And they should.The Morality in Media spokesman [Bob Peters] says while Christian leaders should not get special treatment, they should be treated with respect. "I'm not saying that Christian leaders shouldn't be criticized when they've done something wrong," he points out, "but if there are rules of civility that generally apply, why should it be that it's okay to violate those rules when it comes to Christian leaders...?"
Of course, this is not an effort to "countenance nastiness in any direction," Peters insists. "I just think the same standards should apply," he says.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Bill Maher and the Grace of Double Standards
I am not much on Bill Maher because he is generally a nasty man with even nastier opinions and I don't blog much on the opinions such as his. However, this time speaking ill of the dead, he has yet to be called out on his irreverent and just plain mean statements regarding the death of Jerry Falwell. While the national media has taken about every opportunity to blast the dead leader, Bill Maher's hate rhetoric goes unchallenged.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I have to admit that I enjoy Maher many times. But he absolutely has a mean streak to him and is hyper critical of people of faith. I agree that his response to Falwell's death was inappropriate.
I don't really see how you can enjoy him, but to each his own.
I watch if there is someone that interests me on his show. I watched when Huckabee was on there, and Huckabee's remark to Maher about Cheney wanting to take him hunting was hilarious. I find Maher to be one of the most assertive liberals, though.
Interesting. Maher used to be a libertarian--really not a liberal at all. Yes, he was liberal on drug use and sexuality, but was a pretty hard core conservative on many issues of government interference. I find it interesting that Bush has turned more conservatives into liberals than anything Al Gore or Nancy Pelosi have done.
When it comes down to it, I like his comedy routine. He isn't always funny, by any stretch, but can be hilarious. And I like his take on the torture and military stuff. He suggested that Bush and Cheney should not be able to call the rest of us traitors or unAmerican--not when they have done what they have done. I agree.
But like I said, and many of my commenting friends have noted (bootleg blogger, for example) his take on religion is excessive.
I would point out, btw, and this does not make Maher's statement on Falwell right--but there were conservatives who were less than respectful when David Halberstam died in a car wreck in San Fran. Like I said, that doesn't excuse Maher--not even close.
So Bush is now responsible for individual choice? That is interesting.
If Bill Maher is the way he is, it is because he chooses to be that way. If he wanted to be a conservative he certainly could, but like Ann Coulter, he has his niche and his audience.
I don't disagree on his stance on torture nor the war, but I find him to be inconsistent. He supports homosexual rights, but in his rant about Falwell, he mocks them with atrocious sexual bromides? Yeah, justify it as "funny" and laugh it off. Its OK because he can make those kinds of statements. That is what I don't get and why I contend he is extended grace by way of a double standard.
I would point out, btw, and this does not make Maher's statement on Falwell right--but there were conservatives who were less than respectful when David Halberstam died in a car wreck in San Fran.
Fine. We can one-up one another indefinitely and I have not said rr rhetoric is any less offensive, but just claiming that liberals should hold their "leaders" to the same standards they call the right to.
And Tony, I agree. We should hold Maher responsible as well. I don't see him at the Coulter stage, but see your point. In either case, he shouldn't have been so hateful about Falwell.
I didn't say that Bush was responsible for personal choice, and I think you know I didn't say that. What I said, perhaps not clearly, was that his policies have pushed many, many, many conservatives into the "liberal" ranks.
No, I know you didn't say that; just pushing for clarity. But there are some who, if the planets got out of alignment or if they lost ten bucks, somehow Bush would be to blame.
I take your point. I was more arguing that Bush and Rove have created the very opposite of the political realignment they envisioned. We could see the shift toward the Democratic party unlike anything we have seen since 1932. Maher is just one of those switching. Andrew Sullivan voted for Bush in 2000 and now is supporting Democratic candidates until, as he seems to put it, they can reclaim the conservative soul. The list of generals who were lifelong Republicans until this disaster of an administration appears to be getting longer by the day. The difference in the Senate this last election was Jim Webb--who worked for the Reagan admin.
Anyway.
I won't disagree that the GOP needs to be rescued by those hawking the faith. Seems like we have to vote Democratic in 08 just for accountability's sake. It may even be the responsible thing to do.
Post a Comment