I don't speak Arabic, however I did do some research on the accuracy of the 2 main media watchdogs researching this material (PMW which published the video above, and MEMRI).

So far, PMW has no blemishes on their record for translation, within a catalogue of 700+ videos on their channel. MEMRI has about 5 contested translations so far (wikipedia), but when you consider they have a catalogue of 1400+ videos and the extent of the errors/omissions compared to other material which is uncontested, not much changes in terms of exposing Hamas aims. Being the governing body of Gaza, something needs to change in that regard.

Couple of points on his followup, none of which is intended to defend the unprofessional style of the Fox interviewer.

* Makes excuse for the Hamas charter stating "they're just really angry".
* Picks on pronunciation, while calling Hannity childish in the previous video.
* Points out that Fox making fun after discussing a very serious situation reduced it to entertainment, then thanked his panel of Jesus, flowers and Gandhi.

Yes, he's a comedian, but this is precisely why he shouldn't have made the last charge. There's nothing wrong with making light at the end of a serious topic, as long as you're not making light of the topic itself.

Please don't quote the Bible if you can't get the verse right.

@ChaosEngine "Well, aside from being a well-respected science educator, he's also a private person and thus entitled to an opinion. The same way that religious people seem to think they should be able to tell other people not only how to raise their children, but what their children should be taught in science class."

Side note: Being well respected doesn't mean his views are truth. Though yes, perfectly fine to have an opinion. I'm not disputing that.

What's in dispute is that he's telling parents not to share their beliefs with their own children. So we're not only telling creationists they can't share their views publicly in school, we also tell them that they can't share their views in private with their own children. It's extraordinarily dangerous thinking in the free world. These are private people who wish to raise their children with their own values. Bill is publicly preaching to parents (unlike those parents who are privately teaching their children) not to share what they believe in, all the while saying "When you're in love you want to tell the world about it." The man is amazingly hypocritical and sadly without an ounce of realisation about it.

He says "We need scientifically literate people...". The thousands of scientists that believe in creation are also literate in science, even in the evolutionary aspects, except they choose not to believe in evolutionary theory. Science is a method. Nothing more, nothing less. Creationists aren't ignoring science at all, they are ignoring evolutionary theory. Bill says "We need engineers, people that build stuff, solve problems...". The example of Wernher Von Braun puts this point to rest.

@ChaosEngine "If Von Braun had believed in a biblical theory of "intelligent falling" instead of gravity, his rockets wouldn't have gotten far. If he had actually studied the science, his conclusion might have been very different, but there's not a lot of call for evolutionary science when designing rockets, so he basically ignored an area of science that conflicted with his belief system because it didn't affect his work. You can be damn sure he benefited from the study of evolution though, given it's the backbone of a lot of medical research."

You're confusing a lot of things here. First you say he ignored an area (evolution) that conflicted with his belief "because it didn't affect his work", then go on to say "You can be damn sure he benefited from the study of evolution". Von Braun, "For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design,” “It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance." http://www.thespacereview.com/article/656/1

Bill says that denial of evolution is unique to the US (which is already a very questionable statement in itself), then goes on to say that the US is the most technologically advanced nation (with a grudging acceptance that Japan might be slightly ahead). Again, another questionable statement and slightly elitist I might add So if denial of evolution is holding the US back, why is it the most technologically advanced? You could word it another way... denial of evolution and technological advancement do not correlate with one another.

A common condescending view many evolutionists seem to be taking over creationists these days. I guess my first question to Bill would be, who are you to tell people how to raise their children, if what they are doing is fine by the law? The second question would be, do you have any proof that believing in creation always leads people not to think innovatively?

Wernher von Braun was a Biblical creationist and one of the original rocket scientists, even working [edit: chief architect] on the Saturn V which took the recently deceased Neil Armstrong to the moon. A single example and there are many others.

Seems like he might not be abiding by the empirical method.

These child actors are still children.

"How many people in Australia are in jail or prison?"

All of us!

My point was that his condescending nature of religion makes him look like a hypocrite when he refers to a moral code, making him as "preachy" as those he slanders on a regular basis. It's not consistent.

Then he needs to define where this morality comes from. But that's another topic altogether.

>> ^Asmo:

>> ^qfan:
"You know what? Somebody has to bring up that there is a moral dimension to this." BM
What do you know? Someone who just plugged their staunchly anti-religious documentary, preaching about morals.

Morality does not require religion... Paedo priests are a classic example...
As for Bill, he even says outloud why PIPA/SOPA are useless... "Every time we took one of them down, another would pop up". So basically they can't stop them popping up but they (not Maher) were willing to take the risk of impinging on legitimate sites on an impossible mission.
He may be playing the devil's adovcate but he sort undermines any position he had there. He doesn't have figures on piracy vs purchase, he doesn't have figures on how many pirated and then purchased, he doesn't know if his movie was promoted to greater success due to personal piracy.
I wholeheartedly agree with shutting down piracy for profit, but personal privay is kinda like taping the radio, government's can't stop it and they shouldn't bother because it'll cost them more in the long run, and the media companies aren't picking up the tab...

"You know what? Somebody has to bring up that there is a moral dimension to this." BM

What do you know? Someone who just plugged their staunchly anti-religious documentary, preaching about morals.