freedomofreligion.myfreeforum.org

Register

quiscalus · Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:48 am Post subject:

Gotta get on my soapbox for this one, and since I'm on a REAL computer -- not that piece of shit at work -- I can be long-winded. (Lucky you!)

I admire Bill Maher, and not only because he makes me laugh. I think he showed tremendous courage when he made that comment, right after 9/11, that one could call the men who flew the planes into the Towers lunatics, religious fanatics, scumbags, whatever (obviously I'm paraphrasing here), but "cowards" -- the word constantly being used -- was one that did not fit. Maher ended up practically being run out of town on a rail for that one. He was right, but he was one of the few public figures who had the balls to say it out loud.

And I want to see his movie. But keep in mind, he thinks religion is bull, and when one starts out to make a movie ridiculing something like religion, it's very easy to find the most ridiculous spokespeople for religion and --viola! -- you've got a zany laff riot that makes all believers look like neanderthals.

Is Maher's movie going to feature John Polkinghorne or Michael Heller, who are, respectively, a physicist who's an Episcopal priest and a cosmologist who's a Catholic one? Were Father Mykal Judge and Bishop Oscar Romero figures of fun? I'm focusing on Christian examples here, because "Christian" has come to mean "hypocrites who think science is satanic and abortion is a sin but war is good business." Talk about facile!

If Ann Coulter (whom I believe is still #1 on my list of "people I'd most like to bitch-slap") decided to make a movie that ridiculed all left-wingers, I'm sure she could do it. Because if you start with a premise of that type, and you've got the resources to travel the country (or, in Maher's case, the globe) looking for foolish people who espouse ideas that don't mesh with yours, you'll certainly be able to do it. I may be a Catholic, but as a Catholic I probably know better than non-Catholics that you can stand in Vatican City and throw a rock, and even with an arm as bad as mine your chances of hitting a moron are better than 75%.

I love Michael Moore. I mean, I ADORE Michael Moore. I'd freakin' MARRY Michael Moore (and I recently learned he's a practicing Catholic, so I loves him even more!). I can watch his movies over and over again. But do I consider his movies "balanced?" Of course not. He's an ideologue, but his ideology meshes with mine. And I loves him.

I think I'm losing my train of thought....

Friends and countrymen, PLEASE don't think religion and science are always at odds. They should be exclusive of each other --ESPECIALLY in the classroom -- but not every believer distrusts science. Georges Lemaitre, father of the Big Bang Theory, was also another kind of "father" -- a Catholic priest.

There's a right wing of the Catholic Church that is as bad as any fundamentalist sect. But that right wing doesn't even include the current Catholic hierarchy. I'm not overly-fond of the current hierarchy, and they certainly aren't flaming liberals, but they embrace, and understand, science. The Vatican ain't using that nice observatory to search for little flying angels. (Well, maybe some of those morons I could hit with a rock take a peek through that telescope now and then...)

I'm sorry if this is all over the map. My eyes are going and when the evening comes and I've been using my eyes all day (shit, when DON'T I use my eyes during the day?) my head hurts something fierce. But I do hope this is understandable.
_________________
"I know not all that may be coming, but be it what it will, I'll go to it laughing." -- Melville

janicelee · Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:08 pm Post subject:

Quis as always a wonderful post. I studied Physical Anthropolgy for several years in college, and I do still try to keep up with the current thinking in the field. There is absolutely nothing in the theory of evolution the prohibits a supreme being. While the theory of evolution may be at odds with specific theories of god, nothing in the concept of evolution prohibits the existence of a god or goddess. Evolution is purely and simply silent on the subject.

Any number of religions understand this, the problem is that the ones that don't are so militant on the subject that they overshadow the faiths that take a more reasoned approach to science. This is an ongoing problem with a number of issues. THe more conservative elements of religion seem to drown out the more broadminded among the faithful.

Later today I will march in a gay pride parade. I will march alongside many heterosexuals of faith. At the festival following the parade a number of churches from a variety od denomiantions will have booths set up to let the gay and lesbian community know we are not excluded from the community of believers. However those who oppose us seem to yell louder then those who support us. It is much the same problem with science. Those who oppose it are not necessarily in the majority they just simply yell louder then people with more reasonable positions.
_________________
still trying to think of something witty for my signature.

Just Snowy · super star constellation Joined: 13 May 2006 Posts: 66

Get in line Quis - I called dibs on Michael Moore a LONG time ago!

Just kidding you - however I'm with you 100% on this. Religion and science are really NOT as far apart as most of the "right wingers" would like to believe. And I still think that what I/we (wiccans/ceremonial magicians, etc.) do in our magickal workings relate a WHOLE lot more to quantum physics than some realize!

My suspicion is that the Vatican does and believes in a lotta things that they would NEVER tell their followers. They would have mass chaos on their hands - and it would take away some of the control they keep over people. IMO - control = tithings, tithings = vatican wealth. Hmmm.

As always, just my opinion, my apologies to any catholics out there reading this who fall into my far "right wing" category.

eta: I think of all the mainstream christian religions out there, I find I (as a wiccan) can relate better to catholics, and some mormons (my husband being one of them) than I do any other christian sect. So many catholics "get" me and my religion. And the mormons teach that there is a Heavenly MOTHER as well as a Heavenly Father.

(they also teach 3 planes of existence... but that's for another time)
_________________
Where there's a witch, there's a way.

quiscalus · Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:25 am Post subject:

For me, this quote from Karen Armstrong sums up the problem nicely:

"It is...crucial to note that an exclusively literal interpretation of the Bible is a recent development. Until the nineteenth century, very few people imagined that the first chapter of Genesis was a factual account of the origins of life. For centuries, Jews and Christians relished highly allegorical and inventive exegesis, insisting that a wholly literal reading of the Bible was neither possible nor desirable." (From "The Bible: A Biography)

It's rather sad that believers of, say, the 6th century might have been more open-minded (in SOME ways -- I'm not ignoring atrocities committed over centuries) than many of my brothers and sisters today.

Or maybe it was just that oral tradition understood, and respected, myth, allegory, and wonder more than today's more strident, hidebound members of the faith -- any faith.

What makes some people so afraid to say "I don't know?" or "Maybe I'm wrong?" Scientists say it all the time -- the good ones do, anyway.
_________________
"I know not all that may be coming, but be it what it will, I'll go to it laughing." -- Melville

DurhamDawg · Sliver STAR Joined: 08 May 2006 Posts: 225

I'll reserve judgment on Maher's movie until I've seen it. However, I'll venture to say that "balance" probably isn't what he's aiming for, and that's okay. Maher has a definite point of view and a right to express it. Just like Michael Moore presents his view in his documentaries, likewise Maher will probably do the same. He's not trying to present all points of view, just his own.

I certainly don't see science and religion as having to be at odds. But it's up to the scientifically-minded believers to express that point of view -- they shouldn't expect non-believers like Maher to do it for them. Maher has his own point of view and it's not that of a believer of any stripe.

I expect Maher's purpose in making his film isn't to ridicule religion so much as to question it.
_________________
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain

quiscalus · Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:47 pm Post subject:

DurhamDawg · Sliver STAR Joined: 08 May 2006 Posts: 225

By way of analogy:

Michael Moore's film "Roger & Me" explored the role of GM in Flint, Michigan and the lives of the auto workers there. It didn't go into whatever good works GM might be responsible for. GM can do that if it wants to, but that wasn't the purpose of Moore's film.

Or, consider another Moore film, "Bowling for Columbine," about the firearms industry. Now, the NRA and its adherents might make the point that some good comes from firearms ownership -- some crimes are prevented, and things like that. But once again, it's up to them to make that case, and they certainly have plenty of resources with which to do so.

My point is that it's not up to the critics of something to make a case for it. Religionists aren't about to make a case for non-belief, so why should folks like Maher be expected to make any kind of case on behalf of religion? They shouldn't. It's up to religious folks to do that, and they have plenty of resources with which to do it.

_________________
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain