Religulous

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
It is my duty as a citizen to vote as I see fit. What determines my worldview, whether it's Christianity, Islam, Judaism, atheism, or what have you, will always play a role in how I vote. The argument that religion should stay out of politics is ridiculous at its core because it is akin to asking people to remove a substantial portion of their worldview from consideration when voting. It's like telling someone not to vote based on social security issues even though they're 61.5 years of age (or whatever the age is now) and SS is about to become increasingly relevant for them. People will always vote for whatever is most important to them. The more vehemently to tell them not to, the more stalwart they will be in doing it.

Yup, unfortunately we're one nation, inflicting our beliefs on each other. How selfish is that?

I wouldnt call it selfish but a simple state of human affairs. Until we are all one person countries with soviergn land. We will always force our views onto somebody who disagree's with us via govt.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
For the love country stop misquoting our founding fathers. That's so cliche.

John Adams:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

The first amendment was written to avoid what was going on in England at that time with the Church running the county. Let's not forget the basic laws that our country had early on about working on Sundays, mandatory church attendance... requirement of Christian profession to hold office etc... doesn't sound like the separation of church and state that I hear from your interpretation of Jefferson.

And how do you prevent the church (any church) from "running the country?" Easy. You strip them of any political power, exclude them from any government interaction and establish a religious-neutral tone in government that favors no religion (even the lack of religion - atheism).

The Founding Fathers very explicitly set up a secular state, a state with complete religious freedoms and a state free of any potential government religious coercion. That means that a Jew, Atheist, Christian or Hindu has equal rights before the law and has a right not to have any particular religion pushed on him by the government. Yet the science taught in school now days teaches science as religion, that evolution did in fact happen. Nobody was there to observe macro-evolution, nor do they have fossil samples showing the slow progression from fish to bird hence it remains a religion that the government is forcing on students.

That is the stupidest crap I've seen around here in quite some time. No one is teaching science as religion, that's your own retarded perspective interfering with reality again. Don't want your kids to learn science? Fine. Go home-school them or send them to ID-friendly church schools where they can grow up ignorant of science, but don't inflict your brand if idiocy on the rest of the kids in this country.

For fuck's sake, "nobody was there to observe evolution..." OMFG you're dumb.

It's much worse than forcing Christianity on students, at least that gives them a basis for morality.

You just spewed the second runner up for most retarded shit I think I've read in quite some time. One can have a basis for morality sans religion. What sort of arrogant shit thinks they have all the answers? You, that's who.

Pathetic.

 

[jonks]

From the trailer it looks like Bill is going to continue his quest to understand or failing that, to mock, the sacred cow of religious belief. Many people, like Bill and myself, cannot understand WHY otherwise seemingly intelligent people hold deeply to beliefs about the truth of events occurring 2000 years ago and more involving entities no more likely to exist than the greek gods which everyone refers to as myths.

But question if Moses really split the sea with a wave of his hand, or whether Jesus was really killed and bodily resurrected or turned water to wine, or whether Mohammad flew to Jerusalem and ascended to heaven on the back of a flying horse, all based solely on century old books written by men, question these things and you have "no respect" for someone's beliefs. Why exactly these beliefs are sacred yet calling the greek gods myths is acceptable something that I just don't get.

To someone not raised within a religion, would not belief in the events of the bible seem as ludicrous as belief in the flying spaghetti monster, or unicorns or elves and fairies? Just because billions of people believe the same fairy tale doesn't make it true or deserving of respect. If someone honestly told me they were raised to believe in the tooth fairy and still to this day consider her to exist, and is offended when someone claims the tooth fairy is made up, I would have a difficult time trusting their judgment on just about anything else.

Belief in god or a creator is, to me, far more reasonable than holding specific beliefs perpetuated by religions.

And even if a person were just to hold all of those beliefs, I wouldn't be very concerned if it didn't spill over into the rest of their life and everyone else's life. But people hate gays and discriminate, want to teach imaginative conjecture as science, want to prevent a person with a terminal illness from decided to die painlessly in a manner of their own choosing, and are told they will go to hell to burn for all eternity if they vote for certain people, all based as a result of holding these beliefs.

Religion is a tool of control. Of course it has redeeming qualities usually in the charitable arena, but there is no reason those redeeming portions cannot be extracted from the groupthink of blind religious fervor.

 

[jackschmittusa]

BlinderBomber

Religion has given billions of people hope and a reason to live

I disagree. I would modify the above to read: Religion has given billions of people false hope of a glorious afterlife and a reason to continue to live in horrible conditions without trying to improve their lot.

Religion has always been about power and controlling the masses. Everything from rulers claiming divine ordination (which means challenging the ruler meant challenging god), to promoting the idea that no matter how bad things are now it's going to be OK in the end as long as you don't rock the boat and try to make things better (because doing so would break some rule and send you to a worse afterlife).

Even in the U.S. today, with good living conditions for most, it's still about power. Much of that is money, and the influence it will buy. The rest is number of members (which they use money to generate) which suggest "cater to our will as we are a force to be reconded with".

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I wish I could make a documentary. I wish he'd interview me.

You can. What would you say?

Well, I assume his documentary will be very critical of any religious thought.

I would ask him not to be Michael Moore. That is, not to cherry pick your interviewees to suit your message. I'd ask him to be fair in his assessment.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: jonks
From the trailer it looks like Bill is going to continue his quest to understand or failing that, to mock, the sacred cow of religious belief. Many people, like Bill and myself, cannot understand WHY otherwise seemingly intelligent people hold deeply to beliefs about the truth of events occurring 2000 years ago and more involving entities no more likely to exist than the greek gods which everyone refers to as myths.

But question if Moses really split the sea with a wave of his hand, or whether Jesus was really killed and bodily resurrected or turned water to wine, or whether Mohammad flew to Jerusalem and ascended to heaven on the back of a flying horse, all based solely on century old books written by men, question these things and you have "no respect" for someone's beliefs. Why exactly these beliefs are sacred yet calling the greek gods myths is acceptable something that I just don't get.

To someone not raised within a religion, would not belief in the events of the bible seem as ludicrous as belief in the flying spaghetti monster, or unicorns or elves and fairies? Just because billions of people believe the same fairy tale doesn't make it true or deserving of respect. If someone honestly told me they were raised to believe in the tooth fairy and still to this day consider her to exist, and is offended when someone claims the tooth fairy is made up, I would have a difficult time trusting their judgment on just about anything else.

Belief in god or a creator is, to me, far more reasonable than holding specific beliefs perpetuated by religions.

And even if a person were just to hold all of those beliefs, I wouldn't be very concerned if it didn't spill over into the rest of their life and everyone else's life. But people hate gays and discriminate, want to teach imaginative conjecture as science, want to prevent a person with a terminal illness from decided to die painlessly in a manner of their own choosing, and are told they will go to hell to burn for all eternity if they vote for certain people, all based as a result of holding these beliefs.

Religion is a tool of control. Of course it has redeeming qualities usually in the charitable arena, but there is no reason those redeeming portions cannot be extracted from the groupthink of blind religious fervor.

Part of this I agree with. But to me there's a certain question for any individual. Is there a God?

If the answer is yes, being human, we want to know more. That leads us in the direction of religion. I don't see how that's so horrible.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Honestly, this would be a better country if the religious would just be content to keep it to themselves, their families and fellow worshippers. Instead, a great many of them insist on injecting their religion into the public square, into politics, into scientific debate along with wearing their faith on their sleeve (and on their car's bumper/license plate), and feeling the need to proselytize to the rest of us.

Somehow I think Maher would agree with me.

there is a problem I have it with that, because it borders along the line of acting differently. What is wrong with their religion manifesting in public square? Is it wrong for a Hasidic Jew to walk around, is it wrong for a female to wear a Hijab?

There are and should be limits for both, but they should not be 100% separate. That doesn't mean there is a single method that can be applied across every situation - it should be determined on a case by case basis. But to simply say that people who espouse a religion - which is a type of philosophy - should keep it out of any public life is something i can't agree with.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Honestly, this would be a better country if the religious would just be content to keep it to themselves, their families and fellow worshippers. Instead, a great many of them insist on injecting their religion into the public square, into politics, into scientific debate along with wearing their faith on their sleeve (and on their car's bumper/license plate), and feeling the need to proselytize to the rest of us.

Somehow I think Maher would agree with me.

Honestly, this would be a better country if the atheists would just be content to keep it to themselves, their families and fellow atheists. Instead, a great many of them insist on injecting their atheism into the public square, into politics, into scientific debate along with wearing their atheism on their sleeve (and on their car's bumper/license plate), and feeling the need to proselytize to the rest of us.

Nice try but major fail. Again. Atheists and agnostics (myself) don't go around with crap all over the back of their cars to flaunt/advertise their lack of faith. I don't care about your faith until you try to apply your beliefs to me.

Church <<<<<< | >>>>>> State

For the love country stop misquoting our founding fathers. That's so cliche.

John Adams:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

The first amendment was written to avoid what was going on in England at that time with the Church running the county. Let's not forget the basic laws that our country had early on about working on Sundays, mandatory church attendance... requirement of Christian profession to hold office etc... doesn't sound like the separation of church and state that I hear from your interpretation of Jefferson.

The Founding Fathers very explicitly set up a secular state, a state with complete religious freedoms and a state free of any potential government religious coercion. That means that a Jew, Atheist, Christian or Hindu has equal rights before the law and has a right not to have any particular religion pushed on him by the government. Yet the science taught in school now days teaches science as religion, that evolution did in fact happen. Nobody was there to observe macro-evolution, nor do they have fossil samples showing the slow progression from fish to bird hence it remains a religion that the government is forcing on students.

It's much worse than forcing Christianity on students, at least that gives them a basis for morality.

You say the FF deliberately defined religious freedoms then you contradict yourself saying teaching an scientific theory (evolution) is worse than forcing christianity on students. For one thing, science and the theory of evolution are not religion. They're not even close. There are plenty of religious people who believe in evolution. The difference is those who want 'intelligent design' taught in schools are talking about creation and that *is* religion pure and simple. If you want a religious education go to a private religious school.

 

[neodyn55]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
It is my duty as a citizen to vote as I see fit. What determines my worldview, whether it's Christianity, Islam, Judaism, atheism, or what have you, will always play a role in how I vote. The argument that religion should stay out of politics is ridiculous at its core because it is akin to asking people to remove a substantial portion of their worldview from consideration when voting. It's like telling someone not to vote based on social security issues even though they're 61.5 years of age (or whatever the age is now) and SS is about to become increasingly relevant for them. People will always vote for whatever is most important to them. The more vehemently to tell them not to, the more stalwart they will be in doing it.

Obviously, you have to vote based whatever it is that shaped your worldview. No one's arguing that a voter has to be a constitutional scholar and has to take a vow not to let religion influence him before pulling the lever.

It's when you use the law to force your religious beliefs on other people that it becomes a problem. You are of course, free to vote the way you want, but the constitution has made sure the U.S doesn't become a theocratic state.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: jonks
From the trailer it looks like Bill is going to continue his quest to understand or failing that, to mock, the sacred cow of religious belief. Many people, like Bill and myself, cannot understand WHY otherwise seemingly intelligent people hold deeply to beliefs about the truth of events occurring 2000 years ago and more involving entities no more likely to exist than the greek gods which everyone refers to as myths.

But question if Moses really split the sea with a wave of his hand, or whether Jesus was really killed and bodily resurrected or turned water to wine, or whether Mohammad flew to Jerusalem and ascended to heaven on the back of a flying horse, all based solely on century old books written by men, question these things and you have "no respect" for someone's beliefs. Why exactly these beliefs are sacred yet calling the greek gods myths is acceptable something that I just don't get.

To someone not raised within a religion, would not belief in the events of the bible seem as ludicrous as belief in the flying spaghetti monster, or unicorns or elves and fairies? Just because billions of people believe the same fairy tale doesn't make it true or deserving of respect. If someone honestly told me they were raised to believe in the tooth fairy and still to this day consider her to exist, and is offended when someone claims the tooth fairy is made up, I would have a difficult time trusting their judgment on just about anything else.

Belief in god or a creator is, to me, far more reasonable than holding specific beliefs perpetuated by religions.

And even if a person were just to hold all of those beliefs, I wouldn't be very concerned if it didn't spill over into the rest of their life and everyone else's life. But people hate gays and discriminate, want to teach imaginative conjecture as science, want to prevent a person with a terminal illness from decided to die painlessly in a manner of their own choosing, and are told they will go to hell to burn for all eternity if they vote for certain people, all based as a result of holding these beliefs.

Religion is a tool of control. Of course it has redeeming qualities usually in the charitable arena, but there is no reason those redeeming portions cannot be extracted from the groupthink of blind religious fervor.

That's (IMO) one great post. Kudos. :thumbsup:

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: neodyn55
Obviously, you have to vote based whatever it is that shaped your worldview. No one's arguing that a voter has to be a constitutional scholar and has to take a vow not to let religion influence him before pulling the lever.

It's when you use the law to force your religious beliefs on other people that it becomes a problem. You are of course, free to vote the way you want, but the constitution has made sure the U.S doesn't become a theocratic state.

When you vote for a legislator, you're ALWAYS voting to impose your worldview on others. This doesn't imply that the US is theocratic simply because most of those voting are Christian or even religious. If the religious should ever attempt to make laws to this end, they would easily be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. It does, however, mean that a lot of our laws will have their basis in some form or another of Judeo-Christian morality, which is appropriate since that is the worldview of most of our nation's citizens.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Religulous (In HD) a Lions Gate documentary about religion. Bill Maher goes in search of answers (or lack there of) amongst the populous. Religion has hindered man for a a couple millennia and has driven the decisions of man in politics & daily life.

It's ideas like this that give atheism a bad name. Religion has done plenty of good and plenty of bad, but those that act like we can simply rid the world of religion in one fell swoop if we just "open everyone's eyes" are ignorant. We can't "eliminate" religion and I'm not even sure that's a good idea if we could. Religion has given billions of people hope and a reason to live and, yes, it has had it's issues, but everything in the history of mankind has had it's issues and instead of trying to engage in some sort of dialogue, atheists simply reinforce the view that they're stuck-up intellectuals by saying things like "religion has hindered man."

What idea? Maher, while obviously a douchebag - has a point. Religion doesn't work with politics and often conflicts with a lot of other things...

I am curious to exactly how religion doesnt work with politics anymore than any other basis for a political stance. I think this is where documentarys like this fail. They never answer these questions but instead go out of their way to mock their opponents. They tend to turn into hit pieces.

I could just as easily demonstrate secularism and godless ideology are just as evil and destructive as religion in politics.

Please explain?

But does that really tell us anything we dont already know? And better yet how do we keep that out of politics?

The simple answer is we dont. But I am open to hear your take on how we keep it all out of politics without turning into drones that lack emotion and are simple calculating, much like a computer.

Because the Constitution says so

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Religulous (In HD) a Lions Gate documentary about religion. Bill Maher goes in search of answers (or lack there of) amongst the populous. Religion has hindered man for a a couple millennia and has driven the decisions of man in politics & daily life.

It's ideas like this that give atheism a bad name. Religion has done plenty of good and plenty of bad, but those that act like we can simply rid the world of religion in one fell swoop if we just "open everyone's eyes" are ignorant. We can't "eliminate" religion and I'm not even sure that's a good idea if we could. Religion has given billions of people hope and a reason to live and, yes, it has had it's issues, but everything in the history of mankind has had it's issues and instead of trying to engage in some sort of dialogue, atheists simply reinforce the view that they're stuck-up intellectuals by saying things like "religion has hindered man."

What idea? Maher, while obviously a douchebag - has a point. Religion doesn't work with politics and often conflicts with a lot of other things...

I am curious to exactly how religion doesnt work with politics anymore than any other basis for a political stance. I think this is where documentarys like this fail. They never answer these questions but instead go out of their way to mock their opponents. They tend to turn into hit pieces.

I could just as easily demonstrate secularism and godless ideology are just as evil and destructive as religion in politics.

Please explain?

But does that really tell us anything we dont already know? And better yet how do we keep that out of politics?

The simple answer is we dont. But I am open to hear your take on how we keep it all out of politics without turning into drones that lack emotion and are simple calculating, much like a computer.

Because the Constitution says so

Where in the constitution does it state one shall not use their own moral code, moral compass, or set of values to make a decision on voting, legislation, or anything else the govt does????

Perhaps you arent understanding my question. My question centers around how does one get religion out of the govt when people all have their own sets of values, often derived by a religion?

Seperation of church and state centers around the state not forcing one specific religion on you like the church of england used to do. It has nothing to do with and cant possibly stop people from making decisions based on their faith alone within govt.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: jonks
From the trailer it looks like Bill is going to continue his quest to understand or failing that, to mock, the sacred cow of religious belief. Many people, like Bill and myself, cannot understand WHY otherwise seemingly intelligent people hold deeply to beliefs about the truth of events occurring 2000 years ago and more involving entities no more likely to exist than the greek gods which everyone refers to as myths.

But question if Moses really split the sea with a wave of his hand, or whether Jesus was really killed and bodily resurrected or turned water to wine, or whether Mohammad flew to Jerusalem and ascended to heaven on the back of a flying horse, all based solely on century old books written by men, question these things and you have "no respect" for someone's beliefs. Why exactly these beliefs are sacred yet calling the greek gods myths is acceptable something that I just don't get.

To someone not raised within a religion, would not belief in the events of the bible seem as ludicrous as belief in the flying spaghetti monster, or unicorns or elves and fairies? Just because billions of people believe the same fairy tale doesn't make it true or deserving of respect. If someone honestly told me they were raised to believe in the tooth fairy and still to this day consider her to exist, and is offended when someone claims the tooth fairy is made up, I would have a difficult time trusting their judgment on just about anything else.

Belief in god or a creator is, to me, far more reasonable than holding specific beliefs perpetuated by religions.

And even if a person were just to hold all of those beliefs, I wouldn't be very concerned if it didn't spill over into the rest of their life and everyone else's life. But people hate gays and discriminate, want to teach imaginative conjecture as science, want to prevent a person with a terminal illness from decided to die painlessly in a manner of their own choosing, and are told they will go to hell to burn for all eternity if they vote for certain people, all based as a result of holding these beliefs.

Religion is a tool of control. Of course it has redeeming qualities usually in the charitable arena, but there is no reason those redeeming portions cannot be extracted from the groupthink of blind religious fervor.

You seem to think the Greeks worshiped false gods. What good is the rest of your argument if you start with that false premise.

 

[Moonbeam]

Religion is the means by which we take God's love and turn it into hate

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Honestly, this would be a better country if the religious would just be content to keep it to themselves, their families and fellow worshippers. Instead, a great many of them insist on injecting their religion into the public square, into politics, into scientific debate along with wearing their faith on their sleeve (and on their car's bumper/license plate), and feeling the need to proselytize to the rest of us.

Somehow I think Maher would agree with me.

Honestly, this would be a better country if the atheists would just be content to keep it to themselves, their families and fellow atheists. Instead, a great many of them insist on injecting their atheism into the public square, into politics, into scientific debate along with wearing their atheism on their sleeve (and on their car's bumper/license plate), and feeling the need to proselytize to the rest of us.

Nice try but major fail. Again. Atheists and agnostics (myself) don't go around with crap all over the back of their cars to flaunt/advertise their lack of faith. I don't care about your faith until you try to apply your beliefs to me.

Church <<<<<< | >>>>>> State

lol, come to Boulder CO sometime. i see that stuff everyday.

 

[ultra laser]

Maher's a secular Jew, right? I've noticed that a lot of Jews like to bash religion lately. I wouldn't buy into it.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Honestly, this would be a better country if the religious would just be content to keep it to themselves, their families and fellow worshippers. Instead, a great many of them insist on injecting their religion into the public square, into politics, into scientific debate along with wearing their faith on their sleeve (and on their car's bumper/license plate), and feeling the need to proselytize to the rest of us.

Somehow I think Maher would agree with me.

Honestly, this would be a better country if the atheists would just be content to keep it to themselves, their families and fellow atheists. Instead, a great many of them insist on injecting their atheism into the public square, into politics, into scientific debate along with wearing their atheism on their sleeve (and on their car's bumper/license plate), and feeling the need to proselytize to the rest of us.

Nice try but major fail. Again. Atheists and agnostics (myself) don't go around with crap all over the back of their cars to flaunt/advertise their lack of faith. I don't care about your faith until you try to apply your beliefs to me.

Church <<<<<< | >>>>>> State

lol, come to Boulder CO sometime. i see that stuff everyday.

What is funny about Robor's reply is, what is this thread about? An atheist\agnostic making a documentary flaunting his beliefs by mocking the religious.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: ultra laser
Maher's a secular Jew, right? I've noticed that a lot of Jews like to bash religion lately. I wouldn't buy into it.

Maher was raised in his Irish American father's Catholic religion, and did not find out that his mother was Jewish until his teenage years.

Easily Googleable, so why make a stupid supposition followed by an idiotic generalization?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: ultra laser
Maher's a secular Jew, right? I've noticed that a lot of Jews like to bash religion lately. I wouldn't buy into it.

Maher was raised in his Irish American father's Catholic religion, and did not find out that his mother was Jewish until his teenage years.

Easily Googleable, so why make a stupid supposition followed by an idiotic generalization?

Like you did with the Greek religion?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Genx87

What is funny about Robor's reply is, what is this thread about? An atheist\agnostic making a documentary flaunting his beliefs by mocking the religious.

Maher's film is about finding out why people believe what they believe when it is labeled "religious" but when something similarly ridiculous or foreign is proposed to them they would say "that's ridiculous."

A religious person may believe in a literal reading of Genesis with talking snakes, etc.
An atheist does not.

Which is funnier?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: ultra laser
Maher's a secular Jew, right? I've noticed that a lot of Jews like to bash religion lately. I wouldn't buy into it.

Maher was raised in his Irish American father's Catholic religion, and did not find out that his mother was Jewish until his teenage years.

Easily Googleable, so why make a stupid supposition followed by an idiotic generalization?

Like you did with the Greek religion?

So you know, I'm seeing all your posts about the greeks, I'm just not going to engage in a debate as to the existence of the pantheon of greek gods any more than I'm going to engage in a debate over the actual existence of leprechauns. Feel free to keep posting about it though if you like.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Religion is the means by which we take God's love and turn it into hate

You hit the nail on the head.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Religion is the means by which we take God's love and turn it into hate

You hit the nail on the head.

Indeed.

"I'm not an atheist. There's a really big difference between an atheist and someone who just doesn't believe in religion. Religion to me is a bureaucracy between man and God that I don't need. But I'm not an atheist, no. I believe there's some force. If you want to call it God... I don't believe God is a single parent who writes books." - Bill Maher

He asserts that organized religion provides answers to questions that "cannot possibly be answered." Questions such as "Where do I go when I die?" or "Is there a heaven?", he says, are impossible to answer. By claiming to have the answers, Maher argues, organized religion is dishonest and it "stops people from thinking."

 

[ultra laser]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: ultra laser
Maher's a secular Jew, right? I've noticed that a lot of Jews like to bash religion lately. I wouldn't buy into it.

Maher was raised in his Irish American father's Catholic religion, and did not find out that his mother was Jewish until his teenage years.

Easily Googleable, so why make a stupid supposition followed by an idiotic generalization?

What's idiotic about noticing a trend?