Cheering Bill Maher?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjInNxIwfRw

If I had a dollar for every time Bill Maher got more cheers from conservatives than liberals, I’d almost have enough for a Little Ceasars Hot-N-Ready. Yet Maher is getting support from several conservative quadrants for his bold and non-compromising stance on the inherently violent nature of Islam.

It’s kind of amusing how host Charlie Rose keeps throwing Maher a lifeline (how many times does he say something like, “But you’re not really saying…”). Maher doesn’t take the hint, though; he doubles down, especially when Rose tries to make Christianity as primed for radicalization as Islam:

Maher: There are illiberal beliefs, that are held by vast numbers of Muslim people…

Rose: Christians too

Maher: No, that’s not true. Vast numbers of Christians do not believe that if you leave the Christian religion, you should be killed for it. Vast numbers of Christians do not treat women as second class citizens. Vast numbers of Christians do not believe if you draw a picture of Jesus Christ, you should get killed…Would most Muslim people condone [ISIS]? No, but most Muslim people in the world do condone violence for what you think.

Atheist Sam Harris agreed with Maher on his show recently, much to the animated dismay of actor Ben Affleck.

Affleck, however, called these characterizations “gross and racist” and argued that Maher and Harris were just conflating the minority views of radical jihadists with the beliefs of the rest of the world’s estimated 1.6 billion Muslims

I’ve seen a lot of posts from fellow Christians and conservatives saying something like, “Never thought I’d agree with Bill Maher,” or, “Maher gets it right for once.” Maher doesn’t like Christians–even in the Rose interview he makes a point of saying that all religions are stupid–but in this instance, he seems to be getting some unrequited support.

I’m careful about cheering Maher, though. Yes, he sticks it to the progressive talking point. Yes, he leveled Charlie Rose’s absurd equivalency between Christianity and Islam. But Maher’s reasoning here is not compatible with a Christian worldview.

The consistently Christian response to radical Islam is to emphasize that Islam is not false because it is dangerous, but it is dangerous because it is false. Maher would agree with both sentiments but he would say Islam is false because religion is inherently false (because science). Christians should respond that Islam teaches a false god and a false teleology of man, one that depends upon earthly creation of Islamic paradise.  Maher is correct in identifying theological tissue that connects most Muslims to radical, violent teachings, but for him this is not a theological problem but a scientific problem. The answer to radical Islam is not to vigorously correct Islamic theology, but to wean society off of theology per se.

It’s important to emphasize the Christian view of Islam for two reasons. First, it avoids following Maher into a secularist trap, wherein we unwittingly agree that religion in civil society should be subjected to a liberality test adminstered by the secular Left. Second, it allows a coherent explanation of non-violent Islam. Just as Christianity is expressed on a theological spectrum, Islam is too, and that’s why there are indeed many Muslims who disavow violence and coercion.

But Maher is correct here. Appealing to masses of non-violent Muslims doesn’t actually answer the question of why governments like Pakistan and movements like ISIS exist. The real answer to that question is theological, and therefore, out of the reach of the naturalistic worldviews of Maher and Sam Harris. I’m afraid they are doomed to debate Ben Affleck for all eternity.