Larry King - did he say "we only lost one guy at entebe?"

[cindy25]

last night's ep with Bill Maher

anyone youtube it?

[Dojo]

I would like to see that again too..! I was shocked to hear those two banter over how Israel knows how to get the job done. I think they were refering to the murder in Dubi. And then something about jews skiing? Or owning the mountains? I don't know,I hope youtube pops up here, the two were talking like no one was listening, really telling.

[Dojo]

Here it is.............

YouTube - Bill Maher Interview With Larry King pt.5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7RyG4k-y5E)

[YumYum]

I would like to see that again too..! I was shocked to hear those two banter over how Israel knows how to get the job done. I think they were refering to the murder in Dubi. And then something about jews skiing? Or owning the mountains? I don't know,I hope youtube pops up here, the two were talking like no one was listening, really telling.

Did you notice how they both laughed at the mention of Jesus?

[Dojo]

Did you notice how they both laughed at the mention of Jesus?

Yes, I think alot of Jews are past the point of hiding their disdain for non Jews. Apparently Mossad assassins GOOD,.......... Christians being charitable in the name of Jesus BAD.

[moostraks]

Yes, I think alot of Jews are past the point of hiding their disdain for non Jews. Apparently Mossad assassins GOOD,.......... Christians being charitable in the name of Jesus BAD.

Charitable? Would you feel like it was charitable if a catastrophe happened and a foreign religious group came and 'helped' your children off of american soil back to their native country where due to poverty you might never have the ability to see them again? As I understood the issue was that some of the orphans were not orphans.

Now, not having read into the story but going by what they were bantering about regarding this issue, there could be a fair amount of criticism to be heaped at the folks sitting in jail. I have seen too many people who are unable to have a child and they use a horrible situation to their advantage to get one.

[Dojo]

Charitable? Would you feel like it was charitable if a catastrophe happened and a foreign religious group came and 'helped' your children off of american soil back to their native country where due to poverty you might never have the ability to see them again? As I understood the issue was that some of the orphans were not orphans.

Now, not having read into the story but going by what they were bantering about regarding this issue, there could be a fair amount of criticism to be heaped at the folks sitting in jail. I have seen too many people who are unable to have a child and they use a horrible situation to their advantage to get one.

Except he wasn't refering to the incident, he said he wasn't following the story, he was bashing missionaries,

Here at about 3:00 min

YouTube - Bill Maher on Larry King Live - Part 4 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml93ZbukPN4)

[moostraks]

Except he wasn't refering to the incident, he said he wasn't following the story, he was bashing missionaries,

Here at about 3:00 min

YouTube - Bill Maher on Larry King Live - Part 4 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml93ZbukPN4)

No, he wasn't looking into the story. Which I took to mean he heard about it and was aware of the situation. Much as I am, having heard of it briefly in the news. He went on to address it as LK reigned him back in at the 4 minute mark. Watch him nod his head as if in agreement to what LK describes. To which he said it was child snatching and I agree with him...

As for his crack about missionaries, it is very often true. Look up the definition for a missionary. They don't go as an extension of the church to spread the love of their religion so much as they go to indoctrinate others on spiritual matters according to their beliefs. They often do play the game of withholding until one meets certain criteria. To which they are often told the failure to acquiesce to the authority of the church with lead to eternal damnation. Maher was being his irreverent self but pointing out a very real issue people have with missionaries.

As I took it the conversation was between an atheist and a jew. Why would a christian expect them to not to be condescending when the folks arrested are wrapping themselves in their faith as an excuse.

[jmdrake]

No, he wasn't looking into the story. Which I took to mean he heard about it and was aware of the situation. Much as I am, having heard of it briefly in the news. He went on to address it as LK reigned him back in at the 4 minute mark. Watch him nod his head as if in agreement to what LK describes. To which he said it was child snatching and I agree with him...

As for his crack about missionaries, it is very often true. Look up the definition for a missionary. They don't go as an extension of the church to spread the love of their religion so much as they go to indoctrinate others on spiritual matters according to their beliefs. They often do play the game of withholding until one meets certain criteria. To which they are often told the failure to acquiesce to the authority of the church with lead to eternal damnation. Maher was being his irreverent self but pointing out a very real issue people have with missionaries.

As I took it the conversation was between an atheist and a jew. Why would a christian expect them to not to be condescending when the folks arrested are wrapping themselves in their faith as an excuse.

If the reverse happened you could best believe the ADL would be involved and Larry King might cheer them on. Bill Maher was being a prick. (No surprise there). We don't know the full story of what happened, but he seems willing to castigate people simply for being Baptists! Look at it another way. Say if Larry King had a guest on about the recent arrests of rabbis for trafficking in illegal organs? Imagine if the guest had said "Well they were Jewish. That says it all".

[moostraks]

If the reverse happened you could best believe the ADL would be involved and Larry King might cheer them on. Bill Maher was being a prick. (No surprise there). We don't know the full story of what happened, but he seems willing to castigate people simply for being Baptists! Look at it another way. Say if Larry King had a guest on about the recent arrests of rabbis for trafficking in illegal organs? Imagine if the guest had said "Well they were Jewish. That says it all".

The ADL? Seriously? Sorry but I am having a problem with drumming up righteous indignation at an irreverent atheist and a jew mocking christians. There are bigger issues to get our knickers in a twist over. Maher was playing to his core supporters. It was tacky, but no big surprise. Does anyone really think this interview is going to make a serious backlash towards Christians?

Everyone wants to be a protected minority. It gets a bit ridiculous at some point. If you want to have your beliefs exhalted then don't look to someone who views your philosophy as contemptible.

Furthermore, Christians really should not condone the actions of missionaries just because of a knee jerk reaction based upon some perceived similarities in religious philosophy. This situation is not one upon which I would make my stance of the moral purity of missionaries or the Baptist faith.

[jmdrake]

The ADL? Seriously? Sorry but I am having a problem with drumming up righteous indignation at an irreverent atheist and a jew mocking christians. There are bigger issues to get our knickers in a twist over. Maher was playing to his core supporters. It was tacky, but no big surprise. Does anyone really think this interview is going to make a serious backlash towards Christians?

Everyone wants to be a protected minority. It gets a bit ridiculous at some point. If you want to have your beliefs exhalted then don't look to someone who views your philosophy as contemptible.

Furthermore, Christians really should not condone the actions of missionaries just because of a knee jerk reaction based upon some perceived similarities in religious philosophy. This situation is not one upon which I would make my stance of the moral purity of missionaries or the Baptist faith.

Gee. Did you get a receipt for that straw man when you bought it? :rolleyes: And why are you defending Maher's crap? You seem to be getting your "knickers in a knot" in the opposite direction. Am I calling for a boycott of King and Maher? No. Do I think they were being jerks? Well Maher was at least and there's nothing wrong for pointing that out. Further this doesn't mean all Baptist missionaries are "morally pure" or that even these missionaries are "morally pure". (The facts suggest that most of them were acting in good faith and didn't know what was happening wasn't legit. A trial court will decide that. But I guess you don't believe in giving Baptists the benefit of the doubt.) Once again, there's no difference between Maher making an issue over these people being Baptist and someone like David Duke making an issue over the Rabbis in the organ transplant ring being Jewish. And the "backlash" argument is a red herring.

[moostraks]

Gee. Did you get a receipt for that straw man when you bought it? :rolleyes: And why are you defending Maher's crap? You seem to be getting your "knickers in a knot" in the opposite direction. Am I calling for a boycott of King and Maher? No. Do I think they were being jerks? Well Maher was at least and there's nothing wrong for pointing that out. Further this doesn't mean all Baptist missionaries are "morally pure" or that even these missionaries are "morally pure". (The facts suggest that most of them were acting in good faith and didn't know what was happening wasn't legit. A trial court will decide that. But I guess you don't believe in giving Baptists the benefit of the doubt.) Once again, there's no difference between Maher making an issue over these people being Baptist and someone like David Duke making an issue over the Rabbis in the organ transplant ring being Jewish. And the "backlash" argument is a red herring.

LOL!!! For one screaming strawman you sure had no problem making up theoretical what ifs with your rabbis analogy. I am not in the mood to parse today so take your sanctimonious attitude elsewhere.

Knickers in a knot? You chose to over dramatize by crying character defamation and adl intervention. So I responded as to the ridiculousness of anyone claiming preferential treatment. Guess I should just have agreed. You were right it was a grievious assault on christians worthy of legal repercussions :rolleyes:

I do take exception to the issue of people who wrap themselves in their religion to excuse a fault and the people who apparently blindly support them due to a commonality in religious beliefs. I responded to the thead at the point when Dojo decided he would make an issue of child custody analogous to christian charity. Dumb move,imo, for any christian to take this matter up as such.

So how did you get to be such an insider on this matter?Upon what are you basing your opinion? Should Christians support them just because they were christian missionaries? Good faith is not an excuse for illegal actions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, or so the saying goes.:)

I am not here to make a final dispensation one way or the other on the so called 'facts' of the case, especially since my knowledge was and is admittedly but a cursory knowledge of the matter. It appears that you have much more information on the case and it has been decided so no discussion necessary. I differ in my limited analysis and feel that irregardless of what the intentions were the result appears to be some were not orphans and walking a mile in those parents moccasins those missionaries have some serious problems.

How would you feel if you were the parent of one of the non-orphans??? Can you think through the eyes of the children being spirited away to another country or the parents of the children being taken? Why in the world these people thinking uprooting children in the midst of a catastrophe would not also be detrimental is beyond me.

As for defending Maher I said it was tacky, what do I need to do flail myself? What is my responsibility to what he said in your opinion? Do we need a fairness doctrine, because that is clearly what this discussion seems to be heading towards as a means to solve the problem of christian bashing.

[NerveShocker]

That conversation seemed just like a hundred others I've seen of Bill Maher. Before you find the truth what Bill says makes a lot of sense actually. Years ago I was a fan.. and a democrat :P Luckily I was too young to vote.

[jmdrake]

LOL!!! For one screaming strawman you sure had no problem making up theoretical what ifs with your rabbis analogy. I am not in the mood to parse today so take your sanctimonious attitude elsewhere.


The rabbis incident was not "made up".

See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32103250/




Knickers in a knot? You chose to over dramatize by crying character defamation and adl intervention. So I responded as to the ridiculousness of anyone claiming preferential treatment. Guess I should just have agreed. You were right it was a grievious assault on christians worthy of legal repercussions :rolleyes:


And here's the strawman. I never said that it would be worthy of legal repercussions. But you seem to have a problem with even the mildest criticism of Maher over this. Why?



I do take exception to the issue of people who wrap themselves in their religion to excuse a fault and the people who apparently blindly support them due to a commonality in religious beliefs. I responded to the thead at the point when Dojo decided he would make an issue of child custody analogous to christian charity. Dumb move,imo, for any christian to take this matter up as such.


Except there's no evidence that anyone "wrapped themselves in their religion". Nobody has claimed "You ought to let us go because we are Baptists". Quite the opposite. Larry King mentioned that they were Baptists and Maher took that as an opportunity to randomly attack Baptists.



So how did you get to be such an insider on this matter?Upon what are you basing your opinion? Should Christians support them just because they were christian missionaries? Good faith is not an excuse for illegal actions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, or so the saying goes.:)


Insider information? That's the claims being made. And actually according to the law good faith can be an excuse for illegal action. Most crimes require what is known as a "mens rea" or "bad intent". For instance, if a minor honestly doesn't know that the punch was spiked that is an affirmative defense for underage drinking. And I would say the same thing if these were atheists, Buddhists, Muslims or whatever.



I am not here to make a final dispensation one way or the other on the so called 'facts' of the case, especially since my knowledge was and is admittedly but a cursory knowledge of the matter. It appears that you have much more information on the case and it has been decided so no discussion necessary.


Quite the opposite. I'm saying that the case has not been decided and it's appropriate to give at least some people involved the benefit of the doubt. In fact my initial statement was we don't have the full story. I'm also saying that using this incident to castigate an entire religion is beyond the pale. When people try to imply that "all muslims or terrorists" or "all terrorists are muslims" I have the same reaction.



I differ in my limited analysis and feel that irregardless of what the intentions were the result appears to be some were not orphans and walking a mile in those parents moccasins those missionaries have some serious problems.

How would you feel if you were the parent of one of the non-orphans??? Can you think through the eyes of the children being spirited away to another country or the parents of the children being taken? Why in the world these people thinking uprooting children in the midst of a catastrophe would not also be detrimental is beyond me.


How would you feel if you were in another country driving the truck, were told "these were all orphans", didn't have any reason to think otherwise, and you were now sitting in jail because the person who arranged this all screwed up? Or how would you feel as a parent of these children if some loudmouthed atheist decided to attack your faith because some other members of your faith screwed up? While the parents of these orphans were probably not Baptists, they were most likely Christian. I don't think they'd buy the nutty assertion by Maher that somehow a charity is bad because it "includes Jesus". You want to turn this into whether or not the actions of the missionaries were justified when the real issue is whether or not it is fair for Maher to extrapolate those actions (which have not yet been adjudicated) to Christianity as a whole. I reject such extrapolation when it's done to other religions and I reject it when it's done to Christianity.



As for defending Maher I said it was tacky, what do I need to do flail myself? What is my responsibility to what he said in your opinion? Do we need a fairness doctrine, because that is clearly what this discussion seems to be heading towards as a means to solve the problem of christian bashing.

:rolleyes: Just because I state on an internet forum that I think Maher was being a jerk doesn't mean that I'm pushing for a fairness doctrine.

Look. It's real simple. I simply disagree with this assertion you made:

Why would a christian expect them to not to be condescending when the folks arrested are wrapping themselves in their faith as an excuse.

I think that it's perfectly reasonable for a Christian (or anyone else for that matter) to not expect such a crass statement. Does that mean Larry King and/or Bill Maher should be taken off the air? Of course not. Does that mean we need a "fairness doctrine"? Nope. I gave you an example of how it would look if the tables were turned. You don't see it that way. Oh well.

[moostraks]

Gosh...gotta parse..okey dokey here we go:

The rabbis incident was not "made up".

See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32103250/

I know that wasn't made up, but the extension of that thought was.

And here's the strawman. I never said that it would be worthy of legal repercussions. But you seem to have a problem with even the mildest criticism of Maher over this. Why?

I know that the rabbis wasn't made up, but the extension of that thought was. Why are you assuming I give a damn about Maher? Criticize the hell out of him as that is really between you, him, and your maker. I said people should not look to him for support, especially when he is diametrically opposing them philosphically. Why are you so intent on portraying me as supporting him? If I bloodlet will that be sufficient for you? I think the guy is a grade a jerk.



Except there's no evidence that anyone "wrapped themselves in their religion". Nobody has claimed "You ought to let us go because we are Baptists". Quite the opposite. Larry King mentioned that they were Baptists and Maher took that as an opportunity to randomly attack Baptists.

Yes they are being wrapped in their religion. First off by hiding behind the missionary tag as an assumption they are merely there to do good and garner public support for their 'cause'. If they were independant of that missionary tag would so many people be willing to jump to their support?

By making a huge production of issues such as this you will get more tyranny not less. Guess freedom of speech is only when it is a fair limitation on all speech.:rolleyes: An atheist attacked a religious group...wow color me surprised.


Insider information? That's the claims being made. And actually according to the law good faith can be an excuse for illegal action. Most crimes require what is known as a "mens rea" or "bad intent". For instance, if a minor honestly doesn't know that the punch was spiked that is an affirmative defense for underage drinking. And I would say the same thing if these were atheists, Buddhists, Muslims or whatever.

When one is transporting minor children from a foreign nation away from their homeland the level of liability would warrant an extreme amount of care be taken in assuring the parties being transported aren't in actuality being abducted. Ignorance of the law is not a legitimate defense if due dilligence wasn't done

Ex:My neighbor's child gets hurt I provide reasonable care until the responsible parties are available to make life altering decisions or offer my assistance. I do not unilaterally transport them to another country many miles away and provide care.


Quite the opposite. I'm saying that the case has not been decided and it's appropriate to give at least some people involved the benefit of the doubt.
And conversely I believe we should hesitate in embracing the group as being charitable without insider knowledge


In fact my initial statement was we don't have the full story. I'm also saying that using this incident to castigate an entire religion is beyond the pale. When people try to imply that "all muslims or terrorists" or "all terrorists are muslims" I have the same reaction.

As for castigating a branch of a religion, I say look at who is doing the complaining and move on. Christians can either look like whiners and call for blood which will result in more authoritarianism or turn the other cheek. How often do Christians malign those they are in disagreement on? We can't even agree within our own broad spectrum of religious philosophy much less within our sect.


How would you feel if you were in another country driving the truck, were told "these were all orphans", didn't have any reason to think otherwise, and you were now sitting in jail because the person who arranged this all screwed up?

I would be kicking myself for my lack of discernment when it came to trusting the person in charge of the operation. I would learn that next time I would be more dilligent or find a better way to provide support during a catastrophe.

It is clear we are allying with opposite parties on this issue and as such will not have an agreement regarding who was harmed here.


Or how would you feel as a parent of these children if some loudmouthed atheist decided to attack your faith because some other members of your faith screwed up? While the parents of these orphans were probably not Baptists, they were most likely Christian.

??? Parents of whom-the orphans or the one's who were not orphans that were being taken out of country? One might reason that the parents of the non-orphans might have a few choice words themselves.

Considering the demographics of Haiti and that it is reasoned approximately 80% are Catholics have you viewed what Baptists say about Catholics? Many do not consider Catholics christians and that is putting the views mildly I have heard espoused.


I don't think they'd buy the nutty assertion by Maher that somehow a charity is bad because it "includes Jesus".
Neither do I.


You want to turn this into whether or not the actions of the missionaries were justified when the real issue is whether or not it is fair for Maher to extrapolate those actions (which have not yet been adjudicated) to Christianity as a whole. I reject such extrapolation when it's done to other religions and I reject it when it's done to Christianity.

Wrong...I responded to two seperate issues put forth today. One, that this was strictly a matter of good people maligned. Without insider knowledge we can only put forth our own biased opinion and it is clear we disagree. Two, that a christian should look to an irreverent atheist and expect him to extol the virtues of the individuals in the situation.




:rolleyes: Just because I state on an internet forum that I think Maher was being a jerk doesn't mean that I'm pushing for a fairness doctrine.

Look. It's real simple. I simply disagree with this assertion you made:

Why would a christian expect them to not to be condescending when the folks arrested are wrapping themselves in their faith as an excuse.

I think that it's perfectly reasonable for a Christian (or anyone else for that matter) to not expect such a crass statement. Does that mean Larry King and/or Bill Maher should be taken off the air? Of course not. Does that mean we need a "fairness doctrine"? Nope. I gave you an example of how it would look if the tables were turned. You don't see it that way. Oh well.

And I don't see anything in the media that surprises me and am frustrated with people who seem to need 'fairness'. Much less the sweeping generalizations of the goodness of people merely because they are members of their faith base...

[jmdrake]

1) You really don't think that Larry King would have gotten upset if someone used the rabbi organ scandal to make a swipe at all Jews? Well we'll just have to agree to disagree.

2) You're ok with people criticizing Maher? Great. Because that's all that's happened here. I'm not sure what your point is.

3) I'm not sure how people criticizing Maher is somehow a "call for authoritarianism". Again see point 2.

4) Nobody has raised "But we're Baptists" as a defense. The defense is "We didn't know what the hell was going on". (Well, being Baptists they probably said "heck" but you get the point).

5) As for your "Baptist versus Catholics" split, Maher went beyond that we he said "Why don't they just leave Jesus out". He went beyond just Baptists to Christians in general.

6) I agree that the parents and orphans were harmed. I'm simply pointing out that there are (possibly) more victims. I'm willing to wait for the process to sort out whether the evidence bears up what these people are saying.

7) I didn't know Maher was an atheist before you said it, but I don't think that should matter. If Maher was a Christian making a gross generalization against Muslims or Jews I'd still criticize him. See point #2.

8) I'm not expecting Maher or anyone else to make sweeping generalizations of the "goodness" of anyone. I just take offense at him making sweeping generalizations of the "evil" of a group he doesn't like. Sure he has a right to do it. No I'm not pushing for a "fairness doctrine" or any such nonsense. Again see point #2.

[moostraks]

My point was to turn the other cheek and rise above their pettiness. Furthermore to withhold judgement as well as things may not be what they seem. We are just at opposite ends of the spectrum...

Edited to clarify ** I support the families of those non-orphans and have serious disdain to anyone who messes with a child and their parents.**

[jmdrake]

Well I don't think "turn the other cheek" means "pretend it didn't happen". Jesus didn't do that. Ghandi didn't do it either. I also consider my position to be one of "withholding judgment". In fact that pretty much been my main point. I think Maher is "passing judgment" because he doesn't like Baptists. In fact I'm sure of it. That's essentially what he said. And I support families of non-orphans. Who wouldn't? I don't like people who mess with a child either. I don't like terrorists or child molesters or fill-in-the-blank. But I also believe in the presumption of innocence. And in this case it seems that at least some of the people involved may have been innocent. And I'm not just saying that because they are Christians. I'm saying it because of what I've seen so far of the case.