Comments on: Bill Maher’s ‘Religulous’ Has the Usual Double Standard

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

"And with NPR's handwringing over the Christian right, even as they ignore the Religious Left, as I sometimes call the Is Lob."

And you're an idiot when you do this. The phrase "religious left" already has a well-accepted meaning--it means groups like Jim Wallis's "Sojourners" community or Michael Lerner's "Tikkun" and these groups are both very critical of Israel's behavior, if not as critical as some who comment here. (Of course the people here are a weird mixture of pro-Zionist rightwing anti-Arab bigots, mainstream Zionists, anti-Zionist leftists, and rightwing racist Jew-hating bigots, plus maybe some other groups.)

Nobody except Phil here calls the Israel lobby the religious left, but go right ahead and use a term that guarantees confusion, if that's what you want to do.

By: Ed

Ed — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Bill Maher and Larry Charles, the Jewish director of the film, were on Charlie Rose, doing they’re usual holier-atheist-than-though shtick, but at the same time copping to being Jewish. The nation of Zion operating in the diaspora seems to create two archetypes: dedicated ethno-religious Jews to maintain the tribal cohesion, and dedicated poseur “atheist” Jews like Maher and his director to attack, undermine and murder when possible (ie the Jewish Bolsheviks) competing religions, tribes and ethnicities. Maher is an operative for the nation of Zion, as are most “anti-religious” Judaic left-liberals like him. Gentiles who fall for their shtick are as dumb as those who fell for Communism, and likely to suffer the same fate.

By: otto

otto — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

The Jewish right is a better match for the Christian right. It's a straightforward characterisation of their hateful objectives. The element of confusion then moves to why they are well organised in America's 'liberal' political party, the Democrats. But that says more about the Democrats and US liberalism, which has always accommodated powerful lobbies, and certainly does not turn the Jewish right into some sort of left-wing.

By: anon

anon — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

I do subscribe to HBO special programs. Maher is acute in his analyis except when it come to Israel Uber Alles. While he's the banner banner of French Enlightenment for the rest, he's a fascist for Israel on the right.

He's like most mischling, all the way for the underdog, way past when they are no longer the underdog.

He's not very bright.

Or simply biased in the most common sensical way.

Either way, he's as much part of the problem as one who'd like to solve it.

By: D.

D. — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

"... but go right ahead and use a term that guarantees confusion, if that's what you want to do."

It also confuses by treating Zionism is a religious movement. Like Bill Maher himself, most Jewish Zionists are committed secularists. We're dealing with a political ideology here, just like communism or fascism.

"Religious" may be rhetorically useful to scare off the crowd who are already frightened of religion, but it misses the core of the problem and only postpones the real discussion that has to take place.

By: D.

D. — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

I think Phil is reluctant to concede the depths of the racism he detects underlying modern secular Jewish identity, and so dresses it up as everyone's favorite bogeyman, "religion."

By: otto

otto — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Well, Zionists are committed secularists (those that are) with a project based above all on a view of the interests of their co-religionists, inculcated not least by religious institutions and reinforced by religious appeals. And it would be mad to see Israeli wish to dominate Jerusalem as driven by purely 'security' motives, without any element of religious ones. Many other 'religious' movements are basically national chauvinist ones too. So calling the Zionist movement religious is, despite the caveats, entirely mainstream and plausible.

By: D.

D. — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

"based above all on a view of the interests of their co-religionists,"

But my point is that "co-religionist" isn't quite the right term. Richard Witty doesn't ask any theological questions before splashing about in the mikva. He just wants to know you're a landsman.

I'm trying to draw a distinction between tribalism and religion. They're different things. (And in fact, Christianity and Islam teach that they are not just different but irreconcilably opposed.)

But I take your point that secular behavior has its roots in religious teachings, and it's impossible to draw a sharp line between the two.

By: samuel burke

samuel burke — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

"In other words, like Michael Moore he's very brave except in taking on the people related to the people who bankroll movies. Funny? Not really.

not funny at all and rather pathetic at that....i cant wait till americans wake the hell up and take note of the elepahne in the room...financial meltdowns tend to do that.

suppression never lasts forever.

By: Todd

Todd — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

"suppression never lasts forever."

Right. But American can't last forever, either. I wonder how each will end, and when?