Grasscity - Cyber Week Sale - up to 50% Discount

Bill Maher attacks religious people

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Dronetek, May 17, 2010.

  1. That's an enormous leap to make, that the 'extreme right' is libertarianism. Says who? You? Your libertarian friends? That doesn't bear much weight when we consider that concepts such as authoritarianism, militarism, imperialism, 'rugged individualism'/social-Darwinism and social conservatism are very much right wing concepts employed by historical extreme right wing states... such as Nazi Germany, a widely recognised right wing movement.

    I personally haven't met any 'leftists' who fit the description of your penultimate paragraph. It's a cry lobbed by the right wing at us leftists though - we've been bombarded with allegations of racism on this forum for the past week or so about Cinco De Mayo bullshit. We're the ones being painted as racists, as extremists. On a broader level, I'd say it's even. The right wing lob just as many claims against the left, for example branding Obama a 'socialist'. The Tea Party movement seems to fit your definition rather well actually.

    As for your final point, and this actually on the topic of this thread - does this include moderately faithful Christians?
  2. Maher is about the only atheist in the media, at least the only one who will admit to it and speak out. Of course he's going to be vilified, he's managed to somehow survive in an atmosphere where atheism speech is not permitted by the religious. He has a right to be pissed off, and he's got a big pair of balls IMHO to take on this almost universal insanity virtually single handedly. :hello:
  3. #103 chiefton8, May 18, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 18, 2010
    Translation: I'm right and those with a different opinion are wrong. Fuck listening to anyone who disagrees with me. :rolleyes:

  4. All extremes lead to destruction.

  5. *sigh*

    The Nazis, were NATIONAL SOCIALISTS. Their full name was the "National Socialist Workers Party" They were on the left of the political spectrum.

    Their flag was red because they wanted to appeal to the communists.

    You may recall reading about his class warfare tactics, especially targeting the "rich jews" who were all "capitalist bankers."

    The primary ideological difference between the Nazis and the USSR was that the USSR promoted a form of government and approach called "International Socialism" while the Nazis promoted "National Socialism."

    Of course, this doesn't help advance the leftist agenda, so it's rarely taught in the schools.

    If I may, consider how far off your perception of this issue was. Your education has been filled with so much indoctrination that you were falsly informed that the Nazis were "right wing." That there were deep deep ideological differences between those advocating for "National Socialism" vs "International Socialism."
  6. National Socialism, in theory, is not a particularly left wing concept, but I would accept that national socialism is an, albeit weak, leftist movement.

    Nazi Germany was NOT a leftist state, a leftist movement or anything of the like. Nazi Germany was basically the result of a vaguely leftist doctrine seized upon by enraged extreme conservatives with a lust for imperialism. Again, conservatism is not a leftist concept. Imperialism is not a leftist concept. Persecuting Jews because of their race and ethnic background is not a leftist concept. Nazi Germany was an extremely rigidly conservative state, demanding discipline and respectability at all times from all citizens. Who does this remind you of?

    Ivy League, Harvard etc? Institutes established in the glorious 'golden period' of capitalism, founded on ridiculously cheap land and pompously enormous, these institutes and fine capitalist traditions are all very much full of pressure. One must succeed, to make the university look good, to make Mum and Dad proud, to work ones way up to the top and be successful. These places are the breeding grounds of conservatism, of discipline and competition. Who does this remind you of?

    I don't know where you found that their flag was red to appeal to Communists? Considering Communists were rooted out and shot like dogs I find this pretty strange.

    My education on the subject was pretty mainstream. I studied Nazi Germany for half a year, and studied Soviet Russia for a half year. Nazi Germany was, as I've said, a National Socialist state that had its doctrine taken and brutally put to use by right wing ultra conservatives. Conservatists are very, very, very, very, VERY rarely leftists. The U.S.S.R wasn't a socialist movement but a Communist movement under which socialists were persecuted and killed. And we all know the many things that went wrong with their brand of Communism... things that, once again, are not mainstream leftist concepts and usually rooted in conservatism and authoritarianism. Once again, both are not associated with the left.

    In fact, this 'left' and 'right' thing is stupid, think of it in terms of that 4 way graph thing, with 'conservatism' on one axis and 'progressivism' on another, 'authoritarianism' on one axis and 'liberalism' on another. If you believe in liberty and progress, you'll naturally be inclined to not vote for authoritarianism and conservatism.
  7. I have no need for religion. I think it's sad that religion plays a part in our politics, however.
  8. So, if I could find you a religion where belief in a higher power wasn't inherent (counterexample) you would reject that definition?

    I ask because I've been attending a Unitarian Universalist congregation since I was about 5 years old and I'm pretty sure that many of the people there don't believe in a higher power.
  9. That story ended with an angel telling Abraham that he didn't have to sacrifice his son. However, any kind of God which would play that kind of practical joke is insane.

    Also, I clearly stated that I believe Jesus did wonders for the world. Next time would you like to read my entire post before you attack my ideas?

    Again, religion isn't inherently good or evil. Some people use it for good, while others use it for evil. Also, the crusades are not "stories". Actual people actually died in the name of God for the holy land and the treasures there. The "story" of Joshua may have a lot of truth in it as well. A lot of these "stories" are based on real events without the divinity. Divinity could have been the motivating factor, but I could never know for sure. Either way, evil deeds have been done and are currently being done in the name of religion, just like good deeds have been done and are currently being done in the name of religion.

    People can be good or evil, a tool like religion has no inherent "goodness" or "evilness".
  10. You can't use Jesus as an a valid example for the good that religion has caused.

    That's like saying religion is good because it's religion.
  11. I would tend to disagree. As someone has pointed out, not a lot of violence can be done in the name of Jesus. He never did anything violent. He preached forgiveness and honesty. How can that be bad at all? It can't. I don't care if you believe in God or the divinity of Jesus or not, these traits are valued and emulated on a global scale because of Jesus.

    That can never be a bad thing.
  12. Dink makes an important distinction. The people who most imitate Jesus are called saints. They don't go around raping children and killing people.

    The people who most imitate Mohammad, however, do go around raping children and killing people. Because that's what Mohammad did.

    The blind bigotry against religion is similar to racism. "One religion is bad, therefore all religions are bad." "One black person is bad, therefore all black people are bad." "One tree is rotting, therefore all trees are rotting." "One bites people, therefore all dogs bite people."

    It's a failure of logic. Each religion should be evaluated on its own merits.
  13. #113 ADogNamedJack, May 19, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2010
    Anyone else notice how many people try to compare whoever they are arguing with to Hitler in order to discredit them lately? Kind of pisses me off when instead of adressing points and formulating a rebuttal people just go "JUST LIKE HITLER" or "REMIND YOU OF THE NAZIS!"

  14. Godwin's Law. As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
  15. Haven't read the entire thread, just the two first pages, and the two last. So time for me to chime in :)

    1: There is no question that religion throughout history and today, have been and is a source of conflict, persecution, intolerance and slaughter. That is not to say all religions are equally bad, or that religions of any stripe are incapable of doing good. Hell, even Hamas have social programs, and the Iranian theocratic regime give generous child-support. The catholic church is very charitable. But it still do not excuse suicide bombing, hanging gays or raping children or causing an AIDS epidemic in africa for not condoning condom use.

    Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people die because of religion. Each and every year. That is not a force of good, no matter how much the religious or their apologists try to paint a happy face on it. What they are really doing is deflecting attention from the cruelty that follow in the wake of religion.

    Though I'm inclined to excempt mainstream Buddhism and Jainism from that description. Jainism will never lead to violence, though some schools of Buddhism can. Like how Zen-Buddhism got married to the martial Shinto tradition of Japan, into a fascist soup of idolatry of the emperor and notions of supremacy and fanatism for a "holy" cause of expansion of the Japanese empire. It was their god-given right.

    2: Maher is halfway right in calling Communism a state religion. I call it secular religion. It is a faith system, based upon historical determinism that will eventually lead to a utopia. It have its unchanging dogmas, and an unhealthy attitude towards critics and infidels, or dissidents as they call(ed) it. It only lacks a god, but you will find communists (and fascists, two sides of the same coin really) have this tendency to excalt their leaders to infallible divine status. Mao, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim jr and sr, Castro. They are all more or less worshipped as gods or messiahs by various stripes of communists. Best thing is, the sectarianism between the followers of this or that communist idol. It's so intense that they entirely forget who their supposed real enemy is, the socalled decadent capitalists. So similar to say christian infighting, that it amuses me to no end.

    Reminds me of this scene from Life of Brian:

    [ame=]YouTube - The People's Front[/ame]


    3: Since it came up. The nazi thing. Can't have a thread without nazi references cropping up somewhere. Sometimes warranted, most often not. But since Sir Elliot made some claims vis-a-vis the nazis, I feel like correcting them.

    First, the nazis was not leftist by any stretch of the imagination. they sucked up to and was supported by german and international big industry. From IG Farben, the giant german chemical company, to the Ford Motor Company, who should be known to most. The nazi party was virulent anti-union, anti workers rights. They were not for equal rights for women, they were considered broodmeres and little else. Even when the German war industry was screaming for workers during the war, the nazis never allowed women into the war industry. At most, they were given various administrative, secretarial, propaganda, nursing and agrarian work.

    Nazism is part of the fascist political tradition, though a very extreme version of it. Which is to say it is a marriage of state, church and capital into a static feudal system. Fascism is a catholic invention, a reactionary ideology to roll back the democratic and individual-rights based society that evolved from the enlightenment. So no surprise that many in the upper echelons of the nazi-party were confessed catholics, including Hitler. The very first treaty signed by Hitler as chancellor of Germany, was with the Vatican. The catholic church was given dominion of religious education in german schools, and in return the Vatican would close down the catholic party in Germany.

    Oh, and then you have the Vatican being guilty of squirreling away nazi war-criminals after WW2. Giving them new identities, and sending them on their merry way to various South American catholic countries. Almost like they do today with pederast priests.

    Though, strictly speaking, the Nazi party was not that concerned with established religions, unlike say the Fascist parties of Spain, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and so on, who was very catholic.

    The nazis had some rather esotheric metaphysical beliefs, in modern terms best described as a sort of new-ageism. The exterior of this they flaunted at every opportunity, like with the swastika, runes and celebrating pre-christian traditional common festivities. But they were very carefull not letting the common german, not even the common nazi-party member, know of their occultist inspired new-paganism.

    So in many respects, you could say nazism was as much a religious movement, as a political ideology. As is true of all fascist parties. One thing they certainly was not, and that was secular or atheist.

    Again, unlike more leftist parties.

    But in practice it comes to naught. Commies and nazis both, soon deterioate into totalitarian barbarism. The extreme right and extreme left is different on paper only. The ideals of the commies might be more, shall we say, benign, but in reality, communism have several times over the number of lives on its conscience than nazism.
  16. I don't quite agree with this, either.

    Religion isn't really something you choose. I mean, obviously it is, but if you were born into a family and society that would disown you if you left their religion you probably wouldn't think twice about being a part of it. Once you are indoctrinated into a religion, especially from birth, it can be quite hard to shake it.

    I don't think it is right to say that all followers of Mohammad or Islam are evil, because I'm sure some of those people do wonderful things.

    Some people are evil, some people are not. No religion itself is inherently evil, it is just really, really easy to persuade people to do evil things with divinity as a motivator.

    The easy way to look at it would be to see religion as the first form of government. Anyone who seeks to control others was drawn to religion because people are fearful of the voice of God. You can get people do obey your "commandments" for the fear of going to Hell. You can get people to pay you money to be absolved of their sins. It is a means of control. Churches started wars years ago, and now we see government starting wars. Religion and government have even been intertwined for a long time.

    The evil isn't in religion, it is in the desire to control the lives of others, which is always evil.
  17. Personally, I never understood why Theists and Atheists never got along. Both are doing the exact same thing: Absolutely believing in something that they have no evidence of.
  18. Because they're humans, and to most humans proving your opponent wrong is more important/enjoyable than getting along with them. We'll bypass this phase in our next evolutionary step though. I happen to know a few theists and atheists that get along just fine.
  19. Right, but willis, the amount of effort each puts into their attacks against the other dwarfs the amount of thought that would be required to realize they are the right and left hands of the same animal.

    You'd think that'd humble one or two of them
  20. Very high disclaimer

    I guess this says something about human nature, but like I said in my previous post, I think we're evolving past this "My god/nongod is the awesomest god/nongod and your god/nongod is a pedophile rapist or some homosexual pacifist that turns water into wine and lives in a perpetual 12-disciple orgy" mentality. Sorry, I got offtrack there somewhere, but basically I believe a worldwide mandatory mushroom holiday would do the world a world of good and we could start getting along as this animal of which you speak.

Share This Page