Saturday, January 17, 2015

Bill Maher: The Pope is Dead to Me Now




The more obvious title quote would have been a bit too much, even for me.

We're going to offer this without comment, except for noting one thing: why did it take an atheist to call attention to the at least superficially odd contrast between the Pope's recent words and the famous words of Jesus?

Full transcript:
(The latest issue of Charlie Hebdo) sold three million copies, with a certain prophet on the cover. I'm not going to say which one. 
You know, it took us ten years to rebuild the World Trade Center. France went back to insulting people like that. 
But not everyone agrees. The Pope...this is so sad, I was starting to really like this pope. He's dead to me now. (Pause) oh yeah, f**k the Pope. 
Well, look, George Bush said it--you're either with us or against us. Okay. Apparently the Pope is not with us because he came down on the side of the bad guys. He said, you cannot provoke. You cannot insult someone's faith. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. I guess he doesn't get HBO.  
And then mimic punching someone in the face (Marr mimics punching someone in the face). He pointed to his aid, and he said, you know what, if Luigi here...or Giuseppe, whatever his name is (it was Alberto -ed.)... made fun of my mother, pow! (Maher mimics another punch.) 
Yes, just like Jesus said. I think it was in Galatians 13* when Jesus said, turn the other cheek...into my fist, you f*cking mook!
*It was actually Matthew 5:29 and Luke 6:29. 

7 comments:

  1. The pope is dead to Maher *now*?
    Nope, Maher has shown a very public, very vocal hostility to all religion in general for a loooooong time. His relentless insults, mischaracterizations, and slurs have been are a large part of his income.
    And your comments on 'the words of Jesus' show you are about as ignorant of the actual teachings of Christ as Maher.
    Luke 22:36
    And, of course, Matthew 10: 34--35 "Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

    FURTHER, the discussion of the moral and legal repercussions of speech are thousands of years old and well known to people that read the law and includes laws about 'fighting words' and crimes such as 'inciting to riot'.

    The pope's statement, which boils down to 'there is no excuse for what was done, but if you keep insulting someone they're going to lose their temper' is completely non-controversial to any reasonable person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Pope has been perceived by many, including atheists, as sort of a "liberal". So, I take it at face value that Maher used to have sympathy with him (though not the Church in general, obviously) but lost it due to his recent words.

      I was very careful to say, "SUPERFICIALLY odd contrast." Since most Christians, most Catholics and all popes since about 300 have NOT been pacifists, I fully agree that the issue is, complicated. Was it a bit of a cheap shot? Of course. Maher is a comedian. What do you expect?

      "You are about as ignorant of the actual teachings of Christ as Maher". I doubt it, partly because that's such a low bar.

      If I had been you, I would have cited Jesus constructing a whip (the only specific thing the Gospels describe the carpenter as making) and violently chasing the moneychangers out of the temple.

      So, if you want to play Scripture trivia, this Traditional Catholic will take you on. But I'd rather not.

      Pope Francis is easily the worst pope in 200 years. While the Church is hemorrhaging believers and practically dead in much of Europe, Francis is throwing out some new quasi-heresy in practically every interview and homily, crusading against global warming and making common cause with an evil ideology (Islam) that the Church spent two-thirds of its history leading the fight against.

      I have no problem opposing him and even (yes) mocking him when he deserves to be mocked. I view him as much more of a menace to the Faith than poor Bill Maher.

      Delete
    2. So let's get this straight, then:
      You wrote,
      "I fully agree that the issue is, complicated. Was it a bit of a cheap shot? Of course."
      Followed up by,
      "Maher is a comedian."
      What is YOUR excuse? By posting this 'without comment... well, ok, WITH comment' and the comment being,
      "why did it take an atheist to call attention to the at least superficially odd contrast between the Pope's recent words and the famous words of Jesus?"
      All you did was repeat and possibly take part in a 'cheap shot'.
      [we won't get into the debate of Maher being a comedian. In my opinion it has been decades since we has been a comedian and is, instead, a political commentator that uses a clown nose to deflect criticism].
      You also mention Christ driving the moneychangers from the temple - I assumed you were unfamiliar with this incident or you would have realized that based upon Christ's personal example violence is an acceptable response to insulting God, even indirectly.
      You wrote,
      "So, if you want to play Scripture trivia, this Traditional Catholic will take you on. But I'd rather not."
      Ah, yes. Another self-described 'Traditional' that repeats slurs against bishops. Thanks for making actual Traditional Catholics look bad, pal. Sure, I know about half of all English speaking self-described Traditionalists suffer from Americanism and seem to think that the Church is a popularity contest or that if they 'sway opinion' enough that they can get the bishops to act as they wish, but, well - no.
      You know I am pretty sure that if I was in your shoes I wouldn't want to play bible trivia, either, since what you have really done is admit that you simply repeated a mischaracterization. So instead let's play Read the Catechism!
      Sections 2477 through 2479. It should take you less than a minute to find this, even if you must go online, and read this. After that we can play Code of Canon Law trivia, if you like.

      Delete
    3. If you think cartoons picturing Muhammad are "fighting words" and "crimes" involving "incitement to riot", or if you equate massacring with foresight and calculation twelve innocent people in cold blood with "losing one's temper", then you have no business invoking Christianity, Catholicism, the Bible, the Catechism or, well, any philosophy or creed that is even vaguely human.

      If you think that "violence is an acceptable response to insulting God, even indirectly" (you mean, like, if you call him "Allah"?), then surely if you are a Christian, you are an extremely bizarre one.

      Your opinions on "Traditionalism" and what you weirdly call "Americanism" are quite half-baked.

      Your lack of charity towards atheists is annoying. Yeah, they deserve it too.

      You appear to have no sense of humor. Bill Maher does.

      Other than that I no problem with anything you have said, and I wish you well.

      Delete
    4. You seem to be struggling with the concept of 'analogy'. You also seem unable to actually respond to direct points. let me try again, more directly.

      1) I wrote,
      "The pope's statement, which boils down to 'there is no excuse for what was done, but if you keep insulting someone they're going to lose their temper' is completely non-controversial to any reasonable person."
      I note that you didn't actually respond to this. No, not really. See, neither I nor His Holiness said it was an excuse for murder. Indeed, His Holiness spent a great deal of effort pointing out that *nothing* is an excuse for murder. What Pope Francis said, and what I echoed is, very simply, "If you strive to kindle anger in others they will often become angry".
      You are aware that provoking others to anger is a sin, right? It is part of the examination of conscience of a decent missal, not to mention, oh, the catechism. Of course, provocation is no excuse for sin or crime ("incitement to riot is no excuse for a riot") but neither does it erase the sin of provocation.
      This is a very simple point, I am stunned that I need to repeat it - the Pope pointing out that provoking anger is wrong IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL.
      Do you agree? If not, please explain why.

      2) You wrote,
      "If you think that "violence is an acceptable response to insulting God, even indirectly"... ...then surely if you are a Christian, you are an extremely bizarre one."
      I was pointing out that Christ's physical assault on the moneylenders in the temple was because they had insulted God by reducing His temple to a place of business.
      Are you actually stating that this means Christ was a 'bizarre sort of Christian'?! because that is how it reads.
      Please explain what you really meant, if that is not the case.

      3) You wrote,
      "Your lack of charity towards atheists is annoying. Yeah, they deserve it too."
      I have said *literally nothing* about atheists in this discussion. Zero. Zilch. Nada. NOTHING. This is at best a distraction and at worst an attempt at a slur.
      Either explain what you really meant, correct this statement, or apologize.

      4) I wrote,
      "What is YOUR excuse?"
      and
      " ...let's play Read the Catechism!
      Sections 2477 through 2479. It should take you less than a minute to find this, even if you must go online, and read this."
      The catechism clearly and unequivocally states that rash judgment, detraction, and calumny are sins.
      I demonstrated that Maher's statement was unjust. You admit *before that* that Maher's statement was a 'cheap shot' which is generally accepted to mean 'an unfair or unjust statement'.
      Please explain why you think repeating an unjust statement about another person is not calumny or detraction.

      'half-baked' is just a distraction, not a refutation.
      http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/americanism/index.htm

      Last, let me point out in very simple terms: I mentioned the legal and moral concepts of 'provocation' and 'incitement' were simply demonstrations that no reasonable person can support or even 'believe in' an "absolute freedom of speech". No, this doesn't support, promote, etc. crime or sin because there is no dichotomy of either absolute freedom of speech or oppression.

      Please don't disappoint me with more insults or silence.

      Delete
    5. Insults and silence aside, I have neither the time nor interest to continue this.

      Delete