Absolutely. I think it was the humanism of the Enlightenment that informed the social norms we are accustomed to today. But the point is that Christianity is not inherently violent.
You can use the market the measure an athlete’s Q rating, or his popularity, or…well, a great many things. Not his ability to complete a pass.
NFL.com has him dead last at #33 (there are 32 teams) for completion percentage, and he’s near or at the bottom of every passing related stat.
He runs well, he inspires his team mates, he makes plays in the clutch. He’s very popular. It doesn’t change the fact that he’s the most ineffective passer in the NFL today, and it could probably be argued that he’s among the least effective in the last 50 years.
Sinbad’s comedy ranks higher than Tebow’s passing.
But where’s the fun in under-analyzing? 
Maher has made it clear in his public comments & in the movie “Religulous” that he sees religious fanatics as the most dangerous people on Earth. He’s a guy that points at 9/11 and says “That’s where religion will take many people.” It’s safe to say he thinks religious fanatics are bad, and Tebow is a fanatic.
Agree with him or not, saying religion is bad for society is as valid of an opinion as saying dog fighting is bad for society. Maher was rather rough with Vick too.
Or perhaps you’re right and he didn’t put that much thought into it. Bill Maher isn’t above taking cheap shots. Nor should he be.
Or maybe it’s both?
That doesn’t make a lot of sense.
There weren’t a lot of fundamentalist Christians involved in 9/11 - why isn’t Maher going after Muslims?
Praying after a touchdown is as bad as dogfighting? Seems a bit of a stretch to me.
Tebow is alleged to have spent much of his signing bonus on “various worldwide charity organizations focusing on famine, education and home-building”, motivated apparently by his religious convictions.
Seems a little unfair - some “religious fanatics” blow up buildings and kill thousands of innocent people, and Maher calls them incredibly brave. Another “religious fanatic” comes suddenly into a lot of money, and the first thing he thinks to do with it is contribute to charity. But Maher makes fun of him.
Regards,
Shodan
A fanatic? For pity’s sake.
But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that to be true. How is Maher’s tweet helpful in any way? Does it defend his thesis in any way? Does it foster meaningful discussion, alerting people to the dangers of religion? I think we all know that it doesn’t.
“But it can’t do that!” Czarcasm would reply. “It simply is not possible to communicate such things through a brief tweet!” In that, he’s correct – and there lies the problem. Even if we were to grant that religious fanatics are the most dangerous people on Earth, to use your phrasing, Maher’s tweet does nothing with regard to that issue. Instead, it is simply a cheap shot, full of venom and devoid of humor. All this talk about the dangers of religion are simply irrelevant. They are a post hoc attempt to justify his actions, giving his tweet far more gravitas than his words actually contained.
I don’t understand why anyone is arguing for gravitas. He’s a comedian. And perhaps you misunderstand what ‘humor’ means, but you not personally not finding it funny doesn’t make it devoid of humor. That shit was hilarious.
Also, if someone walked around with Star Wars stickers on his face, would you call him a Star Wars fanatic?
I’m not saying that he must convey a sense of gravitas. I’m not saying that he must say something profound. What I am saying, as I’ve taken great pains to emphasize, is that his tweet does nothing to defend the notion that religion is a dangerous force. Ergo, all this talk about the dangers of religion is simply irrelevant to the topic at hand.
If people want to defend Maher’s actions, they are welcome to do so. Raising the point that Maher is concerned about the dangers of religion is simply a smokescreen, though. It’s a complete red herring, having nothing to do with the actual content of his tweet.
I’d consider that person a fan. I might even say that his actions are a bit excessive. Does this necessarily make that person a fanatic? Absolutely not.
Are you under the impression that Maher hates Christians but loves Muslims? If so, you are way off. He *has *gone after Muslims. He didn’t in this particular tweet because none of them got rogered by the Buffalo Bills on Christmas eve. He didn’t mention child abusers either … does that put him on some Sandusky-level now too?
So you think that wearing stickers on your face at work falls within some kind of norm?
It makes plenty of sense.
Who said Maher doesn’t go after Muslims?
I would agree with you completely if that’s even remotely what I said. I compared one man’s opinion of their (dogfighting & religion) respective effects on society at large. Maher is commenting on Tebow’s off the field fanaticism, and his playing ability. His on the field praying (praising) is a small part of that.
You don’t have to sell me. Tebow seems like an all right guy. I don’t think being religious makes anyone a bad person. I don’t think Maher thinks that either. I think Maher thinks along the lines of “If praising God made you a better QB, you’d be a better QB, but–ha ha! Tebow stinks!”
It may be unfair. That’s life. If every comedian was held to the standard of making fun of people in a way that’s fair…well…that’s asking too much. It’s enough to say that Maher has his fans, and he has people that don’t like him. That’s going to be true with every entertainer/commentator/satirist/whatever. Are you suggesting that Maher doesn’t have the right to make fun of Tebow? Did you find the tweet offensive? Or did you just find it unfunny?
As for the ‘incredibly brave’ comment, Maher didn’t quite say that either. The exact words were “not cowardly.”
I said no such thing. Quite the contrary; I said that I might even consider it to be excessive. This is not the same as saying that he’s a fanatic, though.
Well, “fanatic” means someone who loves excessively and uncritically.
Do you have any reason to presume that Tebow is critical of Jesus?
You are incorrect. They are not.
I’m not defending Maher’s tweet. I believe there is nothing to defend. It was a joke that you apparently didn’t like. If you don’t want to get further into it than that, then feel free to move along and allow the rest of us to have a discussion.
The most openly religious player in the league got whacked on Christmas Eve by the Buffalo Bills*. There’s a joke in there somewhere. Maher made one. So did lots & lots of people.
I thought I was participating in a discussion based on the tweet that seemed to be exploring why people were offended…and why Maher would say such a thing. While I don’t understand people getting offended, I thought I’d contribute a little on why I thought Maher would tweet that.
*The Bills are known as a perennial also-ran in the NFL, just in case this wasn’t common knowledge.
No, it still doesn’t, at least to me. Is Maher saying that Tebow is an abortion bomber?
I understand that Maher thinks religion is as bad as dogfighting - I just think his opinion is stupid.
Again, this doesn’t make sense. If Maher thinks Tebow is a bad person because of his off-field “religious fanaticism”, and is blaming him for abortion clinic bombings and 9/11, that’s dumb, because Tebow’s off-field “religious fanaticism” leads him to donate large sums to charity instead of killing anyone.
Regards,
Shodan
Do you know the etymology of the word “fan” (and not the electric kind)?
I don’t know, and frankly, it doesn’t matter. Even if Tim Tebow has never been critical of Jesus, that doesn’t make him a fanatic. That’s because the dictionary.com definition which you’re using demands that one’s love for a cause be both excessive AND uncritical. I see no reason to believe that his love for Jesus is excessive, so the whole point is moot. (I may consider one of his actions – his use of stickers on his face – to be a bit over the top, but that does not mean that he love Jesus more than is warranted. That is a critical distinction, one which people might ignore when they are unconcerned about nuances.)
As an aside, it wouldn’t really matter anyway if I had reason to believe that Tebow was ever critical of Jesus or not. That’s because the burden of proof does not rest on my shoulders to prove his lack of fanaticism. Rather, the burden rests on his accusers, and if they’re going to use a dictionary definition of fanaticism (with all the failings that dictionary definitions often have), they they should at least apply these definitions in a very precise manner.
I do indeed. I do not consider the words “fan” and “fanatic” to be absolutely synonymous though, and the dictionaries that I’ve consulted seem to back me up on that matter.
He made a joke.
Either you got it or you didn’t.
Either you think it’s funny or you don’t.
Anything else is Fox ringing the bell and the Foxfans salivating on cue.
You say “nuance”, I say “evasive action”.
Because I’m guessing you wouldn’t hesitate to quantify the love of the guy wearing the Star Wars stickers on his face at work.