But really when confronted with a statistic like 78% of British Musilms thought the Danish cartoonist should be prosecuted what is your response?  

And about not mentioning women but gays?  By my count every time gays were mentioned they followed the mention of women.

And, the panelists, Nicholas Kristoff always seems to me to be a bit of a lightweight despite the serious, if not creepy, themes of some of his NYT columns; Michael Steel, understandably, provides candid and interesting insights now that he is unharnessed from his Republican job; and Ben Affleck's star is movies, but also brings his liberal thinking to discussions--as he effectively did during the beginning of the panel discussion.

The subsequent addition of Sam Harris to the panel should have been the highlight of the show's discussion, since this was, with the exception of Steel, a liberal crowd, albeit, as expected, with differences on certain issues.

But, in my view, Affleck became too emotional to contribute, or, more importantly, to listen and find out what Harris' was trying to say.  And, trying is a good descriptor, since Harris was not given an opportunity to present his case--a case that runs counter to many liberals and deserved at least, a hearing.  Bill Maher was, of course, Maher--often funny, but poignant, twists on current events.

 Since so many people get their news and information from shows like Maher, Colbert and Stewart, this was a good opportunity, if only to learn the difference between Islam and Muslim.  

Harris, seemed to be saying that belief guides behavior and certain religious ideas, jihad, martyrdom, blasphemy, apostasy, may lead to oppression, and, even, killings. The lines from Matthew (render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's and unto God the things that are God's) provide a basis to divorce religion from politics and secular ethics. A similar line from the Koran (there is no compulsion to religion) is not as strong for mainstream interpretation or re-interpretation of Islam.

 Harris did manage to get out that his concerns provide no shelter to those who hate Muslims, and, my take, was that he is uncomfortable with finding that a large contingent of those who agree with him on this matter are right-wingers, or, in Europe, fascists.  

Harris should be able to disabuse such adherents with his stated opinion that "the idea that any book was inspired by the creator of the universe is poison--intellectually, ethically, and politically."  

1.  Robert Mapplethorpe and pisschri$t
   
2.  Sinead O'Connor ripping up the pope's picture

I'm a practicing Catholic. At times, over the years, the practice was less and the questions and issues were many.  As I grew older, I embraced the Church with new found appreciation and love  on a different level than a 7-year-old communicant ... that evolution was not without internal turmoil and occasional open debate/discussion with Church officials.  Along the lines of the columnist EJ Dionne I can exclaim with a smile that Pope Francis sure helps.

Over all these years, as well, I've really learned on a more than intellectual level that an individual's deep belief system is just that. All manner of epithets or brandishing "facts" tends to go in circles and lead to raised temperatures.  My personal belief is that the major religions can and do offer positive supports for individuals on their journey through life as well as contribute to a shared value, community system.  At the same time, the use of any religious belief system to ram or jam through an external or differing belief system definitely turns the good on its head should it morph into a dictatorial, ugly perversion of spiritualism.

Insofar as I know, many here (myself included) could readily cite examples of religious extremism ... and the wars & persecutions pursued in pursuit of "religious" power.  That is nothing new.  For example: A course on Church history--as an adult Catholic--does not shy away from the  Borgia Popes or the Inquisition or the periodic misplaced dalliance with power-mongering dictators (see South American history, e.g.) But then, we see a Pope Francis reminding us of forgiveness, mercy, compassion (even as he opens the conclave this weekend of marriage and the family.)  We all change--or at least, we are all capable of growing and changing for the better.  That covers people who believe in God and people who don't.  We are, after all, human.

In the interests of communication & education -- and without regard to trying to "win" an unwinnable religious argument -- one thing that is helpful is explanation.  When a practitioner of a religion or spiritual approach takes the time to explain, without defensive posture, the why and wherefore of a specific belief, it can only decrease destructive misinformation.  For example: Earlier in this thread, mention was made of differing purposes for "jihad."  Considering the current world state of affairs, a discussion of the meaning of jihad (without the inflammatory language seemingly associated with it) would be worthwhile.

You don't understand anything really. You're still stuck in the cold war thinking. You're thinking that something like this can be won with guns and planes and something else. We've spent trillions doing what you want and it still has not solved the problem has it? But instead of admitting that the way you think is a failure you take the lazy way and double down on it. Jim, trying the same failed strategy and hoping it works the next time is called insanity.

support of Israel gave bin Ladin the excuse to attack us.

It has taken me a lot of listening to Maher, and now Harris, to understand what they are saying. Harris boiled it down well later also, describing how he sees the 3 big categories of of, at least what is available to the outsider, how the wider Muslim community reacts to the extremism of a few. Obviously books can and have been written on the subject, but i though, for a five minute segment on a talk show, they did pretty well.

Many liberals treat things like thinking apostates should be killed, thinking people that write negatively about the Prophet, or draw his image should be killed, women or anyone else should be stoned when they step out of line, etc, as equivalent to dietary or wardrobe choices that we as good liberals should be 'tolerant' of as 'just what they believe'.  It is not 'hating Muslims' to step up and say, 'no those ideas are wrong, I don't care what your books says.'  

And in fact endless arguments about what the books actually say are beside the point.

Does Islamic culture differ from Western Culture when it comes to how religion and government mix, and does this difference account for the increased political violence within the Islamic world and between the Islamic world and the west?  

The question does not imply that Christianity or any other religion is better nor that all Muslims are the same or bad.  

For me the answer is yes on the fist part.  There is a major difference between the ways western governments interact with religion as compared to the Islamic world.

For whatever reason in the West we've developed cultures in which we separate the church and the state.  We started doing this hundreds of years ago when Christianity was clearly the dominant religion and belief system.  Some Christians would argue we've gone to far but good or bad they continue to lose this argument.

This question has nothing to do with individuals but the culture as a whole and how religion interacts with the state and culture.

Islam is not a race.  It is a belief system.  A belief system that is not just a religion, but a political system and a "Total Way of Life".

The answer to the second part is because Islam becomes the state it naturally clashes with our secular cultures and political systems in the west.

Why is a complicated question and we in the west are not without our share of blame but the conflict is there and in some ways inevitable.  

As George Will put it this weekend..."We've bombed 14 Islamic Countries since 1980".

In my view both cultures are to blame for the clash between them over the years.  Intolerance and ideology acted upon by our foolish leaders has led to more bloodshed then necessary.

However the difference is clear and pretending otherwise leads to useless bickering that doesn't solve the issue.  

The Ben Afflecks of this argument are correct in that needless fear mongering doesn't work but the Sam Harris's are correct in pointing out that a difference exists and a clear clash of cultures exists.

How do we deal with it?   For me I find our culture superior and for me a battle of ideas is worth waging so that all people eventually can live in free and democratic societies.

Another point I'd make is this clash is inevitable because the world is shrinking.   Ideas can move rapidly and immediately throughout the world and countries and cultures can no longer exist in isolation.

The good, bad and ugly is exposed for all and one of the two ways of life is going to emerge the victor.

The question is does this happen peacefully or through violence.

Maher and Harris are stating facts. All Affleck does is claim they are Islamphobes by inference.

Incidentally, I'd like to note a small correction to your post -- Michael Steele is the former chair of the Republican National Committee. He was ousted from his post in early 2011 in an internal party coup, and replaced by Reince Priebus.

I have one quibble with these quibbling men and that is: why in these discussions, when there is mention of systemic discrimination in islam, is anti-woman always linked to (and it appears to be justified by and legitimized by) also saying they are anti-gay?? Like being anti-woman is just not that important. That has to be legitimized by also being anti-gay.

But my point was that the Old Testament is fulfilled and the New Testament teaches love.

Of course that removes a lot of ammunition from those who must always attack Christianity.

They are quite able to read the numerous examples of violence advocated in the New Testament.