Bill Maher To PC Liberals: “Shut Up”

[Brian37]

He didn't call you stupid, he said your comment was. This is what Bill Maher was talking about: infighting among liberals and atheists trying to be nice and not nice to religious BS.  Solitary

Bill like most who cuss out religion like he does, are not monsters wanting genocide of believers. But more like having your friends(your fellow species) do stupid shit, and you simply get to the point of saying "HEY FUCKING KNOCK IT OFF"

That is where Bill is coming from and if more in Islam did that on their own he wouldn't have to do it and on top of that Islam would be welcomed into the 21rst century where everyone else is.

[Solitary]

Mermaid, having a fight among ourselves over religion is not productive either. How Bill Maher have made it any clearer that liberals are getting too sensitive and radical too? Solitary

[Brian37]

Mermaid, having a fight among ourselves over religion is not productive either. How Bill Maher have made it any clearer that liberals are getting too sensitive and radical too? Solitary

I actually think our infighting is productive, but no that fighting does not have to be a distraction to the entire goal though. Our disagreements show that you can get along without killing each other and isn't that where we all want religion to get to. On top of that our public fighting also shows theists that we are not monochromatic goose stepping Nazis like they want to paint us out to be.

[Mermaid]

I actually didn't get involved with this to have a fight. I think I am being misrepresented though. I most certainly condemn anyone who commits acts of violence and hate in the name of God or whatever they call it, so please do not misunderstand me. My point is that I believe that shaming or lecturing someone about why their religious beliefs are wrong is not any different than a person lecturing me about my atheism.

I agree with Maher on nearly everything. I just think his Religulous was quite disrespectful in places. I think if someone finds solace in their beliefs and that works for them, good on them. I envy them that in a way. That is as far as it goes.

I am giving a half assed effort to express myself in this thread, so maybe I should have just kept my mouth shut in the first place.

[Brian37]

I actually didn't get involved with this to have a fight. I think I am being misrepresented though. I most certainly condemn anyone who commits acts of violence and hate in the name of God or whatever they call it, so please do not misunderstand me. My point is that I believe that shaming or lecturing someone about why their religious beliefs are wrong is not any different than a person lecturing me about my atheism.

I agree with Maher on nearly everything. I just think his Religulous was quite disrespectful in places. I think if someone finds solace in their beliefs and that works for them, good on them. I envy them that in a way. That is as far as it goes.

I am giving a half assed effort to express myself in this thread, so maybe I should have just kept my mouth shut in the first place.

Tell me why claims of magic underwear or men living in whales should be "respected". Now that is a separate issue the word "respect". I hate that word. It is mostly never used in the manor intended. It really gets mostly used to say "don't bruise my ego" and "Know your place". I hate that word.

I say value, I can value your right to make whatever claim you want but claims themselves do not deserve blind value. Now back to Bill, do not sit there and say you value criticism of religion then tell him he is being "disrespectful". The entire point of that movie is to make religion uncomfortable. Because religion itself DOES make outrageous claims. And when religion does this others have every right to pick on those claims. AND Mormonism WAS started by a known and proven con artist in Joseph Smith.

[Brian37]

And no, you do not have to keep your mouth shut, just consider what others here are saying. If we all agreed we would be the NAZIs theists paint us out to be.

[Mermaid]

Claims that magic underwear is somehow holy are ridiculous to me, but my atheism might be ridiculous to others. I don't respect the underwear itself.

Magic underwear doesn't affect me until the wearer of such tries to intervene in my private life and demand that I wear it, too.

By the way, I love the term "magic underwear". It will never not make me laugh.

[Shiranu]

Well, I had a full response written and then my browser froze and it disappeared so... maybe it's for the best.

Summed up,

Frankly, you are not grasping the concept that neither me or Mermaid have said he shouldn't criticise Islam, that we have never said he is just as bad as a religious terrorist, that we never said we don't care about actual violence as much as Bill Maher's presentation. These are things we have not said or implied, nor do I think we will ever say or imply.

What we have said is that attacking with such vitriol and anger is not a productive means of changing people's minds, to go back and quote solitary...

You really think being nice to radical beliefs is the way for change? Good luck with that! All they care about is their superstitious nonsense and could care less about being human beings instead of being self righteous pricks.

...this right here is the problem. Treating them like villains, treating them like boogiemen who will never change, Frankenstein monsters that are out to get us is just fanning the flames.

I honestly believe a hand open reaching to them will go further than a fist clenched and shaken at them. And since so much of their propaganda is along the lines of how the West will never accept them, how the West hates them... I simply do not see using rhetoric such as above is productive. Yes, you may not change the heart of the radical pastor or iman, or the occasional loony who follows them; what you can change is the opinions of the more moderates.

What use is there in constant attacks on moderate Muslims, calling them sympathizers to terrorists? What use is there in saying that they can never be changed, that their religion (and thus, their culture) is a scourge to the earth that will only be acceptable when it is gone? Do you think these things will make the moderate Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc. be in a hurry to agree with us? Or will it only provide more ammo for the radicals who will say, "SEE! They hate our very way of life! In this world, it will either be us or them!".

No one has called for political correctness, no one has called for Bill Maher to be silenced, no one has called for censorship, and no one has called for his show to be replaced with constant praise of religion. All that has been said is that anger, hatred and toxicity is not the solution to the problem of ending anger, hatred and toxicity.

If you do not believe this to be, so be it, but the greatest men in history I have studied did believe this to be the truth and lived their lives accordingly and made unprecedented changes to human history that continue to effect hundreds of millions of lives for the better... simply by being kind and respectful.

I can only try and follow the example of these great men and hope for the best, by being honest and being kind. If I have to become an asshole to "fix" the problem of other people being assholes, then nothing is gained in the grand scheme of things. And I realise I have not always lived up to that but it's certainly something I am trying to work on. I have found far more success with simply presenting the truth than arguing with someone.

[Mermaid]

Thank you for writing out what I have obviously been too lazy to articulate.

[Brian37]

Well, I had a full response written and then my browser froze and it disappeared so... maybe it's for the best.

Summed up,

Frankly, you are not grasping the concept that neither me or Mermaid have said he shouldn't criticise Islam, that we have never said he is just as bad as a religious terrorist, that we never said we don't care about actual violence as much as Bill Maher's presentation. These are things we have not said or implied, nor do I think we will ever say or imply.

What we have said is that attacking with such vitriol and anger is not a productive means of changing people's minds, to go back and quote solitary...

...this right here is the problem. Treating them like villains, treating them like boogiemen who will never change, Frankenstein monsters that are out to get us is just fanning the flames.

I honestly believe a hand open reaching to them will go further than a fist clenched and shaken at them. And since so much of their propaganda is along the lines of how the West will never accept them, how the West hates them... I simply do not see using rhetoric such as above is productive. Yes, you may not change the heart of the radical pastor or iman, or the occasional loony who follows them; what you can change is the opinions of the more moderates.

What use is there in constant attacks on moderate Muslims, calling them sympathizers to terrorists? What use is there in saying that they can never be changed, that their religion (and thus, their culture) is a scourge to the earth that will only be acceptable when it is gone? Do you think these things will make the moderate Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc. be in a hurry to agree with us? Or will it only provide more ammo for the radicals who will say, "SEE! They hate our very way of life! In this world, it will either be us or them!".

No one has called for political correctness, no one has called for Bill Maher to be silenced, no one has called for censorship, and no one has called for his show to be replaced with constant praise of religion. All that has been said is that anger, hatred and toxicity is not the solution to the problem of ending anger, hatred and toxicity.

If you do not believe this to be, so be it, but the greatest men in history I have studied did believe this to be the truth and lived their lives accordingly and made unprecedented changes to human history that continue to effect hundreds of millions of lives for the better... simply by being kind and respectful.

I can only try and follow the example of these great men and hope for the best, by being honest and being kind. If I have to become an asshole to "fix" the problem of other people being assholes, then nothing is gained in the grand scheme of things.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions", wanna guess who said that?

Politeness vs bluntness is a matter of CONTEXT, being nice is not a blanket solution for everything. Iran is a Politically correct state, they force people to be polite to their religion.

So yes you can argue some people changed the world by being polite, but to say that is the only way to make change is absolute bullshit.

The point of blasphemy isn't to rid the world of religion, the point of blasphemy is to insure we do not regress back into a state like Iran. And even here in the states Falwell tried to sue Larry Flint for offending his mother in a parody add. The Supreme Court rightfully said he had no case no matter how offended he was about that parody add.

You protect speech not because you like all of it. You protect speech because you don't want the government getting to something you want to bitch about yourself.

So again, polite in what context? Bill is a provoker, not a mass murderer, and the west needs thought provokers, even when it makes them uncomfortable.

[Brian37]

Claims that magic underwear is somehow holy are ridiculous to me, but my atheism might be ridiculous to others. I don't respect the underwear itself.

Magic underwear doesn't affect me until the wearer of such tries to intervene in my private life and demand that I wear it, too.

By the way, I love the term "magic underwear". It will never not make me laugh.

So, yes they think our not believing is ridiculous and? Everyone gets to say what they want and? I think you are fooling yourself if you think the religions of others do not affect you. Those people vote too. And religions worldwide have people in power who have weapons, so as long as people in power hold such beliefs those beliefs should NEVER get blind value.

"As long as it doesn't affect me", not going to happen ever. 7 billion humans whom of which the vast majority hold some sort of religious belief. No one is talking about those willing to be civil and leave it at words. I am talking about the bad tactic the PC left pulls with good intent. The reality is that if you don't challenge absurd claims, those claims can grow like weeds. You don't do it to call for an end to religion, but you do it to keep that civil leash on it.

In the civil west we get to pick on whatever we want. They can pick on us but we have a right to respond when they do. And sorry, I refuse to play nice outside leaving my bluntness at words. When religion can do the same then I will not have to worry. But to use never as a tactic is a really bad idea.

[Shiranu]

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions", wanna guess who said that?

The same guy who was known for being cruel to his slaves and intentionally sold family members away from each other as punishment, the guy who only emancipated 5 of his slaves... all related to his mistress. Hardly a moral compass to me. A fine politician though, for sure.

How about this?

“An ounce of patience is worth more than a tonne of preaching."

Or...

"Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend."

You protect speech not because you like all of it. You protect speech because you don't want the government getting to something you want to bitch about yourself.

So again, polite in what context? Bill is a provoker, not a mass murderer, and the west needs thought provokers, even when it makes them uncomfortable.

My position is this;

-Bill Maher has every right to say what he wants to say.
-I have every right to disagree with the manner in which he wishes to say it.

The fact that I disagree with him does not mean I am opposed to his right to say what he wants to say. Both me and Mermaid have repeatedly stated this, and this will be the last time I will repeat it.

Yes, he is a provoker, and that is the problem; provocation is not the solution to anger. One does not provoke a sleeping bear. One does not beat a beehive with a stick. So why does one believe that provoking those who may otherwise agree with us is the right answer?

The way to the moderates is through peace and moderation; using hateful rhetoric and condemnation of their religion with sweeping generalizations and statements about how it is a blight upon humanity that is the root cause of evil will never bring them to agree with us.

The reality is that if you don't challenge absurd claims, those claims can grow like weeds.

Here lies our fundamental issue; Maher's only way to deal with absurd claims is by condemnation and disrespect. These are simply not effective tools to deal with the issue at hand.

I can sit here and call you an asshole for disagreeing with me, that your positions are moronic, that you are just wrong and use sarcasm and snide remarks about you.

Or I can sit here and explain calmly why I feel you are wrong, and what I feel are better solutions.

This is the difference we are trying to make; there is more than one way to disagree with someone. I do not believe that name calling and ridicule will be the most effective way of changing minds, so I don't use it. Nor do I feel you deserve (nor anyone else) to be ridiculed. This is why I disagree with Maher; his whole schtick is ridicule.

[PickelledEggs]

I like Bill Maher, but he does get on my nerves. Not everyone needs to be an instigator like him that continuously points out harm that religion does in the way he does. Mocking, and mocking in the way he does and the ways he is saying "we all should" has it's place, but there are many ways of going about it... and I actually feel like having multiple approaches to actively opposing religion works better than just one aggressive one, even if it's the most aggressive approach to opposing religion.

Like Shir said. be respectful... even with your disrespect. Some things deserve disrespect, but don't dish out more disrespect than is deserved, because then you become the asshole and the problem.

[Brian37]

The same guy who was known for being cruel to his slaves and intentionally sold family members away from each other as punishment, the guy who only emancipated 5 of his slaves... all related to his mistress. Hardly a moral compass to me. A fine politician though, for sure.

How about this?

“An ounce of patience is worth more than a tonne of preaching."

Or...

"Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend."

My position is this;

-Bill Maher has every right to say what he wants to say.
-I have every right to disagree with the manner in which he wishes to say it.

The fact that I disagree with him does not mean I am opposed to his right to say what he wants to say. Both me and Mermaid have repeatedly stated this, and this will be the last time I will repeat it.

Yes, he is a provoker, and that is the problem; provocation is not the solution to anger. One does not provoke a sleeping bear. One does not beat a beehive with a stick. So why does one believe that provoking those who may otherwise agree with us is the right answer?

The way to the moderates is through peace and moderation; using hateful rhetoric and condemnation of their religion with sweeping generalizations and statements about how it is a blight upon humanity that is the root cause of evil will never bring them to agree with us.

Here lies our fundamental issue; Maher's only way to deal with absurd claims is by condemnation and disrespect. These are simply not effective tools to deal with the issue at hand.

I can sit here and call you an asshole for disagreeing with me, that your positions are moronic, that you are just wrong and use sarcasm and snide remarks about you.

Or I can sit here and explain calmly why I feel you are wrong, and what I feel are better solutions.

This is the difference we are trying to make; there is more than one way to disagree with someone. I do not believe that name calling and ridicule will be the most effective way of changing minds, so I don't use it. Nor do I feel you deserve (nor anyone else) to be ridiculed. This is why I disagree with Maher; his whole schtick is ridicule.

Ok by that logic we should have Germany destroy it's highways because Hitler built them.

Jefferson's own flaws and transgressions do not mean that we should throw out the Constitution. Otherwise what would you suggest? We all leave America? I'm not leaving. You can if you want though. If not then you need to not throw out everything he did.

Slavery was bad no shit. But he was also one of the most if not most influential members of the founders that did lead to the progressive society we have today. And it may interest you to know that slavery in the North had ended for the most part by the time of his death.

Oh but there is dispute as to how he treated them. I would find it hard to believe he would free his lover and their kids if he thought they were evil. At best Jefferson thought of them more like pets than something to be abused. But yes he did own them because that was the social norm AS WRONG AS IT WAS, back then.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1269536/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery

In his initial draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson condemned the injustice of the slave trade and, by implication, slavery, but he also blamed the presence of enslaved Africans in North America on avaricious British colonial policies. Jefferson thus acknowledged that slavery violated the natural rights of the enslaved, while at the same time he absolved Americans of any responsibility for owning slaves themselves.

While it is true slavery did not completely end until after the Civil war, the roots of Abolition were there at the time of the Constitution. Many of the founders owned slaves because of politics but many of the at the same time played politics to get the country moving in the right direction. Much of the north had given up slavery and and the seeds were planted by some of the founders and Jefferson was one of them who wanted that Abolition in the drafts of the Constitution. At worst you could call him a coward but according to this article he wasn't against the idea of ending it then.

[Brian37]

It also says he was for the end of slavery but more like a separatist. I bet if he'd see more liberal states if alive today he would not be fighting for a separatist attitude.