The MoJo Interview: Bill Maher
Interview: Caustic comedian Bill Maher on his new movie Religulous, bargaining with God, and why Christianity is just as crazy as Scientology.
|
|
Bill Maher has made a career out of touching third-rail topics and pissing off large swaths of the population. In his new film, the caustic comedian outdoes himself by going full-bore after organized religion. Religulous, directed by Larry Charles (Borat), follows Maher, an atheist, as he hits the Vatican, the Wailing Wall, and The Holy Land Experience theme park, trying to fathom why his fellow mortals believe in a higher power. "I don't want to give away the end, but I'm a Jew for Jesus now!" he reports. "No, kidding." The blasphemy continues on the film's parody website, disbeliefnet.com.
In 2002, Maher lost his gig hosting Politically Incorrect, his prime-time show on abc, after declaring that flying hijacked airplanes into the World Trade Center on 9/11 was "not cowardly." For the past five years, he's held forth on Real Time With Bill Maher on hbo, securing his reputation as a repeat offender. (In April, he had to apologize after comparing the Catholic Church to Mormon polygamists and saying Pope Benedict "used to be a Nazi.") Mother Jones spoke with the pro-drug, pro-death penalty, pro-choice libertarian and former Ralph Nader supporter about his ideological idiosyncrasies and his unrepentant heathenism.
Mother Jones: In Religulous, you go around the world looking for answers to some big questions, asking people what they believe in. Any surprises?
Bill Maher: Yeah, there certainly were surprises. I don't know if we were asking so much what people believe so much as why they believe. The central question of the film is, "How can otherwise rational people believe in a talking snake?" as there is in the Garden of Eden. That really is the central conceit of the movie because it's one thing to be living in the Bronze Age when people didn't know that the earth revolved around the sun and thought that disease is caused by a toad in your stomach, that guilt could be assessed by whether you float or not. That sort of makes sense, but in the 21st century it doesn't make sense to me that people lead these otherwise quite rational lives, and then one day a week go to someplace and think they're drinking the blood of a 2,000-year-old space god. That to me was a dissonance I was trying to work out.
MJ: Did people help you out there? Did they offer acceptable rationalizations?
BM: I don't want to give away the end, but I'm a Jew for Jesus now! No, kidding.
MJ: Were there groups of people who shocked you, or places that were particularly remarkable in some way?
BM: I would say that Jerusalem was an eye-opener. I was raised Catholic but my mother was Jewish. And, I guess, and maybe it's a liberal East Coast thing, but we have this idea that Jews are less crazy than the Christians and the Muslims. But when you go to Jerusalem they actually look more crazy. I call it the funny-hat capital of the world. Now, the Jews are definitely less warlike, which is a wonderful thing, when you compare them to the Muslims and the Christians. Definitely a more peaceable religion and definitely a more sensible one as far as not using fear—the other two religions seem to rely tremendously on scaring people about what is going to happen to you when you die, and if you don't follow exactly what we say on earth that you're going to roast, and you're going to suffer. But when you go to Jerusalem you notice that there is a lot of craziness going on. Even on the plane over, they were, at a certain point, they all stood up in the aisle of the plane davening; they wrapped their tzitzit around their arms, and they just looked like crazy people, always bowing their head. It's disconcerting.
MJ: Tibetan Buddhist, Connecticut WASP. So different?
BM: We didn't really delve into Eastern religions too much. It is such an encyclopedic subject to undertake. We've had a few screenings and the audiences love it, but they invariably say, "Why didn't you cover this or that?" In the 90-hour version we would have put that in. Religion is an endless topic, and it's hard enough to cover the big three. Also, the Eastern religions aren't so religiouslike, and we wanted to go after what people think of as religion. You can refer to god and you are really just talking about nature. If you are going to say the universe is god, then everything is god, everything is religion. But when we explore traditional religion we are talking about humanistic gods people pray to, that they think can intervene in our lives, who run sort of a heaven-and-hell operation for the afterworld. That sort of traditional religion is what we're talking about.
MJ: So are the viewpoints much different overseas than in the US?
BM: We went through the Southeast of the United States for the film. When you've talked to enough people in Orlando and Raleigh, you get a flavor. We covered that part of it. I think the heart of Christianity is covered in the film.
MJ: Speaking of Israel, being one of the chosen people, would you ever consider moving there?
BM: No, but I did ask someone about the Messiah, and he said, "If you're mother's Jewish, you could be the Messiah." So that's nice to know, that that position is open to me.
MJ: Find any kindred spirits? Talk to many atheists?
BM: Sure, we purposely interviewed Richard Dawkins; we interviewed a number of scientists who, from a standpoint of their discipline, were trying to tell us why people are religious. And Dean Hamer, the guy who discovered the gay gene, at MIT, I think. He also believes that there is a god gene. That could be a religion in and of itself.
MJ: How about your own religious evolution. When did you stop seeing the light?
BM: I don't want people to think that I was someone who was born rational. Because I don't think any of us are. There's a section in the movie, in the beginning, where I go back to the church that I attended as a child, and my mother, who was alive at the time, and my sister came with me, and I interviewed them there and asked them some important questions I had never really talked with them about, like we never had a family discussion about why mom never came to church with my sister and father and me. I didn't really realize that my mother was Jewish until I was a teenager. I just always accepted that she didn't go to church and the three of us did. After we quit going to church I certainly never became a Christian or Catholic again. But I did believe that there was something. I was constantly, like lots of people do, making deals with God; usually when you are in trouble in some way, you bargain. I was bargaining for quite a bit of my life, and that's a form of belief.
MJ: What do you do in those moments now, when you used to bargain?
BM: I'm fuck out of luck, lady. I'm telling you. I've got nothing. I've cast my lot in with this movie and this idea and in a way, I've painted myself into a corner.
MJ: Is there a difference between Catholicism or Judaism and Scientology?
BM: It's interesting you raise that point. There's a section in the film where I go into Hyde Park in London. There's a section called Speakers Corner, where what I would consider nuts stand on little soap boxes and rave and rant and people can do it about anything, but a fair number of them are religious. So they put me into a disguise. I looked like a homeless nut, and I went into Hyde Park and I ranted and raved the tenets of Scientology, and Mormonism, and I believe it was Jehovah's Witness. Which most people are not familiar with, and they do sound like the rantings of a complete maniac. We were trying to make the point that when you take the tenets of religion and put them in mouth of street barker, you see how crazy they are. And then that they are not that different, certainly not that much crazier, than Christianity, mainstream Christianity. It's just that we're used to mainstream Christianity. We are used to the story of a man living inside of a whale for three days, we're used to the idea that a space god impregnated a virgin and had a child who was really him, and sent him on a suicide mission to earth, which he survived. If Christianity were the new religion, we would consider it just as crazy as Scientology.
MJ: Even though you think religion is bunk, are you okay with people whose religious principles help them be better people, i.e., not violent jerks? In other words, do you have a problem with the Golden Rule just because it has a religious origin?
BM: No ethicist has a problem with the Golden Rule, of course, but we don't know why it has to be attached to ancient myths and superstitions. It's fabulous on its own; it didn't have to come down via a burning bush from a god who, if you actually read the Bible, wipes people out randomly and should not serve as anyone's ethic role model.
MJ: Do you think you're responsible for many political converts?
BM: Many? No. But occasionally someone will come up to me and say they have been turned around, or at very least, they disagree but still really enjoy the show, which I take to mean they could come around someday. I think this is for two reasons: One, when people laugh, somewhere inside they know it might be true; and two, I'm not entirely peggable as liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican.
MJ: Is it easier for people to hear—and believe—the hard facts about politics when they come as humor, than, say, coming from hard news sources?
BM: Yes. Americans are used to being pandered to and spoon-fed everything. In a culture that needs caffeine-free cherry chocolate diet Coke, you'd best deliver information with entertainment.
MJ: Why do you think Americans cling so loyally to conspiracy theories? Is it the hope that there is planning mastery behind what is actually chaos and madness?
BM: Exactly. Many people can't deal with unanswered questions, which, of course, religion exploits by providing answers, even if they are just made up by someone. This is also why we love TV shows and movies that neatly wrap up everything in exactly an hour or two.
MJ: Name a Republican you admire.
BM: Colin Powell. Chuck Hagel.
MJ: Name a Democrat you despise.
BM: Joe Lieberman.
MJ: Do you socialize with any politicians off camera?
BM: I wouldn't say socialize. After the show we have a drink, we have a wrap party…There are politicians I do enjoy sitting down after the show and having a drink with. Barney Frank was on recently, a really intelligent guy, fun to talk with. There are plenty of politicians like that, well, maybe not plenty, but a fair number of them. But it's not wise to push that, to socialize, because you want to maintain a level of objectivity when they're in the hot seat.
MJ: Anyone you've really wanted on the show who wouldn't do it?
BM: Let me count the hundreds! Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama. And those are just the Democrats.
MJ: Have you ever invited Bush or Cheney?
BM: I think they have a restraining order against me, but I'm sure we've invited them. Hey, if there is anyone who has gone after this president, it's me. I've called him everything from a retard to…Even when I was on ABC, we almost lost a Houston affiliate in 2000 because I called him a lying sack of shit and called his mother a bitch.
MJ: The Bush administration has offered you an endless flow of rich material. Will you miss him?
BM: As a comedian, you do. But we said that about Clinton. We thought when Clinton went, when all the horny, fucking Monica Lewinsky jokes were out the window, that we would be at a loss, but then we were given a treasure trove in the form of someone who embodied a trait that is even more comedy-friendly than horniness, and that, of course, is rank stupidity. We will miss that, but as a loyal American, and someone who hopes there is a future for the planet, I would gladly give up a treasure trove of humor for the world to be run in a more competent matter.
MJ: Corn syrup or corn-based ethanol?
BM: That's what I think is called a Hobson's choice. I am very anti-corn. Corn is the new oil. The lobby that just can't be stopped. First they replaced sugar. You know, sugar was a pretty powerful lobby in this country, and somehow corn wound up replacing sugar in most of the products that used to have sugar in them. Now they are after oil, out to replace oil. Of course, anyone who thinks that ethanol is an answer to our environmental problems hasn't been reading very much, because it's just a huge boondoggle. The amount of deforestation it takes to create biofuels is going to be a bigger disaster for the environment than what we have now.
MJ: The death penalty costs taxpayers millions more than locking up prisoners for life, and it's not all that humane. What keeps you "pro-death"?
BM: Wait, the death penalty costs more? How can that be? How is that possible?
MJ: The appeals process, largely.
BM:Oh, okay. Well, I guess it's just a fundamental sense of justice. I don't believe in a lot of things from the Bronze Age, but an eye for an eye does make a sort of symmetrical sense to me. I know that puts me at odds with most of the liberals in America, and certainly that puts our country at odds with almost every other nation in the world. So maybe I'm doing it to buff up my conservative credentials. No, I'm not. I really believe that if somebody takes a life, that's what they should get. I also think it's a lot more humane than keeping people in a cage for the rest of their life. That to me is cruel and unusual. I guess it comes down to, ultimately, that I don't think all life is precious. I know people say that all the time, "Life is precious." I think some life is precious, and some life is just a waste of protoplasm. Start over.
MJ: You recently lamented the huge proportion of taxes that come from the rich. Would you say you're against progressive taxation?
BM: No, I think the rich should be taxed more, I just I think that people who watch our show should know the truth and know the facts. I relish reporting information that people don't know. Whether it's the fact that biofuels are going to be bad for environment, or that eating meat causes more global warming than all the cars and the planes, or that Al Qaeda is really only 2 percent of the people we are fighting in Iraq, or the fact that the vast majority of the tax bill is supported by the rich. That's just a fact. It doesn't mean I don't think they should pay more. I do think they should pay more.
MJ: Speaking of the rich and famous…do you think celebrities have an obligation to give back?
BM: Absolutely.
MJ: And who does it best?
BM: Well, I think people like the usual gang of suspects, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, are tremendous in what they do. George Clooney goes to Darfur. Don Cheadle. Bono. And there's the old saying, "Don't pity the martyr, they enjoy their work." On a certain level, they enjoy it. I think Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie enjoy going to Third World hellholes. They thrive on adventure. I don't think they're miserable when they're doing it. I think they enjoy it. You know, I hear a lot of people making fun of celebrities for this. And I just don't understand it. I don't know how you can make fun of rich celebrities who could be doing nothing with their off time, or something extremely pampered, and who choose to do that. It has my ultimate respect, because you don't see me going to Darfur.
MJ: What do you read every day? What do you read for fun?
BM: I read the LA Times, New York Times, and USA Today. Online, well, the Huffington Post.
MJ: How about if I sent you Mother Jones?
BM: I read it anyway!
MJ: Yeah?
BM: Of course! Come on, do you think someone like me, who does a show called "Real Time" and is always trying to be a little more on the edge than the next guy is not going to read Mother Jones? I read it, and I make my writers read it.
MJ: What's your take on the future of independent media?
BM: Is it doomed? In America, no. In Russia, yes. I think publications not run by big conglomerates will always be around. The bigger problem is getting people to care. Just like in Russia. The problem isn't that there aren't opposition candidates to Vladamir Putin. It's that when they're silenced, nobody cares.
MJ: Any regrets?
BM: Oh, every day. I have never understood when people say, "I have no regrets." It's like, "Really? Are you human? Do you really think you are going through life just walking on a path of petals?" I think if you are honest with yourself and you're human you have to be just full of regrets, because otherwise, how do you learn? You make mistakes and you move on.
MJ: How about in your show?
BM: Of course. I never get to sleep on Friday night because I am turning the show over in my mind. It's funny. I go through a pattern. The show is live from 8 to 9, I go to the little wrap party that ends about 10:30, then there are a couple hours where I am like, "Huh, I don't think I said anything this week that I regret." Or, "This is great, I'll get to sleep tonight." Then, about one in the morning, it hits me: "I said that to him," or "that happened." In some way, that's part of the perfectionist nightmare; you can never really get to sleep. So yes, I have plenty of regrets, little ones, big ones.
MJ: Libertarian or liberal?
BM: Libertarian.
MJ: Are folks like you who pushed for Nader in 2000 responsible at all for George W. Bush?
BM: No.
MJ: Okay, that takes care of my follow-up question: Have you apologized to Gore?
BM: No. Nor would I ask him to apologize, but he's the one who lost the election. And he could've won that election. He should've won that election; he was running against a retard. He was running following an administration he was an integral part of that had a pretty good record on peace and prosperity. And he didn't run a very good campaign, and he backed off of what his core beliefs were. I've mentioned before that Al Gore talks a lot about the environment now, and he talked a lot about it when he was vice president. He just didn't talk about it when he was running for president.
PUNCH LINES
Some of Bill Maher's great moments in celebrity ass kicking—and kissing:
Pope Benedict: A former "Nazi" who heads a "child-abusing cult"
Richard Dawkins: The atheist scientist's book "someday will be by the bed at every hotel in America."
Charlie Sheen: A 9/11 conspiracy, ahem, "scholar" and "a freak"
George Clooney: "Why can't more people be like him?"
John McCain: "A warrior who's dumb about war"
Barack Obama: "The Jackie Robinson of politics"
Rush Limbaugh: "Why couldn't have he croaked from [OxyContin] instead of Heath?"
Ann Coulter: "I like her—I like what she says less and less."
George W. Bush: "Retard," son of "a bitch"
Ralph Nader: A "hero" who's "bringing sexy back"
Heritage Foundation, Project for the New American Century: "You can't call yourself a think tank if all your ideas are stupid."
Arianna Huffington: He and the "seductive" salonista are "like an old married couple, except instead of having obligatory sex on our birthdays, we blog."
If you look at the campaign of John McCain, you see a campaign where he is basically at odds with American public on the important issues of the day. They don't agree with him about the war, they don't think he knows anything about the economy, which is very important to them right now, yet he's about even in polls. What that tells you is that people like someone who is authentic and someone who sticks to his guns, and says what he believes. That's what people think about John McCain. That he is at least someone who is telling you truth as he sees it. If Al Gore had done that, I think he would be president. I think it's very unfair to blame all that on Ralph Nader.
MJ: Do you have a policy on apologies? When you offend someone, you likely get the requisite angry calls. Any way to soften the backlash?
BM: My policy is I am always more than happy to say, "I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings." What I am not willing to do is take back what I said. Unless I am wrong. I've been wrong, and I could be wrong again. But in general, even when I was being lambasted for what I said after 9/11, that the terrorists weren't cowards, I apologized for hurting people's feelings and I recognized that the country was at a very sensitive time, and okay, maybe we shouldn't be having a frank discussion—even though the president did say, "Go back to what you used to do"…But I never said what I said was wrong because it wasn't wrong. It wasn't wrong on 9/10, it wasn't wrong on 9/12, and it's not wrong seven years later.
And I think in general people apologize way too much in this country. And they demand too many apologies. Not a day goes by that I don't see somebody in the campaign demanding that somebody retract something or disavow something that they didn't even say, just that somebody they know said something. If you don't like what someone says, turn the page in the newspaper. This idea that everyone has to apologize all the time, it's so ridiculous. We have such an overly sensitive society.
MJ: You describe John McCain as someone who Americans support because he's authentic, he sticks to his guns, and says what he believes. Sounds an awful lot like how people would describe you. I mean, that's pretty much your bread and butter, saying exactly what you think. So, no chance you'll enter politics?
BM: What I meant is, McCain's perceived that way; he's a straight talker only by the standards of a profession where 90 percent of what they say is complete bullshit. John McCain is a war hero, much braver than I could ever be, but he is not an actual straight talker; I am. Which is why I could never enter politics. I believe religion is bad and drugs are good, and have said so many times. Try starting a campaign with that.
Elizabeth Gettelman is managing editor of Mother Jones.
Photo: Bill Maher: Tim Palen; Rush Limbaugh: Stephen Lovekin/Getty Images; Ann Coulter: Robin Platzer/Filmmagic/Getty Images
"Also, the Eastern religions aren't so religiouslike, and we wanted to go after what people think of as religion."
Perhaps it would have been better to take this opportunity to show people what real religions are like. Most people only really know about the ones that command or allow you to harm others, which is nothing like the real religions. I think that Maher should have taken a moment in the film to explain that a belief system shouldn't be called a religion or get the benefits of being a religion if it supports harming others. This might wake people up to what real religions are like and the good that they do when compared to the intolerant violent cults like christianity, islam & scientology.
"In other words, do you have a problem with the Golden Rule just because it has a religious origin?"
It's not of christian origin. It's been around a long time before Jesus was recorded as having said it. It's an innate part of us for goodness' sake! You'll notice that most people adhere to this rule before they hear anything about religion, including children.
"John McCain is a war hero..."
He's not a war hero. He was captured by an army on the way to bombing civilians where he was then taken to a camp full of detainees where he was tortured. If this makes him a war hero then it also makes the detainees at Guantanamo Bay war heroes.
"...even when I was being lambasted for what I said after 9/11, that the terrorists weren't cowards..."
I don't think that he should have apologised, just explained that to be brave or cowardly you have to be aware of the consequences and the harm that will or might happen as a result of your action. The hijackers thought that it would be over in a split-second and then they would be in paradise. That's neither brave nor cowardly, that's just stupid and deluded, like walking off a cliff thinking that you can fly.
deceived by this guy. If he knows the truth - which he probably must - he draws a dunce, despicable figure, by helping the greedy monsters deceive the people at large.
He needs to stop preaching to the choir.
Who's "ours" kimosabe? "Intolerant loudmouth" describes religion pretty well. if his voice should not be "respected" then neither should religious idiots as yourself. Religion has proven to be the most disrespectful of all human voices. Your UNEDUCATED and DISRESPECTED as well, lolol. Turn the page asswipe.
The supposed, supreme singularity of Jesus (or Mohammed, Buddha, or Joseph Smith -- take your pick) among God-Men, for example, is a core fallacy. So many other God-Realizers have come and gone. Indeed, there are probably more God-Realized men and women living in our midst today (and increasingly so) than ever before -- some anonymous; many otherwise very "ordinary" people. ("Knowing" God can be a profoundly simple occupation.)
To Bill, Elizabeth, and MJ readers, I commend the work of Ken Wilber.
Get your google on -- maybe, "Which Level of God Do You Believe In?"
There is a "there" there.
As a bee seeks nectar
From all kinds of flowers,
Seek teachings everywhere,
Like a deer that finds
A quiet place to graze,
Seek Seclusion to digest
All you have gathered.
Like a madman,
Beyond all limits
Go wherever you please
And live like a lion
Completely free of all fear.
~ Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche
Happy trails!
The New Testament clearly distinguishes between the carnal and the spiritual. “It is the spirit that giveth the body life,” taught Jesus, “the flesh profit nothing.” (John 6:63) Paul taught that Jesus had both an earthly and a spiritual nature (Romans 1:3), and referred to his own spiritual self. (Romans 1:9)
According to Paul, the soul is in a body doomed to death; it is merely a prisoner to sin and the flesh. (Romans 7:18-24) The brethren are to behave in a spiritual manner, rather than in a fleshly way. (Romans 8:4; 13:14; I Peter 2:11) The desires of the Spirit and those of the flesh are in opposition to one another. (Galatians 5:13,16-17) Those who belong to Christ have “crucified the flesh with its passions and desires;” they “live by the Spirit” and are “directed by the Spirit.” (Galatians 5:19-26)
To be carnally minded is to die, but those under the control of the Spirit have transcended their lower, bodily nature. (Romans 8:5-14) Paul regarded envy, strife and divisions among the brethren as carnal or unspiritual. (I Corinthians 3:3) He distinguished between saving the spirit of an individual and the destruction of the person’s flesh. (I Corinthians 5:5)
God’s kingdom is not carnal, but spiritual: “But I make this statement, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither does the perishable inherit the imperishable...For this perishable must put on imperishability and this mortal must put on immortality. (I Corinthians 15:50,53)
According to Paul, the body is like a lump of clay. (Romans 9:21; II Corinthians 4:7) Although one’s outer nature decays, one’s inner self is continually renewed in spiritual life. (II Corinthians 4:16-17) The body is merely a temporary, earthly tent in which the soul resides; the spirits of the faithful shall soon be clothed in everlasting, heavenly bodies. (II Corinthians 5:1-3) The soul resides inside a body of flesh. (II Corinthians 10:3) To identify with the body is to be absent from the Lord. (II Corinthians 5:8-10)
Paul spoke of being “caught up as far as the third heaven...whether in the body or out of the body I do not know...” (II Corinthians 12:2-3)
Paul gave an example from his own life to distinguish between being with Christ and remaining “in the body,” to illustrate that one’s actual self is spiritual and separate from the physical body. (Philippians 1:21-24) He told his followers to set their sights on heavenly, not earthly things, and to put to death their earthly nature. (Colossians 3:1-5)
To indulge in fleshly desires is to follow the inclinations of one's lower nature. (Ephesians 2:3) The sensual are considered “lost,” because “their minds are set on earthly things.” Paul told the faithful their real home is in heaven, and they would soon be clothed in spiritual bodies. (Philippians 3:18-21)
Jesus made a distinction between teaching “of earthly things” and “of heavenly things.” (John 3:12) Jesus said his home was heaven (John 3:12), and that neither he (John 8:23) nor his disciples (John 15:19) were of this world. (I John 4:4-6)
The flesh will decay, but the word of God is eternal. (I Peter 2:23-25) One must not love this world nor the things in this world. To do so is to alienate oneself from God’s love, because the passions of this world are flickering and temporary. (I John 2:15-17) This world belongs to the devil (II Corinthians 4:4), this present world is evil (Galatians 1:4), and pure religion means keeping oneself unstained from the world (James 1:27).
On the question of the afterlife, Paul taught that God rewards each individual according to his deeds. (Romans 2:6) One reaps what one sows. (II Corinthians 9:6; Galatians 6:7) Some souls remain entangled in decaying flesh and blood, while others turn to the Spirit. “The one who sows for his own flesh will harvest ruin from his flesh; while the one who sows for the Spirit will harvest eternal life from the Spirit.” (Galatians 6:8) According to Paul, a kernel of spirit is sown into a particular kind of body.
“...God gives it a body as He plans,” explained Paul, “and to each seed its particular body. All flesh is not the same; but one kind is human, another is animal, another is fowl, and another fish.” (I Corinthians 15:38-39) Paul further distinguished between earthly, or physical bodies, and heavenly, or spiritual bodies. “There are heavenly bodies and also earthly bodies; but the radiance of the heavenly is one kind and that of the earthly is another kind.” (I Corinthians 15:40)
Resurrection, then, as taught by Paul, is not the reassembling of dust into living bodies, but rather, the clothing of the spirit with a new body; the placing of a kernel of spirit into a new body, from where its existence continues.
Paul’s letters emphasize the distinction between the soul and the body, the clothing of the spirit with a new body, and the eternal nature of the soul and its relationship to God versus the temporary nature of the flesh and the material world. These concepts can all be found in the doctrine of reincarnation.
Dr. Geddes MacGregor, Professor of Philosophy and Religion, and author of over twenty books, believes reincarnation is compatible with the Christian faith. According to Dr. MacGregor: “Reincarnation is, of course, a kind of resurrection. Great importance was attached by Christian theologians, however, to the notion of the resurrection of the ‘same body’ that we now have, though in a glorified form. The so-called Athanasian Creed affirms that all men shall rise again with their bodies...and a council held at the Lateran...asserted that all shall rise again with their own bodies...
“St. Thomas Aquinas considered that the body that is resurrected must be in some sense the same as the one on earth; otherwise, he thought, one would have to talk, not of a resurrection, but of the assumption of a new body...such very Latin teaching about a carnis resurrectio does not seem to fit Paul’s teaching in the New Testament, which is that the body is to be of a new order...not otherwise recognizable as the same body as the one on earth. The curious notion of the revivification of the material particles of the body does not arise in St. Paul.”
Dr. MacGregor suggests, however, that just as we have ceased to take literally Archbishop Ussher’s biblical concept of a 6,000 year old universe, so also might reincarnation be consistent with a more enlightened world view.
The whole universe is alive, each galaxy, each star, each planet, each animal, each human...... and each one lives a life cycle, each being of different length....... and eventually each die. Is it possible that you just can't understand the language of the other living beings in our universe??
Therefore god must trust, love and believe in the Atheist most of all.
I don't know... I just don't see the atheist viewpoint as being any more rational than the religious one. Come on. You're asking me to believe that ONE species on ONE tiny planet in the backwater of ONE galaxy in the entire universe understands enough about how reality works to be able to explain reality all by itself.
...Yeah.
Atheists don't generally understand religion anyway. It's not about having to have someone take care of you. We already have that. If the life support systems of the Earth stopped working a second from now, we'd all die. Something is already taking care of us. The idea is not ridiculous. I think what religion does is it describes reality, gives us a metaphor and a framework for understanding that reality. We're OK with this concept when it's George Lakoff explaining about mommy and daddy governments. But somehow our brains short-circuit when it comes down to spiritual explanations for what is already there in the world, the universe... everywhere, really.
I view the tension between atheism and religion as being akin to the tension between individualism and community. I would also like to know if atheists would be OK with destroying indigenous cultures, because what it comes down to is that civilization has been one long process of separating religion and culture from human beings, turning us essentially into living machines. I see atheism as belonging on the other end of that process. I see modern religion as civilized people's last-gasp attempt to retain some kind of culture, with spirituality infused, just like indigenous people have, that they can pass on to their children. And the Earth's gonna be swallowed up by the sun in another four billion years anyway, and we'll be long gone by then. So I'd like to know what difference it really makes.
Why do we bother having these discussions, anyway? They're pointless, they're intellectual masturbation and they seem designed to make a whole lot of people feel bad about themselves for no good reason. You are not half as smart as you think you are, Mr. Maher. About all you have going for you is you're honest. And for what it's worth, I agree with you about your 9/11 remarks.
However, I must disagree that Jewish people are not violent. They *are* violent, given the upper hand. I should think what is going on in Israel/Palestine should be enough evidence for anyone. If you need any more than that, consult the Old Testament, all the stories about how the Hebrews came into their "promised land" to begin with. And they say Muhammad was a killer and a pedophile. Yikes.
There were lots of great scenes in the film, but there are two that stick out in my mind. You mentioned the Speakers' Corner scene. That was absolutely flooring.
I also enjoyed the scene in Vatican Square where you are chatting with the Catholic priest sans collar. He seemed just a bit off his rocker, but nonetheless refreshing. My wife is Catholic and we're actually going to see a priest Monday to see about getting our marriage blessed so she can take Communion. This is one of those "holy [deleted]" things for me. I personally think she's out of her mind for not taking Communion if she wants to. Also for not wanting to go to church, for feeling guilty about marrying a heathen, and so on. I was up front about it.... I told her before we even had our first date that I am not a Xtian and I will NEVER be Catholic, never EVER ever.
So I will bite my tongue and try not to make this poor sex-deprived individual who believe in talking snakes feel even [deleted]tier about his life than he probably already does. I'm not in the business of trying to make people feel bad about their religion UNLESS they are trying to make it public policy OR they are trying to cram it down my throat. If he's willing to "bless" my marriage, what the hell can that hurt? I assume the process will be painless, and if I have to tell a little white lie to make everybody feel better about their snake story, why not?
Thanks again for a terrific film and a wonderful interview. I don't see your show much because we don't have any premium cable.
-Wexler
PS You were right about the terrorists and the airplanes. There are Americans that are so [deleted]ing stupid that they can't separate that fact from whether or not it was right to do it. That's because despite the fact that we are the most advanced nation that ever existed, we are populated by ninnies who can't think critically.
the downside of this is that, after you find those two good things, the rest just turns to crap - asking you to pay them money, and coming up with other beliefs and theories that simply put - are ridiculous.
but people will trust in all the ridiculous beliefs a church has because of the 1 or 2 really good ones.
i grew up in the mormon church, and went on an L.D.S. mission and i remember hearing all the time from different religions that mormonism wasnt a christian church -
this is why i dont like christianity anymore - the're at war with themselves. everyone trying to disprove this that and the other, and all the whlie trying to find bible passages and things to disprove other churches, when they find something that disproves theirs they simply overlook it or say, "well, we've got a really good excuse for that."
there's too much politics surrounding christianity -
i only have one real question to any leaders of any religion (especially in christianity)
if you're imperfect, and therefore can't translate the bible perfectly as god intended
- in such a self-righteous world, where do you get the audacity to tell other people whats right or wrong?
if you read a passage in the bible that talked about god commanding a prophet to kill - any christian leader would say agreeingly, "god has his purpose, and there must have been a good reason."
yet if you read a book about the devil commanding someone to kill any christian leader would stand up and say, "this man broke a commandment, and gods judgement will be eternal damnation!"
first of all who are you to speak for god? isnt he all powerful? cant he speak for himself? and if he can, why speculate on beliefs? let gays be gay and let god judge them if they're wrong. its not our place... and IT NEVER WILL BE!
Well, the problem with that statement is that if it's truly a religious belief, that means that by definition it can't be proven which means that its truth is actually debatable. If you are saying that religions promote some ideas that are for the common good, or are difficult to dispute because they employ common sense and are generally agreeable, or it's something people want to adopt by custom, or something like that, OK.
But religious dogma itself is the problem (at least for me), and it is not 100% true for any religion. Not even one piece of it.
It is 100% based on whether or not you believe it.
-Wexler
He also signed off on the transfer of weapons from the Pentagons inventory to Oliver North's clandestine Iran-Contra scandle that should have had all Reagan administration officials committing Treason against the USA.
Go to this link and you find Bill Maher had Ron Paul on. Jeez, don't you know how to google?
My point, the more I learned, the more I doubted and I am right there with Bill Maher when he says;
"Religion is Bull[deleted]." I also feel it is a form of mental illness.
"Take the blue pill or the red pill... it's your choice..."
-Wexler
To hell with the idiots that automatically close their minds...These are OUR leaders, philosophers, thinkers etc...The redneck dumbasses of this country have no one as insightful and cunning as we do and if they want to live in harmony with us maybe they should quit denouncing our voice.
Oh, and Bremmer, Tenet and that other guy arn'e worthy of the Medal of Freedom either!
Maher says: We are used to the story of a man living inside of a well for three days
Though "whale" is also incorrect, (scripture simply says "big fish") I think it's what was intended in that answer.
Religion is nothing more than our effort to deal with death, explain where we came from and why we're here. All religions have that in common.
We can't deal with the idea of death so we construct a belief that will allow us to live forever.
We can contemplate an infinite future but not an infinite past. We don't know how everything began so there must be something in charge that started this whole thing.
Given that we are going to die, what's the point? Belief in eternal life if we do x,y or z gives meaning to life.
Religion is total rubbish and responsible for most of the conflict in the world but is completely understandable.
I don't need the crutch to get through life but if religion is what you need to get through the night, Amen.
Organized religion posits god outside of us, ostensibly connecting its followers to god by way of certain compulsory terms or rules ...
Suppose that we are each god also.
Aha, and then we realize that god would not be god without each one of us creating and eternally expanding divinity through our own individual constantly evolving experiences..
So, if as sovereign beings we are god also...if we realized this each second with all our being...
Then we would live the golden rule because we would have no need to abuse power or others..
Why would we need to control or take from others when everything we want we already have just by thinking it into reality as the divine thinker that we are...
So the world and the daily life we lead is of our own divine creation...as sovereign divine beings, divine intervention is simply our own participation in each moment...
Once you acknowledge your own divinity, you vaporize all holograms of organized external religions ...
You reaffirm that as god you are making god anew each second with your own individual divine curiosity, your own divine imagination, your own divine experiences...in other words your with own divine eternal sovereignty.
You have no need to take from another...nothing to do except be..here...now..
The end of all organized religion is when you realize you are god also...
"Maher, an atheist"
Bill Maher considers himself agnostic (watch his recent Daily Show interview).
Atheists also don't denounce santa claus for reindeer emissions because, well for obvious reasons.
So you've included atheists in your little myth as if they believe in god but denounce him. If you actually understood what atheist means, I think your idea that they are denouncing your god would be cleared up.
Is that the Buddha you are lumping in there with the others?
If you haven't heard this one before, let me be the first to introduce you to what is apparently for you a new rule: you can be a part of the discussion & still be no part of the world! As such, I reserve my right to share my impressions, experiences, conclusions w/regard to discussions such as the present one w/any & all who deem it relevant & meaningful.
Sorry if it offended you. At any rate, I stand behind what I said, & as far as I know, am still in good standing in my local congregation. If you'd still like greater clarity on this matter, I'm sure some of the people you claim to know so well would be only too willing to discuss this w/you in greater detail. Best regards!
God Bless Israel!!!!
If that were true then why bother with anything? Shoot yourself.
Good grief man....Give a guy, (I mean, a crappy life form,) a chance, eh?
he is mostly an euro. what's so semitic ab him?
in this interview he skirts the basics. he doesn't say that US is a plutocracy as brutal as any.
had waged 180 wars; alowed slavery, lynching; supports israel, a state that has no right to exist.
maher, self, approbates israeli crimes against humanities; theft of indigenous land.
and what he does mostly is making fun of personalities or dwelling on 'stars'; both political and thespian.
not once had he attacked the uncle; the invisible hand (plutos) that rules US while working class has close to zero monetary-military-political power.
There are MANY facets of the 9/11 official myth that are too "coincidental" to be true and some details that are downright impossible within the confines of the official myth. For space constraints, without getting into the matters of the Air Force sitting on its hands on the most important morning of its existence, Bush's Secret Service staff letting him remain in that school for over a half-hour after being told "America is under attack" (meaning that they had to have been absolutely certain that Bush wasn't even a possible target that morning or else they would have immediately hustled him away to a much safer location-- instead they even let him give a brief press conference on the school's front steps!), the impossibility of "hijackers" who it's widely known couldn't fly Piper Cubs worth a damn being able to suddenly hop in the cockpits of Boeing 757s and -767s and fly them like experts, the "coincidence" of a few people making a fortune short selling in the week before 9/11 the stock of United Airlines, American Airlines and other companies affected by 9/11, the "coincidence" of San Francisco mayor Willie Brown and some top generals being warned to not fly that day and to avoid the WTC, the absence of an airliner's wings, tail section, crumpled fuselage etc. at either the Pentagon or Shanksville crash sites, or any of the other obvious, glaring holes in the official 9/11 fairy tale, let me give you the easiest and quickest way to prove it had to have been an inside job:
The 9/11 whitewash Commission and lapdog N.I.S.T. both admitted that when the WTC "collapses" started they went at freefall rate in air, meaning the uppermost floors fell into and THROUGH the solid remaining vast majority of skyscraper as quickly (meaning as EFFORTLESSLY) as falling through air. Which means that the solid concrete, steel, glass, furniture etc. in the building underneath the falling mass offered no more resistance than air, something that in the real world is not even remotely possible without something like explosives disintegrating the building to such a state of offering no more resistance than air. A controlled demolition. The Twin Towers and WTC # 7 building (which was hit by no airplane) were controlled demolitions.
"Al Qaeda" wouldn't have been able to get away with rigging up those buildings for demolition. But who could have? Consider that the company handling security for the WTC complex was Kroll Inc., a company that's been called the "private C.I.A." because it has many former and "former" spies on its payroll. Who better to let the C.I.A. demolition guys get away with it than a company that's like 2 peas in a pod with the C.I.A.?
9/11 was done by elements of the U.S. government with the approval of Bush and his boss Cheney. Its purpose is to give the U.S. a pretext for the "war on terror" (thinly-veiled series of wars for control of energy resources), starting with invading Afghanistan to topple the Taliban and emplace a puppet government that will let the gas pipelines be built across their territory on American, rather than Afghan, terms. If you look into its details you'll soon find that 9/11 had to have been an inside job. Otherwise there are a large amount of "discrepancies" and "coincidences" and impossibilities that don't make any sense within the parameters of the official myth.