While Bill's anti-religion rhetoric gets old very fast he does have some valid points overall.

just imagine all the things you could have done with all the money spent on the iraq war... could probably be #1 in almost everything with that.

>> ^Razor:
While Bill's anti-religion rhetoric gets old very fast he does have some valid points overall.


That's his point. For some reason it's OK in the US for presidents to not believe in 150-year-old discoveries like evolution ("the jury's still out").

Taking a couple or even several decades to get on the bandwagon can be reasonable, but after a hundred years leaders should probably get around to at least having an understanding of important discoveries.

The thing with his anti religion thing is that Americans deride the terrorists as Muslims or Religious fanatics. Sure, no sane person would not deride morons that blow themselves up and kill people, but there are more religious fanatics in the US than fanatic muslims...

It's just that a) they're Christian, so that's ok and b) they tend not to blow people up and kill them (now anyway).

I think its nice to for Americans to remind themselves that they too are often blinded by religious fervour, it just exercises itself in different ways.

I'm almost positive this is a really old dupe.

I guess it's ok to "right off" the first 150 years of american history that were deply inveloped in religiousity when making an argument about riding on the coats of our formers.

Anyway, I will forgive his inconsistancies on religion as just personal bias, the points he makes are still valid. Though, I thought his choice on drugs as the main point of freedom a little pushy. And how does one rate "freedom of the press" on a scale of 1 to anything? It seems at lot of his numbers are dodgy at best. Not to say we can't see the erosion of america around us. Personally, I think it has to do with over federalisation.

Constitutinal republics do great when they aren't poking their heads into everyones business. The problem is we are trying to turn America into a democracy which just ends up in mob rule and oppresion. When the people on one side get in power, they push their legislation that is moraly based, and the other side does the same. We have a battle of moral progressivism and religious conservatives in the US, both trying to domonate eachother with their own oppresive moral code of ethics.

The chrisitans (of which I count myself) are trying to opress everyone with the notion that this is a christian nation and should have christian rules (this I oppose to be clear). And thus installing religious oppresion that which the first ammendment was supposed to protect. And the progressivist are trying to pass their own moral basesless claims like the government should help people with entitlement programs like social security and medical covereage.

The thing people forget is that at heart, this was a country founded on the rights of the one person. A person has all the negative rights he can, and not positve rights. ( a negative right is the right to not have something done to you, a positive right is the right to have something). The christians are trying to have their cake of moral oppresive positive right legislation, and so are the progressivists. It is going to take a huge change in thinking to undo this run away democracy to turn us back into a constitutinal republic.

I for one, was a ron paul fanatic, and was sad to see him lose so badly, but I hope he starts a revolution. For all those who were with him, don't buy into all this mcain and obama hype, they are just more of the same kind.

Anyway, I wasn't with alot of what Maher had to say about this, but he is right, freedom is under attack, and some of the things he supports are attacking it. Get on the ball people,end the rign of oppressive moral legislation and get the government back to what it should be doing, enforcing laws that protect liberty and freedom and life. (live liberty ect ect.)


{ps. anyone know of a good online spell checker? My firefox is buggerd and it spelled checked for me}

>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^Razor:
While Bill's anti-religion rhetoric gets old very fast he does have some valid points overall.

That's his point. For some reason it's OK in the US for presidents to not believe in 150-year-old discoveries like evolution ("the jury's still out").
Taking a couple or even several decades to get on the bandwagon can be reasonable, but after a hundred years leaders should probably get around to at least having an understanding of important discoveries.


That also depends on your truth model as well. I have a comprehensive understanding of evolution, but that doesn't mean I fully accept that as the facts at hand of the creation of man. That is a fact that I will have to remain agnostic to, as would anyone in existance as no one was there to see it. We can get a certain level of understanding about what may of happened, but the fact is, we will never know. So, everyone that ever accepts anything about the way life came to be, takes it on faith. Be it, faith in the theroy of evolution, or faith in some other model, its just that, faith.

Now, I don't mean to get dodgy with my language or anything. I would still argue that facts learned from science have merit and value. If I can predict things with a measurable degree of acuracy, that is a good thing. But certain truth and reasable predictions that aren't certain are 2 very different things.

Anyway, I have no idea how we got here. There are things that I believe there are things that others believe. I know the various misgivings about my own ideas, and the various ones with others. I don't consider most people fools or morons (there are some limmits on that though) for what they think is the truth, because the truth of the matter is, none of us where there, and there are only so many things we can do to look back and make predictions of what happend. Anyway, I ment to keep this short, just never can.

I respect evolution for what it is, would be nice to get the same latitude. Even more so for things that only make since to remain agnostic about as they will never be certain (which I can't say with certainty!)


PS. by certain I mean "perfect knowledge that is total security from error" IE, the truth (for which science may never lay claim)

Yes it's a dupe, sorry:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Maher-Stop-bragging-America-is-1-and-start-acting-like-it

"we can catch up to brazil"
yeah right, keep trying.
When you reach us here we´ll be already there, ditching work and at the beach.

*discard

Discarding this post - discard requested by original submitter jwray.