Bill Maher: If You Celebrated Bin Laden’s Death, You’re Not Really A Christian

[Walter Cronkite]

Reaction to Osama bin Laden’s death was overwhelmingly not just positive, but gleeful – and let’s face it, it’s not tough to see why. Bill Maher, though, tonight pointed out on Real Time that Christians who celebrate the death of even someone as evil as bin Laden are disobeying the part of their faith that instructs them to love their enemies – and, being Bill Maher, delighted in saying so.

It wasn’t so much a Christianity-bashing session as it was Maher bashing what he saw as hypocrisy with lines like, “Capping thine enemy is not exactly what Jesus would do – it’s what Suge Knight would do,” and “Martin Luther King gets to call himself a Christian because he actually practiced loving his enemies, and Gandhi was so fucking Christian he was Hindu” (okay, that last one bashed Christianity a bit).

Maher pointed out that “non-violence was kind of Jesus’s trademark,” and couldn’t reconcile it with the factoid that “more evangelical Christians than any other religion” support torture (for the record, these seem to be the numbers Maher was talking about, but that same link also says, “[P]arty and ideology are much better predictors of views on torture than are religion and most other demographic factors”).

And Maher didn’t absolve our black ninja gangster president from his criticism, either: he said he, like so many others, was “missing the message” on the non-violent teachings of Christianity. Then again, Maher also once went on record thinking Obama’s not really Christian. And while Maher made it clear he doesn’t have any personal problem with celebrating bin Laden’s demise:

“My favorite new government program is surprising violent religious zealots in the middle of the night and shooting them in the face”

…he’s also not conflicted. Why not? “[B]ecause I’m a non-Christian…just like most Christians.” This was much closer to Maher at his best than when he just goes after religions in general – the specific focus on the hypocrisy angle made it reminiscent of The Daily Show with more cursing…and we’re fine with that. Video below, via HBO.

Source: mediaite.com

[The Question]

Most "Christians" aren't Christians. They primarily follow the teachings of Paul rather than Jesus. I personally agree with Ghandi's opinion on the subject of Christians vs Christ.

[AndySMC]

I'm pretty sure most sects of Christianity teach that it's almost always acceptable to pray for a quick and easy death, for oneself or another. Rejoicing in the same is perhaps a little tacky, but at least in this case he seems to have died quickly. An abuse victim, for example, who prays for her or his abuser to die (quickly and preferably peacefully) isn't necessarily a bad Christian, nor is that person a bad Christian if she or he can finally and only relax after the abuser's death, nor even if he or she is relieved or even, in some way, happy about the abuser's death. And there's a fine line between celebrating a person's death and celebrating that the threat posed by that person no longer imposes itself on one's life.

Personally, I can't get John Donne's Meditation XVII out of my head: "...all mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated; God employs several translators; some pieces are translated by age, some by sickness, some by war, some by justice; but God's hand is in every translation, and his hand shall bind up all our scattered leaves again for that library where every book shall lie open to one another.... If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind..."

I'm not going to say I'm ecstatic that bin Laden is dead, nor that I'm particularly saddened by his death, nor that I think he's in a better place or any of that crap, but there's something about the loss, particularly the violent loss, of any life that is sobering and somehow inhuman. That counts for the lives he ended and his own ended life. That said, I'm not about to pretend that my joy at the news of his death was in any way a celebration of the bastard's life, but only in his death and what his death might mean for the (I hope decrease in) too-early loss of other lives in future. I'm not exactly happy that he was killed, but I can't say I'm not happy that he is dead.

Then again, I would never claim to be a good Christian, so maybe all this is irrelevant.

[Tech]

I don't understand how people can claim they are Christians and claim that they hate people/groups of people. I am even more confounded by folks who claim to hate IN Jesus' name. Most recently this phenomenon has been exemplified by the gay marriage debate. On many occasions I've heard people express disgust and hatred for gay folks *BECAUSE* they are Christian. I honestly don't understand the disconnect.

Listing the most likely possibilities that I can think of for this, certainly does not cast these Christians in a good light.

The only possibility that doesn't cast them in some shade of an evil light is:

A)They are actually wholly ignorant of Jesus message. They have never read through the gospels themselves, and have only ever heard the words of Jesus in gospel readings at a Church. Assuming the person, i) can read; ii) so lacks intellectual curiosity that this behavior is not abnormal; and iii) is not intentionally remaining ignorant for personal reasons, this person, if they don't voluntarily contradict what they do understand, is fairly blameless for misinterpreting Jesus' message. This is nearly the only possibility that is not damning, it shares space with:

B) They have read one or more of the Gospels and lack the capacity to interpret them in a meaningful way. However, this type of person strikes me as more likely than not of a childlike or dim enough in abilities that they are likely auto-magically let in to heaven based on God's totally righteous No Child Left Behind policy. Pretty much anyone else that I can think of who can and has read the Gospels and still molests the message is damned.

C) People who understand Jesus Message but believe that simply the act of saying they accept Jesus as savior saves them. Recalling that we are discussing Christians who bastardize Jesus message I suspect these folks find Jesus message inconvenient. I would also wager that the vast majority of false Christians fall under this category. Because of the inherent difficulty in coming to a conclusion I'll avoid trying to discover is they find Jesus' message inconvenient because they believe they are already saved or if they take on that religious paradigm because they find the message inconvenient.

Before continuing I am forced to relate what I believe Jesus' message was, both for debate and because the rest of my argument stands on identifying when this belief system is not being followed. I believe Jesus message was, simply stated, to love others as you love yourself. Essentially that all of humanity was your brothers and sisters and that everyone was equal in deserving and needing your love and understanding. That you should treat them all well, and help them whenever you can. Further, I am not speaking of a generic Hallmarky love which means really like in a teenage valley girl "OMG Becky, look I totally love you". No, Jesus means that deep love you harbor for children and parents and spouses. Real, deep, passionate, honest love. To love all men as you love yourself, simple.

This belief has a very interesting, if not obvious, side-effect. That love will naturally, and almost unstoppably lead to action. Can you imagine seeing your child homeless, starving, bleeding or in desperate pain and not doing something to help? Of course not. If you truly held this love for others you would be compelled to act in a self sacrificing manner. You wouldn't be acting because Jesus or God is watching your back, you wouldn't be doing good works because you want access to heaven. You would be acting because you love this person and want to see them in less pain. This relates heavily to be belief in what Jesus message was because if my interpretation of the message is right, then these actions deterministically follow. Consequently, anyone who claims to understand Jesus message but who's actions don't demonstrate that presents a problem.

Finally, back to the folks who say that they are saved because they say they accept Jesus as savior. I think this is an oft used excuse for not behaving as Jesus would have liked, because doing so is inconvenient. It takes time and effort and as mentioned before is wholly self-sacrificing. It's easier to say you believe the message is just to accept Jesus, and oh yeah love your neighbor, yadda yadda yadda. I think it also demonstrates an often intentional misunderstanding of the message, because they think they can get away with the just believing part. A mindset of that's good enough, and I'm busy anyways, and I'm more important. I could elaborate much more, but I think (hope) I got my point across.

D) This group is the worst. They have an agenda and are willing to use Jesus' name to advance it. They are well read of the bible, and will manipulate verses, statements, quotes and phrases to justify any and everything. They have a total disrespect for Jesus and God and whether they understand the message or not they are despicable and damned.

I'm certain there are numerous other sub-categories of people who misrepresent Jesus message/word but I think these 4 cover a substantial portion of this group. Back to the topic at hand Jesus would not dig the cheering of Bin Laden's death, that dude would not abide.

I am interested in any debate as to why and how people mis-characterize Jesus' message. I think it is a prevalent and visible phenomenon and a worthy topic of discussion.

Now it's time for the disclaimer, that right the disclaimer...

I believe Jesus and was a prophet, whether he was the son of god, whether there is a God/heaven/hell is a different debate and not up for discussion at this time. Frankly, the mystical side of things has no bearing on Jesus existence and message. He was a dude 2000 years ago, based on what I've read that he said and did, this is what I believe he wanted us to do in turn. In discussing the message whether or not I follow what I stated to believe his message was, is not a valid counter-argument and has no bearing on what I think is the message, don't do it. Now, let's have at it.