Bill Maher, Anti-Christian Bigot: More
We have blogged about this fellow before, but he can’t seem to stop spewing out his hatred of Christians.
It’s interesting to compare him to the crackpot “pastor” in Florida who was promising to burn copies of the Qur’an. This fellow got way too much publicity out of it (any nobody can suggest something outrageous and get world-wide media attention, apparently) but he also drew universal condemnation.
Yet Maher continues to be a rather mainstream figure. While most people in the Mainstream Media and among liberal elites don’t hate Christians the way Maher does, they just don’t think his tirades deserve condemnation.
It’s interesting to compare him to the crackpot “pastor” in Florida who was promising to burn copies of the Qur’an. This fellow got way too much publicity out of it (any nobody can suggest something outrageous and get world-wide media attention, apparently) but he also drew universal condemnation.
Yet Maher continues to be a rather mainstream figure. While most people in the Mainstream Media and among liberal elites don’t hate Christians the way Maher does, they just don’t think his tirades deserve condemnation.
Labels: Anti-Christian, Anti-Christian Bigotry, Atheism, Bill Maher
posted by John McAdams at 3:48 PM
13 Comments:
I didn't see him say he "hated" Christians anywhere. He certainly thinks they are wrong, and pathetically so. But then again, YOU think HE is wrong. At least HE doesn't think YOU will burn in an eternity of teeth-gnashingly fiery abyss. So, it seems about even, except he says it out loud, and you keep it to yourself more often than not.
As a matter of fact, he doesn't say "Christians" anywhere either. At least not as far as I can tell from the referenced article. I'm fairly certain he has equal disdain for all religions. Heck, I'm sure he would have disdain for the non-religious as well if they were equally committed to anti-intellectualism.
Not to split hairs, but bigotry usually involves intolerance. I heard Maher say that he acknowledges the right of believers to worship how and when and where they choose. That seems like toleration to me.
He certainly believes they are wrong, even perniciously so. He certainly does go out of his way to be insulting (attempts at humor I think). But intolerant? Bigotry? I'm not sure.
Is any atheist who says he believes religion is wrong and destructive guilty of bigotry?
Not to split hairs, but bigotry usually involves intolerance. I heard Maher say that he acknowledges the right of believers to worship how and when and where they choose. That seems like toleration to me.
But if somebody went on at great length, using nasty rhetoric about how blacks are evil, but did nothing to harm blacks, by your logic the person is tolerant.
Again, if this kind of rhetoric was used against gays, or Muslims, or blacks, you would quickly label it intolerant.
You simply don't like Christians.
I'm fairly certain he has equal disdain for all religions. Heck, I'm sure he would have disdain for the non-religious as well if they were equally committed to anti-intellectualism.
Your claim that religious people are "committed to anti-intellectualism" is in fact hate speech.
Of course Christians (and other believers) believe certain things on faith.
But you do too. You just have an ideology that says people like you are somehow more rational. That's an intolerant ideology.
Is any Klansman who says that blacks are stupid and harmful to the country guilty of bigotry?
That's different than saying I think your ideas are wrong, bad and destructive. One is racial prejudice, the other is just exchanging ideas in a free marketplace.
I can only speak for myself, but I certainly do not dislike Christians. My entire family is Christian as are most of my friends, and I like these people very much, thank you.
And I never suggested that ALL religious people were committed to anti-intellectualism. In fact, I very much respect the Catholic church's stance on most scientific issues, e.g. global warming.
And I do not believe that others "like me" -- whatever that means -- have any corner on the intelligence market. But for those that DO adopt positions on the basis of politics when science would be the logical tool (particularly those with an education, who should know better, ahem), that actively disparage learning and science, I have little use for them. I still do not dislike them, unless they harm me or someone I love.
And I never suggested that ALL religious people were committed to anti-intellectualism. In fact, I very much respect the Catholic church's stance on most scientific issues, e.g. global warming.
Translation: you respect the Catholic Church's stand when they agree with you.
But for those that DO adopt positions on the basis of politics when science would be the logical tool (particularly those with an education, who should know better, ahem), that actively disparage learning and science, I have little use for them.
But econonic science says the minimum wage is bad. Do you accept that?
Science says that imprisoning offenders reduces crime both through deterrence and incapacitation. Do you accept that?
Indeed, science says that those who attend church regularly are better off in all kinds of ways, including both mental and physical health.
Do you accept that?
But there is a more fundamental problem with your argment. You differentiate between "good" Christians who agree with you, and "bad" Christians who don't.
Maher makes no such distinction. For him Christians in general are evil.
John, you purport to know much about me, though we have never met!
"Translation: you respect the Catholic Church's stand when they agree with you."
Untrue. I respect the Church's consistent stand on life issues; no abortion, no death penalty, no assisted suicide, even though I disagree with 2 of three. They are consistent. Something I'm pretty sure you can't say.
"But econonic science says the minimum wage is bad. Do you accept that?"
Oh Mr. McAdams. You should know better. Science doesn't say anything is "bad." Perhaps a refresher course is in order.
And as for social scientists' take on minimum wage, religiosity or imprisonment, you know as well as I that there are nearly as many opinions as there are social scientists. If asked for policy recommendations, I would of course go with the best science, and note it if my own opinion would suggest otherwise.
You should make efforts to minimize your blanket statements based on your preconceived notions of groups. You really do end up sounding silly.
Oh Mr. McAdams. You should know better. Science doesn't say anything is "bad." Perhaps a refresher course is in order.
My, my, you are presuming to lecture me on science.
Economic science says the minimum wage produces unemployment among the least productive workers, and produces dead weight loss. It's pretty consensual that those things are "bad."
Then when I tell you about some other scientific findings that run counter to your ideology, you say "there are nearly as many opinions as there are social scientists."
You see?
You attack Christians (at least the conservative ones) for being anti-intellectual, but then when faced with robust scientific findings you find inconvenient, you retreat to "it's all a matter of opinion."
But for you global warming isn't a "matter of opinion."
A truely tolerant person would even accept Christians who don't believe in evolution. It doesn't hurt you if somebody fails to believe in evolution, just like it doesn't hurt me if somebody believes a conspiracy killed Kennedy.
Or even that 9/11 was a U.S. government conspiracy. I don't believe in those conspiracies, but I don't get bent out of shape because other people do.
You seem to dislike Christians who don't believe the things you think they should believe.
A bit more tolerance of diverse opinions is in order.
wrong, bad and destructive
"Wrong" is exchanging ideas in a free marketplace.
"Bad" is close to bigotry. Suppose I say atheist's ideas are "bad" or that Muslim ideas are "bad?" You would not like that.
"Destructive" if flat out bigotry. Saying ideas other people hold are "destructive" is to say they somehow need to be shut up.
If I said the ideas that black people hold are "destructive" or that Muslim ideas are "destructive" or that atheist ideas are "destructive" you would scream about hate speech.
But you have another standard for Christians.
Indeed, science says that those who attend church regularly are better off in all kinds of ways, including both mental and physical health.
Since religions contradict each another, what you're actually saying is that people are simply embracing one collection of ancient stories or another that provide them with comfort and a sense of community which, not surprisingly, can have certain health benefits.
Of course, this says absolutely nothing about the veracity of such supernatural claims.
Amusingly, based on your religious beliefs, John, even though non-Christians might be improving their health by attending church regularly, they're going to wind up in the same place as non-believers: Hell.
As for Bill Maher, I see nothing wrong with his criticizing religious ideas, especially if he does so in an entertaining manner (of course, humor is very subjective).
You obviously don't have any qualms about criticizing secular liberal ideas (not to mention mocking JFK conspiracy buffs who believe in UFOs).
Sounds like a double standard to me.
Some people need to grow thicker skin and stop whining and playing the persecution card every time someone challenges one of their cherished beliefs.
And, yes, that includes liberals, too.
No one's ideas should be off limits, including Maher's who is a Grade-A moron when it comes to medicine in general and vaccination in particular:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/maher_really_is_a_moron_on_med.php
If PZ Myers and other atheist bloggers aren't willing to let Maher off the hook when he says something they think is stupid why should they treat religious people any differently?
Chris,
Maher doesn't simply disagree, he spews unadulterated hatred.
Would you say that black people "need to grow a thicker skin" when they are offended by racist venom from (say) a Klansman?
Don't presume to tell me who I think is going to hell.
You obviously don't have any qualms about criticizing secular liberal ideas (not to mention mocking JFK conspiracy buffs who believe in UFOs).
I don't spew hatred the way Maher does. Maybe you don't see that because you generally agree with him.
There really is a difference between disagreeing with religious people, and expressing raw hatred.
I disagree with (say) black people on a lot of things (voting for Obama, for example), but I don't spew venom toward them.
<< Home