Skip to comments.Maher to Guest Defending Islam in Wake of Boston Bombings: 'That's Liberal ####'
Posted on 04/20/2013 11:10:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
Bill Maher on HBO's Real Time Friday made a statement that will make the Right cheer as the left predictably cringes.
After his guest Brian Levin - the director of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino - said of the Boston bombings and how it relates to radical Islam, "We have hypocrites across faiths, Jewish, Christian who say they're out for God and end up doing not so nice things," Maher marvelously responded, "Thats liberal bulls--t right there" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Maher to Guest Defending Islam in the Wake of Boston Bombing: 'That's Lberal Bulls--t'
BILL MAHER, HOST: So you're obviously the perfect person to have here today. You study this all the time, the mind of crazy people who do horrible things. I'm always interested to know how people like the people we caught today up in Boston can have two minds going at the same time. I mean, if you read what the older brother wrote on his, on the internet, he said his world view: Islam. Personal priorities: career and money. And we see this a lot. I mean, the 9/11 hijackers went to strip clubs the night before they got on the plane.
BRIAN LEVIN, DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF HATE AND EXTREMISM AT CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SAN BERNADINO: Could I just interject? Look, it's not like people who are Muslim who do wacky things have a monopoly on it. We have hypocrites across faiths, Jewish, Christian who say they're out for God and end up doing not so nice things.
MAHER: You know what? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You know what? That's, thats liberal bullshit right there. I mean, yes, all faiths
LEVIN: There are no Christian hypocrites?
MAHER: No, there are.
LEVIN: You make a career on that.
MAHER: They just, they're not as dangerous. I mean, there's only one faith, for example, that kills you or wants to kill you if you draw a bad cartoon of the prophet. Theres only one faith that kills you or wants to kill you if you renounce the faith. An ex-Muslim is a very dangerous thing. Talk to Salman Rushdie after the show about Christian versus Islam. So, you know, Im just saying, let's keep it real.
LEVIN: Well, I guess I have a girl for you, Pam Geller you could maybe meet. No, I really disagree with you.
MAHER: I don't know what that means.
LEVIN: Well, shes an Islamaphobe. But, no I
MAHER: Im not an Islamaphobe. Thats wrong. I am a truth lover. All religions are not alike. As many people have pointed out, The Book of Mormon. Did you see the show?
LEVIN: No, it's hard to get tickets.
MAHER: Okay, can you imagine if they did "The Book of Islam?" Could they do that? Theres only one religion that threatens violence and carries it out for things like that. Could they do The Book of Islam on Broadway?
LEVIN: Possibly so.
MAHER: Possibly so? Tell me what color the sky is in your world.
LEVIN: Here's my difficulty with your premise here, Bill, and that is look at how religions over history have had things done in their name that have been terrible.
MAHER: Absolutely. But we're not in history. We're in 2013.
LEVIN: But what I would tell you
MAHER: You're right, during the Middle Ages, I would say Christianity was the bigger problem.
LEVIN: If I may, though. You are making an error in that Islam has over 1.4 billion adherents. Theres a heterogeneity to it. Are there extremists who are horrible people who would slit your throats? Yes. But there are also folks that are fine, upstanding people.
MAHER: Of course.
LEVIN: And I'm very worried you have a national audience where we're promoting Islamic hatred.
MAHER: No, you're wrong about that and you're wrong about your facts. Now, obviously, most Muslim people are not terrorists, but ask most Muslim people in the world, if you insult the prophet, do you have what's coming to you. It's more than just a fringe element.
Folks that are surprised by this shouldn't be, as this isn't the first time Maher has come out strongly against radical Islam.
In 2011, he told Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) that the Koran is a "hate-filled book" and that "the threat potentially from radicalized Muslims is a unique and greater threat" than from "right-wing militias and Timothy McVeigh types."
As for going after the hypocrisy of the Left, Maher last month said in regard to the high taxes he's now paying, "Liberals - you could actually lose me."
Is there hope for Bill Maher?
Is it possible the far more reasonable person that existed in the '90s with a program on Comedy Central called Politically Incorrect is starting to reemerge after more than a decade of hibernation?
I think the great majority of card-carrying libs and leftist know that Islam is the biggest threat in the world. But they’re just so conditioned to hating conservative Christians most of them cannot bring themselves to speak the obvious.
I’d not be surprised to see more peoples eyes opened. I’m sure that there were more than a few libtards caught off guard by his statements. Maybe they’ll start seeing the bullsh!t.
I know your intentions are good
I’ve just never been nor will ever be that level a Christian
You ever see The Mission
I’m more DeNiro than Irons
No...he just recognizes their are certain truths that are indisputable
After all, he may be a liberal, but he isn't a idiot...
Don’t let him know you’re praying for him.... That will drive him right back to liberal doucheville.
I’m torn. I hate Maher, but he’s correct somewhat here
The Turks of the 18th century and the Hashemites were too mild for him (they only persecuted Christians and Jews, they didn't slaughter them)
Saud and Wahabb made a pact to support each other
When the house of Saud got money in the 70s (thanks to our cars), they then splurged it on spreading Wahabiism to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Chechnya, Bosnia etc. etc.
With Mayer’s homosexual joke about MeCain & Graham & now calling B.S. on ‘all faiths do it’, the broke clock has been right twice now.
And then to think we went to war in 1991 against Saddam to defend the “House of Saud”....what fools we were.
Here is the relevant excerpt from Laux's Church History: "The total number of men and women, priests, monks, etc., who suffered death in England for the Catholic faith from 1535 to 1681 is over six hundred, several hundred of whom have been beatified." (p 454) Of course, Fr. John Laux's book is the Roman version of the story so it doesn't tell you that Bloody Mary, Henry's daughter who adhered to the Church of Rome, killed comparable numbers of Christians, usually burning them alive.
200,000? Seriously? Wow. The worst internecine slaughter of Christians during that period occurred in France, during the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre: The number of Huguenot's murdered is estimated to be between 5,000 and 30,000. Unlike the English persecutions, which were confined to specific cases, that particular bit of Roman treachery was a deliberate decapitation strike against the French Reformers, whose leaders had gathered to honor a royal wedding.
Never seen this before but I love it!
It is you that should learn some history. I don’t think Maher was referring to the Crusades but to the mass slaughter between Catholics and Protestants not to mention the torture chambers operated by the church. Christians were killing Christians. Heretics and women were being burned alive in the name of Christ. People who thought the earth was round were killed! Modern Christians must disassociate themselves from the crimes of the Christians of the Middle Ages.
&&&@*&$*( Bush senior to *&@#)*$)#
Saddam was a mean, evil son of a .... but he was a secular, mean, evil, son of a ......
If we hadn't stuck our nose in (thank you Bush senior!) Saddam would right now have crushed Iran with Saudi and Qatari money and Al Qaeda would be crushed.
christians in Syria and Iraq would be safe and the Ayatollahs would be out of power in Iran and the Saudis would have to bow to Saddam
Why did we butt in?
Idiots, idiots, idiots
And the road to 9/11 starts in 1991. Osama used the "stationing of Infidel troops on the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia" as reason for 9/.11
however, what did the Huguenots do? In the affair of the placards they posted placards all over Paris and even on the bedchamber door of the king (a security breach that angered him and made him change his tolerance position) -- these placards were attacks on Catholics.
So, instead of discussing, the Huguenots went to attack the Catholic majority who until then were content to let them live and debate and discuss and debate. Incidently, until this time the Huguenots were increasing, like the Moslems in Bradford, but then they started to get shrill and wake people up with their attacks
This polemic was an attack and the Huguenots started this retaliation.This was in 1534
Next, came the French wars of religion in which the Huguenots conspired against the King. This, added to the previous attack meant that they now publically came to attack the conservative forces. The progressives of the Huguenots were the precursors of the Revolutionaires
The people who became Huguenots were primarily the urban elite, like our present-day New Yorkers who take a fad and they saw that this was a means to oppose the King, so Huguenotism became a political tool
A group of Huguenots tried to kidnap the Prince Francis II when his father died -- causing more antagonism.
Huguenots in 1560 attacked Catholic Churchs and destroyed properties in Rouen and La Rochelle -- thus the FIRST salvo was lobbed by the Huguenots. -- the Catholics retailiated with mobs at seeing their places of worship attacked and defiled by Huguenots
Next, in 1562-70, we have the wars -- now political-religious, so no, it was not a simple case of "persecution" --> The Huguenots were one side of a civil war, which they lost
Now, let's come to the juicy part, the St. Bart's day massacre -- this occured in 1572, 40 years after the first provocations by the Huguenots and 12 years after they started destroying Catholic Churchs (just like the Moslems in America they were quiet until their numbers grew)
now, King Charles XI was openly in favor of the Huguenots -- so a political moment. Hence the attacks on the opposing side
So, let's see in conclusion -- Huguenots first start their provocations in 1534, then in 1560 start attacking Catholic Churchs (with no provocation), then start their political support against the conservatives and start a civil war. After 12 years their side loses the civil war and yet they are still allowed to live and practise their faith (note this is the 1500s, not a nice time, yet they get this tolerance) -- but they still play political intrigues. So, one faction starts to attack and massacre the other faction
so, stop the entire "poor persecuted Huguenots" -- they brought it on themselves.
And lets see more about these Huguenots. They went to South Africa to set up the apartheid system, they went to Prussia to form the beginnings of the Prussian system which directly led to Naziism...
A cogent moment. I’ll give him that. Nothing more.
You are such a tool. So far the muzzies have killed but a mere fraction of what Middle Ages Christians did. Don’t forget there are no statistics for the number of deaths in the Christian torture chambers. I’m not proud of the Church’s past but you can’t just ignore it. Men really are sinners and we are just as bad as the muzzies. Don’t cast stones!
So what’s your point? Christians were fighting Christians. End of story. Sad
They can’t do that and remain faithful to Islam. It is a cult of conquest.
LEVIN: Well, I guess I have a girl for you, Pam Geller you could maybe meet.
How many people has Pam Geller killed?