are Full of Bias and Revisionist History, Say Outside Reviewers

What’s more important when it comes to writing history textbooks: Succumbing to political pressure or accuracy?

If you said accuracy, then you’re not a member of the Texas State Board of Education.

Politico’s Stephanie Simon explains:

Texas students may soon be reading in their history textbooks that the American system of democracy was inspired by Moses, segregated schools weren’t all that bad and taxes imposed for programs like Social Security haven’t measurably improved society.

Those passages are among dozens of biased, misleading or inaccurate lessons identified on Wednesday by a panel of scholars commissioned by a liberal advocacy group to analyze dozens of new history, geography and civics textbooks up for review by the state Board of Education.

The problem isn’t just the textbook publishers — it’s the fact that they have to write their textbooks in alignment with the state standards, which are created by politicians with agendas in the first place.

The Texas Freedom Network commissioned the review and their full report can be seen here:

Among the problems:

A number of government and world history textbooks exaggerate Judeo-Christian influence on the nation’s founding and Western political tradition.

…

Several world geography and history textbooks suffer from an incomplete — and often inaccurate — account of religions other than Christianity.

…

One world history textbook includes outdated — and possibly offensive — anthropological categories and racial terminology in describing African civilizations.

…

One government textbook (Pearson) includes a biased — verging on offensive — treatment of affirmative action.

It’s such a disservice to the students who may not be able to separate the bias from the facts.

Emile Lester, a political scientist at the University of Mary Washington in Virginia, summarized his report this way: He called the texts a “triumph of ideology over ideas.”

The standards and the textbooks will combine to make Texas students’ “knowledge of American history a casualty of the culture wars,” Lester wrote.

Oh, and in case you’re wondering who these Board of Education textbook reviewers are, who have the job of selecting and approving books for students, they’re exactly who you think they are:

Out of more than 140 individuals appointed to the panels, only three are current faculty members at Texas colleges and universities. TFN has identified more than a dozen other Texas academics — including the chair of the History Department at Southern Methodist University as well as faculty at the University of Texas at Austin — who applied to serve but did not get appointments to the panels.

I don’t get how this is happening, especially since, earlier this year, the Board of Education voted to prevent precisely this problem:

Among the changes approved Friday was a mandate that teachers or professors be given priority for serving on the textbook review panels for subjects in their areas of expertise. They also enable the board to appoint outside experts to check objections raised by review panels and ensure they are based on fact, not ideology.

“It won’t eliminate politics, but it will make it where it’s a more informed process,” said Thomas Ratliff, a Republican board member who pushed for the changes, which he said “force us to find qualified people, leave them alone, and let them do their jobs.”

Have fun re-taking all of your history classes in college, Texas high-schoolers.

13 Years Ago, the Twin Towers Fell to Religious Fanaticism. Here’s Fearless Footage of What It Was Like on the Ground

Mark LaGanga is as brave as the first responders he captured on September 11, 2001. LaGanga, a video journalist with CBS, was driving down Manhattan’s West Side Highway when a real-life Armageddon unfolded before him. So he did his duty. He grabbed his camera and walked straight into the nightmarish cityscape of that dreadful day.

I’d never seen this footage until today.

There are many parts that are unforgettable. At 16:59, a bedraggled WTC worker named Mike Benfante recounts how he carried a wheelchair-bound woman down 68 flights of stairs. At 17:42, another dazed survivor declines to be interviewed, saying only, “I’m having a real bad day,” before slumping off, dragging a bag behind him that carves a trail into the thick layer of dust and ashes that has already formed on the pavement.

Then, seconds later, the second tower collapses, pushing a toxic, impenetrable ash cloud in LaGanga’s direction as people run past him left and right. What does he do? He holds his gaze and his camera steady, wipes down the lens, and keeps filming.

Throughout the video, you’ll hear chirping two-tone alarms, which, LaGanga later learned, is the sound of the personal alarms that firefighters have on them. The alarms go off when the person who carries them lies down and doesn’t move for a while.

Ponder what that means.

If the heartbreak and devastation doesn’t become clear enough from LaGanga’s incredible video, this YouTube footage of desperate people jumping out of the burning buildings should drive home the horror visited upon innocents by Islam’s finest warriors. No blood and gore are shown, but that doesn’t diminish how upsetting these images are. Proceed at your own risk.

The scene that somehow affected me the most is at 2:47: A young firefighter violently winces after he follows a falling human being with his eyes and the person splatters apart, outside of the camera’s frame, in front of him.

I’m no ghoul, but I think we ought to keep these visuals in mind to remind ourselves of the evil that is religious fanaticism. It doesn’t just happen in Iraq or Syria. Thirteen years ago, Islamists brought the fight to the streets of America. More carnage in Allah’s name will follow. And more Americans will, without hesitation, rush into harm’s way to aid the afflicted — and document what’s been done to them. My hat’s off to them all.

Bill Maher Discusses the Problem with Islam on Charlie Rose

Bill Maher appeared on Charlie Rose Tuesday night to discuss his upcoming comedy special and, as expected, the conversation eventually steered to religion. Maher made the point that people like Sam Harris have been making for a while: Criticism of what the Koran says seems off-limits these days and moderate Muslims are not doing enough to denounce the extremists.

The segment begins at the 31:15 mark, though the religion part begins around 39:39:

Maher claimed that the “vast majority” of Muslims supported draconian measures against those who leave the faith or draw a picture of Muhammad… Like Rose, I have to challenge him on that. I have yet to see evidence to justify that claim. However, Maher is right that in certain countries, that’s true. As he said, in Egypt, according to the Pew Research Center, 82% of Muslims support stoning people who commit adultery while 84% of Muslims support the death penalty for apostates:

What about when you’re not in the Middle East? The Pew Global Attitudes Project found that, even in America, Muslims weren’t universally opposed to suicide bombings. In fact, more than 20% of American Muslims could think of some justification for it:

You can see a lot of other links to surveys with disturbing findings here.

Rose then asked Maher if he would ever consider debating a moderate Muslim over these issues, to which Maher responded, “Find one.” He was being facetious — Congressman Keith Ellison and professor Reza Aslan are both moderate Muslims who have appeared on Real Time before. (They were also on CNN this week discussing similar comments made by Maher.)

There’s no doubt that there are plenty of moderate Muslims who denounce violence in the name of their faith, even if they’re not always highlighted in the media. But when it comes to other non-violent issues, like supporting cartoons criticizing the faith in the name of free speech, many of those voices seem to fade away.

Maher will inevitably come under fire as he always does for his comments, but it’s a conversation we should be willing to have even if we disagree with him. Islam alone doesn’t create extremists, but it’s one hell of a potent ingredient. And when you live under a regime that’s already prone to violence, religion is perhaps the most powerful tool those leaders have to keep the people under their control.