Site Presented By
Saturday, Jul 4, 2009
"As you've picked up by now, the religion Maher is describing is not imaginary, and in various forms and guises is professed by most people in the United States, including every president we've ever had or are likely to have in the foreseeable future."
That would be news to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison...
"But charging interest is specifically forbidden by the Old Testament."
Torah only prohibits charging interest by Jews to other Jews. He's mocking a straw man, on this point at least.
He of the holy host?
The one
The only
Space Ghost?
contemporary Catholic theology resists literal readings of Scripture and is not in the least anti-scientific
Uhhhmm, sorry dude- game over.
One of the most firmly held beliefs in the Catholic church is in the "Immaculate Conception." Trust me, the priests you mentioned in your review believe in it- literally. And if they don't they would be considered apostates.
So, unless there is some new science you've been holding back on, contemporary Catholic theology, is, at the very least, unscientific.
Obama is not a Muslim. The United Stupid of America never cease to amaze me.
Point one: The immaculate conception is the belief that Mary was born without sin, not the virgin birth, as you seem to think. (I thought they were the same for many years too).
Point two: I'd call that belief extra-scientific rather than anti-scientific:. A one off event attributed to a miracle that can in no way be proved or disproved by science. "Intelligent design" is, in some sense, the same, but since the proponents are clearly "anti-science" I'd say ID itself is anti-science.
During their brief appearances, for instance, Vatican Latinist Reginald Foster and astronomer George Coyne, who are both Roman Catholic priests, make it clear that contemporary Catholic theology resists literal readings of Scripture and is not in the least anti-scientific. You can find liberal Christians who will argue that the resurrection of Jesus was somewhere between a con game and a dream sequence, and numerous Jews who treat the Torah as legendary material and God as a distant hypothesis.
Does it even count as lipstick on a pig when they think the pig is merely a metaphor? These biblical scholars are a lot like post-modernist literature reviewers; they can feed you almost any line they want in their interpretation. They can tell you that even the (rare) straightforward declarative statement means something entirely different. It's political flim-flammery on top of a schizophrenic book written over (at least) hundreds of years.
Since these persons arguing about religious texts are called "academics", we interpret an aura of reasoned discourse about their discussions. There is nothing of the kind there; incestuous loops of logic abound.
It's perfectly true that there are a lot of sophisticated theologians whose intellectual approach to faith has nothing in common with that of the idiots Maher mocks. But the problem with bringing this up as a defense against Maher's sarcasm is that the idiots outnumber the theologians by a million to one. The religion that most influences the real world is not the gentle faith of the Talmudic scholar or the Vatican philosopher; it's the blind fanaticism of the suicide bomber and the closed-minded ignorance of the creationist.
To be sure, there have been times when a deeper, more thoughtful faith has influenced the world for good -- Gandhi and King are the (ahem) canonical examples. But no matter how much good this sort of faith may do, it is far outweighed by the combination of violence, tribalism, and plain old stupidity we see in the name of God every day.
I'm fairly certain Mr. O'Hehir was being ironic there...
When I was a kid, I used to think that the world was on a fast track to progress; that increased access to knowledge and non-local points of view would cause people to shed their poorly informed misconceptions. Now I know many well educated well traveled people who still cling to their ineffable spirituality. Granted, I don't personally know anyone of the abject fundamentalist persuasion, so perhaps there has been progress, but not so much as I expected. I'm baffled.
The thing that struck me most, as a child, was that Christian parents never had Muslim kids. Everyone talks up the "personal" nature of their beliefs, but somehow, they almost all invariably believe almost exactly the same thing as the people living next door. One can take great comfort in having one's personal conclusions affirmed by so many friends and neighbors, I suppose. It's just like the scientific method, isn't it? You form a hypothesis, and then when the independent inquiries of your family reach the same conclusion, you have a theory as strongly grounded as any scientific proposition. Well, minus the observable measurable evidence bit, but that's just a nit.
I find people's failure to recognize the overt influence of culture on their beliefs deeply disturbing. Religion is a polite word for xenophobia.
You know what's odd, though. I know a lot of folks who'd religiosity IQ isn't so high who I'd much rather spend time with than some of their nihilistic genius counterparts who lack social grace or empathy. That's the nut that's tough to crack: sans religion, how should we live? Dostoyevsky took a swipe at it (and decided religion wasn't so bad after all). Sagan was trying to work up to something. I've never yet found an insightful secular position on the subject.
Will Bill convert anyone? I hope so, but probably his movie will mostly piss a bunch of people off. That's good too. But what I'd really like to see is a really strong argument about human behavior that wasn't grounded in superstition.
They're fighting over land and power and resources, as all groups do.
There will always be some of this, but the solution is education for the young, because then people see that the possibilities for the future include more than just subsistence and death.
In the commercials for the movie a question is asked of the European looking fake that is supposed to be Jesus ( a subject for another time) of why does God allow evil to exist.
Or was it why did not God wipe out the Devil, it was something like that.
Both questions get the same answer, balance. It is good and evil. If the Hebraic literature is to be believed at all it indicates there other gods exist. In Job it is noted that Satan has his territory and God all the rest but Satan's actions are limited.
Why bad things happen to good people is simple, bad people.
Why do babies die, simple we are imperfect construct in terms of living forever. Germs are people too, that is to say all life has an equal chance to live and die. DNA/RNA is changeable, mutable, and fragile. We are born to die, do know of anyone who hasn't or who will not. All the wealth in the world can't keep anyone here and of course, you can't take it with you.
Evil exist because people exist. No matter what you think about Jews, Christians or Muslims the moral code espoused in Exodus 20 is valid around the world, honor parents, don't kill, steal, lie, or covet and most importantly treat folk with love and like you want to be treated, do that then no evil.
Call it religion if you will but if only 6 of the 10 rules form off the mountain were universally practiced would there be evil? Would there? The Devil thrives on what we as humans do without prompting.
Though I know you want I'd love to hear your response to that.
The Wasilla soap opera just gets weirder as Palin complains critics are "picking apart a good point guard"
The media outlet's use of Bush euphemisms sparks a much-needed debate on journalistic standards.
And so are his Fox News pals, who lambasted Sen. Al Franken's "stolen election"
An inflexible right wing is allowing the Golden State to drown in debt. But it's not alone
Thanks for sharing, Governor. Now please take a cue from Norm Coleman, and go away
Salon headlines in your mailbox
