Bill Maher's Atheism: Religion Is The Crystal Meth Of The People

[rug]

By Charles P. Pierce on January 9, 2015

Outside of the fact that they didn't even have a bass player, and the fact that they played Howlin' Wolf songs incredibly badly, the thing that I hated most about The Doors was the fact that, for all their rebel posing, the chief mission of their music seemed to be pissing off the nervous parents of suburban white kids, one of the biggest fish in the smallest cultural barrel. So it is that you can count me among the people who thought Neil DeGrasse Tyson was something of a dick for trolling people at Christmastime. Yeah, people objected. Silly people. Big fking deal. You're one of the smartest people on the planet, and you can anger people who aren't remotely in your intellectual weight class by chafing them about what, for many of them, is a very important time of the year. What a triumph. Voltaire would have been so fking proud.

But Tyson is a master of subtlety compared to Bill Maher, who mysteriously seems to have become a thought-leader on the subject of religion these days. Maher unlimbered himself with noted theologian Jimmy Kimmel the other night concerning the slaughter in Paris. Apparently, the audience reacted as though it had been hit with a truckload of dead fish.

Good for the audience.

Maher's atheism comes down to little more than pure Ivy League snobbery -- he's smarter than you are, you superstitious git. His movie, Religulous, shows Bill being smarter that a collection of religious grotesques. His criticisms are obvious, his conclusions easy and glib.

"We have to stop saying when something like this that happened in Paris today, we have to stop saying, well, we should not insult a great religion," Maher said. "First of all, there are no great religions. They're all stupid and dangerous - and we should insult them and we should be able to insult whatever we want. That is what free speech is like."

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Bill_Mahers_Ivy_League_Atheism

[upaloopa]

1. My religious friends on facebook (including my ex wife)

post some of the most disgusting things with the phrase "like if you agree"
Like if you agree if the picture of a plastic infant one inch tall, in the palm of a hand is a two week old fetus and killing it pisses off god. Like if you believe your guardian angles keeps you from harm.
Like if you keep Jesus in your heart. So I don't click on like. So I guess I am a rotten heathen or something and now I am exposed and everyone knows it.
And they don't even claim that what they post is satire. At least Charlie Hebdo says it prints satire.

[NYC_SKP]

2. "unlimbered himself with noted theologian Jimmy Kimmel"

[BeyondGeography]

3. Rec'd for the most astute Tyson call out

A very poor use of his brand indeed.

[edhopper]

9. Yes

why acknowledge the real birthday Of Newton when we should celebrate the fake birthday of Jesus.

How dare Tyson think that Newton is as important a figure as some people's diety.

How dare he think that science be as, or more important a human endeavor than religion.

[BeyondGeography]

10. There's a time and a place...Tyson debased himself and Pierce explained why

Whether you accept it or not:

You're one of the smartest people on the planet, and you can anger people who aren't remotely in your intellectual weight class by chafing them about what, for many of them, is a very important time of the year. What a triumph. Voltaire would have been so fking proud.

[edhopper]

11. I really think

Tyson just wanted to acknowledge Newton on his birthday with a little humor.
The tweet was sort of a riddle.

"On this day long ago, a child was born who, by age 30, would transform the world. Happy Birthday Isaac Newton b. Dec 25, 1642"

Why were they angered at Tyson stating something that was absolutely true, more true than the date of Jesus' birth? Can there be no other event on Christmas worthy of remembrance?
He did it with a bit of humor and did not say anything about Christmas. If so many Christians weren't thin skinned, they would have chuckled. But many live to be outraged.

[BeyondGeography]

12. If he had left it at that, it would have been fine, imo

But then he followed up with:

QUESTION: ThIs year, what do all the world's Muslims and Jews call December 25th? ANSWER: Thursday

What's next, edgy tweets about Ramadan come June? Or is it just American Christians that he has a problem with?

It's a day many people use to retreat from the mundane world, and there's Neil, one of our brightest and most celebrated scientists, starting a silly food fight on the Internet. I think a lot of people were wondering why he went there at all. I know I was.

[edhopper]

15. In response to him

pointing out that Dec. 25th is not only about Jesus for a lot of people.
Seems an appropriate response to people who were so offended by his original tweet. I guess we can count you amoung them?

[BeyondGeography]

19. lol...ok

You think it was a great day for Neil. I think he stepped in it.

Cheers.

[edhopper]

20. I think

he tweak the nose of people who lie in wait to be offended.

[LiberalAndProud]

23. ^This.

[longship]

78. Gotta love you, edhopper!

You are one of my faves here. Always thoughtful, yet insightful and respectful.

Glad to applaud your posts.

[edhopper]

79. Thanks

[cbayer]

13. There really wasn't a great deal of outrage, much as you would like that to be the case.

[edhopper]

14. Then

why is his tweet an issue?
What do you call the response? Just Google "Tyson Christmas outrage"

There was definately a negative reaction, call it what you will.

[cbayer]

16. I googled it. As you said, there was a negative reaction from some,

including the author of this article and some of your more inflammatory web sites pumped it up, but outrage is a bit of an overstatement.

I know you want to call out all those thin skinned christians and point at their outrage, but there really isn't much there there.

[edhopper]

18. I'll amend it to "very negative reaction"

if outrage seems to strong to you.
My point stands either way.

[cbayer]

21. The point that christians are thin skinned?

Frankly, while I don't personally have any problem with NDT's tweet, I think he made a mistake in judgement.

We need him to reach out to science deniers and he's good in that role. Doing things that alienate them is short sighted and beneath him, imo.

[edhopper]

22. Some Christians

did not mean to imply all Christians.

[cbayer]

24. Thin skins can be found everywhere.

Post an article critical of Dawkins and see what happens.

[BeyondGeography]

25. Or suggest that Neil Tyson did something less than brilliant...

[cbayer]

26. Bingo.

[edhopper]

27. But my point is

this was not critical of Christmas, NDT just pointed out there are reasons besides Jesus to celebrate.

The found offense where there was none. That is the definition of thin skin.

[cbayer]

29. You yourself used the phrase "tweak the noses". He did this with intent

and knew whose noses it would tweak.

Cute, but unfortunate and not necessary.

[edhopper]

32. Yes

the response should have been a chuckle. "Good one, Neal", not "how dare he!"

[cbayer]

33. The point is not what it "should" have been.

He is too smart to have not recognized that some people were not going to see this as teasing.

My point is that he is one of our best bets for reaching the religiously based science deniers. We need him in a big way.

He used poor judgement, imo. It doesn't matter how people "should" have responded, (which is just your opinion). What matters is not further alienating them.

I though it was cute and had he sent it to me personally, I would have chuckled.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Really got your goat, huh? Well, that makes 2 of you.

[BeyondGeography]

47. Yes, me and Charles Pierce are all torn up about it

[shenmue]

53. Finally someone says it.

[cbayer]

4. I never liked the Doors either….

Like Maher, they had a misogynist underbelly that made them look oh so tough.

He's an Ivy League frat boy and I like the way Pierce takes him down.

As for the praise for Hitchens, he was more articulate, but his islamophobia was not more righteous.

[rug]

5. Jim Morrison's father was a Rear Admiral.

[cbayer]

6. Heh….. well that might explain some things.

[Fumesucker]

7. The Beatles were well beyond the Doors in misogyny

Not to mention the Stones..

And the Monkees..

[cbayer]

17. I agree about the Stones, but not about the Beatles or Monkees.

But, gee, I was a adolescent girl at the time the music was being released. Why would my opinion mean anything? Boys always know better.

[edhopper]

28. I always see this brought out about the Stones

even comparing it to some Rap lyrics.

I always heard it, (and yes I was around when it came out) as a dysfunctional relationship.

The girl who once had him down, now he has the upper hand. It's not a song about romance.

[cbayer]

30. It and other of their songs are very much about controlling women.

Women and girls of the day heard that even if some men and boys just thought it was about a dysfunctional relationship.

[Silent3]

8. Yes, let us be far more sophisticated and leave the huddled masses alone with their comforting...

...delusions. Only a snob would make fun of such things. People of true intellect must condescendingly protect the "silly people" like they were our children.

[rug]

31. Only a snob would say "comforting delusions".

Last edited Tue Jan 13, 2015, 04:06 PM - Edit history (1)

[Silent3]

34. Only someone wanting to prop up religion's special protective bubble...

Last edited Tue Jan 13, 2015, 05:27 PM - Edit history (1)

...would complain so much about whether comments made about religion are "obvious", whether what is commented upon is an "easy target".

How much complaining do you hear when a politician makes an obvious blunder and late night talk show hosts go after it with gusto?

Are the flaws in GOP policy so obvious (at least to DUers) that we should stop being such big snobbish meanies with our derisive comments, thinking we're oh-so-superior in seeing through what others don't, and just shut up and keep it to ourselves?

And if that's not the standard for politics, why should it be for religion?

If it's snobbish to refer to much of religion "comforting delusions", it's no more or no less snobbish that deriding Republican economics as "trickle-down" economics.

[rug]

35. There should be a corrolary to Godwin's Law about pulling the republican card when discussing

religion.

[amuse bouche]

36. "he's smarter than you are"

Adore his humor and think he is just about always..right on the money

[rug]

37. "His criticisms are obvious, his conclusions easy and glib."

More complete quotes are always good. Context, you know.

[amuse bouche]

43. "More complete quotes are always good. Context, you know."

I know he sure pisses off righties and the delusional

[rug]

44. Pierce is pretty good at pising off the smug.

[amuse bouche]

45. Nah, he's just another boring , delusional cry baby

[cbayer]

38. "Maher's atheism comes down to little more than pure Ivy League snobbery"

and frat boy ivy league snobbery at that.

He has become humorless and I think he is just about always…. going after what makes him the most money.

[Heddi]

39. So people who go to Cornell are Ivy League Snobs, eh?

interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Maher#Early_life

[rug]

40. Logic fail.

Snobs who go to Cornell are Ivy League snobs.

[Goblinmonger]

48. So why the need to call him an "Ivy League" snob?

Why not just call him a snob? It must add something to the discussion in her mind.

So why are Ivy League snobs somehow different from regular snobs? And how does the frat boy part of it distinguish him even more?

[truebrit71]

41. Interesting....so are ALL Cornell grads Ivy League snobs....

....or just the ones you don't like?...

[cbayer]

51. What an amazingly illogical set of statements.

No, not all Cornell grads are Ivy League snobs.

No, not all the Cornell grads I don't like are Ivy League snobs.

Let's try a little of that much heralded logic, reason and rational thinking here!

[truebrit71]

55. Aaah....so just the ones you don't like...

...BTW where did you go to Uni?

[cbayer]

56. Since you apparently didn't read the article, I feel I should point out that

it is the author of the article that said it. That is why I used quotes.

And your statements continue to be illogical.

I went to Uni at a small college that you have most likely never heard of. Where did you go to Uni?

[truebrit71]

57. And the name of it was.....????

....???

[cbayer]

60. The name of the school you went to? I have no idea.

I trust you just about around 0%, so sharing personal information with you is highly unlikely. But if you want to post your resume, I for one would love to read it.

[truebrit71]

61. Don't be coy...I know the answer to both...

...I just wanted to see if you were willing to be open and honest...and you weren't...

[cbayer]

62. Really? You have personal information about me. Since we are talking about being honest,

why don't you say where you obtained that personal information.

I just want to see if you are willing to be open and honest. I am betting you aren't.

[truebrit71]

63. So you won't answer my question then?

...You know, since we are talking about being honest and all...

Me? I didn't go to University.

You?

[cbayer]

64. No, you answer mine and be very thoughtful here.

Respect people's privacy.
Do not post or link to any private/personal information about any person, even if it is publicly available elsewhere on the Internet.

Now, I am going to ask you to back off. You have said that you have personal information about me and you don't want to share the source of that information. I don't blame you for that, but you and your crew are really crossing the line here. Don't be somebody else's patsy.

[truebrit71]

65. My crew?

From the very same TOS - DU is supposed to be fun — don't make it suck.

Shame it doesn't say anything about rank hypocrisy...because that REALLY sucks...right?

[Goblinmonger]

59. You did add the "frat boy" I believe

Which is an incorrect addition, btw.

[amuse bouche]

42. "and frat boy ivy league snobbery at that. "

Couldn't disagree more.

He's hilarious, smart and right on

[cbayer]

50. Yes, you are right. I swoon for men that call women c***s and MILF's.

They are sooooo hot!

[amuse bouche]

71. Youbetcha

Btw, I didn't say anything about 'swooning'

That's your deal. Guess some can't respect a guy unless they sexualize them. How immature and desperate

[kwassa]

72. I think he is a shithead. Arrogant, self-satisfied, sexist, and narcissistic to an extreme.

The idea that he is even important is a joke.

A terrible role model for progressives, if some consider him that.

and worse: he is not really funny. The worst for a comedian.

[amuse bouche]

73. He's hilarious. Of course the holy rollers hate him. They are just so darn insecure in their beliefs

That makes it even more hilarious to watch them fume. I truly enjoy watching them froth at the mouth as they trot out their BS accusations of sexism, arrogance and blah..blah..blah

[kwassa]

74. Hilarious to whom? Not to me.

Jon Stewart and Stephan Colbert are infinitely better progressive comedians.

They remade progressive comedy. Maher and SNL, both the previous venues, have failed to advance the category. They are both wrapped up in their self-importance.

[amuse bouche]

75. " wrapped up in their self-importance"

Gibberish

[kwassa]

76. Maher is in love with himself.

He always has been. He should do his show with a mirror.

It was evident back in the days of "Politically Incorrect", which I watched a couple times hoping for a progressive voice. He is not the one.

I watched his current show, and was sorry for the time I had wasted. He is as deep as the average mud puddle, and remarkably similar in product.

[amuse bouche]

80. Bill does something Colbert and Stewart stay away from

He exposes 'bullcrap' as nonsense. The Bullcrappers can't deal with it, hence all the whining, squealing and hate.

It's as simple as that

[Goblinmonger]

49. You are wrong on two points.

He hated the attitude of students at Cornell and indicates he got a great education there but that was about it.

And it seems he was a poor kid at Cornell that lived not in a frat but college slumlord apartments.

Perhaps those at Cornell with the privilege that Maher didn't have might have a different perspective of that experience.

[nilesobek]

52. A well written opinion that really made me think

about the haughty attitude I take against all religion. Thanks.

[jollyreaper2112]

54. Bad column

There's much in religion to criticize and, let's face it, Maher's gig is being provocative and humorous, not dry and academic.

I don't like lazy satire. It's like finding a dog turd and sticking a label on it saying "Republicans" or "Religious Fanatics," taking a photo and posting to instragram. That's just lazy. The creative stuff, that's where it's at.

What Tyson did was funny. I didn't even hear about it until just now. And, let's be real here, you wouldn't even be seeing his tweets if you weren't subscribed to him.

I'm fine with people having their separate beliefs. I'm not going to go down to a church and scream that they're engaging in ritualistic cannibalism and hemophagy, I'm not going to go down to a temple and start screaming about how their hats look stupid and shave those beards, I'm not going to go to a mosque and say their prayers are stupid.

I would object to someone putting up a mosque near my house and playing the call to prayer five times a day. That's just as obnoxious as a church putting up loudspeakers and playing hymns on the hour.

The key factor here, and this is important, there's public and private space. What you do in private you can do in private. What you do in public you constrain to fit the mores of the community. So butt-naked orgies are fine in your house, not so fine in the streets.

It's why there's no problem going to a comedy club and listening to a comedian do a blue act but it would not be polite of him to stand on a street corner doing the same routine.

I think that there is a dangerous precedent in saying that topics are off-limits, that there are things we cannot say. There's a responsibility for the satirist to put out good work but the mechanism for providing feedback ain't censorship, it's called voting with your dollars. If David Duke got himself and HBO talk show, you call him out. If someone thinks Maher's show is bad, call him out. And if I think you're wrong about it, I'll call you out. If enough people agree, the show's off the air. That's how it works.

Where we get into a sticky situation is when the crowd says democracy is majority rules. If 51% of the country says the Jews are christkillers and need kicked out, do we run with it? If 51% say Islam should be banned, what then? If 51% say Jim Crow was the right idea and black people need put back in their place, do you just go along with it? I'm of the opinion that civil rights aren't subject to a popular vote. The majority doesn't get to decide who does and doesn't have rights and privileges.

[cbayer]

58. Nice response. I want to reply to one part of it.

Democracy is as much about protecting the minority as it is representing the majority. That is why populist voting is only one method of establishing and enforcing rules. So if 51% of the people say the things you list, they will be overruled by another branch of government. Civil rights are not subject to a popular vote, as you say.

As for Maher, the author of this article is expressing his free speech rights just as Maher does. I don't think he is suggesting that Maher be silenced, he is just highly critical of him.

[jollyreaper2112]

66. yes

Agreed, he is speaking freely, same as I.

I've heard several people I otherwise respect say that it is somehow the responsibility of the sane not to provoke the crazies. It really grinds my gears. Constraining or words and actions for fear of disproportionate violence, that's the very essence of terrorism. They're offended enough over a stupid picture to kill someone? Well, that leaves me utterly offended and absolutely livid.

My biggest problem with religion isn't so much from whatever crazy shit they believe, it's that now I'm having to abide by their craziness. Can't teach evolution in the schools? Can't get stem cell research because of religious freaks? Can't even get an abortion in some states because the crazies are killing the doctors? It's your book, your rules, you go to hell.

I like the saying, "Religion is like a penis. It's great to have one, you can be proud of it, but don't wave it around in public and keep it away from my children."

[cbayer]

67. I agree with you for the most part.

I think that the problems with religion come when religious beliefs are imposed on those that don't share them. I think there is pretty broad agreement on that among liberals/progressives and members of this site.

To extend your penis analogy, it's great to share it with another consenting adult. That goes for religious beliefs and non-beliefs, imo.

[NeoGreen]

68. Maher = Marx ?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people

Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.


Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.


The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.

Marx's reported favorite quote:

De omnibus dubitandum.

Worth quoting again:

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.

[cbayer]

69. How'd that all work out for him?

[Prophet 451]

70. I liked Maher more when he was funny

It could just be that I'm only noticing it after a few years of watching his show but Maher seems to have three or four topics (vegetarianism, pot, the evils of religion) that he always steers conversation to, like the chef who's only really confident cooking pasta. Even leaving aside my distaste for his "Ivy League snobbery" about religion, repeatedly coming back to the same few points gets dull. In fairness, it's possible that's confirmation bias on my part.

That said, I think "Ivy League snobbery" is an excellent way to describe Maher's attacks on religion and also those of Hitchens, Dawkins and many of their fans. It all seems to boil down to "you're too dumb to see that we're right". They remind me of the sci-fi cliche (now thankfully, rather dated) of aliens who are told about religion and respond that they've outgrown such silly superstitions. It's all so shallow. The diversity and complexity of religious thought is ignored, substituted for the mindless pablum of literalism so they can dismiss faith as being about talking snakes and suchlike. There's no attempt to engage with or understand belief or believers, their fans are simply exhorted to go forth and sneeringly dismiss believers as just stupid. One can almost hear the strains of Onward Atheist Soldiers in the background.
In seeking to establish a place for atheism in the public psyche (laudable in itself), they seem to have adopted the worst excesses of theistic attitude (although, thankfully, not the worst excesses of theistic actions). They speak of believers in the same tone and often with the same words as Bryan Fischer speaks of atheists.

And when someone brings this up, the responses are predictable. I predict that if there are responses to this, them will be either A) childish reversals, "we're not x, you're x"; B) tiresome claims to not knowing who the "New Atheists" are; C) claims that the theists drive them to it ("she made me so angry&quot ; D) pointing out that many theists are jerks (which is true but missed the point) or E) simple flat denial and/or insults.

All of that said, I don't think Dr Tyson was trolling theists. To me, his tweets (and I follow him on Twitter) seemed more to come across as "here's someone who often gets forgotten at this time of year". And I'm looking forward to his show. Dr Tyson seems to have figured out how one can publicly be an atheist without being a jerk about it.

[JimDandy]

77. Never heard any of this til now. Glad you posted it

because I love what Tyson said!