Should Bill Maher recieve Imus treatment for Nazi comment?

[MY T PIMP]

By Matthew Balan | April 14, 2008 - 12:28 ET

Bill Maher, true to form on his "Real Time" program on HBO on Friday, went on a tirade against Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church, only days before the Pope

[Sombeech]

We all know he won't get reprimanded for this.

With Imus (he came out LARGELY ahead in the end) what should have happened is you let capitalism take it's course. If he's an ass, then you let the audience decide and carry out their boycotts.

This is the same with Bill Mahr. Some people are yelling for the "fairness doctrine" but we should just let good old capitalism take it's course, and let the ratings fall on their own.

If HBO steps in and repremands him or whoever, he just becomes a martyr, and his ratings increase, just like Imus.

[Redpb]

Though a bit twisted, I do like his argument (excluding the nazi comment of course)

[Cirrus2000]

:roflol: :roflol: :roflol:

Thanks for the point-out. I always like a good comedy bit, but don't really watch TV.

[LOAH]

Maher is great. He doesn't sugar coat anything and he tends to have very valid points, from what I've seen.

I don't have HBO and spend more time on the internet than television, but a friend of mine watches religiously and I end up catching an episode from time to time.

I kind of wish he was running for office, but I doubt that's going to happen any time soon.

[packfish]

Majer's not stupid but he can be a babbling idiot. There is intelligent humorous criticism and there's being a dum ass. He falls into the later.

[Rev. Coyote]

Coming from the Catholic-saturated East Coast, I believe Maher was right on target. Not only was the Pope a Hitler Youth (a Nazi), but his so-called "church" didn't offer shit in terms of comfort to the Jews during WWII. The silence of the Vatican was tantamount to complicity.

On the subject of pedophilia, the Catholic "church" has soft-pedaled the issue, opting to reassign child-molesting priests to other parishes if they only attacked one or two little boys. The "church" took no hard line on the issues, but moved to protect its perverted clergy. After that, the whole operation deserves nothing less that loud public ridicule for being the sick joke of global religious organizations.

(And this is all before looking at the church's history involving, oh, the Inquisition. And promoting overpopulation and the spread of AIDS in developing nations with the condoms=trip to Hell myth. Etc. Etc.) Oh, and every friend I had in Catholic schools around Richmond was at least once beaten by a penguin (nun). And those bitter old bitches can really dish out a whipping.

I liked this quote from Maher: "In fact, whenever a cult leader sets himself up as God

[denaliguide]

no.

bill says all types of comments that are offensive to some group of people everyday. insensitive? yes. shouold he lose his job for it? no. calling the pope a nazi, or preists pedophile homosexuals is no worse than is comment comparing retarded children with dogs.

one thing we have in this country that some other countries don't, is freedom of speech. just because some people are uncomfortable with what he said doesn't mean he can't say it.

[rockgremlin]

one thing we have in this country that some other countries don't, is freedom of speech. just because some people are uncomfortable with what he said doesn't mean he can't say it.



Well, freedom of speech AS LONG AS you're not speaking ill of minority ethnic groups......right Imus?

In America, we enjoy freedom of speech, but we must also be willing to accept the consequences that result from that, which in some cases can be severe.

Its an interesting concept. If you openly and harshly slander a religion -- some people may get their feathers ruffled but overall, no big deal. On the other hand, if you even hint at a racist comment, you could get yourself killed.

[Sombeech]

Hey, you can talk about Christians, Crackers, and Conservatives all you want. But anybody else, you're up for some prosecution.

[RedMan]

I think Bills use of "Nazi" is simply inflammatory.

Being a member of the Hitler Youth did not make you a member of the Nazi party. There is no record of Ratzinger

[Sombeech]

I think Bills use of "Nazi" is simply inflammatory.

Remember, most of the people who deny the Holocaust are Liberals, so you've gotta think: Why do they compare bad people to Nazis?

[DiscGo]

Hey, you can talk about Christians, Crackers, and Conservatives all you want. But anybody else, you're up for some prosecution.

Amen.

[RedMan]

Maher did it just because he knows calling the Pope a Nazi will get him a headline.

[stefan]

I think Bills use of "Nazi" is simply inflammatory.

Remember, most of the people who deny the Holocaust are Liberals


please expound on this comment, beech. whom are you referring to? or is this more of the 'beech blather that we pleasure of enjoying on this forum?

[JP]

I don't think Imus should have lost his job in the first place. Maher is just an @$$hole.

[Rev. Coyote]

Its an interesting concept. If you openly and harshly slander a religion -- some people may get their feathers ruffled but overall, no big deal. On the other hand, if you even hint at a racist comment, you could get yourself killed.

The difference is, religion is a choice, and therefore open to scrutiny. Race is not a choice.

[Cirrus2000]

Its an interesting concept. If you openly and harshly slander a religion -- some people may get their feathers ruffled but overall, no big deal. On the other hand, if you even hint at a racist comment, you could get yourself killed.

The difference is, religion is a choice, and therefore open to scrutiny. Race is not a choice.

Bingo. "The things you believe are ridiculous and utterly unsupportable, and you do stupid things (and do/hide criminal things) in the name of that belief." As opposed to, "You have skin of a certain color, and bone structure of a certain shape, and your parents came from a country I don't understand, therefore you do stupid things which offend me, and are not capable of the same high level of comportment as me and my ilk."

It's unfortunate that religion is afforded the high level of no-questions-asked respect that it is. Until we start to question the incredible (literally "that cannot be believed") claims of religion, and simply defer to the foolish, mutually incompatible and inconsistent beliefs, those beliefs will continue to inspire fear, hatred, warfare and bloodshed.

The thing is, that those of one belief will disparage the views of another, not realizing that their beliefs are just as crazy as the others. "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" Ah, the irony.

Dang it, I have to stop venting about religion on here. People will think I'm obsessed.
:haha:

[James_B_Wads2000]

Maher is great. He doesn't sugar coat anything and he tends to have very valid points, from what I've seen.

I don't have HBO and spend more time on the internet than television, but a friend of mine watches religiously and I end up catching an episode from time to time.

I kind of wish he was running for office, but I doubt that's going to happen any time soon.

You can download audio podcasts of the show for free. That's what I do.


James

[jumar]

Until we start to question the incredible (literally "that cannot be believed") claims of religion, and simply defer to the foolish, mutually incompatible and inconsistent beliefs, those beliefs will continue to inspire fear, hatred, warfare and bloodshed.
Religios beliefs can also inspire courage, love and peace. Lots of bad has been done in the name of religion, but there's also been a lot of good done in the name of religion. I think it largely comes down to individuals. You can find a**holes in every religion and you can find good decent people trying to make a better world in every sound religion.

[Sombeech]

kall me krazy, but I'm gonna have to assume that the molestations weren't done in the name of the church....


When I take a dump in the afternoon, I'm not doing it in the name of my employer, my religion, or even bogley.com - all of these items heavily influence my life though. If I do it at work, it's not sponsored by my employer. When I do it at home, my wife may have to deal with it a couple hours later but it's not done in the name of my family.

"In the name of _______" can be a little misleading.



BTW, this post has been written in the name of AC/DC, because that's my favorite band.

[rockgremlin]

Here's somethin to think about: Religion is quite similar to Darwinism in that both are faith-based ideologies. Whether you have faith that the earth was created by some freak accident, or by the hand of an eternal creator it's all the same. Both require a firm belief in something that is not tangible.

That said, it is clear that Cirrus believes in the Church of Darwin. Nothin wrong with that. I don't judge you or think you're bad/wrong/immoral/evil or otherwise. I only ask that you don't lump me in the same category as the child molesters just because I might share a similar belief system.

[Cirrus2000]

Here's somethin to think about: Religion is quite similar to Darwinism in that both are faith-based ideologies. Whether you have faith that the earth was created by some freak accident, or by the hand of an eternal creator it's all the same. Both require a firm belief in something that is not tangible.

Evolution is not tangible (you can't see it), but at least it's logical... and leaves evidence in the fossil record. Like gravity, you can't see it, but you can see its results. Gravity's results are just a little more obvious over a short timespan.


That said, it is clear that Cirrus believes in the Church of Darwin. Nothin wrong with that. I don't judge you or think you're bad/wrong/immoral/evil or otherwise. I only ask that you don't lump me in the same category as the child molesters just because I might share a similar belief system.
I'll agree that I believe in the system of gradual improvements first postulated (popularly) by Darwin, but I do object to the term "Church of". The ultimate Greek root for church means "Lord's", and I can't get behind that... I don't know where 'matter' began, where the universe 'came from', and don't expect to ever know - not sure that it can ever be known by us - but I'd rather not therefore chalk it up to some supreme being. Then we'd just have to say where did He (she, it...) come from. If He's always been there, then why can't we just as simply say that the universe/matter has always been there, and skip the supernatural?

I'm sorry, but I probably do sound condescending when I disparage religious faith in general. I really don't mean to (condescend, that is - I do mean to disparage faith itself), and I don't think that one is evil, wrong, etc. because of such a faith. I simply believe in enjoying, marveling at, reveling in the wonders of life, the universe, and everything without believing that it was put here by some great hobbyist in the sky for decoration around his ant farm (humanity). Sure, it would be neat decoration, but I find a non-supernatural explanation, and our bit part in it, so much more... huge!

I also believe that a world without religion would be a better world. And just because people do brave, loving, wonderful acts because of religion does not make it any more true. People can do such acts without religion.

I honestly don't mean to lump people together, and just because there are some people (in the FLDS, in the Catholic Church, etc.) who deserve a good solid mockery/skewering (Mother Teresa, anyone?) not everyone, even firm believers in those groups, are a homogeneous mass.

I could go on for pages, but I'll just say that I don't hate, or even dislike people of faith. Really I don't. It may sound trite, but I love people - truly. I only seem kind of nasty on the forum!

Edited to fix some messed up italics...

[denaliguide]

faith is where you just believe in something because you do. you can't measure or quantify what you believe in.

darwinism is measureable and quantifible. you can develop hypothesis and experiment and see the results of your experiments.

they are not the same at all.

[stefan]

shoot, guys, with all the rhetoric these days, i was starting to believe religion and science were the same thing.

thanks for setting me straight :2thumbs:

[man_on_mountain]

[quote=Rev. Coyote]Coming from the Catholic-saturated East Coast, I believe Maher was right on target. Not only was the Pope a Hitler Youth (a Nazi), but his so-called "church" didn't offer shit in terms of comfort to the Jews during WWII. The silence of the Vatican was tantamount to complicity.

On the subject of pedophilia, the Catholic "church" has soft-pedaled the issue, opting to reassign child-molesting priests to other parishes if they only attacked one or two little boys. The "church" took no hard line on the issues, but moved to protect its perverted clergy. After that, the whole operation deserves nothing less that loud public ridicule for being the sick joke of global religious organizations.

(And this is all before looking at the church's history involving, oh, the Inquisition. And promoting overpopulation and the spread of AIDS in developing nations with the condoms=trip to Hell myth. Etc. Etc.) Oh, and every friend I had in Catholic schools around Richmond was at least once beaten by a penguin (nun). And those bitter old bitches can really dish out a whipping.

I liked this quote from Maher: "In fact, whenever a cult leader sets himself up as God

[rockgremlin]

faith is where you just believe in something because you do. you can't measure or quantify what you believe in.

darwinism is measureable and quantifible. you can develop hypothesis and experiment and see the results of your experiments.

they are not the same at all.


You can develop experiments to attempt to prove Darwinism? I'm intrigued...do explain how. Darwinism is a theory that requires the passage of eons to explain the status quo -- and none of us were around to witness if what Darwin proposed is actually what took place. In that sense, Darwinism requires a certain degree of faith. It is after all still a THEORY.

In religion, you don't just believe things "because you do." At least I don't. I would hope nobody does. Just like theories are constantly tested in science, so too personal faith should be tested in religion. Otherwise the followers are led blindly, with nothing on which to base their beliefs.

[James_B_Wads2000]

You can develop experiments to attempt to prove Darwinism? I'm intrigued...do explain how. Darwinism is a theory that requires the passage of eons to explain the status quo -- and none of us were around to witness if what Darwin proposed is actually what took place. In that sense, Darwinism requires a certain degree of faith. It is after all still a THEORY.

In religion, you don't just believe things "because you do." At least I don't. I would hope nobody does. Just like theories are constantly tested in science, so too personal faith should be tested in religion. Otherwise the followers are led blindly, with nothing on which to base their beliefs.

Rock,

I believe in your basic analogy of your second paragraph. People should ask questions about religion/life and come up with their own conclusions.

But it is clear that you do not understand the definition of scientific theory. Darwinism is no more a religion that Mormonism is a science in the classical sense of the words. Some religious people take issue that

[rockgremlin]

But it is clear that you do not understand the definition of scientific theory....Your assumptions are incorrect.

Ya, you know what? Really don't give a shit anymore...I'm wrong, I acknowledge it, move on....

http://www.patandkat.com/pat/weblog/archives/pix/Baby_Flip.jpg

[DiscGo]

But it is clear that you do not understand the definition of scientific theory....Your assumptions are incorrect.

Ya, you know what? Really don't give a shit anymore...I'm wrong, I acknowledge it, move on....

http://www.patandkat.com/pat/weblog/archives/pix/Baby_Flip.jpg

Nice Gremlin. That really was pretty funny. :haha:

[Rev. Coyote]

kall me krazy, but I'm gonna have to assume that the molestations weren't done in the name of the church....


In the case of the Jeffs' cult, no, I don't think they were.

With the Catholic "church," it might as well have been since the "church" didn't take a firm stance on child molestation -- even allowed priests to stay on the job who were known pedophiles.

[stefan]

kall me krazy, but I'm gonna have to assume that the molestations weren't done in the name of the church....

In the case of the Jeffs' cult, no, I don't think they were.


how do you figure?

[Rev. Coyote]

kall me krazy, but I'm gonna have to assume that the molestations weren't done in the name of the church....

In the case of the Jeffs' cult, no, I don't think they were.


how do you figure?

In the name of the "central" or mainstream LDS church. But, mind you, my understanding of the LDS is not as deep as that of the Catolic "church."

Someone enlighten me!

[stefan]

In the name of the "central" or mainstream LDS church. But, mind you, my understanding of the LDS is not as deep as that of the Catolic "church."


the FLDS view plural marriage as one of the true tenets of their faith, and believe the mainstream church lost their way when plural marriage was renounced. while the FLDS and the LDS have a common ancestor, so to speak, (dare i draw a parallel with evolution) they are wholly disjoint.

so no the FLDS would not be doing anything in the name of the mainstream LDS church, but many of their actions are very likely in the name of the FLDS church. jeffs is viewed as a true prophet that speaks to god. the socioreligious structure of their closed society is strongly based on their religion. their religion is patriarchal and the plural marriage elevates the salvation of the man. the woman is subservient to the man (and i imagine that, for some, this empowerment can lead to abuse as it can in any society, though it could be amplified by the belief/misinterpretation that it's sanctioned by god).

marriage arrangements are delivered to the prophet, they are determined by god. it is god who has decided that a 13, 14, or 15-year old girl is to be married to an older man. it is certainly cast by these people that this institution of plural marriage is in the name of god ... more in the name of their church's view of god. do we view the marrying of a 13-year-old and the expected sexual relationship that follows to be molestation/abuse? however you want to call it, it's certainly institutionalized and sanctioned in the name of god.

in order to truly understand how each individual views it, you'd need to know their mind (i never would pretend to know what they think). i am would guess some believe it whole-heartedly, others don't, and there's the full spectrum in between. but presumably all of this is heavily skewed by their closed society, the imposed dependence of the individual on the society, and the fear of loss of salvation.

[hank moon]

...there are some people (in the FLDS, in the Catholic Church, etc.) who deserve a good solid mockery/skewering (Mother Teresa, anyone?)

Christopher Hitchens agrees!

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/

hank

[Sombeech]

...there are some people (in the FLDS, in the Catholic Church, etc.) who deserve a good solid mockery/skewering (Mother Teresa, anyone?)

Sure, but the Pope himself, who is trying to stop the terrible things that have happened --- most of which were while another Pope was the head of the church?

There are people in any organization that are definitely up for thrashings, but it is rarely the organization itself that sponsors or supports these actions.

[James_B_Wads2000]

Ya, you know what? Really don't give a shit anymore...I'm wrong, I acknowledge it, move on....

Yeah it's all been said before, no need to rehash.

But sending a kid to flip me off... that really hurts. :haha:


James