There this a liberal tendency among some of my favorite commentators and entertainers, Bill Maher the late, great Bill Hicks to sort of bash American “ignoramuses”, etc etc. It’s a condescending liberal elitism.

Of course I wouldn’t say this aloud in the presence of any conservatives, but would Bill Maher have been so smart if he wasn’t highly educated and from a cosmopolitan place like New York City? Does he think his DNA is that different than his fellow Americans.

It’s all environment and consciousness.

The sons and daughters of the guards at Auschwitz were the ones protesting on Bonn against the Vietnam War.

Illmatic, correct me if I’m wrong but your point is that being American doesn’t automatically makes you stupid? “It’s all environment and consciousness.” Who is argueing that?

That doesn’t take away from the fact there’s a lot of stupidity to go around. Seems to me this is the dark side of the first amendment. Freedom of speech: the gift and the curse. Still, living freely among some screeching idiots seems preferable to living in a dictatorship without noise.

My point is that most Americans aren’t stupid and if they are that’s a social failing not an individual one.

And I don’t really see this issue as related to “freedom to speech” ideally the more freedoms the better we would be equipped to engage with each other in a pedagogical discourse.

Sean Hannity is actually quite intelligent by the way… wrong on basically everything, but he’s intelligent.

“… wrong on basically everything, but he’s intelligent.”

I’d like it explained to me how you can be both those things.

Also, I think it’s impossible to engage in a “pedagogical discourse” with a religious zealot who thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old, unless he or she plans on not saying anything and taking lots of notes.

I do think our country doesn’t do enough to ensure that every child has enough schooling to make educated decisions.

I have no problem if someone thinks that the Earth is 6,000 years old as long as they are willing to listen to the alternatives and engage in a constructive discourse. I also think that when we immediately discount religious revelation as a valid source of knowledge (or immediately discount the religious as “zealots”) then we are no better than those who won’t listen to scientific arguments…

I also think that when we immediately discount religious revelation as a valid source of knowledge (or immediately discount the religious as “zealots”) then we are no better than those who won’t listen to scientific arguments…

An altruistic yet destructive point of view. I do not, however, discount all people of faith as zealots.

@ moneda: Destructive? What is being destroyed? Who is destroying it? I think that most historians would agree that religion is not an inherently destructive social phenomenon…at least not more so than any other sociocultural institution.

The term “religion” has developed a negative connotation in recent years, mostly on account of popular conceptions of religiosity that associate it with militaristic forms of Christianity. As a result, we hear a lot of “I am spiritual, not religious.” Personally, I am not sure that this dichotomy is valid outside of the specific socioreligious contexts in which it is being employed.

A good article that touches upon these subjects is Jeff Stout’s article entitled “The Folly of Secularism.” Stout is a professor of philosophy & religion at Princeton.

this country is about as serious as clown shoes…

Gotta love bill maher

So many big words being thrown about.

btw, bill maher is a poopy head

THIS coming from the sugar daddy formerly known as Mr. Superhead.

It’s way too early (early work), but I just want to say that regarding religion I think Marx was one of the best commentators.

Unlike a lot of “militant aethists” he doesn’t see religion as the root of any problems.

“The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.”

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm

I agree with the Hitchenses and Dawnkins of the world, but I don’t like their approach.

Also the way a lot of militant secularists approach Islam reminds me of the way a lot of people approached Judaism in the early 20th century. Judaism was viewed not as a real religion, but as a global conspiracy of world elitists threatening to undermine Western civilization and Christian morals.

Remind you of any of the Islamophobia we see today?

“And I don’t really see this issue as related to “freedom to speech” ideally the more freedoms the better we would be equipped to engage with each other in a pedagogical discourse.”

“Ideally” is a key-word here. Absolute freedom of speech also means anybody can use their personal blowhole to make some noise, no matter how poorly constructed or misinformed a point may be. That’s what I mean with the ‘dark side’.

Take the continued spread of ‘The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion’ for instance. Complete antisemitic and fraudulent nonsense but protected by freedom of speech nonetheless. The alternative however, is censorship, which might an even bigger evil. Besides, that same freedom also means I’m able to blast it for what it is. Just take note that that freedom comes at a price.

Yeah, but I mean “freedom of speech” isn’t the reason why O’Reilly and company gets their ideas out there… it’s mostly the fact that Newscorp is behind them, using our “public airwaves” to disseminate their ideology.

But your right, free speech is dicey. I’m not sure what to make of what’s going on in Venezuela right now, but as someone who has spent some time in that country, im no big fan of their corporate media (imagine Glenn Beck-like dudes but 10x worse). You might be interested in this:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4683