Should Bill Maher recieve Imus treatment for Nazi comment?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

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.

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:

[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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockgremlin

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James_B_Wads2000

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/.../Baby_Flip.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockgremlin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James_B_Wads2000

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/.../Baby_Flip.jpg

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sombeech

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rev. Coyote

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sombeech

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stefan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rev. Coyote

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sombeech

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rev. Coyote

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cirrus2000

...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/libra...hens_16_4.html

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

hank

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cirrus2000

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockgremlin

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