this entire discussion needs to put "liberal" in quotes. ben affleck isn't defending anything approaching "liberalism", and would probably be unable to even define the term properly if pressed upon it.
i spend more time arguing with liberals than agreeing with them, so please don't call me a liberal (i'm a socialist), but my views with this are somewhat rooted in historical liberalism. i would disagree that liberals don't consider these to be pressing issues in the first place, it's just a difference of opinion as to how to go about dealing with the issue. i think the historical record has been very clear that there is no authoritarian way to eliminate religion. that's really the actually liberal perspective on this - religion is oppressive, backwards and regressive, but it cannot be eliminated by backwards, oppressive or regressive approaches (consider the soviet union). it's not the view that there aren't problems, or that they shouldn't be addressed, but the view that taking a confrontational approach is counter-productive. we've seen how counterproductive this approach is in this region.
if you want to talk about supporting secular institutions (which already exist in some muslim countries) and increasing dialogue, that's one thing, and i can get behind that. if you want to talk about imposing economic sanctions that are going to adversely affect the identified victims or bombing people to accept our morals, that's another issue.
i don't think that's the argument, as ben sees it. the argument, as ben sees it, is that it's not fair to accuse your dark-skinned neighbour that hangs out in the mosque of wanting to blow up the world because he happens to have the same ethnicity or religion as some other people that do. it would be even more unfair (and counter-productive, as well) to deny him a job or place other social ramifications as a consequence of his ethnicity or religion. that's one point, and it's valid, and we have constitutions and other laws across the continent that agree with the point. people consequently need to be careful about the language they use, so they're not carrying on prejudices that negatively affect people.
it's a just position, but that's not really the issue being discussed. whether the religion is the cause of the instability that does exist is another question. it's complicated. state institutions foster the religion, and are probably the actual root cause. but the religion is being wielded by them as a very negative tool of control. would they find another way to create this if you took away the religion? probably.
but the fundamental debate (with liberals and libertarians on one side and trotskyist liberal interventionists and neo-cons on the other) is not whether it's a serious issue, it's how to respond to it in a way that is effective, fair and upholds everybody's rights. bill knows that. it's an easily deconstructed, intellectually bereft strawman...
