So?

Bill Maher has the right to say whatever he wants to say about any religion.

I don't see why this is on an anti-Islam site.

Posted by: Voltaire at January 5, 2008 5:17 AM

Bill Maher is no idiot. The fact that he is criticizing a 2000 year old corpse that disappeared ( jee how does one hide a body ?? ) does not negate his ideas. The fact that he has the balls to do so on national television is a good thing.

Everyone is saying let's rail into islam - what more can be said ?? It's a warped death cult with inbreeding, mysogyny, pedophilia, beastiality, prejudice, psychotic and neurotic tendencies, murder, lies, genocide, and the list goes on and on and on and on and on.

Bill Maher could rip into islam but what would be the point ?? It's not comedy. Islam is sad and humourless and it's certainly not funny ( if you don't count the idiots that blow themselves up before they meet their targets - lol ) It's a sad reality.

Making fun of ourselves is funny and he shouldn't be criticized for it nor should he be called a dhimmi. Indeed, we should pride ourselves that we have such thick skins to take any criticism however irreverant and even more so that we can make a joke of anything that comes our way.

We all know the foundation of our civilization. Making fun and criticizing it is just a bonus. I'm sure we all pledge to never let go our freedoms despite the idiots that try to speak for us billions of people that hold freedom dear. A day will come when we will do whatever it takes to save liberty. Of this I am sure.

Besides, if you don't like or hear what you see, turn the fucking channel.

Posted by: KJ-North-in-Canada at January 5, 2008 5:22 AM

As an Atheist, I find that it is a complete waste of time, criticising Christianity. It's far better to criticise Islam, since Muslims are the ones flying planes into buildings, blowing up tube trains, and basically causing havoc, all over the world.
In fact, I'd be so bold as to proclaim that I stand beside Christians, in the fight against Islam.

Posted by: Rogster at January 5, 2008 5:32 AM

Rogster - good to have you in the fight. I think the idea of a god is patently absurd. This planet is full of life - species that have existed for hundreds of millions of years in one form or another - long before humans even existed - our species is new to this planet in a paleontological sense.

Religion is the plague of the common era. It's amazing the middle east hasn't already been over run by the diseased filth they live in. I'm counting the days until the doomsday with which they seem obsessed. Fucking bring it on and let the rest of us get back to the adventure of living in freedom.

Posted by: KJ-North-in-Canada at January 5, 2008 5:46 AM

it comes from an understanding that in a civil society in which people of differing views live together, we all have to put up with being offended now and again.

Try telling that to Bill Donahue.

Posted by: mww at January 5, 2008 5:49 AM

Voltaire, i'm not sure that "anti-Islam site" is an accurate or fair description.

And the point of this piece in my mind is best summed up as the famed "moral equivalence" that we so often have to endure from Islamic apologists. In other words, notice how Catholics will NOT riot and issue death threats over this, whereas if the guy had insulted Islam...

Have a nice day.

Posted by: Uriel Septim at January 5, 2008 7:04 AM

I was (alas!) unable to go to Restoration Weekend but I just saw a bit that was posted on Front Page yesterday in which Evan Sayet recounts how his wife was horrified that their 10 year old Jewish son wanted to keep kosher. Evan asked, "What is so bad about a constant reminder of God's presence?" and she countered that he sounded just like the Taliban.
Many people many people took from 9/11 not the idea that some elements of Islam must be challenged by the West (I consdier that the Jihad Watch view), but that ALL religions are bad and dangerous (the Christopher Hitchens view).
I think the point to this post is to underscore that people know they must walk on egg shells around Islam and that other faiths are a bit more adapted to life in a multicultural society.

Posted by: AnneCrockett at January 5, 2008 9:02 AM

So, Bill is brave enough to attack Christianity on national television---what a trooper. Now, why, might we suppose, did he neglect to deliver such a scathing diatribe against Islam? Well, there are really only a few logical reasons:

A. He really respects and admires the teachings and practices of Islam.

B. He just forgot to mention Islam.

C. He thinks that Christianity is a much more dangerous threat than Islam currently, and thus it was more important for him to use his power and influence to combat Christianity.

D. Like so many other spineless anti-religion cowards, he knows it's a much safer bet to bravely attack religions where there's almost no possibility of any kind of violent repercussion from it's followers--hence that excludes Islam.

Certainly a growing trend:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article2896431.ece

Posted by: Boston Tea Party at January 5, 2008 9:18 AM

At least Bill took a jibe on Islam last year, something we cannot say about european anti-Christian nutcases, like Red Ken, the Dhimmi in London.

Posted by: Crusader at January 5, 2008 9:31 AM

Ok, I'll retract my previous insinuations regarding Maher---after examining his other comments on religion a bit, I will admit he has at least shown some consistency in also criticizing Islam.

But I hold that that trend is certainly in the minority among the left-leaning artists and intelligentsia of the west, and the Times article I linked was more representative of the mainstream.

Posted by: Boston Tea Party at January 5, 2008 9:40 AM

Voltaire

Mr. Spencer is making a point. Where are the catholic riots?

If had made fun of Muhammad however...well.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at January 5, 2008 9:52 AM

Westerners who practice, and proudly proclaim their given right to be atheists in the great experiment are in fact an antithisis of America as well as European countries.

Your everyday lives in these societies are rooted firmly in Judao Christian values whether you fully and directly practice and appreciate them or not. You will end up defending them against the paganistic practices of Islam because they reflect the foundations of which will prefer to preserve.

"You must be able to define yourself to defend yourself;
You must be able to define your enemy to defeat him-- God willing!"

General Douglas MacArthur

Posted by: Mackie at January 5, 2008 9:56 AM

If Maher wants to show his stones he should say similar things about Islam and the Kaa'ba, but I'd bet my left stone he won't. Ever.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at January 5, 2008 10:02 AM

As posted earlier:

"Bill Maher is no idiot. The fact that he is criticizing a 2000 year old corpse that disappeared ( jee how does one hide a body ?? ) does not negate his ideas. The fact that he has the balls to do so on national television is a good thing"

....[followed by] "Bill Maher could rip into islam but what would be the point ??"

______________________________________

If you need a blueprint for the multiculturalist "logic" in regards to criticizing religions, there you have it.

Posted by: Boston Tea Party at January 5, 2008 10:12 AM

Isn't maher the guy who said the 9/11 19 were not cowards and then lost his show?

I have never heard maher attack islam, but I have him heard him take several swipes at Christianity.

I would say that he is a coward who is afraid of losing his job (he would last as long as Dog Chapman if he really dug into islam) and probably his life.

Posted by: senatortombstone at January 5, 2008 10:39 AM

This incident is just more outrageous crap from Maher. He simply loves to offend Christians and especially Catholics, who cannot comprise much of his regular viewing audience anyway. But for any agnostic or atheist who finds nothing wrong with Catholic bashing, I have to say I feel sorry for you that you are so insecure in your own worldview you feel compelled to lash out at me and Mother Teresa. I have several agnostic friends and acquaintances that don't go out of their way to attack my beliefs, although they might indeed find them silly. I'm pretty certain Hugh Fitzgerald has little respect for what I believe, but I notice he isn't interested in demeaning me or my Catholic beliefs. What is the point, when my beliefs are of little danger to him in this very dangerous world?

I personally find Scientology pretty absurd, but until now I've never mentioned it to anyone for the simple reason that Tom Cruise and Chick Corea are no threat to me whatever. Frankly, I don't care if they believe in the tooth fairy. I also don't buy that Maher is just going for some laughs, since I like a good Catholic joke myself, but I am not too enamored of taking jabs at the core of my faith, the Eucharistic mystery, by way of insinuating that Jesus Christ himself--who cannot be ridiculed for his Mohammed-like shortcomings--is a loser. Besides, if Maher's looking for some laughs, may I suggest ayatollahs in drag, skits at the falafel stand, or muslimas in burkas trying to eat ice cream cones?

If he had any courage Maher could not only get some laughs, but he could become a household name like Salman Rusdie and get his head on the five o'clock news on al-Jazeera. But no, because they are cowards and can only see evil in that which is innocuous, the worst thing Maher and Rosie O'Donnell can think of is a Christian or, worse yet, a Catholic.

Hence Robert's post title, showing how stupid this thinking is. I wonder if Maher will be thinking about transubstantiation when the scimitar is at his throat.

HAID

Posted by: Haid Dasalami at January 5, 2008 11:00 AM

The point would be that in our tolerant, Western society we can be critical with anything BUT Islam.

Why?

In my opinion, Islam is more of a political system than it is a religion. As such, it should not be allowed the First Amendment protections that a religion enjoys. We should be able to deal with it as any other political movement that threatens to overthrow the government of the United States.

The United States (just as Israel) has a right to exist and a right to self-defense. It's time we exercised these rights.

Posted by: tanstaafl at January 5, 2008 11:06 AM

If you are a catholic or some other christian and someone criticizes your religion yet you criticize Islam then deal with it. If your faith is so powerful then you don't need to defend it. I personally have have no interest in religions. What does get my goat though is when religions are shoved down my throat, be it Islam at the threat of a gun or bomb or Christianity with some religious nut job telling me that only Jesus can save me. Sorry if this upsets anyone but deal with your religion and we'll worry about our lives.
Maher had a right to criticize the Catholics, but he hasn't the gonads to go after Islam because he knows that he will be a walking target. I just hope that the religious right don't start sending out death threats and acting like the Taliban in the defense of their Christian faith. Christians should be bigger people than that.

Please send all death threats to http://leonthepigfarmer.blogspot.com/

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 5, 2008 11:36 AM

Jihadwatch article on Bill Maher Febraury 27,2007

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015428.php

Posted by: Mackie at January 5, 2008 11:54 AM

"I just about dropped my teeth when I saw this clip of Bill Maher agreeing with Ayaan Hirsi Ali that Islam is not a religion of peace and has not been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists, and that Muhammad was not exactly the 7th-century Gandhi of Karen Armstrong's imaginings. "

So he has criticized Islam! Sorry to say this Christians but you gotta deal with it, act bigger than the Muslims and simply turn round and say, "I will pray for you Bill".

How would your Jesus deal with the Christian criticism?

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 5, 2008 12:02 PM

I liked Anne Crocketts post above how some people confounded religion and terroristic Islam after the 911 attacks.

"Many people many people took from 9/11 not the idea that some elements of Islam must be challenged by the West (I consdier that the Jihad Watch view),
but that ALL religions are bad and dangerous (the Christopher Hitchens view)."

It seems to me to be intellectually lazy to not make the needed distinctions, and is more a reliance on emotion rather than reason. It becomes more of a reaction and plays to the broadbrush mindset.

Where it becomes self destructive is when the mind becomes so narrowed that any departure from the mantras that are recited, any yes buts are met with the mantras repetition.

There has been exactly one nation that has been officially atheistic, even the soviets payed lip service to freedom of religion, even the chinese today allow a controlled exercise of religion. The one nation that was militantly atheist in the Maher Hitchens mold was albania under Hoxha. When that dictator folded his tent the albanians were ripe for Islam.

It is a question worth musing over, why would those raised under atheism be more inclined when allowed freedom to choose Islam?

I think it is because the atheism was so materialistic and Islam is more attuned to the mindset of those who are trained to think that God was a bully a controller sort of a dictator himself. It may seem counterintuitive, but a dog will wag its tail at the man who beats it every day that it knows, and will attack the person who would pet it. Sort of like some prisoners who become acclimated to prison and will commit crimes to stay in prison.

Posted by: stickman at January 5, 2008 12:39 PM

From Leons post above, "
How would your Jesus deal with the Christian criticism?"

Many of the criticisms of the anointed one were recorded, as were many of the common (mis)perceptions. Jesus asked one of his disciples what people thought about him, some said he was a teacher, a good man, a prophet.

One of the most heated criticisms was that Jesus was an agent of evil, this criticism was voiced despite the good works that had made him noted. Jesus answer was that those were following their father, the father of lies.

It should not be surprising that those imbued with adversarial notions, should act in adversarial manners. Eventually adversarial systems create enough enemies that other adversarial systems replace them, the wonder of america and the exceptionalism of america was that Christianity was able to rise above adversarialism. Though we are becoming more like the world then we used to be.

Posted by: stickman at January 5, 2008 12:55 PM

I've always thought atheists to be a rather humorous (or is it humorless) sort. It just seems to me to be incredibly arrogant to think that you are the epitome of creation that was all a mistake anyway.

However, I think some of my friends here are making the mistake of comparing Maher's "humor" with genuine criticism. Criticism, by definition, requires logical, rational arguments based on facts. Nothing that comes out of Maher's mouth can be called criticism. It's ranting for laughs. That's all he ever does because he thinks he's smarter than he really is.

Yet, what Spencer states and writes in regards to Islam are entirely based on facts and are rational. That's why this article is on this site -- as a comparison between how Catholics will respond to these comments that are nothing more than idiotic insults compared to how Muslims reacted to a few cartoons. One directly attacks a central tenet of Christian faith and the other were a set of political commentary.

Personally, being a Catholic, I find his innane comments about the Eucharist incredibly insulting. But am I going to go after him? No. I think for any intelligent person, his comments speak for themselves as being essentially worthless and uninformed -- which is why we can't say the same things about Islam. Our arguments against the various "habits" within Islam must be based on fact and must be unemotional.

Posted by: GuardianofPeaceandJustice at January 5, 2008 2:13 PM

Some of my gentle fellow posters here seem to be missing the point, so ...

1) Christianity is a religion of peace, Islam is not.

That's the main thing, then ...

2) Tolerance of, or at least a non-violent response to offensive public remarks about religion, values, morals etc... is an important, if not essential part of civilized life.

3) You're going to find such tolerance in cultures with a Christian basis.

4) You're not going to find such tolerance in cultures with a mohammedan basis.

5) The mohammdan cultures of the world will have to deal with this if they are ever going to achieve any sort of modern, civilized life style.

Posted by: joeblough at January 5, 2008 2:14 PM

I think there has been a corruption on what the 1st Amendment is all about. It is about being able to speak your mind on any subject. God knows we all spew some crap out here. But just because someone says something about anything doesn't mean you aren't going to be called out on it. You have the right to criticize, I have the right to defend and call you out on it. That is the beauty of the 1st Amendment. The main thrust of the article is not that Maher singles out Catholicism, it's that Catholics don't go calling for his head when he does. If Maher gave islam the attention he gives Christianity, he would find himself bombarded with a multitude of fatwas and protests for his head.
So, criticize all you want, but expect that those whom you criticize are going to defend their positions/beliefs. What no one has the right to do is visit violence just because you don't like what was said.

Posted by: Kevin at January 5, 2008 2:55 PM

How would your Jesus deal with the Christian criticism?

Probably something along the lines of saying: "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

Posted by: The Christian Heretic at January 5, 2008 3:54 PM

Christianity is a religion of peace

Christianity is supposed to be a religion of peace, and in present day North America it mostly is, I suppose, but Christians have hardly been innocent over their 2,000 year history. Torture and murder, among other less violent but still quite harmful practices are a part of Christianity's legacy, and I could see many Christians quite happily returning to those practices again if the law didn't restrain them.

Granted, the Christians who did (and do) these things weren't (and aren't) following the teachings of Christ, but these practices haven't exactly been unusual among Christians throughout history unfortunately.

Yes, Islam is far worse, but Christianity has its issues too (and keep in mind that I say all this as a Christian myself).

Posted by: The Christian Heretic at January 5, 2008 4:02 PM

Bill Maher is an ugly little troll who hangs out in the Playboy Mansion. I don't know if he has even 1 letter after his name, but he is a smartass.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at January 5, 2008 4:12 PM

Torture and murder, among other less violent but still quite harmful practices are a part of Christianity's legacy, and I could see many Christians quite happily returning to those practices again if the law didn't restrain them.

I think you are hanging with different Christians than I am.

From all I have seen in my entire life in two different states and a dozen or so churches that span several denominations, you are simply full of crap.

Posted by: rougman at January 5, 2008 4:17 PM

"Torture and murder, among other less violent but still quite harmful practices are a part of Christianity's legacy, and I could see many Christians quite happily returning to those practices again if the law didn't restrain them."

I think you are hanging with different Christians than I am.

Please note that I said "legacy." I didn't say this was currently happening (though other forms of religious abuse are, sadly, still way too common a practice among many Christians, as my own life story and many others will attest to). But study church history and you'll see it happened way too often throughout the past (not that once isn't too often, of course), and it really wouldn't surprise me to see certain Christians returning to the old ways of heretic burning given half a chance.

And, again, I'm saying this all as a Christian myself, albeit a heretical one.

Posted by: The Christian Heretic at January 5, 2008 4:37 PM

The issue is emphatically not whether Christians act or have acted like savages. Clearly they have and occasionally still do.

Neither is it whether Christians ever justify their actions in terms of their religious doctrine.

Christians are, dare I say it ... people! And people are prone to act like savages from time to time and dress their atrocities up in all kinds of high-tone rationalizations.

The issue is whether savagery is part of the Christian doctrine itself.

IT IS NOT!

Savagery is however part of mohammedan doctrine.

===================

Consequently, when Christians go wild and start campaigns of violence, they can be called to account as violating their own moral standards.

This is not the case with violent mohammedans who will insist that they are acting in accordance with their moral standards.

And they can do so citing chapter and verse, the weight of tradition and authoritative dicta.

Posted by: joeblough at January 5, 2008 4:50 PM

You'll get no argument from me there.

Posted by: The Christian Heretic at January 5, 2008 4:55 PM

Let me add ...

Christians cannot quote Christ to come up with a rationalization for murder.

It is universally unambiguous in Christian doctrine.

Mohammedans can quote mohammed to come up with a rationalization for murder.

It is at best debatable and ambiguous in mohammedan doctrine.

And as RS has explained on countless occasions, all of the traditional, leading, mainstream mohammedan authorities throughout history have agreed that murdering outsiders and committing all sorts of other criminal acts is absolutely fine!

=============

If your going to assert that those things don't matter, you have to prove that!

And by the way, you can't.

Posted by: joeblough at January 5, 2008 4:59 PM

I have only watched him a couple of times and he seemed smart , until he launched into a excruciating tired Bush-is-dumb tirade. His attacks on Christianity are probably the same - the mean spirited , petty , malicious masquerading as humour so as to make his point which could be: How can we dare ask Islam to examine its beliefs , what about examining our own beliefs ! But is most probably: Believe not in God but in the Democratic party they will really save you... just more political nastiness.

Posted by: David Xavier at January 5, 2008 5:27 PM

"The issue is whether savagery is part of the Christian doctrine itself."

The far left and especially the marxists believe this to be so. Jesus, whether he existed or not, believed in non violence. So the acts of past "christians" was wrong and would've been condemned by their founder.

Today the acts of Muslims engaged in violent acts are carrying out acts which their founder would probably agree with.

Sadly and I hope that I am wrong but I really don't want to see the religious right using legal "jihad" as a way of scaring away any criticism of their religion. Nor do I want to start seeing acts of "bullying" in the name of Christianity in the 21st Century. This, I believe would go against the teaching of Christ.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 5, 2008 5:42 PM

Robert said: "it comes from an understanding that in a civil society in which people of differing views live together, we all have to put up with being offended now and again".

It also comes from the fact that Christians have a faith that inspires, sustains and uplifts them, and is sufficiently strong that idiotic comments from a comedian or a few silly cartoons don't actually affect them in any way. Christianity is based on love, redemption and freedom, and people follow it from choice, not from threats or intimidation.

Islam, on the other hand, appears to be so flimsy that criticism or ridicule simply cannot be tolerated, otherwise many Muslims might wake up to that fact.

My Saviour is sufficiently strong that He doesn't need me to defend Him; it is the other way around. Mohammed, though, seems to need bunches of rabid Muslim thugs to protect him.

Posted by: Paul at January 5, 2008 6:10 PM

Catholicism is a religion as is Christianity in general. It is unfair to compare Islam (a culture based on human sacrifice) with a religious system and only impairs our ability to fend off the Muslims and their culture of Islam.

1,400 years of pretending to religious status is enough. The planet simply is not big enough and no more ground can be ceded to this violent culture.

Posted by: mike trivisonno at January 5, 2008 6:49 PM

"My Saviour is sufficiently strong that He doesn't need me to defend Him; it is the other way around. Mohammed, though, seems to need bunches of rabid Muslim thugs to protect him."

Exactly. The truth is more than capable of holding its own in a free marketplace of ideas. But every totalitarian movement (almost invariably based on flimsy lies and a distorted worldview) needs to shut down free speech and honest debate, which is exactly what we're seeing.

Posted by: Boston Tea Party at January 5, 2008 7:13 PM

Please note that I said "legacy." I didn't say this was currently happening (though other forms of religious abuse are, sadly, still way too common a practice among many Christians, as my own life story and many others will attest to). But study church history and you'll see it happened way too often throughout the past (not that once isn't too often, of course), and it really wouldn't surprise me to see certain Christians returning to the old ways of heretic burning given half a chance.

Short of a Ouija board or a seance matron, you are not in contact with what you term "legacy" Christians. You said that you wouldn't be surprised if certain Christians would resort to burning heretics if they were "given half a chance." You are not referring to any Christian legacy here, but to current Christians.

If you currently are in any way associated with Christians that you feel are going to start burning heretics to the death you need to find yourself another group of Christians to chat with. Your fears of this occurring, in my opinion, are unfounded for there is no teaching in Christianity that promotes terrorism, murder and hatred. Certainly Christians have have committed heinous acts in the name of their God, but they did so at the failing of their own human nature.

Don't let Fred Phelps speak for Christians.

Posted by: rougman at January 5, 2008 7:57 PM

Religion, this is your perception. As an agnostic I find little difference between any religion. The teachings of Christ, Mohammed, whatever are to me the same as Greek mythology. To say that one religion or cult is above another is a serious mistake. It's a never ending struggle and war. Frankly i'd rather everyone just take their religious beliefs and practice them behind closed doors, so they don't scare small children and horses. You believe in your god, great, thumbs up, big grin, don't push your thoughts onto me. If it's so great i'll join the party, if not leave me alone. Islam is an imperialistic religion. So is Christianity, it spread from the same region as Islam. Sooner or later a one world government is gonna be set up thanks to all you organised religiologists, they will step in under the pretext of saving mankind from religious wars and protecting mankind and setting up a one world religion. Nice, thanks, thumbs up, stupid grin, please keep it indoors.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 5, 2008 9:16 PM

Leonthepigfarmer

"As an agnostic I find little difference between any religion. The teachings of Christ, Mohammed, whatever are to me the same as Greek mythology."

While the question of God maybe unknowable , I dont think claiming 'Agnostism' can absolve one from morally discerning a difference between the example and teaching of Jesus Christ and the example and teaching of Mohammed. Also one should really differeniate between 'myth and stories' and accounts of real people who actually existed in recorded history. And at the very least , as a pig farmer , be disturbed by the anti-pig sentiment expressed by some of these teachings ...after all "them are real dollars" they are influencing!

Posted by: David Xavier at January 6, 2008 12:29 AM

leonthepigfarmer:

As an atheist I respectfully disagree.

You claim that you "... find little difference between any religion. The teachings of Christ, Mohammed, whatever are to me the same as Greek mythology. To say that one religion or cult is above another is a serious mistake."

The fact is that is that some religions, mythologies and their underlying philosophy are far more toxic than others.

Some are more dangerous to their practitioners, some to the neighbors, and some to both.

The Carthaginians were fond of infant sacrifice. The Aztecs were fond of murdering beautiful adolescents. There have been any number of cults that mandated that each village or community designate a pariah to be fetted and pampered all year, and then murdered, normally around planting or harvest time.

Not to mention a number of religions that practiced ritual cannibalism of defeated enemies, and which by extension demanded a continual supply of enemies to be defeated.

Christianity and Buddhism, whatever else their deficiencies might be, do not permit much less demand that sort of overt, crude, brutal human sacrifice.

Mohammedanism does however demand the murder of outsiders if they refuse to submit to the will of the mohammedan.

I'm no huge fan of supernatural anything. But you throw out the baby with the bathwater.

All crows are black, but not everything black is a crow.

Most death-cults are supernaturalist, but not everything supernaturalist is a death cult.

It's just that simple.

And I will add that we have seen, in the 20th century, a variety of outrageous, inhuman, destructive cults that had no overt, obvious supernaturalist elements whatever. The communist movement, just to name one, is probably responsible for nearly 100 million deaths all by itself.

And those guys made a point of posing as "scientific" people with no supernatural beliefs.

I'll go for the Delphic Oracle any day of the week over those bastards.

===========

They ain't all equal friend.

===========

Keep the faith. :-)

Posted by: joeblough at January 6, 2008 12:39 AM

If he goes on to insult Islam just as viciously and publicly, then I could respect him. It's too easy to trash Christians, and pointless too.

Posted by: Dumbo at January 6, 2008 12:52 AM

The truth of why Christianity has become peaceful is because it has GROWN UP BECAUSE OF THE HELP OF GOING THROUGH ITS REFORMATION AND LATTER WITH THE ENLIGHTEMENT. Thanks to both, it has been able to discover its real "ROOTS".

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at January 6, 2008 5:49 PM

"I don't see why this is on an anti-Islam site."
Posted by: Voltaire

"Voltaire" (what hubris!), I think this was posted to make a point about the blatant double standard in much of the media when it comes to bashing religious faith; for Bill Maher to trash Catholic beliefs is about as sporting as shooting fish in the proverbial barrel, because he knows that nothing bad will happen to him as a result. Sure, he'll get a bit of hate mail, but I'm sure he's used to that, and he knows that's as far as it will go. If he really thinks he's such a brave badass he should get out there and make exactly the same kind of contemputuopus tirade about the beliefs and practices of religious Muslims, assuming he feels the same level of contempt for these, which I'm almost certain he does (and if not, why not?) Anti-religious people have the right to believe that religion in general is a bad thing, but those who insist that all religions in today's world are equally bad and tar them all with the same brush are denying the reality that is in front of their smug faces, and those who make a point of publically trashing ONLY those religions whose members will not bite back are beneath contempt.

Posted by: angloirishslav at January 6, 2008 6:04 PM

First, it is not as if there is any lack of insulting humor aimed at Christians so it betrays a lack of creativity on Maher’s part. Any moron who could type “google” could have said as much. Second, while Maher is free to say what he likes about Christianity or anything else, Christians are free to make fun of Bill Maher. Certainly, as a professional in philosophy, Maher has the philosophical grasp of a nine year old. Anyone of my undergraduate students could rip him a philosophical new one. Christopher Hitchens, who is certainly no friend to Christianity, made fundamentally the same point. He betrays the marks of someone who takes themselves to be quite knowledgeable, when in fact he is quite ignorant.

As others pointed out, it takes far more courage to mock Islam. People often talk about journalistic integrity and valuing free speech but when it comes down to it, they are cowards. This was manifest in the Mohammed cartoon incident. Moreover, critics of Christianity and unspoken defenders of Islam are the media gate keepers. So telling people to “change the channel” when the airwaves are publicly subsidized doesn’t quite wash. Maher is free to say what he likes but not at the taxpayer’s expense.

It is fairly obvious that Maher is not only intellectually deficient but has some kind of need to deprecate religion in general and Christianity in particular. He needs a therapist.

As for the secularists in this thread, a few things to keep in mind. First, the use of the word “religion” is rather vague. What is the common denominator for the term? Naturalistic materialism is no less a worldview than Christianity. There is no metaphysically neutral perspective on the world and so Naturalistic Materialism, which is beyond empirical verification btw, is just as much a “religion” as any other perspective.

Secondly, the idea that Christianity “grew up” in the Reformation is a rather Whiggish view of history which irrationally favors a Protestant perspective and reinforces the old Frankish mythology concerning the Franks as the legitimate inheritors of the Roman Empire, which was a great surprise to the Romans in Constantinople. More to the point, the Eastern Orthodox never underwent a Reformation or Enlightenment as they never seemed to need one.

Posted by: American_Palamite at January 7, 2008 12:23 AM

"If he goes on to insult Islam just as viciously and publicly, then I could respect him. It's too easy to trash Christians, and pointless too."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKOw7VoRiog

This is not the only time he criticizes Islam.

I'm sure http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22bill+maher%22+muslims&btnG=Google+Search
would be a good starting point for finding other instances.

Here he is being pro-Israel (I'm Feeling Lucky link from the google search above):
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/bilMl.htm

Yeah, you'll be hard pressed to find that he's enthusiastic about the war - but that's not the same thing as being afraid to criticize jihadists or even sympathizing with them.

Hell, sometimes even I wish we could just wall them off (all 1 billion of them) from the rest of humanity and let their limb turn black and rot off the body of humanity.

Posted by: non-croyant at January 7, 2008 12:55 AM

Let me just add:

Maher: No! They're not all alike! It was extremist to begin with. Mohammed was a warrior. The big lie is that all religions are basically alike. They all preach the same thing. Well of course the Bible is full of a lot of violence. I mean, God in the Old Testament is a psychopath - he just kills, kills, kills, for no reason, good reasons, bad reasons, he's jealous, he just wants to kill. [Laughter]. He is. He's the rifleman. [Laughter]. But he doesn't seem to aim it so much at outsiders. He wipes out the Jews except for Noah because they were bad to him or whatever. But he doesn't keep saying, as the Koran, it seems to me [....] it seems to me that in the Koran god keeps saying, if you're not one of us, you're an infidel, and burning would be too good for you.

Quoted from a transcript of the above-posted youtube clip appearing here:

http://www.bigpicweblog.com/exp/index.php/weblog/comments/extreme_lib_bill_maher_gets_it_about_islam/"

Of course Yahweh drowned all humanity -not just the Jews - save Noah et al, but Maher's point was made, and it sounds suspiciously similar to one of Robert Spencer's main points, doesn't it? I wouldn't be surprised if he has read the blog or even Spencer's books.
And if he hasn't then the is a kudos to Maher for independently formulating the same argument.

[except that Spencer doesn't also take (I think warranted) potshots at Yahweh.]

Posted by: non-croyant at January 7, 2008 1:09 AM

The reformation was needed because the Catholic Church was selling indugences and other abuses. What the Protestant Reformation did was the start of bringing back Christianity to its Biblical roots. Also it forced the Roman Catholic Church to have its own counterreformation, at Trent in order to end the abuses. Plus the former was the start of having the Bible in the languages of the people. So it was with the start of the needed growing up process of the Christian faith.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at January 7, 2008 6:45 AM

American_Palamite,

"Secondly, the idea that Christianity “grew up” in the Reformation is a rather Whiggish view of history which irrationally favors a Protestant perspective and reinforces the old Frankish mythology concerning the Franks as the legitimate inheritors of the Roman Empire, which was a great surprise to the Romans in Constantinople. More to the point, the Eastern Orthodox never underwent a Reformation or Enlightenment as they never seemed to need one."

From the historic perspective, when it came to the "Romans of Constantinople" by the time the Protestant Reformation came about and the Roman Catholic Counterreformation, the Byzantine Empire was long gone by then, overtakened by the Ottomon Turkish Muslims. Also the Eastern Orthodox, because of the lost of their spiritual capital city, Constantinople, it had moved for all purposes to Moscow, Russia, its new Rome. Plus it had developed over the centuries a deep spirituality that was based on the Holy Bible, so they did not need a reformation. It has come in on its own. Western Christianity needed a "reformation/counterreformation" in order to get back to its spiritual roots, which is in the scriptures.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at January 7, 2008 8:44 AM

Mr. Maher has a right to voice his opinions. You have a right to call him a jackass. I only hope he is comfortable mocking any religion he disagrees with.

Posted by: MP at January 7, 2008 2:49 PM

Bigcatgirl,
Newsflash, indulgences can still be had to this day in Catholicism and it has some measure of biblical support in monetary sacrifices in the OT for the forgiveness of sins as in Leviticus. I am not Catholic, but the matter is far more complicated than you make it. Luther himself agreed with Eck that indulgences, Mary, etc. were not the major issue. The major issue was if humans of their own natural ability could contribute to their justification. Luther said no, which is why he thought that God picked (predestinated) certain people to heaven. The fundamental issues in the Reformation debates over justification turned on the relation of nature to grace and the difference between metaphysical Realism and Nominalism. The Thomists and Scotists for example were Realists whereas Luther trained in the school of Ockham was a Nominalist, which is why the two sides read the same texts on that question so differently.

Moreover, abuses didn’t cease with the Reformation and in fact increased. Heresies long since dead popped up again among Protestants (Socinianism for example). Not to mention the fact that for example in England, the education of the clergy was significantly degraded among Protestant ministers because they closed down all the seminaries. The fact is that the Latins in the west had been engaged in a Reform movement for at least one hundred years prior to Luther’s protest.

The Bible was in the language of the people or large parts of it were but Latin was the common language across western Europe. The Catholics were not opposed to a bible in the vernacular per se, but to unauthorized translations. Moreover, books were terribly expensive and few people could read the Bible anyhow. In any case, the Orthodox never faced those problems so I fail to see how you can say it was part of Christianity’s growing up process unless you wish to say that the Orthodox aren’t Christian.

When the Franks took over the western empire there were plenty of Romans in Constantinople. And even after the Islamic conquests, there were still plenty of Orthodox in those lands. You seem to confuse my comments about the Orthodox Church with the Orthodox state. And just FYI, “Byzantine” is a Frankish slur.

The funny thing is that your commendatory comments about Orthodoxy run afoul of your comments regarding Catholicism and the need for reformation. For many of the same things that were rejected by the Reformers in Catholicism are part and parcel of Orthodox teaching and practice.
You can't consistently maintain both claims.

In any case the Reformation wasn’t about getting back to the spiritual roots in the scriptures for the simple reason that the Reformers altered the list of books accepted as the scriptures and set themselves up as judges of what the biblical text in fact meant.

Posted by: American_Palamite at January 7, 2008 9:46 PM

"by insisting that one has to be "schizophrenic" to go about life normally for six days a week only to, on the seventh go to church and believe that when drinking communion wine one is drinking "the blood of a 2,000-year old space god."

By that measure is there even a mental disorder classification for Islam? And by the way Rogster
"In fact, I'd be so bold as to proclaim that I stand beside atheists, in the fight against Islam.

Posted by: solomonpal at January 7, 2008 11:54 PM

American_Palamite,

"Newsflash, indulgences can still be had to this day in Catholicism and it has some measure of biblical support in monetary sacrifices in the OT for the forgiveness of sins as in Leviticus. I am not Catholic, but the matter is far more complicated than you make it. Luther himself agreed with Eck that indulgences, Mary, etc. were not the major issue. The major issue was if humans of their own natural ability could contribute to their justification. Luther said no, which is why he thought that God picked (predestinated) certain people to heaven. The fundamental issues in the Reformation debates over justification turned on the relation of nature to grace and the difference between metaphysical Realism and Nominalism. The Thomists and Scotists for example were Realists whereas Luther trained in the school of Ockham was a Nominalist, which is why the two sides read the same texts on that question so differently.

Moreover, abuses didn’t cease with the Reformation and in fact increased. Heresies long since dead popped up again among Protestants (Socinianism for example). Not to mention the fact that for example in England, the education of the clergy was significantly degraded among Protestant ministers because they closed down all the seminaries. The fact is that the Latins in the west had been engaged in a Reform movement for at least one hundred years prior to Luther’s protest.

The Bible was in the language of the people or large parts of it were but Latin was the common language across western Europe. The Catholics were not opposed to a bible in the vernacular per se, but to unauthorized translations. Moreover, books were terribly expensive and few people could read the Bible anyhow. In any case, the Orthodox never faced those problems so I fail to see how you can say it was part of Christianity’s growing up process unless you wish to say that the Orthodox aren’t Christian.

When the Franks took over the western empire there were plenty of Romans in Constantinople. And even after the Islamic conquests, there were still plenty of Orthodox in those lands. You seem to confuse my comments about the Orthodox Church with the Orthodox state. And just FYI, “Byzantine” is a Frankish slur.

The funny thing is that your commendatory comments about Orthodoxy run afoul of your comments regarding Catholicism and the need for reformation. For many of the same things that were rejected by the Reformers in Catholicism are part and parcel of Orthodox teaching and practice.
You can't consistently maintain both claims.

In any case the Reformation wasn’t about getting back to the spiritual roots in the scriptures for the simple reason that the Reformers altered the list of books accepted as the scriptures and set themselves up as judges of what the biblical text in fact meant."

You have your opinion, I have mine.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at January 8, 2008 6:40 AM