[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sure, and in absence of the abolition of freedom of religion and the essentially impossible elimination of every religion on earth, what option would you prefer?

Pretty obviously the one where religious people act in ways that, while they might be silly and superstitious, don't hurt anyone or impinge upon the rights guaranteed by a secular democracy. So, yeah, a la carte religion is clearly the preferred version.

Even there, though, you have to understand that Islam makes that more difficult than many other religions for two main reasons. First, the text of the Quran is held to have been dictated verbatim by Gabriel to Muhammad, such that the words therein are the literal transcription of the word of God. It's not "the gospel according to", it's His word, period, leaving less room for interpretation. Second, Muhammad himself, who is supposedly a perfect Muslim and God's chosen prophet, was not the sort of guy we'd want to live next to in the 21st century.

So those reformers and moderates have a tough job to win the war of ideas within their faith, and could really use some support. To that end, it'd be nice if the rest of us could not whitewash the prescriptions that exist in Sharia.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You are aware that there is not a single practicing Muslim that doesn't adhere to Sharia, correct? "Progressive" or otherwise, if you're Muslim, you adhere to Sharia in some form.

This is equivocation. All Muslims adhere to some aspects of it. As discussed, the progressive ones just ignore the bits about when it's okay to beat up your wife.

The path to peace isn't eliminating Islam. Christianity didn't find relative peace by eliminating it. The path is holding up the more liberal, virtuous interpretations and celebrating the progressives who preach it.

Absolutely true. You're not going to get 1.6 billion people to apostasize. Most of us would settle for a world where the ones who do apostasize aren't hacked to death with machetes for doing so.

Plenty of religious texts say some pretty insane things, so let's celebrate those that interpret the teaching in a modern liberal fashion and use religion for good, not throw out blanket bans and start shaming those people.

Yes, this is basically what I said, with the caveat that it doesn't help those people to ignore the insane things those religious texts say and act like they don't exist, or like they're not motivating insane behaviour.

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Harris on CNN, he's spot on as usual

This video is like five years old now. Please stop digging.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Your suggestion was education as a starting point, which is plainly nonsense because Muslims being educated (yes, even the women) is not remotely new or revolutionary.

Er, no. I mean, in some places of course, certainly in Canada. But in places where the vast majority of conservative muslims live this isn't a given by any stretch. Education in those societies is hugely important. Why do you think Malala Yousafzai is so celebrated?

Some progressive Muslims view it as a negative symbol, but they often simply don't wear it in that case.

Many people do, because at its core it is a symbol of purity culture and effectively represents the demonization of women's sexuality. But that's a hamburger hill in this context.