Bill Maher stated Friday night on his HBO talk show, “Real Time,” that he did not believe, like some Liberals do, that all religions are alike. He went a little further and said that it is likely that Muslims have values that are at odds with American values.
As Mediaite reported November 20, comedian Bill Maher, an unabashed liberal himself, slammed liberals that defend Muslim refugees without acknowledging that they embrace — or at least possibly embrace — values that are at odds with American values. He cited a poll that revealed that 53 percent of Americans believed Syrian refugees harbor values that are at odd with American values. He admitted “that may not be wrong.”
He continued: “If you are in this religion, you probably do have values that are at odds. This is what liberals don’t want to recognize.” He noted that many refugees seeking refuge in the West (such as the hotly debated Syrian refugee contingent) may come from places where Sharia law holds sway or where the populace wants to invoke Sharia law. He used for examples the Muslim immigrants in the UK that continue to carry out brutal traditions such as female genital mutilation and honor killings, noticeably ignoring or forsaking Western values. “This idea that somehow we do share values that all religions are alike is bulls***.”
Canadian author and politician Chrystia Freeland, who sat in on the “Real Time” panel Friday night, strongly disagreed with Maher, arguing that the Paris attacks should be a rallying call for the West to stand up for diversity. She suggested that it be a bulwark against the Islamic State’s terroristic attempts at sewing fear. “We are not going to say,” Freeland said, “that Muslims are worse than Jews or are worse than Christians or atheists.”
“Not as people,” he interjected. He then added pointedly, “The ideas are worse.”
But Freeland disagreed. “No,” she said, “and their culture is not worse, and we also appreciate that ISIL does not represent Muslims.”
When Freeland argued that you cannot alter extreme Islamic perspective by broadly painting Muslim ideas as bad, Maher defended by saying he was trying to stand up for moderate Muslims by having a debate about Islam’s extremist ideologies. Like: “Killing women for being raped, I would say is a bad idea.”
But if you think you’ve heard Bill Maher’s argument before, you just might be thinking of Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson’s much-maligned position that he would not “advocate” for a a Muslim to ever become president. To explain, Carson said that Muslims followed tenets of Islam that were “inconsistent” with the Constitution of the United States.
He told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union”: “I would have problems with somebody who embraced all the doctrines associated with Islam. If they’re not willing to reject, you know, sharia and all the portions of it that are talked about in the Koran, if they’re not willing to reject that and subject that to American values and the Constitution, then of course I wouldn’t. And I would ask you, would you be willing to do that? Would you be willing to advocate for somebody that would not do that. Probably not.”
Carson further elaborated that a Muslim president would be acceptable as long as the newly elected president renounced the “higher law” of Islam. Taken in total, Carson’s words, although referring to a specific person, aligned with those of Bill Maher.
To find broader agreement, back in September, Ben Carson told Fox News (via CNN), “The jihadists want to infiltrate our nation. We have to exercise something that even resembles common sense. That would be foolishness to take in people from a region where we don’t have any way in making a determination if this person is radicalized already or potentially radicalized.”
Carson’s position and Maher’s seem to be in agreement. It might just be the only topic where the two might find common ground, but it does appear to exist. And it is this: Those who practice Islam, including refugees immigrating to the US, might be radicalized and, if so, do not share fundamental American values. Period.
Earlier in September, the White House announced that the United States was prepared to receive up to 10,000 Syrian refugees. But since the Paris terrorist attacks on November 13, and even though none of the terrorists have been proven to be Syrian nationals (several were European), there has been considerable public and political opposition to allowing Syrian refugees, of which there are an estimated 4 million outside Syria’s borders, into the country.