This last week’s Real Time with Bill Maher was really good. You never know with that show — it’s either really well done, or just boring/painful to watch. This week’s panel was Muslim author Reza Aslan, actor Jason Alexander, and my old Congressman from GA, Jack Kingston. Good discussion all around — well worth watching.
I liked this particular exchange between Maher and Aslan, referencing religious perspectives on torturing:
Bill Maher: And I think this is interesting. There was a Pew study of different religions: 31% of Protestants and only 26% of Catholics said it was never okay to torture. That seems like a very small percentage of Catholics – 26% — to say, you know – Jesus was tortured – to say it was never okay. Forty-one percent of secular people – atheists or agnostic – said it was never okay to torture. And I – I bring this up because, reading your book, I was struck by how liberal and tolerant Muhammad was. I didn’t really know that.And I think there’s something Christianity and Islam have in common, which is that neither one of them follow their leaders. [applause]
Reza Aslan [author of the book No god but God]: Well, no, this is true – this is true not just of Islam or Christianity, it’s true to religion. You know, we have this idea, somehow, that prophets invent religions, that Jesus invented Christianity, or that Muhammad invented Islam. Nothing could be further from the truth.
What prophets do is they take the social and cultural and economic and political milieu in which they live, and they reshape it. They recast it. They don’t talk about the future. They talk about the present.
It’s the prophet-followers who then take those words—
MAHER: [overlapping] and screw it up.
ASLAN: [overlapping]—take those deeds, and turn it into what we call a religion. And it’s often the case that it has far more to do with their own ideas, their own biases, than it does with what the prophet said or did.
Technorati tags: Real+Time, Bill+Maher, Islam, Christianity, torture, Iraq+war, Jesus, Muhammad
I’m sorry but Bill Maher is a pompous self-righteous ass.
Poor V. Maybe you should read what the quote above actually says, rather than just viscerally reacting to someone’s opinion you may not always agree with. Have you taken the time to watch any of these panel discussions? Did you even watch this clip?
My weariness comes from the “self-righteous” and “pompous” who pass judgement without taking the time to address the topic at hand. (and this comment refers to anyone who condemns something outright without considering the context or what is actually being said — or, my personal favorite, someone who’ll condemn something without even watching the accused)
This post wasn’t meant to glorify Maher, but to analyze what was being discussed.
There are two themes here I find interesting. The first is that the religious are more likely to find at least one situation where torture is acceptable. On the surface this seem suprising, but I think that a belief in an absolute morality enforced by God (or something similar) allows for situations where humanism has no bearing. Why wouldn’t you torture an agent of supernatural evil, if it meant saving the lives of the righteous? The concept is messier and uglier without absolutes, and on reflection, the numbers make sense. I once knew a christian who honestly believed that reproduction was his weapon in a holy war. Focusing on the absolutes unsuprisingly leads to some extreme beliefs and behaviour.
Second, is the bold text from the Maher interview. The idea that religion is written not by the prophets, but by the disciples is self evident, but I object pretty strongly to a functional definition that makes a prophet indistinguishable from a talented politician. It might be useful to consider history in this light, but, I think such signifcant influences deserve more respect than that. I haven’t read the book though, so there’s a good chance I’m taking this out of context.