General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBill Maher was on fire last night - that should last us until next year
The history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church extends to pastor William Miller who said Jesus would return on October 22, 1844. Spoiler alert, Maher said. He didnt, which youd think would have made the followers go, Well, I guess that was a bunch of bullshit. Its like believing in the Wizard of Oz, after Toto pulls back the curtain.
Maher went on to explain that the return wasnt the only distinctive deviation, the church also is obsessed with the world ending. In fact, believers in the Seventh-day Adventists church refer to the world not ending in 1844 as The Great Disappointment.
Theyre disappointed that the world still exists, Maher said. I dont have to agree with a politician on everything. We can disagree on abortion, entitlements, paid sick leave, the earned income tax credit, but the earth staying is kind of a deal breaker for me
Politicians love to talk about fundamental differences. This is as fundamental as it gets, folks.
Maher went on to talk about Texas republican Representative Lamar Smith who is a Christian Scientist that believes faith should take precedence over science. Christian Scientists are typically at odds with the government because they refuse to vaccinate their children and deny medician or any treatment in the event of illness. He wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it with prayer, Maher said.
Illinois republican Representative John Shimkus is Chairman of the House subcommittee on the environment, and he says, dont worry about rising sea levels because, in the Bible, God promised Noah there wont be any more floods. So what if the oceans are dying and we kill all the fish? Christ can make more, hes done out before. No wonder nothing gets done in this country.
A majority of Evangelicals say Christ will either probably, or definitely, return to earth by 2050, depending on his schedule, Maher said. So why fix the streetlights, if theres just going to be a big fight with Satan? Why reform healthcare? Why wear pants?
He then quoted Ben Carson who said he could feel Gods fingers pushing him to be president.
You know what? Tell God to keep his fingers to himself, Maher joked. Because we know where those fingers have been, in every war in human history, from the ones He started in the Old Testament to the one that just played out in Paris.
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/21/bill_maher_goes_there_takes_on_ben_carsons_religion_we_know_where_those_fingers_have_been_in_every_war_in_human_history/
mnhtnbb
(31,382 posts)Wow. Everything he said was spot on.
Will he be running for POTUS 2020? Or 2024?
question everything
(47,468 posts)And I thought he said he was running for governor in 2018 because Brown is termed out.
It will be nice for him to stay a governor for a while. It is distressing, country wide, that many politicians, no sooner they get elected and immediately start campaigning for the next post.
valerief
(53,235 posts)the "journalists" have dropped the ball.
on edit: Oops, I thought the poster meant Maher, not Newsom.
mnhtnbb
(31,382 posts)to the White House, I'd love to see someone like Newsom make that jump when he's ready.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Oops!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)who believe differently than he does. I have yet to see him adequately explain why he rejects Pascal's wager, preferring instead to rely on exaggerations of beliefs to paint a caricature of modern Christianity.
There are plenty of reasonable Christian liberal progressives (yours truly) who despise his pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
valerief
(53,235 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)onecent
(6,096 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)question everything
(47,468 posts)like Matthews and others. This is why people watch them and this is why they survive. This does not mean that they are everyone's cup of tea or, of course, that everyone should watch them.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)He had no issue with people of faith. He called out bullshit in American broadcasting and politics. Religion and the Daily Show were not incompatible. Stewart was an intellectual; Maher is a poser.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)If you have a link, i'd love to read it.
In the persona of Jon Stewart he regularly skewered those hiding behind religion. Bill Maher simply uses a broadsword instead of a rapier.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I very much like your wording of "he regularly skewered those hiding behind religion". The broadsword Maher uses is what I object to.
His interview with Dawkins gave some insight to his perspective. See http://www.cc.com/video-clips/t8c3ww/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-exclusive---richard-dawkins-extended-interview-pt--2 @ time 2:50.
Also this from an interview:
Religion makes sense to me. I have trouble with dogma more than I have trouble with religion. I think the best thing religion does is give people a sense of place, purpose, and compassion. My quibble with it is when its described as the only way to have those things instilled. You can be moral and not be religious, you can be compassionate, you can be empatheticyou can have all those wonderful qualities. When it begins to be judged as purely based on religion, then youre suggesting a world where Star Jones goes to heaven but Gandhi doesnt.
So religion has no monopoly on religion.
Thats right. Like anything else thats that powerfulthat is touching that deep into the epicenter of the human psyche and our fears, it can be misused. Im probably much more responsive in a bad way to dogma and to extremism than to religion. When people say things like, I found God and that helped me stop drinking, I say, Great! More power to you. Just know that some people stop drinking without it. Its when it gets into the realm of This is the only way to salvationthats when I think, Okay, now were getting into a problem.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)unblock
(52,195 posts)maher's chose a more provocative way of expressing his opinion, which masked this distinction, but i don't think he really feels that people who believe in god and do only good are a problem.
i think if you asked him to explain this off camera, he'd say that what he meant was that the perpetrators of war always seem to invoke god, and that inspires others to go along with something people would otherwise recognize as something to be avoided far more often than it is.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I think it is best to avoid being overly provocative and take a more measured tone.
The fact that he would give a different answer off camera in a neutral environment means he is posturing and possibly pandering to his audience. Pseudo-intellectualism.
unblock
(52,195 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)It is a rare find, and why I prefer reading to TV "news analysis". Jon Stewart seemed to be an exception that I allowed in my TV viewing.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)What you want is for religion to be free to rail against anyone it sees as apostate while others are forbidden to defend themselves against those bigoted assaults. That's not going to happen.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)That is most certainly not what I want.
Nice strawman though.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)And you do understand that religion is inherently smugly superior, for each one professes to be the only true faith, the others are inferior, in error, to be corrected and converted. Those of no faith are seen in an even worse light.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Many religious people are smugly superior. That doesn't mean it is a prerequisite to be religious.
Not all religious people believe and act as you say they do. Many don't.
I don't think it is possible to have a productive conversation with you any longer. Good day.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)And that's another thing many religious people do, they fail to practice their own faith even as they wail that others must respect if.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)I wouldn't want to live in that country.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)and if you believe that a man walked on water, fed 5000 people with the equivalent of a couple Filet o Fish sandwiches, and re-animated after being dead for 3 days- well, you have left yourself open for mocking. That's just my opinion, though.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Certainly not in any country that calls itself "free".
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Why do you find it vile to speak honestly of the role of religion in warfare? The OT and Koran are both chock full of war waged at the command of God and his prophets, that is simple fact. As Bill says, but you say that fact is vile?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)The OT is chock full of war, yes. It however has nothing to do with the religious teachings of how Christians should live. The new testament literally says that the old law (the old testament traditions) does not apply anymore.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)your precious theology. Do you think Ben Carson is being pushed to run for President by the finger of God? If not, you agree with Bill. Do you think climate change is silly because of Noah? If not you agree with Bill. The list of dogmas he presents are from a selection of denominations, meaning most Christians think those teachings are daft. Do you refuse medical treatment? Most Christians think that's daft.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)My critique was of Maher and his over the top rhetoric frequently used on his show to caricature Christians; it was not a defense of the Carson Clown.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Carson, you are saying 'talk nicely about his religious bullshit on your political satire show'.
If you don't like Carson, why do you object to mocking him?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)The joke was not exactly about Carson, and I am not objecting to mocking him.
The "joke" conflated radical Islamic terrorism with the peaceful religious people of the world that also believe in god.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)What denomination are you that you have been taught to seek offense? This is contrary to the teachings of the faith....what did Jesus say to do when persecuted for his sake? He said to rejoice, but you do not rejoice.
If you see comments about terrorists and Ben Carson as being about you, that's something you need to inspect closely.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)This part: Because we know where those fingers have been, in every war in human history, from the ones He started in the Old Testament to the one that just played out in Paris.
This is a general statement that stands apart from Ben Carson. And it conflates radical Islamic terrorists' beliefs with reasonable people who hold beliefs about the existence of a God.
I do not "seek offense", nor do I want to disclose more personal information to you.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)It has nothing to do with regular persons at all, it is about a man who is running for President saying God wants him to run for President and other elected officials spouting idiot dogma. He does so on a political comedy show.
You say you do not agree with the persons nor with the theology, but you don't think they should be made fun of.
So cite a verse of Scripture to support your view as a religious person. I dare you. Since that's your venue, let's play it.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)"You say you do not agree with the persons nor with the theology, but you don't think they should be made fun of. "
Never said that. Good day.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I love this!
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Your attacking a person because they do not agree with your beliefs. The only thing being hurt is your ego, so you choose to attack a person and call him an ass.
Observation concludes that you ego and beliefs control your actions. Do you see that as wise?
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)lindysalsagal
(20,666 posts)Them's the truth.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Elmergantry
(884 posts)Would of have had no need to.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)MindPilot
(12,693 posts)You are the one insisting on respect for your belief in the things for which there is no evidence, yet Maher is the pseudo-intellectual.
There is no such thing as a reasonable Christian. Christianity demands the eternal torture of hell for anyone who doesn't share your faith. That is a fundamental tenant of your religion, and it is completely unreasonable. You as a Christian have to own that.
And I can explain why I, Bill Maher, or anyone else rejects Pascal's wager. Because it's silly.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I am not insisting on respect; I am calling out assholes and disrespectful commentators such as Maher.
Christians don't wish hell on anyone; those following the teachings of Christ don't wish harm on anyone. We do believe there are things we cannot control. That is not the same as "demanding the eternal torture of hell for anyone who doesn't share our faith".
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)General Heathens?
What about Major heathens?
FWIW, the Hebrews the banner refers to when referencing the New Testament book of Hebrews (part of Paul's gospel), do not believe in hell. They do not believe G*D shagged some local girl (as so many Hellenistic gods did) and begat a demigod.
Warpy
(111,243 posts)since accepting it means living a life in fear of something that does not exist, a waste of time and effort.
His characterization of evangelicals who are in office is spot on. They do think the world is going to end and that's a real disincentive to bother to work on any of the very real problems this country faces. It's why the Republicans only work two days a week in Congress. It's why they rail against environmental activists, why bother putting out any effort if the world is going to end? Let's dig up all the coal and burn it so we can be comfortable with cheap electric bills while we wait!
Instead of wasting time despising Maher, perhaps liberal Christians need to take a harder look at the nutcases in their own ranks and deal with them. Nothing will take the wind out of Maher's sails faster than having the evangelical nutcases repudiated by their fellow Christians and consigned to backwoods churches where they belong, out of government forever.
I agree that wackos need to be called out. I refuse to give them the time of day and tell them their stupidity is manifest; it is a major reason I have no Christian friends and find it difficult to attend any church.
I seriously doubt that Maher would back down on his intransigent loudmouthed approach to religion though.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)You seem to want your cake, but also to eat that cake.....
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)response. So you did object. Strongly. That's all you have done.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)to the claim that a god exists. It doesn't require a counter argument from an atheist. That's like me asking you to explain why you reject a belief in the Easter bunny.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)which feels very personal I'm sure.
As for Pascal's wager, as soon as you've demonstrated on which god to wager, Muhammad's or John Calvin's or Ron L. Hubbard's, I'd put my money on the table if I could even pretend to believe. Pascal assumes there are only two options, whereas in truth the odds are less than roulette numbers.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)If you accept the stupid fucking logic of Pascal's bet-hedging, then you need to believe in EVERY "God" from Zeus to Quetzlcoatl, you know, "just in case".
Also, what if the Christian God exists, but he only sends the people who believe in him to hell, because he loves the delicious irony?
Oh, what to do then!!??
Logical
(22,457 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)Which GOD do I choose? How fucking stupid. And what if I pick the wrong one and your GOD is mad I picked the wrong one.
" reasonable Christian"? LOL.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)As for which one to choose...
Some reasonable Christians recognize that faith in redemption through a higher power as found in other religions is also equivalent.
I'll not address your implication that i am unreasonable and worthy of scorn, that will not lead us down a productive path.
Doubledee
(137 posts)I stopped watching his show after his repeated intolerance towards all 1.4 billion followers of Islam became intolerable. To judge all for the actions of an extreme minority is simply imbecilic in my opinion.
I am not a religious person but respect the rights of others to be such, with the proviso that they confine their beliefs to themselves and do not attempt to foist them on all of us. Separation of Church and State benefits both institutions.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I never mention my faith in political discussion (unless talking to other Christians where I try to draw on compassion in their supposed beliefs). Separation of church and state is a wonderful thing.
It's pretty shameful that the Republicans run on their religion. But democrats don't need to be the part of anti-religion, just agnostic in political matters.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)is off limits, but I completely disagree. In fact, I think it needs more criticism.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Not simply offended by his anti-religion stance, we are offended by his inability to actually think about issues in a considerate way, trading the TRUTH away for a laugh resulting from his superficial stance on an issue.
Even John Cleese, as a guest a few weeks back, suggested that one of the reasons that the USA is in the trouble it is in is due to not having many shows where issues are discussed in depth in a truly neutral fashion. Bill smugly said "Well, we do that here!" and Cleese gave Bill a look suggesting that he didn't have the slightest idea of what a true discussion panel would be like.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I don't mind someone disagreeing. I welcome that. Maher goes far beyond that, villifying the opposition and painting them with a broad brush as the antithesis of all good and right. You can't really accomplish much with such an approach. I always put the contrast as Maher vs. Stewart: even conservatives jockeyed to get slots on Stewart's show towards the end. Maher, not so much. There is a reason.
Also, vaccines cause autism, amirite?
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Stewart managed to be hilariously funny and look at things in depth.
Although Maher does manage to do his homework on some issues, like "Black Lives matter," on most issues Bill doesn't look into the issue at hand at all.
Again, a few weeks back, Bill had on a guest who was a proponent of smart cars. Bill asked him why they would be the predominant force on the highways over the next decade, and when the guest said, "Safety is the answer," Bill didn't question him farther.
I mean, smart cars are going to utilize radar signalling in order to function, and we have known for decades that radar signals and human beings are not a healthy mix. But I guess Bill doesn't research many of the guests or topics. (If the government really wanted Americans to be safe in their cars, they would mandate devices that would keep communication devices shut down if car goes more than 10 mph. But that would hurt the big phone companies "unneccessarily" I guess.
question everything
(47,468 posts)On occasions I visit a more conservative site. I used to live there and know some of the participants. And I add support to the few liberals there.
On occasions, I would post something from the Daily Show when Stuart was still there. And someone would respond with contempt, referring to him as "Leibowitz," clearly using it as a derision.
So I am curious of why you chose this name.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I picked Leibowitz as my moniker because I am a forever-devoted fan of Jon Stewart's but wanted to be a little subtle and not have people literally think they were talking to the great JS. So, more of a homage than an impersonation.
Corgigal
(9,291 posts)Try to catch it every week when it's new. My husband,daughter and I got to see him live, around a year back. Even his pricing wasn't outrageous. I have no problem with his thoughts, nor how he makes a living. Like Louis ck , I don't agree with everything they say but it's fine, they wouldn't agree with everything I say either. It's all good.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)because standing up against Radical Jihad is:
1. Right
2. Good Politics
3. Means liberals won't be huge hypocrites when it comes to religion.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)No?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)When he starts in about vaccines, I change the channel.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And he's never apologized, and acknowledged it.
Thus, he gets no play with me.
Logical
(22,457 posts)underpants
(182,766 posts)dhill926
(16,337 posts)especially if you live in a red area and need the sanity....