Xian hypocrisy...

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

... as pointed out by Bill Maher.

(warning... Mahr drops the occasional F-bomb)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WjxOVOLKkdQ

[youtube=425,350]WjxOVOLKkdQ[/youtube]

[Opsa]

This is truly wicked awesome. Thanks, Bob! 

[Aggie]

"Gandhi was so f*cking Christian he was Hindu!"

Ain't that the truth...  


However, around 3:00 Bill exemplifies part of what bothers me about the New Atheists; the notion that being godless means the only real moral imperative is to not be a hypocrite. Hey, I don't have a creed to follow, so what if I'm a jerk?  Yes, I understand this is comedy, but I see a lot of this from atheist meatspace friends, too.

I do understand that atheism makes no claims to morality, but I always figured the best way to criticize someone else's shoddy sense of righteousness was to show them up. Perhaps that's what niggles me about western atheist criticism of evangelical Christianity; instead of trying to be better xians, only without the xianity, a certain proportion of atheists seem to see it as an excuse to be just as jerkheaded and rotten as everyone else, but take the moral high ground because they don't profess to conform to a moral standard.

[Griffin NoName]

Sorry Aggie but I have to take a different slaant here. There are plenty of Xian's who do terrible things. I don't think being religious has much to do with being moral.

[Opsa]

But isn't morality the point of religion?

I agree that many people who profess to be religious are only followers (or "fans", as Maher calls it) instead of practitioners. They seem to think that all that matters is that they claim association this or that religion without actually thinking about what it means.

I have respect for people who really think deeply about their spirituality, whatever it may be. I have a lot more respect for people who try to find out ways to be better people, whether they are using religion to do so, or not.

If an atheist or a religious person is just an ass-cap, I have very little respect for him/her.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

But isn't morality the point of religion?

If religion really had some sort of over-arching goal or guidance (i.e. some sort of all-powerful guide?) then, yeah, you could possibly make the claim "religion is about morality" stick.

Since there does not seem to be such a thing/guide for any of it?  The generalization that "religion==morality" is a false one, I think.

Religions arise due to many causes:  a charismatic leader embraces or creates one, an unusual event (such as eclipse) is shared by a large group who see it as some sort of message, outside influences/pressures cause the inner group to come together to survive-- to name but 3 out of an infinity of possible root-causes.

But in my admittedly limited study of the history of religions, not once did I find one that was expressly created for the purpose of imparting moral wisdom to people.  That [reason/excuse/justification] always came after the fact, as far as I can tell.

I have seen mention of small cultures that do not seem to have an overriding, oppressive religion, but manage to impart morality to their children just the same-- I'm thinking of several different Pacific island cultures.  Interestingly enough, these (more or less) religion-free areas are in an environment where life is not harsh, food is aplenty, and strife is unheard of.  That may well play a role in the diminishing role of religion-- everyone is basically a "have" so there is little need to control the "have-nots" by the "haves", and religion has taken a lessor role.

I don't know, really, but my point is, I reject your claim that religion == morality.   I think not, upon close examination.

[Griffin NoName]

^^ what he said

[Opsa]

I don't believe that religion equals morality. However, Xianity in particular (which is what we were talking about here) is based on the moral teachings of the Jesus. This is what Maher is talking about when he talks about Xian hypocricy. There are people (admittedly lots of them, but who am I to say "most"?) who profess to be Xian, but who do not seem to be practicing Jesus' anti-violence message.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I dare say the overwhelming majority of self professed Xtians do not practice what the book says. The classics that Maher mentions (love thy enemies, thou shall not judge, etc) plus the money & property ones (the camel passing through the eye of the needle, if you own stuff you can't follow me, etc) are not followed but by an incredibly tiny amount of Xtians.

Are the majority of self professed Xtians gun-ho, torture loving, gospel of prosperity, etc? I'd say no, in fact many self professed Xtians aren't particularly evil and try to be decent human beings but from that point to being consistent with the actual teachings of the man? Nope.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I don't believe that religion equals morality. However, Xianity in particular (which is what we were talking about here) is based on the moral teachings of the Jesus. This is what Maher is talking about when he talks about Xian hypocricy. There are people (admittedly lots of them, but who am I to say "most"?) who profess to be Xian, but who do not seem to be practicing Jesus' anti-violence message.

Well, possibly started out as-- but as already pointed out, few modern versions of Xianity follow anything traditionally attributed to Jesus.  Not even the most liberal ones, as they own property and such.   I suppose there may still be a Jesus-like commune here or there, but I've never heard of any (perhaps because they are following closely, and do not seek notoriety as a result).  The "go forth and bother the world" is mostly a Pauline thing anyway, and certainly the words that advocate [by Jesus himself] that are part of the sections in dispute (that is, those words are considered by some scholars to be added much, much later, due to the words selected).  So I suppose there may well be a few left here or there.

But none of the mainstream Xian religions fit; without exception:  at the very least, they own properties/buildings, etc.   And none in the US pay taxes-- in direct violation of specific instructions by Jesus to do so. (An irony I find most amusing.)

But back to the original premise:  do just the words ascribed to Jesus form a basis of morality?  I think they are incomplete, myself.  But I suppose they could be a good place to start. 

[Griffin NoName]

As for the OT, what is moral about sacrificing your son; you'd get done for child abuse here and now

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

The OT has a good deal of nice nuggets, and a really disturbing amount or truly evil stuff. Happily there seems to be far less aggressive fundamentalist Jews than aggressive fundamentalist Xtians (or even worse, aggressive fundamentalist Muslims).

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

The OT has a good deal of nice nuggets, and a really disturbing amount or truly evil stuff. Happily there seems to be far less aggressive fundamentalist Jews than aggressive fundamentalist Xtians (or even worse, aggressive fundamentalist Muslims).

I suspect getting a large fraction of your population wiped out (WW2) kinda took the wind out of most fanatical Jews.  But I could be wrong about that; I've never been to Palestine (for example).

But you are correct, it's a welcome improvement that there are no fanatical Jews advocating child-stoning (as the bible demands under certain situations).

Alas, the same cannot be said for fanatical christians... can it?  (example: anti-gay bashing, etc-- stems from fanatical reading of the OT, not the new-- nothing in the NT about gays really...)

*sigh*

Then again, there is the fact that there are just not that many Jews in the world at large-- before and after WW2.  That is probably more germane to the attitude than anything-- minorities have always had to be careful how they presented to the majority, else they get wiped out.  (example N. Amerindians... )

[Swatopluk]

It would be interesting to see how the Bahai would develop, if they got hold on power anywhere.
Especially interesting because they do not claim to be the final word on spirituality but just another transition stage (like they claim the other big religions to be too).

[Sibling DavidH]

Happily there seems to be far less aggressive fundamentalist Jews than aggressive fundamentalist Xtians (or even worse, aggressive fundamentalist Muslims).

There may not be many, but the trouble they're causing in Israel is out of all proportion.  The serious thing is that they won't stop the settlements; that's going to bring Israel down sooner or later and cause FSM knows what other trouble in the region.

[Swatopluk]

As usual my proposal is to combine it with the Cyprus problem. All Cypriotes will be sent to Greece and Turkey respectively, Israel moves to Cyprus. China drops a few megatons on the Temple Mount and seeds the rest of the land with radioactive waste (a nice mix of strong shortlived stuff and persistent longterm isotopes). North Korea would be even better for this job had they enough nukes. The Palestinians  get a state alongside the Oder river. Ideally both Germany and Poland would cede territory but the major part would be on the Western bank. I can see mainly advantages. A largely empty area of Central Europe would get a new vigorous population that already knows how to deal with the aridity that global climate change has already brought there. Prussia grew great through similar repopulation projects*. The Cyprus problem would end for good with no winner (since both sides clearly do not deserve any rewards there). New Israel would have secure undisputable borders and could choose splendid isolation or become a Mediterranean hub. With Palestine uninhabitable for centuries and all physical traces of history (holy and secular) removed for good the religious fanatics would be forced to look for other topics. The few that still think about building a temple at the bottom of a radioactive crater could be either ignored or given the opportunity (but no medical help). A hidden extra would be that a predominantly Muslim state in Central Europe would annoy the right people to no end. And my bet would be that the danger of a theocracy would be minuscule.

Btw, there are about 4 million Muslims in Germany already, a bit less than half of them full German citizens.

*a Prussian king famously said that Muslims (and pagans) would be as welcome as long as they were good and industrious people. Mosques (and temples) would be provided by the state. On a small scale he showed that he was serious. Against massive protests from the Christian clerus he provided a house of worship for the (few) Muslims in the Prussian army and (with ostentation) became the godfather of the first child born to a Muslim member of his personal guard.

[Sibling DavidH]

OK, but a) the Jews don't want just anywhere, however pleasant; they want the land the Big G gave them.  Otherwise they'd be in Uganda now.
b) I think you're wrong about Turkish Cypriots.  They put up with a lot before Turkey sorted it out.

[Griffin NoName]

Happily there seems to be far less aggressive fundamentalist Jews than aggressive fundamentalist Xtians (or even worse, aggressive fundamentalist Muslims).

There may not be many, but the trouble they're causing in Israel is out of all proportion.  The serious thing is that they won't stop the settlements; that's going to bring Israel down sooner or later and cause FSM knows what other trouble in the region.

This is a huge issue.

[Swatopluk]

OK, but a) the Jews don't want just anywhere, however pleasant; they want the land the Big G gave them.  Otherwise they'd be in Uganda now.
b) I think you're wrong about Turkish Cypriots.  They put up with a lot before Turkey sorted it out.

My sympathies are clearly on the side of the Turkish Cypriotes, not necessarily on the side of Turkey. Not much sympathies for the Greek Cypriotes and their mainland brethren.
Making the Holy Land disappear is the essence of the plan. If there is no Palestine anyone could live in, then other options would be taken. And since some kind of Israel would be needed, the nice island in the neighbourhood would be high on the list of desirable choices (with all the pluses mentioned).
An asteroid would of course be cleaner than nukes but these things are so unpredicatble. How could one guarantee that it has the right size and hits exactly the right place? Would be a pity, if it hit Egypt instead and destroyed the pyramids. And a hit in the sea would swamp all surrounding countries. Santorin was bad enough in 1500 BC.

[Griffin NoName]

Making the Holy Land disappear is the essence of the plan. If there is no Palestine anyone could live in, then other options would be taken.

This could be applied to other problems. 

[Swatopluk]

Sorry, no Toryland to bomb
For them one would actually need a new country they could live in on their own without bothering others

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

For them one would actually need a new country they could live in on their own without bothering others

How about a new planet?

[Swatopluk]

Why waste that on them. Also there is need to keep an eye on them, so they can't make a sneaky comeback.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Back to the original topic, this cartoon:

http://www.sandraandwoo.com/2009/11/30/0116-jesus-of-nazareth/

[Opsa]

Spot on, Bobbo! 

[pieces o nine]

...still true of God's Own Party, I'm afraid...

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Yep.  You could replace "Bush" with "Romney" too.

[Opsa]

Sadly, you could replace Bush with practically any candidate these days. Brilliant little piece though.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Sadly, you could replace Bush with practically any candidate these days. Brilliant little piece though.

One of my fondest wishes is exactly that:  replace the majority of ReThugs (and not a few DemoWimps too) with actual, working toaster-ovens.

Instead of what we have now?  (nothing useful is getting done...)   We'd at least be able to have a nice piece of toast.

[pieces o nine]

One of my fondest wishes is exactly that:  replace the majority of ReThugs (and not a few DemoWimps too) with actual, working toaster-ovens.

Instead of what we have now?  (nothing useful is getting done...)   We'd at least be able to have a nice piece of toast.

I dunno, Bob. Some radical long-haired commie once allegedly observed that we can't live by bread alone. 
We're gonna need something to go with all that toast...   

[Opsa]

One of my fondest wishes is exactly that:  replace the majority of ReThugs (and not a few DemoWimps too) with actual, working toaster-ovens.

Instead of what we have now?  (nothing useful is getting done...)   We'd at least be able to have a nice piece of toast.

I dunno, Bob. Some radical long-haired commie once allegedly observed that we can't live by bread alone. 
We're gonna need something to go with all that toast...   

Ginger marmalade?

I'm just worried that that toast will be us.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

One of my fondest wishes is exactly that:  replace the majority of ReThugs (and not a few DemoWimps too) with actual, working toaster-ovens.

Instead of what we have now?  (nothing useful is getting done...)   We'd at least be able to have a nice piece of toast.

I dunno, Bob. Some radical long-haired commie once allegedly observed that we can't live by bread alone. 
We're gonna need something to go with all that toast...   

Fair enough.  Every 6th one, we'll replace with a butter churn instead.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Are we talking about deep frying congress-critters?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Are we talking about deep frying congress-critters?

Well, you know what they say about super-fatty meats:  they deep-fry up all crisp and lovely.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

The image brings my most sadistic impulses just imagining the screams...

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

The image brings my most sadistic impulses just imagining the screams...

Start the oil out at a comfortable 90 degrees F (about 30-35 degrees C or so)

For each and every kick-back, each privileged excess, each bribe (legal or otherwise), each presumed special status perk? 

Raise the temperature of that oil by one degree.

For any given politico?  That'd be well into the 400 degree range, a good point to cap the temperature.

And for every honest statement?  For every humble apology for mistakes made?  Reduce it 10 degrees-- honesty and humbleness ought to be encouraged, after all.

You'd still have sufficient cooking temperature, I would wager.